- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
He mentioned that he's been a "cyber friend" of Chloe's for years, so he probably does feel obliged to white knight m'lady.
View attachment 475463
Lemme translate:
Chloe sent me some homegroan that it turns out was probably not legal when it was taken, and we did some cam sessions while diaper-fetishist Shmorky was watching my daughters. I'm going to defend her to the hilt, and not just because my usual extreme double standards when it comes to anyone I have contact with on a regular basis (*sob* so lonely), but also because I'm worried if she thinks I'm not completely behind her, she'll start telling tales about me next.
Remember, this is the guy who didn't do anything about the convicted pedophile on his staff until incontrovertible proof was posted on non-SA forums that they couldn't silence or ban. (didn't do anything other than allow his moderators to keep it covered up, that is). And once said proof was posted where SA Moderator staff couldn't delete it, several SA posters ate bans for reposting it SA.
He also allowed a diaper fetistist with pedo fantasies to hang around his daughters, and likely left them in his care. Until they fell out, any Shmorky detractors also received the banhammer.
What I'm saying is I don't think Lowtax is a good judge of character, nor should he be making any sort of decisions about who is or isn't allowed to talk about the character of other people, since it tends to get used to cover up for some real scumbags.
Last edited: