Archive for the sockypuppets Category


Posted in blogosphere, divisiveness, politics, reality check, sockypuppets with tags , , , , , , , , on July 9, 2013 by Qritiq

I found this in a blue van by Pink’s:

KimBerIin Says:

Remember when @Zapem was posing as “Malgad” (supposedly a 260 lb “black man”), and was gonna complain to WordPress about kkblog, and have it deleted?

(Z’s alleged “black man” identity Malgad, was her sock-puppet to show negroid support for @zapem’s grotesque white-trash lowbrow birther delusions. Oooooo. Pretty intimidating!)

Which was in the same tantrum as when she was going to file another of her famous “reports” to the F.B.I. and have Team Kenoma arrested for casting vodoo spells at respectable, upright Tea-Baggers, like the shit-heads that infested her drooling moronic birther site, the “Zombie Revolution” or whatever. (yo! shout out to Splooge!!)

So yeah, a couple of more years of nuisance F.B.I. reports, and one hyper-shrill twitter avatar after another (Malgad, X0pht etc and so on) under the delusion that no one can see through her pathetic bubble dance.

And now…Here she is again! With the most unconvincing dumbshit attempted impersonation of an “Anonymous” member who, laughably claims to be a “pedophile hunter”. “Priest”! LOL LOL LOL!!!

(notice how allegedly catholic probable porn peen gobbler @zapem doesn’t seem too bothered about any, you know, c-a-t-h-o-l-i-c church pedophiles, cases of which seem to be multiplying geometric)

In this particular case, pedophile means anybody who might disagree with her “politics”, or anybody she just feels like bullying. *yawn*

Some real low-grade Alinsky posturing, and the most ridiculously incompetent “Anonymous” inpersonation that a well-below-room-temperature I.Q. can deliver! Bravo!

How dumbed down can it get?

Seek ye here:

Crystal Meth is a very ugly thing. Inside and out.

UniteBlue Funded By Tea Party?

Posted in blogosphere, politics, reality check, sockypuppets with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 12, 2013 by Qritiq

Blogger’s Digest version of a Neal Rauhauser post below. Read the entire post at

I have a list of twenty one accounts that are leaders within @UniteBlue, at least in terms of Twitter conversations. … I extracted 53,000 [of their] tweets. …

UniteBlue Leaders & Hashtags

UniteBlue Leaders & Hashtags

The @UniteBlue operation is the work of @140elect, who were taking funding from Sheldon Adelson for campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates recently … Their Democratic front man and initial source of [Democratic/liberal] legitimacy was William Talley, who … [has] a conviction for child pornography possession…

[Talley] paid … for a video of a preschooler being sexually assaulted, and this was just one of a great number of of such things found on his computers.

The owners of @140elect have no Democratic cred of their own and having used Talley’s network to start the operation I do not see how they can possibly continue in any sort of credible fashion. The masses who signed up for this are clearly actual Democrats and others familiar with the situation have summed [these actual Dems] up as “Hillary’s primary voters” – more female than male, closer to retirement…

[For] the defense of Talley and [UniteBlue,] a number of the large-volume [of tweets, etc.]/large-follower-count actors have applied tactics right out of the Tea Party playbook. … I’d be curious to see what their voter registrations look like over the last twelve years.

The rest of the post here:

sh…look: Bird! See?

Posted in blogosphere, mental, paranoia, pastelike, politics, reality check, sockypuppets, spin, tuesdays with tags , , , , , , on June 4, 2013 by Qritiq

A commenter had this to say:

‘V.’ ?

Wait a fucking second here…

1-Victoria Wren
3-Vera Meroving
4-Veronica Maganese

OK. I get it.

You don’t fool me!

Five “V”s? Oh yeah. V.V.V.V.V.

V. Cinco? V.C.? Obviously, Pynchon is…

V-I-N-C-E-N-T C-A-G-G-I-A-N-O!!!

You see?

I just knew it!! Total Proof!!!

You know, if an unstable mind wanted to highjack, spin, and dominate a topic, the most likely procedure would probably be old-school Alinsky tactics as reinterpreted by current Tea Partiers, even though the perpetrator of said tactics might identify themselves as a “progressive” (like @perpostericity & Dreamsend333), which in reality would probably translate to something like “C-a-s-s S-u-n-s-t-e-i-n O-p-e-r-a-t-i-v-e”.

First, the projection of your own agenda upon your targeted Straw Man, who is to be accused of exactly what you are really doing.

Best Straw Man is someone tangental to the case being damage controlled, about whom the least is known, so you can pretty much make anything up about them, and then demand that they identify themselves to prove their non-involvement in the activities of which you have accused them.

Lots of luck on that.

This is parallel to the Tea-Bagger tactic of finding a Straw Man like oh, say Brett Kimberlin, or Neal Rauhauser, to be built up as a boogey-man by sheer repetition of The Big Lie.

I’ll be back to finish this up after I return from a chic and totally hip dinner at Musso & Frank’s. The Lasagna Milano there is unspeakbly toothsome.

OK, we’re back! The Rigatoni Tuscanique was awesome, and not nearly as overpriced as you might think. Alright, maybe it was a tad uberpricen, but it was on somebody else’s expense account. As a result, the basic cost of Fine Literature may upspike just a little, but it should soon correct itself, and smooth out just fine.

Now where were we?

Oh yes, once having established your erzatz nemisis Straw Man, the next step – and this is so very, VERY crucial – is to position yourself as The VICTIM.

This is the preferred procedure making the rounds in the Tea-Bagger twitter wars. Various Tea-Baggers like Aaron Worthing, Lee Stranahan, E.W. Erickson, R.S. McCain, Patterico and probably others too grotesque to remember, have built a flimsy little Urban Myth around Brett Kimberlin, with Neal Rauhauser as an alternate, to be used as a boogieman to shake down their Depends wearing, Rascal riding readership for donations:
“OMG!! Kimbelin has my address!! He’ll come and blow me up!! I have to move NOW!!” etc etc blah-blah-blah

Of course nobody moves anywhere or gets blown up. Just pocket the $$$, and oooze on out to the next C-PAC boozefest (oh, by jingo what fun too! Steve Crowder will be there! He’s soooo funny! tee-hee! Greg Gutfield too!! Ooooh!)

Someone posing as a “progressive” would probably skip the donation part, their audience not nearly as moronic as Tea-Baggers, and be content merely with damage control, spin, and very, very muddy water.

Never mind that there are real-people-who-have-died-under-at-best-dubious-circumstances, make it all about YOU and your tragic Victimhood.

Yeah, sure these other people died on terms of fear and anguish, but how trivial and self-indulgent that all is compared with the terrifying experience of being sent hostile and incoherent emails causing a total psychological meltdown!

Oh, the humanity!

Tears well in my eye at the sheer relentless torment some individuals suffer from the brutal effects of The Holy Toenail Law, and the silly incoherent mentally incapacitating emails with which it is enforced! *sob*

Well, keep those waters muddied Ty, and tell Cass I sez hai!

By the way, did you notice that that Rosamond guy is head of the Knights Templar or som–GAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Admitted Liar

Posted in do the right thing, Doh!, illegal, politics, reality check, sockypuppets, tacky with tags on March 23, 2013 by Qritiq


Top Commenters Of 2012

Posted in blogosphere, do the right thing, Doh!, mental, politics, reality check, sockypuppets, spin with tags , , , on January 14, 2013 by Qritiq

As shown below in the WordPress 2012 report for the qritiq blog, Dustin Farahnak was the 4th most active commenter at the qritiq blog in 2012. He also commented here in 2011. Click on the image for a clearer view:

Dustin Farahnak Lies

From 2012 qritiq blog WordPress report

Yet these are his claims:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Well, I hope he doesn’t hope to pursue any careers that would demand logic and/or ethical behavior.

SuppliesOutlet – Save up to 70% Using Compatible Printer Ink Cartridges

From The Desk Of:

Posted in censorship, mental, sockypuppets on October 22, 2012 by Qritiq

From: Qritiq
Sent: December 3, 2011 11:25 PM

Mike – I wish you had emailed me before you told her you were bleeker. It is NONE of her business. I asked you to blog with me because I know you had a lot to say about bullying, which I think is important. And now look – she’s bullied you out of blogging and speaking your mind. If those are “her friends”, they are real menacing potty-mouths.

I would recommend that you do not speak to her husband (certainly not without a lawyer) – I don’t understand how Michelle’s war with Neal involves you. And if you intend to sue Neal, Ron, whoever, it certainly doesn’t concern Michelle.

None of the bleeker posts support Neal or Ron in the slightest. You’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. And for her to intimate that you have, is repulsive.

I would appreciate it if you can give me her last name (I won’t give it to anyone else – I have no interest in outing her.) But she strikes me as a bit unbalanced due to her threat to call my workplace and her odd messages to people I don’t even know, about trying to get me in some way. I would have no interest in her if she hadn’t threatened me, but since she has, I’d at least like to know her name, in case she decides to stalk or threaten me again.

You do not owe Michelle or her husband any explanation for what you write about, or where you choose to publish it. You haven’t written one word about them. How dare they.

(Can you tell I’m mad?)

If Michelle’s husband is mad at Neal – hey here’s an idea: he should talk to Neal, not waste your time. It sounds to me like they are trying to intimidate you. Because why would they talk to you? If I had a problem with stuff Neal was saying, I’d have my lawyer send a cease and desist letter to Neal. Why would I call you – it makes no sense.

In addition to Michelle’s last name, I hope you will also give me permission to write about this. It’s really got me fired up. But of course I’ll understand if you’d rather I didn’t.


Criss-Cross Double-Cross

Posted in crime, evil, politics, sockypuppets, spin, villain with tags , , , , , , , on May 31, 2012 by Qritiq


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.


Twenty Questions

Posted in blogosphere, censorship, divisiveness, politics, sockypuppets, spin with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2012 by Qritiq


1. Why won’t Patterico reveal the truth about why he fired Aaron Worthing?

2. Why do some people continue to believe bloggers who pretend to be conservatives and are proven liars?

3. Why do some people continue to call Robert Stacy McCain a racist – is there a shred of evidence to indicate that?

4. Why did Aaron Worthing have to wait until the James O’Keefe emails were subpoenaed before posting his own story about #BrettKimberlin?

5. When you state a true fact – and someone who wants to hide that truth – broadcasts that you “support” someone that you obviously never supported – why does everyone pretend not to notice the liar’s obvious lie? (I previously wrote about this commonly used subterfuge tactic as it applied to Weinergate.)

6. About a day after another blog posted that Ron Brynaert had a “huge” amount of money, Aaron Worthing sent Brynaert a letter demanding 20K cash or he’d sue Brynaert for $66,000,000. Is the attorney that advised Aaron that this action was A-OK, trying to manipulate and use Aaron?

7. On a related note, I keep seeing @AaronWorthing state that @ronbryn is Brett Kimberlin’s “buddy”, “pal”, etc., which is a bold-faced lie. Why is it that people who claim to care about truth, never call Aaron out on it?

8. Since Aaron is known to have lied (see #7), can we trust the other things that he says?

9. Why did Herman Cain delete his facebook posting that was based on Robert Stacy McCain’s tale?

10. Why do some people become enraged when I point out that the timing of the social media anti-#BrettKimberlin campaign coincided with the subpoena of 7-years worth of James O’Keefe emails?

11. Do you think that Lie Stranahan actually believes that his caller, whom he said he believed was a jilted texter  (described as “dumb” by someone she spoke to at length) fabricated a phony California driver’s license (when she lives in Boston) as well as fake student id’s on short notice, told a stack of lies to the New York Times, impersonated at least two different real people, filed a phony police report, punked Tommy Christopher – Mike Stack  and the whole of the #BornFreeCrew, and for months scripted ALL the writings of DW – who was quite knowledgeable regarding nyc political reporting and Queens politics and issues (when “she”‘s “dumb” and from Boston), JR9 and many other socks including thousands of DM’s with GC (sorry if I left some stuff out)?

12. Who told Andrew Breitbart that Pat Frey had been SWAT-ed?

13. Why do some spend so much of their time bothering to argue with sockpuppets who consistently spout outrageous stuff that no-one believes?

14. I heard Andrew Breitbart’s last interview. His concerned and alarmed telling about his associate Pat’s SWAT seemed sincere to me, and he intimated that he (Breitbart) and his family could likely be the next to be terroristically targeted. Did the story about Pat’s SWAT, that Pat did nothing to clarify, contribute to Andrew’s stress level in the days leading up to March 1, 2012?

15. I’m told a judge clearly stated that Aaron had committed an assault. So why would some think there should not be a restraining order (that would serve to protect both parties) against Aaron – isn’t it better to be safe than sorry (I guess in the interim anyways, the ruling judge agreed with me)?

16. Did people Herman Cain trusted feed him disinformation?

17. Why are so many people being mean to @CryingWolfeBlog when it seems that, while he does defend himself against their attacks, he has never done anything to them?

18. Why was @ronbryn targeted from the get-go by those on the left AND on the right?

19. If you were trying to frame someone for a crime, and in doing so, you had to have an accomplice place a phone call during the time you were on the phone with your target, wouldn’t it make common logical sense and make it easier to coordinate the timing of your own call with his, if you told your accomplice to make his call “at midnight”, rather than at say 11:39 or 12:13?

20. How much money do you imagine has been spent all told, so far, on O’Keefe v Kimberlin?



Consider your answers, as this post will be opened up to comments in the near future.


Law School For Dummies

Posted in crime, do the right thing, illegal, politics, sockypuppets with tags , on May 1, 2012 by Qritiq


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.  –


from The IT Wiki:

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


In Columbia Insurance Co. v., 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.



