by Tallyman 20 Replies latest jw friends
Farkel,
How do you know? Who appointed you God? Are you now a mind reader?
Like I said (do you need new lenses?):
Remember, he was the one that had cast the first stone of slander in that thread. He would've wound up not only embarrassing himself but any lawyer that was foolish enough to represent him.
Isn't that pretty plain and simple!
Toydson,
You do realize, don't you Thirdson, that your sentiments are diametrically opposed to those of Brother Farkel's (up above)? You and him really ought to conspire privately via email before you conspire publically ... perhaps that way then you won't come off sounding so far apart.
Your dear brudder,
Yadirf
Dumber-than-a-brick speaks again:
: Like I said (do you need new lenses?):
: quote:
: Remember, he was the one that had cast the first stone of slander in that thread. He would've wound up not only embarrassing himself but any lawyer that was foolish enough to represent him.
: Isn't that pretty plain and simple!
For someone with your intelligence, I would guess so.
Are you a lawyer? Yes, or no. If not, what makes you qualified to make such a determination? Please be specific and cite case law to back up your comments. If you cannot do that, then you are once again talking out of your ass.
If you are just merely expressing your opinion, then please from now on say so. If you think you are stating fact, then answer my challenge above.
Farkel
Farkel
If you are just merely expressing your opinion, then please from now on say so. If you think you are stating fact....
Remember the following post, Farkel? It talked about FACTS:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BONG! BONG! This court will not [yes, NOT] come to order!
A MESSAGE TO ALL:
Has it actually been forgotten who it was that cast the first stone of offense here? I'm talking solely about the words between Tallyman and /You Know. Before /You Know had said anything at all to Tallyman, this is what Tallyman had said to him:
Hey Burned-Out Boobie Acidhead,who the Phock gave YOU an "appointment" to "teach" the Discussion Board "domestics" all your slathering, slobbering, blithering Blather?
You STILL flashing back with those auditory hallucinations?... the 'voices' in your head giving you commands and appointments?
"Burned-Out Boobie Acidhead" -- now those weren't words of provocation, were they? Yes, they were meant to be nothing BUT provocative, not to mention the fact that it was slander. Was that not slander? If indeed slander has been committed here, WHO SLANDERED WHO FIRST?
"who the Phock gave YOU..." -- now those weren't words of provocation either, were they? Isn’t the word “Fuck” generally considered extremely inappropriate in most civilized circles? Honestly, I can’t really imagine any Lawyer being willing to defend you here, Tallyman … especially since you had been the first one to accomplish the very thing (slander) that you are complaining about.
I'll honestly tell you, my fine-feathered friend, Tallyman, after the way you come on to /You Know I'm really surprised that you have the audacity to register a complaint, even here on this forum. What I’m not surprised about is that you had supporters that never seems to have considered the points that I have brought up here.
END OF MESSAGE.
Yadirf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anything else, blabber-mouth?
Yadirf
Friday,
Look, just answer my first questions. You are just as bad as your buddy You Know. You won't even answer simple questions. Here they are again:
"Are you a lawyer? Yes, or no. If not, what makes you qualified to make such a determination? Please be specific and cite case law to back up your comments. If you cannot do that, then you are once again talking out of your ass."
"If you are just merely expressing your opinion, then please from now on say so. If you think you are stating fact, then answer my challenge above."
By the way, the subject matter of my questions was not who threw the first stone or how big that stone was (you idiot) but whether you are a lawyer qualified enough to make a good estimate as to who would prevail in a lawsuit and if so (or if not) why. Your last post was nothing more than a red-herring: a stinky old fish dragged over the issues to draw the scent away from your unwillingness to deal with them. Either answer my question or don't answer my question. I asked for case law to support your assertion that Tom could not possibly prevail. Instead, you handed me a plate of shit.
You are quite infantile for a man of what, 61 years of age?
Farkel
Caters-to-the-Infantile/Senile-Class
You said regarding Tom's comments to YK:
:Burned-Out Boobie Acidhead" -- now those weren't words of provocation, were they? Yes, they were meant to be nothing BUT provocative, not to mention the fact that it was slander. Was that not slander? If indeed slander has been committed here, WHO SLANDERED WHO FIRST?
Actually, dummy, you said you've only been around H20 and here for what 13 months? Years ago, "Boobie" ADMITTED being stoned on acid and that's how he found God and the WTS. That's a fact, and that stuff is archived and can be found. "Boobie" cannot deny he said that, because it is a FACT from his own pen!
So, Mr. Clarence Darrow how can you prove "slander" (it's actually "libel", but you are too stupid to understand the difference) when the libelee had already previously confessed to to what the "libeler" accused him of doing?
: "who the Phock gave YOU..." -- now those weren't words of provocation either, were they? Isn’t the word “Fuck” generally considered extremely inappropriate in most civilized circles? Honestly, I can’t really imagine any Lawyer being willing to defend you here, Tallyman … especially since you had been the first one to accomplish the very thing (slander) that you are complaining about.
Yes, people have received the death penalty and even worse for using the the expression "Who in the fuck...." You have a solid case here, Mr. Darrow. Every jury in the universe would convict any one foolish enough to utter those horrible words.
Friday, you are a pathetic, yapping joke. I laugh at you and your pathetic, side-stepping attempts to make it look like you are saying something important.
I'm glad your pupppy believes everything you say. That's why they are called "dumb" animals.
Farkel
Well, Yardif, I have challenged the entire GB of the WTB&TS to a public debate at any reasonable time, at any reasonable place to consider the proposition, "Jehovah's Witnesses Constitute a Religious Cult."
No Response.
And there's not going to be because the GB is scared shitless of anyone who has the goods, the truth, on them. Would you like to take up their cause, since they're too cowardly to do it for themselves?
And if you think it's improper for the GB to engage in such a debate, I direct your attention to the 1959 publication "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose." In this JW apologia, the society points out that it had invited the clergy to debate various biblical points, theological issues, etc. The society was very clear in its contention that the failure of any religion to debate when called upon to do so was a sure sign they knew they couldn't withstand the examination.
Additionally, I'm sure you remember the following: "The Catholic Church occupies a very significant position in the world and claims to be the way of salvation for hundreds of millions of people. Any organization that assumes that position should be willing to submit to scrutiny and criticism." {AWAK Aug 22 1984 28}
"Any organization" would include the WTB&TS wouldn't it?
Finally, I'm sure you recall the scripture that tells Christ's true followers to always be ready to make a defense of their beliefs, giving reasons for their beliefs and their hope.
Well, here's a perfect opportunity for the WTB&TS to do as they have demanded of others and to show that it really does have God's backing - or are they going to behave worse than the priest's of Baal who engaged in the contest to see if their God would send down fire upon the pile of brush to set it afire.
At least the priests of Baal showed up!!
So I here re-issue my challenge of a public debate to the WTB&TS governing body, or to you personally: a public debate upon the proposition, "Jehovah's Witnesses Constitute a Religious Cult." This debate to be announced publically a minimum of 30 days prior to the event, at any reasonable time, at any reasonable place in the contiguous United States."
So it's one thing to make loud noises about who did and who did not sue the WTB&TS, it's another altogether to put your ass on the line in public debate. I will show up, loudmouth, how 'bout your leadership?
Francois
My Dear Brother Friday and fellow poster,
I am not conspiring against you or contradicting anything brother Farkel is saying. I was actually making a general comment about your presence here and critism of Amazing.
Admit it Friday you love being here and you find our company preferable to that of the brothers at the Kingdom Hall. Afterall, you spend far more time with us in fellowship than with the brothers after the meeting.
We may disagree on a lot of things and you are involved in a lot heated debates but no one shuns you. There's no such thing as bad association and I don't mind you associating with us.
Your brother,
Thirdson
'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'
tally
all i can say is DEEEEEEEEEEP
JAMES
Remember, he was the one that had cast the first stone of slander in that thread.
No, he wasn't, as I explained to you before in detail (which you ignored) and Farkel explained to you in detail in this thread (which you have ignored so far).
So much for your love of truth. You just like slinging false accusations, it would seem.
