Experiment

Let's publish all of the shit that I've been complaining about.

Scroll down...

BTW, if you want to see where my projects are going... http://newgon.com

I've seen enough

All activity on blogger ceased after this.

I will move on. All future content will go here.

Farewell, fascist bitches.

Absolute Zero Exposed

Submission and Commentary By Daniel

Before I began to write this blog, I decided not to name its targets. Promise broken. In this post alone, the targets must be named, for it is the very phenomenon of multiple names that is the target.

So, the lovely Stitches77 publishes a post in which she slanders me as a sexual predator and pedophile. Her frankly odd use of the third person to refer to herself is carried over into the comments, in which one of her socks produces a reply within three minutes of her usual guise - as if they live and breathe on that website, day and night. Sound familiar? Read on!

AZ - a cyber vigilante group run by responsible citizens who just happen to be angry white trash, soccer moms, homophobes, and er... homophobes, has many listed contributors. But two of them stand out, not only because of their overwhelming dominance of the AZ archives, but because of the striking level of evidence that they are, well... the same person.

So let's get the facts straight about supposed 'founding member' Daydreamer of Oz and current 'main contributor', Stitches77. What basic properties do they have in common?

1. Both joined in January 06

2. Both female IDs, with a very similar sounding prose (I recommend that you just look)

3. Both would fall within the top - right division of the political compass. They show an unwavering level of agreement against free expression.

4. Both used the same company to source their blog templates from. This company has about three websites, which receive an average of around 12 hits a day. Both blogs have caused similar technical faults in Internet Explorer, whilst I have been viewing them

5. Both entered into almost instant discussion with each other, after they were created. They have often simultaneously visited extremely remote locations, for example, this one, which only receives three hits a day.

It is here that I would like to introduce a third character, who also matches all five criteria above. However, since this person is pretty much 'out' with their online identity as an actual person, I shall withhold their identity until AZ's campaign of hate and slander against myself intensifies. Lets just call her 'Source 77' for the time being, since the source HTML of her homepage reveals that it was created before both Stitches' and Dreamer's in that month of January. She's a Puppet-Meister, if you like. All strings and bingo-wings!

OK, so we've established the basics. 'Just the usual blogger trash' you may think. Well, lets look a bit closer. What else betrays the shared authorship of these two accounts?

6. Stitches seems to have a fetish for using images from Daydreamer's photobucket. For a starter, this account contains an image of a Bear entitled 'Stitches'. Could this be linked to another sockpuppet account?

OK, let's be fair. Given their collaboration on AZ (which started last June), some degree of sharing may be excused. But one image stands out above all the rest - Stitches' profile picture. This is again, sourced from Daydreamer's photobucket, and appears to be the very first picture that was ever uploaded into that account. So let's see - am I to believe that Daydreamer started up a whole new image hosting account for her friend's sake? Or am I to believe that when the two 'joined forces' in June, Stitches, whilst copying the AZ banner into her blog, just 'liked what she saw' and linked to it?

The second interpretation certainly sounds the most appealing, however this 'books' image of Daydreamer's can be traced back to Stitch the Witch's profile as early as 05 February 2006 (right click on the image to reveal the source). That's only a few days after both her and Daydreamer registered, with absolutely no reason for Stitches to enter Daydreamer's photobucket! Moreover, why put your profile picture in 'another woman's' hands? Why not just host your own? And bear in mind that new profile pics don't backdate, since many fellow bloggers' old pics can still be seen in posts gone by.

7. So, where else exactly could we go to catch Stitches using Daydreamer's images virtually the day after both accounts were created? Nowhere. You see, both Stitches and Daydreamer's blogs were recently pulled in their entirety. This all happened within two days (Feb 05 - 06) with both blogs being replaced by those all too familiar 'boycott Amazon' banners. Considering that they both contained over a year's worth of entries, why would these 'two different' site owners completely pull their incriminating archives? Especially at the same time! Unsurprisingly, after I asked, Stitches gave no answer.

So there you go. Despite her accusations towards the pro - intergenerational love community, one cyber vigilante is clearly using sockpuppets to further her reactionary cause.

Hopefully, various members of the group discussed have now been given more in the way of doubt than their usual repressed feelings and intense hate. So come on! Hide this with your smug 'Gimme 5' slacktivism.

WarPedHunters

Let's take a break from the usual practice of active deconstruction, for a bit of fun.

Link

I'm open to suggestions of future targets!

Yes! An attack!!

The poor woman's 'Nasty' Nancy Grace (with extra personalities on top - yes I could prove it if I cared) has done it again!

