Discussion:
Abusers And Rackets
(too old to reply)
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-09-15 15:37:36 UTC
Permalink
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts". Some things are just obvious to most people. You are purposely ignorant. Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen", which in his own words confirms the student saw something. How stupid are you?
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
Ilya was there and he has stated the librarian was notified:
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol) and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
I've seen your fat sow of a wife. You are obviously no stranger to masturbation.
George J. Dance
2019-09-15 16:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===

That's just in case you start whining about snipping.

snip
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-09-15 17:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.

Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
George J. Dance
2019-09-15 17:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it.
[sic]

Oh, the poor dear. A homeless person went into "her" library and used a computer! I'm sure the poor thing
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Perhaps the fact you think they're my "allies" is why you call them all "pedos and perverts". That looks pretty "obvious" from here.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian.
- meaning (once again) that he didn't know.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Both could have happened.
In which case, the librarian did nothing - indicating that they didn't believe her any more than the police did.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
The poor thing couldn't remember 911?
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Of course it's relevant to the fact that Vicki accused someone of masturbating in public, that no one (from librarian down) backed up her claim, or did anything about it.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
It certainly was, in Joe Arpaio's department. And then they took him back to the police station, booked him, and strip searched him. That would have turned up enough evidence to charge him; and they still didn't; therefore ...
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
So she said.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did.
Like I said.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How fucking stupid are you?
Notice I don't have to ask you that? You're more than willing to show me, unasked.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
I never claimed I lived in Toronto.
That wasn't addressed to you, but to the person who wrote it - whom you have claimed was posting from Toronto, remember.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Who else has claimed that?
A number of your fellow fake accounts have claimed that fake "George J. Dance' posted from Toronto, more than once.

I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again.
Any time.
Michael Pendragon
2019-09-16 04:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it.
[sic]
Oh, the poor dear. A homeless person went into "her" library and used a computer! I'm sure the poor thing
I'm keeping out of the whole "he said/she said" argument, because there's no way to prove or disprove anything. But I am interested in your statement that Ilya was homeless at the time. IIRC he didn't mention it anywhere in this thread. Are you privy to additional information (an email, perhaps) that confirms this?
George J. Dance
2019-09-16 09:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it.
[sic]
Oh, the poor dear. A homeless person went into "her" library and used a computer! I'm sure the poor thing
I'm keeping out of the whole "he said/she said" argument, because there's no way to prove or disprove anything.
I can understand and appreciate that.
Post by Michael Pendragon
But I am interested in your statement that Ilya was homeless at the time. IIRC he didn't mention it anywhere in this thread. Are you privy to additional information (an email, perhaps) that confirms this?
No, nothing like that; he said he doesn't want to discuss it, so we haven't. I think it's from the 15-year-old thread NG linked to, the one in which Kevin and Ilya had their "freak - moron" exchange; IIRC, Ilya said in an earlier post on it that he was temporarily homeless at the time. I'll look for that, but I'm hoping this information will help you find it before I do.
Roger Delaney
2019-09-16 09:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it.
[sic]
Oh, the poor dear. A homeless person went into "her" library and used a computer! I'm sure the poor thing
I'm keeping out of the whole "he said/she said" argument, because there's no way to prove or disprove anything.
I can understand and appreciate that.
Post by Michael Pendragon
But I am interested in your statement that Ilya was homeless at the time. IIRC he didn't mention it anywhere in this thread. Are you privy to additional information (an email, perhaps) that confirms this?
No, nothing like that; he said he doesn't want to discuss it, so we haven't. I think it's from the 15-year-old thread NG linked to, the one in which Kevin and Ilya had their "freak - moron" exchange; IIRC, Ilya said in an earlier post on it that he was temporarily homeless at the time. I'll look for that, but I'm hoping this information will help you find it before I do.
Exactly.... I.S. said let it end so let us do so...……..
Conley Brothers
2019-09-16 20:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
Spot on, Clay. Ilya has pervert written all over him and the newspaper article backs it up.
Perry Winkle
2019-09-16 23:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Spot on
Shut up, you forging fool..................
Will Dockery
2019-09-19 16:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
Spot on, Clay. Ilya has pervert written all over him and the newspaper article backs it up.
It appears that way.
Will Dockery
2019-09-21 14:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
Spot on, Clay. Ilya has pervert written all over him and the newspaper article backs it up.
Justice was served and Ilya was per-walked out of there.
Will Dockery
2019-09-21 14:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>

