Too Funny To Ignore

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


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



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

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



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

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

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

Your Own Medicine Is Often The Most Bitter

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

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

Lessons In Dishonesty Pt1: Jeremy Bolick

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

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

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

And now Jeremy's back to his old tricks:



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

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

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

Questions for Jeremy and Clay

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.

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 4

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.

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 3

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

Mark Lunsford isn't happy...

I heard Mark Lunsford isn't very happy about having contact with the RSOL at the AWA hearings. Let's just say the old Romeo & Juliet tactic wasn't effective.    
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. 

The Lunsford Hypocrisy Continues

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.

The 'Romeo & Juliet' Con

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 Hypocrisy Inherent In The System

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.