March 15, 2007

Smith's love child:  hoax or not?

Phoenix New Times:  Ew.The difference with this hoax is that it has Anna Nicole Smith making vile racist comments to the Native American man with whom she supposedly had an affair back in 2001. It also depicts her asking the man, called Johny Soto, to fuck her “axe wound” in the bathroom of a casino in Las Vegas. The article also includes a nice dollop of racist assumptions about Native Americans–the author had John Soto’s father die of an alcohol overdose after consuming several bottles of Lysol floor cleaner. Go read the article if you want.

Anyway, the article is a fake, and it’s clear for several reasons. First, if John Soto is supposed to be a full-blooded Native American, then I’m a Samurai. The photo of the little kid is obviously Photoshopped. A little Googling showed that the spa where Smith and Soto supposedly stayed was closed during that time for rennovations.
Comment:  See my comments at the end of this posting. Also see

Courttv.com Message Boards > Anna Nicole Smith > Marshall Black Deer Soto [m]

a long thread in which the participants discuss the evidence against the hoax.

So far the evidence is inconclusive. If the story is a hoax, you gotta admire the Phoenix New Times for constructing a story rich with details that people, even Native experts, can't knock down easily.

10 comments:

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Ah, ya went and spoiled it! We were getting Tom Cruise's old sword for St. Paddy's Day!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
POSTSCRIPTUM: For YOU, Rob...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Hey, this could be the basis of yet another successful TV game show! HOAX, OR NO HOAX! And you should tap the FAUX News Network's Bill O'Reilly to host, if you can drag him away from kissing Rupert Murdoch's feet!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Several reality shows already have hoax-like premises, don't they?

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
If one really can conclude that what you areseeing or witnessing is 'reality'. Just what is your definition of 'reality', Rob?
All Best
Russ Bates
'writereflla'

Rob said...

Reality

re·al·i·ty /riˈælɪti/

1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.

In this context, the second definition applies.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
The characteristic dodge, of course. The question was, what is YOUR definition of reality, Rob? If that is your answer, then what you are saying is that you don't have a definition that is your own. Quick, send him over to the BatesMotel Swampland bidding table! We gots lots of bargains!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

You'd know dodges, I guess, since you use them so often.

I generally go by the dictionary definition, since it's the established definition. I applied that definition to reality shows by choosing the second of two meanings. That's more of an answer than you give to most questions, so spare us the double standard.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
But what you do not see is that writerfella will answer any honest question, honestly. But he refuses to answer dishonest or deceitful questions either dishonestly or deceitfully, nor especially those questions that the asker already has a set of answers that he wishes to hear repeated. To receive a dishonest answer or a deceitful one, writerfella has to be asked a singular question that was dishonest or deceitful in the first place. Thus, honest questions get honest answers. There are times, therefore, when askers get no response at all...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Translation of "dishonest or deceitful": designed to show the illogical, ignorant, simpleminded, or stupid nature of your answers.

Most of the questions I've asked you've never answered. Readers can search the archives themselves or take my word for it. In fact, I've offered you money if you could prove you answered certain questions. You ducked the challenge because you knew you couldn't win it.

As I said, Russ, if you're going to lie in my blog, I'll have to point out your lies. You're lying when you tell people you've answered questions that you haven't. Again, prove me wrong if you can. Put up or shut up.

I trust readers can see through your pathetic excuses for dodging questions, because I sure can. In contrast, I'll answer any question asked without using my mental powers to judge the questioner's "honesty." That's because I'm trying to get at the truth, not cover it up.

Was my answer to your rhetorical question about reality clear enough? My definition is the dictionary definition because it's the accepted definition. Let me know if any part of that isn't clear and I'll try again. Unlike you, I'm not afraid of answering questions.