What if Your True Love Died 400 Yrs Ago

Off Topic
261

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

He’s a murderer in history now but could have been an influential politician or artist. [/quote]

Hitler managed all three.[/quote]

I always wonder about how the world would be if Hitler had a successful career as an artist.[/quote]

Ironically he did have a successful career as an artist. He just needed to become a homicidal despot first.[/quote]

a tattoo artist…[/quote]

Charles Manson can only dream of becoming a tatooist. Hitler died for his passions. [/quote]

You don’t know “when” Manson decided to die. You also don’t know what Manson called passion. Maybe all he wanted was one slap across Societys face…?[/quote]

You are very disagreeable when you’re drunk. [/quote]

I’m not drunk.[/quote]

Stoned?

262

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

He’s a murderer in history now but could have been an influential politician or artist. [/quote]

Hitler managed all three.[/quote]

I always wonder about how the world would be if Hitler had a successful career as an artist.[/quote]

Ironically he did have a successful career as an artist. He just needed to become a homicidal despot first.[/quote]

a tattoo artist…[/quote]

Charles Manson can only dream of becoming a tatooist. Hitler died for his passions. [/quote]

You don’t know “when” Manson decided to die. You also don’t know what Manson called passion. Maybe all he wanted was one slap across Societys face…?[/quote]

You are very disagreeable when you’re drunk. [/quote]

I’m not drunk.[/quote]

Stoned?[/quote]

No,man. I’m sober and have been for a long time now.

Sucks that you don’t like me anymore.

263

Ted Bundy loved needle point.

He could’ve been a great needle point-er, but destiny proved he’d make a better serial killer.

264

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
You don’t know “when” Manson decided to die. You also don’t know what Manson called passion. Maybe all he wanted was one slap across Societys face…?[/quote]

Ol’ Charlie is still alive and in prison, isn’t he?[/quote]

His body is.
[/quote]

From all accounts, he is exactly where he wants to be. I doubt he is dead in any sense of the word.

265

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

He’s a murderer in history now but could have been an influential politician or artist. [/quote]

Hitler managed all three.[/quote]

I always wonder about how the world would be if Hitler had a successful career as an artist.[/quote]

Ironically he did have a successful career as an artist. He just needed to become a homicidal despot first.[/quote]

a tattoo artist…[/quote]

Charles Manson can only dream of becoming a tatooist. Hitler died for his passions. [/quote]

You don’t know “when” Manson decided to die. You also don’t know what Manson called passion. Maybe all he wanted was one slap across Societys face…?[/quote]

You are very disagreeable when you’re drunk. [/quote]

I’m not drunk.[/quote]

Stoned?[/quote]

No,man. I’m sober and have been for a long time now.

Sucks that you don’t like me anymore.

[/quote]

Aw, c’mere you big lug. I still like you. I don’t know what the fuck you were talking about above, but then I rarely do.

266

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Ted Bundy loved needle point.

He could’ve been a great needle point-er, but destiny proved he’d make a better serial killer.[/quote]

True. And John Wayne Gacy could’ve been a semi-finalist on America’s Got Talent at least, but he put his clowning skills to better use.

267

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
You don’t know “when” Manson decided to die. You also don’t know what Manson called passion. Maybe all he wanted was one slap across Societys face…?[/quote]

Ol’ Charlie is still alive and in prison, isn’t he?[/quote]

His body is.
[/quote]

From all accounts, he is exactly where he wants to be. I doubt he is dead in any sense of the word.[/quote]

“Where he wants to be” in prison…like a coffin? A trial…funeral?

268

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

He’s a murderer in history now but could have been an influential politician or artist. [/quote]

Hitler managed all three.[/quote]

I always wonder about how the world would be if Hitler had a successful career as an artist.[/quote]

Ironically he did have a successful career as an artist. He just needed to become a homicidal despot first.[/quote]

a tattoo artist…[/quote]

Charles Manson can only dream of becoming a tatooist. Hitler died for his passions. [/quote]

You don’t know “when” Manson decided to die. You also don’t know what Manson called passion. Maybe all he wanted was one slap across Societys face…?[/quote]

You are very disagreeable when you’re drunk. [/quote]

I’m not drunk.[/quote]

Stoned?[/quote]

No,man. I’m sober and have been for a long time now.

Sucks that you don’t like me anymore.

[/quote]

Aw, c’mere you big lug. I still like you. I don’t know what the fuck you were talking about above, but then I rarely do.[/quote]

Hahahahaha T NATION is still confused by me after all these years.

269

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]

JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH

270

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
I’ve written Charles Manson letters before.[/quote]

everyone calls charles manson a murderer. but do they realize, this guy wasn’t convicted of murder, cause he never actually killed anyone. he was convicted of conspiracy to committ murder. basically, his followers took a plee deal to testify against him. so they then testified that charlie planned it and told them to kill those people. these weren’t kids, these were adults capable of making thier own decisions. so they put all the blame on charlie. [/quote]

OMG, this just keeps gettin better and better.[/quote]

Haha. Exactly. I love this thread. T-Nation needs another delusion nutbar since tribunalDude left.

Step up to the plate RV - and please don’t give me that ‘I’m not a nutbar, you can’t understand unless you too fell in love with a woman who died centuries ago… boo hoo no one understands me’ schtick. I can quite honestly say I think you have some serious issues. However it makes for compelling reading. As you were.

271

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]

JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH[/quote]

ahhh, listen you dumb shit, first of all, witness testimony are people that actually see a crime taking place. yes, its testimony, as is anything a person says in court is testimony. but when there is no direct evidence at all, and they go by the word of already confessed killers, and then being tortured, anything they say about someone else doing something has to be looked at very closely.

sophistication, what does that have to do with what i said. I was simply making the point that her case would have been laughed out of any court in the world, today.

272

[quote]GCF wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
I’ve written Charles Manson letters before.[/quote]

everyone calls charles manson a murderer. but do they realize, this guy wasn’t convicted of murder, cause he never actually killed anyone. he was convicted of conspiracy to committ murder. basically, his followers took a plee deal to testify against him. so they then testified that charlie planned it and told them to kill those people. these weren’t kids, these were adults capable of making thier own decisions. so they put all the blame on charlie. [/quote]

OMG, this just keeps gettin better and better.[/quote]

Haha. Exactly. I love this thread. T-Nation needs another delusion nutbar since tribunalDude left.

Step up to the plate RV - and please don’t give me that ‘I’m not a nutbar, you can’t understand unless you too fell in love with a woman who died centuries ago… boo hoo no one understands me’ schtick. I can quite honestly say I think you have some serious issues. However it makes for compelling reading. As you were.
[/quote]

dude, do you beleive in god. well, i can easily call you a delusional nutbar for doing so. have you ever met god?? but yet people beleive. so yet, im the nutbar, cause i think i met someone in perhaps a different life. but oh, different lives don’t exist, im a nutbar, lol. ok. if you say so, mr. hypocrit. people want to get nasty with me. say hello to satan himself, people here will wish they never met this side. i try to be a nice guy.

273

Wooooooooo

Yes,Rogue. Bring the pain.

HERE COMES SATAN

274

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]

JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH[/quote]

ahhh, listen you dumb shit, first of all, witness testimony are people that actually see a crime taking place. yes, its testimony, as is anything a person says in court is testimony. but when there is no direct evidence at all, and they go by the word of already confessed killers, and then being tortured, anything they say about someone else doing something has to be looked at very closely.

sophistication, what does that have to do with what i said. I was simply making the point that her case would have been laughed out of any court in the world, today.[/quote]

You are an idiot. If you kill someone and I see you do it, I can testify in court about your actions because I have personal knowledge of it; that’s not hearsay and it IS direct evidence. Testimony is direct evidence when the witness personally observed the act. So if the servants saw her torturing and killing people, that is direct evidence moron.

275

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]

JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH[/quote]

ahhh, listen you dumb shit, first of all, witness testimony are people that actually see a crime taking place. yes, its testimony, as is anything a person says in court is testimony. but when there is no direct evidence at all, and they go by the word of already confessed killers, and then being tortured, anything they say about someone else doing something has to be looked at very closely.

sophistication, what does that have to do with what i said. I was simply making the point that her case would have been laughed out of any court in the world, today.[/quote]

You are an idiot. If you kill someone and I see you do it, I can testify in court about your actions because I have personal knowledge of it; that’s not hearsay and it IS direct evidence. Testimony is direct evidence when the witness personally observed the act. So if the servants saw her torturing and killing people, that is direct evidence moron. [/quote]

its common knowledge, that people always look to blame someone else for their actions. these servants knew, they were after the countess. these were admitted killers who were caught in the act. the countess wasn’t. sorry, to me thats not direct evidence. anyone can say anything they like. but it has to be credible evidence. i can say your mom blew me, that doesn’t mean she did, now does it.

anyone can say anything about anyone. does it make it true. of course not. oh, they said she did it, big freaken deal. of course they are going to say that. or she made us do it. how can she make you do it, when she wasn’t even there. like i said, it would be laughed out of any court in this world today. it was a sham. do some research. imagine a woman of incredible power and wealth.

men hate women like that today, imagine 400 years ago, were women were just property, for the most part. witness testimony can be powerful evidence if it comes from reputable and upstanding citizens. but when testimony comes from admitted killers, their testimony is crap. pure and simple. even today, most scholars beleive at the very least, it was partially politically motivated. thats the very least. many now beleive it was a total set up.

she was in charge of her servants, and her sevants did do commit brutal crimes, and that she is guilty. but when you look at the times she lived in, where brutality was common place, things were different back then.

276

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]

JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH[/quote]

ahhh, listen you dumb shit, first of all, witness testimony are people that actually see a crime taking place. yes, its testimony, as is anything a person says in court is testimony. but when there is no direct evidence at all, and they go by the word of already confessed killers, and then being tortured, anything they say about someone else doing something has to be looked at very closely.

sophistication, what does that have to do with what i said. I was simply making the point that her case would have been laughed out of any court in the world, today.[/quote]

You are an idiot. If you kill someone and I see you do it, I can testify in court about your actions because I have personal knowledge of it; that’s not hearsay and it IS direct evidence. Testimony is direct evidence when the witness personally observed the act. So if the servants saw her torturing and killing people, that is direct evidence moron. [/quote]

its common knowledge, that people always look to blame someone else for their actions. these servants knew, they were after the countess. these were admitted killers who were caught in the act. the countess wasn’t. sorry, to me thats not direct evidence. anyone can say anything they like. but it has to be credible evidence. i can say your mom blew me, that doesn’t mean she did, now does it.

anyone can say anything about anyone. does it make it true. of course not. oh, they said she did it, big freaken deal. of course they are going to say that. or she made us do it. how can she make you do it, when she wasn’t even there. like i said, it would be laughed out of any court in this world today. it was a sham. do some research. imagine a woman of incredible power and wealth.

men hate women like that today, imagine 400 years ago, were women were just property, for the most part. witness testimony can be powerful evidence if it comes from reputable and upstanding citizens. but when testimony comes from admitted killers, their testimony is crap. pure and simple. even today, most scholars beleive at the very least, it was politically motivated. thats the very least. many now beleive it was a total set up.

she was in charge of her servants, and her sevants did do commit brutal crimes, and that she is guilty. but when you look at the times she lived in, where brutality was common place, things were different back then.[/quote]

You can’t just say, “to me that’s not direct evidence.” There is a definition for what direct evidence is. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it circumstantial evidence. It doesn’t mean that it’s enough evidence to get a conviction, but you can’t simply make up your own definitions.

I continue to be amazed and baffled by the constant flow of BS emanating from your posts. You try to act like you know what you’re talking about, when it’s obvious you have no clue.

Imagine this modern-day scenario. There is a rich and powerful woman that lives in a mansion. It’s discovered that for years, her live-in servants have been killing and torturing young girls inside the mansion. They are caught and as they are interviewed, they all say that the rich woman not only directed them to commit theses acts, but that she herself had a hand in it. Do you really think the police and prosecuting attorney would just laugh off these allegations?

277

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
that my friends is called “heresay” [/quote]

JESUS H do you have any education or sophistication at all. That my friend is called “witness testimony” - not heresay! SMFH[/quote]

ahhh, listen you dumb shit, first of all, witness testimony are people that actually see a crime taking place. yes, its testimony, as is anything a person says in court is testimony. but when there is no direct evidence at all, and they go by the word of already confessed killers, and then being tortured, anything they say about someone else doing something has to be looked at very closely.

sophistication, what does that have to do with what i said. I was simply making the point that her case would have been laughed out of any court in the world, today.[/quote]

You are an idiot. If you kill someone and I see you do it, I can testify in court about your actions because I have personal knowledge of it; that’s not hearsay and it IS direct evidence. Testimony is direct evidence when the witness personally observed the act. So if the servants saw her torturing and killing people, that is direct evidence moron. [/quote]

its common knowledge, that people always look to blame someone else for their actions. these servants knew, they were after the countess. these were admitted killers who were caught in the act. the countess wasn’t. sorry, to me thats not direct evidence. anyone can say anything they like. but it has to be credible evidence. i can say your mom blew me, that doesn’t mean she did, now does it.

