Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Muslim American organizations CIAR-PAC to vote Democrat... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Muslim American organizations CIAR-PAC to vote Democrat...
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way... I have no problem with people derailing my threads.
Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Winkey, Civil Rights

Free thinking Dag, meaning Chistians that think for themselves instead of toeing the party line.

Keep trying to put words in my mouth, eventually that lame strategy might pay off.

Tommy,

quote:
I mean I know the abolitionists believed blacks were human, but how is that much different than pro-life people today believing fetus' are human?
The small difference is that blacks were able to live outside the womb without dying and had fully functioning bodies and brains. Little things, but hey...

I'm sure blacks would love being compared to fetus's.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"*&^Z# you Ken. You can't tell Winkey what she can and can't do with her thread!"

Forgive me. I got carried away by the sense of power one gets playing LineRider on can's thread [Wink]

"I mean I know the abolitionists believed blacks were human, but how is that much different than pro-life people today believing fetus' are human?"

Reframe: are black fetuses as allegedly fully human/aware et cetera as white fetuses?

As for Muslim squeamishness at the voting polls: I don't think CAIR gets as much airplay among mainstream voters as mainstream candidates get airplay among Muslim voters via CAIR.

"In other words--I don't see how this could be construed as a disinterested disquisition into the vagaries of American prejudice."

Ooh!!! Lookit the nice words: "construed as a disinterested disquisition into the vagaries"

Kenmeeer like....

"Could you please give examples of what part of the Constitution "Bible thumpers" would vote to trample on?"

Well, there's always that separation of church and state thing.

[ October 24, 2006, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Free thinking Dag, meaning Chistians that think for themselves instead of toeing the party line.

Keep trying to put words in my mouth...

Cute. You put the words there yourself. You clearly imply that no one who voted for Bush was free-thinking:

quote:
Oh sure you can find the odd free thinking Chrisian but I'd bet more than 90% of Evangelical Christians voted for Bush.
Either that or your grasp of logic is weak, since you put forth evidence of similar voting behavior as evidence of "toeing the party line." I'll let you decide which it is. Did you put an irrelevant proposition in opposition to the idea that only "odd" Christians are free-thinking, or did you really mean that Christians who voted for Bush aren't free-thinking?

You start with smart-ass comments that insult at least 40% of Americans and then you go on to bitch about people who decide not to sit still for it.

If you want to be the guy who casually adds insults many, many of his posts, don't be surprised at negative reactions.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Could you please give examples of what part of the Constitution "Bible thumpers" would vote to trample on?"

Well, there's always that separation of church and state thing.

Can you quote for me the part of the Constitution that it talks about the separation of church and State?

KE...
Were you quoting someone else when you said...

quote:
In other words the Bible thumpers would vote to trample the Constitution. Wishful thinking (for many), but it ain't gonna happen.
KE



[ October 24, 2006, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: winkey151 ]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think this site does a fair job of exploring the nuances of the Constitutional basis for the separation of church and state:
religious tolerance

I myself am no fan of recent decades' zealous hair-slitting-by-maul by entities like the ACLU regarding church/state issues, but this is not because of a disagreement with their view on the principle of the thing. My problem with their efforts of lae are tactical: they've made the issue of maintaining adivide into a struggle so silly and often unfir in the consequences of the struggle, that they are doing the cuse of separating of church/state more harm than good.

But I DO strongly stand for a thorough maintenance of that fine line.

[ October 24, 2006, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ooh!!! Lookit the nice words: "construed as a disinterested disquisition into the vagaries"

Yes...I am easily seduced by the carnal enticements of that tart of a literary device we call alliteration. Plus, I perhaps possess a pretentious propensity to produce pedantically prolix prose--poo-pah if you will. [Big Grin]
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I think this site does a fair job of exploring the nuances of the Constitutional basis for the separation of church and state:
religious tolerance

I myself am no fan of recent decades' zealous hair-slitting-by-maul by entities like the ACLU regarding church/state issues, but this is not because of a disagreement with their view on the principle of the thing. My problem with their efforts of lae are tactical: they've made the issue of maintaining adivide into a struggle so silly and often unfir in the consequences of the struggle, that they are doing the cuse of separating of church/state more harm than good.

But I DO strongly stand for a thorough maintenance of that fine line.

I take, from what I have read of the Constitution, that the protection of Religious freedom was for the people of our Country.

That they should not be told by the Government, what religion they were to follow.

I never read anywhere in the Constitution where the religious rights of the people of America should be restricted when they walk the hallowed halls of all things US Government.

I personally would hate to live in a country where the Government decides what Religion the people should follow, but then I personally would hate to go to a church that decides what Religion the people of the church should follow. [Eek!]

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Religious rights is exactly where the problem comes in. Personally, I'd like to see thoise hallowed halls of governement adorned with media describing the myriad belief systems human use to deal with the Great Big Unavoidable Mystery of it All.

It would look like the bulletin board at the entrance of a supermarket.

You run into problems when, for example, assemblies are asked to bow their heads in reverence to Yahweh or Mulu or the Nameless Uncarved Block or... like that pledge of allegiance thing with the 'under God' bit. The term God is a big enough tent for all the deists out there, but is itself virtually meaningless:

"...under the Imaginary Omnipotent Being..."

I recall Heinlein's alter ego, Lazarus Long, telling one of Heinlein's less well known fictional characters that when one is in a foreign culture, and the crowd starts smearing blue goop on their bellies and making reverent noises, one better start rubbing blue goop and moaning or one is likely to face inquisition...

Was the Tower of Babel REALLY about the confounding of languages or was it about the infernal racket and bickering caused by the members of competing sects all bellering at the top of their lungs for *their* god -- or absence thereof -- to honor THEIR supplication? hile they pushed and shoved one another for primal prayer space at the top of the ziggaurat?

Personally, I think it's a travesty that government functions don't include muzzein calls by imams from minarets calling the faithful to prayer, don't you?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that one of the distinctions to be made here is the difference between religious rights and the Religious Right.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes Winkey. The Civil Rights part. IMO they would VOTE out all kinds of civil liberties.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cute. You put the words there yourself. You clearly imply that no one who voted for Bush was free-thinking:
As a rule I don't IMPLY, I SAY. Impying is for people that play word games like you. You've been doing that from the very first post you ever made here, if I recall right. And you were wrong then too.

I can't believe any free-thinking person here believes that's what I mean. And did you miss the word Evangelical?

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh sure you can find the odd free thinking Chrisian but I'd bet more than 90% of Evangelical Christians voted for Bush.

I said that the vast majority of Evangelical Christians voted for Bush because he was anti SSM and anti-abortion, not because they weren't free thinkers.

You are a smartass and aside from your occassional contributions where obscure legal references are needed you add less than anybody to this forum. We already have Canadian to be a smartass and he's better at it than you. He actually rips on what the people say, not what he makes up that they said/meant.

But feel free to keep arguing against things people didn't say or mean, I'm sure you win a lot of those arguments, and feel real good about yourself.

KE

[ October 24, 2006, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"No, John, they don't vote alike. Not even people in the Catholic church."

BS, how do you think GW got elected. Christians voted in block against abortion and homosexual marriage. Oh sure you can find the odd free thinking Christian but I'd bet more than 90% of Evangelical Christians voted for Bush.

KE

This is what Dag is running off at the mouth about. Tommy said Christians don't vote together. And I said "Yes they voted together against SSM and abortion. I added the "except for a few free-thinking Christians because I know there are a few Christians that aren't against SSM and even a few that aren't against abortion. Just a caveat so as not to paint all Christians with the same brush.

BUT Dag, in his usual smartass way took it out of context and used it to insult me in his posts to me.

He claims that I said that anybody that doesn't think like me isn't a free-thinker. Only somebody looking for a fight could have pulled that implication out of his ass. Where most of Dags arguments come from. And I know from his first post that he isn't man enough to apologize even when he admits he's wrong. This kind of childish behaviour and skewing of arguments so you can argue against something you can win against drags the dialog down on OA and makes it a pain in the ass to even come here.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not at all surprised that a religious group would be inclined to support the democratic party. Individual issues aside, wouldn't it be more important to discourage support for the party which is trending towards a religious evangelical christian mono-culture?

I am well aware that republicans are far from a mono-culture in reality, but I think through the rhetoric they have been repeating in larger volumes in the past decade or so, they do project an image that is at worst hostile and at best devicive towards non-christians, and I don't think that image serves them well when it comes to courting members of other religions, traditions, and cultures, especially in global politics.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I should say it HAS served them reasonably well domestically for a while, but at some point I think it will begin to backfire.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He claims that I said that anybody that doesn't think like me isn't a free-thinker."

Obviously not true. Only folks who think like me truly think freely.

"Actually, I should say it HAS served them reasonably well domestically for a while, but at some point I think it will begin to backfire."

About now, I would say. The evangelicals are upset with them, but the Reps are painted more evangelical than not, which puts a whole other buncha folks off...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I take, from what I have read of the Constitution, that the protection of Religious freedom was for the people of our Country.

That they should not be told by the Government, what religion they were to follow.

I never read anywhere in the Constitution where the religious rights of the people of America should be restricted when they walk the hallowed halls of all things US Government.

That's why the constitution cannot stand alone. When you are unsure about the meaning of a portion of the constitution the only useful way of determining the original intent and meaning is to look at the writing of those who originally composed the document. There is ample material available to determine what was intended by the 1st amendment and it tends to lean much more heavily towards "wall of separation" than simply "no government-imposed religion".
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Can you please provide a link between CAIR and the terrorists other than "Muslim"?

I don't think this was ever done but ...

In December, 2001, Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was charged and deported from the United States because he was the executive director and co-founder of Global Relief Foundation, a terrorist front organization used to financ Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas and a co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties with front groups that fund Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were convicted on 21 counts of federal terrorism charges related to funding Hamas and the illegal export of electronics equipment to U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism.

According to the Washington Times, In January 2003, CAIR's director of community relations and founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties to front groups that fund Islamist terrorism. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.

In August 2003, CAIR's former civil-rights coordinator, Randall "Ismail" Royer, along with ten other men known as the "Virginia jihad group" were indicted on 41 counts, including training and participating in jihad activities overseas. The group had connections with Lashkar-e-Taiba and five of them possessed AK-47-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Four of the men plead guilty while the other seven were charged with 32 new counts, including conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda and to the Taliban. He pleaded guilty and is now serving 20 years in federal prison.

In September 2003, The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security held a hearing where Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that prominent members of CAIR—referring specifically to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed—have “intimate links with Hamas.” Later, he remarked that “we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism.”

There are a lot more ties than this but you get the drift, CAIR is neck deep in links to terrorist activites and funding. If I was endorsed by CAIR, I'd want to bury that endorsement.

[ October 24, 2006, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
uhhh

Around these parts, we don't cotton to plagerists.

In any event, spot checking just one of these "terrorists" cast some serious doubt on the claims.

Rabih Haddad

Yeah, he was charged, with a minor visa violation. He was deported without being charged for anything else.

link

[ October 24, 2006, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
winkey151
Member
Member # 2910

 - posted      Profile for winkey151   Email winkey151   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP... I have never read anything where the Founding Fathers put restrictions on the religious rights or freedoms of any United States citizen who happens to be in any Government building.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Posts: 865 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
uhhh

Around these parts, we don't cotton to plagerists.

Possibly a bit of a stretch to accuse him of plagarism. The text certainly matches the site you link to, but I'm not sure he really makes any attempt to claim it as his own work.

At the top he says "i'm not sure this has ever been done" but the meaning of this sentence is not immediately clear to me, I don't know if he meant that he didn't know if it was already posted in this thread or another thread on the forum, or if he meant that he didn't know if anyone else had every put all these events together, etc.

Typically it is good to provide a link to the URL when possible though, I agree.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rewrite is a good idea

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/22/get_me_rewrite/

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John,

"
'Oh sure you can find the odd free thinking Chrisian but I'd bet more than 90% of Evangelical Christians voted for Bush.'

I said that the vast majority of Evangelical Christians voted for Bush because he was anti SSM and anti-abortion, not because they weren't free thinkers."

First you said 85% of this country is christian and would vote to ban abortion.

Than you say 90% of evangelical christians voted for Bush because he was anti abortion. That is possible, but now you've narrowed the number of Christians down considerably.

So you feel that the conservative christians tend to vote for conservative leaders (maybe toeing the party line, maybe fighting for what they believe in) while non conservative christians, the 'free-thinking' kind vote for whoever they like? Or are you claiming that all Christians vote in a block? Cause I'm sorry, but it's simply not true.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of respect for the moderators and for the rest of the board, I am choosing not to reply specifically to KE's statements about me except to say that I consider them to be highly inaccurate representations of our interactions. My further silence with anything that he posts does not imply agreement or concession.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The small difference is that blacks were able to live outside the womb without dying and had fully functioning bodies and brains. Little things, but hey...

I'm sure blacks would love being compared to fetus's. "

Word games? I'm not comparing blacks to fetus', I'm comparing society's view of the two.

Perhaps you should take a step back and a deep breath before you sit at your computer and completely miss the point of what I was saying, then twisting what I said to make a snide comment.

[ October 24, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I am well aware that republicans are far from a mono-culture in reality, but I think through the rhetoric they have been repeating in larger volumes in the past decade or so, they do project an image that is at worst hostile and at best devicive towards non-christians, and I don't think that image serves them well when it comes to courting members of other religions, traditions, and cultures, especially in global politics."

Definitely a possibility.

I doubt this organization is 'neck-deep' in terrorist activity's. At best they probably have terrorist supporters in it. It's probably a good group trying to tell other American Muslims or Arabs that this is the party they endorse.

If they were actually terrorists, why would they support democrats and (possibly) hurt the party's chance of getting into office so they could (according to the Republicans) have more room to attack America?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by winkey151:
MattP... I have never read anything where the Founding Fathers put restrictions on the religious rights or freedoms of any United States citizen who happens to be in any Government building.

