Skip to content

Why Did Some “Get Hilo” Peeps Go Berserk?

April 24, 2011

If you can’t refute a damning argument, go berserk…

This is exactly how these people think.

This is exactly how these people think.

Some people who couldn’t just accept constructive criticisms went berserk after I published a damning blog titled In Defense of Absolute Rights and Free Speech Against Absolute Ignorance. I’m fully aware that my style and criticisms pissed a lot of people off, however, I never thought that after posting my critical blog some highly confused statists would show their true color. Well, some people know how to “change colors”, as one Facebooker said.

I’m talking about a blog collective called Get Real Philippines, which deserves the moniker “Get TROLL Philippines”. Some Anti-Pinoy people called this group “Get Hilo Philippines.” I think they’re so right. This”Get hilo” label really fits their manifest confusion about a lot of social, philosophical, legal issues. So when I published my blog critique of a fallacy-riddled “Get Hilo” blog (that contains hints of plagiarism) titled “Do Filipinos know how to use their freedom of speech?”, I thought these confused statists would make some logical, proper rebuttal. I was wrong. These people can’t just handle constructive criticisms.

Instead of getting some rational, educated, logical response, these Get Hilo people went berserk and published puerile, infantile blogs that contain not even an iota of logical (?) refutation. Well, their childish antics simply refute their righteous claim that they’re merely trying to preach the responsible use of free speech. Yeah right!

Responsible free speech? Get real, people, not Get Hilo! Lol!

Life is too precious to waste on these highly confused “Get Hilo” people…

I sometimes used the words “idiot”, “stupid”, “dimwit”, but only for those people who deserved them. But these hypocrites try to preach us virtue of responsible free speech? Get real!

About their so-called responsible free speech, it seems that the following screen-shots show otherwise.

Let’s meet the characters of our screen-shot story:

BenK: a blogger who owns an infantile blog. Based on my observation, this BenK is good at writing ill-researched and dishonest blogs.

Benigno: a Get Hilo blogger and the blog collective’s number 1 troll.

Gabby D: an unidentified commenting object (UCO).

Batman: another unidentified commenting object (UCO).

Rhee: another unidentified commenting object (UCO).

Here’s a Get Hilo warning: “Next time try to get to know who you are dealing with before you launch your attack, ok?” — I’m so afraid!!!

I really had fun dealing with these dimwits. The experience was like dealing with clueless, scampering little kids. So I had to piss them off. Here’s what I said to trolling Benito who was crying like an ugly little baby with his flurry of troll-comments:

I deleted your comments. Now that’s absolute. They’re gone. That’s also my absolute right because my right is not limited by anything whatsoever- and this blogsite is my private property… Let’s see if you can send the thought-control and anti-free speech police to arrest me. Can you? Why? Because I never violated any of your crappy right! Do you understand that concept? You can howl all you can. You can even leap to your death and the result would be ABSOLUTE: dead or alive! ;-)

This one is so EPIC:

The screen-shot above shows a Facebooker’s comment on my “absolute rights” argument.

The comment states: “In the time of Adam and Eve however, they were given the order, a command, which perceived to be a law, thought it wasn’t written.”

If “it wasn’t written”, how does she know it? Perhaps it was revealed to her in her dreams… ZZZzzzzzzzzz…


Pro-limited rights Kay Aviles posted my blog on the “Get Hilo” Facebook group just a few minutes after I published my blog and posted on the Anti-Pinoy FB group. Since this one involves their tribe it immediately generated howling comments. I wasn’t surprised that Kay Aviles made some fantastic claim so to perhaps excoriate herself from her own faulty, hilarious arguments.

Here’s what she said:

Fantastic claims... Fantastic claims... Fantastic claims...

Fantastic claims… Fantastic claims… Fantastic claims…

She told me she was going to “use the Bible” to “demonstrate” her point? I went over the original thread but that “bible” wasn’t there. Is it gone? Is she willing to take this HONESTY OATH? ”

I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God…”

Below is actually what happened during my encounter with Kay Aviles, the most active apologist for the Get Hilo collective.

Then the actual response and mine…

You might ask me, “Why the update?” It’s because some people are wont to making fantastic claims or “i-don’t-know”. Prior to all of this, I left AP Crowd, AP Tavern and GRP FB groups. However, I had to go back again (to AP Crowd and AP Tavern) just to correct the ignorance of some Get Hilo people there. For instance, Kay Aviles had her own interpretation of the bill of rights. Perhaps she had personally, unilaterally amended the 1987 Constitution. Perhaps… I don’t know…

The only question to these people is:

If rights are limited, in what way? Is it metaphysically limited or politically limited?

