Please run for President

Also, please answer the questions I've previously asked you in this thread while you reply. Thanks.

Also, please answer the questions I've previously asked you in this thread while you reply. Thanks. Originally Posted by herfacechair

In the interest of peace in the sandbox, and because I have been asked by many to refrain from continuing to fuck with you I am going to disengage from this thread. But there are a couple of things that need to be clarified which some of which you got wrong and some of which is because you just dont know me. Whether you believe it or not thats up to you because in reality it does not affect my day one way or another.

1. I am not a liberal, I am a moderate with no party affiliation. If you would look by to some of the debates that I have had with Wellendowed (the ultimate Obama supporter) as well as others you will find many examples of my defending Bush and the republicans and speaking against Obama and the liberal agenda. This however leads to the next mistake you made reading me.

2. I am an asshole when I want to be and I do it for fun. This is triggered by a lot of reasons, for example, 6 months ago the board was dominated by Liberals so I took a conservative stance, that has changed and now the board has many more conservatives so I now may take a more liberal position, why you say, because I like to engage in verbal sparring. Those who you state I have banded with (liberals) i.e. Ms Elena, Thorough9, KC Joe, Catnipper and even Big Papa have all at one time been the liberals to my Conservative banter. Just as JS42, Fritz, COG, Deacon, have been the conservatives to my liberal position and John Gault, I just like to kick him no matter what he says. Iam sure that many of those named would tell you I speak the truth.

As for 2012, I am sickened by what the GOP has in their arsenal of prospective Candidates. Now if Chris Christy were to run, I would be a big supporter of his, but regardless of the truth behind the Paul Revere ride and his place in history, my opinion of Palin has not and will not change.

Have a great day, if it makes you feel better to claim victory go ahead because it obviously means something to you LOL. Peace

Dammit DD, I am NOT a conservative!

Dammit DD, I am NOT a conservative! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Sorry COG, sometimes you lean that way, which is what I was refering too LOL.

In the interest of peace in the sandbox, and because I have been asked by many to refrain from continuing to fuck with you I am going to disengage from this thread. But there are a couple of things that need to be clarified which some of which you got wrong and some of which is because you just dont know me. Whether you believe it or not thats up to you because in reality it does not affect my day one way or another.

1. I am not a liberal, I am a moderate with no party affiliation. If you would look by to some of the debates that I have had with Wellendowed (the ultimate Obama supporter) as well as others you will find many examples of my defending Bush and the republicans and speaking against Obama and the liberal agenda. This however leads to the next mistake you made reading me.

2. I am an asshole when I want to be and I do it for fun. This is triggered by a lot of reasons, for example, 6 months ago the board was dominated by Liberals so I took a conservative stance, that has changed and now the board has many more conservatives so I now may take a more liberal position, why you say, because I like to engage in verbal sparring. Those who you state I have banded with (liberals) i.e. Ms Elena, Thorough9, KC Joe, Catnipper and even Big Papa have all at one time been the liberals to my Conservative banter. Just as JS42, Fritz, COG, Deacon, have been the conservatives to my liberal position and John Gault, I just like to kick him no matter what he says. Iam sure that many of those named would tell you I speak the truth.

As for 2012, I am sickened by what the GOP has in their arsenal of prospective Candidates. Now if Chris Christy were to run, I would be a big supporter of his, but regardless of the truth behind the Paul Revere ride and his place in history, my opinion of Palin has not and will not change.

Have a great day, if it makes you feel better to claim victory go ahead because it obviously means something to you LOL. Peace Originally Posted by dirty dog

I've detected the same patterns while debating against different liberals on different message boards over the past few years.

It's like what I've repeatedly pointed out in this thread.

I've been debating online, perpetually, for almost 8 years. Over that time, I've managed to detect patterns, both general patterns and detailed patterns. I've even gotten to the point to where I could almost get a rough sketch of someone's psychological profile while they're engaged in debate with me.

I use the later professionally as a freelance copywriter. We take "knowing your audience" to psychological/analytical levels.

Also, like what I've stated in this thread, the pattern that I've detected, from the opposition, repeats itself over the years.

In both, online and face to face interactions, I've found that I have a lot in common with those in the center left and center right. I don't find myself debating those groups that much. It's those that are either on the far left, and far right, that I find myself debating a long time with.

This message board is no exception. As long as I see you continuing on the same pattern that I've seen, from those that I've debated with in the past, I'm going to I stand by what I said about you in this thread.

Debating against both conservatives and liberals doesn't make one a moderate.

When someone tells me that they're a "moderate," that's not telling me that they're neither Republican nor Democrat. That's not telling me that they're neither conservative nor liberal.

That's telling me that they're either center left or center right. I've debated with those who were far to the right of me, and I've debated with those who were far to the left of me. I'm not using that fact to argue that I'm a "moderate." Heck, I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans.

But, I don't see myself as moderate. I see myself as being center right. I see you as being on the left, based on your posts. Your explanation, about jumping on one end or the other, or being the Devil's advocate, matches what I've done, and what I've seen others do. It doesn't match the trend I saw.

Whether you see the political spectrum as a line, as a square or as a box, there's always a left and a right. You've got people that fall on the extreme right, and those that fall on the extreme left. Everybody else falls in between the two extremes.

If you take that down further, each of us take positions that aren't always in the same side of the political Isle.

I've seen an example where one liberal called another one a liberal. This guy acted as if he were a moderate. The mainstream media try to portray their liberal stance as "mainstream" and as "center of the political isle" standing. But their thinking such doesn't put them there. They're still liberal.

Your posts arguing against the conservatives are said with stronger conviction, and with more passion, than the posts that you've made against the liberals.

I've taken positions that have put me on the left, but that doesn't make me a "moderate." You shouldn't translate your experiences as such either.

Even though I've taken positions that have put me on the same side of the argument as the Obama Administration, I don't see myself as being "moderate." I got into a heated debate, on the National Forums here, where I argued in support of an element of the actions the Obama Administration… or someone under it, undertook. I've stated positions that put me to the left of many people that identified themselves as liberals. I've even argued against some of the things that the Republicans did.

If what you say, about who you voted for president, is true, then you've voted for more Republicans for president than I have. Again, I don't use that to identify myself as a "moderate." I know where I stand, I don't have an incentive to hide it. I'm center right. I don't see similar actions, coming from you, as proof that you're a "moderate." At best, you're center left, at worst you're just left. The passion behind your posts, against conservatives, put you even further left. Arguing conservative positions doesn't change that fact for you.

Not only didn't you know me, you made a serious miscalculation of who I was and why I did what I did in this debate between us.

This lead to you making a series of mistakes when attempting to interpret my actions, or who I was, and how to deal with me.

I never saw you as an "asshole."

You didn't have the effects on me that you thought you did. If you intended to make me laugh, while reading your posts, while generating my replies to you, and even after I've posted my replies… if my laughter was your intent, then you were successful.

However, if you intended to "get under my skin," you failed miserably. So no, I didn't see you as an "asshole."

You followed the same predictable pattern the others that I've debated here, and elsewhere, have displayed.

I saw you as another poster that repeated the same patterns, and similar statements, that MsElena, Thorough9, longermonger (sp), Catnipdipper, KcBigPapa (sp), etc, as well the liberals that I've debated with in the past, have said.

That pattern is different from what I've seen while debating with those further right than me.

If what you said were true, that you wanted to act as a counterweight to liberals or conservatives, then you've accomplished sort of a balance before I jumped here. A check of the other threads show something close to an evened out balance… If you were consistent with your intentions... you wouldn't see a need to remain in this, and other threads, as a liberal.

But you see, you have to continue on as what you're more comfortable with. I've continued to read your posts in the other threads. You're not being different from what I've seen from the others that I've debated.

Now, for what I've also stated on this thread, that you missed.

I have a blast being engaged in these debates. Seriously, I've broke out laughing, while doing an activity completely different from debating here, because of something that I had said here and the reaction I got for it.

I've even laughed at your predictable reactions to what I've said. This isn't the first time this has happened. It has happened numerous times here, and in the past.

I do what I do, with these debates, because they're fun. Otherwise, why would I continue to engage in it after all these years? It doesn't make sense to stop doing something fun.

What I do on a forum does impact what others do, sometime down the road, after the debate ends and I leave.

There's another reason to why I do what I do on this threads. A poster, in the National Forums here, picked up on that reason when he told me that I had a positive effect in the area we were talking about… when it came to what others did to the opposition that I went against.

In every instance of my jumping on a thread, and taking on every liberal I could, I end up giving strategies and tactics to the other conservatives. I've checked back on the other message boards that I've debated on, and have seen the other conservatives use some of my tactics… when it comes to unmasking the true intentions of the opposition's statement, and when countering the opposition in general.

I've also picked fights with conservative posters.

The old Protest Warrior forums were heavily conservatives. Imagine, if you will, a forum where you don't just have one person like me, but several who debated with detail and persistence.

Over time, without strong liberal opposition, the conservatives started to advance weak arguments. I'd jump in, clash with them, and force them to sharpen their debating tactics and methods until they stopped being weak.

So, I enjoy online debating. It's fun, and my actions tend to show those on my side of the argument how weak the liberal side of the argument really is. Whether the conservatives here use my tactics here or not is in the air.

The above are a few reasons to why I do this.

My Paul Revere argument was about detailed, in-depth look at history. It had little to do Sarah Palin.

Had a democrat made that exact statement, I would've continued to argue what I argued here.

The basic explanation of our history, as they present it in K-12, doesn't go into the detail of what really went on. Our founders are seen as hero figures, when they were people like us that had to deal with situations that came up during their times.

One would have to not only understand our founder's line of thinking and where it came from; but also how it played in our history when it comes to driving people's actions; to truly understand what we have today. There are some groups that have already called for changing parts or all of the Constitution to reflect today's line of thinking. But, if most people don't understand the lifeblood behind our concepts of freedom, democracy, rule of law, etc., are, we'd be treading into dangerous territory.

I not sure you completely understand what I am saying. My debates on this or any thread may or may not be a true reflection of my feelings or position. Sometimes I just say things to be contrary or argumenative, sometimes I say them to be an ass, sometimes to simply generate some activity on the board. I may be center left but that does not make me a liberal, a lot of times my passion in my posts has more to do with the tired party checklist comments that irratate me regardless of the party. Just like I am discussing with Barleycorn, with his checklist of what Obama wants to do, he cites them per the right wing agenda but cant tell me why he would want to do it. It puts me in a position of seemingly supporting Obama but in reality it is more a response to the GOP talking points being spouted without explaining the position. But anyway. I am sure we will debate some more, you just may not know from what position I may come or why or even if I care that much.

Did you "draw" that before recess, or after? I wouldn't be surprised if your teacher gave you the extra milk and cookies for the colors that you used. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Wow. This thread is still going.

HFC, I think you might have Asperger's Syndrome. Seriously.

I know you think this is war and that you'll win if you just keep slogging, but you're ammo is ineffective because people don't read your longwinded rambling posts. You're also a one note song. You're still hammering away with the Common Law argument. That's the only arrow you've got in your quiver and it isn't enough.

You know this. That's why your tactic of choice is a classic conservative tactic; VOLUME.

You still don't get it. You're still wrong.

[QUOTE=herfacechair;1410525]Longermonger: That wasn't a lame-stream media gotcha question. But it did getcha. RED HERRING

Whether this was a gotcha question or not is beside the point. They asked her a question, and she gave a response that came closer to the truth than what most Americans know.I asked you when the Regulars were warned. You replied as if I was talking about the reporter's question to Sarah Palin. You did this to dodge the question.

Longermonger: You can't answer it, so you choose to dismiss it as a red herring. Play dumb if you want, but I know you know the importance of a timeline.

First, you don't know what my cognitive processes are. Your speculation of what I'm doing has no resemblance to the thought processes I have when I address you. I dropped hints of what I actually think of the issue, read them instead of assuming that I'm thinking along the same lines you think.
Another dodged question...
Accepting the facts surrounding English Common Law would allow you to not only get a hint of my thought process… but would also allow you to be able to summarize what I'm arguing. That hint would make it glaringly obvious that I'm not "playing dumb," and I don't see your "timeline" argument as being a key player in this debate.

Second, it's a RED HERRING because the timeline isn't being debated here. It is if we're arguing it.What's being debated is whether Sarah Palin was wrong or not. You admit that she was wrong in your statements because you'll only go as far as saying she "got closer to the truth".Those who're not familiar with American History, beyond what's commonly known, or assumed, argue that she got it wrong. Those who're more familiar than the basics would know that she came closer to the truth than those that criticized her."Compared to" "most Americans" in your opinion...she was LESS WRONG. That's as far as you will go. In layman's terms...she was WRONG.

Third, the timeline didn't need to be answered, because my side of the argument, and most of those arguing on your side of the argument, already knew the "timeline." Both sides, in their responses, hinted directly, and indirectly, about the timeline. Common sense would tell you what the timeline was… it went without saying. Wow. A whole paragraph to dodge that one! You could have produced an outline with that much effort if you weren't so LAZY!

Fourth, your tactic is similar to a court room tactic where the defense tries to "shift blame," or bring an off the wall variable into the argument, to try to get the defendant off the hook. "But Your Honor! If the victim didn't wear provocative clothing, my client would never had selected her, and she'd still be alive!"No. You're wrong. You just can't perceive it due to your Asperger's.
You need to stay focused here, and quit trying to introduce ego soothing aspects to the argument.

Longermonger: It wasn't a "what if" question. There is no "what if" in it.

I labeled your statement as a "what if," as you utilized the above court room tactics that I talked about. You speculated about the Regulars that captured Paul Revere. Then, you followed that speculation with a question related to that speculation. I'll get to your speculation shortly.

Either you're deliberately moving the goal posts back, or you honest to God don't even have a grasp of the common knowledge American Revolution. Or I'm doing a third thing that you're unable to understand because of your Asperger's.

Longermonger: "Led to a chain reaction" isn't the same as Paul Revere directly doing something like warning the Regulars. The burden of proof is on you to show how and when Paul Revere warned the Regulars. If, as you state, Paul Revere warned them via the alarm system...then he can't have also warned the Regulars that took him as prisoner. They would have already been forewarned.

First, despite my constantly telling you what I actually meant, you're holding your assumptions of what I said, or meant, with a death grip. You're also refusing to break away from the surface explanation of the Revolutionary War, and trying to apply my responses to that, rather than keeping it consistent with the additional facts that I presented in this thread.

Again:

1. "The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's [sic?]message Orders?was to indirectlycause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing...20 pages and you still haven't offered proof from an outside source. it sent a message to the SOME OFregulars according to your speculationthat the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair

2. "The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand." - herfacechairThat's a horrible example. A man sitting silently is the opposite of a bunch of people ringing bells, firing guns, and riding around on horseback with torches.

3. "The secondary Let's keep in mind that you didn't start calling it a secondary purpose until I made you.purpose that I talked about wasn't an "accidental" event. Speculation? Opinion? Proof? Ah, I see...It was used in the same sense that a home owner, refusing to be evicted with out due process, would stand on his porch with his weapons… to warn, without saying or writing something." - herfacechair

4. "Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example." - herfacechairThis is the only arrow that you've got. Now shoot the arrow! If the IMPLIED SECONDARY PURPOSE of the alarm system was to "warn" the Regulars all you've argued is that they SHOT the arrow, not that it hit any targets. Don't be so fucking lazy! Prove who heard it.

Regardless of whether he went up to them, and gave them a verbal warning, or if he activated the alarm system, a chain reaction got set off. That chain reaction provides the timeline that you're demanding, a timeline that you'd find in my posts, as well as in the quotes that I listed here. You don't understand. I'm asking WHAT regulars were "warned" and HOW. Paul Revere can't have been out there to "warn" the Regulars that took him prisoner. Those Regulars were not "warned" by the alarm system, either. If you can connect the dots between OTHER bells not near Paul Revere and OTHER Regulars in OTHER areas then prove it. Maybe you're too lazy and you'll just repost your own quotes...

