Nope, because it *IS* so.
And I'm obviously wrong for thinking it provided important context.
I don't think you are wrong, I don't believe you even gave sufficient thought to what you were arguing to constitute "wrong." You simply made a deceitful and knee jerk reactionary faux horror protest because you saw what you thought was an opportunity to do so.
Let us examine your claim. This is what I posted.
I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States.
And this is what I omitted.
The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject.
Let us disect the two sentences.
No notice taken in the States' Constitutions.
The Constitution of Virginia is silent.
Why yes, I see what you mean, the omitted sentence is VASTLY different from the quoted one.
Let's look at the next couple of sentences. Again, Quoted:
If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
And Omitted:
An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations.
Distillation:
General declaration that it shall continue.
Ordinance declared the Common law still the law of the land.
Oh my! Again, the meaning is SO different it boggles the mind as to what incorrect inferences could have been made as a result of it's omission!
I notice you didn't even think it was worth asking what context I thought it provided.
Given the quality of your arguments in the past, I fear I have missed nothing by failing to solicit your opinion. Likewise, by my demonstration above, very little of use can be gleaned from redundant sentences WHICH MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!
No, your efforts constitute nothing more than a prickish attempt to make a tu quoque argument, and it was a bungled attempt at that. You were just jumping at the chance to make a deceitful false comparison between what *I* did and what Jeff Winston did.
I was just amused that the guy who was jumping up and down screaming "Gotcha!" because someone truncated a quote, ended up doing the same thing himself.
And this is how you demonstrate yourself to be a stupid f**k because you foolishly thought that the issue was the truncating of quotes, rather than the actual offense of intentionally changing the meaning of a quote by leaving off the part that clarifies it.
You are not just a STUPID f**k, you are a DECEITFUL f**k, and your intentions in trumping up your accusation are made plain for everyone to see.
I agree: if you ignore half of one of the sentences, the parts that are left means much the same thing. Congratulations on your deft textual analysis.
You're full of it.
When are you going to admit that your accusation against me was absolutely false in the first place, since I had already quoted Bingham upthread giving a quote virtually identical to the one you took me to task for?
And this is how you demonstrate yourself to be a stupid f**k because you foolishly thought that the issue was the truncating of quotes, rather than the actual offense of intentionally changing the meaning of a quote by leaving off the part that clarifies it.
As far as I'm concerned, YOU changed the meaning of a quote by leaving off an important part that clarified it. And it appears to me that you did so intentionally.
God knows you've repeated omitted MANY quotes that argue against your stupid little claim, and tried to discredit the genuine legal experts who made them.
As far as Bingham himself is concerned, you've REPEATEDLY quoted only his "not subject to any other sovereignty" quotes, and REPEATEDLY left out where he equates "natural born citizens" with "citizens by birth." And you have REPEATEDLY left out the part of his quotes where he says, "Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen."
So there's omission and cherry-picking going on, all right.
ROUTINELY. By YOU.