Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Doesn't "High Level Thematic Debate" and "Plenary Session" and all that sound a bit pretentious? The UN sure is proud of itself.

Yes, it is.

[n david]

Originally Posted by n david

I don't need phonics, but you obviously need a dictionary to see what the meaning of "lie" is.

Lie: N: An intentional false statement

Lie: A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Lie: A lie is an intentionally false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the truth.

In other words, when you speak and the words you speak are not true but you don't know they're not true and you're not meaning to intentionally make a false statement -- you're NOT lying.

When YOU post, and the posts you make claim a person is a liar, and you repeat that claim over and over again, and that person did not lie -- you libeled him.

.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

.

I don't need phonics, but you obviously need a dictionary to see what the meaning of "lie" is.

Lie: N: An intentional false statement

Lie: A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Lie: A lie is an intentionally false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the truth.

In other words, when you speak and the words you speak are not true but you don't know they're not true and you're not meaning to intentionally make a false statement -- you're NOT lying.

When YOU post, and the posts you make claim a person is a liar, and you repeat that claim over and over again, and that person did not lie -- you libeled him.

Told you, the right to judge gets removed by a retraction. At least to most people. That includes me.

1. Since only an idiot would preach that story without checking I think it was deliberate
2. By not retracting it, he perpetuates it. This is also deliberate

Tell him I said so and to sue me. I can't wait to play THAT video in court. I won't even need a lawyer.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

UN Source Link

I'm grabbing footage from the 21st. I'll be back with an explanation of what UN diplomats do and where they live and where they were on the previous day then you can explain to me why they attend one day, skip the next, but were magically watching from across town by the millions by webcam.

Talk to yourself for awhile. This will take a bit of time. LOL

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Told you, the right to judge gets removed by a retraction. At least to most people. That includes me.

1. Since only an idiot would preach that story without checking I think it was deliberate
2. By not retracting it, he perpetuates it. This is also deliberate

Tell him I said so and to sue me. I can't wait to play THAT video in court. I won't even need a lawyer.

1) You can think what you want, doesn't change facts. Just like your continual posts claiming Stoneking didn't address the General Assembly.
2) He's not the one who posted the video, nor has he reposted the video. IE, he's not perpetuating it.
3) You claimed he lied about it. He did not. The Judge would rule against you. And the video would be the #1 evidence against you. But that's neither here nor there, since he wouldn't sue you. You'll answer to a higher Judge for your lies and hatred against these ministers.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I'm grabbing footage from the 21st. I'll be back with an explanation of what UN diplomats do and where they live and where they were on the previous day then you can explain to me why they attend one day, skip the next, but were magically watching from across town by the millions by webcam.

Talk to yourself for awhile. This will take a bit of time. LOL

Knock yourself silly. Doesn't matter what YOU claim nor what YOU post. You've been proven to have lied and mislead with your posts. You've lied about Stoneking, you've lied about his speech to the UNGA and you've lied about Wilson.

I don't care what you claim or post. You're a liar.

UN Source Link

General Assembly Sixty-ninth session

High-level thematic debate on “Promoting Tolerance and Reconciliation: The Potential for Religion in Building Bridges of Tolerance and Reconciliation”

Opening segment: Statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations
09:00 General Assembly Hall

Plenary meeting: Statements by religious leaders
09:10 General Assembly Hall

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

By golly you're right. Thank you.

My source was:

https://www.google.com.sa/search?q=U...w=1366&bih=581

Go figure.

I must correct this terrible error:

General assembly meetings look like this:



Or this



Or this



Or this



Thank you so much for pointing out my error. You are correct, some of the photos I posted earlier had many more empty seats than the general assembly has when they are actually in session.

It probably wasn't a good idea.....

Anyways, FULL general assembly meetings look like that. Some are obviously more interesting than others for these dignitaries to attend

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You're too easy to draw in. Time to pop the spring.

No, a meeting doesn't have to be filled with members in order to be an official session. As exampled by my Ted Cruz note. I hope you don't think I was helping you (except for helping you say the above idiocy)


It doesn't matter what the title of the meeting was. Nobody attended. If nobody attended, you didn't address anybody. I don't have to prove it was or was not official, I just had to show clear footage that nobody was addressed.

Which I did. Any why I jokingly suggested that the title of this thread be changed.

Hopefully in your warped mind you don't believe that addressing someone's empty chair counts as addressing that person. Hopefully. LOL

To summarize for the simpletons: For someone to address the members the members have to be there.

smh

Arent you exaggerating? There were people there in attendance.

Members were there just not most or all of them

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Thinker

THE MUSLIM keeps criticizing the crowd.. ( i hate critics)
but I posted this from the UN that even though they weren't there they could view it online.. so the crowd so far the viewed it was much bigger then the UN General Assembly could hold!!!!

3 million views so far!!!!!!! critics are just mad!!

this is historical!!!!!!


.

WII...isnt that really the point?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by n david

I don't need phonics, but you obviously need a dictionary to see what the meaning of "lie" is.

Lie: N: An intentional false statement

Lie: A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Lie: A lie is an intentionally false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the truth.

In other words, when you speak and the words you speak are not true but you don't know they're not true and you're not meaning to intentionally make a false statement -- you're NOT lying.

When YOU post, and the posts you make claim a person is a liar, and you repeat that claim over and over again, and that person did not lie -- you libeled him.

So how do you call WII a liar when you cannot know his intent?

Are you libeling WII?