Posted on 11/13/2006 10:57:02 PM PST by B4Ranch
Even that statement isn't true. You are referring to either post #63 which has only one reference to the East Wall Frieze or post #70 which only concerns the east pediment as you correctly pointed out. So far the only thing you have been right about.
The article refers to her as a tour guide. There is no mention of an information desk or anyone at or from an information desk in the article. But you just keep making things up if it floats your boat.
It's very sad when the very thing our country was predicated on, is systematically rooted out of every instituion. It seems we sacrifice everything we believe in for the 1% who really don't give a damn to begin with.
"I pledge allegiance to God and country!"
Get your bumper sticker or t-shirt today at Titillating Tees! The best anti-liberal store on the net!
http://www.cafepress.com/titillatingtees.66420155
Sandy: And that's the tour guide I mentioned who didn't know about the Commandment's on the courtroom door. That's what that sentence is about.
No, that is one in the same person you keep calling "the lady at the information desk." The tour guide he showed the picture to.
Is that your reason for all your confused posts?
I did. When someone profers information as a representative of the government that makes the claim that the tablets in Moses' hands are the 'ten amendments' that, IMO, is reducing him to a non-entity. You are free to disagree with my opinion.
I don't know what website the author is talking about there.
He wasn't specific was he? You are correct that the SC website accurately describes the tablets in Moses' hands, on the South Wall Frieze, as the Ten Commandments. That correction should be directed at the author not me.
Exclusive Photo Essay: God in the Temples of Government: Part I
Exclusive Photo Essay: God in the Temples of Government: Part II
I'm not making things up. Evidently, you don't comprehend my replies any more then you comprehend the original article. To repeat what I already said in reply #80: That's because it's a poorly written article. If you follow the link in the article and read Dubord's piece, it makes more sense.
And just in case that sentence is still incomprehensible, here's the link from the article to Dubord's piece: http://www.lacconline.org/supremecourt.asp.
I do thank you for the link though. The article there lays out a much more damning indictment of the SC guides and information specialists and does so very clearly as opposed to the "poorly written" article leading this thread. I encourage everyone who reads this far to check it out.
10 Commandments Changed to 10 Amendments at U.S. Supreme Court
I'm referring to post #63, where paragraphs 1-5 are all about the East Wall Frieze.
Here:
This quote says where the frieze is located:
There, he said, his tour guide was describing the marble frieze directly above the justices' bench.And this quote is regarding tour guide's description of of the frieze:
"Between the images of the people depicting the Majesty of the Law and Power of Government, there is a tablet with ten Roman numerals, the first five down the left side and the last five down the right. This tablet represents the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights," she said.And the following quotes all deal with Dubord's investigation into what the tour guide said about the frieze:
One official Supreme Court document, he found, cited a letter from sculptor Adolph A. Weinman that said the "pylon" carved with Roman numerals I to X "symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution." But the letter was anomalous; it didn't have a number of certifying marks that were typical of others.Now let's recap in case you lost track:(snip)
Further research produced information that in 1987 the building was designated a National Historic Landmark, and came under control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and under the new management the handbook was rewritten in 1988. The Ten Commandments reference was left out of that edition, and nothing replaced it.
The next reference found said only the frieze "symbolizes early written laws" and then in 1999, the reference first appeared to that depiction being the "Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights."
I said: "Most of the quotes in your 'demonstration' to me dealt with the East Wall Frieze."
You said: "Even that statement isn't true. You are referring to either post #63 which has only one reference to the East Wall Frieze"
I say: "I'm referring to post #63, where paragraphs 1-5 are all about the East Wall Frieze." (Those five paragraphs are copied/pasted in this reply.)
So what? That has nothing to do with the substance of the article. Nothing.
No it's not. It's two different people. One woman is a tour guide. The other woman is someone Dubord talked to at the information booth after the tour. The tour guide told him to go to the information booth, and so he did.
If you'd bother to read the link I gave you--which is Dubord's actual report--you might understand what I'm saying.
No problem. Good luck with that reading comprehension problem though. G'nite.
If you had bothered to give that link in the first place you wouldn't have created all this confusion as to what you are talking about. But you were still wrong on most of your points. My rebuttals still stand.
Good luck with that bi-polar thing.
Actually it is in the WND article. I'm shocked you missed it. ;-)
No it isn't. If it was you would have cut and pasted it by now. You lie.
There is no mention of that in the article as posted at the head of this thread. The closest thing is this...
The current information office at the Supreme Court declined to talk on the record with WND when asked about Ten Commandments representations on the building, referring questioners to the website.
There is no mention there of a person, a conversation with a person or the gender of a person. You are caught in another outright lie.
This is a joke, right? Please tell me you're kidding. You can't possibly be this dense.
I gave you the link in my reply #88. In reply #89, you thanked me for that link and also said, "It wasn't in the article posted here or in the WND article." But the link *is* in the WND article. That's where I got it from. Repeat: The link to DuBord's article is in the WND article; that's where I got the link; that's the link I gave you in reply 88; and that's the link you thanked me for in reply 89.
But still for some godforsaken reason, after I said, "Actually it [the link] is in the WND article," you come back and say, "No it isn't. If it was you would have cut and pasted it by now. You lie."
Hello? Is this thing on?
This is the last time I'll say it. Follow the link in the article (which I posted to you in reply 88).
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.