So! What books have you been reading?!

nothing funny about talking,writing,viewing or implying using children for sex

period

Are you kidding me with this ridiculous statement? I never once stated or implied anything of the kind regarding children and you know it. You have got a serious mental problem to be making such disgusting accusations like this under the guise of policing this site when it's clear you can't even police your own behavior lately.

Up till now I have avoided getting involved in your petty war with others because it's stupid and pulls every thread you are in off the rails. Every single thread. Instead of letting stuff roll off your back you keep the insults going and going and going and going. You could easily employ the IGNORE option but obviously you don't want to do that because that would interfere with your need to be a troll. -- And I'll be damned if I am going to be the one to put you on ignore because you have a problem with someone else. Your behavior is out of line and I shouldn't have to change my behavior because of it.

You are completely out of line here. I was clear in what I said regarding this book and you blatantly lied by implying I said something diametrically different; something disgusting and reprehensible. That is a BS move on your part, dude.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member

Those other links helped. :) This is NOT a children's book, but it also has been written in such a way that kids would not understand the puns and innuendos anyway. Still, it strikes me personally as creepy. Whatever floats your boat.
 
Last edited:

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
The Expanse Book 1 on Kobo ...I have the hard copies of the next few series books that Santa is going to bring me.
;)

I finished Cibola Burn, and I am holding off on the others until the next season starts. :)
 
Those other links helped. :) This is NOT a children's book, but it also has been written in such a way that kids would not understand the puns and innuendos anyway. Still, it strikes me personally as creepy. Whatever floats your boat.

Yup, that's why I said it reminded me of the James Gunn situation regarding the tweets he wrote that he thought were funny and clever despite being objectively unfunny and downright creepy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
Are you kidding me with this ridiculous statement? I never once stated or implied anything of the kind regarding children and you know it.

i did not say you did

there is no equivalent between adults making cracks at each other and a book that uses sexual innuendo and images of children

i am not policing anything --but forgive me for stating my opinion and that I stand against any suggestion of people using children for sex or as devices in a book such as this one.

the troll is the one who is putting up cracks and remarks that are causing these divisions to occur among us
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
Can we just pause and remember that we are all part of the same dysfunctional family?

As to the book, first its perverted and second it looks like it's almost designed to trick kids into reading it which is disgusting. But banning it here? I'm not at all sure that it is a CCPG issue (which governs permissible content ).

Regarding individuals who may live under bridges, perhaps the best course of action is to just disregard anything perceived as divisive or such. Really I would LOVE for us to grow and gain new members who then engage in the type of detailed discussion this forum is famous for.

Go back in our archives - you will find discussions on not just science fiction shows and films but CONCEPTS in them as well. And in those forums you see DETAILED, at length discussion.

I remember fondly Yongjin going into great detail WHY he liked NuBSG. I did not totally agree with him but that detail and the ensuing discussion actually shifted some opinions and added nuance.

Or again, remember when we discussed the characterization of women in Science Fiction shows? That also was great.

Sorry for the semi-rant :)
 

Twalet Brash

GateFans Member
i did not say you did

there is no equivalent between adults making cracks at each other and a book that uses sexual innuendo and images of children

i am not policing anything --but forgive me for stating my opinion and that I stand against any suggestion of people using children for sex or as devices in a book such as this one.

the troll is the one who is putting up cracks and remarks that are causing these divisions to occur among us

Although the book IS creepy, it does not use "children for sex or as a device". The context of the book is a play on words that could be taken either way. It's a case of perspective, what the words mean to a child and what the same words mean to an adult. I doubt any child would understand the innuendo an adult would get in that book.

Kids' cartoons are filled with jokes only adults get but mean nothing to children. If you've ever watched Spongebob Squarepants, probably the most popular cartoon for children on tv, you would understand. Think about it, Mr Krabs lives in Bikini Bottom.

Here's a short list:

https://www.thegamer.com/adult-jokes-you-missed-in-spongebob-squarepants/

Spongebob is not the only children's show with subtle humor only adults get. Plenty of children's shows do it and none of it is either aimed at or will ever be understood by a child.

You really need to relax and quit the holier-than-thou act.
 
Last edited:

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
As to the book, first its perverted and second it looks like it's almost designed to trick kids into reading it which is disgusting. But banning it here? I'm not at all sure that it is a CCPG issue (which governs permissible content ).


exactly

this is a thread about 'what books are your reading?'

meaning -and as most have been doing, giving a small review of books they have read

this posting of this "book" and its images was not a review

---------------------------------------------------------
on banning and the CCPG, well look at the images

they may not be overtly sexually but the meaning is clear

"his balls are so big i cant get them in my mouth"

what kid puts playground balls in his/her mouth?

come on now...it's plain sick

https://www.rescuinghope.com/2018/01/hidden-dangers/
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
exactly

this is a thread about 'what books are your reading?'

meaning -and as most have been doing, giving a small review of books they have read

this posting of this "book" and its images was not a review

---------------------------------------------------------
on banning and the CCPG, well look at the images

they may not be overtly sexually but the meaning is clear

"his balls are so big i cant get them in my mouth"

what kid puts playground balls in his/her mouth?

come on now...it's plain sick

https://www.rescuinghope.com/2018/01/hidden-dangers/

I'm willing to be wrong.

