For the love of Mike -- can you just imagine the pack of attendees at theMENSA meetings those two hold?

::: ... considering they can be disabled with a plain gum wrapper properly situated between the monitor and the skin, so I've been advised. ... :::

I wouldn't doubt it if he has this knowledge first hand
"so I've been advised" my arse ...

"It figures Joe would know how to disable a monitoring device that will soon be attatched to his old lady's ankle."


Ankle bracelet? Why Paul, you're ever the optimist. I was actually thinking more like Alderson.


-- Edited by Agamemnon at 17:27, 2008-04-25

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Nice try Glen.. but you didn't actually think those pigs across the hall would care did you?? They have no problem with dragging anyone through the mud (except for lady clariol of course) including minor children. I assumed you had noticed that by now.

glenncashuric Posts: 268 Date: Apr 25 3:50 PM, 2008 Views: 155

Quote | Reply Nancy Barrasse is an attorney. Linda Barrasse is the judge's wife and a cardiologist. I'm sure both appreciate being dragged onto this board having had no involvement whatsoever with this ankle bracelet thing. GC

-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 19:47, 2008-04-25

Funny, but I don't recall any similar warnings of impropriety from Glenn after Pilchesky stated that Senator Mellow was having an affair with a local (male) judge or after he accused Mayor Doherty causing a suicide (at Christmas, no less).

That is simply not true.

GC

Ok, everyone else read this post...especially the last line...and tell me what you think. Personally, I'm thinking a major line has been crossed.

Oh, and Glenn...I'll look for your "enhanced" warning in this thread any moment now, as I think they just pi$$ed all over your previous advice.


Psssssst



Posts: 17
Date: Apr 27 5:01 PM, 2008
Views: 16

Hardcore wrote:

---

There have been some wild ideas perpetrated here before, but thisis really stretching it, people.

---

Yeah, I clearly remember some of the wild ideas of past,

* like McDowell never showed up for work and his books were cooked;
* like Cordaro hired friends who were loose and unqualified;
* like the sale of our assets was totally illegal;
* like our taxes had to be raised;
* like Judy wasfor Doherty when she ran for office;
* like Fanucci was a rubber plant; and
the list goes on. Most things uncovered here started out as a thought, a question or a suspicion. You correct me if I'm wrong, but Mike Barrasse was very much in the thick of things on the drug front as a DA, and I don't mean just making arrests, either. Let's say it like it is, Harcore.

-- Edited by Agamemnon at 17:44, 2008-04-27

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Thanks for the legal thoughts Glenn.

What are your thoughts on the posting from a moral/ethical pespective?

-- Edited by Agamemnon at 19:56, 2008-04-27

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

The phrase "First hand knowledge from an anonymous internet poster" is a contradiction in terms.

Call me crazy, but in my book extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You will always see the former at DD, but you will never see the latter.

This is yet another example of DD at it's worst. Congrat's Joe...you never fail to meet the very lowest of expectations.


-- Edited by Agamemnon at 06:35, 2008-04-28

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

Well call me a lunk-headed Kraut, but if someone refuses to identify themself and then posts something on the internet, how would you know the information is first hand in nature? It seems to be that the phrase "first hand" requires a certain level of intimacy in order to be an accurate descriptive.

For example, I could claim to have first hand knowledge that Joe Pilchesky uses Turtle Wax on his head. However, unless you know me as being someone around Pilchesky who could have actually seen Edith applying said Turtle Wax to said cranium, how would you know that this information is credible?

The Bottom Line is this: anyone can claim to have first hand knowledge of something, post it anonymously on the internet and then claim it to be a "fact". Unless that "fact" can be proven, then it's not worth a thimble of warm spit.



-- Edited by Agamemnon at 20:01, 2008-04-28

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

After you take your blinders off, you may be able to see that my statement referred to people who actually have first-hand knowledge, regardless of whether or not anyone can prove it to you personally. I believe people who possess such knowledge can feel comfortable posting such things, since they are most likely of the belief that what they are posting is true, and they can back it up if challenged.

GC

You correct me if I'm wrong, but Mike Barrasse was very much in the thick of things on the drug front as a DA, and I don't mean just making arrests, either.

Where in here was any firsthand knowledge claimed or even implied? It's simply posting a vague rumor. If there were any shred of proof at all, do you honestly think Pilchesky would sit on it? He'd have it posted six ways to Sunday.

There is no proof. There is no fact. There is nothing more to that post than a not very cleverly worded vague insinuation. This Psssst person did nothing more with that post than throw something against a wall to see if it'd stick. Where are you getting any whiff at all of "firsthand knowledge" from that? Did you mean to say something about taking a shot in the dark instead of arguing about firsthand knowledge?

So you can sit there and condescendingly defend it all you want to, it's your perogative. Your credibility isn't being served very well by doing so, however.

-- Edited by Paul at 11:53, 2008-04-29

Glenn Cashuric wrote:

---

Where in here was any firsthand knowledge claimed or even implied?

Did I say there was? You were the one who first used the phrase in this thread.

It's simply posting a vague rumor.

Did I claim otherwise for that specific post? You've actually posted very little about the content of that post.

There is no proof. There is no fact. There is nothing more to that post than a not very cleverly worded vague insinuation.

Did I make any statement to the contrary concerning that post? Then what doessupposed first hand knowledge have to do with anything here, especially when clearly there is absolutely none to back up the ridiculous accusation?

Your credibility isn't being served very well by doing so, however.

Neither is yours by your irrational rant. I appreciate your concern. My income isn't dependant upon my credibility, however. I will be just fine.

GC

---

So, we can agree that the original accusatory post was simply nothing more than a fabrication in an attempt to start a rumor, has no basis in fact at all, and that no one has any sort of first hand knowledge of any alleged drug use by anyone.

Will we be waiting much longer for you to post disapprovingly in that thread in regards to that post?

So then given that no proof of any kind was posted to give the accusation any shred of credence, or that no first hand knowledge was implied or could be inferred, and that it was quite clearly posted simply to publicly discredit Barasse (malice), would you then say that the post is most likely libelous in nature?

And, no, you straddled the fence earlier. I'm asking you and your legal opinion to clearly state whether you feel that the post in question could be considered libel or not. I'm not asking you to pass sentence, just to come off the fence this one time.

-- Edited by Paul at 13:18, 2008-04-29