# Searches and incorrect conclusions **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165 "2010-02-08T18:08:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![brownie55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f14d63/32.png) [@brownie55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brownie55)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/21 "2010-02-08T20:31:33Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I know I am waaaay fucking late to this party, if this is not the right forum, please feel free to move it mods. > > I just noticed this in the Pit > > Actually, the Australian Free Speech thread was spun off from the prior DUI thread do to mod suggestions because of a direction it was taking because of _me_. > > The new thread spun out of control, and not in the way you think. It was _me_ who ended up in a lengthy discussion with a mod via PM regarding something I had said many many months ago that was still bugging him. > > **I can tell you I was heartily involved in that Free Speech thread, and at no time did it even dance near issues regarding pedophilia, or even pretend to allude to it.** > > I haven’t been around really since then, and so imagine my surprise when reading all the threads regarding **Cesario** today, starting here in ATMB, then the poll bits, and lastly the Pit. > > Until I saw Giraffe’s Pit OP, and reviewed the Australian Free Speech thread to see if it was the one that involved me - it was! - I didn’t even make the connection that it was the same guy. Whatever his sexual interests are, they were not at issue in that thread as **Giraffe** improperly claimed. > > Again, I repeat I know this is maybe a weird spot for this - I don;'t feel like starting a new Pit thread over it, and every other related thread I have seen is closed, so I don’t really know where to put it. > > The point here is not about **Cesario** so much as that **Giraffe** , in his Pitting Outrage, purported to do research on our behalf, even providing “cites”, but not all of the cites said what he thought they said. > > So readers, be aware enough to not take every cite on face value. Here is your OP in case you have forgotten. I bolded the part where you say that Cesario never alluded to child pornography. Since it’s in the OP of that thread, we can start with you recanting that statement. Then the rest of your argument falls apart. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/22 "2010-02-08T20:41:13Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Neither of those were _my_ threads. > > But the threads were in opposition to the point that he was trying to make - that all Cesario does is post details of his stated predilections, and he did that to draw ireo to the teeming masses on Cesario. > > It was not true about that thread, instead it was a counter-demonstration to the point he was trying to make. > > Perhaps there is a rule about that sort of behavior… That’s ridiculous. What rule would that be? No one can characterize a poster’s contributions to a thread if reasonable minds can differ as to how to summarize that person’s posts? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/23 "2010-02-08T21:47:43Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I never heard of Cesario before those threads, and until I cam back today after a couple of weeks away from the board, despite having been heavily chastized for my own behavior in those threads by a mod, I saw nothing and continue to see nothign off topic in either thread. 1. **Giraffe** ’s original point was that **Cesario** posted too much about children and sex. 2. **Cesario** started the thread “Australian Free Speech Issues,” which was one of the threads **Giraffe** called out. 3. The last fifty or so posts of that thread, in which **Cesario** participates fairly regularly, are about child porn. 4. You “see nothing off topic in either thread.” **Cesario** was, quite clearly, involved in a discussion of Australian child porn laws, which was **Giraffe** ’s point. Amazingly, it was in a thread he himself started, in a way that wasn’t off-topic at all. It wasn’t a thread that was _solely_ about child porn (always a nice type of thread to have) but somehow it steered itself in that direction. How is that a counter-demonstration to the point **Giraffe** was trying to make? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/24 "2010-02-08T21:52:35Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > But the threads were in opposition to the point that he was trying to make - that all Cesario does is post details of his stated predilections, and he did that to draw ireo to the teeming masses on Cesario. > > It was not true about that thread, instead it was a counter-demonstration to the point he was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that I did a search of **Cesario** ’s recent posts and found that nearly all of the posts that appeared in the first two pages of results were either directly or tangentially related to sex, children, or sexual offenses. I was _not_ asserting that every post he makes was an over-the-top celebration of child pornography, but that the pattern as a whole showed someone whose board life revolves around little else. How did that GD thread come about? Because his first three posts in a thread about DUIs were about how unfairly Australia treats pedophiles and how they define child pornography: [QUOTE=Cesario] Some of us have a problem with twitchy guys with guns shining lights in our faces to blind us while “requesting” things, be it information or behavior. And that’s completely ignoring those of us who are members of groups that the police specifically target in a discriminatory fasion. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cesario] Don’t get me started on Australia. Please don’t. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cesario] I take issue with their free expression laws. Particularly the lack thereof. The fact that I can be deemed a criminal for owning a written story is reason enough to take issue with the country. [/QUOTE] The fact that the spin-off thread turned into something interesting for you is great. It doesn’t change the fact that it came about from **Cesario** ’s inability to talk about something besides being a pedophile. > [@](#): > > Perhaps there is a rule about that sort of behavior… Don’t be coy – you think I’m trolling? Because you disagree with how I summarized a collection of threads? You realize that I gave links for a reason, right? I never expected people to take my summary at face value, and anyone was free to present different conclusions than I did. I’m sorry you showed up too late to play white knight to poor **Cesario** , but I’m sure you’ll have other opportunities down the road. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/25 "2010-02-08T22:02:38Z")
\ ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/26 "2010-02-08T22:24:54Z")
Snarktease. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/27 "2010-02-09T01:07:24Z")
> [@brownie55](#): > > Here is your OP in case you have forgotten. I bolded the part where you say that Cesario never alluded to child pornography. Since it’s in the OP of that thread, we can start with you recanting that statement. Then the rest of your argument falls apart. No, my argumetn is that Griaffe’s argumetn falls short. The allusion didn’t happen until weeks nto the thread (after I had left it , but till my point is good). I t was on topic and appropriate, and hence not appropriate for giraffe to make hay of it. If you have some specific part of that thread (prior to my starting this one) that is in anyway like the others that giraffe listed, be sure to list it here. I won’t hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/28 "2010-02-09T01:09:22Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > That’s ridiculous. What rule would that be? No one can characterize a poster’s contributions to a thread if reasonable minds can differ as to how to summarize that person’s posts? The “don’t be a jerk” rule. The Aussie Free Speech thread he referred to was not opened for the prupose of discussing cp , as he alleged. He only sought to fan the flames of hate for the guy. I maintain he could have done a fine job of that without misrepresenting that thread. If you maintain otherwise, by all means enlighten us. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/29 "2010-02-09T01:17:56Z")
> [@zut](#): > > 1. **Giraffe** ’s original point was that **Cesario** posted too much about children and sex. > > 2. **Cesario** started the thread “Australian Free Speech Issues,” which was one of the threads **Giraffe** called out. > > 3. The last fifty or so posts of that thread, in which **Cesario** participates fairly regularly, are about child porn. > > 4. You “see nothing off topic in either thread.” Correct. The thread did not devolve into any discussion about CP at all until WEEKS had gone by, and even then it was limited to a literate discussion of legal matters, nothing titillating at all. Me, I didn’t know before today what I learned from these threads, and even knowing that, I don’t see where that thread is offensive in the least. Take a deep breath and actually read it. If it was someone else’s name on those posts, you wouldn’t even notice them. > [@](#): > > **Cesario** was, quite clearly, involved in a discussion of Australian child porn laws, which was **Giraffe** ’s point. No, his point was that he was a one trick pony, and the discussion in the Aussie thread belies that. Compare those posts to the other ones Giraffe posted. > [@](#): > > Amazingly, it was in a thread he himself started, in a way that wasn’t off-topic at all. It wasn’t a thread that was _solely_ about child porn (always a nice type of thread to have) but somehow it steered itself in that direction. Yeah because a day or so after a heated discussion about how MY pointing out the actual legal situation in Australia is not as free as the Aussies in the thread seem to think it is, earned me a rebuke from a mod, I left it alone. Then there was some sort of news specifically regarding legal vs. illegal porn in Australia. The issue of sexual content and what is allowed and what isn’t allowed was in the thread all along. don’t suggest hat it “veered off that way” because Cesario came along. Read the thread and its predecessor. > [@](#): > > How is that a counter-demonstration to the point **Giraffe** was trying to make? Because the point was that it was the same as the other links, and the other links were of the nature “I am an unabashed pedophile” (as said by Cesario) and this thread was not. If you disagree, feel free to explain the actual side by side posts by Cesario from the threads in question. Sorry everyone, if you are going to bully up, you are going to have to back down when you get called on going overboard. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/30 "2010-02-09T01:29:32Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > **Giraffe** was correct in saying that **Cesario** was discussing child pornography (in multiple posts) in the Australian Free Speech thread. > > ETA: On preview, I see someone else already made this point. I came back in to say that I personally don’t think it’s fair to **Cesario** to start quoting his posts from the Australian Free Speech thread, or other threads, in light of the new do-not-provoke- **Cesario** rule (see Ed Zotti’s post in Cesario’s ATMB thread). ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/31 "2010-02-09T01:34:03Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > The point I was trying to make was that I did a search of **Cesario** ’s recent posts and found that nearly all of the posts that appeared in the first two pages of results were either directly or tangentially related to sex, children, or sexual offenses. But you couldn’t be arsed to check to see if any of them were offensive or not - even when the thread was clearly titled to be about Free Speech. Since I was the actual protagonist for the beginning of the thread - and it did get lengthy, I can tell you “the first two pages” were not about child porn but the nature of Free Speech in Australia. As of this morning when I returned, the thread still seems to be on point and it is about 3 weeks old. > [@](#): > > I was _not_ asserting that every post he makes was an over-the-top celebration of child pornography, but that the pattern as a whole showed someone whose board life revolves around little else. Except that the thread about Free Speech was about Free Speech. Why shouldn’t any of us make an argument for rights using topics we are most familiar with? > [@](#): > > How did that GD thread come about? Because his first three posts in a thread about DUIs were about how unfairly Australia treats pedophiles and how they define child pornography: Which, I learned via that thread, and did not know prior to it, is very very true. Australia does not have Free Speech as we know it, and that was quite surprising to me. I consider my ignorance fought as a result of that thread. > [@](#): > > The fact that the spin-off thread turned into something interesting for you is great. It doesn’t change the fact that it came about from **Cesario** ’s inability to talk about something besides being a pedophile. He didn’t discuss “being a pedophile” in that thread. He discussed the laws relating to Free Speech in Australia, which of necessity cover sexual topics. > [@](#): > > Don’t be coy – you think I’m trolling? Because you disagree with how I summarized a collection of threads? You realize that I gave links for a reason, right? I never expected people to take my summary at face value, and anyone was free to present different conclusions than I did. I am not being coy and I don’t think you are trolling. Quite the opposite. I think you gave about 8 links, and the last one was an afterthought and turned out to not be what you thought it was and now you are twisting to make it into what it is not, when the easier approach is to say - “Yeah, that one was an afterthought, let my case stand without that link”. I gave you credit for being smart enough to figure that out near the top of the link. I still think you are smart enough, but being to defensive right now to see the easy out. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry you showed up too late to play white knight to poor **Cesario** , but I’m sure you’ll have other opportunities down the road. Yawn. I am sure you will rally bullies against a legitimate field of research again in the future too. You may not know it but probably very prison in every state has psychologists who deal with sex offenders, and there are more outside the prison system too. Do you think they are just running around like chickens with their heads cut off? That they have top secret information the masses must not have or be exposed to? Hell yeah I want a “Ask the Pedophile” thread, and I want a “Ask the rapist” thread and I want a “Ask the wife-beater” thread and so on… I’d also like a thread where medical and mental health care providers for these issues opened a "Ask the … : thread. These are topics that are in the public discourse - from discussions to academic research to entertainment every single day. In a place where we are asked to fight ignorance, why would we want to chase those who would provide data, and maybe open an educational discourse, when someone would be generous enough to share with us? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/32 "2010-02-09T01:48:43Z")
[QUOTE=not\_alice] [QUOTE=Giraffe] I was not asserting that every post he makes was an over-the-top celebration of child pornography, but that the pattern as a whole showed someone whose board life revolves around little else. [/QUOTE] Except that the thread about Free Speech was about Free Speech. Why shouldn’t any of us make an argument for rights using topics we are most familiar with? [QUOTE=Giraffe] How did that GD thread come about? Because his first three posts in a thread about DUIs were about how unfairly Australia treats pedophiles and how they define child pornography [/QUOTE] Which, I learned via that thread, and did not know prior to it, is very very true. Australia does not have Free Speech as we know it, and that was quite surprising to me. I consider my ignorance fought as a result of that thread. [/QUOTE] Jesus Christ, are you fucking retarded or something? _I don’t give two shits if that thread ended up being a good thread or not_ – I never said it was an inherently bad thread. But both its inception and its content were part of a posting pattern of **Cesario** ’s that I was complaining about, a pattern which you yourself acknowledge in the above quote as you go on to rationalize why it was OK for him to bring up pedophilia in this instance. Where the fuck is your hard on for this incredibly minor point coming from, anyway? I accept that you feel I should have written the OP of my Pit thread differently. I also couldn’t give less of a shit, and I’m sure as fuck not going to apologize that it didn’t meet your rigorous editorial standards. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/33 "2010-02-09T01:50:52Z")
not\_alice, you’re retarded. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/34 "2010-02-09T02:04:08Z")
Poster posts on (pretty much) one topic. Topic is a um, I’ll go out on a limb here and say controversial one, and many, many Dopers get tired of the one trick dog and pony show by poster. They want him put out to pasture or at least stabled. Another poster realizes that this seems to be a trend, and Pits the above poster, using several threads as cites. Threads do indeed contain if not the actual pony, then parts of the quadruped, thereby proving this poster’s main thesis: Mr Dog and Pony Show needs to get out of Dodge. A third poster now castigates poster #2 for including a thread that actually illustrates poster #2’s point: the dog and pony show poster does indeed drag his one man show into every thread, no matter the topic. This thread does not meet her (heretofore unclearly delineated) standards for acceptable evidence of the horse shitting its way through various threads. All righty, then. I’ll say this: the entertainment value alone is worth the price of admission. (oh, NOT to that dog and pony show; I’m talking about the side show ongoing now.) If it was fiction, it’d be dismissed as too unlikely. This place is amazing. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/35 "2010-02-09T02:12:32Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Jesus Christ, are you fucking retarded or something? _I don’t give two shits if that thread ended up being a good thread or not_ – I never said it was an inherently bad thread. You said he started it for the purpose of discussing child porn, which is clearly not the case. If you feel otherwise, then be specific about the origin of the thread, the tack the thread took in both numbers and over how much time, and make your case. > [@](#): > > But both its inception and its content were part of a posting pattern of **Cesario** ’s that I was complaining about, a pattern which you yourself acknowledge in the above quote as you go on to rationalize why it was OK for him to bring up pedophilia in this instance. No on two counts. My point is that that thread stands alone from the other threads you posted about. If you left that thread out, your point would have more merit. That is what I am trying to say. He did not bring up “pedophilia” in the Free Speech thread except perhaps in the context of the issue of Free Speech, and frankly, I was alluding to it and heading there myself before I got headed off for other reasons by a Mod. The fact is, Free Speech on the Internet, particularly types of porn that are generally offensive, is in the news in Australia right now because 1 - The government has proposed and already tested an internet firewall for the whole country, not unlike China has, and 2) the specific sites and topics that are forbidden are illegal to publish. It is natural to consider where child porn falls in that range, how you would define it, and how you would find it. The truth is, Australia does have a censorship regime unlike most other Western countries, and this new proposal would extend it to absurd lengths. That is what that thread is about, and if Cesario or anyone else would have raised the issue of CP **in context** so what? If it wasn’t him, it would certainly have been me. If you want to pile on the guy for the other threads, have at it, but to suggest that discussing CP in the context of a country-wide internet firewall and Free Speech is going to earn a pitting or even banning because of what someone said in another thread or threads is asinine. It is bullying, and it is group jerkishness, , and you sent out the clarion call for the rabble rousers. > [@](#): > > Where the fuck is your hard on for this incredibly minor point coming from, anyway? I accept that you feel I should have written the OP of my Pit thread differently. I also couldn’t give less of a shit, and I’m sure as fuck not going to apologize that it didn’t meet your rigorous editorial standards. Are you ready to listen or are you asking rhetorically? I will repeat myself in case you didn’t get it before: 1. The thread in question was of a different nature than the other threads 2. I am less than thrilled that the original “As the pedophile” thread was shot down by people who supposedly want their ignorance fought, thereby precluding any erudite or academic discussion about the topic at all. 3. Before Cesario came back to that thread, I was rebuked at length by a mod who apparently was still upset I went against the crowd the last time someone wanted to use the board to seek approval of one’s poor mental health habits may moons ago. I don’t want to be more specific than that out of respect to the people involved. 