Posted on 07/03/2008 7:42:55 PM PDT by Grig
You don't annoy me, you amuse me.
Every moderator and his brother had something to say about that (I believe they were annoyed).
If you were not intending a threat, then what was the point of adding the (inapplicable) legal statue to the post’s text?
Very supposedly. They were totally inapplicable to an open forum.
Thank you, Enosh. Proves my memory was correct.
Well, why can’t you understand why what the Tanners did is underhanded and evil?
Why can’t you understand that they are U.S. citizens, and had the right to go to court?
In your eyes, they are evil. In my eyes, they are doing God’s work in their Christian ministry for many years.
I’m convinced that they are feared by LDS because they have brought to light those things which were in the dark. Hence, the smears on their character.
OMM:
[Sir, you have just posted another lie. I have never threatened to sue anyone here and I defy you to produce one posting where I uttered a threat to sue.
Does that make you the biggest liar here?]
Glad you asked, let’s just see who the liar is:
***************************************
Old Mountain man to Elsie; Admin Moderator
This comment as well as most of your comments annoy me. I am now formally requesting that you cease posting to me in any manner that would tend to annoy me.
Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications. ..shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called Preventing Cyberstalking. It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.
Which words there are a threat. Be prepared to defend your choices with dictionary definitions, not something you and your preacher made up to get the mormon.
[Which words there are a threat. Be prepared to defend your choices with dictionary definitions, not something you and your preacher made up to get the mormon.]
Like I’m going to argue with you about the meaning of is. You are barely literate, Old Mountain Man, a waste of digital breath.
The way Forum readers know this is true is because you never cite sources, much less evidence - you are instead quick to name call or proclaim your opinion the truth to avoid rational thought. You are simply incapable of the normal chain of logical analysis.
YOU asked for evidence that you had threatened to sue. I provided the evidence. Now come the usual recriminations and spin.
If you are true to form, you will now call me a moron, a mainstreamer, a liar, etc. etc. Your thick headedness makes you a laughing stock, OMM, the object of jokes, but you do not realize it.
Well they did used to be ldsers, learned from the best I guess.
Yeah, Billy Graham.
You’re a sick man, Spiritually sick, and it’s spilling out from your keyboard.
Well you got me. I did not know Billy Graham was lds.
Just an anti-semite.
It certainly isn’t the law...
Thus my reply number 241:
You are correct.....
Baptized into the faith shortly after his death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.