IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY
::: good news runner :::
YOU ARE AS BORING AS A LUKEWARM HOT WATER BOTTLE, IRMA <KELLY> GREESE!
RACIST LIKE YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND SO BORING!!!
*yawn*
*big yawn*
And now you can shoot your low shots again as much as you please, you
moron gay.
You do not have much ammunition left to shoot at me, Irma <KELLY>. You
have (ab)used it all.
If I was an American, I would be ashamed od being your fellow compatriot
with all your racism and hate towards others who do nothing else but
tell you the truth about the Bible, really. You see, homosexuality is in
it, but the Lord does not really appreciate it. In fact it is a sin
whith which you will not enter Heaven unless you repent.
EOD
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::
Sensi
> If I was an American, I would be ashamed od being your fellow compatriot
> with all your racism and hate towards others who do nothing else but
> tell you the truth about the Bible, really. You see, homosexuality is in
> it, but the Lord does not really appreciate it. In fact it is a sin
> whith which you will not enter Heaven unless you repent.
>
> EOD
>
Sensi:
Interesting that you always insert someone else's name
as the bigger sinner and constantly feel it's your duty to
tell them to repent of their sins or else...
You'd be better off to go back to sleep and just *yawn.*
<Kelly>
wrote:
> HELLO IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY,
>
> YOU ARE AS BORING AS A LUKEWARM HOT WATER BOTTLE, IRMA <KELLY> GREESE!
>
> RACIST LIKE YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND SO BORING!!!
>
> *yawn*
>
> *big yawn*
Hmmm...if I'm as boring and predictible as you claim, why are you
shouting and why have you created a new topic just about me?
> And now you can shoot your low shots again as much as you please, you
> moron gay.
"Moron gay"...wow, now that's telling me off, Vera (I can now see why
you have to borrow insults from other people).
> You do not have much ammunition left to shoot at me, Irma <KELLY>. You
> have (ab)used it all.
I wasn't aware that I was "shoot[ing]" at you at all, Vera.
> If I was an American, I would be ashamed od being your fellow compatriot
> with all your racism and hate towards others who do nothing else but
> tell you the truth about the Bible, really.
If you were an American, you'd realize that freedom of speech is
something to be exercised and that trying to keep others from
exercising it is a crime. If you were an American and didn't realize
this, you'd likely have a picture or George Linclon Rockwell on your
wall, living in northern Idaho and at a summer BBQ with August Kreis
right now.
> You see, homosexuality is in
> it, but the Lord does not really appreciate it. In fact it is a sin
> whith which you will not enter Heaven unless you repent.
And I can just see how much you care about my soul, Vera - you know,
comments like "moron gay" show me just how interested you are in my
salvation. You hated Ninure with a passion and now you're feeling the
same way about me. One has to wonder why the thought of homosexuality
- especially lesbianism - brings out such rage and ugliness in you...
> EOD
Fine by me.
Scout Lady
"<Kelly>" <316...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92030bd5-a4e1-4e26...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>One has to wonder why the thought of homosexuality
> - especially lesbianism - brings out such rage and ugliness in you...
>
<Kelly>
> "<Kelly>" <316k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:92030bd5-a4e1-4e26...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...>One has to wonder why the thought of homosexuality
> > - especially lesbianism - brings out such rage and ugliness in you...
>
> I think she did what Katy Perry did and she liked it......and it scares her.
That's kind of what I'm thinking.
<Kelly>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:01:53 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"<veral...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> >HELLO IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY,
>
> >YOU ARE AS BORING AS A LUKEWARM HOT WATER BOTTLE, IRMA <KELLY> GREESE!
>
> >RACIST LIKE YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND SO BORING!!!
>
> >*yawn*
>
> >*big yawn*
>
> >And now you can shoot your low shots again as much as you please, you
> >moron gay.
>
> to be Vera, or....
>
> Vera, this isn't the YOU I have known for several years.
>
> I suggest you seek some professional help.
If you don't think this is the real Vera, John, then you haven't been
paying attention. She's been like this on numerous occasions with
various people.
rogue
wrote:
> HELLO IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY,
JERRY
Hi Vera. Godwin!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an
adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against
the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is
often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum
form.
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference
or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only
asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely
because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate,
Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons
should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their
impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred
specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now
applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists,
message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and
wiki talk pages.
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more
canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented
later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and
other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made,
the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has
automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle
is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered
poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of
ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such
ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this
is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").
Sorry, Vera, you lose! ;-)
>
> YOU ARE AS BORING AS A LUKEWARM HOT WATER BOTTLE, IRMA <KELLY> GREESE!
>
> RACIST LIKE YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND SO BORING!!!
>
> *yawn*
>
> *big yawn*
>
> And now you can shoot your low shots again as much as you please, you
> moron gay.
JERRY
Hey, Vera, you were busy standing up for your little brainless toady,
Fred Stover recently. I've noticed that the more he gets spanked on
the bible, the more silent you have become.
What'samatter? Not interested to stand up for your "champion" while
he proves he's a moron?
>
> You do not have much ammunition left to shoot at me, Irma <KELLY>. You
> have (ab)used it all.
>
> If I was an American, I would be ashamed od being your fellow compatriot
> with all your racism and hate towards others who do nothing else but
> tell you the truth about the Bible, really. You see, homosexuality is in
> it, but the Lord does not really appreciate it. In fact it is a sin
> whith which you will not enter Heaven unless you repent.
JERRY
Actually, Vera, most Americans would be ashamed to have such a
hateful, racist person as a citizen. The majority of Americans have
no problem with people who are gay, and religious nutjobs like you
tend to give everyone a case of the ass.
As for "sin," I tend to agree with Robert Heinlein who write "the only
sin lies in unnecessarily hurting another. All other sins are
invented nonsense."
cajun@thebayou.wet Jude Alexander
"<Kelly>" <316...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92030bd5-a4e1-4e26...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Bada BING! You hit the mark with Vera on this one for sure.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> babbled:
>
> Vera, this isn't the YOU I have known for several years.
What's the matter, short bus? She won't let you put a gun to her head any
more?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> lied:
>
> I'm not going to comment further.
Bullshit, short bus. You never stop.
CB
> I suggest you seek some professional help.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> john w
LOLOL!!!!
Oh, the irony!!!
Diana
<316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 4:01 pm, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
>wrote:
>
>> HELLO IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY,
>>
>> YOU ARE AS BORING AS A LUKEWARM HOT WATER BOTTLE, IRMA <KELLY> GREESE!
>>
>> RACIST LIKE YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND SO BORING!!!
>>
>> *yawn*
>>
>> *big yawn*
>
>Hmmm...if I'm as boring and predictible as you claim, why are you
>shouting and why have you created a new topic just about me?
And why in the world is it in alt.religion.mormon?
<snip to end>
I mean, Vera and Kelly?
Neither one of you like Mormons AT all, but do you HAVE to snipe at
EACH OTHER in here?
(shrug)
<kelly>
> And why in the world is it in alt.religion.mormon?
I honestly have no idea.
> I mean, Vera and Kelly?
Yes, Diana?
> Neither one of you like Mormons AT all, but do you HAVE to snipe at
> EACH OTHER in here?
Geez, Diana - you really don't need to shout. I didn't realize that
Vera had included ARM in the mix. Didn't pay attention, actually.
Seriously, is this something for you to get your knickers in a twist
over? Sheesh.
Oh, and BTW - as I have explained to you countless times - I don't
dislike Mormons, just Mormon theology and beliefs. When it comes to
spiritual matters, my battle is not against flesh and blood - just
what I believe to be false spiritual teaching(s).
::: good news runner :::
<Kelly>
wrote:
> > Kelly wrote:
> >
> > When it comes to
> > spiritual matters, my battle is not against flesh and blood - just
> > what I believe to be false spiritual teaching(s).
> slime...
Unbelieveable. In other posts over the last couple of days, Vera is
complaining that there are no Christians left in ARCB and that Satan
has "won". Yet, when I quote Scripture - the Word of God - (which
Vera claims that I hate), she calls me "slime".
You really *are* nuts, Nutsy Vera.
::: good news runner :::
news:747662be-16d7-4fa5...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
Kelly <Irma> Grese does not even know what she posted herself!
This is the full post where I called what she was doing "slime", and
there is no Bible verse in that post (full headers at the end for better
reading):
==========start==========
In
news:61efb1b7-f7bf-4f33...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
<kelly> <kelly> typed:
> On Jul 21, 7:37 pm, Diana <diana...@notachance.com> wrote:
>
>> And why in the world is it in alt.religion.mormon?
>
> I honestly have no idea.
>
>> I mean, Vera and Kelly?
>
> Yes, Diana?
>
>> Neither one of you like Mormons AT all, but do you HAVE to snipe at
>> EACH OTHER in here?
>
> Geez, Diana - you really don't need to shout. I didn't realize that
> Vera had included ARM in the mix. Didn't pay attention, actually.
> Seriously, is this something for you to get your knickers in a twist
> over? Sheesh.
>
> Oh, and BTW - as I have explained to you countless times - I don't
> dislike Mormons, just Mormon theology and beliefs. When it comes to
> spiritual matters, my battle is not against flesh and blood - just
> what I believe to be false spiritual teaching(s).
slime...
Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: " ::: good news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.mormon,free.christians,alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.baptist
Subject: Re: IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:46:18 +0200
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <6elvkbF...@mid.individual.net>
References: <6ehuf1F...@mid.individual.net>
<92030bd5-a4e1-4e26...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
<fsha849dini46s41i...@4ax.com>
<61efb1b7-f7bf-4f33...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
X-Trace: individual.net
W1w7KacKLlPJpMzsG9uaYQrxlGI8J9SLsn7jiVeP84hSH899kq
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JpmwnfGyR+jsn5c3GIeTCv56664=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.religion.mormon:856172 free.christians:99007
alt.bible:1256009 alt.christnet.christianlife:637586
alt.religion.christian.baptist:1041345
==========stop==========
I guess she ows me an apology for her fase witness bearing...
But I do not hold my breath.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> Innews:747662be-16d7-4fa5...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
> <Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 4:46 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> Kelly wrote:
>
> >>> When it comes to
> >>> spiritual matters, my battle is not against flesh and blood - just
> >>> what I believe to be false spiritual teaching(s).
>
> >> slime...
>
> > Unbelieveable. In other posts over the last couple of days, Vera is
> > complaining that there are no Christians left in ARCB and that Satan
> > has "won". Yet, when I quote Scripture - the Word of God - (which
> > Vera claims that I hate), she calls me "slime".
>
> > You really *are* nuts, Nutsy Vera.
>
> Kelly <Irma> Grese does not even know what she posted herself!
>
> This is the full post where I called what she was doing "slime", and
> there is no Bible verse in that post (full headers at the end for better
> reading):
>
> ==========start==========
>
> <kelly> <kelly> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 7:37 pm, Diana <diana...@notachance.com> wrote:
>
> >> And why in the world is it in alt.religion.mormon?
>
> > I honestly have no idea.
>
> >> I mean, Vera and Kelly?
>
> > Yes, Diana?
>
> >> Neither one of you like Mormons AT all, but do you HAVE to snipe at
> >> EACH OTHER in here?
>
> > Geez, Diana - you really don't need to shout. I didn't realize that
> > Vera had included ARM in the mix. Didn't pay attention, actually.
> > Seriously, is this something for you to get your knickers in a twist
> > over? Sheesh.
>
> > Oh, and BTW - as I have explained to you countless times - I don't
> > dislike Mormons, just Mormon theology and beliefs. When it comes to
> > spiritual matters, my battle is not against flesh and blood - just
> > what I believe to be false spiritual teaching(s).
>
> slime...
>
> Path: uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion.mormon,free.christians,alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.baptist
> Subject: Re: IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:46:18 +0200
> Lines: 29
> References: <6ehuf1F76lh...@mid.individual.net>
> <92030bd5-a4e1-4e26-a0d6-ed8b2a907...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
> <fsha849dini46s41i241uagid2qs2o0...@4ax.com>
> <61efb1b7-f7bf-4f33-95a4-4a0d10273...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> X-Trace: individual.net
> W1w7KacKLlPJpMzsG9uaYQrxlGI8J9SLsn7jiVeP84hSH899kq
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:JpmwnfGyR+jsn5c3GIeTCv56664=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.religion.mormon:856172 free.christians:99007
> alt.bible:1256009 alt.christnet.christianlife:637586
> alt.religion.christian.baptist:1041345
>
> ==========stop==========
>
> I guess she ows me an apology for her fase witness bearing...
You know, Vera, you could go ahead and repost the original post all
you want, but I *did* quote Scripture. Take a look at this:
"my battle is not against flesh and blood - just what I believe to be
false spiritual teaching(s)."
Now, it's a paraphrase, but it gets the same point across and does not
deviate from the intent of the actual Scripture that reads like this:
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness,
against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
(Ephesians 6:12)
Here, I'll even post it in German for your convenience:
Für unseren Kampf ist nicht gegen Fleisch und Blut, aber gegen die
Lehren, gegen die Energien, gegen die Weltkräfte dieser Schwärzung,
gegen die geistigen Kräfte der Gemeinheit in den himmlischen Plätzen.
Now - who owes whom an apology?
Jetzt verdankt wer, wem eine Entschuldigung?
> But I do not hold my breath.
Good. You could die that way.
::: good news runner :::
news:58928232-8090-44e3...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
I know, and what YOU say is not Scripture but paraphrase only. Your
words do not come from God, Scripture does and is holy, no matter who
reads it.
You overestimate your own words.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> >> I guess she ows me an apology for her fase witness bearing...
> > You know, Vera, you could go ahead and repost the original post all
> > you want, but I *did* quote Scripture. Take a look at this:
>
> > "my battle is not against flesh and blood - just what I believe to be
> > false spiritual teaching(s)."
>
> > Now, it's a paraphrase, but it gets the same point across and does not
> > deviate from the intent of the actual Scripture that reads like this:
>
> > "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
> > rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness,
> > against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
> > (Ephesians 6:12)
>
> > Here, I'll even post it in German for your convenience:
>
> > Für unseren Kampf ist nicht gegen Fleisch und Blut, aber gegen die
> > Lehren, gegen die Energien, gegen die Weltkräfte dieser Schwärzung,
> > gegen die geistigen Kräfte der Gemeinheit in den himmlischen Plätzen.
>
> > Now - who owes whom an apology?
> > Jetzt verdankt wer, wem eine Entschuldigung?
> >> But I do not hold my breath.
> > Good. You could die that way.
> I know, and what YOU say is not Scripture but paraphrase only.
Trying to worm out of giving an apology by rationalizing, I see. How
very non-Christian of you, Vera.
> Your
> words do not come from God, Scripture does and is holy, no matter who
> reads it.
Ahhh...I see.
> You overestimate your own words.
Not my words, dear - the Word of God. You know, denying that what I
said was the Word of God is, I believe, akin to blasphemy of the Holy
Spirit. How sad for you.
You are a liar and a hypocrite, Vera. Your response to me here is
testimony to that.
::: good news runner :::
news:98d0193a-2f2f-4701...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
ROTFL! You did not give any Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is not
talking through you, lesbian. He never does if people are in a
backslidden state and have no intention to repent of their sins against
their Creator.
>
>> Your
>> words do not come from God, Scripture does and is holy, no matter who
>> reads it.
>
> Ahhh...I see.
>
>> You overestimate your own words.
>
> Not my words, dear - the Word of God.
No - those were your words!
> You know, denying that what I
> said was the Word of God is, I believe, akin to blasphemy of the Holy
> Spirit. How sad for you.
It was not the Word of God but your words. They are not from God, nor
would I recognise them ever to be from God.
> You are a liar and a hypocrite, Vera. Your response to me here is
> testimony to that.
*yawn*
What a nonsense!
<Kelly>
wrote:
I see. So, now you have not only blasphemed the Holy Spirit, but you
are saying that God isn't big enough and powerful enough and able
enough to work through *any* one or *any* thing that He chooses.
You know, Vera - you are treading on very dangerous ground. God isn't
like mankind, Vera. *He* doesn't lie.
(and that's paraphrased Scripture too, dear - did you recognize it?)
> >> Your
> >> words do not come from God, Scripture does and is holy, no matter who
> >> reads it.
> > Ahhh...I see.
> >> You overestimate your own words.
> > Not my words, dear - the Word of God.
> No - those were your words!
Yes, my words that reflected the intent of the Scripture direct from
the Word of God.
> > You know, denying that what I
> > said was the Word of God is, I believe, akin to blasphemy of the Holy
> > Spirit. How sad for you.
> It was not the Word of God but your words.
My paraphrase that gave the same words and intent of the Scripture,
Vera. Are you now saying that you have *never* paraphrased
Scripture? You have *never* said anything Scriptural that wasn't
quoting chapter and verse perfectly?
> They are not from God, nor
> would I recognise them ever to be from God.
I'm sure you wouldn't. You wouldn't know the God if He stood up in
your soup and introduced Himself.
> > You are a liar and a hypocrite, Vera. Your response to me here is
> > testimony to that.
> *yawn*
>
> What a nonsense!
Not nonsense at all, Vera. And you still have not answered my
question:
Have you had any more illicit affairs lately with married, unavailable
men and tried to break up any more marriages, Vera?
No. Definitely NOT nonsense.
Diana
Actually, Kelly, I had you killfiled when I was reading you in
Outlook Express and was posting in ARCB. So it doesn't much matter how
many times you 'explained' things to me, I didn't see it.
I am now remembering why I did that.
<Kelly>
> Actually, Kelly, I had you killfiled when I was reading you in
> Outlook Express and was posting in ARCB. So it doesn't much matter how
> many times you 'explained' things to me, I didn't see it.
Sure you didn't, Diana. Sure you didn't.
>
> I am now remembering why I did that.
So why not just do it again - why tell me you're going to do it as
another way to insult me? Or is that just part of your superior,
"delightsome" Mormon behavior?
Scout Lady
"Diana" <dian...@notachance.com> wrote in message
news:fsha849dini46s41i...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:34:16 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
> <316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 20, 4:01 pm, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> HELLO IRMA <KELLY> GREESE, THE NAZI GAY,
>>>
>>> YOU ARE AS BORING AS A LUKEWARM HOT WATER BOTTLE, IRMA <KELLY> GREESE!
>>>
>>> RACIST LIKE YOU ARE SO PREDICTABLE AND SO BORING!!!
>>>
>>> *yawn*
>>>
>>> *big yawn*
>>
>>Hmmm...if I'm as boring and predictible as you claim, why are you
>>shouting and why have you created a new topic just about me?
>
> And why in the world is it in alt.religion.mormon?
> <snip to end>
>
and when people complained that a Mormon should stick to posting in the
Mormon group several people in arcb came to your defense.
Kelly merely hit reply, it was the nutso Vera who included your group, but
your tolerance or rather lackthereof is noted.
::: good news runner :::
chooses - but He did not so through Kelly who slimed.
In
news:d6ea6265-d13c-4d37...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
Vera believes that God is able to work through any one or any thing He
chooses - but He did not so through Kelly who slimed, and also lied in
the above post about me like so often.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> Vera believes that God is able to work through any one or any thing He
> chooses -
Sure you do - as long as it's someone *you* approve of. More Nazi-
like behavior.
> but He did not so through Kelly who slimed, and also lied in
> the above post about me like so often.
No, Vera - I didn't lie, nor did I "slime" (whatever that's supposed
to mean).
And...Since you haven't answered yet, I'll have to ask again...
Have you had any more illicit affairs lately with married, unavailable
men and tried to break up their marriages, Vera?
NOSPAM
<vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>slime...
HEY----- MOUTH.
SILENCE, petulant child.
You've been told many times about that LIP.
Watch it. You're addressing not only a lady, but an adult.
Show some respect, or leave the room.
Diana
Well, you are reminding me of yet another reason why I did it: you
don't read. I didn't say that I was going to killfile you. I said that
I remembered why I had.
It wasn't because I was insulting YOU. It was because you obsessed
over everything I posted, responding with some anti-Mormon something
to every single thing I wrote, whether it was appropriate to the
thread or not. In fact, it mostly wasn't. (shrug)
I had to go look on google groups to make certain of this, and...well,
yeah. You did that for quite awhile.
Unless you begin to repeat that practice here on ARM, I don't see a
need to killfile you again, do you?
The amazing thing is, I was actually defending you at the time. (shrug
again) Well, you do what you will do, and I will do what I will do; no
insult intended.
NOSPAM
<vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>ROTFL! You did not give any Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is not
>talking through you, lesbian. He never does if people are in a
>backslidden state and have no intention to repent of their sins against
>their Creator.
Do you vainly imagine the Holy Spirit is talking through you, vera666?
You're a pathological liar, a stalker, and a devious troublemaker.
Now do us all a favor, Madame, and bugger off.
Diana
....and you tell me that MY reaction to these too on ARM is
'intolerant?"
...........great googly moogly.
Although I understand that it's a case of "nobody can pick on my
sister but me...' sort of thing; that is, YOU can tell vera that she
is a 'pathological liar, a stalker, and a devious trouble maker" and
tell her to 'bugger off,' but heaven help me if I ask her why she's
bringing this kerfuffle to ARM; you all three turn around CLOBBER me.
....and you are doing it, not in ARCB, where you would have the right
to tell me to lay off, given that I am LDS and NOT Baptist....but you
are doing it here in ARM, where the posts are neither on topic nor, if
I have the situation correct, even intended to be.
Ah, well....
I'll do y'all a favor; removing ARM from the headers.
Diana
NOSPAM
wrote:
>
>
>....and you tell me that MY reaction to these too on ARM is
>'intolerant?"
>
>...........great googly moogly.
>
>Although I understand that it's a case of "nobody can pick on my
>sister but me...' sort of thing; that is, YOU can tell vera that she
>is a 'pathological liar, a stalker, and a devious trouble maker" and
>tell her to 'bugger off,' but heaven help me if I ask her why she's
>bringing this kerfuffle to ARM; you all three turn around CLOBBER me.
>
>....and you are doing it, not in ARCB, where you would have the right
>to tell me to lay off, given that I am LDS and NOT Baptist....but you
>are doing it here in ARM, where the posts are neither on topic nor, if
>I have the situation correct, even intended to be.
>
>Ah, well....
>
>I'll do y'all a favor; removing ARM from the headers.
>
>Diana
Diana- I was NOT attacking you, but merely telling vera to bugger off.
Sorry if you thought otherwise.
Diana
No, I didn't think you were talking to me. It's OK....I knew you were
addressing Vera, and referencing a short exchange on another thread.
It's ok, really.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no>hined:
> pot kettle. You don't like/ don't approve of me, and you don't like
> or approve of Vera, and you haven't had a nice word for either of us
> that I recall.
So, stop reading her posts, short bus.
Robibnikoff
CB
Diana
wrote:
Hi, CB...been busy. How've you been? ;-)
::: good news runner :::
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:10:17 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
> <316...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> On Jul 22, 11:05 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vera believes that God is able to work through any one or any thing
>>> He chooses -
>>
>> Sure you do - as long as it's someone *you* approve of. More Nazi-
>> like behavior.
>
> or approve of Vera, and you haven't had a nice word for either of us
> that I recall.
No wonder, John. The devil hates people who believe in Jesus and what he
gave us to read from Him until He will come back.
>>> but He did not so through Kelly who slimed, and also lied in
>>> the above post about me like so often.
>>
>> No, Vera - I didn't lie, nor did I "slime" (whatever that's supposed
>> to mean).
>
> You haven't seen the show ("Nickelodeon"?) where the guest star
> gets slimed?
Actually it is a German expression that means something like "chumming
up". I think the term "slime" is more plastic. lol Something sneaky.
>> And...Since you haven't answered yet, I'll have to ask again...
>>
>> Have you had any more illicit affairs lately with married,
>> unavailable men and tried to break up their marriages, Vera?
>
> Hmmmm.. Interesting (not), personal (yes), VERY intimate? Yes.
> You don't believe in keeping your own counsel, do you? As a pastor,
> you should be teaching others to mind their own business; and you
> should be setting an example.
>
> By the way, Kelly, have YOU had any more illicit affairs lately with
> married, unavailable men and tried to break up their marriages?
John - that was the wrong question... You should have asked if she had
any more illicit affairs lately with
married, unavailable *women* and tried to break up their marriages?
<Kelly>
> pot kettle. You don't like/ don't approve of me,
You're right, John. I *don't* like you. Not one little thing about
you. Now as far as "approve"? I don't approve of your behavior, that
much is certain.
> and you don't like
> or approve of Vera,
You're right, John. I *don't* like her. Not one little thing about
her. Now as far as "approve"? I don't approve of her behavior, that
much is certain.
> and you haven't had a nice word for either of us
> that I recall.
Then you don't "recall" at all. Because there have been times when I
have tried to be nice to you, stand up for you, say something kind
about you. Your response was to kick me in the teeth.
One learns quickly from such experiences.
> >No, Vera - I didn't lie, nor did I "slime" (whatever that's supposed
> >to mean).
> You haven't seen the show ("Nickelodeon"?) where the guest star
> gets slimed?
Nickelodeon is a cable network, doofus, not a show. And no, I haven't
seen anyone get "slimed". How jejune.
> Hmmmm.. Interesting (not), personal (yes), VERY intimate? Yes.
And you love it.
> You don't believe in keeping your own counsel, do you? As a pastor,
> you should be teaching others to mind their own business; and you
> should be setting an example.
You're joking, right?
> By the way, Kelly, have YOU had any more illicit affairs lately with
> married, unavailable men and tried to break up their marriages?
Nope. Never had an affair, illicit or otherwise, in my whole life.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> John - that was the wrong question... You should have asked if she had
> any more illicit affairs lately with
> married, unavailable *women* and tried to break up their marriages?
And I can say to you what I said to John: Nope. Never had an affair,
illicit or otherwise, in my whole life.
You can't say the same, can you Vera?
::: good news runner :::
news:566a34e3-f2ab-4ef9...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
> On Jul 22, 11:05 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Vera believes that God is able to work through any one or any thing
>> He chooses -
>
> Sure you do - as long as it's someone *you* approve of. More Nazi-
> like behavior.
You are wrong, and if you call me a Nazi for not approving your
statements about homosexuality, you are indirectly calling Jesus a
"Nazi", too, because I am only His messenger. It is God who approves,
and I know He does not approve of lesbians because He said so in His Big
Book Bible. That is my standard, not my own (which draws the line
between you and me).
If you cannot leave your sexual preferences though they are sinful, you
should not claim they are no sin. That is all. But you try to paint
white what is as black as the darkness.
>> but He did not so through Kelly who slimed, and also lied in
>> the above post about me like so often.
>
> No, Vera - I didn't lie, nor did I "slime" (whatever that's supposed
> to mean).
So if you do not know what I meant, how can you say you did not do it?
lol
[snip]
::: good news runner :::
news:a6266736-19b2-4d30...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
> On Jul 22, 11:33 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> pot kettle. You don't like/ don't approve of me,
>
> You're right, John. I *don't* like you. Not one little thing about
> you.
How Christlike! lol
It is the pure hate speaking through you.
> Now as far as "approve"? I don't approve of your behavior, that
> much is certain.
>
>> and you don't like
>> or approve of Vera,
>
> You're right, John. I *don't* like her.
How Christlike! lol
You see, this is what makes you a fake. Christians would NEVER say such
a thing about a sister or brother, especially not in public. It is
nothing but hate. You hate me, and you should call it by the correct
name. But you want to look good and know that such things are not
Christian.
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom
he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who
loveth God love his brother also. (1 John 4:20-21 KJV)
You hate us because we are the mirror of your sin, and you claim you do
not sin by claiming the bad to be good, liar.
