Topic: Hey Bert

+Anonymous A — 7.1 years ago #52,924

How do you expect to explain to your "lawyer" why you have a picture of little girls in swimsuits in your possession?

+Anonymous B — 7.1 years ago, 5 minutes later[T] [B] #561,176

And calling them "eye candy"?

+Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 17 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #561,178

@OP
Why would he need to?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 57 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #561,179

@previous (C)
Because that can make or break his case. If the accusations are legit, he'll be putting himself at risk. How is that not obvious?

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 34 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #561,192

@previous (A)
What to you is inappropriate about kids in swimsuits? When you go to the beach, do you report everyone to the police?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #561,194

@previous (C)
So you're saying an old drunk man having a picture of strange, half naked little girls is normal behavior?

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #561,195

@previous (A)
In what way we're the little girls "strange"?

Also, I'm saying that "normal" or not, it's not his lawyer's business.

Now answer the question I asked you please - when you go to the beach and see kids in swimsuits, do you get the police involved?

+Anonymous D — 7.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #561,196

@previous (C)
How often do you see parents posing the children in sexually suggestive poses?
That is the shit bert searches for.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,197

@561,195 (C)
Strange as in, Bert doesn't personally know them. He presumably found them via Google search.

> When you go to the beach [...]
Irrelevant. That isn't the situation Bert was in by posting that image. He didn't just see girls on a beach casually. He posted an image he saved for himself that solely featured underage girls half naked.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,200

@previous (A)
Legally there is no difference between Bert searching for an image of kids in swimsuits, and seeing them naturally on a beach. Neither one of them is illegal. I'm still not understanding why you think he needs to explain anything to his lawyer.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,201

@previous (C)
I didn't say he needed to. I asked how he would. Why are you defending a pedophile?

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,202

@previous (A)
> I didn't say he needed to. I asked how he would.

And I asked you why he "would" need to and you replied that it will "make or break his case". Try and remember the dumb shit you write, you'll appear slightly less of a retard.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,203

@previous (C)
I still didn't say he needed to do anything.

Stop dodging the question. Why are you defending a pedophile?

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,205

@previous (A)
> I still didn't say he needed to do anything.

What "case" of his will be "made or broken" depending on what he says to his lawyer?

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,206

@561,203 (A)
> Why are you defending a pedophile?

At some point you will have to learn that simply calling someone a pedophile isn't the all-purpose method of avoiding answering a question.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,207

@561,205 (C)
@previous (C)
Nice dodge. So why are you defending a pedophile?

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,208

@previous (A)
I'm not defending you, I'm mocking your backpedaling.

+Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 7.1 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,209

@561,206 (C)
You seem a tad upset with OP for fighting pedophilia, Merrin.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,210

@561,208 (C)
Ah, so you've become a brick wall now. Have a nice day.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #561,211

@previous (A)
You too. Be sure to keep control of your sexual thoughts if you see a kid in a swimsuit.

·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 7.1 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,220

@previous (C)
Nice failsafe, Merrin.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,223

@previous (Jim !a9Y4fazouc)
Nice paranoia post, nonce.

·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 7.1 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,226

@previous (C)
Nice baseless accusation, Merrin.

·Anonymous B — 7.1 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,229

It's great how TG avoids answering questions by twisting words around.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 32 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,231

@561,226 (Jim !a9Y4fazouc)
Nice projection, nonce.

+Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc — 7.1 years ago, 49 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,239

I'd just like to state that being a paedophile isn't a criminal offence. If Bert isn't a paedophile he could get you all arrested for sexual discrimination (yes seriously)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,241

@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
> being a paedophile isn't a criminal offence
It's illegal to jack it to children, which is presumably what you are doing, Bert.

Also, you know we all know you're Bert, right? I mean I know you're a fucking idiot, but I didn't take you for that idiotic.

·Anonymous B — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,242

@561,239 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
> I'd just like to state that being a paedophile isn't a criminal offence. If Bert isn't a paedophile he could get you all arrested for sexual discrimination (yes seriously)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Being a pedophile isn't a criminal offence...

That's a good one.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,243

@previous (B)
> > I'd just like to state that being a paedophile isn't a criminal offence. If Bert isn't a paedophile he could get you all arrested for sexual discrimination (yes seriously)
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Being a pedophile isn't a criminal offence...
>
> That's a good one.

But it isn't.

·Anonymous B — 7.1 years ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,244

@561,239 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
How long did it take you to come up with this one Bert?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,246

@561,239 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Hey Bert/Bliss, let's put your money where your mouth is. Do something about us. Both Namefag and On have challenged you and you have yet to acknowledge it. Do something.

·Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc — 7.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,248

I'm not Bert..

There isn't any offence to be attracted to children.. It's a sexual preference like being gay. Jacking off to whatever you are attracted to isn't illegal either.
Molesting & distribution of sexualised child images is a completely different matter.
Calling someone a paedophile who isn't is libel if any damages were caused by your false claims, just as if you kept calling someone gay who isn't would be a crime.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,251

@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Wanna reply to @561,246 (A)?

·Jim !a9Y4fazouc — 7.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,254

@561,248 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
> if any damages were caused
You don't see us taking this outside of TC, do you? Stop defending an alleged pedophile.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,256

@previous (Jim !a9Y4fazouc)
> Stop defending an alleged pedophile.
> alleged

Because allegations should never be defended against. It makes it easier for the lynch mob.

·Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc — 7.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,259

I will defend anyone who is being bullied unnecessarily.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,261

@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
If the guy you're defending posted a sexually suggestive image of underage girls, I think you don't have much ground to stand on.

·Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc — 7.1 years ago, 27 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,272

@previous (A)
> If the guy you're defending posted a sexually suggestive image of underage girls, I think you don't have much ground to stand on.

This may or not have happened before I joined this site. My judgement of Bert isn't related to heresy, I only see bullying going on here & I've had my fair share thrown at me also.

You don't get to tell me fuck all okay. You ignorant cunt.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,273

@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
> You ignorant cunt

Funny, considering you're choosing to ignore Bert's past indiscretions.

·Anonymous B — 7.1 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,274

@561,272 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
So you're ok with what Bert says regarding these underage kids? You're just as sick as he is

+Anonymous G — 7.1 years ago, 39 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,277

@previous (B)
Just so that EVERYONE IS WELL INFORMED..

Those bits of text were added by TC admin..

+Anonymous H — 7.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,281

@previous (G)
>
>
Proof?

·Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,282

@561,274 (B)
> So you're ok with what Bert says regarding these underage kids? You're just as sick as he is

Well I don't see what the picture is, so I can not comment.

·Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,283

@561,277 (G)
> Just so that EVERYONE IS WELL INFORMED..
>
> Those bits of text were added by TC admin..

If this was on minichan I'd believe it, however I've never spoken to a mod here before except in pm & I couldn't possibly say, if true they should be ashamed of themselves.

+Anonymous I — 7.1 years ago, 4 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,284

@561,282 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Many of us have viewed the pics on MC and TC.
Bert is PEDOFILTH!

·Anonymous G — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,286

@previous (I)
Another filthy liar..

+Anonymous J — 7.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,290

@previous (G)
Liar? You said the girls were 24. Age range was 8 to 11.

+Anonymous K — 7.1 years ago, 8 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,312

@561,239 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation and therefore not a protected class you idiot

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 23 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,313

@561,282 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
> so I can not comment
You're claiming you're unbiased, yet you defend Bert every opportunity you get. Hmmm....

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

+Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 41 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,314

@561,274 (B)

I made that meme, and now regret doing so. All thanks to autists!

(Edited 41 seconds later.)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,315

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
Why were you so quick to believe Bert's pathetic excuse? How would that even remotely be a joke? How are you this gullible? I have many questions regarding your IQ.

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,316

@previous (A)

He made an (in bad taste) joke at Syntax's expense. I believe this, because I was actually there to witness it. What about you, why are you so quick to label Bert a pedo? Obsession would be my guess.

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,317

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
I was there as well. And posting an image like that would never be a joke. Even his attitude about it had no essence of humor or sarcasm. It had no mention of syntax either. He only brought syntax up once people started calling him out.

You're defending a pedophile.

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,318

@previous (A)

He posted it under Syntax's name, fucktard. If you were actually there, you would have known that. You would not even know it was Bert, had tteh not revealed it. Thanks.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,319

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
> Being this defensive over a pedophile

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,320

@previous (A)

> > Being this desperate for a comeback.

If I wanted any comeback from you, I would wipe it off your chin.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,321

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
I remember hearing that comeback in 3rd grade. Careful. Bert might get the wrong idea if you're using disses like that.

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,322

@previous (A)

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that bert is a pedophile, and didn't just make a shitty joke? True, most people would not even search for the image, but Bert isn't most people.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,323

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
> True, most people would not even search for the image, but Bert isn't most people.

Correct. Most people aren't pedophiles.

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,324

@previous (A)

Nice obvious post. Do you even form your own opinions?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,325

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
> Nice obvious post

Thanks for confirming that Bert's pedophilia is obvious and not to be defended. Have a good one, dude!

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,326

@previous (A)

Oh, your a merrin copy cat. That's all, you pedofuck. Carry on.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,327

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
You're*

Also I didn't post anything that even remotely resembles pedophilia. You, however, are defending a pedophile. Makes you think...

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 37 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,328

@previous (A)

About what?

·Anonymous A (OP) — 7.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,329

@previous (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
You're a big boy. You'll figure it out.

·Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1. — 7.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,330

@previous (A)

No please, tell me what plagues your mind.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #561,331

@561,317 (A)
> I was there as well.

Really? Because...

> It had no mention of syntax either.

It was literally posted under Syntax's name.

Congratulations, not only are you a nonce who is creaming himself over being able to write about kiddie sex again under the guise of being 'outraged', but you're also a liar who has no idea what Bert even posted.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

+Anonymous M — 7.1 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,333

@561,318 (Dr.Lewis !uSk4BCgU1.)
> He posted it under Syntax's name, fucktard. If you were actually there, you would have known that. You would not even know it was Bert, had tteh not revealed it. Thanks.

yeah...and I was born yesterday..

·Anonymous M — 7.1 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,334

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,335

@561,321 (A)
> I remember hearing that comeback in 3rd grade.

You were joking about wiping cum off people's chins with a bunch of 8 year olds? Suddenly your giddiness at being able to talk about kiddie sex again on Tinychan becomes clearer.

·Anonymous B — 7.1 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,336

@previous (C)
Kys TG.

·Anonymous C — 7.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,337

@previous (B)
Nice madpost, nonce.

+Kook !!ZFuFsbTdWG — 7.1 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,340

@561,239 (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
We don't have such lawsuits in America. Thanks

+Anonymous O — 7.1 years ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #561,357

test

·Anonymous A (OP) — 6.8 years ago, 3 months later, 3 months after the original post[T] [B] #567,817

Lol bump

+Anonymous P — 6.8 years ago, 38 minutes later, 3 months after the original post[T] [B] #567,820

ITT Anon C gets very excited about some random stranger on an obscure BBS possibly owning pictures of kids in swimsuits.

·Anonymous B — 6.8 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 months after the original post[T] [B] #567,840

@previous (P)
> ITT Anon C gets very excited about some random stranger on an obscure BBS possibly owning pictures of kids in swimsuits.

How much evidence do you need fuckwad?

·Anonymous P — 6.8 years ago, 8 hours later, 3 months after the original post[T] [B] #567,869

@previous (B)
Sorry, correction: ITT Anons B & C get extremely excited about some random stranger on an obscure BBS possibly owning pictures of kids in swimsuits.

·Anonymous A (OP) — 6.5 years ago, 4 months later, 7 months after the original post[T] [B] #578,892

Lol bump x2

Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.