Please run for President

[herfacechair]

kcbigpapa: You have got to be kidding me DD.

Typical comment made when one person tells another that you've "got" a brain.

kcbigpapa: This clown

If it's true that what you don't know can't hurt you, then you'd have to be completely pain free.

kcbigpapa: writes 10 paragraphs for every sentence he is responding. I cannot say I have read one word of what he has written,

Smart people would examine something before they talk about it, but again, you're not smart, aren't you? Otherwise, you'd catch numerous instances where I've replied with far less volume than what you accuse me of posting.

kcbigpapa: but just to think of the time he put into his responses cracks me up.

Do you know what my typing speed is? Nope. Hint: People have reminded me that there's a keyboarding speed limit. Have you seen what equipment I have to put words on the screen? Nope. Speech to text is awesome.

Have you seen how I categorize things during a debate? Nope. After my last post yesterday, I had 77 Microsoft Word pages of my saved replies. The quotes that I've pulled here are a simple matter of doing a "Function F," and getting a list of results listed on the side of the word document, as well as the keyword highlighted in the document.

Need we discuss my favorites folder, listing sources that I've repeatedly used in political debates involving the War on Terrorism?

The bottom line here is that you're just another dingbat that pulls shit out of his ass about someone, without examining the facts first.

kcbigpapa: I just picture his angry little fingers typing away furiously as he curses under his breath at the computer screen. "That fucking Dirty Dog, he doesn't know who he is messing with." Tell me the thought of herfacechair muttering that while responding to you doesn't amuse you a little bit.

What I've said on this thread:

"But, I take great joy in hammering people like you. I know the real reason you're doing what you're doing… why else would I be able to get the responses from you that I expect to get from you? This is fun. " - herfacechair

"Second, I'm having too much fun replying to you this way. Your insistence on staying in this fight fuels that fun… the fun I get in dismantling your replies." - herfacechair

"First, if you keep spewing the same shit on this thread, I'm going to give you the same reply. I have fun doing this, but it seems to be bothering you. I'm not going to stop doing something fun simply because it bothers you. So, the ball is in your court. If you don't want to see the same response, you need to QUIT repeating your points." - herfacechair

"I mean, if this weren't fun for me, why would I do this, almost perpetually, for almost 8 years? It's because I'm the one, between us, that's actually having fun." - herfacechair

See a trend in these selected quotes? Other than the fact that you've pulled more shit out of your ass, and that you're wrong again?

What's actually happening, when I generate these replies, is that I laugh, I smile… I pause and laugh at someone's comment, or post, then continue destroying that person. I'm having FUN.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Sorry Papa I did not understand what you were saying. It does make me smile to know I can get him to wright a book with every response.

That's a self-serving comment. Based on what you've posted on the other threads, and based on your actions being consistent with those with whom I've debated with over the past few years, I'd say that the way I structure my posts, and the volumes I bring to bear against you, strike a chord with you… they grate at your nerves real hard. You're not fooling anybody with that reply.

[thorough9]

YAWN..... Still no facts. I guess that we'll just have to take your -lol - word for it.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

See a trend in these selected quotes? Other than the fact that you've pulled more shit out of your ass, and that you're wrong again?

I don't really see the trend. Would you please show me the trend in detail (detail really goes without saying)? Also, please let me know what I've been wrong about in this thread. Thanks. Keep posting. I seriously like your posts since you're much more insightful than Dipshit Deacon and Mr. Dipshit JG (see deacon, this is why you don't get to request that I call you Mr. Dipshit, the title was already reserved). Also, before you do post this, could I pick the color you post your response? If so, I pick SeaGreen. But then transition into a DarkOrchid with some nice italics thrown in there for fun. Appreciate it.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Smart people would examine something before they talk about it, but again, you're not smart, aren't you?

You're using a double negative there smart guy. You may need to edit some of your 77 pages of saved Microsoft Word responses.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Do you know what my typing speed is? Nope. Hint: People have reminded me that there's a keyboarding speed limit. Have you seen what equipment I have to put words on the screen? Nope. Speech to text is awesome.

Wow, you must type really fast. Or speak really fast, or find the preset responses on MS Word real fast. Which one is it? Me thinks something stinks around here...

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

longermonger: Is that what Sarah meant? Because we've got another poster in this thread saying that the (implied) 'warning' happened as a result of the alarm system being activated, NOT during Paul Revere's face-to-face encounter. You can't both be correct. REPEAT POINT

First, what I said earlier in this thread:

"And get this. During his capture, in addition to saying what's in deacon's post, Paul Revere warned the British that if they didn't move on, they'd miss their mark... IE, they'd miss their objective." - herfacechair

Second, you're still missing the point behind my argument.

