Maybe you saw the posts where I chided people for their ad hominem attacks instead of adding anything substantive to the discussion?
Consider yourself among them.
I discussed that in post #84. Perhaps you would like to respond to it now?
Oh that was my actual insight and wisdom, you stupid git.
“Mob courage” - I do believe you actually do think you’re being clever. That in itself is amusing, although your incoherent pages of ‘argument’ run a good second on amusement value.
Hmmm . . . this mob rule business might have some potential. If we all shuffle to the right, we might be able to tip over not_alice’s computer.
Go stand over there with Fuji.
Post #84 is a page long dissection, I was thinking you could simply quote where I said what you keep alleging I said.
One comment you seem to have gotten really excited about in post #84 was my sentence:
Is this the silver bullet you think proves I said all his posts in the Australia free speech thread were graphic descriptions of child pornography? Because if you read the sentence right after that one, you’ll see where I actually describe the results of my search.
See the colon? That means I’m talking about what is about to follow. I then give a list of links and quotes which summarize his most recent posts, and which I believe support a pattern of posting almost exclusively about sex, children, sex offenders or threads which could be tangentially related to those topics. Including…(wait for it)…the Australia free speech thread. Which, as I have now explained multiple times, was both initiated by and itself contains examples of Cesario’s favorite topic, and is thus part of the pattern I describe.
Now here’s the part where you say that my wording was unclear and how your interpretation was perfectly reasonable, but it’s obvious I need to save face so you’ll be the bigger man and step away. We can all pretend to believe you.
LOL is it possible for this mob to move any further to the right? 
Mommy, Mommy! Make it stop!
OK, I’ll play your game. I’ll get you quotes. But I’ll do it objectively. What would make the OP wrong is showing it to be factually inaccurate. Let’s begin!
The thrust of this OP and this thread:
So Giraffe was mistaken, that’s your claim?
As I read his OP, Giraffe’s point seems to be that Cesario is a shitty person because he is one of “those pedophiles who wants to play with fire by broadcasting their fantasies onto a public forum or whine about not being understood or accepted.” OK, clear enough. Did Giraffe make this case?
He then provides links and examples of Cesario doing just that. Fantasies broadcasted, conditions met.
Then Giraffe says:
In which Giraffe provides additional proof of Cesario’s “whining about not being understood or accepted.”
So Giraffe’s OP contains exactly what he claims it does. Which would make your assertion wrong, as well as your OP. Why in the name of Zeuss’ butthole you find that so hard to comprehend is beyond me but you must be one real piece of samsonite.
All of your free speech bullshit is just so much smoke and mirrors.
Blither, blither, hither, thither.
Pervert reapist.
Just be happy we’re in the same room as not_alice. This is an epic nutter that we get to be a part of.
I didn’t realize your reading level was below 5th grade. You had me fooled all this time I have been on the board. Now I get why you have been ignoring it for 2 pages or so.
One comment you seem to have gotten really excited about in post #84 was my sentence:
Back to rhetoric class for you. Free Speech is not about sex, children or sex offenders.
Not only that, I am sure if you search, Cesario is not on anywhere near all Free Speech threads.
Nor is he on anywhere near all threads about children, I would wager.
Which is pretty much what you claimed we would find if we searched.
You were pitted for an over the top presentation of what might have been a sound case had you kept it more narrow and focused.
I still maintain that is true.
I was initiated by him because IIRC , I was leading the DUI thread towards free speech, someone, maybe a mod, suggested the thread should be split, and then magically it was.
Are you suggesting he saw an opportunity only weeks away to discuss CP in a free speech context if only he split the thread and let me say my piece until I got modded out?
That seems like a lot of trouble for a guy who, as you can say, jumps into virtually every thread about children, doesn’t it?
Your wording WAS unclear according to what you wanted to say. That was my original pitting of you.
My interpretation of what you actually said as opposed to what you may have meant to say, was and remains, spot on.
If you didn’t really mean Cesario is in practically every thread about children etc., and that you don’t truly believe that Free Speech is about children, etc., then we might be getting somewhere.
What? You want to make it more complicated for you to save face by taking on the task of demonstrating persuasively that others are pretending to believe me, and will act as though they do believe me when called on it?
Don’t be so hard on yourself man.
Just back out the over-excited claims in your pit OP, edit a bit and it will be fine.
Or, make the case that Cesario sticks his head into even the preponderance of threads about children, as you claimed, let alone the other topics, and I will be quick to apologize for the whole kerfuffle.
Ahhh, I see.
He wasn’t hung. He wasn’t banned. He was Pitted. He was not even pitted by that one thread or his post in it, but by several posts including the OP in that thread.
Okay. Y’know what? Fine. I’m about to go for the day, and I’m ready to put this shit to bed.
The Australia Free Speech Thread, as submitted and posted to by Cesario:
I’m going to leave the OP out of it, as the reference to child pornography is right there for all to see.
Is seven enough for you, not_alice? Because there are at least four more along the same lines. So either you haven’t read the thread that you’re claiming other people haven’t read, or you completely glossed over massive chunks of it and hoped we would, too. Which is it?
This is the thread that Not_Alice’s OP stated “never alluded” to child pornography.
Seeing as there is presently a very un-pitworthy civil discussion going on with a pedo who started his thread in the Pit out of the mistaken assumption that he would be flamed, how about, just for shits and giggles and mob rule and all, we move his thread to IMHO as an “Ask the pedophile” thread, given that it is so much more difficult to flame people in the Pit than in IMHO? :smack:
I’m really starting to think you might actually be retarded. How do you read “his posts in this free speech thread are consistent with a pattern of posting on topic X” as “free speech is about topic X”? How do you read “nearly all of his recent posts are on topic X” and rewrite it as “he posts in every thread that is started on topic X”? I’m honestly curious.
How on earth do you point a sanctimonious finger at someone else’s OP for how they summarized a set of posts while writing flat out lies like that? Doesn’t it make your head hurt?
It is a figure of speech, this “hanging” thing, and you realize it refers to Cesario, not Giraffe, right? Just checking…
Yeah, those posts were really offensive and similar to the other ones.
Look, I know we are four pages into this, but it is still not too late to understand the OP before posting material that makes my point for me. You are arguing as me for me, and neither of us has time for that 
Look at post 84 for a clarification of the OP if that helps.
Bottom line: No one raises an eyebrow with the posts you list, they are innocuous, in context, and generally correct in their assessment of the relevant law and news as I understand it (which is certainly open to debate).
You are trying to hang Cesario with every post he ever makes, and that is overstepping it.
How on earth do you point a sanctimonious finger at someone else’s OP for how they summarized a set of posts while writing flat out lies like that? Doesn’t it make your head hurt?
[/QUOTE]
What makes my head hurt are your ad hominem attacks on me in defense of the indefensible - that the Australian Free Speech thread was an attempt to get off on his pedophilia and to work that thread until he could talk about CP.
You know there are probably attorneys that work on nothing by CP cases, right? You know it is possible to discuss the topic rationally, right?
You no longer seem to allege that those posts were salacious in any fashion, so tell us, why do they make the point that the poster should “shut the fuck up, you gross fucking asshole” (quoting you) when they could have been posted by any literate defender of Free Speech?
Look, the rest of your case, I am fine with if you want to make it. I don’t have to agree he is so evil as you do, but if you feel so, go ahead and say.
But the issue here is that you were blinded by outrage towards a person, and missed that some posts you accused of being less than innocuous were nothing but.
No one likes to hear that, but it is true. Sure, all of us would re-edit nearly every post we make, you, me, cesario, pretty much everyone, it is the nature of discussion boards, but it is your over the top outrage that affects Free Speechers (to coin a phrase) when it was not needed to make your anti-Cesario case that cause me to pit you.
Does that help?