Protected: Tactics For Fighting Off Psychos

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Conspiracy Fact

.

From drumsnwhistles.com :

.

Los Angeles District Attorney Patrick Frey may be the most notorious right wing blogger to claim he was SWATted, and of course, he blames his left-wing bogeymen, Rauhauser and Kimberlin. There is absolutely no evidence to link either one of them to it, but that hasn’t stopped Frey from making the accusation.

…

There is some evidence suggesting that this was a setup, that there was no legitimate SWATting of Frey (though Mike Stack’s may have been legit), and further, there is no evidence it was linked in any way to Rauhauser and/or Kimberlin. Were it not for a prominent Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney claiming it was so with a very loud and well-funded echo chamber behind them, no one would consider them to be suspects.

…

Folks, this is an Assistant District Attorney presuming guilt about a man who differs with him politically and has no shame at bringing the resources of the Dallas FBI office and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office together to “get them,” without any credible evidence they are involved.

.
.

I’d like to know who in the Dallas Office took Frey’s “information”.

.
.

Interesting article, very much worth a look; the rest of it here:
.

a-right-wing-blueprint

.
.

.
.
.

“Positive feedback 0%”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

conspirators rico fraud intimidation Andrew Breitbart ebay scammers Douglas Stewart CT ebay scammer Douglas Stewart Connecticut ebay scam Sean Tompkins San Antonio ebay scammer Sean Tompkins San Diego Dustin Farahnak libeler liar John Patrick Frey TX Patterico Patrick Frey troll Dustin Farahnak defamer paid troll Dust92 liar Dustin Farahnak Texas Dustin Farahnak Austin area Brandon Darby Austin Brandon Darby Sean Tompkins San Antonio Sean Tompkins doch210 docholiday187 guttamane187 Douglas Stewart Douglas M. Stewart guttamane187 docholiday187 CT Patrick Frey TX Lee Stranahan San Antonio Brandon Darby Austin Lee Stranahan Sean Tompkins San Antonio Dustin Farahnak conspiracy Douglas Matthew Stewart co-conspirator felony Douglas Stewart ex-con Douglas Stewart heroin addict CT

“SECRET EVIDENCE”

.

Patrick Frey, an L.A. Deputy District Attorney, aka the blogger and James O’Keefe supporter Patterico, posted a document produced by one Kent Gibson, who also works with the L.A. courts (presumably an acquaintance, colleague, or friend of Frey’s.) Gibson describes himself as a “Certified Audio & Video Forensic Examiner”.

Based on a test that Gibson refers to as “the gold standard” of voice identification, Gibson determined that:

“Frey Swat [911 tape of caller that perpetrated a crime] and Brynaert Known [a recording from an interview show of Ron Brynaert, former Executive Editor of a political website] cannot be shown to be the same speaker”.

.

There were a lot of other words in this document about results of methods that Gibson indicates are not nearly as  reliable or accurate (if at all) as the test Gibson says is the “gold standard”, which he used to conclude the statement above.  There were also lots of words included in the document, which described opinion rather than statements of fact.)

.

oh, and i’d like to ask y’all a personal question:

Suppose you log on, and you see that a Deputy District Attorney asked someone (presumably a friend of his) described as a “Certified Audio & Video Forensic Examiner” for the courts, to compare a sample of your voice (found on the internet) to a criminal’s, (in order to try to come up with some basis, that sounds official, to make people think that you ARE the criminal), and this D.A. publishes the resultant document, that his friend wrote up, on his blog.

You see that this posted document says your voice was used in the comparison, because you are “suspected of being the Swat caller re: Frey”. And the “Certified Audio & Video Forensic Examiner” says his opinion is that you are a criminal based on a “totality” of stuff (though we’re not privy to know exactly what that stuff may be.)  He writes this opinion even though the results of the test, that he himself says is the gold standard of testing, indicated that you “cannot be shown to be” the criminal.

The D.A.’s  readers see this document; some of them blog about it, tweet it, and get more people to do the same…, and so on, and so on. And as a result, a lot of your former colleagues, people you correspond with online, friends and acquaintances, and anyone else who happens to search on your name, can see that you are being examined by Los Angeles officials because you are “suspected of being” a criminal.  (And needless to say, you’re not a criminal, you’ve done nothing at all wrong – and you’ve never been convicted of a crime.)

So how would you feel about that?

And what would you think the proper remedy would be?

.

.

Downright Dirty

.

.

.

.

the upshot:

.

-Judge refuses to rule on Battle of Thessalonica

-Judge has a LOT of years on the bench; sure doesn’t know much about the internet, but knows about people and their probable future actions based on what he’s seen go down in the past.

-Judge rules Aaron may not contact Kimberlin by megaphone (or any other means.)

-Judge says Aaron is inciting death threats and threats against children.

-Judge finds Aaron is doing a “downright dirty” thing.

.

.

Believe me I’m no lawyer, but I have heard that there is a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law, and judges consider the intent of the law in their rulings. If you listen, you’ll see that since he is ruling on a protective peace order, (a pretty common thing), the judge’s primary concern is keeping both of these guys safe, not the intricacies of constitutional law as it relates to electronic communications, conspiracy,  death threats across state lines, incitement to commit violent acts, etc., etc.

Criss-Cross Double-Cross

.

hey, ok – I had an idea for a B-movie, so humor me if you will with this, a fanciful first (rough (ok, very rough)) draft:

.

Remember the Tylenol killer? You know, the one who’s still out and about?

Suppose Mr. Tylenol wanted to kill his boss, a Tylenol user, without getting caught. Well, before he poisoned the boss’s Tylenol, he’d poison random bottles of Tylenol. That way, his boss would be just one of many murdered, and a particular motive or probable suspect would be obfuscated.

Let’s suppose your big-money client, probably your only client (and you got one big-ass mortgage), was maybe in some hot water to begin with, and he tells you to neutralize an editor that broke a number of problematic stories about said probationee client. You know a little something about the legal system, so you decide to use what you know, and frame this journalist for a crime. Of course the crime has to be something you have the ability to pull off. Hey,  how about a SWAT?

And maybe there’s also a high-profile guy out there talking about some political hoax you or your buddies pulled, and it would be great to try to shut him up in the process, thereby killing two birds with one stone.

So what’s the first thing you would do. Ok, so you need the high profile dude’s name and details to be out there, so it could be believed that your journalist target would easily be able to access the info needed were he to SWAT the talker. So you need someone, other than you of course, to out your talker and publish his details. And, oh yeah – since he’s revealing some things your team would rather not have revealed, why not discredit the dude and make him public enemy #1 at the same time?

But wait – how are you going to be able to sell this info to a media outlet to get it published?

Well, luckily for you, the talker has already told one of your team leaders that there’s a couple things in his past that, while not huge deals, are maybe not his most shining moments. So, since you already know the talker is a pretty nice guy, you demand from the talker his Social Security number, Driver’s License number and whatever else you can think of. With this info, now you can get the details that you need to have published and you also can use it to confirm what the talker told you, and even dig up more dirt, so you can manufacture a sale-able story that you can pitch to your buddy who works for a tabloid site.

In the meantime, you and your cohorts have long conversations with the real target; maybe you tape his voice, so you can 1. hand it off to someone you think is a decent mimic (but turns out not to be) and 2. Give it to your co-conspirator who just happens to be an audio engineer, so he can figure out the best way to alter your mimic’s voice to match your target’s voice.

Along the way, maybe some bim comes along and threatens to blow the whole operation. Wouldn’t it be great to get her on the phone and do yet another SWAT to thwart and discredit her? Hmm, that might be hard to sell – that two unrelated people asking questions about you and your buds – would both happen to be SWAT-ing people willy-nilly.

But then you get a great idea! Tell everyone that they do know each other, that they’re actually working together, oh hell – go all the way – that they’re “IN LEAGUE” together. Plus you have a bunch of weak-minded trolls on hand to spin that story, and all they require is a couple of crumbs. Aw turns out she’s smarter than she looks and you can’t get her on the phone (sad face).

.

See where this is going? I doubt you need my help to write the rest.

.

Wonkette Scratches The Surface And Misses The Boat

.

Wonkette’s Doktor StrangeZoom presents Frey re Kimberlin in a nutshell:

http://wonkette.com/473744/the-new-horrible-thing-liberals-are-responsible-for-some-bomber-dude

StrangeZoom tells of Patterico.com blogger Patrick Frey’s involvement in Blog About #BrettKimberlin Day. Kimberlin, if you will remember (not saying you’re old mind you) was the guy who said Dan Quayle bought pot from him. Kimberlin is also an ex-con and a purported terrorist. Pat Frey is also accusing those “in league” with Kimberlin, of calling 911 and saying that Pat shot his wife, resulting in a SWAT-type swarming of police and fire at Frey’s residence.

Here’s what Wonkette missed:

This story is really about Kimberlin’s non-profit, Velvet Revolution v James O’Keefe’s non-profit, Project Veritas. Both organizations deal with voting rights policy and are at loggerheads. Check out this 22-page doc by Velvet Revolution’s lawyer about O’Keefe:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/OKeefe_Probation_Revocation_Document.pdf

Patrick Frey also seems to be heading up a conspiracy to spread libelous statements via social media. Their target is a harsh detractor of O’Keefe’s – Ron Brynaert – the former editor of a liberal political news website. Brynaert broke a number of incriminating stories about probationee James O’Keefe that could well have landed O’Keefe in the clink.

Frey and his associates even seem to be trying to frame Brynaert for a crime, by spreading defamatory statements indicating that he is “in league” with Kimberlin and sounds like the voice on the 911 hoax call. Of course neither of these statements are true – they are downright laughable. But right-wing extremists and Patterico.com readers are encouraged to continue to spread those lies, by Frey and his co-conspirators.

Frey even went so far as to indicate on Glenn Beck’s show, that a victim (someone Pat had been communicating with) who was SWAT-ed one week prior to Pat’s alleged SWAT, was also targeted because he also was writing about Kimberlin. Completely false! That victim had been talking about information he had regarding Weinergate, just before he was SWAT-ed. He never had anything to do with Kimberlin!

The reason Frey and his associates are ramping this stuff up now, is because (I believe) the New Hampshire Attorney General has *just* asked for 7-years worth of James O’Keefe emails. And so, there is an attempt afoot by Frey and Co. to head off a potential ishstorm, by directing the conversation away from conjecture regarding the potentially damning contents of those emails, and toward the sensational tabloid-friendly crimes committed in the 1970’s by the head of Velvet Revolution. Concurrently, there is an attempt to both menace and discredit O’Keefe’s seemingly most dangerous critic – Brynaert – who, while he is certainly known for being combative (understatement), is also respected by both progressives and conservatives for being a skilled researcher who’s like a dog with a bone when a story interests him.

I should also note, Brynaert has broken at least one story, that I know of, that proved useful for James O’Keefe; I am not trying to imply that this journo’s reporting has been biased against O’Keefe. Yet, I imagine there is some concern within Team JOK, that if the 7-year email cache were to land in this Brynaert’s inbox, he would undoubtedly read EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN email. And I think anyone who’s been following along for the past year, knows that predicting the potentiality of that outcome, is not such a big leap, and said outcome would likely not be in the best interest of Mr. O’Keefe.

Keep in mind that voting rights policy could determine the next resident of the White House. (Much in the way that those who brought you Weinergate, knew that the NYC Mayoral seat is a very viable step to the presidency.) This is not small potatoes that Project Veritas and Velvet Revolution are warring about. I’m sure there are plenty of donation dollars in both corners.

This is actually some kind-of-serious stuff – I mean a team-attempt to frame a journalist for a crime because he published the truth about someone who has access to big money?

Not. Good.

.

and a reminder –

Patrick Frey’s M.O. is to take advantage of people and manipulate them:

One of Frey’s former supporters whom Frey would not assist with petty cash to cover court costs toward his defense against plaintiff Brett Kimberlin, wrote a note that seemed utterly despondent [to this reader] that mentioned Kimberlin. Kimberlin won a case against that former Frey supporter and I believe that they were even at one point arrested.

Now there are reports that Aaron Worthing aka Walker – a Frey disciple – has been jailed ( http://www.munseys.com/technosnarl/?p=1295 , link courtesy of commenter “Saul G.”.) @rsmccain reports on his blog that Walker was taken into custody after a hearing regarding a permanent order of protection against Walker. (Walker had been bragging on twitter recently, that he always carries a gun. He had a restraining order against him at the time.)

[UPDATE: Walker has now been released from custody. A copy of this morning’s peace order ]

.

And on a more personal note:

I want to warn readers that Patrick Frey is no friend to you. If you have a family and a dog, don’t do Frey’s bidding, because he doesn’t mind getting others into very serious trouble. And if you want to be a lawyer and you wind up getting arrested in the service of Patrick Frey, well, that could actually ruin your life.

Remember – Frey, who resides in a $1.3 million home, wouldn’t even send $200 to his pawn when said pawn was sued by Kimberlin.

.

.

.

(h/t STL Activist Hub for indicating where clarification was needed)

.

I Have Amnesia

.

If so many other things in the entire interview hadn’t struck me as odd, seemingly incorrectly stated, or different from my recollections of previous statements, I’m sure I never would have noticed:

In this, the first portion of the Glenn Beck interview…

.

.

…Patrick Frey tells Glenn Beck that he’s been harassed by Brett Kimberlin, because he had written a post about Kimberlin. Then Pat agrees with Glenn they “can’t directly tie” Pat’s SWAT to Brett Kimberlin.  Pat goes on to describe the SWAT. Then Beck asks if Pat has ever seen anything like this before. Pat replies by saying “Yeah – it happened to another guy [@CryingWolfeBlog], who was writing about the same story I was writing, about a week earlier.”
.
Pretty sure Pat never mentions Weinergate at all to Beck’s audience – the entire interview is about Brett Kimberlin. Yet by Pat’s statement above, listeners are led by Pat to believe that @CryingWolfeBlog was SWAT-ed because he was writing about Brett Kimberlin. Only problem is – @CryingWolfeBlog was SWAT-ed because he was talking about Weinergate and trying to find out who set him up.

.

I don’t recall @CryingWolfeBlog writing about Brett Kimberlin before he was SWAT-ed.
(Honestly, I don’t remember @CryingWolfeBlog blogging about anything at all during that time frame.)
.
Should I head to the E.R.?

.

.

Law School For Dummies

.

I’d thought they covered this basic info in law school, but apparently I’d been wrong. I’m no attorney, but I DO know how to google. (gee ya would think they’d at least cover that; why the heck is law school so gol-darned expensive?)

.

Misconduct rule – Rule 8.4(c): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation

.

Defamation of character –  n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation.  Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, are called libel per se or slander and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed.  —Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill

.

An attempt to interfere with the judicial system or law enforcement officers is obstruction of justice. It may include hiding evidence or interfering with an arrest.  Interference may be with the work of police, investigators, or other government officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice. Such activity is a crime.  –uslegal.com

.

from The IT Wiki:

A speaker may not hide behind a pseudonym to avoid liability for defamatory remarks.

.

In Columbia Insurance Co. v. Seescandy.com, the California court required only a showing sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, in order to compel the identity of anonymous posters.

.

excerpted from Hoaxes and the First Amendment , Volokh:

Re Haley v. State: The Haley court was correct that knowingly false statements that one contemplates will come to the attention of a government agency that has jurisdiction over the matter you describe, should be seen as constitutionally unprotected. This case, involving a knowing hoax that seemed sure to waste a considerable amount of police time, is a good example of why that should be so.

.

from nycourts.gov:

While the original publishers of a defamatory statement are not automatically liable for subsequent republications of the statement by third parties, liability against the original publishers may be found where they “approved or participated in some other manner in the activities of the third-party republisher” (Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc., 51 NY 2d 531, 540 [1980]). Moreover, “an individual may not escape liability when a defamatory statement he makes is foreseeably republished” (Rand v. New York Times Co., 75 AD 2d 417 [1st Dept 1980]).

.

A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful end or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means  –leagle.com

Conspiracy requires less than attempt.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.  –legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

.

Volokh: The law makes it possible to issue subpoenas and track down the people who make false statements. You have a right to know who these people are, and once that happens, they can be sued for fraud and defamation.

.

lawskills.com: “Actual malice” as defined by New York Times, supra, is “knowledge that the defamatory matter was false or it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

.

from case re CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT DEFAMATION :

The defendants published and/or caused the publication of false and disparaging statements. Defendants knew that the statements published were false and/or published or caused their publication with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statements.

Defendants have combined, confederated, conspired, and agreed to make false and disparaging statements, in an effort to injure the Plaintiff in occupation, business, and employment and to expose to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule and to cause to be avoided.

Plaintiff asked for: compensation for the harm to personal and professional reputation and the mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity suffered, punitive damages to punish the defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, as well as court costs.

case said to have been settled out of court (sealed settlement)

.

Helpful tip! — If you love telling lies about folks, make sure you have plenty of assets that you wouldn’t mind losing to them!

.

… and not a legal definition, just some common sense (umm…note to Stranahan):

If someone asks you to tell lies repeatedly, that person is not your friend.  Actually, that person is trying to drag you into some shit while covering their own ass. (Duh.)

.

.

in related news? excerpted from canada.com:

New Brunswick libel case upgraded to criminal charge

Libel cases are normally tried in civil court, but are there some defamatory statements that are so vicious that they warrant criminal prosecution?

That’s the question confronting prosecutors who are deciding whether to approve a criminal libel charge against a blogger who referred to an officer as a “sexual pervert.” Police arrested the blogger in January.

A spokesman for the police, said “when we receive a complaint … we have a duty to investigate. If the facts lead us to a point where a charge is applicable, then it is our role to follow through with it.”

The case involves political blogger, 52-year-old Charles LeBlanc. During an encounter with the police, LeBlanc alleges, an officer touched him in an inappropriate manner. LeBlanc said he tried to get police to investigate but the complaint was dismissed. LeBlanc said he subsequently used his blog to warn the public about the officer.

In January, when police arrested LeBlanc at his home, they seized his computer. The search warrant indicated police were investigating a complaint that one of his blog posts had referred to an officer as a “sexual pervert.”

Police recommended that LeBlanc be charged under the criminal code, which states that someone who is guilty of defamatory libel can be imprisoned for up to two years.

The law defines defamatory libel as publishing material “that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.”

.

.

.

How To Tell If An iPad Is Actually A Bomb

.

1. It’s ticking

2. Engraving reads “ACME” and device is being carried by a coyote

3. Lit fuse protruding from headphone jack

4. Touchscreen displaying red 1970’s era digital numbers counting down to 00:00:00

5. When the iPad is pried open, two wires are revealed – one red and one yellow. Someone with a lantern jaw has a drop of sweat running down his brow as he picks one of the wires to clip. He clips one, everyone holds their breath, and there is no explosion. The numbers mentioned above in #4 stop counting down and display 00:00:01. If this occurs, that iPad was definitely a bomb.

6. Its Hello Kitty iPad case reads “Danger – Plastic Explosives”

7. A terrorist aims it at you, seemingly to take a photo with the front camera, but actually to detonate it in your face

8. You are in Northern Ireland in 1972 and oh wait a minute, the iPad actually looks like a suspect device

9. A guy named MacGyver applies bubble gum and duct tape to its battery

10. Someone named “Mr. Genovese” leaves it in your car along with a dead fish, a note saying “I got you some new apps – Enjoy the Angry Birds! Love, Mr. G.”, and a box of canolli. No, wait – he probably took the cannoli.

Do You See The Pattern

DRAFT

It seems to me that perpetration of all of the following acts, takes the same type of sociopathic chutzpah (and admittedly, intelligence). If you think about it, the acts described below, are all of a kind:

.

-spending months scripting many sockpuppets and, in effect, lying about who you are to people who consider you a friend

-using multiple id’s when commenting on the same thread

-creating different names for a number of twitter accounts. (John and Pat Reid seem to have been named after Pat. No offense to Pat, but most people have not heard of him. (I certainly hadn’t pre-Weinergate.) And of those who have heard of him, how many would have Pat so foremost in their mind to name their sockpuppets after him? If those names are more than a coincidence, it kinda narrows things down.)

-impersonating multiple real people

-telling mistruths in order to discredit the people who helped to expose the fake teens (namely JP and Lee)

-telling mistruths in order to discredit me for the crime of telling the truth

-doxing, trolling

-attempting to discredit GC because the truths she told did not match up with the AW-thought-Nikki-was-16 narrative that had been worked on for months.

-spending a long period of time on the phone lying to the New York Times as well as to Tommy X and Lee

-spending a long period of time lying to FilmLadd

-spending a looong period of time lying to Patterico.com readers via the JR9 chat – (verbosity a common thread. Also, Lee’s caller, some socks, and others around Weinergate have been described as sycophantic.)