You're consistently ignoring the common law aspect that drove our founding fathers. What I said:

"By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair

The secondary purpose that I talked about wasn't an "accidental" event. It was used in the same sense that a home owner, refusing to be evicted with out due process, would stand on his porch with his weapons… to warn, without saying or writing something.

longermonger: Please argue quietly amongst yourselves and be sure to use lots of colorful text.

I'm going to argue this here, not via PM. Instead of demanding that we argue quietly, how about resisting the urge to click on this thread.

longermonger: 1. Sarah didn't know what the fuck she was talking about. 2. She got lucky. REPEAT POINT

So far, you stuck with the surface explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. You've failed to consider the additional factors at play, nor have you advanced anything that doesn't deviate from the "basics" in response to my side of the argument.

Sarah knew what she was talking about, but didn't get her message out effectively. It's like I said earlier in this thread:

"Sarah Palin may very well not have had exposure to American history since she was in high school, we're talking decades here. She gets access to the facts, a more complex version of the one she covered in high school, read it once, and tried to explain what she just read." - herfacechair

longermonger: Her statement can be considered 'barely true' if you twist the facts, redefine some words, assume you know the motives of people you've never met that lived over 200 years ago, etc. This line of thought also has Paul Revere warning Colonists to warn the Regulars. Transitive property of something....? REPEAT POINT

This is what I mean by the opposition refusing to go beyond the traditional, basic, explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. What you dismiss as "twisting the facts, redefine words, and assumption of knowledge of people's motives," are facts that you refuse to factor in.

Mainly, English Common Law, Common Law, and God's Law.

I took a college course, history area, that focused on our Founding Fathers. The detail of the text that we studied was awesome, it made High School History seem like a 1st grader's picture book. In order to make sense of some of what was talked about, you had to do additional research…

You can't even come close to understanding what happened during that time unless you understand English Common Law.

You, with your refusal to step outside your comfort zone, with regards to the American Revolution, force yourself into a handicapped position in this fight. This isn't "assumed." This additional detail is based on the founders themselves, the written reasoning's they gave for their actions… not just the narrative of what they did… but the explanations… explanations that were consistent with English Common Law.

Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example.

If you're going to continue to ignore these additional facts, you don't have a leg to stand on when accusing me of twisting and distorting things to match what Sarah Palin said. Your suggestion indirectly argues against the founder's very own explanations behind their actions.

longermonger: 3. At what point were the Regulars considered 'warned'? RED HERRINGThat wasn't a lame-stream media gotcha question. But it did getcha. You can't answer it, so you choose to dismiss it as a red herring. Play dumb if you want, but I know you know the importance of a timeline.

When they went from hoping that this'd be an easy mission, to knowing that the colonials weren't going to be giving up their arms, is beside the point. When that happened isn't relevant.

longermonger: Paul Revere couldn't have warned them after they'd already been warned now could he? RED HERRING

Here you go again, throwing "what if…" statements into the mix. I'm arguing that his actions lead to a chain reaction that resulted in the Regulars knowing that they weren't going to be taking the colonial's arms. I've argued this repeatedly, and even stated that this was no accident.

No room for someone to even consider that "what if" statement.It wasn't a "what if" question. There is no "what if" in it. "Led to a chain reaction" isn't the same as Paul Revere directly doing something like warning the Regulars. The burden of proof is on you to show how and when Paul Revere warned the Regulars. If, as you state, Paul Revere warned them via the alarm system...then he can't have also warned the Regulars that took him as prisoner. They would have already been forewarned.

longermonger: 4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars that captured PR never heard the alarm

They weren't at one of the targeted towns yet. It's obvious that they weren't privy to the warnings from the drums, bells and gunfire.So all of your nonsense about English Common Law is moot because the Regulars never heard the alarm.

longermonger: and that Paul Revere's 'boast' as a prisoner was never intended to be part of his mission. If that's true, then Sarah was wrong. RED HERRING

This completely misses the point being debated on this thread. I've explained the thrust of Sarah Palin's statement in this thread. Her explanation brought her closer to the truth than your argument on this thread.

So say you. I beg to differ. Produce a timeline or be considered defeated.

You say: Paul Revere was one of many links in a chain of events that was supposed to have caused a secondary effect, but did not.