anyone can say anything about anyone. does it make it true. of course not. oh, they said she did it, big freaken deal. of course they are going to say that. or she made us do it. how can she make you do it, when she wasn’t even there. like i said, it would be laughed out of any court in this world today. it was a sham. do some research. imagine a woman of incredible power and wealth.

men hate women like that today, imagine 400 years ago, were women were just property, for the most part. witness testimony can be powerful evidence if it comes from reputable and upstanding citizens. but when testimony comes from admitted killers, their testimony is crap. pure and simple. even today, most scholars beleive at the very least, it was politically motivated. thats the very least. many now beleive it was a total set up.

she was in charge of her servants, and her sevants did do commit brutal crimes, and that she is guilty. but when you look at the times she lived in, where brutality was common place, things were different back then.[/quote]

You can’t just say, “to me that’s not direct evidence.” There is a definition for what direct evidence is. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it circumstantial evidence. It doesn’t mean that it’s enough evidence to get a conviction, but you can’t simply make up your own definitions.

I continue to be amazed and baffled by the constant flow of BS emanating from your posts. You try to act like you know what you’re talking about, when it’s obvious you have no clue.

Imagine this modern-day scenario. There is a rich and powerful woman that lives in a mansion. It’s discovered that for years, her live-in servants have been killing and torturing young girls inside the mansion. They are caught and as they are interviewed, they all say that the rich woman not only directed them to commit theses acts, but that she herself had a hand in it. Do you really think the police and prosecuting attorney would just laugh off these allegations? [/quote]

ok, I do understand what your saying. but these 4 servants were caught in the act committing these crimes, while the countess wasn’t there. They might do an investigation, yes. but when all you have is the word of admitted killers. and they admitted in court transcripts to killing the girls, each one admitted to the killings.

not to mention being caught red handed. the biggest thing is that she was never allowed to testify on her own behalf. they knew she would blast their whole case to shreds. she had no defense.

278

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

if you had an ounce of brains youd realize time means nothing. [/quote]

I’m really torn b/c I feel like I’m picking on someone that is potentially deranged or in need of serious help.

Dude, do you play dungeons and dragons too? You have a RICH fantasy life, for a grown man to confer his “love” and “soulmate” status to a woman he NEVER met, spoke with, or otherwise interacted…IS BAT SHIT FUCKING CRAZY.[/quote]

See, thats just it though. I do feel like Ive met her. I feel like i know her. its like i have always known her. its difficult to put into words. you will never understand. have you ever been to a place, you have never been but swear you have been there. multiply that by a thousand and thats how i feel about her. [/quote]

I wrote this thread off long ago and, well, kinda RV too to be fair however I do want to just pipe in at this point and say there’s nowt wrong with playing Dungeons & Dragons. Many an actor has enjoyed that hobby over the past few decades and I’m sure there’s far more people out there who play than would admit to the fact.

Carry on.

Oh and in before Vin Diesel FTW!

=P

279

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Wooooooooo

Yes,Rogue. Bring the pain.

HERE COMES SATAN[/quote]

OMFG I nearly, actually, pee’d a little there laughing so hard. =D

280

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Here’s a tip: If you can’t type a coherent sentence without putting in an effort, you’re not going to get published. A proper writer is able to create a sentence that forms a clear statement of their ideas. It flows naturally for them. Already I can safely say I have a better chance of getting a book published than you, and I’m a fucking terrible writer. I’m not saying I expect “proper” English from a Bodybuilding website, I’m saying I expect it from an aspiring author.

Even Stephenie Meyer could write circles around you.[/quote]

trust me when i tell you, its much different typing here than writing a book. writing a book, you can sit and think about exactly how you want to describe certain things. here, i just type. you think writing a book is easy?? try it sometime. try making up a story. you can be great at putting sentences together, but that doesn’t mean you can write a book. [/quote]

Here’s another tip: you suck at logic. I agree that there is more to writing a book than writing a sentence, but the opposite is not true. If you cannot write a single coherent sentence, you are not going to be able to write a whole book full of them.

BTW, the paragraph above took me roughly 30 seconds to type, with no advance outlining or reading of grammar books. If it takes you terribly long to write these coherent sentences you’re never going to get the book out in any case.

Carry on.