Discussion:
Nudist Cartoon Promotes Sexual Assault!!!
(too old to reply)
Anna
2009-08-27 01:12:26 UTC
Permalink
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley

So I am really sad that he did this.

It was totally uncalled for.

While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=single&ID=159724

http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011

http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
2009-08-27 03:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=single&ID=159724
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
Anna,


what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
TheWhiteCockatoo
2009-08-27 08:53:32 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 27, 1:05 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Orson Wells as CitizenCain
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Orson said it best....

Anna,

what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Tin Man Alley
2009-08-27 15:29:40 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by TheWhiteCockatoo
Orson said it best....
Anna,
what the xxx is wrong with you? Seriously.
Anna (apparebtly not real name) is a person suffering from obcessive
cumpulsive disorder and personality disorder.

He/She comes here to criticize social nudism or segments that he/she
doe snot like, or which does not fit their personal world view of
nudism.

When he.she gets responses the personality disorder is fed by the
negative attention.

As long as psople continue respionding to this person, he/she will
keep coming back.

When we fail to respond he/she cross posts to draw in trolls from
other groups to feed the need for negative attention.

We can add to that Zee.

When Zee isn't getting attention he posts a half-page rant to bait
people into responding.

Of course, the idiots here respond which in turn feeds his need for
negative attention as well.

The responders cannot control themselves. He knows that. His .....
postings are a way of forcing you to carefully read his posts. He's
doing it on purpose folks. He is controlling you.

What a bunch of co-dependent morons.
Anna
2009-08-27 17:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheWhiteCockatoo
On Aug 27, 1:05 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Orson Wells as CitizenCain
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Orson said it best....
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
This goes against the sexual harassment policies of any college or
University I have ever heard of.

Obviously this Stephen Crowley guy has never been to college for he
totally doesn't get the atmosphere.

All the women in the room would have immediately surrounded Willow and
would have been very angry at Darcy.

The Dean would have acted immediately and would have suspended him.

The headlines would read "Nudie Student Suspended for Sexual
Harrassment".

Willow I believe could even sue.

Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us. Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.

But in this case the Leftists are correct (I guess it happens
sometimes like the whole broken watch thing). Are you really telling
me that an unsolicited kiss is appropriate? That is something that
should go on in a civil society?

In this whole comic Darcy has shown himself to be a man without
restraint. He has shown that he doesn't belong in a society where
people must consider the feelings of others before acting. He just
acts out.

He belongs in jail. If he was six years old then perhaps he should
just have a "time out" but he isn't six. And therefore he should be
put in the place we put people who "just take what they want" without
considering the feelings of others.

Darcy has acted dismissively to Willow from the start. Since this is
a cartoon perhaps it reflects the attitude of the cartoonist towards
women. I am guessing that she "liked it". After all she is a
fictional character drawn by a male. She wanted him to kiss her
without him even asking is perhaps how the cartoonist is going to
portray he attitude as being. Which of course is what many rapists
thinks. Lots of men seem to think that No means Yes.
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-03 19:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?

I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...

And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...

So this is classic "Anna" behavior.

But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
Anna
2009-09-03 20:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
Point I made was that I would have thought that Liberals would agree
with me on this.

They are very anti Male.

But they are also very pro-sexual.

So which one wins out here?
Anna
2009-09-03 20:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
Point I made was that I would have thought that Liberals would agree
with me on this.
They are very anti Male.
But they are also very pro-sexual.
So which one wins out here?
Also more specifically my point was that since this is a college and
since there's a lot of liberal activism at colleges the feminists
would in reality all get upset at Darcy kissing Willow without
willow's permission. There will be a group of activists mobilized to
do that.
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-03 21:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
Point I made was that I would have thought that Liberals would agree
with me on this.
They may agree that such behavior could be deemed questionable once
all issues are factored in... but they would likely also note that
this is a cartoon that was simply telling a story, not trying to teach
people how to behave. In this case, the question of intent has to be
factored in when determining just how severe an offense (or even
crime) has allegedly been committed.
Post by Anna
They are very anti Male.
Balderdash. That you mistake "pro-equality" to be "anti-male"
increases my suspicion that you are an "oppressed" male yourself.
Post by Anna
But they are also very pro-sexual.
You mean sex-positive?

I take it you are sex-negative.
Post by Anna
So which one wins out here?
What's the argument?
Anna
2009-09-03 22:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Anna
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
Point I made was that I would have thought that Liberals would agree
with me on this.
They may agree that such behavior could be deemed questionable once
all issues are factored in... but they would likely also note that
this is a cartoon that was simply telling a story, not trying to teach
people how to behave. In this case, the question of intent has to be
factored in when determining just how severe an offense (or even
crime) has allegedly been committed.
Post by Anna
They are very anti Male.
Balderdash. That you mistake "pro-equality" to be "anti-male"
increases my suspicion that you are an "oppressed" male yourself.
Post by Anna
But they are also very pro-sexual.
You mean sex-positive?
I take it you are sex-negative.
Post by Anna
So which one wins out here?
What's the argument?
Whatever. Main point was that what Darcy did (original cartoon, now I
guess you can replace that with what Willow did) was sexual assault.
And as such at the very least the person who did the kiss (Darcy
originally now Willow) should be expelled.

But with the Left right and wrong is relative and depends upon if they
like the person doing the crime or not.
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-03 22:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Anna
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
Point I made was that I would have thought that Liberals would agree
with me on this.
They may agree that such behavior could be deemed questionable once
all issues are factored in... but they would likely also note that
this is a cartoon that was simply telling a story, not trying to teach
people how to behave. In this case, the question of intent has to be
factored in when determining just how severe an offense (or even
crime) has allegedly been committed.
Post by Anna
They are very anti Male.
Balderdash. That you mistake "pro-equality" to be "anti-male"
increases my suspicion that you are an "oppressed" male yourself.
Post by Anna
But they are also very pro-sexual.
You mean sex-positive?
I take it you are sex-negative.
Post by Anna
So which one wins out here?
What's the argument?
Whatever.  Main point was that what Darcy did (original cartoon, now I
guess you can replace that with what Willow did) was sexual assault.
Can you say for sure?

What are the elements of the crime in the jurisdiction in which the
"assault" occurred?
And as such at the very least the person who did the kiss (Darcy
originally now Willow) should be expelled.
Again, do you know what the fictional school policy is for the
"assaulter's" action?
But with the Left right and wrong is relative
This hypocritical statement from you doesn't surprise me. The Right
can be equally accused of moral relativism.
and depends upon if they
like the person doing the crime or not.
To be a crime, an act must satisfy certain elements. This is not a
question of political perspective, or morals even. It is a matter of
law.
Dan Myers
2009-09-04 06:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
I don't blame Politics, I blame the "Anna's" in the World for the
problems.
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-04 21:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Myers
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
I don't blame Politics, I blame the "Anna's" in the World for the
problems.
"Anna" was the one to drag political ideology into this mess. This
"Anna" is a real piece of work, a fake female, fake nudist, real
religious dingbat who "knows" that there are commies behind every
hedge and demons under the bed at night. It's a mystery why "she" has
selected nudism as "her" own protectorate, given "her" aversion to
real human behavior.
s***@HOTMAIL.COM
2009-09-05 00:12:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.

