Hello - are you willing to defend your post? Or not (you half-@ssed weasel ;>)? Your idiotic comment doesn't measure up. 'Fish or cut bait'... ;>)
I always defend the content of my posts. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.
: ...you can defend [your own posts] (or not defend [your own posts] - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)
Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.
Sorry, my friend, but emotions are not involved. Either you can defend your posts - or not. It's a simple matter of fact. ;>)
Yep, -- my posts, & the facts, - show my defense.
I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?
First you posted: "The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome."
Yep, that is a quote from Roland, initially posted here to me by someone else, -- that we were wondering about.
Then you posted:
"I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing."
Sounds like you're back-pedaling (at warp speed).
Sounds to me like you are picking nits again.
What happened to "[w]hoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo.." (your Post #1)?" Got any back bone, sport? ;>)
Good grief, you have lost it.. -- Tell you what, calm down/sober up or whatever, & we'll continue this tomorrow. -- I have a dinner date.
Actually, you are the one who has "lost it" - when you can't even defend your own posts. (If you're not willing to defend them, why do you post? ;>)
Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?
Actually, you more often than not post unsubstantiated opinion – and then attempt to defend your points by offering even more unsubstantiated opinion. I prefer to document my claims. For example, when you claimed that Utah (Deseret) was initially denied admission to the union on the basis of the “State religion” issue, I posted the relevant language from the proposed State constitution – a “State religion” was nowhere mentioned (just the opposite, in fact). In case you need a reminder:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1350168/posts?q=1&&page=201#223
;>)
Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?
LOL! What is obvious is that you posted this Declaration without knowing the author (listed as “unknown”), and without even having bothered to read the piece (Post #58: “Good catch.. I have no idea what Constitutional principle that line is supposed to illustrate”).
Now that's impressive...
;>)