Please run for President

[herfacechair]

Reference your sources, dumbass! I'm a freelance copywriter, and make use of a plagiarism checker in my work. If I could use it to see if someone is using my work, or if my work could be construed as plagiarism, I could use it to find the sources you use, or may have used.

So spare us.

Why not have the integrity of crediting the work that you use in your post, instead of acting like you're the one that created that work?

I know that expecting you to have integrity is a far cry, as you don't even have the integrity to quit a fight that you lost a long time ago, one where you've been thoroughly debunked and defeated.

Oh well, I enjoy waging war on your credibility, so here goes…

Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/sons.htm (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)

Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. *I suppose that it was the stamp company that they were getting ready to oppose. LOL. * As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty. And grow it did! These were not the leading men of Boston, but rather workers and tradesmen. It was unseemly that they would be so agitated by a parliamentary act. *Boston tea Party was an act against a tea company? LOL. Well i guess that the stamp company got it on this one. ROTFLMAO. Remember taxation w/o representation.....*

Those shopkeepers and artisans depended on materials that got affected by the Stamp Act. That act required the use of materials, created in London, within the colonies, to be paid for in UK currency, not the local currency. This was one example of British Parliament getting its hands involved with the local colonial economies.

The people mentioned in your plagiarized quote had economic interests affected by the Stamp Act. Their actions amounted to economic warfare against the British Companies that benefited from the Stamp Act. They stood to make more money thanks to the Stamp Act. The British Government also stood to make money, thanks to the taxes that had to be paid.

They tried to force demand, the colonials countered that by fighting to reduce demand.

Your mention of a "stamp" company demonstrates your failure to do more than scratch the surface of this topic. Listen, "brain," we're not talking about postage stamps, used for sending mail, here. We're talking about materials used for printing, which had to be those produced in the UK. They had a tax stamp to them, for tax collection purposes… you paid a regular sales price for the printed material, and you paid an additional tax based on the stamp.

It was a double whammy that the colonials had to pay. The intent of the economic resistance? To make it hurt the British Companies involved with creating those printed materials in the pocket book. The UK hoped to raise plenty of money via tax revenues, the benefited companies expected a profit windfall.

The colonials worked against that.

This was an example of a tax levied directly on the colonists. This went contrary to English Common Law, as well as other laws protecting the rights of Englishmen. The colonial legislatures where the tax authorities for the colonies. They were made up of people that represented the colonies.

The Stamp Act was an attempt to both, to get around the colonial legislatures, and to benefit companies based in London.

Contrary to your attempts, my point still stood. Economic warfare is a "soft kill" method of dealing with a political issue without coming to blows.

Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: http://www.awrm.org/ubbcgi/ultimateb...9;t=000007;p=0 (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)

For reasons of safety and secrecy, Sons of Liberty groups tended to meet late at night so as not to attract attention and detection of British officials and the American Loyalist supporters of the British Crown. *Loyal to the crown, huh. LOL.*

This secret patriotic society had its roots in the *Committees of Correspondence*. The "Committees" were colonial groups organized prior to the outbreak of the American War for Independence and were established for the purpose of formally organizing public opinion and coordinating patriotic actions against Great Britain. *Loyal to the crown, you say...* These original committees were loosely organized groups of private citizens formed in the New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island colonies from 1763-1764.

From the same site that you quoted:

"Shrouded in secrecy, the origins of the Sons of Liberty are in dispute. Some historical sources claim that the movement began in New York City in January 1765. A more popular claim is that the movement began in Boston, Massachusetts through the leadership of one Samuel Adams (a well known American Revolutionary firebrand) in early 1765." - Todd Alan Kreamer, "How A Secret Society of Rebel Americans Made Its mark on Early America."

The people you mentioned, who acted against the Stamp Act, basically ceased and desisted their actions against the Stamp Act after it got repealed. If you look at a history of their actions against Parliament laws that infringed on the colonies, their main focus was on those acts, then they stood down.

If they weren't originally loyal to the crown, why would they stand down after these acts got repealed? If they weren't loyal to the crown, they would've remained active right after those acts got repealed. But they didn't.

Their main focus was to stand up for their rights, as Englishmen. This is similar to veteran groups lobbying in the US Congress to make sure that Veteran rights don't get infringed. Your Wiki source, that you plagiarized, mentions that they were originally loyal to the crown.

I mean, would it kill you to thoroughly review the sources that you've been plagiarizing?

Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: (http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html) (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)

REPEAT POINT

*These are the words of The Paul Revere House, but with your "above-average" historical knowledge, you definitely know more about the subject than they do. LOL *
In 1774 and the Spring of 1775 Paul Revere was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety as an express rider to carry news, messages, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.
On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. *Warn who? LOL. * After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).

On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, *alarmed who? LOL. * stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" *Warning delivered - to whom? LOL. * After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

REPEAT POINT

*But hey, don't take the "watered down version" here are excerpts from Paul Revere's actual account - taken in context - not in typical, bullshit four or five word sound-bytes ala somone trying to distort reality....*

First, can you see the difference between the author's statement, and Paul Revere's? I've bolded Paul Revere's statement for you. The mention of British in the article was the author's statement… something that's based on the modern mindset, not that of our founding fathers'. You'd find that in the bolded red statement in the quote that you plagiarized.

Second, that quote captures literature that one can find on the internet. This is in the same post where you dismiss the analysis that I added, based on my research and reading of American History… of materials that go into more in-depth than what you plagiarized above.

Take it away thorough9:

"What you are, sir, is an absolute f'n idiot and another example that an accumulation of knowledge is just f'n pointless if the possessor of such knowledge does not possess realism and common sense to apply that knowledge in a common practical sense way - aka just a bookworm with no common sense." - thorough9

That's precisely what you've done in the post that I'm rebutting. Simply plagiarized someone, ran with that information, while refusing to factor in the variables at play when all of that was taking place. When someone does point those variables out, you accuse them of what you've just quoted.

There's a word in the dictionary that describes your actions, it starts with an "H" and ends with a "T."

Now, if you see things with our founding fathers' mindsets, and not the modern one, you'll get the answer to your repeat statement/questions:

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.

