jonny sunday's pearls of wisdom

[wserra]

Surely you all can't be that stoopid ... well?

Well, apefarms has been warned about trolling both privately and publicly, and has been told what would happen if he kept it up.

Well?

Well, apefarms joins jonny in moderation. They can always start their own board and troll each other.

[Chaos]

asking Jonny for court cases proving his theory when what he's claiming really takes place outside the jurisdiction.

reread his crap again. he makes claims. his claims, his burden
that's why we're asking for proof but we know all his claims only happen in the 'jurisdiction' of his own mind.

[notorial dissent]

Just wished thank Jonny for the delightful PM he sent me today, and well for all the rest of them, which is precisely why he is moderated. Jonny can't seem to be civil and can't actually post anything that is on topic. He does seem to be able to post boasts and claims he can't back up, so he is moderated.

Post civilly and on topic, with no boasts and unproven claims, and get posted, don't, and stay in cyber purgatory. The choice is Jonny's.

[Gregg]

PM from groyse chochem:

It is obvious you are just censoring people to drive your own narratives. You let everyone else who kisses your ass to say whatever they want to people you don't agree with. You are a coward. Afraid of other ideas. Cowards like you, with mentalities like you, are the exact reason slavery is so popular in the USA. Enjoy your slavery. Don't forget to pay your taxes. Enjoy hanging out with the DoucheLosers who echo your ideas. What a fucking coward. You have to make your own forum and search for pieces of shit to hang out with in your chamber of NPC.

We love you too, jonny.

Mine was a little more graphic...

You and your little gang of quatloos lemmings and cowards are all the same. As long as you suck the WSERRA dick you get to say anything you want to in the forum. I told you, I am moderated, likely by WSERRA, and when I respond to you and your little gang of quatloos cowards in the forum, my comments are censored. and what do you do, run back to your little gossip group in the echo chamber, lie about my response to your little pusillanimous gang of lemmings. Yall should change the name of your hate group to DoucheLosers.

Everything I told you is 100% correct. If you think I'm going to share my real name and my court cases in this forum with you gigantic pieces of shit, you're are as dumb as you are enslaved. Likely suffer from aphasia.

You don't understand, Notice, fault, Default. You've never been to an auction. You don't understand going, going, gone. You don't understand going once, going twice, sold. You likely can't even count to three except for when you count to three while sucking off one of your DoucheLoser's cocks.

[Gregg]

so......still no proof of his 'victories' I guess?

[Burnaby49]

"pusillanimous gang of lemmings"? Apart from the sad lack of alliteration he's obviously learned from the master.



And pusillanimous pussyfooters.

[Famspear]

Wittle jonny is veh-wee, veh-wee upset now:

[ . . . ] You don't understand, Notice, fault, Default. You've never been to an auction. You don't understand going, going, gone. You don't understand going once, going twice, sold [ . . . .]

Poor wittle jonny -- didn't get enuff wuhv fwom his mommie and daddy wenn he was a wittle feh-wow. Wittle jonny is fwoh-wing a wittle tant-wum, now. Dohz wass-cul-wee adults make wittle jonny sooooooo upset, and his circuits are bwoh-wing big, big time. Wittle jonny is in Waaaaah-kah-DOO-ster world!

[notorial dissent]

YAWN!!!! I've seen better, and more literate, two year olds, this has gotten boring.

Jonny's vewy dewicate fee fees are not now nor ever will be anything on my list of things I am concerned with.

Although, come to it, now that I think about it, he does remind me an awful lot of Bobby Butthurt down in FL. Same tedious continual whining.

[grixit]

Haha, you gotta love all the losers here asking Jonny for court cases proving his theory when what he's claiming really takes place outside the jurisdiction.

True. His delusions are outside of any real world jurisdiction.

[notorial dissent]

Haha, you gotta love all the losers here asking Jonny for court cases proving his theory when what he's claiming really takes place outside the jurisdiction.

True. His delusions are outside of any real world jurisdiction.

You really mean outside of ANY real world, don't you?

[wserra]

I've received a couple more missives from jonny, employing what he calls "fowl language". I am no longer posting his shit, and (despite having started the posting) suggest that we all stop doing so. In true troll fashion, his goal seems to be just to provoke reactions of any type at all.

So, if he posts something of substance and backed by proof, cool. If not, please ignore him like the troll he is.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The more I read of Jonny's fantasy, the more I believe Graham Chapman and John Cleese and their merry band were prescient back in '75:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

[notorial dissent]

I've received a couple more missives from jonny, employing what he calls "fowl language". I am no longer posting his shit, and (despite having started the posting) suggest that we all stop doing so. In true troll fashion, his goal seems to be just to provoke reactions of any type at all.

So, if he posts something of substance and backed by proof, cool. If not, please ignore him like the troll he is.

My sentiments persactically.

[Pottapaug1938]

I've received a couple more missives from jonny, employing what he calls "fowl language". I am no longer posting his shit, and (despite having started the posting) suggest that we all stop doing so. In true troll fashion, his goal seems to be just to provoke reactions of any type at all.

So, if he posts something of substance and backed by proof, cool. If not, please ignore him like the troll he is.

I vote yes. He is clearly incorrigible.

[NYGman]

I think what Johnny seems to not understand, there are various reasons why a case may be dismissed, and while Johnny may believe his skills have been the reason for any success, the problem is that he really has no understanding about why he achieved the outcome he got. Not only that, but from what we have seen here, about his methods, there is no way what he is saying he does is resulting in the outcome he desires. The problem here is that Johnny's methods are just not repeatable.

This is not unique to Johnny, I find many of his ilk believe it is their magic that has caused the outcome, not prehaps because the prosecutor exercised his discretion. These "victories" only serve to emboldened the person and reinforce their beliefs.

So I don't doubt Johnny having some "wins" but the problem I have, and likely most of us too, is that Johnny's can't post anything to show it was his special brand of magic, and not something else more sensible, that led to victory. Not only that, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Just because you may have nutball theories on the law, doesn't mean you don't deserve to win, when the real facts and law are actually on your side.

[Burnaby49]

I think what Johnny seems to not understand, there are various reasons why a case may be dismissed, and while Johnny may believe his skills have been the reason for any success, the problem is that he really has no understanding about why he achieved the outcome he got.

Without some evidence (citations would be nice) we have no idea if he actually "achieved the outcome he got", at least whatever outcomes he's boasting to us about. All we have from him is just bald statements of his prowess which, without any evidentiary backup, is just pointless bullshit.

[grixit]

If you say "persimmon" every time you approach a red light, sometimes it will turn green just before you would have had to brake. Telling the light that you are "outside its jurisdiction" or making an "oral contract by counteroffer" will work just as well.

[Gregg]

My standard reply...

[Duke2Earl]

My question is simple....why is Jonny and ape boy still here at all? Anyone even partly sane who believed we were the soulless dictators they claim we are would have left to sell their snake oil at more receptive venues....lord knows there are enough places on the internet to do so. But somehow they just can't resist trying to make us accept their lies and "respect" them. Daddy syndrome perhaps?

[Famspear]

My question is simple....why is Jonny and ape boy still here at all? [ . . . ] But somehow they just can't resist trying to make us accept their lies and "respect" them. Daddy syndrome perhaps?

It's possible that with jonny, we're seeing multiple manifestations of transference.

In his defense of Winston Shrout, jonny might be subconsciously trying to gain acceptance from Shrout as a father figure -- trying to gain the acceptance from his actual father that jonny feels he never received.

At the same time, jonny's anger at the regulars here -- an anger of such unnatural vulgarity and intensity -- might be his expression of the deep-seated emotion he subconsciously feels about his actual father. Recall that several times, he referred to the regulars here as "self-appointed experts", even though no regular here had claimed to be an expert. This was jenny's subconscious way of appointing us as his "father" -- as part of his transference.

Adapted from something I wrote years ago:

To some degree, many of us in our daily lives may from time to time engage in a mental process called "Transference," which one psychiatrist has defined as "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood." (Leonard H. Kapelovitz, M.D., To Love and To Work/A Demonstration and Discussion of Psychotherapy, p 66 (1987)). Part of the animus behind the ravings of some tax protesters is the burning, infantile urge to rebel against an Authority Figure (probably in many cases a parent). This includes an attempt to work out an unresolved situation or problem with an Authority Figure that developed in infancy or early childhood. The subject tries to work through the problem by inappropriately substituting a present-day person (or even an object or a concept) for the parent, and dealing with the Substitute as though it were the parent. This means that instead of consciously attacking "Mommie" or "Daddy" directly, the subject subconsciously substitutes a ''presumably'' safer and more distant target.

A possible psychological aspect of all this is the deep seated infantile feeling among some tax protesters that they have been lied to or misled or neglected or abused or otherwise treated unfairly by a parent or parental figure. The trust that should have been felt in the relationship with the parent was supplanted by fear, mistrust, etc. The resulting unhappy feeling sometimes manifests itself in what I call the "you can't fool me" syndrome -- a conspiratorial view of the world, perhaps bordering in a few cases on a paranoid view. This can be seen in the numerous references in tax protester literature to putatively malevolent authority figures -- judges, lawyers, CPAs, congressmen, bankers, etc. -- massive numbers of people since the advent of the modern U.S. income tax in 1913 who are supposedly engaged in a vast, selfish conspiracy to "hide the truth" about the Federal income tax.

"You can't fool me" is often the feeling, or emotion, or "affect" behind all this. Some tax protesters, like conspiracy theorists in general, work up a magnificent, elaborate, totally improbable "Weltanschauung." If the subject can create a fully elaborated explanation that connects the dots he or she feels in his or her mind should be connected, then he or she feels somehow "safer" or protected from the real or imagined predations that might come from the putatively malevolent "parent," and cannot be "fooled" by that parent's real or imagined actions.

The tax protester may feel he must deal with an early childhood conflict with his parent, but does so "safely" (or so he feels) by not confronting the parent directly. The protester, through this Transference, substitutes the Federal government or the central bank, or the tax law, etc., which becomes the Substitute Authority Figure. The protester subconsciously attempts to weaken the perceived "power" or even omnipotence of the parent by consciously attacking the validity, the legitimacy, of the Substitute Authority Figure. "There is no law that requires me to pay income tax" and so on.

In effect, the protester may be consciously trying to hold the Substitute Authority Figure accountable to the infantile standard (of fairness, etc.) set by the protester in his early, uncomfortable dealings with the parent. The protester consciously attempts to hold the Substitute Authority Figure accountable to the standards the protester subconsciously feels should have been used by his parents with him in early childhood by indirectly and unconsciously denying the legitimacy of the parent's authority and power -- through the device of directly and consciously denying the authority or righteousness or validity or power of the Substitute Authority Figure.

The protester is disturbed, however, when reality infuses the protester's attempt at the use of the Transference to resolve the infantile conflict. That is, the tax protester becomes upset when third parties point out massive amounts of authoritative information (i.e., the actual texts of the Constitution, statutes, regs, court decisions, etc.) that contradict the protester's view of the tax law (the Substitute Authority Figure) -- and the protester responds to this reality check very consciously and emotionally. This response is seated ultimately, however, not in the protester's present-day relationship to ''the tax law'' (the Substitute Authority Figure) but instead in the protester's past infantile relationship with the parent, which relationship is now being dealt with subconsciously and inappropriately. If the Substitute Authority Figure is shown to have validity and power, then in the subconscious mind of the protester the parent must also have been legitimate and powerful -- and the protester decompensates in a very emotional, angry, or otherwise uncomfortable way.

A further possible aspect of this in the process is that third parties who present authoritative information that contradicts a tax protester's view may, in the mind of the protester, be closely but subconsciously and inappropriately associated with the parent, and the anger, hurt or mistrust resulting from the infantile relationship with the parent may, through another Transference, be expressed by the tax protester toward the third party. Essentially, an attempt to provide data that contradicts the tax protester's view may be subconsciously but inappropriately viewed by the protester as an attempt by the third party to "take the side of the parent" -- or even ''be the parent'' -- in the dispute. One tax protester explicitly (but, in his own mind, subconsciously) apparently made this inappropriate connection on another web site in an exchange with me when he said, in response to something I wrote, that "because you say so on the (alleged) authority of your education is no different than: 'Because I'm the Mommy, that's why.'"

"[T]he patient misunderstands the present in terms of the past" (Kapelovitz, at p. 66, quoting Fenichel O, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis, p. 29 (1945)). "[ . . . ] [A]ll symptoms and neurotic patterns were originally solutions. Unfortunately, they were childhood solutions that have persisted into adulthood." Kapelovitz, p. 81.

Note: I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, and I claim no expertise on this subject.