(Hour 1a, b) Rich read a fresh e-mail from Alderman at Large Joe Kelly Levasseur and chronicled the gamut of issues that he and others have with the colorful and jovial Joe (with experience in slander). Were the circumstances with Alderman Phil Greazzo and the Dog Park Association settled at Tuesday’s meeting of the Mayor & Aldermen? Rich shared a few more “Levasseurantics” and defended the mission of Girard at Large.
Read more in the On Air News Read
Everything you state as fact against JKL never turns into anything. You sound like a sore loser, and Phil sounds like a sore loser. This will never help you win an election in the city and you are losing credibility with your audience. This is not right for Christian family radio and I am going to start writing letters to the station complaining about the type of misinformation you provide and the tabloid delivery of that misinformation.
So, it’s not a fact if the powers that be decide not to use them? As a Christian, I will pursue the truth regardless of how popular it makes me. Your protestations notwithstanding, all indications we have is that our large and loyal audience seems to appreciate my pursuit of the truth. If you have evidence of misinformation, please present it. Otherwise…
I believe your audience tunes in for the same reason people like TMZ…water cooler gossip with a biased attempt to be objective. The problem is you publish the pursuit of truth before you have the facts. That seems backwards to me.
My dear Sherlock, you are mistaken. One cannot blame the messenger for the message. The act of reporting wrongdoing does not infer that the reporter is guilty of the wrongdoing himself. He is merely a mirror, reflecting the reality that he observes for the benefit of the uninformed. Only those who are ashamed of their actions fear being revealed (much like your clandestinely effeminate bar-crawling associate). Try again, dear Sherlock !
The messenger is a bad reporter if what he is reporting contains useless accusations. How do we know John Watson isn’t really Rich? I checked the voters record and property owners list and I don’t see you on it. If you don’t comment in the next 4 minutes I am publishing that story. Don’t blame me, I am just the messenger!
Fire when ready, my dear Sherlock !
And please give my kindest regards to your clandestinely effeminate bar-crawling associate.
Please, feel free to provide whatever evidence you have that I published the pursuit of truth before having the facts.
I have a story you should research. Did the union leader violate it’s posted privacy policy by giving you the IP address data you requested?
The Union Leader refused to provide any IP addresses. The ones we have are from visits to our site.
I am pretty sure you stated otherwise on your show. Time to do some research!
That was similar to something written by Arthur Conan Doyle except it was missing one thing…The talent part. Remember when Rich accused JKL of being 3 different people in the union leader comment section? He had the IP addresses examined and they were not from the same place. I guess two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time…I mean, one body can occupy two spaces at the same time. phew, I thought we were going against Physics for a minute. Or the time Rich wrote JKL and said I heard you still wet the bed. Either comment on this or the story runs as
My dear Sherlock, did I touch a nerve with my comment about a certain “freelance journalist” and his lack of talent? Not to worry. There is still time to invest in a quality thesaurus and inject some energy into your sad attempts at literature. Barnes and Noble await your arrival !
My bad, I thought the journalist dig was aimed at Rich. I wish my smart phone would have caught that insult. I guess I will start calling it a stupid phone <- get it?That was a joke. Just because you use a thesaurus doesn't mean the stuff you write is good. Your content is still garbage, trash, junk, rubbish. <- I used your thesaurus tip. The John Watson posts are brought to you by the letter Zzzzzzzzz (because they are boring). I think he is still mad they named the books after me.
None of the aliases are on the voter list. None are property owners. Two contacted me, but refused to meet in person to verify their identity, though one did admit he started blogging around the time Levasseur was elected to office.
Most importantly, I wasn’t looking to see if they were all coming from the same IP address. Someone with a mobile device, a computer at home and a computer at an office can easily be 3 different people. Someone who writes something he emails to a friend who posts, will certainly have another email address, too.
My sources on this are iron clad. If they exist, then they should come forward and blow me out of the water, shouldn’t they especially since they do so much to attack JKL’s foes and praise his every word and deed.
I don’t think they should have to come forward. They were accused of being somebody they are not. They are private citizens commenting in a public forums. There is a good chance they did not use their correct name…or they don’t vote, don’t own property. You should know all these facts before you publish. That is the point.
all you state here was reported by me. Glad you’re paying attention.
That is the point…it is a non story. You should have these answers before you publish.
No, the story was an iron clad source telling me what Levasseur was doing. Levasseur replying to my inquiry with a profanity laced missive. My failure to find any proof that these people actually exist in the entire state of New Hampshire.
Let’s not forget, by the way, that one of these aliases did the dirty work against Greazzo on the dog park, a dog park Levasseur apparently wrongly accused of having an insurance lapse of 8 weeks after he aparently used his position as an alderman, without authorization of the board, to obtain information to which neither he nor the city was not entitled without permission of the policy owner.
Sorry, but both, which are connected, are stories. The fact that I reported all that I knew shows I was impartial. Moreover, given their obvious activism, I would think those alleged aliases would gladly come forward, even confidentially, to satisfy the questions raised by my reports. If they’re such strong supporters of JKL, it shouldn’t even have been a second thought, unless, of course, the don’t exist.
My dear Sherlock, you could not be more wrong ! The list of usual suspects includes a universally mocked and despised restauranteur with illusions of political grandeur, a certain “freelance journalist” of very questionable talent and even more questionable ethics, and his clandestinely effeminate bar-crawling crony. All that is necessary to understand this riddle is to ascertain the answer to one simple question: “Who benefited from these calumnies directed at a well respected public servant?” One must only look to those who are rejoicing in the election results in order to learn the truth. You may write all the letters to radio stations that you wish, but I would suggest that your time would be better spent finding competent legal counsel and preparing to pay a hefty financial settlement to those who have been wronged. Please take note that I said ‘competent legal counsel’. Remember, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. It is elementary, my dear Sherlock.
Li’l Richie Girard, in a bizarre re-run of his “Joe Kelly Levasseur is posting as two people on the Union Leader comment boards” gambit, apparently has manufactured this bizarre exchange in his continuing use of the First Amendment as a license to engage in lying and character assassination. On the Friday, December 6th show, after prompting from his sidekick, Li’l Richie intimated that I was “Sherlock Holmes”. I have been documenting this exchange as it developed from the beginning (screenshots, etc.) and sharing it with my lawyers and public officials. I believe that Li’l Richie manufactured these bizarre posts to provide a platform for the original homophobic rant of “John Watson” so he could read it — cackling like a third rate ham actor — on his November 22nd show. John Watson likely is supposed to be Phil Greazzo — no way do I actually
believe it actually is Phil. it doesn’t read like Phil, and I don’t believe that Phil is a homophobe. (Poor Phil — on one side, you’re playing the role of the Macbeth of Ward 10, with Lady Macbeth leading you to your electoral doom, and on the other, the Othello of the Queen City, with Iago whispering horrifyingly bad advice into your ear.) Girard has the soul of a factotum and the
talent of a stenographer, and all the posts read alike. A 10-year old could tell what is going on here. I wonder: Is this an example of the behavior of a sociopath or a psychopath? I don’t know. I’m not a psychologist. I do know that the person or persons responsible for this are disturbed individuals, to say the least.
Rest assured, I never hide my identity. Perhaps if I had, your good buddy Bill Barry wouldn’t have known of my inquiry to verify a charge made by neighbors and others and I would not have had to undergo inspections by various city agencies for false complaints made against me BEFORE I published the story, that was, by the way VERIFIED.
Let me ask you: Is this is fitting fare for a the comment board of a
Christian radio network? Are the homophobic rants of John Watson (spread
over many other “Girard at Large” radio segments’ comment boards) with
their homoerotic undertone the type of stuff that would be tolerated by a
real Christian? Why wouldn’t they have been removed if the
self-described Christian Rich “Iago” Girard is other than what he proves
daily: A hypocrite. I think we can deduce that the reason they are here
and metastasizing like the spiritual cancer at the root of Girard’s
fetid, mean-spirited soul is that they were written by Li’l Richie
himself.
So, on one hand I’m accused of censorship, on the other I’m accused of not censoring? Inasmuch as I’ve read Mr. Watosn’s posts, I’m curious to know which ones you consider “homoerotic” and why. FYI, the Girard at Large Website has no affiliation with New Hampshire Family Radio. Even if it did, why would it require the censoring of comments based on your sensibilities?
Is all this noise and fury the result of the Committee on Accounts concluding there was no legal basis to terminate the MDPA’s contract as requested by your cohorts?
rich girard is a lying dirty politician who will do or say anything to win then he does not keep his campaign promises