I say: The Regulars were not effectively 'warned' by the alarm system before they captured Paul Revere. So your speculation about how the alarm system 'warned' the enemy and it's implied meaning under English Common Law is moot. Your only hope for Paul Revere to 'warn' the Regulars is after he is captured. But, since PR never rode out to be taken prisoner you can't consider that a warning, either.

[Longermonger]

[CuteOldGuy]

Ok, let's be reasonable. None of us were there, not even me. (I was in Georgia inventing mint juleps. My contribution to the American saga.) It appears that history tends to support either interpretation. Sarah Palin related a version that is entirely plausible, based on the historical record we have. However, it could also be less than accurate, but from my reading of the history, it isn't outlandish that Paul Revere may have wanted to warn the regulars. I think HFC is more on point than T9, but T9's interpretation is valid as well.

When this thread started, I believed history as T9 explained it, but further review revealed that HFC has at least an equally believable interpretation of the available record.

In the long run, it really doesn't matter. I think we should get back to hurling insults and personal attacks based on what is happening now, rather than 200+ years ago.

Don't waste time telling me to STFU on this thread, I will! This is the "Other Old Idiot" signing out.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by thorough9

REPEAT POINT

YAWN..... Still no facts. I guess that we'll just have to take your -lol - word for it.

REPEAT POINT

You'll see the facts if you pull your head out of your ass and remove your horseblinders. You'll get better results if you also deactivate the anti-fact defense shield that your ego is using to protect itself.

[herfacechair]

kcbigpapa: I don't really see the trend. Would you please show me the trend in detail (detail really goes without saying)?

Go back to my response to you, to the quotes that I listed that talk about what really goes on in my mind when replying to the opposition. The trend is right there and is easy to spot once you read those quotes.

kcbigpapa: Also, please let me know what I've been wrong about in this thread. Thanks.

My replies to you point out what you're wrong about. For example, most of what you said, or speculated about me, was wrong. I took what I know about myself, and countered what you said about me that was wrong.

kcbigpapa: Keep posting.

That goes without saying, as long as the opposition keeps replying, I'll keep providing counter rebuttals.

kcbigpapa: I seriously like your posts since you're much more insightful than Dipshit Deacon and Mr. Dipshit JG (see deacon, this is why you don't get to request that I call you Mr. Dipshit, the title was already reserved).

Deacon and JG are far more insightful, and closer to being right, than thorough9, longermonger, dirty dog, and others that I've debated against.

kcbigpapa: Also, before you do post this, could I pick the color you post your response? If so, I pick SeaGreen. But then transition into a DarkOrchid with some nice italics thrown in there for fun. Appreciate it.

Perhaps one of the posters that I'm debating with could use your color request the next time they reply.

kcbigpapa: You're using a double negative there smart guy. You may need to edit some of your 77 pages of saved Microsoft Word responses.

First, what I said:

"Smart people would examine something before they talk about it, but again, you're not smart, aren't you?" - herfacechair

There's no "double negative" in that comment. Let's break it down to two parts:

1. Smart people would examine something before they talk about it,

2. …but again, you're not smart, aren't you?

If you look at the first part, I don't advance a negative that cancels another negative out. The second part calls your smarts into question. The second part doesn't cancel the first part. It separates you from the first group, based on what you did... It's a double slam against you, not a double negative.

Second, I look over my posts before I submit them. I don't do a high level of editing, like I do my professional work… but I do more than what most people do before they post.

kcbigpapa: Wow, you must type really fast. Or speak really fast, or find the preset responses on MS Word real fast. Which one is it?

Yes, I type fast. That was a necessity while working on my degrees, and it's a necessity in professional writing.

If you use Microsoft Word 2010, hitting "Control F" would open a navigation section on the left. As soon as you type in a word, that word is highlighted throughout the document, and a list of "links" show up in the navigation section. All you have to do is scroll down, click on the sentence that you're looking for, and Microsoft Word 2010 jumps to the area of the document containing that sentence.

For speech to text, all you need to do is speak at a normal pace. The more you use it, and correct it, the more it'll type what you wanted to type, instead of what it thought you said.

kcbigpapa: Me thinks something stinks around here...

Nope, nothing stinks on this end. My methods here are a paradigm change compared to what most people do.

[herfacechair]

Longermonger: That wasn't a lame-stream media gotcha question. But it did getcha. RED HERRING

Whether this was a gotcha question or not is beside the point. They asked her a question, and she gave a response that came closer to the truth than what most Americans know.

Longermonger: You can't answer it, so you choose to dismiss it as a red herring. Play dumb if you want, but I know you know the importance of a timeline.

First, you don't know what my cognitive processes are. Your speculation of what I'm doing has no resemblance to the thought processes I have when I address you. I dropped hints of what I actually think of the issue, read them instead of assuming that I'm thinking along the same lines you think.

Accepting the facts surrounding English Common Law would allow you to not only get a hint of my thought process… but would also allow you to be able to summarize what I'm arguing. That hint would make it glaringly obvious that I'm not "playing dumb," and I don't see your "timeline" argument as being a key player in this debate.

Second, it's a RED HERRING because the timeline isn't being debated here. What's being debated is whether Sarah Palin was wrong or not. Those who're not familiar with American History, beyond what's commonly known, or assumed, argue that she got it wrong. Those who're more familiar than the basics would know that she came closer to the truth than those that criticized her.

Third, the timeline didn't need to be answered, because my side of the argument, and most of those arguing on your side of the argument, already knew the "timeline." Both sides, in their responses, hinted directly, and indirectly, about the timeline. Common sense would tell you what the timeline was… it went without saying.

Fourth, your tactic is similar to a court room tactic where the defense tries to "shift blame," or bring an off the wall variable into the argument, to try to get the defendant off the hook. "But Your Honor! If the victim didn't wear provocative clothing, my client would never had selected her, and she'd still be alive!"

You need to stay focused here, and quit trying to introduce ego soothing aspects to the argument.

Longermonger: It wasn't a "what if" question. There is no "what if" in it.

I labeled your statement as a "what if," as you utilized the above court room tactics that I talked about. You speculated about the Regulars that captured Paul Revere. Then, you followed that speculation with a question related to that speculation.

Either you're deliberately moving the goal posts back, or you honest to God don't even have a grasp of the common knowledge American Revolution.

Longermonger: "Led to a chain reaction" isn't the same as Paul Revere directly doing something like warning the Regulars. The burden of proof is on you to show how and when Paul Revere warned the Regulars. If, as you state, Paul Revere warned them via the alarm system...then he can't have also warned the Regulars that took him as prisoner. They would have already been forewarned.

First, despite my constantly telling you what I actually meant, you're holding your assumptions of what I said, or meant, with a death grip. You're also refusing to break away from the surface explanation of the Revolutionary War, and trying to apply my responses to that, rather than keeping it consistent with the additional facts that I presented in this thread.

Again:

1. "The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair

2. "The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand." - herfacechair

3. "The secondary purpose that I talked about wasn't an "accidental" event. It was used in the same sense that a home owner, refusing to be evicted with out due process, would stand on his porch with his weapons… to warn, without saying or writing something." - herfacechair

4. "Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example." - herfacechair

Regardless of whether he went up to them, and gave them a verbal warning, or if he activated the alarm system, a chain reaction got set off. That chain reaction provides the timeline that you're demanding, a timeline that you'd find in my posts, as well as in the quotes that I listed here.

The argument isn't about whether Paul Revere verbally warned them, or did he do so via causing the alarm system to go off. The argument is about whether Paul Revere Warned the Regulars, with the ringing of the bells and firing of the guns, or not.

The complete facts, surrounding that period, indicate that he did warn the Regulars… by causing the alarm system to be activated:

Originally Posted by herfacechair

That was one of the implied intents of his mission.

People must see this from our founding father's eyes, not from our 21st Century interpretation of things.

Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law.

In the UK, and throughout her domains, you understood that you could never walk unto someone's property, and confiscate it without due process of the law. This property included the right to bear arms... a concept we also inherited from the British.

Again, read my "man on porch" example.

I've consistently proven, throughout this thread, using facts that you consistently ignore because they don't fit your agenda, that Paul Revere did warn the Regulars… and he did so via activating the alarm system… with English Common Law being the communication medium.

Longermonger: So all of your nonsense about English Common Law is moot because the Regulars never heard the alarm. INDUCTIVE FALLACY + STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

This comment, as well as the other comments that you've made in your recent post, makes you look desperate.

Here's why. You said:

"4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars that captured PR never heard the alarm" - longermonger

What I argued:

"Not only that, but the Regulars knew that the sound of gunfire, bells and drums at the village meant that they were not just going to walk in there and take what they wanted to take. They didn't have cellphones, telephones, internet... heck, they didn't even have phones. So, when people in the countryside heard gunfire, bells and drums, they knew something was up. If they had a gun, or were close to a bell, they also made some noise... to warn those living further away from the town." - herfacechair

Even you, with your death grip hold on the most basic, Revolutionary War information, would know that there were more Regulars involved with the incidents that took place that night.

The Regulars that captured Paul Revere (what you're narrowing yourself down to) were obviously operating independently of the light infantry elements that the Continentals/Colonials eventually clashed with (the ones that I'm talking about.)

Your reasoning amounts to inductive fallacy. It assumes that if the Regulars that captured Paul Revere didn't hear the alarms, then I "don't" have an argument. It completely ignores the Regulars that I'm actually talking about.

Your reasoning is also a strawman argument, on the account that you apply, what happens with regards to the Regulars that captured Paul Revere, to the entire Regular military that operated that night.

Simply put

I advance "X," my argument on this thread.

You advance "Y," a distorted version of what I'm saying.

You argue against point "Y."

You conclude that "Y" is wrong.

Since "Y" is wrong, then "X" is "wrong."

I'm smiling at your acts of desperation here. Regardless of how many times you harp against English Common Law in this argument…

My argument, about English Common Law, is very applicable to this thread, and to what happened the night of Paul Revere's ride.

No amount of denial, on your part, will change that fact.

Longermonger: So say you. I beg to differ.

You and I have been debating on this thread, I've consistently dismantled your replies to me. So it's obvious that we're "begging to differ" with the other.

Under English Common Law, if one person posts a disagreement against what another person says, that first person is "begging" to differ with the second person. You were already telling me that just from your actions on this thread.

Longermonger: Produce a timeline or be considered defeated.

First, I defeated you the moment I countered your argument on this thread. You've been fighting a losing argument since then. Also, you've been getting more desperate with each reply.

Second, the timeline has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, by both sides of the argument. All you need to do is read what's being said. Picture the events that you're reading about, in your head, and you'll see timelines. You'll see those timelines in the quotes that I produced in my reply to you.

Third, the timeline isn't anywhere near to being one of the main factors in this argument as to what's being argued… mainly… was Sarah Palin right, or was she wrong? I've argued, and proven, in this thread that Sarah Palin came closer to the truth than those going in overdrive to criticize her.

THAT's what you have to focus on. You're focusing on something else.

If someone played chess the way you debated on this thread, that person would lose. Your argument is like someone trying to capture the opposition's bishop to win the game, while completely ignoring the opposition's king, and the opposition's moves to capture his king.

Longermonger: You say: Paul Revere was one of many links in a chain of events that was supposed to have caused a secondary effect, but did not.

First, WHERE, in MY posts, do I make that EXACT statement? Until you accept the facts that I've introduced in this thread, to include the role that English Common Law played, you're not qualified to even attempt to summarize what I'm arguing.

Your summation oversimplifies my argument into something that I'm not arguing. Here's a sample of what I'm arguing:

1. "The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair

2. "The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand." - herfacechair

Longermonger: I say: The Regulars were not effectively 'warned' by the alarm system before they captured Paul Revere.

Again, the Regulars weren't just in one location. You had the Regulars that captured Paul Revere, and you had the other Regulars who were moving toward other objectives in this area to disarm the colonials.

The Regulars that moved in on the towns did hear the alarm system, hence Paul Revere's causing the alarm system to go off warned the Regulars, "ala man on porch with gun" that they weren't going to confiscate the colonial's weapons.

Longermonger: So your speculation about how the alarm system 'warned' the enemy and it's implied meaning under English Common Law is moot.

That's snot speculation, but fact. English Common Law is a very big variable behind our founders' actions before and during the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, its amendments, etc, reek of English Common Law.

Anybody that dismisses the role that English Common Law played, in our founders' actions, makes a moot argument. Said person isn't even qualified to participate in this debate.

The ringing of the bells, beating of the drums, and firing of the guns clearly communicated to the Regulars that they weren't going to disarm the colonials without due process of the law. The Regulars understood this, as they also operated with the English Common Law philosophy.

Again, it'd be like the man, sitting on his porch with his weapon, as a visual warning to those about to take his property that he isn't going to give it up.

Longermonger: Your only hope

I don't need hope or luck in this argument. The facts are on my side, the fact that I'm right in this argument, and that I've destroyed the opposition, is a no brainer.

Your only hope in this argument is that I turn away from the facts and embrace your illogical argument… time to destroy your hope… that's NOT happening.

Longermonger: for Paul Revere to 'warn' the Regulars is after he is captured.

Wrong. The moment Paul Revere activated the town's alarm systems, he caused the Regulars to be warned, via the ringing of the bells, that they weren't going to capture the Colonial's weapons.

Longermonger: But, since PR never rode out to be taken prisoner you can't consider that a warning, either. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

That's not relevant to the argument I'm making… which is… did Paul Revere warn the Regulars, by ringing the bells and firing those shots, that they weren't going to be taking the Colonial's weapons? Per English Common Law, that's precisely what he did as a secondary mission. It was implied.

Like that guy sitting on his porch, he doesn't need to send you an email, text, or call you, to tell you what he could easily communicate by making sure that you see him, on his porch, with his gun.

Again, you stubbornly ignore one of the large variables driving the Patriots' actions that night. You refuse to consider English Common Law simply because that variable thoroughly proves your argument wrong. So, by ignoring that, and by focusing on your inductive fallacy argument, you hope to make this something it isn't.

What you're doing is attempting to redefine the debate to something that it isn't, in a futile attempt to achieve a victory… got news for you, others tried this game over the past few years, and they failed… you'll fare the same way they did.

I wouldn't be surprised if you've been accused of integrity related violations in your real world life.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Did you "draw" that before recess, or after? I wouldn't be surprised if your teacher gave you the extra milk and cookies for the colors that you used.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

There's no "double negative" in that comment. Let's break it down to two parts:

1. Smart people would examine something before they talk about it,

2. …but again, you're not smart, aren't you?

My mistake. I thought using two "nots" in one sentence constituted a double negative. I didn't realize they changed the word "not" so that is no longer used in the negative in the English language. I have not not not been in English class in a long time so maybe the rules have changed. I am happy to see that Burger King not only gives out crowns to children, but apparently they are giving out degrees as well. Congrats. Did you double major in mopping and lettuce washing? Get your masters in line prep, or as you would put it... manufacturing. What was your topic for your doctoral thesis? Does the 5 second rule apply after I have freshly mopped the floors?

[thorough9]

There is an old adage that says "if you'll tell one lie, then you have to tell another". That applies to this discussion because in order to justify one lie, you'd have to go back and re-write history to make the lie a truth.


1. If English common Law was so influential, and if both the colonists and the regulars were such staunch followers of English Common Law, then the "warning" was unnecessary. If the right to life, liberty, and property, were so prevalent, then it would have been a foregone conclusion that the colonists were not giving up anything, and the "warning" was unneccessary.

2. The American Revolution was no accident. The colonists were well organized and deliberate in their pursuit of independence. They may not have known the exact date that war was coming, but they were prepared to go to war, hence hidden stockpiles and weapons caches - a militia that is in place for centuries, although i doubt that they were in america since the middle ages, would have had no need to hide their weapons caches, especially if this militia was the national guard to the regular's Regular army. The Sons of Liberty, the Minutemen, among other active guerilla-type resistance groups were paired with the passive, written political resistance to the crown. There was a clear separation b/n those who were for the british or against them; Loyalists and Tories were harrassed and terrorized even before the shot were fired at Lexington.

3. The resistance was against the crown and their policies. To assert that a particluar resistance was against the Tea importer, and not against the British Government basically invalidates the colonists' "taxation without representation" argument. Did they expect representation within the tea company?

4. Paul Revere was a runner for a group that had a pre-planned operating procedure: One lamp if the british came by land and two if by sea. It is a logical fallacy to say that an alarm both wakes the sleeper and warns the slumber that it's time has ended. The regulars, under english common law, already knew that they weren't taking anything, so just who were the alarms for?

And still, no facts. I've presented info and you've presented opinions. With all of your high-tech instumentation, and such, it would seem to me that it would be a small task to present some kind of official, documented, info in support of your opinion aka "facts".

And COG, STFU! You're the cheerleader here....... OOI. LOL.

P.S. "you're not smart, aren't you" is a double negative. IF you can't be honest about that, why should anyone believe anything that you post....

[CuteOldGuy]

I'd like being a male cheerleader. Do you see where they get to put their hands?

[catnipdipper]

This is some kind of Rugby Scrum.

Mano y Mano over an irrelevant person mumbling about an event I doubt she had ever heard of before that day.

I can see the intellectual workout as being beneficial but it is also like nuking El Salvador just for fun.

This is a joust between HerFaceChair(Sir Irrelevant), Longermonger(Sir Factual) and T9(Sir Wellmeaning). It is cheered on by CuteOldGuy(Sir Usedtobesomebody).