[Fwd: Re: Appeal to ASCF & Swan's Friends Here]
Citizen
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Appeal to ASCF & Swan's Friends Here
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:20:45 +1000
From: smm <sally_m...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
References: <c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net>
"Rat" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
news:c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
> Rat here:
>
<snip> I'm posting for Swan.
I'll take you as seriously as when I have my partner
call my boss when I'm
throwing a sick day, but I'll listen...
>She reacts badly to bullying due to childhood experiences,
sorry, no sympathy... a LOT of people have childhood
issues but learn to
deal with those issues and memories irregardless of the
situations that my
give rise to those memories/issues.
> and Ball's evil bullying here
> brings up memories which frighten and disturb her.
Ball makes her face her twisted thoughts. I can
understand why that disturbs
her. Reality's a bitch, eh?
> The "cesspool for losers" comment was not directed at CFers
> here.
So Swan called people on this group a "cesspool for
losers" and now regrets
it and has her "mommy" answer for her because she
realizes she over-stepped
the line?
>When Swan told you on this board about Ball's threats,
> it was a panicked reaction to a very real threat,
In otherwords: Swan blurred *her* reality of REAL life
and ONLINE life.
> and Swan was
> turning to people she considers her friends, people she
> felt she could talk to AS friends, because you know her.
Swan needs some REAL friends.
> Internet personae are not real life.
That is correct, so why turn to "internet personae"
thinking they are REAL
friends? If everyone is an "internet personae" why
believe Ball is nothing
more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has not REAL
friends that are not
INTERNET PERSONAE? Remember, as you said, Swan was
turning to "friends" who
are all "internet personae".
>Ball's refusal to accept
> this -- to take these imaginary internet personae into real life --
> threatens to destroy efforts we have spent years making in real
> life. Yes, Swan was frightened and angry, and reacted in fear.
> Swan is not Sylvia -- Swan is a persona. But Sylvia is a real
> person, and your friend, and she is being hurt by this creep.
It's really sad that you and your partner have spent
YEARS befriending, in
your words, personas, thinking it carries on into real
life. Do you not see
how you contradict yourself?
> Yes, Ball's a troll, and a vicious, evil, despicable one. Just
> look at his language of abuse -- full of scatology and woman-
> hating sexual slurs, and anti-gay slurs. This is the language,
> not only of a nasty little troll, but of a deeply disturbed,
> sociopathic victim of emotional illness.
If you really believe this, RISE aove it, show some
dignity and shut the
fuck up about it. Do you seriously believe your online
friends (aka persona,
as you say) really care? Everyone is here for their own
reasons, and those
reasons do NOT INCLUDE YOU. So stop trying to rally
allies and drag everyone
else into your internet spat due to your lack of
friends in real life and
live by your own words.
>He IS frightening,
> and he IS dangerous, and now he is trying to move beyond
> Usenet into the real world, which is utterly unethical.
> He has posted other people's real-world information before,
> and has harassed them in real life.
I have no doubt. But Swan has also moved beyond usenet
into the real word.
You are equally guilty.
>We are not being alarmists
> here, but we do not intend to allow him to intimidate us.
As I am sure he does not intend you to allow you to
intimidate him.
> We do not give in to terrorists' demands. It only encourages
> them to bully and torment others.
Your petty squabble on usenet is not a terrorist
action. Grow up and get a
grip. I am offended you believe your little squabble is
a terrorist threat,
in the current global sense of the meaning.
> So, I'm asking you, as Swan's long-time friends, to support her
> now. She needs you, and she is depending on you. Ignore Ball.
> Tell Swan you support her and are her friends. She has done the
> same for you in the past, and she has been a good friend to you.
> Now is the time to come through for her.
Swan needs to:
1. get a grip;
2. get some friends IN REAL LIFE; and
3. stop having you sprout to usenet on her behalf when
she's been a bitch.
You are both behaving like a pair of children in a
schoolyard. If Swan
doens't have the guts to own up to her own words, then
tell her to shut up.
Both of you, grow up, and deal with your confrontations
without being so
pathetic as to drag other innocent users into your
stupid games with another
user.
Once again, people are here for their own reasons, and
those reasons do not
inlcude YOU or your petty fights from other news
groups. You must be really
young to be this self obsessed.
No wonder you have no friends in the world commonly
known as R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.
helloooooooooo?
-smm
>
> Rat
>
Citizen
continue to fall flat.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Appeal to ASCF & Swan's Friends Here
Date: 22 Apr 2004 14:19:42 GMT
From: nokid...@aol.com (No kids 4 you)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
References: <c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net>
>
>Rat here:
>
>I'm posting for Swan.
