North Carolina enters the Dark Ages

by Shirina Wed May 09, 2012 8:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Updated at 8:17 a.m. ET: North Carolina voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution which limits marriage to traditional one man-one woman marriages.
With all of the state's 100 counties reporting, the amendment won in a landslide, with 61 percent of the vote. (LINK)

Unfortunately my state of North Carolina took its place among 28 other states that haven't figured out that the Bible and the Constitution are not one and the same. I stayed up all night Monday so I could vote against this farcical piece of legislation Tuesday morning but, alas, superstition and fallacy triumphed in the end. Our electorate here in the US is so misguided by bigotry, religion, and an ignorance of history that I sometimes wonder why I bothered to come here and call this country my home. All too often I am ashamed by the actions of our citizens, and standing proud with the affectation of "American" is growing increasingly harder.

Should the American flag stand for division, religious fascism, bigotry, fear, and superstition? Because it does. We are often taught in our schools that America was founded by European immigrants who wanted to escape religious persecution in their native lands; they wanted to be free. But as is so often the case with classroom lectures, that's not the whole story. The reality is that our forefathers came to this land only to find freedom for themselves. To that end, they became the persecutors; they were the abused children who grew up and abused their own children, the very thing they claimed to hate. During the colonial period, Catholic priests were banned from entering certain colonies, Quakers were dragged from their homes and lynched in the town square, and oppressive religious laws were passed: Some locales made church attendance mandatory by law, laughing was forbidden on Sundays, theater performances were outlawed, a ship captain was put into the stocks for kissing his wife upon his return from a long sea voyage, and George Washington himself - as the first President of the United States - was detained for working on Sunday.

The last time North Carolina amended its state constitution was to ban interracial marriages. Is there a pattern here? Incidentally, the ban on interracial marriage was never repealed. The federal government had to step in and nullify it as unconstitutional. Quite a good thing, too, or else I would never be able to marry in this state unless I found a half-Indian, half-British man who happened to be single and compatible with me. I guess I just managed to dodge that bullet, eh? However, if the pattern of bigotry and religious persecution holds, I am confident that one day this amendment, too, will be nullified by the federal government.

This is not really about same-sex marriage. It is about religious freedom - something guaranteed to us by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. As an immigrant to this nation, I had to learn about this country inside and out. I sometimes think I understand it better than those who were born and raised here. People flocked to the polling stations with religious zealotry in their eyes to vote for this amendment never once giving religious freedom a second thought. IF our rights are endowed by our Creator, as many people believe, then how can there be a vote to take one of those Creator-endowed rights away? No, I don't mean the "right" to marry. I'm talking about the right to worship as one sees fit - without the interference of government legislation to nudge, prod, and poke people toward evangelical Christianity.

While none of the 28 (now 29) states which have passed these amendments mention God, the Bible, or Christianity in their wording, make no mistake, this IS about religion. Only the dumbest and most duped among us would believe it is not. Anyone fooled by the lack of religious wording in these amendments needs to spend some time learning about politics and how the game is played. I have personally heard our state senators rallying support for this amendment with liberal use of the words, "God, "Bible," and "Christianity," during their speeches. I have personally seen the parking lots filled with church buses during these rallies. I know that churches large and small donated money for this cause. I have personally seen the arguments written by forum posters supporting these amendments, and without fail, these forum posters used sin, God, the Bible, and Christianity to support their views. No one on their side ever stopped to think about the precious and Creator-endowed right to religious freedom. No, not a one. In their minds, I suppose, religious freedom means we have the freedom to worship in the way the majority finds appropriate. Using the popular vote to strip away guaranteed freedoms is both despicable and cowardly, a perversion of democracy.

