ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[ngupowered]

Potta, where are the 3 persons? I won't rebut posts that carry no support.

[Pottapaug1938]

Potta, where are the 3 persons? I won't rebut posts that carry no support.

Once again: you don't make the rules on this forum. And, once again, you don't have anything with which to refute LPC's Supreme Court citation. If you did, you'd have supplied it to us long ago. On top of that, even if you DID get your three persons, you'd either find some other excuse for not providing a rebuttal, or else you'd give us some word salad which would be adequate only in your little mind.

Besides, you haven't rebutted it, so it stands.

[AndyK]

Three people? How about nine -- the members of the Supreme Court who wrote the cited opinion.

It matters not if three, five, or fifty people agree or disagree with their decision. Until it is overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court decision, it stands as the law of the land.

Unless you can document some case which contradicts the Supreme Court's decision, your theory (and associated blathering) is REBUTTED.

If you refuse to accept a Supreme Court decision as the law of the land, you are, at best, an ament.

[ngupowered]

So lets recap:

ST1 = Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied in action, for adjudication.
ST3 = LPC's post rebutts ST1.

Clarification: I require 3 people from this forum to stand under ST3.

I want to see those fools with my own eyes when I rebut ST3. Funny how neither LPC, potta or Andy volunteers, yet argue like Q-loonies.

Get me those bodies folks.

[Pottapaug1938]

So lets recap:

ST1 = Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied in action, for adjudication.
ST3 = LPC's post rebutts ST1.

Clarification: I require 3 people from this forum to stand under ST3.

I want to see those fools with my own eyes when I rebut ST3. Funny how neither LPC, potta or Andy volunteers, yet argue like Q-loonies.

Get me those bodies folks.

We don't "volunteer" because we won't put up with your petty attempts to hijack the rules for this forum. Also, as AndyK said, you already have at least five people who have rebutted your statement -- the minimum majority on the Supreme Court; and since the rest of us go with what the Supreme Court says, you can infer that you already have many more than your silly little 3-person requirement demands.

Admit it -- even if you did get your 3 people, you have nothing with which to rebut LPC's Supreme Court case.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I won't rebut posts that carry no support.

In that case, as you won't rebut them, they stand as the truth.
Glad we sorted that out.
You lose.

[Arthur Rubin]

Potta, where are the 3 persons? I won't rebut posts that carry no support.

Can you point to 1 person who supports your position. (As it's completely unjustified, I'd accept three identifiable people in the real world, to start with.)

[Pottapaug1938]

I might also note that David Merrill, perhaps one of the biggest buffoons who has ever posted on Quatloos and who eventually had to be banned for breaking the forum's rules once too many times, was quite willing to provide evidence for his assertions that the law is not what it is generally accepted to be. His so-called evidence was worthless; but at least David offered us something. Ngupowered won't even go that far. He can't, because he has nothing to offer us.

[The Observer]

Ngupowered won't even go that far. He can't, because he has nothing to offer us.

I, and others, have pointed that out several times. Yet people still insist on playing poker with the troll who has no hand, no chips in front of him and hasn't even anted up for the pot.

I guess the calls for moderation are to protect the troll-feeders from themselves.

But I do agree that if gnu decides to engage in any more posts that can be perceived as slurs or insults based on gender and the like, he will deserve severe moderation.

[webhick]

Webhick even issues threat while misconstruing my post; his mind is obviously elsewhere.

You told a woman that she was better off with her mouth shut and then out of nowhere asked her proximity to a kitchen. Telling a person that they're better off with their mouth shut isn't sexist in and of itself, but "go back to the kitchen", which was implied, is sexist when directed at a woman - especially since there's no other reason to bring it up - and makes the first comment retroactively sexist. And since I'm a woman on the internet, I get to be the recipient to this kind of crap all the time.

Your accusation that I misinterpreted your comment would carry more weight had you attempted to defend yourself with stating how you intended it to be interpreted without getting more sexist, but you instead choose to accuse my mind of being "elsewhere." If we were playing by your debate rules on this issue, I would win since you failed to rebut my position. But we're playing by my rules right now and since we've had posters in the past defend comments like yours by making even worse comments, my ruling is: I don't want to hear it. I just don't.

You are in our house with our rules. You spew racist/sexist/homophobic insults again and you're going to be temporarily banned. End of discussion.

[The Observer]

You are in our house with our rules. You spew racist/sexist/homophobic insults again and you're going to be temporarily banned. End of discussion.

I would support a permanent ban. I think that gnu went too far over the line to just receive a slap on the wrist. And if gnu is smart, he will accept what you just stated and not try to put the blame back on you.

[Pantherphil]

If you knew what the gnu knew you'd know nothing.

[ngupowered]

ST1 = Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied in action, for adjudication.
ST3 = LPC's post rebutts ST1.

No wonder people here are clueless. You have a moderator that managed, in the last post, to lie at least 3 times, 1 logical fallacy and issue threats on a faulty basis.

So, apparently folks here rather argue than standing under their posts and thereby a rebuttal to ST3. Doesn't really matter. ST1 stands anyway

[Pottapaug1938]

I say that it's ban-hammer time. Between ngupowered's dishonesty and his intellectual cowardice, plus an unwillingness to abide by forum rules worthy of David Merrill, he has nothing worthwhile to say.

He belongs on the Saving to Suitors forum, where lack of verifiable evidence and conclusory statements are twin virtues.

[rogfulton]

I say that it's ban-hammer time. Between ngupowered's dishonesty and his intellectual cowardice, plus an unwillingness to abide by forum rules worthy of David Merrill, he has nothing worthwhile to say.

He belongs on the Saving to Suitors forum, where lack of verifiable evidence and conclusory statements are twin virtues.

I agree.

[wserra]

I say that it's ban-hammer time.

And I'd say it's "stop responding to the troll" time. We could then see where we are.

[ngupowered]

What does this forum require of me to not get banned by a lying moderator and a clueless possy?

[LaVidaRoja]

1. List SPECIFIC lies, giving direct in-context quotes that were posted in this forum.
2. Show why each of those specific postings was a lie (i.e. "on 3-21, Wes said I have the I.Q. of a rock. My I.Q. is actually registered as being equivalent to a pine tree."
3.To prove your position, you would need to post a link to your I.Q. test or similar independent proof of your assertion.
4. In general, you avoid being banned by acting like an adult. That includes treating others with courtesy, answering specific, direct questions, NOT attempting to impose your own rules on the board.

[Pottapaug1938]

What does this forum require of me to not get banned by a lying moderator and a clueless possy?

Honesty. Courage. A willingness to operate under the fund rules. A willingness to provide evidence when asserting a legal position which is contrary to well-established law. A willingness to be courteous, and avoid blatant lies about the moderators. A tagline, under one's posts, which is not snarky and self-serving. That's just for starters.

You've made David Merrill, Harvester, searcher and their ilk look good -- and that takes some doing.

[ngupowered]

I'll be happy to consider that if it finds support in the forum rules. Where are they btw?