Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate

[Skylar]

I quoted the actual Prince's Trust study from this thread when Sil would only cite the paraphrases.

Sil threw a little tantrum. So I spanked her again.

I just wanted to make sure you knew the Prince's Trust 2010 Youth Index Survey was once again available online.

Uh-huh. That's why you've been offering only misquotes and paraphrases that you *knew* were inaccurate.

You lied. You got caught lying.

Sigh.....again.

 

[Silhouette]

I quoted the actual Prince's Trust study from this thread when Sil would only cite the paraphrases.

Sil threw a little tantrum. So I spanked her again.

I just wanted to make sure you knew the Prince's Trust 2010 Youth Index Survey was once again available online.

Uh-huh. That's why you've been offering only misquotes and paraphrases that you *knew* were inaccurate.

You lied. You got caught lying.

Sigh.....again.

If I was lying about something, why would I go to extraordinary lengths to provide this link so that people could read the article for themselves? BTW, I notice you didn't include the link in your reply above....

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

What's really eerie about the very depressed-looking kid in the opening photo for the publication is that he is wearing a rainbow colored logo on his T-shirt with the only discernible word looking like it says "PARIS"...

 

[Montrovant]

I quoted the actual Prince's Trust study from this thread when Sil would only cite the paraphrases.

Sil threw a little tantrum. So I spanked her again.

I just wanted to make sure you knew the Prince's Trust 2010 Youth Index Survey was once again available online.

Uh-huh. That's why you've been offering only misquotes and paraphrases that you *knew* were inaccurate.

You lied. You got caught lying.

Sigh.....again.

If I was lying about something, why would I go to extraordinary lengths to provide this link so that people could read the article for themselves? BTW, I notice you didn't include the link in your reply above....

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

What's really eerie about the very depressed-looking kid in the opening photo for the publication is that he is wearing a rainbow colored logo on his T-shirt with the only discernible word looking like it says "PARIS"...

You've gone to 'extraordinary lengths', have you?

Why you lie is entirely open to debate. That you do is objectively verifiable.

 

[mdk]

I quoted the actual Prince's Trust study from this thread when Sil would only cite the paraphrases.

Sil threw a little tantrum. So I spanked her again.

I just wanted to make sure you knew the Prince's Trust 2010 Youth Index Survey was once again available online.

Uh-huh. That's why you've been offering only misquotes and paraphrases that you *knew* were inaccurate.

You lied. You got caught lying.

Sigh.....again.

If I was lying about something, why would I go to extraordinary lengths to provide this link so that people could read the article for themselves? BTW, I notice you didn't include the link in your reply above....

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

What's really eerie about the very depressed-looking kid in the opening photo for the publication is that he is wearing a rainbow colored logo on his T-shirt with the only discernible word looking like it says "PARIS"...

Because you are hoping people don't actually read the study and just go with whatever nonsense you pull out of your backside. You have been schooled continuously on the lies concerning The Prince's Trust but this stopped being about the truth a long time ago and more about you finding ways to soothe/delude yourself.

 

[Silhouette]

You've gone to 'extraordinary lengths', have you?

Why you lie is entirely open to debate. That you do is objectively verifiable.

Yes, the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey was extinguished so that people (including judges and scientists) could not access it readily online. Justices and judges who are busy/pressed for time and older are not likely to go to the lengths I did to revive the online access, or to hunt down an actual hard copy of the Study, so I did that for them and posted the link here.

Again, how is doubling over backwards to provide the actual study online me "trying to hide what it actually says?" I'm confused. Seems I'd have been the one to bury the link if I was misrepresenting what it said. Instead I exposed the link to the world again. It is a public document after all; meant for the public to read and see and digest. Why else would the Prince's Trust have done that survey of youth growing up without either a mother or father figure? So they could hide those results from the world? That's not how I understand the Prince's Trust mission statement:

Explore our research ....As the UK’s leading charity for young people, we listen to their issues and concerns in order to provide the best possible support.....Our research provides insights into their hopes and aspirations, as well as the barriers they face to success. About The Prince's Trust

One of those barriers I just helped those youth overcome: a Prince's Trust website where the link was disabled to a huge study that features a pivotal finding that affects youth into the unforeseeable future as to how their home environment is physically structured when they are children. ie: whether there is a mother or father figure missing.

 

[Syriusly]

I quoted the actual Prince's Trust study from this thread when Sil would only cite the paraphrases.

Sil threw a little tantrum. So I spanked her again.

I just wanted to make sure you knew the Prince's Trust 2010 Youth Index Survey was once again available online.

Uh-huh. That's why you've been offering only misquotes and paraphrases that you *knew* were inaccurate.

You lied. You got caught lying.

Sigh.....again.

If I was lying about something, why would I go to extraordinary lengths to provide this link so that people could read the article for themselves? BTW, I notice you didn't include the link in your reply above....

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY
..

Why would you make any of the lies you make? Hell you provide citations and lie about what is in them regularly- with this- with the study you call the "Mayo Clinic Study".

You lie- we point out your lies- and then you just go on and lie about them again.

 

[mdk]

The conspiracy shifts...now the Prince's Trust was removed to keep judges and scientists ignorant of the startling findings the OP made up. How duplicitous! lol. Do you think judges and scientists actually read all your anti-gay tripe?! Talk about delusions of grandeur.

 

[Syriusly]

One of those barriers I just helped those youth overcome: a Prince's Trust website where the link was disabled to a huge study that features a pivotal finding that affects youth into the unforeseeable future as to how their home environment is physically structured when they are children. ie: whether there is a mother or father figure missing.

Except of course- once again- the Prince's Trust study you quote- doesn't mention 'how their home environment is physically structured"

This Prince's Study- which is 5 years old- doesn't focus on gay issues, parenting issues- it focus's on the lives of teens in the UK- and unemployment among young people in the UK- here are some of the issues the study discusses- you of course distort what the study says for your anti-gay agenda-

Here are the key findings- i.e. the facts as opposed to your delusional claims

Role models:

Education

Suicide

 

[WorldWatcher]

The conspiracy shifts...now the Prince's Trust was removed to keep judges and scientists ignorant of the startling findings the OP made up. How duplicitous! lol. Do you think judges and scientists actually read all your anti-gay tripe?! Talk about delusions of grandeur.

You get +10 award points for using "duplicitous" in a sentence.



>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

The conspiracy shifts...now the Prince's Trust was removed to keep judges and scientists ignorant of the startling findings the OP made up. How duplicitous! lol. Do you think judges and scientists actually read all your anti-gay tripe?! Talk about delusions of grandeur.

Well since the Prince's Trust Website doesn't have any content older than 2011- and the oldest Youth Index is now 2012- a rational person might believe that the Prince's Trust is scrubbing old content off of its website.

Of course Silhouette sees a Gay Conspiracy.

Youth Index 2012 | The Prince's Trust

 

[Montrovant]

You've gone to 'extraordinary lengths', have you?

Why you lie is entirely open to debate. That you do is objectively verifiable.

Yes, the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey was extinguished so that people (including judges and scientists) could not access it readily online. Justices and judges who are busy/pressed for time and older are not likely to go to the lengths I did to revive the online access, or to hunt down an actual hard copy of the Study, so I did that for them and posted the link here.

Again, how is doubling over backwards to provide the actual study online me "trying to hide what it actually says?" I'm confused. Seems I'd have been the one to bury the link if I was misrepresenting what it said. Instead I exposed the link to the world again. It is a public document after all; meant for the public to read and see and digest. Why else would the Prince's Trust have done that survey of youth growing up without either a mother or father figure? So they could hide those results from the world? That's not how I understand the Prince's Trust mission statement:

Explore our research ....As the UK’s leading charity for young people, we listen to their issues and concerns in order to provide the best possible support.....Our research provides insights into their hopes and aspirations, as well as the barriers they face to success. About The Prince's Trust

One of those barriers I just helped those youth overcome: a Prince's Trust website where the link was disabled to a huge study that features a pivotal finding that affects youth into the unforeseeable future as to how their home environment is physically structured when they are children. ie: whether there is a mother or father figure missing.

Are you having trouble with the idea of quotes again? I never said you were "trying to hide what it actually says?". You lie about what it says, but you don't try to hide it.

Do you really think that someone removed the 5 year old survey from the Prince's Trust site to prevent justices and judges from seeing it? Are those the same justices and judges you thought would be citing the survey in the Obergefell ruling?

Whether you realize it or not, your posts are little more than a long-running joke. It's funny seeing the ways you try to twist everything into your anti-gay rhetoric.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey was extinguished so that people (including judges and scientists) could not access it readily online. Justices and judges who are busy/pressed for time and older are not likely to go to the lengths I did to revive the online access, or to hunt down an actual hard copy of the Study, so I did that for them and posted the link here.

Again, how is doubling over backwards to provide the actual study online me "trying to hide what it actually says?" I'm confused. Seems I'd have been the one to bury the link if I was misrepresenting what it said. Instead I exposed the link to the world again. It is a public document after all; meant for the public to read and see and digest. Why else would the Prince's Trust have done that survey of youth growing up without either a mother or father figure? So they could hide those results from the world? That's not how I understand the Prince's Trust mission statement:

Explore our research ....As the UK’s leading charity for young people, we listen to their issues and concerns in order to provide the best possible support.....Our research provides insights into their hopes and aspirations, as well as the barriers they face to success. About The Prince's Trust

One of those barriers I just helped those youth overcome: a Prince's Trust website where the link was disabled to a huge study that features a pivotal finding that affects youth into the unforeseeable future as to how their home environment is physically structured when they are children. ie: whether there is a mother or father figure missing.

Are you having trouble with the idea of quotes again? I never said you were "trying to hide what it actually says?". You lie about what it says, but you don't try to hide it.

Do you really think that someone removed the 5 year old survey from the Prince's Trust site to prevent justices and judges from seeing it? Are those the same justices and judges you thought would be citing the survey in the Obergefell ruling?

The link was extinguished around the time the Ruling was being deliberated/handed down. Why that is, is a mystery. But no matter, I have revived it. It is essential that legal experts weighing the question of "should children be adopted to gay "married" homes" be able to easily access ALL studies related to children growing up in homes without a mother or father figure by the home's very structure...

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey was extinguished so that people (including judges and scientists) could not access it readily online.

Which of the voices in your head told you that?

Why would the Prince's Trust not want judges and scientists to see their conclusions from 5 years ago regarding unemployed youth in Britain?

Have you ever bothered to read the most recent Prince's Trust Youth Index Studies?

Hell- have you ever bothered to read the one you keep lying about?

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, the link to the 2010 Prince's Trust Survey was extinguished so that people (including judges and scientists) could not access it readily online. Justices and judges who are busy/pressed for time and older are not likely to go to the lengths I did to revive the online access, or to hunt down an actual hard copy of the Study, so I did that for them and posted the link here.

Again, how is doubling over backwards to provide the actual study online me "trying to hide what it actually says?" I'm confused. Seems I'd have been the one to bury the link if I was misrepresenting what it said. Instead I exposed the link to the world again. It is a public document after all; meant for the public to read and see and digest. Why else would the Prince's Trust have done that survey of youth growing up without either a mother or father figure? So they could hide those results from the world? That's not how I understand the Prince's Trust mission statement:

Explore our research ....As the UK’s leading charity for young people, we listen to their issues and concerns in order to provide the best possible support.....Our research provides insights into their hopes and aspirations, as well as the barriers they face to success. About The Prince's Trust

One of those barriers I just helped those youth overcome: a Prince's Trust website where the link was disabled to a huge study that features a pivotal finding that affects youth into the unforeseeable future as to how their home environment is physically structured when they are children. ie: whether there is a mother or father figure missing.

Are you having trouble with the idea of quotes again? I never said you were "trying to hide what it actually says?". You lie about what it says, but you don't try to hide it.

Do you really think that someone removed the 5 year old survey from the Prince's Trust site to prevent justices and judges from seeing it? Are those the same justices and judges you thought would be citing the survey in the Obergefell ruling?

The link was extinguished around the time the Ruling was being deliberated/handed down. Why that is, is a mystery. But no matter, I have revived it. It is essential that legal experts weighing the question of "should children be adopted to gay "married" homes" be able to easily access ALL studies related to children growing up in homes without a mother or father figure by the home's very structure...

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The link was fine while the ruling was being deliberated. Up until the ruling was rendered you continually predicted the Youth Index would be used by the USSC, and you posted the link over and over again. The Obergefell ruling was in July. Here it is in the second half of November. When are you claiming the Prince's Trust took down their link to the 2010 survey?

You are not a legal expert, clearly. Any legal experts who want to access the report are highly unlikely to be finding it through your links on this message board. Or do you think that your posts are a common place for lawyers and judges to turn to when weighing decisions?

Feel free to show where I said you were "trying to hide what it actually says". Or continue to argue your straw men, which seems much more likely based on your history. Maybe you can make up some other new conspiracy about how important documents are being hidden away.

 

[Ravi]

 

[Silhouette]

So...children wanting a mother and father in marriage is "bullying"? **** you cult of LGBT. Kids come first. Your behaviors? After them...

 

[Ravi]

LOL! The Prince has spoken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you are in a cult of one: move along.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you are in a cult of one: move along.

So I was the one voting in all the states who voted down gay marriage? Wow, I get around!

 

[Ravi]

Sil, you are in a cult of one: move along.

So I was the one voting in all the states who voted down gay marriage? Wow, I get around!

You can't vote away someone's civil rights. That's why you lost, in Teh End