Lay out the case - what part of the CCPG is in violation here and why do you believe it is such? I'm not saying I disagree with you just that we need to explain the WHY on things.
 

Twalet Brash

GateFans Member
on banning and the CCPG, well look at the images

they may not be overtly sexually but the meaning is clear

"his balls are so big i cant get them in my mouth"

what kid puts playground balls in his/her mouth?

come on now...it's plain sick

You look at those images and they make you think of sex? Maybe the problem isn't the book. Just sayin'.
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
You look at those images and they make you think of sex? Maybe the problem isn't the book. Just sayin'.

Please, let's hold off on the sparring and instead look at this book and images from a CCPG perspective?
 

YJ02

Well Known GateFan
I'm willing to be wrong.

Lay out the case - what part of the CCPG is in violation here and why do you believe it is such? I'm not saying I disagree with you just that we need to explain the WHY on things.

states no sexual imagery

idk, but a cartoon of a kid trying to put a ball in his mouth (again who does that?) while the caption states "wow, your balls are so big i cant even get them in my mouth" is a use of imagery that is a double entendre.

with of course the "risque" part of the entendre is alluding to oral sex

leave it up ,screw it
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
states no sexual imagery

idk, but a cartoon of a kid trying to put a ball in his mouth (again who does that?) while the caption states "wow, your balls are so big i cant even get them in my mouth" is a use of imagery that is a double entendre.

with of course the "risque" part of the entendre is alluding to oral sex

leave it up ,screw it

Good points. I think I can agree that this could be under the "other content" part of the sexually explicit rule.

OM, what do you think?
 

Twalet Brash

GateFans Member
Good points. I think I can agree that this could be under the "other content" part of the sexually explicit rule.

OM, what do you think?

I'm sorry, but, I disagree. You might as well start scrubbing the site of all mention of children's cartoons with adult humor, if that's the case. Once again, I give you SpongBob as a prime example. which is filled with adult humor and innuendo only adults understand. If yongjin02 made "good points" then the picture below (taken from an episode) would send him into a convulsion and he would demand that the Cartoon Network wipe the cartoon from the airwaves.

if the book were explicitly showing children in compromising imagery then I would agree but it doesn't. It's a play on words. It has nothing to do with children in sexually compromising situations. It takes a pretty sick mind to look at that book and think, "Wow! These kids love testicles!"

Yongjin has a problem with anyone who disagrees with him about content posted by people he doesn't like and he will go off the rails in a tirade until either he is told to STFU or everyone agrees with him.

fa0.jpg
 
Last edited:
i did not say you did

there is no equivalent between adults making cracks at each other and a book that uses sexual innuendo and images of children

i am not policing anything --but forgive me for stating my opinion and that I stand against any suggestion of people using children for sex or as devices in a book such as this one.

the troll is the one who is putting up cracks and remarks that are causing these divisions to occur among us

Dude, check yourself and STFU. You absolutely tried to impugn my character with that BS comment by claiming I sanctioned such disgusting crap. Don't even try to rationalize your way out of it because no one's buying it.

And it's clear that the troll who is causing these divisions to occur at this point is you! You are not clever, you are not cute, in fact, you're obvious as shit. I know exactly what you're trying to pull when you make statements like "...forgive me for stating my opinion and that I stand against any suggestion of people using children for sex or as devices in a book such as this one". That's an obviously trollish attempt to smear me and others by implying that we don't stand against such disgusting suggestions. This is a clear case of violating the CCPG on your part. You see, the CCPG doesn't just exist to prevent people from swearing or posting porn, it covers making disgusting insults such as this also.

As a rule I don't engage in arguing on this site and my post history proves it. My post history also proves that I often try to stay on topic when replying in a thread, even when it's been derailed by the 'Gomer Pyle-esque' likes of you. Sure I sometimes joke around with people but I always get back on the train and resume the topic. That's what a conscientious member of this site does; respects the site enough to stay on topic. Clearly you're incapable of that simple feat, I don't know why. Obviously there's a mental issue at work here, a severe personality disorder that needs to be addressed by a trained therapist. We are not trained therapists here so perhaps you should exercise your Tri-care option and find someone local to help you with your issue, n'est-ce pas mon petite navet intellectuelle?

