Capitalist Producers vs. The Vocals - A court case

**The Plaintiff rises, hears the ruling and sits back down.**

 

The Plaintiff wonders when Kaputer's schedule will allow him to get back with us...

 

It's hard to recollect my state of mind on some things from three years ago.

However here I was able to reconstruct what occurred. At the time the region was being accused of sanctioning a raid, on another region, and someone came over to report it thinking that to be fact. Quickly I was being hounded with TG's and CP was in a spotlight. For the health of the region that post one was not respectful to someone trying to alert us of a raid being acted on in our name, and the appearance of the region.

 

Ok, let me direct you to a later post in that same thread.

This post, linked here, http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=3287798 , reads as follows:

The Minister of Bad Behavior of Capitalist Producers
3 years 13 days ago

To Femdom empire public relations,

First off we need to get something straight. The next words you read are solely my own and may not represent the thoughts and intentions of the management, elected representatives or other nations in this region.

Now then, what's the deal with you coming in here with your bad all on, making demands for answers and stuff? That's a great way to find yourself the subject of some hands on education in manners, crated up in a used grog barrel and shipped back home on via the next truck heading in that general direction.

You got a problem, come in here and ask about it. One of our elected representatives will be happy to help you out with it. You come in here acting like Imelda Marcos shopping for shoes and the response may not be so helpful. (The patience displayed by others dealing with you is amazing.)

Your statement about working for the Toronto District Attorney's office is a complete load of crap. If your statement were true, you would know the correct term for that office on both the city and provincial levels. That one fact alone places everything else you've said in question. Are you lying about anything else?

As for the substance of your claim, an assault by an American committed in Canada is indeed a Canadian only affair. The United States only plays a part if and when Canada seeks extradition. Anyone with more then two days inside a large northern border court system would know that.

As far as I know, Capitalist Paradise has no extradition arrangements with anyone. Afforess can chime in here and correct me if I am wrong on that one.

Lastly, we alone decide who and who is not ejected and/or banned. If you got a beef with these folks, you had better be prepared to present evidence that will stand up in our courts. We are not going to pitch someone out the door just because someone shows up here with their nose out of joint. (They'd have thrown me out years ago if that were true.)

So, consider this an independent swat on your nose. It is hoped that you take the life lesson from it and stop acting like some self important little twit.

We now return you to your official communiqués.

(No wonder I don't run for office here...)​

First plaintiff would like to thank you for allowing this post to stand at the time. With that thought in mind, can you explain why this far more hostile post was allowed to remain while the post by Gunshows was suppressed?

 

Once again trying to get me to comment on my state of mind from three years ago is a bit of a stretch. However reading over RMB post from back then shows that Gunshow's response was a standard stereotypical joke about women's sole job being to please the man. Your response actually highlighted a few areas as to where the original poster was wrong. You can also see where I made a similar post along the lines of we are happy to hear the report that people are falsely making a claim that CP raided them, but then admonishing the poster for demanding actions by the regional government. A hostile post is not necessarily against the rules, a post that relies on a tired and overused joke that really isn't that funny to piss of women at the time wasn't very respectful posting. And founder's intent in both constitutions gave some leeway there to the delegate to decide.

Also I should note your "No wonder I don't run for office here" maybe the Vocals should have taken that into consideration, but alas we don't stretch three years back into RMB posts.

 

Thank you Kaputer.

I move that last sentence be stricken form the record as irrelevant.

Next I call Fastercat to the stand.

 

Motion to strike is denied.

 

Thank you your honor.

 

Good afternoon Your Honors.

 

Fastercat, thank you for making yourself available. Have you kept up with the testimony so far?

 

Yes, I have been following very closely.

 

Referring back to the chain of posts from Femdom empire public relations:
— Do you recall your response[1] was to Gunshow's complaints about having his two "sammich" posts suppressed?[2]
— Do you still agree with the sentiment?
— If you were the delegate at the time would you suppress either of both of Gunshow's suppressed posts?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region_rmb/region=capitalist_paradise?start=9000

The 18 Billion S O B's of FASTERCAT
3 years 18 days ago

@ Gunshows^^ I'm with ya Brother. I thought it was hilarious!​

[2]
http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region_rmb/region=capitalist_paradise?start=9000

The Republic of Gunshows
3 years 18 days ago

I'm wondering why my 2 lighthearted non-vulgar non-rules-breaking comments were oppressed by the delegate.

Panageadom
3 years 18 days ago

Because it was incredibly tactless and therefore irrespectful.

CP, as indicated before, I agree.

The Republic of Gunshows
3 years 18 days ago

I see. So, freedom of speech is really more subjective to taste than paramount? Btw, irrespectful is not a word. Irrespective is, but has a whole different meaning than you intended.
Interesting. Another nation indicates a violent swat at anothers nose in the same conversation, I am now wondering if violent language is now condoned(?) (Not that in this instance I would personally disagree with it).​

 

Yes, I do recall the Femdom episode in general. Specific comments, no.
Yes, I think it's funny.
Absolutely not.

 

Let me refer you back in the trial to the end of Nation of Quebec's testimony. The plaintiff made reference to two these two recent posts on the RMB:

This is the first post:

Yes it is. It goes up and down and all around. In fact, right now the earth is not near as warm as it was in 1250 A.D. and 1100 B.C.[1][2]

But, as you pointed out, there are many questions to be answered. Penn Jillette said it best with words to the effect of:

— If global warming is real, and so far with all the garbage surrounding the research into the subject no one has really proved or disproved it.
— And if man is causing it, and so far there is even no credible evidence to that effect.
— And if we can do something to stop or slow it, you can push a truck and start it rolling down the hill, but you cannot get in front of that truck and stop it.

Then, and only then should their be laws restricting the freedoms of the people in this country. That includes the freedom to drive the car they choose, get energy produced by coal fired plants and even buy incandescent light bulbs. Until all of those conditions are met, government needs to butt out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
[2] Got to wonder how the earth got that freakin' hot without all those nasty industrial and carbon emissions. Must have been all those ancient warriors using those SUV's and tour busses to travel back and forth between their armorers and the battlefields. Or was it just that metric-boatload of horses and donkeys people were using as their primary mode of transportation?

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=19437821​

This is the Second post:

So... You provide two citations, one of which is from a single climatologist who claims he is "one of the top 10 climatologists in the world" without any evidence whatsoever, works for an independent weather station in middle of fking nowhere, Idaho, who cites BIBLICAL PROPHESY http://weather-and-bible-prophecy.myshopify.com/ and has also said the government is secretly spraying us with chemicals. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tag/cliff-harris/

Maybe you should do some research before you cite someone else's research?

The other is your own snide comment. Good work. I'm amazed you aren't working for NASA as a climatologist.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=19438195​

In those two posts, Nation of Quebec dislikes the first post by the Plaintiff and loves the reply by The Unstoppable Force of Kainesia.

Of those two posts, using your own judgement, could you give the court your thoughts on which post is less respectful and why?

 

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Outwardly, in my personal opinion the post by Kanesia would be the less respectful.
I also think one needs to consider the strength of the attachment global warming/climate change adherents have to their cause. In this case (in the eyes of Kainesia and possibly Nation of Quebec) you have dealt an insult to their religion, provoking an ugly backlash.

 

Ok. Next I would like to direct you to the posts "Anonymous" complained about. Rather then post their entire text, I'll provide you with the links.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=17743600
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=17653337
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=17733438

Please take a moment to read through them and see if you can find a violation of the "all of x is bad" rule. And can you see anything in those posts that warrant a reprimand or any collective action from government?

 

No, not directly. And politically speaking I agree with your sentiments.
My son likes to taunt his little sister. I can see him in the rear view mirror pinching her and of course she's screaming bloody murder. So I tell him to cut it out and explain to him the error of his ways. I give him a reprimand. A few minutes later, a repeat screams of bloody murder. Now he's just acting like he is going to pinch her. When we get home, his mother issues a moderate but attention getting smack to mini-mes padded backside. Even though the pinching might seem worse than the mock pinching, the continued aggravation warranted collective action.

 

But we are dealing with people somewhat older than what you witnessed in your back seat, are we not?

 

Yes, but the analogy is accurate.

 

So to clarify, there were no violations of the standards set forth in the Constitution of this region?