It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islamic Immigration is Illegal in the US

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Honestly, I don't know why you continue on. I've already put this to rest.

There is nothing in the law that states a consular or an AG can use religion alone as a criteria to deny a visa application, and Muslims are not applicable to section 7.

So that is that. Your op and it's premise are bunk.


You have accomplished nothing of the sort. Your ignoring the fact does not debunk the law. Your statements are blatantly false. The consular or AG can use ANYTHING to make their determination. The law does not state what can or cant be used, it only says the consular or AG can use WHATEVER evidence they find if it compels them to believe that a person may engage in any of the prohibited behavior after entering the country. ANY evidence that suggests they may engage in any of the prohibited behavior. That fact that the law does not specify religion as a qualifying criteria is meaningless. The law does not specify any criteria, only the conditions upon which the criteria can be considered. If you don't understand that then you are in over your head - again.

Your very persistence on this thread shows you have proven nothing. If you actually did prove something common sense would indicate that you would be the one who would stop, not me. You are only trying to detract and derail, which you always do when someone disagrees with you. Your tactics and methods are plain to see for anyone who would care to look, not that anyone cares enough about you to bother.

You have proven nothing other than the fact that you can and will ignore the facts in favor of your skewed interpretation.

"(29) Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after entry, (A) engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United State, etc, etc,"

Nowhere does it state any qualifying characteristic, only the grounds on which a characteristic can be considered. It could be anything, including but not limited to religion. Your entire argument focuses on the word religion, which is not necessary to this legislation. That is nothing more than a straw man tactic. You attribute a so-called necessary condition to the legislation then attack it because it is not mentioned. What a bunch of crap.

I am flattered that you find me so demanding of your time. I am also quite sad for you that you have so little of value in your life that you place such high regard on me in this forum. I am obviously very high on your list of priorities. You follow me from thread to thread devoting much attention to me. I monitor and advance my threads, which unfortunately means I must devote time and attention to your odd little attacks. You, however, choose to follow my threads when you clearly do not have to. And even after you assert you have accomplished your goal ( when in reality you did not ) you persist in your efforts. That would indicate either you do not believe your own statements regarding your accomplishments, or, that you have a much more deeply seeded need to be validated by me.
edit on 21-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Islamic Immigration is Illegal in the US
Immigration of those who practice Islam is, by definition of law, illegal in the United States of America.

Nowhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act does it state your claimed title or the premises of your thread. Can you prove Islamic immigration is illegal in the United States?


originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The law does not specify religion
Religion is not listed specifically, nor is it prohibited from inclusion.

This seems to contradict your entire thread. If you have failed to prove that Islam, a religion practiced by 1.6 billion people, is a threat and therefore immigration is illegal under the Immigration and Nationality Act then perhaps this thread should be moved to the HOAX forum.

Or if peter vlar is correct and this is more a copy/paste from other online sources then perhaps this is better apt to the Ludicrous Online Lies forum.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar

You cited four references. Two of them are the same. Ignorant.


Absolutely laughable for you to call me ignorant when you don't even know that the Constitution trumps any legislation passed by congress. Nobody has tried to use 414 to exclude an entire religion from emigration. if that were to occur, you can bet your last dollar that it will be challenged in court and based on how SCOTUS has recently interpreted the 14th amendment, there is no way that 414 would be allowed for the purpose you desire.


The first reference is claimed to be written by, Sherrie Lynn Aldrich, with no additional citation.

The second reference is claimed to be written by, Catherine, with no additional citation.

The third and fourth reference is claimed to be written by, Bill Wilson, with no additional citation.

None of the four articles are identical to the word. They are all paraphrased to some degree, probably from an as yet undetermined additional source(s).


Irrelevant, you never cited your source material and as such, it gives the appearance that you are attempting to pass it off as entirely original work done by you. That is a lie and everyone can see that to be true now. As for paraphrasing... The second paragraph of your OP is word for word in all of the above links I provided. Nce try.



I saw NONE of those articles you cited. NONE. Once something has been shared, operative word, on public media multiple times citing reference is nearly impossible. Your own efforts resulted in three different authors. I first received text similar to this from a friend on FB. He had no references cited, as did the person he received it from. That is why citing reference for verbiage shared on social media is difficult, if not impossible.


You really are clueless aren't you? I didn't claim that you plagiarized those specific blogs. I was pointing out that multiple sources use the same exact words you did. The second paragraph of your OP is word for word, exactly the same. And the fact that your now admitting that your source material is Facebook memes... Wow. Just wow...


And lastly, plagiarism requires intent to deceive. I did not have any such intent. I knew the information had been shared multiple times by the time I saw it, each with a different name attacked to it. I used two non-consecutive sentences from the source material I received for my thread. That is all.


Plagiarism is about using the same exact words without citing them. Your intent is irrelevant and now you're dancing around the facts. Provide citations to your source material and let us review it for ourselves. If you're on the up and up you have nothing to hide so why no citations? You're entire premise is intellectually dishonest and you are a plagiarist. I've already told the mods that if they review it and it doesn't meet THEIR criteria for plagiarism to please inform me and I will issue a public apology. Because when I am in error I will admit it. You on the other hand... Mot so much it seems.


You attack the information because you don't like it and fail.


Wrong, I pointed out the errors in your personal interpretation of the information because it is undeniably incorrect. The law itself isn't in question. The interpretation you advocate for implementation however is highly suspect and clearly unconstitutional. You refuse to acknowledge that there is even a possibility of this being the case.


You attack me, and fail. So you attack the citation, and fail.


Reading comp is not your forte I see. I did not attack the citation, I simply point out that you provided none because you plagiarized portions and paraphrased the rest. Anybody that looks at those links can see that your 2nd paragraph from the OP is word for word in every one of my links.




You refuse to acknowledge that congress created this law and passed it with veto over-ride majority.


Again, reading comp failure on your end. Please quote where I made that claim... It doesn't exist.



They knew what it said and they knew what it meant.


It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean. When it was passed, the focus was on communists. This was the height of McCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' where everyone from civil servants to Hollywood A listers were being blackballed from work because of alleged communist sympathies.


You don't like it. Too bad. The checks and balances system worked just fine. And this law is the result, whether you agree with it or not.

And so were the west coast internment camps where we rounded up 300,000 American citizens of Japanese descent. Xenophobia paved the way for that unconstitutional bull as well. Just because Congress passes garbage legislation doesn't mean it's constitutional.


Your argument has been reduced to an entirely off topic rant about proper citation when crediting the original author is not possible.


Not off topic at all. Your replies are nothing but repeating the same tripe without supporting it with facts. Several people have asked you to support claims you have made but you rely on circular reasoning and deflection to avoid doing so. The dialogue regarding the citation is to demonstrate that the integrity of your research is on par with your regurgitated interpretation of the legislation. You didn't need to cite the original author, you needed to cite your source material. But you still have yet to do so and in affect are guilty of the accusations you levy at myself.


I am a writer, in more than just title here. If it were possible to cite the original author I would do so. It is not. You proved that yourself by citing three different authors for the same work.


Yet you refuse to acknowledge that your 2nd paragraph is word for word in all of those links. Clearly it is not your own work. You didn't need to cite the original author, you needed to cite your sources, but you haven't and won't. That right there is indicative that something in your OP isn't on huge up and up. The social media source you now admit to is beyond sketchy. You don't find it odd that no legitimate sources are advocating for this racist, xenophobic garbage and all sources are roof rom blogs and social media? What kind of writer are you that due diligence and appropriate citations aren't a part of your repertoire.You're certainly welcome to believe anything that resonates with you, no matter how wrong it is. But when I've demonstrated that part of your OP is directly taken from the work of others AND you refuse to acknowledge such, it's shady as all hell.


If you spent as much time learning about the subject as you spend trying to attack it, and me, you might be able to converse in something other than a childish combative brat-like reflex to anything you disagree with.

I don't disagree with the legislation. I disagree that there is an iota of pertinence between the law and your desire to unconstitutionally exclude an entire religion from emigrating to the US. Just because you prefer to wallow in willful ignorance doesn't make people who disagree with you incorrect. Perhaps reading legit sources instead of borrowing information from social media memes would've abetted option for you in the future.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Your looking at the wrong area if you were trying to ban a class based on religion under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Now because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



You have accomplished nothing of the sort. Your ignoring the fact does not debunk the law. Your statements are blatantly false.You have accomplished nothing of the sort. Your ignoring the fact does not debunk the law. Your statements are blatantly false.


I did not ignore the facts. I provided my own facts to prove my assertion.

Since we have already established that Muslims do not fall under the Section 7 part of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, your argument comes down to this small part:



consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe


The AG and the consular will have to go on what information they have. The would include any intelligence they may have on an applicant and the application itself. Here is the application:

travel.state.gov...

Go ahead and scroll through. It does not ask the applicant what their religion is.

How can the consular or the AG deny based on their faith when they don't even ask them what religion they follow?

Like I said. This is thoroughly debunked. There is no precedence for a religious test and faith is not included in the list of things in sec. 212.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Devino

They are both lies and a hoax. Earlier in this thread I posted a link showing this entire argument started from a viral email campaign.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: Indigo5

So what? lets just sit back and let it all happen?


Let what happen? 250 years ago our founding fathers decided that a country could exist without the Government deciding which God it's people had to follow. As it turns out that idea spawned the greatest country on earth...

I have no fear of Muslims immigrating or practicing their faith in the USA....Nor Catholics. Nor Spaghetti Monster Worshippers or Satanists..

I find fear mongering radicals a threat and that includes those that are cowardly suggesting we hand over our defining Principles that my ancestors fought and died for..

Eff Isis and Eff Donald Trump...they are both just bullies on the playground and the USA is not going to give them a single measly token of the principles that make us who we are as a nation. Bloviating cowards...And both will lose via the weapons they choose, be it violence or public spectacle.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Devino

They are both lies and a hoax. Earlier in this thread I posted a link showing this entire argument started from a viral email campaign.


Exactly. This whole concept didn't even exist a month ago. It's typical fear mongering and grasping at straws to create a precedent that has never existed. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that it would be entirely unconstitutional. And then there's this...

2nd paragraph of the OP says-


The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.


Here is the very first sentence of the USACarry.com which is just one of several sources repeating nearly the exact same thing. In almost every single thing I've read promoting this completely unconstitutional agenda, this exact quote is there.

The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

www.usacarry.com...

Here is another...

Did You Know ISLAM immigration to the United States is specifically prohibited by law? The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means."

www.teapartynation.com...

there are many, many more examples. Perhaps I was overzealous with the charge of plagiarism as it's only one paragraph and the OP was wise enough to slightly alter some of the other text but the fact remains this is not an idea originating with the OP nor are the words the OP's and there isn't a single citation showing the OP's source material which makes the entire premise highly suspect.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



Perhaps I was overzealous with the charge of plagiarism


Perhaps you lied through your teeth and you knew it? Perhaps you committed libel three times, an actionable offense each time?



this is not an idea originating with the OP


How many threads on these forums does that statement apply to? People report stories and events from all over the world Not every thread here is a brand new, never discussed creation.



nor are the words the OP's and there isn't a single citation showing the OP's source


Whats the matter cupcake? You don't bother to address the fact that I showed you exactly which TWO sentences I quoted, and defined exactly what was my own. I like how you draw sooo much attention to it, when you lie about it. But when I prove you wrong, you ignore it completely.

You also quite conveniently ignored the explanation of citation. And the fact that the sources you cited referred to THREE DIFFERENT AUTHORS FOR THE SAME MATERIAL. Why don't you address that with the same rabid nonsense you attack me with?



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar


Perhaps you lied through your teeth and you knew it? Perhaps you committed libel three times, an actionable offense each time?


I was being facetious when I made that comment. It's not a lie and I've posted the evidence that you used the same exact paragraph and nowhere have you provided a citation to your source material. You are in fact a plagiarist and I stand by it.




How many threads on these forums does that statement apply to? People report stories and events from all over the world Not every thread here is a brand new, never discussed creation.


And they cite their sources, especially when copying text verbatim. Any time you want to provide citations to your source material feel free.




Whats the matter cupcake? You don't bother to address the fact that I showed you exactly which TWO sentences I quoted, and defined exactly what was my own. I like how you draw sooo much attention to it, when you lie about it. But when I prove you wrong, you ignore it completely.


You did not do so in your OP. You are in fact the liar, and the tone you take towards me seems a tad defensive. Wonder why that is? Could it be because I am in fact correct? I've lied about nothing and you have proven even less. Provide citations for your source material and prove me a liar if you can do so. It shouldn't be that difficulty for a master writer such as yourself.



You also quite conveniently ignored the explanation of citation. And the fact that the sources you cited referred to THREE DIFFERENT AUTHORS FOR THE SAME MATERIAL. Why don't you address that with the same rabid nonsense you attack me with?


Hooked on phonics works, give it a try sometime because I did address that. And with your contribution, that's a 4th person using the same material without citations. You're in great company. Their authorship isn't anything I care about.

Your explanation is garbage. The rules are that you cite YOUR source material. What others wrote is irrelevant. I was demonstrating that multiple blogs out there are using the same exact language which shows that you stole the information and didn't properly cite it. Any 1st year college student knows better than to do so. That will get you tossed out of school.

The entire premise of the OP is completely unfounded. Why have you not cited any of your source material aside from a link to the legislation in question? What are you hiding? The fact that you borrowed heavily and violated T&C but not properly citing your sources? Stop stamping your feet and pouting and prove me wrong. What was your source material.

But please... carry on with your ignorant OP which is baseless in reality and your intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Devino

They are both lies and a hoax.

Perhaps then this thread should be moved to the appropriate forum, wouldn't you agree?



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If you are so adamant about the fact that religion is not even asked for, how do you explain proper vetting procedures for immigrants?



Go ahead and scroll through. It does not ask the applicant what their religion is.
How can the consular or the AG deny based on their faith when they don't even ask them what religion they follow?


My God you really are out there...

That form is only one very small part of the entire process. Refugees require a sponsoring organisation. Our government relies heavily on the U.N. in the application process. Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Prior to obama stating that 10,000 syrian refugees were to be admitted to the US, only 2,184 syrians immigrated to the US since 2011. According to the US State Dept. 2,098 (96%) of them were muslim. How did they know that? Its not on the one precious form you used as an example. Was it magic? Is it a lie? No. There are many many other procedures in place to determine as many characteristics of potential immigrants as possible. Most of them happen outside this country, so there goes your first amendment argument. Once the information has been acquired it is used in the vetting process. And that includes religion, especially in cases where the so-called refugees are claiming religious persecution - something argued vehemently about on other threads yet conveniently ignored on this one.

Here is the link to the relevant State Department statistics on immigration. There are three definable categories: Date, Nationality, Religion.

Refugee Processing Center

source



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Keep repeating the lie, it will be true sooner or later, right?

I quoted two sentences and no more. You continually lie about that. The rest is mine and mine alone. You continually lie about that. You just lie. Period.

You cite four references from three different sources. I see that many sources also. That is why it is pointless to cite reference, especially after it has been shared publicly on social media. It is near impossible to credit the original author, the only citation that actually matters.

If you insist on a citation, I was forwarded that text from a close personal friend who gave me permission to use the information on these forums. I have permission to use it and without citing him as my source. Are you happy?

First you accuse me of plagiarism. Then you backpedal and say you may have been over zealous. Then you backpedal more and say you were being facetious. In other words, you lied, then you lied about lying, then you lied about lying about lying.

You just lie. Period.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You read that correctly. Immigration of those who practice Islam is, by definition of law, illegal in the United States of America.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, passed June 27, 1952, becoming public Law 414 established both the law and the intent of congress regarding immigration of aliens to the United States, and is still in effect today.



(29) Aliens with respect to whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe probably would, after entry, (A) engage in activities which would be prohibited by the laws of the United States relating to espionage, sabotage, public disorder, or in other activity subversive to the national security, (B) engage in any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, or (C) join, affiliate with, or participate in the activities of any organization 54 Stat. 993. which is registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the 50 USC 786. Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950;


Islam, as guided by the Koran, Sharia Law, and the Hadith, all require complete submission to Islam, which, by its very definition, is antithetical to the United States government, the Constitution and the Republic. This is not some document created a couple hundred years ago that some might claim no longer applies to modern day circumstances. This is relatively new and has been upheld in court even more recently than the date of its passing in to law.

Public Law 414 has much to say regarding any of a variety of conditions for allowing immigration to this nation. A great many of them apply to this subject, however, for sake of discussion, I limit this thread to Chapter 2, Section 212.

True Islam can not assimilate to western society as it demands all society assimilate to Islam. That is in direct conflict with the law as stated.

link


Here is the entire thread open, minus the linked text in PL 414. I have highlighted the only part that I quoted from social media, with permission from the person I quoted. This is what all the furor is about.

Now you know what kind of pathetic childish lunacy I have to deal with. And not just once. Oh no, it goes on and on and on, no matter how many times it is explained or proven to be false.

Remember, he claims not one iota of this is mine and that I copy and pasted the entire body of text. This is now the fourth or fifth time I have clipped and explained this. Amazing, isn't it?
edit on 21-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Here lies the problem. You are talking about refugees. Public Law 414, which your entire premise is based upon, does not cover refugee application. That is covered in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

www.uscis.gov...

Public Law 414 only applies to visa applicants.

Again, debunked.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Here lies the problem. You are talking about refugees. Public Law 414, which your entire premise is based upon, does not cover refugee application. That is covered in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

www.uscis.gov...

Public Law 414 only applies to visa applicants.

Again, debunked.



Again, facts ignored. You said it yourself, the consular or AG will use the information they have. And this information is available to them.

From PL414:


(b) Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he
establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of
application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of
application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status
under section 101 (a) (15).


Same rules, different donkey, or ass, as the case may be.
edit on 21-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Here lies the problem. You are talking about refugees. Public Law 414, which your entire premise is based upon, does not cover refugee application. That is covered in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

www.uscis.gov...

Public Law 414 only applies to visa applicants.

Again, debunked.



Again, facts ignored. You said it yourself, the consular or AG will use the information they have. And this information is available to them.


No facts were presented and I just proved to you that Public Law 414 is not the governing document in cases of refugees application. It only applies to visas. Also, the AG and consulars do not decide who is approved for refugee status. That is decided by Homeland Security.


How do you decide who gets in to the United States under this program and who doesn't?

The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to make this decision.


www.state.gov...

So you can stick your fingers in your ears all you want. I just shut-down the entire premise.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar

Keep repeating the lie, it will be true sooner or later, right?


Are you looking in the mirror as you type these words? The only person pushing lies in this thread is you. You know that the premise of your OP is garbage and won't address it so now you simply attack me for providing evidence of your intellectual dishonesty and plagiarism. That's on you chief, not me.


I quoted two sentences and no more. You continually lie about that. The rest is mine and mine alone. You continually lie about that. You just lie. Period.


Please quote where I have lied about that? I have claimed only that the second paragraph of your OPs is verbatim from multiple sources. I have also claimed you did not cite your sources. Both statements are 100%. Just because you later lay claim to cribbing that portion doesn't alleviate you of guilt. You have not provided a citation. You will not and keep dancing around me like a totem pole to avoid dealing with your own dishonesty. Projecting much?


You cite four references from three different sources. I see that many sources also. That is why it is pointless to cite reference, especially after it has been shared publicly on social media. It is near impossible to credit the original author, the only citation that actually matters.


It's not pointless and to claim such demonstrates the depth of your ignorance on not just the subject matter but in regards to proper research etiquette as well as ATS T&C.


If you insist on a citation, I was forwarded that text from a close personal friend who gave me permission to use the information on these forums. I have permission to use it and without citing him as my source. Are you happy?


That's not a citation and if you were a writer as you claim you would know that. Or is this you getting caught in yet another stretching of the truth?


First you accuse me of plagiarism. Then you backpedal and say you may have been over zealous. Then you backpedal more and say you were being facetious. In other words, you lied, then you lied about lying, then you lied about lying about lying.


Isn't it time your mother picks you up from daycare? I haven't lied once, I was being facetious about being over zealous because you have plagiarized and have failed to demonstrate a proper citation. I didn't back peddle anything. You're a child who has spent 9 pages of a thread propping up a pile of feces and calling it a bar of gold.


You just lie. Period.


Not at all. But keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night under your blanket of dishonesty and plagiarism. You're as full of it as the material in huge OP.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I said I quoted two sentences, two. And not even word for word from the original piece I saw. You deny that and ignore it so I called you a lair, which you are. You respond by insisting I quote you. Fine. Here is your demand:



Please quote where I have lied about that?


And here is your quote:


not an iota of this is original work


You insist on repeatedly calling me a plagiarist. Then you back pedal three times blaming it on being over zealous or facetious. In other words, you lied.

You cry like a stuck pig about citation. I demonstrate that clearly the original author is unknown and proper citation can not be give. The only citation that matters is the correct one. Attributing the work to anyone else is worse than not citing a source at all. There is no winning with people like you. If I cite a reference we both know is not the original author you will go off about that just like you go off on this. Of course you will deny that, because its true. So, knowing it is not necessary under the circumstances, I provide you with my source, a close personal friend, who has given me permission to use those two sentences you have such a hard on for, without citing him as the source. And your objection is...?

None of this is in any way about the topic, by the way. You claim to hold the T&C's so high yet you ignore them completely when it serves your purpose - distract and derail.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




That's not a citation and if you were a writer as you claim you would know that. Or is this you getting caught in yet another stretching of the truth?


Now you want me to cite a reference from something I never even saw?

Get off my thread. Mods, please - this is enough.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join