Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[AnOminous]

perhaps she should flee to Israel.

Israel doesn't want foreign goy scammers. They've had enough "Jews" from Russia who really aren't, and are tired of them.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

I never once diagnosed anyone. I haven't, in 600 pages, called anyone a "Narcissist"

Actually you have. Page 459. You claim @Sir Dank-a-Lot is a narcissist.

I'm working on a paper to prove it. COPYRIGHT MELINDA SCOTT!

I'm taking quantum mechanics as part of my physics course, I can tell you this now, you're just going to make yourself look like an idiot. Your knowledge on quantum field theory is on par with with Richard Watson's knowledge on science.

 

[SloberrinJ]

@TamarYaelBatYah I was worried about your overall stability and ability to care for children, one of my concerns being that you claim to have a degree yet you are unable to construct a simply paragraph without arbitrarily using initial caps. In case you are unaware of this, dear, forums aren't legal filings. While it is true there are very specific places in filings that you use initial caps where you wouldn't ordinarily use them. For example, Plaintiff claims, blah blah blah. But here on the forums and anywhere else in the world, you do not capitalize the word plaintiff unless you are using it to refer to yourself as a title. Now, this is a simple grammatical fact that anyone who'd taken a course in say English 1 or whatever the remedial English course at their college is called. Some people didn't attend colleges. Some people attend universities, lower case unless you are referring to the specific university such as Georgetown University, in which case those individuals are not afforded the ability to take a basic English (always capitalized) course, they'd just kick you out for not being up to snuff. Just thought I'd help you out there, buddy. Continuing to do this will only demonstrate your inability to learn. Fight me on basic rules of grammar, well, oh my. Really now?

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Proof, like, observable evidence that these quantum fields affect DNA. Something I can witness. Irrefutable evidence.

I think she means something like this, but it's never been proven

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910796/

There's also this, again not proven

Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together, Say Physicists

There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life. Since then, the discipline of quantum biology has emerged as one of the most exciting new fields in science. It’s beginning to look as if quantum...

www.technologyreview.com

I for one don't trust quantum biology. It just looks like someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics and trying to be unique to get people to read their papers.

 

[SloberrinJ]

I think she means something like this, but it's never been proven

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910796/

There's also this, again not proven

Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together, Say Physicists

There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life. Since then, the discipline of quantum biology has emerged as one of the most exciting new fields in science. It’s beginning to look as if quantum...

www.technologyreview.com

I for one don't trust quantum biology. It just looks like someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics and trying to be unique to get people to read their papers.

Oh holy night! I absolutely love that this nit is bringing out the strengths in us, but I don't know if Melinda would know a black hole if it sucked her up or she sucked it off.

Edit: I wanted to say that this is why I truly admire and believe you. I am not smart enough to have taken those courses. No way in hell could I have ever passed any classes like physics, o-chem, etc. Those are way out of my scope. I love particle physics as a hobby, but taking a course in them, nope. I'll stick to my strengths and know my limitations, something our gorl is clearly incapable of.

 

[Junkail]

The paper is based on philosophy.
Again, theories of knowledge.

No, I'm making a philosophical claim. One in which I aim to prove by philosophy.

What I'm saying is that I can use philosophy to prove that DNA is affected by Quantum energy field

Lol, don't you know that philosophy is one of the most widely mocked fields? Even the sociology majors at my old school make fun of them.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

I think she means something like this, but it's never been proven

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910796/

There's also this, again not proven

Quantum Entanglement Holds DNA Together, Say Physicists

There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life. Since then, the discipline of quantum biology has emerged as one of the most exciting new fields in science. It’s beginning to look as if quantum...

www.technologyreview.com

I for one don't trust quantum biology. It just looks like someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics and trying to be unique to get people to read their papers.

"In this research, we show that DNA waves have many applications in biology. DNA is formed by the joining of quantum particles like electrons and charged atoms. DNA has different motions during transcription, translation, and replication, in which the charged particles move, accelerate, and emit waves. Thus, DNA could emit quantum waves."

