That’s one of them questions like “How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?”, right?
Internment was strictly limited to non-citizens, under the Alien Enemy Act, however with governmental approval children and spouses who were American citizens were allowed to also be interned with their relatives. “Luckily” in almost all Japanese cases the children were permitted to go with their parents, instead of being left to fend for themselves, or placed in orphanages/foster homes.
Oh, come on! Can’t you get on track? This answer to Bricker’s question thoroughly demonstrates your complete lack of ability to comprehend the written word, as well as your complete lack of ability to write.
Bricker recognizes when his points are being addressed, he recognizes an attempt at refutation, and he refutes right back. He is under no requirement to accept that any argument is correct unless he truly believes so. One more time - simply because you post a counter argument to someone’s point does not mean you win.
My head just 'sploded.
Damn, Scott Plaid. If you’re gonna quote verbatim from a Web site, at least have the decency to attribute the quote. For those interested, Scott’s last reply came from here.
I guess that should have been obvious given that it was actually lucid.
Actually, it came from wiki, which I acknowledged in post 314.
Goddammit, Scott, all you are doing right now is attempting an end-run around your agreement or competition or whatever the fuck you want to call it where you’re not to post anything but questions in GD.
Dragging the discussion into the Pit may not be violating the letter of your accord, but it is sure as shit violating the spirit of it.
John Mace, I want a ruling on this.
I call shennanigans! That answer is disingenuous, at best. You would benefit yourself to stop posting to this thread; you are only doing yourself a disservice.
So in post 314 you gave an attribution for the quote you used (without a quote or any other device identifying it as someone else’s work) in post 328?
Scott, post 314 does not contain the quote Sauron was referring to.
No, Scott. There is a difference between an argument being persuasive and it being on point. Plenty of people disagree with my stance on judicial activism; very few, if any, would argue that my arguments are not on point and relevant.
If there were, don’t you think you’d see a Pit thread devoted to my inability to comprehend arguments and respond to them?
No one seems to be Pitting me for that. Here in this thread, however, there is practically universal agreement that you have this problem.
Why is that?
That’s being generous. IMHO, the answer was “I need a massive Thorazine suppository immediately, please” at best.
I find the credited but not linked quote in post #314 on the page I cited. I do not find the uncredited and not linked “quote” in post #328 on that page.
Please credit and link your cites.
Bricker, I was about to post this in response to your request for more info on marvel, in the current GD thread. However, it is a statement, and goes against the dare. So, I am posting it here, instead, in hopes of your reading it.
Again, against the dare, but it helps the debate.
basically, the marvel universe has criminals, and villians. Some of these villians are mutants, some are humans, and some have non-mutant related superpowers. About every one in ten people is a mutant. Only some of these people have harmful powers, and only a few use them for evil. In other words, it is no more correct to say that a mutant is more likely to be a criminal, then it is to say that a black person is likely to be a good dancer.
That is fine. I will wait and see what he says. However, you attacked my ability to make good points, and I responded, since I felt attacked. I might as well have used an earlier thread to make my point.
Comments to that effect are, as you know, usually made right in the relevant thread itself.
Don’t tempt fate.
Gee, that’s a toughy. Could it be because mainly only people wanting to pit Scott are posting to a thread devoted to pitting Scott?
Sheesh.
John Mace, Is this legal?
If I remember correctly, it was more of an “agreement” than a “dare”. And you managed to honor your comittment for - what? Two days?
Way to go, sport.