Auticulture Update: Ritual Abuse scare in Hampstead,’s pedophilia defense, & the Image that Facebook doesn’t want you to see

As I mention at the end of this week’s podcast, I haven’t had much luck finding new people to come onto the podcast recently. Out of about eight email requests or reminders sent out in the last two weeks (all to guys), I think I only got two responses, and neither of those has led to a confirmed conversation date yet (though I am getting close with Bill Morrison).

On the other hand, I suspect related, I have been digging deeper and deeper into the underworld of sexual abuse and mind control. Rather than write a post this week, I am going to direct readers to a couple of threads at Rigorous Intuition, where I have been writing quite a bit about this subject.

There’s a thread there on the Hampstead satanic ritual abuse case from early this year. This case has been quickly, and more or less consensually, debunked as a “hoax,” though an unusual kind of hoax: the mother and stepfather of the children who described the SRA ring were accused of abusing their children themselves, coercing/programming them to invent a local ring of abusers. The more I’ve looked into this history, the less convinced I have become that the official explanation adds up. And since I lived in Hampstead for several years, and my mother spent the last twenty years of her life there, I naturally have a special interest in this case. You can read my comments about it starting here.

The other RI thread that I’ve been posting at was inspired by a recent article written by Todd Nickerson a self-proclaimed “non-practicing pedophile.” You can read the whole thing here. My comments begin on page 5.

Meanwhile, not much response to the Vancouver event proposal so far. So no updates there.

His morning I posted a link at Facebook to a Kubrickon thread created by Page White which includes an image of a legal religious ritual, an image which allegedly I can get banned from FB for posting. I didn’t mean for the image to show up, just the thread, but since it did, I decided to let it stand to find out if it turns out to be true. I have been thinking about quitting FB again anyway. It gives me almost zero satisfaction.

Here’s the original thread post by Page White.

33 thoughts on “Auticulture Update: Ritual Abuse scare in Hampstead,’s pedophilia defense, & the Image that Facebook doesn’t want you to see

  1. I’m surprised that someone as intelligent as you could possibly think that the Hampstead case was anything other than a horrendous hoax. Have you watched ALL the interview videos of the children? Have you listened to the sessions where Abraham and the mother are talking, after the children were taken into care? The pair are really creepy, and there is really no evidence to support the initial claims made by the children, and quite obviously invented by Abraham.

    As for the FB thing, I’m even more surprised that anyone with a brain still uses it. It’s completely pointless and leaving it for good was one of the better things I’ve done in recent memory.

      • So you have nothing to say regarding the actual evidence in the case? To me the evidence is so one-sided that humility isn’t really an option. You don’t have to be a know-it-all to see that the Hampstead case is the clearest case ever of invented abuse, judging on the available evidence.

        Ah well, if you think I’m obnoxious there’s not much point trying to have a dialogue. Your comment implies that you thought I have been being obnoxious for some time, by which I can conclude that you think there is little of value in the podcast and questions that I gave you.

        Too bad.

  2. Every time i listen and read you i’m struck with a compulsion to sit down and define exactly what i am getting from it, because it so very like clunk clunk click, which sounds crappy compared to the visceral, connective and deeply satisfying sensation. It feels to be rebuilding and definitely restructuring my brain….replete with a-ha! every one, and I’ve done the large majority. You are surfing the wave of pretty much EXACTLY what i need to know, to mend my psyche…you know? Thanks as ever…and as a matter of interest you say “almost no satisfaction” so what is the satisfaction you do get?

    I think i have a brain, just about, in the shadow of you lot for sure, i enjoy seeing my friends from afar, what they are doing, jokes, and a sense of venting my spleen at the system as i assume it watches. Pathetic but gets it out my bowels.

    • the satisfaction of finding out something or connecting to someone I wouldn’t have otherwise, that’s pretty much it. It’s def. not for enjoyment. Eg:

      This conversation may even lead to a podcast.

  3. Oh and maybe one day i’ll get my shit together enough to do exactly that, write it out specifically, since you feature anyway in my journal writing, what your work does and means to my process, so you might expect that at some point! (as i may as well send it to you!)

  4. This video echoes my own feelings precisely, when I listened to the James Corbett report a few months ago, that Keelan Balderson is an untrustworthy source, and, for implicitly endorsing him, that the same goes for Corbett.

