Book of Abraham Real?

[rameumptom]

Elphaba, The email lists were post-Hoffman. More towards the end of the 1980s, when I was involved. So, my knowledge of Metcalfe during the Hoffman affair was only what I gathered from the news and later research.

But I was very involved in Morm-Ant and Samu-L with those on the lists. Back then, I was more of a learner, but knew as much on the topics as Brent did. In the past 20-some years, both he and I have learned a few things.

For one thing, I've learned to admit when I'm wrong and to give a sincere apology, which I owed Brent, and dutifully gave to him. That doesn't mean I have to agree with other things he's been involved with, such as being a key player in destroying a great email list. The destruction of Morm-Ant was so distasteful to Bill Hamblin that he did not come back online in open forum until only the last year or so where he works commenting on issues with Daniel Peterson on the FAIR/Mormon Apologetics' list.

I don't know if Brent ever offered Bill an apology for that one. That's between them. But I know he didn't apologize to the rest of the list for melting it down. Then again, I'm still awaiting Louis Midgely's apology, too. And I'm not holding my breath on either one, nor will it cause me to lose sleep.

An apology to you? My, but you really are the center of the universe, aren't you? And I can say that I am able to apologize when I recognize my mistake, as I did to Brent. Are you in the habit of disbelieving anyone who makes an honest, though big mistake, and then admits it? You are opening yourself to a life of much paranoid disbelief, sir. If you were to be mistaken, would you disbelieve everything else you wrote or said? It should apply to all you deal with,including yourself. I do make mistakes, but own up to them as best I can when I discover those mistakes. In such, I am no better than anyone else here. The difference is in which individuals are willing and able to make things right. I could have just ignored Brent's messages, or left the boards for a while and let things die down. But I didn't. When I read Brent's messages, I went and checked my statements, and in the ones I found wrong I apologized. Have you done that, made a mistake and apologized, without gloating or making yourself out to be superior? I wonder.

[rameumptom]

Oh my Elphaba, if you had some credibility yourself, that might sound almost, what's the word? Dolichocephal? Horn-mad? Proceleusmatic?

And me?

What about my aunt? And her bishop?

Can I get an apology for all the pretty little horses?

Snow, I apologize to you. And your aunt. And her bishop. And yes, all the pretty little horses get apologies too. But not the ugly ones. Nor the big, fat ones, either. And if they are dead with flies and maggots on them, I'm not apologizing to them, either.

I hope you realize I'm sincere, but even I have my limits.

RAM.

[rameumptom]

I think I missed something.

Elphaba demanded an apology, and Snow was sneering. I have given in to Elphaba and I've given another apology, as you'll see in the previous post. I gave it to Snow, his aunt, her bishop, and all the pretty little horses. And I'm in such a giving mood, I'll apologize to your Aunt, also, MorningStar.

:)

[Ray A]

You are opening yourself to a life of much paranoid disbelief, sir.

Elphaba is, er, female. Get your apology ready.

[rameumptom]

Elphaba is, er, female. Get your apology ready.

Elphaba may be female, but seems to have more testosterone than many on this list, including possibly me. So, "sir" may be an appropriate title in this case.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, The email lists were post-Hoffman. More towards the end of the 1980s, when I was involved. So, my knowledge of Metcalfe during the Hoffman affair was only what I gathered from the news and later research.

Then your confusing Hofmann with Flynn is even more inconceivable.

So, when exactly did you do your resarch? According to what you‘ve just written, it’s closer to the present than I previously thought, which is more damning to your having confused Flynn with Metcalfe.

But I was very involved in Morm-Ant and Samu-L with those on the lists. Back then, I was more of a learner, but knew as much on the topics as Brent did. In the past 20-some years, both he and I have learned a few things. For one thing, I've learned to admit when I'm wrong and to give a sincere apology. . .

Then where is mine?

