Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

So this is prove that Nancy now bans everyone who posts here in the debunkers thread while her thread is pinned ... at least she does so with ACs, not sure if she dares to do this with registered and paying members (which I will be soon, so the debunking can be supported by photos and custom smileys).


Interesting. Hmmm. Might have to ask DrPostman if Nancy can indeed come and ban any poster on our debunker thread while her crapola is in action on a Saturday evening. I was of the understanding that Ms LIEDer's moderating powers do not extend beyond her crapola zone.


Yeah, thx for asking him ... the information on my case is in a post above ... Tater was also banned ... I can't speak for others, but I am eager to know what happened in my case.



I was banned? News to me, I have not been in the dungheap of a nanny LIEDer thread since the boycott.


At least I was banned last evening ... maybe saying Nancy now bans everyone who posts here in the debunkers thread while her thread is pinned was an exaggeration from me ... but as I posted to do some live debunking i was banned ... maber the "Tater" we spoke above is another poster ... there was an AC eho called himself tater around here yesterday ... lemme see if I find his post where he says he was banned, must be a few pages before.

Thanks for proving you do, indeed, call for censorship.

:maxface:

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would one "rolling thier eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would one "rolling thier eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


It's really amusing watching you spin.

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.


Wow, seriously listen to what you're saying, Max. Sure sounds like a cult follower's mentality or maybe you can't see how hypocritical you sound.

Nancy should not be given the right to ban any debunker here in this thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.


If she bans people here she just proves the success of the boycott. If her claims would be true the debunkers thread would not even exist. She just cant stand having the debunkers thread on page one, especially while her own one is pinned. She just proved how desperate she is on her sinking fail-ship. If she bans people on the debunkers thread its actually a win for the debunkers.

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

So you would stifle our right to gather on our own thread, where we are not disrupting Nancy at all. We do not deny her right to have her thread, and while we disagree with her rules, the owner has given her the powers to moderate her chat any way she sees fit. I don't think that includes monitoring others that don't break her rules on other threads. We do not participate in her threads, so how are we disrupting it. What about the clowns that sequestered her thread last night? Why do they get a free pass?

It is a slippery slope, a surprising comment from a person born in what used to be a free country. No wonder your country is in such trouble, when people stop defending the right to speak your mind and call for censorship. Freedom of speech was gained for you by men of much more courage and decency than yourself. It is a shame that you don't appreciate what people in other countries are still willing to die for.

I didn't know Zeta was a registered trademark of Nancy Lieder. Does that mean you have been granted the right to use it in your moniker? And you say you are on the fence.

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

So you would stifle our right to gather on our own thread, where we are not disrupting Nancy at all. We do not deny her right to have her thread, and while we disagree with her rules, the owner has given her the powers to moderate her chat any way she sees fit. I don't think that includes monitoring others that don't break her rules on other threads. We do not participate in her threads, so how are we disrupting it. What about the clowns that sequestered her thread last night? Why do they get a free pass?

It is a slippery slope, a surprising comment from a person born in what used to be a free country. No wonder your country is in such trouble, when people stop defending the right to speak your mind and call for censorship. Freedom of speech was gained for you by men of much more courage and decency than yourself. It is a shame that you don't appreciate what people in other countries are still willing to die for.

I will agree that refereeing free speech is "tricky". American case law is VOLUMINOUS on this issue, as what consitutes "free speech" is HARDLY a black and white issue. Often it is purely a judgment call in MANY cases, as the rights of MANY have to be weighed equitably. Bottom line, you are not entitled to self-referential defense - i.e., you are NOT entitled to use your "free speech" to infringe the "free speech" of another.

I didn't know Zeta was a registered trademark of Nancy Lieder. Does that mean you have been granted the right to use it in your moniker? And you say you are on the fence.

ZetaTALK - but there is PLENTY of case law that asserts that even alterations such as "debunker talk" are infringements when reasonable people would agree that that was the motive in creating and using it.

I will agree that refereeing free speech is "tricky". American case law is VOLUMINOUS on this issue, as what consitutes "free speech" is HARDLY a black and white issue. Often it is purely a judgment call in MANY cases, as the rights of MANY have to be weighed equitably. Bottom line, you are not entitled to self-referential defense - i.e., you are NOT entitled to use your "free speech" to infringe the "free speech" of another.

I'm not "calling" for it, I'm simply "lampooning" it. Think of it like you would "rolling your eyes" as a bouncer kicks a rowdy troublemaker out of your favorite watering hole, with the evictee screaming how he has a "right" to be disruptive, and that the bouncer is abusing "him" as his ass is shoved out the door!


Posting on the debunkers thread is not disrupting Nancys thread.

Nancy has been doing GLP chats for YEARS now. She was not given mod rights in the beginning, but recieved them when it became clear to Trinity that an orderly chat could not take place without it - there was simply too much spam, name-calling, even threats. After years of putting up with this, she simply bans anyone who so much as "whispers in class". To stupidly say "LET THE DEBUNKING BEGIN" - even in the debunkers thread (which she does monitor the way a security officer monitors the parking lot) - is frankly just BEGGING for a BAN!

