Or the Tower would be a blunt message to those who know. Curiously, though I put no stock in it, any time a reading for me has been done the Chariot and the Tower always come up. Ooohh. Foul portents abound!
Kevin Graeme > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 4:50 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Is Michael D the sniper?!? (was RE: Pedophiliac book on > Amazon.com) > > > I've played American army and try as I may, I can't get into > sniper school. > And from my record of being killed regularly in the game, I'll never have > military training. So that removes me as the sniper from the skill > perspective. As for the card, those who use Tarot (I don't) know that the > death card is used to denote change rather than death. Someone who is > knowledgeable of Tarot would use the Chariot, Strength, or one of > the sword > cards. The death card is used by those with no knowledge other than being > able to read. This means you can remove the 'hes into mysticism' from his > profile. On the other hand, the weird or RPG part of the profile can still > stand, but I'd doubt it. > Now that's all besides the point. If the card is from the shooter > then he's > a step away from being caught. Once a serial killer starts taunting the > police, the chances of him making a mistake on subsequent attacks are much > higher. > > > > Just saw on the USA Today site this description of the D.C. area sniper: > > > > 'Robert Ressler, a retired FBI profiler, says the card could be a prank. > But > > if the sniper left the card, Ressler said, it could indicate that the > sniper > > is "into weird mysticism. If he's into tarot cards, he's into mysticism > and > > possibly (the role-playing game) Dungeons & Dragons. He's into being > > fascinated with the unusual."' > > > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-09-sniper-evidence_x.htm > > > > Now we all know Michael is into the occult. He's said so > himself. So that > > obviously makes him the sniper in this case, eh? (I'm guessing that he's > > not.) > > > > Same situation with the other books at Amazon. There is not a direct > causal > > relationship to the reading material. > > > > Kevin Graeme > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Phoeun Pha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:47 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Pedophiliac book on Amazon.com > > > > > > > > > Also, how about books on How To Rape Women and Not Get > Caught...Cheating > > > Your Spouse 101 (there is a book like that, in fact), How to Beat > > > Your Wife > > > into Submission, Terrorist Guide: How To Sneak Bombs Pass > > > Security and Blow > > > Up Very Large Buildings, Ethnic Cleansing Guide: How to exterminate > filthy > > > ::insert plural racial derogatory here::, Father's Guide: Maintain > Sexual > > > Relationship with your Daughter and keep the Wife from knowing!. > > > > > > Sorry for being a little rough, but I was trying to make a point. > > > > > > See Beth, as much as I agree with you on Freedom of speech, these > possible > > > book subjects make me feel uneasy! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Beth F [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:59 AM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: Pedophiliac book on Amazon.com > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw this on some newsgroup and at first I was outraged. But then I > > > realized sometimes you read books to learn about something - not > because > > > you agree with the content. For example, wouldn't a cop running > internet > > > stings to stop online pedophiles from preying on kids want to > read this > > > book? What if I wanted to learn about pedophiles? Wouldn't a > > > book written > > > by one who thinks its jusitified be worthy of reading? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Phoeun Pha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 8:01 AM > > > Subject: Pedophiliac book on Amazon.com > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys, I saw this story on Oreilly fox news. > > > > > > > > Apparently they are selling books buy this group or > individual that is > > > about > > > > homosexual love with little boys. Here's quote.. > > > > "The book says that men who sexually pursue young boys are not > > > bad people, > > > > but, "loving human beings." > > > > > > > > Amazon says that it carries the book because of FREEDOM OF > SPEECH, but > > > this > > > > book obviously encourages "criminal" action. > > > > > > > > What do you guys think? Should Amazon keep this book in their > database > > > and > > > > protect freedom of speech? Or is there a fine line between > freedom of > > > > speech and moral/ethical responsibility? > > > > > > > > Personally, I believe that taking Freedom of speech to the > extreme is > as > > > bad > > > > as religious fanaticism. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read the wole thing below. > > > > here's the link to the Fox news Oreilly site story > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64473,00.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
