Rutgers student told not to quote Bible in essay because of 'separation of church and state'

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The scientific global community once thought bleeding was the best way to balance the four humors

That was never a scientific theory based on scientific method and mountains of empirical evidence. Get that weak creationist horseshit out of here.

To me any threat from climate change is not worth letting Watermelon assholes control our economy to "save" us from ourselves.

Neato, but opinions of uneducated slobs like you and me are worth exactly this much: one vote. I will defer to scientists, thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The courts are magical horseshit now? Interesting.

What is the point of having a discussion with a dishonest person like you? There isn't any.

 

[martybegan]

The scientific global community once thought bleeding was the best way to balance the four humors

That was never a scientific theory based on scientific method and mountains of empirical evidence. Get that weak creationist horseshit out of here.

To me any threat from climate change is not worth letting Watermelon assholes control our economy to "save" us from ourselves.

Neato, but opinions of uneducated slobs like you and me are worth exactly this much: one vote. I will defer to scientists, thanks.

It was based on what they had and knew at the time. You are appealing to authority just like supporters of the humors theory did.

Your 2nd statement is useless and doesn't respond to my position.

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

 

[Pogo]

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

 

[Pogo]

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was based on what they had and knew at the time.

But it was not a scientific theory based on empirical evidence. So, no comparison whatsoever. You are not going to mince and slither your way around this.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

 

[martybegan]

It was based on what they had and knew at the time.

But it was not a scientific theory based on empirical evidence. So, no comparison whatsoever. You are not going to mince and slither your way around this.

Don't have to. They thought their "science" was right, they were proven wrong. What is it about our current level of scientific understanding that makes climate alarmists 100% sure of being right?

 

[Pogo]

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

 

[Coyote]

That’s not how it works.

Annual cost to attend Rutgers: $30,572

Rutgers student told not to quote Bible in essay because of 'separation of church and state'

Got a legitimate source, or just this blog?

By the way, wanna buy a bridge?

Several things stand out (not the least being we only hear one side).

The two quotes:

“Avoid quoting scripture in academic papers unless you are commenting on scripture,” Sandler wrote.

In academic work that is not on a religious topic - religious scripture (of any brand) is not usually considered a "source" I thought.

The other reveals the student's real intent for making an issue of it:

“I'm just glad that despite living in a secular bubble, some people will perhaps hear the gospel for the first time as a result of this. Nobody should be afraid to voice their religious or political beliefs in America- if you're afraid to offend people then you're afraid of individual thought.”

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how prog twats like you defer to others to do your thinking for you.

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

 

[Pogo]

Interesting approach for a wag trying to prop up a "story" that brings no evidence whatsoever for its own existence beyond the ipse dixit.

Did you think nobody would notice?

Just checkin' in to see if there's any answer to post 4 yet. Seeing none, we're done.

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

 

[martybegan]

Arbitrary standard set up by a useless poster such as yourself.

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.

And you still haven't answered my question, Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Your post history shows you can't or won't take a position on many things, but your critiques show your leftist bias.

You have been called out and found wanting.

I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Answer the question.

 

[Pogo]

Not in any way "arbitrary" at all --- it's journalism 101, long established way before either of us were born. I certainly didn't make it up.

And that standard is not met here. Absent. Not found. Devoid. A vacuum.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead, we're on the third week.


I don't have to indulge you with jack shit. Please to essplain to the class where USMB declares you're the boss o' me. TIA. Your not-at-all-on-topic "question" is one you should have asked and established BEFORE you ass-sumed its answer on the basis of nothing whatsoever. Much like the basis of this OP article. Now you're gonna sit and squirm on BOTH of those fuckups. So no Sprinkles, I'm hardly the one "found wanting" here.

You can't answer a two-week-old question and now you wanna throw a tantrum about it. Sad.

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Answer the question.

Read the topic.

Then read post 4.

Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.

 

[martybegan]

You avoid taking positions because you can't stand up to actual debate. you snipe from the sidelines, argue source over content, and generally act like a useless troll.

Your question is moot, because even if another source came out for the story, you would deny that as well. It's your nature, and I have you figured out.

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Answer the question.

Read the topic.

Then read post 4.

Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.

No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?

 

[Pogo]

I take positions on either what I'm interested in or knowledgeable about. MOST of the topics ever brought up here prolly have no involvement from me, OR from you. No one, literally zero people, takes positions on literally EVERYTHING. That's absurd. It's also number one.

Number two is a speculation fallacy. You no more "know" what position I "would" take given credible evidence that any such event actually happened, than you "know" an event you weren't there to witness and can't find anyone who was, DID happen.

This might come as a shock but the events of the world don't just materialize out of your Imaginarium.

Meanwhile --- eighteen days after this let's-pretend piece hit the internets, there remains the same zero evidence that the event ever took place outside the imaginarium of the site's own admitted agent. Yet here you sit day after day continuing to whine about the fact that my call back in post 4 was spot on.

Sad.

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Answer the question.

Read the topic.

Then read post 4.

Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.

No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?

Day 15. Still nothing.

Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.

OP? He gone.

 

[martybegan]

Stop trying to stall and answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

Answer the question.

Read the topic.

Then read post 4.

Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.

No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?

Day 15. Still nothing.

Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.

OP? He gone.

All you have to do is answer one question, do you support the impeachment of Trump, or not.

 

[Pogo]

Answer the question.

Read the topic.

Then read post 4.

Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.

No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?

Day 15. Still nothing.

Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.

OP? He gone.

All you have to do is answer one question, do you support the impeachment of Trump, or not.

All you have to do is answer post 4. I'm not laying any bets on it though.

 

[martybegan]

Answer the question.

Read the topic.

Then read post 4.

Then answer that question. From two weeks ago.

No, I am asking you this question. Why can't or won't you answer it?

Day 15. Still nothing.

Thread still valiantly hanging on in its heroic struggle to remain dead.

OP? He gone.

All you have to do is answer one question, do you support the impeachment of Trump, or not.

All you have to do is answer post 4. I'm not laying any bets on it though.

Answer my question, you cheap, dime store hack.