[Ditto]

I quote source documents, at length; you post unsubstantiated opinion. And you suggest that I am the "revisionist?" You have an amazing talent for comedy.

You guys drive me nuts. In this and other threads when I or non-sequitor or Whiskey Papa post quotes from source documents, we’re called 'cut 'n paste artists' with no argument or rebuttal to our arguments. Now you come up with a quote, and that somehow makes every thing I say 'unsupported opinion.' Above I posted Article V of the Constitution to ask one of you where it implies a right to secede, as he had stated. I never got a reply to that post. It seems when you see the source you won't reply, and when we don't post source, you call us uninformed!

Araghhhhh. Lincoln should have let you guys have your little Banana Republic. It would have served you right when the slaves finally had their uprising. ;~))

Good night.

[Who is John Galt?]

In this and other threads when I or non-sequitor or Whiskey Papa post quotes from source documents, we’re called 'cut 'n paste artists' with no argument or rebuttal to our arguments. Now you come up with a quote, and that somehow makes every thing I say 'unsupported opinion.'

This is (to the best of my recollection) the first time we’ve debated. I’ve never referred to anyone as a “cut’n paste artist” (although given Walt’s apparent dependence upon anonymous ‘newsgroup’ sources it may be applicable in certain circumstances ;>). And, if you will review your posts addressed to me on this thread, I do not believe that you ever quoted a single source document. That’s your right – you are welcome to your (“unsubstantiated”) opinions. But, quite frankly, I am interested in history rather than opinion – I can get the latter by watching the network news... ;>)

Above I posted Article V of the Constitution to ask one of you where it implies a right to secede, as he had stated. I never got a reply to that post. It seems when you see the source you won't reply, and when we don't post source, you call us uninformed!

Thank you for the reference (to Post #362, I believe - not addressed to me). You state that the clause in question “has to do with amending the Constitution.” I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V, rather than (for example) in Article I? Does the location of the clause have significance? Does the clause apply exclusively to Article V concerns (constitutional amendment)? Obviously, I am asking for your opinion, but feel free to quote any source documents upon which your opinion is based. Thanks!

;>)