Which you do not watch, so I were just curious as to how much news you watch, sorry if I came over as patronizing but you do strike me as someone who doesn't know much about world affairs because if you did you would know what Russell Brand was all about.
a) I don't need to watch the news to know what Russell Brand "is all about". I saw the story, years ago, where he and Jonatan Ross left a disgusting message on Andrew Sach's answer phone. This was one news story and does not show knowledge of
world affairs. World affairs = wars, flooding, famines, earthquakes, people exploring space, the government taking away pensioners' heating allowance, the next leader of the Tory party, the next US president etc. etc.
b) I've never been a fan of Russell Brand. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be suspicious of articles in which he gives his testimony, tells of how the Bible touched his life and that he was baptised. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until, or unless, I read/see anything which tells me otherwise. You don't seem to be prepared to do that. You ignored his words and said that you would know the truth by his "hand signalling". You claimed he was signalling to the Freemasons that his words were lies and he was still "with them", but gave no evidence for that either. Then you said that you thought he was a plant - that he, and his group, were trying to bring Christianity down. Despite your initial reaction that his conversion to Christianity would be amazing, you are not only doubting it but making it part of another conspiracy theory.
c) I disputed your claim that Russell Brand was a plant - I said it was nonsense and you replied "not at all." So where's your evidence for that?
If it's not nonsense "at all", where's the proof?
