Jack's Back

We talked about pedophile Jack McClellan and his pedophile website recently HERE and HERE

Jack has his site back up and running, and guess what folks? He's right back to perving on kiddies. Hanging out at local events, taking pictures of other peoples children.....without their knowledge or permission. Ask Sabrina...this is one upset mother. Who can blame her? She has a message for Jack

"Stop, or else!"

Jack, just like Lindsay Ashford claims he's just exercising his first amendment rights. He sees nothing wrong with the contempt he's showing society. He's going to push, push, push the issue. It matters not to him that Sabrina doesn't want her daughter on a stinking pedophile's website. To Sabrina I say You Go Girl and to Jack I say There's more than one way to skin a cat Jack.

You and your cohorts show absolutely no common decency or respect for society in general. Why the hell do you think we should show you any?

Now State Senator Val Stevens is drafting legislation to be introduced in the next session to make this website illegal in Washington....and hopefully to be expanded later to the Federal level. Who knows, before this is over we might get this sort of thing going in far off places, say places like oh maybe Canada or how about the Netherlands? It's amazing what you can accomplish with a little elbow grease and a lot of determination.

Jack McClellan doesn't deserve respect. Lindsay Ashford doesn't deserve respect. These scornful men are manipulative child predators. And we don't take that lightly. Not at all. We've been huffing and puffing so far, but now a harsh wind has begun to blow. Listen guys, can you hear it? It sounds to me like the Anti's are coming.

This is going to take time, and they may win little skirmishes along the way, but in the end we will win the war. And that war will be decisive. Monitor yourselves, control yourselves, understand what is acceptable behavior.....because if you don't, someone will surely do it for you. This is our children's safety that's at stake, and we don't compromise when it comes to that. So, keep watching. Are you watching, Jack?

A Profile of Pedophilia Part 2

To continue on with our discussion of the article published by the Mayo Clinic Dr. Seto classifies pedophiles according to whether or not child pornography and/or a computer was used to engage the child in sexual activity.

1. Stalkers - who try to gain physical access to children
2. Cruisers - who use the internet for direct sexual pleasure without physical contact (chat rooms)
3. Masturbators - who use the internet for passive gratification (child pornography)
4. Networkers or Swappers - who communicate with other pedophiles and trade information, pornography, and children
5. Combination of the previous 4 types

According to Ken Lanning

30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child

According to NCMEC

Forty percent (40%) of those estimated arrestees were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors.

According to the Crimes Against Children Research Center

We found 40% of the cases involving CP possession in the N-JOV Study involved dual offenses of CP possession and child sexual victimization detected in the course of the same investigation. All of these offenders had identified child victims. An additional 15% both possessed CP and attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators posing online as minors. When these cases of attempted child sexual victimization are counted, 55% of the CP possessors were dual offenders

Here are some other quick stats:

• 39% of arrested offenders who met victims online possessed child pornography
• 43% of offenders who solicited undercover investigators posing onine as minors possessed child pornography
• 27% of dual offenders had shown or given child pornography to identified victims
• Approximately 1 in 5 arrested CP possessors (21%) had images depicting sexual violence to children such as bondage, rape, and torture.
• Most had images of prepubescent children (83%) and images graphically depicting sexual penetration (80%)
• One in six investigations beginning with allegations or investigations of CP possession discovered dual offenders.
• 39% of arrested offenders who met victims online and 43% of offenders who solicited undercover investigators were dual offenders
• Almost all arrested CP possessors (96%) were convicted or plead guilty, and 59% were incarcerated.

And should you wonder what motivates these possessors of child pornography, Taylor & Quayle has this to say:

• Sexually interested in prepubescent children (pedophiles) or young adolescents (hebephiles), who use child-pornography images for sexual fantasy and gratification
• Sexually “indiscriminant,” meaning they are constantly looking for new and different sexual stimuli
• Sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity
• Interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up web sites requiring payment for access

Dr Seto said:

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.

What were the images?

• 83% had images of children between the ages of 6 and 12
• 39% had images of 3 to 5 year old children
• 19% had images of toddlers or infants younger than 3
• 92% had images of minors focusing on genitals or showing explicit sexual activity
• 80% had pictures showing the sexual penetration of a child, including oral sex
• 21% had child pornography depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture. Most of these involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex

What happened to these men? Does anyone think it's easy to get out of something like this? Well I believe that they get a slap on the wrist compared to what they should get, but they don't get off that easy. It does indeed effect their lives and in some cases you might say it destroys them. Their reputation, their marriages, their jobs even. Basically they lose the respect of anyone who has known them. Who could respect someone who does such a thing? How many get away with it completely? Look at the following chart


Returning to Ken Lanning 's Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis whom the pedophiles misquote on almost a daily basis and whose work is quoted extensively in the Mayo article I'd like to share some random quotes of his that ties in nicely with this discussion

P 30 Need-driven behavior leads to bewildering mistakes

P 43 Pedophiles are skilled at manipulating children

P 52 Pedophiles almost always collect child pornography and/or erotica

P 69 Collecting this material may help them satisfy, deal with, or reinforce their compulsive persistent sexual fantasies…..Collecting may also fulfill needs for validation. …It is almost as though each hour spent on the internet and each communication and image is evidence of the value and legitimacy of their behavior.

P 70 Although their brains may tell them not to send child pornography or reveal details of past or planned criminal acts to someone they met online, their need for validation often compels them to do so. They believe what they need to believe

P 81 Pedophiles are more likely to use trickery, bribery or seduction to take their photographs of children. …..Many pedophiles even collect photographs of children who are complete strangers to them….

From David Alway aka Lindsay Ashford who spreads propaganda that child pornography doesn't exist to his pedo brothers: Nigel (convicted of greater than 11,000 CP images), Taf-Kat (convicted of greater than 70,000 images), to Infinity moderator of GirlChat (a picture of a six yr old giving a blow-job and a subscription to a little girl nudie site) and justified it like this:

What was I thinking? Apparently I wasn't thinking, that is what an addict does, they do not think about what they are doing or any consequences, they just need the "fix". I liked looking at those pics and I made a mistake

I SURVIVED the NIGHTMARE that is prison, and I got out, got a kick-ass job, have tons of lg's in my life

All these guys lead right back to Lindsay and men like Dylan Thomas of BoyChat who promote child porn and child prostitution.

I got off the Mayo article a bit here with this discussion of child pornography which was only a small part of the article as it covers the entire pedophile topic. CP is a big issue. It's HUGE. Regardless of what Lindsay Ashford or even the lowly Jackson would tell you.....We've talked about this before. About the Lindsay's of the world who love children so much that they want to legalize the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of dirty old men. We asked Who are these men? and Is this a game? We talked about John Melanson aka Camper who said:

Our desire for porn makes us use bad judgement sometimes

And now we'll talk about Stitches who says "I know what they're looking for" I certainly don't need a nodding pedo head - ILGO style to tell me it isn't so. We'll get back to Part 3 with the Mayo article soon but for now here's some random search terms from the last few hours:

• diaper child models
• panties children kids fucking
• kindergarten pedo rape
  
• share pics boylover
• preteens pedo porn
• pics vids mommy's boyfriend jacking off on little daughter
• pedo sex with 5yo girls
• pedo girls nude -teen -video
• web.archive boylove gallery
• watch illegal underground child porn of preteen girls
• young girls fucking
• mexican pedo pics
• exploit porn child free pictures girls
• kids pedo pics
• child models panties
• child porn video pedo rape
• 10yo boys naked and hard after sex

And my favorite:

• can someone go to jail for viewing child porn in their past?
• safe payment hard cp pedo
• how to pass the abel assessment
  
  

I'll leave you with this thought: When the pedophile community attempt to ridicule what you are doing, when they scoff and when they rant, sometimes when they try to charm you...... remember who and what they are. Remember their motives for saying these things, and remember above all the results from the N-JOV Study

more than half of child pornography possession cases began with reports from individuals to law enforcement

A Profile of Pedophilia Part 1

Nigel sure does like this article published by the Mayo Clinic. I can't figure out for the life of me why though. Maybe he just doesn't understand it? Or maybe he just obsessively collects anything that has the word pedophile in it as though it were some sort of trophy. On the other hand, maybe his pathological need for attention leads him to do those things. In any event, here it is.

