[Off-Topic] Shade Get Help (Long)
Shade Bane
Even more of your quotes have been sent to me, and these are far more
damning than anything I had seen.
I am stunned you would ever say these things.
I feel sick about the things you have told the world you have done
I feel sick about the emotion damage you have done to numerous children,
not just the three you have admitted touching sexually.
If you truly feel nothing about any of this, then you are a sociopath
and the rest of this message has no meaning, because you have no real
emotions. If you are a sociopath, God help you and everyone who ever
comes in contact with you.
BUT...
I think you do have real emotions and feelings about this.
I think that's why you've chosen to relentlessly post in chat rooms,
muds, web forums, and now in these newsgroups.
I think that what you really want is to justify yourself, find some
accord with the rest of humanity, "harmonize your views" as you like to
say it.
I think you do this because you are a profoundly lonely young man.
I think you do this because in real life, you are unable to interact
with your peers.
I think you turn to children because they are not sophisticated enough,
experienced enough, or wary enough to reject you.
And that is what all of this is about. Your rejection. By everyone.
I don't mean everyone in this newsgroup.
I mean everyone.
In the real world.
And online.
It *is* important to be honest, and to talk about mistakes you have
made.
But not here. Not on the internet. Not with strangers. And most
importantly, not with people who are not *trained* to help you. I'm
sorry to tell you this Scott, but I do not believe you are totally
honest with any of the mental health care workers that you have seen.
I, and most everyone else I am willing to bet, do not believe you would
be here if you had.
Do you really want help, Scott?
Do you want to live a truly productive and happy life, as you have
posted?
If that is so, then you must take the first step, and you have not yet
done so.
You should read this carefully. It is from the Alcoholics Anonymous 12
step program, a plan that works for most people who truly put their
hearts into it. I know you are not an alcoholic, and that isn't the
point. The point is that if you want to change your life, *you* and no
one else must take the first step:
1) We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had
become unmanageable.
2) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us
to sanity.
3) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of
God, as we understood Him.
4) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5) Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact
nature of our wrongs.
6) Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of
character.
7) Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8) Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make
amends to them all.
9) Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to
do so would injure them or others.
10) Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly
admitted it.
11) Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious
contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of
His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12) Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we
tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these
principles in all our affairs.
A little research this morning reveals this useful website:
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/pedo.htm
The page is long so I won't post it verbatim here., but excerpt it at
the bottom of this message. But I suggest strongly you read it
completely. And then Scott, I urge you to commit yourself, literally
and figuratively, to working out the problems you have.
As for the website I've put up, you can not get rid of it. Tripod might
choose to take it down because of the explict nature of your quotes. If
they do, the entire site already exists on three other hosts. And
getting more will not be difficult. Before you make wild statements
about libel again, I'd highly suggest you consult a lawyer about the
nature of libel. And despite your claim, I've done nothing to submit
the sites to any search engines. But web crawlers *will* find the sites
and cache them eventually.
So I'll make you this deal:
You post *once* in this newsgroup saying:
1) You are committing yourself to truly seeking qualified medical care
immediately.
2) You are withdrawing from the usenet for at least a year
3) You promise not to start a mud in any form for at least a year
If you do that, I'll replace the current page on the websites with the
body of your message.
If you remain true to your word for at least a year, I will remove the
websites in their entirety.
Before you reject this out-of-hand, I suggest you think it over. It is
much less harsh than what many others want for you. And it *is* in your
best interest, even if you cannot clearly fathom it at this moment in
time.
If you choose to ignore this plea, I assure you that you will face the
full force of criminal and civil law. You will face investigations by
police and by the media. You will face the possibility that private
detectives will be hired to seek out and notify the parents of the
children you've (admitted publicly) to be involved with. Please note
that by your own accounts, you have violated section s.151 of the
Canadian criminal code three times. And you could certainly be sued in
Civil court by the parents.
It won't be me Scott. It will be the dozens of people in this newsgroup
and others who feel you are dangerous to children and who have *already*
reported you to Canadian and US criminal authorities and media.
The choice is yours Scott. Most people will not believe you have the
strength to do the right thing. You can prove them wrong, Scott, and
you can begin doing it today.
========= From the Victims of Violence Website =========
WHAT IS PEDOPHILIA?
Pedophilia is the long term sexual interest by adults in children under
the legal age of 18. Generally, the acts of a pedophile include any
"sexual contact between an offender and a victim, who, due to age/or
immaturity, is incapable either legally or realistically of giving
consent." Pedophiles can be grouped into three distinct categories:
heterosexual pedophiles (attracted to children of the opposite sex),
homosexual pedophiles (attracted to children of the same sex), or
bisexual pedophiles (attracted to children of both sexes). Furthermore,
there are two kinds of pedophile relationships, namely the incestuous
relationship (having sexual relations with children in their family),
and extra-familial abuse (having sexual relations with children who are
not a family member). While the scientific community has given much
debate to the 'proper' definition of pedophilia, there seems to be some
agreement on three main characteristics. These three characteristics are
as
follows:
- A highly sexually arousing, long-term and unusual erotic
preoccupation or fantasy;
- A pressure to act out this preoccupation; and,
- Sexual dysfunction during conventional sexual behavior with a
partner, such as problems of desire, arousal or orgasm.
THE TYPICAL PEDOPHILE
Pedophiles often share various common characteristics beyond just being
attracted to children. While this list is by no means exclusive to
pedophiles, most pedophiles seem to exhibit most or all of these
features:
- Low Self Esteem - The offender feels that they are of very little use
to others, have no definable goals, and they feel that they are useless
to society. Feelings of helplessness or hurt are common, as is clinical
depression.
- 'Mastery of Trauma' - This refers to the fact that most offenders
were sexually abused as children, and have not received treatment. The
pedophile, by victimizing a child, feels that they have control over
themselves and the situation.
- Heightened Arousal to Children - While this is obvious, such arousal
can cause feelings of alienation from society, and contribute to the
offender's low self esteem.
- Difficulty Relating to Adults of the Opposite Sex - Most offenders
have very limited relationships with adult females and if they were ever
married, it is only for a short period of time. Pedophiles feel
intimidated, often resentful, to adult females and feel more comfortable
with children. When engaging in sexual activities with adults,
pedophiles often use images of pedophilia or fantasies to bring arousal
and pleasure.
- Very Limited Social Skills - Most pedophiles have very limited social
skills when dealing with adults. Adults will find the offenders
'immature' or 'weird'. The offender is more 'childlike' in social
skills, finding it easier to relate to children. This is not to imply
that pedophiles are stupid, which is not true, only they display limited
ability to engage in 'normal' adult activities.
- Sexual Anxiety - To a pedophile, the notion of heterosexual adult sex
is often repulsive or frightening. This can be attributed to either
their sexual preference of children, or the childhood abuse that they
may have suffered.
- Unresolved Family Problems - Pedophiles often exhibit frustration
with their mother, or hatred towards their father. These problems are
often the contributing factor towards low self esteem.
- Failure to Control Impulses - One of the most defining factors of a
true pedophile is their failure to control their actions. As described
above, the pedophile will act willingly and purposefully on their
fantasies, without regard for others safety, welfare, or consent.
- They Will Seek Out Children - This prospect is often the most
frightening. Pedophiles will 'hunt' for victims. They are aggressive
offenders who coldly and methodically plan and execute their offences.
Pedophiles will often attempt employment in areas in which children are
known to frequent such as malls, schools, playgrounds, and arcades.
- They Feel Little or No Remorse - Pedophiles often do not see the
'wrong' or harm in what they have done. Often, according to the
pedophile, the victim 'deserved it' or 'asked for it'. They absolve
themselves of any wrong doing or guilt, and are not bothered by a
nagging conscious. This factor is one of the most important in the steps
to treating offenders, as if they feel they did nothing wrong they are
guaranteed to do it again.
- They Have a Criminal Record - Many sex offenders have come to the
attention of police prior to their activities of pedophilia. Some
pedophiles are arrested for offences commonly linked to pedophiles such
as child pornography, while others come to police attention for
unrelated activities such as robbery, or shoplifting. Often the crimes
are characteristic of the pedophile's limited social skills
(shoplifting) or exhibit some aggressive tendencies (robbery).
Pedophiles who are not in high profile positions (such as priests or
school teachers) are often no strangers to the police in their area.
- They Have Done it Before... - Pedophiles who are arrested will often
brag to police or correctional officers that they have committed many
other offences.
CANADIAN LAW
The sexual abuse or molestation of children has been the subject of
heavy regulation in Canada. Laws concerning pedophiles can be found in
both the Criminal Code and the Child Welfare Act. These acts cover a
wide range of offences including sexual acts, sexual exploitation,
touching, incest, as well as child pornography. Each act is aimed at
preventing child molestation, as well as placing the minimum amount of
stress or burden on a child in the courtroom.
i) Criminal Code Offences
The Criminal Code of Canada outlines various offences that pertain to
pedophiles. The most obvious of these can be found in s. 150.1 to s. 155
(Sexual Offences), s. 163, s. 163.1, s.271 to 273.1(Sexual Assault) and
s. 753 (Dangerous Offenders). Below is a list of these sections, with a
brief explanation:
s. 150.1 - Consent no Defense: This section prohibits the use of
consent as an excuse to an offence of Sexual Assault, or any Sexual
Offences. This section also defines and outlines the legal defense of
consent.
s. 151 - Sexual Interference: Makes it an offence to touch, for a
sexual purpose, any part of the body of a person under 14 years of age.
s. 152 - Invitation to Sexual Touching: Makes it an offence to
initiate or council a person under 14 years of age to touch, for a
sexual purpose, the body of another.
s. 153 - Sexual Exploitation: This is a specific offence for those
in a position of trust or authority (such as a teacher or priest), who
touch or invite a touch from those over 14, but under the age of 18.
s. 154 - Incest: This section makes it an offence to have sexual
intercourse with someone who is a blood relation including grandparents
and half brothers and sisters.
s. 163 - Corrupting Morals: This section makes it an offence to
actually, or even intend, to distribute obscene material. This section
can be used against pedophiles in a unique way to prevent material such
as child pornography or pedophile literature from being downloaded (or
copied) off the Internet or limit the amount of information, such as
pictures, that can be distributed by pedophile groups.
s. 163.1 - Definition of Child Pornography: This section defines,
and creates several offences relating to child pornography. This section
is also relevant to pedophiles as it makes it an offence to make, print,
publish or possess any child pornography. Most pedophiles use such
material in their fantasy or high risk stage.
s. 271 - Sexual Assault: This section prohibits the intentional
application of sexual force, directly or indirectly, to a person without
consent.
s. 273.1 - The Meaning of Consent: This section defines consent. It
states that consent must be given prior to and during any sexual
activity. The voluntary agreement must not be obtained by anyone other
than the person, from a person incapable of consenting (a child), or
within a relationship where trust and authority are present. This
prevents pedophiles from claiming that victims 'consented' or 'chose' to
engage in sexual activities. This section also states that children
under the age of 12 cannot consent to any sexual activities unless their
partner is less than 2 years older then they are.
ii) The Child Welfare Act
The Child Welfare Act allows the state to take another form of action,
civilly rather than criminally. This Act involves a wider range of
sexually abusive activity.
Section 47(1) states that abuse is a "condition of physical harm,
malnutrition or mental health or sexual molestation." Thus, pedophiles
who are hurting family members, or children within their care, can also
be charged with abuse under the Child Welfare Act.
TREATMENT FOR PEDOPHILES
Pedophilia is not only a sexual preference, but also a 'psychological
disorder' that forces its suffers into 'needs' for gratification.
Because of this, pedophiles are never cured, but can only learn, or be
forced, to control these 'urges'. Pedophiles, because of their cycle of
offending, must be given some form of treatment to prevent re-offending.
Yet according to the Supreme Court of Canada, treatment cannot be forced
upon a pedophile. There are various methods that are used, or have been
used, to prevent pedophiles from re-offending. These methods include:
Therapy - Pedophiles who are convicted and sentenced to jail time
can choose to attend a wide variety of therapies. Therapy often involves
working in groups or individually towards changing sexual preferences,
or associating bad actions with bad consequences. The main objective of
therapy within the prison system is relapse prevention. While treatment
is a necessity for all pedophiles, these traditional forms of treatment
such as psychiatric treatment or group therapy have shown little success
upon recidivism rates.
Electronic Monitoring - This method works as a permanent 'watchdog'
for the offender. When an offender is released from prison an electronic
bracelet or anklet is attached to them. This device will monitor the
offender's activity and daily routine. If the parole officer finds that
the offender has been frequenting high risk areas such as adult book
stores or school yards then this can be seen as a violation of parole
and used to put the offender back in jail. This method, chosen to be
left out of the new High Risk Offender legislation by former Justice
Minister Allan Rock, has been met with mixed success in the United
States.
Chemical Castration is the administration of drugs to decrease
hormone levels, thus making it impossible for men to become sexually
aroused. This method provides no permanent solution, and also requires
the pedophile to participate in the program by attending doctors
appointments to receive the drugs. This method has been met with great
success in the United States. Offenders have a very low re-offending
rate, and report that the drugs even seem to reduce the occurrence of
fantasies, one of the stages in the cycle of pedophilia. The danger of
this treatment method is clear though, as it requires the pedophiles
active participation and continued commitment. Opponents of this method
argue that child molestation does not necessarily involve sexual
intercourse, and pedophiles can still engage in touching or molesting.
Castration - Actual surgical castration involves removing
testosterone, the hormone linked to sexually aggressive behavior, from
the bloodstream, thereby lowering the male sex drive. This method is
irreversible as it involves removing the testes. While the re-offending
rate is extremely low after the operation, most North American countries
feel that the process has too much opportunity for abuse, and is
therefore not used.
Blane Bramble
>
[lots of interesting stuff removed, just to comment on a few specific
points of Canadian law - thanks Shade Bane!]
Replies addressed to Scott, not Shade Bane!
>
> s. 150.1 - Consent no Defense: This section prohibits the use of
> consent as an excuse to an offence of Sexual Assault, or any Sexual
> Offences. This section also defines and outlines the legal defense of
> consent.
So, you can't claim she was leading you on, or wanted it.
>
> s. 151 - Sexual Interference: Makes it an offence to touch, for a
> sexual purpose, any part of the body of a person under 14 years of age.
I guess "fingering" is out then.
>
> s. 163 - Corrupting Morals: This section makes it an offence to
> actually, or even intend, to distribute obscene material. This section
> can be used against pedophiles in a unique way to prevent material such
> as child pornography or pedophile literature from being downloaded (or
> copied) off the Internet or limit the amount of information, such as
> pictures, that can be distributed by pedophile groups.
Hmmm, I think your cybersex license might be just a little dodgy with
this one.
Blane.
H. McDaniel
Canadians, you may be held legally responsible for not reporting Scott Guzman
to the authorities. It is your legal duty to report him according to "Stopping
Child Abuse", a publication of the RCMP. And all of us, Canadian or not have
the moral duty to report him. Excerpts from the RCMP:
"SEXUAL ABUSE is the exploitation of a child for sexual contact and/or behaviour,
whether consensual or not.
Children are not capable of giving informed consent since they do not understand the
consequences of adult/child sexual contact.
Examples: fondling, exposing sexual organs, oral contact, penetration...
CHILD ABUSE AND THE LAW
Within Canada's criminal justice system, child abuse is dealt with as a serious
problem. Victims of child abuse receive careful attention and care by those
professionals working within the criminal justice system. In keeping with society's
sensitivity to the issue of child abuse, the law has significantly progressed in its
response to and handling of child abuse situations.
For more information regarding the law, contact your local police service.
DUTY TO REPORT
All children have a right to grow in a safe and nurturing environment. When child
abuse is suspected, a person has a moral and often legal responsibility to report it
to the social services or the local police force. It takes courage to report
suspected abuse.
Reports of child abuse are always confidential and, if necessary, the individual who
reports the abuse may remain anonymous. If you are uncertain whether to report, DO
SO! It is better to be safe than sorry. No actions may be taken against persons for
reporting their suspicions, unless the reporting is done maliciously.
A failure to report a suspected incident of child abuse is an offence which may
result in punishment through the criminal justice system and/or by a person's
professional organization.
The main goal in child abuse intervention is the safety of the child. More attention
is being given to working with entire families in order to ensure that the family
provides a happier and more functional environment for all of the individuals
involved."
Source: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/abuse.htm
Note to Shades Bane: You may wish to link to this page and provide some RCMP
contact information (via another link perhaps.)
-McDaniel
Shade Bane
http://shade_exposed.tripod.com/ Three additional mirror sites have
been set up, bringing the total number to eight. More will be added if
necessary.
The site itself has been revamped and significantly upgraded because of
contributions from various sources.
ONLINE QUOTES OF SCOTT GUZMAN
(please note, each and every one of these quotes can be found in the
rec.games.mud* newsgroups or by searching for them in deja.com)
Scott Guzman: “Perhaps the incident where I phoned XXXXXX’s parents
trying to resolve things (albeit the timing, at the very least, could
have been better; and I could have possibly done better talking to
XXXXXX herself) and ended up getting threatened with a restraining
order.”
Scott Guzman: “I’m not saying that there aren’t many 14 year olds who
aren’t ready for sex, but I -am- saying that -some- of them could be.”
Scott Guzman: “My ultimate goal is to harmonize my views with the rest
of the world.”
Scott Guzman: “…I’m definitely willing to take the risk; The law is
supposed to make sense. If it doesn’t, it should be challenged.”
Scott Guzman: “…I have seen a fair amount of child pornography sites.”
Scott Guzman: “The term pedophile has many connotations. I agree that I
love people who are under the age of 18 and if they love me as well and
wouldn’t mind trying something more sexual then frenching, yes, I’m all
for it.”
Scott Guzman: “…I love people under the age of 18 and don’t feel it’s
necessarily bad to express that love in a sexual way…”
Scott Guzman: “I hope that I can make a place where I and people like me
can try to teach young players about sex.”
Scott Guzman: “In general, I don’t go looking for young girls; I can go
looking for builders for my moo, sure, and if one of them happens to be
15 and attractive to me, and she tells me loves me, well, I’ll tell her
that I love her too, which is the truth.”
Scott Guzman: “I haven’t done anything phys side with a minor in 3
years. In other words, since I started
talking about the major things that I’d done and slowly learning the
laws of the land. Now this isn’t to say that I wouldn’t do something
with a girl 14+ phys side…”
Scott Guzman: “…nothing could be worse at present then not being able to
love and express that love to the young teenage girls I love online (one
being 15, the other 16).”
Scott Guzman: “...for now, no girl under 13 has showed any interest in
me sexually online, so I’ve not shown them any interest there as well.”
Scott Guzman: “I know I’m not the only one who played ‘doctor’ with a
sibling at age 6.”
Scott Guzman: “I'm willing to take it up with a judge or whoever else.”
agan...@my-deja.com
Shade Bane <shad...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> The more I read about what you've said, the sicker I feel.
I see that website is down. I imagine the pedophile is quite delighted.
I did manage to save off a copy, which I repost in part here, knowing
that my friends here at deja will archive yet another version of twisted
thoughts of the pedophile:
THE ONLINE CONFESSION OF SCOTT GUZMAN
"In the first case, when I touched my little sister's underwear because
of sexual attraction, I hadn't asked
permission. She seemed a bit frightened by the action. I never really
thought this was something good that I'd done. In any case, because of
my nature, I told our cleaning lady about it and she told my mother, who
then told me not to do such things. I think I basically agreed at the
time."
"In the second case, a little after the first incident, I had moved due
to the fact that I was having difficult with school, with my parents and
life in general. I had moved to a friend of my mother's and also someone
I knew, who had 5 children. The 2 oldest guys were my friends as well.
The youngest, XXXXXX, age 6, (this was the youngest girl I ever did
something with), invited me into her room. She had a hole in the crotch
of her pyjamas and I just basically brushed my hand across it for a
second. It wasn't a completely conscious thing and it was definitely an
impulsive thing. She was a bit surprised, but she seemed ok with it.
However, I don't think that this was a good thing either; once again,
there hadn't even been an attempt at asking for consent; one could argue
that at that age, a young girl couldn't make an informed decision of
this nature, but this gets tricker; a story I've been reading (deleted
pedophile site address), that seems like it may even be a real life one,
seems to show that people don't have to feel that way about it."
"In any case, the biggest story is, naturally, about the time when I
fingered my little sister. Here goes I had been talking to the
girlfriend of a friend of mine at the time. and well, i think we were
mutually attracted to each other and i was getting a boner.. this
while her boyfriend was just like a few feet away.. I think he hadn't
seen yet, because he was talking to some more friends of mine (our
little group of friends), but i thought the situation was getting pretty
bad.. so anyways, i got nervous and when i get nervous i usually have to
go to the washroom fairly soon.. no exception here.. so i went back
to my house to go to the washroom, maybe get a drink of water.. I walked
into the house and there was my little sister XXXXXX in the living
room.. she was supposed to be going to sleep i guess.. they'd made a bed
for her and my little brother out of 2 couches there.. well, XXXXXX had
a habit of only wearing a t-shirt to bed in those days.. and that
night, she wasn't asleep.. in fact, shortly after i came in, she looked
at me.. then raised a leg up high and looked at me salaciously. well,
to get to anywhere without circumnavigating in that house, one usually
goes through the living room.. so I continued on my way.. well, as i
approached XXXXXX, well.. i'd come in from outside.. it was kinda
funny.. I'd been outside, getting horny for the girlfriend of a friend..
but one's not supposed to do that.. so here I was in yet another
"forbidden situation possibilty. I actually believed that the outside
situation merited my restraint more though. As I mentoined, i just
thought, she seems interested, im' definitely interested... surely there
could be no harm if there was a little tryst or whatever so i like
touched her v for a sec.. and she was fine with that.. so then i like
put my finger in just a bit and she was cool with that too.. started
doing it to herself a little. moaned a little.. but then i started
worrying about the trouble i'd get in if this got out so i kinda pressed
down a little too hard and that was that- she didn't want to do anything
after that.. i was sorry about."
"After this event, I did things with one other girl, named XXXXXX, in
another house that I lived in for some time. I'd read to her and things
and well.. I just ended up asking her if I could kiss her here or there
(the consent thing finally kicked in here). The biggest thing I did was
ask if I could touch her belly button; she said yes and then my hand
just went up to her chest. Again, I don't think this was good."
"After this, I started talking about all of these events; first to my
friend, then a psychologist, then my parents, then.. god, just tons of
people; which would explain why I was banned from 3 moos; it seems that
many people just can't handle dealing with these types of issues."
"In only one case did I go inside (finger).Not a chance; we're talking
-very- soft touching. But the fingering.. and the ending part.. the
ending part was possibly the worst mistake of my life."
Meeting Minors Offline
"That wasn't a set plan; the only real plan about it was that I was
going to go down there. Sure, XXXXXX indicated that there could be
something sexual in store, but there was no guarantee and I needed none
anyway; just seeing her would have been reward enough. I wasn't about to
go down there hitchhiking though. By the time I got a car, our
relationship wasn't the greatest, so things never went anywhere. As for
my new main girl, XXXXXX, she's in Hong Kong and I certainly don't have
the cash to go there anytime soon. At present, she's not too much into
anything beyond kissing and snuggling, so the issue of sex wouldn't come
up, even if I did have the money to go see her."
School
"XXXXXX was, indeed, a fellow student and there was a teacher. But I
talked to the harassment policy
administration and was expressly told that the administration did -not-
charge me with harassing them, although the harassment officer did tell
me that said teacher and student did make it clear that they didn't want
to be contacted by me again. Perhaps, though, I found the former part
out after I thought that they had and posted about it, quite possibly on
the mud connector. For the record, I'd like to state that I never
harassed either of them, unless you mean that I unintentionally annoyed
them. It's quite possible that none of the charges would have occured if
I hadn't told the teacher about my past involvement with aforementioned
young girls. Because of this, she was edgy, so one day, when I knocked
her door, she opened the door and let me in. I came in and sometime
later closed the door, because it had been closed to begin with and I
thought that that was the reason she seemed to be looking at it (I now
think that perhaps she was feeling a little trapped, but how can I
figure out all these hidden feelings a person might have without a
little communication?). I asked her if she'd been fired (some students
thought that she had been; there can be a lot of confusion in college),
and she stated that no, she hadn't; I explained what I'd heard from the
students. She explained that she wasn't being fired, per se, she was
just being dropped as a teacher after that semester so that she wouldn't
become a member of the teacher's union (after 3 years, you become one,
so they were taking her out just before that, which, I learned from her,
is a standard procedure in Ontario colleges and perhaps other teaching
institutions here). As for the girl, I had asked for her email address
once in order to give her information regarding a games and linux club
(she was a school for computer studies) and I decided to also tell her
my feelings for her. She gave me a 1 sentence reply
that seemed rather vague, I replied to that.. and got no reply. I
wondered and wondered why she didn't reply. I saw her once and looked at
her, in an upset way; why wouldn't she just tell me? I felt. Finally, I
just asked her one day and she said that she got a lot of mail, so she
didn't see it. Anyway, during the time I'd talked to the teacher I'd
also managed to tell her about XXXXXX; I really can't remember how she'd
managed to get me to bring her up, because she didn't know about my
dealings with her; it was more that she wanted that type of information,
so I told her. The teacher took it upon herself to talk to XXXXXX and
for whatever reason the 2 then agreed to tell a harassment assistant
person that I'd harassed them both and that I should be forbidden from
talking to them. This person made an appointment with me without me even
knowing what I was going to see her for until I got there. Fortunately,
I had suspected that XXXXXX might be involved; this is because of the
strong resistance I had faced when I was trying to get a mutual friend
of mine and XXXXXX's to intervene on my behalf to try to try to ask her
a specific question that had come up when I'd talked to XXXXXX that time
in the hallway.. anyway."
Thoughts on Rape
Question to Scott Guzman "Is he aware that you once stated that you felt
that a rl rape that took place while the woman was too drunk to notice,
and the rapist used a condom, could be considered "less bad" than "cyber
rape", since in your mind, it didn't leave any "physical" after
affects."
Scott Guzman: "The logic seems like it could be sound. This is
considering that (a) the guy didn't have any stds and (b) she didn't get
pregnant because of it. You put the word physical in quotes; are you
suggesting
that there would always be physical after affects? If she never knew she
was raped, I just think that cyberape could be worse, if they knew it
was happening anyway. I -still- think this logic is sound, but if you
could point me to a flaw (perhaps that there would always be noticeable
after affects?), please do."
"For me, rape is when you have sex with someone who did not consent to
it. The problem here is, what does one need to know that there's
consent? One can rape one's wife as well as a stranger, but what if
you're wife's stone cold and you have sex with her? I think here you
basically have to know whether she would or would not consent to it if
she were awake. I would define the above as sex without physical damage.
One must take care not to emotionally damage someone as well."
ONLINE QUOTES OF SCOTT GUZMAN
Scott Guzman: "Perhaps the incident where I phoned XXXXXX's parents
trying to resolve things (albeit the timing, at the very least, could
have been better; and I could have possibly done better talking to
XXXXXX herself) and ended up getting threatened with a restraining
order."
Scott Guzman: "I'm not saying that there aren't many 14 year olds who
aren't ready for sex, but I -am- saying that -some- of them could be."
Scott Guzman: "My ultimate goal is to harmonize my views with the rest
of the world."
Scott Guzman: "I'm definitely willing to take the risk; The law is
Scott Guzman: "I told the one young girl who showed a (non sexual)
interest in me about my past. I did so to explain why I was so afraid to
be with her at the time (aka, the hoards from hell could realize at any
moment that I was alone in a cyberoom with a minor). Apparently she got
somewhat frightened with it all and left. In any case, the hoards of
hell did catch up to me soon and banned I was. I did actually cyber with
-one- young teenage girl.. maybe.. twice? something like that, on x or y
moo. I didn't feel I was doing anything wrong, but of course, you'll now
be telling me about how I'm condemned to hell or should be sent to
prison for it or something."
Scott Guzman: "My mother won't have me in her house and my father's
leaving for Mexico in 2 months anyway. They've both basically rejected
having me around precisely because of my views."
Scott Guzman: "I'd rather challenge the law then scurry away from it
simply because it -might- not be legal. Heck, even if I knew it was
illegal by current laws I'd -still- want to challenge it on something of
this importance."
Scott Guzman: "I've always abhored doing something sexually to a person
against their wishes; in the few moments that I myself did such actions,
they were primarily impulsive and in only one instance did I actually
hurt; and only for a second."
Scott Guzman: "It's funny though.. it was that article [A Rape in
CyberSpace] that got me to go to Lambda Moo and experience moos for the
first time.. I've now finally found (in my view) a better one then
theirs that's not my own personal little (and still very small) place,
but for a long time, Lambda Moo held top spot even though I was banned
from there, supposedly because they didn't want to their database
searched if I had stayed on."
Scott Guzman: "A female or 2 who loves me is a -real- bonus, regardless
of age; it's just that on muds, there are a fair amount of young players
and it's also true that for whatever reason, I do seem to like younger
females more then older ones."
Scott Guzman: "I have no respect for idiotic laws and sure, I'm willing
to challenge them."
Scott Guzman: "In a way, I'm like superman; I am -very- strong willed
and opinionated and willing to stand up for my causes; I have -very-
rarely found someone close to my energy level on this (family's good,
but that's family). A girl named XXXXXX (currently 15) and perhaps
another named XXXXX (23 or 24) that I'm no longer in contact with for
various reasons.. 1 or 2 guy friends of mine are pretty good but.. I
don't know.. with these girls.. it's like.. I just seem to connect so
much better with.. I have a hard time connecting with females, but when
I find one who does, it can really go far; of course, that also makes it
very painful if I get separated from them.. which as you can see, is 2
out of 2. Still, you never know; I may get back in contact with either
1, the other or, you never know, both ;-)."
Scott Guzman: "I didn't touch any 13 year old. In any case, not as of
yet;"
Scott Guzman: "A 15 year old is a teenage girl, sure. What's your point?
Are you telling me that she should be out killing fellow players, like
so many other 'good little' boys and girls instead? Surely, she'll
become a much better formed person if she engages of this type of
activity instead of learning about sexuality slowly, from someone who
has acquired a fair amount of patience and is very sensitive to her
needs?"
Scott Guzman: "In fact, I've recently cybered with a 16 year old who
seemed to somewhat urgently want me to cyber with her and yes, she
masturbated. In fact, the most pleasurable cyber I've ever had was with
a girl of 13 years of age, perhaps 2 years ago; she was more then
willing to cyber with me; it's hard to remember if she ever masturbated
during one of our cyberings, but I seem to recall that she may have..
either that or her friend, who I also knew at the time... "
Scott Guzman: "I can just imagine that you're going to try to make a
case that I influenced these girls to become that way, but many girls
I've been with, including the longest relationship I've -ever- had with
a girl, which lasted nearly a year, have never been that interested in
the sexual component; instead, the'd like to talk about their lives a
lot. The current girl I'm with is still somewhat timid about the whole
concept of masturbation. I've -encouraged- her to ask her father about
it. See what he has to say on the matter. She's afraid he won't take the
news that she'd like to know well. He might wonder why she's curious. In
a way, I'm aware of the danger of her asking him, but in another, I'd
rather that she move -on- with her life. Much of her life, she's been
like a little mouse, hiding a lot of herself. It's time that she find
herself. Her parents may decide I've got to get out of the picture;
that's alright. The important thing is that I'll have been a stepping
stone for her to find her own repressed sexuality."
Scott Guzman: "I should probably mention that many times, there are many
issues that the young girls I've met need to work out that having
nothing to do with sexuality. I can still remember the last words XXXXX
ever told me.. that I had given her good advice.. she doesn't want to
have anything to do with me now, for a variety of reasons, but not, I
would argue, because I wasn't a very good influence on her."
Scott Guzman: "Even if I couldn't support the endeavour financially, I
could atleast try to take care of the baby (I could be the stay at home
one, chuckle :-p). If there were big problems though, I guess I'd just
have to do that child support thing; assuming I had a job. Good news is
that I've only had sex once, had a condom on and didn't really ejaculate
:-p. It was with a hooker, so I'm assuming she was using birth control
pills to boot."
Scott Guzman: "My experience has been that their elders don't tell them
much. I end up telling them about tons of things. My current girl didn't
even know what masturbation -was- really. So I explained it to her; she
hasn't tried it yet though, which is fine; I'm thinking it may be a good
idea to talk to her father about this, but she's afraid to; thinks he
might get suspicious of where she heard of such a thing."
Scott Guzman: "I, too, go for personal sex, though at age 20, I was
feeling pretty low about never having had sex and then this opportunity
with a hooker that I liked came up, so I took it (I used a condom)."
Scott Guzman: "As you know, I didn't personally have sex until I was
20. But I do think that it may be good to learn about things like
masturbation and cybersex, in, say, their early teens."
Scott Guzman: "The trouble I usually have with older women is that
they're too jaded for me; I simply can't stand the lack of trust. I both
need to trust the women I'm with and I need them to trust me as well."
Scott Guzman: "When they're younger, they seem to be able to trust a
lot more, probably because they haven't had their heart broken yet."
Scott Guzman: "Where I come from, when you love someone in an
attraction way, it usually means you do things with them. If he's ok
that I love his daughter and that she loves me in this way, I don't see
the problem in so far as a minor of her age. However, he may indeed have
difficulties with the girls that I touched who were younger."
Scott Guzman: "I suppose I've had more or less good psychologists and I
like the one I'm currently seeing, but not everyone can afford them (the
only reason I'm still seeing mine is because my mother is paying for
it). As for a registered counsellor, I went to one once and she just
recommended I see a psychologist or a psychiatrist; I have a feeling
however, that not all countries let you see psychiatrists for free."
Scott Guzman: "I'd like to make it so that any of my users could confide
in me about these types of things and then I could directly talk to the
guy who wants to visit her or whatever and get a feel for his
motivations. And even if he seemed ok, I'd still want them to meet in a
public place and to not go off to some private place."
Scott Guzman: "Speaking from personal experience, I may have liked x or
y girl in high school, but I rarely managed to speak to them; I never
did get very far sexually speaking by speaking either. I've had -much-
more success online."
Scott Guzman: "As [poster name deleted] said, convicting pedophiles
isn't an easy task, especially if all the
pedophile did was touch 2 young girls in a private area and fingered
another, when it seemed she might want it, and all of these events being
at least 3 years ago."
Scott Guzman: "I strongly reject the idea that I simply had
'irresistible impulses'; in some of the past events, they were things
that were built up over a period of time that then -seemed- to perhaps
be a bit compulsive, but which were in fact simply ingrained into my
mind as how to 'get' something (don't ask, way too much trouble type
thing)."
Scott Guzman: "For some time now I've come to the conclusion that this
not asking for consent and not
appraising the girls of the societal meaning of someone my age touching
someone their age, was a mistake.
However, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to do something with
a teenage girl who can understand a fair amount of the societal impact
of having a loving and/or sexual relationship with her, whether it be
online or offline."
Scott Guzman: "I won't deny that there's a certain continuity in the
fact that I continue to be attracted to young teenage girls, but I
object to the idea that it's an unwanted feeilng. You could say that
sometimes it makes me a little anxious in this society, because of all
the negativity towards these types of relationships."
Scott Guzman: "If any of the girls wanted to convict, I could be toast.
But I seriously doubt it on all counts.
The only one of them that I truly made a mistake with, when I ended it
(the fingering thing), was my little sister and I still get along with
her well; the only problem is that she doesn't want me touching her...
not her hair, hand, nothing really. I see her fairly often though; saw
her today and yesterday, 'cause she and her friend needed a
ride from school. That's another thing I've noticed; the age of girls I
like seems to rise with the age of my little sister; so in 3 years, it
may be that my sexual prefence will be 18 (aka legal in most places)."
Scott Guzman: "Yes, but in this case, I don't think it's too much of a
worry, because of the fact that I doubt that either the girls or the
parents would want to convict (the parents either being my mother and
father or friends of my mother's; one of the other sets of parents knows
what happened and they've decided it was just a problem I had then and
besides, I haven't lived with them since and the others.. well, I
vaguely told her brother and he didn't seem all that concerned; and with
his sister, all i did was touch her v for like half a second."
Scott Guzman: "As I've mentioned before, I don't believe I've scarred
anyone, except, possible, my little sister and yes, the reason that
happened was perhaps the biggest mistake I ever made. But it was made
-precisely- because of the fear of being different. And scars don't need
to take forever to heal you know.."
Scott Guzman: "What, precisely, did you find so 'sick' in what I said
above? That I fingered my little sister? I'm sorry that I don't conform
to North America's societal norms, but can you tell me, besides that,
what's so terrible about it?"
Scott Guzman: "I've cybered with a minor all of twice in 2 weeks;
before that, I hadn't done it in a -long- time (owning a moo -does- have
its perks). One and perhaps both times wasn't/weren't even on my moo,
but on icq."
Scott Guzman: "Ultimately, I think that some of the reason that minors
can be attracted to me is that I do have a certain.. confidence about
myself and (believe it or not ;-) ) charisma.."
Scott Guzman:: "I think I should have also said that I'm fighting for my
love life."
Scott Guzman:: "I took something of a fatherly role for her, but only
somewhat, as I was also in a romantic
relationship with her and in some ways, she knew a lot more about some
things then I did."
Scott Guzman:: "I never wanted to hurt my youngest sister, except in the
second I did it. It happened because I felt she had seduced me and now
look at the trouble I could get into."
Scott Guzman: "I was hurt in some ways by females, so inadvertently, I
hurt someone else."
Scott Guzman:: "you, like many, tend to see people as individuals, that
make choices, perhaps through some mysterious 'free will' that comes
willy nilly from nowhere or something. I myself believe that choices are
made due to the variables around them."
Scott Guzman:: "my biggest mistake was made because of the fear of
repercussions. If we had a society that was more accepting of different
ways of seeing things, I'd argue that it would never have happened."
Scott Guzman:: "And since I believe that everything is really only a
part of the same thing, then assigning
blame to any particular part doesn't make sense in a philosophical way."
Scott Guzman:: "I've also never wanted to harm anyone. And on the whole,
I think I've been fairly successful at that goal."
Scott Guzman:: "Look, even one of my opponents has said that fingering
isn't sex."
Scott Guzman:: "to me, most important is the fact that to this date, no
young girl or even a member of their
family has even -mentioned- the idea of wanting to see me in court. "
Scott Guzman:: "I may get my very own newsgroup, alt.mud.shade"
Scott Guzman:: "I feel that children should have a right to find this
type of information out, regardless of
whether their parents want them to know it or not"
Scott Guzman:: "Who is a parent to determine it all alone? Both the
parent and me are adults, so that's not a
differentiator."
Scott Guzman:: "I'd like to point out that it's not my responsibility to
make sure that parents/guardians are
informed of what their children are doing"
Scott Guzman:: "Despite 2 1/2 months of opponents criticizing me, they
have yet to give any good reasons why minors shouldn't be allowed to
engage in cybersexual activity, with or without their parents
permission"
Scott Guzman:: "I've never cybered with anyone under the age of 13."
Scott Guzman:: "I want the best for my players, not what their
government or parent(s)/guardian(s) -think- is best for them. As always,
I'm willing to discuss what is and isn't good, but I refuse to simply
kowtow to the guardians/governments simply because they've got a big
club."
Scott Guzman:: "I made it clear to my host that, at present, I had no
intention of putting up any
pornographic graphical material."
Scott Guzman:: "Apparently, the attorney felt that they could be
prosecuted if my mud continued the way it
was."
Scott Guzman:: "I don't think I'll forget the names of the major
contenders here. I wanted to resolve this
peacefully, but you've now made sure that it's war."
Scott Guzman:: "pedophiles are being demonized worldwide it seems."
Scott Guzman:: "I've talked to psychiatrists and psychologists about
this, and I'm -still- talking to a
psychologist about it all."
Scott Guzman:: "Believe me, I -could- hire an escort if I wanted to"
Scott Guzman:: "I've even once challenged a boyfriend/girlfriend
relationship, when I liked the woman and had hoped of developing an idea
where we could share her."
Scott Guzman:: "I wonder if anyone is cancelling my posts somewhere? It
may be that everyone but the
respondents are just ignoring what I say, but then again, something else
may be involved here."
Scott Guzman:: "Do these insane minds discuss their points of view for
hours on end? Do they concede certain points? And finally, do you find
me to be an 'unstable, irrantional and insane' mind?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Romper Stomper
Shard and was in the process of getting himself booted off of
LambdaMoo. The fascinating thing is to read his posts from a year ago.
And realize just how little has changed in a year's time.
Message 2057 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 20:06:26 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Subject: writing thing hasn't died yet (to Beartm)
It's just suffered a setback. My main girl trashed me yesterday. As in
don't want to talk to you ever again type thing. I'll get back into the
fight.. just as soon as i know which way is up :-p.
--------------------------
Message 2009 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Mon Jul 5 19:44:57 1999 PDT
From: Mack-the-Knife (#47551)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Subject: A business proposition for shard
Dear Mr. shard,
Yes, my kind and gentle young man of the sweet manners and boyish looks,
I can be, as the saying goes, a total weiner.
I see the road you are going down here at Lambda and I fear,
unfortunately, that you will really never fit in.
However, in each great loss, there is an opportunity.
Being an unmitigated sicko prick at times allows me to see
entrepreneurial advantages that others might miss. Let me spell it out
for you, son:
shard, forget Lambda and its cruel denizens. Your future, my
innocent-looking adonis of the slender-hips, is in gay porn.
I've seen your photo, cutie pie. You're a perfect twink. We can market
you in the burgeoning gay teensex market. Heck, we could probably make
even more money by claiming your underage. You've got the looks,
sweetpea, and from what I read about your locker-room escapades on your
website, I think you've got the inclination.
Now, to make this really work, we'll have to market this from Lithuania.
But these are mere details.
So, forget Writing, forget all of these small-minded people here. We
have a future together.
Let me know when you're ready to do business. We'll live like
kings....or at least like Siegfried and Roy.
Smooches,
MtK
--------------------------
Message 2066 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 20:36:29 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Subject: to Jaybird
In Message 2046, Jaybird writes:
=Shard, no one holds your opinions against you.
What they hold against you are your condescensions.=
Alright look- everyone is a little condescending; no one's perfect. But
I think that a little of the old "don't look at the dust in thy
neighbour's eye, but the mote in your own" philosophy is needed here.
I'd be interested in hearing how I was condescending. I'm sure if you
look hard enough you'll find things. For my part though, I really don't
want to look for the other way around. The stuff is just plain hurtful.
No one denies that beating on me has become a past time. If you want
condescension, look at your own actions (or was "shurd" a compliment?)..
the swearing, the capsed words.. i don't even know where to begin. but
why should I- It hardly takes a genius in analytical skills to see the
abuse I've taken.
--------------------------
Message 2067 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 20:37:16 1999 PDT
From: Jaybird (#105276)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Shard, you were condescending to people who were showing you the
evidence that you were asking for.
How were you condescending? Well, those posts from Saturday are a good
place to start. The *oldsoc archive is another.
And being condescending when you are arguing that 2+2=4 is one thing.
When you are arguing against it, it is another.
--------------------------
Message 2083 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 21:49:38 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Subject: so because it's just online, that makes it all better?
and you criticize my condescension. It would take godly power to not
condescend people who can't even refrain from yelling (oops, sorry,
"emphasizing") and using base insults.
--------------------------
--------------------------
Message 2084 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 21:52:06 1999 PDT
From: Jaybird (#105276)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Shard, it is too fucking late to claim the moral high ground.
--------------------------
Message 2107 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 22:36:18 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Subject: to Jaybird
Alright, let's compare morals, shall we? I deducted a false image of
Mellow; I thought that it was quite likely that Writing's accusations
regarding her actions had merit. I did this after reading several
messages that Writing had written in a fairly polite manner (he wasn't
screaming and yelling for the most part anyways); surely someone who
could be so polite wouldn't be making up stories. Here, I'll dissect
what I view to be my own shortcomings in all this:
(1) Having been newted from a lot of places, I associated myself with
Writing. Surely, I felt, this was someone else who'd been newted/banned
for unjust reasons just like me.
(2) I've been maligned by women making false claims before. Surely, this
polite fellow had fallen to the same circumstances.
Nowhere in this discussion did I ever call Mellow any of the dozens of
base insults many here have given me. I certainly didn't yell.
Back to what I've been saying for some time now- The similarities
between me and anyone: we all have our flaws. Dissimilarities between me
and all base insulters/yellers: I don't sink to their level of flaws.
--------------------------
Message 2114 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 22:46:30 1999 PDT
From: Jaybird (#105276)
To: *OldSocialIssues (#7233)
Or, put another way, you aligned yourself with someone bad, shard.
You spent a lot of energy defending someone who did some very, very bad
things. Things that could best be described using swear words. Things
that were so bad that it allowed WriTinG to be called words considered
'crude' by polite company.
You compared this bad person to Jesus (which is laughable enough by
itself) and then proceeded to *DEFEND* your comparison.
After being hit again and again and again with evidence that WriTinG may
have misrepresented his position, you refused to conceed a single point
to your opponents until you heard what really happened straight from the
horse's mouth (apologies for the phrase).
Exactly what insults have I called you, shard? To my memory, the worst
thing I've called you is 'obtuse'.
Exactly why don't you deserve to be called 'obtuse'? I haven't seen any
evidence that you shouldn't (to use an argument of yours).
--------------------------
Message 2121 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 23:25:55 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Subject: to Jaybird
In Message 2114, Jaybird writes:
=Or, put another way, you aligned yourself with someone bad, shard. You
spent a lot of energy defending someone who did some very, very bad
things.=
Its still not proven that he did these bad things (a voice recorder
would be needed for that). However, it does look like a bad case.
However, Id like to point out that it took posts like 874, which I didnt
have initially, not to mention others, plus Mellows testimony to start
painting a very persuasive picture of Writings misdeeds. I admit that I
had certain biases, but so do we all; its part of being human. I just
really like the innocent until proven guilty idea. I still think that
theres no tangible proof that Writing did the things he was accused of
(that is, lying on more then one occasion)- After all, it could be
*Mellow* whos lying. However, I now think this is as unlikely.
Ironically, its just a feeling; Upon closer examination, his accusations
of Mellows actions seem to be contrived; I cant quite pin my finger on
why though.
=Things that could best be described using swear words.=
I dont think *anything* can best be described using swear words given a
little time. If you want to make a point super fast and damn the
consequences, alright. But if you want to make the best description
possible, swear words only call into mind angry feelings and the like.
Case in point- you could call Slobodan Milosevic by many swear words,
but I hardly think thatd be as descriptive as detailing the things that
he did; better yet would be to go into why he did them so we can try to
make sure that such circumstances dont arise again.
=You compared this bad person to Jesus (which is laughable enough by
itself) and then proceeded to *DEFEND* your comparison.=
Ofcourse Id defend what Ive said. I almost always believe strongly in
what I say or I wouldnt say it (there may be an exception somewhere).
Clearly, my image of Writing was mistaken; we all make mistakes. The
difference being that I make mistakes and correct myself with grace.
Many here just seem to make mistakes (no grace or corrections included).
=Exactly what insults have I called you, shard? To my memory, the worst
thing I've called you is 'obtuse'.=
Indirect insult of shurd as well. But base insults is only part of it-
what youre infamous for is your capsed words.
=Exactly why don't you deserve to be called 'obtuse'?=
Actually, you just said that I was being obtuse in certain posts, which
is far better then simply classifying a person as obtuse. In any case,
what did you mean by it? Theres quite a few definitions of obtuse.
--------------------------
Message 2127 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Tue Jul 6 23:54:24 1999 PDT
From: Jaybird (#105276)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Shard, do I need to go through the archives to find instances of cases
in which you were mistaken?
You were mistaken about WriTinG for at least two things (by your own
admission) because you relate to him. You have been falsely accused by
women, therefore he must have been falsely accused.
You have been @newted by moody wizards for no real reasons, therefore he
must have been @newted by moody wizards.
You have been proven wrong about the former. This would not be a big
deal except that you pushed and pushed and pushed (read 1670-1671 again)
and basically called the person in question a liar. The rebuttal was a
powerful one. Very powerful. How powerful? You almost admitted you were
wrong!
(read 2121 on *oldsoc, paragraph 2 for exactly what you said. It wasn't
a graceful "I was wrong.")
Now, you still are saying that you haven't seen any reason for WriTinG
to have been @newted.
Were the posts that I found in the archives reasons or not? Do I need to
dig through the archives again?
Did you *READ* the posts I sent to this list? It seems that you just
rely on "His name is shurd. He is mocking me. Therefore, I can claim the
moral high ground and ignore his arguments" tactics.
Shard, having read the logs I sent you in private mail, and having read
the posts of WriTinG's sent to this list, do you still assert that you
see no reason for WriTinG to have been @newted?
--------------------------
Message 2131 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 00:02:39 1999 PDT
From: Jaybird (#105276)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Shard, let me demonstrate something to you:
Shard, you are a pigfucker. Your mother is a whore who dances with men
in exchange for chewed food.
Shard, you are a liar. Your story about WriTinG was contrived to make
him look good and others look bad. You have no credibility and no
understanding about what constitutes good logic, good manners, or good
morals.
Now, which statement do you find more offensive? This tells a lot about
your personality. Personally, I would be far more offended by the second
statement.
However, from reading the things you have said, you tend to find the
former to be an insult and the latter to be an "argument".
Personally, I would find the 2nd much more insulting. Apparently, most
of the people you have interacted on this list with find the 2nd more
insulting as well. Your insults to Mellow have taken the form of the 2nd
sentence.
The fact that your insults are eloquent does not make them less
insulting.
Advice: Quit insulting people and then getting defensive when they
insult you back. It's bad form.
--------------------------
Message 2139 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 00:14:06 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Subject: you have much to learn Jay
First thing you have to learn- Yelling at people, even online, is very
insulting. Second thing- It's a whole lot more insulting then making a
false conclusion on a person and correcting it when they realize they're
mistaken.
--------------------------
Message 2195 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 13:01:35 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Subject: what i'd like to see
What I'd like to see is plausible evidence that Writing's offenses
warranted a newting. Failing this, I think he should be allowed to come
back. Yes, I rehash sometimes Veren. It's not my fault that people don't
pay much attention to what I say (I can just see a rejoinder to this one
coming along).
--------------------------
Message 2202 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 13:09:36 1999 PDT
From: Xaviera (#101343)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that all that answering shard does
is encourage him to post more. Ergo, maybe if you ALL SHUT THE HELL UP,
he will, too. Just a thought.
--------------------------
Message 2203 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 13:11:32 1999 PDT
From: PanJanDrum (#112121)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
DEAR CHRIST IN HEAVEN HAVE YOU PEOPLE NO SENSE. shard is obviously the
day staff at Bellevue, recently given a T-1 connection and an iMac so
that they may wreak sociological havoc with the minds of those FEEBLE
enough to pay attention.
--------------------------
Message 2210 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 13:39:36 1999 PDT
From: PanJanDrum (#112121)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
So. Shard. Why are you on this crusade? I mean, do you honestly think
that any of us GIVE A SHIT? That we really, honestly, care enough about
MOOing, and whether some dork got thrown off the server because he was a
dipshit, to plow through your mangled semiotics and diseased logic? It's
not real life. Go out. Spend some biological time with normal humans.
Have a drink with somebody and don't discuss computing, or MOOing.
Really. Give it a shot. I'm sure you might find it scintillating.
Because, you see, NONE OF THIS MATTERS in the outside world.
--------------------------
Message 2223 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 14:52:38 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Subject: to Hibernian and alizarin
Hibernian, after paging 2 wizards with questions on Writing and
receiving zip for a response, I've come to the conclusion that the
wizards on here are much like the wizards I've met everywhere else-
Arrogant people who don't feel they have to answer to anyone but
themselves. It's true that there may be wizards that would indeed have
answered my queries. But I'm not going to go out looking for them. As
I've told a guy who I suspect may be Yib, the best strategy in these
circumstances is to try and persuade the general populace that knowledge
of, say, why Writing was newted, is something worth knowing. Failing
this, I'm almost 100% sure that the wizards will continue to ignore the
issue as they've done so well in the past.
To alizarin- you may not feel that it's worth figuring out why Writing
was newted. In fact, many people might feel it's not worth it. In this,
I readily agree that i'm different- I always want justice to be served.
About me being newted for whatever reason, I wouldn't be surprised- So
far, the only muds that haven't newted me are the ones I left out of
boredom.
--------------------------
Message 2248 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 15:47:10 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Subject: the limits of democracy on Lambda Moo
Ok, a few things. To people who've said the wizards don't have to say
anything, you're right. The wizards don't have to tell any of us
anything. However, just because they don't have to doesn't mean they
shouldn't try to tell of many things. In the ending, it makes for a
happier environment I'd think.
The point has been made that evidence shouldn't have to be made that'll
persuade me. Ofcourse not. However, I find it rather amusing that
evidence that Writing should have been newted is still lacking. All I
know so far is that he pissed off some wizards, said things of Mellow in
public that was uncalled for and possibly lied a great deal in what he
said. I'm aware that he isn't supposed to reveal personal information.
I'm also aware that he claimed that not only Mao, but Mellow as well had
revealed personal information of his own. Finally, I think that this
whole person information game has gotten out of hand; I can understand
how someone wouldn't want their email address revealed by someone who
can fetch it out of the Lambda Moo database. However, this place isn't
simply confined to the ether realm; real life events are often
discussed. To limit it in some way to just here or there is like forcing
people offline to not voice their views, even if their views are
mistaken (som!
e hate views can go too far, however).
To Mellow- I did my best at seeing what was going on first. Like anyone,
I don't have infinite patience, so I only read the current messages, not
all the archives as well. I started looking at the *witness logs and
found the whole Writing thing quite interesting. And so I launched into
my campaign to find out why Writing was newted. As of now, I find that
he did some things that, while certainly not commendable, hardly qualify
him for a permanent newting. One thing for sure- I think that his claims
regarding you should have been put to the test. Had I been around I
wouldn't have let him off so easily question wise on that (there seemed
to be little effort challenging his statements in regards to you).
--------------------------
Message 2252 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 17:09:52 1999 PDT
From: shard (#117190)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
Subject: executioner's song
never mind the title. just something i write when i'm a little down and
out. Some people here have been calling people to stop replying to me.
It seems to be working to a certain extent. To my detractors, I ask:
Show me where more intelligent discourse is going on about Lambda is
going on. There are other lists I like and post to at times, but no one
more then this. The reason is that the topics that are covered here, I
feel, are the ones that are most general to Lambda Moo and of the most
importance. People seem to say things without really realizing what they
mean. They say things like "The wizards can new anyone they choose, so
go stuff you and your ideas of freedom fighting". Tell me people, is
this really what you want- a police state, as the authors of BSE
(http://members.xoom.com/NonServIAm/) would have people believe this
place already is?
I've admitted to making a mistake in judgement in regards to Mellow;
Prompted by her refusal to give me evidence showing Writing doing
abnoxious things, I came to the conclusion that she had something to
hide. The evidence she hid was given to me by someone else, however, and
after further messages were pointed out to me, I came to find that
Writing had in some ways an over inflated view of himself and seemed to
be prone to misinterpreting quite a few things. It's also quite possible
that he deliberately lied over several issues. But I would think that in
a society that is wise, booting these types of people shouldn't be
necessary- if he truly was as bad as everyone seems to think he was,
proper questioning of him could have easily rendered his credibility to
zilch. Barring a time period that Mellow believes existed at one point
in time in *oldsoc, he seems to have always a lot of attention given to
him. My detractors are right in that the best way to show how
innefectual a p!
erson is is to simply ignore them. Why couldn't this have been done with
Writing, with perhaps a little coaching of newbies who came into contact
with him? Another thing- While Writing did seem to have his flaws, the
one thing I've always admired him for is his generally decent language.
Even assuming he actually said something like that his d*ck was too big
for Mellow, I wouldn't think it'd be worth newting if some women told me
my d*ck was to small to make an impression; I'd be offended and say that
she wouldn't know how the heck big it was, but it wouldn't even warrant
a gagging at that point- It's too subtle an insult for that (gagging
would require something like a one word base insult).
To sum up: The very best reason I can find for anyone to ignore me was
my suspicions regarding Mellow. It would have been something if I had
been patient enough to go through all the logs that Writing had written
(including the one she denied me) and realize right off the bat that it
was quite likely he was misleading due to his off handed way of bringing
it all up. But I'm not perfect.
And now to make a point that is possibly most needed here; That there
are some people that I actually like talking to here. I've never
mentioned that before and I think that it does deserve mentioning. I've
talked to Mairead through pages and we seem to get along alright now. I
don't agree with alizarin all the time, but she seems to be of a
generally good nature and there are some comments that, while I don't
always say anything about them, I find pretty hilarious "Ob.. meets
JamesTKirk: must resist.. urge.. to.. say.. unclefucker" was perhaps my
favourite :-). Here's to hoping that a conversation that isn't
antagonistic as it was can ensue. I think that there are many people
here that like the idea of being more involved in the governing process
on Lambda Moo; This, in the ending, is a main theme in what I write.
Also, I think that we should try to be tolerant of differences and flaws
in regards to fellow players (or former players), such as Writing. Until
such time as I se!
e evidence that Writing indeed deserved to be newted, I will continue to
pursue the notion that perhaps he was newted unfairly. Most of all, I'm
hoping that if there's the doubt that he was newted unfairly, we allow
him into our society again. Perhaps there could be some strings
attached- I for one would certainly like to get to the bottom of the
whole Mellow/Writing thing. Case in point: I'd like to find out what
types of topics Writing and Mellow had to ascertain whether the idea of
phone sex could in any way be construed from said events.
With this, I leave people to consider whether or not I'm worthy of
conversation. That maybe the reason for all this flurry of posts wasn't
simply because of the wish to get rid of all my ideas and that debating
with me was no better then a chore, but that people derived some
pleasure from being able to state their views on topics and perhaps even
find that they've learned things from me just as I've learned things
from many people here.
--------------------------
Message 2254 on *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233):
Date: Wed Jul 7 17:34:04 1999 PDT
From: Tipheret (#105172)
To: *OldWriTinGIssues (#7233)
One point: it always amuses me when people approach me, *demand* that I
answer a question, refuse to give a justification as to why they have
any right to know the answer, generally behave like I'm some automaton
that exists soley to bend to their whim...and then decide that I'm
arrogant when I don't reply.
--------------------------
read the rest if you dare at http://24.0.234.93/~outlaw/oldsoc/
Steven Lucas
"H. McDaniel" wrote:
> Canadians, you may be held legally responsible for not reporting Scott Guzman
> to the authorities. It is your legal duty to report him according to "Stopping
> Child Abuse", a publication of the RCMP. And all of us, Canadian or not have
> the moral duty to report him. Excerpts from the RCMP:
How are you going to report him when you don't know WHERE in Canada he lives?
--
Crimefighter Co-Creator, Promised Land MUD
The COMPLETE Abermud List http://promisedland.mudservices.com
http://members.xoom.com/smlucas sml...@flashmail.com
Shade Bane
He registered the cyber-dreams.net domain name. A simple who-is
search for either that or his name shows exactly where he lives.
Shoop
Just because you ppls can't feel the love doesn't mean that Shade isn't
right.
Just because you're all posting websites, doesn't mean you're the only
ones.
The Shade Support Page
http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/SHADEFAN/words.htm
---------------------
Because sometimes enough isn't enough
KooKooMoo: Where reality is what you make of it.
(site coming soon, as soon as I can get someone to host it)
its going to be really kewl
---------------------
shade
> I see that website is down. I imagine the pedophile is quite delighted.
Actually, I'd been wanting to have a place to store my actions. I find
it immensely ironic that tripod deleted my own account detailing the
-same- actions, but that, because shade bane is against me, it's ok if
he posts them. I also find it incredibly ironic that there's now a site,
apparently endorsed by tripod, that I can refer people to it in terms of
my past actions with the 3 girls. Apparently, Shade Bane's modified his
site to be less libelous. Anyway, compared to some people here, he's not
the worst in terms of criticizing me.
--
shade
email address is: sha...@writeme.com
home page: http://members.home.net/shade2x/
shade
> The more I read about what you've said, the sicker I feel.
>
> Even more of your quotes have been sent to me, and these are far more
> damning than anything I had seen.
Tell me, which ones do you find to be the most 'damning'? In terms of my
largest mistake, I'd say that would be the thing with my youngest
sister. Do you think it's something else?
> I feel sick about the emotional damage you have done to numerous children,
> not just the three you have admitted touching sexually.
I would argue that there's only one case where there's definitely
evidence of emotional damage; with my younger sister. And yet, here you
are saying that I've damaged others, based on a few quotes? Well, by all
means, please point out who you're thinking of. I can just imagine you
saying "Mellow", someone who had a track record of being cybersexual
with men other then her husband. I think the only thing I did in her
case was a little exposition, along with some flaws. Writing wasn't as
good as I thought he was, but Mellow was no angel either.
> If you truly feel nothing about any of this..
Any of -what-?
> I think you do have real emotions and feelings about this.
Glad to know you finally recognize this.
> I think that's why you've chosen to relentlessly post in chat rooms,
> muds, web forums, and now in these newsgroups.
Glad to know you've recognized that too.
> I think that what you really want is to justify yourself, find some
> accord with the rest of humanity, "harmonize your views" as you like to
> say it.
Been saying that all along.
> I think you do this because you are a profoundly lonely young man.
Loneliness doesn't always make a person reach out. I won't deny that at
present, my life is indeed a pretty lonely one. But even in this dark
moments of my life, I can get a voice of support. A 13 year old guy
friend of mine emailed me today, telling me that he supported the idea
that people his age and even younger can be read for cybersexual
experiences, even though he believes that they're not ready for
procreative sexual experiences. And the truth is, this is pretty much my
own opinion as well. I don't know a single minor who I'd say I knew to
be ready for the possibility of pregnancy. This doesn't mean, however,
that I -know- that that's the case. The most important here is to figure
out how to best serve the interests of our society. As a general rule, I
don't think that handing down stiff sentences for people who break
societal rules is going to help things much. It gets far more
complicated when it comes to sexual issues. What we're dealing with here
is actually a very delicate matter; when we give people the right to
have control over their own sexuality. Even a former police officer
contested that the the hodge podge array of age of consent laws in the
U.S. just doesn't work (check out the editorial section at
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ And before you say that it's a pedophile
site, I'll let you know that a University is using the information on
that site for research purposes. I myself haven't heard that it's a
pedophile site. I've seen another site, called the pink site or
something, that -does- seem to have some atleast hebophilic (adult
attraction to adolescents) reasons for being, but ageofconsent doesn't
seem to have that type of tone at all).
> I think you do this because in real life, you are unable to interact
> with your peers.
You seem to be making the rather old argument that the online world
isn't real. But that would mean that none of us talking here are real,
which is completely untrue. Anyway, I'll use the term 'phys side life',
for interactions offline. In that case, I will admit that I have few
phys side friends who I talk to. For whatever reason, I have had a
strong devotion to the online world. I think it has to do with the fact
that you can find people who one is interested in talking to much
easier. It was online that I met virtually all of my major
relationships, for instance (the difference being covered in a few
relationships I made offline, but those didn't work out as well).
> I think you turn to children because they are not sophisticated enough,
> experienced enough, or wary enough to reject you.
I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that what it comes down to isn't
their ages; it's who I've had contact with in my life. With the
exception of my oldest sister and parental figures, all the females I
lived with between the ages of 17-21, when I did the things with minors,
had ages that were in the single digits. Here's the list, in
chronological order (note that L is my younger sister; there were 2
incidents with her, the 9/10 one being the infamous one; in the first
one, I just touched her underwear):
7-L, 6-J, 9/10-L, 7-M
> It *is* important to be honest, and to talk about mistakes you have
> made.
>
> But not here. Not on the internet. Not with strangers.
I've slowly become familiar with people here, but I think you should
look a little more into the history of how I came to talk about my
personal life on here. I didn't start talking about it. I started
talking about sexuality in muds, and specifically, about how the mud
connector admin, Andrew Cowan, didn't allow me to advertise my mud on
his web site, because he felt that my idea that maturity should be what
counted instead of the 18+ rule for sexual activities wasn't good. He
also knew about the events in my past and determined that I would be
using the mud to 'corrupt' minors or what not. But I didn't mention this
in my post; I wanted to get a discussion going on whether minors should
or shouldn't be allowed to engage in cybersexual activity on muds,
provided that they were in some way deemed to be mature (at that time, I
hadn't yet though of the cybersex license idea, but clearly, that would
fill the gap in how to do it).
> And most
> importantly, not with people who are not *trained* to help you. I'm
> sorry to tell you this Scott, but I don't believe you've been totally
> honest with any of the mental health care workers that you have seen.
> I, and most everyone else I am willing to bet, do not believe you would
> be here if you had.
Here's where my legendary honesty and straightforwardness can play a key
role. I tell you now that I -have- been totally honest with them. In
fact, I even printed a post from rec.games.mud.admin and gave it to my
psychologist a while back. My psychologist and so far, my therapist,
however, haven't been particularly keen on checking out the newsgroups.
Why? Who knows. Perhaps they simply don't have the time. But there you
have it.
> You should read this carefully. It is from the Alcoholics Anonymous 12
> step program, a plan that works for most people who truly put their
> hearts into it.
Oh no, not back to the alcoholism thread; Alcohol is a drug and is shown
to be addictive. Doing things -unconsensually- with girls isn't a drug.
It's a psychological thing. If you think that I'd repeat the mistakes
that I did with those 3 pre-teens, all I can say is I sincerely believe
I won't. I've realized the error of those actions.
> 2) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us
> to sanity.
As long as this isn't an attempt to ram the word 'god' down someone's
throat (I say ram, because I believe that some alcoholic anonymous
meetings can be obligatory for some drunk people), this can be fine. It
can also be fine for just about anyone, I'd think, as long as it's not
obligatory. I believe that everything is one entity in reality. I
certainly believe that the whole is greater then any individual part.
> 3) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of
> God, as we understood Him.
I spoke too soon. No atheist would go for this.
> 4) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
We all have fears, but I've certainly done a search of my ethical self
(I'll substituting that word for moral, as that can have certain
Christian connotations).
Alright, the rest is getting -way- too christian for me, thank you very
much.
> And then Scott, I urge you to commit yourself, literally
> and figuratively, to working out the problems you have.
By talking here, I'm doing just that. I certainly admit that I have
difficulties in myself, but I could just as easily say that there are
difficulties in our culture, especially when it comes to how we relate
to one another. Many may come to believe that acting or being violent
may be ok, while being sexual shouldn't be. We learn a great deal of
what is right and wrong when we're young. At present, it clearly seems
that violence is certainly being shown as more ok to children then
sexuality. I certainly don't think that this is a good thing.
> As for the website I've put up, you can not get rid of it. Tripod might
> choose to take it down because of the explict nature of your quotes. If
> they do, the entire site already exists on three other hosts. And
> getting more will not be difficult. Before you make wild statements
> about libel again, I'd highly suggest you consult a lawyer about the
> nature of libel.
Don't have the money, but what's wrong with the dictionary definition?
In any case, you've apparently tooken down some things, including the
'count 1: child molestation', etc.
> And despite your claim, I've done nothing to submit
> the sites to any search engines.
I was guessing.
> But web crawlers *will* find the sites
> and cache them eventually.
I see.
> So I'll make you this deal:
>
> You post *once* in this newsgroup saying:
> 1) You are committing yourself to truly seeking qualified medical care
> immediately.
Actually, I'm seeing a doctor, who I believe is also a psychiatrist.
I'll be seeing her again on July 10th. This is on top of seeing that
therapist. I certainly have difficulties in adjusting to the outside
world, as I'm now doing, since my father is off to Mexico for a time.
This doesn't mean that many of my ideas are mistaken, but it does mean
that incorporating myself into a world that predominantly doesn't like
them and trying to come to a point of harmony with it as much as
possible is certainly something that's difficult to do.
> 2) You are withdrawing from the usenet for at least a year
I might do this, although I certainly haven't decided to do that type of
thing at present. The strongest reason I'd withdraw from usenet would be
that I found a romantic relationship.
> 3) You promise not to start a mud in any form for at least a year
Again, it's possible, but I doubt it'd be something I'd do voluntarily.
There are certainly law enforcement agencies that could be more
persuasive, but at present, I haven't gotten any calls from them.
> If you do that, I'll replace the current page on the websites with the
> body of your message.
>
> If you remain true to your word for at least a year, I will remove the
> websites in their entirety.
>
> Before you reject this out-of-hand, I suggest you think it over. It is
> much less harsh than what many others want for you. And it *is* in your
> best interest, even if you cannot clearly fathom it at this moment in
> time.
I'll tell you what I think is in my best interest: To try to make this
world a better place, while not draining myself so much that I won't be
able to appreciate the rest of my time in this body. I'm not afraid of
your site being up. I think I should list my priorities:
1- To be true to what I think is best.
2- To try to have friends
3- To avoid coming into unnecessary conflict with the way the current
system runs.
From this, my fears can be easily deducted:
1- that I won't be or am not true to myself and my principles
2- that I end up with little or no friends.
3- that I have difficulties with the law.
Tellingly, my strongest problem is actually with myself. It ties in with
the fact that my friends are currently in short supply. I've certainly
done a lot of soul searching recently, and at present, I'll admit that I
can't understand certain things, but other things are beginning to get
clearer. I think that this post of yours was pretty good; it shows that
you do have a certain amount of compassion for people you don't agree
with, atleast if the other side seems to actively be trying to reach
some point where both sides are in agreement.
> If you choose to ignore this plea, I assure you that you will face the
> full force of criminal and civil law. You will face investigations by
> police and by the media. You will face the possibility that private
> detectives will be hired to seek out and notify the parents of the
> children you've (admitted publicly) to be involved with. Please note
> that by your own accounts, you have violated section s.151 of the
> Canadian criminal code three times. And you could certainly be sued in
> Civil court by the parents.
Ofcourse. And I'll even admit that it's technically possible, atleast in
the case of the parents that aren't my own. But a lot of things would
have to happen before that I'd think. For starters, the last I knew,
both sets of parents were still in the same sufi muslim group as my
mother, with my brother in law being the head of it. He didn't approve
of what I did, but I don't think he'd want anyone to prosecute me.
> It won't be me Scott. It will be the dozens of people in this newsgroup
> and others who feel you are dangerous to children and who have *already*
> reported you to Canadian and US criminal authorities and media.
>
> The choice is yours Scott. Most people will not believe you have the
> strength to do the right thing. You can prove them wrong, Scott, and
> you can begin doing it today.
What you're essentially doing is saying that if I don't comply with your
request, you'll essentially club me for it (metaphorically speaking
ofcourse). In other words, it's a threat. I see no strength in pandering
to a threat.
> ========= From the Victims of Violence Website =========
> WHAT IS PEDOPHILIA?
> Pedophilia is the long term sexual interest by adults in children under
> the legal age of 18.
A fair amount don't go for that definition. If one were to follow it to
its extreme conclusion, someone who just turned 18 would be a pedophile
if he had a long term sexual interest with someone who was a day shy of
18.
> Generally, the acts of a pedophile include any
> "sexual contact between an offender and a victim, who, due to age/or
> immaturity, is incapable either legally or realistically of giving
> consent."
I find that wording obfuscatory, but it also reveals some things. For
one, the issue of age/immaturity. So even they seem to realize that
there's a difference between the 2. I wonder if they'll ever realize
that maturity is the key here, not age. Another issue is how they word
'is incapable either legally or realistically of giving consent'. I note
that it doesn't say 'isn't -allowed- to give consent legally. And what
in the world do they mean by 'realistically'? Does it mean if they can't
give verbal consent or are we talking about something else here?
> - Sexual Anxiety - To a pedophile, the notion of heterosexual adult sex
> is often repulsive or frightening.
This one definitely doesn't apply to me. I skipped a fair amount of the
rest, because I don't think whether I do or don't have some traints that
are common to whatever definition of pedophiles that are mentioned is
incredibly important at present. Besides, i have a feeling that a fair
amount of people following would know my responses as to where I'd stand
on things anyway.
Derrick Rushlo
----- Original Message -----
From: shade <shade-...@writeme.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Off-Topic] Shade Get Help (Long)
> > I feel sick about the emotional damage you have done to numerous
children,
> > not just the three you have admitted touching sexually.
>
> I would argue that there's only one case where there's definitely
> evidence of emotional damage; with my younger sister. And yet, here you
> are saying that I've damaged others, based on a few quotes?
Okay let's assume that we aren't sure if you damaged them or not. Well can
you prove to use you haven't? Haven worked at a Teen crisis center, and as a
volunteer during a number of other events to help the healing process with
abused and neglected children. I can tell you if such and such person caused
damage to one of those kids, they wouldn't be likely to tell that person
that he/she had caused that damage. So you can't be sure you caused no
damage, but the odds aren't in your favor.
> > I think you do this because you are a profoundly lonely young man.
>
> Loneliness doesn't always make a person reach out. I won't deny that at
> present, my life is indeed a pretty lonely one. But even in this dark
> moments of my life, I can get a voice of support. A 13 year old guy
> friend of mine emailed me today,
I don't know many 24 year olds that have 13 year old friends. The only ones
I've ever met are recovering sexual offenders who no longer have those 13
year olds friends. By this I am not directly calling you a sexual offender
so relax, I know that's going to get the hairs up on your back. But by your
own admission you are a pedophile, and as they say once a pedophile always a
pedophile. You can become something more if you work at it, you can become a
reformed, or even Non-participating pedophile, and I think that most people
here would have a greater deal of respect for you. I believe there are some
things you need to do.
1)Seek a longer term of professional help. Possibly a home for a period of
time where you can do a lot of extensive behaviorally modification.
2)Truly apologize, to do that you have to admit guilt, and provide proof
that you are remorse, but I haven't seen a drop of that from you. Maybe you
have admitted some guilt, but I've seen no remorse I've only seen reasons
why you are justified to do that.
> > I think you do this because in real life, you are unable to interact
> > with your peers.
>
> You seem to be making the rather old argument that the online world
> isn't real. But that would mean that none of us talking here are real,
> which is completely untrue. Anyway, I'll use the term 'phys side life',
> for interactions offline. In that case, I will admit that I have few
> phys side friends who I talk to. For whatever reason, I have had a
> strong devotion to the online world.
Because you have a weak devotion to the physical (REAL) world and seek to
escape into a place where you can go anywhere without being labeled for what
you truly are?
> > And most
> > importantly, not with people who are not *trained* to help you. I'm
> > sorry to tell you this Scott, but I don't believe you've been totally
> > honest with any of the mental health care workers that you have seen.
> > I, and most everyone else I am willing to bet, do not believe you would
> > be here if you had.
>
> Here's where my legendary honesty and straightforwardness can play a key
Straightforwardness, You're walk the straightforward line just like a crab
if you catch my drift.
> role. I tell you now that I -have- been totally honest with them. In
> fact, I even printed a post from rec.games.mud.admin and gave it to my
> psychologist a while back. My psychologist and so far, my therapist,
> however, haven't been particularly keen on checking out the newsgroups.
> Why? Who knows. Perhaps they simply don't have the time. But there you
> have it.
>
> > You should read this carefully. It is from the Alcoholics Anonymous 12
> > step program, a plan that works for most people who truly put their
> > hearts into it.
>
Scott the same 12 steps have been used for Alcohol, Crack, Heroin, Speed,
Pot, Sex, Gambling, OCD, and many other therapies, in conjunction with other
treatments of course. I know personally at one time I was in AA, and I'm an
atheist yes, infact I still go to one meeting a week but we can talk about
that in email if you'd like.
> Oh no, not back to the alcoholism thread; Alcohol is a drug and is shown
> to be addictive. Doing things -unconsensually- with girls isn't a drug.
> It's a psychological thing. If you think that I'd repeat the mistakes
> that I did with those 3 pre-teens, all I can say is I sincerely believe
> I won't. I've realized the error of those actions.
Sex isn't a drug and has been shown to have an addictive quality to it too.
So what's your point pony boy?
> > 2) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us
> > to sanity.
>
> As long as this isn't an attempt to ram the word 'god' down someone's
> throat (I say ram, because I believe that some alcoholic anonymous
> meetings can be obligatory for some drunk people), this can be fine. It
> can also be fine for just about anyone, I'd think, as long as it's not
> obligatory. I believe that everything is one entity in reality. I
> certainly believe that the whole is greater then any individual part.
You are so set in thinking that a power greater then yourself must be the
dreaded G word. There is no definitive word on that in any AA books, and God
is hardly talked about in meetings, at least in my experience. My sponsor
told me one day 'Heck if your Higher Power is just the fact that you know if
you don't get straight you will lose everything you ever hoped so then
that's your Higher Power doesn't make it any more special then mine who I
believe is God in the Christian sense.'
>
> > 3) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of
> > God, as we understood Him.
As we understood him! That does not mean everybody has to follow the bible
meaning of God, or whatever book that particular person believed in who
headed the meeting.
>
> I spoke too soon. No atheist would go for this.
>
> > 4) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
>
> We all have fears, but I've certainly done a search of my ethical self
> (I'll substituting that word for moral, as that can have certain
> Christian connotations).
Fears and making a fearless moral inventory are two different things. Fears
are what keep you drinking/drugging/or molesting young kids. That fearless
inventory doesn't have to be and probably won't be painless. But you have to
make an honest attempt at it and that's the point. I don't think you have
made an honest attempt or you would see the stuff you are telling us is so
riddled with holes that it makes Swiss cheese look solid and whole.
>
>
> Alright, the rest is getting -way- too Christian for me, thank you very
> much.
Ahhhhh can't handle reading some steps.. I'm sorry I guess you'd never make
in in a support group. These are not therapists but a group of people coming
together to share. If you can handle those simple steps (Simple to
understand the basics complex in how long it takes to come to the full
realization) I believe there would be only one more choice for
you...........Detention in a mental; hospital with forced therapy.
>
>
> > And then Scott, I urge you to commit yourself, literally
> > and figuratively, to working out the problems you have.
>
> By talking here, I'm doing just that. I certainly admit that I have
> difficulties in myself, but I could just as easily say that there are
> difficulties in our culture, especially when it comes to how we relate
> to one another. Many may come to believe that acting or being violent
> may be ok, while being sexual shouldn't be. We learn a great deal of
> what is right and wrong when we're young. At present, it clearly seems
> that violence is certainly being shown as more ok to children then
> sexuality. I certainly don't think that this is a good thing.
You are missing an idea here we are talking about fictional violence, and
not real life violence while you are talking about real life sex be it
online or offline. There is a major difference. I don't see any parent out
there claiming that their children should be allowed to kill, at least I
don't see any parent who isn't disturbed themselves saying that.
>
> > As for the website I've put up, you can not get rid of it. Tripod might
> > choose to take it down because of the explicit nature of your quotes.
If
> > they do, the entire site already exists on three other hosts. And
> > getting more will not be difficult. Before you make wild statements
> > about libel again, I'd highly suggest you consult a lawyer about the
> > nature of libel.
>
> Don't have the money, but what's wrong with the dictionary definition?
> In any case, you've apparently tooken down some things, including the
> 'count 1: child molestation', etc.
Doesn't matter we all know you're a pedophile and a molester, you have
admitted that already. You remind me so much of politication one second you
are saying something but as soon as you hear the public doesn't like it you
turn around and try to change your words to mask their original meaning.
>
> > And despite your claim, I've done nothing to submit
> > the sites to any search engines.
>
> I was guessing.
>
> > But web crawlers *will* find the sites
> > and cache them eventually.
>
> I see.
>
> > So I'll make you this deal:
> >
> > You post *once* in this newsgroup saying:
> > 1) You are committing yourself to truly seeking qualified medical care
> > immediately.
>
> Actually, I'm seeing a doctor, who I believe is also a psychiatrist.
> I'll be seeing her again on July 10th. This is on top of seeing that
> therapist. I certainly have difficulties in adjusting to the outside
> world, as I'm now doing, since my father is off to Mexico for a time.
> This doesn't mean that many of my ideas are mistaken, but it does mean
> that incorporating myself into a world that predominantly doesn't like
> them and trying to come to a point of harmony with it as much as
> possible is certainly something that's difficult to do.
Maybe one day you'll see that a few of your ideas although they might not
seem wrong to you are indeed harmful to others. Maybe you'll wake up one day
and say 'Shit I have screwed up some many people's lives'.
But then Shade when you do what the hell are you going to do to recover from
the shock you receive when you finally figure out what you've done with your
life.
>
> > 2) You are withdrawing from the usenet for at least a year
>
> I might do this, although I certainly haven't decided to do that type of
> thing at present. The strongest reason I'd withdraw from usenet would be
> that I found a romantic relationship.
So recovery and and finding a way to set things right with your sister isn't
a good enough reason to withdraw from usenet and the internet all together
for one year?
>
> > 3) You promise not to start a mud in any form for at least a year
>
> Again, it's possible, but I doubt it'd be something I'd do voluntarily.
> There are certainly law enforcement agencies that could be more
> persuasive, but at present, I haven't gotten any calls from them.
>
> > If you do that, I'll replace the current page on the websites with the
> > body of your message.
> >
> > If you remain true to your word for at least a year, I will remove the
> > websites in their entirety.
> >
> > Before you reject this out-of-hand, I suggest you think it over. It is
> > much less harsh than what many others want for you. And it *is* in your
> > best interest, even if you cannot clearly fathom it at this moment in
> > time.
>
> I'll tell you what I think is in my best interest: To try to make this
> world a better place, while not draining myself so much that I won't be
> able to appreciate the rest of my time in this body. I'm not afraid of
> your site being up. I think I should list my priorities:
> 1- To be true to what I think is best.
> 2- To try to have friends
> 3- To avoid coming into unnecessary conflict with the way the current
> system runs.
Okay you be true to what you think is best, hell if you have to go down on a
flaming ship why not let it be one of your own make. Well Shade believe it
or not I care about you for the simple fact, that I have a child and
possibly could be having more in the future, and do now wish to have them
expoused to someone like you in your current state. For you to avoid coming
into conflicit with the way the system runs you'll need to rethink your line
of thought on breaking rules.
>
> From this, my fears can be easily deducted:
> 1- that I won't be or am not true to myself and my principles
> 2- that I end up with little or no friends.
> 3- that I have difficulties with the law.
>
> Tellingly, my strongest problem is actually with myself. It ties in with
> the fact that my friends are currently in short supply. I've certainly
> done a lot of soul searching recently, and at present, I'll admit that I
> can't understand certain things, but other things are beginning to get
> clearer.
Have you ever thought that maybe your opinions on what a child can and can't
do has led to this short supply of friends. I mean I've even attempted to
help you have an actual debate on the subject and share some thoughts with
you, but you refuse to answer my emails. So now I have given up knowing that
indeed nothing will ever come of this because you aren't going to repsond to
me.
No certain circumstances would be seen like that to not be Pedophilia I
don't know a single person here who would consider your obvious attempt to
stretch the rules to the limits as being an example of pedophilia but I know
plently of people that would consider what you've done as pedophilia.
>
> > Generally, the acts of a pedophile include any
> > "sexual contact between an offender and a victim, who, due to age/or
> > immaturity, is incapable either legally or realistically of giving
> > consent."
>
> I find that wording obfuscatory, but it also reveals some things. For
> one, the issue of age/immaturity. So even they seem to realize that
> there's a difference between the 2.
That's the point they know that mental maturity continues up to a certain
age, and beyond that age you gain more knowledge, but your brain continues
to grow in mass up to a certain age, and that opens paths for mature
thinking. So age has a lot to do with maturity.
I wonder if they'll ever realize
> that maturity is the key here, not age. Another issue is how they word
> 'is incapable either legally or realistically of giving consent'. I note
> that it doesn't say 'isn't -allowed- to give consent legally. And what
> in the world do they mean by 'realistically'? Does it mean if they can't
> give verbal consent or are we talking about something else here?
We are talking about informed consent i.e knowing what bear trap you're
getting your foot caught in instead of just stepping on a ton of traps
without knowing anything.
>
> > - Sexual Anxiety - To a pedophile, the notion of heterosexual adult sex
> > is often repulsive or frightening.
>
> This one definitely doesn't apply to me. I skipped a fair amount of the
> rest, because I don't think whether I do or don't have some traints that
> are common to whatever definition of pedophiles that are mentioned is
> incredibly important at present. Besides, i have a feeling that a fair
> amount of people following would know my responses as to where I'd stand
> on things anyway.
I believe you skipped them because you did not want to answer and not
because they didn't apply to you because if they didn't you could have
simply said no that point doesn't apply to me and such and such, but no
Shade you have to cut and remove anything that you find that you would
rather no answer.
> --
> shade
> email address is: sha...@writeme.com
> home page: http://members.home.net/shade2x/
shade <shade-...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:1ecuuko.152ayd2u8y5g8N%shade-...@writeme.com...
Shade Bane
perfectly clear you are mentally disabled in a profound sense.
1) You do not read carefully. The business about the 12 step program
had nothing to do with alcholism or christianity as it relates to you
and everything to do with one way you could help yourself as others
have. And that was made perfectly clear in my original post. This is
the same thing as not listening carefully. You have your stated
agenda, and you simply are not going to listen to anything else.
2) You are not very knowledgable about anything other than what you've
read on the age of consent website. This means you shoot off your mouth
and make a fool of yourself on a regular basis. The business with
Charles Manson is one of dozens of examples where your lack credibility
has been exposed. You clearly do not know anything about alcoholism or
alcoholics annoymous. You clearly do not know anything about the law,
especially where it applies to your own actions.
3) You repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over,
ignoring every retort, and claiming no one has ever given you a good
reason why your ideas are not sound. Reading the LambdaMoo archives,
its clear you've been saying the exact same things for a year. In
otherwords, you have simply rejected anything that contradicts your oft
stated agenda. When you claim you want to harmonize your world view,
what you mean is that you expect everyone else to accept your ideas as
sound. Here again, you play the fool. You clearly believe that if the
world doesn't agree with you, you just need to post your ideas again.
The fact that no one has been interested in discussing your 'ideas'
doesn't register for you, does it?
4) In the lights of the thousands of quotes you've made, you
contradict yourself repeatedly. Either you are lying, or you are so
completely confused you don't know what you are saying. The truth is,
as everyone except you will attest, is that you *are* a liar, and you've
posted so much you are now caught in your web of lies. In some posts
you claim you only molested three children, but then its clear it wasn't
just three children or three incidents. Its also clear that you have
harassed and stalked children. *I* don't have to prove that, Scott.
You've already proved it for the entire world! Its all there in the
thousands of posts you've made. So instead of asking me for proof,
which you will because you are compulsive, why don't you ask if *anyone*
else reading these godforsaken waste-of-time posts believes you are not
a sick, deluded puppy. Ask them that, Scott. Have them post in your
defense. Don't lie to us with some nonsense about your 13-year-old
friends emailing you. Where are the *adults* coming to your defense,
Scott? At best, there will be a *few* people who think you have a right
to say your piece. The only *adults* who are going to stand with you
Scott are the pedophiles.
5) You should take the chance to back away now, Scott. Continue down
this track, of continually posting about your criminal and socially
unacceptable behavior, of demanding that the whole of society change its
views to meet your own, and you will lose your freedoms and your
rights. Remember Scott that a jury of your peers will not be made up of
pre-teen girls lifting their legs. It will be made up of *adults*
Scott. Adults who are parents, and who are protective of their
children. Who will see you as the monstrous threat that you really
are. They will picture you, in their homes, in their children's
bedrooms, acting out on your impulses to fondle their children's
bodies. They will hear your rants and deranged justifications and think
you a lunatic and a horror, as almost everyone here does. They will not
be swayed to "harmonize" their views with yours. They will send you a
message in CAPSED words Scott, the same message that was sent to you on
LambdaMoo, the same message that was sent to you on all the chatrooms,
muds, and forums you've infected: You are disturbed, deviant, dangerous
person. Majority rules Scott, as it always has and always will. And
the utterly vast majority of people in this world disagree strongly with
what you have done, what you are doing, and what you say you will do.
You CANNOT change that. There will *never* be a time when, to
paraphrase you, society will look at pedophiles in a good light.
6) You are the Wile E. Coyote of these newsgroups. You keep blowing
yourself up, keep falling off cliffs, keep making a fool of yourself...
and yet you come back again and again and try it one more time. Only
you aren't very funny Scott. You're pathetic and sad. You are bound
for a bad, bad end Scott. And other than the sadness at seeing a
profoundly misformed human being, no one cares. I for one hope the end
comes quickly, before you commit another atrocity.
====
As for the rest of you, feel free to mirror the website. Hell, they're
all Scott's quotes: you can do the cut and paste yourself. Which you
could do in email's to all the police and media organizations in
Toronto, as well as parent and school organizations, all of which can be
found via a simple search or at toronto.com. I myself am unsubscribing
from the rec.game.mud* heirarchy as soon as I post this. I am disgusted
that the silent majority of you just stand by and say nothing and do
nothing. If not you, who? If not now, when? After another child has
had their world shattered by Scott Guzman's uncontrollable urges? And
to those of you who see fit to support Scott for any reason: Just wait
until you find him rooting around in your six-year-old sister's
underpants or preying on your 15-year-old daughter's insecurities.
Blane Bramble
Steven Lucas wrote in message <3957FDAD...@flashmail.com>...
>
>
>"H. McDaniel" wrote:
>
>> Canadians, you may be held legally responsible for not reporting Scott
Guzman
>> to the authorities. It is your legal duty to report him according to
"Stopping
>> Child Abuse", a publication of the RCMP. And all of us, Canadian or not
have
>> the moral duty to report him. Excerpts from the RCMP:
>
>How are you going to report him when you don't know WHERE in Canada he
lives?
As, no doubt, will be pointed out, his address is publically available, so
we DO know where he lives. Even if you didn't, a message along the lines of
"this is his name, these are his postings, these are the ISP's he has used"
would do some good. The police generally can obtain telephone numbers of
users from ISP's with a warrant.
Blane.
Blane Bramble
shade wrote in message <1ecutpo.ldc88w142vi0wN%shade-...@writeme.com>...
><agan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> I see that website is down. I imagine the pedophile is quite delighted.
>
>it immensely ironic that tripod deleted my own account detailing the
>-same- actions, but that, because shade bane is against me, it's ok if
>he posts them.
Maybe because he isn't glorifying it, or trying to encourage others, or to
justify it. Look at it another way, if I post a site that tries to justify
the Holocaust I will be slapped down by UK law. If I post a site that
details it with the intention of stopping someone it happening again I
won't. Very ironic (that was said sarcastically).
>I also find it incredibly ironic that there's now a site,
>apparently endorsed by tripod, that I can refer people to it in terms of
>my past actions with the 3 girls.
So, tell me Scott, why WOULD you want to refer people to information on your
past? Are you proud of your "achievements"? Do you boast about your
molestation of children?
>Apparently, Shade Bane's modified his
>site to be less libelous.
It didn't look very different to me. Perhaps my definition of libel varies
though.
>Anyway, compared to some people here, he's not
>the worst in terms of criticizing me.
No, he's just another who knows a pedophile when he sees one, and wants to
do something about it.
Blane.
Steven Lucas
> As, no doubt, will be pointed out, his address is publically available, so
> we DO know where he lives. Even if you didn't, a message along the lines of
> "this is his name, these are his postings, these are the ISP's he has used"
> would do some good. The police generally can obtain telephone numbers of
> users from ISP's with a warrant.
Well crap, why not look up the Canadian Royal Mounted Police website and sent
them all the evidence of what this guy has written here? What is keeping
someone from doing that? Or is there the mentality of not wanting to be tagged
"a snitch"? Bustin' ain't easy...why make it harder to control crime by
letting this guy continue his conduct?
shade
>
> > Shade Bane wrote:
> > If you choose to ignore this plea, I assure you that you will face the
> > full force of criminal and civil law. You will face investigations by
> > police and by the media. You will face the possibility that private
> > detectives will be hired to seek out and notify the parents of the
> > children you've (admitted publicly) to be involved with. Please note
> > that by your own accounts, you have violated section s.151 of the
> > Canadian criminal code three times. And you could certainly be sued in
> > Civil court by the parents.
>
> Ofcourse. And I'll even admit that it's technically possible, atleast in
> the case of the parents that aren't my own. But a lot of things would
> have to happen before that I'd think. For starters, the last I knew,
> both sets of parents were still in the same sufi muslim group as my
> mother, with my brother in law being the head of it. He didn't approve
> of what I did, but I don't think he'd want anyone to prosecute me.
I should add that in one set of parents, my mother, on my request, told
them the general idea of what happened. I then talked to them myself, in
person. The mother said that it could have helped me heal somewhat and I
greatly agree. M didn't understand why I had to leave, so I explained it
to her. As for the parents of J, I didn't tell them, but I told the
general outlines to her oldest sibling and my personal friend at the
time. I also had a pretty good rapport with his mother. I'm not saying
that the impact of my actions has gone unnoticed in their community. I
-am- saying, however, that I sincerely doubt that any of the families
would want to prosecute. In all cases, there was only a chance of me
doing something if I was actually living with these girls. So the simple
solution, from their point of view, is to simply not have me live with
young girls. As I've mentioned here before, I actually have a personal
fear of being around pre-teen girls, in particular if the people don't
know of my attraction to some of them. In short, I'm not particularly
keen in exposing my attraction for girls that are that young. When it
comes to girls who are 14+, and thus atleast legal in Canada for me, if
not exactly culturally accepted in many parts of it, the situation is
dual:
if it's not someone I know, I have a fear that's even stronger then with
the pre-teens. At the age of pre-teen, they aren't so.. flirtatious,
looking around, etc. as when they're older. And when they're older, they
can pick up much more easily on the fact that someone's attracted to
them. I went to buy some sandwiches today and there was 2 teenage girls
who got in line after me.. I practically bolted when I got my
sandwiches. My experiences with teenage females have certainly been
better then with my experiences with adult females, but that's not to
say that the picture's all that rosy; actually, my biggest pains
lovewise occured with teenager girls; the first, when I myself was
16-17, with a classmate of mine, Lisa, and the second, when I was 22-23,
with Kim (who was 13-14 at the time of our relationship).
shade
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: shade <shade-...@writeme.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 12:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Off-Topic] Shade Get Help (Long)
>
>
> > > I feel sick about the emotional damage you have done to numerous
> > > children, not just the three you have admitted touching sexually.
> >
> > I would argue that there's only one case where there's definitely
> > evidence of emotional damage; with my younger sister. And yet, here you
> > are saying that I've damaged others, based on a few quotes?
>
> Okay let's assume that we aren't sure if you damaged them or not. Well can
> you prove to use you haven't?
How could I do that? It's not like I can check their every thought and
see if there was some psychological damage somewhere. I must admit that
I worry a little in terms of the things I did without verbal consent,
but other then that, I doubt I did anything that did any damage. I also
think that we should weigh in the fact that I believe I did a lot of
-good- as well, in terms of taking care of them and teaching them a
little about patience and forgiving I'd think (I tend to forgive fairly
easily, which is why I respond to people who've put me through the
ringer here, time and again).
> Having worked at a Teen crisis center, and as a
> volunteer during a number of other events to help the healing process with
> abused and neglected children, I can tell you if such and such person caused
> damage to one of those kids, they wouldn't be likely to tell that person
> that he/she had caused that damage.
Ofcourse. But one can figure these things out by more then what they
say. For instance, how many of the kids you talked to wanted to be with
the person that had damaged them? Oh, I'm not saying that it doesn't
happen, but I think you'll get a fairly smaller proportion of them. And
there are other signs, such as the girls laughing, smiling.. it's hard
to fully explain, but you get the idea.
> So you can't be sure you caused no
> damage, but the odds aren't in your favor.
I think the odds are in my favour that comparing the potential damage to
the good done ration, i've come up aces in all cases. Although in the
case of my younger sister, there's definite damage that I can't resolve
at present.
> > > I think you do this because you are a profoundly lonely young man.
> >
> > Loneliness doesn't always make a person reach out. I won't deny that at
> > present, my life is indeed a pretty lonely one. But even in this dark
> > moments of my life, I can get a voice of support. A 13 year old guy
> > friend of mine emailed me today,
>
> I don't know many 24 year olds that have 13 year old friends. The only ones
> I've ever met are recovering sexual offenders who no longer have those 13
> year olds friends.
Alright, I'd just like to say that I was -never- sexually involved with
this guy friend of mine nor do I intend to be. I may have an -inkling-
of bi-ness in me, but it's really just that, and I've actually made
something of a resolution to myself; don't get into that whole issue. I
think it's hard enough for me to have to defend the fact that I have
attraction to minors without getting into a secondary issue like that.
> By this I am not directly calling you a sexual offender
> so relax, I know that's going to get the hairs up on your back. But by your
> own admission you are a pedophile
I've changed that; a pedophile is classified in my dictionary as someone
who's sexual preference is children. But in truth, my main attraction is
to teenagers. Which would make me a hebophile (someone attracted to
adolescents).
> and as they say once a pedophile always a
> pedophile.
I think I'm going to be sick. It reminds me of those endless tiring
debates, which also helped get me booted for a week with my cable
provider because I was off topic, concerning whether an alcoholic can be
called a reformed alcoholic. I don't want to get into -that- one again,
but I'll say this: I don't know if I'll always be a hebophile. As I've
mentioned before, my sexual preference has been steadily increasing as
my younger sister has gotten older. She's now 15, which means that my
main attraction is currently with girls who are actually of legal age
here. If this trend continues, in 3 more years, my main attraction will
be with adults and I wouldn't even have to call myself a hebophile
anymore, but simply an adult who, while his main attraction may be
female adults, would also be sexually attracted to minors to a lesser
degree.
> 1) Seek a longer term of professional help. Possibly a home for a period of
> time where you can do a lot of extensive behavioral modification.
I don't see anything wrong with my current behaviour.
> 2) Truly apologize, to do that you have to admit guilt, and provide proof
> that you are remorseful, but I haven't seen a drop of that from you.
Probably because you haven't been looking very hard. But any decent
psychologist will tell you that guilt isn't something you should have.
You should apologize and move on with your life, assuming the problem is
solved. In the case of my younger sister, I've apologized, but the
problem still isn't solved. In the case of the other 2 girls, I can't
apologize because I haven't had contact with them in quite some time (up
to 3 years).
> > > I think you do this because in real life, you are unable to interact
> > > with your peers.
> >
> > You seem to be making the rather old argument that the online world
> > isn't real. But that would mean that none of us talking here are real,
> > which is completely untrue. Anyway, I'll use the term 'phys side life',
> > for interactions offline. In that case, I will admit that I have few
> > phys side friends who I talk to. For whatever reason, I have had a
> > strong devotion to the online world.
>
> Because you have a weak devotion to the physical (REAL) world and seek to
> escape into a place where you can go anywhere without being labeled for what
> you truly are?
And what am I 'truly'? A hebophile? A label isn't what someone is. It's
a classification, no more. Each person is different regardless if
they're in the same general classification. And there's so many
different ways to classify someone. For instance, you could also say
that I'm a (albeit somewhat novice) techie. Or an arguably good writer
(there's a little unfinished story on my home page, called glimpses). Or
an intellectual. The list could go on I'm sure, but the point is, no one
can be defined in a single word. In fact, I doubt any biography of a
person could truly capture everything that person was. In any case, in
the online world, I'm labelled tons. But here, I can be direct about who
I am and what I believe in. Offline, you can't do that as a general rule
without -severe- risks. Not that I never took such risks, but the
consequences were also just as predictable. I truly hate not being known
for who I am. It's why I couldn't stand the idea of being truly
anonymous (as in, changing my online name, isp, etc. and being someone
'else')
> > > And most
> > > importantly, not with people who are not *trained* to help you. I'm
> > > sorry to tell you this Scott, but I don't believe you've been totally
> > > honest with any of the mental health care workers that you have seen.
> > > I, and most everyone else I am willing to bet, do not believe you would
> > > be here if you had.
> >
> > Here's where my legendary honesty and straightforwardness can play a key
>
> Straightforwardness, You're walking the straightforward line just like a crab
> if you catch my drift.
I assume that you're saying I'm not being straightforward at all; if so,
what makes you think this?
> > > You should read this carefully. It is from the Alcoholics Anonymous 12
> > > step program, a plan that works for most people who truly put their
> > > hearts into it.
>
> Scott the same 12 steps have been used for Alcohol, Crack, Heroin, Speed,
> Pot, Sex, Gambling, OCD, and many other therapies, in conjunction with other
> treatments of course. I know personally at one time I was in AA, and I'm an
> atheist yes, in fact I still go to one meeting a week but we can talk about
> that in email if you'd like.
If you want.. the real problem I had with the former alcoholism thread
was that there was this insistence that someone who once drank too much
alcohol and became an alcoholic couldn't become a reformed alcoholic. I
never argued that it would be easier for a reformed alcoholic to revert
then it would be for someone who was never an alcoholic to not become
one to begin with, but I was just saying that they should have a label
for alcoholics who've stoppped for a good while that gives them credit
for their efforts. I never liked being labelled a 'molester' of any
kind, but I argued that if someone had to use that term on me, they
should atleast call me a 'reformed molester'. But even this is pretty
insulting and such a narrow reference to a person. If someone hits a
sibling, you don't call them a sibling beater for the rest of their
lives. Similar, if someone does something without someone's consent (aka
molests them), they shouldn't have to be called a molester for the rest
of their lives either (and, naturally, the same would go with the
alcoholic thing). I understand that people need to be reminded not to
get into old habits and one way they may want to do this is to be called
an alcoholic instead of a reformed alcoholic. To those people, fine, I
can call them that. I'd rather call them a reformed one if they've quite
for a while, but it's up to them. But to someone like me who
-distinctly- feels he's overcome the compunction to do certain sexual
things with someone without asking for their verbal consent, I -do- want
that officially recognized in any label given to me.
> > Oh no, not back to the alcoholism thread; Alcohol is a drug and is shown
> > to be addictive. Doing things -unconsensually- with girls isn't a drug.
> > It's a psychological thing. If you think that I'd repeat the mistakes
> > that I did with those 3 pre-teens, all I can say is I sincerely believe
> > I won't. I've realized the error of those actions.
>
> Sex isn't a drug and has been shown to have an addictive quality to it too.
Having actual intercourse actually does produce certain drugs, namely
hormonal releases I believe. The vagina actually releases something that
makes the guy feel even -better-, which, I suspect, is one of the
reasons that some guys don't want to use a condom. In terms of actual
intercourse though, I haven't exactly been needing it a whole lot,
having only done it once. In terms of being sexually aroused, one
doesn't need to do something sexually with someone of any age for that
to happen; just using one's imagination and a hand can easily do the
trick.
> So what's your point pony boy?
Why do you keep on calling me pony boy?
> > > 2) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us
> > > to sanity.
> >
> > As long as this isn't an attempt to ram the word 'god' down someone's
> > throat (I say ram, because I believe that some alcoholic anonymous
> > meetings can be obligatory for some drunk people), this can be fine. It
> > can also be fine for just about anyone, I'd think, as long as it's not
> > obligatory. I believe that everything is one entity in reality. I
> > certainly believe that the whole is greater then any individual part.
>
> You are so set in thinking that a power greater then yourself must be the
> dreaded G word.
He mentions the G word later down.
> There is no definitive word on that in any AA books, and God
> is hardly talked about in meetings, at least in my experience. My sponsor
> told me one day 'Heck if your Higher Power is just the fact that you know if
> you don't get straight you will lose everything you ever hoped so then
> that's your Higher Power doesn't make it any more special then mine who I
> believe is God in the Christian sense.'
I think one could simply say 'you will lose everything you ever hoped
for' instead, chuckle :-p. But I still believe in the whole essentially
directing the parts.
> > > 3) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of
> > > God, as we understood Him.
>
> As we understood him! That does not mean everybody has to follow the bible
> meaning of God, or whatever book that particular person believed in who
> headed the meeting.
I sincerely think they shouldn't start with the assumption that everyone
even goes for a higher power; I know, you can interpret the word to mean
anything you want, but I think it's agreed that it has certain
connotations (as in, that a higher power controls things). I think what
should be done first and foremost is find out what people live for. Once
you know this, I think it's not so hard to show them why drinking would
be destructive.
> > > 4) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
> >
> > We all have fears, but I've certainly done a search of my ethical self
> > (I'll substituting that word for moral, as that can have certain
> > Christian connotations).
>
> Fears and making a fearless moral inventory are two different things. Fears
> are what keep you drinking/drugging/or molesting young kids.
Not a chance. When I did things with young girls, I did so primarily
because I was pretty lonely and there were these girls who liked me.
Fear actually has the opposite affect on me, but I don't think it's a
good thing; it essentially means that I'm actually uncomfortable around
minors as a whole, unless I know them personally.
> That fearless
> inventory doesn't have to be and probably won't be painless. But you have to
> make an honest attempt at it and that's the point. I don't think you have
> made an honest attempt or you would see the stuff you are telling us is so
> riddled with holes that it makes Swiss cheese look solid and whole.
That's your theory, but you have yet to show any evidence for it (or
atleast that I've seen).
> > Alright, the rest is getting -way- too Christian for me, thank you very
> > much.
>
> Ahhhhh can't handle reading some steps..
Because they simply sounded too Christian for me.
> I'm sorry I guess you'd never make
> in in a support group. These are not therapists but a group of people coming
> together to share. If you can handle those simple steps (Simple to
> understand the basics complex in how long it takes to come to the full
> realization) I believe there would be only one more choice for
> you...........Detention in a mental; hospital with forced therapy.
God, there's so many people who can only see things in black and white.
Ever heard of therapists/psychologists/psychiatrists? Not to mention
that I'll bet there are groups out there that don't put the word 'god'
in about have of their goal statements.
> > > And then Scott, I urge you to commit yourself, literally
> > > and figuratively, to working out the problems you have.
> >
> > By talking here, I'm doing just that. I certainly admit that I have
> > difficulties in myself, but I could just as easily say that there are
> > difficulties in our culture, especially when it comes to how we relate
> > to one another. Many may come to believe that acting or being violent
> > may be ok, while being sexual shouldn't be. We learn a great deal of
> > what is right and wrong when we're young. At present, it clearly seems
> > that violence is certainly being shown as more ok to children then
> > sexuality. I certainly don't think that this is a good thing.
>
> You are missing an idea here we are talking about fictional violence, and
> not real life violence
Ah, the realms of fiction and 'real life'. As my father put it, 'the
boundary between reality and imagination is more imaginary than real'.
He's a computer graphics artist and can make images that can definitely
appear real even if they're actually nearly completely fabricated
(there's usually some element taking from the phys side world, if only
the textures). I think a good question to ask would be: how do you
define reality? I personally would define it as everything I experience.
That would include everything, both online and off, heck even dreams or
hallucinations. This isn't to say that we should treat all of these
various elements of reality in the same way. I think it could certainly
be explained that a hallucination is just a product of the mind, but
what the mind creates is still something it -really- did. So it's real
in that sense. Now, I'm all for agreeing that killing someone online is
much less of a big deal then killing them offline. -However-, I'd never
say that killing them online is a healthy thing to do as a general rule.
The first mud I was ever on was a pk mud. I didn't choose the mud
because of this. In fact, I didn't choose the mud at all. Isaac, a
friend of mine (actually, the oldest brother of J.) told me it was a
great place to be; he told me of adventures there that I really had to
try out. He told me about looking at this lizard creature, seeing that
it had this jeweled bracelet or something and how he'd decided to kill
it for this bracelet. Now I'm not saying this is a good thing, but he
just brought the whole thing up so interestingly.. he went on to say how
he'd chased it into a desert, but had lost it there. He had been
wondering around in the desert, only to encounter the Bronze Dragon. The
Dragon roasted him but good, so he badgered a friend of his to get his
corpse. His friend, somewhat foolishly, agreed to do so. He got the
corpse, but he ended up dying from the Dragon's wrath at (atleast I
thought) having his prize taken away from him.
Anyway, I believe the experience overall of being on that mud was
beneficial, but I definitely didn't like being killed the first time and
the fear that one might always be essentially ambushed by a pker. I
firmly believe that this type of thing is -far- more damaging to minors
then allowing them to engage in cybersexual relationships, provided that
it's assured that they have some background knowledge about
relationships and that phys side sex is quite a different story, for a
variety of reasons, ranging from pregnancy to legalities and politics.
In a lot of the pking situations, what you've got is a culture where
thugs are accepted. Pretty bad stuff.
> > > As for the website I've put up, you can not get rid of it. Tripod might
> > > choose to take it down because of the explicit nature of your quotes. If
> > > they do, the entire site already exists on three other hosts. And
> > > getting more will not be difficult. Before you make wild statements
> > > about libel again, I'd highly suggest you consult a lawyer about the
> > > nature of libel.
> >
> > Don't have the money, but what's wrong with the dictionary definition?
> > In any case, you've apparently tooken down some things, including the
> > 'count 1: child molestation', etc.
>
> Doesn't matter we all know you're a pedophile and a molester, you have
> admitted that already. You remind me so much of politication one second you
> are saying something but as soon as you hear the public doesn't like it you
> turn around and try to change your words to mask their original meaning.
I never came up with the molestation idea or the pedophile one; that was
other people.
> > > So I'll make you this deal:
> > >
> > > You post *once* in this newsgroup saying:
> > > 1) You are committing yourself to truly seeking qualified medical care
> > > immediately.
> >
> > Actually, I'm seeing a doctor, who I believe is also a psychiatrist.
> > I'll be seeing her again on July 10th. This is on top of seeing that
> > therapist. I certainly have difficulties in adjusting to the outside
> > world, as I'm now doing, since my father is off to Mexico for a time.
> > This doesn't mean that many of my ideas are mistaken, but it does mean
> > that incorporating myself into a world that predominantly doesn't like
> > them and trying to come to a point of harmony with it as much as
> > possible is certainly something that's difficult to do.
>
> Maybe one day you'll see that a few of your ideas although they might not
> seem wrong to you are indeed harmful to others.
And maybe one day you'll see that they're not..
> Maybe you'll wake up one day
> and say 'Shit I have screwed up so many people's lives'.
And maybe one day you'll realize that I haven't.
> > > 2) You are withdrawing from the usenet for at least a year
> >
> > I might do this, although I certainly haven't decided to do that type of
> > thing at present. The strongest reason I'd withdraw from usenet would be
> > that I found a romantic relationship.
>
> So recovery and and finding a way to set things right with your sister isn't
> a good enough reason to withdraw from usenet and the internet all together
> for one year?
Recover from -what-? you have yet to show that I even -have- an
addiction, unless you're going to argue that my viewpoints are an
addiction (in which case, we're all addicted). As for fixing up my
mistakes as best I can, I've already done as much as I can in terms of
the actual people involved.
> > > If you do that, I'll replace the current page on the websites with the
> > > body of your message.
> > >
> > > If you remain true to your word for at least a year, I will remove the
> > > websites in their entirety.
> > >
> > > Before you reject this out-of-hand, I suggest you think it over. It is
> > > much less harsh than what many others want for you. And it *is* in your
> > > best interest, even if you cannot clearly fathom it at this moment in
> > > time.
> >
> > I'll tell you what I think is in my best interest: To try to make this
> > world a better place, while not draining myself so much that I won't be
> > able to appreciate the rest of my time in this body. I'm not afraid of
> > your site being up. I think I should list my priorities:
> > 1- To be true to what I think is best.
> > 2- To try to have friends
> > 3- To avoid coming into unnecessary conflict with the way the current
> > system runs.
>
> Okay you be true to what you think is best, hell if you have to go down on a
> flaming ship why not let it be one of your own making. Well Shade believe it
> or not I care about you for the simple fact, that I have a child and
> possibly could be having more in the future, and do not wish to have them
> expoused to someone like you in your current state. For you to avoid coming
> into conflict with the way the system runs you'll need to rethink your line
> of thought on breaking rules.
I'm actually not keen on breaking rules. Which is why I've worked so
hard to get the rules on sexuality to a point where I agree with them.
> > From this, my fears can be easily deducted:
> > 1- that I won't be or am not true to myself and my principles
> > 2- that I end up with little or no friends.
> > 3- that I have difficulties with the law.
> >
> > Tellingly, my strongest problem is actually with myself. It ties in with
> > the fact that my friends are currently in short supply. I've certainly
> > done a lot of soul searching recently, and at present, I'll admit that I
> > can't understand certain things, but other things are beginning to get
> > clearer.
>
> Have you ever thought that maybe your opinions on what a child can and can't
> do has led to this short supply of friends.
Oh, it's not just in the sexuality area that I have difficulty in being
popular. There are a lot of things that I don't do in the usual way.
Although I'm not as transparent offline as I am online, atleast for
people who aren't friends, I'm still fairly transparent. And there are
always those views of mine that are a fair amount different then others.
> I mean I've even attempted to
> help you have an actual debate on the subject and share some thoughts with
> you, but you refuse to answer my emails.
If you're talking about emails where you base insulted me and use caps
locked words, it's because you're not respecting my wishes in terms of
communication method. I find those methods insulting to me. If you don't
respect that, I clearly don't think you're all that interested in my
response. If the messages didn't contain that, then bear in mind that I
have more going on in my life then answering newsgroup posts and there
are a -lot- of people responding. I'd think that a few long messages a
day isn't so few messages.
> > > ========= From the Victims of Violence Website =========
> > > WHAT IS PEDOPHILIA?
> > > Pedophilia is the long term sexual interest by adults in children under
> > > the legal age of 18.
> >
> > A fair amount don't go for that definition. If one were to follow it to
> > its extreme conclusion, someone who just turned 18 would be a pedophile
> > if he had a long term sexual interest with someone who was a day shy of
> > 18.
>
> No certain circumstances would be seen like that to not be Pedophilia I
> don't know a single person here who would consider your obvious attempt to
> stretch the rules to the limits as being an example of pedophilia but I know
> plently of people that would consider what you've done as pedophilia.
My point is, where, precisely, do we set the limit of what is and isn't
acceptable? I still maintain that we should focus on maturity and
financial capability instead of age.
> > > Generally, the acts of a pedophile include any
> > > "sexual contact between an offender and a victim, who, due to age/or
> > > immaturity, is incapable either legally or realistically of giving
> > > consent."
> >
> > I find that wording obfuscatory, but it also reveals some things. For
> > one, the issue of age/immaturity. So even they seem to realize that
> > there's a difference between the 2.
>
> That's the point they know that mental maturity continues up to a certain
> age, and beyond that age you gain more knowledge, but your brain continues
> to grow in mass up to a certain age, and that opens paths for mature
> thinking. So age has a lot to do with maturity.
I'm not saying that there isn't a strong correlation between age and
maturity, but that's because knowledge is being put into that head as
time goes by. There is no scientific evidence that someone isn't mature
enough to engage in sexual things, if not sexual intercourse itself,
before any particular age. There is strong evidence that most minors
aren't ready to get pregnant, which I've heard from many is the
predominant problem with minors and sex, and even the fear of becoming
pregnant might be a big issue, but I've yet to see any evidence that
shows that minors engaging in things -other- then sexual intercourse had
such a negative impact. Another issue is, I'd want to be damn sure I had
a good reason for 2 people to not engage in sexual activity before
denying them the right to have control over their own personal actions,
especially if it's not harming anyone (some people have made a case for
bdsm, although only with adults, but I'm still fairly skeptical about
its merits as a general rule).
> > I wonder if they'll ever realize
> > that maturity is the key here, not age. Another issue is how they word
> > 'is incapable either legally or realistically of giving consent'. I note
> > that it doesn't say 'isn't -allowed- to give consent legally. And what
> > in the world do they mean by 'realistically'? Does it mean if they can't
> > give verbal consent or are we talking about something else here?
>
> We are talking about informed consent i.e knowing what bear trap you're
> getting your foot caught in instead of just stepping on a ton of traps
> without knowing anything.
There is absolutely no evidence that people magically become 'aware' at
the age of consent in their state or country. The idea of sex licenses
makes much more sense for ascertaining that this exists; ofcourse,
there's no need for an age restriction if we do things that way. You may
say it leaves stuff to be desired. Well, by all means, name it. If you
don't know what that stuff is, then I'd argue that, regardless of
whether you're an adult or not, you -yourself- may not be 'ready' to
engage in sexual activities. But I doubt an adult would want their right
to engage in sexual activities revoked simply because they couldn't
figure out a perfect sex license test. We should make do with what we
can and not restrict minors simply because we don't know all the
potential pitfalls a human can face when engaging in sexual activity. We
should do our best to make sure that they know of the pitfalls, not
restrict them because there's some unknown 'danger' they might face;
sooner or later they're going to have to face it, and I think if any
parent wants ot have an open dialogue with their children, they should
realize that if they can't give a good explanation why they shouldn't be
able to do something (and i'm sorry, but many teens aren't going to go
for the big bad law explanation), then I would argue that many teens
will simply do what they feel is best, only they won't tell their
parents. Is this the type of atmosphere we want to create for our kids?
One where violence is so accepted yet sexuality must be hidden away? And
remember, much of a person's formative years are in their childhood. I'd
contend that in this sexually oppressive yet violence accepting
environment, we're creating some serious problems, that can be seen in
many places.
> > > - Sexual Anxiety - To a pedophile, the notion of heterosexual adult sex
> > > is often repulsive or frightening.
> >
> > This one definitely doesn't apply to me. I skipped a fair amount of the
> > rest, because I don't think whether I do or don't have some traints that
> > are common to whatever definition of pedophiles that are mentioned is
> > incredibly important at present. Besides, i have a feeling that a fair
> > amount of people following would know my responses as to where I'd stand
> > on things anyway.
>
> I believe you skipped them because you did not want to answer
I skipped them because they weren't questions, for one. Sure I didn't
want to answer; I have other things to do besides writing to a
newsgroup. If someone is so interested in knowing my opinion on one of
them, by all means ask.
> and not
> because they didn't apply to you because if they didn't you could have
> simply said no that point doesn't apply to me and such and such, but no
> Shade you have to cut and remove anything that you find that you would
> rather no answer.
Look, there are some things there that I actually wouldn't want to
answer, although I forget which questions. For the most part though, I
figure most people already know where I'd stand in those things
(although perhaps I'm being a little too optimistic).
H. McDaniel
> It didn't look very different to me. Perhaps my definition of libel varies
> though.
Well Bane has superimposed "EL Diablo" and added a devilsh mustache to
Scott's photo ;) Hee hee. Frankly, I had a hard time not falling down laughing
at the "normal" picture of Scott prior to those additions.
-McDaniel
Blane Bramble
>
> I've changed that; a pedophile is classified in my dictionary as someone
> who's sexual preference is children. But in truth, my main attraction is
> to teenagers. Which would make me a hebophile (someone attracted to
> adolescents).
Teenagers below the age of majority are children. You are STILL a
PEDOPHILE.
Blane.
agan...@my-deja.com
Six Fascinating Questions!
Dozens of Fascinating Answers!
WARNING: SOME OF THEM ARE IN CAPS!
http://www.angelfire.com/pop/shadepoll/
Aganazar, who would like to see pedophiles get what they deserve
and intends to help.
Blane Bramble
agan...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8jg5ns$nlr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>It's poll time!
>
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/pop/shadepoll/
>
>
>Aganazar, who would like to see pedophiles get what they deserve
>and intends to help.
>
BURN ON THE BONFIRE OF JUSTICE! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(loved it).
Blane.
agan...@my-deja.com
that all of you think he's a waste of space:
100% say the moron is a total waste of bandwidth
93% say he should be banned from the internet.
41% want to see him in a Mental Hospital
29% want to see him in the Bonfire of Justice
So in that spirit, he's tonight's top ten list of reasons why you should
stop responding in any way to the moron:
1) He has not budged one inch from his position in more than a year.
And he hasn't said anything new in more than a year. Read the LambdaMoo
archives, for godsakes. He DOESN'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY, he's not going to
stop posting the same things over and over. So why do you continue to
respond to him?
2) He never answers direct questions or challenges. Instead he
waffles, redirects, obfuscates and still you respond to him. You KNOW
that when you back him into a corner, he's just going to ignore you.
And still you respond to him.
3) His so-called logic changes like the wind from post to post. You
know he couldn't argue a straight line to save his pedophile ass. Yet
you still respond to him with reasoned, well-considered posts.
4) He has repeated himself 1,175 times so far. Nothing any of you has
said has convinced him of anything. He still wants to harmonize you,
despite the weight of all of your posts defeating his logic, countering
his arguments, revealing his lies, half-truths and flip-flops.
5) He is encouraged to post everytime you respond to him. No one in
the real world will have anything to do with him, so he feeds on your
responses like a rat eating garbage. And just like a rat, he'll take
anything you throw at him. DO NOT FEED THE RAT. IT WILL DILUTE THE RAT
POISON.
6) He is beyond shame, humiliation, logic and reason. You know this
unquestionably because you've seen him ignore all of the above and
continue posting. Some of you continue to respond to him, continue to
encourage him, continue to act as if he's worth talking to. He's not.
And you damned well know it. Most of you continue to respond to him out
of natural and understandable disgust, shock, concern and outrage at the
goofy, illogical, uneducated, and transparent nature of his posts.
7) He's so far off-topic its not funny. His worthless ideas do not
belong in this newsgroup and NEVER have. He doesn't post in any
relevant newsgroup BECAUSE HE'S IGNORED THERE. So everytime you wade in
and defeat his goofy, illogical, uneducated and transparent posts, YOU
ENCOURAGE HIM!
8) Responding because you don't want to let his lunacy go unchallenged
is counter-productive. Because every time you respond him, even when
you continually humiliate him, he takes it as a positive affirmation!
He doesn't read what you right, and he doesn't understand it. Nor does
he care. In his mind, any response is proof that he's on to something.
You are NEVER going to change his mind, no matter how logical your
posts are constructed. His position has NOT CHANGED one single bit.
9) Facts people. He is a pedophile. He has molested children. He has
stalked people. He has sought out emotionally immature children for
online relationships he fully intended to consumate. He cannot control
his sexual urges. He has shown no remorse for molesting three pre-teen
girls. The facts are obvious, clear and irrefutable:
http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/SHADEFAN/words.htm
10) Smell that smell? I'm sure you do, because he's turned this
newsgroup into his own little sandbox, and he's filled it with plenty of
his droppings. Those of you who think he has some *right* to do this
are oddly misguided. This newsgroup was created to discuss the
administration of muds, not the merits of the moron's cybersex license
and sex insurance ideas, which we all know have squat to do with
administering muds. If you think he's so interesting, join his
soon-to-be terminated email list and chat with him there.
and a special bonus:
11) If you think that responding to him here is going to keep him so
busy he doesn't find time to do that pedophile thing, would you like to
bet your child on it?
Aganazar, who thinks its time a cancel bot was set up for the pedophile
child molestor Scott Guzman. Both for the usenet and real life.
Jon A. Lambert
> Results from the Shade Poll http://www.angelfire.com/pop/shadepoll/ show
> that all of you think he's a waste of space:
>
> 100% say the moron is a total waste of bandwidth
> 93% say he should be banned from the internet.
> 41% want to see him in a Mental Hospital
> 29% want to see him in the Bonfire of Justice
>
> So in that spirit, he's tonight's top ten list of reasons why you should
> stop responding in any way to the moron:
>
All good reasons and there's a probably a hundred more.
Yes It's July now....
Happy @ignore shade month!
Blane Bramble
Jon A. Lambert wrote in message <8jm6ui$2av$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
Sounds more and more reasonable to me.
Either that or "hire a hitman month".
Blane.
agan...@my-deja.com
bucking the trend towards a Shade Free Usenet. But the Foundation for a
Shade Free World (FSFW) has discovered new information that you should
know:
Established Facts
1) Shade is a pedophile. Shade thinks you are stupid enough to buy into
his 'hebophile' nonsense, a meaningless distinction in the face of legal
definitions and common sense.
2) Shade has sexually molested at least three pre-teen girls, and
probably more. His posts equivocate about the actual numbers, which is
hardly surprising.
3) Shade stalked a student his own age and a teacher and was ordered to
stay away from them.
New Fact
1) Shade is a sociopath. See the notes and resource below. Shade knows
this to be true, but he's sort of failed to mention it, and changes
mental health providers when they make this diagnosis. Rational
conversation with sociopathic pedophiles is impossible, and attempting a
dialogue with him simple affirms him and encourages him to post more.
The idea that his posting will prevent him from acting out on his sexual
urges is unfounded.
Notes and Resources
=========================
Sociopaths
From LifeWell http://www.lifewell.com/educenter/242.cfm?sid=14
Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or
sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the
feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually
limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people if
the they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of
another mental disorder.
Antisocial Personality Disorder is chronic, beginning in adolescence and
continuing throughout adulthood. There are ten general symptoms:
not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness
People with this disorder may exhibit criminal behavior. They may not
work. If they do work, they are frequently absent or may quit suddenly.
They do not consider other people's wishes, welfare or rights. They can
be manipulative and may lie to gain personal pleasure or profit. They
may default on loans, fail to provide child support, or fail to care for
their dependents adequately. High risk sexual behavior and substance
abuse are common. Impulsiveness, failure to plan ahead, aggressiveness,
irritability, irresponsibility, and a reckless disregard for their own
safety and the safety of others are traits of the antisocial
personality.
Socioeconomic status, gender, and genetic factors play a role. Males
are more likely to be antisocial than females. Those from lower
socioeconomic groups are more susceptible. A family history of the
disorder puts one at higher risk.
There are many theories about the cause of Antisocial Personality
Disorder including experiencing neglectful parenting as a child, low
levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, and belief that
antisocial behavior is justified because of difficult circumstances.
Psychotherapy, group therapy, and family therapy are common treatments.
The effects of medical treatment are inconclusive. Unfortunately, most
people with Antisocial Personality Disorder reject treatment. Therefore,
recovery rates are low.
--------------------------------
Antisocial personality disorder
From WebMD
http://my.webmd.com/content/asset/adam_disease_sociopathic_personality
Definition
A pattern of irresponsible behavior that lacks morals and ethics and
brings the person into conflict with society.
Causes, Incidence and Risk Factors
The cause of this disorder is unknown, but biological or genetic factors
may play a role. The incidence of antisocial personality is higher in
people who have an antisocial biological parent. Although the diagnosis
is limited to those over 18 years of age, there is always a history of
antisocial behavior before age 15 demonstrated by repetitive lying,
truancy, delinquency, and substance abuse. As an adult, there is a
pattern of unlawful behavior, failure of job and family responsibility,
reckless personal behavior, promiscuity, failure to sustain long-term
relationships, and aggressive behavior. There is a lack of anxiety or
emotion in situations that warrant such emotions. Superficial charm and
wit can be highly developed and skillfully used for their own ends. This
disorder tends to occur more often in men and in people whose
predominant role model had antisocial features.
Symptoms
lack of concern for society's expectations and laws
unlawful behavior
violates rights of others (property, physical, sexual, legal,
emotional)
physical aggression
lack of stability in job, home life
lacks remorse
Signs And Tests
history of antisocial behavior starting by age 15
psychological evaluation indicates antisocial personality
Treatment
Effective treatment of antisocial behavior and personality is limited.
Group psychotherapy can be helpful. If the person can develop a sense of
trust, individual psychotherapy or cognitive behavioral therapy can also
be beneficial.
Expectations (Prognosis)
The outcome is likely to be poor.
-------------------
From Mentalhealth.com
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe04.html
Diagnostic Criteria
A.There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the
rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or
more) of the following:
1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2.deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3.impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4.irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults
5.reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6.consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
see also: http://www.mentalhealth.com/dx/fdx-pe04.html
---------------------
From Mental Health Net
http://mentalhelp.net/disorders/sx7.htm
This disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard
for other people's rights, often crossing the line and violating those
rights. This pattern of behavior has occurred since age 15 (although
only adults 18 years or older can be diagnosed with this disorder) and
consists by the presence of the majority of these symptoms:
* failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
* deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure
* impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
* irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults
* reckless disregard for safety of self or others
* consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
* lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
=====================
The Foundation for a Shade Free World is a non-profit, volunteer
organization dedicated to removing sociopathic pedophiles from the
general population. Founded in 1999, the FSFW is headquartered in
Toronto, with branch offices around the world.
The latest Shade Poll Numbers
100% of you think Shade has nothing relevant to say
93% of you think Shade should be banned from the internet
92% of you think Shade is a criminal.
96% of you think Shade is a pedophile
82% of you think Shade is not a troll.
42% of you would like to see Shade wind up in a mental hospital
26% of you would like to see Shade on the Bonfire of Justice
11% of you would like to see Shade on Canada's Most Wanted
7% of you would like to see Shade pickled in a Museum
Jon A. Lambert
>
> New Fact
> 1) Shade is a sociopath.
This APD is a new term to me anyway. They seemed to have merged together
a number of what used to separate if related categories. I did some
research back in '93 on psychopathy and sociopathy because I had to deal
with one. Anyhow I should point out that not all sociopaths exhibit ALL
of these symptoms. There are many variations.
<snip>
> Unfortunately, most
> people with Antisocial Personality Disorder reject treatment. Therefore,
> recovery rates are low.
<snip>
> Effective treatment of antisocial behavior and personality is limited.
<snip>
> Expectations (Prognosis)
> The outcome is likely to be poor.
And that is just one reason why I favor the Death Penalty, or at a minimum
PERMANENT removal or separation from society for criminals with sociopathy
or psychopathy.
The sad fact is in the name of compassion these types of people are
paroled from prison or released from mental institutions every day.
9 times out of 10 they repeat their offenses.
They are far too dangerous to go unmonitored.
--
J. Lambert
Blane Bramble
>
> @Ignore Shade Month is in its 3rd day, yet there are some of you still
> bucking the trend towards a Shade Free Usenet. But the Foundation for a
> Shade Free World (FSFW) has discovered new information that you should
> know:
[snip information on sociopaths]
Dear Dr Aganazar,
I have a "friend" who matches many of the conditions you have given.
What should I do?
Blane.