"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.
Posts
6 comments:
You think he could be the NAMBLA hitman?
He seems angry enough.
Nigel.
Hi Jack! What brings you here? Did you get tired of talking with Nigel Oldfield and Pedo King over at your own blog? Or are you finally ready to get some help?
I see that you had a problem with me challenging someone to prove me wrong about you. I guess I can understand that, so how about this instead-
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?
BTW- I want to thank you for posting about me. Please keep it up (that is, if you are able to "keep it up" without a kid around) because you draw attention to what I'm writing here, and help me get the word out about how you pedos have infiltrated the RSO groups... Aw, what's wrong, Jack? Oh! You thought I fought with you because you were having some kind of effect on me? Ah- Sorry about that. Didn't you know?- I never fight without a reason. In your case, there were several very good reasons. You'd know that, if you were able to understand what's going on here.
Anyway, take care, Jack- you raving fucking paedophile. (See, I even spelled it correctly, just for you)
Static | 03.11.09 - 7:30 am | #
ROFL!!! Oh Jeremy my little court jester, you really do crack me up.
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. While you're at it, you may like to let me know which Registered Sex Offender groups I'm supposed to have 'infiltrated' as it's a mystery to me.
Sorry to disappoint you but I've never thought I have any effect on you.. but I'm glad I've at least helped improve your spelling.
Anyhoo.. keep up the comedy routine.. you're a peach.
BTW.. I forgot to ask if you're still defending the kiddie porn downloader and his child rapist son? Of have you started encouraging them to get the help they desperately need?
Jack | Homepage | 03.12.09 - 5:45 am |
Still defending Nambla/Boychat? When did I start? Perhaps you'd care to point to even a single post or comment in which I support either group? But, considering I'm still waiting to hear the mysterious 'evidence' that proves me a paedo so I won't be holding my breath.
Well that's the thing about AZU: they're all spin and no substance. What they really hate is when someone actually calls them on this and asks them to justify the claims they make. Rather than engaging in intelligent discussion they just resort to name calling.
I've been accused of being either a paedo or a 'paedo enabler' but, despite Jeremy's claims, they've not been able to produce any evidence to support their allegations. I've invited Jeremy to prove that I'm a paedo but to date have heard nothing. He says that if I'm even half as intelligent as I appear to be I'd know he can prove his claims - I say that until he comes forth with the proof he claims to have, he's showing himself to be as thick as the rest of his crew.
It's also interesting to note that they've now taken to deleting my comments and making out that I said something I didn't. They claim I was finding the sexual abuse of kids funny. What an outright lie. It's also a lie that I insulted Violent Leaves. I did insult her pretentious 'poetry' but I didn't insult her. Still, it's a great tactic to use when someone doesn't say anything incriminating... just delete their actual post and put lies in its place.
Post a Comment