>YAWN<
This crap is getting stale at best. I'm over it.
Citizen
dumper...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Appeal to ASCF & Swan's Friends Here
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:49:52 -0700
From: REP <r...@inanna.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
References: <c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net>
In article <c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net>, Rat
<lab...@cybermesa.com>
wrote:
> Rat here:
Didn't you just post this?
--begin repost
From: Rat <lab...@cybermesa.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
Subject: test.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:27:08 -0600
Organization: NMIX Reader
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <c66q81$dmm$3...@reader2.nmix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: qwest230-dsl3.cybermesa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: reader2.nmix.net 1082584129 14038
216.84.163.230 (21 Apr 2004
21:48:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@nmix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90;
en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Unsubscribing now.
Bye, all. Any questions, email me.
S.
--end repost
Y'all forget to switch accounts back in the Archangel
Gabriel days as
well. Remember that? What a hoot it was for you to post
such specious
pro-choice arguments! It was almost as though you
didn't believe a word
you said!
Funny thing, that. Neither do I.
usual suspect
> Karen's control-freak attempt fell completely flat...
So sad. Now I wish I hadn't unsubscribed.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Appeal to ASCF & Swan's Friends Here
> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:20:45 +1000
> From: smm <sally_m...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
> References: <c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net>
>
>
> "Rat" <lab...@cybermesa.com> wrote in message
> news:c67t3f$sso$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
>
>> Rat here:
>>
> <snip> I'm posting for Swan.
>
> I'll take you as seriously as when I have my partner call my boss when I'm
> throwing a sick day, but I'll listen...
>
>> She reacts badly to bullying due to childhood experiences,
She's what, 53 now? When will she mature enough to take responsibility for her
actions?
> sorry, no sympathy... a LOT of people have childhood issues but learn to
> deal with those issues and memories irregardless of the situations that my
> give rise to those memories/issues.
Exactly.
>> and Ball's evil bullying here
>> brings up memories which frighten and disturb her.
>
> Ball makes her face her twisted thoughts. I can understand why that
> disturbs
> her. Reality's a bitch, eh?
Hehe.
<...>
>> Internet personae are not real life.
>
> That is correct, so why turn to "internet personae" thinking they are
> REAL
> friends? If everyone is an "internet personae" why believe Ball is nothing
> more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has not REAL friends that are not
> INTERNET PERSONAE? Remember, as you said, Swan was turning to "friends" who
> are all "internet personae".
Care to answer these questions, Karen?
<...>
>> We do not give in to terrorists' demands. It only encourages
>> them to bully and torment others.
Karen, did you really write that? Let's get some perspective here. You wrote:
Those we have spoken to recently have Googled your posts and are...not
happy. They now know where to find Jonathan if necessary.
Anarchists do prefer to rely on private parties rather than
government, you know.
...I have no doubt that once his whereabouts in the real world are well
known, someone will do something to him.
You have some nerve to solicit help from "anarchists" whom you turned on to
posts that made them unhappy to do something to Mr Ball and his family and then
call HIM a terrorist. Talk about pot kettle black.
<...>
>> So, I'm asking you, as Swan's long-time friends, to support her
>> now. She needs you, and she is depending on you. Ignore Ball.
>> Tell Swan you support her and are her friends. She has done the
>> same for you in the past, and she has been a good friend to you.
>> Now is the time to come through for her.
Did you crawl down on the floor and type that on your knees, Karen?
> Swan needs to:
> 1. get a grip;
> 2. get some friends IN REAL LIFE; and
> 3. stop having you sprout to usenet on her behalf when she's been a bitch.
>
> You are both behaving like a pair of children in a schoolyard. If Swan
> doens't have the guts to own up to her own words, then tell her to shut up.
> Both of you, grow up, and deal with your confrontations without being so
> pathetic as to drag other innocent users into your stupid games with
> another
> user.
Amen.
> Once again, people are here for their own reasons, and those reasons do not
> inlcude YOU or your petty fights from other news groups. You must be really
> young to be this self obsessed.
Talk about hitting the nail smack dab on the head, at least about the
self-absorption part. The age part is off, though, since the big six-oh is just
over the horizon for you.
<...>
Rat
usual suspect wrote:
<snip>
>> That is correct, so why turn to "internet personae" thinking they
>> are REAL
>> friends?
Because some of them are real friends, whom we have
met in real life and know socially as well as online.
> If everyone is an "internet personae" why believe Ball is
>> nothing
>> more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has no REAL friends that
>> are not
>> INTERNET PERSONAE?
We both do. That is why we are unhappy about jonnie's
attempt to poison our relationship with friends, such
as our church family. They know better, of course, but
it is still a wicked thing to do. Remember -- we said
NOTHING about going into the real world until Ball
said he was going to go after my real-world family. Then
he said he was going to go after our real-world church
family. All our actions have been defensive, a response
to Ball's invasion of our real life. As long as he
and you were willing to leave things online, I have left
them online. Ball was the one who escalated this into
unethical territory, not us. He has the power to return
things to life online by leaving the real world out of
usenet discussions. We have not actually done anything
in the real world yet, and we won't as long as jonnie
does not.
I'm tired of TPA. There have been no discussions of animal
related philosophical issues for probably a couple of years
now. Like Swan, I'm strongly considering leaving. But I
will not as long as I have to fear attacks in the real world
for ideas expressed online.
<snip>
> Care to answer these questions, Karen?
I just did.
>
>>> So, I'm asking you, as Swan's long-time friends, to support her
>>> now. She needs you, and she is depending on you. Ignore Ball.
>>> Tell Swan you support her and are her friends. She has done the
>>> same for you in the past, and she has been a good friend to you.
>>> Now is the time to come through for her.
> Did you crawl down on the floor and type that on your knees, Karen?
Yes. I love Sylvia, and I do not want to see her hurt.
She loves me, and does not want to see me hurt either,
which was why she reacted so strongly in HER newsgroup to
Ball's threats here.
<snip>
Rat
Citizen
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> That is correct, so why turn to "internet personae" thinking they
>>> are REAL
>>> friends?
>
>
> Because some of them are real friends, whom we have
> met in real life and know socially as well as online.
>
>> If everyone is an "internet personae" why believe Ball is
>>
>>> nothing
>>> more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has no REAL friends that
>>> are not
>>> INTERNET PERSONAE?
>
>
> We both do. That is why we are unhappy about jonnie's
> attempt to poison our relationship with friends, such
> as our church family.
No one has made any attempt to poison your relationship
with anyone at your church. You HAVE a poisonous
relationship with your son, and you are trying to
poison it further by concealing from him what your
intent is with respect to your grandson.
> They know better, of course, but
> it is still a wicked thing to do.
Inciting vigilantes to commit violence against Ball
somehow *isn't* wicked, Karen?
> Remember -- we said
> NOTHING about going into the real world until Ball
> said he was going to go after my real-world family.
First of all, Ball never was going to "go after" your
family. Secondly, this distinction you are making
between Usenet and 'real world' is bogus.
> Then he said he was going to go after our real-world church
> family.
That's a lie. He never said a word about "going after"
your church family.
> All our actions have been defensive, a response
> to Ball's invasion of our real life.
That's a lie. You threatened him with violence, merely
because he said he was going to convey things you have
FREELY written in usenet to your son.
> As long as he
> and you were willing to leave things online, I have left
> them online. Ball was the one who escalated this into
> unethical territory, not us.
No, he didn't. There is NOTHING unethical about taking
the information you have FREELY written here and
conveying it to your son.
> He has the power to return
> things to life online by leaving the real world out of
> usenet discussions. We have not actually done anything
> in the real world yet,
That's a LIE, Karen. You have contacted people in the
'real world' and told them where Ball lives. You have
said some of these people *already* are watching him.
> and we won't as long as jonnie does not.
Too late: you already have.
>
> I'm tired of TPA. There have been no discussions of animal
> related philosophical issues for probably a couple of years
> now.
That's because the animal rights side lost. They lost
crushingly and unequivocally. It didn't help the
quality of debate that you have done nothing except
character assassination for almost three years.
> Like Swan, I'm strongly considering leaving. But I
> will not as long as I have to fear attacks in the real world
> for ideas expressed online.
No one has made any 'attacks' against you, and no
actions anyone has initiated or might initiate with
respect to your poisonous relationship with your son
have been based on ideas you've expressed; they've been
predicated on remedying an UNETHICAL FRAUD you are
committing against your son.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Care to answer these questions, Karen?
>
>
> I just did.
No, you didn't. You lied and danced and spewed
sophistry, as you always do.
>
>>
>>>> So, I'm asking you, as Swan's long-time friends, to support her
>>>> now. She needs you, and she is depending on you. Ignore Ball.
>>>> Tell Swan you support her and are her friends. She has done the
>>>> same for you in the past, and she has been a good friend to you.
