Bohemian Grove :Newt Gingrich Denies it's Existence: Some People Have "Fantasy Lives"

Daithi 1

If it was just a bunch of good old boys doing business or holidaying, why deny it's existence ?

Newt Gingrich Denies Bohemian Grove Existence: Some People Have "Fantasy Lives"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpiLARg87FU

Alex Jones asks David Gergen about Bohemian Grove Rituals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM

Bohemian Grove Mystery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-tJ2FodsYE

He doesn't deny that it exists, he just looks stunned that this kid is asking him nonsense.

43109

King Mob wrote: »

He doesn't deny that it exists, he just looks stunned that this kid is asking him nonsense.

So you don't believe a single of the men attending this event would be involved in any kind of debauch activity at all...and even if they were, it would be acceptable to you?

43109

43109 wrote: »

So you don't believe a single of the men attending this event would be involved in any kind of debauch activity at all...and even if they were, it would be acceptable to you?

Well that's not really addressing the point I made, in that the title of the thread and the video are misleading.

But that dodge aside, it depends on what debauched behaviour you are referring to.
If it's that the members worship and owl god, then I don't believe that as it's not true. And if it was, don't see the problem anyway.

If it's that they are accused of shipping in prostitutes, then I would like to see some convincing evidence other than a two second flash of a tabloid cover. And if it was true, I would not believe it was acceptable, but frankly not unusual for some politicians.

And if you are referring to Bill Clinton's charge that people go about naked, then I think that's likely true as it would be on any crazy drinking weekend.

So since I have taken the time to address your point, could you at least comment on mine?

43109

But that dodge aside, it depends on what debauched behaviour you are referring to.
If it's that the members worship and owl god, then I don't believe that as it's not true. And if it was, don't see the problem anyway.

Well, saying a bunch of public officials dressed in Jedi bathrobes worshipping a massive burning owl "debauched activity" would be a little excessive, I agree.

And of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this because who doesn't do that from time to time?

We've all cheered at bonfires on Halloween night and dress up as monsters for fun.

If it's that they are accused of shipping in prostitutes, then I would like to see some convincing evidence other than a two second flash of a tabloid cover. And if it was true, I would not believe it was acceptable, but frankly not unusual for some politicians.

2 weeks is a long time for even the most disciplined man to go without sex.
Do you think they're having sex with themselves, maybe masturbating?
One can only speculate...let's not.

And if you are referring to Bill Clinton's charge that people go about naked, then I think that's likely true as it would be on any crazy drinking weekend.

Me neither, they sound like a great bunch of lads, especially when the same people talk about bombing and invading countries all the time to promote freedom and democracy.

So since I have taken the time to address your point, could you at least comment on mine?

I made an attempt anyway, hope they're perfectly satisfactory.

43109

43109 wrote: »

I made an attempt anyway, hope they're perfectly satisfactory.

No you haven't. You have not addressed my original post, and you did not coherently address the ones I made in response to yours.
Can I assume that you aren't actually interested in any form of discussion this time either?

Socialist_Pig

the skeppies have already had an invite:pac::pac::pac:

43109

King Mob wrote: »

No you haven't. You have not addressed my original post, and you did not coherently address the ones I made in response to yours.
Can I assume that you aren't actually interested in any form of discussion this time either?

Excuse me?

I have addressed your original post, did you read my comments? obviously not.
There's no point in me repeating them, either read them or don't.

This is the 2nd time you've accused me of not addressing your comments when I clearly have...very strange.

Daithi 1

Ha ha, you found my old invite

Fair enough, he doesn't deny it's existence, not in the following video. But he does deny being a member of the club.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbLe03HRDKI

Apparently he did give a speech there before though...

43109

43109 wrote: »

Excuse me?

I have addressed your original post, did you read my comments? obviously not.
There's no point in me repeating them, either read them or don't.

This is the 2nd time you've accused me of not addressing your comments when I clearly have...very strange.

Please point out specifical were you addressed the fact that both the thread title and the video are misleading?

43109

King Mob, I may as well be talking to a wall right now.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Fair enough, he doesn't deny it's existence, not in the following video. But he does deny being a member of the club.

Apparently he did give a speech there before though...

Ok, and?
You can go to many clubs and society events without being a member.
Similarly people who give talks are not necessarily members either.
So there's no reason to think that he isn't telling the truth.

Though the makers of these videos are determined to make it look that way, regardless of what he says.

So why does the video claim he denies it exist when he does no such thing.

43109

43109 wrote: »

King Mob, I may as well be talking to a wall right now.

Your first post reads:

So you don't believe a single of the men attending this event would be involved in any kind of debauch activity at all...and even if they were, it would be acceptable to you?

This does not address the point I was making.
Similarly your follow up post make no mention of my original point or anything similar.

You did not address my point even after I took the time to address yours.
If you think you did address my point about the title being misleading, show me where.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, and?
You can go to many clubs and society events without being a member.
Similarly people who give talks are not necessarily members either.
So there's no reason to think that he isn't telling the truth.

Though the makers of these videos are determined to make it look that way, regardless of what he says.

So why does the video claim he denies it exist when he does no such thing.

Ther eis plenty of reason to believe he's lying, going by what clinton said about the club, what nixon said about it, not to mention the VIDEO alex jones released of the club showing a 40ft owl there which the members worship.
And not to mention gergens reaction when hewas approached and questioned about the "cremation of care" ceremony consisting of mock human sacrifices.

The evidence points towards newt being a frucking brull****ter !!

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Ther eis plenty of reason to believe he's lying, going by what clinton said about the club, what nixon said about it, not to mention the VIDEO alex jones released of the club showing a 40ft owl there which the members worship.
And not to mention gergens reaction when hewas approached and questioned about the "cremation of care" ceremony consisting of mock human sacrifices.

The evidence points towards newt being a frucking brull****ter !!

But the thing is, what if the club wasn't as sinister as people are telling you it is?
What if Alex Jones either misunderstood or is misrepresenting what he saw/claimed to see?

And you didn't answer my question, why does the video claim that he denies the existence of the club?

43109

I like the way you dodged my questions there, Mr.Mob

Here's my response: Yes, the title is ambiguous (slightly misleading but somewhat true)

Now, care to answer my questions please, King Mob

43109

43109 wrote: »

I like the way you dodged my questions there, Mr.Mob

Now, care to answer my questions please, King Mob

Which questions are you refering to.
I don't see any relevant or ones that aren't just a childish reaction to someone daring to not agree with you.

43109 wrote: »

Here's my response: Yes, the title is ambiguous (slightly misleading but somewhat true)

And this further illustrates the point I was making.

The title isn't ambiguous. It says that Newt Gingrinch denies the existence of the Bohmian Grove. The video however shows no such thing.
But because it's a conspiracy video, you ignore the fact that it is dishonest from the get go, avoiding even commenting on it and now waving your hands to try and justify it.
This fact is shown pretty well in that it took a whole page for you to even comment on the disconnect between the title and the content and then try to argue that "Bohemian Grove :Newt Gingrich Denies it's Existence:" has some other possible meaning.

Daithi 1

In fairness, at first glance it does appear that newt is denying it's existence.. I still thought so until I posted the second video and thought, obviously he's not going to accept it's existence then later deny it.
So as for me being dishonest, I wasn't. A simple error of judgement.

If you wish I could ask a mod to edit it, I cant stand to see you upset like this mobs.

EDIT : DONE

43109

King Mob wrote:

The title isn't ambiguous.

Well, it isn't to me but you clearly have a problem with it.

Gingrich says that people have fantasy lives believing public officials would dress in jedi bathrobes and worship a burning owl at Bohemian Grove, you've already said there's nothing wrong with that.

My question was in relation to prostitutes inside the grove.

There are 2000 men there...are they all sexually dysfunctional? Surely there must be women there...but of course, women aren't allowed so are they having sex with each other, masturbating or could they possibly be having sex with prostitutes, both male and female?

Care to answer me?

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

In fairness, at first glance it does appear that newt is denying it's existence.. I still thought so until I posted the second video and thought, obviously he's not going to accept it's existence then later deny it.
So as for me being dishonest, I wasn't. A simple error of judgement.

But the guy in the video does start with a question about whether or not the place/club exists he asks about whether they worship an owl god, then continues to ask similarly absurd questions.

So what if the Bohemian Grove is just a upscale country club with some elaborate traditions and wild parties (ie a frat house for grown ups), wouldn't Newt be a little befuddled that this kid comes up to him to spout nonsense?

43109

43109 wrote: »

Well, it isn't to me but you clearly have a problem with it.

43109 wrote: »

Here's my response: Yes, the title is ambiguous (slightly misleading but somewhat true)

43109 wrote: »

Gingrich says that people have fantasy lives believing public officials would dress in jedi bathrobes and worship a burning owl at Bohemian Grove, you've already said there's nothing wrong with that.

I also said that I didn't think that was true. And further clarified that this was due to people like Alex Jones misunderstanding or misreporting what he might have seen.

The person in the video pointedly asked him about worshipping an owl god, which Newt believes this kid believes because of false information.

But again, the person who made this film is dishonestly presenting what happened.

43109 wrote: »

My question was in relation to prostitutes inside the grove.

There are 2000 men there...are they all sexually dysfunctional? Surely there must be women there...but of course, women aren't allowed so are they having sex with each other, masturbating or could they possibly be having sex with prostitutes, both male and female?

Care to answer me?

Again, I tried to address this seriously but still failed to understand what point you are getting at. And still don't as it seems to be a silly childish statement.

43109

There's nothing childish about it, it's a perfectly straight forward question you're incapable of answering, that's all.

Of course they have prostitutes in there, you'd be naive to think there weren't.

43109

43109 wrote: »

There's nothing childish about it, it's a perfectly straight forward question you're incapable of answering, that's all.

Of course they have prostitutes in there, you'd be naive to think there weren't.

Or, they could have allowed women in on certain days and at certain times?
Or they could leave the grounds

The fact that you think that everyone is a ravenous sexual beast who can't control themselves for a few days is convincing evidence, makes it a childish, silly question. Something which I thought was apparent.
I honestly was not sure if you asking it seriously.

It's possible they had prostitutes there, but I would like to see some sort of evidence that they did.

And as I also said when I first addressed this silly point, if it is true, it's not very different to the behaviour of some politicians.

43109

King Mob wrote: »

Or, they could have allowed women in on certain days and at certain times?

Yes, and men too - prostitutes.

Or they could leave the grounds

Yes, for the red light district.

The fact that you think that everyone is a ravenous sexual beast who can't control themselves for a few days is convincing evidence, makes it a childish, silly question. Something which I thought was apparent.

A few days!! How about 14 days!?

I honestly was not sure if you asking it seriously.

Well I was serious, this is a serious issue.

You wouldn't find it funny to discover your local TD dressing up in a Jedi bathrobe was worshipping and shouting at a large burning owl in the middle of a forest or running around naked for that matter.

It's possible they had prostitutes there, but I would like to see some sort of evidence that they did.

lol ..well, we have testimony from people who say they've been there, that is anecdotal evidence, surely?

And as I also said when I first addressed this silly point, if it is true, it's not very different to the behaviour of some politicians.

It's not a silly question at all.

43109

43109 wrote: »

Yes, and men too - prostitutes.

Yes, for the red light district.

A few days!! How about 14 days!?

Well I was serious, this is a serious issue.

You wouldn't find it funny to discover your local TD dressing up in a Jedi bathrobe was worshipping and shouting at a large burning owl in the middle of a forest or running around naked for that matter.

lol ..well, we have testimony from people who say they've been there, that is anecdotal evidence, surely?

It's not a silly question at all.

Yup...
tell you what, you come back with some actual mature points put forward like an adult, then maybe I'll tackle them.

43109

When I suggested the Grove members were dressed up in jedi bathrobes shouting at a burning owl in the forestry with 2000 other men and asked what you think.

King Mob wrote:

...don't see the problem anyway.

So it's alright for publicly elected officials to get up to this kind of thing then, eh?
Maybe you'd like to join them in your wizard robe?

43109

43109 wrote: »

When I suggested the Grove members were dressed up in jedi bathrobes shouting at a burning owl in the forestry with 2000 other men and asked what you think.



So it's alright for publicly elected officials to get up to this kind of thing then, eh?
Maybe you'd like to join them in your wizard robe?

Actually the full text of what I posted was:

If it's that the members worship and owl god, then I don't believe that as it's not true. And if it was, don't see the problem anyway.

But it's clear that you're not going to even try to discuss something honestly.

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

He doesn't deny that it exists, he just looks stunned that this kid is asking him nonsense.

