Voice of Reason

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

2011-12-26T22:45:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all those who've sent me emails asking what's going on. Yes, I realise it's been a long time since I've posted anything but fret not, I'm alive and well. I've been extremely busy with work which I guess I should count as fortunate given the tough economic times but it limits my opportunities to post on here. I'd flirted with the idea of selling up and moving to Cambodia but that's not happened yet although it's still in my thoughts. Also there's not been too many things to really raise my hackles and prompt me to vent my spleen.

So, to my loyal readers, thanks for your support and messages of concern. I wish you a very happy and prosperous 2012.

AZU - A Gaggle of Ghouls

2011-06-18T19:33:00.000-07:00

The cowards at AZU have many faults but their most despicable trait is the joy they take in the misery of others. Their latest display of schadenfreude has been posted in a series of statements celebrating the lapsing into coma of Mary Duval. Mary is a mother who fought for her son who was convicted of a sex offense and put onto a sex offender register. She fought to have him removed and then fought for sex offender reform in general. This was enough for AZU to mark her for a series of low personal attacks. They ridiculed her for being poor. They ridiculed her for being physically unattractive. They posted pictures of her home and ridiculed that. Now she's close to death and they're circling like vultures ready to pick over the carcass. They really are low life parasites.

POSTSCRIPT: I've just heard that Mary has now passed away. My condolences to her family and friends.

Danielle Schneider - Selfish Or Just Stupid?

2011-05-27T06:09:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Derek Logue for bringing attention to this case.

Tragically the daughter of Danielle Schneider (above) was abused by a child molester by the name of Patrick Rojas. He was convicted of the crime, did his time in gaol and has since been released. At this point the former offender would usually try to rebuild his life, receiving counselling and trying to ensure he never does such a despicable thing again.

In this case things took a different turn. Schneider thought she'd be really smart and start blogging about what a horrible person Rojas is. The problem is she didn't limit her blog posts to the facts; nor did she limit it to attacking Rojas. Instead it is alleged she made up lies about Rojas. Even worse, she became a predator herself and attacked people other than Rojas. Often such cowardly online attacks go ignored but for once the person being lied about has fought back. Rojas has launched a lawsuit against Schneider and now she's worried about going broke. The irony is that if Schneider had not herself become a predator and written lies she'd not have anything to worry about but instead she and her family are now in financial trouble and she's resorted to online panhandling.

As a personal comment I'd say that the saddest part of this whole sorry affair is that Schneider has selfishly compounded the scars her daughter will suffer. A truly caring parent in this situation would put her daughter's welfare before anything else. Schneider's not a truly caring parent. Instead she's a vindictive woman whose only concern was exorcising her own rage and guilt regardless of the devastation it was bound to cause to her family. She should be ashamed of herself.

Link to Schneider's blog

Does Violent Leaves Worship at Westboro Baptist Church?

2011-04-28T06:01:00.000-07:00

I see Violent Leaves is living up to her name in her latest post at the bigot hub where she calls for paedosexuals to kill themselves. There was a time I would've been shocked by such a vile and obscene post but given her history of outspoken pro-rape, pro-violence and pro-bigotry propaganda I'm not longer surprised. She truly is the female equivalent of that other outspoken bigot and hater of sexual minorities, Fred Phelps.

Postscript: I've just noticed Violent Leaves has also posted her bile at her own blog here.

The Strange Tale of James W. Smith - Sex Offender

2011-03-28T07:24:00.000-07:00

This is the story of James W. Smith; a 17 year old youth. James, wanting to collect on a drug debt, forced another 17 year old youth to travel with him to call on the person who owed the debt as that person was a friend of the youth. According to the youth, James and at least one other person threatened him with violence. After the ordeal the youth complained to police and James W. Smith pled guilty to the charge of false imprisonment. A reasonable outcome and nothing strange so far right? Well, just wait for what's to come.

The crime was committed in Wisconsin USA. The lawmakers in this state in their infinite wisdom (cough splutter cough) decreed that a 17 year old offender should be considered an adult whereas a 17 year old victim should be considered a child. Yes, you understand correctly... in a single case involving two youths of the same age one is legally an adult and the other legally a child. That is truly strange and mind bogglingly idiotic. But that's not all folks...

In the enlightened state of Wisconsin, conviction of the crime of false imprisonment of a minor requires the felon to register as a sex offender. So, this 17 year old adult who was convicted of the false imprisonment of a 17 year old child was required by law to register as a sex offender. Ok, surely it can't get any more farcical than this can it? Oh ye of little faith...

James W. Smith appealed against the requirement for him to register as a sex offender on the seemingly reasonable grounds that there was no sexual element to his crime. Of course, the good judges of Wisconsin saw how ludicrous the situation was and upheld his appeal.. right? Not on your nelly. Not only did they reject his appeal, they incarcerated him for a year for failing to register.

Some ignorant folk will claim that the only people who end up on sex offender registers are deviants who've committed heinous sex crimes and deserve to be there. Further, they argue that these registers should be available for everyone to access. I'd be interested to hear how they justify their viewpoints in this case. I'm not arguing that James W. Smith isn't a nasty little toe-rag who deserved to be convicted of his crime. Obviously he's a scumbag. But a sex offender???

Read more about his case at the following links:

The Legal Watchdog: Sex Offender Registries: They're Not Just For Sex Offenders Anymore

Wisconsin Supreme Court Docket No. 08-1011

I wonder what sort of lies and distortions the bigots over at AZU will use to twist the Legal Watchdog blog into being some sort of pro-paedophile propaganda site given it's reasonable approach to the issue.

Marauding Monsters Molest Missing Maddie

2011-02-19T05:42:00.000-08:00

LINK TO NEWS STORY

History is full of instances of mass hysteria. Probably the most well know are the witch panics which cost the lives of many innocent men and women. Most recently was when I was a child and the media was full of stories of satanic ritual child abuse. It seemed that every city had been infiltrated by organised satanic groups which were protected by shadowy figures who held positions of power in the community. These groups engaged in nefarious behaviour involving the ritual sexual abuse of children and even used the services of women who'd bear children for the specific purpose of sacrificing them. Of course it became clear in time that the mountains of testimonial evidence were nothing more than delusional fantasies and false memories implanted by dodgy shrinks.

Today there's another mass panic and the reason I've linked to the latest news on Maddie McCann is because it's referenced there. It's the myth of the existence of a vast underworld of organised child snatching rings which take unsuspecting children for the purposes of using them as sex slaves. These reports have all the hallmarks of the satanic ritual child abuse manias of the 80s. They claim that these rings have tentacles that stretch internationally and reach into the upper echelons of society. They claim that these rings are protected by shadowy influential figures. It wasn't long ago that unproven allegations were being made in Belgium that the horrific abduction, abuse and murder of a number of young girls was part of this massive network and that it involved high ranking politicians, judges and police. Of course no evidence supporting these allegations have ever been made public.

Now, obviously I'm not saying that no kids are ever abducted by child molesters for the purpose of sexual gratification. Clearly this does happen although it's a known fact that most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child rather than a weirdo in a white van. I'm also not saying that groups of child molesters don't link up to exchange kiddie porn because that's been proven to happen. What I am saying is that this myth of the all pervasive underworld of roaming gangs of child molesters kidnapping children and passing them from one to another has never been shown to have any basis in reality. Clearly the idea of the existence of such a group sells papers and gets people to tune into tabloid TV programmes but hopefully intelligent people will see it for what it is: a media invention.

Angolan-born Italiano said the gang of influential and dangerous perverts had hunted children in the Algarve before smuggling them out of Portugal,The Sun reports.

Nah.. I don't think so!

Relevant Site Links Updated

2011-01-06T06:22:00.000-08:00

As part of the new year's housekeeping I've checked through my links. There were a couple of expired links which I've now deleted. Some of the links are still working but the site to which they link appears to be inactive so I've indicated this where applicable. I've also added some links which had previously been overlooked.

As always, I link to these sites as they all add something to the ongoing discussion. Clearly, given the diametrically opposite opinions of many of the sites, my linking to a site does not indicate my agreement with the opinions of the author(s) of the site.

Please feel free to suggest other relevant sites to which you think I should provide a link. If you run a site I've linked to and would rather I didn't, please let me know. I'm not promising to remove the link but will consider your arguments based on their merits before making my decision.

POST EDIT: In updating my links, I've noted that a number of the links on AZU are either inactive or dead. C'mon SC, you need to lift your game and keep your site up to date.

Welcome To 2011

2011-01-01T06:23:00.000-08:00

And yet another year has ticked over. I wish all who read this blog a safe, happy and prosperous 2011. Time creeps forward and we evolve in our understandings and values. Attitudes, hatreds and bigotries that were once considered acceptable gradually become unacceptable and those who cling to them become ostracised. It may not happen this year.. it may not happen this decade.. but it will happen. It starts with the enlightened and spreads through the open-minded until only the lowest bigots hold out against what's right.

Have a good year all.

Jack

The Cost Of Demonisation

2010-12-27T22:10:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-21T01:43:00.001-08:00

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...

2010-11-14T01:47:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-14T01:26:00.001-08:00

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?

2010-11-01T06:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-27T04:51:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-11T02:51:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-08-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-22T21:18:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-15T19:37:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-06T04:47:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-01T02:39:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-01T01:54:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-23T01:21:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-22T04:17:00.000-08:00

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...

2010-02-19T01:55:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-15T01:46:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-05T04:28:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-05T02:36:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-02T01:27:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-23T06:52:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-18T08:10:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-15T21:33:00.001-08:00

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

2010-01-15T20:25:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-10T06:40:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-07T01:19:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-06T01:25:00.000-08:00

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.

Questions for Jeremy and Clay

2009-12-31T19:51:00.000-08:00

Jeremy Bolick and Clay Keys:

As you're both quite vociferous in your support of AZU I'd like to clarify some issues.

AZU support publicly accessible registers of sex offenders in order for people to be able to identify the sex offenders in their community. My questions to you both are:

* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, have you actively informed those living in your street and nearby streets that you are convicted child sex offenders and that people should be wary of you?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?

The more unbalanced members of AZU advocate that paedophiles and child sex offenders should commit suicide. My questions to you both are:

* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, is this not extreme hypocrisy given that you are both convicted child sex offenders and yet neither of you have committed suicide?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?

AZU support a 'one strike' policy whereby all convicted sex offenders are permanently locked up following their first conviction. Further, they support mandatory civil confinement for any non-offenders with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation or anyone who supports them. My questions to you both are:

* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, given that you have both already had your first strike (in Jeremy's case, three strikes that we know of) what steps have you taken to have yourselves forcibly confined?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?

There are plenty more questions that I will have for you but this will do for now. Do I actually expect you to answer them? Of course not. I know you're both cowards who'll avoid any sort of accountability but still, someone needs to ask them.

My own belief is that you are both filthy hypocrites who support AZU's rhetoric as long as it doesn't actually get applied to you. I doubt very much you'll be able to truthfully answer my questions without your hypocrisy being exposed for all to see.

A Belated Merry Christmas

2009-12-26T16:20:00.000-08:00

Yes, I know it's a couple of days late but I'd like to wish a belated Merry Christmas to all my readers and contributors. Thanks for your support, comments and emails during 2009 and I look forward to continuing the discussion into 2010.

Deep Thoughts Pt8

2009-12-15T03:36:00.000-08:00

~**Violet Leaves**~ said...: I hope they get beat up-raped-dominated daily in prison for the rest of their lives.

Ahhh.. AZU's most vocal pro-rape apologist spews forth yet another obscene rant. You'd think that someone who claims to have been abused as a child would find the idea of rape in any form abhorrent. But no, she gets off on the thought of it. I've no doubt she's got some of her dreadful 'poetry' tucked away somewhere in which she glorifies what the rest of us find horrific.

How perverse. How disgusting.

Gay Paedophiles? Surely not...

2009-12-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

You're not a 'male homosexual.' You are a pedophile. Period.
rookiee | 12.04.09 - 9:56 pm | LINK

Clearly the statement by rookiee (a rather apt moniker) is ridiculous but this is the standard of logic one expects in the AZU comments. According to rookiee, one is either a paedophile or one is a homosexual; one seemingly can't be both. The problem with this is that the terms 'paedophile' and 'homosexual' refer to different types of orientation and are not mutually exclusive. Homosexual refers to one's gender orientation whereas paedophile refers to one's developmental orientation.

A person can be homosexual (attracted to same gender), heterosexual (attracted to opposite gender), bisexual (attracted to both genders) or asexual (not sexually attracted to either gender). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the gender a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the developmental stage they're most attracted to.

A person can be paedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephile (attracted to pubescent children), ephebophile (attracted to adolescents), teleiophile (attracted to adults) or gerontophile (attracted to the elderly). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the developmental stage a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the gender they're most attracted to.

Therefore, a male who is primarily attracted to prepubescent girls is a heterosexual paedophile whilst a male who is primarily attracted to pubescent boys is a homosexual hebephile etc. This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to think logically about the issue.

So why would rookiee make such a silly comment? Is he just ignorant or is there a hidden agenda in play? Is it limited to AZU or is there a wider agenda? This is an interesting subject as it is indeed wider than AZU and incorporates what is now generally referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby as well. The agendas of the two groups are different but manifest themselves in similar language.

To understand the agenda of the LGBT lobby, one needs to be aware of the history of the early days of the homosexual political agenda. In the early 1970's the LGBT lobby was in its infancy and fighting an uphill battle against institutionalised discrimination and persecution. It was during this time that NAMBLA was formed and became active within the LGBT lobby. Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's it became clear to the LGBT lobby that its association with NAMBLA was becoming a liability in its attempts to gain mainstream acceptance as the general public falsely associated homosexuals with child molesters. Increasingly NAMBLA was ostracised by the wider LGBT community. NAMBLA remained a member group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) until 1993 when they were excluded for political reasons. Today the gay lobby has been known to claim that adult men who are attracted to prepubescent boys are not true homosexuals (hmmm.. where have I heard that?) as they're really attracted to the boy's 'femininity' rather than the 'masculine' characteristics true homosexuals are attracted to. To anyone without a vested interest, the political agenda of the LGBT lobby is clear. By claiming that gay paedophiles are not truly homosexual, they are effectively arguing that there are no paedophiles in the gay community and, by extension, that paedophilia is a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon. How patently ridiculous. Of course, if one is to believe that a homosexual orientation is just as natural and legitimate as a heterosexual orientation, then it follows that their argument should apply equally to heterosexual paedophiles ie. adult males who are attracted to prepubescent girls aren't true heterosexuals. Again, how patently ridiculous. No, the reason for the LGBT lobby to claim paedophiles aren't true homosexuals is purely one of political expedience and completely illegitimate and corrupt.

So what of AZU? Whilst the LGBT agenda is one of self-serving political expedience, the AZU agenda is simply one of old fashioned, down 'n' dirty bigotry as I've previously exposed. As a part of achieving their agenda, they manipulate language in the grand traditions of newspeak. In a previous post I showed how Stitches77 is attempting to limit the definitions of what can be considered sexual intercourse. Similarly, here they try to limit the definitions of what can be considered homosexuality. Remember that the term 'homosexual' refers only to one's gender orientation and conveys no information about the developmental stage one is primarily attacted to, yet the AZU agenda is to limit its definition to adults attracted to same gender adults (ie. teleiophile homosexuals). But why would AZU be so concerned about homosexual paedosexuals being recognised as such? How does it harm their agenda? The answer is that it humanises them and we all know that it's much easier to discriminate and persecute a group that are dehumanised. Anti-Semites through the ages have known this and used it to their advantage. The quote below from Stitches77 (the spiritual, if not intellectual, leader of AZU) betrays their agenda:

I don't call filthy pedophiles who want to fuck children - human.

Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 12.08.09 - 9:58 am | LINK

I've previously demonstrated that AZU hate paedosexuals purely because of their sexual orientation; whether they harm a child or not is irrelevant in their warped thinking. Again in this quote, Stitches77 exposes that her hatred isn't limited to those who actually harm a child, but to anyone who is even attracted to a child.

So this brings me back to the original quote from rookiee and my question of whether he is just ignorant or if he's pushing an agenda. To be honest, I'm not sure. In rare moments of honesty, Stitches77 has exposed that she is consciously pushing an agenda of dehumanisation and subversion of language but it is entirely possible that rookiee is simply an ignorant bigot, unaware of the tactics Stitches77 exploits. In either case, it's important that such bigotry is exposed and combatted.

Paedosexuals are human. Paedosexuals can be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Fact. Anyone who would claim otherwise is pushing an agenda and should be treated with great caution and scepticism.

Voice of Hate

2009-12-08T04:25:00.000-08:00

"The goal of therapy for pedophiles is never their emotional well-being."

Who gives a flying fuck about the well being of these freaks? Castrate them, kill them, lock them up for life. All are good options. Fuck their well being.
Logue Hater | | 12.07.09 - 4:57 pm | LINK

Remember that she's not referring to child molesters but anyone with the paedosexual orientation. She wants castration, murder and incarceration to be applied to the innocent as well as the guilty. This is bigotry as irrational and insidious as any other.

Remember we must judge actions, not attractions.

Deep Thoughts Pt7

2009-12-03T21:19:00.000-08:00

Tyciol reminds me of Kevin who recently said Phillip Garrido "had sex" with Jaycee Dugard.

No he didn't. He did not have sex with her. He raped her. Period.

Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 11.29.09 - 4:02 pm | LINK

Someone needs to explain the mechanics of sexual intercourse to Stitches77. There's a number of ways in which someone can be raped, and forced sex is one of those. It may be forced and it may not involve affection or love and it's definitely abhorrent but it's still sex regardless of what the thought police may instruct us to believe.

Judge Actions, Not Attractions

2009-12-03T19:08:00.000-08:00

I'm worried about these pedophiles. Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?
Cake | 12.02.09 - 4:47 pm | LINK

"Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?"

Why does that matter?

Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 12.02.09 - 5:57 pm | LINK

Well this says everything about the true agenda of AZU. They pretend to be concerned about the well being of children but this slip by Stitches77 proves that this isn't their main concern. It shows clearly that their overriding motivation is bigotry and paedophobia. They're far more concerned with a person's sexual orientation than their actions. They don't care whether someone is a child molester or not. They don't care whether someone collects child pornography or not. All they care about is someones underlying orientation. In the same way a homophobe hates homosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to the same gender, these people hate paedosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to children.

Someone reading the AZU blog for the first time may well assume they're using the term 'paedophile' in the same way as the media ie. as a synonym for child molester. As most of us hate the sexual molestation of children, we'd tend to agree with what they have to say. It's only when you realise this isn't the case that you come to understand what these people are really like. When they call for all paedosexuals to be gaoled or exterminated, they don't mean just paedosexuals who've broken the law by downloading child pornography or by abusing a child. They advocate the extermination or permanent incarceration of anyone who has this orientation, regardless of whether they've committed a crime or not. When they talk about doing the 'paedo stomp', they're wanting to stomp people because of their orientation, not because they've committed any crime.

Let me be crystal clear: these people are of the same calibre as a racist, a homophobe, an anti-semite or anyone else who hates a minority based purely on a physical or emotional characteristic over which they have no control. The standard AZU response to this comparison is to immediately jump on the defensive and try to obfuscate the issue by making irrelevant counter-arguments. They'll say that homosexual relationships between consenting adults are not illegal or immoral whereas sexual relationships between adults and children are so therefore the comparison between them and homophobes is false. Naturally, any intelligent person recognises this argument as the red herring it is. No one is denying that it's factually correct, but it bears no relevance to the original accusation. The only way it would be of any relevance is if every paedosexual was engaging in a sexual relationship with a child which is clearly not the case. No, to hate people based on their sexual orientation makes you a bigot, regardless of which orientation it is that you hate.

There are further parallels to the bigots of the past. When white folk took up the civil rights cause, they were derisively referred to as 'nigger lovers'. When environmentalists opposed the logging of ancient forests, they were derisively referred to as 'tree huggers'. Now when people oppose paedophobia, we get derisively referred to as 'enablers'. It's all part of a campaign to denigrate and belittle anyone courageous enough to challenge the status quo.

I'm not saying the AZU bigots aren't concerned for children's safety as I'm sure they are. I'm also concerned for children's safety and want to see child molestors gaoled for appropriate terms. What I don't do is use this concern to attempt to justify bigotry. I don't exploit the abuse of children in order to further an agenda. I don't choose to hate a minority group simply because I don't share their attraction.

In short, I judge actions, not attractions.

Voice Of Reason - A New Direction

2009-11-26T03:24:00.001-08:00

As anyone who's read this blog for a while would know, I started it with the naive premise that all sides of the debate would relish a neutral ground in which to post comments, ideas and opinions without one side or the other censoring them or, worse still, editing them to create a false impression of what was actually said. Sadly, I've discovered that a certain group of individuals don't want to be involved in an even handed debate or discussion but are only prepared to comment on their own small blog in order to control, edit and manipulate comments.

For this reason, my blog hasn't succeeded in its original goals and has gradually changed direction from being a forum for rational debate to being more of a commentary of the misrepresetations and illogical fallacies of a group of misguided individuals. I've therefore decided to recognise this change of direction and formalise it.

The new direction of this blog is to comment on the issues and expose falsehoods and illogical prejudices wherever they may occur. Of course, I still welcome comments and thoughts from anyone who wishes to contribute and hope that at some stage both sides of the debate will become mature and confident enough to contribute to a forum over which they're not able to have control and manipulate the comments of those with whom they disagree.

250 Days and Counting...

2009-11-20T06:25:00.000-08:00

Yep, the 250 day mark of the Jeremy Bolick challenge has passed and we're still no closer to a resolution.

For those not in the know, Jeremy is a man who has been convicted of multiple child sex offenses and possession of child pornography. Ironically, given his history, he is also someone who labelled me as a paedosexual. I challenged him to provide proof of this and, to date, his best attempt has been nothing short of pathetic.

As I commented at the time of his response to my challenge, picking a random Australian (my nationality) from the GirlChat archives and attributing his comments to me really doesn't cut the mustard. Seriously, I'd have expected Jeremy to have at least made up an IP address and then claimed that both my posts on this blog and the GirlChat posts came from the same computer. He hasn't even done this. He's just posted the GirlChat Aussie's posts and claimed they were written by me: no evidence and no proof are apparently perfectly acceptable in Jeremy's world. As a side note; given the comments of support from his cronies at AZU, apparently they don't place any importance on evidence or proof either.

Come on Jeremy, we both know what's really got you hot and bothered. You're trying to ingratiate yourself with the AZU fundamentalists whilst having a dirty, perverted past. It frustrates and angers you no end that you're a convicted child sex offender and I'm not so you want to do anything possible to drag me down to your level. Well, it won't work. The reason you've resorted to baseless non-proof tactics is you know your original claim is a lie.

Sorry Jeremy... yet again your best attempts turn out to be epic fails.

Dennis Ferguson - Interview

2009-11-02T05:34:00.000-08:00

For those not in the know, Dennis Ferguson is a man who was convicted of child molestation in the late 1980s. Since his conviction, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence. This refusal to admit to a crime he claims not to have committed led to his exclusion from sex offender treatment programmes in prison and thus also excluded him from the possibility of early parole. He served his full 14 year sentence and was eventually released from prison to an awaiting media frenzy. Since his release he's been hounded from house to house as successive communities have been whipped into a frenzy.

None of us will ever know for sure if he really did commit that vile crime or if he was indeed wrongly convicted as he claims. He's been exposed to massive media coverage yet few of us really know much about him besides the one dimensional caricature the media present. For this reason it was interesting to watch the progamme devoted to him on Four Corners tonight. He doesn't present well but that's largely to do with his physical characteristics and the facial expressions that come with his blindness.

My gut feeling is that he is indeed guilty of molesting those poor kids and deserved the sentence he received. Still, he's now paid his debt and should be able to get on with his life without being constantly hounded and harassed by the unwashed masses - in particular the media whore Sean Killgallon who he's been driven to apply for an Apprehended Violence Order against. Check out the interview and story and make up your own mind.

LINK TO FOUR CORNERS SITE

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 4

2009-10-06T04:01:00.000-07:00

LINK TO NEWS ARTICLE

LINK TO FACEBOOK GROUP SEEKING JUSTICE

Warning: Details in this case may disturb some readers

Here's the scene: a group of 13yo girls are out getting drunk in a park when a man comes and talks to them. They go back to his house with him and eventually leave after more drinking. One of them claims the man attempted to rape her and so a couple of men break into his house in the middle of the night and beat him to a pulp with a baseball bat. The man, Cory Headen, dies of his injuries.

So, you're probably asking, why wasn't this reported on the AZU site with their usual support for the gutless vigilantes? The reason would be that, yet again, the vigilantes got it wrong. It transpires that the girl was lying about the attempted rape and because these animals took the law into their own hands, an innocent man is now dead. I find it interesting that the intellectual minnows at AZU are very quick to back vigilante criminals when they target someone who ends up being guilty but conveniently ignore the numerous occasions when the wrong person ends up on the end of vigilante injustice. That's because they're hypocrites.

My thoughts are with the family of the murdered man.

Yawn...

2009-10-04T06:01:00.000-07:00

I noticed that AZU's 'tame' child sex offender has returned from his exile and is back to posting comments... but he still seems to be having some trouble backing up his claims against me. It's been over 200 days since I challenged him and he's still come up with nothing. So, in the spirit of helpfulness, I thought is may be beneficial to him if I give him a helping hand. Jeremy, just finish this sentence...

"I stated that Jack is a paedosexual and the evidence I have which proves it is....."

There you go Jeremy, it's not that hard is it? Surely you wouldn't go around accusing people without any evidence would you?

Of course, you could just come out and admit you were talking out of your arse and you actually have no evidence whatsoever. Yes, I understand it will be a tad humiliating for you but I'm sure it's nothing more than you've experienced after being caught out in the past.

Tick tock Jeremy.

John Couey Dies

2009-10-03T06:37:00.000-07:00

John Couey passed away of natural causes on Wednesday morning and I, for one, won't be shedding a tear. For those not in the know, John Couey was a sick, disgusting human being who kidnapped a beautiful young girl by the name of Jessica Lunsford. He then raped her before burying her alive. If there were such a thing as evil, I'm sure Mr Couey would be a perfect example of it.

Jessica's life was short but had its share of hardships. Her parents separated when she was just one year old and her father lived at home with his parents. Her brother is a convicted child rapist although, fortunately, this conviction occurred after her death. His exploitation of her memory during his trial caused considerable outrage at the time. Despite these hardships, Jessica was apparently a lovely girl who was well liked and polite. For any person to die in the circumstances she did is unforgivable.

I hope the death of Mr Couey will bring some sort of closure to those who knew and loved Jessica. It's a shame there's no such place as Hell as some people really do deserve some extra punishment.

Idiot Posts An Idiot's Guide

2009-09-15T01:10:00.000-07:00

I've long suspected DodiaFae of being of somewhat limited intellect and lacking the ability to construct reasoned, logical arguments. Whist this may sound harsh, her comments on the AZU blog expose these shortcomings as she tries desperately to fit in with the other AZU intellectual midgets by parroting their insults, personal attacks and internally inconsistent 'arguments'.

Example? Here she claims that " When you attempt to throw humor into discussions on a forum like this (AZU), you mock the victims of of abuse.". Yet, this statement comes only a few comments after her contribution here where she laughs at a comment made by Violent Leaves and then adds her own perverted brand of humour. Someone should loan her a dictionary so she can look up the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

Now DodiaFae has outdone herself. On her own PACA blog she's published a step by step guide to teach child molesters the techniques to most effectively infiltrate a single parent family with the aim of molesting the children of that family. The stupidity of this woman is astounding. If her article had been published as a post on the GirlChat forum, AZU would be outraged and write a post condemning it as evil. Then the half dozen contributors, including DodiaFae, would comment ad nauseum about how sick and perverted one would have to be to publish something like this. Well, no one needs to post the Idiot's Guide to Molesting Children of Single Mothers as DodiaFae has done it for them.

Good one moron!!

Deluded Notions Pt2

2009-08-18T08:08:00.000-07:00

Post directed at Michael Melsheimer

However, I said I was going to neutralize you and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

If you are "ticked pink" by me and dismiss me as 'your best enemy', I can only say that's your misfortune for not taking me seriously. You will, after all, never be able to say that I didn't give you fair warning.

Stitches
Stitches77 Homepage 08.16.09 - 6:33 pm #

I hate to burst your bubble SC but the only people who take you seriously are the half dozen in your little gang. The rest of us just laugh at you. You think we visit your blog because we take it at all seriously? You're deluding yourself. We visit it purely for the comedy value. Yes, I know it's cruel to laugh at the mentally challenged but you set yourself up so well that I can't help but point and laugh derisively at your glorious ineptitude.

Jezza.. Where Are You???

2009-08-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

Well, as you can see by the Jeremy clock in the left hand toolbar, the 150 day mark has come and gone since I laid down the challenge to Mr Static to either put up or shut up. I knew he couldn't back up the crap he'd been dribbling because it's.. well.. a load of crap, but I really didn't expect him to shut up. Still, since I put the spotlight on Jeremy, he's gone missing in action. I don't know the cause of his disappearance. It may be that my challenge humiliated him and he's licking his wounds. It may be that he's holed up in his bedroom scouring the internet to try and find some non-existent 'evidence' against me. It may be that he's been caught sexually offending against children again and is currently incarcerated. It may be that he's woken up to the real agenda of the idiots he's been associating with and has wisely run a mile in the opposite direction. Whatever the reason for his disappearance, my invitation for him to prove his baseless allegations still stands.

Tick tock Jeremy.

C'mon Jeremy...

Deep Thoughts Pt6

2009-08-03T06:40:00.000-07:00

I hope he gets butt raped repeatedly without any ice cream or "powder" to relax.
~**Violet Leaves**~ | Homepage | 08.02.09 - 11:30 pm | #

This comment says it all really. They may pretend to hate rape but we all know they really get off on the thought of it. No one who truly hates rape could feel pleasure at the thought of another person being raped. No one who truly hates rape could be capable of the perversion of actively hoping for someone else to be raped. Violent Leaves' own words betray the desires of her heart and the depravity of her soul.

What a truly sick individual.

A Small Mind Exposed

2009-07-29T07:51:00.000-07:00

I read with extreme disdain the attack on Ben Radford by the intellectual midgets at AZU. For those who have been living under a rock, Ben is the editor of The Skeptical Enquirer and a well respected member of the skeptical community. He has a degree in Psychology and a great many publications to his name. Basically, in intellectual terms, he is as Gulliver to the Lilliputians of AZU. So, for someone as terminally dim as SC to describe him as a "...shallow thinking fool..." is simply outrageous.

SC should get down on her well worn knees, beg his forgiveness and plead to be allowed to sit at his feet and learn what it is to use reason and logic. She should beg him to show her how to reach for the stars rather than continuing to wallow in the muck. For so long she has surrounded herself with sycophants and retards that her own ego has exploded out of control. She seems to have convinced herself by avoiding answering direct questions through a combination of ad homenim attacks and censorship of comments that she's smart. She's not. Not even a little bit.

Interesting Study

2009-07-29T06:22:00.000-07:00

I came across press reports of this study a couple of weeks ago and thought it sounded interesting. I won't say too much about it as it's pretty self-explanatory but I'll just post the conclusion summary and the link to the study:

Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.

LINK TO STUDY

As is often quoted on the Vigilant Antis site, Sarah Tofte pointed out that at least 75% of convicted sex offenders don't reoffend again within at least 15 years. This new study has now found evidence that the viewing of child pornography doesn't lead non-abusers to start sexually abusing children.

Of course I'd never advocate any illegal activity and I'm certainly not advocating the collecting of child pornography. What I am saying is that this study clearly repudiates the unsubstantiated opinions of the posters on some other blogs. As someone who is always open to the evidence, I'll be interested to see if they can produce any academic studies that support their position or if they'll just launch into another series of vacuous ad hominem attacks.

Perverted Justice Hard At Work...

2009-07-19T03:14:00.000-07:00

A Very Sad Case

2009-06-27T06:42:00.000-07:00

LINK TO NEWS STORY

Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.

So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.

So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.

This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 3

2009-06-10T05:40:00.000-07:00

The fallout from the tragic rape of an 11yo girl continues. In my previous post I concentrated on the cowardly mob attack on a man police suspect of the crime. Now, the inevitable has surfaced: an innocent man was severely beaten by a mob who thought he was the man for whom police were searching.

So, after Jacey posted on the AZU blog offering strident support for the vigilantes, has there been any comment there regarding the beating of an innocent man by another mob of vigilantes? Of course there hasn't. Things like this are their worst nightmare. They believe mobs should be free to attack people with impunity because, in their tiny minds, vigilantes never get it wrong. After all, there's nothing wrong with a bit of street justice is there?

So Jacey, what do you think should be done to the mongrels that attacked this bloke for something he didn't do? Do you really think these animals are any different to the ones that attacked Jose Carrasquillo? Why have you remained silent on this case? I'll tell you why: it's because you're a simpering, whiny little hypocrite who knows that there are no right or wrong vigilantes. There's just criminal scum who use the suffering of others as an excuse to indulge in violent behaviour. AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.

SHAME ON YOU

Of Mice And Men

2009-06-08T05:29:00.000-07:00

This is the face of a man accused of a truly horrific crime. Last week an 11 year old girl was brutally raped. Her rape was so violent she ended up in hospital needing surgery to repair the damage done to her. Make no mistake, if this guy did actually rape that girl, he should be locked up for a long, long time. Rape is a terrible crime and anyone who commits it must face a long time behind bars.

So, what's the sting in the tail of this case? In their attempt to catch the suspect, police released his picture to get assistance from the public. He was spotted and a couple of members of the public restrained him until police arrived to arrest him. Right? Well actually, no. He was indeed spotted but when he denied being the rapist a mob proceeded to beat him senseless, including one coward using a board to bash him. In fact, the beating continued until the police arrived to stop it. The suspect was left in a critical condition in hospital. But that's ok as mob justice is fine when it comes to someone who raped a little girl right? Well, again, things are not so black and white here either. Not only is he only a suspect, the police are yet to even charge him with the crime.

I have no problem with a citizen's arrest being enacted as long as it's done in a civilised manner but, as is completely clear from the footage above, what happened here fits no-one's definition of 'civilised'. Let's face facts; whilst some of these thugs were legitimately angry about what happened to the girl, I've no doubt that a number of the mob were just exploiting an opportunity to beat the crap out of someone. In my opinion, they overstepped the mark and should be charged with assault.

In reading various comments and blog posts, I'm constantly astounded at the simple-minded people who support vigilantes. A vigilante is neither noble nor brave. The reality is that a vigilante is nothing more than a coward and a criminal and must be treated as such. What was done to the suspect in this case is no different to the mob beatings I saw on the news following the Rodney King decision in the early 90's. It was simply mob violence where a gang of people decided to bash an individual person who was unable to defend himself. The people who make comments supporting these scum try and make an argument that we have to support one side or the other. That's pure rubbish. If the suspect did rape that girl, he is a disgusting, opportunistic human being and I want to see the book thrown at him. The mob that bashed him are also disgusting, opportunistic human beings and I want to see the book thrown at them.

I again come back to the cornerstone of the western justice system: a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. By supporting people who go around making their own decision about who is guilty and what the appropriate punishment should be, we're supporting the undermining of our entire way of life. I don't know if this bloke is guilty of the rape but, more importantly, none of the thugs that bashed him knew either. I just hope that the family and friends of the suspect don't decide to dish out some vigilante justice of their own and attack the cowards responsible for the bashing... although I'm sure there would be plenty of misguided people who'd support them if they did.

NEWS STORY 1
NEWS STORY 2

Rob Taylor - The Pretender

2009-06-04T03:53:00.000-07:00

Ever since I started the clock on AZU's resident sex offender and exposed him as a petty liar, he's tucked his tail between his legs and gone quiet. Still, no problem as there is a pretender to his crown. With Violent Leaves continuing to write her awful 'poetry' and Stitches the Cunt (SC) barely able to string two words together without it sinking to personal abuse, Little Robbie Taylor is quickly emerging as the new leader at the hate site. So I thought it time to have a look at a sample of his contributions...

"Brisson admitted to the court Friday he was a pedophile with a compulsion that can’t be stopped. He also likened society’s fear of pedophiles to long ago fears of African Americans or gays and lesbians and said all adults have thoughts of having sex with children.

“We punish what we don’t understand,” Brisson said during a several minute tirade against police, society and the press. “Then when we’re released it’s to unjust regulations and stipulations.”

He admits to having a compulsion then claims that having a compulsion that can lead to the death of a baby is the same as being gay or being Black.

Rob Taylor | Homepage | 05.30.09 - 9:40 am | #

Um, no, he didn't claim that. He actually compared society's current fear and persecution of paedosexuals to the fear and persecution of African Americans and GLBT people by society in the past.

STRIKE ONE

Yeah Anime fixation is a tell in my opinion. I can appreciate Vampire Hunter D as much as the next guy, but the obsession with collecting cartoons, and anime images etc denotes a immaturity that many pedophiles seem to have.
Rob Taylor | Homepage | 05.02.09 - 8:30 pm | #

So it's ok to appreciate anime, as long as one doesn't appreciate it more than Rob deems appropriate as Mr Expert has decided that this denotes immaturity and, possibly, paedosexuality. Personally, I have no interest in anime so if I suffered from Rob's rampant egocentrism, I'd say that his level of interest is a sign of immaturity and possible paedosexuality. Fortunately I'm not that blinded by my own self-importance.

STRIKE TWO

"Not only that, but, since this was a simple, legal 'rape' and not an actual, penetrative, forceful 'rape' (and she, providentially, enjoyed the activity), to imprison someone, for such a ridiculously long period of time (based only on moral outrage) tells us all we need to know about the nature of the US of A; I am compelled to say, that such barbarism has also crept into my country, as well."

Outrageous. How would you know the baby enjoyed being raped? This is the fantasy of a disgusting miscreant. England has a high rate per 100,000 people of rape, assaults and robberies, and just the other day some of your Irish brothers kicked a Catholic to death after a soccer game. English citizens have been filmed taking part in the racist Jihad in Darfur, fighting for the Taliban in Pakistan and taking control of the streets from your police. Not to mention that honor killings and marriages between cousins are actually increasing every year in England.

But we're barbarians for throwing the book at a man that raped a baby.

You claim to point out cognitive distortions in others but the truth is your country has collapsed, is basically a protectorate of America (no longer since our new president has some highly nuanced views of England) and already has installed Sharia law in the Muslim majority areas. You're the product of English barbarism, an immoral man-child lashing out at the world in a futile attempt to maintain some control over your life in a statist society whose official policy is to allow competing cultural norms and a massive welfare state to bleed the country dry and destroy law and order.

Don't pretend you don't pine away to live here, you're desperate seeking of attention from the people here tells us all we need to know.
Rob Taylor | Homepage | 06.02.09 - 10:43 am | #

Where does one even start with this? He doesn't like something Dr Oldfield said so he launches into a rant of irrelevant anti-English generalisations. The only specific point he makes is about an attack in Ireland (that's a different country Rob). It would appear his intention was to somehow demonstrate that modern day England is a barbaric society and this is somehow responsible for Dr Oldfield's beliefs and/or orientation. I'll give you one little bit of help here Robbie; try being specific in your points and cite examples to support your assertions. If you want to demonstrate that England is a more barbaric society than the USA you will need to cite specific, provable facts about England and the comparable facts about the USA. Vague assertions may cut it with the folk at AZU but I'm afraid it's not good enough for anyone with the ability to think critically about issues.

STRIKE THREE

YOU'RE OUT

NEXT....

Child Pornography?

2009-05-23T19:43:00.000-07:00

Read the news article here

What is child pornography? Is it ever acceptable to produce and/or distribute child pornography? If an image/video is not considered by authorities to be child pornography when produced, should it ever be classified as such? If an image isn't considered by LEA to be serious enough to prosecute the producer and/or distributor, should anyone be able to be prosecuted for possessing it?

These questions are just some that were raised in my mind when reading the story linked to above. So, what is child pornography? Well, it appears if you asked 50 people that question you'd get 50 different answers. To me, it's very simple. Would the image in question be considered pornographic if the person/people in it were adults? If the answer is yes, the image in question is pornography. If the answer is no, it isn't. If the image has thus been established as pornography, the next question to ask is whether any of the participants are children. If the answer to that is also yes, the image in question is child pornography. Is this approach simplistic? Possibly, but that doesn't make it wrong. It certainly helps remove many of the grey areas that currently obfuscate the issue. The blurred line that sometimes exists between art and porn remains but is much easier to deal with by taking this approach.

So, back to the article that initiated this train of thought. The footage in question was of two 13yo students performing a sex act and was filmed by another boy from their school. Would this video be considered pornographic if it were of two adults? Obviously the answer is yes. Is there a child or children participating in the video? Again, the answer is yes. Therefore, there can be no question that this is child pornography. Bear in mind there are people in the USA facing charges of producing child pornography for running a website in which the children were clothed and not involved in any sort of sexual activity, so if this is the standard being applied I don't see how the video referred to in the news article can be seen as anything but hard core child pornography.

So this then brings us to the next pertinent questions. Should the person who filmed the sex act and distributed the child pornography be charged? Or is it acceptable to produce and distribute child pornography if you're a child yourself? We charge children with murder so why not with producing and distributing kiddie porn? Is it not considered a serious enough crime to charge them? What if a 60 year old person is found with the video on his/her computer? Should that person be charged with possessing child pornography when the video in question wasn't considered serious enough to charge the person who made it? What if the boy who filmed the sex act made money out of his distribution? Does that really change things when most of the child pornography in circulation is made and distributed without anyone making a cent?

There are a lot of issues that this story raises and I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I'm certainly interested to hear what others think.

Related Post

Deep Thoughts Pt5

2009-04-17T03:07:00.000-07:00

Quote from Logue Hater

I imagine a search of Derek's hard drive would turn up some things that would put him in prison.

Enjoy your disability (and freedom), Derek. While it lasts.
Logue Hater | 04.16.09 - 5:13 am | #

Yes Logue Hater, we all know what sort of imagination you have. This is your second time being featured in Deep Thoughts after being the inaugural scumbag in the series for your unforgivable pleasure derived from fantasies of Derek being raped.

