So spare us.
Why not have the integrity of crediting the work that you use in your post, instead of acting like you're the one that created that work?
I know that expecting you to have integrity is a far cry, as you don't even have the integrity to quit a fight that you lost a long time ago, one where you've been thoroughly debunked and defeated.
Oh well, I enjoy waging war on your credibility, so here goes…
Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/sons.htm (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)Those shopkeepers and artisans depended on materials that got affected by the Stamp Act. That act required the use of materials, created in London, within the colonies, to be paid for in UK currency, not the local currency. This was one example of British Parliament getting its hands involved with the local colonial economies.
Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. *I suppose that it was the stamp company that they were getting ready to oppose. LOL. * As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty. And grow it did! These were not the leading men of Boston, but rather workers and tradesmen. It was unseemly that they would be so agitated by a parliamentary act. *Boston tea Party was an act against a tea company? LOL. Well i guess that the stamp company got it on this one. ROTFLMAO. Remember taxation w/o representation.....*
The people mentioned in your plagiarized quote had economic interests affected by the Stamp Act. Their actions amounted to economic warfare against the British Companies that benefited from the Stamp Act. They stood to make more money thanks to the Stamp Act. The British Government also stood to make money, thanks to the taxes that had to be paid.
They tried to force demand, the colonials countered that by fighting to reduce demand.
Your mention of a "stamp" company demonstrates your failure to do more than scratch the surface of this topic. Listen, "brain," we're not talking about postage stamps, used for sending mail, here. We're talking about materials used for printing, which had to be those produced in the UK. They had a tax stamp to them, for tax collection purposes… you paid a regular sales price for the printed material, and you paid an additional tax based on the stamp.
It was a double whammy that the colonials had to pay. The intent of the economic resistance? To make it hurt the British Companies involved with creating those printed materials in the pocket book. The UK hoped to raise plenty of money via tax revenues, the benefited companies expected a profit windfall.
The colonials worked against that.
This was an example of a tax levied directly on the colonists. This went contrary to English Common Law, as well as other laws protecting the rights of Englishmen. The colonial legislatures where the tax authorities for the colonies. They were made up of people that represented the colonies.
The Stamp Act was an attempt to both, to get around the colonial legislatures, and to benefit companies based in London.
Contrary to your attempts, my point still stood. Economic warfare is a "soft kill" method of dealing with a political issue without coming to blows.
Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: http://www.awrm.org/ubbcgi/ultimateb...9;t=000007;p=0 (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)From the same site that you quoted:
For reasons of safety and secrecy, Sons of Liberty groups tended to meet late at night so as not to attract attention and detection of British officials and the American Loyalist supporters of the British Crown. *Loyal to the crown, huh. LOL.*
This secret patriotic society had its roots in the *Committees of Correspondence*. The "Committees" were colonial groups organized prior to the outbreak of the American War for Independence and were established for the purpose of formally organizing public opinion and coordinating patriotic actions against Great Britain. *Loyal to the crown, you say...* These original committees were loosely organized groups of private citizens formed in the New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island colonies from 1763-1764.
"Shrouded in secrecy, the origins of the Sons of Liberty are in dispute. Some historical sources claim that the movement began in New York City in January 1765. A more popular claim is that the movement began in Boston, Massachusetts through the leadership of one Samuel Adams (a well known American Revolutionary firebrand) in early 1765." - Todd Alan Kreamer, "How A Secret Society of Rebel Americans Made Its mark on Early America."
The people you mentioned, who acted against the Stamp Act, basically ceased and desisted their actions against the Stamp Act after it got repealed. If you look at a history of their actions against Parliament laws that infringed on the colonies, their main focus was on those acts, then they stood down.
If they weren't originally loyal to the crown, why would they stand down after these acts got repealed? If they weren't loyal to the crown, they would've remained active right after those acts got repealed. But they didn't.
Their main focus was to stand up for their rights, as Englishmen. This is similar to veteran groups lobbying in the US Congress to make sure that Veteran rights don't get infringed. Your Wiki source, that you plagiarized, mentions that they were originally loyal to the crown.
I mean, would it kill you to thoroughly review the sources that you've been plagiarizing?
