Michael James Riconosciuto

[Sounder]

Well its hard to believe he has spewed as much garbage as you AD. I more you spam MR the more I'm inclined to consider his possible credibility.

[American Dream]

Like the articles critical of the Oath Keepers and the Militia Movement which you differed with me so vehemently on?

What kind of "good judgement" does that suggest on your part, Sounder?

Also, you keep suggesting that Virginia "should have known" two years ago that desertfae really was Rachel. Please explain what you are saying about when exactly she should have known, and why exactly she should have known, i.e. specifically how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so.

Simply saying "she's a researcher" is not good enough, as we've got a lot of researchers here and all through that time had great difficulties verifying her identity...

[psynapz]

Also, you keep suggesting that Virginia "should have known" two years ago that desertfae really was Rachel. Please explain what you are saying about when exactly she should have known, and why exactly she should have known, i.e. specifically how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so.

Now hey, that's a fair question desertfae. I would hope such details would be sufficiently irrelevant to your case so as to pose no danger to it by stating or perhaps restating here just simply when and why VM definitely would have known you were you, sufficient to prove she was lying libelously about you being an ARG actress.

If you feel you've already done this, then I'm sorry, I missed it, which is totally possible considering all the thread proliferation around your story here and the fact that an empathetic person can only take so much of this place. But don't do it because Senator AD here keeps countering you on it, do it for the rest of us. Please.

Simply saying "she's a researcher" is not good enough, as we've got a lot of researchers here and all through that time had great difficulties verifying her identity...

What great difficulties? She offered to arrange to meet anybody who wanted to go to Kentucky visit her in person. Have you ever been through Kentucky? It's like the West Texas of the North. I'd maybe catch her on a post-trial speaking tour, but actually go to K-Y? Not if I don't have to.

And as for her noble attempt at satisfying your curiosity, try leaving your unredacted birth certificate on the web and see how long it takes you to think the better of it. That is, assuming it's your actual certificate of your actual live birth.

[American Dream]

psynapz:

What great difficulties? She offered to arrange to meet anybody who wanted to go to Kentucky visit her in person.

The difficulties are manifest in that it did not happen. What you say is true though, that it apparently could have happened...

[Sounder]

wrote...

Like the articles critical of the Oath Keepers and the Militia Movement which you differed with me so vehemently on?

I did not differ vehemently, I only stated that the articles were divisive crap propaganda. But hey, you can think whatever you think I think.

Go ahead and paste whatever label you like because your thoughts, such as they are, are meaningless to me.

And hell, we need confusion sowers like you to help us learn discrimination anyway, so fiddle away , your doing a fine job.

[Searcher08]

Like the articles critical of the Oath Keepers and the Militia Movement which you differed with me so vehemently on?

What kind of "good judgement" does that suggest on your part, Sounder?

That is truly one of the most fucking arrogant things I've ever read on R.I.
Seriously, I have to

[American Dream]

Searcher, you have a similar blind spot and also repeatedly defended the Oathkeepers. I certainly differed with you on that. So I wouldn't say you're always so strong on critical thinking yourself.

If you want to discuss this further, maybe we should revisit that thread and try to carry on a conversation there.

This thread is about Michael Riconosciuto, so I want to help maintain the focus on that here.

[Sounder]

Also, you keep suggesting that Virginia "should have known" two years ago that desertfae really was Rachel. Please explain what you are saying about when exactly she should have known, and why exactly she should have known, i.e. specifically how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so.

(Now that we are at this point, it would be good to hear again VM's exact words in regard to her desertfae/Rachal confusion.)

Ok, here’s the thing AD. Folk that call themselves ‘journalists’ are pretty careful to not include outright lies in their articles. They may be hacks doing their masters bidding, but they still try to leave outright lies out of the story. Those are the ones with good ‘skills’, whereas VM does not seem concerned about even keeping to this minimal standard. Ergo she is useful only for examining how creeps do their work.

Whew, I hope I kept that simple enough, I suspect not.

OK, try again. Journalists check their ‘facts’, its part of the job.

(If VM provides a credible explanation I will be happy to eat humble pie.)

wrote...

So I wouldn't say you're always so strong on critical thinking yourself.

Yeah, quite a 'focus' here.

[Searcher08]

Searcher, you have a similar blind spot and also repeatedly defended the Oathkeepers. I certainly differed with you on that. So I wouldn't say you're always so strong on critical thinking yourself.

If you want to discuss this further, maybe we should revisit that thread and try to carry on a conversation there.

This thread is about Michael Riconosciuto, so I want to help maintain the focus on that here.

Sorry, No Sale AD
You bailed on discussing Oath Keepers with me. A reminder.

Searcher- as I have been saying, I am not interested in engaging with you about this any more.

While I didn't author the OP, and am not sure what I think of such intense portrayals, I don't really agree with the Oath Keepers, or the larger milieu of militias in which they exist.

I don't like their reactionary politics and I do not consider them to be a trustworthy bulwark against Authoritarianism- quite the opposite.

For the rest Searcher, you're on your own. Or maybe you can find other people on here this thread who will be able to communicate with you more fruitfully.
A.D.

I've often found a person's abilities in thinking skills are inversely proportional to their own self-assessment of them...

Your comment about Rachel's bona fides being an issue is not very apposite when she posted a video of her showing her birth certificate.
Have you even watched her Youtube channel?

I am confused about the purpose of this thread.
What specifically has been clarified or learned about Michael Riconoscuito here?

We differ fundamentally in that I trust Rachel to make her own mind up about who she can trust or not; I find it enormously hilariously arrogant of you to assume that you can in any way act as an input on what she is doing with her case. You are also giving a huge amount of air time and attempting to establish the bona fides of a set of people (NMN) who she has specifically said have been ACTING IN HARMFUL WAYS towards her and the case, and whom another RI member has raised PERSONAL SAFETY ISSUES around.

If you want to see how much help this is being, look for the posts from Rachel or Anita thanking you for your insights, data, analysis, alternatives, ideas.

[barracuda]

Please explain what you are saying about when exactly she should have known, and why exactly she should have known, i.e. specifically how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so.

Journalists check their ‘facts’, its part of the job.

This is the crux of the matter. She should have known before making a public statement in the guise of a reporter or otherwise, since even her casual statements on the matter carry the responsibility of the imprimateur of the publication for which she is the primary writer, NMN. And asking for her to have made certain before casting allegations under the banner of that publication is hardly asking too much. Identities can be checked. There are resources available to anyone with a small amount of money and time. If you don't have the time or money to double check your published information, you are not a news organisation. You are a gossip mongering pamphleteer, and deserve to be viewed as such.

[Peregrine]

psynapz:

What great difficulties? She offered to arrange to meet anybody who wanted to go to Kentucky visit her in person.

The difficulties are manifest in that it did not happen. What you say is true though, that it apparently could have happened...

Just out of sheer curiosity, what might you be insinuating? Why are difficulties manifest because no one took her up on her offer? Seems she was quite willing to go out of her way to prove who she was here.

[American Dream]

Sounder wrote:

Journalists check their ‘facts’, its part of the job.

I understand what you are saying, and I mostly agree. I think Virginia might rest in the position that she didn't get to see Rachel's documents and then verify them. That said, if you don't know, or aren't sure, the best position to take is something like "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". The statement about Rachel being an actress in an ARG was misleading and did very much add to the confusion here.



Searcher08 wrote:

You bailed on discussing Oath Keepers with me. A reminder.

I did get burned-out on that thread, but thought you were going to continue in a possibly more fruitful dialogue with lightningBugout, which as I recall you disappeared on. Anyway, I could easily talk about it more if I thought the conversation was going anywhere, which quite honestly, I didn't before.



barracuda wrote:

She should have known before making a public statement

I essentially agree. See my comments above.



Peregrine wrote:

American Dream Wrote:

The difficulties are manifest in that it did not happen. What you say is true though, that it apparently could have happened...

Just out of sheer curiosity, what might you be insinuating? Why are difficulties manifest because no one took her up on her offer? Seems she was quite willing to go out of her way to prove who she was here.

I'm just saying that it was manifestly difficult to verify her identity, in that none of us here succeeded in doing it at that time. Even a stranger posting a birth certificate on the Internet is not a panacea. Maybe I put too much stock in"the System" but it was only when the arrest of Jimmy Hughes was announced that I said to myself, "OK- this is for real".

[desertfae]

I understand what you are saying, and I mostly agree. I think Virginia might rest in the position that she didn't get to see Rachel's documents and then verify them.

Why does VM think she has any right to my documents (birth certificate, social security card, drivers license etc)? I wouldn't give them to her if my life depended on it, she's not trustworthy in the slightest.
Others wanted to know how VM knew who I was, I'm not answering this for you AD, because frankly, you don't deserve an answer.

To the others who asked, I verified my identity with not only John Powers who also ran a background on me, but also locally here at my local Sheriffs dept who verified the documents were in fact real and confirmed it to JP.
When VM called JP multiple times he confirmed with her countless times that I am me, and verified to her that he had all my documentation and confirmed that they were in fact real. There you go. VM knew who I was yet lied anyway.. and she lied about the fact that I didn't get the case reopened, when JP himself confirmed it to her and confirmed it on TV.

barracuda wrote:

She should have known before making a public statement

I essentially agree. See my comments above.

True, she should have, in fact, she did.

Peregrine wrote:

American Dream Wrote:

The difficulties are manifest in that it did not happen. What you say is true though, that it apparently could have happened...

Just out of sheer curiosity, what might you be insinuating? Why are difficulties manifest because no one took her up on her offer? Seems she was quite willing to go out of her way to prove who she was here.

I'm just saying that it was manifestly difficult to verify her identity, in that none of us here succeeded in doing it at that time.

Actually, someone did attempt to take me up on the offer, however Jeff with his 'spidey sense or sensing spiders' closed the thread before that person who also lives in Louisville could respond.

[American Dream]

I don't think closing the thread should have prevented a visit, as we all have the ability to pm each other here on this board.

[Dr_Doogie]

Also, you keep suggesting that Virginia "should have known" two years ago that desertfae really was Rachel. Please explain what you are saying about when exactly she should have known, and why exactly she should have known, i.e. specifically how she should have had access to solid evidence proving that this is so...

As of 11/16/09 (three months ago), Virginia posted in an article:

"Media publicity since Hughes’ arrest has centered on the strange partnership formed between Riverside County Sheriff Cold Case Detective Powers and a woman who identifies herself as the daughter of one of the people killed in the backyard of Fred Alvarez’s home, Fred Boger. The woman is Rachel Begley who uses the internet handle Desertfae (Desertfae.com). "

So after John Powers and local media had identified Rachel as Boger's daughter, Virginia was still playing the "woman who identifies herself as the daughter" game. This sentence could have (and should have) read:

"Media publicity since Hughes’ arrest has centered on the strange partnership formed between Riverside County Sheriff Cold Case Detective Powers and a woman who is the daughter of one of the people killed in the backyard of Fred Alvarez’s home, Fred Boger."

So your "two year" arguement does not hold water. Long after Rachel's identity as Boger's daughter was no longer in dispute - if it ever was in doubt by anyone other than you and your NMN buddies - Virginia continued her agenda of innuendo against the daughter of a murder victim.

So this woman who claims to be Virginia McCullough and claims to be a journanist should apologize through this entity known by its internet handle as American Dream who claims to not be Virginia McCullough. (See how easy it is to be "not false", yet slanderous by subtle innuendo and selective wording?)