Is it a bird, is it a plane....

wtf is going on...?

  • Srsly, sod off again you FAIL

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • Yay, wasp, I'll talk in depth PA with you

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • who the fck is wasp?

    Votes: 12 48.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Thank you to Richard and Tim for your kind words and acceptance of my apology.

To be perfectly honest, I do not remember much of what I posted prior to the eventual banning spam of 'girumahesh' (an emo rock kid) and 'the fat chick in the bath staring at the toilet threatening to eat it.'

I know there was something with a chicken and also a few pictures of the girl in lazy town (15-18 at time of programme, not that it is an excuse) which float around on the internet and 4chan. Any others I posted I do not remember as they were found, posted and deleted, but do not remember them being that young or graphic but, I do not condone nor am I proud for posting any of them. None of which is an excuse.

I honestly, sincerely apologise for posting them and for offending those that saw them.
 
By wasp's own admission on this thread of posting images of pornography and bestiality to the site; it is with sad regret that as custodians of this community we have no choice but to enforce an immediate and permanent ban. Regardless of the motivations for the postings and any mitigating circumstances leading up to it, postings of an illegal nature have absolutely no place on a public forum. Any less of a hard line regarding this matter could be construed as T2W condoning such behavoiur and that would send out entirely the wrong message to the community.
 
Well Sue joined on an eventful week I guess. One of the top posters (in every respect) hoisted by his own petard. So many many things I could say at this juncture but I actually think the best thing is if I don't comment further on this one.

All very odd.

GJ
 
But wasp's case is exceptional and I believe he was trying to make a very valid point - ultimately for the benefit of the site and its membership although, clearly, the means he chose to achieve his objective was unacceptable.


I think he was just bored and being a twat, an error of judgement in what he did post but still pretty childish in the first place.
 
Maybe wasp is superman...I mean...he was in and out of here faster then a speeding bullet.
 
To be fair i used to find most of Wasp's post informative (the trading related ones anyway) and maybe he should be on a yellow card, i don't know but it's like most thing on these sort of forums, a lot of unecessary rage (not in the case of any child porn, i never saw it so can't comment) about a lot of childish misbehaviour.
 
it wasn't child porn. Just a teenage girl scantily clad. need to get out more my brother....
 
Jesus christ, I could link you if you want. I'm pretty sure it's the 18 yearold red neck in denim hotpants outside. (with a top on).

If you find that offensive I suggest you install a popup blocker now.
 
By wasp's own admission on this thread of posting images of pornography and bestiality to the site; it is with sad regret that as custodians of this community we have no choice but to enforce an immediate and permanent ban. Regardless of the motivations for the postings and any mitigating circumstances leading up to it, postings of an illegal nature have absolutely no place on a public forum. Any less of a hard line regarding this matter could be construed as T2W condoning such behavoiur and that would send out entirely the wrong message to the community.

As sad as it is that WASP is gone I think Sharky did the right thing.
I liked WASP but when you get right down to it he trashed the forum and only came back when he found it no better any where else.
While I do believe that he was truly sorry for what he did, maybe he should have thought about finding a new home first, before the trashing started. Then when he saw there was nothing better out there, for his tastes, he could have come back with no problems.

Oh well we live and learn I guess.
 
so was the child porn thing just bearing false witness to get someone banned?

if so then anyone who bears false witness in such a way should also be banned?
 
Ask the Shark, he must have primary evidence to support the ban. he wouldn't be so stupid as to ban someone purely on hearsay evidence would he ?
 
this has all been brought about by lurker,a twat who last posted,before today in jan 2008,what a ******

That's a huge leap. As unfashionable as it is to let facts get in the way of a good discussion, I would like to summarise the events that have taken place.

1) It was Chris who posted the content in question.
2) It was Chris who signalled that his intent in posting the content in question was to cause as much emotional distress and disturbance as possble, i.e. for the lulz.
3) It was Chris who, when challenged by Tony about his reappearance under another nick and the validity of his approach replied "face bothered, bothered face".
3) It was Chris who admitted (somewhat honourably) the exact nature and content of his posts. (This alone should have saved us from this discussion).

For the record (and for any who remain unclear). It is now technically an offense not only to publish child pornagraphy, but also to publish anything that seeks to endorse or make light of child pornography. This includes cartoon like imagery and censored inages. This attitide now even extends to the use of the phrase "kiddy porn" which is actively discouraged since it is quite rightly recognised as an insidious method of propogating increasing levels of acceptance within society.

The fact is, regardless of Chris's original intention, the insidious nature of this material (censored or not) has been amply demonstrated in that certain forumites, seemingly desensited to such material, would argue that the exceptional nature of Chris's other contributions justifies a degree of forgiveness and should probably result in re-admission.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether Chris returns or stays banned, I think the damage has been done and, based on peoples responses, will never be undone. I would suggest that more than simply just "hanging himself by his own petard" (to quote Gamma), Chris has found out that rather than simply shocking certain people into submission, he has contributed to a very disturbing seed change in the level of tolerance to that which should never be tolerated.

I would hope (given his apology), that he is as disturbed by some of the responses to this situation as I am.
 
By wasp's own admission on this thread of posting images of pornography and bestiality to the site; it is with sad regret that as custodians of this community we have no choice but to.........

Inform Wasp he came 2nd in this years attempt to improve board membership numbers second only to Mrs Higgins from Hitchen, who yet again wins this years 1st prize with her Home video on The Art Of phallacio For Denture Wearers .

Well done Mrs Higgins !









No more gags from me. THE END. :D

Edit, although I am surprised no one has suggested a renaming of this thread yet .... Lord have mercy on my soul.
 
Hi Sandpiper,
I agree with some of your points, but not all of them.
That's a huge leap. As unfashionable as it is to let facts get in the way of a good discussion, I would like to summarise the events that have taken place.

1) It was Chris who posted the content in question.
2) It was Chris who signalled that his intent in posting the content in question was to cause as much emotional distress and disturbance as possble, i.e. for the lulz.
3) It was Chris who, when challenged by Tony about his reappearance under another nick and the validity of his approach replied "face bothered, bothered face".
3) It was Chris who admitted (somewhat honourably) the exact nature and content of his posts. (This alone should have saved us from this discussion).
I don't know the full history, but I'm happy to accept your account of it.

For the record (and for any who remain unclear). It is now technically an offense not only to publish child pornagraphy, but also to publish anything that seeks to endorse or make light of child pornography. This includes cartoon like imagery and censored inages. This attitide now even extends to the use of the phrase "kiddy porn" which is actively discouraged since it is quite rightly recognised as an insidious method of propogating increasing levels of acceptance within society.
Your world appears to be very black and white whereas, in reality, it is anything but, IMO. I didn't see the images that wasp posted, but I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that they weren't the extreme Gary Glitter sort that, if found on your hard drive, would land you in jug. In my experience, the exact opposite of what you describe is filtering through our increasingly politically correct society, especially amongst young people.

I'll give you a specific example of what I mean. A few years ago I worked for a repro' house in the print trade. A local photographer came in with a CD and wanted some large prints made of his pictures for a forthcoming public exhibition. They were all landscapes, but one picture included a naked boy of about 5 years old positiioned to appear like a garden statue within a large formal garden. It was a very well composed, well shot picture and cleverly executed. I liked it. However, my (young) boss completely 'lost it' when he saw the picture. To him it was indeed 'kiddy porn'. When the photographer came in to pick up the pictures, my boss was very rude to him and threw him out, threatening to report him to the police. The photographer was very upset and extremely offended and I was very embarrassed. Recently, I went on a city break to Florence and went to the Uffizi which is chock full of images of naked childen. By my bosses definition (and perhaps yours too), much of the content of the gallery would fall into the category of 'child pornography' and, presumably, ough to be destroyed.

The fact is, regardless of Chris's original intention, the insidious nature of this material (censored or not) has been amply demonstrated in that certain forumites, seemingly desensited to such material, would argue that the exceptional nature of Chris's other contributions justifies a degree of forgiveness and should probably result in re-admission.
I would imagine that to become desensitised to something, one must experience it - and probabbly lots of it. Depending upon your definition of child pornography I have either seen lots of it or none of it at all. As stated above, I have seen many imasges of naked children, but I wouldn't think of them as pornographic and, certainly, I don't find them sexually arousing. Yes, I was one of those who felt that wasp should be allowed to return. Am I desesitised as you suggest? The answer is an emphatic no.


Unfortunately, regardless of whether Chris returns or stays banned, I think the damage has been done and, based on peoples responses, will never be undone. I would suggest that more than simply just "hanging himself by his own petard" (to quote Gamma), Chris has found out that rather than simply shocking certain people into submission, he has contributed to a very disturbing seed change in the level of tolerance to that which should never be tolerated.

I would hope (given his apology), that he is as disturbed by some of the responses to this situation as I am.
As I suggest above, the 'seed change' is, if anything, going the other way. In many ways society is less tolerant than it used to be. I would stress that in no way shape or form do I condone the Gary Glitter type of child pornography which is totally unacceptable. Furthermore, I would be very surprised if anyone here felt differently. So, unless you consider the image below to be pornographic, I really don't think there's anything for you - or anyone else - to be disturbed about.
Tim.
 

Attachments

  • Bronzino venus.jpg
    Bronzino venus.jpg
    120.9 KB · Views: 312
Maybe wasp is superman...I mean...he was in and out of here faster then a speeding bullet.

That's what she said!





If you want something done, you have to do it yourself...

Geez, nobody even tries anymore :p
 
Top