• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Status
Not open for further replies.
slingblade said:
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?

Promise me you'll never do jury duty. Its people like you who send innocent people to death row every year.

I'm finally starting to see what you're all saying because I've been so busy looking at the big picture and posting my 221 posts in this thread that I made a mistake on that Jay Sekulow thing. I saw that quote about the schoolyard gate and I immediately started to think that I heard Sekulow say that on TV and didn't even notice that it was footnoted to a court case. (If you don't want to believe that well there is nothing I can do about that.)

The mere fact that it is so obvious and out in front of everybody is proof that I'm not going to lie about it because it can be so easily refuted. It was an absentminded overlook. You heard of the absent minded professor term haven't you.

In a way though, I'm glad it happened because it shows just how desperate some people are to find anything on me and then play it for all its worth with some silly game of quizzes. And there must have been at least 12 posts of come on DOC answer these questions. Instead of just saying (when it first happened) hey Doc look at the footnote #9 and you'll see Sekulow didn't invent the term, many people had to draw it all out over numerous wasteful posts that took up a lot of wasteful space and time.

But like I said, I'm glad so many people in here played it for all it was worth because it just proves what I've been saying all along -- Attacking the messenger is the primary focus of many in here. And the message (and gaining knowledge) is a distant second. I'm glad you, and others, so thoroughly showed that fact to be true.
 
Last edited:
Promise me you'll never do jury duty. Its people like you who send innocent people to death row every year.

I'm finally starting to see what you're all saying because I've been so busy looking at the big picture and posting my 200+ posts in this thread that I made a mistake on that Jay Sekulow thing. I saw that quote about the schoolyard gate and I immediately started to think that I heard Sekulow say that on TV and didn't even notice that it was footnoted to a court case. (If you don't want to believe that well there is nothing I can do about that.)

The mere fact that it is so obvious and out in front of everybody is proof that I'm not going to lie about it because it can be so easily be refuted. It was an absentminded overlook. You heard of the absent minded professor term haven't you.

In a way though, I'm glad it happened because it shows just how desperate some people are to find anything on me and then play it for all its worth with some silly game of quizzes. And there must have been at least 12 posts of come on DOC answer these questions. Instead of just saying (when it first happened) hey Doc look at the footnote #9 and you'll see Sekulow didn't invent the term, many people had to draw it all out over numerous wasteful posts that took up a lot of wasteful space and time.

But like I said, I'm glad so many people in here played it for all it was worth because it just proves what I've been saying all along -- Attacking the messenger is the primary focus of many in here. And the message (and gaining knowledge) is a distant second. I'm glad you so thoroughly showed that fact to be true.

THat could almost have been believable except you've escaped and evaded the subject for so incredibly long, proving that you're not at all interested in the facts.

For one thing, that post is -not- unique. We've been showing you dozens of times you've been -lying-. Such as you saying ACLU pocketed 700k dollars when the newspaper article you cited said differently. Such as claiming the Founding Fathers were Christians when it's clear from first-hand sources that it's more likely they were deists. THese are but a few of many lies you have told in this very thread.

The only thing that made this unique was that with the quoting, it was extra obvious to see you were lying.

Time and time again have you been telling despicable lies. Time and time again people have shown you, but you escape those claims by jumping over to another lie.

The reason we nailed this lie on you - and don't deny it was a lie, it will only make you look even more immoral - was that this time, I would not let it go. I wouldn't allow you to escape it. And escape it, you didn't. Although you tried. You could have solved this easily by answering those questions, but you never did. You never admitted to anything until we had to spoonfeed it to you like a little kid. Because you couldn't act like an adult and answer properly.

But neither did you learn the lesson about honesty I was really hoping for you to learn. You still talk about "attacking the messenger" without realising that you need a message worth considering if you're going to be taken seriously. We don't let lies pass by us like that. We will point out falsehoods and untruths and fraudolous claims. And that's why slingblade would make a -good- jury member, because she would see past the pleas on either side and concentrate on the facts. Which is more than you have ever done in this thread.

So, when are you going to grow up and take responsibility for your actions? When are you going to give us a message worth considering? When will we be able to trust you not to throw out more lies?
 
Promise me you'll never do jury duty. Its people like you who send innocent people to death row every year.

I'm finally starting to see what you're all saying because I've been so busy looking at the big picture and posting my 221 posts in this thread that I made a mistake on that Jay Sekulow thing. I saw that quote about the schoolyard gate and I immediately started to think that I heard Sekulow say that on TV and didn't even notice that it was footnoted to a court case. (If you don't want to believe that well there is nothing I can do about that.)

The mere fact that it is so obvious and out in front of everybody is proof that I'm not going to lie about it because it can be so easily refuted. It was an absentminded overlook. You heard of the absent minded professor term haven't you.

In a way though, I'm glad it happened because it shows just how desperate some people are to find anything on me and then play it for all its worth with some silly game of quizzes. And there must have been at least 12 posts of come on DOC answer these questions. Instead of just saying (when it first happened) hey Doc look at the footnote #9 and you'll see Sekulow didn't invent the term, many people had to draw it all out over numerous wasteful posts that took up a lot of wasteful space and time.

But like I said, I'm glad so many people in here played it for all it was worth because it just proves what I've been saying all along -- Attacking the messenger is the primary focus of many in here. And the message (and gaining knowledge) is a distant second. I'm glad you, and others, so thoroughly showed that fact to be true.



When someone is repeatedly shown their mistakes, and that person does not take the time to learn from them, or to even consider what has been presented in the past 880+ posts in this thread then yes, we insult the messenger for being directly obtuse.

You see, DOC, we have repeatedly shown you evidence to the contrary of your claims, yet instead of acknowledge it, you have simply dodged on to another point you want to make, only to be shown another statement of yours was inaccurate, or outright false.

Since you have repeatedly shown you do not care to address evidence to the contrary of your fairy tale imaginations about...well....everything, then yes, you will be insulted. This is because you have, even now, shown you do not have any intellectual integrity in any of your dealings on this forum to date. You have not had a shred of integrity in your posting, nor have you even come close to showing you comprehend what a primary source is, or what proper academic standards of evidence are.

Your tactics may win points in your fundy-run dominionist christian forums like rapture ready or wherever it is you go other than here to discuss your skewed view of history and the US, but here, on this forum, you are far outclassed by people who not only are more knowledgeable on this subject than you are, but who do not suffer fools. This forum is comprised of many many very intelligent, very accomplished, and very much more articulate and reasoned posters than yourself (for starters, most of us know the difference between "your" and "you're" or "their" "they're" and "there") and all you have demonstrated is a very deliberate behavior showing you do not care to actually learn from anyone, you would prefer to tell people how things are whether you are even remotely correct or not.

To sum up: I view your decrying persecution (ie. your "you're all attacking the messenger! WAH!" crap) as a sad attempt to deflect from the giant white elephant in the room that has the words "DOC wants you to simply agree with him, despite any factual errors or outright lies he has told and he doesn't care anything about evidence, or whether anyone else happens to be more learned on this subject."

I don't buy your claims of persecution are genuine, only for the fact that if they are you are an enormous hypocrite given what you have said about judges, the ACLU, and members of this forum in this very thread.

So run along now, DOC. Unless you plan on a 180 degree attitude change, you have nothing to offer this forum but self-righteous condescension and lies.
 
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.
Even if true, this still doesn't support your assertion that they were handcuffed and put in a police car for praying.
 
Last edited:
DOC,

even someone like me, who knows little about US history, would not believe one word of you without looking into the facts. Gladly, there are much smarter than me guys and girls in this thread that would already do that, but if they were all on vacation at the same time, even then your false claims and arguments would not work.

Why? Because there are people out there who would always do research on a claim if they are unsure or don't know enough on a subject. They would read up on a topic either out of principle or because something looked suspicious in a claim or argument someone has made. The result is that making wild claims and untrue statements simpy doesn't work here. We are not a bunch of yeasayers in general, and won't swallow fatuous fundie-stuff in particular. No matter what side the fundie is on, btw.
 
We are not a bunch of yeasayers in general, and won't swallow fatuous fundie-stuff in particular. No matter what side the fundie is on, btw.

...unless the fundy is preaching the extreme view that skepchicks should settle all disagreements by naked jello wrestling.

Now THAT I can yeasay!
 
You know what's interesting about this? There is no other account of this story on the web anywhere. Googling "misty newberry" and "aclj" returns jack squat:

I tried some different searches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aclj+metropolis+illinois
gets this page
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/pray2b.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=misty+newberry+arrest
gets... the transcript page DOC linked to.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=metropolis+illinois+school+prayer
gets stuff referencing Ralph Reed.

