In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Comments
45,461 - 45,480 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47198
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Ironically you used Wikipedia which you had only a week or two previously tried to disqualify me from using.
Four other sources listed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47199
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've pointed out to you several times now and had to remind you yet again:
Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.
And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.
And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge.
I remind you that Wikipedia isn't often ever the original source and was not in this case.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47200
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<
You did not even cite Wikipedia. I had to copy-paste your quote into Google as per usual.
This is where you announce that I did not cite Wikipedia.

Of course: I would not cite Wikipedia if it wasn't the source.

And this is where you confess YOU loaded it in and YOU drew the conclusion that it came from Wikipedia...EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER SOURCES WERE (and still are) THERE!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47201
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<
It could not be anymore obvious that you got the excerpt from Wikipedia.
Here we have you showing how you managed to jump to the conclusion: you found an exact quote on Wiki.

Of course: it never occurred to you that an exact quote is going to be the exact same thing everywhere because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A QUOTE IS.

Never happy with what I say... you paraphrase and insist it's 'my' logic.

I've already pointed to FOUR other sources (among many).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47202
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
You most likely do not have the physical copy of the source - Wiki does not even quote it because the author of the article, whether citing it or not, wrote his/her own version of the statement;
Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So here we have an EXACT QUOTE of you asserting that the quote I had COULD HAVE ONLY HAVE COME from Wikpedia

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47203
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<
Which does not remotely prove that you got the quote from the original source. You simply copy-pasted from Wikipedia which you have been denying this whole time.
You do remember insisting that the only place I could have gotten it was Wikipedia?
SupaAFC wrote:
You most likely do not have the physical copy of the source - Wiki does not even quote it because the author of the article, whether citing it or not, wrote his/her own version of the statement;
Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;
Of course, we can ignore all the wrong things you said in the quote above. Let's stick with this:

(QUOTE) Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47204
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Of course... you have problems with words like "only" and will insist that it is a "grammatical" error... like when you insisted someone was the unanimous choice... until I prove that wrong... and you changed it to "popular" (see above) choice.

Words like "always", "never" , "most", "more", and...'only'.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47205
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Numerous times in the past you have been told that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy which you claim is false because we do not have one physical Constitution.
I'll bump this as an example of something that you repeat but still cannot find me denying the UK is a constitutional monarchy because- and this is the tricky part- I haven't said that.

Putting aside the UK does not have a constitution.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47206
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.
Still waiting for you to explain what is grammatically incorrect about this sentence.

I say there isn't anything grammatically incorrect..

I will state that it is just a false statement.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47207
Feb 11, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already told everyone here that I could not have gotten the quote from anywhere else.
Your laughable attempt to prove otherwise demonstrates as such. Showing me three different links that all copy-paste from Wikipedia sure is convincing that you got the quote outwith Wikipedia. Excellent detective work.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even after I told you about the footnote (the [50]). Weeks ago.
You stupidly assumed.
The footnote would only have mattered if you consulted that source first.

You did not. You went to Wikipedia, the same source you ignore time and again when used by others, then when pressed on it claimed to have got it from somewhere else - even though your own links all copy-paste from Wikipedia!
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care: you can stop posting now.
Make me, manchild.

Oh - I forgot - you cannot. Get ready for some more mallet whacking.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47208
Feb 11, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You stupid moron: the "facebook" source is the Encyclopedic Britannica.
And the **********ENTIRE********** quote is there.
Nope, here is the Facebook page for EB:

http://www.facebook.com/BRITANNICA

You have found a Facebook page with "Britannica" in its address and thought that it was EB. It may well be a "sister" page of EB of sorts - I will find out soon enough.

Furthermore, I see that the quote is there. I also see a lot of quotes located there in many other famous peoples' biographies that all come straight from Wikipedia. Are you claiming that websites cannot quote from each other and that everything posted on websites are their own, original work?

And let's not stop there - do you want to read Eden's biography from EB's official website?:

Anthony Eden, in full Robert Anthony Eden, 1st earl of Avon, Viscount Eden of Royal Leamington Spa, also called (until 1961) Sir Anthony Eden (born June 12, 1897, Windlestone, Durham, Eng.—died Jan. 14, 1977, Alvediston, Wiltshire), British foreign secretary in 1935–38, 1940–45, and 1951–55 and prime minister from 1955 to 1957.

After combat service in World War I, Eden studied Oriental languages (Arabic and Persian) at Christ Church, Oxford. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1923 and was appointed undersecretary of state for foreign affairs in 1931, lord privy seal (with special responsibility for international relations) in 1934, and minister for League of Nations affairs (a Cabinet office created for him) in June 1935. He became foreign secretary in December 1935 but resigned in February 1938 to protest Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, Eden reentered Chamberlain’s government as dominions secretary. When Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1940, Eden was named secretary of state for war, but from Dec. 23, 1940, until the defeat of the Conservatives in July 1945, he served once more as foreign secretary. On Oct. 27, 1951, after Churchill and the Conservative Party had been returned to power, Eden again became foreign secretary and also was designated deputy prime minister. In 1954 he helped to settle the Anglo-Iranian oil dispute, to resolve the quarrel between Italy and Yugoslavia over Trieste, to stop the Indochina War, and to establish the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).

