On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:53 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Moderator Mark: Some of the arguments on other groups have been > going on for years. How nice for them, just how does that apply here?? > Not a week goes by that the same explanations are > made over and over. Explanations are just fine, how does that apply to your trolling and spamming?? > Precisely worded material, like my New > Constitution, cannot be paraphrased. *Your tripe has precise words but is definitely NOT precisely worded. * > Anyone reading the same thing > ten times can find something new and important with each reading. > Not according to you... there is but ONE definition... yours and ANY disagreement with the worlds premier "Patriot" is received with cries of "Communist/Socialist" the very things your supposed super document promotes.....right down to Stalinesque systems of denouncements on the street. > Only a socialist-communist like you, would be offended reading a > document that will outlaw your kind in the USA. See, it proves point above. Absolute Stalinism. > So, stay a Tico. You say that as though there is a choice. There is not. (Look it up before thinking or saying something really stupid....AGAIN) > The > cost of living down there is low enough you should be able to survive > on a moderator's stipend. Thanks to the US policy of simply printing more cash (and idiots like you DOING nothing about it) to pay its bills the Dollar has lost about 20% of it value outside the US (read in the real world). The US is now just as affordable for someone from outside. And to end this...... Keep *Spamming* the board with something that is simply an invention (and a poor one at that) of you mind while simply * trolling* to get your blog search numbers up and I will simply delete the thread. Keep advertising your book(s) in your posts and the thread will disappear. *LAST Warning.* > — J. A. A. — > > > > On May 6, 8:40 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > noeinstein, > > > > Of course I am safe from prosecution...I have not come close to breaking > any > > law. It has NOTHING to do with my location. I can also NOT be fired. > > Periodically copying identical material from identical sources with near > or > > identical comments is the very definition of *SPAM. * > > *** > > *Your supposed "reason" for spamming is not relevant and is obviously > more > > important to you than anyone else. > > > > I could care less if its your "new constitution" or a treatise on > scratching > > your ass... spam is spam is spam. > > > > As to people taking umbrage with what YOU and you ALONE alone call an > > attack... they have pills and psychiatrists for that... this is not the > > place..maybe a little inpatient care for a while....seek help. > > > > As to the rules governing this Forum.... repeated use of it and TROLLING > > just to keep the thread alive so it drives search engines to your > personal > > blog through keywords is SPAMMING.... > > > > Keep it up and the thread you have been so careful to groom will > disappear. > > > > As to your unabashed advertising of your "Book".... that too, has been > > stopped. there is an area supplied on our "pages" section for such tripe. > > > > Play by the rules.... no lobbyists allowed.... no unsolicited ads for > > personal gain... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:46 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear Mark: You may be "safe" from prosecution, but not safe from > > > being fired. Most of the readers I'm attracting are conservatives in > > > the USA. Few of those take kindly to your attacking me for > > > periodically copying parts of my precisely-worded New Constitution. > > > That document isn't something that can be paraphrased, repeatedly. > > > I'm sure you would enjoy discussing each little point. But like I've > > > told J. Ashley, not one word of my document is in flux. — J. A. A. — > > > > > On May 4, 5:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear Einstein, > > > > > > I fully comply with "Google, Costa Rica" and WTO rules and in no way > am I > > > > subject to ANY part of your governments rules, regulations, or > > > Constitution. > > > > Just how ignorant are you that you would think so >?? > > > > > > I could care less that Google is a US Corporation... It is also a > Costa > > > > Rican S.A. and those are the rules that cover me and those ONLY. > Please > > > read > > > > OUR constitution. > > > > > > All political points of view are accepted here.... we just do not > accept > > > > SPAM regardless of how it is cloaked. > > > > > > Your civil rights are exactly what MY constitution says they are at > MY > > > ISP > > > > address. Welcome to the world!!!!!! > > > > > > If "wringing the neck" continues to be a source of ad nausea SPAM the > > > thread > > > > will be shut down and removed. > > > > > > In short, you are on a WORLD forum.... NOT a USA forum..... get used > to > > > it. > > > > > > The posters here are not stupid nor are they ignorant. > > > > Constant repetition is a standard tool of the communist/socialist > left > > > and > > > > you, more than anyone else seem to be perfectly comfortable using > it.... > > > I > > > > wonder why. > > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Mark: It's one thing to enjoy reading different points of > view. > > > > > It's another one, entirely, to use your unlimited response time to > > > > > attack, often by TONE, the ideas of others. Though you are in > Costa > > > > > Rica, you aren't above having to conform to the Free Speech > > > > > requirements of the US Constitution. Google is, first and > foremost, a > > > > > US corporation. When you violate MY civil rights, Google becomes > > > > > responsible. Political Forum bragged that all political points of > > > > > view are accepted. When you cited me for rightfully demanding that > > > > > Barack Obama be made to account (hang by the neck until dead) for > his > > > > > anti-America actions, you sided with the LEFT, > socialist-communists. > > > > > You show yourself to have been using your... "moderator" job to > > > > > promote your personal political objectives. I don't think... > "that" > > > > > was part of your job description. I highly recommend that you just > > > > > fade into the woodwork, like Keith has tended to do. The > readership > > > > > of "Wringing-the-neck... " isn't going up because you keep popping > > > > > in. — J. A. Armistead — > > > > > > > On May 3, 10:58 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Einstein... here is your latest post.... it did not post when > > > > > > moderated. I have checked and there are indeed large portions of > your > > > > > > former posts missing... our local moderators did NOT do that. If > you > > > > > > check though you will find that each section of your constitution > > > that > > > > > > was posted is still there at least ONCE. Gee, I warned you > against > > > > > > spam... Talk to your buddies at Google...ONLY they can do that, > and > > > it > > > > > > is an auto response accomplished within the servers to save > space. > > > > > > > > As to my "lowly" "job" here... I enjoy reading different points > of > > > > > > view and am not so stupid that I need things CONSTANTLY repeated > to > > > > > > me; neither are the other posters. > > > > > > > > Folks: One of the supposed "moderators" of Political Forum, 'The > > > > > > Annointed (sic) One', must be feeling the need to feel powerful. > > > > > > (Meaning that he isn't powerful.) He's from Costa Rica; has > monkeys > > > > > > in his back yard; claims to be an attorney and an international > peace > > > > > > negotiator; but for some reason he's stuck in the lowly job of > trying > > > > > > to keep "spam" off of this group. I can virtually guarantee you > that > > > > > > none of the 'other' readers consider my copying apt excerpts from > my > > > > > > New Constitution—so that more and more people can understand what > I > > > > > > have done on their behalf—to be "spam". If the only thing that > > > > > > 'powerful attorney' has to do is to read word-for-word what > everyone > > > > > > on this groups writes, then it is understandable that he would > tire > > > > > > of > > > > > > reading the same thing. However, I know that everyday there are > > > > > > first- > > > > > > time visitors who haven't seen even a small part of my New > > > > > > Constitution. When I reply to a particular point, I copy the > adjunct > > > > > > block of text so people can sense how my document reads. There > are > > > > > > many interesting things in those blocks, put there to make the > lives > > > > > > of average Americans better. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that 'Mark', The Annointed (sic) One, has had a > fall- > > > > > > from-grace in his profession. Moderating a Google news group > isn't > > > > > > part of the career path of... "normal" attorneys. I am > sympathetic to > > > > > > the computer storage problems associated with active posts. > Several > > > > > > months ago, out-of-the-blue, MJ, Mark, Jonathan and Keith > popped-in > > > > > > sounding negative to my efforts, as though in concert to > defend... > > > > > > socialism and communism. The VOLUME of my writing went up, > because > > > > > > those guys were skimming rather than reading-for-understanding > what I > > > > > > was explaining. One of the best ways to reduce repetition would > be > > > > > > for Mark, MJ and Jonathan to simply go away. However, they hang > > > > > > around because I have readers, and they like the exposure. Copied > > > > > > below is the email that 'Mark" sent to me directly. The "off" > tone > > > > > > and exaggeration near the end hint of a troubled mind. *** As a > > > > > > Google stockholder, I will complain to the proper people in CA, > if > > > > > > Mark interferes again, with THE most important post in the > history of > > > > > > Political Forum. > > > > > > > > On May 1, 6:50 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear J. Ashley: Since as little as one to four sentences are > > > needed > > > > > > > to address the crucial issues, there are NO paragraphs in my > New > > > > > > > Constitution! If there were, the entire document would require > > > fifty > > > > > > > plus pages, rather than just ten ledger-size pages to print. > In > > > many > > > > > > > cases I have "highlighted" the answer to a specific comment by > > > putting > > > > > > > *** ... in front of the main point in the reply. The reason I > > > show > > > > > > > the entire BLOCK of text (but not a paragraph) is so that > people > > > can > > > > > > > read larger sections and get a feel for how things are > organized. > > > The > > > > > > > 160 words you counted probably addressed 10 or more separate > > > issues. > > > > > > > In some cases, my adding a single word modifier to an existing > > > > > > > sentence allows going in an entire new direction. For example: > In > > > the > > > > > > > 1st Amendment, I added the word "peaceable" to "freedom of * > > > > > > > religion." That is a protection against any religion that > > > advocates > > > > > > > or condones violence as a means of fostering its objectives. — > J. > > > A. > > > > > > > Armistead — > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 1:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > John, > > > > > > > > > > I accomplished the same outcome with 43 words of clarity that > you > > > did > > > > > > > > with your convoluted paragraph of more than 160 words. > > > > > > > > > > On 04/24/2011 05:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > J. Ashley: How quickly YOU forget! The following is from > my > > > New > > > > > > > > > Constitution: > > > > > > > > > > > "Section 9& 10: Other than the President or his agents, > no > > > > > person, > > > > > > > > > news medium, organization, group, their envoys, or any > lobby, > > > > > within > > > > > > > > > government or without, shall be allowed to contact > > > representatives > > > > > > > > > while such are in Washington. However, invited persons or > > > groups > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > make scheduled depositions provided they don�t > communicate > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > representatives otherwise. A representative�s > constituents > > > shall > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > allowed to contact them for the purpose of influencing > their > > > votes > > > > > > > > > only while they are in their home states or districts. > > > > > > > > > Representatives shall regularly contact their district > offices > > > or > > > > > > > > > return to their districts to be informed of the wishes of > their > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * * * -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
