Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Ossai]

DOC

Please explain in detail why you thought I knowingly attempted to pass false data off as accurate and why not answering questions (that the asker implied that they already knew the answers) is unequivocal evidence of it. If your going to make serious allegations you should be willing to back it up with a detailed explanation, that is, unless your a troll.

Well, I would but it’s not sporting to kick the pile of <rule8> that slingblade has proven you to be. It also makes a real mess.

Ossai

 

[DOC]

To Slingblade, You've wasted a lot of time and energy just because I said I "believe" that Jay Seculow was the originator of that phrase about the schoolhouse gate and I did "believe" it at the time I said it (because I'm almost sure I've heard him use that phrase on TV). I also "believed" (at the time) that the Dept. of Education did use that phrase because of the work of the ACLJ. Notice that document from the Dept. of Education was dated 2003. I still believe that the document dated 2003 from the DOE would not have come out if it wasn't for the work of the ACLJ. I have since discovered that the phrase about the gate was from a previous case, but I still believe we wouldn't be talking about that gate phrase at this moment if it wasn't for the work of the American Center for Law and Justice.

I have shown that students have been handcuffed for praying around a school flagpole. Maybe that's because the document dated 2003 from the DOE wasn't around when it happened.

 

[Hawk one]

I still believe we wouldn't be talking about that gate phrase at this moment if it wasn't for the work of the American Center for Law and Justice.

But we -know- that is not so, thanks to post 671. And -knowledge- trumps belief any day of the week.

Anyway, you got one final chance to come clean and start being honest from slingblade. I don't think you'll like it when she reveals exactly how you've been lying...

 

[slingblade]

To Slingblade, You've wasted a lot of time and energy just because I said I "believe" that Jay Seculow was the originator of that phrase about the schoolhouse gate and I did "believe" it at the time I said it (because I'm almost sure I've heard him use that phrase on TV).

Ensuring that dialogue is honest and factual is NEVER a waste of my time or anyone else's.

Further, it is MY time, and I will be the sole arbiter of whether I've wasted it or not, thanks. Christians lost their right to control me years ago when I told them to stuff it.

I also "believed" (at the time) that the Dept. of Education did use that phrase because of the work of the ACLJ.

You had no reason to believe it, since the correct information was graciously provided to you TWELVE HOURS EARLIER. Edited to add: and you quoted the correct attribution in your own responding post.
(Tip O' Da Hat to HawkOne. )

Notice that document from the Dept. of Education was dated 2003.

Irrelevant.

I still believe that the document dated 2003 from the DOE would not have come out if it wasn't for the work of the ACLJ.

Can you provide proof that 2003 was the first year that the DOE included those words in their materials?

I have since discovered that the phrase about the gate was from a previous case,

Good. Then perhaps you would be good enough to tell us what you discovered?

 

[wahrheit]

I was just about to quote DOC's previous post and reply to it, but I changed my mind.

It would not have been a nice reply, it would have contained two or three words replaced by asterisks, and it would not have been in the spirit of an educational forum.

I pat myself on the back for having resisted that temptation.

+

 

[Hawk one]

You had no reason to believe it, since the correct information was graciously provided to you TWELVE HOURS EARLIER.

Don't forget that he also quoted your post in post 685, and included the part -and- the footnote that proved where it was actually said.

DOC, how on earth did you manage to falsely attribute the line about not giving up your rights to free speech at school when you were quoting the correct attribution in the same post?

Remember, in order to be able to debate honestly, you have to show evidence that you are reading and understanding the posts you are going against.

 

[slingblade]

I have to go to a doctor's appointment and will be gone for two hours.

Upon my return, I will reveal just how deliberately mendacious DOC has been.

 

[drkitten]

You've wasted a lot of time and energy just because I said I "believe" that Jay Seculow was the originator of that phrase about the schoolhouse gate and I did "believe" it at the time I said it (because I'm almost sure I've heard him use that phrase on TV).

Yes, you've tried this dodge before.

"Believing" something false doesn't make you correct. It makes you ignorant.

"Believing" something false when you've already been told the truth doesn't make you correct. it's makes you not only ignorant, but stupid.

Holding onto that "belief" and refusing to look at the evidence proving you wrong doesn't make you correct. It makes you not only ignorant and stupid, but a pig-headed lying little sack of ...


Oh, and,...

I have shown that students have been handcuffed for praying around a school flagpole.

No, you haven't.

From your own description (post 677)

When the students declined the officers' demand to discontinue their prayer, the officers sprang into action. Misty and a classmate were grabbed and placed under arrest and confined in a police cruiser. One officer who had menaced the students—while they prayed—with a can of mace entered the front seat of the cruiser in which Misty was confined and waved the can of mace around again. Misty and her fellow in prayer crime were confined to the cruiser for about fifteen to twenty minutes, and failed to report to class in accordance with the bells ringing on campus.

From your own description, there's no evidence, they were handcuffed. But beyond that, they weren't arrested "for praying around a school flagpole." They were arrested for disobeying a police order to disperse.

So, once again, you're telling us something that you yourself know to be untrue. Why am I so unsurprised that I've caught you in yet another lie?

 

[DOC]

Quote from Doc:

Notice that document from the Dept. of Education was dated 2003.

Irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to those 2 students who got handcuffed and put in a police car for praying around a flagpole. I bet they wish the document from the Dept. of Education came out much sooner.

 

[drkitten]

It's not irrelevant to those 2 students who got handcuffed and put in a police car for disobeying a lawful police order to disperse.

Fixed for you, since I'm sure you wouldn't want to be caught in yet another deliberate lie.

 

[Hawk one]

Wow, DOC....

Here we've just shown you that you have falsely attributed a quote to someone while in the same post quoting the correct attribution, and you're not going to respond to that? Why not?

And don't try that BS about "attacking the messenger". Really, what kind of a message is it to falsely attribute a saying while at the same time quoting the correct attribution of that very saying? Tell me, what sort of message is that? Is it a message that anyone should take seriously in any way?

 

[Ducky]

Your flooding the thread. Isn't that trollish behavior and against the rules. I'm not going to answer questions that the person who originally asked already knows the answer. This is just a weird attempt to sabotage the forum. Any further repeat of the above is just continuing flooding the forum and a admistrator should do something about it.

Wow, DOC....

Here we've just shown you that you have falsely attributed a quote to someone while in the same post quoting the correct attribution, and you're not going to respond to that? Why not?

And don't try that BS about "attacking the messenger". Really, what kind of a message is it to falsely attribute a saying while at the same time quoting the correct attribution of that very saying? Tell me, what sort of message is that? Is it a message that anyone should take seriously in any way?

Now, then DOC, that we have shown you to be directly wrong, and quoting the correct source in the post where you are directly wrong, you should answer these questions, and learn something for yourself.

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

1. In what case were these words uttered?
2. In what year were these words uttered?
3. In what year was the ACLJ founded?

 

[slingblade]

DOC. I quoted this in Post 671:

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," [ 9 ]

You see that [9]? It indicates the quote is sourced in a footnote, in this case, #9.

Footnote 9 was also provided in Post 671:

[ 9 ] Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

You read that Doc. I know you did, we know you did, because you included all of it in your reply. And even still, even with that clear information before you, you still lied to us. It was obviously a lie. The truth was before you and you still told us that story about Sekulow. How can that not be a lie?

I even told you in a later post that when these words were spoken by the Supreme Court, Sekulow was only 13 years old.

You had the correct info before you made post 685, and yet you still told us something demonstrably false.

That's lying, in anyone's book.

Even yours.






(ETA): For that one who still doesn't know, Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., was a case regarding the students' right to wear black armbands to school in sympathy with the Vietnam war protests. The students won.

 

[Ducky]

Your flooding the thread. Isn't that trollish behavior and against the rules. I'm not going to answer questions that the person who originally asked already knows the answer. This is just a weird attempt to sabotage the forum. Any further repeat of the above is just continuing flooding the forum and a admistrator should do something about it.

There's a little button in the bottom left of each post that has a triangle with an exclamation point in it. If you feel I broke the rules by asking you those questions in an attempt to elicit an honest response and perhaps see if you'll retract your previous lies (and you can check those with slingblade's most recent posts) then gather up as much testicular fortitude as you can and click that button.

 

[Foster Zygote]

DOC. I quoted this in Post 671:



You see that [9]? It indicates the quote is sourced in a footnote, in this case, #9.

Footnote 9 was also provided in Post 671:



You read that Doc. I know you did, we know you did, because you included all of it in your reply. And even still, even with that clear information before you, you still lied to us. It was obviously a lie. The truth was before you and you still told us that story about Sekulow. How can that not be a lie?

I even told you in a later post that when these words were spoken by the Supreme Court, Sekulow was only 13 years old.

You had the correct info before you made post 685, and yet you still told us something demonstrably false.

That's lying, in anyone's book.

Even yours.

Wow! Punctual!

 

[DOC]

Fixed for you, since I'm sure you wouldn't want to be caught in yet another deliberate lie.

"caught in yet another deliberate lie"

drkitten logic:

Using drkittens logic if a man said, "I believe the capital of Florida is Miami" and the man later found out that capital of Florida is Tallahassee then the man is a deliberate liar. Doc contends drkittens logic is not logical.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I think if the man was looking right at a map of Florida at the time, with a big star over Tallahassee, at the time he said it... yes, he would be a liar.

 

[Mojo]

I think if the man was looking right at a map of Florida at the time, with a big star over Tallahassee, at the time he said it... yes, he would be a liar.

Not necessarily. He might be an idiot.

 

[Ducky]

Not necessarily. He might be an idiot.

I used to think this, but given how often DOC repeats his performance in this thread, I have to go with liar.

So cheer up DOC, I no longer think you're a half-witted, drooling, incredulous sheep.

But I do think you're a liar.


Report that, if you have the testicular fortitude.

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC (but quote changed by drkitten)

It's not irrelevant to those 2 students who got handcuffed and put in a police car for disobeying a lawful police order to disperse.

Fixed for you, since I'm sure you wouldn't want to be caught in yet another deliberate lie.

But according to congressional testimony the police were called because school administraters saw the students praying {not because they were not dispersing}. And please don't change my quotes anymore.