Title deleted

[Groove]

Originally posted by sexeducation
And I will also say ...
that while you watch the shaving posts go by ...

that while you consider how long it takes to make a decent adult website ...

that you also consider that Adult.com has NEVER bailed on SexEducation.com ...

who do you want as a supplier???

the one the helps or the one that bails based on bullshit?

They are NOT backing down and neither am I.

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/showth...0&pagenumber=5

There is ample evidence in that thread to prove that he is trying to attract
children and fellow pedos to his so called "presently adults only" site.

Why the fuck don't you ban him?

[klik]

*yawn*

[Groove]

Originally posted by klik
*yawn*

You think it's boring or trivial that a pedophile is
allowed to post on an adult webmaster board?

And says Adult.com supports him?

[MrJackMeHoff]

Originally posted by Groove
You think it's boring or trivial that a pedophile is
allowed to post on an adult webmaster board?

Die fag...

[uchase/webpry]

see sig

[Groove]

Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
Die fag...

Who are you calling a fag?

[StuartD]

bets on whether this guy gets to 4k posts or is banned first?

[Groove]

Originally posted by uchase/webpry
see sig

LOL, that's a nice sig

[Lensman]

You're playing with fire with these kind of treads, prove he's a pedo, or prepare to be banned.

[evildick]

Originally posted by Lensman
You're playing with fire with these kind of treads, prove he's a pedo, or prepare to be banned.

Did you happen to see the pic he hotlinked into YOUR OWN thread that he had admitted was from a russian child porn site? He had blacked out the eyes of a naked minor that was sitting on a table with a bottle of vodka between her legs.

What the fuck is that?

[MrJackMeHoff]

Originally posted by evildick
Did you happen to see the pic he hotlinked into YOUR OWN thread that he had admitted was from a russian child porn site? He had blacked out the eyes of a naked minor that was sitting on a table with a bottle of vodka between her legs.

What the fuck is that?

[evildick]

Originally posted by evildick
Did you happen to see the pic he hotlinked into YOUR OWN thread that he had admitted was from a russian child porn site? He had blacked out the eyes of a naked minor that was sitting on a table with a bottle of vodka between her legs.

What the fuck is that?

Actually the pic appears to be down now. Looks like someone finally notified archive.org and had the pic removed. It was from a past archive of sexeducation.com.

http://gofuckyourself.com/showthread...0&pagenumber=4

[pornstar2pac]

Originally posted by Lensman
You're playing with fire with these kind of treads, prove he's a pedo, or prepare to be banned.

I got your back on this one Lens(no pun intended)

[Groove]

Originally posted by Lensman
You're playing with fire with these kind of treads, prove he's a pedo, or prepare to be banned.

What? You're going to ban me without so much as a warning?

Lensman I am NOT trying to antagonize you. I am simply horrified that this guy is still here. If you want me to shut-up I will shut-up. But the thread you started yesterday is chock full of evidence that Sexeducation is trying to attract children to his "presently adults only" site and has had CP on his site. He is even trying to sell minors access to the his adults-only section!

And now he's saying that Adult.com is his supporter. If you are comfortable with that, I suppose it's none of my business.

If you want to gag me, just tell me to shut-up and I will not make any more posts about Sexped. If you feel you have to ban me and let Sexped stay, then so be it. That is your prerogative.

[Screaming]

Originally posted by Lensman
You're playing with fire with these kind of treads, prove he's a pedo, or prepare to be banned.

something told me this is where this was going, good luck dude with the proof, never make empty accusations, always have proof

[TheLegacy]

Originally posted by Screaming
something told me this is where this was going, good luck dude with the proof, never make empty accusations, always have proof

hard to get proof when its wiped away from under you. He was saying the picture was there, now its not..

personally I think its dumb to push it to the extreme of blaming Lens, I've met Lens, and enjoy the people on this board, so this kind of accusation is senseless and silly knowing the man... but its hard to keep the proof when its changed so quickly that they cant post or send it to anyone.