-T.
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-05 03:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
s***@HOTMAIL.COM
2009-09-05 03:56:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....

-T.
David Looser
2009-09-05 16:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....
Definitely not spiritual, maybe "superstitious" is better. He has several
times talked about "the antichrist" in a way that suggests that, to him,
such an concept has a real meaning. He seems to go for the negative aspects
of religion - like the old "hell-fire and damnation" preachers did.

David.
Zee
2009-09-05 16:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Looser
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....
Definitely not spiritual, maybe "superstitious" is better. He has several
times talked about "the antichrist" in a way that suggests that, to him,
such an concept has a real meaning.  He seems to go for the negative aspects
of religion - like the old "hell-fire and damnation" preachers did.
David.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Dan Myers
2009-09-05 17:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zee
Post by David Looser
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....
Definitely not spiritual, maybe "superstitious" is better. He has several
times talked about "the antichrist" in a way that suggests that, to him,
such an concept has a real meaning.  He seems to go for the negative aspects
of religion - like the old "hell-fire and damnation" preachers did.
David.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Where's that information JonZee?
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-06 00:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
Zee
2009-09-06 00:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
why sure....if i was a heathen...i would be just like you
guys......that go on and do it...jz
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-08 17:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
why sure....if i was a heathen...i would be just like you
guys......that go on and do it...jz
You're accusing me of being a pedophile?

Better back that up, Bucko.

Also, you have just admitted to being tempted to fuck kids.

Please post your address here:





Thank you.
Zee
2009-09-08 18:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
why sure....if i was a heathen...i would be just like you
guys......that go on and do it...jz
You're accusing me of being a pedophile?
Better back that up, Bucko.
Also, you have just admitted to being tempted to fuck kids.
Thank you.
yeah you are pedo also....you have turned on to underaged kids just
like everyone else....jz
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-08 18:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
why sure....if i was a heathen...i would be just like you
guys......that go on and do it...jz
You're accusing me of being a pedophile?
Better back that up, Bucko.
Also, you have just admitted to being tempted to fuck kids.
Thank you.
yeah you are pedo also....you have turned on to underaged kids just
like everyone else....jz
Please provide the evidence to support your accusation below:







Thank you.

JDG
s***@HOTMAIL.COM
2009-09-09 02:53:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
why sure....if i was a heathen...i would be just like you
guys......that go on and do it...jz
You're accusing me of being a pedophile?
Better back that up, Bucko.
Also, you have just admitted to being tempted to fuck kids.
Thank you.
yeah you are pedo also....you have turned on to underaged kids just
like everyone else....jz
Save these posts. If we ever find out "his" ID, we're going to sue
"his" as back into the stone age.

-T.
s***@HOTMAIL.COM
2009-09-09 02:51:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:20:45 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
why sure....if i was a heathen...i would be just like you
guys......that go on and do it...jz
You're accusing me of being a pedophile?
Better back that up, Bucko.
Also, you have just admitted to being tempted to fuck kids.
"He" won't. "He's" a liar and a craven coward. Best left for your kill
file.

-T.
Neosapienis
2009-09-24 06:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Hi James,

The 'lake of fire' that Jesus was referring to was a geographic place called
Sheol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

It was originally referring to the place where people burned their rubbish,
and the dead bodies of wicked people were also thrown into it as well rather
than being given a burial.
--
Best wishes,

Dario Western

"As long as you have three meals a day and a roof over your head, your four
limbs and five senses, nothing else matters"
Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://dariowestern.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553251115
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/dariowestern
http://www.tagged.com
http://dariowestern.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Zee
he he....that lake of fire had you scared didnt it david....but shucks
if they aint gonna preach that anymore us nudist can go on and do all
the sinful stuff and fuck the kids too....there aint no lake of
fire...huh.....just gotta luv em nudist....jz
Again, I'm not sure to make of what you're saying. Do you mean that
the threat of a "lake of fire" is what's keeping you from fucking kids?
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-06 00:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Looser
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....
Definitely not spiritual, maybe "superstitious" is better. He has several
times talked about "the antichrist" in a way that suggests that, to him,
such an concept has a real meaning.  He seems to go for the negative aspects
of religion - like the old "hell-fire and damnation" preachers did.
Okay, that's what I remember. There's a lot of gray area between
"religious," "spiritual," and "superstitious."

Christianity, for one, is a superstition that managed to hitch itself
to global imperialism and thereby garnered a certain amount of
credibility by doing so.
Neosapienis
2009-09-24 06:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi James,

To clarify a couple of things: Christianity is *not* a superstition. It is
a worldwide belief system which originated during the time of the Greek and
Roman Empires, and the people in the Bible have been on record as having
existed by historians.

Superstition is an irrational system based on triviality like believing in
throwing salt over your shoulder, Friday 13th, black cats, albatrosses,
walking under ladders etc. All of which have no real cultural or spiritual
significance.

I am spiritual, but not superstitious.
--
Best wishes,

Dario Western

"As long as you have three meals a day and a roof over your head, your four
limbs and five senses, nothing else matters"
Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://dariowestern.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553251115
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/dariowestern
http://www.tagged.com
http://dariowestern.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by David Looser
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....
Definitely not spiritual, maybe "superstitious" is better. He has several
times talked about "the antichrist" in a way that suggests that, to him,
such an concept has a real meaning. He seems to go for the negative
aspects
of religion - like the old "hell-fire and damnation" preachers did.
Okay, that's what I remember. There's a lot of gray area between
"religious," "spiritual," and "superstitious."

Christianity, for one, is a superstition that managed to hitch itself
to global imperialism and thereby garnered a certain amount of
credibility by doing so.
Neosapienis
2009-09-24 06:31:40 UTC
Permalink
The Clothes Free Forum has it's own "Anna" on there called Stu (also known
as 'Brutus' on some Yahoo! groups in the past) who gets his jollies from
riling up the nudists on there.

He admits to being an atheist, and there is nothing that the administrators
will do to remove him.
--
Best wishes,

Dario Western

"As long as you have three meals a day and a roof over your head, your four
limbs and five senses, nothing else matters"
Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://dariowestern.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553251115
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/dariowestern
http://www.tagged.com
http://dariowestern.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:03 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by s***@HOTMAIL.COM
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:33:35 -0700 (PDT), James Dale Guckert
Post by James Dale Guckert
real
religious dingbat
Nope. Not religious. Anna was real clear about not being a Christian,
and I can't recall him ever claiming any other religion either.
I didn't say Christian. I said religious dingbat. "She" made some
quite deliberate references to demons and the like. Maybe religious is
an imprecise word, but I shy from using the word "spiritual."
Not spiritual either, I'd wager. Anna is a dead soul who quotes
scripture to his own gain, and to hell with his soul. Far be it from
me ....
-T.
David Looser
2009-09-24 07:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neosapienis
He admits to being an atheist, and there is nothing that the
administrators will do to remove him.
But that's appalling!, an admitted atheist and the administrators won't
remove him! What is the world coming to!