The argument isn't about whether Paul Revere verbally warned them, or did he do so via causing the alarm system to go off. The argument is about whether Paul Revere Warned the Regulars, with the ringing of the bells and firing of the guns, or not. You have your work cut out for you. Since you're such an expert on this topic it should be no problem at all for you to find something, anything that connects Paul Revere to some other "warned" Regulars.

The complete facts, surrounding that period, indicate that he did warn the Regulars… by causing the alarm system to be activated:
Complete facts not presented. You're talking about other Regulars than the ones that captured PR. 'Warn' is the wrong word for alarm, just as you bristle at using the word British instead of Regulars. 'He' makes it sound like PR did it alone instead of being part of a group. 'Causing the alarm (NOT WARNING) system to be activated' implies that he was the sole cause.


Again, read my "man on porch" example.

I've consistently proven, throughout this thread, using facts that you consistently ignore because they don't fit your agenda, that Paul Revere did warn the Regulars… and he did so via activating the alarm system… with English Common Law being the communication medium. [/color]You've only proven that to your own satisfaction and then you got lazy and started copying your own posts. You still haven't connected the alarm system to any Regulars and you haven't successfully converted 'alarm system' in to 'warning system'. Lazy!

Longermonger: So all of your nonsense about English Common Law is moot because the Regulars never heard the alarm. INDUCTIVE FALLACY + STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

MOOT

This comment, as well as the other comments that you've made in your recent post, makes you look desperate.

Here's why. You said:

"4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars that captured PR never heard the alarm" - longermonger

What I argued:

"Not only that, but the Regulars knew that the sound of gunfire, bells and drums at the village meant that they were not just going to walk in there and take what they wanted to take. They didn't have cellphones, telephones, internet... heck, they didn't even have phones. So, when people in the countryside heard gunfire, bells and drums, they knew something was up. If they had a gun, or were close to a bell, they also made some noise... to warn those living further away from the town." - herfacechair

Even you, with your death grip hold on the most basic, Revolutionary War information, would know that there were more Regulars involved with the incidents that took place that night. Golly gee...I'm not a subject expert like you are. I'm from Missouri. You'll have to SHOW ME.

The Regulars that captured Paul Revere (what you're narrowing yourself down to) were obviously Speculation. You've offered nothing.operating independently of the light infantry elements that the Continentals/Colonials eventually clashed with (the ones that I'm talking about.)You mean some OTHER Regulars that you haven't connected to any location, time, name, town, city, bridge, river, tree, bell, alarm, warning, horse, etc...

Your reasoning amounts to inductive fallacy. It assumes that if the Regulars that captured Paul Revere didn't hear the alarms, then I "don't" have an argument. It completely ignores the Regulars that I'm actually talking about.Talk about them! Name them! All you've done is correct the word 'British' to 'Regulars' and that is where you stopped. (lazy)

Your reasoning is also a strawman argument, on the account that you apply, what happens with regards to the Regulars that captured Paul Revere, to the entire Regular military that operated that night. You admit that Paul Revere did not in any way warn the Regulars that captured him. You're retreated to arguing about other unspecified Regulars. Nice retreat, soldier!

Simply put

I advance "X," my argument on this thread.

You advance "Y," a distorted version of what I'm saying.

You argue against point "Y."

You conclude that "Y" is wrong.

Since "Y" is wrong, then "X" is "wrong." It's more like: I ask questions. You dodge them and try to argue from authority. Then you play your one note song.

I'm smiling at your acts of desperation here. Regardless of how many times you harp against English Common Law in this argument…

My argument, about English Common Law, is very applicable to this thread, and to what happened the night of Paul Revere's ride.

No amount of denial, on your part, will change that fact.

Longermonger: So say you. I beg to differ.

You and I have been debating on this thread, I've consistently dismantled your replies to me. So it's obvious that we're "begging to differ" with the other. Yeah, you're a Kung Fu master of arguing on the Internets. I wish I was a history subject expert badass like you. OUCH! My eyes just rolled so hard I shit my pants.

Under English Common Law, if one person posts a disagreement against what another person says, that first person is "begging" to differ with the second person. You were already telling me that just from your actions on this thread. Under English Common Law you have a tiny penis. What now, bitches?!? LOL

Longermonger: Produce a timeline or be considered defeated.

First, I defeated you the moment I countered your argument on this thread. You've been fighting a losing argument since then. Also, you've been getting more desperate with each reply.So you've been taking a 20 page victory lap? Riiiiiiight.

Second, the timeline has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, by both sides of the argument. All you need to do is read what's being said. Picture the events that you're reading about, in your head, and you'll see timelines. You'll see those timelines in the quotes that I produced in my reply to you. PAUL REVERE TO....ALARM SYSTEM...INTO A WARNING...INTO THE EAR OF A REGULAR. Connect the dots. Just do it. Don't be a slacker.

Third, the timeline isn't anywhere near to being one of the main factors in this argument as to what's being argued… mainly… was Sarah Palin right, or was she wrong? I've argued, and proven, in this thread that Sarah Palin came closer to the truth than those going in overdrive to criticize her. CLOSER TO THE TRUTH = WRONG

THAT's what you have to focus on. You're focusing on something else.

If someone played chess the way you debated on this thread, that person would lose. Your argument is like someone trying to capture the opposition's bishop to win the game, while completely ignoring the opposition's king, and the opposition's moves to capture his king. You really aren't as smart as you think you are. Sorry. I'm sure you're used to being the smartest guy in the room. But this ain't one of them rooms.

Longermonger: You say: Paul Revere was one of many links in a chain of events that was supposed to have caused a secondary effect, but did not.

First, WHERE, in MY posts, do I make that EXACT statement? It was not a quote. Do you see quotation marks?Until you accept the facts that I've introduced in this thread, to include the role that English Common Law played, you're not qualified to even attempt to summarize what I'm arguing. Hey, if you're smarter than me then go ahead and point out what was incorrect in my one sentence summary. At best you take issue with the last word.

Your summation oversimplifies my argument into something that I'm not arguing. Here's a sample of what I'm arguing:

1. "The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair

2. "The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand." - herfacechair

Longermonger: I say: The Regulars were not effectively 'warned' by the alarm system before they captured Paul Revere.

Again, the Regulars weren't just in one location. You had the Regulars that captured Paul Revere, and you had the other Regulars who were moving toward other objectives in this area to disarm the colonials. Who may have not heard the alarm either. You've breathlessly argued that the regulars that heard the alarm UNDERSTOOD it as a WARNING but you haven't offered any evidence that any Regulars HEARD the alarms.

The Regulars that moved in on the towns did hear the alarm system, hence Paul Revere's causing the alarm system to go off warned the Regulars, "ala man on porch with gun" that they weren't going to confiscate the colonial's weapons.

Longermonger: So your speculation about how the alarm system 'warned' the enemy and it's implied meaning under English Common Law is moot.

That's snot Don't get snotty or I'll MOOT you.speculation, but fact. English Common Law is a very big variable behind our founders' actions before and during the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, its amendments, etc, reek of English Common Law.

Anybody that dismisses the role that English Common Law played, in our founders' actions, makes a moot argument. Said person isn't even qualified to participate in this debate.

The ringing of the bells, beating of the drums, and firing of the guns clearly communicated to the Regulars that they weren't going to disarm the colonials without due process of the law. The Regulars understood this, as they also operated with the English Common Law philosophy.

Again, it'd be like the man, sitting on his porch with his weapon, as a visual warning to those about to take his property that he isn't going to give it up.

Longermonger: Your only hope

I don't need hope or luck in this argument. The facts are on my side, the fact that I'm right in this argument, and that I've destroyed the opposition, is a no brainer.

Your only hope in this argument is that I turn away from the facts and embrace your illogical argument… time to destroy your hope… that's NOT happening.

Longermonger: for Paul Revere to 'warn' the Regulars is after he is captured.

Wrong. The moment Paul Revere activated the town's alarm systems, he caused the Regulars to be warned, via the ringing of the bells, that they weren't going to capture the Colonial's weapons.

Longermonger: But, since PR never rode out to be taken prisoner you can't consider that a warning, either. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

That's not relevant to the argument I'm making… which is… did Paul Revere warn the Regulars, by ringing the bells and firing those shots, that they weren't going to be taking the Colonial's weapons? Per English Common Law, that's precisely what he did as a secondary mission. It was implied. >MFW IMPLIED

Like that guy sitting on his porch, he doesn't need to send you an email, text, or call you, to tell you what he could easily communicate by making sure that you see him, on his porch, with his gun.

Again, you stubbornly ignore one of the large variables driving the Patriots' actions that night. You refuse to consider English Common Law simply because that variable thoroughly proves your argument wrong. So, by ignoring that, and by focusing on your inductive fallacy argument, you hope to make this something it isn't.

What you're doing is attempting to redefine the debate to something that it isn't, in a futile attempt to achieve a victory… got news for you, others tried this game over the past few years, and they failed… you'll fare the same way they did. HAHAHAHAHA. It sounds like you're going to "Internet kill" me.

I wouldn't be surprised if you've been accused of integrity related violations in your real world life. Nope. Nice insult lazybones!

Longermonger: I asked you when the Regulars were warned. You replied as if I was talking about the reporter's question to Sarah Palin. You did this to dodge the question.

First, here's the transaction that you're talking about:

"3. At what point were the Regulars considered 'warned'?" - Longermonger

I responded by flagging that as a repeat point, then followed that up with this statement:

"When they went from hoping that this'd be an easy mission, to knowing that the colonials weren't going to be giving up their arms, is beside the point. When that happened isn't relevant." - herfacechair

WHERE, in that response, does it treat you like you're addressing the reporters question to Sarah Palin?

Second, I didn't dodge the question, but pointed a hard core fact out.

The argument is whether Paul Revere caused the British to be warned, via ringing of the bells and firing of the guns, or not. When they were warned is beside the point, as anybody reading this would know that they were warned anytime they heard the bells, gunfire and drums.

Longermonger: Another dodged question... RED HERRING

Not a dodged question by a longshot. You made assumptions about my ability to answer a question. You made another assumptions that what you thought was "right" was so blatantly obvious that it was universally "accepted" as "right."

You didn't ask me a question, you made an assumption that I countered with the facts.

Longermonger: It is if we're arguing it.

WRONG. A timeline isn't the issue in an argument about Paul Revere's actions in causing the Regulars to be warned. The timeline, and when the Regulars were warned, can be seen just by reading what's being posted. They're givens. Asking for the timeline doesn't build up, or destroy, the main objective in the argument for both sides.

Longermonger: You admit that she was wrong in your statements because you'll only go as far as saying she "got closer to the truth". STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

What I said:

"Sarah Palin didn't get her point across properly, but she touched up on something that's closer to reality than what watered down version that 4th graders learned." - herfacechair

"Sarah Palin was right on point, and dead accurate, with what she was trying to convey. Not just on one point, but on the vast majority of her points. She didn't get that point out effectively though, stumbling in the process of explaining something she had just brushed up on." - herfacechair

WHERE, in those statements, do I say that she's "wrong"?

That's NOT me "admitting" that she's "wrong." Those statements are consistent with what I've argued throughout this thread. Quit putting words in my mouth. Start addressing what I actually say.

Longermonger: "Compared to" "most Americans" in your opinion...she was LESS WRONG. That's as far as you will go. In layman's terms...she was WRONG. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

Where, in the following statement, do I "say" that she was "wrong," or "less wrong"? Where?

"Those who're not familiar with American History, beyond what's commonly known, or assumed, argue that she got it wrong. Those who're more familiar than the basics would know that she came closer to the truth than those that criticized her." - herfacechair

What I say is fact, not opinion. Those who've read and studied a more in-depth version of our history would see what Sarah Palin was trying to get across. Simply put, the colonials, driven by their English Common Law philosophy, accomplished secondary objectives with their ringing of the bells, beating of the drums and firing of the guns. They did more than getting the rest of their countrymen in line. They sent a signal to the Regulars that they weren't going to get what they came to get.

This is similar to my man on porch with gun example, where the man signals, without words, that those coming to kick him off his property weren't going to accomplish that.

My argument here has been consistent.

What you describe as "laymen's" terms is nothing but your opinion, based on your making a strawman argument.

Longermonger: Wow. A whole paragraph to dodge that one! You could have produced an outline with that much effort if you weren't so LAZY!

You demanded a timeline. I pointed out to you the fact that anybody reading our posts would see that timeline. That's not being lazy, that's being efficient, and pointing out the fact that proving a timeline wasn't needed if anybody could get that timeline from reading our posts.

I also pointed out the fact that the timeline was a nonissue.

Don't mistake my refusing to take a path, that has little to do with what needs to be proven, as my being "lazy." That's like accusing me of being "lazy" for refusing to take a side road when the main road would take me to my objective.

Longermonger: No. You're wrong. You just can't perceive it due to your Asperger's.

I'm making a statement of fact. You're making a non-issue a central theme to what you think the argument is. My refusal to deviate from the argument doesn't constitute my "having" Asperger's.

Longermonger: I'll get to your speculation shortly.

And I'm pretty sure that I'll debunk whatever it is you'll say to the reasoned argument that you're dismissing as "speculation," quotations used strongly.

Longermonger: Or I'm doing a third thing that you're unable to understand because of your Asperger's.

Nope, I covered it. Your moving goal posts back involve you trying to deviate from the real argument: Whether Paul Revere's actions resulted in the Regulars being warned or not. Demanding a timeline, something that's included in both side's responses, is an example of advancing a red herring statement. Making assumptions of what I said, when I clearly didn't say it, is an example of you advancing a strawman argument. You're using, red herrings, straman arguments, and putting words in my mouth to move the goal posts.

Longermonger: [sic?]

You use that when there are actual errors in what you're quoting, not when you think that there are errors. Especially if you're going to infuse your own comments into the quote. You're accusing me mixing crap in a factual quote.

Longermonger: Orders?

No, message.

Longermonger: indirectly

My statement still stands, his primary duty was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army.

Longermonger: 20 pages and you still haven't offered proof from an outside source.

From "Vindicating the Founders" (http://www.vindicatingthefounders.co...colonists.html )

The Rights of the Colonists, Adopted by the Town of Boston on November 20, 1772:

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can—Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature—

This event took place in 1772.

First, what I said:

"Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were 'unwritten.'" - herfacechair

What I also said:

"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." - herfacechair

Now, for the icing on the cake:

"It served as a psychological reminder to the threat that the town was ready to fight. In the colonial's case, given my English Common Law philosophy explanation, a secondary purpose was to warn the regulars that they were not just going to walk up and take the colonials' arms." - herfacechair

And:

"The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair

The events that we argued about took place after that quote.

The Colonials had a right to defend their weapons, per English Common Law/Natural Law/God's Law, which is what they did, an action that sent an implied message to the Regulars… that they weren't going to take the Colonials weapons…

Again, see my "man on porch with gun" example, then go back and re-read the above quote.

Longermonger: SOME OF RED HERRING

Unless you're willing to entertain the idea that many Regulars were deaf, you'd have to embrace common sense. The entire Regular combat element hearing the drums, gunfire and bells would know right off the bat that the Colonials weren't going to let them walk up and confiscate their weapons.

After all, the above quoted 1772 statement is English thought.

Longermonger: according to your speculation

Wrong, not speculation, but according to the facts that I've read. The Colonials were driven by English Common Law. Sending a message, without actually saying it, is common under common law. It's like a man, on his porch with his gun, serving as a visual message to others that they weren't going to kick him off his property, or that they weren't going to violate his property. No worded signs, no verbal statements, needed.

Longermonger: That's a horrible example. A man sitting silently is the opposite of a bunch of people ringing bells, firing guns, and riding around on horseback with torches. Red Herring

That's an outstanding example. Your opinion to this being "opposites" doesn't hold water.

