--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > On May 26, 2011, at 7:32 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > As I understand it Richard Nelson's sources were first hand sources who acutally were in a position to know some of the details which were alleged to have taken place. > > Is that anything like Christian groups who > go to Israel and speak with people there > who assure them that Mary was a virgin? I don't think so. > Richard says he spoke directly with the lawyer who handled SBS's will, > > And SBS died over 50 years ago, right? > And the "lawyer who handled" his will is > still alive and kicking, eh? And still remembers > various details? Right. Perhaps he will provide some clarification. I think that would be in order. > and traveled to some of various places at issue and spoke with people who were contempories of SBS, and M. > > And of course all these contemporaries are > still alive as well. See above > Vaj's sources seem 2 or 3 steps removed from the events they are commenting on, and are never identified in any detail. Usually they are "a student of so and so" > > That's called opinion~~why is that so > threatening?
Sal, It seems to me that our whole legal system is based on trying to arrive at the truth. So, whether it is a legal issue or a philosophical issue, I feel like I would like to arrive at what might be called the "truth". If someone is making accusations of murder, of thievery, or impropieties, then those are, in my mind serious accusations, and should be substantiated. And if someone else is able to demonstrate that this accusations may have serious flaws, then that also is of interest to me. Perhaps to you, they are not important. But as always, have something come up in which you have a stake, then suddenly you are likely to become a strong advocate for wanting to arrive at the "truth"
