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

[martybegan]

Briebart picked up the story, and also tried to contact the school, with no response.

Rutgers Prof: Don't Quote Bible in Essays to Maintain 'Separation of Church and State | Breitbart

I saw that weeks ago when I first posed the question. You'll note, as I posted early in January, that the article's only "source" is the same one that originated it in-house. The one in the OP.

And here we are, in the same place.

They asked the school for confirmation, the school has not responded. Two different groups asking for more information.

They school is not denying it nor confirming.

Two sources, two people trying to get to the bottom of the story.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

That's a neat trick since it's you who just articulated your own dilemma.

Same one you've been in for TWO WEEKS.

Two different organizations trying to get the story, they have gotten the student's side of it, Rutgers has had two chances to respond.

Screeeeeeeeeecccchhhhhh..

And the response they got has been?

View attachment 301752
​

And that gives us....... how many sides?

You can do this, surely. Hold up your index finger. How many?

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

 

[Pogo]

I saw that weeks ago when I first posed the question. You'll note, as I posted early in January, that the article's only "source" is the same one that originated it in-house. The one in the OP.

And here we are, in the same place.

They asked the school for confirmation, the school has not responded. Two different groups asking for more information.

They school is not denying it nor confirming.

Two sources, two people trying to get to the bottom of the story.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

That's a neat trick since it's you who just articulated your own dilemma.

Same one you've been in for TWO WEEKS.

Two different organizations trying to get the story, they have gotten the student's side of it, Rutgers has had two chances to respond.

Screeeeeeeeeecccchhhhhh..

And the response they got has been?

View attachment 301752
​

And that gives us....... how many sides?

You can do this, surely. Hold up your index finger. How many?

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

 

[martybegan]

They asked the school for confirmation, the school has not responded. Two different groups asking for more information.

They school is not denying it nor confirming.

Two sources, two people trying to get to the bottom of the story.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

That's a neat trick since it's you who just articulated your own dilemma.

Same one you've been in for TWO WEEKS.

Two different organizations trying to get the story, they have gotten the student's side of it, Rutgers has had two chances to respond.

Screeeeeeeeeecccchhhhhh..

And the response they got has been?

View attachment 301752
​

And that gives us....... how many sides?

You can do this, surely. Hold up your index finger. How many?

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

 

[Pogo]

That's a neat trick since it's you who just articulated your own dilemma.

Same one you've been in for TWO WEEKS.

Two different organizations trying to get the story, they have gotten the student's side of it, Rutgers has had two chances to respond.

Screeeeeeeeeecccchhhhhh..

And the response they got has been?

View attachment 301752
​

And that gives us....... how many sides?

You can do this, surely. Hold up your index finger. How many?

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Two different organizations trying to get the story, they have gotten the student's side of it, Rutgers has had two chances to respond.

Screeeeeeeeeecccchhhhhh..

And the response they got has been?

View attachment 301752
​

And that gives us....... how many sides?

You can do this, surely. Hold up your index finger. How many?

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

 

[Pogo]

And the response they got has been?

View attachment 301752
​

And that gives us....... how many sides?

You can do this, surely. Hold up your index finger. How many?

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

 

[martybegan]

So any story where the person being accused of something doesn't reply is a non-story?

Sccreeeeeeeechhhh

The "one side" is the actual person saying the professor did what they did.

He did it publicly, on twitter.

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

The source is the person making the accusation.

I can keep this up as long as you can.

 

[Pogo]

OH SNAP, TWEETER?! Now there's a reliable source of news.

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

The source is the person making the accusation.

I can keep this up as long as you can.

We did this, most recently on day 20 and/or day 19; The person making the assertion is the ACTOR. The Act being the assertion.

An ACTOR cannot be a SOURCE. SOURCES report on ACTORS and ACTS. They are not THE ACT, just as THE ACTOR is not THE SOURCE.

 

[martybegan]

It's the actual person stating what happened. Publicly, using his own name.

Rutgers should respond. until they do, his story is the public record.

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

The source is the person making the accusation.

I can keep this up as long as you can.

We did this, most recently on day 20 and/or day 19; The person making the assertion is the ACTOR. The Act being the assertion.

An ACTOR cannot be a SOURCE. SOURCES report on ACTORS and ACTS. They are not THE ACT, just as THE ACTOR is not THE SOURCE.

Show me where actors cannot be sources. This is a definition you are making up on the spot.

The actor acted, and told the reporters what happened, making him an actor and a source.
Rutgers is also an actor, but by refusing to comment is not a source.

You have one side of the story, from an actual participant.

 

[Pogo]

Haha you spelled ipse dixit wrong.

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

The source is the person making the accusation.

I can keep this up as long as you can.

We did this, most recently on day 20 and/or day 19; The person making the assertion is the ACTOR. The Act being the assertion.

An ACTOR cannot be a SOURCE. SOURCES report on ACTORS and ACTS. They are not THE ACT, just as THE ACTOR is not THE SOURCE.

Show me where actors cannot be sources. This is a definition you are making up on the spot.

OK sure.
You're welcome.

The actor acted, and told the reporters what happened, making him an actor and a source.

Wrong. The actor TOLD HIMSELF what happened, and reported on himself, himself and himself being one and the same.

Kind of like the way Grover Cleveland and Grover Cleveland were the same person, therefore he can't be two different Presidents. Kind of.

No Twinkles, I'm afraid a person forwarding his own assertion constitutes an opinion or a claim -- not a 'story'. See the Neptunians claimed upthread, for which I had no outside source. Thus neither the Campus Reform self-described "reporter" nor I with the Neptunian story, are "actors". We are claimants.

Rutgers is also an actor, but by refusing to comment is not a source.

Rutgers is not an actor until it can be demonstrated that an act EXISTED. We have zero evidence that Rutgers did anything. Therefore they are not an actor, since we have no way to know there even exists an act.

You have one side of the story, from an actual participant.

No, you have one side of a claim, from a claimant. He can't be a 'participant' unless there's an actual act. No evidence of such an act exists, just as there's no evidence that Neptunians landed in my yard. That's why those Neptunians are not actors either. I have to prove they landed before they can be actors.

In order to graduate to a legitimate story the claimed other actor would have to either confirm "yes the act happened, here's why". Actually they wouldn't need to explain why to confirm. They have not done either. NOR has the claimant provided any evidence of his own at all that said action happened -- no document, no photo, no link, nothing.

That's why the end product is --- nothing.

It might be noted for guidance here, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "80% of what you read on the internet is like bullshit, man". Because Lincoln talked like that. You know that's true because you just read it in the previous sentence.

 

[martybegan]

No you are just being retarded, well more retarded.

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

The source is the person making the accusation.

I can keep this up as long as you can.

We did this, most recently on day 20 and/or day 19; The person making the assertion is the ACTOR. The Act being the assertion.

An ACTOR cannot be a SOURCE. SOURCES report on ACTORS and ACTS. They are not THE ACT, just as THE ACTOR is not THE SOURCE.

Show me where actors cannot be sources. This is a definition you are making up on the spot.

OK sure.
You're welcome.

The actor acted, and told the reporters what happened, making him an actor and a source.

Wrong. The actor TOLD HIMSELF what happened, and reported on himself, himself and himself being one and the same.

Kind of like the way Grover Cleveland and Grover Cleveland were the same person, therefore he can't be two different Presidents. Kind of.

No Twinkles, I'm afraid a person forwarding his own assertion constitutes an opinion or a claim -- not a 'story'. See the Neptunians claimed upthread, for which I had no outside source. Thus neither the Campus Reform self-described "reporter" nor I with the Neptunian story, are "actors". We are claimants.

Rutgers is also an actor, but by refusing to comment is not a source.

Rutgers is not an actor until it can be demonstrated that an act EXISTED. We have zero evidence that Rutgers did anything. Therefore they are not an actor, since we have no way to know there even exists an act.

You have one side of the story, from an actual participant.

No, you have one side of a claim, from a claimant. He can't be a 'participant' unless there's an actual act. No evidence of such an act exists, just as there's no evidence that Neptunians landed in my yard. That's why those Neptunians are not actors either. I have to prove they landed before they can be actors.

In order to graduate to a legitimate story the claimed other actor would have to either confirm "yes the act happened, here's why". They have not. NOR has the claimant provided any evidence at all that said action happened -- no document, no photo, no link, nothing.

That's why the end product is --- nothing.

It might be noted for guidance here, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "80% of what you read on the internet is like bullshit, man". Because Lincoln talked like that. You know that's true because you just read it in the previous sentence.

All this typing to set arbitrary rules so you can avoid commenting on a story by denying it ever happened shows that the only Neptunian here is you.

All this work just to avoid commenting on something, it's fucking pathological.

 

[Pogo]

Sooooooooooo............. you're suggesting noting that an assertion cites no source is "retarded" now, is it?

Day 21. Happy three-week anniversary.

OP: continues to be gone.'

The source is the person making the accusation.

I can keep this up as long as you can.

We did this, most recently on day 20 and/or day 19; The person making the assertion is the ACTOR. The Act being the assertion.

An ACTOR cannot be a SOURCE. SOURCES report on ACTORS and ACTS. They are not THE ACT, just as THE ACTOR is not THE SOURCE.

Show me where actors cannot be sources. This is a definition you are making up on the spot.

OK sure.
You're welcome.

The actor acted, and told the reporters what happened, making him an actor and a source.

Wrong. The actor TOLD HIMSELF what happened, and reported on himself, himself and himself being one and the same.

Kind of like the way Grover Cleveland and Grover Cleveland were the same person, therefore he can't be two different Presidents. Kind of.

No Twinkles, I'm afraid a person forwarding his own assertion constitutes an opinion or a claim -- not a 'story'. See the Neptunians claimed upthread, for which I had no outside source. Thus neither the Campus Reform self-described "reporter" nor I with the Neptunian story, are "actors". We are claimants.

Rutgers is also an actor, but by refusing to comment is not a source.

Rutgers is not an actor until it can be demonstrated that an act EXISTED. We have zero evidence that Rutgers did anything. Therefore they are not an actor, since we have no way to know there even exists an act.

You have one side of the story, from an actual participant.

No, you have one side of a claim, from a claimant. He can't be a 'participant' unless there's an actual act. No evidence of such an act exists, just as there's no evidence that Neptunians landed in my yard. That's why those Neptunians are not actors either. I have to prove they landed before they can be actors.

In order to graduate to a legitimate story the claimed other actor would have to either confirm "yes the act happened, here's why". Actually they wouldn't need to explain why to confirm. They have not done either. NOR has the claimant provided any evidence of his own at all that said action happened -- no document, no photo, no link, nothing.

That's why the end product is --- nothing.

It might be noted for guidance here, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "80% of what you read on the internet is like bullshit, man". Because Lincoln talked like that. You know that's true because you just read it in the previous sentence.

All this typing to set arbitrary rules so you can avoid commenting on a story by denying it ever happened shows that the only Neptunian here is you.

All this work just to avoid commenting on something, it's fucking pathological.

No one can comment on acts that never happened. Try commenting on the propriety (or any other aspect) of Neptunians landing in my yard. See? Nothing.

"All this work"? Aye, it is. But as long as psychos waddle among us insisting that Reality doesn't exist, it needs to be done.

Soooooo how's come we see no comment from you on the thread "I say it, therefore it is"? It's exactly what you're building on here.