@djeggnog wrote (to @TD):
Your question was, how do I know that "abstain ... from blood" means do not eat, do not drink, do not re-use blood (as in transfusing blood from one person into someone else, which, when you think about it, is really no different than what a cannibal does)?
@The Finger wrote:
Surely using blood to obtain blood factions is using blood which if it is sacred what permission do you have to do this?
Yes, but in the same way that using the plastic bottle that folks that drink bottled water use is like using crude oil. The plastic bottle would be a crude oil fraction, which hardly resembles what it was before it was processed from it into plastic. I think it would be a stretch to say that someone you see littering by tossing their empty plastic bottle of water from their car onto the highway has littered the highway with crude oil, wouldn't it?
@djeggnog wrote:
Now were I a doctor and I were asked to give someone a blood transfusion, I would have no problem doing this, since, as in the example about the nation of Israel, who, as God's people, were obliged to properly drain the blood in meat before eating any of it, but who, as God's people, could opt to sell an unbled carcass to a foreigner, for non-Christians are, in effect, "foreigners," too, and no Christian can impose their own religious beliefs upon a non-Christian. (Deuteronomy 14:21)
@cofty wrote:
No, that's wrong. The Israelites could sell the carcass of an animal that died of itself or was killed by a wild beast to a foreigner; they could not kill an animal without bleeding it and sell that to a foreigner. There is a very important difference.
Ok. How does any of this bear on what I said though?
If an Israelite came across a dead animal of his flock or herd he had to decide what to do with it. It was impossible to bleed it of course. If he dug a hole, picked it up and buried it he was unclean and had to wash change and remain "unclean until the evening". If he cut it up and ate it he had to wash change and remain "unclean until the evening". Eating the blood of an animal "already dead" was a matter of cleanness not a criminal offense like failing to bleed an animal that was slaughtered.
This distinction is also made clear by the additional restrictions that were imposed on the priests. Unlike the people in general they did not have the option of eating the unbled meat of an animal "already dead" or of touching a dead body at all. Preparing the body of a loved on for burial is a virtuous thing to do but was prohibited for priests who had to remain clean.
I think your conclusion to be both interesting and wrong. At no time was it ok for an Israelite to eat the flesh of an animal that had died of itself, that is to say, an animal that he knew was "already dead" when he discovered it; to do such was a violation of God's law against their eating blood. However, it is possible that the Israelite thought that the dead animal had not died of itself, but that his wife or one of the kids had killed it. His having ingested the meat of an unbled carcass would then make him unclean.
But what if he knew that the carcass was "already dead" and he ate the meat of the unbled carcass along with the blood. I told you this in a previous post, because I thought you had telegraphed where you were going with this, but I'm telling you again: Leviticus 17:15, 16 would be applicable in such a case. What does Leviticus 17:15, 16, mean? According to Leviticus 7:27, it means death for the one that violates God's law, for anyone that intentionally eats the flesh of an animal that was unbled eats blood along with the flesh, which was a capital offense under the Law.
In Moses' speech you referred to above he is addressing the nation prior to his death and he encourages them to be a clean people. He does not have authority to repeal god's allowance of eating the unbled meat of an animal "already dead" but he does put this compromise to them that they should sell it to a foreigner rather than unnecessarily becoming unclean.
Ok.
By selling to a foreigner they were not causing the foreigner to do anything wrong as only the Israelites were under god's laws regarding cleanness such as avoiding certain types of food etc.
Ok.
Complying with god's laws regarding idolatry, fornication and blood are the three things that were required of any foreigner who was resident in Israel.
Not true. God's laws applied only to the Israelites, and so did not apply to those dwelling in their midst as alien residents. Any non-Israelite family that settled in the land given to the Israelites, who lived among the Israelites, but who weren't worshippers of Jehovah weren't proselytes, and so they only needed to live by the basic laws of the land.