So you know Derek has things on his hard drive that would put him in prison? Of course not. It's all in your warped imagination.

You are one seriously sick individual.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

2009-04-10T23:59:00.000-07:00

Terrence is a shitbag! Worse!

His poetry is an admission of rape if you ask me. Who in the hell would write that and expect to be taken as anything BUT a child molester?!
~**Violet Leaves**~ | Homepage | 04.06.09 - 12:45 pm | #

Oy vey. The perversion is bad enough, but the pretension? Unforgivable.
Rob Taylor | Homepage | 04.06.09 - 1:04 pm | #

You don't like pretentious poetry Rob? Have a read of this drivel from the queen of pretentious, untalented hacks; Violent Leaves. I realise she's had a hard life but that's still not an excuse for inflicting such bland crap on everyone else.

I can't sleep. Can't fall asleep. Can't stay asleep.

My anxiety about not being able to go to sleep is overwhelming.

I want to sleep.

One night I was awoken at approximately 3am to the knowledge someone was trying to take my blankets off.

I knew who they were when I saw their face

although the face was someone I had never met.

They were trying to get me to get up and do something.
I had to do something.

Nothing more annoying than being woke up by an invisible spirit for a job and yet cannot get the message of what that job is.

Call me a nut call me a fruitcake.

I might agree.

I got out of bed the next morning to a message on the phone left at 9 am
"Wilma died last night".

I went to the window and looked down the mountain towards Wilma's house.
She was old and a very sweet lady.

She was buried next to my Mother a few days later.

Is the Earth an aching empty belly begging for flesh to filled its depth?

Do spirits remember their night of suffering laboring breath while the flesh gives way letting go finally to release the energy that once was you?

I held Mother's hand and promised to hand her to Jesus.

All the hours hearing her labored breath
wondering if she was aware
I was there
the deep pains filling and refilling the wounds
I had to let go
of her.
It was final
even this would be dismissed.

Her legacies written with invisible ink
yet
told by unknown people who were too busy to attend her funeral.

~She didn't want to see them before she died
-she didn't want them hovering over her
-sad eyes
-entertainment
-she was ashamed
we all are as we face God~

Legacy of love:
being loved and forgiven
then loved again.

Let me make it clear for those who are not particularly sharp: I'm not laughing about or mocking child abuse, or the abuse Violent Leaves claims she endured. I'm just mocking awful 'poetry'. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Deluded Notions Pt1

2009-04-04T09:04:00.000-07:00

Post addressed to Derek

That said, if you wish to continue engaging Stitches and my other friends in the manner you have been, you should be prepared. You're on my radar now too; you haven't had to deal with me so you have no idea what I am capable of. Underestimate me at your own risk.
goodgirl54301 | 04.03.09 - 1:05 pm | #

Ha ha ha... I bet he's terrified.

Deep Thoughts Pt4

2009-03-30T07:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-30T05:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25235298-5003402,00.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.

Important Correction

2009-03-26T03:06:00.000-07:00

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.

Tick Tock Jeremy

2009-03-24T05:12:00.000-07:00

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?

Static | 03.11.09 - 7:30 am |

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.

Jack | Homepage | 03.12.09 - 5:45 am |

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

Mark Lunsford isn't happy...

2009-03-16T03:52:00.000-07:00

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.
NEWSFLASH | 03.15.09 - 12:24 pm | #

Lunsford made a few calls already. I can assure you the pedo-lovers will not be met with open arms.

NEWSFLASH | 03.15.09 - 2:02 pm | #

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.

Surely.

Deep Thoughts Pt3

2009-03-10T07:15:00.000-07:00

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.

A Reply To Static/Jeremy

2009-02-25T04:57:00.000-08:00

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.

The 2009 Portabella Awards

2009-02-13T02:26:00.000-08:00

This blog has only been online for a few months but it's already received its first award nomination. The AZU blog has initiated the inaugural 'Portabella Award' and Voice of Reason has been fortunate enough to be nominated. The nomination was put forward by Static and, without wanting to appear ungracious, there are a few points that need clarification and/or expansion.

#4 From a certain "reasonable blog. First post, dated Sept 1, 2008:

"I realise it's quite likely that neither group will be interested in discussing issues with the other on a neutral playing field but I thought it would be nice to at least provide the field in case anyone turns up... you know, Field of Dreams and all that."

From the same post:

"My favourite anti site has been Absolute Zero United but I find the comments section to be a mire of self-congratulatory posts and insults to anyone who disagrees with the accepted ideology. I'm sure the people who run the site must be more intelligent than they come across in their comments but I suppose it's easier to just insult people..." "...than debate issues when you control what your opponents are allowed to say in their posts." (Edit: I've added the end of the sentence that Static cropped in order to restore the original meaning)

Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure, you provide a "neutral playing field." Ok.

Clearly it's his intention to imply that this site isn't a neutral playing field. I find it interesting that he doesn't actually make a case or cite examples. He doesn't even dispute the accuracy of my assessment of the AZU comments section. He must think that a snide comment along with a partial quote is sufficient to make his case. It isn't. I do grant him one concession. This blog has become somewhat contemptuous and critical of AZU. That wasn't my original intention but has been a reaction to the manner in which I've been treated in their comments section. Rather than being prepared to engage in sensible debate, any questions I've asked have been responded to with a torrent of abuse. To be insulted by someone I disrespect doesn't particularly bother me, but I'm hardly going to write posts of praise. It's also difficult to maintain neutrality when one side doesn't contribute.

And a bonus bit of nonsense from the same blog, September 8, 2008:

"Firstly, the term 'pedo enabler'. What is a 'pedo enabler'? I've done a search on various dictionary sites, a Google search and checked Wikipedia and there seems to be no official definition of this term."

Then, in the next sentence, he says:

"From the context in which it is used here, it would appear that it's an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals." "The inference here is that because the parents haven't disowned their son, they are committing some sort of contemptible act. Surely it must be obvious to any reasonable person that to condemn parents for not abandoning their own child is in itself the contemptible act." (Edit: I've added the rest of the paragraph omitted by Static to restore the original context.)

Someone explain to me how he can not understand what a "pedo-enabler" is, even after consulting all those dictionaries, but in the same breath, has no problem with the term "peadosexual." Does that seem a bit strange to anyone?

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.". The post from which the quote was extracted was critical of a blog that attacked the parents of an alleged paedosexual and labelled them 'paedo-enablers' for not disowning their own child. As for the term 'paedosexual'; it is so obviously a synonym for 'paedophile' that it's rather devious of Static to feign confusion as to its meaning.

What a "reasonable," intelligent," and "rational" person he is! Sometimes, the truth just shines right through all the bullshit, doesn't it.
Static | 02.12.09 - 3:25 pm | #

It certainly does my friend. And the more bullshit you have dribbling down your goateed chin, the more the truth of your lack of character shows through.

SO, now that I've addressed the distortions and misrepresentations in my nomination, I'll leave the negativity and thank AZU for the nomination. After all, if a group of their stunningly idiotic myopia consider what I say stupid, I can only take that as a great compliment. There is talk that they'll open the nominations to a public vote so if that happens I'll post a link here and make a humble request for people to vote for me.

Static The Sex Offender

2009-02-07T01:39:00.000-08:00

Anyone familiar with either my posts or the AZU blog would recognise the names 'Static' and 'Jeremy'. In fact, they're the same person: a person who's been quite vocal in attacking me. What I was unaware of is that Static is a convicted sex offender. Actually, to be correct, he's a repeat sex offender. AZU regularly quote Sarah Tofte's study that shows at least 75% of sex offenders do not reoffend upon release - I guess this piece of shit is one of the minority that do.

So, not only do AZU continue to defend (or, in their language, enable) the kiddie porn downloader, Mark Lunsford, and his child rapist son, but also one of their most prolific posters is a repeat sex offender and kiddie porn downloader.

I don't often post links to sex offender sites but since Spastic/Jeremy posts the link to his own page himself I feel that it's alright to do so: LINK

So Spastic/Jeremy: The next time you want to try and take the moral high ground against me, just shut your mouth and fuck off back to whichever sewer you crawled out of because YOU'RE A SEX OFFENDER AND I'M NOT!!

What Have We Come To?

2009-01-28T05:18:00.000-08:00

Is this picture child pornography? Apparently it may be as a library in the West Australian city of Perth decided it shouldn't be included in an arts exhibition in case people were offended by it.

How did we come to the ludicrous stage where such an innocent picture could be banned for being potentially offensive? Going from media reports, it would appear the hysteria whipped up last year over the work of internationally renowned artist Bill Henson is the catalyst. Henson included topless photos of an early teen girl as part of an art exhibition and the resulting media storm has made people extremely nervous of displaying artworks that any politically correct crackpot could claim to be child pornography.

Personally I see nothing sexual or pornographic about this picture and think it's a great shame that a warped bunch of do-gooders have distorted something innocent and wholesome into something that can be banned for being offensive. Shame on you.

Lies, Damn Lies and Idiots

2009-01-20T07:27:00.000-08:00

As usual, the comments section of AZU is awash with deliberate misrepresentations and blatant lies. There was a time I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt and presumed they'd simply misunderstood what I'd said but I've been exposed to them for long enough now to know that there is no misunderstanding - just outright fabrications. Recently Static posted the following piece of fiction:

I find it extremely telling that you can so easily support the right of the pedophiles to publish their books (which we have stated several times), and the right of Amazon to sell those books (which we have stated several times), but can't seem to support our right to complain about it and the right to refuse to shop at Amazon. You being the "fair-minded," "freedom-supporting," "reasonable" person you are- you should have no problem with us exercising our rights as well as the pedos.

Let me state my position clearly so there can be no further 'confusion':

I fully support the right of anyone of any sexual orientation to defend themselves against bigotry and discrimination.
I fully support the right of the AZU contributors to speak their 'minds' on any issue.
I fully support Amazon's right to sell any legally available literature.
I fully support the right of anyone to refuse to shop at Amazon, or any other retailer, if they disapprove of the product being sold.
I believe in, and support, freedom of speech regardless of whether or not I agree with what is being said.

Static's claim that I don't support either their right to complain or their right to refuse to shop at Amazon is a lie as evidenced by my clear statement above. I expect nothing more than lies and deceipt from one such as he.

Who Comments on the AZU Blog?

2009-01-18T05:26:00.001-08:00

For a long time I've pointed out that the comments section of AZU is a stagnant swamp of self-congratulatory backslapping mixed with personal insults against anyone displaying any opposing view or even a degree of critical thinking. Anyone asking unapproved questions is abused and attacked whilst the question itself is largely ignored. This was one of my main reasons for starting this blog as I felt there should be a forum where people are free to express their point of view regardless of which side of the fence they sit on. Of course, this has led to me being labelled a paedosexual in the AZU comments but that's hardly surprising - it's a minimising tactic to draw attention away from the argument and mire it in baseless emotion. It's the same thing as labelling the whites who stood alongside African-Americans in the 60's civil rights movement as 'nigger-lovers'.

