ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[LPC]

... Maybe this guy is right.

Really? Is that the best you got? Weird old guys rambling on about Jesus?

But I have a point of personal privilege here. How (or when) did Hilfskreuzer Möwe become the "paramount infestation"? What am I? Chopped liver?

[LPC]

"ngu", this is our forum, and our rules.

There are rules?

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Really? Is that the best you got? Weird old guys rambling on about Jesus?

I won't make any suggestion one way or another, but simply note that "minister" Belanger remains one of Canada's great long-standing Sovereign/Freeman authorities. Not that much of anyone pays attention to him, but he's been there for approaching 20 years. Yeah, if nothing else, he's persistent.

But I have a point of personal privilege here. How (or when) did Hilfskreuzer Möwe become the "paramount infestation"? What am I? Chopped liver?

Eeeehhh ... you just haven't been mean enough to your northern neighbors.

In all fairness, Mr. Evan's FAQ was one of the very first references I encountered during my own spiral down this particular rabbit hole, and remains an authoritative and extremely useful resource for my activities. Mr. Evans: I particularly appreciate your observations as to the origin and backstory of what we in Canada call OPCA litigants. I have come to entirely agree with your conclusions.

But hey, I'm just a banana freighter. With the blood dripping ... on the typing ... stuff ... there ...

SMS Möwe

[ngupowered]

So, 48 hours are up.
Basically it seems Prof tried curve balling me and I guess some were smart enough to take notice. But others expressly confirmed ST2, thereby revealing themselves as fools; you know who you are.

ST1 stands unrebutted.

Proper rebuttal includes authenticated testimonials & transcripts from sworn reporters of arrest-, in-court & in-jail - conduct

More people consenting.

[rumpelstilzchen]

... during my own spiral down this particular rabbit hole,

I must confess that I find watching these morons to be so addictive.

[AndyK]

...
ST1 stands unrebutted. Only on your planet, accroding to the rules you make up as you go.

Proper rebuttal includes authenticated testimonials & transcripts from sworn reporters of arrest-, in-court & in-jail - conduct

Let's parse the previous statement to see if there's ANY sense to be derived from it:

Proper rebuttal includes Which definition of 'includes' are we dealing with: CONSISTS EXCLUSIVELY OF or CAN CONTAIN OTHER ITEMS authenticated by whom and in what manner? notarized affidavits, video tapes, unattributab le Internet posts testimonials & transcripts is this referring to official copies of court testimony and transcripts of hearings OR random statements from unconfirmable sources? from sworn By whom and with respect to which oath? reporters of arrest-, in-court & in-jail - conduct

Too many onen ends and undefined terms. Response is not possible since NGU can easily redefine the terms on an ad hoc basis.

[The Observer]

AndyK, it would been far more simpler and direct to just simply point out that gnupowered has put up nothing of substance for the discussion. Parsing what he is trying to pass off as material worthy of discussion is just a waste of your time. Like the emperor from Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale, gnupowered is hoping that no one notices his "nakedness" regarding "consent."

If gnu really wanted to convince us of the validity of his claim, he would be providing direct evidence of people avoiding jail by not consenting instead of relying on his illogical approach and fallacious conclusions. He isn't, so we should not waste any more electrons on his unverifiable nonsense.

[rogfulton]

Too many onen ends and undefined terms. Response is not possible since NGU can easily redefine the terms on an ad hoc basis.

NGU hasn't even provided 'his' definition of rebuttal or consent yet.

[The Observer]

NGU hasn't even provided 'his' definition of rebuttal or consent yet.

NGU hasn't provided anything yet - nor will he.

[ngupowered]

Are you guys telling me you ain't got the rebutting evidence? What a shocker!
And I thought you were

You have wandered into a group of highly educated, highly experienced people who thoroughly enoy refuting and debunking inane posts such as yours

Andy, what do you mean by "define" and in which language?
Careful! You may arise Gödel from the dead.

[Pottapaug1938]

New suggestion for ngupowered's rank: "Nonconsenting Mover of Goalposts."

[AndyK]

...
Andy, what do you mean by "define" and in which language?
...

FINALLY

Ngu, we are conversing in English, so one would think that English would be the language of choice.

As to what I mean by "define," perhaps you should resume your ESL classes to the point that you can carry on a coherent conversation. Obviously your earlier attempts to learn the language were a waste of time.

PS: You have clearly demonstrated that you have nothing to add to the forums here and that you are merely playing preadolescent word games. Ignore switch is now on.

[GlimDropper]

Perhaps this is a language barrier issue. Let's see if he speaks Lentz:

Fristly: i: a man; require of ngu; to answer a direct question.

Do you now or have you ever had any evidence which can be presented to this; a court of public opinion; which proves that consent is a requisite element of jurisdiction?

Secondly: If you have such proof; I require of you to produce it here.

Thirdly: Your failure to produce such proof will result in the summary judgement that: ngu; is a waste of attention.

Fourthly: i; say here, and time will verify that all herein be true;

Thumb Print

[JamesVincent]

People are still talking to this windowlicker?

[The Observer]

People are still talking to this windowlicker?

Yes. Some people have boundless optimism in believing that they can rescue an idiot who purposely chained himself to an ice floe in the freezing Arctic.

[Pottapaug1938]

People are still talking to this windowlicker?

Yes. Some people have boundless optimism in believing that they can rescue an idiot who purposely chained himself to an ice floe in the freezing Arctic.

I suppose that I am guilty of trying to box him in, so to speak, and to try to make it clear, to anyone who reads about his mighty anti-Quatloos crusade on some other forum who decides to view the "field of battle" for themselves, that ngupowered and others like him are debating in the style of whack-a-moles, and demonstrating a textbook knowledge of debating fallacies. I'd like to think that, in some way, ngupowered and friends come away with a nagging doubt, if only in the backs of their little minds, that they came away as losers.

[ngupowered]

Andy, you started the word playing. And of course you didn't comprehend the connection between Gödel and languages.
"I'd like to think that, in some way, ngupowered and friends come away with a nagging doubt" - If any: Diminishes by the minute as you supposedly "highly educated people" can't rebut ST1. Almost zero now and I'm feeling reeeal fine.

Glim, you're too late. I have already stated "I require rebuttal to". You may find it in the "Gordon Hall indicted" thread.
Kestrel, I'd rather gun-power that Q-croc into a couple of boots, hats and some chow.

So lets get to work folks.

[Pottapaug1938]

We did rebut "ST1", or whatever that was. How typical of him to pretend that we didn't.

[AndyK]

In an extremely strange sense, Ngu is correct in his allegation that everyone in jail consented, nay, volunteered to be there.

After all, no one forced the inmates to commit the crimes for which they are incarcerated -- they did so voluntarily.

Thus, if we follow the rabbit all the way down the hole, they, by voluntary actions, are in jail.

They volunteered to be in jail.

[ngupowered]

NOTICE: I did not pick the subject line. It should be renamed to "Rebut 'In Jail By Consent'".

Andy, obviously there are people in jail & on death row that actually didn't commit the act. But the question remains: 'In Jail By Consent'?
Apparently, people here are not competent enough to refute it.

So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?