ZACK IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

Oh, and by the way, a you are a new poster. A search of the message center shows this as the first thread you have posted in. The posibility does exist that you are Regulation.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

YEP, I searched the complete message center again, delhi, including the archives, and it shows your first message was #16 in this thread. In fact your messages were 16, 18, 20, 61 and 70. All in someway in regard to something involving Regulation, all only sent to me. And you express quite a few opinions in these messages about what other posters have decided, and what the intent of this board is. Very intersting behavior, for first posts. hmmmmm....

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest regulation]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>>I can't imagine what you mean

>>by saying that the phrase

>>I used, "continuance in office,"

>>"really doesn't apply," since those

>>are in fact the exact

>>words used in Article III.

 

>I'll provide an exact quote of

>the WHOLE passage instead of

>the half-quote you refer to:

>

>

>====================

>The judicial Power of the United

>States, shall be vested in

>one Supreme Court,

>and in such inferior Courts as

>the Congress may from time

>to time ordain and

>establish. The Judges, both of the

>supreme and inferior Courts, shall

>hold

>their Offices during good Behavior, and

>shall, at stated Times, receive

>for

>their Services a Compensation which shall

>not be diminished during their

Continuance in Office.

>====================

 

 

Your quote is correct. So why did you say that the phrase I used with respect to the compensation of judges, "continuance in office," doesn't really apply? It's right there in black and white in your own quote. See the last three words?

 

>They serve "during good Behavior". It

>says it right there. In

>other words, as long as

>they keep their noses clean.

 

>

>They serve for life.

 

Sorry, but those two statements are inconsistent with each other. Someone who serves "for life" serves until death. But federal judges can be removed in circumstances other than death as you've already acknowledged. Frankly I don't understand why you brought the whole thing up. Care to explain?

[Guest delhi]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>YEP, I searched the complete message

>center again, delhi, including the

>archives, and it shows your

>first message was #16 in

>this thread. In fact

>your messages were 16, 18,

>20, 61 and 70.

>All in someway in regard

>to something involving Regulation, all

>only sent to me.

 

As a matter of fact the post of mine that ticked you off was in response to a post from bluenix and just agreed with something already said by him and two others, but don't let that puncture your conspiracy theory if it's really important to you. I guess business is a little slow and you're looking for someone to start another pissing contest with. Keep looking, cause I won't play.

[Guest Zach DC]

hey Jizz, more from Zach

 

Hey Jizz, Thanks for your response. One thing I probably didn't mention is that understand your intentions. You are denouncing risky behavior. I greatly respect that cause, just not all of your methods. I agree, you clearly have the right to criticize. I'm adding my opinions, as well. Announcing Hung Redneck as "evil" was extreme. You belittled the word.

 

You now say,

>I do believe in the presence of evil in our society and don't

>use the word or idea frivolously. I have seen people with

>evil intent murder people in this country and internationally

>for profit and to increase or maintain their share of power;

>I've seen politicains lie to the media and voters....

 

Now I will agree you are getting closer to the meaning of "evil" while keeping in context with our battle against AIDS. Politicians who smile at the camera and lie to your face. They feed the public bullshit as people die. They see the death toll as mere statistics. They hide the facts. These educated people elected for their leadership, their diplomacy, their compassion. But they serve only their hidden agendas. Big, fucking, self serving, callous, greedy liars.

 

In comparison, we have Hung Redneck. His agenda, I might agree is greedy, but I certainly don't see it as hidden. He's not lying. He may not be saying what you want to hear. But he's not pretending his bareback promotion to be anything more than it is. How could he? We know the dangers of fucking without a condom. And, by all means, educate those who don't know the risks. Thank you. We'll make our choices from there.

 

Redneck is promoting the taboo. He's not lying about the risks. And like it or not, there are men who find that taboo a huge fantasy. Sperm squirting up a man's butt.

 

In your argument with Redneck, one thing you posted struck me as a cheap shot. You said, "FUCKING WITH A CONDOM IS FUN. I always wondered how that 2 or 3 oz. of liquid buried in someone's asshole could be such a big deal anyhow."

 

I understand you denouncing bareback sex because clearly it is high risk. But your words seem to go further than that. You sound as if you are dismissing even the mere fantasy of bareback sex. The raw lust that some men share in their minds if not in their actions. You question why that 2 or 3 ounces of sperm could be important to anyone.

 

Odd words coming from you, Jizz, considering that not so long ago, you started a thread stating how you "have swallowed for the past twenty-two years." Obviously, that "2 or 3 oz. of liquid" is a big deal for you.

 

More than a decade ago there was hard public data stating oral sex was risky. Some researchers agreed not letting a man ejaculate in your mouth might be less risky. Not until years later, I got the "inside scoop" from Health Care workers. Many began speculating oral sex and swallowing was very low risk, some even believed it was no risk. But others still held fast to it being risky.

 

One could question why for the past 22 years you chose to let men cum in your mouth. Especially in the mid 80's when no one was sure just what the fuck was spreading AIDS. We were given some "safer" options. Oral sex with condoms. Suck uncovered cock but don't let him cum in your mouth. Why did you take that risk in those dark years?

 

You made a personal choice. Clearly guided by your passion. I respect that. I surmise you really love a man's semen. You've never stopped swallowing the jizz. But you pooh-pooh other men and their mere fantasies of taking a load up the butt.

 

You have a specific set of "safer sex" rules. You follow them. You have publicly educated people who have much stricter rules than yours. Your post announced, "I have swallowed for the past 22 years and have not contracted AIDS." But on the other hand, you have publicly condemned a man that has "less strict" rules than you. You proclaim, "Dick's deadly escorting." "It is evil."

 

Hung Redneck is promoting bareback sex. It's taboo, it's rough and raw and he's a nasty motherfucker. But is he a murderer? Well, I don't know of anyone he's killed or even harmed. Do you? You can hypothesize all you want. But terms like "murderer" are specific---with a cold blooded killer and at least one victim.

 

I admire you for protecting those who might be influenced by his bareback promotions. More power to you. Education is the key. Tell everyone that raw anal is dangerous. But if you're trying to save the world from "evil," well damn, you have a huge task before you. What you have called evil is simply a person's freedom to choose.

 

And lastly, Jizz, I'll post the words you posted to Hung Redneck. You were so moved to quote Kiki Mason, who said, "Do not take away our ability to make choices for ourselves."

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

I stand by all the statements I made above, Reg, or whatever name you are using today, lol.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest cassius]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

>I guess business

>is a little slow and

>you're looking for someone to

>start another pissing contest with.

 

Don't take it personally. He's like this with everybody. :-(

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Frankly I don't understand why

>you brought the whole thing

>up. Care to explain?

>

 

An even better question may be why you raised Article III in the first place, Reg, because it was not relevant to the discussion. See what happened is, in regard to discussion about the Constitution that had nothing to do with Article III, you said, "Sorry, my statments on the subject are not "uninformed guesses." Anyone who can read English can understand the Constitution." Deej and I then both pointed out to you that while anyone can read the Constitution, that understanding/interpreting it was no simple matter, and I specifically pointed out that you do not have the skills to interpret it, but acknowledged that you probably believed you did. What happened next is you raised Article III, as follows: "And let me try to make clear the difference between understanding the Constitution and interpreting it, which several other posters seem to miss." Anyone who can read can understand that the Consititution vests the judicial power of the United States in a "Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts" as Congress shall create. There is no possible interpretation of Article III..." So see then, it becomes clear why you raised Article III. It appears rather than just admit that you do not have the knowledge to interpret the Constitution, with any real credibility, that you side stepped the issue and raise a new one (Article III) to make it appear you could interpret the Constitution with reliability. All that would mean is that you might be able to possibly interpret one Article of it, but it was a save for you, and a way of avoiding the real issue, that you cannot, with any real credibility, understand/interpret the Constitution, of which you had been presenting that you could. Pretty pathetic if you ask me, Reg.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

I would be remiss not to mention that it has been suggested to me, by other posters, that the name "Cassius" is also another name Regulation is suspected of using. "Cassius" first made his appearance on March 6, of this year, and in his first post issued supportive statements for Regulation. He again came to his defense on March 11th, in another thread, and in some recent threads. Despite having very few posts, supporting Reg, appears to be a favorite past time of his. Gee, we are going to have to begin referring to you as "Eve," Reg.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest jizzdepapi]

an embarrassed jizz

 

>Z…Hey Jizz, Thanks for your response. One thing I probably didn't mention is that (I) understand your intentions. You are denouncing risky behavior.

