Bill Maher on the Historicity of the Book of Mormon

[_Yahoo Bot]

People all over the world and in the United State use water witchers to locate underground water pipes.

It is a phenomenon that crosses most cultures. Water witchers can be and are children.

Are the clients of such witchers "stupid?" I think so. But there is no crime involved in being a witcher and charging money for it, or so it seems.

Seems to me that the magistrate in Joseph Smith's case just wasn't interested in pursing it for whatever reason. And, given that state of facts, the contents of the file are bunkum.

But get that master idiot lawyer Sock Puppet to weigh in. He usually opines as to the exact opposite of what the law would provide.

[_Buffalo]

People all over the world and in the United State use water witchers to locate underground water pipes.

It is a phenomenon that crosses most cultures. Water witchers can be and are children.

Are the clients of such witchers "stupid?" I think so. But there is no crime involved in being a witcher and charging money for it, or so it seems.

Seems to me that the magistrate in Joseph Smith's case just wasn't interested in pursing it for whatever reason. And, given that state of facts, the contents of the file are bunkum.

But get that master idiot lawyer Sock Puppet to weigh in. He usually opines as to the exact opposite of what the law would provide.

So Joseph wasn't a con artist, just a superstitious idiot. Got it.

Of course, he'd have to be pretty stupid not to realize he couldn't really find anything with his rock. And that doesn't explain the other times in his life he conned people out of money/virginity/chastity.

[_Yahoo Bot]

So Joseph wasn't a con artist, just a superstitious idiot. Got it.

Oh, brilliant disingenuous one, you skewer me again.

[_Buffalo]

So Joseph wasn't a con artist, just a superstitious idiot. Got it.

Oh, brilliant disingenuous one, you skewer me again.

If the clients of water witchers are stupid, what does that say about the practitioners? That they're either stupid or con artists.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

People all over the world and in the United State use water witchers to locate underground water pipes.

It is a phenomenon that crosses most cultures. Water witchers can be and are children.

Are the clients of such witchers "stupid?" I think so. But there is no crime involved in being a witcher and charging money for it, or so it seems.

Seems to me that the magistrate in Joseph Smith's case just wasn't interested in pursing it for whatever reason. And, given that state of facts, the contents of the file are bunkum.

But get that master idiot lawyer Sock Puppet to weigh in. He usually opines as to the exact opposite of what the law would provide.

Joseph was in trouble with the law for treasure seeking. Did Joseph also water witch?

Not everyone in our society/culture thinks water witching is "stupid" (although there are scientific reasons to believe it's stupid). However, I would bet you a million dollars that the VAST majority of our society/culture would agree that seeking treasure with a rock is "stupid".

[_Jaybear]

People all over the world and in the United State use water witchers to locate underground water pipes.

It is a phenomenon that crosses most cultures. Water witchers can be and are children.

Are the clients of such witchers "stupid?" I think so. But there is no crime involved in being a witcher and charging money for it, or so it seems.

Seems to me that the magistrate in Joseph Smith's case just wasn't interested in pursing it for whatever reason. And, given that state of facts, the contents of the file are bunkum.

But get that master idiot lawyer Sock Puppet to weigh in. He usually opines as to the exact opposite of what the law would provide.

Sorry, I missed your point.

Smith was not running a con because:
A: He really could find buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat; or
B: He can't, obviously, but he thought he could.

Yes, people believe in fortune cookies, palm readers, water witches, tea leaves, tarot cards, and telephone psychics. But that hardly germane to the question at hand.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Not everyone in our society/culture thinks water witching is "stupid" (although there are scientific reasons to believe it's stupid). However, I would bet you a million dollars that the VAST majority of our society/culture would agree that seeking treasure with a rock is "stupid".

That's quite a distinction you draw. I'm floored and stunned.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

That's quite a distinction you draw. I'm floored and stunned.

It obviously doesn't take much.

[_sock puppet]

People all over the world and in the United State use water witchers to locate underground water pipes.

It is a phenomenon that crosses most cultures. Water witchers can be and are children.

Are the clients of such witchers "stupid?" I think so. But there is no crime involved in being a witcher and charging money for it, or so it seems.

Seems to me that the magistrate in Joseph Smith's case just wasn't interested in pursing it for whatever reason. And, given that state of facts, the contents of the file are bunkum.

But get that master idiot lawyer Sock Puppet to weigh in. He usually opines as to the exact opposite of what the law would provide.

Which other religions were started by a water witcher, using the same tools of witching to then divine the new religion's tome of scripture? With so many water witchers all over the world, there must be some.

[_Darth J]

You have your presumptions mixed up.

He's presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And I did not say otherwise. I said that a judge found probable cause to charge him.

That a prosecutorial authority decides not to prosecute him -- even as notorious as he -- indicates that he is not only innocent but not guilty.

I would like to see the court records where the prosecutor decided not to prosecute and dismissed the case. Where might those be?

To presume that he's guilty by reason of the frivolity of the charge is to presume too much.

And since I did not do that, I have to wonder to whom you are responding. I am saying that he is guilty of a failure to appear. Failure to appear is a separate offense from the underlying charge.

Further, with the record showing that the putative victim wasn't claiming to be victimized suggests trumped up charges.

That's not a defense to a failure to appear.

By the way, just in case there is any doubt that Yahoo Bot is anything but a troll who reflexively gainsays whatever anyone else says, let's recap what he has said about this New York glass-looking "trial." In this current thread, he says I have got my presumptions mixed up when I say that the absence of a court record creates a presumption that an event never happened. But in an earlier thread discussing the same issue, he said this:

Here, there is no evidence of any trial. And, where we are dealing with court records and official documents, absence of proof is, indeed, proof of absence. If there is no record of a court action, it means it did not occur.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13183&start=0