> Not one little thing about
> her. Now as far as "approve"? I don't approve of her behavior, that
> much is certain.
>
>> and you haven't had a nice word for either of us
>> that I recall.
>
> Then you don't "recall" at all. Because there have been times when I
> have tried to be nice to you, stand up for you, say something kind
> about you. Your response was to kick me in the teeth.
>
> One learns quickly from such experiences.
>
>>> No, Vera - I didn't lie, nor did I "slime" (whatever that's supposed
>>> to mean).
>
>> You haven't seen the show ("Nickelodeon"?) where the guest star
>> gets slimed?
>
> Nickelodeon is a cable network, doofus, not a show. And no, I haven't
> seen anyone get "slimed". How jejune.
>
>> Hmmmm.. Interesting (not), personal (yes), VERY intimate? Yes.
>
> And you love it.
>
>> You don't believe in keeping your own counsel, do you? As a pastor,
>> you should be teaching others to mind their own business; and you
>> should be setting an example.
>
> You're joking, right?
>
>> By the way, Kelly, have YOU had any more illicit affairs lately with
>> married, unavailable men and tried to break up their marriages?
>
> Nope. Never had an affair, illicit or otherwise, in my whole life.
And who would believe you that, lesbian?
::: good news runner :::
news:f1eac0cb-f0e3-4284...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
No, I cannot. And I know it was wrong.
You cannot say the same, can you?
Scout Lady
" ::: bad news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6ep5ivF...@mid.individual.net...
> news:a6266736-19b2-4d30...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>
> You hate us because we are the mirror of your sin
>
Scout Lady
> news:566a34e3-f2ab-4ef9...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
>
>you are indirectly calling Jesus a "Nazi", too, because I am only His
>messenger.
>
attempting to seduce a married man Elphaba.
::: good news runner :::
Scout Lady <scou...@nospam4me.net> typed:
Why should I? I do not drink. But maybe you do and you are projecting.
It would make much sense to me, drunkard.
::: good news runner :::
I have stated all my points about this already a few months ago and do
not feel led to go through them all over again just for your pleasure.
Mike Painter
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:30:06 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
> <316...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> And you are lying again.
>
> Psycho bitch!
>
> Which is why I'm giving you less and less of my time to waste.
>
> You're a hater, and a psycho; and I am not going to waste my time
> with that.
>
Which you continue to say as you continue to spend time doing wht you say
you won't do.
Kind of like telling us what you are going to do about the Book Of Mormon,
ranting, raving, tehn getting very quiet.
Tell us aagain about the word change and how eveerybody but you is wrong?
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
>
> Your response was to kick me in the teeth.
Aw, poor short bus. Always looking for sympathy. Must have run out of pot.
Jani
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:lbcf84lbfaif175hr...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:33 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:30:06 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
>>> <316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> <Snip>
>>> And you are lying again.
>>>
>>> Psycho bitch!
>>>
>>> Which is why I'm giving you less and less of my time to waste.
>>>
>>> You're a hater, and a psycho; and I am not going to waste my time
>>> with that.
>>>
>>Which you continue to say as you continue to spend time doing wht you say
>>you won't do.
>>
>>Kind of like telling us what you are going to do about the Book Of Mormon,
>>ranting, raving, tehn getting very quiet.
>
> to do so.
>
> I said I would order a copy of the BOM on Amazon. I did. It came.
> It was not the one I wanted. I said so PUBLICLY, in a separate thread,
> as YOU and others continued to DEMAND in a very silly, childish
> fashion that I address each one of you SEPARATELY. Which I'm not
> going to do. And I said that.
No-one asked to be addressed 'separately' - however, it appears that Mike is
posting from free.christians, and you were careful to make your
'announcement' on arcb only.
> I also said that as resources permit (time and money) I will
> continue to acquire more copies, until I find one that contains the
> right wording.
So, you will continue to insist that the wording was changed and it's only
limited 'resources' which prevent you from buying every copy of the BoM
which ever existed, anywhere, that hinders your providing proof. Hokay.
Why not go for an easier task instead? Much simpler and cheaper than buying
millions of books which aren't going to support your case: it only involves
reading one day's posts from one person. And then you can show where I have
discussed the content of your private emails with Andrew, can't you?
Well, John? WHERE ARE THE POSTS?
Jani
>
> If you have issues with my way of taking care of doing business, I
> suggest you cry and then consult a priest. Consulting a psychiatrist
> wouldn't hurt you, either.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> whined:
>
> I said I would order a copy of the BOM on Amazon. I did. It came.
> It was not the one I wanted.
You're full of shit, short bus. Admit it!
Scout Lady
" ::: good news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6epidvF...@mid.individual.net...
> In news:6ep9rcF...@mid.individual.net,
> Scout Lady <scou...@nospam4me.net> typed:
>> " ::: bad news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:6ep5ivF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> news:a6266736-19b2-4d30...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>>>
>>> You hate us because we are the mirror of your sin
>>>
>> Have another drink Elphaba.
>
> Why should I? I do not drink.
Not even water Elphaba? 8 glasses of water a day might help dislodge that
stick up your butt Elphaba.
>But maybe you do and you are projecting.
Yes I drink lots of things, water, peach snapple, coffee and sometimes
cherry pepsi. I also love those Strawberry Fruitista Freezes from Taco Bell
and Cherry Icees. On the weekends sometimes my hubby makes me a frozen
margarita or two and on Saturday at dinner I had a Rum Runner at the local
Cheesburger in Paradise.
> It would make much sense to me, drunkard.
And only to you Elphaba.
Scout Lady
" ::: good news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:6epilcF...@mid.individual.net...
newbies Elphaba.
NOSPAM
Mike Painter
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:33 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> to do so.
>
> as YOU and others continued to DEMAND in a very silly, childish
> fashion that I address each one of you SEPARATELY. Which I'm not
> going to do. And I said that.
>
> continue to acquire more copies, until I find one that contains the
> right wording.
>
> suggest you cry and then consult a priest. Consulting a psychiatrist
> wouldn't hurt you, either.
>
>
to do.
You started by saying you had the book and wanted it posted.
\You told us you were going to tell us when it came.
You ran.
But I believe you may continue to buy books at random rather than doing the
sane thing and obtaining THE SINGLE BOOK that holds a copyright in your time
frame.
It will let you continue to run from the claim you made.
I don't need a priest, all I need to do is continue to follow up here, where
you made your claims.
That way newcomers can catch up on you rapidly.
::: good news runner :::
Scout Lady <scou...@nospam4me.net> typed:
> " ::: good news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:6epidvF...@mid.individual.net...
>> In news:6ep9rcF...@mid.individual.net,
>> Scout Lady <scou...@nospam4me.net> typed:
>>> " ::: bad news runner :::" <vera...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6ep5ivF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> news:a6266736-19b2-4d30...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>>>>
>>>> You hate us because we are the mirror of your sin
>>>>
>>> Have another drink Elphaba.
>>
>> Why should I? I do not drink.
>
> Not even water Elphaba?
Why should I water you, Elphaba? Ask your friends to do that if you need
it.
>8 glasses of water a day might help dislodge
> that stick up your butt Elphaba.
You forgot the comma and the final phrase again. It should read:
"8 glasses of water a day might help dislodge
that stick up, your butt Elphaba."
>> But maybe you do and you are projecting.
>
> Yes I drink lots of things,
I thought so.
> water, peach snapple, coffee and sometimes
> cherry pepsi. I also love those Strawberry Fruitista Freezes from
> Taco Bell and Cherry Icees. On the weekends sometimes my hubby makes
> me a frozen
Oh dear!
> margarita or two and on Saturday at dinner I had a Rum
> Runner at the local Cheesburger in Paradise.
>
>> It would make much sense to me, drunkard.
> And only to you Elphaba.
Commas are not what you are best at. You are much better at flaming,
fake.
::: good news runner :::
Elphaba, give it up. You cannot shut me up by such peanuts that deal
with my old sins which I have long repented of. If you think you have a
point by that, you have not understood a little bit of what Christians
are or do. But what do I say, Elphaba - of course you have no idea of
it.
CB
wrote:
I was gone for a couple weeks because time warner cable quit allowing
usenet for its customers.
So I am not their customer anymore.
Good to cya.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> You are wrong, and if you call me a Nazi for not approving your
> statements about homosexuality, you are indirectly calling Jesus a
> "Nazi", too,
Nope. Jesus never said word one about homosexuality.
> because I am only His messenger.
No, Vera. Right now, no matter who looks at your words and your
chides and your very un-Christlike behavior in Usenet, you are not
God's messenger, you are Satan's messenger.
> It is God who approves,
Yep, and disapproves. Not us. Him.
> and I know He does not approve of lesbians because He said so in His Big
> Book Bible.
"His Big Book Bible". Is that some new Bible the rest of the world
doesn't know about yet? Regardless, where exactly has He said that he
doesn't "approve of lesbians", hmmm?
> That is my standard, not my own
Yes, your own. Your standard is not God's standard. Your standard is
the standard of hate, and ugliness, and rules that must be followed to
the letter or else one is "marked" by Vera the Nazi. No doubt, if you
had the opportunity, you would mark everyone you don't approve of and
have convinced yourself that God doesn't approve of, as destined for
hell - no exceptions.
And you wanna know the truth, Vera? You hate everyone who doesn't fit
that mold because you hate yourself because deep down, even you don't
believe you fit that mold.
> (which draws the line
> between you and me).
You're right, Vera - there's a big line between you and I. For one
thing, I have been a born-again Christian longer than you have and I
know that I have a better grasp of the Word of God than you do.
Another example: a few days ago you gushed over Guardian Snow and
referred to him as a fellow believer in Jesus Christ. I found that
very revealing - wanna know why? Because guardian Snow is a heretic
if I've ever seen one in Usenet. Theology all over the place, quoting
American lunatics and serial killers - this guy is just wrong, wrong,
wrong - and you treat him as if he is the best thing since sliced
bread. You have no discernment, Vera - and that tells me that you do
not have the Holy Spirit.
That, coupled with all of your hate-speech, makes me wonder about kind
of Christian you are.
You've got a lot to learn about being a Christian Vera - and from what
I have seen, you haven't even scratched the surface.
> So if you do not know what I meant, how can you say you did not do it?
> lol
You are in serious need of a heart transplant, Vera.
Grinder
>> and I know He does not approve of lesbians because He said so in His Big
>> Book Bible.
<Kelly> wrote:
> "His Big Book Bible". Is that some new Bible the rest of the world
> doesn't know about yet? Regardless, where exactly has He said that he
> doesn't "approve of lesbians", hmmm?
"Big Books" are a common elementary education resource for the earliest
of readers. There are just a few simple words on each page, so that
students can leap from letter recognition to word recognition. Maybe
she has a pre-reader friendly copy of The Word? (Literacy wasn't much
of a benefit for a Christian before Martin Luther came along and mucked
things up.)
If she does have one of those, I'd love to see how it handles the end of
Judges 19.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> Innews:a6266736-19b2-4d30...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> <Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
> > You're right, John. I *don't* like you. Not one little thing about
> > you.
> How Christlike! lol
Jesus never expressed dislike for anyone? Gee - have you never heard
of His disdain for the Pharisees and the Saduccees? His dislike of
the rich man who wouldn't give up his wealth to follow Him? His
dislike for the moneychangers in the Temple?
You're not going to say that He hated them, are you?
> It is the pure hate speaking through you.
And pure hate is something you are full of..
> >> and you don't like
> >> or approve of Vera,
> > You're right, John. I *don't* like her.
> How Christlike! lol
ibid.
> You see, this is what makes you a fake. Christians would NEVER say such
> a thing about a sister or brother, especially not in public.
What? They wouldn't say they don't like someone? Says who? Why is
it a sin to be honest? Are you telling me it is better to lie in
public about my true feelings? I didn't say I didn't love, I didn't
say I hate. I said I don't like. Dislike and hate are not the same -
in any language.
> It is
> nothing but hate.
Baloney - they are nothing alike.
> You hate me, and you should call it by the correct
> name.
Except that I don't hate you. I don't like you, but I certainly do
not hate you.
> But you want to look good and know that such things are not
> Christian.
I'm not quite sure what that was supposed to mean, but I can tell you
that saying I don't like you is not about "look[ing] good".
> If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
> that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom
> he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who
> loveth God love his brother also. (1 John 4:20-21 KJV)
You are trying to put words in my mouth, thoughts in my head and
feelings in my heart that aren't there so that I will fit the
Scripture above. That is blasphemy, Vera. That makes you a heretic,
Vera. That makes you a hater of me, and therefore a hater of God,
Vera.
It makes you a blatant liar with no conscience.
> You hate us because we are the mirror of your sin, and you claim you do
> not sin by claiming the bad to be good, liar.
You need to believe I hate you because that completes your picture of
me as an evil, unsaved person. If I don't hate you, and I stay true
to the Word by *not* hating you, then I don't fit into the box you
have labeled "lesbian/hater/unsaved/evil".
But no matter how much I don't like you, I don't hate you.
> > Nope. Never had an affair, illicit or otherwise, in my whole life.
> And who would believe you that, lesbian?
What??!! So now - because you have had an illicit affair with a
married man and tried to break up his marriage, now everyone you don't
like has done the same thing? Wow - you have just proven my point in
a different response that you hate yourself and that is why you have
the need to put so many rules onto others.
You need psychological help, Vera. Please get it as soon as possible.
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> lied:
> You actually make less sense with each post.
Mike doesn't act anything like you, short bus. Stop lying.
::: good news runner :::
news:8ba71162-ad75-444c...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
<Kelly> <Kelly> typed:
> On Jul 23, 7:10 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You are wrong, and if you call me a Nazi for not approving your
>> statements about homosexuality, you are indirectly calling Jesus a
>> "Nazi", too,
>
> Nope. Jesus never said word one about homosexuality.
Jesus said He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. He gave them different
characters. God invented the Holy marriage, too, but for gays or
lesbians. Such things are regarded to be fornication in the Bible. The
term "homosexuality" does not have to be explicitly in the Scriptures.
If you continue to ignore this, you will end up in hell. Maybe the Lord
allowed you to be a lesbian so you could overcome your carnal feelings
and your pride. Step down from your high horse, humble yourself and
repent, and do what God says, and if you cannot, you should ask Him to
take this over for you.
But ignorant and proud as you are you will continue to justify your sin
even before God's Throne. Incredible!
>> because I am only His messenger.
>
> No, Vera. Right now, no matter who looks at your words and your
> chides and your very un-Christlike behavior in Usenet, you are not
> God's messenger, you are Satan's messenger.
Be careful, or you might blaspheme the Spirit.
>> It is God who approves,
>
> Yep, and disapproves. Not us. Him.
>
>> and I know He does not approve of lesbians because He said so in His
>> Big Book Bible.
>
> "His Big Book Bible". Is that some new Bible the rest of the world
> doesn't know about yet? Regardless, where exactly has He said that he
> doesn't "approve of lesbians", hmmm?
>
>> That is my standard, not my own
>
> Yes, your own. Your standard is not God's standard. Your standard is
> the standard of hate, and ugliness, and rules that must be followed to
> the letter or else one is "marked" by Vera the Nazi. No doubt, if you
> had the opportunity, you would mark everyone you don't approve of and
> have convinced yourself that God doesn't approve of, as destined for
> hell - no exceptions.
>
> And you wanna know the truth, Vera? You hate everyone who doesn't fit
> that mold because you hate yourself because deep down, even you don't
> believe you fit that mold.
>
>> (which draws the line
>> between you and me).
>
> You're right, Vera - there's a big line between you and I. For one
> thing, I have been a born-again Christian longer than you have and I
> know that I have a better grasp of the Word of God than you do.
No born-again Christian would stick to his sin and defend it in public
in the long run. Maybe you were born again, but there are babies who die
if they do not drink milk and later eat their food - God gave us an
analogue by that. You did not swallow the food He gave you.
> Another example: a few days ago you gushed over Guardian Snow and
> referred to him as a fellow believer in Jesus Christ. I found that
> very revealing - wanna know why? Because guardian Snow is a heretic
> if I've ever seen one in Usenet. Theology all over the place, quoting
> American lunatics and serial killers - this guy is just wrong, wrong,
> wrong - and you treat him as if he is the best thing since sliced
> bread. You have no discernment, Vera - and that tells me that you do
> not have the Holy Spirit.
LOL
Just dig yourself deeper in. Snow is no heretic. He has not accepted
Paul, that is all - but Snow is coming from a different direction than
the Christians. He is a Messianic, so he can do that in my view. It is
not up to me to tell the Jews about their relationship with God.
> That, coupled with all of your hate-speech, makes me wonder about kind
> of Christian you are.
Hate speech - that, lady, was coming from you calling me a Nazi and the
like.
If you can leave that in the future, I can, too. But you will get your
own language you have for me back at you - since it seems to be the only
language you understand. It is weird, however, that you call it
hatespeech if it comes from me and not from you, Irma Grese.
> You've got a lot to learn about being a Christian Vera - and from what
> I have seen, you haven't even scratched the surface.
You will reap what you sow from me in the future.
>> So if you do not know what I meant, how can you say you did not do
>> it? lol
>
> You are in serious need of a heart transplant, Vera.
No - my heart is okay, Irma Grese. But you should take care of yours.
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:28:42 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>> news:lbcf84lbfaif175hr...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:33 -0700, "Mike Painter"
>>> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:30:06 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
>>>>> <316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>> And you are lying again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Psycho bitch!
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I'm giving you less and less of my time to waste.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a hater, and a psycho; and I am not going to waste my time
>>>>> with that.
>>>>>
>>>> Which you continue to say as you continue to spend time doing wht you say
>>>> you won't do.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of like telling us what you are going to do about the Book Of Mormon,
>>>> ranting, raving, tehn getting very quiet.
>>> Not at all, dweeb. I did what I said I would do, and I'm continuing
>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> I said I would order a copy of the BOM on Amazon. I did. It came.
>>> It was not the one I wanted. I said so PUBLICLY, in a separate thread,
>>> as YOU and others continued to DEMAND in a very silly, childish
>>> fashion that I address each one of you SEPARATELY. Which I'm not
>>> going to do. And I said that.
>> No-one asked to be addressed 'separately' - however, it appears that Mike is
>> posting from free.christians, and you were careful to make your
>> 'announcement' on arcb only.
>
>
> And-- frankly-- my not posting to mike over at free.christians was
> an oversight. I quite frankly FORGOT that he posts from
> free.christians. Meaning, he won't get the information, unless he
> happens to see a cross-posted reference.
>
> I have ZERO intent to "track him down."
>
> If he wants the information from me, he can bloody well "subscribe"
> to arcb.
>
> However, he did DEMAND that I "answer HIM" as have others (like
> you)..
>
> I said then, and I say NOW, "eh eh!" I really do have other things
> going! And I just started two new tasks. I'm archiving my entire
> library, scanning the OLD books, and I'm now working away at a family
> tree. As if I didn't already have enough to do.
>
> And I'll likely be starting a full-time (for me "full time") job in
> the near future.
stupid, don't invest in new equipment 'cause this will only last until
they get to know you! you understand, like the first day you forget your
meds....
> I've finally gotten my photography noticed by the
> City of Seattle at a "grass roots" level, and I am hoping it will turn
> into "stringer" work For those unfamiliar with "stringers" in
> photography, it means I'll be "on-call."
>
> A LOT more $$ than "full time" work.
old song, you will never make lots of $$'s, u b 2 stupid for words,
and/or pictures! haha
>>
>>> I also said that as resources permit (time and money) I will
>>> continue to acquire more copies, until I find one that contains the
>>> right wording.
>> So, you will continue to insist that the wording was changed
>
> ^ ^ ^ ??? It was.
it wasn't. now i'll give you that some fool of a proofreader, a person
much like yourself may have seen what he thought was an error and made
the change to Bethlehem, and a copy of the BoM or two might have been
shipped, but it would have been a printers error and not of a Mormon
changing the BoM.
> and it's only
>> limited 'resources' which prevent you from buying every copy of the BoM
>> which ever existed,
>
> It's not nice when you exaggerate. It's likewise not nice when you
> pretend people are stupid.
4 u it is no pretend
> I believe I indicated that I would attempt to acquire a copy with
> every copyright date or "printed" date until I find a copy that says
> "at Bethlehem."
>
> That would not involve "acquiring every single copy of the BOM that
> exists.
printing error and it might?
> anywhere, that hinders your providing proof. Hokay.
>
> Now you're being EXTREMELY silly again.
>> Why not go for an easier task instead? Much simpler and cheaper than buying
>> millions of books which aren't going to support your case: it only involves
>> reading one day's posts from one person.
>
> And then you can show where I have
>> discussed the content of your private emails with Andrew, can't you?
>
> I've answered this SEVERAL times, which now means you clearly are
> picking a fight.
then why answer retard?
> I said that when I come across the posts (not very likely at the
> moment), I'll repost them.
tell her they are in the church you lost stupid!
> I also apologized for any mis-understanding. Evidently, that's not
> enough for you, and you have decided to aim a foot at my nads every
> chance you get.
cause you are a known liar
> You're no lady!
and you are?
suny
<Kelly>
wrote:
> >> John - that was the wrong question... You should have asked if she
> >> had any more illicit affairs lately with
> >> married, unavailable *women* and tried to break up their marriages?
> > And I can say to you what I said to John: Nope. Never had an affair,
> > illicit or otherwise, in my whole life.
>
> > You can't say the same, can you Vera?
> No, I cannot. And I know it was wrong.
>
> You cannot say the same, can you?
Sorry, but yes, I can.
<Kelly>
> I am glad you saw the distinction. I said "not that I recall."
I don't have problems comprehending what I read, John.
> > Because there have been times when I
> > have tried to be nice to you,
> I don't remember that. I remember you manipulating and trying to
> manipulate by pretending to be nice.
Nope. You see, I'm not that kind of person. I don't ever "pretend"
to be anyone's friend and then turn on them. You do it, and have done
it, quite frequently. I've seen it many times over the lat couple of
years. And it's always when you want something from somebody.
> Only in one post, you're being sugary sweet, and in the next, you're
> Kelly the witch/bitch again.
> You are devilishly, pathologically inconsistent.
That is a complete fabrication, John. And, BTW - you are describing
yourself.
> You can kee <snip remaining lies and delusions>
<Kelly>
> It was just a PSA for the
> newbies Elphaba.
Too funny - my first out loud guffaw for the day.
<Kelly>
wrote:
> Jesus said He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.
>
> God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. He gave them different
> characters. God invented the Holy marriage, too, but for gays or
> lesbians. Such things are regarded to be fornication in the Bible. The
> term "homosexuality" does not have to be explicitly in the Scriptures.
Wanna try to explain how you pulled together your claim that Jesus
spoke about homosexuality and "Jesus said He had not come to abolish
the law, but to fulfil it" and then segue into "God made Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve" and traditional marriage?
I have to say, I have never seen more of a mish-mash of theology that
has nothing to do with each point...
> If you continue to ignore this, you will end up in hell.
Sorry - but I became born-again when I was 13 1/2 years old in 1975.
It was then that I first confessed Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior
and have continued to do so ever since.
Saved people don't end up in hell, and as a Baptist, I'm pretty sure
you believe that as well. Also as a Baptist, you likely believe in
eternal security, don't you? Now, with all that in mind, would you
please explain exactly how you think I "will end up in hell" based on
your Baptist beliefs, Vera?
> Maybe the Lord
> allowed you to be a lesbian so you could overcome your carnal feelings
> and your pride. Step down from your high horse, humble yourself and
> repent, and do what God says, and if you cannot, you should ask Him to
> take this over for you.
Sorry, but that is another mish-mash of theology that makes no sense,
and is definitely not Scriptural.
> But ignorant and proud as you are you will continue to justify your sin
> even before God's Throne. Incredible!
Look who's talking about pride and justifying sin...
> >> because I am only His messenger.
> > No, Vera. Right now, no matter who looks at your words and your
> > chides and your very un-Christlike behavior in Usenet, you are not
> > God's messenger, you are Satan's messenger.
> Be careful, or you might blaspheme the Spirit.
So exactly what are the things one can do that constitute blasphemy of
the Holy Spirit, Vera? Does that Bible say specifically what
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is?
> No born-again Christian would stick to his sin and defend it in public
> in the long run. Maybe you were born again, but there are babies who die
> if they do not drink milk and later eat their food - God gave us an
> analogue by that. You did not swallow the food He gave you.
And you know this because...? You know what my life is like
because...?
Or are you just making guesses?
> LOL
>
> Just dig yourself deeper in. Snow is no heretic. He has not accepted
> Paul, that is all - but Snow is coming from a different direction than
> the Christians. He is a Messianic, so he can do that in my view. It is
> not up to me to tell the Jews about their relationship with God.
Vera, *I* am a Messianic Jew.
Now what say you?
> > That, coupled with all of your hate-speech, makes me wonder about kind
> > of Christian you are.
> Hate speech - that, lady, was coming from you calling me a Nazi and the
> like.
You behave like a Nazi in Usenet, Vera.
> If you can leave that in the future, I can, too. But you will get your
> own language you have for me back at you - since it seems to be the only
> language you understand. It is weird, however, that you call it
> hatespeech if it comes from me and not from you, Irma Grese.
You behave like a Nazi in Usenet, Vera. That is a fact that others
have pointed out to you over and over. It's not just me who believes
this.
> > You've got a lot to learn about being a Christian Vera - and from what
> > I have seen, you haven't even scratched the surface.
> You will reap what you sow from me in the future.
What I sow from you? What are you talking about?
I was talking about how you are still so obviously a baby Christian
who still subsists on milk, rather than meat.
> > You are in serious need of a heart transplant, Vera.
> No - my heart is okay, Irma Grese. But you should take care of yours.
Your heart is scarred, hard, and dark. But it is fixable.
Mike Painter
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Mormon, ranting, raving, tehn getting very quiet.
>>>
>>> Not at all, dweeb. I did what I said I would do, and I'm
>>> continuing to do so.
>>>
>>> I said I would order a copy of the BOM on Amazon. I did. It came.
>>> It was not the one I wanted. I said so PUBLICLY, in a separate
>>> thread, as YOU and others continued to DEMAND in a very silly,
>>> childish fashion that I address each one of you SEPARATELY. Which
>>> I'm not going to do. And I said that.
No we asked that you pubish your information where you said you would
publish it.
>>
>> No-one asked to be addressed 'separately' - however, it appears that
>> Mike is posting from free.christians, and you were careful to make
>> your 'announcement' on arcb only.
>
> Yes, actually, Mike did.
>
No, he did not.
> And-- frankly-- my not posting to mike over at free.christians was
> an oversight. I quite frankly FORGOT that he posts from
> free.christians. Meaning, he won't get the information, unless he
> happens to see a cross-posted reference.
>
But initially you said it was a deliberate act.
> I have ZERO intent to "track him down."
You know where I post from and "tracking me down" is not needed. All you
have to do is post your reply in teh place that you "forgot".
That of course implies that you very carefully start from scratch every time
you write something and pick the place you want you stories placed. Most
people just hit send.
>
> If he wants the information from me, he can bloody well "subscribe"
> to arcb.
So you "forgot" to do what you said you would do and now want be to suscribe
someplace else.
>
> However, he did DEMAND that I "answer HIM" as have others (like
> you)..
I demand that you do what you say you will do.
You rant and ravce all the time about what you will do. This is solid proof
that you don't do as you say.
>
<brag snipped>
>>
>> So, you will continue to insist that the wording was changed
>
> ^ ^ ^ ??? It was.
>
> and it's only
>> limited 'resources' which prevent you from buying every copy of the
>> BoM which ever existed,
>
> It's not nice when you exaggerate. It's likewise not nice when you
> pretend people are stupid.
>
> I believe I indicated that I would attempt to acquire a copy with
> every copyright date or "printed" date until I find a copy that says
> "at Bethlehem."
Yes you did. In fact all you have to do is obtain ONE BOOK. It has a copy
right of 1990. There were no other publications in the period you claim the
error happened and we have posted before and after versions.
But you want to just keep buying copies of books that must seem expensive to
you.
<snip>
24 days and John still runs.
Mike Painter
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:02:54 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6mufub tells a different story about what you
>> were going to do.
>> You started by saying you had the book and wanted it posted.
>> \You told us you were going to tell us when it came.
>> You ran.
>>
>> But I believe you may continue to buy books at random rather than
>> doing the sane thing and obtaining THE SINGLE BOOK that holds a
>> copyright in your time frame.
>
>
>>
john w <j
------------------------------ ARCHIVED ---------
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:28:42 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:15:33 -0700, "Mike Painter"
>>> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:30:06 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
>>>>> <316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>> And you are lying again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Psycho bitch!
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I'm giving you less and less of my time to waste.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a hater, and a psycho; and I am not going to waste my time
>>>>> with that.
>>>>>
>>>>Which you continue to say as you continue to spend time doing wht you
>>>>say
>>>>you won't do.
>>>>
>>>>Mormon,
>>>>ranting, raving, tehn getting very quiet.
>>>
>>> Not at all, dweeb. I did what I said I would do, and I'm continuing
>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> I said I would order a copy of the BOM on Amazon. I did. It came.
>>> It was not the one I wanted. I said so PUBLICLY, in a separate thread,
>>> fashion that I address each one of you SEPARATELY. Which I'm not
>>> going to do. And I said that.
>>
>>is
>>posting from free.christians, and you were careful to make your
>>'announcement' on arcb only.
>
> Yes, actually, Mike did.
No-one, including Mike, asked for separate personal notification. You,
however, chose to post your 'note' to one ng only, despite the fact that
several groups were crossposted in to the original discussion.
>
> And-- frankly-- my not posting to mike over at free.christians was
> an oversight. I quite frankly FORGOT that he posts from
> free.christians. Meaning, he won't get the information, unless he
> happens to see a cross-posted reference.
>
> I have ZERO intent to "track him down."
>
> If he wants the information from me, he can bloody well "subscribe"
> to arcb.
>
> However, he did DEMAND that I "answer HIM" as have others (like
> you)..
>
> I said then, and I say NOW, "eh eh!" I really do have other things
> going! And I just started two new tasks. I'm archiving my entire
> library, scanning the OLD books, and I'm now working away at a family
> tree. As if I didn't already have enough to do.
So, as usual, you make a wild unsupported statement and when asked for
evidence, you trot out excuses why you haven't got any.
>
> And I'll likely be starting a full-time (for me "full time") job in
> the near future. I've finally gotten my photography noticed by the
> City of Seattle at a "grass roots" level, and I am hoping it will turn
> into "stringer" work For those unfamiliar with "stringers" in
> photography, it means I'll be "on-call."
>
> A LOT more $$ than "full time" work.
Eh, well, don't give up your welfare claim just yet. Stringing isn't on the
same level as established freelance, you know.
>>
>>
>>> I also said that as resources permit (time and money) I will
>>> continue to acquire more copies, until I find one that contains the
>>> right wording.
>>
>>So, you will continue to insist that the wording was changed
>
> ^ ^ ^ ??? It was.
>
> and it's only
>>limited 'resources' which prevent you from buying every copy of the BoM
>>which ever existed,
>
> It's not nice when you exaggerate. It's likewise not nice when you
> pretend people are stupid.
>
> I believe I indicated that I would attempt to acquire a copy with
> every copyright date or "printed" date until I find a copy that says
> "at Bethlehem."
>
> That would not involve "acquiring every single copy of the BOM that
> exists.
>
> anywhere, that hinders your providing proof. Hokay.
>
> Now you're being EXTREMELY silly again.
You've already been shown that there's only one edition that could
*possibly* have the changed wording, since those before and after do not.
It's been suggested that one print run could have been changed through
printer error, and although I think that's highly unlikely, it's certainly
an avenue you could explore. Continuing to purchase random copies of the
book published after X date could take years, and thousands of dollars, and
*still* not turn up your needle in the haystack.
>>
>>Why not go for an easier task instead? Much simpler and cheaper than
>>buying
>>millions of books which aren't going to support your case: it only
>>involves
>>reading one day's posts from one person.
>
> And then you can show where I have
>>discussed the content of your private emails with Andrew, can't you?
>
> I've answered this SEVERAL times, which now means you clearly are
> picking a fight.
No, you haven't.
>
> I said that when I come across the posts (not very likely at the
> moment), I'll repost them.
It's not hard to look at the *very few posts* I made on the date in
question.
>
> I also apologized for any mis-understanding.
No, your so-called 'apology' was conditional on my not having corresponded
with Andrew, and immediately afterwards you again asserted that I HAD
corresponded with him. You have STILL not produced any post in which I
discuss the content of private emails, despite making a flat categoric
statement that I did so. Nor have you produced any post which might support
your excuse that you 'misunderstood' or 'misremembered' something which I
DID say.
So, WHERE ARE THE POSTS?
Jani
Evidently, that's not
> enough for you, and you have decided to aim a foot at my nads every
> chance you get.
>
> You're no lady!
>
> AGAIN, you're being a silly bitch.
>
>
>>
>>Well, John? WHERE ARE THE POSTS?
>>
>>Jani
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you have issues with my way of taking care of doing business, I
>>> suggest you cry and then consult a priest. Consulting a psychiatrist
>>> wouldn't hurt you, either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell us aagain about the word change and how eveerybody but you is
>>>>wrong?
>>>>
>>>
>
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wailed:
>
> ------------------------------ ARCHIVED ---------
Archive this, short bus!
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> drooled:
>
> I am HAPPY to be on your shit list.
Anything to validate your miserable existence, eh short bus?
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> drooled;
>
> You seem --- foolishly-- to think you're talking to an amateur.
That's right - You're a professional asshole, right short bus?
> You have LONG since stopped being worth bothering with.
Except that you never stop replying, you lying retard.
::: good news runner :::
You're a pathological liar, a stalker, and a devious troublemaker.
Now do us all a favor, Madame, and bugger off.
In news:niec84defm2j8lffg...@4ax.com,
NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> typed:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:14:42 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
> <vera...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> ROTFL! You did not give any Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is not
>> talking through you, lesbian. He never does if people are in a
>> backslidden state and have no intention to repent of their sins
>> against their Creator.
>
>
> Do you vainly imagine the Holy Spirit is talking through you, vera666?
> You're a pathological liar, a stalker, and a devious troublemaker.
>
> Now do us all a favor, Madame, and bugger off.
Mike Painter
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:43:40 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> publish it.
>
>
> When I have all the material I said I was collecting, I will post a
> link.
Which of course contradicts what you sid her yesterday about *not* posting
in free.christians.
>
> It's not my fault if you can't READ my instructions.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> No-one asked to be addressed 'separately' - however, it appears
>>>> that Mike is posting from free.christians, and you were careful to
>>>> make your 'announcement' on arcb only.
>>>
>>> Yes, actually, Mike did.
>>>
>>
>> No, he did not.
>
> I am not going to put up a separate note on free.christians.
Nobody asked you to, just don't deliberately remove free.christians from the
header.
>
> If you don't follow things in my group (arcb), tough.
And now you're back to saying I have to go to another group.
>
>>
>>
>>> And-- frankly-- my not posting to mike over at free.christians was
>>> an oversight. I quite frankly FORGOT that he posts from
>>> free.christians. Meaning, he won't get the information, unless he
>>> happens to see a cross-posted reference.
>>>
>> But initially you said it was a deliberate act.
>
> You are a liar.
>
> I did not say I "deliberately did not / do not post to you."
>
> I said I would put up a note in the group. That would be arcb.
Nope you said in it response to me and you know I don't subscribe to arcb.
>
>>
>>> I have ZERO intent to "track him down."
>>
>> You know where I post from and "tracking me down" is not needed.
>
> I FORGOT where you post from, dingbat, and I have no intent in
> putting up a note in free.christians.
Irrelevant and suspicious, why would you remove free.christians?
>
> All you
>> have to do is post your reply in teh place that you "forgot".
>
> "All you have to do ..."
>
> I have said I'm not going to do that, and so you can quit stomping
> your foot and whining.
BUT JUST ABOVE IN THIS POST YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO IT.
>
> You also called me a liar because I forgot.
>
> I don't respond well to being called a liar.
>
You don't respond well to being defended as the thread on where you were
station shows.
>
>> That of course implies that you very carefully start from scratch
>> every time you write something and pick the place you want you
>> stories placed. Most people just hit send.
>
> You are a complete idiot.
>
> When I post, I usually only see my own group in the "Send" window.
Bullshit. You cross post to at least five groups and *you* are the one who
makes that decision.
>
> I am not going to post it to a 2nd group.
>
Of course not even though you have said you would in this thread.
> I have ZERO interest in your participation.
Then do what I have been suggesting for years now.
Put me in your killfile and ignore me.
<snip>
>> So you "forgot" to do what you said you would do and now want be to
>> suscribe someplace else.