In 1953 he became seriously ill, and, although he underwent several operations, he never fully regained his health. Succeeding Churchill as prime minister on April 6, 1955, he attempted to relax international tension by welcoming to Great Britain the Soviet leaders N.S. Khrushchev and N.A. Bulganin. His fall began on July 26, 1956, when Gamal Abdel Nasser, head of the Egyptian state, nationalized the Suez Canal Company, in which the British government had been a principal stockholder since 1875. This action led to an Anglo-French attack on Egypt on November 5, one week after an attack on Egypt by Israel.

British public opinion was more favourable to Eden’s show of force than the Labour and Liberal parties had expected; his supporters regretted, however, that he did not fulfill his intention of occupying the key positions of Port Said, Ismailia, and Suez. By December 22, partly through U.S. pressure, British and French forces had been supplanted by UN emergency units, but the canal was left in Egyptian hands rather than subjected to international control. The next month, on Jan. 9, 1957, Eden resigned, giving ill health as his reason.

Eden was knighted (K.G.) in 1954 and created Earl of Avon in 1961. Eden’s memoirs were issued in three volumes, Full Circle (1960), Facing the Dictators (1962), and The Reckoning (1965).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178...

Nope, your quote is nowhere to be found.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47209
Feb 11, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You stupid moron: why is it the Wikipedia quote is SMALLER than then the Britannica quote?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Simple: because Wikipedia articles are bigger and longer to read so the poster of the article decided to highlight important pieces of text for the page's followers to casually read.

Note that the Wikipedia article is cited. Can you guess why the poster did that?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop posting.
Make me.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: the Wiki QUOTE is sourced and footnoted. The Wiki source *received* the copy and paste.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Stop posting.
Welsher.
If the quote was originally from the source then Wikipedia would have placed the text in inverted commas.

They did not. They reworded the statement then cited the source.

Thus, your quote was not from the original source; you simply copy-pasted from Wikipedia.

What say you now?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not: you are a m/f c/s liar and not a soul would expect you not to be a Welsher.
Translation: Barefoot cannot admit he got the quote from Wikipedia.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your claim, by the way.
And by linking to pages that copy-paste from Wikipedia, you are demonstrating that you got the quote from Wikipedia.

Only you seem to think that this helps you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I pointed out to you already, the little number at the end means WIKI took the source from another site.
Delicious red herring. The point is that -you- took the quote from -Wikipedia-; not that Wikipedia was the originator of the claim itself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Although the media expected Butler would get the nod, a survey of the Cabinet done for the Queen showed Macmillan was the nearly unanimous choice, and he became Prime Minister on 10 January 1957.[50]
Copy-pasted from Wikipedia as demonstrated by the three links you provided.

Thank you for unwittingly refuting yourself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is me calling you when it happened.
I know: you run away and two weeks later invent the conversation we never had.
Do see how I pointed out on Jan. 22: Wiki- which YOU pointed to- didn't have the original source.
If this conversation never happened then you would not be desperately trying to avoid admitting that you got the Macmillan quote from Wikipedia.

But, you are, because the conversation happened. It is consigned to the history of this thread.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's also remind everyone this was in response to you insisting that Macmillan was the UNANIMOUS choice.
And you would later call this a "grammatical error".
Good idea - let's remind everyone that you pounced on one word to avoid the entire argument itself which was that Macmillan's appointment to replace Eden was reflective of his popularity within the Conservative party which in turn reflected the popular will of the people who democratically voted for that government, thus making your claims about Britain being an undemocratic monarchy laughable.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's make sure we quote you here after you change what you had said (unanimous choice) to 'popular choice'.
Let's keep your lies visible and close together.
Excellent idea - let's keep showing everybody that you ran away from the argument by playing word games.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47210
Feb 11, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's make sure we have you insisting that Wiki was the only source... and remind everyone that I listed not only four more sources on the internet, but the original source as well.
If by "original source" you are referring to the Facebook page that is not likely -not- EB, then you are flat out wrong.

All your links copy-pasted from Wikipedia and EB's official biography for Eden does not have your cherished quote in it.

You shot yourself in the foot again. You only set out to find those sources -after- you were called out on using Wikipedia.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Four other sources listed.
That all copy-pasted from Wikipedia.

Major own-goal scored there, my manchild friend.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I remind you that Wikipedia isn't often ever the original source and was not in this case.
And I shall again thank you for a delicious red herring considering I never claimed as such.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where you announce that I did not cite Wikipedia.
Of course: I would not cite Wikipedia if it wasn't the source.
It was the source of the quote. You are conflating the claim itself (original source) from Wikipedia's own reworded statement which -you- quoted.