 

I am doing more than denouncing risky behavior. I am very carefully stating that the encouragement of barebacking for profit is an evil choice. I stand by that statement.

 

 

 

>Z… Announcing Hung Redneck as "evil" was extreme. You belittled the word…

 

>J (on an earlier post)…I'd like to state that I don't judge barebacking as an intrinsically evil choice but as a proven lethal one. The choice Dick has made to engage in this activity with multiple partners and to actively promote it IS evil…

 

Because it’s pertinent to this point, I am going to ask you again to read very carefully the above quote and acknowledge that I do not refer to Hung Redneck as “evil.”

 

I DO NOT IMPLY HE IS EVIL. I am quite sure about this because I if reviewed all of my statements about Dick. He engaged in character assassination himself about several of the posters. We did not rise to the bait.

 

I DO NOT STATE THAT BAREBACKING IS EVIL.

 

I very, very, very, clearly and carefully state that I think the decision to bareback with multiple partners and to actively promote it IS evil. (this was in the context of a commercial website and of course, Dick, is an escort, so we are talking about commercial sex here in any event.).

 

 

 

You then refer to my statements about evil in the post above, agreeing with many of them. I didn’t state that evil decisions/behavior were always made in secret. Dick could shout from every rooftop that he was promoting deadly sexual behavior for profit and I would still state that his actions were evil.

 

 

 

>Z…He’s not lying…

 

Mostly, Dick was honest; he did tell one lie, at least, on the thread. He said that Kiki would have not have a problem with his behavior. I think it’s clear from the statement that Kiki co-signed that that is not the case.

 

 

 

>Z… We know the dangers of fucking without a condom. And, by all means, educate those who don't know the risks. Thank you. We'll make our choices from there…Redneck is promoting the taboo. He's not lying about the risks. And like it or not, there are men who find that taboo a huge fantasy. Sperm squirting up a man's butt.

 

Above, you state that “he’s not lying about the risks.” That’s true. The problem I and other posters have is that he is not STATING the risks.

 

I am asking you to picture Johny, a young teenager surfing the ’net when his parents aren’t home. He’s deep in the closet in Whipperville, Kansas just starting to realize that he’s attracted to men. Whipperville has no gay bars, no gay and lesbian community centers, no gay-straight student alliances—in short, no place where he could get information from other GLBTs about safer sex. Johny has no positive gay role models in whom he can confide. He hasn’t seen any billboards or even flyers in school about safer sex because his community is inundated with right-wing bigots. He vaguely remembers some information about HIV/AIDS transmission he saw in a magazine once or twice.

 

Well, Johny just opened up a checking account and has a debit card. He stumbles on Dick’s site and decides to spend $2.95 for a hot sexy live fuck scene. Johny has never heard the term bareback, has forgotten that he had once read he should always use a condom for fucking…

 

The sleaziest porno production companies out there, plying gay or straight wares, frequently post disclaimers about sexual activities identifying them as risky behavior. I can’t in principle add to Dick’s coffers by participating in his site but I did look at the free portion and saw no such disclaimers. Dick promotes barebacking as though it was 1972 and no one had even thought to use a condom for fucking. Dick is taking no responsibility for informing people about the dangers of barebacking. I see the danger his commercial website poses and feel free to condemn it.

