Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Hawk one]

Hmm, that's strange.

I'm 100% positive I posted something like this in post #871:

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?

But nobody's been responding to it... I wonder why not...

 

[Mojo]

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.

I don't know: saying that the "schoolhouse gate" phrase originated with Seculow in a post in which he quoted information showing this to be untrue is a remarkably stupid lie, if it is one.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Good point, Mojo.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ducky]

I don't know: saying that the "schoolhouse gate" phrase originated with Seculow in a post in which he quoted information showing this to be untrue is a remarkably stupid lie, if it is one.

Which is more stupid:

To not understand he's telling a falsehood, or to think that in a forum which saves each post and response in a discussion thread he could deliberately lie and get away with it (ie, assuming no one would fact-check his posts, and the timeline of them.)?

 

[Mojo]

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.

But according to congressional testimony the police were called because school administraters [sic] saw the students praying {not because they were not dispersing}.

That may be why the police were called, but it's not why they were arrested, is it?

 

[DOC]

Not necessarily. He might be an idiot.

I glad you and some others in this forum use this type of language because it shows some of the kinds of people who support the opposing view to my own.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I has nothing to do with your views. It has to do with your "logic" and your honesty.

 

[Ducky]

I glad you and some others in this forum use this type of language because it shows some of the kinds of people who support the opposing view of my own.

There is 20 pages of mostly polite, very informed responses to your ducking, evading, and unsupported assertions. It says nothing to the character of your "opponents" if after that long you are mocked for willfully ignoring evidence and for being shown to be a liar.


Your logical fallacy this time is:

Poisoning the well, Ad hominem.

 

[slingblade]

Wow! Punctual!

I'm just that good.

 

[DOC]

That may be why the police were called, but it's not why they were arrested, is it?

Whatever the reason was for the students being placed in handcuffs it must have been wrong because the police paid a settlement to the students.

 

[Ducky]

Whatever the reason was for the students being placed in handcuffs it must have been wrong because the police paid a settlement to the students.

Source?

Also, you do realize that winning a settlement in civil court does NOT in any way reflect anything about the morality of the subject in question, right? Or do you mistakenly think civil court decides that?

 

[DOC]

I has nothing to do with your views. It has to do with your "logic" and your honesty.

Well then say you believe I'm illogical and dishonest -- anybody can say anything in these forums. But the use of the word idiot by any person over 17 says a lot about them. And I know personally I wouldn't want anyone on my side of the argument calling someone else that.

 

[Hawk one]

Well, well, well, seems like I need to repeat myself once more. DOC, it would be so much easier if you could just read my questions properly, think about them properly, and answer them properly. They are very important questions, and I can guarantee you that anyone lurking will take notice of you ignoring them over and over:

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?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But according to congressional testimony the police were called because school administraters saw the students praying {not because they were not dispersing}.

Congressional testimony? Oh brother. Any police reports or such you can cite?

 

[Ducky]

Well, well, well, seems like I need to repeat myself once more. DOC, it would be so much easier if you could just read my questions properly, think about them properly, and answer them properly. They are very important questions, and I can guarantee you that anyone lurking will take notice of you ignoring them over and over:

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?

Are you going to respond to this, DOC?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, no serious military historian or even casual military theorist takes that particular book seriously. It was written (and published) as a US-centric patriotic feel-good for sale to Fox News viewers, and you know how demanding those folks are about the accuracy of their "facts."

The reviews on Amazon.com were spotty (one on one edition, three on another) but I found these for the 2002 paperback edition to be very interesting. Especially the second one that reads like a "cherry tree" biography of Washington, but doesn't address anything else about the book. This definately sounds like a book I can not read and dismiss out of hand.

 

[skeptifem]

Well then say you believe I'm illogical and dishonest -- anybody can say anything in these forums. But the use of the word idiot by any person over 17 says a lot about them.

whatever. You have said/implied much worse about the aclu, and refused to appologize for it.

And I know personally I wouldn't want anyone on my side of the argument calling someone else that.

weird, your 'side' says a lot worse.


and I honestly dont know what the hell you expect people to think when you have been proven wrong by your OWN SOURCES multiple times, and then wont even admit you were wrong. It certainly doesnt make you look very smart.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well then say you have demonstrated I'm illogical and dishonest -- anybody can say anything in these forums. {snip}

Fixed.

 

[slingblade]

He wants respect.

Problem is, he thinks it's handed out for free, like candy in a parade, and once given can never be retracted.

And on both counts, he's wrong. Now, when he does anything to actually merit respect....


...nah. We moved past that point a long, long time ago.

It's out of our hands now. Sorry.

 

[Hawk one]

slingblade: It doesn't seem likely, but if DOC could just start being more honest, then at least he may be on the first step of some day becoming someone I can respect.

And the first step, I believe, would be to answer, if not to me, then at least to himself the questions I've asked him a few times now. If he can demonstrate that he has read them and more importantly understood them, as well as understaning why I'm asking them... Then there is hope. Then we can still teach him about debating honestly.

Wouldn't that be better, DOC? Wouldn't it be better to take your first steps on the path of honesty? Wouldn't it be better to be guided by facts, and to be following certain principles to make sure you get facts, and not falsehoods? Wouldn't it be better if we were able to take you seriously because you gave us a message worth considering?

If you think that would be better, then answering these questions honestly to yourself is a good first step. I hope you'll also be able to answer them to me, but that's not the most important part. All I can do is show you those first steps of honesty, you will be the one who has to walk them.

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?