Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[Skip Sampson]

I asked for a comparison of what you found in the booklets you allegedly received,

Allegedly? You asked for proof, I provided it, and you still can't admit error.

Sure, you made a SLIGHT passing reference to it, that it refers to Great Lights "one way or another."

Oh, I think not. Here is the comment:

FL GL documentation does contain inconsistencies. Specifically, the Monitor, ritual and Study Guide Mod II all point to the Bible as one of the Great Lights, one way or another, as does the EA Degree Booklet. The Masonic Etiquette booklet refers indirectly to the Bible as a Great Light. I put those views down as another facet of ‘Masonic scholarship.’ Either that or those references haven’t yet caught up in the New Thinking. My guess is that the ritual and Monitor will not be changed, as these have pedigrees that go far beyond the FL GL.

I think that's a bit more than a 'slight' reference. Directly quoting the occurances was unnecessary.

The Digest entry you quoted from 2005, which still had "Holy Bible."

Again, what quote? Are you afraid to post it?

The Digest speaks in general terms when speaking of all Masonry, and thus uses the generic "VSL," and uses the more specific "Holy Bible" when speaking of Florida's VSL.

That's not true.

The problem is obviously some glitch in either your computer or your server, because I've had no problem going right back there each time.

Could well have been. I can now access it via the website.

One can't help but wonder whether you went to that page, saw the single underlined word "Digest" at the top of the page, and instead of clicking on it, automatically said "Hmmmm......I guess it's not available."

And 'one' would be wrong. Again.

Again, you are trying to assert things which were already covered and debunked.

No, I'm showing things that you don't agree with. That you have 'debunked' something is mostly in your mind.

The ritual and monitor necessarily pertain more to Florida Masonry, and quite naturally would retain the specifics.

Also untrue. It contains what it has always contained. The training manuals reinterpret the rituals so the FL Mason can learn what was actually meant.

As to the rest, I'll stand on my comments as posted. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Great! Perhaps you can help me with something. How do you interpret the lines spoken by the W.M., p. 21, 10th line down from the top, through the thirteenth?

I interpret it as the stilted language used to close the lodge. And you? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I interpret it as the stilted language used to close the lodge. And you? Cordially, Skip.

I interpret it as, apparently you DON'T have what you claimed; either that or you didn't understand what was meant by it when I said I have the ritual; or another possibility is, you just can't read cipher anyway.

 

[Skip Sampson]

I interpret it as, apparently you DON'T have what you claimed; either that or you didn't understand what was meant by it when I said I have the ritual; or another possibility is, you just can't read cipher anyway.

Or maybe your page numbers are different... duh!

What's the date of yours? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Or maybe your page numbers are different...

With good reason. Since you obviously do NOT have the current ritual, it's bound to be different. And since that page is FAR from being the closing, it's pretty evident you don't have it, and were tossing out a SWAG.

What's the date of yours?

Sorry, I've quit playing the date game with you. All your conjectures about dates haven't really shown anything. In fact, even in your claims about getting the "new" booklets, you posted a list of them, some of them with the same dates as things we had already cited; you posted citations that were no different than ones we had already covered; and even the ones that had new dates, were listed as "reprints," so they were not really "new editions" after all. You incorrectly claimed that the Digest was not available on the Florida GL site; you even tried to imply that we could expect "changes" when it did "return," despite its never having left--a claim which was odd anyway, given the fact that the earlier Digest discussion had already covered Digest quotes that were updated through 2010.

One thing's for sure, it's pretty obvious that your feeble effort to act like you were forthcoming in response to challenges that you really did not get the booklets, was a fiasco. Because even if you did, you wasted your money, if what you posted is any indication. You even looked like you were posting quotes and then trying to show the "changes" by comparing them to 1994 materials that had already been covered in the earlier discussion.

With the above being the case, it was simple to look at your return comment about the ritual, and figure you were no more on the level than before. So the question was simply to see whether you'd even be in the ballpark if you DID choose to respond. You weren't. You see, the monitors and rituals, when they do change at all, change very little; it's the same with page numbers.

As I stated, I have the one in current use. And your guess is way o.f.f., which seems to indicate you were barking at the moon--again.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Since you obviously do NOT have the current ritual,

Try it from this end: since you claim to have the current ritual, what is the publication date of that ritual?

