Predator on the Loose

Thursday, August 31, 2006

PALMDALE, August 31, 2006 - A manhunt is underway for a suspect who raped a ten-year-old girl at a movie theater complex in the Antelope Valley Mall in Palmdale.

The attack occurred about 1:30 Tuesday afternoon at the Movies 10 complex in the 1200 block of West Avenue P, said Sgt. Paul Patterson of the Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau.
The suspect pulled the youngster into an empty movie theater, where he "verbally threatened and sexually assaulted her," Patterson said. The man then ran off.

He was described as black, 35-45 years old, 5 feet 9 inches tall and 180 pounds, with a black/gray mustache. He wore a white short-sleeve shirt and dark blue warm-up pants with white stripes on the outer seams.

Detectives circulated a composite drawing of the suspect, and urged anyone knowing more about the crime to call the sheriff's department.


Is this a War or What?

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Picture this: In an attempt to try to improve the image of boylovers, a few of them got together and set up a charity for less fortunate children, as in boys. The money was used to set up a camp for boys, from which they would receive photographs of the boys..... If any of this is sounding familiar see THIS

After the recent NY Times expose by Kurt Eichenwald, AnemicFairy simply wails:
So much then for improving the image of boylovers. The whole story confirmed what I have noticed before: NOTHING we do will make any difference to how we are viewed.
Well, DUH.

Anemic continues:
It seems more and more like the time for debating is over. What scientific research has been done on the issue is in any event mostly on the side of the evil perverts, but that has not made any difference either.

Well, NO actually NONE of it has been on the pedovore side of things, but your young new members believe it, don't they? Your older, less intelligent members believe it. And the rest of you simply don't care....they just repeat it because, hmmmm, maybe because no one challenges them on it? They're trusting in the rest of the community to tell them the truth perhaps?.

Anemic goes on to say that when visiting 'anti-pedo' type sites, you never see attempts at argumentation. Mostly they just post insults, or triumphant messages
We make reasoned, calm arguments. They shout insults.
He/she/it declares.

Well, Anemic, maybe that's true in some cases. We at AZ make comments like that from time to time too....they are the direct result of the sheer outrageous temerity of anyone who in one breath makes statements like





As well as this statement
Not one of us here would EVER do THAT Spoken two days before a major arrest for child molestation from within the community takes place. Perhaps a few days after yet another member is placed on the Sex Offender Registry
Hey, the things you people say chill our very souls. Despite the wild ravings of your most *outed* lunatic, we love our children more than we love ourselves.

But YOU people seem to think that your love for children is on some elevated plane far above mere mortals. You speak of this love as almost a sacred thing, ignoring the realities of the situation. You STUPID freakopaths even condemn parents for WORKING to support their families as if the only parents who could love their children properly are those who are independently wealthy.

You all say these things and then wonder why no one will take you seriously....except as a threat to our childrens safety.

And so back to Anemic who says:
It apparently never occurs to these enthusiastic child 'protectors' that all these laws might be counterproductive. They seem convinced that one can legislate whatever you don't like out of existence. That it might instead simply go underground where NO further control is possible, does not seem to occur to them.

Ah! I see! It never occured to us non pedofreaks. Right. Gotcha. Alrighty then.

Every single one of your boards have been infiltrated.

As soon as a new one goes up BAM someone's there. How do I know this you might ask Well actually there's a lot of different ways I could know it, but you'll have to figure out the correct answer for yourself.

You see, the number one mistake you people make over and over and over is that you simply underestimate us. You threaten our children. We won't stop. Got it?

When we first started AZ some of the comments made were

Stitches is a sick bitch

Daydreamer is a Liar

Nah, they're nothing to be concerned about

They're good for a laugh

Oh well. Some of you like to post song lyrics to which you attach pedopathic meanings, so here's one just for you, an old Blondie tune.......

One way
or another,
I'm gonna find ya'
I'm gonna get ya', get ya', get ya', get ya'
One way or another

Now, ask yourself again....Is this a WAR or WHAT?

The Exploitation of Dakota Fanning

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Currently, there is a movie being filmed in the Carolinas called Hounddog. The Movie stars Dakota Fanning as a young girl who turns to the music of Elvis to escape the horrors of both physical and sexual abuse. One scene in particular displays a nude Fanning being brutally raped.

Dakota Fanning is 12 years old.

I don’t know if I would go as far as to state this is child pornography, but it is definitely inappropriate at best. Please visit the links below to learn more about the movie, and how Fanning along with two other child stars, were exploited during the making of this movie.

Script exerts from the movie

Now, here is a petition set up to demand stronger enforcement of our child exploitation laws to protect children like Fanning from producers, agents, and parents who do not have a problem with exploiting children for money or for ‘an Oscar’. After reading the stories above and then reading the petition as well as performing some research of your own, you can decide for yourself whether or not to sign the petition. After you make your decision, please come back here and share that decision with us, along with why you arrived at that decision.

The Evolution of a Factoid

We've recently been discussing FACTOIDS,
Statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over
in our Facts According To Jay series. There's several more to come in this series, but for a nice little intermission, I thought it would be nice to show you the evolution of one.

I recently made this comment
pedophiles quoting Ken Lanning, and Hall and Freund, and even Krafft-Ebing for God's sake .... I could see it maybe if one of them misquoted and took out of context one sentence out of a 160 page document to use in their defense. But when ALL the online pedophile community misquote the EXACT SAME THING, then it most certainly is not an individual mistake, it is a concerted effort to mislead and there has to be ONE person responsible at the heart of it. ONE person who started spreading 'quotes' from academia. And now they all repeat the same thing....with confidence, they say things like 'That's a 'FACT'
Now we're going to get to see it in action. A reporter for The Toronto Star covered the STORY of a newly released research paper regarding Pedophilia Diagnosis. Here's what the reporter had to say:
Much to the surprise of researchers involved, a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.
Well that seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? Here's some of the things the Girl Chat community had to say....

The Walker proudly proclaims....
Much to the surprise of researchers!
Fabri-Chan replies....
I'm tired of feeling that everyone is stupid and I'm the only one with his head screwd on straight.
Ducky says....
Why don't they just go to a local water park and count how many dudes are there? Simple.
The fact that people who don't molest children are more attracted to them is kind of a hint that most of us aren't child molesters, no? This, coupled with the findings that most molesters aren't pedos makes it pretty obvious what the reality is. Who the hell else would view CP??
called MoonDreamer's statement an absurd point and said... your statement "who the hell else would view CO?" isn't much different than saying "who the hell else would molest children?" Yet it's well proven that the second contention is false.
Demosthenes, the great orator says (among other things).....
The common assertion out there is that viewing child pornography increases the chances of acting up desires, while in here the common assertion is that it reduces the chance. Here they are saying that their research indicates that those who view the CP have a stronger attraction than those who act on that attraction.
Well, um, no, that's not what it says at all. Let's clarify this quickly shalll we?

This study was written by Michael C. Seto, James M. Cantor, and Ray Blanchard for The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and University of Toronto. The title is Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia and was published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610–615.

Please notice the title of the article. Let's look at the actual article now.

The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Clinicians currently rely on three potential sources of information when considering the diagnosis of pedophilia: selfreport, a history of sexual behavior involving children, and psychophysiological assessment. All of these sources have their limitations. Self-report regarding an individual’s sexual interests is the simplest to obtain, but some individuals will deny having pedophilic interests. An individual’s history of sexual offenses, in terms of the number, gender, age, and relatedness of child victims, is informative, but it only approximates the offender’s interests because it is limited to known victims. Psychophysiological assessment methods such as viewing time provide an objective method of assessing sexual interests, but they also can be vulnerable to response suppression.

Our results suggest that child pornography offending might be a stronger indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against a child. One possible conclusion being, people are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests, so relatively few nonpedophilic men would choose illegal child pornography given the abundance of legal pornography that depicts adults. Another possible explanation for the difference between child pornography offenders and offenders against children is that the child pornography offenders were less likely to attempt to suppress their responses to stimuli depicting children (or were less successful in suppressing such responses).

Our results have implications for both clinical and theoretical work on pedophilia because they suggest that child pornography offending has diagnostic significance and may be particularly helpful in circumstances in which the person denies a sexual interest in prepubescent children, or has no documented history of sexual behavior involving children, or in which phallometric test results are unavailable. Whether child pornography offending is associated with a different prognosis than are other indicators of pedophilic interests, such as its relative ability to predict sexual recidivism, remains to be determined

They end with this question:
individuals who collect pornography depicting only girls might be less likely to commit sexual offenses against boys or to show sexual arousal to boys in the laboratory. Given the positive relationships between sexual arousal to children and having multiple child victims, boy victims, and younger child victims (Seto & Lalumie`re, 2001; Seto, Murphy, Page, & Ennis, 2003), and other research demonstrating that these same victim characteristics predict subsequent offending (Seto, Harris, Rice, & Barbaree, 2004), one could predict greater pedophilic arousal—and a greater likelihood of subsequent sexual offenses against children—among individuals who possess more child pornography content, pornography depicting boys, and pornography depicting very young children. We are now beginning a research project designed to test this question.

Now, who is responsible for this? Is it the authors of this study? Who said:
The present study was conducted to determine whether child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia.

Or could it be the reporter for The Toronto Times who said:
a new study shows that men who view child pornography — but don't commit abuse — are more attracted to children than pedophiles who have actually committed crimes against kids.

Does that statement look anything at all like what the study actually said? No, no it doesn't. But since the unethical journalist reworded it in her own words, it was much more appealing to the pedo community. In fact her rewording completely changed the meaning of it. Be aware in the future of this name ROBYN DOOLITTLE because you'll be seeing the pedofreaks quoting her endlessly in support of their contention that pedophiles don't commit crimes against children.

They're already in the process of developing a new factoid based upon it. Apparently this is how they came to rely on Joanne DiLorenzo. When she reported that Ken Lanning believed that 90% of molestations were committed by non pedophiles, in direct conflict with what he has written and repeated over the years, the freaks latched onto it, and it has become like a mantra for them. Let's don't let this happen with DooLittle. Ethics in Journalism?

Facts According to Jay Part 5

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over


The "pedophile" is a brutish, primitive, self-centered person who is incapable of empathy.

Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:
Who have been some well known pedophiles? Here are a few: Thomas Mann, James Barrie, Lew Carroll, Alan Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, T.E. White, W. H. Auden, and last but not least Shakespeare. Most people who know anything about these people would not see them as brutish and primitive.

Well now, let's just break that down. First, Jay presents us with what he calls a factoid.....a statement presumed as fact because people hear it repeated....repeatedly.
Then for the actual fact he gives us a......factoid.
Statement repeatedly repeated without substantiation. Walt Whitman being one of the most obvious. Yeah we've all heard that said about him...repeatedly. What's not commonly known is that it's never been proven. Someone says it, and everyone just assumes it's so.

And even if it were so, that doesn't disprove his listed factoid. I personally don't believe all pedofreaks are brutish men. I think of them as sneaking, conniving, manipulative individuals, who GROOM children as their modus operandi. Accusing your detractors of believing something about you which they don't believe is just another example of your less than honest methods.

And Shakespeare? Oh Puhlease. Why do you say these things? Does it validate your feelings somehow? Whoever first said it, knows its not true, and even if it were, it can't be proven, and so they say it believing it will somehow elevate their status. It doesn't work. You read interpretive literature and try to determine from the Bard's writing that he was a pedophile. My dear little perverts...... he was writing about his illegitimate son from whom he was estranged.

Protect Your Family Photos Online

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Anyone unaware of the dangers of publishing your family photos online really should read this thread on the Visions of Alice forum.

The thread involves 'girl lovers' giving each other advice on how to gather images on the net, almost exclusively they are searching family photo albums. SweetSmile begins the thread by asking if anyone would like advice on how to enhance their searching capabilities. Amongst the many community members who said yes they do want advice is keepitreal, he responds:

Sweetsmile has some sort of gift for finding images on the net, I personally have quite a lot of pictures and movies, etc. already, but could alwayse use more :) Is it possible to have too much of a good thing? I think not

When one poster expressed concern that this 'tip sharing' could result in direct links to viruses, attackingmoose reassures him:

Family albums almost never have viruses.

SpecialED highlights some of the pesky problems with keywords when searching for images of little girls:

when searching at webshots it doesn't recognize numbers.example- if you search "13th birthday" it wont use the number and instead search for just "th birthday" and you get a wide variety of ages. one way to get around this is to use .. in the space put the following..
"13th birthday" site:
you can sub in other ages aswell and you can also use google the same way for other search words.

there are some search words i know that dont necessarily help with a specific age, but taking the time one can go through the results and find some pictures they are looking for. some search words are..
pool party, camp, trampoline, toe touch, scorpion, splits, backbend, backflip, handstand, cartwheel (and other gymnastics and cheerleading moves)

All these handy hints led Zoraya to proclaim that this 'tip sharing' is proving so useful that they'll start an entirely new part of the forum dedicated solely to this topic which can be found here. It's described as a work in progress.

Child Molestor on the Loose

3:22 p.m. PDT August 25, 2006

ROWLAND HEIGHTS, Calif. - Sheriff's detectives have released a sketch and are asking for the public's help in locating a suspected child molestor who allegedly attacked a 10-year-old boy in a men's room at Schabarum Park while his mother waited outside.

The attack occurred Monday at 17250 E. Colima Road at 7:45 p.m.

The suspect, who had apparently been waiting in the bathroom, sexually assaulted the boy, she said. The attack was believed to have been premeditated.

The suspect was described as having dark hair combed forward, 5 feet 7 inches tall, 180 pounds, 25 to 35 years of age, with red patches on his face. Detectives suspect that the man may live in the area because he was seen riding away on a bike.

Anyone with information on the suspect's identity is asked to call the Sheriff's Special Victim's Bureau at 866-247-5877 or the Industry Sheriff's Station at 626-330-3322.


Shutting Down a LIAR, again...

Saturday, August 26, 2006

JohnDoe420, known around these parts as the forgettable JD, has a little problem. (Shhh I don't think he knows). You see, he falls a little short in the thinking department. Now while we all know he's a pedovore, AND he likes 'em young (as in 6 months old).... everyone may not be aware that he's practically illiterate. He cannot process and analyze information correctly, though goodness knows he'll give it his best shot, it's not really saying much, but what's even more telling is that he requires the assistance of a 'friend' and even when the two of them put their noggins together they STILL can't get it right.

Let me explain. Pedofreak Autumn used a link to a study .... he analyzed the statistics and concluded that 80% of all child sexual abuse was committed by the parents. He simply misunderstood the results. He applied neglect stats to child sexual abuse stats in the same manner as olive freak did a couple of months ago. So I clarified this particular error on their parts once again. I asked if they deceive on purpose? Or perhaps they are stupid??

I got an answer, oh boy did I. JD rides in to save the day on his high horse. He declares that he's "Shutting down a liar, again....." (me) So nevermind the fact that he's never shut me down for the first time, a second time or any time for that matter. He's never shut AZ down, or proved me or any one of us team members at AZ to be a liar.... He proceeds within one post to call me personally a LIAR a total of 10 times --while quoting me--as quoting the 2004 report which was quoted by Autumn and instead linking to the '99 report himself. Me? Liar?

So let's reiterate.... he called me a liar 10 times, he claimed that I (and AZ) are trying to protect child abusers, he claimed that I am trying to HIDE FACTS about domestic and intrafamilial sexual assaualt.... all this from the slithering PRO CONTACT PRO ABOLISHMENT OF AGE OF CONSENT LAWS pedofreak activist who is despised by at least 90% of his own community. The pedovore who is sexually attracted to 6 month old babies and insists they can give him permission to do what he does.

Well, alrighty then. All of this because I posted a link to a study that they had already linked to but conveniently left out this particular chart.

So, does stating the published words of someone else in quotes make me a liar? Or does perhaps calling me that simply make JD appear blatantly desperate?

*IF* I made this statement
"Ken Lanning of the FBI says that 90% of all child molestations are committed by non pedophiles"
Then YES I'd be a liar.

If, however I said the
DHHS says that 2.6% of sexual molestations are committed by parents
Ken Lanning of the FBI said "Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system"
"Preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children"
Gene Able stated that "pedophiles molest 88% of all victims and commit 95% of child molestations."

Would that also be a lie? Would that support the notion that I'm attempting to HIDE EVIDENCE within the vast expanse of the internet from which I first retrieved it?

Or perhaps I've simply been libeled.

JD ends his lunatic rant with this gem of a question
What is her (stitches) personal, vested interest in promoting and protecting the rape of children?

Perhaps her daughter could tell us more.

Well JD you know, this is over the top even for someone as unstable as you are, and I do realize that you felt slighted when I called you forgettable....but just be patient we'll get to you too. You'll get the attention you've been longing for............and it will be a sight to behold.

One Happy Ending

Friday, August 25, 2006

I was not at all aware of it when 10 year old Natascha Kampusch vanished on her way to school on March 2, 1998 in the town of Strashoff Austria, but she was missing for 8 years. I can just imagine what her parents went through.

They now know that she was kidnapped and held in fortified basement prison by a real creep named Wolfgang Priklopil.

But this story has appears to have a happy ending. Now 18 years old, she escaped and went to the police.

The creep has been kind enough to dispatch himself.

Lookie @ Rookieeeeeee

At first glance,this appeared to be just another insignificant cognitive distortion of a pedovore

But on closer inspection, it's something much much worse. It takes on a whole new meaning. It's not just stupid statements made by a freakopathic creepazoid, no it's a symptom. We just need to name the disease. Listen with me to Rookieeeeee:
Parents rarely make their children critical thinkers. Teachers on the whole also are guilty of this. Boylovers and girllovers are also guilty of this, especially if they want to get into bed with them.
Oh, but wait....Are you saying the freakopathic creepazoids may have a hidden agenda? I thought that the pedovores stated desires were friendship with children and sex was just a side dish? So, in this instance we were correct in our initial assessment that the pedovore community was attempting to deceive the public. Is that correct? Oh, surely not. Surely Rookieeeeee himself couldn't give them away so easily. Well let's see what other gems we can get from him:
You mention "sexual maturity" in your comment. What age do you think the point of sexual maturity is? I assert that it is the onset of puberty. Puberty is when the body is saying, "I'm ready for sex." Why then is the age of consent (in just about all Western Civ countries) higher than this? Why is the AOC lower in "developing" countries? I personally think that any country where the age of consent is higher is due to society's inability to deal with sexuality, for whatever reason, whether it be because of economics, politics, culture-of-fear, dog-eat-dog ethics, lack of education, etc.
Head snap

Why is the AOC lower in third world countries? OMG it can only be because we, yeah you and me, here in the civilized world, are unable to deal with S.E.X. because we're not as educated as the enlightened and advanced specimens from undeveloped countries.
We're just so unethical and we suffer such extreme levels of economic poverty as compared to the rest of the world. Oh yeah, we live in a society where women and children are valued, not as men's objects but as individuals, a society where women and young girls aren't imprisoned or executed if they cry rape, where women don't have their genitals mutilated by some arbitrary belief of a person who isn't getting his genitals mutilated! We live in a country where our youth are encouraged to finish their college educations and find their way in life before marriage and children, where one man has one vote (and which empowers us) where there's opportunities everywhere if one will only open their eyes to see, where we have the freedom to say the unpopular without getting our heads chopped off. But lo and behold here we have Rookieeeeeee, an American dissing his advanced country because we don't have backwards laws. Here's you a clue where to start looking Rookieeeeee, the age of marriage for young girls is positively correlated with life expectancy. I'll give you an opportunity to see if you can work out why.

Facts According to Jay Part 4

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Jay Baskins, see HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:
A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over
The "pedophile" is unable to control himself and will always "re-offend".
Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:
One of the most extensive studies on this issue is called "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" It is available from the US Department of Justice. (Lanagan, P, Schmitt, E. and Durose, M., 2003) According to this study,, "Within the first three years following release from prison, 3.3% (141 of 4,296) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.
Well now, before we get to the truly most extensive studies (since pedovores like to use terms like that, as though it adds an air of eminence) let's look at this DOJ report. Number one please keep in mind that this only covered these specific criminals over a 3 year period post release from prison. When you see the figure 3.3% recidivism for child molesters and don't actually read the report, it doesn't sound too bad does it? Well you should read the report. What you don't see (for one thing) in that 3.3% figure is all the prior convictions before THIS ONE.

Within 6 months following their release, 1.4% of the 9,691 men were rearrested for a new sex crime. Within 1 year the cumulative total grew to 2.1% rearrested. By the end of the 3-year followup period, altogether 5.3% had been rearrested for another sex crime.
Which brings me to my next point: Karl Hanson who has authored several major studies on recidivism (1995, 1998, 2002) has some startling information. In his 1995 A Comparison of Child Molesters and Nonsexual Criminals: Risk Predictors and Long-Term Recidivism Hanson writes:
Overall, 83.2% of the nonsexual criminals and 61.8% of the child molesters were reconvicted during the 15 to 30 year follow-up period of this study. The two groups tended to be reconvicted for distinct types of offenses. Almost all the sexual offense recidivism was in the child molester group (35% vs. 1.5% in the nonsexual criminal group) In general, prior offenses of a specific type predicted future offenses of the same type.

Hanson believes that
Child molesters may have different motivations to offend than do other criminals. He also says that in general, the rate of sexual offense recidivism among sexual offenders also tends to be low, about 10%-20% over 4 years, though it gradually increases with longer follow-up periods.

So this study, which included subjects released from prison beginning in 1958 were followed for no less than 15 years, and in some cases up to 30 years.

Further, Hanson found that substantial differences were found between the child molesters and non-sexual criminals included in this study. The child molesters were responsible for almost all (97%) of the sexual offense recidivism, whereas the nonsexual criminals were responsible for almost all (96%) of the nonsexual violent recidivism.
When the specific factors that predicted each type of recidivism were considered, there was a tendency for previous offenses of a given type to predict future offenses of the same type. The present study strongly suggests that child molesters are a distinct type of offender.

In his 1998 Meta-Analysis which provided recidivism information on 28,972 sex offenders followed over a period of 4-5 years, Hanson states that sexual offenders' motivation to change may also be related to recidivism. Those offenders who accept responsibility, express remorse, and comply with treatment should be at lower risk than those who deny any problems and actively resist change. The results of his 2002 study concerned the issue of recidivism as it related to age and followed 4,673 sexual offenders over a period of 30 years. His results were
"Although the observed sexual recidivism rates are only 10% to 15% after 5 years, the rates continue to increase gradually with extended follow-up periods." And asks the question "Do sexual offenders remain at risk throughout their lives, or is there some age limit after which their risks for recidivism is substantially reduced?"

This is the conclusion....
Recidivism risk of rapists steadily declines with age. In contrast the extrafamilial child molesters showed little reduction in recidivism risk until after the age of 50. The recidivism rate of intrafamilial child molesters were the lowest of all sex offender categories except in the 18-24 age group.

"The extent to which the recidivism rates of child molesters decreases with age is unknown. Given that most antisocial behavior declines with age, it is likely that the sexual recidivism rates of child molesters would similarly decline. A strong or exclusive sexual interest in children could contribute to a sustained level of risk until late adulthood."

Child molesters who only target intrafamilial victims (incest offenders) have consistently lower recidivism risk than do any other sexual offenders.

The sexual recidivism rate for the total sample was 17.5%. In the total sample the recidivism rate delined steadily with age. All the groups recidivated at different rates with incest offender recidivating less often (8.4%) than rapists (17.1%) and extrafamilial child molesters (19.5%)

Now for a couple of quick facts..........none of the incest offenders released after age 60 recidivated. The oldest recidivist (non incest sex offender) in the sample was released at age 72 and was reconvicted for a sexual offense the following year. (I guess some folks never learn)

As with other criminal behavior, the rate of sexual offending decreased with age. The rate of decline was rather gradual, however, and there were significant differences between types of sexual offenders.
Extrafamilial child molesters showed little decline in their recidivism risk until after the age of 50
Among the various factors linked to sexual offending, the three broad factors most relevant to this study are deviant sexual interests, opportunity, and low self-control. Deviant sexual interests are more common among extrafamilial child molesters than among incest offenders.

