akaMechsmith,
First of all
this post (Post: 474443) is the most incoherent post I have ever seen.
But you did say:
akaMechsmith wrote:Craven 4:10PM Never happened, Print the PMs if you wish.
Which I will, again. A pity your more obvious support for pedophilia in PMs was deleted when it was forwarded to me or I'd have a lot more to show for your perversions.
akaMechsmith wrote:You may rest assured that I never did, nor ever would condone any forcible sexual activity with anyone, especially a child.
akaMechsmith stopped short of condoning it, this did not stop him from defending it and rationalizing other degrees of abuse. It speaks volumes that he has to actually clarify that he does not condone rape, his position was such that this very fundamental issue was in question.
While stopping short of advocating rape he did do everything else he could to rationalize it.
He says that my contention
here "never happened" but that is patently false, as is his earlier claim that no specific crime was ever being discussed.
Wilso, in a PM to akaMechsmith reported to moderators on Fri Oct 24, wrote:Ex-priest jailed for child sex crimes
Jailed paedophile and former Catholic priest Michael Charles Glennon will spend at least 15 more years behind bars. County Court judge Roland Williams set the minimum sentence for a string of fresh sex offences against Glennon. Judge Williams sentenced the 59-year-old to a maximum of 18 years on 26 counts against four young victims. But the judge said the new maximum sentence from Wednesday would in fact become 20 years, with two years added on from the sentence he is currently serving. Glennon has spent most of the past 13 years in jail. The former priest has been convicted of sexually abusing 15 children between 1974 and 1991, mostly at youth camps held at Karaglen, a rural property near Lancefield north of Melbourne, which Glennon helped establish and operate. The most recent trial heard that Glennon told his boy victims that the sexual offences were secret men's business and a necessary part of their initiation into Aboriginal manhood. Judge Williams said he believed that Glennon was one of a small number of offenders who were "just wantonly evil". He had shown himself to be an "evil, callous human being", a man of cunning and planning who committed the most sordid crimes against his victims.
This is the type of person you'd protect?
_________________
A lie gets half way round the world, before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.
In that article a very specific criminal is being discussed. The priest's multitude of crimes is of such explicit nature that his guilt is not reasonably questionable.
And a series of other convicted sex abusers were being discussed
dlowan refreshed aka's memory here.
akaMechsmith responded directly to that PM rationalizing the mans actions and, yes, defending them.
It is true that he asked if they were "harmed". Despite being told that they were anally raped he did, in fact, wish to clarify whether they were harmed. This was a major point of contention, we have dozens of children raped and mechsmith never was willing to admit they were harmed, instead choosing to blame society's "illogical" prohibitions of "plesurable sexual activity".
"You have not shown that the boys were harmed." he said, this directly
after being told that they were anally raped. "I don't know if the boys were harmed and apparently neither do you. "
akaMechsmith said, "Sex play in itself is not intrinsically harmful. It's society that makes it harmful by its censures and illigical prohibitions. "
Here his response to the above quoted case is that society's prohibitions and sensibilities (about rape and such) are to blame. This conficts with his later assertion that he merely seeks to include society in the blame but is compatible with the overarching theme of removing and and all blame from the pedophile and rationalizing of the pedophile's act.
To further deflect from criticism of the rapist akaMechsmith compares the series of rape to football, saying the "sex play" is "not intrinsically harmful" but that football "is something that is intrinsically harmful".
So in the comparison of the priest's "sex play" with young children and football he says, "Any pleasureable harmless sexual activity is condemned, but the enticement into mayhem of young boys and men is rewarded."
This is where he brings in another party to the blame, it's a big party as he wants all of society but the pedophile to be criticized for his abuse.
He starts to blame parents, saying that it's their fault because they "pen sheep with the wolves". He will blame the victime, the parent, and society but the perp is defended "But I reserve the right to defend the perpertrator. He's sick.."
Now short of allowing akaMechsmith himself to examine the raped anuses of the boys there was little that was going to convince him that the series of rape perpetrated by the preist "harmed" the boys. But when it comes to the perpetrator he's simply "sick" and merits defense for his abuse. And society is at fault because of their "illogical prohibition" on anal rape as it's not "harmfull" to akaMechsmith.
He has not a shred of insight into the man, couldn't name him without looking it up, and casts doubt on the multitude of crimes he comitted but is perfetly willing to defend him with an insanity defense.
He is saying, that this priest's 17 years of abusing children is defensible under the insanity clause. The man's acts are morally repugnant but note that
akaMechsmith downplays the acts, questioning whether the rapes were harmful, but immediately defends the perp suggesting a defense for which he has not a shred of substantiation.
akaMechsmith wrote:I declared that the priest that MAY have anally penetrated young boys was mentally ill. Somehow that doesn't seem to be too farfeched a hypothesis to me. It is for most of this group.
No, what the group rejcted was akaMechsmith's incessant desire to cast doubt on whether the children had been harmed, akaMechsmith's desire to defend sexual molestation by characterizing it as harmless and akaMechsmith's immediate and unquestioning defense of the pedophile.
Now Frank, without seeing the Private Messages wishes to defend the apologist for pedophilia. This should get very interesting as Frank boldy asserts a position without seeing akaMechsmith's most incriminating messages.
Frank's blind support will be interesting to watch. I wonder if Frank cares that his ignorance of what akaMechsmith said might cause a problem for his bold assertions.
More on this later, I'd like to see how much blind support for akaMechsmith Frank is willing to give. Not having seen akaMechsmith's messages he is willing to call everyone else wrong. This should be funny.
See, when Wilso first started reporting akaMechsmith's messages I reacted the same way, telling Wilso his concerns were missplaced.
After seeing more and more of akaMechsmith's support for pedophilia in PMs I realized I was wrong.
What Frank bases his opinion on is anyone's guess. I'd like to know what he comes up with.