Frank McCoy...pedophile

[bobandcarole]

Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
From: Frank McCoy <***@millcomm.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)

Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{

But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.

And then ... (Wait for it.)

And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

[Frank McCoy]

Post by bobandcarole
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily,
but definitely and clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)

... Post it with the caption, "Isn't that the cutest little pussy you ever saw?"

Post by bobandcarole
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.

Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.

[Baal]

[snip]

Post by Frank McCoy
Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.
Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.

The only problem with this scenario, Frank, is precisely that the
authorities tend to view even mere nudity as obscene. Their predilection
all-too-frequently is to prosecute any such cases.

Remember the Salon article that was posted within the last few months?
Two families got literally put through hell because of a few nude photos
of their offspring on a camping trip.

Even well-regarded artists and photographers such as Jock Sturges and
Sally Mann have been persecuted; in Sturges' case, his studio was raided,
his equipment, prints and negatives seized. He was hauled before a
Grand Jury, which refused to indict him, even though the authorities
tried to paint him as a child pornographer; the FBI even sent agents over
to France and harassed those who modeled for him.

The U.S. government spent in excess of one million dollars going after
Sturges, who spent in excess of $100,000 U.S. to defend himself.

Even today, he says that the memory of what he went through has cast a
shadow over his work--he always has the thought in the back of his mind.


Metro: Having been through all that you've been
through, I can't imagine how you can take photographs
now without having legal concerns somewhere in your
mind.

Sturges: There are photographs that I don't take now
that I previously would have taken without any thought
at all as to any misinterpretations. The truth is that
people who are naturists, who are used to being without
clothes, are unself-conscious about how they sit
around, how they throw themselves down on the ground,
how they sit in a chair, how they stand. They don't
think about it; it's not an issue. There's nothing
obscene about them. Before, I'd photograph anything. I
didn't think there was anything more or less obscene
about any part of the body. Now, I recognize that
there are certain postures and angles that make
people see red, which are evidence of original sin or
something, and I avoid that. I don't shoot that any
more. But it's difficult. At one point, [my wife] Maia
found me crossing legs, or avoiding angles, or giving
instructions which inadvertently were instructing
young people that some aspect of what they were doing
was inherently profane, some aspect of who they were
inherently were profane. I've had to relearn how I work
with people so that if and when I do avoid different
things I don't send any messages in doing so. I'm the
last person who has any desire to instruct anybody in
shame. That's no errand for me.

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html

This really is an excellent interview--I highly recommend that you read
the entire thing.

Sally Mann photographed her own children; if memory serves, the authorities
threatened to take them away from her for that. She no longer does nude
photography--all she photographs these days are landscapes.

Post by Frank McCoy
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Baal
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

[Frank McCoy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
[snip]

Post by Frank McCoy
Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.
Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.

The only problem with this scenario, Frank, is precisely that the
authorities tend to view even mere nudity as obscene. Their predilection
all-too-frequently is to prosecute any such cases.
Remember the Salon article that was posted within the last few months?
Two families got literally put through hell because of a few nude photos
of their offspring on a camping trip.
Even well-regarded artists and photographers such as Jock Sturges and
Sally Mann have been persecuted; in Sturges' case, his studio was raided,
his equipment, prints and negatives seized. He was hauled before a
Grand Jury, which refused to indict him, even though the authorities
tried to paint him as a child pornographer; the FBI even sent agents over
to France and harassed those who modeled for him.
The U.S. government spent in excess of one million dollars going after
Sturges, who spent in excess of $100,000 U.S. to defend himself.
Even today, he says that the memory of what he went through has cast a
shadow over his work--he always has the thought in the back of his mind.
Metro: Having been through all that you've been
through, I can't imagine how you can take photographs
now without having legal concerns somewhere in your
mind.
Sturges: There are photographs that I don't take now
that I previously would have taken without any thought
at all as to any misinterpretations. The truth is that
people who are naturists, who are used to being without
clothes, are unself-conscious about how they sit
around, how they throw themselves down on the ground,
how they sit in a chair, how they stand. They don't
think about it; it's not an issue. There's nothing
obscene about them. Before, I'd photograph anything. I
didn't think there was anything more or less obscene
about any part of the body. Now, I recognize that
there are certain postures and angles that make
people see red, which are evidence of original sin or
something, and I avoid that. I don't shoot that any
more. But it's difficult. At one point, [my wife] Maia
found me crossing legs, or avoiding angles, or giving
instructions which inadvertently were instructing
young people that some aspect of what they were doing
was inherently profane, some aspect of who they were
inherently were profane. I've had to relearn how I work
with people so that if and when I do avoid different
things I don't send any messages in doing so. I'm the
last person who has any desire to instruct anybody in
shame. That's no errand for me.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/03.19.98/cover/sturges1-9811.html
This really is an excellent interview--I highly recommend that you read
the entire thing.
Sally Mann photographed her own children; if memory serves, the authorities
threatened to take them away from her for that. She no longer does nude
photography--all she photographs these days are landscapes.

Well, like I said in the header of original post (which B&C deliberately cut
only part of) "If it only wasn't illegal"

And also: They'd assume "prurient interest" on my part for the picture, when
in-fact that wouldn't be the case ... the *caption* would be.
So I never would.
It just seems like a damned cute pun, that's kept from being appreciated by the
prurient interests of the censors themselves.

If THEY see sex in a picture (and they see sex in about everything) then it must
be nasty, evil, and horrible for the kids ... no matter how much the kids are
actually having fun and enjoying themselves.

There's also this horribly mistaken idea (probably gotten from "Peter Pan") that
kids are so terribly innocent, especially about sex.

If you ever put a long mike on kids playing at school ....
I remember well the conversations kids had when I was in school ... and not just
one school either. Of course, they never let their *parents* know they were
talking or even thinking about such things. They knew what punishment would
await if they did. Thus the image of "innocence" keeps on being perpetuated by
the very parents who ensure they *don't* learn how truly un-innocent their kids
really are. Circular feedback. By ensuring the kids *don't* talk about sex, by
punishing them for any slightest hint or sexual word, they ass-u-me that the
kids therefor know nothing about it; when in fact they often know more than the
parents ... indeed knowing enough to hide that knowledge from those same
parents.

Of course, not ALL parents are that restrictive or that dumb. But it's the ones
thinking sex=evil that restrict their own knowledge, both about sex AND about
their own children. Even having been children doing the same thing themselves;
which makes it *really* stupid!

OK ... The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!

[bobandcarole]

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by bobandcarole
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily,
but definitely and clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)

... Post it with the caption, "Isn't that the cutest little pussy you ever saw?"

Post by bobandcarole
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.

And "parental permission" makes it acceptable??? LOL
It's still illegal franky, and you're still an old, dried up
pervert...........

Post by Frank McCoy
Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[ScottyFLL]

bobandcarole wrote:
ADVISORY:

bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).

Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

[bobandcarole.]

Post by ScottyFLL
bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).
Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

you just left yourself open for a lot of trouble, little scotty :-)

[Jessie C]

Post by ScottyFLL
bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).
Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

Please complaint to AOL about the troll violating their TOS.

[bobandcarole]

Post by Jessie C

Post by ScottyFLL
bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).
Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

Please complaint to AOL about the troll violating their TOS.

LOL

[bobandcarole]

Post by ScottyFLL
bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).
Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

It's obvious you can't dispute anything scotty, so like the child you
are, you "act out"

[ScottyFLL]

bobandcarole wrote:
ADVISORY:

bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).

Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

[Frank McCoy]

Post by bobandcarole

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by bobandcarole
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily,
but definitely and clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)

... Post it with the caption, "Isn't that the cutest little pussy you ever saw?"

Post by bobandcarole
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.

And "parental permission" makes it acceptable??? LOL
It's still illegal franky,

All of which just goes to prove you cannot read.
Probably flunked out of school before the third grade.
The *original* post, which you snipped this out of, said "If it wasn't illegal."
and, that it shouldn't be, because it wouldn't be obscene except in the minds of
perverts like you.

Post by bobandcarole
and you're still an old, dried up
pervert...........

Well ... perhaps, depending on one's definition of "pervert".
By my definition, you're far more perverted and definitely *much* farther from
the "norm" than anybody else I've ever had a conversation with ... and far less
to be trusted around children.

Post by bobandcarole

Post by Frank McCoy
Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.

[bobandcarole,]

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by bobandcarole

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by bobandcarole
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily,
but definitely and clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)

... Post it with the caption, "Isn't that the cutest little pussy you ever saw?"

Post by bobandcarole
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

Idiot. I *said*, "With parental permission"; and there wouldn't be anything
obscene in the picture, except perhaps in *your* sick little mind.

And "parental permission" makes it acceptable??? LOL
It's still illegal franky,

All of which just goes to prove you cannot read.
Probably flunked out of school before the third grade.
The *original* post, which you snipped this out of, said "If it wasn't illegal."
and, that it shouldn't be, because it wouldn't be obscene except in the minds of
perverts like you.

Post by bobandcarole
and you're still an old, dried up
pervert...........

Well ... perhaps, depending on one's definition of "pervert".

Old crusty farts that want naked pictures of little girls with their
"cunny" showing?

Post by Frank McCoy
By my definition, you're far more perverted and definitely *much* farther from
the "norm" than anybody else I've ever had a conversation with ... and far less
to be trusted around children.

Post by bobandcarole

Post by Frank McCoy
Only anti-sex perverts like you would find mere nudity to be obscene.

Taking nude pictures of little girls? You're damn right, sicko

Post by Frank McCoy
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)

"Post it with the caption, "Isn't that the cutest little pussy you ever
saw?"
"But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a
kitten
cute too) with her cunny showing"
"Post it with the caption, "Isn't that the cutest little pussy you ever
saw?"-Frank McCoy

[Strife767]

Please don't feed the troll.

[bobandcarole]

Post by Strife767
Please don't feed the troll.

You are the only troll here strife, and a coward to boot.

Post by Strife767
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure.
I want to change the world.

[ScottyFLL]

bobandcarole wrote:
ADVISORY:

bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).

Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

[bobandcarole]

Post by ScottyFLL
bobandcarole aka bob&carole is a troll posting to multiple newgroups
that have no
interest in posts such as this (and no interest in virtually anything
bobandcarole have to say).
Please: DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL!!

I can do this as long as you, tard boi..:-)

[ScottyFLL]

bobandcarole wrote:
I'm sending emails to ***@aol.com with regard to Bobandcarole's
access to their NNTP server.

Some of you might want to join me. Refer to the IP addy below and
include the headers that I provide below.

IP: 152.163.100.203

OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
Address: 22000 AOL Way
City: Dulles
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US

Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "bobandcarole" <***@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: More bent-over pages
Date: 15 Oct 2006 11:53:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <***@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
References: <***@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1160938438 7652 127.0.0.1 (15 Oct 2006
18:53:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [rtc-ta042 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1
cache-rtc-ad09.proxy.aol.com[98A364CB] (Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])
Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=152.163.100.203;
posting-account=7CqnCw0AAAC7fwe7G4uACvBO_Y_CY3vI

[bobandcarole]

I'm sending emails to ***@comcast with regard to ScottyFLLs
access to their NNTP server.

Some of you might want to join me. Refer to the IP addy below and
include the headers that I provide below.

IP: 71.206.95.238
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. ATT-COMCAST (NET-71-192-0-0-1)
71.192.0.0 - 71.207.255.255
Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services MIAMI-10 (NET-71-206-64-0-1)
71.206.64.0 - 71.206.95.255



Path:
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "ScottyFLL" <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.recovery.aa
Subject: Re: Big Book says Alcoholism not a disease
Date: 10 Oct 2006 11:56:20 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <***@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
<1kQWg.239620$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.206.95.238
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1160506585 19215 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2006
18:56:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <***@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; Maxthon),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com
Injection-Info: k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=71.206.95.238;
posting-account=ShRgpA0AAAABZCoTps_hmKi-vBLVz4mU

The 4th edition however has really been a downgrading of AA though.

Why should you care? You don't qualify to be an AA member. And you
drink. So this stuff really doesn't apply to you in any way, shape or
form.

And HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES must you revisit the SAME FUCKING SHIT and
post it to this newsgroup? I CAN'T be the only one who is FUCKING
TIRED of it.

Go the fuck to church and leave us alone already!

[Desideria]

Thanks. I just may use that.

Desideria

Post by ScottyFLL
access to their NNTP server.
Some of you might want to join me. Refer to the IP addy below and
include the headers that I provide below.
IP: 152.163.100.203
OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
Address: 22000 AOL Way
City: Dulles
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US
g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: More bent-over pages
Date: 15 Oct 2006 11:53:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1160938438 7652 127.0.0.1 (15 Oct 2006
18:53:58 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:53:58 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 Turboweb [rtc-ta042 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1
cache-rtc-ad09.proxy.aol.com[98A364CB] (Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=152.163.100.203;
posting-account=7CqnCw0AAAC7fwe7G4uACvBO_Y_CY3vI

[bobandcarole]

Post by Desideria
Thanks. I just may use that.

And while you're at it, turn in frank mccoy for lusting after preteen
girls...............

[ScottyFLL]

Post by Desideria
Thanks. I just may use that.
Desideria

I don't think even AOL will disregard a campaign against bobandcarole.

I might have to sue bobandcarole as well:
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=108&sid=940601

Not that I'd get anywhere near $11.3 million that the jury in Broward
County (where I live) awarded. :-) But we might be able to garnish
Bob's welfare check.

[Denny Wheeler]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:29:18 -0700, "Desideria"

Post by ScottyFLL
access to their NNTP server.

(to Desi, and to Scotty, and to anyone else)

You'd do better complaining to Google Groups--AOL dropped their nntp
server over a year ago. The path in the post I'm replying to was a
Google Groups post.
-denny-
--
Never look for a worm in the apple of your eye.
--Langston Hughes

[Jessie C]

Post by Denny Wheeler
(to Desi, and to Scotty, and to anyone else)
You'd do better complaining to Google Groups--AOL dropped their nntp
server over a year ago. The path in the post I'm replying to was a
Google Groups post.
-denny-

Very true, but B&C are posting through 152.163.100.203 - AOL netspace.
Google Groups will no less than nothing with a complaint. AOL just might
given that B&C routinely violate AOL's TOS.

[Denny Wheeler]

Post by Jessie C

Post by Denny Wheeler
(to Desi, and to Scotty, and to anyone else)
You'd do better complaining to Google Groups--AOL dropped their nntp
server over a year ago. The path in the post I'm replying to was a
Google Groups post.
-denny-

Very true, but B&C are posting through 152.163.100.203 - AOL netspace.
Google Groups will no less than nothing with a complaint. AOL just might
given that B&C routinely violate AOL's TOS.

I wouldn't bet on aol's taking any action--but who knows? There's a
first time for everything.

I rather think boobncruller violate Google Groups' rules just as
often, btw.

-denny-
--
Never look for a worm in the apple of your eye.
--Langston Hughes

[Nikki@P.U.]

It Looks Like Bobandcarole Are Back
I Will Have To Take Care Of Thje For You Frank.

Post by bobandcarole
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

[bobandcarole.]

Post by ***@P.U.

Post by bobandcarole
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

It Looks Like Bobandcarole Are Back
I Will Have To Take Care Of Thje For You Frank.

LOL...a pedo supporter..
your spelling proves it

[N***@P.U.]

bobandcarole is still looking to play.

Post by bobandcarole.

Post by ***@P.U.

Post by bobandcarole
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

It Looks Like Bobandcarole Are Back
I Will Have To Take Care Of Thje For You Frank.

LOL...a pedo supporter..
your spelling proves it

[Jette Goldie]

Post by N***@P.U.
bobandcarole is still looking to play.

So quit reposting them - they're still in my killfile.

[bobandcarole]

Post by Jette Goldie

Post by N***@P.U.
bobandcarole is still looking to play.

So quit reposting them - they're still in my killfile.

Ignorant limeys and pedo lovers

They simply can't stand having the facts shoved in their face.

Post by Jette Goldie
--
Jette Goldie
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

[bobandcarole]

Post by bobandcarole

Post by Jette Goldie

Post by N***@P.U.
bobandcarole is still looking to play.

So quit reposting them - they're still in my killfile.

Ignorant limeys and pedo lovers

They simply can't stand having the facts shoved in their face.

Post by bobandcarole

Post by Jette Goldie
--
Jette Goldie
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

[bobandcarole]

Post by bobandcarole
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............

[Nikki@P.U.]

Post by bobandcarole
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank.mccoy
Subject: Damn ... If only it wasn't illegal.
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:27:19 -0500
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 43
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission,
and take a
picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten
(preferably cute
too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely
and
clearly visible.
And then ... (Wait for it.)
And I will wait for the Parents to blow your sick head off, pervert
You old sick fuck.............