DNA is not formed by "the joining of quantum particles." I mean, technically true I guess? Like saying that a car is made up of "the joining of quantum particles." Very, very basically, DNA is made up of nitrogenous bases which are coded by amino acid groups. Nitrogenous bases are stuck to a sugar-phosphate helix, a double helix forms the nitrogenous pairs and all that. Point is, there's a lot of shit to unpack in DNA. You can get into nucleotides and the different amino acid groups that determine nitrogenous bases, but the general idea is that saying "lmao quantum particles make up DNA" is asinine and reductive. Fucking duh. Moreover the paper never defines what a DNA wave is or how one can be observed. What the fuck IS a DNA wave?

Well, what they are talking about is actually DNA teleportation. In a nutshell they believe that they can spontaneously generate DNA by playing a unique EM signal that each strand of DNA allegedly produces. It got nodded for the Nobel in the 00s even though there has been no independent proof that any of this is possible, and many physicists working on the "DNA teleportation problem" cannot find a method in which our understanding of physics would allow it to happen. The experimenters have tried to handwave it away as "not understood quantum mechanics" but actual theoretical quantum physicists disagree, again claiming it is not possible with current human understanding on any level.

All of this is pointless though because what Mel is talking about is NOT DNA teleportation via EM waves, but the actual rewriting of DNA by unspecified "quantum energy fields." My questions to her are several: "what energy is it?" Energy comes in several forms, all are defined. What type of energy specifically are we talking about. "What field?" Field is another term that has specific definitions, what kind of field exactly are we talking about? "What quantum particles?" We have knowledge of several quantum particles, which ones specifically are enacting the change?"

She has NO FUCKING CLUE what she's talking about, so she falls back on "well you don't need observable science, I choose instead to prove my claim philosophically." That makes even less sense for obvious reasons.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

What the fuck IS a DNA wave?

Don't worry, you're not the only one who was confused by DNA Wave nonsense.

DNA waves don't wash

Philip Ball asks why a spectacular claim seems to have been overlooked. Sometimes science doesn't work the way it's supposed to

www.chemistryworld.com

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Don't worry, you're not the only one who was confused by DNA Wave nonsense.

DNA waves don't wash

Philip Ball asks why a spectacular claim seems to have been overlooked. Sometimes science doesn't work the way it's supposed to

www.chemistryworld.com

"he has suggested that such signals can be detected in the blood of children with autism and that this justifies treating autism with antibiotics."

I knew the dude was into water memory and homeopathy but this is double insane.

 

[Junkail]

"In this research, we show that DNA waves have many applications in biology. DNA is formed by the joining of quantum particles like electrons and charged atoms. DNA has different motions during transcription, translation, and replication, in which the charged particles move, accelerate, and emit waves. Thus, DNA could emit quantum waves."

DNA is not formed by "the joining of quantum particles." I mean, technically true I guess? Like saying that a car is made up of "the joining of quantum particles." Very, very basically, DNA is made up of nitrogenous bases which are coded by amino acid groups. Nitrogenous bases are stuck to a sugar-phosphate helix, a double helix forms the nitrogenous pairs and all that. Point is, there's a lot of shit to unpack in DNA. You can get into nucleotides and the different amino acid groups that determine nitrogenous bases, but the general idea is that saying "lmao quantum particles make up DNA" is asinine and reductive. Fucking duh. Moreover the paper never defines what a DNA wave is or how one can be observed. What the fuck IS a DNA wave?

Well, what they are talking about is actually DNA teleportation. In a nutshell they believe that they can spontaneously generate DNA by playing a unique EM signal that each strand of DNA allegedly produces. It got nodded for the Nobel in the 00s even though there has been no independent proof that any of this is possible, and many physicists working on the "DNA teleportation problem" cannot find a method in which our understanding of physics would allow it to happen. The experimenters have tried to handwave it away as "not understood quantum mechanics" but actual theoretical quantum physicists disagree, again claiming it is not possible with current human understanding on any level.

All of this is pointless though because what Mel is talking about is NOT DNA teleportation via EM waves, but the actual rewriting of DNA by unspecified "quantum energy fields." My questions to her are several: "what energy is it?" Energy comes in several forms, all are defined. What type of energy specifically are we talking about. "What field?" Field is another term that has specific definitions, what kind of field exactly are we talking about? "What quantum particles?" We have knowledge of several quantum particles, which ones specifically are enacting the change?"

She has NO FUCKING CLUE what she's talking about, so she falls back on "well you don't need observable science, I choose instead to prove my claim philosophically." That makes even less sense for obvious reasons.

If Mel was even slightly smarter, she could easily build an argument off of the information we're spoonfeeding her. Too bad she doesn't even have the capacity to sift through her bullshit sources.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

@TamarYaelBatYah I was worried about your overall stability and ability to care for children, one of my concerns being that you claim to have a degree yet you are unable to construct a simply paragraph without arbitrarily using initial caps. In case you are unaware of this, dear, forums aren't legal filings. While it is true there are very specific places in filings that you use initial caps where you wouldn't ordinarily use them. For example, Plaintiff claims, blah blah blah. But here on the forums and anywhere else in the world, you do not capitalize the word plaintiff unless you are using it to refer to yourself as a title. Now, this is a simple grammatical fact that anyone who'd taken a course in say English 1 or whatever the remedial English course at their college is called. Some people didn't attend colleges. Some people attend universities, lower case unless you are referring to the specific university such as Georgetown University, in which case those individuals are not afforded the ability to take a basic English (always capitalized) course, they'd just kick you out for not being up to snuff. Just thought I'd help you out there, buddy. Continuing to do this will only demonstrate your inability to learn. Fight me on basic rules of grammar, well, oh my. Really now?

You're not helping. You are forgetting that *proper nouns* are capitalized in English. There are about 30 reasons a word will be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. I have Grammar books, I know. I also have taught the subject of proper nouns several times to my own children and in a Homeschool Co-op.

Also, one thing a lot of people don't know or remember is that the word "the" is capitalized in Honorable Titles and in book titles. Its not "the Messiah", its "The Messiah". Its not "the Torah", its "The Torah".

@TamarYaelBatYah your pop quiz:

What really pisses me off is that after dinner I remembered this. I thought to myself, I have the other ones memorized, but what about the last one. These are just the suits against Josh. I could give a rats ass about your other mindless pursuits. So you made me embarrass you like this, don't forget that. I simply copy/paste this from your suit, so don't say I'm lying.

INTHEUNITED STATESDISTRICTCOUJW FOR TH E W ESTEM DISTRICT O F VIR GINTA BIG STON E GA P DIV ISIO N M ELINPA SCOTT, Plaintif, casexo.2:19cv.8 O PINIO N JO SH UA M OO N,ET AL., By:Jam esP.Jones United StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. Pro se litigantM elinda Scptthas subm itted an application to file a civil action withoutprepayi.ng feesorcosts. ln herproposed action based on diversity J'urisdiction,Scottbringsclaimsofinvasion ofprtvacy and defamation against Joshua M oon,who operates an internet forum ,and Brian Zaiger,who <:w iki.,,1 W hile 1w'illpermitthe filing ofthe action withoutprepaym entoffees and costs,Iwilldismissitpursuantto 28 U.S.C.j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)because OW CIS a Scott's allegations failto state a claim on which reliefm ay be granted,for the reasonsdiscussedbelow .2 1A W ikiisawebsitethatuserscancollaborativelymodify.

I'm not going to bother to reformat it, since everyone can clearly see that Judge Parker dismissed it for FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM! Now go off with your pop quiz, cat toy. I did yours, you do mine.

Ok, let me show you the FACTS:

Case 1: Cyberstalking (2016) DISMISSED because: Criminal statute, civilian can't file

Case 2: Recovery of Child Support (2016) DISMISSED because: Did not reach $75,000 threshold

Case 3: Constitutional violations by CPS (2017) DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity
*First in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table

Case 4: Constitutional violations by VA DMAS (201 DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Case 4: Fair Housing violations by landlord (201 DISMISSED because: Rule 5.2

Case 5: Scott v Moon (Defamation) (201 DISMISSED because: "Rhetoric hyperbole"

Case 6: Scott v Moon (Tort) (201 DISMISSED because: CDA 230 Immunity

Case 7: Scott v Moon (Injunction) (2017) DISMISSED because: Prosecutor implies Victim's rights
*First in the Fourth district to invoke this law

Case 8: Scott v Carlson (Video Copyright) (201 DISMISSED because: No registration of copyright
*This case was the first in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table

Case 9: ?


Case 10: Pending


Okay, so if you look:

--My cases in 2016, I was really "green" and new on this stuff. I made very basic errors like filing amount statutes and not filing using a criminal statute.

--My cases in 2017 and 2018 had *3* cases where there was no case law to refer to, the judge was setting new precedents. I knocked on their door and asked and got their rulings down for those particular laws.

--The others that fall under "failure to state a claim" were for DIFFERENT reasons in DIFFERENT areas of law. "Failure to state a claim" is a broad term that can mean many things. The reasons mine were dismissed were (a) a Rule 5.2 error (b) Eleventh Amendment Immunity issues and (c) "rhetoric hyperbole". Not because I didn't allege facts that I had my constitutional rights violated or proper facts in general.

1 Tim 5:8
"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Pretty gross you can't provide for your kids without my money. So sad.

That's Paul, not The Torah. Your false messiah can say whatever he wants, I don't give a damn.

Actually you have. Page 459. You claim @Sir Dank-a-Lot is a narcissist.

Incorrect. I said he was "narcissistic".

Why are all my 8s turning into faces?

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

That's Paul, not The Torah. Your false messiah can say whatever he wants, I don't give a damn.

If you need a copy of the Torah I can send it, clearly you don't have one if all of the Torah you cite is straight outta Google

Why are all my 8s turning into faces?

8 is the sunglasses emote

 

[Kosher Salt]

Why are all my 8s turning into faces?

It's Marshall laughing at you.

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

Why are all my 8s turning into faces?

Every time I think surely she can’t be this dumb. She proves me wrong by sinking to an even lower intelligence level

 

[LoverofPi]

Incorrect. I said he was "narcissistic".

View attachment 1615664

As I said, Melinda, this sort of denial isn't the winning gotcha you think it is. You're trying to dance around openly accusing people while all but accusing them in multiple indirect ways. It's very obvious when you're doing it, and these semantic games convince no one.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

It's Marshall laughing at you.

It can't be Marshall because MARSHALL has a beard! He isn't "clean shaven".

As I said, Melinda, this sort of denial isn't the winning gotcha you think it is. You're trying to dance around openly accusing people while all but accusing them in multiple indirect ways. It's very obvious when you're doing it, and these semantic games convince no one.

This is another prime example of how you can't isolate facts and circumstances to make a proper conclusion. You make these sweeping observations and miss the point, all the time.

I typed "You're the Narcissistic [one]". I left out the word "one" because if I get a phone call, or question, or whatever in the middle of a sentence, while multi-tasking I only thought the word, I forget to type it. I don't give my full focus to what I am typing on KF all the time. That's why, as KarlGrossness always notices, I don't sound "coherent". I leave out words from time to time when I type, because my brain is going faster than my fingers often.

Anyways...

Second, my original statement holds true. I have never once, in almost 600 pages just come out and say to anyone "You are a Narcissist". Me telling SirDukeyALot that "you reveal yourself to be the Narcissist" is EYE FOR EYE. That's not trying to just come out and label anyone a Narcissist.

Now, if I had said "You are a Narcissist" out of nowhere, that is where someone steps over the line between observation and overestimating their credentials.

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

That’s still dancing around semantics. Using how dumb and scatterbrained you are as an excuse does nothing to help your case. Calling someone narcissistic or saying they displaying narcissistic tendencies does not exempt you in overestimating your pitiful credentials in the 580 pages we have here of you trying to pin the insult back on kiwis ever since a kiwi brought up your narc tendencies. You’re not fooling anyone. For someone who uses the excuse of this being an informal Internet forum whenever you make mistakes, you sure love to try and use casual speech of kiwis as the crux of an argument.

 

[Toasty]

It can't be Marshall because MARSHALL has a beard! He isn't "clean shaven".





This is another prime example of how you can't isolate facts and circumstances to make a proper conclusion. You make these sweeping observations and miss the point, all the time.

I typed "You're the Narcissistic [one]". I left out the word "one" because if I get a phone call, or question, or whatever in the middle of a sentence, while multi-tasking I only thought the word, I forget to type it. I don't give my full focus to what I am typing on KF all the time. That's why, as KarlGrossness always notices, I don't sound "coherent". I leave out words from time to time when I type, because my brain is going faster than my fingers often.

Anyways...

Second, my original statement holds true. I have never once, in almost 600 pages just come out and say to anyone "You are a Narcissist". Me telling SirDukeyALot that "you reveal yourself to be the Narcissist" is EYE FOR EYE. That's not trying to just come out and label anyone a Narcissist.

Now, if I had said "You are a Narcissist" out of nowhere, that is where someone steps over the line between observation and overestimating their credentials.

Oh, do me next! Schoolyard name insults are such a great way to win at everything in life. I love these. Sirdukeyalot in particular got a good laugh out of me. Only not at the person you intended.

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

Sorry for the double post, but

OWO What’s this? Eye for an eye doesn’t excuse you when there are multiple instances

In fact, you reveal YOURSELF to be the Narcissist

You're the Narcissistic

Null is nothing more than a Malignant Narcissist

likely the real Narcissist here

Now, don't be a Narcissist

 

[A Cardboard Box]

You're not helping. You are forgetting that *proper nouns* are capitalized in English. There are about 30 reasons a word will be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. I have Grammar books, I know. I also have taught the subject of proper nouns several times to my own children and in a Homeschool Co-op.

Also, one thing a lot of people don't know or remember is that the word "the" is capitalized in Honorable Titles and in book titles. Its not "the Messiah", its "The Messiah". Its not "the Torah", its "The Torah".






Ok, let me show you the FACTS:

Case 1: Cyberstalking (2016) DISMISSED because: Criminal statute, civilian can't file

Case 2: Recovery of Child Support (2016) DISMISSED because: Did not reach $75,000 threshold

Case 3: Constitutional violations by CPS (2017) DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity
*First in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table

Case 4: Constitutional violations by VA DMAS (201 DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Case 4: Fair Housing violations by landlord (201 DISMISSED because: Rule 5.2

Case 5: Scott v Moon (Defamation) (201 DISMISSED because: "Rhetoric hyperbole"

Case 6: Scott v Moon (Tort) (201 DISMISSED because: CDA 230 Immunity

Case 7: Scott v Moon (Injunction) (2017) DISMISSED because: Prosecutor implies Victim's rights
*First in the Fourth district to invoke this law

Case 8: Scott v Carlson (Video Copyright) (201 DISMISSED because: No registration of copyright
*This case was the first in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table

Case 9: ?


Case 10: Pending


Okay, so if you look:

--My cases in 2016, I was really "green" and new on this stuff. I made very basic errors like filing amount statutes and not filing using a criminal statute.

--My cases in 2017 and 2018 had *3* cases where there was no case law to refer to, the judge was setting new precedents. I knocked on their door and asked and got their rulings down for those particular laws.

--The others that fall under "failure to state a claim" were for DIFFERENT reasons in DIFFERENT areas of law. "Failure to state a claim" is a broad term that can mean many things. The reasons mine were dismissed were (a) a Rule 5.2 error (b) Eleventh Amendment Immunity issues and (c) "rhetoric hyperbole". Not because I didn't allege facts that I had my constitutional rights violated or proper facts in general.







That's Paul, not The Torah. Your false messiah can say whatever he wants, I don't give a damn.

So have you dropped the DNA thing? I was really interested in you explaining to me what kind of quantum energy fields you meant.