The Cost Of Demonisation

WHY ARE ALL MEN MADE TO FEEL LIKE FIENDS?

This article is a couple of months old but still I thought it worth posting here as it provides a valuable insight into the consequences we are seeing of the witch hunt culture in western society today. Over the past couple of decades or so there has been a systematic demonisation of men to the point that a lot of men now avoid any interaction with children out of fear of being labelled a paedophile or, worse still, a child molester. Articles such as these one from PACA - Link Link Link - in which they tell people to confront anyone they consider to be acting 'suspiciously' are precisely the attitudes that have resulted in many men being afraid of not only having contact with children but even to be around them.

Of course no one wants to see a child being subjected to any type of abuse but demonising all men and leading the general public to view them all as potential molesters serves the good of no-one. We truly live in twisted times.

The Essence Of Thoughtcrime

The bigot nest that is Absolutezerounited put up an interesting post last week titled 'I Have Nothing To Hide'. I found it interesting on a couple of fronts. Firstly I found it interesting that they'd present as current information a Vigilant Antis post from May 2008... yes, a post that is two and a half years old!! The first half of the post was their usual boring character assassination of someone they see as a foe and, to be perfectly frank, I stopped reading after the first couple of sentences as it was the same drivel they regurgitate time and time again.

What did catch my attention was the following portion of their post:

In particular, the assertion that one could be prosecuted for merely stating they are in possession of illegal pornography even if they had never even actually seen an image of said pornography seemed too ludicrous to be true. Unbelievably, this is actually the case.

Before I go on, it is worth bringing a bit of accuracy to AZU's misinformation. In their post AZU employed one of their favourite logical fallacies: the straw man argument.

No evidence has been produced demonstrating that Amazon.com has any vested interest in child pornography and in the absence of such evidence the thought that a multinational company would have any vested interest in kiddie porn is simply a fanciful conspiracy theory. There is also no evidence that Amazon.com has ever distributed child pornography nor has any desire to distribute it in the future. Rather, the hacks at AZU have fabricated these claims in order to have an easy target to attack as they know an attack on Amazon.com's actual policies is far less effective.

AZU also stated that Amazon.com "... support Williams". This is not the case. The person referred to is Michael Williams (United States v Williams); a man who was gaoled for sending an undercover LEO a link to kiddie porn and also for actually possessing kiddie porn. He was further charged for stating to the undercover LEO that he was in possession of kiddie porn. It is this charge that was being contested and this law alone which Amazon.com, amongst a number of organisations, was opposed to. Amazon.com was in no way trying to make it legal for a person to possess and/or distribute child pornography and for AZU to insinuate such a thing is outrageous.

So, back to the ludicrous law. I thought the Washington Post article about the case summed the law up effectively when they wrote

So that is the crux of the law that reasonable people are opposed to: someone who has never even seen an image of child pornography can be charged, convicted and end up with a sex offender record for simply saying they have kiddie porn.

Now, I know my cultural competitors will throw up the usual red herring of... 'Well, if they're the sort of person who'd say they have kiddie porn they deserve everything they get' but this is clearly an argument based on emotion rather than logic. This law, taken to its logical conclusion, could even result in a person who confesses to possessing child pornography being charged for the confession as well as being charged for the porn itself. No, I'm not silly enough to think this would actually happen but it would appear it is possible under this law. Justice Scalia admits as much when he said

Note he didn't say that the grandparents would not run afoul of the law as it wouldn't apply to them in this situation but rather that they shouldn't be worried as a 'reasonable juror' wouldn't apply it to them. Too bad for them if Marina Hammond or her cronies were the jurors as we know just how 'reasonable' they are. No doubt if they were on the jury in such a case the poor grandparent would end up with 'sex offender' tattooed across his/her forehead.

As a final thought, I find it interesting that one can be gaoled in the USA for falsely claiming to possess kiddie porn yet one can falsely claim to be a sexually available child and it's completely legal. That is one seriously fucked up system!

And So It Continues...

19th Century

20th Century

21st Century

Attempting to censor the ideas and opinions found offensive by a group or individual is nothing new. A simple look back through history shows that time and again people have endeavoured to silence the voices of those they consider to have subversive or dangerous views. What is encouraging is that despite these constant attacks on our freedoms, enlightenment usually wins out.

Farewell Zahra

The terrible news came through this week confirming what we'd all be dreading.. that Zahra Baker is dead and likely murdered. This poor child coped with so much in her short life having battled a cancer that caused her to lose her leg and have to wear hearing aids. Regardless of such trials, she was reported by those who knew her to be a happy and outgoing girl. Her father dragged her to America two years ago even though she understandably wanted to stay in Australia and this ended up being the figurative signing of her death warrant. I truly hope those responsible for her death are brought to justice very soon.