What's more, these state amendments are malicious in nature - wholly disgusting and, as an American, embarrassing. Until these amendments are repealed, I will never again use the word "freedom" in relation to US law. I will not sing the part of our national anthem that erroneously proclaims, "land of the free ..." I will not recite the part of our pledge that declares, "With liberty and justice for all." Nor will I repeat the phrase, "All men are created equal," a phrase so popularized by our Declaration of Independence. I am not a liar, and I will not repeat those lies, not even in the name of misguided patriotism. Our constitutions, both state and federal, were designed to grant rights - not take them away. They are documents that are supposed to embody the spirit of America, documents that any American should be able to hold up into the air and be proud of. ANY American ... not just Christians. How can any American be proud of a document that has bigotry and discrimination burned into its pages as immutable law, a law that targets a specific group for persecution all because they do not adhere to Christian values? What's worse is that this law does not even represent all Christians. It represents the wishes of only those Christians who believe in religious fascism - that their brand of Christianity is the only right way to live and worship.

This amendment was wholly unnecessary since gay couples were already not recognized by the state. That is why this law is malicious. Why ban something that could not be done to begin with? It is like passing a law banning people from turning invisible at will or flying to the moon by flapping their arms. And why now? America had never needed amendments like these before. Could it be because they were scared gays might actually be allowed to marry, free from the monopoly religion claims to have on marriage? Of course it is. There is no coincidence here, no other reason why states suddenly needed these amendments. They were afraid that they might have to live in a nation side-by-side with others who may not share their religious values. These laws were inspired by religious zealotry, bigotry, and hatred.

They are monuments to all that is wrong in this country.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:17 am

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:20 am

The Treaty of Tripoli Article 11

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Approved by John Adams

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:22 am

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:26 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
'Separation of church and state' would surely demand that same-sex couples be able to be married by the 'state', and work out the morality of it all in the afterlife with their God, if they have one'.
… please find the underlined text in the United States Constitution.

Shirina wrote:
Incorrect. Also, please find the underlined text in the United States Constitution.
It is the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Yes, it's a short clause, but really read it ... think about it ... and reflect about what it says.

The Founders understood that there can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Just because the words "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution verbatim, the meaning of the 1st Amendment is quite clear. I cannot be free to worship X if the law says I must worship or adhere to religion Y. It's really that simple, and I fail to see why so many people have such a hard time with this.

The one issue at stake is the concept of practicing one's religion. What does that mean, exactly, and how far does it go? Too many Christians think that the right to practice one's religion means turning America into a de facto theocracy. If they can't have their way, then somehow that violates the 1st Amendment. Prayer in schools is a good example. Of course, the Supreme Court understood what the 1st Amendment means which is why state-sanctioned prayers in schools have been abolished.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1802

I’ve asked the author of this text, “‘Separation of church and state’ would surely demand that same-sex couples be able to be married by the ‘state’, and work out the morality of it all in the afterlife with their God, if they have one”, quoted above, to find the underlined text in the United States Constitution.

You’ve not verified the presence of the underlined text in the United States Constitution. Please do so by (a) locating the underlined text in the United States Constitution, (b) referencing the underlined text by its location in the United States Constitution, and (c) quoting the underlined text as it is found in the United States Constitution.

Once the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution is verified through documentation, the lesson can proceed.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:32 am

willingsniper wrote:
The Treaty of Tripoli Article 11

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Approved by John Adams

The Treaty of Tripoli is not the United States Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli is no longer in force.

willingsniper wrote:
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814 is not the United States Constitution.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:36 am

It goes to the intent of the founding fathers. This is not a christian nation. The founding fathers were not christians

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:40 am

Direct references to separation:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:43 am

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:05 am

willingsniper wrote:
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

“Madison's summary of the First Amendment” is not the United States Constitution, Amendment 1.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:25 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
willingsniper wrote:
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

“Madison's summary of the First Amendment” is not the United States Constitution, Amendment 1.

I remember you now.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:26 am

It hardly matters. There is no god or jesus never was never will be.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:48 am

willingsniper wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
willingsniper wrote:
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
“Madison's summary of the First Amendment” is not the United States Constitution, Amendment 1.
I remember you now.

willingsniper wrote:
It hardly matters. There is no god or jesus never was never will be.

Neither “I remember you now” nor “It hardly matters. There is no god or jesus never was never will be” are Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:55 am

Lmao!
That's not there either.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:21 am

willingsniper wrote:
Lmao!
That's not there either.

Correct. Let me know when you’re ready to get busy. You’ve a fine; you should be a “quick study.”

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:24 am

You and I have been through this before. Not on this issue but others. It's trolling and tiresome.

by Shirina Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:27 am

Once the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution is verified through documentation, the lesson can proceed.

Oh no .... no, no, no, no, no.

I absolutely refuse to play the literalist semantic game again. The whole REASON why we need a Supreme Court is to Like a Star @ heaven

interpret Like a Star @ heaven

the meaning of the US Constitution. That's it's primary function. The very existence of the Supreme Court nullifies your argument that the words "separation of church and state" must be implicitly written within the Constitution in order for it to be true and binding.

The Constitution can be frustratingly vague and incomplete. For instance, look at this article of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 - The Legislative Branch - "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy"

Do you see a problem here? I do. Hmm, what's missing? OH! The Constitution grants the government the right to fund an ARMY and a NAVY. I don't see anything at all about an Air Force, so we had best sell off all of those unconstitutional B-2 Spirits and F-22 Raptors before someone gets impeached!

And look what else. It says that the government can only fund a military for up to two years. Hmm. And how long have we had a standing army? You realize the intent of the Founders was to defend America through the use of a militia, not a professional cadre of soldiers. Back in the day, that was feasible, but obviously in the modern world, you can't whip up a sizable, technologically advanced military complete with equipment by mustering people in the town square. The only way to defend this nation is to maintain a standing army for far longer than two years. There's no amendment to change this, there is no amendment to include funding for an air force. But we do it anyway because it makes sense. So says the Supreme Court.

This gives you just a glimmering idea of why the Constitution is vague ... the 14th Amendment is a hotbed of interpretation because -- what does it mean when it says "provide for the general welfare ..."? Does it mean the welfare of the nation itself or does it include the people as well? Does this authorize social programs or doesn't it? On and on and on ... until the Supreme Court interprets these words in reference to the individual case. The Constitution doesn't say boo about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even that the government has to pay for the treatment of wounded soldiers. Yet the Supreme Court has not ruled any of these things unconstitutional.

Going back to church and state, we can clearly see the intent of the Founders through their private correspondence. These documents that you correctly say "are not in the Constitution" form the basis upon the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the Founders wanted. I'd point out that there's another word you won't find in the Constitution: God. Nor is Christianity, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, the Holy Ghost, the Divine Trinity, the Cross, Calvary, Resurrection, Rapture, none of the Saints, Moses, Noah, Job, Abaraham, Isaac, none of the Disciples, Galilee, Jerusalem, Nazareth ... they aren't found in the Constitution, either. Now, it seems to me that if the Founders had intended for us to be a Christian nation by law as well as by culture, they would have mentioned one of those nouns somewhere in that document, don't you think?

In fact, the only place you'll find any reference to the divine is in the signatory section where it is written, "In the Year of Our Lord ..." and that has nothing to do with the laws and rights outlined within the body of the Constitution. Not only is the absence of Christianity and religion within the Constitution itself a large thump on the head in regards to knowing the separation exists, the 1st Amendment codifies it. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

In terms of those anti-gay amendments, each and every one of them are unconstitutional. The fact that they exist does not make them constitutional. As you know, there are still 7 states that prohibit anyone denying the existence of God from holding public office. These aren't just old and forgotten clauses someone forgot to erase. In North Carolina, that clause was actually invoked against an Atheist.

Conservatives look to oust atheist councilman

Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government — but he doesn't believe in God. His political opponents say that's a sin that makes him unworthy of serving in office, and they've got the North Carolina Constitution on their side.

