#
Proverbs 15:9,Jeremiah 44:4,Jeremiah 44:11

The LORD detests the way of the wicked,
but he loves those who pursue
righteousness.
#
Proverbs 19:21,Isaiah 44:26,Ezekiel 12:25
Many are the plans in a person's heart,
but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/prov/23.7?lang=eng

Chapter 23

Labor not to be rich—As a man thinks in his heart, so is he—
Withhold not correction from a child—Be not among drunkards.

1 When thou sittest to eat/with a ruler,>>..
HAVING FOLLOWED custom/and protocol..<<..consider diligently what is before thee:>>

ONE..NEEDS Ask..WhY THIS ADVICE

<<..2 And put a knife to thy throat,..if thou
be a man given to appetite.3 Be not desirous of his dainties:>>

THis is an all encompasing..appitite
HIS/NO OUR..daInty..TIES..

>>for they are deceitful meat>>.
MUCH LIKE moxck meat[ie soy dust bound with egg whites..
faux meat:..

<<4 Labour not ..to be rich:..cease from thine own wisdom.
5 Wilt thou set thine eyes..upon/that which is not wise?

for riches certainly make themselves wings;
they fly away..as an eagle toward heaven.

..;6 Eat thou not the bread>>..leven..<<....of him that hath an evil ....eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:7..*For as he thinketh in*..his heart, so is he:

Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart
is not with thee.8 The morsel which thou hast eaten
shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.

9 Speak not in the ears..of a fool:..for he will despise\the wisdom of thy words...10 Remove not the old landmark;..and enter not into the fields of the fatherless/or faithless.

:11 For their redeemer...is mighty; he shall plead their cause..with thee.12 ..Apply thine heart*/PASSIOnS..unto instruction,...and thine ears to the words/of knowledge...knowing thyne masters voice by the affectation/of their wurds

I was going to post this last night, but I ran up against the post limit.

<< Which "uncertainties", Ludwig? >>

Poirot, I have explained that as clearly as I possibly can.

I don’t know how you can hold such strong views against me if you don’t understand this.

The very fact that you asked this tells me that it is time to terminate this discussion.

I’m not going to continue with a circular discussion. I am having to repeat really basic things all the time as it is, and constantly assert the basis of my opinion, and yet I am still getting accused of taking a stance that is much more strongly in favour of Harris than what it really is.

I am obviously not getting across even the basics of my message, despite long and detailed posts up around the maximum of 8 per day.

Poirot and R0bert, I wish to retain good relations with both of you. So I guess we will just leave it at that. We’ll beg to differ on this.

But just realise what it is we differ on. Go back and carefully reread my posts, starting with my critique of the judge's sentencing remarks. Then perhaps you will see that you are overreacting and attributing views to me which you just should not be.

Thanks for the discussion.

Then later I thought:

NAH, I’m not bowing out of this one. At least, not yet.

But please, let’s keep it progressing along and not let it become circular and repetitive.

Be willing to compromise
http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/respond-to-counterattacks/respond-to-opposition/main
Your opponents may be willing to work with you in good faith, particularly if you have run a good advocacy campaign. Keep an eye open for situations that might turn into a chance to work together. Be careful that by saying cooperation, your opponents don't really mean capitulation to their interests. But be careful, too, that you are open to any legitimate possibilities for making a deal that come your way. If an opposition leader states publicly that some of your ideas have merit, that could be the olive branch you've been waiting for to achieve peace, and also reach some of your goals.
What are the ten D's?

The ten D's of opposition tactics are:

* Deflect
* Delay
* Deny
* Discount
* Deceive
* Divide
* Dulcify
* Discredit
* Destroy
* Deal

Specific strategies for responding to opposition tactics

Some of these tactics can be dealt with in similar ways; these are grouped together.
Deflect and Delay

Deflection happens when your opponents try to shift the focus of the debate from the real problem to other issues, or when they try to "pass the buck" to a group with little or no authority. Delays occur when the opposition says it is working on the problem, when the reality is that nothing has been done. Sometimes they do this by claiming that they don't yet have enough information to move on the problem, when there is already plenty of information. Often the opposition will form a committee or commission to study the problem, putting things off for as long as possible. Your opponent is most likely hoping that the public will lose interest if the issue can be put off indefinitely

<< why are you still attempting to mitigate his actions? >>

Why are you so determined to hold the hardest of hardline views, Poirot? This is not something that I would have expected from you, having come to know you over the last four years or more on OLO.

I am saying, for the umpteenth time, that other interpretations are possible. Yours might be right, but it might not be. The judge’s sentencing remarks raised significant concerns for me. Go back and reread my analysis of his remarks, especially pertaining to ‘C’.

And yes, pertaining to ‘B’ at least, I do indeed think that mitigation of Harris’ actions are in order. The six months (consecutive) jail time that he received for squeezing this girl’s buttocks is outrageous.

I am saying that you, R0bert, Foxy and co, need to have a more open mind on this subject, instead of upholding such a condemnatory position.

R0bert, you asked:

<< Have you considered that it may be far worse than has been to court so far? >>

Yes indeed.

So, given that you have thought about this, have you also thought about the possibility of it not being as bad as it has appeared to be…. so far at least?

<< There may have been victims too badly impacted by his actions to yet be at a point where they could deal with the trauma of being a witness. >>

Yes. And think about the converse: There may have been overstated impacts from one or more of the four girls, over which Harris has been convicted of committing offences against.

Are you willing to accept this possibility, or do your thoughts only extend in one direction – that things could be worse than what they seem?

<< There are lines adults should never cross in the types of situations were Harris offended. >>

Agreed. But, there are degrees of severity.

<< Do you understand that in interactions with children that it's the adults legal responsibility to restrain themselves even if they do feel led on sexually? >>

Absolutely. But there are degrees of severity.

Complete condemnation for lower-end-of-the-spectrum offences is just terribly unbalanced. Just think about that in relation to all manner of other offences. Littering. Speeding. Stealing, etc, etc. Why should pedophilic / child-molestation / child touching offences be viewed differently to everything else in this regard?