chook5Ol’ eagle-eyed Scrivener caused a bit of pain-de-moan-ium down at the chookpen overnight as he swooped down and asked one of the regular complaints department lay-chooks to actually prove an eggstrawdinary accusation they laid against Hillsong.

Well, the feathers flew as the righteous brooders clucked, circled, and guarded the egg from cracking under the pressure of having to produce evidence for its existence. They weren’t yoking, it seems.

In typical fashion, though, the chook brigade banded together and asked:

  1. Why they should have to give actual evidence for an accusation they made,
  2. deflected Scrivener’s very uncomplicated question with another unrelated question,
  3. by demanding that Scrivener come up with a message from the Hillsong archives that demonstrated a completely different point to their accusation!

So the only conclusion you can come to with this kind of chookeroo court is that:

  1. The accused is guilty until he can prove himself innocent,
  2. The onus of proof is on the accused, not the accuser,
  3. The accuser can accuse away without giving a shred of evidence,
  4. The accuser’s pals will flap over to immediately and fervently defend the accuser’s right to produce evidence-free accusations,
  5. The defence has to come up with proof that refers to a completely different point to the one being made by the accuser,
  6. And the defence is just as guilty as the accused if they don’t shut up and go away!

Hilarious. And these chooks want to be taken seriously as discerners.

The other thing that stands out is that neither the chookwatchers nor their pen-pals are willing to do the hard yards of producing actual evidence for their claims, and, when they’re asked for proof, rather than provide it, they demand that the requester do their research for them.

And I’m pretty certain they won’t even get the point of what is being said in this post.

Stranger than fiction!