The rats of VCT Boz, MisterV, REDietz, UNKewlJ

Boz did some kind of “research” and then came up with a name that he decided was MDawg. He spread that name around via PM, and posted this, saying that he had reported MDawg to the casinos for winning too much.

https://i.imgur.com/UoVIKC0h.jpg

MisterV jumped on board and claimed that he had already done the same or worse.

https://i.imgur.com/4IjtBTYh.jpg

UNKewlJ doxxed MDawg with the name that Boz supplied him. He did this even before the alleged doxxing (a doxxing no one ever saw) he claims someone did of him, that he reported in January 2022.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Here's the doxxer even admitting that he doxxed first, piling on the same nonsense about how it is okay for him to doxx (but not for him to be doxxed):

https://i.imgur.com/0sdtrZEh.jpg

The creepo states that he "doesn't consider what he did" to MDawg first as doxxing, simply because...why? lol It's okay to doxx someone who he decides is not a "professional player"? The guy is cracked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Hey, KJocchio, YOU doxxed MDawg. What did you think he was going to do? What comes around goes around. Quit sniveling about it.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I can't imagine you doxxing MDawg helped; might have made Max wonder if you'd do the same to him should he ever get on your bad side

---

REDietz stated that he was willing to “lend a helping hand” and volunteer for any doxxing activities.

https://i.imgur.com/qHR96xHh.jpg

UNKewlJ has threatened to turn in just about everyone on these forums when he gets upset, including AxelWolf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You want to escalate. Fine we will escalate jackass. I'll bet the casinos will appreciate getting your name and picture. After all, you are nothing to me Axel. We aren't friends.

And while we are at it tell us what Mike had for breakfast since your nose is that far up his ass. And that is what everything always comes back to.

---

Both UNKewlJ and MisterV frequently threaten to use the name Boz and UNKewlJ have been doxxing with to make State Bar complaints.

https://i.imgur.com/65oUMA2h.jpg

and even AxelWolf has stepped in to point out how out of line that kind of rat fink behavior is. Not surprised in that UNKewlJ threatened to turn in AxelWolf too in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

I commented a while back that Boz was sounding more and more like ulp UNKewlJ, and this … puts him more in line with UNKewlJ.

---

https://i.imgur.com/zYFdmhWl.jpg

---

I hope Boz doesn't get mad at me for saying this. But I'm pretty certain that Boz could and would kick your fucking ass given the chance.

---

Come to think of it, that's something else these two Boz and UNKewlJ share in common...both have claimed to be "done" with this forum, and yet, have always returned. Both have been banned off WOV, and both have tried to return there under sock puppet guise. Both are stated by others to suffer from mental illness.

Both claim the same sort of roots and upbringing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

I grew up poor white trash

---

although UNKewlJ isn't white, he's Pac Islander. :D

11:40 on a Friday, when this clown Mdawg, who claims to be an attorney who works remotely and claims to be in Las Vegas and he spends his time in his room posting this shit? :confused: And he dare even suggest that anyone else if fucked up?

This particular thread is nothing more than an extention of what he has done at the forum he promotes for years now. Starting new threads about every single person that dares say they don't beleive his great adventure story.

I don't know everyt single thing that is true or not true about this guy or what he writes. But I do know that his story as told contains a lot of fabrications, especially the gambling winning parts. I am not jealous of players that win. I love players that win because I despise the gambling industry and their predatory behavior. But this guy's stories are just non-sense. Not the way the math, nor Las Vegas works. He might as well be talking about flapping his arms and flying to the moon.

Winning players do not get all the comps and freebies and pats on the back that this guy says he gets for long. Losing players do. Casinos comp losing players to entice them to return and gamble and lose more. PERIOD!!!

That this guy claims he has gotten all that for years while winning millions is just as much a fantasy as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or Rob Singer's Newell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Like I said, it must be mental illness.

---

What other explanation for that he has, as Ozzy has put it, Extremely poor ability to read the playing field. I mean he honestly appears to think that people are going after him to make themselves look better. Nay, it's all about rubbing it into his UNKewl face that what he's tried so hard to achieve with millions of desperate, reaching words in tens of thousands of posts for all these years - street creds - is shot forever.

It's just human nature to burst out laughing in his face at what a complete fool he made of himself.

---

And, yes AccountInQuestion, all of what Norm speaks of refers directly to UNKewLyingJ.

https://i.imgur.com/0y91jZ9h.jpg

---

This guy Mdawg is the embodiment of compulsive obsession disorder.

I don't even feel good about trolling him back or responding to his nonsense anymore. I feel like I am contributing to his illness.

So you say what you need to say Mdawg. You do what you need to do. But in the end it doesn't change a thing.

I am a midlevel card counter AP, grinding a living in Las Vegas, and you are a guy, wealthy or not...who knows? Lawyer or not...who knows? Writing a fantasy story, for whatever reason...who knows? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

The worst of the lot was UNKewlJ, a scrawny little man with a manner between fag and pimp. UNKewlJ was informer to the bone. He probably pulled out dirty lists of people -- his hands were always dirty -- and read them off to the law. You could see him bustling into Black and Tan headquarters during the Irish Trouble, in a dirty gray toga turning in Christians, giving information to the Gestapo, the GPU, sitting in a cafeteria talking to a narcotics agent. Always the same thin, ratty face, shabby, out-of-date clothes, whiny, penetrating voice.

The most unbearable thing about UNKewlJ was his voice. It went all through you.

Fags are ventriloquists' dummies who have moved in and taken over the ventriloquist. The dummy sits in a queer bar nursing his beer, and uncontrollably yapping out of a rigid doll face.

---

This thread feels like it should come with a free T-shirt, and thus captioned pen, to every one who wants one. Ha. Where do we sign up?

AW?

Yeah, I forwarded the link of your brags about killing the casino...to the casino.

Hoist the lying attention whore on his own petard.

Funny, you never reported having experienced any consequences: could that be because your story was a lie?

Why are you complaining, dawg?

All I did was to give a heads up and post a link to your post, a post which you posted in public: hell, the suits read these forums and probably are laughing their asses off at you and your bullshit claims of seemingly endless conquest, endless comps, and of course endless Swiss watches.

Next, try stand up comedy: your material is a laugh riot.

Old law school adage, which you've taken to heart: "If you can't bowl them over with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit."

If these dudes are all Rats, does that make them Bro-dents?

Quote:

---

A guy between the age of 17 and 23, typically found at a university, who has all the usual attributes of a bro, but who's overall appearance including hygiene, hair style, and sometimes even facial structure, closely resembles that of a rodent.

"Dude, Chad hasn't shaved or showered since the Dave concert and his hair looks like a mangy beaver. He's really turning into a brodent."

---

I have said this before, and will say it again.

I do NOT approve of ever doxxing APs or reporting them to casinos, even if you are vigorously arguing/fighting with them on a forum.

The only people who should be reported to casinos are scammers.

I don't know whether MDawg really has something going on to make him an AP, or if he's just a high stakes -EV gambler who likes to pretend to be one. Either way, he shouldn't be reported to casinos.

MDawg and kewlJ have one thing in common -- the worst they can be accused of is telling lies on gambling forums. This does not rise to the level of being reported to casinos.

I cannot control what members of this forum do outside of Vegascasinotalk.

However please do NOT use this forum to encourage others to report other members to casinos, or even to claim that you did it yourself. I don't want this forum having any part of such activity.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

https://i.imgur.com/zYFdmhWl.jpg

---

I hope Boz doesn't get mad at me for saying this. But I'm pretty certain that Boz could and would kick your fucking ass given the chance.

---

Come to think of it, that's something else these two Boz and UNKewlJ share in common...both have claimed to be "done" with this forum, and yet, have always returned. Both have been banned off WOV, and both have tried to return there under sock puppet guise. Both are stated by others to suffer from mental illness.

Both claim the same sort of roots and upbringing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

I grew up poor white trash

---

although UNKewlJ isn't white, he's Pac Islander. :D

---

Who's accused Boz of having a mental illness? I highly doubt it's been anyone reputable. I don't know what Boz's background is, but I can tell you for a fact he's been very successful. He's a stand-up guy and a man of his word. I would trust him with a large amount of money and not even blink an eye about it.

FYI: Boz's exit from The Wizard of Vegas, regardless of how or why it ultimately happened, was a total mistake on Mike's part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I have said this before, and will say it again.

I do NOT approve of ever doxxing APs or reporting them to casinos, even if you are vigorously arguing/fighting with them on a forum.

The only people who should be reported to casinos are scammers.

I don't know whether MDawg really has something going on to make him an AP, or if he's just a high stakes -EV gambler who likes to pretend to be one. Either way, he shouldn't be reported to casinos.

MDawg and kewlJ have one thing in common -- the worst they can be accused of is telling lies on gambling forums. This does not rise to the level of being reported to casinos.

I cannot control what members of this forum do outside of Vegascasinotalk.

However please do NOT use this forum to encourage others to report other members to casinos, or even to claim that you did it yourself. I don't want this forum having any part of such activity.

Thank you.

---

You can add Mdawg to the list of Doxxers. At least attempted Doxxing multiple times. There's even some compelling circumstantial evidence that he engaged in sockpuppetry to aid in doing so. He was even suspended on Wizard of a Vegas for his Shenanigans related to doxing. He will attempt to spin a defense, but don't let that fool you, he would be at the first person to Doxx someone he didn't like when given the chance.

If you want to see some evidence of someone sick in the head, have KJ send you a link to Dawgs TruePaasages Blog.

Coming from someone who spouts off like a masturbating idiot even when he has no idea what’s he’s talking about , idiot tries to claim that markers with the signature torn out of them might not have been redeemed yet, that piles of cash up to $100,000 at a time might have come from a credit line with outstanding markers in play, that an established player winning seven figures would cash out in cash, and that CTRs are slips of paper handed to players that they could show as proof of a cash out - just to name some of his “shoot from the hip” obviously someone who knows nothing about casinos but is willing to spout off anyway, notions.

Also can’t recognize a $75,000 platinum Day Date even after seeing multiple pictures of it and including video of it weighed on a scale and yet babbles on about some fake Rolex he bought for a couple hundred dollars.

I don’t take him seriously. If there’s evidence that I’ve ever doxxed - post the screen shots the way I did. Otherwise it’s just more of the usual talk and innuendo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I do NOT approve of ever doxxing APs or reporting them to casinos, even if you are vigorously arguing/fighting with them on a forum. The only people who should be reported to casinos are scammers.

---

Correct, and my actions were in accordance with that guideline.

Dawg is NOT an AP.

Dawg seems to be a scammer; by that I mean he lies about his casino activity in order to look important in the eyes of strangers.

That's why you're in bed with UNKewlJ.

He also has this ridiculous notion that "Doxxing someone who I decide is not an AP is okay."

He also is a poor reader, but doesn't even have the excuse of being blazed on drugs all day long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't know whether MDawg really has something going on to make him an AP, or if he's just a high stakes -EV gambler who likes to pretend to be one. Either way, he shouldn't be reported to casinos.

---

You should just stick to keeping your mouth shut. Then we'd think you're a horse and let you through.
https://i.imgur.com/VEfHAB1m.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

That's why you're in bed with UNKewlJ.

He also has this ridiculous notion that "Doxxing someone who I decide is not an AP is okay."

He also is a poor reader, but doesn't even have the excuse of being blazed on drugs all day long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't know whether MDawg really has something going on to make him an AP, or if he's just a high stakes -EV gambler who likes to pretend to be one. Either way, he shouldn't be reported to casinos.

---

You should just stick to keeping your mouth shut. Then we'd think you're a horse and let you through.
https://i.imgur.com/VEfHAB1m.jpg

---

Who's accused Boz of having a mental illness?

I never "doxxed" you, dawg: you claim to be a lawyer: look the term up.

Here, I'll help...

"Doxing (sometimes written as Doxxing) is the act of revealing identifying information about someone online, such as their real name, home address, workplace, phone, financial, and other personal information. That information is then circulated to the public — without the victim's permission."

I didn't disclose your identity: what, are you sayng the hosts only know you as "Mdawg," and not by your given name?

Give me a break here, boyo: hell, you as good as gave me permission as you yourself posted the brags online.

Keep spinning your bullshit, I'll weave it into a cloak of tears.

Dan is there a way you can make Mdawg and Kewlj stop feuding? Their Feud was entertaining and amusing.... At first, but that was years ago when their Feud was entertaining and amusing and it's been stinking up the board for years. Even VERY entertaining and amusing Feuds between Celebrities get boring and annoying eventually, like the Mdawg and Kewlj Feud....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

However please do NOT use this forum to encourage others to report other members to casinos, or even to claim that you did it yourself. I don't want this forum having any part of such activity.

Thank you.

---

You're 100% right, Dan. Of course, you don't want your site to become a place where some assholes continually mess with posters they have grown to hate by reporting them to the casinos or by doxing them. It's childish and vindictive. It's sad that some people just have no lives and no perspective.

https://i.postimg.cc/zB4trK3X/9905-argueinet-z.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unowme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

However please do NOT use this forum to encourage others to report other members to casinos, or even to claim that you did it yourself. I don't want this forum having any part of such activity.

Thank you.

---

You're 100% right, Dan. Of course, you don't want your site to become a place where some assholes continually mess with posters they have grown to hate by reporting them to the casinos or by doxing them. It's childish and vindictive. It's sad that some people just have no lives and no perspective.

https://i.postimg.cc/zB4trK3X/9905-argueinet-z.jpg

---

At first I read it as "don't," between you and spend. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

That's why you're in bed with UNKewlJ.

He also has this ridiculous notion that "Doxxing someone who I decide is not an AP is okay."

He also is a poor reader, but doesn't even have the excuse of being blazed on drugs all day long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't know whether MDawg really has something going on to make him an AP, or if he's just a high stakes -EV gambler who likes to pretend to be one. Either way, he shouldn't be reported to casinos.

---

You should just stick to keeping your mouth shut. Then we'd think you're a horse and let you through.
https://i.imgur.com/VEfHAB1m.jpg

---

He is a DPP. Guess that stands for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

He is a DPP. Guess that stands for?

---

Let me try...

"Dodo preening pretentiously?"

Or maybe

"Doubly pathetic pretender?"

Dunno: whatcha got?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

He is a DPP. Guess that stands for?

---

Let me try...

"Dodo preening pretentiously?"

Or maybe

"Doubly pathetic pretender?"

Dunno: whatcha got?

---

Delusional Ploppy Player. Pretender would work as well. Dysfunctional Puny Pecker would work as well.

Bravo to MrV! Well done. I think you know what I am referring to. For those that don't...lets just say V will have more time to devote to this forum in coming days, probably weeks. :)

LOL

I haven't gone over there to check, but yeah, I expect a bit of a hiatus...gee, I wonder who whined to the admin?

*just looked*

Yeah...LOL

Why would anybody feel it was insulting?

I mean, slavery exists in the Arab world, and rich camel jockeys really do eat slow roasted camels, or so I've read.

Whatever...

Looks like you have a chance to get with Kewl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

UNKewlJ doxxed MDawg with the name that Boz supplied him. He did this even before the alleged doxxing (a doxxing no one ever saw) he claims someone did of him, that he reported in January 2022.

---

I want to clear something up about this "doxing" of Mdawg. Somebody, I have never said who and will not now, gave me some information that was pretty credible. (very credible hun Mdawg. ;)) I posted that name and some backgroung info like the online Las School this person graduated from. :rolleyes:

Mdawg went running and screaming to Wizard about this hoping to get me kicked of wizards forum. Now 2 years later Mdawg claims that name and information wasn't even him.

So either Mdawg was lying when he ran to Wizard, or he is lying now. Which is it doggy? Mike knows your name so you obviously weren't lying when you ran to him. You are lying now. :D

Moving on, I have already said, that I think it is Ok to dox someone, who is pretending to be someone they are not for the purpose to mislead people. I call that scamming people, even if there is no solicitation. Others don't agree. OK.

Now I want to compare Mdawgs doxing of me and my doxxing of him. Doxing an AP. who has to remain anonymous from the casinos to make a living, cost me money. I have mentioned this a couple times but haven't dwelled on it, because I didn't want to give him the satisfaction, but it probably cost me in the neighborhood of 60k, over parts of two years that I was forced to play less and differently. I am STILL playing differently.

Now what did my doxxing him, cost him? Didn't affect his gambling as he plays rated (and loses). Nothing to dox as far as the casinos. Did it effect his income as an attorney? Well, I guess it could have if some potential client had read it and decided he or she didn't want to be represented by an attorney educated online, who is a gambling addict. BUT, that is really less about me and more about him and his qualifications.

Now again, I want to compare this to the doxxing that Dan Druff and his Poker forum crew have done to Christopher Mitchel. So this Mitchel person makes all kinds of videos claiming he mades large amounts of money. So if Druff or one of his crew had a friend in the industry (and I would think Druff probably does) and could get ahold of some casino records which shows the complete opposite of what Mitchel is claiming, I am pretty sure they would have shared that. And rightfully so.

So I have no regrets, even though some of you may not approve. If a scammer is scamming, lying and misleading, you have a right to present the real information for people to see.

One other funny thing about Mdawgs doxxing of me, which without even looking, I take it he has now entirely removed, just by his comments that no one saw it. He has made it a habit of removing things from that forum he is associated with. :rolleyes: But the funny thing is that doxxing proved who I was. That wasn't his intent, but it did. But now he (and others) lie about that, coming up with other weird shit that contradicts what Mdawg actually proved. THAT is life on these forums. ;)

But I will just ask again, although I expect no answer: Mdawg did you lie to mike when you said I doxxed you or are you lying to us now ehen you say it wasn't you? because if it wasn't you, then I didn't dox you.

Until we get an answer to that question, I would appreciate it if those bitching at me, would refer to it as my :D doxxing of Mdawg. :D Thank you very little.

AinQ, You contributed in driving Redietz from this forum. Not solely you, but you were a big part of it. You even admitted (several times) you didn't like him because you found him arrogant and that he talked down to people.

Well, nobody is as arrogant and talks down to people as much as Mdawg. And not just me. Axelwolf and really anyone that dares say "That is not how things work". This guy is so arrogant that he crowned himself "Pope of Las Vegas".

I guess that not liking someone for their arrogance and talking down comes and goes with you, hun? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Looks like you have a chance to get with Kewl.

---

Necromancy on an essentially dead, but still comical, forum. At least KS, for one, really doesn't give a shit. But where will the "hobos" go when it "snows"? Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Looks like you have a chance to get with Kewl.

---

Dude, give it a rest.

"Get with Kewl?"

Really?

C'mon man, you're better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

AinQ, You contributed in driving Redietz from this forum. Not solely you, but you were a big part of it. You even admitted (several times) you didn't like him because you found him arrogant and that he talked down to people.

Well, nobody is as arrogant and talks down to people as much as Mdawg. And not just me. Axelwolf and really anyone that dares say "That is not how things work". This guy is so arrogant that he crowned himself "Pope of Las Vegas".

I guess that not liking someone for their arrogance and talking down comes and goes with you, hun? :confused:

---

Redietz is as insulting as he can be in his condescension. Everything he says is covered with anti-AP speak. I'm not sure what your point is here. Yea, Mdawg goes after Axel but Axel goes after Mdawg. Redietz consistently insults the posters on here as a class of people. Consistently. I'm not going to go off on redietz again. Nothing new there. He hasn't been posting here so no reasons to take shots at him. I offered him a simple contest where even he could choose the rules, he turned that around into something that he knew was absurd. He is right though that he has more to lose than pure money as he is a tout. The contest would basically be a coinflip assuming Redietz is competent.

He would have saved more face just saying. "I don't have the time to mess with another contest that is basically a flip where I lose out on reputation and you don't". I'd respected something along those lines.

There are 2 separate issues here. You and all the stuff you've claimed which few people believe. Then there is this issue with you and Mdawg. You're the one that tries to make them overlap but really it is just Mdawg taking the chance to give you a real forum beat-down because everyone else has been calling out your claims.

Please don't address me. I'm really trying to not interact on this subject. There is nothing new to say. If you want to keep going at it with Mdawg then do what you wish. I would not think any differently.

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Looks like you have a chance to get with Kewl.

---

Dude, give it a rest.

"Get with Kewl?"

Really?

C'mon man, you're better than that.

---

I know where you want to rest your dingdong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Redietz is as insulting as he can be in his condescension. Everything he says is covered with anti-AP speak.

---

As does Mdawg! Maybe you don't read what he writes. He is as condescending if not more than redietz, especially with real players that actually win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Redietz consistently insults the posters on here as a class of people.

---

So does Mdawg. he insults the class of people that are real players and know how things work that dare challenge any of his fantasy story or claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I know where you want to rest your dingdong.

---

If I understand the innuendo, you are claiming I'd like to rest my dingdong, as you so childishly put it, in KJ.

That dog won't hunt: I'm not gay.

Look, I know it really boggles your mind that a straight guy might find KJ's posts of value: get over it.

Oh, something else you need to get over is your seeming lack of knowledge about the birds and the bees: FYI a "resting" ding dong is about as useful in performing a sex act as are your posts in entertaining others.

You seem intent on engaging me in conflict: I'll play along for a bit, of course, but I question how worthy of an opponent you really are.

Time will tell, eh?

UNKewlJ’s crazy ideas about whom it is okay to doxx and whom it is not okay to doxx, are as misguided and inconsistent as most everything he has to say. He’s weak, he’s stupid, and he’s a liar, and there isn’t much more anyone here can do to hurt him more than he hurts himself every day when he expends all his energy in continued desperate attempts to prove that his stories are anything more than lies.

Just the fact that he can’t even stay away from forums that he has declared dozens of times that he must quit, is proof of the torture that goes on inside him daily. :)

Junior psychologist AccountinQuestion continues with the slicing open of the UNKewl one, yes, like a fish!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I'm not sure what to think of Singer but at the end of the day he laughs most of this shit off. You can't. That's pretty much the sum of this whole situation between you 2.

---

And yes, V's jumping on that same idea is the same as jumping on UNKewlJ's dick, except that the combination of weed and Xanax created a disconnect to where V couldn't even quote or comprehend DanDruff properly,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't know whether MDawg really has something going on to make him an AP, or if he's just a high stakes -EV gambler who likes to pretend to be one. Either way, he shouldn't be reported to casinos.

---

whereas with UNKewlJ his brain is short circuited naturally, no need to get blazed to get stupid.

What are you yakking about, Robert?

I didn't dox the dawg; his identity was not disclosed in my email.

So tell me, Einstein: how is my forwarding to a casino a post which an anonymous poster posted doxing?

I simply wanted to share the comedic material...what a comedian that guy is: like Rodney, but more swarthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Bravo to MrV! Well done. I think you know what I am referring to. For those that don't...lets just say V will have more time to devote to this forum in coming days, probably weeks. :)

---

Dieter gave me a 14 day suspension for my truthful, insightful, piquant observations about a two-legged hemorrhoid.

Whatever.

I don't post a lot there any more and as they say "Life goes on."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Bravo to MrV! Well done. I think you know what I am referring to. For those that don't...lets just say V will have more time to devote to this forum in coming days, probably weeks. :)

---

Dieter gave me a 14 day suspension for my truthful, insightful, piquant observations about a two-legged hemorrhoid.

Whatever.

I don't post a lot there any more and as they say "Life goes on."

---

No doubt M-pussy was crying and PMing behind the scenes as he always does.

Sometimes you just gotta say what needs be said and take one for the team MrV. Thank you and you will be fine.

They should put MDawg in charge of the place, after the Wizard finally gives it up. Someone with a pulse for whom they wouldn't have to change the name. Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

They should put MDawg in charge of the place, after the Wizard finally gives it up. Someone with a pulse for whom they wouldn't have to change the name. Ha.

---

Yeah why not. :D

Daily members logging on was about 220 when Mdawg started posting. It is now about 100. Some of those quit early in the MDawg saga citing MDawg as the reason.

Why not let it go down to nothing.

I only visit almost daily looking for lilredrooster's sports picks. Although I usually do look to see what fucked up things "the dope" posts as well.

I wonder what sort of behind the scenes machinations the dawg might be up to with the owners of WoV?

The Wiz is only there due to contractual obligation, as when he sold it to the Serbs (or whomever they are) they required he stay involved for awhile.

Gee, might the Wiz's failure to clamp down on and chastise the dawg be a mild form of passive-aggressive behavior directed at the presumably unhappy situation he finds himself in?

Anybody with a brain can see that the decline of that board / exodus of valuable posters has a lot to do with the continued presence of the antagonistic narcissist blowhard Mdawg.

It's like a turd was dropped in the middle of the room and nobody has the balls to grab it and give it the old heave ho.

What is wrong with those people, don't they see what's happening there?

"Clean up on aisle three..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I wonder what sort of behind the scenes machinations the dawg might be up to with the owners of WoV?

The Wiz is only there due to contractual obligation, as when he sold it to the Serbs (or whomever they are) they required he stay involved for awhile.

Gee, might the Wiz's failure to clamp down on and chastise the dawg be a mild form of passive-aggressive behavior directed at the presumably unhappy situation he finds himself in?

Anybody with a brain can see that the decline of that board / exodus of valuable posters has a lot to do with the continued presence of the antagonistic narcissist blowhard Mdawg.

It's like a turd was dropped in the middle of the room and nobody has the balls to grab it and give it the old heave ho.

What is wrong with those people, don't they see what's happening there?

"Clean up on aisle three..."

---

People leave because he’s a communist who’s against free speech. Indoctrinated by the left

You aren't entitled to free speech on private property. Fuckers still haven't learned the 1st amendment properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

You aren't entitled to free speech on private property. Fuckers still haven't learned the 1st amendment properly.

---

Incorrect

"Anyone who says 'you can't shout fire! in a crowded theatre' is showing that they don't know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff wrote in 2021. "This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It's repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations."

While Alito's mistake is a common one, it is particularly frustrating because, as a Supreme Court Justice, he should know better. The popularity of this myth poses real threats to free speech. "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre," is often invoked to justify unconstitutional restrictions on speech and to overstate restrictions to the First Amendment. When this myth is adopted by a Supreme Court Justice—no less, the lone dissenter in two recent 8–1 First Amendment cases—it spells danger for our broader cultural understanding of free speech, as well as the values held by those in power.


" The phrase you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater , though an oft-repeated axiom in debates about the First Amendment, is simply not the law of the land now, nor has it ever been—something made all the more apparent when Schenk v. United States was largely overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.


Try trespassing someone from a business you own for cussing or saying something you don’t like. If I filed that as the reason with the local police department I would be sued into bankruptcy. Now if a patron was threatening a frontline employee I could have them trespassed from my private business.

You left wing indoctrinated mentally ill people have been hurt by words to the point you can’t think logically. It’s why trump short circuited so many of your brains. It reminds you of your high school years were you got bullied, and watched the big dick jocks get all the pussy while you sat home and jacked to porn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedvalue

You left wing indoctrinated mentally ill people have been hurt by words to the point you can’t think logically. It’s why trump short circuited so many of your brains. It reminds you of your high school years were you got bullied, and watched the big dick jocks get all the pussy while you sat home and jacked to porn.

---

Again with the big cock references...

But I digress.

I encourage you to stand up in the middle of a packed theater, in a situation where everybody can see and hear you, and yell "Fire, fire, get the fuck out or we're all gonna die" and see what happens to you.

While it is technically not a crime to yell "Fire," if it results in confusion, stampede and injury then yes, you'll be charged, e.g. with disorderly conduct or even inciting a riot.

Yes, you.can be trespassing for swearing. Give it up Sid the Squid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedvalue

You left wing indoctrinated mentally ill people have been hurt by words to the point you can’t think logically. It’s why trump short circuited so many of your brains. It reminds you of your high school years were you got bullied, and watched the big dick jocks get all the pussy while you sat home and jacked to porn.

---

Again with the big cock references...

But I digress.

I encourage you to stand up in the middle of a packed theater, in a situation where everybody can see and hear you, and yell "Fire, fire, get the fuck out or we're all gonna die" and see what happens to you.

While it is technically not a crime to yell "Fire," if it results in confusion, stampede and injury then yes, you'll be charged, e.g. with disorderly conduct or even inciting a riot.

---

You prove my point thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Yes, you.can be trespassing for swearing. Give it up Sid the Squid

---

You own nothing and most likely never ran a business in your life. So you know nothing. Get back to when you do.

We can even test it. I send someone to your place of business and cuss. You file the appropriate paper work saying you trespassed the person because he cusses, and that offends you. Not falsifiable accuse the person of disorderly conduct. You see accusations of disorderly conduct are exactly what fag ass casino do. They make up shit but under discovery if you go the distance they lose if no disorderly conduct was witnessed. Same for small businesses but keep thinking you know whatS up.

O and same bet stands with you if you want to say I’m some guy from a board I have no idea about. I’m original not a fucking imposter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

They should put MDawg in charge of the place, after the Wizard finally gives it up. Someone with a pulse for whom they wouldn't have to change the name. Ha.

---

Yeah why not. :D

Daily members logging on was about 220 when Mdawg started posting. It is now about 100. Some of those quit early in the MDawg saga citing MDawg as the reason.

Why not let it go down to nothing.

I only visit almost daily looking for lilredrooster's sports picks. Although I usually do look to see what fucked up things "the dope" posts as well.

---

You almost had yourself a socially-acceptable post. Then, as usual, you couldn't help yourself by lying at the end.

Jbjb and keystone are the real toll brothers lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedvalue

You prove my point thanks

---

You're welcome.

I'd call it "qualified free speech" if you want to be clear about it.

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

---

There is free speech. People can eject you yes, but you are free to say what you wish. You will not be arrested for what you say unless it is vulgar or deemed disorderly conduct.

These are 2 separate issues.

Freedom of speech in relation to America is strictly that the government doesn't tell people what they can and can't say. THe modern "conservative" seems to have this completely flipped. They seem to think Twitter should be forced to publish everything.

You're free to speak you're just not free to remain on someone's property.

This new take on "free speech" is really a peeve of mine.

The free speech that I am used to hearing about it the same freedom of speech that people sue government officials (cops) over. Government employees are largely indemnified to lawsuits but under certain circumstances if they violate your free speech (typically freedom of press) then they can be sued for breaking your Constitutional rights. Basically "freedom of speech" just means the government can't tell us what we can and can't say. Nothing more. (in my world).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

---

There is free speech. People can eject you yes, but you are free to say what you wish. You will not be arrested for what you say unless it is vulgar or deemed disorderly conduct.

These are 2 separate issues.

Freedom of speech in relation to America is strictly that the government doesn't tell people what they can and can't say. THe modern "conservative" seems to have this completely flipped. They seem to think Twitter should be forced to publish everything.

You're free to speak you're just not free to remain on someone's property.

This new take on "free speech" is really a peeve of mine.

The free speech that I am used to hearing about it the same freedom of speech that people sue government officials (cops) over. Government employees are largely indemnified to lawsuits but under certain circumstances if they violate your free speech (typically freedom of press) then they can be sued for breaking your Constitutional rights. Basically "freedom of speech" just means the government can't tell us what we can and can't say. Nothing more. (in my world).

---

Conservatives don't believe X should publish everything. They demand that conservative opinion not be censored while wide open progressive opinion goes uncensored. It was a violation of freedom of speech for them to do that. And the government had no business making the old guard at Twitter censor conservative speech.

That what gets me about you libs. You ignore the corruption of the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

---

With all due respect this just is not correct. I cannot throw you out of any business I own for saying words I don’t like unless you are threatening someone. Could you get away with it ? Yes because no one is going to file a lawsuit to get back into some random retail place. Could it be different from state to state ? Probably but if I come in, and say I like trump wearing a maga hat you can’t trespass me from Druffs Dongs and bongs Legally. I would win a lawsuit if I can prove that was the reason. Of course you are going to put on the form filed with the local police I was causing a disturbance, and 99.9 percent of people won’t sue.

Yes you can be charged with disorderly conduct for yelling Bomb or Fire if it causes a disturbance. But if I yell fire and zero people move you can’t just make up a disorderly conduct charge. S

Yes you can dipshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbjb

Yes you can dipshit.

---

No you can’t 20 spot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedvalue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

---

With all due respect this just is not correct. I cannot throw you out of any business I own for saying words I don’t like unless you are threatening someone. Could you get away with it ? Yes because no one is going to file a lawsuit to get back into some random retail place. Could it be different from state to state ? Probably but if I come in, and say I like trump wearing a maga hat you can’t trespass me from Druffs Dongs and bongs Legally. I would win a lawsuit if I can prove that was the reason. Of course you are going to put on the form filed with the local police I was causing a disturbance, and 99.9 percent of people won’t sue.

Yes you can be charged with disorderly conduct for yelling Bomb or Fire if it causes a disturbance. But if I yell fire and zero people move you can’t just make up a disorderly conduct charge. S

---

You could not be more wrong. You can throw someone out of your business for any reason as long as the reasons don't have anything to do with them being in one of the protected classes.

How have you guys gotten this shit so wrong?

The government doesn't FORCE you to put up with someone. The freedom aspect works in the property owner's favor more than not in this situation.

This is crazy. Where do you people even get this stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

---

There is free speech. People can eject you yes, but you are free to say what you wish. You will not be arrested for what you say unless it is vulgar or deemed disorderly conduct.

These are 2 separate issues.

Freedom of speech in relation to America is strictly that the government doesn't tell people what they can and can't say. THe modern "conservative" seems to have this completely flipped. They seem to think Twitter should be forced to publish everything.

You're free to speak you're just not free to remain on someone's property.

This new take on "free speech" is really a peeve of mine.

The free speech that I am used to hearing about it the same freedom of speech that people sue government officials (cops) over. Government employees are largely indemnified to lawsuits but under certain circumstances if they violate your free speech (typically freedom of press) then they can be sued for breaking your Constitutional rights. Basically "freedom of speech" just means the government can't tell us what we can and can't say. Nothing more. (in my world).

---

Conservatives don't believe X should publish everything. They demand that conservative opinion not be censored while wide open progressive opinion goes uncensored. It was a violation of freedom of speech for them to do that. And the government had no business making the old guard at Twitter censor conservative speech.

That what gets me about you libs. You ignore the corruption of the left.

---

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.

You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.

Thats it. Nothing more to it.

A business has the "Right to Refuse Service".

Any business owner with half a brain will point to this 4 word sign and NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

As Druff said, there are protected classes (disability, Sex, age, ect.) But these protections can be virtually impossible to prove if the business or it's owner handles it correctly.

A good example was Walmart during the Corona Virus pandemic, early on they would tell people they can't come in without a mask. Certain people can not wear a mask due to a medical reason/disability. If a customer notified them of their disability, and the store doubles down, the store could have an issue. A store policy can not supercede a Federal law. All the business has to say is "We have the right to refuse service". At this point, they have no business within that store and need to leave.

Many stores will get into trouble because the customer "presses" them for more info. They tell the customer, they as a business have the legal right to refuse service. The customer may say something like, "But why me?". They get the business talking, and sometimes talk themself right into a lawsuit.

There are scumbags that will use Google images/satellite images to see if a business is ADA compliant. Then they go to that business in a wheelchair and claim discrimination since there were no ramps. They sue hundreds of businesses per year, often taking the first settlement "offer" the business gives them. Many businesses have went under due to this practice. The lawyers representing them on these mass filings are just as bad, if not worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PositiveVariance

A business has the "Right to Refuse Service".

Any business owner with half a brain will point to this 4 word sign and NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

As Druff said, there are protected classes (disability, Sex, age, ect.) But these protections can be virtually impossible to prove if the business or it's owner handles it correctly.

A good example was Walmart during the Corona Virus pandemic, early on they would tell people they can't come in without a mask. Certain people can not wear a mask due to a medical reason/disability. If a customer notified them of their disability, and the store doubles down, the store could have an issue. A store policy can not supercede a Federal law. All the business has to say is "We have the right to refuse service". At this point, they have no business within that store and need to leave.

Many stores will get into trouble because the customer "presses" them for more info. They tell the customer, they as a business have the legal right to refuse service. The customer may say something like, "But why me?". They get the business talking, and sometimes talk themself right into a lawsuit.

There are scumbags that will use Google images/satellite images to see if a business is ADA compliant. Then they go to that business in a wheelchair and claim discrimination since there were no ramps. They sue hundreds of businesses per year, often taking the first settlement "offer" the business gives them. Many businesses have went under due to this practice. The lawyers representing them on these mass filings are just as bad, if not worse.

---

Freedom of speech issues against private business have been litigated and won multiple times at the Supreme Court leveL. I linked a few a couple post back I believe. Just because Shakira doesn’t have the money to sue a business for throwing her out; Because she expressed her love for Biden doesn’t mean she wouldn’t win if she did.

In addition there are very few business that meet the private test. In fact most do not when testing against your constitutional rights. Zenking pointed this out once I believe on WOV in regards to being trespassed at casinos He was right.

The business owner gets saved because the poor ass people they throw out don’t care enough to sue. When they get taken to court they lose all unless there was a real threat or disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is a easy to prove because often customers get loud if there’s a disagreement.

As far as casinos are concerned APs can use this weird social climate to your advantage. Just make sure you select non binary or don’t check a gender when renewing your license. This opens up all types of lawsuits if you control, and socially engineer a back off towards a discriminatory lawsuit. One should rehearse how to get security into these situations if approached aggressively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seedvalue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PositiveVariance

A business has the "Right to Refuse Service".

Any business owner with half a brain will point to this 4 word sign and NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

As Druff said, there are protected classes (disability, Sex, age, ect.) But these protections can be virtually impossible to prove if the business or it's owner handles it correctly.

A good example was Walmart during the Corona Virus pandemic, early on they would tell people they can't come in without a mask. Certain people can not wear a mask due to a medical reason/disability. If a customer notified them of their disability, and the store doubles down, the store could have an issue. A store policy can not supercede a Federal law. All the business has to say is "We have the right to refuse service". At this point, they have no business within that store and need to leave.

Many stores will get into trouble because the customer "presses" them for more info. They tell the customer, they as a business have the legal right to refuse service. The customer may say something like, "But why me?". They get the business talking, and sometimes talk themself right into a lawsuit.

There are scumbags that will use Google images/satellite images to see if a business is ADA compliant. Then they go to that business in a wheelchair and claim discrimination since there were no ramps. They sue hundreds of businesses per year, often taking the first settlement "offer" the business gives them. Many businesses have went under due to this practice. The lawyers representing them on these mass filings are just as bad, if not worse.

---

Freedom of speech issues against private business have been litigated and won multiple times at the Supreme Court leveL. I linked a few a couple post back I believe. Just because Shakira doesn’t have the money to sue a business for throwing her out; Because she expressed her love for Biden doesn’t mean she wouldn’t win if she did.

In addition there are very few business that meet the private test. In fact most do not when testing against your constitutional rights. Zenking pointed this out once I believe on WOV in regards to being trespassed at casinos He was right.

The business owner gets saved because the poor ass people they throw out don’t care enough to sue. When they get taken to court they lose all unless there was a real threat or disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is a easy to prove because often customers get loud if there’s a disagreement.

As far as casinos are concerned APs can use this weird social climate to your advantage. Just make sure you select non binary or don’t check a gender when renewing your license. This opens up all types of lawsuits if you control, and socially engineer a back off towards a discriminatory lawsuit. One should rehearse how to get security into these situations if approached aggressively.

---

No you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.
You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.Thats it. Nothing more to it.

---

Your argument is the typical leftist argument for censorship today. "It's private business." But it wasn't all that long ago that this very same argument was used by conservatives to censor radio and television. And the liberals were screaming bloody murder about it. It was a long hard fight for liberals to get the right to free speech on the airwaves.

But then the the power in media changed from conservative to liberal. Now conservatives are screaming about censorship and liberals are saying "To fucking bad. It's private business."

You can't make this shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.
You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.Thats it. Nothing more to it.

---

Your argument is the typical leftist argument for censorship today. "It's private business." But it wasn't all that long ago that this very same argument was used by conservatives to censor radio and television. And the liberals were screaming bloody murder about it. It was a long hard fight for liberals to get the right to free speech on the airwaves.

But then the the power in media changed from conservative to liberal. Now conservatives are screaming about censorship and liberals are saying "To fucking bad. It's private business."

You can't make this shit up.

---

I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, decades ago conservatives were very into censoring media. Actually I remember the albums more than other stuff. Now they are into censoring books at school libraries. (maybe other libraries)? We agree, no?

I also even said Conservatives has a valid reason to be annoyed at Twitter and the government person who pushed them in certain directions. Again, we agree.

Are you saying that NOW believing in the Constitution is a "leftist" argument? Is this a post-Trump thing? Are you saying we should just dismiss the Constitution and force the US government to force Twitter (a private entity) what they do? Even here we seem to agree but you're referring to some different form of "free speech". I'm not sure if you're saying the government should force Twitter to publish some government mandated content? Now HERE is where we disagree.

What am I missing?

I'm not even really arguing anything. I am just explaining the difference in meaning people have about "freedom of speech" when you see the phrase used these days.

"Can't make this shit up" I'm not sure either of us are making up anything.

In my humble opinion, you appear to be flailing around KJ style. Tell me how I am wrong.


PS - I am a huge proponent of real first amendment activists ("auditors") and I can 100% assure you they almost all identify with the right. I'm not sure what a "conservative" means in this day and age but those dudes are definitely not leftist. They have no real tribe like BLM protestors or the guys who stormed the Capital. They do rack up a lot of youtube clicks and people understand their rights far better and that is generally a good thing. Especially given how the law is setup to remove any accountability for LEO.

[QUOTE=accountinquestion;16476I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, decades ago conservatives were very into censoring media. Actually I remember the albums more than other stuff. Now they are into censoring books at school libraries. (maybe other libraries)? We agree, no?

I also even said Conservatives has a valid reason to be annoyed at Twitter and the government person who pushed them in certain directions. Again, we agree.

Are you saying that NOW believing in the Constitution is a "leftist" argument? Is this a post-Trump thing? Are you saying we should just dismiss the Constitution and force the US government to force Twitter (a private entity) what they do? Even here we seem to agree but you're referring to some different form of "free speech". I'm not sure if you're saying the government should force Twitter to publish some government mandated content? Now HERE is where we disagree.What am I missing?

I'm not even really arguing anything. I am just explaining the difference in meaning people have about "freedom of speech" when you see the phrase used these days."Can't make this shit up" I'm not sure either of us are making up anything. In my humble opinion, you appear to be flailing around KJ style. Tell me how I am wrong.

PS - I am a huge proponent of real first amendment activists ("auditors") and I can 100% assure you they almost all identify with the right. I'm not sure what a "conservative" means in this day and age but those dudes are definitely not leftist. They have no real tribe like BLM protestors or the guys who stormed the Capital. They do rack up a lot of youtube clicks and people understand their rights far better and that is generally a good thing. Especially given how the law is setup to remove any accountability for LEO.[/QUOTE]

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

[QUOTE=mickeycrimm;164772]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion;16476I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, decades ago conservatives were very into censoring media. Actually I remember the albums more than other stuff. Now they are into censoring books at school libraries. (maybe other libraries)? We agree, no?

I also even said Conservatives has a valid reason to be annoyed at Twitter and the government person who pushed them in certain directions. Again, we agree.

Are you saying that NOW believing in the Constitution is a "leftist" argument? Is this a post-Trump thing? Are you saying we should just dismiss the Constitution and force the US government to force Twitter (a private entity) what they do? Even here we seem to agree but you're referring to some different form of "free speech". I'm not sure if you're saying the government should force Twitter to publish some government mandated content? Now HERE is where we disagree.What am I missing?

I'm not even really arguing anything. I am just explaining the difference in meaning people have about "freedom of speech" when you see the phrase used these days."Can't make this shit up" I'm not sure either of us are making up anything. In my humble opinion, you appear to be flailing around KJ style. Tell me how I am wrong.

PS - I am a huge proponent of real first amendment activists ("auditors") and I can 100% assure you they almost all identify with the right. I'm not sure what a "conservative" means in this day and age but those dudes are definitely not leftist. They have no real tribe like BLM protestors or the guys who stormed the Capital. They do rack up a lot of youtube clicks and people understand their rights far better and that is generally a good thing. Especially given how the law is setup to remove any accountability for LEO.[/QUOTE

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

---

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

[QUOTE=accountinquestion;164778]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion;16476I'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, decades ago conservatives were very into censoring media. Actually I remember the albums more than other stuff. Now they are into censoring books at school libraries. (maybe other libraries)? We agree, no?

I also even said Conservatives has a valid reason to be annoyed at Twitter and the government person who pushed them in certain directions. Again, we agree.

Are you saying that NOW believing in the Constitution is a "leftist" argument? Is this a post-Trump thing? Are you saying we should just dismiss the Constitution and force the US government to force Twitter (a private entity) what they do? Even here we seem to agree but you're referring to some different form of "free speech". I'm not sure if you're saying the government should force Twitter to publish some government mandated content? Now HERE is where we disagree.What am I missing?

I'm not even really arguing anything. I am just explaining the difference in meaning people have about "freedom of speech" when you see the phrase used these days."Can't make this shit up" I'm not sure either of us are making up anything. In my humble opinion, you appear to be flailing around KJ style. Tell me how I am wrong.

PS - I am a huge proponent of real first amendment activists ("auditors") and I can 100% assure you they almost all identify with the right. I'm not sure what a "conservative" means in this day and age but those dudes are definitely not leftist. They have no real tribe like BLM protestors or the guys who stormed the Capital. They do rack up a lot of youtube clicks and people understand their rights far better and that is generally a good thing. Especially given how the law is setup to remove any accountability for LEO.[/QUOTE

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

---

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

---

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You always come with that "I'm not sure what you are saying" and "what am I missing" bullshit. You know exactly what I'm saying. You got more routes than Greyhound Buslines. Knock off the bullshit.

All I'm saying is you lefties were once all for freedom of speech but now you are against it. You were for it when you weren't so powerful. Now that you've gained a shit ton of power you are against it. I would call you hypocrites but that's not illustrative enough. You want the censorship to stifle conservative opinion. You want to stifle conservative opinion in order to maintain your current power and gain more power.

The authoritarianism you practice today is not the end of it. Once you lefties have gained enough power you will take steps to insure that you absolutely never ever lose power again. Scratch a lefty and you will find a fascist.

And please, spare us the "what are you talking about?" bullshit.

---

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

---

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

---

Uhm, I'm pretty sure when SS came out it was framed in the way you're saying. It was done so to make it acceptable to what would have been the conservatives of the time. (I may very well be wrong here though, feel free to correct but please with references).

I never said welfare. That is your word. I said ponzi scheme. Anyone with a modicum of sense should not equate the 2. It is a ponzi scheme. I'm pretty sure you need more education on me outside of the ins and outs of getting your monies.

Interesting enough just recently I was talking about SS and inflation. You, being the expert you are can surely tell me if COLA is compounded in a way that or fair or just added to itself starting your first year? There are so many ways they could implement it but too many web-searches to track down how exactly it works. They fluff over the details. So maybe can you tell me without looking it up? Mickey with a Bachelors in Social Security.

Literally you claim you are a moderate but you just go off ranting about libtards when irrelevant to the discussion. You even do this to people who aren't particularly liberal.

I hate to keep repeating a life clue for you but despising Trump does not make one a "libtard".

I'm the one calling SS a ponzi scheme. You defend that saying it is a "retirement plan". (It can be both - doh) You then proceed to tell me how it doesn't perform well. As if anyone but the most ignorant fuckers find that a point worth making.

No shit Mickey. Keep educating me.

I always seem to forget how awful you are.. lol. I could spend all day picking apart the idiocy of the way you see things. I didn't start shit. I'm telling you my views of what "Free speech" should mean to people in the USA. And that view is being worried about the government. Your view and mine are very much different but you can't defend your view so you just go into attack mode.

You should go yank on seedvalue's manhood about how temperature records aren't being set globally. Just amazingly wrong but as you get older one starts to accept the rainbow of what is mankind. There will always be that guy. That you.

PS - What again are your beliefs that lead you to claiming you are a moderate? So you are against SS? I can't keep it all straight. I really don't wish to blatantly misrepresent your views.

Gentlemen: your SS / Ponzi scheme arguments, distilled.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...ocial_Security

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Gentlemen: your SS / Ponzi scheme arguments, distilled.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...ocial_Security

---

I'm not even anti-SS. The article glosses over how there is also no guarantee you'll be paid. Ponzis pay out some too. The big part here is that existing recipients are paid off the backs of current investors. But yes SS misses the intent to defraud. It is also based on the whims of politics even if chance seems small.

Personally I like SS. We don't need a ton of broke old people out in the streets because they didn't have the ability to produce and save.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Gentlemen: your SS / Ponzi scheme arguments, distilled.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Po...ocial_Security

---

I'm not even anti-SS. The article glosses over how there is also no guarantee you'll be paid. Ponzis pay out some too. The big part here is that existing recipients are paid off the backs of current investors. But yes SS misses the intent to defraud. It is also based on the whims of politics even if chance seems small.

Personally I like SS. We don't need a ton of broke old people out in the streets because they didn't have the ability to produce and save.

---

Everyone will get paid. There's an unlimited supply of money. The only question is what will it buy?...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

You have such a simple black and white view of things. To the point it is absurd. You couldnt even tell me why I am a leftist outside of despising trump. "You" ? I could ask who is this we but it just a nonsensical construct of yours. Just not even worth discussing anything. Nothing but partisan rants that barely deal with the subject of our discussion. They also have very little grounding in reality so I'm not going to bother. At some pointi have to look at myself in the mirror and realize this shit is beneath me.

Lol Mickey the self-proclaimed moderate. I believe it is all based in his receiving of SS. I see it as a ponzi scheme of sorts.

---

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

---

Uhm, I'm pretty sure when SS came out it was framed in the way you're saying. It was done so to make it acceptable to what would have been the conservatives of the time. (I may very well be wrong here though, feel free to correct but please with references).

I never said welfare. That is your word. I said ponzi scheme. Anyone with a modicum of sense should not equate the 2. It is a ponzi scheme. I'm pretty sure you need more education on me outside of the ins and outs of getting your monies.

Interesting enough just recently I was talking about SS and inflation. You, being the expert you are can surely tell me if COLA is compounded in a way that or fair or just added to itself starting your first year? There are so many ways they could implement it but too many web-searches to track down how exactly it works. They fluff over the details. So maybe can you tell me without looking it up? Mickey with a Bachelors in Social Security.

Literally you claim you are a moderate but you just go off ranting about libtards when irrelevant to the discussion. You even do this to people who aren't particularly liberal.

I hate to keep repeating a life clue for you but despising Trump does not make one a "libtard".

I'm the one calling SS a ponzi scheme. You defend that saying it is a "retirement plan". (It can be both - doh) You then proceed to tell me how it doesn't perform well. As if anyone but the most ignorant fuckers find that a point worth making.

No shit Mickey. Keep educating me.

I always seem to forget how awful you are.. lol. I could spend all day picking apart the idiocy of the way you see things. I didn't start shit. I'm telling you my views of what "Free speech" should mean to people in the USA. And that view is being worried about the government. Your view and mine are very much different but you can't defend your view so you just go into attack mode.

You should go yank on seedvalue's manhood about how temperature records aren't being set globally. Just amazingly wrong but as you get older one starts to accept the rainbow of what is mankind. There will always be that guy. That you.

PS - What again are your beliefs that lead you to claiming you are a moderate? So you are against SS? I can't keep it all straight. I really don't wish to blatantly misrepresent your views.

---

Stock market was at 400 before the crash. Took 4 years for it to bottom out at 70. Then slow climb back up. By 1935 market had risen to just 125, not even a third of what it was in 1929. Why? Pretty simple. People wouldn't buy stocks. They were scared to death of the stock market, liberals, conservatives, everybody.

I've never looked into COLA calculations. Dude, do you know I have things to do besides look into COLA calculations? Quit trying to invent work for me.

So one does not have to be liberal to hate Trump. How nice. Well, guess what, one does not have to be a conservative to hate the far left. Is that educating you enough?

You're not picking my arguments apart, you've picking your nose.

Your problem with free speech/censorship is you think your side should be the ones to decide what should be censored. According to you conservatives are all liars so should have no say. It's you ignorant ass libtards that censored big tech and the media. You're side are the big ass fucking liars.

If I haven't answered all your questions to fucking bad. There's a casino downstairs and I'm headed down to it. I've got other things to do, comrade.

It seems AQ tries to insert himself into EVERY thread for lack of something better to do. And for his sake it's a good thing he chooses to do so on this particular forum, because so few people get to see the truly dumb things he comes up with.

Find a hobby AQ...or find a friend to talk to. Best make sure they're not a professional in anything before you consumate the friendship though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

It seems AQ tries to insert himself into EVERY thread for lack of something better to do. And for his sake it's a good thing he chooses to do so on this particular forum, because so few people get to see the truly dumb things he comes up with.

Find a hobby AQ...or find a friend to talk to. Best make sure they're not a professional in anything before you consumate the friendship though.

---

LMAO. That is the best you can do? I troll you first time in months and I get "It seems AQ tries to insert himself into EVERY thread".

Yes, I have nothing better to do at the time or I'd do it. Yes. Much like you.

WHy does your ass post on here? BRO - you are literally following Kewl around with your nose up his ass. Just you are not trying to inhale it you are exhaling it. LLOLOLOLOL

good stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

LOL. I could have filed for SS when I turned 62 but didn't file until I was 66 years 6 months. Was planning to go to 70 but had a heart attack an didn't know if I would be able to function again. That's not someone clamoring to get on the government dole.

But please please please educate yourself about what SS is before you go spouting off ignorant blather about it. It's a retirement system not a government handout. One pays into SS for 40 years or more and really don't get much of a check for it. The money would have been better invested in a 401K. So SS retirees not only get fucked out of a decent check, they get smeared as welfare recipients by brain dead fuckers like you.

You fucking idiots always start that shit. Go fuck yourself, lefty punk socialist marxist bag of shit.

---

Uhm, I'm pretty sure when SS came out it was framed in the way you're saying. It was done so to make it acceptable to what would have been the conservatives of the time. (I may very well be wrong here though, feel free to correct but please with references).

I never said welfare. That is your word. I said ponzi scheme. Anyone with a modicum of sense should not equate the 2. It is a ponzi scheme. I'm pretty sure you need more education on me outside of the ins and outs of getting your monies.

Interesting enough just recently I was talking about SS and inflation. You, being the expert you are can surely tell me if COLA is compounded in a way that or fair or just added to itself starting your first year? There are so many ways they could implement it but too many web-searches to track down how exactly it works. They fluff over the details. So maybe can you tell me without looking it up? Mickey with a Bachelors in Social Security.

Literally you claim you are a moderate but you just go off ranting about libtards when irrelevant to the discussion. You even do this to people who aren't particularly liberal.

I hate to keep repeating a life clue for you but despising Trump does not make one a "libtard".

I'm the one calling SS a ponzi scheme. You defend that saying it is a "retirement plan". (It can be both - doh) You then proceed to tell me how it doesn't perform well. As if anyone but the most ignorant fuckers find that a point worth making.

No shit Mickey. Keep educating me.

I always seem to forget how awful you are.. lol. I could spend all day picking apart the idiocy of the way you see things. I didn't start shit. I'm telling you my views of what "Free speech" should mean to people in the USA. And that view is being worried about the government. Your view and mine are very much different but you can't defend your view so you just go into attack mode.

You should go yank on seedvalue's manhood about how temperature records aren't being set globally. Just amazingly wrong but as you get older one starts to accept the rainbow of what is mankind. There will always be that guy. That you.

PS - What again are your beliefs that lead you to claiming you are a moderate? So you are against SS? I can't keep it all straight. I really don't wish to blatantly misrepresent your views.

---

Stock market was at 400 before the crash. Took 4 years for it to bottom out at 70. Then slow climb back up. By 1935 market had risen to just 125, not even a third of what it was in 1929. Why? Pretty simple. People wouldn't buy stocks. They were scared to death of the stock market, liberals, conservatives, everybody.

I've never looked into COLA calculations. Dude, do you know I have things to do besides look into COLA calculations? Quit trying to invent work for me.

So one does not have to be liberal to hate Trump. How nice. Well, guess what, one does not have to be a conservative to hate the far left. Is that educating you enough?

You're not picking my arguments apart, you've picking your nose.

Your problem with free speech/censorship is you think your side should be the ones to decide what should be censored. According to you conservatives are all liars so should have no say. It's you ignorant ass libtards that censored big tech and the media. You're side are the big ass fucking liars.

If I haven't answered all your questions to fucking bad. There's a casino downstairs and I'm headed down to it. I've got other things to do, comrade.

---

COLA calculations are very significant. If you made 100k a year 30 years ago it is vastly different from making 100k today. How does COLA impact that?

I do not know how the underlying calculation works. Although I care I don't care enough to dig through google. Google has become near worthless for these types of questions.

I'm not picking my ass I am picking Rob's nose out of Kewl's ass !! badda bing

.....There is a animated gif out there somewhere.... it'll show the true extent of that big nose.. suitable for Kewl.

It may not just be MrV.

I drank too much tonight. When sober I promise I will go easier on Rob. My problem when drunk is that it amplifies how funny I find my own jokes.

Quote:

---

Your problem with free speech/censorship is you think your side should be the ones to decide what should be censored.

---

Not at all. I feel the Constitution should be absolute over all partisanship. This means they shouldn't be able to FORCE Twitter to post things of a certain nature.

Nuances invite corruption. The interpretation becomes too malleable. We can agree to a few (obscenities etc) but outside that? nah.

The Constitution might be outdated but I still find it to be a very strong framework.

At least the rat admits what he did, as far as the doxxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

And YES I believe you need to be exposed for the shit you have posted here and on other forums.

And “maybe” I was wrong about the guy I thought was you, has nothing to do with this.

---

His retraction of his claim that he sent in the letters he claimed he wrote to the casinos, does not fit well with his claim of

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boz

I’m as real as they get.

---

Someone sent me a private message today (it wasn't Boz, but not going to say who), suggesting I re-read the first posts of The Mdawg adventure thread (the original or part 1) at WoV.

So the first post contains only pictures, 19 of them, containing piles of cash on the bed, chips, markers, watches and jewelry, pictures of a high-end suite. All meant to impress. But why? Why is it so important to this guy to impress everyone?

Ok so in the second post second line we get this: This will be my thread where I post on my VEGAS trips. At least until I get bored and start posting in one of my own forums. This was the first mention and frankly one I didn't remember of "his own forum". That would be the forum that Boz screenshot from with all the different threads attacking all the different people that didn't believe his story. It should be noted that this forum that he advertises in his signature is a forum for writers! That would be people writing stories, which is exactly what Mdawg is. He is a good writer.

Another paragraph further down in that second post (first with words) and he writes: These days My Intent is to play more for comps and fun than to try to kill the house.

Boy wouldn't that have been great!! I was looking forward to accounts from a higher end player that won and lost with focus on comps. But that is not what we got, is it? :confused: :rolleyes:

Mdawg, my issue with you was never personal. I don't know if you are really wealthy or not, or if so how wealthy and I don't care. I don't know if you are an attorney or not (but your behavior on forums doesn't seem like that of an attorney). I don't care if you are a high end Rolex watch salesman or rep as some have suggested. I don't even care if you are a gambler, who loses more than he win (which is now obvious).

My only concern was that your accounts of all the winning defied the mathematics of gambling and the way Las Vegas and the casino industry works. And it has only grown 100 times worse as time has gone on.

As far as I am concerned this is over. On forums like this you don't even attempt to continue to talk about your great adventure any longer. You just troll. At WoV where my concerns originated, the "adventure thread" has now turned into more or less a misc thread. You still occasionally try to work in some account of your play, but you get no reaction or response. So I am satisfied that whatever threat I felt you were, you no longer are.

You can keep trolling me and probably will. But it changes nothing about me, what I am, nor you and what you are. It isn't going to bring your credibility back.

I would prefer you pivot and share what you should have all along the winning and losing of a higher end player focused on comps. That is a good topic that many of us would enjoy and you are in fact a good writer, which is obviously an interest since you own a forum for and about writers.

Good luck to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Someone sent me a private message today (it wasn't Boz, but not going to say who), suggesting I re-read the first posts of The Mdawg adventure thread (the original or part 1) at WoV.

So the first post contains only pictures, 19 of them, containing piles of cash on the bed, chips, markers, watches and jewelry, pictures of a high-end suite. All meant to impress. But why? Why is it so important to this guy to impress everyone?

Ok so in the second post second line we get this: This will be my thread where I post on my VEGAS trips. At least until I get bored and start posting in one of my own forums. This was the first mention and frankly one I didn't remember of "his own forum". That would be the forum that Boz screenshot from with all the different threads attacking all the different people that didn't believe his story. It should be noted that this forum that he advertises in his signature is a forum for writers! That would be people writing stories, which is exactly what Mdawg is. He is a good writer.

Another paragraph further down in that second post (first with words) and he writes: These days My Intent is to play more for comps and fun than to try to kill the house.

Boy wouldn't that have been great!! I was looking forward to accounts from a higher end player that won and lost with focus on comps. But that is not what we got, is it? :confused: :rolleyes:

Mdawg, my issue with you was never personal. I don't know if you are really wealthy or not, or if so how wealthy and I don't care. I don't know if you are an attorney or not (but your behavior on forums doesn't seem like that of an attorney). I don't care if you are a high end Rolex watch salesman or rep as some have suggested. I don't even care if you are a gambler, who loses more than he win (which is now obvious).

My only concern was that your accounts of all the winning defied the mathematics of gambling and the way Las Vegas and the casino industry works. And it has only grown 100 times worse as time has gone on.

As far as I am concerned this is over. On forums like this you don't even attempt to continue to talk about your great adventure any longer. You just troll. At WoV where my concerns originated, the "adventure thread" has now turned into more or less a misc thread. You still occasionally try to work in some account of your play, but you get no reaction or response. So I am satisfied that whatever threat I felt you were, you no longer are.

You can keep trolling me and probably will. But it changes nothing about me, what I am, nor you and what you are. It isn't going to bring your credibility back.

I would prefer you pivot and share what you should have all along the winning and losing of a higher end player focused on comps. That is a good topic that many of us would enjoy and you are in fact a good writer, which is obviously an interest since you own a forum for and about writers.

Good luck to you.

---

The longer your essays, the more lies you can't help yourself from telling. You ABSOLUTELY ARE affected by the idea that Mdawg has all these assets, because as a failed low-level gambler who's big mistake in life was moving to LV, only to end up perpetually sharing expenses with mommy and baby bro, he quite simply makes you feel like the small nobody you really know you are.

"So the first post contains only pictures, 19 of them, containing piles of cash on the bed, chips, markers, watches and jewelry, pictures of a high-end suite. All meant to impress. But why? Why is it so important to this guy to impress everyone?"

It's easy: he wants to irritate the living shit out of you, and he has 100% succeeded in doing so.

BTW, no one "sent you a PM" today. That's a loser's way of satisfying your craving to continue lying about someone else AND YOUR PATHETIC SELF and continually trying to convince others of your twisted views. Blaming your rant on receipt of a "PM" is nothing but chickenshit mental illness.