The answer to that question determines whether they understand the nature of rights.

Final update:

Here’s my reaction to what I’ve just seen:

And… The leftist “litmus test” worked really great! Leftists and leftists-in-denial are indeed academic elitists… It’s like I’m seeing an actual yet virtual laboratory and study people’s reaction to a “strawman” trick… I was damn right! Perhaps I have this talent in psychologizing some people’s behavior online…

27 Comments leave one →
  1. Lol on you permalink
    April 24, 2011 3:38

    You Suck!

  2. April 24, 2011 3:38

    This is an open thread! You can cry a river here like little babies… PLEASE POST YOUR “HATE SPEECHES” HERE, YOU WHO WANT TO LIMIT FREE SPEECH!

    I know… I know… Here’s how you look like when you cry:

  3. Atroxxx permalink
    April 24, 2011 3:38

    uhm, ok. if you say so…

  4. April 25, 2011 3:38

    It’s all quiet! haha! This is epic, Vincent. The “non-absolute” absolute idiots got slapped in the face with reality. Get hilo! lol!

  5. April 25, 2011 3:38

    Kay Aviles is such a hypocritical bimbo… A liar and a bimbo lol…

  6. jepchupogi permalink
    April 26, 2011 3:38

    If I had to choose which limitation, it would be political limitation.

    Limitation of our rights based on politicking of people in the government for various reasons such as but not limited to political correctness, environmentalism, social justice etc… All under the umbrella of collectivist excuses to encroach slowly, and to finally conquer us.

    I am unclear on what you mean by metaphysical limitation, pls explain.

    • April 26, 2011 3:38

      Metaphysical limitation is best illustrated by Kay Aviles’ statement above: “In the time of Adam and Eve however, they were given the order, a command, which perceived to be a law, thought it wasn’t written.” It means that man’s rights have been limited by either god of nature.

      Many of my critics point out to the standard dictionary meaning of absolute. It is true that the word absolute means “not qualified, full and complete”, however this definition does not include MORAL EVALUATION. It does not say whether an absolute monarchy is evil or good. It does not say whether absolute power is a menace to society or not. It does not say whether absolute ignorance would lead us to damnation or not. This function is best left to the area of ethics.

      Ethics is code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. It is the center of metaphysics and epistemology. It is where we determine the things that man’s life requires. Do we need a right? Thus, a right is a moral concept. When you think of rights, don’t ever forget that you’re a human being with free will and conscience (you’re not an animal) and the proper concept of government.

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 27, 2011 3:38

        well, if we are talking about RIGHTS only, then i can’t see how the metaphysical holds it back.

        other factors, such as physical, political, or social limitation can hold it back.

        For example: I want to fly. For sure i have the right to fly. the question is how.
        1. I cannot naturally fly (Physical)
        2. I cannot just go country to country w/o going through immigration etc… (political). Silly government, always wanting to know where we are so we can be taxed.
        3. I cannot just poof a plane like coco-crunch, i must either buy or rent with a contract (social).

        I still fail to see where the metaphysical is at fault, is it because we were born w/o wings so we can fly?

        maybe my example doesn’t show a problem.

        “In the time of Adam and Eve however, they were given the order, a command, which perceived to be a law, thought it wasn’t written.”

        whoa, technically the story of Adam and Eve can be said to be a myth for the israelites in an attempt to explain the world around them; topics attempted were “why are we here”, “who made us”, “why is there evil” etc etc….

        This can be compared to our Malakas and Maganda myth, us being dough and cooked just right (moreneo) myth and others.

        So i don’t see why you have to call upon Genesis to support your argument.

        Fun Fact:

        First day: God creates light (“Let there be light!”)[Gen 1:3]

        Second day: God creates a firmament (“Let a firmament be…!”)[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named “skies”.

        Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] “earth” and “sea” are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

        Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

        Fifth day: God commands the sea to “teem with living creatures”, and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

        Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His “image” and “likeness” (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” The totality of creation is described by God as “very good.”

        Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

        -from wikipedia

        I want you to take notice of the 4th day where God made sun moon stars ” to mark days, seasons and years.”
        Technically, a definition of a day (24 hours) is based on the earth revolving around the sun. Clearly, prior to the fourth day, there is an earth, but no sun to revolve around, so how can it be a fourth day?


      • April 27, 2011 3:38

        So in your opinion rights are limited by law? I believe that runs counter to Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and even the American Constitution, which I think the best and most moral charter on earth. Is our right to life limited by law? Is our right to liberty limited by law? Is our right to property limited by law? Is our right to the pursuit of happiness limited by law?

        The answer could be “yes” in all collectivist societies that don’t believe in individual rights. But that’s not the case in some self-respecting societies. If rights are “naturally” limited by law, that means that the government has the right to control our lives from womb to tomb.

        Rights are absolute for the simple reason that this is what human nature requires. But that doesn’t mean that we have the right to kill, to rob, to disrespect other people’s rights. Again, a right is a moral concept that’s why proper understanding of the nature or concept of rights is very much important. We are not animals. We are human beings with conscience and free will. We have the faculty to know what is right and wrong. Animals don’t. Nature gives animals automatic means of survival. For us human beings, we still have to use our minds or reason in order to survive. We don’t have fangs; we don’t have wings to fly’ we don’t have the strength of an elephant.

        Thus, the concept of rights is attached to our understanding of the concept of right and wrong. For this reason, we have a government to protect our rights from rights-violators, criminals and gangs. But what “limits” individual rights? The answer is, rights! When you disrespect the rights of others, then the government must step in to protect the innocent from the rights-violator. That’s what I discussed here

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 27, 2011 3:38

        In my opinion, our rights are being limited by law when it shouldn’t be.

        Rights are there, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, only subjected to a restriction that you don’t violate other’s rights.

        “Is our right to life limited by law? Is our right to liberty limited by law? Is our right to property limited by law? Is our right to the pursuit of happiness limited by law?”

        you are correct in saying that collectivist societies limit these rights, since Philippines is somewhere in between, there are laws that, I can’t say outright negate the rights, it impedes us from availing of these rights, and congress continues to restrict our rights by implementing more laws.

        For example: RH bill gets passed (oh noes), it restricts the doctor’s rights to discriminate their patients, and to charge what they think they are worth (pursuit of happiness), doctors might quit, thus reducing our choices in health care (a reduction in OUR pursuit of happiness). A law came to existence that restrict our rights when is should not have in the first place.

        “Rights are absolute for the simple reason that this is what human nature requires.” and may I add that the restriction of “not violating other’s rights” is also a requirement to live as a human being.

        At first glance, the restriction “not violating other’s rights” would not make absolute freedom absolute, but at closer inspection, not trampling on other people’s rights, and at the same time they reciprocate that grants you the MOST freedom, compared to a collectivist state or a chaotic gangster state.

      • April 27, 2011 3:38

        “Rights are there, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, only subjected to a restriction that you don’t violate other’s rights.”

        — That’s absolute!

      • jepchupogi permalink
        April 28, 2011 3:38


  7. Angela permalink
    April 27, 2011 3:38


    Why do you resort to so much name-calling? It is a sign that you cannot control your emotions. It is a sign that you cannot communicate your thoughts well. It is a sign that you are immature.

    Why do you expect that people should come up with a rebuttal to your blog? Not everyone is a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. You can go on and on about her teaching but not everyone will care. People can live without her teachings because as you said, our rights are natural. We don’t need anyone telling us that, especially not you.

  8. April 28, 2011 3:38

    While I strongly disagree with Vincent on this issue, I think the Get Real Philippines (GRP) is taking Vincent’s critique of Ilda personally. Vincent gave his objective criticism of Ilda’s work and I don’t see anything wrong with his style and arguments.

    It’s sad that instead of reading logical, sound reply from the GRP people they resorted to child attacks. That’s not good, people… MOVE ON.

  9. May 1, 2011 3:38

    This is how it went with my exchange of opinion with Astrogeek in Ilda’s post. I thought it has ended there.

    Trosp on April 24, 2011 at 12:55 am

    Aristogeek: “Just read the Vincenton blog because it is detailed there how the most-read blogger copied some entries online for her college research paper.”

    Vinceton claimed in his post:”I’m not saying that the blogger, who definitely did her research well, committed the crime of plagiarism, however, it’s very clear that the passage was lifted from this online source.”

    Obviously, you following his line of thought, also think that plagiarism is a crime. (Yes, if plagiarism is a crime, then there is no need for copyright law).

    This is how plagiarism is defined in and let us see what this post has not complied with:

    All of the following are considered plagiarism:

    1) Turning in someone else’s work as your own.
    (Did the blog poster claimed it as her own? Like making a claim it as her own opinion.)

    2) Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit.
    (Why not let the offended party call the attention of the poster. We don’t know if the offended party that is being referred to is really the original source.)

    3) Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks.
    (Did she fail on that one?)

    4) Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation.

    5)Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

    6) Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)

    Items 4 to 6 are academic.

    We’re on a blogsphere and everybody is loose in citing their source. (Associated Press is charging any excerpting of their online articles instead of going through with litigative approach.)

    I might as well visit your blog and see if there is no hypocrisy behind your accusation.

    Let’s see who is the real stupid.

    Trosp on April 24, 2011 at 1:29 am

    Aristogeek, I haven’t started yet with your blog and one that attracted my attention is the Aristotle’s Politics (Book Two).

    Written without citing any source.

    You stupid ass. Moron!

    Trosp on April 24, 2011 at 2:25 am

    All one has to do is copypaste an excerpt from his post and voila – it’s plagiarism by his definition.


    I’ve copypasted this one at random from his post to google –

    ure and not have to provide for their daily wants is generally acknowledged, but there is a difficulty in seeing how this leisure is to be attained. The Thessalian Penestae have often risen against their masters, and the Helots in like manner against the Lacedaemonians, for whose misfortunes they are always lying in wait. Nothing, however, of this kind has as yethappened to the Cretans; the reason probably is that the neighboring cities, even when at war with one another, never form an alliance with rebellious serfs, rebellions not being for their interest, since they the

    It’s from –

    And it was not cited. at his post

    Plagiarism by his definition.

    You certified asshole and moron!

    Why are you still around?

    Trosp on April 24, 2011 at 1:41 am

    In a blogsphere, specially if it’s just a personal expression of one’s self or an expression of an opinion, citing source is not as important as the the context of the article.

    Once there was a commenter who could not challenged my comment because he only know me by my commenter’s name. He has to know my curriculum vitae the way I see how he wanted it to be.

    Jeez. How stupid.

    Aristogeek on April 24, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    @ Trosp.

    People here are so ******! Trosp, you obviously don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

    First, I identified Aristotle as the source of some of my blog posts, ******. Second, these works are UNCOPYRIGHTED!!! Do you know the concept of copyright, stupid?

    Second, Vincenton said that out of SARCASM. But it’s clear he used the words “LIFTED”, “BORROWED” and “COPIED.” He just let the readers decide whether plagiarism was committed. And ergo, THERE WAS PLAGIARISM.

    Third, Ilda copied the lines VERBATIM without paraphrasing! If she wanted to avoid being accused of PLAGIARISM, she should have used DIRECT QUOTATION! Do you understand that? That’s plagiarism. When I checked, Ilda based most of her work on ONLINE SOURCES.

    Fourth, you should know the proper concept of PLAGIARISM, ******!

    Fifth, instead of TROLLING the Vincenton blog, why not make your own arguments? Your trolling simply means you’re a BUNCH OF ****** PEEPS!

    Trosp on April 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm


    Is that your best?

    According to you –

    “First, I identified Aristotle as the source of some of my blog posts, stupid. Second, these works are UNCOPYRIGHTED!!! Do you know the concept of copyright, stupid?”

    (Hey stupid, you’ve quoted Aristole but what is your source? You’ve got it from his treatise?

    Uncopyrighted??? Copyright and plagiarism are not apple to apple comparison. As I’ve commented, if plagiarism is a crime, then, there is no need for copyright law. He he he, it’s obvious that one is beyond your comprehension. I’ll suggest you read my comment slowly. BTW stupid, can you educate us on how you’ve determined it is uncopyrighted? Have you known the link that I’ve provided is the original one?)

    Second, Vincenton said that out of SARCASM. But it’s clear he used the words “LIFTED”, “BORROWED” and “COPIED.” He just let the readers decide whether plagiarism was committed. And ergo, THERE WAS PLAGIARISM.

    (What I’m saying is you’re following his line of thought. I don’t care if it is sarcasm or anything else.)

    Third, Ilda copied the lines VERBATIM without paraphrasing! If she wanted to avoid being accused of PLAGIARISM, she should have used DIRECT QUOTATION! Do you understand that? That’s plagiarism. When I checked, Ilda based most of her work on ONLINE SOURCES.

    (Would I care? What I’m highlighting is your hypocrisy. I can still pick out a lot of items in your blog that you have plagiarized.)

    Fifth, instead of TROLLING the Vincenton blog, why not make your own arguments? Your trolling simply means you’re a BUNCH OF STUPID PEEPS!

    (Hey stupid, you link us to Vinceton blog and now you’re accusing me of trolling. BTW, I’m also his regular blog reader. Hey, stupid, I haven’t read any of your argument in this post except calling us here stupid.)

    He he he. This past three days were dull days for me. Balikan mo agad ako para masaya. Just make it sure you also understand what you’re blabbing. You can fake it if it will really comes to the point that you’re that shallow.

    Parting words, read my comment again. And read it slowly and comprehending each word. It’s very evident you have a comprehension problem.

