What is a drivers license ?

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

It never fails on this forum:

Someone starts a thread and just as it is about to get meaningful and/or interesting, someone drags it off into the ocean of off-point argument.

This forum can easily be a thousand pages shorter if those posting will make their number 1 concern asserting a provable point, and their number 2 concern avoiding asserting any thing off-point.


SansRecours

This is one reason why I and others have said IGNORE THE TROLLS and this way the thread can stay on point.

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by SansRecours

It never fails on this forum:

Someone starts a thread and just as it is about to get meaningful and/or interesting, someone drags it off into the ocean of off-point argument.

This forum can easily be a thousand pages shorter if those posting will make their number 1 concern asserting a provable point, and their number 2 concern avoiding asserting any thing off-point.

SansRecours

Good point!

But folks, as frustrating as it is--this is just one of the many costs when trying to apply your personal freedom. They teach them that all citizens are law breakers (including themselves). this is where you have to dig deep within yourself and rise above your own frustrations. Patience is the key.

To stay on point, driving is a commercial act but, everyone has the right to travel from one point to another. It is a birth right that no man made law, statute, code, or policy can give or take from you.

Sovereignty rests with the people as it is the people who create and destroy governments. Government is just a name that describes the belief in a system--however, you have some who have placed their allegiance with those that are abusing the public trust in the created entity called government.

You are sovereign by birth right. You have the right to travel, the right to work, the right to property, and even the right not to participate in this political system.

Therefore, if you do not understand the game or even like the game--why play it? Inch your way out. preserve your wealth. And never argue.

have fun

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

...dig deep within yourself and rise above your own frustrations.

Patience is the key.

You are sovereign by birth right.

It is a birth right that no man made law, statute, code, or policy can give or take from you.

...if you do not understand the game or even like the game--why play it?

Inch your way out.

Preserve your wealth.

And never argue.

I have an inspiration wall that I post stuff on, the above will go on it.

I hope you do not mind that I edited and re-arranged it.

Thank you very much for this.

Simplicity is good, but perhaps not necessarily easy.

This will help keep my progress, or perceived lack thereof in perspective.



To at least give an appearance of staying on point:

"My" (the) drivers license is a piece of plastic with a picture on it, that now serves as a reminder of what I have gotten into and need to inch my way out of.

I do not know how, exactly, to get out of it but will try to keep inching my way out, and if successful, can hopefully bring some others along with.

Perhaps it is not by accident I am here.

I did seek, perhaps I have found.

[J.W.]

I enjoy debate here at SJ even with people of sincerely differing opinions. SuiJuris.net is not meant to be a one-sided punch bowl for people only of particular legal, philosophical, theoretical, interpretive paradigm to drink from. Ideally, the goal is to explore a wealth of information and possibilities from many, many different sources, scrutinize the information as best as possible aspiring to be somewhat academic or intellectual with regard to such endeavors all of which we would certainly hope would help better the lives of the collective membership.

We have been receiving a lot of requests to ban people who are of opposing thought who are not being disrespectful, which in my opinion is ludicrous. I actually like reading grossly opposing thought as it gives rise to me taking the time to research or inquire further on a particular subject. I do however hold some opinions or beliefs presently that I would find to be quite difficult to change, but at the end of the day do accept the fact that change is possible based upon many different factors.

The bottom line to consider is if you find a particular members commentary to be offensive to your particular reality tunnel and such commentary has not been brought forth in a disrespectful or insulting manor then simply use the option on the forum to ignore that particular member. Otherwise, I say if you are up for intellectual dueling then step up to the digital mic and say what you have to say, but do it cordially.

Is this really too difficult to digest or am I missing something here?

Note: This is a duplicate post but fits well here.

[Jerseee]

mrg,

not at all. Whatever gets your through the day. I'm just glad I could help in someway.

Jason,

Bravo!

Originally Posted by mrg

I have an inspiration wall that I post stuff on, the above will go on it.

I hope you do not mind that I edited and re-arranged it.

Thank you very much for this.

Simplicity is good, but perhaps not necessarily easy.

This will help keep my progress, or perceived lack thereof in perspective.



To at least give an appearance of staying on point:

"My" (the) drivers license is a piece of plastic with a picture on it, that now serves as a reminder of what I have gotten into and need to inch my way out of.

I do not know how, exactly, to get out of it but will try to keep inching my way out, and if successful, can hopefully bring some others along with.

Perhaps it is not by accident I am here.

I did seek, perhaps I have found.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

I enjoy debate here at SJ even with people of sincerely differing opinions. SuiJuris.net is not meant to be a one-sided punch bowl for people only of particular legal, philosophical, theoretical, interpretive paradigm to drink from. Ideally, the goal is to explore a wealth of information and possibilities from many, many different sources, scrutinize the information as best as possible aspiring to be somewhat academic or intellectual with regard to such endeavors all of which we would certainly hope would help better the lives of the collective membership.

We have been receiving a lot of requests to ban people who are of opposing thought who are not being disrespectful, which in my opinion is ludicrous. I actually like reading grossly opposing thought as it gives rise to me taking the time to research or inquire further on a particular subject. I do however hold some opinions or beliefs presently that I would find to be quite difficult to change, but at the end of the day do accept the fact that change is possible based upon many different factors.

The bottom line to consider is if you find a particular members commentary to be offensive to your particular reality tunnel and such commentary has not been brought forth in a disrespectful or insulting manor then simply use the option on the forum to ignore that particular member. Otherwise, I say if you are up for intellectual dueling then step up to the digital mic and say what you have to say, but do it cordially.

Is this really too difficult to digest or am I missing something here?

Note: This is a duplicate post but fits well here.

Jason your point been noted.
I speak for myself, I don't really care, Who, What, When, How, and Why in this forum, as long as that person not thread on me, it don't matter to me what that person do, and I'm not going to put that person on my ignore list, If that person get something to say to me, one word for that person.
"Bring it on"
I take that person any day.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

I enjoy debate here at SJ even with people of sincerely differing opinions. SuiJuris.net is not meant to be a one-sided punch bowl for people only of particular legal, philosophical, theoretical, interpretive paradigm to drink from. Ideally, the goal is to explore a wealth of information and possibilities from many, many different sources, scrutinize the information as best as possible aspiring to be somewhat academic or intellectual with regard to such endeavors all of which we would certainly hope would help better the lives of the collective membership.

We have been receiving a lot of requests to ban people who are of opposing thought who are not being disrespectful, which in my opinion is ludicrous. I actually like reading grossly opposing thought as it gives rise to me taking the time to research or inquire further on a particular subject. I do however hold some opinions or beliefs presently that I would find to be quite difficult to change, but at the end of the day do accept the fact that change is possible based upon many different factors.

The bottom line to consider is if you find a particular members commentary to be offensive to your particular reality tunnel and such commentary has not been brought forth in a disrespectful or insulting manor then simply use the option on the forum to ignore that particular member. Otherwise, I say if you are up for intellectual dueling then step up to the digital mic and say what you have to say, but do it cordially.

Is this really too difficult to digest or am I missing something here?

Note: This is a duplicate post but fits well here.

Although, I must admit, I do not like these trolls being here I am not saying outright ban them. I do say, however, that I will continue to ignore them. Too many threads lead off point, I am not saying I have not done some of that myself, not intentionally of course, but these trolls do it to keep people going in circles. It is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and derail any attempt at getting to the truth.

My energy can be better spent not having to put out brush fires. This is my opinion and I reserve the right to assert it.

There is no amount of arguing that will stop these trolls and is obvious from the documentation that has been provided in the past that has been totally ignored by them. They just keep arguing the same things over and over even after being factually rebutted.

Thank you for reinforcing my right to ignore them, as that is exactly what I itend to do.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Jason Whitney

First, as has been pointed out the sincerity of the differing "opinions" is an issue, unless dis-ease, and willful collaboration with ancient practices of corruption can be equated with "sincerely differing opinions," and red herring baiting is indicative of sincerety.

I have not seen much evidence that you are debating anyone other than those pointing out agents provacateurs, propagandists, saboteurs, and their tactics, as well as perhaps their underlying purpose for being here.

