Humor
See other Humor Articles
Title: Be a man, try running Liberty Post
Source:
LP
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 12, 2015
Author: Sneakypete and TooConservative
Post Date: 2015-01-12 16:37:59 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 118883
Comments: 263
>> TooConservative-- Before you just shut it down, have you done any tally of results? Just eyeballing it, it looks like tpaine is probably above 60%. >> Sneakypete---- Seems to ME that if TPaine is serious he would quit being a wuss and stand up like a man and say he will accept a 51 percent vote tally by regular posters as a victory and step up to the plate. ----It isn't me that would have to be a man and take all the bullshit... It would be the moderator. And my choice for mod would have been TooConservative, or Sneakypete, or even better, both of you. ----Tell you what, if you two take over mod/tech functions, I'd be willing to put up the money for the first year as the 'owner', and take responsibly for any legal problems we might encounter. >> After all,he has never pretended to be anything other than a Libertarian with a "Big L",and since when have Bil L Libertarians ever demanded a 75 percent vote for anything? -----I've never belonged to the big 'L' party. I consider myself a constitutional libertarian, who votes (mostly) republican. >> In MY mind,if he doesn't man up and and accept ownership if he gets the majority of the votes,he was never serious about it to start with. ---I'll call your bluff. Put up (joining me, as above) or shut up about man-ing up. >> I personally hope this isn't the case because I think all political discussion boards need Big L Libertarian owners/moderators. Anyone else and they just turn into partisan party arms preaching the party line with no dissent allowed. Without dissent there is no discussion. ---Here's your chance to put your man-ing up with your mouth. How bout it?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-135) not displayed.
.
.
.
#136. To: SOSO (#111)
(Edited)
You wuz Spartacus
You seem to have attributed that remark to TC.. --- And in response you posted: ---- I've read them all, and I can't agree that TC is doing all the badgering. SOSO has been doing his best to badger all of us that are being critical of the way the Sysadmin-LP handled the shut down. Dead Culture Watch just asked the crucial question of SOSO. Odds are he won't get much of an answer.
Let's see what you got. Oh, sorry, I didn't know that you represent him and need to speak for him. Shall I cc you on any further of my correspondence to him? But to address your question, does he have direct personal knowledge of the exchanges between sysadim and/or Neil and/or anyone else on the matter? If he does then he may very well be correct. I didn't see were he claimed that he had. First, I admitted right off that I have no such direct knowledge. Second, I am not a lawyer. Third, and most significantly, he made a claim without offering any evidence that he had personal knowledge of the situtation. He is entirely free to express his opinion, which on legal matters may very likely be more informed than mine. That's what I got. I trust it's enough for you. If not, please take it to the bar, take it to the bar.
Why? Yours is the claim that needs to be proven. I made no claim. But I will give you the courtesy of citing that there readily could have been private communications to one or both of them wherein Goldi expressed her wishes. I am certain that this has some legal weight. I see you cannot even create a possible scenario where sysadmin and/or Neil acquired any authority to act. A real or imaginary private communication of Goldi's wishes is not a will. It carries zero legal weight. If Goldi died intestate, as stated by sysadmin, the estate goes to the nearest relative, if one can be found. Absent a living relative, the estate goes to the state. There is no exception in the law that gives the estate, or any part thereof, to someone who claims that the decedent made a private communication expressing something or other to sysadmin. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0732/0732.html (1) Any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in the following sections of this code. (2) The decedent’s death is the event that vests the heirs’ right to the decedent’s intestate property. - - - - - 732.107 Escheat.— (1) When a person dies leaving an estate without being survived by any person entitled to a part of it, that part shall escheat to the state. (2) Property that escheats shall be sold as provided in the Florida Probate Rules and the proceeds paid to the Chief Financial Officer of the state and deposited in the State School Fund. (3) At any time within 10 years after the payment to the Chief Financial Officer, a person claiming to be entitled to the proceeds may reopen the administration to assert entitlement to the proceeds. If no claim is timely asserted, the state’s rights to the proceeds shall become absolute. (4) The Department of Legal Affairs shall represent the state in all proceedings concerning escheated estates. (5)(a) If a person entitled to the proceeds assigns the rights to receive payment to an attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency which is duly licensed to do business in this state pursuant to a written agreement with that person, the Department of Financial Services is authorized to make distribution in accordance with the assignment. (b) Payments made to an attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency shall be promptly deposited into a trust or escrow account which is regularly maintained by the attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency in a financial institution authorized to accept such deposits and located in this state. (c) Distribution by the attorney, Florida-certified public accountant, or private investigative agency to the person entitled to the proceeds shall be made within 10 days following final credit of the deposit into the trust or escrow account at the financial institution, unless a party to the agreement protests the distribution in writing before it is made. (d) The department shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any proceeds distributed pursuant to this subsection, provided such distribution is made in good faith.
I am going to state the applicable law correctly and let the drama queens get the vapors.
No Sir. I know he said that. Which is why I said things he are saying are a reaction. From the first post people have been asking him who he is. Over and over. He doesn't want to tell them. That is fine. If he is some bad dude time will tell. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and see where it goes. Not you specifically, but in general. If people kept asking me the same question I would get annoyed too. Wouldn't you? As far as the shutdown. I was for keeping it open But nolu chan is correct I believe.
:)
Please back that up with posts of mine here on LF that do this. Thank you. I certainly expressed my opinion here that all things consdidered I believed that shutting LP down was the best course of action. I do not recall posting to anyone on LF about the position they expressed on LP. I may have responded to their expression of opinion as they posted that here. If that badgering I will reevaluate the action for future reference.
Good for you.
Chan, if memory serves, the sysadmin posted at least once, early on, that he had NOT had any recent communication with Goldi before her death.
SOSO has been doing his best to badger all of us that are being critical of the way the Sysadmin-LP handled the shut down. It was badgering and you just 'boldly' admitted to it. ( I did the html to bold your lines) ---- Thanks
Canary: "I don't know anything about this Canary cage..." Anyone who posted at LP knows what a Canary is. And you keep telling us how well-known you were at LP and how many posters here at LF know your LP handle. So name them. But you won't, will you?
So you prefer that the state disposed of LP? "I see you cannot even create a possible scenario where sysadmin and/or Neil acquired any authority to act." As I said, I am not a lawyer and will readily defer to one on the matter. But you stated an exception, namely Goldi not being the owner of LP (whatever owner means). As you well know, the one that pays the bills is not always the owner. But I will concede the point to you in all respects. Now I ask you, so what is to been done about it? Who had the legal respopnsiblity for LP upon Goldi's death? If the state, did it immediately step in? What would have been the reasonable time expectation for the state to have marshalled Goldi's estate and deal with LP? Would LP have even shown up in the state's marshalling? Are you going to sue sysadmin and/or Neil? Can tpaine or pericles sue them for wisking away LP from their grasp? Beside the domain name, what assets does/did LP have? There were those of us that wanted our personal information redacted if ownership passed to another person and made this known to sysadmin and/or Neil. Who legally would have been responsible for assuring that happened before ownership of LP changed hands? Who could I have sued if my personal info wasn't redacted as I expressly wished? It seems to me that the old saying applies here, No harm, no foul. But I may be wrong.
First, witless, I never made a claim with respect to being well known or not on LP. Still best to loosen those panties a bit and get some circulation to your brain. Second, witless, I never said how many on LF know, whether that was a lot or a little. But to help you sleep better tonight I will tell you that..............you will never know, at least not from me.
Absolutely. But that's why I've always advocated using just one pseudonym. I've used mine for 18 years, except for when I was playing JR's game at FR for a few months. Could it be some here are playing games now? Thanks for your candor.
I like you dude. But to be honest you have been badgering (SOSO) since his first post. Or close to it.
No thanks. Keep your diseased potty mouth to yourself.
No thanks. Keep your diseased potty mouth to yourself. Give it a rest, witless. You have worn thin.
But I do know who knows. And it is telling you won't just admit who they are either. I can almost hear those cellphones dialing, emails flashing past. Gatlin just happens to show up now, flying wingman for you... It's not a mystery at all.
Like that is going to happen.
Ah, a bit hypocritical you are. Only you have good reason for exception and only you should be unquestioned about it. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't know how many forums you post on over the years but I have only done so one, and that was LP. So I am still monogamous but I am funny that way. Sorry if that is unacceptable to you.
Yes, it is telling about something. Sleep tight, witless.
I believe you had SOSO on bozo once at LP.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Then expsoe me to the world if that will sooth your soul. Over and out.
That wouln't have been nice, would it? Oh well, he is what he is.
Oh no I'm being quoted. You know sometimes when I go back and read some of the stuff I say on here. I'm like what the ..... Why did I say that.
I don't know why you said that, I know TooConservative was becoming desperate at the time. I don’t think human being learn anything without desperation. But then it has always been the nature of TooConservative to appear to be too desperate when
I've always advocated using just one pseudonym. I've used mine for 18 years, except for when I was playing JR's game at FR for a few months. Question away.. Why do you think I care? Do you have a point? Frankly soso, you have me confused with someone who cares about your acceptability..
Question away.. I am not that interested. It is of no weight other than the hypocrisy it reveals about you. "Frankly soso, you have me confused with someone who cares about your acceptability." Then why did you express an opinion about it and accuse me of badgering?
Domains expire.
I stated no personal preference. I stated what the law says must be done. As one preference though, I would prefer that the site not go into the hands of a robber or felon or anyone with a Federal Bureau of Prisons Number. If Goldi was not the owner at her death, then someone else was. I have no indication that anyone else was the owner at the time of Goldi's death. Nobody else ever claimed to be the owner and Goldi was listed as the registrant until a change was made at the end of December. Responsibility passed to the state of Florida for Goldi's estate. They work on attempting to find a will, trying to identify relatives near or distant, and identify all assets and dispose of them as stated in the law. 69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349764 On December 21, sysadmin advised that, http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349764&Disp=73#C73 On December 22, sysadmin advised, So, more than five weeks after Goldi's body was discovered, sysadmin reports that the case is in the hands of the Major Cases Unit and the cause of death has not yet been determined. The Major Cases Unit does not usually investigate death from natural causes for five weeks. The authorities found the cat. They should find Liberty Post with little effort. As for how fast the state stepped in, maybe they stepped in immediately. What is the Major Cases Unit investigating? Maybe they want to watch and investigate something before going all public. For what? I have not been damaged. Neither has tpaine or Pericles either. They only "lost" an opportunity to buy from sysadmin something that could not legally be sold. Even the state of Florida must expend a certain amount of time trying to locate relatives. And we could all still attend the auction. LP is not a legal entity and has no assets. Goldi had assets which now belong to the estate of Goldi which include the archive of LP. All of it, including PM and E-mail. The state of Florida would be responsible since Goldi's death. However, the Major Cases Unit might consider the non-public information to be evidence in an investigation. "The decedent’s death is the event that vests the heirs’ right to the decedent’s intestate property." "When a person dies leaving an estate without being survived by any person entitled to a part of it, that part shall escheat to the state." "Property that escheats shall be sold as provided in the Florida Probate Rules and the proceeds paid to the Chief Financial Officer of the state and deposited in the State School Fund." Beats me. I suppose you could ask the state of Florida authorities to take custody of it and protect it. The Major Case Unit is not usually called in on no harm, no foul cases and still have them five weeks after the body is found. Why was the Major Case Unit called in?
And "Property that escheats shall be sold as provided in the Florida Probate Rules and the proceeds paid to the Chief Financial Officer of the state and deposited in the State School Fund."
Are expired domains property under the Florida Probate Rules? Don't assume your premise.
Here is what I find. http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349764&Disp=2#C2 Thank you. Unfortunately I am at the age where this kind of thing has become all too common. It's still a shock, I spoke to her on the phone not long before she passed and there was no indication that her health problems were so severe. sysadmin posted on 2014-12-21 19:20:21 ET http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349764&Disp=29#C29 Unfortunate if so. I have not seen Goldi in person since she moved years ago. I assumed that she had developed a circle of friends and people to hang out with in her new environs, but perhaps that was not the case. (She never really talked much about her personal life.) sysadmin posted on 2014-12-21 23:40:52 ET
I did not assume that it was, or was not, expired. It was not expired when Goldi died and it passed to the custody of the state of Florida. You are free to volunteer to explain to the state of Florida how Panama became involved. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349905 Title: Where do we go from here? Post Date: 2015-01-02 14:57:10 by sysadmin It seems sysadmin decided not to wait until the estate was probated. He decided to act before the state of Florida could.
Not if they have been expropriated and renewed.
He decided to act before the state of Florida could. You assume that Florida could act before it expired. You also assume that it would bother. Don't think so.
When has the state of Florida ever "expropriated and renewed" a privately held domain name?
LP went dark last year when Goldi forgot to renew the DNS name. I recorded it and it expired at 12:01 today, 1/15/15. My intent was to remind her (which I did for sysadmin a week or so ago when my calendar app reminded me. sysadmin renewed it under his own name unless he had some other entity he could transfer it to.
It seems sysadmin decided not to wait until the estate was probated. He decided to act before the state of Florida could. Wait for what? Should he have kept the forum operational while waiting to hear from the state of Florida? Should he have left the site unmoderated, and subject to lawsuits so the state of Florida could inherit a copyright infringement case as a defendant as part of Sally's estate? Should he keep footing monthly bills from the host provider waiting for the State of Florida to reimburse him? Should he have let the domain name expire so the State of Florida could grab it up? Should he have shut down the web site, like he did? What act did he do that is so terrible? What, pray tell, would you have done in SysAdmin's place? Please enlighten us!
Comments (176 - 263) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#137. To: A K A Stone, all (#127)
(Edited)
SOSO posted --- Your dementia is showing. Perhaps you should relax your panties.
I like you dude. But to be honest you have been badgering him since his first post. Or close to it. ------- So if anyone came in here and read the conversations from the beginning. They would agree.
#138. To: Dead Culture Watch (#131)
Maybe you should discuss EXACTLY how nolu chan was incorrect in his legal discussion on the matter of LP.
#139. To: SOSO (#102)
It is impossible that they had authority.
"I'm more than willing to hear how it is possible. "
732.101 Intestate estate.—
#140. To: Fred Mertz (#112)
So WTF are you going to do about it? drama queen?
#141. To: tpaine (#137)
You seem to have attributed that remark to TC.. --- And in response you posted: ----
#142. To: nolu chan (#140)
I am going to state the applicable law correctly and let the drama queens get the vapors.
#143. To: tpaine, A K A Stone, all (#137)
SOSO has been doing his best to badger all of us that are being critical of the way the Sysadmin-LP handled the shut down.
#144. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#140)
I am going to state the applicable law correctly and let the drama queens get the vapors.
#145. To: nolu chan (#139)
Yours is the claim that needs to be proven. I made no claim. But I will give you the courtesy of citing that there readily could have been private communications to one or both of them wherein Goldi expressed her wishes. I am certain that this has some legal weight.
#146. To: SOSO (#143)
Please back that up with posts of mine here on LF that do this. Thank you. -- - I certainly expressed my opinion here that all things consdidered I believed that shutting LP down was the best course of action. I do not recall posting to anyone on LF about the position they expressed on LP. I may have responded to their expression of opinion as they posted that here. If that badgering I will reevaluate the action for future reference.
#147. To: SOSO (#130)
What is this persistent reference to canary cage and canaries? Obviously I missed the memo.
#148. To: nolu chan, tpaine, pericles (#139)
Absent a living relative, the estate goes to the state.
#149. To: TooConservative (#147)
And you keep telling us how well-known you were at LP and how many posters here at LF know your LP handle.
#150. To: A K A Stone (#141)
If people kept asking me the same question I would get annoyed too. Wouldn't you?
As far as the shutdown. I was for keeping it open But nolu chan is correct I believe.
#151. To: TooConservative, SOSO, A K A Stone, Devil Anse (#147)
(Edited)
What is this persistent reference to canary cage and canaries? Obviously I missed the memo.
Canary: "I don't know anything about this Canary cage..."
Anyone who posted at LP knows what a Canary is.
And you keep telling us how well-known you were at LP and how many posters here at LF know your LP handle. So name them.
But you won't, will you?
So if anyone came in here and read the conversations from the beginning.
They would agree. It seems like anything he said is a reaction.
I don't give a crap who he was at LP. I don't care if you two were enemies at LP. This is a different place.
A K A Stone posted on 2015-01-14 22:30:46 ET
#152. To: SOSO (#122)
Man, you really are in need of a blow job more than any white man in history.
#153. To: TooConservative (#152)
Man, you really are in need of a blow job more than any white man in history.
#154. To: SOSO (#149)
But to help you sleep better tonight I will tell you that..............you will never know, at least not from me.
#155. To: SOSO (#153)
#156. To: tpaine (#150)
I've used mine for 18 years, except for........
#157. To: TooConservative (#154)
But I do know who knows. And it is telling you won't just admit who they are either.
#158. To: TooConservative (#154)
#159. To: TooConservative (#154)
It's not a mystery at all.
#160. To: redleghunter (#158)
I believe you had SOSO on bozo once at LP.
#161. To: Spartacus (#151)
#162. To: A K A Stone (#161)
Desperation is a necessary ingredient to learning anything or creating anything
If you ain’t desperate at some point, you ain’t interesting ~ Jim Carrey
things don't go his way or he cannot get the answer he wants.
#163. To: SOSO (#156)
Ah, a bit hypocritical you are. Only you have good reason for exception and only you should be unquestioned about it.
I don't know how many forums you post on over the years but I have only done so one, and that was LP.
So I am still monogamous but I am funny that way. Sorry if that is unacceptable to you.
#164. To: tpaine (#163)
Ah, a bit hypocritical you are. Only you have good reason for exception and only you should be unquestioned about it.
#165. To: nolu chan (#139)
Property that escheats shall be sold as provided in the Florida Probate Rules
#166. To: SOSO, tpaine, Pericles, TooConservative (#148)
So you prefer that the state disposed of LP?
But you stated an exception, namely Goldi not being the owner of LP (whatever owner means). As you well know, the one that pays the bills is not always the owner.
Who had the legal respopnsiblity for LP upon Goldi's death? If the state, did it immediately step in? What would have been the reasonable time expectation for the state to have marshalled Goldi's estate and deal with LP? Would LP have even shown up in the state's marshalling?
UPS packages were piling up in front of her condo, so the management called police on November 13th to check on her. She was found deceased inside her condo unit.
Goldi's case is in the hands of the "Major Cases Unit" at the sheriff's office which has been attempting unsuccessfully to find next-of-kin. The body is with the Medical Examiner's office and the actual cause of death has not yet been determined.
Are you going to sue sysadmin and/or Neil? Can tpaine or pericles sue them for wisking away LP from their grasp?
Beside the domain name, what assets does/did LP have?
There were those of us that wanted our personal information redacted if ownership passed to another person and made this known to sysadmin and/or Neil. Who legally would have been responsible for assuring that happened before ownership of LP changed hands?
Who could I have sued if my personal info wasn't redacted as I expressly wished?
It seems to me that the old saying applies here, No harm, no foul. But I may be wrong.
#167. To: Palmdale (#165)
Domains expire.
#168. To: nolu chan (#167)
And "Property that escheats shall be sold as provided in the Florida Probate Rules and the proceeds paid to the Chief Financial Officer of the state and deposited in the State School Fund."
#169. To: tpaine (#145)
Chan, if memory serves, the sysadmin posted at least once, early on, that he had NOT had any recent communication with Goldi before her death.
#2. To: Dead Culture Watch (#1)
#29. To: domer (#28)
From the post on this thread it appears that she was alone at the end.
#170. To: Palmdale (#168)
(Edited)
Are expired domains property under the Florida Probate Rules?
With the new year upon us I suppose it is time now to discuss where LP is going from here. We do need to bear in mind that anything we decide is contingent on the site not being taken over as part of Goldi's estate. Although very unlikely, it is something that should be kept in mind.
#171. To: Palmdale (#165)
Domains expire.
#172. To: nolu chan (#170)
I did not assume that it was, or was not, expired...
#173. To: TooConservative (#171)
Not if they have been expropriated and renewed.
#174. To: nolu chan (#170)
I did not assume that it was, or was not, expired. It was not expired when Goldi died and it passed to the custody of the state of Florida.
#175. To: nolu chan (#170)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]