'link traps'

[Jeff]

This is a pm from Avalon that he asked me to pass on to the mods. I didn't click on the link he mentions and I don't know which thread it was in, but I think in general it's a reasonable concern, and something we should be aware of.

He's long expressed to me reservations about biaothanatoi. FWIW, I don't necessarily believe everything biao's written, but I haven't felt there's anything sinister about him.


The discussion about links that are ostensible pedo traps reminded me of one link that I believe was in a discussion current here a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember which thread, nor what led to it, but the site was supposedly anti organized pedophilia, the link bringing up a URL that may have been a fairly long page, maybe 3 screens long. It had a cluster or two of color pictures of children, appearing to be genuine photos of pedophile-oriebnted abuse, with faces and genitals blurred out. Not like the static allegeded Johnny Gosch in bondage -- these were children very actively acting sexual with each other, naked on top of each other, just with bits blurred. Probably still sufficient signal to noise ratio that it could still be evocative for a pedophile.

I only got a quick look as I needed to do something else, but what did catch my eye was a very creepy statement by a child (or someone older talking about the past?) describing how she'd been forced to have sex with a dog. It wasn't just a simple statement of fact. It went into sufficient detail to my mind to be indistinguishable from the same narrative being expressed for the purpose of pornographic excitement. Very disturbing.

While I certainly don't know as much about the field as others here, and don't open all links on the subject here, the only other time I recall something that resembled the pornographic detail of this given by someone who was ostensibly against it was something posted by biaothanatoi a couple of years ago, back when he was pushing the notion of the sexually abused and mind-controlled friend and housemate he allegedly was a caregiver for. The one with the inconsistant details, whose existence I have reason to doubt.

I think a couple of people were asking for some small bit of corroboration of his outlandish stories at the time, such as Robert L. Reed. Instead of actually responding in a useful way, biaothanatoi snarled that people asking for that sort of corroboration always wanted to hear the details, and as I recall launched into a detailed description of death-themed torture that his friend underwent, again with this level of narrative and detail (he'd also responded to a couple of other efforts at corroboration by gratuitously bringing up her being videoed having sex with a dog, which was an effective derailing tactic both times).

biaothanatoi's still the only person in the survivor faction that I've had any problem with, FWIW. While I don't know how much of what the others remember and recount is congruent with what they think may have happened, there isn't a one of them that I'd instantly and instinctively dismiss the way I feel about biaothanatoi's tales.

If this link I'm thinking of is one that could be problematic but is one you don't remember, feel free to forward this PM to the mods if it will help. It got my spidey sense tingling, and not in a good way.

Avalon

[sunny]

It would be helpful if she could remember which thread at least. That link needs to be deleted. I'm extrememly curious as to who posted it. I assume it wasn't biao in this instance?

[Jeff]

It would be helpful if she could remember which thread at least.

Oops - Avalon's a she? I'm always the last to know!

And yes, wish I remembered the thread, too.

[chiggerbit]

I don't usually click on that many links. I wish we knew which one it was. It definitely needs to be deleted. Ask her if it was the one where pan and bio were arguing their points on satanic panic recently.

[professorpan]

I'm no fan of biao, as he has regularly slandered me as some kind of debunker with an anti-survivor agenda, even when I've gone out of my way to keep the discussion civil and factual. His attacks on my integrity have poisoned the well with regards to Project Willow -- I used to be on good terms with her, but now I think she's bought into his portrayal of me as a malicious defender of pederasts. Sad.

I'm also skeptical of his stories about his survivor friend, but I won't go there, and he doesn't bring her up anymore.

I'd like to see the link, too, as it sounds like it should be zapped.

[Jeff]

Speaking of links, et has just posted an extreme one in the Lounge I've asked him to remove. Japanese bestiality and humiliation porn, mostly featuring cephalopods.

Thanks for mentioning your interaction with biao, pan, especially with respect to PW. I hadn't been aware.

[professorpan]

No problem, Jeff. Biao's nastiness and unrelenting smears tend to derail serious discussions of RA, which is a shame. I try to bring what I think is a much-needed skepticism to the subject, which he interprets as me being pro-pedophile, pro-FMSF, etc. He's a true believer, meaning anyone who questions his assertions is his enemy.

I don't trust him, but that may just be my visceral reaction to being falsely accused.

RA is one of the most difficult subjects I've ever attempted to study, and it's even more difficult to have a valuable discussion on a public forum. There's so much nonsense and misinformation that it's nearly impossible to find the nuggets of truth. And despite my attempts to keep discussions fact-based, they always degenerate into name-calling and anger. The dogmatists resent any skepticism, even when it is sincere. Biao, for instance, once insisted in the general forum that not a single case of RA could be bogus. That, to me, suggests it's not worth the discussion with him. And every time I try, he unleashes the hounds.

It's nothing I can't handle, and I think the smart RI folk see it for what it is. But it is wearying.

[sunny]

No problem, Jeff. Biao's nastiness and unrelenting smears tend to derail serious discussions of RA, which is a shame. I try to bring what I think is a much-needed skepticism to the subject, which he interprets as me being pro-pedophile, pro-FMSF, etc. He's a true believer, meaning anyone who questions his assertions is his enemy.

A very sophisticated pro-FMSFer might use the same tactics, eh? Especially as it derails RA threads and turns people against each other.

[professorpan]

Perhaps, though I don't think that's the case. My suspicion is that he is a true believer, but prone to making stuff up to make him seem more important and to give credibility to his arguments. He's probably an armchair researcher like most of us.

Just a suspicion, but I've seen the type before in ufological circles.

And he tends to vanish after saying something he can't defend -- the last RA thread ended after I asked him to reference his claim that there was an investigation into abuse at McMartin before Judy Johnson claimed her son was molested. As far as I know, that's completely baseless.

[chiggerbit]

Frankly, I have to say that he is unusually well-informed. His mention of protocols, for instance, was a technicality that few except in the child protection profession (and many of those wouldn't be familiar with the term, either) and the legal community with connectionss to child protection issues would know anything about.

[Jeff]

My suspicion is that he is a true believer, but prone to making stuff up to make him seem more important and to give credibility to his arguments.

Yeah, that's been my suspicion as well.

There are lots of possible motives for deception, especially on an anonymous board. Because of the nature of ours it's easy to assume it must be disinfo, but it could just be a matter of character.

[chiggerbit]

I would REALLY like more specifics on this link mentioned before passing judgement on biaothanatoi.

[chiggerbit]

Biao's nastiness and unrelenting smears tend to derail serious discussions

Sorry, pan, but you give as good as you get in that department.

[professorpan]

Nastiness? I go to great lengths to avoid nastiness and smearing. Sorry that you feel otherwise, chiggerbit.

Maybe I should back out of moderating, if other mods feel the same.

[chiggerbit]

I'm not even close to suggesting that you resign, pan. But I've seen you get as snarky as the rest, figured it must be a male ritual.

With regards to Avalon, it's hard to know what to think, without having the link. But if I understand it, she isn't saying in her first paragraph that biao posted that link, right? So who did post it? Is she thinking that the person who posted it is biao under a different name? I guess I'm confused as to whether there are two unrelated subjects on her note, or one that she suspects is related.

biaothanatoi's still the only person in the survivor faction that I've had any problem with, FWIW.

I don't want to discount in any way Avalon's gut reaction to biao, but I do keep in mind also that there has seemed to be some serious tension between them on the subject of Wicca.