Some friends of mine just sent me a series of links regarding Erik. Sorry, but it is time that someone brought this very sick individual down. We will start here. And then here. "If it's for the pedophiles" he is "willing to reconsider?" And how about all these "cool ways" to save porn? Wonder who he means there.
There will be more to come.
To the Board: If you allow this to go on, you are equally responsible in my book, and, I hope, by law as well.
To Sue: You are already responsible in my book.
Disgraceful!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
The mainstream media coverage of this isn't quite there yet. Once it is, then the Board will be forced to act. For now, it seems they think they can still play duck and cover.
I have forwarded a link to this post to the board and to every advisory board member for whom I could find emails.
There are some really scary ideas in Erik's posts. One thing that I would like to clarify is this. He gives reasons why people have tendencies toward violence, and claims that one of them is circumcision. Is he then saying that all Jewish men, who are circumcised, have some tendency toward violence which cannot be overcome? The logical conclusions one might draw from Herr Moeller's comments are frightful, Godwin's law or not.
I have been giving Erik's arguments some thought. Using the same form of analysis which he uses I have arrived at an alternative hypothesis: Children grow up to be violent because we provide them with oxygen and not because we fail to diddle them enough, as Erik suggests.
I believe this is a much stronger theory than Erik's. Oxygen is the true commonality, the true origin, behind all human violence. Can anyone here point out a single violent culture that raises their children without oxygen? I thought not.
----------
... The difference between my hypothetical argument and Erik's very real campaign is that there does not exist a child oxygen deprivation advocacy group looking to justify their attacks and mental illness, and that I haven't wasted years and many thousands of words trying to convince people. The same can not be said for Erik's advocacy.
These particular links may be all explicable in context.
*The first is sarcastic - he is suggesting that calling a 35 year old having (consensual) sex with a 14 year old "child rape" and thus equivalent to anal rape of a six year old is ridiculous. He's right - although that doesn't justify the abuse of a 14 year old.
*The second is a sarcastic attack on a comment made on a petition. The petitioner states "You mustn't let pedophiles use pohtos and videos of raped innocent children. Do it for them." (sic) and Erik replies "Well, if it's for the pedophiles, I'm willing to reconsider .." - ridiculing the ambiguity in the petitioner's "them".
*The third is seven years old, and doesn't on the face of it relate to anything other than sharing standard porn.
If you've sent these links to the board, I doubt they will convince many. The problem for Erik is simply the large amount of stuff with his name on it, and the amount of it that shows an amateur obsession with child-sexuality and the concept of consent. It's the pseudo-intellectual libertine nonsense he's been churning out on this subject for years, that really begins to small very bad. The question of "motivation?" cannot be avoided.
His website www.violence.de (a collection of kooky research by a discredited scholar, which seems to argue that children need more physical (sexual?) contact) is most worrying; especially as it is being widely linked to approvingly by overt "child-love" websites. If he really wished to distance himself from these people, he could begin by taking this down.
Doc
Haven't you said something like "if the issue is to be discussed at all, it should be done rationally, dispassionately" a few posts ago? Well, way to go, Danny! The links you posted were quite obviously sarcastic remarks not to be taken seriously, and I dare say that you are either stupid, or knew that all along.
The top of Wikipedia is such a closed and incestuous world that such warped senses of 'libertarian' morality are hardly surprising. What have we got so far:
-Jimmy Wales (spiritual leader): edits for sexual favors from Rachel Marsden, (and edits for Ann Coulter as well, a story which has yet to break), actively supports (self-identifying and active) pedophiles such as Freakofnurture, steals donations to fund his jet-setting lifestyle
-Fred Bauder: disbarred as a lawyer for "soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client" ... supported by the top-brass on Wikipedia
-Carolyn Bothwell Doran: Shot her boyfriend
-Erik Moeller: "kiddie porn is misunderstood"
-Sue Gardner: Support all of the above
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's really disappointing that the likes of Ethan Zuckerman continue to be involved, since they are sullying their own reputation by associating themselves with Wikipedia.
You want to make things happen?
Send your comments and links directly to the largest contributors.
Tell them that the next step is going directly to the press with the contributor's name firmly attached.
Watch the fireworks from an OSHA approved distance.
@Xed: If you think I gave Jimmy "sexual favours" in a quid pro quo exchange for edits to an internet webpage, I'm sorry but you're a freaking moron.
Rachel
@rachel
I think Jimmy did you favors after you guys fucked.
I also think you both have *terrible* taste in sexual partners.
You've joined the "list of people that are so desperate and ugly that they'd let Jimbo fuck them".
Please note: the rest of your erstwhile competition is from the ranks of wikipedia.
Hand your bony head and weep.
FATALITY!!!
Rachael, don't listen to that moron above.
You're smokin hot ;)
@above
Said the lonely, basement dwelling manchild from wikipedia...
Oh goody, you've got another fugly asexual ready to hump your leg, Rachel.
Congrats on the growing fanclub.
You're all taking this too seriously. If you hate Wikipedia so much, ignore its existence. If you ignore it, it goes away like magic!
Danny,
I find your persistent mudslinging and haranguing juvenile and impossible.
Your strategy, from what I can tell, appears to be: (a) Take an argument you don't understand (b) Fabricate it by turning it into something that it is not (c) Use that to launch a series of low-grade attacks from your little corner of cyberspace and (d) Persistently chase anyone important and/or influential with the selfsame lies.
Why do you do it? Do you think your baseless persecution endears you to the Wikipedia community? Do you think that the board might one day elect you Chair after all, in exchange for the hate-speech?
Your interest in Jimmy's personal life is horrific; your glee at its details being made public borders on the psychotic. Your mild rants against Florence are infantile. Your harassment of Erik is simply insane.
Have you considered therapy?
Yours,
Unadmiringly.
@Anonymous -- can you believe that there of many of us who find your unwavering defense of a group of people the same as the followers of Jonestown and other cults? There are many of us who developed the projects from the beginning or early on who find the current situation dangerous. You have Jimbo who is "smoke & mirrors" with few people actually knowing the truth about him. Then you have Erik who, though a great deal of writing over years, has shown a preoccupation with sexual interaction of children with both other children and adults. Then there is Sue, who by her very silence and stonewalling is supportive of Erik's pubic writings that are pro-pedophilia. Has anyone noticed that the IRS 990 form hasn't been made public since the 2005 tax year? And finally, a Board that is either too scared or incompetent to actually take a position that is anything but what Sue/Jimmy/Erik tells them is their position. Right now, the people who are questioning things are not mainstream; hopefully it will be picked up by the mainstream media. Wikipedia and the foundation have morphed into something I find destructive and insidious.
@marsden,
i'm not going to take any lessons in truth-telling from you, given that what you're well known for making false accusations of sexual harassment (as well as stalking, and selling your semen-stained clothing on the internet). you're a fridge-magnet anne coulter. i'm not surprised you got together with wales, since you're thick as catshit and twice as nasty,
@xed
I have never made any false allegations in my life against anyone, nor have I ever been accused of, charged with or convicted of "stalking". If you persist in defaming me and spreading false information I'll get your IP off Danny and sue your ass off. You can bet on it.
The rest of your ad hominem attacks are hilarious. I'm all for it. Keep it up.
Rachel
Good luck with that, Marsden. That case won't get shot down or anything. But please, go ahead and do that. I'm sure Danny would love to give up people who make comments on his blog because some washed up journalist has an ax to grind after doinking and getting dumped by the founder of Wikipedia.
@marsden
here's the repeat: "i'm not going to take any lessons in truth-telling from you, given that what you're well known for making false accusations of sexual harassment (as well as stalking, and selling your semen-stained clothing on the internet)".
now, how do you propose getting my IP address out of Wool? are you going to threaten to sleep with him?
are you going to "sue my ass off" before or after salon.com, the new york post, and hundreds of other publications, websites and commenters? the queue is pretty long! the mounties must be exhausted from defending your honor.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0369.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/29/marsden/
http://www.ianbell.com/2008/03/04/rachel-marsden-on-the-warpath-again/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/23/rachel-marsden-comes-a-stalkin-once-again/
@rachel
"[3] Ms. Marsden harassed the victim mainly by repeated telephone calls and e-mail messages. There are aggravating circumstances. By a trick, Ms. Marsden obtained copies of e-mails that the complainant was sending to other people and therefore had knowledge of how he was responding to her harassment. She used this information to involve some of these other people. She continued with her harassment even after she was aware that police were involved."
Sounds like stalking to me you crazy, fucking cunt.
P.S. Rachel, have you ever dated Jeffrey Vernon Merkey?
@xed. I enjoyed your first posting and thought you might "get it". Your attacks on Rachel are both offensive and tedious. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACHEL! Please remember what you were doing and don't get either distracted or focused on someone who may or may not have an axe to grind. And please remember that she is the first one to get a light shining on Jimbo and the Foundation outside of the few insiders who have left in disgust over the very things you have complained about. So, regardless of your "feelings" for Rachel Marsden, please stay on topic ... then maybe something will actually happen? Thanks.
as for Anonymous at 7:04a. Your comment is disgusting and best left unwritten in any context. As for the vitriol of your comment ... why the hatred and anger. You don't know Rachel, do you? She hasn't done anything to you, has she? If you don't like what she writes, then don't read it, or respond as an adult -- not with a juvenile disgusting adjective.
@above
You poor, tender flower. Are your ears burning from the reading of the vile words that the bad man wrote?
Are you 12 and reading this on mommy's computer?
In the spirit of cooperation towards your online personal growth, I've composed a few notes in reference to your tedious outpouring.
"as for Anonymous at 7:04a. Your comment is disgusting and best left unwritten in any context."
This is the point where I realize that you're a minor or a retard.
"As for the vitriol of your comment ... why the hatred and anger."
Why not? Rachel Marsden is a horrific example of cuntiness. She is the poster child for cunt. I'm going over to wikipedia right now to add her picture to the CUNT article. She makes Anne Coulter look twatish by comparison.
"You don't know Rachel, do you?"
Do I have to go out to dinner and assfuck her like Jimbo before I can say she's a cunt?
Have you read the links about her crazy stalking shit?
"She hasn't done anything to you, has she?"
Are you that crazy emo guy who cries over Brittny Spears?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8j9qnVVbaFw
"If you don't like what she writes, then don't read it,"
How would I know whether I liked what she wrote before I read it?
Sped.
She came to this blog to shit on someone who called out her crazy stalker shit. I'm not over at her webpage leaving Cleveland Steamers on the comments page. She should take her bugfuck crazy self back there and you should go with her.
"or respond as an adult"
I am, I did, I stand by my statement. She's a cunt.
"not with a juvenile disgusting adjective."
Cunt.
Hey now! There's no call for that kind of language (unless accompanied by a graphic David Shankbone photo) Remember, if it doesn't say Shankbone, it's not a Shankbone! ;)
As an adult I have learned that using the kind of words you do proves that you are either a child or a "retard" (your word, not mine). If one is reduced to using the type of language you rely upon to actually make a point, then your vocabulary is lacking and your ability to construct a meaningful argument is also lacking. As I said before, this isn't about Rachel, this is about shining a light into the dark recesses of the Foundation.
As for my age, I am probably older than your mother. And my ears aren't burning, it's just that I don't need to prove that I can speak at the same level as you and find that resorting to the kind of language you do only reduces the entire discussion to the playground. I have far more respect for myself, my intellect and for those around me.
Could we get back to the topic at hand, children?
So the Geek Media site has called for a boycott of Wikipedia until Wikipedia management stand up and deal with this problem.
"...we are asking you do not visit Wikipedia.com or any of their sister sites until this issue is resolved."
I would like to go further and suggest that people go in and blank the pages they have worked on in Wikipedia. If they won't deal with this, they don't get to use my work for free any longer.
Compare. Especially the mole on the left cheek.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/cac/moller_ek.htm
http://freedomdefined.org/upload/thumb/1/1b/Erik_Moeller.jpg/558px-Erik_Moeller.jpg
@anonymous 2:53p. THANK YOU for getting the subject back on track. And I think this is a wonderful idea. I will pass it on to all.
You're an arsehole, Danny, plain and simple. You love drama, love causing it, love hurting others with it. No wonder you did so well in Wikipedia.
There's nothing much wrong with Erik and you're smart enough to know that. The advisory board members should invite you to fuck off and get a life. Fat chance though.
At least buy wow gold for now.then
cheapest wow goldwas one whom world of craft gold cheapMannoroth couldworld of warcraft gold cheap especially not touch.buy cheap wow gold With the death of the queen?s advisor, Lordbuy world of warcraft gold
Xavius, the WOW FAQcaptain had become wow gold her liaison. Whenever the glorious Azshara opted WOW US not to gift those wow gold cheap working in the
chamber with wow gold news her magnificent presence,
wow gold about the guard captain took her place.
my site is :http://www.game4power.com.
Post a Comment