|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : The Trailer Park
|
About The Trailer Park:
This section is for comments that get a little carried
away. When comments become flames, they are transferred
to this area. If you wish to continue the threads posted
here, feel free, but the content will stay in the Trailer
Park.
(More on the Trailer Park)
|
To Sue the Family? | from ystwisted - August 27, 2003
accessed 3828 times This Article is not in the Trailer Park. Go To Article |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from challenger
January 17, 2005 - This comment is in the main site
| from Joe H
September 8, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | |  From Benz
Monday, September 15, 2003, 22:18
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
ceehiro (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Nancy
September 3, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | from Just a Thought
September 2, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | from Ne Oublie
August 30, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | from Wolf
August 30, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | from frmrjoyish
August 30, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | from Maniac
August 30, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | from Spat
August 29, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Eaglebleeds
Thursday, September 04, 2003, 00:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all "Eaglebleeds" has nothing to do with a cult. It just so happened that they made a song with that title. That point has already been explained by someone else furthur down. Second, I`ve used this Nickname for over 6 years. Why change it now. What they do has nothing to do with me. I love Eagles and always have. They represent freedom and my breakaway from my past. But in truth, the past is the past and I have to deal with it daily, and so "bleeds". Get it, Nancy? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From excuse me?
Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you referring to "Eaglebleeds"? It seems that you are nit-picking just for the sake of nit-picking. For one, if you are speaking of "Eaglebleeds", that is certainly not a cult name, in fact quite the opposite, since the cult usually shunned anything that even remotely symbolized anything American, which the Eagle certainly does. Secondly, who are you to say what someone calls themselves? If you want to throw out the use of anything TF ever used...that really cuts out a lot of things. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Uncle Yohosofat
Thursday, September 04, 2003, 12:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Son, when you justify yourself your own mouth condemns you. You need to go and pray about why you would choose such an evil name, and I don't want you back here until you are really repentant. I got a check that it was like a talisman, and an open door for that evil Family spirit to come right in like a flood. TTL for the faithful fighters who stood in the gap and rebuked that name back to the FTT hell it came from.
Let's listen to what the Vandari have to say about Eaglebleeds.
Vandari speaking: The message within this demonic name is so clear. E-gull-bleed-s. The "E" is the beginning of EVIL, my god, how more obvious can you get? "Gull" is a large noisy bird, always swooping down and pecking things. Is that what you want to be son? "Bleed" is what we the Vandari do, and it's just like the Family to try to imitate the Vandari to deceive and blind the TRUE believers. "S" is just like a snake, and while we do like snakes, we do not like this one in particular.
There you have it, straight from the Vandari themselves. Time to get desperate son. Can I get a "amen"? That's better. ILY. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Eaglebleeds
Thursday, September 04, 2003, 21:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Uncle Yohosofat,
It`s touching that you`ve got love for me. But frankly, I don`t agree or like your advice because your channel is the same channel that tells you it`s ok to abuse others sexually and mentally, manipulate others, give bad advice and twist scriptures. If you don`t like my name it don`t matter to me. I like it and that`s good enough. You can continue trying to get me to change but it be a waste of your time. Also, you don`t really care, you just need something to pickon to make yourself feel better. So I`m betting you`ll let it go and wait for something new.
Why don`t you try getting something about yourself from Vandari. That`ll show who you`re really listening too.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Thursday, September 04, 2003, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hold on a minute Nancy. Wolf and Nick are not pinheads. Nick seems to have issues with Liberals, among other things, and Wolf seems to be a little passive aggressive, but neither of these young men are stupid. They are both highly intelligent and usually articulate and certainly entitled to their own views. Mosquito buzzing? What does that even mean? Why do the flame wars start so easily over nothing? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Thursday, September 04, 2003, 16:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
They do such a good pinhead impression that it's nearly impossible not to mistake them for pinheads. Wolf is always running off at the mouth with some profanity and ranting about sex. Nick might as well move to Montana, take a second wife and start stock-piling weapons. I can just picture him in a stand off with the feds. "You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands. I have rights! Come and get me!" Then, Wolf yells from behind the shed, "You federal agents can't get me cause I have sex. I have it all the time." More buzzing! Just makes one want to swat at them. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, September 04, 2003, 23:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you as blind as you are stupid? Look at the comment below. What name do you read?