:-)

David.
TheWhiteCockatoo
2009-09-24 08:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Looser
Post by Neosapienis
He admits to being an atheist, and there is nothing that the
administrators will do to remove him.
But that's appalling!, an admitted atheist and the administrators won't
remove him! What is the world coming to!
:-)
David.
God Forbid we ever have gay black athiest nudists ever becoming a
world force ;)
Brad Filippone
2009-09-25 15:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheWhiteCockatoo
Post by David Looser
Post by Neosapienis
He admits to being an atheist, and there is nothing that the
administrators will do to remove him.
But that's appalling!, an admitted atheist and the administrators won't
remove him! What is the world coming to!
:-)
David.
God Forbid we ever have gay black athiest nudists ever becoming a
world force ;)
Worse still, they might like rap "music" and install toilet paper
rolls with the sheet coming down in the wrong place!

Brad

Brad Filippone
2009-09-08 13:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Dan Myers
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
I don't blame Politics, I blame the "Anna's" in the World for the
problems.
"Anna" was the one to drag political ideology into this mess. This
"Anna" is a real piece of work, a fake female, fake nudist, real
religious dingbat who "knows" that there are commies behind every
hedge and demons under the bed at night. It's a mystery why "she" has
selected nudism as "her" own protectorate, given "her" aversion to
real human behavior.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Guys, even I have disagreed with her in her interpretation of the
comic strip. But let's not go too far. Let's accept our differences
and move on, please.
James Dale Guckert
2009-09-08 17:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Filippone
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Dan Myers
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
I don't blame Politics, I blame the "Anna's" in the World for the
problems.
"Anna" was the one to drag political ideology into this mess. This
"Anna" is a real piece of work, a fake female, fake nudist, real
religious dingbat who "knows" that there are commies behind every
hedge and demons under the bed at night. It's a mystery why "she" has
selected nudism as "her" own protectorate, given "her" aversion to
real human behavior.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Guys, even I have disagreed with her in her interpretation of the
comic strip.  But let's not go too far.  Let's accept our differences
and move on, please.
The last post on this thread before you jumped in was Sept. 5, last
Saturday. It's now Tuesday, the 8th.

Apparently, we *had* moved on.

JDG
Anna
2009-09-10 19:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Filippone
Post by James Dale Guckert
Post by Dan Myers
Post by James Dale Guckert
Look, it is you Leftists who have drilled this stuff into us.  Even a
six year old would be suspended for this. That's the society we live
in thanks to the Leftists.
Since when has the "Left" been about letting men do what they want to
women without consequence?
I guess I can understand your obsession over this comic strip...
And I guess I can see how you would try to link all "bad" things to a
political view you don't agree with, to further attempt to demonize
it...
So this is classic "Anna" behavior.
But still, do you always make sense to yourself?
I don't blame Politics, I blame the "Anna's" in the World for the
problems.
"Anna" was the one to drag political ideology into this mess. This
"Anna" is a real piece of work, a fake female, fake nudist, real
religious dingbat who "knows" that there are commies behind every
hedge and demons under the bed at night. It's a mystery why "she" has
selected nudism as "her" own protectorate, given "her" aversion to
real human behavior.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Guys, even I have disagreed with her in her interpretation of the
comic strip.  But let's not go too far.  Let's accept our differences
and move on, please.
How do you disagree with me in this interpretation?

Now the strip has changed, admittedly. It is less clear who kissed
who.

But regardless the kiss was unsolicited and therefore wrong.

The only way you could disagree with me is by saying unsolicited
kisses are appropriate.
Roger L Hale
2009-09-11 06:47:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <523dc023-15b6-43a4-a311-***@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Anna <***@lycos.com> wrote:
...
Post by Anna
Now the strip has changed, admittedly. It is less clear who kissed
who.
But regardless the kiss was unsolicited and therefore wrong.
The only way you could disagree with me is by saying unsolicited
kisses are appropriate.
The recipient of unsolicited contact of any kind is free to consider
it appropriate or not, assault or not.

[Disclaimers: NotALawyer. Rules differ for children.]

It's unclear at this point how Darcy reacts, apart from his elation
turning to perhaps confusion.
--
Yrs,
spinclad
Stuffed Tiger
2009-09-12 05:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger L Hale
...
Post by Anna
Now the strip has changed, admittedly. It is less clear who kissed
who.
But regardless the kiss was unsolicited and therefore wrong.
The only way you could disagree with me is by saying unsolicited
kisses are appropriate.
The recipient of unsolicited contact of any kind is free to consider
it appropriate or not, assault or not.
[Disclaimers: NotALawyer. Rules differ for children.]
It's unclear at this point how Darcy reacts, apart from his elation
turning to perhaps confusion.
Nobody solicits a kiss. What is this nonsense!

You make yourself such that a kiss would not be inappropriate and the
kisser decides if they would not mind kissing you and then it happens.

Most kisses are not sexual. They are often friendly and loving. In my
(extended) family, children get tons of hugs and kisses and give them,
as do husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, on and on.

This kiss was not inappropriate as Roger says. Otherwise a face would
have been slapped (the standard response).

The question here is will the relationship grow or stay at that level!
Fred
2009-08-27 18:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by TheWhiteCockatoo
On Aug 27, 1:05 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Orson Wells as CitizenCain
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Orson said it best....
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Simple fix: killfile.

Oh wait... You're a googlegrouper.
Dario Western
2009-08-27 21:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi Tony,

We've been trying to figure that one out for ages.

Some people on here believe that she/he suffers from Multiple Personality
Disorder and had previously posted to this group under several different
personalities such as Nicky Warren, nw12900, Max Jefferson, and Jeff Jenson
in the recent past.

Although their writing styles had slight differences, they all had one thing
in common: that nudism could only work in a Utopiac world, and that it is
impossible for humankind to return to a sense of integrity and innocence
since the fall of man.

We all know that this is complete tosh, but she still pushes that
wheelbarrow nonetheless.


Dario

"TheWhiteCockatoo" <***@thewhitecockatoo.com> wrote in message news:25cd28ae-a9b7-4a5a-99ac-***@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 1:05 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Orson Wells as CitizenCain
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Orson said it best....

Anna,

what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Dan Myers
2009-08-28 01:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Dario, take two Gold Stars.
Post by Dario Western
Hi Tony,
We've been trying to figure that one out for ages.
Some people on here believe that she/he suffers from Multiple Personality
Disorder and had previously posted to this group under several different
personalities such as Nicky Warren, nw12900, Max Jefferson, and Jeff Jenson
in the recent past.
Although their writing styles had slight differences, they all had one thing
in common: that nudism could only work in a Utopiac world, and that it is
impossible for humankind to return to a sense of integrity and innocence
since the fall of man.
We all know that this is complete tosh, but she still pushes that
wheelbarrow nonetheless.
Dario
On Aug 27, 1:05 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Orson Wells as CitizenCain
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Orson said it best....
Anna,
what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously.
Anna
2009-08-28 16:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dario Western
impossible for humankind to return to a sense of integrity and innocence
since the fall of man.
We all know that this is complete tosh, but she still pushes that
wheelbarrow nonetheless.
Oh, yeah, you are so right. It is complete Bollocks, Right?

Humans are basically good and innocent and incorruptable.

What was I thinking...

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_13222837

I have seen the light Dario. I now believe in the intrinsic goodness
of mankind.
Dario Western
2009-08-27 08:10:13 UTC
Permalink
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.

A simple peck on the lips is not sexual assault. Forcing her into a corner,
ripping her clothes off and going the full hog is.

This is what is wrong with your country, and is contaminating the moral
fabric of mine. You are making mountains out of molehills regarding human
behaviour and making it a crime to show simple affection and excitement
without any strings attached to it.

It is your fucked up thinking that even caused a 8-year-old boy to get
hauled into court over 'sexual harassment' simply because he kissed a girl
in the playground a number of years ago.

You are obviously jealous because no man will ever want you as a friend or
indeed a lover come to that, and you probably suffer from Alzheimer's
disease so badly you've forgotten what it's like to be young.

You might as well become a nun, Anna Esseker (google that to see what I
mean).


Dario
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=single&ID=159724
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
Anna
2009-08-27 16:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
A simple peck on the lips is not sexual assault.  Forcing her into a corner,
ripping her clothes off and going the full hog is.
This is what is wrong with your country, and is contaminating the moral
fabric of mine.  You are making mountains out of molehills regarding human
behaviour and making it a crime to show simple affection and excitement
without any strings attached to it.
It is your fucked up thinking that even caused a 8-year-old boy to get
hauled into court over 'sexual harassment' simply because he kissed a girl
in the playground a number of years ago.
You are obviously jealous because no man will ever want you as a friend or
indeed a lover come to that, and you probably suffer from Alzheimer's
disease so badly you've forgotten what it's like to be young.
You might as well become a nun, Anna Esseker (google that to see what I
mean).
Dario
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
Dario you don't think this is a form of sexual assault?

Well, perhaps things are different in Australia so I have a little
experiment for you to do.

1) Go to a grocery store or some other public place.

2) Choose a woman you don't know.

3) Go up and kiss her on the lips. Don't ask her first. Don't tell
her you are going to do it. The guy in the cartoon just kissed the
woman. So just go up to her and kiss her.

Once you make bail tell me how well that worked for you.
Anna
2009-08-27 17:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
A simple peck on the lips is not sexual assault.  Forcing her into a corner,
ripping her clothes off and going the full hog is.
This is what is wrong with your country, and is contaminating the moral
fabric of mine.  You are making mountains out of molehills regarding human
behaviour and making it a crime to show simple affection and excitement
without any strings attached to it.
It is your fucked up thinking that even caused a 8-year-old boy to get
hauled into court over 'sexual harassment' simply because he kissed a girl
in the playground a number of years ago.
You are obviously jealous because no man will ever want you as a friend or
indeed a lover come to that, and you probably suffer from Alzheimer's
disease so badly you've forgotten what it's like to be young.
You might as well become a nun, Anna Esseker (google that to see what I
mean).
Dario
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
Dario you don't think this is a form of sexual assault?
Well, perhaps things are different in Australia so I have a little
experiment for you to do.
1) Go to a grocery store or some other public place.
2) Choose a woman you don't know.
3) Go up and kiss her on the lips.  Don't ask her first. Don't tell
her you are going to do it.  The guy in the cartoon just kissed the
woman. So just go up to her and kiss her.
Once you make bail tell me how well that worked for you.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1244874.cms

http://tinyurl.com/ntbojy
Anna
2009-08-27 17:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
A simple peck on the lips is not sexual assault.  Forcing her into a corner,
ripping her clothes off and going the full hog is.
This is what is wrong with your country, and is contaminating the moral
fabric of mine.  You are making mountains out of molehills regarding human
behaviour and making it a crime to show simple affection and excitement
without any strings attached to it.
It is your fucked up thinking that even caused a 8-year-old boy to get
hauled into court over 'sexual harassment' simply because he kissed a girl
in the playground a number of years ago.
You are obviously jealous because no man will ever want you as a friend or
indeed a lover come to that, and you probably suffer from Alzheimer's
disease so badly you've forgotten what it's like to be young.
You might as well become a nun, Anna Esseker (google that to see what I
mean).
Dario
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article613696.ece

http://tinyurl.com/lhoeq5
Anna
2009-08-27 17:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.

Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.

After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.

Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.

I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude. And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it. But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna
2009-08-27 18:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Let us not forget that Stephen Crowley is --- A MALE!

Obviously he has some twisted views about "what women want".
Brad Filippone
2009-08-27 18:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna, I supported you in another debate here recently. Remember that
before I say the rest. I understand what you are trying to say, but
look at the comic strip again. Darcy kisses her without warning. I
agree with you there. But also note that he has startled even
himself. He gives her a very subdued "sorry." He was probably going
to apologise even more, but he's interrupted by someone congratulating
him. My verdict here is that he is ecstatic at the unexpected
victory, and forgets himself. I think we should wait for the next
installment of he story and see what transpires.

Yes, I am male. I am NOT taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude at all.
Willow obviously didn't want the kiss at that moment, but she seems to
me to be as startled as Darcy is. Again, let's wait and see what
happens.

Brad
Anna
2009-08-28 15:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna, I supported you in another debate here recently.  Remember that
before I say the rest.  I understand what you are trying to say, but
look at the comic strip again.  Darcy kisses her without warning.  I
agree with you there.  But also note that he has startled even
himself.  He gives her a very subdued "sorry."
Like an apology makes any difference. It doesn't take away what he
did.
 He was probably going
to apologise even more, but he's interrupted by someone congratulating
him.  My verdict here is that he is ecstatic at the unexpected
victory, and forgets himself.  
He forgets himself? That's an excuse? It's just more proof that he
lacks self-control and just does what he wants with not an ounce of
concern for the feelings of others. At least not until afterwards.
Yeah, he needs to be with people of the same mentality. ie PRISON!
I think we should wait for the next
installment of he story and see what transpires.
What should transpire is that all the females in the room rush to
Willows defense. And the Dean should expel him. I guess that would
kind of make him a "Moses" figure meaning he led the college to the
"Promise Land" of Public Nudity but if he himself sets foot on the
property he will immediately get arrested.

But this is Crowley's cartoon, and he makes his direction pretty
obviously. The Bitch Wanted it. Oh, she might not have known she
wanted it but she did so that makes it okay.
Yes, I am male.  I am NOT taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude at all.
Sorry, it sure sounds like you are
Willow obviously didn't want the kiss at that moment, but she seems to
me to be as startled as Darcy is.  
She is in shock. Humiliated.

But of course really "she" is just a character drawn by a male. So
obviously he can "make her be" whatever he wants and it is obvious
that is making it out that she is startled because "she didn't realize
how much she would like it" and therefore even though he just did it
without her permission it is okay.

Only in your sick twisted mind Stephen and unfortunately perhaps in
your mind too Brad.

Again, the cartoonist is taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude with the
situation. Oh, she might have not asked for it but the bitch wanted
it. She "needed" it.

This is the same attitude many rapists take.
Brad
Brad Filippone
2009-08-30 14:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna, I supported you in another debate here recently.  Remember that
before I say the rest.  I understand what you are trying to say, but
look at the comic strip again.  Darcy kisses her without warning.  I
agree with you there.  But also note that he has startled even
himself.  He gives her a very subdued "sorry."
Like an apology makes any difference. It doesn't take away what he
did.
 He was probably going
to apologise even more, but he's interrupted by someone congratulating
him.  My verdict here is that he is ecstatic at the unexpected
victory, and forgets himself.  
He forgets himself? That's an excuse?  It's just more proof that he
lacks self-control and just does what he wants with not an ounce of
concern for the feelings of others. At  least not until afterwards.
Yeah, he needs to be with people of the same mentality. ie PRISON!
I think we should wait for the next
installment of he story and see what transpires.
What should transpire is that all the females in the room rush to
Willows defense.  And the Dean should expel him. I guess that would
kind of make him a "Moses" figure meaning he led the college to the
"Promise Land" of Public Nudity but if he himself sets foot on the
property he will immediately get arrested.
But this is Crowley's cartoon, and he makes his direction pretty
obviously. The Bitch Wanted it. Oh, she might not have known she
wanted it but she did so that makes it okay.
Yes, I am male.  I am NOT taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude at all.
Sorry, it sure sounds like you are
Willow obviously didn't want the kiss at that moment, but she seems to
me to be as startled as Darcy is.  
She is in shock. Humiliated.
But of course really "she" is just a character drawn by a male. So
obviously he can "make her be" whatever he wants and it is obvious
that is making it out that she is startled because "she didn't realize
how much she would like it" and therefore even though he just did it
without her permission it is okay.
Only in your sick twisted mind Stephen and unfortunately perhaps in
your mind too Brad.
Again, the cartoonist is taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude with the
situation. Oh, she might have not asked for it but the bitch wanted
it. She "needed" it.
This is the same attitude many rapists take.
Brad
Anna, I'm sorry you feel that way. But let me ask you this. A female
friend of mine kissed me a couple days ago out of the blue and
unexpected. Yes, this really happened, and it's not the first time
she's done it. On your advice, should I have her arrested?

Or perhaps we can just agree to disagree and move on.

Brad
Anna
2009-08-30 17:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna, I supported you in another debate here recently.  Remember that
before I say the rest.  I understand what you are trying to say, but
look at the comic strip again.  Darcy kisses her without warning.  I
agree with you there.  But also note that he has startled even
himself.  He gives her a very subdued "sorry."
Like an apology makes any difference. It doesn't take away what he
did.
 He was probably going
to apologise even more, but he's interrupted by someone congratulating
him.  My verdict here is that he is ecstatic at the unexpected
victory, and forgets himself.  
He forgets himself? That's an excuse?  It's just more proof that he
lacks self-control and just does what he wants with not an ounce of
concern for the feelings of others. At  least not until afterwards.
Yeah, he needs to be with people of the same mentality. ie PRISON!
I think we should wait for the next
installment of he story and see what transpires.
What should transpire is that all the females in the room rush to
Willows defense.  And the Dean should expel him. I guess that would
kind of make him a "Moses" figure meaning he led the college to the
"Promise Land" of Public Nudity but if he himself sets foot on the
property he will immediately get arrested.
But this is Crowley's cartoon, and he makes his direction pretty
obviously. The Bitch Wanted it. Oh, she might not have known she
wanted it but she did so that makes it okay.
Yes, I am male.  I am NOT taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude at all.
Sorry, it sure sounds like you are
Willow obviously didn't want the kiss at that moment, but she seems to
me to be as startled as Darcy is.  
She is in shock. Humiliated.
But of course really "she" is just a character drawn by a male. So
obviously he can "make her be" whatever he wants and it is obvious
that is making it out that she is startled because "she didn't realize
how much she would like it" and therefore even though he just did it
without her permission it is okay.
Only in your sick twisted mind Stephen and unfortunately perhaps in
your mind too Brad.
Again, the cartoonist is taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude with the
situation. Oh, she might have not asked for it but the bitch wanted
it. She "needed" it.
This is the same attitude many rapists take.
Brad
Anna, I'm sorry you feel that way.  But let me ask you this.  A female
friend of mine kissed me a couple days ago out of the blue and
unexpected.  Yes, this really happened, and it's not the first time
she's done it.  On your advice, should I have her arrested?
First Darcy and Willow are not friends. She hardly knows him. And
yeah I would have her arrested. Why should only males be arrested for
this???
Or perhaps we can just agree to disagree and move on.
Brad
No, the day for that has long, long past....
Anna
2009-08-30 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna, I supported you in another debate here recently.  Remember that
before I say the rest.  I understand what you are trying to say, but
look at the comic strip again.  Darcy kisses her without warning.  I
agree with you there.  But also note that he has startled even
himself.  He gives her a very subdued "sorry."
Like an apology makes any difference. It doesn't take away what he
did.
 He was probably going
to apologise even more, but he's interrupted by someone congratulating
him.  My verdict here is that he is ecstatic at the unexpected
victory, and forgets himself.  
He forgets himself? That's an excuse?  It's just more proof that he
lacks self-control and just does what he wants with not an ounce of
concern for the feelings of others. At  least not until afterwards.
Yeah, he needs to be with people of the same mentality. ie PRISON!
I think we should wait for the next
installment of he story and see what transpires.
What should transpire is that all the females in the room rush to
Willows defense.  And the Dean should expel him. I guess that would
kind of make him a "Moses" figure meaning he led the college to the
"Promise Land" of Public Nudity but if he himself sets foot on the
property he will immediately get arrested.
But this is Crowley's cartoon, and he makes his direction pretty
obviously. The Bitch Wanted it. Oh, she might not have known she
wanted it but she did so that makes it okay.
Yes, I am male.  I am NOT taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude at all.
Sorry, it sure sounds like you are
Willow obviously didn't want the kiss at that moment, but she seems to
me to be as startled as Darcy is.  
She is in shock. Humiliated.
But of course really "she" is just a character drawn by a male. So
obviously he can "make her be" whatever he wants and it is obvious
that is making it out that she is startled because "she didn't realize
how much she would like it" and therefore even though he just did it
without her permission it is okay.
Only in your sick twisted mind Stephen and unfortunately perhaps in
your mind too Brad.
Again, the cartoonist is taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude with the
situation. Oh, she might have not asked for it but the bitch wanted
it. She "needed" it.
This is the same attitude many rapists take.
Brad
Anna, I'm sorry you feel that way.  But let me ask you this.  A female
friend of mine kissed me a couple days ago out of the blue and
unexpected.  Yes, this really happened, and it's not the first time
she's done it.  On your advice, should I have her arrested?
Or perhaps we can just agree to disagree and move on.
Brad
A cartoonist draws a Pro-Sexual Assault cartoon and you say "agree to
disagree"?
Brad Filippone
2009-08-30 17:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
Okay, then I dare you.
Go up to some woman you barely know and kiss her.
After she slaps you tell her it was you just being spontaneous and
silly. Or you could tell the cops that when they arrest you.
Or she might not slap you. But don't take that as a sign that she
"wanted" it. She might be in such shock that she doesn't know what to
do. But that shock will soon wear off and the screaming will begin.
I find it so ironic that people here think that I am a male. Because I
think we can tell who the real males are in here from their "the bitch
wanted it" attitude.  And now doubt that is how the MALE cartoonist
will draw it.  But the truth is that this is a great wrong that has
been done to her.
Anna, I supported you in another debate here recently.  Remember that
before I say the rest.  I understand what you are trying to say, but
look at the comic strip again.  Darcy kisses her without warning.  I
agree with you there.  But also note that he has startled even
himself.  He gives her a very subdued "sorry."
Like an apology makes any difference. It doesn't take away what he
did.
 He was probably going
to apologise even more, but he's interrupted by someone congratulating
him.  My verdict here is that he is ecstatic at the unexpected
victory, and forgets himself.  
He forgets himself? That's an excuse?  It's just more proof that he
lacks self-control and just does what he wants with not an ounce of
concern for the feelings of others. At  least not until afterwards.
Yeah, he needs to be with people of the same mentality. ie PRISON!
I think we should wait for the next
installment of he story and see what transpires.
What should transpire is that all the females in the room rush to
Willows defense.  And the Dean should expel him. I guess that would
kind of make him a "Moses" figure meaning he led the college to the
"Promise Land" of Public Nudity but if he himself sets foot on the
property he will immediately get arrested.
But this is Crowley's cartoon, and he makes his direction pretty
obviously. The Bitch Wanted it. Oh, she might not have known she
wanted it but she did so that makes it okay.
Yes, I am male.  I am NOT taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude at all.
Sorry, it sure sounds like you are
Willow obviously didn't want the kiss at that moment, but she seems to
me to be as startled as Darcy is.  
She is in shock. Humiliated.
But of course really "she" is just a character drawn by a male. So
obviously he can "make her be" whatever he wants and it is obvious
that is making it out that she is startled because "she didn't realize
how much she would like it" and therefore even though he just did it
without her permission it is okay.
Only in your sick twisted mind Stephen and unfortunately perhaps in
your mind too Brad.
Again, the cartoonist is taking a "bitch wanted it" attitude with the
situation. Oh, she might have not asked for it but the bitch wanted
it. She "needed" it.
This is the same attitude many rapists take.
Brad
Anna, I'm sorry you feel that way.  But let me ask you this.  A female
friend of mine kissed me a couple days ago out of the blue and
unexpected.  Yes, this really happened, and it's not the first time
she's done it.  On your advice, should I have her arrested?
Or perhaps we can just agree to disagree and move on.
Brad
A cartoonist draws a Pro-Sexual Assault cartoon and you say "agree to
disagree"?
I didn't see a sexual assault in the cartoon. I saw a kiss. If a
person kisses her/his significant other in public, is that sex in
public?
Anna
2009-09-01 17:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.

But in what way?

In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.

The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY. The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.

But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.

In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault) but SHE KISSES HIM!

So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?

But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?

I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.

Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.

Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault. But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic. Someone here, and I forget who it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.

By the way, on this discussion page.

http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion


HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context. How I
ask? Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking. I put it into total context.

The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Anna
2009-09-02 18:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.

Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.

For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
Pete Knight
2009-09-02 21:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Anna
2009-09-02 22:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?
Dan Myers
2009-09-03 00:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No.
Dan Myers
2009-09-03 00:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I meant to say "No, I find it quite pleasurable".

Happened to me just today interestingly enough....

:0)
Anna
2009-09-03 16:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Myers
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I meant to say "No, I find it quite pleasurable".
Happened to me just today interestingly enough....
:0)
Shows that there's a double standard.

Now I know sometimes there needs to because men and women aren't the
same. And I do think it is WORSE for a man to kiss a woman without
her asking him. But I still think it is bad enough for a woman to kiss
a man without his permission.

Just like it is wrong for a female teacher to have sex with a male
student.
Neosapienis
2009-09-10 14:08:14 UTC
Permalink
It's a contextual thing. Whilst I would say it'd be wrong for a high school
teacher regardless of whether male or female to have sex with one of their
students, I don't think it is wrong for a University student to be in a
relationship with his/her teacher if the relationship is consensual (see the
film "Thin Ice" featuring Kate Jackson sometime).
--
Best wishes,

Dario Western

"As long as you have three meals a day and a roof over your head, your four
limbs and five senses, nothing else matters"
Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://dariowestern.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553251115
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/dariowestern
http://www.tagged.com
http://dariowestern.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dan Myers
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY. The whole "the bitch
might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault) but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault. But he is
also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic. Someone here, and I forget who
it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context. How I
ask? Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking. I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I meant to say "No, I find it quite pleasurable".
Happened to me just today interestingly enough....
:0)
Shows that there's a double standard.

Now I know sometimes there needs to because men and women aren't the
same. And I do think it is WORSE for a man to kiss a woman without
her asking him. But I still think it is bad enough for a woman to kiss
a man without his permission.

Just like it is wrong for a female teacher to have sex with a male
student.
Anna
2009-09-10 19:44:47 UTC
Permalink
It's a contextual thing.  Whilst I would say it'd be wrong for a high school
teacher regardless of whether male or female to have sex with one of their
students, I don't think it is wrong for a University student to be in a
relationship with his/her teacher if the relationship is consensual (see the
film "Thin Ice" featuring Kate Jackson sometime).
You are a real sick person.


It is always wrong.
Brad Filippone
2009-09-10 20:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
It's a contextual thing.  Whilst I would say it'd be wrong for a high school
teacher regardless of whether male or female to have sex with one of their
students, I don't think it is wrong for a University student to be in a
relationship with his/her teacher if the relationship is consensual (see the
film "Thin Ice" featuring Kate Jackson sometime).
You are a real sick person.
It is always wrong.
Yes, most universities have a strict rule against such relationships.
Don't think it's the law though, just the university rules.