>>>> Now is the time to come through for her.
>
>
>> Did you crawl down on the floor and type that on your knees, Karen?
>
>
> Yes. I love Sylvia, and I do not want to see her hurt.
She was hopelessly damaged before you ever met her.
She's a mental defective.
> She loves me, and does not want to see me hurt either,
> which was why she reacted so strongly in HER newsgroup to
> Ball's threats here.
Ball made no threats here, liar. You and she are the
only ones who have made threats.
Acknowledge, liar, that Sylvia's panicked bolting from
alt.support.childfree was based on the bad reaction she
got from her 'friends' over there, NOT from any
(imaginary) bullying you claim Ball did to her. Ball
didn't bully her; Ball didn't make any threats against
her or you.
ipse dixit
>we are unhappy about jonnie's
>attempt to poison our relationship with friends, such
>as our church family.
I'll bet you are, but you have to remember that vile
paedophiles such as yourself aren't welcome in
society, so when others inform your friends, church,
family and work colleagues of your intentions toward
children it shouldn't really surprise you.
>They know better, of course,
We'll see. rwmu...@stbedesantafe.org
>but it is still a wicked thing to do.
Informing those in your church of your promotion
of paedophilia is not a wicked thing to do.
[Lay Pastoral Care Committee (“Bede’s Backers”)
If you’re ill, going into or coming out of the hospital,
or just need some temporary practical help in a time
of devastation or turmoil, this cheerful little army
can help.
Karen Winter and Sylvia Stevens]
http://www.stbedesantafe.org/community.html
How many children do you come into contact with
while involving yourself in "Pastoral Care"? Don't
you think the parents of these children ought to know
about your promotion of paedophilia and Sylvia's
utter hatred of children?
>Remember -- we said
>NOTHING about going into the real world until Ball
>said he was going to go after my real-world family. Then
>he said he was going to go after our real-world church
>family. All our actions have been defensive, a response
>to Ball's invasion of our real life.
That's false and you know it. You acted preemptively
by forwarding his family's particulars onto a bunch
of menaces in the knowledge that "someone WILL
do something to him."
>Ball was the one who escalated this into
>unethical territory, not us.
Wrong again. If you had a genuine complaint you
should have forwarded it to your local authorities so
at least the rest of his family could sleep in peace, but
no, you knew they would laugh at you so you took it
into the real World by forwarding your complaint and
his whereabouts onto a bunch of vile menaces instead.
>We have not actually done anything in the real world yet
How can you repeatedly lie about this when evidence
clearly shows you acted preemptively, Karen? You
brought all this into the real World, not Jon.
>I'm tired of TPA.
...
>Like Swan, I'm strongly considering leaving.
Good. Fuck off, ped.
Rat
ipse dixit wrote:
<snip>
> How many children do you come into contact with
> while involving yourself in "Pastoral Care"?
None, actually.
We coordinate pastoral care and work with the people
in charge of the various divisions. If you're
concerned (though you have no reason to be, since
neither of us is actually a pedophile, or violent toward
anyone), neither of us is ever alone with any child at any
time. As we've said, we're not particularly fond of
children, so neither of us has volunteered to work
directly with them at church.
<snip>
Rat
ipse dixit
>ipse dixit wrote:
>
><snip>
>> How many children do you come into contact with
>> while involving yourself in "Pastoral Care"?
>
>None, actually.
>
>We coordinate pastoral care and work with the people
>in charge of the various divisions.
Ahh, so you're still there then. Good.
> If you're concerned
I am, very, and I shall draft an email as soon as I'm
finished with this post to send it along to the rector of
your church, The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy.
rwmu...@stbedesantafe.org
Along with it will be compilation of both your quotes over
the years and an expression of my concern for the safety
of children of which HE is ultimately responsible.
>(though you have no reason to be, since
>neither of us is actually a pedophile
Whether you're an active paedophile or not will be up
to him to decide. Your promotion of it, however, and
the dangerous notion that paedophiles should work with
children isn't in doubt at all though, as your own statements
show, so I shall be advising your rector of your potential
menace to children as soon as possible.
> or violent toward
>anyone), neither of us is ever alone with any child at any
>time.
And I shall do my best to make sure things remain that
way.
> As we've said, we're not particularly fond of
>children,
Er, that's an understatement if ever there was one;
Do I hate kids? Yes!
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>so neither of us has volunteered to work
>directly with them at church.
No, but you'd volunteer that they associate with
paedophiles, and there's no doubting that because
it's certain you'd have no hesitation in letting your
own son suffer the same peril.
I would have had no hesitation in letting my
son associate with the responsible pedophiles
I met.
Rat, 1999/07/11
http://snipurl.com/4aej
Calling mothers with large families dumb sluts and
breeders, foetuses parasites, while at the same time
calling paedophiles loving, caring and responsible has
you marked down as a child-hating menace to society
and your son. Please note that I won't be sending your
particulars to any adults abused as children or mobs
of any kind. Please include you current address in your
reply to this post so I may alert the schools in your
surrounding area.
usual suspect
<...>
>> If everyone is an "internet personae" why believe Ball is
>>> nothing
>>> more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has no REAL friends that
>>> are not
>>> INTERNET PERSONAE?
>
> We both do. That is why we are unhappy about jonnie's
> attempt to poison our relationship with friends, such
> as our church family. They know better, of course,
Do they? If they do, you'd have no worry.
> but
> it is still a wicked thing to do.
As wicked as the thoughts conveyed in your "persona"-fied newsgroup posts?
> Remember -- we said
> NOTHING about going into the real world until Ball
> said he was going to go after my real-world family. Then
> he said he was going to go after our real-world church
> family. All our actions have been defensive,
Rather offensive, imo. Your and Sylvia's actions convey pre-emption. Sylvia's
posting of Mr Ball's name and address on another group was not defensive. Your
threats were all of a different kind, too: Mr Ball sought to notify relevant
parties of comments you've made behind their backs, and then you sought the
intervention of vigilantes who would do "something" to him and his family.
> a response
> to Ball's invasion of our real life. As long as he
> and you were willing to leave things online, I have left
> them online.
What about contacting others in SoCal who've read his (and *my* -- don't forget
you dragged me into your violent threats) posts, were made unhappy by the same,
and who now await to do something to him and his family outside the law?
> Ball was the one who escalated this into
> unethical territory, not us.
No, he didn't. All he's considered is contacting your son, possibly through a
private investigator, to pass along public comments that you've made about him
and his child and that Sylvia has made about children in general. That isn't to
poison your already strained relationship with him, but to provide him
information which may affect the contact he allows between you and his son.
> He has the power to return
> things to life online by leaving the real world out of
> usenet discussions. We have not actually done anything
> in the real world yet, and we won't as long as jonnie
> does not.
You notified SoCal vigilantes. They read his (and my) posts. They're unhappy
(boohoo!). They're going to do something to him and his family. That's what
you've written, Karen. That's offline, out of bounds, and illegal.
> I'm tired of TPA. There have been no discussions of animal
> related philosophical issues for probably a couple of years
> now.
No, there have been some issues. We even discussed some AR philosophical issues
while you were defending bestiality.
> Like Swan, I'm strongly considering leaving.
Apparently, she hasn't left ASFC. She's been posting there under the nyms
Brother Matthias and Jonathan Matthias. Some of the regulars are on to it:
Another name or email is well and good, and I would welcome that to
keep Swan posting, but a whole 'nother imaginary persona is pretty
friggin silly (ie "Brother Matthias"). This isn't a role-playing group.
-- Cheryl, 22 Apr 04
> But I
> will not as long as I have to fear attacks in the real world
> for ideas expressed online.
Who's threatened attacks upon you?
> <snip>
>
>> Care to answer these questions, Karen?
>
> I just did.
No, you didn't. Let me refresh your memory:
...[W]hy turn to "internet personae" thinking they are REAL
friends? If everyone is an "internet personae" why believe Ball is
nothing more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has not REAL friends
that are not INTERNET PERSONAE?
>>>> So, I'm asking you, as Swan's long-time friends, to support her
>>>> now. She needs you, and she is depending on you. Ignore Ball.
>>>> Tell Swan you support her and are her friends. She has done the
>>>> same for you in the past, and she has been a good friend to you.
>>>> Now is the time to come through for her.
>
>> Did you crawl down on the floor and type that on your knees, Karen?
>
> Yes.
Pathetic.
<...>
usual suspect
<...>
> Acknowledge, liar, that Sylvia's panicked bolting from
> alt.support.childfree was based on the bad reaction she got from her
> 'friends' over there, NOT from any (imaginary) bullying you claim Ball
> did to her. Ball didn't bully her; Ball didn't make any threats against
> her or you.
Karen should also acknowledge that Sylvia went right back to posting there under
goofy Omega Man nyms. She should be careful that the power company isn't reading
her new posts:
I tap into the Reservation's electric lines and supplement with wind and
a storage battery. I use well water for bathing and watering the
critters and a filter for drinking it. I either walk, ride my horse or
bicycle, usually or have a friend drive me.
http://snipurl.com/5w2n
More "Brother Matthias" gems:
http://snipurl.com/5w2i
Citizen
> Citizen wrote:
> <...>
>
>> Acknowledge, liar, that Sylvia's panicked bolting from
>> alt.support.childfree was based on the bad reaction she got from her
>> 'friends' over there, NOT from any (imaginary) bullying you claim Ball
>> did to her. Ball didn't bully her; Ball didn't make any threats
>> against her or you.
>
>
> Karen should also acknowledge that Sylvia went right back to posting
> there under goofy Omega Man nyms.
I don't think it's her, although it's the same ISP and
there are a few other similarities in the header. The
e-mail client software is different, and "Bro.
Matthias" doesn't commit anywhere near as many typos as
Sylvia. Also, he writes a lot and (IMO) credibly about
being a pilot, and Sylvia is blind.
Rat
ipse dixit wrote:
<snip>
> I am, very, and I shall draft an email as soon as I'm
> finished with this post to send it along to the rector of
> your church, The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy.
> rwmu...@stbedesantafe.org
For God's sake -- and I mean that literally, Ipse! Fr
Murphy is back east at the bedside of his dying mother-in-
law, along with his wife. Have a little decency.
<snip>
usual suspect
>> <...>
>>
>>> Acknowledge, liar, that Sylvia's panicked bolting from
>>> alt.support.childfree was based on the bad reaction she got from her
>>> 'friends' over there, NOT from any (imaginary) bullying you claim
>>> Ball did to her. Ball didn't bully her; Ball didn't make any threats
>>> against her or you.
>>
>> Karen should also acknowledge that Sylvia went right back to posting
>> there under goofy Omega Man nyms.
>
> I don't think it's her,
I do. Looks like some of the regulars there think it is, too.
> although it's the same ISP and there are a few
> other similarities in the header.
They'd have to be on proxy to share the same IP address.
> The e-mail client software is
> different,
Not markedly, though. TBird is also a standalone reader, so it can run apart
from the standard Netscape build. Could be a different computer, but the
originating IP and posting host server are the same regardless.
> and "Bro. Matthias" doesn't commit anywhere near as many
> typos as Sylvia.
She may have figured out how to turn on the spellchecker. ;-)
> Also, he writes a lot and (IMO) credibly about being a
> pilot, and Sylvia is blind.
I found only one post from Brother Matthias about flying, questioning a "Pete"
about his experiences:
I always wanted to learn to fly, but my reflexes just aren't fast
enough, plus I never could afford lessons and rentals.
http://snipurl.com/5wah
Some of the responses of regulars indicate it's not the first time this has
happened, if it's indeed Sylvia posting in role-play terms. It also sounds like
her "friends" over there in ASFC won't miss her much at all.
usual suspect
How is Derek to know such things? Derek's the one with decency on this whole
matter. You're not.
ipse dixit
I have a moral obligation to provide public information
to those who may be placing you with children, Karen.
I sent this email (below) to the rector of your church
as promised just 10 minutes ago.
[start]
From: "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com>
To: <rwmu...@stbedesantafe.org>
Subject: Karen Winter and Sylvia Stevens - ("Bede's Backers")
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:03:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Dear Sir,
I would like to express my concerns and draw
your attention to two members of your Lay Pastoral
Care Committee ("Bede's Backers"), Karen Winter
and Sylvia Stevens. Both are regular contributors to
on-line newsgroups where various issues are raised,
not least paedophilia and children. Karen posts under
the pseudonym "Rat" while Sylvia posts under the
pseudonym "Swan." Confusingly, they sometimes post
under the joint-pseudonym "Rat & Swan." During the
years both have expressed their views openly and
are a matter of public record found in Google archives.
Evidence from those archives show that Karen openly
supports and promotes paedophilia, portraying those
who menace children for sex as loving, caring and
responsible members of a society while at the same
time attacking children as sinful.
"The supposed "innocence" of children is a myth
only believed by those who either have never
known a child, or willfully close their eyes.
Children are capable of every sin there is."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
She strenuously believes paedophiles "love" their victims
and are responsible as well as caring.
"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer. And
sometimes that love is provided by caring and
responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles. OTOH,
sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or blowjob,
and if people didn't make a big deal out of it, it
wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
That they should "work in professions where they come
in contact with children."
"You just don't get it, do you? Pedophiles don't hate
children -- they like them, enjoy being with them,
love them both as sexual partners and as companions.
A child-hating pedophile is a contradiction in terms.
Many pedophiles and ephebophiles work in
professions where they come in contact with children,
and are excellent in those fields because they understand
and like children, and can relate to them well on a
one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
In fact, she would have had no hesitation in letting her son
associate with paedophiles of whom she hardly knows.
"I would have had no hesitation in letting my
son associate with the responsible pedophiles
I met."
These quotes concern me and beg the question whether
she may in fact be in contact with children while working
as a member for "Bede's Backers", and whether she
actually poses a threat to them. My concerns are;
1) There's no doubt she is very misguided over a child's ability to sin.
2) She's misguided to believe a child can give *meaningful* consent to sex.
3) She promotes paedophiles as loving, caring and responsible people.
4) She advocates they be employed around children.
5) She would have no hesitation in letting children in her care associate with them.
Whether she's an active paedophile is something I'm not
certain of, but I am concerned that her moral position on
the issue is a potential threat within your church in that it
may enable active paedophiles access to the children
entrusted to you.
Karen's partner, Sylvia Stevens is also of great concern to me,
and once again Google archives demonstrate my concerns;
"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8
If these two women (this cheerful little army) are still working
as part of your Lay Pastoral Care Committee,
[Lay Pastoral Care Committee ("Bede's Backers")
If you're ill, going into or coming out of the hospital,
or just need some temporary practical help in a time
of devastation or turmoil, this cheerful little army
can help.
Karen Winter and Sylvia Stevens]
http://www.stbedesantafe.org/community.html
wouldn't it be wise that they be kept from children, or
that the parents of any children they come into contact
with while working for your church be warned of their
views on paedophilia and children generally?
Derek Nash.
[end]
Now, give me your current address as requested in
your reply to this post so I may then contact the
ipse dixit
[start]
Date: 23 Apr 2004 11:03:26 -0000
To: dere...@btopenworld.com
From: rwmu...@stbedesantafe.org Add to Address Book
Subject: Autoresponse
Thank you for contacting me; I will respond to you as soon as possible.
If you have an urgent question or concern, I encourage you to call the
church office at 505-982-1133; even if I am not in the office, any
messages left there will be picked up promptly.
May the Peace of the Lord be with you always,
Richard Murphy
----------------------------------
"I would have had no hesitation in letting my
son associate with the responsible pedophiles
I met."
These quotes concern me and beg the question whether
she may in fact be in contact with children while working
as a member for "Bede's Backers", and whether she
actually poses a threat to them. My concerns are;
1) There's no doubt she is very misguided over a child's ability to
sin.
2) She's misguided to believe a child can give *meaningful* consent to
sex.
3) She promotes paedophiles as loving, caring and responsible people.
4) She advocates they be employed around children.
5) She would have no hesitation in letting children in her care
associate with them.
Whether she's an active paedophile is something I'm not
certain of, but I am concerned that her moral position on
the issue is a potential threat within your church in that it
may enable active paedophiles access to the children
entrusted to you.
Karen's partner, Sylvia Stevens is also of great concern to me,
and once again Google archives demonstrate my concerns;
"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8
If these two women (this cheerful little army) are still working
as part of your Lay Pastoral Care Committee,
[Lay Pastoral Care Committee ("Bede's Backers")
If you're ill, going into or coming out of the hospital,
or just need some temporary practical help in a time
of devastation or turmoil, this cheerful little army
can help.
Karen Winter and Sylvia Stevens]
http://www.stbedesantafe.org/community.html
wouldn't it be wise that they be kept from children, or
Edward
What does that have to do with anything?! He'll read
it when he gets back. He's the rector of your church,
and he needs to know what kind of infected vermin are
in his parish.
usual suspect
<...>
> Now, give me your current address as requested in
> your reply to this post so I may then contact the
> schools in your surrounding area.
The ZIP is most likely 87507. According to the map of the school district, the
following schools are near her trailer park:
Sweeney Elementary School
Cesar Chavez Elementary School
Ramirez-Thomas Elementary School
Nye Bilingual Early Childhood Center
Ortiz Middle School
Capital High School
http://www.sfps.k12.nm.us/sfps/files/87.pdf
School main site:
http://www.sfps.k12.nm.us/sfps/pages/1.html
ipse dixit
>ipse dixit wrote:
><...>
>> Now, give me your current address as requested in
>> your reply to this post so I may then contact the
>> schools in your surrounding area.
>
>The ZIP is most likely 87507.
Thanks, but "most likely" isn't certain enough for me
to act on, which is why I'm asking Karen to cooperate
and provide those details freely and of her own accord.