Thus I do not see this issue as having been approached, much less addressed.

Lets see you go head to head in a valid and substantial "debate" with Lawdog, Shoonra, AndyK, BRookard, and their ilk.

(Cannot be done, they are not here for that, but I would like to see you have an object lesson in attempting, maybe they will "behave" for you.)

I suggest you, yourself, personally take some of the anti-intellectual drivel and sleight of hand apologist propaganda that Shoonra posts and respond point for point, word for word, in a valid scholarly expository, academically viable method, that is analytically applied through comprehended knowledge of facts, to structure a logical synthesis into a cognitively rational, accurate, and precisely verifiable evaluation.

Then do the same with AndyK, Lawdog, BRookard, Judge Roy Bean, and the others.

Further, I have arrived at an educated conclusion, through the above described methodical process, that this is ultimately, a pointless and fruitless effort, however, I challenge you to do the whole work, precisely as proposed and report the results.

What rhetorical device is called "poisoning the well?"

How does this and other logically fallacious rhetorical devices constitute a "particular legal, philosophical, theoretical, interpretive paradigm?"

If you want to drink from that side of the "punchbowl" and encourage others to do so, so be it.

There is plenty of honest diversity here without need for throwing professional hijackers and outright pirates into the mix, and sanctioning it and validating it.

Ideally, where is the substantive wealth these people bring? Or information? Or anything remotely academic or intellectual?

When one of these agents provacateurs refers to his own presumed "membership" as "sooeys," and other derogatory terms, and dismissively rebuts a statement as nut case nonsense, (and selectively and subjectively cuts and pastes snippets from here and imports it back to where his true "membership" is admitted, in order to mock, deride, and misrepresent this site on a site where his interests are), rather than analytically synthesized application of comprehended knowledge of facts resulting in a valid evaluative conclusion or presentation, because they either cannot or will not do the actual work, is that one including himself within the classification he has just derisively described, or does he stand outside of the "collective membership" he has just branded as ignorant stupid dupes?

If indeed that one includes himself to be within the "collective membership," that person has also included himself within those terms of derision, unless the one so deriding the ignorant "sooeys" denies "collective membership" which would include himself within that derisive label.

Is that person a part of the "collective membership" if he does not admit being in the same position and on the same level as the "collective membership" he has just described?

Being a part of that collective membership, that person would also be a "sooey," nut job, whacko, perp, advocating stunts that "the courts have consistently ruled against..."

Unless that person is outside of that "collective membership."

If so, is that person a member?

I have seen no "opposing thought," I see only crass deceptive rhetorical device, devoid of substantive "thought."

Does a parrot "think?"

Sabotage, espionage, propaganda, infiltration, instigation, are beyond merely "being disrespectful."

(I was not aware that there was a call for a ban, and have not seen evidence of a call for an outright ban posted in public.

I could be wrong there though.)

Again, what "thought?"

Is Pavlovian conditioned response evidence of freewill "thought?"

Why do you just passively read it?

Work your hands in the dirt.

Sounds like an apology for the apologists; my opinion.

Do you enjoy endless redundancy also?

Again I have seen no "opposing thought," only cunning craftsmanship and artifice.

Is that in hopes that plants and agents who are dedicated and either derive income from what they are doing here andor have a vested interest in propagating institutionalizing, protecting, and perpetuating an ancient practice of corruption, might change, as a result of their activity here, or vice versa, or both?

Thanks for painting those who have raised these questions and issues as having tunnel vision, and a distorted sense of reality.

There is nothing these people offer that will lead to "intellectual duelling," indeed their tactical rhetoric is cunningly designed to stifle logical, rational discussion.

I submit it is propaganda, and sabotage, that leads to tail chasing, and is so intended and perpetrated.

Yes it is very difficult to digest, and it appears that you have missed very much, and perhaps appear to have ignored, and outright dismissed very much.

The bottom line is perhaps freedom of speech?

If so, that is all that needs to be said.

Why validate the presence of obvious saboteurs by arguing their case?

Just say freedom of speech, and be done with it.

The ACLU successfully defended the Nazi's demonstration in a predominantly, and historically Jewish neighborhood here in Chicago a few years ago, on freedom of speech.

