Jackie Fellows
Fri, 3 Apr 1998 05:52:23 -0500
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Terry I am truly impressed (Yawn) by your spouting of philosophical arguments in defending your position and your throwing up of smokescreens (ho, hum). I especially like you telling me my assumptions of why I post something. It seems I believe that the courts are the ultimate truth, from what you write. Oh well, believe what you wish. TBO, I agree you can call anyone anything you want. And you are free to suffer the consequences if you should find yourself in a position in which you foolishly feel that is your right and no one can do anything about it. Now, I don't know about you but I have work to do and posts worth reading. So I guess I am getting bored "playing" with someone that seems to believe the only correct evidence is the evidence that support's one's beliefs. Of course, so far your evidence consists of a 1940s death penalty to support your claim that we give children the death penalty; an amicus brief in a case in which the judges did not buy into the arguments; a case that in no way resembles the case under discussion; and your argument that the evidence shows Thomas is a perjuror. So I guess I will not "play" around anymore with you. jackief jackief [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Hi Jackie > > >> I don't always bother acknowledging epistemological arguments about the > >> nature of truth when stating facts. > > > >Now this sentence is great--truth and facts in the same breath. The fact is: > >Thomas was not convicted of perjury therefore he can not be called a > perjuror >except by silly people who think because a word may be similar it > is the same >thing. > > The fact is Thomas can be called anything by any American. The truth is > what it is independent of what anybody says it is and no American is banned > from speaking truth or lies as they choose when not in violation of legislation. > > What in the name of God makes you think a court is the repository of > Ultimate Truth? It matters not a whit what a court finds as far as the > truth is concerned. If an effort is made to find the truth by anyone or any > group the results may be judged to approximate the truth by the quality of > that effort and the evidence capable of assessment. If a court truly > presents a rational case based on evidence we can hope it has found the truth. > > Pray tell what manner of argument invalidates evidence about Thomas' perjury > but lets us believe the earth is round or Al Capone was a racketeer? This > should be a whole new field of philosophy. > > You passed the test. Your overhelming modesty is charming but you need not > even read the test to know the answers. It is the nature of a priori > knowledge. Congratulations. Des Cartes would be astonished at your > brilliant addition to his singularity: "I am even if I don't think." > > >Your > >belief and your right to say that you believe he is a perjuror is fine. I > hope you > >don't call him a perjuror in the wrong place though or you might be facing > a little > >problem. > > > >> I will admit we cannot fully know the > >> earth is round, that Al Capone was a racketeer and that Clarence Thomas is a > >> perjurer. Sometimes close is good enough. > > > >I believe there is empirical evidence that the earth is more round than > flat and I > >believe Capone was convicted of a crime and there are also I believe facts > that show > >him to be a racketeer. Clarence Thomas does not fit into this > category--there are > >no facts to support this, only your belief based on the fact he wouldn't > take a lie > >detector and Anita did. > > > >> > >> > >> Your modesty is enchanting but your flawless performance on the test has to > >> be acknowledged by your admission you read it > > > >LOL--I never said I read it, merely that I flunked it. : ). So again you > made a > >subjective decision. > > > >> . We know this with Cartesian > >> certainty because it is obvious you think despite your efforts to obscure > >> that fact. > > > >ROTF!! That is about as impressive as you know what. jackief > > > >> > >> > >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >Terry > >> > > >> >I really don't know where you are coming from--I said I believed--not > that he > >> >was--but that I believed was a liar. Nowhere did I acknowledge or say > he was a > >> >perjuror. Yes you are free to say any ole thing you want, but when you are > >> >discussing something to provide evidence for your view, you don't state as > >> a fact > >> >that the man was a perjuror. In a discussion like this, perjuror has a > whole > >> >different meaning. > >> > > >> >LOL--that is why I flunked your test--the decision on whether I passed or > >> not was > >> >yours to make--purely a subjective decision, I would say. But I believed I > >> flunked, > >> >therefore because I believed that was the truth, I am telling the truth > >> when I say I > >> >flunked. Sorry a score of -0. > >> > > >> >jackief > >> > > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Jackie, > >> >> > >> >> There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that > we not > >> >> speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew > Cunanan a > >> >> serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer > it is > >> >> idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never > tried and > >> >> convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath > about > >> >> a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why should > >> >> we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can sue. > >> >> > >> >> How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the > answers? I > >> >> congratulate you on 100%. > >> >> > >> >> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >-- > >> >> >In the sociology room the children learn > >> >> >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > >> >> > > >> >> >I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Best, Terry > >> >> > >> >> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary > >> >> > >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >-- > >> >In the sociology room the children learn > >> >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > >> > > >> >I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > >> > > >> > > >> Best, Terry > >> > >> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > > > > >-- > >In the sociology room the children learn > >that even dreams are colored by your perspective > > > >I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" > > > > > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > > > > Best, Terry > > "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- In the sociology room the children learn that even dreams are colored by your perspective I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues