Suddenly Bruce Perens doesn't want to talk to me.
What happened? This was out of the blue:
lists.debian.org
>OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.
>
> Bruce
Other urls found in this thread:
perens.com
linux.slashdot.org
twitter.com
twitter.com
lists.debian.org
lists.debian.org
perens.com
linux.slashdot.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
abc7news.com
lgdb.org
moddb.com
twitter.com
Tell me what's going on.
This was from a discussion on the GRSecurity situation.
He found out that you were a cis white male
I responded as such:
>OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.
>
> Bruce
For what reason? Has some libel been spread about me? Who are you saying OK to? It seems that you are putting me in a false negative light now for what reason is there for blocking me? I have not been combative towards you and have simply explained the law as I see it regarding this situation, as-well as anticipating possible defenses that will have to be argued against.
I don't see why, for that, one would block me.
So there must be some libelous statement made by someone else that you are responding to. I wonder what was said...
Anyway, yes I am a licensed attorney. Yes I have answered the questions and ideas raised as best as I can, and yes I have informed those in this discussion, as-well as those reading it, as to the dangers of failing to bring a case within a reasonable amount of time once a cause of action has matured.
I have done my due diligence.
If you do not bring a case within the required time period, at law, you lose the right to seek damages. If you do not bring a case within a reasonable time and sit on your rights then equitable remedies also will be barred by laches.
Imprisonment for contempt of court is not per-se a criminal matter. It is a situation where one can, at any time, comply with the court's request and regain one's liberty.
Cases involving repeated imprisonment for contempt of court include most often failure to pay a payment in a domestic matter (child support), as-well as increasingly failure to disburse funds in an action related to debt collection. Neither of such cases are matters of criminal law.
Your assertion that I am conflating the two is incorrect.
I gave it as an example to head off the idea that a court would look fondly on a plaintiff that stat on his rights and then attempted to head off a latches defense by claiming he could not afford council. Such is not a legal or physical impairment that a court would likely accept in most jurisdictions.
Why you now block me I do not know.
Give examples of a court in Pennsylvania (where Open Source Security is incorporated and has it's head office) where a latches defense failed because the plaintiff alleged that when he should have commenced an action he was short of funding.
> He found out that you were a cis white male
Do you think someone tipped him off that I feel that Hans Reiser did nothing wrong, and that I support the book of Deuteronomy, especially Deuteronomy chapter 22 verse 28-29 (as written in hebrew) and am infavor of men taking young girls as brides (as allowed by the God of the Old Testament) am not a fan of women's rights, etc?
He was listening to me (for over a week), posted this:
perens.com
after my explanation of the law
which became this slashdot story (in which he comments):
And then suddenly an hour or two ago, **poof**,
These are the people that were cc'd
Cc [email protected], [email protected], Eric Raymond, [email protected] contact
Which one do you think caused this?
I suspect ESR myself...
Your thoughts?
Do you think he'll now issue a retraction of his article, even though my understanding of the law is correct?
Bruce Perens @BrucePerens 4h4 hours ago
@elonmusk It's OK, Elon. Tweets that are just weird are fine. You aren't hiding behind a secret service guard while tweeting abuse at women.
twitter.com
White Knight
So glad Trump got elected.
So. Glad.
Pax Team's legal analysis: Red Hat does something similar, thus we're in the clear!
twitter.com
> PaX Team\u200f @paxteam Jul 13
>
>where are the broken out kernel patches for RHEL again? oh wait... Red Hat threatens service contract termination if anyone 'leaks' them.
------
GPL v2
Section 6 states simply
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
From GRSecurity's "Stable Patch Agreement":
"Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs."
Clear as day. What some lay people do not understand is that the terms in section 6 are governing what agreements and actions the distributee can take regarding furthur distributees, in reality, in the flesh.
Here the ACTIONS of GRSecurity are to RESTRICT the exercise of the redistribution rights of the further distributee.
This is an action prohibited by the terms offered by the linux-rights holders, and they have written as another term that the permission they give to use their property is revoked upon violation of their terms.
Very simple.
(Someone previously said on another thread:)
>And none are imposed. However, you are given the option to agree to them. Clear as day.