Brad
Zee
2009-09-10 20:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Filippone
Post by Anna
It's a contextual thing.  Whilst I would say it'd be wrong for a high school
teacher regardless of whether male or female to have sex with one of their
students, I don't think it is wrong for a University student to be in a
relationship with his/her teacher if the relationship is consensual (see the
film "Thin Ice" featuring Kate Jackson sometime).
You are a real sick person.
It is always wrong.
Yes, most universities have a strict rule against such relationships.
Don't think it's the law though, just the university rules.
Brad
good common sense Brad.....i think as man evolves....it is common
knowledge that rules of institutions do help elevate the dignity of
said institution....the professors want respect and deserve it...but
dating students is not a way to enhance respect....jz
Stuffed Tiger
2009-09-12 05:13:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT), Brad Filippone
Post by Brad Filippone
Post by Anna
It's a contextual thing.  Whilst I would say it'd be wrong for a high school
teacher regardless of whether male or female to have sex with one of their
students, I don't think it is wrong for a University student to be in a
relationship with his/her teacher if the relationship is consensual (see the
film "Thin Ice" featuring Kate Jackson sometime).
You are a real sick person.
It is always wrong.
Yes, most universities have a strict rule against such relationships.
Don't think it's the law though, just the university rules.
Brad
Well because, as with employment, there is the opportunity for one or
both to use the resources of the university for personal gain in an
way that is unethical. People do often look the other way if the
relationship contributes to the organization rather than detracting.
Anna
2009-09-03 16:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Myers
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I meant to say "No, I find it quite pleasurable".
Happened to me just today interestingly enough....
:0)
Some woman you don't have a relationship with did that to you?
Dan Myers
2009-09-04 06:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Myers
Post by Pete Knight
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Okay, Stephen Crowley has made some important changes to the cartoon
in question and it does effect how we need to perceive the situation.
But in what way?
In the Original Version. Darcy clearly grabs hold of Willow and
without her permission kisses her.
The way I thought he was going to EXCUSE that was that she was going
to be "swept off her feet" by the kiss and since "she likes it" we are
supposed to think - THAT MAKES IT OKAY.  The whole "the bitch might
not have asked for it but oh she so wanted it" scenario that rapists
have used for so long to at least justify to themselves their actions.
But, ole Stephen threw in a curveball with his change.
In the NEW version Darcy still grabs Willow (which alone wouldn' t
that be considered assault)  but SHE KISSES HIM!
So, she is the instigator, and since she did't ask him wouldn't that
make HER guilty of sexual assault?
But, and this just shows you how hypocritical people are, does the
fact that it's now a female who kisses without permission make it
automatically right?
I remember when all the incidents of Female Teachers having sex with
their male students were going on, particularily with Mary Kay
Letourneau, there were a lot of smirking going on. If it was a male
teacher having sex with female students we would be outraged as we
should be. But because it was a female having sex with a male student
people didn't see it as wrong. After all, what male hasn't dreamed of
having sex with some teacher he might have a crush on. Of course the
same could be said about girls fantasizing about her male teacher she
might have a crush on.
Admittedly there is a difference between the two. But not such a
difference to not still make it wrong.
Stephen Crowley is still promoting sexual assault.  But he is also
revealing the hypocrisy within most of us in how we perceive the whole
male female relationship dynamic.  Someone here, and I forget who  it
was or on what topic once said that while most people just can't
believe that Women can be pedos the truth is that there's a surprising
number of them out there.
By the way, on this discussion page.
http://www.talkaboutcomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46172&postdays=...
http://tinyurl.com/bp-sexassaultdiscussion
HowdieDoodieHead said I took the situation out of context.  How I
ask?  Originally the cartoon was drawn as Darcy kissing Willow.
Nowhere in the series does it say that Darcy had anything but a casual
acquaintance with Willow. And in the original cartoon he does kiss her
without even asking.  I put it into total context.
The only question now, since it is now changed to Willow Kissing Darcy
without his permission should she be the one expelled? And I would say
to be fair, yes, yes she should be.
Yeah, you are so cleaver by changing it to the female kissing the male
without his permission.
Yes, you make a good point in doing this in showing how hypocritical
people can be.
For, it is still wrong. It is just that now Willow is the wrong one.
And yes, she should be expelled.
It's a cartoon character!
Get a life.
Isn't a female kissing a male without permission still wrong?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I meant to say "No, I find it quite pleasurable".
Happened to me just today interestingly enough....
:0)
Some woman you don't have a relationship with did that to you?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, I was not in a 'Relationship' with her....

Keep trying though Anna, I'm having fun....
Anna
2009-08-27 18:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
A simple peck on the lips is not sexual assault.  Forcing her into a corner,
ripping her clothes off and going the full hog is.
This is what is wrong with your country, and is contaminating the moral
fabric of mine.  You are making mountains out of molehills regarding human
behaviour and making it a crime to show simple affection and excitement
without any strings attached to it.
It is your fucked up thinking that even caused a 8-year-old boy to get
hauled into court over 'sexual harassment' simply because he kissed a girl
in the playground a number of years ago.
You are obviously jealous because no man will ever want you as a friend or
indeed a lover come to that, and you probably suffer from Alzheimer's
disease so badly you've forgotten what it's like to be young.
You might as well become a nun, Anna Esseker (google that to see what I
mean).
Dario
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821022.html
Anna
2009-08-27 18:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dario Western
I didn't see it as sexual assault, I saw it as just being excited at gaining
a personal victory and getting a bit spontaneous and silly.
A simple peck on the lips is not sexual assault.  Forcing her into a corner,
ripping her clothes off and going the full hog is.
This is what is wrong with your country, and is contaminating the moral
fabric of mine.  You are making mountains out of molehills regarding human
behaviour and making it a crime to show simple affection and excitement
without any strings attached to it.
It is your fucked up thinking that even caused a 8-year-old boy to get
hauled into court over 'sexual harassment' simply because he kissed a girl
in the playground a number of years ago.
You are obviously jealous because no man will ever want you as a friend or
indeed a lover come to that, and you probably suffer from Alzheimer's
disease so badly you've forgotten what it's like to be young.
You might as well become a nun, Anna Esseker (google that to see what I
mean).
Dario
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_622026d6-694a-5cb8-bd5a-c619b949d165.html

http://tinyurl.com/l48xbv

BLOOMINGTON - An Illinois State University theater professor has been
charged with official misconduct and battery after he was accused of
kissing one of his male students.

Prosecutors say Patrick James O'Gara, 63, approached one his students,
grabbed him by the head and kissed him before theater auditions Aug.
18.

O'Gara appeared at a custody hearing Wednesday and later posted $500
cash for his release on two counts of official misconduct and one
charge of battery.

O'Gara is head of the theater department's acting committee, which
judges auditions and assigns roles in student productions.

O'Gara has taught acting and directing at ISU for nearly 20 years and
was active in the Chicago theater community as a director, actor and
teacher for 20 years before that, according to his biography on the
ISU Web site.

After kissing the student, O'Gara apparently asked which part he
wanted, court records said.

O'Gara reportedly said "We'll have to see" whether the student would
get the part he requested, according to court records.
There had been ongoing reports of O'Gara engaging in unsolicited
physical contact with male students prior to the incident, prosecutors
said.

ISU officials had sent O'Gara a certified letter detailing what type
of conduct was inappropriate. A university representative discussed
the letter with the professor, according to court records.

O'Gara reportedly admitted that he was told by ISU not to kiss any
male students, but that he wasn't going to stop because he "liked
kissing boys," according to court records.
casement
2009-08-27 16:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Anna
2009-08-27 16:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.

Pick some women.

Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.

Come back here and post the response you get.

I mean, that is after you post bail.
Anna
2009-08-27 16:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.

It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Anna
2009-08-27 17:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.
It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Oh, and you can't ask her first. The guy in the cartoon didn't. So go
right up there. Go right up there and kiss her.

I have a pretty good idea what would happen next but prove me wrong.
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
2009-08-30 00:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.
It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Oh, and you can't ask her first. The guy in the cartoon didn't. So go
right up there. Go right up there and kiss her.

I have a pretty good idea what would happen next but prove me wrong.


I wish someone would prove your Internet connection wrong and remove it
permanently
Nudiarist
2009-08-30 11:55:40 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 29, 8:14 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.
It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Oh, and you can't ask her first. The guy in the cartoon didn't. So go
right up there. Go right up there and kiss her.
I have a pretty good idea what would happen next but prove me wrong.
I wish someone would prove your Internet connection wrong and remove it
permanently- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I can't believe you people are arguing about a fictional cartoon
character. Foolishly, I now join in.

I guess I should have sued that girl who thrust her tongue down my
throat at a New Year's Eve party. Foolishly I decided to take that
1977 memory and file it under pleasant experiences instead of pending
ligitations.

And just because one court ruled that a kiss could be a sexual assault
doesn't mean that it is. Courts are wrong all the time - need I
mention O.J.? In America you can get away with murder, or you can be
arrested for kissing someone. Or tossed in the pokey for baring your
breasts, if you're a female.

Let's see how these fictional characters work out this kiss crisis,
and then we can either call the comics cops to throw the artist into
toon prison, or we can celebrate the fact that two people, even if
they are not really real, can still work out their own problems and
issues without calling in the authorities.

nudiarist
http://thepoliticalnaturist.blogspot.com/
Anna
2009-08-30 17:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nudiarist
On Aug 29, 8:14 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.
It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Oh, and you can't ask her first. The guy in the cartoon didn't. So go
right up there. Go right up there and kiss her.
I have a pretty good idea what would happen next but prove me wrong.
I wish someone would prove your Internet connection wrong and remove it
permanently- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I can't believe you people are arguing about a fictional cartoon
character. Foolishly, I now join in.
I guess I should have sued that girl who thrust her tongue down my
throat at a New Year's Eve party. Foolishly I decided to take that
1977 memory and file it under pleasant experiences instead of pending
ligitations.
And just because one court ruled that a kiss could be a sexual assault
doesn't mean that it is. Courts are wrong all the time - need I
mention O.J.? In America you can get away with murder, or you can be
arrested for kissing someone. Or tossed in the pokey for baring your
breasts, if you're a female.
Let's see how these fictional characters work out this kiss crisis,
and then we can either call the comics cops to throw the artist into
toon prison, or we can celebrate the fact that two people, even if
they are not really real, can still work out their own problems and
issues without calling in the authorities.
nudiaristhttp://thepoliticalnaturist.blogspot.com/
It is very interesting how only males have come on to comment and
they all seem to have an "the Bitch Wanted it" attitude.

No doubt that's how the MALE cartoonist is going to portray it.

But make no mistake - THIS IS SEXUAL ASSAULT. And I find it very scary
for all these nudists to come and support sexual assault.
Anna
2009-08-30 17:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nudiarist
On Aug 29, 8:14 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.
It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Oh, and you can't ask her first. The guy in the cartoon didn't. So go
right up there. Go right up there and kiss her.
I have a pretty good idea what would happen next but prove me wrong.
I wish someone would prove your Internet connection wrong and remove it
permanently- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I can't believe you people are arguing about a fictional cartoon
character. Foolishly, I now join in.
I guess I should have sued that girl who thrust her tongue down my
throat at a New Year's Eve party. Foolishly I decided to take that
1977 memory and file it under pleasant experiences instead of pending
ligitations.
And just because one court ruled that a kiss could be a sexual assault
doesn't mean that it is. Courts are wrong all the time - need I
mention O.J.? In America you can get away with murder, or you can be
arrested for kissing someone. Or tossed in the pokey for baring your
breasts, if you're a female.
Let's see how these fictional characters work out this kiss crisis,
and then we can either call the comics cops to throw the artist into
toon prison, or we can celebrate the fact that two people, even if
they are not really real, can still work out their own problems and
issues without calling in the authorities.
nudiaristhttp://thepoliticalnaturist.blogspot.com/
I think it gives even more insight into the Darcy character who acts
without impulse without consideration of the feelings of others.

I half expect him to start peeing. I mean if he has an urge and he
can't control himself, and he has no consideration of others, why wait
to go a bathroom. Just pee in a wastebasket if even that.

Even a 2 year old has more impulse control than he does. He really
needs to be locked up.
Anna
2009-08-30 17:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nudiarist
On Aug 29, 8:14 pm, "Orson Wells as CitizenCain"
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Go to a college.
Pick some women.
Kiss her. Just go right up and kiss her. Don't ask first. Just go
right up there and kiss her.
Come back here and post the response you get.
I mean, that is after you post bail.
It has to be a woman you don't know well.
It would be cheating if you picked your wife or girlfriend.
Oh, and you can't ask her first. The guy in the cartoon didn't. So go
right up there. Go right up there and kiss her.
I have a pretty good idea what would happen next but prove me wrong.
I wish someone would prove your Internet connection wrong and remove it
permanently- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I can't believe you people are arguing about a fictional cartoon
character. Foolishly, I now join in.
I guess I should have sued that girl who thrust her tongue down my
throat at a New Year's Eve party. Foolishly I decided to take that
1977 memory and file it under pleasant experiences instead of pending
ligitations.
And just because one court ruled that a kiss could be a sexual assault
doesn't mean that it is. Courts are wrong all the time - need I
mention O.J.? In America you can get away with murder, or you can be
arrested for kissing someone. Or tossed in the pokey for baring your
breasts, if you're a female.
Let's see how these fictional characters work out this kiss crisis,
and then we can either call the comics cops to throw the artist into
toon prison, or we can celebrate the fact that two people, even if
they are not really real, can still work out their own problems and
issues without calling in the authorities.
nudiaristhttp://thepoliticalnaturist.blogspot.com/
Luckily the "authorities" were there as witness. The Dean was there.
If he doesn't do anything Willow could sue the college BIG TIME and
basically get her college education given to her for free. And if the
Dean doesn't do anything he will lose his Job.
Anna
2009-08-27 17:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/08/02/23764/

"Muhammad Kader was apprehended in connection with an incident that
took place just before 10 p.m. in Alexander Hall, according to a
statement released by Borough Police. A female University employee
called Public Safety to report that Kader had tried to kiss her..."
Anna
2009-08-27 17:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Yeah the bitch wanted it. She likes that Darcy is a TAKE CHARGE man
who just takes what he wants. Woo Woo Woo!
Anna
2009-08-27 17:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anna
Post by casement
Post by Anna
In the past I have mostly enjoyed the cartoons of Stephen Crowley
So I am really sad that he did this.
It was totally uncalled for.
While the nudity might be tolerated if this is like any Western
College I have heard of this would IMMEDIATELY get him expelled!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=...
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudice011
http://tinyurl.com/PrudesandPrejudicSexualAssault
I also didn't see any sexual assault in that cartoon, unless I am
missing something - and, if you think that that cartoon is so bad, why
are you encouraging people to look at it by giving people the web
addresses?
Yeah the bitch wanted it. She likes that Darcy is a TAKE CHARGE man
who just takes what he wants.  Woo Woo Woo!
Yeah, No means YES! Women love men who don't even ask but just take
them!

Woo! Woo! Woo! The Bitch was begging for it. Way to go Darcy! Woo woo
woo!
Loading...