A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ADMINS

[wanabfree]

A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ADMINS

This is in response to the deleting of posts, and locking of threads, i have already posted part of this already, but begs to be repeated more formally.

This is just evidence that free speech isn't respected in these freeman forums, despite the claims otherwise and pontificating about acting honourably etc.

Removeing others posts, and Locking off subjects so they can’t be challenged within the thread is quite frankly childish, and also very telling about others real agenda’s running these foums, your trying to promote concepts, as if they are based in fact, when they are not, and should be open to challenge.


Given the posts that have been deleted, whilst leaving in the insults, and accusations against myself, says it all, the purpose of this forum is to promote a concept, a dogma, certanly not truth, those who start their own forums, are the only one’s who can exercise any real freedom, because they can suppress anyone elses views or remove information, that contradicts, and undermines their claims, beliefs and wants.

This goes for the admins, whatever power they, then get given, and can weald over others to suppress their written opinions, they will do so without good grounds, why ?, because they can ?, and it’s all the more repulsive when their clearly taking sides, and protecting their own sycophantic diciples.

This is why forums such as this are loseing credibility, if they had any to begin with, and what turns people away, along with the trouble and problems caused by the flawed, and often fallacious advise being given out.

The admins have not had any real qualms about others making false accusations about others and myself before on this forum, but soon step’s in when it’s seen as just petty bickering, usually when the accusing party is loseing ground,and failing to back up their unfounded statements, essentially giveing them a free pass ?.

If you can’t deal with critisims or a healthy dose of sceptisism, then you’re in the wrong business? and maybe you should reconsider your positions, because once you start down this road of editing others posts, and trying to hide truthfull comments and information, then your behaving no better than the bureaucrats your claiming to be fighting against.

[treeman]

Admin has not deleted ANY POSTS.

[treeman]

Admin has not deleted ANY POSTS.

Please Clarify your claim.

[wanabfree]

Here’s evidence of my complaint, not claim,this isn’t a court room ?, dare i say it your a lier saying no one has deleted posts, at least 2 x of mine have been removed.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=10015&start=10

“Report this postReply with quoteRe: Meet your strawman PDF

by holy vehm » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:58 pm

As the thread has deviated, i shall return it back on track by deleting a few comments that serve no purpose to the original post.”

also the "Birth certificate" tread had all posts removed and was locked ?.

[treeman]

As stated earlier, Admin has not removed any posts.

[wanabfree]

As stated earlier, Admin has not removed any posts.

excuse me ?

so did this post escape your notice ?

this was what was removed, along with some shorted posts, i wasn't born yesterday, so deny it all you like

I see you still can’t help yourself in making childish,and backhanded comments about me can you dreadbrain ?
So i’m a troll ? oh realy, so anybody who dosen’t automatically, without exerciseing the most basic level of sceptisism, or critical thought, is a troll or shill according to people like you, just because you lack any tolerance for anybody refusing to accept your religion.
If you take a position, or belief,and make claims,without first fully identifying the facts, that won’t contradict, and are provable, then your a moron, pure and simple, worse than that, you then become a fundementalists or even an extremist to such beliefs, and go relying upon PDF’s, written by people who are guilty of the same crimes against logic,reason.
My reasoning is based on secular, and evidence based principles, and it’s flexible, and we can change our views based on new evidence justifying so, if we were previously wrong, but your the type of person who refuses to accept anothers view or will ignore evidence contradicting your beliefs, because it dosen’t fit with the way you want the world to be, instead of accepting the evidence showing how things acctually are.
The truth can withstand any attack upon it, and never has to resort to insults or name calling when it needs to be defended, funny for people like you, it’s the first thing you resort to such when your claims get challenged, and then you make it personal, ignoring the issue at hand whilst doing so.
Which is why you’re trying to trick people into ignoring what i had just written, and attempted yet another sophistic argument, based on meritless opinions, and pseudo logical fantasy?
So help those better understand your reasoning, and not fall into the same logical fallacies, you’re so comfortable with, here’s what I think of it:
APPEAL TO DEFINITION*
(Also known as: appeal to the dictionary)
Definition: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time if it’s writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.
Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.
Logical Form:
The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.
Therefore, Y must not be part of X.
Example #1:
Now let's check that word "surname" in law dictionaries:

Black's 1910 2nd Ed
SURNAME. The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism ; the last name ; the name common to all
members of a family.


The name over and above the Christian name? What the hell does that mean? From my experience older dictionaries are better. I wasn't disappointed...

Bouvier's 1856
SURNAME. A name which is added to the christian name, and which, in modern times, have become family names.

Explanation: The dictionary does not settle controversial issues such as Legal defintions—it simply reports the most current accepted definition of the term itself while usually attempting to remain neutral on such controversial issues, further more even legal dictionaries are not regarded as books of authority by the judiciary in practise.
the dictionary is not the final authority on all issues, especially social behavior, and it does not go to prove or even suggest a certain person or group of people are aware of a particular definition, but then are being knowingly decietfull or misleading. More modern usage, especially in a laymans setting, takes precedence in this case.
Exception: The dictionary works well when the term in question is a result of a misunderstanding or ignorance. For example:
Ken: Do you accept “law” is an opinion ?
Paul: No. Because I know for a fact that you can’t jump up and down, and then, tell gravity it’s an opinion ?
Ken: Good Lord.
Tip: Don’t be afraid to challenge or argue with so called authority, providing you have first factually identified the thing/issue in question -- even when that authority is the dictionary.

[wanabfree]

double

[treeman]

A liar you claim, please provide the evidence of this.

[wanabfree]

A liar you claim, please provide the evidence of this.

i just did

[treeman]

That I lied. Where.