13 Apr 15
Originally posted in the OP by robbie carrobieWhat supposedly "Christian" justification did the lynch mobs have for doing what they did? I'd say 'none', wouldn't you? [You may have missed this question when I asked it previously]. Do you think the people who carried out the lynchings were Christians?
Since the beginning of abolition some 4000 persons (some estimates as much as 5,500) were subjected to lynching. Most of these lynchings occurred after church services were concluded on Sunday afternoon.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFNo i did not miss it , I really have nothing to say to you, sorry.
What supposedly "Christian" justification did the lynch mobs have for doing what they did? I'd say 'none', wouldn't you? [You may have missed this question when I asked it previously]. Do you think the people who carried out the lynchings were Christians?
13 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie why are you turning down the opportunity to deny thAt you would let your child die rather than permit them to have a blood transfusion? I find it fascinating that you create this whole car-crash of a thread over my comments but then refuse to deny that you would do it.
No i did not miss it , I really have nothing to say to you, sorry.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFI suggest that you read the court transcripts for yourself otherwise, like FMF, you will be arguing from a position of ignorance.
On that thread, robbie tries every shill-trick in the book, including trying to smear the victim of the child sex abuse [bottom of page 16], denying that any sex abuse had occured even though both the abuser and the organisation had admitted that it had, and heaps and heaps of sometimes quite vicious personal abuse [page after page, I lost count] for those that didn't go for robbie's I-read-the-transcripts arguments.
because dweebjesster I understand that there are alternatives to a blood transfusion. Were you aware that there are alternatives? Can you tell us what these alternatives are? Can you tell us how its possible that I could prevent my child from having a blood transfusion given the present UK legislation? as for your silly assertions and propaganda, personally if you find you need reassurance then its your affair, I am prepared to let my arguments speak for themselves despite your ludicrous assertions. Did i say your opinions were meaningless to me? no? well now you know.
Originally posted by divegeesterProve you wrong? I don't think enough about your posts to be much bothered, proof is like an alien concept to you, no matter how much one provides you cannot believe anything beyond your own propaganda, its a waste of time providing you with proof, you are unable to synthesise it.
You must be so keen to prove me wrong, so keen to get me to eat my words, how can you contain yourself.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut I DID read the same transcripts as you did, robbie. It's all on that thread, links and all. Have you forgotten? You should go and read the stuff you wrote on that thread, if you dare. 😉
I suggest that you read the court transcripts for yourself otherwise, like FMF, you will be arguing from a position of ignorance.
Originally posted by FMFYou read them did you? How many days testimony did you read FMF? From what I recall you were lost after the first day. A great artist like me rarely returns to his work, its in the past and in the past it must remain.
But I DID read the same transcripts as you did, robbie. It's all on that thread, links and all. Have you forgotten? You should go and read the stuff you wrote on that thread, if you dare. 😉
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie to divegeesterReally? You spent page after page of this thread making personal remarks about divegeester including trying to link him and his family personally to the murder of 4000 people and claiming he was equally as hateful as people who murdered blacks. Pages after page after page of this kind of stuff. Now you suddenly claim you "don't think enough about [his] posts to be much bothered"?
Prove you wrong? I don't think enough about your posts to be much bothered...
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't dare go back to that thread or even acknowledge that you have. Anyone who does go and take a look will know exactly what I mean.
You read them did you? How many days testimony did you read FMF? From what I recall you were lost after the first day. A great artist like me rarely returns to his work, its in the past and in the past it must remain.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by FMFyup like yours his opinions are meaningless to me, sorry, i wish i could give them more credence, its just like they are gaseous and sulphuric.
Really? You spent page after page of this thread making personal remarks about divegeester including trying to link him and his family personally to the murder of 4000 people and claiming he was equally as hateful as people who murdered blacks. Pages after page after page of this kind of stuff. Now you suddenly claim you "don't think enough about [his] posts to be much bothered"?
13 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFthey can look if they like, i understand the case very well because i read the court transcripts and i disagree with the findings of the jury for reasons i have stated. Infact from what i can recall i would not proffer an opinion until i had read those transcripts. Naturally this irked you because ell you don't really deal with facts, just opinions.
You don't dare go back to that thread or even acknowledge that you have. Anyone who does go and take a look will know exactly what I mean.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour sudden, new claim that you "don't think enough" about divegeester's posts "to be much bothered" isn't borne out by your behaviour on this thread.
yup like yours his opinions are meaningless to me, sorry, i wish i could give them more credence, its just like they are gaseous and sulphuric.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople can go and see for themselves how you acquitted yourself on this topic.
they can look if they like, i understand the case very well because i read the court transcripts and i disagree with the findings of the jury for reasons i have stated.