Gromnir

is no fun if Gromnir has to argue both sides, but to help commie along... the threshold questions for ep is where one should search. facial neutrality and what is burdens o' fundamental rights is such questions... and our comment 'bout chicken sacrifices in florida is quite useful too. *shrug* can't keep doing both sides o' this. HA! Good Fun!

rationalize all you want. we see a post where you is saying why ender could be a mod and why others folks shouldn't. if you wanna be mod then don't talk bad 'bout fellow posters... claim that you is just giving an opinion not make no difference at all. opinions is what starts most of the arguments on these boards. HA! Good Fun!

this post seems to be reason 'nuff not to ever consider ender for mod status. don't ask to be mod. don't tell folks why you should/could be mod. those things not get you made mod anyway. you wanna be a mod? Gromnir got the keys to being chosen as mod, so listen up and learn. 1) be here most o' you clowns got that part down, so it ain't much o' a burden. the thing is that the obsidian folks is gonna choose folks who has shown that they can and will be here much of the time. 2) be helpful when n00bs and fellow posters has questions, never be shy 'bout posting links to developer quotes or applicable news sites 'n such. if a mod answers questions that satisfy folks then those is questions that developers not have to deal with. am not saying that developers intend to answer most or even many fan questions, but if fans is constantly ignored then the devs get a bad rap (e.g. troika.) fan mods answer takes pressure off of developers to waste time on boards answering inane questions

arlington heights is your guide. arlingngton heights factors identify how a court can divine invidious intent. 'course knowing the words and the factors ain't 'nuff. understanding how those factors has actually been used by the Court is what legal analysis of an ep question is all 'bout. ... regardless, if somebody say that arlington heights don't apply to an ep question, they is almost assuredly showing that they don't know a damned thing 'bout ep. HA! Good Fun!

not by a long shot. don't work like that. you pretty much gotta show that the legislators who passed the law wanted wiccans and satanists to feel bad or suffer. get yourself actual congressional records where legislators said, "those damned witches are a blight on society, so let's add, "under God," to the pledge." how likely is that? w/o actual intent you is pretty much gonna have to use a first amendment free excercise or establishment clause basis to show that the legislator's intent were discriminatory... so why use ep when you is gonna have to go 1st amend anyways? even so, you is going at this thing in parts rather than seeing the whole. 1) learn what is the threshold questions... especially what makes for a class distinction 2) review the major ep cases since arlington heights and divine rule from those cases 3) get somebody to exlain to you the three levels o' scrutiny ep is 'bout 2 weeks of con law in second semster, but you can teach self in a few days... as long as you has somebody explain some o' the more subtle nuances. the thing is, just 'cause you see the words Equal Protection, it does not mean that everybody gets treated the same under the law... just as "Congress shall make no law," in the first amendment context does not actually mean that Congress cannot make laws which abridge free speech. just 'cause you think you understands something in english does not mean that you understand something in law. HA! Good Fun!

Howso? You're free to disagree with me, though I'm not sure if you do. If you want to talk strict constitutional interpretation, I would say that there's plenty of leeway in the past judgments of equal protection cases - which have primarily dealt with race - to be expanded to this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> look, you don't know what you is talking 'bout. honestly. you just haven't studied the cases and tht is getting more and more obvious. ep does apply to everybody... you is reading wrong... but that ain't your fault this time. gotta have whole case to comprehend. first, read arlington heights and washington v. davis... then find out about chickens sacrifices in florida... is a RELIGIOUS ep case. you need to show actual discriminatory INTENT, and that is almost impossible to get. is not the race distinction that kills you... is the necessity of INTENT. disparate impact is not enough. HA! Good Fun!

oh geez... the friggn' circle starts all over again. HA! Good Fun!

do you know what a "legitimate" govt. intrest is in terms of Constitutional Construction? the only way it ain't legit is if it violates establishment or free ex clause... and again, arlington heights kills you. "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." disparate impact has evidentiary value, and nothing more. for chrissakes, why you think rhenquists' cf cite of arlington heights in deshaney caused such an uproar? HA! Good Fun!

recall what happened in washington v. davis? and that were with suspect classes. what level o' scrutiny does wiccans get in an equal protection case? remind us? not strict. not even intermediate. rational basis? HA! argue ep and lose. HA! Good Fun!

Well, you gave me permission, after all. And I've said repeatedly that I don't use the First Amendment to justify removing "under God" from the Pledge, but rather equal protection and equal rights. It seems an infringment of both if one group - those who believe in God - are favored over another in terms of a national oath of allegiance. How are atheists, Satanists, Wiccans, and all those other wackos given equal consideration? They're not. P.S. I wasn't aware I needed to spell it out. Then again, I should've figured. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> fine, run down the arlington heights factors and show us how this is an equal protection issue. HA! Good Fun!

Wow. Man. You two want to book a room or something? One of those heart-shaped tubs? Go report some posts somewhere and let the grown-ups talk. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> don't you just love the hypocriscy o' some folks? you do know that you is gonna lose some serious jr. moderator points for attacking 213etc. like that. *shrug* there is a few folks that gots the chops and the integrity to be taken serious in a moderator role whether they is mods or not. silvermoon on the old interplay boards was such a person. she almost never got invloved in the petty brawls that would break out on the boards. you could tell that she were really trying to help. silvermoon would ask folks to stop fighting, and they did. on the other hand, folks who so easily succumb to the kinda behavior that they profess to wanna stop is... not need go further down that path? leave the modding to the mods. without a tag you needs respect to be taken serious. HA! Good Fun!

You're the one writing the theses, man, so I'm curious as to which one of us is actually getting worked up on the issue. Rail away at my reading comprehension skills all you like, but you've got to give me some credit; it's not always easy to wade through crap written by a guy pretending to be an ork, or whatever it is you do. It's a cute motif, I'll give you that. What do you want to discuss about the First Amendment, exactly? We disagree on interpretation. Not all that much more to say, is there? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> theses? HA! sorry chum, but you is the guy/gal that got offended by the kida posts we made and felt you had to address our mean nature. surely Gromnir ain't the one worked up... amused is more like it... especially since you has kinda gotten involved in the very thing you were trying to moderate Gromnir 'bout. and yeah, we can criticize your reading comprehension skills. if you got the idea that Gromnir were 'gainst attacking your opponent then your reading comprehension has gotta be for crap. sorry, but we were anything but subtle or unclear on that issue. as to chalking up disagreement on interpetation of Constitution as being moot... it is moot only if you believe it to be so. if Constitutional interp issues were simply matters o' differing opinion then there would be no need for a Court in the first place. so far we ain't seen any but ss actually attempt to discuss Constitutional interp issues. what does pledge mean and why is it good or bad... have seen lots of that. have seen folks ask whether seperation o' church and state is a good thing or not... but as to actual Constitutional interp, we has seen almost nothing. HA! Good Fun! ps thought you had some observations 'bout our alma matter?

never does Gromnir berate folks for having a different opinion. you should pay closer attention. bad reasoning and mischaracterizations and general foolishness? sure, we give folks a hard time 'bout such, but we got nothing 'gainst folks having an opposing view. got a first amendment question in there? HA! Good Fun!

Wait a minute. What do you want anyone to say? You wrote the Constitution, buddy, so you're well aware of precisely what was intended by it. You don't think the separation of church and state exists, and you're not going to change your mind, so what the hell's the point in arguing with you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> more strawman crap. lord only knows where/how you clowns come up with this junk... and just so we is straight, we not give a damn 'bout your characterizations of Gromnir. got to town on insults o Gromnir. not bother us in the least. for chrissakes, growup. is just words on a message board... and as you point out, Gromnir most certainly DID note earlier that such characterizations do not strenghten or weaken an agrgument. 'course we also noted that there is a fine tradition o' insulting folks in debate... even ghandi got in some quotable shots. so the conclusions some folks wanna draw from Gromnir statements on the subject o' personal attacks is... odd. poor reading comprehension? nevertheless, attack away... though this continued line o' debate o' commie's is tending to makes him look a little hypocritical, no? personal attacks on Gromnir not bother us in the least. is silly to get worked up over such stuff. however, characterizations of Gromnir arguments better be accurate or you can expect more lumber to come your way. after all, the only thing worth arguing 'bout is the argument. try to wrap your mind 'round that one. on a side note, Gromnir is curious 'bout "choice reflections" o' our alma mater. those is always amusing... and as we got multiple degrees from multiple universities, we offer much opportunities. have at it. ... and still nobody wanna actually talk 'bout first amendment. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

for chrissakes... got commie prentending to play mod and saying nothing and we got col poking holes in arguments nobody made and as far as we can tell, nobody has agreed with. *shakes head sadly* is getting pathetic. thread is dead or dying, that is for sure. HA! Good Fun!

don't have a best side. be that as it may, you still ain't a mod. got any insight on the issue, or you just wanna talk 'bout Gromnir being a meanie? what a joke. "As for your insulting characterizations - you should keep them to yourself. " why? if the characterizations is accurate... now, does anybody wanna talk first amendment, or you wanna continue to whimper and moan? HA! Good Fun!

funny, we didn't notice a mod tag next to your name... the guy misrepresents Gromnir position to a ridiculous degree... or he/she is so clueless 'bout Constitutional construction that he actually believes what he is saying. in either case, the posts is worthless... his for being misrepresentations or ignorant to an extreme degree and yours for not even remotely being 'bout the debate in question. HA! Good Fun! p.s. if you wanna become a mod then we suggest you ask fin or fergie... 'cause you ain't built up 'nuff respect on your own for Gromnir to take you serious as a self-appointed mod.

"Gromir seems to think manditory reciting of the pledge is OK notwithstanding the constitution. But he does not seem to agree with the constitution or the role of the judiciary in interpreting the constitution and appears to be advocating overthrowing or ignoring the current law and resorting to pure majority rule or perhaps something else instead. There are alot of folks who share similar views (at least when they think they are in the majority) but I'm not one. " classic strawman nonsense. come back when you wann play like an adult. HA! Good Fun!

what could be a more "neat historical event" than Gromnir getting a .22 for his 12th birthday... and regardless, you can extrapolate our birthday from the info given and use that wiki thing to discover if some dead king or ex-football palyer had same birthday as Gromnir... none of which could possibly be as interesting to Gromnir as the rifle we got. HA! Good Fun!

not only does their vote not really matter, but most folks who is voting know that their vote does not matter. is like a poll where you ask which cartoon character would be the bestest president. sure people vote, but none of them actually thinks that snagglepuss or he-man might actually become president based on their votes. HA! Good Fun!

"Or maybe, keep in mind, this is hypothetical, 'flamer' filled the list up with horrible candidates to make himself look more attractive? " dumb theory for two reasons: 1) is not like people can't see the rest of the wot posters simply 'cause you not list 'em. and 2) place fresh & steamy vomit next to a glass o' rancid milk and the milk not all sudden like look delicious. in any event, it seems certain that Gromnir will be paying 5 cents a gal. for gas before obsidian offers flamer a mod job. HA! Good Fun!

... have never bought our own plane ticket. that had never occurred to us before. whenever we needs plane tickets we simply tell our secretary to get one for us. have been doing that for over a decade now, though we has had a number o' different secretaries during that time. huh. HA! Good Fun!

our birthday (day/month) is the only one that has 2 different perfect numbers. as to kewl things that happened on our birthday... we got our very own .22 when we turned 12. beat that. HA! Good Fun!

didn't exit over at rpg codex nominate himself for the position o' mod when these boards first got underway? somebody should tell him that this is his big chance to curry favor with the natives. am always amused when our name gets suggested as a possible mod on a message board. is even more amusing when The Powers That Be approach us to that end. the urge to self-destruction seems strong in some folks. regardless, we gotta give interplay/bis/obsidian credit for having never asked Gromnir to moderate. asking us to mod seems like such a ridiculous notion that no sane persons would ever honestly consider it, and yet it happens with some frequency. an overdeveloped sense o

"Have I missed anyone?" yeah. as usual, eldar missed Gromnir. having largely avoided the issue as to whether the pledge is a good thing or a bad thing, we took the road less traveled and pointed out that: 1) the Congress that passed the Bill o' Rights would not have been offended by the pledge. 2) the Court, a handful of non-elected old farts each with a handful of legal trained law clerks, is not the folks qualified to gather information 'bout, or makes rulings based on, the psychological impact of the pledge on young minds. 3) Congress can create committees and have hearings and such to gather such info... which is why they is the folks that we have create public policies. and 4) we noted that if the majority o' Americans really does believe that there should be a Wall o' Separation 'tween church and state, then it sure seems like the obvious way to change the pledge is to get Congress to do so. *shrug* the warren Court made a big mistake with Brown... suckered folks into thinking that the Court were a viable option to bring 'bout positive social change. HA! Good Fun!