[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 20:24:02 05/14/13 Tue
Author: Joe Rizoli (Happy)
Author Host/IP: 220.127.116.11
Subject: Re: ESL Globe article response
In reply to:
's message, "Re: ESL Globe article response" on 13:09:47 05/14/13 Tue
I've been kicked off for two weeks also. Apparently making a statement about facts that seem to be true don't make it with the Framgov nutjobs. I guess people can call the Rizoli's "Brazilian Haters" "bigots" and have non reputable agencies such as the Anti-Christain ADL and the Godless SPLC make accusations against them but when we try to defend ourselves or tell the Framgov Gatekeepers that they are not applying the rules of civility in a fair manner. I guess name calling is great for everybody against the Rizoli's but the Rizoli's can't ask questions to the gatekeepers whether we really are "bigots" It seems we can't get an answer to that question because a court of Law hasn't answered that question or the Attorney Generals office as the rules of civility state.
Here was my last post:
"Grasping at straws here Linda. Shame on you.
People calling us bigots, Brazilian haters, bla bla bla has no meaning for you I guess. Stop being hypocritical.
Why don't you start being an honorable person. Am I a bigot Linda? That isn't a false accusation? I work with more black children in one day that you probably see in a month. Am I a bigot? Good laugh. You continue to promote slander constantly on your site and do nothing. Do you want to come to where I work and disprove that false accusation? That accusation isn't a violation of your rules for motives?
Shame on you.....You obviously are looking for excuses to satisfy your friends to get the Rizoli's off your list. I have done everything to promote my civility. I have kept my word and I have kept on topic.
My accusation USED THE WORD "seem" . It didn't say definitely.
Accusations by the ADL or SPLC about the Rizoli's are exactly what you are giving me this second warning for. Their accusations are SPECULATION based on RUMOR.
Have any courts proven the Rizoli's to be what you let go up? Has the Attorney General made a decision about the Rizoli's? Have we been judged in a court of law for being "bigots"?
The the accusations are thus UNFOUNDED But your posters can get away with it. How about playing fair here? The opinions are without merit but you rather believe the lies, again shame on you to the tenth degree.
See you in two weeks.......
In a message dated 5/14/2013 2:48:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Please consider this note your SECOND OFFICIAL WARNING for breaking the
civility rules that govern the FRAMGOV Issue Forum. You are immediately
suspended for two weeks. Your posting privileges will be reinstated on May 29.
On Tuesday May 14, 2013, you broke the FRAMGOV civility rules: ("The article
stated that of the 700 applicants and users of the Adult ES Plus program only
30 filled out the complete forms. That means 670 people currently in the
program didn't. The question is WHY? Does it really take a rocket scientist to
figure out that those 670 people using the program seem to have a problem
making their real identity's known?")
RULE VIOLATED: Posting the following is specifically prohibited
1. Speculation about the unstated motivations or character of another person
(in this case, 670 applicants to the ESL program);
2. Accusations and allegations, either unfounded or based on rumor, about
legal and ethical violations (Examples of an allegation being "founded" are an
arrest, a charge, a formal investigation by a state or federal agency, or an
investigation by the district attorney or Attorney General. In the absence of
one of those conditions, accusations are considered to be "unfounded");
Reminders about these rules have been posted to the forum with specific
guidance as to their application in recent weeks.
Rules regarding warnings: http://www.e-democracy.org/rules/
A. First Warning - The first official warning is recorded. The member is not
suspended. Each warning expires after one full year. The member should
consider themselves on probation.
B. Second Warning - The second official warning results in immediate
suspension from that specific forum for two weeks. Another two week suspension
may be granted should the initial first warning expire before their third rule
C. The first two warnings may not be appealed at this time. They may only be
appealed on their merits if a third warning is given within one year of the
D. Third Warning - A third warning within a year of the first two warnings
results in an immediate suspension for six months from the specific forum.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Please note, it is against the
forum rules to post complaints about forum management or forum rules on
Linda Dunbrack-Forum Manager
On 5/13/2013 at 11:29 PM, "Joseph Rizoli" wrote:
>The "motives" of the Rizoli's is one for "Rule of Law"
>The Rizoli's didn't write the voluminous material at the Framingham public
library in three volumes on the Immigration laws. The "motives" are obviously
to see those laws enforced. It gets tiresome when the Lawmakers are siding
with the lawbreakers. It certainly would be great that our Lawmakers start
setting an example on how to be law abiding and not defend people notoriously
noted for document fraud.
>The Article in the Boston Globe made some very interesting comments and even
>The article stated that of the 700 applicants and users of the Adult ES Plus
program only 30 filled out the complete forms. That means 670 people currently
in the program didn't. The question is WHY?
>Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out that those 670 people
using the program seem to have a problem making their real identity's known?
The 30 figure would be precisely what I would expect for those who are legally
using the program as it was intended.
>A quite disturbing quote in the article states this:
>"Most of the funding for the 700 adults served annually by the program comes
from the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Tibor said"
>This would indicate to me that we have a State sponsored entitlement that
STILL is playing games with the 1996 Welfare Reform Act as to providing
services to those who are mostly ILLEGAL. This needs to be further looked into
by the Attorney Generals Office. Again, the program is aiding and abetting
mostly illegal aliens in their stay in America, which is a Federal Felony.
>Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
>Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
>In those sections a quite interesting quote is made about "motives" it says:
> " knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions"
>Apparently our Lawmakers who had common sense at the writing of those laws,
realized that people would KNOWINGLY go against the Law for their own
"personal convictions", thus, why it was called "aiding and abetting"
>The Globe article ends with saying that certain Town Meeting members are
"working on an alternate resolution that would provide more money for the ESL
programs to reduce the waiting list"
>Good luck with that "personal conviction". Just what town meeting needs, more
money for helping out a waiting list of four hundred people that consist of
more people illegally in this country. Can't wait to see that happen. We will
be back to square one. Are the people LEGALLY entitled to take part in that
program? The great "shibboleth" test is whether those wanting to be in the
program will be to see if they fill out ALL the forms and do as Town Meeting
suggested, signing a statement that they are legally entitled to be in that
> For ANY town meeting member to go along with those not signing that
statement would be "knowingly assist (ing ) illegal aliens due to personal
>The Town of Framingham by way of its Selectpersons and its Town Meeting
Members have a real opportunity to step up to the plate here and make
Framingham a welcoming town to those who are LEGALLY here and who respect Rule
of Law. Anything else backing up lawlessness would be shameful.
>I put up this article and the whole Boston Globe article here:
>South side , Framingham
>About/contact Joseph Rizoli:
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |