"Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Burnaby49 »

Background: this post is actually a continuation of a discussion on the Nanaimo Three thread but since it does not involve that topic but instead covers the Chief I moved it here. Link to that discussion is:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9388&start=180

Beautiful fall day, sunny and warm, perfect time for a walk down our last real "neighborhood" street, Commercial Drive, so I wandered over to Joe's Cafe and met the Chief. Turns out we'd met before, or at least seen each other. He recognized me from Bernard Yankson's hearing last week. I recalled him being there, the row ahead of me. He seems a friendly personable guy, knew who I was but no issues with a potentially hostile Quatloos blogger sitting in on his session. Joe's is a two storefront cafe with a longitudinal dividing wall. The cafe is on the right with an equal sized essentially empty room on the left that can be used for parties, functions, and cafe overflow on busy days. The Chief had reserved this room for his talk. A bit of nostalgia, the Chief had two books with him. One was the law of contracts. The second was Smythe & Soberman's "The Law and Business Administration In Canada". That was my textbook for commercial/contract law at the University of British Columbia in 1968! As Mattie Ross says in the penultimate sentence of True Grit "Time just gets away from us".

While my description of events is fragmentary and disorganized I'm giving two excuses. Firstly, that is how it went. Digressions abounded and personal pet peeves kept things generally off topic. The Chief moderated with a light hand so things tended to go in all directions. Secondly I didn't take notes so I've probably already forgotten most of the various side-issues.

Chief said his sessions usually ran for five hours, I stayed for three. Ten of us in attendance. On introductions I told them I was Burnaby49. a poster on Quatloos. Nobody seemed to care. The moderator from Global F.A.C.T. Radio show that Mowe linked was there and there was a Dave who I think was David Smith from the program. Actually, apart from one guy, a far more laid-back group than I expected. The hyper guy was somewhat obsessed about some police confrontation from a few years ago that he couldn't let go. Seems like most of them had police issues, largely relating to no drivers licenses or insurance, but considered them really just background noise. Not hyper guy, still very much a live issue with him.

The purported theme was contracts and how a knowledge of contract law could give you an advantage in court but the discussion kept going down other rabbit-holes. One guy's focus was the Dragon Family and the SWISSINDO trust. One woman was a David Wynne Millerite so words loomed big in her world-view (it's all in the syntax). She had an almost obsessive parsing of the meaning of words, actually a common theme for the group. The chief tried to steer her away from Miller digressions but with limited success, she was constantly cutting in with definitions. She was also obsessed by our Motor Vehicles Branch and their death grip on the right to drive through drivers license. She said that she did not sign a contract to adhere to the Motor Vehicles Act when she got her license so the act doesn't apply to her. Since I was there as an observer I didn't get involved in these discussions, including the salient point that statutory acts do not require contractual acquiescence. She also followed the common belief (I don't know if it is part of Millerism, Hendrickson's CrackHeads live by it) that the word "includes" actually means "excludes everything but". She said that since the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that an accident "includes" intentional collision then "of course" only intentional collisions are considered to be accidents under the act. Nobody else seemed to have the slightest interest in Miller so that kind of fizzled out.

Another woman was there because the only contract she had was with "the Divine" and she was trying to find a way to get her kids out of the slavery pact they were parties to by contracting with the state through birth certificates.

Words, and parsing their meanings, had a very large part in the discussion. Apparently pretty much any word that we think we understand now has a secret meaning apart from the apparent ones. The Chief explained to me that this was why he relied on old dictionaries. In the past words had their true meanings and were defined correctly before the powers that be obscured them. So old (and new) editions of Black's Law Dictionary played a significant part of their lives. One participant had just got an app for the latest edition and everybody wanted a copy. Convoluted wrangling about the true meaning of every word spoken in court and how you could bog down proceedings with objections that you didn't understand the actual words used.

So three hours of largely going around in circles without a true focus. More a chat group than a seminar; with hints and strategies how to contract out of anything that you didn't want to be invoved in (those pesky debts, criminal charges, that kind of thing). Also a lot of chit-chat about unilateral contracts, how you could impose fee schedules on police, debt collectors, etc. Chief had a story about putting signs in his car windows saying if anyone gave him a parking ticket this was an agreement they owed him a big fee. One paticipant, I think the Millerite, advised that you could get rid of police by telling them you refused to contract with them. Chief was also big on not giving authorities your name; you do that they Gotcha! All pretty much standard stuff we've seen before.We took a break towards the end of the third hour and I had one of Joe's sandwiches for a late lunch. A lot bigger than I expected and pretty much knocked me out. So I bailed at the start of the fourth hour and went home for a nap.

The participants also took up a good chunk of the time swapping war stories about this traffic stop or that run-in with the police. The Chief actually had very sensible advice on that point. To paraphrase, when you've got a bunch of guys with guns getting excited about your actions don't argue or escalate. Focus on your real response later. The quote below is from one of the Chief's comments from the Nanaimo Three thread and if he had any theme in his session it was argue all you want but be civil.
No, this is just a contract talk and verbal war zone. We will get into how to conduct yourself orally and get them to do some exercises. To many dont know how to address people or be civil. This is what i press upon everyone, be civil no one is your enemy so no need to be upset. I mean how do you expect to get result or anything if your pissed off and angry or considering everyone your opponent in life ?
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Burnaby49 »

An apology to our Millerite! I just remembered another relevant comment she made. In my previous post I wrote:
Seems like most of them had police issues, largely relating to no drivers licenses or insurance, but considered them really just background noise
However our David Wynne Miller discipline said specifically during the meeting that the two spellings of license, license and licence denoted entirely different legal meanings. This seemingly casual spelling issue is apparently critical in respect to which one you use in what context. Unfortunately the conversation was sidetracked elsewhere before she could explain the differences.

Now I'm just a lazy kind of guy who uses words loosely and had no idea about the importance of C vs S. I sort of assumed it was just a case of American vs British usage as the obviously corrupt mainstream sources would lull us into believing. The generally accepted cover story behind the two spellings (Quoted from Wikipedia) is:
The verb license or grant license means to give permission. The noun license (American English) or licence (British English,[1] Indian English,[2] Canadian English,[3] Australian English,[4] New Zealand English,[5] South African English[6]) refers to that permission as well as to the document recording that permission.
But now I've been caught short. To start with I've used the American version rather than the Canadian/British usage although I'm a Canadian commenting about a meeting in Vancouver. Why? Have I unknowingly defected to the American side? Even worse, if we go past the smoke-screen of American/British spelling to the true issue, the real definitions of the two differently spelled words, I have to confess I have no idea what I posted. As an obvious dupe of the powers-that-be I am totally ignorant of the real meanings of licenc/se. It's so confusing.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

Thanks Burnaby49 for the input and observations they are always welcome. I do not think it is fair, or a good way to carry ones self, when you treat ppl in a poor fashion no matter what role they wish to play. I treat folks good no matter what, so i welcomed you as i would anyone, even thoe Mowe doesnt seem to think we would be able to sit and have a beer :D . Im more than willing to come sit and chit chat.

Yes, this session ended up becoming a more laid back kinda talk instead of seminar. I think my quick post and not giving my usual crowd more time to plan around the day made it a much smaller group. The group usually has a 15-30 average, we were close but i just kept it kinda laid back. Near the end we did end up doing more role playing and court scenarios, police encounters. They enjoyed it but most fell under pressure, even thoe, we were not even in an official court setting. I normally have a power point ready with videos and other materials and talk talk. This was more of me questioning them on what they know somewhat.I felt just sitting, talking and gather an idea of where they were in their minds of what a contract is. Most didnt know, most had a slight idea but i could tell no one reads the books i recommend them to read.

I do my best to not allow people to carry the focus away from what we are trying to talk about. The hyper guy, he was obsessed with bringing up his wars, anger and thoughts on how police treat everyone. I gave him some examples of the same scenarios that didnt end up like his stories, due to the fact that, the ppl were civil and respectful the full way no matter if the police ended up becoming belligerent. My advice always is, to NOT approach any official who works in public as an enemy, not to have hate in their heart for a complete stranger. To have a good mind :)

Anyways, sometimes the advice falls on deaf ears but a few have mentioned, this approach has gotten them much better results than the latter. All n all, session went well, nothing to big of a deal to bring up other than, we really should have gotten on the role playing earlier. The verbal battles didnt take place but i will hold more session where i can place a more rigid process to follow. You always welcome to come out and observe again if you so choose. Yes i do not like David Wynn Miller, i dont feel he is a man of any real integrity/value that i would waste any of my time studying or following. I was in Hawaii asking as many as i could if they heard of him. I think out of 100, maybe 1 said i think i have, but it was very vague.

Oh i forgot to speak on this following,

I was speaking about contracting for your time. I value my time very much and if someone wishes to take up my time, i will stipulate the terms, for the use of MY time. So, i am of this thought or idea when it comes to contracting. If you do not agree to the terms, go take up someone else's time. I like to keep it pretty simple in this regard. The Notice on the car for parking was done with another fellow who recorded the parking guy pacing back and forth unsure of what to do exactly. Taking pictures with his personal phone and his parking ticket camera as well. After about 10mins of this, i guess he was advised to just give the ticket. Same kinda scenario but the guy who was pacing just walked away from the car. Another ticket guys spoke with another gentlemen for the same notice kinda notice. Ticket guy says, im not giving you the ticket, i dont wanna be liable for something like that and im totally unsure what it means but it looks official. I, input this part in cause i forgot to mention this.

The notice on the cars, mainly just says,-- This is private property, placing any negotiable instrument Ie. parking tickets and the like on the private property will constitute an agreement in the amounts of, 1000.00(i think their amounts were more) due and owing forthwith. Do not place any tickets or the like on the private property without prior consent. Do not place ticket on car if you do not agree with terms and stipulations of placing one on the private conveyance. Do not tow this private conveyance without proper consent to do so, from the right party. Doing so, will constitute a liability to the agent and company, jointly and severally in the amounts of, $2000.00. Do not tow the private conveyance if you do not agree with the terms, as they are so stipulated.

I havent read all of them but this is the idea of what is written. its not exactly but its kinda something they wrote, probably not as well written but still, close. I think if its MY property, why am I not allowed to stipulate certain terms in regards to MY property? Regardless if its my time, my car, my house etc...for me, its what i choose the value to be, i dont feel some stranger can interject and tell me what i should charge. No ones stipulates a price control over coffee, if i had a shop and wished to charge 40 bucks a cup ? its up to the consumer who wishes to purchase the cup, as long as my prices are posted. :snicker:

Anyways
Ta ta for now. Please, can we keep the childish comments to another thread. Its kinda boring to see grown men post up high school insults that wont have any real affect other than :roll: lol
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

oh and btw, do not forget to check out my music, album is for sale atm.

http://www.soundcloud.com/chiefrock2k9

http://www.chiefrockmusic.com
Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Dai Kiwi »

If I wanted to take up a few lines I'd post the entire OED 2nd edition entries, just because I love reading all the quotes and seeing the history of the orthography of English in all its variant wonder. However, the two entries come to 3600 words, so perhaps not. They are obviously in on the conspiracy though :) . To quote from the preface to licence:
licence, n.

(ˈlaɪsəns)

Forms: 4–6 li-, lycens, 4–7 lycence, 5–6 lysence, -ens, (6 laysance, lysans, -aunce, Sc. lecens, 7 licience), 5–9 license, 4– licence.

[a. F. licence, ad. L. licentia, f. licēre to be lawful. Cf. Sp. licencia, Pg. licença, It. licenza.
   The spelling license, though still often met with, has no justification in the case of the n. In the case of the vb., on the other hand, although the spelling licence is etymologically unobjectionable, license is supported by the analogy of the rule universally adopted in the similar pairs of related words, practice n., practise vb., prophecy n., prophesy vb. (The rule seems to have arisen from imitation of the spelling of pairs like advice n., advise vb., which expresses a phonetic distinction of historical origin.) A slight argument for preferring the s form in the vb. may be found in the existence of the derivatives licensable and licensure (U.S.) which could not conveniently be spelt otherwise.
Johnson and Todd give only the form license both for the n. and the vb., but the spelling of their quots. conforms, with one exception, to the rule above referred to, which is recognized by Smart (1836), and seems to represent the now prevailing usage. Late 19th-c. Dicts., however, almost universally have license both for n. and vb., either without alternative or in the first place.]


I wonder if the reliance of OPCAs on old [i.e. free online?] editions of dictionaries, etc may have given rise to some of their ...issues... regarding these two words, especially if combined with US vs Commonwealth use, and a lack of understanding about the noun/verb rule.

Dai Kiwi
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Burnaby49 »

I own the original 12 volume Oxford English Dictionary (published in installments between 1879 and 1928, first published as a single set 1933) and the four supplements updating it to the mid 1980s. They take up a huge amount of bookcase real estate. However for everyday use I refer to the two volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Dai Kiwi
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:06 am
Location: An Island South of the Equator

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Dai Kiwi »

Several times over the years I was tempted to buy the 'Compact OED' when it turned up in second hand bookshops - the one with the magnifying glass to read the 2-point high text. Back in 1996(?) a copy of the Shorter OED came free on one UK computer magazine's cover-CD and I happily used it for years. Unfortunately it point-blank refused to run on Windows 7, so I decided to get the OED 2nd Edition on CD (v4.0), which includes the updates to about 2002. Very reasonably priced too.

Reading dictionaries is almost as much fun as reading encyclopaedias - I can spend hours just jumping from one entry to another - I'm warped that way.

Dai Kiwi
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Burnaby49 »

I've been asked to ask the Chief, by undisclosed parties, if he intends to file a response to the petition of the British Columbia Society of Notaries. Apparently they've not seen anything yet.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

Here is my new blog i started, thought i would get into the game of blogging. Seems fun, i like it so far.
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/201 ... from-here/
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/201 ... -thoughts/

My first two entries, thought i would give you gents something to follow and read.

Burnaby49, i would file a response if in-fact there was any real substance to their claims. I am unaware of any Notary Seals that show Sino General as a Notary nor and witnesses who can step forward and say for 100% under oath i am a notary. NOBODY, so, would you reply to a frivolous claim that is outrageous ? Not sure if Ron wishes to wanna drag me into court, i do not fear their system nor do i recognize it in anyways as being valid.

So, in short lol, no i dont plan on replying, its all hearsay and if that is all their replying upon,im sure a racists justice or master will grant them whatever they are seeking but an injunction is nothing more than a fraudulent piece of paper that has no real legal effect upon me or my person i use.

Injunction - injunction (n.) early 15c., from Late Latin injunctionem (nominative injunctio) "a command," noun of action from past participle stem of Latin injungere "impose," literally "attach to" (see enjoin). BTW- Impose, means to practice deceit.
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/201 ... njunction/
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/command/

Interesting, when i see exclusive authority, makes me ask, who granted that and may i see evidence of such ? Like really, its not only racists but its ignorant, that a white european lawyer and judge,master whatever thinks they can impose their will upon my people, why should we listen ? So yes this is my short answer LOL :snicker:
Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 8235
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Burnaby49 »

Chief, a couple of hints;

1 - Make the print larger. Font is so tiny I can't comfortably read it. Made even worse by item in next complaint.

2 - White text on a black background is hard to read at the best of times. Hard on my eyes and I have to stop reading after a short while. Combine this with miniscule font size and it is beyond me. I tried reading your "Idle No More" commentary but it was so much work just making the individual words out that I gave up.

Good luck on that last song!
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

Thanks, good points, i will looking into it...mmmm :thinking:

OK, its changed, i like this design much better :whistle:
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7618
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by wserra »

Aw, he's selling trading cards.

Image

Tap two forests, and it generates page after page of incomprehensible text.

And look! John Travolta!

Image

Stayin' alive, stayin' alive, ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' aliiiiiiive.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7557
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by The Observer »

Chief2k13 wrote:BTW- Impose, means to practice deceit.
Oh, boy, more word magic:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by LordEd »

Translation: he doesn't understand reality so just go ahead with the summary judgement.

The complaint isn't valid, so I won't bother replying. Even if it was, the court is not valid. Even if it was, nobody can claim it was me. Even if they could, I don't recognize the definition of "me". Even if I did, the judge is racist. Even if he/she isn't, the words don't apply to me.

Chewbacca defense anyone?
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

Translation: he doesn't understand reality so just go ahead with the summary judgement.
Bahahahaha, You are funny :snicker: , make me laugh out loud. Please define reality please? Clearly we dont have the same views obviously, i dont know what background you come from but observing your words, it would appear as you may come from Europe.
The complaint isn't valid, so I won't bother replying.
Would you, if it wasnt?
Even if it was, the court is not valid.
There can never be a was, as in it never could be ever, so there is no or never will be a was :beatinghorse:
Even if it was, nobody can claim it was me. Even if they could, I don't recognize the definition of "me".
Read the above for was. Can you please define me? :|
Even if I did, the judge is racist. Even if he/she isn't, the words don't apply to me.
Are you trying to make it seem as White judges who pass down orders/commands from a European Court is not Racists? or there isn't no form of racism ? Again, there can never not be a racist judge/justice etc..etc.. If these Folks who sworn an Oath to Her Majesty, you trying to say again they dont claim to be Superior or have some supreme authority on foreign lands that were never ceded or sold or contracted out, all lands in North America are occupied by force of an Army, by force period. I can only assume Lord feels entitled to be on our lands as it appears he wishes to make claim to these lands as his now as well ?

I guess if i took over someones giant house and kept them in the basement food cellar, rented out the house and lived there for free completely free. After a few hundred years i could have convinced myself im entitled to be there as many of my family grew up and in this stolen house, where the owners stay and dont come up ever cause they get shot or beat if they do or raped by our priest who are there to show them GOD. :twisted: Yes... That is the ticket Lord, lets just merely wipe the table clear and say, Case law stipulates this and that, case law of Canada say this and therefore we are right !!! We Win our Judges whom work for the Queen says they dont believe we have a valid claim. Also, there is absolutley no conflict of interest of any kind, nope not a shred.

Our European courts are not only run by white guys who work for the Queen but the guys in Parliament are European as well and believe themselves to be superior over all other races and believe they own 100% of these lands, these are Canadian lands, that is why our Land Survey act only shows NWT and a few reservations as Canada or the Queens lands.
Definition of “Canada Lands”

24. (1) In this Part, “Canada Lands” means

(a) any lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or of which the Government of Canada has power to dispose that are situated in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut or in any National Park of Canada and any lands that are

(i) surrendered lands or a reserve, as those expressions are defined in the Indian Act, other than reserve lands described in regulations made under section 4.1 of the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act,

(ii) Category IA land or Category IA-N land, as defined in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, chapter 18 of the Statutes of Canada, 1984,

(iii) Sechelt lands, as defined in the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada, 1986,

(iv) settlement land, as defined in the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, and lands in which an interest is transferred or recognized under section 21 of that Act,

(v) lands in the Kanesatake Mohawk interim land base, as defined in the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, other than the lands known as Doncaster Reserve No. 17, or

(vi) Tlicho lands, as defined in section 2 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act; and

(b) any lands under water belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or in respect of any rights in which the Government of Canada has power to dispose.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... 3.html#h-7
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

Sometimes i wonder why i even bother, its like trying to teach math to a sloth :beatinghorse:
When your from a race that always believes themselves to be entitled, there is no point in showing them or speaking to them that stealing is stealing, killing millions of people so you can occupy their land and benefit from their resources, doesnt make it yours, its still property of or under their rule and laws. Is there or will there ever be a time people will see this ?
Reminds me of this story here
A white man and an elderly Native man became pretty good friends, so the white guy decided to ask him: “What do you think about Indian mascots?” The Native elder responded, “Here’s what you’ve got to understand. When you look at black people, you see ghosts of all the slavery and the rapes and the hangings and the chains. When you look at Jews, you see ghosts of all those bodies piled up in death camps. And those ghosts keep you trying to do the right thing. “But when you look at us you don’t see the ghosts of the little babies with their heads smashed in by rifle butts at the Big Hole, or the old folks dying by the side of the trail on the way to Oklahoma while their families cried and tried to make them comfortable, or the dead mothers at Wounded Knee or the little kids at Sand Creek who were shot for target practice. You don’t see any ghosts at all. “Instead you see casinos and drunks and junk cars and shacks. “Well, we see those ghosts. And they make our hearts sad and they hurt our little children. And when we try to say something, you tell us, ‘Get over it. This is America. Look at the American dream.’ But as long as you’re calling us Redskins and doing tomahawk chops, we can’t look at the American dream, because those things remind us that we are not real human beings to you. And when people aren’t humans, you can turn them into slaves or kill six million of them or shoot them down with Hotchkiss guns and throw them into mass graves at Wounded Knee. “No, we’re not looking at the American dream. And why should we? We still haven’t woken up from the American nightmare.
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by LordEd »

The complaint isn't valid, so I won't bother replying.
Would you, if it wasnt?
Yes, because it isn't valid. If a claim is made, it needs to be countered. Just like freemanism. Easily argued against and dismissed.
Can you please define me? :|
No, because there's no point. Freemen will never understand pronouns or clearly-spoken language. Self-induced/willing schizophrenia.

If you haven't figured out "I" or "me" by now, you need to go back to school or find yourself a caregiver to help you cope.

Since you don't want to classify as a person, I classify you and your kind as part of the turnip family (or "of the family turnip" if you prefer). You also retain the rights that turnips are permitted, which I believe include being partially buried and being part of a salad. You don't have to consent to being a turnip, but i'll classify
Chief2k13 wrote:When your from a race that
As soon as you have no argument, you pull the race card. Freemanism is equally invalid regardless of age, race, gender, or personal preferences.
Chief2k13
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by Chief2k13 »

who says im a man, or a freemen or freeman at that, where in anything i post have i made such a claim, its rejected and wont be addressed again. Your insults dont bother me, i just wish to be clear im not one nor will ever claim to be one.

This wouldnt happen to the word your attempting to use is it ?
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/freeman/

I -nominative form of the first person singular pronoun
Me- oblique form of the personal pronoun of the first person singular

Thought it was understood im not a person ? So, how could there be a first person? or any at that if im not one ? :snicker:

Sure, race cards are great because in law or in English language Racism means one race who believes themselves superior over another. You tell me this isnt the position of a European Judge? If the shoe fits...kinda thing
rogfulton
Caveat Venditor
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:08 am
Location: No longer behind the satellite dish, second door along - in fact, not even in the same building.

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by rogfulton »

Chief2k13 wrote:who says im a man, or a freemen or freeman at that, where in anything i post have i made such a claim, its rejected and wont be addressed again. Your insults dont bother me, i just wish to be clear im not one nor will ever claim to be one.

This wouldnt happen to the word your attempting to use is it ?
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/freeman/

I -nominative form of the first person singular pronoun
Me- oblique form of the personal pronoun of the first person singular

Thought it was understood im not a person ? So, how could there be a first person? or any at that if im not one ? :snicker:

Sure, race cards are great because in law or in English language Racism means one race who believes themselves superior over another. You tell me this isnt the position of a European Judge? If the shoe fits...kinda thing
Wish I had grabbed the link to the Troll sign picture. It would seem to come in handy here, considering the word's Internet related meaning.
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
LordEd
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: "Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

Post by LordEd »

I want to take that in for a minute. Pronouns don't apply because you are not a "person", so "first person, 3rd person" don't apply...

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

"Freeman", being the casual form of "Freeman-On-the-Land nutbar". Refers to somebody believing they are a non-person. Consider the term "freeman" to be a pronoun referring to the noun in the "non-person"

Your arguments are to claim you are in a superior position than others. Laws that apply to "everyone" do not apply to you. And you are doing so based on race. So by your own definition, you (as in the one using the keyboard to post words for the quatloos account chief2k13) are the racist.