You know, I’m still waiting for the punchline.
Well Cartooniverse here you go. I’m sorry I put into doubt your years of hard work as a cameraman. I still think that 29 years sounds like about a decade over what your actual operating career has probably been, but that’s neither here nor there. As far as your choice to be an EMT, I have always thought it was laudable and never meant to insult you on it.
I think you owe an apology to the people you have slandered, the posters you have ignored, and legitimate victims of sexual assault everywhere, but sadly I don’t think it’s coming. I used to look at you as one of the posters here I respected the most, but this one thread has lowered you in my estimation to the point that I no longer respect you at all.
As to who I am and my credentials, here is a picture of me at work.
I appreciate the sensitivity (honest I do) but I was a victim of abuse too, and while I can also get very emotional regarding pedophelia (I won’t even read the threads about them, I can’t) the abuse didn’t make me stupid. I could see being emotional about something I heard about that’s in the movie, but when presented with accounts from several people who HAVE SEEN the movie and they tell me what I was thinking never happened, I’d hope I’d have the good sense and grace to say “Ooops, sorry, I was misinformed” and apologise.
That would work, Weirddave, if Cartooniverse didn’t fly off the handle on just about every subject you can name.
Try and see him in a thread about dogs sometime. Very, um, well, interesting, I suppose.
Now, Guin, I’ve read all of Cartooniverse’s posts over the last month and he has not once in that time accused dogs of pedophilia.
OK please forgive me for only reading through the first hundred or so posts - half the thread - but…
Roughly 25 years ago, when I was around 9 or so, I found a hardcover book “art” book at the bookstore in the mall. I think it was Waldenbooks.
This book contained dozens, if not hundreds, of fully nude photos of prepubescent females. Many photos clearly showed the hairless outer labia. They were not “spread eagle” photos… there were no adults in any of the photos… and I guess it supposedly had survived a court ruling that it was truly art, not porn, and not of prurient interest.
It was fun for five minutes of browsing in the bookstore but I was (and still am) much more interested in stealing looks at the Playboys/Penthouses which showed PUBES and mature women.
Anybody know WTF I’m talking about?
… and please don’t mention the title or author… I don’t want pedos to find it because of this… I just want confirmation that I’m not crazy and that I didn’t dream it, along with any pertinent legal rulings.
Er…you’re making this rather difficult. As I think I know exactly who you’re talking about…but I’m not allowed to say? Are there roving bands of pedophiles combing the SDMB for hot tips on kiddie porn? And if I don’t say it am I saying I think it IS kiddie porn? I don’t really, although he’s not one of my favourite photographers.
I will just say yes it is in Waldenbooks, and Borders and B&N. Along with Sally Mann and Robert Mapplethorp. And those establishments have been picketed for carrying the aformention as well as He Who Shall Remain Nameless. Apparently all of them have been deemed to not be pornographic. Which of course is a whole other question…is nudity necessarily pornographic?
Soft-focus pictures of naked pubescent girls brushing each other’s hair before mirrors in vaguely Edwardian settings? Respecting your desire for his anonymity, it sounds to me like David Hamilton .
If so, he’s still active as a photographer, and has a pay-to-play website {which I’m damned if I’m linking to}, although I expect - I hope - he’s toned down his act since the late 70’s. His older “art books”, however, now command the big bucks on auction sites.
He exhibited here in NZ a few years back, and was soundly picketed, and his stuff is - to my non-late 70’s sensibility - rather dodgy, but probably doesn’t count as porn - although I’d hate to have to explain to my boss what it was doing on my hard-drive at work.
But Guin, doesn’t your example give more creedance to Weirddave’s theory? After all (and here I mentioned something 'toon has said in past postings multiple times, so I assume it’s not a breech of some kind of etiquette) we know that 'toon was attacked quite savagely by a dog, which is doubtlessly the source of much of his anguish over the topic. The thread which led to his self-ban from the Pit (a self-ban he would be quite well advised to take back up, incidentally) was on the surface about Mormons, but was really about perpetuating stereotypes and labeling people, something which we also know he has significant experience with (on the receiving end).
I think we may actually have something here, and if it’s true then I would like to very, very gently suggest that after taking up the self-imposed ban from the Pit, 'toon seriously consider some therapy to deal with his issues.
Hey, how about when she showed her boobs to the boys in Milk Money?
IIRC, that was Melanie Griffith.
Cartooniverse, I don’t remember ever interacting with you on the boards before, and I definitely haven’t been aware of your posting history, so I hope you realize there’s nothing personal behind me saying you’re acting like a dick. It’s fucking maddening to read through this thread and see dozens of posts telling you nothing you’re complaining about in the OP actually happened in the movie, and you completely refusing to address this point at all. Jesus Christ, any allies you might have made in your argument have been completely turned off by your unwillingness (or inability) to admit you were dead wrong in the example you picked. Everybody else here already knows you’re wrong; you’re not saving face by continuing to ignore the point. So just fucking be a man and admit you’re talking out your ass. I’d actually have more respect for you if you did.
D’OH!
You are correct, Sir or Madam.
I’m a bit late getting to the train wreck, but I have some actual information on-point.
From Roger Ebert’s Movie Answer Man column from October 10, 1999:
Not quite the same, but at least somewhat relevant.
Sorry, I was just afraid that the mods might frown on it and/or someone would try to make me look like some pedo trying to find childporn.
Ok, then I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Jock Sturges. And the mods are free to think I’m the pervert. (Although in that case Joel Peter Witkin is more my taste) 
Pretending to make out? Using that logic, there could be a 13 year old girl “pretending” to fellate someone (not actually doing it but bobbing up and down in front of a grown man), and that would be okay with you…
Is she cute?
I’m kidding!
Not Larry, but if it was required for the story and she wasn’t actually blowing the guy and if they filmmakers had gotten all the approvals (legally, the parents, etc.) then yes, that would be just peachy.