In a sheer display of uncompromising might an logic, the first lady of ignorance (pause. count the personalities. OK, just about the only one) tore multiple targets throughout the pro - intergenerational love community to SHREDS. But let's start with myself!

''What can you say about men like this? Men like Daniel who wrote a complete guide to debate for pedophiles....taking them step by step through the process of proving that pedophiles are normal and child prostitution and child pornography should not only be tolerated and accepted but legalized!''

Oh! The sharp but thrilling chill of 'negative' publicity!

Besides the obvious short and stupid-ism of replacing 'anyone in favour of intergenerational love, or the removal of age of consent laws' with 'pedophiles' (yes, she still maintains a state of denial and complete revision, regarding my sexuality), I challenge her to find any words in my guide that call for the legalisation of child pornography and prostitution.

And as for the (supposedly) self defeating quote "I am sexually attracted to children, but I am not a pedophile", left without an eyebrow - raising word, to stew in the minds of the ignorant:

Try and get the diagnosis right, Dr. Laura (or lets say Judith).

However, if you wish to go all OED on me (oh bitch, I know you want to), I'd be happy to accept the tag only if you were willing to admit the huge, 87.5% majority that I would become part of! It's sad that the only figure we seem to hear now, is that thoroughly refuted (see eighth down) '95% of child molesters are pedophiles' nonsense. That this assertion can only be utter bullcrap, is encyclopedic knowledge - accepted by some of the most morally biased academics of our time!

And to round it all off rather nicely:

''They are child predators and they are real. They are not just words on a computer screen, a nickname or a sigpic. They are child predators, whether they call themselves a Girl Lover, a Boy Lover, a Child Lover, a Pedophile, Pedosexual or MAA''

Any defence against this crap would surely be a 'protest of confirmation'.

And the 'reallity' is...

Submission and commentary by Daniel.

...this enemy of humanity simply can't take it!

''So the pedophile thinks he can freely molest children as long as the child agrees to it?''

Llort, it seems that you are unable to perceive let alone spell 'reality'.

Again, your supposed expose has absolutely no penetration (yes, literally) or truth to it. Show me where anyone in this outtake directly encouraged someone else to break the law.

If you can't, I'll be expecting to see you take a stand against hip hop artists or any other group that has been accused of promoting a 'culture of decadence' via similar fuzzy advocacy.

You see, the 'promotion' of an idea (what is quite clearly happening here) is the way that people get laws changed. It's the fully legal process by which every idea gets thrown into the cauldron and is judged by its merits; survival of the fittest. It happened with the homosexuals and it's happening with the minor attracteds.

Let me guess... you're scared of fair play. You can smell your own wounds and you want a gun.

Boychat rules. Morons whimper.

- In wishing that you would play to your strengths and turn to modelling. Daniel -

OK, I'll admit it...

Submissions and commentary by Daniel.

I'm terribly behind in my work. My work documenting the cowardice and hate of others in censoring my arguments, that is. So here we go with two of the more recent deletions (all of which will eventially be paid tribute to).

1. Someone, in their continuing disbelief surrounding my sexuality, just complained that I let off a bit of a stench. Well, since their concerns were so perfectly answered (via censorship of civil argument - the only kind of answer it seems that the concerned knows of), let's release a bomb, shall we!

''promote harming children and child molestation''

EVIDENCE?

''Viamund trying to force them to accept pedophilia''

EVIDENCE? SUBJECTIVE?

''The're some of the most closed minded and ignorant people around''

IRONY!

Thus, Jacey, you display the cognitive distortions of a person who has become so perversely and hatefully alienated from nature that they can only rationalise after, and never before their conclusions.

Why else would what you say be so far from the truth?

2. These supposed internet tough guys were seemingly too weak to take a few simple truths about traffic statistics, something which one of their own has repeatedly goaded me over!

''Acme Cleaning Services stated blogging in July 2006, since then this blog has had...

10,570

...hits''

Game ON! started blogging on the 10th of December 2006.

Since then it has received...

11,787

...hits

It's all relative, Llort!

Kill Myself?

Submission and commentary by Daniel.

I'm hearing it so often from one person in particular. Well, here's a message for the fetishist, and all those who agree with his vile and dangerous words:

Beyond Stupidity

From a 2006 article in the News of the World:

The shocking pictures here and on Page One PROVE the need for Sarah's Law which would give parents and carers the right to know about child sex beasts in their area...

...Vincent Graham is a Schedule One sex offender, the most serious category, who is known to be a danger to children. He was convicted in 2001 of raping children and placed on the sex offenders register for life.

Police regard him as a high-risk offender who ought to be closely monitored by probation staff.

Sources told the News of the World he moves around using an unusual walking stick with a monkey model attached to it which he uses to attract children's attention.

He also wears false flashing ears which provide an extra draw for fascinated youngsters.

I have included one of these pictures on this page.

Is there any point at which the pursuers of Pedophiles, or indeed any other sexual minority, will just stop and say to a friend:

''er... in fact, after thinking about this for myself, I have to say that what you claim / propose is a little extreme / illogical''

If there is, I am yet to hear it. All I can hear is the supposed protectors of children egging each other on to psychopathic levels of hatred, manifest in calls for the degradation, silencing and killing of fellow humans. To the experienced eye, it almost appears to be a celebration, a deliberate descent into all that lacks sensibility and proportion.

Understand the message in this image?

Submission and commentary by Daniel.

Posted to a counter blog, a rather naff cut and paste effort, using a banner from my own website in some attempt to be 'darkly re - affirmative'.

''Of course, I understand the message'', you may say. Are you sure?

Take a closer look.

Still nothing? Let's 'turn the lights on', shall we?

See the hidden imagery, now?

EDIT: The admin on the blog that this post addresses has just removed my comment and link to the clarified image. Without responding. I wonder why.

Junk Mail

Submissions and commentary by Daniel

Game ON! and Game OFF! have just recently been hit by 12 replies that are unfortunately not good enough to publish. Some of these replies consisted of only one word, and many were submitted within seconds of each other under anonymous i.d. - maybe signifying the mentality of the writer, who to be fair revealed their identity once or twice.

Included in these very short and unproductive messages were:

8 X 'Loser' (Attempt to demoralise, or author's self biography)

2 X Requests for me to kill myself or consider the act

1 X 'Fucking Idiot' (= someone who posts three successive replies that won't get published)

1 X 'Pedoshittalk' (?)

1 X Long drawn out attempt to impersonate me, that was later submitted to an unmoderated blog (Look, guys, how many times do I have to tell you that you won't get published?)

1 X Hilarious unsupported ass-ertion accusing me of making an unsupported assertion:

The following is an unsupported assertion:

''This is clearly not a forum for debate, or 'incoherent' (challenging) ideas''

where does it state that we have any interest in having a "debate" with you?

The hilarity being, of course, that my 'assertion' described the situation over at that blog perfectly. Maybe they were criticising what they mistakenly perceived to be my expectations. If so, I can safely say that at no point did I ever expect a proper debate. Proving their cowardice is another thing, though. As is proving it so resoundingly by exposing how they invite people to participate, yet whilst upholding their own righteous pretences, delete any counter comment that they can't stomach.

Sour grapes.

Deleted Posts, part 1

Submissions and commentary by Daniel.

The model for posting on an anti - sex or anti - pedophile blog is a short, and easy to produce post that is easily saved and reproduced in case of deletion. The model for discussion should be nil. If you have a bone to pick, after your first post, I would highly recommend posting it elsewhere, unless the blog owner can promise not to delete any justified comments, whilst allowing flames from their own side. Let the following demonstrate this:

After witnessing the admins on one particular blog delete a couple of influential posts supposedly because they contained links to my website (despite later posting a link themselves, tagged 'loser land'), I decided to save what I produced on that one blog.

Then up came a new post which linked to this boychat post, outlining the following section as 'pure evil':

In any case, killing a kid after having your way with him doesn't always qualify as a political statement

My deleted reply basically explained that the context of Ironclad's post distanced his movement from violent acts, even though he reckoned that it should toughen up. I added that this rendered the comment sarcastic or a deliberate understatement and that it was sad but true that the anti - pedophile who quoted it knew this; they knew the movement too well, knew that any call to murder boys would be the work of a troll, but since they were filled with hate, they continued to manipulate the facts.

Maybe this cut too close to the bone, or was a little too sharp for them to handle. Given the amount of time that they must spend trawling through boychat, their examples sure are impotent.

With typical malice, the blog owner had posted a full reply to my message before deleting it and seemingly rewriting history by informing me that he / she would not reply to it. To me, silencing an opponent whilst giving yourself a free shot at the censored material is ideological cowardice to a Fascistic extent:

your comment was incoherent and contained a number of assertions that were unsupported. I'm not going to respond to that kind of intellectual dishonesty, and any similar attempts by you will also be deleted. this is not a forum for pedophile propaganda. consider yourself informed.

To which I replied:

This is clearly not a forum for debate, or 'incoherent' (challenging) ideas.

If you can't or won't reply, have the grace to leave my reply alone.

'consider yourself informed'

Of what? The more you delete, the more I will save and reproduce elsewhere, making you look all the more reactive and repressive. If you accept multiple jibes, and reject 'propaganda' that challenges your lazy and utterly impotent use of cut and paste, who's respect do you have?

Unsurprisingly, that message was deleted, obviously being far less reasonable than the barrage of insults aimed towards myself. The justification?:

once again, incoherent statements and unsupported assertions will be deleted.

And again, the admin had already allowed a full reply to my post - this time by one of his / her cronies. As a side note, that reply deliberately misquoted my post:

''This is clearly not a forum for debate, or 'incoherent' ideas''

DUH! danny boy finally gets it.

Notice the omission of my operative clause in brackets!

I am fast learning about the fundamental unreasonability of those who continue to believe in fundamentally unreasonable positions. Having been so used to well moderated philosophy boards, seeing what happens when the power changes hands is truly shining a new light upon the core mentality of various others.

Neutralising their bile, part 1

Submissions and commentary by Daniel:

This post covers a series of discussions that I had at a particular deletion - happy hunting ground for pseudo - vigilantes. A small amount of the material is in reply to concerns that would have been reasonable enough to answer on the blog itself, had their deletion policy not been so. Since the blog's owners repeatedly exposed their inability to address my criticism by falsely 'accusing' me of being a pedophile, in the vain illusion that this was of any significance, I will highlight their comments in a beautiful 'boylover blue'.

Well, Daniel, your Debateguide is one of the reasons none of you nodding pedo heads can win a debate with an anti. It's filled with lies and pedo propaganda. And of course the pedo heads start to nod when they read it and the dumb fuckers actually try to use it.

In a goading comment that was made in response to a far - too - risque deleted post of mine, this individual seems totally unaware that an actual 'debate' rarely happens on blogger. Those who ask for objective discussion get no reply from their ilk. A great example of this was the discussion that followed:

Anyone who's not a paedophile can clearly see how absurd it is.

Funny that this 'speak for all' comment was made in the same post as a criticism of myself being blinded by my own subjective conclusions.

Such a generous guy this Dan, spending all his time crafting up websites to help paedophiles hurt children... but he's not not a paedophile himself right? - It's all very weak isn't it?

The kind of denial and disbelief expressed here is typical of this user and their type. The fundamental flaw that exposes their shyness of any form of debate is simple in that they are attacking anti - age of consent advocates by accusing them of something that has no relation to the validity of their argument, and that they see as totally acceptable in the first place. This is similar to the way that they attack actual pedophiles' arguments by belittling their condition, with no objective support.

Alan posted this on the previous post, it shows his mental state and is rather funny, so I thought I would bring it to your attention.

What followed this comment was a cut and pasted post of Alan's which reflected exactly the same 'rather funny' jumble of ad homs and unsupported speculation about an other's personal life, that the authors it was addressed to have been known to use so frequently. Whats more, Alan jokingly signed it off with the name of the bile - spewer to whom it was intended. Maybe Alan's intention was to get this character to criticise their own mentality. If so, it worked!

In your profile you describe your attraction range at 10 to 30 years of age. Which means you are attracted to minors ie a fucking pedo!

Here we have an example of someone losing their favourite game. A meaningless personal attack is one thing, but having to resort to a twisted definition to fulfil it is quite another.

You also mention you are bisexual (doesn't know which way to turn) which is obvious by your faggy remarks, this probably means you chase after young boys.

Damn, all these people want to do is discuss my sexuality! False dichotomies, homophobia, off - the mark speculation and all! This is unsurprising, as my sexuality is all they have to use against me. Addressing my arguments and refutations of theirs is too hard a task, clearly:

The AOC in the UK is still 18 as far as I know, ie 10 - 17 in your attraction range, that means you are a fucking pedo.

Again, this means nothing to the actual debate that they are attacking me for daring to encourage. But this shows that when the individual tries to set out the facts they get both the legal and medical situations horrendously wrong. 'Pedophile' has never been a legal term, and the age of consent has never been 18 in the UK. As I said - losing their favourite game.

...it seems that the AOC in Devon and Cornwall is 16, so your preferences of 10 - 15 are illegal!

And when someone finally got the age of consent right, they commit the 'illegal thoughts' error!

You fucking people make me sick, you come onto the internet with your anonymous id and expect to be able to stand up for things such as the sexual abuse of children - and get away with it.

Right on. Fuck democracy. Fuck it with an emotionally veiled argument against freedom of speech, whilst you're at it.

I think I will try and expose you Daniel, if you hang around long enough. I will be passing on your blogger id to my friends in Plymouth and the links of this blog, it will be interesting to see if they can smell you out!

The likely location of this individual (of which I was secretly informed) makes their threats extremely flimsy, and basically another example of their lack of interest in any form of real argument.

if you have nothing more to offer us than more of the same-same Ipce copy/paste like every other stupid pedo...? thanks, but no. i'm not interested. go play your games somewhere else.

Whoever wrote this clearly had not been looking at what I have linked, copied or pasted. They also had the audacity to shout down objective discussion as 'games', whilst in the middle of playing their own favourite tricks of distraction, manipulation of facts and censorship of arguments.

calling you a fucking idiot isn't ad hominem, you stupid fuck, it's a statement of fact.

As is saying that this commentator is the Bush regime's six - headed robotic pig that carefully distracts political undesirables, from the comfort and safety of the moon. However, I fear that my indisputable fact may have somewhat more truth in it.

i can't speak for anyone else, but i would personally like to see you removed. from this planet. forever. preferably with a large caliber bullet in your face.

When this individual once said that they had 'rejected' all of my arguments before, maybe this kind of opposition was what they meant by 'rejection'. In fact, they were right. Simply expressing your hate for a person and their arguments is a form of rejection! Not a very convincing form, however.

You, on the other hand, need anti's. You need to argue with us. You need to try to convince us that your distorted twisted delusions....are reality.

In fact, 'arguing' with such people had been a tiring task, which I will not repeat in their back yard, given both the level of debate and rampant deletion of my comments. They'll only be getting short jabs from me in the future. So what am I now? Let's guess; a wimp?

The only thing I want is for you to shut your fucking mouth.

The one obvious way of achieving this seemed to escape the very person who was uttering it.

i've already demonstrated that you're a complete fucking idiot.

Considering the idiocy of the concerned writer's material, the only way this would have been technically possible was to produce yet more idiocy and prove how undeniably similar it was to my writing. It appears that any deconstructive argument was beyond this person, but had my contributions matched those of the said pigtailed pioneer, he / she / it would have indeed helped in proving my own lack of intellect.

that's just sad... that you have to tell people to go to your blog.

To get to the heart of why this user feels that way, avoid being deleted, and to test their steel? Er... yes.

let's see, there's a total of zero comments for your 12/27 post... and you have a grand total of two comments for the 12/24 post. one from Llort, and the other from you. the one from you doesn't really count, so that makes a grand total of one comment on your blog for you last two posts. one comment, Daniel. from Llort. i'd keep going, but i think everyone's probably had enough fun pointing at you and laughing.

These guys can't even do an ad hom properly without bending the facts. The facts are that my blog had eight comments in what was it's 20 day history. And despite this having absolutely no relevance to any kind of real argument, what exactly generates comments? The answer is unproductive flamewars with those who are cognitively distorted by their own hate.

you need to realize that if you had any argument, any argument at all, of any validity, you wouldn't be here trying to convince us [...] the peds would be contacting their elected representatives to have the age of consent laws repealed so they could fuck children.

If the author's argument was valid, surely the world would have been this way at all places at all times. The wisdom of a crowd depends on the crowd's wisdom. If we lived in such an ad populum fallacy, things would never change.

They've been reduced to sending in the bottom of the barrel

This type of comment is typical of it's author. Note how they imply that anyone who dare oppose the age of consent is part of a coherent strategy - a taskforce. I would have called it paranoid, had it not been so blatantly stupid.

What astonishes me is this blatancy - the predictability of their crudeness and bending of facts. It seems to extend to such absurdity that it becomes a form of toyish campery - outright denial. Make of this what you wish.

Tabs denote type of submission

I have decided to break the posts on this blog up into categories, a la In Self Defense. Each post will begin with one or more of the following. Anybody can make a contribution under any category.

1.
For stopping unreasonable flamewars started on non - contributor blogs. Please notify the concerned blogs, after your submission has been accepted.


2.
For dismissing unreasonable comments made on the contributors' own blogs. Ideally, these should be moderated and only published on this blog.


3.
For when the comments dealt with are justified, or semi - justified concerns, but the contributors' comments are threatened by moderation.


4.
Reproducing contributors' deleted posts and criticising the reasons for deletion. Arguments will be re - asserted, regardless of opponents' wishes.


5.
Not for reproducing any material, but for posting general comments about the mindset of violently anti - sex types, etc.