Define "identify"

[weeman]

A forum member that shall remain unnamed [rumpelstilzchen] has raised an interesting point for discussion (from a different thread)

Freemen that don't hold license, Government issue ID, passport etcetera; how do you identify yourself when required?

Traffic stop, cash a cheque, get in or out of your country/place of birth as examples.

Surely there has to be something that proves you are who you say you are, if only to counter fraudulent activity? How would this be established?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identify

1. to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing; verify the identity of: to identify handwriting; to identify the bearer of a check.
2. to serve as a means of identification for: His gruff voice quickly identified him.
3. to make, represent to be, or regard or treat as the same or identical: They identified Jones with the progress of the company.
4. to associate in name, feeling, interest, action, etc. (usually followed by with ): He preferred not to identify himself with that group.
5. Biology . to determine to what group (a given specimen) belongs.
EXPAND
6. Psychology . to associate (one or oneself) with another person or a group of persons by identification.

Feel free to expand on the scenarios too.

[penfold9]

Just follow the money weeman
If a cheque comes to the "person" they accept it, if a bill comes, it doesnt belong to them.

[weeman]

Just follow the money weeman
If a cheque comes to the "person" they accept it, if a bill comes, it doesnt belong to them.

I have that same picture.
A benefit = there will be an identity ready and waiting.
A debt = name game, obfuscation, semantics and a side order of word salad.

I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[alienbiketrail]

A forum member that shall remain unnamed [rumpelstilzchen] has raised an interesting point for discussion (from a different thread)

Freemen that don't hold license, Government issue ID, passport etcetera; how do you identify yourself when required?

Traffic stop, cash a cheque, get in or out of your country/place of birth as examples.

Surely there has to be something that proves you are who you say you are, if only to counter fraudulent activity? How would this be established?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identify

1. to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing; verify the identity of: to identify handwriting; to identify the bearer of a check.
2. to serve as a means of identification for: His gruff voice quickly identified him.
3. to make, represent to be, or regard or treat as the same or identical: They identified Jones with the progress of the company.
4. to associate in name, feeling, interest, action, etc. (usually followed by with ): He preferred not to identify himself with that group.
5. Biology . to determine to what group (a given specimen) belongs.
EXPAND
6. Psychology . to associate (one or oneself) with another person or a group of persons by identification.

Feel free to expand on the scenarios too.

How does someone function without the ability to identify themselves?

[jaynette]

Just follow the money weeman
If a cheque comes to the "person" they accept it, if a bill comes, it doesnt belong to them.

And that sums up most of these "freeman" persons doesn't it?

[georggearless]

Just follow the money weeman
If a cheque comes to the "person" they accept it, if a bill comes, it doesnt belong to them.

I agree with Jaynette. That's pretty much freemani'sm in a nutshell.

[ozpixie]

I don't think it should be necessary for anyone to identify themselves unless they have broken a serious law. (murder, burglary, rape, extortion etc).

I do not and never will consider parking, speeding, jay-walking, not wearing a seatbelt, swearing, not being registered, not vaccinated etc, as crimes AS LONG AS nobody is injured or experiences a loss.

We must reach a point where we can show trust in others. Some will think I am living in Pollyanna land but that's just too bad. I would rather show trust and give the benefit of the doubt than automatically think the worst, which is how our systems work.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I don't think it should be necessary for anyone to identify themselves unless they have broken a serious law. (murder, burglary, rape, extortion etc).
But the point is, how do they identify themselves?
Remember, we are talking about people who claim to have absolutely nothing that identifies them.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Just follow the money weeman
If a cheque comes to the "person" they accept it, if a bill comes, it doesnt belong to them.


Wouldn't it be a pisser for a fotl if his six numbers came up on a double rollover and the cheque was made out with his name in ALL CAPS?
Maybe the term "legal fiction" would be instantly erased from his memory.

[ozpixie]

You just say my name is Ozpixie, how do you do, I am not aware of any fraudulent activity so I cannot help you in your enquiry. Isn't that enough?

Leaving the country should only require a name, address for any correspondence and perhaps a next of kin to notify of any accident, illness or death.

A persons word should be enough unless there IS a history of crime.

[vegan_on_the_land]

All identity documents are based on hearsay. Our parents get our birth certificates by saying they are our parents and that we were born on a certain day.

The stupid plan to issue us with identity cards was flawed from the start - they were intended (ostensibly) to enable us to prove our identity. But how could we have proved our identity in order to be given one of the cards? If we could have proved our identity, why did we need a card to prove our identity? :confused:

[Ian2day]

international family certificate

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=57531

[penfold9]

How many times have you used your International Family certificate to identify yourself and also travel abroad Ian?

[merlincove]

A forum member that shall remain unnamed [rumpelstilzchen] has raised an interesting point for discussion (from a different thread)

Freemen that don't hold license, Government issue ID, passport etcetera; how do you identify yourself when required?

Traffic stop, cash a cheque, get in or out of your country/place of birth as examples.

Surely there has to be something that proves you are who you say you are, if only to counter fraudulent activity? How would this be established?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identify

1. to recognize or establish as being a particular person or thing; verify the identity of: to identify handwriting; to identify the bearer of a check.
2. to serve as a means of identification for: His gruff voice quickly identified him.
3. to make, represent to be, or regard or treat as the same or identical: They identified Jones with the progress of the company.
4. to associate in name, feeling, interest, action, etc. (usually followed by with ): He preferred not to identify himself with that group.
5. Biology . to determine to what group (a given specimen) belongs.
EXPAND
6. Psychology . to associate (one or oneself) with another person or a group of persons by identification.

Feel free to expand on the scenarios too.

Why does a freeman need to identify them-selves?

i-dent-ify :- to put ones mark onto something?

It seems only within commerce that ones identification needs to be recognised, within barter one only needs to under-stand that you as a human being are exchanging goods with another human being and meeting a co-defined acceptance :)

Within commerce the state needs to identify the benefactor in order to issue a charge through taxes ;)

[merlincove]

You just say my name is Ozpixie, how do you do, I am not aware of any fraudulent activity so I cannot help you in your enquiry. Isn't that enough?

.

it should be, ozpixie :)

But unfortunately the state wishes to enter into discussion with you to see if you owe it any taxes :rolleyes:

[merlincove]

Just follow the money weeman
If a cheque comes to the "person" they accept it, if a bill comes, it doesnt belong to them.

If you can prove to me that i'they' need to pay the bill for either services rendered or accepted, then 'they' should not have any issue in paying the bill.

:)

I think that 'they' have a beef with enforced bills where no service has been provided and or accepted - stealth taxes, i think these 'bills' are called, petty fines that come in the guise of PCN's and their likes.

[weeman]

I'm tired of other questions being asked before an answer is forthcoming to the original. Tiresome.

I'm not interested in what should happen. I'm not asking why they should need to. I'm asking [for people who apparently don't have ID] how do you identify yourself when required?

Forget it.

[lesactive]

I'm tired of other questions being asked before an answer is forthcoming to the original. Tiresome.

I'm not interested in what should happen. I'm not asking why they should need to. I'm asking [for people who apparently don't have ID] how do you identify yourself when required?

Forget it.

I AM the spirit directing this body. ID only references the body, not the spirit that moves it. I identify I. That information is crucial for understanding who you are.

The question for me is this: when is one required to show ID? I never have to identify myself unless and until I break a law, which I won't do. Part of the problem is that without current, signed and actual ID (photo, dob, name, expiry date) all they can go on is hearsay and your agreement.

No one is required to carry ID in a commonlaw jurisdiction unless they are fulfilling a legal function. What that function actually is and how it is determined will dictate whether ID is required or not.

[penfold9]

I never have to identify myself unless and until I break a law, which I won't do.
But how do you identify yourself when you need to for your own benefit, thats the point of the thread.

I AM the spirit directing this body. ID only references the body, not the spirit that moves it. I identify I.
I am the body directing this spirit, this spirit is 80% proof, it is this spirit that makes this body stagger.

[undeadcreature]

No one is required to carry ID in a commonlaw jurisdiction unless they are fulfilling a legal function.

Like driving a car?

[rumpelstilzchen]

I AM the spirit directing this body. ID only references the body, not the spirit that moves it.
I would be very interested to see evidence of the existence of a spirit.

[penfold9]

weeman has made a great post here , and its really being ignored.
How does someone who has decided to cast of their legal person and forgo all identification documents ID themselves when they need to?

[ozpixie]

I'm tired of other questions being asked before an answer is forthcoming to the original. Tiresome.

I'm not interested in what should happen. I'm not asking why they should need to. I'm asking [for people who apparently don't have ID] how do you identify yourself when required?

Forget it.

Weeman, I don't have contact with anyone who has successfully achieved this. Plenty say they have but do not provide proof. I don't doubt they have achieved it but for some reason they are keeping Mum about the specifics. There is a book out there for $100 but I am not prepared to shell out that much for something that might end up being a pile of crap. For that reason I am not sure anyone can actually give an answer to the question. I have been told by someone in the Parliament here that the freeman claims are indeed valid but due to corruption in the legal system it won't be successfully used here until things change on that front.

[weeman]

Weeman, I don't have contact with anyone who has successfully achieved this. Plenty say they have but do not provide proof. I don't doubt they have achieved it but for some reason they are keeping Mum about the specifics. There is a book out there for $100 but I am not prepared to shell out that much for something that might end up being a pile of crap. For that reason I am not sure anyone can actually give an answer to the question. I have been told by someone in the Parliament here that the freeman claims are indeed valid but due to corruption in the legal system it won't be successfully used here until things change on that front.

Thanks for your input ozpixie. It appears that [for whatever reason] everybody at some point will have to identify themselves if living within 'mainstream' society.
I would also like to chat further regarding the embolden part of your post if possible. I will have to leave it for now as Papa constraints wouldn't allow sufficient time to go into any depth. No doubt other members will ask pertinent questions and I will just have to make do with reading them when time permits (you know how it is) ;)

[ozpixie]

Weeman is honestly seeking answers to questions that are becoming increasingly relevant in a world that is run by madmen and madwomen. If people felt free they would not be asking or searching for an alternative system. ditto for the legal framework of the courts and the mainstream medical establishment.

Where I live it is not unusual for a police officer to pull you over at random and ask where you are going, where you have been and where you are going after that. No due cause, no crime committed, just jackboot stand-over thuggery. If you jack up you get booked for not wearing a seatbelt, a crime that you can never possibly prove your innocence. When the mafia does it, its a crime but these arseholes can get away with it.

[alienbiketrail]

I could visualize a society that had reached a point where the average person's identification really didn't mean crap,and the powers that be considered them just cattle to be herded, or meaningless creatures which any personalization about them was not of any concern.

But the original question from the OP is seriously difficult, to think of a answer for in a society that still held a person's personal identity of any importance.

Even if just to check them out for suspected criminal activity.

[matteria]

I dont know what EU members like you have, but in America we get SSIDs the day we are born. We can pretend not to be associated with them all we want, but in the criminal justice system that is our bar-code number and our names represent us as corporate entities. If you left the country and society altogether, then and only then would none of the system's laws apply to you - otherwise you cannot have your cake and eat it too (or in this case, you could 'forgo' your issued identity and attempt to create a new one at your convenience, but local and federal government agencies would not acknowledge it)

[matteria]

additionally, if the question in the OP is so hypothetical that we are assuming the scenario to be one where only freemen exist, then this is a non-issue.

If we didn't have the moon-matrix, the hierarchies, the control system, and we returned to greater divinity, we wouldn't need money or criminal justice. Co-creating any other reality that hasn't got that far is settling for less.

Anyway, identities would ideally only be an aspect of our ego (as they are already) and we would use them to define ourselves purely for the sake of appreciating our individuality. There is no other need for them.

[weeman]

I dont know what EU members like you have, but in America we get SSIDs the day we are born. We can pretend not to be associated with them all we want, but in the criminal justice system that is our bar-code number and our names represent us as corporate entities. If you left the country and society altogether, then and only then would none of the system's laws apply to you - otherwise you cannot have your cake and eat it too (or in this case, you could 'forgo' your issued identity and attempt to create a new one at your convenience, but local and federal government agencies would not acknowledge it)



From this post we appear to be in some kind of agreement (embolden)

I am not supporting either side. Let me break it down for you again. This will be the final time:

The 'scenarios' are real life situations whereby ID would usually be required. Yes?

Traffic stop, cash a cheque, get in or out of your country/place of birth as examples.

There is no hypothetical about this thread as there are people that claim to go through life without using, requiring or needing ID. Some of them have and still post here I believe.

I am simply asking those people "Freemen that don't hold license, Government issue ID, passport etcetera; how do you identify yourself when required?"

Talk about creating a mountain out of a fookin' molehill, sheesh. :D

[merlincove]

Moderator Note

I have removed a number of none topical posts / comments as they were diversive to the thread premise and direction, and would ask that members remain on topic.

The topic is quite specific, and i'd ask that members post in a manner that furthers that specific discussion.

Thanks

[jlord]

There is no hypothetical about this thread as there are people that claim to go through life without using, requiring or needing ID. Some of them have and still post here I believe.


The most common example would probably not be freemen, it would be the poor and homeless. My employment deals with assisting low income people and it is a fairly common problem for people to lose their ID and then not be able to afford a replacement. Even the $50 cost or whatever it is to get a new ID card is a big expense if you are homeless. Then when you don't have an ID of any kind for some time you can't just walk into a registry office and get a new one because you have no way of proving you are who you say you are because you ahve no ID. Then you get turned away from any government services that require you to prove your identity, age, residence, etc.

If you are stopped by the police you just have to give them your name and date of birth and that's it. You don't have to prove this information in any way. However if the police thinks you might be giving a false name then they will detain you under investigative detention while they try to satisfy themselves as to who you are. So some people wind up in bad situations due to lack of an ID card of some kind.

At that point it usually comes down to swearing a declaration and having it notarized or commissioned and using this as proof to get the registry office to issue you a new ID. So if you were wanting to go around with no ID cards of any kind I would suggest having a notarized sworn statement as to your identity and keep that around in case it ever becomes in your best interest to prove your identity.

[lesactive]

If asked for ID I have a document ready:

Front:
bunch o' words o' fact and warning about ID'ing the human being

Back:
-pertinent legislation
-copy of BC

for all corporate and legal purposes

[lesactive]

I would be very interested to see evidence of the existence of a spirit.

Mind you, I could be wrong........it has happened on many occasions but I think it's presumed to be the case. Else, why base the principles of our society on the recognition of the supremacy of God?

Like driving a car?
You fulfill the legal status of driver when you use a license to drive a car.



The stupid plan to issue us with identity cards was flawed from the start - they were intended (ostensibly) to enable us to prove our identity. But how could we have proved our identity in order to be given one of the cards? If we could have proved our identity, why did we need a card to prove our identity? :confused:
I think I love you .... but I occasionally eat animals.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Mind you, I could be wrong........it has happened on many occasions but I think it's presumed to be the case. Else, why base the principles of our society on the recognition of the supremacy of God?
That is not evidence of the existence of a spirit.
What difference does it make what society believes?
Unless of course you believe a belief is evidence.

[wakeupworld]

All definitions are just opinions not facts.

[undeadcreature]

You fulfill the legal status of driver when you use a license to drive a car.





No, you fulfill the legal status of driver when you take control of a moving vehicle.

[penfold9]

All definitions are just opinions not facts.
They are in the Humpty Dumptyish world of the freeman.
In the real world definitions are facts, its how we all know what each other are talking about.

[lesactive]

That is not evidence of the existence of a spirit.
It's not up to me to prove it exists, it is presumed.
What difference does it make what society believes?
Does this society have a cohesive mindset or are there many minds shaping it?
Unless of course you believe a belief is evidence.
Of course not.

[lesactive]

No, you fulfill the legal status of driver when you take control of a moving vehicle.

*sigh*

so you say

[penfold9]

*sigh*

so you say

No, its what the courts say. ;)

[rumpelstilzchen]

It's not up to me to prove it exists, it is presumed.
So you have absolutely no evidence.

[lesactive]

So you have absolutely no evidence.

You are correct, none is needed for my purpose.

[rumpelstilzchen]

You are correct, none is needed for my purpose.

Glad we sorted that one out.

[lesactive]

Glad we sorted that one out.

ya, phew!

Reminds of this one: the mind that directed your body to reply to me, it exists? Can you provide evidence of its existence?

[rumpelstilzchen]

ya, phew!

Reminds of this one: the mind that directed your body to reply to me, it exists? Can you provide evidence of its existence?

I cant personally but I suppose some scientist somewhere could at least demonstrate the activity that is occuring in my brain whilst I am typing to you. They could hook me up to monitors and show you the needles on their meters jumping all over the place as my mind is working. Not absolute proof I know, but I am sure the rsults would be pretty convincing. You know, the more exited the mind gets,the more those needles will flicker.
Shame you have nothing similar regarding your claim that your spirit exists.

[merlincove]

I would be very interested to see evidence of the existence of a spirit.

Where is the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof on the prosecution - ie those who claim that there is no prrof of a soul, to prove that their claim is valid?

A commonly accepted philosophy stands as an accepted custom, surely?

The queen swore her oath saying 'so help me god,' yet no-one demanded that proof of god be forthcoming to give weight to the oath or the promise ;)

The court rooms of the UK traditionally ask that an oath be sworn - usually to an invisible entity, faith it seems holds a great weight in how we perceive the promises and statements that we make :D

So if a court room and judge are able to accept testimony given under oath to an invisible force (God etc) - then why is the legal system so at odds with the concept of the human being beings acclaim to an invisible force, that is generally accepted, ie a soul?

[vegan_on_the_land]

I think I love you.

I inspire this in thousands of people.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Where is the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof on the prosecution - ie those who claim that there is no prrof of a soul, to prove that their claim is valid?
Where have I stated there is no such thing as a spirit?
It was les who told us quite catergorically that his spirit moves his body. He has claimed the existence of a spirit. I did not claim spirits do not exist. I merely asked for evidence of the existence of a spirit.
I have yet to see any evidence.

Of course your suggestion is ludicrous. You are stating that someone should prove a negative. But that is immaterial regarding this one. I have not stated that spirits do not exist.

[lesactive]

I have not stated that spirits do not exist.

So, in this context and in your opinion, do spirits exist?

[merlincove]

Where have I stated there is no such thing as a spirit?
.

i never said nor claimed that you did - read my post again :)


It was les who told us quite categorically that his spirit moves his body. He has claimed the existence of a spirit. I did not claim spirits do not exist. I merely asked for evidence of the existence of a spirit.
I have yet to see any evidence.


Then prove the claim to be false :) - if you wish to.

there is no evidence of god, yet the sovereign of law in this country swore an oath to uphold law, and asked that god give her aid to do this - the very backbone of law decrees to a higher morality and power, yet no proof exists of that power.

Do you question the sovereigns ability to rule over law due to [her] faith in an unseen power? Questioning a mans ability (les, in this case) to put his faith in an unseen force is the same as when the Queen pits her faith in an unseen force in order to rule.... i don't see you questioning her authority, or the courts or judges who take testimonies as sworn upon bibles - that was my point. Why you [seem] to put your trust in the courts and the rule / color of law, at their basic tenant these formats adhere to the same unseen force as les does, so why question one and not the other?

Or, perhaps you were attempting to evade the points i made and questions asked?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Then prove the claim to be false :) - if you wish to.
I don't wish to because I am still undecided on the matter.
I have never seen evidence of the existence of a spirit. So, my mind is open to the possibility. But until I see actual evidence of a spirit I will remain undecided.
Now, les has told us he has a spirit. I (naturally) asked him for proof that there is such thing as a spirit. So far the responses I have received from him has shown absolutely no proof. Your replies too show no proof that a spirit exists. In fact your responses only show a tendency to divert the attention away from the fact that les has given no proof of the existence of a spirit.
But, that is to be expected.

[merlincove]

I don't wish to because I am still undecided on the matter.
I have never seen evidence of the existence of a spirit. So, my mind is open to the possibility. But until I see actual evidence of a spirit I will remain undecided.
Now, les has told us he has a spirit. I (naturally) asked him for proof that there is such thing as a spirit. So far the responses I have received from him has shown absolutely no proof. Your replies too show no proof that a spirit exists. In fact your responses only show a tendency to divert the attention away from the fact that les has given no proof of the existence of a spirit.
But, that is to be expected.

come on, rumpy, your beating around the bush.

The sovereigns oath is based around a concept of faith - have you asked the courts, the judges and the queen to provide proof to their assertion that a god exists?

A commonly held belief in a soul is no different than a commonly held belief in a god.

It doesn't matter if i believe or not, and likewise it doesn't matter what les believes, to anyone else but the individual: if anyone disbelieves in what is a generally held belief, then the onus of proof is on them, yes - to prove that a soul does not exist?

A court is not interested in proof of the invisible force, but it is interested in an oath and testimony - and all to often that testimony is sworn before an invisible force - and as such is accepted testimony. By the same reckoning, a testimony or affidavit given on the strength of a soul holds the same weight unless the testament / affidavit is in some way unlawful, would you not agree?

It can be expected that you will dodge this point yet again, you have already dodged it twice.

[rumpelstilzchen]

come on, rumpy, your beating around the bush.

The sovereigns oath is based around a concept of faith - have you asked the courts, the judges and the queen to provide proof to their assertion that a god exists?

A commonly held belief in a soul is no different than a commonly held belief in a god.

It doesn't matter if i believe or not, and likewise it doesn't matter what les believes, to anyone else but the individual: if anyone disbelieves in what is a generally held belief, then the onus of proof is on them, yes - to prove that a soul does not exist?

A court is not interested in proof of the invisible force, but it is interested in an oath and testimony - and all to often that testimony is sworn before an invisible force - and as such is accepted testimony. By the same reckoning, a testimony or affidavit given on the strength of a soul holds the same weight unless the testament / affidavit is in some way unlawful, would you not agree?

It can be expected that you will dodge this point yet again, you have already dodged it twice.


For some reason it would appear that you are implying that if I acknowledge that the courts, the monarch, and society itself accepts the existence of spirits then my request for evidence of the existence of spirits is somehow illegitimate.

Let us assume the entire legal system is based on the belief in a god. Let us also assume the Queen herself believes in the existence of god and in spirits. Let us assume the entire fucking world believes in the existence of god and spirits and every society in the world has based their values on the existence of the spirit. I acknowledge that. But that in itself is not proof that the spirit exists. It is only proof that everybody believes it does.

So, let us recap:

I am undecided that "A" exists"

les has stated that "A" does indeed exist.

I have asked les for proof of "A's existence.

I have received no proof from les.

MC has shown that plenty of other people believe in "A" or at least base their behaviour on the general held belief that "A" exists.

But still no proof. But we do see the suggestion that if I accept MC's point that other people believe "A" exists, then my request for proof of "A's" existence is in some way flawed. Why that is I have no idea.

I have not stated that "A" does not exist, just that I have never seen evidence that proves "A" exists.

However the upshot is I am asked to prove "A" does not exist:rolleyes:

So, despite the Queen's (apparent) belief in these matters (no disrespect intended, maaaaaam) I am still unconvinced.

[lesactive]

But we do see the suggestion that if I accept MC's point that other people believe "A" exists, then my request for proof of "A's" existence is in some way flawed. Why that is I have no idea.

Because you're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven temporally yet that very something is presumed to exist by those in control. There is no need to prove it to you or anyone else. One either accepts it as a given or one requires empirical evidence for it. We know the latter isn't going to happen any time soon.

Sounds to me like you're just pissed off that God is referenced by your gov't.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Because you're asking for proof of something that cannot be proven temporally yet that very something is presumed to exist by those in control. There is no need to prove it to you or anyone else. One either accepts it as a given or one requires empirical evidence for it. We know the latter isn't going to happen any time soon.
I don't believe that everyone "in control" presumes what you suggest they do. Some do, but not everyone. I think it would probably be fair to say that some do not hold a belief but make out that they do.

Sounds to me like you're just pissed off that God is referenced by your gov't.
Not at all. It doesn't bother me one iota.
But even if that were true and it did piss me off it would not alter the fact that you have not offered any evidence of this spirit that you claim exists.
I am still unconvinced.

[lesactive]

I am still unconvinced.

meh, not my issue is it?

[rumpelstilzchen]

meh, not my issue is it?

I never said it was.
I just simply stated that I would be very interested to see evidence of this spirit of which you speak. You have no evidence so I can only assume it is an unfounded belief you hold. I have no issue with that.

[lesactive]

I have no issue with that.
Ok, well....... that's that I guess. carry on

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ok, well....... that's that I guess. carry on
Yes, it was no big deal.
I asked a simple question and I got pounced upon.
The cavalry even made an appearance.

[merlincove]

For some reason it would appear that you are implying that if I acknowledge that the courts, the monarch, and society itself accepts the existence of spirits then my request for evidence of the existence of spirits is somehow illegitimate.

.

Nope, i am not saying that at all.

But never mind.

i am saying that les believes that he has a soul, and many, many millions of people worldwide believe the same of themselves...... You asked les to show you proof of it, and i am saying that the burden of proof (given that the concept is widely accepted - as is 'god') is upon the 'prosecution' - ie, the doubter and not upon les.....

But never mind, you don't get it, that's cool: on with the thread.

[merlincove]

But never mind, you don't get it, that's cool: on with the thread.

And, as the thread is not focused on whether 'A' / spirit exists or does not, i think it would be prudent to return to the thread topic of 'IDENTITY and its definition' - appologies weeman ;)

[penfold9]

les , does your spirit have its own identity?

Sorry Merlincove, just joking. ;)

[weeman]

And, as the thread is not focused on whether 'A' / spirit exists or does not, i think it would be prudent to return to the thread topic of 'IDENTITY and its definition' - appologies weeman ;)

I've already had my 'dummy-spit-tantrum' earlier in the thread. :o
Stupid of me really, I should have known how these threads end up. :D

les , does your spirit have its own identity?

Sorry Merlincove, just joking. ;)

:rolleyes: