🐮 Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

It can't be Marshall because MARSHALL has a beard! He isn't "clean shaven".





This is another prime example of how you can't isolate facts and circumstances to make a proper conclusion. You make these sweeping observations and miss the point, all the time.

I typed "You're the Narcissistic [one]". I left out the word "one" because if I get a phone call, or question, or whatever in the middle of a sentence, while multi-tasking I only thought the word, I forget to type it. I don't give my full focus to what I am typing on KF all the time. That's why, as KarlGrossness always notices, I don't sound "coherent". I leave out words from time to time when I type, because my brain is going faster than my fingers often.

Anyways...

Second, my original statement holds true. I have never once, in almost 600 pages just come out and say to anyone "You are a Narcissist". Me telling SirDukeyALot that "you reveal yourself to be the Narcissist" is EYE FOR EYE. That's not trying to just come out and label anyone a Narcissist.

Now, if I had said "You are a Narcissist" out of nowhere, that is where someone steps over the line between observation and overestimating their credentials.

And how do you know we don't have those credentials? Unlike you, we've got total anonymity, so you can't just say that we don't have qualifications to call you a narcissist

 

[Toasty]

Since we're doing stupid name calling... A certain Coyote who is away from the internet today has requested that I tell Melinda that @Rafal Gan Ganowicz says you're a whore. So, @TamarYaelBatYah, you're a whore.
There's my favor to Raf done for the day.

 

[SloberrinJ]

You're not helping. You are forgetting that *proper nouns* are capitalized in English. There are about 30 reasons a word will be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. I have Grammar books, I know. I also have taught the subject of proper nouns several times to my own children and in a Homeschool Co-op.

Also, one thing a lot of people don't know or remember is that the word "the" is capitalized in Honorable Titles and in book titles. Its not "the Messiah", its "The Messiah". Its not "the Torah", its "The Torah".






Ok, let me show you the FACTS:

Case 1: Cyberstalking (2016) DISMISSED because: Criminal statute, civilian can't file

Case 2: Recovery of Child Support (2016) DISMISSED because: Did not reach $75,000 threshold

Case 3: Constitutional violations by CPS (2017) DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity
*First in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table

Case 4: Constitutional violations by VA DMAS (2018) DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Case 4: Fair Housing violations by landlord (2018) DISMISSED because: Rule 5.2

Case 5: Scott v Moon (Defamation) (2018) DISMISSED because: "Rhetoric hyperbole"

Case 6: Scott v Moon (Tort) (2018) DISMISSED because: CDA 230 Immunity

Case 7: Scott v Moon (Injunction) (2017) DISMISSED because: Prosecutor implies Victim's rights
*First in the Fourth district to invoke this law

Case 8: Scott v Carlson (Video Copyright) (2018) DISMISSED because: No registration of copyright
*This case was the first in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table

Case 9: ?


Case 10: Pending


Okay, so if you look:

--My cases in 2016, I was really "green" and new on this stuff. I made very basic errors like filing amount statutes and not filing using a criminal statute.

--My cases in 2017 and 2018 had *3* cases where there was no case law to refer to, the judge was setting new precedents. I knocked on their door and asked and got their rulings down for those particular laws.

--The others that fall under "failure to state a claim" were for DIFFERENT reasons in DIFFERENT areas of law. "Failure to state a claim" is a broad term that can mean many things. The reasons mine were dismissed were (a) a Rule 5.2 error (b) Eleventh Amendment Immunity issues and (c) "rhetoric hyperbole". Not because I didn't allege facts that I had my constitutional rights violated or proper facts in general.







That's Paul, not The Torah. Your false messiah can say whatever he wants, I don't give a damn.

I really don't care about your homeschooling your children, in fact that frightens me. I'm not going to even waste a single second defending what I absolutely know about grammar to you. I'm not forgetting anything about proper nouns. Rules of grammar are simple and finite, and you don't use them properly. The end.

You didn't read what I wrote. I don't give a flying rat's ass about your cases, but in your, and I'm quoting "Case 5 Scott v Moon" against Josh, stop lying. While you are correct that rhetoric hyperbole is not defamation, the case was in fact dismissed for not making a claim. That was the one I copy/pasted yesterday. Man, you are delusional.

Why didn't you take the three question quiz?

 

[LoverofPi]

This is another prime example of how you can't isolate facts and circumstances to make a proper conclusion. You make these sweeping observations and miss the point, all the time.

I typed "You're the Narcissistic [one]". I left out the word "one" because if I get a phone call, or question, or whatever in the middle of a sentence, while multi-tasking I only thought the word, I forget to type it. I don't give my full focus to what I am typing on KF all the time. That's why, as KarlGrossness always notices, I don't sound "coherent". I leave out words from time to time when I type, because my brain is going faster than my fingers often.

Anyways...

Second, my original statement holds true. I have never once, in almost 600 pages just come out and say to anyone "You are a Narcissist". Me telling SirDukeyALot that "you reveal yourself to be the Narcissist" is EYE FOR EYE. That's not trying to just come out and label anyone a Narcissist.

Now, if I had said "You are a Narcissist" out of nowhere, that is where someone steps over the line between observation and overestimating their credentials.

All of that to just completely miss my point. You're dancing around out and out calling people narcissists- though as CoM, handily points out, you have done so on a few occasions- but that semantic dancing doesn't change that we can clearly see you're what you're trying to imply. You're engaging in games as juvenile as "I'm not touching you" only you're doing them with less finesse than a six year old might.

Anyways, have you dropped your ridiculous DNA claims, or can we look forward to a philosophy paper about quantum particles and genetics soon?

 

[Karl der Grosse]

All of that to just completely miss my point. You're dancing around out and out calling people narcissists- though as CoM, handily points out, you have done so on a few occasions- but that semantic dancing doesn't change that we can clearly see you're what you're trying to imply. You're engaging in games as juvenile as "I'm not touching you" only you're doing them with less finesse than a six year old might.

It's as pathetic and dishonest as when she plays the "Who says I'm Melinda?" game and the "Who says that was Marshall, tee-hee?" game.

 

[SloberrinJ]

"he has suggested that such signals can be detected in the blood of children with autism and that this justifies treating autism with antibiotics."

I knew the dude was into water memory and homeopathy but this is double insane.

There is, however, a point where philosophy and science coincide: logic. Which is where we've come to have modern technology, computers, mechanistic thought, etc. Wittgenstein was the godfather (not capitalized, Melinda), of these theories, he was debunked, then it was picked back up, reworked, put into a washing machine, and now people accept contemporary philosophy as long as it is grounded in logic. As a side note, all search engines are based on Boolean logic. Law is all about logic. Other than poli sci, philosophy is the most common major for students accepted into law school. However, those students study a very specific type of philosophy, it's not even the classics like Aristotle and Plato, it's analytic philosophy MELINDA DO YOU HEAR ME! DO YOU READ ME!

So in my wildest dreams I'm thinking it went something like this in the Appalachian School of Law:

Billy Joe: "What about this young lady, Joe Bob? I mean, we need a couple a more single moms in between husbands, don't we?"

JB:"Yeah, Billy Joe, that's true, She hot? Send a selfie?"

BJ: "She's alright. Let's see. 130 on the LSAT. Must have been asleep or filled in all the answers B. GPA 1.3 from some school I've never heard of. OH BUT HEY! SHE'S A PHILOSOPHY MAJOR!"

JB "Well HELL YEAH THEN LET'S GET ER IN!"

What they didn't realize is that her brand of philosophy is this wacked out Jews for Jesus shite.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Eye for an eye doesn’t excuse you

It sure does! Makes the action moral and legit when its "back in your face" v. someone who has no credentials

POINT A makes all the difference

But I know you Goy can't ever find Point A.

 

[Toasty]

But I know anyone who doesn't agree with me absolutely will ever find a point to whatever pseudoscientific, cultic religious nonsense I'm spewing at the moment. Just now it's being confronted by my actual words, and moving the goal posts, which I also call "Point A". People find it all the time, so I just move it.

Extensively fixed that for you.

 

[Kitsuna]

I feel like I'm losing more and more brain cells the more I read her nonsensical arguments she's actually confident in against facts proven time and time again.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

It sure does! Makes the action moral and legit when its "back in your face" v. someone who has no credentials

POINT A makes all the difference

But I know you Goy can't ever find Point A.

Eye for an eye is the most petty way to exact revenge lmfao, only cavejews and babies follow that logic

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

It sure does! Makes the action moral and legit when its "back in your face" v. someone who has no credentials

POINT A makes all the difference

But I know you Goy can't ever find Point A.

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

It sure does! Makes the action moral and legit when its "back in your face" v. someone who has no credentials

POINT A makes all the difference

But I know you Goy can't ever find Point A.

You lose.
“600 pages and I’ve never called someone a narcissist. Except that one time and it’s an exception. And then all those other times are exempted because I say so and moving goal posts is my specialty.“
You know what you sound eerily similar to?

A Narcissist's Prayer

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.

 

[Toasty]

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."

But but but he says your own people, and neighbor, which I have decided means only the people I SAY IT MEANS. So only people I like.

 

[SloberrinJ]

@TamarYaelBatYah Just a reminder on that little LSAT thingymajig I tagged you on: you really can find that on the Internet, the format that is. But if you are able to complete logic puzzles, it would be a lot faster. I'll give you a hint: absolutes such as all or nothing will either exclude or include. That really is everything about one of them. @AnOminous btw, when I made the comment that all of the answers to the LSAT are on the Internet, I meant, of course all of the answers to each question format are...for each one, for all time, forever, and ever, and ever. Sorry, annoyed and annoying.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

It sure does! Makes the action moral and legit when its "back in your face" v. someone who has no credentials

POINT A makes all the difference

But I know you Goy can't ever find Point A.

What happened to "turn the other cheek?"

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

What happened to "turn the other cheek?"

By "turn the other cheek" she means "forgive me but no I don't have to forgive you piss off"

 

[SloberrinJ]

By "turn the other cheek" she means "forgive me but no I don't have to forgive you piss off"

When Null and the other staff set the reactions up they must have really been cynical, because I really do laugh out loud sometimes, but there isn't a reaction for it.

Andrew reacted with "optimistic" to my post trying to help @TamarYaelBatYah with the LSAT questions, and I'm spending way too much time trying to figure out why. Did it mean he's happy I want her to do it? Does it mean he wants to go to her house and help her? Does it mean he thinks I was slamming another member (I was not).

Andrew @xtamarlover if you want to know my true intent, it is NOT to trap her. I truly want to know if she has either a) the capacity to answer any of the questions or b) the ability to look it up and compare the invented one to an equivalent and equal one that is real on the LSAT from this year. If she can do either of these things, she'll get all of them correct if she does b) and I don't know if she does a). So yes, buddy. Let's see how we do.

This is not a fucking suck up thing here though, Andrew. I am not going to white knight her. I want to get to the bottom of what her delusion is. I know, I know, I've been warned against this. It's pointless and futile. But I'll learn after this, and I'll kkkwwitt it now! A little Rage Against the Machine for the morning wood.

 

[Toasty]

When Null and the other staff set the reactions up they must have really been cynical, because I really do laugh out loud sometimes, but there isn't a reaction for it.

Andrew reacted with "optimistic" to my post trying to help @TamarYaelBatYah with the LSAT questions, and I'm spending way too much time trying to figure out why. Did it mean he's happy I want her to do it? Does it mean he wants to go to her house and help her? Does it mean he thinks I was slamming another member (I was not).

Andrew @xtamarlover if you want to know my true intent, it is NOT to trap her. I truly want to know if she has either a) the capacity to answer any of the questions or b) the ability to look it up and compare the invented one to an equivalent and equal one that is real on the LSAT from this year. If she can do either of these things, she'll get all of them correct if she does b) and I don't know if she does a). So yes, buddy. Let's see how we do.

This is not a fucking suck up thing here though, Andrew. I am not going to white knight her. I want to get to the bottom of what her delusion is. I know, I know, I've been warned against this. It's pointless and futile. But I'll learn after this, and I'll kkkwwitt it now! A little Rage Against the Machine for the morning wood.

It's probably that Andrew thinks that it's optimistic to ever expect a straight answer out of her.

 

[SloberrinJ]

@xtamarlover awww, buddy, you changed your reaction! Just when we were gettin' to be friends! Now, I've seen your type in Melinda, and I've seen your pic. You don't know iffin' I'm a male type or a female type. But if I were to DM you a pic one of these days, and I were a guy, do you go for the Kpop juicy BTS type or are you more of a Belieber? Now if I were a girl, would you be into more of an Ariana Grandesque kinda deal, or would it be more Billie Eyelash? Don't you be gettin' jelly now @TamarYaelBatYah, I'm trynna dumb down my grammar so that I can be on your level. Also, don't really care about Andrew's reaction's. Sorry, baby yods @ForscytheBat I might have a crush, and I think Andrew might have one too!

 

[Toasty]

@xtamarlover awww, buddy, you changed your reaction! Just when we were gettin' to be friends! Now, I've seen your type in Melinda, and I've seen your pic. You don't know iffin' I'm a male type or a female type. But if I were to DM you a pic one of these days, and I were a guy, do you go for the Kpop juicy BTS type or are you more of a Belieber? Now if I were a girl, would you be into more of an Ariana Grandesque kinda deal, or would it be more Billie Eyelash? Don't you be gettin' jelly now @TamarYaelBatYah, I'm trynna dumb down my grammar so that I can be on your level. Also, don't really care about Andrew's reaction's. Sorry, baby yods @ForscytheBat I might have a crush, and I think Andrew might have one too!

You do know that you can talk to him in his own thread right?