discussion A-T-F Is Closing Down

[Chrissy]

When it comes to the social sciences only a tiny handful of theories show direct and consistent causation (types of conditioning for example). Plus, this topic is HIGHLY charged. Whatever you published it will be criticized by some group. There are very talented people that actually have been drummed out because they said (with evidence) certain things. There have been three direct studies and about fifteen to twenty collaborative studies done in anthropology, sociology, psychology and biology. Ex. There are several books on women changing sexual preference later in life. One of the most famous being Mary Shelley. Bring that up to a lesbian and they'll probably tell you she was in denial and was a lesbian all along.

While it's possible that sexual orientations shift on their own, I have never seen any evidence that there is any therapy that can reliably do that. But I have seen lots of evidence that attempting to push for such a change is actually very harmful to the patient.

Again, you are using the 'False Equivalence' argument. You are arguing that being gay or black is the same thing. I could list many ways there are not, beginning with Piaget's theory of cognitive development. A more apt comparison is between someone that is unable to consent like being passed-out, blind drunk, unconscious, etc... to a child that is cognitively unable to understand what is occurring.

Children are unable to give informed consent, right. I never said anything to the contrary. Why do you bring that up here?
Being gay has been seen as a disorder in the past, hence the futile attempts to "cure" it with conversion therapy.
Being black has never been a disorder, but it was (and often still is) a stressor. Your argument was that if any condition causes you harm, for example be being a stressor, that's a disorder. I just brought it up to show that your argument fails here.
Just because an condition (like being a ****phile) can cause stress because it's something you have to hide doesn't mean it's automatically a disorder. It can become one when these negative consequences become dominant, but that's not the norm. Why else would ICD-11 explicitly distinguish between ****phila and ****philic disorder?

I was answering in two parts. One, what is considered consumption (material) and I say anything that induces one to behaviors which lead to the "read below".

But my question was explicitly about which behaviour you were talking about. You didn't answer that.

I gave a list of warning signs and how many is considered unhealthy. These warning signs are directly connected to your statements. If [someone] is on these forums is engaging in any activity that directly is connected to this topic, it has the possibility of being unhealthy.

While that is true (when one tends towards abusive behaviour or consumption of CSAM), it does not relate to the points you referred to with your "see below".

Yes. Because it is socially unacceptable. Psychologically supported. Legally enforced. The mere fact that people still wish to push those boundaries shows a pathological tenancy to do harm to ones self [or others]. Thus, me saying it's considered DSM worthy of note.

There is the problem. Being something you had no choice in is deemed socially unacceptable. Of course we push against that. We just want to be free to be what we are. To not have to hide. What we don't push for is to be free to act on these desires, for that is harmful to others (the children we are attracted to).
By the way, being a ****phile isn't illegal in most civilized countries, just as being gay isn't (anymore). Only acting on these desires is (and should be).
That distinction between desire and act is what is missing.

The behavior's associated with it, yes. "Sexual preference" no. Thus, me saying "See blow". The See Below lists warning signs of unhealthy desires.

That's nothing unique to ****philes though.

CBT (my focus btw) has more than a few. Pharmacotherapy to reduce sexual desires. The one thing EVERY method agrees on is avoiding triggers. Be it games. Television. Movies. Songs, locations like schools or beaches... It's a little different per person.

CBT is helpful for those who fear they might become abusers (or have done so), or consume CSAM. I wholeheartedly support this kind of therapy. But this doesn't change being a ****phile. Just how you deal with it. Pharmacotherapy can be a good option in more extreme cases. If you are one of these people then yes, you should probably avoid any triggers. But those that have no problems of this kind (which are many) have no need to do any of that.
Having a healthy, non-harmful outlet to our sexual desires is positive and improves life quality, thus reducing stress and risk of offending.
CBT for ****philes actually often aims to redirect the focus from real children towards surrogates.

Yep. Same for Freud btw.

What has Freud to do with the lack of good data on ****philes?

lol... no, not at all. I said you'll never ever accomplish anything that way. It's fruitless.

No. I (together with others) have changed a few pro-C people to the anti-C side. Not many, but even a single one would be worth the effort.

You can't tell someone their feelings are wrong. I thought I was clear about that. You cannot reason somoene out of something they did not reason themselves into.

But they build themselves a framework of supporting reasoning based on falsifiable claims. By tearing down this framework with actual provable facts we try to force them to rethink their arguments. Just going after their feelings is indeed futile. But that's not what we do.

What I'm doing is more akin to CBT. A type of conditioning that they may or may not be aware of. The more choices they make the more they will be guided to a better solution. If they fail the CBT, they fail the game. More like a Skinner box... but it's hell'a hard to write it properly.

That might be a good effort if you get pro-C ****s to play your game. I wish you success in that.

Yeah, I never did programming as IT. I managed MS domain/clusters, Intranet and backoffice stuff. Closest I came to programming was routers, muxes, PBXs, voice over IP ... etc... I hate programming lol.

Then that's tough indeed. I love programming.

 

[LewisCarroll]

While it's possible that sexual orientations shift on their own, I have never seen any evidence that there is any therapy that can reliably do that. But I have seen lots of evidence that attempting to push for such a change is actually very harmful to the patient.

Sexual orientation is an extremely complex topic and you are not trained or experienced in neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology or counseling. You are welcome to 'feel' your way through this, but saying that you have seen any kind of 'evidence' is not accurate.

Children are unable to give informed consent, right. I never said anything to the contrary. Why do you bring that up here?
Being gay has been seen as a disorder in the past, hence the futile attempts to "cure" it with conversion therapy.
Being black has never been a disorder, but it was (and often still is) a stressor. Your argument was that if any condition causes you harm, for example be being a stressor, that's a disorder. I just brought it up to show that your argument fails here.
Just because an condition (like being a ****phile) can cause stress because it's something you have to hide doesn't mean it's automatically a disorder. It can become one when these negative consequences become dominant, but that's not the norm. Why else would ICD-11 explicitly distinguish between ****phila and ****philic disorder?

A thesis requires a foundation. I gave that foundation. If you don't see it, I'm sorry.

But my question was explicitly about which behaviour you were talking about. You didn't answer that.

Yes, I have. Perhaps you should re-read from the beginning.

While that is true (when one tends towards abusive behaviour or consumption of CSAM), it does not relate to the points you referred to with your "see below".

The answer may not have answered some deeper philosophical question you had, but it did support my points.

There is the problem. Being something you had no choice in is deemed socially unacceptable. Of course we push against that. We just want to be free to be what we are. To not have to hide. What we don't push for is to be free to act on these desires, for that is harmful to others (the children we are attracted to).
By the way, being a ****phile isn't illegal in most civilized countries, just as being gay isn't (anymore). Only acting on these desires is (and should be).
That distinction between desire and act is what is missing.

These are philosophical concepts, not psychological or anthropological - my areas of experience.

That's nothing unique to ****philes though.

OK. It sounds like you are being defensive. I never said it was, but you assumed it was. Why is that?

CBT is helpful for those who fear they might become abusers (or have done so), or consume CSAM. I wholeheartedly support this kind of therapy. But this doesn't change being a ****phile. Just how you deal with it. Pharmacotherapy can be a good option in more extreme cases. If you are one of these people then yes, you should probably avoid any triggers. But those that have no problems of this kind (which are many) have no need to do any of that.
Having a healthy, non-harmful outlet to our sexual desires is positive and improves life quality, thus reducing stress and risk of offending.
CBT for ****philes actually often aims to redirect the focus from real children towards surrogates.

You forget the C. Cognitive. People want to change their 'thinking', not just their [potential] behaviors. Just thinking about their desires can and does have a negative affect on peoples lives. Inability to have sexual and healthy relationships with adults being just one. Just 'holding back' your urges isn't healthy for many that want to just live normal lives without thoughts constantly interfering with life. Some people can endure it. Some people can lead perfectly healthy lives. Some cannot. And CBT may be their only hope.

What has Freud to do with the lack of good data on ****philes?

If you knew Freud's research you'd chuckle.

No. I (together with others) have changed a few pro-C people to the anti-C side. Not many, but even a single one would be worth the effort.

I won't completely rule it out, but a decade working in psychology (and thousands of patients) has made me skeptical.

But they build themselves a framework of supporting reasoning based on falsifiable claims. By tearing down this framework with actual provable facts we try to force them to rethink their arguments. Just going after their feelings is indeed futile. But that's not what we do.

Cognitive disnoence is a powerful thing.

That might be a good effort if you get pro-C ****s to play your game. I wish you success in that.

Thank you.

Then that's tough indeed. I love programming.

I was around 12 when I did my first program in Basic. A whole 4900 lines of code... flow charts and everything. That's when I knew it wasn't for me, lol.


** I see where there is going. I call these kinds of chats "nipping around the edges". I have no ill will, but you're nipping around the edges of my responses as if trying to find errors or flaws in them. You're trying to prove your points rather than simply acknowledging the information and wanting to expand on them. There's a reason I went medical rather than therapeutic. It's also why I said trying to changes peoples' feelings was usually fruitless. Your experience is personal, not academic. It would be one thing if we were discussing Masters & Johnson or Kinsey (but not by much).... I got 2 B's in college. Both in Advanced Theory because it bored me. It prevented me from top honors and I'm still resentful Have a good day and better tomorrow. Signing off.

 

[Chrissy]

Sexual orientation is an extremely complex topic and you are not trained or experienced in neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology or counseling. You are welcome to 'feel' your way through this, but saying that you have seen any kind of 'evidence' is not accurate.

I am naturally very interested in the topic. So I did a lot of reading. In all the scientific papers, articles and other info, the common denominator was that conversion therapy just doesn't work. Not for homosexuals (where much more data is available) and not for ****philes. I may not be a professional in those fields, but I have a degree in physics. So I know my way around in scientific literature. What I do definitely is more than just "feel my way through it". But I'm also aware of my limitations.

A thesis requires a foundation. I gave that foundation. If you don't see it, I'm sorry.

Yes, I have. Perhaps you should re-read from the beginning.

The answer may not have answered some deeper philosophical question you had, but it did support my points.

These are philosophical concepts, not psychological or anthropological - my areas of experience.

OK. It sounds like you are being defensive. I never said it was, but you assumed it was. Why is that?

You forget the C. Cognitive. People want to change their 'thinking', not just their [potential] behaviors. Just thinking about their desires can and does have a negative affect on peoples lives. Inability to have sexual and healthy relationships with adults being just one. Just 'holding back' your urges isn't healthy for many that want to just live normal lives without thoughts constantly interfering with life. Some people can endure it. Some people can lead perfectly healthy lives. Some cannot. And CBT may be their only hope.

If you knew Freud's research you'd chuckle.

I won't completely rule it out, but a decade working in psychology (and thousands of patients) has made me skeptical.

Cognitive disnoence is a powerful thing.

Thank you.

I was around 12 when I did my first program in Basic. A whole 4900 lines of code... flow charts and everything. That's when I knew it wasn't for me, lol.


** I see where there is going. I call these kinds of chats "nipping around the edges". I have no ill will, but you're nipping around the edges of my responses as if trying to find errors or flaws in them. You're trying to prove your points rather than simply acknowledging the information and wanting to expand on them. There's a reason I went medical rather than therapeutic. It's also why I said trying to changes peoples' feelings was usually fruitless. Your experience is personal, not academic. It would be one thing if we were discussing Masters & Johnson or Kinsey (but not by much).... I got 2 B's in college. Both in Advanced Theory because it bored me. It prevented me from top honors and I'm still resentful Have a good day and better tomorrow. Signing off.

So let's cut through the clutter and try to get back to the core.
I know from personal experience that some, and probably even most ****philes have no problems controlling their desire sufficiently so they are no danger to any child.
To those, viewing lolisho or other legal pictures is a way to release sexual tension. Similar for child like sex dolls, where they are still legal. To us this is one of the few ways to exercise our human right to sexual expression without causing any harm.
For those who are unsure of their self control or have even already lost it, it's more difficult. To some, the release factor dominates and enables them to stay away from real children. To others it might be too much of a temptation, leading to real offenses against children. This group should seek professional help to determine if this material is helpful or dangerous, in addition to getting help in controlling their urges.

****philia itself is no predisposition to sexually abuse children. You have to either suffer from addition mental conditions that promote antisocial, violent behavior (the same that enables a teleiophile to become a rapist) or you have to be convinced that having sex with a child won't harm (or even be good for) that child. Those are the pro-contact ****philes.
It's that last group that we (the anti-contact ****philes) try to influence so that they won't become abusers. The success rate is low, but not zero. Every success could be one child that doesn't get abused. That's worth any effort in my opinion.

While being on a lolisho site like ATF or LC might be a bad idea for some of those, combining that with an open discussion platform where their opinions are regularly challenged by other ****philes is way better than providing just the images or games. I know that such a discussion forum can cause problems (it can make a site more of a target to haters) and needs good moderation, but I believe it's a valuable thing to have. To me that's the biggest loss when ATF closes down.

 

[LewisCarroll]

I am naturally very interested in the topic. So I did a lot of reading. In all the scientific papers, articles and other info, the common denominator was that conversion therapy just doesn't work. Not for homosexuals (where much more data is available) and not for ****philes. I may not be a professional in those fields, but I have a degree in physics. So I know my way around in scientific literature. What I do definitely is more than just "feel my way through it". But I'm also aware of my limitations.

So let's cut through the clutter and try to get back to the core.
I know from personal experience that some, and probably even most ****philes have no problems controlling their desire sufficiently so they are no danger to any child.
To those, viewing lolisho or other legal pictures is a way to release sexual tension. Similar for child like sex dolls, where they are still legal. To us this is one of the few ways to exercise our human right to sexual expression without causing any harm.
For those who are unsure of their self control or have even already lost it, it's more difficult. To some, the release factor dominates and enables them to stay away from real children. To others it might be too much of a temptation, leading to real offenses against children. This group should seek professional help to determine if this material is helpful or dangerous, in addition to getting help in controlling their urges.

****philia itself is no predisposition to sexually abuse children. You have to either suffer from addition mental conditions that promote antisocial, violent behavior (the same that enables a teleiophile to become a rapist) or you have to be convinced that having sex with a child won't harm (or even be good for) that child. Those are the pro-contact ****philes.
It's that last group that we (the anti-contact ****philes) try to influence so that they won't become abusers. The success rate is low, but not zero. Every success could be one child that doesn't get abused. That's worth any effort in my opinion.

While being on a lolisho site like ATF or LC might be a bad idea for some of those, combining that with an open discussion platform where their opinions are regularly challenged by other ****philes is way better than providing just the images or games. I know that such a discussion forum can cause problems (it can make a site more of a target to haters) and needs good moderation, but I believe it's a valuable thing to have. To me that's the biggest loss when ATF closes down.

What is your goal in this conversation? Because, it appears you are trying to lecture me. I've already graduated and defended my dissertation.

If you truly want to have a conversation, I'm fine with that. But I don't have the energy to sift through unsubstantiated claims. Most of what you've said so far is anecdotal, lacks empirical evidence, is hotly debated (at best) and is riddled with fallacy's. Here's an example:

****philia itself is no predisposition to sexually abuse children. You have to either suffer from addition mental conditions that promote antisocial, violent behavior (the same that enables a teleiophile to become a rapist) or you have to be convinced that having sex with a child won't harm (or even be good for) that child. Those are the pro-contact ****philes.

How many fallacy's are in these two sentences? I count 4.

****philia itself is no predisposition to sexually abuse children.

Ex. No, it isn't, but it is likely the largest contributing factor. When you say 'no predisposition' it's a patently false statement. Not to mention, the word has no real clinical or legal meaning anyway.

I know you like debating, but I'm not into wasting my time like that. So please take a care on how, or if, you respond.

 

[exlurker]

Yes try telling someone with a shirt talking about "executing your local p*dos" that loli and **** are different and see how that goes for you.

I think best not to engage, just say: we have human rights here and that shirt is hate speech, you should also be fined/in prison for harassment too.

 

[Sleepybed]

Spoiler: ATF LIVES AGAIN

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[Republican Bear]

Spoiler: ATF LIVES AGAIN

You must be registered to see attachments

Good news but guess we'll see how long it is before another shutdown notice is announced.

 

[majornoobs]

Spoiler: ATF LIVES AGAIN

You must be registered to see attachments

Wait. Are we back?

 

[LewisCarroll]

Good news but guess we'll see how long it is before another shutdown notice is announced.

Yeah, it's a game of Whac-A-Mole. The more sites that are up the more they have to divide their attention. We shall see.

 

[Chrissy]

What is your goal in this conversation? Because, it appears you are trying to lecture me. I've already graduated and defended my dissertation.

You seem to hold some opinions that go against what I know from personal experience, reading scientific papers on the topic and from publications from very renowned experts like the German "Kein Täter werden" organization, which originates from the Berlin Charite clinic. That's why I challenge these opinions, and so far you have not provided real on topic evidence for what you claim. An expert should not have trouble providing hard evidence.

If you truly want to have a conversation, I'm fine with that. But I don't have the energy to sift through unsubstantiated claims. Most of what you've said so far is anecdotal, lacks empirical evidence, is hotly debated (at best) and is riddled with fallacy's. Here's an example:


How many fallacy's are in these two sentences? I count 4.

Please elaborate.

Ex. No, it isn't, but it is likely the largest contributing factor.

No, since most cases of sexual child abuse are committed by non-****philes. Read the section on ****philia and child molestation in

You must be registered to see links

together with the cited papers. I found similar numbers elsewhere, but don't have the sources available.

When you say 'no predisposition' it's a patently false statement. Not to mention, the word has no real clinical or legal meaning anyway.

Evidence? I gave mine above.

I know you like debating, but I'm not into wasting my time like that. So please take a care on how, or if, you respond.

I try to respond as calmly as possible, but this topic is understandably close to my heart, so please excuse me should I get a little heated.

 

[LewisCarroll]

If you cannot understand or respect my boundaries, I'm going to have to end this debate you want to have. Have a good day.

 

[Chrissy]

If you cannot understand or respect my boundaries, I'm going to have to end this debate you want to have. Have a good day.

I would have really liked to get some good reliable facts from a real professional. But I accept your decision. Have a good day, too.

 

[dr4amk]

drama aside, is it really going to die? there's a lot of mods and art there

 

[jazzyjim999]

drama aside, is it really going to die? there's a lot of mods and art there

I don't think so.

 

[Matm95]

You seem to hold some opinions that go against what I know from personal experience, reading scientific papers on the topic and from publications from very renowned experts like the German "Kein Täter werden" organization, which originates from the Berlin Charite clinic. That's why I challenge these opinions, and so far you have not provided real on topic evidence for what you claim. An expert should not have trouble providing hard evidence.

Please elaborate.

No, since most cases of sexual child abuse are committed by non-****philes. Read the section on ****philia and child molestation in

You must be registered to see links

together with the cited papers. I found similar numbers elsewhere, but don't have the sources available.

Evidence? I gave mine above.

I try to respond as calmly as possible, but this topic is understandably close to my heart, so please excuse me should I get a little heated.

I'm not going to continue the argument further than this comment, which I am only adding as I am ashamed at a fellow physicist for misunderstanding the statistics of the subject.

The statitstics you are likely referencing is the 16.2% of offenders being ****philes. This is true, but you fail to mention the more significant findings of the study here.

The remaining 83.8% of the offenders had a very high rate of psychopathy, antisocial behavior, drug use, agression and more. This alone shows that the assumption of a clean split between ****philes and non-****philes is completely wrong, as many of these offenders are high-risk individuals commiting oportunistic violence against a weak victim.

The percentage split is also completely irrelevant to the discussion of the dangers of ****philes, because you fail to mention that ****philes are a small percentage of the population, and thus are still overrepresented in this data! This data split PROVES that ****philes are MORE LIKELY to abuse children.

I am ashamed as a physicist by your appaling knowledge of statistics. What a way to lower the image of a reputable science. And yes, that was an ad hominem, I dislike the way you argue and you represent one of the oldest branches of science with that appaling logic. You deserve nothing but ad hominems, however everything except this paragraph was written without ad hominems. I only wrote this part so you cant cry about "ad hominems" when i am clearly admitting them myself.

Math proof for nerdier people:

The percentage of ****philic tendencies in men is around 1-5% of the total population. Lets assume 5%.

Using Bayes' theorem:

P(A|P) = P(P|A) * P(A) / P(P)

Where P(P) is the base rate in the population. (i.e. 0.05) and P(P|A) is the 0.162 from the study.

The overrepresentation factor is then represented as:

P(P|A)/P(P) = 0.162/0.05 ≈ 3.2.

So the ****philes are overrepresented in the data by a factor of 3, which is a lot. If we change the 5% of the population into 1%, then you get an overrepresentation factor of 8 instead!

And remember, this is with data which includes high-risk individuals.

Edit: The 16.2% is what we call "Pure ****philes" which are also called "non-exclusive" ****philes. This means that the 83.8% can have ****philic fantasies, but because they are ALSO turned on by adults, they are not included in the "pure ****philes" set. This also skews data away from the subject matter, and if non-exclusive ****philes are included in the statistics, the factor would rise A LOT.

 

[highlrecommend]

I'm not going to continue the argument further than this comment, which I am only adding as I am ashamed at a fellow physicist for misunderstanding the statistics of the subject.

The statitstics you are likely referencing is the 16.2% of offenders being ****philes. This is true, but you fail to mention the more significant findings of the study here.

The remaining 83.8% of the offenders had a very high rate of psychopathy, antisocial behavior, drug use, agression and more. This alone shows that the assumption of a clean split between ****philes and non-****philes is completely wrong, as many of these offenders are high-risk individuals commiting oportunistic violence against a weak victim.

The percentage split is also completely irrelevant to the discussion of the dangers of ****philes, because you fail to mention that ****philes are a small percentage of the population, and thus are still overrepresented in this data! This data split PROVES that ****philes are MORE LIKELY to abuse children.

I am ashamed as a physicist by your appaling knowledge of statistics. What a way to lower the image of a reputable science. And yes, that was an ad hominem, I dislike the way you argue and you represent one of the oldest branches of science with that appaling logic. You deserve nothing but ad hominems, however everything except this paragraph was written without ad hominems. I only wrote this part so you cant cry about "ad hominems" when i am clearly admitting them myself.

Math proof for nerdier people:

The percentage of ****philic tendencies in men is around 1-5% of the total population. Lets assume 5%.

Using Bayes' theorem:

P(A|P) = P(P|A) * P(A) / P(P)

Where P(P) is the base rate in the population. (i.e. 0.05) and P(P|A) is the 0.162 from the study.

The overrepresentation factor is then represented as:

P(P|A)/P(P) = 0.162/0.05 ≈ 3.2.

So the ****philes are overrepresented in the data by a factor of 3, which is a lot. If we change the 5% of the population into 1%, then you get an overrepresentation factor of 8 instead!

And remember, this is with data which includes high-risk individuals.

Edit: The 16.2% is what we call "Pure ****philes" which are also called "non-exclusive" ****philes. This means that the 83.8% can have ****philic fantasies, but because they are ALSO turned on by adults, they are not included in the "pure ****philes" set. This also skews data away from the subject matter, and if non-exclusive ****philes are included in the statistics, the factor would rise A LOT.

posts reported

this is a thread about a website shutdown, nothing more

 

[Matm95]

posts reported

this is a thread about a website shutdown, nothing more

As in all posts, or only mine? Also, odd of you to point out, as your comment on my comment is surely also not something that belongs on this thread?

 

[jkj34]

drama aside, is it really going to die? there's a lot of mods and art there

Save them locally then asap never assume it won't get shutdown.


The only reason its still around is due to the owner picking up the torch again but the world wants to kill a site like that so expect this to happen again from another attack.

 

[Redyscom]

This post is now obsolete; ATF isn't going to shut down, at least as far as we know. I don't know what the site owner and moderators think, but as far as I'm concerned, it isn't going to shut down.

The post remains here because people were engaging in lighthearted chatter and discussions about the site—which is fine—but recently they’ve been derailing it into a discussion that’s completely off-topic. I should close it because there’s no need for the thread to continue, but I’ll just call you out on it because I don’t want to take away a space where you’ve been discussing things civilly until recently.

I should start deleting posts and punishing people, but since this is a first offense for many and they’re just getting heated over an issue, I’ll just leave this message as a warning (and because I’m sick, my head hurts, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this right now, but it needs to be addressed). If another mod decides to close the thread and take disciplinary action against people, that’s up to them and would be completely justified; I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and let them take a breather, calm down, and think things over.

Oh, and... I think I'll go check out the comments after all, because I skimmed through them a bit and it seems like people were getting a little more out of hand than I thought.

 

[jkj34]

This post is now obsolete; ATF isn't going to shut down, at least as far as we know. I don't know what the site owner and moderators think, but as far as I'm concerned, it isn't going to shut down.

The post remains here because people were engaging in lighthearted chatter and discussions about the site—which is fine—but recently they’ve been derailing it into a discussion that’s completely off-topic. I should close it because there’s no need for the thread to continue, but I’ll just call you out on it because I don’t want to take away a space where you’ve been discussing things civilly until recently.

I should start deleting posts and punishing people, but since this is a first offense for many and they’re just getting heated over an issue, I’ll just leave this message as a warning (and because I’m sick, my head hurts, and I don’t have the energy to deal with this right now, but it needs to be addressed). If another mod decides to close the thread and take disciplinary action against people, that’s up to them and would be completely justified; I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and let them take a breather, calm down, and think things over.

Oh, and... I think I'll go check out the comments after all, because I skimmed through them a bit and it seems like people were getting a little more out of hand than I thought.

They have been removing old threads over there and doing some cleanup i noticed some threads pre 2019 now have broken images fyi.

You must be registered to see attachments

Yes they are not "shutting down" but always save stuff you like even more now than B4.


I for one wish we get a few more years of ATF due to some projects on there not yet being done the whole site is still thanks to one person i increased my donation amount to the site in hopes that person gets a trusted supporter and of course to help the site stay online.