The original drafts of the Australian Constitution did not mentionAnd S116 says the exact opposite, so what that stupid god
God; the phrase rCLhumbly relying on the blessing of Almighty GodrCY was later added to the preamble of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, not to the ConstitutionrCOs operative text.
Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian
Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
rCyOur Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian CommonwealthrCO.
The word "Religion" only meant in his time dominations of ChristianityComplete and utter bullshit and ignorant lieThat's what S116 says VERY clearly
The Feds are bared from stating what a religion is
or is not only the States can state thatThey can't either most obviously with the law on tax exemptions
The founding Christian cultureThere was no such animal
and language (monarch under God, rCLAlmighty GodrCY clause,There is no such clause
Christian legal heritage)No such animal
are part of the original meaning.BULLSHIT
Modern judicial readings that treat rCLany religionrCY as if the framersNothing has been rewritten given S116
had a completely open, post?1960s pluralist concept of religion are effectively rewriting the Constitution without a referendum.
Any genuine shift from rCLassumed Christian commonwealthrCYNothing is assumed to rCLlegally secular multicultural commonwealthrCYNothing has changed on that
should be done openly by referendum, not implicitly via case law.Nothing has changed by case law given S116
That is a coherent constitutional philosophy.Bullshit given S116
ItrCOs just not the philosophy the High Court has actually followed.Bullshit given S116
TheyrCOve kept the text,They have observed S116
used the Christian heritage as background,Bullshit they have
and then let modernMore complete and utter mindless bullshit given S116
legal interpretation move well beyond the framersrCO social
assumptionsrCo
without going back to the people under s 128.No need for that given S116
The most famous example of this shiftThere never was any shift
occurred in the 1983 ScientologyThere never was anything like that given
Case (Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax).
In that ruling, the High Court abandoned the traditional, narrower definitions of religion
and adopted a vastly broader, modernThat's wrong too
definition that included any belief system involving a supernatural
being, thing, or principle, combined with a code of conduct.
The Originalist/Constitutional View (My Argument): The ConstitutionIrrelevant to what the constitution spells out
belongs to the people.
If the definition of a core concept like "religion" changesThat never happened
from an "assumed Christian culture"That was never the case
to a "secular multicultural framework,"That never happened either
that change must be put to the AustralianWrong, as always, given S116
voters via a Section 128 Referendum.
Allowing judges to expand definitions implicitly through case lawThat never happened
is effectively bypassing the democratic processMore of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
and rewriting the founding documentThat never happened
by judicial decree.More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
The "Living Force" View (The High Court's Path)More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
The High Court has generally treated the Constitution as a dynamic > instrument designed to endure for centuries.That's bullshit too given S128
Their legal philosophy argues that while the text remains fixed, the application of the words must adapt to the contemporary reality of the> Australian population, otherwise the legal system would becomeMore of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
unworkable in a modern world.
By choosing the latter path, the High Court has progressively moved Australia's legal framework far away from the framers' socialMore of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
assumptions.
To those who value the original rule of law,Which has always included S116
this shiftThere is no such shift
looks less like natural progression and more like a quiet, unvoted constitutional overhaul.More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
The Australia Act 1986: This landmark legislation completely severed AustraliarCOs remaining constitutional ties to the UK parliament and abolished final legal appeals to the British Privy Council.Corse it is
Following this, legal experts and politicians argued that displaying
British royal symbols in Australian courts was a constitutional
anachronism.
State Legislation (e.g., NSW State Arms Act 2004): States like NewMore of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
South Wales passed laws explicitly requiring the British Royal Arms to> be stripped from courtrooms and parliaments and replaced with the NSW
State Coat of Arms (or local state equivalents) to properly reflect
local, independent sovereignty.
Modern Separation of Powers
In newer buildsrCosuch as the ACT Supreme CourtrCochief justices have intentionally left the walls behind the bench blank.
The stated reason was a desire to develop crests that represent the
judicial arm of government as a completely separate branch, rather
than sitting under an emblem tied to executive state power or
historical city insignia.
To the traditionalist, this looks like the erosion of the historic
"thread of sovereignty."
To the modern legalist, it is simply aligningCorse it is
the physical courtroom decor with the reality of contemporary
Australian law.
The Linguistic Correction: "Dieu et mon droit" translation correctionMore of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit
is entirely historically and legally accurate, hitting on the precise
nuance of Old Norman French versus modern translations.
The motto on the British Royal Shield, "Dieu et mon droit", was the
battle cry used by King Richard I (the Lionheart) at the Battle of
Gisors in 1198.
The Common Misconception: Modern popular culture and basic French
translators frequently render it as a simple conjunction
: "God and my right.
"The Accurate Original Meaning: In the context of medieval divine
right, it translates precisely to
"God is my legal right" (or "God is my law/justification").
The motto was used to assert that the King answered to no earthlyAnd we tossed that shit in the bin LONG ago
authority, parliament, or rival monarchrCohis sovereignty was granted directly by God, making his rule his absolute legal right.
The Complete PictureNo such thing has happened
The gradual disappearance of the original British royal shield from Australian courtrooms directly matches the broader theme I have been discussing: the quiet, steady dismantling of AustraliarCOs original
founding architecture.
When the British coat of arms is taken down, the phrase asserting a--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
monarch's divine right under God ("Dieu et mon droit") vanishes with
it. It is replaced either by native fauna (the kangaroo and emu on the> Commonwealth arms) or by contemporary, minimalist design.
Yes, the Royal Coat of Arms is still actively used and prominently
displayed in the vast majority of courtrooms across the United KingdomIrrelevant to what happens here and that stupid line doesn't even apply there either
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote-- <https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote just the
usual shit it always ends up with when its got
done like a fucking dinner, as it always is
What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out
of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing
to ever report the truth.
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out
of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing
to ever report the truth.
You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit
you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse
Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to
who ever is doing the press conference, they
should just be REPORTING what those doing
the press conference are presenting
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out
of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing
to ever report the truth.
You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit
you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse
Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to
who ever is doing the press conference, they
should just be REPORTING what those doing
the press conference are presenting
See not hard to show some reasoning
On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:03:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Petzl<petzlx@gmail.com> wrote-- <https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
https://tinyurl.com/z5hh3shh Rod Speed is known in Usenet communities
as a notorious argumentative figure often labeled a troll. So says Rod
speed a egotistical self appointed know-all who knows nothing Rod has
been on newgroups since the 80's and still the same Rod Speed a
annoying Australian can type faster than you can talk Best to ignore
or he will continue to bait you Rod speed a egotistical self appointed know-all who knows nothing Rod has been on newgroups since the 80's
and still the same When he starts short vulgar bursts just stop
replying-- If you want to practice talking to his idiot responses
Australia has a bot to practice with or he white ants you overtime you
post! "The Rod Speed Bot" https://www.sensationbot.com/jschat.php?db=rodspeed
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out
of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing >>>> to ever report the truth.
You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit
you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse
Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to
who ever is doing the press conference, they
should just be REPORTING what those doing
the press conference are presenting
See not hard to show some reasoning
Something you can never manage with that steaming
turd you dropped about the constitution
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
See not hard to show some reasoning
Something you can never manage with that steaming
turd you dropped about the constitution
I didn't write it I copy and pasted a Judges version of what's happen
there,
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
What a good idea One Nation is doing in kicking known malcontents out
of press conferences for "spin," "lies," "rubbish," or decency failing >>>> to ever report the truth.
You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit
you on your drug crazed drunken lard arse
Yes, journos shouldn't be getting stuck in to
who ever is doing the press conference, they
should just be REPORTING what those doing
the press conference are presenting
See not hard to show some reasoning
Something you can never manage with that steaming
turd you dropped about the constitution
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too >https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wroteYou need to show us the question you asked it and
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turdI had GROK do it's version
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
The original drafts of the Australian Constitution contained noThat doesn't say that it overrides S116 as you stupidly do
reference to God. The words rCLhumbly relying on the blessing of> Almighty GodrCY were inserted into the preamble of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 after deliberate debate and petition
at the Federal Conventions. That insertion formed part of the
constitutional compact as finally adopted.
Sir John Downer KC, speaking at the moment of adoption and expresslyGrok never said that
for future generations, declared that rCLOur Australian Commonwealth
from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth.rCY In the> vocabulary of the framers the word rCLreligionrCY referred only to the
several denominations of Christianity.
That was the sole meaning theGrok never said that either
term carried in the constitutional text they enacted. The Christian
character of the new polityrCoexpressed in the monarchical oath under
God, the Almighty God clause of the covering Act, and the received
common-law heritagerCowas therefore an assumed and operative premise of
the Constitution as they understood and adopted it.
Section 116 of the Constitution denies the Commonwealth any power to
change the meaning of religion. The section provides that the
Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,
imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of> any religion, and that no religious test shall be required for office
under the Commonwealth. In the understanding of the framers the word rCLreligionrCY referred only to the Christian denominations. Section 116 therefore locks that meaning against Commonwealth alteration. The
definition and regulation of religion, beyond the specific
prohibitions in section 116, is the domain of the States. Any attempt
by the CommonwealthrCowhether by legislation or by judicial
redefinitionrCoto expand rCLreligionrCY beyond the Christian denominations known to the framers is contrary to the original text and requires the> authority of the people under section 128.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wroteGrok never said that, you pathological liar https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_454364f6-b392-4f47-b825-480f9fef556b
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turdI had GROK do it's version
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
The original drafts of the Australian Constitution contained no--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
reference to God. The words rCLhumbly relying on the blessing of> Almighty GodrCY were inserted into the preamble of the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 after deliberate debate and petition
at the Federal Conventions. That insertion formed part of the
constitutional compact as finally adopted.
Sir John Downer KC, speaking at the moment of adoption and expressly
for future generations, declared that rCLOur Australian Commonwealth
from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth.rCY In the> vocabulary of the framers the word rCLreligionrCY referred only to the
several denominations of Christianity. That was the sole meaning the
term carried in the constitutional text they enacted. The Christian
character of the new polityrCoexpressed in the monarchical oath under
God, the Almighty God clause of the covering Act, and the received
common-law heritagerCowas therefore an assumed and operative premise of
the Constitution as they understood and adopted it.
Section 116 of the Constitution denies the Commonwealth any power to
change the meaning of religion. The section provides that the
Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion,
imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of> any religion, and that no religious test shall be required for office
under the Commonwealth. In the understanding of the framers the word rCLreligionrCY referred only to the Christian denominations. Section 116 therefore locks that meaning against Commonwealth alteration. The
definition and regulation of religion, beyond the specific
prohibitions in section 116, is the domain of the States. Any attempt
by the CommonwealthrCowhether by legislation or by judicial
redefinitionrCoto expand rCLreligionrCY beyond the Christian denominations known to the framers is contrary to the original text and requires the> authority of the people under section 128.
Because the founding Christian culture and language formed part of the> original meaning, any judicial reading that treats rCLany religionrCY as
an open, pluralist category unknown to the framers rewrites the
Constitution without authority.
A genuine change from the Christian commonwealth the framers
established to a secular multicultural framework can be made only by
the people themselves under section 128. It cannot be effected by case> law. That is the coherent originalist position.
It is not the course the High Court has taken.
The Court has retained the text, treated the Christian heritage as
mere background, and then permitted modern interpretation to move far
beyond the framersrCO understandingrCowithout returning to the electors
under section 128.
The clearest illustration is the 1983 Scientology case (Church of the
New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax).
There the High Court discarded the traditional meaning of
religionrColimited to the Christian denominations known to the
framersrCoand substituted a broad modern definition covering any belief system that involves a supernatural being, thing or principle together> with a code of conduct.
That expansion altered a core constitutional concept by judicial
decree rather than by referendum.
The originalist view is straightforward.
The Constitution belongs to the people.
When the meaning of a foundational term such as rCLreligionrCY is shifted from the Christian denominations the framers knew to a secular
multicultural category they never contemplated, the change must be put> to the Australian voters under section 128.
Judicial redefinition bypasses the democratic process and amends the
founding document without the peoplerCOs consent.
The alternative approach treated by the High Court as a rCLlivingrCY instrument allows the application of the words to evolve with
contemporary social conditions.
That path has carried Australian law a long distance from the framersrCO assumptions.
To those who hold that the original meaning governs until the people
alter it, the result is a quiet constitutional change effected without> a vote.
The same pattern appears in the treatment of symbols.
The Australia Act 1986 severed the remaining legislative and appellate> links with the United Kingdom.
Thereafter the continued display of the British Royal Arms in
Australian courts was characterised as an anachronism.
State legislation followed.
The New South Wales State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 required
the British Royal Arms to be removed from courtrooms and parliamentary> buildings and replaced with the State Arms so as to reflect
independent sovereignty.
In newer buildings such as the ACT Supreme Court the walls behind the
bench have been left deliberately blank, the stated purpose being to
mark the judiciary as a separate branch of government rather than one
sitting under an historic emblem.
To the originalist these changes form part of the steady dismantling
of the founding architecture.
When the British coat of arms is taken down, the motto rCLDieu et mon droitrCY disappears with it.
That motto, the battle cry of Richard I at Gisors in 1198, asserted in> its proper medieval sense that the KingrCOs right was derived from
GodrCorCLGod is my legal rightrCYrCoand that he answered to no earthly authority.
Its removal, and the substitution of native fauna or blank walls,
severs a visible thread of the sovereignty the framers inherited and
assumed.
(By contrast, the Royal Coat of Arms remains in regular use in the
great majority of courtrooms throughout the United Kingdom.)
In short, the word rCLreligionrCY in the Constitution as originally understood referred only to the Christian denominations.
Section 116 denies the Commonwealth power to alter that meaning; the
domain remains with the States.
Any wider meaning requires the authority of the people expressed in a
section 128 referendum.
That is the presentation required by the original text and by the
legal advice that the change, if it is to be made, must be made by the> electors themselves.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade> Bottom line
The document correctly identifies the Christian cultural and legal
matrix in which the Constitution was framed, the deliberate insertion
of the Almighty God clause, DownerrCOs contemporaneous characterisation,
and the High CourtrCOs later expansive approach to rCLreligion.rCY It then draws the strong originalist conclusion that any move beyond the
framersrCO Christian denominational understanding of rCLreligion,rCY or any analogous change in constitutional symbolism, requires s 128 approval
and cannot validly be effected by judicial or ordinary legislative
action.
That is a coherent position within originalist theory.
It is not the position the High Court has adopted, nor the
understanding that has governed Australian public law and practice for> decades.
The gap between the two is precisely the ongoing debate over whether
the Constitution is to be read according to its original public
meaning until the people change it, or whether its application may
evolve with changed social conditions without formal amendment.
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
You need to show us the question you asked it and
you need to show the response the same way I do
so we can see that grok actually said it and that
you didn't make it up
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
You need to show us the question you asked it and
you need to show the response the same way I do
so we can see that grok actually said it and that
you didn't make it up
I showed the link you snipped it out
<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>
In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
I showed the link you snipped it out
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
I showed the link you snipped it out
Everyone can see for themselves that
there is no link in the original, you
pathetic excuse for a pathological liar
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
You need to show us the question you asked it and
you need to show the response the same way I do
so we can see that grok actually said it and that
you didn't make it up
I showed the link you snipped it out
More of your pathological lies
<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>
That's not what you claimed grok said, you pathological liar
What you previously claimed grok said was actually what you
ASKED grok, not what grok told you, you pathologial liar
And grok pissed on your stupid claim about what was meant
by religion at that time, rubbing your stupid claim in the FACT
that the discussion about what should be in the constitution
explicitly mentioned jews and 'mahomens'
And pissed on your stupid claim that there has been any
change to the constitution that requires a S128 referendum
And pisses on your stupid claim that
the preamble has ANY effect on S116
In Australia according to my legal advice from a professor at law
Who you never named, so you are clearly lying again, you pathological liar
<reams of YOUR stupid repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
I showed the link you snipped it out
Everyone can see for themselves that
there is no link in the original, you
pathetic excuse for a pathological liar
Then why you cut it out again?
<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
I showed the link you snipped it out
Everyone can see for themselves that
there is no link in the original, you
pathetic excuse for a pathological liar
Then why you cut it out again?
I didn't cut any link out, originally or now, you pathological liar
<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
I don't believe you, its entirely the steaming turd
you have dropped countless times before
And that's what grok says too
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_128a3e35-caaa-4f22-88a9-347c7e909777
I had GROK do it's version
I showed the link you snipped it out
Everyone can see for themselves that
there is no link in the original, you
pathetic excuse for a pathological liar
Then why you cut it out again?
I didn't cut any link out, originally, you pathological liar
<https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_e5ecc77c-554c-4e25-a335-361d4aee3ade>
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote-- <https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
-- <https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
https://tinyurl.com/z5hh3shh
"The Rod Speed Bot"
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026, Petzl wrote:
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
--
<https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rod-speed-usenet-troll-iBra.u6iSuy..0dwUJuvhQ#0>
https://tinyurl.com/z5hh3shh
"The Rod Speed Bot"
bullshit! Your AI is as AI is, slop.
Always known as "Rod Bot"
Never has "speed" been included in all the years I've known him.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:07:51 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |