Masons and the NWO: The Darker Soul

Originally posted by Dave Ravin
The evidence lies in careful attention to my surroundings.

Of course it does, doesn't it? Or is it rather that you have nothing concrete to support your claims? Why should we believe that you KNOW these things? Gimme a break...

I don't see why you can't entertain the idea that these things are in all sorts of books that you can borrow from any library. The subject matter entails lots more than freemasonry, but it is the secrecy aspect of the order that enables the whole NWO machine to roll.

Do you even know how secretive Freemasonry is?!? I'll tell you: not very. The organization itself is, like any other organization, completely transparent. You can know it's entire structure, and the names of every mason who holds office in that structure. Additionally, the ONLY things that individual masons still keep secret nowadays are our modes of recognition (passwords, handshakes and signs). Even those can be found on the internet, along with our rituals!

Our meeting places are clearly marked, members identify themselves, our meeting times are available for the public, our phone numbers are listed in the phone book, and there are THOUSANDS of FACTUAL books written about the fraternity by masons and non-masons alike. What kind of secretive society is that?!? Gimme a break...

There are many other groups involved, but the higher-ups of freemasonry, the Kings and the Presidents, and all the people with the right blood are the ones with their hands on the controls.

There is no such thing as "higher-ups" in Freemasonry. It is a FRATERNITY. There is no central authority in Freemasonry, the organization is divided up into autonomous jurisdictions that are in recognition with others. The Grand Masters of jurisdictions are elected to one-year terms, and are picked among the general population of masons in that jurisdiction. Every mason in a jurisdiction has a vote on all matters. All this is FACT, you can read it for yourself.

Why don't you take it upon yourself to disprove ONE single statement I made in the first post. I am finding it hard to find anything at all in that post that isn't a simple matter of history.

I dont want to read the entire thing so I will disprove one of your more false claims: that freemasons put our symbols in the dollar bill.

There is NOTHING in the dollar bill that is considered masonic symbolism, except the all-seeing-eye, which has never been paired with a pyuramid in masonic symbolism. The pyramid has NEVER been used as masonic symbolism. What's more, the all-seeing-eye was used as a symbol by MANY organizations at the time, not just Freemasonry.

Additionally, the committee that came up with the Great Seal had only ONE mason on it, Ben franklin, and HIS original design was NOTHING like the one that has been decided on.

Here's a GREAT page that disproves and debunks you claim even further. And, unlike you, the author actually lists his sources and references!

www.srmason-sj.org...

and you simply will not find a run-down or poorly kept masonic lodge. It takes a lot of money to have marble cleaned. It takes a lot of capital to hold circuses, parades, and celebrations of all sorts.

HAHAH! MANY lodges I have been to can barely pay the electricity bill! You should see how run-down and dumpy most lodges are! You won't find much marble in there!

And the parades and circuses are FUNDRAISERS, to raise money to pay for our hospitals, in which we treat kids FREE OF CHARGE! I don't see YOU donating money to pay for kids free treatment.

I submit that close examination of the history of the Illuminati will reveal more connections to freemasonry than it reveals divisions.

The Illuminati existed for less than 20 years! How is that possible?!?!?

Gimme a break, you know NOTHING about Freemasonry!



[edit on 14-8-2005 by sebatwerk]

Originally posted by Trinityman

Secondy, I don't believe a lot of what you say. Don't take that the wrong way - it's just true... I don't. The reason I don't believe it is because the activities you ascribe to freemasonry make no sense compared to what I have learned about the organisation, both by first hand experience and through my studies.

But the thing there is that it's not Dave ascribing those activities to Masons,it's a large group of people who have studied and/or been a part of the brotherhood themselves who are ascribing this to them. And while I don't have a solid opinion on freemasonry either way myself at the moment,I do have to wonder why so many would all say the same thing. I find it abit difficult to believe the usual Mason claim that all these people are just "anti-Masons". Defining "anti-Masons" as people who out of the blue randomly speak and write entire books against Masonry for no apparent reason.

I would ask you to seperate the actions of freemasons from freemasonry itself. Although freemasonry is composed entirely of freemasons, freemasons have much much more to them that just freemasonry. They are parents, they go to work, to church, they have other hobbies. If someone who is a freemason therefore does or says something, it cannot be construed that it is because he is a freemason. It could be because he is a doctor, or a father, or a stamp collector.