These are the things that any foreigner is likely to engage in without even realising they were doing anything offensive. In Acts 15 this is the solution that they settle on to allow fellowship between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians without requiring gentiles to comply with the entire Jewish law, "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" Acts 15:21
In Acts 15, Jewish Christians weren't obliged to keep the Law of Moses and weren't observing it at all, so in this you are mistaken in your reading of Acts 15:21. I do notice that both the Good News Bible and Today's New International Bible both render Acts 15:21 as if the original Greek text stated "the Law of Moses," but the NIV, KJV, RSV, ASV, NAS and NWT do not. It would have made no logical sense for James to have even said this if he was there making reference to the Law of Moses by his mention there of "Moses," for Paul would certainly have called him on it, considering the fact that none of the Gentile Christians had been under obligation before becoming Christians or after becoming Christians to keep the Law of Moses. If you cannot see the problem with your logic, then I'll leave you to it.
The principle behind all of this is obvious to anybody who is not blinded by dogma.
What "principle"?
Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is sacred only in so far as it represents a life that has been taken.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
Methane is a component of natural gas (the other six (6) components are thane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptanes) and gasoline in a component of crude oil, but plastics that come from crude oil/natural gas would be a fraction since it is a byproduct of crude oil.
@wary wrote:
If God said 'natural gas' was sacred! do you think he would mind if you extracted it and broke it down for your own purposes?
Yes, I believe he would mind if he said "abstain from crude oil" or "abstain from natural gas." Why do you ask?
Dont you get it?
Get what?
@Mary:
Why did Jehovah allow the Israelites to sell unbled meat to non-Israelites if the command not to eat meat with blood in it was binding on all mankind as the WTS says?
Tell me this, @Mary: Why do you couch your question to me in such a way that makes it appear that you believe me to be the spokesman for either the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, which is merely a publishing corporation staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses that publishes the Bibles, books and other literature that we distribute, or for the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who, as a religious body of elders, is responsible for directing the preaching work being done worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses and the efficacy thereof, which at times includes their having to decide doctrinal matters (e.g., the matter of blood fractions) for which it (the governing body) only provide guidelines, while they must leave all such matters to Jehovah's Witnesses themselves for them to decide?
Look! Since all Jehovah's Witnesses must speak in agreement (1 Corinthians 1:10), whenever I speak about doctrinal matters, I am, in fact, speaking as a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, except @Mary, except when I am speaking for myself alone, such as my comment, quoted in @cofty's post, where I stated that were I a doctor and asked to give someone a blood transfusion, "I would have no problem doing this," but there are other Jehovah's Witnesses -- doctors -- that I'm sure would not be as willing to do this and wouldn't give anyone a blood transfusion. While the dictates of my conscience would allow me to do this, the dictates of someone else's conscience might view their doing such to be an unconscionable act and wouldn't transfuse blood for any reason, which would be their decision and perfectly fine for them to make.
Here now is my answer to your question, @Mary: During the 16th century BC, in the year 1513 BC, when God first gave the Law to the nation of Israel, until the first century AD, in the year 33 AD, when Jesus died in fulfillment of the Law making it possible for it to be brought to an end since its purpose in identifying the one man that could actually fulfill the requirements of the Law had been achieved when "the Son of man" proved himself to be able to fulfill it, the command not to eat unbled meat was binding on the Israelites, and the Israelites only. Jehovah had not given the Law to any other nation, except to Israel, and Israel alone, and I have scripture on this: Deuteronomy 5:1-3; Psalm 147:19, 20. Now this is the first "prong" of my answer to your question, @Mary, and a very important prong at that, but while I'm in this paragraph, I'm going to lengthen it mightily to say something else that I believe to be important for you to know, which I believe is going to make this a very, very long paragraph, and maybe the longest paragraph that you have ever read, or tried to read, in your entire life, and I don't intend to proofread it, so it's very possible that you won't understand all that I'm about to say in this paragraph: I don't know what your beef is with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses or if you have a beef with the local elders of the congregation at which you may have formerly attended, but if you have been disfellowshipped or have severed your connection to Jehovah's Witnesses in any way -- maybe you're someone in fade, someone on the proverbial fence, someone "in," but in your heart is really "out," but for the sake of family is pretending to still be "in" it to win the same prize that others are "in" to win when you are really "out" and are no longer running for the prize of life -- but I need you to know that I didn't deliberately fail to answer your question because I may have copped an attitude about