₦airaland Forum

WinsomeX:
Bidam will have me apologize for calling his accusations his "inventions". Bidam, I apologize for calling it your invention. However since we do not have the quote where BBG made the alleged statement, I say this that though the accusation cannot be called an invention exactly, it is remains unverifiable and an allegation.

You apologised? Now, that's historic!
Hey! It's not an allegation! Well, we can choose to believe whatt we want.

Now, let me let us into this. I listened to a minister teach about Noah and that son of his that saw his unclothedness. The minister proved from that scripture that his son actually abused him sexually. Now some may believe this or they may choose not to; whichever way it is a theological point that has no relevance to the Christian life. That's the way I see the Eve had sex with serpent doctrine.

Poor attempt in damage control

DrummaBoy, trustman and BabaGnoni have so far on the WoF thread discussed 16 damnable heresies in both doctrine and practices of the Word of Faith. Assuming for a second that BBG actually believes this doctrine of Eve had sex with a Serpent, that will make the scores 16 to 1, heading to 20 to 1. Even the 1 is unfounded, unverifiable, unrelated to the Christian stand in life and hopelessly baseless.

So, it's hockey now? 16 to 1? Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha

You were counting? You guys should please crawl back to your WoF thread and keep typing away.

It is left to Bidam, Image123, mbaemeka, Gombs, and nlmediator to open a new thread and discuss the matter like responsible people would. An example has been set by the trio I listed above and the three of them have set out to discuss 20 reasons why the WoF doctrine is false. It will be the height of responsibility and sheer laziness if one or some of the five aforementioned WoF symphatizers cannot make out time to discuss a doctrine they feel is worth mentioning all the time, especially when they are under the heat.

I will not discuss with you guys, ever wondered why I avoided that thread? Call it laziness or whatnot, that's your headache.

I do not believe Eve slept with a serpent. If BBG believes it, I would love to hear his views on a separate thread. If he is wrong, its our duty to point it out to him like he does with WoF and I trust that he will repeal the doctrine.

If however any of the noise makers about Eve having sex with a Serpent are not man enough to open a separate thread to discuss it civilly with BBG by the end of today, I will open that thread at 9am tomorrow to begin a Q and A with BBG on the said doctrine. I will moderate the thread and God help any WoF symphatiser come there and spew any rubbish out and you will see me at my best.

Create o, and you guys csn discuss better there, buy pop corn too! You have my word, I will NOT visit the thread. Thank you

EOD.[/quote]

Gombs:
Bro, no mind them. See folks trying to side step plain facts. If I had the topic of that thread, I'd have gotten it from Google cache, but now, getting it concisely would be a lot more harder, but possible. It's like looking for a needle in a hay sack, possible but hectic.

Apology ke? You go wait tire . Heheheheheh

Lol, na true o, no need to go to that trouble bro, even in a court of law, witnesses are called to testify. Since we have Lordreed testimony who didn't take sides, it is enough to nail the coffin.

nlMediator:
When it comes to real character issues, silence is proof of wrongdoing.
Even the law that places the burden of proof on the person making the allegation provides that one is liable in some situations when they keep silent, e.g. When they should disaffirm.

But when the leading priests and the elders made their accusations against him, Jesus remained silent.
- Matthew 27:12 NLT

But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor.
- Matthew 27:14 NIV

So Herod questioned him at considerable length; Jesus gave him no answer.
- Luke 23:9 Net Bible

After feeling threatened and intimidated, finally, some suddenly have found their voices

Gombs:
You apologised? Now, that's historic!
Hey! It's not an allegation! Well, we can choose to believe whatt we want.
Poor attempt in damage control
So, it's hockey now? 16 to 1? Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha

You were counting? You guys should please crawl back to your WoF thread and keep typing away.
I will not discuss with you guys, ever wondered why I avoided that thread? Call it laziness or whatnot, that's your headache.

Create o, and you guys csn discuss better there, buy pop corn too! You have my word, I will NOT visit the thread. Thank you
EOD.

And if you are called "kiddo" or a child you begin to cry. What exactly do you think you wrote up there?

vooks:
Arguments from silence are notoriously unreliable. In the Gospels, seldom were names named whether for good or evil...the healed lepers, the woman with issue of blood, the Centurion and so forth. So Jesus not naming objects of his rebuke or there being no record of such don't mean much, it does not help WOFers in shielding their goDs

You're missing the point. He's the one that says he can use silence to make his point. Suddenly, he is abandoning the standard. What changed? That's what you should be asking him.

vooks:
There certainly were a discussion about Eve and the serpent and BabaGnoni participated in it a few months ago. It helps if he can simply confirm of denied that he ever claimed or agreed to claims that Eve had sex with the serpent.

I have noticed a hesitation to admit publicly beliefs we hold to privately out of the fear of being castigated. mbaemeka attempted to blackmail me by reminding me that I once said that Christ ascended ONCE and that the double ascension theory is pure trash. He failed because I have no apologies for stating that. The same negro claimed that WITHOUT his consent Jesus would not take him home meaning he has the keys to his immortality in his consent .

WOFers are at pains to dissect the strange devilish laughter videos starring Hagin, theyd rather trade insults than justify these things yet they believe in them. I noted the same dithering over Firstfruits. They will go as far as misrepresenting Hagin's position on the matter. Still, they opt to be incoherent with regard to commanding Angels teaching and refuse to be drawn into discussions on the subject.

So, to all participating in this thread, can we have some minimal honesty in confessing our beliefs or we abandon them all together? What's the point of clinging to embarrassing indefensible stuff? That's cowardice

Your last paragraph is the right summation. Trying to shield the guilty through some legal mumbo jumbo has no place in the Body of Christ.

BabaGnoni:
But when the leading priests and the elders made their accusations against him, Jesus remained silent.
- Matthew 27:12 NLT

But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor.
- Matthew 27:14 NIV

So Herod questioned him at considerable length; Jesus gave him no answer.
- Luke 23:9 Net Bible

After feeling threatened and intimidated, finally, some suddenly have found their voices

But when COZA pastor was silent, your band nailed him harder than Christ.
When Pastor Chris did not 'do a press conference', your lot pronounced him guilty.
When Pastor's don't spaek after being accused, he is termed guilty.
#Shameless

When one pastor like that on GOD tv seperated from his wife, you weren't silent o! Can anyone guess what he did?

Weldone, keep forming Jesus o!

WinsomeX:
And if you are called "kiddo" or a child you begin to cry. What exactly do you think you wrote up there?

Call me whatever you want to, it's your damning business! Not mine!

Now, please make sure as you create your thread tomorrow. Thanks.

Gombs:
Save you thrash for the gullible! Lordreed has cleared the air, but in desperate attempt to keep your ally away from further downward trend into the pit of dishonesty and deception, you refuse to call a spade a spade, but rather you chose to make your rectum jealous of your mouth (or in this case fingers) in spitting crap!

You are the gullible, you and your WoF devotees. You swallow everything and anything offered to you by your WoF preachers. 

Since this thread has now given liberty to everyone to add whatever let's go ahead then. 

You Gombs, and your WoF crowd who are attempting to draw me into a discussion I should decide whether to be in or not, are dishonest and deceptive like the Serpent. 

Your attempt to force me into what I do not wish to join is not only a failure on your part in an aspect of a basic christian doctrine but a move that is no different from what the Beast will employ during the tribulation. Maybe you share some traits with him then. 

Those who have expressed the most unspiritual stance on this forum are you LEGALISTIC WoF crowd. 

We will continue in this open forum as long as we wish. You modern day PHARISEES have no resources within you to deter us. We will choose what to do or what not to do. We will decide whether to continue or withdraw. 

Vincit Omnia Veritas

LambanoPeace:
But when COZA pastor was silent, your band nailed him harder than Christ.
When Pastor Chris did not 'do a press conference', your lot pronounced him guilty.
When Pastor's don't spaek after being accused, he is termed guilty.
#Shameless

When one pastor like that on GOD tv seperated from his wife, you weren't silent o! Can anyone guess what he did?

Weldone, keep forming Jesus o!

Leave these folks jare!

You should know them by now na!

This argument whether used by anti-tithing or WOFers is weak and I will attack the defenses when I run into them

Hebrews divinely uses scriptural silence on Melchizedek's ancestry in a remarkable way. Jews used them in the Talmuds. In fact, the rule is nothing exists before it was FIRST mentioned.

I have read of speculations that Joseph the husband of mary may have died when Jesus was quite young hence the loud silence about him in the gospels. But when it comes to doctrines, extreme skepticism is to be employed before adopting a doctrine whose biggest argument is silence.

nlMediator:
You're missing the point. He's the one that says he can use silence to make his point. Suddenly, he is abandoning the standard. What changed? That's what you should be asking him.

