Saturday, January 10, 2009

reply to Ding Gagelonia

less than a day after i made the post, article author ding gagelonia posted this:

pulis,
It’s unfortunate that you think this is just about the 2 feuding families even as you unelegantly heckle or seemingly gloat when the other commenters to not ‘engage’.
If you’ve been issued a ‘mission order’to defend the Pangandamans your haughty posturing is only driving home the point of your clients’ perceived arrogance.
Now that’s a pity.

to which i replied: 

Ding,

It’s unfortunate that you think that i think that this is just about the 2 feuding families even as you unelegantly defend the lynching mob to not ‘engage’ in light of emerging new information.
If you’ve been issued a ‘mission order’to defend the de la Pazes, your fast trigger pull is only driving home the point of your clients’ perceived arrogance.


Ding, when you interpret the report, you have the gall to twist it to suit your needs–never mind the fact that you posted the scanned copy at At Midfield for everyone to see, complete with comments of other posters.

Just read the title of your At Midfield post: “Valley Golf Guards Report: Pangandaman Security Men Drew Guns on Dela Pazes.” I scraped the bottom of my brains and recalled the many times i participated in several DSSPC, RSSC, and NSSPC but i just cannot find the relevance of your headline to the rest of the article! i read the lead paragraph i did not find it. i read the whole report, still i did not find it. my, my, my…

And in this Filipino Voices article, imagine yourself saying:
“More revealing, the report points out that the Pangandaman security drew their high-powered rifles menacingly at the Dela Pazes.”
where in the report did you find this? give me a break!


“The Pangandamans in their own ‘counter-account’ have consistently denied that they had any security personnel with them on the VGCC fairway.
What is now clear to me is they lied in this respect.”
another fast trigger pull. in light of rge’s account, the pangandamans now appeared to be telling the truth when they said that they did not have bodyguards in the fairway and that your client de la paz were lying through the skin of their teeth!


the comment of ordinaryobserver in your At Mindfield blog posted at 12:52 said it all, yet to still dared to post this article and make all this twist less than two hours later? ordinaryobserver said:
“I’m sorry, but the report doesn’t really help the de la Paz’s. In the first place, it doesn’t really counteract the Pangandaman’s story that they didn’t have bodyguards on the fairway. All it says is that the security personnel saw the bodyguards on the lower veranda of the clubhouse. It doesn’t preclude that the bodyguards were actually on the fairway with their principals, but it doesn’t confirm it either.
Also, the report only tells us that the bodyguards were carrying high-powered armaments. It says nothing about them using the same to intimidate the de la Paz’s.


Journalist for 30 years? 

Now that’s a pity.

No comments:

Post a Comment

tell me what you think!