The Glade 4.0

True, except one of those in the group is a personal friend of mine. Not Silsby, to be sure.

Nothing is really "sure" unless you are witness to it with your own eyes. Also to mention, this forum is largely devoted to discussing media reports. Your argument simply falls flat.

_________________
"The map is not the territory."

You've spoken directly with the detained missionaries yourself after the events in question?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

So, no ... nothing verifiable. I'm sorry, Beryllin, but whatever intentions your friend had, the woman he was working with is an idiot that has motive.

_________________

Of course it does. Why should you believe me instead of the media?

True, nothing verifiable at the moment. That may change.

Oh no! We've made a judgement based on the information available! How dare we!

Who exactly is telling me I don't know the whole story? You? You weren't there either, and quite frankly even if you do know one of these fools personally no, I'm not going to consider them truthful since they apparently think they can play fast and loose with the rules in the name of.. whatever they thought they were doing.

Not only that, but you've gone off on this moronic tangent about how awfult this whole thing is because it's creating "red tape" that's slowing down evacuation. Not only is this group and their jackassery a perfect example of why such documentation should be demanded, apparently you can't even make up your mind what the real problem is.

Everyone here is perfectly willing to accept that they're innocent of criminal conduct if they are released. That doesn't change the fact that their incompetant asshattery caused th eproblem in the first place, including the problems of evacuation you're talking about now. If you've got some other information, provide it, and a source. Until then, all this whining about us "judging" them based on what the media says s just you whining that we're not taking up for a bunch of dipshits that you apparently have sympathy for just because they're some stripe of evangelical, and one of them is your buddy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And yet you rushed to judgment immediately (conveniently difficult to quote with your tantrum that removed all your posts from the thread), but as soon as you posted you sided with the Americans, and against the Haitian officials. That was before a later post in which you claimed to have just gotten "further knowledge," which of course has neither verification nor have you provided any actual information. Just claimed that we "didn't know the whole story."

You're not angry that we looked at information and came to a conclusion; you're angry that we looked at information and came to a conclusion different than yours.

Why should we consider you (still a second-hand source at best, and an exceptionally biased one at that) the arbiter of this?

It's funny that you try to tell people their claims are ignorant because they weren't there and can't prove anything, and then you try to prove something when you weren't there, wont reveal any source, and can't prove what you say.

Again incorrect. I'm disgusted with the rush to judgment, innocent until proven guilty be damned. You do remember that concept, right? Especially since someone with more direct knowledge is telling y'all that y'all have it wrong. I'm disgusted that, instead of stopping to consider "hey, maybe we have it wrong", some here just continue the drumbeat of judgment.

I have been told what I consider to be first hand (because the man who told me has seen it with his own eyes) that certain evidence exists, the source being one that I trust FAR more than I trust any of you; certainly farther than I trust the media. I cannot give you a link to that evidence, nor would I even if I could.

I don't care that some here choose to not believe what I say. But for the rush to judgment, I cannot express my disgust adequately enough without using language I would not feel comfortable using.

There's a very compelling reason you're a "full of it christian hating goof-ball", but it's secret and I can't tell, but if you knew what *I* knew, your ignorance would be obvious even to you.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Bery if you aren't gonna back up your claims, shut the **** up. You're turning into Monte.

Reminds me of fighting with a girlfriend. "If you don't know why I'm mad, then I'M NOT TELLING YOU."

OK, so...you don't trust us. You refuse to give us your "privileged" information, your "more direct knowledge," and (most hilariously) wouldn't do so "even if you could." Yet you expect to say whatever you like, and expect us to believe you?

Why is that?

Blah blah "disgust," blah blah "train," blah blah blah. Get some new material. This shtick is tiresome.

I have already explained why I won't. I'm sure you can find an orifice on your body where you can shove your advice.

You've already given an excuse as to why you don't want to.

Sorry, I can't believe in your phantom evidence any more than you could believe in mine.

Then ignore me and go read a different thread, because even if you hate my guts and never, ever believe a word I say, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" should be a guiding principle for you. But it's not, and I have to ask myself "Why is that?" And yeah, I believe I know the answer. But at least I'm willing to face up to maybe being wrong. Unlike you, apparently.

It is because the invisible gay hater in the sky says so... we get it.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Did I miss something, or did it really take this long for this tripe to show up? Wow, you're slipping.

*edit* and if you don't like tripe, you can substitute manure. Either works.

Beryllin:

Your righteous indignation is not helping your case. The facts, as can be verified, are what I have stated in this thread.

1. Silsby has motive to enter into human trafficking: namely, her horrible financial situation.

2. Silsby was warned by a Dominican official that her course of action would result in her arrest.

3. Silsby persisted in that course of action.

4. Silsby got 9 other people arrested with her.

This is what we know. No one is making any judgment of your friend or any other possible "real" Christian involved. You, on the other hand, persist in judging the Gladers who have no reason to believe your unverifiable, non-present evidence because they know these facts to be true.

So, for your own wellbeing, I sincerely suggest you stop blowing your blood pressure out of whack over exculpatory evidence you don't think the Glade deserves to know. Indeed, it seems just a tad bit prideful that you keep holding this exculpatory evidence over our heads while stating, "I cannot give you a link to that evidence, nor would I even if I could."

But, that's ok, we know you don't trust us. We don't know you trust pretty much anyone except your son and maybe your church. We get that. We're just anonymous faces on the internet. We're text. But, I'm going to hop up on a soap box here ...

Has it ever occurred to you that draw such disdain and derision in your direction because you are possessed of such hubris and vanity that you deign, on a regular basis, to tell other Christians and other individuals of faith they have it wrong? Not different, not questionable, just flat out wrong? Has it ever turned on the light in your brainpan that maybe, just maybe, your vicious ad hominems and righteous indignation are neither good witness nor effective evangelism?

Diamondeye, Kaffis, FarSky, Screeling, Nitefox ...

They're all Christians. They're all openly so. And, more than once, you have told all of them they're going to hell because they don't believe in God the exact same way you do. Right now you're casting stones at FarSky for saying, "The facts indicate this Silsby lady is a total idiot; maybe we need more information." Indeed, you've gone so far as to make the same sort of petulant statements that my 6 year old nephew makes to his mother when she asks him to pick up his toys.

But, hey, that's ok ... you are perfectly free to be disgusted that people can't or won't reach your conclusions about a situation when you're withholding information and castigating people for not knowing what you know. So, instead of telling Lenas to shove his advice up his ***, why don't you get over yourself and your version of God and your oh-so-crucial information that you don't want the rest of us to know.

_________________

Look dumbass,

The fact that you have what you think is some sort of insider information doesn't mean jack ****. If you don't want to reveal it, then shut the **** up. You already expressed concern that what you know could in some undisclosed way harm these people, and I told you (quite seriously) that the best thing you could do would be to let the matter drop.

You claimed you thought that was good advice, and even went so far asto delete the first half of your posts in this thread. You also claimed you were taking a break from this place. Despite that, you're still here digging for sympathy for these people and getting all pissed off when you can't ge it either by claiming you know some secret fact that will exonerate them completely, ro by trying to guilt people into it with bullshit about how stupid it is that people have to document taking children out of the country.

So really, this crap about how we're "not considering that we might have it wrong when someone with more knowledge says so" is just you trying to bludgeon people into agreement with you. You've got no basis for disgust except your own snot-nosed self-righteousness. You don't have direct knowledge, you have second-hand knowledge, and quite frankly until you can say what it is and source it there's no good reason to think it's anything other than some trivial fact that really won't change the basics of what we've already heard about the situation.

I don't really give a **** how much you trust your source either because, while I don't trust the media, I trust unspecified "insider sources" even less. I also have a hard time buying that the Haitian government decided to single out these 10 Americans to get picked on in the middle of a disaster - while there are thousands of Marines in their country.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have no problems with being wrong, if the facts indicate so. You've produced literally nothing of merit to the contrary of the numerous news articles and reports linked here. You've even stated, point-blank, that you won't produce such information.

Were I part of a jury, then yes, "guilty until proven innocent" is a guiding principle. Arguing on the internet? Not so much. And why should anyone jump to the conclusion of innocence when literally all of the information is to the contrary? But even as far as that goes, you seem to be intimating that no one here (besides yourself, of course) viewed the information at hand and then made up their mind about what happened. You instead seem to be saying that because Christian missionaries were involved, everyone (but you, of course) immediately hates them and wants to see them rot in jail.

The only item of question is motive. Personally, I don't believe that the missionaries were acting maliciously; I believe that they were, in fact, "only trying to help." In fact, I don't think anyone here believes that the missionaries were part of a child kidnapping ring, or human trafficking, or whatever. However, while motive will establish whether or not they were planning on kidnapping the children, or just moving them to a better location, it doesn't change the fact that the children were removed without the proper permission, and that is illegal. Those aren't issues of question; those are matters of fact. The why is up for debate, but the what isn't.

Were any of us, in a professional capacity, sitting in judgment of the accused, then yes, we would be bound by the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution would need to present legally admissible and lawfully obtained proof of evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You will note, I hope, that none of us are acting in any judicial capacity? And that, furthermore, there is no "smart until proven stupid" clause anywhere in the world?

_________________

Oh, and as for this:

Do tell.

He wont, because he's a bullshitter.

well with no evidence to back your claim... What else can we think?

And before you think i am just bashing god... No.

In fact i believe in god. And i suspect i believe similar things to many of the christian gladers. I just fefuse to pay homage to your interpretation of god. As such; you are giving about as much reason to take your 'more knowledgable source' as anything other than a myth..

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut