Originally posted by Lucifer777
Originally posted by YourPopRock
OP makes silly and unsubstantiated claimes with no evidence, and for some reason I have to prove his B as in B and S as in S to be false.
You have it backwards sponge-bob satan-pants.
YOU have the burden of proof for your claims... otherwise, you are simply a wordy wacko!
I generally consider it to be beneath myself to respond to abuse and simple contradiction; however the post which is at the top of this page on: "On Masonic Charity. The world's largest non religious charity scam. On the Shriners and Jesters" on: www.abovetopsecret.com... contains a summary of the "allegations" on this thread; to simply argue that this does not represent "a single shred of proof of ANYTHING" as you have stated on the hyperked page above is just indicative of your lack of literacy skills; since I think that anyone with sufficient literacy skills to actually read that post before responding to it would find that it establishes a great many "facts;" including facts generated from police and FBI reports and the testimonials of Masons themselves; contradiction without argument is essentially also indicative of a person who has an inability to contruct an argument.
Just to help you out, let us say that you were a defence lawyer, defending Masonic cultism in a court or in a philosophers' debating society; if the allegations in the post at the top of this page were made, it would not be sufficient to claim "I don't agree with that" or "this does not prove anything;" that is the kind of simple contradiction which any football hooligan, a drunk or a child in a playground could make; rather you would have to offer argument and evidence that the claims stated above were false or fabricated, and it would be "you" who would have to prove that; thus it is "you" who have failed to present any proof of your claims.
With regards to "repeating" the same accusations, this is simply because of constant denialism by Masonic cult apologists regarding the allegations; if a person states "there is no evdence of such allegations" it is thus perfectly appropriate for me to restate that evidence, and if the "Trolls for Masonry" continue to make such denials, and to dispute that such evidence exists, it is quite appropriate for me to restate what that evidence is.
Your response above is simply a statement of "I am not interested in offering argument and evidence to support my allegation, I just want to be a troll and engage in contradiction and abuse;" I have to say that this is quite typical of Masonic cult apologists on this sub forum and indeed on the Internet in general; please feel free to continue with such behaviour.
Above: Monty Python's "Argument Clinic;" a beginners guide to how "not" to construct an argument.
His Imperial Satanic Majesty
Look... us Masons can't be ALL bad as you make us out to be... I mean, we have let YOU live (so far)...