Plagiarized by thorough9 from this site: (http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html) (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)First, can you see the difference between the author's statement, and Paul Revere's? I've bolded Paul Revere's statement for you. The mention of British in the article was the author's statement… something that's based on the modern mindset, not that of our founding fathers'. You'd find that in the bolded red statement in the quote that you plagiarized.
REPEAT POINT
*These are the words of The Paul Revere House, but with your "above-average" historical knowledge, you definitely know more about the subject than they do. LOL *
In 1774 and the Spring of 1775 Paul Revere was employed by the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety as an express rider to carry news, messages, and copies of resolutions as far away as New York and Philadelphia.
On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. *Warn who? LOL. * After being rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two associates, Paul Revere borrowed a horse from his friend Deacon John Larkin. While in Charlestown, he verified that the local "Sons of Liberty" committee had seen his pre-arranged signals. (Two lanterns had been hung briefly in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, indicating that troops would row "by sea" across the Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching "by land" out Boston Neck. Revere had arranged for these signals the previous weekend, as he was afraid that he might be prevented from leaving Boston).
On the way to Lexington, Revere "alarmed" the country-side, *alarmed who? LOL. * stopping at each house, and arrived in Lexington about midnight. As he approached the house where Adams and Hancock were staying, a sentry asked that he not make so much noise. "Noise!" cried Revere, "You'll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!" *Warning delivered - to whom? LOL. * After delivering his message, Revere was joined by a second rider, William Dawes, who had been sent on the same errand by a different route. Deciding on their own to continue on to Concord, Massachusetts, where weapons and supplies were hidden, Revere and Dawes were joined by a third rider, Dr. Samuel Prescott. Soon after, all three were arrested by a British patrol. Prescott escaped almost immediately, and Dawes soon after. Revere was held for some time and then released. Left without a horse, Revere returned to Lexington in time to witness part of the battle on the Lexington Green.
REPEAT POINT
*But hey, don't take the "watered down version" here are excerpts from Paul Revere's actual account - taken in context - not in typical, bullshit four or five word sound-bytes ala somone trying to distort reality....*
Second, that quote captures literature that one can find on the internet. This is in the same post where you dismiss the analysis that I added, based on my research and reading of American History… of materials that go into more in-depth than what you plagiarized above.
Take it away thorough9:
"What you are, sir, is an absolute f'n idiot and another example that an accumulation of knowledge is just f'n pointless if the possessor of such knowledge does not possess realism and common sense to apply that knowledge in a common practical sense way - aka just a bookworm with no common sense." - thorough9
That's precisely what you've done in the post that I'm rebutting. Simply plagiarized someone, ran with that information, while refusing to factor in the variables at play when all of that was taking place. When someone does point those variables out, you accuse them of what you've just quoted.
There's a word in the dictionary that describes your actions, it starts with an "H" and ends with a "T."
Now, if you see things with our founding fathers' mindsets, and not the modern one, you'll get the answer to your repeat statement/questions:
People must see this from our founding father's eyes, not from our 21st Century interpretation of things.
Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law.
In the UK, and throughout her domains, you understood that you could never walk unto someone's property, and confiscate it without due process of the law. This property included the right to bear arms... a concept we also inherited from the British.
When the regulars got the disarming mission, they already knew that this wasn't going to be an easy mission. Their best hope was that the colonials would hand over their arms, and to allow the regulars to walk away, with their weapons in hand. When they heard the bells, weapons and drums, they knew that the colonials weren't going to give their arms up.
The patriots were willing to stand their ground, but, at the same time, people didn't really want to fight the regulars over it. Not yet anyway. Most were hoping that war would be averted. One of the hopes was for the regulars to "come to their senses," when they heard the alarms. That didn't happen.
Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten." Even the British constitution was unwritten... this contributed greatly to our eventually revolting against them... lose interpretation of a law that wasn't written. This was common back in our founding father's day.
When Paul Revere was captured, he didn't see the regulars as "them," and the colonials as "us." Both sides were hoping that this wouldn't come to conflict. So Paul Revere was being "matter of fact" when he told the British what he told them. His statement backed one of the implied intent of his mission... to let the regulars know that they can't just take our property... in this case, arms... away from us.
You'll have a better knowledge of what happened during our founding fathers' time if you see things from their eyes, not from yours, or that of any other modern human speaking from a modern mindset.
REPEAT POINTThis part of my rebuttal will start with my using your own words against you. Take it away thorough9:
Plagiarized by thorough9, possibly from this site: (http://www.masshist.org/database/img...ode=transcript) (thorough9's comments highlighted in turd brown)
1. In the Fall of 1774 & Winter of 1775 I was
one of upwards of thirty, cheifly mechanics, who formed our selves in to a Committee
for the purpose of watching the Movements of the British Soldiers,
and gaining every intelegence of the movements of the Tories. *I Guess that PR was watching the people that he was supposed to be warning...... LMAO*
2. On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number
of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common.
About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged
that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock
& Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was
thought they were the objets.* Again, in his own words, PR expressly states his reason for getting on a horse and taking a ride....LMAO*
3. After I had passed Charlestown Neck, & got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains, I saw two men on Horse back, under a Tree.
When I got near them, I discovered they were British officer.
One tryed to git a head of Me, & the other to take me. I turned
my Horse very quick, & Galloped towards Charlestown neck,
and then pushed for the Medford Road. The one who chased
me, endeavoring to Cut me off, got into a Clay pond, near
where the new Tavern is now built. I got clear of him,
and went thro Medford, over the Bridge, & up to Menotomy.
In Medford, I awaked the Captain of the Minute men; & after
that, I alarmed almost every House, till I got to Lexington. *Please explain why it is that PR, is running away from and evading the people that he is supposed to be warning..... LMAO. Note to idiots, PR also specifically states who he alarmed, and who he warned..... ROTFLMAO!!!!*
4. I called for the Doctor & Daws to come up; -
were two & we would have them in an Instant I was
surrounded by four; - they had placed themselves in a Straight
Road, that inclined each way; they had taken down a pair of
Barrs on the North side of the Road, & two of them were under
a tree in the pasture. The Docter being foremost, he came up;
and we tryed to git past them; *(Why oh Why is PR trying to "git" away from the people that he is supposed to be warning? LMAO) * but they being armed with pistols & swords, they forced us in to the pasture; -the Docter jumped his Horse over a low Stone wall, and got to Concord.
[Page 4]
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that.
When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared
to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as-
ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if
I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He
demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and
aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. *Now, if PR was to warn the "regulars", if the bells were to warn the "regulars, then why hadn't these "regulars" been warned? LOL. i guess that thay don't make bells like they used to. It must have been the new "militia/national guard only bells" ROTFLMAO!!!*
"He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us,
when all five of them came down upon a full gallop;
one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major
Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I
did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. *See, idiots, the first guy - see the red writing above, PR was just talking shit to " It's five-hundred muthafuckas waiting on your Torie-Red Asses" - lying to misguide - it wasn't a fucking "warning to the "regulars". And this second guy, the one who threatened to "blow out his brains", he doesn't tell him shit 1. if he wasn't caught and 2. if he didn't threaten to "blow out his brains". ROTFLMAO. Fucking idiots....* He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one
Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out.
We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. The Major inqui-
red of me how far it was to Cambridge, and if there were any other Road? After some consultation, the Major [Page 5] Major Rode up to the Sargent, & asked if his Horse was tired? He told answered him, he was - (He was a Sargent of Grenadiers, and had a small Horse) - then, said He,
take that man's Horse. I dismounted, & the Sargent mounted my Horse, when they all rode towards Lexington Meeting-House. I went across
the Burying-ground, & some pastures, & came to the Revd. Mr. Clark's
House, where I found Messrs. Hancok & Adams. I told them of
my treatment, & they concluded to go from that House towards Woburn. I went with them, & a Mr. Lowell, who was a Clerk to Mr. Hancock. When we got to the House where they intended to stop, Mr. Lowell & I my self returned to Mr. Clark's, to find what was going on. When we got there, an elderly man came in; he said he had just come from the Tavern, that a Man had come from Boston, who said there were no British troops coming. Mr. Lowell & my self went towards the Tavern, when we met a Man
on a full gallop, who told us the Troops were coming up the Rocks. We afterwards met another, who said they were close by. Mr. Lowell asked me to go to the Tavern with him, to a Bit a Trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up Chamber; & while we were giting the Trunk,
we saw the British very near, upon a full March. We hurried to wards Mr. Clark's House. In our way, we passed through the Militia. There were about 50.