Well he asks, "Do you really believe ALL this junk", which would mean he's pretending it's all rubbish and basically denying it, as for asking him nonsense the guy Alex Jones is interviewing David Gergen doesn't seem to deny it, he's rather offended thinking AJ was an invited party and broke the trust, then when he learned he snuck in he was more annoyed asking "you saw the NO TRESSPASSING signs!"
He denied nothing about the cremation of care of molech worship, these are strange activitities for world leaders, policy makers, and mass murderers which they basically are, so just cremate your care and don't worry when hundreds of thousands of innocent people die because of your orders, no big deal!

Then Nixon didn't seem to homo about the whole experience, suppose he just had to show the boys he was loyal by attending.

But basically in general language Newt did deny BG and it's goings on, the lad didn't really get a chance to elaborate on what exactly he was surprised at him believing.
I'd take that half answer from Newt G as a denial, funnily I've yet to see you accept such a vague answer anywhere on these forums, a little hypocritical would you say.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Well he asks, "Do you really believe ALL this junk", which would mean he's pretending it's all rubbish and basically denying it, as for asking him nonsense the guy Alex Jones is interviewing David Gergen doesn't seem to deny it, he's rather offended thinking AJ was an invited party and broke the trust, then when he learned he snuck in he was more annoyed asking "you saw the NO TRESSPASSING signs!"
He denied nothing about the cremation of care of molech worship, these are strange activitities for world leaders, policy makers, and mass murderers which they basically are, so just cremate your care and don't worry when hundreds of thousands of innocent people die because of your orders, no big deal!

Then Nixon didn't seem to homo about the whole experience, suppose he just had to show the boys he was loyal by attending.

But basically in general language David Gergen did deny BG and it's goings on, the lad didn't really get a chance to elaborate on what exactly he was surprised at him believing.
I'd take that half answer from David Gergen as a denial, funnily I've yet to see you accept such a vague answer anywhere on these forums, a little hypocritical would you say.

And all of this is based on the assumption that the crap Alex Jones is spouting is true.

They don't worship an owl god, so if some crackpot came up and asked whether he did, it's understandable he'd be a bit befuddled that someone was asking such a silly question.

Newt Gingrich, the person in the video and mentioned in the title did not deny the club existed, contrary to what the titles of both the video and the thread dishonestly claim.

I never said anything about accepting any answer from anyone named David Gergen nor have I even been talking about him.

stuar

My mistake putting David instead of newt, I've edited it since, but it's not only Alex jones saying it, moloch worship has been around for a long time.

There's that strange owl again:


And again, hiding there.


Could be all coincidence, so many coincidences of all sorts though when secret societies are involved.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

My mistake putting David instead of newt, I've edited it since,

But you accusation still doesn't hold water as Newt never denied that the Grove existed contrary to the dishonest titles.

stuar wrote: »

but it's not only Alex jones saying it, moloch worship has been around for a long time.

Well then, since we know that because a lot of people say it, it must be true...

But the claims that the Bohemian Grove worships an owl god almost exclusively originates from Alex Jones's rather silly version of journalism.

stuar wrote: »

There's that strange owl again:

Could be all coincidence, so many coincidences of all sorts though when secret societies are involved.

Or it could be people finding patterns in random noise that aren't actually there...

For example, I don't see an owl in your second picture.

43109

King Mob wrote:

Or it could be people finding patterns in random noise that aren't actually there...

I agree, the real conspiracy here is Alex Jones made that video himself to sell DVDs and T-Shirts...What you think King Mob? Probably more realistic, yes?

Pablo Sanchez

43109 wrote: »

I agree, the real conspiracy here is Alex Jones made that video himself to sell DVDs and T-Shirts...What you think King Mob? Probably more realistic, yes?

Yes. Oh yes.

43109

43109 wrote: »

I agree, the real conspiracy here is Alex Jones made that video himself to sell DVDs and T-Shirts...What you think King Mob? Probably more realistic, yes?

That and/or he genuinely believes the nonsense he puts out due to a lack of critical thinking. His possible motivations are kind of irrelevant.

43109

Absolutely.

I'm dressing up in my jedi bathrobe tonite and hitting the town.

I watched the cremation of care:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtSVBTne-KY&t=330

It looks like they're just having a good time.

Statistically though, it's impossible there would be no prostitutes at the grove for the 2 week event.

