Unofficial History of Drama in the Free State

[John Shaw]

[Osborne]

If someone says to you that they support lynching niggers, and in fact they really are stimulated by the thought of lynching a nigger, would you associate with that person? Would you tell people about it?

If you say that having an idea that lynching niggers is good is not the same as having an idea that fucking kids is good, then that is the source of the disconnect here.

Do you believe there are people in this country who would like to change the law so that homosexuals (like me) would be put to death?  I do.  Do you think I would like them to be punished for expressing that belief?  Well you'd be wrong.  I'll counter-speech them left and right and I will also counter-speech these pedophiles about children being able to consent.  I cannot, in good conscience, throw them to the wolves when they have not harmed anyone.

Would I choose to ostracize them?  Depending on what they said based on really reliable information, such as first-hand straight into my own ears or by multiple accounts from people I trust, if it led me to believe they were really bad people (e.g. nigger lynchers, clear child predators) then I probably would.  This whole thing is a gossip fest with very dangerous ramifications for people that I cannot pronounce guilty from what knowledge I have.  The crux of my issue is people acting rashly based on gossip.

What is the definition of punishment you are working with? Is not associating with someone punishment? Is letting others know about someone's expressed ideas punishment? If so, then I would need to distinguish between that type of punishment and, say, kicking someone in the nuts.

I would hope that you would not want to hang out with homo-killing sympathizers. To do otherwise would be horribly self-deprecating to yourself. I would also hope that you wouldn't go around kicking in the nuts people who have the idea that homo killing is good.

Stripping aside all the gossip, and setting aside the question of whether the young lady was crazy, there appears to be no dispute that there were people who espoused the idea that adult-child sexual exploration is good. There is also hard evidence that individuals in Keene are not willing to denounce that idea and are willing to denounce the act of speaking about specific individuals who do.

[blackie]

I'm fairly confident that no one knows their landlord.  Why would they?  Pretty sure they weren't renting from anyone I know.

How did JJ get in a position to kick Summer out?

First off, I thought you were asking about the landlord of the couple, not Summer's landlord.

I am pretty sure they were all living together at first.

Lyndsey realized that i knew about her and Nic's family secret when i confronted him asking if he has ever touched my daughter on her privates..he said no and reassured me that he is not attracted to babies, just little girls. Lyndsey was appalled and very upset that Nic admitted to me that he was a pedophile. I asked if he would schedule a discussion with Wes Bertrand the next night to help him understand what could be wrong with his psychology that he would find the idea of having 'voluntary' sex with children and even his own kids okay. he said yes he would chat with Wes. That is until Lyndsey became very upset with Nic that he wanted to get help because she doesn't believe there is anything wrong with this voluntary sex with young people either. She thinks it's ageism to put a label on what age you can or can't have sex.

...


I called jj that night at about two in the morning to find other living arrangements. he came over the next morning and was confirmed by Nic and Lyndsey themselves that what i told him that night about what was going on with them is true. James Schlesinger was not able to knock any more sense into this idea of theirs that it could be very possible that an 8 year old girl could be mature enough and ready for sex may it be with her father or another older male adult. So we left and that was that.

So it looks like Summer called JJ, he came and got her and she moved somewhere else.

As for Summer, I am very fuzzy about the details of what happened.  If things were getting heated at a social event at the KAC, JJ may have asked her to leave.  He's the manager.  Was she crashing at the KAC and told to find a different place to stay?  I don't know.  I have never heard a detailed account of what happened.  Didn't particularly want to hear it.  Gossip annoys me.  If you read the FB thread, you probably know more about such things than I.

Yeah,  she must have been crashing at the KAC. That would make the 2:30AM meeting at the KAC more understandable. And I assume JJ was told to kick Summer out after she re-posted the FB thread.

So now I am wondering about when Summer called the police, did she request that they go to the KAC?

[dalebert]

Aight, I tried to have a reasonable conversation and now I'm getting attacked.
I'm bowing out, Dale.

I am not on a witch hunt. I am not supporting the concept of thought crime. I am not obfuscating. I am not compromising my principals. I am not in a "Pedo frenzy", whatever that is.

John, we are two adults, friends I hope, who have a disagreement and we are talking about it.  I am simply engaging you honestly.  You tossed out all these things out of context as if they were completely baseless and unsubstantiated points on my part.  I'm going to try to demonstrate that I didn't pull any of it out of my ass, but I feel like you're ignoring a lot of things that I went to a great deal of trouble to explain already.

The fact that you are turning this into an ad hominem is fucking bumming me out, man. I deserve more respect than that.

I'm just addressing our disagreements.  If you jump to extremely negative conclusions and stir up and validate the same in others about people you've never met based on the rumors of one very emotional person whom you've also never met, in contradiction to every other first-hand account from people you know better than her, I label that a witch hunt based on gossip.  The term "witch hunt" is strong, I admit, and I'll address it shortly, but I chose it because it was a good analogy.  I don't have more honest vocabulary for describing that.  I'm addressing your points directly.  That might technically be an ad hominem but it's honest and appropriate.

1. Witch hunt

To be fair, I do see the whole gossipy affair and the general pedo frenzy (I'll quote myself on that below so you guys can stop pretending to not know what I'm referring to) as a witch hunt but I will concede it is a reach to say you yourself are on a witch hunt.  I should say that I would just expect you to rise above that and it just doesn't seem like you have.  You've kind of peripherally joined in and advocated it.

2. Thought crime

Being a pedophile by its very nature requires someone else to act upon if the temptation or whatever is too strong. I junkie can shoot up and lie in bed with no one getting hurt. A pedophile can't fuck a kid and not fuck a kid at the same time.

I believe we have the same motivations, Dale. I am just not as nice a guy as you are. Fuck bad people. If they are sorry and make damn sure to prove it, then cool. No more fuck them. If they prove over time to continue being bad, then WAAAAAY fuck them. I have a pretty deep well of forgiveness, but it is conditional and not as deep as yours, maybe.

But he says he hasn't "fucked a kid" and we have no evidence to the contrary, but he's a "bad person" and "Fuck bad people." You're passing judgment on someone for a thought crime.  What else should I call that?

3. Obfuscating

Lots of points about how pedophilia harms kids, and I agreed.  But that's only if he acts on it, which he hasn't.  Thus, these repeated points are irrelevant to this situation, and obfuscations, such as

Being a pedophile by its very nature requires someone else to act upon if the temptation or whatever is too strong. I junkie can shoot up and lie in bed with no one getting hurt. A pedophile can't fuck a kid and not fuck a kid at the same time.

A cannot also be non-A.

4. Compromising principals

If you point out where I specifically applied this to you, I'll gladly respond to it.  My recollection is that I, speaking for myself, feel that I would be compromising my principles to throw someone to the wolves who is not clearly guilty of harming anyone.  I failed to convince you that outing him in a pedo-frenzy culture (coming up) is equivalent to throwing him to the wolves, so it does not conclude that you are violating your principles, i.e. innocent until proven guilty before punishing someone.

5. Pedo frenzy

Somewhere around the 80s the pedo-frenzy started up.  We are still living in that culture.  People are living under bridges due to sex offender registries that won't let them live within X miles of children.  This is probably useless for protecting any children because a real predator probably has the sense not to do it in or near his home.  Pedophiles actually have a very low recidivism rate after release from prison, but thanx to propaganda, most people believe the exact opposite.  Most successful predators are friends or family who have private access to a child and take advantage of it.  They are rarely strangers trolling playgrounds and snatching kids-- another propaganda image that leaves people off-guard to more likely threats.  There was a very popular show, To Catch a Predator, which I KNOW you must be familiar with.  I've only seen it maybe once or twice but it's been spoofed endlessly on things like South Park.  They set up sting ops to catch people planning sex, not with children, but with teens who are just short of the birthday that will make them of legal consensual age.  Then the people get lectured, labeled as a pedophiles when they're not, imprisoned, made semi-famous in a really humiliating way, and put on sex offender registries forever.  Those aren't children.  They're adult enough to consent by MANY people's standards, more so if there isn't much of an age difference.

I don't think "pedo-frenzy" is an exaggeration for all this absurdity and it is absolutely rampant.

6. Gossip

If the girl was lying, someone should have come forward and detailed the entire scuttlebutt the same way she did, and provided multiple sources of conflicting viewpoints and rebutted her point by point.

Note: A scuttlebutt is a RUMOR.  That's the word YOU chose.

And for the record...

...You were not there.  You don't have the record.  You have 2nd-hand out-of-context information from one extremely biased source.

And for the record...

You don't have any business going there.  You were not there.  You don't have the record.  You have 2nd-hand out-of-context information from one extremely biased source.

I am not making emotionalist arguments.

There have been many unsubstantiated points and analogies like comparing someone with an admitted attraction to children as a heroin junky who would do anything and harm anyone for a fix and calling him a bad person when you're getting all your info 2nd-hand and out of context from a questionable source who contradicts the interpretations of a bunch of people whom you know much better than her who also spoke with the parties first-hand.

In this conversation between you and I, Dale, the person who has been calling names and getting angry is you, not me. I have been both calm and ameliorating in my behavior and have repeatedly spoken of and acted toward understanding. (Understanding YOU, not a pedophile.)

Don't try to read so much into my typed word.  I'm frustrated, not angry.  I feel like my carefully-crafted points are falling on deaf ears.  I understand why, to a point.  It is the nature of this subject, i.e. the pedo-frenzy that leads us to poor solutions for this problem (meaning pedophilia in general).  I just have hopes of libertarians being able to rise above that frenzy and I'm just being disappointed.

[John Shaw]

I have made my points. You have made yours.

We both think the other person is ignoring our respective points.

I didn't get nasty with you at all. You got nasty because you are frustrated.

You are the one talking about how bad emotional arguments are.


As I result I walked away from the debate with you. I am not, however, conceding my points.

There is also hard evidence that individuals in Keene are not willing to denounce that idea and are willing to denounce the act of speaking about specific individuals who do.

This.

I've got nothing more to say because I'm not gonna get all mad at you over this. You have, since the beginning of our interaction, been hostile and rather patronizing. You are speaking from an attitude that you assume that you are correct and that you are lecturing a stray child.

Dale, you are wrong. Totally wrong. I've made my points and you responded by asserting that you refuted them without actually refuting them.

You accused me of being responsible for the actions of other people because I used words to convey information. YOU are the one conflating speech with violence.

Dude expressed his pedophile views.

Girl he told it to got worried and told the world.

Period.

That is what happened.

If you don't think that that is okay, and that she should be verbally attacked for doing so, then you will end up looking like a person who is suppressing speech.

I do consider you a friend, Dale. However, you are wrong and I am most assuredly right and I'm not afraid to say so.

[blackie]

you're getting all your info 2nd-hand and out of context from a questionable source who contradicts the interpretations of a bunch of people whom you know much better than her who also spoke with the parties first-hand.

Why isn't summer's testimony a first-hand account?

[blackie]

In another post in this thread I asked "wouldn't you rather know who to keep your kids away from?" I don't think anyone answered that.

Here is how you can tell.

[hellbilly]

If someone says to you that they support lynching niggers, and in fact they really are stimulated by the thought of lynching a nigger, would you associate with that person? Would you tell people about it?

Are we speaking of a consensual lynching?

[Turd Ferguson]

[Amazing Richard]

you're getting all your info 2nd-hand and out of context from a questionable source who contradicts the interpretations of a bunch of people whom you know much better than her who also spoke with the parties first-hand.

Why isn't summer's testimony a first-hand account?

Dale just keeps digging a deeper hole.

At this point, it looks like the "Damage Control" is being presented to simply confuse, and hope that everybody eventually forgets about this.

In the meantime, Dale figures that it is appropriate to hammer the reader with lots of NAMBLA propaganda, while insulting the reader by suggesting that "emotionalism" is preventing the reader from not sympathizing with those oh so misunderstood pedos.

The reader is not stupid, Dale...yet you try to make it like the reader is stupid. The reader can see that you have been throwing up red flags like crazy, Dale. How many more posts will you make before absolutely nobody will want to associate with you too?

Even if you are not a pedo, Dale...you obviously are in alliance with them. Who else is in alliance with the pedos, Dale?

You so-called first-hand insiders have offered up nothing but junk in response to what Summer has presented. Did Summer initially try to deal with the "community" before she chose to call the cops, after you guys told her to STFU?

Oh ya...I forgot...you guys aren't talking. So just give us some more NAMBLA propaganda until we finally reach enlightenment.

[dalebert]

Why isn't summer's testimony a first-hand account?

I actually referred to it as a first-hand account in my last post.  What's your point?

It's still second-hand information with regard to what he actually said.  So are all the other first-hand "accounts".  All of it is regurgitated out of context.  It's gossip.

[Andy]

By that standard essentially everything is gossip.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

In another post in this thread I asked "wouldn't you rather know who to keep your kids away from?" I don't think anyone answered that.

Here is how you can tell.

SCARY FACE IS SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *RUNS*

OH! Hi.

[hellbilly]

Dale just keeps digging a deeper hole.

MODS! MODS!! INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS THREAD!

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

Dale just keeps digging a deeper hole.

MODS! MODS!! INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS THREAD!

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhh ehehehehehehehehe, he said *hole*.