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?
Static | 02.14.09 - 1:11 am | #

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.