Released in April of this year and co-authored by Drs. Ryan and Richard Hall, A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues is in response to the increased public awareness of pedophilia and to educate physicians regarding the issue.

So, what's in it exactly? Nothing that could help Nigel. Nothing that could help any of them actually. Let's look at some of the highlights which interestingly enough reflect our position on the issues here at AZ.

It includes the types of sexual acts pedophiles may engage in with children listed by types of paraphilias...exhibitionism etc.

Generally, pedophiles do not use force to have children engage in these activities but instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children)

A US Department of Justice manual for law enforcement officers identifies 5 common psychological defense patterns in pedophiles:

1. denial "Is it wrong to give a child a hug?"
   
2. minimization "It only happened once"
   
3. justification "I am a boy lover, not a child molester"
   
4. fabrication "the activites were research"
   
5. attack "character attacks on the child, police etc"
   

Sound familiar?
The article continues with diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and gives this information from a study by Gene Abel

40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.

It then talks about categories of pedophiles, exclusive or nonexclusive and homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts. Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts. A study by Abel et al of 377 nonincarcerated, non–incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts.

These studies confirm law enforcement reports about the serial nature of the crime, the large number of children abused by each pedophile, and the underreporting of assaults. Studies that used self-reports and polygraphs show that pedophiles currently in treatment under report their current interest in children and past behaviors

Wonder why they would under report? Is this article saying that's typical behavior for a pedophile to...what....lie?

Then it goes on to discuss incest:

Federal data show that 27% of all sexual offenders assaulted family members. The study by Abel and Harlow found that 68% of “child molesters” had molested a family member; 30% had molested a stepchild, a foster child, or an adopted child; 19% had molested 1 or more of their biologic children; 18% had molested a niece or nephew; and 5% had molested a grandchild

Let's look at that a moment, as one of the favorite "statistics" that pedophiles love to toss around is that 90% of all child molestations are not committed by pedophiles. They got that information from an unethical journalist, but claim it came from an expert in the field. David Alway aka Lindsay Ashford is the one who started that deceitful propaganda, while all the little pedo heads nodded in unison as it spread like wild fire through their community. Having witnessed Ashford repeat that statistic with my own eyes, and having seen the media fail to follow up with that, you have to wonder why. Why do they allow that statement to stand? Because they don't know....it doesn't sound right, no but not having devoted their life to the issue well no, they haven't read the literature.....It's not pleasant reading that's for sure. They know it doesn't sound right but they have a creepy little pedophile sitting in front of them spouting off statements as FACT and the result is that the statement ends up hanging there in mid air. This is what they want.

Can't you just see Lindsay now? Digging, digging deep down into the bowels of the internet to find one sentence......NOT backed up by what the author actually said I might add and suddenly it's EVERYWHERE! Pedophiles are all aware of this statement. Lindsay even edited Wikipedia and added it there. Just goes to show you that something doesn't have to be true to make it into a Wiki entry. Yet only a handful can tell you where it came from and not a single one of them will be honest with you and tell you that it isn't true after the deception was uncovered HERE

The other little trick they try to pull (and unfortunately it worked on pedophiles) is to try to claim that the difference between a situational versus preferential means something different than what it really means. These were two terms coined by Ken Lanning to aid LEA in understanding how to investigate CSA cases. There's a very interesting post regarding the pedophiles misinterpretation of this Lanning report located HERE

Concerning the above they routinely fail to understand when they make the statement that most abuse is committed by family members, is that number 1 that's a false statement, number 2 just because someone is committing incest does not mean that they are not a pedophile. The studies they link to showing the numbers of abuse do not address the question of whether or not the perpetrator is a pedophile. And in fact Ken Lanning stated in his report that this was one of the biggest mistakes law enforcement make when investigating a case involving incest when they assume that there are no other victims but one.

I'll have to come back to this Mayo article later as there is simply too much to fit into one post. I do think you will find it valuable reading though should you care to take the time with it. It includes heavy referencing of the work of Dr. Gene Abel who conducted one of the largest, most comprehensive studies to date and was subsequently labeled a crackpot by none other than the dad-beating boy-luster BlueRibbon. It also references the expert Ken Lanning who was libeled and defamed by a child predator known as Lindsay Ashford....The result being? Now the entire pedo community believes the great Lindsay lie.

This is just one more example of the dangers of pedo congregation, and I'll leave you with a perfect example. We talked about an Australian report HERE, we explained how pedophiles had misinterpreted that report........there is no doubt about it. And yet HERE we have JD420 stubbornly continuing to make the same pedo-lie to new people. Pedo activism....purposefully deceiving....proliferation of lies with a sinister ulterior motive---gaining sexual access to children.

JohnDoe420 is the very epitome of why. Why places like AZ exist...... and just as importantly why we will not stop.

Ken Lanning said:

Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts.

Gene Abel said:

Pedophilia is the most significant cause of child molestation.

Legislation Proposal

MADISON — Wisconsin employers could fire and refuse to hire convicted child molesters, kidnappers and murderers under a Republican bill that would carve out an exemption to the state's fair employment law.

If the proposal passes, it likely would be the first law of its kind in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The state Assembly is scheduled to take the bill up Wednesday.

Current state law prohibits employers from considering a criminal conviction when deciding to fire or hire someone unless the crime substantially relates to the job. The new bill would allow employers to fire or turn away convicted sexual or violent offenders, regardless of whether their crimes have a bearing on the job.

The bill's author, state Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, said current state law allows sexual and violent offenders to hold jobs where they can interact with potential victims in ways that don't qualify as substantial, such as greeting customers at a retail store.

Employers should have the right to decide who works for them, he added.

"Every time you see on the news another child who's been raped or murdered by a predator pedophile it should make anybody's stomach turn and skin crawl," Kleefisch said. "At the time you commit a sexual assault, you've just made a lot of things in your life a lot harder from here on out."

Republicans control the Assembly, and Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, supports the bill, his spokesman said.

But the measure also must pass the Democratic-controlled state Senate and get Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's signature before it can become law.

Doyle's spokesman said the governor has to review the bill. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, D-Beloit, didn't immediately return messages.

The bill goes with another GOP measure that would allow a school district to fire or refuse to hire any felon, no matter whether the conviction had anything to do with the job. The Assembly is scheduled to consider that bill on Wednesday as well.

Doyle vetoed a nearly identical measure last session.

If Wisconsin passes the bill it will be a fair precedent for other states to follow suit. Child predators routinely say that the answer to the problem of child sex abuse is to educate children so that they know which one of the perverts are abusing them and which ones are loving them. Okay, I will also say the answer is education.........educate these pedofreaks that when they go after our kids there will be no welcoming place left for them to go.

Let your voice be heard before the Senate vote takes place!

Contact Wisconsin state senators HERE

Contact Governor Jim Doyle HERE

Chance To Respond

Here is the chance for any PF to actually completely respond to a post on Absolute Zero.

I asked this question in a previous post and received no directed responses whatsoever.

I believed, then, that the question required its own stand-alone post. The question is this:

List for me, if you will, the personal or societal benefits of paedophilia, for both sides of the perpetrated act.

I solicit any and all input.

I would also humbly request that members of AZ refrain from either editing, interfering, deleting or rephrasing the responses acquired from this question.

I wish to see any and all responses in their complete and unadulterated forms.

AZ is now providing any and all with a promotional board to explain, in detail, their inclinations, tendencies, proclivities and reasons for their urges.

Please explain your answer to the above question.

AZ staff, management, contributors: please allow the resulting comments absent any editing.

Thank you kindly, on each side, for your input. But beware: answer the question directly. I myself have the capability to edit should I desire. Be brief and succinct.

BZ

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.

Veracity?

Is science-fiction Big-Three Member (Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, ACC) author Arthur C. Clarke a pedophile?

Did he leave the UK for Colombo, Sri Lanka due to his diving proclivities or others? Unawares: Sri Lanka happens to be the global capital for boy prostitutes.

Noted:

[1] In 1953, Clarke married Marilyn Mayfield, an American. The relationship ended a mere 6 months later. Though Clarke is generally unwilling to discuss his sexuality, on this matter he explained: "The marriage was incompatible from the beginning. It was sufficient proof that I wasn't the marrying type, although I think everybody should marry once."

SciFi saint or closet refusist?

Arthur C. Clarke was in the news. Just days before he was due to be knighted by Prince Charles the reactionary old science fiction writer and 'futurist' had confessed to being a common pederast, preying on the impoverished boys of Sri Lanka, where he had lived like some sort of honoured cultural icon and patron saint of 'sex tours' for four decades. I had always wondered why he moved there and now the old bastard had just blurted it out.

Weigh in.

BZ

Lindsay Slipped ~ Oops

Is anyone here aware of the new effort against Lindsay Ashford? Petra Luna is calling for search engines to de-list Lindsay. (Hey Lindsay, here's a clue.....they can). Petra went on KTRH Newsradio and was interviewed by Scott Braddock concerning this effort. You can listen to it HERE

Scott also interviewed Lindsay. You can listen to it at the same location....if you can stomach it. It was mostly just more of the same old nauseating drivel that emanates from the words and writings of this sick twisted sissy-man. But there were a few things from the interview that I wanted to make note of. Let's start here:

Scott: Do you think that children who have any type of sex with adults grow up to be well adjusted?

Lindsay: I think that some do.

Scott: Do you know of any?

Lindsay: I know of people who had sexual encounters when they were elementary school age children.

Scott: And you think they're alright?

Lindsay: I think they're fine.

Let's stop there and first look at his one-time partner Todd Nickerson. Todd was molested as a small boy, I believe it was a fondling episode. To this day he can't come to terms with it. "Did the man care for me?" He still asks himself. Well, Todd, I'm sorry to say, that no, no the man did not care for you. He merely groped you, that's what perverts do. When you go on one of your rants, when you're confused and tormented by it.......you are asking the wrong people for advice when you go to GirlChat for answers. They are perverts! What do you expect? Perhaps you should try writing a survivor letter to your abuser instead.

As for Lindsay, he failed to tell Scott Braddock that he himself was molested by his babysitter when he was 4 years old. He failed to tell Scott about how he never told anyone, how it tormented him and he thought of it as a trauma, how screwed up it made him when he was going through puberty. He failed to tell Scott about his multiple suicide attempts and his bipolar disorder. His multiple hospitalizations in mental institutions and how he is still not alright to this very day. Yeah he left off that part. But, moving on....

Scott: So there should be no laws regarding people who for example do what most people consider to be molestation of children?

Lindsay: I think that there should be laws against any form of sexual contact which are obtained by force, coercion,manipulation or deception.

What? Lindsay agrees! There should be no deception! Then what do you call all that rubbish on your website, Lindsay? All those twisted and skewed academic articles? The twisting of Ken Lanning for example, and gosh darn even the DOJ report, you've screwed that up too! How do you explain the ethics behind manipulation of facts for the purpose of deceiving people, which is in turn to create some sort of change of opinion about you and yours?

How do you explain your actions? That's not honesty.....so why would you feel people should take what you say seriously and believe you when you say that you wouldn't harm a child under any circumstances when your entire website is a purposeful misrepresentation? Why should they believe you when you say that a child who was abused wasn't really abused? Or when you say your website is not hosted in the Evil Empire then try to claim free speech protection under the American Constitution? Why should they trust you to be a fine, up-standing man when you post what you know to be a form letter from StC....which they rescinded...and you leave it there when they request it be removed and your sole purpose is to deceive people into believing that StC endorses you?

Why should they feel anything other than repugnance when they see you mock society....or children who were abused, or murdered? You are a walking, talking, breathing LIE, Lindsay Ashford. You are dishonest, unethical, calculating, malicious, and unconscionable. But there's more:

Lindsay: I think that so long as there is consent and respect that children should be allowed to....

Scott: Do you think that a 5 year old grasps what's going on well enough to be able to consent to sexual activity?

Lindsay: A 5 year old understands friendship. A 5 year old understands affection.

Scott: So can a 2 year old?

Lindsay: A 2 year old understands pleasure.

Scott: So they can consent to sex?

Lindsay: They can consent to pleasurable activity

Scott: Can a 6 month old do that?

Lindsay: I'm sure that 6 months old also have nerve endings and understanding and an understanding of what is pleasurable to them, yes

Scott: So a 6 month old can consent to sex

Lindsay: A 6 month old can consent to activity that it finds pleasurable

Scott: And so you don't understand why you get death threats?

There you have it. A condensed version, but if you can bear it go listen to the entire thing. Let's see what the girl chatters had to say about their hero

Hayaku: She should get the hell of the internet. The last frontier of free speech, and a very exciting one, and a bunch of mentally ill christofascist bitches with nothing better to do than make stupid petitions and complaints try and spoil it all.

albertross: lindsay - you hit every ball home - i could almost believe your interviewer was feeding you lines from a script - he was classic, and you walked him smack into every wall on the court. well played, sir - absolutely impeccable.

Was he listening to the same interview I was??

Elminster: You're my fucking hero, dude! You have balls the size of Jupiter!

Student: Aside from being articulate, you have a delightful accent, man.

LOL, read more about that here.

"The Brits are really surprised when I say I'm
American, because my accent is really good, so
I'd say that I'm the second American who can pull it off."

For the record, he's from San Francisco and if you listen carefully you'll hear him slip sometimes when he's talking. Some things you can only fake for so long, in fact he did it in this interview.

Student: That 6-month-old baby he threw at you was uncalled for. I suppose he was just trying to trip you up and test you for consistency, but it certainly drove down the amount of rational thought going on in his listening audience, which was already pretty low. Lindsay, you have Balls of Titanium

Hierophant: I was almost in tears luaghing at the Texas radio host.

Trucker: TOOT TOOT!!! (NT)

Hayaku: More nutjobs that make no sense fighting us. Makes us look like the smart ones.

SUNDAYS AND CYBELE: cant wait for judgement day and the 2nd coming. BURN ANTI'S BURN!

Febri-chan: God bless puellula and Mr. Ashford until and beyond the end of the world!

Norbert: Who made a better case?

LOL I believe that was a rhetorical question.

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!

Local (ACLU) lawyer permanently disbarred for child-sex online chats

Monday, April 16, 2007
By MICHAELANGELO CONTE

JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Chatting online about sex with someone he believed was a 12-year-old boy has earned a Jersey City lawyer permanent disbarment in New Jersey, officials said.

The disbarment is the result of a guilty plea by Steven C. Cunningham to one count of attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child, an act that “reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer,” according to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

On three separate occasions between September and October 2004, Cunningham chatted online via his home computer in Jersey City with a person he believed to be a 12-year-old boy, officials said. In reality, it was an undercover Passaic County investigator.

During the sessions, Cunningham “described, in lurid detail, certain sexual acts that he hoped to perform on the boy,” court papers said.

“He also described sex acts that he hoped to teach the boy to perform on him, inviting the child to ‘get together in New York,’” according to the documents.

Cunningham pleaded guilty to the charges Dec. 13, 2005, and was sentenced to parole supervision for the rest of his life, court papers say.
A similar case in 2002 resulted in a one-year suspension for another lawyer, but the state Supreme Court instead ordered disbarment for life, saying society’s view of such crimes is more harsh today.

“These rules change as society change and the court is obviously viewing them as among the most serious violations an attorney can commit,” said David E. Johnson Jr., director of the Office of Attorney Ethics. “This is a very serious matter and the court imposed the most serious discipline.”
Cunningham had no prior record nor prior attorney ethics charges, officials said. The disbarment only affects his status to practice law in New Jersey; authorities said he also is licensed to practice law in New York, but Johnson said his office is notifying authorities there.

Cunningham could not be reached at his Jersey City residence for comment.

Court papers say he was employed by the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, but officials at that office did not immediately return calls.

DUNT, DUNT, DUNT... ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!