3 million children

[littlebillie]

"a convicted and executed criminal."

 

so many of these, aren't there?

 

Patrick Henry, and William Wallace

 

Joan D'Arc, and the innocents of Salem

 

Countless clandestine operatives over the years, and some not so clandestine, in Nam

 

all criminals, all executed...

 

Context counts for so much I think.

[OldGreyEagle]

Aw heck littlebilly, why not add the dozen or so convicted and on deathrow inmates in Illinois. They were convicted of a crime and were waiting for execution. I guess being convicted doesnt always mean you are guilty of anything

[littlebillie]

OGE,

 

I'm taking that as a snipe at society, and not personally - correct me if I'm wrong there, tho!

 

Still, a lot of folks on Death Row have been cleared by DNA - I can't fault that...

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Oh littlebillie, I am in agreement with you, not attacking you. You were listing historical figures who were convicted of crimes and executed. I took this in reponse to Zorn's scathy remarks about basing a personal philosophy on a convicted and executed criminal. I took it you were lising other examples of convicted and executed people who most of us dont regard as a criminal. Of course, the English government saw William Wallace and Patrick Henry as bad guys. Just because a person is convicted, doesnt mean he did anything wrong is what I was trying to say, with the death row inmates as my proof.

 

Sorry to confuse you(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[littlebillie]

OGE, thanks for the clarification - I was 90% sure that was your direction, but there was that 10% that mighta/coulda been altered by tone of voice or body language, so I like to check.

 

I appreciate your words.

 

 

[littlebillie]

Here's one Zorn quote....

 

"Oh littlebillie, you seem to have nothing to do with your time if you spend it looking for what I've said."

and here's another....

"Reading old threads can be interesting."

 

So Zorn, while it's interesting for you, it's a waste of time for someone else?

 

here's another pair interestingly juxtaposed excerpts:

 

"More psychobabble from the pseudo-psychologists"

vs.

"I answered your original comments. You must be insecure to feel that you need to post them again," in response to an offer of clarification and assistance.

 

 

 

mercurial, indeed. or inconsistent. or hypocritical? or just stirring the pot? granted, this time I DID go looking thru what you've posted - I was wondering if there is as much vitriol and mean-spiritedness in ALL of your postings - and imagine my amusement when I found the "reading old threads" line! Perhaps I was wrong when I cautiously asked you about your seeming white supremacism - maybe you suffer from Zorn supremacism. In which case, I gotta tell you, it doesn't wear well, or amuse. Of course, I doubt that's really your issue.

 

(In all fairness folks, let me say that when he's allowed to simply pontificate, without ontradiction, he doesn't really get nasty, just pompous.)

 

I'm guessing you just want to rile things up, for no good reason than your own amusement, or possibly because it's a good way to distract from an argument when you paint yourself info a corner. I know it's easy to snipe from behind the keyboard, over the lines and across the country, but there's more strength of spirit to be found, I think, in civility, especially with all that buffer in place - I recommend it to you. Of course, at this stage, I'm extending you very little courtesy, if any, but that's because you've been such an unrecalcitrant jerk lately - learn to play nice, and we can get back to real discussion! :-) and if ya can't play nice, play by the same rules ya set for others!

 

Of course, maybe - for some reason - you're just trying to get folks to waste their time replying to you, rather than discussing issues.

 

I'd have to wonder why that would be - doesn't seem like something the BSA Execs would do, put in a plant to rile things up, not here. So maybe it's the diversity camp, trying to get some evil quotes out of folks you get all hot and stuffy? Well, that doesn't reing true either.

 

MY question is, see, I'm wondering if you're truly evil, or just mean and small-spirited. And while I suspect it's just that little thing you do, God help me, PLEASE, don't tell me you're just bored and doing it for no other reason...

 

 

[red feather]

Zorn, I appoligize if I was unclear. I was Airborne and will look up the info about the snipers you mentioned. Thanks for the input.

 

YIS

[Zorn Packte]

So Zorn, while it's interesting for you, it's a waste of time for someone else?

 

You might be unable to see the difference but reading old threads for the first time is much different than searching through them from quotes.

 

here's another pair interestingly juxtaposed excerpts:

 

Sarcasm must escape you, my response to him was in the same vein of his previous comments to me.

 

I'm extending you very little courtesy, if any, but that's because you've been such an unrecalcitrant jerk lately

 

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Name calling and rudeness. Aren't you one of those that's always talking about the Scout law (No, I'm not going to waste my time looking. that's your game).

[Zorn Packte]

Just because a person is convicted, doesnt mean he did anything wrong is what I was trying to say, with the death row inmates as my proof.

 

Wrong depends on the point of view. Saddam Hussein probably doesn't see much wrong in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Wallace and Henry were criminals under the laws of their countries.

 

Your "covert operatives" are criminals plain and simple. The fact that they work for us doesn't make them any less a criminal.

 

Christ was a criminal who was tried and executed. You probably think that OJ is a criminal and should be executed. David Koresh was executed without trial.

 

 

[DeMann]

Christ was a criminal who was tried and executed.

 

o.k. big boy. what was the crime, what was the verdict.

 

I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void. the second was held by Pilate, and he found him innocent of all charges. yes, he was executed. but he was never found guilty in a legal court. also, by the way, the charge against him was that he said that he was the Son of God. HMMM..... was he guilty?

 

 

 

oh, and to those who chide the use of "I AM"...get real. you did not understand what was meant by the words you read. take it slowly.... you might catch it then.

 

 

And I am still wondering how Charles Manson got into this thread. Did anyone invite him here?

 

[Zorn Packte]

I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void.

 

Do you have any evidence other than some self serving books written by the criminal's followers? Are there 2000 year old records from the court? How about some Roman records?

[littlebillie]

Ahh, Zornyzornyzorny,

 

once again sidestepping the real questions, and criticizing those who give to you what you give others. we only know you by what you say, as you say, and if you won't answer simple questions, why then the board histories are quick and easy sources.

 

Oh, and then when you say "Tsk, tsk, tsk. Name calling and rudeness." maybe you do have a sense of humor - name calling and rudeness really have been your hallmark lately, haven't they!? if there's issues there you'd like to discuss on the side, I'm qualified.

 

anyway and until then - since you don't want to do folks the courtesy of answers and plain responses to their questions and comments, and since you seem to think that insult and sidestep make up for your lack of substance, I gotta guess you're just trying to be the Don Rickles or Bobcat G. of the boards here.

 

You may have a real mind in there somewhere, and if sometime you'd like to discuss the issues in a manner other than ad hominem, give it a try.

 

it'd be interesting to see what you think about something if you could ever get around to addressing the issues instead of the insults!

 

(Director's notes: TOV, paragraph 1 - lectorial, paragraph 2 - tentatively amused, ending in sincere invitation, paragraph 3 - soto voce assumption, paragraph 4 - giving in to a bit of pique, paragraph 5 - sincere again)

 

Ta!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DeMann]

"I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void.

 

Do you have any evidence other than some self serving books written by the criminal's followers? Are there 2000 year old records from the court? How about some Roman records?"

 

 

OK. Read The Pharisee of the Old Testament, Oxford Press, 1954 printing, chapters 7-8. This book is based upon texts found in the Middle East in modern (1880-1950) archeological digs. It is both a history lesson of the Pharisee sect of the Jewish religion, as well as of the common law of the Jews under Roman rule. These texts are NOT found/used in either the New Testament or the Old. They are simply ancient texts dating to and before the time of Christ. This book is considered to be a simple historical book.

 

Ps. The I AM thing is another bit of evidence that man (if I may quote the Bible) teaches for doctrine the traditions of man. No where in the Bible does it say that if you call yourself God by his Hebrew name that he will strike you dead. That was a teaching from the Pharisees based upon the historical story of the Levite struck dead when he touched the Ark of the Covenant when he thought it was going to be dropped as the priests crossed the Jordan River and one of the priests slipped and fell. The OT did say that any one touching it inappropriately would be struck dead. And history shows us that He did exactly that. Go ahead, make fun of God. He is keeping score, and He will certainly win! I said what I said (was I verbose?) to point out that Jesus did indeed say that he was the Son of God as well as God Himself. I am so sorry that you guys could not get that from what I wrote.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

When John the Baptist baptized Jesus, didn't the clouds part and a voice call out " this is my beloved son in who I am well pleased"?

 

And when Jesus was 12 years old, and stayed in the temple while Joseph and Mary headed home, and when Joseph and Mary finally caught up with Jesus, he responded, "don't you know I am supposed to be about my father's business?"

 

But what I want to know, is why is this important?

[Zorn Packte]

zorny? That's the epitome of rudeness.

 

I>Oh, and then when you say "Tsk, tsk, tsk. Name calling and rudeness." maybe you do have a sense of humor - name calling and rudeness really have been your hallmark lately, haven't they!? if there's issues there you'd like to discuss on the side, I'm qualified.

 

I find it interest that so many chide me for my rudeness but yet you stoop to my level. Shouldn't you rise above me, turn the other cheek, and all that?

 

Okay DeMann, so there's a book from 1954 that goes into Hebrew law. That still doesn't address my question. Are there records from a higher court stating that the verdict was null and void?