Question for Plutarch

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:45 pm

VegasRefugee wrote:How the F**k did you pass the LSAT's?

One does not pass the LSAT, just as one does not pass the SAT.

P

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:00 am

You don't pass, but your scores do mean something. Getting a 900 on the SAT ain't getting you into any schools.

If the LSAT meant nothing, then what's the point of taking it? What VR means is how did you manage to score high enough to make it into law school?

How do you win any cases with the logic you have, P? And did you look up the non-Christian evidences for Christ I listed yet?

When you gonna tell us who you are?

_rcrocket · Post by **_rcrocket** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:57 am

GIMR wrote:You don't pass, but your scores do mean something. Getting a 900 on the SAT ain't getting you into any schools.

If the LSAT meant nothing, then what's the point of taking it? What VR means is how did you manage to score high enough to make it into law school?

How do you win any cases with the logic you have, P? And did you look up the non-Christian evidences for Christ I listed yet?

When you gonna tell us who you are?

I am a very poor lawyer indeed. Not all lawyers are the same. I don't win very many cases.

I am most familiar with the Tacitus reference, which I think is the earliest reference. It is around 115 A.D. It, too, is questioned by scholars as a later insertion. By any means, it is far from contemporaneous.

P

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:17 pm

Perhaps the logic you use in the courtroom is the same logic you use here in trying to dismiss everyone who doesn't fit into your worldview. And perhaps that is why you don't win many cases. You're obviously not winning the one here. Do you call the people you cross examine names?

If you feel up to it, you can look at the other names I listed. That is, if you're truly interested. I have to be honest, I really truly doubt the motives of folks like you who come on here. Be it entertainment, a source for mctherapy guinea pigs, or just a place to vent off some steam at those doggone nomos, there are folks here who I just can't believe see the rest of us as human beings. You make demands of us you yourself would never fulfill, you call us nuts, or you just plain defecate upon our characters because we dare to speak about that which you will not. I don't like folks like that, regardless of my Christian beliefs. Stupid is just plain stupid, and it's stupid to try to tell a complete stranger that they themselves are a coward, hypocrite, mental, racist (Loran's special name for me) or whatever else, simply because they talk about principles or doctrines.

Post by **_moksha** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:21 pm

If people don't reveal their identities, how can they be adequately punished for having contrary ideas?

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:01 pm

Oh Mok, I swear we were separated at birth.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:23 pm

don't reveal their names?

I told anyone who asked my first name while I was on my mission. I asked to be called by my title, but my first name wasn't a big secret.

Where is this happening at?

Gaz

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:06 pm

Gazelam wrote:don't reveal their names?

I told anyone who asked my first name while I was on my mission. I asked to be called by my title, but my first name wasn't a big secret.

Where is this happening at?

Gaz

I have to agree with Gaz on this one. (Uh oh...I think GIMR is about to go into shock. LOL)

Seriously...I never heard of missionaries being "forbidden" to give their first names. They do refer to each other as "Elder ___", but I didn't think that the first name thing was completely taboo. When did this happen?

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:34 pm

liz3564 wrote:Seriously...I never heard of missionaries being "forbidden" to give their first names. They do refer to each other as "Elder ___", but I didn't think that the first name thing was completely taboo. When did this happen?

True, missionaries have never been forbidden to give their first names to investigators. In fact the two missionaries who baptised me had calling cards with their full names on the cards. They were always addressed as "Elder", as it was mission etiquette to refer to them as Elder so and so. But their first names were never hidden. Anyone can find the full names or any currently serving missionary by going to LDS Missions. Here is an example from my old mission:

http://www.mission.net/australia/adelaide/index.php

All you have to do is click on "currently serving" to find the full name of every missionary.

Post by **_Sam Harris** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:21 am

liz3564 wrote:
Gazelam wrote:don't reveal their names?

I told anyone who asked my first name while I was on my mission. I asked to be called by my title, but my first name wasn't a big secret.

Where is this happening at?

Gaz

I have to agree with Gaz on this one. (Uh oh...I think GIMR is about to go into shock. LOL)

Seriously...I never heard of missionaries being "forbidden" to give their first names. They do refer to each other as "Elder ___", but I didn't think that the first name thing was completely taboo. When did this happen?

I've recovered. :-)

Actually, I knew the first names of the missionaries I dealt with. I usually saw it printed on their quads or some other item they had with them. I don't think that is that big of an issue. An internet forum however, where you never see the face of the people you're dealing with is another thing.