4th Lie!  In one thread no less!  You bolded part of it, WITHOUT saying "emphasis mine".  That is clearly as bad as stealing someone else work since you then change the meaning of the quoted work.  Lies, I guess your father did not teach you about them.

Your abortion of a brain seemed to have not suffered for the trip, but then from your rantings and postings, it is plain for all to see that you did not have one to begin with.  if any intellectual person is damaged by the trip, I will apologize to them for inflicting it upon them.  In your case, at best it may have done you some good (apparently not, you still do not know attribution mr. cummings, the truth or even any intelligent discourse), but definitly no harm as anyone can see.

Ah, the kb we all know - resort to name calling. Very good liar.  What is your next act, a "sos youse" or "oh yea?"

I did not blame him for anything.  I quoted him.  And then wrote an article that was not about him.  YOur comments made it about him, which I then rebuked because apparently you could not understand what you were reading.  And still cant.  But that is another thread which anyone can read (now that the truth is out and not kb lies) and if you would like to pick up the debate, then go there, not here.

Liar, and now proven 4 times in one thread.  Yes, this liar surely lives in a glass house.  He not only likes to plagarize, but then (like a typical liberal), change the quoted word.  Fortunately for most, the original is easily found along with the rantings of the liar.

73-0

bragging rights?  points?

who knows?

agreed.  nor would i want to be associated with it in any way.  how is that relevant here?

just cuz everyone else is doing something....

hmmm.  sounds suspiciously like that "man is inherently good" fallacy...liberalism's ultimately fatal flaw. (might wanna keep that to yourself.)

actually you didn't.  cuz he never said anything of the kind. 

but you certainly went to great effort to put those words--still steaming, having been just been pulled outta your ass--into his mouth.

fortunate indeed. hopefully it'll enable science with valuable clues to solve the mystery of early onset alzheimer's. 

not to mention severe ongoing delusions of grandeur misleading our subject to believe he can simultaneously be player, umpire and scorekeeper.

technically i guess if you start out calling me a liar there's no resorting involved. 

i do feel sorta badly about comparing you to a batch of imperfectly manufactured douchebags...and i hope they'll accept my apology. unlike you, they aren't responsible for their flaws.

Yawn!!! 74-0.  The part I quoted was him.  The rest is not a quotation.  You do love being wrong.

For your sake apparently

No, just keeping a talley.  You are perfect in your idiocy and being wrong.  That is what is so good about you.  Even when faced with irrefutable proof, you kling to your delusions.  Alzheimers will just be another day for you.  You have no mind to lose.

Then why did you bring it up when you do not know (nor can even tell the truth).  The best thing for you to do is to at least get your house in order mr. cummings.  And do not worry about your delusions of other people's faults.

Next time, tell the truth.  Instead of saying "Bragging rights", try "I don't know, I just like feeling superior to others even though I am never right".  That may be the first truthful thing you say in your entire life.  Shame your dad did not teach you about truthfulness when he was citing jokes.

I PROVED you a liar 4 times in these comments.  That is not name calling.  it is stating a fact.  So you lose again (75-0) and again with the name calling. Such a simple mind - definitely not what they were thinking about when they said a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

still, after all this time, you've still never explained how you managed to journey from your ridiculous imagined mischaracterization of goldwater's words ("extremism in pursuit of virtue is no vice") to eventually conclude "extremism in pursuit of virtue is a vice". 

enlighten us please. 

not a vice?  a vice?  both? neither?

should any of your local lawmakers' offices be vandalized as retribution for their vote on the healthcare bill and should you subsequently be picked up as a person of interest, don't get too upset.  based on this photo you're clearly not the one responible.

it's a no-brainer (how fitting is that?).

as you can see, the true culprit got it right.

I don't know what this has to do with this discussion, but I think at least I have made my position on those extremists clear in several postings.

If you would like to discuss this on that thread, you are more than welcome to post your interogative over there.  You have never been banned from my blog.  This blog is on a different subject.

Yes, the hoohaw that "magically" materialized is reminiscent of the trashing of the democrat HQ in Colorado.  Of course (like the boy who cried wolf) the democrats KNEW it was republicans. Until the culprits were caught.  Seems a local dem official (wink, wink) told his son and friends to do it. 

The democrats better hope the FBI has more important things to do, or they will probably find the culprits sitting in the majority of congress again.

ummmm nope!  That's not it.  You can try again if you'd like. 

ya, Leauki. That's kind of how I look at it too. 

providing a link would be the digital equivalent of showing others published material.  copying and republishing another's work in its entirety without express consent is the digital equivalent of reproduction without consent.

making no effort to determine ownership is irresponsible at very least--and that goes double for material passed along by "a friend" unless, of course, that friend asserts he or she authored it.

"everybody does it" mitigates nothing.

It's the normal way to look at it if you are coming from an offline world (which we all ultimately do).

It might still be wrong as per copyright law. But the point here is that this was your intention which was quite obvious, at least to me.

The Digital age has made copying a lot easier.  A few mouse clicks and it is done (versus the old way of actually re-typing the text).  And as such, it does require a special attention to attribution.  But most "ma and pa Kettles" do not think about it when they see something that strikes their fancy and then sends an email to al ltheir friends (just a few clicks).  Once it has passed through a dozen hands, it will be changed slightly (a Major becomes a Colonel, a Llama becomes a goat).  So even googling the read text does not always result in finding the original author.  Nor do most people feel it iw worth the effort. So often they just say "sent to me by...".  it clearly shows it is not their work, but we do not know who the originator is.

A great example of that is the geek poem "If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,".  Is sounded like Dr. Suess, so many thought it was by him.  When actually it was by a lesser known guy, Gene Zeigler.  The many copies I saw never claimed attribution from the sender, and I would have sworn it was from Theodore Giessel (incorrectly) until Gene came forward.  I am glad he did.  But most sending it still say "Dr. Suess on the Internet" or something similar.