| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2007/5/3-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Reference/Religion] UID:46519 Activity:high |
5/3 So I watched "Frontline/American Experience" this week. The topic
was "The Mormons". I always knew the Mormons were a cult, but
they are even more cultish than I thought. I especially liked
the part about baptising dead Holocaust victims, which for
some reason Jewish people are not too happy about. I wonder why.
\_ Hi troll. This is the same PBS which refuses to show the special
they produced about fundamentalist Islam without islamic watchers.
-emarkp
\_ You know emarkp, this guy is just trying to bait you. Why
feed the troll?
\_ Are you accusing PBS of fabrications? Why am I not surprised.
\_ Biased reporting hardly requires fabrication.
\_ I don't think "biased reporting" is an issue. Either
the show is telling the truth about the origins
and customs of LDS or it isn't. Please give an example
of an instance in which you feel knowing "the other
side of the story" would put the LDS in a better light.
\_ No idea, I haven't seen the show. pp stated that
emarkp accused PBS of fabrications. That's
obviously not what emarkp said. Just pointing that
out. -!emarkp -pp
\_ *ASKED* if emarkp was accusing them of fabrications
\_ I would say the second sentence makes it a
pretty obvious accusation. Whatever.
\_ Do you still beat your wife? Why am I not
surprised.
\_ "Do you still beat your wife?" has the
a negative connotation no matter what
sentence follows it. There is no right
answer. That is not the case with the
question I asked.
\_ Ok, fine. You're beating your wife now?
Why am I not surprised.
\_ Hi, emarkp, what parts of the PBS report on Mormonism were
inaccurate or reported in a biased fashion? --erikred
\_ Haven't watched it yet, however I was pointing out that it's
censoring a producer unless that documentary is vetted by the
very religion it was documenting. We nutty Mormons weren't
treated the same. I have the eps on DVR and will be watching
them later. -emarkp
\_ Huh? What producer was censored?
\_ http://csua.org/u/ilv
\_ What do you mean "vetted by the very religion it
was documenting"? I don't see any reference to
this. The article says the PBS wasn't happy with
the documentary and it was not produced for
"Frontline". I am having trouble understanding
your point here.
\_ That was about the Nation of Islam:
MARTYN BURKE, PRODUCER, "ISLAM VS. ISLAMISTS": Yes,
well, I`ll give you one example. We were doing an
investigative report on how the Nation of Islam, the
so-called black Muslims, in Chicago were being
funded by the Saudi Arabian fundamentalists through
the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. And PBS,
through WETA, the flagship station in Washington,
appointed an adviser to oversee our efforts, and
that adviser was from the Nation of Islam.
Interviewed on the Glenn Beck TV show.
http://csua.org/u/ilz
-emarkp
\_ Corroboration?
\_ That is an interview with the guy himself.
-emarkp
\_ Yes, understood. Now, is there
corroboration from anyone else? Any further
details? How can we fact-check this?
\_ Call PBS if you don't believe Burke.
-emarkp
\_ I googled "Martyn Burke PBS" and
haven't found one article or story
that can't be traced back to
http://azcentral.com. This is dangerous
and shoddy journalism. I'd like to
see a piece on this done by at least
one other source, preferably with an
attempt to ask PBS about it.
\_ Because that's the paper that
broke the story. I think you
confuse lack of interest from
other news source with lack of
journalistic integrity on the
part of azcentral. What is it
about the azcentral story that
makes it shoddy? (Beyond your
personal feelings, of course).
If anything, that lack of
interest from MSM is rather
telling.
\_ They "broke" the story in
an opinion piece.
\_ What is it with the trolls today?
\_ I am willing to believe that a couple of Mormons NOT
REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE MORMON CHURCH butchered some nice folk
in the 1800s, but I certainly do not believe the Mormons
run around axeing people anymore. Much like I don't think
the Pope is going to sack Istanbul. dunno what Islam has
to with this.
\_ I don't think the massacre was very controversial. It was
more a case of where the church is NOW that was scary.
That, and the bullpucky that it was founded on, which even
the LDS seems to regard as suspect. The attitude of the LDS
officials was one of "whether our religion is a steaming pile
of crap or not, it seems to work for people". I can see some
beauty and logic in that, but then call it what it is, which
is *not* Christianity or really much to do with Christians.
It is that aspect which, as a Christian, offends me. Don't
go baptising dead Jews. They're Jewish. If they want to be
LDS then they will be. Mormons do a lot more proselytizing
and act much more "holier than thou" than any other religion
I have ever encountered.
\_ Once I'm dead, I'm dead. If some Mormon or anyone else wants
to perform some ritual, what do I care? I'm dead. Let me
spell that out for you: D-E-A-D. Ok? --some random Jew
\_ Don't get out much do ya?
\_ I don't think the baptism for the dead thing works the
way you think it does. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#Holocaust_victim_controversy
\_ What do you mean? It works exactly like they described
it does. You are posthumously baptising people who
may not want that. In fact, most don't.
\_ I was refering to the fact that the church itself
doesn't randomly do names, they have to be
submitted, usually by a descendant. If a mormon
decendent of holocaust victims wants to be baptised
for them, what right do you have to say they can't?
Beside that, how are you claiming to know what the
dead want? Are you John Edward or something?
Furthermore, see the last quote of that section,
the dead are not compelled to do anything in Mormon
theology.
\_ So says the LDS, but when their records are
examined it seems that that they are lying.
As for knowing what the dead want, if they
wanted to be Mormon then they would have been.
\_ Sigh, re-read wikiepdia and try again.
\_ Wikipedia is not the authoritative source
for this. Besides, did you read the part
about how they continue to find the names
of people like Hitler in the records?
\_ Ok, site an authoritative source.
Also still on the records != continues to
show up.
\_ Ok, site an authoritative source. Also
what exactly are you suggesting the
church do about this? Have a big list
of names no one is allowed to submit?
Talk about an intractable problem. I
guess it doesn't matter, I've seen
your opinion below, so I'm done.
\_ For crying out loud, we're not digging up bodies and
dunking them in water. We're not "posthumously
baptising" anyone. It's baptism **for** the dead, and
is an ordinance offered to them, which the person now
dead can accept or reject. -emarkp
\_ The whole concept is retarded and if you baptise
my dead relative without my consent I will personally
go over there and kick your ass. I don't mean to
resort to violence, but can't the LDS understand
why some people might not like this?! What if I
started baptising dead LDS members like Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young into Islam and created
altars to Mohammed with their names on them and
had suicide bombers paying homage to Joseph
Smith before they blew themselves up. I imagine
some LDS members would not care, but some probably
would not like that, right - and would ask the
question: "What the heck does Joseph Smith have
to do with Islam?"
\_ I wouldn't care one bit. I assume you think all
religion is retarded, so I really don't give a rip
what you think about one particular practice.
-emarkp
\_ I posthumously induct emarkp's great granddad
into the Ku Klux Klan. We'll be sure to list
him on our rolls of honor. -tom
\_ No, I don't think all religion is retarded.
I think baptising non-believers is
retarded and I think that even though the
Catholic Church did it to the Native
Americans. At least they were alive to
protest it, though.
\_ Again, we're not exuming someone and
baptizing their dead bodies, and you're an
idiot to keep claiming it. -emarkp
\_ What's the religious difference? There's
no difference as far as I can tell. So
there's a proxy body to make things
a little bit more sanitary.
\_ Ha ha. So, say your brother (or some such)
converts and wants to do baptisim for one of
your dead realatives, are you going to kick his
butt?
\_ Yes, I would.
\_ All right, cleared that up. Later.
\_ I usually ignore all of the 'Mormon theology is based
on a bunch of magic plates in a hillside arguments', who cares,
faith is faith, but putting stock in asking dead people
(emarkp, they're DEAD, they can't respond) their opinion
is pretty funny!
\_ In the context of religion, you do realize there's a concept of
life after death, right? -emarkp
\_ In traditional christianity, i don't think you have
any contact with dead people. maybe you hang out with them
in heaven. you don't get to ask them if they'd like
to be baptized into another religion. not too familiar
with what islam does. i think the ancestor worship
religions just worship the ancestors, they dont actually
talk to them.
\_ We don't claim to have contact with dead people to perform
proxy baptisms. -emarkp
\_ What's the name of your great grandparents? I'm going
to induct them into the Hashish Assassin cult I'm
starting up in my basement.
\_ Which proxy do you use? Squid? |
| 11/23 |
|
| csua.org/u/ilv -> washingtontimes.com/national/20070424-104634-4139r.htm Click-2-Listen Listen to this article or download audio file. advertisement Curtain raised on documentary PBS shelved By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES April 25, 2007 A documentary billed as "the film PBS doesn't want you to see" found an audience yesterday. Producers who say their movie was shelved by the nation's Public Broadcasting Service for political reasons screened the production privately at a theater a few blocks from the White House. Islamists," a provocative and often disturbing account of threats faced by moderate American Muslims at the hands of their more radical brethren and the growing "parallel Islamic society" within the borders of Western nations, including the United States, Canada, France and Denmark. A dozen members of Congress will view the 52-minute film on Capitol Hill today. It is stark and brooding at times, though the audience chuckled when critics categorized Westernized Muslims as "extremists." Moderate Muslims are "courageous, heroic and often alone," Mr Gaffney told the assembly, which included moderate Muslims from four countries and reporters from the Chicago Tribune, Danish Television and US News & World Report, among other news organizations. The documentary, however, did not pass muster at PBS or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which put up $675,000 in taxpayer funds for the production. It originally was intended to be broadcast during "America at a Crossroads,"a series that aired last week depicting a post-September 11 nation. The broadcasters said the film has been delayed, not shelved. In an interview last week, CPB spokesman Michael Levy categorized it as "a work in progress," adding that the film still stands a chance to be aired as an independent feature. Mr Gaffney contends that the broadcasters aired their own take on American Muslims, emphasizing their problems with racial profiling at airports and discrimination on these shores. Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona physician who is chairman of the moderate group American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and is featured in the film. The mainstream media has not brought up this issue, which is putting ideology into the guise of a religion," Dr. Jasser told the audience at the close of the presentation. The production team, which includes Martyn Burke and Alex Alexiev, said PBS criticism included accusations that their film "demonizes Islam." During the production process, sample footage was viewed, Mr Burke said, by members of the Nation of Islam. I just don't understand that from a journalistic standpoint," Mr Burke said, adding that he had gotten "very noisy" about the situation. Meanwhile, the film is still without a broadcast date, though the producers are determined that the film will be seen by the American people, "who paid for it," Mr Burke said. |
| csua.org/u/ilz -> transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/11/gb.01.html THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. ROY COOPER, NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We believe these three individuals are innocent. BECK: Now the charges are dropped, will any civil rights leaders stand up for their civil rights? A documentary about Islamic extremists is at the center of a new controversy. Well talk to somebody who experienced the wrath of Rosie firsthand and lived to tell the tale. Both teams include young athletes who were unfairly slammed in public by some thoughtless, uncaring individual or worse. One team is, of course, the Rutgers womens basketball team. Real civil rights leaders will stand up for anyone whose rights are violated, regardless of race. The whole world is on fire over the stupid, reprehensible comments made by Don Imus about the Rutgers team. Staples, along with Procter & Gamble now, have decided to pull their advertising from the Imus radio show. Every leader -- civil rights leader around is jumping on the bandwagon and rightfully so. The media, though -- the media is falling all over themselves to show that the women of Rutgers are not, to quote Imus, "nappy-headed hos." They are hard-working women who have accomplished a lot in their lives. Do you remember how the Duke lacrosse team was accused of rape and basically convicted by the media and the public last year? The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur. Apparently, its now become clear that the woman who accused the Duke players of raping her was lying. The Duke players now are going to be free to live their lives. In the public consciousness they are forever going to be associated with rape. Can you imagine going into a job interview with the words "Duke lacrosse" on your resume? You really think that people are not going to look at that and say, excuse me? The words "Duke lacrosse" have become symbolic with a horrific gang rape. Meanwhile, the accuser is being described -- and if I heard this one more time, my head is going to explode. Shes being described in the media as an "exotic dancer." She accused these young men of not being nappy-headed hos, but of being violent and privileged white rapists. Thats not just an offensive insult said by some old fart on the radio that nobodys even listening to anymore. Civil rights leaders, you guys were all so quick to denounce these guys, you know, even as the evidence piled up that this whole thing was a sham. Now the attorney general has deemed them, quote, "innocent." Will you same civil rights leaders come out in defense of these three guys? Will anyone hold a rally over their civil rights which were violated? And will anybody call for the firing of the DA Mike Nifong or the stripper, the stripper who destroyed these kids lives? I dont think, however, we should go firing and go on a witch-hunt over language. But I also dont want to call for the firing of the stripper. Oh, but I do support a two-week suspension of all her stripper-related activities at the pole. They are not anything like the women that Don Imus described. However, the world needs to also recognize that the Duke team members are not anything like the men the stripper described. What are the consequences of these accusations in todays world? I know that if you say what Don Imus said you can get thrown off the radio perhaps, but what about the other? Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Mickey Sherman and nationally syndicated columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Earl, do you see any of these civil rights leaders coming out to defend these guys now? EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, NATIONAL SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: No, I dont and Ill tell you why. The interesting thing about that is about three months ago in my second column I said, and I challenged civil rights leaders, many African-American leaders in that area in North Carolina, the Durham area. I said, "Look, you have made an issue consistently for the last year about these Duke lacrosse players. I heard you say before, Glenn, about the rallies and demanding the resignation of Nifong. I would stand side by side at the press conference if I was the civil rights leaders, and we know who were talking about. I would stand by them, the three players, their parents, their attorneys, and I would say, "We support you. We were wrong if we called for criminal charges and prosecutions before that." And the second thing I would do is I would call for the resignation of Nifong. You know, you would show yourself as not being just about politics and power, and you would actually have credibility. Apparently thats, you know -- thats too much to ask for from some people. Mickey, witch-hunt, I keep hearing -- weve got a story here in the "Real Story" in just a minute about PBS and possibly telling their documentary producers, "Dont you ask people, you know, what their politics are before you put them on a documentary?" We are on a full-fledged witch-hunt in this country, whether it be based on race or politics or your belief on Islamic terror. MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, broadcasters, whether theyre talk show hosts or morning hosts or comics, theyre allowed to be stupid. Theyre allowed to make ridiculously stupid and inane comments. And the litmus test is whether its funny and entertaining, and you measure against that against whether or not theyve offended anybody. And if they offend people theyre going to get lashed out as has Don Imus. But the real judge of whether or not theyre going to be successful, whether or not theyre right or wrong, is going to be the viewers and the listeners. Let them decide whether or not they want to listen or hear these people. BECK: So Mickey, let me go to -- let me go to the Duke players. I mean, they will always be known as, "Oh, you were the guy who was accused of rape." Is there anything that can be taken against this -- Im sorry Im not going to call her an exotic dancer -- the stripper? An exotic dancer, stripper, shes obviously a demented person with some serious problems, substance abuse problems as we know. Theyre the ones who are supposed to weigh and reflect as to whether or not they believe the person. And I dont blame him for bringing the case very quickly. But he -- very, very soon thereafter he knew he had hard evidence that proved the case was bogus. So, you know, usually a rape case is like a one-on-one, so the fact that there was no hard evidence at first, that doesnt bother me. And then he started playing games with the disclosure of forensic evidence and the bogus lineup. I mean, it was so bad that, I mean, whoever would think that an attorney general of the state would come out and say not only do we not have a provable case, because thats usually the language, we cant prove the case. SHERMAN: So thats the label these guys will have, which aint so bad. Well, youre youve thrown away a lot of your college career, as well, though, at the same time. I mean, youve got to look at the media and say were part of it. I mean, everybody just jumps on this bandwagon because people will consume it. When the -- when the world doesnt revolve around the truth anymore, how do we survive? I would even add one other thing, too, ratings, ratings, ratings. You know, weve got into a thing now with the media, where if it sells, if we can enflame the public and it sells, then well do it. So at some point in time theres going to have to be a self-policing of the media. Look, you just cant put stuff out there, unsubstantiated allegations, inflammable things, irresponsible talk and keep doing this, because you think its going to get a tenth of a percentage point ratings bump-up. Yes, the advertisers, but, yes, also corporate officials, broadcast officials have a duty and responsibility to be fair and balanced. MITT ROMNEY , PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, you know, I think its a huge mistake for her. And I think its one of the most embarrassing and most partisan and most ill-conceived actions of any leader of our country in the last decade. Its unacceptable, and if people feel that we have the wrong foreign policy then, of course, theyre free to change presidents, and that happens every four years. Tomo... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#Holocaust_victim_controversy Other Latter Day Saint bodies that accept Baptism for the Dead include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) and The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). Strangites practiced this ordinance during the 1840's in Voree, Wisconsin, and later during the 1850's on Beaver Island, Michigan. In both cases, it was specifically authorized by revelation given through the Strangite prophet, James J Strang. The main Strangite organization no longer actively practices proxy baptism (due to lack of prophetic leadership at the current time), but belief in it is required for membership. Cutlerite practice, in contrast to the LDS, permits Baptisms for the Dead in Cutlerite meetinghouses (of which only two exist today, one in Clitherall, Minnesota and the other in Independence, Missouri). Though Cutlerites believe in the concept of temples, one is not required under their doctrine for this particular ordinance (though proxy baptisms would, of course, be performed in a temple, as well; Cutlerites simply do not have one of their own at present). A baptismal font is constructed beneath the floor of the main-floor chapel, imitating the basement location of the font in the Nauvoo, Illinois temple as revealed by Joseph Smith. This is then used for baptism of the livng and for the dead. Cutlerites practiced Baptisms for the Dead sporadically throughout their history (including during the early 1990's), but it is not known if they still do so. As with the LDS and the Strangites, belief in this doctrine is required for membership in their Church. Some members of the early Community of Christ Church (formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or RLDS for short) also believed in Baptism for the Dead, but it was never officially sanctioned by that organization. Doctrine and Covenants revalations appertaining to this practice were removed from that book by the RLDS General Conference in 1970. The RLDS Doctrine and Covenants revelation authorizing construction of their Independence, Missouri Temple specifically and permanently banned what it termed "secret ordinances," and accordingly no provision was made for Baptisms for the Dead in that temple. Most (if not all) members of the contemporary Community of Christ Church tend to reject proxy baptism as being a valid part of their faith. Some adherents to the Restoration Branches movement, which broke from the Community of Christ Church in the 1980's, still believe in the correctness of Baptism for the Dead, though it is not practiced in their churches as of yet. These tend to believe that it will one day be sanctioned under the leadership of a new prophet, whom they expect will reuinte the various Latter Day Saint factions under his leadership and correct what they feel is wrong in the main Community of Christ Church. However, many other members of the Branches ardently disagree with this, rejecting the validity of the Baptism for the Dead doctrine and its practice now or ever. This dichotomy reflects the dispute over this doctrine (and other practices of the Mormon Church in Nauvoo) that embroiled the early RLDS movement. Most Restoration Branch members seem content (as were their earlier RLDS forebears) to leave resolution of this matter to a future prophet. Brigham Young University, Utah writes: " That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. " Some argue that the fact that these two councils felt it necessary to explicitly forbid baptism for the dead shows that there must have been a significant group of people practicing some form of it, accompanied by opposition to it by the church's leadership. Others disagree with the classification of such groups as "orthodox", since the councils concluded that they were in fact unorthodox, at least with respect to that practice. The "early church" refers to the church shortly after the time of the apostles. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" Latter Day Saints believe this statement is an acknowledgment by Paul that baptism for the dead was both practiced and accepted. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says that "commentators have offered between thirty and forty other interpretations, more or less strained, of the passage." Most of these other interpretations center around the notion that either Paul was merely trying to point out contradiction within practices unique to the Corinthians or that the wording describes something other than actual physical baptism. In this verse, Jesus states: "Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." LDS belief is that the practice of performing baptism for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his gospel during their mortal lives. It is believed that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the Earth will have the opportunity to receive this ordinance and to enter the Kingdom of God. LDS teaching states that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. Any member of the LDS church, male or female, with a current temple recommend (issued to worthy members who are at least 12 years old) may act as a proxy in this ordinance. Saint Paul endeavors to prove the doctrine of the resurrection from the same, and says, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? edit Genealogy and baptism The LDS church holds that deceased persons who have not accepted or had the opportunity to accept the gospel of Christ in this life will have the opportunity to accept the gospel in the afterlife. As all must follow Jesus Christ, they must also receive all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive, including baptism. This genealogy research is then used as the basis of research in the Church's efforts to perform temple ordinances for as many deceased persons as possible. As a part of these efforts, Mormons have performed temple ordinances on behalf of a number of high profile people. Vicarious baptism does not mean that the decedent is forced to accept the ordinance performed for him or her or that the deceased becomes a member of the LDS Church; it merely means that the decedent has the option to accept the ordinance and the benefits which the Latter-day Saints claim baptism provides. To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, the Church in recent years has published a general policy of only performing temple ordinances for direct ancestors of Church members. Presidency of the Seventy stated that removing the names is an "ongoing, labor intensive process requiring name-by-name research ... When the Church is made aware of documented concerns, action is taken ... While there are different approaches taken to interpreting the meaning of this scripture, some mainstream Christians believe Paul was merely demonstrating the logical contradiction between the practices of these local Christians and their lack of belief in the resurrection without giving any approval of the action. "), or to the symbol of Baptism - the death, burial and resurrection of the individual as they begin their new life as a disciple of Jesus Christ. Other scholars are not exactly sure about what Paul meant by the comments (see links below). Vincent of Lerins, that Christians should believe that which "has been believed by all Christians in all places at all times." Many Christians dismiss this practice because they believe salvation is not dependent on baptism at all and that Christ's example of being baptized by John the Baptist is irrelevant to one's own personal salvation. If baptism is not important, then baptism on behalf of the dead is irrelevant and unneeded. edit Holocaust victim controversy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vicariously baptizes peo... |
| azcentral.com -> www.azcentral.com/ Ministers to confront state's gay marriage ban Brad Wishon As the nation prepares for the first legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, four Arizona church ministers and a busload of same-sex couples will challenge Arizona's marriage laws by attempting to get marriage licenses Friday. Ticketmaster given walking papers by Valley venue Citing "ridiculous" service charges that can boost the price of a concert ticket by more than 20 percent, the operators of Phoenix's Celebrity Theatre have given Ticketmaster the boot. D-Backs fall to Mets D-Backs Vance Wilson hit his first home run of the season, a three-run shot off Brandon Webb, and the New York Mets beat the Arizona Diamondbacks 7-4 Thursday night. Trojan pony Grand, glittering battle sequences - created on computers - are the story of this well-intentioned if sometimes clunky re-creation the Iliad, Homer's epic poem about the Trojan War, which stars Brad Pitt as the Greek hero Achilles and Eric Bana as his chief competition, Hector. Man gases up, pays price he thinks is fair Terry Blake, 71, filled his car with $25 worth of fuel. Then he paid the attendant what he considered to be ''the fair price'' - $20 in cash - and drove off. But not before leaving his name, phone number and address so police could find him. |