The website is really a study in the shameless use of every sort of reality-twisting propaganda device.

In the case of the CBLF accusation, they are using the "proof by example" logical fallacy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example)

Some wiki text to explain:

"Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement. This fallacy has the following structure:

I know that X is such.
Therefore, anything related to X is also such.

The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:

I've seen a person shoot someone dead.
Therefore, all people are murderers.

The flaw in this argument is very evident, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem somewhat convincing, as in the following example:

I've seen Gypsies steal. So, Gypsies must be thieves."

If you look through the [edited name of website] and click on the names, you can find, for example, one [Edited nick of person] (listed under his real name) who posted on a Usenet group (referred to by E-U as "the Usenet child pornography trading group bla bla bla" - name not reproduced in case it still exists). They note that:

"(His real surname) certainly did have both the camera equipment and the access to young boys, but it is unknown at this time whether he actually did take any child pornography photographs and if so, what screen names he may have posted the pictures under. He may have photographed at least one of the boys he was “mentoring”, as he offered to send the boy’s picture to other pedophiles on CBLF; however, it is unknown what type of picture(s) this was. In any case, there is still no question that this man is a potentially dangerous pedophile, and he should not be working or volunteering in any position that allows him access to young boys."

So, he made the E-U staff have a fantasy that he was taking pornographic photos by talking about taking photos of boys he knew, and that opportunistic leap of rhetoric became their operative 'reality.' It, in turn, spawned the opportunistic leap that cblf members ALL post pornography on Usenet sites.

Being a Hitlerite is so straightforward.

[Edited name of website] not only uses every trick in the Nazi rhetoric book, but they also simply refuse to correct any demonstrated mistakes. I pointed out over a year ago that everything they published about Satan666 (originally in wikisposure; now reproduced in E-U) was based on the man's own dissimulations and that the real facts of his life were all published in numerous newspaper stories when he died. I even linked the stories. Well, they had lots of internal chat in their inner discussions about our website (cjat.org) but they never corrected their story by one jot.

Accepting truth from an untouchable would hurt their Brahmanism. The Pure Ones are simply entitled to invent reality.

However, I never give up on the idea that there are some human consciences still struggling in there someplace, and that someday, members who treasure reality above all-grasping hatred may take over the site.

*No nick-linking. Second warning. --Webmaster