Yahoo! Groups Tips
Did you know...
You can search the group for older
messages.
|
--- In sathyasaibaba2@yahoogroups.com, vishvarupa108 <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> Sanjay, why don't you actually read my article before continuing to
whine and snivel. I never claimed that there were pornographic Jesus
pics there. Where did I say that? <<
Joe, why don't you read my posts before you whine and DRIVEL? You need
to get it into your head that you are a de-facto newbie who is STILL
unfamiliar about all of these issues, despite your pretensions at
being capable of revealing the "facts" about the issue.
This whole issue is because your comrade, Lisa De Witt, started
alleging that I had sent/received child porn pics on these newsgroups.
That's your starting point. I have no interest in what YOU say because
you were not around at the time and are still unfamiliar with all the
aspects of the story. But if YOU want to deal with this matter, you
need to deal with it in FULL. Get it?
I have to spell everything out for this guy.
>
> The point (guess I will have to make it again) is that YOU requested
pornographic Jesus pics in an alt.sex.jesus group that was clearly
designated in an Adult section, which listed hundreds (approx. 250) of
blatantly sexual fetish categories. <<
I guess I will have to make the point again that I did NOT "request"
pornographic Jesus pics in newsgroup, nor any other type of porn in
any other newsgroup.
By the way, SO interesting to see that you went there and counted all
of them. :-)
>
> Doesn't matter if you got the pics or not.
>
> Doesn't matter if there were pics there or not.
>
Of course it matters, incompetent "researcher". If your argument is
that I "requested" such pics then you have to show how I "received"
any such pics or even if there were any pics or not. To date, NOBODY
has ever proved that I sent/received any pics NOR has anybody proved
that pics are even passed in that group, whether of Jesus or anything
else. What is the use of such a "request"? If I go to a drug-dealer
and ask for drugs, but I didn't get any, does that make me guilty of
drug abuse?
Your whole argument is based on the fact that I "requested" such
material, but you haven't even got any proof of that. :-) Where is the
proof that I "requested" pics?
>> You REQUESTED them. <<
*Yawn, roll eyes*
>> And you don't deny requesting them (post #27907). <<
I didn't see anything in that post where I "don't deny requesting
them", what is the exaft comment of mine that you're referring to, please?
>> That means you wanted to see kinky, porno Jesus pics. <<
Really? Then you obviously have reading problems. You obviously didn't
notice this line at all in the post: "I don't have a fascination for
Jesus porn you stupid zombie."
>> Now maybe you can squirm you way around Lisa with double talk, but
you can't do it with me. <<
On the contrary, Lisa de Witt is MUCH more qualified than you to
discuss these things, except that she can't. She is the one who first
made these allegations and she is familiar with all the allegations,
even though she cannot refute any of my arguments OR the actual
evidence. And the post you just referenced is proof of how Lisa De
Witt was unable to refute any of my arguments. The same also applies
to other individuals such as Sarfaraz Shamsi and yourself. Since you
are completely unqualified to decide who is engaging in the
double-talk (despite seeing evidence that my arguments are unrefuted)
and also the fact that you have disaplyed questionable reasing skills,
as well as an overall lack of investigation skills, I think what I
said to Lisa in that post perfectly applies to you: "I know it must be
hard for you, but you are just an insane scandaliser, and a stupid one
at that. :)"
You know, it's relaly funny how you cannot refute any of my arguments.
And since I'm doing my own (albeit slow) recording of these
evidencies, you can be assured that it will be ultra-unrefutable and
ultra-watertight. :-) In the meantime, I do not care what your views
are until you show signs of having researched the topic properly.
>> Go ahead and call me any name you like. I have a valid reason for
naming my link the way I did. <<
You diminished your own credibility and have surprised everyone. This
is a new low, even for you. When you resort to such things this only
proves that you are actually a malicious individual. But it doesn't
matter to me anyway, because we all know that you are anyway. :-)
>> If you think that requesting Jesus porno pics is OKAY~ and I am
wrong for naming my link "sinjay"~ then I am wrong. Send my page to
Christians and see if they think I am wrong ;-) <<
Here we go, pointlessly repeating "requesting Jesus porn pics" as if
it is fact, when no evidence of this has ever been found and published.
> Better yet, why don't you send my page to your fellow Anti-Sai
buddies and ask them to defend you and your requests for filthy Jesus,
Biblical and Disney porn on an alternative sex section at Google
groups? I mean, how wrong can I be? <<
As far as I know, several of them have seen it. Not only that, but
they are also familiar with ALL sides of the story. I do not need any
"defence" since I am perfectly capable of defending myself from the
most childish and ridiculous asinine accusations for the past three
years or so, you really think that I have something to fear from you,
a relative newbie? Think again. :-) It is not that you can be very
wrong, you ARE wrong. :-) And what is more surprising, you actually
believe every word you say, LOL. :-))
>
> It's about time you accept responsiblity for your past actions and
stop blaming everyone else for your perverse sexual desires.
>
It's about time you stopped talking tripe and actually started
researching this topic fully before spouting off these same silly
accusations, as I have been telling you to do ENDLESSLY.
>
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Dadlani/sinjay-google-groups.html
>
Hahahaha, I LOVE the last picture. So having a folder entitled 'Jesus'
in my personal YahooPhotos area means that I have a Jesus porn fetish?
And, there's a very good chance that there might be porn pics of Jesus
in that folder? ROFL! Sorry Joe, you just proved the definition of
'Morono'. :-) I just love the way you add 2 + 2 and come up with 22. :-))
And by the way it's not deleted, it's still there. Don't blame me if
Yahoo decide to modify their policies and make Photo folders available
to the public only if the Yahoo user has paid for premium access. But
you wouldn#t care about that do you? You would just like to give
people the impression that I "deleted" the folder because I had
"something to hide", LOL. Your "research" is beyond hope now.
|
|
Offline