Intelligent Design

Going Nuclear: Cyberstalking design advocates and their families – re: “Say hi to XXXXXXXXXX and the kids for me, you demented child abuser”

Spread the love
This attempt as headlined to implicitly “out” and threaten my wife and our children – not to mention (per the outrageous rhetoric of Mr Dawkins and fellow New Atheists) to try to falsely smear me as a child abuser for trying to raise my children in a Christian home – moves matters at and around UD beyond the context of debate to something far more poisonously menacing and destructive.
So, let’s do a little equation:
Threatening, obsessive hostile anti-Christian commentary x repeated unhealthy references to sexual matters in same x Mafioso thug style “outing” attempt on wife and children = cyberstalking
Cyberstalking, FYI, Mr “The Whole Truth,” and co, is a crime; freedom of speech does not entail freedom to menace, threaten or harm. And, in this context, anti-Christian bigotry, repeated unwholesome sexual references and slander as headlined are aggravating factors.
By right of fair comment, I also note that the resort to menacing me by an “outing”-attempt, via otherwise irrelevant reference to my wife and our children as above is also an illustration of the thuggish consequences of the Alinskyite poisonously polarised atmosphere being cultivated by uncivil Darwinist and Neo-Atheist objectors to Design Theory and wider design thought, such as by P Z Myers and co. As, I warned against in a recent post here at UD.
Let us now cut to the chase:
Cyberstalking and Internet harassment (including when such pass through the Internet and so across international borders) are considered criminal offenses in the UK and the USA, as well as other possibly relevant jurisdictions. Because of the obsessive, hostile, personal, and threatening nature of the correspondence I have received, including repeated, patently unwholesome sexual references and the “outing” attempt against my family, I will be contacting an attorney from my local public prosecutor’s office on this matter and also the police, which will set record of prior complaint if matters go worse than this; and, given my domicile in a UK Overseas Territory, may have the effect of further activating UK and international action. Further to this I must note the vulgar language, obsessive behaviour and repeated unwholesome sexual references in the context of an attempt to name my wife and allude to my children in a patently threatening manner; in a situation which they have no material relevance to or involvement in. It is thus specifically credible that the behaviour fits the profile of an Internet predator, and so this will be my one and only warning to the anonymous Cyberstalker falsely known as “The Whole Truth” and ilk, to stop the harassment IMMEDIATELY.

For more detailed record . . .


F/N: A predictable rebuttal attempt talking point will be to try to pretend that I am exaggerating the threat in the above and am trying to stifle “free speech.” So, I ask you onlookers, to reflect on what relevance my wife, her name [as incorrectly reported] or our children have to do with any discussion whatsoever over intelligent design, or the more specific matter that I happen to hold a moderate inclusivist theology, i.e. that God judges us by the light we have or should have? The correct answer is: NIL, save that they can be used as implicit hostages to threaten or harass, or even intimidate. What I have had to reply to above is therefore patently shameful — nay, shameless and inexcusable — cyberstalking misconduct.

F/N 2: From Wiki, on cyberstalking:

Web 2.0 technologies have enabled online groups of anonymous people to self-organize to target individuals with online defamation, threats of violence and technology-based attacks. These include publishing lies and doctored photographs, threats of rape and other violence, posting sensitive personal information about victims, e-mailing damaging statements about victims to their employers, and manipulating search engines to make damaging material about the victim more prominent . . . . Experts attribute the destructive nature of anonymous online mobs to group dynamics, saying that groups with homogeneous views tend to become more extreme as members reinforce each other’s beliefs, they fail to see themselves as individuals, so they lose a sense of personal responsibility for their destructive acts, they dehumanize their victims, which makes them more willing to behave destructively, and they become more aggressive when they believe they are supported by authority figures. Internet service providers and website owners are sometimes blamed for not speaking out against this type of harassment.[12]. . . .

Preliminary work by Leroy McFarlane and Paul Bocij has identified four types of cyberstalkers: the vindictive cyberstalkers noted for the ferocity of their attacks; the composed cyberstalker whose motive is to annoy; the intimate cyberstalker who attempts to form a relationship with the victim but turns on them if rebuffed; and collective cyberstalkers, groups with motive.[14] According to Antonio Chacón Medina, author of Una nueva cara de Internet, El acoso (“A new face of the Internet: stalking”), the general profile of the harasser is cold, with little or no respect for others. The stalker is a predator who can wait patiently until vulnerable victims appear, such as women or children, or may enjoy pursuing a particular person, whether personally familiar to them or unknown. The harasser enjoys and demonstrates their power to pursue and psychologically damage the victim.[15]

F/N 3: To further understand how the just mentioned destructively irresponsible and hostile group psychology works, note how at Anti evo, in a forum thread, a possible fellow traveller with the cyberstalker above [he posted to KF in a similar vein, in the clutch of posts in which the above headlined  “outing” attempt occurs, and participated in outing himself — too late, Commenter Y, you are clipped and added to the dossier already . . . ] , has managed to trumpet there how I refused to pass a comment in which he advocated spending Sundays viewing porn rather than going to church. (This of course is an apt illustration of the unwholesome references to the sexual I wrote on above, and the aggravating factor of anti-Christian bigotry also mentioned.) Commenter Y wrote  in response to a KF blog post in which I cited the Pink Cross Foundation’s statistics on the havoc wreaked by web porn; which of course also points to a fundamental hostility to women, yet another aggravating factor in the situation.  Pink Cross Foundation, of course, is an association of ex porn so-called stars, dedicated to the victims of the porn industry,  and which exposes the shocking truth about that industry, so-called. It is horrifically noteworthy that the comment made by Y has a link that goes straight to a page having the title “Seduction Photography” and bearing an apparently nude photo of a young girl in what seems to be a hot tub — too late, Y,this page was also clipped and dossiered.)