Private Social Media Platform

Sadly, will be politely declining any further conversation, and will just use the scroll bar as was suggested.

Have been trying my best, but it has just been an awful experience so far.
Not saying this to be mean to you in any way either, just sharing what's being felt on this side of things.

None of the conversations you've had here ever gets anywhere or feels like it was worth the time. The responses being given to others seem overly tinged with frustration, unfair argumentative nastiness, and the sheer combativeness never seems to materialize into anything meaningful.

Unfortunately, don't really want to engage in discussing things with you anymore; So I'd like to kindly ask you to not @ me in the future if its not too much of a bother.

And please, I do request you to have the last word about this if you wish, if any part here doesn't seem right or fair.

➽ Sadly, will be politely declining any further conversation

Before continuing a conversation can be declined there must be actual conversation. Your interactions with me were NOT "conversation".  Conversation is usually about sharing and discussing information.You chose to ignore points I presented to the other poster when you attempted to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail focus away from my presented topics with your bullshit about "taunting". You claimed that my questions were "manipulation through a taunt"<Shrug.>

You must of missed where I wrote and posted: "The purpose of a question is to request clarification."
In view of your comments about questions I posed to another poster, I chose to plop those questions on the table right in front of you. YOU chose to not see those three questions and attempted to hijack the thread with your next post.

<Sarcastic Rhetoric> Tell me all about what a good conversationalist you are.</Sarc-Rhet> By the way, that was a very specific "taunt" aimed at you.

This is now the THIRD time I'm putting these questions in front of you:
What is YOUR purpose in posting on Larken's channel?
What do you hope to accomplish with your words?
What is your intent?

In other words, I am attempting to discern YOUR motivation for even posting on Larken's channel

➽ Have been trying my best, but it has just been an awful experience so far.
Not saying this to be mean to you in any way either, just sharing what's being felt on this side of things.

None of the conversations you've had here ever gets anywhere or feels like it was worth the time. The responses being given to others seem overly tinged with frustration, unfair argumentative nastiness, and the sheer combativeness never seems to materialize into anything meaningful.

𝟙. I'm about information, facts, and which are and are not true.
𝟚. I don't give a shit about your feelz if they are not grounded in information, facts, and truth.
𝟛. Your attempt to psycho-analyze me opens the door for me to also psycho-analyze you.

➽ Unfortunately, don't really want to engage in discussing things with you anymore;

You are not the first coward I've ever had ghost me because I question their written and posted emotional spew.

I posted a quote from Larken's event yesterday that I found funny and helpful.
⁠anarcho-memers⁠

You responded asking me to quote some written language from some moron.
⁠anarcho-memers⁠

I refused politely by pointing out the absurdity of asking an anarchist to quote laws.

I have no desire to look up the statute of these magic spells and copy and paste them here from any government institution in my free time.

If every time someone said to post a reference to laws applicable to a given situation I jumped I would do nothing but be a law copying robot. As even in the US. the specific laws you are searching for aren't just Internal Revenue Code (IRC)

They are US Codes (USC)
State Tax Codes
Counties with taxes assessed on income
Municipalities with the same claim to own a portion of another's product.
Smaller units like Special Economic Zones or Tax Increment Financing districts... and more that I'm probably unaware of...

It's a very large convo to start via low throughput text comms.

Ooof, yeah TIF is so aids. Small town out here was doing that to give special tax breaks to a multimillion dollar 9 story tall building, when all the other buildings in the area were 4 stories max.

Its just a special tax break they hand out to their criminal buddies. Spoke out against it at a city council meeting and made the tv news and paper. The local news when playing video of my complaint at the meeting, muted what I was saying and spoke over me, telling the viewer something else entirely. The newspaper referred to what was said as "there was a complaint" or something like that, but otherwise said only positive things about the special financing plan.

Good example of the word "you" being used as a taunt.

The form of presented questions matters if a meaningful discussion that seeks the truth is being requested.

Trying to force it by manipulation through a taunt just isn't going to work. People who are interested in fighting with someone else will be the only ones who tend to engage with someone who taunts like this.

    What is Larken Rose's PURPOSE with this particular Discord Server?

Is also a taunt.

A non-taunting version of these questions would be,

    "Larken Rose has unfortunately had to deal with unjust tax issues before. Is anyone interested in discussing any ways they've found to deal with the tax code & IRS, so that effective defenses can be created and understood? You know stuff that anyone can follow to succeed against the theft of taxation?

    Can even offer some insight and suggestions that might be interesting and overlooked because of so much studying that was done related to the laws they have on the books."

Does it make sense that the people who will engage with this request will likely have a productive discussion, whereas taunts are just inviting arguments?

Also, if someone is quite confident in the notion that people can successfully defend themselves by knowing the law, then a reasonable case should be assembled, and supporting evidence should be presented bountifully and concisely. This will serve discussion to be as meaningful as possible.

From those claims, questions and criticisms will naturally arise in the minds of those who are interested in having that discussion, and these thoughts will strive in pursuit of the truth. The more non-antagonistic things are the better for meaningful discussion to reach the truth.

The first part of socratic questioning/learning is for a topic & claim to be presented that people actually want to discuss. Can't skip the first step, and just ask implying questions with no direct and meaningful claim. People usually won't engage with the topic.

Admins of this group wish to educate those who do not understand liberty.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/theintroductionofliberty/

I agree 100%. So I am doing my part to help this group get wider exposure by presenting the link to this group.

Can you be at liberty when 30% of your money is stolen? How much more liberty to do things would you have with $100 than with $70?

That missing $30 is a resource that you no longer own. This is why I have asked the main admin of I2L this question:

Do you want to help folks legally stop paying the income tax that has not been imposed on payroll of Americans working in any of the 50 States united?"

On 27 August @ 18:33 main admin wrote: I don't HAVE to respond if I don't see a need. That is main admin admitting that main admin DOESN'T RESPOND. This is main admin admitting to ignoring questions.

By refusing to answer my very specifically worded question; Main admin has opened the door for his actions to be speculatively examined.

The question shortened is "Do you want to help folks?" The missing answer of "Yes" means main admin has answered "No"; The main admin does not want to help folks. By refusing to address the question, main admin has offered no reason for main admin's intent to not help folks.

Prior discussion can be found publicly archived here
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1777.0

Dale Eastman, We don't need you or your closet statism rhetoric masquerading as liberty. You're butt hurt because we suspended your membership because you were licking the boots of the tyrant Dave Champion who openly admitted he campaigned for Sheriff and ran his mouth about anarchists. Funny how you don't mention that part, you closet statist piece of shit. 😂 You think the answer to government robbing people is to get on our knees and enter the gov's systems, therefore validating it. You're also so ignorant that you think Dave's boot licing way is the only method. And since you continue to run your fk boi mouth slandering the group, we'll ban you from it completely. Go lay in a casket, traitor.

The first thing about your emotional tirade I'm going to address: You just accused me of slandering The Introduction of Liberty group.

I am all about provable, verifiable facts.

"Slander is Defamation by verbal statement, as opposed to defamation in writing.": https://legaldictionary.net/slander/

"Defamation is a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or damage to the character of the person it is about.": https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/differences-between-defamation-slander-and-libel#what-is-defamation

Correcting your error: You just accused me of libeling The Introduction of Liberty group.

What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group?

The topic you and Smith are trying to deflect away from is "Do you want to help folks?"

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1783.msg17181#msg17181

Dale Eastman, I'm not interested in your closet statism, passive aggressivism or your gutless dancing around Dave Champion being a STATIST TYRANT, you fking piece of shit, and you can come run your fk boi mouth in person about my emotion. Fk around and find out 🙂

Correcting your error: You just accused me of libeling The Introduction of Liberty group.

I told you, "I am all about provable, verifiable facts."

What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group?

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1783

Dale Eastman, False. You are about using passive aggression, not telling whole context and gaslighting your childish inability to admit to everyone that Dave Champion is a tyrant, and you're trying to slight the group because you are butthurt. I'm not interested in your disingenuous banter.

On 15 September @ 22:05 You posted these words: ➽ And since you continue to run your fk boi mouth slandering the group
I asked you a very specific question because of that claim of yours:
What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group?
You sort of replied: ➽ you're trying to slight the group
Here's that question again, modified to attempt to understand your latest emotional spew:
What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group by allegedly "trying to slight the group"?

Dale Eastman, When you can first acknowledge Dave Champion is a tyrant and it's not good to promote tyrants, then people might consider answering your subsequent questions. But at this point, you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the whole reason this started is because of YOU and Charles Moody refusing to acknowledge Dave is a tyrant and YOU and Charles Moody repeatedly trying to gaslight Dave as being a hero, therefore, you've ruined any chance of me answering any of your questions. No one is obligated to entertain your childish games where you bark questions and refuse to acknowledge you're promoting a boot licking statist tyrant who literally tried to enslave civilians via a badge.

Dale Eastman, If your next comment doesn't begin with you clearly admitting Dave Champion is a tyrant and admitting the damage that occurs from promoting a tyrant then I will just block you for being no better than a statist.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1783.msg17191#msg17191

---

I fully expect you to do the written version of plugging your ears with your fingers and singing "LA-LA-LA!" as loud as you can.

That's what emotional tirades look like. That's what you have done more than once thereby indicating that you are NOT interested in discussing verifiable facts.

FACT: 𝟙. I copy-paste and publicly archive discussions such as this one.
FACT: 𝟚. Any numbered fact is true absent a logical denial from you explaining why that specific numbered fact is in error.
FACT: 𝟛. Failure to address any numbered fact is admission of that fact's veracity.
𝟜. On 17 September @ 16:55 You posted this DEMAND: ➽ If your next comment doesn't begin with you... And threat: ➽ I will just punish you for not obeying my command.
𝟝. That looks just like how government operates.
𝟞. That looks just like how Statists operate.
𝟟. On 17 September @ 16:53 You spewed an emotional tirade; ➽ you've ruined any chance of me answering any of your questions.
𝟠. My questions are Socratic Method Questions designed to get to the truth and facts.
𝟡. It has been my personal experience that those who don't like or refuse to answer my questions about what they've posted don't want their posted BS examined.
𝟙𝟘. Your refusal to answer my questions STRONGLY suggest to me that you are not about truth and facts.
𝟙𝟙. On 17 September @ 07:40 I posted these words: On 15 September @ 22:05 You posted these words: ➽ And since you continue to run your fk boi mouth slandering the group
I asked you a very specific question because of that claim of yours:
What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group?
You sort of replied: ➽ you're trying to slight the group
Here's that question again, modified to attempt to understand your latest emotional spew:
What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group by allegedly "trying to slight the group"?
𝟙𝟚. You were asked explain and support your claim.
𝟙𝟛. You did not explain or support your claim.
𝟙𝟜. On 16 September @ 19:39 you wrote: ➽ You are about using passive aggression,
𝟙𝟝. I ignored your claim when you posted it.
𝟙𝟞. I am not ignoring your claim at this moment.
𝟙𝟟. I am now asking you to explain and support your claim.
𝟙𝟠. On 16 September @ 19:39 you claimed : ➽[I'm] not telling whole context
𝟙𝟡. I refer you back to fact 1 above: I copy-paste and publicly archive discussions such as this one.
𝟚𝟘. The context you are errantly claiming does not exist is in that public archive.
𝟚𝟙. On 16 September @ 19:01 I posted this: You just accused me of libeling The Introduction of Liberty group.
What exactly is the injury or damage you are claiming I have done to The Introduction of Liberty group?
𝟚𝟚. You did not explain or support your claim after I questioned your claim.
𝟚𝟛. On 16 September @ 12:46 you posted YOUR second emotional tirade.
𝟚𝟜. These ARE your words of your second emotional tirade saved in the public archive of this discussion: ➽ Dale Eastman, I'm not interested in your closet statism, passive aggressivism or your gutless dancing around Dave Champion being a STATIST TYRANT, you fking piece of shit, and you can come run your fk boi mouth in person about my emotion. Fk around and find out 🙂
𝟚𝟝. Calling me a fking piece of shit says more about you than it will ever say about me.
𝟚𝟞. In my 16 September @ 09:00 post, I corrected your error of not knowing the difference between Slander and Libel.
𝟚𝟟. In that same 16 September @ 09:00 post, I asked you to present the false statement that you implied I said about The Introduction of Liberty group.
𝟚𝟠. You failed to present my alleged false statement
𝟚𝟡. On 15 September @ 22:05 you spewed these words: ➽ Funny how you don't mention that part, you closet statist piece of shit.
𝟚𝟡. On 15 September @ 22:05 when you spewed those words, You ignored the words in the post you replied to.
𝟛𝟘. On 14 September @ 09:14 I posted these words:
Prior discussion can be found publicly archived here
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1777.0
𝟛𝟙. A copy of the entire discussion WOULD have the context you are ignoring.

I told you, "I am all about provable, verifiable facts."
The proof and verification of those 31 facts is in the record of this conversation.