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  –

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.  –


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.

. “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.”



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

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.”



Tony Martin - Actor


Rate Your Pain

Posted in blogosphere, politics, sockypuppets, spin with tags , , on April 26, 2012 by Qritiq


I would tend to agree with SarahW, but it seems these weigher-inners would not:

(from source link  link  link  link  link  link  link  (btw, this is just a very small sample below; there were many, many, many more))


I would be scared if I got a threat like that.  –Dustin

I say follow it through … expose this person and get them on Internet threats.  –Anita Busch   She’s absolutely right in this case.  –Dustin

7/15/11: I just am more focused on the Alicia Pain and other criminal activity. I want whoever is behind that to go to prison.  –Dustin

you [GC] called Alicia Pain’s threats “benign” above. You should not offer opinions like that when you don’t know the facts  –Patterico

I hope LE is also looking into Alicia Pain  –DRJ

At a minimum, someone named Alicia Pain threatened me. That much is illegal. I have repeatedly said there is more going on as well.  –Patterico

Alicia Pain claims she contacted you. Is that true? Which means you may need protection.  –az5thdstrct

If you/your family did receive a threat from Alicia Pain, why not contact the authorities? (Assume Patterico would advise) that not to succumb to the threat and best to protect family is to contact authorities to investigate.  –az5thdstrct

I received an e-mail threat that night from “Alicia Pain” threatening my family if I looked into the activities of Gennette and Weiner any further.  –Patterico

I spoke today to detectives from two jurisdictions.  –Patterico

My main goal in getting involved has been to make sure all agencies are talking to each other. Be assured that I am making efforts to ensure that happens.  –Patterico

I will not discuss which jurisdictions.  –Patterico

This person, assuming it’s just one person, is dangerous. Everyone whose real name is known out there should be aware of their surroundings, make sure someone knows where they are and what they are doing, etc.  –Dustin

i knew all about that one, and told him … call the police on them…  –Aaron Worthing

the authorities are looking into who sent these threats, and they are going catch that person.  –Dustin

How does that help me catch the people menacing my family?  –Patterico

we consider this important.  –Patterico

I simply wish we could find the people that did the threats, get that taken care of- and then take the time to unravel the mystery. Someone/s needs to be in jail…asap.  –ppk_pixie

there are some extremely aggressive bad guys threatening people … and even taking their threats to the next level where law enforcement knows it has to stop them.  –Dustin

If [qritiq’s] going to continue to …  snark at real threats, then she is not welcome.  –Patterico


but despite all the very grimm rhetoric, some thought:

The threat emails are incredibly lame, its like if they created CSI:Fargo and did hour long episodes on shoplifting.  –milowent


*Can’t Touch This* Serial Twitter Harasser OxyConservative and #p2 Pals

Posted in blogosphere, evil, mental, sockypuppets, tacky with tags , , , , , , , on November 10, 2011 by TheCryingWolfeBlog
@GregWHoward Instead of binge drinking, why don’t you teach your kid how to be a financially responsible adult? @GomerWHoward @GregWBlowhard
Phil Miaz
GregWBlowhardPhil Miaz
RT @GregWHoward: @GregWBlowhard You keep saying crap and libtards keep RTing you. So, you’re going to pay dearly. #p2
                                                                                                                                        POSTED BY: itsgettingbleeker

Mad Libs

Posted in politics, sockypuppets with tags on November 8, 2011 by Qritiq

I believe that _____________ has been harassed.  I think she suspects that _____________ has been the one harassing her because ____________ told her that’s who it was.  And I think _____________ also told ______________ that the person who SWAT-ted Pat and _____________ _____________ was also _____________ along with _____________.  However, I don’t believe that _____________ actually believes what he himself has said to be true.  I believe that he must know that it was actually _____________ that had something to do with the _____________s and it wasn’t _____________ at all.  (After all,  _____________ would have no motive.)  So the question is, why would _____________ say that _____________ was responsible when he knows that _____________ isn’t?


Well, I think it is because _____________ vouched for _____________ to ______________.  And now he realizes how badly he and _____________ were punked by _____________.


So, he is embarrased, and he doesn’t want _____________ to know how bad he f[REDACTED]ed up.  And _____________ sees _____________ as the weakest person in his field of vision and so that is why _____________ has chosen to target ____________.


Well, this is my current theory and the only thing that would make any sense I think.


P.S. I noticed that _____________ is using the @_____________ account to defend Cain.  Is he embarrassed to speak out for Cain under his own name I wonder?


POSTED BY   qritiq