This really sounds like a tale told out of school (literally ;))

Is anyone up for contacting the school or police department and asking them about Mr. Hardeson's assertions? It looks like Massac High School doesn't have an official website and I'm wary of clicking on their link right now.
http://www.cityofmetropolis.com/links.htm
 
Last edited:
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.
Who did I call an idiot?
 
Is anyone up for contacting the school or police department and asking them about Mr. Hardeson's assertions? It looks like Massac High School doesn't have an official website and I'm wary of clicking on their link right now.

I sent an e-mail off to the Metropolitan Chief of Police to see if they can shed any light on the Misty Newburry Affair. I also found this gem being hosted by our tax dollars (note the .gov url).
http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/22317.htm
(It's Hardeson's testimony in a more accessable format.)
 
Even if true, this still doesn't support your assertion that they were handcuffed and put in a police car for praying.

Randi lamented a few times in his commentaries that the US are about the only country where losing a claim in court does not force the losing party to pay for the winning party's expense. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if settling out of court were a common practice to avoid paying to defend against frivolous suits, if the settlement amount is significantly less than the expected court costs. Anybody more familiar with the US legal system can confirm?
 
Randi lamented a few times in his commentaries that the US are about the only country where losing a claim in court does not force the losing party to pay for the winning party's expense. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if settling out of court were a common practice to avoid paying to defend against frivolous suits, if the settlement amount is significantly less than the expected court costs. Anybody more familiar with the US legal system can confirm?

My father was an attorney, and I grew up around them, and I can confirm that. Settlements and even judgements in civil court do not reflect who was "right" but merely who gets the money based on the technicality of law. A good example of this is the McDonald's coffee fiasco, where because McDonalds didn't warn customers their coffee was hot (which you'd think was self evident) they had to pay a few million to someone who was burned by spilling it on themselves.
 
But according to congressional testimony the police were called because school administraters saw the students praying and I guess I don't know the difference between the act of calling the police and the act of arresting someone.. And please don't change my quotes anymore because I hate having people actually read the contents of what I write

There. Fixed for you.

Oh, by the way, I will be happy to stop correcting your quotes when you stop telling lies.

Or when I receive direct instruction from one of the moderation staff to cease, and the appellate process has come to a halt with the instruction still standing.

... and only then.
 
I'm finally starting to see what you're all saying because I've been so busy looking at the big picture and posting my 221 posts in this thread that I made a mistake on that Jay Sekulow thing.

You're right.

And more to the point, even when you were corrected about the Jay Sekulow thing with documentation you didn't bother to check your sources; you just kept repeating the same misinformation.

Unfortunately, Jay Sekulow thing is not the only thing you've made a mistake on. Somewhere upthread I posted a list of 20 or so other "mistakes" you've made, that have been corrected, and that you have continued to repeat despite correction.


The mere fact that it is so obvious and out in front of everybody is proof that I'm not going to lie about it because it can be so easily refuted.

That hasn't stopped you the other 20 times.
 
My father was an attorney, and I grew up around them, and I can confirm that. Settlements and even judgements in civil court do not reflect who was "right" but merely who gets the money based on the technicality of law. A good example of this is the McDonald's coffee fiasco, where because McDonalds didn't warn customers their coffee was hot (which you'd think was self evident) they had to pay a few million to someone who was burned by spilling it on themselves.

Bad example.

The actual facts of the case were that McDonalds' coffee was dangerously hot, by company policy. The "industry standard" is to maintain and serve coffee at between 130-140 degrees (Fahrenheit, obviously); at that time, McDonald's maintained and served it at between 180-190. The relevant McDonald's exec testified in court that a burn hazard existed at that temperature and admitted that their coffee was involved in something like fifty third-degree burn incidents each year. Despite the fact that he acknowledged complicity in these, he stated that McDonald's had no intention of adjusting the holding temperature.

The judge specifically called McDonald's conduct during the case "reckless, callous, and willful."

McDonald's was not sued because its coffee was hot. It was sued because its coffee was, by its own admission, dangerously hot, much more so than any other company was willing to offer to the public, and despite having clear knowledge of the danger, they didn't do anything about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom