A lie. And not even a particularly defensible one.
"Documentation #2: You extensively quoted and defended Farber, a left of center loose constructionist law professor at Berkeley."
I have quoted "extensively" from Farber - I have his book. Farber's style is to present opposing views on the issues and analyze them for strengths and weaknesses. Your friend nolu chan has also quoted "extensively" from Farber. That doesn't make him, or Farber, a "left-wing hater."
Slothful documentation from a slothful, narrow mind. You need to put a little thought into your otherwise knee-JERK responses.
I distinctly recall lengthy excerpts from him over at least three or four posts until I slapped egg on your face by exposing him as a left wing nut. I also distinctly recall that you gave a ringing endorsement to his work and suggested I should read more of it, again before you discovered that he was a left wing nut.
Farber's style is to present opposing views on the issues and analyze them for strengths and weaknesses.
Allegedly, though (a) you have a bad tendency to truncate his quotations in a way that leaves out material that is critical to your side, and (b) of the material that Farber has supporting Lincoln's side, the bulk of it is extremely weak and specious as I have shown in many thorough deconstructions of his text on FR.
Your friend nolu chan has also quoted "extensively" from Farber.
Yeah, and in case you haven't figured it out yet, he's mocking you, mocking Farber, and pointing out that you cannot seem to consistently present Farber nor can Farber, in many cases, consistently present himself.
Slothful documentation from a slothful, narrow mind.
Did that projector you bought come with a rebate form? Cause it seems as though you've invested the savings in a parrot.