In fact, even in your claims about getting the "new" booklets, you posted a list of them, some of them with the same dates as things we had already cited;

You should have re-read the post to which you refer. It listed the FL GL training documentation and their current dates. You will note that I listed the operative date first, then noted the reprint date where appropriate. Can't be anymore clear than that. I also noted which ones I had in my possession. As to some have same dates as cited, why would you be surprised by that? Not all of the booklets had been updated.

you posted citations that were no different than ones we had already covered;

Gee, how about that? I posted citations that were correct, properly sourced and consistent with earlier posts. I can understand why you'd complain about that.

You incorrectly claimed that the Digest was not available on the Florida GL site; you even tried to imply that we could expect "changes" when it did "return," despite its never having left--a claim which was odd anyway, given the fact that the earlier Digest discussion had already covered Digest quotes that were updated through 2010.

Had you really looked at the FL GL website you would not have made this claim. Before the Digest was offline, it was structured differently. When you access the Digest now, you get the entire document. Before, you accessed an index from which you could go to a particular chapter or article. Thus, not only was it offline, but it was also changed, just as I predicted.

You need not believe me. Since you were pondering notifying the GL that I had received training booklets, why not ask them if the Digest was offline? Seems a pretty sure-fire way to find out, assuming you really want to know the truth.

it's pretty obvious that your feeble effort to act like you were forthcoming in response to challenges that you really did not get the booklets, was a fiasco.

Untrue. You asked for specific proof and I provided it. That you believe or not believe is more a function of your personality than of the facts.

Because even if you did, you wasted your money, if what you posted is any indication.

If you mean that it's a waste of money to ensure Masonic documentation is properly cited and sourced, I'd have to disagree. This points to a gulf between us: you want to post sources from Freemasonry as it was a century ago or more; I'm interested in what they say now.

You even looked like you were posting quotes and then trying to show the "changes" by comparing them to 1994 materials that had already been covered in the earlier discussion.

Meaning what? The comparison showed that the next edition of the document has replaced the Bible with the VSL. It is what it is, and no great analysis was required to determine the reason for that. FL GL's inconsistent treatment of the Great Lights is now well documented.

You see, the monitors and rituals, when they do change at all, change very little; it's the same with page numbers.

That's probably true, more or less. Since you like graphic proof, go ahead and post pg. 21 from your ritual. In return, I'll post mine. Let's see if you are willing to rise to the same standards you insist upon from me. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You should have re-read the post to which you refer. It listed the FL GL training documentation and their current dates. You will note that I listed the operative date first, then noted the reprint date where appropriate. Can't be anymore clear than that.

Or any more irrelevant, either, with nothing changed from the earlier discussion. But actually, there is ONE way you could be more clear, you just declined to use it, even when requested.

I posted citations that were correct...

...a point no one ever challenged

properly sourced. . .

only if you actually have them, which still is not an incontroverible point.

and consistent with earlier posts.

...contrary to what you were implying would be found there.

I can understand why you'd complain about that.

No "complaint" at all. Just noting that your much-ballyhooed receipt of the materials made absolutely no difference. It was YOU, after all, who kept implying that the material was going to reflect a change. You didn't post one thing that had changed from the earlier discussion. The funny thing was, even though it made no difference, you posted from it as if you thought it did.

Before the Digest was offline

That's just it, it wasn't. I visited it the first time you claimed this, as well as the second.

it was structured differently. When you access the Digest now, you get the entire document. Before, you accessed an index from which you could go to a particular chapter or article. Thus, not only was it offline, but it was also changed, just as I predicted.

You must have been going to a different source for that one, because the Digest appears no different now than it has all along. I downloaded it as a single document, in pdf format.

Since you were pondering notifying the GL that I had received training booklets, why not ask them if the Digest was offline? Seems a pretty sure-fire way to find out, assuming you really want to know the truth.

Really, since YOU are making the claim, if you're really that interested in trying to make the point stick, contact them and ask them for a statement on the matter. Trying to shift the burden of proof won't get you wherever it is you're trying to go with this.

