To: Man50D
You don’t hang witches. First you throw her into a pond. If she floats, she’s a witch, proceed to burn her. If she drowns, then she isn’t a witch.
This is a public service announcment.
6 posted on
10/15/2007 3:56:51 AM PDT by
kb2614
(Hell hath no fury than a bureaucrat scorned)
To: kb2614
That’s why folks used to burn witches...to keep them from complaining and screwing things up so much.
8 posted on
10/15/2007 4:02:02 AM PDT by
BRK
To: kb2614
You don’t hang witches. First you throw her into a pond. If she floats, she’s a witch, proceed to burn her. If she drowns, then she isn’t a witch.
Can you build a bridge out of her?
9 posted on
10/15/2007 4:14:01 AM PDT by
OC_Steve
To: kb2614
If she weighs the same as a duck, therefore...
11 posted on
10/15/2007 4:23:20 AM PDT by
sirchtruth
(No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
To: kb2614
To: kb2614
“You don’t hang witches.”
Well, That’s how accused witched were killed in Salem.
23 posted on
10/15/2007 5:44:06 AM PDT by
L98Fiero
(A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
To: kb2614
You don’t hang witches. Massachusetts authorities would beg to differ. They have the most hands on experience in this area and actually hanged 21 witches in 1693. One man was pressed to death while they were trying to extract a confession from him. Of course, they were pikers by contemporary Continental standards.
Hanging seems to be quite effective. If you don't hang them they parade around town making pests of themselves.
40 posted on
10/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PDT by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson