Message from discussion KSIC denies the Bible
Received: by 10.224.186.20 with SMTP id cq20mr311501qab.8.1352960047946;
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.51.42 with SMTP id h10mr103343qeo.42.1352960047914; Wed, 14
Nov 2012 22:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.127.116.11; posting-account=zW8kxwgAAABrCuDYTbWRR0mwD854eYAP
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7; en-us)
AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/530.17,gzip(gfe)
Subject: KSIC denies the Bible
From: Jazzy Belle <fvrn...@yahoo.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:14:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Nov 14, 1:53=A0pm, kensmithiscool <kensmithisco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 5:51=A0am, K Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:08:24 -0800 (PST), kensmithiscool
> > <kensmithisco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The context your demon of lying fears has been replaced.
> God would like your demons to be replaced with the love of of Jesus
You speak for G-d now boobie? With your very sinful history?
> > >Which is why I don't entertain word games.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Yet above it is proved you do.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Odd that.
> You've convinced your evil spirits of this. =A0Why am I not surprised...
> > > Do you understand that
> > >"rate" and "we" were unintentionally conjoined.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0This doesn't alter that your demon of lying made you post a =
> > that you knew was a lie.
> Since it is impossible for me to have a demon
Really? How is it "impossible"? Your idol bob larson himself says
Christians can have demons. Even in the Bible, Job, being the most
devoted to G-d, was allowed by G-d to be the chew toy of Satan,
supposedly to test his devotion to G-d. Even one of Jesus' Apostles
during the Last Supper was at the very least the sock puppet of Satan,
which Jesus recognized.
Why are you supposedly impervious? In Christian theology, anyone can
be demon possessed, saints, sinners, anyone. Any sin you have done or
was done to you or "inherited", according to your idol, is "legal
authority" for a demon to come in.
And you definitely are a sinner, boobie.
> and even more beyond the
> bounds of possibility that you can diagnose someone with demons,
As opposed to your college drop out, mail order diploma mill, unearned
priestly attire wearing idol? The same phony who "exorcised" Spiderman
from "Stanley", who couldn't "exorcise" Necrobutcher and who didn't
discern that "Shirley Ghostman" was doing an act. A guy who can't
"diagnose" a cold from a carouche.
> unintentionally amusing attempt to finger-point as a means to deflect
> attention from your longstanding bout with demons is properly noted.
Lie and projection noted.
> > >In other words, you're penchant for lying knows no boundary...
> > =A0 =A0 =A0You wrote, "How can I be reduced to spelling flames when you=
> > telling me I haven't made spelling flames?"
> > =A0 =A0 =A0As you have helped to prove, your position is one of a lie.
> I'm not responsible for your delusions, Kent. =A0And your delusions
> won't help your situation to effectively play psychological games.
Irony noted. Considering what you've been trying to do to me for years
-- and failed time and time again-- you yourself play mental games,
> > >The mere absence of these "numerous people" coupled with you inability
> > >to produce anything beyond you "because I say so" line of jive is
> > >enough to persuade any rational person that "Lin" and "the children"
> > >are a thoroughgoing myth. =A0You make it too easy, Kent.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0You are the one who lied about "anyone else here reading thi=
> This is false, Kent. =A0There isn't anyone here other than your
> sockpuppets who can verify that you are married to a "Lin." =A0 This
> goes without saying that it is impossible to produce offspring with an
> imaginary woman.
He has and she is real. Thank you for arguing against gaggie's
childish claim and agreeing with Kent about the existence of his
lovely wife and their munchkins. :-D
> > >> Projection noted.
> > >Do you and Maureen use the same Book of Internet Comebacks, or do you
> > >each have your own copy?
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Avoidance of the truth noted.
> Does conversation multi-tasking give you discomfort, Kent? =A0I merely
> pointed out that you and Maureen share the same, trite comebacks. =A0I
> suppose this is why Greggor refers to you two as KentMoe...
Not trite as you deceptively and dishonestly represent, as usual. Our
responses are calmly based and acknowledging that both you and your
shill gaggie are using tactics that both of us recognize as attempts
to push our buttons. It can become amusing at times when the motives
of you two are obvious. Even better when your retorts show more about
yourselves than about us.
The fact that Kent and I are both of above average IQ dealing with two
losers is just a touch of maple syrup on our delicious wafflez.
> > >I'm sure I could find something more recent, and probably could if
> > >pressed to it...
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Please do so. Show a post from Ken wherein he make the same,=
> > similar, claim about me since 2000.
> Since 2000, eh? =A0I wasn't aware that KS held his opinion of you as a
> bald faced liar throughout the 90s.
So where is your proof? And how ironic it is that you for so long have
dissed Ken Smith and yet NOW you cite Ken Smith as a source for your
childish lie about Kent.
> >Nowhere in Google's Usenet
> > archive, or any other Usenet archive, will you find such a post.
> You sound awfully confident there, Kent. =A0Did you delete those posts
He cannot delete posts sent by accounts he does not hold. Lie noted.
> > =A0Why not use the any of the comments where Ken
> > =A0stated the opposite?
> Because they don't exist, Kent...
As your claim does not exist, or you would gleefully show the links.
Doubke standard noted.
> > >> How conveniently you forget when Greg made a similar claim and I
> > >> not only named names, but posted the MIDs for these claims.
> > >Link please...
> > Message-ID:
> > <fadb797b-8a6c-4a9a-a5c1-225bb6f7e...@u7g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0That's my favorite. True, it's a post from you, but you quot=
> > of the people who commented.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0But wait, that's not all.
> Not so fast there, Kent. =A0If you're going to post a MID, at least
> understand that it must be complete. =A0You gave be a truncated MID,
> Kent! :) =A0Try again...
> > =A0 =A0From February of 2008:
> > Message-ID:
> > <Iivpj.9215$Ej5.8...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> is a post where
> > commentary is made about Lin's hair and a song The Princess was
> > singing.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Admittedly, the post has no comment about Number One Son, bu=
> > was there as well. Flirting with the poster's daughters.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Here's one from someone else sent out in 2003.
> > Message-ID: <3EA62BC3.C97F9...@suespammers.org>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Not3 his comment about how I married above my station. Somet=
> > I've always said.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0I can offer more, if you feel the NEED to have your lies exp=
> Again, you're going to have to understand how to share a MID if you
> expect me or the audience to follow it. =A0Hard to believe after several
> decades on Usenet you somehow weren't knowledgeble enough in this
> instance to know what you're doing. =A0Hmmmmm....
> > You're in a bit of a bind now.
> Yeah you really got me there, Kent. =A0Within your bluster to provide
> MIDs from a decade ago as proof that Lin and the children are =A0REALLY
> REAL, you posted incomplete MIDs. =A0Such a bind!
More like you can't access the MIDs. I have no such problem.
> > Either Lin and the children are
> > real, or there is a conspiracy to make people believe they are. Which
> > do you think is the more plausible option?
> =A0If you can't provide proof from *this* decade of their existence,
> then the plausible option can only be the latter, Kent.
That is a dumb claim boobie. The existence of his wife and children in
one decade does not suddenly make them cease to exist if he dors not
post about them where you can find it.
But it explains your approach in your reinventions of yourself, I mean
bob larson, where you, I mean bob larson, rewrite your past, omit your
many failures and uncovered sins, and don't mention to your followers
why you are so interested in their teenagers for you " freedom
> Kent, you are very argumentative for a so-called Christian. =A0Were you
> asleep in the pew when they covered 2 Timothy 2:24 and Proverbs 20:3?
When was the last time YOU were held accountable, submitted to
legitimate authority or actually himbled yourself, facing your sins,
to Jesus Christ, boobie?
I can attest to your hypocrisy and how you yourself don t walk the