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 (Page 2,275)

Showing posts 45,481 - 45,500 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SupaAFC

Larbert, 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

Larbert, 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

Larbert, 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47218
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Make me, manchild.
Make you?

You m/f c/s liar: your word is worthless.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

What makes you think ANYONE believes you would keep your word?

HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHHA!
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47219
Feb 12, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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;
And yet the links you provided are pastejobs from Wikipedia.

I do not know how you found them, but Wikipedia is the only source that pops up when copy-pasted into Google - certainly for me.

Also, I was addressing your claim that you did not get the quote from Wikipedia. So if you did get it from one of those links - which was it?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
QUOTE:
...Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;
Good job avoiding the argument by jumping onto semantics again.

I made this conclusion based on the fact that when pasted into Google, Wikipedia was the only source that came up.

Are you going to show me which of the links you got the quote from if not from Wikipedia? It really makes no difference considering they all are all pastejobs from Wikipedia.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the source.
~stomp stomp stomp~
That Facebook page is not EB.

I gave you EB's biography of Eden straight from EB's website. Your quote is not present.

Are you still going to pretend that EB used your quote?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at that quote again:
QUOTE
Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;
And all your links are pastejobs from Wikipedia, so whether you got the quote from Wikipedia, a blog or Facebook, it makes no real difference considering they are all from Wikipedia in the first place!

Which one did you get it from? Stop dodging the question.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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;'
When you still cannot admit to being wrong about universities not giving out politics degrees, or that the Weimar republic was not a democracy, or that your Facebook page is -not- EB, or that Constitutional monarchies are democratic, then what good would it be going on another wild goose chase when you change your demands every five minutes?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people are smart enough to know that Wikipedia isn't the original source, that people quote other sources.
Most people are honest enough to not make up strawmen.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I pointed out the footnote two weeks ago, you stupid f*ing hump.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA!
I pointed out that you did not come across the statement from the original source. That is the point. You got it online, whether from Wikipedia or a link that pastejobs from Wikipedia, and contradicted yourself after repeatedly ignoring people's arguments supported by Wiki or any online source at all.
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47220
Feb 12, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
You do realise that all you accomplish by continually ranting about semantics is show the world that you have nothing to say against the arguments themselves, right?

Barefoot logic: scores a point, claims knockout.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Right. Notice that despite all your ravings and high post content, you have -still- not declared where you got the quote from?

Wiki? Non-EB Facebook? Random blog? An internet forum? Where was it?

Then explain why it even matters considering they -all- copied from Wikipedia anyway.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Where did you get the quote from? You do realise that I am still aware that you have not actually answered this question, right?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Make you?
You m/f c/s liar: your word is worthless.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
What makes you think ANYONE believes you would keep your word?
HAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHHA!
Speaking of words, are you going to define democracy yet?
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47221
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You
are
amusing ...
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Siro

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47222
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I see the maltheists are resorting to their usual M.O. in trying to bore barefoot2626 off topix with the usual spamming of rehashed and redefined rants and diatribes as well as irrelevant posts.

Unfortunately barefoot you must realise now if you havent already and as I was once told....
"you will never win an argument with a stupid person"

How true that is, we believers see it everyday with the maltheist perverts on this site

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47223
Feb 12, 2013
 
Siro wrote:
I see the maltheists are resorting to their usual M.O. in trying to bore barefoot2626 off topix with the usual spamming of rehashed and redefined rants and diatribes as well as irrelevant posts.
Unfortunately barefoot you must realise now if you havent already and as I was once told....
"you will never win an argument with a stupid person"
How true that is, we believers see it everyday with the maltheist perverts on this site
Go away theist troll, your arguments have already been defeated. Instead of getting angry at atheists, try and get better from your faith based mental illness.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47224
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the links you provided are pastejobs from Wikipedia.
Prove it.

Putting aside I have already
a) Proved that the Wiki entry is a compilation of posts, including my source
b) did you already forget to told us there were no other sources that I could have possible gotten my quote from?

Why are you still posting?

Welsher!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47225
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
I do not know how you found them, but Wikipedia is the only source that pops up when copy-pasted into Google - certainly for me.
QUOTE: Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim

PS: I GAVE YOU THE LINKSA, Welsher!

HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Here's a thought, dumbpqhuq: I didn't go looking for the quote, I already had the quote.

I didn't know or care that it was ALSO in Wikipedia, ya dumbphuq.

Why are you still posting, Welsher?
Siro

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47226
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Go away theist troll, your arguments have already been defeated. Instead of getting angry at atheists, try and get better from your faith based mental illness.
Well you obviously defeated all my arguments because.....because....ummm... ..because.......YOU SAID SO!
Gee...what other evidence is necessary?
As you are the self proclaimed fountain to truth and absolute wisdom!

You hate God because you hate competition.
So now oh great red comrade, how are we to worship your regal narcissim?

Seriously you suck.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47227
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Good job avoiding the argument by jumping onto semantics again.
You mean by taking EXACTLY what YOU said and proving you to be a liar?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47228
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you obviously defeated all my arguments because.....because....ummm... ..because.......YOU SAID SO!
You notice that?

Even when you prove the NotBot to be wrong - or to be a liar... again... here's their excuse: you are using 'semantics'...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 45,481 - 45,500 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••