Weird.... this is the only sanctuary I have to share ideas. .... I can't discuss this with anyone I know

for me I don't block...I take or toss whatever is written...as for the offensive ones, I have a "whatever" attitude. I prefer to take nothing personal, refrain from ad hominem attacks and recognize I'm not qualified to judge anyone. I think there is value in people sharing their thoughts, in that it can create and result in valuable conversations and insights.

TTfL is about as good as it gets on fbook if you ask me. The elite on here have a joke, the bilge rats on here have a joke, those who think they know something on here have a joke and those who know fukall on here have a joke; but all, at the same time will, when the shit hits the fan, help a member to understand a point that only TTFL can answer. Everything goes here within reason as far as I can see. Notice I only comment on articles like this because I find the other threads absorbing but I don't know enough yet to jump in and comment. Blocking and dismissal is the business of the Admins and they do a good job on those who are afflicted by imaginary friends whether that needs to be extended to others doesn't bother me and if I get the chop then I'll cry around the fire with the two kids for a while and move on.

I struggled with this one. Not because I care if someone blocks me (why would any? :P ), but because I have had to use censorship myself in order to have a better learning experience at The Tender For Law. I do not know how anyone feels about this group, and the knowledge shared, but I have come to take this VERY seriously. To the point of even travelling to Canada, and "see stuff with my own eyes." Being so many years under extreme programing, it is hard to "erase," and move to new information, if you still are exposed to the same folks with flaw thinking, like free-dumb types, etc. Some others, like Adam Thomas, made it almost unbearable to read the threads. As a result I found myself blocking a few members, like Adam Thomas, and I have had a MUCH better learning experience. It is harder to get distracted, or having to read comment, after comment of none sense. But I the same time, I know censorship is not a good thing. :/ Thank you for making me THINK, Tara Duncan.

I have done it, and it is for selfish reasons. Its to give me the best opportunity for learning here in the limited time that has been offered by Scott Duncan, Tara Duncan, and crew....

I think Gerry Odonothing hit the nail in the head from my perspective. I only blocked one guy here, and that was after I had repeatedly read comments where Scott had told him to shut the fuck up. It was at the time just a filter mechanism to help avoid the "noise".

But to be clear, if someone is blocking regular contributors, I think they are harming their learning experience, and it shows they are not ready to be here. Especially if the "regular contributors" are less than 10 folks. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I will patiently wait for this, Tara <<I know how I'd solve this problem, >>.

What an interesting collection of comments. Does anyone think this might be a problem? If so, does anyone care to comment on what might be a solution? Pardon me if I have missed this in anything I have read.

I don't give a fiddlers what people call me and if they do then it better be good or I won't laugh; so no problem. However if someone is just being a Schmodog (an elephants prick stuffed with buttons) then the Admins will do the right thing, I'm sure. TTFL is here and has been here for a while from what I can glean so that says to me that someone is good at administration.

I think there is a problem with blocking regular contributors. Knowing myself who the regular contributors are, whoever blocks any does not belong here, and must leave. The world is full of people just "taking space". This is NOT a place to just "take space." Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I am a DISTINCT :-P

The PERSON you happen to have is distinct! :D

I block people to torture them. If they are members (Marshall Stanton was a good example), he can't see ANYTHING I write, but I can see what HE writes. ...think about that for a moment :D

I do have some additional comments. This article contains an unsubstantiated allegation - several in fact. I have evidence to support this claim; however I did not provide it. So really you're just taking my word for it. You shouldn't. In a problem solving exercise it is helpful to have people throw out some ideas and possible resolutions. Consensus should be reached. People should be asked if they can support the decision. This is more of a problem solving exercise - sorry, can't help myself. It's like a narcotic :p

Ohh! :/ Well. I see.

Possible resolution: Starting a group called " The Tender for Blocked"

Executive thinking Pete Daoust. I'd like them to have their own little area (kind of like Star Trek Next Generation). A little virtual area where all the retarded kids can swear and fight together :)

It's kinda' like wanting to go to a Chinese restaurant for dinner and then when you get there, deciding you don't like Chinese food and would rather sit in the corner with a glass of water.

And MOST of them AREN'T CHICKS, yet they do CHICK SHIT like that! Go figure!

In case anyone is noticing the intermittent lack of "e"'s in Scott's writing, the key is sticking (and not for any of the reasons you would imagine). He keeps promising to replace it, but for now we'll just laugh at him :D

"The Tender for 'Tards" Because very slow, "it's ok." HAHAHA!

Policy dictates that retards, down's syndrome, and "autistic" people be henceforth referred to by the WAY COOLER label "POTATO". THE TENDER FOR `TATERS! FUCK! Do I have to do EVERYTHING HERE?

Just so, Kent Barrett...just so.

I almost want to own this.

Hahahaha!

"THE TENDER FOR `TATERS" - Fuck I'm awesome. :D

Good news Kent Barrett. I can still offer you that cruise I won yesterday by answering my telephone. Pete Daoust won originally, but he already had 32.

You can spot the TENDER FOR LAW Alumni, because they KNOW to qualify the shit they might be soft-balling in here for me to hit out of the park, if they don't. :D

... I was pickin' up the bat, too!

http://youtu.be/0g9_wfkYjfo

Here is the first thread of "THE TENDER FOR `TATERS"! They have been working on this for 2 days. Go team POTATO! http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/097/3/7/Potato_Motivator_by_kjstyles2x_treme.jpg

"I think of a man, and then I take away REASON and ACCOUNTABILITY..." HOLY FUCK is this true. The movie sucked ( It could have been better. HAR! )

"THE TENDER FOR `TATERS" - Seriously. You people have no true appreciation for the sheer genius that is me.

Brilliant sir. This will send potato sales through the roof!

People I block miss out on this shit. :P

I support YOUR RIGHT... to support Free Speech. I don't support free speech. I support the ENFORCEMENT of YOUR RIGHT to MY OPINION. I hope this clears up the confusion that currently circulates, regarding this very serious issue.

lol

I don't take YOUR RIGHTS for granted. So I ENFORCE them :D

Your right to my opinion, is a right I will protect AND enforce!

I think I'm sort of like you Tara, I really don't pay much attention to any "drama" on the net. I just focus on the nuggets and tend to "listen" to the gurus and/or those who obviously know what they are talking about. I've been blocked or deleted (very rare) by only two people on FB and that was mostly for "personal" reasons, which really made no sense; I'm truly no threat to anyone. As far as an admin blocking or removing a "member" from a "group", I'm not sure what to say. I do not oversee a group myself, so I am of the simple opinion that if someone is running "their group", s/he can do whatever they dictate; it's their group (don't like it, leave). BUT, I don't see it really useful or necessary to quickly REMOVE someone, even if they are talking stupid shit. From what I have observed in other "groups", most folks who really should just shut up, show their 'true colors' when attempting to debate in a thread... basically, w/o any help from anyone else, s/he hangs themselves quite neatly. Now, if that "member" is truly disrupting the group, purposely creating chaos and division (ie, troll, agent, or just some loser), well they need to be removed. No different than in the "real world". If I am in the company of an "asshole", I ask them to leave or I just leave the situation myself (most of my experience has proven that these type of "people" tend to stay away from me; cause I just ignore them, and most of the time, they are looking for attention).

I can only speak for myself. Reading every member's post is part of the learning experience at the begining. At first I couldn't tell what was "Scott's way of thinking" and what was not. After reading more and more I made my own selection WHEN I was reading instead of blocking members (because somtimes that member CAN have a bubble og genius and it would be a shame to miss it). Or, just imagine someone blocking Pete Daoust when he was just starting. What a waist that member would have had! I can see the evolution of everyone as well. And that is priceless in my view. _______________________ Solution: Let things as they are. Who ever bans another, is his own loss.

...no, I've been pretty consistent.

my general attitude is i only have to make one person happy me i could care less what any one else thinks of me

what do you mean Scott?

I think I understand what you mean... Your way of thinking = because you always say that we do not think for ourselves... that you are brainwashing us in a different way. so the semi-drone's way of thinking is where everyone is heading. :P

Mx ex if she's still here is blocked and that is it. I can handle and welcome criticism. I want to learn and expand my knowledge. Blocking respected members would be counterproductive.

Janick, I speak of this "growth" you mention... this hasn't been the case. I'm actually a little dumber for having been exposed to all of you. :P ...unless "growth" means "intellectual downward spiral" in french, I don't think it applies to me. I think this at least 3 times a day in response to what you people think. http://youtu.be/C3JzbWVDzac

"You people"? :O What do you mean "you people"? HAHAHAHAHA! :D

The regular contributors are at the coal face, dealing with real matters in the real world in real time...the learning that comes from doing so is priceless...some have been caged & some have lost property & some have experienced victory. Only a fool would block that kind of learning...much the same as only a fool would stand in front of a mirror and punch themself in the face...the regular contributors are fast tracking the learning of others who are not yet ready/confident enough to challenge the status quo. The message of the regular contributors is becoming ever more consistent as we deprogram the stupid, learn who we are, what money is & the possibilities this provides...but none of us, with the exception of the admins, Admiral/captains/crew have access to what works consistently...we all have strengths and weaknesses, so the learning process is a collective one. Blocking Scott and/or other members who have significantly more knowledge and/or experience, in my opinion, takes a special kind of stupid and kind of nullifies the purpose for being in the group in the first place. This group is a dictatorship, that is no secret. We are here as part of an agenda. We came of our own free will. If the Admins have access to information that shows who blocked who, and if this disrupts the purpose of the group, then the Admins can decide if the party(ies) doing the blocking need to be on the wrong end of the tingly feeling and/or fed to the fish. I know what I would do, but that is not my decision to make. In the meantime, I will continue to study & learn & be thankful for the opportunity to do so.

Well I laughed out loud at the THE TENDER FOR TATERS as I mashed the taters for dinner. I had a vision of me being the Admiral and in a frenzy I wielded the masher at those TATERS and mashed them to pulp. I felt great afterwards.

If I may offer my opinion for a solution....PURGE!! :-D

Stuart Stone continues to impress. Thanks!

:D

Thank You :D

Yes, Stuart you have a way to sum things up pretty good. Thanks!

Since I joined, as a silent observer/pupil,The Tender For Law Admin has been akin to the dykes of New Orleans. Some would say that the dykes FAILED to restrain the water. I would say they functioned EXACTLY as most government funded projects do. To serve as the truth(though you really have to ignore all the PR attempting to portray as though it is in disarray). To affirm the fact that the current observed government function is to reveal how delusional and deserving of this current state of affairs most truly are. I view the water that came forth as the absolute truth. The truth is not always something you are prepared for, it isn't nice, and it will surely make you more than uncomfortable(to say the least). Embrace the uncomfortable as it is evolutions manner for engaging thought, if you have the fortune of engaging said capacity. The difference between the dykes and The Tender For Law Admin is that when the Admin allow the entrance of some "believer" or "FreeDumber", sure it invites some memories of my FREEDUMB days, but reality is quickly injected straight into my veins via the Admin and active contributors calling out and aiding in the continuing reeducation of us members. The reality being that the truth is expressed and conducted here at The Tender For Law group without all the bullshit PR, unlike FEMA and all those other acronym "organizations". I strive to give full value to all that is expressed within this group. I thank you ALL and I have full TRUST that the Admin will ban those that do contribute any lesson to be gained. This group has been far more active and concise than any other I have observed. And so full of rhetoric and humour! I have much to learn and thank you ALL!

I think I like how the "blocking" is already handled. If there IS some one that isn't really understanding what is taught, is just wanting to call people names and/or make unsubstantiated claims, Scott seems pretty "on it". Sometimes I do find I skim through some comments, but I haven't found it necessary to block anyone but Adam. That was more because of what I was receiving in my feed than the fact that his comments were barely readable/understandable. Others that block contributing members due to being "offended" will just slow their own learning and I don't feel it has effected my learning. I also have no clue who has blocked me except Dean Kory.

My overall views are aligned with this group. There are a few which are either still over-my-head and/or unconfirmed though I have not crossed anything I disagree with as of yet. As I don't think I have been effected by this blocking problem Tara Duncan, I can only comment, I sometimes get distracted by "noise".

I have thought of blocking some of the folks that seem to make comments that I cannot tie in to the discussion..... I am holding out in the vain hope that someday the comments will start making sense.... Right I have to always consider the possibility that it's me that has an issue

I never considered having issues, I always knew I have issues :-D

My two cents since I've been given leave to speak freely: CENSORSHIP IN GENERAL: I'm not a fan of censorship either. In my mind it's evil. Most of us became worthless chimps without value, not necessarily because we are dumber than Scott, but because the info presented here was censored/kept out of school curriculums, and typical avenues of public discourse/disclosure. I even see some (although limited) value in "shit stain" threads as, at the very least, they can teach others what/ways not to think and post. If such posts are deleted, newbies are more prone to repeat the shit stain as there is no record of such thinking/comments being unacceptable. In this way, censorship and "cleaning up shit stains" creates conditions which seem to me to be diametrically opposed to the statements/goals pronounced within the group description - that is if admins/Scott TRULY desire to avoid "keep typing the same answers over and over" CENSORSHIP BY A NEWBIE: Other than teaching other newbies what not to say and what not to think, newbies have little value to add to this group. Any value they may have in the future depends on their ability to access member posts and learn from them. If they choose to ban a member of some reputation here, they loose out more than the group does as a whole, and they certainly inflict less damage to the group overall than the next scenario. [The following comments are based on 3 assumptions: 1. "principal" members held in higher esteem within the "hierarchy" are in fact expected to help Scott (and admins) teach. 2.You want newbies to learn. 3. Those who deliberately hinder the progress/ability of newbies to learn are an ENEMY of the group and their blocking newbies deliberately SABOTAGES Scott's stated goal to educate/inform and the ultimate goal of creating capable "drones" that will assist Scott in his overall machinations.] CENSORSHIP BY A "PRINCIPAL" MEMBER: If newbies are blocked by a "principal" members held in higher esteem within the "hierarchy" the newbie will certainly be "left in the dark", if not entirely derailed from the learning track. As there are only a handful of such members, if 3 or 4 of them engage in blocking a member, that member will likely never progress as they can't follow the flow of discussion and lose a significant amount of relevant talking points.This seems to be the most egregious type of censorship possible within this group as it causes THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF DAMAGE and COMPLETELY UNDERMINES Scott's authority. As mentioned, it purposefully SABOTAGES Scotts goal of teaching newbies. If this was my group I would inform "principal" members within the "hierarchy" that they will be banned if they arbitrarily and without authority assume the role of administrators. I would give them 1 reminder that Scott did not appoint them as an Admin to choose what other members may or may not see and learn from. Finally, if such a member complains that they have hurt feelings and/or don't like a newbie, or comments made by newbies A, B, or C ("actually sort of funny" in a pathetic sort of way), perhaps their status, importance, and value to the group should be reassessed. :)

^^ Addressed primarily to Tara, Scottt, Pete, and Ceit. If I've missed an admin it was a mistake.

THE ADMINS ARE: Scott Duncan Tara Duncan Pete Daoust <--Token French Guy ChiefRock Sino General <-- Non-white-Supremacist Domestic Paperwork Terrorist Roguesupport Daniel J Wentz <--Token Jew Ceit Butler

Having "me", in that list, profoundly affect my whole existence :D

Um... OK.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! :D

I might get a video out, on the subject ! :D

I aspire to be the "Token German" one day. :)

Was this listed by rank?

...not even close!

Was "...not even close!" a response to my inquiry or was that a continuation from your last comment Scott Duncan?

Is that listed in order of rank? HELL NO! I have forgone ORDER. Shut the fuck up and do what you are told.

:D

I "ordered" some sushi the other day but otherwise I had not used the word order for several days. Where did you pull that from?

He's not really like this, honest! He's only a tyrant here. Navies WISH they had admirals like Scott.

Just kidding, I don't care. If you have no Rank then fine. I was curious about the Admiral thing.

Here the rank is simple: (ME+Admins) > YOU. THAT is the only rank you need concern yourself with here. :D

This question was posed on Gail Marie's but was unsatisfactorily answered so I am requesting an answer, slightly reiterated, from YOU Scott Duncan... https://www.facebook.com/gail.blackman/posts/10154402441970078?comment_id=10154406292515078&offset=0&total_comments=15&ref=notif&notif_t=share_reply QUESTION: A PERSON has rights but does a HUMAN not unless it has a person in their pocket? RESPONSE.... "Pete Daoust I am a Man, and I have a person.....so I focus on stuff about being a MAN, and having a PERSON.... That question should be asked to a MAN, who has NO PERSON...."

That seems pretty clear! LEGALLY a MAN HAS NO RIGHTS, any more than birds fish and deer have "rights". If a deer wanders into a courthouse, it has no "rights"; It's shoo'd out and/or killed. Only "persons" have "rights".

Thank you for that succinct answer.

That's why it's EVERYONE'S "right" to be RECOGNISED as a PERSON. ;)

That's exactly the conclusion I've come to. There's almost a good in this system in a way. You can be recognized as a PERSON and use it if someone is harming you. I say almost because it is a deception. Honestly isn't it good that some pieces of shit don't now how to beat this game?

Is it legally possible for a creature or system other than a human to be recognized as a PERSON? Me thinks that answer is YES. Then, if so, How can one create a PERSON for, say, the environment?

A PERSON can be several things other than a man or woman.

No.

There is Juridicial Person... and THAT'S IT.

There's no "race" either. :P

A corporate PERSON?

"artificial person"?

Why can an Environment not be an Artificial Person?

The law cannot encompass that which it did not create. Scott Duncan is that freedumb?

No, it is a maxim. It goes with IF IT IS WRITTEN, IT IS LAW

Dino... FOCUS. Juridicial PERSON - Types of Juridicial person (Corporation, security) IS THE SAME AS MAN/WOMAN - Pretend "races" ...get it?

A PERSON is a PERSON is a PERSON? I get that fully.

A PERSON is whatever "law" says it is.

Me thinks so, test me

I just need to stop acting in that LEGAL capacity. It's their world and I'm foreign to it.

They will always PRESUME one ACTs in "that" LEGAL capacity, therefore one must correct them whether one is FOREIGN or not.

Who is "one"?

ANY one

Whatever THEY define as "one".

There are lots of presumptions for sure. My line of thinking was saying that any man or woman is foreign to it. However if one enters into it voluntarily and accepts titles maybe not so. It's still not you the living being that is recognized though.

Maybe I'm overthinking this. That happens!

Just a tiny bit.

They (whoever that is) creates an ACT. The PLAY requires ACTORS. The ACTORS (sometimes) have COSTUMES, but more importantly, a SCRIPT. They not only PRESUME, but EXPECT others to step unto THEIR STAGE.

The PLAY comes to "life" when others consent to the ROLES dictated by the DIRECTORS and PRODUCERS via the SCRIPT WRITER. If you do not wish to be in the PLAY, do not consent. Sure, they will do whatever they can to persuade you to participate; fear, fraud, promises (intended to be broken), harassment, and so on. Fortunately, that still messes up their SCRIPT, which can not proceed as they had originally planned.

I may have gotten a bit too philosophical. I'm going to die early from being so easily worked up.

What you're saying is logical and I agree. Scott is showing us who those key players are.

Scott is obviously familiar with the meaning and use of their SCRIPT too. So many "believe" that they can get up on their STAGE, pick their own CHARACTER, begin their own DIALOG and EXPECT that the DIRECTOR will "go along" with it. No. It does not work that way. It never has (just look at real history). The core is the STAGE itself, created by fraud and NOTES that many use, which "allow" them to orchestrate elaborate SCENES. Without such resources, it would be more difficult for them to put this stuff together. Many are so brainwashed to believe that their PLAY is the only reality that matters, that they continue to do whatever the heck they want. Stop funding their STAGE, PLAY, AND ACTS. When folks USE their NOTES, that consent perpetuates their FRAUD. Simply stop.

Well that's easy to SAY! It's not like you can build your own bank and currency....oh wait. :D

Using this "analogy", a PERSON is a "character" "they" created, use and permit use of. Human RIGHT (1?) is to be identified as a PERSON which gives the RIGHTS to ACT in the "IMPROVISATIONAL" PLAY. LAW is the scenario drawn up for the actors who improvise within the scene. Are HUMAN RIGHTS "only" a scene script?

Scott Duncan, this page seems to align these concepts... In your opinion, is there any inaccuracies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality#Juridical_persons

No inaccuracies that I can see!

theres a Tshirt: Not Artificial Person

But you ARE. YOu ARE "Her majesty AND an Organization EVERY TIME YOU USE THE NAME!

even in the 'states'?

(don't get your knickers in a knot thinking there's a hierarchy, which there totally is) :D

THE TENDER FOR `TATERS! :D Oh, what a talent, Admiral!