On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:28 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote: > Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you. I remember when the John > Edwards mistress, love child story broke. You totally ridiculed me for buying > into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National Enquirer".
Sounds *very* unlikely, lurk, as I've said here, more than once, that the NI usually gets its stories right, and has ever since the OJ Simpson case. Care to find the posts? I tried to find some but they didn't appear to exist. (And no, I haven't deleted any.) Would you like to try? And even if I had been wrong about JE, what on earth does that have to do with the idea of reincarnation, or any other? Of course I could be wrong. My point is--who gives a damn? Well, obviously you do, and quite a bit. The question is--what's the point? We'll all find out soon enough anyway, and whatever you or I believe or don't believe isn't going to make an iota of difference as to what actually happens--whatever is going to happen is going to happen anyway. And what is this obsession with death anyway? Has it ever occurred to you it might be a bit morbid? Sometimes when I check in here and see some of your posts (as well as those of others) I think I've somehow blundered into a meeting of the Cult of Osiris during the Late Middle Dynasty or something. > As a courtesy to you, because you seemed to be so undone by it, I conceded > that perhaps the mistress part was true, but not the love child. Oh, yeah, I was *undone* by it, alright... > Of course I was 90% sure that the love child was true too, but I thought I > would let it play out. And of course it all turned out to be true, and in > true fashion, you never had the courage to own up to it. Care to bring up > the posts? I didn't think so. Own up to what? I just tried to find the posts but couldn't. Why don't you, since it seems to mean so much to you. i'll be happy to admit I was wrong. And could be "wrong" about reincarnation--or anything else. > At the risk of name calling, I would have to say you have the most unabashed > liberal agenda here, Why, thank you. :) > and you take great exception when facts get in the way. Oh, yeah, the "facts" supporting what happens after death are so clear-cut... > I'm not sure what has caused you to be this way, but at the risk of becoming > the butt of some of your ridicule, LOL--look who's talking. Who was it that mocked somebody as they were dying? (And I agreed with your POV on that one, BTW...nevertheless, it could be called ridicule, don't you think? And quite hurtful too) As well as other times. Kind of crazy for someone withe a sense of humor like that to be admonishing someone else for their humor, don't you think? > I have often thought to myself that in a previous life you were Ethel > Rosenberg or some similiar personality. Yeah, and maybe you were Julius. Now *there's* a scary thought. Anyway, she was a great lady and I'd be proud to be her. > You can pooh pooh reincarnation, but it is pretty evident that you haven't > looked at any of the evidence. I haven't seen any "evidence," and neither have you, as it doesn't exist--any more than "evidence" for Jesus' reincarnation does. > And further, I think you get called on this same flaw by Judy on a regular > basis i.e making statements without looking a facts, getting called out, and > then not responding. On the other hand, it is kind of a time honored > practice here. > > Why don't you examine why you appear to be so threatened by the concept. lurk, you're losing it, you really are. There are no "facts" involved, here, only wishful thinking and "sureties" that can never be proven. > But often it is easier just to hold on to just what we feel comfortable > with. I guess so--isn't it? And easier to lash out at someone else as well when those ideas aren't accepted hook, line and stinker. Sal