. . . which I owed Brent, and dutifully gave to him. That doesn't mean I have to agree with other things he's been involved with, such as being a key player in destroying a great email list. The destruction of Morm-Ant was so distasteful to Bill Hamblin that he did not come back online in open forum until only the last year or so where he works commenting on issues with Daniel Peterson on the FAIR/Mormon Apologetics' list.

I don't know if Brent ever offered Bill an apology for that one. That's between them. But I know he didn't apologize to the rest of the list for melting it down. Then again, I'm still awaiting Louis Midgely's apology, too. And I'm not holding my breath on either one, nor will it cause me to lose sleep.

Let me state this as politely as possible.

You need to find a 12-step group to address your addiction to Metcalfe's e-mail list sins. You are in such a state of denial that it is impossible for you to recognize it right now. If you could only take that leap you will get yourself out of the nightmare that haunts you. I see it everytime you write yet another litany of Metcalfe's sins.

All you have to do is say: "My Name is Rameumpton, and I am a Metcalfe E-mail Sin List Story addict."

All together now: "Hello Rameumpton!"

If that doesn't work, try drugs.

An apology to you? My, but you really are the center of the universe, aren't you?

Yes. Yes I am.

And I can say that I am able to apologize when I recognize my mistake, as I did to Brent.

I see. So the problem is not necessarily apologizing, per se. It’s recognizing you’ve made a mistake.

I concede I am beat. You have already displayed in practically every post I’ve written to you on this thread that you do not read them. Therefore, how can you apologize for something you've never read, right? Sly. Very sly.

Of course, the ethical thing to do would be to go back and actually read my posts, where you would find that I had told you, numerous times, that you were wrong about Metcalfe. In fact, when Metcalfe came to the thread, he only confirmed what I had been telling you all along. Therefore, I was the first one to tell you you were wrong. In the circles I run in, that would merit an apology.

But apparently not in yours.

Are you in the habit of disbelieving anyone who makes an honest, though big mistake, and then admits it?

No, I am not.

You are opening yourself to a life of much paranoid disbelief, sir.

I’m 52 years old and very perceptive when it comes to people and what makes them tick. At twenty-two I was paranoid. Twenty-five years later I was a barracuda. Now I am a sick fat cat stuck in my bed, but don’t let that fool you. I do not suffer fools gladly, and it takes more than you have in your arsenal to phase me.

And as Ray has already told you, I am a woman. I’ll let that one go as an honest mistake.

If you were to be mistaken, would you disbelieve everything else you wrote or said?

Of course not.

It should apply to all you deal with, including yourself.

That depends on the person.

I do make mistakes, but own up to them as best I can when I discover those mistakes.

Not always.

In such, I am no better than anyone else here. The difference is in which individuals are willing and able to make things right. I could have just ignored Brent's messages, or left the boards for a while and let things die down. But I didn't. When I read Brent's messages, I went and checked my statements, and in the ones I found wrong I apologized.

When you read my messages indicating you were wrong about Metcalfe’s role in the Hofmann murders, which you claim you “studied,” and “researched,” why didn’t you apologize to me as well? After all, Metcalfe only confirmed what I had been telling you all along.

Have you done that, made a mistake and apologized, without gloating or making yourself out to be superior? I wonder.

You wonder?

I wonder if you ever STOP AND THINK before you post?

You claim to be, at the very least, conversant as a researcher. Yet numerous times you have made claims about me, only to have failed to do any research whatsoever to verify your claims.

For example, when you had made your libelous claims about Metcalfe, I had told you you were wrong. In response, you insisted, as per your “studies,” that I was wrong; however, it turns out you were the one who was wrong.

So why, as a “researcher,” didn’t it occur to you to make sure you were right? It’s not like I wrote one paragraph that was easily dismissed; rather, I wrote fairly lengthy posts, and very insistent ones at that. Any true researcher knows how important it is to verify, verify, verify.

Another example: When I told you my career was in publishing, you started bloviating about the English language, etc., as if you thought you could trip me up. In reality, these were all things I had learned in Comm 101. Feeling successful before you even saw my reply, you proudly commented: “So, I guess your publishing days were a little less valuable to you than you thought!”

And what did you use as proof of my inferior publishing skills? A BLOG! A BLOG written by a blogger. A BLOG written by a blogger giving her opinion! A BLOG written by a blogger giving her opinion that you just cut and pasted into your post!

I am still speechless at your outright stupidity thinking I would accept a BLOG as a reference. I can’t help but laugh every time I realize you really thought you were going pull this one over on ME!

And finally we come to the snide question above where you asked if I have ever “made a mistake and apologized, without gloating or making yourself out to be superior?”

I really must ask once again, do you ever STOP AND THINK before you post?

From this BoA thread:

Post #43, Snow wrote: Oh no? The dupe Metcalfe, employee of the murderer Hoffman didn't appear on KUED on November 19, 1985 claiming that he had important new evidence that helped verify the Salamander letter - a supposed inscription in an 1830 Book of Common Prayer that Metcalfe claimed had been authenticated by Dean Jessie?

I responded: Thank you for correcting my mistake. I thought I had checked my sources thoroughly; obviously I was wrong. Seriously, thank you.

http://www.lds.net/forums/168085-post43.html

Post #51, I wrote: By the way, my thanks to you for setting me straight about Metcalfe going on tele about the OC history was sincere. Since you didn't acknowledge it, I thought perhaps you didn't see it.

http://www.lds.net/forums/168161-post51.html

Post #114, I wrote: In my last post to you [snow] I replied "Nonsense." [about your's and Snow's claim I was name dropping.] However, I have given this more thought, and concede you and Rameumpton are right. I was name dropping. I apologize to the both of you. Elphaba

http://www.lds.net/forums/172243-post114.html

There you have it Ram. No gloating, or making myself superior. I really am a very gracious person, who is extremely devoted to accuracy. If I am wrong about something, I am more than willing to admit my error and apologize.

And see what a little research on your part would have done? I wouldn't have shown you up about Metcalfe, the English language, or sincere apologies. It would have only taken a little less ego and little more time, and your reputation would have remained golden.

And to be honest, I am not buying the “researcher” label. You have displayed your lack of researching skills too many times on this thread to be taken seriously. In fact, if you did any real research, I am Madonna. And I’m not a wirgin, so I can’t be Madonna.

What I see Ram, is an opportunist who apologizes when he is wrong to the big shot who could hurt your name out there in the LDS studies world, but not in the world of peons at LDS.net where you like to look like the "expert" to those who don't know any better.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Elphaba may be female, but seems to have more testosterone than many on this list, including possibly me. So, "sir" may be an appropriate title in this case.

You're just being mean because you got beat up by a girl!

Elphaba

[Maureen]

Rameumpton,

...I wouldn't believe anything you said if your tongue came notarized.

Elphaba

I'm going to have to agree with Elphaba and from now on take what Rameumpton says with a very large grain of salt. I've found Rameumpton's "unauthorized spokesperson" writing style very annoying. He likes to give the impression he knows what he's talking about but from this interesting display of accusatory gossip regarding Mr. Metcalfe; it appears Rameumpton is showing some serious misjudgement.

M.

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi rameumptom,

Sorry for the delayed response—professional workload and domestic commitments take priority over Internet playtime.

I sincerely appreciate your apologies, though I do have a few clarifications that I hope to share in the next day or so.

For instance, you and I have very different perspectives on the demise of morm-ant and the banter on Samu-L. Fortunately, I don't have to rely on my memory—I printed out the entire morm-ant archive (some five reams of paper, if memory serves) before it got sucked into the .tar binary black hole of BYU IT, and I saved many of my posts from Samu-L. Candidly, the documentary evidence doesn't support your recollections.

More to come ...

Cheers,

</brent>

[rameumptom]

Brent, Fair enough we'll have disagreements on the demise of Morm-Ant. You'll note that I didn't just lay the blame on you. I do note that Louis Midgely was very outspoken and sought to pick a fight with you, and just wouldn't let it stop. While I don't have the archives for the list, I do know that ad hominem attacks were flying in both directions, so you weren't the only one involved. It wasn't Midgley's best, and I've since considered him emotionally charged (as some consider me, too, I suppose).

[Elphaba]

Brent, Fair enough we'll have disagreements on the demise of Morm-Ant. You'll note that I didn't just lay the blame on you. I do note that Louis Midgely was very outspoken and sought to pick a fight with you, and just wouldn't let it stop. While I don't have the archives for the list, I do know that ad hominem attacks were flying in both directions, so you weren't the only one involved. It wasn't Midgley's best, and I've since considered him emotionally charged (as some consider me, too, I suppose).

First Snow and now you. Are you guys doing this just to make me a crazy woman?

I have insisted more than once that you and Snow are wrong about Metcalfe. In fact, I told you Metcalfe could not be responsible for your endless litany of problems with your e-mail lists. It was an e-mail list for crying out loud. All you had to do was ignore him!

Your reply: Posts dripping with condescension, but no response to my actual point.

Yet when Metcalfe came into the conversation, saying the EXACT SAME THING I had been saying all along, both you and Snow miraculously transformed into polite and civil, albeit fawning, human beings. In fact, your accusations, arrogance and hyperbole suddenly dissipated by internet osmosis.

So what am I? Chopped liver?

Again, you owe me an apology.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

I guess we can now beat on the Ey-L forum [Humor].

[Snow]

I'm not your Elphaba.

Those are a lot of long words, Snow, and I am not but a humble poster. However, since everyone knows Mormons have horns, it is fairly obvious yours have a serious flaw, causing their normal effects to become more pronounced and uncontrollable. Very sad, but it does explain much.

I must say, in spite of your horny problem, I was absolutely dumbfounded when you engaged Metcalfe in a conversation. Suddenly you turned into a real human being, and a civil one at that. You even subdued the bluster you are so well-known for.

And even when you disagreed with his interaction with the ex-Mormon Foundation, you asked about it in an assertive manner, and with no disrespect.

Left behind was the snide Snow I‘ve come to love and loathe, only to be replaced by a well-mannered, curious and respectful conversationalist. It's a miracle!

In fact, you were fawning over Metcalfe so much I half expected you to ask him out for dinner and dancing!

Why? What did you do to them?

If you take out the “little,“ then absolutely not! It's one of my favorite novels.

You would enjoy it, that is if you could read the proceleusmatic book without your dolichocephal head getting in the way.

Elphaba

I think that you find, with few exceptions, I am polite and cordial to most posters.

I am abrasive only with those that are:

-ill-intentioned towards The Church of Jesus Christ

-illogical

-superficial

-sure they are correct when they are actually and factual wrong

-dishonest

-overly dramatic

-hyper-sensitive

-blaming others for their troubles

Unfortunately 41.7% of all posts fall into one of those categories. 55.3% of YOUR posts fall into one of those categories - hence our regular acrimony. Fortunately 20% of your posts are neutral, 14% are lucid and intriguing, 4 % brilliant, while the balance are at the accountants awaiting analysis.

[Snow]

First Snow and now you. Are you guys doing this just to make me a crazy woman?

I have insisted more than once that you and Snow are wrong about Metcalfe. I

Wrong?

About what - that he isn't a dissident? That he lacks academic credentials? That you don't like my use of the word "complicit?

I don't think I've been factually wrong about anything (re. Metcalfe).

[Elphaba]

I think that you find, with few exceptions, I am polite and cordial to most posters.

No, that is not what I find. Once in a while you do clean up nicely though.

I am abrasive only with those that are:

-ill-intentioned towards The Church of Jesus Christ

-illogical

-superficial

-sure they are correct when they are actually and factual wrong

-dishonest

-overly dramatic

-hyper-sensitive

-blaming others for their troubles

Then why do you keep bugging me?

Unfortunately 41.7% of all posts fall into one of those categories. 55.3% of YOUR posts fall into one of those categories - hence our regular acrimony. Fortunately 20% of your posts are neutral, 14% are lucid and intriguing, 4 % brilliant, while the balance are at the accountants awaiting analysis.

I’m impressed Snow. You have found the very last office of the disgraced accouting firm, Arthur Andersen, standing since the Enron Scandal. How can I tell? Why, by the “creative accounting” of course.

Only AA knew how to take numbers to a new level, twisting and torturing them into imaginary categories. And since there are only 200 employees left to the disgraced company, its accountants come cheap.

The problem is, cheap does not equal accurate. For example, I think everyone would agree with me that “brilliant” is obviously much higher than four percent! I am much too humble to suggest what it should be, but certainly it should be transposed with one of the higher numbers, don’t you think?

What is with you guys? First Ram uses a blog as his “proof.” Now you are using automatous accountants.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I don't think I've been factually wrong about anything (re. Metcalfe).

Yes, you have.

No one disputes that Metcalfe was just a dupe of someone more clever than him with a similar anti-Mormon agenda.

Metcalfe addressed this on the board in his recent visit. He is not an anti-Mormon. You are factually wrong.

He didn't KNOW - as far as we can prove - that he knew that activities he engaged in were associated with illegality - but he WAS involved.

Your sentence literally states: He didn't know that he knew that activities he engaged in were associated with illegality-but he was involved.

I suspect that is not what you meant, and have no problem revising it; however, if it is what you meant, then I think it is obvious it is factually wrong.

I suspect you meant: Metcalfe didn't KNOW--as far as we can prove--that activies he engaged in were associated with illegality--but he WAS involved"

If this is correct, my response is the "as far as we can prove" is not factual. From his visit we now know he was a minor figure in the murder case, and nothing can be proved otherwise. Therefore your comment is factually wrong.

That you don't like my use of the word "complicit?

This is a comment from you in a previous post that I had not noticed until tonight: http://www.lds.net/forums/168378-post55.html

... if course, if you can find substantive proof that complicity requires knowledge of wrongdoing and that any such definition that don't so specify are in error, then that would help make your point.... but we both know you can't do that.... nature of semantics and all.

In the link provided above, I had already provided you proof, via the law.

Criminal Trials Court Bench Book Complicity

The principles of complicity makes a person liable for an offence which he or she has intentionally assisted another to commit. Assessorial liability arises in several ways. A person who provides assistance before or during the commission of the offence may be liable for the offence itself. A person who participates pursuant to an understanding or agreement may be liable for the offence under the principles of joint criminal enterprise or common purpose. Assistance provided after the commission may make a person liable for the offence of accessory after the fact, or a related offence such as conceal serious offence (s.316 Crimes Act (NSW)), or hinder investigation of an offence (s.315 (1) Crimes Act (NSW

Snow: He (Metcalfe) may not have been knowingly involved, but he was complicit - was involved... at least in a world where black is black and truth is truth.

Your are factually incorrect as Metcalfe was not complicit in Hofmann's horrific murders.

Short and sweet tonight.

Elphaba

Edited to add the following pp: I suspect you meant: Metcalfe didn't KNOW--as far as we can prove--that activies he engaged in were associated with illegality--but he WAS involved" 4:33 mt

[WillowTheWhisp]

This thread has gone so far down a side road I'm really surprised that it hasn't been closed before now.

[rameumptom]

Elphaba, if it will make you feel better and quit crying on the list, I'll apologize to you. When it came to Brent and his time with Hoffman, I was in error. You were correct.

In a world where everyone shouts online, it is easier to ignore such stuff (unless it is me saying something you disagree with, I guess). However, 20 years ago, such list meltdowns were not as common. Several tried to get the fighting on Morm-Ant to stop, particularly between Louis Midgely and Brent Metcalfe, and neither side would stop. Bill Hamblin was so disgusted, it has taken years to get him to come back on the public discussion lists again. If you want "proof" ask Bill, he's on occasionally at the Mormon apologetics list (formerly FAIR boards). We couldn't even get him to join the SAMU-L list.

Now, you criticized me using a blog to show that "snitty" has been used in newspapers - something you claimed was important for a word to become official. The blog showed its use over 200 times, including the NY Times on several occasions. Just because something is in a blog, does not make it useless. A blog brought Dan Rather to ruin. Blogs are used by professionals all the time to promote and to discuss ideas.

But to show you that a blog can be useful, I've searched the NY Times online for the word "snitty" and the search found 7 "snitty" going from 1984 to 2005, including some theater reviews. The New York Times: Search for 'snitty'

So, while it may not be in your lexicon, others do see it as a word. Perhaps you owe me an apology, as well?

[Guest Brent_Metcalfe]

Hi rameumptom,

You really should have quit while you ... um ... weren't as-far-behind-as-you're-going-to-be-after-my-next-post-detailing-your-penchant-for-posting-errors-as-facts. *whew!*

Unbelievable! (And this is your idea of discussing BoAbr scholarship? *good grief!*)

Much more to come ...

Cheers,

</brent>

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, if it will make you feel better and quit crying on the list, I'll apologize to you. When it came to Brent and his time with Hoffman, I was in error. You were correct

I do not accept your apology as written.

(e-mail list complaints)

As they do not relate to the discussion at hand, I am not going to read any more of your e-mail list complaints.

Now, you criticized me using a blog to show that "snitty" has been used in newspapers - something you claimed was important for a word to become official.

I never said a word had to be used in newspapers for a word to become official. Are you starting to understand that you need to STOP, THINK, and VERIFY before you blithely type words about me into a post?

The blog showed its use over 200 times, including the NY Times on several occasions. Just because something is in a blog, does not make it useless. A blog brought Dan Rather to ruin. Blogs are used by professionals all the time to promote and to discuss ideas.

What does any of that have to do with “snitty”? Absolutely nothing.

Dictionaries do not use blogs to determine whether or not to change a slang word into an official word. Period. I agree that policy may change in the future with professional blogs, though I see so many problems with this I really can‘t imagine it. Amateur blogs, such as the one you adore, will never be accepted as a reference by a dictionary, an editor, a writer, or anyone else in the business. It will only impress other amateurs, like you.

But to show you that a blog can be useful, I've searched the NY Times online for the word "snitty" and the search found 7 "snitty" going from 1984 to 2005, including some theater reviews.

The New York Times: Search for 'snitty'

It is a bit disingenuous to say you did a search without mentioning the author of your amateur blog, Erin, had actually performed the search first. In her blog she mentioned the seven hits, going from 1984 to 2005. Your search only copied hers, so it is not as if you started from scratch.

However, I think your point is her blog led you to that search. My response is: So what? Seven hits in the Times! “Snitty” is now a word!

Not.

Until “snitty” is in the reputable dictionaries, it is not a word. I don’t know how to say it any plainer or simpler.

It does sound like it will be considered again soon by Merriam-Webster, and if it is accepted, then it will officially become a word. But until that happens, it is NOT a word. And no seasoned editor would use it in a serious publication.

So, while it may not be in your lexicon, others do see it as a word. Perhaps you owe me an apology, as well?

No, I do not owe you an apology. It does not matter whether others see it as a word or not. It is the editors of the dictionaries who choose whether to add “snitty” to the dictionaries, not these “others.”

I have explained this so many times I cannot tell if you are purposely being obtuse, or are just not able to comprehend the point.

Unless it is in a reputable dictionary, “snitty” is not a word. I don’t care how many times others use it, “snitty” is not a word. “Snitty” is not a word. “Snitty” is not a word. “Snitty” is not a word. “Snitty” is not a word. “Snitty” is not a word. (One of the goals I had in curriculum development was to repeat competencies at least seven times as comprehension studies show it takes seven repetitions for students to remember it.)

Change of subject:

Why haven’t you remarked on my responses to your sarcastic accusations about my inability to apologize? Did you think I wasn’t going to notice you didn’t bother to acknowledge that I did, indeed, apologize graciously?

I’ve noticed you do this before. Such as the time you told me, in so many words, my publishing skills weren’t worth much. I demonstrated you were wrong, and instead of doing what a person with integrity would do, which is to acknowledge it and apologize, you simply ignored it. I honestly could not do that.

The more you write, the more embarrassed I am for you.

Elphaba

[Canuck Mormon]

Elphaba and rameumptom. You need to stop this bickering. If it does not stop both of your warning levels will be raised. Neither one of you are forwarding the conversation. I am going to close the thread. If you want to continue this discussion in a civilized manner, open a new thread. But keep in mind, it will be watched carefully.

I will also send both of you this in a PM.

Canuck Mormon.

[Snow]

In some of these little tit4tat debates you know that some people lack the ability to apply a little logic, a little reason. It almost makes it more annoying than enjoyable because you know that the person simply won't/can't get that they are wrong, even when it is self-evident.

Personally I don't think that is the case with you. You should understand a bit about the rules and application of logic and reason - what's a truth, a fact or simply an opinion.

Yes, you have.

Metcalfe addressed this on the board in his recent visit. He is not an anti-Mormon. You are factually wrong.

I think I also used the term dissident. Regardless, some think that he is. Him, or an unverified person on the internet using his name, coming on a message board and saying "I'm not anti-Mormon (whatever that may entail)" hardly entails catching me in a factual error, or proving that BM is not an anti-Mormon. It is, using the words of "Brent Metcalfe" nothing but "sloppy argumentation" at best and a non-sequitur at that.

Your sentence literally states: He didn't know that he knew that activities he engaged in were associated with illegality-but he was involved.

I suspect that is not what you meant, and have no problem revising it; however, if it is what you meant, then I think it is obvious it is factually wrong.

I suspect you meant: Metcalfe didn't KNOW--as far as we can prove--that activies he engaged in were associated with illegality--but he WAS involved"

If this is correct, my response is the "as far as we can prove" is not factual. From his visit we now know he was a minor figure in the murder case, and nothing can be proved otherwise. Therefore your comment is factually wrong.

Gee El - you caught me using the verb 'to know' twice in one sentence when I should have just used it once. Bad grammar or a word error isn't quite the same as catching me in a factual error.

This is a comment from you in a previous post that I had not noticed until tonight: http://www.lds.net/forums/168378-post55.html

In the link provided above, I had already provided you proof, via the law.

Criminal Trials Court Bench Book Complicity

The principles of complicity makes a person liable for an offence which he or she has intentionally assisted another to commit. Assessorial liability arises in several ways. A person who provides assistance before or during the commission of the offence may be liable for the offence itself. A person who participates pursuant to an understanding or agreement may be liable for the offence under the principles of joint criminal enterprise or common purpose. Assistance provided after the commission may make a person liable for the offence of accessory after the fact, or a related offence such as conceal serious offence (s.316 Crimes Act (NSW)), or hinder investigation of an offence (s.315 (1) Crimes Act (NSW

Your are factually incorrect as Metcalfe was not complicit in Hofmann's horrific murders.

It's really hard to believe that you might think that you've made some sort of valid point - especially since I've already addressed it in a previous post.

Are you under the impression that if someone can find a definition of a word that is different than another definition - then the other definition becomes null and void? Really? That's what you are doing. You are claiming that because you found a definition in the Criminal Trials Court Bench Book that includes "intentional assistance" in committing an offense that all other dictionary explanations not containing such a qualification are now in error. That would make every dictionary that list more than one definition of a word incorrect and self-contradictory.

More is expected of you El.