The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
How on earth did we get on to Irish/British history?

Way to distract from the topic at hand

Arthur_Asky can you please stop dancing about and answer the pertinent questions you are so clearly avoiding?
 
Fiona said:
How on earth did we get on to Irish/British history?

Way to distract from the topic at hand

Arthur_Asky can you please stop dancing about and answer the pertinent questions you are so clearly avoiding?
Click to expand...


Didn't happen! No-one answered my questions. If you need to claim a victory then so be it! It never happened so there you go! Not one of the James Randi Eductaional Forum has ever exhibited any evidence to the contrary of what I have posted. What I have posted has not been fmotl theory but logic! Not one one this thread has countered this but tried to a thread that was not even mine!

Please take a look at Africa, MIGHT IS NOT RIGHT!

Back to Ireland, Fiona, you need to read the threads and comprehend what they say. If you can't read then that is your issue! Not mine!

I may have one more bit part post but that can wait! For now!
 
Arthur Asky said:
Didn't happen! No-one answered my questions. If you need to claim a victory then so be it! It never happened so there you go! Not one of the James Randi Eductaional Forum has ever exhibited any evidence to the contrary of what I have posted. What I have posted has not been fmotl theory but logic! Not one one this thread has countered this but tried to a thread that was not even mine!

Please take a look at Africa, MIGHT IS NOT RIGHT!

Back to Ireland, Fiona, you need to read the threads and comprehend what they say. If you can't read then that is your issue! Not mine!

I may have one more bit part post but that can wait! For now!
Click to expand...

Let's see, you've got a "no-one has answered my questions", and a "This has not been theory but logic".

And that's house for me!
 
Arthur, I'm no expert on Irish history, but I do know it was already pretty complicated long before Great Britain officially existed. To take just one example, it was invaded by Edward Bruce (brother of Robert I) in 1315 who was elected High King by mostly northern Irish kings and lords. His rule was pretty much limited to parts of Ireland, was never recognised by the Pope and he was killed three years later having caused chaos in that short period, six hundred and fifty years before the most recent Troubles.
 
Last edited:
I haven't forgotten you Arthur, so you can stop pining.

Now that it's not 4:30 in the morning here (OK so it is midday) I'll let you know what I'm doing so you don't worry too much: I'm going to the library followed by some shopping, after which I might treat myself to something from the chippy and thence home where I will address you further.

I trust you will not miss me too much while I'm away.
 
Arthur Asky said:
Last chance and then you'll have no-one to debate with on this issue as you are skirting around the facts. British invaded, you answer yes. Simple. Now do you agree with invading countries?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. If it is in a country's national interest to go to war with another country then that's fine. You appear to be making a false analogy here, between the way nations behave towards each other and the way individuals within particular society behave towards one another.

What did the courts do to protect the Irish from Richard De Clare? Nothing
What did the courts do to prevent Irish raiders plundering the Welsh coast? Nothing
What did the courts do to the man who beat up someone in my town so badly that they died? Gave him a custodial sentence.
 
tsig said:
This seems appropriate:

"Oath of a Freeman was a loyalty oath drawn up by the Pilgrims during the early 17th century. A freeman was an established member of a colony who was not under legal restraint. The Oath was a vow to defend the Commonwealth and not to conspire to overthrow the government.

It survives only in a handwritten copy from 1634 and in a later printed version from 1647. Stephen Daye made a broadside printing of the document in 1639, but it is now lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_a_Freeman
Click to expand...

This means that freeman is a rather silly name for the movement,
perhaps freeloader would be more appropriate. :D
 
Arthur Asky said:
Good day to all! Age = 102, Education = Doctorate, Profession = Monarch of a small African state.

What do you think? What kind of bearing does all this have and how will you make use of this newly acquired information?

You may not holiday in my country though! All borders are in lockdown!
Click to expand...
I will either ignore you, or treat you like the unserious joke that you are, based on your answers. Thanks for answering. :)
 
Toke said:
This means that freeman is a rather silly name for the movement,
perhaps freeloader would be more appropriate. :D
Click to expand...

I keep wondering who feeds them. Do they contract with all the farmers or grow their own?
 
The only thing that they might 'grow their own' is another reason for the paranoia in their 'movement.' Marijuana has been known to have that effect.
 
Where's Paul gone? Paul why have you ran away from awkward questions?
Click to expand...

This was posted twelve minutes after your earlier post directed to Paul. People do have other things to do than to respond to your foolishness.


Pure Argent ran away, softly ran away, away!
Click to expand...

This one was seven minutes after your earlier post to Pure Argent. You have a high opinion of yourself, don't you?


What's a Freeman on the Lamb?
Click to expand...
TjW said:
Father of a sheeple?
Click to expand...

TjW wins the thread!
 
Arthur Asky said:
What the f8877668 does this matter? You didn't answer my question. You are an apologist! You are clearly obfuscating and not answering my point which came before yours!
Click to expand...

I answered the question. It depends on the situation. For example, I agree that it was the right thing to do when the Allies invaded Germany.

You said: "Perhaps it would help if you would elaborate on the thing your analogy is supposed to represent."

And then I responded: "British in Ireland = someone else in your home. You go to "The Court". They do nothing. The British raped and pillaged = An unwelcome visitor takes your wife to do as he pleases.

"The Court" allow this to happen. Do you take "The Law" into your own hands and defend your rights = (some say this is terrorism).

FFS don't be an apologist and answer the question now!"

So, specifically, was it right that the English invaded Ireland? Yes or no Pure Argent!
Click to expand...

Yes, it was. But this still does not affect the fact that they later united peacefully with the Acts, which I have shown to you.

Now, a question for you, Arthur Asky: What does England being at war with Ireland at one point have to do with FMOTL? Even if what you say is true, it does not validate your Freeman beliefs.
 
QFT

Since our Freeman friend doesn't appear to have the best reading comprehension, I am rephrasing this brilliant post by Horatius. I hope he doesn't mind. I thought about putting the new words in bright green or something, but I don't have the heart for it.
Horatius said:
You know, I think your inability to understand the law is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Freeman on the Land) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We (most of us anyway) did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your ideas, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom