Bush is a hero
Clearwater

Safety Harbor, FL

#179214 Jun 29, 2014
The Awakener wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one who has called me an "anti-S-emite". No real surprise here. You must know that the Z-ion-ists formed the term "anti-S-emite" and "political-correctness " in order to guilt non-J-ews in speaking the truth. You Roberta G are another one who has been 'brainwashed' by the mainstream media and education.
Have you looked into researching into the real deep history on all what the Z-ion-ists have done to this world, you would realize that they indeed have committed these criminal acts. The ignorance of how you and many others see all this has got to change.
Do you even know what the K-hazars are?????? Most likely no so this means that you do not have the right to call me an "anti-S-emite" - as you do not even realize that the Ash-kenazi J-ews who are pro-Z-ion-ists are not even real S-emitics in the first place.
Do your research thoroughly before calling someone an "anti-s-emite".
Oh boy. I'm on record and have said often I want everyone to say what they wish. You more than anyone are a test of that. Your rants are crap.
Clearwater

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#179215 Jun 29, 2014
Roberta G wrote:
So...how do you all think the Supreme Court is going to rule in the Hobby Lobby case on Monday?
Let me add something I do feel is valid from my own faith. No matter what happens or has happened in this short temporary place
God is in complete control. And as I face a time in my own life where I have no clue how to make it I worry not. He has never let me down. Take care.
The Awakener

Liverpool, Australia

#179217 Jun 29, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Oh boy. I'm on record and have said often I want everyone to say what they wish. You more than anyone are a test of that. Your rants are crap.
My 'rants' about how America/the West, the 2 Bush Presidents and now Obama are basically controlled by the Z-ion-ists is c-rap?

Anyone, please enlighten..........
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179218 Jun 29, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>I is if you is

;)
No, I'm not quite finished but I didn't want to interrupt your 2 day opening statement/rant.

You sound like a cheap lawyer laying out on a defense for a guy by blaming the girl for inviting the sexual assault your client is accused of. "It's the victims fault, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I intend to prove she voluntarily went into that bar. I intend to prove she engaged in friendly conversation with the accused. And I intend to prove she was wearing a very, very short skirt; which cumulatively were the causes of this unfortunate misunderstanding we now find ourselves in. My client was at no time asked by the accuser to leave her alone. My client was at no time told she would contact the authorities if he didn't stop with threatening innuendo. My client adamantly claims she never once thwarted his advances, never once told him to stop, never once told him NO and never once told him to leave her alone."

(Psst. Your client is a lying sack of doo-doo)

==

I know about a zillion lawyers. Big shots, little shots, no name schools, big name schools.

One of my all time favorites is a very old friend of the family. Choate-Yale, valedictorian, managing editor Yale Law Review, lecturer at Columbia blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I asked him years ago what I enjoy asking all defense attorneys.
Is there any case you won't take? Any crime you won't defend?

His answer dwarfed any other answer I had heard prior or since. He told me, "I won't defend the mob. I won't defend crimes against children. I won't defend crimes against women."
He said, "The trouble with providing a defense for a mob member is if you do get them off, they'll never leave you alone and if you don't get them off they'll never leave you alone. I don't have the stomach for putting on a defense for anyone accused of harming a child and I don't have the stomach for putting on a defense for anyone accused of harming a woman." His conclusion was, "Understand, they are all entitled to legal counsel, they're just not all entitled to mine."

Integrity for a lawyer is not quite as rare as people think but in Catcher's case, his behavior in here and elsewhere exemplifies exactly why people have such a bad taste in their mouth when the word >lawyer< is spoken. And any lawyer who has practiced law for 40 years and who intentionally lies about people and accuses them of things they did not do, accuses people of things they are not,(all in writing mind you) and any lawyer who trolls, follows and has had to be warned by Topix administration to knock off a certain behavior, has no integrity and can be considered troubling by any reasonable person.

Integrity is something you either have or you don't have, Hip. And if someone can turn it on and off at will, they don't have it.

You're imitating a cheap lawyer representing a cheap lawyer. Well done.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#179219 Jun 29, 2014
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>You're a piece of work aintcha? If you can't get a response one way, you'll try another. That is a petty and shrewish thing to say.
It is >very< common for participants to end a post with a smilicon, or a Hahaha (who might that be?) or some such to indicate a smile in an environment where we can't see body language. I don't in the least expect to see you apply this same kind of scrutiny at anyone subsequent to this who dares to indicate a smile at the end of the post.
But in your inimitable way, you zero in on one particular post out of them all. You feebly attempt to make MY effort at the same indication of lightness that ALL use to be a character flaw in me.
Now if I was to take your bait (as I have in the past), and respond to you IN KIND, in the same vein as you write this above, It would be surefire evidence ot the collapse of Western Civilization. You'd be squalling and squealing at the meanness, the hatefulness, the rudeness, the psychological deficiencies of someone who would say such things.
I get it, lisw. You prefer the rancor. You despise smiles at the end of posts. You prefer to squash any rapport "across the aisle". I ain't feelin' it right now, but when next I'm bored enough to play in this catbox,, I'll try and remember to deliver what you want, just for you.
Yes I was a shrew and I'm sorry. I'm mad at you for the cavalier way you treat the stalking issue, but it's no excuse.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179220 Jun 29, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>Integrity for a lawyer is not quite as rare as people think but in Catcher's case, his behavior in here and elsewhere exemplifies exactly why people have such a bad taste in their mouth when the word >lawyer< is spoken. And any lawyer who has practiced law for 40 years and who intentionally lies about people and accuses them of things they did not do, accuses people of things they are not,(all in writing mind you) and any lawyer who trolls, follows and has had to be warned by Topix administration to knock off a certain behavior, has no integrity and can be considered troubling by any reasonable person.
Integrity is something you either have or you don't have, Hip. And if someone can turn it on and off at will, they don't have it.
You're imitating a cheap lawyer representing a cheap lawyer. Well done.
The only reason I'm considering a modification is due to the >apparent< sincerity of your continued denunciation of his alleged behavior. I'll stipulate that I don't "monitor" each day or each post. I'm sure you don't either. It's a leisure time activity, not a job.

I will tell you what I have seen, and try and keep it succinct, as you have an issue with long posts, except when you write them.

Waaaay back, when you all first began trading barbs, you threw at him at least as much as he threw at you. Back and forth, BOTH having their fun, while it was just so much spam to the rest of us.

I thought I saw you get tired of the game. But just like when you start rough-housing with a child. Eventually you get tired of it, but he's still full of energy and the "fun" of the game, and he doesn't know you're through. The child keeps jumping on your back, until you finally lash out in anger. You are in the right, but it's unfair to expect the child to not be surprised. Because you did in fact start out playing equally as rough.

That's what I saw. You began provoking and harassing each other equally. You both gibed each other on personal matters. You escalated with items silently "monitored" from other threads. I didn't see him match that tactic, even though you do have history on other threads.

Then you got tired of it. Instead of telling him that you wanted a re-boot, you threw the "stalker" card.

As I said, I haven't seen everything. Perhaps he followed you to other threads. Maybe he's sent private messages. Perhaps he made a veiled threat. Maybe he speculated about your location. Maybe he hinted at making a visit. I've received all these, and it is unsettling. That would be stalking. There's some certifiable freekin' people on these threads. If so, please advise with specifics that I obviously missed. I'll modify just as quickly as you threw the stalking card. I'll condemn his actions with as harsh terms as this keyboard can manage, and encourage all to shun him as a troll. I've done it before, which is how I earned one of my very own stalkers.

But just getting exasperated at his continuance of a game you both started, is not stalking. It's clueless, and lame, and tedious. But it ain't stalking.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179221 Jun 29, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I was a shrew and I'm sorry. I'm mad at you for the cavalier way you treat the stalking issue, but it's no excuse.
Icons @ you.

>grin here<

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179222 Jun 29, 2014
The SC decision about 1st amendment rights at abortion clinics has a certain parallel here with the "stalking" issue.

In a public space, as long as someone doesn't invade your personal space or threaten to do so, they have a right to do any exasperating thing they desire. These poor gals might "feel" threatened, but the law doesn't recognize that "feeling" (apparently) as enforceable under the Constitution. You might say that's one of the down-sides of "liberty".

This is a public space. You can't just get exasperated with someone and say "i don't want THAT guy to talk to me, and if he continues, I'll holler rape." It weakens your argument even more, when you began yelling at each other in equal measure.

(Please note that I am not the one that introduced "rape" as an equivalency argument, but since it's out there, I'll run with it. If you've got a problem with it, speak to the originator. I'll see it and modify accordingly.)

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#179223 Jun 29, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not quite finished but I didn't want to interrupt your 2 day opening statement/rant.
You sound like a cheap lawyer laying out on a defense for a guy by blaming the girl for inviting the sexual assault your client is accused of. "It's the victims fault, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I intend to prove she voluntarily went into that bar. I intend to prove she engaged in friendly conversation with the accused. And I intend to prove she was wearing a very, very short skirt; which cumulatively were the causes of this unfortunate misunderstanding we now find ourselves in. My client was at no time asked by the accuser to leave her alone. My client was at no time told she would contact the authorities if he didn't stop with threatening innuendo. My client adamantly claims she never once thwarted his advances, never once told him to stop, never once told him NO and never once told him to leave her alone."
(Psst. Your client is a lying sack of doo-doo)
==
I know about a zillion lawyers. Big shots, little shots, no name schools, big name schools.
One of my all time favorites is a very old friend of the family. Choate-Yale, valedictorian, managing editor Yale Law Review, lecturer at Columbia blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I asked him years ago what I enjoy asking all defense attorneys.
Is there any case you won't take? Any crime you won't defend?
His answer dwarfed any other answer I had heard prior or since. He told me, "I won't defend the mob. I won't defend crimes against children. I won't defend crimes against women."
He said, "The trouble with providing a defense for a mob member is if you do get them off, they'll never leave you alone and if you don't get them off they'll never leave you alone. I don't have the stomach for putting on a defense for anyone accused of harming a child and I don't have the stomach for putting on a defense for anyone accused of harming a woman." His conclusion was, "Understand, they are all entitled to legal counsel, they're just not all entitled to mine."
Integrity for a lawyer is not quite as rare as people think but in Catcher's case, his behavior in here and elsewhere exemplifies exactly why people have such a bad taste in their mouth when the word >lawyer< is spoken. And any lawyer who has practiced law for 40 years and who intentionally lies about people and accuses them of things they did not do, accuses people of things they are not,(all in writing mind you) and any lawyer who trolls, follows and has had to be warned by Topix administration to knock off a certain behavior, has no integrity and can be considered troubling by any reasonable person.
Integrity is something you either have or you don't have, Hip. And if someone can turn it on and off at will, they don't have it.
You're imitating a cheap lawyer representing a cheap lawyer. Well done.
Lyndi, just want you to know that I believe and support you and that I have "seen" what "I" consider stalking. My mistake has been to try to get the "mob" to see it and to support you too, but I can see that ain't going to happen. It's so hard when you see this thread is just a mini-me of society at large.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179224 Jun 29, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Lyndi, just want you to know that I believe and support you and that I have "seen" what "I" consider stalking. My mistake has been to try to get the "mob" to see it and to support you too, but I can see that ain't going to happen. It's so hard when you see this thread is just a mini-me of society at large.
I appreciate all your efforts, Lis. Many thanks.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#179225 Jun 29, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>
There's some certifiable freekin' people on these threads.
Flattery will get you NOwhere Jambalaya, but thanks fer the kind words anyway.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#179226 Jun 29, 2014
Roberta G wrote:
So...how do you all think the Supreme Court is going to rule in the Hobby Lobby case on Monday?
Hi Roberta, nice to see you. I don't know what the supreme court will do but I have less problem with them than I do the other branches. They seem to follow the letter of the law and though I didn't like the decision on Obamacare I can see where it was legal. I believe that Hobby Lobby has a right to follow their own beliefs and that people do not have an inalienable right to work somewhere. It has always been hire and fire at will, as long as it is clearly not with prejudice. And it is also work at will. So if they win they may say this is the way our insurance is, and the person says "I can't abide working somewhere that doesn't cover these things they just don't work there. I don't see how they can legally force them to cover those things.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#179227 Jun 29, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>The only reason I'm considering a modification is due to the >apparent< sincerity of your continued denunciation of his alleged behavior. I'll stipulate that I don't "monitor" each day or each post. I'm sure you don't either. It's a leisure time activity, not a job.
I will tell you what I have seen.

As I said, I haven't seen everything.
If only you'd kept it to that instead of littering the forum with your endless interpretations and opinions.
==

Maybe you're the one who should be married to Lois Lerner. She might finally start talking just to make you stop.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179228 Jun 29, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Lyndi, just want you to know that I believe and support you and that I have "seen" what "I" consider stalking. My mistake has been to try to get the "mob" to see it and to support you too, but I can see that ain't going to happen. It's so hard when you see this thread is just a mini-me of society at large.
Can someone please share what specifically he said that changed it from a two-way slugfest to the crime of stalking, broadly defined as "to display a criminal intent to cause fear in the victim"? As I said, just being the first to tire of a two-way insult game is far from the crime of stalking. Surely there's something more.....?

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179229 Jun 29, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you'd kept it to that instead of littering the forum with your endless interpretations and opinions.
==
Maybe you're the one who should be married to Lois Lerner. She might finally start talking just to make you stop.
Well, that's what I thought.

OK, lisw, disregard above question..

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#179230 Jun 29, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Lyndi, just want you to know that I believe and support you and that I have "seen" what "I" consider stalking. My mistake has been to try to get the "mob" to see it and to support you too, but I can see that ain't going to happen. It's so hard when you see this thread is just a mini-me of society at large.
If I see that someone is stalking another person on here, believe me I will speak up. I'm a newcomer to the thread so I'm not privy to what went on between Lindi and Catcher. I think Lindi has every right to define when enough is enough. I also think you're being a good friend in supporting her.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#179231 Jun 29, 2014
edit: Lindi = Lyndi

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#179232 Jun 29, 2014
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>One of my all time favorites is a very old friend of the family. Choate-Yale, valedictorian, managing editor Yale Law Review, lecturer at Columbia blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I asked him years ago what I enjoy asking all defense attorneys.
Is there any case you won't take? Any crime you won't defend?
His answer dwarfed any other answer I had heard prior or since. He told me, "I won't defend the mob. I won't defend crimes against children. I won't defend crimes against women."
He said, "The trouble with providing a defense for a mob member is if you do get them off, they'll never leave you alone and if you don't get them off they'll never leave you alone. I don't have the stomach for putting on a defense for anyone accused of harming a child and I don't have the stomach for putting on a defense for anyone accused of harming a woman." His conclusion was, "Understand, they are all entitled to legal counsel, they're just not all entitled to mine."
In light of the response above, which reiterates a certain vagueness throughout, along, let's ask your lawyer friend another question.

Is there any case you wouldn't prosecute? The alleged victim, after repeated questioning, offers nothing beyond, "Didn't you hear me?! I said he's a stalker and if you doubt me you're an enable and a crappy lawyer!".

Will he take the case?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179233 Jun 29, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Can someone please share what specifically he said that changed it from a two-way slugfest to the crime of stalking, broadly defined as "to display a criminal intent to cause fear in the victim"? As I said, just being the first to tire of a two-way insult game is far from the crime of stalking. Surely there's something more.....?
Or we could just drop it and move along for the time being.

Unless Catcher flat-out disappears, you can bet your bippy this will come back around again.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#179234 Jun 29, 2014
A clarification, Hip.

Catcher is obviously not even a necessary component in this coming back around.

This round, unless I missed something, came about because one of the mob posted to Catcher, and one of the clique took exception to that.

Tune in tomorrow for the next episode in "As The Thread Turns," brought to you by Easy-Lube - the laxative that works (and fixes squeaky doors too!).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
wegmans food markets . racism probe (Jan '08) 4 min NO_RACISIM 11
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 44 min Gotti 42,052
God......do You enjoy wacthing me SUFFER?? 1 hr Johnny 18
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 1 hr Johnny 133
Trump's "Russia Worries" louder than the noon sun 1 hr Thealtleftiscrumb... 21
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 2 hr Johnny 630
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr PadMark 690,470
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr another viewer 989,749
More from around the web