A recent commenter opined that there seems to be little difference between the once 20-something Patrick "Bankrupt Tory" Ross, and the current 40-something Patrick Ross, and based on what an anonymous source pointed me at, I can assure you that Patrick's rhetorical dishonesty has not changed one iota in all the time I've had the misfortune to know him.
Paraphrasing slightly for simplicity, someone on social media suggested they would love to have met an alleged child abuser, for the sole purpose of teaching said child abuser a lesson. Patrick -- as is his pattern -- chose to deliberately misrepresent this as saying that that person insisted he would love to meet said child abuser (stripping the story of all of its critically important context).
This is how Patrick operates -- we call this "arguing in bad faith", where Patrick will take some event, then very carefully describe it in a misleading way that portrays it in an entirely inaccurate light. He's done this as long as I've known him, so it's unsurprising that he's still doing it. In fact, he's done this sort of thing in his legal filings, and that did not end well when my lawyer explained Patrick's deliberate misrepresentation to the Court.
In any event, it's clear Patrick has learned nothing from destroying his life via bankruptcy and a massive judgment against him. I can't say I'm surprised.
1 comment:
Yeah, I noticed that about Patrick over at his Twitter account -- he'll describe something in a way that is *technically* accurate, but he misrepresents it in every way he can while still being able to claim that he's not "lying" about it. It's the sort of dishonesty you expect from children, not 44-year-olds.
Post a Comment