Pablo Sanchez

43109 wrote: »

Statistically though, it's impossible there would be no prostitutes at the grove for the 2 week event.

Statistically? Whats your obsession with the sex lives of these guys?


Your man Alex didnt exactly break the news about this place, here is a photo of the ceremony in 1907.

43109

I'm not obsessed with their sex lives, I just think it's funny King Mob believes the members don't have one.

43109

43109 wrote: »

I'm not obsessed with their sex lives, I just think it's funny King Mob believes the members don't have one.

And another dishonest silly strawman in lieu of adult discussion..

43109

Everytime someone disagrees with you King Mob, it's a "straw man"

Here are the facts, 2-5% of the male population are officially homosexual.
I say official because it's potentially much higher than this, many men are known to get married, have children and then continue with a gay sex life.

Not saying there's anything wrong with being Gay, but we can presume a percentage of males in society are pederasts, (unofficially of course) but statistics I'm sure exist and we can present those here if you want to deny it.

Now, in the film, 'The Franklin Coverup' both male and female teens gave testimony that they were abused by very rich and powerful men at pedophile parties.

The children were obviously drugged and abused at these parties and while it was difficult for them to remember what exactly happened, we know the catholic church in ireland and found it difficult to accept such terrible things happened to children under their supervision.

Paul Bonacci, one of the alleged victims gives testimony which would indicate he was in the Bohemian Grove at least once.

You'd prefer to believe that 2000 men who congregate in a forest, dress up bathrobes and clap and cheer the burning of "care" setting them "free" from any guilt are great bunch of lads just having a bit of ceol agus craic.

Your argument is "I don't believe it, therefore it must not be true" -- that's the line of reasoning you use, it is one i find laughable.

43109

43109 wrote: »

Everytime someone disagrees with you King Mob, it's a "straw man"

Then please point out exactly I said anything close to what you accused me of saying.

Otherwise, you are pretending that I made an argument I did not made rather than address any of the points I did make. And this is called a strawman argument and it's a childish, silly and dishonest tactic.

43109

You want an adult discussion but refuse to engage?

So you want to deny out of those 2000 men, not 1 pedophile exists among them? Yet would accept some of them to be homosexual?

Let's just forget about it because I've already made my mind up and you could not possibly convince me otherwise.

I've read the testimony of those who I believe were abused at the grove and I've become all too familiar with what the Catholic Church did throughout the years.

43109

43109 wrote: »

You want an adult discussion but refuse to engage?

So you want to deny out of those 2000 men, not 1 pedophile exists among them? Yet would accept some of them to be homosexual?

Let's just forget about it because I've already made my mind up and you could not possibly convince me otherwise.

I've read the testimony of those who I believe were abused at the grove and I've become all too familiar with what the Catholic Church did throughout the years.

So that's a no on backing up your strawman, or admitting you can't back it up?
And then you go on to make more strawmen.

But as you've said you're too closed minded to engage in any sort of reasonable or adult debate, so pointing this out is probably a waste of time.

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

But you accusation still doesn't hold water as Newt never denied that the Grove existed contrary to the dishonest titles.

He made a blanket statement that the guy was talking junk, which to most would be a denial, he didn't elaborate on what was jusk and what wasn't, so your assumption doesn't really hold much water itself, lets call it 50/50 and move on and away from the trivia.

King Mob wrote: »

Well then, since we know that because a lot of people say it, it must be true...

But the claims that the Bohemian Grove worships an owl god almost exclusively originates from Alex Jones's rather silly version of journalism.

Owl Shrine covered in moss.


The Cremation of Care ceremony was first conducted in the Bohemian Grove at the Midsummer encampment in 1881, devised by James F. Bowman with George T. Bromley playing the High Priest. It was originally set up within the plot of the serious "High Jinks" dramatic performance on the first weekend of the summer encampment, after which the spirit of "Care", slain by the Jinks hero, was solemnly cremated. The ceremony served as a catharsis for pent-up high spirits, and "to present symbolically the salvation of the trees by the club..." The Cremation of Care was separated from the Grove Play in 1913 and moved to the first night to become "an exorcising of the Demon to ensure the success of the ensuing two weeks." The Grove Play was moved to the last weekend of the encampment.
The ceremony takes place in front of theOwl Shrine
(Definition of Shrine:)
1. A place of religious devotion or commemoration, such as: a. a place where devotion is paid to a deity or deities, as in Shinto.
b. the tomb of a saint or other venerated person.
c. a location where an important event in the life of a holy person is thought to have occurred.

2. A container or receptacle for sacred relics; a reliquary.
3. A site hallowed by association with a revered person or object or with an important event

a 40-foot (12 m) hollow owl statue made of concrete over steel supports. The moss- and lichen-covered statue simulates a natural rock formation, yet holds electrical and audio equipment within it. For many years, a recording of the voice of club member Walter Cronkite was used as the voice of The Owl during the ceremony. Music and pyrotechnics accompany the ritual for dramatic effect.

"The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time—the Easterners and the others come there—but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine, that San Francisco crowd that goes in there; it's just terrible! I mean I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."—President Richard M. Nixon on the Watergate tapes, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953.

"If I were to choose the speech that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction in my political career, it would be my Lakeside Speech at the Bohemian Grove in July 1967. Because this speech traditionally was off the record it received no publicity at the time. But in many important ways it marked the first milestone on my road to the presidency."—President Richard Nixon, Memoirs (1978).









Cremation of care 1924

King Mob wrote: »

Or it could be people finding patterns in random noise that aren't actually there...

For example, I don't see an owl in your second picture.

If you cant see it fair enough, but get a $1 note and a magnifying glass and look close, its so tiny it would be very hard to get it perfect, but its close enough for a strong resemblance.


Take what you will from it, I can't change your mind.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

He made a blanket statement that the guy was talking junk, which to most would be a denial, he didn't elaborate on what was jusk and what wasn't, so your assumption doesn't really hold much water itself, lets call it 50/50 and move on and away from the trivia.

So lets try and think about theories outside of your narrative and start with a premise that there isn't a conspiracy.

Now lets imagine that not of the conspiracy stuff is true and that the "rituals" are just what the club says they are, elaborate, slightly goofy plays to kick off a weekend.

So in this case what would Newts reaction be if some kid came up to him asking about an owl god when it's not true?

He didn't say that the grove didn't exist, he just said the stuff the kid was asking about isn't true and that it was junk.

I don't see why we need to spilt 50/50 on this when the title is demonstrable false.

stuar wrote: »

If you cant see it fair enough, but get a $1 note and a magnifying glass and look close, its so tiny it would be very hard to get it perfect, but its close enough for a strong resemblance.

Take what you will from it, I can't change your mind.

How does it look like an owl?
It's a non distinct shape that you can barely make out.
There's no detail from which you can conclude that it looks like anything, let alone an owl.

And yet somehow you are declaring it's an owl?

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So lets try and think about theories outside of your narrative and start with a premise that there isn't a conspiracy.

Now lets imagine that not of the conspiracy stuff is true and that the "rituals" are just what the club says they are, elaborate, slightly goofy plays to kick off a weekend.

So in this case what would Newts reaction be if some kid came up to him asking about an owl god when it's not true?

He didn't say that the grove didn't exist, he just said the stuff the kid was asking about isn't true and that it was junk.

I don't see why we need to spilt 50/50 on this when the title is demonstrable false.

How does it look like an owl?
It's a non distinct shape that you can barely make out.
There's no detail from which you can conclude that it looks like anything, let alone an owl.

And yet somehow you are declaring it's an owl?

Thanks I'm now banging my head off a brick wall.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Thanks I'm now banging my head off a brick wall.

So you too aren't going to consider any other theories or explanations beyond the one you've already decided is true?

stuar

King Mob wrote: »

So you too aren't going to consider any other theories or explanations beyond the one you've already decided is true?

Sorry?, is this a case of the kettle calling the teapot black?

People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.

Kingmob, just read what you wrote again and show me one example of your good self practicing what you just tried to preach, or just look in the mirror and say that to yourself.


Now excuse me till I go back smacking my head off that wall.

stuar

stuar wrote: »

Now excuse me till I go back smacking my head off that wall.

Beats questioning what you believe I guess.

43109

King Mob wrote:

Beats questioning what you believe I guess.

A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by.

"Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap.

"I have nothing to give you," said the stranger.

Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?"

"Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember."

"Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger.

"No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there."

"Have a look inside," insisted the stranger.

The beggar managed to pry open the lid.

With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.