Guy Macon wants to have sex with thirteen year old girls

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Guy Macon wants to have sex with thirteen year old girls

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:52 pm

In his latest effort to use Wikipedia hosted disinformation to steal the food from the mouths of Daily Mail journalist's children, Guy Macon has inadvertently revealed he perhaps poses an even greater threat to minors.

I mean, maybe it's because I'm not a leftist, but I really don't see how this story.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... miere.html

...sexualises a thirteen year old girl in any way at all.

I suppose Macon could have been deliberately lying, hoping nobody would check. But let's "assume good faith", shall we? Let's assume he really does think this shows what he says it does.

To my mind, as the picture shows, if you were there at the time, saying that she looks "all grown up" is fair comment. Perfectly innocent. If you didn't know she was thirteen, what is there about that picture, that would tell you she wasn't an adult actress?

What tips you off to Macon's perversions, is that in his excitement, he used the word "sexual", rather than what he probably meant, sexualise.

All we can conclude from Macon thinking that the person who says she looks all grown up, when armed with the knowledge she is in fact thirteen, is somehow admitting to having sexual thoughts about that image, is that he himself is having sexual thoughts about thirteen year old girls, in that scenario.

As in, he is the sort of perverted freak who can't look at a picture like that, armed with the knowledge that the girl isn't an adult, without getting an erection.

He resents the sort of story that the Mail writes there, stories which are written to serve their wide female readership, because it triggers his filthy thoughts. It must have been torture for him, back when the Sun would print topless images of eighteen year old girls. You can only imagine what he was thinking. "How dare they objectify this adult women for commercial gain" was probably not it.

When you understand what people like Macon are - secret pedophiles posing as Wikipedia's moral champions (and it is no accident that the man that kicked off the Daily Mail ban discussion was also later exposed by the Mail as a deviant) - then you understand why, in a scenario like the Marek Kukila controversy, Macon really does want people to think there could be a chance that Kukula is innocent.

That the tabloids did indeed write a false report, for reasons of profit. It's bonkers, indefensibly illogical, but it's the case he is strenuously making on Wikipedia. With a straight face.

Guy Macon, for his own selfish reasons no doubt, wants to live in a world where you are presumed innocent even after the Daily Mail reports that you have plead guilty to possessing images of boys as young as ten, having sex with adult males, and when other than a prejudice against tabloids, there is zero reason to think the reports are inaccurate.

We are lucky, especially those of us who are parents, that out here in the real world, that Wikipedia's definition of reality, their idea of what is and is not a reliable source, where everything else is presumed a lie, is not widely accepted. We're adults out here, so we know how to judge the likelihood of a celebrity gossip story having been fabricated for profit, and how likely it is a dry fact based court report regarding a conviction for a serious child sexual abuse related offence, has been made up.

We now know that the wider Wikipedia community doesn't accept the difference either, they only see the words Daily Mail, and so then reflexively offer their prejudice packaged as reason (more than one even admitted to not even bothering to look at the facts), even though they seem to admit they accept the stories are true.

It is the Guy Macon's of the "free encyclopedia" who are the ones who are genuinely, actually, arguing there is a chance they could be false, based on their reliable source doctrine. And are thus denying that they are only saying that just because they can't accept that their Daily Mail ban is fact free bullshit, and it is specific incidents like this, embarrassing scandals which make Wikipedia look like they actually want children to be abused rather than given an inch to the Mail, which prove it.

So hopefully now you know the sort of vile creature that says things like "kill it with fire" on Wikipedia, about the most widely read newspaper in Britain.

It is not an accident at all, that it is also the most right wing paper, and thus would aggressively target people like Guy Macon for their sick perversions. Other than use of emotive words like "vile", fairly it would seem, their report on Marek Kukula is dry and factual.

Perhaps now we can see that Guy Macon has absolutely no intention of sitting down for an interview with a Daily Mail journalist, not even in the stacked deck of holding that via his Wikipedia tall page, as he claimed he would, a claim he then deleted. He fears a report that is both factual, and calls a scumbag a scumbag.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Guy Macon wants to have sex with thirteen year old girls

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:48 pm

I recently had cause to remember that Wikipedia considers twelve year old girls to be mature enough to be Wikipedia Administrators.

Not only does that bring them into contact with men like Guy Macon, with all his curious interests (and one wonders what parent would he happy with their twelve year old girl's hobby including a risk of being drawn into a debate about the sexualisation of their bodies with adult men who have admitted to lacking a certain nuance for social interaction, and who have been blocked, albeit briefly, for transphobic trolling too), it exposes them to the severe mental pressures of people like Guy Macon gaslighting the living bejesus out of them, if they happen to be Wikipedia Administrators, or indeed in the broad group of Wikipedia editors who consider his recent block to have been sound and necessary.

Guy Macon thinks differently, and has for a whole month, has been trying to get people to care, while also cynically claiming he wants everyone to let it go and allow him to sulk in silence. I suspect they will, if he simply stops raising his absurd objections in ways that are not permitted.

It could be so different. The responsible heads in the ranks of the Wikipedia self governance apparatus could have long ago indefinitely blocked Guy Macon on the clear and obvious grounds that his determination to keep repeating statements about his choices that he knows to be false, doesn't give anyone any confidence he understands and accepts why he was blocked. Not being able to do that, is typically grounds to deny access to Wikipedia to anyone, least of all someone with fifteen years of service who really should know better.

If that's not a good enough reason, he could be blocked for simply being delusional. Or if that would be too hard to prove, simply for his easily proven repeated failure to abide by Wikipedia'a dispute resolution policy. If he has a genuine grievance, he knows what the appropriate channels and forums are for raising it, and crucially, what the signs are that he should drop the WP:STICK.

It's been a month. Well past the point that his current nonsense can be fairly attributed to venting or him still being in a state of emotional upset. He has had time to process and reflect, and appreciate his options. To know what course of action is for the benefit of Wikipedia, and which is simply selfish disruptive whining.

If he lacks the maturity to get where needs to be after a month, then he lacks the ability to be a Wikipedia editor, even if he does have a piece of paper that confirms he is a grown ass man.

Guy Macon claims to be retired from editing, but this is his own choice. He is free to come back at any time.

If he crosses paths with an editor who is twelve years old and has issues with her sexuality or gender identity, is there anything this lunatic has said in the last month that gives anyone any confidence he won't do that child severe emotional damage?

I say there isn't.

I say the Wikipedia Administrators are already aware of this risk.

So why no block?

It's simple. They're scared to block one of the primary pushers for the Daily Mail ban, least of all for a reason that paints them as delusional or deceitful or creepy. His smears, lies and misrepresentations littered all the debates, and clearly dissuaded more logical and honest editors from even participating.

The editor who actually proposed the Daiy Mail ban, was quickly exposed as a racist and sexual deviant, and for allegedly unrelated reasons, was eventually told he should leave the Wikipedia community. Once would be an accident. Two would be a pattern. Worse still, given a third Mail zealot, David Gerard is already that rare beast, a Wikipedia Administrator with an official black mark on his record, an active and serious sanction which speaks very badly to his ability to keep emotion and bias out of his actions.

Such people fear the Daily Mail and want to do anything to deligitmise it as a newspaper, because unlike The Guardian, the Mail reports it when these people are convicted in a court of law for sexual crimes against children (such as Marek Kukula, who Guy Macon would have you believe, might be innocent) or anything else that would really, truly, expose what they are. Evil people with dark secrets.

Public interest and Wikipedia. Incompatible.

They are hoping nothing changes. They are hoping Guy Macon stays on an even keel, it being scary indeed that this right now is them thinking he is on an even keel, and eventually returns, like a total sap.

I don't think he will. Whatever else he is, he's an angry man who genuinely wants people to believe that his outrage at the Mail's alleged sexualisation of children is compatible or even reconcileable with his belief that their report on Marek Kukula could be false.

You either care about children's safety and mental health, or you don't. Can't fake that shit. Can't set it aside for any reason or cause. If you are not evil scum.

Guy Macon is aware that the ranks of Wikipedia Administrators includes children. Just like he is aware the Daily Mail employs journalists who have families, mouths to feed.

Watch him gaslight them. And watch grown ass men like Floquenbeam let him. Be they hard working journalists working for the public good, or child Wikipedia Admins raisd to think they are doing the same, if they stand in his way, his Wikipedia objectives, he will gaslight them.

A deliberate choice. Not attributable to autism, and offensive to even try.

Wikipedia is medieval in many respects, but especially in how it self governs. Its sense of morality, such as it is. How apt that the Guy Macon's of this world are inexorably drawn to the culture of Wikipedia, which has no real problem with putting twelve year old girls in the path of men like Guy Macon, and indeed even encourages them to conceal their true age and gender, so as to lessen their feelings of guilt for doing so.

I wonder what Wikipediocracy thinks? I kid. We already know what they think. We know what side they're on. Terribly upset they were, that Guy Macon suffered a heart attack just at the time the Wikipedia community had at least decided to draw the line at him being allowed to be an Administrator too. Dodged a fucking bullet there eh? Mother Nature knows the score.

Amiright, Zoloft?

Speak up if you disagree. Sympathy for Guy Macon....is Wikipediocracy for it, or against it?

Has he done enough yet to earn an indefinite block and a review of all his Wikipedia campaigns for bias, deception and delusion? Is that a yes, or a no?

Speak now, since we know the higher ups on Wikipedia, the Beeblebroxes of your fetid basement, are more than willing to act on an issue, in the Secret Star Chamber if necessary, if you make it clear you consider a wrong to have occured.

Or you can stay silent. Keep pretending people are more interested in the serious issues, like Mzoli'a. Finger on the pulse right there, eh? Stephen Harrison will be pleased. But are you sure that's an issue that doesn't call for Guy Macon to yet again be called upon as an expert witness. Honest and upstanding.

Or is that fine by you too?

The silence is deafening.

:oops:

Post Reply