4. Now the same thing comes along - someone wants to raise certain (other) mental health issues, and the rabble shouts him down. 5. My immediate social circle includes mental health people who work with diagnosed pedophiles and other sexual dysfunctions found in DSM IV for a living. I am quite comfortable hearing about and discussing these matters in the abstract, and I know there is an abstract to be heard. Last time the rabble wanted to hug and to hold when the person needed honesty. This time they are ready to ban posters for being honest in raising an issue - and I saw a few other people bravely put themselves in the same boat. This makes any discussion of controversial mental health matters very difficult to bring up here, yet those are areas we could all stand to have our ignorance fought on. I expect better from the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/36 "2010-02-09T02:13:40Z")
I think that **not\_alice** is just pissed-off that his/her thread ended up with someone elses name in bright lights. Feeling a bit left out, he/she needed to reinstate his/her presence: hence starting up this attention-whoring thread. Either that, or **not\_alice** is just retarded. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/37 "2010-02-09T02:24:59Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I expect better from the SDMB. It would be better if you’d just shut the fuck up already. You’re making a big noise and saying nothing. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/38 "2010-02-09T02:37:48Z")
It may have escaped some Doper’s attention that **Giraffe** used those threads to demonstrate how **Cesario** dragged in his attraction to children, no matter the topic at hand. The thread **alice** is so het up about is actually an excellent illustration of his point. Sure, sex will be part of a topic about Free Speech in any country, but with **Cesario** , it’s not just sex/porn in general, it’s his, um, outlet of choice that must be discussed. The topic could be Tupperware, and **Cesario** (bless his heart) would find a way to introduce child molestation and his desire for it into the thread. Which goes a long way in explaining why Dopers were fed to the back teeth with his skeevy remarks and smarmy innuendoes. Truly, this is not rocket science. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/39 "2010-02-09T02:58:39Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > not\_alice, you’re retarded. > [@tacoloco](#): > > It would be better if you’d just shut the fuck up already. > > You’re making a big noise and saying nothing. Brilliant. Your abilities as a wordsmith are noteworthy and something to aspire to. Fighting ignorance, and all that. I went back over Cesario’s postings, and while **not\_alice** ’s assessment is accurate, it’s ignoring the fact that Cesario did disingenously bring up his obsession. He brought up civil liberties in the DUI thread, and his posting ended up being a tease (“Don’t even get me started about Australia.”). When people asked him to elaborate, he declined to hijack that thread, and opened a new one. Which was, of course, about things (CP) being illegal in Australia. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/40 "2010-02-09T03:09:33Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Take a deep breath and actually read it. If it was someone else’s name on those posts, you wouldn’t even notice them. > > […] > > No, [Giraffe’s] point was that [Cesario] was a one trick pony, and the discussion in the Aussie thread belies that. Compare those posts to the other ones Giraffe posted. [bracketed words inserted for clarity] The point you seem to be missing is that it _wasn’t_ someone else’s name on those posts. **Cesario** happens to _like_ discussing child porn. That’s his one trick. Sometimes he does it appropriately, sometimes he does it inappropriately, sometimes he attaches it to a broader discussion in which case the appropriateness is in the eye of the beholder. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Then there was some sort of news specifically regarding legal vs. illegal porn in Australia. Heh. “Some sort of news” = “two-year-old news story linked to by Cesario.” Which he, charitably, misunderstood. Or less charitably, pretended to misunderstand in order to have a prolonged discussion thereof. > [@not\_alice](#): > > The issue of sexual content and what is allowed and what isn’t allowed was in the thread all along. don’t suggest hat it “veered off that way” because Cesario came along. Read the thread and its predecessor. You’re going to have to make up your mind. Did this thread “at no time… even dance near issues regarding pedophilia, or even pretend to allude to it,” or was “the issue of sexual content and what is allowed and what isn’t allowed… in the thread all along”? If you’re now suggesting that child porn was in the Australian Free Speech thread all along, I refer you to the OP of that thread. Who, I’ve heard, enjoys discussing child porn. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=3)