An anonymous commenter recently wrote a comment on the story, “Did Allison Mack Pay Me to Go After Kristin Kreuk?- Reader Wants to Know
I redacted the comment heavily, because of what I perceived as rudeness toward another commenter. [I think it was Shadow State who was being criticized, by I can’t remember for sure.]
What wound up being published was:
“You’re welcome to go tell her yourself since you’ve [redacted].”
The result of my redaction was that the comment is not readily intelligible as it stands.
The anonymous commenter, who was redacted, apparently criticized my redaction policy.
This commenter wrote, “If your redaction policy removes the content of the comment such that meaning no longer exists then it is worthless. None of what was said in the redacted comment fell under anything you said would be removed from it.
If someone is going to tell others to call out a celebrity for what they want them to be called out and post the area around where they live, a person has a right to respond to them telling them go do it themselves since they found the time to stalk their location because that’s what they did.
I published the comment but redacted the last word of the comment.
I replied to the comment as follows:
The purpose of publishing the comment with redactions, that might make the original comment unintelligible is to, hopefully, try to educate readers, and particularly the commenter who had content redacted. He or she knows what was written and can glean from the redactions that this kind of comment won’t be approved in the future. If I just deleted the entire comment, the commenter might not know the reason for it.
I redacted one word of your most recent comment, where you called me a “hypocrite.” I realize this is an arbitrary decision on my part, but it is, after all, my website.
On the other hand, Bangkok has called me a lot worse, but at least he is funny. You’re not. So your comment is more effective in my opinion without the name calling.
Eliminating the name calling in this comment was, in my opinion, for the commenter’s benefit. He or she makes a better point without calling me a hypocrite.
I ask my readers to try to eliminate name calling, not just of me but of other commenters. The policy of most popular websites is to not allow any name calling of their writers.
Name calling only makes people defensive and less willing to consider change.
Assuming this anonymous commenter thinks I am a hypocrite, an opinion I do not share with him or her, mightn’t it be better – that is if the commenter really wanted to effect change – to say, “your position seems to be contradictory.”
Calling a person a hypocrite will only make them resentful and possibly resort to name calling themselves. Suggesting that my position is contradictory is more likely to prompt me to consider the point made in the comment.
Name calling is Ok if your goal is to pick a fight and not improve the conversation through intelligent debate.
I say this at the risk of being called a hypocrite again since I have called Keith Raniere plenty of names. But that was to pick a fight with him and win a fight with him.
As it turns out, I am very busy now, with filming, writing a book, doing paid consulting work and investigative work, and preparing for a bogus, trumped up trial that will embarrass the prosecution for decades to come, and also finding time to publish stories on Frank Report daily.
I don’t have enough time to debate every issue.
I think what the fool forgets is that name-calling rarely works, other than to bring divisiveness and that name calling should be used sparingly and only when one wants to escalate a fight.
Part of the reason the country is so divisive today is that everyone has a voice [which is good] thanks to the internet and social media, in particular, but fools and trolls with their angry voices and lack of empathy and understanding create a toxic environment that often lures others into toxicity and anger.
There are some who say the man at the top, the president, is leading the way, and I wish it were otherwise.
A little humor, a little understanding that most people intend to be good and do what they believe is right – even if you see it otherwise, exactly otherwise – is much better for debate, if the goal is learning the truth, or getting the other guy to understand your point of view.
Whether you agree or not, it is what I want for my website going forward and it is what I will get, since it is my website.
I invite everyone to participate with that understanding.
I further acknowledge that my redaction policy is not perfect. It is not 100 percent consistent and is subjective. I think I may have redacted something Nutjob wrote because I thought it was rude to another commenter when actually I think, in retrospect, he might have meant it as a compliment.
I also realize that I have redacted some content and approved similar content. This is not necessarily hypocrisy, it may actually be stupidity. I’ll keep trying to do better.
Meantime, I am trying to find time to write what I believe is a fascinating update on Ronnie Robinson’s Ghana scam victimization, and a great story about Keith Raniere’s grandpa, Rocco Raniere.
Last, but not least, some new, important information about the mystery of Kristin Snyder has surfaced. These stories take a lot of time.
Meantime, I have two relatively quick stories to present and are coming shortly: One is about how much did Lauren Salzman made with Nxivm and the other is my best argument as to why Allison Mack is a victim.
These posts were inspired by commenters, who lately have kept me pretty busy.
I also have a post to make on why I ran nude photos of the woman whose likeness was used to scam Ronnie.
The question was posed by a Portuguese woman whose parents work for an affluent family in Switzerland. She might have possibly committed criminal offenses. I am investigating and will publish my findings if I discover that my suspicions are true. Meantime, the woman writes as if she has some great moral high ground.
This is clearly hypocritical if it is true that this woman [and possibly her parents, who I expect to interview; the woman herself has declined repeated requests for an interview] committed immigration fraud or other conspiracy crimes, which her parents’ employers clearly do not know about. It may have been done in conjunction with a Colombian man who lives in Australia and belongs to a curious cult.
My point is that, despite the fact that the person appears to be dishonest, her question is still valid: Why did I chose to publish nude photos of the nude model who is being used to defraud my friend Ronnie Robinson. [I will answer it shortly in another post.]
Which proves my point: The message is more important than the messenger.
Please, keep this in mind, dear commenters.
For now, the best I can say is that slowly, the trolls are coming under control.
Thank you for your efforts, Frank, to reign in some of the personal vitriol. It has to be exhausting to deal with the subject at hand plus trying to manage extreme toxicity in the comments. I will return to leaving regular comments now. Honestly, some of the aggressive bile between commenters seemed to function as psychodrama outlets for people’s personal issues more than adding anything to the topic at hand. And it ran me off of Frank Report, for a time. I will return now.
Over thinking it
LOL. If only someone would invent a sarcasm font.
I think I’m finally getting clear on all of this. I’m allowed to type things like:
“Allison’s cankles make her masculine looking and unattractive IMO (incapable of giving men ‘ample’ wood). Thus, I can’t give Keith much credit for banging that whore —– cuz her body is far less attractive than 90% of women at most any bar during happy hour. Allison’s tits are almost non existent. Her legs are like those of a male wrestler. She’s stocky looking. She sure as fuck ain’t no swimsuit model. Yuck. I’m not sure what Keith saw in Allison —– cuz most men would need extra strength Viagra just to get adequate wood to bang that slut. How did she get a starring role when there are thousands of better looking gals, without cankles, in the acting world?”
BUT, I CAN’T say that [redacted] gets the material for his articles from Shadow. And I CAN’T hypothesize that Shadow is [redacted]’s ghostwriter.
I get it and it makes perfect sense. My ghostwriter comments were off topic, are mean, are obvious lies to anyone with eyes, will chase away more esteemed readers of FR, will be an awful things for future advertisers to read, and in general – are unbecoming to FR.
In the future, I will do one of two things. Either type – “To some, there may be a tad bit of similarities between shadow’s and [redacted]’s opinions on Allison and Lauren.”
Or I will type – “[redacted] is an unattractive, feminine looking whore. No woman would ever sleep with him and his tiny little penis. His arms are toothpicks and he’s borderline being considered a dwarf. He ain’t Brad Pitt. Yuck. Not sure what his wife saw in him cuz most women would require him to not be broke in order to gag up a conversation with him.”
I can and will conform.
The goal of the comment’s section is to stop the attacks on commenters so that commenters can be free to express their opinions. They are allowed to criticize the topics of the posts, such as Allison Mack.
When commenters start penning their own articles, they are choosing to become part of the story. There is no discussion of the FR version of Allison Mack without mentioning Shadow in the conversation. Niceguy choosing to write a three-part series on how awful Lauren is (unlike Heidi with no first-hand knowledge of NXIVM or Lauren), I’m not sure I agree with referring to him as a regular commenter. When Heidi writes her anti-Lauren article, she uses first-hand experiences. We can ask her follow-up questions like “can you give more details about the journal entry and the EM?” When Niceguy writes his article, it’s different. All I can come up with is “huh. You and Shadow have similar feelings about Lauren and Allison.” In other words, some commenters write posts as a way of making themselves a part of the post/conversation/story. I’d do more to protect people like Heidi and Susan Dones and Joe and Barbara B etc., etc. than protecting the Niceguys and Shadows of FR.
The goal produces fake comments. LOL
Some of us couldn’t care less what others think about us, because we’re not snowflakes. LOL
Regarding Frank’s Redaction Policy & What We All Can Learn From Frank, I have two takeaways:
1. Frank’s [redacted] policy is not all that bad. Now people can share personally sensitive information without being attacked. I don’t like the fact I can no longer dump on Johnson, but I also need to get a life.
2. One of the most important things we can all learn from Frank, which has gone unnoticed by everyone including Frank…
….Is at some point we all need to move on.
Frank is moving on with his life. Sure, Frank has a book coming out about NXIVM, but his next two TV specials have nothing to do with NXIVM. The Frank Report is moving on to new topics and issues.
Don’t get hung up about the past. At some point, you must move on, or the past owns your future.
Frank’s future is clearly in his own hands.
Yes, we clearly need to move on to Amway and other MLM scams. LOL
Do not let the past own your future.
Scott’s past owns Amway’s future, and they aren’t liking it. LOL
Speaking of troll infiltration on FR,
isn’t it interesting that the inverted red triangle the Trump admin alleges is the mark of that anti-fascist “terrorist” movement led by 92 year old billionaire George Soros, “ANTIFA,” has been repeatedly seen almost exclusively on Frank Report used as an icon by posters who expressed loyalty to Trump!
(These Antifa types sure are slippery ones.)
When you allow Bangkok to call you names because you think he is funny, it causes confusion, especially to new commenters, where the line is being drawn. LOL
I recognize it is your website and you can do as you want, but this will not do much to bring trolls under control, at any speed. LOL
Sounds like someone is envious of dear sweet Bangkok. I wonder who?
Why would I be envious of Bangkok, someone who is [redacted] Scott’s show? LOL
My own feelings towards the few people here who post almost exclusively hateful and insulting comments, is not that they offend me or outrage my sense of decency, it is simply that they are a nuisance.
Most people here [redacted] LOL
[aren’t as dumb as me].
[are not gay and do not have to deal with the hate I do.] LOL
Bet the anonymous poster was the [redacted]. He did not like the criticism of Kristin Crook(ed). How do you know how someone knows where she lives? Maybe people have EYES.
Maybe people have EYES?
Like the guy watching her condo?
Not too many people would know “the area” around which she lives except: 1) family 2) intimate friends 3) existing or former cult members 4) co-workers who somehow have obtained access to her address, and 5) stalkers.
Note that 3) or 4) may also fall under 5) and 5) may include additional categories of people.
The commie chinese Kung Flu is coming back – Like the gift that keeps on giving ! Soon it will have keith boy !
Yes. The virus is coming back, but not just for Raniere.
“The number of confirmed new coronavirus cases per day in the US hit an all-time high of 40,000 according to figures released by Johns Hopkins University on Friday, eclipsing the mark first set during one of the deadliest stretches in late April. It is a resurgence that has led some governors to backtrack or at least pause the reopening of their states.
The news came as the governor of Texas ordered the closing of all bars again and scaled back restaurant dining, in the biggest retreat yet by any state after business reopening.”
– Joanne Walters
“Kung Flu” originated on FR for sure but that inverted red triangle – also seen nearly exclusively on FR in modern days – was first trademarked by the Nazis branding Jews and others as slaves.
[Link to the Trump campaign ad FB banned. Do hope Frank has reported the origins of the “Kung Flu” outbreak and “ANTIFA” 🔻infiltration on his blog.]
Remember the Red Triangle
Mr. Mitch Garrity had next to his name?
Frank this is not mean; it’s the truth.
I do not think it was meant as anything racist.
Thank you, Nice guy. Frank
redacted Mitch Garrity’s name, etc. from my former inquiries though I was not being impolite I just want Mitch to clarify.
My confusion is that Mitch, clearly, self-identifies as MAGA, a conservative and a Trump Supporter. Yet, he uses an icon the Trump admin alleges is the mark of “Antifa” leftist terrorists.
Mitch said the inverted red triangle symbol is merely the logo on his gun.
I sincerely take it back and apologize to Mitch.
You are right. The red triangle is not racist and neither is the swastika.
Is anyone ever going to let Hiedi know the truth about the Kung flu origin? Or is this like when your child says earbrow instead of eyebrow? You just let them keep say it because it’s cute.
Why don’t YOU do that? LOL
Never mind, I already did it, we’ll see if it gets posted. LOL
Can you prove the term “kung flu” appeared on Frank Report before March 15, 2020? LOL
The “Kung Flu” link the LOL ghost posted featuring President Trump as viral form is from June 23.
Perhaps [redacted] Peaches has a reference prior to [redacted] Bangkok’s use of the term “Kung Flu” on FR in mid-March?
German measles and Spanish Flu are okay, but Chinese Flu is racist?
We all know, goddamn well, if the coronavirus started in the United States it would be called the U.S. Flu…..
Gimme a f*cking break.