You said it was offline, I went there, it wasn't. I then told you it wasn't. You came right back with another claim that it was. I went there again, it STILL wasn't offline. Why do I need to ask someone about something I can see for my own eyes?

You asked for specific proof and I provided it.

When you rirst stated that you had the booklets, my first request was, for you to post the statements it makes in the glossary section on "Three Great Lights" and "Great Light of Masonry," information which I had posted earlier, and you have yet to post those statements. You studiously avoided replying, and even when you DID get around to making any comment, it was a grudging admission that it said the same thing "one way or another."

If you mean that it's a waste of money to ensure Masonic documentation is properly cited and sourced, I'd have to disagree.

Pure thumb-twiddling reply. It has become evident that no substantive changes have been made--which means, the information I already had reflects the same thing that you now have.

This points to a gulf between us: you want to post sources from Freemasonry as it was a century ago or more; I'm interested in what they say now.

Wow, it's hard to believe this is coming from the guy who posted from Mackey to try to make a case for non-cubical cubes--only to discover that even Mackey didn't back him up.

Then let's talk rituals and monitors, the sources you have always consistently called "authoritative." With them, a century ago is as good as "what they say now." It's remarkable how little they change over time.

The comparison showed that the next edition of the document has replaced the Bible with the VSL.

Problem is, we already knew that, but you were pretending it was "new" information.

Since you like graphic proof, go ahead and post pg. 21 from your ritual

That would be "graphic," all right: graphically different from what you claimed was on it--which most likely occurred because your claim was false to begin with. Pretty disingenuous of you to try to make this suggestion, since I had already requested that you post a scanned copy of the booklet(s) you allegedly obtained, which ought to be a fairly simple task for anyone these days. That would have been "graphic proof" had you done so and included a date on the scanned page. As it is, the way you responded, one could surmise that you were shoveling smoke, and that you could just as easily have obtained information about which documents were reprinted, and simply posted that information. There wasn't one thing about what you supposedly posted from them that really constituted actual "proof" that you have them.

When I was recently challenged on a point I'd presented, that it probably didn't appear in the source from which I'd quoted it, I quickly scanned and posted it so that there could be no doubt for any and all readers to see it.

Since you like graphic proof, go ahead and post pg. 21 from your ritual. In return, I'll post mine. Let's see if you are willing to rise to the same standards you insist upon from me.

Pretty convenient challenge for YOU to make, since you know as well as I do that I can't do that. You may try to do this window-dressing move if you have unsuspecting readers here, I suppose. But just in case they didn't know already, I will inform them, and remind the others, that your insistence on "the same standards" is impossible, since as a non-Mason, the standards for posting such materials are DISTINCTLY different for you than for me. The scanned page I posted before was monitorial, thus considered "lawful information," i.e., material that may be freely shared; the ritual is not.

 

[Skip Sampson]

You didn't post one thing that had changed from the earlier discussion.

Didn't have to change; the posted cites proved the validity of my views.

That's just it, it wasn't. I visited it the first time you claimed this, as well as the second.

I doubt that. I checked it several times and it was offline each time. I think you were checking into a copy that a subordinate lodge used, and not the GL website. It has indeed changed from what it was a month ago. Conclusion therefore is that you were going to the wrong place.

Trying to shift the burden of proof won't get you wherever it is you're trying to go with this.

You are the one making the charge. You prefer making it based on your own opinion when proof, one way or another, is immediately available to you. Seems you'd rather stick with the unproven than to find out for sure.

When you rirst stated that you had the booklets, my first request was, for you to post the statements it makes in the glossary section on "Three Great Lights" and "Great Light of Masonry," information which I had posted earlier, and you have yet to post those statements.

In what post did that request occur? I noted that they had arrived in my post #219. You asked that I scan a page from one of those documents in your post #232 and #324, which I did.

You studiously avoided replying, and even when you DID get around to making any comment, it was a grudging admission that it said the same thing "one way or another."

If you are referring to your post #257, that was in a different context. Perhaps that was what you are referring to above.

It has become evident that no substantive changes have been made

Except to the website and those cites I posted earlier.

Wow, it's hard to believe this is coming from the guy who posted from Mackey to try to make a case for non-cubical cubes--only to discover that even Mackey didn't back him up.

Not quite so cut and dried as you'd like it to be. Post the specific comment and I'll show you, again, where you have it wrong.

Then let's talk rituals and monitors, the sources you have always consistently called "authoritative." With them, a century ago is as good as "what they say now." It's remarkable how little they change over time.

But your history of cites is not from the monitor or the ritual. You might also refer back to my original statements on the topic and you'll find that I established a prioritized order of dealing with Masonic documents. It was not limited to just rituals and monitors.

Problem is, we already knew that, but you were pretending it was "new" information.

Untrue. I noted the change and provided conclusions as to its meaning.

I had already requested that you post a scanned copy of the booklet(s) you allegedly obtained, which ought to be a fairly simple task for anyone these days. That would have been "graphic proof" had you done so and included a date on the scanned page.

Sounds like you missed my post #238 with the scanned cover including the date. One would assume the cover of the document, with date, would be sufficient proof of ownership. The previous version was revised and reprinted in 1994.

Pretty convenient challenge for YOU to make, since you know as well as I do that I can't do that.

Don't see why you can't. It's not SC ritual. After all, you posted several quotes from the EA ritual in Nevada, Wisconsin and North Dakota in your post #201. But, I'll let it pass by assuming that we have different dates on our ritual books. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Your post #247 is a great example of what happens when you either don't read the post your are responding to or you intentionally mislead in the response itself.

There are three key points that refute your nonsense: #1 That's Florida Lodge, not Florida Grand Lodge. If I had intended "Grand Lodge," I would have SAID "Grand Lodge."

Should you ever read my post, you'll find this comment of mine referring to your post #228:

Your statements, "all along," did not indicate that you were working with a subordinate lodge; rather, they pointed to the GL itself. The first post of yours on this thread that contains that nugget of information is this one you directed to Mike::

The nugget of information was the fact that you were only talking to a subordinate lodge, meaning your earlier comments claiming to be talking to FL GL points of contact were untrue.

#2 ... Again, just as I did in the piece you cited from that post, I indicated DIRECTLY that I had dealt with a SUBORDINATE lodge.

True, but your 228 was the first time you had so indicated. Your posts #220 and #224 indicate direct contact with the FL GL which were untrue.

#3 ... The boondoggle you have NOW created is, a scenario in which I "call" the Grand Lodge, and get the usual response FROM THE GRAND SECRETARY, and the action that is taken with my request is, that the Grand Secretary must first consult with the Grand Secretary!

Simply untrue. The scenario is just this: you were dishonest in stating that you had been in contact with the GL on this matter. You were working through a subordinate lodge instead.

What does post #181 have to do with any of this????

Post #181 was your implying contact with the GL, as my post clearly stated. It has nothing to do with your paypal order. The issue is just your dishonesty in claiming to be in direct contact with the FL GL.

Simply amazing the lengths you will go to to cover your tracks. Sad, sad, sad. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

 

[Rev Wayne]

Your posts #220 and #224 indicate direct contact with the FL GL which were untrue.

A lie, and you know it.

Post #220: As I already told you, they would not even sell them to me even though I provided Masonic identification as requested, because I do not reside in Florida.

Post #224: But since Florida Grand Lodge made it clear to me they would not permit the sale of Masonic materials to anyone other than Florida Masons, I find your story extremely doubtful.

The decision that said I could not buy the materials was made by the Grand Lodge, and that's where it came from:

<REMOVED DUE TO CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST>

You seem to have trouble separating between the order itself and the decision that I could not purchase them. In placing the order, as I stated already, I dealt only with the subordinate lodge. But when I stated that "they" would not sell them to me, that was a statement in reference to the decision FROM THE FLORIDA GL. After the decision was rendered, I STILL dealt with the subordinate lodge:

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM, GEORGE SCHUMACHER wrote:

As soon as, I can figure out how to refund you through PayPal, I will do so, or accept a contribution - whatever you chose.

Thanks,
Bro. George Schumacher
Website Store Manager

When you're through spinning yourself dizzy, maybe you'll figure out your error.

Post #181 was your implying contact with the GL, as my post clearly stated. It has nothing to do with your paypal order. The issue is just your dishonesty in claiming to be in direct contact with the FL GL.

That's just it: I already pointed out to you, and you are still blind to it apparently, that I implied NOTHING about "being in direct contact with the FL GL" in that post. Why? Because the date of the post CLEARLY shows that I had not even placed the order at that point. So now, you have added to your earlier bizarre comments about the Grand Secretary having to contact himself for a ruling, the equally bizarre claim that I was "implying direct contact with the Florida Grand Lodge" about materials I had not even seen yet at that time, much less ordered.

The reference I made in that post was to experiences in similar incidents IN THE PAST--none of which had anything to do with FLorida, or with the materials in question. Nor was it "implying" anything at all, since I clearly stated what my experiences had been in the past with other Grand Lodges.

Simply amazing how confused you truly are.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Had you really looked at the FL GL website you would not have made this claim. Before the Digest was offline, it was structured differently. When you access the Digest now, you get the entire document. Before, you accessed an index from which you could go to a particular chapter or article. Thus, not only was it offline, but it was also changed, just as I predicted.

Yeah, I saw that same page before. Problem is, it's not new, and it's not the one we're talking about. And fact is, it's still available online as well. And fact is, as I already stated earlier, BOTH of these have been available for some time now. I know because the link you claimed to be "new" is where I got my copy of the Digest from, before we ever started any conversation about it, some time ago. Here's the link to the indexed version you referred to, and as anyone can see, it's STILL in that same index format as before. And the full pdf version that you first claimed couldn't be accessed; which you also claimed would be "changed" when it "returned," has been there all along, ever since the whole discussion started, and still is.

http://www.glflamason.org/documents/2010%20masonic%20digest/forms.htm

And here's the link to the other one.

http://www.glflamason.org/documents/Digest%202010.pdf

If you look at the first one, you find on the front page:

REPRINT 2004
(Contains 2010 Updates)

If you look at the other one, you find:

REPRINT &#8212; 2006
(Contains 2005 updates)

Since you don't seem to be able to interpret data very well, it might be helpful for you to note that the link you provided, is to an older version. So not only was your claim that the website was "down" a bogus claim, it's also obvious that (a) the one you said had been "changed" so that it is no longer indexed to several pages, but is available as a single document, has not been changed at all; and (b) the one you provided a link to, was not even the same page as you claimed, since the Digest that appears there (if we take notice of the updates) predates the other one by five years.

 

[Skip Sampson]

A lie, and you know it.

No, it's a fact that you said you were in direct contact with the FL GL and that was not the case. Here are the most germane comments from you, with emphasis added in case you missed it the first time:

As I already told you, they would not even sell them to me even though I provided Masonic identification as requested, because I do not reside in Florida.

But since Florida Grand Lodge made it clear to me they would not permit the sale of Masonic materials to anyone other than Florida Masons, I find your story extremely doubtful.

All I know is, the official policy of the Florida Grand Lodge, as they initially defined it to me, is, they distribute such materials only to Masons.

You can weasel all you wish on this matter, but your words indicate you were in direct contact with the FL GL when, in fact, you weren't. The information may have originated with the GL, but it wasn't to you as you had stated. Your statements make even more comical the fact that they sent them to me with no problem. God works in his own ways.

You email from Richard Lynn is of interest, but is missing the "To" part. Just who was it sent to? Dare I guess? A subordinate lodge?

You seem to have trouble separating between the order itself and the decision that I could not purchase them.

Untrue. At issue is your truthfulness. Maybe the GL decided to read your posts on this forum, an event which would explain why they declined to send the materials along to you. I keep mine right here beside me as a reminder of my good relations with the FL GL. Honestly and truthfulness are their own rewards, a point others should keep in mind.

Simply amazing how confused you truly are.

I can see how one would be confused by your posts, as they are truly odd. But I'm not confused about the key issue, as has been noted. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Problem is, it's not new, and it's not the one we're talking about.

Actually it is the one I'm talking about. In accessing the Digest, I normally went to the FL GL homepage, selected the 'Grand Lodge' button, the 'Digest' button, and found myself with the html version of the Digest. Do the same today and you get the pdf version instead. That part of the website was down for several days, with an 'under construction' notification appearing, and when it came back up, the change was apparent: they replaced the html version with the pdf one.

Wayne, you seem to love to decry ad hominem attacks, then resort to them yourself. You may believe or disbelieve what you wish, but I think you are diving into perceived matters of character because you've lost the argument. In closing, let me quote your own words to you in hopes you'll take them to heart for once.

I understand and appreciate your dilemma, and I even forgive the ad hominem vendetta, but can you for once deal with the facts as presented, in an intellectually honest manner, and try to come to grips with the facts with some coherent explanation for them?

Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You can weasel all you wish on this matter, but your words indicate you were in direct contact with the FL GL when, in fact, you weren't. The information may have originated with the GL, but it wasn't to you as you had stated.

Try again, dear heart:

REMOVED DUE TO CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST

Like I stated, bright eyes, the ruling came from the Grand Lodge, as noted in the email header; but the transaction, from start to finish, was through subordinate lodge Jackson #1.

You email from Richard Lynn is of interest, but is missing the "To" part. Just who was it sent to? Dare I guess? A subordinate lodge?

That one was actually sent to me. It's not that big a deal, really. Your silly speculations about the "to" line are just one more indication how far down the line your once cogent posts have deteriorated since your arrival at christianforums. The line contained my email address, which I am always careful about posting anywhere online. It was simpler to omit it in its entirety than to copy it all and have to manually remove one part.

After that email, I received an email from Jackson Lodge concerning how to resolve the fact that payment had already been authorized. When it became clear I wasn't going to be able to receive the material, and equally clear that the guys at Jackson Lodge apparently had little experience with their chosen means of making transactions, I simply sent them a reply telling them to consider it a donation to their lodge for the time and effort already spent.

I can forward that reply to you as well, since you obviously are trying to substitute belligerence for reason at this point, as if you think making a false claim more forcefully somehow makes it more correct--an error in logic, of course, but you're good at those.

I really can't help it that you don't like being wrong, or that you get caught in your manipulation of details to try to create cannon fodder magically out of thin air. I'm sure that gets frustrating for you when the rabbit doesn't jump out of the hat. But no magician in his right mind then turns and tries to blame his audience.

Honestly and truthfulness are their own rewards, a point others should keep in mind.

"Others?" So it doesn't apply to you, then?

Apparently not. I can forward you the email with the scanned dues card, and show that I concealed nothing, nor was I "untruthful" in anything about the transaction. Maybe I should have resorted to the same subterfuge you engaged in to get yours--which, by the notices I received on the matter, I take as a given, if you actually did receive anything. .

I'm not confused about the key issue

No, you're not confused about the key issue, you're just confused in general overall, because you have confused my comments as "implying" things that were neither stated nor implied, and have spun yourself completely dizzy trying to force everything you can possibly reframe, into something for your cannon. And you STILL end up firing blanks.

Maybe the GL decided to read your posts on this forum

And maybe they saw yours, and felt sorry for you when they saw the Jacob's Staircase, the rectangular cubes, the Grand Secretaries contacting themselves, etc., and decided to send you something to help you get a grip on something that can actually be attributed to Masonry.

That part of the website was down for several days, with an 'under construction' notification appearing,

We already settled that one: (1) you claimed it was "down"--yet I went straight to it with no problem--and no such "notice" appeared; (2) you came back in your next reply claiming it was "still" down--yet I went straight to it once again, and again, with no difficulty at all, and with no such notice on the site. All I can speak for is what actually happened when I went there: BOTH times I pulled it up with no problem, and NEITHER time did I get any such notice. And now we have the ADDITIONAL claim by you, that the html version was "replaced"--which has been shown to be false, since I was able to find and post the link to it, showing it was not "replaced" at all.

Not sure what YOUR problem is with "down" webpages that are up, and "replaced" documents that have not been replaced. Must be a PC issue. I'd suggest your own PC needs to be "down" for a while, and send it for repairs, so you can get to the REAL issue of why it won't pull things up for you.

and when it came back up,

Try again: it never was "down."

the change was apparent: they replaced the html version with the pdf one.

It wasn't "replaced," as already noted, both documents are still there on the website. Here's the link again, you apparently missed the fact that it's still there:

Florida Masonic Digest


And what you are claiming makes no sense. Follow the link as you described it, and you come up with a pdf that states at the outset, that it has the "2005 updates," with a publication date of 2006. The html Digest has "2010 updates."

So why, O wise one, would they "replace" (even though they didn't) the 2010 version with one five years older? And how do you explain the fact that I downloaded the pdf version of the Digest from the Florida site several months ago, when YOU claim it was only put on the site recently? By way of information, I went and right-clicked on the pdf file of the Digest that I stored from there, and clicked "properties," and it shows the document was created on January 16, 2011. So it was on there at LEAST that early.

And actually, I still had the links to both of them in my "Favorites" section on my browser-- they appear there exactly as I just posted them here. They were linked to my favorites for easy access during the time we had the discussion, and were never cleared out--the surest indication to me, that your claims are B-O-G-U-S.

You may believe or disbelieve what you wish

Ah, so THAT'S your approach, you can simply believe or disbelieve anything at will. That sure explains a LOT.

Unlike you, though, I choose to believe the facts. The facts are, both these documents were available before, and both these documents are available now. Anyone can follow both links and find that there has been no "replacement."

Wayne, you seem to love to decry ad hominem attacks, then resort to them yourself.

Your approach, I've noticed, is quite different: You like to engage in them from the outset, and then if anyone notices, employ them further by trying to twist the very mention of it around to try to point it back at them yet again. But it's nothing new, it's pretty much standard antimason procedure to impugn the character of any Mason you can, so believe me, I don't take it personal.

I think you are diving into perceived matters of character because you've lost the argument.

No, I "dive into" such matters because that's where you always take it, right from the beginning, and no matter how much I, or anyone else for that matter, may try to resist it, when you're dealing with someone who persists in it as you do, inevitably you wind up there with them. As for your whining about it, perhaps you just need to be able to receive what you dish out, for once in your life.

I understand and appreciate your dilemma, and I even forgive the ad hominem vendetta, but can you for once deal with the facts as presented, in an intellectually honest manner, and try to come to grips with the facts with some coherent explanation for them?

Maybe you DO have some "coherent explanation" for the facts as presented, but if you do, you sure haven't presented it, at least not up to this point. All you've done is:

--claimed a "down" website which, both times I followed up on your claim, proved to be quite "up";
--claimed an html version of the Digest was "replaced," when in fact I was able to post the link showing it still appears on the FL GL site;
--claimed a pdf version of the digest is "new" to the Florida GL site, when in fact I have (a) the same file, downloaded from the site in January, and (b) the link still in my "favorites" section of my browser;
--and whined about it when someone challenges the so-called "facts" you have presented, when they do not pan out.


P.S. After entering this post, I was reviewing the email commmunication described above, and upon scrolling down to the very bottom, discovered a statement there in a footer, insisting upon the confidentiality and non-dissemination of the contents to anyone other than the intended recipient (which in this case was me). Accordingly, what was posted here, and what was posted from the same communication in the previous post, have been removed.

Also, that means I must withdraw the offer to forward the email to you.

Having said that, let the antimason games begin, as they inevitably will, to the sound of cannons freshly loaded with fodder.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Try again

No, I don't think so. I'll stand on my previous posts.

O wise one,

Thanks for the complement, but I cannot accept it. Compared to you, just about anyone would meet that description. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I'll stand on my previous posts.

Wow, standing on quicksand! After the rabbit out of the hat trick, that should be interesting, no matter how unwise.

Thanks for the complement

Ironic that wisdom would be a "complement" for you. Certainly fits better than the spelling you intended.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Certainly fits better than the spelling you intended.

On the contrary: it certainly fits well. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

On the contrary: it certainly fits well.

Can't say the same for your ill-fitted claims.

I'll stand on my previous posts.

And since you have no reply to the latest refutation of those previous posts, the only place you stand at the moment is corrected.

 

[Rev Wayne]

More Florida material:

We are further reminded that though these frail bodies must die and return to dust, we may indulge the hope that through the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, our disembodied spirits shall be raised and be carried to realms of bliss, there to remain in God's paradise forever. (Florida Monitor, MM degree, p. 92)