Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General / gah

« on: June 15, 2012, 10:49:26 PM »

http://prisonphotography.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/mace-target-practice-bring-your-kids-to-work-day-at-the-ca-department-of-corrections/

2

General / Re: Juicing?

« on: June 02, 2012, 06:29:46 PM »

WTFK, are you fasting with *only* the classic juice that you described?  I imagined juice fasting as being as shown on Fat Sick & Nearly Dead, i.e., the person fasting consumes vegetable juices.

3

General / Re: Drama in the Free State

« on: June 02, 2012, 06:27:13 PM »

If the cops ever get the drop on me again I will be quite guilty. I don't make the same mistake twice.

Yes, the wrongfully accused and the wrongfully convicted are always the ones at fault. 

However please inform me why a world with lawyers is better then one without.

This query is inane.  I think it is the monopoly system to which you object, not to the members themselves.

I don't want to hate lawyers, experience with them made me do so.

You have experience with every lawyer on earth?

Please tell me a story where a lawyer helped someone against anything but other lawyers.
 Thank you in advance.

Not sure if you want an example of something nice that I did for someone in my family just today, or maybe this recent case where we opened up a jail's mail policy a little bit for all prisoners and their correspondents, or maybe you're looking for an example like this trial lawyers charitable foundation that he runs on the side: http://www.keenanskidsfoundation.com/

There are countless examples of lawyers doing good deeds for others. 

4

General / Re: Drama in the Free State

« on: June 02, 2012, 01:01:06 PM »

But they don't. Don't you have to be a defense scumbag for years before you can be a prosecuting scumbag with "discretion"?
They couldn't just admit to the unwashed masses that a prosecuter has to be a throat cutting peace of shit, so they just make sure he or she has to work for years being able to be a scumbag because they have to be before they get any discretion or chance to be human.
How heavy a cement block does one need to sink a lawyer? It surely has to be heavier then one for a person because of all the hot air.

Your ignorance is showing.  Plus, "defense scumbag"?  Right.  Until the day that you get wrongfully accused.

5

Guns, Drugs, and Crazy Independence Stuff / Re: FBI Tip Leads to Raid of OUR Home!!! Is There Recourse???

« on: June 02, 2012, 01:42:34 AM »

Look up Ohio lawyer Al Gerhardstein.  He ought to be able to help you out.

6

General / Re: Juicing?

« on: June 02, 2012, 12:17:57 AM »

Awesome thread Linz.  I've been drinking wheatgrass juice lately which is pretty hardcore, but I haven't tried going for a full day or more with nothing more than juices.  I've also been blending up kale and other greens mixed with a bunch of raw stuff for breakfast - totally awesome.

Cheese Cake, anyone (made from cashews, dates and lemon)? How about chocolate mint ice cream (made out of avocados, peppermint and bitter-sweet chocolate)?

Recipes please?


John Shaw, can you get raw almonds at that insanely low price that you mentioned in another thread that are "truly" raw?

7

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 04, 2011, 01:16:30 AM »

Get it?

No, I'm not quite with you there.

8

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 04, 2011, 01:14:55 AM »

Shaw, I can appreciate that I do not know all of the context.  I haven't read the racism thread.  The search feature sucks, can you post a link?  Take the CP, ATF issues & Libman off the table and what is left? Hellbilly & Dragline? Why didn't April get banned? She frequently uses offensive racist epithets.

When is Dragline gonna get unbanned?

9

General / Re: Dllama in the Free State

« on: November 04, 2011, 12:49:56 AM »

You're a porn star? No wonder you're so cool.

10

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 03, 2011, 10:12:17 PM »

Shaw, what do you want me to say to you?  Thank you?  Thank you for agreeing that you won't modify user posts other than by deletion of what you consider to be inappropriate content.  Thank you for not sending user info to the cops.  My impression was that this was how mods here were supposed to behave in the first place.  You cussed me out when it was completely unnecessary.  Why should I respond to you after that outburst?  I don't speak to you that way and I don't expect you to speak to me that way.  I'm not sure what your problem is, but my problem with you is that you "appear" to endorse Brasky's bad behavior.  Even though you stated that you wouldn't do what he said he would do, you still act like what he did is OK and then you blew up at me.  Also, I didn't call you a statist, although you did have me wondering...

Dude, you said that I approve of calling in the government against people. That's calling me a statist and it's fucking fighting words. I made an assessment of Brasky's motivations, which are different than your assessment. You called me a statist for it. So yes, I took goddamned insult from you dragging me through the mud.

And I don't owe you a goddamned testimony to my innocence. But you felt the need to sling mud.

Now you're bummed that you picked a fight. Tough shit man.

So what's your deal? Trying to sow discord between mods by getting them fighting each other?

Now I'm gonna sit back and wait for you to try defending mods allowing kiddie porn and violent threats on the board as "Free Speech"

See the new terms of service please.

Also -  Say you're sorry for calling me a statist and we're square and I'll apologize for using potty mouth at you.

Well, your response to my query was not exactly the model of clarity.  Here is the post:

1) A moderator has threatened to arbitrarily falsify the posts of bbs members so that it would appear that they had written incriminating or otherwise damaging things when in fact they had not done so; and,

Incriminating? I don't think he said that at all. I think he said he'd fuck with people's posts if they acted like assholes.

2) A moderator has openly announced that he would send information from here directly to the cops in order to facilitate the initiation of force against bbs members.

If they posted something that could effect the site owner (Ian) legally. I believe that that is what he said. I also believe he specifically mentioned information that could draw attacks by letter agencies (Explosive devices and means of altering firearms that would draw the ire of the ATF, an agency known to persecute and harass people.) and child pornography, which will have the FBI up people's asses in a split second.

Not even touching the high probability that a good half of that post was with an angry tongue in cheek at a situation that was getting progressively stupider by the minute. 

EDIT - Besides, all of this is moot now, as the TOS has changed and mods can just ban abusive people.

I think you can see how that might lead one to be less than clear about your position.  Your comments on the second issue are equivocal about whether it is OK for mods to call the cops over what people post and you didn't flatly reject it as you did in subsequent posts.

11

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 03, 2011, 09:26:19 PM »

The Libman is not the issue here, dude.  

No, but he's a good example of you picking a shitty example of acceptability.  

It's also hilarious that he carefully chose not to respond to my post.

Every time he calls me a dirty fucking statist and speaks about me as if I'm not in the room he'll get a link to it.

Shaw, what do you want me to say to you?  Thank you?  Thank you for agreeing that you won't modify user posts other than by deletion of what you consider to be inappropriate content.  Thank you for not sending user info to the cops.  My impression was that this was how mods here were supposed to behave in the first place.  You cussed me out when it was completely unnecessary.  Why should I respond to you after that outburst?  I don't speak to you that way and I don't expect you to speak to me that way.  I'm not sure what your problem is, but my problem with you is that you "appear" to endorse Brasky's bad behavior.  Even though you stated that you wouldn't do what he said he would do, you still act like what he did is OK and then you blew up at me.  Also, I didn't call you a statist, although you did have me wondering...

As for Brasky - you're probably a lot of fun to hang out with and you're definitely a gifted writer and all that, but this shit about threatening to alter user posts so that they are "most damaging" is totally wrong.  The fact that you stand by your threat as if it is acceptable behavior is just unbelievable.  I hope you don't think that what you did is OK. 

12

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 03, 2011, 08:17:19 PM »

The Libman is not the issue here, dude. 

13

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 03, 2011, 12:35:15 AM »

Thanks blackie.  I read Shaw's post as affirmative on both questions with unpersuasive justifications being offered.  About mootness: Brasky is still a mod, Shaw appears to think altering users posts (other than by simply removing objectionable content) is OK as well, and both think that sending user info to the police is sometimes a good idea.

W
T
F

I looked, but I can't find the new terms of service.  Do they include the term that users' posts may be altered to appear "most damaging" in the event of some occurrence?  I bet they don't.  Do they say that the mods might send your info to the cops?  If so I guess I need to quit and I would ask that all of my posts be deleted.

EVERYONES A MOD

LOL BTW

The only thing that would make this better is if Libman was unbanned.  I never did understand exactly why Libman got banned anyway.

Will Ecolitan ban Brasky?  I would.  Brasky, I can't believe you own that threat the way you do.  I haven't heard you acknowledge the impropriety of your conduct.

14

General / Re: Moderator Changes

« on: November 02, 2011, 09:28:20 PM »

Sooooooooooo...
 
Good times. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my take on two issues that seems pretty serious:

1) A moderator has threatened to arbitrarily falsify the posts of bbs members so that it would appear that they had written incriminating or otherwise damaging things when in fact they had not done so; and,

2) A moderator has openly announced that he would send information from here directly to the cops in order to facilitate the initiation of force against bbs members.

Am I understanding this situation correctly?   I'm truly amazed that these two items appear to be right out in the open and everybody (with precious few exceptions) seems OK with that.  If I missed a post which would have already cleared up my confusion over this seeming contradiction please let me know.

15

General / Re: Mama Ally rebuttle.

« on: January 20, 2011, 11:40:14 PM »

I have higher standards for people who claim to be libertarian. They don't get a pass because they say freedom a lot.

*chime*