More Truther Legaltainment!

[Miragememories]

"Probably old news to some, but courtesy of Brainster:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...spokesman.html"

A visit to that blog reveals a relentless exchange of childish mudslinging, lies, and unsubstantiated testimony. Over-the-top smearing.

"Oh my. Those are serious charges, indeed......................................."

"Gotta luv a good smear campaign...indeed."

"As much as I abhor such activity, I fail to see its relevance to 9/11 truth."

"??
How is commenting that the charges with which the fellow has been charged are, indeed, serious, a "smear campaign" in any way, shape or form? They are serious charges, would you not agree?"

"I think he means the charges are the smear campaign."

"That could be, but it seems rather odd that he would quote my post to make that particular point if that was actually the point that he intended to make. I have no idea what his post is supposed to mean because his comment is so cryptic.

So, I'll ask directly. MM: Is Triterope correct in his interpretation of your cryptic comment? If so, please advise and expand on the intended meaning of your post. If not, please clarify what it was you intended to convey with that post."

I have no idea whether he is guilty or innocent of those charges.

If he was proven guilty of said charges, and if such a conviction somehow proved him to be dishonest about his message regarding 9/11 Truth, I would see the relevance.

As a so-called member of the legal establishment and a JREF administrator LashL, I am somewhat surprised that you would succumb to your own personal bias by weighing-in so prematurely.

Or did you feel that the OP's clearly presented charge sheet required your endorsement of legitimacy to become credible?

That we had to be told those are serious charges?
Indeed: "used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested."

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

So, because people attack someone on a blog not owned or operated by the JREF, us posters HERE are all mounting a smear compaign?

Wow, cool logic MM. Why are you here? Should you be raising money to defend your fellow Truther pal?

 

[triforcharity]

It get's better. Apparently he was on probation from a case in 2008 when he was arrested on this most recent charge, and they have issued a violation of probation warrant for him.

Interesting. Not sure what the 2008 case was, but it wasn't a felony.

He's got another charge from 2003, but again, I don't know what it was for. The Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts website is difficult to decipher.

So, it seems that Manny has had a few runins with the law before....

 

[Architect]

If he was proven guilty of said charges, and if such a conviction somehow proved him to be dishonest about his message regarding 9/11 Truth, I would see the relevance.

You are concerned, one assumes, that the highlighting of the allegation is essentially "poisoning the well" and hence any views he takes on 911 would be unfairly dismissed prior to their full consideration. Rather than say that, however, you've instead gone off on one.

As a so-called member of the legal establishment and a JREF administrator LashL, I am somewhat surprised that you would succumb to your own personal bias by weighing-in so prematurely.

I seem to remember that you don't believe I'm actually a qualified architect with expertise in the field, so no great surprise to find you don't believe that Lash is a lawyer either/ Who's poisoning the well now then?

 

[TexasJack]

I see the message quite clearly. Here is a man who goes around accusing and/or suspecting innocent people of crimes before they are charged or deemed a person of interest. Instead he is charged of crimes instead. It's called poetic justice.

 

[Miragememories]

"So, because people attack someone on a blog not owned or operated by the JREF, us posters HERE are all mounting a smear compaign?"

While weakly acknowledging his innocence until proven guilty, many unrepentant posts in this thread pickup the smear torch and continue to strongly perpetuate it.

Triterope: "So that commercial NYC-CAN spent $100,000 on has a child molester..."

Sam.I.Am: "Kiddie diddlers are at the bottom of the prison caste system right below rapists and right above... well, nobody..."

Some cannot be bothered to acknowledge innocence until proven guilty.

uke2se: "In this thread we are talking about the twoofer hero who turned out to be a kiddie diddler...."

uke2se: "...this particular twoofer deserves everything that's coming to him..."

MM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I hear this guy is also a 9/11 truther.

 

[TJM]

A visit to that blog reveals a relentless exchange of childish mudslinging, lies, and unsubstantiated testimony. Over-the-top smearing.

I have no idea whether he is guilty or innocent of those charges.

If he was proven guilty of said charges, and if such a conviction somehow proved him to be dishonest about his message regarding 9/11 Truth, I would see the relevance.

As a so-called member of the legal establishment and a JREF administrator LashL, I am somewhat surprised that you would succumb to your own personal bias by weighing-in so prematurely.

Or did you feel that the OP's clearly presented charge sheet required your endorsement of legitimacy to become credible?

That we had to be told those are serious charges?
Indeed: "used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested."

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

MM

Oh my. Serious fail indeed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Phil Jayhan over at Let's Roll is claiming that this is supreme irony since Manny and Super-Willy Rodriguez called him a paedophile recently.

Truthers seem to be big fans of projection...

 

[TJM]

While weakly acknowledging his innocence until proven guilty, many unrepentant posts in this thread pickup the smear torch and continue to strongly perpetuate it.
MM

Yeah, it's not like they're implicating an entire administration and thousands of others in a conspiracy without a shred of evidence nor a single charge filed against them.

High Horse. Get off it.....

Compus

Indeed.

 

[Triterope]

While weakly acknowledging his innocence until proven guilty, many unrepentant posts in this thread pickup the smear torch and continue to strongly perpetuate it.

Triterope: "So that commercial NYC-CAN spent $100,000 on has a child molester..."

...a statement I very clearly qualified with an asterisk. But of course you omit that part.

But more importantly, Badillo's guilt or innocence is of no relevance to my point. The mere accusation of this kind of behavior destroys Badillo's credibility, and renders him unfit to publicly represent any group. I would call it a black eye for NYCCAN, but nobody notices a black eye on a dead body.

 

[Craig4]

Truly, it is good when truthers suffer.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have long suspected that many twoofers are in it just because they think it might get them laid.

I think I know why some of them were not getting any.

They seem kind of short on real men over on that side.

 

[BStrong]

While weakly acknowledging his innocence until proven guilty, many unrepentant posts in this thread pickup the smear torch and continue to strongly perpetuate it.

Triterope: "So that commercial NYC-CAN spent $100,000 on has a child molester..."

Sam.I.Am: "Kiddie diddlers are at the bottom of the prison caste system right below rapists and right above... well, nobody..."

Some cannot be bothered to acknowledge innocence until proven guilty.

uke2se: "In this thread we are talking about the twoofer hero who turned out to be a kiddie diddler...."

uke2se: "...this particular twoofer deserves everything that's coming to him..."

MM

Like many, you forget to cite the full quote "...in a court of law."

The general public can feel free to come to their own conclusions as to the guilt or innocence of an individual.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

MM

We have attacked the message. Quite succesfully, in fact. We have completely destroyed it.

There's no rule saying we can't demolish both the message and the messengers. Especially if what we discover about the messengers affirms what we know about the messages (eg. nazis blaming jews for 9/11, pathological liars telling lies, chronic disasterbators turning out to be sexual deviants, etc...).

 

[LashL]

Miragememories, you aren't making any sense.

It went like this:

Holy crap. Those are some serious charges.

Oh my. Those are serious charges, indeed.

As near as I can tell, there is an order that he can be released from custody to house arrest upon receipt of an appropriate surety/bond, but I am not sure whether he has actually been released yet.

That information is apparently available, however, if one wishes to call the inmate information line at (561) 688-4340.

In any event, it appears that he is due to appear in court tomorrow, August 26, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 11E.

Gotta luv a good smear campaign...indeed.

??

How is commenting that the charges with which the fellow has been charged are, indeed, serious, a "smear campaign" in any way, shape or form? They are serious charges, would you not agree?

I think he means the charges are the smear campaign.

That could be, but it seems rather odd that he would quote my post to make that particular point if that was actually the point that he intended to make. I have no idea what his post is supposed to mean because his comment is so cryptic.

So, I'll ask directly. MM: Is Triterope correct in his interpretation of your cryptic comment? If so, please advise and expand on the intended meaning of your post. If not, please clarify what it was you intended to convey with that post.

Thanks in advance.

And your response:

A visit to that blog reveals a relentless exchange of childish mudslinging, lies, and unsubstantiated testimony. Over-the-top smearing.


I have no idea whether he is guilty or innocent of those charges.

If he was proven guilty of said charges, and if such a conviction somehow proved him to be dishonest about his message regarding 9/11 Truth, I would see the relevance.

As a so-called member of the legal establishment and a JREF administrator LashL, I am somewhat surprised that you would succumb to your own personal bias by weighing-in so prematurely.

Or did you feel that the OP's clearly presented charge sheet required your endorsement of legitimacy to become credible?

That we had to be told those are serious charges?
Indeed: "used to emphasize a statement or response confirming something already suggested."

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

MM

Your purported response does not even remotely address the actual exchange or answer my question. Why on earth would you quote my post which was simply a straightforward comment on the seriousness of the charges and a factual update on them, and respond with a cryptic, "Gotta luv a good smear campaign"?

How on earth is it "personal bias" to comment factually on the charges that the fellow is facing? How it is "smearing" to comment factually on the charges the fellow is facing? How it is in any way a case of "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" as you assert here?

As for your left-handed dig at me personally and professionally, I'll remind you that I've invited you to confirm my credentials in the past but you ran away with your tail between your legs, so you might not want to try that one on again.

In short, your response above makes little sense and does not flow logically from the progression of the discussion. Care to try again?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I think he means the charges are the smear campaign.

My shapeshifting lizard NWO Illuminati overlords just send a few gig of kiddie porn to the computers of twoofers it wants to silence......Its an easier charge to prove. (and no your fire wall won't stop us Mu Ha Ha!)

So if this charge is proven, he really was just a pervert.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Who's the messenger and who sent the messenger? Because if no one sent the "messenger"—if he came here on his own—to say what he has said, then he's not really a messenger, is he?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The accused had another hearing yesterday.........

 

[TJM]

Yup, saw that. Case disposition set for October 24th.