I'm shocked. Shocked!
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
It is sad, isn't it, that someone would try to discredit the proud state of Texas by trolling in its name.
Sorry, my mistake. Not 100, just 79. It's simply the equivalent of writing reminiscenses of Calvin Coolidge in the year 2005 -- a little suspect.
Why would a Roman Emperor commission someone to write a biography about a person who claimed He was the Son of God?
Oh, I'm sure there's lots of reasons why they wouldn't do that, but you're still giving an argument from a lack of evidence, which isn't particularly persuasive. Augustus probably also would have had reasons for covering up a short-lived extraterrestrial invasion too -- maybe the glaring ommission of any reference to such an event could be taken as proof of a coverup.
Not for the first time either.
Hmmm. There are oceans of contemporary material available about CC. Vast quantities of newsreel footage, newspaper articles, verbatim transcripts. The actual equivalent would be reminiscences of Joe Nobody from Smalltown , Iowa 80 years later.
I was hoping someone would pick up on that :)
When I am in the mood, I love to wander into these creationism vs evoltion threads (although from a "debate" perspective, it is like USC football vs. Joe's HS).
Another example of “The only physics I ever took was Ex-Lax” ?
Hmmm, just so I get the cultural reference, would that be like Manchester United vs a Girl Guides XI?
You read the quotation, but wireman did not.
I was expecting him to say, "oops. Sorry!" or something to that effect, but he didn't. Instead he reverted to name calling. Two points I'd like to make as to why he should have apologized, but didn't: 1)he agreed with another poster w/o even reading the quote and, 2)he called me a maniac when I brought this up.
I admitted that my quote lacked the end-quote, even though there was an opening quote and it was contained in a single para. You admitted in a gentlemanly manner that this caused you to attribute that sentence to me. Fine and dandy. It was resolved. It was not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on the subject matter. If you go back and reread wiseman's response to the other poster (I don't remember now if it was to your post or some else's), he did not read my original post. He then called me a maniac when I brought this to his attention. Had I been on evolution camp, you can bet your lifesavers, wireman would not have agreed with the other poster regarding my supposed "quote."
Be this as it may I'm willing to forgive and forget.
Take care. And a sincere Merry Christimas and a prosperous and healthy New Year and beyond to you and all your loved ones, despite being on opposing camps. :)
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Put down the crack pipe and seek professional help. I don't take a dime from anyone in the name of religion. Dr. Dino, by contrast, has been found by the IRS to take $ 1 million + per annum (see prior posts and links off of this thread), has no business licenses to do so, doesn't have tax-exempt status, and failed to pay taxes on his ill-gotten gains.
Shell-shocked placemarker (where did all the belligerent bozos come from?)
"even when the poster forgets to indicate clearly what he is quoting and what he isn't."
It was a single paragraph whose end quote was missing. I thought it would be understood it was a quote.
Actually that is not true. Evos routinely correct one another when they spot an error. I have made enough to have been corrected many times. Creationists correct each other once in a blue moon (and usually only because they are in radically different wings of the creation camp, and are disagreeing about doctrine)
You thought wrong. The mistake was yours in not making your intention clear. How are we to know where your quote ends?
In any case, why are we not allowed to respond to points you make by quoting text from another source? If you quote something you should be prepared to defend it, not disclaim all knowledge of what you quoted as you did to me.
They're the descendants of those who cheered for William Jennings Bryan and shouted for the lynching of John Scopes. But unlike their grandparents, these vote republican.
"How are we to know where your quote ends?"
It ended with that famigerated last declarative sentence. No other text followed it. I understand it can at times cause confusion. It did confuse you and it was resolved.
"In any case, why are we not allowed to respond to points you make by quoting text from another source?"
But you ARE responding to quotes not attributed to the poster, and I'm trying to respond to them as best I can.
"If you quote something you should be prepared to defend it, not disclaim all knowledge of what you quoted as you did to me."
Absolutely agree that one should be prepared to defend it. But, I did not disclaim all knowledge; I only disclaimed that last sentence being attributed to me, which was not.
"How are we to know where your quote ends?"
It ended with that famigerated last declarative sentence. No other text followed it. I understand it can at times cause confusion. It did confuse you and it was resolved.
"In any case, why are we not allowed to respond to points you make by quoting text from another source?"
But you ARE responding to quotes not attributed to the poster, and I'm trying to respond to them as best I can.
"If you quote something you should be prepared to defend it, not disclaim all knowledge of what you quoted as you did to me."
Absolutely agree that one should be prepared to defend it. But, I did not disclaim all knowledge; I only disclaimed that last sentence being attributed to me, which was not.
How did my post appear twice?
I only clicked "Post" once. Could the fault lie with my mouse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.