your status as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you are not actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses, that's on you, and your current status is of no concern whatsoever to me since what you decide to do is your decision and your decision alone to make, and I respect your right to make this decision, whether I agree with it or not. However, Number One: I am someone that recognizes a good question and had I not been so caught up, so to speak, with what @TD was saying, and exchanging posts with him regarding the low-platelet count from which his son had to battle back with the help of the doctors with he and his wife being helpless to do anything to help their son, I might not have missed your post, but @TD related a true story involving drug-induced thrombocytopenia, which he said was caused by DDPA (a drug-dependant platelet-reactive antibody) was quite gripping -- maybe you read it, too -- so all I can do is apologize. I'm human and I tend to do human things, being absorbed in the emotionally gripping life-and-death accounts that are related to me that are a part of the human experience on this side of Armageddon, although maybe my subconscious mind was still "reeling" from your slight on Page 7 when, after quoting something you read in a dated Watchtower (1961, wasn't it -- as if the doctrinal beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in 2011 must be frozen in time, cannot be updated and must remain the same as they might have been 50 years ago!), and accusing us of forcing others to commit suicide, you disparage the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as being 'a bunch of senile old men,' or words to this effect, and after calling me "an asshole" in violation of the rules here on JWN I might add, I recall you going on to suggest that I come here to count the time I spend here on JWN when not one of Jehovah's Witnesses can in good conscience report the time spent on websites like this one, websites put up here in cyberspace for the entertainment pleasure of people like @cantleave, @wasblind and @OUTLAW (who obviously don't come here for the free beer, but because they are entertainers that come here not to enlighten anyone, but to entertain the JWN audience!) and then, without missing a beat, suggesting that I have "my sneak on" -- as the kids might say -- when I come to JWN, as if it were true that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses must approve or disapprove my visits to websites like JWN where the message I might post can be read by apostates (if that should be what you are) and non-apostates (if that should be what you are) also visit and might post messages, despite my referring more than once in other threads to the 1974 Watchtower article, "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshipped Ones," which gives a much better and reasoned perspective than I would give on the topic of dealing with those who are disfellowshipped; but none of this is a valid excuse for my untoward behavior toward you, @Mary, and for this I apologize to you for the perceived offense, and for seeming to ignore your posts on Pages 8 and 9 as well. I deliberately chose to respond to @TD's post over yours, but you deserved a reply and I subconsciously intended to post a response, but didn't until after your post on Page 10. Frankly, I think were you to mention all of the seeming "snobbery" to which I subjected you in this thread in a lawsuit, an excellent case could be made against me, especially if I couldn't convince the jury empaneled to hear the case that there were other factors that would mitigate the damages I caused you, like there not being enough hours in a day to give the kind of answers that I might want to give to everyone that seeks an answer to a question and I believe my being an imperfect man to be a good mitigating factor. But seriously, @Mary, if justice is what you're seeking, you really should sue me. In fact, that is my advice to you. I know that I've dictated a very long paragraph here, and btw I'm not yet done with it as I am going to be adding a second part to it without breaking it up, nor am I going to proofread it because I don't want to proofread this beastly long paragraph, so I hope you manage to get through it without getting lost if there should be any typos in this crazy-long paragraph (you see, my genius gives me to ability to write this stream-of-consciousness paragraph and know that I've not forgotten the thrust of the point I seek to make in it, while all at the same time managing to touch upon what have to be viewed as "side points" that are totally unrelated to my main point), and if not, then I'll just have to accept the fact you just won't be able to get through this paragraph, but I refuse to proofread it. And Number Two: There are lurkers here on JWN for whom questions like the one you articulated to me here resonates, for were they not lurking the questions asked here on this very popular website to which many folks flock upon their landing here after running a Google or Yahoo! search maybe out of curiosity at first, many of them will later return here again and again just to see if maybe answers to the questions that perplex them will be found here -- your question being a good example of a question that some of them might have or might have had -- or they may be seeking what for them would be a legitimate reason to either leave their current church to attend meetings at the Kingdom Halls where Jehovah's Witnesses go either in furtherance of their curiosity or to excuse their leaving Jehovah's organization because they do not want to believe Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth. I know the length of this paragraph is quite long; I wrote it, but I'll leave it to you to parse it, to figure out which subpoints in it are definitively responsive to your concerns (and which aren't).
