Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss - live on air!

Before moving to that I'll list 3 places that have completely stopped comment from the hate-siters.

1. The Message Board Seller, have a policy not to run Bain or Karam threads since an influx of posters there in 2010 led by Glenda O Brien and Christine Williams, the later making death threats as a way to promote her reasoned arguments.

2. The International Justice Conference, who had a influx of sisters protesting that David was speaking at the Conference in March. Yes, the same people who daily call for David to speak. Schizo?

3. Beatties Book Blog, who 'dared' to publish the foreword of 'Trial by Ambush.'

4.Trade Me, continues to host them of course, and allows them to post links.

This is all disturbing, most particularly to me the attack on a book blog. Most people appreciate books as wonderful things, some with a life of their own, a chance to learn more, to make discoveries or be transported in some ways. Attacking a book blog is the 21st Century equivalent of 'book burning' done in the name ironically of a deceased teacher of children. I know things have got bad with the sisters but what is next?

Well, one thing that was next was a radio 'show' somewhere out of Invercargill, the host Vinnie Eastwood, a rather disturbed individual it seems, who laughed loudly about defamation because of a broad cover of use of the word 'allegedly' he apparently attends to his defamatory, freedom of speech show. I did tune in to listen to Parker and Purkiss. Obviously interested to hear them speak, and to listen to what they said.

Generally, they tried to withhold information from a willing, giggling, Eastwood, who has the type of character that interjects over the top, and goes off into weird descriptions of what the speakers were intending to say in his mind. One might suspect that he was trying to get Vic and Kent to make some further defamatory speech, but they didn't need any help with that. Purkiss is a pom, Kent I would say had a pleasant radio voice. Both men however, by their voices, are very slow unless that was a deliberate perhaps to garner sympathy. They did certainly ask for money,despite claiming that they'd got a 'lot in' already. Kent gave a totally incorrect description of what 'hearsay' is, and Eastwood came over the top to assist with an equally incorrect description. Their 'case' for Robin bore all the hallmarks of general one sided sister diatribe.

Mainstream media it was not, with a howling DJ who must have been on drugs and unfortunately, for him, defamed a number of people including a prominent nzer who has taken and won defamation cases before. By far the most important thing for me was that I got an clear idea of how Parker and Purkiss think and their relative intelligence. Notably they seemed not to understand that the host, in order to get away with defamation, ran his show as though it were a comedy, no doubt in an effort to say that everything said was satirical. Calling somebody a thief might be funny to the host, but I'm not so sure about the person he named might feel about that. Indeed, the overall picture, including Vic's obvious anxieties, reeked of desperation and lack of wit - generally  showed the minds of 'book burners.'

13 comments:

  1. How desperate are they? Why on earth would they go on such a stupid show. Vic Purkiss is wavering, he wants out, I think you could tell. How silly to be handing our flyers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About as desperate as it gets. Even the host was having difficulty taking them seriously. Kent seems devoid of any humour and could do with taking a psychopathy test himself. Vic on the other hand was a laugh a minute, not with him, but at him. Yes, he sounds like a Pom, not that it is bad, some of my best friends are poms, but a Pom, living in NZ, and talking on a backstreet wannabe conspiracist yanky site, sounds like the beginning of a bad joke. Which is quite appropriate really, because that is how it came across.

      Delete
    2. I couldn't quite work that out with Vic, whether he was in fact trying to be funny or thought he was in a comedy show. Well, going by the host it was a comedy show for those that want to get sued.
      I was interested that he was a pom because of that banner a few years back, makes more sense now and kind of devalue's patriotic pleas.

      Delete
  2. Maybe they just think that any publicity is good publicity, and that the sizzle is more important than the steak. I missed the radio show, but don't want to hear them, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just an opportunity to hear their voices, and see how their 'logic' works - apparently it doesn't. But anyway Vic sounded like he was keen for a bus ticket out.

      Delete
  3. I found the .mp3 file, 53 megabytes, so much too big for me to wait for with an old 56k modem, downloading at about 50kilobits/second.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kent did teach me something though, him having a major in Psychology an' all.
    He taught me that there is no such clinical diagnosis as a psychopath, it is simply jargon. The DJ told of there being tests that can show it, but Kent, being all learned said he doesn't accept it.
    So there ya go.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rather odd in that the sisters frequently claim David to be a psychopath. Perhaps Kent was concerned he might be asked to take a test on air, or was worried that Vic might have slipped a report to the radio jock.
      I see they've finally dropped the bladder obstacle.

      Delete
    2. Kent needs to inform the Minister of Justice about his knowledge in psychopathy, because they paid a fortune for many tests to be done. In fact, they test the majority of serious offenders for psychopathy, so they really should know they're wasting their money.

      Naturally, all those that have been wrongfully diganosed can now be set free, because Kent Parker says they are not psychopaths.

      Personally, I think he's in 'the nile'. He's hoping when they finally catch up with him, they won't run the tests, and tell us what we all suspect.

      Delete
  5. the 53 megabytes loaded in 2+ hours, and I listened to them.
    Vinnie reacted to the paper run, as he should have, and his use of 'hmmmmm' several times in the 1st hour didn't help the 2 defendants.
    Did Vinnie also, at 1 hour and 2 minutes, repeat a claim, for which another defendant had to pay big $?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, besides that statement at 1hr + 2 minutes, he was naughty elsewhere. I think he was trying to encourage the defendant to not hold back.
      Or maybe he liked them and hoped that all 3 could be defendants together.

      Delete
  6. Vinnie was encouraging the 2 defendants to speak freely, further endangering their own survival, in the Wild Kingdom.
    Vinnie, as he insisted, has no restraints, because he's got nothing to lose. One of the defendants claimed to be standing on a chair, with a rope around his neck. I could remind that defendant that suicide is a Mortal Sin, where I went to school...but I won't remind him, because what he does he does with his own time is none of my business...

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my honestly held opinion, the defendant should not have claimed to have been standing on a chair with a rope around his neck, because the defendant would have been a very bad example, or role model, for some listeners(for example, teenagers).
    Suicide is illegal and, in my honestly held opinion, immoral.

    ReplyDelete