Perhaps you might want to re-visit Animal Farm:

first it was two legs bad four legs good, and then it became four legs good two legs better.

So it goes.

Same message to you as to the apologists: at least call it what it is, rather than rationalize it and then attempt to present as other than what it is.

I find it very telling that your apparent apology for the apologists was posted under lock and key.

Weisshaupt can ream me for posting this, he works very hard for the site, and is very active and visible, yet he is not going to be doing his token tail chasing with these trolls for very long or dancing to the tune these people are calling at the expense of doing what he does here which in part is research and posting of extremely valuable resource material, or doing what he has to do to take care of his own business.

Before I wrote this I studied at length each individual post, as well as the thread as a whole, and how each post fit into it both as individual statements, and as a whole tapestry, which is what a thread weaves:
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/genera...community.html

If you need to respond I ask that you only, and specifically respond point for point, word for word, in a valid scholarly expository, academically viable accepted method for arriving at proofs or the penultimate, that is analytically applied through comprehended knowledge of observation and/or facts, to structure a logical synthesis into a cognitively rational, accurate, and precisely verifiable evaluation, at least to the extent that I have attempted to do herein.

Otherwise let it go.

I support your position conditionally, I never called for an unconditional ban.

I am, however complaining about the nature and purpose of the presense of these people here.

I question the validity of their offerings, and their personal integrity and honesty as to their underlying purpose for apparently being members, without really being members.

I am a trained and credentialled observer, and these are professional observations.


(Weisshaupt is herding cats, not easy, and I suppose it must be done.)

If I have broken the edict of "never argue," so be it, I am working on it.

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by mrg

If I have broken the edict of "never argue," so be it, I am working on it.

mrg,

"never argue" is my truism and ideology. "never argue" is not a condition on this site but merely a suggestive answer to those that cannot see the forrest for the trees when the bullsh*t artists are in session.

your position on the "members" of this site is an old one. Over the past 2 years, prior to the new administration, moderators had done what they could to stem the tide of the infiltrators. Even I at one time was a moderator and at one time I did ascert my moderator authority over one of the trolls. I deleted posts and took a hard line on the "member".

i was applauded by the membership--but counseled by the leadership. It was a good counseling--not a stern tongue lashing. From that point on I understood a little better about dealing with these mischiefs. they are a necessary evils for us maintain balance in this struggle.

I make no apologies for these bastards. I tolerate them and challenge them--I try my best to not argue with them. they offer nothing of value other than the usual desenting position. IMHO, they bring down the value of even participating in a thread. they serve only as a wedge between the ones that have knowledge and the ones that have not. They reinforce a system that they themselves do not truly believe in--or they wouldn't be here. In fact, it is my deepest opinion that these "people" are being paid to do what they do by the very system that is supposedly designed to protect and educate you and I on matters of jurisdiction, political status, the accounting of the nation, protection of property and wealth, and last but not least our image throughout the international community as what a model society should be.

Jason and the crew have a task at hand that maybe a bit greater than they thought--however, they are experienced and seasoned players in this treacherous game. I have known of Jason and Gus for a long time and this is not to defend them in any manner. I merely pointing out that Jason has been through nasty court battles, monumentous consumer complaints, praised and stoned, but has never left the battlefield since my knowledge of him.

There are those that have come and gone. Some have went to jail, some have died, and some have even went off the deep end with this stuff. but he is still here. Now this tells me something and it also tells those trolls something as well....their day is coming. Until such time, we need to keep moving forward. It is not going to be easy, without hassle, or sucker free. If those that really want personal freedom--want it, these are the associated costs.

You deserve an answer from Jason from your post. My post to you is basically asking, can we move on after you get your answer?

thanks

[mrg]

Jersee:

I should not have referred to your suggestion about not arguing as an "edict."

It appears, though, that this work will just get quietly buried along with all the rest of my methodically constructed evaluations of the ad infinitum, ad nauseum propaganda, fallacious rhetorical argument and artifice, subterfuge, animal cunning, and guile offered by what are more than likely minions of surveillance operatives.

I do value and appreciate your response, and your contributions to the site.