A very few number of readers are aware that I have authored daily for about thirty years attempts to expose and get help from child-molesters and that this dangerous drain on my energy and income has resulted in retaliation ranging from arrest to rape of my loved one and slasher murder of innocent bystanders in terror attacks directed at me. Petty bourgeois psychologists have written doozies like, “He believes he was tortured as a child.” That’s rock art for psychiatric dissembling.
All of the attacks on me are designed to promote an assassin who used me for vivisection. One of his areas of specialty is to attack a pre-existing head wound for the purpose of sabotaging recovery and creating trauma which allows him to promote his power as a response to threats, which he invents to serve his violent purpose. By de-stabilizing someone he tortured he gains the upper hand for a new round of sadism. This depravity comes to us from an office who claimed they were Amnesty International, as a result I have pursued the mandate of reply.
In defense of what Benedict Anderson calls an “Imagined Community,” a windbag sallied ho from the Peter Gabriel Watchtower apparently aware that his usual defenders had spouted such memorables as, “did they use a ball gag?” concerning the rape of deaf Jeannie. Telling his slavering, howling little wolfpack to quiet down, he assumed the puffed up stance of a man who was all ears, who was going to give the once over to the evidence, and who in his strident adherence to fair play was going to pass judgment in advance, only rationally, without spitting on a rape victim, he even managed the word, “pity” in his high minded display.
The Imagined Community in question is of course well known to us, it is the pimp government style of haughty/hottie call girls who set upon victims of torture in AIDS war games because they are just after thex, (say it again Charles) thex, (slowly Charles) thex, thex, thex (he means sex).
I am providing the soothsay of this individual identifying himself as Paul Reed as a resource for your amusement.
Paul Reed wrote:
Keep off the crack, bro.
My idol? I neither know nor particularly like him. I’m just laughing at your overly verbose, hated-fuelled bullshit.
All you have to do now is learn English, stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions, actually produce some evidence,
Your creation of non-existent words is tomfoolery. You have no truth.
If it’s anything like your other articles, it’ll be worthless. All your site is is badly written evidence-less nonsense. What are we supposed to learn from sentences like “Ringo Starr plays like queerbait threatened those who did nuh really tortured him” or “Marriage is re-institutionalized as a solemn mandate by pussyball exampling of the queerbait, with sacred bloodoath of the Queer Estab” or “People are Weird, hahahaha.”? These are supposed to be reasons why “collaboration is innocence, and resistance is futile”? They don’t even scan as English. All they are is evidence of your racist, homophobic, paranoia. Go see a Doctor, for (Nixonism deleted)
Still on with the unsubstantiated Gabriel hate? You need a class in how to (a) construct an argument (b) cite your proof and (c) get your point across clearly. Your site does none of these things, nor does your continued participation in this thread. All you seem to be doing is obsessing over random celebs, and directing people to your website which appears to be nothing more than a cacophony of disconnected unsupported ramblings. Is English even your first language? As for me needing a class in sarcasm, irony and satire, I suspect you need to learn what those things are before you’re fit to discern whether I understand them or not.
No I didn’t read today’s post. I read ‘AIDS: COLLABORATION IS INNOCENCE’ and it was utter drivel. The information in the article bore little resemblance to the article title, you made dozens of claims you didn’t even attempt to back up, and it was poorly written. Coupled with your incessant disconnected babble and non-answers here, why would I want to read anything you write again?
Even in this thread you make several assertions which are completely inaccurate: to name one, you made reference to “the lyrics” I “admire”? Who said I admired them? I don’t. Peter Gabriel is okay. This song is okay. But I don’t admire his lyrics. Does commenting under a music video automatically mean I must admire the lyrics? Do you admire the lyrics? Is that why you’re commenting here, because you admire his lyrics so?
And perhaps you’d like to explain how I’m accused of ‘confirmatory bias’? Please explain what you think ‘confirmatory bias’ is, and how I’m guilty of it. Please explain how any of the unsubstantiated points you make in your article ‘AIDS: COLLABORATION IS INNOCENCE’ actually support your case. And if you’re going to fall back on information that you haven’t shared to back up your claim against Gabriel, then please understand that this is convincing to no one but yourself.
The allegations I made against you are true. The allegations you made against me are demonstrably false, and as fictitious as the articles on your site, which seem to be nothing more than an exercise in homophobic rants, paranoid conspiracy, racism and xenophobia.
keep saying, and I repeat, that if you have a claim to make, then rather than dressing it up in meaningless word salad, substantiate your claim. You ask: would I like ‘secure substantiation’? Of course! That’s what I keep asking for. You keep alluding to things, and then admit that you haven’t yet revealed them. How are we supposed to believe them then? Reveal them here for all to see. Let’s see what you have. Am I supposed to believe everything you say automatically, despite having experienced your incoherence here on youtube and witnessed first hand your site content? Do you imagine that you come across as a trustworthy individual, to be listened to by default? Do you think calling Peter Gabriel ‘Penis Gabriel’ (Or ‘Penis Rabid Gabriel’ on Google+) makes you sound like a rational, sane individual, or someone with childish tendencies? Do you think bandying about terms like ‘queer’, ‘pussyball’ and ‘queerbait’ is the language of a unbiased individual, or the rantings of a disturbed individual who has so far said much but proved absolutely nothing?
And how do I stand accused of ‘amplifying material’ that confirms a position whilst ‘hiding exculpatory details’ when I’m not the one making the claim – you are! I’m not speaking truth to anyone, I’m simply questioning your accusations and asking you to put up or shut up. You could have done this several posts ago. Instead you choose to obfuscate.
For the record, I’ve just read your conversation with Henry Stanley over on Google+, looked at the postcard, and am similarly at a loss as to what you think it proves. Is this the ‘proof’ of which you speak? At this point, I suspect I’m at the same place as Mr Stanley who also seems to have made the mistake of attempting to converse with you. You can’t make a coherent argument. Your evidence doesn’t do what you want it to do. And since you can’t answer simple questions over on Google+, what hope do I have of you doing so over here?
You don’t have to call him ‘mister’, you can simply call him by his name. Or do you think calling someone by their name dignifies them? And I find it baffling that you’d say “Sounds like you’ve reached a conclusion”, before ending your post with “Would you like to debate me on the subject? You’ll lose but you’ll say you won.” How do you know this? Throughout this whole exchange you’ve jumped to conclusions about who I am and how I’ll react to everything. You’re not talking to me, you’re talking at me. You’re using me as anexcuse to spread your malign message of AIDS conspiracy, made up words (Nazgullery?), racism, Fripp and Gabriel hate.
Re: your letter, a word of advice to you – if you’re going to post something as evidence, post the whole thing and make sure that it actually says what you think it says. Posting a tiny fragment of a badly scanned letter with no surrounding context, and drawing attention to the words ‘injecting people’ – which actually looks like it’s in a different text to the rest of the letter – doesn’t prove anything to anyone except yourself. How do we know you didn’t write the letter? How do we know that it’s authentic? When you weigh it against the rest of your writings – you obsession with abduction, stalking, child mutilation, celebrity fantasies, etc. – it’s hard to believe a word that comes out of your mouth.
Saying all that, if you are telling the truth, obviously you’re to be pitied. But going about it in this way, mixing truth with fantasy, forever making wild claims and being unable to back them up with substantive evidence that would convince an impartial mind, wrapping it in wordy, essentially meaningless diatribes, is not the way to go. Try dropping the long winded pseudo-speech, substantiate your claims, and delete that awful site of yours. Currently, it’s working against you.
And as I’m currently of the opinion that I’m enabling you, I’m done. I’ve read some of your other stuff on Google+ and thechinatowngazetteer and it seems you’re a one trick pony. When people don’t respond, you even resort to talking to yourself. This isn’t a behaviour I feel comfortable encouraging.