Roswell aliens theory revived by deathbed confession - Page 2

JonnyFive · 2nd July 2007, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus55

(snip)

Also, the exception, under the FRE, is called "dying declarations", not death confession. For this to apply, a person would have to believe that death was imminent; a matter of seconds away. Whether he died is actually irrelevant, it is his belief he will die that controls; more the merrier if he actually does die.

(snip)

It's been a few years since I took "law and evidence," and I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall as well about the Federal rules, and I would imagine state rules are similar. I'm not familiar with any laws that regards deathbed confessions as any being equivalent to sworn testimony, unless they actually do happen to be sworn testimony.

But, according to the FRE themselves, that only appears to apply to "causes or circumstances" surrounding the death:

Originally Posted by Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 804(b)

(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

(ETA: Emphasis mine)

So it wouldn't even apply if it were deathbed confession, because it has nothing to do with causes of death (IIRC, this rule is to allow in court statements to the effect of "Mr. X just shot me" made by the dying party to someone else). I wonder if there are other statutes regarding this.

And it wasn't even a deathbed confession, so I suppose the issue is moot anyway.

Correa Neto · 2nd July 2007, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

If the affidavit is submitted by a leading citizen of a town, as was the case with the affidavit submitted by Professor Charles Dietrich regarding the cure Edgar Cayce effected regarding Dietrich's daughter Aime, do you think that has the same credibility as an affidavit submitted by the town drunk?

What Beady said.

What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits?

That was an easy catch...

JonnyFive · 2nd July 2007, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

What Beady said.

What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits?

(snip)

Well, in this case I think there's two main pieces of evidence:

-Jack
-Squat

Rodney · 2nd July 2007, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

What Beady said.

What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits?

That was an easy catch...

So I guess no one has ever been acquitted or convicted based on the credibility of witnesses. Hard evidence is always available, and prosecutors and defense attorneys who round up credible witnesses are just wasting their time.

Correa Neto · 2nd July 2007, 10:18 AM

Strawman...

Beady · 2nd July 2007, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial.

Not that great, really. If it could be treated as primary evidence (a statement given under oath, for example), the affidavit could stand alone. As secondary evidence it would need to be corroborated, but that's only a matter of finding at least one more affidavit, an independently-sourced media account, or whatever.

Rasmus55 · 2nd July 2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

There is a big distinction (legally, at least) between a dying declaration being admissible versus being either assumed as true or "considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence."

That was the point I think he was trying to make. It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial.

Yes, that's right. I am an attorney. The dying declarations exception to the rule against hearsay is one of the most bitterly contested exceptions there is, and for good reason. Even if allowed in, the other side always points out that it is not the same as evidence given under oath. The reason is because it wasn't given under oath. It can be very difficult to get this in as an exception. I've seen attorneys fight tooth and nail over it; you would not believe the power that a dying declaration can have in court. In any case, I wasn't trying to be offensive. It's just that this particular exception always gets my blood running. I think that what you're really getting at with "assumed true" unless proven otherwise is the technique called a rebuttable presumption.

Rasmus55 · 2nd July 2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by JonnyFive

It's been a few years since I took "law and evidence," and I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall as well about the Federal rules, and I would imagine state rules are similar. I'm not familiar with any laws that regards deathbed confessions as any being equivalent to sworn testimony, unless they actually do happen to be sworn testimony.

But, according to the FRE themselves, that only appears to apply to "causes or circumstances" surrounding the death:

(ETA: Emphasis mine)

So it wouldn't even apply if it were deathbed confession, because it has nothing to do with causes of death (IIRC, this rule is to allow in court statements to the effect of "Mr. X just shot me" made by the dying party to someone else). I wonder if there are other statutes regarding this.

And it wasn't even a deathbed confession, so I suppose the issue is moot anyway.

Yes, that's right. I re-read my post and see that I ommitted that element. It must be about the cause or purpose of the declarant's death. The point being is that it is a very specific exception and is not given under oath; it will be attacked as such.

JonnyFive · 3rd July 2007, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Rasmus55

Yes, that's right. I re-read my post and see that I ommitted that element. It must be about the cause or purpose of the declarant's death. The point being is that it is a very specific exception and is not given under oath; it will be attacked as such.

Definitely. In general, from what I remember, the various exceptions to the FRE pretty much just get the evidence in the door. I don't recall any that elevate that evidence to any status above regular testimony.

NoZed Avenger · 3rd July 2007, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Beady

Not that great, really. If it could be treated as primary evidence (a statement given under oath, for example), the affidavit could stand alone. As secondary evidence it would need to be corroborated, but that's only a matter of finding at least one more affidavit, an independently-sourced media account, or whatever.

I have to disagree. There is a big difference between saying that a statement is admissible -- meaning the jury can hear it, but is not required to give the statement any particular weight -- and saying that a statement is presumed true, and must be taken as true without a rebuttal.

trvlr2 · 4th July 2007, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

So I guess no one has ever been acquitted or convicted based on the credibility of witnesses. Hard evidence is always available, and prosecutors and defense attorneys who round up credible witnesses are just wasting their time.

Rodney-I am certain persons have been tried based on the credibility of witnesses.
I am just as certain that miscarriage of justice has been done, by the same means.
A court of law does not necessarily seek "truth". Evidence accepted by the court , may not be rigorously extracted
" truth".

If you ever sit on a jury, please remember what I have said.

Tricky · 8th July 2007, 11:15 AM

Hey, I didn't realize we had an anniversary coming up. Looks like a big ol' party. Boy, the woo density in Roswell must be pegging the meters.

Quote:

ROSWELL, N.M. — If you truly believe a UFO and its crew of bug-eyed aliens came crashing down here 60 years ago, rest assured: You're not alone.
At least 35,000 people have descended on Roswell this weekend for the 2007 Amazing Roswell UFO Festival to commemorate a purported flying saucer crash on a nearby ranch in July 1947.

They've even got a band with an alian drummer... um... computer generated. But here is the greatest quote. It is so well defines the prototypical UFO believer, and indeed most woo-woos.

Quote:

Guy Malone is one of the official organizers of the weekend event. "There are a lot of views expressed here and I share them all," he says. "Angels, fairies, demons, succubus, ETs and aliens. They might all be the same phenomena."

Yup. They are. Just not the kind of phenomena he's thinking of.

Warge · 8th July 2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Hey, I didn't realize we had an anniversary coming up. Looks like a big ol' party. Boy, the woo density in Roswell must be pegging the meters.

They've even got a band with an alian drummer... um... computer generated. But here is the greatest quote. It is so well defines the prototypical UFO believer, and indeed most woo-woos.

Yup. They are. Just not the kind of phenomena he's thinking of.

I'd say it's called schizophrenia or drug-induced hallucinations and/or psychosis.

Astrophotographer · 8th July 2007, 02:38 PM

I enjoy where they compare it to a "trekkie" convention. Like "trekkies", some seem to have a problem differentiating between myth and reality.

delphi_ote · 8th July 2007, 03:14 PM

Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?

Warge · 8th July 2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?

Well, you can't bury aliens without some kind of standard - I mean, it's not like they were burying dead cattle...

The Atheist · 8th July 2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Jalbietz

Sounds like this guy either wanted to secure his place in UFO history or he has a wicked sense of humor... or both.

I'll buy that, it was certainly the way my mind went when I read the piece.

"Hmm. How can I ensure my name goes down in history, revered for all time?" Works for me; smart bloke, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

(Of course my theory is that the saucer collided with the Mogul balloon.)

You realise "they" will come and get you now.

Originally Posted by pchams

This will evolve into a fine religion some day.

Hasn't it already? When people are being abducted and probed anally, I think those traditions are right up with censers and large, lowercase "T"s.

Originally Posted by JonnyFive

Well, in this case I think there's two main pieces of evidence:

-Jack
-Squat

That is, after all, the requirement of every conspiracy theory, from god to 9/11 to Roswell, the complete absence of evidence.

If it pleases people to think there are a species of beings, outside of humans themselves, who are stupid enough to be able to cross trillions of kilometres of uncharted space to crash in New Mexico; let them.

That's why UFOs will always endure - easiest to fake, impossible to prove wrong, highly attractive proposition.

Pope130 · 8th July 2007, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?

This is one of the aspects of the story that has bothered me a bit (there are other aspects that have bothered me a whole lot). Not just: "Why couldn't they nail together some boxes?", but "Why couldn't they use a normal coffin?". Were the dead aliens too small to fit? Now, if it was a nine foot tall Kinnamett on the other hand they have a problem.

Robert

delphi_ote · 8th July 2007, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Pope130

This is one of the aspects of the story that has bothered me a bit (there are other aspects that have bothered me a whole lot). Not just: "Why couldn't they nail together some boxes?", but "Why couldn't they use a normal coffin?". Were the dead aliens too small to fit? Now, if it was a nine foot tall Kinnamett on the other hand they have a problem.

Robert

Good point. Apparently "they" get a little Goldilocks when it comes to transporting alien corpses.

luchog · 9th July 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by pchams

This will evolve into a fine religion some day.

What do you mean "someday"?

I could have sworn there were several already.

2nd July 2007, 09:03 AM	#41
JonnyFive Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,459	Originally Posted by Rasmus55 (snip) Also, the exception, under the FRE, is called "dying declarations", not death confession. For this to apply, a person would have to believe that death was imminent; a matter of seconds away. Whether he died is actually irrelevant, it is his belief he will die that controls; more the merrier if he actually does die. (snip) It's been a few years since I took "law and evidence," and I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall as well about the Federal rules, and I would imagine state rules are similar. I'm not familiar with any laws that regards deathbed confessions as any being equivalent to sworn testimony, unless they actually do happen to be sworn testimony. But, according to the FRE themselves, that only appears to apply to "causes or circumstances" surrounding the death: Originally Posted by Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 804(b) (2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. (ETA: Emphasis mine) So it wouldn't even apply if it were deathbed confession, because it has nothing to do with causes of death (IIRC, this rule is to allow in court statements to the effect of "Mr. X just shot me" made by the dying party to someone else). I wonder if there are other statutes regarding this. And it wasn't even a deathbed confession, so I suppose the issue is moot anyway.
JonnyFive Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,459

2nd July 2007, 09:30 AM	#42
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 8,578	Originally Posted by Rodney If the affidavit is submitted by a leading citizen of a town, as was the case with the affidavit submitted by Professor Charles Dietrich regarding the cure Edgar Cayce effected regarding Dietrich's daughter Aime, do you think that has the same credibility as an affidavit submitted by the town drunk? What Beady said. What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits? That was an easy catch...
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 8,578	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

2nd July 2007, 09:56 AM	#43
JonnyFive Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,459	Originally Posted by Correa Neto What Beady said. What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits? (snip) Well, in this case I think there's two main pieces of evidence: -Jack -Squat
JonnyFive Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,459

2nd July 2007, 10:10 AM	#44
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by Correa Neto What Beady said. What sort of pieces of evidence are backing the affidavits? That was an easy catch... So I guess no one has ever been acquitted or convicted based on the credibility of witnesses. Hard evidence is always available, and prosecutors and defense attorneys who round up credible witnesses are just wasting their time.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

2nd July 2007, 10:18 AM	#45
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 8,578	Strawman...
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 8,578	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

2nd July 2007, 10:39 AM	#46
Beady Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL Posts: 6,882	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial. Not that great, really. If it could be treated as primary evidence (a statement given under oath, for example), the affidavit could stand alone. As secondary evidence it would need to be corroborated, but that's only a matter of finding at least one more affidavit, an independently-sourced media account, or whatever.
	__________________ I don't care what you do to the women and children, leave me alone!

2nd July 2007, 03:40 PM	#47
Rasmus55 Scholar Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 111	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger There is a big distinction (legally, at least) between a dying declaration being admissible versus being either assumed as true or "considered true in the absence of contradictory evidence." That was the point I think he was trying to make. It may not seem like a big distinction to everyone, but from a legal/evidenciary sense, the difference is quite substantial. Yes, that's right. I am an attorney. The dying declarations exception to the rule against hearsay is one of the most bitterly contested exceptions there is, and for good reason. Even if allowed in, the other side always points out that it is not the same as evidence given under oath. The reason is because it wasn't given under oath. It can be very difficult to get this in as an exception. I've seen attorneys fight tooth and nail over it; you would not believe the power that a dying declaration can have in court. In any case, I wasn't trying to be offensive. It's just that this particular exception always gets my blood running. I think that what you're really getting at with "assumed true" unless proven otherwise is the technique called a rebuttable presumption.
Rasmus55 Scholar Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 111

2nd July 2007, 03:44 PM	#48
Rasmus55 Scholar Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 111	Originally Posted by JonnyFive It's been a few years since I took "law and evidence," and I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I recall as well about the Federal rules, and I would imagine state rules are similar. I'm not familiar with any laws that regards deathbed confessions as any being equivalent to sworn testimony, unless they actually do happen to be sworn testimony. But, according to the FRE themselves, that only appears to apply to "causes or circumstances" surrounding the death: (ETA: Emphasis mine) So it wouldn't even apply if it were deathbed confession, because it has nothing to do with causes of death (IIRC, this rule is to allow in court statements to the effect of "Mr. X just shot me" made by the dying party to someone else). I wonder if there are other statutes regarding this. And it wasn't even a deathbed confession, so I suppose the issue is moot anyway. Yes, that's right. I re-read my post and see that I ommitted that element. It must be about the cause or purpose of the declarant's death. The point being is that it is a very specific exception and is not given under oath; it will be attacked as such.
Rasmus55 Scholar Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 111

3rd July 2007, 08:04 AM	#49
JonnyFive Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,459	Originally Posted by Rasmus55 Yes, that's right. I re-read my post and see that I ommitted that element. It must be about the cause or purpose of the declarant's death. The point being is that it is a very specific exception and is not given under oath; it will be attacked as such. Definitely. In general, from what I remember, the various exceptions to the FRE pretty much just get the evidence in the door. I don't recall any that elevate that evidence to any status above regular testimony.
JonnyFive Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,459

3rd July 2007, 09:07 PM	#50
NoZed Avenger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,286	Originally Posted by Beady Not that great, really. If it could be treated as primary evidence (a statement given under oath, for example), the affidavit could stand alone. As secondary evidence it would need to be corroborated, but that's only a matter of finding at least one more affidavit, an independently-sourced media account, or whatever. I have to disagree. There is a big difference between saying that a statement is admissible -- meaning the jury can hear it, but is not required to give the statement any particular weight -- and saying that a statement is presumed true, and must be taken as true without a rebuttal.

4th July 2007, 02:50 PM	#51
trvlr2 Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sunny Florida Posts: 832	Originally Posted by Rodney So I guess no one has ever been acquitted or convicted based on the credibility of witnesses. Hard evidence is always available, and prosecutors and defense attorneys who round up credible witnesses are just wasting their time. Rodney-I am certain persons have been tried based on the credibility of witnesses. I am just as certain that miscarriage of justice has been done, by the same means. A court of law does not necessarily seek "truth". Evidence accepted by the court , may not be rigorously extracted " truth". If you ever sit on a jury, please remember what I have said.
	__________________ Conservatives: Proud Major Supplier of turds to the National Punch Bowl since 1969. Some people are living legends; Republicans are living lies...

8th July 2007, 11:15 AM	#52
Tricky Briefly immortal Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W Bench Posts: 44,369	Hey, I didn't realize we had an anniversary coming up. Looks like a big ol' party. Boy, the woo density in Roswell must be pegging the meters. Quote: ROSWELL, N.M. — If you truly believe a UFO and its crew of bug-eyed aliens came crashing down here 60 years ago, rest assured: You're not alone. At least 35,000 people have descended on Roswell this weekend for the 2007 Amazing Roswell UFO Festival to commemorate a purported flying saucer crash on a nearby ranch in July 1947. They've even got a band with an alian drummer... um... computer generated. But here is the greatest quote. It is so well defines the prototypical UFO believer, and indeed most woo-woos. Quote: Guy Malone is one of the official organizers of the weekend event. "There are a lot of views expressed here and I share them all," he says. "Angels, fairies, demons, succubus, ETs and aliens. They might all be the same phenomena." Yup. They are. Just not the kind of phenomena he's thinking of.

8th July 2007, 11:46 AM	#53
Warge Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 159	Originally Posted by Tricky Hey, I didn't realize we had an anniversary coming up. Looks like a big ol' party. Boy, the woo density in Roswell must be pegging the meters. They've even got a band with an alian drummer... um... computer generated. But here is the greatest quote. It is so well defines the prototypical UFO believer, and indeed most woo-woos. Yup. They are. Just not the kind of phenomena he's thinking of. I'd say it's called schizophrenia or drug-induced hallucinations and/or psychosis.
Warge Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 159

8th July 2007, 02:38 PM	#54
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,843	I enjoy where they compare it to a "trekkie" convention. Like "trekkies", some seem to have a problem differentiating between myth and reality.

8th July 2007, 03:14 PM	#55
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help?
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

8th July 2007, 04:07 PM	#56
Warge Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 159	Originally Posted by delphi_ote Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help? Well, you can't bury aliens without some kind of standard - I mean, it's not like they were burying dead cattle...
Warge Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 159

8th July 2007, 04:28 PM	#57
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,260	Originally Posted by Jalbietz Sounds like this guy either wanted to secure his place in UFO history or he has a wicked sense of humor... or both. I'll buy that, it was certainly the way my mind went when I read the piece. "Hmm. How can I ensure my name goes down in history, revered for all time?" Works for me; smart bloke, in my opinion. Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto (Of course my theory is that the saucer collided with the Mogul balloon.) You realise "they" will come and get you now. Originally Posted by pchams This will evolve into a fine religion some day. Hasn't it already? When people are being abducted and probed anally, I think those traditions are right up with censers and large, lowercase "T"s. Originally Posted by JonnyFive Well, in this case I think there's two main pieces of evidence: -Jack -Squat That is, after all, the requirement of every conspiracy theory, from god to 9/11 to Roswell, the complete absence of evidence. If it pleases people to think there are a species of beings, outside of humans themselves, who are stupid enough to be able to cross trillions of kilometres of uncharted space to crash in New Mexico; let them. That's why UFOs will always endure - easiest to fake, impossible to prove wrong, highly attractive proposition.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

8th July 2007, 07:19 PM	#58
Pope130 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 3,211	Originally Posted by delphi_ote Okay. Let me get this straight. For this Super Top Ultra Secret operation, the military ordered coffins from the local undertaker instead of building a few wooden boxes themselves. "They" are capable of detecting our alien overlords and keeping them hidden from everyone, but "they" can't make wooden boxes without expert help? This is one of the aspects of the story that has bothered me a bit (there are other aspects that have bothered me a whole lot). Not just: "Why couldn't they nail together some boxes?", but "Why couldn't they use a normal coffin?". Were the dead aliens too small to fit? Now, if it was a nine foot tall Kinnamett on the other hand they have a problem. Robert
	Last edited by Pope130; 8th July 2007 at 07:20 PM. Reason: Because I didn't proof read.

8th July 2007, 08:30 PM	#59
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Pope130 This is one of the aspects of the story that has bothered me a bit (there are other aspects that have bothered me a whole lot). Not just: "Why couldn't they nail together some boxes?", but "Why couldn't they use a normal coffin?". Were the dead aliens too small to fit? Now, if it was a nine foot tall Kinnamett on the other hand they have a problem. Robert Good point. Apparently "they" get a little Goldilocks when it comes to transporting alien corpses.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

9th July 2007, 10:35 AM	#60
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by pchams This will evolve into a fine religion some day. What do you mean "someday"? I could have sworn there were several already.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.