Posted on 01/13/2011 8:06:02 AM PST by AnAmericanMother
I don't tilt at windmills. I read the threads live as Freepers corrected it and it was changed back. I don't take on futile endeavors.
Btw, very interesting since I never said that. I called you a noob and possible troll. Interesting.
It would be later than the NT, obviously, and presumably somewhere in commentaries connecting, as you note, the exchange in Matthew with the persecution of the Jewish people.
But the term "blood libel" adds a second layer -- the determination that the accusation is false. That is why the date of origin of the term is significant, and should also give some clues as to when the term was applied to any false accusation of shedding innocent blood.
Were the Cathars accused of consuming blood?
I was speaking generically. I fully don't remember what you called me.
The Knights Templar were accused of ritual sacrifice as well as homosexual behavior.
When you're trying to exterminate a well entrenched group, the allegations have to be as heinous as possible.
I don't trust it for anything. Orson Scott Card wrote that he tried to correct some errors (dates, IIRC) that had been entered into his Wiki biography, and someone took the corrections out and put the errors back.
Of course you were. Is there any other way to make baseless accusations?
And you do range around the forum looking for fights. You don't discuss, you challenge.
“Yep, and killing babies too.”
And Planned Parenthood does it for real, and gets away with it.
Yep, there’s a good reason why universities don’t accept it.
And apparently there are some posters who still don’t get. Have you read farther? :-)
I’ve been dealing with those clowns for 5 years now. I usually end up tutoring them when they are about to flunk out.
Oh, and before they ask, yes I do edit it. So I am familiar with why you shouldn’t trust wikipedia as a primary source.
:-D
LOL!
Wiki is generally reliable for quick and fast information. The science articles are especially useful (and accurate). And for pop culture material it is non-pareil.
Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How [he] rewrote 5,428 climate articles
Type in keyword "wikipedia" on FR and open your eyes.
It's a strange world, isn't it?
I’ve seen plenty of Wiki articles here with the same back and forth. John Hopkins U. did an experiment where they introduced about a dozen errors in various science articles. All of them were corrected within 90 minutes. I’ve found plenty of information there which turned out to be true. If you in depth analysis that’s obiously not the only place you should look but almost all of their large articles are extensively cross linked with other sources.
You have a nice day.
You can find conspiracies on just about any subject. Soros funds Wikipedia is up there with ‘Fox News is run by the Saudis’. You have a good day too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.