Jump to content

SiouxRanger

Members
  • Content Count

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SiouxRanger

  1.  

    10 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

    I really think this is good news in the BSA bankruptcy proceedings.  Imerys was her first mass tort bankruptcy and she learned what NOT to do with voting.  Let's hope she's given thought to what TO do. 

    Oh, I only so hope you are right.

    Judges really fear and hate being appealed and more so detest being reversed.

    But if she has learned little, that means that the abuse survivors will have to sit out an appeal.

     I truly hope that is not so for them.

     

    We, or at least I, do not have much insight as to what is happening behind the scenes, but I am totally unimpressed with the proceedings so far.

  2. 13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat.
     


    https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/imerys-talc-reorg-plan-vote-changes-prompt-confusion-contention-bankruptcy-2021-06-23/

    From the above quoted article:

    Silverstein herself admitted that she did not pay close attention to the provision of the solicitation procedures order governing vote changes.

    “Just because I signed it doesn’t mean it’s correct,” she said.

    Res ipsa loquitur. (the thing speaks for itself.)

    I was going to write something about this statement, but instead, I am headed to the garage to put my head in a vise.  Ten minutes used to be enough before this week, when I increased my dose to 20 minutes.  With this statement of the Judge: we'll try 30 minutes...

    (Now I understand why this process seems so hesitant, tentative, and chaotic. Oh, and downright unjust.)

  3. 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    And take years to sort through.

    I agree with you.

     

    Personally, I don't have any sympathy for National that the mess it created could take years to resolve, with time running adversely against National, the tortfeasor.  National made this mess and it should step up and take real measures that "equitably compensate" abuse survivors. And give them sound information to make an informed decision on its Plan.  "Informed Consent" as a concept has worked its way into many aspects of life, except, apparently, bankruptcy law.  And if National liquidates, well, someone will step up and pick up the pieces.  It just won't be the self-interested folks that got everyone in this mess.

    Accepting National's argument that it can't afford delay (to clean up our own mess) in effect, blames the abuse victims.

    And that is intolerable.

     

    • Upvote 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Her point is that kind of ham fisted math as SOOOOOOO many assumptions and SOOO much contested questions that it could be misleading.

    Seems to me that what is left is also misleading, and pro National.

    Perhaps the Judge should compel the parties to produce accurate information so the the vote results are not corrupted by misleading simplification or misleading complexity.

    This is looking a lot like a third grade aptitude test:  "Class-time is up, pencils down."

  5. 56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    and the idea that somehow you’re going to threaten insurance companies with court is a joke. First you have to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency in the face of a case where the statute of limitations ran out decades ago. Then you have to conjure up an insurance company incapable of filing a motion to dismiss.

    I could see insurers paying of “nuisance value” of 10-30k to settle some. But at that point that is the same amount victims are getting through the BSA plan.

    Right on.

    Insurance companies cannot be threatened buy mere mortals.  Not by single plaintiff cases.  Hartford might be very concerned but only on account of the mass tort aspect of this.  Even then, it seemed to be able to work a sweet deal to limit its liability.

    I can easily see insurers paying $0.00 for nuisance value in time-barred states.

    And finding a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis facing an expired statute of limitations against an insurance company?  Good luck won't help-you'll need a miracle.

  6. 16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    It was the TCC that demanded it as part of the RSA/Plan 4.0 in order to get the TCC onboard.

    BSA’s Plan 3.0 was to give time barred claims 1% of claim value per the abuse matrix. So the “Tier 1” abuse would be $6,000-$27,000

    Boy, I would love someone to explain to me why National thought this would be simple, and "we'll be out of this by Fall."

    It ALMOST looks like all of these issues are catching the principal folks (National, TCC, and such) off guard. 

    (The process we are now in is that the main players are digging deeply into all the minutiae that affects them;  the issues are exploding exponentially and will entangle and consume the litigation process.  It is rapidly becoming a "Gordian Knot."  Alexander the Great untied the Gordian Knot by slicing it in half with his sword, thereby fulfilling prophecy and conquering Asia.  The only person who can untie National's Gordian Knot is the Judge.)
     

    A recorder of deeds office many years ago was run by a group of extremely competent ladies.  Everything they did was perfect.  Not kidding.

    There was a sign on the wall behind the main counter:

    "Don't start vast projects with half-vast ideas."

    And another favorite is:

    "Don't start a land war in Asia."

    • Upvote 1
  7. 21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    There is “difficult” to overcome the statue of limitations and there is impossible. That scale came in from the TCC lawyers professional opinion on what the real possibility was to find a way around the limitations. Places like Alabama were listed as “closed”: no chance. Etc.

    I am just going to say that given the infinite number of variables in making such an evaluation, the reading of tea leaves must play some part.

    As an example:  "We rate State A as having an 8% probability of reopening its statute of limitations."

    How is that 8% determined?

    There are time considerations in getting the job done.  If 2 or 4 years, then will the political makeup of the legislature change yay or nay?  A new Governor who is more or less likely to sign the bill?  And if vetoed, will the then (in the future political makeup of the legislature) be able to override a veto?  (Say, "Tea leaves.")

    And, how many abuse survivor claimants will actually file a claim?  Or still be alive to file a claim?  Will the right to file a claim die with the abuse survivor claimant, or survive as an enforceable right held by the estate of the deceased abuse survivor?  Will the executor of the deceased abuse survivor's estate, perhaps after canvassing the estate's beneficiaries, persist in pursuing a now revived claim, or will the beneficiaries elect to just "move on?"  (More tea leaves.)

    You get the point.

     

    And, that there are different levels to the gray scale means that there are folks who actually think (and perhaps they have sound data to support their scale) that they can put a percentage on each of the infinite (and really, maybe only 10 or 20 significant factors are material to the outcome) factors which would affect the viability of a claim.

    But if there is science and statistics behind the levels of the gray scale, everyone should be given the benefit of that information.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 23 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

    So upon what principles did the grey scale originate.  It would seem to me that the claimant says that the crime occurred in some state that was statue of limitations barred or not.  If not barred, then the claimant could collect the maximum that can be negotiated whereas if time barred there could not be an award.  How does a scale apply?

    To be clear, I am not saying that some group should not receive compensation - just trying to understand how a grey scale could be constructed.

    Excellent question. I was late to the game here and know little of the "grey scale" concept as discussed in this forum.

    My understanding, and I could be entirely incorrect, is that the gray scale originated from National in an early Plan.

    IF, and only IF that is the case, the question becomes, why would National include clearly time-barred claimants as a class of creditors to receive some payment?  And the only answer I can come up with is that National wanted to appear that it was trying to "equitably compensate" abuse survivors.

    My second best idea (at least to me), is that there is the possibility, however remote, extremely remote, that some states might reopen their statutes of limitation to create a pathway for time-time barred abuse survivors to receive compensation by litigation.  And this just might happen if state legislatures, after watching National's bankruptcy leave its citizen abuse survivors high and dry, are disgusted by the bankruptcy result.  So, my thought is that insurance companies just might be willing to pay something not to risk opening a much larger can of worms.  So, the lowest percentage gray scale value might be applied to states with constitutional prohibitions as mentioned by CynicalScouter, and higher gray scale percentages for states with no constitutional prohibitions, and legislatures more likely to reopen the statute of limitations.  But this is only food for thought.

    And my third best and most cynical idea is that National knew the time-barred claimants would likely not recover anything in its bankruptcy but included them anyway in the hopes that they could be enticed to file a claim and by sleight-of-hand, allowed to vote on National's Plan, then National would be able to stack the deck toward Plan approval by adding a huge voting block of those with no hope who surely will vote in favor of the possibility of receiving something as opposed to the bleak certainty of nothing.

    (Let everyone in Paraguay vote in favor of whether they ought to get $15,000, and I predict voter turn out will be nearly 100%.)

    The gray scale to me is that area on ancient maps marked, "Unknown."

     

    • Upvote 1
  9. 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    The fact is it is a fantasy a pure pure fantasy to suggest that suddenly all the statutes of limitation are going to go away or that 100% of victims will get 100% of claim value.

    CynicalScouter is absolutely correct.

    Heavens, for all that folks hate that legal process is interminable-we are going to kill off the only thing that puts an end to it:  statues of limitation?

     

    Can't win, can't break even, can't get out of the game.

  10. 3 hours ago, Muttsy said:

    Correction: “Nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” 
     

    I know for a fact that people supposedly dead on the statute in bad states are getting 50-100k. The cost and risk to the carrier isn’t worth litigating the issue with the plaintiff. 

    I would have to see this to believe it-all of the facts and circumstances, applicable statutes, contracts, etc..

    My favorite is the divorce client who claims his buddy at the shop "got to keep his house."

    Insinuating that the guy always gets to keep the house, or that the buddy's lawyer was really good.

    Well, generally, it turns out the buddy gave up his pension plan benefits in an equal value exchange, or some other asset the buddy is not bothering to mention. "Always got to look like a winner."

    Statutes of limitation are pretty much made of granite.

    • Upvote 1
  11. 28 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    In state courts one usually follows the other. This from my Utah courts friends

    Disclosure and discovery are mixed in time, in approximately the following order:

    https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/courtprocess/disclosure-discovery.html

    • initial disclosures;
    • fact discovery;
    • expert disclosures;
    • expert discovery; and
    • pretrial disclosures.

    "Approximately" is doing some heavy lifting here, but you get the idea.

    Document discovery (letters, memos, reports, contracts, etc.) and discovery of tangible things (a failed valve, for example) is generally done first. 

    THEN, depositions follow, and the witnesses are questioned about those documents and failed valves, so you can learn what they will say in court about those documents and failed valves. 

    If the depositions were done first, there would be little to question the witness about.

    • Upvote 1
  12. 27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    One is an element of the bankruptcy Plan. That’s the Disclosure Statement. The other, discovery, is a general element of litigation, taking various forms, that is one party going on a spelunking expedition to mine data and statements from another party. Let’s call it legal “Go Fish.” Each in turn:

    The disclosure statement is a document that must contain information concerning the assets, liabilities, and business affairs of the debtor sufficient to enable a creditor to make an informed judgment about the debtor's plan of reorganization. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics

    This is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they'll present at trial. Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. ... Depositions enable a party to know in advance what a witness will say at the trial. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/

     

    One of the significant differences between disclosure and discovery, is that the disclosure is "crafted" by the debtor to show what the debtor wants to reveal-and in whatever light the debtor believes will present a favorable view of the disclosure and elicit votes approving it.  Something akin to lawyers taking over the marketing and sales departments.

    Discovery, on the other hand, allows a party to a lawsuit to request documents, computer data, nearly anything even remotely connected to the litigation, so that the requesting party can examine it, and draw their own conclusions  regarding its relevance to the case.

    In one sense, discovery of documents, computer data, etc., the requesting party receives unaltered historical data-that is, it is backward looking.  The documents were generally created in the ordinary course of operations-in the -heat of battle.  They were not prepared (usually) with litigation in mind.

    Another type of discovery pertains to depositions of human beings after a lawsuit has been commenced.  Its does allow the requesting party an opportunity to hear what the opposing party's witnesses will say at trial.  (And, if they change their story between the deposition and trial, to impeach them and undermine their credibility as a witness.) But, contrary to discovery related to documents, etc,, the witness knows litigation is in progress and may be able to shape their testimony to be more favorable to the party who calls them as a witness. Generally, a deposition witness is questioned about documents which were discovered through document discovery.  This type of discovery is both backward-looking (pertaining to historical documents obtained through document discovery), and forward-looking, in that the witness has a chance to shape their testimony in the deposition to cast the best light.

    (Asking for a brief explanation was smart.  Volumes have been written on this topic.  "Trial attorneys" spend 95±% of their time requesting, reviewing, analyzing, and interweaving discovered materials into their trial plan.  Actual courtroom time is minuscule compared to trial preparation.)

    Perhaps others have more to add?

    • Upvote 1
  13. 10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    For years, units would go into banks and an EIN wasn't required.

    I think that is still the case with my unit. I've been the Troop treasurer for 10 or 15 years now, imposing an actual accounting and record-keeping system that took our Troop from bouncing 2 checks a month to about $4,000 in the bank-all due to collecting camping fees, donations, and fundraising revenues.

    I am not sure what EIN is on our account. (I try to keep my scouting volunteer hours to something less than my day job hours.)

    I believe it was ThenNow who mentioned that he was famous.

    I think Warhol was mistaken. We won't have 15 minutes of fame, but 15 minutes of incarceration-and for scouters, most likely on account of EIN violations. 

  14. 37 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

    Especially when a unit has its own EIN,

    Just an aside (which I may have mentioned before but just to demonstrate the depth of ignorance).

    My unit does not have an EIN.  Some years ago, in an effort to avoid paying sales tax of about 10%, I asked the CO for its EIN-a Catholic Parish.

    I went around and around over many days' of phone calls with a senior layperson in the Parish.  (Not the Parish Priest who has official authority-I guess it was not important enough to be brought to his attention???).

    "What do you want the EIN for?"

    "Uh...food, equipment..."

    "Well, we wouldn't want the troop to use it for food, camping fees, or for anything for an overnight activity, (you gotta sit down for this...) because the Parish would not want anyone to think the Parish sponsored such activities."

    (Have YOU read the Chartering Agreement???)

     

    Fine, I said, we will get along without it.

     

     

    Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.  --Friedrich von Schiller

     

    • Like 1
  15. On 9/19/2021 at 1:34 AM, fred8033 said:

    QUESTION #2 ... Inheriting CO liability from another CO

    If a unit moves charters ... and this is very common ... does the new CO inherit liability? 

    Reason #1 Purchasing companies inherit the liabilities of the purchased companies. 

    Reason #2  Often material possessions are transferred when COs are changed.  (bank accounts, tents, stoves, trailers, etc).  

    "Purchasing companies" generally involves two legally recognized entities engaging in either an asset purchase, or a stock purchase, pursuant to written a written contract wherein the retention or assumption of existing liabilities is provided for.  Consideration is paid or not, depending on the amount of liquidated liabilities, or the risk of known unliquidated liabilities and unknown liabilities.

    Even where a company assumes the liabilities of a selling company, that assumption does not relieve the selling company of its liability to the person or entity to whom it was-and remains-liable.  The assuming company is agreeing to indemnify and sold the selling company harmless.  The third party creditor/claimant can pursue the selling company.

    I think it would be a hard case to persuade anyone that the assets transferred to the new CO are in any way commensurate with the amount of potential liability assumed.  Several thousand dollars of equipment and cash-all used to just barely cover unit operations-was intended by either the old CO or the new CO to cover abuse claims.

    My bet is that the new CO has no liability for claims arising before it was the CO.

    13 hours ago, gpurlee said:

    The only instance that I can think a new CO would be at risk in assuming sponsorship  of an existing unit would be  if they were negligent in some way in screening and signing off on the leadership or failed to maintain appropriate future oversight. 

    I agree.  Unless an entity assumes past liabilities of another, an entity is only liable for its own acts and omissions-present and future.

    14 hours ago, David CO said:

    I never liked the idea of transferring units and CO shopping.  This adds one more reason for me to dislike the practice.  A new CO should always start out with a new unit.  New number and everything.  No inherited baggage.

    I've been hearing that some councils don't want to take on the charters of these old legacy units.  Do you think they might know something about this inherited liability question? 

    My comments above notwithstanding, starting out new across the board is safest:  new CO and new chartering agreement, with the new CO actually vetting unit leaders.  It establishes a date at which the new CO became the CO, and the date on which its responsibilities and duties commenced.

    As we have seen, the last thing one wants to do is be in court talking.  It is very expensive, surrenders control over decisions that may potentially destroy the business to a person that cannot, by the very nature of the process, have a complete picture.  National, like so many entities that have fled to the expedient shelter of cover-up, faces potential annihilation.

    • Upvote 1
  16. 4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    And herein lies the problem since at least the 1920s not only the annual charter renewal document but what would later evolve into the Adult Application made it clear that "Institutional Head" (which later split into the CO and IH) was approving those adult leaders and agreed to exercise oversight.

    This isn't about incorporated entity; this is about the idea that the scouting unit for legal and other purposes was considered a part of/program of the chartered organization.

    The equivalent would be if the Pastor of the local church approved a parish member to be the volunteer head of the youth choir and signed a document saying the Pastor had reviewed the person's character and vouched for him/her AND agreed to exercise control and oversight. The head of the youth choir is then found to have molested members of the choir. Clearly, the pastor took on the role and responsibility in his capacity as pastor to oversee that program.

    That the COs failed to read the documents put under their noses is neither here nor there. The fact is they bound themselves to these units, agreed to approval of the unit's leaders AND signed documents that they had reviewed those leaders (at least annually re-approving them). They have two choices:

    1) Admit they had no idea what was going on in that unit despite the signatures. That's literally the definition of negligence.

    2) Admit they had an idea but did nothing. Now we have willful indifference/deliberate indifference. That's actually WORSE from a legal standpoint.

    I am with you on this.  

    National postures the unit as part of the CO through the rechartering agreement, though in practice, may CO's do not fulfill their role.  And yet, unlike the choir teacher, or even members of the choir, NATIONAL has its "Standards Of Membership And Leadership" by which NATIONAL can expel a member of the unit theoretically under the control of the CO.  So, National delegates responsibility to the CO, yet retains authority to to meddle in the unit's internal operations.  And to terminate a unit's charter.  I doubt many or any church choirs are subject to such third-party control.

    I doubt any franchise model (something akin National's model) allows the franchisor, to hire and fire a franchisee's staff.  "Hello-your fry cook there-they've got to go."

    National has a hybrid "franchise model."

  17. 7 hours ago, gpurlee said:

    The term "ownership of a unit" is used very loosely. 

    This is precisely the correct observation.

    Years ago, I reviewed many of the governance documents pertaining to National, Districts, and units.

    They are a study in vagueness, ambiguity, and unworkable incompleteness-not a comprehensive governing plan.  I was unimpressed.

    So, units, 100% in my experience, have no formal, legal. structure.

    They are "unincorporated associations."

    My state has laws pertaining to the formation, operation, governance of business corporations, not-for-profit corporations, professional corporations, banking corporations, general partnerships, limited partnerships, and such. ("Such" being villages, townships, soil conservation districts, park districts...all manner of legal entities.)

    Those statutes provide for the creation of a new legal entity:  corporation or partnership.  Importantly, those statutes also provide rules pertaining to governance of the entity.  If the rules are followed, one can determine which individuals have legal authority to authorize actions in the name of the entity, and who is responsible for those actions.

    Legal entities can own assets, incur debts, etc.

    Unincorporated associations on the other hand are not a legally recognized entity.  It can be difficult to determine who (humans) are in charge and can make decisions that bind the association.  One typically sees this in small churches which never formed into a legally recognized entity.  They frequently end up in court battling over who "owns" the church, who is liable on the l.ease of the church meeting place (many are rented), who can hire or fire the pastor, and who controls the church bank account.  Typically, "Solomon splits the baby" and the losing faction moves on with some to none of the cash to lease another facility, paster in tow, or left behind.

    So, does a CO "own" a unit?

    One has to look at the many "incidents of ownership."

    Governance:  CO's, by virtue of the Chartering Agreemednt have the right to designate or approve unit leaders.   My unit's CO has never spent a second troubling itself with designating a unit leader, and probably not a second actively "approving" a unit leader, but rather just signs off on the Chartering Agreement.  Unit leaders are generally selected by acclimation and their term of office is indeterminate.  Sometimes retiring, or being encouraged to step down to make way for new blood.  Corporate law typically provide for the designation of defined officer positions, define their duties and authorities, and provide for election procedures and terms of office.

    Finances.  My unit makes all revenue and expense decisions, more or less by acclimation, or consensus. No particular vote.

    Continuation of existence. National and perhaps an LC, can decline to renew a unit's charter for any or no reason.  Not so for corporations and other legally recognized entities.  It is not consistent with the concept of CO ownership of a unit that another entity can simply terminate the unit's existence.

    Ownership of assets.  Who "owns" the unit's assets?  Bank account, camping equipment, and unit trailer?  I understand that if a unit folds, that is, does not renew its charter, or its charter is not renewed by BSA, that all the unit's assets become property of the LC.  So, if the CO "owns" the unit, why don't those assets remain with the CO? And for the CO to use them for scouting or any other purpose, scouting or not.  By what authority would those assets be restricted to scouting purposes only?  If by virtue of the Chartering Agreement, then the CO looks a whole lot less like it "owns" the unit because it does not have control of the assets the CO allegedly owns.  I've seen the current leadership of a unit, dissatisfied with a few trouble makers, who stirred up the CO, just up and leave the CO with all the equipment and bank account.  After a fair amount of table pounding, the CO just let it drop.  Does that fit the rules?  Who knows?  But the point is there ought to be rules that govern common situations that arise in CO and unit relations and governance.  

     

    National's model of its relationship with CO's and units does not fit into established legal statutory schemes, leaving many open questions. And it may well lead to an unintended result, depending on the decision of the Judge, who may very well advise everyone wha the rules are.

    When things are going well and unit assets are being used to make the model work, no one seems to care what the rules are.

    As there are 50 states, some states may have either statutory law applicable to unincorporated associations, and almost certainly a body of case law wherein courts have decided cases such as the church splits.

     

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  18. There is NO WAY anyone will persuade me that the title "Just Ku Kluxin Around" is anything but shining a jovial, light-hearted touch on racism.

    I have represented clients who spoke of their family documents pertaining to their family's ancestor's enslavement.  Or tracing their family tree back to when their ancestors who were slaves and no records exist, to their knowledge. A sobering moment in the course of an office conference. Well, for a naive white boy like me, though slavery was a part of their family history.

     

    Get an education and a copy of "Treblenka" by Steiner.  Learn.

     

    Or, extra for experts:

     

    Can It Happen Again, by Chartock, et. al.

    Quiet Neighbors, by Ryan

    Five Chimneys by Lengyel

    Eichmann In Jerusalem, by Arendt

    Minister Of Death, by Aldouby
     

    The Abandonment Of The Jews, by Wyman

     

    Anything by Simon Wiesenthal.

     

    And, if none of those:

     

    Babi Yar, by Kuznetsov.  This above all, read this.

     

    And when you find yourself in the bottom of an inescapable canyon of despair, read:

     

     A Night of Watching.

     

    And remember this from Rev. Niemoller, Protestant Minister during Nazi times: 

     

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

     

    And then volunteers of the BSA craft arguments that support the Ku Klux Klan?

     

    Anyone here have ever heard of a slight-framed guy named "Korematsu?"

     

    (All of the titles above are from my library, which I have read.  Babi Yar twice.  And there are many more not mentioned.)

    • Upvote 1
  19. 8 hours ago, qwazse said:

    Let’s all stop thinking the worst of one another and roll back the last three posts.

    @SiouxRanger’s wishing contagion on the innocents among an adversary’s family is unacceptable ad hominem (even if no such man exists), and as we see, opened the gate to taking umbrage in kind.

    1. Think well of one another.
    2. Read twice before replying.
    3. Ask clarification rather than denounce.
    4. Make only one point, send, sleep on he other.

    ad ho·mi·nem

    /ˌad ˈhämənəm/

    adjective

    (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

    "vicious ad hominem attacks"

    adverb

    1. 

    in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

    "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"

    2. 

    in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

    "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

     

     

    So, I don't think the "ad hominem" fallacy criticism applies.  I attacked the position of the poster, Forrest, and then applied my approbation to his family tree.

     

  20. This might bog you down for a bit.

     

    Exodus 34:6-7a

    6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.

     

    Pox:  "small" or "cow?"

     

    Are you "Forrest" of "Nathan Bedford Forrest" fame?

  21. 16 hours ago, forrest747 said:

    Your description of “ruthless killers who feel empowered to kill the defenseless” perfectly describes a recent drone attack that killed the ENTIRE family of a U.N. worker in Afghanistan who brought home water bottles for his family.   BTW,  not done by the Ku Klux Klan.  That was done by the good old U. S. of A. who were “Just Ku Kluxin’ Around,” I guess.

    Try selling that slop to the family of Emmett Till.

     

    That there is even a thread named, "Just Ku Kluxin' Around" is extremely offensive and totally unacceptable. Period.

     

    That slaughter is practiced elsewhere, does not make slaughter here acceptable.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...