A Message to Me and My “Bitch Wife” From Alex Knepper and Friends (With Extra Racism)

I’m not going to dwell on this too long but I since known degenerate Alex Knepper and his clan (or should I say Klan) of fellow scumbags are very upset about me blogging about their “jokes” involving manufacturing just this side of legal spank material for Knepper I thought I’d give a little time to Alex Knepper’s response.

First let me tell you a story about Knepper and his supporters that will put this all in context. Knepper – who is just about 21 – trolls a gay teen forum for sex partners. Because he lives in a state where the age of consent is 16 he thinks that’s acceptable. He also thinks it’s acceptable to go to the forum and describe a dream he had about a 15-year-old member. Here’s an excerpt:

The hilarious part was when I pulled down his briefs his dick was really tiny like a child’s. It was like, 2 inches hard. I was like Rylan this is so weird this feels so wrong, but he’s like — I’m sorry, I’m such a tiny person all around! And I sucked him off anyway. Was sooooooooooooo fuckin pedo

Later in the thread we learn that this 15-year-old might actually be 14. And when the child chimes in to say his penis isn’t small Knepper tells him to “prove it.”

But you know, it’s wrong to claim Knepper is a pervert.

But from the comments of my earlier post here’s Alex Knepper’s response:

I posted this to my Facebook out of amusement, which is how Jenna found this. (She’s probably one of about seven people who will read this article.) I’ve asked her not to actually post here — pedophile-panic vigilantes like you don’t need to be given any attention — so don’t expect a reply from her. I’m bothering to reply only because you’re weirdly obsessed with me and need to be given a talking-to.

Just so you know: You’re the kind of person who makes fathers afraid to hold their daughters’ hands in public, the kind of person who ruined the lives of innocent people during the ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ hoax of the late 80s. You life-ruiners are out to earn your Good-Guy Badges by harassing and destroying the reputations of anyone (even someone like me, barely older than Justin Bieber himself) attracted to anyone under the age of 18. Your types are scaring the living shit out of everyone and making it impossible to have a rational conversation about the sexuality of minors. Anyone who thinks that a 20-year-old attracted to a 16-year-old is a pervert is mind-bogglingly insane. I find it difficult to believe that you even buy your own bullshit, in fact. You cannot honestly believe that the picture is photoshopped from anything but the body of an adult underwear model. So with all due respect, leave Jenna the fuck alone.

PS — Of course it’s libel. You have explicitly written several times that I’m a ‘pedophile’; ie; attracted to pre-pubescent children. That’s absolutely, 100% libelous and most definitely legally actionable. Oh yes, I’ve spoken with lawyers — and dozens — dozens! — of friends and colleagues have urged me to sue. The reason I’m not pushing forward with it is because I don’t want my family to get dragged through a legal mess. They deserve better, I deserve better, and you and your bitch wife don’t deserve that kind of attention.

Dozens! I wonder of these dozens of people have seen the screen shot of him telling an underage child he had a dream about blowing him, or his demand that the child “prove” his penis was average size.

I have a suspicion that the “dozens!” of people and lawyers and colleagues that have been giving him this legal advice is one very pretentious law school student who I’ve run into online who deeply believes I’m too hard on sex offenders.

As you can see the above monologue can be boiled down to “why won’t you admit that sexually exploiting teens is no big deal you bastard?” with a follow up “I’d sue you if only…   ” for good measure. Others have better responses to this nonsense you can read.

Not being satisfied with melodrama and half-baked assertions of how decent people are making the world a terrible place for people who want to have sex with children Team Knepper decided to spice things up with some racism:

This is pathetic. Don’t you wannabe investigators have anything better to do in your moms’ Greenville basements with your miserable welfare-funded existences than to stalk gay libertarians all day and accuse them of pedophilia?

This is cyber-bullying, and ridiculous. You’re upset that not all gays are good little idiot-Democrats. Well, newsflash: some people have brainstems enough to think independently.

Now put down that last piece of fried chicken, clean off your grease-covered keyboards, and go find a job. I hear Wal-Mart is hiring the latest in inbred cyber-nerds.

Fried chicken? Welfare? If I’m not mistaken this is a (very) thinly veiled reference to the fact that I’m bi-racial – a fact that is very well know. It’s also well known I’m a Republican. But I’m sure they all had a great laugh over it.

An even better laugh was had when Knepper groupie Jenna Line who explained that they can’t be racist – because she supports welfare:

I love diversity and pride myself in my personal endeavors to explore as many cultures throughout my life time. The only thing I’m opposed to is other peoples’ intolerance like anti-Semitism and religious radicals who are out trying to proselytize non-believers. Regarding welfare, oh gosh, if you knew anything about me, you would know that I’m a huge advocate for helping out those in poverty because let’s face it, many people are to a degree powerless over their financial situation.

Yeah we Black folks are powerless to help ourselves without “good” White people like Jenna, who’s so open minded she is friends with a pedophile who tried to get a 14 or 15-year-old boy to “prove” he had an average sized penis.

Some people have emailed me to ask me what my response to Knepper is. My response is that he and the skanks surrounding him are no different from any other person who ends up on a crime blog. Friends and family of perverts scream and yell about how unfair it is to judge people by their actions all the time. People caught doing something wrong (like trolling a gay teen forum for sex) always claim they’re going to sue. They never do because that’s not the way the world works.

Knepper and company are no different than the rapist staffed SoClear Media or the pro-child rape advocacy group SOSEN. I suspect that members of one or the other are feeding Knepper many of his “points” but that doesn’t matter. What does is pointing out evil when you see it and showing people the kind of dangers that are out there. The reaction of people who are exposed is not important at all.

Comments

99 Responses to “A Message to Me and My “Bitch Wife” From Alex Knepper and Friends (With Extra Racism)”

  1. Alex Knepper on November 19th, 2010 9:51 pm

    (Just a note for lurkers who might be unaware of what GayTeenForum is about…)

    “Trolls a forum for sex partners”? Um. Since you’re such a master investigator, why don’t you read the damn forum: It’s not a fucking sex board. You’ll never link to the threads where I argued politics with anyone, or gave advice to someone with a problem, or discussed music or movies.

    That’s because you’re a liar, of course, and you’re going to do what liars do. But the forum is a community, not a “sex board.” I joined it when I was 17 for help with coming out to my mother, and stuck around for the community. I know people like you can only look at gay people in terms of sex, but, well, you can try a little harder, no? I haven’t posted too much there in the past six months or so, but people there know each other and they feel free to joke amongst each other. We don’t anticipate creepy cyberstalkers from the bowels of the blogosphere to be picking apart and analyzing our every syllable.

    What you really are loath to admit is the idea that anyone 15, 16, 17 — might have a sexual nature that can be healthily expressed with peers in a fun way. Because remember: puberty hits a person in a gigantic blast on his 18th birthday, and any mention of sexuality before then is “exploitation”! — Ugh! This is so pathetic. We have totally lost our minds as a society if we think that a college student and a high school student joking about sex is “exploitative.” It is so ridiculous, but so, so revealing.

  2. Rob Taylor on November 19th, 2010 10:01 pm

    So you think that at almost 21 it’s acceptable to hang around a gay teen forum telling kids who might be 15 about how you dreamed about sucking them off but I’m the bad guy. Got it.

    Since I’m aware that the forum is about sex, but support, I’m disgusted by your exploitation of young people looking for answers for your own degenerate needs.

    Aren’t you the creepy cyber-stalker? At least that’s what some gay kids told me.

  3. Alex Knepper on November 19th, 2010 10:09 pm

    Weasel words: “Almost 21″ (um, yeah, in five months?) Oh, the way you people manipulate language!

    Yeah, that’s totally what the “gay kids” told you, Rob. I’m sure GayTeenForum members know all about some dinky anonymous Greenville, South Carolina crime blog and came running to you with their information. I’m sure this all has nothing to do with the fact that you’ve been cyberstalking me since the summer. It’s got nothing to do with the fact that your wife has a grudge against me. It’s just that your heart is so big and you care about children so much. Hahahaha.

    FFS, the forum isn’t about “support,” either. It’s an entire community. GTF jokes amongst itself about things that might look odd to Christine O’Donnell supporters. It’s all in good fun. Get a life!

  4. Rob Taylor on November 19th, 2010 10:13 pm

    Right. I’ve been stalking you and just happened to find your gay teen forum account. Even though someone would have to send me the link to view the thread. Right.

    But you’re boring me. Yes or no was it acceptable for you to tell a 14 or 15 year old that you had a dream about blowing him then ask him to “prove” he had an average sized penis?

  5. Alex Knepper on November 19th, 2010 10:21 pm

    You probably don’t know this, since you don’t care, but the monocle emoticon that I used after it has a certain connotation on the forum which clearly meant to give the ‘prove it’ a silly tone. There are literally hundreds of examples of people asking each other to ‘prove it’ to each other on the forum, since we’re a bunch of young people who are connected by a shared sexual orientation. It’s all in fun. So no, I did nothing wrong — an opinion shared by the guy I was joking around with, who replied with silly faces, rather than with, say, horror that he’d been exploited.

    Again: “What you really are loath to admit is the idea that anyone 15, 16, 17 — might have a sexual nature that can be healthily expressed with peers in a fun way. Because remember: puberty hits a person in a gigantic blast on his 18th birthday, and any mention of sexuality before then is “exploitation”! — Ugh! This is so pathetic. We have totally lost our minds as a society if we think that a college student and a high school student joking about sex is “exploitative.” It is so ridiculous, but so, so revealing.”

