Saturday, January 23, 2010

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.

Monday, January 18, 2010

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

Friday, January 15, 2010

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.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

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.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

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?

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

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.