There's that pro-Israel at the expense of everybody else stance I was waiting for
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
NapsGear.Net - reviews
There's that pro-Israel at the expense of everybody else stance I was waiting for
Thesecretman
Banned
How dare you call me an isis terrorist? I haven't hurt a single person ever.
Cite your evidence, big guy.
Where have I made anti-Muslim statements like WOP's anti-Semitic statements? Where have I blamed the Muslims for all the world's ills like WOP blames the Jews? You're full of shit. This ain't my first rodeo, son, and you're not gonna "catch" me making hypocritical statements. If you think I'm some hillbilly cretin that you can confuse, daze and toy with like those clowns at TID, you've in for a rude awakening.
I've made no secret of the fact that I'm anti-religion. You can't find evidence showing I've made anti-Muslim statements, or anti anyone else. And before you attempt to argue my anti-jihadi statements equal anti-Muslim bigotry, let me save you the trouble: I despise jihadis with every fiber of my being. I want to see them exterminated because they are vermin. I see Islam for what it truly is: a violent supremacist political ideology with the stated goal of world domination. But unlike you, it seems, I can differentiate regular Muslims who just want to live their lives in peace from the filth that take up jihad to spread that ideology.
You don't like my beliefs? Too fucking bad. I'll never accept dhimmitude.
And the hypocrisy continues....
And the ad hominems continue. Can't say I'm surprised.
Remind us again how you can differentiate between extremists and non-extremists
"Why lie about Islam being a religion of peace when everyone knows it's really a violent, supremacist death cult that was founded by a psychotic pedophile?"
I believe it was you who said this
"Why lie about Islam being a religion of peace when everyone knows it's really a violent, supremacist death cult that was founded by a psychotic pedophile?"
I believe it was you who said this
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short forargumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
^^^^ let me correct you:
That's not an ad hominem as I wasn't responding to your argument. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy you flaunted on your own accord.
The subjection of women, female genital mutilation, the killing apostates and homosexuals, child marriage, the sharia.
It was. And I said it twice. What's your point?
You said I can't confuse you or toy with you like people at other boards.....
You better read your definition again.
"When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized."
The evidence is before you preserved for eternity on the internet. Open your eyes and you'll see it.
Ummmm, I didn't hide anything but you're more than welcome to think so meanwhile Posting articles written by drunks, and plagiarists is perfectly fine bc they happen to be YOUR sources.
Anyway, enjoy your weekend CBS
That's okay. I see it perfectly clear and I stand by everything I've written.
Withholding your source is the definition of hiding. And I'm still waiting for your response to my challenge. I asked you to provide evidence that alcoholics are never credible and Dershowitz committed plagiarism.
You too. And I intend to. In fact, I think I'll drink a bottle of scotch and read the Quran.
Hi CBS .... I'm not taking sides in any of this, but speaking of plagiarism, I wanted to put in a little article I found concerning professor Dershowitz.
I don't know who these "Professors against plagiarism" are, but I'm sure you'll let me know.
Professors Against Plagiarism: PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ
PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ
(This is the summary of the Dershowitz plagiarism story contained in our e-mail of September 16, 2004, slightly edited in response to helpful suggestions from a professor who commented on the e-mail.)
The second Harvard plagiarism story was broken in September 2003 and involves Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. It concerns his 2003 book, "A Case For Israel" in which, according to one reviewer, Professor Dershowitz engages in an "orgy of plagiarism," committing "wholesale, unacknowledged looting" of research from an earlier book addressing the same subject. (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html)
Specifically, it has been reported that 22 of the 52 endnotes to the first two chapters of Professor Dershowitz’s book were lifted straight from a 1984 book by Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial," without attribution. These 22 endnotes contain not just the citations from Peters’ footnotes, but also extensive quotations from the cited sources set forth in Peters’ footnotes.
Professor Dershowitz’s response to these reports was, at least initially, to say he had done nothing even remotely questionable. Among other things, he represented that while writing the book he had independent knowledge of the underlying sources based on his earlier research, and he stated it was hardly surprising he and Peters would cite some commonly consulted sources. In the radio interview in which he first confronted the charges, Professor Dershowitz stated that while he of course had read Peters’ book, which "anybody writing a book on the Middle East would" do, he had also read "independently probably 30 or 40 other books which use the same quotes, they’re very extensively used . . . ." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4825.htm. Professor Dershowitz also accused his critics of being ideologically opposed to him and made various ad hominem attacks on them.
These ad hominem attacks apparently backfired, energizing Professor Dershowitz’s critics and leading them to investigate further. Ultimately Professor Dershowitz’s claim that he’d done nothing wrong, but had merely cited some commonly consulted sources which he’d found in 30 or 40 other books, sources which Peters had happened also to cite, was challenged with what his critics characterized as "smoking gun" evidence obtained from a reviewer of Professor Dershowitz’s book. This reviewer had kept the advance uncorrected proofs he’d been sent by the publisher, and the reviewer forwarded them to the scholar who had first noticed Professor Dershowitz’s plagiarism, Norman Finkelstein.
These advance uncorrected proofs contained Professor Dershowitz’s own handwritten note to a research assistant directing her to copy Peters’ footnotes into the manuscript of his own book. The note read: "Holly Beth: cite sources of pp. 160, 485, 486 [of Peters’ book], fns 141-45." Only after these advance uncorrected proofs were discovered to be in the hands of his critics did Professor Dershowitz then assert that the advance uncorrected proofs actually supported his claim of innocence, which raises the question why he did not produce them earlier. (Seehttp://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=5 (Dershowitz letter and Cockburn reply)) It would seem plausible to assume Professor Dershowitz would not have initially denied lifting Peters’ footnotes, and would not have stated he just happened to find the same commonly cited sources in 30 or 40 other books he’d read, if he had realized his publisher had sent to book reviewers advance uncorrected proofs containing what his critics characterize as "smoking gun" evidence in his own handwriting proving Dershowitz's initial statements false.
Further evidence that Professor Dershowitz lied in an effort to cover up his plagiarism, his critics argue, can be found in the fact that the footnotes in Peters’ book contain some mistakes in the quotations and citations, and use ellipses in the quotations, and the very same mistakes and ellipses appear in the endnotes of Professor Dershowitz’s book – proving, his critics argue, that they were simply copied verbatim from Peters’ book, and Professor Dershowitz didn’t even check the original sources to see whether the quotations and citations to them in Peters’ book were accurate.
I don't know who these "Professors against plagiarism" are, but I'm sure you'll let me know.
Professors Against Plagiarism: PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ
PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ
(This is the summary of the Dershowitz plagiarism story contained in our e-mail of September 16, 2004, slightly edited in response to helpful suggestions from a professor who commented on the e-mail.)
The second Harvard plagiarism story was broken in September 2003 and involves Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. It concerns his 2003 book, "A Case For Israel" in which, according to one reviewer, Professor Dershowitz engages in an "orgy of plagiarism," committing "wholesale, unacknowledged looting" of research from an earlier book addressing the same subject. (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html)
Specifically, it has been reported that 22 of the 52 endnotes to the first two chapters of Professor Dershowitz’s book were lifted straight from a 1984 book by Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial," without attribution. These 22 endnotes contain not just the citations from Peters’ footnotes, but also extensive quotations from the cited sources set forth in Peters’ footnotes.
Professor Dershowitz’s response to these reports was, at least initially, to say he had done nothing even remotely questionable. Among other things, he represented that while writing the book he had independent knowledge of the underlying sources based on his earlier research, and he stated it was hardly surprising he and Peters would cite some commonly consulted sources. In the radio interview in which he first confronted the charges, Professor Dershowitz stated that while he of course had read Peters’ book, which "anybody writing a book on the Middle East would" do, he had also read "independently probably 30 or 40 other books which use the same quotes, they’re very extensively used . . . ." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4825.htm. Professor Dershowitz also accused his critics of being ideologically opposed to him and made various ad hominem attacks on them.
These ad hominem attacks apparently backfired, energizing Professor Dershowitz’s critics and leading them to investigate further. Ultimately Professor Dershowitz’s claim that he’d done nothing wrong, but had merely cited some commonly consulted sources which he’d found in 30 or 40 other books, sources which Peters had happened also to cite, was challenged with what his critics characterized as "smoking gun" evidence obtained from a reviewer of Professor Dershowitz’s book. This reviewer had kept the advance uncorrected proofs he’d been sent by the publisher, and the reviewer forwarded them to the scholar who had first noticed Professor Dershowitz’s plagiarism, Norman Finkelstein.
These advance uncorrected proofs contained Professor Dershowitz’s own handwritten note to a research assistant directing her to copy Peters’ footnotes into the manuscript of his own book. The note read: "Holly Beth: cite sources of pp. 160, 485, 486 [of Peters’ book], fns 141-45." Only after these advance uncorrected proofs were discovered to be in the hands of his critics did Professor Dershowitz then assert that the advance uncorrected proofs actually supported his claim of innocence, which raises the question why he did not produce them earlier. (Seehttp://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=5 (Dershowitz letter and Cockburn reply)) It would seem plausible to assume Professor Dershowitz would not have initially denied lifting Peters’ footnotes, and would not have stated he just happened to find the same commonly cited sources in 30 or 40 other books he’d read, if he had realized his publisher had sent to book reviewers advance uncorrected proofs containing what his critics characterize as "smoking gun" evidence in his own handwriting proving Dershowitz's initial statements false.
Further evidence that Professor Dershowitz lied in an effort to cover up his plagiarism, his critics argue, can be found in the fact that the footnotes in Peters’ book contain some mistakes in the quotations and citations, and use ellipses in the quotations, and the very same mistakes and ellipses appear in the endnotes of Professor Dershowitz’s book – proving, his critics argue, that they were simply copied verbatim from Peters’ book, and Professor Dershowitz didn’t even check the original sources to see whether the quotations and citations to them in Peters’ book were accurate.
berlin
New Member
I went looking for reviews on Naps and somehow ended up on Facebook . . .
Debates and individual opinions are a good thing and it keeps communitys active and alive no matter how it may actually look.No one is really trying to be tough here.
I respectfully disagree. I do not come on here as much as I used to because certain people on here. Bashing and calling people names does not keep a community active. But that is just my opinion.
I know no one will believe me bc I dont have bloods and I just joined even tho I been lurking for a while but. I did do a 7month first cycle last year of gp anadrol at 50-100mg first 4 weeks then test cyp at 500mg for 20 weeks. Yea it was a long cycle for my first but I recovered very well. I didnt get bloods but I can say I was Hornier then ever and I put on over 20 lbs. Even after stopping anadrol I kept gaining. I can't wait for my next.
Then what did you post for? Just like the sound of your own voice?
You're lying about lurking for a while or you wouldn't have used your SECOND post to dick ride Naps. Take your lame sucking up and get the fuck out of here, Cuckoo.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
TrenboloneTax: Hybrid Cycling / Lifting Log aka Make Hulk Bike Fast- Latest: Trenbolonetax
