Jump to content


Spartacus

Greg Parker

Member Since 28 May 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 01:21 PM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: One Last Thing Before Xmas Eve: 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter

31 January 2016 - 09:32 AM

 

More spin from ROKC's Lizard King. If I am serving up revenge, it is for every last person your website has disparaged and reviled these past 2 years. Permit me to enlarge on that with an anecdote.

 

I introduced myself to Dawn Meredith at the 50th COPA, adding that I was an administrator at the ROKC forum. I had hoped to engage her in small talk about Harvard, since my brother had attended their extension school, like her. But she immediately replied, "Greg Parker's been bad-mouthing me at that forum." And I could see the injury in her eyes, and the strength with which she carried herself. I replied with a white lie, "I wasn't aware of that," and that was the end of our conversation.

 

It was your insult, Greg, your Australian blowhard bullying, that damaged that introduction. Somebody has to call you on your bulls***. It's time to grow up. Will you ever assume personal responsibility for the slop, filth and denigration generated by your website? I've seriously considered filing criminal charges. You've done a lot of damage to research community relations and might want to extend some apologies.

 

This is an unsubstantiated accusation backed only by a patently phony anecdote. Why was my rebuttal removed but this accusation left up?

 

James Gordon responded to why my rebuttal was removed with this: 

 

I would have thought it was clear that threads reflecting personal disputes by members are not allowed on the discussion forum. When detected they will be hidden. The PM function is available for that kind of conversation.


This is not a matter for discussion: this is an administration privilege and interpretation. 
 
Apart from the fact that no one but James knows what an "administration privilege and interpretation" is (although it does sound a bit like "we don't care. Admins can make the rules up as they go along"), the "dispute" was non-existent until Gilbride posted the above false accusations. Based on those  comments by James, Gilbride's post should have been deleted immediately. Instead, we have the situation where the accusation is a-okay with the admins - but the rebuttal - along with the evidence supporting that rebuttal given by a third party brought into this by Gilbride, was deleted or otherwise made disappear.
 
It is not just me who is aggrieved by this. I am certain Dawn must be as well, having her named being used in Gilbride's fantasy attempt to shut me down. 
 
This deliberate act of supporting a falsehood while deleting the facts, amounts to the Ed Forum being a willing partner in this flagrant attempt at character assassination. If Gilbride's post is not deleted, or alternatively, if the rebuttal is not reinstated along Dawns' post in support of that rebuttal, I will have to take further action. That is not a veiled threat of any kind. Fact is, I have no idea what action I will take - but there will be action - that much I promise.  
 
I asked nicely for an explanation in those deleted threads, James. I will be MY "privilege" to keep at this until I get justice. 

In Topic: Ruth Paine

30 January 2016 - 05:29 AM

Slightly out of your order Paul, for better flow

 

1. 5,000 is just a number. It says nothing of the meat of the question, nor does it compensate for lack of cross-examination.  

 

6. "When you swear to do something, you're saying you will do it. This can be interpreted as a religously backed oath or as a sincere promise. [1] Either way, quakers object because they believe they're supposed to tell the truth at all times, and so they "do not swear, but we 'affirm' that we are being honest, as always". 

http://www.jefftk.co...s-and-affirming

 

Paul, I never said she had IMMUNITY from lying. That is your spin. I said as a Quaker she claimed to be incapable of lying. As shown above - that is a fact. That is what she claimed every timed she made an affirmation. 

 

2 & 3. "Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non Quakers warning each other to force a Quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth."

http://www.jefftk.co...s-and-affirming

 

This nails Ruth Paine's testimony re points two and three to perfection.

 

more later when I'm not juggling half a dozen other things.


In Topic: Ruth Paine

30 January 2016 - 03:04 AM

Get real? And that's the best anyone can do for Ruthie? What a flimsy defense.

Not just flimsy, it's pure balderdash - as expected.


In Topic: Ruth Paine

30 January 2016 - 01:13 AM

Greg,

 

Good God what a good post.

 

I mean it.

 

--Tommy   :sun

 

Thank you, Tommy.

In Topic: Ruth Paine

30 January 2016 - 12:20 AM

1. Up until she appeared at the Shaw trial, she had not been subjected to cross-examination and her words were left unopposed thanks to the credulousness of the commission.

 

2. Her memory of the phone call between herself and Michael belies other evidence.

 

3. Her memory of the phone call from the TEC belies other evidence.

 

4. Her story about Oswald giving them the phone number to N Beckley in case Marina went into labor, but then neglecting to tell them they should ask for "Mr Lee" lacks internal logic and is most likely self-serving.

 

5. Her willingness to lie on official government documents is demonstrated via her divorce papers.

 

6. Her insistence that her religion makes her incapable of lying is shown to be self-serving by the above.

 

7. Despite your claims that she was a Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen Par excellence! she displayed a clear lack of empathy or charity when she failed to help Oswald secure legal assistance.

 

8. Despite your claim that the Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen took Marina in due to Marina's desperate need because that is the type of woman Ruth was, you will be unable to come up with a single act of charity in all of the many records concerning her past up until then. She was an evangelical Quaker and as I have already explained to you, evangelical Quakers do not see charity as their business because it was not for God. 

 

9. Your sad tale about Oswald scrounging on her over weekends is belied by her own words - to wit - that it was great to have him around doing all the little chores that needed doing like fixing a door - you know - stuff that the ENGINEER, Mike Paine never got around to doing.

 

10. Her pants are highly combustible.