This is a continuation of the previous entry concerning the one hundred and sixty-first entry that continued the lies and errors;
# Zexcoiler Kingbolt: So you’re Latino then, huh? I bet you don’t even speak a word of Spanish
Another presumptive remark.
# Lyle: You are indeed Phil Gluyas commenting under a different name. Go suck a dick, faggot.
There is no proof of either claim and it was also very childish.
# Zexcoiler Kingbolt: Yeah, it kinda pisses me off that I can’t type accents too. I can on my phone, though.
There are ways around that so this is a social error.
# Do not call me a son of a bitch. I have a very good education, and that is actually how I learned to speak Spanish fluently.
There is no proof that Oliver can speak Spanish fluently, and I think we know he does not have a good education.
# If you really are Latino, you should’ve spoken Spanish from birth, not learned it in school like I did.
That's another presumptive remark.
# I’m white, so I get a pass for that.
That is tantamount to reverse racism.
# Something needs to be done about that bastard. He can’t keep getting away with all his bullshit anymore.
This reads like a threat, although this isn't a death threat as per previously.
# I’m only asking this because my ex-girlfriend is a native Spanish speaker and she didn’t speak a word of English until she was in 6th grade.
There is no proof of the claim that Oliver has an ex girlfriend that fits this description.
# I only recently got a comment from that user; I hadn’t deleted any previous comment by someone of that name.
The new blog says otherwise. A comment from someone under that name was indeed deleted.
# I won’t publish the comment as that user is clearly just looking for trouble.
As proven by the new blog, all they are doing is calling Oliver out. Oliver is the one making trouble.
# People tell me that I speak Spanish very well for someone who learned it as a second language.
There is no proof of this claim.
# That’s exactly what my ex said, which is why she was so impressed that I could actually speak Spanish for real.
If this was true, why is she an ex now? For this reason I call this claim unproven also.
# I think I held my own against them pretty well, actually.
No, Oliver, as the anonymous person observed they were destroying you.
# However, everyone who is part of that cult against me is now permanently banned from this blog.
I don't think that makes a difference. The damage has been done.
Oliver did make one more comment accusing the anonymous commenter of arguing for the sake of arguing and insisting that he won the argument - against all sense and logic. However he deleted it before I could record it, and he deleted all the other comments he made from this package. But he soon returned;
# Then you must be a member of neurodiversity. Have fun being executed!
There will be no executions.
# I'm not on a "killing kick," and I won't be the one performing the executions.
This doesn't matter. Oliver wants people to die. He just doesn't want to do it himself.
# They will be performed by a licensed executioner under the law.
No they won't, because there won't be any.
# Executing someone is a very solemn duty, and those tasked with performing it certainly don't get any kicks out of it.
It shouldn't be happening no matter what.
# No, I actually don't want people to die. In fact, it pains me that these people will have to be executed.
It is safe to say that this is a complete fabrication.
# But committing a crime as horrible as neurodiversity deserves the ultimate punishment.
No it doesn't.
# DLeeHarley: Your comments make no sense. Please specify what you mean.
I can answer that. He believes that Oliver should be executed.
# Anon #1: You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of my intention.
No he understood it very well.
# I do not plan to kill anyone myself, as I am not an officer of the law and do not intend to become one.
As already stated, this does not matter.
# The executions will be carried out by a licensed executioner at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, and by no one else and at no other location.
There will be no executions.
# Also, my proposed amendment is not intended to criminalize being brain damaged.
Yes it does.
# On the contrary, I have the utmost sympathy for those people and am on their side in the fight against neurodiversity.
The brain damaged are neurodiverse, so no you are not on their side at all.
# Also just FYI, neurodiversity strongly rejects referring to autism as "brain damage," so I can't really tell if you're one of them or not.
Autism isn't, but untreated regressions are.
# Anon #2: I do, in fact, seek to educate.
This is laughable because all he has done is educate us in his foolishness and nothing else.
# That is what I have been doing on this blog for the past five and a half years.
No you haven't, Oliver.
# If someone was willing to renounce neurodiversity, that would definitely be grounds for a pardon or commutation.
No one will renounce neurodiversity and there is no reason to punish anyone for believing in it.
# In my opinion, neurodiversity should be a crime and should warrant the death penalty.
No it should not in either respect.
# That would be good.
Making Autism illegal, which is what this is in reply to, would not be good at all.
# I still think that denying someone a cure is akin to denying them their life, which is why I think it warrants the death penalty.
This insinuates that Autism kills, which it does not.
# Yuval actually is a proud supporter of Donald Trump.
That's a bad thing, not a good thing.
# Do you know something that I don't? There's no evidence at all that "neurodiversity" was the target of the San Bernardino shooting, and you saying that I incited it is libel.
The attack was on a facility for the developmentally disabled, which would have included people with Autism. The assertion is valid - correct or not.
# Although I would prefer firing squad as a method of execution, the Supreme Court has held that it violates the 8th Amendment, so lethal injection will have to do.
It won't do, at all.
# No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court has held multiple times that the death penalty is constitutional, which is why it is still legal.
In many circumstances the death penalty is not constitutional.
# That is why the Constitution must be amended to allow it, and I have proposed such an amendment to fix that.
No it must not be amended to allow the murder of innocent people.
# Anon: You're wrong, and you're incredibly stupid. I feel bad for how dumb you are.
Oliver looks lame for making this statement.
# A constitutional amendment cannot possibly be found unconstitutional because it is an AMENDMENT.
It has already been explained to Oliver that this is not the case.
# It literally changes what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional.
It's rather more complex than that simplistic assumption.
# Under your perverse logic, the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the three-fifths compromise clause.
# Honestly, you need to grow a brain.
Oliver is the one who needs this function.
# Troy Mullane: I am going to come to your house and kill you. You are going to die, motherfucker!
Another death threat. This is pathetic.
# You are a disgusting Abo who has no place on this earth, and your existence is in clear violation of the White Australia policy.
A brief Google search reveals that the White Australia policy was abolished well before Oliver was even born.
# Anon: Quite the contrary. The pot is calling the kettle black. You are the one making a fool of yourself, and you likely aren't even from this country.
There is no proof of this claim.
# The word amendment means change, so yes, it literally changes the Constitution.
No it adds to it.
# It is not simply a new law. The Supreme Court cannot find a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.
Yes it can. That is it's job, to interpret the Constitution and correct anomalies.
# Scratcher: Syncompac is in fact Troy Mullane. The Informer says so. Therefore, it must be true.
There is no proof of this claim either.
# You're an idiot. First of all, nothing can be "struck out" in the United States. That's a British term.
It's a legal term, which applies in all countries.
# Only a baseball player can be struck out.
And a law or constitutional change that is unconstitutional.
# What you mean to say is overturned, but that is not possible as I have said before.
It is possible.
# The 14th Amendment is specifically what overturned the three-fifths compromise.
No, nothing overturned it.
# It gave black peoples full citizenship, whereas they had previously only counted as three fifths of a person in the census.
That was the census and the census only.
# The Supreme Court has no power to overturn a constitutional amendment.
Yes they do.
# If my proposed amendment is ratified, it shall become law and there's nothing you can do about it.
No it can be challenged and struck out as unconstitutional.
# The only way an amendment can be repealed is via another constitutional amendment, as the 18th Amendment was via the 21st Amendment.
And by a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States stating that an Amendment is unconstitutional.
# You are just so stupid, dude. Get help. Seriously.
I rather think that Oliver is talking about himself. Seriously.
# Not true. Nobody in the US says "struck out" unless they're talking about baseball.
This is demonstrably false.
# Maybe "struck down," but never "struck out."
This is also demonstrably false.
# Overturn can refer to a lower court's decision, or to a piece of legislation being found unconstitutional.
And an Amendment that is equally unconstitutional.
# Both my parents are lawyers and I have sufficient legal knowledge from them.
Such knowledge is not inherited, and there is no proof of the initial claim anyway.
This assistance shall continue.