[Tax-chick]

There is no colored text in NYer’s post that I can see. But I haven’t been myself since I got my bifocals.

As far as I can tell, NYer was paraphrasing an discussion in a book, in which the book’s author mentioned an interpretation attributed to someone else. (Some “Lemann Brothers,” whoever they are.) Since none of us has the exact words of the interpretation from its source, it seems a bit dubious to argue over it.

[Running On Empty]

Always glad for a reasoned response.

I think I’ll have a nap, too. :-)

[P-Marlowe]

Nyer made a point about what he called Mosaic Law. I asked him to show me the cite for that Mosaic Law.

I was then told by Campion that the reference really wasn't "Mosaic Law" but may have been some Rabbincal tradition or some such nonsense.

The Mosaic Law is scripture not tradition. If you want to rely on tradition, don't call it Mosaic Law, call it oral tradition or speculation.

What NYer is doing on this thread is spreading RUMOR and pretending it is fact. I've noticed he's used this same quote on other threads. Well if the prohibition against self incrimination is in the Mosaic Law, then prove it. It shouldn't be hard. If it is Mosaic Law, it is in the scriptures. If it isn't in the scriptures, then it isn't Mosaic Law.

I thought you were taking a nap? Did you find some Guinness in the back of the fridge?