Sabine Grant

Hello Buffman... IMO free speech implies respect of others. The method again is what I disagree with. The OP was already " starting on the wrong foot". The same things could have been expressed in a constructive manner.
It is a fact that I could have adressed to Toto on PM my suggestions to move the topic into a more appropriate thread as well as the reasons for it and suggest he contacts Rad on PM himself. I needed not to stimulate his honesty thru the above quoted comments of mine. So I apologize for having taken the liberty to voice those concerns in the open.
As far as being a Welcome Member in this forum thank you for the reminder in regard with a code of conduct which must apply to all. So far it appears that I have been welcome and tolerated as a theist participating in this forum.
I posted clearly my motivations and reasons for disagreeing with the present method . It is not by burden anylonger to express them again. I believe my posts are clear and need not any further personal interpretation and assumptions.
But if there is a need for anyone to pursue personal interpretation and assumptions, I can only refer them back to what I have already explained clearly.
So I do refer you back to the previous posts explaining my position on the method used in this thread.

Sabine Grant

Toto.... " misplaced compassion"... compassion IMO needs not to be deserved. If compassion is to be applied only for certain circumstances, then it does not qualify as compassion.
" misplaced empathy ".... OK I can accept that term. Compassion... no. Cannot ever be misplaced. Just thought I would clarify what goes on in my little brain.

Radorth

I specifically said Washington was "enigmatic," long ago. You quoted me as saying he was a "fundamentalist Christian." I never said or believed he was a "fundamentalist" and I never said the facts even proved him a Christian. By Daggah's definition, you lied, and you still need to apologize, as I did to Fred.

It's the same exact thing and it is obvious you aren't going to meet anybody half way. And what the hell does a quote being unsourced have to do with anything, especially when it turned out to be factual?!! It's just you sneering at and belittling Christians, just because you have all day to study and store sources. You don't sneer at ignorant atheists as you have done with me, do you?

Good, let's not respond to each other anymore. It is truly a waste of time.

And I might be more likely to source Barton, now that I know how badly you misrepresented him. You say libel is a serious business, but you continue doing it, and then you defend it, and want to start a semantics war about it.

Rad

Radorth

"Appears" is the operative word, unless you have some proof to show in a slander trial. (The burden is on the slanderer when a suit is brought).

Hell will freeze over before this guy calls himself a "fellow human hypocrite." I guarantee it. I know that because he actually thinks he's changed.

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

I specifically said Washington was "enigmatic," long ago. You quoted me as saying he was a "fundamentalist Christian." I never said or believed he was a "fundamentalist" and I never said the facts even proved him a Christian. By Daggah's definition, you lied, and you still need to apologize, as I did to Fred.

I have just reviewed our entire dialogue concerning George Washington. I can not find where I "quoted" you as saying he was a fundamentalist Christian. You made it clear from the beginning that you didn't know what his religious beliefs really were. Perhaps it was all the other unsourced, inaccurate, quotes that you had presented that caused me to view you as a typical, fundamentalist, Christian, apologist like David Barton, William Federer and their supporters.

Additionally, you did provide me with the clue that allowed me to find the original document that you were referencing. I did falsely accuse you of being "no help." The "Delaware Chiefs" was the clue that I used to locate the original document.

I apologize for saying that you were of no help to me on locating that "specific" George Washington document. You did provide my starting place.

However, after my review of that entire string, I will leave the verdict of who should be apologizing to whom to those who wish to read all nine pages and place all the posts in their appropriate perspective/context.

Recommended starting place:

http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.c...9&t=000739&p=3

hezekiah jones

Sabine Grant :
"... IMO free speech implies respect of others."

Since Radorth (1) has long ago ceased to be even vaguely amusing; (2) is demonstrably incapable of even quoting the First Amendment accurately; (3) is clearly dedicated to espousing dreary Christian apologetics instead of relevant legal commentary; and since (4) "freedom of speech" is a constitutional term of art, would you care to offer some support from the relevant caselaw that might be at least remotely interesting to the regular readers of this forum?

I'm specifically curious as to how you reconcile your own opinion with that of Chief Justice Rehnquist's in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell.

Radorth

It wasn't on that thread, and it was about 2 weeks ago.

The only inaccurate Washington quote in the last three months came from an atheist. Perhaps you'd like to follow Toto's latest advice and tell me where I misquoted Washington?

Thank you for the apology. Well that's fine with me, even though folks on this site may tend overlook some of your paw prints. I prefer people read things for themselves. Better than wasting time trying to track down things when people with poor memories who quote me anyway. You honestly don't remember saying I believed Washington was a fundamentalist? I seem to recall you adding some even less flattering adjectives, so maybe I'll try to find it tomorrow.

Rad

beejay

If Radorth isn't willing to cite his sources, how can anyone think they can carry on an intelligent conversation with him?

And why do we keep trying? Is this like a scab that you pick at when you know you should just leave it alone and forget it?

Is there some irresistable urge to butt your head against a brick wall?

Why don't we agree to ignore him?

Buffman

Radorth

The only inaccurate Washington quote in the last three months came from an atheist. Perhaps you'd like to follow Toto's latest advice and tell me where I misquoted Washington?


(Buffman): "...all the other unsourced, inaccurate, quotes that you had presented."

What confuses you about the phrase "all the other?" --- And who was it that twice attempted to correct that fellow's contention that Washington was an atheist by providing information and links to material showing that his statement was in error? It wasn't you! Who was it that related the fact that I had sent at least a half-dozen messages to atheist sites telling them that one or more of their quotes was in error? Did you do that?

Thank you for the apology. Well that's fine with me, even though folks on this site may tend overlook some of your paw prints. I prefer people read things for themselves.

I remember saying a good many unflattering things about you. Nothing has changed. IMO you have acquitted yourself like the worst kind of fundamentalist Christian troll. Just look at your latest cheap shot above. Additionally, if you prefer that people read things for themselves, why is it left to me to link the Boy Scout and Barton Automaton topics for folks to review? Why is it that when folks ask you very straight forward questions you seldom make any sincere effort to present your verifiable evidence or opinions concerning the issues about which they have queried you; but rather, offer little but equivocation and distraction? Those are the techniques of the troll or the right wing, fundamentalist, Christian propaganda apologist.

You honestly don't remember saying I believed Washington was a fundamentalist?

No, I honestly don't. I do remember insinuating that "you must believe" that Washington was a fundamentalist Christian. I do remember numerous times that I have "inferred" that you must be a supporter of Barton and Federer because you used, knowingly or unknowingly, so many of their revisionist history quotes. Quotes which you refused to source, or provide a link to a source, even though asked many times to do so. Quotes which I researched and provided for everyone to review in context. Perhaps that is where you got the impression that I made a definitive statement about what you believed regarding Washington. I read your claim that you didn't know for sure what he was. But then I read a good many of your claims with less than full confidence in their veracity because of the numerous times your quotes were extracted from radical right Christian authors without providing your reference sources thus forcing me to do the time consuming research to find the originals ...whenever I could, or to state what source I was using.

I have accused you of not doing your homework on several occasions. You justified my accusation by admitting that you didn't have the time and that you weren't interested in reading the references I provided; but then you belittled my efforts based on what you believed was my availability of unlimited time to do the research. Every time I exposed one of your quotes as being less than accurate, you lashed out at me. That is fine with me just as long as the accurate information is provided to the readership by someone...whether believer or non-believer.

I started taking a serious interest in this period of American history after receiving one of David Barton's earliest tapes and hearing all the errors on it. My motivation to do something about it was increased when I started reading articles by others using his material. Then I started seeing him on all the televangelist TV programs continuing to spread these historical inaccuracies as though they were "gospel." If you have any doubts concerning just how successful his propaganda became, even after he was exposed and admitted fabricating certain things, I invite you to find a copy of the April 9, 2001, "U.S.News & World Report", go to the full page Regent University ad on pg. 29, and read the supposed James Madison quote used at the top of the page. It is a fabricated LIE. I even wrote a letter-to-the-editor of USNWR calling attention to the fact that their editors, proof readers and advertising department had become the unwitting organ and purveyor of Pat Robertson inspired Christian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, no retraction was ever printed. Thus this contrived quote remains in the public domain.

All I read from you was that you were not using Barton material. Yet I showed you that that was exactly where many of the quotes you were using had originated...even one of those used by Federer. Therefore I had no reason to believe that you weren't using the Washington posts you made to advance the same revisionist history that Barton and Federer are still attempting to advance, and that are plastered over countless inerrant bible Christian sites. Why else would you know about the one Washington document, about which few others have ever known, that contained the only mention of Jesus Christ, written to the Indians that Washington was attempting to enlist on the side of the Continental Army? You have never professed being a history hobbyist; but you have professed an unwavering belief in the supernatural as practiced by whatever denomination of Christianity you happen to accept as your own. If you believe that you can post that kind of bogus claptrap here and not be challenged on it, I can only hope that you have learned differently.

That you post with a defensive arrogance is a personality trait of your own design. That you elect to group everyone here under the same umbrella is no different than when an atheist makes the same error and attempts to group all religionists under one tent. That many of the folks here are recovering Christaholics may account for some of the less than positive remarks that are posted about you and your chosen supernatural faith beliefs.

If you had followed my posts closely and taken the time to try a little harder to understand what I had written, you would know that I am an equal opportunity exposer of all supernatural faith beliefs...not just those of Christians. Unfortunately, currently, it is the radical American Christians, those who profess a belief in the inerrancy of their so-called divinely inspired and sacred Bible, that have declared war on anyone who does not agree with them. That "anyone" includes the majority of Christians in this country. Additionally, you would also know that I have never hesitated to correct non-believers whenever they post items that I know to be inaccurate. I tend to be harder on them than on folks like you. I consider that you are no longer able to be honest about, or give critical examination to, your religious faith beliefs. The non-theists claim that they are better capable of such introspection. Therefore when they make a fallacious statement, it is all the more disturbing to me.

Beejay

And why do we keep trying? Is this like a scab that you pick at when you know you should just leave it alone and forget it? Is there some irresistable urge to butt your head against a brick wall? Why don't we agree to ignore him?

Folks like Radorth have an agenda that must be exposed and countered. Simply ignoring it has allowed it to capture the minds of far too many people already. If we can not expose it for what it is, then who will?

One of his goals is to force detractors into silence. And it is vital that we keep in mind that he has a good many accurate historical facts to use to support his accusations. His post about the Washington document was absolutely correct. I feel far better off now knowing about it than I was prior to his post. I welcome accurate, verifiable, knowledge from any source.

ybnormal

Did you do that?

Sadly, my good friend Rad reminds us of the child who's absolutely denying he ate Momma's chocolate cake, while he stands there with the icing smudged all over his face and hands. Which wouldn't be so comical if he wasn't implying that his own Mother is totally blind and stupid. Go figger!