Minor reasons for NOT offering Firstfruits?

Image123:
No major reason.

Gombs:
Call me whatever you want to, it's your damning business! Not mine!

Now, please make sure as you create your thread tomorrow. Thanks.

I have to be the one to create the thread because non of you accusing the fellow is man enough to do it.

WinsomeX:
Bidam will have me apologize for calling his accusations his "inventions". Bidam, I apologize for calling it your invention. However since we do not have the quote where BBG made the alleged statement, I say this that though the accusation cannot be called an invention exactly, it is remains unverifiable and an allegation BC there is no quote on nl like that with BBG name on it.

Now, let me let us into this. I listened to a minister teach about Noah and that son of his that saw his unclothedness. The minister proved from that scripture that his son actually abused him sexually. Now some may believe this or they may choose not to; whichever way it is a theological point that has no relevance to the Christian life. That's the way I see the Eve had sex with serpent doctrine.

DrummaBoy, trustman and BabaGnoni, on the other hand, have so far on the WoF thread, discussed 16 damnable heresies in both doctrine and practices of the Word of Faith. Assuming for a second that BBG actually believes this doctrine of Eve had sex with a Serpent, that will make the scores 16 to 1, heading to 20 to 1. Even the 1 is unfounded, unverifiable, unrelated to the Christian stand in life or death and it's hopelessly baseless.

It is left to Bidam, Image123, mbaemeka, Gombs, and nlmediator to open a new thread and discuss the matter like responsible people would. An example has been set by the trio I listed above and the three of them have set out to discuss 20 reasons why the WoF doctrine is false. It will be the height of irresponsibility and sheer laziness if one or some of the five aforementioned WoF symphatizers cannot make out time to discuss a doctrine they feel is worth mentioning all the time, especially when they are under the heat.

I do not believe Eve slept with a serpent. If BBG believes it, I would love to hear his views on a separate thread. If he is wrong, its our duty to point it out to him like he does with WoF and I trust that he will repeal the doctrine.

If however any of the noise makers about Eve having sex with a Serpent are not man enough to open a separate thread to discuss it civilly with BBG by the end of today, I will open that thread at 9am tomorrow to begin a Q and A with BBG on the said doctrine. I will moderate the thread and God help any WoF symphatiser come there and spew any rubbish out and you will see me at my best.

EOD.

What have you proven in your WOF thread? Regurgitating allegations by people is no proof. Allegations were made against your friend and you wanted others to prove him innocent. Yet, you take allegation against WOFers as gospel. The WOF thread is meaningless. To give you a hint: did you use Jim Bakker as cornerstone of your condemnation of WOF prosperity teaching and practices? You presented him as a WOF minister who fell and repented. Well, that's an epic fail because Bakker is not WOF. It's like me writing a book about Nigeria as country of 419ers but my major character whose practices I denounce is from Ghana. Would any reasonable person take such book seriously? The truth - and no insult is intended - is that you're theologically immature and don't know differences between different Christian groups. Your first order should be to take a few years to learn before you take on assignments that are above your pay grade.

trustman:
You a the gullible, you and your WoF devotees. You swallow everything and anything offered to you by your WoF preachers. 

Since this thread has now given liberty to everyone to add whatever let's go ahead then. 

You Gombs, and your WoF crowd who are attempting to draw me into a discussion I should decide whether to be in or not, are dishonest and deceptive like the Serpent. 

Your attempt to force me into what I do not wish to join is not only a failure on your part in an aspect of a basic christian doctrine but a move that is no different from what the Beast will employ during the tribulation. Maybe you share some traits with him then. 

Those who have expressed the most unspiritual stance on this forum are you LEGALISTIC WoF crowd. 

We will continue in this open forum as long as we wish. You modern day PHARISEES have no resources within you to deter us. We will choose what to do or what not to do. We will decide whether to continue or withdraw. 

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Your opinion is duly noted! I understand why you don't want to snitch-Omerta!

Thanks for stopping by!

WinsomeX:
I have to be the one to create the thread because non of you accusing the fellow is man enough to do it.

Yeah, go ahead! You are undisputed

BabaGnoni:
But when the leading priests and the elders made their accusations against him, Jesus remained silent.
- Matthew 27:12 NLT

But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor.
- Matthew 27:14 NIV

So Herod questioned him at considerable length; Jesus gave him no answer.
- Luke 23:9 Net Bible

After feeling threatened and intimidated, finally, some suddenly have found their voices

So, you're Jesus now? If you don't know the relevance of what Jesus was doing there, and think you can use it as a general principle, you shouldn't even be in the religion section. Threatened and intimidated by who? You guys are filled with delusion. I simply do my best to avoid you.