    Just like the person who made this video, I also had dismissed the Hampstead case as too implausible. As much as the evidence itself, which I had not even looked at until recently (due to the strong whiff of hoax that the case gave off), it’s been the nature of the denials, including some at this thread, that have slowly persuaded me otherwise.

    When those who insist they KNOW it’s all fake prove, time & again, that they don’t know anything but only have fierce (or measured but disingenuous, in the case of Balderson) opinions to spout, while those who are questioning admit they can’t be sure but simply present the evidence in a thorough and thoughtful way, what are we supposed to conclude?

  5. That Corbett-Balderson video is pretty ridiculous but sadly that is what passes for journalism in so many places these days. It’s a kind of pathetic propaganda. No wonder most people either tune out or look elsewhere for answers.

    Also, I’m a relative newcomer to the work of Mr Horsley. I picked up on him with his James Howard Kunstler podcast and although I’ve heard Mr Horsley refer to pedephila cases many times, I don’t believe that I have heard any mention of the Franklin Cover-Up scandal in Nebraska. Have I missed something? Because with a couple of books written about it, Franklin seems to be one of the most well-documented cases out there. Refer to either/or both:

    The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal by Nick Bryant

    The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska by Nebraska State Senator John W DeCamp

    DeCamp’s book is older and serves as the source material for much of Bryant’s work is probably an easier read and probably a better introduction for those completely unfamiliar with the case.

    • Yeah, the doc was made by Yorkshire TV.

      I don’t know why you consider the video pathetic or propagandist. Corbett’s show (or that episodes anyway) appears to be the latter, which the video very succinctly demonstrates, IMO, in a pleasantly simple and humorous way.

  6. My apologies. I didn’t mean that the video itself (as posted above) but the work of Corbett & Balderson as pathetic.

    The Yorkshire TV documentary was decent but the books flesh out the depth of that scandal in much more detail and it is quite chilling. I would encourage anybody here to read them if they have not already.

    • That’s a relief! Bit of cog. dissonance there if a reader of this blog was taking the Balderson defense. I’m having a strong disgust-reaction to Keelan’s operations, tho it’s not clear if he is knowingly & maliciously distorting the truth or if he is just very sloppy and hasn’t done enough research, when for e.g., he makes a comment about SRA like “It’s not a widespread issue and the Satanic Panic was a very real phenomenon.” If he’s just lazy, then he’s SERIOUSLY lazy considering the gravity of the subject he’s so casually dismissing. I wonder if he even knows about MKULTRA? Or the work of Dr. Stephen Kent in Canada, to name just one of countless serious and dedicated researchers who have discovered how widespread ritual abuse is. Does Balderson know that “ritual abuse” is now one of the boxes to check in UK police forms given out to victims of sexual abuse?

      Here’s an excerpt from a CKLN Stephen Kent interview, to give some context to the “frankly impossible” Hampstead allegations:
      (Not saying this makes them true, only that the idea there’s no evidence for this sort of thing happening in the past and on a large scale is untrue.)

      Wayne Morris: Can you tell us what similarities there are in the accounts of the survivors, especially by those where the abuse happened when they were children?

      Dr. Stephen Kent: There is some research on the similarities of accounts. All of them, all of them talk about severe emotional abuse, sexual abuse. Many of the accounts contain references to ritual murders, murders in which these people claim they were sometimes forced to participate. Many of these accounts talk about ritual murders in the context of sacrifices. The sacrificial descriptions almost always involve drinking of fluids out of a chalice or bowl. It is remarkable how many accounts contain descriptions of what sound like chalices. Some people who claim to know or speculate as to what the fluids are in the chalices, and almost always suggest that it is blood, or a blood mixture. Sometimes people suggest urine might be mixed in. Lots of stories about eating flesh, about a victim being killed, and parts of the victim cut off and given to people to eat. Sometimes these people talk about being forced to eat parts of the alleged victims, and so on. Almost all the accounts contain people in robes. Sometimes the robes are different colours. High ceremony — that is to say — there are some accounts of people being abused at the end of say, poker games or something — but most of the accounts that I get contain allegations of rituals where there seems to be a leader performing systematic ceremonies involving daggers — often involving chants. When someone mentions chants, without trying to lead them, I try to get them to talk about the chants. And many, many of the people say the chants are not in English, they just couldn’t understand them. It is remarkable in these kinds of small details to get these general kinds of similarities in stories. Sometimes — very frequently — most frequently both, if not one — will be involved in the allegations. Sometimes relatives. That is a very quick overview scenario about the content.

      Links to audio file downloads of the interview here:

  7. Balderson is lazy and short-sighted, but does not the fact remain that there isn’t any evidence to support the claims made by those alleging a Satanic explanation to the Hampstead case. And it’s not really remarkable – in this case – that there are similarities in the stories to other cases, since this information was gathered by Abraham Christie over a number of years and then downloaded en masse into the children’s minds.

    I have a question for those who think the children’s original stories are true: have you listened to Abraham Christie talk in the extended conversations after the legal case was closed? How do you explain what he is saying? Does he sound sane to you?

  8. This isn’t necessarily a case or either/or. I haven’t watched the full Christie video yet but even my impression of the mother is that she is far from a simple innocent victim. But then parents are always complicit to one degree or another in such cases, at the very least of gross negligence. I have addressed the lack of evidence at the RI thread as well as a number of other issues. There is no longer any room for doubt in my mind that a cover-up is involved around this case, since I have seen the evidence of it, though it’s not necessarily possible to separate intentional obfuscation from “simple” arrogance, gross stupidity, and “argumentation” that comes closer to bullying, as frankly you demonstrated in your previous post. (& the irony of someone “committed to non-violence” expressing their opinions so violently is one you may wish to ponder.)

    Cover-up does not mean the original version given by the children is 100% true. But it does mean that this is by no means as cut & dried as the debunkers would have us believe; those who insist only the brainless would consider this case worth investigating either haven’t investigated it enough, or they are deliberately misrepresenting both the facts and themselves.

  9. Another point about the alleged “lack of evidence,” that’s also what they said about the McMartin case, though in fact evidence was found (tunnels under the school), yet to this day the case is most commonly cited as an airtight example of Satanic Panic. I don’t know why anyone who has researched these cases even a little bit would simply accept the claim that “no evidence was found” unchecked. Seriously.

  10. Your admission that you haven’t listened to Christie at length absolutely sullies your position that “there is no doubt a cover-up” is involved.

    What’s the evidence of the cover-up? There’s no evidence of a crime OR a cover-up of it. And you need both for this story to be true.

    Also, expression and violence are not the same thing. It seems to me you are using a common tactic wherein you disagree so you say that I am being violent. My language is not polite, fine, but there is no violence in text on a screen.

    The fact remains that there is no evidence for the claims, plenty of evidence the mother and Abraham are pretty crazy and awful people, which you’ve not seen, and you’ve come to a certain conclusion as a result, and a poor one, in my view.

    I stand by my original statement: I thought you were more intelligent than that, meaning that I didn’t think you would draw a conclusion (‘there’s a cover up’) without looking at the whole story. That’s just careless.

    Of course it’s not either/or, but I’ve put questions for those who espouse the ‘Belinda’ version of the story. If you have questions for those who take my position, then ask. But please don’t belittle me or call me violent when it’s you that’s ignored the actual evidence.

  11. That’s not a very strong argument since I can rebut it by asking if you have seen this or that video, and so on, ad infinitum. Taken line by line, there’s very little in the above that is anything but an expression of opinion and superiority. Yes we have a different idea of violence, yours is very narrow and literal, so literal that you believe no violence can occur via text on a screen. In which case, how is it that words on a screen can LEAD to violence?

    Mine is much wider and more nuanced:.if you use insults to bully & belittle people and to intimidate them into accepting your arguments, or at least not arguing back, that’s a form of violence. For the record, I’m not claiming to be innocent of such repressed anger expressions, but then I’m not the one claiming to have a 100% commitment to nonviolence.

    This is not a tactic I am using, it’s an observation and a judgment call: anyone who expresses opinions violently has violence in them, and what’s inside a person must always come out, one way or another.

    I linked to the RI thread because that’s where I’ve been amassing the most evidence and making my arguments, if you really want to discuss this case, you would be better off doing it there, as it’s too difficult for me to refer to points that haven’t been made here and which for all I know you are unaware of. I also don’t want this subject to be overly represented at the blog.

    It’s very easy of you to keep harping on about “evidence” or lack thereof without citing any examples; or to talk about looking at “the whole story” when no one has that and when there’s nothing in what you’ve said to make me think you’ve done anything beside watch a video or two that I haven’t got to yet. The one obvious difference is that you are absolutely sure of what you believe regarding the guilt and innocence and the reality or lack of it in this case. All I have stated to being sure of at this point is the existence of a cover-up of some sort.

