22 December 2010

Spineless Wikipedia fokkers violate their own guidelines to censor negative Kelly Ayotte facts from First Amendment fokker KingCast.net

In this journal and over at Kelly Ayotte Wiki journal one can see that I've been having a tete-a-tete with the folks from Wikipedia regarding accurate yet politically-damaging information about a certain dirtbag U.S. Senator, that fokker and big business dupe Kelly Ayotte.

Well when you read that first linked post you can see from the screen save that Wiki gave me several guidelines about posting that I clearly followed for both of the above posts, which were stricken without comment. All I noted was the ongoing litigation and the FACT that Kelly Ayotte does not believe that all reporters should have access to her publicly-advertised rallies that occur on commercial property subject to State licensing and permitting. And I provided a reference from a daily newspaper from the second-largest or largest city in New Hampshire, as the Wiki fokkers told me to do. One day I would like to meet these fokkers in a public debate about this but that will never happen because if they're too scared to post a simple article they would never leave themselves open to a KingCast video noting their gutless nature.

You newbies take note: Three years ago then-Alderman Fred Teeboom and I won the challenge I initiated to open Nashua School Boards for public comment on personnel matters because I don't accept any bullshit from anybody, and I'm a very careful and calculating First Amendment Fokker.

Or as Kanye would say, "Let's have a toast for those douchebags."


Anonymous said...

They have provided an explanation ( which you may not agree with, but they have written something ):


They have also responded to the specific post you mention at the top of your linked "Kelly Ayotte Wiki journal" here:


again, I understand you may not agree with it, but an attempt was made by someone there to respond in some fashion.

I'm writing this just as an FYI to you, in case you were not aware of their responses, I'm not taking sides here ;)
but I noticed that these counterpoints were not mentioned or linked to in your blog, so I can only assume that perhaps you are not aware of them?

Christopher King said...

I was aware of the second one but searched and could not find the first.

They are full of shit, so I responded and am now posting that exchange in the top picture because the Nashua Telegraph story clearly says what I say it said, i.e.

"Ayotte believes that some media are not entitled to participate."

They can fuss because the story didn't say "commercial property" but it clearly is commercial property, duh.

They suck, just a bunch of bullshitters protecting a bad public servant.


Christopher King said...

Wiki: Hey King go get a newspaper account.

KingCast: OK here's the Nashua Telegraph, Wiki says it's the second-largest paper in NH (27,000 daily, and 34,000 on Sunday)

Wiki: Hey King you misquoted the account.

KingCast: OK, here's direct quotes showing that I spoke to Kelly Ayotte and the Police had me escorted out after she refused to acknowledge my presence.

Wiki: Hey King that's not good enough either, you have no proof she knew about the litigation.

KingCast: You guys are scum.

Christopher King said...

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on internet censorship:


Yah, right, just a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit, if he really means it he will publish the fact that a U.S. Senator believes she can pick and choose the media covering her publicly-advertised campaign events that occur on commercial property subject to State licensing and permitting.

If so, good on him for correcting the work of a few mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging jackass editors.

If not, then we know he's full of shit.

Time will tell, won't it.

Especially because others will be posting the same information soon.

-The KingCaster.