  6. Rob Taylor on November 19th, 2010 10:36 pm

    So you’re claiming that if that kid,I don’t know, web camed a photo to you you’d have told him you were just joking? Really?

    So is it acceptable to exploit teens for sex? Puberty does not mean a person is exploitable,adults have sex with teens because teens are easier to get sex out of – they don’t know you’re a loser or that diaper fetishes aren’t normal – so it’s wrong to take advantage. You think that’s not true?

  7. Alex Knepper on November 19th, 2010 10:49 pm

    First of all, he didn’t cam me a photo, nor would he have because HE KNEW I WAS JUST JOKING. Idiot.

    Jenna tells me that it’s stupid to keep arguing with a forty-year-old man who makes arguments such as “you’re a loser.” Is she right?

    Teens are easier to have sex with? What world are you living in? LOL. A 16-year-old might not have his driver’s license. That makes it rather difficult to arrange sex. The easiest sex I’ve ever gotten has been from people closer to your age.

  8. Rob Taylor on November 19th, 2010 10:57 pm

    There’s no argument. This isn’t a debate. You’re exploiting teens for sexual gratification because you’re a horrible person. So’s Jenna by the way.

    You know I meant it’s easier to manipulate teens but you’re avoiding the truth because you know you’re wrong.

  9. Alex Knepper on November 19th, 2010 11:08 pm

    OK, I’m done arguing with you, silly cunt. One day you and your ilk will be looked upon as the trash heap of human existence, just like those who ruined people’s lives over the Satanic Ritual Abuse hoax.

  10. Rob Taylor on November 19th, 2010 11:28 pm

    Right. History will judge people who find child sexual exploitation disgusting as linked people making up stories about the Illuminati. Well argued.

  11. Jenna Line on November 20th, 2010 12:09 am

    Rob,

    I advised Alex that there isn’t really a point to engage in conversation with a grown man who still resorts to name-calling, but can you seriously cut it out, already?

    I know none of your blogs are about me per se, but when you present such knowingly untrue defaming information about me, that’s when it becomes my business. Look, I have not once called you any names because I am respectful enough not to go down that path. All I’m asking is for you to discontinue spewing lies about me.

    Do you know how incredibly hurtful it is for me when you unjustifiably call me a racist on a public forum such as the Internet? Just because one of Alex’s friends (who I don’t know, btw) made some stupid comment that may have come across as racist does not make me a racist. Where’s the logic in that?

    My comment that you quoted doesn’t even have any racist attribute to it. What are you trying to get at? You’re somehow insinuating that there’s a correlation between one’s skin color and economic class which we both know isn’t true. I spoke about poverty as a collective whole, not as a division between black and white people. We are all, regardless of race, somewhat powerless over our financial situation.

    For example, I didn’t choose my parents, nobody does. I happened to be born into a middle-class family, but I was also born with the biological predisposition to develop severe mental illness which by my late teens completely handicapped me to the point where I could no longer function and had to get on disability based welfare. I have been involved with mental health wrap around services and have thus, met other people on disability, most of which live on food stamps and reside in Section 8 housing. These people, like me are not stupid or lazy; they didn’t ask to be mentally ill. If I didn’t have the additional financial support from my parents, I would be in their exact same shoes. So I have utmost empathy for them.

    So when you had the audacity to call me racist or whatever, my jaw just dropped. That’s very cruel and untrue. And you now knowing some of my past trauma would certainly know that I am not pro-child sexual exploitation.

    Again, the picture I posted on Alex’s Facebook was meant as a joke. You do realize that it’s a picture of Justin Bieber’s head photoshopped on a young lady’s body (check out the hip structure), right??? Hence, the comment, “do u like girl?” People stupidly joke around about stuff like that all the time. I still don’t see what the big freakin’ deal is. But these claims that Alex is a pedophile have just gone way too far. If he truly was, I would know, and we definitely would not be friends.

  12. David Swindle on November 20th, 2010 12:33 am

    Jenna,
    “Do you know how incredibly hurtful it is for me when you unjustifiably call me a racist on a public forum such as the Internet?”

    Get over yourself. An anonymous person you don’t know calls you a racist in the comments section of his blog and that’s “incredibly hurtful.” I hate to break this to you but this is going to be a pretty rough life for you if that is “incredibly hurtful.” Enjoy life inside the prison of other people’s opinion of you.

  13. Rob Taylor on November 20th, 2010 12:35 am

    What’s funny about helping a person who is obviously dysfunctional dwell in perversion? Is it the part where he’s telling children about dreaming of blowing them?

    And most people on welfare are White, so defending racism by claiming you are pro-welfare is racist. It supposes that welfare is something Black people tend to be on. I said something was racist and you said “but I support welfare, so I can’t be racist” so it is what it is.

    But I’m glad you have so much empathy for “them” and it’s nice to know you think people are powerless over their own financial situations. Not like people could support themselves, right?

    So … is it acceptable for Alex to post that dream and flirt online with someone so young or not?

  14. David Swindle on November 20th, 2010 12:36 am

    And btw:
    “But these claims that Alex is a pedophile have just gone way too far. If he truly was, I would know, and we definitely would not be friends.”

    No, you wouldn’t necessarily know. When you really care about someone your mind is capable of filtering out a whole lot of stuff you really don’t want to see.

  15. David Swindle on November 20th, 2010 12:48 am

    And Alex,
    “First of all, he didn’t cam me a photo, nor would he have because HE KNEW I WAS JUST JOKING. Idiot.”

    None of us are buying your “oh it’s all a joke” bullshit. You’ve already admitted that you’re sexually attracted to children below the age of consent — and that you want the laws lowered to make your desired actions legal. You flirting with someone you shouldn’t be flirting with and then just saying “oh look at the emoticon that means I’m joking” is just an insult to our intelligence. You need to stop thinking that you’re smarter than we are. Because obviously you’re not.

  16. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 1:15 am

    “Enjoy life inside the prison of other people’s opinion of you.”

    LOL! Says the person who went on some psychopathic war because he was insulted over what I said about him on FrumForum!

  17. Jenna Line on November 20th, 2010 1:16 am

    David,

    Surely it’s pathetic that I would become upset about an anonymous person on the Internet calling me names, but why it bothers me so much is because I’m posting under my real name that appears on my birth certificate. Nobody forced me to, but my real name was already mentioned in the original posting so it’s kind of obvious who I am. All I need now is for someone to google my name and assume that I’m some sort of racist which is absolutely preposterous.

    I don’t understand why you and Rob think its okay to cyberbully. If you’re so convinced that Alex is a pedophile, then you may feel justified in your harmful speech, but clearly I am not a racist, or a skank, or a scumbag, or whatever else Rob has decided to badmouth about me.

  18. Jenna Line on November 20th, 2010 1:17 am

    Rob,

    Defending racism by claiming to be pro-welfare is racist? That doesn’t make any lick of sense. I don’t care what the demographics (black or white) of poor people are. My point (and I’m sure I made it pretty obvious by now so stop twisting my words) is that we are all dealt a different set of cards, being born into some type of financial situation beyond our control. Never once did I say it’s impossible to get out of it. Certainly, we are all capable of supporting ourselves, but some people have more odds stacked against them than others. I don’t even see how welfare becomes an issue of skin color. As I said earlier, “You’re somehow insinuating that there’s a correlation between one’s skin color and economic class which we both know isn’t true.”

  19. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 1:19 am

    “You’ve already admitted that you’re sexually attracted to children below the age of consent — and that you want the laws lowered to make your desired actions legal.”

    Actually, my actions already are legal. So, I don’t have to worry about that.

    “You flirting with someone you shouldn’t be flirting with and then just saying “oh look at the emoticon that means I’m joking” is just an insult to our intelligence.”

    0o0oo0o0H, I shouldn’t be Internet-flirting with him on an online forum! Get the fuck over yourself, you moralizing, self-righteous cunt. Trying to cook up victims out of thin-air. The guy thought it was funny, I thought it was funny. The only offended party here is you. Spare us all your faux-outrage; we know that your real agenda is that you’re still butt-hurt because I criticized you on FrumForum.

    “You need to stop thinking that you’re smarter than we are. Because obviously you’re not.”

    Eh. You’re not stupid, but you’re pretty intellectually dishonest. I mean, anyone who calls Obama the “sharia law president” can’t have an IQ much higher than room temperature.

  20. Rob Taylor on November 20th, 2010 1:23 am

    Jenna now you’re being tiresome. Someone said something racist. I pointed it out. You then said “well I can’t be racist because I support welfare” which literally means that when I was offended by one of your White friends making fried chicken and welfare jokes you thought the answer was to say you supported welfare.

    You don’t see the racism? Or are you just lying.

  21. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 1:24 am

    Jenna, these people both are David Horowitz faux-conservatives: they crib the playbook of the radical left, which is all about calling people names — racist, sexist, pedophile, evil, fascist, bigot. NewsRealBlog, which I seldom contributed to even when I was there because the site was so fucking stupid, is filled with that kind of thing: Who on the left is the biggest racist/sexist, left-wingers hate women, hate blacks, etc. There’s no intellectual honesty; it’s about beating your opponent into submission. It’s horribly depressing, but it’s nightmarish when you’re on the receiving end of it. These people are psychopathic.

    David Horowitz, from his Art of Political War: ‘The aim of political war is not to engagein rational debate, like we’re Oxford dons. It’s to destroy your enemy’s fighting ability.’