    My belief in a cover-up has nothing to do with my impressions of Abraham. I have seen evidence in other areas and, as you rightly point out, where there’s a cover-up, there must be a crime. The exact nature of the crime is unknown to me, but if you really believe this whole thing could have been generated out of nothing but the lies of two crazy people, then all I can say is our disappointment in each other’s intelligence is mutual.

    I don’t really find this a fruitful discussion, to be honest, largely I think because you seem to have some emotional investment in my responding to you in a certain way, and unfortunately that triggers my more intolerant side (shared father issues, probably); so I respectfully request you either take it up at the RI thread, privately via email, or let us agree to disagree, and go in peace.

  12. Three times I’ve pressed you to mention evidence on this thread, and three times you’ve offered nothing.

    Am I certain about my conclusions? Yes, as much as I can ever be about anything. Was I always? No. I looked at ALL the available evidence, from a number of sources, including medical reports, police reports, all the videos, etc. Seeing the children frankly and with some relief recanting their stories was the FIRST solid step I took to accepting that it was a hoax, and then when I heard the guy who had put those ideas in their heads, and conditioned them (through REAL abuse) to lie about it, talking about the events after the legal case was closed, literally everything about it screamed ‘LIAR’ and ‘SCUMBAG’. Every part of what he was saying – the choice of words, the tone, the claims themselves, the idiosyncrasies, did not indicate concerned guardian who legitimately believed the children in danger, but a disturbed and dangerous and unwell men who seemed incredibly bitter that he had been found out for having abused children. It also became clear at this point that the mother is not an innocent bystander, either.

    Now, that’s only my reading of it, agreed. But given that I heard Abraham talk and found him to be completely false, and given the unbelievable lack of any evidence whatsoever to back up the original claims made in the videos, how else am I to proceed?

    And nobody, on this thread, or any other, has offered the slightest argument based on reason for why I ought to reconsider.

    I’m really sick of having you attack me Jason. Why is it you get to reach your conclusions but anyone who challenges you is somehow ‘superior’? What’s most daft about this for me is that you’ve put your thoughts onto a website, inviting outside inputs, yet when challenged you don’t seem to like it. You call my discourse ‘violent’, ‘superior’, ‘not even wrong’, or whatever convenient label you see fit so that you don’t have to respond with an actual rebuttal, you know: actual reasons why for you there is ‘no doubt in your mind’.

    In this case, since we are talking about alleged crimes, the only kind of information that makes sense is evidence. Circumstantial evidence is fine, but you’ve not even offered that.

    “I don’t know why anyone who has researched these cases even a little bit would simply accept the claim that “no evidence was found” unchecked.”

    Some cases are clearly true, but do you want to lump them all together or consider each separately?

    And while we’re at it, your statement here exactly mirrors mine, only I’m responding by challenging you about the evidence, not ad hominem nonsense about how the form of it smacks of superiority.

    Let’s look one more time. This is my final word on the subject unless you choose to contact me about it privately.

    – – –

    “I’m surprised that someone as intelligent as you could possibly think that the Hampstead case was anything other than a horrendous hoax.”


    “I don’t know why anyone who has researched these cases even a little bit would simply accept the claim that “no evidence was found” unchecked.”


    You’re mirroring me.

    • & you’ve flagrantly ignored my request to take this up with me privately or at the forum (where evidence IS presented, at the very least of a cover-up).

      As one last explanation for my reaction to your comments, this is from the Hampstead Research site, which I’m not fully endorsing, by any means, but which nonetheless seems to be run by someone who has done considerably more research than most people opining about this case (inc you & me), and which therefore deserves attention.

      “A specialist ritual abuse barrister was interviewed on the UK Column the other day and stressed that people … who insist on disbelieving the evidence present a real problem for victims and survivors. In fact, this man went so far as to refer to [such] attitudes as “secondary abuse” because survivors of ritual abuse had already been through so much, the last they needed to hear on their escape and recovery from the most traumatic of situations was scorn and contempt. A recent research article, published in the Journal of Child Abuse, interviewed over 60 survivors of ritual abuse and concluded that one of the main problems in the area is people . . . who insist on ignoring the evidence and perpetuating ignorance and suffering. Recent articles published in the Australia’s Journal of Psychiatry say the same. Recent books on ritual abuse and mind control all say the same: people like [this] are part of the problem.”

      For anyone to state that they categorically know that a given account of abuse is not true, when this is manifestly impossible under the circumstances, betrays motives beyond a simple desire to get to the truth. I have not attacked you once (funny how you claim that violence can’t occur via text but “attack” can), though I may be somewhat on the defensive because your style of debate for me does feel invasive.

      I’m willing to discuss this privately with you but not at this thread. I literally don’t have time for it and I am already dealing with a lot of things, both inner and out, and you’re adding to my stress for no good reason that I can see, though I suspect it has something to to with not feeling received in the way you’d hoped by me or my listeners.


    • Still no mention of the Christie and Draper tapes? And now you’re saying you can’t see the bruises in the original videos? Wow.

  13. hmm. Jasun, you seem to be bouncing between extreme polarities – hampstead was wonderful while you lived there, now turns out it was the ultimate evil (apologies to Mr. Terry). Where i grew up had it’s good and bad points – and we could hear people beating their kids, every once in a while. Mom worked with the school district, she and others did their best to help those kids out but the law was not helpful. In some cases people were able to get kids with the non abusive parent, those were good outcomes.

    So it’s never been difficult for me to realize that yeah, people can abuse the living hell out of their own kids. And just because they do doesn’t mean that the entire community is sacrificing children by the gross, either. Most people are complicit thru wanting to ignore it or not having the resources to do much about it – foster care in california is pretty appalling.

    I also do not have stretches of amnesia, in fact i have a pretty well filled in memory of growing up (and yes, i have had amnesia in my early forties due to Lyme disease). If people saw things for themselves, over long periods of time, and don’t have amnesia then they are going to believe what they experienced themselves – rather than some book (regarding Bill Morrison).

    I mean Jasun aren’t you always saying they only thing we can believe is our own experience? tinyjunco

    • I’ve said that there’s no substitute for experience. But what is our experience? You’re talking about an interpretation, which is not that different from reading a book, only that we get to write the book/interpretation we read.

      The notion that one has full recall or “no amnesia” based on a general awareness of one’s life and no conscious gaps is an erroneous one, for the simple reason that consciousness always papers over those gaps in such a way it seems they aren’t there (unless they are too large, i.e, go on for years).

      At the end of every day we feel confident that we remember everything that happened. if we tried to recall every second of that day, however, we would fail. People with multiple personality disorder do not always, or even generally know it at first, or ever.

      The bouncing you refer to is what happens when we are able to let go of the belief that we know what anything is, including our own so-called experience, of ourselves, a community, or whatever else. Allowing new facts into the picture, such as around Hampstead, make this possible and in fact necessary. I can still have the (memory) experience of Hampstead as a wonderful place; but that does nothing at all to prove that it wasn’t also the nest for horrendous crimes occurring under my own nose. What it would prove, if the latter could be established, is how unreliable our perceptions can be about people and places. Which is something we essentially know, from all the facts, but none of us believe.

  14. “What it would prove, if the latter could be established, is how unreliable our perceptions can be about people and places. Which is something we essentially know, from all the facts, but none of us believe.” You’re a lucky guy indeed if you do not know this in your gut.

    I am not clear on something. When you lived in Hampstead, did you have any or much interaction with the people who are alleged to have been involved in the abuse case? Because if you did not, then why would you know anything about it (especially as the abuses were said to have been so closely guarded)? I do not recall you bringing this up – i think it would be very interesting to hear about.

    “… consciousness always papers over those gaps in such a way it seems they aren’t there (unless they are too large, i.e, go on for years).” Did you read my post at all? I have had amnesia. They were short periods of time, usually a couple to several hours, and they generally became apparent to me as ‘lost’ periods within a few days of their occurrence. As i wrote, it was due to Lyme disease which affected the central nervous system.

    Now, indeed, one incident in particular did not come to my attention until several months later, when i found out to my deep regret that my husband and i had eaten dinner at that restaurant i’d always thought looked so fun….oh well. No delicious memories for me!

    These experiences, as well as the reports of many others, just show the incredible complexity and huge range of response of the human brain. Thus i find it incredibly premature, and likely very foolish, to make any sweeping generalizations such as you have about amnesia. tiny junco

  15. I did not, AFAIK, have any interaction with the perpetrators named. But that doesn’t make it less than disturbing only to hear stories of this going on, in places I passed daily and even entered into from time to time (tho never McDonalds). The idea that while I strolled placidly down scenic streets and felt luck you be living there, unimaginable pain and degradation may have been occurring. We always imagine it happening somewhere else.

    My point about amnesia, not that no one would ever be aware of missing time, but that one can never be sure that there aren’t missing pieces in one’s memory, ever. It’s similar to my view on child sexual abuse: if someone says they suffered it I believe them because it’s the only right thing to do, even knowing that it may not turn out to be true. When someone says they have not suffered anything of the sort in their past, I do not believe them. Not that I believe they are lying or that they HAVE suffered some abuse, only that their belief that a person would always be aware of it is false, and I think provably so.

    This is not, in my view, a sweeping generalization, but an assertion of a truth. I know some people find it invasive to be told they can’t trust their memories or their version of reality, but I can’t help that. They have come to my house, so to speak, and if they don’t like it, then they can presumably find the door again. No one has to accept my view of this, but they do have to accept that it’s my view.

  16. “They have come to my house, so to speak, and if they don’t like it, then they can presumably find the door again. No one has to accept my view of this, but they do have to accept that it’s my view.”

    It is more than apparent that this is your view.

    I simply wanted to put some alternate viewpoints out there for people who may be encountering some of these ideas for the first time – especially the amnesia, as i see some pretty black and white statements being made about what is a very slippery, grey area.

    “When someone says they have not suffered anything of the sort in their past, I do not believe them. Not that I believe they are lying or that they HAVE suffered some abuse, only that their belief that a person would always be aware of it is false, and I think provably so.” The problem here, as i see it, is that you set up a situation where you can’t have open, honest communication with some people – those who won’t ‘admit’ their past abuse. It sounds a bit like communist chinese camps where people had to come around to the ‘right way’ of thinking – yes, that is an extreme example and i’m not suggesting you are doing anything to that extreme. However, the frustration of interacting with a person who WILL NOT hear you can be incredibly intense. You are setting yourself up as an expert on a very personal part of their life, without knowing the first thing about them – how would you like that? Just something to consider.

    “We always imagine it happening somewhere else.” Who is this ‘we’? I knew some pretty nasty stuff was going on not very far away from where i lived at all, from when i was very small. My parents talked to us, we kids talked to other people in the community, we read the newspaper and watched the news on radio and teevee. There’s never a lack of nastiness on this earth, and nowhere is immune.

    That doesn’t mean it is always lurking everywhere. Puppies and kittens exist, too.

  17. This is an excellent example of misreading an argument and then arguing with the misreading, thereby painting a false picture of the person making the argument, in this case, me.

    you can’t have open, honest communication with some people – those who won’t ‘admit’ their past abuse. It sounds a bit like communist chinese camps where people had to come around to the ‘right way’ of thinking

    This might be a reasonable, if extreme, comparison, if your summation of my own methods were correct. But I have never pressured anyone to admit their past abuse. Nor even have I pressured anyone (say Benett Freeman, the most recent example of this discussion) to admit that they can’t be sure of being abused. Inferring this is very far from pressuring them to admit it. I am exceedingly aware of this danger, and that even leading someone to consider it can be risky. What I am stating, now for the second or third time here, is that extreme trauma is often, even generally, accompanied by amnesia, which means that any assertions of a lack of trauma have to factor this in and are best qualified with “as far as I know.” In my experience they almost never are.

    The context for this is that someone, myself, is speaking from a point of view of having lived 40 years never suspecting any abuse in my past, and then undergoing a process of re-evaluation in which significant pieces of previously overlooked evidence have piled up. Which puts me in a different position to someone who has always known they were abused, and to someone who has never suspected it.

    If someone, in this case you, reacts as if my sharing this point of view is like being thrown in a Chinese torture camp, perhaps that’s something you might want to look at in yourself, instead of making inaccurate descriptions that amount to accusations, regarding my supposedly barbaric argumentation methods.

    But thanks for commenting! Feedback always welcome.

  18. I agree. You have completely & willfully ignored what I wrote, very clearly, above, and instead returned to repeat your own distortion of it. The crazy-maker is you, little bird.

    Go in peace.

  19. well, i tend to have this conversation with you, Jasun. I see you having pretty similar conversations with others besides me.

    I am all wrong for taking the bait.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s