-sending threats to bloggers

-releasing and/or publishing goatsred’s and ronbryn’s expunged record (recall that Weprin’s sealed custody case was also published.)

-engaging in the “Alicia Pain” menace-toned convo with Pat

-fabricating a fake California driver’s license and fake student id’s

-fabricating completely fake AW/GC DM’s

-altering the dates of actual DM’s

-fabricating GC-Nikki DM’s

-twitter hack (h/t @ronbryn) (I’m thinking perhaps done by spoofing a cellphone number?)

-making a false complaint to Boston P.D. (if the complaint was real and JG was real, there would have been no reason for JG not to sign that complaint.)  Also, recall that someone made an unwarranted call – calling the police to Ethel’s house, to investigate nonexistent untoward AW tweets.

-more fake spoofed call(s) to police constituting SWAT-ing(s)

.

caveats: I understand that anyone involved in the aforementioned likely had help. And I think I probably forgot to add maybe more than a couple of things that would fit with this list of con artist-type activity.

Also, I have to say, it would be very surprising to me if Pat and Lee did not have some light to shine on the above. And I also do find it mysterious that Pat never posted the reasons he believed JR9 and DW were one in (yeah I said “in”) the same. (I do not think early DW was JR9, but I do think that the DW who was interviewed by FilmLadd, was likely JR9. And I’d be curious to know what Pat thinks.)

.

It is likely I’ll be updating this post and adding a bit more detail.

.

.

(h/t soundbitten.com)

DRAFT

POSTED BY   qritiq

Paranoiacs Anonymous

A lot of accusations have been bandied about. As you may well know, I’ve been looking at post-Weinergate shenanigans and crimes for a while now. And just for the record…

I have not seen one shred of evidence indicating that Neal is guilty of anything (other than getting into a snit for no apparent reason.)

I have not seen one shred of evidence indicating that Ron is guilty of anything (other than calling me every name in the book. (And Pathetico never “denounced” any of it.)) Oh, and reading anything Ron’s written as an actual threat is obviously preposterous (listen up Pathetico.) I’ve certainly never felt threatened by Ron and the many epithets he’s logged that were directed at me.

I have not seen one shred of evidence that @goatsred is guilty of anything. He seems to be under attack by some sockpuppets who seem to have no clue (and no curiosity) as to who the actual players in Weinergate were.

I have not seen one shred of evidence that GC is guilty of anything, despite Patrick Frey’s commenters being incredibly nasty and accusatory toward her. Oh, and by the way, Pathetico never denounced that repulsive behavior. Rather, he seemed to actively encourage it. (I’ve never seen a writer block/ban a source. Can you say “dumbass”?)

And I’ve gotta say that thinking that KidKenoma is some kind of criminal mastermind is um what’s the word? Oh yeah – ridiculous.

Of course Ken and “Dustin” and Pat even tried to point a finger at yours truly, because they know that I know some truths that they don’t want revealed. I think you need to ask yourself why that would be. When I posted a link to new information about Dan Wolfe at Patterico.com (because “Dustin” had requested that I post any new information there), Pathetico deleted the post. Post-haste. Gotta ask yourself why he would do that. His excuse was that I had deleted just one out of MANY of “Dustin”‘s comments.

(I had deleted that one comment of “Dustin”‘s, because it contained false and defamatory statements about GC. I had already let “Dustin” post many comments containing disinformation, and “Dustin” was already fully aware that his many comments were totally disrespectful of this blog’s guidelines. I NEVER violated any of Pathetico’s blog guidelines, although Pat allowed many commenters to post disinformation and allowed some to use more than one handle – against his own rules. So, again, you need to ask yourself – why was I singled out? I was also singled out in that I believe that “qritiq” was the ONLY one on the monster thread that had actual names attributed to their handle/nickname, that were NOT redacted. So again, you need to ask yourself: WHY WOULD JOHN PATRICK FREY SINGLE OUT QRITIQ? FOR WHAT POSSIBLE REASON? And, perhaps even more telling, why would he want to hide new information from his readers? Quite interesting behavior, don’t ya think?)

Pretty sure the only charges I am legitimately guilty of are cupcake over-indulgence and poor grammar. A thousand freakin pardons.

.

.

POSTED BY qritiq