When we had got about 100 Yards from the meeting-House the British Troops appeard on both Sides of the Meeting-House. In their [Page 6]
In their Front was an Officer on Horse back. They made a
Short Halt; _when I saw, & heard, a Gun fired,_ which appeared
to be a Pistol. Then I could distinguish two Guns, & then
a Continual roar of Musquetry; When we made off with the Trunk......*Again, PR is running from the regulars that he is supposed to be warning that they're not gonna take away our weapons. ROTFLMAO!!!*
REPEAT POINT
"they make you an idiot with a search bar who lacks the ability to discern what is, and what is not, releveant in an argument." - thorough9
"What you are, sir, is an absolute f'n idiot and another example that an accumulation of knowledge is just f'n pointless if the possessor of such knowledge does not possess realism and common sense to apply that knowledge in a common practical sense way - aka just a bookworm with no common sense." - thorough9
Both of your quotes are applicable to what you started your post with. All you've done was went crazy with an internet search, plagiarized the contents that you came across, then continued to pound the table with "surface" knowledge. You've made no effort to go beyond the surface, to look at the under currents surrounding the events, the events that you see on the surface.
You’ve failed to scratch the surface to get to the meat of what was going on, in the minds of our founders. You make this statement:
"You have a case of the stupids that all of the degrees in the world couldn't cure.......And to add to your stupidity and closed-mindedness," - thorough9
Yet, you refuse to open that closed tight steel trap that you call your mind to consider what happened beyond what you're reading. You won't even let common sense take a peep. Instead of considering the factors that drove our founder's actions, you use strawman arguments and questions to try to refute factually valid points…
Like the fact that anybody during that time, understanding English Common Law, would've seen that the ringing of the bells, beating of the drums, and firing of the guns, warned the Regulars that they weren't going to be coming in to take the militia's arms.
thorough9: There is no plagarism. I didn't realize that i as writing a term paper so fuck you, and the quotes. LMAO.
Plagiarism is when you do things like use other people's work within your post, without providing a link, or writing down the source, for that information. I didn't find those in your post… I had to go find your sources, then apply them in response to your rubbish.
Plagiarism isn't only applicable to papers. It's applicable to any writing that you do, especially if you intend for other people to read your drivel.
Why is it important here?
You may not be writing for a publisher, marketer, marketing director, editor, etc., but you're posting on ECCIE, where you intend for others to read your posts. Your failure to credit the authors of the words you use demonstrate your lack of integrity.
thorough9: My words are in red lettering.
I changed the coloring of your words to accurately reflect their validity.
thorough9: You, sir, are a "regular"-ass idiot who has supported another idiot who "mis-spoke" - is that what getting the story wrong is called now-a-days. LMAO. REPEAT POINT
In order for you to call us "idiots," you have to prove us "wrong." You've miserably failed to do. That's understandable, considering that your lack of knowledge, and understanding, of what really happened, painfully shows with your posts.
In your case, you're actually wrong. But, I don't see you stumbling over yourself to admit that you're wrong in this argument.
thorough9: I know, Sarah Palin thought that the "Paul Revere" that she was talking about was the one from the Beastie Boyz song. ROTFLMAO. "Me 'n my horsey and a quart of beer" ROTFLMAO.
Where, in Sarah Palin's comments, correspondence, etc, did she claim that she referenced the Beastie Boyz song? Or is this just you pulling crap out of thin air, as usual?
thorough9: Warned the British... LMAO. REPEAT POINT
That was one of the secondary purposes of his activating the alarm system. Remember, neither side was expecting that night to be the first night of the American Revolution. The hope was that when the Regulars heard the drums, bells and gunfire, that the Regulars would decide on handling this a different way. It also let the Regulars know that they weren't going to take the colonials weapons away.
thorough9: You are also an egotist who has run around talking about your "above-average" levels of understanding. REPEAT POINT
"I've argued my position here, and elsewhere, on this topic, simply because I know things about our history that the average American doesn't. I saw someone getting lacerated, for trying to communicate something that actually came closer to reality than what most people know… [b]so I jumped in to point out that she's actually closer to the truth than those that are criticizing her." - herfacechair
I mentioned a few things related to the Revolutionary War that most people didn't know. I challenged the opposition to do research on certain topics. The fact that I'd know about those, and other, things shows that I know stuff that the average American didn't.
That's common sense, not ego, speaking. I'm simply telling it like it is.
thorough9: You're not above-average. You're just regular - not even regular - you're a below-average fool.
You countered yourself not once, but twice. You did so in one line. What does this say about you? That you're pulling crap out of your ass so much, that even you aren't convinced at some of the things that you say.
Speaking of averages, I wouldn't be surprised that you drag the room's IQ average down a few notches. Your judgment, with regards to this debate, makes me see you as someone that, if you raise your IQ by 1, you'd be a retard. Otherwise, you're just braindead.
thorough9: You, and the rest of the Junior historical society need to brush up on your comprehension skills.
Don't mistake our actually getting, what actually happened, as our being unable to comprehend what we're reading. If anybody isn't comprehending what they're reading, it's you:
What you said:
"That's as logical as your "there are dissenters today who are not in open rebellion" argument." - thorough9
In response to what I actually said:
"There are groups of people in the United States today, that advocate rebellion against the US government. But guess what? We're not in a state of rebellion against the United States Government. This is another example of you using strawman arguments. " - herfacechair
Given the differences between our statements, did you fail to comprehend what you read? YES [ ] NO [ ].
Copy and paste that question, as well as the proceeding quotes, then place an "X" in the box that represents your answer.
thorough9: Reading is fundamental, but comprehending what you've read, applying common sense logic, apparently, is not. I guess that "common sense" isn't do common after all.
If anybody is applying common sense logic to this fight, it's my side of the argument. I'm delivering the goods. The only thing you're doing is reading the material, without digging deeper beneath the material… looking at the nuts and bolts so to speak.
Don't mistake your narrow minded view of the topic we're arguing as "comprehension." It's just narrow-mindedness designed to protect your fragile ego.
thorough9: If you still wanna argue.
You do realize that it takes two opposing sides to keep an argument going, do you? If I'm still arguing here, it's because the opposition is still arguing here.
I have absolutely no intentions of letting the opposition's arguments on this thread stand unchallenged. That's a given... I'm debating your side, on this thread, ad infinitum.
thorough9: then take your "regular" ass to Boston, or wherever the fuck PR is buried, and argue with him.
My argument isn't with the people that wrote the website that you plagiarized, or with Paul Revere. It's with you, so I stay on this thread for as long as the opposition does.
thorough9: He said it, I didn't. So long.......
What's being argued here is whether Sarah Palin was dead wrong or not. If you factor in the other variables, such as English Common Law, into the equation, then she came closer to the truth than what you've been parroting here.
Insisting on holding onto the surface of what happened, while ignoring the background variables, doesn't change that fact.
Originally posted by thorough9When the Regulars heard the alarm system, they knew that they weren't going to be getting the colonials' weapons.
REPEAT POINT
FUCKING IDIOTS.... LMAO
Warned the British - I mean regulars.
Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My ASS OFF - fucking Rolling
"ridin' 'cross the land, kickin' up sand, sheriff's posse on my tail cause i'm in demand" LMAO.
REPEAT POINT
thorough9: BTW, PR is my acronym for Paul Revere. I don't want to sift thru another 20 pages of blue talking about Puerto Rico. LMAO.
You couldn't get it right about me anywhere in this thread, what makes you think that making another attempt would give you better luck? Unlike you, I read what I respond to, and I understand simple English.
thorough9: And COG, your new name is Tonto.... fucking sidekick.... LMAO!
At best, you're a "tonto." At worst, you're an "estupido." I'm being "nice" here.
thorough9: And your opinion is still,officially, shit. REPEAT POINT
In order to dismiss my statements as just "opinion," you have to prove them "wrong." You've miserably failed to do that. You can't even answer the basic questions that I've asked you.
If anybody in this argument is full of shit, it's you.
shit.
Here, let me break this down for you. You attack me, I respond by defending myself. When this happens, one can't help but respond with an "I" and "me."