Thank you.

Fascinating. There more I see this, and the longer I study such incidents in societal history, the more I learnÖ there is much to learn.

Human society can be exceptionally predictable. This current period of uncertainty immediately follows a period of relative prosperity. A cycle that Iím sure youíve observed is oft repeated. These emergent personalities are not part of the prosperity. For some reason, they miss out on what the rest of society enjoys, and foster bitter resentment. Racial hatred, such as seen in Brian and Ycon, finds fertile soil in such mental instability.

These two were not part of the previous economic success. They felt betrayed by a society that should have included them in its success. As the economy cycled into its predictable down-turn, these two found each other and emerged to tell society how terrible it is that it left them out of the party.

Examine any known historical despot and you will find a similar, if not identical, cause-and-effect.

RDO

this is great. funny. Its amazing how some people can be decieved. All they have to do is understand what Jesus said about other coming in his name or false christs... etc. etc. This brian guy is exactly the kinda type Jesus wanred against.

funny.

Connie in regards to the link attached in your last post you are kidding right?

Toltec, when I asked Brian about the santa case and where it came from, he said he would ask his lawyer friend, but a hour later he sent that.

Connie that link is meant for ammusement, its a joke site.

Did you know that before you posted it?

It's a "teen court" case. They try imaginary cases to learn techniques of debate and logic and to learn about justice.

And the "breaking and entering" had nothing at all to do with "proof of Santa Claus"?

And Teen Courts are ONLY in America.

A question to think about: Why would someone's lawyer direct you to a "fictional trial" document for American teenagers -- instead of to newspaper articles or a link to that case in the Australian law database?

MDS, the bible was translated wrong, not Brian changing it

Another point of curiosity, given the statement of Brian about Ezekiel 24:24.

You see, in MY Bibles, the entire book of Ezekiel is the words set down by Ezekiel wherein God rants at various things. In Chapter 24, he's ranting about Babylon picking on Jerusalem.

The point of chapter 24 is that Jehovah is going to whap the heck out of Babylon and *Ezekiel* is the sign that God's gonna lay down the big hammer. This rant is directed to the Babylonians (the "rebellious house...and Ezekiel says this VERY plainly in the first verse of that chapter), not the Jews, and is delivered with a parable.

"Jezebel" makes no sense in the context of the chapter or the book. Kings (wherein Jezebel is discussed) was written about 900 BC. Ezekiel comes from Babylon, in the year 500 BC - at a time when the book of Kings wasn't part of the Bible. Now, while the Jews might have known and found the mention of Jezebel rather threatening, BABYLON (to whom the warnings and threats are being given) would have *NO Clue* who Jezebel was or why they should care about Jezebel.

It's like saying "Because Mikey got himself killed driving around on that motorcycle, you will obey my commands to clean the house before I am satisfied!"

Jezebel's sin (she and her husband had some Jewish prophets killed and Jehovah wanted someone else for king) was MUCH different than the Babylonian king (land grab and slavery. The Jews were slaves to Babylon because Jehovah was punishing them.)

Unless you've got a version of the Book of Ezekiel wherein Ezekiel is ranting at the Jews and this chapter somehow is relating to the Jews shunning/stoning/driving away Jehovah's prophets, substituting "Ezekiel" with "Jezebel" just doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Edited on 2-9-2002 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Ycon
MDS, the bible was translated wrong, not Brian changing it

Parson my skepticism, but I'd like to see Brian's qualifications for being capable of reading the original Hebrew, Greek & Latin texts before I'll believe that he's the one qualified to make the judgment of what "mistakes" are in the translations of the Bible. Does he have a complete & unaltered set of the Dead Sea Scrolls in his possession? I'd like to see proof of that too. It would be an even more unbelievable lie if Brian tried to tell us that his scrolls are actually *intact* & not suffering from certain portions of them being illegible due to aging.

Ycon (I assume you are female, judging by the nature of the responses you've received)

This person, as I've mentioned, is nothing more than a fake, and a poor one at that.

It is a sign of stressful times, that people such as this attempt to make themselves known.

Here is a test you should consider trying. Send him a very simple message saying you no longer believe in him, and will not be part of his mission from this point further. His response will indicate his true sincerity. If he responds by thanking you for your participation up to this point, and wishing you well, he is at least well intended.

connie you didn't do your case any good quoting that page for the santa trial ...

"Teen court" is hardly an authoratative source especially with the pics of aliens and animals on the page

I love Biran, he's a true fruitloop

I feel sorry for Charles, hard enough being laughed at for talking to plants let alone being acused of being the antichrist

Maybe Brian is citing that particular case as proof of Santa Clause?

The son of Gawd goes to joecartoon.com? LOL!!

Come on, Olivaw, the nutbag has, what, two, maybe 4 followers? Sociologically speaking, he's pretty harmless - except maybe his poisoned water.

Indeed Mr. Crowne. This Brian person is decidedly unstable. However, we have certainly seen the effects such a person can achieve in a chain reaction of responses from weak believers.

My comment was directed at Ycon (Connie?) as a means for her to consider the reality of Brian.

A further search of legal resources didn't turn up any "Santa Claus"/"Santa Clause" cases other than the ones I found.

Proof's in the pudding. If he sent those letters to the media and the senators, both the media and the senators will start checking to see if there's such a law. If there IS such a case and such a precedence, the media will be hammering on his door shortly and we'll see newspaper stories about it crop up on Reuters and Yahoo and other major news sites.

If there's no such case, then it will be ignored or laughed at... in either case, no media attention.


BTW, for the conspiracy buffs, there is no way such a law could be "erased." Cases are built on other cases and rulings, and it would have been cited in other cases. You could TRY to make the original disappear, but the first time a prosecuting attorney found a note to a case that was erased, the attorney (and their firm) would raise a scream that you could hear from New Zealand to Siberia.