Final Comments on the UNT Article?

I should hope to shout, at least the UNT paper thought it was time to pull the plug.

Those of you who still follow this blog know you don't have to look far down the page to see the questions that Gregory J. Prickett (former "Peace Officer" and SGT. on the UNT Police force) won't dare answer. Again, if Greg is not "TxBluesMan" of Coram non Judice (blogger and wordpress) infamy, he would leap at the chance to answer the "yes or no" questions. I reposted them on the last page so the closure of the thread associated with the article shows them there. The efforts of the sycophantic dogs to cover them up with repeated nonsense posts thus fails.

It's a small point, and it's not. In the internet universe, people tend to read the last few comments. Those last few comments also tend to govern the resulting shallow opinion the reader takes away from the article. That is, if they read the comments.

This is a reality well known by the curious few multiple faced core posters at FLDS Texas who constantly traipse in and out of articles all over the internet, posting changes at Wikipedia.

They loudly proclaim not to understand the obvious. Equivocating always. Always burying whatever you said in your own voice with their supposed cacophony of voices which are doubtless much less in number than they appear to be.

They're always on the same page, always using the same arguments, always seeming to fail to see the same brutally obvious points, never making any concessions.

Except inadvertently.

K. Brister (who supposedly doesn't have a permanent job or phone but keeps up with insider details on this case) said:

"Whether or not Prickett is TxBluesman, you have slandered Prickett, and you filed a complaint against Prickett making allegations that are false and unfounded. What the hell difference does it make if he is TxBluesman or not?"

Because if he is TxBluesMan it follows directly that the bulk of my "allegations" are found to be true.

"You have falsely accused Prickett of extortion, stalking, stealing evidence, improperly using government equipment, and possessing child pornography. You have accused him of making comments on a website that he did not make. You have accused him of posting pictures that he did not post and naming your daughter which he did not do. You have attributed to him everything that happens on FLDS Texas website, including every comment that you don’t like."

As to extortion, well, that depends on if he posted what I said he posted, we'll get to that. Stalking, same deal.

Stealing evidence? I don't recall accusing him of that. I do think he had extraordinary access to information that someone else had to grant him. I think that's wrong.

Improperly using Government Equipment?

Brister.

That's the title of the article and that is what he was fired for: Blogging from work, which is in a broader sense, "improperly using Government Equipment."

Posting pictures of my daughter? He has a beef then with someone at FLDS Texas who used his "handle" at that site. Additionally the admin of that site said defiantly that they would not come down until the right people made the right requests through the right channels. I suppose Greg/Bluesman could make that request, couldn't he?

Child Pornography? Please talk to Bill Medvecky. I do not recall making such an accusation, though it's possible I may have referred to Bill making such an accusation.

"What you’re not grasping is that all of these things you’ve accused him of were not committed by TxBluesman either — they are false accusations, period. So it doesn’t matter whether Prickett is TxBluesman or not because the accusations are false and now you have tied them to Prickett. If you had kept your conspiratorial nose to yourself and just attacked the anonymous TxBluesman, there would be no cause of action for defamation even though your accusations are untrue. But since you have tied it to a real person, you’re in trouble."

Thanks for the admission that you know he's TxBluesMan. I'm quaking in my boots about the "Real Trouble" I am in.

"Quit demanding that Prickett answer your silly irrelevant questions. You’re not entitled. This is not your forum, this is not about you. His refusal to answer is not an indictment of anything and it is not indicative of any kind of admission and nothing can be inferred from his silence, no matter how you wish that were true. His refusal to engage with you simply shows that he is smarter than you and can control himself better than you."

I'm not sure I demanded, but if you want, I demand he answer them. It's a perfectly good word. You are demanding that I not demand. What "demands" do is make perfectly clear what someone's position or desire is. The demand is not thus granted. It's just very clear what someone wants. You want me to stop demanding, so you demanded that I stop.

Ok.

I hear you. Thanks for being clear.

I don't care if he can control himself or is smarter than I am.

"The answers to your questions don’t matter in any event, but you should have had the answers before you went and published your false accusations as fact and damaged a real person’s livelihood."

So sue me. Oh wait. He did.

His friend Natalie bounced her check on his court fees.

Smart man.

Controlled.

Yup.

How's that working out for him?

How come he knows Natalie?

CAJim posted 4 minutes later and said:

"Whether Prickett is or is not 'TexasBluesMan', 'BluesSonner' or 'PolygynyBuster' means little to me but,of course, I would know that before I brought a formal claim or repeated it on the internet with 'no proof' to back up my claim."

As has been often pointed out, you make accusations based on a preponderance of evidence. Talk to Ronald D. Hunter. Check my "accusations," they are qualified.

"I would think that an honest reporter and unbiased journalist would get his facts straight before he states them on the internet or reports on his own private actions as somehow newsworthy."

I am an honest reporter, but I am a blogger, which means I am a commenter, a satirist and a reporter. I'm my whole publication's staff. I wear all the hats. Trying to say I'm not being an honest reporter when I'm functioning as an opinion columnist or satirist is stupid.

"Did you have Rozita Swinton’s permission before you published her photos and later had to retract them?"

Didn't need to, she published them in the clear. I was unable to navigate Google's byzantine appeal system for getting them put back up and they're still out there, you just have to look around. Rozita is a player in this mess as well. She's a public figure and the rules are different.

"(S)uch high and might tones you struck in your complaint that your step-daughter was trepassed against, yet no apology or job loss when you published private photos from Rozita, who has never been charged with any 'hoax' calls here in Texas. Feeling just a tad hypocritical, Hugh?"

My daughter is not a public figure or player. You wanna try ME bucko and publish pictures of my relatives? I'd dare you to but I don't want you to. Just try it though and see how long you stay anonymous. That's called a "RHETORICAL REMARK."

Rozita not being charged only proves that Texas is corrupt.

You know, it might be fun to look into the "flock posting" habits of the pro Prickett commenters in that thread, as in, how close in terms of time do they post apart from one another? Or themselves as it were.

PS: TxBluesMan is feeling "Froggy" enough to post again.

Sphere: Related Content