Who Is Clay Keys?

Who is Clay Keys? To his deeply ashamed family he's known by his real name: Clay Calhoun Keys. To others he's known as Tsand. To still more he's known by his blog name Roar4Truth. Little Robbie Taylor describes him as a "...child raping career criminal...". His former friend Derek Logue, a man who knows him better than most, describes him as a "monster". The Florida Department of Law Enforcement know him simply as # 890949.

Clay Keys is a criminal whose nefarious career spans decades. Any criminal activity is serious and should be dealt with as such but it's his sexual offending against children that is of special concern. In addition to his child molestation, Clay has also been charged over the years with stalking, assault, theft and threats of violence amongst others.

Clay Keys is a master chameleon which is best demonstrated by his relationship with the well known bigot hub at AbsoluteZeroUnited (AZU). Originally he was at odds with them and they regularly abused him through their posts and comments. They recognised him as a dangerous, unrepentant predator who targets the vulnerable in our communities and he did all possible to bait them and reinforce their impression. He then had a falling out with his mate Derek Logue and flipped his stance entirely. Suddenly it served his purposes to use AZU as a mouthpiece to attack Mr Logue so he began saying things they like to hear. It was astonishing how quickly they embraced him into their community to the point where he is now the most regular commentator on their blog and an integral part of their setup.

Clay Keys is a hypocrite. He recently posted a lengthy diatribe about Facebook and how they'd become a 'haven for sex predators'. The main thrust of his post was to whine that the website of his former chum Derek Logue is linked to from Facebook. Yet, when I challenged him about why he had his own Facebook profile he didn't have the courage to post my comment.

Clay Keys is a coward. He openly confesses that he's not a paedosexual and, in fact, encourages bigotry against those who are. This makes it obvious he didn't molest his victims out of any particular sexual desire but solely because they were weak and unable to fight back. Being sexually oriented towards children is no excuse for molestation which is always reprehensible but to target them because of their vulnerability as he did is the lowest type of child molester there is.

So who is the real Clay Keys? All evidence suggests he's an emotionally stunted, socially alienated misfit who poses a clear and present danger to his community. He's a convicted child molester who targeted his victims for their vulnerability. He uses people and groups to further his own petty vendettas. It's not often I agree with Little Robbie Taylor and his paranoid delusions of hidden communist agendas but I have to admit he was right on the money when he described Keys as "...a bad person who takes pleasure in the pain and misery he causes others."

In a word, he is scum.

It's Time To Stop Bigotry Everywhere

As reported in The Telegraph, a disgraceful witch hunt is underway in Uganda targeting homosexuals. A local tabloid newspaper has published the names and addresses of 100 homosexual people and issued calls for their hangings. Any targeting of people of a minor sexual orientation by bigots makes my blood boil. Fortunately homosexuals are largely protected in western society now but we still have a long way to go as the bigots who'd have previously victimised them have simply moved on to others with unprotected sexual orientations. Rather than publish the names and locations of homosexuals, western bigots now demand the names and locations of paedophiles be listed publicly. Rather than make explicit calls for violence to be perpetrated on homosexuals, western bigots make implicit calls for violence to be perpetrated on paedophiles. Whilst many in western countries may sit back in smug condemnation of Uganda and their reprehensible overt bigotry, we're really not that different. Until all citizens of all countries are free from bigotry and discrimination based on their sexual orientation none are in a position to consider themselves in any way morally superior.

Ahhh.. There You Are

Really? Again? But you did such a good job of 'exposing' me last time. So what's it going to be this time? Another GirlChat random? Or will you actually pull out the name of some poor sap this time and claim that he and I are one and the same? I'm looking forward to seeing the 'evidence' you cook up this time. Remember last time I gave you some tips on what would approach the beginnings of acceptable evidence? I suggest you go back and look because it'll be quite helpful for you but as a quick guide:

• Make sure the person you name is male and identifies as an Australian
• It's also a good idea to make up some IP addresses to add authenticity - even better is to make sure you're familiar with Australia's bigger ISPs and make the IP from one of those.
• Now, I know you guys are pretty good with Photoshop (yes, I can give out compliments when they're warranted) so if you want to make it really authentic you should photoshop the IP you've made up into some actual IP tracker reports.

