Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Nova Land]

... If I would have done the same thing to Misty I could have been charged with kidnapping...

No. Not if you were a police officer. When a police officer detains you, it is not the same as being kidnapped.

 

[Nova Land]

The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"

Yes. That is a correct definition of arrest. All arrests involve seizing a person by legal authority. However, not all seizures by legal authority are arrests.

This is elementary logic. Just because all A are B does not necessarily mean that all B are A.

As far as I can tell, Misty Newberry was not arrested. If you believe she was, can you tell me what crime she was charged with and what the disposition of the case was? (Look through your ACLJ material, and see if that information is included anywhere in it. If it isn't, ask yourself why it is missing.)

I believe that arrest (and release) involve paperwork. Why not write to ACLJ and ask them if they have copies of the paperwork which was done by the police in connection with Misty Newberry in this matter. If you are correct that ACLJ has been giving you the straight story, they should be able to provide documents to back up their version.

Even a newspaper story would help. I've provided a news clipping which indicates Newberry was not arrested. It was provided to me by the Rutherford Institute -- a Christian group involved with defending the religious liberties of Christians. If the ACLJ disputes the facts as presented in that clipping, could you get them to provide a legitimate newspaper story which supports their version of the facts?

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"

Yes. That is a correct definition of arrest.

Well I'm glad you agree that it's a correct definition.

Also did you ever find out who the author was of that Tampa newspaper article. Personally I think testimony before a Congressional hearing by an attorney who could be disbarred for lying under oath to Congress carries more weight than a newspaper article with no author but your certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[wahrheit]

DOC, instead of quoting one short sentence of Nova Land's post and omitting the rest, you might as well make up quotes entirely on your own and put them in one of our mouths. That would be just as dishonest as what you are trying to do here.

 

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by DOC
The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"




Well I'm glad you agree that it's a correct definition.

too bad its not a LEGAL definition. When you get arrested, you get handcuffed, read your rights, and booked at the station. that isnt what happened. When you get arrested the cops do NOT release you at the scene.


watch a few episodes of cops, seriously. you seem to have trouble with this concept and maybe you'll understand it after seeing it in action. Maybe you will realize how important it is for cops to be able to detain people after that.

 

[DOC]

We already showed Sekulow lied. DOC refuses to read those posts.

Where, Where, Where, Where?? I've already asked you fowlsound WHERE has it been shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies. Now you flat out just say he lied.

I think you've really lost any credibility you might have if you can't show where in this forum Sekulow lied. And if you can't show it, at least say you made a mistake -- like I did earlier in the forum.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Where, Where, Where, Where?? I've already asked you fowlsound WHERE has it been shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies. Now you flat out just say he lied.

I think you've really lost any credibility you might have if you can't show where in this forum Sekulow lied. And if you can't show it, at least say you made a mistake -- like I did earlier in the forum.

You really don't get it do you. How about providing some evidence for what Sekulow claimed instead of whining about semantics?

Can you? At long last can you actually do your own work and provide evidence?

 

[fuelair]

Why is the above likely to have appeared in other papers? And who is the author of this article? I noticed that was left out.

And are you saying that a student who was handcuffed (in front of her schoolmates), put in the back of a locked police car (15 to 20 minutes) while the policeman was talking to a school official, and then driven around to the other side of the school was not arrested. If I would have done the same thing to Misty I could have been charged with kidnapping.

The first definition of the word "arrest' in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is to "seize (a person) by legal authority"

I for one believe she should have received more than the few thousand she received from the police.

She shouldn't have received jack-s even if she had been taken to jail. And, just for the record, she received it from the taxpayers.

 

[fuelair]

Where, Where, Where, Where?? I've already asked you fowlsound WHERE has it been shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies. Now you flat out just say he lied.

I think you've really lost any credibility you might have if you can't show where in this forum Sekulow lied. And if you can't show it, at least say you made a mistake -- like I did earlier in the forum.

You dare talk about credibility? You, sir (and I use that word loosely here), have a lot of gall. Nothing else, but a lot of gall.

 

[Ducky]

Where, Where, Where, Where?? I've already asked you fowlsound WHERE has it been shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies. Now you flat out just say he lied.

I think you've really lost any credibility you might have if you can't show where in this forum Sekulow lied. And if you can't show it, at least say you made a mistake -- like I did earlier in the forum.

That's a nice tu quoque. We've posted about 5 pages full of sources dispelling myths testified to by Sekulow before congress. I am not going to spoon feed you all the posts you decided to skip over.

Your fallacies this time are:

Poisoning the well
tu quoque
ad hominem

Now, provide any sources that support what Sekulow testified to, or simply withdraw your claims.

As for my credibility on this forum, I have been a member of the JREF forum for quite a while now, racked up over 8,000 posts, won two language awards, and have a thread about my writing in the "forum spotlight" section. I will let my record of posting speak for itself as to whether I have credibility.

PS, you keep referring to this thread as a forum. I have already pointed out to you, this is a thread in a forum, not a forum itself.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

-- like I did earlier in the forum.

PS, you keep referring to this thread as a forum. I have already pointed out to you, this is a thread in a forum, not a forum itself.

And technically it's a subforum of "the" forum as he refers to it.

 

[Hawk one]

Where, Where, Where, Where?? I've already asked you fowlsound WHERE has it been shown that Sekulow was willing to cite lies. Now you flat out just say he lied.

Except we didn't just say it. Nova Land used fresh newspaper reports from the incident to -show- that Sekulow must have been lying, reports acquired by doing proper research. But you ignored that. Just like you ignore absolutely everything that does not agree with your preconceived notions. And then when we remind you what we've done, you claim we never did it. What a despicable, dishonest tactic. Start reading and understanding the posts we make, and then you will see where!

And don't try to tell me you're willing to admit it when the facts doesn't agree with you. For example, you cut out a quote from Nova Land so much that in effect, his message was warped. The -full- message was as following:

Yes. That is a correct definition of arrest. All arrests involve seizing a person by legal authority. [/i]However, not all seizures by legal authority are arrests.[/i]

This is elementary logic. Just because all A are B does not necessarily mean that all B are A.

See how the full message is something that - once again - shows one of your statements is wrong. Again. But you cut away almost all of this just so you could effectively say "Hey, Nova Land agrees with me". This is called quote mining, and it's another dishonest tactic used by liars. Why couldnt' you respond to the entire point? Why couldn't you admit that you don't understand the difference between arrested and detained?

So, when are you going to start doing proper research, DOC? When are you going to start understanding that you base your conclusions on the facts, instead of trying to make the facts fit the conclusion? When will you stop quote mining? When will you stop ignoring the facts that goes against your already made conclusion? And when will you start doing proper research instead of just throwing out one lie after another?

And what makes you think quote mining will make people more inclined to agree with you? Of course, not that it matters much, because again, not a single person in this thread has popped in to say how right you are. Everyone has spotted your horrible lies for what they are. So:

Why do you lie, when everyone knows you are lying???

Of course, I bet you'll just repeat your lie about not lying once again. But you are lying. You are trying (but failing) to deceive us, and I know this for a fact because you keep repeating falsehoods after being shown that they are falsehoods. So, once again:

Why do you lie, when everyone knows you are lying???

 

[Taffer]

Yes, I am. And I speak from personal experience here. Being detained by the police is not the same as being arrested by the police.

In 1971 a friend of mine ("Joanie") was transferred, along with 65 other women prisoners, from the federal women's prison in Alderson W. Va. to a federal men's prison in Ashland Kentucky. Joanie's parents were elderly, and lived in Philadelphia; they were concerned about Joanie under these circumstances, but travelling to Kentucky to try to visit Joanie was not an option for them at that time. Therefore I and another of Joanie's friends ("Xenia") hitched out to Ashland to attempt to visit Joanie.

Xenia was not an officially authorized visitor for Joanie, but I was -- at least as regarded her approved visitor list at Alderson. I had been able to visit Joanie at Alderson shortly prior to her transfer to Ashland. Therefore we were hopeful that one or both of us would be allowed to visit her at Ashland.

For a variety of reasons not necessary to the telling of this story, the authorities at Ashland were not keen on permitting us to visit Joanie. Xenia and I jumped through a number of hoops in trying to straighten the matter out -- such as having a telegram sent from Joanie's parents authorizing us as their representatives and requesting the prison to permit us to visit Joanie in their place. After several days, we thought we had things worked out. The prison officials allowed us in the gates, and had us wait inside the prison. But instead of bringing Joanie to the visiting room and letting us visit with her, they had called the county police, who came out, dragged us to their police van, maced us, stuffed us in the van, and drove us out to the county line where they released us. We were not placed under arrest.

I can state with assurance that we were not placed under arrest for two reasons. One is that, the next day, we returned to the prison and tried again. Again they permitted us inside, called the county police, and had us dragged away. Again we were dragged, maced, stuffed in a police van, and driven away. This time, however, we were taken to jail and we were placed under arrest. The difference between the two experiences seemed clear to me at the time, and still seems clear. Being arrested is different than simply being temporarily detained.

But there's another reason, besides the obvious difference between the two experiences, that lets me state with confidence that the first experience did not involve being arrested. A couple of weeks earlier I had been released from federal prison, having served 27 months of a 3 year sentence. I was released after 27 with 9 months (25% of the sentence) in "good time". However, if one has more than 6 months of good time one is on the same conditions as if one is on parole or probation. One of those conditions is that being arrested is a violation of the release conditions, and the authorities who have arrested you must hold you for the federal authorities. The second time I was dragged away and maced, I was held in custody for the federal authorities to pick up; but the first time I was dragged away and maced, I was not.

If I had been arrested, they would have had been legally required to hold me for the feds; they did not hold me for the feds the first time; therefore that incident was not an arrest.

I am not a lawyer; but I think any good lawyer could tell you that there is a difference between being detained by the police and being arrested by the police. I think any good police officer could also tell you that there is a difference. If the ACLJ people are genuinely trying to inform you rather than misinform you, It's funny that they haven't clarified this difference for you.

I don't understand. Why were you arrested for trying to visit a friend? And why was she moved to a male prison in the first place?

 

[DOC]

Except we didn't just say it. Nova Land used fresh newspaper reports from the incident to -show- that Sekulow must have been lying, reports acquired by doing proper research.

I'll ask you the same question that fowlsound is not responding to -- "Where, Where, Where, Where did Seculow lie?

Also if you want to believe a "fresh" article (with no author) that's your right. But even if this "no author" article is true it still doesn't show Seculow lied. Unless of course you can show me where Seculow lied. [which I don't believe you or fowlsound will do].

 

[skeptifem]

at this point its like bullying a little kid, DOC is so inept at having any sort of meaningful discussion. Count me out from now on.

 

[Ducky]

I'll ask you the same question that fowlsound is not responding to -- "Where, Where, Where, Where did Seculow lie?

Also if you want to believe a "fresh" article (with no author) that's your right. But even if this "no author" article is true it still doesn't show Seculow lied. Unless of course you can show me where Seculow lied. [which I don't believe you or fowlsound will do].

I am rather tired of your games here, DOC. For 25 pages or so in this thread, you have played dumb after being given evidence to the contrary of your assertions, and it seems you do it just to be a pest. Since you have demonstrated you can dishonestly quote mine, I'll just assume that one of two things is happening: either you have read and ignored the posts I refer to, or you have skipped over them. Either way, I most certainloy did respond to your crap - you just didn't like my response.

You want to know where we posted this contrary evidence? reread the damn thread and quit acting like a bratty kid.

 

[kmortis]

at this point its like bullying a little kid, DOC is so inept at having any sort of meaningful discussion. Count me out from now on.

Took ya' long enough, nails, I gave up on the idiot a long time ago.

 

[Ducky]

Took ya' long enough, nails, I gave up on the idiot a long time ago.

I'm done too. Let this jackass talk to himself from now on.

 

[DOC]

When you get arrested the cops do NOT release you at the scene.

The 2 handcuffed students were not released at the scene, they were driven to the back of the school by request of the principal. The only possible reason I can think for doing this is to scare the other students into thinking this behavior of praying will not be tolerated. If someone can think of another reason why this was done, let me know.

 

[slingblade]

The school was the scene. Back, front, still the school, so still the scene.

Why? Ask the principal who requested it.

You can find him to ask, can't you? Can't you?