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.

 

Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I have better things to do than have to prove the sky is blue to people who obviously want to believe it is green.

I can see the sky is blue. I see no evidence of your claim about capital letters being factual.


Well, my PhD diploma is hanging on the wall downstairs. My name is written in all capital letters there. It looks pretty cool. And it's factual.




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Way to be totally biased. Prove they are lies. You are the one making that claim.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Read the quote. It didn't say capitalization, and I already told you which edition it was in.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Like I care? Move along then. I'm not here to spend 8 days trying to convince people who obviously don't want to be convinced. You have asked for proof and I've posted pages of it. If you don't believe me; then fine be gone.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Almost had me there. Almost. Actually they are the ones making the claim. I wont be bothered to read bs testimonies since unless they link directly to official court decisions they are complete bollocks. Especially from that site.
edit on 27/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

Sorry. Not that easy.
Keep posting your nonsense and I'll keep disputing it. And I'll keep asking you for real evidence. You have provided none (much less proof). All you have provided is a bunch of falsity.
edit on 7/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Wrong. They are making a claim and stating their story as proof; you are making a counter-claim that it isn't true. Prove it. Don't just sling that around; then expect not to do any work yourself.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


If you didn't want to convince people you weren't correct you would have stopped replying ages ago. You've made plenty of claims and have presented no proof but have ducked, dodged, weaved and bobbed and tried to turn the arguments onto the people who disagree with you.

Whenever people demand proof and say you haven't you respond aggressively like you just did.

So of course you're interested.

Otherwise, shut up. You aren't convincing people. You've failed, you might as well stop posting.

But I know you won't.

Typical hallmark of a troll who loves attention.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You haven't disputed anything. All you have done is argue whether a Reference Manual of English and Grammar, is the same thing as a Manual of English...Sorry.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


What do you think all those links are about? I have presented plenty of proof and 23 other people agree with me; compared to the 5 who want to ask the same questions after I have given link after link.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


You take those anonymous kids posting their nonsense online as proof? Holy hell. Check out this sites motto for some spiritual guidance.
Btw, you and your little freeman friends have the burden of proof. You cant get around that. You have posted tons of garbage but not that one single thing that matters. The actual law itself. Cause it doesn't excists.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I'm not here to convince people like you that don't want to be convinced. The ones with ears to hear and eyes to see, will know.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

Oh no. It's not just that. It's not just that bogus quotation from Gregg of yours.



Why does your supposed "quote" say this:

The UCC 1 defines exactly who is the debtor and who is the creditor or secured party. Your name in all capital letters is the debtor and your name with initial capitals and the rest lower case letters, is you, the secured party.

When the document you linked says this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




here IS a point when they switched over to creating all certificates in caps

But I thought the whole upper case thing is supposed to be from "common law" which originated with the Romans. All that capitis diminutio minima nonsense.

It would be great if you could find an actual written law about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

This might help:
www.law.cornell.edu...

But you won't find "capital" or "upper case" or "lower case" anywhere in it.





Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of full caps when writing a proper name. To do so is considered a legal fiction

www.ecclesia.org...

Because it doesn't appear in grammar books it has some legal meaning? That's hilarious nonsense.


edit on 7/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


edit on 7/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I'm not here to convince people like you that don't want to be convinced.

So, not a strong enough argument for anyone except those who think the way you do.
Got it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


They need a law to build other laws around rules of grammar? Basically, there is this thing called nom de guerre, which is a fictitious name and is spelled in all caps in a grammar manual; and they need a law in order to write your fictitious name as all caps? Read the grammar manual and then ask yourselves again why Corporations are made to spell their name in caps..Because they are legal fictions!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No; But I have better things to do than argue with people who are already dead set against believing this. Some people you just can't convince them of anything if the proof was staring them in the face. Therefore, I am not going to waste my time arguing.. If you don't like the thread leave. The only reason you would stay to argue otherwise was if you had some sort of vested interest in having the thread closed or derailed.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Prove it is bogus. I'm waiting. You are the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 

Um. No.
The burden of proof is on you. You claim it's there. But I did show that the current edition does not contain it.

edit on 7/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


If you don't like the thread leave. The only reason you would stay to argue otherwise was if you had some sort of vested interest in having the thread closed or derailed.

I like the thread. I think it's amusing. I'm staying to argue because I find it amusing. I don't want it closed and I am staying on topic so it can hardly be called derailing.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And I told you that the 8th edition does. I'm in the process of finding a free PDF so I can show it to you.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join