When the regulars got the disarming mission, they already knew that this wasn't going to be an easy mission. Their best hope was that the colonials would hand over their arms, and to allow the regulars to walk away, with their weapons in hand. When they heard the bells, weapons and drums, they knew that the colonials weren't going to give their arms up.

The patriots were willing to stand their ground, but, at the same time, people didn't really want to fight the regulars over it. Not yet anyway. Most were hoping that war would be averted. One of the hopes was for the regulars to "come to their senses," when they heard the alarms. That didn't happen.

Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten." Even the British constitution was unwritten... this contributed greatly to our eventually revolting against them... lose interpretation of a law that wasn't written. This was common back in our founding father's day.

When Paul Revere was captured, he didn't see the regulars as "them," and the colonials as "us." Both sides were hoping that this wouldn't come to conflict. So Paul Revere was being "matter of fact" when he told the British what he told them. His statement backed one of the implied intent of his mission... to let the regulars know that they can't just take our property... in this case, arms... away from us.

You'll have a better knowledge of what happened during our founding fathers' time if you see things from their eyes, not from yours, or that of any other modern human speaking from a modern mindset.

REPEAT POINT

Plagiarized by thorough9, possibly from this site: (http://www.masshist.org/database/img...ode=transcript) (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)


1. In the Fall of 1774 & Winter of 1775 I was
one of upwards of thirty, cheifly mechanics, who formed our selves in to a Committee
for the purpose of watching the Movements of the British Soldiers,
and gaining every intelegence of the movements of the Tories. *I Guess that PR was watching the people that he was supposed to be warning...... LMAO*

2. On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number
of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common.
About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged
that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock
& Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was
thought they were the objets.* Again, in his own words, PR expressly states his reason for getting on a horse and taking a ride....LMAO*

3. After I had passed Charlestown Neck, & got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on Horse back, under a Tree.
When I got near them, I discovered they were British officer.
One tryed to git a head of Me, & the other to take me. I turned
my Horse very quick, & Galloped towards Charlestown neck,
and then pushed for the Medford Road. The one who chased
me, endeavoring to Cut me off, got into a Clay pond, near
where the new Tavern is now built. I got clear of him,
and went thro Medford, over the Bridge, & up to Menotomy.
In Medford, I awaked the Captain of the Minute men; & after
that, I alarmed almost every House, till I got to Lexington. *Please explain why it is that PR, is running away from and evading the people that he is supposed to be warning..... LMAO. Note to idiots, PR also specifically states who he alarmed, and who he warned..... ROTFLMAO!!!!*

4. I called for the Doctor & Daws to come up; -
were two & we would have them in an Instant I was
surrounded by four; - they had placed themselves in a Straight
Road, that inclined each way; they had taken down a pair of
Barrs on the North side of the Road, & two of them were under
a tree in the pasture. The Docter being foremost, he came up;
and we tryed to git past them; *(Why oh Why is PR trying to "git" away from the people that he is supposed to be warning? LMAO) * but they being armed with pistols & swords, they forced us in to the pasture; -the Docter jumped his Horse over a low Stone wall, and got to Concord.

[Page 4]

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that.
When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared
to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as-
ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if
I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He
demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and
aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. *Now, if PR was to warn the "regulars", if the bells were to warn the "regulars, then why hadn't these "regulars" been warned? LOL. i guess that thay don't make bells like they used to. It must have been the new "militia/national guard only bells" ROTFLMAO!!!*
"He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us,
when all five of them came down upon a full gallop;
one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major
Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I
did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. *See, idiots, the first guy - see the red writing above, PR was just talking shit to " It's five-hundred muthafuckas waiting on your Torie-Red Asses" - lying to misguide - it wasn't a fucking "warning to the "regulars". And this second guy, the one who threatened to "blow out his brains", he doesn't tell him shit 1. if he wasn't caught and 2. if he didn't threaten to "blow out his brains". ROTFLMAO. Fucking idiots....* He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one
Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out.
We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. The Major inqui-
red of me how far it was to Cambridge, and if there were any other Road? After some consultation, the Major [Page 5] Major Rode up to the Sargent, & asked if his Horse was tired? He told answered him, he was - (He was a Sargent of Grenadiers, and had a small Horse) - then, said He,
take that man's Horse. I dismounted, & the Sargent mounted my Horse, when they all rode towards Lexington Meeting-House. I went across
the Burying-ground, & some pastures, & came to the Revd. Mr. Clark's
House, where I found Messrs. Hancok & Adams. I told them of
my treatment, & they concluded to go from that House towards Woburn. I went with them, & a Mr. Lowell, who was a Clerk to Mr. Hancock. When we got to the House where they intended to stop, Mr. Lowell & I my self returned to Mr. Clark's, to find what was going on. When we got there, an elderly man came in; he said he had just come from the Tavern, that a Man had come from Boston, who said there were no British troops coming. Mr. Lowell & my self went towards the Tavern, when we met a Man
on a full gallop, who told us the Troops were coming up the Rocks. We afterwards met another, who said they were close by. Mr. Lowell asked me to go to the Tavern with him, to a Bit a Trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up Chamber; & while we were giting the Trunk,
we saw the British very near, upon a full March. We hurried to wards Mr. Clark's House. In our way, we passed through the Militia. There were about 50.
When we had got about 100 Yards from the meeting-House the British Troops appeard on both Sides of the Meeting-House. In their [Page 6]

In their Front was an Officer on Horse back. They made a
Short Halt; _when I saw, & heard, a Gun fired,_ which appeared
to be a Pistol. Then I could distinguish two Guns, & then
a Continual roar of Musquetry; When we made off with the Trunk......*Again, PR is running from the regulars that he is supposed to be warning that they're not gonna take away our weapons. ROTFLMAO!!!*

REPEAT POINT

This part of my rebuttal will start with my using your own words against you. Take it away thorough9:

"they make you an idiot with a search bar who lacks the ability to discern what is, and what is not, releveant in an argument." - thorough9

"What you are, sir, is an absolute f'n idiot and another example that an accumulation of knowledge is just f'n pointless if the possessor of such knowledge does not possess realism and common sense to apply that knowledge in a common practical sense way - aka just a bookworm with no common sense." - thorough9

Both of your quotes are applicable to what you started your post with. All you've done was went crazy with an internet search, plagiarized the contents that you came across, then continued to pound the table with "surface" knowledge. You've made no effort to go beyond the surface, to look at the under currents surrounding the events, the events that you see on the surface.

You’ve failed to scratch the surface to get to the meat of what was going on, in the minds of our founders. You make this statement:

"You have a case of the stupids that all of the degrees in the world couldn't cure.......And to add to your stupidity and closed-mindedness," - thorough9

Yet, you refuse to open that closed tight steel trap that you call your mind to consider what happened beyond what you're reading. You won't even let common sense take a peep. Instead of considering the factors that drove our founder's actions, you use strawman arguments and questions to try to refute factually valid points…

Like the fact that anybody during that time, understanding English Common Law, would've seen that the ringing of the bells, beating of the drums, and firing of the guns, warned the Regulars that they weren't going to be coming in to take the militia's arms.

thorough9: There is no plagarism. I didn't realize that i as writing a term paper so fuck you, and the quotes. LMAO.

Plagiarism is when you do things like use other people's work within your post, without providing a link, or writing down the source, for that information. I didn't find those in your post… I had to go find your sources, then apply them in response to your rubbish.

Plagiarism isn't only applicable to papers. It's applicable to any writing that you do, especially if you intend for other people to read your drivel.

Why is it important here?

You may not be writing for a publisher, marketer, marketing director, editor, etc., but you're posting on ECCIE, where you intend for others to read your posts. Your failure to credit the authors of the words you use demonstrate your lack of integrity.

thorough9: My words are in red lettering.

I changed the coloring of your words to accurately reflect their validity.

thorough9: You, sir, are a "regular"-ass idiot who has supported another idiot who "mis-spoke" - is that what getting the story wrong is called now-a-days. LMAO. REPEAT POINT

In order for you to call us "idiots," you have to prove us "wrong." You've miserably failed to do. That's understandable, considering that your lack of knowledge, and understanding, of what really happened, painfully shows with your posts.

In your case, you're actually wrong. But, I don't see you stumbling over yourself to admit that you're wrong in this argument.

thorough9: I know, Sarah Palin thought that the "Paul Revere" that she was talking about was the one from the Beastie Boyz song. ROTFLMAO. "Me 'n my horsey and a quart of beer" ROTFLMAO.

Where, in Sarah Palin's comments, correspondence, etc, did she claim that she referenced the Beastie Boyz song? Or is this just you pulling crap out of thin air, as usual?

thorough9: Warned the British... LMAO. REPEAT POINT

That was one of the secondary purposes of his activating the alarm system. Remember, neither side was expecting that night to be the first night of the American Revolution. The hope was that when the Regulars heard the drums, bells and gunfire, that the Regulars would decide on handling this a different way. It also let the Regulars know that they weren't going to take the colonials weapons away.


thorough9: You are also an egotist who has run around talking about your "above-average" levels of understanding. REPEAT POINT

"I've argued my position here, and elsewhere, on this topic, simply because I know things about our history that the average American doesn't. I saw someone getting lacerated, for trying to communicate something that actually came closer to reality than what most people know… [b]so I jumped in to point out that she's actually closer to the truth than those that are criticizing her." - herfacechair

I mentioned a few things related to the Revolutionary War that most people didn't know. I challenged the opposition to do research on certain topics. The fact that I'd know about those, and other, things shows that I know stuff that the average American didn't.

That's common sense, not ego, speaking. I'm simply telling it like it is.

thorough9: You're not above-average. You're just regular - not even regular - you're a below-average fool.

You countered yourself not once, but twice. You did so in one line. What does this say about you? That you're pulling crap out of your ass so much, that even you aren't convinced at some of the things that you say.

Speaking of averages, I wouldn't be surprised that you drag the room's IQ average down a few notches. Your judgment, with regards to this debate, makes me see you as someone that, if you raise your IQ by 1, you'd be a retard. Otherwise, you're just braindead.

thorough9: You, and the rest of the Junior historical society need to brush up on your comprehension skills.

Don't mistake our actually getting, what actually happened, as our being unable to comprehend what we're reading. If anybody isn't comprehending what they're reading, it's you:

What you said:

"That's as logical as your "there are dissenters today who are not in open rebellion" argument." - thorough9

In response to what I actually said:

"There are groups of people in the United States today, that advocate rebellion against the US government. But guess what? We're not in a state of rebellion against the United States Government. This is another example of you using strawman arguments. " - herfacechair

Given the differences between our statements, did you fail to comprehend what you read? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Copy and paste that question, as well as the proceeding quotes, then place an "X" in the box that represents your answer.

thorough9: Reading is fundamental, but comprehending what you've read, applying common sense logic, apparently, is not. I guess that "common sense" isn't do common after all.

If anybody is applying common sense logic to this fight, it's my side of the argument. I'm delivering the goods. The only thing you're doing is reading the material, without digging deeper beneath the material… looking at the nuts and bolts so to speak.

Don't mistake your narrow minded view of the topic we're arguing as "comprehension." It's just narrow-mindedness designed to protect your fragile ego.

thorough9: If you still wanna argue.

You do realize that it takes two opposing sides to keep an argument going, do you? If I'm still arguing here, it's because the opposition is still arguing here.

I have absolutely no intentions of letting the opposition's arguments on this thread stand unchallenged. That's a given... I'm debating your side, on this thread, ad infinitum.

thorough9: then take your "regular" ass to Boston, or wherever the fuck PR is buried, and argue with him.

My argument isn't with the people that wrote the website that you plagiarized, or with Paul Revere. It's with you, so I stay on this thread for as long as the opposition does.


thorough9: He said it, I didn't. So long.......

What's being argued here is whether Sarah Palin was dead wrong or not. If you factor in the other variables, such as English Common Law, into the equation, then she came closer to the truth than what you've been parroting here.

Insisting on holding onto the surface of what happened, while ignoring the background variables, doesn't change that fact.

Originally posted by thorough9

REPEAT POINT

FUCKING IDIOTS.... LMAO
Warned the British - I mean regulars.
Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My ASS OFF - fucking Rolling

"ridin' 'cross the land, kickin' up sand, sheriff's posse on my tail cause i'm in demand" LMAO.

REPEAT POINT

When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.

thorough9: BTW, PR is my acronym for Paul Revere. I don't want to sift thru another 20 pages of blue talking about Puerto Rico. LMAO.

You couldn't get it right about me anywhere in this thread, what makes you think that making another attempt would give you better luck? Unlike you, I read what I respond to, and I understand simple English.

thorough9: And COG, your new name is Tonto.... fucking sidekick.... LMAO!

At best, you're a "tonto." At worst, you're an "estupido." I'm being "nice" here.

thorough9: And your opinion is still,officially, shit. REPEAT POINT

In order to dismiss my statements as just "opinion," you have to prove them "wrong." You've miserably failed to do that. You can't even answer the basic questions that I've asked you.

If anybody in this argument is full of shit, it's you.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

REPEAT POINT

To recap...

A) Paul Revere didn't intend to be taken prisoner and warn the Regulars in person.
B) The primary purpose of the alarm system was to alert Colonists, not Regulars.
C) Some speculate that the secondary purpose of the alarm system was to warn the Regulars. Did it warn them? Was that before or after PR 'warned' them in person? Secondary, unintentional, and ineffectual alarm system...
D) A certain poster has been very persnickety about the use of the word "Regulars" instead of "British" but has been very loose with the word "warned" when he should have instead been using "alarmed". He should ask himself if Paul Revere warned or alarmed the Regulars. The correct answer is alarmed. The incorrect answer is warned.

REPEAT POINT

The crux of the argument is whether Sarin Palin was dead wrong or not; whether her account, not consistent with the watered down version of history that most embraced, was off kilter. Whether Paul Revere intended to be captured or not isn't relevant.

Your argument lacks the English Common Law et al variables, which explains the mindset of the players involved in this debate. Therefore, my arguments aren't "speculation," but fact based on understanding a wider spectrum of the topic than those that I'm debating against. An understanding of these additional variables makes your, "secondary, unintentional, ineffectual" statement invalid.

Your summation of what I'm arguing severely misses the point that I'm making. My assessment isn't speculation, but fact.

Again:

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.

When the regulars got the disarming mission, they already knew that this wasn't going to be an easy mission. Their best hope was that the colonials would hand over their arms, and to allow the regulars to walk away, with their weapons in hand. When they heard the bells, weapons and drums, they knew that the colonials weren't going to give their arms up.

The patriots were willing to stand their ground, but, at the same time, people didn't really want to fight the regulars over it. Not yet anyway. Most were hoping that war would be averted. One of the hopes was for the regulars to "come to their senses," when they heard the alarms. That didn't happen.

Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten." Even the British constitution was unwritten... this contributed greatly to our eventually revolting against them... lose interpretation of a law that wasn't written. This was common back in our founding father's day.

HENCE: The ringing of the bells, firing the weapons and beating the drums is similar to someone sitting on his porch, with his rifle, knowing that his act is serving as a warning, to those trying to kick him off, that he's going to say.

For this thread, given the topic, warning, is the appropriate primary word to use.

The factors that I spell out here… that your side of the argument refuses to even acknowledge… that's consistently absent from your summation of what I'm arguing… show that Sarah Palin came closer to the truth than what most people assumed.

This is the position/assessment that I have every intention of debating ad infinitum.

[thorough9]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Your summation of what I'm arguing severely misses the point that I'm making. My assessment isn't speculation, but fact.

An Assessment is an evaluation, your interpretation, fot a fact. A fact is

Fact - 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. something known to exist or to have happened:
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

Your opinion, or assesment, is not fact, and is simply the opinion of an over-rated, dumb-ass.





Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten."

The only thing "unwritten" is that PR warned the British. ROTFLMAO



For this thread, given the topic, warning, is the appropriate primary word to use.

This is the position/assessment that I have every intention of debating ad infinitum.

"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, and by ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots, and bells, that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free" - Palin

See here, dumbass. Warned - not alarmed.

So, now you want to backtrack and change the wording to fit your argument. Too late, dumbass. Palin said "warning". You're becoming typical, dumbass, and really, really boring. Come back when you have something new.... Mr. Repeat Point. Who's the parrot, now? Fucking impotent drone.....

Warned the British.. ROTFLMAO!!!

And your opinion is still, officially shit.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by deacon

she made you look like an idiot. everything she said was factual. you sound like a 12 year old. you think you know more about history then the person who wrote the article? you think he is making up history? lmao..keep puting yourself in a smaller box.

Forget it. MsElena, not only looks like an idiot; she is an idiot.

Her postings are always another knee jerk response. MsElana hasn't read a serious book on her own initiative in her adult life. Note the lack of real interest in the subject matter. She just wants to argue. It is her way of trying to get attention for her failing business. Few men want to have anything to do with this bimbo. Ten dollars would be too much to spend for an hour with her.

JR

[MsElena]

Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Forget it. MsElena, not only looks like an idiot; she is an idiot.

Her postings are always another knee jerk response. MsElana hasn't read a serious book on her own initiative in her adult life. Note the lack of real interest in the subject matter. She just wants to argue. It is her way of trying to get attention for her failing business. Few men want to have anything to do with this bimbo. Ten dollars would be too much to spend for an hour with her.

JR

Where's my ass kissing COG when I need him? LOL

JR...gee, I'm flattered once again by your stalkerish interest in me, but please stop. Your empty insults mean nothing, they don't hurt my feelings and based upon the emails I've received, people are quite bored with your antics and find you foolish. Your stalkerish posts about me remind of what Charlie Brown's teacher sounds like.

[CaptainKaos]

Once again, I'm going to let everyone know that I really am not patrolling in here. If I wanted to discuss politics, I'd go to a political forum. When you come here to talk about this stuff, just beware that it's prolly gonna get ugly.

[deacon]

big deal captain..if ya cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. dd's skirt is showing again.

[herfacechair]

thorough9: An Assessment is an evaluation, your interpretation, fot a fact. A fact is

First, "Assessment," as I use it here, is taking the complete set of facts, putting them together, then presenting you a larger set of facts. The result? Facts, which I have presented here.

Second, its traditional use was with accounting, specifically, with assigning tax value to assets. Over the years, it expanded to include a different areas… For example, an educational assessment measures certain aspects of the student. The results of those measurements? Fact… if a student got 50 out of 50, then that student got 50%. Another one, which you might be familiar with, would be a psychiatric assessment, where someone would try to diagnose you based on the facts that you provide him.

In other words, based on the facts, this is what the assessment is… In my case, a factual statement based on stringing a bunch of facts together.

Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact )

The bold red statements are text that thorough9 removed from the original copy and paste:

Fact - 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

The variables that I argued on this thread, dealing with English Common Law as it applies to the argument, are fact. For example, it's a fact, under common law, that you can't take life, liberty or property without due process of the law. It's a fact, under common law, that said property would have to be abandoned, with the owners taking action that indicates that they've abandoned the property.

Ringing bells, firing shots, and beating drums, doesn't constitute an indication of abandonment… it's a declaration that they're going to hold.

That's a fact that the Regulars were all too familiar with when they heard the drums, gunfire and bells. By beating their drums, shooting their weapons and ringing the bells, in advance of the Regular's march toward them, the founding fathers not only got other colonials in line… they were also sending a message to the Regulars… a warning that they weren't going to be taking the colonials' weapons... that they weren't going to take their property, this case their weapons, without due process of the law…

Otherwise, why beat the drums consistently if people, within hearing range, have already been warned, and runners had already left to spread the message to the town's surrounding areas?

thorough9: Your opinion, or assesment, is not fact, and is simply the opinion of an over-rated, dumb-ass.

First, a definition of Opinion, from your own source:

from dictionary.com:

–noun
1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second Medical opinion.

Take a look at the first definition.

Grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. I've lost count of how many books, literature, articles, websites, etc., that have pointed out the same facts that I've pointed out here. I pulled enough facts, from common law, to prove my position.

thorough9: The only thing "unwritten" is that PR warned the British. ROTFLMAO

First, your consistent use of "British" to refer to the Regulars automatically causes you to be wrong. The colonials also saw themselves as British/Englishmen. By logical extension, Paul Revere, by warning the colonials, was technically warning the British. That goes counter to your argument, and it's definitely not what Sarah Palin intended with her statement.

Second, your sarcasm inadvertently brought you closer to reality than the rest of your position.

He didn't have to be told, verbally or by word, that he was to cause the Regulars to be warned. Given their philosophy, the alarm system also serving as a warning to the Regulars was a no brainer.

Originally posted by thorough9:

"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, and by ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots, and bells, that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free" - Palin

See here, dumbass. Warned - not alarmed.

So, now you want to backtrack and change the wording to fit your argument. Too late, dumbass. Palin said "warning".

What the fuck are you arguing there, retard? Take it away dumbass:

"Reading is fundamental, but comprehending what you've read, applying common sense logic, apparently, is not. I guess that "common sense" isn't do common after all." - thorough9

What part of the following quote:

"For this thread, given the topic, WARNING, is the appropriate primary word to use," - herfacechair

DIDN'T you understand? Now, two questions for you:

Did I say alarm/alarming in the quote, mine, that I just highlighted? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Does the above statement, both in the part of my post that you quoted, and that I highlighted here, represent my "backtracking" and "changing wording" to fit my argument? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy my emphasized quote above, the yes/no questions to include the yes/no options, and paste them to your response. Place an "X" in the boxes representing your answer, and spare me your sewage leakage.

thorough9: You're becoming typical, dumbass,

Each post you make, I'm seeing someone that's disintegrating. You’re becoming more disorganized, and you seem to be arguing in different directions… even countering yourself in the same sentence.

thorough9: and really, really boring.

The fact that you keep coming back proves that I'm not boring. Otherwise, you'd quit coming back to my "boring" posts. Judging from your actions on this, and other threads, I'd say that you're getting bored waiting for me to do something I have absolutely no intentions of doing.

But, just for shits and giggles, your return to this argument would prove your statement wrong.

thorough9: Come back when you have something new.... Mr. Repeat Point. REPEAT POINT

Since I've been addressing you almost point by point, common sense would dictate that if you keep repeating yourself, the responses would keep repeating themselves. If you're tired of my responses being, "repetitive," then you need to quit making the same points over and over again. If you fail to do that, you're going to see the same rebuttals over and over again.

You saying the above to me is like you commanding the "red" stove burner to quit burning you every time you keep touching it.

thorough9: Who's the parrot, now?

You've degraded from being a parrot to being a broken record.

thorough9: Fucking impotent drone.....

Whoever told you to just be yourself gave you terrible advice. Instead of wasting our time trying to impress us with your stupidity, you need to go back and sue the school distract that graduated you… and get your money back.

thorough9: Warned the British.. ROTFLMAO!!! REPEAT POINT

You see, like this. Notice how many times I've flagged your repeat comments with "repeat point." The longer you stay in this fight, the chances go up that more of your statements will be flagged as repeat points.

So here goes:

When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons." - herfacechair

thorough9: And your opinion is still, officially shit. REPEAT POINT

In order to dismiss my statements as just "opinion," you have to prove them "wrong." You've miserably failed to do that. You can't even answer the basic questions that I've asked you.

If anybody in this argument is full of shit, it's you.

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm here, MsElena! It's just hard to get a word in sometimes. However, I find you quite well read and informed. Not always in agreement, but that makes you more attractive. I like a woman with a brain. Well, and boobies, too.

[deacon]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm here, MsElena! It's just hard to get a word in sometimes. However, I find you quite well read and informed. Not always in agreement, but that makes you more attractive. I like a woman with a brain. Well, and boobies, too.

tell ya what..sins knows what she is talking about. she is fair and balanced..that gal knows what the deal is.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by deacon

tell ya what..sins knows what she is talking about. she is fair and balanced..that gal knows what the deal is.

