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.