 

 

 

>Z…In your argument with Redneck, one thing you posted struck me as a cheap shot. You said, "FUCKING WITH A CONDOM IS FUN. I always wondered how that 2 or 3 oz. of liquid buried in someone's asshole could be such a big deal anyhow…” I understand you denouncing bareback sex because clearly it is high risk. But your words seem to go further than that. You sound as if you are dismissing even the mere fantasy of bareback sex. The raw lust that some men share in their minds if not in their actions. You question why that 2 or 3 ounces of sperm could be important to anyone

 

Actually, I never engaged Dick in the arguments he so clearly wanted.

 

I changed a subject line to read FUCKING WITH A CONDOM IS FUN. I did this because I think it is.

 

I also stated in a message, “I always wondered how that 2 or 3 oz. of liquid buried in someone’s asshole could be such a big deal anyhow.” That’s true, too. This was true for me in pre-AIDS days and is true now.

 

I was simply stating my own preferences. Of course, I posted them so I knew I was sending a message. No one should have assumed my statements had any meaning other than their face value. I don’t fantasize about unsafe sex myself so have not had to deal with the situation where I don’t want to act on a scene that gets me very hot in my fantasy life. I’ll readily admit that’s a hard line to toe and should be addressed by safer-sex educators.

 

 

 

>Z… you started a thread stating how you "have swallowed for the past twenty-two years." Obviously, that "2 or 3 oz. of liquid" is a big deal for you… More than a decade ago there was hard public data stating oral sex was risky. Some researchers agreed not letting a man ejaculate in your mouth might be less risky. Not until years later, I got the "inside scoop" from Health Care workers. Many began speculating oral sex and swallowing was very low risk, some even believed it was no risk. But others still held fast to it being risky… One could question why for the past 22 years you chose to let men cum in your mouth. Especially in the mid 80's when no one was sure just what the fuck was spreading AIDS. We were given some "safer" options. Oral sex with condoms. Suck uncovered cock but don't let him cum in your mouth. Why did you take that risk in those dark years?… You made a personal choice. Clearly guided by your passion. I respect that. I surmise you really love a man's semen. You've never stopped swallowing the jizz…But you pooh-pooh other men and their mere fantasies of taking a load up the butt… You have a specific set of "safer sex" rules. You follow them. You have publicly educated people who have much stricter rules than yours. Your post announced, "I have swallowed for the past 22 years and have not contracted AIDS." But on the other hand, you have publicly condemned a man that has "less strict" rules than you.

 

You make a very valid point here and I will concede it in a hearbeat. I did not state something very important in that thread, though it was not an intentional omission.

 

I have not swallowed semen for 22 years, though I did start swallowing 22 years ago. In the early eighties, my lover of 3 or 4 years died in a motorcycle crash. We had not been monogamous; had both frequented NYC bathhouses and engaged in much promiscuous behavior separately. For the next eight years, I was celibate. This was initially in response to my lover’s death but it very soon became clear that celibacy might be a good policy while they sorted out the ramifications of what was then called gay cancer. This period of celibacy is probably what saved my life, I know now. When I became sexually active again, it was clear that unprotected anal sex was the deadliest form of sexual behavior, oral risk was widely considered to be of moderate risk and, in mostly closed circles, oral sex was said to be low-risk or even by a few people, no risk.

 

I’m really sorry that I did not bring this up in the other post because clearly it is an important piece of information and you might have posted a much different response to my post above had you known this. I hope I have not caused you any embarrassment and regret any irritation I have caused you.

 

 

 

>Z…(lifted from above excerpt) pooh-pooh other men and their mere fantasies of taking a load up the butt…

 

Nope—fantasies are obviously safe. Go with them, I say.

 

 

 

>Z… You proclaim, "Dick's deadly escorting." "It is evil."… Hung Redneck is promoting bareback sex. It's taboo, it's rough and raw and he's a nasty motherfucker. But is he a murderer? Well, I don't know of anyone he's killed or even harmed. Do you? You can hypothesize all you want. But terms like "murderer" are specific---with a cold blooded killer and at least one victim.

 

I’m not the first to suggest on these boards that we should treat every sexual partner as though he were HIV/AIDS positive. When a person engaged in a profitable exercise, such as Dick, sends out the message that barebacking is okay, I will say he is encouraging murder. I think that is calling a spade a spade and something that I have gotten used to since my days organizing with ACT UP, which was never known to mince words.

 

If people are turned on by “taboo… rough and raw… he’s a nasty motherfucker…” and similar ideas, I have no problem with that. They can engage in sex in that vein without having unprotected anal sex.

 

Dick also made a comment that unless a client asks for a condom, he doesn’t provide one. I think that’s sick. This is something we haven’t talked about although I’m sure it’s in many posters’ minds, but sex educators over the course of the AIDS pandemic have dealt with the effects of mind-altering substances when engaging in sexual behavior. In the case of Dick’s (or any escort’s) clients, I would hope that they would make the same choices when high on alcohol or drugs that they would when sober. It certainly wouldn’t hurt Dick (yes, Dick!) to remind a client that fucking with a condom can be fun! I would consider this responsible behavior on his part and a sober client might be grateful the day after.

 

 

 

>Z… if you're trying to save the world from "evil," well damn, you have a huge task before you. What you have called evil is simply a person's freedom to choose.

 

Please see earlier comments. I don’t use the word evil so lightly. And I also am not trying to save the world, just doing my part. I’ve been very lucky to connect to dynamite people working on important causes.

 

 

 

>Z…And lastly, Jizz, I'll post the words you posted to Hung Redneck. You were so moved to quote Kiki Mason, who said, "Do not take away our ability to make choices for ourselves."

 

Zach, here’s the last two points of Sex Panic’s statement. I certainly agree that gay men need to make choices (about sexual behavior) for themselves. But let’s take this point in it’s entirety and also the one concluding the statement.

 

8. Do not demonize gay men because of where we choose to have sex. Do not take away our ability to make choices for ourselves. Do not characterize gay men as victims who have no ability to control ourselves. It is important for us to have a dialogue about the role that sex plays in our lives and our community. Do not polarize the discussion before it even begins.

9. It is EVERYONE’S RESPONSBILITY TO BE A PREVENTION ACTIVIST, to create and implement strategies to stop the spread of HIV, to fight for funding for HIV prevention in gay and lesbian communities, and TO HAVE SEX SAFELY, well and often.

 

The excerpt you cite is a statement to city officials who were trying to shut down NYC sex establishments. If you look at the rest of Point 8, it refers to the need for the gay community to discuss the best ways to provide safer-sex information within the gay community. At the same time, AIDS service organizations were realizing that they needed to come up with new messages, that people, especially younger people, were not especially interested in the same messages that had been used since the beginning of the AIDS crisis.

 

Within that context, Sex Panic was saying, “Hold off because we are taking responsibility for ourselves and need to decide how to best do that.”

 

Now, onto point 9, which I think is a strong conclusion to Sex Panic’s entire statement. In very clear language to the entire gay community (not speaking to city officials anymore), Sex Panic states: It is EVERYONE’S responsibility… Zach, I would suggest everyone means everyone—Dick, you, me, every reader on this message center and anyone who has a stake in the gay community (or the entire earth’s populace for that matter, I guess).

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I’m not turned on by the prospect of unsafe sex. It’s more difficult for anyone who is turned on by the prospect of sperm in their butt to not actually act this out. I would suggest they need to do that and that sex educators need to work on ways to get this message out in ways that don’t turn people off. Because of the lessons we’ve learned over the past twenty years, I can’t buy into the idea that we tell people “it’s your choice” and leave it at that.

 

I think I, and other posters, had a strong reaction to Dick’s new venture because we’ve seen so many people die from practicing unsafe sex and it’s totally abhorrent to us that anyone would think to promote this choice without stating the obvious dangers. And we think it’s disgusting that he profit from it.

 

I guess I’d like to hear alternatives. What else can we do but speak up about what to us is so obvious? What are some creative wasy to tell people that we want you to fantasize about anything you like but we want you to stay alive?

 

Again, I’m really sorry about the important omission on the “Yes, I swallow” thread. I really hadn’t thought about it until you raised it tonight, and rightfully so.

 

Thanks,

Jizz

[Guest jizzdepapi]

and while we're at it

 

Hi Zach:

 

While we're discussing Dick, you said: "Actually, he appears bright and friendly."

 

Huh? I was really happy that aside from DCEscortBoy's little pecadillos(?), there was little or no flaming on the thread. All or most of the posts referred to barebacking, unsafe sex, people's experiences with dealing with the AIDS pandemic or relevant issues.

 

I was really happy people did not get diverted, which is something that might have happened when Dick entered into the thread. But now i feel free to say what's on my mind.

 

Dick has never posted on this message center before unless he's done so under a different name. Every person here is an unknown to him. Within several sentences of his first post, some of use are co-dependants, we're church ladies, jerks and all sorts of things.

 

Well, that kind of behavior is not something that comes from someone I consider "bright and friendly." I had checked out Dick's website before this whole thread and actually thought he was kind of cute--there were some real nice facial shots but I think they might be old; I like hairy guys and Dick's no smooth twinky either. I also thought his approach was funny and attractive. Not any more.

 

So that's it. Don't feel the need to blast Dick to smithereens but didn't want to let "bright and friendly" pass so easily.

 

Thanks,

Jizz

[Guest regulation]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>An even better question may be

>why you raised Article III

>in the first place, Reg,

>because it was not relevant

>to the discussion.

 

I raised it as an example of an article that contains some language that is so categorical as to be easy to understand, as well as some language that requires interpretation. Is that not simple enough for you to grasp?

 

>See

>what happened is, in regard

>to discussion about the Constitution

>that had nothing to do

>with Article III, you said,

>"Sorry, my statments on the

>subject are not "uninformed guesses."

> Anyone who can

>read English can understand the

>Constitution." Deej and

>I then both pointed out

>to you that while anyone

>can read the Constitution, that

>understanding/interpreting it was no simple

>matter, and I specifically pointed

>out that you do not

>have the skills to interpret

>it, but acknowledged that you

>probably believed you did.

 

How would you know what skills I have? You know nothing, absolutely nothing, about my background. And you never will.

 

 

>What happened next is you

>raised Article III, as follows:

> "And let me try

>to make clear the difference

>between understanding the Constitution and

>interpreting it, which several other

>posters seem to miss."

>Anyone who can read can

>understand that the Consititution vests

>the judicial power of the

>United States in a "Supreme

>Court and in such inferior

>Courts" as Congress shall create.

> There is no possible

>interpretation of Article III..."

>So see then, it becomes

>clear why you raised Article

>III. It appears rather

>than just admit that you

>do not have the knowledge

>to interpret the Constitution, with

>any real credibility, that you

>side stepped the issue and

>raise a new one (Article

>III) to make it appear

>you could interpret the Constitution

>with reliability. All that

>would mean is that you

>might be able to possibly

>interpret one Article of it,

>but it was a save

>for you, and a way

>of avoiding the real issue,

>that you cannot, with any

>real credibility, understand/interpret the Constitution,

>of which you had been

>presenting that you could.

 

 

I think what your rather muddled argument above makes clear is that the people of your state should be congratulated that you no longer have any responsibility for civil rights there.

 

 

>Pretty pathetic if you ask

>me, Reg.

>

 

But I didn't ask you. No one did. Once again, you inserted yourself into a discussion between other people for no other reason than to express your hatred for me. Since HB posted a sign on this message board asking us not to do that sort of thing I've tried to avoid it. But you clearly can't. It's your nature.

[Guest regulation]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

> Gee, we are going

>to have to begin referring

>to you as "Eve," Reg.

 

 

To fit the role you want me to play I should change my handle to "Emmanuel Goldstein." That would be the appropriate handle for the arch-conspirator whom you believe is behind everyone who disagrees with you. Do you often feel that people are out to get you?

[Guest Zach DC]

RE: and while we're at it

 

>While we're discussing Dick, you said:

>"Actually, he appears bright and

>friendly."

>

>Huh?

 

Excellent call, Jizz. "Friendly" was a poor choice of words without explanantion. I meant to say something like "friendly under the circumstances." He was being bashed. He was called a "murderer," his actions were "evil" and "deadly." He was still considerate enough to answer some questions that were raised.

 

In my opinion, indifference would have been his best way to convey non-friendliness. Yet, he came back several times and spoke amongst the flames. My logic may be slightly askew, but I consider him friendly for giving that thread as much of his time and thoughts as he did.

 

Thanks Jizz. And my response to your post before this one will have to wait.

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>How would you know what skills

>I have? You know

>nothing, absolutely nothing, about my

>background. And you never

>will.

 

I don't know what skills you have, but I am pretty confident that you like to appear as know it all on almost every subject you speak about, and there is quite a bit of evidence if the Message Center to support that statement. I am also confident, based on your silly statement that anyone who can read Engish can understand the Constitution, that you have very little in depth knowledge of the document. As pointed out to you before, many people dedicate their entire lives to understanding/interpreting the Constitution, and even they are not always in agreement about meaning. Your ridiculous statment exposes your naivety.

 

>I think what your rather muddled

>argument above makes clear is

>that the people of your

>state should be congratulated that

>you no longer have any

>responsibility for civil rights there.

 

Well, Reg, I worked in more than one state, and I also helped advance the civil rights of more than one class of people. As a matter of fact, I've written bills that have become law, have been a central part of teams that have changed the law in more than one state, and even had one case make it as high as the TN Supreme Court, and the 6th District Court of Appeals, and win. So, I think, once again, that you are just full of it. If you want to try to establish credibility for yourself, that you can understand/interpret the Constitution you are going to have to do better than trying to tear down me. I realize that may be a little difficult for you because a review of the message center does show that you like to try and build yourself up by tearing others down. A stupid plan, if you ask me.

 

>>Pretty pathetic if you ask

>>me, Reg.

>>

>

>But I didn't ask you.

>No one did. Once

>again, you inserted yourself into

>a discussion between other people

>for no other reason than

>to express your hatred for

>me. Since HB posted

>a sign on this message

>board asking us not to

>do that sort of thing

>I've tried to avoid it.

> But you clearly can't.

> It's your nature.

 

Oh, well now this is telling...you say "Since HB posted a sign on this message board asking us not to do that sort of thing I've tried to avoide it." Which is an admission, of what a review of the Message Center supports anyhow, that you have expressed your hatred in the past! Sometimes the people are the issue, Reg., and in your case, your hate and poison are spread wide and deep in the message center, both under the name Regulation, and the 4 or 5 other screen names you have created to support your insanity. And sometimes that just needs to be challenged.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: well, at least it ain't a PIC

 

I stand by my statments, Reg. It is pretty obvious you have created at least 4 different screen names that you use to support your insanity.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Oh, and for the record, Reg., I do not hate you. I do despise your behavior though, and that is what I challenge. Why don't you try to turn a new leaf. Dump all those other screen names you have created to support your statements, come down to earth and be honest and vulnerable enough to show people you are human and make mistakes like the rest of us, stop presenting yourself as a know it all on every subject, and no longer make hateful statements to or about people. You might find it would change your life and interactions with others in some pretty amazing ways.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest pickwick]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Hi, Reg.

 

Can you guess who wrote both of these statements?

 

>>An even better question may be

>>why you raised Article III

>>in the first place, Reg,

>>because it was not relevant

>>to the discussion.

 

 

>>raising the issue of relevancy only makes you look silly.

 

 

I'll bet you can!

 

And before anyone brings it up, I'd like to make it clear that I am you, as well as every other poster who has defended you or criticized Theron or both, including Boston Guy, Tampa Yankee, Bluenix, Deej, Esc-Tracker, Cassius and Barry. There are probably several others I'm leaving out, but I am them also and I want to get credit for everything they say. And vice versa. Please keep that in mind. :-)

 

Now on to the real subject of this post. I think you referred to the COLA case in another post. Although it's clear you don't have the "skills" to interpret the constitution and are just some know-it-all, I want to know your opinion of the appellate decision in that case. Do you agree with it, and if not why not?

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Ahhhh, pickwick finally steps up to the plate...another screen name that appears to be Reg, or shall I say Eve, lol. Actually, I have been very kind to people who have disagreed with me. EXCEPT: Regulation, Cassius, Curtenz, Delhi and you. I have pointed out before why I believe each one of these names are good old Reg. Gee, Reg, what do you do in real life? You know, when you can't create multiple identities to support your mental illness?

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>Now on to the real subject

>of this post. I

>think you referred to the

>COLA case in another post.

> Although it's clear you

>don't have the "skills" to

>interpret the constitution and are

>just some know-it-all, I want

>to know your opinion of

>the appellate decision in that

>case. Do you agree

>with it, and if not

>why not?

 

Let's get facts straigt. Know it all Regulation, or you Pickwick, since I do believe you are one in the same, is the one who has been trying to make it appear he can interpret the Constitution. You and Reg do like to twist things...but then I suspect you both have the same mental illness. As far as the COLA case, no I do not believe I have ever referred to it, as you state. If I did please post the thread and message number, and I'll be happy to answer your question.

 

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Barry]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>>Now on to the real subject

>>of this post. I

>>think you referred to the

>>COLA case in another post.

>> Although it's clear you

>>don't have the "skills" to

>>interpret the constitution and are

>>just some know-it-all, I want

>>to know your opinion of

>>the appellate decision in that

>>case. Do you agree

>>with it, and if not

>>why not?

>

>Let's get facts straigt. Know

>it all Regulation, or you

>Pickwick, since I do believe

>you are one in the

>same, is the one who

>has been trying to make

>it appear he can interpret

>the Constitution. You and Reg

>do like to twist things...but

>then I suspect you both

>have the same mental illness.

> As far as the

>COLA case, no I do

>not believe I have ever

>referred to it, as you

>state. If I did

>please post the thread and

>message number, and I'll be

>happy to answer your question.

 

Theron,

 

I believe Pickwick's post was addressed to Reg in which case your response is meaningless.

[Barry]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

>You and Reg

>do like to twist things...but

>then I suspect you both

>have the same mental illness.

 

Theron,

 

You have used the term "mental illness" several times in this and another thread to describe someone with whom you disagree. I seriously doubt that you have the credentials to diagnose physical or mental illness however, if you do, using that term as a descriptor in this venue leaves your competence and ethics suspect.

 

If it isn't meant in the medical sense then as an individual with over 30 years in health care (including mental health) and as the primary care giver for someone with mental illness, I resent your cavalier use of the term as a droplet in your pissing contest.

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Hi Barry :-)

 

You are correct, I do not have those credentials. But let's just say I do not believe that Regulation's elevator goes all the way to the top floor, and I also have done quite a bit of research in the message center, and strongly suspect he is using multiple names to support his thoughts. It is my opinion. I am entitled to it. Is this a "pissing contest," who knows. Regulation, as the Message Center documents has had numerous pissing contests with members -- he is a documented "know it all," that always has to have he last word, and has frequently put others down in his attempt to be right. Basically, by my opinion, he is the biggest bully on the block. It seems that you, and others, have given him a great deal of leeway to spread his poison around freely, and maybe that is why he has gotten away with it for so long. I don't know. I do know, I'm not willing to do that. If that offends you then it offends you. I'm not upset with you or anything, but we do have a different opinion.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Oh, so in that case, Pickwick, who may very well be Reg, has asked Reg to demonstrate is knowledge of the Constitution by offering up one opinions about the COLA case. Well, maybe he can do that...but it would only be one opinion. It would not demonstrate that Regulation has the ability to understand and interpret the Constitution, as he has implied he does, because he can "read English," lol.

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html

[Guest Theron]

RE: omigod. i DON'T have the constitution for this!

 

Oh, and Barry, you mentioned that you are a primary care giver for someone who has a mental illness. Just because we have a difference of opinion about my use of the word, I do not want you to feel that I am insensitive to what you are experiencing. What you have shared causes me to have a great deal of respect for you :-)

 

Theron

Based Out of Chicago

http://theronb.homestead.com/files/home.html