Like you would know the difference you fucking retard.

[thorough9]

What's the matter shit-bird - freeelance copywriter - that's the best you've got. Underachiever. LOL. Or were you so intellectually superior that you can't write your own shit. Thanks for the impromptu autobiography, but STFU. As usual, your posts are full of "I's" and "Me's" and short on facts. You have offered nothing but your own glorified, bullshit, vanity laced opinion - well. it's yours, now. LOL. Literally, Show me something other than your assessment, asshole - and don't forget to use quotes and an annotated bibliography, Professor Shit for Brains - do the same when you wanna quote FOX news, Talk Radio, and Ann Coulter too. It's painfully obvious that you have no interpretive powers - guess that you're just used to editing other people's shit..... It's like i said in a Repeat Point. LOL. You are an impotent stinger-less drone, buzzing around, rubbing your ass against inanimate objects, marveling at your stinging ability: "I'm really stingin 'em now, aren't I". LMAO.

Facts are not open to assessment or interpretation. Show me some of your facts as it relates to PR - facts, not your assesments. I've showed you PR's memoirs, which you conveniently ignored b/c you can't combat them, yet you're actually stupid enough to assume that you know more about PR's mission, mindset, and intentions than PR himself written in PR's own words - and congratulations for using your search bar. There's always one egotistical asshole out there who thinks that he's an intellectual wonder, and he's usally some underachieving jack-off ehose stuck in a dead end job wishig that he were someone else. I Know, "You could have been a contender!" LMAO. What have you shown other than your ability to be spoon-fed an opinion and your hapless ability to stick to that opinion? I know, just like the emperor's new clothes, your "facts" aren't really there - your "facts" don't really exist.


See, I've got you by the balls. There are no facts that will support your - ahem, cough -assessment, and you've made an ass out of yourself. Don't run from it. Own it. You're a failure. You've failed. You were supposed to be a big-shot writer, but you're just a punctuation checker - a fucking walking Spell Check - Ole'-F7-Ass-Buster. LMAO. You're still on the Titanic - Wait, those alarms are meant to warn the water that it's not gonna take this ship, you fucking idiot. ROTFLMAO.

"Warned the British" SARAH PALIN. ROTFLMAO. Repeat Point. LMAO
And your opinion is still, officially shit.

Now, you're gonna use my post, to go through, line by line, and create your own post. Professional Co-Signer. Boring and lame and unoriginal. Bring your own shit to the campfire and quit second-hand typing my shit - you're a fucking Lame...

P.S. Proffessor SFB, If all you have is the usual bullshit, then don't even bother. It's easy to see why you're still a spell-checker. You have no imagination...

BTW, F7, "Plagiarized" is not a word. LOL.

[guest010313]

I would just like to note that I freaking adore watching y'all bicker.



Breaks in the ranks and whatnot. Carry on!

[herfacechair]

"And think of something new. Your blue-font, repititious talking points are tiresome and just plain fucking boring....." - thorough9

"You're becoming typical, dumbass, and really, really boring." - thorough9

My response:

"The fact that you keep coming back proves that I'm not boring. Otherwise, you'd quit coming back to my 'boring' posts." - herfacechair

I love the way your actions prove me right when I argue against what you say.

thorough9: What's the matter shit-bird

You need to quit acting like a dumbass Private before you call people "shitbird."

thorough9: - freeelance copywriter - that's the best you've got. Underachiever. LOL. Or were you so intellectually superior that you can't write your own shit. Thanks for the impromptu autobiography, but STFU.

See the contradiction there? Copywriters write their own shit, retard.

This is just one, of many, examples of how your posts painfully show that you don't know what you're talking about. For instance, you don't even know what a copywriter is, don't you? Let me answer for you… you don't.

There's nothing "underachiever," about this… especially considering that "reporting to work," for me involves logging onto my computer and pulling up the internet. And get this. If you, or anybody that you've known, donated for a cause… through the mail, as a result of a nonprofit letter that was received… then you've seen the effects of what a copywriter does.

thorough9: As usual, your posts are full of "I's" and "Me's"

And you still can't figure out why I'd suggest that you have problems understanding basic English. Here, let me break this down for you. You attack me, I respond by defending myself. When this happens, one can't help but respond with an "I" and "me."

thorough9: and short on facts.

My posts are chock full of facts. You can't see that, because you're extremely confused about what constitutes facts, what constitutes opinion, and what constitutes deception.

In your eyes, if its information that caters to your ego, it's "fact." If it's information that bruises your ego, it's "opinion." Adding to your failure to recognize a fact are your large horse-blinders, your stress shields, as well as the defense shields that you've set up to defend your one brain celled operation from all attacks of reason.

Your posts are nothing but ignorance, opinion, deception and emotion. The only facts that one would find in your posts are the sections where you'll quote my statement, or where you've plagiarized someone else's work.

thorough9: You have offered nothing but your own glorified, bullshit, vanity laced opinion - well. it's yours, now. LOL. Literally, Show me something other than your assessment, asshole -

If you remove your horse blinders, lower your stress shields, deactivate the anti-fact shields protecting your one brained celled operation, then pulled your head out of your ass, you'd see the facts that I'm presenting you.

Like the others that I've debated with over the past few years, you find it easier to dismiss the facts that I've presented to you by calling them "opinions," "bullshit," etc. than it is for you to come to terms to the fact that you lost this debate from the start… that you don't have a valid argument.

You boxed yourself into the losing position the moment you slapped artificial constraints on yourself… mainly, your refusal to factor in the other variables surrounding the night of Paul Revere's ride.

thorough9: and don't forget to use quotes and an annotated bibliography, Professor Shit for Brains - do the same when you wanna quote FOX news, Talk Radio, and Ann Coulter too.

First, there's a difference between coming up with my own words to describe things, and using other people's words--word for word. In areas where I've used other people's words, I gave the appropriate credit. For example, when I beat you on the head with your own words, notice how I give you credit for saying them.

Second, you refused to credit the sources that you used in this thread, even after I called you out on plagiarism. You need to do as you preach first, before you demand that others refrain from what you think is plagiarism, but isn't.

thorough9: It's painfully obvious that you have no interpretive powers - REPEAT POINT

What you previously said:

"Your opinion, or assesment, is not fact, and is simply the opinion of an over-rated, dumb-ass." - thorough9

If I had no interpretive powers, I wouldn't be able to do what you're describing in your quote. The longer you stay in this fight, the bigger the risk you have of my using your own words against you. I love having you as one of my allies in this thread.

thorough9: guess that you're just used to editing other people's shit..... It's like i said in a Repeat Point. LOL.

What I said:

"I'm a freelance copywriter, and make use of a plagiarism checker in my work." - herfacechair

The only work that I edit is my own, prior to turning it in to a copyeditor, publisher, marketer, fundraising chairman, etc.

Hey, thorough9, give this dumbass a piece of your mind:

"Reading is fundamental, but comprehending what you've read, applying common sense logic, apparently, is not. I guess that "common sense" isn't do common after all." - thorough9

Thanks bud, that showed the dumbass, that I'm arguing, that he has no reading comprehension abilities.

Common sense, "copywriter" doesn't exactly mean "copyeditor". Here, let's break this down for you as simple as I can.

The editor EDITS the writer's WRITING. You've got me confused with an editor, you fuckstick, but again, I wouldn't be surprised if you got your head confused with your ass.

thorough9: You are an impotent stinger-less drone, buzzing around, rubbing your ass against inanimate objects, marveling at your stinging ability: "I'm really stingin 'em now, aren't I". LMAO.

There's a big problem with your analogy.

If I didn't have an effect on those that I'm "stinging," nobody would respond to me. They wouldn't even be motivated to complain about me in private. But you? You seem to have issues with my posts, as you keep self-destructing every time I reply to you.

Judging by your tone in this debate, I'd say that I'm stinging you pretty good.

thorough9: Facts are not open to assessment or interpretation.

WRONG. Facts are needed to come up with an assessment and interpretation. For example, if you're flying over the desert, and see signs of water flows on the ground (fact), but no water (fact), you're going to come up with an assessment that a temporary body of water had flowed in that area (another fact).

Another example. You see vegetable plants in a garden (facts). A couple of weeks later, you see the same plants, but taller with more leaves (another fact). You're going to come up with an assessment that the plants had grown since the last time you saw them (another fact).

This analogy perfectly describes what I've done on this thread, with regards to our debate.

thorough9: Show me some of your facts as it relates to PR REPEAT POINT

You'll see them 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.

thorough9:- facts, not your assesments.

That's as stupid as saying, "show me your fruits… fruits! NOT oranges!"

thorough9: I've showed you PR's memoirs, which you conveniently ignored b/c you can't combat them,

What you later said, which proves your statement wrong:

"Now, you're gonna use my post, to go through, line by line, and create your own post. Professional Co-Signer. Boring and lame and unoriginal. Bring your own shit to the campfire and quit second-hand typing my shit - you're a fucking Lame..." - thorouugh9

The mere fact that I've addressed as many of your points as possible proves that I didn't ignore Paul Revere's letter. The argument isn't against whether Paul Revere activated the alarm system in certain towns or not. It's not against his primary mission… fact that I've pointed out in my rebuttals:

"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

"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

Again, your references don't argue against the fact that he rode off to activate the alarm system to get the colonials in line, or to let them know that the Regulars were coming. However; they don't say anything about the secondary purposes, or about the mindset that drove our founding fathers.

His letter isn't subject to questioning in this debate. The argument is on whether Sarah Palin's statement comes closest to reality or not. If you factor in the complete set of facts, not just those that you plagiarized, you'd get the picture that Sarah Palin came closest to the truth than her criticizers.

thorough9: yet you're actually stupid enough to assume that you know more about PR's mission, mindset, and intentions than PR himself written in PR's own words

If you bothered to read my posts with the intentions of understanding what I'm saying, you'd never pull shit like that out of your ass.

Nowhere in my posts do I say, or even remotely suggest, that I knew more about Paul Revere's mission, mindset or intentions than the man himself. What's really ironic is you're saying that in a sentence where you're actually stupid enough to assume what's going on in my mind, or what I intend with what I post, without actually knowing what my cognitive processes are.

None of the sources, that you plagiarized, argued against my arguments about the philosophy that drove our founder's actions.

thorough9: - and congratulations for using your search bar.

"they make you an idiot with a search bar…" -thorough9

Which is it? In your bipolar mind, I should either be called an idiot with a search bar, or be congratulated for using it. If you had any common sense in you, you'd realize that you're insisting on continuing this fight does you more harm in the long run.

Apparently, just as you don't care about the facts, you don't care about your credibility.

thorough9: There's always one egotistical asshole out there who thinks that he's an intellectual wonder,

Pot, meet kettle, Kettle, meet Pot.

First, don't mistake someone's telling it like it is as their being "egotistical."

Second, nowhere, in my posts, did I claim to be an intellectual wonder. The only way that someone would come to that conclusion is if they have problems understanding English that a 9th grader would easily understand.

thorough9: and he's usally some underachieving jack-off ehose stuck in a dead end job wishig that he were someone else. I Know, "You could have been a contender!" LMAO. REPEAT POINT

Why would I want to be somewhere else when my office is my home computer? There's no "dead end" about my job either, especially when corporate downsizing expands my prospect universe.

You seem to have a lust for flashing your stupidity. This is just one more "hash" on your "don't know what the fuck you're talking about," sleeve.

thorough9: What have you shown other than your ability to be spoon-fed an opinion and your hapless ability to stick to that opinion?

I've came across your ignorance when I debated others like you over the past few years. Like a parrot, you're parroting talking points that you've heard from your liberal task masters. You've consistently failed to present an original thought, or argument.

Yet, here you are dismissing my assessment and argument, one that I formulated on my own, as an "opinion" that I was "force feed."