Neither the man on the porch, nor those activating the colonial's alarm system, needed to verbally, or with written communication, communicate what'd be obvious just by seeing or listening. The only difference here is that the man on the porch is sending only a visual message, the Colonials sent a sound message, followed by a visual message when the Regulars came face to face to them.

Longermonger: Let's keep in mind that you didn't start calling it a secondary purpose until I made you. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

My saying this, in my third post on this message board, which responded to you:

"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." - herfacechair

Was intended to tie in these statements, which I made in my first post on this thread:

"Not only that, but the Regulars knew that the sound of gunfire, bells and drums at the village meant that they were not just going to walk in there and take what they wanted to take." - herfacechair

"The Regulars understood this, as it was the same thing they'd do back in the UK." - herfacechair

"When the Regulars heard those warnings, they knew that taking our arms, without protest or resistance, wasn't happening." - herfacechair

And this statement from my second post, which was in response to thorough9. Pay particular attention to what I've bolded in red:

The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's messages was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms.

So no, contrary to your strawman attempts, I didn't "change" my story. My argument remained consistent.

Longermonger: Speculation? Opinion? Proof? Ah, I see..

No, that's me pointing out the Colonials' common law driven courses of actions.

Longermonger: This is the only arrow that you've got. REPEAT POINT

That's ALL I need to support my argument. If I were willing to entertain your strawman arguments, which have nothing to do with the main argument, I'd need more than one arrow. But, what we're arguing is the essence of what Sarah Palin tried to communicate. Anything else is nothing but red herring and strawmen.

Longermonger: Now shoot the arrow! If the IMPLIED SECONDARY PURPOSE of the alarm system was to "warn" the Regulars all you've argued is that they SHOT the arrow,

I did, and the opposition ran from it. Maybe you could be the first to answer these questions:

From "Vindicating the Founders" (http://www.vindicatingthefounders.co...colonists.html )

The Rights of the Colonists, Adopted by the Town of Boston on November 20, 1772:

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can—Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature—

What I said:

"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." - herfacechair

Questions:

Did the colonists, that wrote the above statement, believe that they had a right to life, liberty and property? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did these colonists believe that they had the right to support and defend these rights in the best manner they can? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Something else that you're ignoring:

From James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: ( http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/201...aw-of-nations/ )

What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.

What I said:

"Common sense… our founding fathers would've done things driven by English Common Law." - herfacechair

"Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten." - herfacechair

Did the Father of the US Constitution argue that Common Law should continue with all other branches of the law, until legally changed? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Did the Father of the US Constitution argue that Common Law was unwritten? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Simply copy all my reply above, to include both quotations and questions, and paste them to your response. Place an "X" in the boxes that represent your response, and spare me your BS response.

This is key.

Both the above sources support my arguments.

The actions of the Colonials that night was them practicing their rights under the first law of nature… aka, Natural Law… aka… English Common Law… aka… God's Law. Their forming, and ringing the bells and beating the drums, was them sending a message to the Regulars, that the later wasn't going to be taking the former's property.

HENCE… defending their property in the best manner they can.

These aren't fallacies, speculations, etc., but arguments and questions that have everything to do with what we're arguing.

Longermonger: not that it hit any targets.

That's you communicating your true intentions. You don't care if you're right in this debate or not, and you don't care if I'm right in this debate or not. You just care about making sure that you meet your definition of "victory" in these debates.

Longermonger: Don't be so fucking lazy!

I'm not being lazy, but factual. I'm doing what I need to do to prove my argument. Don't mistake my refusal to entertain your red herring and strawman arguments as my being lazy.

Longermonger: Prove who heard it. RED HERRING

If you read everything in this thread, like you were supposed to, you would've ran into this link at the beginning of the thread:

From Poor Richards News.com: (http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/618...rn-the-british )

According to a history of the ride by David Hackett Fischer in his 1995 book “Paul revere’s Ride,” after Revere awakened the community in Medford, just north of Boston, Revere rode to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford’s minutemen, “who instantly triggered the town’s alarm system. A townsman remembered that ‘repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.”

In the book, Fischer recounts what British troops marching north heard. The “meeting bells” were “not very loud - nothing like the carillons of ancient English churches,” Fischer wrote.

“These were small, solitary country bells, clanging faintly in the night, but the sounds came from every side - west, north, and even east behind the column” of troops.

You see, this is an example of you advancing a red herring. You're trying to nickel and dime this as to how many troops heard this. Your question is beside the point, on two counts. How many Regulars heard the alarm system or not doesn't dismiss the point that Sarah tried to communicate. Second, this fact was referenced, then repeatedly addressed throughout this thread.

If you read that passage, from Fischer's book, you'd get the image of the advancing Regular troops hearing these bells from their north, south, east and west.

Longermonger: You don't understand.

I perfectly understand both our statements. Don't dismiss my refusal to follow your red herring and strawman trails as my "refusing" to understand.

Longermonger: I'm asking WHAT regulars were "warned" REPEAT POINT

"By activating the alarm system, a system that has been in place since the medieval period. The primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of the secondary purposes was to warn the regulars that they were not going to be getting what they set out to get. If this would've succeeded, the first purpose wouldn't have been needed." - herfacechair

Obviously, from reading that quote, the Regulars advancing on the town that Paul Revere ran to in order to activate its alarm system.

Longermonger: and HOW. REPEAT POINT

"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." - herfacechair

The answer to that question has been repeatedly stated throughout this thread.

Longermonger: Paul Revere can't have been out there to "warn" the Regulars that took him prisoner.

From page 185 of Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer:

"Now as they were marching deep into a dangerous country on a supposedly secret expedition, Paul Revere was ahead of them again-captured on a fast horse near Concord twenty miles west of Boston, while they were still slogging through Cambridge." - David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere's Ride

Even the watered down version of American History will tell you what Paul Revere did with regards to the towns alarm systems. That has been repeatedly been mentioned in this thread.

Longermonger: Those Regulars were not "warned" by the alarm system, either. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

From page 186 of Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer:

"As if to punctuate the news that Major Mitchell brought them, the column heard more alarm guns, repeating in the distance. They listened as the meeting bells begin to toll. The bells were not very loud-nothing like the carillons of ancient English churches they had known at home. These were small, solitary country bells, clanging faintly in the night, but the sounds came from every side-west, north, and even east behind the column." - David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere's Ride (reference 6 of that chapter)

"Ensign Jermy Lister of the 10th Foot listened to the bells in the night. He searched the skyline, which now was faintly visible against the brightening sky. On the distant hilltops he began to make out beacon fires burning brilliantly across the rolling landscape." - David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere's Ride (reference 7 of that chapter)

"…they were also sending a message to the Regulars… a warning that they weren't going to be taking the colonials' weapons... that they weren't going to take their property, this case their weapons, without due process of the law…" - herfacechair

A fact now obvious to the above Regulars who were hearing the bells and gunfire.

Longermonger: If you can connect the dots between OTHER bells not near Paul Revere and OTHER Regulars in OTHER areas then prove it. INDUCTIVE FALLACY + RED HERRING

As long as Paul Revere took a course of action that resulted in the Regulars hearing the alarm system, a process that sent a message to the Regulars that they weren't going to confiscate the colonial's message, my argument stands.

Whether the Regulars outside Paul Revere's AO heard the results of Paul Revere's actions or not is beside the point. Whether the Regulars that captured Paul Revere heard the results of what Paul Revere did or not is beside the point.

The question is this, Did Paul Revere's activating the alarm system resulted in the Regulars hearing that Alarm System? If the answer is yes, your statement is nothing but inductive fallacy.

Longermonger: Maybe you're too lazy REPEAT POINT

Again, don't mistake my refusing to follow your inductive fallacy, red herring and strawman arguments as my being "too lazy." That's just me keeping my eyes on the objective.

Longermonger: and you'll just repost your own quotes...

If you repeat a point that I've previously countered, I'm going to repeat my counter rebuttal. So, if you don't want me to repeat what I say, simply don't repeat what you say. If you want me to say something different, common sense dictates that you say something different.

Longermonger: You have your work cut out for you.

I've already done my work, both with the posts that I've already made on this thread, and with this current post.

Longermonger: Since you're such an expert on this topic

A breath of fresh air compared to what you've normally argued.

Longermonger: it should be no problem at all for you to find something,

I don't have problems finding something to prove you, and others that have argued on your side of this argument, wrong.

Longermonger: anything that connects Paul Revere to some other "warned" Regulars. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

Again, this is inductive fallacy on the account that you're trying to argue that if Paul Revere didn't cause an action that let ALL the Regulars know that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons, then my entire argument is "wrong." Quotations used strongly.

However, all I need to do is prove that he caused the alarm system to go off in his AO, which resulted in the Regulars operating in his AO to hear those alarm systems go off.

Even if I could prove that just one Regular heard the alarm, and that just one town activated its alarm system, I've proven my case. But, as you could see with the passages from Paul Revere's Ride, an entire element of Regulars heard the alarm system. This alarm system was heard north, south, east and west of the Regulars' position.

What I've quoted above proves my argument right, and yours wrong.

Longermonger: Complete facts not presented.

WRONG. I presented the complete set of facts.

Longermonger: You're talking about other Regulars than the ones that captured PR.

That's beside the point. The argument is that Paul Revere activated an alarm system, one that subsequently warned the Regulars, via English Common Law, that they were not going to take the Colonials' arms away. Which Regular/Regulars got warned is beside the point.

Longermonger: 'Warn' is the wrong word for alarm, just as you bristle at using the word British instead of Regulars. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

WRONG on both counts. You're consistently refusing to factor in the totality of what was going on that night.

First, I mentioned the fact:

"The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair

The first part shows the alarm system serving its intended purpose, to warn the Colonials that the Regulars were moving. In the first instance, whether "warn" or "alarm" is used is beside the point. It caused the Colonials to take a course of action to counter the threat or emergency.

Second, one of the secondary purposes of that system, for that night, was for the Colonials to send a message to the advancing Regulars that they were not going to capture the Colonials' weapons. This is something happening via English Common Law.

Third, your nickel and diming the words alarm and warn is an apple to oranges comparison to my using Regulars instead of British.

Fourth, you're dead wrong in insinuating that I insist on using "British" rather than "Regulars." I've been using Regulars in my arguments.

As of April 19, 1775, the Colonial saw themselves as "British." So, naturally, they saw the Active Component as "Regulars." Using "Regulars" to describe them during that time period is accurate.

There's absolutely no comparison between "alarm versus warn," or vice versa, and my insistence of using "Regulars."

Longermonger: 'He' makes it sound like PR did it alone instead of being part of a group. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

Again, this is inductive fallacy on the account that you're trying to argue that if Paul Revere didn't cause an action that let ALL the Regulars know that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons, then my entire argument is "wrong." Quotations used strongly.

However, all I need to do is prove that he caused the alarm system to go off in his AO, which resulted in the Regulars operating in his AO to hear those alarm systems go off.

Even if I could prove that just one Regular heard the alarm, and that just one town activated its alarm system, I've proven my case. But, as you could see with the passages from Paul Revere's Ride, an entire element of Regulars heard the alarm system. This alarm system was heard north, south, east and west of the Regulars' position.

What I've quoted above proves my argument right, and yours wrong.

Longermonger: 'Causing the alarm (NOT WARNING) system

What I've repeatedly stated:

"The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." -herfacechair

It doubled up as them warning the Regulars, via English Common Law, that they weren't going to take the Colonials' property away.

Longermonger: to be activated' implies that he was the sole cause. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

Again, this is inductive fallacy on the account that you're trying to argue that if Paul Revere didn't cause an action that let ALL the Regulars know that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons, then my entire argument is "wrong." Quotations used strongly.

However, all I need to do is prove that he caused the alarm system to go off in his AO, which resulted in the Regulars operating in his AO to hear those alarm systems go off.

Even if I could prove that just one Regular heard the alarm, and that just one town activated its alarm system, I've proven my case. But, as you could see with the passages from Paul Revere's Ride, an entire element of Regulars heard the alarm system. This alarm system was heard north, south, east and west of the Regulars' position.

What I've quoted above proves my argument right, and yours wrong.

Longermonger: You've only proven that to your own satisfaction

WRONG. I've proven what I needed to prove for my side of the argument. Remember, we're arguing if Paul Reveres' actions resulted in the Regulars knowing that the Colonials weren't going to hand over their arms… aka… the Colonials sending a message to the Regulars, using English Common Law as a medium, that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons.

We're NOT arguing about whether he warned all the Regulars in the colonies or not.

We're NOT arguing about whether the Regulars that captured Paul Revere heard the alarm system go off or not.

We're NOT arguing about a timeline, as both sides hinted on that in their responses.

Your argument hinges on the above Red Herring, Strawman and Inductive Fallacy approaches. Your tactics are equivalent to a chess player gunning for his opponent's bishop while completely ignoring his opponent's king.

Longermonger: and then you got lazy and started copying your own posts. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

WRONG. I've quoted my statements in response to your repeat points, and in response to your strawman and your "put words in the other person's mouth" tactics. I've also provided my quotes to you to answer questions that those quotes already answered.

Longermonger: You still haven't connected the alarm system to any Regulars

From page 186 of Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer:

"As if to punctuate the news that Major Mitchell brought them, the column heard more alarm guns, repeating in the distance. They listened as the meeting bells begin to toll. The bells were not very loud-nothing like the carillons of ancient English churches they had known at home. These were small, solitary country bells, clanging faintly in the night, but the sounds came from every side-west, north, and even east behind the column." - David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere's Ride (reference 6 of that chapter)

"Ensign Jermy Lister of the 10th Foot listened to the bells in the night. He searched the skyline, which now was faintly visible against the brightening sky. On the distant hilltops he began to make out beacon fires burning brilliantly across the rolling landscape." - David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere's Ride (reference 7 of that chapter)

"…they were also sending a message to the Regulars… a warning that they weren't going to be taking the colonials' weapons... that they weren't going to take their property, this case their weapons, without due process of the law…" - herfacechair

A fact now obvious to the above Regulars who were hearing the bells and gunfire.

Longermonger: and you haven't successfully converted 'alarm system' in to 'warning system'. Lazy! RED HERRING

That's a non-issue, from Harper Collins Webster's Dictionary:

"Alarm n sudden fright; apprehension; notice of danger; bell, buzzer; call to arms. Vt frighten; warn of danger. " Harper Collins Webster's Dictionary, page 10.

From thesaurus.com:

"Alarm, noun, Definition: warning, signaling device" - thesaurus.com

The man on the porch doesn't have to fire his weapon to warn people. He doesn't even have to use it as a weapon, for the moment. He could just use it as a visual warning without having to do anything to cause that weapon to fire.

You're deliberately trying to argue semantics now, instead of focusing on the actual argument.

Again, the alarm system served as an alarm system for the colonials, to get then on line, and it doubled up as a means to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons.

Longermonger: MOOT INDUCTIVE FALLACY + STRAWMAN ARGUMENT + REPEAT POINT

Wrong. English Common Law is central to this debate, as it drove our Founders' actions before, during and after the Revolutionary War.

Your dismissing it as "moot" is like a chess player refusing to go after the opposition's king. Again, anybody that dismisses the role that English Common Law played, in our founders' actions, makes a moot argument. Said person isn't even qualified to participate in this debate.

Longermonger: Golly gee...I'm not a subject expert like you are.

Another breath of fresh air compared to the rest of what you're arguing here.

Longermonger: I'm from Missouri. You'll have to SHOW ME.

I did, scroll back up at the references that I used in this post, read all of them, then come back and thank me for increasing your knowledge in this area.

Longermonger: Speculation. REPEAT POINT

Not speculation, but fact.

Longermonger: You've offered nothing.

I've offered facts. Don't dismiss them as "nothing" if they have something to do with the central theme, and trust, for this argument, and nothing to do with the red herring and strawman routes that you chose to follow.

Longermonger: You mean some OTHER Regulars that you haven't connected to any location, time, name, town, city, bridge, river, tree, bell, alarm, warning, horse, etc... INDUCTIVE FALLACY + REPEAT POINT

Again, this is inductive fallacy on the account that you're trying to argue that if Paul Revere didn't cause an action that let ALL the Regulars know that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons, then my entire argument is "wrong." Quotations used strongly.

However, all I need to do is prove that he caused the alarm system to go off in his AO, which resulted in the Regulars operating in his AO to hear those alarm systems go off.

Even if I could prove that just one Regular heard the alarm, and that just one town activated its alarm system, I've proven my case. But, as you could see with the passages from Paul Revere's Ride, an entire element of Regulars heard the alarm system. This alarm system was heard north, south, east and west of the Regulars' position.

What I've quoted above proves my argument right, and yours wrong.

Longermonger: Talk about them! Name them!

Scroll back up until you reach the passages from, "Paul Revere's Ride."

Longermonger: All you've done is correct the word 'British' to 'Regulars' and that is where you stopped. (lazy)

Wrong. I've done everything I've needed to do to win this argument.

Longermonger: You admit that Paul Revere did not in any way warn the Regulars that captured him. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT

WHERE, in MY posts, do I claim that Paul Revere didn't in any way warn the Regulars that captured him? Find that post, and post the link to that post here!

HINT: I save my replies, to a debate, on Microsoft Word. I have Microsoft Word 2010. If you hit, "Control F," it brings up a navigation pane on the left, which flags every part of the document containing that keyword.

I just did such a search, and just as I thought, I've been consistent with what I said about Paul Revere. Here's a sampling that represents what I've constantly stated throughout this thread:

"And get this. During his capture, in addition to saying what's in deacon's post, Paul Revere warned the British that if they didn't move on, they'd miss their mark... IE, they'd miss their objective." - herfacechair

"The argument isn't about whether Paul Revere verbally warned them, or did he do so via causing the alarm system to go off. The argument is about whether Paul Revere Warned the Regulars, with the ringing of the bells and firing of the guns, or not." - herfacechair

"I've consistently proven, throughout this thread, using facts that you consistently ignore because they don't fit your agenda, that Paul Revere did warn the Regulars… and he did so via activating the alarm system… with English Common Law being the communication medium." - herfacechair

"The Regulars that moved in on the towns did hear the alarm system, hence Paul Revere's causing the alarm system to go off warned the Regulars, "ala man on porch with gun" that they weren't going to confiscate the colonial's weapons." - herfacechair

Longermonger: You're retreated to arguing about other unspecified Regulars.

What I've said in my first post here:

"Not only that, but the Regulars knew that the sound of gunfire, bells and drums at the village meant that they were not just going to walk in there and take what they wanted to take." - herfacechair

What I've said in one of my recent posts here:

"One of Paul Rever's missions was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms" - herfacechair

Unlike you, I've been consistent with my argument. Anybody reading my posts would tell you which Regulars I'm talking about.

Longermonger: Nice retreat, soldier! INDUCTIVE FALLACY

WRONG. I've been consistent with my arguments, and I've gained ground every time I've replied.

You, on the other hand, have adopted strawman, inductive fallacy, and red herring tactics. You've even nickel and dimed terminology, as well as tried to put a quantity limit on the Regulars, and even went as far as putting words in my mouth, and making inaccurate calls on what I've done.

Those aren't the actions that someone, forcing another to retreat, would take. Those are the actions that someone would take in a debate if they're on the ropes and are desperate.

Longermonger: It's more like: I ask questions. You dodge them and try to argue from authority. Then you play your one note song.

WRONG. Your questions are red herrings, strawmen and inductive fallacy questions. My refusing to focus on your attempts to make this argument what it isn't is what you dismiss as my "dodging" the questions. What you dismiss as my playing a "one note song" is my insistence on focusing on the central theme of this fight.

If anybody is dodging questions, it's the opposition.

Longermonger: Yeah, you're a Kung Fu master of arguing on the Internets. I wish I was a history subject expert badass like you.

One trend that you're setting here is that you tend to either be accurate, or come close to being accurate, when you're being sarcastic about my abilities. But, once you start being serious, you swing to the other end of the spectrum… advancing arguments that reek of being wrong.

Longermonger: OUCH! My eyes just rolled so hard

That comes close to describing my reaction to the vast majority of what you say.

Longermonger: I shit my pants.

This deserves to be a standalone.

Longermonger: Under English Common Law you have a tiny penis. What now, bitches?!? LOL

Under English Common Law, you're not qualified to talk about the size of my penis, as you've never seen me.

Longermonger: So you've been taking a 20 page victory lap? Riiiiiiight.

I don't take "victory laps" in these debates, because the end of this debate doesn't end my debating activities. I see this as an "indefinite" activity. Since there's no end, there's no "victory lap."

Longermonger: PAUL REVERE TO....ALARM SYSTEM...INTO A WARNING...INTO THE EAR OF A REGULAR. Connect the dots. Just do it. Don't be a slacker. REPEAT POINT

Again, scroll back up until you get to the references and quotes that I've placed here. You'll see precisely what I'm talking about. Also, don't forget to answer the questions that I asked you. They're easy to answer.

Longermonger: CLOSER TO THE TRUTH = WRONG

Your opinion about Sarah Palin's comment doesn't change the fact that she came closer to the truth than you and others on your side of the argument.

Longermonger: You really aren't as smart as you think you are. Sorry. I'm sure you're used to being the smartest guy in the room. But this ain't one of them rooms.

The others in the other rooms put a better argument up than you did. So I guess there is a difference between this room and the others. Their arguments were easy to dismantle, your arguments are "stick figure art" easy to dismantle.

Longermonger: It was not a quote. Do you see quotation marks?

First, I'm going to reply to with your own statement:

"It's more like: I ask questions. You dodge them…" - Longermonger

And that's precisely what happened. You said this:

"you say: Paul Revere was one of many links in a chain of events that was supposed to have caused a secondary effect, but did not." - Longermonger

I subsequently asked you the question challenging your statement:

"First, WHERE, in MY posts, do I make that EXACT statement?" - herfacechair

Which you dodged by making the above comment:

Second, the fact that you said, "You say," is all I needed to challenge you to produce the post that I made where you claim I said the above.

Longermonger: Hey, if you're smarter than me then go ahead and point out what was incorrect in my one sentence summary. At best you take issue with the last word.

I did it with a question, a question challenging you to find where I said what you claimed I said. You decided to dodge that question, probably because you knew that I never made such statement.

Longermonger: Who may have not heard the alarm either. INDUCTIVE FALLACY + REPEAT POINT

Again, this is inductive fallacy on the account that you're trying to argue that if Paul Revere didn't cause an action that let ALL the Regulars know that they weren't going to confiscate the Colonials' weapons, then my entire argument is "wrong." Quotations used strongly.

However, all I need to do is prove that he caused the alarm system to go off in his AO, which resulted in the Regulars operating in his AO to hear those alarm systems go off.

Even if I could prove that just one Regular heard the alarm, and that just one town activated its alarm system, I've proven my case. But, as you could see with the passages from Paul Revere's Ride, an entire element of Regulars heard the alarm system. This alarm system was heard north, south, east and west of the Regulars' position.

What I've quoted above proves my argument right, and yours wrong.

Longermonger: You've breathlessly argued that the regulars that heard the alarm UNDERSTOOD it as a WARNING

Your statement doesn't capture the totality of what I've been arguing. Alone, it suggests that I'm arguing something else.

I've argued that the Regulars, being British who understood English Common Law, understood the Colonials', who also saw themselves as British, continued activation of the alarm system as a message warning them, using English Common Law as a medium, that they weren't going to take the Colonials' weapons.

Longermonger: but you haven't offered any evidence that any Regulars HEARD the alarms.

Common sense indicates that they would've heard the alarms as they approached their objectives. If you scroll up, you'll see quotes from "Paul Revere's Ride," indicatiung that very fact.

Longermonger: Don't get snotty or I'll MOOT you

Capitalize the first letter in your sentences before you nickel and dime my typos:

"the Regulars could have entered a town thinking that they'd caught the Colonists sleeping," - Longermonger

Take it away Longermonger:

"…but you're ammo is ineffective because people don't read your longwinded rambling posts." - Longermonger

You wouldn't have caught that if you weren't reading my "longwinded rambling" posts. Quotations used strongly. Your actions seem to be rebutting your words.

Longermonger: >MFW IMPLIED

Since English Common Law is mostly unwritten, "implied" is very applicable.

Longermonger: HAHAHAHAHA. It sounds like you're going to "Internet kill" me.

WRONG. I'm just telling you that you're thinking precisely what others, debating me in the past, have thought. Like them, you think you're going to "succeed," but you're going to end up taking the same, or similar, course of action that they've taken.

Longermonger: Nope.

Considering that your statements here have largely been not accurate, I don't believe that "Nope" is the "correct" answer.

Longermonger: Nice insult lazybones!

That wasn't an insult. I stand by my statement about one of your characteristics, one that people in your life may have pointed out to you, directly or indirectly.

Longermonger: Wow. This thread is still going.

It'll keep going as long as people continue to engage in debate. I've already stated what I intend to do.

Longermonger: HFC, I think you might have Asperger's Syndrome. Seriously.

Join the list of people that accused me of having one psychiatric issue or another. I've been accused of having PTSD, ADHD, ODD… and now we could add "Asperger's Syndrome.

Again, who are we to believe, the psychiatrists that examined me, as part of the SRP process before and after the Iraq Deployment, who saw nothing wrong with me? Or you? Someone that's obviously not qualified to make a diagnosis?

Longermonger: I know you think this is war and that you'll win if you just keep slogging,

Not quite. I said that I treat this like a combat operation. And no, I determine victory by how effectively I've proven the opposition wrong. That part, I've won. My continuing to reply to the opposition is just me doing what I enjoy doing. Again, I don't put a shelf life on debates.

Longermonger: but you're ammo is ineffective because people don't read your longwinded rambling posts.

Wrong on many accounts. One, your side of the argument consistently ignores my questions. These aren't "Ha, I got you," questions, these aren't trick questions. These aren't shot guns either. These are simple, straightforward questions that can't be answered truthfully and factually without the opposition destroying their own argument.

Two, your follow up post to this proves that people are still reading my posts. Hint: If people are still replying to me, they're still reading what I'm saying. Obviously, something that I'm saying is motivating them to reply to me.

Longermonger: You're also a one note song. You're still hammering away with the Common Law argument. That's the only arrow you've got in your quiver and it isn't enough.

Actually, that's ALL I need to support my argument. Who's right in this argument or not depends on whether the Colonials/Founders were driven by English Common Law or not. Every action they took, that's noted in our history with regards to freedom and independence, was driven by Common Law.

Their continued ringing of the bells, beating of the drums and firing their shots was them communicating to the Regulars that the latter wasn't going to be taking the latter's property without due process of the law… aka… they were not going to infringe on the former's freedoms and liberty.

I've subsequently posted links to sites proving my points.

Longermonger:You know this. REPEAT POINT

I know what my cognitive processes are, you don't. Your assumptions of my thought processes don't come anywhere near what's actually going on in my mind while doing my debates. What I've spelled out here, as to what I'm doing and/or why, reflect my cognitive process.

Don't assume that your opinions and assumptions reflect undisputable logic, because it's nowhere near that.

Longermonger: That's why your tactic of choice is a classic conservative tactic; volume

The conservative tactic is to continue to pound facts, logic, and a reasoned argument based on the facts in the face of the opposition pounding opinions and assumptions into the table. Dismissing the facts, logic and reasoned argument is a typical liberal tactic.

Longermonger: You still don't get it. You're still wrong.

I'll embrace what the facts tell me, and they're telling me that I'm right in this argument, not wrong. Your statement is equivalent of accusing me of "not getting it," because I refuse to see the Sun as a god.

dirty dog,

I understand what you're trying to say. However; I'm working with what I'm seeing. For example, you have your posts arguing against the left, those arguing against the right, and you have others that deal with other subjects, like the space program. Though you've put passion behind your posts against both liberals and conservatives, your passion toward the counter conservative posts come across as strongest.

In the last post, I mentioned something about how each of us has traits that puts us on the other side of the isle. I've found myself in those situations, where I was in alliance with people that I had debated with in other threads. Those posts that you make that has doesn't deal with either left, or right, are posts the topics can create strange alliances.

There are different degrees of "liberal" just as there are different degrees of conservative. The liberals toward the center have a lot of conservative traits.

I saw the post that you were talking about, where Barleycorn put up the "Obama Priorities of Work." His talking points aren't exactly GOP talking points, as they'd put up an explanation behind each of those points. If he subsequently didn't back each of those points, then he was just doing that to get a rise out of the opposition.

dirty dog,

I understand what you're trying to say. However; I'm working with what I'm seeing. For example, you have your posts arguing against the left, those arguing against the right, and you have others that deal with other subjects, like the space program. Though you've put passion behind your posts against both liberals and conservatives, your passion toward the counter conservative posts come across as strongest.

You know this may be true, I believe the reason is I am not pleased with where the extreme right is trying to pull the Rep party. I am also tired of the party partisenship that at this time is being project to the extreme by the right, when the left was doing it I was also very much against that as well.

There are different degrees of "liberal" just as there are different degrees of conservative. The liberals toward the center have a lot of conservative traits.

I saw the post that you were talking about, where Barleycorn put up the "Obama Priorities of Work." His talking points aren't exactly GOP talking points, as they'd put up an explanation behind each of those points. If he subsequently didn't back each of those points, then he was just doing that to get a rise out of the opposition. Originally Posted by herfacechair

This may also be true, but combined with his other positions he is one of those in the GOP with whom I dont support. HFC what University did you go to. I went to Arizona State.

You know this may be true, I believe the reason is I am not pleased with where the extreme right is trying to pull the Rep party. I am also tired of the party partisenship that at this time is being project to the extreme by the right, when the left was doing it I was also very much against that as well.

This may also be true, but combined with his other positions he is one of those in the GOP with whom I dont support. HFC what University did you go to. I went to Arizona State. Originally Posted by dirty dog

The extremes of both sides, the Democrats and Republicans, are doing their best to push their respective parties to the extreme ends. One major problem is that the majority of the people fall in the center or close to the center. Then we have as many opinions in congress as we do Senators and Congressmen/women. Then we have the interest groups, on both sides, going into overdrive in the persuasion department…

So people have to compromise. This includes people trading votes to get support for their bills. But it doesn't stop there. Our representatives have a way to get the spirit of one bill tacked onto an unrelated bill as an amendment… part of their compromise.

Then we have a media that's hell bent in trying to influence public opinion rather than give people all angles of the issue so that the people could decide on their own.

Of course, we can't leave out the biggest culprit…

Most people think that their duties stop at the voting booth. But it doesn't. Mechanisms are in place so that we could wield our desires, through our representatives.

I went to a few. I got my last degree in the military, via Trident University. I was a traditional college student my first two years of college. Then I joined the military. I completed the remainder, between operational tours, as a nontraditional student with military tuition assistance.

Arizona State? Do you still go to the Phoenix Scottsdale areas? I'm looking to go back to that area to get a second facesitting session from Porsche Lynn.

I get to Scottsdale about 4 times a year to play golf, Porsche Lynn huh, long legs and a great ass if I remember correctly, came out in porn at the end of the Lynn girls in porn, Ginger and Amber. I thought Porsche died a few years back in a car accident, but I may be confusing her with someone else.

Here ya go DD, she's a full time Domme now and owns a dungeon in AZ. Looks like she does pretty good at it. HFC, you're a sub huh?


http://doiaz.com/dungeon/