for people with KJV phobia
@there Vernono O
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.
ONLY FORWARD IF YOU CAN READ THIS
John Henry
sai...@nettally.com
speaking I don't have a copy of the 1611 reprint that I have seen
locally in bookstores. I might get a copy just more for the historical
aspect of it. I do read and enjoy my King James Bible (a KJV Study
Bible) but I use other reliable translations as well.
May God bless,
Carl
website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS
Some 'professional'- the only 'communication' you know is profanity
and porn filth.
Scout Lady
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> I saw a similarly absurd "test" when I was in college.
>
> Everyone in the class "got it." It is absurd because anyone with
> any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
> than it's worth.
>
> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>
> When communications get difficult ^^ as in above, too many
> subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
>
> Nor is subtext apparent.
>
I raed it wthiuot any pbroelm wtshosveer. Who slouhd I frroawd it to?
@there Vernono O
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> I saw a similarly absurd "test" when I was in college.
No you didn't and it's not a test.
>
> Everyone in the class "got it." It is absurd because anyone with
> any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
> than it's worth.
About 55% of the people read it while not even paying attention. It's just
natural.
>
> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>
> When communications get difficult ^^ as in above, too many
> subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
The above was NOT difficult for most.
You have a problem.
@there Vernono O
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:02:39 -0700, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe can.
>>
>>i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
>>phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
>
> just like you.
>
> And I'm touched.
>
> And it's not "KJV Phobia" dunce. It's an inability to PROCESS the
> archaic language without extreme difficulty, at least in my case.
>
Yes, you have an inability.
@there Vernono O
<sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
NOTHING
Just a heading to grab attention.
sai...@nettally.com
> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>
> NOTHING
> Just a heading to grab attention.
>
Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
the clarification.
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
Yes, really.
>
> I saw a similarly absurd "test" when I was in college.
>
>
> Everyone in the class "got it." It is absurd because anyone with
> any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
> than it's worth.
>
I now know what happened to the class from Welcome Back Kotter, now
don't I?
>
> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>
communication.
>
> When communications get difficult ^^ as in above, too many
> subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
>
for you.
>
> Nor is subtext apparent.
>
Okay, you're not an Einstein. "Got it!"
John Henry
>
> john w
>
John Henry
> Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"? Personally
> speaking I don't have a copy of the 1611 reprint that I have seen
> locally in bookstores. I might get a copy just more for the historical
> aspect of it. I do read and enjoy my King James Bible (a KJV Study
> Bible) but I use other reliable translations as well.
>
JohnH
John Henry
> "john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
> news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
psot all our pstos lkie tihs, and we wlil likely nveer haer form him, aigan.
JhnoH(nrey)
CB
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> not really.
>
> I saw a similarly absurd "test" when I was in college.
When I was in college I saw the same test.
But everyone in my class was smart & really didn't have to "figure it
out".
>
> Everyone in the class "got it." It is absurd because anyone with
>any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
>than it's worth.
>
>As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
>communications should be EASY, not difficult.
I also am a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS.
That little test is easy not difficult.
>
>When communications get difficult ^^ as in above, too many
>subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
see above.
>
>Nor is subtext apparent.
>
>john w
CB
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:02:39 -0700, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
>>Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe can.
>>
>>i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
>>phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
>
> I note your continuing sympathy and compassion for those who aren't
>just like you.
>
>And I'm touched.
>
>And it's not "KJV Phobia" dunce. It's an inability to PROCESS the
>archaic language without extreme difficulty, at least in my case.
In your case, your're just dumb.
Not to offend but who can escape the truth?
>
>I note you continue to be one who likes to TWIST the facts to suit
>you, so you can make ugly, derisive comments about what you PRETEND
>people said, or about what you PRETEND they "really meant".
>
>Jesus is just so .... PROUD of you right now!
>
>
>
>Tell me you aren't the bright, educated one in your family!
And please tell me you're not the brightest bulb in your family.
