Notice to "Burnaby49"

[notorial dissent]

I find it interesting that within a certain group dynamic that the terms "lawyer" and "statist" are considered derogatory terms and the worst insult that they can throw at you, kind of like "pedo" seems to be on some of the British forums. I guess if someone recognizes the way the world/system/society works and acknowledges it then they are statists in certain people's minds. Ah well, if Piggy wants agreement with his views and attitudes then he had best find a more amenable place to frequent, oh, wait, rumor has it he has already been tossed out of most of those places as well. Wonder why? Piggy is free to believe whatever nonsense he chooses to, but I am equally free to totally ignore it and him, and I think that burns him the worst, that no one cares what he happens to believe or what he happens to think of the posters here.

[Hanslune]

Yes proud to be a 'statist' and am sorry I will be gone when far in the future, many generations and years in the future when we arrive at a world or solar system combined under one human government.

Hey maybe that's where the sovcits should go - into space - all they have to do is figure out how to get those birth bonds cashed in and invest a 100 billion or so.

LOL

[The Observer]

Yes proud to be a 'statist'...

A good slogan for a Quatloos T-shirt. Wonder if we could get pigpot to wear one...

[pigpot]

Yes proud to be a 'statist'...

A good slogan for a Quatloos T-shirt. Wonder if we could get pigpot to wear one...

Possibly not. Who targeted who lately by the way? Me or the truck driving wanna be lawyer. Did any moderator pick that up no. Bias much. I'm impartial here... what about everyone else.

[Tuba Cain]

I don't intend to hijack, and I know it's bad business to feed a troll, but since the issue of impartiality has been raised I would very much like to ask the following question:

pigpot, have you ever considered the possibility that you may be completely wrong?

[pigpot]

I don't intend to hijack, and I know it's bad business to feed a troll, but since the issue of impartiality has been raised I would very much like to ask the following question:

pigpot, have you ever considered the possibility that you may be completely wrong?

No! You didn't hijack anything. You asked a question. That's fine. Can we stop with the childish moderation. Please... Nah! I'm not begging.

[LordEd]

First rule of freemanism is to reject possibilities that go against the approved thinking.

It's a miracle any freemen venture here.

[Burnaby49]

I don't intend to hijack, and I know it's bad business to feed a troll, but since the issue of impartiality has been raised I would very much like to ask the following question:

pigpot, have you ever considered the possibility that you may be completely wrong?

No! You didn't hijack anything. You asked a question. That's fine. Can we stop with the childish moderation. Please... Nah! I'm not begging.

No.

[pigpot]

I don't intend to hijack, and I know it's bad business to feed a troll, but since the issue of impartiality has been raised I would very much like to ask the following question:

pigpot, have you ever considered the possibility that you may be completely wrong?

No! You didn't hijack anything. You asked a question. That's fine. Can we stop with the childish moderation. Please... Nah! I'm not begging.

No.

Okay!

[Pottapaug1938]

Can we stop with the childish moderation.

Sure -- once you stop with the childish posts. Having seen your pre-moderation posts, I'm grateful to the moderators for keeping them off of this forum.

You'll have to get your derpamine rush elsewhere....

[The Observer]

No! You didn't hijack anything. You asked a question. That's fine. Can we stop with the childish moderation. Please... Nah! I'm not begging.

No.

Okay!

Wow, there we have it in black and white. pigpot gave consent to be moderated by a bunch of statists.

[Tuba Cain]

Interesting. So you've never, ever considered the possibility that you may be completely wrong. Would you be willing to consider the possibility that you are completely wrong? Would you be willing to entertain the notion that those who you have been trolling might actually be right?

I'd like to suggest that if you are unwilling to consider this, then you are not in a position to consider yourself impartial.


[Edited to give the word "Would" a little more oomph]

[Tuba Cain]

Wow, there we have it in black and white. pigpot gave consent to be moderated by a bunch of statists.

Awesome! Now that he has entered into a contract with us we can totally use the phony bank account we set up for his strawman, and just blow all the money on hats and beer!

[pigpot]

Would you be willing to entertain the notion that those who you have been trolling might actually be right?

[Edited to give the word "Would" a little more oomph]

I have chopped up your post so I can directly address the matters you raise. Yes I would. In fact I have. The outcome is that I haven't been wrong in years and I'm told that by lots of impartial people. The fact is I used to be a "Statist", quite an avid supporter of the concept if truth be told. And then I started to think for myself and came to the conclusion it is merely an idea that some quite silly people hold onto (like I used to) because they a scared of what might happen if they lose their precious identity. I'm not precious at all. "Burnaby49" won't give me my old thread back and that's fine. I couldn't give a fig really. I like entertainment and really actually this is all this is about. I see him now, hunched over a laptop thinking "he's" making a difference upholding his "statist" values. You know what, "he's" making no difference at all. Go and look at various comments on the internet quoting that people should look into others who are (and have been for some time) going down a very alternate path and the amount of support is overwhelming for them. Don't go and provide me a source that refutes what I'm saying though because that's not what I'm typing about here. I'm talking about people actually freeing themselves of "Government" shackles. It's growing by the day as people like me wish to do so as they are seeing through the myth.

You seem quite an interesting individual. I've enjoyed the chat. Hope we can remain civil unlike some of the posters here. I don't "swear" or "curse" here unlike others. I do whoever enjoy a "profanity" laced conversation but just not here. If you'd prefer a fuller and franker conversation pop over to Marc Stevens forum and do what "Wes" has done and submit your points and get them broken down by others and not just me as it's important that I'm not seen to be the only one that is vocal (typing wise) on the issue. I also don't "swear" over on Marc's site anymore.

Cheers. Have a good day. "SHIBBOLETH".

[grixit]

Sometimes i see the notifications of Pigpot's posts before Burnaby does. I used to approve any that weren't outright abusive. But he's warn me down. Now i disapprove any that don't actually contribute anything new. Which means i haven't approved any in a while.

In all the time since starting here, Pigpot has given us only one original topic. And that is the question of where authority comes from. That sparked a discussion of social contract theory, which several of us tried to explain to him. That included explaining the difference between a social contract and a regular one, such as the fact that you don't have to explicitly enter into one. But Pigpot refuses to accept the answers, or even to try to dispute them in a rational way. He does not engage, he just repeats himself. And calls names.

Pigpot refuses to learn about social contract, civics, or consensus. And is therefor unable to learn about real dissent, debate, or political action.

And that's the last i'm going to say about him.

[Burnaby49]

I've allowed Pigpot's latest post because he at least seems to be somewhat thoughtful and has tried to be coherent. A comment on a point he makes;

" "Burnaby49" won't give me my old thread back and that's fine."

That wasn't my doing. I didn't want to put him in moderation status. I wanted to ban him. Had I had the final decision on Pigpot he'd be long gone.

[pigpot]

I've allowed Pigpot's latest post because he at least seems to be somewhat thoughtful and has tried to be coherent. A comment on a point he makes;

" "Burnaby49" won't give me my old thread back and that's fine."

That wasn't my doing. I didn't want to put him in moderation status. I wanted to ban him. Had I had the final decision on Pigpot he'd be long gone.

Well that's all well and good. At least you've been honest about it. Just don't be disingenuous about it all. It seems like your thoughts about the matter are that I'm going to be placed upon moderation forever. If so, so be it. It may seem to some though that the reflection is not upon me so much but you lot of moderators. You mean "snigger". That's the ACTUAL pronunciation of the word without your childishness built into your world view.

[LordEd]

I see him now, hunched over a laptop thinking "he's" making a difference upholding his "statist" values. You know what, "he's" making no difference at all.

If hunching over a laptop writing live attended court results in one Mr. Ream type litigant from thinking there's a remote chance of success, it's a good difference.

I'm talking about people actually freeing themselves of "Government" shackles.

Dean got a new pair of shackles for the next few years, and Menard has to hide from his.

Your gurus are spent. Freemanism is dying.

[pigpot]

I see him now, hunched over a laptop thinking "he's" making a difference upholding his "statist" values. You know what, "he's" making no difference at all.

If hunching over a laptop writing live attended court results in one Mr. Ream type litigant from thinking there's a remote chance of success, it's a good difference.

I'm talking about people actually freeing themselves of "Government" shackles.

Dean got a new pair of shackles for the next few years, and Menard has to hide from his.

Your gurus are spent. Freemanism is dying.

Did I mention "Freemanism"? Please show me where I mentioned "Freemanism".

[Burnaby49]

I see him now, hunched over a laptop thinking "he's" making a difference upholding his "statist" values. You know what, "he's" making no difference at all.

If hunching over a laptop writing live attended court results in one Mr. Ream type litigant from thinking there's a remote chance of success, it's a good difference.

I'm talking about people actually freeing themselves of "Government" shackles.

Dean got a new pair of shackles for the next few years, and Menard has to hide from his.

Your gurus are spent. Freemanism is dying.

I love you wild-eyed optimism. Dying? The family has gathered at the hospital bedside, the priest has concluded last rites, and the doctor just switched off the equipment.

You still have the nutters like Lawrence Friesen and Wally Dove trying to be heard in court but they are invariably struck without leave to amend before they can reach trial. Even Menard, the great guru himself, ignominiously got the bum's rush at the Federal court of Canada when he filed that ridiculous Statement of Claim. When he got the chance to argue his pet belief in a real court where he faced consequences for losing he scurried away. The gurus are gone. Belanger, once very prolific and one of my main posting targets is now just a spent force posting gibberish like this on his FaceBook page;

delusion confusion and losing in the grass the lying and crying and dying as a mass the hooking by booking of the looking at the son is the reason for the season of the pleasing of the one that profits as they cough it and mop it on your face as it's protruded deluded and denuded of it's space to brake you fake you mistake you for a fool but then..... delusion confusion and intrusion was the rule yes the slithering still quivering will be breaking in the mule

I've been very active attending trials with a packed summer ahead of me but they all involve charges for economic crimes, Poriskyite income tax evaders. While Porisky's Paradigm tax evasion system was sovereign based most of the convicted Poriskyites were not true sovereigns. They were just using their claimed beliefs as a defense when charged with criminal offenses. There are currently six separate Poriskyite prosecution in play in Vancouver, Leo Fung, Peter Balogh, Debbie Anderson, Arthur Doerksen, Keith Lawson and Michael Millar. Three of these six have retained counsel and probably won't use sovereign defenses. The other three are, at least currently, employing freeman arguments.

I have already attended hearings for five of the six with a lot more to come over the next four months. I'm currently under a publication ban for much of it, as I was for Porisky himself, with a flood of posts to make when the trials are over. But when they are done, that's it. I see nothing else on the horizon. The days of true Freeman court cases, the Nanaimo Three, the Chief, Yankson and Holmes seem over, at least here.