Sarah Palin quits

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Petty, I'll explain

First off, Wiki is not ALWAYS wrong, is it? Now I have that established.

The problem with using wiki is that almost any body can edit it to change what it says. So because of that, you LOOK AT THE SOURCES which also relates to my previous comment about providing evidence.

Since I must I provide these to which the article provides as sources.

Defamation -
Open Directory - Society: Law: Legal Information: Defamation

# ^ E.g. in the case the offence of defamatory libel under the common law of England and Wales, where prior to the enactment of section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 (defence of justification for the public benefit), the truth of the defamatory statement was irrelevant, and it continues to be sufficient that it is published to the defamed person alone.
# ^ Center for Visual Computing Invasion of Privacy
# ^ a b False light by Professor Edward C. Martin - Cumberland School of Law, Samford University
# ^ from Latin : libellus ("little book") ("Webster's 1828 Dictionary, Electronic Version". Christian Technologies, Inc.. 1828. http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster..._web1828=libel. Retrieved on 2006-12-31.
# ^ "Online Etymology Dictionary". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved on 2006-12-31. )
# ^ 50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1-546
# ^ "out-law.com". August 8, 2008. Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court.
# ^ Map showing countries with criminal defamation laws
# ^ ARTICLE 19 statements on criminalized defamation
# ^ Republic of the Philippines. "The Revised Penal Code". Chan Robles law Firm. REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES - BOOK TWO (FULL TEXT). Retrieved on 2006-11-24. "Art. 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead."
# ^ See, for example, Section 18-13-105, Colorado Revised Statutes
# ^ "Legal dictionary". findlaw.com. http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scr...lic%20interest. Retrieved on 2006-11-24.
# ^ "Legal Terms". legal.org. http://www.canona650.com. Retrieved on 2004-10-22.
# ^ Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
# ^ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
# ^ Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
# ^ BBC News, reporting the comments of Professor Michael Geist, July 31, 2006
# ^ IRIS 2006-10:2/1: Ilia Dohel, Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Representative on Freedom of the Media: Report on Achievements in the Decriminalization of Defamation
# ^ PACE Resolution 1577 (2007): Towards decriminalisation of defamation
# ^ Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Police) Yearly Statistics 2006
# ^ Defamation, Libel, and Slander Per Se
# ^ New York Times, "Firm Awarded $222.7 Million In a Libel Suit Vs. Dow Jones"
# ^ Awards $35.5 Million To Russian In Libel Case, The Washington Post, December 16th, 1999
# ^ U.S. Court Finds Kommersant Guilty of Libel
# ^ Document - Singapore: Defamation suits threaten Chee Soon Juan and erode freedom of expression Amnesty International
# ^ Libel On The Internet: An International Problem
# ^ The recent spat by the DBS bank is proof that the libel law in Singapore needs to be reformed
# ^ House of Lords - Berezovsky v. Michaels and Others Glouchkov v. Michaels and Others (Consolidated Appeals)
# ^ Letter From the Editor - Barron's Online
# ^ The Media and the Law Australian Press Council - Press Law in Australia
# ^ Murphy v. LaMarsh (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114
# ^ Société Radio-Canada c. Radio Sept-Îles inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1811 canlii.org
# ^ Moles, Robert N, PhD. "Canada reports: Libel case may set precedent". Networked Knowledge. Canada reports: Libel case may set precedent. Retrieved on 2009-01-03.

Read this on using wiki.

Wired Campus: Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation - Chronicle.com

I did not "jump" on your back, I challenged the source you used. Difference. I have criticized you for not posting any sources, difference.

I expect you to give me the same treatment.

Completly and utterly pointless to write that. It wasn't in reference to the amount of people in the building wither you have the right to shout fire. The point is shouting fire gets people hurt, and has no utility.

Part of the original quote is "shouting fire in an crowed..." where the part I replaced was building where it was theater.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Oliver-Wendell-Holmes%2C-Jr."

Agreed... it was extremly petty. I even said that. I was just trying to show what it was like to be in a discussion with you. I would never be allowed to source wiki with a teacher. Since you brought it up before I used it in this case. We are extremely off topic with this so I will stop and I appologize for deraling the topic further.

You made it seem like you were jumping on my back becuase you didn't plainly put what I had posted wasn't adequate enough. You made it seen like I wasn't competent enough to know that what I posted wouldn't hold up in school. I know this. You made it seem like I didn't.

The actual quote says nothing about shouting fire in a CROWDED theather. It doesnt matter if thier is 1 or 100 people. Its all about falsely shouting it. Schenck v. United States 1919. Look it up.

actual quote: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent

Done. I am done for good with this thread.

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

So, what in this for you? Did Palin offer you the job as ambassador to Japan if she wins? Don't pack your Yukata yet 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

lol, I dont know why.... but I laughed

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Not sure what was said. ^^ That aside, this same logic should be applied to Obama as well. There have been a lot of people being disrespectful towards him. Some towards Bush as well.

burkhartdesu, comment

Sarah Palin quits

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Which is my philosophy in general. Treat others the way you would want to be treated and try to be respectful of everyone, regardless. I don't know Palin, which is why I can't say I dislike her...just her views, which is normal anyway. She seems to be a far right Christian. I haven problem with Christians or anything...just those that might fit that particular category, but it's her prerogative to believe what she wants.

We agree.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I do agree she does get attacked unfairly, but, she has said/done things that made her come across as if she lacks knowledge, and the one that stands out for me, was when she couldn't name one single newspaper when asked to name what she read, after she stated that she read papers from all over. It was a simple, easy question, but managed to botch it. For something that's done on a regular basis, which she implied, seems she should've been able to name something right off the bat.

People debate this, that is what is happening here. Opinions collide and we talk. I should not be the only one to know this. You post what you think, I post in response to that, and it goes in the mirror direction that is normal.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

For me, I'm extremely calm, laid back, and nonchalant. This thread is nothing, and for the most part, there hasn't been anything here that's "upset" me. I wouldn't still be here if that were the case.

Yet, you are human. That was the point of that paragraph. Same for me.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

But that's just it, you really haven't come across as seeing the other side of the argument. You're just arguing.

Yet I don't dismiss the case at base value do I? I see what they post, look at the source do an little research then arrive at an conclusion.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Even though I don't agree with it (the hate thing), they have the right to dislike if they want. It's done so much and so often. Look at celebrities who get a lot of hate and stuff. It's to be expected, especially with someone in the spotlight. I know I can never personally dislike someone I don't know, but there are some who do. The only thing I personally do dislike about Palin are some of her views, but I don't dislike her.

I argue for the sake of the poster they shouldn't be that way. Very strong in that, at the end of the day they should know that they are entitled to that. I'm not debating that, what I have been saying all along is challange her political views not her.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

But the problem is how you're coming across and you seem to be spending more time attacking the poster than the actual post.

How so? I've only challenge the content of the post not the poster. I need more to go on then this.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

So how is my view wrong? I did say that imo Palin is coming across as a quitter. That's just based on observation.

I never said your view was wrong. What happen was I debated with you in two ways; one being her college life is an example of her being an "quitter" and two being what conclusion I came to by your writing. This is normal in every conversation.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

It can be defined as that, but I see opinions as more as "personal views". Just because you view a person in a certain way, doesn't make it a true belief.

True. I ask this, do I have to take your opinion without applying my own? Can I post what I think of what had been posted?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Why should they support an argument if they don't have much to support it with? Let's say someone said, "I felt Palin wasn't very knowledgeable when it came to international relations because of an interview she gave." or "I feel that Palin truly needs to get out of Alaska more, because she comes across as living in a bubble." Both of these are opinions, but, they aren't stated as facts either, because of the wording and the context.

Then I would ask why she comes across as an bubble, and why you think she wasn't very knowledgeable. Point is they have to arrive at that conclusion some how and I want to have an conversation with them and because I don't know how they come that way it's hard to see there point.

Read these
Comments (Stating your Opinion)
Using Evidence to Strengthen Your Arguments

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I don't see anyone here gossiping. Just giving their opinions on why he/she doesn't like her or either why he/she doesn't feel she'd make a good President or why he/she felt she shouldn't have quit or how they feel since she did quit. In other words, I don't see anyone here stating their opinions as if they're facts. The posts are clearly subjective and opinionated.

gossip definition | Dictionary.com

You still don't get it, I have the same right to state how I feel about the subject. I also have the same right to comment on how others take it. there have been people her stating some things as facts and I challenged that.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

It's just an opinion though. If people go around saying, "I feel" or "IMO" and such, and then give a reason, it should be left at that...not demanded that the person elaborate more on it. IMO, Palin quitting her colleges, and having to go to so many just for a Bachelor's degree looks bad to me, and also, to me makes her look like a "quitter" and her quitting as governor makes her looks like an even bigger one. What can I say to back that up if this statement is based solely on how I feel? I didn't attack Palin, I didn't call her "stupid" or anything like that. I didn't bash her either. I just feel that quitting wasn't a good idea, especially if she does have aspirations for obtaining some other political office.

That's not how it works. Take me and what I have done her as an example. When you publicly state an opinion you put it out there so people may comment on it.

I just came across this gem of wisdom and greatly want you to read it (makes me think about some of my pre-held conceptions).
Stupid Opinion, Logical Fallacy: All Opinions Equal. Sure Sign of Not Thinking

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I'm not making accusations about anything or anyone.

saying she is an quitter because she didn't finish one college is an accusation, is it not?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I suppose, but for what I was talking about, how Palin's quitting makes her look bad in general, just like the quitting of all the schools she went to, to me makes her look bad was pretty much my only, and main qualm. Why you can't seem to understand my point of view is beyond me, and with others, it doesn't seem as if you want to acknowledge another person's point of view. To me, you're attacking the poster more so than what's actually said.

I got it, that way I debated it with you. You don't think otherwise do you? So I still think you believe that way. What is happening is I'm debating her, and at the end of the day it's up to how you think and come to an conclusion based on what was written.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

You're still coming across as disrespectful, rude, and a tad big defensive...almost like one throwing a temper tantrum, but not really on that level.

You really are going to have to elaborate, I don't see this myself doing what your saying.

bELyVIS,
(I had to cut out your quote, sorry)

Did I say you have to take my word?

challenge - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
number 5a is what I'm looking at.

I provided an response of why someone shouldn't use the term hate towards another person.

You don't get it. Your not free to post your opinions without someone posting an response. You would say the same thing as well for my opinion correct? Then apply this, I have an opinion of what's being posted and I'm stating it. Well when you don't read what I write, it doesn't help. I hope that is sarcasm, if not I really suggest increasing your attention to an topic.

Barone1551,

Forgive me but I don't have enough space to quote what you wrote. If you knew so, how I"m I supposed to know that? Well, then I got the crowded part wrong (nowadays the phrase includes crowded).

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the quote hence why I posted that (to which turns out to be an bad link)

Well if there was no repercussions to shouting it, there wouldn't be much of an issue. The point of not being able to shout is the repercussions of what happens afterward.

Note what I just wrote. You said something, that I wanted to comment on, and I did. Now for you and everyone else who reads it, you can comment on it to (it's an example that I would like to make an point about this thread).

[Barone1551]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

Barone1551,

Forgive me but I don't have enough space to quote what you wrote. If you knew so, how I"m I supposed to know that? Well, then I got the crowded part wrong (nowadays the phrase includes crowded).

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the quote hence why I posted that (to which turns out to be an bad link)

Well if there was no repercussions to shouting it, there wouldn't be much of an issue. The point of not being able to shout is the repercussions of what happens afterward.

Note what I just wrote. You said something, that I wanted to comment on, and I did. Now for you and everyone else who reads it, you can comment on it to (it's an example that I would like to make an point about this thread).

Its quite all right running out of room happens. Dont worry about it. I can remember what I wrote... I think lol. The quote is often miss quoted. I always hear it with the crowded part in there. I didn't know until I took a class that covered all these cases. I was surprised. And yes it doesnt matter if its crowded or not, just the fact that it is falsely shouted. Your point was made, even if it was miss quoted. Just as you are trying to make a point, that is what I was doing with my last post.

Isn't it much nicer when its a calm discussion.

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

I argue for the sake of the poster they shouldn't be that way. Very strong in that, at the end of the day they should know that they are entitled to that. I'm not debating that, what I have been saying all along is challange her political views not her.

For me, it gets to the point where I just don't care. Can't truly change some people's views, as they are stubborn, even if the evidence is right in front of him/her.

How so? I've only challenge the content of the post not the poster. I need more to go on then this.

I said you came across this way, even if it was unintentional.

I never said your view was wrong. What happen was I debated with you in two ways; one being her college life is an example of her being an "quitter" and two being what conclusion I came to by your writing. This is normal in every conversation.

But it still came across as if I had to reach your conclusion. I understood it, and even agreed partially with it (she did get her degree after all), but the fact she had to go through so many schools to get it, to me wasn't a good thing.

True. I ask this, do I have to take your opinion without applying my own? Can I post what I think of what had been posted?

There's nothing wrong with that, just as long as you don't come across as being demanding or come across in a way where the correct interpretation is yours. As I said before, it's probably unintentional on your part.

Then I would ask why she comes across as an bubble, and why you think she wasn't very knowledgeable. Point is they have to arrive at that conclusion some how and I want to have an conversation with them and because I don't know how they come that way it's hard to see there point.

Now this I have no problem with. You're just responding the query and asking about it. You're not coming across in a "You better prove your point" manner or anything.

You still don't get it, I have the same right to state how I feel about the subject. I also have the same right to comment on how others take it. there have been people her stating some things as facts and I challenged that.

To me, I haven't seen that.

That's not how it works. Take me and what I have done her as an example. When you publicly state an opinion you put it out there so people may comment on it.

No problem with commenting on it, it's when you come across as demanding that's the problem, and when you do that, you're not coming across as respectful of the other poster. As I mentioned above, it may not be intentional on your part.

saying she is an quitter because she didn't finish one college is an accusation, is it not?

Multiple colleges, not just one. What do you call it when one attends a school, or anything, and doesn't finish it? Is that not quitting? I'm not twisting it. Besides, I didn't say she was a quitter. I said she's "coming across as one". There's a big difference. Saying she's a quitter, would be my saying it as if it's a fact, but I have no proof of that, as I don't know if there were mitigating circumstances that led her to have to quit all of these universities/colleges so prematurely. My saying that she's coming across as a quitter because she quit so many schools and now her position as governor, is pure opinion.

I got it, that way I debated it with you. You don't think otherwise do you? So I still think you believe that way. What is happening is I'm debating her, and at the end of the day it's up to how you think and come to an conclusion based on what was written.

Well, unless I know more about the circumstances, she still is going to come across as a "quitter" to me.

You really are going to have to elaborate, I don't see this myself doing what your saying.

I have to apologize for this one. I actually meant to go back and edit that, but saw that you'd already responded, so disregard the entire comment. ^^ It is very inaccurate.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

One thing comes to mind when I think about how the conversation has advanced to this point. If you don't like what I post, you are not required to respond. It's simple ignore me if you want, I won't think any less of that.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

For me, it gets to the point where I just don't care. Can't truly change some people's views, as they are stubborn, even if the evidence is right in front of him/her.

For lack of a better word, I like doing "this". It serves as a way for me to learn, while also improving and understanding social interaction.

I like to debate wither, the person while change there views or not. You could say I'm an sucker for an argument.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I said you came across this way, even if it was unintentional.

I would still like to know how you came to that conclusion. There has to been something I wrote that leads you to believe that.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

But it still came across as if I had to reach your conclusion. I understood it, and even agreed partially with it (she did get her degree after all), but the fact she had to go through so many schools to get it, to me wasn't a good thing.

I would think you wanted me to reach your conclusion also? I hate to say it, but one wanting the other to agree is the nature of the beast.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Now this I have no problem with. You're just responding the query and asking about it. You're not coming across in a "You better prove your point" manner or anything.

I don't expect someone to take my opinion for the matter, as such I expect the same standard applied to me and those I argue with.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

To me, I haven't seen that.

http://www.japanforum.com/forum/gene...tml#post741486
http://www.japanforum.com/forum/newr...reply&p=741747

http://www.japanforum.com/forum/newr...reply&p=742048
http://www.japanforum.com/forum/newr...reply&p=742339

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Multiple colleges, not just one. What do you call it when one attends a school, or anything, and doesn't finish it? Is that not quitting? I'm not twisting it. Besides, I didn't say she was a quitter. I said she's "coming across as one". There's a big difference. Saying she's a quitter, would be my saying it as if it's a fact, but I have no proof of that, as I don't know if there were mitigating circumstances that led her to have to quit all of these universities/colleges so prematurely. My saying that she's coming across as a quitter because she quit so many schools and now her position as governor, is pure opinion.

I'll address the main concern that plagues me. "comes across". Do you believe one way or the other, but say the opposite thing? This is the problem with the phrase comes across if you don't believe that, then how do you justify yourself in believing one way then stating the opposite? If you believe the same way as the phrase why don't you say "she is an quitter"? If you believe it, then it's the same as your opinion. Arguably you can say there is an middle ground here with natural position.

What that means to you depends on how you respond to it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, I want your view on it.

come across - definition of come across by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

There's nothing wrong with that, just as long as you don't come across as being demanding or come across in a way where the correct interpretation is yours. As I said before, it's probably unintentional on your part.

No problem with commenting on it, it's when you come across as demanding that's the problem, and when you do that, you're not coming across as respectful of the other poster. As I mentioned above, it may not be intentional on your part.

Well, yes it demanding. It also a double edge sword that works against me since I'm so ferocious about it. When I don't do like I asked someone, they have an right, and obligation to point out the hypocrisy in what I have done.

I have said also in an past post, I want to know why your opinion is that way, and I cannot do that without someone providing why they come to that conclusion (it also serves to ask that person to think about there own opinion and know it.) I have also stated there is not standard to these types of things, but in contrast of that I still imply that one have at least one source to back up there argument.

I'm concerned in the validation of an statement. Personal credibility, if you will.

Originally Posted by Barone1551

Isn't it much nicer when its a calm discussion.

I would really like to know how everyone arriving at this conclusion.

I thought it was calm before (bar an few snippets but nothing to be concerned about)

As such I kindly ask you to please show me in quotes the ones that lead you to this conclusion.

[QueenNanami]

You guys are no longer debating about Sarah Palin you know. Let's just let this thread die.

[Sasahara]

She did not quite it was a tactical move to keep the liberal attack dogs from filing false complaints and costing her state money. this is part of her master plan to move in a new direction

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Sasahara

She did not quite it was a tactical move to keep the liberal attack dogs from filing false complaints and costing her state money. this is part of her master plan to move in a new direction

She certainly did quit.

[komitsuki]

Wow. For a split second, I thought I was in a Free Republic thread. Excuse me.