Reply With QuoteGetting pretty close to jail time there buddy.
This weekend after whating all thises cute young things in the near not even there gear, I got a hankering...
I am loooking for a really petite lady, tits no larger than a-cups, actually the flatter the better.
height, well the shorter the better.
weight, rakish, thats as skinny as.
age >= 18 (they gotta be legal). but any older age will do if they look fine.
I realise this is going to cost me a bomb in a brothel somewhere, but its my current hankering.
Oh, preferably NOT Japanese.
Yes I am a dirty man, last time I got this hankering, I ended up fucking a neighbours wife (the husband was watching), but I have since moved and they a too far to hookup with.
Any suggestions ?
(ok the neighbours wife was cool, she also had a natural bush which made her even yummier)
Getting pretty close to jail time there buddy.
read what was written and he specifies "they gotta be legal". that aint anywhere near jail timeOriginally Posted by bobbybrown
It's a slippery slope.
The fact is, if that disclaimer wasn't put in there, it would be difficult to explain in court.
Last edited by bobbybrown; 26-01-2026 at 09:13 PM. Reason: Grammar
He can’t even spell legal for a start. Only place this’ll cost him a bomb is in court trying to explain his way out before he gets some quality shower time with the inmates. Pass the soap Zac.
This is the kind of post that could bring trouble to this site and people who post on it. Even when the word legal is correctly spelled or misspelled as "leagal".
The administrator of aus99forum.com should really delete this thread for everyone's good.
---No matter how you look at it, punting is a lot cheaper than divorce.---
Going to have to go with andrewv on this. Have read this several times, and that "but" seems to be open to interpretation, especially given the preceding period (even a comma would give me pause).
And have to agree with rubit moore:
"Well, officer, I TOLD him NO, but he wouldn't listen, wouldn't stop. Yes, I will press charges." That's why older punters are safer, we have more to lose if there's a problem, so prefer to avoid complications.
Yeah mate, best keep this fantasy to yourself I reckon. The post really doesn't read well as mentioned by 11Bravo above, that phrasing is suspicious at minimum.
Zacksuck and Bummer. Straight to jail, do not pass go.
This is definitely not ok.
I have to thank 2 brothers from here for the same suggestion.
Yes, bulwarra was a good spot..
She is just a real cutie,& quite young to boot. thanks guys.
Nothing illegal, I don't knwo what these guys who make stupid comments were on about... just jealous
Got halfway through reading his description and thought the same thing
Well yes, AFTER you've edited the original post.
https://www.aus99forum.com/showthrea...=1#post3893696
Editing a post fine, but editing a quoted post... Nah...
OP sounds like a paki or Bangladeshi that’s just recently arrived to Australia.
Nah he's been around for a while.
TBH, I'm also confused why you guys made a fuss about the OP even before he changed it to convey his message more clearly.
He said
"age >= 18 (they gotta be leagal). but any age will do if they look fine."
The first sentence means he's after young girls. The second sentence, meant to counter the first (with a "but") just read like he's ok with older ladies if they looked fine.
I've got no idea how you guys managed to interpret it as he would go for even younger ladies (???) than specified in the first sentence, lolll
It's like saying "I like spicy food. But I like even spicier food as long as it's delicious". Wtf?
.." but any age will do " to me includes younger Gold .. read ANY , that's how others interpreted it
Unfortunately it shows that there is a younger group here who actually are lacking in either reading skills or understanding
age >= 18. this is simply glossed over by the idiots. its a statement.
obviously >= is what is not understood. folks is means simple greater than or equal to. put the words in.
I might have fixed the other bits but most of you missed the basic.
Thank you https://www.aus99forum.com/member.php?25511-GoldfishMan for the added clarification.
The post was about finding "youngish" girls, or at least the implication was, at least as I read it.
Yours is one interpretation: the "but any" reinforcing the age>18 being acceptable, that there is no upper limit. You are assuming that the "but any" refers only to this upper limit, and not to a lower.
>=
"I like spicy (= young) food, even less spicy (> older) food is fine. but any food is acceptable if it's delicious."
OR
"I like spicy (= young) food, even more spicy (> older) food is fine. but any food is acceptable if it's delicious."
HOWEVER (always seems to be one), another interpretation is as Hedonisticfun says:
The statement is girls 18 or over (>=18). But (that troublesome "but"), along with the accompanying "any", can also be interpreted as negating the >= (for the math majors here: ~(>=) which is less than (<) being acceptable).
The >= is no mystery. As you say, basic. It's the following "but any" that is open to interpretation: no upper limit, or no limits. The edit clarifies that there is no upper limit, while the lower limit remains.
The mean girls are alive here!
Looking desparately on AUS99 for a pedo - your are in the wrong place, don't they all live on the dark web?
FWIW there was one last decade that fit the description perfectly and well into the leagal (sic) age range. Her name was sky at 647, also at 64 and 142 - long gone back to Malaysia but you can see her here https://web.archive.org/web/20160520...au/gallery.php
Or you might just get onto this old thread https://www.aus99forum.com/showthrea...l-Fetish/page5
But if you are looking for child porn zacsuck is not your guy, you'll need to download the Tor browser to get started and I'm not sure where you go from there. I hope bad luck finds you if you do
Newbie still learning
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|