Suffice to say I won't waste time on the nonsense you're pulling so please don't bother replying with one of your BS rationalizations -- again. I'm not interested in continuing this "debate" with you. Believe me, if I had any interest in lowering myself to such a level of discourse I would be better served by chatting with my neighbor's dog that was born missing one lobe in its brain. I definitely would get more out of the experience and so would the dog most likely. (It's interesting to note that the dog was able to be trained not to needlessly bark whereas you, a grown adult human, can't seem to train yourself to obey the simple rules of public politeness and civility, go figure.)

Now I've wasted enough time on your trifling ass and am going back to discussing the thread topic. Additionally, in a wider abstract, the rest of us want to engage in fun and interesting discussions on this site without you constantly thread shitting with crazy, insulting accusations that have no basis in reality. So again, check yourself and STFU. If you can't do that then get lost entirely.
 

Overmind One

GateFans Gatemaster
Staff member
Dude, check yourself and STFU. You absolutely tried to impugn my character with that BS comment by claiming I sanctioned such disgusting crap. Don't even try to rationalize your way out of it because no one's buying it.

And it's clear that the troll who is causing these divisions to occur at this point is you! You are not clever, you are not cute, in fact, you're obvious as shit. I know exactly what you're trying to pull when you make statements like "...forgive me for stating my opinion and that I stand against any suggestion of people using children for sex or as devices in a book such as this one". That's an obviously trollish attempt to smear me and others by implying that we don't stand against such disgusting suggestions. This is a clear case of violating the CCPG on your part. You see, the CCPG doesn't just exist to prevent people from swearing or posting porn, it covers making disgusting insults such as this also.

As a rule I don't engage in arguing on this site and my post history proves it. My post history also proves that I often try to stay on topic when replying in a thread, even when it's been derailed by the 'Gomer Pyle-esque' likes of you. Sure I sometimes joke around with people but I always get back on the train and resume the topic. That's what a conscientious member of this site does; respects the site enough to stay on topic. Clearly you're incapable of that simple feat, I don't know why. Obviously there's a mental issue at work here, a severe personality disorder that needs to be addressed by a trained therapist. We are not trained therapists here so perhaps you should exercise your Tri-care option and find someone local to help you with your issue, n'est-ce pas mon petite navet intellectuelle?

Suffice to say I won't waste time on the nonsense you're pulling so please don't bother replying with one of your BS rationalizations -- again. I'm not interested in continuing this "debate" with you. Believe me, if I had any interest in lowering myself to such a level of discourse I would be better served by chatting with my neighbor's dog that was born missing one lobe in its brain. I definitely would get more out of the experience and so would the dog most likely. (It's interesting to note that the dog was able to be trained not to needlessly bark whereas you, a grown adult human, can't seem to train yourself to obey the simple rules of public politeness and civility, go figure.)

Now I've wasted enough time on your trifling ass and am going back to discussing the thread topic. Additionally, in a wider abstract, the rest of us want to engage in fun and interesting discussions on this site without you constantly thread shitting with crazy, insulting accusations that have no basis in reality. So again, check yourself and STFU. If you can't do that then get lost entirely.


:smiley-money-mouth: I'm not sayin NUTHIN. I already tried to head this off.
 

Hugh Jass

GateFans Cadet
states no sexual imagery

idk, but a cartoon of a kid trying to put a ball in his mouth (again who does that?)

Ah of course yongjackass your so smart!! what kind of kids puts things in there mouth? oh I thought I was stupid but you really took the cake with that one no wait the trophy! you took the loser trophy! Ah but we live in a political correct society so we cant call you a loser so we'll just call you the last winner!

upload_2018-12-12_10-6-40.png
 

Joelist

What ship is this?
Staff member
It states no sexual imagery or other content.
 
It states no sexual imagery or other content.

It's not imagery, it's innuendo. I know that's splitting hairs but they are important hairs to split. Without trying to get too hyperbolic this discussion could be likened to the 1964 Supreme Court debate on pornography. The phrase "I know it when I see it." as spoken by Justice Stewart at the time actually was his dismissal of the material in question as being pornographic. (People often take that quote out of context and use it erroneously.)

So while the book in question is unseemly, creepy and downright crude that doesn't automatically make it pornographic; it doesn't automatically violate the CCPG.

*To be fair I'm not interested in defending this particular book as I find it ridiculous trash, but the underlying abstract question of what is and what isn't pornographic is an interesting topic to examine. I doubt Hugh intended for this to devolve into a study on ethics but nonetheless here we are. His original post makes for a valid and interesting debate on this subject (as long as all parties can be civil and not try to play the game of one upmanship by implying others are perverts by even discussing the topic. :rolleye0014:)

As someone with an analytical mind it seems like something you'd be interested in JL. Although to be fair I know that this isn't the intellectual hill that I want to die on so I won't blame you for not taking the ball and running with it. ;) :icon_lol:
 
Top