Excuse the interruption...

I was informed that the circus being held by the pedophiles concerning my actions (in which I merely informed Save the Children that the donation sent in was sent as a celebration Alice Day, the pedo Christmas, if you will)
I thought I had done a rather good job of explaining my stand on a few things, but clearly I was wrong. Opps.
So, what follows is a letter posted on the internet, written by self admitted pedophile Todd Nickerson- in which he still mis represents who I am, and what I believe. I'm going to block quote the letter, in portions so that you don't mistake his words with my responses.


Continue Reading

To Whom It May Concern:

Recently I sent your organization a donation amounting to $1,535, sent as three different money orders in two separate envelopes. The first two payments, totaling $1300, was sent in the first envelope, the remaining $235 about a week later. The $1300 has been returned to me, leading me to believe that the final amount was either kept by your organization or never received. I am not overly concerned about the $235, but I felt you should know that it was sent.

Does Lindsay Ashford even know the correct amount? Because according to him it totaled $1650.00, but we won't be too concerned about which of you is lying. So let's move on.

At any rate, it has come to my attention that, due to complaints by a handful of people, this donation was rejected. While I can understand that you would not wish to associate your organization with activities that are harmful to children, especially if they are illegal, you should realize that I am not a criminal, nor is Lindsay Ashford. A modicum of research on the part of your organization can easily determine this—both Lindsay and myself have prominent websites which discuss our ideas and orientations, which would hardly be possible if we were criminals. No, what you have objected to is not a crime—it's an idea.

I didn't complain. I informed them of where the money came from. Sue me. And, yes I personally object to your desires.

Furthermore, it has been made clear on the blog of the person who contacted you that you have given out personal information of mine. Again, I am not a criminal, and research on your part would've easily determined this. What your organization has done is a violation of trust and my privacy. While it is clear that Save the Children occasionally has reason to give out personal information, as outlined on this webpage ( http://www.savethechildren.org/policies/privacy.asp), it is clear that this situation does not fit any of the criteria outlined therein. The person you gave my information to is not a third party "with whom Save the Children chooses to do business," nor was she "law or a regulatory authority" which compelled you to give out that information. You may not have violated the law, but the person in your organization who provided this information knows very well that he/she had no compelling reason to provide this information.

You should refer to my post which this portion of the letter is about. It clearly states that someone CONFIRMED the donation, and where it came from. So, if I say Todd Nickerson of Tennessee sent you X amount of funds, on behalf of Lindsay Ashford who runs puellula, and they look at their computer and say "yes we did receive that", then they didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

Again, I am not highly concerned about my information going out per se—it's a matter of public record anyway. What I am concerned about is an obvious prejudice and animosity toward a distinct minority, which, if you are not aware, is both touted and encouraged on the blog of the person to whom you provided my information. She operates under the online nick Lost in Lima Ohio (LILO), and here are some sample quotes from her blog here: ( http://lostinlimaohio.blogspot.com/)

I don't have prejudice* against anyone.
1.
*1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
2. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
1. I have knowledge of pedophiles. You'll just have to take my word at that one.
2. MY judgments are not unreasonable.
3. Nor are my feeling (suspicion or hatred) irrational.
4. You do that yourself, to yourself. Seek help. Professional help, from someone trained in handling sickos.
So there, now that part should be cleared up for you.
Save the Children already has my web address, as I attach it to the closing of my email. It's auto inserted for me.
And again, the information was not provided, it was confirmed. You can't provide me with something I already am aware of.

"Absolute Zero. As in "we'll accept absolutely zero of your demented justifications for the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children". It's the anti-pedophile site you should be blogging rolling right about now. While it's a new blog in the making, being born just this month, it has promising potential, and a rather large group of talented writers. A bit more "in your face" with their stand on protecting children, but let's face it would you really want them to be any less firm when it comes to protecting children?
If you're kind enough to click over, you may just notice a familiar blogger on their growing list of contributors. So why not head over now?"

Indeed, let's. And here are some quotes from the AZ blog ( http://absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/)

"I believe in wiping these monsters off of the face of the earth so that no one has to live in fear."

"Pedophiles should not only be kept away from children, they should be eliminated from society all together."

"One and the same? What's the difference? Some have acted, some have not. That is the only difference. There is also nothing "amusing" about it."

All of these quotes come from the same person, someone who obviously sees those of us with attractions but have not acted on it as one in the same as the people who have acted on those attractions, and in truly abusive ways, and she and her cohorts believe in "wiping [us] off the face of the earth." LILO and Sues are friends, and LILO supports the people on AZ. She may not claim to threaten, but she certainly doesn't object to others inciting violence again us, like Sues when she says, "Tell it to Bubba when he is giving YOU the anal probe. That is enough 'positive impact' for me."

I have been threatened by these people personally for my attractions and beliefs—not for anything I've done personally. And these are guys to whom your organization has given my grandmother's home address to, which is where I currently live. You see, the person who gave out this info did not stop to consider that she/he might be endangering the lives of others by giving it out—all they heard was "pedophile" and assumed the worst. This is the level of hysteria and prejudice we deal with every day, not for any actions we have committed but merely for an orientation we didn't choose but are trying to make the best of.

This is where it becomes really fun. First, I've never met Sue. In fact up until a few days ago- I had no idea who she was, or that she even existed. We may agree on certain things, but I believe true friendship takes years to develop, and having just learned of her existence... well you should be able to see where this is going. Linking to a site, and suggesting that others visit it, does not make me "friends" with anyone. It makes my readers "aware" of the site, and I trust my readers to be able to use their own judgment in deciding the value of the site.

I have never claimed to be friends with anyone, and merely linking to one does not mean that I know them well enough to be a judge of their personal character. While I may choose to link to numerous blogs written by numerous people, it does not mean that any those people are my friends, or that I condone every single action or thing they do and say. Like previously mentioned in other posts, I am willing to take responsibility for what I say, but not for what is said by others. Feel free to assume that if I didn't write it, I don't expect to be held accountable for it. Are you, Todd, willing to be held accountable for everything Lindsay Ashford says and does? How about other pedophiles, can I make the assumption that by merely chatting with them a few times, you condone and encourage every thing they do? I would imagine that you are less than willing to be held responsible for others words or actions.

Just as you have the legal right to spread your demented "ideas" about how sexual relationships with children should be "okay and accepted", others have the legal right to say that they would like to see you in prison, or even wiped off the face of the earth. It may hurt your feelings, but I suggest that you learn to suck it up and deal with it. You want the truth about how people feel about your kind- well that's the truth. Society is not only unaccepting of your blatantly flaunted "ideas", it is repulsed by them. And it is those every "ideas" that others want dispelled from the world.


Quite honestly, you have no idea of knowing what I object to, because you have never asked. Had you asked, I would willingly have provided you a detailed list of things I object to, including your "ideas". Do I condone violence, no. Do I understand the rage that others feel towards you? Yes.
I clearly have never threatened you. As for what others may or may not have done- well we're back to the "don't pin it on me" from before. I'm just not willing to put myself in that position. But I do believe "wiping you off the face of the earth" would be would be an action better achieved by God, than by a small group of bloggers. There is just way to many of you perverts running around, for anyone to reasonably believe this "wiping" could be accomplished by mankind.

Our lives are often sad, lonely and miserable. We have very little reward for our troubles—we cannot act on our attractions at all, and some of us don't even want to. What we DO have we must fight for tooth and nail, such as a pride in the fact that we do love children and wish to help them in tangible ways. Call it cynical if you like, but is it so wrong to want to be recognized for that? Are we so far different from other groups that have contributed to charity in the name of being recognized as decent, caring people? Is it logical for society to assume that we are all ONLY contributing to make ourselves look good, and in the long run, does it matter to the children from whom the money comes from? Does it not run counter to your organization's principles to deny much-needed monies simply for the sake of politics? Are people going to stop sending donations to Save the Children because a group of girl lovers contributed (and what does it say about them if they DO deny these children money because they happen to dislike a small group of the contributors?) Isn't it better for your organization to weather the small amount of controversy this will generate in the name of helping the kids?

It's an organization that has a simple mission of protecting children, and you have a mission of legalizing child rape. Oh, wait you don't call it that. Because, then people might object to it. Plus, once it's legal- it's not rape anymore. Right?

We raised this money in recognition of Alice Day, which is our day to celebrate girls and do good for them in measurable ways. This is an annual event for our group (which numbers in the hundreds and is growing by leaps and bounds.) Won't you reconsider officially accepting our donation? We will certainly raise more money by next Alice Day (April 25th) and would continue to donate every year that we were allowed to do so.

Sickening.

At any rate, I will not be cashing the check. The money will remain in your accounts, whether you choose to use it or not. This was a tough decision. We really want the money to be put to use assisting children, but we determined that all charities will likely react the same way out of political pressure. Your organization is large and has been around for a long, long time. Surely it can withstand a bit of controversy in the name of doing good.

Sincerely,


Todd E. Nickerson

I hope you don't blame someone for giving out your middle initial. Cause, wow, that'd just be so wrong of them.
I should suggest that you go back, and read Ashford's press release, read the statement which he wrote, making a claim that by accepting the funds Save the Children was in fact accepting Puellula. If you didn't want this to be "political" perhaps you should have reigned in Ashfords press release a bit. After all, he's the one declaring Save the Children's recognition and acceptance of Puellula.

You have to understand that as a parent, I find your "ideas" regarding children repugnant. As a deep believer in God, I find your desires immoral and unholy. And as a person- I find your plight to legalize the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children down right disgraceful. You flaunt your perversions, as if they should be embraced. I will fight that. Not because I believe that you will ever win this war you have waged against the innocents of children everywhere- because you won't. I do it because I feel that it's important to stand tall and protect the children. And the more people are made aware of your existence (all pedophiles), the more chances we have to protect every child that might have otherwise been victimized by you (any of you).

Now, Todd- as you well are aware, I have attempted to set a few details of your "misinformed and misdirected" letter straight. Perhaps next time you care to include your beliefs about what I believe and who I am in a letter- you'll take the time to actually get some of it right.