None of this will make your information any more accurate but it will at least make it more believable this time and we both know you're not as concerned with accuracy as you are with having people swallow the tales you tell. I just don't know if it's good or bad news that the poor bloke you target is unlikely to ever even know you've publicly named him given how comparatively few people read your blog.

Anyway, as you've probably noticed from my lack of activity of late, you have come to bore me somewhat so I'm off now. I'll pop back sometime to see how you're getting on. I've given you a checklist of what to include in your expose so please don't disappoint me by presenting less than adequate information. Surely you don't expect me to do all your work for you?

AZU - Where Are You?

It's a mystery. After so long bringing their own warped brand of extremism to the net, have Marina Hammond (Stitches), Julia Kanago (Violent Leaves), Jeremy Bolick (Static), Little Robbie Taylor, Dopey Fae and the rest of the gang finally recognised the futility of spreading hate and bigotry? Have they finally started receiving the psychological help I've been encouraging them to get for the past couple of years? Did they finally attack the wrong person and get their comeuppance?

I have no idea what's become of this ragtag bunch of halfwits and nincompoops and certainly wish them no harm, but in the interests of limiting mindless bigotry and prejudice on the internet I hope they don't return. Unfortunately like many other types of parasite I expect I'm probably hoping in vain and they'll be back just as virulent as before.

Clay Keys' True Character Shines Through

Oh dear. I always knew Clay Keys was a snake-in-the-grass but this is a new low even for him. For some time now he's been posting comments on the AZU blog under Derek Logue's name. I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to achieve by doing so as he's not fooling anyone but his pathetic behaviour was amusing and continues to make him look like a fool. However, it's one thing to imitate a grown man who is more than capable of defending himself and a completely different thing entirely to imitate and exploit an abused child in order to score cheap points in his ongoing vendetta. I'm still waiting to see his good friends Marina Hammond, Julia Kanago and Little Robbie Taylor chastise him for his despicable behaviour. Knowing their history of appalling double standards I've a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time.

Of Crime And Reason

This is Trish Deneen. She claims to be a victim of child sexual abuse. If this is true, she has my sympathy. I've been strident on this blog in my opposition to children being subject to any type of abuse and Trish is no exception. She is also a member of Dopey-Fae's PACA group and recently linked to a proposal for the statute of limitations in Michigan to be extended for victims of childhood sexual abuse to 30 years. This is something I have absolutely no problem with. If someone has committed such a heinous crime against a child they should be held to account, regardless of how much time has lapsed. Obviously the reality that they are quite likely to be a very different person to what they were 30 years prior is a valid point but there should still be accountability for past crimes. Yes, I completely agree with Trish to this point; it's what she goes on to say that I am in total disagreement with:

So, just for emphasis, what she wants is for anyone to be able to label a person a child molester without a shred of proof and to still be safe from any sort of defamation lawsuit. That is beyond ludicrous; it is simply wrong. I appreciate she may be coming from a perspective where she was abused but can't prove it and so feels constrained by current laws. That is sad but her assertion that "...abusers have more protection from the law than survivors..." is not reality. There is protection for everyone under the law which provides the right to face one's accusers in court. If you want to publicly accuse someone of a heinous crime that will adversely affect the rest of his/her life, it is only reasonable to expect you to be able to back up your claim with evidence. I would ask Trish if she would think it fair for someone to state publicly that she molested him/her as a child without any evidence and for her to have no legal avenue to defend herself and her reputation? Hopefully Trish is an intelligent enough person to think through the consequences of her proposal and realise how unjust and open to abuse it is. These laws are in place for a very good reason and it would be a huge step backwards to remove the protections they afford everyone.

Link to the PACA post

Update on Dopey's Petition

Well, dear reader, I've been a bit quiet of late but thought I'd post a quick update on a story I posted two months ago. Dopey-Fae wanted 10,000 people to sign her petition against the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Two months ago it had been signed by '54' people. I put the number in inverted comments as I showed at the time that the numbers had been falsified.

So how has the petition fared over the past two months? Has it received a flood of signatures from the scores of people outraged at our vulnerable, impressionable youth being exposed to the recollections of homosexuals about their own childhood and adolescence? Well, not exactly. It's actually received one more signature to bring the total to 55... but of course that total still includes four 'missing' signatures so the actual total number of signatures received since December 2009 is a rather underwhelming 51.

Original story..

ROFL!!!

Ridiculous Robbie

FURTHER RIDICULOUS ROBBIE-ISMS

In the blog post linked to above, Robbie launches into an attack on those who speak of the sexual orientation of paedophiles. You see, it doesn't suit Robbie's propaganda for it to be recognised that people are born with this orientation. He would rather try and indoctrinate people with the ignorant belief that paedophiles actually choose the orientation that makes them the most reviled minority group in western society.

So let's look at what Robbie considers evidence supporting his position:


Do I even need to point out that a person sexually attracted to someone with the same physical characteristics as an adult woman isn't a paedophile? Obviously when it comes to Robbie, the answer is a resounding 'YES'. A paedosexual is someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children Robbie. Therefore, by definition, someone attracted to a pubescent or adolescent person cannot be a paedophile. Of course, he also regurgitates the old myth of people entering sexual relationships with teens due to their own immaturity or inability to find adult sexual partners. Given that most instances of adults convicted of sexual relationships with early teens I've read about in the press involves people who were already in relationships with adults, the anecdotal evidence shows the 'sexual relationship myth' to be untrue. As for their level of maturity, I've not seen any study that either supports or refutes the assertion that they were more immature than 'regular' adults. So there's his first 'argument' shot down in flames.

He then moves to an even more asinine 'argument'. In an attempt to 'prove' that the paedophilic orientation doesn't exist, he cites a number of abhorent sexual crimes against children and tries to equate the action of rape with the orientation of the rapist. Again he's an epic fail. Firstly, he's provided no evidence that the child rapists were actually paedophiles. We all know that many instances of molestation are perpetrated by situational child abusers; that is, people who take advantage of being in a position where they can molest a child. These people don't necessarily have a paedophilic orientation: some do and some don't. The obvious analogy is that of male rapes in prison (the ones that Julia Kanago aka Violent Leaves gets off on). Do we assume that every inmate who rapes another is a homosexual? Of course not. We know that some are but many aren't and are just abusing the situation they're in. And, of those who are actually homosexual, is it their orientation to blame for their actions? Of course not. There's something about them as individuals allowing them to do such awful things. It's the same for paedosexuals. Some rape children but most don't. Of those who do rape children, it's not their orientation that's to blame for their actions but some flaw in their character.

So does Robbie really believe that the crimes he cites prove anything other than the fact that there's a flaw in the character of the criminals? No, he knows the truth but his redneck bigotry requires him to continue perpetuating his propaganda and telling his lies... and his deliberate dishonesty exposes the flaws in his own character.

Taylor Sinks To New Low

Just when one thought Little Robbie Taylor had sunk as low as possible, he's reached the bottom and kept digging. I shouldn't be surprised at Robbie taking cheap shots but this one had me stunned. But surely Robbie wouldn't make such an outrageous statement without solid evidence of widespread, entrenched child rape by UN officials would he? He wouldn't let his bitter right-wing 'hate everyone and everything decent' prejudices influence his objectivity would he? Like hell!! I followed the link he attached which took me to a news article dated over 3 years ago which contained nothing more than unproved allegations. That's right, he didn't even bother finding an article detailing an investigation of the claims that found them to be accurate. Instead he points to one ancient article based on nothing but rumour and hearsay and pretends it carries weight. *Sigh*

RIP Trinity Bates

I can't begin to understand what would make someone abduct and murder anyone.. let alone a beautiful child. Trinny had her whole life ahead of her and will now never have the opportunity to reach her full potential. If there was such a thing as evil, this would have to be it. It's at times like this I wish there was a heaven for people like Trinny and a hell for people like her killer. Sadly neither place exists but if people want to believe in them, well good luck to them.

I really hope the person responsible for this is caught soon and feels the full weight of the law. I'm sure no-one in Bundaberg will feel truly safe until he/she is caught and appropriately dealt with.

RIP Trinny... no one will forget you.

Link to story

The Psycho & The Simpleton

Ahhh.. further folly from the shit-for-brains at AZU.

First, a truly disturbing post from The Psycho:



Holy crap.. I really hope this person doesn't have children as there's something seriously wrong with him/her and clearly any children in his/her care would be at very real risk. If Marina truly cares about the wellbeing of children, she will immediately contact the authorities and pass on this person's IP so he/she can be traced and investigated.

After that truly frightening post, some humour is needed to lighten things up and, as usual, it comes from AZU's resident court jester: Clay Keys.



ROFL!! Clay is still banging on about not being a paedophile as though his sexual orientation has any relevance at all. He may not be a paedophile but his criminal record proves he's a child abuser and that is far, far worse than being a paedophile. The majority of paedophiles (and hebephiles) never harm a child whereas Clay already has. And now he seeks to distract people from his true nature by banging on about not being a paedophile. The simple minded AZU bloggers may be beguiled by his distortions but I won't be.

CLAY, YOU'RE A CONVICTED CHILD ABUSER: STOP TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO THINKING YOU'RE NOT!!!

All Good Things...

Well, sadly my holiday is coming to a close and I'm counting down the hours to my flight tomorrow. I've had a marvelous time and really don't want to leave. I've experienced things here I'd never be able to do at home and have no doubt I'll return as soon as I'm able. I'm even seriously considering a full time move here but that's down the track. Thanks to Cambodia and the people for showing me such a good time.

Too Funny To Ignore

Well, for those interested, my time in Cambodia is going wonderfully. It's all I'd hoped for and more. The people are beautiful, friendly and very accommodating; the sights are stunning; and the food is delicious and cheap. I wasn't sure how reliable the internet connection would be but so far I've no complaints. I hopped online to check my emails and do some share trading and thought I'd have a quick look at AZU to see how things are going. I'm glad I did as the latest stream of comments is hilarious. I'm about to head out to hit the bars so I'll keep this short and post the three funniest comments in reverse order:


In third place is Little Robbie Taylor. Robbie's always good for a laugh with his red-under-the-bed blog. He takes himself so seriously and thinks he's such a smart cookie but his rantings demonstrate otherwise. No Robbie, paedophiles are by definition people sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Most paedophiles never touch a child in a sexual manner and therefore can't be child rapists. But Robbie knows this.. he just enjoys lying.



In second place is AZU's most vocal pro-rape advocate: Julia Kanago. I'd love to see the video she demanded from notorious child abusers Jeremy Bolick and Clay Keys wearing their signs before she became friends with them. Unless of course she doesn't hold her friends to the same standards as her enemies. Now, she wouldn't be a filthy hypocrite would she? ROFL.. of course she is.

So who could possibly be stupid enough to top that comment?



Who else but court jester Clay Keys. 'We' have no respect for any paedophile hey? Maybe Derek's right about his self loathing after all. The rapidity with which he's managed to infiltrate AZU has been stunning. Now the guy convicted of the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Act Child Under 16 has been embraced by his erstwhile enemies and is just one of the gang. I have no idea whether Clay's a paedophile or not and really don't care as I judge actions, not attractions. He's far worse than a paedophile: he's a child abuser. He may have convinced his AZU buddies that someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children is worse than someone who sexually abuses them but some of us are not so blinded by bigotry as to sucked in by his rhetoric.

So there you have my top three and I've no doubt anyone reading this will find them as funny as I do. The sad part is they don't realise how funny they are.

And now it's time to hit the bars...

Time For A Break

It's been a long time since I've had a good break so in a couple of hours time I'll be sitting back in my plane seat and relaxing en route to what will hopefully be a relaxing (and very fun) holiday in Cambodia. I've not been there before so I'm not sure what to expect but from everything I've read, it should be a blast.

I expect to have reasonable internet connection there and will have my laptop with me so, should I have a quiet moment I'll post on here. Otherwise, I'll drop back in when I get home.

Dopey Strikes (Out) Again

Oh dear. It appears my favourite dimwitted pagan has overestimated the reach of her influence. At the current rate of around one signature per day, her stated goal of 10,000 signatures should be reached in a bit over 27 years... ROFL!!!

But even that estimate is being generous when one considers that three quarters of the signatures were added in the first two days of the petition being posted. Since then, support for the petition has slowed to what may generously be described as a trickle.

And it just gets worse for my little try-hard anti; a closer look at the signatures submitted shows there's been a fudging of the figures. There's 54 there right? There has to be as it says at the top there's 54. Well actually, there seems to have been a few numbers skipped on the way to the total of 54 as you can see in the screenshots below.



So, can anyone explain what happened to numbers 4, 5, 34 & 54?? Something very dodgy seems to be going on here. Could it be that Dopey-Fae expected such a flood of signatures that she thought no-one would notice if she cheated a bit on the actual numbers? Hmmm... actually, I'm being rather generous to her as most people would say skipping more than 7% of numbers is more than just 'cheating a bit'. Most people would say it's just blatantly dishonest.

On a personal note, I find the disgraceful homophobic comment left by one of my own countrymen to be rather offensive. Dopey-Fae may have couched her petition in terms of "I'm not homophobic but..." but that hasn't stopped the homo-haters from using her creation as a forum to express their bigotry. It's funny how bigotry seems to follow the AZU crowd around.

A Tragic Case Of Abuse

With all the focus on the sexual abuse of children, it's easy to forget that it's just one of a number of types of abuse children suffer. Out of the West today came the story of the worst type of abuse imaginable. This poor child didn't stand a chance as he was beaten and killed by his own father. The taking of a life is the most depraved abuse possible and my heart is filled with sadness when thinking of how Zach suffered and how he'll never have the chance to live a full life. Abuse of any kind is abhorrent but denying a child the opportunity to grow, recover and flourish is the most abhorrent of all.

What adds to the sadness of this story is that the man responsible had a previous conviction for physically abusing another of his children. Sixteen years ago he broke the bones of another son and also blinded him in one eye. I find it astounding that, despite his prior record, there's been no outcry demanding a publicly accessible register for those convicted of physically abusing children. Why is it that the suffering of children like Zach matter less in the eyes of those who advocate a public register for child sexual abusers? Why is it the Victorian focus on sexuality and a fascination with all things salacious causes people to care less for the victims of physical and emotional abuse? But don't they claim to just lurve children? Of course all children are equal to these people... it's just that some children are more equal than others. Of course they want to do everything possible to stop child abuse... as long as that abuse has a sexual element to it because, as is clearly evident, in their eyes it's the only kind of abuse worthy of their activism.

The rest of us care about all kids and want to see an end to abuse of any kind because no abuse is unworthy of our attention. Hopefully one day others will grow to this understanding and stop minimising the suffering of children whose abuse they don't presently consider worthy of their attention.

Your Own Medicine Is Often The Most Bitter

Someone's tossing out random accusations they cannot prove, that there is no evidence for, and that are blatantly false? Now why does this behaviour sound so familiar? Hmmm... when it's Jeremy doing it you're fine with this tactic. In fact, you encourage and revel in this behaviour. But when the shoe's on the other foot and someone's making accusations about you, you get all upset and start making veiled threats about the divine retribution you'll exact.

Well Marina, I've gone back and read all of Derek's comments on the matter and can't find where he's accused you of anything. He's speculated on possible reasons why child sex offenders like Jeremy and Clay would voluntarily associate with someone like you but he's made no definitive statements of fact. No, the only people who publish blatant, bare-faced lies are you and your cronies. And then you have the cheek to complain when you believe others have stolen your trademark moves. What a pathetic shit-for-brains hypocrite you are.

The Mystery of the Missing Page

A little while ago I noticed something very strange over at Wikisposure: the page with the screenshot of Jeremy Bolick's sex offender registry page has disappeared. It is still linked to through the pages of others which provides the lingering evidence that is used to be there but the page itself is no more.

Here is what now shows on the page dedicated to Jeremy:



And here is a page with one of the remaining links:



And this is the image that used to be shown on the page:



I've held off on posting about it until now as I wanted to verify whether this is a definite cover up by the Wikisposure staff or if it was simply an error that will be rectified. I sent an email to them several days ago but, as they've not replied, I felt it was time to post the article. Naturally, in the interests of full and open communication, should they pluck up the courage to reply I'll provide an update.

Interestingly enough, before I'd even posted this article, Stitches77 waded into the discussion with her own warped brand of logic.



Obviously, the reason I raised the issue in the first place is because it would appear a blatant case of double standards by the people who run Wikisposure. Even though Jeremy is a repeat child sex offender who committed his offenses over an extended period of time, now that he's a mate of theirs, they're happy to remove online warnings about him. But Stitches77's comment is even more interesting as she spends so much time trying to perpetuate the myth that anyone with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation is a clear and present danger to children, regardless of whether they've ever offended or not. And yet here she is implying that someone we know to be an ongoing risk is no longer dangerous.

Make up your mind sweetie: either, as you repeatedly claim, all sex offenders (including your 'special' friend Mr Bollocks) are always dangerous people or they're not. You're contradicting yourself yet again by trying to make special exemptions for your own paedo-buddies. Seriously, as the great man once sang; "You're an idiot babe, it's a wonder that you still know how to breathe".


Related article: Absolute Zero Unites Blog

A Lengthy Response

First things first: I really didn't expect Jeremy to respond to my questions and presumed that even if he did, it would be a response like Clay's. That he answered openly and honestly surprised me and he deserves credit for that. His response was lengthy and therefore I'll just respond to the points I feel need addressing. Should he feel I've missed anything crucial, I'm happy to address those down the track.


I appreciate that you consider a public registry a good idea but I still disagree. There are other, more effective ways to restrict access of child sex offenders to children. Here in Australia (at least in my home state of Victoria) we have a Working With Children Check for anyone who wants to work with children. Anyone with a relevant criminal record is unable to pass this check and therefore unable to work with children. It would be very easy for any parent who needs a babysitter to demand a potential sitter have this check.

