User Tisane, this could end badly Options

[tarantino]

The Libertarian candidate in 2008 for Virginia's 1st congressional district and and one of Abd's former mentors [1] had another account blocked August 11 2010.

He recently spent 14 months in prison for threatening to kill the president, and has just now decided not to comply with his conditions of supervised release.

His autobiography is here, and the letter sent to his probation officer is here.

[1]

I had some good mentors early on, most notably an editor known by many names, a long-term Wikipedian who, for his own reasons, kept dropping accounts and starting up new ones, though under (originally) no sanctions. He never used two accounts simultaneously, never went back to old accounts, and all were acknowledged or blatantly obvious, far from concealed. One of the names was Sarsaparilla, it's not hard at all to find another going back about two years before I met him. Older accounts he never revealed even to me, and he had real-life reasons to avoid disclosing them, he claimed.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery (NSFW)

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove (NSFW)

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte (NSFW)

Edit: Adding warnings per the requests below.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[The Joy]

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Wikiprudery

http://nathania.org/wiki/User:Nathan_Larson/Boylove

http://en.boywiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sp...r%3ALeucosticte

(IMG:http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x136/Morpheus7678/Oh_lawd.jpg)

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

[Abd]

Does Hipocrite post here? Has he made contact with the FBI about this guy?

He claimed to have done so, through a reporting link. I referred to that above. In order to make the report he had to misrepresent the facts. Since it wasn't made directly to the FBI, it might not be illegal, that false report, but it still is scuzzy, because it wastes the time of an organization dedicated to protecting children.

(Need major NSFW warnings for those links! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif))

Well, no. His point and my point. (the smilies show a common response to some kinds of pornography: simultaneous attraction and repulsion) (the two pages are different, the first has no pornography, the second has pornographic text. A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

The Wikiprudery essay has one small photo with it. It shows a young woman, playing the piano, nude. How I'd respond, as your boss, to your viewing that page would have little to do with the photo, though maybe I might feel differently depending on what you were doing when I walked into your office. I'd be more concerned that you were reading something that has nothing to do with work. The same as without the photo.

The photo itself is not pornography, nor even erotic, necessarily. The woman might or might not be a child, but it does not matter legally, because this is not child porn.

The Boylove commentary has no photos. It has an excerpt from The Lolita Method. If you fear that a piece of erotic text will flip you into illegal or harmful behavior, indeed, I don't recommend reading this. I.e., if you are a pedophile trying to stay legal.

However, there is a blatant contradiction here. A knee-jerk response to the Boylove page might be that he's a "Boylover." Yet he obviously is not, and that contradicts the impression one might get from the "Lolita Method" excerpt, that he could be a pedophile preferring girls. In fact, he is neither. Nothing about these pages would lead to a diagnosis of pedophilia of any kind.

Except for people who are completely clueless and who react strongly to mild stimuli. These people, in fact, could be far more worrisome if and when they are in contact with children, than Tisane.

Tisane is doing exactly what he says he's doing, big surprise, plus he's doing something else.

What he says he's doing is researching the issue of child/adults sex, as a political issue, that is his "interest," and what else he is doing is very effectively trolling for outraged response. He's good at it, obviously.

Wikiprudery, indeed.

Are you going to report this to the FBI? It's more deserving of it. Now, there's an image that is NSFW. Hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (Child pornography!)

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Ottava]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

[Fusion]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

[Ottava]

(A famous piece of it, in fact. Apparently not illegal.)

It is rather sad that Abd thinks that "legal" and "famous" are connected. Illegal is illegal.

Surely the claims here are that it is not illegal and that it is famous. It is not asserted that it is legal because it is famous, or that it is famous because it is legal. As to whether it is indeed illegal I express no comment. No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

[Detective]

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.

[Ottava]

No doubt Ottava has an opinion from a notable lawyer on that subject.

Why would the lawyer have to be notable? o.O

Dear me, you do ask ridiculously easy questions. Because if he's not notable, he won't have an article on Wikipedia so we won't know if he's gay or whatever.

Haha, nice.



Fusion

I mean that the lawyer is well known within the legal profession as an expert in the subject.

No lawyer is an expert on the subject. Lawyers fight on a side. They are not the judges. Even judges aren't the ultimate deciders as there are always appeals that can overrule.

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Abd]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

The Wikipedia article, Child pornography claims, in the lede:

Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images[1][2][3]) and, in some cases, writings[3][4][5] depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child.

When references are in the lede, that's a sign of major controversy. Supposedly, the lede should be totally uncontroversial, with what is in the lede being established, with references, in the text.

Ref 3 is a book, the reference has "Akdeniz, Yaman (2008). Internet child pornography and the law: national and international responses. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. p. 11. ISBN 0-7546-2297-5." Note that "international responses" could include places where extreme views (as held by the rest of the world) are enforced.

Ah, I love this. People don't read sources. This book is available on Google Books. Page 11 says the opposite of what the lede says.

Written materials were deliberately left out of the EU definition as there was no support or agreement for the inclusion of textual or written material in the definition of child pornography.

ref 4 is interesting. Primary source, violating RS guidelines. It's the Canadian criminal code

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Yes, that does mean that some written material might violate the law, but this is where one relies on expert interpretation, that's why the usage of primary sources is deprecated. The Canadian law came up in the discussion on RationalWiki, and I researched it. It's not important enough for me to dredge that up, if someone is interested it can be found on the archived Chicken Coop discussion. Bottom line, though, none of Tisane's material fits this.

Note that if a description of sex with a child were, ipso facto, child pornography, under this definition, Lolita would surely be child porn. However, a description of a murder, in fiction, does not "advocate or counsel" murder.

The Canadian law specifically excepts, from prohibition, material that "has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose."

Ref 5 is a report of a legal outcome, the prosecution, in Canada, of a man for alleged possession of written child pornography. He was found not guilty of that charge.

"These writings simply describe morally repugnant acts," the judge said, but the stories "do not actively advocate or counsel the reader to engage in the acts described." Therefore, they are not illegal.

Shaw also said the stories had artistic merit, based on testimony from two out of three experts. Artistic merit is a defence, "irrespective of whether the work is considered pornographic," he wrote.

The man was found guilty, however, of possessing pornographic pictures of children [teenage boys], which he had admitted.

The decision cited above followed a Canadian Supreme Court review, R._v._Sharpe]. In the Wikipedia article, it is explained that Canadian law is stricter than U.S. law in certain respects, but simple graphic written portrayal does not create an offense even under Canadian law.

In any case, the Wikipedia article lede is technically correct but misleading, and is poorly supported -- or even contradicted -- by the sources cited.

What is really prohibited in Canada is advocacy or counselling toward certain illegal activities, using written or visual materials.

Ottava classically terms anyone who points out fact in this area as being a pedophile or "pedophile-lover," and morally odious. In fact, I'd be more worried about my children being in the care of someone like Ottava than of someone like Tisane. My ex-wife is pretty straight-laced and conservative, in spite of being seriously Gay, so I wouldn't be able to test this without Major Trouble. Tisane is outrageous, no question about it. But "pedophile," no.

While there may be some countries where that depiction is illegal, it seems to be far from "most," and, for the purposes of Wikipedia and Tisane's web site, both hosted in the U.S., this isn't child porn and is not illegal. Not even in Canada. And apparently not in the E.U. So where?

Saudi Arabia?

[Ottava]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

Actually, it is primarily US law. Lolita is not even close to being "graphic" in the sense that the fanfiction crap you are trying to defend is.

Wikipedia summarizes it best: 'Samuel Schuman says that Nabokov "is a surrealist, linked to Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Kafka. Lolita is characterized by irony and sarcasm. It is not an erotic novel"'

You've obviously never read it, and you made this forum dumber in trying to respond.

[Abd]

There are laws in most countries banning the graphic depiction in that "book" (it is a pedophile fanfiction).

Apparently those laws do not apply in the U.S. One can, however, make no assumption as to pedophilia because someone sees and reads such a text, or possesses a copy, or even hosts it for purposes of political examination. The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

Actually, it is primarily US law. Lolita is not even close to being "graphic" in the sense that the fanfiction crap you are trying to defend is.

Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Ottava has provided no evidence that the graphic text in question violates U.S.. law. It is fairly easy to find similar text on the internet. Those web sites seem to manage to survive. True child pornography is difficult to find, perhaps impossible without paying and taking huge risks. The only place I've seen anything approaching it on the web has been Wikipedia Commons, if there.

Wikipedia summarizes it best: 'Samuel Schuman says that Nabokov "is a surrealist, linked to Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Kafka. Lolita is characterized by irony and sarcasm. It is not an erotic novel"'

It appears that many people disagreed. I'm not disagreeing, myself, but I will note that before writing what I wrote here I did read the entire Wikipedia article on Lolita.

You've obviously never read it, and you made this forum dumber in trying to respond.

Indeed, I haven't read it. I don't read pedophile trash.

(unless there is some specific reason, such as determining if something *is* pedophile trash, like a person is being accused of being a pedophile or promoting pedophilia. Then I'll read at least some of it. I don't know if Lolita is "pedophile trash." I do accept that it has literary merit, and portrayal of pedophilia is not necessarily "pedophile." The protagonist in Lolita is certainly not an advertisement for the wonderful time you'll have if you eff your step-daughter.)

I later found the entire "book" (the one Tisane excerpts and criticizes) on-line, in the Internet Archive. It's actually linked from Wikipedia. It's fascinating for the story around it. The author ridicules those who read it to try to put the "techniques" into action. The story is actually told on Wikipedia. Just not in mainspace.

Tisane put that up to show what, in his view, was "legal" to post in the U.S. He could be wrong, though he's probably right. He could be wrong as to Canadian law because the author actually does describe his own book as advice. That it is sarcastic advice might not be a defense I'd care to stand on were I in Canada, and being a parent of small children, I'd not keep a local copy of this book, simply because I could lose my kids being right about the law, not to mention being wrong.

Tisana says that he doubts the portrayals are realistic. That's very likely, i.e., they are fantasies, deliberately created to appeal to a certain readership. The author is very likely not a pedophile. Tisane's posting of it is not evidence of his being a pedophile either. He's a libertarian activist, has been as long as I've known him.

(Holding a copy of the book could be a piece of evidence in a case charging that a person was a danger to children. That is rebuttable, but all it takes is some hysterical caseworker and there you go. They sometimes take kids away and then ask questions later. It would ultimately fail in my case because there would not be other evidence, but I'm not willing to risk the welfare of my children over free speech defense. Tisane is willing to take the risk, since he doesn't have kids and probably won't, he thinks.)

Now, Ottava used an important word. "Defend." I've described. It's true that I've defended Tisane, against charges of being a pedophile and being a "baby rapist," the last claims made about him today on a blog. Because those are baseless and highly reprehensible charges to make without clear evidence, much less in flagrant contradiction to the evidence. I have not "defended" the erotic text of the "book." I have stated my opinion that it is not illegal in the United States, i.e., it does not meet the definitions of child pornography, which is highly illegal to possess in the U.S. That's an opinion about a legal situation. It has nothing to do with any defense of the text itself, which is fantasy, not fact, not truth, made-up, unreal.

If I found my baby-sitter reading it, I sure be concerned! However, context is everything.

[Ottava]

Blah blah blah, I haven't actually read Lolita, blah blah blah Pedophiles are great, blah blah blah Cold Fusion rules

Stop the crap, Abd. You were proven wrong and you are crying above. No one cares about you because you are unable to ever get anything right. A normal person would actually try to understand what reality is. You are incapable of doing such. It is sad that you continue to promote works advocating child pornography, but it does make sense when someone knows the type of weirdo you are.

Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Hey idiot, I was always referring to the book, as was the quote I used. You never read the book, which is clear from your inability to know what it actually contains. It doesn't have graphic details and isn't an advocacy text like your text is (it has to be yours, because you are always backing that guy up, defending him, etc., and it is a 99.9% chance that you two are the same individual).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Abd]

Well, I managed to not look at Wikipedia Review for four whole days. Progress, not perfection.

Blah blah blah, I haven't actually read Lolita, blah blah blah Pedophiles are great, blah blah blah Cold Fusion rules

Ottava lies, nothing new.I haven't read (all) of Lolita. I did not write "Pedophiles are great," for sure, those with the DSM diagnosis are seriously ill (and a danger to children), and I did not write "Cold fusion rules." I'm not even sure what that would mean. Cold fusion is a popular name for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, and they are real (if we can trust peer-reviewed reviews in mainstream journals, supposedly the gold standard for WP RS). They don't "rule" anything. They are weak and might never be commercially practical. Ottava wrote that because he imagines it will upset me, troll that he is.

Stop the crap, Abd. You were proven wrong and you are crying above.

What crap? (and what crying?) I wrote that I hadn't read Lolita (which means I haven't read the whole book). What I'd actually written about The Lolita Method, Ottava does not contest, yet he still claims I was 'wrong." That is because "wrong" is an idea he makes up, it exists entirely in his head, and so he can assert it with no regard for pesky facts.

No one cares about you because you are unable to ever get anything right.

Gee, Ottava thinks that caring is based on getting things right? My kids care about me, for starters, and I have seven of them. The grown children are happy and successful, and I have six grandchildren. I live in a totally different world from Ottava, a world of real people and real caring and love. He lives in a world of shadows and fantasies. I've written many times how sad this is. I mean it. He lives in a world populated by "evil people." You know. People who take photos of their children with no clothing on. People who think differently from Ottava.

A normal person would actually try to understand what reality is.

Indeed, and Ottava doesn't get the irony.

You are incapable of doing such.

Perhaps. Understanding reality is understanding God. It can be, ah, tricky. Those who claim it may indeed be deluded.

It is sad that you continue to promote works advocating child pornography, but it does make sense when someone knows the type of weirdo you are.

This is the kind of "knowledge" Ottava has. Made up. I have never "promoted" a work "advocating child pornography." Ottava makes these claims based on knee-jerk judgments, and he never backs them with evidence, because he knows what happens when he does. He looks like a perverted idiot, his real opinions come out, and he knows that when this happens, he's toast. So he just lies, and lies, and lies, and he knows that he can always garner some sympathy from a few deluded users who don't actually read evidence, they just follow what appeals to them, and Ottava is a poor, sick puppy.

Ottava is not clear what works he is referring to. But I have promoted neither Tisane's writing on the subject of evidence for the harm of child-adult sex, nor The Lolita Method. Both exist, and I've described them, and I've criticized certain other descriptions of Tisane's work as inaccurate. Apparently, to Ottava, description, or correcting errors, is promotion.

Lolita portrays a situation, the mind fills in the details. I said that the "book" was more graphic. Ottava manages to turn agreement into disagreement, a long habit of his.

Hey idiot, I was always referring to the book, as was the quote I used. You never read the book, which is clear from your inability to know what it actually contains. It doesn't have graphic details ...

The "book" in this context is in quotes because it is referring to an internet "book," probably not actually in print. We were talking about "The Lolita Method." Lolita was mentioned in passing. In other words, Ottava may have misread the comments, thinking that I was claiming that Lolita was more graphic, and he repeats this here. Now, when I think someone has misread me, one of the first things I do is look back at the original. So: the original comment was

The Boylove commentary has no photos. It has an excerpt from The Lolita Method. If you fear that a piece of erotic text will flip you into illegal or harmful behavior, indeed, I don't recommend reading this. I.e., if you are a pedophile trying to stay legal.

And then I wrote, in a later post, about The Lolita Method

The text is obviously a portrayal of pedophilia, more graphic than Lolita.

This is what I remembered, later. "More graphic" was an understatement. However, I also wrote:

Note that if a description of sex with a child were, ipso facto, child pornography, under this definition, Lolita would surely be child porn. However, a description of a murder, in fiction, does not "advocate or counsel" murder.

This comment could easily be misunderstood, and "description of sex" in Lolita could be misleading, and my conclusion incorrect. But that conclusion was dicta, not at all important to the points being made. Ottava, as usual, is looking for something wrong with what another has said, so he can attack. Any error or misimpression -- I don't know how graphic Lolita gets, and what I wrote about the mind filling in the details could apply to the bare mention of the protagonist of Lolita having sex with his stepdaughter, coupled with his obsession about her that preceded it -- is then used for pure ad hominem argument, implying that if one could make an error like that, why, everything is wrong.

