Maura Murray

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
The writing styles, while not the same, have some definite similarities, verbosity being one. Give him time on the talking down to people. As far as the married man bit, believe it or not, Green has been known to lie in the past.:)
I'm not positive it is him, just pretty sure. Fireweed showed up as a new Websleuths poster a couple of days before Green resumed posting on Renner's blog again. I also find it interesting that Fireweed posted this:
"It seems so very unlikely to me, but John Green over on the Maura blog made a very good point about this deduction that I cannot help but question my once firm conviction on the matter:
The Green quote Fireweed then posted cannot be found in any Google searches, therefore my conclusion is that Fireweed has access to Green's posts that were deleted from his MM blog. Except for Green, Ledyard and possibly Tyler, I doubt anybody else has those quotes saved, so the likelihood is high that Fireweed is Green.
Lastly, I notice you are posting from a location that never shows up on Topix, marking you as a new poster, with your first post defending Green. Interesting.

Fan...
Not new, not old, somewhere in between and dabbling anonymously, but a long-time fan of your work, which is why I replied as I did.

My statement was not put forth as a defense of Green, I am no fan of that one. I actually like Fireweed's style. Although Fireweed is suspiciously more informed than most new posters, I did not feel that Green could pull off such a ruse, repeatedly, through that many posts, convincingly enough to actually be Fireweed. I would be more disappointed than anything to find out Green was Fireweed, but I really don't see him holding back the condescension and superior air that surrounds him, unless he attended some seriously intense sensitivity training during his absence. I am a fan of your research and insight, but was struck by your seeing Green amongst the Fireweed, since I did not get a whiff of that.

hardly a defense wrote:

My statement was not put forth as a defense of Green, I am no fan of that one. I actually like Fireweed's style. Although Fireweed is suspiciously more informed than most new posters, I did not feel that Green could pull off such a ruse, repeatedly, through that many posts, convincingly enough to actually be Fireweed. I would be more disappointed than anything to find out Green was Fireweed, but I really don't see him holding back the condescension and superior air that surrounds him, unless he attended some seriously intense sensitivity training during his absence. I am a fan of your research and insight, but was struck by your seeing Green amongst the Fireweed, since I did not get a whiff of that.

Thanks for the nice words, sorry I jumped on you. I did get a whiff, almost immediately, upon reading Fireweed's posts, which got stronger with each post, culminating in Green's reappearance on Renner's blog and the Green quote. As I said, I am still not 100% positive, but I felt strongly enough that I thought I would point it out before people who post both here and Websleuths got sucked in to his game.

I find it interesting that Green supposedly deleted his blog and quit posting because, as he said in his last post on his blog:

"I have accepted a new position that in general precludes me from being involved in publicly commenting on a law enforcement investigation, at least within Internet forums. As a result, I will be out of pocket anyway for at least two months, but thereafter I will not have the same time to invest in engaging others about the case and doing so would not square with my duties in my new job."

I never believed this story, and his return to posting kind of negates that quote, at least in my eyes.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the nice words, sorry I jumped on you. I did get a whiff, almost immediately, upon reading Fireweed's posts, which got stronger with each post, culminating in Green's reappearance on Renner's blog and the Green quote. As I said, I am still not 100% positive, but I felt strongly enough that I thought I would point it out before people who post both here and Websleuths got sucked in to his game.
I find it interesting that Green supposedly deleted his blog and quit posting because, as he said in his last post on his blog:
"I have accepted a new position that in general precludes me from being involved in publicly commenting on a law enforcement investigation, at least within Internet forums. As a result, I will be out of pocket anyway for at least two months, but thereafter I will not have the same time to invest in engaging others about the case and doing so would not square with my duties in my new job."
I never believed this story, and his return to posting kind of negates that quote, at least in my eyes.

Green's verbosity was superfluous, often taking the reader on an indirect course to his point. Usually taking the reader on off-topic asides that add little or nothing to the subject, but rather let's Green explain his self proclaimed brilliance by how he came to his conclusion. To the contrary, Fireweeds verbosity seems to stem from a desire to cover all pertinent bases in a well thought out post. Although lengthy, every word means something to the subject of the post, directly not meandering. This is something I do not believe Green is capable of, and would be nearly impossible to fake with Green's ego. He may pull it off for a post or two with time to review and rewrite but not as quickly as fireweed was posting. My last shot at convincing you, be well.

Consider this wrote:

<quoted text>
Green's verbosity was superfluous, often taking the reader on an indirect course to his point. Usually taking the reader on off-topic asides that add little or nothing to the subject, but rather let's Green explain his self proclaimed brilliance by how he came to his conclusion. To the contrary, Fireweeds verbosity seems to stem from a desire to cover all pertinent bases in a well thought out post. Although lengthy, every word means something to the subject of the post, directly not meandering. This is something I do not believe Green is capable of, and would be nearly impossible to fake with Green's ego. He may pull it off for a post or two with time to review and rewrite but not as quickly as fireweed was posting. My last shot at convincing you, be well.

Nice shot, I agree with a lot of your points, but ... ah well, time will tell.

I believe I know who you are, hope you are well and enjoy the holiday season.:)

I'm tingling with joy at the intelligent and well versed posts on topix! It's like the philosophy department at Cornell mingling over a masters of the universe power brunch at Quiznos. Such depth. Such logic. And the reasoning. Oh my. I think there's a sticky spot in my budgie smugglers.

Philosophy + true crime = slimy bloomers

#formaura

There is now, in my opinion, a distinct possibility that 2014 will see someone get killed or badly hurt as a result of the abundant enmity that has arisen surrounding the disappearance of Maura Murray. Just to be absolutely clear, this is NOT a threat, and NOT a prediction. It's a concern that needs to be voiced - especially after the aggressive stalking and intimidation that happened in western MA on 21 November 2013.

Beagle, you brought the attention to yourself by taunting The Murray family as well as LE. Let's be real Beagle. It is your problem brought on by you and no one else.
Why did you post the videos? I say attention and you are getting what you were looking for.

Where did you get the Ski ticket Beagle?

jwb wrote:

Beagle, you brought the attention to yourself by taunting The Murray family as well as LE. Let's be real Beagle. It is your problem brought on by you and no one else.
Why did you post the videos? I say attention and you are getting what you were looking for.

First, this taunting family AND LE thing is pretty new. No one ever mentioned LE before. So I guess... well, you know how Monaghan feels. But kind of a dense dip, if you'll allow a compliment. Attention grabbing, by the way, is very old and completely out of the question.

Ah, yes, back to the videos - that self-defined source of criticism you forever cling to. Get real, JWB, it's not Wilson.

But... since I'm feeling kind-hearted, open-minded, generous - you know, the holidays and all - I must say as kindly as possible that you are entirely inventing this taunt thing. And you know it. It is your raison d'etre. What on earth would you have done without it?(See? I was thinking of you after all. All bases covered.) But if you want to overplay your hand, that's your call. One of the worst things about being in an online-constrained fight with amateurs like you is the guess-work involved in assessing the lurkers. You don't even know who they are.

But that's beside the point. This is not an online thing. The online aspect is simply the tip of the iceberg, sometimes the way feelings (oh, I hate that vague term) are conveyed, messages left. Very secondary.

Accent the positive, JWB. You're full of bright, charming ideas.

What were your intentions for posting the videos?They do exist right? I mean not invented.

jwb wrote:

Where did you get the Ski ticket Beagle?

Oh, the ski pass? Where did I get it? Well, there's this place called Bretton Woods. You may have heard of it. They're in NH. They sell ski passes. They sold one to me. Believe it or not, they actually sell these passes. To the pubic. Which, by the way, is XC, not DH. It's amazing how a PR machine like yours tries to hammer away at this. You're like old machinery in a new factory. Ga-Bang, Ga-Bang, Ga-Bang...

Anyone who thinks that finding out what happened to MM is the main event is sadly mistaken. But if it works for you, that's fine. Your'e easily contented. MM is just an out-dated vehicle. It's not about her or her disappearance. It doesn't matter whether she's dead or alive. Sound heartless? Not even close. But very, very sad.

Words in French?Please dont use French words I will never understand.Gawd help me its gettin' wordy.Over and out.

jwb wrote:

What were your intentions for posting the videos?They do exist right? I mean not invented.

Intentions exist? Which is another way of saying that you defned where they esist ad where they don't? Can you even define what an intention is?

Hint: to ascribe intention to to something that you have pre-judged and qualified is the very definition of self-serving manipulation.

Why did you make the videos if not to taunt the family?

AIden Howes Olson wrote:

Why did you make the videos if not to taunt the family?

Ah, nice try, but there's sort of a difference in the number of posts. No problem, this has become a strictly local issue now.

In saying 'nice TRY?' aren't you implying that intentions exist? What was I trying to do? Was I trying to taunt you?

http://www.topix.com/forum/ca/st-etienne-de-b...