It's because he continues to post as if these things are not issues. It's as if one ignores a real, live issue long enough it takes on the appearance of being a non-issue.
Machiavelli/Yummi is even more tenacious than me. He's been spreading the same BS for years. That's why it is important to become clear in one's own mind what they're asking of him - and not to be distracted by the spin Machiavelli wants to put on things.
Witness his whole thing (above) about claiming that it is Vecchiotti who is "cheating", or that it is Vecchiotti who is "the criminal."
This is distraction extraodinaire..... it's as if he repeats it enough, it suddenly becomes true (...)
I shouldn't need to repeat it actually, because the transcripts speak by themselves. They are obvious to any neutral reader, who is not part of the Pro-Knox cult.
The only reason for my repetition, is the more or less biased or specious attempts of rebuttals.
Some people have some more 'honest' arguments (Davefoc, Ampulla of Vater, Grinder) yet they are still within a confirmation bias IMO. The others are just wild rationalizations, sometimes completely detached from facts.
(or at the very least distracts other posters in trying to defend Vecchiotti from what is an absurd contention to begin with. Why even dignify it with a response. It's a diversion, and that's all Machiavelli needs to accomplish.)
You don't think Vecchiotti is the problem?
I do think Vecchiotti is the problem.
You think Vogt is the problem?
I don't think Vogt is the problem.
Believe me I do believe that.
This "method" in fact was the problem from the beginning with the sluttification of Amanda Knox and the selling of the Foxy Knoxy myth.
(...)
That's Machiavelli's methodology. He hides behind innuendo. He's said that it would not surprise him if Rudy Guede had been Amanda Knox's pimp... given that he believes there's a student-culture there of girls trading sex for drugs. This becomes part of Machiavelli's vilification of Knox through innuendo... but the point is...
This is your innuendo. Your job as a posters consists in falsely attributing statements. Twisting the words and the assrtions of others. You make a dietrology about posters (and about any source inconveniet to you: Vogt, Mignini, the Kerchers, Nadeau etc.).
You falsely asserted that Massei found no psychopathology. You falsely asserted that I stated that Mignini was doing a 'damage control' with Spezi; the number of cases of your misreporting of other words is amazing: you are a systematic mystifier abou others's tatements. You put things in the mouth of people. You don't get people to say things: you make up things yourself directly, then you attempt to have people say something that could ring vaguely similar, tha could be twisted to look close enough. Then you attribute your "comment" to the source you want (Massei, Machiavelli, Vogt etc.).
Now you falsely report that I said Guede may be Knox's pimp. It's not the first time that I corrected your misreporting.
I explicitly said that Guede could NOT be Knox's pimp - at best, Guede could have been Knox's client, if Knox was a prostitute.
but I never said Knox had the moral of a prostitute or that she was a prostitute: again, you are falsely reporting my words.
Knox was a party girl, not a prostitute. A prostitute has a different moral, she does things for money not for fun.
And Knox does not have any particular moral qualification: she just had her attitude, and her lifestile, like legitimately any person has.
But having casual sex with Guede would be consistent with her lifestyle, and also with the information we have (in via Garibaldi in Perugia she met a young man she described as 'the most beautiful black man she ever met', and they promised to each other they would meet again as she would return from Germany; how many black man do you think you can meet in via Garibaldi in Perugia? And what was his name?).
.... then other guilter/haters start accepting as fact that Knox and Rudy had a prior relationship, and that Knox was of morals loose enough to have been a prostitute....
I also recall that Knox's phone number was found in the cell phone memory of a drug dealer, who was convicted.
But Machiavelli's methodology continues. He posts for week that Mignini had never advanced a Satanic Rite theory of this crime. Truly, I could care less WHAT Mignini ever advanced - the man is looney-tunes. I actually have no interest in either proving or disproving this - as witnessed by my posts.
Interesting; this means you make a claim, you word such claim as if it was a fact, and you have no interesting in knowing if it's true or not.
And, you accuse others of spreading false truths based on innuendo.
But you lecture about methodology....
(...) I am asking Machiavelli if this now makes Andrea Vogt an "approximate reporter", that's all. It's not any more complex than that. If he can claim to have documentation proving the contention wrong, that Andrea did NOT report this about C&V, then Machiavelli has shown more than enough talent to produce the counter evidence, rather than just say, in effect, "no comment". He's not even saying that it would be impolite to produce counter evidence, he's just refusing to comment. Period.
Sure he dresses it up a bit, but that's what he's saying, really. "No comment". Fair enough. He has that right.
No no, my 'no comment' is not about what Vogt says. It's about
what you claim Vogt says.
Because the key point is that you are a mystifier of other people's words. You twist them and then you attempt to 'use' your twisted crooked version for your purposes.
This is what you do.
You do nothing but this.
Once is the Kerchers, onece Vogt, once Nadeau, once Machiavelli (myself), etc.
So there is a big difference, from start, between what
you say Vogt said, and
what Vogt said.
Then you are even more oblique, since you try to use your 'elicited' and 'interpreted' versions not to argue about some 'topic X' directly, but about 'what some other indierect source said about the topic X'.
This devious propaganda is your activity.
However, the paroxysm is that you are there to say other people are 'distracting', are 'diverting attention', away from the 'topics' you would like to talk about.
You are not interested in verifying whether Mignini alleged a Satanic scenario.
In fact, you are not interested in
any topic.
I am only interested in exchanging analysis with people who intend discuss information about things related to the the case. Actual information, direct information. Bill William's own definition of events, his filtered summary of his view, is not a 'topic' for comment to start with.
)
The man is so very self-aware.