... and isn't an advocacy text like your text is (it has to be yours, because you are always backing that guy up, defending him, etc., and it is a 99.9% chance that you two are the same individual).

Ottava is not clear, here, about what text he is talking about. There are two texts. We were talking about one, Tisane wrote a page which had quoted an excerpt from The Lolita Method, apparently as an example of what would be considered legal. If you actually look up the book, in context, it's not exactly advocacy, unless inviting someone very stupid to jump off a cliff is advocacy of jumping off cliffs even if you point out how stupid it is. But the author of TLM does call it "advocacy." Advocacy for idiots, is more or less how he puts it. But Ottava is not talking about TLM, he's talking about Tisane's page which is not an advocacy page. Now, I'm not looking at it now, it may not be available any more, but a lot of what Tisane wrote was misread as advocacy. My point in general is that those claiming he was advocating "pedophilia" refused to supply actual evidence of advocacy, as distinct from description of fact and of arguments. There is a difference between reporting an argument made and actually advocating what the argument might seem to support. If FactCheck.org reports an erroneous or weak argument, it is not "advocating" the reverse view.

It is engaging in rational discourse, where evidence is presented and arguments are made and weighed, and that an argument is false or weak does not automatically argue for the opposite. People like Ottava, however, believe so, and will strenuously resist inconvenient facts, because to accept them would be, to them, a compromise with evil. Can't let those pedophiles and child rapists win, eh?

Now, about my relationship with Tisane. Anyone who followed my Wikipedia career would know that Tisane, under an old account, and later under a new (legitimate, not violating policy) account, twice nominated me for adminship. Tisane was one of the few people who understood what I was attempting on Wikipedia, to establish sane consensus process. He also demonstrated to me how Wikipedia worked, at a time when I'd pretty much drunk the Kool-Aid. He demonstrated how dangerous a place it was, by raising his head and taking the sniper fire.

As part of the process of proposing WP:PRX, and because Tisane had named me as his proxy, we were checkusered. What do you think was the result? Look, it was preposterous from the beginning, it would have had to have been the most elaborate sock scam ever. The last thing a puppet master would do is have his sock name him as proxy, or the reverse. That's why claims that PRX would be a field day for sock masters were preposterous.

Then, again, this thread tells the story of Tisane's "adventures" with the federal prison system. In case you don't know, inmates don't get internet access. I was a WMF sysop while Tisane was in prison.

No, Tisane is a canary. He demonstrates the existence of a toxic atmosphere. One might call him a troll, but a useful one. Not everyone who attacks him is toxic, because he is easily misunderstood, not to mention erring from time to time, but he readily attracts the toxic personalities that gravitate toward positions of power in wikis. Not just WMF wikis. Tisane is highly intelligent, but radically impulsive, and he can go on a jag for days, long enough to do major damage to his life. He's willing to die for what he believes, literally.

He is not a pedophile, a complete reading of his pages would readily reveal that. He's not sexually attracted to children, more than is normal for males. He simply talks about it, where others wouldn't touch the subject. He is not a danger to children, but can readily appear so, if people just read the surface and what they imagine must be the motives of someone who would write as he wrote.

He was incarcerated for violation of federal law, and the application of law was generally correct. He made a threat, and, legally, that must be taken seriously. But he was not actually a danger to his "target." He has no record of vindictive hatred, he has readily forgiven people, and I've seen that over and over. He doesn't hold grudges. I've never seen him seek the ban of anyone, for example.

Hence.... yes, I'd much rather spend time with Tisane than with Ottava. I would not leave my children alone with either of them, Tisane not because of any direct fear, but my ex-wife would have a cow, and she matters. About Ottava, she'd agree with me. Creepy as hell. Nudity is ipso-facto pornographic? Hello?

Again, I don't see the point of continuing. This was just one more collection of examples of Ottava lying. He may believe what he writes, but he is in such reckless disregard of the truth that he's culpable. My opinion, I'm not his judge, and, if I were, I'd recuse.