Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[No One]

Result: Public declaration of guilt.

Very smart, nobody'd believe that...

Result - he tried to cover it up in a very non-public plea bargain and
it leaked out anyway, at which point he denied it over and over and
over.

Whether you believe is is guilty or not, nobody but an idiot would
believe he's publicly stated that he is guilty.

Which he knew was examining everything the reporters could get their
hands on; Particularly public records... And then he goes and gives
them one. Mensa, thy ranks are secure.

So, he took a gamble and lost. And it wasn't the Idaho Statesman
that found it. So, you lose.

 

[No One]

It was more than a plea. It was a petition to the court.

Do you not know the difference?

Anyway, I just showed you the link. Perjury can be committed by
"...signing a document with the knowledge that it contains false
assertions".

Signing a plea bargain is not the same as signing an affidavit
that says you saw X buy some drugs when you knew that X did not
buy any drugs.

Craig signed and submitted a document that he claims contained
falsehoods, which falsehoods he certainly would have known at the time
he signed and submitted it.

He could be charged with perjury. A felony. He just digs himself
deeper and deeper into the shit, doesn't he?

There was no perjury - you are making that up.

It absolutely IS!!! Because standing up before a judge and making a
plea is not the same as submitting a signed petition to the court
claiming guilt!

You don't know what you are talking about, and we went over what he
actually signed. He has a legitimate legal argument that he was
in fact innocent and did not commit perjury.

Incorrect.

No, it is correct.

You certainly can withstand a lot of humiliation. Gotta give ya
credit for that!

What "humilation"? You quite clearly don't know what you are talking
about. To prove perjury, you do not have to merely show an inaccuracy
in testimony. You have to show it was material and that false testimony
was given on purpose.

But I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong - cite any perjury case
ever filed in the U.S. against someone who merely pleaded guilty to
a crime he or she did not commit. If you manage to find one (not
one where there was some perjury not related to the plea), let us
know and we can discuss it.

 

[No One]

That's a matter of opinion.

In my opinion, you should call Craig up and see if you two can get
together for a weekend.

The evidence is already abundant.

Then produce the video.

Lots of "coulds" in your theory.

Usually when people cut text up like you are, it is because they
know they have no answer.

A traffic court analogy?

How... inappropriate.

No, quite appropriate - it's the same legal issue.

Without any evidence but this person's testimony?


First of all, there would have been no plea deal or petition to the
court. In this case, the defendant simply would have pled guilty.
Orally.

Doesn't matter - you filed a plea and would typically not show up in
court for a traffic ticket but would sign a document and mail it in
with a check. It's a close analogy to Craig's case - he also signed
a document and mailed it in.

And even if in this case it had been done on paper, more evidence came
to light that was not available when the plea was made.

This analogy SUCKS, No One.

No it doesn't. the word "SUCKS" is not a synonym for "does not fit my
argument".

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm embarrassed FOR you.

You should be embarassed for yourself because you are making a fool
of yourself.

 

[No One]

I agree. But No One asserted otherwise.

This Tom guy substequently admitted that I never said that we were collecting
data for billions of years, but rather that we had data covering billions
of years.

Now, didn't you just say that was not particularly reasonable?


I had done so previously and I just did again. Let me know if you still
can't quite figure it out.


You have such a fertile imagination. You shouldn't let it carry you away so
often, though.

Now what are you babbling about? Tom's misquotes where he attributed
what someone else wrote to me?

 

[No One]

I only date unmarried men under, oh, say 55, who are out and
comfortable with themselves and who maintain a narrow stance and don't
troll public toilets for sleazy man-sex.

Craig never said anything about a wide stance. He said he was a "wide
guy". The police turned that into a "wide stance" so don't date the
police.

So it seems to me that Craig is more your type. Have at it.

Hardly - but it is you who have something to prove. You could start
a contest and pay $1000 to the first guy who produces solid evidence
of having slept with Larry Craig. If he is "not gay" as he claims,
this would not hurt him in the least, so have at it.

Are you on DRUGS?
What video?

The one you were supposed to make, dummy.

Where are you? Why is there a wizard standing behind you? Why are
your eyes flashing neon? Who's your daddy?

You really need to see a shrink. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
There's something very wrong with you.
Do not delay. RUN -- do not walk -- to the phone and dial 9-1-1.

Tell them you are imagining non-existent videos and that you can't
distinguish reality from fantasy.

They will help you.

Projection.

Why don't you follow your own advise since you just made up what I
supposedly posted, and this isn't the first time. You are the one
with the mental problems, as you are quite deluded.

I specifically asked you to get a video of Craig having sex with a
guy as proof. Either produce such a video or pipe down.

 

[No One]

There's only one "a" in "desperate".

This is the second time I've had to tell you that TODAY.

F___ off. When I type fast, I'm not accurate at hitting the keys, and
you aren't worth the effort of careful proofreading or use of a spell
checker.

 

[No One]

He signed a document that he knew would be available publicly.

He signed a document that he believed, or at least hoped, would never
be noticed.

Then he's too stupid to live.

No, he took a calculated risk. Sometimes when you do that, you lose.

 

[No One]

Larry Craig LOVES denying things and love denial in general.

That's your opinion. When you have some real proof, you can present
it.

It means nothing to the rest of the world, though his wife should get
checked for HIV and syphilis.

Send her a letter, but again you are jumping to conclusions since a
test is only needed if he actually was sleeping around and you can
test him instead of her anyway - testing both is not necessary
unless testing one shows a problem.

 

[No One]

Umm... pleas are now non-public?

Since fucking when?

Ever since the courts decided not to publish their rulings on the front
page of the local newspapers. It was a "very non-public plea bargain"
because the press was not invited, so it was hard to find.

It's like buying a house - sure there are 'public' records but those
simply sit in various places and you have to go to some trouble to
find them.

 

[No One]

Either everyone always "misquotes" you... or you're lying.

I think you're lying again.

No, he lied (as do you) and I documented it. At one point I demanded
that he produce a message ID and he caved in and admitted that he
had attributed what someone else said to me. Lots of people on usenet
lie. The three of you are in that group, and the three of you are
not "everyone".

 

[No One]

First of all, your analogies suck. First it was a traffic court
analogy, and now it is a drug-deal analogy.

Gee. I gave you two analogies and you complain? That's because you
want no reply at all as you have no valid arguemnt.

Secondly, learn how to read.

That's advise you need to follow.

It doesn't say anything about "affidavits". It says "SIGNING A
DOCUMENT with the knowledge that it contains false assertions."

Not "affidavit", but rather "document".
Comprende?

Just out of curiosity, are you so incredibly stupid as to not know
that an affidavit is a type of document?

He signed a petition to the court in which he knew there was false
information.

You are lying. Here's the document in question:
<http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070828_Craig_Plea_Petition.pdf>
It is a scanned document, so I can't copy and paste anything, but
nowhere in it does he lie. He states that he is "pleading guilty"
(which is not the same as being guilty) and that he makes no claim of
being innocent (which does not mean he is not innocent), and that he
"understand that the court will not accept a guilty plea from
anyone who claims to be innocent". The only thing he said he actually
did (which I quoted in a previous message) was to "engage in conduct
that he knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment
in others, which conduct was physical versus verbal in nature." But
that statement is consistent with him unknowingly engaging in such
conduct - in the police interview, he assumed the officer was telling
him the truth when the officer said their feet hit.

Absolutely nothing in this document constitutes perjury if Craig is
innocent (or guilty) of the charge.

So, you are 100% wrong.

 

[No One]

Fantasy world.

The only thing that might be a "fantasy" is your hypothesis.

Yet another fantasy.

No, a suggestion to you. Either put up or shut up.

AdviCe. Not adviSe.

Another misspelling.

How embarrassing.

Not embarrasing at all - just a typo. When I go fast, my fingers
tend to "remember" various patterns. "ice" is a common one, so
sometimes that 'fires' instead. Big deal. If you want good
typing, hire a typist. If you want me to hire one, you can pay for
it.

 

[No One]

LOL! What, you got Net Nanny on, little boy?

You have a problem with the conventions used in every major
newspaper in the U.S.

Correction: You aren't accurate at SPELLING everyday words!

That's what a typo is - but now we know you've really lost the
argument because you are reduced to spelling flames, just like your
friend Dionisio (and that is more evidence of you being his sock
puppet, regardless of the IP addresses being different).

 

[No One]

Whatever.

"Whatever" seems to mean that you have no decent reply.

He either lied on it, as you claim, or he was honest on it, which I
believe.

If he was honest as I believe, then he is indeed guilty.
If he is lying as you believe, then he's a perjurer.
It's a no-win for the wide-stanced Senator from Idaho.

Except, as I showed you, there was no perjury. Read the document.
I provided you with the URL in a recent post. It's a PDF file
of the actual court document with Craig's signature on it. If
you read it carefully, you'll see that an innocent person could
sign it without committing perjury. That is, if you can
understand English adequately.

 

[No One]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You mean, only things that appear on the FRONT PAGE are PUBLIC?
Are you for fucking REAL?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you really such a complete and utter idiot that you can't understand
the point?

Ridiculous!

No, not "ridiculous", which is why it took a while before anyone noticed.
He almost pulled it off.

When a U.S. Senator is in trouble with the law, someone is going to
find out and bring it to the public's attention.

Case in point: this case.

Wrong. In a minor case, with a common name, in a different state,
with no jail time, it is possible for it to slip through the cracks.
It would have been ignored if there weren't allegations about one of
the GOP's hot button issues - gay sex.

 

[No One]

Of course I do. Because you're talking apples and oranges in the
first one, and oranges and apples in the second one.

No, you complain because you do not have a valid argument.

It is a specific type of document.

But not all documents are affidavits.

So? Something you said applies to all documents that are presented to
a court obviously applies to an affidavit (which was given merely as
an example of a document).

And the passage I provided you said "documents", not "affidavit".
So you're wrong again.

No, you are just quibbling because you have no valid argument.

(I just make "So you're wrong again" a macro.)

That's what you probably are - Dionisio's macro.

He signed a petition to the court in which he knew there was false
information.

You are lying.  Here's the document in question:
<http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070828_Craig_Plea_Pet...>
It is a scanned document, so I can't copy and paste anything, but
nowhere in it does he lie.  He states that he is "pleading guilty"
(which is not the same as being guilty) and that he makes no claim of
being innocent (which does not mean he is not innocent), and that he
"understand that the court will not accept a guilty plea from
anyone who claims to be innocent".  The only thing he said he actually
did (which I quoted in a previous message) was to "engage in conduct
that he knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment
in others, which conduct was physical versus verbal in nature."

Well, that's good enough for me!
He was a bad boy and he got caught and punished.
It's the American way!

Now, try being a good boy and admit you were wrong - there was no
possibility of perjury in signing that document.

Craig knew that their feet touched.

He claimed otherwise, so how do you know that? You have no proof
whatsoever.

And he knew that he put his hand in the officer's stall three times.
That's all ya need for a guilty verdict on this particular charge.

You also don't know that. He claimed to be reaching for some toilet
paper (or whatnot) somewhat behind him on the floor.

If he said he's guilty but is not guilty, then he lied, and if he
lied in a signed document that he presented to a judge, he has
committed perjury.
It's very simple, really.
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!!!

You really are dumb. He did not say he was guilty. He said he was
pleading guilty. This was a plea bargain - a deal with the D.A.
He was pleading guilty because that was part of the deal.

 

[No One]

I don't have a hypothesis.
I have facts and proof.

You have neither. You facts are not accurate and your "proof" is the
result of specious reasoning.

LOL!
I'd only do that if I were as stupid as YOU are!

What an idiot you are!

Well, that might be a psychiatric thing. You should be embarrassed.
You continue to make a fool of yourself.

Projection.

 

[No One]

Clue:

THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NEWSPAPER!
LOL!

Clue - the standards used by newspapers are appropriate for usenet.
This isn't your 8th grade locker room.

No, a typo is accidentally hitting the wrong key or hitting the right
key but perhaps more than once or transposing letters because the
fingers are moving fast.

Bingo - that's just what I did.

You're posting words such as "advise" when you mean "advice".

Look at a querty keyboard some time. The 's' and 'c' are near each
other.

You don't seem to know that there are two such words, but they aren't
interchangeable.

Perhaps you'll figure it out by the time you finish high school.

No, it was explained to you, but you are showing the same inability
to reason that you show with everything else. You are an idiot.

I'm not Dionisio's sock puppet, you retarded fuckwit.

You act like it. Now, try acting like an adult for a change.

 

[No One]

No need for an argument. I have a conclusion: Larry Craig is guilty.

The words of an idiot - someone who does not know how to think for
himself. Like the wingnuts, he just thinks he "knows". But thanks
for admitting to your stupidity.

 

[No One]

Nothing specious about concluding that when a person says he's guilty,
he almost certainly is.

He did not say he is guilty - in fact he's said the opposite over and
over and over.

You, on the other hand, have some weird notion that guilty = innocent.

That's ... odd.

Another of your lies - I never suggested "quilty = innocent" but simply
noted that he never admitted guilt, but rather entered a plea bargain
for damage-control reasons.