It's a matter of finding the determining denominator. Research has apparently found Masonry to be more associative of these things than medicine and philately.

To say that there were many freemasons in the founding fathers is true. Equally true is that they were all men. But we do not attempt to construct a hypothesis based on the US as an anti-woman country because we understand the mores and nature of the age in which the nation was created.

And likewise we understand(or at least most people do) the long lasting effect the nature of that age has on the current age.

It is not enough for you to ask people to disprove your allegations. Hypotheses must be tested before they can become theories. I could just as easily claim that you have two heads, but it would surely be up to me to substantiate that claim rather than just ask you to prove that you haven't, as I would suggest it would hard for you to disprove that assertion on this forum?

But can you present numerous other people who all say from their studies that he has two heads? Can you cite people who have seen and associated with him that cooberate that he indeed has two heads? Is their literature around charting out and explaining in detail where the idea of Dave's second head came from and it's orgins? These all can and have been done with Masonry unlike Dave's dual skull theory. One must substanciate claims,sure. But when evidence is presented(and despite popular Masonic claims,it has been) then I'd have to agree that it falls to those denying the veracity of the evidence to disprove it.

Originally posted by sebatwerkDo you even know how secretive Freemasonry is?!? I'll tell you: not very. The organization itself is, like any other organization, completely transparent. You can know it's entire structure, and the names of every mason who holds office in that structure. Additionally, the ONLY things that individual masons still keep secret nowadays are our modes of recognition (passwords, handshakes and signs). Even those can be found on the internet, along with our rituals!

Our meeting places are clearly marked, members identify themselves, our meeting times are available for the public, our phone numbers are listed in the phone book, and there are THOUSANDS of FACTUAL books written about the fraternity by masons and non-masons alike. What kind of secretive society is that?!? Gimme a break...

There is alot of information on the internet that people don't necessarily want or intended to be there. None of this really has anything to do with being a secret society. Being a secret society doesn't require that no one know you exist,it only requires that non-members are blocked from seeing what you do. Can the Masonic meetings themselves be publicly viewed or attended? Are other Masons ostracized or viewed lowly for speaking out to non-Masons about the organization? I don't know the answer to the first but I've seen the second with my own two eyes.

I have family members that are Masons and in my experience freemasonry is certainly more secretive than how you are making it sound. I know because I've talked to them(or tried to) about it. I personally know Masons who don't even tell their own wives what goes on at their meetings. And that's their business if that's the nature of the brotherhood,but if you're going to keep these secrets you have to acknolwledge that you are in fact a secret society. Defending it is one thing,suggesting it's not secret is another.

Originally posted by Loungerist
Can the Masonic meetings themselves be publicly viewed or attended? Are other Masons ostracized or viewed lowly for speaking out to non-Masons about the organization? I don't know the answer to the first but I've seen the second with my own two eyes.

It depends on the meeting. Many masonic meetings, such as installation of officers, are public. Lodge/organization business meetings and initiations are not.

As for masons being ostracized for speaking out to non-masons about the organization, that's FALSE!!! Do you see ANY of the masons on this forum being criticized by other masons for speaking to you guys about the fraternity? I tell my brothers at my lodge about what goes on here on ATS all the time, and they have no problem with it. As long as we do not break our obligation and reveal what we have promised to keep private, there is no problem whatsoever.

The only time a brother would be called out by other masons for revealing things about the fraternity would be if what he revealed went against his obligations. Anytime a mason does ANYTHING that violates his obligation, he risks reprimand from the fraternity. This includes revealing secrets, breaking the law or any other number of things we promise to [not] do.

I have family members that are Masons and in my experience freemasonry is certainly more secretive than how you are making it sound. I know because I've talked to them(or tried to) about it. I personally know Masons who don't even tell their own wives what goes on at their meetings.

And I know many brethren who do the same thing, but that is a personal choice and nota requirement of the fraternity. Many masons misunderstand the requirements of secrecy, and some even fall victim to the same misconceptions and myths that plague the members of this forum. Masons have their own reasons for keeping things private, but the fraternity does not ask them to do so.

And that's their business if that's the nature of the brotherhood,but if you're going to keep these secrets you have to acknolwledge that you are in fact a secret society. Defending it is one thing,suggesting it's not secret is another.

I did not say it is not secret, I simply said that it is not as secretive as you believe. Not even close. If it was so secret, then why would the masons on this forum reveal as much as they do? I don't recall a mason here EVER refusing to answer a question, and all of our answers have always been entirely consistent, which shows that we are not simply making things up. Sure, we may avoid certain threads in which masonic handshakes or things like that are being discussed, but we have never lied to, misinformed or mislead people regarding facts about our fraternity.

Again, Freemasonry is a VERY transparent organization which can be studied, dissected and understood by non-initiates very easily. Factual information is available for masons and non-masons alike. Our symbols have been analyzed in hundreds of books, our rituals exposed hundreds of times on and offline. A non-mason could become an EXPERT on Freemasonry (and many have) without ever being initated, and be more knowledgeable about the organization than many members. Of course he will never have the EXPERIENCE of being a mason, which is, in many mason's opinions, the true secret of the Craft.

There are some things which are intended only for masons to know, such as our modes of recognition (for obvious reasons) and individual lodge business (this is no different than any company which does not reveal its business, or even individuals who keep their finances secret). The level of secrecy each lodge maintains over its matters is, of course, a local decision. And, for obvious reasons, our initiations are kept secret to protect the candidates.

I'd be more than happy to tell you the truth about any other misconceptions you may have. What else do you think is secret?

[edit on 14-8-2005 by sebatwerk]

Hi Loungerist

Thanks for taking the time to post a reply - too often when I challenge bizarre theories everything goes quiet.

I'm not disagreeing that Dave Ravin's hypothesis (and lets call it Dave's despite others ascribing to it, as he brought it to the forum) is a well argued case that reads like it might be true. One thing happens, another seemingly related thing happens, and therefore that means that a third thing might have happened etc etc.

Whilst I have no knowledge of the NWO I cannot reasonably argue the lack of existance of shadowy figures controlling things behind the scenes. There is circumstancial evidence pointing to many conclusions and it all boils down to what you choose to believe. Like everyone else here I am on the outside looking in.

With freemasonry I am on the inside. I know the organisation, what it is, what it aims to achieve and what it is not. I am perfectly prepared to answer any specific allegations about freemasonry but very rarely get asked any and I suspect it is because there are no specific allegations - just extrapolation and supposition. Freemasonry is no more likely to be harboring the NWO than a stamp club or medical board.

You yourself have alleged that freemasonry is secret. Why do you think this? Masonic Halls are in the Yellow Pages. Memberships lists are published and available to the general public. The names and addresses of the senior officers are a matter of public record. We have websites on which we specify what our aims are and what we do. Our ritual is available on a number of commercial sites and can be bought without being a member. Please tell me why you think we are secret.

Re: the analogy of Two Headed Dave. If I put a website up detailing my claims and others read my claims and put up their own sites, before long there would be lots of sites claiming that as fact. Doesn't make it any more or any less true. And if society bacame interested in my theory I, and others, could make money out of it by writing books and endlessly revisiting the evidence for further twists. heck - I might even be able to get an interview with his sister!!

Ultimately my analogy will break down as Dave isn't freemasonry and probably doesn't have much in common with it. The point I am making (which I suspect you realise) is that just because a number of people say something doesn't make it true. People like Jim Shaw have made huge amounts of money (for the publishers probably) out of a book called 'the deadly deception' which proved to have a number of factual errors in it which destroyed his credibility. But it's still selling and people still believe what he wrote.

Ultimately you have to chose who you believe, and you can only do that by researching the subject from both sides.

Originally posted by Loungerist
There is alot of information on the internet that people don't necessarily want or intended to be there. None of this really has anything to do with being a secret society. Being a secret society doesn't require that no one know you exist,it only requires that non-members are blocked from seeing what you do.

I guess you don't realise that freemasons publish all this information themselves - it isn't leaked. You are confusing secret with private. Secret is you don't know it's happening - private is you know it's happening but you can't get in. Lots and lots and lots of things are private.

Can the Masonic meetings themselves be publicly viewed or attended?

In the UK the rituals themselves are private. However the after-proceedings are often opened up to visitors - look out for adverts in the local press for Open Nights, or Gentlemen's Evenings. You can go along to you local lodge and find out what it's all about.

Are other Masons ostracized or viewed lowly for speaking out to non-Masons about the organization? I don't know the answer to the first but I've seen the second with my own two eyes.

Gosh - guess I'm running quite a risk then

I have family members that are Masons and in my experience freemasonry is certainly more secretive than how you are making it sound. I know because I've talked to them(or tried to) about it.

As seb says, there's no masonic reason why they can't talk about it but maybe they had other reasons.

... but if you're going to keep these secrets you have to acknolwledge that you are in fact a secret society. Defending it is one thing,suggesting it's not secret is another.

Er... no it's not. There are secrets within freemasonry - they are the traditional modes of recognition which every freemason promises not to reveal. That's not the same as being a secret society.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
As for masons being ostracized for speaking out to non-masons about the organization, that's FALSE!!!

No,it's not. Perhaps you missed the "seen it with my own two eyes" part. I was not giving you an opinion,I was giving you a fact. And no,I'm not going to give the names of the Masons or lodges they're from that I've seen this happen to.

Do you see ANY of the masons on this forum being criticized by other masons for speaking to you guys about the fraternity?

Ironically,the Mason I thought did the best job of defending the fraternity(most here I feel hurt it's image with their attitudes) on this board is criticized all the time and accused of not even being a Mason despite his assurances that he is. That I would say constitutes as criticism. Taking him at his word that he is a Mason,that is.

I did not say it is not secret, I simply said that it is not as secretive as you believe. Not even close. If it was so secret, then why would the masons on this forum reveal as much as they do?

To counter attacks levelled against them. If not for people coming out and saying this or that against Masonry I doubt any of these things would be willingly revealed to the public. And as you don't believe everything "revealed" against Freemasonry,I don't believe everything Masons "reveal" to support it.

I don't recall a mason here EVER refusing to answer a question, and all of our answers have always been entirely consistent, which shows that we are not simply making things up. Sure, we may avoid certain threads in which masonic handshakes or things like that are being discussed, but we have never lied to, misinformed or mislead people regarding facts about our fraternity.

That is a statement you cannot make for the whole of Masons on this board. And I would argue that there has often been misleading given. Particularly when Masons blankly state that there is "NO EVIDENCE" to this or that,when in fact there is.

Again, Freemasonry is a VERY transparent organization which can be studied, dissected and understood by non-initiates very easily. Factual information is available for masons and non-masons alike.

And what is considered factual and what is not depends on who you ask. This goes to what David said earlier about the effects of being secret with your society.

Our symbols have been analyzed in hundreds of books, our rituals exposed hundreds of times on and offline. A non-mason could become an EXPERT on Freemasonry (and many have) without ever being initated, and be more knowledgeable about the organization than many members.

And many who've analyzed and even been a part of Freemasonry have said different things than what you say. When you are a secret society,you are subject to lack of trust and a blurring of fact and fiction. Particularly when the common theme is that only selected members are even made privvy of the things being charged against the brotherhood in the first place. So by default,a random Mason saying so and so isn't true isn't necessarily convincing.

I'd be more than happy to tell you the truth about any other misconceptions you may have. What else do you think is secret?

Thanks,but it's not necessary since I don't have many conceptions about Masonry to begin other than I do believe it fosters a potentially dangerous group mentality that at times leads to blind defense of it's members by other "brothers". Other than that I don't have any solid views on the group one way or the other that come to mind. I just occasionally read the conversations about it.




[edit on 14-8-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by Trinityman
Hi Loungerist

Thanks for taking the time to post a reply - too often when I challenge bizarre theories everything goes quiet.

I'm not disagreeing that Dave Ravin's hypothesis (and lets call it Dave's despite others ascribing to it, as he brought it to the forum) is a well argued case that reads like it might be true.

OK.

You yourself have alleged that freemasonry is secret. Why do you think this? Masonic Halls are in the Yellow Pages. Memberships lists are published and available to the general public. The names and addresses of the senior officers are a matter of public record. We have websites on which we specify what our aims are and what we do. Our ritual is available on a number of commercial sites and can be bought without being a member. Please tell me why you think we are secret.

Because I'm related to a number of Masons and have seen the secrecy firsthand,and have seen Masons express the secrecy of their organization in no uncertain terms. As I told Sebatwerk,listing names does not mean a society is not secret. You can list the names,phone numbers,bank statements,favorite foods,etc. of however many Masons you want,but if your proceedings are secret and blocked from the public and members are encouraged to not speak of them then that is a secret society.

Ultimately my analogy will break down as Dave isn't freemasonry and probably doesn't have much in common with it. The point I am making (which I suspect you realise) is that just because a number of people say something doesn't make it true.

Yes,but that was not what I was saying. I was not arguing that a number of people saying it makes it true,I was arguing that when enough people reach the same conclusions then it eventually puts some of the onus on the accused party to disprove the allegations.

Originally posted by Loungerist
As I told Sebatwerk,listing names does not mean a society is not secret. You can list the names,phone numbers,bank statements,favorite foods,etc. of however many Masons you want,but if your proceedings are secret and blocked from the public and members are encouraged to not speak of them then that is a secret society.

I repeat - you're getting mixed up between secret and private. Members are not discouraged from speaking from them.

I've seen otherwise,so I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Originally posted by Loungerist
but if your proceedings are secret and blocked from the public and members are encouraged to not speak of them then that is a secret society.

So, by your logic, most corporations and small businesses, government offices, police, schools, doctor's offices are ALL secret societies. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?!?!?

Originally posted by Loungerist
No,it's not. Perhaps you missed the "seen it with my own two eyes" part. I was not giving you an opinion,I was giving you a fact. And no,I'm not going to give the names of the Masons or lodges they're from that I've seen this happen to.

Like I said before, if any mason displays any amount of secrecy ABOVE not revealing the modes of recognition, he is acting of his own accord and not by the rules of the fraternity. Freemasonry only requires that masons keep our modes of recognition secret. Nothing more.

Ironically,the Mason I thought did the best job of defending the fraternity(most here I feel hurt it's image with their attitudes) on this board is criticized all the time and accused of not even being a Mason despite his assurances that he is. That I would say constitutes as criticism. Taking him at his word that he is a Mason,that is.

The "mason" that you are speaking of is part of a body that LONG ago diverged very far away from the landmarks of Freemasonry. They call themselves masons, but are only recognized among each other in Quebec and France, nowhere else in the world are they considered masons. Their organization is so radically different from Freemasonry that they lost their recognition as masons.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you believe him, since his claims follow more closely to what you would like to believe. I have seen his posts on other forums, where he threatens posters with his "army of masonic wizards". Sound masonic to you?

If it was so secret, then why would the masons on this forum reveal as much as they do?

To counter attacks levelled against them. If not for people coming out and saying this or that against Masonry I doubt any of these things would be willingly revealed to the public. And as you don't believe everything "revealed" against Freemasonry,I don't believe everything Masons "reveal" to support it.

I don't believe things revealed against Freemasonry because I am ane extremely active mason and I KNOW the organization! It amazes me that people would dismiss, with such ease and ignorance, the accounts of members such as myself and other masons on this forum!

That is a statement you cannot make for the whole of Masons on this board. And I would argue that there has often been misleading given. Particularly when Masons blankly state that there is "NO EVIDENCE" to this or that,when in fact there is.

Then, when masons state that, why doesn't the person making the claims just pony up the evidence? If it exists, why can't it be produced? As far as anyone is concerned, the mason is right in that situation and not the other way around. I have admittedly stood corrected MANY times on many issues, and I doubt any mason here would be able to contradict solid evidence.

And many who've analyzed and even been a part of Freemasonry have said different things than what you say. When you are a secret society,you are subject to lack of trust and a blurring of fact and fiction. Particularly when the common theme is that only selected members are even made privvy of the things being charged against the brotherhood in the first place. So by default,a random Mason saying so and so isn't true isn't necessarily convincing.

I wasn't talking about conspiracy books and anti-masons writings, I was speaking about SERIOUS, REFERENCEABLE and RESEARCHED literature on Freemasonry, its symbols and its members. You can find a wealth of FACTUAL information in these books, unlike the heresay and speculation which the books you mention depend on.

Thanks,but it's not necessary since I don't have many conceptions about Masonry to begin other than I do believe it fosters a potentially dangerous group mentality that at times leads to blind defense of it's members by other "brothers". Other than that I don't have any solid views on the group one way or the other that come to mind. I just occasionally read the conversations about it.

You seem to have more misconceptions than you realize. Look how easily you dismiss the accounts of TWO very active and very accomplished Freemasons who are talking to you about Freemasonry right now!

You think that's denying ignorance?

Originally posted by Loungerist
But when evidence is presented(and despite popular Masonic claims,it has been) then I'd have to agree that it falls to those denying the veracity of the evidence to disprove it.

If you subscribe to the premise of innocent till proven guilty the burden of proof is on the accusers. Placing the burden of proof on those being accused is called a "witch hunt". During the Salem Witch Trials once a person was labeled a "witch", accusations were called evidence by religous zealots and it was demanded that the accused prove otherwise. The questioning of the so called "witch" went something like below:


* Are you a witch?

* How long have you been in the snare of the devil?

* Why won't you confess?

You are proposing the same thing except you are using the label of "Mason" in place of "witch", but it is still a "witch hunt" no matter what label you choose for the victims. Your idea of justice is fanatical, vile, despicable and cowardly.
.


[edit on 14-8-2005 by df1]

Originally posted by df1
You are proposing the same thing except you are using the label of "Mason" in place of "witch", but it is still a "witch hunt" no matter what label you choose for the victims.

Too true df1. If we leave the lies alone we'll be accused of 'having nothing to say', 'losing the argument', etc etc but if we respond it's 'overdefensive' and even 'must have something to hide'.

It'll be the ducking stool next

Originally posted by sebatwerk
Of course, I'm not surprised that you believe him, since his claims follow more closely to what you would like to believe.

Which is? I'd be curious to hear this one.

I didn't say anything about believing him. I said he did the best job of defending Masonry to me. Not because he was brimming with undeniable veracity(I don't know whether he is or not,I'm not an expert on Masonry) or moving in some profound spiritual way,but because he expressed his thoughts like a normal person. He didn't try to berate people with dry attempts at sarcastic humor that aren't funny or attack people with incessantly aggressive posts. The Masons who do that really put their fraternity in a bad light in my opinion.

I don't believe things revealed against Freemasonry because I am ane extremely active mason and I KNOW the organization! It amazes me that people would dismiss, with such ease and ignorance, the accounts of members such as myself and other masons on this forum!

You should likewise be amazed that you think being part of an organization makes you an impartial beacon of absolute truth on it. You may not realize this,but your obvious vested interest is exactly why one may not necessarily believe your every glowing word about Masonry.

Then, when masons state that, why doesn't the person making the claims just pony up the evidence? If it exists, why can't it be produced?

They do. They display testimonials,quotes,etc. You could also easily go by a bookstore or even do a web search. It's there. Simply saying there's no evidence over and over does not actually make the evidence cease to exist.

I wasn't talking about conspiracy books and anti-masons writings, I was speaking about SERIOUS, REFERENCEABLE and RESEARCHED literature on Freemasonry, its symbols and its members.

I've not researched Masonry enough to decide either way,but I think it's safe to say that what you'd personally consider "SERIOUS,REFERENCEABLE and RESEARCHED" is not a universal criterion.

You seem to have more misconceptions than you realize. Look how easily you dismiss the accounts of TWO very active and very accomplished Freemasons who are talking to you about Freemasonry right now!

You think that's denying ignorance?

Are you suggesting that I should ignore what I sat right there and saw for myself and illogically take the words of someone from a messageboard instead? Sorry,but that's a tough sell. I don't claim to be an expert on Masonry,but I am capable of distinguishing colors and sounds in order to determine what's happening right in front of me.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Loungerist]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by df1

If you subscribe to the premise of innocent till proven guilty the burden of proof is on the accusers. Placing the burden of proof on those being accused is called a "witch hunt".

And ignoring everything and attacking anyone that says negative about an organization you happen to be apart of or partial to is called "turning a blind eye".

During the Salem Witch Trials once a person was labeled a "witch", accusations were called evidence by religous zealots and it was demanded that the accused prove otherwise.

Eyewitnesses and multiple reports are evidence unless the definition of the word has changed. The problem in Salem was not demanding that the accused prove otherwise,as you seem to think. That's done in any society when one is charged with a crime. The problem in Salem was that they were automatically pressumed guilty and killed without a fair trial. Nowhere have I declared anyone guilty of anything so your comparison immediately fails.

The questioning of the so called "witch" went something like below:


* Are you a witch?

* How long have you been in the snare of the devil?

* Why won't you confess?

A nice history lesson but remarkably unlike anything I've asked or said anywhere in this thread. These are what are known as loaded questions. If I've asked a loaded question or advocated unsubstanciated claims anywhere please feel free to quote the instances for me.

You are proposing the same thing except you are using the label of "Mason" in place of "witch", but it is still a "witch hunt" no matter what label you choose for the victims.


Your idea of justice is fanatical, vile, despicable and cowardly.

So from:

originally posted by Loungerist
I don't have a solid opinion on freemasonry either way myself at the moment...

and

originally posted by Loungerist
One must substanciate claims,sure. But when evidence is presented(and despite popular Masonic claims,it has been) then I'd have to agree that it falls to those denying the veracity of the evidence to disprove it.

and

originally posted by Loungerist
I don't have many conceptions about Masonry to begin with...

and

originally posted by Loungerist
I was not arguing that a number of people saying it makes it true...

You somehow processed that to mean I'm espousing a fanatical,vile,despicable,cowardly,Salem Witch Hunt-esque damnation of Masonry and all members thereof? I have to say,that's a pretty bizarre conclusion.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by Loungerist
espousing a fanatical,vile,despicable,cowardly,Salem Witch Hunt-esque damnation of Masonry...

This is exactly my charge against you. I enter into evidence the posts on this thread for all to read.

Originally posted by Loungerist
I was arguing that when enough people reach the same conclusions then it eventually puts some of the onus on the accused party to disprove the allegations.

Enough people on this thread have concluded that my charges and the evidence presented against you are sufficiently accurate and valid for you to stand trial on the charge of espousing a fanatical, vile, despicable and cowardly doctrine against Masons.

Originally posted by Loungerist
I'd have to agree that it falls to those denying the veracity of the evidence to disprove it.

In the interest of fairness we will use your own standards to judge your guilt.
.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by df1]

Originally posted by df1

This is exactly my charge against you. I enter into evidence the posts on this thread for all to read.

Then that'll be a short case.

Enough people on this thread have concluded that my charges and the evidence presented against you are sufficiently accurate and valid for you to stand trial on the charge of espousing a fanatical, vile, despicable and cowardly doctrine against Masons.

By no standard would you be considered "enough people". This is not a very good attempt at the point you're trying make. And every post proves your analogy wrong. You really should have rethought trying this over-the-top Salem Witch comparison thing...

In the interest of fairness we will use your own standards to judge your guilt.

Please do.

originally posted by Loungerist

Eyewitnesses and multiple reports are evidence unless the definition of the word has changed. The problem in Salem was not demanding that the accused prove otherwise,as you seem to think. That's done in any society when one is charged with a crime. The problem in Salem was that they were automatically pressumed guilty and killed without a fair trial. Nowhere have I declared anyone guilty of anything so your comparison immediately fails.

And take that quote above with you when you try. Might be best to switch tactics. Trying to liken anyone who doesn't automatically dismiss anything anyone anywhere says against Masonry to Salem Witch Hunters will make you look bad 9 times out of 10. I'd suggest you try coming up with a different defense.




[edit on 15-8-2005 by Loungerist]

Originally posted by Loungerist
Then that'll be a short case.

Agreed, a very short case. Since you have presented no evidence proving your innocence to the charge of espousing a fanatical,vile,despicable,cowardly,Salem Witch Hunt-esque damnation of Masonry, by your own standard Loungerist, You Are Found Guilty As Charged.

The penalty is to continue keeping your head in the sand for all of eternity.
.

...Or you could just admit your analogy was wrong. Either way.