So you admit that maybe sending gay snuff torture porn to a 13 year old MAY be a bad idea?
The mind boggles.
Oh, and shut the hell up Myrnaloon.
Where and when did AT actually do that?
Isn’t there a step between suggesting a read and actually sending it that’s fairly distinct?
My apologies. I read into it what was not there. Still, even suggesting it is quite a bit outside of the societal norms.
It is, but not quite to the torches and pitchforks level.
I have to agree with this.
I follow Argent Towers’ writing on the Dope with interest, and have some idea as to who he is - within the parameters of the internet and the Dope - and, within those parameters, I like and respect him. I am confident that he only wanted to give this kid a recommendation for a book that might shake him up a little - not the best choice of book, but a favorite of AT’s, - and the idea of reading something outside of CLM’s usual fare is in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I know the SDMB and AT, and I’ve read a fair amount of work by the author in question. I’m also on the liberal, free speech and non-nanny ends of the axes here.
However, let me put on my non-Doper hat. I am also the dad of a kid about CLM’s purported age. If I were not on the message board in question, if I did not know the poster, and some random person on the internet were recommending that book in a PM to my kid, I would look it up on Wikipedia, then tell my kid not to interact with that poster, and strongly suggest to my kid that they would not enjoy that book at their age. After the second email, I would at minimum contact the board admin and raise holy hell, and cut my kid off from the board.
That said, I hope AT doesn’t quit the Dope. He fucked up, he knows he fucked up, Ed has spoken, hopefully we’re done now.
Bic lighters and barbecue forks okay? 
This thread is already being settled by articulate and capable posters, so your feeble “me-too” and off-board sniping are equally unnecessary.
I have no comment on the OP but I agree with this. I haven’t read a great deal of CLM’s posts but what I did suggests to me that he is a kid-genius with remarkable maturity and worldly knowledge or not a kid. I think the latter more likely.
A flashlight and a spork maybe. 
On reflection perhaps I am just in the wrong thread. Of course I do have an opinion on the state of affairs that mean men have to be circumspect around children, but in this case, my ire is more raised by the idea that on a message board, we have to consider whether or not a poster is old enough to listen to what we say.
I consider all posters to be…neutral. That is why it is irrelevant to me that this began with a PM. Is he old enough to deal with people (postings and private messages) on the dope or isn’t he?
Thats my issue, not the rights or obvious wrongs regarding men advising kids to read pornographic material, so I will shut up for a while
(No taco, I’m not leaving. Couldn’t live without your wit)
Is this a serious post? Really? Don’t know whether to laugh at this, or laugh at it.
Depends. Racism isn’t nearly as serious to me as it is to someone who belongs to a minority, and rape culture jokes and artifacts are much more serious to me than they are to the average man. I like to be able to decide for myself what I get associated with, and wouldn’t appreciate someone else bringing up my name in connection with something that might be very triggering or, because of my personal circumstances, more serious to me than to someone else. I would also prefer that others are given the same courtesy and consideration, especially in topics that are fraught.
But to say that Agent foxtrot is now linked to a thread about inappropriate contact with a minor? What the hell?
How does this thread even come up on google searches? Because the word Hogg is used? Peado? Rape? Surely those words are used hundreds of times across multiple threads?
And by that logic, is the name of each and every person who posted here now linked to google searches about inappropriate contact with minors? You, me, everybody (everybody)?
This is a can of worms indeed. Oh Google indexing, what have you done!!!
Hey numbnutz, what I’m trying to say, but am apparently using too advanced a vocabulary for you, is that it’s NOT YOUR CALL. YOU don’t get to decide for anyone else what to link them to. YOU don’t get to decide what’s appropriate for someone else who isn’t even participating in the thread. Because YOU don’t know if the person in question isn’t participating in a thread because s/he doesn’t care to, or finds the subject matter extremely upsetting, or is forbidden by terms of parole* to have anything to do with the subject of the thread on pain of being returned to prison. Not to mention it coming up on a vanity search. It’s just plain fucking RUDE, but I can see that’s not a compelling reason for you to restrain yourself. YOU can do anything you want to with YOUR identity and name, but you don’t have the same freedom to toss around someone else’s. Especially to make a painfully unfunny, irrelevant injoke. Shithead.
*None of these hypothetical examples are meant to imply anything at all of the poster tangentially referred to. On account of MY mother raised ME right.
I didn’t read this thread, but I know one thing. Fuck babysitting on the internet. If a poster comes to play with the grownups, they may get exposed to some grownup weirdos. I’m not about to start polishing my throwing stones just because someone suggested some creepy reading to a kid that posts on a board that talks about all manners of creepy shit all the time.
Then no one cares.
As they would say back home, “Ye’ve little to be offended about”.
I wouldn’t be so quick to speak for everyone. It makes you look ridiculous.
:rolleyes:
She can speak for me. If you had actually read the thread, you would know that the majority of the posters were not advocating a nanny state but saying that the way in which **AT **went about suggesting a book of questionable subject matter to a minor was irresponsible and stupid. You know who even said so? **AT **himself did. Not one single person has advocated changing the manner in which topics are discussed here for the sake of protecting children, despite the number of posters who fall back on the lazy and misleading “Oh, won’t someone think of the children? Wah wah” sarcastic eyeroll bullshit argument.
Then again, some people did actually read the thread and still don’t get it.