One of Frank Report’s most prolific and valued commenters, Shadow State, recently commented on the article Clare Bronfman Replaces Mark Geragos; Hires Famed Black Lawyer Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.
Part of his comment was critical of Allison Mack. Shadow wrote:
There is a good reason why some 100 people came forward to state their lives were ruined by Clare Bronfman. What she pled guilty to was just the tip of the iceberg.” Frank Parlato.
That is true of all the defendants with the possible exception of Kathy Russell.
Allison Mack claimed that NXIVM DOS had over 100 women in it. Perhaps as many as 150 women. Each of those women can claim to be a victim…
MK10ART’s recent painting of Allison Mack.
A frequent, anonymous commenter, whom I shall call “Mack-Defender,” and who is very close to being the first commenter ever banned on this site, made the following, [yet another] insulting comment in reply to the comment made by Shadow State.
Mack-Defender wrote:
If only the first few lines were not that false and twisted… i might have given some interest to answer further but i’ll just say: STICK TO THE FACTS… Not one thing of what you say is true…and this within the first 5 lines!!!
Can’t you, for once, stay in the real world instead of you fantasy? just once?
These are the kind of comments I am specifically trying to avoid. And it’s become very tedious to redact portions of them. I can understand someone trying to defend Allison Mack. But why insult people that disagree with you?
Why does Mack-Defender have to call anyone’s opinion that opposes her own position a “twisted” position?
I replied to Mack-Defender:
I am not redacting your comment at all because I want to use it to illustrate something.
You always have to be rude to other commenters. If you won’t abide by my request, I am simply going to delete all your comments going forward. It is not worth the time to redact your insulting comments to others. Please, I ask you for the last time, make your points – disagree with the comments – but stop calling others names.
It is not necessary to say that just because someone disagrees with you, that they are not in the “real world” but in a “fantasy” world.
***
Nutjob, despite his unusual moniker, is a highly esteemed commenter. He shows us how to respond to a commenter who he disagrees with. He is, in fact, responding to the same anonymous Mack-Defender, who seems to always respond with rudeness to anyone who suggests Allison should be punished for the crimes she pled guilty to.
Nutjob wrote a model reply to Mack-Defender:
I type this with sincerity. How do you know Allison was forced to have relations with him [Keith Raniere]? Did Allison tell you that? I ask because her interviews of the pig [Raniere] show her gazing at him as if she’s in love with it/him.
That’s etched in our memories and it makes many readers read your claims with a raised eyebrow. I’m not saying you’re wrong – I just think you should back your shit up.
I honestly don’t have much of a problem with your posts EXCEPT when you call Allison a victim and find her unique in this label. IMHO, basically EVERY female and most males that ever crossed paths with Keith ended up as victims.
I’d love to see Allison (and pretty much everyone but Keith) walk and get a slap on the wrist. But you very vocally wanting to make every other female fry and make Allison walk free, is detrimental to both of our desired outcomes.
Note how Nutjob disagrees with Mack-Defender but is not rude about it. He invites intelligent debate.
What’s so hard about that?
[By the way, I agree with Mack-Defender that Allison does not need to be punished with prison.]
Allison Mack in the presence of her Vanguard.
She is thrilled and stimulated to her core by his ultrasonic essence.
When the moment comes, she sees the deep meaning of his spiritual grandiosity.
Who could resist a being such as this?
My desire for a better comments section is one that I am going to achieve, even if it means doing, as some publications do, not taking any comments. I do not think we will have to get to that.
Another anonymous commenter criticized Fred, one of our contributors, who has made an important study of the effects of radiation from wireless towers. Fred’s work is thoughtful and well researched. But that does not stop trolls from criticizing him.
Anna Lee, one of our commenters, praised Fred’s work and a troll commented, “You can borrow Fred’s tinfoil hat 😉.”
I don’t see it that way. I understand that the easy put down of anything that might threaten Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Surveillance is that their critics are insane and, hence, they wear tinfoil hats.
The tinfoil hat put down is reserved for anyone who questions Big Money, Big Science, Big Pharma, Big Government, Big Surveillance, and Big Tech. Many of the most revered scientists in history, if they were living today, would be labeled as tinfoil hat wearers.
If they had tinfoil hats in those days, Galileo would have been proclaimed a wearer of one. As it was, the Catholic Church tried him for being a heretic for his then tinfoil hat-like theory that the earth revolved around the sun.
I’m not going to approve these kinds of trolling comments anymore.
It insults our writers, without substantive argument in rebuttal.
If you think Fred’s work is wrong, give us a reason. Instead, Fred’s work is simply dismissed as garbage and he as worthless by some anonymous troll.
Yes, it is necessary to delete comments like this.
MK10ART’s painting of Clare Bronfman wearing a jockstrap under orders of Keith Alan Raniere.
There is another species of commenter who are specifically trolling me. This is part of the terrain of being public and taking a stance on anything. I have been trolled by Nxivm supporters and other bizarre and strange beings for years.
Here is a comment from an anonymous troll. It is ostensibly about my comment policy, one which, by the way, I adopted from other major platforms, such as the NY Times, the NY Post, the Washington Post, and InfoWars. But it is really about attacking me.
The anonymous, anti-Frank troll wrote:
I think your new policy is to protect your own sensitivities, Mr. Parlato. You don’t care about anybody else’s feelings. You set the vile tone for your own site and now you are back peddling like a good’un.
We all know that’s because you face criminal charges yourself and you have shown yourself to be every bit as Machiavellian, and lacking in integrity as any thieving liar that dishonoured you. The proof is all here, up to and including your volte face and the nominating/naming of your chosen claque, your very own, acceptable to you, ‘inner circle’ LMFAO. What a shower. Good luck out-manouvering Clare.
She may yet get the better of you. You’re both gangsters. Both doomed.
***
Of course, I know I am doing a good job when I get comments like this. And it gladdens me and often amuses me. But it doesn’t help the site. It does not make it more professional. And it does not even help the person behind the trolling.
After all, who can feel good about being an anonymous troll, lacking the courage to stand behind what you have to say? Who can feel brave attacking someone anonymously, saying what you would not dare to put your name to?
‘If we call someone a name, but no one knows our name, we are certainly brave.’
Cowardice can never feel good. As for the point of the anti-Frank troll – we shall see how it all ends.
Former Assistant US Attorney Anthony M. Bruce misled a grand jury to indict me. He then retired.
So far, I am one up on Clare Bronfman. She started the fight with me, her and Keith Raniere, by filing a perjurious criminal complaint with the FBI [at Raniere’s behest, I have no doubt] then going in and perjuring herself before a grand jury.
She got me indicted on false charges. The charges fell apart, and the Department of Justice, ever-loath to ever let go of anyone once they are indicted, tried to shift the focus, with their alleged victim being a dead man now, who never complained about being a victim, a man who was anything but a victim. As I shall prove in court.
I understand how the Orwellian named Department of Justice works. It is never about justice, it is about conviction stats and the brutal fact in support of conviction stats, that prosecutors understand so well: that even innocent men and women will plead guilty to things they did not do because of the opprobrium of being indicted, the pressure of preparing for a trial that is an “all or nothing” proposition, and the natural advantage the government has, with its unlimited resources, and ability to effectively witness tamper with impunity.
It’s part of the fight to do battle with them to not allow innocence to be punished, however mildly, in order to seek convenience and to put this behind me.
It is also part of the fight to battle trolls, who for all I know are Nxivm trolls, or possibly a disgruntled former Assistant US Attorney, who led the charge for my unjust indictment and will have to wear it, when my acquittal comes. Or it could be someone who is butt-hurt about something I wrote about them or failed to write about them. It does not matter.
It comes with the territory. The day will come when I am vindicated. But Clare won’t be vindicated. She started the fight with me and she is a cooked goose. I am not.
Goose is fatty, but if it is prepared properly and cooked slowly at low heat, it is quite a delicacy since the fat slowly permeates the meat and makes it most delectable. It took me almost three years to properly cook my recipe of Goose a la Bronfman.
Yes, Clare and her sister Sara and others would like to see me cooked, no doubt. But I am not such an easy mark. I fight back. And I have the truth on my side. That’s a big advantage. Time will tell.
In the meantime, except as it serves my purpose, I will not be publishing trolls who predict my doom.
While I am amused by the puriele nature of the infantile trolling, it serves no purpose to include these comments on my website – except when I want to make a point, not when they do.
