Michael Rivero’s Subterfuge

1-5-02 | Republican_Strategist

[Great Dane]

#32.....Excuse me, but Mike has as much right to air his opinions as you and I, simple solution ........ don't read his writings.

[Mark17]

What name is Michael Rivero posting under these days?

[Nita Nupress]

What name is Michael Rivero posting under these days?

I think he alternates between Senator Pardek and Dog Gone, but don't tell anybody.

[Mark17]

I think he alternates between Senator Pardek and Dog Gone, but don't tell anybody.

LOL, I believe it, I believe it.

[GOPJ]

With rare exception the Sunday Morning adult tables are run by liberals. Why the stamp of approval given by Sunday Morning liberal TV is not of great importance to me is a mystery. Ideas?

[Razz]

Your points are all valid, Nita.

However, if Rivero IS posting under a different name, I haven't seem it. His style is unique enough that it should be apparrant if he was posting with any frequency.

And, while I don't agree with many of Jim's views (particularly the ambiguity over what is NOT allowed to be posted), I do respect him enough to say "Hey, maybe you didn't notice, but the presence of this thread on FR reflects badly on you."

That said, he still chose to leave it here. That's his choice, and he has his reasons which he isn't sharing. Maybe it being a discourse on the "censorship" at FR without all the J_R ass-kissing is enough reason ... or ... \shrug/ ... whatever. Now, if people like me would quit posting to it, the thread would probably just die. :-)

[Nita Nupress]

However, if Rivero IS posting under a different name, I haven't seem it. His style is unique enough that it should be apparrant if he was posting with any frequency.

Not necessarily. As of a a few minutes/hours ago, there are 76,170 registered screen names at FR. Even if you sat here 24 hours around the clock, how easy would it be to follow that many screen names? Of course, if you wanted to get technical, there are probably only a couple of hundred people per day to keep up with, but still... My point is that it's easier than you think for a person of adequate intelligence to change their writing style to adapt to changing circumstances.

Although please notice I said "adequate intelligence." I tried it myself once but didn't make it very far before answering a "To: Nita Nuprez" reply under my new name. As I said, it does take at least minimum amount of mental coordination and concentration. ;-)

And yes, if someone is disruptive, it doesn't take Jim very long at all to spot the "new name," especially if he's looking for it.

[Nita Nupress]

Hey, Socks... Either you have a twin brother, or some scraggly alley cat is treading on your territory. :-)

[Harrison Bergeron]

"With rare exception the Sunday Morning adult tables are run by liberals. Why the stamp of approval given by Sunday Morning liberal TV is not of great importance to me is a mystery. Ideas?"

Perhaps my use of the Sunday shows as the conservative benchmark was off base. The ostensibly conservative gang of three seem to specialize in the use of left wing forums where their very presence (n.b. not simply their message) will foment unrest, ridicule, and occasionally violence. Call me cynical, but this modus operandi is of more value as left wing agitprop than right wing discourse. And there's probably a reason that not even FNC features these people on a regular basis. With so many worthy and esteemed conservatives who stimulate clear and rational thought in their speech and writing, I can well afford to bypass those who ply their trade like liberals by stimulating baser emotional reactions.

[JudyB1938]

You also go way over the line attacking Nita Nupress. You aren't fit to lick her shoes!

Good afternoon, Judy! Thanks.

I don't really have anything important to say. I just wanted to read that again. LOL!

_____________________________

Well, here ... read it again. (grin)

Kinda pity though ... now you gotta walk around in dirty shoes. :0)

[Socks C.]

. . . alley cat is treading on your territory. :-)

Now I AM pissed!

[Republican_Strategist]

Well of course not. This isn’t a forum for conspiracy theorists that want to air their dirty laundry especially when proven to be fraudulent. Simple solution: you want Rivero you can go to his web site.

[Republican_Strategist]

That is just utter BS. 1) There is an ABC picture from the bin Laden tape and 2) There is a picture used by Rivero to call the bin Laden tape a fake. Clearly Rivero was using a manipulated picture to claim something was a lie and was refuted by the picture off of the ABC web site showing clearly it was bin Laden. All you have to do is look at the two pictures. Hey…if need be I can go through Rivero site and find further stuff that would indicate he is a fraud peddling anti-war propaganda.

[Republican_Strategist]

Well I’m starting to get suspicious and I wonder about the identity of some the people who defend Rivero. The fact is that is the situation is quite the opposite. Michael Rivero has been exposed as a fraud and all of you are mindlessly defending the guy allowing no one to go against him. Sometimes you have to remember the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Not everything is diabolical plot.

[Republican_Strategist]

Well I think your being to abstract. See this I a forum for conservative news and advocacy. We don’t need to invite socialists, democrats, and others here because it would lead to chaos. As for free speech, the government is the only entity that can censor anything. Yes you have the right to say anything you want, but it isn’t the Free Republic’s place to give you a forum. Michael Rivero is a fraud. He has been fabricating evidence to claim a government conspiracy. From the looks of it you would think he is a bin Laden cohort. He has his own web site and he should find another place to advertise his lies.

[carenot]

What IS your beef with Michael Rivero?

You registered here a couple of months before Michael was banned. Did you search for his old threads or what? How do you know so much (?)about him. Did you used to be Redredwine?

[VadeRetro]

That is just utter BS. 1) There is an ABC picture from the bin Laden tape and 2) There is a picture used by Rivero to call the bin Laden tape a fake. Clearly Rivero was using a manipulated picture to claim something was a lie and was refuted by the picture off of the ABC web site showing clearly it was bin Laden. All you have to do is look at the two pictures.

Maybe you need to explain that better. Is picture B clearly picture A after some kind of manipulation? (Say, playing with the aspect ratio to make his face fatter.) What is the relationship between the two pictures? Do you know how to post a picture?

<img src="(source URL here)">

You can capture the source URL of a web-page picture by right-clicking on it and selecting "Copy shortcut." If that is grayed out, select "Properties." You can mouse-select the picture's URL from the "Address" field, right-click, and select "Copy."

[VadeRetro]

Excuse the instructions in the previous post; I mistook you for one of the other guys I'd been talking to and didn't realize you were referring to the two original pictures posted. Their not being identical is not a proof that Rivero faked anything. That you seem to be pretending not to understand this looks bad to me.