There are no such restrictions unless those citizens also happen to be employees of the government, making them agents of the government, meaning they are subject to any restrictions placed on the government.

When a judge places the 10 commandments in the courthouse lawn, he's not acting as a citizen who just happens to be in the courthouse. He's using the power and authority granted to him by the government to feature the doctrine of a specific religious tradition.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If they were actually terrorists, why would they support democrats and (possibly) hurt the party's chance of getting into office so they could (according to the Republicans) have more room to attack America?
Indeed. The terrorists want us to stay in the middle-east because it increases support for their cause. If the Dems want to "cut and run" and the Reps. want to "stay the course" then keeping the Reps. in office would seem to be more in line with their ideals.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually your line or logic makes more sense than mine [Big Grin]

I retract my last statement on the grounds that I totally dropped the ball.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who cares about a link? Cite a source.

I don't care if it's "As posted on this other blog I frequent"

Chopping up an arcticle doesn't make it yours, and when you post something here that isn't yours, there is an obligation to make that clear.

For purposes of honest debate, yes, but also because of copywrite law.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
uhhh

Around these parts, we don't cotton to plagerists.

I had no intent to plagerize, I just googled up some facts and listed them out. Honestly, I'm not sure which sites I got these from (there were 2) and they were the first ones that caught my eye in the search results.

These were facts well documented in the public domain that I didn't think required citation. It never occured to me that anyone would think I personally researched CAIR and terrorist links and this is a result of my own work - beyond the web search that is. Should I provide citations for every single word I read from another site so you can "cotton"? What is the standard plagerism will be judged by?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry, G, we don't think that highly of you [Smile]
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank God, I thought I was the only one ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh*

You copied and pasted it. You didn't just get the facts from another web-site and include them in your post unsourced (which is something we all do all the time).

There is a heck of a difference. If I say "Bush won Florida", and don't cite a source, that's not plagerism. If I copy and paste an entire paragraph (or several paragraphs) from someone elses article about how many votes he got in each County, it is.

edited to add

For anyone who missed it, that uhhh is a link to the National Review article which contains the copied and pasted paragraphs, and sources them to Wiki.

Wiki is public domain, so I retract my comments about legality. I do not retract my comments about honest debate.

Around here, people often do extensive research, and then write posts based on the facts they have learned in the course of that research. If they simply quote someone else verbatim, they give credit where it is due.

There is your standard.

[ October 24, 2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shazzaam!
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh*
quote:

OK, here is a link to the source material for every post I have ever written on any forum anywhere. It is a meta-link of sorts so you may have to do a little work to hunt them down but the sources are there. Not only that, this link will point to the source for any other post I will ever make.

In the off chance that this specific post may atsome time, either in part or whole, have been written in any other medium by any other author I assure you that such similarity is coincidental and purely unintentional. To offset any misunderstanding Jesse or any other reader may infer, I will enclose this post in quotes. Should any of it indeed be my own original work, please let Jesse know as he has been self appointed to handling all complaints on my behalf about any plagarism, misspeling, broken links, grammer errors, or any other mistakes that can be applied to the written word or electronic mediums.

Feel better now?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, we had this debate with william lambert a while back.

It bugged me then and it bugs me now. How do you get through high school without learning that if you quote someone, you need to indicate its not your work? Doesn't matter if its not for serious publication. If you didn't think it up, don't claim you did. If you don't put quote marks around someone elses work, you are claiming it is your own.

And thats dishonest. Period.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I did a project for a calculus class in college once, I used a little content from a website and I did cite the text which I used, but I also used some images which were just rendered mathematical formulas probably from microsoft equation writer, or mathematica or something... and the professor almost gave me an F on the project because he thought I should have cited the source for each of the formula graphics... even though the only reason I used them was to save the trouble of typing my hand written versions into the equation editor and generating identical images myself.

Luckily I managed to convince the professor that I simply didnt realize I had to cite images which were not artistic in nature (since the formulas themselves were not unique to this site and were in fact also found in our textbooks).

I've never had to do any other projects like that once since, so I don't know if that guy was just crazy, but I really was surprised that he thought I should cite something that was so mundane. The only thing I can figure is that he may not have known much about computers and didn't realize that anyone who knew those formulas could get the computer to make a graphical representation of it if as long as they had some sort of math equation writing software.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, it's not like I expected you to admit you were wrong, or even if you did like last time, I didn't expect you to be man enough to apologize. Seeing as you never have.

Glad you decided to shut up, I'm tired of you.

KE

[ October 25, 2006, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seeing as you never have.
You might want to check your facts on this, since you care so much about honesty.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1