I'd be interested to know more about why you consider the broad scope it currently has would make is less useful. I'd have thought those in support of a registry would want it spreading the widest net possible in order to offer the greatest amount of protection.



I find this statement rather interesting as it seems to go against what I usually read on AZU regarding doing all possible to prevent crimes before they occur. I've read comments from AZU members promoting civil confinement of those with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation to ensure they don't commit crimes against children. I'd have thought abolishing a register to prevent crimes would be far less dramatic a move than locking up innocent people for the same reason.


This is simply untrue. You are the only person whose registry page I've linked to and you've already stated in your response that this doesn't bother you. What I will say is that I believe anyone who advocates for people's personal details to be posted online has no right to complain if their personal details are also made public.



My question was about whether you've informed the people living in your street and nearby streets that you're a convicted child sex offender and that their children should be wary of you. The purpose of the public registry is to make people aware of sex offenders living in their neighbourhood who they may not know so, as someone who supports the registry, I was wondering if you've been proactive in letting them know you're a danger or if you're happy for them to be unaware unless they happen to look you up? I'd already presumed that your friends and family would be aware of your history of targetting children and would adust their behaviour to suit.


Given that AZU is a blog, I presume it doesn't have a membership as such. I use the term 'members' to reference those listed on the site as contributors, particularly those who most often post articles and comments. I'm sure you know what I meant but it doesn't hurt to clarify.

As for me standing in judgement of another's mental state: where did I do so? I certainly don't see anything I've written which judges the mental state of anyone.


Still on about who is and isn't a member? You know very well this isn't the point and you're just being a smart arse. I asked whether YOU agreed with the people who'd stated that paedophiles and child molestors should commit suicide. So you say you don't agree but you do think the world would be a better place if some killed themselves. Obviously you don't think we'd be better off without you. And, no, I don't wish death on you or anyone else. I've made my opinion on that very clear on numerous occasions.

As for what people online think of you: I don't give a rat's tossbag what they think of me and neither should you.



I didn't say it was an AZU policy, I said that AZU support such a policy. A minor difference but an important one nonetheless and one I'd hope you're intelligent enough to appreciate. Clearly the meaning of what I said was that the key members/contributors/fuckwits (whatever you want to call them) support such a policy... but feel free to play with semantics if you wish. If you want me to trawl back through comments to find where each of the main contributors has expressed their support for this I'm happy to do so but we both know this isn't necessary.

We also both know that when referring to a 'one strike' policy, the AZU crowd have made it clear they don't believe in release for child sex offenders such as you. They believe that once someone has been convicted of a sex offense against a child they should be gaoled for life. Do you really agree with this given it would mean you'd be incarcerated for life? Who cares if I like it or not? It doesn't apply to me as I'm not a child sex offender. That's why I asked your opinion as you're not only a 'one strike' child sex offender but a repeat one so you're the poster boy for why they don't want offenders released.

Some of them have also expressed a view that non-offending people with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation should also be incarcerated to prevent any chance of them offending in the future. Do you have an opinion on this?



Of course that's a very effective way. I find your last point interesting as you wouldn't have the choice to obey the law now if your AZU buddies had their way. You'd still be incarcerated as a result of your first offense.



My paedo-buddies? Even in the midst of apparent honesty in your responses you try to slip in falsehoods. Who exactly are my paedo-buddies? If I had buddies that were offending against children then, yes, I'd take them to task for it. As it stands, the only ex-offender I have any contact with apart from you and Clay is Derek via comments we leave on each other's blogs. I have no reason to believe Derek has offended since the crime for which he was punished and therefore have no reason to take him to task.

As for my position on rape, let me make it crystal clear so there can be no confusion: I abhor the rape of annyone regardless of their age or gender. I really don't know how I can make this any clearer. This is the reason I find Violent Leaves' repeated expressions of delight in the thought of offenders being raped so offensive. She makes it clear that she's only opposed to the rape of some people whereas I'm opposed to the rape of anyone. Does this make me morally superior to her? That's not for me to say.


Feel free to put me on your ignore list. It doesn't matter to me whether you speak to me or not. I hate to burst your bubble but you've not yet 'owned' me in public or private. Pulling comments from other people and attributing them to me counts for nothing. Neither does making baseless accusations about me. If you really want to 'own' me in public, try taking something I've actually said and make your case around that. I know it's much harder than taking me to task for the comments of others but I'm sure it'd be much more satisfying.

A Short Response

Jeremy, we both know this is exactly what you did and we both know the reason you had to resort to this was because there's no legitimate evidence for you to find on me. Only one of us is a convicted child sex offender and that one isn't me.

But you are right that I choose not to post comments on the AZU blog anymore. I don't need to post comments there to demonstrate when they (and you) are wrong as I simply post them here. It's the same as you choosing to post any responses to me, or comments about me, there rather than here.

Lessons In Dishonesty Pt1: Jeremy Bolick

Following the AZU blog and the blogs of its main contributors is an interesting exercise in different means of dishonesty and distortion.

In this first part I'll be focussing on Jeremy Bolick (aka Static) and his favourite tactic: the deliberate false attribution of statements. He's tried this on me a couple of times.

Despite having multiple child sex convictions himself, he seems to think if he can prove someone else to have a paedosexual orientation any points they make will be discredited, regardless of their validity. As detailed in my post here, he tried levelling the claim at me. Unlike many who he's tried this on, I decided to take him to task and challenge him to prove his claims, knowing full well he couldn't. I'm sure he thought after my original challenge I'd let it go but I decided to prove my point and restated my challenge on a few occasions. It was some months before he finally responded. During that time he'd done all he could to find anything he could use against me. Up until that point, the only 'evidence' he could uncover was that I use the terms paedophile and paedosexual interchangeably. Obviously, this is not any real evidence but there was nothing further to find so Jeremy resorted to his favoured tactic. He scoured the Girl Chat forums to find an Aussie poster and then cut and pasted the posts into comments on the AZU site, attributing them to me. As I said at the time, I'd have expected him to at least make up some fake IP addresses in order to 'prove' the Girl Chat posts and my blog entries came from the same computer but he didn't even bother doing this. Why? Because the AZU crowd don't require actual proof. They're happy to knowingly embrace and promote a lie if it's all they've got. To date Jeremy's provided no proof to back up his claim that I'm a paedosexual so he and his cronies still rely on the random Aussie's comments and try to use them against me even though they're fully aware of the blatant dishonesty of doing so.

And now Jeremy's back to his old tricks:



I stopped posting on the AZU blog a long time ago as I realised their habit of censoring and manipulating comments would always prevent me from getting a fair hearing. Anything I want to say in response to their postings I do on my own blog. Again, the response of Jeremy to a lack of ammunition is to create his own. I recently posted an article about the importance of judging people based on what they do, not on who they're attracted to (link) which has obviously ruffled Jeremy's feathers. I also posted a number of questions for Jeremy and Clay Keys to answer regarding their views on some of AZU's extemist policies and why they don't consider the policies should apply to them even though they're both child sex offenders (link).

So how does Jeremy respond to these articles? By taking the comment of someone who's posted on the AZU comments page and attributing it to me in the hope of making me look like a hypocrite. I made it perfectly clear in my post that I judge people's actions. Obviously the act of molesting a child is abhorrent to me whether it's disguised as wrestling or in any other form. Using the post of someone else to try and make it seem that I have contradicted this belief is simply pathetic. But the main underlying reason for Jeremy's dishonesty is he knows my questions have exposed him and he wants an excuse to explain away his lack of response. Be honest Jeremy; you don't want to answser my questions because you know you'll either have to voice your opposition to AZU's extremism and raise their ire or explain why you don't hold yourself to the same standards as you hold others.

Jeremy: You're a coward, a liar and a kiddie fiddler and I hold you in nothing but contempt.

Deep Thoughts Pt10

Deep Thoughts is somewhat of a misnomer here as this is more disturbing than anything else. Really, do I need to say anything else? I wonder if someone accused a member of her family of child molestation if she'd be so quick to demand that family member was executed without trial. Hmmm.. somehow I doubt it.

Now, could we expect anyone from AZU to stand up for morals and ethics and point out the inherent evil of pushing to lynch people without trial? Of course not.. and unsurprisingly AZU's most vocal pro-rape advocate was the first to jump on the 'hang em high' bandwagon before launching into a tirade about the founding fathers of the USA.


How the hell does this mob expect anyone to take them and their extremist views seriously?

Deep Thoughts Pt9

Posted by DodiaFae:



(Ed's Note: I'm not sure who she was directing it at but it wasn't me as I no longer waste time posting comments on the AZU blog)

So there you have it folks; the gospel according to AZU must be accepted without question. Anyone with the temerity to question the irrational rantings of Stitches77 and her ragtag band of slow learners, psychopaths and child sex offenders must be a 'pedoperve'. There's no such thing as freedom of speech or freedom of thought at AZU - one either toes the party line or is subjected to lies and personal insults.