“Canadian Cynic” Threatens Little Kids
Right, so CC, an individual who takes extreme pleasure in associating other folks with NAMBLA, blows a gasket when the tables are turned and begins to threaten little kids:
LET’S BE CLEAR HERE, OK? I don’t enjoy dragging Dick’s kids into this. Not even a little bit. Truth be told, I feel intensely sorry for them. But if Dick wants to make this personal and sling around utterly unfounded accusations of pedophilia and diminish my brand by registering look-alike domain names and associating them with NAMBLA, then it’s safe to say that he (and his mouth-breathing groupies) have absolutely no moral high ground from which to make snarky comments.
So here’s the deal — as long as Dick insists on redirecting that look-alike domain to NAMBLA, I will continue to post increasingly personal information about his family. See how that works? In short, what happens from here on out is entirely in Dick’s hands. All that remains to be seen is whether it’s more important for Dick to protect his family’s privacy, or for him to score points being an irresponsible dipshit.
Decisions, decisions, eh, Dick? Your move.
LET’S MAKE SOMETHING ELSE CLEAR: As hard as it might be to believe, the NAMBLA-obsessed Dick Evans has explicitly declared open season on his own family. I refer you here:
So here’s the deal — as long as Dick insists on redirecting that look-alike domain to NAMBLA, I will continue to post increasingly personal information about his family. See how that works? In short, what happens from here on out is entirely in Dick’s hands. All that remains to be seen is whether it’s more important for Dick to protect his family’s privacy, or for him to score points being an irresponsible dipshit.
The domain stays up…
Do your best CC…
Now, do you understand what Dick wrote there? What Dick wrote is that he accepts the terms I proposed and that he’s perfectly satisfied with having his family’s privacy violated just so that he can continue making utterly unsubstantiated accusations against me.
Make sure you understand that because, at this point, I’m going to simply delete any further comments accusing me of classlessness, for the obvious reason that Dick is clearly all right with this behaviour.
Oh, and we’re not quite done here, but it’s going to take a day or so for me to put my new strategy into operation, so you’ll just have to be patient. In the meantime, if you’re offended by my going after Dick’s kids, well, I just don’t give a fuck. Take it up with Dick — he’s the one who signed off on it.
emphasis mine…
Once again, I’ll pay cash for information leading to the identity of this individual.
UPDATE!
CC’s thinking that he’s going to get at them through their schools:
Based on that information, it shouldn’t be hard to figure out where his children go to school (again, most likely public information based on residence). And from that, it should be relatively easy to get a list of relevant local teachers and school board members (again, openly public information). And once that’s in hand, it should be a piece of cake to make sure all of those responsible individuals are educated as to Dick’s disturbing predilection for online child rape and promotion of child sex.
I’m thinking maybe a mass e-mailing to school board members. Perhaps notes to the teachers. Or, heck, why stop there? How about a mass delivery of eye-opening flyers in local mailboxes? Yup, I bet that would get someone’s attention. (”Dear concerned parent: Let’s talk about Richard Evans, shall we?”)
Interesting…
It doesn’t reflect well on the blogosphere in general that children of bloggers can be attacked and harrassed out in the open and nobody really says anything.
It’s not the CCs of the world that disgust me; it is the people who watch a family and a child being harrassed pretend not to notice that make me sick to the stomach.
Call me pollyanna-ish, but you’d think just by virtue of sheer numbers one or two other bloggers might find this situation noteworthy or even objectionable and shine some light on this cockroach via a blog post or two.
I consider this noteworthy.
Isn’t there a law against stalking? Wouldn’t his open declaration that his goal is to harass your family, be enough to call the cops on?
Contact his IP and call the cops.
And btw…has he learned NOTHING from reading you all these years?
…and your silly comment filter won’t let me give my honest answer…I prefer the term “freedom fighter”
Very disturbing… Time to expose that anonymous coward!
Forward whatever you have to the police.
And now I have posted on it…
http://www.lassooftruth.com/the_lasso_of_truth/2008/02/you-diminish-yo.html
I say let him/her try and follow through with his/her threat. How far would he get trying to remain anonymous without looking like psycho instead of his usual retarded self.
Young offenders act says you cant give away the identity of minors to protect them. If he is giving away identities or encouraging it he is committing a criminal offense.
I’d mention it to the police.
At this point anyone who has the IP address, or knows the true identity, of CC and refuses to divulge this information is party to the crime of criminal harassment, and should be ashamed of themselves for associating with a child harasser.
Actually the term “molest” is sufficiently analogous to harass, or harm, that I think it is accurate to say CC intends to harm, or molest, the children of Richard Evans. Maybe running to the police isn’t your thing Richard but he’s crossed the line and you should call the cops on him. He’ll plead insanity, or that his cat got run over by a car, like he did that last time he got in a jam, but if he has any priors or restraining orders it might be enough to put him away where he is no longer a threat to society.
“I’d mention it to the police.”
they’ll want to go after whoever first published that info….”
KEvron
btw, dickkk: i noticed that your bio makes no mention of your oldwarservice….
KEvron
No, they’ll go after the individual that used that information to threaten another individual.
oldwarservice??? Dude, are you drunk?
The partisan droids of the new left…redefining amorality.
He crossed a line. Stop writing responses on your blog and file a complaint with the police.
Richard, you really need to get some professional help. Your obsession with CC, RT, and TG is bordering on schizophrenic.
By the way, George Bush is my hero. He’s a freedom fighter who has emancipated America from it’s terrible burden of fiscal surpluses.
Well personally…if a dickless toady like this had threatened my chuldren he had best know turning himself into the police is his best option before I get to him.
Oh dear, the chronically offended humourless little scold Raphael thinks Richard is under the vapours, whatever shall we do?
Is Raphael Alexander a supporter of child molesters? He appears to be supportive of a man who plans to harm children. I think he should be banned from the Blogging Tories so he doesn’t ruin the clean reputation of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
Exposing pedophiles and those who enable them is schizophrenic??? Dude, you really need to get your hands on a dictionary…
(answer is yes in order to get past Spam Filter - is George Bush a “freedom fighter?” Heh.. just look at the Patriot Act and ask if that is “freedom.”)
Give us a break, Richard. You purchased a domain name and you had it (mis)directed to NAMBlA.
In this long running “dispute” with CC, who was the first to attempt to associate the other with MAMBLA?
I’m confused Ian. Are you saying that threatening other people’s children is alright if supposed person directed a website to NABLA?
I can’t believe the depths to which people go to defend a coward like CC who dispenses such hatred from behind an anonymous shield.
Methinks Mr. Scott would be singing a different tune if anyone threatened his childen, no matter what the circumstance.
How DARE you “diminish” his “brand”!
That guy takes himself waaaay to seriously…
Real Canuck, you’re confused? Yes, you are! Where the heck did I say anything about threatening children is alright?
Where the heck did I say anything about threatening children is alright?
You read the post title didn’t you Ian? It’s all about CC stating that kids are fair game… And you’re rationalizing his position… That equates to implied consent… Add the fact that you aren’t over at CC’s raising your voice in protest…
Ummm.. you guys can read, right? I chose a sentence of yours that is specific and precise in the wording that communicates an idea, and questioned that specific idea.
That is not rationalizing his position at all. Only a person who engaged in insane thinking would jump to such a conclusion.
As far as how I choose to spend my time, sheesh - dude, I’ve got my own kids and people I love and work I need to do, and I’m not about to go reading every blog post on the subject. Hence my response to YOUR assertion about who was first in associating anyone with NAMBLA. I choose to spend my time reading some blogs - and yours is one of them. It’s becoming entertaining.
As I pointed out to you some time ago (this is being dragged on and on), I’d never heard of NAMBLA before you started the forwarding thing.
So specifically, in this battle of words and ideas with CC, were you not the first to associate the other with NAMBLA? Are you trying to suggest that CC first associated YOU with NAMBLA before you did the forwarding of a domain name?
Ian,
By totally skipping the entire focus of the post, which is CC threatening Richard’s children, and instead giving importance to the initial association with NAMBLA, you certainly do give implied consent to CC’s choice to directly threaten richards children.
Otherwise, why wouldn’t you comment on the much more important and quite shocking methods used by CC?
Quite clearly, you view the health and safety of children to be less important than who directed who’s site to Nambla first.
Insane? Perhaps. Embarrassing? Definately. I feel sorry for your children, I guess.
Real Canuck, your response simply shows your projectionist thinking about me and my children. What I haven’t written implies nothing about what you might think it implies other than in your mind.
Feel free to spend your time feeling sorry for my children. I’ll spend my time with my children in the manner I choose and likely in ways that are nothing like what your mind projects.
Quite clearly, you jump to conclusions and make idiotic and false assertions about others.
Well Ian, since you refuse to answer the questions, I think you actions do clearly indicate your true intentions.
So instead of name calling and squirming, I will just repeat my assertions:
By totally skipping the entire focus of the post, which is CC threatening Richard’s children, and instead giving importance to the initial association with NAMBLA, you certainly do give implied consent to CC’s choice to directly threaten richards children.
Otherwise, why wouldn’t you comment on the much more important and quite shocking methods used by CC?
Quite clearly, you view the health and safety of children to be less important than who directed who’s site to Nambla first.
Insane? Perhaps. Embarrassing? Definately. I feel sorry for your children, I guess.
Once again, your insane thinking may be observed. You certainly have not observed any of my actions; you’ve simply read some of my ideas that I’ve chosen to post in regard to a specific idea that Richard communicated.
