'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Videos*

Ellis Redding thinks that's a good idea, whatever. But only if it allows him to pull hot chicks everyday -- proveaby hot, demonstrably hot.

 

There's nothing a smiley won't fix!

Oh, wait.

 

See, that's funny. I have no problem laughing at either of these, or jgmac's. No rants here.

This isn't a question of not being able to handle criticism or even some funny potshots. It's fairly well-established I like the rough-and-tumble stuff.

It's the gratuitous, repetitive, "I'm mad you started another thread, wah wah!" stuff that I'm not really inclined to let pass. Jokes about my MySpace? Cool. Clowning my brother for his style? Fine, even encouraged sometimes!

But BS, specious, repetitive attacks on something I worked my ass off (and am still working hard on) to research, verify and elaborate on? Uh-uh. Nope. That I'm not laying down for.

Not for you, 21. Not for anyone. I was raised to defend myself, particularly against an attacker with malicious intent.

You stop, I stop. That's how it goes in the neighborhood I come from. You started it, not I.

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Not saying this with any malicious intent but I have to confess that I read your and your brother's comments and the voices of Hans and Frans in my head. It's so bad that I picture you clapping and pointing at me at the end of every point you make.

Now I don't want to get into anything because you and your brother may stretch me out and make a flabberhammock.

Your posts are here to [clap and point] pump me up!

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Anyway, playtime's over for me. Threadjack as you must, but as 21 said earlier, this subject is too serious for me to get caught up in catfights and such. So I'm going to stop 'defending myself' and get back to working on elucidating my and JDV's research for those who actually care about what conclusions we came to and what we discovered. Some people - one might refer to them as ... hmm ... I don't know, 'professionals' - actually care about journalism, ethics, and the justice system.

That is, after all, why I started this thread.

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

I'm staying out of the pissing match. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

What are you planning to do with the info/revelations that you "worked your ass off" for? You think a YouTube video of your brother in his office chair in a tanktop and sweats, ranting at the camera, is going to suffice as credible, verifiable, elaborate research? A couple of posts on SJ? Threats of intellectual property rights lawsuits?

If this is such a real smoking gun, then let's see something real. For once.

No bullshit. No tangential ranting and raving on a homemade video. No boasting of credibility or proof or experience. Just the information and the proof and the story. Put it all together, write it all up, make it clear, and get the substance of your story out there.

And then we'll be able to judge.

 

Buck-Dub: Fair enough. And well-articulated. That's what I'm
trying to put my energy towards as we speak, not
writing posts to defend myself and my brother. As
usual, solid points by you.

 

Completely hilarious. Don't think we haven't done Hanz and Franz - complete with accents - many a time. Just was busting up when I told him about this.

 

That's exactly the stuff you should let pass first. Some appreciate your work, even if they disagree with the conclusion. Others are willing to read it and decide if it's worthwhile, or just too damn meandering to finish. And some feel the need to rip just by seeing a poster's name (you and your brother aren't the only victims of this here, of course. Just the most colorful).

If someone wants to bring that and make it personal, who the hell cares? I think there are some who have a need to be snarky at you guys for whatever reason (I can imagine spup shaking nervously as she tries to fight the urge to jump into this fray with both feet), but I also didn't think 21 was saying anything against you until after this exchange:

In discusson between two people, this is what is known as "Asking for it" on your part.

Credentials mean nothing when compared to having actual information. Sell the info.

In other words, I agree with the birthday boy, buckweaver.

 

Can I have my answer now, please?

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

All great points, IMO.

No.

The 'asking for it' part was the first part of the quote, 21's part:

"This is not new. Sorry."

I'm not in the business of starting threads which claim that I've found something new when I haven't, so I really didn't appreciate a respected poster coming to my thread - a thread she didn't want me to start, remember - and reaching a verifiably false conclusion and/or a premature conclusion based on what she didn't yet understand from what was presented. As I pointed out, nobody - no one - reported on these dates (12.1.04 and 12.28.04) and their renewed relevance subsequent to Ellerman's plea. Ergo, that aspect is 'new.' Not only is it new, it's incredibly important and makes the decisions MFW and/or LW and/or The Chron made much more damaging than they had been previously understood to be.

Someone coming into a thread and telling me that what I am stating is new isn't new - particularly when said person may, in my mind, have questionable motives given that she didn't want me to start the thread - is what passes for 'asking for it' in my book.

And not only did she say 'This is not new,' she added the patronizing 'Sorry' to cap it off. Unnecessary, gratuitous. In case you missed it, a later poster said all he read was the first post and a subsequent 'dissing the thread' post by 21, and after having read her post, he felt he didn't need to read any more of the thread.

Basic political campaign strategy: If you let your opponent (as 21 cast herself here to me, by declaring that there was "nothing new here. Sorry") frame your image, you have already lost. I understand that, and so I responded to her prevarication. In kind.

Again, she began this. Not I. She herself said another thread existed on the topic and yet she posted on my thread. What did she post before I responded: 1) Why are you starting another thread? and 2) "This is not new", what you're (Rokski) claiming is new. All she needed to add was: "Well, nothing to see here folks, might as well go back to the other thread (which is what I wanted in the first instance)."

That's "asking for it." She could have left when I didn't accept her proposal to join my thread with the other thread, but she didn't. 'Belligerent' is the word that springs to mind.

I "asked for" nothing, and don't appreciate having to take time to refute her "This is not new. Sorry." BS. As I pointed out, her 'conclusion' had an effect on at least one reader, so it had to be answered. She re-escalated by 'supporting' Gingerbread, and I answered again. The key word is 'answered.' As in, 'responded.' She "asked for it," and she got it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You've seen me enough on here to know, Piotr, that I don't just randomly go looking for trouble, particularly not when it involves something as important as the issues being discussed here.

Let me put it more clearly: I know when I'm being 'dissed,' and being 'dissed' in an offhand fashion. I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm very good at sensing a nice, casual back-of-the-hand coming my - and my ideas' - way.

Peace. I'm out for a bit.