STOP DELETING MY ADDITION!  You, Muboshgu/Mephistophelian say:

Please do not use talk pages ... for general discussion of the topic. They are
for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a
forum or chat. If you continue to use talk pages as you do, you may be blocked
from editing. You are using the talk page to push a POV rather than addressing
the article in a constructive manner. Please stop.

I AM NOT "generally discussing a topic", I AM NOT "chatting". I AM NOT
"pushing a P.O.V.".  If you do not understand basic English grammar, you have
no business telling me anything.  FACT: commas are used in this context to
separate a list, a series, of related clauses.  Grammar is not a matter of a
"general discussion" or "chatting" or a "point of view".  It is a technically
precise set of rules, and in this case, a set of rules that demonstrate that
the foundation of the issue is a fraud.  THIS IS NOT OPINION, IT IS FACT, IT
IS RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE, IT IS FOUNDATIONAL TO THE ARTICLE.  I AM TALKING
ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE BY CLARIFYING THE FOUNDATION ACCORDING TO THE
RULES OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR AS ANY LITERATE PERSON CAN SEE.  AND I AM TALKING
ABOUT ADDING THE RELEVANT AND FOUNDATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE.

FROM TALK GUIDELINES (why don't you review them!):

 There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal
knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation.

 make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being
friendly is a great help.

 It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to
voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it.

 Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article;

 Deal with facts

 The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to
verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns
discussed.

 The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits.

 New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion
by other editors if you wish.

 Do not threaten people: For example, ...
having them banned for disagreeing with you.

 removing others' comments is sometimes allowed.
But you should ... stop if there is any objection.

As I previously posted here: THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE IMPROVED by making it clear
in the opening statement that the entire issue is a fraud upon the public
since there is no "natural born citizen" requirement that is applicable today.
That is fundamental to an informative relevant foundation to the article, not
a matter of opinion, and a matter of grammatical fact.

If I say "No animal except a mouse, or a rat, at the time I give the signal,
shall be captured", then I am saying only mice and rats shall be captured AT
THE TIME I GIVE THE SIGNAL.  My order has no validity at any other point in
time.  Similarly, the requirement for "natural born citizen" only applied AT
THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION.  It does not apply today, and
the following clause should be part of the article, since it is the clause at
the foundation of the issue in the article:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible
to the Office of President; neither shall any
person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and
been fourteen Years a Resident within the United
States.

209.112.188.15  


Toxicity label: other