|
Post by rational on Jun 28, 2015 20:27:04 GMT -5
It's obvious you didn't go read the link. It's the published document NOT some hand written preliminary draft. I did look at the link. It is not unheard of for errors to get through. I read scientific journals and from time-to-time, notes about various errata in previous issues are published. It is not ideal, but it is also not as "lame" as you suggest. Plus the fact that the issue has been addressed many times between the publication and today - by people from both sides of the arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 20:32:59 GMT -5
Excuse = skin of a reason, stuffed with a lie.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 28, 2015 20:40:57 GMT -5
Excuse = skin of a reason, stuffed with a lie. You quoted something with an error in it that was corrected a long time ago in subsequent documents. It seems to me like you basically duped yourself. Not to worry, it happens to some of the best of us.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 20:44:02 GMT -5
"the age of sixteen year"
To
"less than 12 years old."
How can anyone make a "drafting error" that obvious without it not getting noticed through all the revisions and proofreading?? I've written formal contract language - the "error" above defies logic - even in a first pass. There is no coherent excuse for that kind of an "error" at that level of document and authorship.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 28, 2015 20:49:56 GMT -5
"the age of sixteen year" To "less than 12 years old." How can anyone make a "drafting error" that obvious without it not getting noticed through all the revisions and proofreading?? I've written formal contract language - the "error" above defies logic - even in a first pass. There is no coherent excuse for that kind of an "error" at that level of document and authorship. Are you attempting to "excuse" your own mistake by blaming other people?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 20:52:00 GMT -5
Matisse and rational - I know both of you well enough to know neither of you would NOT EVER get a mere post here that screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 20:56:48 GMT -5
Are you attempting to "excuse" your own mistake by blaming other people? Why are you making lame excuses for other people?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 28, 2015 20:57:27 GMT -5
Matisse and rational - I know both of you well enough to know neither of you would NOT EVER get a mere post here that screwed up. I have no idea how this should be parsed.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 28, 2015 20:59:58 GMT -5
Matisse and rational - I know both of you well enough to know neither of you would NOT EVER get a mere post here that screwed up. "get a mere post here that screwed up."? I do not understand what you mean. If you are saying that I am not beyond making mistakes, I agree wholeheartedly. I find that it usually works out better for me to quickly acknowledge my mistake and to move on. Trying to defend the indefensible or blame other people for a mistake tends to looks foolish, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jun 28, 2015 21:02:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 21:05:29 GMT -5
Matisse and rational - I know both of you well enough to know neither of you would NOT EVER get a mere post here that screwed up. I have no idea how this should be parsed. I know you well enough to know you can figure it out!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 28, 2015 21:15:05 GMT -5
Are you attempting to "excuse" your own mistake by blaming other people? Why are you making lame excuses for other people? The writers of that document caught their error and issued a correction years ago. You didn't do your homework carefully enough to notice that there was a corrected version. A quick acknowledgement and it could be the "end of story". If that is too difficult for you, we can just drop it without any acknowledgement from you of your error. I really don't care either way.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 28, 2015 21:19:32 GMT -5
]Why are you making lame excuses for other people? I looked at the document and read it's title. It had nothing to do with revising the age of consent or any changes than the gender language. I also read the points that were raised during the confirmation hearings and the reasons that 16 was changed to 12. Eugene Volokh raised the same point you are raising but after looking at the situation reversed his position and admitted he was in error. If you want to continue to support Graham's view, have at it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 21:55:55 GMT -5
Matisse and rational - I know both of you well enough to know neither of you would NOT EVER get a mere post here that screwed up. "get a mere post here that screwed up."? I do not understand what you mean. If you are saying that I am not beyond making mistakes, I agree wholeheartedly. I find that it usually works out better for me to quickly acknowledge my mistake and to move on. Trying to defend the indefensible or blame other people for a mistake tends to looks foolish, IMO. What I'm saying is you and rational would never make a "mistake" like that even here on a post. If you and rational can do better than that here then there is no excuse for that "error" to be made even in the first pass of a document like that. It's practically inconceivable an "error" like that was made by mistake. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 28, 2015 22:02:32 GMT -5
"get a mere post here that screwed up."? I do not understand what you mean. If you are saying that I am not beyond making mistakes, I agree wholeheartedly. I find that it usually works out better for me to quickly acknowledge my mistake and to move on. Trying to defend the indefensible or blame other people for a mistake tends to looks foolish, IMO. What I'm saying is you and rational would never make a "mistake" like that even here on a post. If you and rational can do better than that here then there is no excuse for that "error" to be made even in the first pass of a document like that. It's practically inconceivable an "error" like that was made by mistake. Think about it. Thinking about it.... I think you came in guns-a-blazin' and then found out, to your chagrin, that you were firing blanks.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 28, 2015 22:07:32 GMT -5
Possible scenario? Someone slipped it in, hoping it wouldn't be noticed AND it did even get published that way. But then it was noticed and amended.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 22:14:40 GMT -5
]Why are you making lame excuses for other people? I looked at the document and read it's title. It had nothing to do with revising the age of consent or any changes than the gender language. I also read the points that were raised during the confirmation hearings and the reasons that 16 was changed to 12. Eugene Volokh raised the same point you are raising but after looking at the situation reversed his position and admitted he was in error. If you want to continue to support Graham's view, have at it. It's got nothing to do with that. I don't know who "Graham" is and haven't read anything about his views. Do you think you could write and publish "less than 12 years old" by mistake (when the original said "the age of sixteen years") when you didn't intend to address age at all??
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 22:15:44 GMT -5
What I'm saying is you and rational would never make a "mistake" like that even here on a post. If you and rational can do better than that here then there is no excuse for that "error" to be made even in the first pass of a document like that. It's practically inconceivable an "error" like that was made by mistake. Think about it. Thinking about it.... I think you came in guns-a-blazin' and then found out, to your chagrin, that you were firing blanks. And you would be wrong!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 28, 2015 22:23:21 GMT -5
Thinking about it.... I think you came in guns-a-blazin' and then found out, to your chagrin, that you were firing blanks. And you would be wrong! Rational spelled out your error very clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 22:30:12 GMT -5
It had nothing to do with revising the age of consent or any changes than the gender language. I also read the points that were raised during the confirmation hearings and the reasons that 16 was changed to 12. So there were "reasons" 16 was changed to 12?? "Reasons" implies the change was deliberate. If the change was done deliberately, with "reasons" for doing it, how could it be called a "drafting error" later? That doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 28, 2015 22:32:08 GMT -5
Rational spelled out your error very clearly. No he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 28, 2015 23:06:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 28, 2015 23:20:06 GMT -5
The last time I visited my proctologist, I farted at him. So did I. Not only that but I was encouraged to do so! They want you to get rid of all that air they put inside you gut.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 28, 2015 23:38:27 GMT -5
"get a mere post here that screwed up."? I do not understand what you mean. If you are saying that I am not beyond making mistakes, I agree wholeheartedly. I find that it usually works out better for me to quickly acknowledge my mistake and to move on. Trying to defend the indefensible or blame other people for a mistake tends to looks foolish, IMO. What I'm saying is you and rational would never make a "mistake" like that even here on a post. If you and rational can do better than that here then there is no excuse for that "error" to be made even in the first pass of a document like that. It's practically inconceivable an "error" like that was made by mistake. Think about it. And you, Jesse, think about it. You don't seem to realize how even proof reading a document can miss something.
Why don't you and emy just read how Eugene Volokh, a law professor, recanted his error & do the same yourselves?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 29, 2015 0:47:34 GMT -5
And you, Jesse, think about it. You don't seem to realize how even proof reading a document can miss something.
Why don't you and emy just read how Eugene Volokh, a law professor, recanted his error & do the same yourselves?
What has Ginsburg et al said about it? That would mean a lot more to me than what Volokh says. I agree with this comment: So how about you, rational, or matisse finding something directly from Ginsburg et al explaining the change from sixteen to 12 as a "drafting error". I highly doubt you, rational, or Matisse would make an "error" like that if you were writing at that level. I can say that because none of you have ever made an error that severe and unexplainable in your writing here on TMB.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 1:06:32 GMT -5
NAMBLA was a fringe group back in the 1970's and it remains a fringe group today. yeah, but for how much longer? Bert, Jesse,
NAMBLA has always been a small group & are getting less support all the time!
It is always the 'old hat' first arrow slung by homophobic & fundamentalist Christians groups!
NAMBLA really has nothing to do with homosexual orientation!
Get over it!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 29, 2015 1:11:04 GMT -5
Ok, were your parents professing Bert? If so you have proven that you cannot answer the question you asked. Unless you think its ok for children to have abusive parents & to witness domestic violence. Never had the same "professing upbringing" many of my dear friends have had (not something to discuss here though.) As I see it, a lot of what normal kids go through with broken homes and the violence and sex culture of TV, is akin to abuse - "normalized" abuse. And an increasing number of "parents" don't even monitor what their kids watch on TV anymore - let alone the internet(and that is well documented.)
ps I am with a friend who right now who is watching some man break up his marriage and three kids so he can marry another man. It's on TV, and it's more "normalization." Interesting word, that.Bert the "professing upbringing" you think you missed out on may not always be as good as you think ! I had a very strict "professing upbringing" where domestic violence was the norm, as long as it all looked ok on the outside and everyone kept quiet it was ok ! But as a child growing up in this environment it was NOT ok. So again I don't think we can answer your question, just because a family goes to meetings, missions, conventions and everything looks wonderful on the outside does NOT mean the children have a wonderful childhood.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 1:28:50 GMT -5
And you, Jesse, think about it. You don't seem to realize how even proof reading a document can miss something.
Why don't you and emy just read how Eugene Volokh, a law professor, recanted his error & do the same yourselves?
What has Ginsburg et al said about it? That would mean a lot more to me than what Volokh says. Jesse, did you ever consider that some people of the caliber of Justice Ginsburg who had explained something once already might not see it necessary to get down in the mud & wrestle with every person who wants to wrestle in the mud?
It's a bit like one time this creationist I knew ( I knew him because his mother taught my daughter in Kindergarten) Kent Hovind, who went by the name of Doctor Dino, keep saying that Steven Jay Gould would not debate against him & therefore that showed that Gould was afraid to debate him!
Why would a internationally know biologist like Gould stoop to even say "Hi," to someone like Hovind?
(Hovind, BTW actually finally went to prison for tax evasion)
|
|