- Registrado
- 17 de Nov, 2020
Jannie are you okay?
So, Jannie are you okay?
Are you okay Jannie?
You've been hit by,
You've been struck by,
A Dang, Dirty Troll
💰 Grifter Kino Casino - Read Kiwifarms with abortionist A-a-andy Warski and lardy PPP. A lolcow drama show. 2/28/2019, never forget.
- Iniciador del tema Fslur
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 DDoS attack. Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/.
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack). -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Jannie are you okay?
So, Jannie are you okay?
Are you okay Jannie?
You've been hit by,
You've been struck by,
A Dang, Dirty Troll
All becomes gunt
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Jul, 2020
- Registrado
- 22 de Mar, 2021
Calm down PPP, just accept it that Tardski did it
All becomes gunt
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Jul, 2020
BONECRVSHER
those who know....RandomShirtlessMan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 6 de Feb, 2022
My nigga, the WEBSITE OWNER came here to tell you were being fake mass reported for spamming, never showed the receipts and then threatened to ban YOU for daring to disagree on CP details, as he also came here early this year to remove the caps text from the thread header because "ITS NOT TROO". MEANWHILE, the thread lolcows consistenly harass other lolcows with CPS (RTU, Aselieri) and on their own words, "gild the lilly" so retards like @MilkSports_2018 donate their disability checks.
Its not sweeping anymore, this is full blown 9/11 coverup ops.
GoharMaria
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 26 de Sep, 2023
I come to this thread to shit on kino casino when it deserves to be shit on, all becomes gunt is clearly just a jealous faggot, and almost assuredly fatter than PPP
All becomes gunt
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Jul, 2020
If that was true then Josh would be in love with me.
- Registrado
- 20 de Oct, 2017
Hi, you are completely off base. You are applying the standard to the page, not the stream.I posted the 6 clues for the Dost test and according to this man's description here:
- Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
- Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity.
- Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
- Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
- Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
- Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
1) Focal point
- Did Warski zoom in on any inappropriate areas, or show the page as-is? Did he emphasize any specific areas for any reason? I don't think so.
2) Sexually suggestive setting
- The original context matters. We can argue inappropriate or poor taste, but that doesn't mean illegal. This element is missing.
3) Unnatural pose or inappropriate attire for age
- This is very subjective, but if they were wearing clothes and posing as determined by standard retail marketing, this element is missing.
4) Full or partial nudity
- There doesn't appear to be nudity here, but still, courts have ruled that nudity alone isn't illegal.
5) Sexual coyness or willingness displayed
- If all he streamed were children posing as catalog models would, this element is missing.
6) Intended or designed to elicit a sexual response to the viewer
- It doesn't sound like Warski or anyone streaming with him was expressing sexual interest. This weighs against criminal liability.
Dude just call him creepy or stupid, stop accusing him of crimes. You are being a horrible person.
- Registrado
- 25 de Abr, 2022
If he is a sock then whoever he's meant to defend isn't getting their money's worth. So far what we've gotten from him is:
- Images of children in their underwear presented in a sexual manner are fine.
- Images of nude children are fine so long as you can only barely see their nipples and pubic areas.
- Sexual images of nude children are fine so long as the children in the images were coerced into posting the photos onto the internet themselves.
- Registrado
- 20 de Jul, 2022
How about their half-year long cowtipping operation against Phil, THAT JOSH PARTICIPATED IN. I won't speculate if they told him what their real plans were for Phil when they got him on a stream with him last year, but if it was anyone else that roped him in to something like that he'd be very pissed.
- Registrado
- 7 de Mar, 2022
I believe in equal opportunity alogging.
- Registrado
- 20 de Jul, 2022
Again, it was never about whether or not it is legally actionable, it's to highlight why he's a retarded piece of shit who can't be trusted. They would never apply this level of nuance to anybody who they cover, why should it be afforded to them?
- Registrado
- 17 de Nov, 2020
Lol this thread's gonna get locked, isn't it?
All becomes gunt
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Jul, 2020
Personally i think the guy up there was wrong and according to Lit Cigarette's testimony these are legally actionable. So because it wasn't the whole stream and only some segments of it it's fine ? What ? Except if i misunderstood @IMayUseSpaces argument.
- Registrado
- 20 de Oct, 2017
We agree on this. That's why I think they're cocksuckers. I just don't like seeing those types of accusations in general unless they're founded in legal backing because it's the same mindset that floods tiplines with bullshit and ruins innocent people's lives. But I get your point.
All becomes gunt
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 22 de Jul, 2020
Have you considered that lit cigarette posted entirely different timestamps than the screenshot of @MilkSports_2018 ? Did you take these timestamps into account ? Because with the descriptions given at least from that guy wouldn't that constitute legally actionable behavior ?
- Registrado
- 7 de Mar, 2022
- Registrado
- 25 de Abr, 2022
When Warski got to the screencap with the mostly-naked girl, there were 3 pictures of her on screen and he circled the naked one with his cursor.
I'll give you this one.
In this case, it isn't subjective. The express purpose of the images was to market CSAM images of children, therefore the naked/underwear photos were explicitly sexual.
There is enough nudity to where you can see the breasts and pubic areas of several girls, even with some of the images censored.
See the statement made for point 3.
When Warski got to the first image of a little girl with her breasts exposed that was censored, Ralph sounded disappointed, because the other ones up to that point weren't censored. Though that's more a knock against Ralph than Warski, the prior images apparently elicited a sexual response in one of the hosts.
Keep in mind that I only watched <10 minutes of the stream. You're welcome to watch the whole thing and report your own findings back to us.
- Registrado
- 23 de Nov, 2022
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2025
Doesn't need locked, just needs the last 10 pages moved to the Andy Warski thread lol
I'm here to discuss the show as a whole, be it good, be it shit.
If I want to discuss Andy and PPP and their apparent past crimes I'd go to their threads.
But the reason people are posting here instead of in the individual threads is because of one reason.
There's one big difference between this one and the individual threads for Warksi and PPP which is why people feel the need to be retarded in here.
This thread is more active which means their posts get more attention.