Terrorists are just like our founding fathers

[MannyIsGod]

I'd imagine the feeling I get when I see Zosa try to argue with me is a lot like the feeling the Spurs got when they got matched up with the Suns in the playoffs prior to this year.

The question is will I ever get old and lack a bench?

[z0sa]

IE the knowledge is not rare. Note the use of the word common is used to describe the prevalence of the data TODAY.

Note the word common does not appear in this portion of the sentence. This portion of the statement merely says that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day and it does not state how common such a belief was or who held it.

I know, the sentence was so tough to understand it required paragraphs to explain. Jesus.

it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF, or at least not assuming you know what a person is arguing a whole thread when you really, really don't.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL@ debating if the founding fathers were terrorist!

That, um , like, well, you know, I think ,it's kind of like, witch trial girl in the youtube video really did a number on some of you dumbasses.

wow jack doesn't get it..par for the course..

[Shastafarian]

it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF.

Oh my god. Serious question: Is English your first language?

[MannyIsGod]

it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF.

Cool argument bro. Too bad no one ever said otherwise.

We know what you've been arguing this whole time. I just don't know why. I tried to tell you that in my first post to you.

Keep on fighting the good fight! Maybe this afternoon you can argue against my statement that the sky is green.

Here, I'll start

The Sky is blue.

Now you go and ask me to back up my claim that the sky is green.

[George Gervin's Afro]

it's ridiculous, it really is. It's never been common knowledge the FF were terrorists, which is what I've been arguing this whole time.

RIF.

they were considered terrorists who committed terrorist acts according to the British... I don't consider them terrorists but others did..how hard is that to understand?

[MannyIsGod]

they were considered terrorists who committed terrorist acts according to the British... I don't consider them terrorists but others did..how hard is that to understand?

Very.

[z0sa]

Oh my god. Serious question: Is English your first language?

It's never been common knowledge they were "considered" terrorists, either. Not then, which is when it'd have been actually do ented (first part of my argument). Not shortly after, when the period was fresh in everyone's minds (second part). Not now, when people judge for themselves.

Never has it been common knowledge the FF were considered terrorists, were terrorists, terrorized, or anything to do with terrorism. If you want to argue facets of the rebellion they led were terrorist in nature, that's a totally different argument.

But never, in any class I've taken or book I've read, have the Founding Fathers, specifically been considered terrorists.

So, now that you finally understand my argument, I'll be waiting on those sources.

[Shastafarian]

http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/sentencetext.htm

Here you go z0sa

[Shastafarian]

It's never been common knowledge they were "considered" terrorists, either. Not then, which is when it'd have been actually do ented (first part of my argument). Not shortly after, when the period was fresh in everyone's minds (second part). Not now, when people judge for themselves.

Never has it been common knowledge the FF were considered terrorists, were terrorists, terrorized, or anything to do with terrorism. If you want to argue facets of the rebellion they led were terrorist in nature, that's a totally different argument.

But never, in any class I've taken or book I've read, have the Founding Fathers, specifically been considered terrorists.

So, now that you finally understand my argument, I'll be waiting on those sources.

I guess the British Govt and its citizens don't count.

[z0sa]

Very.

Who, today and back then, considered the Founding Fathers, specifically, terrorist, and which Founding Fathers were terrorist, and for what acts did they consider them terrorist?

AFAIK, no one has ever called any of the the Founding Fathers a terrorist specifically, so I would really like to know.

[z0sa]

I guess the British Govt and its citizens don't count.

Find me some British citizens who called the FF terrorists. There are none, to my knowledge. From that King's do ent, looks like not even the King was willing to specifically call the noble statesmen of our FF a name like terrorist.

So, to sum up:

1) Neither Manny nor Shasta proved, with any type of contemporary or modern source, that any of the FF were considered terrorists. Rebel Leaders is what the whole world recognizes them as both then and since, unless you bought into the King's propaganda.

2) Neither of them understood my argument until in the end; both assumed I was arguing one specific thing, which was only a facet of my argument, so in fact, they exhibited their own comprehension failures or assume too much.

3) Both are fond of ad hominem arguments and "you simply can't read" over arguing the premise if they think they're better than you.

[clambake]

lol

[Shastafarian]

I'll be honest. I probably brought this on by not reading Manny's original post. I was responding to z0sa's response. He still doesn't understand though. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Is it so hard?

[Shastafarian]

Find me some British citizens who called the FF terrorists. There are none, to my knowledge. From that King's do ent, looks like not even the King was willing to specifically call the noble statesmen of our FF a name like terrorist.

Maybe the term not existing then has something to do with it.

Origin:
1785–95; terror + -ist; cf. F terroriste

Does a dictionary count as a primary source? If not I sincerely apologize and concede my assertion that the term didn't exist as erroneous.

[z0sa]

Maybe the term not existing then has something to do with it.

He doesn't call them a name "like" terrorist, either.

Comprehension, you need some.

[z0sa]

I'll be honest. I probably brought this on by not reading Manny's original post. I was responding to z0sa's response. He still doesn't understand though. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Is it so hard?

So you admit you never knew the premise of the argument yet argued with me still by asking some pointless questions and posting links that neither adhere to the standards you imposed or answer any questions pertaining to the argument.

Idiot. You call me out for comprehension and don't even read the posts you're arguing over. You didn't waste my time since I'm at work but you shouldn't try to act so stupid.

[Shastafarian]

He doesn't call them a name "like" terrorist, either.

Comprehension, you need some.

Pretending you meant "like" as "such as".

[Shastafarian]

So you admit you never knew the premise of the argument yet argued with me still by asking some pointless questions and posting links that neither adhere to the standards you imposed or answer any questions pertaining to the argument.

I was going by your understanding of what he said. Clearly it was my mistake to trust you understood anything.

Idiot. You didn't waste my time since I'm at work but you should try and not act so stupid.

I can't believe you've spent all this time posting from work. You boss wouldn't be too happy.

[z0sa]

Pretending you meant "like" as "such as".

Since you usually don't read anything, let me inform you that the word "terrorist" isn't used in that do ent. Which is why I said a name like terrorist.

[Shastafarian]

Find me some British citizens who called the FF terrorists. There are none, to my knowledge. From that King's do ent, looks like not even the King was willing to specifically call the noble statesmen of our FF a name like terrorist.

Let's assume you meant "like" as you're claiming now. Why say this?

[MannyIsGod]

No one specifically called them terrorists back then. I already addressed this in a post. If you choose to disagree, more power to you.

[Shastafarian]

Is he going to try to say his whole point this entire time was they weren't called terrorists because the term didn't exist?

[Shastafarian]

So z0sa, where do you work?

[z0sa]

I was going by your understanding of what he said. Clearly it was my mistake to trust you understood anything.

Yeah, I've already clearly proven I knew exactly what he was saying the whole time.

I can't believe you've spent all this time posting from work. You boss wouldn't be too happy.

I can't believe you'd waste your time with arguing when you don't know what the issue is, what the person you're arguing with's position on the issue is, or the angle he's taking with his actual argument.

In other words, I can't believe you don't know that reading is fundamental.