Tigerloaf of Myths' personal response to challenge posed by anonymous blogger

Personal response to challenge posed by anonymous blogger

Postby tigerloaf » Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:18 pm
Just in case anyone thinks I expect others to do things I would not do I am responding to a question posed to me recently.

It is a shame that people like Hutton, Poulton, Baulch, Brown and others have not had the courage of their convictions to provide responses to my questions to them. Perhaps there are no answers which they can give which would not make them look even more foolish, hypocritical or nasty?

Back to this issue.

My response is as follows:

The short and simple answer to your request is, no.

Of course I know the thread you mean as I have only opened one thread about Baulch and her support for the criminal, Amaral.

The reasons I shall not remove it are also simple and are as follows:

The thread asks perfectly logical and reasonable hypothetical questions.

Ms Baulch, if I were to write a book suggesting that you are currently earning money as a prostitute in a massage parlour without actually providing any proof of that, would you sue me or would you simply support my right to free speech as you are doing with Goncalo Amaral in precisely the same situation?

Would you perchance set up a fund to protect my rights to freedom of speech and help with my defence costs whilst at the same time suing me?

If you would not set up a fund to help protect my freedom of speech and pay my legal costs do you not see how hypocritical and stupid that makes you and your supporters look?

The questions (and even more so, your request for the thread to be removed) demonstrate the appalling hypocrisy of those like yourself and Baulch who profess to stand up for freedom of speech but in reality do no such thing.  

There is nothing illegal or immoral about the hypothetical question I have posed. There is no indication on my part that Leanne Baulch is pursuing the work I hypothetically mention.

But there is massive hypocrisy on your part and that of others like you who believe the criminal ex-cop, Amaral, should be allowed to make up lies (as his own publisher testified) about the McCanns.

I suggest the only reason you have asked for this particular thread to be removed is that it highlights just what sick hypocrites you really are.

I have, however, laid out the questions more clearly and re-worded slightly one of the questions as I think they now can be read more clearly and actually now make the point better.

scoobydoo » Sun Jun 07, 2015 1:13 pm
But tiger we are all supposed to realise that hypocrisy is OK if it comes from the antis and its all very mean and nasty if anyone points out flaws in their logic, their lies or their nastiness. So its free speech when it comes to accusing innocent people of the vilest of crimes, but tears and tantrums if you call them liars etc. They never grew out of school yard bullying unfortunetly. Like all bullies everyone else can see that they are either on or heading for the scrapyard of life, but they see themselves as the entitled big guy to whom everyone must answer. They are nobodies who are desperate to be somebodies and can't accept its never going to happen.