[Eric]

Originally posted by Groove
What? You're going to ban me without so much as a warning?

Lensman I am NOT trying to antagonize you. I am simply horrified that this guy is still here. If you want me to shut-up I will shut-up. But the thread you started yesterday is chock full of evidence that Sexeducation is trying to attract children to his "presently adults only" site and has had CP on his site. He is even trying to sell minors access to the his adults-only section!

And now he's saying that Adult.com is his supporter. If you are comfortable with that, I suppose it's none of my business.

If you want to gag me, just tell me to shut-up and I will not make any more posts about Sexped. If you feel you have to ban me and let Sexped stay, then so be it. That is your prerogative.

Groove,

He didn't say he wants you to shut up. He wants you to show proof. You all love to point fingers. Now point them and show the EXACT PROOF! We all know your opinions... No show us the proof or drop the issue!

[JSA Matt]

You want proof of child porn? Wouldn't that require the posting of child porn? Figure it out hypocrites...

[TheLegacy]

Originally posted by JSA Matt
You want proof of child porn? Wouldn't that require the posting of child porn? Figure it out hypocrites...

you dont have to post it, merely email Lens !! Then its look after.

[dig420]

Originally posted by Eric_aka_RedEyes
Groove,

He didn't say he wants you to shut up. He wants you to show proof. You all love to point fingers. Now point them and show the EXACT PROOF! We all know your opinions... No show us the proof or drop the issue!

well Eric he has CP on his site at archive.org and he was trolling for young girls with a banner on little girls equine forums. He calls himself 'Dad'. He's posted CP a couple times on this board right here knowing damn well what an uproar it would cause, particularly coming from him. That's enough proof for banning imho.

[evildick]

Originally posted by TheLegacy
hard to get proof when its wiped away from under you. He was saying the picture was there, now its not..

personally I think its dumb to push it to the extreme of blaming Lens, I've met Lens, and enjoy the people on this board, so this kind of accusation is senseless and silly knowing the man... but its hard to keep the proof when its changed so quickly that they cant post or send it to anyone.

The pic was there yesterday and most of today. I'm sure someone Lensman trusts can tell him what was originally found where you now see a red x.

[CET]

Libel is a dangerous thing. Unless you have proof, you find yourself in a very actionable position for lost revenue. Good luck.

[Theo]

laugh now, but i can see sexed as mod here in a couple of months

[dig420]

not libel to say someone has CP on his site when you've seen it with your own eyes.

[Spunky]

Originally posted by Eric_aka_RedEyes
Groove,

He didn't say he wants you to shut up. He wants you to show proof. You all love to point fingers. Now point them and show the EXACT PROOF! We all know your opinions... No show us the proof or drop the issue!

Agreed 100 %..I'm so tired of seeing this shit every day.I wish these people would just ignore him or Fucking get over it already.I haven't seen any proof ,All I see is opinions and accusations

[dig420]

Originally posted by spunky1
Agreed 100 %..I'm so tired of seeing this shit every day.I wish these people would just ignore him or Fucking get over it already.I haven't seen any proof ,All I see is opinions and accusations

you never saw the link posted about 8000 times showing CP on sexeducation.com from archive.org?

[Veterans Day]

JUST IGNORE HIM IT'S REALLY VERY SIMPLE. INSTEAD YOU GUYS REPLY TO HIS EVERY THREAD. ATTENTION WHORES LOVE ATTENTION. NOW LET'S GET BACK TO THE MONEY YOU DUMBFUCKS

[Groove]

Originally posted by Eric_aka_RedEyes
Groove,

He didn't say he wants you to shut up. He wants you to show proof. You all love to point fingers. Now point them and show the EXACT PROOF! We all know your opinions... No show us the proof or drop the issue!

I told Lensman that the proof is here:

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/showth...adid=362299&s=

Here's a few samples:



How old do you think the girl in the banner is? Look at the slogan!

And this banner has "Teens" (as opposed to "Adults") as an option:



He used to have this text on his warning page:

Therefore, if you are a teenager visiting this website WITHOUT DIRECT ADULT SUPERVISION THIS WEBSITE IS NOT FREE. The cost per page retrieved is $100 USD dollars each.

ie He was selling entry to his adults only section to minors!

Or how about these metatags:

<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="sex, oral sex, anal sex, safe sex, safer sex, teen sex, lolita sex, sex pictures,sex graphics, sex pix, sex videos, sex mpg, sex chat, sexual intercourse, yahoo, hotmail, icq, odigo, dick, porno, suck, fuck, penis, cock, vagina, tits, ass, hahahaha, pussy, cum">

http://web.archive.org/web/200011191...fuck_suck.html

http://web.archive.org/web/200009170...pussy_xxx.html

Archive.org also had a picture from his site featuring a young (like maybe 13-14) naked Russian girl with a vodka bottle, but they appear to have taken it down in the last 24-hours.

Webby (who I believe is a reliable souce) also says he has hardcore CP and screencaps taken from old versions of Sexeducation.com on CDs. If Lensman were to request copies he might be willing to provide them.

[sarettah]

He is encouraging folks to hotlink images from adult.com's server:

http://www.sexeducation.com/blogs/viewtopic.php?t=73

[Mike Okitch]

To have an opinion about sexeducation being a pedo or not is one thing.

But to have a thread titled "Lensman a pedophile is using Adult.com as a referee!" is another. And in my opinion, it's pushing it too far.

Lensman owns this board and eats people like you, Groove, for breakfast.

Lensman can be many things but pedo is NOT one of them. However, the title of your thread suggests something different.

I'm not Lens but if I where, I would ban anyone posting a thread attacking my integrity. Especially if I owned the board.

Just be careful how you say things man.

[pornstar2pac]

Originally posted by sarettah
He is encouraging folks to hotlink images from adult.com's server:

http://www.sexeducation.com/blogs/viewtopic.php?t=73

Love your sig

[Groove]

Originally posted by Mike Okitch
To have an opinion about sexeducation being a pedo or not is one thing.

But to have a thread titled "Lensman a pedophile is using Adult.com as a referee!" is another. And in my opinion, it's pushing it too far.

Lensman owns this board and eats people like you, Groove, for breakfast.

Lensman can be many things but pedo is NOT one of them. However, the title of your thread suggests something different.

I'm not Lens but if I where, I would ban anyone posting a thread attacking my integrity. Especially if I owned the board.

Just be careful how you say things man.

Oh for God's sake! I was NOT attacking Lensman! And I was not suggesting
that Lensman is a pedo! You are putting words in my mouth!

I was simply pointing out the fact that Sexeducation was citing Adult.com as one of his supporters in a thread where Sexeducation was being accused of being a pedophile. I did not think that Lens would appreciate Sexeducation doing this, so I started this thread to draw the issue to his attention. Sexeducation has since made several other posts (same thread) citing Lensman as one of his supporters. If this is cool with Lens, fine. But if it were me I would not be amused.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Groove
<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="sex, oral sex, anal sex, safe sex, safer sex, teen sex, lolita sex, sex pictures,sex graphics, sex pix, sex videos, sex mpg, sex chat, sexual intercourse, yahoo, hotmail, icq, odigo, dick, porno, suck, fuck, penis, cock, vagina, tits, ass, hahahaha, pussy, cum">

18 and 19 are teen and not illegal, lolita while not allowed on many sites would be hard pressed to be considered illegal . . . have you ever done a Google search for lolita?

also, telling a teen that it costs $100 a page is hardly marketing towards teens

[sexeducation]

They will be banned.
There is no choice now.
They didn't listen to the warnings and they have harmed the financial well being of SexEducation.com.

This really does represent a legal situation.
They must be banned NOW!

[69pornlinks]

for some reason the thread title is misleading

[European Lee]

Originally posted by TheLegacy
you dont have to post it, merely email Lens !! Then its look after.

Unfortunately even doing that would be considered disseminating child pornography over the internet and is punishable by jail time.

Unless Lens see's it himself there is nothing that can be done unfortunately

Regards,

Lee

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by European Lee
Unfortunately even doing that would be considered disseminating child pornography over the internet and is punishable by jail time.

Unless Lens see's it himself there is nothing that can be done unfortunately

Regards,

Lee

That's correct ...
so you send it to the POLICE ...
do you need the contact numbers?

[sexeducation]

ADDENDUM: However, I am sure Lens after 18 months has already seen all the so called "proof" ...

right?

or do you think he's been in this business this long without doing his homework?

fuck man - are some of you guys STUPID !!!!

[sexeducation]

Groove and Webby ...
apologize or be banned.

[Groove]

Originally posted by 69pornlinks
for some reason the thread title is misleading

If people have enterpreted this thread as an attack on Lensman or Adult.com I apologize, this was not my intention. Perhaps in hindsight I should not have used the term "pedophile" in the subject.

I was simply trying to draw Lensman/Adult.com's attention to the fact that Sexeducation was citing Adult.com as a supporter in a context which was likely to reflect badly on their reputation.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Groove
If people have enterpreted this thread as an attack on Lensman or Adult.com I apologize, this was not my intention. Perhaps in hindsight I should not have used the term "pedophile" in the subject.

I was simply trying to draw Lensman/Adult.com's attention to the fact that Sexeducation was citing Adult.com as a supporter in a context which was likely to reflect badly on their reputation.

A comma can make all the difference in the world

[Mike Okitch]

Originally posted by Groove
Oh for God's sake! I was NOT attacking Lensman! And I was not suggesting
that Lensman is a pedo! You are putting words in my mouth!

I was simply pointing out the fact that Sexeducation was citing Adult.com as one of his supporters in a thread where Sexeducation was being accused of being a pedophile. I did not think that Lens would appreciate Sexeducation doing this, so I started this thread to draw the issue to his attention. Sexeducation has since made several other posts (same thread) citing Lensman as one of his supporters. If this is cool with Lens, fine. But if it were me I would not be amused.

The title of your thread was misleading Groove. It says "Lensman a pedophile...". If you would have started a thread saying "Mike Okitch a pedophile...", I would be on you like Homer Simpson on a donut.

I am aware that you did not mean to piss Lensman or anybody off by doing this.

I also understand the purpose of your thread.

But you could have chosen another title.

Just imagine someone starting a thread "Groove a pedophile is using adult.com as a referee". People would read it and think "Shit, Groove is a pedo?" Think of the damage this would do to your reputation! That's the only point I'm trying to get across here.

Cheers

Mike

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Groove
If people have enterpreted this thread as an attack on Lensman or Adult.com I apologize, this was not my intention. Perhaps in hindsight I should not have used the term "pedophile" in the subject.

I was simply trying to draw Lensman/Adult.com's attention to the fact that Sexeducation was citing Adult.com as a supporter in a context which was likely to reflect badly on their reputation.

I accept your apology Groove.
Sometimes punctuation can make a difference in the intended meaning.

Just to make sure your apology is clear ...
without confusion ...
do you believe I am a pedophile yes or no ??

[Groove]

Originally posted by baddog
lolita while not allowed on many sites would be hard pressed to be considered illegal . . . have you ever done a Google search for lolita?

Lolita is a term which refers to pre-pubescent girls who pedophiles find to be sexually attractive. Just because there are a lot of sites using the term is does not make it legal or moral.

also, telling a teen that it costs $100 a page is hardly marketing towards teens

He's selling under 18s access to the "adults only" section of his site!

And who do you think he is targetting with those banners?

[theking]

Originally posted by spunky1
Agreed 100 %..I'm so tired of seeing this shit every day.I wish these people would just ignore him or Fucking get over it already.I haven't seen any proof ,All I see is opinions and accusations

The same here.

[Groove]

Originally posted by Mike Okitch
The title of your thread was misleading Groove. It says "Lensman a pedophile...". If you would have started a thread saying "Mike Okitch a pedophile...", I would be on you like Homer Simpson on a donut.

I am aware that you did not mean to piss Lensman or anybody off by doing this.

I also understand the purpose of your thread.

But you could have chosen another title.

Just imagine someone starting a thread "Groove a pedophile is using adult.com as a referee". People would read it and think "Shit, Groove is a pedo?" Think of the damage this would do to your reputation! That's the only point I'm trying to get across here.

Cheers

Mike

LOL, OK now I get your point And maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I doubt that
anyone would have thought that I was accusing Lensman of being a pedophile.

[sexeducation]

Originally posted by Groove
Lolita is a term which refers to pre-pubescent girls who pedophiles find to be sexually attractive.

However that term has now changed and gone more underground as a result of Google and other search engines.
I've not kept up with the issue but the underground slang changes as fast as the authorities can keep up.

Just because there are a lot of sites using the term is does not make it legal or moral.

No - but they will black listed.
I have personally experimented with some of those terms.
Google.com will black list you.
So don't do it.

He's selling under 18s access to the "adults only" section of his site!

Who is he ??
How were ttey able to do that if the site assuming had a REAL ADULT VERIFICATION SERVICE !!!!
Whoever you are talking about - let me encourage you - to have some courage - and report this issue to the police finally. Fuck you guys - don't you have any courage to deal with the police???

And who do you think he is targetting with those banners? [/B]

Lets see the banners so I can give you an opinion.
Curious - the guy sounds like an asshole.
Who is it specifically - coward???

Or ya - just can't say ... its the - I don't proof but I heard from a friend of a friend of a friends aunt????

[Groove]

Originally posted by sexeducation
I accept your apology Groove.
Sometimes punctuation can make a difference in the intended meaning.

I was *NOT* apologizing to you! I was apolgizing to anyone who thought this
thread was an attack on Lensman or Adult.com as this was not my intention.

Just to make sure your apology is clear ...
without confusion ...
do you believe I am a pedophile yes or no ??

I believe that you've had CP on Sexeducation.com, I believe you've offered to sell minors access to adults-only content, and I believe that Sexeducation.com has been used to attract pre-teens, teens and pedophiles for "sex education" by Dad@ and friends. Do you think it is unreasonable to conclude from these facts that you are pedophile?

[Groove]

Originally posted by sexeducation
However that term has now changed and gone more underground as a result of Google and other search engines.
I've not kept up with the issue but the underground slang changes as fast as the authorities can keep up.

No - but they will black listed.
I have personally experimented with some of those terms.
Google.com will black list you.
So don't do it.

So you were banned from Google for having "experimental" CP terms in your headers?

Who is he ??
How were ttey able to do that if the site assuming had a REAL ADULT VERIFICATION SERVICE !!!!
Whoever you are talking about - let me encourage you - to have some courage - and report this issue to the police finally. Fuck you guys - don't you have any courage to deal with the police???

He is you - Sexeducation, AKA Materblogger, AKA Dad@, AKA John Beacock.
I was quoting you directly from another thread (but you knew that already).

Lets see the banners so I can give you an opinion.
Curious - the guy sounds like an asshole.
Who is it specifically - coward???

Scroll up this thread a bit and you'll see them (but you knew that already also).

Or ya - just can't say ... its the - I don't proof but I heard from a friend of a friend of a friends aunt????

I have posted proof in this thread.

Are you saying that I've fabricated anything that I've posted?

BTW Sexped, I am going out now. So you will have
to play troll with the other kids for a while.

[SmokeyTheBear]

several child porn pictures that have been archived have since been deleted upon request.

LENSMAN , if you contact the archive they will confirm the deletions of child pornography from the servers.