On 19 Oct, 23:51, "Falcon"  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > First things first - remembering facts and trivia is a test of memory,
> > not intellect. Literacy can't be a judge of intelligence either, for
> > this is a skill and not an 'innate' element, which intelligence is. In
> > fact 'intelligence' is notoriously difficult to define - although one
> > could argue that it consists of two major interacting facets - the
> > ability to understand new concepts and the ability to link these
> > concepts into the pre-existing mesh of older ones.
>
> > Another word for the first of these facets might be 'understanding'.
> > Memory need not play a part here. One can imagine a person with brain
> > damage, or some mental defect who unable to remember anything beyond
> > the short term. He may not remember anything about grammar at all.  If
> > such a person can pick up a book, look through it and understand it,
> > this surely this is evidence of intelligence, even if the concepts
> > contained are forgotten in a matter of moments. It is the ease of
> > understanding that shows the level of intellect not some meaningless
> > grammar.
>
> > A government-funded study at the University of York claims "Formal
> > grammar is not an effective way of teaching children to write."
>
> Nor is plagiarism. J'accuse.http://www.barbelith.com/cgi-bin/articles/00000016.shtml

Thanks for that just forgot a citation nothing more, I do make a lot
an obviously from your critque of my typos, grammar etc its clear I
never proof read before post. Though I must admitt this was quite
delibrate though not in order to deceive as this post goes on to
explain.

Though what is worrying is once again your clearly trying to avoid the
points or content in the old shoot the messenger routine. You are
predictible falcon, you have tried every dirty little trick to
discredit me rather than my post. I doubt there is anything else you
can do now. However once again your caught with your drawers down and
your arse hanging out to dry.

Take a look at one of your posts, and I quote directly from it,

"The purpose of the Bill was to give effect to proposals published in
May
2003 to deal with those suspected of terrorist-related offences
committed
before the date of the Belfast Agreement in connection with the
affairs of
Northern Ireland, who have not yet been tried or convicted because
they have
been 'on the run'.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ni.politics/browse_frm/thread/6fb12e36edcbd0dd/715eec76a8ec4b74?hl=en&lnk=st&q=author%3AFalcon+freeireland#715eec76a8ec4b74


then on the houses of parliment web site,

"The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to proposals published in
May 2003 to deal with those suspected of terrorist-related offences
committed before the date of the Belfast Agreement (10th April 1998)
in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200506/northern_ireland_offences.htm


Whats this, no quotation or citation oh no it can't be palgerism can
it, hmm according to the law of Falcon yes it is.


Now Falcon do you think I am devious enough to spot this at the time
after all in fact it was as a response to me, keep a note of it and
well set you up?  No of course not I would never be that dishonest,
would I?


>
> --
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -