Stitches77 posted at 7:52 PM | |

35 Old Comments:

ooohh, rokie sounds a little paranoid. Could it be that he has reason to be worried???

LOL, just keep looking over your shoulder....

By  Sues, at Tue Sep 12, 11:15:00 PM PDT  

Well Sue it sure sounds like paranoia to me. Also sounds like Rook really is dumber than he sounds.

Rook how can you think that you can
a. be an activist & try to gain acceptance
b. tell your community not to do illegal things
c. admit that if you weren't being watched, you would be doing illegal things?

This is very troubling. I thought Rook really wanted to make a difference in his community. I didn't realize what he actually wanted was to merely cover what he was doing until such time as he wouldn't be arrested for it.

By  Daydreamer of Oz, at Wed Sep 13, 01:49:00 AM PDT  

If he's "been abstaining," what was he doing before he decided to abstain? Aw heck, there I go using common sense again. Can't have that now, can we?

By  jarhead john, at Wed Sep 13, 03:18:00 AM PDT  

Exactly JJ!!

But then he ended up with this "Even if I weren't on this podcast I still wouldn't be doing anything wrong because I'm sick to death of feeling paranoia and fear"

I wonder what he's paranoid and afraid of. If he started with his computer, why he could just have a chat with olive freak about that because olive keeps his computer "squeaky clean"......and he'll tell you which software he uses to keep it that way.

As far as "doing anything wrong"...... Rookieeee saying that doesn't really ease anyone's mind, when you consider that he doesn't exactly have the same concept of *right and wrong* that the rest of the civilized world does.

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 05:13:00 AM PDT  

It is possible to have been abstaining for a whole lifetime (I should know). Also, not doing anything illegal is not the same as being paranoid.

By  Clayboy, at Wed Sep 13, 10:02:00 AM PDT  

Long time no see clay. I do remember you saying you were non-contact. However, please answer this question.... have you abstained BECAUSE you were a target? Because that's apparently why Rookieeee abstains.

And does your abstinance also include the use of child pornography? Or do you merely try to keep your computer 'squeaky clean'?

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 10:32:00 AM PDT  

Hi, Stitches.

I have many reasons for being abstinent. Me being a "target" is the least of them. Mostly I cannot imagine why a boy would want to do the nasty with me in the first place. And even if he did want to, sincerely and not just because he thought it would please me, the chances of someone finding out and putting him through victimisation hell are too dire. I would never put a boy in a situation where he would be at such danger. For what; feeling good for a short while? I would much rather be his friend and enjoy his company, go deep in conversation with him and see the gleam in his eyes as he realises he has my friendship unconditionally. I don't know how some shallow sex could be better than that (though I've never had it).

Others have their own reasons for abstaining. I have heard Rookiee talk about his reasons, and I did not get the impression that it is merely a political statement or staying "clean". In fact, it gave me the impression of a righteous, responsible young man.

I do not believe that sexual abstinence has anything to do with pornography usage, but no, I do not use it. Besides the ethical questions, child pornography is the primary means of persecuting us, so it would be stupid and unnecessary to have it. I don't have to try hard. A healthy imagination and a well-exercised hand helps.

By  Clayboy, at Wed Sep 13, 11:34:00 AM PDT  

Episode three seems out-of-place, in comparison to that...

By  Jillium, at Wed Sep 13, 11:36:00 AM PDT  

Well Jillium, you can take that up with Rookieeeee, those weren't my words, they were HIS. Directly quoted I might add.

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 11:47:00 AM PDT  

Why thank you for the mental image there ClayBOY.

I would like to remind you that I didn't accuse anyone of abstaining because they thought of themselves as a target. I merely repeated to you what Rookieeee said on his podcast. His own words. And if you recall I've said many times, you pedofreaks words are your biggest enemy.

Talk to any psychiatrist, they will tell you that even the most delusional psychotics can sometimes fake people off for awhile, and lead you to believe that they are rational and sane. All you have to do is let them keep talking.

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 12:28:00 PM PDT  

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  FreeCyprus, at Wed Sep 13, 01:00:00 PM PDT  

Well that was interesting freecyprus, but wayyyy off topic. Only on-topic posts are allowed here.

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 01:40:00 PM PDT  

You're so good at taking my comments out of context. Besides not even understanding what the hell it is I was talking about, you so casually omitted the rest of what I said. You're too quick to stroke off on those little bits, and the others follow suit to make themselves feel better about some shitty little soundbite.

My full quote:
"If pedophile activists and childs' rights activists are trying to have their hands clean... Let's look at reality for a second. If you're talking about something which is currently illegal and people are doing it because it's what is biologically natural to them, who the fuck cares if there's a record on someone? We are not going to have 'clean hands' in this fight. I started this podcast with Abraxas, here, full well-knowing about his history. He's had a lot of history as far as law enforcement. I don't give a fuck! I don't judge people by what society, the people I'm trying to fight against.. (unfortunately it is a fight in most cases even though I want peace, it's a fight; it's a struggle)... they [the pedophiles] are JUDGING him by his criminal record. I can't judge him by the same standard. I have to judge him by how I know him as a PERSON. I have to judge him by with what I experience with him."

The context in which I was referring to is other childlovers outcasting and alienating each other because of criminal records, afraid that these "tainted" people are going to tarnish our "image". It's rather laughable. Thus, what I'm saying is we childlovers need to set a higher, more realistic and accountable bar for who and what we associate with.

You can't forever judge people based on the records of a fucked up system. I judge people by what my own personal experiences are with that person.

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 04:47:00 PM PDT  

"OH!! I see! Thank you so much for clarifying that."

You're smart as a whip, you know that? Glad you're enjoying my show.

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 04:50:00 PM PDT  

So in other words, if you think someone is a pretty cool guy, and later find out that they raped 7 children and disposed of their bodies in an abandoned whatever, as long as they had good conversation and were pleasant to you, you wouldn't pass personal judgment on them? Is that what you're saying?

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 04:50:00 PM PDT  

Oh, and another thing... Stitches, you act as if you have all the facts on what this person did with children in the past. Never assume things. It just makes an ass out of you and me.

"ass u/me". Get it? Get it?

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 05:00:00 PM PDT  

"Is that what you're saying?"

See above.

Rape, torture, mutilation, disposing of bodies... Sounds like the military.

Seriously, if Abraxas had done any ONE of the things you just detailed, he would not have been sitting next to me talking to me in a home. He would have been in prison or executed for his crimes. So, think about what you're saying, and think about how absurd it is.

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 05:04:00 PM PDT  

A Rookieeeee direct quote:

I judge people by what my own personal experiences are with that person.

The question I asked you was if that would apply to a child murderer also. Don't twist what I asked you. It's right here on the same freakin' page.

And you can't answer the question, so why are you here?

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 05:09:00 PM PDT  

You failed to understand me yet again.

I replied directly to your question. To suggest that I would be even ABLE to conversate with a convicted murderer, much less be able to meet with that person to form my own opinions, is absurd.

As for judging convicted felons, I refer you to Shawshank Redemption.

Even if someone DID hurt someone else, AFTER someone gets out of jail, I cannot judge them on their record. They have paid their debt to society and I have to judge them for who and what they are as a person, what they've learned, and have faith that they will not commit again.

As for having a consenting sexual relationship: Since I see that as non-harmful in nature, how could I possibly judge someone who had been convicted for it?

Twist someone else's context around.

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 05:17:00 PM PDT  

I replied directly to your question. To suggest that I would be even ABLE to conversate with a convicted murderer, much less be able to meet with that person to form my own opinions, is absurd.

Why is that absurd? I've already proven you to be a liar.

Shawshank was a great movie, however the book was better. And I just bet you most people would've felt a lot different about it, if the guy had been convicted of molesting a child, whether he murdered her or not.

Cause you see, people just feel that way about children. Everyone everywhere understands this simple concept except you. Have you not ever wondered what was wrong with you? What something in your brain was missing? You see, Rookieeeee it's not us, it's YOU.

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 05:23:00 PM PDT  

"Why is that absurd?"

Because you're comparing apples to oranges.

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 05:25:00 PM PDT  

You're so good at taking my comments out of context.

The meaning of that message did not change in the slightest when you expanded it below. Taking a comment out of context generally means that when you know the rest of the message, it takes on a different meaning.

The context in which I was referring to is other childlovers outcasting and alienating each other because of criminal records, afraid that these "tainted" people are going to tarnish our "image".

Now I'm really confused. Doesn't this directly contradict your PSA?

You can't believe in both messages at once. Please tell me the PSA is your true message. You may have an ever-so-slight grasp on reality but it's certainly stronger than anyone else's in your community.

By  Daydreamer of Oz, at Wed Sep 13, 05:26:00 PM PDT  

No Rookieeee, I merely asked you a straightforward question, which you cannot answer.

By  Stitches77, at Wed Sep 13, 05:28:00 PM PDT  

"Now I'm really confused. Doesn't this directly contradict your PSA?"

Not at all. Past and present tense are two different things. I judge people by intent. So does the law (supposedly).

By  Roofus, at Wed Sep 13, 05:31:00 PM PDT  

Come on Rook, I'm serious. In the PSA you said that having criminals in your ranks is holding you back from being able to gain any legitimacy - you begged your comrades to stop doing illegal things in order to advance the *cause*.

HERE you're saying that position is laughable.

You know Rook, I thought that PSA was a message that your community needed. Please don't undermine it.

By  Daydreamer of Oz, at Wed Sep 13, 06:04:00 PM PDT  

I have no idea where to put this and please understand I am new to blogs. But this is to good not to post: I am a strong child advocate and work on several forums .. and sexual predators are my most detested scum on this earth.

Dateline "To Catch a Predator" Airdates

Dateline NBC's show "To Catch a Predator" which features our work will be airing four new hours of Predator stings. The six hours will chronicle our stings in Harris County Georgia, Petaluma California and Long Beach California. 20 males seeking relations to a minor arrived at our location in Georgia, 30 males looking for underage sex arrived in Petaluma and 39 males were arrested in Long Beach.

You will see men of all kinds, from strange requests of the predators to strange reactions... these six episodes will run the gamut. What happens when one predator brings something no other individual before has? How about another that may make you think you're seeing a... repeat? And... Well, we'd tell you, but it works so much better visually!

TCAP airdates - On your local NBC affiliate...
— Wednesday, Sept. 13, 8 p.m. - Georgia, pt. 1
— Friday, Sept. 22, 9 p.m. - Georgia, pt. 2
— Friday, Sept. 29, 9 p.m. - Petaluma California, pt. 1
— Friday, Oct. 6, 9 p.m. - Petaluma California, pt. 2
— Friday, Oct. 13, 9 p.m. - Long Beach California, pt. 1
— Friday, Oct. 20, 9 p.m. - Long Beach California, pt. 2

Catch the phenomenon that has been talked about in countless news stories and on pop culture shows like E's "The Soup", VH1's "Best Week Ever", NBC's "Saturday Night Live", Comedy Central's "Mind of Mencia" and of course the outstanding Emmy's intro with Conan O'Brien. As odd as it is, you will be guaranteed to see something new on each of these episodes just as we do when we're doing the work that goes into them. There's always something unexpected that happens.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/#old

By  KadyDid2, at Wed Sep 13, 08:31:00 PM PDT  

I am from Georgia .. These low life are now marked men .. I am a betting Lady and the odds are now 100 to 1 of the Gators eating them. Gotta love those gators even though I always say "how bout them daugs" u see I am a bull dog fan. lol

By  KadyDid2, at Wed Sep 13, 08:41:00 PM PDT  

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  crake, at Thu Sep 14, 10:22:00 AM PDT  

If someone is guilty of mutilating a child, they aren't going to be free to talk on internet radio period. It's not a question of whether Rookiee would have had him on or not. The guy wouldn't be physically able to be in both JAIL and on rookiee's show. That's common sense.

If the law didn't exist and somehow he was able to "get away" with murder, than no, Rookiee would not have allowed an unconvicted murderor to appear on his program. Unconvicted in the sense that somehow he was able to "evade" the whole "US Code" thing.

By  crake, at Thu Sep 14, 10:24:00 AM PDT  

Crake, one would think you'd had enough of me a long time ago. I simply can't understand why you keep coming back for more.

As for that whining coward Rookieeee, his response to me was disingenuous, as is yours. He did not answer my hypothetical question.

People do get out of all sorts of situations, and are returned to society....why, they do it all the time. Look at Joseph Duncan, for example or John Couey.

The question I asked could have included murder or not, it was obviously a point that went over yours and his pedopathetic little heads. Now drop the hyperbole and tell Rookieeeee he needs to answer the question himself and stop sending in little boys to do his work.

What Rookieeee said was this:
I judge people by what my own personal experiences are with that person.

By  Stitches77, at Thu Sep 14, 10:53:00 AM PDT  

Daydreamer, I'm saying that if people have done things in the past we can't necessarily hold it against them, especially if they did not truly hurt or use a child for their gratification. They might have learned their lesson, and I have to judge them for what I experience with them; their thoughts, ideas, and actions from this point forward are what I judge them by, not a piece of paper saying he or she is "forever bad".

The PSA is about telling people that in the present and future, obey the law, because the more people disobey it, the easier a target it makes us and ruins our name in the eyes of the public, no matter how much the child might actually be consenting. I realize people are pent up and desperate for sexual release, but we need to work together to make the world safer for us and for the kids.

By  Roofus, at Thu Sep 14, 12:52:00 PM PDT  

Well yeah Rookieeee, we got this part The PSA is about telling people that in the present and future, obey the law, because the more people disobey it, the easier a target it makes us

You don't understand. You don't have a clue. In fact, was it Dissident? telling you the same thing just the other day. You don't have a clue, Rookieeee. Oh be we do! We have lots of clues. And you don't even know what you just said.

But you'll find out. Why I was telling Clayboy just yesterday I believe, that you should keep talking. Keep right on talking.

I'm listening to more podcasts Rookieeee. Since you encourage me to do so. I'm going to be very happy to analyze them for you. I know how much you like it when I do, you see.

By  Stitches77, at Thu Sep 14, 01:35:00 PM PDT  

Alright, Ed Gruberman.

By  Roofus, at Thu Sep 14, 03:02:00 PM PDT  

What a pathetic analogy.

Another pedopathetic cognitive distortion, no less.

You see Rookieeeee, this whole thing here started because of your pedo friendly pal lepidopterist who decided that daydreamerof oz should not be allowed to blog as she pleased. No, he was going to force himself upon her. He was going to give her the boot to the head so to speak and drag the entire girlchat board over to give her the boot too.

So don't you dare to act so asinine with me. You may say stupid things, but I know you're not that stupid. Go take it up with Winston, he's the one who sicced us on you to begin with. So don't come whining when you get what the child lover info terrorism tactics asked for.

By  Stitches77, at Thu Sep 14, 03:18:00 PM PDT  

Daydreamer, I'm saying that if people have done things in the past we can't necessarily hold it against them,

Ok, Rook, I'll offer as example the words of one of your very own from BoyChat, while speaking of Joseph Duncan... Knowledge of a persons past will give you a strong idea of what they will do tomorrow

And... If you're like most of the registered sex offenders here, you did nothing more than engage in some 'consensual' touching with a boy.

And...It's not about revenge or moral judgment, it's about keeping society up and running

You guys just can't get it together, can you? In fact I believe that your left hand doesn't know what his left hand is doing, and that's the biggest problem. *IF* you care so much for children, why aren't you trying to find out???

By  Daydreamer of Oz, at Thu Sep 14, 09:08:00 PM PDT