>
> You just called me a liar again. That truly is not how you win
> friends and influence people.
>
> It certainly doesn't work for me.
>
> You are trying to prove yourself somehow "stronger emotionally" or
> something.
>
> chuckle.
>
<snip>
>
> You make ZERO effort to try to get along with me; explain why I
> should make a gargantuan effort to get along with you.
>
> Just get the HELL out of MY face! I don't have to put up with your
> Terrible-Twos tantrums.
And again I point out that it up to you to ignore me.
The thread about the word change started July 1st 2008
(http://tinyurl.com/6mufub) and you responded with your usual disdain for
people
"I see we are getting nowhere. I try to save my
energy and efforts for people who are actually interested."
Naturally it is hard to track everything you said because you are afraid to
let people read what you wrote in the past and don't allow material to be
archived.
By July 4th, 2008 you were claiming,
'Mine is dated 1986. Newer ones (don't know which year)
say "Bethlehem," and they now DENY that
it ever said "Jerusalem." '
and admitting you did not know the year
Clearly you made this statement without bothering to check.
At the same time you said YOU HAD THE BOOK and asked for a web site to be
built for you.
"Well, at least this should be an easy one for you to "prove". All you need
to do is get a copy of the BoM edition which has 'Bethelem'[sic] replacing
'Jerusalem', state which edition it is, and scan the relevant pages.
John replies,
" ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^Done, done, done, and done.
" And since I don't know how to build a web page, I've uploaded the
images onto an e-mail account I set up for whoever wishes to look. "
On July 4th, 2008 you said you *didn't* have the book.
' I have had a copyu[sic] that was from the 1990s that said "Bethlehem."
I don't have it NOW. I lost my whole library some 7 years ago.
I have just ORDERED a new copy. "
Which contradicts what you said above about not knowing the year and having
a copy to put on a web site.
Your claim that you do know the year makes thing simple for you. There is
only one copyright during that period so it must be that book.
Rather than ordering copies at random all you have to do is obtain that
copy.
Today is JULY 24th, 2008 and you still have not admitted error or that you
have obtained the book.
You have either lied or been completely confused about what you wrote.
If you wonder why I put the year in the thread, it is because I will be
hounding you with this until you either show the book or admit you were
wrong.
7/23/2008
I repeated this post again with no changes except the date.
After " But I believe you may continue to buy books at random rather than
doing the sane thing and obtaining THE SINGLE BOOK that holds a
copyright in your time frame."
John replies, "You actually make less sense with each post."
I have given him reference to copyright records and he can read that the
only BOM of the period he claims has a 1990 copyright.
He only needs obtain one book to demonstrate his claim.
Mike Painter
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:38 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> findings, I was not aware that there were people in several groups
> reading my posts. (I knew of MIKE, but he is the only person I
> understood was elsewhere.)
Even you can't expect people to believe this.
The dumbest person here who uses a newsreader knows that they have control
over crossposting.
If you were actually ignorant of the process free.christian would never have
been removed from a post initiated by you, yet it was.
<snip>
> I disagree.
>
> And I think I'll end it here.
>
> I truly don't care for your tone.
>
> Your only interest seems to be to "prove me wrong" about something.
>
> You have LONG since stopped being worth bothering with.
And you have been saying this about people for over five years while
continuing to respond to them.
The thread about the word change started July 1st 2008
(http://tinyurl.com/6mufub) and you responded with your usual disdain for
people
...
7/23/2008
Jani
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:38 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>
> Or please put a proviso in your comments, "If I understood what Mike
> said, he said..."
Why? He didn't ask to be notified separately, and there's no need for me to
add any 'provisos' to that.
> Mike demanded (and continues to demand) that I address my remarks to
> HIM.
>
> I am saying, since he is a hostile audience (and has always prided
> himself on that), I have NO reason to seek him out.
>
> That is in fact contrary to scripture. We are not commanded to "go
> INTO the enemy's camp." We are commanded to NOT go into the enemy's
> camp. At least that is my understanding, and it works for me.
>
> You,
>>however, chose to post your 'note' to one ng only,
>
> That is correct. When I posted, when I said I would announce my
> findings, I was not aware that there were people in several groups
> reading my posts. (I knew of MIKE, but he is the only person I
> understood was elsewhere.)
>
> In fact, I never agree to post to him "wherever he was."
>
> If that was his understanding-- or yours-- tough.
You only had to look at the newsgroups line in the original thread.
>
> And if you and Mike flood me with 10,000 more posts DEMANDING that I
> post to the free.christians group, it makes no difference.
>
> despite the fact that
>>several groups were crossposted in to the original discussion.
>
> If the material is cross-posted, because I am replying, that's
> another matter.
>
> If I am creating a new thread, I have NO intent on posting it to
> multiple groups.
>
> Period.
You could just as easily have replied in the existing thread, which had the
crossposts already set, and then you would have known your post would be
read by all those contributing to the thread. And you wouldn't have come
under suspicion for posting only to a ng which at least one of the
interested parties isn't reading.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And-- frankly-- my not posting to mike over at free.christians was
>>> an oversight. I quite frankly FORGOT that he posts from
>>> free.christians. Meaning, he won't get the information, unless he
>>> happens to see a cross-posted reference.
>>>
>>> I have ZERO intent to "track him down."
>>>
>>> If he wants the information from me, he can bloody well "subscribe"
>>> to arcb.
>>>
>>> However, he did DEMAND that I "answer HIM" as have others (like
>>> you)..
>>>
>>> I said then, and I say NOW, "eh eh!" I really do have other things
>>> going! And I just started two new tasks. I'm archiving my entire
>>> library, scanning the OLD books, and I'm now working away at a family
>>> tree. As if I didn't already have enough to do.
>>
>>So, as usual, you make a wild unsupported statement and when asked for
>>evidence, you trot out excuses why you haven't got any.
>
> ^ ^ ^^^ I don't respond to exaggerated and erroneous accusations.
>
> Try that on someone else.
You made an unsupported assertion about the text of the BoM, and now you're
coming up with excuses for not finding evidence for that assertion.
>
> It's an amateurish attempt at manipulation.
It's a statement of fact about your habitual behaviour.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> And I'll likely be starting a full-time (for me "full time") job in
>>> the near future. I've finally gotten my photography noticed by the
>>> City of Seattle at a "grass roots" level, and I am hoping it will turn
>>> into "stringer" work For those unfamiliar with "stringers" in
>>> photography, it means I'll be "on-call."
>>>
>>> A LOT more $$ than "full time" work.
>>
>>Eh, well, don't give up your welfare claim just yet.
>
> I suggest that you worry about you, and I'll worry about me.
>
> Stringing isn't on the
>>same level as established freelance, you know.
>
> " I know."
>
> I don't recall saying I'd "turn down" free-lance.
>
> You seem --- foolishly-- to think you're talking to an amateur.
My point was that an established freelance will have several clients seeking
out their work, and doesn't need to commit to only one; a stringer's
position is much less secure. Make sure your expenses are fully covered, or
you can end up paying more in transport and materials than you receive for
the job itself. And, depending on the way benefits are calculated, you might
put yourself over the benefits threshold without having enough actual income
to compensate for the loss.
Jani
>>>>> I also said that as resources permit (time and money) I will
>>>>> continue to acquire more copies, until I find one that contains the
>>>>> right wording.
>>>>
>>>>So, you will continue to insist that the wording was changed
>>>
>>> ^ ^ ^ ??? It was.
>>>
>>> and it's only
>>>>limited 'resources' which prevent you from buying every copy of the BoM
>>>>which ever existed,
>>>
>>> It's not nice when you exaggerate. It's likewise not nice when you
>>> pretend people are stupid.
>>>
>>> I believe I indicated that I would attempt to acquire a copy with
>>> every copyright date or "printed" date until I find a copy that says
>>> "at Bethlehem."
>>>
>>> That would not involve "acquiring every single copy of the BOM that
>>> exists.
>>>
>>> anywhere, that hinders your providing proof. Hokay.
>>>
>>> Now you're being EXTREMELY silly again.
>>
>>You've already been shown that there's only one edition that could
>>*possibly* have the changed wording,
>
ujb
you can be sure 'scrambled one' isn't telling the IRS about no stinking
$20.00!
Mike Painter
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:04:52 -0700, "Mike Painter"
> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:43:40 -0700, "Mike Painter"
>>> <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Š 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> No we asked that you pubish your information where you said you
>>>> would publish it.
>
> YOU are evidently thinking that if I send a REPLY to one of your
> posts, then you'll get it.
Why yes I am. That's why they call it a reply and it's the way these things
work.
This post for example is a reply to the previous one and I got it.
Amazing isn't it?
>
> (the REPLY post goes to as many groups as are linked to the post
> replied to)
>
> I never agreed to that.
It's what you said you would do.
>
> I am not going to do that, and I have my reasons for not doing so.
>
Of course you do. You don't want to have to admit you were wrong, which you
were
>
> For me to post an original post (which is what I said I would do) to
> MULTIPLE groups (as people are demanding), I have to type those other
> groups in.
Or learn how to use the software.
>
> I have reasons for not going that.
Of course you do. You don't want to have to admit you were wrong, which you
were
>
Why not just learn to use the software and remove yourself permanently from
free.christians as well as killfile me?
All it takes is the ability to RYFM and with your talents you should master
it in a month or so..