Dr. Jim Hopper believes that official government statistics are only "the tip of the iceberg." Concerning Child Sexual Abuse, he says Most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of government authorities. This is particularly true for neglected and sexually abused children, who may have no physical signs of harm. In the case of sexual abuse, secrecy and intense feelings of shame may prevent children, and adults aware of the abuse, from seeking help.

So how are we to know what to believe? Question, question, question everything! Don't take my word for it and surely not the pedovores. Remember the wise ol' saying....If it walks like a duck............

Radio Plug for Reject the U.N.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

While traveling on the way home today, I did what I do about once a week and called in to my favorite radio talk show and spoke with host Hugh Hewitt. This time however, I got a chance to plug this blog as it was almost on topic.

Thanks Hugh for allowing me to chat breifly about what is going on in the world of the corrupt United Nations.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

We spoke here about Rook's Public Service Announcement. Essentially Rook is telling his paedophile buddies how much damage they are doing to the 'movement' by using child porn and molesting children. Apparently his podcast on this topic isn't getting enough traffic so his pal Vertical Horizontal begs the paedophile community to check it out. He says:

I know and you know the laws are unfair and it is all too easy for us to simply refuse to follow them as conscientious objectors.

The only problem is that every picture you download, every faux boy or girl you chat up in a chat room, every relationship you get into that crosses the line you set up not only yourselves for problems later, but you are making yourself a dagger aimed right at the heart of this community you say you love so much.

This goes out especially to those of us who have chosen to become activist. Check your computers for anything that can and will be used against you once a big enough stir has been created. Go over your personal life for anything that can become a battering ram with which to destroy you later.

What is wrong with this picture?

Facts According to Jay Part 3

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Jay Baskins, see HERE, and HERE, and HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:
A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over
The activities of the "pedophile" are always traumatizing and cause great harm to the "victims"
Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:
In their study "A Meta-Analytic Review of Findings from National Samples on Psychological Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse," Rind and Tromovitch (1998) came to the following conclusion: "CSA (child sexual abuse) is not associated with pervasive harm and that harm, when it occurs, is not typically intense." This peer reviewed article which appeared in the most prestigious psychological journal in the US was condemned by Congress.
This is what Jay doesn't tell you however:
The Rind study was roundly condemned by many and eventually criticized by the American Psychological Association, publisher of Psychological Bulletin. Paul Fink, M.D., former president of the American Psychiatric Association, pointed out that most of the studies discussed by the authors had never undergone rigorous peer review, and that the results were largely based on one study conducted over 40 years ago.
Hmmm, must've been an oversight on Jay's part.
We will be addressing the Rind et al study shortly. But, it's much too much to include here. So I'll try to summarize a few points as briefly as possible before I get to the TRUE facts.

This was a tremendously (and obviously) flawed study. The authors excluded both those with the most evidence of harm and those which showed the highest incidence of abuse. That's bias. Bias yields unreliable results.... Results which are meant to prove the point you want them to prove. DUH

Consider also the fact that the majority of the incidents of child sexual abuse included in the study consisted of indecent exposure that did not involve physical contact. Thus, in most cases the sexual abuse was either comparatively minor or nonexistent. It is as if a study that purports to examine the effects of being shot in the head contained a majority of cases in which the marksman missed. Such research might demonstrate that being shot in the head generally has no serious or lasting effects. The Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, (1999).
Next let us consider the following: A study by Debra K. Peters and Lillian M. Range found significant differences between contact and non-contact child sexual abuse (distinctions that for statistical purposes the Rind study ignores):

Further, a consistent finding was that women and men whose sexual abuse involved touching were more suicidal, less able to cope, and felt less responsible to their families than nonabused students. The experience of being touched in a sexual way appears to be more damaging than other kinds of unwanted sexual experiences. ..

As far as lasting effects go, there are a multitude of online sources that will break it down for you, but for our purposes today I'm going to go to Bill Glaser for the answer.
Imagine a society afflicted by a scourge which struck down a quarter of its daughters and up to one in eight of its sons. Imagine also that this plague, while not immediately fatal, lurked in the bodies and minds of these young children for decades, making them up to sixteen times more likely to experience its
disastrous long-term effects. Finally, imagine the nature of these effects: life-threatening starvation, suicide, persistent nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and a whole host of intractable psychiatric disorders requiring life-long treatment.
The scourge that we are speaking of is child sexual abuse. It has accounted for probably more misery and suffering than any of the great plagues of history, including the bubonic plague, tuberculosis and syphilis. Its effects are certainly more devastating and widespread than those of the modern-day epidemics which currently take up so much community attention and resources: motor vehicle accidents, heart disease and now AIDS.
The harm caused by child sexual abuse is immeasurable.

And then there's Krafft-Ebing who pedovores love to love:
Even the great sexologist, Krafft-Ebing, who labelled Freud’s observations a “fairy-tale”, nonetheless was well aware of the dangerousness and deviousness of child molesters. In his book on sexual perversions, he pointed out the “inexhaustible” range of types of sexual assault committed by child molesters and also emphasised the “monstrosity” of their deeds.

Twilight 's Brains Fell Out

Twilight said:
I said looking at child pornography is a social taboo, and that that shouldn't be the reason it's illegal.

It should be illegal to try and lessen the amount of CP being made.

I'm thinking that perhaps that was a Freudian slip. I hope.
I agree with the anti-CP laws as long as they're being enacted for the right reasons

Child pornography shouldn't be illegal just because people think it's wrong for adults to view or own, as that would imply that it's being banned on puritanical reasons

While I would have expected such a statement from the militant psychopathic Demosthenes, the nauseating Lindsay, the wishy-washy Todd, the completely-without-a-shred-of-empathy Turtle, the deranged Danny Wyatt, the immature BlueRibbon, the academic-wanna-be Jillium, the I'm-at-war-no-I'm-not-yes-I-am Silent War, the psychotic mathematician olive freak, the I'm-a-writer-who-can't-spell Crake, the everyone-stop-molesting-children-and-collecting-childporn-so maybe we can fake some people off Rookieeeeee, the liar BB, the forgettable JD420, the please-stop-ruining-child-abusers-lives Pedo-Ken, or even the inarticulate, trouble-making dimwitted Debatecrime, but I NEVER expected it from you TWI.

Bignewsday answered you best when he said:
Child porn should be illegal because it exploits and harms children. For this reason, anyone knowingly producing, possessing, or viewing child porn is breaking the law and should be locked up. Whether someone is paying for it should have no bearing on whether or not a crime has been committed.

I'd like to just ask you some questions, why do you think it's wrong to kill? Or do you? Could it be social taboo? Who decides? Who decides what's right or wrong? Who decides how best to have an order to society. Do you believe there should be any laws at all? As a law will necessarily step on someone's toes, maybe there should be none. Maybe we should all live lawlessly and every man (or child) for himself. Perhaps you believe psychopaths should just run rampant. Perhaps you believe that the right of the pervert to inflict himself upon the innocence of our youth and forever change their lives is more important than for children to have the right to not be exploited. Hmmm I do indeed wonder about you.

I personally think you're a victim of the Kinsey era..... the "anything goes and it's ok that we restrained babies and molested them for hours on end because we have a biased reason to do so" mentality.

Or it could simply be that you aren't the same Twilight I met a few months ago. I believe you are heavily influenced by the pedovore community. In one breath you say you agree with something here on AZ and the next you say something so asinine it
Takes Your Breath Away

I told you yesterday to give it a couple of days to think on it, but your youthful impatience got the best of you and you spouted off this nonsense here. You either go put on your thinking cap and think reeeeeaaaaaaaal hard and tell me what's wrong with this picture I'm getting of you. If you can't do that---Don't you DARE come back here and speak one more word, or you will be deleted on sight forever and ever amen.

And by the way, where's your cohort Jillium? His cat got his prolific tongue maybe? Or maybe he's hunched over his computer searching desparately for journal abstracts. Tell him I'm waiting for him.

Facts According to Jay Part 2

Monday, August 21, 2006

Jay Baskins, see HERE, and HERE, tells us about this little thing called A FACTOID, which he defines as:

A statement of presumed fact that people believe to be true because they hear it repeated over and over

The "pedophile" is a violent man who forces himself on children.
Jay states that the ACTUAL fact is:
Baurmann in the largest study of child abuse every carried out discovered that in 80% of all cases of reported illegal sexual contacts "the perpetrator had exhibited something other than threatening or violent behavior."
Well, here we go again. First up, this study, while it may have been one of the largest ever done at that time concerned SPECIFIC aspects of child abuse. Secondly it was done in 1983. Third..... I do not doubt at all that just about any study done would show that the majority of child sexual abuse was non-violent. In fact I wouldn't question it at all.
It's called GROOMING.

Less Kiddie Porn?

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Thanks to a series of busts, there is now (supposedly) less kiddie porn on the net than there was a few months ago. What we are getting now is a series of non-nude erotic pictures of children as publishers try to test legal boundries.

Naturally the Pedophiles are unhappy about this:
”I considered the authors of those sites as leaders of a rebellion movement for child porn,” a man calling himself Heartfallen wrote in an online site for pedophiles, discussing the decline in the number of sites featuring images of naked minors. “They’ve vanished. There is much less freedom on the Internet now. We still have a rebellion made up of nonnude child modeling sites. But are they going to suffer the same fate as their predecessors?”

Some freedoms, including the freedom to exploit children, are not needed. This article also includes an extensive discussion on laws that relate to kiddie porn, which is relevant and needs to be considered with non-nude kiddie sites.

What is also a problem is that these places spam non-pornographic newsgroups, yahoo clubs etc. with their garbage as well.

Thanks Jillium

You always have such a way of making my work easier. Those are some awesome studies you referred to in your condemnation of Gene Abel. I can't quite figure out why you gave them to us like that though. It's obvious from your wording that you copied and pasted from the abstract. I suppose you must have been using Google Scholar maybe? But, that's neither here nor there. Accept it as a future warning, or not. Naturally the choice is yours. But, Jillium, you can't read the abstract and then try to fake everyone off that you read it. Just doesn't work like that.

Let's start here... Lowenstein 2006 Aspects of Young Sex Abusers—A Review of the Literature Concerning Young Sex Abusers What was this paper actually about?
Lowenstein: It is becoming increasingly important to identify adolescents who may sexually abuse children. The purpose of identifying potential and real sex abusers is in order to protect potential victims and to improve the ongoing life chances of alleged perpetrators.

Frankly there's so much stuff in Lowenstein that I can use against the pedophile 'cause' that I could go on for days, so I'll try to sum it up like this
Concerning the Abel Assessment for Interest in Paraphilias (AAIP), the results indicated the need for further refinement of this tool according to Smith and Fischer 1999. This was confirmed by Bonner et al 1998, who considered it imperative that further tests were developed that were more accurate in the assessment of adolescent sexual offenders to indicate risk of re-offending.
Lowenstein also noted the works of Hunter and Lexier 1998, who noted that the evaluation and treatment of juvenile sex offenders represented an area of practice fraught with clinical, ethical and legal complexity. Every study that Lowenstein considered said basically the same thing.........
No one single test is infallible and must be used in conjunction with other assessment tools. The same thing that Abel himself said.
Lowenstein sums up with this:
Treatment, particularly of juveniles, as opposed to incarceration, should be considered paramount. Prevention from an early stage being the goal in order to best protect the general public.

OH MY, but the pedophiles don't want incarceration!! And the pedophiles don't want assessment, or treatment or anything except our children.

And let's not forget Fischer and Smith (1999)who wrote:
The AAIP is a promising instrument based on a sound idea. The theory behind it is reasonable, the technology available, and the structure for further research in place. Further refinement is necessary so that its use may become a reliable and valid means to promote appropriate treatment of sexual offenders and a means to protect potential victims.

Now obviously Jillium thinks these scientists have dismissed Abel's assessment tool, but that's simply because he didn't read it or didn't understand it. They not only praised it but offered suggestions for how to improve on it. The premise of the AAIP was not that it was inaccurate etc but there were a few very specific things they thought should be changed to make it more reliable across the board. i.e. 42 images rather than 22. Images of nude children rather than clothed. More baseline data and a better way to record viewing times. ETC


2 Year Old Girl Dies After Rape by Babysitter

Eric James Tate, 18 years old, while babysitting his girlfriend's young daughter, sexually assaulted her. Her injuries so severe she ended up on a ventilator and later died. Tate, was charged Wednesday with felony capital sexual battery and misdemeanor drug charges.

Now, hey, how would you expect the pedovore community to react. You know the childlovers? Well, I wondered too......

While he deserves to be tortured in jail, he doesn't deserve to spend his life there.
Everybody deserves a second chance.

Nobody deserves to be tortured. Jailtime yes, but the law must give the man his punishment, not other criminals - in my oppinion.

'and two misdemeanor drug charges' Anyone wanna set odds on the drugs being the real cause of the "felony capital sexual battery"? He's not a pedophile. No resemblence. Not even close. This guy is another one of the 80%-90% of sexual offenders who are "normal" and have no sexual preference for minors. :-P

Hearing and reading stuff like this almost makes me glad I'm not "normal". Being a childlover means that I'm far less likely to rape or murder a child than the other way around.

If only the world had sense and realised the truth, I'd be allowed to be with children and I would be glad I'm a childlover instead of almost glad.

I'm no coroner but I'm betting she died from head trauma.

While it is technically possible for a young person to die from from vaginal-penetration injury, my guess is you'd have to do more-than-the-usual-amount-of-damage to do this. Maybe if you caused internal lacerations or messed up the colon or internal organs, but otherwise I doubt it

she was put on a ventilator. Martially speaking, there's two ways to put someone on a ventilator. One is to remove or paralyze the diaphragm, another is to beat them severely about the head. the only thing he's not charged with is murdering the girl, oddly enough... killing's okay, sex 'n drugs are bad.

There's many reasons why someone may end up on the ventilator. But let us continue....

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that those organs had a lot of flex to them. If I'm wrong, then you are correct, fatal damage could occur.

I think it all depends on the force applied and other factors, such as willingness
even though this is a real tragedy,and the guy should get life without parole if found guilty,the only reason why this story was printed was as a slight against us. its just another one of those articles:"see,i told you all pedophiles are dangerous!"
im not impressed...yawn

Jay Baskins Introduction

Over on the IPCE website they have lots of info for pedophiles
For people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

These relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.
Oh , we should have some really unbiased information here then shouldn't we? I think I'll start with Jay Baskins who wrote a paper titled Factoids and the Sex Abuse Panic.

Jay starts out by saying
The religious right has been deliberately drumming up a moral panic about sex abuse for decades now.

As for AZ, we have politically liberal members as well as conservative members. We have fervently religious members along with 'somewhat' religious, all the way to our agnostic and atheist members.

You see, the child sex abuse issue crosses all political and religious boundaries.

Then Jay says:
By creating an atmosphere of hysteria about sex, the religious right has prevented the intelligent and nuanced discussion of the sexuality of children.

By the creation of a radically disenfranchised group ("Pedophiles") the political right is able to dismantle due process and the machinery of a free society.

OK, again, it is NOT the religious/political right, it is everyday people from all walks of life and opinion. Anyone who is against pedophilia did not create a disenfranchised group --Pedophiles

The only thing preventing intelligent discussion is a lack of intelligence on the part of pedovore child lusters.

Now we here at AZ are going to spend a bit of time analyzing what you have to say Mr. Jay Baskins. One thing I'd seriously like to determine is this.......... do you repeat the the 'factoids' so rampant amongst the pedophile community out of sheer stubborness...that you will hold onto it til death do you part even when proven to be wrong, or is it that you're so intellectually challenged you don't understand, or are you being maliciously deceptive?

Perhaps the answer will turn out to be all three.

Stay tuned for Facts According to Jay.

Public Service Announcement

Saturday, August 19, 2006

or PSA, courtesy of Rookieeeeee at the boyloveblog. WOW I'm impressed, Rookie has seen the light. He has THIS to say:

We're fools to keep collecting child porn. We're fools to continue having sexual relations with children.

Very good Rookieeeeee. That's what we've been saying all along.

Crake Offers a "Wise Review"

Or rather, he calls it a wise reivew of Dr. Gene Abel over on that nothing blog. He has lots of tidbits of *ahem* wisdom, such as
The cure is worse than the disease

Of course I would imagine that would depend upon whether you were the pedovore getting your kicks, or the child getting to which one is worse.

Or like Bill Glaser said, the goal of treatment is not a happy client, but rather safe children.

Crake goes on (and on and on) about Abel's plan for identification and treatment, however, guess what you guys? It's not true. Either Crake is an outright LIAR or he can't read.

Next he has a comment from Autumn. Autumn is a new name around these parts, but not exactly new on the scene, apparently thinks we can be faked about it.....*wink wink*

So what Autumn does is give some "FACTS" from the US Department of Human Services. What's interesting here is that these are the same "FACTS" that olive freak tried to give. So here ya go, you mentally challenged 'individual'

These are statistics about child abuse in general, these are not specifically about child sexual abuse. You can't discuss whether or not parents or pedophiles are the ones committing the majority of CSA and say 80% are committed by parents!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*! When the actual statistic is that 80% of child neglect are committed by parents or similar. And only 2.6% of CSA is committed by parents, and IMPLY they are one and the same. They are not one and the same. So did you Autumn share the statistics with the intention to deceive, or are you just that plain stupid?

BB the Perpetuator of Half-Truths, Misleading Details and Outright Lies

Friday, August 18, 2006

There's this guy over on Girl Chat, BB, that I think is worth noting here. He wrote a letter a couple of years ago to an anti-pedophile organization. He was so "impressed" with himself he just has to share it with his community.

He writes that the anti site is filled with "misleading details, half truths and outright lies"....."But" he writes, "that's the way you people work. Hmmm, guess we'll have to correct that statement, but first He says "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought your lofty goal was to protect children."

Interesting how he and all the other pedovores speak in such derogatory tones about anyone interested in protecting children.

BB quotes this anti site as saying "When visiting any of the dozen or so pedophile sites on the internet you will rarely find an open acknowledgement of the sexual exploitation taking placce behind the scenes."

To which he responds
"That's because there isn't any....I can say without any doubt that you will NEVER' find such a thing on any CL website - ever!"

Oh dear. Let's see for example on girl chat, it is against the rules to admit doing anything illegal, though I've seen many posts that do. And you are allowed to discuss illegal acts only as long as you were already convicted of them. And I've seen plenty of those, BB.

The question of course would come down to what is the meaning of harm. Since you believe apparently that producing, buying, and viewing child pornography is not harmful, and since you believe that having a sexual relationship with a child is not harmful. Then you wouldn't see much AS harmful now would you? Oh of course except for those horrible child rapists.

Again quoting the anti site ""Whatever the reason, most of the pedophile sites, at least on the opening pages, attempt to soften the predator reality..."

Actually that statement is true, but BB has deviant thought processes so he responds this way
  • "There is no "predator reality." We are *NOT* predators!
  • The vast majority child molesters are not even sexually attracted to children.
  • The majority (90%) of child sex offenders are "situational offenders" who do not have a sexual attraction for minors. [Kenneth Lanning, FBI, 1999]
  • Child molesters are usually relatives or friends of the family, not your mythological "predator."
  • Other statistics readily show that a so-called "normal" man is 2-3 times more likely to molest a child than one of us. Frankly, the *facts* show that your children are safer with us than they are with you, statistically speaking.

Yet, what is the truth?

There is no study that says child molesters aren't sexually attracted to children.

Ken Lanning DID NOT say that 90% of offenders are 'situational offenders'

What Lanning DID say is
  • Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system

  • "This newer typology places all sex offenders, not just child molesters, along a motivational continuum, Situational to Preferential,instead of into one of two categories. It is a continuum, not one or the other

  • The majority of offenders who simultaneously sexually victimize multiple children are acquaintance child molesters, and most acquaintance child molesters who victimize multiple children are preferential sex offenders

  • Although a variety of individuals sexually abuse children, preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children

  • "the *facts* show that your children are safer with us Is in fact not a fact. It is a misleading detail and an outright LIE.

Why do pedovores like BB continue to misquote Ken Lanning? His entire study is not in their favor. Out of >160 pages there is not one thing that could be of use to them, however they found a B-grade alternative editorialist who mislead about what Lanning said. She made it appear that she had interviewed him, when she in fact had not. She made it appear that he had said something that he did not say and that is exactly opposite of his paper.

BB even goes so far as to say that "child molestation, like adult rape, is a crime of power and control, not a crime of sexuality" which is exactly opposite of what Lanning said. He said with adult rape it was a crime of power NOT sex, but that with children it was a crime of sex not power. The driving force is a sexual attraction to children.

Abel says that 95% of ALL child molestations are committed by pedophiles. Pardon me, if the world doesn't believe your sniveling, BB.

You did say one useful thing in this lengthy lie however and that is that "Martin Luther King Jr said "A lie cannot live" and he was right."

Yup, BB et al, a lie cannot live, after all that's what we're here for, to make sure it doesn't.

Heard This One Before

Thursday, August 17, 2006

John Mark Karr has confessed to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Time will tell if the DNA found under Ramsey's fingernails and in her underwear will finally be matched and her soul can rest in peace. Apparently Karr felt the need to offer this information to police

"He said he loved this child, that he was in love her. He said she was very pretty, a pageant queen. She was the school star, she was very cute and sweet," Suwat said.

Full story

I think that one might be officially known as Paedophile Rationalization #1. Wonder who he's been hanging out with.

Dr. Gene Abel

Some of you may recall the exchange here between members of this blog and paedophile Jillium. Now Jillium was rather upset because we referred him to the work of Dr. Gene Abel. Specifically, his findings that

pedophiles molest 88% of all victims and commit 95% of child molestations.

Clearly this is in direct contradiction to the spin the paedophile community relies on. So to counter these facts, Jillium has made a series of comments which can be found at the above link. We will now address these issues in turn with reference to the website Jillium has supposedly read.

Jillium said:
he's a b-grade researcher with an agenda

The facts:
Gene G. Abel, M.D. is a full professor of Psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools, including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Abel is currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine.

Dr. Abel, who has been a research scientist in the field of sexual violence for more than 30 years, is at the top of his field, both nationally and internationally.

Jillium said:
Abel is a crackpot who promotes coercing non-offending paedosexuals into ineffective "treatment."

The facts:
His treatment outcome study demonstrated that when treatment focused first on specific techniques to directly lower the offender's sexual arousal to children, it was most effective. Those techniques, along with an option of medical intervention for the most dangerous and both a strong relapse prevention component and a surveillance component, proved 96% effective in stopping subsequent sex crimes.

Jillium said:
I have read about his plan and the "abel screen" that he hopes to use to scan people for paedosexuality.

The facts:
The Abel Assessment for sexual interest™ (AASI) is a comprehensive evaluation and treatment tool that provides baseline data, treatment planning guidance, and evaluation of progress throughout the treatment process.

The AASI has been used by over 1500 clinicians throughout North America to evaluate more than 70,000 clients.

Please visit Abel's website today to learn more about the crackpot researcher who has published in excess of 100 scientific articles, 19 research papers, taught at the finest universities in the U.S., trained law enforcement around the country and won numerous awards including being named a Distinguished Life Fellow of the APA in 2004.

An Old Case May be Solved

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

JonBenet Ramsey was a victim in more ways than one. First she was robbed of her childhood by being made a beauty queen at much to young of an age. Furthermore enhancing her "beauty" beyond normal childhood cuteness and parading that beauty on stage may well have made her especially vulnerable to a few less than desireable people.

We all know she was murdered in her home. At first her parents, and then her brother were under suspicion but nothing could be proved. Now a suspect has been arrested in Thailand of all places. He is being held there on an unrelated sex-charge. He is a 41 year old school teacher teaching second grade. I suspect he will not be teaching school much longer, and I wonder how many other children this subhuman harmed but didn't kill.

That poor little girl was robbed first of her childhood, then God Himself knows what all this guy did to her, then she was robbed of her life.

Then her parents, not only had to suffer the loss of their child, but also suffer years of suspicion thanks to our tendency to jump to conculsions.

God rest her soul.

City youth worker facing child porn charges

City youth worker facing child porn charges
August 15, 2006 - 3:33 pm
By: Shauna Hunt & Anne Winstanley
Toronto - A youth worker, who's worked for the city for 15 years, is facing child pornography charges.

Toronto Police say they received a tip over the weekend about a computer which allegedly had child pornography videos stored on it. Officers from the Child Exploitation Section of the Sex Crimes Unit were contacted and continued the investigation. Police searched a home in the city's west end and seized a quantity of child pornography images and videos.

Police say the man has recently been counselling teens at a downtown youth centre.

Investigators would like to hear from anyone who knows the man or who has been in contact with him.

51-year-old Robert Fedoruk of Toronto, has been arrested and charged with one count of possession of child pornography.

From 680News.

California Police Officer Accused of Child Molestation

An Alhambra police sergeant is out on bail tonight after being arrested on suspicion of child molestation.

The sergeant is identified as 42-year-old Michael James Fisher.He was reportedly arrested this morning at police headquarters by detectives from the sheriff's Special Victims Bureau.

Fisher was later booked at the sheriff's Temple City station on suspicion of oral copulation and sodomy against a minor. He was released on $100,000 bond.

With A Little Help From His Friends

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

More psychotic ramblings from the paedophile community. Today's excerpts come from Rook's buddy ohellyeah. Today ohellyeah is raging against a commentor. He ever-so-rationally has this to say:

And since you have such a problem with the way I was born, what would you have me do about it? What? Do you think I'm gonna go live in the back of some cave somewhere simply because morons like your self can't understand my attraction? Or the attraction that boys have for me?

He continues with these insights

I am a pedophile whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, and if you lock me in the deepest dungeon on the face of the earth and never let me see the light of day again I will still be a pedophile. If you stick me in a mental hospital and medicate me untill I can no longer speak and sit me in front of some shrink who's being paid to tell me for hours and hours on end that I'm evil simply for the way I was f--king born, I will still be a pedophile. IF YOU KILL ME I WILL STILL BE A PEDOPHILE! I am a pedophile. This is how God made me. It's not somthing I chose, its not something I can help, but you know what? I AM DAMN F--KING PROUD TO BE ONE! Theres not a DAMN thing you can do about it, and I'll be DAMNED to the DEEPEST PITS OF HELL before I let some shallow minded, over opinonated BIGOT like YOU, who probably doesn't know the first thing about me, about people like me, about the boys who understand and love people like me, about what the word "pedophile" really means, or anything beyond what society has spoon fed your sorry ass since they day you were born, make me feel ashamed of who and what I am.

Now I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea here. While your initial thought may be that this appears to be a prelude to some bizarre mental breakdown, I must say that his community members immediately recognized his mental weakness and rushed in to save the day:

nlsngrc said:

You need to spellcheck before you post these things.

And Rook responded to nlsngrc this way

I just introduced him to the lil "ABC" button at the top. ;)

By all means carry on with your anti-social personality disorder - carry on with your violent, psychotic rants about society. But I'm afraid the brainiac Rook simply must insist that you use a spell-check in the process.

There is Often Good News

Sunday, August 13, 2006

It does raise one's spirit to learn of an arrest of a pedophile before he or she can do any harm, and the best way to do that is through a sting operation.

The pervert got three years in prison (though credit for time served will bring it down to 30 months) and in his own words:

“I, too, will be a pariah for the rest of my life. I will be treated like a leper.”

You probably will and you brought it on yourself. You cannot blame anybody except yourself.

He says it was temporary insanity that caused him to join NAMBLA.


He says he is "mortified and ashamed" of his behavior. He should be and if truly seeks redemption, he must never do it again and help make it even more difficult on those who try.

Kudos to the Federal agents who infiltrated NAMBLA. They did a very good job and are heros in every sense of the word.


Saturday, August 12, 2006

Rookiee the brainiac thinks Daydreamer is a guy. He gets very disturbed when people mispell his name and he apparantly didn't like that post about him. He had this to say:
What about all the minors who ask to meet up with adults? Are they predators? Of course not, so how can it automatically be true vice-versa? "They don't know any better". If that's true, how can Perverted Justice employ them to entrap adults? If someone stalks, harasses and attempts to strike fear in someone, manipulating and forcing them to comply with their will, then I can agree that they are a predator. But, guess what guys? I'm seeing the same type of predatorial tactics being used on us by none other than yourselves!

Hey Rookieeeeee, why don't you go to perverted justice and read the actual transcripts of how these things go down? And then try again to convince everyone that it's the children begging old fuddy duddy sexual deviants to meet up with them. Then you can go back and change your name to Rookiee the idiotic brainiac.
You guys are vigilantes and are bordering breaking the law to further your hatred and bigotry, and I will not tolerate your actions.


Don't f*** with me.

Hey you brain infarcted pervert.
We aren't vigilantes.
We aren't breaking the law.
Neither are we bigots or hate mongers.

"You won't tolerate our actions?"

Just checking to make sure I heard you correctly.

Rookiee The 'Brainiac'

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Apparently the paedophiles are feeling rather threatened. They’re sending in the next line of defense. Rookiee has resurfaced here and attacked one of our guests for a ‘spelling error’....making this the perfect opportunity to consider Rookiee's agenda.

Rookiee is a wanna-be ringleader in the movement to make paedophilia a civil rights issue.

Two months ago he became enraged when he was banned from editing Wikipedia because he attacked and vilified Justin Berry – a victim of child pornography who brought numerous paedophiles to justice. Important to note here that the paedophile community does not view Justin as a victim but, to use their word, a whore.

Our latest encounter with Rookiee brought out his anger at the stings which have been set up to catch online predators. You can read his comments here. He, in classic paedophile form, blames the victims.

It really should come as no surprise then that he comes up with what he dubs a ‘brainiac scheme’.

Here’s how the scheme will work:

- Members of the paedophile community go into adult chat rooms and pose as ‘minors.’
- When adults ask to meet up, they will say no ‘politely but firmly’
- They will see how many adults continue these advances and how many will not
- These ‘results’ will be published on the net

Rookiee explains the purpose of this scheme

If my suspicions are correct, the majority of these adults are not predators and will not insist on meeting up with someone who does not want to. We need to then publish our findings on the web.

What say you?

Daydreamer says:

Brainiac scheme? This has to be the most idiotic plan I've ever seen.

I guess we shouldn’t expect much better from a person who so viciously attacks exploited and abused children though.

So I’m gonna go real slow here and try not to use big words:

If the adult asks to meet up with the child, he is a predator.

Got that? It doesn't matter how the child responds or whether the adult backs off or not.

Your scheme would neither prove a point nor provide any type of information - it only speaks to the level of desperation your community is reaching. You're making a laughing stock of yourself and your community. Ok, brainiac?

Journalism Or Trash?

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

I don't much care how it's done, as long as it's done. I am referring to Fox News:
Shows like "America's Most Wanted" and "To Catch a Predator" are taking to the airwaves in an attempt to nab sexual predators in a very public way. These shows often involve trying to nab predators — or would-be predators — who communicate online with people they believe to be underage kids.
Great idea, actually. But, of course, let the whining commence:
"Sexual predators running around, picking up children off the 'Net are not an epidemic … ["To Catch a Predator"] focuses on the equivalent of a sexual straw man, turning the stranger-predator into the 'epidemic,'" said Pierre Tristam, a columnist at the Daytona Beach News-Journal in Florida, who recently wrote a controversial article on the popular "Dateline" series and says the shows epitomize "tabloid pulp."
Quite frankly, I very much enjoy the facial reactions of those caught. How can one possibly refute hard copies of e-mails and the video of one's actions?
Your opinion?

Sign the Anti-Puellula Petition

I have found a wonderful new initiative! Tracy Hogan has set up a petition on the petition site calling on our attorny general to put an end to Lindsay Ashfords website! So far there are just around 250 signatures, but if we all spread the word, we can help Tracy get to her goal of 10,000 signatures. Look at the petition at:

Queensland Parents Beware

A ruling this week in the Queensland Court of Appeals effectively deemed indefinite supervision of convicted paedophiles a thing of the past. The case relates to Eric Henri Van Dessel who has been convicted of child sex offences in 1989, 2001 and 2004. The Appeals Court last week ruled that the indefinite supervision order on Dessel be limited to 20 years.

Full story here

Dessel is 42 years old and has two prior convictions. There is absolutely no reason to believe that in twenty years, he will cease to be a danger to our children. Of course, one would have thought that the third conviction would have been a tip off to the courts that he is a danger to society. Obviously it wasn't.

The current literature supports the notion that paedophiles are the oldest of all criminals. The reason cited by most experts for this is the pathological compulsion related to paedophilia which is not present in other criminals. This compulsion is what drives the paedophile to continue committing his crimes as long as he is physically capable of doing so. Dr. Bill Glaser is considered the foremost authority on child sex abuse and paedophilia in Australia and has gained worldwide recognition from his peers. In his clinic to treat child sex offenders, he observed that every single one is a paedophile and the oldest patient is 80 years old.

To our numerous readers in Queensland: Please be aware of the latitude the courts are giving these offenders.....aware and active. If you find this ruling to be outrageous and offensive, please contact the media and government officials and inform them of public opinion on this matter.

As Edelman said If we don't stand up for children, then we don't stand for much.

Charitable Delusions

Sunday, August 06, 2006

This blog has covered the on-going Save the Children fiasco within the paedophile community. If you are unaware of these events, here's a brief history:

- Lindsay Ashford and Todd Nickerson gathered donations from the paedophile 'girl lover' community and made a donation to Save the Children in the name of 'GirlLovers Alice Day'

- Save the Children clearly did not pick up on where the money was coming from and sent back a generic thank you note.

- Ashford proceeded to post the thank you note on his site, claiming We are glad that Save the Children, despite the prevailing antipathy against girllovers, has seen fit to accept our gifts and in so doing recognized our commitment to aiding the empoverished children of the world and enabled us to do so.

- A contributor to this blog alerted Save the Children to the situation and the donation was promptly returned.

This situation has caused great angst in the paedophile community. Members of this blog have suggested that paedophiles who want to donate to a charity should make the donation anonymously. This would help children (which they *say* is their real agenda) without causing respectable organizations to turn them away. This suggestion was met with great furor amongst paedophiles. But it seems that, of late, they've reconsidered. However, it's also brought out the paranoid delusions that they're so famous for:

Porcelain carries on like a raving lunatic:

I've thought about donating something, however, I am absolutely paranoid about leaving a paper trail anywhere, especially 'credit cards', given how many people have been assaulted because they submitted a credit card for access.

Are there ways to get donations that do not involve: Postal Services, especially the US Postal service, traceable bank transfers, included credit cards, etc.

I once read about using calling cards one can purchase most anywhere, however, if push came to shove, a calling card does have an identifiable amount of information that at least would place a user 'somewhere' in the world, thus, for the paranoid, is to close for comfort.

Why would I worry about a cash donation via the US postal service... well most letters these days are given a tracking number very close to the mail box the letter is taken from, hence, a route, especially in less populated areas, would allow the all pervasive government to narrow a search down considerably.

Am I paranoid, you f--king bet. Some may pass it off as delusional, however, there are too many reports like the one that Taf-Kat posted, were someone has their house raided, because they just may 'know' someone who is suspect.

The news recently has had a number of revelations about how the government, using complient organzations, banking, communications providers, etc. where millions of transactions have been monitored in some way. Perhaps via automatic pattern recognition methods, but just the same, some pattern matches, you are survailed more closely.

But then once the truely anonymous donation has been sent off, how, really does one 'know' that the donation ever really reached the destination, other than say, for GC, when someone posts who has donated recently.

Even in big time organizations, there have been cases of fraud, misuse of funds, etc. and that is with yearly auditors checking the book

Demonsthenes advises:

Straight up cash isn't trackable (unless you're worried about them finding finger prints... so use gloves? :-p)... and just drop it in the mail when you're on vacation (again.. if you're paranoid about finger prints... use gloves :-p). Sure, they'll be able to track it down to the general area that you mailed it from, but that won't matter so much, will it?

Porcelain still isn't convinced:

Paper is very absorbent of environmental elements... US currency is identified by the region it was issued from... licking the stamp or envelope leaves saliva, which can and will be used in a court of law...

When finding a needle in the haystacks, it is beneficial to know which haystack to look at... when finding a radio active needle, ie one that emits, again reducing the number of haystacks that have to be exhaustively searched is beneficial...

Paranoid... no just read the news...

Infinity furthers the advice given by Demosthenes:

Just buy a self-adhesive stamp (no licking)...and use TAPE to seal the envelope...and as Demo said you can mail it from ANOTHER place not near where you live. Wrap the cash in several pieces of paper...or put it in a card. There is just no way they can trace you if you take those precautions. If you were really that adamant about it a cheap pair of surgical gloves to do all of that, no finger prints. How safe if that?

For the record...most posters who donate to GC do all or most of these things...although some of them do mail them from the state they live...of course those envelopes are completely destroyed, so the danger is non-existent.

And Baldur elaborates even further:

. . . you can also get self-adhesive envelopes now, which do not require licking.

Even if you wish to use traditional stamps and envelopes, you can "lick" the stamp and flap with a wet sponge or a wet cloth. If you're really concerned, use bottled water - though I have yet to hear of the authorities analysing the residue from tap water to deduce the source.

Right. A charity organization is going to raid your house for making an anonymous donation. Keep in mind that these are the guys who keep proclaiming that they're not doing anything illegal. Makes you wonder what they're so psychotically paranoid of someone finding.

Truth in Advertising

After Save the Children returned the donation to Todd Nickerson, Lindsay Ashford advised they should not cash the check. The money would remain in StC account and therefore he could leave his fake endorsement on his website. But Todd took matters into his own hands, and decided to cash the check and disperse the money anonymously without telling anyone where. The purpose being :
There'll be neither bragging on our part nor harassment on the part of the antis.
To make matters worse he then received a LETTER from the State of Connecticut Attorney General's Office
I urge you to immediately remove this press release from your website. Your failure to do so may result in the imposition of civil and criminal penalties.
At which point the bickering started in earnest.

It is illegal to post a charity's name without permission.
Hopefully Lindsay will just take it down
To be honest you brought this upon yourself.
Todd, you were not the organiser of this campaign. I was.
As for your decision to cash the cheque, I am still opposed to that.
While you are technically correct -- the money does not belong to me -- I frankly don't give a rip.
This community is rampant with cowardice, small-mindedness and hypocrisy.
If you threaten me, I WILL pursue it legally. I know who you are and I have your mother's phone #.
I am not a trained monkey this community can shoot into alien territory to see if it's safe for humans
If I'd thought for a second that they would throw me in jail because YOU put something on your website that they didn't like, then I would NOT have attached my name to this project.
I see myself as a sailor on board a ship with a captain who was making a very bad decision.
F*** you and the other assholes here. If you cared about your own community you'd think twice before you backed me into a corner of desperation.
This charity thing will have ended up being of no benefit to us whatsoever.
I'll be the one they go after, not Lindsay. They can't catch Lindsay -- he can put whatever he wants on his site, and they can't touch him as long as he's out-of-country.

Lindsay is not living in the Empire as of now, therefore they can't get him -- they will gladly get Todd instead.

It doesn't give him a 'blank check' to do as he pleases with the money we donated
Marco Polo:
You are beyond the pale Todd
I trust Todd infinitly more than I trust Lindsay
We lost respect for you after you stole the money.
You should be sued for what you've done.
You're on the short list of people at this site I would feel OK about being around a child
If you think Todd is one of the few here who would be safe to have around your kids, I take that as a major insult, especially when you consider how unstable he can be

That money is not yours and you have no right to do anything with it that you happen to decide. The people who donated that money did so with expectation......
You have repayed us with betrayal
I can only recall very few people that I've actually lost all respect for around here and I'm sorry to say I now count you among them.
You're despicable Todd

StC needs to go down in flames
Let it be known .... that you and a few others here have made me into an enemy. I expect you will come to regret that.
THIS is StC's TOS. FYI: Save the Children is an INTERNATIONAL organization. Lindsay violated IP laws. He shouldn't be so sure of his untouchability.
He's willing for Todd to take the fall, be sued on civil charges and possibly charged for criminal acts. All so he can keep what he uses as 'endorsement' on his web page.
This is a total lack of integrity and ethics.

And he wants society to accept what he is and believe his dripping-with-saccharine-self-proclaimed-child-lover-I'd-never-harm-them testament??

Get Real Lindsay! You're as fake as a three dollar bill and as transparent as glass.