The "second" prong of my answer to your question is this: Just as the apostle Paul told those men in Greece at Acts 17:30, 31, "God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent. Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead."
Maybe you understand what the apostle says here and maybe you don't, but assuming you don't understand, what Paul is saying here, and what I'm here saying to you now, @Mary, is that whereas under the Law it was ok for an Israelite to sell unbled meat to a non-Israelite, when the Law came to an end, so did God's overlooking the ignorance of these non-Israelites, who may have been doing God-knows-what to these animal carcasses, maybe these non-Israelites used them to fashion hats and foot coverings for the cold months, or maybe they made what might be equated to that which we today would refer to as beef jerky, or maybe they gave them to their pets to use when teething or just to give them something to do (i.e, dogs), or maybe they used the concealed blood in them as medicine to treat open wounds or in concoctions for drinking to settle the stomach or to arrest diarrhea or as a laxative, or perhaps they flattened them out since there was blood inside them so that their children could have them soar in the air as one might throw a Frisbee into the air. I'm sure you didn't want me to speculate as to how these animal carcasses might have been used by non-Israelites peoples, but, well, I just did.
These men were savages by today's standards, they lived very hard lives by today's standards, before Christianity, woman had hard lives trying to please men that only viewed them as property, and I'm here talking about non-Israelites that weren't proselytes, and so weren't required to observe the Law of Moses when it was in effect, so even though God's command to "abstain ... from blood" was imposed upon all mankind before the Law was ever given to the Hebrews, which Law made the Hebrew people a nation, was imposed upon all mankind when Noah and his family found themselves on an earth wiped clean of all of the ungodliness that existed before the global deluge came and destroyed the ancient world from which these eight people had emerged, God was no longer willing to overlook the ignorance of these other nations that had not known God nor felt themselves obliged to obey Him.
So at Acts 17:30, 31, Paul was really issuing a decree from God, telling these philosophers that "the times of such ignorance" were over, that the time had come for mankind everywhere to repent because God had set a day -- Jehovah's Witnesses don't know when that day is coming -- but we know that on this day God "purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed," and that "man" would be the "Son of man," Jesus, and God has provided to all mankind "a guarantee" that this day is coming, so that absolutely no one should be in any doubt as to whether it is going to come, for on Nisan 16, 33 AD, God resurrected this man by whom He is going to be judging the inhabited earth, including those who now sleep in death and await the day when they will come out of their memorial tomb and will be among those that will be judged as being either "righteous" or "unrighteous" by this man (well, some of these folks weren't Jews or Christians and so they are definitely going to be pleasantly surprised, I'm sure!), that man being, the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15)
@TD wrote:
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
@miseryloveselders wrote:
By the way something I've been thinking about since following this thread is, the Law's stipulations regarding blood were dealing with the blood of animals, not humans. Its got me wondering if this debate is a lot more simple than we're actually treating it. We're arguing over the use of blood being transfused from one human to another human. The Law's intent was regarding the blood of an animal being consumed by a human as food/drink. That being said, for a Christian to not be obligated to follow the Law, and not consuming the blood of an animal, what is there to debate about at that point?
@djeggnog wrote:
Seriously??? Just two points and I'm done with this: Point #1: Can you imagine transfusing animal blood into a human being? Point #2: If God put animal blood to be sprinkled on His altar to representatively atone for the sins of human beings, where's the logic in God's allowing human blood to be sprinkled on His altar (or, in this case, transfused onto someone else's altar when animal blood and human blood belong to God!) when this animal blood foreshadowed the perfect human sacrifice of the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world?
@Mary wrote:
OMG.....Outlaw, I believe egghead's above comment tops his previous post for sheer stupidity. The blood that was used to 'sprinkle on the altar', was to make atonement for the life that had just been taken. In the case of modern blood transfusions, there is no "human blood to be [sprinkled] on His altar" because no one was slaughtered and there is no life to atone for. It saves lives, it does not take life away. Transfusing human blood from the donor to recipient is completely different than [ingesting] the blood from an animal that has been slaughtered and no one on earth (other than the moronic Governing Body members) would equate one with the other.
You know what, @Mary? One would have to suppose that are right, that I must be an absolute moron to have posted this comment that you quoted in your post, that my comment tops my "previous post for sheer stupidity," because you always call the balls and strikes as you see them. (I believe they still use the phrase, "balls and strikes," in Brooklyn.) In the case of blood transfusions, no human being is being slaughtered on God's altar, so no blood is being sprinkled since God's altar is for the sacrifice of dead victims since no covenant with God, no atonement, is validated while the sacrifice still lives, and yet, as you admit in your post, blood is being used for an unapproved purpose, no human being is being slaughtered, no human being is being sacrificed, for God only allowed one such human sacrifice, that of His own son, Christ Jesus, and this sacrifice for the forgiveness of the sins of the world. (Hebrews 9:17) At Leviticus 17:11, Jehovah says, "I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it."
The fact that you believe that transfused human blood saves lives is irrelevant. In your mind, the transfusion of donor blood into a recipient of it "is completely different than [ingesting] the blood from an animal that has been slaughtered," but in making such a comparison, you are comparing apples to oranges, @Mary. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe is permissible for them to ingest the blood of an animal that has been slaughtered, or even if that animal should still be alive, but from whom a pint or two was removed for ingesting later with my fish and chips. To be fair, we need to keep the comparison on the same level, with human beings and animals both being alive and living blood donors.
Now just whose blood is it? To whom does the blood in an animal and the blood in human beings belong? Is it God's blood or man's? I don't know what you'll say in response to this, but if you believe it to be God's blood, then what right do we have to use blood in a way not approved by God? If you believe it to be man's blood to do with how he or she pleases, then I'd have to ask you this: By what means did the human donor come into possession of the blood that is coursing through his or her veins? If not by divine right, then by what right did this human donor come to own the blood they he or she donates for use in such blood transfusions?
Tell me this: Is this right somehow related to the right of manifest destiny that was asserted here in the US of human beings having the God-given right to do what one wants with their own blood, akin to devouring whatever land one wishes to spread one's sphere of influence, one's empire, across a country by divine right? Clearly, that concept was just an assertion, an excuse to separate people from their land since it says right there in my Bible, at Revelation 11:15, that when the seventh angel blew his trumpet, "the kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." Does your Bible say this?
Or maybe you believe human beings obtained the right to use their own blood as it suits them based on a different concept, the one about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the one invariably referred to in the West, both in Great Britain and in Canada, as an "inalienable right" given humans by God. Is this perhaps the basis for right asserted by human beings to become a blood donor? Again, this is just a concept for Revelation 12:10 does say that "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ." Does your Bible also say this, @Mary?
It seems the impasse here is based on the mere assertion of a right to decide for self what is good and what is bad. It seems I've heard this before (Genesis 3:22), and I also recall that this belief, this concept, this assertion didn't lead to a good place. The experiment is self-government that led to the destruction of an ancient world and to the horrific Eugenics Movement that drove a man named Adolf to believe there could be such a thing as a "master race." Deciding for ourselves what would be a good thing and what would be a bad thing is actually what led to the deaths of not just 6,000,000 people of Jewish (Semitic) ancestry in Germany, but there were some 6,028,000 Poles that were murdered in Poland, 3,200,000 being of Jewish ancestry and 3,000,000 of which being of Polish ancestry. Hitler's Third Reich decided what was good and what was bad for other people. Are these doctors deciding for you or are you deciding for you? If it is you deciding for you, then that is your right, but like many other Jehovah's Witnesses, I have decided that obeying God in "abstaining ... from blood" makes sense to me. You, @Mary, have the right to decide for yourself what is good and what is bad for you. I'm just answering the question that you asked me is all.
Apart from faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for while you are prepared to believe that blood transfusions "saves lives," and are prepared to believe that it is our blood to do with as we wish if our reason for using donor blood is an honorable one, namely, to save a life, and are prepared to believe that God has no say in the decisions we human beings make with respect to how we use the blood that belongs to him -- even though God says right there in the Bible "your blood of your souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back" (Genesis 9:5) -- I believe you're wrong, and not just wrong, but dead wrong, @Mary.
In my second prong, I point out that "God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent." Repentance doesn't mean that you would have the right to be deciding for yourself what is good and what is bad; this is not what the word means. To repent means to change your mind, to change your conduct, to feel regretful over having been set straight in something you formerly believed, to change your thinking, your conduct, due to your feeling regret or contrition over you having taken a wrong course.
And see there, @Mary, I didn't need to go to one of the Insight volumes to point any of this out of you. I have said this before, maybe not to you, but in this thread: That Jehovah's Witnesses are supposed to use Bible study aids to help them to learn what things the Bible teaches on a variety of subjects. They should not be tied, as it were, to a book, a magazine, or one of our publications since the truth of God," the way of God," must be taught in truth, planted in such a way that it takes root in one's heart. (Romans 3:7; Matthew 22:16). If one has no root in himself, then "he is at once stumbled," Jesus said, and Jesus was right, too. (Matthew 13:21; Luke 8:13)
I'm not tied to anything. Or maybe what I should say is that I'm only tied to my Bible, and that, for the most part, I don't need to use any of the Watchtower publications to help me remember what I've already learned. I'm human, but for an academic perspective, I'm probably nothing like you. I don't memorize stuff like many people tend to do and have to learn to stop doing; memories can and do fail. I learn. You may not, but I believe Jesus to be "the root," and anytime we think about blood transfusions, we ought to think about the sacredness of it, for it was by means of "precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, even Christ's," that we can be saved. (Revelation 22:16; 1 Peter 1:19)
And just to reiterate the Borg's favourite comparison: 'If your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol would you transfuse it into your veins?' The answer: If it was going to somehow save my life, you bet your ass I'd transfuse it.
Makes sense; you lack faith. I don't think any of Jehovah's Witnesses have ever used the comparison you give here; maybe it's not stated correctly, but the question seeks an opinion and doesn't reason on the matter. If your doctor ordered you to abstain from alcohol, would you think the doctor meant that it would ok for you to ingest alcohol intravenously as long as you didn't use the oral route to get it into your bloodstream? This is the way I would frame the question to someone, to see if he or she could following my reasoning, and I believe other Jehovah's Witnesses would frame such a question similarly.
"If I told you to PayPal me $200 today, would you do it?" That is the kind of question you asked, and, as I just pointed out, that would be a different kind of question; it seeks an opinion that I don't really care to hear when I teaching someone something.
"If you were to divide 14 by 0, what would your answer be?" might be a way to test someone's comprehension of the question asked, but "If you were to divide 14 by 0, would you do it?" sounds more like your question, @Mary.
What an idiot.......
I think this comment of yours here violates Rule 1 here, doesn't it? Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe it does. Where are the police? @Lady Lee? @Simon? It's not that I feel harmed or anything by the comment -- these are mere words -- but I'm thinking about the tenor of this thread and other JWN threads, where the very same people believe they do not need to adhere to any rules, and thinking themselves to be above needing to obey the rules here, they will violate these rules at will, and they seem to me to get away with such violations of the rules here. I think something should be done to encourage civility. @Mary could have meant to say that what I said 'sounded like something an idiot might say,' or that what I said 'sounded idiotic to her,' but what she actually did say is an ad hominem and, I think, a violation of Rule 1, and I think she should be arrested immediately. <g>
@djeggnog