More of your insane thinking. The only “name” I’ve called you is “Real Canuck.”
Who are you? God? You know everything I’ve done or everything I’ve thought?
“Why” is a philosophical question, of which there may be a million valid reasons. Perhaps there really is a Supreme Being, in which case, he is not Supreme if I have free will, and therefore the reason “why” is that I was predestined to do so. Or perhaps some may believe in a devil - and that devil has taken control of me, and therefore I no longer have free will, and that is “why” I made the comment I did.
But you seem to know more about me than I do - so you’ve already decided “why.” Again, a sign of your insane thinking. You are capable of pointing to reality - but for now, you’re fine with pointing to the projections in your mind about me.
Quite clearly, you have a habit of insane thinking, pointing to the projections in your head as if they are reality. You believe your silly guesses are “truth.” Do you project you know everything about me and my actions based on a comment to Richard in regard to one of his assertions he has made?
Take your time in doing so, although they don’t need your sympathy. But I’ll pass it on to them while I’m homeschooling the 5 year old and visiting with the older ones.
Hmmm.. more squirming and intentional misdirection from Ian. One would clearly think a nerve has been struck. Or perhaps the dull thud of the logic log against his brow.
Ignoring that you called me and my thoughts idiotic and insane several times (seems idiocy would lead one to avoid directly answering questions, in my mind), lets disect further?
I dont claim to be god or otherwise, but the plain fact remains you have chosen to ignore the main thrust of Richars post several times. You have chosen to comment, but ONLY upon a mere technicality. To any ’sane’ person, this would indicate you are only concerned with who posted who’s site to NAMBLA first. This, in contrast, to the clear and dedicated purpose of Canadian Coward to attack and/or intimidate Richard’s children, which you choose not to comment on. I would liken this to George Bush flying into Iraq and then only stating “geez, who was speeding on the highway!” as if it was of any true importance to anyone.
Now, one must wonder why. Is it because you really feel it is critical to decide who tagged some silly url to NAMLA? Maybe so. But truly, it does indicate you are unable or unwilling to discuss the safety and protection of our children as a mutual and critical pillar of modern societal conduct. Especially after prodded to do so by others several times.
Further, looking into your history we can see many examples of ‘insane’ or ‘illogical’ behavior. There is allegations of you mistreating women on the blogosphere. Perhaps this coincides with your admitted substance abuse problems and relationship issues, but that cannot be certain.
Regardless, it would be an asset to humanity if you were as concerned with protecting everyone’s children as you are with determining who directed a url to NAMBLA. As it seems that will not be the case, I will remain feeling sorry for you children. I hope someone treats them better than you have chosen to treat others’.
There is no “squirming” - another silly projection in your mind. As far as “logic” is concerned, perhaps you might want to study some.
I have not called YOU idiotic; I’ve referred to the IDEAS that you have communicated as being idiotic and a sign of insane thinking. I have no idea who you are or what you are capable of in reality - it is only your ideas communicated here that I am responding to.
Can you prove that assertion? Do you absolutely KNOW what I’ve done, said, written elsewhere? How do you KNOW that I’ve not had private email or discussions with someone that I don’t wish to disclose at this time?
How do you KNOW that I’m not still considering in my own mind some things, including the idea of publishing information that is already been published?
Sane thinking includes that which recognizes the projections in one’s mind may not be reality.
Is that his dedicated purpose?
And you know for a fact that I’ve not commented on it in another medium or venue?
You may equate it to anything you like that you project in your mind. Comparisons to George Bush and Iraq - hmmmm.
Well, in reality, I don’t ask you nor will I ask you to take responsibility for the safety of my children, unless we have some sort of contract and agreement in place. I’m not a socialist.
Is it not true that Richard Evans has publically posted information about his children previously?
Looking into my history, are you? How far back are you planning on going, and how extensive is the research? Did you obtain my permission to do this research? Will it invade my privacy?
Yes, it was brought to my attention last evening of a recent allegation of which I’m looking into.
My admitted what? What exactly are you referring to?
Although I haven’t counted, I likely have over a thousand relationships with individuals, that range from intimate to business to friendship to fishing buddies to teamwork associations.
My business partner of 10 years is a female. A very intelligent and talented individual. What precisely are you referring to in regard to “admitted relationship issues” or for that matter, “admitted substance abuse problems?”
Are you a socialist or something? Any resources I spend on child protection will be going to my own children, and I sure as hell won’t be asking you to take some of my responsibility off my back.
Would you precisely explain your projections in your mind about how I “treat” others’ children?
Are you including my neices, nephews, friends’ children, the children I’ve coached on sports teams, etc? Indeed, what has any of my comments above got to do with anything about my “treatment” of children?