wrote:
:|Alison is not a lawyer either. He happens to be on the right side,
:|though.
:|
:|Go ahead and do your arguing.
I have never claimed to be a lawyer. I am a paralegal and historical/ legal
reseracher and writer. I worked in partnership with a lawyer as we helped
Prof Tom Peters create and contributed reserach and articles to the
Separation of Church and Stare Home Page in 1995-97
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnpintro.htm
That lawyer and I created in 1998 and currently co-own
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
Last but not least
While I do have some structured formal legal training, and thus am
not just a layman in the area, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I don't
interpret the Constitution. I leave that to experts who are qualified.
What I do is not at all complicated, though many people seem to
have a hard time dealing with what I do. Based on the reactions to what I
do by many people. Most notably, those that I have provided evidence that
their claims were incorrect. In short, those that were a bit embarrassed.
What I do is summed up in the following:
If one were to read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies that I post) They would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence backing up that which I have posted. I supply
information from experts in the field, usually from more than one source. I
frequently provide the entire document, which makes for long posts, but
also provides the complete context the information existed in originally.
When I provide quotes, I will properly and completely cite that quote,
using the standard rules of citation. Frequently, I will provide primary
source historical and or legal data. I do not merely provide my opinion.
In fact, seldom do I ever provide my opinion. My personal opinion is
irrelevant.
Have I educated? I would hope so. If one would have read the
information that I provided, examined it and explored further...maybe
looked up the works I cited from which if secondary source material is from
some of the best scholars, and respected qualified contemporary thinkers.
If one would have done that, they would have had the potential to have
learned some things.
I am prepared to respond with evidence, and facts, and will state
when something I provide is a personal belief and as already pointed out, I
rarely post my own beliefs so that would be rare.
I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give
legitimacy by even discussing false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise
bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs. I will point out
and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those
that I find. I will point out each and every improperly cited quote, each
bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be
viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.
If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who
troll will be so labeled. Those who are more concerned with spreading
propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in
facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propanganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are attempting
to clarify.
*****************************************************************
I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit,
they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly
cited, of course.
Anyone can be incorrect about something, but once a person has
been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they
ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in
another newsgroup or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they
have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who
and what they are.
A person doesn't have to agree with the material, however, their
saying they don't agree with it, isn't good enough. They are going to have
to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which I have
provided is "incorrect." After all, that is what I do with the claims they
have made.
I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real
audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind
is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various
newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post
or reply themselves.
The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will
come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run
by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who
in time may actually make a difference.
The above is what I am about.
********************************************************************
Barclay has no expertise in the area of history law, etc
What he does have is a lot of biased, unqualified, agenda driven
ideological barclayism propaganda
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
