Powered by Max Banner Ads
Blah, blah, blah. Useless as ever.
Or should I say: bloviate, bloviate, bloviate.
Wow — Matt quotes Gustavo! Hey, Matt — what does Gustavo say about your outing sex abuse victims?
(For the record: Matt. Cannot. Answer. Legitimate. Questions.)
Gustavo twists the truth about that incident, you pipsqueak.
“Gustavo twists the truth about that incident, you pipsqueak.”
Call us a “venomous, grandiose and self-imporant gaggle of ankle-biters” and you may get immortalized on our masthead … but call my associate a pipsqueak, and brace for blowback!
What does Gustavo twist? He (and the whole damn county) says that you “outed sex-abuse victims.” Is this true, or not?
Apparently, in your eagerness to defend Monsignor Urell, a protector of pedophile priests whom practically everyone here now finds loathsome, you uploaded, onto your blog, a document that included the identities and contact info of the victims in the suit.
You claimed you did this mistakenly, and quickly took it down. Charitable people like myself grant that maybe that was so. Less charitable people like Gustavo and Nipsey think you did it on purpose. Maybe only God and you know. But long story short, it wouldn’t-a happened if you weren’t so fired up to defend a pedophile-priest protector.
NOW you hide under the definition of the neologism-verb “out” which – I checked the dictionaries – means “to INTENTIONALLY expose.” So you got the dictionary on your side, and Gustavo has occasionally been modifying his charge. Still i think that’s a half-assed definition, and purposefully or not, you outed the identities of sex-abuse victims in your zeal for defending the perpetrators.
It feels, to many of us, to be “all of a piece” with what you’re doing nowadays…
As I’ve already told you and Vern: you can’t crap on people and then expect they’ll answer your questions.
His dopey blog …. what it is is he hasn’t figured out how to include a writer’s name on the story itself… but if you are there on the home page, the author’s name is written.
He never fails to make fun of any of us critics for us not knowing who wrote the story … as though he hadn’t created the space for these pro-Chamber voices to have their devious say.
And as though us not being sure whether it’s Matt or Anonymous Friend of Matt writing somehow throws our own arguments into the crapper.
Kinda lame for the undisputed godfather of the OC Blogosphere.
I have no idea whether this is what you actually think. In fact, I doubt that you have any idea of what it is you actually think. What you present as your thoughts is determined by what you consider useful to you and your clients.
If you say you think that I’m “sloppy” — and your lack of examples for me to slam back over the net hard enough to lodge in your face suggests that you’re just bullshitting as usual — then all we know from that is that you think it’s useful to plant a seed in people’s minds that I’m “sloppy” so as to serve yourself and your clients. That’s all we know because that’s the only “analysis” you had to do before deciding to write it. “Is it true” plays no evident role in your decision over what to write; “is it useful” — largely involving “can I get people to believe it” is all.
The sad thing is that someone with your take on life, as an opportunity to make money off of “marks,” tends to think that this is how other people operate as well. Outside of your circle, it’s generally not. I have my disagreements with people here, but few of them strike me as stating facts and expressing opinions simply for personal gain — such as that they’re getting paid to do it. It’s sad; it leads to soul-sickness. But it’s a choice you apparently made long ago; it’s the skill that you can market to a depressing clientele.
So, you contemptible smudge of a semi-man, you want to talk about sloppiness and abandon, you had better come armed with specifics. I’m sure that I make some mistakes, but most of them are small and what we in the legal trade call “immaterial” — ones to which one can answer “yeah, but so what?”
I don’t have the time to check every last detail because unlike you I am NOT paid to blog; I do it in my spare time (and too often lately in time I shouldn’t spare.) I wish that I had your resources to fund my writing, but people who want justice in the world don’t have the same reason to spend money on writers as do those who hope that their investment in the likes of you will pay off in hundreds of million dollars that rightly belong to the public. No wonder they try to cover up that they pay you, but association with you is just a cost of doing business.
What really bothers you about my writing is that my analysis often pins you and your wealthy patrons to the wall — and that’s what you can’t stand. What you patrons don’t get is that the more they send your contemptible lying ass onto the trail, the more people come out of the peanut gallery to wonder why this guy is on the case and start to fight back. And the beautiful thing is that everything stupid thing that they say, and that you say on their behalf, leaves a record that can ultimately be used to tell the story of the siphoning of public assets for personal gain.
Thank God that you’re so transparent. Thank God that you’re so clumsy. Thank God that you’re so arrogant as to excuse your lack of ability and that your patrons are stupid enough to trust in you. All of this will come in useful someday. (Your patrons won’t be able to say that no one tried to warn them about you.)
So, back to the topic at hand: you identify what you want to complain about and prepare for your answer — or man up and admit that you basically have nothing except a desire to convince people, once again, of something that would be nice for you if it were true, but isn’t.
And people of Anaheim — are you really HAPPY that your tax money is being funneled from the Council majority through the deeply indebted Anaheim Chamber of Commerce to pay for this weasel?
That was fun. Oh, well, back to work. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, folks!