cactusjumper said:
gollum said:
cactusjumper said:
Mike,
I see. And this does not sound like a conspiracy?
[Depends on which rules you are talking about! The rules that the Mission Priests had to follow? NO they did not fall under those strictures. See, that is the very basis of my theory (and why they would choose to keep their coadjutors' names secret): the Jesuit love of finding the loopholes.
See, as long as the Jesuit Priests had no connection to the mining industry, then they were following the LETTER OF THE LAW. There were men who had taken a Vow Of Obedience to the Order whose identities were not known. If those men were tithing and bequeathing much of the profits from their businesses to the Order, and the King of Spain knew that they were part of the Order, do you think he would have thought they were following his rules? Not likely. In reality, they would have been following the LETTER OF THE LAW, but not the SPIRIT OF THE LAW. LOOPHOLES]
If it's not a conspiracy, why are they keeping this list from you?

Your "theory" reeks of conspiracy.......by any definition of the word.
Take care,
Joe
WAY TO GO JOE!!!
Way to completely ignore the subject and pick out a single word to argue. I can do that too:
I said "crazy conspiracy". Reading is fundamental.
Now, why don't you get back to the subject at hand?
Best-Mike
Mike,
Over the years, not much has changed in your approach to opposing opinions.
Everyone else is always wrong, and you are always correct. Even when dealing with someone, like Lamar, who has more knowledge and sources on the inner workings of the Catholic Church than any of us, outside the church, can ever hope to have, your methods are insults and bullying until you run the opposition out of the debate.
What that tends to do, is lessen everyone's access to a very good source. I am not saying that any of us are always right, or that we don't have maddening habits or seeming inability to admit when we are wrong, but you, my friend, are the epitome of truculence.
Do you want to exchange theories and opinions or just be "King of the hill"?
Take care,
Joe
Joe,
"Over the years" my approach has never been that I AM ALWAYS RIGHT. There are some things that I KNOW BEYOND DOUBT I am correct about. I call those FACTS. There are many other things that I have no direct proof with which to back up my assertions. I call those my THEORIES. Over the years, I have been VERY clear as to what were FACTS and what was THEORY.
Lamar has no more knowledge of the inner workings of the Jesuit Order or the Catholic Church than any one of my few good sources of information. In fact, what information he does have pales in comparison. I seem to remember several instances when he excessively argued a completely wrong idea, and when presented with the facts, he either:
>Disappeared for a couple of days, then started reposting on a different subject, completely ignoring everything before.
>Picked one word out of the post that may have been used out of context and ran it into the ground trying to avert attention from his original mistake.
>Took one or two words of the post out of context and pretended to be offended again trying to direct attention away from his mistake.
THAT adds absolutely nothing to any discussion. What it does is prove that he was Intellectually Dishonest. Not being able to admit when he was wrong.
The ONLY time I bullied Lamar was when he kept ignoring posted facts that COMPLETELY refuted his argument, and I would not let him change the subject until he answered the asked questions. Several of those to this day, he has never answered (at least until the point when I put him on ignore).
So Joe, you can make this personal if you want, or (FOR THE THIRD TIME) we can get back to the subject?
See, if I find evidence that refutes my THEORIES, I have no problem admitting such and starting from the drawing board if need be. That's why theories are called theories. If they were facts backed up by direct evidence we wouldn't be having this conversation. HAHAHA
What we DO have, though, are some facts that cannot be reconciled through written history:
Guevavi: A large piece of miscast bell on which the casting sprues are still attached. Also a large amount of slag with a VERY high silver content. A record of many deaths associated with this Mission that the symptoms look AMAZINGLY like heavy metal poisoning (like would be found at a refining facility).
Tumacacori: Old descriptions of metallic slag piles and rooms designed for metal working.
Jesuit Priests' descriptions of wealth that was simply not there when they were arrested in 1767.
Local Histories throughout the New World of Jesuit owned refining facilities and mines. Do you REALLY discount ALL of them? There are too many to be complete BS.
.......and much much more.
Best-Mike