Time: Tue Dec 16 16:29:12 1997
To: EAGLEFLIGHT <eagleflt@eagleflt.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Christian Spirit
Bcc: sls, friends, liberty lists, 3cc, psc

The First, and Greatest, Commandment,
is now this:

"You will love the Lord, your God, 
with your whole heart, and your whole
soul, and your whole mind, and your
whole strength."

And the second Commandment is now this:

"You will love your neighbor as you
love yourself."

With these two very simple, and extremely
powerful, rules, the Son of the Most High 
has already conquered the entire Universe.

The spirit of the law gives life, but
the letter of the law takes life away.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress

At 12:02 PM 12/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 07:44:45 -0800 (PST)
>>From: Charles Stewart <chuck@teleport.com>
>>To: John Burr <john.burr@eonetworks.com>
>>cc: 104457.1370@CompuServe.COM, 75313.2601@CompuServe.COM, Balboasr1@aol.com,
>>        Bob Tiernan <zulu@teleport.com>, bradbva@chv.mindspring.com,
>>        cjs@sound.net, commonlaw@teleport.com, davew@lor.jrent.com,
>>        dvg@flash.net, eagleflt@thumb.net, iii@dancris.com,
>>        jarhead@cyberis.net,
>>        "JOHN-POTTER@postoffice.worldnet"
>>        kenneth@cyberis.net, mcclc-l@teleport.com, mom@logoplex.com,
>>        noborders@worldnet.att.net, oregon-commonlaw-l@teleport.com,
>>        patriot@netaxs.com, rightwaylaw-l@teleport.com,
>>        Robert Wangrud <rwangrud@teleport.com>, rschmidt@pierian.com,
>>        spg11@juno.com, stubby@i-link-2.net, tbone@edge.net, tim@attwood.com,
>>        tmelloh@indy.tds.net, whitesell@netusa1.net
>>Subject: Re: Christian Spirit
>>On 15 Dec 1997, John Burr wrote:
>>> Chuck wrote:
>>> ">>> >So.
>>> >>> >	You refuse to be held accountable under accusations before the
>>> >>> >group of falling short of the Christian Standard,
>>> >>> >							Correct?
>>> >>> "
>>> Just what is the Christain Standard that you mention?  The Catholic
>>> is different from the Presbyterian standard, is different from the
>Seventh Day
>>> Adventist Standard and so on.  
>>There is only one true christianity. 
>>	The different dsenominations are some closer and some farther away
>>from Christs true teachings. But there was only one true doctrine. And the
>>Law of Love was plainly a centeral part of it, no matter which
>>demnomination you partake of. 
>>> Chuck I believe that you have taken the
>>> original subject matter of this post and have taken it off-point.  
>>I hold ypu in high respect John. But I think your wrong here. 
>>> Robert has
>>> rightfully questioned and challenged RWL and their procedure(s) they
>>> espouse.  
>>Its not the questions. Its the way the questions were shot across the
>>bow. It was beligerent and rude. Seriously Lacking in the Spirit. 
>>> I have questioned RWL in the past on some of their positions...
>>> I have questioned everyone in fact.  
>>So do we all. This is not on point sir. 
>>> If you make the claim prove it....
>>People can ask questions faster than god people can proivide answers. 
>>	Good workers can loose their work focus by stoping to answer a
>>ton of goofy questions. 
>>	Ive studied beholds work and right ways work. Both provide very
>>useful material. Behold provides extra solid documentation. 
>>	Right way is courteous and friendly and has better grasroots
>>support netwooking, and more clear expljnations of the process they
>>advocate. They are more articulate. They respect commonlaw courts, and UCC
>>Process, cutting edge issues which Behold seems to be behind the curve on.  
>>. Both have plusses and minuses. 
>>> Behold!
>>> seems to make the claim of wins they have been involved with...and they
>>> are very good about proving their claims.  
>>> I can find no fault in Robert or anyone else questioning RWL, 
>>>	you or anyone who makes various claims or
>>> states various positions...that is what we are here for.  I do find that
>>> you are directly challenged you usually react by declaring that one is
>>> un-Christian, etc. 
>>Yea, wel maybe it has come time to sort out the pretend fair-wether
>>> and usually the conversation degrades from thereon.
>>No, It was degrading erlier, when someone started blasting away at Good
>>People like Right Way for no stinking good reason what so ever. 
>>> If you state a position or make the claim then you had better be ready
>>> to defend and prove the same...
>>	I have seen you do good work sir. But you are not God in these
>>realms either. If folks do just good work and want to stand on that
>>without providing microscopic documentation, well than thats good enough
>>for me. 
>>	I am not blind. I can see Right Ways good work. I dont know what
>>your problem is. 
>>>that means doing your homework and research,
>>Right Way has done their home work and research. Its a big picure puzzel
>>that keeps moving. Like a moving target for a gun. They maintain the focus
>>better than most. And the big pictiure includes a much broader perspective
>>than Beholds because of the strength of the numbers of all of their 
>>members all working together and sharing info. 
>>> not claiming or accusing someone who effectively challenges the position
>>> as being un-Christian or not meeting your Christian standard, what ever
>>> may be, to avoid the answering and proving the position or claim and
>>> drawing attention away off-point.
>>Look. Weve got different perspectives here. 
>>	I thing Mr Wangrud was being rude and abusive. Essentially
>>unchristian, probably not intentionally, maybe just because his dad
>>thumped on him once too often or something. I dont know. The point is that
>>there are minimal linse below what true chrtoistians do not stoop. I was
>>tryojhg to raisr brother bob up, not to drag every body else down. Your
>>calins that the adventists and the catholichs and all are just different
>>allows for a los]west common denominatir to creap into christianity.
>>=Thats not christianity sir. Christianity is about discipline of high
>>standards about caring and respect for ourt brethere, Mr Wangrud was
>>falling woefully short of these minimal satndards in the tones of his
>>accusations against Right Way. 
>>	Yea, Whats so stinking complex?
>>> Robert is sometimes very direct and harsh
>>You can say that again. Does this seem within the definition of
>>Christianity to You?
>>> in his responses but I understand his frustration as time is running...
>>Wel maybe he needs to take a break, Fast and pray for a while. This is a
>>spiritual battle against hte evil one, and frontliune men like bob and
>>radnt are admitedly doing great work in confronting the beast, however
>>when they kill our own troops with friendly fire, this is intolerable.Itrs
>>time toi shut things down and retreat and re-organize until we can
>>confront the evil in the holy war without shooting dowen our own troops. 
>>	And the real sincher for me, is that in real battle, the men
>>making the error usually appologize. 
>>	But there is none forthconm,ing here. It just keeps coming. No
>>referance whatsoever to harmony or lack theree-of with christian values,
>>and when they are mentioned, boom, the messanger is attacked. 
>>	Im not going to continue to discus these things much further. 
>>> he may not realize 
>>Hes in a leadership position. He needs to have a christian loving reality
>>check. And when its offered in a respectful manner, he needs to acess it
>>honestly, instead of atacking the mesanger.  
>>> that there are some who are not as far advanced in their
>>> studies and even yet some who never study and never will make the effort
>>> until their butt is in the fire.  He as do I, also do not like seeing
>good people
>>> being led down dead-ends 
>>He Wait. Free Choice is a factor among free men. 
>>	How are we to decide if Right Way or Behold's materials are the
>>best if you and Mr Wngrud just jump up and declare that Right Ways
>>materials are trash. 
>>	How about Right Ways Numbers? Does this mean nothing?
>>	How about the fact that they never say anything bad about Mr
>>Wangrud? Does this mean nothing?
>>	Their Christian Spirit seems quite intact, by way of comparison,
>>to me. 
>>> and jailed because they followed the advise of
>>> some self proclaimed guru who talks a good game, make a 1000 claims of
>>> victories and successes, only to never prove the same and rake in a ton
>>> of cash in the process...this I would think would fall into your
>>> behavior column.  David Miller comes to mind...
>>I am not familiar with Dave Miller. But those who do what you describe I
>>would agree to be un-christian. 
>>> We are all working to the same end...
>>No. There are purposeful subversives among us. Its prophjecied in the
>>Bible. And the only qway to filter them out is by their fruits. And the
>>most prominent fruits are Christian Brotherly Love, a factor wehich I do
>>not sewriously question as lacking in brother Bob, but he does need a
>>reality check because he is frequently vdry close to falling into the pit
>>of solidified unchristian behavior patterns.