Bothwell's detractors are threatening to take the city to court for swearing him in, even though the state's antiquated requirement that officeholders believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the U.S. Consititution

We all know this is unconstitutional, yet there it is. And this is precisely the reason why there can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:45 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
'Separation of church and state' would surely demand that same-sex couples be able to be married by the 'state', and work out the morality of it all in the afterlife with their God, if they have one'.
I’ve asked the author of this text, “‘Separation of church and state’ would surely demand that same-sex couples be able to be married by the ‘state’, and work out the morality of it all in the afterlife with their God, if they have one”, quoted above, to find the underlined text in the United States Constitution.

You’ve not verified the presence of the underlined text in the United States Constitution. Please do so by (a) locating the underlined text in the United States Constitution, (b) referencing the underlined text by its location in the United States Constitution, and (c) quoting the underlined text as it is found in the United States Constitution.

Once the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution is verified through documentation, the lesson can proceed.

Shirina wrote:
Once the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution is verified through documentation, the lesson can proceed.
Oh no .... no, no, no, no, no.

I absolutely refuse to play the literalist semantic game again.

Perhaps your absolute refusal to verify the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution is due to your inability to do so. Whatever your reason might be, since you have in fact failed to verify the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution, the lesson cannot proceed.

by Shirina Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:58 pm

I've already refuted your argument, Rock. Unless you can actually offer a rebuttal, my argument still stands.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:16 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
'Separation of church and state' would surely demand that same-sex couples be able to be married by the 'state', and work out the morality of it all in the afterlife with their God, if they have one'.
I’ve asked the author of this text, “‘Separation of church and state’ would surely demand that same-sex couples be able to be married by the ‘state’, and work out the morality of it all in the afterlife with their God, if they have one”, quoted above, to find the underlined text in the United States Constitution.

You’ve not verified the presence of the underlined text in the United States Constitution. Please do so by (a) locating the underlined text in the United States Constitution, (b) referencing the underlined text by its location in the United States Constitution, and (c) quoting the underlined text as it is found in the United States Constitution.

Once the underlined text’s presence in the United States Constitution is verified through documentation, the lesson can proceed.

Shirina wrote:
I've already refuted your argument, Rock. Unless you can actually offer a rebuttal, my argument still stands.

No you have not. You have also not performed the simple task that I have requested of you. Until you perform that simple three step task which I have requested of you, the lesson cannot proceed. I do have a question: Are you implicitly asserting that you have located the underlined text in the United States Constitution?

by Shirina Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:35 pm

My argument still stands as you haven't offered a rebuttal of my original post.

I have, however, offered up an explanation why there is still a separation of church and state even though the Constitution does not implicitly state verbatim those exact words you're looking for.

In order to understand the constitutionality of the separation of state from religion, one must look at Supreme Court case law:

Reynolds v US (1878)
Everson v Board of Education (1947)
Engel v Vitale (1962)
Epperson v Arkansas (1968)

Among others.

by **astradt1** Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:09 pm

Have we just witnessed a classic case of concrete thinking?.........If it's not written down it doesn't exist!

I wonder how someone who seems to have only three main reference sources, The Bible, The US Constitution and Wikipedia can ever offer to teach anyone anything!!!!

The 'Great Sage' believes he knows everything but has always has great difficulty in ANSWERING any challenge to his 'Knowledge' without asking a question back.......How is this educating????

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:26 pm

TROLL!

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:30 pm

I absolutely refuse to play the literalist semantic game again.

Yet you did it anyway. Just think of all the information and lessons this troll has elicited though his antics.

Most have to pay for this kind of education.

by oftenwrong Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:43 pm

A universal constant in such discussions seems to be a slavish reliance upon things that were written a long time ago.

Can we assume that "Cutting Edge" will be a standard work of reference in, say, the year 2112?

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:44 pm

willingsniper wrote:
I absolutely refuse to play the literalist semantic game again.

Yet you did it anyway. Just think of all the information and lessons this troll has elicited though his antics.

Most have to pay for this kind of education.

I am a scholar. I elicit nothing through antics. I often confound persons like you with simple requests which persons like you, through inability or refusal, do not address. In your case, you compound your own inability and/or refusal to address my simple request by (a) attempting to engage Shirina in gossip-mongering, (b) belittling me (“ this troll”), and (c) verbally disdaining my exhibited scholarship (“antics”).

Your response to my simple request says quite a bit about you. I’m glad I’m me and not you.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:57 pm

I’m glad I’m me and not you.

But then you have no choice do you? Given one you in my opinion would most likely reconsider TROLL.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:05 pm

I am a scholar. I elicit nothing through antics. I often confound persons like you with simple requests which persons like you, through inability or refusal, do not address. In your case, you compound your own inability and/or refusal to address my simple request by (a) attempting to engage Shirina in gossip-mongering, (b) belittling me (“ this troll”), and (c) verbally disdaining my exhibited scholarship (“antics”).

You have exhibited nothing but cut and paste and a condescending comment to all who try to reason with you. What you exhibit is not scholarship, it is an ability to use your copy/paste function on your computer. A true scholar would argue both sides of the argument on their merits. You sir are no scholar.
You are an internet TROLL too lazy to do anything but expect others to do research for you. The likes of you sicken and bore me.
That anyone entertains responding to you at all is a laughable mystery. Have fun TROLL

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:24 pm

willingsniper wrote:
I’m glad I’m me and not you.
But then you have no choice do you? Given one you would most likely reconsider TROLL.

Apparently you enjoy “calling folks out they names.” Or, if Brother on the Blockish is beyond your comprehension, apparently you enjoy belittling others by intentionally assigning derogatory labels to others. Please continue exhibiting your true self.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:24 pm

willingsniper wrote:
I am a scholar. I elicit nothing through antics. I often confound persons like you with simple requests which persons like you, through inability or refusal, do not address. In your case, you compound your own inability and/or refusal to address my simple request by (a) attempting to engage Shirina in gossip-mongering, (b) belittling me (“ this troll”), and (c) verbally disdaining my exhibited scholarship (“antics”).
You have exhibited nothing but cut and paste and a condescending comment to all who try to reason with you.

False.

willingsniper wrote:
What you exhibit is not scholarship, it is an ability to use your copy/paste function on your computer.

False.

willingsniper wrote:
A true scholar would argue both sides of the argument on their merits.

You’ve no clue as to what a true scholar might do.

willingsniper wrote:
You sir are no scholar.

False.

willingsniper wrote:
You are an internet TROLL…

Please continue exhibiting your true self.

willingsniper wrote:
… to lazy to do anything but expect other to do research for you.

False.

willingsniper wrote:
The likes of you sicken and bore me.

I don’t care.

willingsniper wrote:
That anyone entertains responding to you at all is a laughable mystery.

False.

willingsniper wrote:
Have fun TROLL

Please continue exhibiting your true self.

by willingsniper Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:28 pm

Please continue exhibiting your true self.

I have no other recourse. I am that I am.

Perhaps you will graduate to garden gnome some time soon. I have high hopes for you Troll.

Done.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:23 pm

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 7:24
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28512

… trolling…

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 19:26
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28561

TROLL!

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 19:30
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28562

… this troll…

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 19:57
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28568

… TROLL.

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 20:05
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28571

… internet TROLL…

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 20:05
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28571

… lazy…

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 20:05
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28571

… TROLL

willingsniper wrote:
Re: North Carolina enters the Dark Ages
by willingsniper on Wed 17 Oct 2012 - 21:28
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t494p60-north-carolina-enters-the-dark-ages#28576
Please continue exhibiting your true self.

… Troll.

Please continue exhibiting your true self.

by Shirina Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:56 am

I'm going to lock this thread for awhile ... for obvious reasons.

by Sponsored content