Speak for yourself, forging troll.
General Zod
2019-09-21 22:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
Fucking foolish trolls.....
Will Dockery
2019-09-22 04:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by General Zod
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
Fucking foolish trolls.....
Smarmy little toads...
General Zod
2019-09-22 06:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by General Zod
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
Fucking foolish trolls.....
Smarmy little toads...
Total motherfucking fuckwits...…….
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-21 18:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Will Dockery wrote on Sat, 21 September 2019 14:43
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
The obsessed idiot seems incapable of anything but his fixation with you, Doc.........
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-21 20:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Will Dockery wrote on Sat, 21 September 2019 14:43
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
Fucking cowardly trolls, have to hide behind forged names.......
Bodeen
2019-10-21 23:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Will Dockery wrote on Sat, 21 September 2019 14:43
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
Fucking cowardly trolls, have to hide
Right, "Zod". My name is George Sulzbach and I'm a Columbus bum who lives off the hard work of others. I live in a donated tent, eat donated food, drink booze from panhandle money. What a life!
Zod The Mighty
2019-10-21 23:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bodeen
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Will Dockery wrote on Sat, 21 September 2019 14:43
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Will Dockery
Justice was
<snip>
Speak for yourself, forging troll.
Fucking cowardly trolls, have to hide
Right, "Zod". My name is
You are a lying forger, actually.....
Lady George Bunny Sulzbach
2019-09-22 04:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
Spot on, Clay. Ilya has pervert written all over him and the newspaper article backs it up.
Justice was served and Ilya was perp-walked out of there.
Right on, my nigga.
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-09-23 20:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lady George Bunny Sulzbach
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
Spot on, Clay. Ilya has pervert written all over him and the newspaper article backs it up.
Justice was served and Ilya was perp-walked out of there.
Right on, my nigga.
Racism noted.
General Zod
2019-09-23 21:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Racism noted
Racism by a forging fool you mean...........
Brother Dave Dockery
2019-09-24 17:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by Lady George Bunny Sulzbach
Post by Conley Brothers
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How stupid are you?
I wouldn't presume to compete with you, Bronybrooke.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so)
"It takes absolutely no courage to get up from one's seat and go see a librarian."
He has also stated that was obviously what she did.
Yet the police reported that Vickie called them, not the librarian.
And Ilya said she obviously went to the librarian. Both could have happened. It's unlikely she even knew the number of the campus police.
Maybe she went to the librarian for that number, while we are making assumptions. It's irrelevant to the fact that the victim reported a man masturbating in public.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
How do you prove something someone was doing 20 minutes ago?
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
It depends on the gravity of the crime. Are you saying forensics should have been brought in? They took the easy route and charged him with another crime. It's common.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Or you can believe Ilya who has said he was massaging his abdomen (lol)
One can believe that. But one can't believe that Vickie saw that.
Vickie saw a man jerking off in front of a computer.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and that it was obvious the victim went to the librarian.
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
He said she OBVIOUSLY did. How fucking stupid are you?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
===
That's just in case you start whining about snipping.
snip
I never claimed I lived in Toronto. Who else has claimed that? I don't live on this newsgroup like you and your other Stooges. That should be an easy claim for you to back up.
Thanks for bumping this up to the top again. I'm sure Ilya appreciates it.
Spot on, Clay. Ilya has pervert written all over him and the newspaper article backs it up.
Justice was served and Ilya was perp-walked out of there.
Right on, my nigga.
Racism noted.
Will and George dislike niggras more than me.
Will Dockery
2019-09-24 17:28:58 UTC
Permalink
<snipped for focus>
Post by Brother Dave Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
aka a forging fool.
Post by Brother Dave Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
<troll snip>
Post by Brother Dave Dockery
Will and George
Are your two biggest obsessions, forging fool?

We know.
General Zod
2019-09-24 23:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
<snipped for focus>
Post by Brother Dave Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not.
Police have been able to solve cases that were more than 20 minutes old, you know.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
aka a forging fool.
Post by Brother Dave Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Oh, one can believe that: Ilya didn't see Vickie go to the librarian, and never bothered to find out.
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
By the way, it could have been an assistant librarian, in which case also a student.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
===Text restored===
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
<troll snip>
Post by Brother Dave Dockery
Will and George
Are your two biggest obsessions, forging fool?
We know.
A damed cowardly fool I says...............
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-09-26 03:34:24 UTC
Permalink
I'm a damed cowardly fool I says...............
Tell us something we don't know, sperm ball George.
Will Dockery
2019-09-26 03:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Tell us something
How about that you're an obsessed, forging fool?

;)
Reverend Zod
2019-09-26 04:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Tell us something
How about that you're an obsessed, forging fool?
;)
I know ……

Nothing but a forging coward, hiding behind identity theft....
W***@none.i2p
2019-09-27 16:48:48 UTC
Permalink
zodthemighty1 wrote on Thu, 26 September 2019 04:56
Post by Will Dockery
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Tell us something
How about that you're an obsessed, forging fool?
;)
I know ......
Nothing but a forging coward, hiding behind identity theft....
A rather desperate one, at that.

:)
General Zod
2019-09-27 16:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
I'm a damed cowardly fool I says...............
Tell us something we don't know, sperm ball George.
I can take a whole fist up my ass. How's that?
Michelangelo Scarlotti
2019-09-19 18:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/George_Sulzbach
Will "Dick ain't tiny gut is just huge" Dockery.
2019-09-20 03:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michelangelo Scarlotti
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How shameful, making sport of the victim.
I'm "making sport" of you, Bronybrooke, for calling her a victim. Big difference.
She is a victim, no matter how much toy try to whitewash it. Your defense of allies is admirable. It's too bad most are pedos and perverts. Maybe they that's why they are your allies.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
You have no idea where she was sitting
You mean she may have been sitting beside him, staring at him rather than her computer screen? That's possible, though it's hard (pi) to imagine her sitting next to someone she didn't want in the same room with her.
Nobody said she was sitting right next to him but your fantasy has been noted, creep. She is allowed to sit where she wants and what makes you think Ilya was seated first? You make many stupid presumptions, Columbo.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, the size of the computer screen, or just how hard Ilya Shambat was "going to town in his shorts"
We don't even know if she saw anything at all but a guy at a computer, FTM.
Of course we do and she notified the librarian as noted by Ilya himself. She risked filing a false police report because he was homeless? Are you serious? BTW, what does a homeless guy even look like? Are you saying Ilya was so disheveled it was obvious?
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Some things are just obvious to most people.
Meaning they don't think about those things. While some people do use their brains to think about them. We can see which type you are, Bronybrooke.
It doesn't take much imagination to know what a man masturbating looks like. He was obviously putting on a show while "going to town in his shorts". What's with the silly assumption I am another poster here?
Is it another one of your wild guesses with nothing to back it up? I do like the Brony part, admittedly.
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
You are purposely ignorant.
Ilya already admitted he was massaging his "abdomen"
- but, as he also admitted, he has no idea what, if anything, Vickie saw; like you, he just thought something was "obvious" and didn't think any more about it.
Of course not, until he saw her obviously go to the librarian. Even if she called the cops herself, which Ilya denies, he knew enough to stop masturbating or "massaging his abdomen".
Post by George J. Dance
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
, which in his own words confirms the student saw something.
Of course Vickie saw something: she saw a homeless guy in her library, and got all uncomfortable about it. That's the only fact we know about her.
Proof of that? We do know she had the police notified for him masturbating. There is no proof she even knew he was homeless. Again, what does a homeless person look like?
https://pennyspoetry.fandom.com/wiki/George_Sulzbach
Good point.
Will Dockery
2019-09-15 18:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
How shameful
<troll snip>

Your malicious stalking and forging of a person who doesn't even post here, impersonator troll?

We know.
High Number
2019-09-15 21:25:11 UTC
Permalink
The lady obviously made a mistake.
The lady needs a name. So, since she's anonymous, let's call her "Vicki" (for "victim").
How is it obvious, because Ilya denies it?
For one thing, fake, "Vicki" told the police he was "using a computer", meaning he was facing the computer screen. So, unless she was right behind him, looking over his shoulders, she couldn't have seen his hands. Try to think.
I'm more inclined the believe the lady who obviously saw fit to notify the police.
Yet the librarian (who obviously did not see fit to do so) and the police (who obviously did not see fit to charge him with that) did not. It seems I have to choose whom to believe: them, or a p.o.s. who lies even about his name. What a dilemma!
Going to town masturbating (her words) does not look like someone with lower abdominal pain.
I've never seen a person at a library computer doing either, fake; but I'd be interested in your research on that point. How often do you go to libraries to observe those phenomena, how many people have you observed (from the back), and what are the significant differences you've noted?
BTW (since you and the other fakes claim you live in Toronto): Have you ever made any posts to aapc as "George Dance" from a Toronto library?
Nailed it G
G***@none.i2p
2019-09-19 23:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for the read Ilya S.
BumpMaster 3000
2019-09-20 13:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Ah, but you were convicted of trespassing. Twice.
Only once.
You said you were in jail for it twice. Sounds like you took a plea
bargain.
The first time around, the accuser did not show up.
So you saw her go to a librarian? Oh, man. I'm curious as to why you
felt entitled enough to go there, let alone stay there. How many times
were you told to stay out of there?
I didn't see her go to a librarian, but it's obvious that that's what she did.
You're not doing any better, even at this late date. The same old
failed tricks still aren't flushing. At least the support groups you
used to troll for victims aren't active these days.
material that I believed would have been valuable for people on these
groups.
OMFG. I wish I still had the email from one of your victims that
detailed your actions as I would ask her permission to publish it. How
do you think I found out about your trolling in the first place?
I don't troll, I have original ideas that I post. I know nothing about this supposed victim, I only know that I have no interest in victimizing anyone.
Thank you for speaking up Ilya.... you can be sure we have your back on this as long as you want to wax your carrot in public.
Олицетворение отмечено George Sulzbach
George Sulzbach
2019-09-22 20:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Worth another read. Reminds me of the times I masturbated in movie theaters showing kids movies.
General Zod
2019-09-22 21:38:50 UTC
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
True, well worth another read.............
Zod
2019-09-27 21:35:28 UTC
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Well put I.S.
Will Dockery
2019-10-04 17:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zod
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Well put I.S.
I'll second that.

;)
Perry Winkle
2019-10-04 14:38:34 UTC
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
Worth another read
Nova Express
2019-10-04 21:30:34 UTC
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Exactly.....

Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,........
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-10-06 11:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nova Express
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Exactly.....
Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,........
The victim says differently. Why would she risk being charged with filing a false police report? No, Ilya was jerking off in front of her. He put his dick away when he saw her report it to the librarian. In essence, that was destroying any evidence. The cops would have to catch him in the act. Ilya already mentioned he was giving a reiki treatment to his groin. Who really believes that?
Bodeen
2019-10-21 17:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by Nova Express
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Exactly.....
Ilya was not supposed to be in that area but he did not do what was said of him,........
The victim says differently. Why would she risk being charged with filing a false police report? No, Ilya was jerking off in front of her. He put his dick away when he saw her report it to the librarian. In essence, that was destroying any evidence. The cops would have to catch him in the act. Ilya already mentioned he was giving a reiki treatment to his groin. Who really believes that?
She's a lying cunt, as George Dance has explained on here. She hates bums like me due to her jealousy.
Michael Pendragon
2019-10-21 18:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bodeen
She's a
You're a misogynist forger troll.
Will's hissyfits are always good for a laugh.
High Number
2019-10-06 21:44:33 UTC
Permalink
I thought this thread was to be ending...?
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
HTH & HAND.
That's the facts, Jack.....
Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
2019-10-07 02:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by High Number
That's the facts, Jack.....
The police were notified that Ilya was jerking off. What sort of evidence could they find after the fact? The victim saw fit to report it to the librarian according to Ilya himself. The police were called and Ilya stopped jerking before they arrived. They have to witness the crime in progress much like when you do those nasty little things in the bushes.
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-21 19:26:35 UTC
Permalink
fake claydockery78 wrote on Mon, 07 October 2019 02:43
Post by Clay "BronyBoi" Dockery
Post by High Number
That's the facts, Jack.....
The police were notified
And found no evidence for the accusations.....
G***@none.i2p
2019-10-07 02:49:32 UTC
Permalink
The police were called and found nothing.
Conley Brothers
2019-10-07 17:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@none.i2p
The police were called and found nothing.
What do you expect the police to have found? Ilya simply pulled his hand out of his shorts before the cops arrived. There was nothing to find just like when you, George Sulzbach, was spotted jerking off to children at the playground. After the fact, the cops can't do much.
Perry Winkle
2019-10-07 07:30:21 UTC
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Excellent essay, Ilya S.
Ibish, what are your thoughts on self-abuse performed in, for instance, university libraries?
This is why some questions do not have a yes-or-no answer.
If I am asked whether I'm still doing something I've never done, there is not a yes or no answer to that question. If I say yes then I say that I did it and stopped doing it; if I say no then I say that I did it and stopped doing it. Neither would be correct.
In such situations the question itself is malformed. The correct solution is flushing it down the toilet and demanding an honest question.
Good response to a lie repeated by a malicious troll, which I see has been repeated yet again, by another sleazy troll... this same post works for that one, as well.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020617195307/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/93/159/07_1_m.html
"Police located Shambat, who was using a computer for non-research purposes, and did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating.
Shambat told police that he had a pain in his lower abdomen and he was massaging the area.
He added that he was looking at poetry and writing to a friend on the computer..."
"Police... did not observe evidence that the man had been masturbating."
;)
Nailed it Doc...……..
Perry Winkle
2019-10-07 23:33:23 UTC
Permalink
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Well put Ilya S.
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-21 18:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Bodeen
She's a
You're a misogynist forger troll.
Will's
You are totally obsessed with Will......

We know.......
Bodeen
2019-10-21 18:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bodeen
She's a
I'm a misogynist forger troll.
Will's dick
I am totally obsessed with Will Dockery and suck his Usenet cock night and day.
That be true
Z***@none.i2p
2019-10-21 19:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Fake zodwetrust wrote on Mon, 21 October 2019 18:59
Post by Bodeen
She's a
I'm a misogynist forger troll.
Will's dick
I am totally obsessed with Will Dockery and suck his Usenet cock night and day.
Pendragon didn't write that but it fits, sadly enough....
Michelangelo Scarlotti
2019-10-21 20:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Z***@none.i2p
Fake zodwetrust wrote on Mon, 21 October 2019 18:59
Post by Bodeen
She's a
I'm a misogynist forger troll.
Will's dick
I am totally obsessed with Will Dockery and suck his Usenet cock night and day.
Pendragon didn't write that but it fits, sadly enough....
Why should I write a fake "zod" post, Stink? Your real posts are funny enough.
Z***@none.i2p
2019-11-01 14:08:03 UTC
Permalink
ibshambat wrote on Wed, 21 August 2019 00:22
There are many people - both men and women, but more frequently men - who think badly about their partner yet insist on staying with the partner.
"If I'm so bad, why are you with me?"
Attempting to justify oneself in situations like that is nothing but bait for further abuse. One does not owe the next person self-justification if he chooses to act that way. Rather the solution is to reveal the dishonesty of the partner's conduct. If you were really bad, then the partner would not want to have anything to do with you. And if he insists on staying, then that means he's getting something out of the relationship.
The behavior of the attacking partner in such situations is that of theft. He gets lots of things out of the relationship; but instead of being fair and rewarding his partner with good treatment for all that he gets out of the relationship, he chooses to become abusive to his partner. He gets what he wants from his partner, then he attacks the partner. This is not rightful conduct, and men who do that must be revealed for the scoundrels that they are.
When attacked on moral grounds, the best solution is to see the moral corruption in the attacker. A relationship partner who behaves in this way is not morally rightful; he is vastly morally in the wrong. If he got nothing from the relationship, then he would go. Instead, the abusive partner gets huge things from the relationship; and instead of rewarding his partner with good treatment he instead decides to treat her like dirt.
The moral problem here is not with the person who's being attacked. It is with the person who is doing the aggression. Instead of wasting one's energy and one's time trying to justify oneself to such a person, the real solution is to call his bluff. If one was really bad, then he couldn't wait to leave the relationship. And if he chooses to stay, then that is because he is getting something out of the relationship; which means that he is obligated to treat his partner right.
Some rackets are done deliberately, and others are not as deliberate. In either case what we see is a racket. The more people who are vulnerable to abuse learn to see through such rackets, the more honest the people's existence.
And that means: More ethical, for real.
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
Well put Ilya S .........

Loading...