Thus, you quoted from Wikipedia. It really is simple to understand.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is where you confess YOU loaded it in and YOU drew the conclusion that it came from Wikipedia...EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER SOURCES WERE (and still are) THERE!
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
Which all copy-pasted from Wikipedia.

Whoops!
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we have you showing how you managed to jump to the conclusion: you found an exact quote on Wiki.
If a duck looks like a duck...
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course: it never occurred to you that an exact quote is going to be the exact same thing everywhere because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A QUOTE IS.
You are the one claiming that the Macmillan quote is from the original source even though none of the links, or Wikipedia, has put the text in inverted commas.

I think it is safe to say that quote deficiencies are your forte, my manchild friend.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never happy with what I say... you paraphrase and insist it's 'my' logic.
I've already pointed to FOUR other sources (among many).
That all copy-pasted from Wikipedia as evidenced by their wording and your Facebook page's citation of... well... Wikipedia.

I have read EB's biography of Eden. On its own website. Are you game enough to read it yourself?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
So here we have an EXACT QUOTE of you asserting that the quote I had COULD HAVE ONLY HAVE COME from Wikpedia
And it remains true as evidenced by your links' pastejobs from Wikipedia itself. Are you claiming that your links wrote the quote themselves?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do remember insisting that the only place I could have gotten it was Wikipedia?
I certainly do - thank you for posting links demonstrating as such.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, we can ignore all the wrong things you said in the quote above. Let's stick with this:
(QUOTE) Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim
So you are claiming that in the links you provided, they all wrote the quote themselves?

You also realise that I know full well you only consulted these links perhaps within the last few days if that, right? If you had genuinely read the quote from one of these links, and not Wikipedia, then you would have only have needed to show me the source itself that you found it from.

You have given me more.

This easily shows that you are making things up as you go along. Why do you think I will not notice these things?
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47211
Feb 11, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
Of course... you have problems with words like "only" and will insist that it is a "grammatical" error... like when you insisted someone was the unanimous choice... until I prove that wrong... and you changed it to "popular" (see above) choice.
Words like "always", "never" , "most", "more", and...'only'.
How about attacking the argument itself instead of patting yourself on the back over one word?

Barefoot logic: scores a point, claims knockout.
barefoot2626 wrote:
I'll bump this as an example of something that you repeat but still cannot find me denying the UK is a constitutional monarchy because- and this is the tricky part- I haven't said that.

Putting aside the UK does not have a constitution.
I am well aware that by your logic guilt can only be proven if the accused admits as such. Unfortunately for you, actions speak louder than words such as your blatant insinuation that because Britain does not have a Constitution, it is not a Constitutional monarchy.

Here is a simple question in Barefootese:

Is Britain a Constitutional monarchy? Yes or no?

Barefoot goes silent... and we know why.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for you to explain what is grammatically incorrect about this sentence.
I say there isn't anything grammatically incorrect..
I will state that it is just a false statement.
I will state that you have nothing of substance against the argument itself.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47212
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Your laughable attempt to prove otherwise demonstrates as such. Showing me three different links that all copy-paste
SupaAFC wrote:
You most likely do not have the physical copy of the source - Wiki does not even quote it because the author of the article, whether citing it or not, wrote his/her own version of the statement;
Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47213
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
The footnote would only have mattered if you consulted that source first.
QUOTE:
...Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47214
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, here is the Facebook page for EB:
http://www.facebook.com/BRITANNICA
I gave you the source.

~stomp stomp stomp~

Let's look at that quote again:

QUOTE
Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47215
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<Showing me three different links that all copy-paste from Wikipedia
Prove it.

Your assertion.

Prove it.

PS: Let's look at the quote again:

YOU SAID:'Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;'

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47216
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
I see that the quote is there. I also see a lot of quotes located there in many other famous peoples' biographies that all come straight from Wikipedia.
Most people are smart enough to know that Wikipedia isn't the original source, that people quote other sources.

I pointed out the footnote two weeks ago, you stupid f*ing hump.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA!

PS:
YOU SAID: Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim

I'll point to how you changed "unanimous choice" to "popular choice" after your error was pointed out to you.

And remind you how you are unable to admit you are wrong.

Say your goodbyes: stop posting, Welsher!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47217
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
If this conversation never happened then you would not be desperately trying to avoid admitting that you got the Macmillan quote from Wikipedia.
QUOTE: Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim

I told you weeks ago I didn't use Wikipedia as the source for the quote and you insisted I did.

Let's look at that quote again:

QUOTE: Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim

Now I have shown you FOUR places (and there are many more).

It was STUPID of you to insist not only did I get it from WIKIPEDIA, but that it was the ONLY place that I could have gotten it.

Let's look at that quote again:

YOU SAID: Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim

Say you goodbyes, SuperFAG.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••