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
