H
HG 400
Guest
kiwifarms.net
We're not. Marshall is a pissweak cuck and nobody's afraid of him, especially Josh.
Lolcow Andrew Peter Carlson / Anaiah Carlson / Tamarlover / Xtamarlover - Jewish/Christian Wannabe Cult Leader, Stalker, Ugly af, dogfucker, mayor of spitsville
- Thread starter The Jumping Dwarf
- Start date
We're not. Marshall is a pissweak cuck and nobody's afraid of him, especially Josh.
Q
QT 219
Guest
kiwifarms.net
@tamarlover I'm positive you could take Marshall. That dude is a manlet and a crybaby. At least you have the self-awareness to keep your communication to forum posts. This Marshall faggot sits in Walmart parking lots talking shit, taking his sunglasses off dramatically and acting like a tough guy. lol
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
The only thing dying in this whole story are our sides. Now stop being an absolute pussy and do something
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
Well too bad for you you are wrong. I just went today to the church and the guy who normally does it showed me how to do everything and what I need to do. My dad is going to go with me to the church. I will work for a month and get about 40 hours of work in. About 300ish i'll get. I'm buying the mega DNA test with it.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
Calling shit until you do the following: show us that you're actually getting therapy (which you omitted interestingly enough in this response) and the paycheck itself.
You already show far more incriminating shit without being asked, so these two items should be no matter.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I'm sure the court will be impressed at how completely incorrigible you are and won't just decide a lengthy period of incarceration is the only thing that will stop you from your relentless insanity.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
I'll show you the paycheck. How will I be able to show you I went to therapy though?
I can't comment in the other thread. But I just wanted to say there's no chance in hell that they will ever get a successful lawsuit against Joshua Moon. Its nonsense.
I am pretty sure I had the same judge rule against me in the court that ruled against Tamar. He's the guy who gave me a 1 year protective order initially. The fact is, the guy is not a racist. The guy asked the same question to me. I brought my friend along who drove me to Florida. He asked who he was so I told him. That's all you have to do. Don't get offended when the judge asks you a fair and valid question of who is in the courtroom with you. There's no way that the judge was being racist. It is much more plausible that he would be biased against Melinda because she's a woman. But even that is not applicable in this case. Her case was rejected because her legal proceedings are insufficient, not because the Judge was biased. Yeah I felt it was unfair when the Judge ruled against me, but I didn't start saying he was biased or racist or other crap like that. It was his opinion based on his legal experience and knowledge that it was proper to give me what he gave me. And I knew he had good reasons and intentions. I actually thought the judge was pretty nice. He said he believed both she and I were sincere and honest in our testimonies. He tried to give me some good advice and commented on seeing that I was very intelligent but that I should just let go and move on from her so I don't get in more trouble in the future. He recommended therapy as well. All in all, i thought he was a pretty decent guy. An older man.
If he takes down the videos, you know it was Tamar who told him to take it down because she's the boss in any relationship she is in. its her way or the highway. So he has to do everything he says or else she'll leave him. That's the way it goes.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
has to do everything she* says i meant to say
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
You could always did what you said you're gonna do with the court by recording this (a few minute snippet with them or being in any waiting room) and uploading it too. Ain't ironclad, but it'd help. Either one is still a good way to shut me up on the whole "you being a lazy lounger" thing too, since it shows that you're doing something that the past 140+ pages do not show; that you are actually doing shit to make your life better.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
No, of course they have no argument against me. I am not liable for your behavior on a publicly-accessible website.
You can play lawyer as you'd like, though I'd wager your defense against the murder/suicide claim would not do well in court, depending on the circumstances it was presented. The distinction between A Modest Proposal and what you've said is three-fold. First, nowhere does Jonathan Swift claim that he himself is going to begin eating children; his satirical essay is a "proposal" to the Government and infeasible to carry out by himself. Second, his arguments for eating children are in themselves blatantly absurd to an ordinary person. Third, Jonathan Swift was of sound mind and the likelihood of him suddenly desiring to eat children is low.
You've previously, in this thread which you've responded to the overwhelming majority of posts, refused to answer the question "would you rather live in a world where Melinda Scott is happily married to someone else, or dead?" on multiple occasions, hinting you'd prefer not to answer because your answer would make you look bad. You've had various forms of relief sanctioned against you for obsessive behavior to the point where "suicidal" in context of you committing suicide no longer comes across as an absurdity. You've also made a direct statement which is conceivable you could carry out, with no humorous context.
You can play lawyer as you'd like, though I'd wager your defense against the murder/suicide claim would not do well in court, depending on the circumstances it was presented. The distinction between A Modest Proposal and what you've said is three-fold. First, nowhere does Jonathan Swift claim that he himself is going to begin eating children; his satirical essay is a "proposal" to the Government and infeasible to carry out by himself. Second, his arguments for eating children are in themselves blatantly absurd to an ordinary person. Third, Jonathan Swift was of sound mind and the likelihood of him suddenly desiring to eat children is low.
You've previously, in this thread which you've responded to the overwhelming majority of posts, refused to answer the question "would you rather live in a world where Melinda Scott is happily married to someone else, or dead?" on multiple occasions, hinting you'd prefer not to answer because your answer would make you look bad. You've had various forms of relief sanctioned against you for obsessive behavior to the point where "suicidal" in context of you committing suicide no longer comes across as an absurdity. You've also made a direct statement which is conceivable you could carry out, with no humorous context.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
@tamarlover i found something that you should probably invest in when you come into money. It will be a good way to get used to it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B073...qid=1499985788&sr=8-14&keywords=butt+plug+set
No need to thank me, friend.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B073...qid=1499985788&sr=8-14&keywords=butt+plug+set
No need to thank me, friend.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
I'm saving the evidence just in case I have to go to trial. I will use evidence of Marshall's violent rhetoric to help bolster my position that I had valid reason to be concerned for Melinda's safety and wellbeing.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
A-logging a cocky and delusional jabroni probably is not going to help you during your own particular trial. Just an FYI.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2015
Hey you were right, Marshall deleted the videos.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
@tamarlover i found something that you should probably invest in when you come into money. It will be a good way to get used to it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B073...qid=1499985788&sr=8-14&keywords=butt+plug+set
No need to thank me, friend.
I always buy used from Amazon
First of all, Joshua, you are wrong, I did in fact answer your question on page 6.
Now regarding the threat comments you said.
If you say to someone "If you don't do this I'll do this other thing" or "if you do this, then I'll do this" that's a criminal threat. Criminal extortion.
If you say "If i ever decide to rob a bank one day and the cops have me surrounded, I'll commit murder-suicide" that's not a criminal threat.
If you say "If i ever lose my job one day, I'll commit murder-suicide" that is a criminal threat.
So long as if you say words to the effect of "if i ever decide to" and it refers to something that is 100% completely in your control, and is something unlikely or not inevitable, its not a criminal threat.
Now if you have a federal statute or state statute which indicates otherwise, I would certainly be interested to see it so I can avoid potential legal consequences in the future over stupid things i shouldn't have said.
That was shockingly fast, but expected at some point. He has deleted his videos the other times too. But that just makes the question if you were going to make the videos, why would you delete them so quickly? Deleting them wouldn't prevent us from having them. So the logical conclusion is that he was either told by the queen that he needs to take them down, and he immediately complied, or he realized he was being stupid or an ass and took them down on his own initiative. i think the prior is more likely that he did it because she told him to, but i suppose it is possible he realized he was being ridiculous and it was making him look bad, or he became sober.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
The distinction to be made is one is a general statement and the other is a direct statement. "If I ever commit suicide I will take someone with me", versus "If I ever commit suicide I will take you with me". "If I ever lose my job" is only failing this distinction if you make it to someone who is in a position to fire you and may have reason to consider doing so, like if you're a creepy stalker or threatening to kill people.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
"If I ever decide to commit suicide, i'll take you with me" vs "If he ever decides to kill himself, I'll take you with me" its different because you are in complete control of what you are able to do in the first one, whereas the second one you are not which makes it a major cause for concern. "If I ever lose my job i'll murder-suicide" is different than "If I ever fire you i'll murder-suicide." The one is saying something scary. The other is an exaggeration to make the point that you have such high confidence in the person.
At any rate, if you do have a legal statute that proves that what I said constitutes a criminal threat and you provide it, I would concede to you and admit that you were right and that what I did was legally foolish. And I am not just saying that. I would truly be interested in seeing what is the actual law on threats but I'd rather someone else look it up for me then for me to look it up myself. Hey if anonimass is the legal expert I'd certainly be interested in hearing what he has to say (only if he is quoting the actual statute, not just his opinion of statement)
I have a couple people consistently rating my posts dumb even when they don't think its dumb im pretty sure. idiots. Oh well you don't realize i consider that a badge of honor. If I can get to number 1 on kiwi most negative, that will be a great accomplishment.
I've almost overtaken Dynastia for the top ten highest amount of negative ratings. ftw
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2016
Apparently you've made other people feel unsafe before, huh?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
@tamarlover, have you read Skylar Ittner's thread?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
This was last year when a man named Alan Geisdorf was doing a campaign me trying to convince as many people as he possibly could that I was dangerous stalking many women and that I was a sexual predator, etc. I tried to explain to people i've only stalked one woman, and i'm no a danger to any other women. Then Alan contacts my ex wife who is literally insane and who has a false version of reality. She has threatened to bring a lawsuit against me now because of kiwi stuff. Anyways my ex says horrible things about me to Alan, and Alan proceeds to convince some people who don't even know me and didn't give me benefit of the doubt that I did what i was accused of doing. i personally took it upon myself to message or comment on each person's wall that interacted with Alan's posts to get them to hear my side of the story first before making a judgment. Some were more receptive than others. This particular lady didnt like that I posted on her wall and i didn't like her attitude. So I basically said it frankly either i am dangerous or you don't think i'm actually dangerous. make up your mind bitch. that's basically how i felt. on the one breath saying that what Alan was saying was credible, on the other hand saying I am not dangerous and she's not afraid.