Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

Smh wrote:

<quoted text>
This is why your reasoning is clouded. Your intent was to slam me to defend Columbo but you have actually restated my argument, just carried it to a ridiculous extreme. Both parties have faulted and need to own up to their actions. One's actions have pushed the other to their actions. The shooter (Renner)can blame his response on the actions of the rapist(Columbo)but both share the blame for the result (shot rapist) and neither is more wrong than the other, they are both just wrong.
The one-upmanship displayed between these two is very obvious and blatant. Take it to a court of law as you say and the aggression and hostility displayed by Columbo is very apparent. Renner may have stepped over the line, I don't think so but legally he may have, but I see no judge isolating Renner as the sole person responsible. He is likely to tell Renner to remove the CTP link, that's it. As a registered PI however, I would expect the judge to have a chat with Columbo about professionalism since in the legal system a judge would expect more of it from a PI than a real-crime journalist. Again, both are dumb asses and if one is slightly more of a dumb ass than the other, it's a moot point because they both have and will share time on the top of the heap. I do find the defense of Columbo disturbing, considering his past with people here, but hate, even misguided hate, is a powerful motivator. I hope that the good people here will return to their level headedness soon.

Judged:

1

1

1

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
who are you? i'd like to shake your hand.
bravo!
my best thought progressions and writing skills could not have so precisely captured the essence of the issues we debate. thank you, sir or madam.
while i trust some are focused on Renner's most recent exploitation of and collateral damage to innocents, it was shocking to see a number of normally balanced, like-minds excuse and embrace a perpetrator of accusations with his own long ten year history of transgressions against innocents.
after all, no one knows what happened to MM, yet, least of all the self-identified PI.

Judged:

1

1

1

Smh wrote:

I agree about self responsibility, I just happen to think Columbo and Renner share it. If you continually poke a hornets nest with a stick, sure it's the hornet's fault for stinging you, but it is reasonable for the poker to expect the sting, since the hornet has stung in the past. You can't say "I knew it could sting, but it didn't have to sting so hard". It's the nature of the beast and if you provoke it you can't claim ignorance of the result.

Smh wrote:

I agree about self responsibility, I just happen to think Columbo and Renner share it. If you continually poke a hornets nest with a stick, sure it's the hornet's fault for stinging you, but it is reasonable for the poker to expect the sting, since the hornet has stung in the past. You can't say "I knew it could sting, but it didn't have to sting so hard". It's the nature of the beast and if you provoke it you can't claim ignorance of the result.

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

Snowy......You are so cute....!
I actually see NOTHING except accusations loser.!
And of course this person references none of My posts just jumps on the band wagon with the new moniker.....Kennebunk Maine....Hummmmm Buzzzzzzzz
Show me the money people, other than that STFU. Sick of all Renner venom being infused into the bloodstreams of the unsuspecting.
AND....Snowy, your writing style drives me freaking insane and IF I never had to see another I would pay good money. Go back to school, Marmalicious Queen.
John
<quoted text>

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
i accuse no one in the disappearance of MM.
there are not enough facts verified, and there is not enough information in the public realm to do so. investigative authorities, not faux PIs or self-acclaimed armchair sleuths, bear that responsibility.
your 10 year campaign to push forward certain revolving accusations is despicable; you engage with others to do so. my opinions from observation.
i'm pleased to tweak your annoyance; it's mutual.

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

Not quite like a bee sting though.
It hurts..........but the reach is much further than just the ONE PERSON that was stung.
Do You see My analogy here.? bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz
Renner stung more than John Smith....he left his stinger in the heart of a well loved local business. I would bet You might be more concerned for CTP if you were their family or an employee whose earning a living depended on them. You might feel slightly different.
John ......not the Wolf at CTP for 4 yrs and Renner attacks their reputation for his hype and drama. If you agree with these tactics....YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN HIM....!
JMHO....John
<quoted text>

Smh wrote:

I agree about self responsibility, I just happen to think Columbo and Renner share it. If you continually poke a hornets nest with a stick, sure it's the hornet's fault for stinging you, but it is reasonable for the poker to expect the sting, since the hornet has stung in the past. You can't say "I knew it could sting, but it didn't have to sting so hard". It's the nature of the beast and if you provoke it you can't claim ignorance of the result.

wave wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =aJGqNWIyQ6c

The Vanguard wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LwsaoLEvWbw
Dedicated to Billy and family.

Judged:

2

2

2

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
how did your behaviors impact the "heart of a well loved local business"?
let's trace it back.
you worked for them, correct?
you carry, promote and publish their "branding" as "Wolfman", correct?
how did you defend this innocent business against the retaliatory actions taken against you by Renner in the name of a "well loved local business"?
what steps have you taken to make amends to them, your former employer, other than to continue to bicker with others about Renner's poor form. you are completely innocent, right?
where is a public statement from you that addresses ONLY THE WELL LOVED LOCAL BUSINESS THAT HAS BEEN DEFAMED, preferably after assessing your role, your interactions, and the consequences of the animosity and mutual hatred you and Renner hold for each other.
you poke at each other.
neither is better than the other.

Judged:

1

1

1

SnowyB wrote:

again, John, you are NOT the sole, causative agent for Renner's defaming your former employer; the depth of your interactions with him, however, was contributory, and perhaps of equal proportion to his actions.

Det Columbo wrote:

WOLFMAN is not a trademark of CTP.
The fact that has been My FB page name since 2009 still gives no credence to using that name would cause undo harm to CTP.
Therefore it is Renner's obligation to clarify his facts before bringing this business into the drama. He did not do this, he took info from My FB page and ran with it w/o checking into it further.
Let's just say I chose the middle name "PILLSBURY" and I had a pix of the Pillsbury dough boy on My page and a link to the its homepage cause I love Pillsbury. Also I had in My ABOUT ME: Worked @ Pillsbury school directly with the Dough Boy. Attended pasty classes @ Betty crocker.com .
OK....so now more than likely Renner would have now like to have everyone believe that;
" I work at Pillsbury, I am friends with the dough boy, and I have a connection to Betty Crocker. I have inside knowledge of secret recipes and more than likely know how betty caught the Yeast infection from the Dough Boy."
Any basic scenario will work, especially for Jimminy Cricket.
John
<quoted text>