CAN WE STOOP AS LOW AS THIS ASSHOLE DOES? This is an edited, warped and skewed rewrite of an e-mail from an assistant of the governor to an editor of a local newspaper showing just what a gentleman he really is. (Just for entertainment.)From: raxierce@xxxxxxx to the editor. "No, I'm the one being a liar. I stand behind my convictions, and lie through my teeth like you. You deceitfully took an off the record comment and printed some crap that I really care about. You are a piece of trash. Do you understand that it's exactly the fucked up people like me that stop people from being strong enough to go get help. Drug abuse is an immoral and indecent personal characteristic that keeps those, like me, that need help, from coming and asking for it. In the macho piece of shit world people like you live in, all you can say is something scandeless. What a whore you are. I was wrong about you. You are a liar and a cunt....THE END... Don't we just love an asshole? Richard you are # 1! I also have a joke just for you, here it is.....Richard meets a woman, and asks her where she was going........To which she replied, "I'm going to work.""Oh yeah," Richard said, "what do you do? "I'm a rectum stretcher," she responded. "And just what does a rectum stretcher do?"he ask. "Well," she said, "I start by inserting one finger, then work my way up to two fingers, then three, then four, then work my whole hand in. I work from side to side until I can get both hands in, then I slowly but surely stretch it, until it's about 6 feet wide.""And just what the hell do you do with a 6 foot Ass Hole?" he asked. To with she replied, "You give him a job working for the governor and send him to Washington to represent the CNMI. Aren't we having fun now? .....GED..... See the following:
6 comments:
What the f$%# is he talking about? Drug abuse is not a personal characteristic it's a disease, much like over-eating and I guess in this case, verbal diarrhea. I don't know the context of this conversation, but I sort of feel bad for him. Shhh...don't tell Jeff.
So where's the rest of it? Hi Glen, I don't know you at all and I'm not particularly a fan of the Piercemeister either, but I think fairness demands the rest of that email. Why isn't the offendee's side aired equally? Have you read it? I haven't. Just Devil's Advocate here.
Hello my friends: See Jeff Turbitt Fri, 22nd
The true face of evil
I only edited it to make a joke , I really don't like the guy either but it was fun lowering myself to his level to bash him in his own way. Non of this is to help people who really need help "sommysmommy"
This was "back in his face" an idiot at best. I hope I didn't offend anyone but the subject himself.
I was gonna post a Richard and Alec piece tonight (Baldwin) entitled "What was I thinking?" but it doesn't sound too ladylike. Ha! When did that ever stop me? Seriously, my kids read my blog.
Go ahead borego, Tell your story. I let my hair down tonight , now it's your turn. Seriously this Richard Pierce thing was only to slap him like he slapped the Variety editor.
I think Bruce Bateman said it quite well... He writes:
"The recent hoopla about Richard Pierce and his private e-mail to reporter Gemma Casas has two sides.or maybe three. So far we have only seen one side reported by our local media and none of the original documents have been printed. I agree with the comments of another local reporter who contends that before passing judgment we should have a look at ALL the correspondence that led up to the e-mails in question, not just take the offending mail out of context and send it around to everyone in the hopes of getting the guy canned. We don't know what grudge Casas might hold against Pierce but it is well known that Rep. Torres does not see eye to eye with Mr. Pierce because of differences in interpreting drug testing regulations. That gripe has no place in the current riff. Even though other House members are “shocked and offended” by the language used in the e-mail, Rep. Cinta Kaipat is correct: The argument has no place being discussed as legislative business.
I have read the private e-mail sent to Ms. Casas and my interpretation of it differs from what I have read so far in the press. Casas plays the race card and claims foul based on her status as “a person of color” and as a female. I read no such inferences in the e-mails. I think she is simply trying to make prejudicial hay out of his loose lips (or fingertips in this case). The accusations made in the e-mail spoke of Pierce's disappointment that Casas lied to him in order to print a juicy story. He didn't so much call her a whore as to say that he thought she sold her journalistic integrity cheaply as would a whore sell her body. Besides “liar”, the other word he used to describe Ms Casas would have done the V-Day women proud, being displayed on one of their T-shirts as it is. Gemma may see the liberation of that word somewhat differently.
I don't know Richard Pierce nor do I know Gemma Casas so I don't really care about this one way or another except as it illustrates the need to see all points of a story before making up our minds about it. Maybe Ms. Casas just has thin skin (not a very good attribute for a reporter) or maybe she has a bone to pick. Maybe Mr. Pierce was dumb enough to give private information to a reporter and not expect her to publish it, or maybe he has a bone to pick. Beats me. I think they should kiss (discreetly) and make up."
There's always two cheeks to an ass...!
Post a Comment