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.
I have claimed only that the second paragraph of your OPs is verbatim from multiple sources.
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.
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.
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, by its very definition, rules out islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the koran, sharia law, and the hadith all require complete submission to islam which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
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.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar
Now you want me to cite a reference from something I never even saw?
Get off my thread. Mods, please - this is enough.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peter vlar
After first saying "not one iota of this is original" and back pedaling, you still insist on saying:
I have claimed only that the second paragraph of your OPs is verbatim from multiple sources.
Again, this is the entire second paragraph you claim is copied verbatim. Here is what I wrote:
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.
Here is what I read in the text forwarded to me from my friend:
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.
If you have tried Hooked on Phonics I am sure even someone of your obviously limited potential can see that they are not the same. In other words, they are not copied verbatim as you repeatedly claim. You lied. Repeatedly.
Here is the first sentence of the third paragraph:
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.
Here is what I read in the text forwarded to me:
This, by its very definition, rules out islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the koran, sharia law, and the hadith all require complete submission to islam which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic.
Once again we see they are not the same as you repeatedly claim. It makes one wonder exactly WTF you have been ranting about all this time.
Just for sake of science I would like to try a simple experiment. For the 67 total words that were in the text forwarded to me that I used in starting this thread: ~original author unknown, used with permission from source provider.
Now, tell me. What exactly has changed? After all your bitching and moaning and libeling, there must be one hell of an answer to that coming. I cant wait to see it...
originally posted by: mamabeth
I suggest that some take a wee break from their computers and maybe...
1.Have something to eat.
2.Have something to drink...like some eggnog,hot chocolate with large marshmallows!
Don't worry,be happy and have a Merry Christmas.