|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : All Made of Stars
Hit the Road Jack | from Jules - Tuesday, October 01, 2002
accessed 832 times Freedom of speech has its limits and Andrew J. has been blocked from further participation on this website. The main reason for this are his statements below: "I'm aware Mene was not a child [Jules: she was 11-14] when this sexual contact between FD (I'll refer to him here as FD-Father David) & herself occured, & she had already been used to having quite a bit of "grown-up" sexual contact in MWM before she came to live at the folks' home. From the accounts of many she was quite desirous of sexual contact from grown-ups & was even perturbed when on occasion it was denied her. As I understand it from the letters, the accounts of Mene, & from the Justice's ruling, FD did not have sexual inter-course with her, but rather it was oral (him on her, not her on him) sexual stimulation. I'm not sure 100%, but I don't think it was done against her will...While I'm very sorry for Mene, I stiil wouldn't feel right about laying the blame for her condition at the feet of the people in FD's home or even FD himself.
What is the dif between her having had it with Adult men & having some slight resmblance of it with FD besides the fact that he was her grandfather? An adult is an adult! This is where we start approaching the questions of incest. The laws of Moses prohibit incestous sexual relations & I'm inclined to agree that that's a very good idea! It's not the norm & I don't think it necessary for me to repeat myself on this. On the other hand Dad & the Family were so much "not the norm" for their day that it comes as no great surprise that there would be certain areas where something that is not the norm (although not altogether un-heard of) would perhaps be tried out & experimented with, that is a little further out of the norm than normal. I don't believe that Dad had evil intention towards Mene & in fact I think he really loved her & cared for her.
Life is not all about living on empathy, but about getting real, moving on, fogiving & forgetting & living for today & tommorow--not yesterday. You can't undo the past, but you can ruin your own & others' future by not letting go. Women the world over have to deal with issues like this on a daily basis."
These statements are in support of despicable crimes against children and when it comes to these issues, it’s not enough to simply not endorse these opinions.
The members of the Family are not only accountable for what they did, and may continue to do, they are also accountable for what they did not do. To stand idly by or sit and speculate as to the seriousness of the act while crimes such as incest, pedophilia and torture are being committed is in itself vile.
I think we are all aware of these above points of view, having heard them many times from the people that raised us. It serves no purpose to revictimise those who have already suffered too much, and I think it’s wrong to allow this to continue. Andrew’s statements are foul not only to Merry, but to the hundreds, and possibly thousands, of children who endured sexual assault, rape and torture at the hands of Family members.
I have learned a great deal since this website launched, just over a year ago. It was perhaps my blind idealism that made me think that all of us with parents who joined are blameless. Many of us are now well into adulthood, and as such are responsible for our own actions, or lack of action, just as much as our parents. There are Family members, both first and second generation, who read this site, and let me say this to you. If you willingly choose to support the people with blood on their hands, if your attitude is “we know, but we don’t care”, if you attempt to silence the voice of the outraged and cover up the crimes committed, then you are as guilty as those you are throwing your lot in with. Don’t cry ignorance or innocence when justice catches up with you. The monster you created is waking.
Jules |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from elisha717
Friday, May 16, 2008 - 06:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Jules, I know you have better things to do with your time besides edit my mistakes, I just feel bad cause a few of my comments repeat themselves, and I can only imagine how annoying that can be to everyone else! I am still learning how this site works!! (Obviously! Lol!)
Anyway thanks for taking your time (and everyone else that works with this site) with this Web site. I actually was able to hook up with a girlfriend that I haven't seen since I was 16 in Europe. We both have a lot of things in common, I am really happy about it!
(reply to this comment)
| from NetSavey
Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 08:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Banning??? You have got to be joking, seriously. If someone claims to have successfully blocked someone from their website I would have to laugh. Dont get me wrong I believe the "block" was a good move. But FYI it's useless. A proxy or dynamic re-route can bypass that anyday....I'd be happy to prove it.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |  From NetSavey
Sunday, November 03, 2002, 11:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
An IP block can be bypassed by anyone with a dial up connection (Dynamic IP assignment) without them even knowing it. Unless of course you were able to track down their ISP's entire allocated IP table and block the root segments that make up their IP address.
Really the only way you might possibly in the furthest extent of the word be able to "block" someone would be to institute a user level system to actually segregate users and thereby allowing only members to comment/mouth off.
