Forum Announcement - Please Read

[powerchuter]

Has anyone registered this intellectual property with a government trademark?

Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.

Dawg is right...
A few bad apples encouraging the roots to split/disable/damage the tree...
Nothing personal Roger...
Rob

[MaineShark]

Has anyone registered this intellectual property with a government trademark?

Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.

Okay, that's silly.  Why would Kat or Russell register for a government trademark?  That would be as silly as me patenting something.  Anarchists don't rely on government thuggery to make a living.

In any case, intellectual property is a myth.  There's no such thing.

This forum, on the other hand, is physical property on a server.  And it belongs to Kat and Russell.  They may do with it as they wish.  I hope they will fully analyze the potential results of whatever actions they take, and choose the action that will best enhance freedom here and elsewhere.  I humbly hope that my words above will help them in that endeavor, as I have great respect for them both and wish to offer them what help I realistically can.  But they are free to do with their property as they wish, from nothing up to destroying it, and anything in between.

Joe

[eques]

Where in the hell do you get any damn idea that I(and others) support armed rebellion?
And if someone were to rebel...just who would they be "rebelling" against?
Are you giving some sort of "legitimacy" to the "gooberment"?

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension--this is not just about "armed rebellion," whatever that would mean.  It is about (if I'm understanding correctly) any and all violence against government officials.  That would most decidedly include your constant bragging about "Superior DEFENSIVE Force" and your scattered references to "have our backs" as if you are anticipating being bunkered in somewhere.

What part of VIOLENT do you not understand?

Russell and I set up this forum as a place to plan activism and get out info about NH activities to freestaters.  I don't feel any obligation to provide a platforum for endless debate, especially concerning violent revolution.  Violence against the government/violent revolution is antithetical to what we're (Russell and I are) trying to accomplish.    Just as planning more government programs/higher taxes wouldn't be appropriate here, since it goes completely contrary to what we're trying to do, so violence against the government goes against what we're trying to do and discussions of it here are not appropriate.  We tolerate (barely) the political discussion because it doesn't directly interfere with what we're doing.  So if you want to discuss violent revolution, Unintended Consequences, shooting cops or other government officials, "Is it time to shoot the bastards yet?"  we're asking you to take your discussion elsewhere.

Not only that, but you've somehow managed to assume part-ownership of the forum somehow.  When did that happen?  "Our" forum?  No, sorry, it's still the Kannings'.  (And they can tell me to shut up at any time... because it doesn't look like I'm helping much anyway.  )

[powerchuter]

Has anyone registered this intellectual property with a government trademark?

Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.

Okay, that's silly.  Why would Kat or Russell register for a government trademark?  That would be as silly as me patenting something.  Anarchists don't rely on government thuggery to make a living.

In any case, intellectual property is a myth.  There's no such thing.

This forum, on the other hand, is physical property on a server.  And it belongs to Kat and Russell.  They may do with it as they wish.  I hope they will fully analyze the potential results of whatever actions they take, and choose the action that will best enhance freedom here and elsewhere.  I humbly hope that my words above will help them in that endeavor, as I have great respect for them both and wish to offer them what help I realistically can.  But they are free to do with their property as they wish, from nothing up to destroying it, and anything in between.

Joe

Hi Joe,
I'd agree to all of the above except that...as I stated earlier...

This website(URL) is "theirs"...

But this forum is "ours"...

"Ours" being each and every one of us who personally make our forum what it is...or isn't...

The "website" or "URL" is a grain of sand on the beach...

We are the millions of visitors to the beach...

The beach would be desolate without us...

The ocean washes a grain of sand away easily...

And no one even notices...

[Tom Sawyer]

Dawg not meanin' to personally attack anyone but this ownership piece has ruined this site.

This whole mess started with a post telling a relative newcomer to the forum to kill town office people because they wanted a SSN to transfer land.

The Latest PA outrage

I have a rental property that the tenant has agreed to buy. Real estate transactions are handled by abstractors in PA. I sent the deed and the buyer's name to the abstractor and about a day later I get a call and the first thing the abstractor asks is ?what is your Social Security Number Socialist Slave Number. I said politely that I don't give out that information and thought that was the end of it. A couple of days later I get a letter about the sale with ?please provide this office with your SSN and DOB? highlighted. The letter was followed up by another phone call demanding the same information- this time I spoke the the girl in an angry tone of voice explaining that ?this info is none of your FU****G business and you are pissing me off big time by demanding it.  The girl went on to explain that she is required by PA and federal law to collect this info and do a patriot act and  PA domestic relations law search using the SSN and she won't do the closing without it. I replied that she failing in her duty to represent me in this transaction and in reality acting as an agent of the control freak shit heads in Washington and Harrisburg. This bull shit has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with citizen control. This appears to be a no win situation. If I get asked for ID and a physical address at the closing I really may go over the edge.

Anybody have any suggestions

Shoot the Bastards...
All of them...

When asked repeatedly to stop the behavior he increased the behavior and over a period of time made veiled threats towards other members of the forum. In a post addressed to me he was so clever as to use "red rum". This post appears to have been removed, by whom I'm not sure.

The final straw was out of nowhere he posted a tasteless description of Kira being raped (which wasn't the first time). Kat has enough to deal with right now without this kind of nonsense.

This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of others. We decided not to remove the member from the forum.

The issue at hand is whether we can control the behavior of individuals posting on the forum.

Some more examples
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8187.msg145175#msg145175
IT'S TIME TO SHOOT THE BASTARDS RIGHT FRICKING NOW!!!

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8192.msg145208#msg145208
I think the "random acts of cleansing" that John Ross and Matthew Bracken wrote about would be much more effective...

etc.

How would the general population of NH take to someone from out of state shouting?
"SHOOT THE BASTARDS  LIVE FREE OR DIE"

[JonM]

This forum was created when those of us who ran the FSP forum decided that it was not the right place for in New Hampshire activism planning.  If Kat and Russell wish to set the terms of their forum, they have every right to do so.  Let the seeds of a new forum be sown if you so wish to do so.

[MaineShark]

This website(URL) is "theirs"...

But this forum is "ours"...

"Ours" being each and every one of us who personally make our forum what it is...or isn't...

The "website" or "URL" is a grain of sand on the beach...

We are the millions of visitors to the beach...

The beach would be desolate without us...

I understand what you're saying, and I expect Kat and Russell do, as well.  This is a private beach, and they may want to restrict access, which is certainly their right.  It would certainly change the tone of the beach.  And signs should probably be posted before people enter, if that is their desire.  I know that there was nothing in the "terms of service" when I signed up that prohibited certain types of discussion.  If that will now be the case, people who sign up should be made aware of the expectations before they expend the time and energy to join, only to find that they are unwelcome.

Joe

[powerchuter]

Where in the hell do you get any damn idea that I(and others) support armed rebellion?
And if someone were to rebel...just who would they be "rebelling" against?
Are you giving some sort of "legitimacy" to the "gooberment"?

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension--this is not just about "armed rebellion," whatever that would mean.  It is about (if I'm understanding correctly) any and all violence against government officials.  That would most decidedly include your constant bragging about "Superior DEFENSIVE Force" and your scattered references to "have our backs" as if you are anticipating being bunkered in somewhere.

What part of VIOLENT do you not understand?

Russell and I set up this forum as a place to plan activism and get out info about NH activities to freestaters.  I don't feel any obligation to provide a platforum for endless debate, especially concerning violent revolution.  Violence against the government/violent revolution is antithetical to what we're (Russell and I are) trying to accomplish.    Just as planning more government programs/higher taxes wouldn't be appropriate here, since it goes completely contrary to what we're trying to do, so violence against the government goes against what we're trying to do and discussions of it here are not appropriate.  We tolerate (barely) the political discussion because it doesn't directly interfere with what we're doing.  So if you want to discuss violent revolution, Unintended Consequences, shooting cops or other government officials, "Is it time to shoot the bastards yet?"  we're asking you to take your discussion elsewhere.

Not only that, but you've somehow managed to assume part-ownership of the forum somehow.  When did that happen?  "Our" forum?  No, sorry, it's still the Kannings'.  (And they can tell me to shut up at any time... because it doesn't look like I'm helping much anyway.  )

There are no such "entities" as "government officials" by Russell and Kat's own admissions...
So...logically...there can be no "violence" against a fiction...

Those willing to use Superior Defensive Force...and stating so...are not bragging...but you can have any opinion you wish...even ones that others find offensive or incorrect...

And...as far as discussing violence against others...
Correct me if I am wrong...but...the "owners" of this "website" / "URL" START threads about violence and/or the potential for violence...

Example...

Violence against Brian Severance....
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7933.0
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=7692.0

Violence against Russell Kanning...
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=8110.0

Violence against buildings full of people...
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1747.0

I would contend that "violence" is when one person commits aggression/force/fraud against another...whether it's in some "government's" name or not...

I would NOT contend that the concept of "violence" is harmonious with self defense...

[powerchuter]

The vast majority of people here in NH that I have met are committed to completely nonviolent means of resistance. There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion here, and threatening it can only have negative consequences for others.

Yeah, I'm with error on this one.  I doubt there's a state where armed rebellion is considered more acceptable than in NH.  We have the right to armed revolution written right into the state's constitution, and very many of the people who live here take that very seriously.  Of those in NH who desire revolution, the "armed" camp overwhelmingly outnumbers the "nonviolent" camp.  That's just the way it is.

If you were imagining that NH was some sort of mecca for nonviolent revolutionaries, you may need to reconsider your choice in where to live.  I truly hope you won't, as we need all the revolutionaries we can get, but if you cannot stomach the notion that there are armed revolutionaries around, this simply may not be the place for you.

NH engage in armed rebellion against Britain (and won) before the other colonies even bothered to declare their independence.  That is our history and our legacy.

I do hope we can coordinate our efforts, as we are stronger standing together than we can be standing separately.  And I do hope that Kat and Russell will continue to allow us to discuss the issues that matter to us, here, so that we can do so.  I imagine that there are many people out there reading this and other threads with glee, hoping against hope that a rift forms in the freedom community, allowing them to once again put the anti-freedom train on the fast track.  It would be a shame to focus on our differences and let those things divide us, rather than focussing on our similarities and letting those things unite us.

Joe

[powerchuter]

And!?!?!?!

It is without dispute that the one thread that has contributed more "hits" and "views" and "comments" to this website/forum/movement...

Has been this one...

http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.0

Ed and Elaine Brown have repeatedly stated that they will use Superior Defensive Force against anyone attempting to assume control over them...

Many of the forum contributers have visited the Browns...
Including those who are "advocating" no discussions involving "violence"...whatever they might think that is...

Are we to assume that the non-violence crowd from Keene and other areas sometimes travel hours to visit with "violent" people?

If we don't want "violence" spoken of or talked about on the forum...why are these same people actually traveling to where this is happening?

I'm not sure I understand the logic there...

[MaineShark]

Here's a thought, and while it may not be perfect, it may work...

We all know that Kat and Russell may do as they like with this fourm.

I hope we all know that they are not unreasonable people, and will not make rules like "you must agree with us on every issue, all the time, or you're banned."

I hope we all know that they are not trying to be heavy-handed, but rather to ensure that this forum moves in a productive direction.

They have four political forums here, and all pacifists are anarchists and cannot vote, so it's clear that they are at very least tolerant of non-pacifists.  And as Rob points out, there is plenty of support for Ed and Elaine Brown.  It is clear that they are not insisting that only pacifists may post here, and only pacifism may be discussed.

So, in the spirit of helping them in this endeavor, I'd like to propose that we all relax for the next week, think about the issues, and then those who can attend volunteer have an informal meeting after the next MVP meeting so that we can get together with Kat and Russell and figure out the direction this forum will take.  We certainly don't get to dictate to them how this forum is run, but I expect they would welcome a collaborative effort to clarify the expectations.  Right now, I can't say for certain what the exact rules are, so let's meet in the spirit of collaboration and help them work this out.  A concise list of expectations could be presented to all existing members, and added to the signup for new members, so we would all know what the expectations are.  If we help Kat and Russell with this, we can reduce the risk that someone will read the rules and then say "what about this?" because we will have taken the time to address the potential "what if?" questions with them.

It may be that a separate forum is necessary, but the only way we will know whether or not that is the case is if we know accurately what the expectations are, here.  Maybe that will be for the best.  Maybe not.  I don't like the idea of splitting things up, but if that's what it will require in order to allow those of us who are not pacifists to stay on good terms with those who are, it might just be worth it.

So let's all chill out for a week, think over what we each want from this forum, and then discuss our individual and group desires for this forum, and see which of them Kat and Russell feel they can meet, and which they cannot.  If we can formalize that into a description of expected conduct, so much the better, as it will help to ensure that existing and new members will know what Kat and Russell expect from them when they are visiting this forum.

I'll be at the MVP meeting, regardless, but I hope some others will speak up and volunteer to help out in this endeavor.  We have similar ultimate goals for a free society, so let's see what we can do to best meet those goals.

Joe

[powerchuter]

ok

[Kat Kanning]

It might be easier to just kick Rob off than make a bunch of rules.

[jaqeboy]

[begin sidebar]

Just a little clarification to the language and the law, but not germane to the existence/continuance of this forum/these discussions on this URL/system, but important for New Hampshiremen and wannabes to understand.

...There's no support for any sort of armed rebellion...

... I doubt there's a state where armed rebellion is considered more acceptable than in NH.  We have the right to armed revolution written right into the state's constitution, and very many of the people who live here take that very seriously.  Of those in NH who desire revolution, the "armed" camp overwhelmingly outnumbers the "nonviolent" camp.  That's just the way it is.

If you were imagining that NH was some sort of mecca for nonviolent revolutionaries, you may need to reconsider your choice in where to live.  I truly hope you won't, as we need all the revolutionaries we can get, but if you cannot stomach the notion that there are armed revolutionaries around, this simply may not be the place for you....

Joe

(emphasis added)

Clarification of definitions:

Revolution: "(from Late Latin revolutio which means "a turn around") is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time." [Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution]

Rebellion: "is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. Those who participate in rebellions are known as 'rebels'." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion]

Clarification of law:

New Hampshire Constitution, Bill of Rights, [Article] 10: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." (emphasis added)

What should be noted is that the title, "Right of Revolution" is a title only, it is not the article, or the law. The fact that it is in brackets emphasizes that. The original can be viewed at the Secretary of State's archives on Fruit Street in Concord (I've seen it there, but I didn't note whether or not the title or the brackets were on there - was looking at something else.) So, the "law" is the body of text and the title is not the law - it is just something added to describe the law briefly. Note the text states that the people may and ought to "reform the old" or "establish a new government." The purpose of my writing this is to clarify that Article 10 does not state a [civil] right to armed revolution! One may claim that as a natural right of man, for example, but, as an explicit civil right in our Bill of Rights, that's not what it says - just thought it important to note that to newcomers.

Application of Article 10:

Litigants have asserted Art. 10 rights from time to time, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has opined on cases that have risen to their Court over the years. Some of the cases (I don't have a complete file of them, but it would be an interesting project to compile them all for study of this civil 'Right of Revolution.') revolve around the "and all other means of redress are ineffectual" clause - ie, claims of exercising of the Right of Revolution have been thrown out because the claimant of the right had not exhausted all other "means of redress." A very recent case involved peace/anti-war protesters refusing to leave a US Senator's office because they had attempted to reach him by letter and phone and he had been unresponsive. They asserted an Article 10 right to occupy his office and demand an answer. Not sure the outcome of this case, but New Hampshire Peace Action in Concord would know.

Wikipedia notes (mentions the FSP!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution#Article_10._Right_of_Revolution

Clarification summary re posts in this thread:

1. There is not an article 10 "Right to Armed Revolution", and

2. Revolution does not necessarily imply "armed rebellion", "armed resistance" or any force of arms issue/violence at all.

Note: Counter-revolution [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_revolution]  by states to suppress revolutions by the people have often been violent to achieve the state's aims of repression and control by fear.

[OK, end of sidebar  ---  resume]

[MaineShark]

It might be easier to just kick Rob off than make a bunch of rules.

Possibly, but the easy way isn't always best.

I mean, I've been here quite a while now, and I don't know where "the line" is.  There was nothing when I signed up that indicated even that the forum was exclusively for non-violence.  I checked a few days ago and that wasn't in the signup information at that point, either.

And I cannot infer that the entire forum is for pacifism and unwelcome to any sort of violence, either, as the policial forums and subforums exist, and there's the Ed and Elaine Brown issue, as well.  Not exactly non-violent sorts, but you've done numerous positive articles on them, because of what they do have in common with you.

This is your property and I intend to respect that, but I need to accurately know what your wishes are, in order to do so.

2. Revolution does not necessarily imply "armed rebellion", "armed resistance" or any force of arms issue/violence at all.

In the historical context under which the document was written, it certainly does.

Joe