Yeah, I know I'm pinching this concept from Daydreamer of Oz on the AZU site but they say that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery so I'm sure she won't mind. The quotes here will be outrageous for one reason or another. I thought I'd kick it off with an absolute doozy:
You just know Logue was on his belly, paying his dues to his cellmate, on a nightly basis.
Prison was the one place Derek's quivering lips were a highly sought after commodity.
Although it's hard to believe anyone could be so callous, the lowlife posting as 'Logue Hater' is actually taking joy from the idea of someone being raped. You can't get much lower than that.
Monday, October 27, 2008
What's New Pussycat?
Stitches77 (aka Stitches the Cunt - SC) reminds me of a kitten: she is constantly taking swipes that either don't land or, when they do, have little to no effect. As soon as someone stands up to her she runs to hide behind insults and aggression. She is great fun to toy with as she's not too bright and very overconfident. But that's where the analogy ends as she's in no way cute and certainly not a nice person.
I've been having a fun exchange with SC over on AZU. Someone made the comment that more men than women are raped if you count prison rapes, to which SC replied:
Cite your source. And don't confuse 'sexual victimization' with RAPE when you do so.
So, as she made it clear she has a definition of rape that precludes acts that many would consider to be rape I had to ask her to define what she considers 'sexual victimisation' and how it differs from rape. At first I didn't understand the reason she wouldn't want to make her definition public but, given her below comment, it's now pretty clear. It's about power - she has it and having to answer someone's question would diminish it. Anyhoo, the comments section can be found here if you want to see the whole exchange. Needless to say, SC very quickly descended into her usual mire of insults and naked aggression but made one very crucial and telling remark which confirms my suspicions.
You also failed to realize that I love having the power to manipulate you, Jack
So there we have it folks, SC has inadvertently revealed her true motivation for running the AZU blog: the power. She says herself that she loves having the power to manipulate people. Presumably SC suffered sexual abuse at some stage in her past and is now seeking to reclaim the power that experience took from her. That would also explain why she so quickly attacks anyone who posts comments that disagree with what she's decided is the official AZU line. It's a challenge to her authority that makes her feel that she's not the one in charge so she has to re-establish her authority: like a cat marking it's territory.
Let me make it clear: I do have sympathy for SC and find it terribly sad that she was used as some bloke's sex toy. I have sympathy for anyone who's been through such a traumatic experience. It must play on her mind that there are likely to still be people getting off on her experiences and that she's powerless to stop it. It must be a debilitating experience and I do have sympathy for her because of what she went through but that doesn't change the fact that she's a total bitch. I guess we'll never know if she would've turned out a nice person had she not been abused.
I've been having a fun exchange with SC over on AZU. Someone made the comment that more men than women are raped if you count prison rapes, to which SC replied:
Cite your source. And don't confuse 'sexual victimization' with RAPE when you do so.
So, as she made it clear she has a definition of rape that precludes acts that many would consider to be rape I had to ask her to define what she considers 'sexual victimisation' and how it differs from rape. At first I didn't understand the reason she wouldn't want to make her definition public but, given her below comment, it's now pretty clear. It's about power - she has it and having to answer someone's question would diminish it. Anyhoo, the comments section can be found here if you want to see the whole exchange. Needless to say, SC very quickly descended into her usual mire of insults and naked aggression but made one very crucial and telling remark which confirms my suspicions.
You also failed to realize that I love having the power to manipulate you, Jack
So there we have it folks, SC has inadvertently revealed her true motivation for running the AZU blog: the power. She says herself that she loves having the power to manipulate people. Presumably SC suffered sexual abuse at some stage in her past and is now seeking to reclaim the power that experience took from her. That would also explain why she so quickly attacks anyone who posts comments that disagree with what she's decided is the official AZU line. It's a challenge to her authority that makes her feel that she's not the one in charge so she has to re-establish her authority: like a cat marking it's territory.
Let me make it clear: I do have sympathy for SC and find it terribly sad that she was used as some bloke's sex toy. I have sympathy for anyone who's been through such a traumatic experience. It must play on her mind that there are likely to still be people getting off on her experiences and that she's powerless to stop it. It must be a debilitating experience and I do have sympathy for her because of what she went through but that doesn't change the fact that she's a total bitch. I guess we'll never know if she would've turned out a nice person had she not been abused.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Such Charming Folk Pt 2
Hmmm.. I'm starting to think that I've given the lovely folk at AZU a bit much credit. They posted the following snippet of a conversation recently:
The husband of the woman who made the quote was previously convicted for molesting her daughter but once he was released from gaol she considered her vows of 'for better or worse' and chose to give their marriage a second chance. The AZU interpretation of this quote is that whilst she trusts her daughter's safety with her husband, she doesn't trust him with her email address. Therefore (according to the brainiacs of AZU), she somehow values her email address more highly than her daughter.
Now, to anyone with even a semblence of intelligence, it is clear from reading the quote that this woman is saying she doesn't want to give her husband her email address as 'they' will force him to give it to 'them'. What isn't clear is who 'they' are or why she is so adamant she doesn't want 'them' to have her email address. What is perfectly clear is that she isn't saying that she doesn't trust her husband with her email address. So this is the part when I realise just how much I've overestimated the authors of AZU...
I asked whether it would be prudent to post a link to the full transcript of the quote in order to give context and explain who is the 'they' she refers to. I also pointed out that their interpretation of her quote was obviously incorrect and made no sense. So did they accept the alternate interpretation in good nature? No, of course not. They did what they always do to anyone who doesn't fall in line and blindly accept whatever they've decided is the party line - they went on the offensive and levelled insults at me.
"Oh dear, it's the faux intellectual again. Look, Jack, I'm not gonna play this stupid game with you. If you want to go read the shit at Sosen knock yourself out, Jack
Now. For the last fucking time. That was Linda's comment. That was not a snippet of her comment. We are not going to post the entire thread. The statement means what it means. She did not trust her husband's ability to control himself enough to let him know what her email address was. She obviously DID trust him to live in the home with her little girl who he had previously groomed and molested. If you can figure out some other meaning then say so, otherwise go philosophize on somebody who will appreciate your level of dimwittedness.
I don't.
Stitches
"
"You don't have to believe what we say, most pedo's are too distorted to anyway, why should an RSO activist be any different?
"
"Oh brother. I see we've got another thick headed idiot on on hands!
"
So, in addition to the slurs received last time I disagreed with these people, I'm now also a dimwitted faux intellectual, a RSO activist and a thick headed idiot. Full comments here.
Up until now I'd just presumed the people responsible for these blatant pieces of second rate fiction were simply mentally challenged but I've come to realise that they're more than just terminally thick. They're also deliberately deceptive. It was possible they could've really been stupid enough to believe their incorrect interpretation of the quote they posted but their reaction to having their deceipt exposed shows that they are not really interested in the truth.
I guess what people say is true after all... Stitches77 and co. really are cunts... and dramatically dim cunts at that!
I REFUSE to even let my husband know my email address. This is MY computer. He can't give them what he doesn't know. I am afraid he will fold like a cheap suit if they give him a hard time.
Quote from: lindape54 on April 04, 2008, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: lindape54 on April 04, 2008, 01:04:48 PM
The husband of the woman who made the quote was previously convicted for molesting her daughter but once he was released from gaol she considered her vows of 'for better or worse' and chose to give their marriage a second chance. The AZU interpretation of this quote is that whilst she trusts her daughter's safety with her husband, she doesn't trust him with her email address. Therefore (according to the brainiacs of AZU), she somehow values her email address more highly than her daughter.
Now, to anyone with even a semblence of intelligence, it is clear from reading the quote that this woman is saying she doesn't want to give her husband her email address as 'they' will force him to give it to 'them'. What isn't clear is who 'they' are or why she is so adamant she doesn't want 'them' to have her email address. What is perfectly clear is that she isn't saying that she doesn't trust her husband with her email address. So this is the part when I realise just how much I've overestimated the authors of AZU...
I asked whether it would be prudent to post a link to the full transcript of the quote in order to give context and explain who is the 'they' she refers to. I also pointed out that their interpretation of her quote was obviously incorrect and made no sense. So did they accept the alternate interpretation in good nature? No, of course not. They did what they always do to anyone who doesn't fall in line and blindly accept whatever they've decided is the party line - they went on the offensive and levelled insults at me.
"Oh dear, it's the faux intellectual again. Look, Jack, I'm not gonna play this stupid game with you. If you want to go read the shit at Sosen knock yourself out, Jack
Now. For the last fucking time. That was Linda's comment. That was not a snippet of her comment. We are not going to post the entire thread. The statement means what it means. She did not trust her husband's ability to control himself enough to let him know what her email address was. She obviously DID trust him to live in the home with her little girl who he had previously groomed and molested. If you can figure out some other meaning then say so, otherwise go philosophize on somebody who will appreciate your level of dimwittedness.
I don't.
Stitches
"
"You don't have to believe what we say, most pedo's are too distorted to anyway, why should an RSO activist be any different?
"
"Oh brother. I see we've got another thick headed idiot on on hands!
"
So, in addition to the slurs received last time I disagreed with these people, I'm now also a dimwitted faux intellectual, a RSO activist and a thick headed idiot. Full comments here.
Up until now I'd just presumed the people responsible for these blatant pieces of second rate fiction were simply mentally challenged but I've come to realise that they're more than just terminally thick. They're also deliberately deceptive. It was possible they could've really been stupid enough to believe their incorrect interpretation of the quote they posted but their reaction to having their deceipt exposed shows that they are not really interested in the truth.
I guess what people say is true after all... Stitches77 and co. really are cunts... and dramatically dim cunts at that!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 2
http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S625982.shtml?cat=566
Vigilantes are deluded sociopaths who believe that they're above the law and more important than anyone else. They have no respect for law and order and believe that they're so superior to everyone else that they are well within their rights to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. They're also completely wrong.
The case linked to above is a perfect example of the problem with vigilantes. In summary, a vigilante took it upon himself to post details of local sex offenders in public places as part of a campaign to stir up the public against them. Some other vigilantes took offense at this and beat the crap out of him. And herein lies the rub. One either supports the concept of vigilantism or one opposes it. You can't pick and choose the vigilantes who should be allowed. If you support even one vigilante then you lose any sort of moral right to condemn other vigilantes with whom you may disagree.
Some people who don't think things through voice their support for vigilantes when the people targeted are those they don't like. There would be many people supportive of the vigilante trying to rabble-rouse by posting flyers exposing people in the community. However, should one have supported his vigilantism, it would be extreme hypocrisy to then oppose the vigilantism of the people who bashed him. In both cases the vigilante engaged in activities with the intention of hurting the intended target... either physically or through orchestrating social exclusion (NB. There are many who would argue that the posting of flyers is aimed at provoking other vigilantes to physically attack the SO's but I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and presume he wasn't that vicious).
I believe in the rule of law. Anyone who breaks the law, regardless of motivation, is a criminal and should be treated as such. Further, anyone who chooses to break the law does so in the knowledge that this action brings consequences. I guess the bloke who got bashed this time hadn't taken into account the chance that his fellow vigilantes would be part of his consequences.
Vigilantes are deluded sociopaths who believe that they're above the law and more important than anyone else. They have no respect for law and order and believe that they're so superior to everyone else that they are well within their rights to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. They're also completely wrong.
The case linked to above is a perfect example of the problem with vigilantes. In summary, a vigilante took it upon himself to post details of local sex offenders in public places as part of a campaign to stir up the public against them. Some other vigilantes took offense at this and beat the crap out of him. And herein lies the rub. One either supports the concept of vigilantism or one opposes it. You can't pick and choose the vigilantes who should be allowed. If you support even one vigilante then you lose any sort of moral right to condemn other vigilantes with whom you may disagree.
Some people who don't think things through voice their support for vigilantes when the people targeted are those they don't like. There would be many people supportive of the vigilante trying to rabble-rouse by posting flyers exposing people in the community. However, should one have supported his vigilantism, it would be extreme hypocrisy to then oppose the vigilantism of the people who bashed him. In both cases the vigilante engaged in activities with the intention of hurting the intended target... either physically or through orchestrating social exclusion (NB. There are many who would argue that the posting of flyers is aimed at provoking other vigilantes to physically attack the SO's but I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and presume he wasn't that vicious).
I believe in the rule of law. Anyone who breaks the law, regardless of motivation, is a criminal and should be treated as such. Further, anyone who chooses to break the law does so in the knowledge that this action brings consequences. I guess the bloke who got bashed this time hadn't taken into account the chance that his fellow vigilantes would be part of his consequences.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Free Speech vs Thoughtcrime
{blog: littlegirl saved}
"Minimizing crimes against children should be illegal in itself!"
The above quote is taken from the post titled 'Boy-Chatters think Child porn is laughable?'. Having read the post I still haven't seen anything from the Boy-Chatters that suggests they consider kiddie porn to be laughable... but that's not the point that caught my eye. No, the thing that caught my eye was the suggestion that legislation should be passed to make it illegal for anyone to express an opinion that could be construed as 'minimising crimes against children'. The obvious ambiguity in this statement is hardly surprising as the intention to stifle thought and free speech is most effective when the boundaries are blurred and the goal posts easily moved.
Now, I don't like to see actual crimes against children trivialised but I defend the rights of everyone to free speech. It's very easy to be a defender of free speech when the concept expressed is something we agree with; but the true test of our commitment comes when people want to express concepts with which we disagree. As the Friends of Voltaire so eloquently expressed it: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". There's really nothing I can add to that.
"Minimizing crimes against children should be illegal in itself!"
The above quote is taken from the post titled 'Boy-Chatters think Child porn is laughable?'. Having read the post I still haven't seen anything from the Boy-Chatters that suggests they consider kiddie porn to be laughable... but that's not the point that caught my eye. No, the thing that caught my eye was the suggestion that legislation should be passed to make it illegal for anyone to express an opinion that could be construed as 'minimising crimes against children'. The obvious ambiguity in this statement is hardly surprising as the intention to stifle thought and free speech is most effective when the boundaries are blurred and the goal posts easily moved.
Now, I don't like to see actual crimes against children trivialised but I defend the rights of everyone to free speech. It's very easy to be a defender of free speech when the concept expressed is something we agree with; but the true test of our commitment comes when people want to express concepts with which we disagree. As the Friends of Voltaire so eloquently expressed it: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". There's really nothing I can add to that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