If she fails to cooperate I shall try to persuade the rector
of her church to write to the schools in her area himself
once I've established a dialogue with him. The ball is in
his court now.
Edward
1. Like Mr. Dixit is supposed to know of Dr. Murphy's
whereabouts and family issues already or something?
2. Like it makes any difference?
The Rev. Dr. Murphy's responsibilities to handle
problems of various kinds that come up in his church is
not diminished by events occurring in his personal
life. He can deal with the information upon his return.
smm
>
> >> That is correct, so why turn to "internet personae" thinking they
> >> are REAL
> >> friends?
>
> Because some of them are real friends, whom we have
> met in real life and know socially as well as online.
Hey, nutjob, you appealed to "ASCF & Swan's Friends Here". If you have
friends on these groups, by your definition, those who you have not met are
internet personae, no?
> > If everyone is an "internet personae" why believe Ball is
> >> nothing
> >> more? What is so wrong with Swan that she has no REAL friends that
> >> are not
> >> INTERNET PERSONAE?
>
> We both do.
You both do, what, huh nutjob? Believe Ball is an "internet personae"? If
so, what's the big deal, huh nutjob?
> That is why we are unhappy about jonnie's
> attempt to poison our relationship with friends, such
> as our church family.
Does "Jonnie" know your church friends? How, exactly, has "Jonnie" tried to
poison your real, meaning, flesh and blood in real life relationships? If
you are all "real" friends, how can one person, whom you deem a troll,
really harm these REAL relationships? I certainly know in my real life no
nameless, faceless person on usenet would even cause the slightest kink in
my relationships, unless I posted kooky thoughts and beliefs which they were
not aware of. What is it with you that someone online can cause such harm?
Unless... I know it's obvious but, they already *suspect* you are both head
cases and his verbose actions CONFIRM it for them?! Are you worried about
that?! Worried that your secret REAL LIFE personae is slowly crumbling
amongst your "church friends"?
> They know better, of course, but
> it is still a wicked thing to do. Remember -- we said
> NOTHING about going into the real world until Ball
> said he was going to go after my real-world family.
I believe Ball stated he was going to contact and advise your son about your
real, and documented, feelings towards your own son and consequent hopes for
your grandchild that would only benefit you. At no time did he threaten you
physically. May I add you originally posted your feelings in full public
viewing on usenet, therefore, if one were to provide your son, who wishes
nothing to do with you, a link to your posts, that's not crossing the line,
as it is information that is publicly available. Are you ashamed of your
posts, nutjob? Is that why you first posted to physically harm Ball? Scared
what you thought was anonymous posts, weren't?
> Then
> he said he was going to go after our real-world church
> family.
I am unaware of this post. Please provide a link to the posts, in context,
that support this statement.
> All our actions have been defensive, a response
> to Ball's invasion of our real life.
And whoa! What a gross over-reaction your response has been! Re-read the
threads, toots, and Get.A.Grip.
> As long as he
> and you were willing to leave things online, I have left
> them online. Ball was the one who escalated this into
> unethical territory, not us.
And who posted whose address online, huh nutjob?
Please
He has the power to return
> things to life online by leaving the real world out of
> usenet discussions. We have not actually done anything
> in the real world yet, and we won't as long as jonnie
> does not.
Again, who posted whose address online, huh nutjob?
> I'm tired of TPA. There have been no discussions of animal
> related philosophical issues for probably a couple of years
> now. Like Swan, I'm strongly considering leaving.
Good, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
> But I
> will not as long as I have to fear attacks in the real world
> for ideas expressed online.
This is bullshit. Your ideas on your son and grandson on this newsgroup
belong to the public domain. If "Jonnie" chooses to advise your son of
information that is publicly available, how is that threatening? Unless you
are lying to your son? Stop being such an attention seeking git and shut the
fuck up, you fucking headcase.
Do you relate to the victim's families of 911 about being subject to an act
of terrorism? Do you write to them and compare stories? You fucking self
centred, selfish, ignorant pair of bitches.
usual suspect
<snip of excellent points about and questions for Karen>
> Do you relate to the victim's families of 911 about being subject to an act
> of terrorism? Do you write to them and compare stories? You fucking self
> centred, selfish, ignorant pair of bitches.
Worse than that, she's compared the terrorism carried out against us to the
burning of the Reichstag:
http://snipurl.com/5xbs
Compared Bush to Hitler:
http://snipurl.com/5xbt
And tied the two together:
http://snipurl.com/5xbu