Oh, so you have read my posts. And you can think.
OK, all the proof we ever needed that you are just a poop flinging troll.
TROLL UPDATE: FISHPERSON IS A POOP FLINGING TROLL.
If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future
by DJS 508 Replies latest social current
-
Viviane
-
The Rebel
In fairness what is a troll?
Has " fisherperson" made a legitimate contribution to this thread?
If so in my opinion she is not a troll.
Everything depends on words and our interpretation of words. Personally I do not agree with her words, but they have produced for me thoughts. Those thoughts I have not slept on but instead allowed challenge my thinking.
The Rebel.
-
Viviane
And predictably, Rebel shows up to be confused by words and their meanings and troll on as well. -
The Rebel
you're the greatest Viviane, and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of the entire board. Well perhaps not.
Personally as I stated in my opinion " fisher person" made a legitimate contribution to this thread. I do not believe she is a troll.
What is a troll?
So you answer "Rebel shows up to be confused by words and there meanings and troll on as well" ( never did you make such comments when I shared your opinion)
So much for a discussion or answering questions that i raised.
So whilst I do not agree with fisherpersons comments, do not say " I iam confused by words" That is a cheap cop out by an ego that prefers inhaling cyanide, than respecting the fresh air and viewpoint of another's opinion.
The Rebel.
-
Viviane
you're the greatest Viviane, and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of the entire board. Well perhaps not.
No, you were right the first time.
do not say " I iam confused by words" That is a cheap cop out by an ego that prefers inhaling cyanide, than respecting the fresh air and viewpoint of another's opinion.
Reality shows that you are confused by words. It's not a cop out, it's just a fact. If you don't like that fact, it's 100% within your power to change.
Your right about one thing, though, I do have an ego, with good reason. I've worked very hard to know what I am talking about, to have very high quality thinking and to understand something before I talk about it. For those that are lacking facts, I've no problem helping. For those that struggle with a concept, I've no problem teaching. For those that are willfully ignorant, that prefer to muddy the water, that attempt to obscure reality, I've nothing but disdain (my son used "befuddled" and "disdain" in a sentence the other day, describing JWs, no less... I was so proud). Why in the world should I have anything else?
And no, I don't prefer inhaling cyanide. I am a whippets gal, personally.
-
LisaRose
This is from the Washington Post:
But there is no serious case to be made for the right of public officials to break laws they don’t agree with, even for religious reasons. This is, in essence, seizing power from our system of laws and courts. The proper manner to change the law, in this instance, is to work for the election of a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices with a different view and for the election of senators who will confirm such justices. Or to propose and pass a constitutional amendment. Davis may be impatient with this system, but it is the one we have. Personally assuming the role in Rowan County, Ky., of a Supreme Court majority is not an option. The available alternatives are to implement the law (as public servants across red America have overwhelmingly done) or to resign in protest (as some have done as well).
-
LoveUniHateExams
Erm ... this thread still going?
She's in the slammer, guys ...
Let's celebrate by having fairtrade coffee and kale salad
-
Joe Grundy
This is a comment from a British citizen, a never-was JW, and someone who was a cop for 30+ years.
I swore an an oath when I was appointed. That gave me powers and responsibilities, for which I was personally liable. It made me liable to prosecution at Common Law for misconduct in my office. The powers were substantial.
I exercised my powers in accordance with the law. That changed from time to time. If at any time I had found that what the law required me to do was incompatible with my personal beliefs I could have resigned my appointment.
I have, I am afraid, no sympathy at all for this woman or her supporters. She has been found to be in contempt of court, has failed to purge her contempt, and has properly been punished for that contempt. In an organised society, where the courts are the guardians, there could be no other outcome. One complies with the law, or on suffers the penalty.
It is interesting to contemplate alternative scenarios. What if, for example, there was a US state, or county, where Islamic voters prevailed and it was legal for a man to have three (or more) wives? A county clerk (because of her religious beliefs) declined to issue marriage licences for the second and third marriages? If the majority democratic will of that state/county was otherwise, what would happen?
This is not a purely hypothetical question.
-
_Morpheus
Sigh.... Well she got released. Time to crank this puppy again -
OUTLAW
Sigh.... Well she got released. Time to crank this puppy again
.....
.