>>> restoring
>>> a government ruled by law and not by men, where the People hold the
>>> maximum power and Liberties.  Nuff said.  I may disagree with you as
>>> well as agree with you in the future...
>>> declaring that I am un-Christian will have no effect on me 
>>Say what?
>>	What if Adolph Hitler were among us declaring himself to be
>>Christian as we begin the roundup of Jews, with no due priocess what so
>>ever, just sumary military executiuon style. 
>>	Are you saying that we should not stand to confront him by saying
>>that he is guilty of violating the International Laws of Nature and
>>Natures God, which is the essence of Christiaity? 
>>> and will not sway me from the objective...my relationship
>>> with Christ and God is between myself and them...
>>Not if your committing Adolph Hitler mass murders. And not if your
>>draging the name of Christ down to the lowest common denominator. Those
>>who are rtrue Christians have the Right and Duty to defend the good name
>>of Christ Jesus from subversive devil woirshipers who delight in dragging
>>his name thru the mud as the Romans diod in the Crusades, The Inquisition,
>>The Protestant Myrtars they burned because of theoir intolerance, and the
>>list goers on. 
>>	And I dont mean to imply that I suspect You or Mr Wangrud of
>>such. But this bankrupt pereseption that any form of trash is acceptible
>>in the Christian Congregation has got to be purged. Christians must
>>maintan minimal standards, And whether it be You or I or Mr Wangrud who
>>is falling short, all need to feel free to discuss the matter in brotherly
>>love so as to maintain and elevate the standards for the entire
>>Charles Bruce, Stewart
>>> not you or anyone else to judge against their preconceived ideas of a
>>> standard.  
>>> Get over it.
>>> John Edward
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Date: 12/15/97 7:50 AM
>>> To: John Burr
>>> From: Robert Wangrud
>>> At , Charles Stewart wrote:
>>> >At 11:16 PM 12/13/97 -0800, Charles Stewart wrote:
>>> >>On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Robert Wangrud wrote:
>>> >>> At 02:29 AM 12/13/97 -0800, Charles Stewart wrote:
>>> >>> ><snip>
>>> >>> >> >> >	If so, then it would appear that there is some basis for your
>>> >>> >> >> >concern.
>>> >>> >> >> >	However if your just expecting them to come to you and finding
>>> >>> >> >> >fault with them becaues they dont contact you,
>>> >>> >> >> >		then I cant see any fault in RWL's actions.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> Wangrud: A lot of the people they screw up call me.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >	Thats another issue. Look they have the right to market their
>>> >>> >> >materials, and if they are only 20 % or so as briliant and
>>> bulletproof as
>>> >>> >> >you, well then thats the way it is. But that doesnt make them out
>>> to be
>>> >>> >> >dishonest or opportunistic as you seem to enjoy inferring. It only
>>> means
>>> >>> >> >that you are smarter, if such is indeed the case.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Wangrud:
>>> >>> >> I have never said RWL didn't have the right to market their material
>>> I just
>>> >>> >> challenge the worth of their material.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >	You could choose your words to reflect that desire with more
>>> >>> >efficiency sir. From your choice of words, it appears that you are
>>> calling
>>> >>> >them dishonest and unchristian.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Wangrud:
>>> >>> These are your words Chuck not mine. I have never use the words
>>> >>> and unchristian."
>>> >>
>>> >>Right. You just infer it.
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >No Chuck, they infer it. All I have done is challenged the worth of their
>>> material as  allowed under Christian Doctrine. RWL has refused to come
>>> forward and show the worth of their material.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I have challegened Several Guru's  to prove their BOP or
>>> >>> other process has worth, which they have not done.
>>> >>
>>> >>You coulkd choose your words so as to not reflect a questioning of their
>>> >>Christian Honor.
>>> >>
>>> >>> When you go before your
>>> >>> congregation accusing me,  make sure you don't commit false wittiness.
>>> >>
>>> >>On a sliding scale, I accuse much less than do you. You are the "great
>>> >>accuser" within these forums. I just ask for the accuser to be held to
>>> >>same standards to which he accuses. to which you seem to have troubles. 