LambanoPeace:
But when COZA pastor was silent, your band nailed him harder than Christ.
When Pastor Chris did not 'do a press conference', your lot pronounced him guilty.
When Pastor's don't spaek after being accused, he is termed guilty.
#Shameless

When one pastor like that on GOD tv seperated from his wife, you weren't silent o! Can anyone guess what he did?

Weldone, keep forming Jesus o!

Have you ever read me say their silence means or indicates guilty
Repeat what I wrote or said about "one pastor like that on GOD tv"

nlMediator:
So, you're Jesus now? If you don't know the relevance of what Jesus was doing there, and think you can use it as a general principle, you shouldn't even be in the religion section. Threatened and intimidated by who? You guys are filled with delusion. I simply do my best to avoid you.

Me too o

alright guys, i have to get to work now... meeehn, it's almost noon!

WinsomeX:
I have to be the one to create the thread because non of you accusing the fellow is man enough to do it.

Why do you need a new thread for that? Is it too hard to deny or confirm something - something you even claim is a minor issue? Which is what it is to you until a WOF minister utters it. And then you link him to any demonic group you can find.

Whatever you mean by 'real character issues' silence is never proof of nothing for reasons I have shared. Prove beyond doubt your allegations or shut up. Repeating them is a sign of your conviction yet you have no time to back them up. That's dishonesty really.

Look, mbaemeka falsely accused me of ignorance by claiming that I started that paul rebuked peter in Galatia (instead of Antioch). I could have simply denied but I confronted him. I charged him to adduce proof by way of pointing to the very post I made. He could not. Instead he paraphrased whatever he thought i said and later claimed that was the only proof he had since I had edited my post. So now am guilty of error as well as covering it up after being corrected. When I insisted he provide proof, he aksd me to look it up his posts. This is the kind of imbecillic nonsense we are avoiding of putting one on the defence over another's hallucinations

Denial is not enough for mindless stalkers and detractors

nlMediator:
When it comes to real character issues, silence is proof of wrongdoing. Even the law that places the burden of proof on the person making the allegation provides that one is liable in some situations when they keep silent, e.g. When they should disaffirm.

vooks:
Whatever you mean by 'real character issues' silence is never proof of nothing for reasons I have shared. Prove beyond doubt your allegations or shut up. Repeating them is a sign of your conviction yet you have no time to back them up. That's dishonesty really.

Look, mbaemeka falsely accused me of ignorance by claiming that I started that paul rebuked peter in Galatia (instead of Antioch). I could have simply denied but I confronted him. I charged him to adduce proof by way of pointing to the very post I made. He could not. Instead he paraphrased whatever he thought i said and later claimed that was the only proof he had since I had edited my post. So now am guilty of error as well as covering it up after being corrected. When I insisted he provide proof, he aksd me to look it up his posts. This is the kind of imbecillic nonsense we are avoiding of putting one on the defence over another's hallucinations

Denial is not enough for mindless stalkers and detractors

The problem with some of you is that you are full of ignorance but you think you know everything. Silence can prove a case convincingly. That you claim to run some business does not mean you know what you're saying. Why don't you start with this case: Brooks v. Bell, 1998 WL 165024 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, April 10, 1998). When you're done reading it, I can send some 50 more authorities in the next few hours. And in case, you cannot grasp what the case says, this excerpt from p. 4 debunks your nonsense: "We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that Bell met her burden of showing that the transfer of funds was valid. We agree with the trial court that Cavett impliedly ratified Bell's actions. Ratification can be either express or implied. The evidence at trial established that Cavett knew all along that Bell wrote the checks at issue and did not protest or complain, and did not attempt to take away her power of attorney."

Got it? Lack of protest. No word. Silence. Proof.

Gombs:
Your opinion is duly noted! I understand why you don't want to snitch-Omerta!

Thanks for stopping by!

I take it then that your silence on the issues I've pointed out means consent.
Noted for future action.

Really, you WoF crowd need serious soul searching. Where 'doctrines of men' have replaced biblical teachings and the 'wisdom of men' take precedence over divine wisdom ANYTHING goes for you lot.

You have proven yourselves to be acting like mere men. And when one talks about the influence of the sin nature you guys will claim to be 'NEW CREATURES' who walk in 'spiritual cloud' far removed from other mortals.
Yet what we have seen displayed here is the manifestation of the sin nature in the WoF crowd when they felt threatened. A definite confirmation of my position on the sin nature.

Look at yourselves fighting back like the Serpent!

nlMediator:
What have you proven in your WOF thread? Regurgitating allegations by people is no proof

You have not read that thread. Go and read it and maybe repent. That's a good place to start.

nlMediator:
Allegations were made against your friend and you wanted others to prove him innocent. Yet, you take allegation against WOFers as gospel.

You obviously have issues with comprehension. Maybe if you can relax a bit and let out some air, you will be able to read me more clearly and don't forget my earlier advise to you to mind your utterances so as to protect your sanity too.

My point on the allegations you are making is that you guys be responsible enough to prove it like its being done on the WoF thread. Don't just be pointing fingers like school children.

nlMediator:
The WOF thread is meaningless. To give you a hint: did you use Jim Bakker as cornerstone of your condemnation of WOF prosperity teaching and practices? You presented him as a WOF minister who fell and repented. Well, that's an epic fail because Bakker is not WOF. It's like me writing a book about Nigeria as country of 419ers but my major character whose practices I denounce is from Ghana. Would any reasonable person take such book seriously?

So Jim Baker was not WoF. So what was he? Faith of Word? You must be kidding. Was it not Bakker who co founded TBN with Paul Crouch? What is the overarching messages on TBN? Is it not WoF? The WoF thread reveals that WoF is more of a movement in Christendom than a strict Christian sect with defined doctrines. In fact the confusion with WoF is that it does not have a doctrinal position. So adherents just take an aspect of it and run with. But the baseline doctrine are healing and wealth. Baker emphasized the wealth aspect while others emphasize healing; and others emphasize both. But no where can any one make a list of WoF doctrines. So forget this Baker was not WoF. If you insist however provide us a list of WoF doctrines. Along with that pls answer my earlier question: what bible scripture teaches you to command angels (using "vooks on mbaemeka" style).

nlMediator:
The truth - and no insult is intended - is that you're theologically immature and don't know differences between different Christian groups. Your first order should be to take a few years to learn before you take on assignments that are above your pay grade.

My guy spew your insults. It's your trademark and it's water on duck's back for me.

If I understand my bible correctly, I would know that the new testament priority is not in learning distinctions in Christian groups especially when the same bible discourages such infantile groupings or denominationalism. But an informed Christian should know the peculiar characteristics of prominent groups indeed. What I know of the WoF is repugnant enough and it is sufficient for me.

Quit envying my freedom and learn to use your head off NL and may be you can come close to my level of bliss
Am too busy to chew case law and besides, it does not add no value to your point. The ONLY reason one would hurl an allegation here WITHOUT PROOF is malice. I said if I kept quiet, mbaemeka would have assumed I was guilty, once I spoke, he never absolved me unlike those cases you are so lamely throwing around. He still insisted.

If silence is proof of guilt, the a mere denial would be proof of innocence. Would you have believed that BabaGnoni never claimed that Eve slept with the serpent if he denied the baseless claims?

nlMediator:
The problem with some of you is that you are full of ignorance but you think you know everything. Silence can prove a case convincingly. That you claim to run some business does not mean you know what you're saying. Why don't you start with this case: Brooks v. Bell, 1998 WL 165024 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, April 10, 1998). When you're done reading it, I can send some 50 more authorities in the next few hours. And in case, you cannot grasp what the case says, this excerpt from p. 4 debunks your nonsense: "We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that Bell met her burden of showing that the transfer of funds was valid. We agree with the trial court that Cavett impliedly ratified Bell's actions. Ratification can be either express or implied. The evidence at trial established that Cavett knew all along that Bell wrote the checks at issue and did not protest or complain, and did not attempt to take away her power of attorney."

Got it? Lack of protest. No word. Silence. Proof.

WinsomeX:
You have not read that thread. Go and read it and maybe repent. That's a good place to start.



You obviously have issues with comprehension. Maybe if you can relax a bit and let out some air, you will be able to read me more clearly and don't forget my earlier advise to you to mind your utterances so as to protect your sanity too.

My point on the allegations you are making is that you guys be responsible enough to prove it like its being done on the WoF thread. Don't just be pointing fingers like school children.



So Jim Baker was not WoF. So what was he? Faith of Word? You must be kidding. Was it not Bakker who co founded TBN with Paul Crouch? What is the overarching messages on TBN? Is it not WoF? The WoF thread reveals that WoF is more of a movement in Christendom than a strict Christian sect with defined doctrines. In fact the confusion with WoF is that it does not have a doctrinal position. So adherents just take an aspect of it and run with. But the baseline doctrine are healing and wealth. Baker emphasized the wealth aspect while others emphasize healing; and others emphasize both. But no where can any one make a list of WoF doctrines. So forget this Baker was not WoF. If you insist however provide us a list of WoF doctrines. Along with that pls answer my earlier question: what bible scripture teaches you to command angels (using "vooks on mbaemeka" style).



My guy spew your insults. It's your trademark and it's water on duck's back for me.

If I understand my bible correctly, I would know that the new testament priority is not in learning distinctions in Christian groups especially when the same bible discourages such infantile groupings or denominationalism. But an informed Christian should know the peculiar characteristics of prominent groups indeed. What I know of the WoF is repugnant enough and it is sufficient for me.

Complete confirmation that your WOF thread is useless. So, any Christian that believes in health and wealth is WOF? Listen, MFM and Assemblies teach both and they're not WOF. Even you do not list their ministers consciously in your WOF attacks. Jim Bakker was AG, not WOF.

So, now is to mind my utterances, not vulgar language? When you couldn't find any?

Where did the Bible command us to name names? Two can play that game, you see.

vooks:
Quit envying my freedom and learn to use your head off NL and may be you can come close to my level of bliss
Am too busy to chew case law and besides, it does not add no value to your point. The ONLY reason one would hurl an allegation here WITHOUT PROOF is malice. I said if I kept quiet, mbaemeka would have assumed I was guilty, once I spoke, he never absolved me unlike those cases you are so lamely throwing around. He still insisted.

If silence is proof of guilt, the a mere denial would be proof of innocence. Would you have believed that BabaGnoni never claimed that Eve slept with the serpent if he denied the baseless claims?

Rubbish. Respond to the case. You're pretending you know the law. Now, you're presented with the law, you're shifting ground. Did that case confirm what I said earlier, which you sought to refute, i.e. that there are scenarios where silence provides proof? I made it clear that it was not in all situations. So, your questions are irrelevant.

Envy your freedom? You'd almost kill to have my level of professional freedom and the influence that comes with it. You're probably a tiny businessman that hardly anybody knows about. And I'm supposed to envy you? If only you know who you're discussing with.

Again, admit your ignorance of the law and I'll let you go. Next time, you won't come here pretending you know any law besides what you watch on TV.

Oga you don't name names because it is a command but because it is the MOST sensible thing to do

But I get your sarcasm. funny negro

nlMediator:
Where did the Bible command us to name names? Two can play that game, you see.

Repeat, if these hooligans would be silenced by a simple denial, there would be no need for demanding for evidence. But you know they don't stop at the taunts.

Knowledge of the Law? I pay lawyers whenever I have a need, medical doctors, tax accountants, mechanics,dentists. I hire brains and let my money work for me so your superior knowledge of Law is nothing

Now,grow up and learn to respect your elders you lewd fellow of the baser sort

nlMediator:
Rubbish. Respond to the case. You're pretending you know the law. Now, you're presented with the law, you're shifting ground. Did that case confirm what I said earlier, which you sought to refute, i.e. that there are scenarios where silence provides proof? I made it clear that it was not in all situations. So, your questions are irrelevant.

Envy your freedom? You'd almost kill to have my level of professional freedom and the influence that comes with it. You're probably a tiny businessman that hardly anybody knows about. And I'm supposed to envy you? If only you know who you're discussing with.

Again, admit your ignorance of the law and I'll let you go. Next time, you won't come here pretending you know any law besides what you watch on TV.

vooks:
Minor reasons for NOT offering Firstfruits?

i don't see the need to discuss or share my minor reasons.

You don't suppose they may be of help to somebody?

Image123:
i don't see the need to discuss or share my minor reasons.

vooks:
Repeat, if these hooligans would be silenced by a simple denial, there would be no need for demanding for evidence. But you know they don't stop at the taunts.

Knowledge of the Law? I pay lawyers whenever I have a need, medical doctors, tax accountants, mechanics,dentists. I hire brains and let my money work for me so your superior knowledge of Law is nothing

Now,grow up and learn to respect your elders you lewd fellow of the baser sort

Thanks for conceding. Let that be a lesson for next time.