The Glade 4.0 :: View topic

Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present action seeking a temporary
restraining order to prevent the deployment of Plaintiff, a Captain
in the United States Army, to Iraq. Counsel maintains that the
President has not produced sufficient evidence of his place of birth
to satisfy her that he is a natural born citizen of the United
2
States. Therefore, she alleges he was not eligible to be elected
President of the United States and has no authority to act as
Commander in Chief.

Who would be the "enemy"?

This isn't even a birther case. This is a coward seizing on anything she thinks might keep her sorry *** from getting deployed.

She ought to be charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy.

No, it's a birther case, it's just the avenue they chose to go with. The objection to her deployment is that the President is not eligible, and it's now been rejected not only on the evidence, but also on procedural grounds.

I don't have a problem with conscientious objection, but yeah, this one was fishy from the get-go, which this judge seems to have smelled a mile away.

Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary

Monte wrote:

Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary

Trolling isn't on the list of rules.

Vigilante moderation is.

Don't like his trolling? Don't respond to it. Last informal warning regarding that particular rule, as it has come up before.

DFK! wrote:

Monte wrote:

Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary

Trolling isn't on the list of rules.

Vigilante moderation is.

Don't like his trolling? Don't respond to it. Last informal warning regarding that particular rule, as it has come up before.

If trolling isn't on the list of things that are moderated, how is calling him out on that vigilante moderation?

Hate speech is banned according to our user argeement, but if someone said something racist I would still call them out on it.

Author:	Monte [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Orly?
Judge soundly dismisses Birther case and threatens to sanction Orly Taitz (yes, that's her name) for her frivolous Birther conspiracy lawsuits.

Author:	Talya [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:
I worked with a woman named Orly. I think it's a Jewish name.

Author:	Stathol [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:
I wonder how long it will be before someone names a set of twins Orly and Yarly. I bet someone already has.

Author:	Raltar [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:
If I ever have kids and they happen to be twins...I am so totally doing that. And this is why I am not fit to be a father. Well, one of the reasons, at any rate.

Author:	Müs [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present action seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the deployment of Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, to Iraq. Counsel maintains that the President has not produced sufficient evidence of his place of birth to satisfy her that he is a natural born citizen of the United 2 States. Therefore, she alleges he was not eligible to be elected President of the United States and has no authority to act as Commander in Chief. Truly LOLworthy. Silly bint doesn't wanna get deployed.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Orly? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=234	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Orly?
This isn't even a birther case. This is a coward seizing on anything she thinks might keep her sorry *** from getting deployed. She ought to be charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy.

Author:	Screeling [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Who would be the "enemy"?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Screeling wrote: Who would be the "enemy"? The Taliban, Al Quaeda, and the various hostile forces in Iraq. Iraq is a hostile fire area where one is entitled to additional pay based on the presence of an enemy, even if that enemy is largely defeated.

Author:	Hannibal [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Can we really stop calling them birthers?
It's tone is inflammatory, it doesn't really serve the board's new kinder, gentler environment, and it's not that hard to type the name out. Questioning the presidents eligibility is a completely valid and respectable right of the citizen, and if we want to engage each other in pleasant conversation and even vigorous but respectful debate, I don't think it's too much to ask to keep the inflammatory descriptors to a minimum. You'll note I have stopped referring to the Tea Party protesters as Teabaggers, for example, and I think that others here could return that common courtesy. In the sincere spirit of a nicer Hellfire club, I suggest people use a little more of their time to be more respectful to the Birthers who post here.

Author:	Drexel [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:
I really feel a personal attack is in order here, but these damn rules won't allow it! Damn you, board rules! /shakes fist

Author:	Monte [ Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Orly?
Diamondeye wrote: This isn't even a birther case. This is a coward seizing on anything she thinks might keep her sorry *** from getting deployed. She ought to be charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy. No, it's a birther case, it's just the avenue they chose to go with. The objection to her deployment is that the President is not eligible, and it's now been rejected not only on the evidence, but also on procedural grounds. I don't have a problem with conscientious objection, but yeah, this one was fishy from the get-go, which this judge seems to have smelled a mile away.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Orly?
Monte wrote: No, it's a birther case, it's just the avenue they chose to go with. The objection to her deployment is that the President is not eligible, and it's now been rejected not only on the evidence, but also on procedural grounds. I don't have a problem with conscientious objection, but yeah, this one was fishy from the get-go, which this judge seems to have smelled a mile away. The judge rejected the evidence she had, which was apparently none. That can't be extended to any other person taking the same position. She clearly had an ulterior motive, and was pressed for time by her deployment date, so they probably just tossed whatever **** they could come up with at the wall and hoped it stuck.

Author:	Monte [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary

Author:	Rafael [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary I'm questioning how you would consider that trolling? It's a legitmate concern, based on other ones of the similiar nature that were raised. Where those dismissed outright or was germane conversation attempted to resolve the issue in an effective manner? If it was, why should this concern be dismissed outright?

Author:	DFK! [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Orly?
Here is the deal. The post was reported, TWICE for vigilante moderation. As such, and considering it was at least the second time Monte has been reported for such a rules affront, I'm done giving informal warnings. However, on further reading of the text, I decided that the post could essentially be in the spirit of a "don't feed the troll" type of post. As such, I posted in the Super-Secret Moderation Zone about the thread for input. Since ya'llz can't see that, you didn't know that was going on. Based upon discussion there, we can't evaluate the intent of the post in question, and I'm rescinding the 'verbal' or 'informal' warning. However, this is the second moderator response to which Monte has posted public rebuttals. One of mine and one of Talya's. This violates the rules quite clearly. Consider this an informal warning on that front instead.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	DFK! [ Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Monte wrote: Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary Admonishment rescinded.

Author:	Monte [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
DFK! wrote: Monte wrote: Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary Trolling isn't on the list of rules. Vigilante moderation is. Don't like his trolling? Don't respond to it. Last informal warning regarding that particular rule, as it has come up before. If trolling isn't on the list of things that are moderated, how is calling him out on that vigilante moderation? Hate speech is banned according to our user argeement, but if someone said something racist I would still call them out on it.

Author:	Nitefox [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Monte wrote: DFK! wrote: Monte wrote: Hannibal - trolling isn't necessary Trolling isn't on the list of rules. Vigilante moderation is. Don't like his trolling? Don't respond to it. Last informal warning regarding that particular rule, as it has come up before. If trolling isn't on the list of things that are moderated, how is calling him out on that vigilante moderation? Hate speech is banned according to our user argeement, but if someone said something racist I would still call them out on it. It isn't up to you to call people out. If you think something breaks the rules, you report them and that's it. You calling someone out on something you think might be against the rules leads to unpleasant things. Sorry, but your idea of what is or isn't a rules violation isn't very consistent.