Fogbow

Reality Check wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:24 am I have noticed over the past couple of days the forum response has gotten a bit sluggish. It is nothing like the slow down we had last year but definitely slower than it had been. Maybe this is related to the reboot issue?

chancery wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 11:33 am Hi Foggy, a lively discussion about one of the Taitz Birther cases, Rhodes v. Macdonald (M.D. Ga.), has sprung up in the topic for People v. Trump, beginning here..

It might be a good idea to move the discussion to the Dregs of birther remainders topic in the Other weirdos subforum.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:15 pm

chancery wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 11:33 am Hi Foggy, a lively discussion about one of the Taitz Birther cases, Rhodes v. Macdonald (M.D. Ga.), has sprung up in the topic for People v. Trump, beginning here..

It might be a good idea to move the discussion to the Dregs of birther remainders topic in the Other weirdos subforum.

I will look for Judge Land's sanctions orders and post them on dregs if that's what we are using. I know Jack Ryan's SCRIBD page had all of those documents but I think SCRIBD has a paywall now.

The Court must therefore determine what amount is sufficient todeter counsel’s conduct. The Court observes that Congress hasconcluded in the context of frivolous filings in the Tax Court thatfinancial penalties up to $25,000.00 may be appropriate.
See 26U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1). The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a $10,000.00sanction against an attorney for conduct far less egregious than Ms. Taitz’s conduct.
See Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
307 F.3d 1277,1294-96 (11th Cir. 2002);
see also Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta
, 751 F.2d 1193, 1209 (11th Cir. 1985) (affirming $50,000 sanction against attorney based on court’s inherent authority todiscipline attorney misconduct). Under the circumstances in this caseand based upon the factors considered above, the Court finds that theCourt’s previously contemplated financial sanction of $10,000.00 isnot adequate to deter future misconduct and that a monetary penaltyof $20,000.00 is the minimumamount necessary to deter counsel’smisconduct.
8
Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 28 Filed 10/13/2009 Page 37 of 43

Foggy wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 11:32 am I would just like to take note of the fact that someone used this thread to report a threadjack in another thread, but instead it turned into a separate threadjack of this thread, proving once again that there are Earthlings using the Intartoobz.

poplove wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:24 pm I don't know what changed, but now when I put a link to twitter it only comes up as a link and not the actual tweet like it used to. Is it my PC settings or a setting I need to change in Fogbow? I am confuzzled.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:26 pm

poplove wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:24 pm I don't know what changed, but now when I put a link to twitter it only comes up as a link and not the actual tweet like it used to. Is it my PC settings or a setting I need to change in Fogbow? I am confuzzled.

You have to change the "x.com" part to "twitter.com" for it to appear as an actual tweet.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:26 pm

poplove wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:24 pm I don't know what changed, but now when I put a link to twitter it only comes up as a link and not the actual tweet like it used to. Is it my PC settings or a setting I need to change in Fogbow? I am confuzzled.

You have to change the "x.com" part to "twitter.com" for it to appear as an actual tweet.

chancery wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:38 pm For instance, in this post:

https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 01#p265201

I changed x.com to twitter.com, and it still shows up just as a link.

In fact I usually prefer posting a link, because there was a movement championed by Suranis a number of months ago to urge members to use links out of respect for people with slow or wanky connections. I've been meaning to ask if there is a consensus (or a Foggy policy) as to whether this is worth the trouble, because not many people are doing it, but I guess that that should be a subject for a separate thread.

chancery wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:58 pm I thought that I'd experienced problems even when I didn't use the link code wrapper, but I guess that's unlikely.

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 5:05 pm Now I hate to say this, but next Sunday I'm going to install yet another update to the system, which may very well affect tweets. For the good or the bad, I dunno. I blame Elon, and I blame the team that makes the forum software, and I blame everyone else except for myself and the members of the forum.

I would have done it today, but it snuck up on me. One. Week. From. Today. Version 3.1.11 to 3.1.12.