Humor
See other Humor Articles
Title: Be a man, try running Liberty Post
Source:
LP
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 12, 2015
Author: Sneakypete and TooConservative
Post Date: 2015-01-12 16:37:59 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 125351
Comments: 263
>> TooConservative-- Before you just shut it down, have you done any tally of results? Just eyeballing it, it looks like tpaine is probably above 60%.
>> Sneakypete---- Seems to ME that if TPaine is serious he would quit being a wuss and stand up like a man and say he will accept a 51 percent vote tally by regular posters as a victory and step up to the plate.
----It isn't me that would have to be a man and take all the bullshit... It would be the moderator. And my choice for mod would have been TooConservative, or Sneakypete, or even better, both of you.
----Tell you what, if you two take over mod/tech functions, I'd be willing to put up the money for the first year as the 'owner', and take responsibly for any legal problems we might encounter.
>> After all,he has never pretended to be anything other than a Libertarian with a "Big L",and since when have Bil L Libertarians ever demanded a 75 percent vote for anything?
-----I've never belonged to the big 'L' party. I consider myself a constitutional libertarian, who votes (mostly) republican.
>> In MY mind,if he doesn't man up and and accept ownership if he gets the majority of the votes,he was never serious about it to start with.
---I'll call your bluff. Put up (joining me, as above) or shut up about man-ing up.
>> I personally hope this isn't the case because I think all political discussion boards need Big L Libertarian owners/moderators. Anyone else and they just turn into partisan party arms preaching the party line with no dissent allowed. Without dissent there is no discussion.
---Here's your chance to put your man-ing up with your mouth. How bout it?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-109) not displayed.
.
.
.
#110. To: TooConservative, willy, Y'ALL (#104)
Did you lift that from my post today about Clarity, the lawyer who lost TOS's case with WaPo/LAT?I recounted how he used to say that and what an annoying prick that disbarred shylock really was.
In context: ----
Willy: --- I'd rather see Obama get a 3rd term.
I'll be charitable. You need rest....
_______________________________________
You got it, -- your post today reminded me of his great line.
I agree Clarity was a real prick, but he did have a way with words.
#111. To: TooConservative, Deckard, Hondo68, Pericles (#108)
nolu's history at LP is well-known.
Yo, witless, post #105 was to Fred Mertz, not Nolu. Your dementia is showing. Perhaps you should relax your panties.
"It is the only reason anyone would hide their LP identity.
Now you are Carnac the Magnificent. My identity is already well know to many posters on LF. In case you missed the memo, witless:
#112. To: nolu chan (#106)
Unless Goldi was NOT the owner when she died, I know as FACT that sysadmin and Neil acted without authority. It is impossible that they had authority.
So WTF are you going to do about it? drama queen?
Let it rest.
#113. To: Fred Mertz, Y'ALL (#112)
nolu chan (#106) --- Unless Goldi was NOT the owner when she died, I know as FACT that sysadmin and Neil acted without authority. It is impossible that they had authority.
So WTF are you going to do about it? drama queen? --- Let it rest. ---- Fred Mertz
Fred, what in the hell is going on with you? Why are you attacking Chan about the legal facts he's posting? -- Facts that imho, need to be understood by everyone that watched the little drama put on by the sysadmin at LP...
Chill, man.. You may need rest.
#114. To: Fred Mertz (#112)
The drama queens were singing a different song when they thought they could seize LP through a vote.
#115. To: SOSO (#111)
From the photo....Thank you for telling us you have 5 identities:)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#116. To: SOSO, Spartacus, nolu chan, Hondo68 (#111)
Your dementia is showing. Perhaps you should relax your panties.
Your true colors are starting to show. Nice cheap shots at every woman posting here at LF. Psychopaths with deep-seated inferiority complexes always follow this pattern. Maybe you should tell us about your mother sometime. That would be entertaining.
My identity is already well know to many posters on LF.
Oh? Then you can name these posters who know your LP identity other than LF's newly registered Spartacus (but who is not LP's Spartacus who got banned from LP a decade ago and stopped posting to any of the P forums). And you and this newly-minted Spartacus just happened to register in tandem here at LF at the same time? It's almost like you were coordinating your actions via email or phone.
Are you sure you don't want to post a "LOLAYDA" or two? C'mon, I know it's eating you up. Just let it out. Open your little beak and sing, Canary.
#117. To: redleghunter (#115)
5 identities
Unless it's just the Sterno talking, I see 6. : )
#118. To: TooConservative, Spartacus, nolu chan, Hondo68 (#116)
Nice cheap shots at every woman posting here at LF.
Oh, sorry, I thought that you were a little girl.
#119. To: tpaine (#110)
I agree Clarity was a real prick, but he did have a way with words.
That and stealing from the $600,000 settlement from his client which got him disbarred, exactly as nolu said. But nolu does have access to legal info the rest of us don't.
#120. To: redleghunter (#115)
From the photo....Thank you for telling us you have 5 identities:)
You read too much into things. Just not enough width in the lens.
#121. To: SOSO, Palmdale, Spartacus, Hondo68 (#118)
My identity is already well know to many posters on LF.
Then name them, other than Palmdale and GatlinSpartacus. Tell us who knows your real LP handle here at LF other than those two?
You keep saying this. Now tell us who these others are. Or admit that you're lying.
#122. To: TooConservative, Palmdale, Spartacus, Hondo68 (#121)
Man, you really are in need of a blow job more than any white man in history. You will just have to live with the mystery, witless. But I am flattered that you care so much. Perhaps when you get out of the witless protection program all may be revealed. Until then, Caio, baby!
#123. To: TooConservative (#121)
Please leave me out of your squabble.
#124. To: Palmdale, TooConservative (#123)
Please leave me out of your squabble.
Geez, I wish he'd do the same for me.
#125. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL (#119)
--- nolu does have access to legal info the rest of us don't.
Yep, and I'm glad he's presenting it in a calm, reasonable manner. -- That's why I'm completely baffled by the animosity being directed at him.
Maybe it's just cocktail time posturing?
#126. To: TooConservative (#121)
Or admit that you're lying.
That aint gonna happen.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
#127. To: TooConservative (#116)
Your dementia is showing. Perhaps you should relax your panties. Your true colors are starting to show. Nice cheap shots at every woman posting here at LF. Psychopaths with deep-seated inferiority complexes always follow this pattern.
I like you dude. But to be honest you have been badgering him since his first post. Or close to it.
So if anyone came in here and read the conversations from the beginning. They would agree. It seems like anything he said is a reaction.
I don't give a crap who he was at LP. I don't care if you two were enemies at LP. This is a different place.
#128. To: TooConservative (#121)
There are a number of people here making intelligent rational points, and there are a few who are dishonest and unpleasant.
It feels just like Liberty Post, complete with its own canary cage in the far left corner.
#129. To: A K A Stone, TooConservative (#127)
I don't give a crap who he was at LP. I don't care if you two were enemies at LP. This is a different place.
Thank you. I have grown tired of pulling the wings off of this flea. He is displaying a side of himself that was not evident on LP, at least the obessive aspect of it. This really has taken me by surprise. I didn't think that we were enemies on LP. But even if I had, this is LF not LP.
#130. To: Dead Culture Watch (#128)
complete with its own canary cage
What is this persistent reference to canary cage and canaries? Obviously I missed the memo.
#131. To: SOSO (#130) (Edited)
Maybe you should discuss EXACTLY how nolu chan was incorrect in his legal discussion on the matter of LP.
Let's see what you got.
#132. To: SOSO (#129)
#133. To: Nexus6 (#132)
Hmmm, werent you the one saying you may not stay if things went a certain way?
#134. To: Dead Culture Watch (#133)
#135. To: A K A Stone (#127)
Forgot to mention this earlier. Maybe a friendly reminder to new folks that LF has a user homepage.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#136. To: SOSO (#111) (Edited)
You wuz Spartacus
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#137. To: A K A Stone, all (#127) (Edited)
SOSO posted --- Your dementia is showing. Perhaps you should relax your panties.
You seem to have attributed that remark to TC.. --- And in response you posted: ----
I like you dude. But to be honest you have been badgering him since his first post. Or close to it. ------- So if anyone came in here and read the conversations from the beginning. They would agree.
I've read them all, and I can't agree that TC is doing all the badgering. SOSO has been doing his best to badger all of us that are being critical of the way the Sysadmin-LP handled the shut down.
Dead Culture Watch just asked the crucial question of SOSO. Odds are he won't get much of an answer.
#138. To: Dead Culture Watch (#131)
Maybe you should discuss EXACTLY how nolu chan was incorrect in his legal discussion on the matter of LP.Let's see what you got.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know that you represent him and need to speak for him. Shall I cc you on any further of my correspondence to him?
But to address your question, does he have direct personal knowledge of the exchanges between sysadim and/or Neil and/or anyone else on the matter? If he does then he may very well be correct. I didn't see were he claimed that he had.
First, I admitted right off that I have no such direct knowledge. Second, I am not a lawyer. Third, and most significantly, he made a claim without offering any evidence that he had personal knowledge of the situtation. He is entirely free to express his opinion, which on legal matters may very likely be more informed than mine.
That's what I got. I trust it's enough for you. If not, please take it to the bar, take it to the bar.
#139. To: SOSO (#102)
It is impossible that they had authority.Why?
"I'm more than willing to hear how it is possible. "Yours is the claim that needs to be proven. I made no claim. But I will give you the courtesy of citing that there readily could have been private communications to one or both of them wherein Goldi expressed her wishes. I am certain that this has some legal weight.
I see you cannot even create a possible scenario where sysadmin and/or Neil acquired any authority to act.
A real or imaginary private communication of Goldi's wishes is not a will. It carries zero legal weight. If Goldi died intestate, as stated by sysadmin, the estate goes to the nearest relative, if one can be found. Absent a living relative, the estate goes to the state.
There is no exception in the law that gives the estate, or any part thereof, to someone who claims that the decedent made a private communication expressing something or other to sysadmin.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0732/0732.html
732.101 Intestate estate.—(1) Any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in the following sections of this code.
(2) The decedent’s death is the event that vests the heirs’ right to the decedent’s intestate property.
- - - - -
732.107 Escheat.—
(1) When a person dies leaving an estate without being survived by any person entitled to a part of it, that part shall escheat to the state.
(2) Property that escheats shall be sold as provided in the Florida Probate Rules and the proceeds paid to the Chief Financial Officer of the state and deposited in the State School Fund.
(3) At any time within 10 years after the payment to the Chief Financial Officer, a person claiming to be entitled to the proceeds may reopen the administration to assert entitlement to the proceeds. If no claim is timely asserted, the state’s rights to the proceeds shall become absolute.
(4) The Department of Legal Affairs shall represent the state in all proceedings concerning escheated estates.
(5)(a) If a person entitled to the proceeds assigns the rights to receive payment to an attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency which is duly licensed to do business in this state pursuant to a written agreement with that person, the Department of Financial Services is authorized to make distribution in accordance with the assignment.
(b) Payments made to an attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency shall be promptly deposited into a trust or escrow account which is regularly maintained by the attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency in a financial institution authorized to accept such deposits and located in this state.
(c) Distribution by the attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency to the person entitled to the proceeds shall be made within 10 days following final credit of the deposit into the trust or escrow account at the financial institution, unless a party to the agreement protests the distribution in writing before it is made.
(d) The department shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any proceeds distributed pursuant to this subsection, provided such distribution is made in good faith.
#140. To: Fred Mertz (#112)
So WTF are you going to do about it? drama queen?
I am going to state the applicable law correctly and let the drama queens get the vapors.
#141. To: tpaine (#137)
You seem to have attributed that remark to TC.. --- And in response you posted: ----
No Sir. I know he said that. Which is why I said things he are saying are a reaction.
From the first post people have been asking him who he is. Over and over. He doesn't want to tell them. That is fine. If he is some bad dude time will tell. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and see where it goes. Not you specifically, but in general.
If people kept asking me the same question I would get annoyed too. Wouldn't you?
As far as the shutdown. I was for keeping it open But nolu chan is correct I believe.
#142. To: nolu chan (#140)
I am going to state the applicable law correctly and let the drama queens get the vapors.
:)
#143. To: tpaine, A K A Stone, all (#137)
SOSO has been doing his best to badger all of us that are being critical of the way the Sysadmin-LP handled the shut down.
Please back that up with posts of mine here on LF that do this. Thank you.
I certainly expressed my opinion here that all things consdidered I believed that shutting LP down was the best course of action. I do not recall posting to anyone on LF about the position they expressed on LP. I may have responded to their expression of opinion as they posted that here. If that badgering I will reevaluate the action for future reference.
#144. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#140)
I am going to state the applicable law correctly and let the drama queens get the vapors.
Good for you.
#145. To: nolu chan (#139)
Yours is the claim that needs to be proven. I made no claim. But I will give you the courtesy of citing that there readily could have been private communications to one or both of them wherein Goldi expressed her wishes. I am certain that this has some legal weight.
Chan, if memory serves, the sysadmin posted at least once, early on, that he had NOT had any recent communication with Goldi before her death.
#146. To: SOSO (#143)
SOSO has been doing his best to badger all of us that are being critical of the way the Sysadmin-LP handled the shut down.
Please back that up with posts of mine here on LF that do this. Thank you. -- - I certainly expressed my opinion here that all things consdidered I believed that shutting LP down was the best course of action. I do not recall posting to anyone on LF about the position they expressed on LP. I may have responded to their expression of opinion as they posted that here. If that badgering I will reevaluate the action for future reference.
It was badgering and you just 'boldly' admitted to it. ( I did the html to bold your lines) ---- Thanks
#147. To: SOSO (#130)
What is this persistent reference to canary cage and canaries? Obviously I missed the memo.
Canary: "I don't know anything about this Canary cage..."
Anyone who posted at LP knows what a Canary is.
And you keep telling us how well-known you were at LP and how many posters here at LF know your LP handle. So name them.
But you won't, will you?
#148. To: nolu chan, tpaine, pericles (#139)
Absent a living relative, the estate goes to the state.
So you prefer that the state disposed of LP?
"I see you cannot even create a possible scenario where sysadmin and/or Neil acquired any authority to act."
As I said, I am not a lawyer and will readily defer to one on the matter. But you stated an exception, namely Goldi not being the owner of LP (whatever owner means). As you well know, the one that pays the bills is not always the owner.
But I will concede the point to you in all respects. Now I ask you, so what is to been done about it? Who had the legal respopnsiblity for LP upon Goldi's death? If the state, did it immediately step in? What would have been the reasonable time expectation for the state to have marshalled Goldi's estate and deal with LP? Would LP have even shown up in the state's marshalling? Are you going to sue sysadmin and/or Neil? Can tpaine or pericles sue them for wisking away LP from their grasp?
Beside the domain name, what assets does/did LP have? There were those of us that wanted our personal information redacted if ownership passed to another person and made this known to sysadmin and/or Neil. Who legally would have been responsible for assuring that happened before ownership of LP changed hands? Who could I have sued if my personal info wasn't redacted as I expressly wished?
It seems to me that the old saying applies here, No harm, no foul. But I may be wrong.
#149. To: TooConservative (#147)
And you keep telling us how well-known you were at LP and how many posters here at LF know your LP handle.
First, witless, I never made a claim with respect to being well known or not on LP. Still best to loosen those panties a bit and get some circulation to your brain. Second, witless, I never said how many on LF know, whether that was a lot or a little. But to help you sleep better tonight I will tell you that..............you will never know, at least not from me.
#150. To: A K A Stone (#141)
If people kept asking me the same question I would get annoyed too. Wouldn't you?
Absolutely. But that's why I've always advocated using just one pseudonym. I've used mine for 18 years, except for when I was playing JR's game at FR for a few months. Could it be some here are playing games now?
As far as the shutdown. I was for keeping it open But nolu chan is correct I believe.
Thanks for your candor.
.
.
.
Comments (151 - 263) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]