>>> >>
>>> >>> By the way Chuck where is your church? What congregation do you belong
>>> to?
>>> >>> Who is your Preacher?
>>> >>
>>> >>I do my communion with God by myself, not by choice, but because there
>>> >>seems to be none with whom comunion is workable in the area. Most
>>> >>organized churches I find to be seriously lacking in true loving
>>> >>Christianity. Therefore I do it the way I believe Christ wants. Others
>>> >>welcom to join with me, but I do not compromize with doofball preachers
>>> >>who clearly dont understand Christs 2 greatst commandments of Love.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Are the people on your list your congregation?
>>> >>
>>> >>	They seem to have an ear for true Christian Principles. Its not
>>> >>"My" Congregation. Wherever they congregate, they do so by the spirit of
>>> >>Christ, not by Me. The lists can serve this purpose.
>>> >>
>>> >>> If so lets
>>> >>> hear from them if they would like to see proof of claimed "WINS"
>>> >>
>>> >>	No one has said that your proofs of wins are unwelcome. In fact
>>> >>just the opoisite, and to your credit you are one of the most noble and
>>> >>honorable in providing such documentation.
>>> >>	However this is off point, and will not barter away the sinns of
>>> >>unlovoing unchristian accusations among the group.
>>> >>	One bad act spoils all of the good works. You must learn to be
>>> >>spiritually clean. You cannot slander your christian commonlaw brethren,
>>> >>at least not until after the group has come to judgement against them.
>>> >>	Kinda like we all did with Paul Mitchel. Only then after full
>>> >>evidence is assembled for with which to convict of purposeful subversion
>>> >>of the christian commonlaw process and fair warning and open discussion
>>> >>should any slander of the character and following
>>> >>disfellowshipment-outlawry be deemed justified.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I truly
>>> >>> believe showing proof of claimed "WINS" is within most Christian
>>> Doctrines.
>>> >>
>>> >>Agreed, but off point.
>>> >>
>>> >>> You certainly can't accuse Behold of not reporting full information on
>>> >>> Behold's "WINS"
>>> >>
>>> >>True, but off point.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >><snip>
>>> >>>> >> >I dont enjoy making these kinds of statements about you or anyone,
>>> >>>>>>>> sir.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Wangrud:
>>> >>> >> You could have fooled me.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Listen sir. I try to treat you with respect at all times. You bang
>>> >>> >in these lists like a bull in a china closet, not seeming to care
>>> >>> >dignity you trample on or with what kinds of marginal justification. 
>>> >>> >	I try to talk to you privately about the matter, and you ignore
>>> >>> >me and continue with your un-neioghborly-un-loving activities. Clear
>>> >>> >violations of christs second greatest commandment.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Wangrud:
>>> >>> When did I ignore you?? You are entitled to your opinion [above] but
>it is
>>> >>> just your opinion.
>>> >>
>>> >>Thats ignoring me.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I did send you the article of my Preacher some time ago.
>>> >>> You ignored it.
>>> >>
>>> >>	It did not justify unchristian unloving beligerent activities. It
>>> >>was off point to your conduct.
>>> >>
>>> >>> you said " continue with your un-neioghborly-un-loving activities."
>>> >>>	Has all the information I have shared freely with you and your
>>> >>> list considered to be un-neighborly-un-loving activities?
>>> >>
>>> >>	Off point. Sharing information does not barter away the sins of
>>> >>unchristian beligerency towards other christian commonlaw activists. You
>>> >>must be christian clean on these points, as above mentioned.
>>> >>
>>> >>> If so I will stop.
>>> >>
>>> >>Barter attempts on unchristian uncleanliness?
>>> >>	We can do with out attempts to try to drag down the high christian
>>> >>standard of brotherly neighborly christian love by attempting to barter
>>> >>the clear spiritual Christian standard lower.
>>> >>
>>> >>> >	I try to explain to you that I dont enjoy calling people to task
>>> >>> >because of unchristian behavor on the lists which I run, and you
>>> >>> >me and infer that I am getting some kind of un-christian ego thrill
>>> >>> >of insisting that christian standards be maintained.
>>> >>> >	I dont know who your preacher is, but he is not doing his job.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Wangrud:
>>> >>> Chuck, just who elected you to be the judge of anyone???
>>> >>
>>> >>	I speak out when I see unchristian conduct masquerading as
>>> >>Christian conduct. Im sorry if this upsets you, but the Christian Spiirit
>>> >>must be obeyed, must be followed, unquestioningly.
>>> >>	And I have chosen the pathway of being a tool for this spirit.
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >I got news for you Chuck, the Creator choses not you.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I
>>> >>exhaust all efforts at reasoned compromize. But when a long treain of
>>> >>unrepentant abuses (kind of like Paul Mitchell) continues on unadressed,
>>> >>all clearly evidincing a design to destroy rather than to build the
>>> >>christian commonlaw congregation, well then I and all good Christians
>>> >>take a stand to confront the apparent evil.
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >You consider me evil??? Where's that Christian Love you pull like a
>>> >Just what part of my conduct do you consider evil?
>>> >Posting good research material free?
>>> >Posting proof and full information of claimed Wins free?
>>> >Offering  my Preachers Article free?
>>> >Challenging others to give full information on their claims?
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>> If there is any one who doesn't understand the law its you.
>>> >>
>>> >>	Well then maybe we should part company sir.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I read your transcripts and all
>>> >>> you did is show the Courts you have no understanding of procedures
>or how
>>> >>> to properly stand on an issue.
>>> >>
>>> >>By their devil worshiping roman military standards, Yes.
>>> >>			By Christian CommonLaw Standards, No.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I think you had better get your mouth off my Preacher.
>>> >>
>>> >>	So, you dont like discussing your preachers version of
>>> >>Christianity in the light of day, is this correct?
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >Again you bear false wittness. I have offered my Preachers articles for
>>> anyone to read.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Chuck you lack the tolerance of the Founding Fathers who
>>> >>> respected each others Christian Doctrines.
>>> >>
>>> >>	I think the group here would vote that I have greater Christian
>>> >>tolerance than do you.
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >That would be interesting to hear from others on this issue. As far as I'm
>>> concerned you use accusations of unchristian behavior as a weapon when you
>>> can't use anything else.
>>> >>
>>> >>> They knew the surest way to get
>>> >>> nothing done would to be to start arguments on doctrine.
>>> >>
>>> >>	Insisting that Christian Love be maintained within the
>>> >>congregation is not an esoteric doctrine.
>>> >>	Its basic nuts and bolts of what the Christian CommonLaw is all
>>> >>about. If there are some in the group who cannot come to agrement on what
>>> >>Christian Love is all about, the group needs to split so that the
>>> >>Christian Pure half can maintain its spiritual purity.
>>> >>
>>> >>	Apparrently Christian Love is a dispozable item in the version of
>>> >>Christianity to which You and Your Preache subscribe,
>>> >>							corect?
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud;
>>> >Chuck, there is more in the Word of the Creator than just love, which
>>> seens to be the only part you know.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>> They argued law but avoided open battles on Christian doctrines.
>>> >>
>>> >>	There were Masons and others who fall way short of true
>>> >>Christianity involved with the US Constitution. They established an
>>> >>"Experiment", based upopn Roman Civil Military Law, which has been in
>>> >>conflict with true christian commonlaw since before the times of the
>>> >>Norman Conquest, since the nailing by the Ronmans of Christ to the Cross.
>>> >>
>>> >>	Maybe if this group (different than the Declaration of
>>> >>Independance group) hadnt welched on their duty to come to agreement
>>> >>on Christian CommonLaw doctrine first, a better system would have come
>>> >>into place.
>>> >>	Maybe that is again the work facing us now in modern times.
>>> >>	Maybe You dont feel that such work should progress forward.
>>> >>
>>> >>> The law they proposed was based on Christian doctrine,
>>> >>
>>> >>	The leven had infected the loaf. The Masons were inviolved. It
>>> >>was an abotrion from the start. They met in secret. They adopted a warm
>>> >>and  fuzzy version of Roman Civil Military Law, at war with
>>> >>Christian CommonLaw for all of recorded History.
>>> >>			Cheez, what kind of evodence do you need?
>>> >>
>>> >>> which was a remarkable document [U.S. Const.]
>>> >>> considering the different Christian Doctrines involved. I think it was
>>> only
>>> >>> possible because their Christain doctrines were not that different as
>>> >>> stated by Jay:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice
>>> >>>  that Providence has been pleased to give this one
>>> >>>  connected country to one united people-a people
>>> >>>  descended from the same ancestors, speaking the
>>> >>>  same language, professing the same religion,attached
>>> >>>  to the same principles of government, very similar in
>>> >>>  their manners and customs, and who, by their joint
>>> >>>  counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side
>>> >>>  throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly
>>> >>>  established their general liberty and independence."
>>> >>>  The Federalist Paper's No 2 Jay p.38 Rossiter Edition.
>>> >>
>>> >>	Some of the versions of Christianity were not Christian. They
>>> >>needed to be purged. Those anti-federalists were on the right track, but
>>> >>there were not enough with true christian spirit to follow the path.
>>> >>	That needs to change this modern tiome around.
>>> >>
>>> >><snip>
>>> >>> >> >> Wangrud:
>>> >>> >> >> I think these kind of post are better handled off the list.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >	For the first time the mater is discussed, yes. When a long train
>>> >>> >> >of abuses after repetesd discussions in private about it has proven
>>> >>> >> >fruitles, it is time to take the matter before the congregation for
>>> open
>>> >>> >> >judgement.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Wangrud:
>>> >>> First the congregation has to consider the worth of the accuser.
>>> >>
>>> >>Yea, how about the one who delights in making the most accusations being
>>> >>the place to start. Like the one accusing Right Way of selvserving
>>> >>behavior.
>>> >>
>>> >>> >> >	You have been voicing such for some time, and I believe I have
>>> >>> >> >told you before that I thought you were being unfair.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Wangrud:
>>> >>> >> Yea that is your same old same old.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >So.
>>> >>> >	You refuse to be held accountable under accusations before the
>>> >>> >group of falling short of the Christian Standard,
>>> >>> >							Correct?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Wangrud:
>>> >>> I refuse to be held accountable before a group of judeo-christians. Or
>>> >>> people who have a limited understanding of my Christian values.
>>> >>
>>> >>	So. You want to define Cristianity outside of the 2 greatest
>>> >>commands to Love God and Neighbor, Correct?
>>> >>	You believe that "Neighbor Love" is an Un-Christian requirement,
>>> >>correct?
>>> >>
>>> >>> I didn't
>>> >>> say they had to be of my doctrine. I said they have to have a working
>>> >>> knowledge of my Christian doctrine.
>>> >>
>>> >>Do You agree that "Neighbor Love" is a requirement of Christianity or
>>> >>	Yes or No.
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >It all depends on your definition of "Neighbor" as I said you need to have
>>> a working knowledge of my Christian Doctrine. My Doctrine does  demand
>>> respect for all of the Creator's creations as he created them. The Article
>>> by my Preacher I sent you does cover this issue. If you can't remember the
>>> title it is "Wheat-Tars"
>>> >>
>>> >>> I discount your claims that I have
>>> >>> violated Christian principals as you have claimed.
>>> >>
>>> >>	Do you admit that Your Accusing
>>> >>		Right Waw of was an unchristian accusation?
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >Again these are your words.
>>> >>
>>> >>> I don't think you are the sword and avenger of the Creator.
>>> >>
>>> >>	My status is not in question here, Yours is.
>>> >
>>> >Wangrud:
>>> >You are above examination????
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> >C.S. ....
>>> >>
>>> >>
>Please visit http://www.prospectorsbanqueclub.com
>         and http://www.eagleflt.com
> To receive posts from this list send an E-MAIL to me with the word 
>"subscribe" in the subject box.
> ==================================================================
>          EAGLEFLIGHT
>        ///,       ///
>       \  /,      /  >.             David E. Rydel
>         \  /,   _/  /.                  *****
>          \_  /_/   /.        United States Theatre Command        
>           \__/_   <<               Voice-248-391-0798         
>          /<<<<<< \_\_                Fax-248-391-6785
>          /,)^>>_._ \             Alt.Fax-248-391-3528
>          (/   \\ /\\\           E-MAIL: EAGLEFLT@thumb.net
>                // ````           
> ==============((`=============================================        

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail