For release
We have it on good authority from reliable witness-victims that when he is relating the incidents of their encounters with him, Mr. Viglione will accuse these poor victims of saying and/or doing things that Joe himself has actually said/done. It's the honest truth. So using this "truth translator" and applying it to these accusations, one will have revealed to them what has actually transpired. When he is speaking in hateful terms of others, Joe is actually confessing to his own feelings of self worthlessness.
Take this passage for example: "Clearly the most vulgar and possibly the most hated man in Medford, Gary Zappelli." Running this through our "Truth Translator" we get. "Clearly the most vulgar and possibly the most hated man in Medford, Joseph Viglione." The truth of the matter is that in 2009 one judge Gailey, in reaching his decision upon hearing a lawsuit against Mr Viglione, stated in a physical document (which is a matter of public record) that Mr. Viglione made a statement that was "vile and disgusting" and "phrased almost beyond belief". Now, to my knowledge, no judge ever wrote in a public record any such statement about Gary Zappelli. So I ask you to be the judge; who would you find to be more vulgar, someone about whom a judge has said made a vile and digusting statement phrased almost beyond belief or someone about whom no judge ever made that statement?
Now for an example of an actual event: "a former member wrote an AFFIDAVIT of Sarno and others engaged in a conspiracy" appears on Mr Viglione's blog. Here Mr. Viglione is talking about a Mr. John Byers as the "former member" so let's restate that using proper names to get: "John Byers wrote an AFFIDAVIT of Sarno and others engaged in a conspiracy." Running that through the "Truth Translator" we get "Joseph Viglione wrote an AFFIDAVIT of Sarno and others engaged in a conspiracy." Which is exactly what he did. Joe Viglione wrote this affidavit, putting John Byer's name to it and then had John Byers sign his own name to it without even having thoroughly read it at the time. It was not until some days later, after receiving a copy of the signed affidavit in the mail, that Mr Byers noticed in that statement phrases and descriptions that Mr Byers had not used. This affidavit was not accepted in court, but when Mr Byers gave his verbal testimony, the judge, after asking Mr Byers some questions about his testimony, was able to determine that it was arrived at by Mr Byers hearing Mr. Viglione's account of what had allegedly transpired, not by Mr Byers witnessing of any actual, factual events. She was able to determine that Mr Sarno did not engage in conspiracy. Upon typing this it comes to my mind that, depending on the legal definition of "conspiracy", it is possible that Mr Viglione himself engaged in conspiracy when he manufactured that Affidavit!
The above example actually illustrates another of Mr Viglione's deceptive communication ploys. Since Mr Viglione once was a member of TV3 Medford and then left it in late 2002/early 2003 (and we have an e-mail from him at that time stating that he is no longer a part of TV3 and therefore could not be suspended) and is now banned and therefore not currently a member; his blog posting of "a former member wrote an AFFIDAVIT of Sarno and others engaged in a conspiracy." is actually true if one considers the "former member" to be Mr Viglione himself. However, taking the entire posted paragraph (something I am not going to bother to do here), it is phrased to make a reasonable person conclude that Mr Viglione is speaking of a person other than himself.
These are just two examples. If you have the desire to (although I do not imagine why anyone would have this desire), you can go back to his blogs and use this translator to discover the true truth. More worthwhile would be to just remember this and apply the "Truth Translator" whenever you encounter any of Joseph Viglione's blogs, e-mails, LOC's (LOC="letter of comment" for those not in the know) City Council orations etc. to obtain the actual, true, truth. Better yet, just ignore him - why bother to pay any creedance to it at all, really.