    Aristogeek on April 24, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    It’s useless to argue with ****** people like you. It seems that you’re all Ilda’s zombies hihi…

    Try to educate yourself on the proper concept of plagiarism, stupid…

    Trosp on April 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    I thought I could have some fun on this dull days because of this stupid astrogeek as my punching bag. Hey astrogeek stupid boy, nothing anymore. You’ve even provided us a link for us to check what plagiarism is. A link that does not linked. Wala ka ng ginawang tama. Page not found. Sablay ka na naman.

    Not satisfied with the one I’ve provide earlier –

    Bye-bye asshole. Better luck next time.

    • May 1, 2011 3:38

      That’s quite interesting conversation with Jake aka Aristogeek…

      Here’s my response to Dudey…

      @ Dudey (whoever you are),

      Well, the minor “revision” to Ilda’s blog proves my claim. I checked her blog and she inserted a few quotation marks into her article so to make it appear that she didn’t really steal a single passage from an online source.

      For your information, I copied this line from her blog:

      ““A defamation law is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one’s reputation against the public right to freedom of speech. Defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments. Anything that injures a person’s reputation can be defamatory.”

      I used CTRL-C and CTRL-V. It’s good this statement remains the same: “It is very difficult to rebut statements made in mass media. There have been so many cases where people’s reputations have been destroyed by media attacks in the country.”

      But that’s OK. No big deal to me.

      • May 1, 2011 3:38

        He he he, staying classy is not a hard thing to do…

    • terence_18 permalink
      May 15, 2011 3:38

      wala kang utak trosp

  10. nitesoul permalink
    May 4, 2011 3:38

    low blow dude. low blow.

  11. terence18 permalink
    May 11, 2011 3:38

    go froilan get hilo talaga

  12. terence_18 permalink
    May 15, 2011 3:38

    get hilo talaga ang husay mo mr froilan, galing mo biruin mo wala silang nagawa sa iyo? ang dami kasi sa kanilang nagmamagaling e. kahit hindi ako naniniwala sa ibang views ni froilan kasi di ko pa gaanong gamay, mas lalo naman akong hindi naniniwala sa get hilo na taong yun. walang views puro porma. e ano ba ginawa ni froilan, objective critique lang naman, tapos pinagtulungan siya. hilong hilo na yata silang lahat e. yung mga taga get real, get fake talaga

  13. Wyett Lukas permalink
    June 8, 2011 3:38

    AP also stands for Abnormal Padyakeros.
    Nice article Froilan. It really reflects the nature of your stupidity.

  14. John Mark Benito permalink
    February 17, 2012 3:38

    Itong mga bloggers ng Get Real Philippines hindi man lamang nilalagay sa blog nila yung full profile nila. Kung talagang pinaninindigan nila mga sinasabi nila, hindi dapat sila nagtatago sa mga “code names” nila. Who the hell is beningo anyway????? Ang hirap kasi sa mga taong taga-Get Real Philippines na yan ay akala mo kung sinu-sinong matatalino!!!! Sa totoo lang, nakaka-insulto sila sa karaniwang Pilipino!!!! Mga nagmamarunong kasi!!!! Huwag na lang natin silang pansinin…..

  15. John Mark Benito permalink
    February 17, 2012 3:38

    Yun mga ayaw sa pamahalaang ito at kay PNoy (whom the call with a variety of derisive names like “Abnoy” etc) ay masyado naman paniwalang-paniwala sa mga anti-PNoy entries ng mga bloggers ng Get Real Philippines. Sa totoo lang, hindi lang naman si PNoy ang binabatikos ng mga ito. Yung Get Real Philippines na yan ay circa 2000 pa nagsimula, bago pa man naging pangulo si PNoy (si Erap at Gloria pa noon). Kahit noon pa man ay puro batikos at paninira lang di lamang sa gobyerno ng Pilipinas kundi puro panlalait sa kultura at pagkatao nating mga Pilipino. Puro sila batikos, akala mo mga matatalino na sila lang ang nakakaalam ng kung ano ang tama para sa ating bansa. Nakakahiya talaga, sa halip na magbigay ng positibong pananaw para sa ikabubut ng Pilipino ay nakuha pang manlait!!! Kaya kayong mga anti-govenment ang sentimento, lalo na yung ayaw kay PNoy “Abnoy” (at dahil dun, abnoy din ang tawag nila sa mga bumoto o supporters ni PNoy, mga “yellow morons” sabi nila…), kung akala ninyo nakahanap kayo ng “matitinong” mapapaniwalaan sa Get Real Philippines ay nagkakamali kayo!!!


  1. The Psychotic Rants of a ‘Get Hilo’ Statist « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. A Notice to My Troll-Critics « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Arguing With Welfarist Idiots « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: