Thread: Britian requires ID cards for foreigners

Crocket, I give you a lot of credit for being so patient. Unfortunately, that isn't the only troll online right now.

I give a thumbs up also...My patience would have expired by now.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I hope that I can defend myself without fanning the flames, so here goes:

I offered some specific citations of law and professional commentary in support of my posts to gauge the response of this poster, who I know to be a troll I have encountered countless times. His standard modus operandi is to bog down sites with endless demands of "proof" or of citation of case law. What the troll has done consistently on other sites it to demand such citations and then either dismiss them out of hand for some superfluous reason or to move directly to another "challenge" without admitting that the cited material invalidates his claim. In other words, he refuses to address the cites when they are accurately provided or else makes absurd challenges to the cites themselves by claiming they do not mean what they patently say. In this manner, he may derail a thread or threads for dozens of pages or so bog down a given poster with his harangues as to make it impossible for them to post without his assault and endless superfluous demands. This has been evident by his bird-dogging me through several threads while failing to once address the subject for which this cite was created.

The evidence that this poster is the troll Strother Martin is that he has followed his pattern precisely, down to the point of being able to regurgitate minutiae from earlier posts yet allegedly not being able to locate a single of the several evidenciary cites that have been provided. Understand? He does not want to debate. He wants to upend any meaningful discussion with his tried and true ploy of making endless demands over consequential and inconsequential points alike. I provided the demanded evidence in several cases, not because I thought it would satisfy this troll, but because I knew that it would satisfy reasonable readers and, more importantly, because I KNEW that this troll would follow the typical Strother Martin MO and either pretend to have not seen the cites, which could not possibly have been missed, or to somehow attempt to summarily dismiss them with zero contrary evidence. In so doing, he has confirmed his identity. For that reason, I will accept no additional challenges from this troll or his other personae and sock puppets. Having stated this position unambiguously, I will consider any additional harangues and false claims by this troll to be personal attacks and will treat them as such.

If any real member of this site has specific questions about any information I have provided anywhere on this site I will, as always, provide as much substantiation or additional information as you may require. I will not, however, enable a notorious troll who has employed this gambit to disrupt innumerable sites.

What a CROCKet.

1. You say: "I offered some specific citations of law and professional commentary in support of my posts to gauge the response of this poster who I know to be a troll I have encountered countless times."

You cited to a UCC section that existed in number only, for there is indeed a section 1-103, but instead of citing the actual language, as I demonstrated with a cite to Cornell Law School, you cut-and-pasted ENTIRELY (and I mean ENTIRELY) different language, right down to the typo of "complimentary" instead of the proper "complementary", which is the precise typo seen among the identically false language acribed to this UCC section by the fringe rightwing sites which also ENTIRELY change the language to this section.

And you cut and pasted a generic, pedestrian, and irrelevant definition of "duress" -- which you cut and pasted without any reasonable explanation of what it was supposed to address. Understandable! It was truly a non sequitur.

It didn't even have an specifically identifiable author.

And that's it. A counterfeit citation to your ENTIRELY made up UCC section. And a completely stray and irrelevant definition of "duress."

You now SAY you provided "some specific citations of law" and "professional commentary" -- what ever that is.

But you don't actually tell us what you said or where you supposedly said it, do you? Of course not. Beyond the laughable "cites" I've addressed above, you offered nothing, Ghost.

Not a citation to a single case to any court, federal or state, anywhere in the land.

Not to a single law review article from the millions available.

Not to a single legal treatise, like AmJur, CJS or the ALRs.

Not to a single hornbook.

Not to a single respected jurist. There's precious little more to cite to in law, and you've managed to not find a shred of anything in it you could use.

And that's because, Ghost, you've made up your entire discussion on this matter. It's false. And it's wrong. And it's deceptive.

2. "The evidence that this poster is the troll Strother Martin is that he has followed his pattern precisely, down to the point of being able to regurgitate minutiae from earlier posts yet allegedly not being able to locate a single of the several evidenciary cites that have been provided. Understand? He does not want to debate. He wants to upend any meaningful discussion with his tried and true ploy of making endless demands over consequential and inconsequential points alike."

I have no idea why you're convinced I'm this Strother Martin. I am not. I have no idea who you are, and we've never encountered each other anywhere. Perhaps you can provide a cite to this make believe person?

Second, I did not "upend an meaningful discussion". Your discussion was devoid of any legitimate meaning. Which I demonstrated by showing your serial inability to cite to anything in law in support of what you were saying.

More importantly, you've made this person up, this person you define as someone who "insists" that you simply cite your authority, beyond the typing of your fingers, when you're called on.

Reason?

You so define a troll as someone who insists that you source your disputed claims precisely because you intend it as a chilling device. Any time I or anyone else calls you on your unsupported crap, Ghost, you hope to be able to point to such a rudimentary and expected aspect of debate as evidence of "trolldom", thereby hoping to excuse your utter inability to back up a thing you say with something other than what you say.

You seek to label anyone as a "troll" who calls you on your unsupported typing only because you evidently want to keep typing unsupported stuff. That's not the stuff of debate, Ghost. Let your ideas rise or fall on the demonstrable legitimacy of your claims, not because you think you get a free pass to just type whatever you want and escape having to support it by something legitimate existing in the world outside your skull.

3. You say: "I provided the demanded evidence in several cases[.]"

No, you didn't. Not a single shred of caselaw, no law review article, casenote, or comment. Not a single legal treatise, no respected jurist. Nothing. Nothing but a completely manufactured re-working of the ENTIRE UCC section you'd cited, and an irrelevant cut and paste of a definition of "duress" which even came without the name of an author. That's not the provision of "the demanded evidence." That's dishonesty.

4. You say: "because I KNEW that this troll would follow the typical Strother Martin MO and either pretend to have not seen the cites, which could not possibly have been missed, or to somehow attempt to summarily dismiss them with zero contrary evidence."

Again I'm no more this Strother Martin caricature you've conjured than I am you.

I didn't "pretend" to have not seen the cites. You didn't provide them.

If your supposed cites truly "could not possibly have been missed," why don't you embarrass the heck out of me and show me where they are?

That's such a good question, I'll re-pose it: Ghost, if your citations of the "demanded evidence" really "could not possibly have been missed," why don't you completely "face" me by pointing them out?

You won't thusly try to embarrass me, solely because you cannot. You SAY you provided the cites, but SAYING something obviously doesn't make it true.

No more than you SAY I'm this Strother Martin.

No more than your SAYING someone's a troll merely because he points up your initial failure to back up what you say with supporting cites, and simply because he continues to illustrate your abject failure to support what you say when he points out the ENTIRELY fraudulent nature of your one cite (which you cut and pasted off a rightwing fringe site) and the banal irrelevancy of your dictionary definition of "duress," and your continued inability to substantiate your claims, even as you expound upon them more, again so citeless as to be "blind."

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, I give you a lot of credit for being so patient. Unfortunately, that isn't the only troll online right now.

I've been trying to follow the conversation between Crocket & Bama, and can't see any reason why Bama is called a troll. This is the other topics news and issues section, is this not set up to discuss non immigration related issues ??? Dixie didn't you move the Lou Dobbs : no impeachment thread not to this section because it was non immigration related ?
I talk on 2 issues on these boards, politics & illegal immigration, both are linked to each other. The current immigration crisis is a result of selfish politicians. Bama & Crocket spend a lot of time discussing, these 2 are both honest and determined.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

What a CROCKet.

1. You say: "I offered some specific citations of law and professional commentary in support of my posts to gauge the response of this poster who I know to be a troll I have encountered countless times. You cited to a UCC section that existed, there is indeed a section 1-103, but instead of citing the actual language, as I demonstrated with a cite to Cornell Law School, you cut-and-pasted ENTIRELY (and I mean ENTIRELY) different language, right down to the typo of "complimentary" instead of the proper "complementary", which is a typo seen on the fringe rightwing cites that also ENTIRELY change the language to this section."

And you cut and pasted a generic, pedestrian, and irrelevant definition of "duress" -- which you cut and pasted without any reasonable explanation of what it was supposed to address. It was truly a non sequitur.

It didn't even have an specifically identifiable author.

And that's it. A counterfeit citation to your ENTIRELY made up UCC section. And a completely stray and irrelevant definition of "duress."

You now SAY you provided "some specific citations of law" and "professional commentary" -- what ever that is.

But you don't actually tell us what you said or where you supposedly said it, do you? Of course not. Beyond the laughable "cites" I've addressed above, you offered nothing, Ghost.

Not a citation to a single case to any court, federal or state, anywhere in the land.

Not to a single law review article from the millions available.

Not to a single legal treatise, like AmJur, CJS or the ALRs.

Not to a single hornbook.

Not to a single respected jurist. There's precious little more to cite to in law, and you've managed to not find a shred of anything in it you could use.

And that's because, Ghost, you've made up your entire discussion on this matter. It's false. And it's wrong. And it's deceptive.

2. "The evidence that this poster is the troll Strother Martin is that he has followed his pattern precisely, down to the point of being able to regurgitate minutiae from earlier posts yet allegedly not being able to locate a single of the several evidenciary cites that have been provided. Understand? He does not want to debate. He wants to upend any meaningful discussion with his tried and true ploy of making endless demands over consequential and inconsequential points alike."

I have no idea why you're convinced I'm this Strother Martin. I am not. I have no idea who you are and we've never encountered each other anywhere. Perhaps you can provide a cite to this make believe person?

Second, I did not "upend an meaningful discussion". Your discussion was devoid of any legitimate meaning. Which I demonstrated by showing your serial inability to cite to anything in law in support of what you were saying.

More importantly, you've made this person up, this person you define as someone who "insists" that you simply cite your authority, beyond the typing of your fingers, when you're called on someone.

Reason?

You so define a troll as someone who insists that you source your disputed claims precisely because you intend it as a chilling device. Any time I or anyone else calls you on your unsupported crap, Ghost, you hope to be able to point to such a rudimentary and expected aspect of debate as evidence of "trolldom", thereby hoping to excuse your utter inability to back up a thing you say with something other than what you say.

You seek to label anyone as a "troll" who calls you on your unsupported typing only because you evidently want to keep typing unsupported stuff. That's not the stuff of debate, Ghost. Let your ideas rise or fall on the legitimacy of your claims, not because you think you get a free pass to just type whatever you want and escape having to support it by something legitimate existing in the world outside your skull.

3. You say: "I provided the demanded evidence in several cases[.]"

No, you didn't. Not a single shred of caselaw, no law review article, casenote, or comment. Not a single legal treatise, no respected jurist. Nothing. Nothing but a completely manufactured re-working of the ENTIRE UCC section you'd cited, and an irrelevant cut and paste of a definition of "duress" which even came without the name of an author. That's not the provision of "the demanded evidence." That's dishonesty.

4. You say: "because I KNEW that this troll would follow the typical Strother Martin MO and either pretend to have not seen the cites, which could not possibly have been missed, or to somehow attempt to summarily dismiss them with zero contrary evidence."

Again I'm no more this Strother Martin caricature you've conjured than I am you.

I didn't "pretend" to have not seen the cites. You didn't provide them.

If your supposed cites truly "could not possibly have been missed," why don't you embarrass the heck out of me and show me where they are?

That's such a good question, I'll re-pose it: Ghost, if your citations of the "demanded evidence" really "could not possibly have been missed," why don't you completely "face" me by pointing them out?

You won't thusly try to embarrass me, solely because you cannot. You SAY you provided the cites, but SAYING something obviously doesn't make it true.

Nor more than you SAY I'm this Strother Martin.

Nor more than your SAYING someone's a troll merely because he points up your initial failure to back up what you say with supporting cites, and simply because he continues to illustrate your abject failure to support what you say when he points out the ENTIRELY fraudulent nature of your one cite (which you cut and pasted off a rightwing fringe site) and the banal irrelevancy of your dictionary definition of "duress," and your continued inability to substantiate your claims, even as you expound upon them more, again so citeless as to be "blind."

BAMA
feel better now? Good.

Have you taken the time to dig into the archives so that you can better understand the situation we face with Illegal Aliens? So that you are able to understand the far reaching ramifications on every aspect of American life from education to medical.

You made mention of big business {paraphrazed} and you will find a great well of information concerning the benefits of slave/Illegal workers to the global business entities as well as the negative effects on American wages and American society.

Looking forward to your first post on the issue that you declared brought you to ALIPAC.........Immigration and ILLEGAL ALIENS.
{you're tetering on the ledge of CROCKdom yourself or hadn't you noticed?}

Originally Posted by cassie

Dixie didn't you move the Lou Dobbs : no impeachment thread not to this section because it was non immigration related ?

Nope

Dixie

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, I give you a lot of credit for being so patient. Unfortunately, that isn't the only troll online right now.

I've been trying to follow the conversation between Crocket & Bama, and can't see any reason why Bama is called a troll. This is the other topics news and issues section, is this not set up to discuss non immigration related issues ??? Dixie didn't you move the Lou Dobbs : no impeachment thread not to this section because it was non immigration related ?
I talk on 2 issues on these boards, politics & illegal immigration, both are linked to each other. The current immigration crisis is a result of selfish politicians. Bama & Crocket spend a lot of time discussing, these 2 are both honest and determined.

When a person continually stalks one person and constantly irritates someone, he/she qualifies as a troll. Bama needs to find some other friends.

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, I give you a lot of credit for being so patient. Unfortunately, that isn't the only troll online right now.

I've been trying to follow the conversation between Crocket & Bama, and can't see any reason why Bama is called a troll. This is the other topics news and issues section, is this not set up to discuss non immigration related issues ??? Dixie didn't you move the Lou Dobbs : no impeachment thread not to this section because it was non immigration related ?
I talk on 2 issues on these boards, politics & illegal immigration, both are linked to each other. The current immigration crisis is a result of selfish politicians. Bama & Crocket spend a lot of time discussing, these 2 are both honest and determined.

When a person continually stalks one person and constantly irritates someone, he/she qualifies as a troll. Bama needs to find some other friends.

Be prepared to see a lot of "cassie" interjecting herself into conversations in defense of Bama, if you understand what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, I give you a lot of credit for being so patient. Unfortunately, that isn't the only troll online right now.

I've been trying to follow the conversation between Crocket & Bama, and can't see any reason why Bama is called a troll. This is the other topics news and issues section, is this not set up to discuss non immigration related issues ??? Dixie didn't you move the Lou Dobbs : no impeachment thread not to this section because it was non immigration related ?
I talk on 2 issues on these boards, politics & illegal immigration, both are linked to each other. The current immigration crisis is a result of selfish politicians. Bama & Crocket spend a lot of time discussing, these 2 are both honest and determined.

When a person continually stalks one person and constantly irritates someone, he/she qualifies as a troll. Bama needs to find some other friends.

A troll is a person that deliberately tries to disrupt the discussion of the main issue ( illegal immigration ) of a forum. If Bama wrote all he's done so far in another section of this forum, I will agree with you. Yet, he's only written off topic in the off topic section. It's up to Crocket to respond or not. It's true that this conversation distracts other posters away from the illegal immigration crisis, but I think we can learn a lot from Crocket and Bama, they both seem to be very smart to me. I had to look up many difficult words they use, and I'm learning from them. Education is your friend

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by Neese

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by Neese

Crocket, I give you a lot of credit for being so patient. Unfortunately, that isn't the only troll online right now.

I've been trying to follow the conversation between Crocket & Bama, and can't see any reason why Bama is called a troll. This is the other topics news and issues section, is this not set up to discuss non immigration related issues ??? Dixie didn't you move the Lou Dobbs : no impeachment thread not to this section because it was non immigration related ?
I talk on 2 issues on these boards, politics & illegal immigration, both are linked to each other. The current immigration crisis is a result of selfish politicians. Bama & Crocket spend a lot of time discussing, these 2 are both honest and determined.

When a person continually stalks one person and constantly irritates someone, he/she qualifies as a troll. Bama needs to find some other friends.

A troll is a person that deliberately tries to disrupt the discussion of the main issue ( illegal immigration ) of a forum. If Bama wrote all he's done so far in another section of this forum, I will agree with you. Yet, he's only written off topic in the off topic section. It's up to Crocket to respond or not. It's true that this conversation distracts other posters away from the illegal immigration crisis, but I think we can learn a lot from Crocket and Bama, they both seem to be very smart to me. I had to look up many difficult words they use, and I'm learning from them. Education is your friend

"Cassie," does your twin by any chance go by the nickname of "lovey"?