IMDB Board Closure & A Safe Haven For Polanski Supporters

Going onto Roman Polanski’s IMDB board page I found that they are planning to close all message boards as of the middle of February. While I find this to be something that not a lot of people are going to like, I know for us Roman Polanski supporters it’ll be a godsend. No more whacky nutters like Lazy, Numby or others to believe they know what happened and no more to call those of us who support Polanski any number of disgusting names and epithets all because we don’t comply with their belief on what Polanski did to what they think he did. So I’ve made a post over there to invite all Roman’s supporters over here to this blog to carry on the discussion. To any and all of Roman’s ardent supporters from there, I welcome you with open arms. To anyone who posted there who did not play nice…. You’re on notice. Piss me or anyone else off here and you’re done. I won’t put up with your bullshit. The other cool thing here is that I can call you what I want to and you can’t report me because here I AM KING. Piss me off and you’ll learn fast. Oh, and don’t bother trying to post spam messages. There are filters for that kind of stuff and I won’t see it. So satisfying to be in control. Ahhhhhh, life is good.


I’ve decided to return one post to the blog that I had previous removed due to perosnal reasons, however, it has been heaviliy edited. The post I’m talking about is the one where I recounted my rape in comparrison to what Samantha Geimer classes as ‘rape’. The post is this one: Polanski … No Hard Feelings. What and why I’ve done what I’ve done is includeed in the edited post. I’ve removed all portions dealing with my story and they will not return, so don’t ask to see them because they won’t be provided. I will not have my story used as some sort of purient, juvenile masturbatory pleasure for obvious idiots like Lazy who believe he can twist what I posted without being called up on his idiocy. He seems to think it’s perfectly okay to call into question what happened to me, however, no one can call into question Geimer’s obvious litany of lies. What she has said and when can be found here: Anatomy of Lies. If you can read through her obvious attempts to make herself look better in the media despite the fact she has no veracity and not believe she is a liar, then I don’t know what else can be submitted to make you realize she is lying. Unlike my story where I’ve always called it rape, she always calls it something else. No one wants to read through her lies. Most of the fanboys of hers on the IMDB Polanski board refuse to see her as anything else but this poor, poor, poor victim of this evil profligate dwarf.

So for the reasons I’ve already stated, my rape story will not return, instead, I’ve included Lazy’s attempt to rebut my story with some less than shoddy interpretation. I’ll let the reader judge. Now I know what some have said to me regarding my story, “Well there Samskara, you did make your story public, therefore, you can’t blame anyone for wanting to call your story into question.” Fine response, however, the problem with those who read what I posted is they fail to note the one thing I’ve continued to state throughout. And that thing is that I was RAPED. Not assaulted. Not fondled. Not molested. Certainly no consensual sex. I was RAPED. At no time have I been ambiguous as to what happened, certainly not as ambiguous as Samantha Geimer has been. If someone has decided to re-interpret what I posted for their own stupid aim, than it is the product of a sick pubertal mind. To anyone who would support someone who has done what Lazy did with my copyrighted material, then that says more about you than it should. Meaning, you don’t have the independent mind to read on your own. You need to be a part of a collective to make yourselves seem greater than you are. Ceratinly you have no scruples.

I know there will be someone out there who will say, “Well there Samskara, you did call into question Samantha Geimer’s story and have been very vociferous in regards to her story….” And I say, one should be. There has been a man’s life and freedom at stake here. My rapist’s freedom has never been at stake. And the scrutiny I’ve used in forcing a light onto Samantha Geimer’s story should be duly done. Why? If there is one man who is imprisoned for a false rape alegation, then it’s too many. No woman should use something like rape to get money or fame. This is why reports of false rape hurt those admissions of reap rape victims. It does nothing to the public discourse when real rape victims must fight to be heard above those who believe a Samantha Geimer or a Patricia Bowman. It makes it just that much harder to be heard when ones like Lazy spew their bile in an attempt to ‘discredit’ real stories of rape. That light I and others like Jean Malkovsky and Novalis Lore have shone on Geimer means one less real victim of rape will be denied a hearing. and hopefully one less man will have been accused. The notion that Lazy could chop up my story and add his own brand of stupid means that the inmates have taken over the asylum. There have been far too many who have misreported the Polanski case for reasons that cannot be gleaned. It can only be said this misreporting has been done to muddy the waters regarding real stories the press should be covering. But that turn had begun before Polanski was hauled in by some innocuous Swiss border guard.

What the press does is use the catch phrases. The ones that get them the ratings or readership to boost their profiles. As long as they can discuss Geimer being a ‘child’ despite the fact that the doctor who examined her at the hospital referred to her as an ADULT FEMALE or state that she was anally raped despite the fact that those charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence and the fact no proof of anal rape was found during her rapekit examination makes no nevermind. It’s the titillation factor that matters, not the truth. Obfuscation helps too. The ole bait and switch. Instead of talking about the real issues like the mortgage crisis and the reasons why the banks are getting richer off the backs of the poor, why not talk about a thirty-three-going-on-thirty-four year rape case where no mention is made of the lack of evidence against Polanski, or the fact that according to Roger Gunson the original prosecutor, Polanski served all the time that was required of him. No, let’s discuss ‘child rape’ and the ‘drugging’ and ‘boozing’ up of a poor helpless angel. This all despite the fact that Samantha Geimer appears to have no qualms about calling it what it was: Consensual Sex. Nope, the lies and the omission of key facts raises the indignation and the ire of the public so they can forget about the real issues like the obliteration of personal freedoms. A ‘lazy’ public is a fat one. And that is why I used the term to identify Lazarusryu because he like others are intellectually lazy to find out the facts for themselves. They refuse to use Google for what it’s for and find out the facts for themselves. If there is conflicting information, use your idiot gauge. Do what Novalis, Jean and Richard Brenneman have all done and acctually LOOK at what is being said and extrapolate from there. Seek us out, those of us who know this case back-to-front. Ask US the questions if you’re confused but don’t try to think you can state misinformation without facing our censure. Not only is it intellectually lazy but also cruel to Roman Polanski and real rape victims to continue to state untruths.

To you Lazy I’ll say this, did you think you could use intimidation to stop me from speaking the the truth? Sending me threatening personal messages at the IMDB board telling me to in effect “be good or else I’ll let it out of the bag your real identity” shows just what kind of a person you really are. You don’t play fair, you resort to ugliness and terrorist tactics to silence the facts. Here’s what Lazy sent me after calling me Prometheslut:

These are the kinds of things they say to you when you have the truth on your side. It’s ‘Bush’ league tactics like these they use to silence the truth. This is their kind of debate. Doesn’t matter if they cite truth or not, just so long as they get the last word. So I’ll submit that these people have no validity. But they are the voices heard when the discussion is had. The ones who resort to threats to ‘get their point across’. They are no different than a real rapist who’d use intimidation to silence a rape victim. The same sort of intimidation my rapist used agianst me in those months after his rape of me. But in the words of Marianne Pearl, widow of the late Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl, “I am not terrorized.” I am not threatened. I am empowered by such methods of idocy. Lazy claims I threatened him. At no point during our year plus discourse over the Polanski debacle have I ever threatened him. I did PM him and tell him to remove my real name from a post of his. Then he continued on with some nonsensical jabbering about me having given him the direct link to my Facebook page. He also claims he’s an online acquaintence of mine. I know I have never given anyone the direct URL of my Facebook page. Ever! So in that, he lies. He also claims that he didn’t threaten me. I’ve submitted the evidence. So in that, he lies. He admits he did call me a slut. How nice and grown up-py he is. So do I thank him for saying he stopped calling me a slut?

The problem with people such as Lazy is that he wants to have all the attention without having to read the facts. I’ve supmitted to him at least on a dozen occasions on the Polanski IMDB board the link to Jean’s “Anatomy of Lies” page, but he claims until I’m ready to debate with him without name-calling, he won’t read it. That is petulence pure and simple. If he did read it, he’d have to realize he’d been backing the wrong horse all along. But Lazy can’t do that. He can’t admit he was wrong or else his ground would rock beneath his feet, or at least below the keyboard on which he spews his brand of stupid. He’s proven time and time again he cannot debate without getting nasty. So my decision to pull the portion of that post that I recount my rape story is valid. What I went through that night and in the months, let alone years afterwards is not subject to someone’s fantasy. I am not a public person like Samantha Geimer who it seems, is not adverse to spreading her legs time and time again for the public. So in that she IS subject to scrutiny. So Lazy, instead of trying to get inside Geimer’s pants, why not educate yourself on her lies? Simple answer to that one: Then Lazy and others like him won’t have a boogy man on which to vent. They won’t have someone to focus on day after day after day with their mastubatory fumblings. Like the populace who has grown fat on the misinformation from the media, they just shut off their ears, close their eyes and open their mouths wide to gobble up the lunacy of a press who is not afraid to spread half-truths and the aforementioned misinformation and they are the very same kind of sycophant who would be fodder for a Manson who caused the brutal destruction of Polanski’s family and friends back in 1969. The very same sycophant who drank the Kool Aid at Jonestown. The very same sycophant who believe that 19 hijackers with box cutters brought down three buildings in Lower Manhattan. And the very same sycophants who believe The Patriot Act is necessary to keep ‘us’ safe from terrorism.

Ones like Lazy are dangerous in that they have no qualms about using intimidation to make their voices the last heard. So that is the reason I returned the post to my blog sans the parts Lazy so enjoyed mocking. Some might say that they’ve won with my taking out the portion of that post dealing with my rape and that if my story is valid, what do I care what people do with it? The point is, they have no right to do that. I’ve been totally honest and up-front about what happened to me and my reasons for totally rebuking Samantha Geimer’s torrid tale. These very same types like Lazy who would pick apart my story are the very same ones who think it’s perfectly fine to continue to call Roman Polanski any number of names and accuse him of any number of crimes including that of merely not being there when Hitler’s Nazis came for his mother and unborn sibling. It’s so good to see these people can keep all things in perspective. Not to forget they also blame him for the deaths of his wife, Sharon Tate, their unborn child and friends back in 1969. Accusing him of imaginary crimes is tantamount to an Orwellian future I refuse to bend to. So therefore I dedicate this post to all the clearer heads that prevail in this world. To you I say, “WE will not be terrorized.”


I’m going to depart from my Roman Polanski posts to address something I feel needs to be looked at:

The above trailer is to the film OUT OF THE BLUE starring LORD OF THE RINGS and STAR TREK star, Karl Urban as a police officer in a small town on New Zealand’s South Island where a gunman by the name of David Malcolm Gray, an unemployed man with mental disorders, went on a shooting spree that left 13 dead and three injured and a community asking why it was allowed to happen.

The full details of what exactly happened that day on 13 November 1990 can be found here at Wikipedia: [ ARAMOANA MASSACRE ]. It would be a far better read than me trying to fall all over myself trying to give you a blow-by-blow description of what happened and who was involved. So go have a read, then hit your back button and come on back to read my post….That is if you want to. Suffice to say, after I watched the film directed by New Zealander Robert Sarkies, I was left with the feeling of total shock. Why shock?

I really do not understand the feeling from anyone that they need to own a gun or have one in their possession, let alone allowing someone who is mentally disordered like Gray to own not only one, but many and many that by all right no private citizen should be able to possess. The type of gun Gray used was tantamount to a Russian AK-47, the kind used by the Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. This type of weapon can be adjusted to be either a semi-automatic or automatic. Which only means one thing: It is a capable of killing and killing many. In Gray’s case, he was a collector, someone who had a fascination for guns and knew how to use them, also stockpiling amunition. I ask this: Why does anyone need to stockpile guns or amunition? If you’re not law enforcement or someone in the Armed Forces, why are you allowed to own a gun?

Living in Canada as I do, I’m struck by all that my government has done to make sure these types of weapons do not fall into the hands of someone able to carry out a mass shooting as was done at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal in 1989 where 14 women were killed by a man angry that men’s jobs were being taken by women. Again like Gray, Marc Lupine carried out his mission with absolute efficency as he walked from class to class shooting indescriminately. This episode forced the Canadian Government to re-examine the issue of gun control in Canada and who actually should have the right own them. There is a gun registry where one must sign onto in order to own a simple handgun, but the one thing that is clear is that no one has the right to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon here in Canada. However, in other so-called advanced countries like the gun happy United States of America, it’s not so simple to force a gun registry due to certain aspects of America’s Constitution allowing such ownership under their Second Amendment.

With events such as Waco and the Branch Davidians, Columbine and the D.C. Sniper behind them, the nation that prides itself on its ability to shoot from the hip then ask questions later, still allows gun shows to continue where men like Gray and Lupine are allowed to go and peruse to their heart’s content and buy whatever strikes their fancy. Ever since the shooting of Ronald Reagan and the injuring of Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, the question of gun ownership has been a hot button issue. Sarah Brady, wife of Brady, has tried since the 1981 shooting of her husband and the former president to get Congress to make some kind of law about guns and gun ownership when John Hinckley Jr. was allowed to buy a gun and use it injuring two others in the process of shooting Reagan and Brady. Hinckley like Lupine and Gray, suffered from a mental disorder. He’d tried several times to get in touch with actress Jodie Foster to no avail. With not being able to do so, he decided to ‘do the big thing’ so she’d notice him. Much in the same way Mark David Chapman did with his obsession with John Lennon, Hinckley took it upon himself to make a statement. So why are these types of people allowed to even buy a gun, let alone own one? Sarah Brady has tried to enact some kind of identity check in order to make sure these types of offenders do not have access to the kind of weapons one would consider only used for wartime or by law enforcement.

The NRA in the United States would have us believe that it is a person’s right to own a gun. In another time it would have been, when the nearest law enforcement was the next valley over or there wasn’t another person within acres of your land and the possibility of bandits were an issue. But this is not the Old West or DEADWOOD. This isn’t Al Swearengen having to defend his business against those like George Hearst who’d dare to come in and take it over. This is 2010 where the nearest neighbour is in the apartment or the house next door. We’re stacked too close together to have to have weapons to protect us and with law enforcement a telephone call away. And certainly not the weapons favourited by the likes of Gray and Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris. Within weeks of the Columbine shooting, the NRA held a convention in Colorado where then NRA leader and actor Charleton Heston entoned, “Not from my cold, dead hands,” like he was re-enacting some scene from one of his movies. This isn’t PLANET OF THE APES or SOLENT GREEN, this is America in the 1990s where we don’t need to be ‘locked and loaded’ as Sarah Palin would say.

One should be asking why the NRA and other such gun lobbiests need to continue to tout the Second Amendment in such times as these. The simple answer should be that no one should have to own a gun. The more complicated issue is deep set in the fabric of the society that continues to allow these kinds of guns to be sold in gun shows and other venues where there are no checks to find out if the potential owner has a prison record, or a record of mental issues. These types of venues don’t care. They only care for the ability to own, but not be responsible. Kleibold and Harris weren’t even old enough to be able to obtain the weapons they had including bomb making materials, so they asked someone to get the guns for them. The issue here is who should be responsible? Kleibold and Harris’ parents should have been held accountable for what their sons did, and they were sued by family members of the victims killed. The NRA would have us believe they care for responsible gun ownership, but they do nothing to make sure their venues are closed to such things as a mentally disordered person who might be able to buy a gun and use it for just such a killing spree, because let’s face it, the only thing one can do with one of these kinds of weapons is to use them for killing many.

So we go back to David Malcolm Gray, a loner with a mental disorder and the ability to own guns he should not legally been allowed to own. New Zealand enacted gun control measures as a result of Gray’s killing spree. I say, the horse already escaped, why close the barn door now. Why does it take these kinds of incidents to get the ball rolling to restrict these kinds of weapons? Why not keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands of the general public who have no right to own them? With ads for gun sales in the backs of magazines and other periodicles, it is so very easy to order them via the mail or on Ebay. There are no laws to prevent such weapons from passing through postal stations or Fed-Exing them as there should be. How about just not at all? Why not just say, “These kinds of guns are not allowed to be owned by a private citizen”? Well because gun owners and lobbiests cry and stamp their feet their rights are being trampled. Well how about those who are killed or wounded by such guns every time someone goes postal and shoots up an office building or a school or a small town? Where do they get their rights or lives back?

OUT OF THE BLUE is gutwrenching to watch. it is unflinching in the events as they happened and when Gray is finally taken out by New Zealand special forces operatives sent from Wellington to find Gray, we are left with the feeling of satisfaction. Satisfaction that the man responsible for the deaths of five children and six adults in the rampage, is finally dead. Does that make us monsters for wanting men like this ‘taken out’? I don’t think so. I think it means we are for justice and for the rights of citizens to be paramount to out elected law makers. We want to know they have our best interests at heart and are not part and party to these NRA types who decry it’s their right to own them.