    David Swindle, who sucks Horowitz’s cock all day long for a living, has taken that lesson to heart. It’s all about destroying your opponent. Intellectual debate, honest dialogue, serious discussion about uncomfortable issues, treating your opponents with dignity — it doesn’t matter. The aim is to destroy me (and hey! In this thread, you, too).

  22. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 1:25 am

    By the way, Rob, is it exciting to finally receive comments on your blog? LOL.

  23. DodiaFae on November 20th, 2010 1:33 am

    I’m going to try and post this one last time before going to bed… wordpress is being a PABMF tonight.

    Knepper, Rob never claimed, or even insinuated, that you were trolling a “sex forum”. You conveniently misquoted Rob… what he said was ” trolls a gay teen forum for sex partners.”

    Also, 14 year olds are not your “peers”. Grow up already.

    Jenna, if it helps at all, I don’t believe you’re a bad person. At least not yet. What you are is an enabler. You don’t want to see Alex’s dysfunction because he’s your friend and you care about him. You’ve put those blinders on and keep them firmly in place.

    You become a bad person when an innocent person is harmed in any way because of the dysfunction you choose not to see, even more so if you still refuse to see it.

    Has anyone been hurt yet, Jenna? Do you know for sure? I mean, he did tell a 14 year old child to prove his penis size. And if you see no problem with a 20 year old manchild making such a demand of a 14 year old child, then I’m afraid there’s no hope for you.

  24. Jenna Line on November 20th, 2010 1:36 am

    Rob,

    That’s why this thing has made me madly confused and insanely irritated. I thought you were saying because I’m friends with someone who made a racist comment, than I must too be racist which doesn’t make any logical sense?

    I don’t even know who the fuck John Rolls is!!!

  25. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 1:43 am

    “Has anyone been hurt yet, Jenna? Do you know for sure? I mean, he did tell a 14 year old child to prove his penis size. ”

    Fucking hell, you people are master context-droppers. Jesus, you fucking act like I barged into his house and demanded to see his dick or something, rather than making some stupid joke on an Internet forum. Get a life! I’ll say what I said to Swindle: the only people offended are you self-righteous, moralizing cunts: he wasn’t offended, I wasn’t offended, others on the forum thought that the situation was funny — the only offended parties here: white-knight inquisitors who want to prove how much they Care About the Children. You people are horrifying; you’re the type of people who vandalized that British pediatrician’s house because they misread ‘pediatrician’ as ‘pedophile.’

  26. DodiaFae on November 20th, 2010 9:48 am

    This is the kind of sick twist that Alex doesn’t think should be kept locked up beyond his sentence. Because that would be unfair. Never mind the child that he’ll most likely brutally rape and murder first chance he gets.

  27. DodiaFae on November 20th, 2010 9:51 am

    Alex, would it have been appropriate, or “funny”, if you told a 14 year old boy (child) to show you his penis in person?

  28. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 12:48 pm

    “Alex, would it have been appropriate, or “funny”, if you told a 14 year old boy (child) to show you his penis in person?”

    First of all, a fourteen-year-old is not a “child.” (He’s fifteen, but whatever.) A five-year-old is a child. Teenagers are fully sexual beings. I’m not sure whether you even remember being fourteen, but when I was fourteen, I was masturbating, looking at pornography, looking around for cybersex online (from older guys, no less!), and thinking a great deal about my sexual identity.

    You can’t compare the Internet and a real-life setting. Maybe it’s a generational gap, but everyone of a certain age knows that there’s a difference of decorum online. Let me reiterate, though, that he wasn’t offended and virtually no one else on the forum found it odd — the only people offended here are people like you: white-knight crusaders who want other people to feel victimized, because it gives you an opportunity to prove how much you Care About the Children. You’d hate a world where nobody felt victimized: how then, could you prove how righteous you are?

  29. DodiaFae on November 20th, 2010 1:07 pm

    I remember being 14. I remember being horrified when an older man asked me if I was married, while leering at me. I remember being shocked when a boy I decided to let kiss me thought that meant it was OK to grope. I was not ready for sex. Many of those that I know who engaged in sex as teens have since declared that it was much too soon, they were not ready (men and women alike.)

    When I was 14, I was intelligent enough to know that I was a child. When I was 16, I was still a child. As an adult, remembering clearly my thought-processes as a teen, I understand that I was not yet mature, emotionally, mentally, or physically. Did you know that a 16 year old is not finished physically developing? I grew a full 2 inches taller from the time I was 16 to the time I was 18.

    http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm

  30. DodiaFae on November 20th, 2010 1:22 pm

    Sorry, my child hit the enter button and posted that before I finished.

    This is why adults should keep their mitts off of teens. This isn’t hysterical propaganda. It’s science.

    Also, if one can’t compare internet and real life, why all the hype over “cyberbullying”? Why have you and Jenna been bleating about it here?

    Oh, wait… there’s also this from the site I linked in the other discussion:
    “1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.”

    I think it’s more a case of others on the site being afraid to voice their concern about your actions… or maybe some of them are also creepy adults trolling a gay teen forum. And, as the scientific evidence linked above shows, not all teens are a good judge of character, or a good judge of what is appropriate.

    I’d love a world where no children are victimized. It’s what I and others are working toward. I hope that some day, I can finally rest. Maybe I won’t have to worry about my grandchildren being sexually exploited by perverted manchildren.

  31. David Swindle on November 20th, 2010 5:10 pm

    “David Horowitz, from his Art of Political War: ‘The aim of political war is not to engagein rational debate, like we’re Oxford dons. It’s to destroy your enemy’s fighting ability.’”

    This is the same smear/misrepresentation of “The Art of Political War” that leftists have used against Horowitz. In “Indoctrination U” Horowitz rebutted it when Dean Steinberger made the same claims about what he allegedly advocated.

    The rebuttal goes something like this. Take Knepper’s statement “Intellectual debate, honest dialogue, serious discussion about uncomfortable issues, treating your opponents with dignity — it doesn’t matter.” This is a lie about what The Art of Political War was talking about. The Art of Political War refers to electoral contests at the national level — a political battlefield waged primarily with 30-second TV ads. The book is in no way intended to be a guide toward exchanges between intellectuals who are searching for the truth through dialogue and debate. That the Freedom Center’s #1 campaign for the past decade has been the cause of Academic Freedom — having multiple sides and intellectual diversity — refutes this lie even further.

    The dis-ingenuousness of Knepper’s critique of Horowitz is pretty obvious. If he really had some kind of objection to Horowitz he would’ve never applied to write for us. And I know with complete certainty that he’d still be writing for us if we hadn’t fired him. We were just another part of his “marriage of convenience with the Right.” He was just using us and the other conservative blogs to try and launch his career as a public intellectual.

    Someone who submits a post hyperbolizing Ann Coulter as a traitor is in a poor position to criticize me for hyperbolizing about Barack Obama’s lies on behalf of Islam.

    Again, Alex: you’re not as smart as you think you are.

  32. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 6:57 pm

    “Did you know that a 16 year old is not finished physically developing? ”

    If you know anything about brain development, you’d know that 20-year-olds aren’t done physically developing, either. The frontal cortex, for instance, which is the center of judgment, isn’t developed until one’s mid-20s. Do you advocate raising the age of consent to 25?

    “not all teens are a good judge of character, or a good judge of what is appropriate.”

    Not all adults are, either. Time to make the age of consent 30?

    As for your weird stories — you’re traumatized that a boy you were kissing squeezed your ass? I’m sorry, no: your neurotic inability to deal with sexual situations is not an excuse for you to go around legislating what everyone else’s behavior should be, creating victims out of thin air, telling people to feel traumatized when they feel perfectly fine.

  33. Alex Knepper on November 20th, 2010 7:03 pm

    Oh, God! Of course, Swindle’s gotta move quickly to defend Horowitz. He does suck his cock for a living, after all…

    But there’s no misrepresentation: all one has to do is take a look at NewsRealBlog to see that Horowitz’s cronies have taken the lesson to heart. Is there rational, reasonable debate at the site? Absolutely not: it’s “Obama the sharia law president,” who “hates women,” “hates black people,” etc. Hysterical shrieking over “fascists,” “bigots,” “socialists,” and everything else. Unfortunately, it’s not hyperbole: these people really do think that Obama and his followers are socialists/fascists/bigots/racists. And I was fired not because of my views on sex (you personally approved the sex-offender piece and even worked with me on it) but, yes, because I dared harshly criticize Ann Coulter rather than trot out yet another fucking piece hysterically shrieking that the Jews are about to be annihilated at any moment.

    To which Swindle says: Well, why did I apply to write there in the first place if it’s such a shitty site? The truth is that I didn’t really put much thought into it. I’m not much of a blog-reader, and, based upon a couple of Horowitz’s books that I enjoyed, I applied to write for him. Once there, I felt uneasy, which is why I seldom contributed. I tend to fit in poorly in personality cults.

    Also, lol @ Swindle considering himself an intellectual engaged in honest debate.

  34. Jenna Line on November 21st, 2010 1:23 am

    Rob,

    I know you’re probably tired hearing from me by now, but today I was thinking about how the hell you came to believe that “I can’t be racist because I support welfare.” I never said that so surely, there was an error in communication.

    Here’s what happened:
    You falsely accused me of being racist because some ignorant John Rolls character said, “Now put down that last piece of fried chicken, clean off your grease-covered keyboards, and go find a job. I hear Wal-Mart is hiring the latest in inbred cyber-nerds.” You then assumed that John, Alex, and I are buddies or something, concluding that we are all “racists.” I, as I mentioned before, don’t even know who John Rolls is.

    Labeling someone a “racist” is a really big deal and I take huge offense to it because I am the complete opposite and I find this to be defamation of my character.

    As I responded earlier, “I love diversity and pride myself in my personal endeavors to explore as many cultures throughout my life time.” I proceeded to express my views about welfare as a separate issue because I was under the impression that you thought I was racist AND believed that I frown upon those on welfare (which as I’ve later explained, is far from the truth). Those are two completely separate issues that mistakenly got entangled thanks to John’s original comment.

    Look, I’m sorry you became so offended by John’s comment (I would have been too), but it just shows ignorance on his part.

    If you could somehow write me out of your original post or at least somehow edit it in a way that does not portray me as racist, I would greatly appreciate it. Go ahead and bash John Rolls, he’s the one who made the racist comment, not me. I don’t care.

  35. David Swindle on November 21st, 2010 3:29 am

    Notice how Knepper walks right by the rebuttal of his lie about The Art of Political War.

    Notice how he utilizes the exact same arguments used to smear us that leftists use. Notice how he trivializes the threats against Israel. (Knepper only cares about himself and his penis, not free people under assault by today’s Nazis.) Notice how he employs a double standard — it’s OK for him to harshly criticize Ann Coulter as a traitor but it’s not OK for us to harshly criticize the Left. Notice how he continues with his pornographic comments, stupidly thinking that they might actually wound me in some fashion. (It’s quite the opposite in fact — they only show the raw rage he has toward me for what we’ve taken away from him.) Notice how he lies about the frequency with which he submitted pieces.

    Let’s just focus on this one particular LIE to show just how easily and frequently Knepper tries to get away with falsehoods. He claims that in the period from March 19 when he started until July 10 when we stopped accepting his posts he “seldom” contributed. During that period he submitted a total of 23 posts. So in a period of less than 4 months he submitted an average of almost 6 posts per month. That’s not someone who contributes “seldom” but someone who contributes REGULARLY. Incidentally almost a third of these submitted posts were never published, further evidence in support of my claim that there were a number of reasons for why we chose to stop accepting Knepper’s posts: a lot of them just weren’t that good. He’s not as good of a writer as he thinks he is (just as I’ve previously noted he’s not as smart as he thinks he is.)

    Yes, it’s quite clear: Knepper’s lying is like his breathing — constant and an integral part of his being. But it doesn’t matter. The Truth has caught up with him and now no sane publication will have him. His most promising career prospect is manning the grill at Burger King. It’s only a matter of time before the law catches up with him. And it will. Knepper wants to be caught. He has a sense of self-hatred at the horror of what he is. Eventually he’ll slip up and sabotage himself further just as he sabotaged his writing career.

  36. DodiaFae on November 21st, 2010 9:32 am

    David… I missed that whole “The Art of Political War” thing, so I don’t know what arguments were used by the left.

    What I do notice, however, is that he uses some of the exact same arguments that are used by the Reform Sex Offender Laws activists. And pro-pedophile activists.

  37. Rob Taylor on November 21st, 2010 4:40 pm

    Jenna – Claim you “love diversity – also a little racist. You view Black folks as wards or lesser people. No where in your comment do you say race doesn’t matter, that Black Americans are Americans first or until now condemn the racism that Rolls AND Knepper displayed so…

    Lay down with pedophile dogs, wake up with racist fleas.

    And please learn what defamation actually means. It’s embarrassing.

    By the way, I see now that you really are crazy and not just an attention seeking whore as I suspected. If you can think this through without the Illuminati projecting thoughts into your head, explain to me why Alex likes listening to your stories of trauma? I bet you tell them to him on the phone, no? Where’s his non phone hand when you talk about your abuse?

  38. Jenna Line on November 21st, 2010 5:30 pm

    Nowhere in that particular comment did I say race doesn’t matter because I was talking about 2 separate issues…why I am not a racist…and then my views on welfare. This will now be the THIRD time I said this, “You’re somehow insinuating that there’s a correlation between one’s skin color and economic class which we both know isn’t true.”

    I honestly think it’s somewhat racist when people defend racist accusations by saying, “but I have black friends!” but if that’s what you need then I’ll go ahead and inform you that both of my roommates are black (I chose to live with them) and my best (girl)friend is black. Never ever do I think that I’m somehow better than them.

    I really don’t believe that you actually think that I’m a racist and you really need to delete me out of this. I mean, really…you’re telling that because some ambiguous John Rolls character made a racist comment (which I think was nasty and completely unwarranted), you falsely assumed that I’m somehow friends with him, and erroneously concluded that I must then be racist. I have explained to you several times now that I am not racist, yet you still have the audacity to keep this lie published on the Internet.

    Typically, I would not care what a complete stranger misperceived about me, but again, you have published this on the Internet which includes my real name and that is completely unacceptable.

    Look…I’m a minority too. I already told you that I’m mentally ill (bipolar disorder, for example, affects roughly 1% of the population) and disabled in the eyes of the government. There are sick freaks out there who think it’s totally legitimate to euthanize people with mental illness. I am also in the process of converting to Judaism and yes, anti-Semitism is very real in America. In addition, I am a female Freemason (yes, women can be Freemasons), a seemingly hated group of people thanks to the conspiracy theorists. Hitler, for example, sent both Jews AND Freemasons to concentration camps.

  39. Rob Taylor on November 21st, 2010 6:47 pm

    Jenna – Now it’s clear you’re playing dumb. Someone made a racist comment, I took offense and you said you couldn’t be racist because you supported welfare. That literally means you connected being of welfare with being non-White.

    Being mentally ill does not make you a minority – but the desire to be seen as a minority when you’re White is probably an indicator of mental illness. From your comments I suspect you’re converting to Judaism and became a Freemason specifically to feel oppressed.

    Get lost. You’re friends with a pervert, you defend his exploitation of children and then your upset because I know you’re a racist? Are you kidding?

    If you weren’t a horrible person you would be friends with a person who IN THI THREAD talked about how kids wanted it, how the statutory age should be lowered.

    You’re defending a scumbag who claims it’s OK to tell 14-year-olds you’re dreaming about fucking them. And you think that being called a racist is worse than that?

    Get your head out of your ass.

  40. Jenna Line on November 22nd, 2010 12:10 am

    You’ve got to be kidding me! There is no freakin’ way that you could possibly believe your own lies. I’m not even going to bother repeating myself again because you know for a fact that I am not racist. And there’s no way you could possibly think I’m converting to Judaism to become a minority. Your accusations are absolutely absurd and you know it. So how dare you. You may be laughing and getting off on all of your immature name calling BS and how much it’s harming me, but I’m not laughing. It’s not fucking funny. And that’s what prompted me to step in on Alex’s behalf because falsely labeling someone a pedophile is tremendously worse and I have zero tolerance for cyber-bullying. Unlike Alex, I’m not emotionally equipped to deal with this kind of BS. In various attempts to present certain arguments (like how joking about bingeing/purging within the recovery subculture is equally as supportive as Alex and his gay friends making perverted sex jokes), I’ve revealed some highly sensitive information about myself. You obviously knowing how emotionally vulnerable I am should have never even entered the territory of defaming my character. Yeah, I’m pretty pissed right now and while getting worked up about this may be an indication of mental instability, I don’t care. You’re way out of line. It’s similarly like kicking someone in a wheelchair. The first thing you ever said to me was “grow up.” No Rob, I’m sorry…you need to GROW UP.

  41. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 2:50 am

    The “gay friends” your talking about Alex “joking” with are children. CHILDREN. Have you no moral compass at all?

  42. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 2:52 am

    Also. It’s nice that you have “zero tolerance” for cyber-bullying. It’d be nice if you had zero tolerance for adults exploiting teens for sex.

  43. Jenna Line on November 22nd, 2010 4:51 am

    Of course, I have zero tolerance for adults exploiting children for sex.

    You can’t even post on GayTeenForum unless you’re 14-years old. I don’t consider a 14-year old a child, do you?

    I mean, like if I were to reform the age of consent laws, here’s what I think would be appropriate: I would say that the age of consent would begin at 14. But at age 14, your partner must be somewhere between 14 > x x x x < 21. And by age 18, it doesn’t matter, as long as your partner is at least 15-years old. I think that sounds reasonable, don’t you?

    Slightly lowering the age of consent would in essence, not give perpetrators permission to sexually exploit children, but rather protect teenagers who have chosen to be sexually active so something like the scenario I presented in one of my first comments couldn’t happen. I know you think what I described earlier was ludicrous, but some parents do take legal action against their young daughter’s sexual partner if the relationship somehow goes sour. The situation is incredibly rare, just like girls crying date-rape, but it does happen and people need to be protected from being penalized for a pseudo-crime. The criminal justice system is not completely foolproof.

    What do you think?

  44. Jenna Line on November 22nd, 2010 4:56 am

    AHHHHH! My text got screwed up somehow. Let me re-format and try again…..

    I mean, like if I were to reform the age of consent laws, here’s what I think would be appropriate: I would say that the age of consent would begin at 14. But at age 14, your partner must be somewhere between 14 and 16. The gap then increases one year for every year until 18.

    -For age 14, the partner must be between 14 and 16.
    -For age 15, the partner must be between 15 and 18.
    -For age 16, the partner must be between 16 and 20.
    -For age 17, the partner must be somewhere between 17 and 21.

    And by age 18, it doesn’t matter, as long as your partner is at least 15-years old. I think that sounds reasonable, don’t you?

  45. Trish Deneen on November 22nd, 2010 10:05 am

    Jenna said – “I don’t consider a 14-year old a child, do you?”

    Good God you’re as screwed up as Alex. I originally had compassion for you because I’ve been where you’re at, but not any more. If you truly believe the above quote, you need to have your meds adjusted. I’ve advised you in the other thread to get rid of the dead weight in your life (i.e. Alex Knepper) before you get dragged down with it. But you clearly have no sense of self preservation.

    And if you respond to blog posts, no one in the thread has any obligation to protect your feelings, especially when you’re acting like a fool. Any responses you’ve gotten are what you’ve brought upon yourself.

  46. Jenna Line on November 22nd, 2010 12:30 pm

    Before I respond to Trish, I want to make it clear that I had a minor mathematical error. So for age 17, the partner must be somewhere between 17 and 22.

    Moving on…….

    Of course, nobody has any obligation to protect my feelings, but it’s called respect. And no, a lot of the responses I received were not brought upon myself. I was called a “skank” because my friend is gay and according to Rob, women who hang around gays are skanks by default. I was also unfairly labeled a “racist” because a complete stranger made a racist remark. You’re completely entitled to think that I’m acting like a fool.

    I don’t think a 14-year old is a child per-se because when I think of a child, I think of someone in elementary or middle school. By age 14, they are teenagers in high school. Certainly, someone much older than them who engages in sexual activities is at penalty for statutory rape. What I’m saying is that if a high school junior and freshman who are dating choose to have sex, that’s their business, and no crime has been committed. As the law currently stands, the junior could technically be charged with statutory rape.

    I want to make it clear that my views on the age of consent are in no way a reflection of my personal morals. Do I think it’s okay for a 14-year old and a 16-year old to have sex? No, but I don’t think it’s a crime.

  47. DodiaFae on November 22nd, 2010 1:23 pm

    In various attempts to present certain arguments (like how joking about bingeing/purging within the recovery subculture is equally as supportive as Alex and his gay friends making perverted sex jokes)

    I have a few problems with this statement…
    First of all, you’re comparing binging/purging with sexual perversion. I have friends who have, or have had, eating disorders. While many of their disorders have been linked to sexual victimization, none of them are sexual perverts.

    Second, you’re equating homosexuality with sexual perversion. If Alex were really gay, and not just some sexual pervert, he’d take offense to this.

    When the “perverted sex jokes” start to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, as some of Alex’s have done (except the one about raping a toddler… did you read that one, btw?) then it does nothing but set the gay rights movement back. Pro-pedophile activists have been trying to ride the coattails of the gay rights movement since the start. You are hurting the gay rights movement when you make statements like this.

    I think you and Alex both are full of shit.

  48. DodiaFae on November 22nd, 2010 1:25 pm

    You can’t even post on GayTeenForum unless you’re 14-years old. I don’t consider a 14-year old a child, do you?

    See, that right there is part of your problem. And Alex’s problem, too.

    A 20 year old and a 14 year old are not “peers”, sexual or otherwise.

  49. DodiaFae on November 22nd, 2010 1:35 pm

    I mean, like if I were to reform the age of consent laws, here’s what I think would be appropriate: I would say that the age of consent would begin at 14. But at age 14, your partner must be somewhere between 14 and 16. The gap then increases one year for every year until 18.
    -For age 14, the partner must be between 14 and 16.
    -For age 15, the partner must be between 15 and 18.
    -For age 16, the partner must be between 16 and 20.
    -For age 17, the partner must be somewhere between 17 and 21.
    And by age 18, it doesn’t matter, as long as your partner is at least 15-years old. I think that sounds reasonable, don’t you?

    Jenna, if you don’t see that there is a larger difference in maturity between the 15 and 18 year old than there is between the 18 and 22 year old, then you either need to have your meds adjusted or seek a therapist that deals with EST. Because you are suffering from some pretty serious thinking errors.

    Also, 14 year olds should not be engaging in sex. Their bodies simply are not developed enough to handle carrying a pregnancy to term without a far greater risk of medical complications than a fully-developed woman, and there is no way to 100% prevent pregnancy when having sexual intercourse. Should the plan, then, automatically be “abort”, or should the parents of that 14 year old be saddled with the responsibility of yet another child, should this happen? Because those are pretty much the two options available.

  50. DodiaFae on November 22nd, 2010 1:52 pm

    Before I respond to Trish, I want to make it clear that I had a minor mathematical error. So for age 17, the partner must be somewhere between 17 and 22.

    Oh, I see… so it’s not about maturity so much as it is about math. Gotcha.

    Respect is earned, Jenna. A couple of us gave you the benefit of the doubt to start with and afforded you the minimal amount of respect that we’d give any person on the street, but you’ve officially lost it.

    You were called a “skank” because you’re an enabler… worse, you emotionally enable a person who has been seen grooming vulnerable minors (and don’t tell me that a 14/15 year old kid who feels the need to join a gay teen forum for support is not vulnerable, because even you know that’s a lie.)

    Back when I worked in a place with mostly all gay men, women who hung out with gay men weren’t called “skanks”, they were called “fag hags” (by the gay men). “Skank” is a term used by many for a “woman” who has been known to enable abusers of children, among other things. I believe that is the context in which Rob was using the term, but I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

    And just an FYI – the original context in which “welfare” was used was racist… the fact that you then claimed to support welfare and not to be racist (practically in the same breath) did give the impression that you are, even subconsciously, a bit racist.

    Hey, if I’m wrong about that, then Rob’s claims that you are won’t hurt you at all when someone does a search on your name. They’ll read it and say “that Rob Taylor, he’s an idiot.” So what’s the problem? If Rob’s right, he wouldn’t even have had to point it out for your comment to damage your reputation(?) if a potential employer were to google your name. Maybe you aught to think or read your comments aloud before hitting that “submit comment” button? I mean, I’ve said things stupidly online, myself, but not that stupidly.

    I want to make it clear that my views on the age of consent are in no way a reflection of my personal morals.

    Uh… Yes. They are.

  51. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 3:57 pm

    By the Gods Jenna you might be worse than Alex.

    Adults preying on 14-year-olds for sex are EXPLOITING them. Children (yes children) that young need mentoring and role models, not adults ejaculating into them.

    And a skank my dear is a dirty, amoral whore who doesn’t have the dignity to whore around with normal people but seeks out degenerates worse than them to feel better about themselves. That’s you.

    Lowering the age of consent doesn’t protect children – it allows people like you to find sex partners who aren’t experienced and mature enough to know someone they should avoid. You’re a sick and disgusting (and racist) slut for trying to claim you and Knepper are interested in protecting children when your real interest in finding people you can have power over. The relationships you promote are inherently unequal, which is what Kneeper wants.

    Trish and Dodia – Not to brag about my awesome psychic powers but I knew when I saw Jenna’s picture on her “art” website that she was a fellow pervert, not just an enabler.

    All hail the great and glorious Rob!

  52. DodiaFae on November 22nd, 2010 6:23 pm

    I was gonna say “Gee, Rob, you were right once again”… I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, for the most part. Every time you’ve bluntly told me “this one’s a pervert”, and I’ve said “well, I’ll wait and see what happens”, you’ve been right.

  53. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 7:05 pm

    I have a gift.

  54. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 9:02 pm

    Alright, done arguing — but your bullying has Jenna upset — she’s not used to dealing with cyberbullies — and this shit has to stop.

    Has anyone noticed that Rob Taylor resembles Fat Bastard from the Austin Powers films? I found him on Facebook. I mean, is this some kind of Napoleon Complex? Does he feel the need to bully smart, pretty girls like Jenna because he has to wake up in the morning and realize that he can’t get such girls? I mean, look at this ugly fuck –

    http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs861.snc4/70364_1248435736_3296972_n.jpg

    In between pAgAn oCcULt MaGiCk (one of his hobbies on Facebook — LOL, fucking loser) and cyberbullying vulnerable girls trying to help out a similarly-bullied friend, what are your hobbies? I mean, besides eating.

    No life, no morals, no integrity, no shame. Typical bullies. It’s bad enough when people my age do this to each other; it’s truly a pathetic spectacle when middle-aged (fat, ugly, stupid) men do it to 20-year-olds. “Skank, whore, racist, slut” — keep it classy, Fat Bastard.

    By the way, nobody gives a fuck that you’re bi-racial. You look completely white and you have a European name. And yet you list your race first and foremost on your Facebook. NOBODY GIVES A FUCK.

  55. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 9:08 pm

    Hey Rob, why don’t you cast a spell on me?

    I mean, wow — I mean, I’m a 20-year-old attracted to certain high schoolers. Normal and healthy — according to all of the leading psychologists, biologists, and — well, let’s face it: everyone sane.

    You, on the other hand — you’re a middle-aged man who believes in witchcraft, casting spells, and summoning spirits. And so is DodiaFae! Why the fuck did I waste any time arguing with witches and warlocks? This is ridiculously embarrassing! (David Swindle, too! He’s also an occultist!) Is this some kind of crazy occult thing? Harassing people with differing opinions about sex? Haha, wait, wait, but remember: bad things you do will come back to you three times! So, you’d better watch your back, Harry Potter.

  56. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 9:37 pm

    What a great argument. You caught me, no one knew that I was a Pagan until you pointed out on my Facebook – great job Alex.

    It’s nice though to see that while you were worreid about “witchhunts” for pedophiles you yourself support literal witchhunts for – non-Atheists I take it?

    But I assume this vomiting of personal attacks means you concede that you’re simply a degenerate and that you were wrong to post that message to an underage little boy?

  57. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 9:52 pm

    A literal witchhunt? Lol! I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to be a witch, or that I want to burn you at the stake. I’m simply saying that any forty-year-old man who believes in the ability to cast spells and summon spirits is a sad, pathetic loser. That’s all.

  58. One Hung Low on November 22nd, 2010 9:52 pm

    Yah… I’ve been munching popcorn and watching the Freak Show, and no normal 20 year old is attracted to 14 and 15 year olds… There’s a huge difference in maturity level and emotional development; and most 20 year olds find children- yes, CHILDREN- that age deeply annoying.

    Alex, you poor benighted fool, you are a pervert and your friend Jenna evidently loves to be a masochist- which is why she keeps returning to be kicked in the teeth by the unpleasant truth- that you both are sick in the head…. Seek help, you and your psycho sidekick…

  59. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 9:58 pm

    Yes yes everyone who isn’t an atheist is a loser. All liberals say that. Did you tell David Frum that his faith (whatever it is) was sad an pathetic? Or is it just now that you need to find a way to deflect from your own sad life surrounded by teens and crazy people that you decided being religious is foolish?

    No matter. That my religion is your argument means you’ve lost, even in your own mind.

    But it’s ironic being called a loser by an adult who needs to stalk kids online to get laid. I’m laughing my “fat” ass off on that one.

  60. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 10:33 pm

    No, no, silly fat man, I’m no longer arguing with you about that: you’re a pathetic creep, and Jenna and I are normal individuals with real lives — I’m just kind of rubbing in the fact that you’re a middle-aged man who believes in casting spells and summoning spirits…and stalks college kids online. Aren’t you even a little bit embarrassed that you have nothing better to do than bully and harass college kids? Come on now, Harry Potter.

    By the way, keep digging your own grave: “…surrounded by teens and crazy people” — Ah, so that’s how you feel about people with Jenna’s problems. Hmm…keep digging, Harry Potter.

  61. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 10:48 pm

    No Alex you’re not normal, because normal adults pursue sexual relationships with other adults. You’re a pervert, a sexual sadist who seeks out partners (and friends, like Jenna) who you can control or manipulate. Teens, specifically gay ones, are attractive toy you because they are pliable and looking for sexual guidance during a confusing time in their lives, thus they will not be disgusted by your diaper fetish for example because they won’t know how abnormal it is.

    But even when you dream about them, by your own admission, you picture them with the sexual parts of much younger children – a more non-threatening size perhaps? You’re not gay in the popular sense, simply selfish and looking for partners who can be controlled by you. You don’t want to have sex with men, you want to molest boys. There’s a vast difference between the two things.

    You don’t act out your violent fantasies about women because you’re physically unable to. You don’t seek normal homosexual relations with people your age because you’re emotionally and psychologically unable to have those relationships. Thus you satisfy your misogyny with the series of attack articles you wrote designed largely to make rape victims feel bad and you pursue teens re-enact whatever incidents in your youth that make you feel that adults are entitled to the bodies of teens.

    Anton LaVey, if I may bring in another occultist, wrote an essay about people just like you in The Devil’s Notebook which was called On Misogynists or something like that. In it he said that misogynists were simply closeted homosexuals whose hatred of women stems from the fact that the women receive the attention from straight men that they secretly crave. Very Un-PC so you’ll like it but certain passages dealing with misogyny will probably be eye opening and help you better understand yourself.

    Yeah and the “digging my own grave” thing – doesn’t sound like a threat at all. But since I don’t sweat bitches … make all the threats you want

  62. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 11:01 pm

    WTF? Do you think that I, at 20, have myself all figured out, or that I’m confusion-free in my sexuality? Are you kidding? You think I don’t have any vulnerabilities or any ambiguities that I have to work out? Jesus, you’re some kind of piece of work. Do you think that everyone gets himself all figured out upon his eighteenth birthday? You’re a fucking freak. You’re nearly forty and clearly have not figured yourself out yet.

    And excuse me, what is this?: “re-enact whatever incidents in your youth that make you feel that adults are entitled to the bodies of teens.” Are you accusing someone in my life of molesting me? Anything you’d like to elaborate upon, sicko?

    Haha…oh God. I like Anton LaVey but he was pretty clueless when it came to sexuality. I mean, look at the LaVey Personality Synthesizer, for instance. (Also: LaVey did NOT believe in the ability to cast spells or summon spirits in anything more than a metaphorical sense. Anton LaVey, a staunch atheist, wrote explicitly that pagans are idiots. You’re quoting someone who would have thought that you were a total twit.)

  63. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 11:03 pm

    Haha, oh wait, I’m the misogynist — the one who idolizes strong women in politics and entertainment like Ayn Rand, Camille Paglia, Britney Spears, and Nicki Minaj — but you can call vulnerable young women “whores,” “skanks,” and “sluts”? Come on, Harry Potter. You’re not even trying to think straight, now.

  64. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 11:04 pm

    Um, and I’m not responding to the other accusations because they’re so sick and cruel that they don’t merit a reply other than to say that you’re a deranged, sociopathic monster.

  65. DodiaFae on November 22nd, 2010 11:08 pm

    Wow, Alex… you throwing a temper tantrum isn’t pretty.

  66. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 11:10 pm

    Maybe you could cast a nice spell to beautify things?

  67. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 11:11 pm

    Right. You write essays claiming women who get raped had it coming and admit to trolling a gay teen forum for sex and having conversations with one boy on that forum that’s a crime in several states (it is a misdemeanor in California, for example) but I’m the monster. Sure. That makes perfect sense.

    Which one of us will be in jail in the next ten years? Which one of us exploits teens for sex? Which one of us is known on the web as a rape apologist? Which one of us is has a body of work so disgusting and depraved that he’s lost all his paying gigs?

    Nice try, Alex. If you’ll excuse me I’ll be doing a little freelancing for one of the sites that booted you.

  68. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 11:12 pm

    Or maybe Dodia can call authorities in the state that kid was in and let them know about your “jokes” with him?

    What do you say Alex, money where your mouth is? Shall we let the authorities decide if what you’re doing is normal?

  69. Alex Knepper on November 22nd, 2010 11:23 pm

    “Which one of us is known on the web as a rape apologist?”

    LOL, and you call me a leftist troll? Yes, that’s what Media Matters (George Soros’ site) said; it’s what the radical-left feminist site Jezebel said. That’s what the postmodernists on my campus said. Why am I not surprised that someone like you (and your wife) wants to lie about my arguments, too? No surprise, no surprise at all.

    For sane people, it was just me rehashing Camille Paglia’s arguments from the 90s. (Let me guess: you hate her, too. She was another sex radical that got smeared by lying fucks like you.)

    “Nice try, Alex. If you’ll excuse me I’ll be doing a little freelancing for one of the sites that booted you.”

    NewsRealBlog? LOL. What are you going to write? “Obama is an evil socialist fascist Communist dictator who wants to nuke Israel and get government into your Medicare”?

    “trolling a gay teen forum for sex”

    Um, no. Not rehashing this bullshit again.

  70. Rob Taylor on November 22nd, 2010 11:35 pm

    Yes, yes I’m a leftist even though you’re working a website with the douche who got filmed screaming like a girl after rushing Ann Coulter. You’re just like Camile Paglia even though she’s not on the web trying to bang teenagers and everyone’s lying about what you wrote even though anyone can look up your “articles” and see them for what they are.

    But sure, it’s you against the evil world. Everyone is wrong but you, Jenna and NAMBLA.

  71. Alex Knepper on November 23rd, 2010 12:04 am

    So, just to confirm: you think that Camille Paglia is an evil, degenerate pervert? I mean, she’s way more radical than I am: she supports a universal age of consent of 14 and says that child pornography should only be illegal because of child labor laws. She loves the Marquis de Sade and says that he’s a more important writer than John Milton. She says that NAMBLA should be mainstreamed into the gay movement and that pre-pubescent children can be legitimately viewed as erotic. She’s way more out there than me. I don’t think people realize how radical she is.

    “website with the douche who got filmed screaming like a girl after rushing Ann Coulter.”

    Huh? Who?

  72. Rob Taylor on November 23rd, 2010 3:33 am

    No, to confirm I don’t give two shits about Paglia because she’s all talk. You’re actually doing … teens.

    And you know who I’m talking about.

  73. David Swindle on November 23rd, 2010 1:07 pm

    Just a reminder to everyone that yet again I exposed Knepper in a lie — this time his lie that his NRB contributions were “seldom” when in fact he submitted an average of 6 posts per month — and he responded by ignoring it and then being an anti-religious bigot.

    He also cannot answer for his leftist smear of David Horowitz which has now also been exposed.

  74. Alex Knepper on November 23rd, 2010 4:11 pm

    Sorry, Swindle, as usual: no lie. I guess we have very different definitions of “seldom.” When I wrote for NRB, I’d only been gone from Race42012 for a little while, and when I was there, I contributed 1-2 times daily, making for up to fifty posts monthly. Yes, things are a bit different when you can’t post news blurbs and mini-commentary, but it, to me, felt lacking. (For what it’s worth, I also felt like I didn’t contribute to FrumForum enough.)

  75. Alex Knepper on November 23rd, 2010 4:16 pm

    “And you know who I’m talking about.”

    No I don’t..? I’m honestly confused. What are you talking about? Filmed crying after rushing Ann Coulter?

    “He also cannot answer for his leftist smear of David Horowitz which has now also been exposed.”

    LOL, no, Mr. Warlock, the “smear” of Horowitz is the unvarnished truth. I quoted from his book and turned to NewsRealBlog as a supreme example of how people are treated: not as Oxford dons, but as people with a ‘fighting ability’ that needs to be ‘destroyed.’ Guardiano is another example: when you decided that he wasn’t ideologically pure enough, you leaked embarrassing e-mails and made fun of his name. Quintessential leftist bullshit. You and Horowitz are still the leftists you used to be; you just have brought over your ugly tactics to the so-called right. You guys are doing it to Jenna right here on this blog. She was distraught last night privately and said to me “I honestly thought for a while that they wanted to have a civil discussion about this!” — Wrong. Your MO is to make people feel horrible and worthless.

    “religious bigotry”

    Again: Sorry, Mr. Warlock, but religion is not above criticism. One would think you’d know that, since, well, you spend all day long writing about Islam. Gosh, awfully touchy when it comes to *your* religion, aren’t you? Why are you so upset? Just levitate on over here and cast a silencing spell on me or something. Lol!

  76. Rob Taylor on November 23rd, 2010 4:28 pm

    So religion isn’t above criticism of adults wanting to exploit children sexually is. Got it.

    And I have not said you can’t “criticize” my religion. I have no interest in what a whining pedophile who I reported to the cops thinks of me. Better be careful who you’re talking to online these days Alex.

  77. David Swindle on November 23rd, 2010 7:35 pm

    This is just further examples of Knepper not acknowledging reality and creating his own realities which he then tries to drag us all into. In other words: more lies.

    Under no reasonable standard is someone who contributes to a blog 6 times a month a “seldom” contributor. Trying to say it’s seldom as compared to 50 times a month is ridiculous. You could reasonably say you were a “seldom” contributor if you had only 1 or 2 posts a month.

    Suggestion, pedophile: don’t throw stones in glass houses. You can’t engage in hardball rhetoric yourself (which you do and have been doing in these comments with your pornographic fantasies about Horowitz and me) and then condemn others for far milder stuff. You can’t attack me for referencing Guardiano’s emails when YOU REFERENCED MY EMAILS IN YOUR POSTS, even going further and quoting directly from them.

    You still refuse to acknowledge the fact that your smear has been rebutted. You’re citing a text which is meant to apply solely for national political campaigns and then lying and saying that its author intends for it to be used in intellectual discussions. I mean a “supreme example” of what? A typical blog that uses harsh rhetoric? We’re par for the course and the intensity of our rhetoric is really no different than what the founding fathers used in their campaigns against each other.

    I don’t think I’ve said much to Jenna. It’s stretching things quite a bit to try and link Rob’s rhetoric toward her with Horowitz’s electoral politics strategy. You’re just really talking through your hat on this — which you actually do about EVERYTHING.

    And yes, it’s bigoted to mock someone’s religion to their face. Criticizing a religious doctrine that says apostates need to be killed is not the same thing. But apparently you’re too braindead to realize that.

  78. Rob Taylor on November 23rd, 2010 7:44 pm

    It’s a waste of time to argue logic with Knepper and his child rape cult. The real issue is Knepper was caught sexually harassing teens, his claimed this is acceptable and his friends claim the same thing. Thus he is a degenerate, end of story.

    Judging by his comments he also surfs the net while high/drunk.

  79. DodiaFae on November 23rd, 2010 8:48 pm

    Perverts always fail at trying to place the bad on anyone else around them, particularly those who call them out on their perversions. Alex is no exception. When they realize it’s not working, they get all panicky and tantrumy and start trying to deflect the true topic of discussion (their perversions), and as a last ditch effort they’ll start making fun of those shining a light on their perversions. I’ve seen it before. He knows he’s only made it more obvious what a pervert he is. Jenna’s crying because she, by default and for sticking up for him so vehemently, is also looking like she has no morals.

    They just haven’t learned yet to try something besides the lame attempts to make those calling them on their bullshit feel guilty, and then getting all pissy when it doesn’t work, and even threatening them. Alex is no different. I guess he really isn’t as brilliant as he thinks he is.

    Jenna, word of advice. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I’ve called women who stick up for perverts worse than “skank”. Rob went easy on you. I wouldn’t expect that much courtesy again, if I were you.

  80. Rob Taylor on November 23rd, 2010 10:21 pm

    I’m betting sooner or later we’ll be calling Jenna a co-defendant.

  81. Alex Knepper on November 23rd, 2010 11:33 pm

    “Under no reasonable standard is someone who contributes to a blog 6 times a month a “seldom” contributor. Trying to say it’s seldom as compared to 50 times a month is ridiculous. You could reasonably say you were a “seldom” contributor if you had only 1 or 2 posts a month.”

    Interesting. All the time that I was contributing I was afraid that you were mad at me for not contributing more. I was just used to a different standard. Neither of us are really lying in this case; we simply have different standards for what constitutes ‘seldom.’

    Although I cannot believe that you are actually arguing with me over my production count while I was a contributor to NewsReal. Of all the dumb bullshit…lol!

    Anyway, I quoted your e-mails, David, only because you were lying about me — which you do quite a lot — and I had to place things in their proper context. You, on the other hand, dragged up things for the sole sake of trying to embarrass me with a particular crowd. (You knew Frum didn’t agree with me on Islam, so you quoted me bashing Islam.) Also pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    I mean, there’s so much petty bullshit we could dredge up — like you bashing me for liking the Marquis de Sade while you listed 120 Days of Sodom as one of your favorite films on your Facebook. Or bashing me for degrading you by calling you “little boy” while you degraded me by calling me a “child” in your original hit piece on me. I have many more examples. It’s pointless. We could do this all day.

    “your pornographic fantasies about Horowitz and me”

    Ew, I don’t want your greasy-ass body. Don’t flatter yourself, skeleton boy. You’re one ugly-ass motherfucker. (You and Rob both, interestingly: why is it that the ugly ones are constantly picking on the more attractive ones, like Jenna — or, hell, bad pictures aside, me?)

    And LOL, I cannot believe how insecure you are about your occultism. It’s a childish, Harry Potter-style fantasy, which is why I’m making fun of you for it. You used to try to share LeVitAtIoN maGiCk with me. I mean, grow up!

    It’s ‘bigoted’ to mock someone for something that isn’t their choice — their skin color, their sex, their sexual orientation. It’s not bigoted to mock someone for their morals, values, religious doctrine, etc: choices. Things that they believe in that say something about how they view the world. You, for instance, are anti-scientific (as you also demonstrate in your insistence that it’s bizarre for a 20-year-old to be attracted to teenagers), so I can mock you for that.

  82. Alex Knepper on November 23rd, 2010 11:42 pm

    I mean, this is an anti-scientific worldview all over: it’s not an accident that the same people who believe in witchcraft, casting spells, levitation magick, and other occult silliness are the ones who think that it’s abnormal for a college student to be sexually attracted to high school students.

    No conception of biology or psychology certainly — but then, the occultist also has no conception of, say, physics. Utterly deluded in their entire worldview.

    “The real issue is Knepper was caught sexually harassing teens, his claimed this is acceptable and his friends claim the same thing.”

    The “real issue” is that you see no difference between a fifty-year-old raping a five-year-old — and a twenty-year-old joking around about penises with a fifteen-year-old.

    “I mean a “supreme example” of what? A typical blog that uses harsh rhetoric? We’re par for the course and the intensity of our rhetoric is really no different than what the founding fathers used in their campaigns against each other.”

    A supreme example of the vicious bullying/character assassination/politics of personal destruction that Horowitz advocates. It doesn’t “just” apply to national-level campaigns. It’s done to everyone who disagrees with you guys. No serious intellectual debate really exists, according to the NewsRealBlog folks: it’s always you guys on the side of justice against the evil, racist, sexist, pedophilic, anti-American, pro-sharia, etc., crowd. (And as if to confirm your megalomania, you then compare your rhetoric to the Founding Fathers’…LOL) Character assassination is not just “harsh rhetoric.” It’s meant to intimidate people from replying to you.

  83. Alex Knepper on November 24th, 2010 12:14 am

    Oh, and this –

    “I have no interest in what a whining pedophile who I reported to the cops thinks of me.”

    First of all, you clearly do care what I think, since you keep bothering to reply.

    Second, I doubt that you really did it (even Swindle has admitted multiple times that I’ve never done anything illegal), but: stop wasting the time and energy of law enforcement. They have real problems to deal with: rape, theft, murder, child pornographers, assault. Every second you waste of their time on some idiotic personal vendetta is a second wasted that could be fighting actual criminals. C’mon fatty: that’s just bad citizenship.

  84. Rob Taylor on November 24th, 2010 1:07 am

    You’re really stupid Alex. State laws vary but like I said many states have laws on the books that make the above incident illegal. Further police forces seek out escalating “grooming” behavior like yours to set up stings. I reported your little joke and your interactions with underage boys online. Next time you meet a new friend online it might be a cop.

    But sure Alex, people who don’t want children exploited for sex by degenerates with diaper fetishes and a love of sadism are bad citizens and adults who refuse to grow up and have relationships with adults are the victims. That’s pure science.

    I also reported you when Newsreal first broke their story to several anti-pedo groups who monitor pedophiles online. Bet some of those messages you thought were between you and a “young friend” are being compiled into a case on you now.

  85. Alex Knepper on November 24th, 2010 1:18 am

    You are truly, all-around delusional. You have actually convinced yourself that I actively seek out boys online, rather than just joke around with people on forums I’ve been a part of for years.

    Well, whatever. Since I don’t do such things, I have nothing to worry about.

  86. Rob Taylor on November 24th, 2010 2:24 am

    We’ll see.

  87. Alex Knepper on November 24th, 2010 6:22 am

    This is really the danger in vigilantism: while some vigilantes undoubtedly manage to do some good sometimes, they also are more prone than the proper authorities to hit false targets. Vigilantes are emotionally-driven and don’t have to report to any authorities — that is: there’s no check on their power to destroy, and so they aren’t as prone to check and double-check. The police are required to check and double-check and make sure they have an air-tight case against someone before making a move. If the police were to accuse me of “pedophile grooming,” they’d need a hell of a lot more evidence than some joke I made in public on a forum I’ve been a part of for years. That’s not typical grooming behavior. Any policeman reading that GayTeenForum thread would laugh you out of the station. I’d been posting on that forum for years and felt comfortable enough with other members to make a public joke. Other people in the thread were laughing about it, including the person I made the joke to. It’s obviously a context — in that community — where people feel comfortable saying that sort of thing. If you think it’s inappropriate, you should put in a word to me privately and advise me, not go running in hysterics to your blog. That’s what a normal person does: use some discretion. On GayTeenForum, you can find literally hundreds of examples of that kind of thing: I’m not even the oldest one there, and older guys than me have made sexual jokes to younger members before. It’s all in fun; there’s no harm in it. The cops would figure that out quickly, roll their eyes at their wasted time, and move onto real threats to children. But a vigilante has no interest in placing it in context.

    This is not something you go about blithely; it’s not something you fire an automatic gun into a crowd over, hitting thirty people and hoping that one or two of them are the right targets — this is real, life-ruining stuff. It’s the ultimate accusation you can make against someone, and it shouldn’t be made lightly. For people who are truly threats to children, such accusations should indeed be life-ruining. But false accusations can arguably be as devastating as the act itself. You’re so concerned with earning your Good-Guy Badge that you haven’t bothered to check and double-check that the people you’re going after are legitimate threats. This is why vigilantism is so dangerous. If you had any conscience, you would be ashamed and apologize, but you don’t so you won’t.

  88. David Swindle on November 24th, 2010 10:46 am

    I think our work here is done. Knepper’s attack on us has devolved into “You’re ugly and I’m attractive” (says the lonely pedophile to two married men) and he’s completely unaware of the hypocrisy for attacking us for our harsh rhetoric when he’s been employing profanities and pornographic characterizations of Horowitz and me.

    And let me say it again: Knepper doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Yes, the harsh rhetoric we use really is not that different from what the founding fathers used.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
    http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/sources-for-attack-ads-circa-1

    In fact if anything our rhetoric is BETTER than that from the founders’ time.

    But there really isn’t anything left to say to the undecided lurkers who haven’t made up their minds or are just now arriving to this controversy.

  89. David Swindle on November 24th, 2010 11:18 am

    “(even Swindle has admitted multiple times that I’ve never done anything illegal”

    No, I’ve admitted I don’t have evidence that you’ve done things that are illegal. Big difference.

  90. David Swindle on November 24th, 2010 12:40 pm

    “Any policeman reading that GayTeenForum thread would laugh you out of the station.”

    Actually the cop who wrote the post for us thought our analysis of you was correct. http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/19/an-expert-weighs-in-on-young-%e2%80%9cgenius%e2%80%9d-who-claims-writings-on-child-sex-were-just-jokes/

  91. Rob Taylor on November 24th, 2010 12:42 pm

    Blah Blah Alex. You aren’t “joking” with an underage boy when you tell him you dreamt of blowing him – you’re putting out feelers to see how he reacts. You are a danger to teens, and like all pedophiles you’re convinced you’re so much smarter than everyone else that you can fool them. You can’t, you’re done.

    How have I ruined your life? By reporting something you did that you know to be wrong and illegal in many states or publicizing your own words that you yourself put on the Internet? Is it really me who is ruining your life?

  92. DodiaFae on November 24th, 2010 1:25 pm

    It’s ‘bigoted’ to mock someone for something that isn’t their choice — their skin color, their sex, their sexual orientation.

    Just an FYI – Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. There is no such thing as a “pedosexual”.

    It’s not bigoted to mock someone for their morals, values, religious doctrine, etc: choices.

    Exactly… morals (or lack thereof, of which you’re a prime example) or values (ditto). You chose to act inappropriately, to say things that show that you have no morals, to bash victims of rape, to say inappropriate things to a child.

    Things that they believe in that say something about how they view the world. You, for instance, are anti-scientific (as you also demonstrate in your insistence that it’s bizarre for a 20-year-old to be attracted to teenagers), so I can mock you for that.

    The fact that you’re a 20 year old adult who is sexually attracted to 14 year olds about says it all.

    No conception of biology or psychology certainly

    Just another FYI about biology – puberty is the body preparing itself for reproduction… that a child is going through puberty does not mean that they are ready. A child is not fully physically developed, and I know a woman who had medical problems because her body, at 17, was not physically developed enough to carry her first child to term. As a result, her child was born 3 months premature and had to have open-heart surgery in her first week outside the womb.

    Vigilantes are emotionally-driven and don’t have to report to any authorities — that is: there’s no check on their power to destroy, and so they aren’t as prone to check and double-check.

    If any one of us were vigilantes, we wouldn’t be passing the information on to LE to check (and double check, as they see fit). If we were truly vigilantes, we know where to find you. But that’s not how we roll. I think you (much like every other online pervert and pro-sexual predator we’ve had that discussion with) really need to look up the definition of “vigilante”.

    If the police were to accuse me of “pedophile grooming,” they’d need a hell of a lot more evidence than some joke I made in public on a forum I’ve been a part of for years. That’s not typical grooming behavior.

    I assure you that it is.

    If you had any conscience, you would be ashamed and apologize, but you don’t so you won’t.

    If you had any conscience, you’d apologize to that boy you sexually harassed, as well as to all the victims of rape that you’ve insulted time and again. You’d apologize to everyone that was subjected to your baby-rape jokes. But you have no conscience, so you won’t.

  93. David Swindle on November 24th, 2010 2:53 pm

    Oh, and one last thing:
    “Why are you so upset? Just levitate on over here and cast a silencing spell on me or something. Lol!”

    I already did cast that “silencing spell.” Here it is in case you’ve forgotten:
    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/10/08/david-frum-and-his-pro-pedophile-protege/

    And you know what? It worked. How “anti-science” of me. Don’t know much about what magick and occultism really entails do you, pedophile?

    Enjoy flipping burgers the rest of your life.

  94. Alex Knepper on November 24th, 2010 4:00 pm

    “But there really isn’t anything left to say to the undecided lurkers who haven’t made up their minds or are just now arriving to this controversy.”

    This says it all, I think. I’m done with the main argument. We’re all just going in circles.

    (By the way, David, what do you do, exactly? Tell your writers to mention me every so often? See David Forsmark’s piece today, calling me a “pervert” for “slobbering online over teen idol Justin Bieber.”)

  95. David Swindle on November 24th, 2010 4:47 pm

    “Tell your writers to mention me every so often?”

    You wish.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissism

    Get over yourself.

  96. Alex Knepper on November 24th, 2010 6:30 pm

    No, no, darling, try this one:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsessed

  97. David Swindle on November 24th, 2010 7:32 pm

    Talk about a comeback fail.

    What’s next, pedophile? “I know you are but what am I?” or “Takes one to know one!” or “Your Mom!”

    Just because you’re obsessed with yourself don’t assume that everyone else is.

    You just prove what I’ve been saying this whole time: you’re not as smart — or as good a writer — as you think you are.

    Have a happy Thanksgiving.

  98. Alex Knepper on November 24th, 2010 11:31 pm

    What’s this about a “comeback”? Lol. What exactly do you think we’re doing? You really are weirdly obsessed with me — well, with David Frum, really; this was always a proxy war in your eyes, although you seem to find me worth days of your life, too — and I’m simply pointing it out to you. If I’m so insignificant, why are you wasting your time with me at this point? If you think I’m doomed for life to flip burgers, then why not let it rest? But you don’t. You’re a creepy cyberstalker; you’ve been prying into my private life (Internet aside, there’s a certain level of decorum that people observe) since the summer in some deranged attempt to destroy me and hurt David Frum.

    Not a single one of my friends or colleagues has treated me any differently since the matter — including some writers that Horowitz incorrectly assumes respect him. You have absolutely no idea how many people have contacted me to say how creepy and vicious they think you and Horowitz are for going after some college kid. Sit tight, Harry Potter. I always get the last laugh. Heh. I have more friends than you think — and you have fewer than you think.

    And, um, sorry, Mr. Witch, but anyone who believes in “levitation magick” and reads Aleister Crowley for spiritual insight has no room to talk about someone else’s smarts. LOL.

  99. David Swindle on November 25th, 2010 10:57 am

    What’s “levitation magick”?

Leave a Reply