When "Observe But Do Not Interfere" Interferes

Ok. It's official. I got Amy Robinson's permission to post her email responses to me about this guy's false reporting about me and hers, too.

This is Amy's permission response:

From : Amy Robinson <*********>
Sent : Friday, April 14, 2006 4:13 PM
To : MMcConnell mmcconnell2004(at)hotmail.com
Subject : Re: UFC fighter intro...about deaf UFC fighter...my input.

You can use whatever you want of my emails, I really could care less if I piss that jerk off, so use whatever you want.

This is what Amy said about Ridor in her rebuttal to his false reporting and accusation leveled toward me and at the same time misrepresented Amy's contention about me and how the info was gotten from me about Ridor.

From : Amy Robinson <***********>
Sent : Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:28 PM
To : MMcConnell mmcconnell2004(at)hotmail.com
Subject : Re: UFC fighter intro...about deaf UFC fighter...my input.

That guy Ridor is a total prick, I don't know what his deal is. I mentioned his hateful blog on Matt over on the sherdog mma forums, and apparently alot of people complained to him about his comments. Somehow he got my email address and sends me this angry email, asking me who told me about his blog, so I said I found the link off of your (Kokonut Pundits) site. I then proceeded to tell him it was pretty extreme to wish brain damage apon someone, and that gay people preech tolerance, and he wasn't showing any himself. I also asked him if there was anyway he could have misinterperted the indicident between him and Matt, and he went off berading Matt calling him a names like a homophobe and stuff. That guy is nuts, and no I didn't give him permission to use my email.

I added "Kokonut Pundits" in the above to clarify the "your."

Let me try and go over how he twisted, lied and misrepresented other people's responses just to try and discredit my reputation as a blogger on Kokonut Pundits:

1. He lied about how I supposedly informed the internet public that I had specifically posted his name and/or his blogsite address on MMA forums. Never happened. Why should I? Google and Yahoo will take care of that because of the sudden intense interest about Matt Hamill by both the deaf and hearing communities.

2. He lied about what Amy said (see Archive.org) in his desperate attempt to make readers believe that I gave her specific information about this guy by giving her his name and/or his blogsite address when I emailed her about my blogsite. Never happened. Read Amy's email response to me in the above.

3. He lied by saying that I said that he was "anti-UFC" on MMA forums. That has never happened. He pretty much said that himself in his own blog! Also, I am not even a member on any MMA forums. So, I cannot post.

4. He lied about what Amy Robinson really said to him by twisting her email response. He twisted her response just to suit his own agenda about how she got information from me. Amy's response in bold letters:

I got an email from Amy Robinson who confirmed that it was Mike “McWeenie” McConnell who mentioned about my anti-Matt Hamill entry: I really hope your were not very upset by my posting that, as I was just truly concerned that it was turning some people off to the UFC, and I was only going by Mr.McConnell’s word, who I really had no reason to doubt, as I have really no other connection into the deaf community, so once again please forgive me.

That "word" she got from me came directly from my blogsite only....not in my email to her or from MMA forums that Ridor has ardently claimed...repeatedly so. I just informed her that I was blogging about Matt after I found out about her article on Matt. I informed her so she can have another source to read about Matt.

Read her email response to me seen near the top of my blog to see how she retrieved info about Ridor off of my blogsite where he wished Matt Hamill a slow, brain-damaged death like Schiavo's.

This guy's credo is completely shot as of now. Well, it has been for awhile anyway. It may not have been apparent to some readers. You can see clearly, patently so, on the tactics he will use and how he will use people's words to suit his agenda to smear me and other people. Even to the point of not asking for permission to use other people personal emails on his blog hoping to generate more hatred and fomenting from the Deaf community. Or so he hopes. This is what gives the Deaf community a black eye. And he's doing a very good job at it.

I, on the other hand, would rather see all kinds of successes from deaf and hard of hearing people. Success can only be had if you work smartly and with dedication. Matt Hamill has proven that when he was one of the 12 people selected out of over 2000 who competed for the TUF3 slot. It took years of work. Lifting 10lb dumbells will not get you there.

I don't enjoy doing this type of lambasting but if it means to protect my reputation and, even more so, Amy Robinson's reputation, who is an amateur fighter, then I have no choice but to do this.

Just watch his blog and most likely he'll try and crucify Amy by calling her a "hearie" (as if that is a real insult to the hearing community), an "audist" or something so hideously "insulting." Maybe a "traiter!" This is a typical "crab theory" response by the deaf community. He'll undoubtedly try and do the same to me as he has always done.

As one poster commented on my blog recently saying, "you would think he's a fan of yours," when Ridor stalks at my every move in the blogosphere. Heck, enough so you'd probably think he works for Oscar Mayer weiner factory. If that what it takes to achieve "credibility" in the blogosphere then I want none of it. Yet, he gets it wrong every single time about me.

When you lie, twist words, make up stories and misrepresent other people long enough to the readers, the past has a way of catching up to you. I think it just did for Ridor. His overused balls, shaken but not stirred, are now effectively nailed to the wall for TUF3, Matt Hamill and UFC fans, and for Amy Robinson to see.

This is what happens when you interfere with the wrong people. Next time, please observe but do not interfere. Adhere to your own motto and heed to your own advice next time.

Thank you, Amy, for allowing me to do this.

UPDATE: More lies by Ridor caught in his own blog comment.

Ridor - "I do not care if he's a wonderful father (!) to some illegitimate kid that he conceived out of wedlock. I care less about it but I'd love to see him lose the contest or end up brain-damaged."

Kristi - Out of wedlock?? Better do your research a little better buddy.. we were married for 5 years. Your are the most hateful person I have ever met. I feel sorry for you.

Ron - Kristi, I'm not concerned with all of this discussion reguarding homosexuality, but rather supporting Matt and his reachign his goals!!! He was always a class act in my opinion. I coached matt at RIT and wish him the best of luck. I wish you and your daughter the best as well. Its been a few years since I've seen you and hope all is well. See Ya - Ron.


See what I mean folks? More fish stories from Ridor about Matt.

UPDATE II: Ridor continues to hold to his claim about Amy's email which is bogus and doesn't verify anything about me (see above emails) other than that I emailed to her about my blogsite. Which is why Amy allowed me, with her permission, to post her emails describing what Ridor has done is bogus! I never denied sending her an email. It was to inform her that I could offer a different perspective as a deaf/hh person on my blogsite about Matt. That's where she got the info about Ridor's blogsite. It came from my blogsite. What part you do not understand Ridor? What was your GPA again? Funny how Ridor continues to twist and lie about this. I have displayed Amy's full email response (with her permission to boot!) that rebuts Ridor's claim. Can he really be that dense after all?

Also, I'm not "forcing" you to accept Matt. That is a very weird and paranoid response. I guess you didn't notice on what I wrote earlier where I said that there are people who are either fans of the fighters or not. This includes a deaf MMA fighter. Me "forcing" you? Wotta laugh. Get a grip. You continue to misread into everything I write. What are your SAT scores anyway?

Next, just because I talk about HIV/AIDS or gays or whatever doesn't mean I'm gay. Far from it. Some people can be so dense over this where I have to spell it out. I like the female human species. None of that Brokeback stuff. When it comes to the male species on sex. It is simply gross. Now, if a person gets HIV through irresponsible and promiscuous actions, then it's the person's own damn fault. Simple as that. What's really funny is if you talk about it, means you are or might be gay or a repressed gay. Or if you don't talk about it, means you're a homophobe or don't care. Or if you do talk about it in a supposedly negative way (e.g. get HIV...your own damn fault, etc) means you're a homophobe. No. It's all about a person's accountability and responsibility.  However, I do have the right to speak my opinions on the matter. One thing though, whenever a person claims that he test himself regularly for HIV, that alone speaks volume of the person's obvious irresponsible actions. You can actually see that whenever you read his blogs. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to be tested for HIV on a regular basis. Again, Ridor gets it wrong, every...single....time about me.

Keep on lying about Amy's email. I'm sure she would appreciate that.

The Reagan anti-AIDS/HIV myths

Don’t be a kool-aid drinker. I try not to be one because it’s easier to check history and facts first before commenting. Nobody’s perfect but I respect people more that have facts on hand than to listen people spew utter nonsense. Let's take a look at President Reagan's supposed hatred against homosexual people and that he was anti-AIDS and a homophobe.

President Reagan first spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a reporter's question on AIDS research, the president told a White House news conference:

[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.

Reagan responded to the increasing AIDS deaths (not yet an epidemic until well into his 2nd term), it took a good friend Rock Hudson who died of AIDS for him to begin speaking publicly about AIDS.

Reagan’s presidency coincided with the emergence ofthe AIDS epidemic. Reagan’s response to this epidemicwas halting and ineffective. In the critical years of1984 and 1985, according to his White House physicianDr. John Hutton, Reagan thought of AIDS as though “itwas measles and would go away.” What changed Reagan’sview was the death in October 1985 of his friend RockHudson. Reagan went to Dr. Hutton and questioned him about thedisease. Hutton gave a lengthy explanation. “I alwaysthought the world would end in a flash, but this isworse,“ Reagan said. Even with his new knowledge,Reagan was slow to join the battle against AIDS. Hedid not mention AIDS in public again until Feb. 1986,when he announced that a major report on AIDS would be prepared, saying, ”We’re going to focus on prevention.“ Reagan’s surgeon general C. Everett released the report in Oct. 1986, and described hisremedy: ”One, abstinence; two, monogamy; three;condoms.“

Reagan’s remedy works just as well for homosexual couples who would rather wait before hooking up (marriage/union) to make the commitment to stay together with the “one-partner” rule. This would even solve the AIDS problem to such a great degree, we would not be having this epidemic. The legality issue of gay-marriage is an altogether another issue for each state.

Now, before you say, “Well, then it took Reagan 4 years before he said anything about AIDS” may I remind you of the timeline of when AIDS-HIV first started coming out?

President Reagan took office in January 1981. According to the CDC a total of 31 people died of AIDS. This mystery disease had no name, and was not publicized to any extent. During his first year in office, AIDS killed 128 people. Still a mystery disease and many were were not diagnosed until much later. The disease had no name nor was there a reliable test.Finally, in 1982 the CDC named the disease AIDS, and publicly linked it to the transfer of blood. Less than 500 people die of the disease that year, and 8 million dollars is devoted to it by the US government. In 1983 the virus is finally found and the CDC warns of possible dangers to the blood supply. It won't be until 1985 that there is a reliable test for HIV. This is well into Ronald Reagan's second term.During President Reagan's first term AIDS kills less than 6000 people. Far more people died of “common” diseases like influenza, but the Reagan administration still devoted 157 million dollars to AIDS in the first four years of office, before much was even known about it.

Here is a rundown of the mortality rates for 1985 according to the CDC

Diseases of heart - 771,169
Malignant neoplasms - 461,563
Cerebrovascular diseases - 153,050
Accidents and adverse effects - 93,457
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases - 74,662
Pneumonia and influenza - 67,615
Diabetes mellitus - 36,969
Suicide - 29,453
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis - 26,767
Atherosclerosis - 23,926
Nephritis,nephrotic syndrome,and nephrosis - 21,349
Homicide and legal intervention - 19,893
Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period - 19,246
Septicemia - 17,182
Congenital anomalies - 12,783

Now, imagine CDC fighting to get fundings for those diseases when AIDS was just starting to become more prevalent. But President Reagan did do something about AIDS-HIV. He got the fundings started on HIV/AIDS research beginning in 1982.

According to the Congressional Research Service, federal spending on HIV/AIDS began at $5.5 million dollars in fiscal year 1982 (remember that President Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981 and had no influence on discretionary spending for FY1981 but had considerable influence on requesting larger funding for FY1982 and onward). By the time Reagan left office, the fiscal 1989 budget contained $1.304 billion dollars for HIV/AIDS research and development. Overall, between fiscal years 1982 and 1989, the Reagan Administration spent $3.2 billion dollars on HIV/AIDS research and development.

HHS Discretionary Funding for HIV/AIDS

FY1981 - $200,000
FY1982 - $5.5 million dollars spent. A 2,678% increase from prior year.
FY1983 – $28.7 million dollars. A 417% increase from prior year.
FY1984 - $61.4 million dollars. A 114% increase from prior year.
FY1985 - $108 million dollars. A 77 % increase from prior year.
FY1986 - $233 million dollars. A 115% increase from prior year.
FY1987 - $502 million dollars. A 115% increase from prior year.
FY1988 - $962 million dollars. A 94% increase from prior year.
FY1989 - $1.3 billion dollars. A 36% increase from prior year.

The spending quickly accelerated within a few years from literally nothing at first. Had Reagan not care about AIDS he could have found a way to slow the growth curve and devote more money elsewhere. But he didn't.

Also, a little known history about Reagan’s tolerance toward gays. Reagan’s interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party — a fact confirmed for the press by Mrs. Reagan's press secretary.

Read this website called “Independent Gay Forum”.

You ought to be thanking President Reagan for what he has tried to do to fund HIV/AIDS research on such a massive scale so early on but slow at first. At least I respect the Independent Gay Forum in taking an honest look into the Reagan/AIDS myths by being factually correct thereby slamming any myths about what Reagan supposedly did not do about AIDS or cared about AIDS, and its research and cure.

Now, do you want to be a kool-aid drinker or get facts first?