Anyway, I noticed recently that there were 257 comments on their Jan 7 post so I thought it would be an interesting exercise to tally up the number of comments posted by each person to get an idea of the breadth of contributors.

Here's the breakdown:

Stitches the Cunt (SC): 85

Jacey: 32

Violet Leaves: 15

Carisma: 3

Brock Lee: 3

Dr Oldfield: 26

ZandJsMom: 1

Jeremy: 60

Joe: 2

Daydreamer of Oz: 4

SpankyDaClown: 5 (most of which were censored)

Alfa Da Mime: 1

Static: 17

Anonymous: 2

Tsand: 1

I found this quite interesting as it has confirmed what I long suspected: whilst the AZU posts tend to attract a lot of comments, they're only from a small number of people and generally consist of congratulating each other on how clever they are rather than saying anything meritorious. This is proved in this example where 81% of the comments came from just five people (SC, Jeremy, Jacey, Static and Violet Leaves).

Yes, it's terribly pathetic but at least it keeps them busy when they could be out burning crosses in people's front yards.

The Lunsford Hypocrisy Continues

2009-01-12T03:11:00.000-08:00

A while back I posted about The Lunsford Hypocrisy in which I exposed the disgraceful hypocrisy displayed by AZU and Wikisposure in the case of Mark Lunsford (found by the police with kiddie porn on his computer) and his son Joshua (had sex with a 14 year old girl as an adult). Despite both men engaging in activities that would normally attract the exposure and condemnation of both sites, Wikisposure are yet to post an article about either of them and AZU have taken it one step further to actually defend and minimise Mark's possession of kiddie porn.

Well, the hypocrisy continues in the comments section on AZU with the following exchange:

Stitches the Cunt (SC): I don't have any problems insulting him (Tsand) at all. The man made his avatar a picture of Jessica Lunsford and then sexually harassed me when I told him that was inappropriate. (Editor's note: He sexually harassed SC? So now they're accusing him of bestiality?)

Static: Really?! You have got to be kidding! Why would a RSO use Jessica Lunsford as an avatar?! That is reprehensible!

So they consider it reprehensible for Tsand to make an avatar of Jessica (which it may well be - I've not seen it so can't comment) but still think it was ok for Joshua Lunsford to desecrate the memory of his sister by wearing a t-shirt with her picture on it to his trial for raping an underage girl. The gall of these people knows no bounds.

So I repeat my challenge from my last post:

Treat these two as you would anyone else who is caught with child porn or who is sexually involved with a minor. If you're not willing to do so then at least have the integrity to admit you're making a special case for these people.

I'm fully aware the cowards who run AZU regularly visit this site so their choice is simple: meet the challenge and restore a little of their lost credibility or continue defending (or, in their language - enabling) a kiddie porn downloader and his child rapist son and, at the same time, continue to expose their own corruption.

AZU Admit Responsibility For Vigilante Attacks

2009-01-08T06:52:00.000-08:00

I was going to post this on the comments board at AZU but it's becoming increasingly obvious that to do so is nothing short of casting pearls before swine. Trying to have a rational discussion with these people is nigh on impossible as they're either unwilling or unable to calmly address points raised or answer questions asked. They instead choose to avoid answering questions by hiding behind personal insults which really don't bother me but I see no point in raising matters of discussion if they're not to be addressed.

The current cause celebre on the AZU site is that of the attempted boycott of Amazon.com for selling books which Stitches the Cunt (SC) and co believe promote paedosexuality. Now, the arguments about whether or not a book shop should refuse to stock literature that presents an unpopular or contentious point of view is a matter for discussion elsewhere. What really caught my attention was the following snippet of discussion:

Jeremy: I wonder how your shareholders would feel about that? Do you think they'd be so interested in profit that they'd sit by and let you trigger the pedophile next door? Because that is exactly what Amazon is doing.

SC: Please be sure and ask them that question. You are exactly right.

So why did this exchange catch my eye? It was because the implications of what was said are significant. Jeremy is saying that Amazon.com are directly responsible for child molestation because they sell books which may inflame a child molester's passions and cause him/her to attack a child. Let me make it clear: the claim is that if someone buys a book from Amazon.com and is incited by the literature to molest a child then Amazon.com are directly responsible for this despicable act. SC states that she considers Jeremy's assertion to be "... exactly right.".

This claim has significant repercussions for AZU, Perverted Justice/Wikisposure and the supporters of publicly available sex offender registries. What Jeremy and SC are effectively conceding is that if some redneck vigilante reads their posts and is incited by the content to attack someone then they (the poster) are directly responsible for the attack. It's important to remember that it's not just RSOs who get attacked by vigilantes but also innocent people who are unlucky enough to be mistaken for a RSO - after all, the sort of people who resort to vigilantism aren't particularly bright and tend to make mistakes. According to Jeremy and SC, the person/group who incited the redneck through their words are directly responsible for the attack. No wonder they hide behind pseudonyms.

As I said, I was going to post this point on the AZU comments page but don't see the point as I know from experience they won't address the issue but rather throw around a few insults and then pat each other on the back for being so clever. Instead, here's the link to their post for anyone to read it for themselves.

Laws Forcing Homelessness

2008-12-27T23:47:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post Article

I read an interesting article in the Washington Post today about the unintended consequence of various sex offender laws in the USA. The restrictions on where former sex offenders are allowed to live have become so restrictive that many are finding there is no area in which they can reside. Once an area that fits within the narrow range is located, so many former sex offenders are housed there that the local community launches into protests until the people are moved. Now, I'm sure the more heartless folk would say that these people brought this trouble on themselves and, of course, this is true. However, these people have done their time and deserve the opportunity to get their lives back on track and become contributing members of society again. To force these people into a situation where they can't work again or even live in a home isn't about justice... it's purely about vengence and cheap, nasty politics.

Further, not only is this treatment inhumane, it undermines the whole alleged point of the law in the first place ie. the protection of children. Only an idiot would consider that someone who is forced into ongoing homelessness and unemployment poses less of a risk to children than someone who's done their time and is given the opportunity for redemption. Again, the more callous amongst us would probably say that this is a good reason to just put them in gaol and never let them out again. Well, I'm sure there are plenty of third world dictatorships that treat their citizens like this if you want to go there. Personally, I prefer to live in a democracy that values freedom and treats its citzens with compassion and fairness.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

2008-12-27T20:12:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been an interesting three months since I opened up this blog. I've been exposed to comments from the rational and the cretinous. Generally I've let most comments be published with only the most pathetic off-topic attacks being deleted. I've also found that it's been quieter than I'd hoped but I've come to understand that some will only post on the blogs that guarantee editorial support and no uncensored opposition. It's a shame that they're not interested in free and open discussion but ultimately it says a lot about them and exposes the flaws in their character. To those who've had the courage to enter into open discussion here I offer my thanks and respect.

So, I hope everyone reading this had a fantastic Christmas and that 2009 brings happiness and wellbeing to all.

The 'Romeo & Juliet' Con

2008-12-08T04:13:00.000-08:00

In sexual offense terms, the reference to 'Romeo & Juliet' is made when the two participants are relatively close together in age. Usually it refers to a circumstance in which one particpant is underage whilst the other is over; but it can also refer to a circumstance where both participants are underage.

This is an interesting (and controversial) subject. I personally don't agree with Romeo & Juliet laws. To me it's a cop out. It's a con. Someone is either capable of consenting to sexual activity or they're not. The age of the person to whom they're giving consent is completely irrelevant. Presently in my country the age at which people can legally give consent is 16 in most states. This means that up to, and including, the age of 15 years and 364 days they are not considered legally capable of making the decision to give consent to sexual activity... period. (I'm yet to grasp what magically happens at midnight on the night a person turns 16 but that's a topic for another day.) The age of the person they want to have sexual activity with shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. The possible consequences of sexual activity (which is what they supposedly are not intelligent enough to comprehend) are the same whether they're active with someone who is 14 or 40. I'm yet to hear anyone give a rational or convincing refutation to this fact. I appreciate there are arguments that there's a power differential when an older person is involved but, again, that's a separate issue as I'm very aware of the power peer pressure holds over people of all ages.

So why do I consider this concept to be a con and a cop out? Well, it's clear that if we need to relieve people of a certain age from the burden of choosing what to do with their bodies, this must be uniform and without exceptions. There's no grey area. They're either capable of making choices of a sexual nature or they're not. What's interesting is that there are people on both sides of the fence in favour of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws. So what's their motivation?

For those who champion age of consent laws there's a big upside to these laws. Enforcing age of consent laws when the 'sex offenders' are other young people would be a massive PR disaster. So, to avoid having such a PR problem they're willing to sell out the very people they claim need protection. This not only makes them hypocrites but completely destroys their credibility. In the vacuous language of AZU, they would be known as 'enablers'.

For those who oppose age of consent laws it introduces a grey area that can be exploited. It opens a line of logic that underage people are actually capable of choosing whether or not they want to be sexually active. It is effectively the thin end of the proverbial wedge.

As I said earlier, the concept of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws is a con and a cop out. Our law makers have decided at what age a person is capable of choosing to engage in sexual activity and everyone should be treated equally under the law... regardless of age. Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda.

The Lunsford Hypocrisy

2008-12-03T05:21:00.000-08:00

As strange as it may sound, I'd not heard of Mark Lunsford or his family until I read the latest post on Absolute Zero Unites and followed a link back to a comments page at Absolute Zero United and felt obliged to look it up.

The first couple of articles I read broke my heart. They told the story of Jessica Lunsford, an innocent 9 year old girl who was brutally raped and buried alive by a mentally ill murderer. Whilst I can't possibly fully understand what her family went through, I can empathise with them and share their pain. Her father, Mark Lunsford, became something of a pinup for those who champion publically accessible sex offender registers as he fought a crusade to have far more stringent tracking of RSOs.

Unfortunately for the Lunsford family, things haven't gone according to plan. Subsequent to Jessica's horrific death, Mark's son, Joshua, has been charged with "unlawful sexual conduct with a minor" and metaphorically pissed on Jessica's grave by wearing a t-shirt with her picture on it to his trial. He later took a plea deal and weasled his way out of being included on a sex offender register.

Whilst Joshua Lunsford's sexual activity with a minor is bad enough, the activities of his father have more significant ramifications. You see, Mark Lunsford was found by Florida police to have child pornography on his computer. What would possess a man whose beautiful daughter was raped and murdered to download kiddie porn in beyond me.

So this brings me to the AZU post in question. Are they pouring the usual vitriol on a man found to have been in possession of child pornography? Or are they plumbing the depths of hypocrisy by making excuses for his behaviour (something I believe they refer to as 'enabling' and 'blame gaming')? Well, since he was a pinup for their cause, they're taking the latter option. He's not a paedosexual.. he's not even just a very naughty boy. No, he's one of those mythological people who unknowingly possess child porn. Of course he didn't deliberatly download it. Nor did he look at it. Or masturbate to it. Not him. Not the chosen one.

Having been somewhat disturbed by this rather devious attitude I thought I'd turn to the fount of all knowledge when it comes to exposing those with a prediliction for underage people... Wikisposure. I did a search on Joshua Lunsford and waited to see the page on him. After all, he was sexually involved with a 14 year old girl and so is exactly the sort of person Wikisposure loves to feature. But it was in vain... there was no article on him. Hmmmm.. interesting. So I then searched on Mark Lunsford, the man who was caught by the police with kiddie porn. But alas, there was no article on him either.

So my challenge to Wikisposure and AZU is a simple one. Treat these two as you would anyone else who is caught with child porn or who is sexually involved with a minor. If you're not willing to do so then at least have the integrity to admit you're making a special case for these people. Until you do so, your credibility is in tatters.

Deep Thoughts Pt2

2008-11-07T07:03:00.000-08:00

Quote from Violet Leaves:

"Jacks (sic) 'cause' for pedophiles, sex offenders and their free speech rights is such a mystery...

~**Violet Leaves**~ | Homepage | 11.06.08 - 10:16 am | # "

What VL doesn't explain is how my 'cause' for the free speech rights of her and her friends fits into her conspiracy theory.

{link to comments}

The Hypocrisy Inherent In The System

2008-11-07T06:47:00.000-08:00

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24611493-5008620,00.html

One very disturbing trend in the punishment of those found guilty of sexual activity with underage people is the harsher penalties handed out to males than females. In the case linked to above a man and his partner were found guilty of engaging in consensual sexual activity with two underage girls. The male engaged in more activity than his partner and so is worthy of a tougher penalty but what's occured is disgraceful. He's been gaoled for seven and a half years whilst his partner has walked free.

There's no point demanding tougher laws when the ones we currently have aren't being applied evenly. It's time for everyone to be treated equally by the courts, regardless of gender.

Deep Thoughts Pt1

2008-10-27T07:14:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know I'm pinching this concept from Daydreamer of Oz on the AZU site but they say that imitation is the ultimate form of flattery so I'm sure she won't mind. The quotes here will be outrageous for one reason or another. I thought I'd kick it off with an absolute doozy:

You just know Logue was on his belly, paying his dues to his cellmate, on a nightly basis.

Prison was the one place Derek's quivering lips were a highly sought after commodity.
Logue Hater 10.24.08 - 9:44 pm #

Although it's hard to believe anyone could be so callous, the lowlife posting as 'Logue Hater' is actually taking joy from the idea of someone being raped. You can't get much lower than that.

What's New Pussycat?

2008-10-27T05:46:00.000-07:00

Stitches77 (aka Stitches the Cunt - SC) reminds me of a kitten: she is constantly taking swipes that either don't land or, when they do, have little to no effect. As soon as someone stands up to her she runs to hide behind insults and aggression. She is great fun to toy with as she's not too bright and very overconfident. But that's where the analogy ends as she's in no way cute and certainly not a nice person.

I've been having a fun exchange with SC over on AZU. Someone made the comment that more men than women are raped if you count prison rapes, to which SC replied:

Cite your source. And don't confuse 'sexual victimization' with RAPE when you do so.

So, as she made it clear she has a definition of rape that precludes acts that many would consider to be rape I had to ask her to define what she considers 'sexual victimisation' and how it differs from rape. At first I didn't understand the reason she wouldn't want to make her definition public but, given her below comment, it's now pretty clear. It's about power - she has it and having to answer someone's question would diminish it. Anyhoo, the comments section can be found here if you want to see the whole exchange. Needless to say, SC very quickly descended into her usual mire of insults and naked aggression but made one very crucial and telling remark which confirms my suspicions.

You also failed to realize that I love having the power to manipulate you, Jack

So there we have it folks, SC has inadvertently revealed her true motivation for running the AZU blog: the power. She says herself that she loves having the power to manipulate people. Presumably SC suffered sexual abuse at some stage in her past and is now seeking to reclaim the power that experience took from her. That would also explain why she so quickly attacks anyone who posts comments that disagree with what she's decided is the official AZU line. It's a challenge to her authority that makes her feel that she's not the one in charge so she has to re-establish her authority: like a cat marking it's territory.

Let me make it clear: I do have sympathy for SC and find it terribly sad that she was used as some bloke's sex toy. I have sympathy for anyone who's been through such a traumatic experience. It must play on her mind that there are likely to still be people getting off on her experiences and that she's powerless to stop it. It must be a debilitating experience and I do have sympathy for her because of what she went through but that doesn't change the fact that she's a total bitch. I guess we'll never know if she would've turned out a nice person had she not been abused.

Such Charming Folk Pt 2

2008-10-24T07:22:00.000-07:00

Hmmm.. I'm starting to think that I've given the lovely folk at AZU a bit much credit. They posted the following snippet of a conversation recently:

I REFUSE to even let my husband know my email address. This is MY computer. He can't give them what he doesn't know. I am afraid he will fold like a cheap suit if they give him a hard time.

Quote from: lindape54 on April 04, 2008, 01:04:48 PM

The husband of the woman who made the quote was previously convicted for molesting her daughter but once he was released from gaol she considered her vows of 'for better or worse' and chose to give their marriage a second chance. The AZU interpretation of this quote is that whilst she trusts her daughter's safety with her husband, she doesn't trust him with her email address. Therefore (according to the brainiacs of AZU), she somehow values her email address more highly than her daughter.

Now, to anyone with even a semblence of intelligence, it is clear from reading the quote that this woman is saying she doesn't want to give her husband her email address as 'they' will force him to give it to 'them'. What isn't clear is who 'they' are or why she is so adamant she doesn't want 'them' to have her email address. What is perfectly clear is that she isn't saying that she doesn't trust her husband with her email address. So this is the part when I realise just how much I've overestimated the authors of AZU...

I asked whether it would be prudent to post a link to the full transcript of the quote in order to give context and explain who is the 'they' she refers to. I also pointed out that their interpretation of her quote was obviously incorrect and made no sense. So did they accept the alternate interpretation in good nature? No, of course not. They did what they always do to anyone who doesn't fall in line and blindly accept whatever they've decided is the party line - they went on the offensive and levelled insults at me.

"Oh dear, it's the faux intellectual again. Look, Jack, I'm not gonna play this stupid game with you. If you want to go read the shit at Sosen knock yourself out, Jack

Now. For the last fucking time. That was Linda's comment. That was not a snippet of her comment. We are not going to post the entire thread. The statement means what it means. She did not trust her husband's ability to control himself enough to let him know what her email address was. She obviously DID trust him to live in the home with her little girl who he had previously groomed and molested. If you can figure out some other meaning then say so, otherwise go philosophize on somebody who will appreciate your level of dimwittedness.

I don't.

Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 1:49 pm | # "

"You don't have to believe what we say, most pedo's are too distorted to anyway, why should an RSO activist be any different?
Jacey | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 2:22 pm | # "

"Oh brother. I see we've got another thick headed idiot on on hands!
Carisma | Homepage | 10.23.08 - 9:12 pm | # "

So, in addition to the slurs received last time I disagreed with these people, I'm now also a dimwitted faux intellectual, a RSO activist and a thick headed idiot. Full comments here.

Up until now I'd just presumed the people responsible for these blatant pieces of second rate fiction were simply mentally challenged but I've come to realise that they're more than just terminally thick. They're also deliberately deceptive. It was possible they could've really been stupid enough to believe their incorrect interpretation of the quote they posted but their reaction to having their deceipt exposed shows that they are not really interested in the truth.

I guess what people say is true after all... Stitches77 and co. really are cunts... and dramatically dim cunts at that!

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 2

2008-10-22T05:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S625982.shtml?cat=566

Vigilantes are deluded sociopaths who believe that they're above the law and more important than anyone else. They have no respect for law and order and believe that they're so superior to everyone else that they are well within their rights to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. They're also completely wrong.

The case linked to above is a perfect example of the problem with vigilantes. In summary, a vigilante took it upon himself to post details of local sex offenders in public places as part of a campaign to stir up the public against them. Some other vigilantes took offense at this and beat the crap out of him. And herein lies the rub. One either supports the concept of vigilantism or one opposes it. You can't pick and choose the vigilantes who should be allowed. If you support even one vigilante then you lose any sort of moral right to condemn other vigilantes with whom you may disagree.

Some people who don't think things through voice their support for vigilantes when the people targeted are those they don't like. There would be many people supportive of the vigilante trying to rabble-rouse by posting flyers exposing people in the community. However, should one have supported his vigilantism, it would be extreme hypocrisy to then oppose the vigilantism of the people who bashed him. In both cases the vigilante engaged in activities with the intention of hurting the intended target... either physically or through orchestrating social exclusion (NB. There are many who would argue that the posting of flyers is aimed at provoking other vigilantes to physically attack the SO's but I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and presume he wasn't that vicious).

I believe in the rule of law. Anyone who breaks the law, regardless of motivation, is a criminal and should be treated as such. Further, anyone who chooses to break the law does so in the knowledge that this action brings consequences. I guess the bloke who got bashed this time hadn't taken into account the chance that his fellow vigilantes would be part of his consequences.

Free Speech vs Thoughtcrime

2008-10-02T08:23:00.000-07:00

{blog: littlegirl saved}

"Minimizing crimes against children should be illegal in itself!"

The above quote is taken from the post titled 'Boy-Chatters think Child porn is laughable?'. Having read the post I still haven't seen anything from the Boy-Chatters that suggests they consider kiddie porn to be laughable... but that's not the point that caught my eye. No, the thing that caught my eye was the suggestion that legislation should be passed to make it illegal for anyone to express an opinion that could be construed as 'minimising crimes against children'. The obvious ambiguity in this statement is hardly surprising as the intention to stifle thought and free speech is most effective when the boundaries are blurred and the goal posts easily moved.

Now, I don't like to see actual crimes against children trivialised but I defend the rights of everyone to free speech. It's very easy to be a defender of free speech when the concept expressed is something we agree with; but the true test of our commitment comes when people want to express concepts with which we disagree. As the Friends of Voltaire so eloquently expressed it: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". There's really nothing I can add to that.

The Problem With Vigilantes

2008-09-30T02:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24425596-2761,00.html

This story highlights perfectly why the business of securing justice should be left to those who are trained in the area. I'm sure the fuckwits who put this pamphlet out thought they were so very smart and were securing some sort of 'people's justice' by publicly naming a convicted sex offender. Whilst the perpetrators sit back smugly enjoying their perverse schadenfreude, the original victim now has to deal with being publicly named and the ramifications of this. One of the big fears of anyone who's been sexually abused is that their ordeal is made public and sadly this is what's happened due to the selfish actions of an ignorant individual (or possibly a group of ignorant individuals).

I hope everyone responsible for this is caught and prosecuted to act as a deterrent to others.

Is Bestiality Rape?

2008-09-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/09/sheep_molester_not_a_sex_offen.html

First things first: I have no idea how someone can find an animal sexually attractive. Personally I find the idea of engaging in sexual activity with an animal to be repulsive. But then again I don't know how a man can find another man sexually attactive and I find the idea of homosexual sex repulsive. So rather than making random judgements on who to condemn and who not to, I make a conscious decision not to condemn those different from me and who have attractions I don't understand. It's not always an easy approach to take but centuries of homophobia was based on bigots making value judgements using their own sexual attractions as the only acceptable model and condemning anyone different and I'm not keen to join the ranks of the bigots.

So, having said that I come to the point of the push to include this man on a sex offender register. What is the point of a sex offender register? The official reason is to highlight men and women who may potentially pose a sexual threat to others. Others argue that its purpose is to marginalise those with attractions alternative to the mainstream in the same way different people have been marginalised based on race, religion and sexuality throughout the ages. I personally believe the true intentions are a combination of both. Regardless, unless sheep read sex offender registers, I don't see the point of including people such as this on a register. After all, its not even decided yet if it's possible to rape a sheep. Does the issue of consent even come into play when an animal is involved? Do those who consider sex with an animal to be rape also consider the killing of an animal to be murder? It seems a bit odd that we consider it fine to kill a a sheep but abominable to shag one.

The obvious approach should be one of protecting animals from cruelty. If the action of shagging an animal hurts it, the offender should be charged under animal welfare legislation and treated in accordance with the law. This is entirely reasonable. Placing people on sex offender registers may conform with their marginalising purpose but certainly doesn't meet their other alleged purpose of protecting the public.

Such Charming Folk

2008-09-17T06:17:00.001-07:00

I mentioned in my opening post that although I often frequent the Absolute Zero (AZU) blog and find the posts to be thought provoking, I find the comments section to be a disappointing mire of self congratulatory backslapping, substandard thought processes and outright hostility to anyone not blindly accepting of the views and ideology of the blog's authors. Questioning the logic of a post or disagreeing with the listed contributors usually leads to an outpouring of vitriol or, on occasion, accusations that the sceptic is actually either a paedosexual or a 'paedo enabler' (an essentially meaningless made up term addressed previously on this blog). In the past I've seen the rather pathetic attempts by a poster who goes by the name of 'lameo' to ingratiate himself with the main contributors when they've turned on him. His crime? He questioned whether a quote attributed to a politician may have been misinterpreted by Stitches77 in her post (see post and comments). I ended up feeling quite sorry for the guy as he reminded me of the loser at school who tries so hard to hang out with the popular gang and never quite gets that they have nothing but contempt for him.

In the past couple of days I've questioned a post on AZU in which they placed a lot of importance on a quote from a man who tortured and sexually assaulted two children. He made a comment that "The truth is that I am not an exception, I am the rule! Most sex offenders are just like me". The contributor who posted the article, Daydreamer of Oz, considered it so relevant that he even titled the post based on it. My point was simply that, when criminals like this man make statements in support of their actions they are roundly decried and their statements treated as lies and propaganda so it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for AZU to suddenly quote him as though his statement is truth and they accept him as an authority. The response to my audacity in questioning this was:

"Can you not read? I don't think his statements hold any validity whatsoever. Just like the RSO activists today don't.

Why should we put weight on the propaganda they are spreading that is EXACTLY like Duncan's?

HOW are they different?

It appears to me you have a definite bias and are unable to comprehend the question.

Stitches
Stitches77 Homepage 09.16.08 - 9:53 am "

Yes, that's correct. Because I disagree with the self proclaimed experts, I must therefore be some sort of imbecile who is unable to read or comprehend (see post and comments).

It's a shame that the contributors take this approach as, quite frankly, their back catalogue of comments show that as passionate as they are, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed and could really benefit by listening to others.

Now, I have no doubt that by constructively criticising the good folk at AZU I'm opening myself to the likelihood of being attacked as a paedo, a paedo enabler, a blame gamer or some other nonsense term but I'm not about to be bullied into silence. It's these very attitudes that prompted me to start this blog and offer a forum for both sides to be able to post without worrying about being cyber bullied. I just hope I can continue to maintain the neutrality.

Truly Horrible

2008-09-11T03:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24324436-2761,00.html

We all know that hardcore child pornography is disgusting and illegal for a reason but this story is truly disturbing and makes one's stomach turn. I don't understand how someone can be turned on by the picture of a baby bound and gagged. The man who plead guilty to downloading these images has been gaoled which is a fair sentence but I really hope that he'll receive the counselling he needs.

Of course, what is far more concerning than the person who is attacted to these pictures is the person who did this to a baby in the first place. I personally don't believe a baby is able to give consent to such sexual activity and should be protected from such abuse. Let's hope the perpertrator is caught, locked up, and given the psychological help he so clearly needs.

A Total Disgrace

2008-09-08T05:51:00.000-07:00

http://chris-drejaj-pedophile.blogspot.com/

"Chris Drejaj currently lives with his pedo enabler parents Paul and Kelly Drejaj, who are both fully aware of his online activities and admitted sexual attraction to little girls. Anyone having contact with these people should be very concerned about the safety of their children."

This is an excerpt from the site linked to above. Now, the question of the ethics of publishing the name and address of an alleged paedosexual and thereby exposing them to the risk of being physically assaulted by a mindless vigilante is a valid topic of discussion and one that I'll likely raise here on another date. The issue I want to address now is the vitriol directed at the parents of the alleged paedosexual.

Firstly, the term 'pedo enabler'. What is a 'pedo enabler'? I've done a search on various dictionary sites, a Google search and checked Wikipedia and there seems to be no official definition of this term. From the context in which it is used here, it would appear that it's an invented slur to be used against the friends and family of paedosexuals. The inference here is that because the parents haven't disowned their son, they are committing some sort of contemptible act. Surely it must be obvious to any reasonable person that to condemn parents for not abandoning their own child is in itself the contemptible act.

Whilst the condemnation this site passes on the parents for not disowning their child is fully deserving of one's contempt, what is worse is that the site's author goes on to claim that the parents pose a direct danger to children and posts their address and details of their places of work. As I said earlier, the question of the ethics of posting the private details of an accused paedosexual online is one that is open to debate but what is not open for discussion is whether or not it is acceptable to deliberately set out to damage that person's family. There is simply no possible justification for such behaviour and betrays the dangers of the fundamentalist mindset of some of the antis.

My challenge to those who feel it's acceptable to post the personal details of this man's family is to post your own personal details first. If you don't feel that it's appropriate to do this, then don't post the personal details of other innocent people. After all, they've not even been accused of being paedosexuals so there is no possible rationale for your attempt to sabotage their lives.

Licensed To Hug

2008-09-07T05:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/06/licensed_to_hug.html

This is a Civitas Blog entry from a couple of months ago. It's about a paper released by a Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent in the UK investigating the current state of paranoia regarding child molesters and the effect it's having on intergenerational relationships. Some of the stories related to the author are very sad and highlight how social engineering often comes with unintended negative consequences.

One story that I found particularly poignant is that of a 2 year old girl who drowned in a pond. It transpired that a man had seen her wandering the streets as he was driving his car but didn't stop to ensure she was safe as he was fearful of being accused of attempting to abduct her. In this case, the climate of fear and suspicion that is so prevalent today led directly to the death of a child when, had things been different, she would likely have been picked up by the man and returned home or to a police station. I must admit that I doubt I'd have stopped either. The stigma of being labelled a paedosexual is one that can ruin your life and far too big a risk to undertake lightly.

I found this to be a very interesting article and would encourage those who visit the Voice of Reason to take the time to read it and, if you feel inclined, to make comment.

Doug Stanhope

2008-09-03T07:58:00.000-07:00

Bloody funny.. no more needs to be said.

Accused Child Molester Seeks Compo

2008-09-02T06:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24282278-3102,00.html

This is an interesting case. At the moment Dennis Ferguson has only been accused of molesting a child but has been hounded across Queenland by vigilantes who seem to have no love for our Western judicial system. Now, if it turns out that he actually did what he's been accused of then obviously I reckon he should have the book thrown at him but what worries me at the moment is the undermining of our societal values of fairness. Our justice system has been founded on the principle that one must be considered as and, more importantly, treated as innocent until they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of their peers. This central, pivotal concept is currently being compromised and eroded on a number of fronts as the difference between being accused and being found guilty is being lost on many people all the way from the neanderthal vigilante right up to those who run our countries.

So, this brings us back to the case at hand and begs the question; given that vigilantism is a criminal act, should those who are victims of it be eligible for compensation. Ferguson hasn't yet been found guilty of what he's been accused of doing but if he eventually is, does this disqualify him from being eligible for compensation arising from criminal acts committed against him? If it does, would the vigilante who committed the crime against Ferguson also be disqualified from receiving compensation should someone else decide to even things up?

My opinion is that if Ferguson has offended against someone as he's been accused, he should face the full consequences of this. If someone offends against Ferguson that person should be tried and face the full consequences of his/her actions. Once they've done their time and paid their price they should then be free to continue their lives in peace. If they are offended against, they should be eligible for any applicable compensation.

What's the Point?

2008-09-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

If you've managed to stumble across this little site from amongst the millions of blogs that clutter cyberspace, you're probably wondering what on earth the point is. Well, quite simply, I wanted to provide a forum for rational, respectful debate about issues that effect children.

For some time I've frequented blogs and activism sites set up by anti's and also those by paedosexuals and have found myself increasingly frustrated at the lack of dialogue between the two groups.

My favourite anti site has been Absolute Zero United but I find the comments section to be a mire of self-congratulatory posts and insults to anyone who disagrees with the accepted ideology. I'm sure the people who run the site must be more intelligent than they come across in their comments but I suppose it's easier to just insult people than debate issues when you control what your opponents are allowed to say in their posts. Similarly, the posts on Girl Chat tend to lack any serious debate of issues in favour of a pretty uniform opinion.

I realise it's quite likely that neither group will be interested in discussing issues with the other on a neutral playing field but I thought it would be nice to at least provide the field in case anyone turns up... you know, Field of Dreams and all that.

So... discuss away... (cue: sound of crickets chirping)