The proffering of the additional restrictive terms is in and of itself a violation of section 2. You are holding the clients to an additional restriction and enforcing this restriction via a threat to suspend business relationships.
(YES YOU HAVE IMPOSED AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION)
(Also "no broken out patch" is somehow materially the same as "no patch" when it comes to the interests of the linux-kernel rights holders, according to PAX Team)
Your thoughts?
i am going to inseminate that.
he probably didn't like your tone.
his reaction bares a resemblance to that of an autistic child when it decides that it wants to refuse to cooperate, honestly.
is shit starting to hit the fan for grsecurity?
>Hey mikee, I wondered if you were going to pursue this, you were very outspoken in that thread on here. Why do you bother with the Debian mailing lists? You should know not to waste your time with them when they refused to package CEA. I think they hate you.
This was in a conversation directly with Bruce Perens with the debian list, RMS, etc Carbon Copy'd.
(I always do that because even though my emails are blocked within a day, my messages still get through in the > 'd replies and thus the conversation is backed up even if I lose access to the mail.)
He was talking to me for over a week and listening to my legal advice.
This induced him to write this:
perens.com
Which was then posted to slashdot as:
linux.slashdot.org
I see some of the language from my emails in Bruce's post (maybe we should archive.is it incase whatever caused him to stop talking to me suddenly...)
(Also I was also talking to the free software conservancy, RMS was talking to Bruce also due to my efforts, etc.)
He accused me of conflating criminal law with civil law when I mentioned situations where a person is held in contempt of court for not being able to pay a judgement and held again and again and again because (while in jail) he still cannot pay. Now, obviously, that is not criminal-law per-se; just the consequences of disobeying the court in a civil matter. I gave it as a farcical example when Bruce was saying that laches wouldn't apply if a person couldn't pay a lawyer to argue an equitable remedy. I told him that the court would likely simply say that said person could represent himself; the only time they would find them incapable is if said person was physically, mentally, or legally (minor) incapacitated.
Then I got banned and he apologized to everyone seemingly as if I didn't know what I was talking about. Which places my name in a false negative light (a tort btw, related to libel).
>is shit starting to hit the fan for grsecurity?
No, It seems someone may have tipped Bruce off that he was talking to an anti-feminist, pro-marry-young girls, pro-Old-Testament God, person that does not believe that Hans Reiser did anything wrong.
Thus it looks like no one will do anything because to do something would please me: a pro-marry-young-girls anti-feminist person.
The free software conservancy doesn't want to do anything and actively councils people to rest on their rights (thus losing their causes of actions): lists.debian.org
Could someone ask on twitter what Bruce's sudden problem is:
whats going on here?
Please keep this bumped
Pax Team's legal analysis: Red Hat does something similar, thus we're in the clear!
twitter.com
> PaX Team\u200f @paxteam Jul 13
>
>where are the broken out kernel patches for RHEL again? oh wait... Red Hat threatens service contract termination if anyone 'leaks' them.
------
GPL v2
Section 6 states simply
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
From GRSecurity's "Stable Patch Agreement":
"Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs."
Clear as day. What some lay people do not understand is that the terms in section 6 are governing what agreements and actions the distributee can take regarding furthur distributees, in reality, in the flesh.
Here the ACTIONS of GRSecurity are to RESTRICT the exercise of the redistribution rights of the further distributee.
This is an action prohibited by the terms offered by the linux-rights holders, and they have written as another term that the permission they give to use their property is revoked upon violation of their terms.
Very simple.
(Someone previously said on another thread:)
>And none are imposed. However, you are given the option to agree to them. Clear as day.
The proffering of the additional restrictive terms is in and of itself a violation of section 2. You are holding the clients to an additional restriction and enforcing this restriction via a threat to suspend business relationships.
(YES YOU HAVE IMPOSED AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION)
(Also "no broken out patch" is somehow materially the same as "no patch" when it comes to the interests of the linux-kernel rights holders, according to PAX Team)
> whats going on here?
I was discussing legal matters with Bruce Perens having to do with GRSecurity's willful blatant violation of section 6 of the linux-kernel software license.
My couciling seems to have induced Bruce Perens to issue this advisory.
Which was then posted to slashdot as:
linux.slashdot.org
Suddenly today he posted this to the mailling CC list:
lists.debian.org
>OK, I apologize to all who were involved in this conversation. I will block further emails from "aconcernedfossdev" and no longer encourage him.
>
> Bruce
I want to know what happened.
His twitter account is here:
twitter.com
And his email, which I am blocked from suddenly according to him, is here:
[email protected]
I did absolutely nothing to warrant this sudden black-listing.
Mike is that you?
The ramblings of a schizophrenic weeb.
sage and move on...
> Mike is that you?
Yes, ofcourse, who else?
>The ramblings of a schizophrenic weeb.
>sage and move on...
I'm a licensed attorney.
And a programmer. And map maker. Etc
I guess having more than one hobby is "schizophrenic" to proud White Aryan MURICAN MEN! (who violently oppose their own interests and act as mere golems of the white woman having no will of their own)
That is a fruit of my legal council. I explained to may many lay people over the past month or two how GRSecurity was violating the license grant.
(Also See this:
linux.slashdot.org
for discussion)
Are you going to continue to claim I'm a skitzo?
The evidence is stacking up in the other direction, you know. If I didn't know what I was talking about, my words wouldn't be listened to, as I wouldn't beable to explain in detail the issues.
>I'm a licensed attorney.
good lord, who made that mistake?
>I guess having more than one hobby is "schizophrenic"
No.
>proud White Aryan MURICAN MEN! (who violently oppose their own interests and act as mere golems of the white woman having no will of their own)
But this looks very much like you are suffering from a mental illness.
Here is some advice from one autist to another:
Don't start your thread with rambling. No one here knows Bruce and no one here knows you. Next time start with a short introduction of the topic and stop positing a) 3D sluts b) shit tier waifus.
>Hans Reiser did nothing wrong
According to wikipedia ( yeah I know)
He murdered his fucking wife.
There's nothing more to discuss. A ruling would have to come from a judge. Your fee fees are irrelevant.
Also, they're right. It's fully within their rights to adjust their actions based on others' behavior, even if said behavior is legal. That does not "adjust the terms" since their actions were never under the terms.
"If you post racist rants I'm going to stop talking to you."
"YOU CAN'T DO THAT! MUH FREEZE PEACHES! YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY OR UR VIOLATIN' MUH RIGHTS!"
That's not how it works.
TL;DR can you explain what happened in less than 256 characters? easy explanations for dumbs please.
>be racist sexist pol retard weeb schizo cunt
>get blocked when Bruce realized he was talking to a chantard
If you really think you did nothing wrong, post you're whole conversation.
OP did nothing wrong at all in saying all the shit he says, but Bruce did nothing wrong in blocking him. Both of them are just exercising their free speech.
>It is okay to be sexist
Just no you fucking retard leave.
Go ahead and give me 5 reasons why it's not ok to be a sexist.
>What is free speech?
>What are inalienable rights?
>What is the Bill of Rights?
Yeah, fuck off you moralfag. You're lliterally just the left-wing version of the evangelicals at this point
He found out you like traps and post on Sup Forums, therefore you're /marked/
GPLv2 was a mistake
Going for the low hanging fruit of hardening Linux instead of working on an actual hard thing like OpenBSD (since it is autistically correct code wise) or FreeBSD (which is airway already hardened) end in this
GRSecurity has always been a bunch of hacks with little idea about what they're doing who love to ride the coattails of hard working people and get mad when they get called out on it, just look at OP
getting sidelined and even blocked by the shitfit Bruce threw out of the blue
OP might go full autism and even schizo like, but Bruce engaged with him for a long time
Your thoughts?
Anyone have a twitter account that can ask Bruce: Why
She committed adultery against him, then divorced him, stole his property, and stole his kids.
Hans did nothing wrong according to the God seen in the book of Deuteronomy.
He did the correct thing.
>Also, they're right. It's fully within their rights to adjust their actions based on others' behavior, even if said behavior is legal. That does not "adjust the terms" since their actions were never under the terms.
Incorrect. They (GRSecurity) are modifying some other entity's property. The only right they have to do this flows from the owners conditional grant of permission to do so (which he can rescind at any time).
The term of that grant of permission state:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
This governs the actions of the licensee if the licensee wishes to modify the linux-kernel (he does not have an inherent right to do so)
The license could say "you shall not eat grapes on monday, lest your license be automatically revoked": the property owner may alienate his property as he wishes.
GRSecurity put this in their agreement one must adhere to should they wish to acquire the derivative work:
From GRSecurity's "Stable Patch Agreement":
"Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs."
This runs counter to the text in the license grant memorization and is a violation which triggers an automatic revocation as stated in said memorization.
>"If you post racist rants I'm going to stop talking to you."
>"YOU CAN'T DO THAT! MUH FREEZE PEACHES! YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY OR UR VIOLATIN' MUH RIGHTS!"
>That's not how it works.
I could as a condition of a grant of giving you permission to use my property. You would have to choose: say what you wish or use my property. I could also, as a condition to use my property require you to let derivative works of said property be freely redistributed.
> GPLv2 was a mistake
Yes: it lacks a no-revocation clause. Licenses are revokable at will (barring estopple). Red Hat (or any other rightsholder), for instance, could revoke permission to use it's additions to the linux kernel at any point by whomever it disliked. You would then have to argue in court they are estopped from doing so because you relied on a promise or statement that they made that ran counter to that action.
This is why Red Hat can get away with it's business practices that Pax Team cite: if any other kernel developer sued them they can simply revoke his license to the parts of the Linux Kernel that use Red Hat owned code. This is also why companies like Microsoft contribute to the Linux Kernel: it's like building up a patent portfolio in a way.
Pax and GRSecurity are not in the same position; yet foolishly take similar actions, even actions going beyond what Red Hat does (even if the patches are not "broken out", they still, from Red Hat's side, are provided, furthermore they are integrated into the latest linux kernels: thus the purposes of the other kernel programmers are satiated)
Anyone else want to claim I'm a skitzo?
(GPL v3 does not lack a no-revocation clause, btw, in-case you actually believed the FSF when it stated that the patent language was the real, big, reason for the revision)
He refused to be cucked, plain and simple
It's right there in the >'s in the debian list link.
This blocking was out of the blue, as if someone told him something and then suddenly he was __DONE__
>He refused to be cucked, plain and simple
Correct. He did what the God of Deuteronomy commands him to do in chapter 22 of said book.
It says to kill kill kill.
He obeyed his God.
Bruce Perens disparaged Hans on Slashdot comments in the thread I linked to.
I don't use twitter, can someone who does ask him publically why he blocked me suddenly after listening to me for over a week?
His twitter account is here:
twitter.com
And his email, which I am blocked from suddenly according to him, is here:
[email protected]
I just want to know. I also want to know who said what about me.
He's too much of a faggot to sign into twitter these days
>According to God
God is not a morally upstanding individual. Neither was that guy's wife, but that doesn't warrant murder.
That's the God of the old testament... Christians can't lift rules from before the crucifixion of Christ and apply them as they see fit.
tldr
>That's the God of the old testament... Christians can't lift rules from before the crucifixion of Christ and apply them as they see fit.
Who said anything about Jesus or the New Testament?
You can choose to follow Jesus or choose to follow God (The God of Deuteronomy, not Jesus).
You cannot follow both (one cannot have two masters).
Hans Reiser did not do anything wrong: he obeyed the God seen in Deuteronomy (Not your god Jesus); the Overlord of the Armies.
>God is not a morally upstanding individual. Neither was that guy's wife, but that doesn't warrant murder.
It does warrant a killing according to the Lord of the Armies in Deuteronomy. Your pro-woman Jesus cuck morality is worthless and disgusting:
While God (not Jesus) is fine with: taking young girls as brides, raping young unbetrothed virgin girls and keeping them, killing adulterous women, men having many women and girls etc,
(English Language) Jesus is opposed to all these things that are good for men. He makes the man the slave of the woman (who is not condemned for fucking as many men as she wishes while Jeeeeeessuuuusss condemns the man for even looking at a woman).
Bruce Perens and many of you WHITE MEN are Jesus worshipers. Idolaters.
I am not. Others here are not. And clearly by his actions and continued defiance of the AMERICAN WHITE MAN religion (which it forces on all other cultures so they become cunttures) Hans Reiser rejected your false idol and instead followed the way of the God seen in the book of Deuteronomy.
Hans Reiser did Nothing wrong. I am so glad he rejected the women's religion and the women (and WHITE MAN (aka Golem of the white women)'s) idol: Jesus; and instead followed the God of the Jews (He is who is: doesn't change, unlike what christian pieces of shit claim)
I'd like to respond to PaX here:
twitter.com
> PaX Team\u200f @paxteam Jul 13
>
>where are the broken out kernel patches for RHEL again? oh wait... Red Hat threatens service contract termination if anyone 'leaks' them.
Twitter requires a cell phone number and all the SMS-Recieve numbers on the net are allready in use.
I wanted to post a response to PaX Team's argument, could someone perhaps do it for me:
GPLv2 lacks a no-revocation clause. Licenses are revokable at will (barring estopple). Red Hat (or any other rightsholder), for instance, could revoke permission to use it's additions to the linux kernel at any point by whomever it disliked. You would then have to argue in court they are estopped from doing so because you relied on a promise or statement that they made that ran counter to that action.
This is why Red Hat can get away with it's business practices that Pax Team cite: if any other kernel developer sued them they can simply revoke his license to the parts of the Linux Kernel that use Red Hat owned code. This is also why companies like Microsoft contribute to the Linux Kernel: it's like building up a patent portfolio in a way.
Pax and GRSecurity are not in the same position; yet foolishly take similar actions, even actions going beyond what Red Hat does (even if the patches are not "broken out", they still, from Red Hat's side, are provided, furthermore they are integrated into the latest linux kernels: thus the purposes of the other kernel programmers are satiated)
Notice that the person claiming I'm a skitzo didn't respond to this:
Or this: That is because (he?) cannot.
The Proud White American Staunch Jesus Protestant Christian Proud American Value Supporting Making World SAFE for MUH WHITE WOMAN.... White Man... has no counter argument.
Because there are none.
I know what I'm talking about.
"Nuh Uh" isn't going to cut it.
I still don't know why Bruce Perens suddenly blocked me out of the blue for no decernable reason.
Any thoughts?
GRsec is for cuccs.
I don't blame him. Thread hidden.
>What happened?
It quickly became apparent that you are dangerously mentally ill.Sane people don't carry on the way you have described your behavior.
Am I the only one who has troubles following the train of thought in OP's posts?
>GPL v3 does not lack a no-revocation clause,
WTF i love GPLv3 now.
In the name of Jesus Christ, seek help.
You seem obnoxious and smell jewish, so I can understand why you appear as a madman raving about non-existent ghosts.
>Perens
He did that. Deal with it, jewish faggot.
No one can understand what the fuck is your problem here.
Put an image of the Wall in Jerusalem as your screensaver then move jewishly your jewish head while looking at that.
Fuck off, spammer.
he's a kike, hence a mad man.
>jew spamming pilpul
Get back in the oven.
i just can't figure out legal language. it seems so weird.
en.m.wikipedia.org
http//www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522.html
Bruce would have NEVER said any of this kina thang to a proud black negro thugg.
Bet you 100 o dat.
>It quickly became apparent that you are dangerously mentally ill.Sane people don't carry on the way you have described your behavior.
Nothing other than the situation vis a vis GRSecurity was discussed with Bruce Perens.
Such can be read here: lists.debian.org
Out of the blue he then blocked me.
If it so "quickly" became apparent that I was "mentally ill (according to you)" then why did Bruce issue this advisory after taking my council: perens.com
Answer me that.
I have been the only person pursuing the GRSecurity case. The only one.
>In the name of Jesus Christ, seek help.
No; I reject Jesus. I support the Overlord of the Armies, he that simply is now and forever.
Nope, not Jewish; I just am a fan of their God. I dislike the Christian Jesus. The two support diametrically opposed beliefs when it comes to women, girls, men, etc. Jesus is a cuck and demands men be cucks, God (not Jesus) is the opposite and demands the female be the slave; not the man.
As I said before:
Notice that the person claiming I'm a skitzo didn't respond to this:
Or this: That is because (he?) cannot.
The Proud White American Staunch Jesus Protestant Christian Proud American Value Supporting Making World SAFE for MUH WHITE WOMAN.... White Man... has no counter argument.
Because there are none.
I know what I'm talking about.
"Nuh Uh" isn't going to cut it.
>White Proud American MAN!!!! Can't understand the legal system of the country he lives in... gets red in the face with anger. Redoubles his effort to violently oppose his own self interests and make the world safe for Women and Girls and a hell for men. Such a Proud Selfless WHITE Knight.
Sad I'm lumped in with you golem retards.
Still no counter to
Or this: By the PROUD White American MEN!
By their silence you now understand the depth of their thought.
Got any more men's countries to overthrow and install a pro-women's femarchy in? Comon, hip hip, on the double, got to make sure no man is able to take perfect young girls as brides: no that would be against the interests of roastie whores. Can't have that as a PROUD AMERIII_____CAN_____ WHITE MAN!
I'm just going to dub you a creationist of some sort and tell you to do humanity a favor and kill yourself you fucking retard.
What are your feelings on grsec Sup Forums?
>I'm just going to dub you a creationist of some sort and tell you to do humanity a favor and kill yourself you fucking retard.
Being in-favor of the book of Deuteronomy because it allows men to have female children as brides, including in cases of rape (Deuteronomy 22, 28-29, hebrew), raises the man up to the position of Overlord (ba'al) of the female, and forbids women like Nina Reiser form doing "they thing", and absolves people like Han's Reiser
equals
Being an American Christian Protestant Creationist.
Makes total sence.
BTW:
Still no counter to
Or this: By the PROUD White American MEN!
If you want me dead: you're going to have to kill me yourself.
>this entire thread
>I'm just going to dub you a creationist of some sort and tell you to do humanity a favor and kill yourself you fucking retard.
Sup Forums see how lacking the mind of the American White Man is? He could not comprehend simple things, because he is completely unread and studies nothing, so he looked at his paltry box of ideas and known quantities and to dispose of the matter selected a subsection (one of a very few in his mind).
Do you see how the inner workings of a stupid beast operates. A golem of his master: the white woman (since the time of the Roman invasion of Gaul: where it was found that the Proud White Man knew of no agriculture, but did allow "his" woman to box him in on the battlefield with their oxcarts.).
>lay idiot not understanding the limits of his comprehension.
The legal principals regarding the GRSecurity matter touched on in this thread are simple.
But hey, you can believe me: A programmer, 3d designer, recording artist (hehe... not that I'm good at that :P), and licensed attorney.
Or...
You can believe yourself.
We know which the Proud Red In The Face White American Animal will choose.
Why does Sup Forums attract so many schizos? First Terry and then this fucker.
what the fuck is going on
hit me up with a quick rundown
Hey OP, have you made an operating system based on God's instructions?
>Reiser asks potential jurors about morality of murder
>Convicted murderer Hans Reiser today appeared to outline his strategy in the wrongful death lawsuit that was filed against him by his two children.
>Reiser, 48, is serving a term of 15 years to life in state prison for killing his wife, 31-year-old Nina Reiser, at his home in the Oakland hills on Sept. 3, 2006.
>As the jury selection phase of the civil case continued this morning, Reiser asked potential jurors if it would be moral to kill someone if that person were abusing children.
>Reiser asked one juror, "What if the only way to stop harm was killing the person? Would it be moral to kill that person in order to protect the innocent?"
>The man Reiser was questioning answered, "It's never moral, in my mind, to kill anyone for any reason."
>Reiser, who is acting as his own attorney, later excused that juror.
>By his questions, Reiser appears to be indicating that he will argue during the trial that he killed his wife to stop her from harming their two children, Rory, now 12, and Niorline, now 11.
Oh wow, Lol. He sticks to his guns. He feels that being a whore is setting a bad example for his kids so he had to do something.
Elsewhere on the net Reiser (twitter) is accused of being Jewish.
It is true that according to the book of the Law in the Old Testament being a whore merits said action.
He just won't kneel to Jesus. He won't kneel to the white man's idol.
> what the fuck is going on
> hit me up with a quick rundown
Bruce publishes this: ( perens.com
Then sometime after this ( linux.slashdot.org
Meanwhile people who cannot decipher the sweet nothings claim OP is a mental case.
OP is the progenitor of this Xonotic fork: lgdb.org
> Why does Sup Forums attract so many schizos? First Terry and then this fucker.
Defeat the schizos legal argument while also showcasing your own superior works in the fields of: Game Code Programming, 3d Modeling, 3d Level Architecture, Music, and, perhaps, art.
We have been waiting over a year now.
(continued)
Also prove that roastie whores are superior to young girls and that it is in a man's interest to be barred from having young girls as his brides.
Between your ranting and raving, and all the weebshit, you sound mentally ill. I would have ignored you too. Your thoughts are rambling and incoherent.
>After four hours of deliberations, jurors decided against Reiser in part because of what they believed to be his overall attitude toward women.
>“He seemed to profess to have very specific ideas of what a woman’s role is, and that was to be the primary caregiver, to stay home,” said Julie Sowles, of Livermore, one of seven female jurors. “He specifically said something that indicated that he tried to influence his wife into thinking that her proper role was to stay home and take care of children … I found hypocrisy in that he was an absentee father working on his project and never at home with them.”
>Reiser, who acted as his own attorney during the weeklong trial, said numerous times that he considered himself an absentee father because he frequently traveled between the U.S. and Russia for his job as a computer programmer.
>Jurors also were turned off by Reiser’s statements that he wanted more children no matter what. “Mr. Reiser said that he wanted a large family of five children. If he was not going to get it from Nina, he was going to get it from other women one way or another,” Smith said. “The women on our jury quite frankly felt like ‘screw you.'”
Reiser is awesome!
White Men (aka cucks) wonder why those in power are importing Muslims as fast as they possibly can.
Those in power rightfully want an end to this ascendancy of women. It will never end with White Christian Stauch Cuckold's as the majority.
Why does the White Nationalist hate the "Jew" the most (according to the white nationalists)? Because the WN feels that the White Woman's position is threatened. What does the White Nationalist fear the most? The return of the acceptance of child brides for men.
You seem to be missing the point.
He did NOT ignore me:
perens.com
He suddenly Apologized and blocked me __OUT_OF_THE_BLUE__
lists.debian.org
As if he was told something from an unnamed source.
I spoke only the law with him.
I did not speak as I am speaking on this thread.
I'm not stupid. I want something to occur, I work on it. Here it occurred. Not the first time I got something done through wielding another.
It doesn't matter what you're speaking about, it's the way in which you speak. You come off as a crazy person. Maybe that's normal on lunix mailing lists now that I think about it, but I wouldn't know.
Women get to sit on a jury where a man is being judged. White Christian Men are fine with this (there is no jew nor greek, male, nor female: you are all one in christ).
What the actual fuck is happening in this thread
This is way past autism, this is downright schizo territory
Read this:
I induced that article to be written. I explained the law to many lay-people over the course of months. Do you think that if I was coming off as a crazy person to them that such would have occured?
You really think I talk about how wonderful Reiser is, How men should marry cute young girls, how women shouldn't have rights, etc etc etc... when arguing the law with people that matter and could execute my wishes in that sector?
No: I stick to the topic and I do not deviate.
And I get results just by words alone.
beautiful thread
We are contemplating the greatness of Hans Reiser: The Whore Slayer.
Yes, it is.
it's probably your obsession with traps that triggered an old testament impulse to have you dealt with in old testament style.
This is libel.
Anzu is a girl.
(White men do not like cute things, if one isn't fucking a brick wall one is "gay". Man + Young girl.. gay. Man + cute young woman... gay.... Man with roastie whore who's fat.. YEEEHHAAAUUUH MORE CUSHIN FOR THE PUUSSHIIN!!! MURICA!!!!! People fill your head with crap and you just accept it like you came up with the manufactured thought. Stupid fucking white man.)
This, what the fuck?