You don't know the first thing about freedom of speech and religion. I bet you've never even read a court opinion or an actual statute, either federal or state. You just think your regurgitated over-rated opinions which use such big terms as freedom of religion make you a "professional." Well, honey, from someone who is a licensed professional, you make me laugh.
You don't know what "this country allows" you. Your "good old fashion values" aren't the law of the land. Go educate yourself on what your civil rights and Constitutional freedoms and legal remedies actually are, then come back, and we'll talk. Maybe then, I'll actually take you seriously, as I have a hell of a lot of respect for ex-culties that have actually made something of themselves, educated themselves and know what the hell they're talking about. There are a few around here. But, you sir are no John Kennedy.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Friday, September 05, 2003, 16:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
You wouldn't know "objective laws" if they hit you in the face. The only insult around here is you and your little cult-boys total lack of education and knowledge of our country and the laws upon which it was built. You claim to have the common sense enough to figure it out on your own. Yet, one would think that common sense would guild you to learn, not just assume. How do you know "the goal of our forefathers?" Even using such a term is absurd! There was no one unitary "goal." Our so called "forefathers," as you call them, had drastically differing views, which are little understood today and certainly cannot be identified so inanely as one single "goal."
Ever studied American history? Ever studied political science? The law? Can you even name one of those "forefathers" or articulate one of his theories or political ideals, beyond your meager terms such as "freedom of religion" which you toss around with little understanding of which you speak? I didn't think so. But, you're a great example of a closed minded, uneducated, diluted cult kid! Gold star! Further, your opinion of my comparatively extensive education is of no account. Go on believing whatever you chose. I will go on teaching graduate school and practicing law and studying. You may successfully reach death in your current state of ignorance. Some socio-economically disadvantaged people have done it. You wouldn't be the first. You may be one of the first to do so, however, with no one giving a damn, though.
Further, I acknowledge there are hundreds of thousands of valid, yet differing opinions to those of my own. I spent three years in law school where I was never once the most intelligent or educated person in the room. Yet, you Spat, are not one of those people. Your opinions are of no account on issues such as the law because they are based on ignorance. You might be qualified to clean a facility of higher education at this point, but you're certainly not qualified to debate issues taught in those facilities. You must learn a subject BEFORE you form your opinion. Otherwise, your opinion is worthless and a waste of people's time. Now, excuse me, but I have much better things to do.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Spat
Friday, September 05, 2003, 17:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
1st I’m amazed by the arrogance you display in automatically assuming I have never attended a “facility of higher education”, do you know me? Or do you just pass judgment and sentence on individuals without any prior knowledge of the facts.
What gives you the right to assume I’m not your equal?
I do not even attempt to contend that I have your understanding of the law (which I find twisted), but does that make me a “little cult-boy” with a “total lack of education and knowledge of our country”.
Does not studying law make me unable to have an opinion?
Is my voice not meant to be heard until after law school?
Do I have to get a law degree in order for my vote to count?
Does my choice of education (Computer sciences and Statistics) condemn me to an opinionless existence?
I believe I have a right to expression as a mere human regardless of my education, background and religion. I have a right to be heard, you might disagree but you cannot suppress that right.
Furthermore I’m horrified to hear you teach, the only thing you could teach is hate. I thought people like you only existed in history books back in the 8th grade when I read about the inquisition, but I guess I was wrong.Being that we all have a right to think as we chose, it is your right to believe you posses the ultimate truth. I will acquiescent that but I will maintain my right to believe you are full of shit (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Tuesday, September 09, 2003, 04:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thought about your comment: "What gives you the right to assume I'm not your equal?" This is my reply.
I have the right to assume whatever I like. Regarding whether or not you are my equal, I would have to ask, based on what criteria? With regards to human equality, of course you are. With regards to life experience, maybe, probably. Not considering such terms as formal accomplishment, I think you very well may be. I don't know what you've accomplished in your life. I do know, though, that I honestly don't think that is the best method of comparison.
Let me say this. You don't know me, either. I find it kind of amusing how some people think I'm such a bitch. It's almost a compliment in a strange way because personally I'm very emotional and vulnerable. I almost relish the idea that the persona I am here or at the firm is the idea that some people have of me. See, I'm really the exact opposite inside. Those that know me know that. I'm always told by my close friends that I'm too emotional, too generous, too trusting. I guess I'm revealing that about myself because I think the point of all this is perspective. I think we could all use more of it, especially from others position.
See, I don't really think you, Wolf, Eaglebleeds, Ne Oublie or Mex are beneath me. I really don't think you’re pinheads. In all honesty, I think you're survivors. If given the right opportunity, I would defend you. I think my biggest weakness is my emotional attachment to people who have suffered. It breaks my heart. It does so because I understand. I've been there, and my motivation in standing against the Family is to see that other people, other children, don't have to experience the same. I also am concerned about those out there, and they are out there, who are still very, very scarred. There are those really, really struggling just to get by or get through the day because of factors for which the Family is responsible.
See when a woman is molested as a child, it affects her the rest of her life. She feels mixed emotions of guilt, shame, worthlessness. She sometimes develops destructive behaviors. When a child is abused, he often internalizes the emotional pain and rejection, and it affects every one of his later personal relationships. There are people out there right now who have tried to kill themselves multiple times. There are those out there for all intents and purposes who look fine and have successful jobs, but they are dying inside with pain, despair and worthlessness. There are those out there struggling to feed their little ones. A stolen childhood cannot ever be replaced. For the rest of their lives, these people will struggle.
I'll let you into my personal life and tell you, I've been one. I haven't tried to kill myself ever, but I differ in only that one way. I have the physical scars on my body. I have the shame and guilt and failed relationships to show for the sexual abuse. I have the loneliness and despair of the emotional pain. I struggle with it. The black letter of the law is my shield. It is unwavering. It is undeniable. It is constant. It is an area in which I excel, in which I am no longer the scared little girl crying in the corner shielding my face from another blow or crying into my pillow because I never felt loved or accepted as a child. The law is an area in which all the people out there, especially those that I love, can be protected and vindicated. Justice wipes away the wrong.
Also, experience and education is the one thing no one can ever take away from me. That is why I value them. Not to say that I value those who have suffered like me or been disadvantaged any less for the lack thereof. I know what it is like to be uneducated or mocked. I know what it is like. I struggled through despite it. I have nothing but respect and compassion for those on the same road.
The only time I use the law as a sword is to protect those who I see as having suffered. It victimizes people all over again to tell them what happened to them didn't really happen or wasn't that bad. People need acknowledgment and validation. They need to be heard. It is like a rape victim going through a trial and the defendant being acquitted. It sends the message to her that what she experienced wasn’t a crime. Yet, in her heart she knows, she feels the violation, the pain, the shame. She knows something was taken from her.
It’s kind of like victims of 9/11. They have been taughted and comforted and made heroes, their stories told, their names remembered, their pain acknowledged, their plight validated. Well, worse has happened to some people who were child victims of the Family. Yet, no one has ever formally acknowledged the great injustice and wrong done them. No one has even said, “Yes, you are a victim. It was NOT your fault. You are a survivor, not a ‘backslider, doomed for hell.’” No one has put their arms around them and said they were sorry for all they went through. I don’t personally need that, but I know people who do. And out of compassion born of painful personal experience, I want to help and defend. I want to say something when I feel their experiences are being undermined. I kept quiet too long when I was little.
From the constant struggle life was from childhood, the tenderness inside me, the scared little girl that just wanted to be loved, not beaten or touched or shamed, has slowly begun to die. All that remains much more is the litigator, the cold-hearted bitch, the snob who judges people on the other side by outward appearances and accomplishments. Because the tender side was victimized for so long, it has retreated. It still is part of me, but I show it less and less. It’s like an animal which has been beaten. You can beat an animal into submission or you can beat it into an attack dog. Just the same, my heart recedes and my knowledge and skills and everything detached come to the forefront.
I think the whole point is to put oneself into others position. Try to see their perspective. There are some who did not experience what those of us who are in our late 20s and early 30s did in the Family, so it is naturally hard for them to understand, much less fathom our experiences. Yet, it’s important to try. Just the same, I don’t want to be responsible for repressing or affecting others negatively. The cycle cannot continue. So, I write this to offer a bit of perspective and to acknowledge that others have theirs.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Friday, September 05, 2003, 10:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
I doubt you've even read the Amendments, much less understand them as they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Hey, bonehead, the Amendments and the Constitution itself is not ultimately the law of the land. The Supreme Court's interpretation of them is the ultimate law of the land. And, yes, a majority of the U.S. has read a statute and a court opinion. American History and Government is mandatory in public schools. You'd know that if you actually attended school. Even those elementary texts refer to landmark decisions interpreting the Constitution, if they do not cite the actual decision itself. What you think you know is junk psuedo-knowledge gleaned from the media or other people as ill-informed as yourself. One day, you'll probably laugh at yourself and the huge gaps in your understanding of which you are currently unaware. "Professional profession?" Just listen to yourself. I am aware there are other professions. Are you aware of what qualifies as a profession? Not just any job or career is a profession. A profession is a career field that requires a state license, e.g. medicine, dentistry, law. Are you any of these? Didn't think so. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Friday, September 05, 2003, 12:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think Nancy needs to take a Reading comprehension class. As someone posted earlier, you "reply first and then read the post."
I NEVER said that the constitution and its amendments were “the law of the land”. If you take time to read what I posted you will see that I said "the constitution and its amendments pretty much spell it all out for everyone" and I was talking in regards to freedom of religion etc. Not today’s set of legal guidelines.
Second of all you are basically insinuating that the only way for anyone to understand freedom of speech and freedom of religion etc is to first "read a court opinion or an statute". This, as I am sure everyone will agree, is utterly untrue. I am sure the founding fathers that wrote that Constitution understood what freedom means and spelled it out clearly in the constitution. Or did I miss the amendment that explains that all citizens must also read a court opinion to understand it???
Thirdly, and this is really where it gets good, you state "A profession is a career field that requires a state license." Now that I have to laugh at! For a start the word "profession is not exclusively an American word and in a lot of other countries like the UK (Where I am proud to be from), they do not have states so can not get a state license. So I guess no one in the UK has a profession. Now we will take a look at a few universally respected dictionary definitions of PROFESSION. (I am only including the pertinent definitions.)
Webster Dictionary says:
A: A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation. B: A principal calling, vocation, or employment. C: The whole body of persons engaged in a calling.
Dictionary.com says:
A: An occupation or career: “One of the highest compliments a child can pay a parent is to choose his or her profession” (Joan Nathan). B: An occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that requiring considerable training and specialized study.
Nowhere, “Bonehead”, does it say, “a profession is a career field that requires a state license.”
Gezuz I sure hope your not a trial attorney or at least hope your firm has a good research assistant to research your petitions etc. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Friday, September 05, 2003, 16:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. There are generally accepted terms and knowledge which is learned and taught in other locations beyond a mere dictionary. You're not just an idiot, but a moron, to think just because you don't find something in your little dictionary that it does not exist or isn't generally accepted. Ever hear of professional schools? They are medical schools, dental schools and law schools? Ever heard the term the professions? It refers to licensed professionals. The professions are careers in which a state license is required. Dude, get a fucking clue. You argue like a school kid. "I don't have that in my dictionary..." That must be the only book you've studied. No wonder!
And another thing, the term is not "trial attorney." It's litigator. Your lay terms make me laugh. Civil litigators don't research "petitions." A petition is a specific type of pleading, dumbass! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Friday, September 05, 2003, 17:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow. I really am starting to have my doubts that you really are in the legal profession.
You said there is no such term as Trial Attorney??? Off course there is! One of my good mates is a member of the Texas Association of trial attorneys see www.ttla.com. Or as a simple exercise why don't you go to yahoo and type "Association of trial attorneys" and you will pull up a multitude of links to local and state Trial Attorney Associations. Damn I guess someone forgot to teach them that term is only a “lay term” when they studied for the Bar. Or maybe the only bar you studied for was the one that has happy hr from 6 to 8 every day. lol. Anyway, I think people got the point that I was trying to make and that was your statements are so far off and incorrect that if you were a trial attorney you would only make your firm look stupid.
As for the whole professional thing, yes I agree that there are a lot of words that may have different definitions on the street than they do in a dictionary, but in this case my point still stands. Ask anyone either in the legal field or just someone with a little common sense if a professional only pertains to someone that is certified. Either state certified or whatever. What about you all there in movingon land? Anyone out there think I am wrong on this one? (Just incase I may have been incorrect in this, I called up my attorney. He has been a practicing attorney for over 10 years now and has never heard of a court of law defining profession as someone that must be certified in any way.)
Anyway, quit with the ludicrous statements such as “That must be the only book you've studied.” And at least try attack me with something factual that could at least hold water. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Friday, September 05, 2003, 21:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm a civil litigator. You called your attorney? God, you make me laugh!!!
I never said a "court of law" defined the professions as requiring certification. Courts interpret the law, not simple lay terms. The professions require state licensing. A license, not some measly certification that you get from ECPI! End of story.
I also never said there is no such term as trial attorney. I said the proper term is litigator, among those of us in the legal profession, just as we say file a claim, complaint or civil action, not sue someone.
I don't really care what you believe. You wouldn't know how to tell an attorney from a bus driver.
"My point still stands." More laughing!
"Attack me with something factual." You just offer me so much in multiple areas. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Monday, September 08, 2003, 10:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't care what you say you are. Civil litigate, trial attorney or dumb ass. You said, "the term is not "trial attorney." It's litigator. Your lay terms make me laugh." By saying this you indicated that there is no such title as Trial Attorney, so I jut had to prove you wrong and I believe that I did.
About the word profession. So I am confused. Exactly who is it or where is accepted that a profession is only used for a job that requires a state license. I know it's not the general public that believes that. You just said it's not the legal community that accepts that. So besides you, who exactly is it that accepts this? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, September 08, 2003, 17:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Regarding the "professional" term:
I work in a children's hospital and hear this same definition a lot from the doctors. I was rather offended the first time this came up since I'm also in IT and consider myself an IT professional, which is the term commonly used within our own industry. While in most companies the techno-geeks are the local deities, compared with people who save children's lives and make breakthroughs in medical research, our department is sometimes seen as overpaid admin assistants. While our team was developing a web based recruiting application for the hospital, during the R&D phase we met with some of the department heads, and they insisted that the application could not be called "Careers" since non-healthcareprofessional occupations were really only jobs.
The legendary massive egos of doctors and lawyers aside (not that there's anything wrong with that), from what I understand, this is referring to professional designations. There are still embarrassing gaps in my understanding of many aspects of society, so please someone let me know if I've gotten this wrong. IT does have a number of professional designations such as project manager certification, software engineer, etc. so I don't really understand why these are not considered professional occupations. Perhaps it's just the "old school" mentality of the prestigous law and medical professions?
The DOD defines professional as: "Professional occupations or series are those that require knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily and characteristically acquired through education and training that meets the requirements for a bachelor's or higher degree with major study in or pertinent to the specialized field, as distinguished from general education. The work of professional positions is creative, analytical, evaluative, or interpretive, and is characterized by personal responsibility to keep abreast of and exercise judgment and broad perspective in the application of an organized body of knowledge that is constantly studied to make new discoveries and interpretations or to improve the data, materials and methods. Also included are positions filled by trainees who meet the basic knowledge requirements and who perform work in preparation for fully professional."
http://persec.whs.mil/hrsc/fesguide/factor1.htm
While IT is generally not so structured, and a bit of a wild west at times, overall this description sounds a lot like what we do. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nick
Friday, September 05, 2003, 17:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow. I really am starting to have my doubts that you really are in the legal profession.
You said there is no such term as Trial Attorney??? Off course there is! One of my good mates is a member of the Texas Association of trial attorneys see www.ttla.com. Or as a simple exercise why don't you go to yahoo and type "Association of trial attorneys" and you will pull up a multitude of links to local and state Trial Attorney Associations. Damn I guess someone forgot to teach them that term is only a “lay term” when they studied for the Bar. Or maybe the only bar you studied for was the one that has happy hr from 6 to 8 every day. lol. Anyway, I think people got the point that I was trying to make and that was your statements are so far off and incorrect that if you were a trial attorney you would only make your firm look stupid.
As for the whole professional thing, yes I agree that there are a lot of words that may have different definitions on the street than they do in a dictionary, but in this case my point still stands. Ask anyone either in the legal field or just someone with a little common sense if a professional only pertains to someone that is certified. Either state certified or whatever. What about you all there in movingon land? Anyone out there think I am wrong on this one? (Just incase I may have been incorrect in this, I called up my attorney. He has been a practicing attorney for over 10 years now and has never heard of a court of law defining profession as someone that must be certified in any way.)
Anyway, quit with the ludicrous statements such as “That must be the only book you've studied.” And at least try attack me with something factual that could at least hold water. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, September 05, 2003, 18:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Go for it Nick! I'd pipe in if I didn't think you were handling yourself well enough as is! The only argument Nancy has been able to pull so far is to attack the character, and specifically education, of her opponent(s) - I'm seriously begining to question her own at this rate. I mean, if she's all so educated, they why doesn't she come up with a logical and factual argument, rather than just dismissing any concepts other than her own as 'cultish', 'childish' or whatever term she'll come up with next. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Noodle User
August 29, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | from more info
August 28, 2003 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]