Happy Alice Day

Repost from April 25, 2007. Help us countdown to Alice Day 2008!

This is tough work we do, isn't it? I think it's time we all took a breather. So kick back and help us as we celebrate the Anti's hijacking of Alice Day.



If you'd like to see more visit HEREand HERE and HERE

Thank you to all the Anti's!

He's Baaaack

"As somebody who has studied pedophilia online for over ten years now, I have, unfortunately also had to deal with and study the media and self righteous hate groups who proclaim to be on the side of good."

~ Uriel Dagda April 25, 2007 AbsoluteZeroUnited ~ Alice Day

These are the first words of Uriel on his debut appearance at AbsoluteZero. And he continues:

• "While some might say that pedophile activists themselves might be suffering cognitive distortions, the anti-crowd themselves are no better, because they are just looking after their own twisted interests"

• "Until we can accept pedophilia as a concept, separating the difference between consent and rape, studying it instead of vomiting forth yet another generation of platitudes of self-indulgence, sites like these do nothing but PERPETUATE child abuse, and worse, child murders!"

• "The simple fact is, you have been duped"

• "......these people already feel the stinging hate and derision of society in the mainstream form, pushing them to unspeakable acts, while society wants to lump them all into one neat package."

• "Blind hate has never lead to truth!"

• "My critique of this site: MINUS 10 out of 10 -- for taking a serious topic, and turning it into a self-righteous farce...............Keep slapping yourselves in the back, guys, you have made a great achievement. At being a fool."

All of that taken from his very first comment. We were going to let Uriel have his say, until of course he descended quickly into harassment....comparing pedoheads to Jews and Blacks with an exclamation mark no less! His sarcasm grew:

• I do truly envy you....it would be nice to be able to just blindly hate and be completely oblivious. It truly would. I wish I could do that sometimes. I really do. It would make life much easier for me

• Unfortunately I...well, I have thoughts. Analytical thoughts......

• One thing I do know is right is looking at every issue with love. Not just love for a person, or issue, but for the world as a whole...........

• That is perspective, and you must have that before you go into an issue.

• OH and don't have any illusions that you are actually doing anything to benefit anybody whatsoever

Immediately after Uriel left these comments GirlChatter Elminster left this comment on GC

A friend of mine I told about that site was posting there most of the day, apparently he annoyed them with a bit too much logic.

He was a victim and told them so, but it seems that they don't care too much about outsiders and still crucified him for not agreeing with them.

I am not sure if they realized that he had done a lot of research on pedophilia and knows what he is talking about, lol.

Yeah, yeah LOL. Ok Elminster. The problem is that lots of people want to claim credit for Uriel. Next up we have albertRoss Who impressed me with his 4 part video response. Ok albaby, I took the time to transcribe your video, and you took the time to respond to me and we did it each in our own way without bashing our heads together in the same room. What do you know about that? I can't figure out why you claimed credit for Uriel's comments though. Elminster says his non pedo friend Uriel did it, Uriel says Uriel did it and albaby says albaby did it in Uriels name. Go figure.

So let's just go over what we do know about Uriel. He has a LiveJournal on which he rarely writes. It looks rather tame doesn't it? What did this man write about.....Uriel who goes around claiming to

1. Be neutral on pedophilia
2. Is not a pedohead
3. Protects Free Speech above ALL
4. Was molested as an adolescent
5. Writes against Megans Law
   

Saying things like "But I do know one thing. If our views on sexuality and children do not change-- and soon-- the paranoia, hate, pain and futures of our children today will clash in a cataclysmic, destructive and regrettable way that might completely collapse our society. We don't want to be remembered in the annals of history as the generations that brought upon the world another era witch hunts. Remember. Sometimes love is just that-- love. Something this world needs."

I don't know Uriel.....That rather sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah to me Ya think?

But then here are some other things we know that are just as important: We know that he is a collector of Barbie Dolls. And has an obsession with the deceased actress Heather O'Rourke. He wrote her a screen play, he hangs out at Heather web galleries and forums.

"I could not stop thinking about the day Heather died."

In fact Uriel is totally obsessed with Heather and "has

been for the last 20+ years"

Uriel had watched Poltergeist the movie over 200 times........and that was back in 2003.

From his comments on AZ he is a CSA survivor who came here to gain knowledge....to see another angle so that he could write a book and have 'true to life Anti characters' but we ruined it Elminster says.

Uriel also claims to have an IQ in the 200 range, perhaps that's merely a correlation with his Poltergeist viewing times.

Above all Uriel tries "to explore every facet of every side of an argument from very point of view I can find"

Oh, yeah except for the Anti's side....because he's not realllllly looking for dialog when he comes here with aggressive, confrontational speech as his introduction......now, is he? I don't know......perhaps we should look at Elminster and what he has to say about all this.

I am beginning to believe that the anti's really just do what they do and say what they say because they are addicted to grandstanding and hate

That sounds familiar. What else?

Ahh, Poltergeist... I have seen that movie over 250 times. =)

"I had the biggest crush on Heather when I first saw Poltergeist back in 1982, and I remember vividly the day I learned of her death in 1988. Not sure if a punch in the gut would explain it, more like getting crushed by an 18 wheeler. "

And exactly how does Elminster and Uriel both commenting here on AZ from the same identical non-proxied IP address feel about Anti's...

For the antis, it is not about protecting children at all. That is just the spin they put on it to make themselves believe in all thier self-righteous bullshit. Thier only concern is that thier sensibilities have been offended, and they can't live with it.....Elminster
I see a problem which has been taken over and expanded infinitely by demagogues hellbent on using the plight of children to crush civil rights......Uriel

So hey Uriel..........help me help you. You aren't a pedohead? Elminster is? Well let's be sure and find out exactly what it is that Elminster does like, then we'll know more about you Uriel, won't we?

The question was:
1. What age of girl do you find most -physically- attractive?
2. What age of girl do you find most -mentally/emotionally- attractive?

Elminster:
1. 5-year-old girls just make my insides melt.
2. 3-7, because they love to cuddle and be soo close. They need alot of affection at this age range.


Well it does appear Uriel is the only one in denial.

Of course he did complain about the mental health field, but it was obvious from what he said that he either never really got any therapy or he got the wrong kind.

Perhaps this will help. Cheap and on Uriel's level.



Uriel you and/or your sockpuppets can comment here on this
post, but you must remember a few small rules. It's fairly simple.

1. This invitation only applies to you Uriel/Elminster
and albertRoss no other pervs should bother
2. No flaming
3. No Lying
4. No essays, diatribes or dissertations,
responses must be short and simple

If you don't like these rules then don't comment.

Dear albertRoss 1 of 4

Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

albertRoss thinks my recent post about him is "Much ado about nothing", but I prefer Macbeth. He came to AZ to comment but wasn't met with the response he thought he should get. I deleted his comments after his complaints were addressed....more than once. He was warned and then summarily deleted for trolling. But he didn't take it well, and has chosen me to lash out at. He has posted a series of four video responses and put them on YouTube. Ok, albertRoss here is your response. Let's break it down, ok? I'm going to summarize.

You feel that ridiculing you or other perverts isn't a valid argument. It's a cheap shot. Am I close to the spirit of the thing? You claim that your yellow finger is simply a surface feature, it's superficial....transient and will wash off whereas I have a permanent blemish on my character. A much more serious and profound condition, eh? Well, see here al, that yellow on your finger didn't get there over night, and it won't wash off over night either, no, it's been a long time coming that yellow finger has. And I'm quite sick of it actually, so let me explain the importance of your yellow finger to the issue at hand.....

1 You are filthy.

This is evidenced with visual documentation and a verbal confession. We do indeed know this to be true.

2 You are a pedophile.

As evidenced by your written word, your verbal word and your previous conviction.

So exactly where have I gone wrong when I call you a filthy pedophile?

I did not lie, mislead, nor libel you. You are the same both inside and out and I proved it.

The stain you saw on my character is no blemish, that is my purple heart and I earned it fair and square. So you believe that I'm having fun at your and other pedos expense? Now al, seriously you knew when you said that it wasn't true. You aren't fun al, no not at all. You are a Burden with a capital B. To me.....to society.

Your other complaints are intertwined, in my opinion. At least my answers are. I deleted your comments and I misspelled your name. Whew, I really don't know how to break this down on any more simpler terms than I already have but I'll give it my best shot. You trolled us al. You harassed.....you were trying for a reaction and you got it. Your first comment was responded to but that wasn't good enough, you were on the attack. Now al, I did explain to you that AZ doesn't owe you freedom of speech, I don't know what you expect. I don't go to GirlChat and attack you, why would you think you could come here and attack us?

You did this last year too. You posted the same comment exactly 15 times. You only stopped because someone posted a link to a man named Albert Ross who wasn't you. Meaning of course, we don't like being harassed go away. When it was found to not be you it was quickly deleted. No the man's IP address was not posted. The only thing that happened was a link to a website. So you tell me "You can go to jail for stuff like that" I can only say, blow it out your ear, al baby, no one is going to put me in jail for misspelling your nickname. Which is what again? albertRoss "like the bird but misspelled"

However, if I had gone slithering around and dug up some deep dark secrets on him. Information that he himself had not already published in public view....details that were not newsworthy and that an average person would be distressed should that type of info be revealed about them.....THEN he would have cause of action against me under the tort of invasion of privacy inflicting emotional distress. See Melvin v Reid. In summary: Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts is an invasion of privacy tort when the disclosure is of no public concern, is not newsworthy and outrages the public sense of decency.

So you see al, I'm not in the business of 'outting' people, and I'm not in the business of digging into your private affairs. I use your own words and actions that you are posting on the internet, which is more than enough.

To conclude I would like to say that I did notice that you didn't smoke while you addressed me, and I realize that was probably hard for you. So a HT to you, I will take that as a sign of your respect for me.

Albertross

"What am I getting at here.....I'm trying to say that I don't think there's going to be any huge revelation here, I don't think there's going to be any glorious dramatic change in society. I think that this is just one of those things that just gradually change until you don't realize it has changed....it sort of sneaks up on you."

So begins the "final battle" of Albert Ross. But what exactly is the goal of his war? Is it acceptance and tolerance? Is it the ability to upload videos to youtube without the militia knocking down his door, er I mean his plastic? Is it merely a tribute to 'Alice Day' the pedo holiday of perversions? Or is it something more sinister? Let's listen to more and see....

"So what does this mean? What it means to me is this idea if only we could have a little more courage and felt a little easier about the support we do have and confident....they wouldn't be able to stand against us. The measures that are being taken in parts of the US in particular and England and other places are very seriously unconstitutional. They are really pushing the limits of what any society is or should be permitted to do for a segment of the population and that must change. Right now it won't change because the people who are pushing these agendas have almost free reign still it is very difficult for those in our position to stand up and make a clearer argument."

Here we go again. Let's repeat ....not every country has legislated free speech, Albert. Sorry to burst your bubble but even England is not protected under OUR constitution. Neither are you as a matter of fact. You see, James, the American Constitution doesn't extend to Sechelt, British Columbia. But let's continue....

"It is one thing to point at what's wrong with the measures being applied here but that sort of gets washed away when the people pushing the measures...go 'well its to protect the children...obviously we have to take extreme measures because there's an extreme danger here'. That's bullshit. There is no extreme danger. There's never been an extreme danger. There have been cases there are incidents but its never been as serious as people would like to believe."

Hmmm... 1 out of 6 children will be molested every year? Or whatever statistic you choose to use........I just can't help but wonder how many it would take for James to consider it a problem. Oh wait, I forgot.....he thinks they are all consensual.

"........you're gonna hate this........you're gonna scream at me.......but when I think of Girl Chat, I think of you guys.....forgive me.....as dwarves sitting there in your smelly little cave....your vast layers of terrified security discussing bravely the horrible terror that you live in. Yes, I know it is horrible and yes I know it is a terror. But, oh boy, if only we could just accept that we have a right and we'd be there, and all of this wouldn't be a problem. It's beautiful, because if we could, if we could actually just be........

.......what's left of the damaged ones, the hurt ones, the people who do want to kill us, the people will in fact present a threat to us.......there aren't that many of them. Perverted Justice for instance is not a huge organization, it's way tinier than any of our forums. It's a bunch of really not very bright people and they won't show up very well in front of the general public. You know if it came down to an argument in public between us and them - we'd win. There's no question that we'd carry the day under those circumstances. What they're doing can't stand the light of reason, so what I guess I'm trying to say is that we're actually helping to keep the darkness in place by the way we're acting and the difficulty of course is that it's safe what we're doing. It's not much of a life but it's safe and we don't have to worry too much as long as we're careful. We're not gonna get hurt. But, what are we losing, what are we giving away in exchange for that? So it's not something I can advise anyone else to do. I've taken the step for myself and I wanted to find out.....I got sick of being caught in this dark space and find out what the reality was and.....Come on out, man, the water's fine."

The water is indeed fine because, you see, AlbertRoss is getting smaller and smaller. First he gave us glimpses of his lean-to with the plastic walls, the high-speed internet and the garbage on the floor. Then he tried redecorating by hanging sheets behind him. Then he crawled off into the corner and said it was for protection from the elements. Perhaps that's why he smokes continuously in the little closed box..........it's his heat source. But now, he's showing less and less of himself until his most recent video, of which there's been about 40 so far, you can only see his eyes. Pretty soon the only thing that will remain is a black screen.


To all the little dwarves in their smelly little caves.........Come out, come out wherever you are!

A Parent's Worst Nightmare

"You are a parent's worst nightmare. You are one nightmare that I'm going to put to rest today."


Judge Chet Tharpe said as he sentenced Steven Schurgard to 85 years in prison.


Steven's father had reportedly turned his son in for his illegal acts back in 2002 after Steven threatened to kill his father. Apparently he had an anger management problem. But he had more problems than that, much more.

When Temple Terrace police went to serve Schurgard, the man who test drove cars for work and lived with his mother answered the door with a gun tucked in the waist of his pants. He threatened police and told them he had child pornography on his computer. Police returned with a search warrant and seized Schurgard's computer and a cache of video and cassette tapes.

Though 617 child porn images were found on Steven's computer, including video tapes of a teenage boy engaged in sex acts in the home Steven shared with his mother....rather than face a trial he plead guilty to three counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child, one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a victim younger than 18 and five counts of possession of child pornography.

All that was left was to be sentenced by the judge. He could have received as little as 4 years.

Steven Schurgard, who once called himself "a full-fledged pedophile" on his Web site, told a judge Thursday that he was sorry for owning child pornography and filming a young man engaged in a sex act.

But when some of his videos Steven had made were played for the judge....Steven hummed along.

"No one else will ever do. I'm still in love with you."

Is it any wonder then that the judge threw the book at him? We should have more of this type of judicial responsibility, and not just at the arrogant, in-your-face attitude of those like Steven Schurgard.

Schurgard's open plea left the length of his sentence up to the judge. Tharpe watched a video of a 13-year-old boy whom Schurgard plied with video games, drugs and alcohol, then filmed performing sexual acts. He saw a sampling of the obscene images from the man's computer. He was also shown evidence that would not have been allowed at trial but could be used by the judge to determine character. One video, set to the music from Jaws, showed Schurgard peeking through his blinds at a boy playing outside. Another captured him giggling guiltily as he flipped through pictures of naked boys and showed off literature from the North American Man/Boy Love Association, of which he was a member.

The DA "He is the very epitome of what parents lay in bed at night worrying about."

The defense attorney: argued that the 13-year-old had been a willing participant

The judge: "The only regret I have is that I can only sentence you to 85 years"

Trucker: "I think he was just doing what all of us would do if these damn laws didn't force us to obey them. I know the law shouldn't be broken, but to give an honest, wonderful person like that life in prison, and knowing that he would never intentionally harm a child is just preposterous."

Albert Ross: "maybe steve just doesn't know the meaning of fear, but he still gets hero status in my book."

Let's look at what one of those videos were, shall we? Is this meant to instill fear in the hearts of parents? Is it meant to mock society? What the hell was he thinking when Steven Schurgard made this video and posted it on his website?? Norbert said it was meant to be humor. I, for one, am not laughing.

....And Everything Nice

From Fox News: “There’s a website that tells young girls it’s okay to let men touch them inappropriately.”

I feel no need to describe again what this website Sugar and Spice is about as we just recently talked about it HERE However, when Lindsay puts on his grooming voice, or his mocking voice, or his in-your-face-I-can-do-whatever-I-want voice, I think it needs to be discussed again. And of course Lindsay Ashford had a lot to say about this story. A lot.

Sugar and Spice presents the truth about physical intimacy and girllove to young girls

Sugar and Spice has the audacity to say – in a space specifically intended for young girls – that not only is intimacy with another person very nice, but that it is nice even when that other person is an adult…..

Then it dares to encourage these same young girls to challenge laws that make such contact illegal.

And then, referring to the understandable outrage of parents he retorts:

Of course, such activity has been declared illegal in most places and Sugar and Spice clearly states this, but it certainly would not do to have children learning that their parents, schools, churches and lawmakers are lying to them when they say that all intimate touching is ‘bad touch’

So be it. Let them be outraged and disgusted. I will continue to speak the truth.

Ok, let’s stop right here and look at that before we continue. We just recently talked about the fact that one of the results of child molestation is the destruction of the child’s ability to trust. And now here we have Lindsay before you today explaining one of the ways it works. Never mind that children are dependent upon their parents, that children need to be able to trust their parents, that generally speaking it is the closest and most selfless relationship with another person that they will ever have until they are grown. Lindsay wants to destroy it. He wants to take a vulnerable child…..and she most certainly would be if she went looking for answers on Lindsay's website……and confuse her with pedo logic. What is she to take away from this encounter with Lindsay Ashford?

That every single person in her life is a liar? That they are all selfish and have no respect for her person? That society as a whole has manufactured a system to rob her of her sexuality and to persecute perverts? So what exactly does she learn from this? How does it help her? How does it harm her?

This is pedophile terrorism. To completely undermine a parents responsibility for the safety and well-being of his child and replace it with cognitive distortions and pedo-logic. He challenges the child to go out and fight his battles! Encouraging them to challenge laws when kids this age, adolescents most likely are at one of the biggest turning points in their life. Not quite an adult and not quite a child. THAT is who Lindsay would call upon to fight his battles. But then, Lindsay is well known for delegation, for manipulating people into doing his bidding.

One encounter with you and your website, Lindsay, leaves them dangling – who do they believe? Who do they trust? You leave your nasty mark on them without even knowing who they are….what they look like, what kind of problems they may be having. WHY?? Because little girls are merely objects to you….and not only would you have laws meant to protect children abolished so that you can destroy children legally – But you attempt to destroy the girls in your attempt to destroy them.

YOU, Lindsay Ashford say that the harm to children comes from society’s reaction to child sexual abuse. Why then, as a self-proclaimed child-lover would you encourage them to go out and fight a battle that would put them in the same situation you are in? Running from place to place, an undesirable and hated element of society should have made you aware of what you would expose kids to if you manipulated them into fighting for something that they do not want. Something that is solely for your own benefit.

Now you and your pedophile buds would say that children don’t lobby for ‘their own liberation’ because they are repressed elements of society and have no voice. Hmmm This comes from the same men who say that children, even the youngest among them can give consent to sexual contact..... and use a child refusing to eat his peas as an example. Now see, you just can’t have it both ways.

Kids experiment – they develop. You want to inflict this on them at YOUR speed, not their own. Not only that, you want to drive a wedge between them and their parents...the destruction of trust. (It makes kids easier to groom from what I've read) You want to play with little minds – young souls who are vulnerable to influences — who do they trust—their parents who brought them into this world and are ultimately responsible for them or the pervert who wants to exploit them by sending them into battle armed with an incomplete understanding of the issue and an immature knowledge of the world.

Continuing on. Lindsay approached this story the same way he usually does. STRIKE BACK. Just mow the accuser down. He does this with personal attacks about things that have absolutely no bearing on the original complaint. For instance he complains that the woman who reported Sugar and Spice was overweight. But then decided that he felt no need for PC speech and proceeded to launch into an attack of her physical attributes and to predict what sorts of foods she ate and drinks she consumed.

Too many fried catfish, hush puppies and fast food washed down with a surfeit of cola and other fizzy drinks...and not of the diet variety.

Oh, then….perhaps these empty drink containers mixed with the trash and the laundry at Albert Ross’s place…would that be the type you think she drinks?


Or perhaps when you attacked a woman whose daughter was raped and murdered and found her image on your website……and you decided to attack her personally rather than face how understandably outrageous this memorial site would seem to people. Let’s see, you found that she had problems with her housekeeping. Soo I’m just asking you what does it have to do with the fact that she doesn’t want her daughters image on your website? I wonder Lindsay since you gave a long lecture about the importance of cleanliness and how even the poorest among us could keep their meager belongings tidy, if you were referring to someone besides this woman. Maybe someone more like, oh Albert Ross for instance


Perhaps did you forget to include the condition of Kevin Brown's home when Child Protective Services came to take his son away? I don’t know Lindsay. It seems to me that you might want to include him also, since – after all—your sole agenda is the welfare of the child. Right?

Oh but maybe that’s part of what Abraxas was referring to when he said he would protect his pedo-brothers no matter what. And remember now, NO SNITCHING!

And when you speak of little girls WANTING to have physical relationships with old dudes like you and um Albert Ross...



I wonder if you actually do believe that a little girl wants to be kissed by something like oh maybe.... Albert Ross?








Or to be fondled by hands like these?










Oh but maybe I’ve misunderstood you. Have I? What were you thinking when you wrote these things? Maybe you just WEREN’T. Thinking that is. Perhaps you were just….oh, I don’t know DROPPING ACID maybe?

You are absolutely correct, being a girl lover does come with responsibilities. Taking drugs also comes with responsibilities. I accept the responsibilities of both a girl lover and a drug taker. I would only correct you only on one thing. I do not ever 'lose myself in the abandon of an artificial state of euphoria" thus I do not risk losing myself. I do not use drugs as an escape, but as an affirmation of who I am. I maintain control of my mental faculties, whilst I let the dragon out of his cage for a season...

And when you replied regarding the Fox News account of this woman who had objections to you trying to influence and manipulate children and you replied:

Is teaching one's children by example to lead an unhealthy lifestyle not dangerous? Is this not in itself a form of child abuse? Sex is better for this child than a poor diet, that is for certain.

I'm sure that you weren't referring to your own unhealthy habits, were you Lindsay? Are you...Lindsay Ashford...the all-knowing expert on raising children? Are you...Lindsay Ashford...the best your community has to offer?