going on for years. Not a week goes by that the same explanations are
made over and over. Precisely worded material, like my New
Constitution, cannot be paraphrased. Anyone reading the same thing
ten times can find something new and important with each reading.
Only a socialist-communist like you, would be offended reading a
document that will outlaw your kind in the USA. So, stay a Tico. The
cost of living down there is low enough you should be able to survive
on a moderator's stipend. — J. A. A. —
>
On May 6, 8:40 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> 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 <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>
> > 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 <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> 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 <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment