Or was this just another personal attack on Seabird instead of the article?
Or was this just another personal attack on Seabird instead of the article?
"I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
No, he isn't, at least not anymore.Originally Posted by jfkeav
Here is his opinion of Amnesty International, in which he accuses them of being arrogant, and only interested in protecting British and American interests:
http://www.corkpsc.org/db.php?aid=4573
I would strongly advise you not to rush into calling others 'stupid', I can say from my own experience such remarks have a nasty habit of rebounding against oneself.
Pogon:
I honestly believe that you would attack anything that Seabird posted. You have stated nothing on the statement that Boyle made just on his qualifications. I misposted on the fact that he is with AI, I am with AI so I know he isn't with AI, and I well know his history with AI.
I did not rush in to aything, this opinion comes from years of reading your posts.I would strongly advise you not to rush into calling others 'stupid', I can say from my own experience such remarks have a nasty habit of rebounding against oneself.
Would you care to comment on what Boyle stated?
Or was this just an attack on Seabird?
"I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
Thats what I thought
"I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
Read through Seabird's posts.Originally Posted by jfkeav
She believes Unionists should leave Ireland, and as such is an unashamed and unapologetic advocate of ethnic cleansing.
As such, in my opinion, she is not an appropriate person to pontificate on human rights, and has has laid herself open to attack.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Just because you disagree with something that someone may have posted in another thread, you don't have to follow them chasing their every post.
Again for the third time, do you disagree with what Boyle stated in his testimony? Do you find it legally unsound? Or ids it just that Seabird posted it?
"I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
Yet has often been found to be more accurate than reference books.Originally Posted by jfkeav
Regardless of what you think of the man:
[quote:1nborqzu]Francis Anthony Boyle, is a professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He also received a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University.
Those are the only qualifications you need.[/quote:1nborqzu]
This is a rather crude attempt at an appeal to 'authority', similar to the doctrine of papal infalibility.
Throughout history many erudite man have made incredible asses of themselves.
Besides which, I would imagine the vast majority of American lawyers, some with qualifications equal to those of Boyle, would agree with my assessment of his somewhat offbeat, far left, opinions.
But you haven't said anything on his opinion stated above, you keep avoiding that. Prehaps you could find an American Lawyer that disagree's (Please, not one employed by George or the Republican National Committee) with his statement on this subject.Besides which, I would imagine the vast majority of American lawyers, some with qualifications equal to those of Boyle, would agree with my assessment of his somewhat offbeat, far left, opinions.
Huh? I'm sorry I don't understand what the Pope has to do with this discussion. Did I miss something?This is a rather crude attempt at an appeal to 'authority', similar to the doctrine of papal infalibility.
"I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
Of course I disagree with it.Originally Posted by jfkeav
I find it ridiculous.
It sounds more like the rantings of an ignorant, poorly educated buffoon, than the serious contribution of a Professor of Law.
Many of the concepts he uses have been widely discussed on this board.
For example, British Tyranny - sounds more like the opinion of a heavily-indoctinated juvenile Shinner than an academic.
IRA 'soldiers' - but not according to the definitions of either the United Nations or the Geneva Convention.
British monarchy - who have powerless figureheads for over a century.
Britain is illegally occupying Ireland - not according to the Good Friday Agreement, ratified by the vast majority of Irish people.
In short, Boyle's testimony is seriously weak.
If you wish discussing it further you will find Badinage an excellent poster on such matters.
Pogon:
Thats why I called you "stupid" you attack the poster not what they post, And instead of refuting facts with your own facts you just go in for character assassination.
"I disapprove of what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire