View Full Version : I'm here because StompK said you hate me

Pages : 1 [2]

12-28-2010, 04:51 AM
So you can't answer my questions? Huh.

12-28-2010, 05:25 AM
http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Masonic Cop Watch
About 1.75 years later we now have 1,730 threads about cops committing sex offenses out of 10,431 total threads in the news section, which is about 16.6%. There are sure a lot of cops out there committing sex offenses. Most of the stories appear to be offenses committed against children. Cops must like them young. Maybe they resist less, and are easily manipulated by someone they are taught to look up too. Sworn officers of the law committing a sex offense against someone in custody appears to be on the rise. The person might have to perform a sexual act to get out of some traffic infraction, or perform sexual acts if they are already incarcerated for the sexual gratification of those in charge of their welfare.

Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to reporting sex offenses committed by sworn officers of the law. I am only scanning a limited amount of these stories online, and lots more are missed. Please help out an post stories along with pictures of these officers in the Law Enforcement Sex Offender thread. They need to be exposed for the safety of the children. More often then not, their information won't appear on the various offender registries because SOL's tend to be a protected class of citizens even when they commit a sex crime. People can come here instead to find their information; although, they won't have a current address.

Please write and tell your representatives in government that cops must not be a protected class. Some legislators are trying to pass bills into law that would protect SOL's information from being displayed online. Supposedly it is to protect the SOL's and their families. However equal protection of the law should apply to everyone, and cops shouldn't become a protected class when displaying information. Especially when SOL's are so eager to display information about you online if you have been convicted of a crime. In some cases, such as in Ohio, you don't even have to be convicted of the crime for your information to appear online.

Read about all the sex abuses in this forum
http://www.copwatch.net/forums/foru...?s=&forumid=108 (http://www.copwatch.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=108)

12-28-2010, 05:32 AM
drum roll !!!

12-28-2010, 05:36 AM
In real life, If i seen u, I just kick ur teeth down ur throat.. grab a baby bottle and go to the barn with your friendly barn animals...hummmmmmmmmm!!!!
When I'm back home I'll give my address, we'll take it face to face if you like little boy.

12-28-2010, 05:40 AM
Pussy.............cat !!!

12-28-2010, 05:43 AM
say hello to ur breathen

12-28-2010, 05:46 AM
YOU wish i was a "little BOY". dont u...

12-28-2010, 07:26 AM
YOU wish i was a "little BOY". dont u...
No, I'm just assuming by your lack of hold on basic English grammar and spelling. I'm not into boys, so don't flatter yourself. I'm more into dark hair with a light complexion of the female sex.

12-28-2010, 07:57 AM
yea right !!!!
u love little boys.. even ur own children !!

im tired of playing with children...
when i post.. enjoy.... and cry, little baby mason boy...
i got some real good ones coming.

masons caught in the act at a boy scout meeting, camping out with local masonic DOCTOR with his pants down..ALL ON VIDEO... this doc will never work again.. there is a Jesus !!!

12-28-2010, 08:34 AM
yea right !!!!
u love little boys.. even ur own children !!

im tired of playing with children...
when i post.. enjoy.... and cry, little baby mason boy...
i got some real good ones coming.

masons caught in the act at a boy scout meeting, camping out with local masonic DOCTOR with his pants down..ALL ON VIDEO... this doc will never work again.. there is a Jesus !!!
I don't have kids. You have posted articles, but you haven't proven that those men were Masons.

12-28-2010, 08:37 AM
WHAT MEN ?????
All i post is true.. masons bad

12-28-2010, 08:53 AM
You have yet to prove any of the men in your articles were Masons. You may make allegations, but you cannot prove they were Masons.

12-28-2010, 06:28 PM
The following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have
NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- proparanoid.com (http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html)]
Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

12-29-2010, 05:59 AM
All the experts agree, Freemasonry is bad.


12-29-2010, 06:06 AM
Anti-Masonic Tactics:

The motives of anti-Masons are sometimes blatantly obvious. Hawking books, audio and video tapes, and CDs they use breathless prose to extol the the 'truth' that you can get from them. Invoking God and/or some immediately pending cataclysmic catastrophe, it never seems to fail that their hands are always out for donations as well as article sales.
Invariably too, there's an 'appeal to authority'. A supposedly 'top leader' of Freemasonry is quoted ~ perhaps using just a few words ~ to somehow prove beyond any doubt that the lurid premise is completely proven. It is supremely ironic, of course, that they never refer to the MANY other things that the individual may have written since to do so would completely contradict the picture the anti-Mason tries to paint. Even Masonic authors who have said in clear and unequivocal terms what they really believe are quoted out of context in the hopes that the unknowing and unwary will be swayed by the strange-sounding titles and the intermingling of casually-related phrases. Sometimes it's the use of a book published by an anti-Masonic 'vanity' publisher or sometimes they'll claim that writings against Masons or Masonry cannot be published by 'legitimate' publishers because they're all Masonically-controlled.
In some cases, these purveyors of lies hide behind real or imagined paranoia claiming that the truth cannot be fully told for fear of retribution of some kind.
And sometimes, they believe that God has spoken to them directly and told them to destroy the Freemasons - as if God is somehow incapable of doing such things without their assistance!
In this section, we talk about those who're visible in their anti-Masonic activities (i.e., not hiding behind some on-line identity which changes frequently). We also provide a review of some internal inconsistencies in their arguments and offer some of our thoughts on responding to 'antis'. You can reach these various sections by clicking on their respective buttons on the right. In addition, we've got a quick summary of some of the more egregious activities of anti-Masons over the centuries.
The repertoire of techniques is varied but most involve simple deceit. Common tactics are listed below. Click on each method for more information about how it is used.

Change the Subject
Guilt by Association
Using Different Standards
If your were...
Refuse to Answer
Outright Lies
Oft-Repeated Falsehoods
Quibble over Semantics
Faulty Logic
Assumptive Positions
Prove It
Straw Man

12-29-2010, 06:24 AM
Objections to Freemasonry:

Freemasonry is the world's oldest and largest Fraternity. While its traditions look back earlier, Masonry in its current form appeared when its public events were noticed by the residents of London, England in 1717. Although Masonry, particularly in its earliest days, had elements of secrecy, the first 'exposure' of the supposedly highly-secret Masonic ritual actually appeared in 1696 - twenty one years BEFORE the founding of the first Grand Lodge nearly three hundred years ago.

That exposure marked the beginning of (now) more than 300 years of objections to the organization. Why? There are, surely, many causes: jealousy, fear of the unknown, superstition, bigotry, or a dozen more. The objections can be generally grouped into three categories and clicking on the hyperlinks below will bring you to additional pages which amplify what charges are being (or have been) made:

Religious A number of people object to Freemasonry (often quite vocally) on a religious basis, claiming that Masonry is a religion, supplants their religion or is not 'the way to {their idea of} Heaven'. In addition, many religious leaders with 'marginal' credentials (a degree received by mail from a non-accredited religious school, for example) need to create other 'areas of interest' to provide their congregations with fodder for inquiry thereby never giving them time to critically consider the shaky theological background of their leader. The major causes of the world's hurts (famine, war, etc.) are simply too amorphous and could cause dissent. Focusing on what they define as a 'false religion' allows them to bring their flock together against a common and easily identifiable enemy. Finally, Freemasonry encourages toleration - something that dictators of nations and of local church groups particularly fear.
Examples (http://www.masonicinfo.com/religious_objections.htm)

Social Some object to Freemasonry on social grounds arguing that it is creating or part of a 'New World Order' - even if they can't provide a single scintilla of proof. The 'boogey-man' is always a convenient enemy. They'll argue too that Freemasonry is related to the Ku Klux Klan, that it protects its own members, or that it demands secrecy even to the point of murdering violators - again without tangible proof. These broad and often ambiguous claims shift and turn, never providing a single specific target against which responses can be mustered.
Examples (http://www.masonicinfo.com/social_objections.htm)

There are miscellaneous other objections, including objections to the supposed foolishness of Masonic rituals and secrecy. When the larger issues are insufficient to prove a point - or when someone is desperate for attention, they use 'proof by verbosity', tossing in all sorts of snarky comments about "rolled-up trouser legs" etc. Anything at all to 'divert the discourse'....

Examples (http://www.masonicinfo.com/other_objections.htm)

SOURCE (http://www.masonicinfo.com/objections.htm)

12-29-2010, 07:09 AM
Baal is a Judeo-Christian demon. In the Masonic Royal Arch Degree ritual (13th degree in the Scottish Rite) the sacred god of Freemasonry is revealed as Jah-Bal-On or Jahbuhlun. BUL = Baal, so the world is run by BAAL

The demon Bael, from Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire infernal (1862)