So let it written, so let it be DONE.

So you would stifle our right to gather on our own thread, where we are not disrupting Nancy at all. We do not deny her right to have her thread, and while we disagree with her rules, the owner has given her the powers to moderate her chat any way she sees fit. I don't think that includes monitoring others that don't break her rules on other threads. We do not participate in her threads, so how are we disrupting it. What about the clowns that sequestered her thread last night? Why do they get a free pass?

It is a slippery slope, a surprising comment from a person born in what used to be a free country. No wonder your country is in such trouble, when people stop defending the right to speak your mind and call for censorship. Freedom of speech was gained for you by men of much more courage and decency than yourself. It is a shame that you don't appreciate what people in other countries are still willing to die for.

I will agree that refereeing free speech is "tricky". American case law is VOLUMINOUS on this issue, as what consitutes "free speech" is HARDLY a black and white issue. Often it is purely a judgment call in MANY cases, as the rights of MANY have to be weighed equitably. Bottom line, you are not entitled to self-referential defense - i.e., you are NOT entitled to use your "free speech" to infringe the "free speech" of another.

So do tell us, Max, how we are infringing on Nancy's right to say what she likes? We aren't. We have never banned her, we have never censored her and we left her thread to discuss over here because SHE is the one infringing on our right to express our disagreement with her claims. We do it here, where nobody has to come unless they choose to. I think the problem is that more people read here than on Nancy's thread. Free speech needs no refereeing. Only when physical threats are made is there any reason to intervene. I hope there aren't many more people that think like you, or you could end up living in a place more like the Soviet Union than the once proud and free nation of America.

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".


If I'm reading this correctly, Zetatalk is no longer trademarked.

Word Mark ZETATALK
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing information on aliens via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19950412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950412
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75276380
Filing Date April 17, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 17, 1998
Registration Number 2156707
Registration Date May 12, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lieder, Nancy INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2759 S. Norfolk Street, #313 San Mateo CALIFORNIA 94403
Attorney of Record DAVID C ASHBY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date February 19, 2005
TESS Homepage

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".


If I'm reading this correctly, Zetatalk is no longer trademarked.

Word Mark ZETATALK
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing information on aliens via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19950412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950412
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75276380
Filing Date April 17, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 17, 1998
Registration Number 2156707
Registration Date May 12, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lieder, Nancy INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2759 S. Norfolk Street, #313 San Mateo CALIFORNIA 94403
Attorney of Record DAVID C ASHBY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date February 19, 2005
TESS Homepage

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".


If I'm reading this correctly, Zetatalk is no longer trademarked.

Word Mark ZETATALK
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing information on aliens via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19950412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950412
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75276380
Filing Date April 17, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 17, 1998
Registration Number 2156707
Registration Date May 12, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lieder, Nancy INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2759 S. Norfolk Street, #313 San Mateo CALIFORNIA 94403
Attorney of Record DAVID C ASHBY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date February 19, 2005
TESS Homepage

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".


If I'm reading this correctly, Zetatalk is no longer trademarked.

Word Mark ZETATALK
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing information on aliens via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19950412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950412
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75276380
Filing Date April 17, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 17, 1998
Registration Number 2156707
Registration Date May 12, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lieder, Nancy INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2759 S. Norfolk Street, #313 San Mateo CALIFORNIA 94403
Attorney of Record DAVID C ASHBY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date February 19, 2005
TESS Homepage

Even if it were, this thread title does not mention Zeta Talk. The reference to "Zetas" could mean anything. You do know that there are other organizations that use this name, one that comes to mind is a drug cartel in Mexico.

I'd like to see Nancy sue them over trademark infringement. LOL

Immaterial - what you are showing is the trademark REGISTRATION, which is "evidence" of the trademark, but NOT and I repeat **NOT** the "trademark" itself. The fact she is still using it is also quite compelling "evidence" that her OWNERSHIP of the trademark is ALIVE, and WELL, and CONTINOUS, and NOT ABANDONED.

If they came to GLP and created a thread and tried to steal her audience during her BRIEF, PRE-SCHEDULED, and PUBLICLY KNOWN exchange with her audience, then yes, they would be infringing. A religious service is an example of the expression of free speech. Assuming the service is held in a public library meeting room, do you have the right to come in and start blabbing??? Or if it was a larger room, trying to have your own service in the back at the same time????

The short answer is NO.

I suggest you create a "free speech" zone thread - one that does not infringe the "ZetaTalk" trademark, and that is not an overt ploy to attract people who otherwise would visit the ZetaTalk chat thread, and I'm sure you will go "ban free".


If I'm reading this correctly, Zetatalk is no longer trademarked.

Word Mark ZETATALK
Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing information on aliens via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19950412. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950412
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75276380
Filing Date April 17, 1997
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 17, 1998
Registration Number 2156707
Registration Date May 12, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lieder, Nancy INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 2759 S. Norfolk Street, #313 San Mateo CALIFORNIA 94403
Attorney of Record DAVID C ASHBY
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date February 19, 2005
TESS Homepage


Good find, where is that from ?