TorGuard-VPN-Sitenotice2.gif
Anonymous VPN Service + Torrent Proxy


Scales.png JONATHAN MONSARRAT FILED A SLAPP SUIT AGAINST US. Scales.png
Gavel.png
Scales.png Please donate what you can via Wesearchr to help us crowdfund this case.Scales.png

Bitcoin: 14cQP8BQ6FRkb5jHdTDQMpRZCpGNBnr4DH

The Failkips Strikes Back

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigation, search
LOL England.
Further proof that JewTube are Nazis. And I don't mean the awesome kind, with raptors and giant robot warriors and stuff.

In the aftermath of Sam Leeson's suicide, a Gloucestershire area newspaper published an extremely lulzy and not at all biased article about our very own David Failkips and his baleeted by JewTube video regarding the lil' an hero.

At first, Mr. Failkips spent over 9000 hours laughing his ass off that some newspaper in Great Britain actually took the time to write an article about a video that it took him five minutes to make. Then, the cumulative effect of the endless stream of hate mail from emos took its toll, and he briefly turned emo over it himself. All seemed lost, until Raptor Jesus miraculously restored his balls, and David Failkips suddenly awoke in the Waaaambulance, tore all the sticky heart rate measuring crap off his chest, and leapt from the Waaaambulance, doing a barrel roll in mid-air, to return to his Top Secret Laboratory to prepare his ultimate weapon against The Citizen, a TL;DR e-mail.


The Citizen's request for comment

The day before the article was published, a reporter sent a message to Mr. Failkips via MySpace (LOLWUT?), which was ignored because David assumed that it was more emos trying to get Dox on him. When it turned out to be legit, Mr. Failkips shat brix.

For your enjoyment, this is how professional reporters try to get a comment for a news story in Great Britain:

 
 
Dear David,


I am writing from the website www. thisisgloucestershire. co. uk which has been running a series of articles on Sam Lesson. We have been contacted by a number of people who have been upset by your YouTube contributions to the debate. As you are probably aware, some of the content and the toe of your work has been universally condemned here in Gloucestershire and further afield.

I am writing an article for tomorrow’s edition of Thisisglos and the newspaper associated with it – The Citizen – about your online contribution. Tomorrow’s piece is about your defence of your previous Sam Leeson video.

I would like you to please answer the following questions for publication:

Why do you mock the death of a young man in Gloucestershire?

Is it appropriate to satirize the apparent suicide of a young boy?

What message do you have for the family of Sam Leeson regarding the death of their son and your video contributions online about this tragic story?

In your opinion what constitutes cyber bullying and what can be done to combat it?

Could you please email me with your answers and any other biographical details about yourself. The email is: [email protected] and please copy it to [email protected]


Matt Holmes, Thisisgloucestershire
 


 

—Matt Holmes, writing from http://www.myspace.com/forestermusic


The Response: The Failkips Strikes Back

After recovering from his temporary butthurt and faggotry, The Kips of Fail got Drunk and wrote the following TL;DR bullshit. Due to his tendency to be overly sincere once the initial euphoria of intoxication wears off, it ended up being more Serious Business than For The Lulz, but he tried, so he gets a gold star sticker for effort. Since there is no chance in hell of whatever the fuck that newspaper was called publishing any of it without heavily editing any choice quotes to make Mr. Failkips look like an even bigger faggot than he actually is.

So, without further ado, the promised TL;DR, now with added Lulz for healthy, growing bones!:

 
 
I was not aware that your MySpace message was authentic, and not a hoax. Now that your article's already published, I'm sure you don't want to give an attention-seeking, moral-free sicko like me any further coverage, but I thought I'd offer comment anyway. Besides, "if it bleeds, it leads", and I'm sure you can selectively quote and rearrange things to smear me in the mud and paint me out to be the next Adolf Hitler or something like that if it's a slow news day.

Yes, I am fully aware that my work has been condemned by some people, though not universally. I had received many messages of support from people who found it hilarious and agreed with me on the points I made in succeeding videos, and all of them had high ratings. Even the original video, removed by YouTube for being "offensive", had an average rating of four stars.

However, since your article neglected to mention this, I've taken care to remove all of the positive comments I received, so that reality now corresponds to your piece, which was what I would consider to have been an Op-Ed piece, not a news article. But now that my YouTube account has been cleansed of all approval, leaving only condemning messages, you can breathe easy knowing that your article's accuracy is no longer in question.

Regarding my "defense" of the video, as your article put it, I was not trying to defend the video or its content, which I freely admit was tasteless. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of YouTube removing my video, which did not contain any pornographic, violent, or otherwise forbidden content according to their Terms of Service, while allowing for a multitude of comments to be left both on the video and my profile page which DID contain violent content.

For example, one user suggested that I "Deserve (my) Teeth Smashed Down (my) Throat And Head Bounced Off A Curb", another admitted that they did not actually know Mr. Leeson, but said "you deserve to die yourself," while someone claiming to have been a friend of the deceased said "watch your back. ur guna get a knife in it".

YouTube's Terms of Service claims "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view," which I'm sure we can all agree my now-deleted video qualifies as. They do not permit hate speech, which they define as "speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity," and I'm fairly certain I didn't do any of that. Other videos certainly referred to him as a "faggot" (and I don't believe they meant the kind you smoke), but mine did not.

The Terms of Service also state "There is zero tolerance for predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, invading privacy, or the revealing of other members' personal information. Anyone caught doing these things may be permanently banned from YouTube."

No matter what you think of me (and don't worry, your article made it crystal clear), I'm sure you would agree that someone telling me to watch my back and that I would get a knife in it counts as a threat. So it's inaccurate to say I posted "another video about Sam Leeson", as he was tangential to the point I was trying to make, which was that YouTube were being quite hypocritical in removing a video that was simply in poor taste, while allowing plenty of incredibly vicious comments to remain.

Had they not removed the video, I would have gotten plenty of hate messages, plenty of supportive messages, and that would have been that. Eventually I would have moved on to the next silly thing to mock, and some people would think it was funny while some would not.

With all of that out of the way, now that I'm sure you are no longer bothering to read this tripe, I'll answer your questions (again, just in case you're having a slow news day):

Q: Why do you mock the death of a young man in Gloucestershire?

A: Because breaking taboos feels good. Any child knows how good it feels to do something you're not supposed to do. Why should I deny myself that pleasure simply because I've "grown up"? Expressing "disgusting", "reprehensible", "sick" ideas just for the heck of it is an incredibly liberating feeling that I've found helps keep me from letting the world drag me down. Although, as a completely selfish statement on how I view my own work, I prefer my piece on Hannah Bond, as it mocked the Daily Mail's ridiculous coverage rather than her death. I'd much rather be in the position of, say, mocking YOU for covering a silly little internet cartoon, but that's not how the cards were dealt this round.


Q: Is it appropriate to satirise the apparent suicide of a young boy?

A: Well, I don't think it's "apparent", as I've not read anything about any suspicion of foul play being involved. But youth suicide is obviously a major issue, and one that, clearly, people feel very strongly about. And I think that heavy issues deserve to be seen through the entire spectrum of human emotion. So yes, I think satire is appropriate, as is a solemn and heartfelt eulogy. I think sadness is an appropriate reaction, and I can understand being angry with Mr. Leeson for taking himself away from his friends and family. And, since just over a decade ago, someone I thought was an absolutely wonderful person committed suicide at 17, perhaps mocking one child's suicide is my way of dealing with my own grief that I was never able to fully express. Or maybe I'm just a sick bastard who ought to be locked in a padded cell. I'm not going to tell you how to interpret something.


Q: What message do you have for the family of Sam Leeson regarding the death of their son and your video contributions online about this tragic story?

A: That is between me and the Leeson family. I've asked someone who claimed to be close to Sam when he was alive to try to get me in touch with them, if they are willing to talk with me. It is entirely their choice whether or not to publicly discuss whatever conversation may take place between them and me, and I would hope that they are left to make that decision in peace, rather than being harassed for answers. I will say this: I have been told that they have received threats from other Anonymous internet users, and that's not something I support or condone. Other "Anons" will call me a "moralfag" for that, so don't think I'm dodging any criticism by saying so.


Q: In your opinion what constitutes cyber bullying and what can be done to combat it?

A: I believe that "cyber bullying" is a ridiculous concept, as anything "cyber" is just words on a screen. It's ones and zeroes. It's nothing. You can close the window and turn the computer off. You can't do that to a real bully, when they're shoving you into a locker or spitting in your hair or punching you in the gut. I speak from experience, which I presume will give some satisfaction to my detractors. As far as "cyber bullying" is concerned, I think kids need to learn not to take the Internet so seriously, and definitely not to give out personal information on sites like MySpace or Bebo. There are far sicker people than me out there in "cyberspace". I'd say I rate fairly low on the scale of Internet Evils. If you were to compare the Internet to the Sea, I'm probably only a Jellyfish - and not even a Man-O-War. So if a tiny, jelly-like, stinging nuisance like me can bother someone, God help them if they ever encounter a Barracuda or a Great White.


Anyway, to wrap things up, since I've failed to take my own advice and treated something on the Internet like Serious Business and written far too much, I'd just like to mention that I have been in contact with a number of people from your community, and it would seem that a newspaper in the area was quick to publicize my now-deleted video, thus ensuring that the Leeson family were exposed to it, or at least informed of its existence, though not necessarily its actual content. And while I'm absolutely certain it was not your publication that did this, you may feel free to point out that I mentioned that "in an attempt to pass off blame on the media" or however you'd like to phrase it.


Cheers!

- David "imDavidwhoareyou" Failkips


p.s.: If you thought xBlackTearsOfSorrowx was a "sick twist", my latest video is sure to make you vomit. I'd advise you not watch it without a bucket or a plastic bag handy. That is, of course, assuming YouTube hasn't removed it or my entire account.
 


 

—David Failkips.

The Immediate Aftermath

And then, after reviewing and wikifying the e-mail, David Failkips proclaimed, "God. I am a massive faggot," and promptly an hero'd. Oh, and he also did some shit nobody cares about on his Jewtube account, namely actually removing all of the supportive comments and leaving all the "ur a doodie hed" comments, for the lulz, naturally.


"Youths Against Crimes" jumps into the fray

Notagain-conan.jpg

On June 21, 2008, Youths Against Crimes, a website that apparently believes that bulling is rabbit on the Internet, contacted The Kips of Fail via YouTube. Failkips, being an Anon, had nothing better to do on a Saturday night, was of course there to respond. Enjoy, dear reader, the faggotry:

The Youths Against Crimes message

 
 

Dear David:

Youths Against Crimes would like to get your point of view on your “Sam Leeson parody” and what your intentions were. Sam Leeson’s death was a tragic, saddening, and an abrupt passing and the fact that a child has passed is saddening in itself, especially due to Cyber-Bullying, and for a person to “parody” or otherwise “mock” his death is difficult for anyone to understand. We do not know if those were your intentions or not and we are deeply apologetic if we are insinuating anything. We also have no seen the original video posted, so if you are willing, we would love to know what the initial video was about. However, people are entitled to their own opinions and Youths Against Crimes offers advice to those teens/youth who may be being victimized from a Cyber-Bully at: www.youthsagainstcrimes.org/cyber-bullying/cyber-bullying. We hope you understand the stance of Youths Against Crimes and can understand and respect our points. We also respect the points of anyone who contacts us. If you are confused on any of our points please contact us asking what you do not fully understand and we would be happy to clarify.

Thank you and we hope to hear from you in the near future.

--Youths Against Crimes
 


 

—Youths Against Crimes

The Response, in which things are again spelled out laboriously for newfags

 
 
First off, thanks for actually contacting me, instead of just throwing together an inaccurate attack-piece like The Citizen did.

Since YouTube pulled the video, they've denied the public the opportunity to view it for themselves and make their own decisions, while The Citizen tells people that everything I do is "sick". There is a copy of the raw .wmv up here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?mtcs2kzf2dc

So, feel free to view it at your leisure and form your own opinions of it.

Getting back to your question, this particular YouTube account is intended to express the sense of humor favored by Anonymous, the loosely-knit group-that-is-not-a-group which has recently been grabbing headlines due to the Scientology protests some "members" instigated.

When I say "members", I don't mean there's any actual membership. Anyone who posts anything to the internet (or any other medium of communication, but most commonly the internet, as it's 2008 and paper-based media is on its last legs) without signing their name is technically Anonymous. There are certain internet forums where a general culture exists, but for the most part, there isn't really any kind of organization or consensus. There certainly are no leaders. At the same time, it can move almost as one, given the right circumstances. This might be a little difficult to understand, but Anonymous is simultaneously almost a hivemind, and a lot of individuals who each have their own opinions. (Any time I use words like "members" or "our", "we", "us", etc., in the context of discussing Anonymous, it's merely for the sake of convenience.)

With that out of the way, the "sense of humor" I referred to is pretty much anything-goes. Especially the tasteless, forbidden and taboo. Rape, racism, pedophilia, sexism, religion - nothing is sacred. In fact, the more taboo it is to make light of something, the more likely it is to be made fun of, since you get the same kind of pleasure from "doing something wrong" that children often delight in. In a message board thread where the topic was "draw a cat with your eyes closed and post the results", someone remarked that "this really is just like kindergarden, except with porn". I think that's probably one of the most accurate statements ever made about Anonymous and our sense of humor.

So, the video I made wasn't necessarily making any statement. It's mostly completely random images, and occasionally the words "lol dead kid" pop up, kind of as self-mockery. (i.e. "God, we're sick bastards.") Sure, it was tasteless, but it was intended to be. And I wasn't specifically targeting Sam Leeson individually, or saying anything about him personally (other than the bait-and-switch faux-memorial segment before things turn random). I was definitely making fun of the grammar and spelling used in the actual memorial videos ("it leaded to death").

There were far more abusive or vicious videos made about him, so I can't understand why mine was singled out by The Citizen. And I believe that it's hypocritical of them to claim to be opposed to cyber-bullying, while publishing an article that names a particular YouTube user, abandons all pretense of impartiality, and cherry-picks quotes to make them seem as irredeemable as possible. To me, that seems like they were encouraging cyber-bullying, as I received hundreds of angry messages and death threats, far nastier than anything I'd actually said.

I also feel like anything they've written about me was pure sensationalism, designed to sell papers or generate web hits, regardless of the fact that it inflamed an already-upset community's emotions. If they truly wanted to honor and respect Sam Leeson's memory, why cover things that didn't?

If you'd like my opinion on cyber-bullying, since I've had the rather unique experience of having been on the receiving end of what seemed to have been an entire town doing so at the behest of a tabloid newspaper, feel free to contact me again. As of late, I've been overly-verbose, and it would be fair to say "defensive, much?", so I'm cutting myself off here.
 


 

—David Failkips, that goddamn namefag.

Youths Against Crimes responds. ZOMG, Anonymous are Online Terrorists!

How any sane person should react upon reading this, Stage One.
Stage Two.
Stage Three.
Stage Four.
Stage Five.


 
 
Thank you for contacting us back! You do not seem harmful in any way; you just express your views differently than most, by means of namelessly posting content. Please correct us if we are wrong anywhere in this communication.

Nonetheless, we have heard of and have conducted extensive research into “online terrorist” groups, since Sam’s tragic demise, and one of those groups put in the category, on the internet, was Anonymous.

While Youths Against Crimes does not support any form of “online terrorism”, anonymous “annoyance”, or any form of anonymous posting or illegal practices, we do support Freedom of Speech. As you may know, Youths Against Crimes is against Cyber-Bullying and denounces the act in every aspect and we have, in a sense, changed our overall mission. We do not want to interfere with the natural right to Freedom of Speech, so instead of interrupting the natural right of every American, we have decided to give ideas on how parents can look for signs of Cyber-Bullying in their childs behavior and we deeply encourage parent involvement in a youths online life, as well as offline life. Additionally, we have set out to aid youth who have been victimized by Cyber-Bullying in any way.

However, we have also support the idea of censoring “hate” speech against anyone under the age of 18 or a website that contain users under the age of 18. When we say “hate” we mean any discriminatory language that may harm the psychological wellbeing of any youth or person.

While we have somewhat changed our mission on Cyber-Bullying, we still intensely support the laws being passed to prohibit Cyber-Bullying.

We can see why the public has reacted so negatively towards your type of “humor” and can see you as insensitive. This is due to the fact that it is a child and your “humor” isn’t exactly something that would necessarily be said in the time of misfortune, especially about a child or a type of trend or style (“emo”).

Although, you also have to see the public disagreement for such comments you made about Sam, either directly or indirectly. Especially since the United States and England (as far as we know) support multiplicity of trends, fads, “cliques”, and expressing yourself through your clothes and being who you are.

Youths Against Crimes also profoundly supports diversity and encourages youth to be themselves, dress how they wish, and act how they wish. We also oppress discrimination against any youth or person who is simply “being themselves” and expressing themselves through their clothes or merely expressing themselves in a positive way in general.

As for your comments regarding The Citizen article, where we were also mentioned, we cannot comment because that has to do with your personal experiences and opinions with the paper. Your video is also a matter of opinion, for we cannot comment on that. We are sorry for this inconvenience.

Youths Against Crimes is sorry that you had to endure the death threats and, from what you are saying, Cyber-Bullying from so many people.

Also, one quick question, if you don’t mind us asking. Have you been in communication with Sam’s family? If so what have they said? You do not have to share such personal information if you do not wish. Also, we would love to hear your position on Cyber-Bullying. Opening our minds up to a new point of view is essential to working with all walks of life to prevent this crime which is killing innocent youth across the globe.

Again, we are sorry you had to endure the death threats and Cyber-Bullying by people. There is certainly a better method of communication than speaking “abhorrence” or words filled with profanity or discrimination.

We deeply thank you for allowing us to share our views on Cyber-Bullying and things regarding your video.

Thank you for your time and we look forward to hearing from you in the future.

--Youths Against Crimes www.youthsagainstcrimes.org
 


 

—Youths Against Crimes

Failkips facepalms, and tries to talk some sense into those who support the Disney-ifying of the Internets

 
 
Not harmful, eh? Doesn't it always turn out to be the most unsuspecting ones? ;) But seriously, anonymity on the internet is hardly unusual or rare. One of, if not the largest forum(s) in the world is the Japanese 2ch.net, and that's all anonymous posts. Look up 2channel on the Wikipedia, and you'll get a general overview of some of the history behind this, as well as a great quote from that site's creator explaining the purpose behind anonymous posting.

As far as Anonymous being an "online terrorist group", well, Anonymous isn't a group, it's a diverse collective of individuals who each have their own opinions, values, goals, etc. So, in that mixed bag, you're going to get a spectrum that runs the gamut from people who enjoy ruining other people's lives to those who feel like they need to partake in some kind of moral crusade against Scientology. And since posts are anonymous, one individual can shift identities between posts. By being Anonymous, one second you could "be" a programmer for a major video game publisher, and in the next post, you could be a little girl, if you wish. The phrase "Infinite Diversity In Infinite Combinations" springs to mind, from my days as a Trekkie.

Obviously, you're opposed to online harassment, but anonymous speech has long been protected - although in modern times it's more low-brow than when speaking against the Church or State was dangerous. (Although in the Scientology protests, given Scientology's history of taking extreme measures to silence critics, anonymity is a very very very good idea).

But while you may be opposed to any kind of harassment from anonymous internet users, you should keep in mind that in general, allowing more works better than prohibiting more. The Internet doesn't tend to react well to attempts at censorship, which is why Scientology's "top secret" documents have been freely available since at least the mid-90s, and why the music industry's attempts to shut down piracy have pretty much backfired completely.

But since you indicated that you were changing or modifying your overall mission, I suppose my personal views on cyber-bullying would be appropriate here.

I agree that parents should be involved in their children's lives, both online and off. And I think a better way for parents and teachers to protect children online would be to teach them to be able to protect themselves, and be emotionally stronger. They should always know that there is a way out - they can close the window, turn off the computer, and go outside. Learning to "let go" is another important concept, which is heavily emphasized in Eastern religions and philosophies, but not so much in the Western world. Even for those who are firm believers in Christianity (or any other Western, monotheist religion), I think there's a lot to be gained from at least studying Buddhist and Hindu thought. While the cosmologies are incompatible, the philosophies are not.

As well, I think that children should learn to not be so trusting of MySpace and similar sites. Personally, I think MySpace is basically Amazon.com for pedophiles, and Chris Hansen can't pop out at every perv and ask them to have a seat.

The more personal information you put into your profile, the more ammunition you give to someone who wants to attack you. Last month, some teenager who had some videos of himself attempting to freestyle and emulate rappers. Some people pointed out in comments that he sucked (and as someone with an appreciation for the hip-hop, I would have to agree with those comments), there was some kind of spat (I'm not sure of the exact details), and by the end of the day, his home address, phone numbers, and other contact details were being used to direct large numbers of pizzas, prostitutes, and other unwanted materials to his home, while his, his school's, and several family members' MySpaces were spammed with nude pictures of his girlfriend swiped from her Photobucket. (To which he told his friends, "Just ignore dem, dey is photoshopped!", and within hours, a sign with "Just ignore dem!" was photographed taped to his mailbox)

I didn't participate in that, but I did watch the whole thing go down, and call me a sick bastard if you like, but I hadn't had a good laugh like that in a very long time. (Mostly due to the the [sic] "oh wow, how are they going to top this?" nature of that little adventure in proving the slogan "None of us are as cruel as all of us" right.

The point I mean to raise by bringing that up is that giving out personal information on sites like Facebook, MySpace, and this Bebo thing (which I'd never heard of until Sam Leeson's name popped up) is a really bad idea, since the entire world has access to it. And there are worse people in the world than a bunch of jokesters who want to order you dozens of pizzas.

As far as censoring hate speech, individual sites generally have Terms of Service which prohibit it, so the best thing anyone can do if they come under fire is to report it. And then maybe sign off, take a deep breath, and spend time with friends or family who are going to be supportive and kind to them, rather than abusive. And hopefully try to maintain an attitude of "it's just the Internet, it's not real". (Although I do realize that this is probably a generational thing - for the youth of today, the internet IS real, and that's something that should probably be addressed).

Instead of trying to criminalize saying mean things on the internet, teaching children to be strong and not let those words touch them seems like a healthier and more productive way of dealing with the issue. To borrow a lyric from black person, "They used to feel invisible / now they KNOW they invincible".

The public can see me as insensitive, if they wish, as I can be insensitive sometimes. Other times I can be incredibly caring. This particular YouTube account is more often than not devoted to being insensitive and thoughtless. But it's also over the top and ridiculous, and I would hope that seeing an anthropomorphic Pokemon who speaks with the voice of Microsoft Sam is enough of a cue to not take anything I do here too seriously.

It's my understanding that Sam was not actually “emo”, according to a cousin of his (which should answer your question as to whether I've been in contact with his family. and I believe that his mother either has seen or will shortly see the contents of those communications. however, I feel that those messages are private, and it would be up to the Leeson family to disclose any of their contents, not me), and to me, he just looked like an ordinary kid, not specifically emo or anything. I could touch on the issue of subcultures, fads, cliques, etc., but I'm trying for brevity while addressing all of your questions and points. But I will mention that when I was in high school, I was quite "goth"-looking, and wore lots of KMFDM, Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails shirts, which made me about as popular as I hear emo kids are. Except I was still in high school when Columbine happened, and I'm sure you can imagine what that last year of high school was like for someone who almost perfectly fit the media's image of a school shooter, despite the fact that the heaviest firepower in my possession was and is a BB gun. But, despite my experiences, I have to say that self-expression isn't the most important thing in the world when you're in school, and toning things down to fit in and conform saves a lot of grief. You can still dress up to the nines and look as outrageous as you want in a more appropriate setting - clubs, concerts, parties, bars, etc. (I realize not all of those are available to younger people, depending on what country they're in). But however wrong discrimination may be, fashion is a choice, and choosing not to stand out in a place where doing so invites bullying is a good survival technique. As far as the death threats and mass hate mail, well, having had a few days of peace to reflect on it, I can't say that it was necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, I do the videos I do and act out the David Failkips character for entertainment purposes only, not for fame or as a path to Hollywood or anything like that. It's free laughs for people who have the same twisted sense of humor I do, and it's not supposed to be about me. So perhaps it could be seen as a bit of karmic spanking for getting too invested in it and allowing myself to be a little too cocky. (Not that Mr. Failkips shouldn't be cocky, but that doesn't mean the author/actor needs to get an ego over any acclaim he gets). So maybe I needed to get taken down a few notches. And since I do believe that people shouldn't take cyber-bullying so seriously, it also served as a reminder that I should take my own advice. Whenever I've taken things too seriously or cared too much, it's never ended well. When I've let go and not cared if I looked stupid or crazy or like an asshole or whatever adjectives I might've feared, things have turned out better. So I suppose you could boil all that down to "stop worrying and enjoy the ride". From my experience, doing so helps keep you a healthy distance from the wanting-to-end-it-all cliff.
 


 

—The Kips Of Fail

Youths Against Crimes continutes with their Unwarranted Self-Importance

MAKE IT STOP
 
 
Yes, we do understand youth sometimes do give out personal information on their YouTube, MySpace, Bebo, etc... and Youths Against Crimes strongly detests this, for a child could be abducted; murdered; or targeted by a harmful individual, and we constantly encourage youth to instantaneously obliterate the information and quickly inform a parent of their actions online, for giving out personal information is exceptionally hazardous and very effortless for pedophiles and other predators to target a child at home, school, or just hanging out with their friends.

In an internet convention Youths Against Crimes took part in, in 2006 - 2007, it only takes a predator 15 minutes to acquire a child or persons personal information and whereabouts with the youths/persons first name.

While we do not support or condone some of your actions you have definitely given support for your views and we respect that. We can not agree with your overall message or methods of conveying your message to the public, but we can respect the fact that you can support your opinions and methods, in a respectful way.

Nonetheless, we thank you so much "David" for telling us your side of the story. We definitely do not want to make an assumption that would be wrong by just listening to the media’s perception.

Thank you for your time.

--Youths Against Crimes
 


 

—Those pedophiles at Youths Against Crimes


Links, because you really want to read MOAR CRAP

See Also