Normal users will have viewing rights etc etc....and blah blah blah blah....however the draw back would be that lazy users such as myself might not bother to take the time to actually sign in to this site just to add a comment, might put a choker on the amount of user interaction that happens here........all in all its your site... (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, November 03, 2002, 12:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Restricting the ISP's entire IP block is exactly what I did. Doing this is effective, but can restrict access to other users with the same ISP. The way around that is require other users sharing that ISP to log in first before posting, and then check their ID against a list of allowed users (to prevent the unwanted visitor from registering and participating). Inconvenient for them, but there is a small enough user group that this works for us.
Your input is of course appreciated, but I wasn't aware there was a problem with the blocking. Since only 1 SG has been restricted in the entire life of this site, and I don't like to do that at all, I don't see it being an issue in the future.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Friday, May 16, 2008, 02:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Its more of a statement than anything else...in saying that those types of postings are not not invited. You're drawing the line and that is good. Of course this crazy person ( I mean that is so insane...To think it is one thing, but to advertise those types of sentiments... gosh, wouldn't want to be in his world.) can somehow return... but the point has been made none the less. (reply to this comment) |
| | from moonmental
Sunday, October 06, 2002 - 01:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks Jules...he was really starting to get to me. I totally get what you mean by us now being accountable for our own actions and beliefs. By continuing to support Berg's beliefs and defending them, I think the guilt rubs off on him. You've just saved me a lot of time and energy that I would have wasted raging against his posts.
(reply to this comment)
| from Ian
Sunday, October 06, 2002 - 00:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anybody stupid enough to post that kind of logic trail gets what they deserve.
The only kind of posting I think should be banned is stuff that really doesn't belong (like penis enlargement links). I agree with you, his posts bordered on nonesense attempts do defend his obviously confused mind. I guess some people need attention so bad they will do anything to get it.
But for the record, I am generally opposed to this. (In case anyone cares or is actually keeping a "record")
"Another fine post by ian"
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Auty
Friday, October 04, 2002 - 00:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
As much as I believe in the freedom of speech (our country was founded on it), there comes a point when words can do more harm than help. There are also things that are illegal to say in public forum. Supporting Anti-Semitism, racists, pedophile activities, child porn, white power, threatening the president etc., are some of the few topics in the U.S. which you can be thrown into jail for. Recently one of my good friends was put on probation and did 6 months of community service because he was ripped off by a couple he sold his house to. He left a pretty nasty message on there answering machine threatening that he would come over and kill them.. Of course, he would of never done such a thing, BUT several days later the FBI showed up at his door and charged him with a terrorist threat. The only reason he didn’t do jail time is because he had a lawyer (my father) represent him.
There comes a point when you have to realize what you are saying and that this board is NOT a free-for-all. Jules has not only the responsibility of maintaining this website, but also the responsibility of making sure she doesn’t get herself into any legalities in her country. Regardless of the moral issues here, there are legal issues that need to be considered when certain topics are brought up. Let freedom rein, but not to the point where it is hurtful & unnecessary. Some opinions on topics discussed should be better left to ones self and not posted on a very public web board.
(reply to this comment)
| from Jerseygirl
Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 13:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah,enough psychobabble already!
(reply to this comment)
| from sarafina
Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 13:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's about time. Good job Jules.
I agree in freedom of speach but there are certain guidlines we have to follow just like its against the law to say anything races or slanderous and it's certainly against the law to condone child abuse even if it was consensual they are still concidered a child and you would still go to Jail for satutory Rape.
According to the law you are to report anyone who even speaks of doing it. One of my girlfriends met this girl on line who was 21 but who liked talking dirty and doing Cyber sex well one day she started saying that she was into some pretty sick stuff and the internet is monotered for stuff like that and a warning flashed on her screen stating that they were indulging in ileagal conversation. Well my girlfriend had gotten enough info about this girl to report it she saved the Instant messages and conversations she had with her where there was even mention as to where she'd been hanging out. Any way it's a long story but the girl was aressted. Just for talking about doing it.
So I'm glad we're banning him.
(reply to this comment)
| from Anthony
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 14:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ahh, too bad, I really wanted to hear his reponse to my attack on his character and that of his father's, and the comments about his son.
(reply to this comment)
| from Tea
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 02:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
For those of us who know Merry, she is STILL trying to get over the damage done to her. As are the rest of us.
Personally, I'm limiting the number of psychos in my life.
Thanx, Jules.
(reply to this comment)
| from Craven wants to help
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 01:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules,
I am all for you taking more control of the site.
I'd not ahve banned him for reasons I'm not sober enought to detail at the moment but support you nonetheless.
If you need to know his alternative IP/TCP addresses I'm willing to help in that regard (I won't employ any illegal hacking to do this).
(reply to this comment)
| from JoeH
Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 23:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
well down Jules! That kind of crap shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, much less here!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]