Really? You need to quit projecting your description to me.

thorough9: I know, just like the emperor's new clothes, your "facts" aren't really there - your "facts" don't really exist. REPEAT POINT

If you remove your horse blinders, lower your stress shields, deactivate the anti-fact shields protecting your one brained celled operation, then pulled your head out of your ass, you'd see the facts that I'm presenting you.

Like the others that I've debated with over the past few years, you find it easier to dismiss the facts that I've presented to you by calling them "opinions," "bullshit," etc. than it is for you to come to terms to the fact that you lost this debate from the start…

You boxed yourself into the losing position the moment you slapped artificial constraints on yourself… mainly, your refusal to factor in the other variables surrounding the night of Paul Revere's ride.

thorough9: See, I've got you by the balls.

If you've got me by the balls, you wouldn't have problems answering questions that I've asked you. Since you ignored them, due to the fact that you can't answer them truthfully and factually without proving your argument wrong, you can't claim that you've "got me by the balls."

You need to realize that you're suffering from a false sense of victory.

What's really happening is that you're chasing your tail and biting it… and I'm causing you to run around in a circle biting your tail.

thorough9: There are no facts that will support your - ahem, cough -assessment, REPEAT POINT

WRONG.

First, you need to pull your head out of your ass, and remove your horse-blinders. Then, you need to lower your stress shields and deactivate the anti-fact shield protecting your own brain celled operation from all attacks of reason.

Second, you actually need to do some research, and heavy reading, beyond the surface. You stubbornly hold onto the basic information, yet fail to dig deeper to better your understanding of the events during the Revolutionary War.

Those facts exist, your failure to accept them doesn't change that fact.

thorough9: and you've made an ass out of yourself.

The moment you calm down, and come to your senses is the moment you'll realize that you've made a debacle out of yourself on this thread... and that you have a false sense of victory.

thorough9: Don't run from it. Own it.

How could I run from something that doesn't exist? How could I own something that doesn't exist? Don't mistake my calling it, as I see it, as my "running" from something, or refusing to "own" something.

thorough9: You're a failure. You've failed. You were supposed to be a big-shot writer, but you're just a punctuation checker - a fucking walking Spell Check - Ole'-F7-Ass-Buster. LMAO.

Where, in my posts, do I claim to be an editor? Provide a link to that post, then provide me a quote, where I claim to be an editor.

You've consistently got it wrong about me, yet that doesn't seem to stop you from proving to the rest of the world that you you'd rather speak from your ass, rather than with your one brain cell's support.

I AM doing what I want to do, and writing materials that I want to write. If you pulled your head out of your ass, you'd realize that when it comes to writing, there's a whole universe of careers, and routes, that one follows.

thorough9: You're still on the Titanic

Actually, you're following the same pattern that I've seen others, over the past few years, follow. You're hoping that you'll achieve, with this fight, with your choice to stay in this fight, what the others had hoped to achieve. Like the others, you don't think that you're going to fail to achieve what you're trying to achieve on this thread. If anybody is on a sinking Titanic, it's you.

You'll fail, just like the others that I have debated against for these past, almost 8 years. But, you don't realize that… just like the people who remained on the deck of the Titanic thinking that everything is going to be "OK."

thorough9: - Wait, those alarms are meant to warn the water that it's not gonna take this ship, you fucking idiot. ROTFLMAO. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

Since English Common Law is very relevant to this thread, my statements stand, and have no relationship to what you just said here. You're comparing apples to oranges.

thorough9: "Warned the British" SARAH PALIN. ROTFLMAO. Repeat Point. LMAO REPEAT POINT

That was one of the secondary purposes of his activating the alarm system. Remember, neither side was expecting that night to be the first night of the American Revolution. The hope was that when the Regulars heard the drums, bells and gunfire, that the Regulars would decide on handling this a different way. It also let the Regulars know that they weren't going to take the colonials weapons away.

Also, when enough facts indicate that Paul Revere said Regulars, and not British, only an idiot would continue on insisting that he said, "British."

thorough9: And your opinion is still, officially shit. REPEAT POINT

In order to dismiss my statements as just "opinion," you have to prove them "wrong." You've miserably failed to do that. You can't even answer the basic questions that I've asked you.

If anybody in this argument is full of shit, it's you.

thorough9: Now, you're gonna use my post, to go through, line by line, and create your own post.

No shit Sherlock.

thorough9: Professional Co-Signer. Boring and lame and unoriginal.

The other posters on here don't seem to be breaking the opposition's post down so that they could address as many points as possible. If it looks like I'm the only one doing this, how could this be "unoriginal"?

You're following the crowd, and I'm doing something unique.

What's really happening is that it aggravates the hell out of you when someone dismantles your drivel.

thorough9: Bring your own shit to the campfire and quit second-hand typing my shit - you're a fucking Lame...

First, I'm not "second-hand" typing your shit (for once you've accurately described what you type here). I'm copying it from your post, and pasting it to my reply.

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.

Third, understand that you don't have control over what I want to do… you only have control over what you want to do. If you want me to stop doing certain things, remember this simple statement: "If X, then Y," where "X" is your post, and "Y" is my response.

thorough9: P.S. Proffessor SFB, If all you have is the usual bullshit, then don't even bother. It's easy to see why you're still a spell-checker. You have no imagination...

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.

As long as there's an opportunity to destroy your arguments, I'm going to ignore your pleas for me to stop.

As long as you're going to continue doing what you're doing here, you're going to need to put your adult britches on, suck it up, be a man and take what's coming to you. In other words, you need to grow the fuck up and accept the consequences of your actions.

thorough9: BTW, F7, "Plagiarized" is not a word. LOL.

First, you need to do as you preach. For example, "usally, ehose, and wishig aren't real words:

"and he's usally some underachieving jack-off ehose stuck in a dead end job wishig that he were someone else. I Know, "You could have been a contender!" LMAO." - thorough9:

Second, "plagiarized" is one of the verb forms of plagiarism. Or, are you simply being an egotistical asshole who thinks that he knows more than what's printed in a dictionary?

[thorough9]

Still, no facts. A bunch of hot air.... impotent spell-checker......