Sunday, February 27, 2011

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

44 comments:

Betty said...

Those pictures were posted by the admin login of FLDS Texas website. So when you say that TBM posted them, you are just talking out of your ass.

The Pharisee said...

The fact is, we both could be saying the same think, up until you say I'm talking "out of my ass."

Betty, it's time to decide if you are an honest player. Perhaps one that disagrees with me, and I with you, but are you essentially just a whore or are you honest?

I downloaded the site when the first picture was posted. It was posted by "TxBluesMan."

Subsequent pictures may very well have been posted by the Admin but the first one was posted by "TxBluesMan," or so the original entry on the site said. It was the picture of my daughter with the lower half of her face and her hair covered.

So, does the Admin of FLDS Texas share posting identities with TxBluesMan from time to time, or use his handle from time to time? It doesn't matter to me, I've alleged that.

But BETTY. I'm NOT LYING. I can, (and several other people can) produce separate downloads that show the poster was labeled as "TxBluesMan."

So Betty, are you a whore talking out of your ass, or do you love the truth?

I don't know at this point, you next post in this thread on this topic may well label you, so be careful.

April Day said...

The person who posted the photo of the Pharisee's daughter on the Texas FLDS website and made derogatory comments about her behaved in an extremely childish and immature manner.

The Pharisee's daughter had absolutely nothing to do with the disagreement between TBM and the Pharisee. She was an innocent bystander. It is one thing to call an opponent a name, but dragging an opponent's child into an argument is hitting below the belt. A mature, responsible person would have recognized this and kept the Pharisee's daughter completely out of the discussion.

The person who posted the photo of the Pharisee's daughter and made derogatory comments about her should own up to it and apologize for his/her bad behavior. Part of being a mature, responsible adult is admitting when you have done something wrong and making amends to anyone you may have harmed.

Betty said...

I will say quite honestly that I did research on this a few days ago and the only pictures I could find were posted by FLDS Texas. If you give me a date, I can go check for this other picture. Please note also if what you saw was a comment (as can be posted by anyone) or an actual topic post, which is not open to anyone. You are VASTLY overestimating the contribution of TBM to that website and that's the truth. You really don't know anything about it and you are speaking far and wide as if you do.

April Day said...

Betty:

Will you please explain why photo(s) of the Pharisee's daughter were posted at the Texas FLDS website.

To my knowledge, the Pharisee's daughter was not a member of the FLDS. Nor is she a resident of Texas. I don't believe that she played a part in the raid of the YFZ Ranch at all.

So why would anyone want to post her photo(s) at the Texas FLDS website? Was this done to provoke the Pharisee? Why? Who would do such a thing?

That type of behavior is so childish and immature -- I'll understand if you are too embarrassed to answer.

The Pharisee said...

Betty, I copied the page and saved it to my computer. It was a POST, not a COMMENT on a post. The post's author was listed as "TxBluesMan." Clearly TBM had at least "moderator" status at the time or the ADMIN simply pretended to be TBM. Either works for me.

My DAUGHTER is & was off limits. Comparing posted pictures of her to posted pictures of Greg or Ron or Rozita is dishonest thuggery. My daughter was never a player in any arena qualifying her as a "public figure." It was an attempt to punish, threaten and extort. It was beneath low. It was beyond cowardly. I have NEVER done ANYTHING like that. There is no comperable act on my part.

April Day said...

Betty:

I do not know who the administrator of the Texas FLDS website was when the photo(s) of the Pharisee's daughter were posted.

If the administrator was a responsible, mature adult, he/she would have removed her photo(s) (and any posts or comments about her) immediately. The Pharisee's daughter has absolutely nothing to do with the FLDS. She should have been considered off topic.

Many people would consider posting photos of another person's child (and then making comments about the child) to be a personal attack. That's another reason why the administrator should have removed those photo(s), posts and comments at once.

Doesn't the Texas FLDS website have rules prohibiting personal attacks? It should.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

I do not know if TexasBluesMan is Greg Prickett or not. But if I were you, I wouldn't worry about this lawsuit.

The way I see it, if Mr. Prickett is not TexasBluesMan, he should not be mad at you. He should be mad at the person who posted your daughter's photo(s) at the Texas FLDS website.

I feel that the person who posted your daughter's photo(s) did so to provoke a reaction from you. You responded because you wanted to protect your child. A reasonable person would understand a parent's desire to protect his child.

Secondly, if Greg Prickett is not TexasBluesMan, he should be mad at the Texas FLDS administrator for not taking your daughter's photo(s) down. The administrator should have realized that your daughter's photo(s) was posted to provoke a fight and keeping her photo(s) up could cause problems. The administrator's failure to take down your daughter's photo(s) may have made their website partly responsible for any damages incurred.

Thirdly, if Greg Prickett is not TexasBluesMan, why is he using Ms. Malonis as his attorney? Ms. Malonis has been involved in the FLDS mess from the get go. If he truly wants his job back, Mr. Prickett should stay far as possible from anyone connected to the mess. (No, it doesn't matter which side they are on.) That way, Mr. Prickett could honestly tell UNT, "I do not have anything to do with it."

A neutral attorney (who is not connected to the FLDS mess) might have told Mr. Prickett to include TexasBluesMan and the administrator/owner(s) of Texas FLDS website as defendants. After all, they contributed to his problems with UNT too.

Of course, if it turns out that Greg Prickett truly is TexasBluesMan, that would explain why he didn't sue himself.

The Pharisee said...

Betty:

Here is the relevant text of the post in which someone purporting to be "TxBluesMan" posted a picture of my daughter, in which she was clowning around with her face covered for a picture a female friend then took of her.

TxBluesMan both appears to author the post, and comment on it.

"Who dat?

Share this:
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Making Home
Easy mistake to make.
~ by txbluesman on September 21, 2010.


http://texasflds.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/who-dat/


Posted in The Evidence
28 Responses to “Who Dat?”

No clue, who be it?
ProudTexan said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Is she a polygamist ?
Anonymous said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Hmmm. Hugh had a post called “Whodat?” the other day …
FLDS TEXAS said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Let me guess… Moslem polygamist in hijab ?
Anonymous said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Babcock…
Bob Dillon said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Hugh’s wife who is disguising herself so no one will know she’s married to a pervert who wants to get it on with 7 year old girls.
ProudTexan said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM
Cascade (dish washing of course)
Bob Dillon said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Babcock is close, but no cigar, sorry…
txbluesman said this on September 21, 2010 at 8:23 PM"

I assure you, any cached record of FLDS Texas will reflect precisely this wording and authorship. I defy any on your side to own up and produce it. As you can see, by following the url, you can't find the post anymore because the vile lying yellow cowards, TOOK IT DOWN.

When you go to that URL it now says this:

"Problem?

Looks like you have a problem here sir/madam. You sure you have the right place? Maybe you got a little lost? Maybe you're looking for something you're not supposed to find? Either way, just go search for it, it can't hurt."

You know and I know that the post existed. You claim I am "talking out of my ass" with regard to authorship. I copied the text word for word plus the rest of the web page as well. You're allied with lying cowards and vile extortionists. Perhaps we cannot agree on the topics we often discuss, but you ought to find yourself a different flock to fly with. This one is wretched, unethical and probably criminal.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

I agree that what TexasBluesMan said about your daughter was inapproproiate.

But I also think that the Texas FLDS adminstrator did the right thing by taking his post down. His post had absolutely nothing to do with the FLDS and should have been considered off topic. It's also a personal attack on your daughter. That's another good reason for the administrator to take it down.

Printing a copy of his post (and the comments related to it) was good thinking on your part. Especially the comments which sound like crude accusations.

Just out of curiosity, how did TexasBluesMan get a photo of your daughter?

The Pharisee said...

They have complied a dossier on each of my family members they can locate. Some are larger than others of course. They wish (or wished to) speak to both my wife, and ex wife.

My daughter's pictures came from her "MySpace" page, which she visits infrequently these days. They are from College.

Nothing that any of them use as a justification for publishing them has a moral underpinning. The only possible reason to publish them is to warn/threaten/punish me with regard to what they know about my family.

The problem is, my daughter is not involved. It's not as if she was a "Kardashian," or a "Sheen." To understand this you have to understand what privacy is and how it relates to "public figures." Essentially my daughter is not a public figure nor is she in any way involved in the FLDS/YFZ controversy or the blogging surrounding the subject. She is just my daughter (albeit my step daughter). Her non genetic relationship to me is of no consequence either. If it were, it would mean that there was fractionally less justification (if there ever was any) for publishing any of her pictures, or her name.

It is contended on the other side that if members of my mousy/cowed/cowering/subjugated family (even my ex) were to "sit down and have a 'cuppa coffee' with my detractors, that they could be shown a side of me they don't know about or could be persuaded to turn on me or that they need to "get away" from me. For this reason a few people on "that side" have been trying to identify my family members so that they might be able to have this "revealing" and "sympathetic" and "necessary" conversation with them.

Oddly this is the belief they had about the FLDS and YFZ, that if they could just get in there and talk sense to these people, that they would turn.

But they have not.

My wife knows plenty about me, as do my children. No one would be "informing" them of my various "misdeeds" or "unknown" past or present.

Nothing justifies whatsoever the involvement of my daughter. I call her daughter because pretty much I am the only father she has ever known. I treat her as my very own daughter. Betty knows I speak the truth, let her answer for her friends, or hold them to accounts.

April Day said...

He took it from her My Space account. That doesn't surprise me. The people who frequent that website are known for being busybodies who like to snoop, gossip and stick thier noses where their noses don't belong.

While I think the administrator did the right thing by taking his post down, it is unfortunate that the administrator allowed him to put it up in the first place. She would have appeared more professional if she had refused to allow him to play his games.

The Pharisee said...

I think the Admin took it down so that no one could see what TxBluesMan had done. There are still pictures of my daughter at that site. I've linked to them from my site to theirs, so if the pictures DO disappear from my site, it's because they did take them down. They have only taken down the incriminating post by TxBluesMan to my knowledge, causing the Betties of this world to claim they were never there in the first place. Well, they were. If this ever goes to court, I can prove it.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

Your comment about those folks having a "dossier" on your family members troubles me. Have you notified the local police? I'm concerned about your family's safety and well-being.

I am aware that the people who frequent that site consider their group to be a "service group." I disagree. Service clubs do not keep "dossiers" on their opponents' family members.

Apparently, that group considers you to be a threat. Why?

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Betty, I would love to hear your justification for why it was okay for the FLDS Texas website to post any pictures at all of Hugh's family members. The only reason I can see is that the FLDS TEXAs website admin and those who frequent their site are not nice people and are unethical and sleazy in their arguments. Also, they make connections where no legitimate connections exist.

And, if nothing Hugh said about Greg P was true, why did Greg get fired? I suppose in the course of their investigations found some other fireable offenses completely unrelated to Hugh's complaints. In which case, they could just as easily have said, "McBride's charges were hot air, but in the course of our investigation we uncovered Prickette engaging in other behavior incompatible with working at our University." It's possible, but not highly probable.

You do realize that no matter what you or anybody else might have to say about Hugh, that doesn't change the fact that it was unethical and sleazy to post pictures of his stepdaughter, who has nothing to do with any of this, right? You also realize that nothing you or others can say about Hugh change the fact that his university found Gregg P guilty of bad behavior that involved blogging on the job?

Essentially, the arguments against him at the UNT article amounted to "yeah, but you're another." And what's interesting about that is, of course, that in the most important sense, Hugh isn't 'another.' He's not paid by taxpayers. He's not using his employer's equipment to defame others, including the children of people he dislikes. He's not using Natalie Malonis as his lawyer while claiming to have no connection to the government's FLDS fiasco (c'mon, that does not pass the smell test).

If he were everything the FLDS TX website people claim he is, that wouldn't make Greg P any less guilty, nor would it dilute the probable connection between Greg P and Texas Bluesman.x

April Day said...

Headmistress:

Betty isn't brave enough to come back. She must be too embarrassed to answer our questions.

The Pharisee said...

Let's give Betty the benefit of the doubt for now. I heard she was experiencing vision problems. She could also be busy. She could also be asking friends some tough questions. You usually give friends more of a chance to answer difficult questions than others.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

You are being polite and courteous (as usual) when you say we should give Betty more time.

But I still don't think she is coming back. She's already made up her mind that you are "just talking out of your ass."

The Pharisee said...

More likely? Betty just can't deal with it. We'll see.

April Day said...

She is not coming back. She cannot comprehend that it was wrong for ANYONE (Texasbluesman, the website administrator, etc.) to post photo(s) of your daughter on the Texas FLDS website. It's above her head.

April Day said...

The reason why she can't comprehend it is because she is too biased against you. She is so biased against you that she cannot or will not admit that it was actually your daughter (not Mr. Prickett) who was the injured party.

The Pharisee said...

She's way too busy with other things than to answer:

http://texasflds.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/general-discussion-49/#comment-39451

The Pharisee said...

At some point the Jury has to come in Betty. I think that you're the one talking out of the wrong end here. I was hoping to find someone on your side of the issue with an attitude of fundamental honesty.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

I truly doubt you will find anyone with "an attitude of fundamental honesty" in that group. The people who frequent that site are extremely biased and hostile to anyone who disagrees with them.

I don't think Betty is "too busy" to answer our questions. She just prefers to gossip with her friends.

She said she quit her job after 25 years in retail. Volunteer work didn't work out for her either. That group and it's site fill an empty void in her life. Now that you know that about her, it's easy to understand why she won't show an attitude of fundamental honesty to you.

The Pharisee said...

I agree I have met no one at all on that side of the issue that I regard has having any sort of fundamental bedrock attitude of honesty.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

If I had known that you were looking for someone with an attitude of fundamental honesty, I would have told you that Betty is not that person.

The Betty I know likes to defend Elissa Wall. Not that there is anything wrong with defending Elissa. I'm sure she has many good qualities.

However, I felt Betty glorified Elissa and became too defensive whenever someone criticized her. Betty was unwilling to admit there was any wrongdoing on Elissa's part.

I feel that a person with an attitude of fundamental honesty would have been more objective. Fundamental honesty would require admitting that Elissa is not perfect and has made some serious mistakes. (Who among us has not made mistakes?)

The Pharisee said...

Actually, the only person that has given me a glimmer of fundamental honesty has been Rebeckah. Ron in Houston (Ronald Hunter) has faked it to induce me to be more forthcoming, but only Rebeckah has given me that slight indication that she may be an honest player.

All have been vile.

In the FLDS Texas pantheon of players, you really don't know who is who anyway. I strongly suspect that Betty is real since I have found her Facebook page. I know that Greg Prickett comprises at least PART of the TxBluesMan persona, and I know Ron is real. Beyond that I couldn't tell you much other than Rozita Swinton has probably posted at one of their blogs, but she has more heads than a hydra as well.

Keeping up with them all is a fools errand and the fewer souls there really are to deal with, the less there is a chance of finding someone with fundamental honesty. Particularly if those people use sock puppetry when posting.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

Personally, I dislike Rebeckah, and I won't lie about it.

But you have said nice things about Rebeckah before. You said she was one of the few who objected when your daughter's photo was posted on their site.

I would not attribute Rebeckah's objection to fundamental honesty. I would attribute her objection to feminism.

The other women who belong to that group might think they are feminists, but they are not. A true feminist would object to the posting a young woman's photos on a web site so that a group could make lewd comments about her -- especially when the young woman has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed. That type of behavior is incredibly sexist.

The women who did not object to the posting of your daughter's photos are the type who go along with the crowd. What is right and what is wrong is less important to them than being liked by their peers. Like the teenage girls in the movie, "Mean Girls," they are cold, hard and plastic. I could be more descriptive and toss in a few more adjectives, but I'll leave it to your imagination.

The Pharisee said...

It's not exactly a defense.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

Do you see the inconsistency in Betty and the other women?

Betty defends Elissa Wall because she likes Elissa Wall. Betty dislikes you, so she will not defend your daughter (or even admit that what was done to your daughter was wrong.)

This is why I don't consider her a true feminist.

I dislike Rebeckah. I think she is a Mormon-hating bigot. But of the two, Rebeckah is more solid in her feminist beliefs.

April Day said...

Although his views about the FLDS are different from mine, I like Ron in Houston. He's intelligent, witty and charming. For a Texan, he's an all right guy.

April Day said...

I don't give a flying fig about TexasBluesMan.

The Pharisee said...

I'm stuck with him since Greg Prickett, TBM's real life persona, is suing me.

April Day said...

The lawsuit is part of the sad outcome of the raid of the Yearning for Zion Ranch.

I am one of the many people who began following the Warren Jeffs saga shortly after the raid. At the time, most of the people following the saga did so because they cared about the FLDS children.

I believed that it would be best for the FLDS children to be returned to their mothers. (I said mothers, not fathers.) At that time, I did not know about the underage marriages. But even if I had known, I would still feel the same way. I was against putting the FLDS children in foster care. I would not want my own children to be in a foster home. So how could I wish that upon another child?

Almost immediately after the raid, the people following the saga divided into two "sides." The arguments and discord between these "sides" stemmed from the fact that we all cared about the FLDS children, but had different opinions about what was best for them.

It's easy to point fingers and blame the other "side." The truth is that both "sides" were guilty of namecalling and nastiness. Bear in mind that people tend to be more rude and hostile online than they are in person, especially when they can hide behind anonymity and sock puppets.

It is truly sad that all the people who cared about the FLDS children could not put their differences aside and allow their love for the children to unite them.

It is unfortunate that the leaders of both "sides" perceived each other as enemies. Rather than insulting each other, the leaders should have said something like, "My opinion is different from yours. But I do appreciate the fact that you care about the FLDS children."

The Pharisee said...

It's hard to find common ground with people who attacked your daughter to get to you. It's only slightly less difficult to find common ground with those among them that did not attack your daughter, but were not at the same time sufficiently outraged by the act, to distance themselves from those that did.

I suppose I could have gotten over vile attacks against me personally, such as those that called me a pedophile. I can wrap my mind around the idea of friendship in a philosophical way, but then there is the issue that these are the people who went after my daughter, and the people who still excuse it as the moral equivalent of me looking for people who may have been responsible for slanders that cost me personally in very dear ways.

I have a right to know the names of those who refer to me as a pedophile. Indeed because I provide support for my family, it could be said I have the obligation. They do not have the right to attack my family in retaliation for discovering who they are.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

I have never believed that you were a pedophile. Never.

The antipolygamy crowd accuses anyone who disagrees with them of being a pedophile. Or of supporting pedophilia. That is a despicable thing to say about anyone. I will never support the antipolygamy crowd because I don't approve of their tactics.

Accusing a person of being a pedophile without having hard evidence to prove it is slander and/or libel.

I don't know if Prickett is TBM or not. But if he is any part of TBM's persona, you have more grounds to sue him than he has to sue you. I think you would win in court too.

Betty said...

Well, I see you are having a big conversation about me, don't know that I'm flattered. How many times or ways do I have to say that I do NOT approve of posting your daughter's photograph? And that I said that at the time, posted it on the website with the pictures and sent a comment to the admin privately.

Nor do I approve of you posting pictures of Ron in Houston, the policeman who was investigating TBM's case or any of the other personal invasions that you commonly practice with your various excuses for why you do them. They are just as wrong. You are doing those things just to hurt others, no other reason.

You have also taken the focus away from my original point. You are guessing who is involved with that site, and as usual, you are guessing incorrectly.

April Day said...

There you go, Pharisee. Betty (finally) admits that posting your daughter's photo at the Texas FLDS site was wrong. (I don't see how anyone with a brain larger than a pea could deny that what was done to your daughter was morally wrong.)

I did not think Betty would come back (or admit there has been some wrongdoing by the antipolygamy group.) So I will have to give some credit to Betty.

I have no information regarding any of the allegations Betty made about you in her last post.

April Day said...

Betty:

Posting photos of the Pharisee's daughter was not the only time the Texas FLDS site has allowed attacks on family members of those who disagree with them. We note that the person(s) making these attacks especially likes to attack women.

On December 6, 2010 at 7:02 am, someone anonymously posted a link to a Debra Farver's Facebook page and a list of her friends on the Texas FLDS website.

On December 6, 2010 at 2:20 p.m., someone anonymously posted the following message on the Texas FLDS website:

"Yes, and Duane is featured as one of her friends. notice his lovely Mexican bride."

This racist comment is offensive because it described Duane's wife as a "Mexican." Racist comments like this divide people into categories and subgroups instead of recognizing that all of us our human beings. We know that the people who frequent the Texas FLDS site hate Mormons and Mormon Fundamentalists. Does the antipolygamy group also have a problem with Caucasians marrying Hispanics?

Did you ever object to the posting of this racist message? Did you ever ask that it be taken down? Why not? Are you racist?

Furthermore, this comment was clearly off topic. Duane is not a member of the FLDS. The ethnic origin of Duane's wife has absolutely nothing to do with the FLDS. So why hasn't the Texas FLDS site administrator deleted this comment?

April Day said...

Betty:

On December 6, 2010 at 7:02 a.m.,
Anonymous posted the following comment at the Texas FLDS website.

"...Strange isn't it that someone who calls herself a 'nurse' doesn't find Bill's behavior unethical. But then again we all know Deb Lee (aka Debra Farver) is not a real R.N. she is an LPN (bedpan changer and sponge bather."

As usual, Anonymous attacks a woman. (By now, you should recognize his behavior as sexist. I'm surprised that you are not offended by his male chauvaunism.)

This comment is funny because it shows how ignorant Anonymous is about the medical field. This lady is entitled to call herself a "nurse" because "LPN" is an abbreviation for "licensed practical nurse.)"

LPNS do not change bedpans or give sponge baths. Nursing assistants do. LPNs pass medications.

Anonymous 'comment is completely off topic. It has nothing to do with the FLDS. So why hasn't the Texas FLDS administrator taken it down? Because the folks at that site think it is perfectly acceptable to attack anyone who disagrees with them.

April Day said...

Betty:

It's been awhile, but I remember reading what I consider to be a derogatory comment about Bill Medvecky that TBM posted on Bill's old blog.

As I recall, TBM concluded by asking if two people (whom I suspect were members of Bill's family) had criminal records.

Later, I read the same post (verbatim) on the Texas FLDS site.

This particular post was offensive to me because I felt that TBM was attacking bystanders. I do not believe that either of those people had anything to do with the FLDS. I don't believe those two people ever posted anything about the FLDS. I saw no reason for TBM to mention them at all.

There has been a pattern to the attacks on the Texas FLDS site. Some individuals who frequent that site like to attack the family members of those who disagree with them. They especially seem to enjoy attacking women.

You say that you thought it was wrong when the photos of the Pharisee's daughter were posted there. If that is true, please think what I have said tonight and do something about it.

April Day said...

Pharisee:

I don't think Betty will come back a third time. To be honest, I don't care if she does or not.

Based upon what you've said here and Anonymous' post, I suspect that the folks at that site have made "dossiers" listing the family members of anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. I consider that to be a form of stalking, especially since they seem to prefer to target females.

Identifying Anonymous should be rather easy. He appears to unfamiliar with grammar rules r/t capitalization. Do you know anyone who does not capitalize his first letter in a sentence?

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Nor do I approve of you posting pictures of Ron in Houston, the policeman who was investigating TBM's case or any of the other personal invasions that you commonly practice with your various excuses for why you do them. They are just as wrong.

No, Betty, it's not remotely 'just as wrong.' This is false equivilance. Posting pictures of Ron in Houston's wife or children would be just as wrong. Posting pictures of the policeman's children or other family members would be just as wrong. But Pharisee did not do that. Only the FLDS hate site did that.

The Pharisee said...

What Betty has never denied, after I pointed out that I have a copy of the original post stored on my computer (others have stored it as well), is the fact that the "poster" according to the FLDS Texas website was txbluesman. That's the AUTHOR, not the commenter on the post.

This raises the question of who posts what and who txbluesman is in the sense that there may be more than one person behind the online persona.

Betty has tacitly admitted that this is in fact the case, or that she is wrong and TxBluesMan (who is only comprised of Greg Prickett) posted as author on the FLDS Texas website and went after my family.

Thanks to Headmistress and April who correctly point out that no matter what, there is no moral equivalence between posting publicly available pictures of major combatants in this controversy who attack known parties personally from behind a blind.

Once again, you whine, you complain you shriek and try to match my behavior with that of your friends Betty, but it is only a FICTION in the minds of you and your friends at FLDS Texas that you can go INTO the public arena, tangle with people there, publish the intimate details of their life, and because you are initially anonymous and wish to stay that way, that you have a RIGHT to stay anonymous.

You simply don't know US Law. Period. The answer is unequivocally NO YOU DO NOT.

What you and your friends have is the right to TRY to stay anonymous. You have the right to use the legal structures of this country to prevent me from using ILLEGAL means to find you and you have the right to pursue me with those laws if I do use illegal means to find you.

I have never done so.

Thus if you go out and pick fights on the internet, you'd better be very very careful if you wish to stay anonymous, which is certainly your right to ATTEMPT. Once however, you have gone out there, and if there are means to find you, you are found, you're blown. That's all there is to it. Anything that is out there and publicly available is fair game.

I can publish then pictures of Ronald D. Hunter, member of the Texas Bar, of Houston who is Ron in Houston. Ron can puff all he wants and play his lawyer card but no matter what Ron may lie to you about to justify the supposed notion that I have illegally savaged him, he is just lying to you. He's wrong. No amount of legal expertise can fill the void in law. He's fair game. Lawyer or not.

My daughter is NOT fair game. You don't write about her, publish pictures of her and say "you did the same thing" because I didn't do the same thing. I have not named Mrs. Prickett. I have not named Mrs. Hunter. I have only noted that there is a Mrs. Hunter (I think) for the record. There are many uncomfortable things I know about the various former marriages of both men, and I'm not saying those things for the simple reason that they involve people who don't have a dog in this fight.

Of course when I say things like that, Betty hollers for years that I'm stalking. I know this because I said to Betty once, in a way that made it utterly clear that I knew who she was, that I knew who she was. For the better part of two years I've been listening to her complain that I was stalking her. I didn't tell her that I knew who she was because I was going to TELL anyone else. I just knew. She said I didn't, I said "Oh yes I do" and she screamed that I was stalking her continuously since then.

I've also remarked that this whole business has been liking bumping the boob of a self important high school cheerleader accidentally, and then having to listen to her for the rest of your time in school, call you a groper.

These FLDS Texas people are without integrity, all of them.