Thursday, December 31, 2009

Questions for Jeremy and Clay

Jeremy Bolick and Clay Keys:

As you're both quite vociferous in your support of AZU I'd like to clarify some issues.

AZU support publicly accessible registers of sex offenders in order for people to be able to identify the sex offenders in their community. My questions to you both are:

* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, have you actively informed those living in your street and nearby streets that you are convicted child sex offenders and that people should be wary of you?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?

The more unbalanced members of AZU advocate that paedophiles and child sex offenders should commit suicide. My questions to you both are:

* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, is this not extreme hypocrisy given that you are both convicted child sex offenders and yet neither of you have committed suicide?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?

AZU support a 'one strike' policy whereby all convicted sex offenders are permanently locked up following their first conviction. Further, they support mandatory civil confinement for any non-offenders with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation or anyone who supports them. My questions to you both are:

* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, given that you have both already had your first strike (in Jeremy's case, three strikes that we know of) what steps have you taken to have yourselves forcibly confined?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?

There are plenty more questions that I will have for you but this will do for now. Do I actually expect you to answer them? Of course not. I know you're both cowards who'll avoid any sort of accountability but still, someone needs to ask them.

My own belief is that you are both filthy hypocrites who support AZU's rhetoric as long as it doesn't actually get applied to you. I doubt very much you'll be able to truthfully answer my questions without your hypocrisy being exposed for all to see.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

A Belated Merry Christmas

Yes, I know it's a couple of days late but I'd like to wish a belated Merry Christmas to all my readers and contributors. Thanks for your support, comments and emails during 2009 and I look forward to continuing the discussion into 2010.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Deep Thoughts Pt8

~**Violet Leaves**~ said...

I hope they get beat up-raped-dominated daily in prison for the rest of their lives.

Ahhh.. AZU's most vocal pro-rape apologist spews forth yet another obscene rant. You'd think that someone who claims to have been abused as a child would find the idea of rape in any form abhorrent. But no, she gets off on the thought of it. I've no doubt she's got some of her dreadful 'poetry' tucked away somewhere in which she glorifies what the rest of us find horrific.

How perverse. How disgusting.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Gay Paedophiles? Surely not...

You're not a 'male homosexual.' You are a pedophile. Period.

Clearly the statement by rookiee (a rather apt moniker) is ridiculous but this is the standard of logic one expects in the AZU comments. According to rookiee, one is either a paedophile or one is a homosexual; one seemingly can't be both. The problem with this is that the terms 'paedophile' and 'homosexual' refer to different types of orientation and are not mutually exclusive. Homosexual refers to one's gender orientation whereas paedophile refers to one's developmental orientation.

A person can be homosexual (attracted to same gender), heterosexual (attracted to opposite gender), bisexual (attracted to both genders) or asexual (not sexually attracted to either gender). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the gender a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the developmental stage they're most attracted to.

A person can be paedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephile (attracted to pubescent children), ephebophile (attracted to adolescents), teleiophile (attracted to adults) or gerontophile (attracted to the elderly). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the developmental stage a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the gender they're most attracted to.

Therefore, a male who is primarily attracted to prepubescent girls is a heterosexual paedophile whilst a male who is primarily attracted to pubescent boys is a homosexual hebephile etc. This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to think logically about the issue.

So why would rookiee make such a silly comment? Is he just ignorant or is there a hidden agenda in play? Is it limited to AZU or is there a wider agenda? This is an interesting subject as it is indeed wider than AZU and incorporates what is now generally referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby as well. The agendas of the two groups are different but manifest themselves in similar language.

To understand the agenda of the LGBT lobby, one needs to be aware of the history of the early days of the homosexual political agenda. In the early 1970's the LGBT lobby was in its infancy and fighting an uphill battle against institutionalised discrimination and persecution. It was during this time that NAMBLA was formed and became active within the LGBT lobby. Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's it became clear to the LGBT lobby that its association with NAMBLA was becoming a liability in its attempts to gain mainstream acceptance as the general public falsely associated homosexuals with child molesters. Increasingly NAMBLA was ostracised by the wider LGBT community. NAMBLA remained a member group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) until 1993 when they were excluded for political reasons. Today the gay lobby has been known to claim that adult men who are attracted to prepubescent boys are not true homosexuals (hmmm.. where have I heard that?) as they're really attracted to the boy's 'femininity' rather than the 'masculine' characteristics true homosexuals are attracted to. To anyone without a vested interest, the political agenda of the LGBT lobby is clear. By claiming that gay paedophiles are not truly homosexual, they are effectively arguing that there are no paedophiles in the gay community and, by extension, that paedophilia is a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon. How patently ridiculous. Of course, if one is to believe that a homosexual orientation is just as natural and legitimate as a heterosexual orientation, then it follows that their argument should apply equally to heterosexual paedophiles ie. adult males who are attracted to prepubescent girls aren't true heterosexuals. Again, how patently ridiculous. No, the reason for the LGBT lobby to claim paedophiles aren't true homosexuals is purely one of political expedience and completely illegitimate and corrupt.

So what of AZU? Whilst the LGBT agenda is one of self-serving political expedience, the AZU agenda is simply one of old fashioned, down 'n' dirty bigotry as I've previously exposed. As a part of achieving their agenda, they manipulate language in the grand traditions of newspeak. In a previous post I showed how Stitches77 is attempting to limit the definitions of what can be considered sexual intercourse. Similarly, here they try to limit the definitions of what can be considered homosexuality. Remember that the term 'homosexual' refers only to one's gender orientation and conveys no information about the developmental stage one is primarily attacted to, yet the AZU agenda is to limit its definition to adults attracted to same gender adults (ie. teleiophile homosexuals). But why would AZU be so concerned about homosexual paedosexuals being recognised as such? How does it harm their agenda? The answer is that it humanises them and we all know that it's much easier to discriminate and persecute a group that are dehumanised. Anti-Semites through the ages have known this and used it to their advantage. The quote below from Stitches77 (the spiritual, if not intellectual, leader of AZU) betrays their agenda:

I don't call filthy pedophiles who want to fuck children - human.


I've previously demonstrated that AZU hate paedosexuals purely because of their sexual orientation; whether they harm a child or not is irrelevant in their warped thinking. Again in this quote, Stitches77 exposes that her hatred isn't limited to those who actually harm a child, but to anyone who is even attracted to a child.

So this brings me back to the original quote from rookiee and my question of whether he is just ignorant or if he's pushing an agenda. To be honest, I'm not sure. In rare moments of honesty, Stitches77 has exposed that she is consciously pushing an agenda of dehumanisation and subversion of language but it is entirely possible that rookiee is simply an ignorant bigot, unaware of the tactics Stitches77 exploits. In either case, it's important that such bigotry is exposed and combatted.

Paedosexuals are human. Paedosexuals can be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Fact. Anyone who would claim otherwise is pushing an agenda and should be treated with great caution and scepticism.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Voice of Hate

"The goal of therapy for pedophiles is never their emotional well-being."

Who gives a flying fuck about the well being of these freaks? Castrate them, kill them, lock them up for life. All are good options. Fuck their well being.

Remember that she's not referring to child molesters but anyone with the paedosexual orientation. She wants castration, murder and incarceration to be applied to the innocent as well as the guilty. This is bigotry as irrational and insidious as any other.

Remember we must judge actions, not attractions.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Deep Thoughts Pt7

Tyciol reminds me of Kevin who recently said Phillip Garrido "had sex" with Jaycee Dugard.

No he didn't. He did not have sex with her. He raped her. Period.


Someone needs to explain the mechanics of sexual intercourse to Stitches77. There's a number of ways in which someone can be raped, and forced sex is one of those. It may be forced and it may not involve affection or love and it's definitely abhorrent but it's still sex regardless of what the thought police may instruct us to believe.

Judge Actions, Not Attractions

I'm worried about these pedophiles. Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?
Cake | 12.02.09 - 4:47 pm | LINK

"Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?"

Why does that matter?

Stitches77 | Homepage | 12.02.09 - 5:57 pm | LINK

Well this says everything about the true agenda of AZU. They pretend to be concerned about the well being of children but this slip by Stitches77 proves that this isn't their main concern. It shows clearly that their overriding motivation is bigotry and paedophobia. They're far more concerned with a person's sexual orientation than their actions. They don't care whether someone is a child molester or not. They don't care whether someone collects child pornography or not. All they care about is someones underlying orientation. In the same way a homophobe hates homosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to the same gender, these people hate paedosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to children.

Someone reading the AZU blog for the first time may well assume they're using the term 'paedophile' in the same way as the media ie. as a synonym for child molester. As most of us hate the sexual molestation of children, we'd tend to agree with what they have to say. It's only when you realise this isn't the case that you come to understand what these people are really like. When they call for all paedosexuals to be gaoled or exterminated, they don't mean just paedosexuals who've broken the law by downloading child pornography or by abusing a child. They advocate the extermination or permanent incarceration of anyone who has this orientation, regardless of whether they've committed a crime or not. When they talk about doing the 'paedo stomp', they're wanting to stomp people because of their orientation, not because they've committed any crime.

Let me be crystal clear: these people are of the same calibre as a racist, a homophobe, an anti-semite or anyone else who hates a minority based purely on a physical or emotional characteristic over which they have no control. The standard AZU response to this comparison is to immediately jump on the defensive and try to obfuscate the issue by making irrelevant counter-arguments. They'll say that homosexual relationships between consenting adults are not illegal or immoral whereas sexual relationships between adults and children are so therefore the comparison between them and homophobes is false. Naturally, any intelligent person recognises this argument as the red herring it is. No one is denying that it's factually correct, but it bears no relevance to the original accusation. The only way it would be of any relevance is if every paedosexual was engaging in a sexual relationship with a child which is clearly not the case. No, to hate people based on their sexual orientation makes you a bigot, regardless of which orientation it is that you hate.

There are further parallels to the bigots of the past. When white folk took up the civil rights cause, they were derisively referred to as 'nigger lovers'. When environmentalists opposed the logging of ancient forests, they were derisively referred to as 'tree huggers'. Now when people oppose paedophobia, we get derisively referred to as 'enablers'. It's all part of a campaign to denigrate and belittle anyone courageous enough to challenge the status quo.

I'm not saying the AZU bigots aren't concerned for children's safety as I'm sure they are. I'm also concerned for children's safety and want to see child molestors gaoled for appropriate terms. What I don't do is use this concern to attempt to justify bigotry. I don't exploit the abuse of children in order to further an agenda. I don't choose to hate a minority group simply because I don't share their attraction.

In short, I judge actions, not attractions.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Voice Of Reason - A New Direction

As anyone who's read this blog for a while would know, I started it with the naive premise that all sides of the debate would relish a neutral ground in which to post comments, ideas and opinions without one side or the other censoring them or, worse still, editing them to create a false impression of what was actually said. Sadly, I've discovered that a certain group of individuals don't want to be involved in an even handed debate or discussion but are only prepared to comment on their own small blog in order to control, edit and manipulate comments.

For this reason, my blog hasn't succeeded in its original goals and has gradually changed direction from being a forum for rational debate to being more of a commentary of the misrepresetations and illogical fallacies of a group of misguided individuals. I've therefore decided to recognise this change of direction and formalise it.

The new direction of this blog is to comment on the issues and expose falsehoods and illogical prejudices wherever they may occur. Of course, I still welcome comments and thoughts from anyone who wishes to contribute and hope that at some stage both sides of the debate will become mature and confident enough to contribute to a forum over which they're not able to have control and manipulate the comments of those with whom they disagree.

Friday, November 20, 2009

250 Days and Counting...

Yep, the 250 day mark of the Jeremy Bolick challenge has passed and we're still no closer to a resolution.

For those not in the know, Jeremy is a man who has been convicted of multiple child sex offenses and possession of child pornography. Ironically, given his history, he is also someone who labelled me as a paedosexual. I challenged him to provide proof of this and, to date, his best attempt has been nothing short of pathetic.

As I commented at the time of his response to my challenge, picking a random Australian (my nationality) from the GirlChat archives and attributing his comments to me really doesn't cut the mustard. Seriously, I'd have expected Jeremy to have at least made up an IP address and then claimed that both my posts on this blog and the GirlChat posts came from the same computer. He hasn't even done this. He's just posted the GirlChat Aussie's posts and claimed they were written by me: no evidence and no proof are apparently perfectly acceptable in Jeremy's world. As a side note; given the comments of support from his cronies at AZU, apparently they don't place any importance on evidence or proof either.

Come on Jeremy, we both know what's really got you hot and bothered. You're trying to ingratiate yourself with the AZU fundamentalists whilst having a dirty, perverted past. It frustrates and angers you no end that you're a convicted child sex offender and I'm not so you want to do anything possible to drag me down to your level. Well, it won't work. The reason you've resorted to baseless non-proof tactics is you know your original claim is a lie.

Sorry Jeremy... yet again your best attempts turn out to be epic fails.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Dennis Ferguson - Interview

For those not in the know, Dennis Ferguson is a man who was convicted of child molestation in the late 1980s. Since his conviction, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence. This refusal to admit to a crime he claims not to have committed led to his exclusion from sex offender treatment programmes in prison and thus also excluded him from the possibility of early parole. He served his full 14 year sentence and was eventually released from prison to an awaiting media frenzy. Since his release he's been hounded from house to house as successive communities have been whipped into a frenzy.

None of us will ever know for sure if he really did commit that vile crime or if he was indeed wrongly convicted as he claims. He's been exposed to massive media coverage yet few of us really know much about him besides the one dimensional caricature the media present. For this reason it was interesting to watch the progamme devoted to him on Four Corners tonight. He doesn't present well but that's largely to do with his physical characteristics and the facial expressions that come with his blindness.

My gut feeling is that he is indeed guilty of molesting those poor kids and deserved the sentence he received. Still, he's now paid his debt and should be able to get on with his life without being constantly hounded and harassed by the unwashed masses - in particular the media whore Sean Killgallon who he's been driven to apply for an Apprehended Violence Order against. Check out the interview and story and make up your own mind.


Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 4



Warning: Details in this case may disturb some readers

Here's the scene: a group of 13yo girls are out getting drunk in a park when a man comes and talks to them. They go back to his house with him and eventually leave after more drinking. One of them claims the man attempted to rape her and so a couple of men break into his house in the middle of the night and beat him to a pulp with a baseball bat. The man, Cory Headen, dies of his injuries.

So, you're probably asking, why wasn't this reported on the AZU site with their usual support for the gutless vigilantes? The reason would be that, yet again, the vigilantes got it wrong. It transpires that the girl was lying about the attempted rape and because these animals took the law into their own hands, an innocent man is now dead. I find it interesting that the intellectual minnows at AZU are very quick to back vigilante criminals when they target someone who ends up being guilty but conveniently ignore the numerous occasions when the wrong person ends up on the end of vigilante injustice. That's because they're hypocrites.

My thoughts are with the family of the murdered man.

Sunday, October 4, 2009


I noticed that AZU's 'tame' child sex offender has returned from his exile and is back to posting comments... but he still seems to be having some trouble backing up his claims against me. It's been over 200 days since I challenged him and he's still come up with nothing. So, in the spirit of helpfulness, I thought is may be beneficial to him if I give him a helping hand. Jeremy, just finish this sentence...

"I stated that Jack is a paedosexual and the evidence I have which proves it is....."

There you go Jeremy, it's not that hard is it? Surely you wouldn't go around accusing people without any evidence would you?

Of course, you could just come out and admit you were talking out of your arse and you actually have no evidence whatsoever. Yes, I understand it will be a tad humiliating for you but I'm sure it's nothing more than you've experienced after being caught out in the past.

Tick tock Jeremy.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

John Couey Dies

John Couey passed away of natural causes on Wednesday morning and I, for one, won't be shedding a tear. For those not in the know, John Couey was a sick, disgusting human being who kidnapped a beautiful young girl by the name of Jessica Lunsford. He then raped her before burying her alive. If there were such a thing as evil, I'm sure Mr Couey would be a perfect example of it.

Jessica's life was short but had its share of hardships. Her parents separated when she was just one year old and her father lived at home with his parents. Her brother is a convicted child rapist although, fortunately, this conviction occurred after her death. His exploitation of her memory during his trial caused considerable outrage at the time. Despite these hardships, Jessica was apparently a lovely girl who was well liked and polite. For any person to die in the circumstances she did is unforgivable.

I hope the death of Mr Couey will bring some sort of closure to those who knew and loved Jessica. It's a shame there's no such place as Hell as some people really do deserve some extra punishment.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Idiot Posts An Idiot's Guide

I've long suspected DodiaFae of being of somewhat limited intellect and lacking the ability to construct reasoned, logical arguments. Whist this may sound harsh, her comments on the AZU blog expose these shortcomings as she tries desperately to fit in with the other AZU intellectual midgets by parroting their insults, personal attacks and internally inconsistent 'arguments'.

Example? Here she claims that " When you attempt to throw humor into discussions on a forum like this (AZU), you mock the victims of of abuse.". Yet, this statement comes only a few comments after her contribution here where she laughs at a comment made by Violent Leaves and then adds her own perverted brand of humour. Someone should loan her a dictionary so she can look up the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

Now DodiaFae has outdone herself. On her own PACA blog she's published a step by step guide to teach child molesters the techniques to most effectively infiltrate a single parent family with the aim of molesting the children of that family. The stupidity of this woman is astounding. If her article had been published as a post on the GirlChat forum, AZU would be outraged and write a post condemning it as evil. Then the half dozen contributors, including DodiaFae, would comment ad nauseum about how sick and perverted one would have to be to publish something like this. Well, no one needs to post the Idiot's Guide to Molesting Children of Single Mothers as DodiaFae has done it for them.

Good one moron!!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Deluded Notions Pt2

Post directed at Michael Melsheimer

However, I said I was going to neutralize you and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

If you are "ticked pink" by me and dismiss me as 'your best enemy', I can only say that's your misfortune for not taking me seriously. You will, after all, never be able to say that I didn't give you fair warning.


I hate to burst your bubble SC but the only people who take you seriously are the half dozen in your little gang. The rest of us just laugh at you. You think we visit your blog because we take it at all seriously? You're deluding yourself. We visit it purely for the comedy value. Yes, I know it's cruel to laugh at the mentally challenged but you set yourself up so well that I can't help but point and laugh derisively at your glorious ineptitude.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Jezza.. Where Are You???

Well, as you can see by the Jeremy clock in the left hand toolbar, the 150 day mark has come and gone since I laid down the challenge to Mr Static to either put up or shut up. I knew he couldn't back up the crap he'd been dribbling because it's.. well.. a load of crap, but I really didn't expect him to shut up. Still, since I put the spotlight on Jeremy, he's gone missing in action. I don't know the cause of his disappearance. It may be that my challenge humiliated him and he's licking his wounds. It may be that he's holed up in his bedroom scouring the internet to try and find some non-existent 'evidence' against me. It may be that he's been caught sexually offending against children again and is currently incarcerated. It may be that he's woken up to the real agenda of the idiots he's been associating with and has wisely run a mile in the opposite direction. Whatever the reason for his disappearance, my invitation for him to prove his baseless allegations still stands.

Tick tock Jeremy.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Deep Thoughts Pt6

I hope he gets butt raped repeatedly without any ice cream or "powder" to relax.

This comment says it all really. They may pretend to hate rape but we all know they really get off on the thought of it. No one who truly hates rape could feel pleasure at the thought of another person being raped. No one who truly hates rape could be capable of the perversion of actively hoping for someone else to be raped. Violent Leaves' own words betray the desires of her heart and the depravity of her soul.

What a truly sick individual.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

A Small Mind Exposed

I read with extreme disdain the attack on Ben Radford by the intellectual midgets at AZU. For those who have been living under a rock, Ben is the editor of The Skeptical Enquirer and a well respected member of the skeptical community. He has a degree in Psychology and a great many publications to his name. Basically, in intellectual terms, he is as Gulliver to the Lilliputians of AZU. So, for someone as terminally dim as SC to describe him as a "...shallow thinking fool..." is simply outrageous.

SC should get down on her well worn knees, beg his forgiveness and plead to be allowed to sit at his feet and learn what it is to use reason and logic. She should beg him to show her how to reach for the stars rather than continuing to wallow in the muck. For so long she has surrounded herself with sycophants and retards that her own ego has exploded out of control. She seems to have convinced herself by avoiding answering direct questions through a combination of ad homenim attacks and censorship of comments that she's smart. She's not. Not even a little bit.

Interesting Study

I came across press reports of this study a couple of weeks ago and thought it sounded interesting. I won't say too much about it as it's pretty self-explanatory but I'll just post the conclusion summary and the link to the study:
Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.

As is often quoted on the Vigilant Antis site, Sarah Tofte pointed out that at least 75% of convicted sex offenders don't reoffend again within at least 15 years. This new study has now found evidence that the viewing of child pornography doesn't lead non-abusers to start sexually abusing children.

Of course I'd never advocate any illegal activity and I'm certainly not advocating the collecting of child pornography. What I am saying is that this study clearly repudiates the unsubstantiated opinions of the posters on some other blogs. As someone who is always open to the evidence, I'll be interested to see if they can produce any academic studies that support their position or if they'll just launch into another series of vacuous ad hominem attacks.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

A Very Sad Case


Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.

So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.

So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.

This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 3

The fallout from the tragic rape of an 11yo girl continues. In my previous post I concentrated on the cowardly mob attack on a man police suspect of the crime. Now, the inevitable has surfaced: an innocent man was severely beaten by a mob who thought he was the man for whom police were searching.

So, after Jacey posted on the AZU blog offering strident support for the vigilantes, has there been any comment there regarding the beating of an innocent man by another mob of vigilantes? Of course there hasn't. Things like this are their worst nightmare. They believe mobs should be free to attack people with impunity because, in their tiny minds, vigilantes never get it wrong. After all, there's nothing wrong with a bit of street justice is there?

So Jacey, what do you think should be done to the mongrels that attacked this bloke for something he didn't do? Do you really think these animals are any different to the ones that attacked Jose Carrasquillo? Why have you remained silent on this case? I'll tell you why: it's because you're a simpering, whiny little hypocrite who knows that there are no right or wrong vigilantes. There's just criminal scum who use the suffering of others as an excuse to indulge in violent behaviour. AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.


Monday, June 8, 2009

Of Mice And Men

This is the face of a man accused of a truly horrific crime. Last week an 11 year old girl was brutally raped. Her rape was so violent she ended up in hospital needing surgery to repair the damage done to her. Make no mistake, if this guy did actually rape that girl, he should be locked up for a long, long time. Rape is a terrible crime and anyone who commits it must face a long time behind bars.

So, what's the sting in the tail of this case? In their attempt to catch the suspect, police released his picture to get assistance from the public. He was spotted and a couple of members of the public restrained him until police arrived to arrest him. Right? Well actually, no. He was indeed spotted but when he denied being the rapist a mob proceeded to beat him senseless, including one coward using a board to bash him. In fact, the beating continued until the police arrived to stop it. The suspect was left in a critical condition in hospital. But that's ok as mob justice is fine when it comes to someone who raped a little girl right? Well, again, things are not so black and white here either. Not only is he only a suspect, the police are yet to even charge him with the crime.

I have no problem with a citizen's arrest being enacted as long as it's done in a civilised manner but, as is completely clear from the footage above, what happened here fits no-one's definition of 'civilised'. Let's face facts; whilst some of these thugs were legitimately angry about what happened to the girl, I've no doubt that a number of the mob were just exploiting an opportunity to beat the crap out of someone. In my opinion, they overstepped the mark and should be charged with assault.

In reading various comments and blog posts, I'm constantly astounded at the simple-minded people who support vigilantes. A vigilante is neither noble nor brave. The reality is that a vigilante is nothing more than a coward and a criminal and must be treated as such. What was done to the suspect in this case is no different to the mob beatings I saw on the news following the Rodney King decision in the early 90's. It was simply mob violence where a gang of people decided to bash an individual person who was unable to defend himself. The people who make comments supporting these scum try and make an argument that we have to support one side or the other. That's pure rubbish. If the suspect did rape that girl, he is a disgusting, opportunistic human being and I want to see the book thrown at him. The mob that bashed him are also disgusting, opportunistic human beings and I want to see the book thrown at them.

I again come back to the cornerstone of the western justice system: a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. By supporting people who go around making their own decision about who is guilty and what the appropriate punishment should be, we're supporting the undermining of our entire way of life. I don't know if this bloke is guilty of the rape but, more importantly, none of the thugs that bashed him knew either. I just hope that the family and friends of the suspect don't decide to dish out some vigilante justice of their own and attack the cowards responsible for the bashing... although I'm sure there would be plenty of misguided people who'd support them if they did.


Thursday, June 4, 2009

Rob Taylor - The Pretender

Ever since I started the clock on AZU's resident sex offender and exposed him as a petty liar, he's tucked his tail between his legs and gone quiet. Still, no problem as there is a pretender to his crown. With Violent Leaves continuing to write her awful 'poetry' and Stitches the Cunt (SC) barely able to string two words together without it sinking to personal abuse, Little Robbie Taylor is quickly emerging as the new leader at the hate site. So I thought it time to have a look at a sample of his contributions...

"Brisson admitted to the court Friday he was a pedophile with a compulsion that can’t be stopped. He also likened society’s fear of pedophiles to long ago fears of African Americans or gays and lesbians and said all adults have thoughts of having sex with children.

“We punish what we don’t understand,” Brisson said during a several minute tirade against police, society and the press. “Then when we’re released it’s to unjust regulations and stipulations.”

He admits to having a compulsion then claims that having a compulsion that can lead to the death of a baby is the same as being gay or being Black.

Um, no, he didn't claim that. He actually compared society's current fear and persecution of paedosexuals to the fear and persecution of African Americans and GLBT people by society in the past.


Yeah Anime fixation is a tell in my opinion. I can appreciate Vampire Hunter D as much as the next guy, but the obsession with collecting cartoons, and anime images etc denotes a immaturity that many pedophiles seem to have.

So it's ok to appreciate anime, as long as one doesn't appreciate it more than Rob deems appropriate as Mr Expert has decided that this denotes immaturity and, possibly, paedosexuality. Personally, I have no interest in anime so if I suffered from Rob's rampant egocentrism, I'd say that his level of interest is a sign of immaturity and possible paedosexuality. Fortunately I'm not that blinded by my own self-importance.


"Not only that, but, since this was a simple, legal 'rape' and not an actual, penetrative, forceful 'rape' (and she, providentially, enjoyed the activity), to imprison someone, for such a ridiculously long period of time (based only on moral outrage) tells us all we need to know about the nature of the US of A; I am compelled to say, that such barbarism has also crept into my country, as well."

Outrageous. How would you know the baby enjoyed being raped? This is the fantasy of a disgusting miscreant. England has a high rate per 100,000 people of rape, assaults and robberies, and just the other day some of your Irish brothers kicked a Catholic to death after a soccer game. English citizens have been filmed taking part in the racist Jihad in Darfur, fighting for the Taliban in Pakistan and taking control of the streets from your police. Not to mention that honor killings and marriages between cousins are actually increasing every year in England.

But we're barbarians for throwing the book at a man that raped a baby.

You claim to point out cognitive distortions in others but the truth is your country has collapsed, is basically a protectorate of America (no longer since our new president has some highly nuanced views of England) and already has installed Sharia law in the Muslim majority areas. You're the product of English barbarism, an immoral man-child lashing out at the world in a futile attempt to maintain some control over your life in a statist society whose official policy is to allow competing cultural norms and a massive welfare state to bleed the country dry and destroy law and order.

Don't pretend you don't pine away to live here, you're desperate seeking of attention from the people here tells us all we need to know.

Where does one even start with this? He doesn't like something Dr Oldfield said so he launches into a rant of irrelevant anti-English generalisations. The only specific point he makes is about an attack in Ireland (that's a different country Rob). It would appear his intention was to somehow demonstrate that modern day England is a barbaric society and this is somehow responsible for Dr Oldfield's beliefs and/or orientation. I'll give you one little bit of help here Robbie; try being specific in your points and cite examples to support your assertions. If you want to demonstrate that England is a more barbaric society than the USA you will need to cite specific, provable facts about England and the comparable facts about the USA. Vague assertions may cut it with the folk at AZU but I'm afraid it's not good enough for anyone with the ability to think critically about issues.




Saturday, May 23, 2009

Child Pornography?

Read the news article here

What is child pornography? Is it ever acceptable to produce and/or distribute child pornography? If an image/video is not considered by authorities to be child pornography when produced, should it ever be classified as such? If an image isn't considered by LEA to be serious enough to prosecute the producer and/or distributor, should anyone be able to be prosecuted for possessing it?

These questions are just some that were raised in my mind when reading the story linked to above. So, what is child pornography? Well, it appears if you asked 50 people that question you'd get 50 different answers. To me, it's very simple. Would the image in question be considered pornographic if the person/people in it were adults? If the answer is yes, the image in question is pornography. If the answer is no, it isn't. If the image has thus been established as pornography, the next question to ask is whether any of the participants are children. If the answer to that is also yes, the image in question is child pornography. Is this approach simplistic? Possibly, but that doesn't make it wrong. It certainly helps remove many of the grey areas that currently obfuscate the issue. The blurred line that sometimes exists between art and porn remains but is much easier to deal with by taking this approach.

So, back to the article that initiated this train of thought. The footage in question was of two 13yo students performing a sex act and was filmed by another boy from their school. Would this video be considered pornographic if it were of two adults? Obviously the answer is yes. Is there a child or children participating in the video? Again, the answer is yes. Therefore, there can be no question that this is child pornography. Bear in mind there are people in the USA facing charges of producing child pornography for running a website in which the children were clothed and not involved in any sort of sexual activity, so if this is the standard being applied I don't see how the video referred to in the news article can be seen as anything but hard core child pornography.

So this then brings us to the next pertinent questions. Should the person who filmed the sex act and distributed the child pornography be charged? Or is it acceptable to produce and distribute child pornography if you're a child yourself? We charge children with murder so why not with producing and distributing kiddie porn? Is it not considered a serious enough crime to charge them? What if a 60 year old person is found with the video on his/her computer? Should that person be charged with possessing child pornography when the video in question wasn't considered serious enough to charge the person who made it? What if the boy who filmed the sex act made money out of his distribution? Does that really change things when most of the child pornography in circulation is made and distributed without anyone making a cent?

There are a lot of issues that this story raises and I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I'm certainly interested to hear what others think.

Related Post

Friday, April 17, 2009

Deep Thoughts Pt5

Quote from Logue Hater

I imagine a search of Derek's hard drive would turn up some things that would put him in prison.

Enjoy your disability (and freedom), Derek. While it lasts.

Yes Logue Hater, we all know what sort of imagination you have. This is your second time being featured in Deep Thoughts after being the inaugural scumbag in the series for your unforgivable pleasure derived from fantasies of Derek being raped.

So you know Derek has things on his hard drive that would put him in prison? Of course not. It's all in your warped imagination.

You are one seriously sick individual.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Terrence is a shitbag! Worse!

His poetry is an admission of rape if you ask me. Who in the hell would write that and expect to be taken as anything BUT a child molester?!

Oy vey. The perversion is bad enough, but the pretension? Unforgivable.

You don't like pretentious poetry Rob? Have a read of this drivel from the queen of pretentious, untalented hacks; Violent Leaves. I realise she's had a hard life but that's still not an excuse for inflicting such bland crap on everyone else.

I can't sleep. Can't fall asleep. Can't stay asleep.

My anxiety about not being able to go to sleep is overwhelming.

I want to sleep.

One night I was awoken at approximately 3am to the knowledge someone was trying to take my blankets off.

I knew who they were when I saw their face

although the face was someone I had never met.

They were trying to get me to get up and do something.
I had to do something.

Nothing more annoying than being woke up by an invisible spirit for a job and yet cannot get the message of what that job is.

Call me a nut call me a fruitcake.

I might agree.

I got out of bed the next morning to a message on the phone left at 9 am
"Wilma died last night".

I went to the window and looked down the mountain towards Wilma's house.
She was old and a very sweet lady.

She was buried next to my Mother a few days later.

Is the Earth an aching empty belly begging for flesh to filled its depth?

Do spirits remember their night of suffering laboring breath while the flesh gives way letting go finally to release the energy that 
once was you?

I held Mother's hand and promised to hand her to Jesus.

All the hours hearing her labored breath
wondering if she was aware
I was there
the deep pains filling and refilling the wounds
I had to let go
of her.
It was final
even this would be dismissed.

Her legacies written with invisible ink
told by unknown people who were too busy to attend her funeral.

~She didn't want to see them before she died
-she didn't want them hovering over her
-sad eyes
-she was ashamed
we all are as we face God~

Legacy of love:
being loved and forgiven
then loved again.

Let me make it clear for those who are not particularly sharp: I'm not laughing about or mocking child abuse, or the abuse Violent Leaves claims she endured. I'm just mocking awful 'poetry'. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Deluded Notions Pt1

Post addressed to Derek 

That said, if you wish to continue engaging Stitches and my other friends in the manner you have been, you should be prepared. You're on my radar now too; you haven't had to deal with me so you have no idea what I am capable of. Underestimate me at your own risk.

Ha ha ha... I bet he's terrified.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Deep Thoughts Pt4

Quote from Violent Leaves:

Your (sic) bragging about getting sexually excited over seeing a little girl half naked (WITHOUT HER CONSENT) you visually raped her. 

Well, according to VL's standards pretty much everyone I know is a rapist. Seen an attactive woman on the beach and gotten aroused? You're a rapist. Seen a hot guy on the bus and allowed yourself a little fantasy? Yep, you're also a rapist. Been to a fashion show and gotten a little excited by the models? You guessed it, you're a rapist. In fact, if you're a normal person with a normal sex drive you're probably a rapist by VL's definition. 

Perhaps VL is abnormal or frigid enough to have never seen another person and felt even a little sexually excited but I'd venture to say she's in a very small minority. For the rest of us, by VL's reckoning, we're all rapists.

The Eroding of Freedom in Australia,23739,25235298-5003402,00.html

I don't know what's more alarming: the Australian government forming a secret list of sites to be banned or the way the Australian public is so compliant in letting it happen. How can we possibly be so ignorant of the lessons of history? 

Let's be perfectly clear. This proposed censorship has nothing to do with banning child pornography. Kiddie porn is already banned in Australia and people caught with it usually receive a gaol sentence. No, this is all about banning thought. It is about censoring ideas. It is about the government deciding what concepts we should be exposed to. It is about repression of the people and ending freedom of speech.

The banning of sites is bad enough but keeping the list secret under threat of gaol is a truly dangerous development. No government should be given the power to ban any site it deems to be promoting undesirable thoughts. To not only be given this power but also the power to keep secret the identity of the banned sites is unconscionable and can lead to nothing but trouble and an abuse of power. After all, if everything is above board and they have nothing to hide, why refuse to subject the list to public scrutiny? Something smells very fishy in Denmark here.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Important Correction

In my post of March 16, I stated that Mark Lunsford's computer was found to have child pornography on it. Since then the AZU blog has published a 2007 letter from the Florida Assistant State Attorney Richard Ridgway which states they "... found no evidence of child pornography on the computer.". Now, I certainly don't want to accuse someone of possessing kiddie porn if it isn't true so I've done further reading on the matter and found that the issue isn't at all clear cut. From the accounts I've read, it would appear Mr Lunsford did not 'download, file or save' the child porn images BUT there WAS evidence these vile pictures were viewed on his computer. The usual claim that they may have appeared courtesy of those evil pop-ups has been floated and I'm sure people can make up their own minds over how likely or unlikely that story is. 

Another Assistant State Attorney, Pete Magrino, made the following quote:

“There was no evidence found by law enforcement that the computer was used in the manufacturing or production of child pornography, only that there were a limited number of items that were viewed,” Magrino said. “To expend additional law enforcement resources and prosecutor resources to make a case, when balancing societal goals. I mean, Mr. Lunsford’s been through enough.”

Mr Lunsford's been through enough? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Does he now have a free ticket to do as he likes because some sick bastard killed his daughter? Does the law not apply equally to him anymore? 

Ultimately there's no way of knowing who was looking at those images. Given that his son has gone on to be found guilty of raping a child it may well have been him. Regardless, the case should have been investigated as it would have been for anyone else. 

So, yes, there is an important correction. Mark Lunsford's computer was NOT found to have child pornography on it. It was found that someone using Mark Lunsford's computer had been viewing child pornography. Perhaps to most people the distinction is irrelevant but it still must be made. 

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Tick Tock Jeremy

How about if I call you a raving fucking pedophile, and you can sue me for ruining your "good" name. It shouldn't be too difficult for you. (After all, I don't hide behind a screen-name.) That way, I won't be bothering you by asking someone to prove me wrong because all I'll have to do is prove that I'm right. And I can, Jack. If you were half as intelligent as you try to appear, you'd know this. Care to try me?

Of course your logic is as flawed as always. You're working on the assumption I actually care about what you call me. I don't. But feel free to go ahead and 'prove' your assertion.. you don't need a lawsuit to do that do you? I'm certainly interested to hear what you consider proof.

The AZU jokers subscribe to the old principle of "A lie repeated often enough will eventually be considered truth". Their way of dealing with people who don't accept without question everything they say is to start calling them paedophiles or paedophile enablers or blame gamers or some other equally vacuous 'insult'. The idea is if they say it often enough it'll just become accepted as a fact regardless of the truth of the matter.

Jeremy stated I'm a paedophile and claimed he has proof. I challenged him to go ahead and prove his claim but, rather predictably, he's gone completely quiet on the topic. As usual, he made a completely baseless allegation and has been caught out in his lie. So, I thought it would be fun to add a timer to the left navigation bar that will just keep counting from the time I challenged him to prove his claim until the time he does so. He won't do this as, quite simply, he can't. He knows he's been totally owned and every minute that passes on my clock shows him as a bigger fool.

Do I care to try you Jeremy? I sure do.

Tick tock

Monday, March 16, 2009

Mark Lunsford isn't happy...

I heard Mark Lunsford isn't very happy about having contact with the RSOL at the AWA hearings. Let's just say the old Romeo & Juliet tactic wasn't effective.    

Lunsford made a few calls already. I can assure you the pedo-lovers will not be met with open arms.

This would be the same Lunsford whose computer was found with kiddie porn on it? The same Lunsford whose son was charged with raping a child? The same Lunsford who's still shamelessly trading on the tragic death of his daughter to manipulate idiots into excusing him and his son for doing things anyone else would be crucified for? 

Surely no-one would be stupid enough to be manipulated by him. 


Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Deep Thoughts Pt3

Quote from Jeremy/Static:

"Furthermore, the only people I've called "pedo" is Nigel (I dare you to prove me wrong), Jack (again, prove me wrong)..."

Ahhh, the old 'prove me wrong' argument. We hear this all the time in the sceptic community; usually from religious types who state there is a God without providing any evidence and then demand we prove them wrong. Of course we can't do this. But the thing is, we don't need to as the onus of proof is on them to prove their claim is true... just as the onus of proof is on Jeremy to prove his claim to be true. He knows he can't do this and therefore doesn't even try. After all, the best 'evidence' he's managed to uncover is my use of a non-AZU approved word. He hangs his entire argument on the use of a single word!! I understand that my contempt for him and his half a dozen cronies irritates them but that is evidence of nothing but my ability to see through their self-indulgent bullshit. It proves nothing about my sexual predilections. And to think he's the one SC points to as some sort of bastion of logic. I point and laugh derisively.

What is really quite entertaining to me is that one such as he would try and label me a paedo (yes, that's how those who use proper English spell it). I certainly wouldn't call him one as I have no idea of whether he is or not. What I do know is that he's a sex offender who targets kids and, as such, isn't the sort of person I feel any compulsion to justify myself to.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

A Reply To Static/Jeremy

A response to Static's comment here:

"I don't understand what the term 'paedo-enabler' means? Did he not read the passage he quoted? I made the perfectly valid point that the term is not defined anywhere so I've gone to the context in which it's used to ascertain the meaning. As clearly stated in my post, the term is "... an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals."

Ok, Jack. You've shown that you have a sense of humor. That's something I can respect, so I'll simply answer you this time, and leave it at that.

Think about Alcoholics Anonymous. In AA, you'll hear people talk about enablers of alcoholics. They aren't saying that anyone who is related to an alcoholic, or associates with one, is an enabler. When they say enabler, they mean someone who (whether intentionally or not) helps the alcoholic to keep the same distorted thought-patterns that cause the alcoholic to drink. Notice that it doesn't have to be intentional on the part of the enabler. All enabler means is someone who makes it easier for an alcoholic to remain a drunk. It's the same idea with a pedo-enabler.

Someone can be supportive of pedos without intending to be. AZU doesn't have time to parse up whether someone is intentional or not. They point out the problem to the enabler, but then it's up to the enabler to do something about it. As far as I've seen, the enabler almost never does anything at all about it, besides screaming "vigilante" at the top of their lungs.

One of the several problems with your post, which prompted me to quote it, was that you got the meaning of "pedo-enabler" wrong. YOU said it meant anyone who is related to a pedophile- AZU did not say that, you did. Then you went on to use your own false definition to malign AZU. The error was yours, not theirs. But let's be honest here- you don't really care whether you're right or wrong, do you...

And I know this because of your use of the term "paedosexual." That is a term used by paedophiles to describe themselves because it helps them to see their "proclivities" as just another sexual orientation, instead of as a deviancy. I know this. Everyone here knows this. And YOU know this. You screwed up by using that word. It was a dead giveaway.

You created a blog with the
public purpose of "providing a neutral playing field." But your use of the word "paedosexual" showed where your true loyalties lie. That was your mistake, not mine, and not AZU's. You showed your hand in your very first post, which BTW, was before I ever said a word to you. You also couldn't seem to control your animosity to AZU even in your first post. This was also a tactical error. If you wanted to pretend to be neutral, you should have waited a bit longer to start slamming AZU.

My opinion is that you are very much aware of what you are doing. As for your motives- that's left to be seen. But I have a pretty good clue... Now, so does everyone else, and you provided it. Thank you. Your use of the word "paedosexual" says everything that needs to be said. At least it says it all to anyone who has been aroung this issue for awhile.

Now, let's talk about how Derek glommed on to you as soon as you posted at his blog. This is one of the reasons I call him a reactionary and a dumbass. You posted a comment which was supportive of his blog. He then went to your blog and posted supportive comments. The problem is that he didn't stop to consider who and what he was getting involved with. THAT is one of the several reasons I call him stupid.

And I don't mean it to be as insulting as it may appear- I made a similar error when I joined Sosen without checking them out first. It's a mistake that's easily made. But it should be corrected. Otherwise, a person becomes an enabler, like Derek has enabled you. I honestly don't think he'd intentionally support a pedophile activist, but he WILL go off half-cocked and give defacto support without knowing it. This is one of his biggest problems, and THE biggest problem in RSO advocacy groups.

The difference is that a person with
integrity admits their mistakes and tries to correct them. This is something no one's ever seen Derek do. And the groups have shown no signs of wanting to fix the very wide-spread problem of pedo-infiltration. Of course, you already know this, dontcha...

To answer the unasked question on Derek's mind, THIS is why I'm here at AZU. I've seen firsthand how screwed up the RSO groups are, and how far the pedoactivists have their slimy clutches in the groups, and how it causes harm to RSO's and victims.
Unlike Derek, I'm admitting my mistakes and doing something to try to correct them. Unlike you, I don't misrepresent what I stand for. The RSO's respect and appreciate that. That is why I'm making progress in getting the word out. Even the RSO's see you for what you are. At this very moment, RSO's are either leaving these groups, or getting rid of your kind. You should have been satisfied with your own groups, and left the RSO's alone.

I understand that that doesn't sit too well with you, and that it makes you want to call me names and such. But it would be nice if you would try to not seem like such a hypocrite while doing it. You spent most of your blog complaining about AZU and their "awful" behavior. Then, you did the same things you are accusing them of because your silly "arguments" were failing. Do you really think anyone with even a smidge of intelligence doesn't notice these things, including RSO's? Trust me, they do notice. Many of them have told me so.

I appreciate the fact that you have a sense of humor, so although I'm not being friendly, I've been cordial and addressed your point. To be honest, I don't like being cordial with people who are wolves in sheep's clothing. So, after this post I'm going back to making you look like a fool, ok?

Ok, you've thrown up a few things but I'll work through them.

Firstly, the 'paedo-enabler' issue. We both know that you deliberately misrepresented what I said. So does anyone who's taken the time to find the truth for themselves. You originally quoted from an article I'd posted regarding a blog that was created with the sole purpose of attacking one person and his parents. His parents were labelled 'paedo-enablers' by the poster and, in the context of the blog I was referring to, the term was clearly being used as a slur against the parents for not turning on their child. You then say that I used what you consider a false definition of the term to malign AZU. You know this is simply not true. The link to the post is here and a reading of what I wrote clearly exposes your lie as I didn't even mention AZU in that post, let alone malign them. I've attracted personal attacks from SC and others at AZU in the past for having the temerity to ask for links to articles they've quoted from. What's quite clear is they (and you) don't like posting links because it serves your purpose to obfuscate matters. You won't find me doing that here as I believe in making things as clear and open as possible in order to allow people to form their own opinions based on the facts.

You now move on to criticise me for using non-AZU approved terminology. Personally, I really don't give a shit as to whether or not you and your cronies approve of the terms I use. Whether I refer to a paedosexual or a paedophile is irrelevant. Both terms equally refer to someone with a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. You then take a giant leap of logic and claim that my initial aim of providing a neutral playing field was actually a big cover up for some clandestine goal that even you weren't able to detail. And how were you able to ascertain this hidden goal? Of course... it was through my use of a word you don't approve of. Well, it was a leap of logic that fell well short. You say that my first post displayed animosity towards AZU. Again, the link to that post is here and a reading of what I wrote will expose your lie. I was justifiably critical of the standard of comments on AZU whilst stating that I liked the site. I was also critical of the standard of posts on a rival site but I note you don't claim this demonstrates some sort of hidden agenda against them. No, it wasn't a tactical error as there was nothing tactical about my post. It was simply stating my original reason for starting the blog. Don't let your paranoia confuse you.

From here you go into an extended section on Derek. Derek comments on this blog and is welcome to... as is anyone who cares to do so. I also comment on his blog. However, he has nothing to do with the running of my blog or the content of the posts. We have issues on which we disagree and I've made that quite clear to him. Where he differs from your lot is he doesn't feel the need to stoop to levelling personal insults against me when we disagree. As for what you and other convicted sex offenders think of Derek; I couldn't give a rat's tosspot. He's not my concern.

You go on to say that the registered sex offenders see me for what I am (although you don't say what that is) and that it doesn't sit well with me. Doesn't sit well with me? I have no idea where you got that from. Let me make this perfectly clear so there's no further confusion: whether you, or any other convicted sex offender, thinks I'm the scum of the earth or the risen messiah is of no consequence to me whatsoever. I couldn't care less. Further, I think you'll find that if you took a survey of other non-offenders like me, the majority would also tell you that they couldn't give a shit about what sex offenders think of them. No, I don't have any evidence to back that up.. it's just a gut feeling.

So, onto your final salvo. I appreciate you being cordial and I have responded in kind. Not friendly, but cordial. But a wolf in sheep's clothing? Jeremy, I'm not someone who has committed multiple sex offenses against children and been caught with child pornography but is now trying to identify with people who call themselves 'anti-paedo'. For someone with your track record to try and claim the moral high ground against a non-offender is simply ludicrous and any reasonable person would see that. Of course, one could make a case that a group calling itself 'anti-paedo' whilst steadfastly supporting a kiddie porn downloader like Mark Lunsford and his child rapist son are hiding their true intentions.

Finally, go ahead and try to make me look like a fool. Who is it that's agreeing with you? SC? Jacey? Violet Leaves? Do you really think the opinions of these people mean anything to me? Do you not realise how much I laugh at these village idiots? I read their comments and pity them mired in their stupidity. Each insult from them is a badge of honour for me. To be labelled a fool by such as them carries no weight. A slur from someone I hold in such contempt is worthless.

So, you and your cronies can continue to misrepresent what I say or even attribute things to me that I haven't said. You can continue to make xenophobic Aussie put-downs. You can continue to kid yourselves that I would be upset at being thought a fool by a group of fools. Do what you will but I'm not going anywhere in a hurry and will continue to call you on your lies and inconsistencies when they arise.