Anti-intellectualism in Fundamentalist Christianity

[Numberzz]

A convenient excuse.

You = ,

 

Ironically, you don't even sound convinced, yourself. Not to mention not sounding convincing to your audience.

 

It's worse that you would bury yourself deeper by making that new comment. You don't even sound like an innocent person defending yourself. You sound like a cowering person who is shocked because he got caught with his pants down.

 

In all sincerity, I am baffled at how crystal-clear your tone shines through your "innocence" post. I couldn't have asked for a more classic cookie-cutter reaction. You would have been better off using the "I did it subconsciously" excuse, claiming that you used Wikipedia as a resource and later used it's verbiage on accident.

 

Be very careful and calculating on your next post to defend yourself. You don't want to make that same mistake twice. You're playing with the big boys now.

 

-3nigma

but also what you forgot to mention, is that i would think the teacher would be smart enough to at least google some of the words in his paper that sounded out of place.

oh btw

Wikipedia, is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information. -Michael Scott

[killbot1000]

A convenient excuse.

You = ,

 

Ironically, you don't even sound convinced, yourself. Not to mention not sounding convincing to your audience.

 

It's worse that you would bury yourself deeper by making that new comment. You don't even sound like an innocent person defending yourself. You sound like a cowering person who is shocked because he got caught with his pants down.

 

In all sincerity, I am baffled at how crystal-clear your tone shines through your "innocence" post. I couldn't have asked for a more classic cookie-cutter reaction. You would have been better off using the "I did it subconsciously" excuse, claiming that you used Wikipedia as a resource and later used it's verbiage on accident.

 

Be very careful and calculating on your next post to defend yourself. You don't want to make that same mistake twice. You're playing with the big boys now.

 

-3nigma

 

I don't need to defend myself, I'm not guilty of anything...I wrote the paper out of pure interest in Anti-intellectualism within fundamentalist Christianity (in fact my teacher said I could write about whatever the hell I wanted). I did look up fundamentalism on wikipedia and found many of the ideas to be lackluster so I added a few, I thought thats what wikipedia was for! I added some stuff on buddhism too if youd care to look (the part about the noble eightfold path that wasnt mentioned in the original article).

 

If I did take a line or a thought from something by accident I apologize, however I did not plaidurize ( i know i spelled that incorrectly) because my paper wasn't about the individual thoughts or ideas, I added about 24 pages beyond that of my own thoughts with other papers and information to back it up. I got the grade, my teacher is a hardass that checks everything, and wikipedia would have been the most obvious place for him to check, and seeing as those ideas werent posted on wikipedia at the time, he didnt find anything, so I added them after the completion of my paper.

 

I included a lot of lines written by other people, and thats why I cite its like pladgurism that you are allowed to do hehe.

 

Don't worry about it, I dont expect you to believe me, you already seem set in your ways, but I honestly didn't copy anything from wikipedia, I would have just cited it if I wanted to copy it, simple.

 

Have fun!

[OryHara]

I don't need to defend myself, I'm not guilty of anything...I wrote the paper out of pure interest in Anti-intellectualism within fundamentalist Christianity (in fact my teacher said I could write about whatever the hell I wanted). I did look up fundamentalism on wikipedia and found many of the ideas to be lackluster so I added a few, I thought thats what wikipedia was for! I added some stuff on buddhism too if youd care to look (the part about the noble eightfold path that wasnt mentioned in the original article).

 

If I did take a line or a thought from something by accident I apologize, however I did not plaidurize ( i know i spelled that incorrectly) because my paper wasn't about the individual thoughts or ideas, I added about 24 pages beyond that of my own thoughts with other papers and information to back it up. I got the grade, my teacher is a hardass that checks everything, and wikipedia would have been the most obvious place for him to check, and seeing as those ideas werent posted on wikipedia at the time, he didnt find anything, so I added them after the completion of my paper.

 

I included a lot of lines written by other people, and thats why I cite its like pladgurism that you are allowed to do hehe.

 

Don't worry about it, I dont expect you to believe me, you already seem set in your ways, but I honestly didn't copy anything from wikipedia, I would have just cited it if I wanted to copy it, simple.

 

Have fun!

 

I would like to see you write a paper called "Anti-Intellectualism in a Neo-Lib New World Order". And be sure to reference the similarities between the Neo-Con Bush agenda, and the Neo-Lib agenda that most people that deal with technology today, practice so much.

 

A democracy, of Mob rule that has brought a free, constitutional Republic, into a Communist country, full of government worshiping swine.

 

You can start by reading the Creature from Jekyll Island. Then inquire how the Central Communist Bank brought America into a downfall by brainwashing the public into believing that America is a Democracy, and not a Republic. And also mention how the invention of the "idiot tube" brought multiple repetitive references to a Democratic government, therefor brainwashing the public further.

 

The term "pladgurism" is unconstitutional. Pladgurism represents nothing more than disrespect for the original author. But pladgurism is not a crime. It is just a term that someone made up, so that they can enforce a police state of thought, and enforce it through brute force action. IP is nothing more than an idea, that someone wants to enforce because of greed, that is why I do not acknowledge it. Although I do not dis respect the original author, but theft is only theft if something is missing from the owner.

 

Some retard about 9 years ago decided to change that definition with the DMCA. The definition never changes, and the wording of the DMCA is unconstitutional, thus causing the entire law to be invalid.

 

However in the New World Neo-Lib/Con Order, the ideas of the rich brute force you to believe them.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I would like to see you write a paper called "Anti-Intellectualism in a Neo-Lib New World Order". And be sure to reference the similarities between the Neo-Con Bush agenda, and the Neo-Lib agenda that most people that deal with technology today, practice so much.

 

A democracy, of Mob rule that has brought a free, constitutional Republic, into a Communist country, full of government worshiping swine.

 

You can start by reading the Creature from Jekyll Island. Then inquire how the Central Communist Bank brought America into a downfall by brainwashing the public into believing that America is a Democracy, and not a Republic. And also mention how the invention of the "idiot tube" brought multiple repetitive references to a Democratic government, therefor brainwashing the public further.

 

The term "pladgurism" is unconstitutional. Pladgurism represents nothing more than disrespect for the original author. But pladgurism is not a crime. It is just a term that someone made up, so that they can enforce a police state of thought, and enforce it through brute force action. IP is nothing more than an idea, that someone wants to enforce because of greed, that is why I do not acknowledge it. Although I do not dis respect the original author, but theft is only theft if something is missing from the owner.

 

Some retard about 9 years ago decided to change that definition with the DMCA. The definition never changes, and the wording of the DMCA is unconstitutional, thus causing the entire law to be invalid.

 

However in the New World Neo-Lib/Con Order, the ideas of the rich brute force you to believe them.

 

 

 

 

BTW, nice essay, KillBot. The subject always intrigued me, I just never had the time (or the intelligence!) to research and write a similar essay myself!

[killbot1000]

The term "pladgurism" is unconstitutional. Pladgurism represents nothing more than disrespect for the original author. But pladgurism is not a crime. It is just a term that someone made up, so that they can enforce a police state of thought, and enforce it through brute force action. IP is nothing more than an idea, that someone wants to enforce because of greed, that is why I do not acknowledge it. Although I do not dis respect the original author, but theft is only theft if something is missing from the owner. Some retard about 9 years ago decided to change that definition with the DMCA. The definition never changes, and the wording of the DMCA is unconstitutional, thus causing the entire law to be invalid.However in the New World Neo-Lib/Con Order, the ideas of the rich brute force you to believe them.

I dont believe the ideas of "Rich Brute" bastards, which is why I dont give a $hit if a sentence or two shared ideas with another article, I still have an additional 24 pages minus a few sentences that are my own (assuming I did pladgurise, which I didn't), so whats the harm? hehe

BTW, nice essay, KillBot. The subject always intrigued me, I just never had the time (or the intelligence!) to research and write a similar essay myself!

Thank you Paranoid Marvin, that means a lot .

 

-Love, Killbot