BREAKING: Hughes Arrested for 1981 Alavarez Murders

[American Dream]

Dr. Doogie, I'm not going to get into a big back-and-forth about this, but you originally characterized VM and KD's position as that TG and MR "should be ignored". I suggested that you were to some degree sculpting the truth. You came back to me with something to the effect of, "Are You kidding?- They have a low opinion of Ted and Michael".

I would agree with your revised position to a point- there is prima facie evidence that VM has major criticisms of TG and MR. However, that is not the same as saying she has a "low opinion" of both. As she has since clarified, she respects MR's intelligence and thinks that he is "brilliant, compassionate, fascinating, street smart", though she clearly does see TG as a very destructive figure.

As to KD, sounds like you're assuming that because these articles are on NMN and/or because she works with VM, then she must have the same thoughts. I don't know either way, and would not presume without knowing something more concrete.

I should emphasize that none of the above is the same as thinking- as you characterized it- that TG and MR "should be ignored". I, for one, do not think a poisonous snake should be ignored, but neither does that mean I support what it does. By the same token, I may not have admire everything about our various political leaders, but I do not think they "should be ignored" either.

So I'd stand by my position that you do sometimes take liberties with the truth and put words in other peoples mouths. That is why I asked for citations.

I'm not interested in getting into a big pissing contest about all this, but this is how I see things.

[barracuda]

c2w, you are mistaken if you think that my comments about Hamlin were meant for you in any way- they weren't, nor were they intended to be germane to your comments just previous.

The honest truth is, I'm not interested in engaging with you here, which is my perogative. So I'd ask that you don't look for responses from me.

That's really all I have to say.

You're an inspiration to us all.

[desertfae]

So address VM's credibility issues in a way that explains why you're not bothered by her history of writing highly selective and sometimes inaccurate accounts of various and sundry trials that, practically without exception, aggressively defend and protect the interests she purports to oppose.

Excerpts:
"The woman, Kate Dixon, is a journalist for the Website newsmakingnews.com and has frequently appeared in court in support of Thompson, who she says is being prosecuted for a crime he did not commit."

"But prosecutor Kelliher argued that the court should bar the name from being printed until it researches the role Dixon and her colleague Virginia McCullough are playing in the case.
"We need to clarify who these women are," Kelliher said. "On one hand they claim to be journalists, but on the other they appear to be working for the defense."

"Dixon addressed the court, which immediately sparked a heated exchange.
"Your honor, does this mean I cannot visit Mr. Thompson before the hearing Monday?" she said"

[American Dream]

Hmm- I just see a newspaper article- minus a clear argument for what it's supposed to mean...

[barracuda]

And your point is????

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Dr_Doogie]

AD, you challenged my statements and I asked Virginia (through your contact with her) to clarify her position which she was kind enough to do. Based on this clarification, I have revised my statements. If that demonstartes that I have a truth problem, so be it. This series of events, I believe in the eyes of a neutral observor, would show that I strive to be truthful in my posts and will revise my statements when evidence that I have erred occurs. I do not think that my original statement was that far off, but it WAS not precise.

No pissing, just debating.

[desertfae]

Hmm- I just see a newspaper article- minus a clear argument for what it's supposed to mean...

Wow, do you need the big, bright colors again?
Ok, let me help you out here AD.

First, take a look at what was quoted "VM's credibility issues" & "aggressively defend and protect the interests she purports to oppose" as well as the entire sentence that C2W stated: "So address VM's credibility issues in a way that explains why you're not bothered by her history of writing highly selective and sometimes inaccurate accounts of various and sundry trials that, practically without exception, aggressively defend and protect the interests she purports to oppose. " Although, the original sentence was either do this or drop it.

Then take a look at what I've posted, it shows clearly what C2W was referring to.

Do you understand now, or shall I break out the big, bright colors for you?

[American Dream]

Yeah- I read all that before but I don't think it "proves" what you are suggesting it does.

Also, why don't you want to express an opinion on Gunderson and Riconosciuto?

[American Dream]

Dr._Doogie wrote:

If that demonstartes that I have a truth problem, so be it. This series of events, I believe in the eyes of a neutral observor, would show that I strive to be truthful in my posts and will revise my statements when evidence that I have erred occurs. I do not think that my original statement was that far off, but it WAS not precise.

I don't mean to suggest that you have a "truth problem" in the sense of deliberately lying- I saw no evidence of that.

I did think you were spinning the truth to the point of putting words in peoples' mouths that didn't belong there. And that then leads to the problem of wrestling with a straw man.

I want to be clear though, that I haven't seen evidence to convince me that you are operating in bad faith- just that I objected to the terms that you were imposing.

But, yes- not pissing, just debating, and I do appreciate that.

[Dr_Doogie]

Also, why don't you want to express an opinion on Gunderson and Riconosciuto?

Because when someone does, it still never satisfies you?

[American Dream]

Did I miss it?

If so, what opinion did Rachel express?

[barracuda]

Try reading through the Casolaro thread starting here. And then try - try - not to play dumb.

[American Dream]

I just read the beginning but that was enough to remind me. I still have the same questions as I did before:


What exactly is Rachel saying about VM and KD?

And in what way, if any, does this article support those assertions?


I sometimes have the impression that Rachel is suggesting they are evil, nefarious, as in conscious agents of the most malevolent sort of bad guys.

If so, those are very serious charges, and they should be clarified for sure.

If it's something else that she's saying about their "badness", I'd like to know exactly what.

Honestly, I still don't understand what she's saying happened between them before, and what evidence there is about it...

[barracuda]

I sometimes have the impression that Rachel is suggesting they are evil, nefarious, as in conscious agents of the most malevolent sort of bad guys.

Citations, please. It seems pretty clear that they are not exactly on Rachel's side wrt her case, wouldn't you say?

[JM]

I just read the beginning but that was enough to remind me. I still have the same questions as I did before:


What exactly is Rachel saying about VM and KD?

And in what way, if any, does this article support those assertions?


I sometimes have the impression that Rachel is suggesting they are evil, nefarious, as in conscious agents of the most malevolent sort of bad guys.

If so, those are very serious charges, and they should be clarified for sure.

If it's something else that she's saying about their "badness", I'd like to know exactly what.

Honestly, I still don't understand what she's saying happened between them before, and what evidence there is about it...

...and why does she disappear when you ask what she thinks about MR and tlg?
Maybe she is confused about them. I can certainly understand that!