.:On "Oplan: Discredit The Preacher":.
Wait, what?
It was hilarious enough the first time this cropped up. I wrote an article on the 8List about scandals I believed to be worse than Chito Miranda, and then saw that same list blow up when it was featured by Yahoo.
And yes, that was the sorta-hilarious but also sorta-scary point where I realized that my time in the 8List could very well yield some death threats. Crazy, I know.
But you know what's crazier? That someone who I don't remotely even know would go out there, do a "research" paper on me, and get his dose of daily exercise by running his mouth and jumping to conclusions. So if you ever end up reading this, Toto Onato, come at me, bro. I'm ready for you.
En garde.
Let's take a look at the drivel he wrote, then. And no, I won't even bother correcting his grammar or spelling. Too much work.
Toto opens with the supposed "background" on the list that I wrote...
Background: On August 16,
2013, a certain Kel Fabie published on Yahoo! News an article entitled “8S
candals Far Worse Than Chito Miranda’shttp://ph.news.yahoo.com/8-scandals-far-worse-chito-miranda-104528051.html. (Chito
Miranda, Jr., incidentally, is a Filipino lead singer for the band “Parokya ni
Edgar ”. On August 3, 2013, video snippets of Miranda having sex with his
girlfriend Neri Naig were leaked and became viral hits in many social media
sites but Fabie, in his article,did not consider it even a scandal of sort).
Right there, you see that we are operating from starkly differing points of view. As far as I'm concerned, I've made it very clear that I don't find any scandal in a rock star who happens to have sex with his girlfriend. When I pitched this for the 8List, I came in with the intention of diverting attention from what I found to be a worthless distraction, and instead make people pay more attention to what I found were truly scandalous things, in varying degrees. Let's face it: between two consenting adults screwing each other, and Janet Napoles screwing the entire nation over, I'm more inclined to have actual f*cks to give about the latter than the former.
So Toto goes on, and says that he will investigate me further: except it's clear that he doesn't, because at no point does he ever stumble upon the 8List, which would have provided him with a whole lot of context for why I write what I write.
Save for one (1) religious
preacher who landed in the number 8 position from the list, all theothers
are either past or present government officials, politicians and
associates involved in large scale graft and corruption in government and
other forms of criminal acts. The author’s strange inclusion of a lone
religious personality from the list of scandals in politics and governance
had placed his intention in serious
doubt, hence, the consistency and integrity of his work necessitates further
scrutiny.In the spirit of fairness, this
report aims to present an impartial assessment on
the credibility of his article and to ferret out the probability of an ulterior
motive behind the publication of his own preferential list of scandals.
I'm not a journalist. I'm opinionated, I do ruffle feathers, and in case it hasn't been so obvious yet, when I make lists, I like throwing in some choices from out of left field. But no, I'm not a journalist. Of course the list would be subjective, and the "ulterior motive" you speak of is to remind people that Chito Miranda's scandal is the least of our problems. That it just so happened to be Brother Eli at this point instead of, say, the multiple instances of pedophilia or sexual harassment demonstrated by some of the Catholic clergy, is just par for the course.
It's laughable how he keeps on placing disclaimers "in the spirit of fairness" that this is an "impartial assessment" regarding the credibility of my list, when all he ever does is play mind-reader and question my motives without ever once refuting the evidence I have linked to regarding Brother Eli Soriano's case. Which is a thing. That exists.
So he quotes my list in the next section of his "paper" and completely misses the fact that the list was designed as a wake-up call to people who seem more preoccupied with what consenting adults do in their bedroom than the people we supposedly call our leaders.
From there, he quoted some information that he would actually care about, as he is clearly a member of Ang Dating Daan:
Bro. Eli had been facing
numerous libel cases in various courts in the Philippines and they were all
filed by the Manalos’ church Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC). The INC also filed
sometime in 2001 a frustrated murder case and in 2004, a rape case against
Bro. Eli. The frustrated murder case was dismissed during the early part of 2010
while the rape case had been ongoing.Complainants Bernardo Santiago in frustrated
murder case and Daniel Veridiano in rape casewere former members of ADD who
were excommunicated for adultery in the case of Santiago and multiple rape
and malverzation of funds in the case of Veridiano. The moment they became privileged
members of the INC, that was the time they filed their respective complaint
against him. Incidentally, the rape case had been previously dismissed at the
level of the Fiscals’ office in Pampanga but the surprise intervention of
the Department of Justice then under Secretary Raul Gonzales who was under Manalo’s
sphere of influence, hastily reversed the earlier resolution and ordered
the subsequent re-filing of the dismissed rape case. References:1)http://truthhuntsman.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/the-nightmare-of-false-prophets-part-2-hated-by-inc-in-gods-name/2)http://totoonato.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/23/5163361-indecent-political-affair-and-injustices-to-remember?threadId=1086017
Notice the part where he said that there's still a warrant for arrest out there for Brother Eli? How about the part where Brother Eli is still technically a fugitive evading arrest, much like Senator Lacson was a few years ago? Oh, he didn't mention any of that? Strange. I thought he said he was being "impartial?"
I feel so betrayed.
So from this point, he then launches into his "findings," and points out that yes, 7 out of 8 entries were all politically related, without at any point being cognizant of the fact that at no point did I promise that all 8 of the scandals would be political in nature...
Moreover, the
statement from the author himself: “if he is innocent, this is a scandal of clear
religious oppression” is a manifestation that he is not fully convinced that
Bro. Eli is liable. Therefore, such “benefit of doubt” should have effectively
deprived the author of anymore valid reason and resolve to proceed with the odd
inclusion of the lone preacher on the list.Instead of being reasonably
guided however, the author even presented the purported scandal list in reverse
order from 8th to 1st so that the name of Bro.
Eli appears to be the banner headline.
And here, he displays his complete lack of research, which puts
his credibility into question, more than anything else: I included #8 because it was a two-way scandal. If it were true, it's a scandal on Brother Eli's part. If it were false, it was a scandal of religious oppression. Either way, it
is a scandal, and one that people should be very aware of.
He makes it even worse by being oblivious to the notion of a countdown, which is the standard practice for
all lists on the website, barring very few exceptions. But since he doesn't even know that the 8List exists because he never bothered to actually do any research for his "research" paper, it becomes pretty obvious why he makes this conjecture, and proceeds to assume this was done because of SEO, rather than an increasing order of relevance for the average person as we approach the #1 item.
So mad, you guys.
At this point, he drops all pretense of scholarly restraint, and proceeds to lay this doozy down...
Noticeably, the
author even managed to use blog links sympathetic to Bro. Eli apparently
in a feigned attemptto project himself as not being biased in reporting.
In short, the author’s temerity for trickery and pretentiousness to project
image of objectivity and fairness is obvious. Nonetheless, it can never erase
the evident shadow of his devious and malicious intention against Bro Eli,
who, in reality, is his article’s main target personality. (emphasis mine)
Oy, vey.
Brother Eli was far from my main target. In fact, he was the token non-political guy I threw into the list for the sake of a bit of diversity. The main target was, and obviously always has been, Janet Napoles. A cursory look at the
multiple lists I've written or co-written should tell you as much, but of course doing any minute amount of "research" on this "research" paper is way too much work for Toto, isn't it?
And to think I found out about this paper from a frigging vanity search.
His conclusion? Even worse.
Conclusion:
Kel Fabie article
about his so-called 8 scandals is obviously nothing more than a poorly executed
propaganda plot against Bro. Eli Soriano (apparently sponsored by his
detractors) which should have been entitled
instead as “OPLAN: DISCREDIT THE PREACHER”.
Discredit the preacher? Do you think I even care about your preacher's credibility as much as I care about the fact that he is involved in a high-profile rape allegation case and is still evading arrest? Do you think this is the face of someone who gives a sh*t?
Not pictured: the face of someone who gives a sh*t.
Hey, Toto! You know the only reason people ended up
really remembering why your fearless leader (who's apparently in hiding from cops looking to serve him a warrant of arrest) is still being accused of having raped a dude? Because people like you think people like me give a sh*t. Newsflash: I'm a religious egalitarian. I hate 'em all equally.
There is no plot, and it would have been cool if I were paid by Brother Eli's detractors to write a list I would have totally written for my job anyways, but nope, that didn't happen either. Newsflash: the world doesn't f*cking revolve around you.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
I also find it laughable that other people in the comments "defended" Soriano from being called "homophobic" because all he did was cite the Bible. You mean, just because the apparently homophobic verses are from the Bible, they're magically
not homophobic somehow? It doesn't work that way.
Ultimately, it's pretty pathetic that you feel so compelled to defend your great leader when he isn't even willing to face the music and do it himself.
