User talk:Dave07 - Revision history

Dave07 at 04:18, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T04:18:49Z

DamianJohn at 04:16, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T04:16:07Z

Dave07 at 04:10, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T04:10:15Z

Dave07 at 04:10, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T04:10:03Z

DamianJohn at 04:02, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T04:02:38Z

Dave07 at 03:59, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T03:59:55Z

DamianJohn at 03:53, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T03:53:06Z

Dave07 at 03:49, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T03:49:04Z

DamianJohn at 02:44, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T02:44:31Z

Dave07 at 02:39, March 1, 2013

2013-03-01T02:39:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:18, March 1, 2013
Line 11:		Line 11:
	:::::::::What's the difference between a country and a website? I'll tell you one thing, it's not income tax.[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 23:10, 28 February 2013 (EST)		:::::::::What's the difference between a country and a website? I'll tell you one thing, it's not income tax.[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 23:10, 28 February 2013 (EST)
	::::::::::This is getting dull. No offence but you are not exactly a great debater. Whether you agree or not, you should accept the fact yhat you need to either start making some positive contributions or go somewhere else. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 23:16, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::::::::::This is getting dull. No offence but you are not exactly a great debater. Whether you agree or not, you should accept the fact yhat you need to either start making some positive contributions or go somewhere else. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 23:16, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	:::::::::::What arguments could I have made better?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, March 1, 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::::::::That is a non sequitur. An organisation may agree on the rules for the proper running of a country, but not agree that those rules should apply to the running of a website. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 23:02, 28 February 2013 (EST		::::::::That is a non sequitur. An organisation may agree on the rules for the proper running of a country, but not agree that those rules should apply to the running of a website. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 23:02, 28 February 2013 (EST
	:::::::::What's the difference between a country and a website? I'll tell you one thing, it's not income tax.[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 23:10, 28 February 2013 (EST)		:::::::::What's the difference between a country and a website? I'll tell you one thing, it's not income tax.[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 23:10, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	::::::::::This is getting dull. No offence but you are not exactly a great debater. Whether you agree or not, you should accept the fact yhat you need to either start making some positive contributions or go somewhere else. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 23:16, 28 February 2013 (EST)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :::::::Shouldn't an organization out to protect constitutional rights live by them as well? (I've seen your gun control article; I know there's stuff in the Constitution you like).[[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 22:59, 28 February 2013 (EST)
 ::::::::That is a non sequitur.  An organisation may agree on the rules for the proper running of a country, but not agree that those rules should apply to the running of a website.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:02, 28 February 2013 (EST
-:::::::::What's the difference between a country and a website?  I'll tell you one thing, it's not income tax.
+:::::::::What's the difference between a country and a website?  I'll tell you one thing, it's not income tax.[[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 23:10, 28 February 2013 (EST)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::::::I am not a US citizen, and I still have no idea why you think that the first amendment would apply to a private site that sets up its own rules of conduct.  The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws ... " and is totally irrelevant to this websites rules.  I should add that there are things in articles here that I do not agree with, but that I accept that this site has a declared POV and by remaining here I agree to not add things that contradict this POV, at least not in mainspace articles.  I suggest you accept this also.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 28 February 2013 (EST)
 :::::::Shouldn't an organization out to protect constitutional rights live by them as well? (I've seen your gun control article; I know there's stuff in the Constitution you like).[[User:Dave07|Dave07]] 22:59, 28 February 2013 (EST)
-::::::::That is a non sequitur.  An organisation may agree on the rules for the proper running of a country, but not agree that those rules should apply to the running of a website.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:02, 28 February 2013 (EST)
+::::::::That is a non sequitur.  An organisation may agree on the rules for the proper running of a country, but not agree that those rules should apply to the running of a website.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:02, 28 February 2013 (EST

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:02, March 1, 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::::::I am not a US citizen, and I still have no idea why you think that the first amendment would apply to a private site that sets up its own rules of conduct. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws ... " and is totally irrelevant to this websites rules. I should add that there are things in articles here that I do not agree with, but that I accept that this site has a declared POV and by remaining here I agree to not add things that contradict this POV, at least not in mainspace articles. I suggest you accept this also. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::::::I am not a US citizen, and I still have no idea why you think that the first amendment would apply to a private site that sets up its own rules of conduct. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws ... " and is totally irrelevant to this websites rules. I should add that there are things in articles here that I do not agree with, but that I accept that this site has a declared POV and by remaining here I agree to not add things that contradict this POV, at least not in mainspace articles. I suggest you accept this also. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 28 February 2013 (EST)
	:::::::Shouldn't an organization out to protect constitutional rights live by them as well? (I've seen your gun control article; I know there's stuff in the Constitution you like).[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:59, 28 February 2013 (EST)		:::::::Shouldn't an organization out to protect constitutional rights live by them as well? (I've seen your gun control article; I know there's stuff in the Constitution you like).[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:59, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	::::::::That is a non sequitur. An organisation may agree on the rules for the proper running of a country, but not agree that those rules should apply to the running of a website. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 23:02, 28 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:59, March 1, 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:::::Thank-you for your consideration, but the server prevented my response. If this is America, which this website acts like it is, than the First Amendment should apply here. I am a U.S. citizen, I am not in Iran or Sudan, I am not talking about their governments, I should have a right to express my opinion in a non-violent manner. I do believe that I am being less violent than your rather impetuous insults; they are almost dehumanizing. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)		:::::Thank-you for your consideration, but the server prevented my response. If this is America, which this website acts like it is, than the First Amendment should apply here. I am a U.S. citizen, I am not in Iran or Sudan, I am not talking about their governments, I should have a right to express my opinion in a non-violent manner. I do believe that I am being less violent than your rather impetuous insults; they are almost dehumanizing. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)
	::::::I am not a US citizen, and I still have no idea why you think that the first amendment would apply to a private site that sets up its own rules of conduct. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws ... " and is totally irrelevant to this websites rules. I should add that there are things in articles here that I do not agree with, but that I accept that this site has a declared POV and by remaining here I agree to not add things that contradict this POV, at least not in mainspace articles. I suggest you accept this also. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::::::I am not a US citizen, and I still have no idea why you think that the first amendment would apply to a private site that sets up its own rules of conduct. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws ... " and is totally irrelevant to this websites rules. I should add that there are things in articles here that I do not agree with, but that I accept that this site has a declared POV and by remaining here I agree to not add things that contradict this POV, at least not in mainspace articles. I suggest you accept this also. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	:::::::Shouldn't an organization out to protect constitutional rights live by them as well? (I've seen your gun control article; I know there's stuff in the Constitution you like).[[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:59, 28 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, March 1, 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::::You have no right to be heard '''here''' though. Why on earth would you think the first amendment applied to this website? --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:44, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::::You have no right to be heard '''here''' though. Why on earth would you think the first amendment applied to this website? --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:44, 28 February 2013 (EST)
	:::::Thank-you for your consideration, but the server prevented my response. If this is America, which this website acts like it is, than the First Amendment should apply here. I am a U.S. citizen, I am not in Iran or Sudan, I am not talking about their governments, I should have a right to express my opinion in a non-violent manner. I do believe that I am being less violent than your rather impetuous insults; they are almost dehumanizing. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)		:::::Thank-you for your consideration, but the server prevented my response. If this is America, which this website acts like it is, than the First Amendment should apply here. I am a U.S. citizen, I am not in Iran or Sudan, I am not talking about their governments, I should have a right to express my opinion in a non-violent manner. I do believe that I am being less violent than your rather impetuous insults; they are almost dehumanizing. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	::::::I am not a US citizen, and I still have no idea why you think that the first amendment would apply to a private site that sets up its own rules of conduct. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no laws ... " and is totally irrelevant to this websites rules. I should add that there are things in articles here that I do not agree with, but that I accept that this site has a declared POV and by remaining here I agree to not add things that contradict this POV, at least not in mainspace articles. I suggest you accept this also. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 28 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, March 1, 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:::It is extremely ironic how much you seem to love the Constitution when you clearly don't understand the First Amendment. I have as much of a right to be heard as you do. You tend to think I just actually agree with you and don't, but that is a misconception. I do not lie about philosophy.		:::It is extremely ironic how much you seem to love the Constitution when you clearly don't understand the First Amendment. I have as much of a right to be heard as you do. You tend to think I just actually agree with you and don't, but that is a misconception. I do not lie about philosophy.
	::::You have no right to be heard '''here''' though. Why on earth would you think the first amendment applied to this website? --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:44, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::::You have no right to be heard '''here''' though. Why on earth would you think the first amendment applied to this website? --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:44, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	:::::Thank-you for your consideration, but the server prevented my response. If this is America, which this website acts like it is, than the First Amendment should apply here. I am a U.S. citizen, I am not in Iran or Sudan, I am not talking about their governments, I should have a right to express my opinion in a non-violent manner. I do believe that I am being less violent than your rather impetuous insults; they are almost dehumanizing. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 22:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:44, March 1, 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:
	::Indeed, but you have no right to be heard. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:20, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::Indeed, but you have no right to be heard. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:20, 28 February 2013 (EST)
	:::It is extremely ironic how much you seem to love the Constitution when you clearly don't understand the First Amendment. I have as much of a right to be heard as you do. You tend to think I just actually agree with you and don't, but that is a misconception. I do not lie about philosophy.		:::It is extremely ironic how much you seem to love the Constitution when you clearly don't understand the First Amendment. I have as much of a right to be heard as you do. You tend to think I just actually agree with you and don't, but that is a misconception. I do not lie about philosophy.
		+	::::You have no right to be heard '''here''' though. Why on earth would you think the first amendment applied to this website? --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:44, 28 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:39, March 1, 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:I have a right to be right. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 21:16, 28 February 2013 (EST)		:I have a right to be right. [[User:Dave07\|Dave07]] 21:16, 28 February 2013 (EST)
	::Indeed, but you have no right to be heard. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:20, 28 February 2013 (EST)		::Indeed, but you have no right to be heard. --[[User:DamianJohn\|DamianJohn]] 21:20, 28 February 2013 (EST)
		+	:::It is extremely ironic how much you seem to love the Constitution when you clearly don't understand the First Amendment. I have as much of a right to be heard as you do. You tend to think I just actually agree with you and don't, but that is a misconception. I do not lie about philosophy.