CB
>Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"? Personally
>speaking I don't have a copy of the 1611 reprint that I have seen
>locally in bookstores. I might get a copy just more for the historical
>aspect of it. I do read and enjoy my King James Bible (a KJV Study
>Bible) but I use other reliable translations as well.
hint: post something to jw in the KJV, ands watch hiss head explode.
CB
He is very good at communicating his filth to the NG
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
> continues to be NOONE holding a gun to your head, making you read my
> comments.
>
Oly, are you taking notes?
>
> So stop your wussy boy whining and get on with the rest of your
> miserable life.
>
> Loser1
>
Oly, are you taking notes?
>
>>> Everyone in the class "got it." It is absurd because anyone with
>>> any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
>>> than it's worth.
>>>
>> I see, so the entire class had to "figure it out," huh?
>
> said the whole class got it!
>
You can't speak for the whole class, but the whole class got it?
>
> GOD! Are you an imbecile!
>
Oly, are you taking notes?
>
> The teacher asked for a show of hands of those who had understood it.
> Everyone in the class had gotten it.
>
I wouldn't know about any "show of hands" since you only just added it.
Besides, I only have your words for it, and what good are they?
>
> Period.
>
> Do you have a problem with that?
>
Which do you want me to believe, that you "can't speak for the whole
class" or that "everyone in the class had gotten it?" Just how hard is
it to keep your facts straight in one post?
>
> Well, at least
>> I now know what happened to the class from Welcome Back Kotter, now
>> don't I?
>
> you consider beneath you, you'll keep quiet.
>
> Asshole.
>
You verbally abusive hypocrite, you. Oly, are you taking notes?
>
>>> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
>>> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>>>
>> It is abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about
>> communication.
>
>
Oly, are you taking notes?
>
>>> When communications get difficult ^^ as in above, too many
>>> subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
>>>
>> I knew the truth would come out...the above was, in fact, too difficult
>> for you.
>
>
You forgot to add, your "lie for the day."
>
>>> Nor is subtext apparent.
>>>
>> Okay, you're not an Einstein. "Got it!"
>
>
Well it's *certainly* obvious that you still don't "devote yourself
entirely to God," that's for sure.
>
>> John Henry
>>> john w
>>>
>
sai...@nettally.com
> x-no-archive: yesOn Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:12:29 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote:
>
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> >> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>
> >> NOTHING
> >> Just a heading to grab attention.
>
> >Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
> >the clarification.
>
> Namely me.
>
> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV. I find it
> almost impossible to read. It comes out like gibberish.
I see. Gotcha. Thanks for the further clarification.
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote
snip
>
> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS
Living on disability due to inability to hold down a job - probably
something to do with mental illness.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no>
snip
>
> Asshole.
My, my. Did you learn this word in one of your COMMUNICATIONS courses?
>
>>>
>>> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
--
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no>
snip
> Namely me.
>
> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV.
Probably due to your mental illness. Or perhaps it's that "dyslexia in both
eyes" you claim to have.
@there Vernono O
<sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:1181048396.3...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 2:32 am, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yesOn Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:12:29 -0700, sai...@nettally.com
> wrote:
>
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
> >On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
> >> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>
> >> NOTHING
> >> Just a heading to grab attention.
>
> >Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
> >the clarification.
>
> He lied. He was using the title to bash someone.
> Namely me.
EVERYTHING is about Johny
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV. I find it
> almost impossible to read. It comes out like gibberish.
I see. Gotcha. Thanks for the further clarification.
May God bless,
Carl
Yep there are NORMAL people with NORMAL reading skills who just breeze
through the example. Then there is Johnny who can't even decipher plain
English if slightly different than 2007 American.
But then again, almost everything Johnny reads comes out gibberish. It's a
shame and we have to feel sorry for him, but that's life.
The title had NOTHING to do with Johnny boy. Little Johnny thinks he is the
only one who complains about the difficulty of smoothly reading KJV. Of
course that's because no one else exists outside Johnnies' little porn
world.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
> Perhaps this crap is why they were calling you "Queen Liar" when I
>came in here 6 years ago!
>
>john w
More effervescent crap, liar-johnnie. You, SHORT BUS, have been
proven the liar you are many times. Even Google disagrees with your
'queen liar' BS!
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>Scout Lady wrote:
>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
>> news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
Hay! Waht a good idea!!!!!
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:24:16 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:09:53 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS
>>
>>
>>Some 'professional'- the only 'communication' you know is profanity
>>and porn filth.
>
>He is very good at communicating his filth to the NG
>
Abuot the szie of it!!!! :o)
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>You bigot, you asshole.
> You're a bigot, you don't
>care if anyone else is in a pinch, so long as you get yours, and
>you're a natural-born asshole.
>
^^^More 'good ordained-pastoral-speak', is it short-bus liar-johnnie?
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
x-no-archive: Absolutely NOT. Strictly forbidden by order of
liar-johnnie's Supervisor.
>It's an open forum, dick. If I want to comment, I'll comment. There
>continues to be NOONE holding a gun to your head, making you read my
>comments.
1. Always the feeble min on sexual organs and their slang thereof;
2.The term is NO ONE, not NOONE;
3. Again, your retarded gun fetish duly noted...
>
>So stop your wussy boy whining and get on with the rest of your
>miserable life.
>
You should talk, oh gutless whining wonder, weatherless!
>Loser1
We know you are. Are you bragging about THAT now too?
>GOD! Are you an imbecile!
>
No, GOD IS NOT an imbecile, guttermouth.
>
>
>Asshole.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Indeed- the 'trained, educated professional in
communication' screeches again...
>>>
>>> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
>>> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>> >
Gutter mouth and sexual filth is certainly easy for you, swine.
>>It is abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about
>>communication.
>
Of course -- no one DOES 'cept you, right, fraud?
>kiss my butt, asshole.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Indeed- the 'trained, educated professional in
communication' screeches again...
>>>
>Actually, shit-for-brains, you have no clue!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Indeed- the 'trained, educated professional in
communication' screeches again...
>>
mōt
> "john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no>
>
> snip
>> Namely me.
>>
>> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV.
>
> Probably due to your mental illness. Or perhaps it's that "dyslexia in both
> eyes" you claim to have.
Give him some slack lady, he can't mentally process English either.
@there Vernono O
<sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:1181005949.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>>
>> NOTHING
>> Just a heading to grab attention.
>>
>
> Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
> the clarification.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
Gee, maybe I should say it was about John boy, but I wasn't even thinking of
him.
A constant criticism of KJV by many is the "difficulty" in reading.
CB
wrote:
You really have a way with words.
And again using God's name in vain.
>It's an open forum, dick. If I want to comment, I'll comment. There
>continues to be NOONE holding a gun to your head, making you read my
>comments.
>
>So stop your wussy boy whining and get on with the rest of your
>miserable life.
>
>Loser1
>I can't speak for the whole class, bozo, and how "easy" it was! I
>said the whole class got it!
>
>GOD! Are you an imbecile!
>
>Asshole.
>
>
>kiss my butt, asshole.
>
>
>Oh, your words hurt so!
>
>Actually, shit-for-brains, you have no clue!
Peter Winslow
> x-no-archive: yes
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS
>>
>> Some 'professional'- the only 'communication' you know is profanity
>> and porn filth.
>
>
>
> I post a dozen posts in here a day sometimes, and never refer to any
> 4-letter words.
>
> So you are once again a pathological liar.
>
> ^^ ^ ^
>
> No profanity this time; no "porn".
>
> You liar!
>
> Perhaps this crap is why they were calling you "Queen Liar" when I
> came in here 6 years ago!
>
> john w
>
John, I notice you been saying this for some time now.
Having also observed many people coming to Elaine's defense in
disagreeing with you, I decided to see for myself.
She was not called queen liar at all by anyone other than yourself.
If you desire to be seen as an honest person, then you must tell the
truth as well.
You have also been observed calling many other people liars, John.
While I do not believe it upsets them to be called liars by you, do you
think this is helping you to overcome your obstacles?
Pete
Peter Winslow
> x-no-archive: yes
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>> fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
>>>>> Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe can.
>>>>>
>>>>> i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.
>>>>> The
>>>>> phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at
>>>>> Cmabrigde
>>>>> Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are,
>>>>> the
>>>>> olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
>>>>> pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
>>>>> pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
>>>>> istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
>>>>> slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY FORWARD IF YOU CAN READ THIS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good point.
>>> not really.
>>>
>>> I saw a similarly absurd "test" when I was in college.
>
> Actually, I did.
>
> I took a college course last year.
> You assume a great deal.
>
> And it's a test, although not the normal kind.
>
>>> Everyone in the class "got it." It is absurd because anyone with
>>> any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
>>> than it's worth.
>> natural.
>
> Oh, there you go again! You so love to speak for every inhabitant of
> the planet.
>
> You bigot, you asshole.
>
>>
>>> As a professional in the field of COMMUNICATIONS, I know that ideally,
>>> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>>>
>>> subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
>> You have a problem.
>
> I'd say you're the one with the problem(S). You're a bigot, you don't
> care if anyone else is in a pinch, so long as you get yours, and
> you're a natural-born asshole.
>
>
>
Firstly, you call yourself a Christian.
Would a Christian swear like this? I certainly hope not.
Second, there are ladies present. Would you use this kind of language to
your own wife, or your mother?
Pete
Peter Winslow
> x-no-archive: yes
> wrote:
> Š 2007 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
>>> wrote:
>>> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> Vernono O wrote:
>>>>> fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
>>>>> Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe can.
>>>>>
>>>>> i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
>>>>> phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
>>>>> Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
>>>>> olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
>>>>> pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a
>>>>> pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
>>>>> istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
>>>>> slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ONLY FORWARD IF YOU CAN READ THIS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good point.
>>> not really.
>>>
>>> I saw a similarly absurd "test" when I was in college.
>>>
>
> continues to be NOONE holding a gun to your head, making you read my
> comments.
>
> So stop your wussy boy whining and get on with the rest of your
> miserable life.
>
> Loser1
>
>>> any degree of intelligence can "figure it out." It's just more effort
>>> than it's worth.
>>>
>
> said the whole class got it!
>
> GOD! Are you an imbecile!
>
> Everyone in the class had gotten it.
>
>
> Do you have a problem with that?
>
>> I now know what happened to the class from Welcome Back Kotter, now
>> don't I?
>
> Well, I see you're back to if you can't be verbally abusive of those
> you consider beneath you, you'll keep quiet.
>
> Asshole.
>
>>> communications should be EASY, not difficult.
>>>
>> communication.
>
>
>>> When communications get difficult ^^ as in above, too many
>>> subtleties, too many nuances, are no longer apparent.
>>>
>> for you.
>
>
>>>
>> Okay, you're not an Einstein. "Got it!"
>
>
>>> john w
>>>
>
John:
It appears very obvious to me that you have no desire to change in order
to help yourself.The people who warned me that you were like this, I
didn't believe at first, because I wanted you to have a fair chance, and
an opportunity to gain some self respect and dignity.
In another post, I read that you are apparently a Pastor. If you are,
then something is very seriously wrong.
Your language is an absolute disgrace, especially in front of women.
Pete
Joe Bol
wrote:
>John:
>It appears very obvious to me that you have no desire to change in order
>to help yourself.
Uhh...Pete, you do realize that you are attempting to reason with a
schizophrenic whose treatment is mostly ineffective, don't you?
>In another post, I read that you are apparently a Pastor. If you are,
>then something is very seriously wrong.
"something is seriously wrong." Pete, that's an understatement.
>Your language is an absolute disgrace, especially in front of women.
His lack of control is just one characteristic of his problem. He
isn't bi-polar at all. Note some of the quotes below.
------------
SIG FILE FOLLOWS:
---
"Go screw yourself, you self-deluded control freak!"
---John Weatherly
"you'd be amazed at the number of WOMEN who have REQUESTED anal
intercourse from me."
---John Weatherly
" I may end up being (posthumously) judged one of the Van Goghs of my time, or a Da
Vinci"
---John Weatherly
"Aren't you being a wee bit ego-centric?"
---John Weatherly
"Sorry, dearest, but you are exhibiting pathological (unhealthy)
behavior."
---John Weatherly
"I don't believe that Jesus appreciates your ad hominems.
And you may have noticed, I'm not ad homineming."
---John Weatherly
"I have a therapist."
---Olympiada
"ignorants is not an excuse"
---Dr. Raymond Knapp
"See you in court."
---David C.
@there Vernono O
"CB" <count...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lcjc63lqgq783tadk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:30:02 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> You really have a way with words.
> And again using God's name in vain.
>
You have to forgive him. He opened a KJV and went catatonic.
John Henry
mōt
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:12:29 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>>> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>>>
>>> NOTHING
>>> Just a heading to grab attention.
>>>
>>
>>Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
>>the clarification.
>
> He lied. He was using the title to bash someone.
> Namely me.
How very paranoid of you, do you really think you are that important to
anything, let alone anyone?
> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV. I find it
> almost impossible to read. It comes out like gibberish.
Yet, you read posts that have KJV passages in them, almost as if they did
not bother you if you want to complain about some thing. Yet, there are
times you do not ignore your disability, & you complain about people using
the KJV. It's as if you have an on/off switch where the KJV is concerned.
As to the gibberish, apparently that is true for you where anything you
don't want to see. Or post.
> So these kind, gentle, loving folk in here refer to my problems with
> the KJV occasionally.
Really, there is a conspiracy to give you sever headaches, I did n ot know
that, nor do you.
> to be cutesy, Vern decided to refer to it this time as "KJV phobia",
> which is total crap.
In your case, it would be accurate. After all, you read at the 6th year
level, according to some of your past postings. & the KJV requires, so they
say, a collegiate level of reading ability.
> I'm betting there are things that Vern can' t do, such as be civil to
> we who he considers himself WAY above.
You would not know civil if it was to French Kiss you.
> john w
Mot
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>NOs...@no.spam wrote:
As teh odl syanig geos, thre's mroe tahn oen way to sikn a
cat!!!!!!!!!!! Praodn me, all inncnet kiettis evyrhwre!!! :o)
John Henry
> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
> news:1181005949.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>>> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>>> NOTHING
>>> Just a heading to grab attention.
>>>
>> Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
>> the clarification.
>>
>> May God bless,
>> Carl
>
> Gee, maybe I should say it was about John boy, but I wasn't even thinking of
> him.
> A constant criticism of KJV by many is the "difficulty" in reading.
>
>
the regular KJV is difficult reading.
John Henry
His followers regularly cussed, cursed, swore, and used profanities and
vulgarities.
JohnH
>
> Pete
ujb
> Peter Winslow wrote:
>> john w <johnw wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:42:42 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> john w <johnw wrote:
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
Papa porn did say this to sweet sweet, "You are being DELIBERATLY mean, in other
words, you're being an asshole, to quote Jesus.". We have to cut the poor retard a
little slack as anyone can see his spell checker, along with his brain wasn't working
above infantile that day!
ujb
> JohnH
>>
>> Pete
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>> john w <johnw wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:41:12 -0700, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> "john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
>>>> news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
just funny!
>
> john w
SongBookz
"John Henry" <john...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f46qcm$8fu$1...@aioe.org...
How about the Geneva - better than the KJV since the Geneva was free of
political corruption.
Terrell
JohnH
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> john w <johnw wrote:
> >>> x-no-archive: yes
> >>> wrote:
> >>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> >>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> >>>> john w <johnw wrote:
> >>>>> x-no-archive: yes
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>
> Repost one single post in which I said, "Jesus.... REGULARLY..."
>
> john w
>
>
>
>
>
> >JohnH
>
> >> Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JohnH
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:30:12 -0400, John Henry <johnhe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> john w <johnw wrote:
> >>> x-no-archive: yes
> >>> wrote:
> >>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> >>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> >>>> john w <johnw wrote:
> >>>>> x-no-archive: yes
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>
> Repost one single post in which I said, "Jesus.... REGULARLY..."
>
profanities and vulgarities or not, john w?
JohnH
CB
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:48:05 -0500, mňt <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:32:58 -0700, john w wrote:
>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:12:29 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote:
>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>>>>> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTHING
>>>>> Just a heading to grab attention.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
>>>>the clarification.
>>>
>>> He lied. He was using the title to bash someone.
>>> Namely me.
>>
>>How very paranoid of you,
>
>Not really.
>
> do you really think you are that important to
>>anything, let alone anyone?
>
>Ummm. As a matter of fact, I do!
>:-)
>
>I have a pretty long list of friends.
Yes.
And you hate every one of them.
>How are you up for buddies?
>
>
>>
>>> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV. I find it
>>> almost impossible to read. It comes out like gibberish.
>>
>>Yet, you read posts that have KJV passages in them,
>
> As I have said MANY times, slow-minded one-- I have seen enough KJV
>in my many years that-- while I don't read an entire passage, I
>recognize it, and am then able to look it up. In like a New American,
>or NIV, etc.
>
>I also don't read a KJV passage posted here if it runs into 20 - 30 -
>50 verses.
>
>I try to get the jist (often missing the jist) from a verse or two.
"jist" isn't in the dictionary.
Or maybe you need to tell Webster he doesn't know how to spell.
I thought you said you were a writer?
Where I come from writers know how to spell.
>
> almost as if they did
>>not bother you if you want to complain about some thing.
>
>Reading my posts is not required by law.
Ah, but very entertaining.
>
> Yet, there are
>>times you do not ignore your disability, & you complain about people using
>>the KJV. It's as if you have an on/off switch where the KJV is concerned.
>
>You are free to interpret or misinterpret as you like.
You are free to go back to the 3rd grade & learn how to spell.
>
>"Works for me" if you're in a haze.
>
>
>However, you DID succeed in hurting my feelings!
>
>boo hoo
>
>john w
CB
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:58:14 -0400, Peter Winslow <pe...@spamfree.com>
>wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>john w <johnw wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:41:12 -0700, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>>> © 2007 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>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
>>>> news:e7l863l0tjjmcv974...@4ax.com...
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>Pete, reading my posts is not compulsory.
Why don't you answer his question?
see question below.
>
>john w
CB
Oh yes. I forgot.
The only person I know of that goes insane by the use of the KJV.
>
CB
wrote:
>Peter Winslow wrote:
>> john w <johnw wrote:
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:42:42 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>> john w <johnw wrote:
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:18:08 -0400, John Henry <john...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
If I am not mistaken, he believes Jesus was a drunkard also.
>
>JohnH
>>
>> Pete
JohnH
> "John Henry" <johnhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
w's NIV some, but I don't recall having ever said a word about yours.
Yet, this is the second time that you've said something negative about
mine. Perhaps you will recall your claim to me that the KJV
publishers, editors, or whatever, weren't being honest in the
footnotes or margins. Later, Mike Dundee said that the NIV was either
trash or garbage.
Frankly, if I think about it, that kind of talk about Bibles is
counter-productive, insulting, unnecessary, and even some akin to name-
calling. We can go back and forth about TR vs. Alexandrian, missing
verses vs. added verses, older manuscripts vs. less older manuscripts,
or whatever, but maybe we should keep in mind the memory of those God-
fearing people (some at great risk, or worse, to their physical
bodies), who helped put all of these Bible versions into our hands,
which is not to even mention those same Bibles bringing generations of
people to salvation, and to the knowledge of the supreme love that God
and Christ Jesus has for us.
JohnH
>
> Terrell- Hide quoted text -
Joe Bol
wrote:
>Repost one single post in which I said, "Jesus.... REGULARLY..."
In other words, when he was off his meds, which is the same as when he
is on them.
JB
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
>
Thicker than you laying all those "choice-words" on me a little while
ago (just three levels back, to be precise)?
>
> I said that Jesus is known to have uttered one curse, what we'd call
> today " a four-letter word". I would ASSUME (can't say) that if we
> have Him on record for ONCE, He is likely to have used vulgar language
> more than once.
>
How is Jesus known, and where do we have Jesus on record, for uttering
any curse like "a four-letter word," even once, john w?
>
> Vulgar language-- depending on the audience-- can be VERY effective,
> as Shakespeare knew centuries later.
> Why is Shakespeare seen as a brilliant writer, but Jesus as
> "foul-mouthed?"
>
> According to MY knowledge of the Bible, there is no record of Jesus
> ever using "profanity."
>
Are you saying that calling someone an "asshole" is not using
"profanity?" That seven-letter word is "what we'd call today 'a
four-letter'," is it not?
>
> Peter and Paul being men, it would be expected that they might curse
> once or twice.
>
Expected? Maybe. Known? That has to be proved.
>
> Both did, it's in writing.
>
Where, precisely?
JohnH
>
> john w
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
Yes, he does. He claimed that 'Jesus SLOSHED' in those precise words.
And if the cretin dare tries to deny it, I have the original post.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>x-no-archive: NO WAY- ARCHIVED.
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:24:42 -0700, JohnH <johnhe...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>You are laying it on much thicker than I intended.
>
>I said that Jesus is known to have uttered one curse, what we'd call
>today " a four-letter word". I would ASSUME (can't say) that if we
>have Him on record for ONCE, He is likely to have used vulgar language
>more than once.
You're a LIAR, point blank, weatherless. YOU POSTED some time ago that
"Jesus cursed people out whenever He was angry".
'You' tried to make Jesus appear as a common bar-room big mouth.
You know NOTHING about telling the truth, and it's clear you also
don't know how to keep telling a fabricated one either.
>According to MY knowledge of the Bible, there is no record of Jesus
>ever using "profanity."
>
Liar. 'You' claimed He did. And admit it, you DON'T KNOW the Bible.
>Peter and Paul being men, it would be expected that they might curse
>once or twice.
>
You know nothing about that either. It was also expected you were
going to get off your lazy tush and get a job-- but you didn't.
>Both did, it's in writing.
>
Show the proof, old boy - SHOW THE PROOF.
I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to believe you if you were on your
own deathbed.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>john w <johnw wrote:
x-no-archive: bull roar---------- it's ARCHIVED. Too bad,
liar-johnnie weatherless.... that's the way it is around here.
>Thicker than you laying all those "choice-words" on me a little while
>ago (just three levels back, to be precise)?
>>
>> I said that Jesus is known to have uttered one curse, what we'd call
>> today " a four-letter word". I would ASSUME (can't say) that if we
>> have Him on record for ONCE, He is likely to have used vulgar language
>> more than once.
> >
>How is Jesus known, and where do we have Jesus on record, for uttering
>any curse like "a four-letter word," even once, john w?
> >
How true, John. The truth is, HE ISN'T.
Had Jesus cursed, He would be a sinner, which the bible clearly
states, 'He sinned not'.
Leave it to liar-johnnie weatherless to fabricate filthy lies about
the Savior........ next I suppose he'll try to claim Jesus 'wrote porn
filth' too....
>> According to MY knowledge of the Bible, there is no record of Jesus
>> ever using "profanity."
> >
>Are you saying that calling someone an "asshole" is not using
>"profanity?" That seven-letter word is "what we'd call today 'a
>four-letter'," is it not?
>>
Not according to liar-johnnie!!!
>> Peter and Paul being men, it would be expected that they might curse
>> once or twice.
> >
>Expected? Maybe. Known? That has to be proved.
>>
>> Both did, it's in writing.
>>
>Where, precisely?
>
>
My my - looks like dear old liar-johnnie weatherless really HAS boxed
his butt in the crate this time!
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>>I try to get the jist (often missing the jist) from a verse or two.
>
>"jist" isn't in the dictionary.
>Or maybe you need to tell Webster he doesn't know how to spell.
>I thought you said you were a writer?
>Where I come from writers know how to spell.
Another phoopah to add to the liar-johnnie short-bus list!! :O)
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:39:02 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive: hahahahaaaaaaaa!@chuckle.net!! Nope-- ARCHIVED.
He won't answer Pete's question, because he KNOWS he's been uncovered
again, and is terrified of showing his naked vulnerabilities.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>Look for it on the bookstore shelves around Christmas time.
Yes- as a shelf liner, no doubt!
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
> Go away, Elaine, you are psychotic, and you are a thief! ^ ^
I have NO INTENTIONS of going away, old boy.
Your 'Usenet copyright' is nothing but a piece of garbage.
Has it never occurred to you, short-bus, that every time someone else
replies to a post of 'yours' -- that it gets archived anyway?
Robyn is right - you don't know a thing about how Usenet really works,
but you stumble in going through the motions, fooling no one but
yourself!
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
x-no-archive: Flatly DENIED, thanks to liar-johnnie's Supervisor!!
>>>>>Second, there are ladies present. Would you use this kind of language to
>>>>>your own wife, or your mother?
>>>>>
>>>>>Pete
>>
>>
>>He won't answer Pete's question,
>
>You're gossiping again!
>
It ain't gossip when it's the truth, Legion...
>because he KNOWS he's been uncovered
>>again, and is terrified of showing his naked vulnerabilities.
>
> ^ ^ Your obsession with naked men's bodies is noted.
>
Nope - YOU HAVE been uncovered, and your naked vulnerability shows and
proves it.
>
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>Poor you! I believe I communicate.
The only 'communication' coming from you is gutter mouth, obsessions
with sex, and love of guns - as well as idle threats, and bragging.
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> So I believe I'll bail here.
>
What on earth are you talking about, changing the topic? You called me
a bunch of foul-mouthed names, and the point that I was making to Mr.
Winslow is that you believe that Jesus and His followers were all
foul-mouthed. [Oh, and since I've already read ahead, "EXCUSE ME" for
omitting the words "obscenity" and/or "obscenities." They are all
foul-mouthed terms, precisely like having a potty-mouth, even.]
>
> I just accepted your apology; you are right back to your evil ways,
> "but what about...." "but what about"... "but what about..."
> You're always looking for a new way to accuse me of something.
>
That was in another thread, concerning something that happened in
another thread even still, which is all unrelated to this thread and,
thus, "water under the bridge" now.
>
> You truly are incapable of leaving me with God. You are going to BEAT
> me, shove me, push me, chop and chisel me into a form more suitable to
> YOU!
>
> "No thanks! I'll pass!"
>
> I have no interest in being a cookie-cutter John H.
>
Oh, that's right, I forgot. You took drama.
>
> I am content, and I just finished the last "draft" of my latest book.
>
> Look for it on the bookstore shelves around Christmas time.
>
>
Who is changing the topic now?
>
>
>>> I said that Jesus is known to have uttered one curse, what we'd call
>>> today " a four-letter word". I would ASSUME (can't say) that if we
>>> have Him on record for ONCE, He is likely to have used vulgar language
>>> more than once.
>>>
>> How is Jesus known, and where do we have Jesus on record, for uttering
>> any curse like "a four-letter word," even once, john w?
>
>
> you don't believe me.
>
> (and if they gave you an answer you didn't like, undoubtedly, you
> would not believe the scholar)
>
Why should I believe what's not in the Bible, john w? If it's there, I
believe it. If it's not, I don't believe it. Simple.
>
>>> Vulgar language-- depending on the audience-- can be VERY effective,
>>> as Shakespeare knew centuries later.
>>> Why is Shakespeare seen as a brilliant writer, but Jesus as
>>> "foul-mouthed?"
>>>
>>> According to MY knowledge of the Bible, there is no record of Jesus
>>> ever using "profanity."
>>>
>> Are you saying that calling someone an "asshole" is not using
>> "profanity?"
> That seven-letter word is "what we'd call today 'a
>> four-letter'," is it not?
>
> "profanity" very differently.
>
> If you want to argue with me, we must agree to TERMS. We can't even
> agree on the definition of the word "profanity."
>
> "Asshole" is an obscenity. It is not a profanity. When one "profanes",
> one "profanes the name of God." "Jesus!" "Oh, my GOD!" < profanity.
> "Shit!" < obscenity, not "profanity".
>
> I said Jesus used a vulgar word/two vulgar words that are recorded. I
> never -- EVER said, "He used profanity."
>
Then you are saying that Jesus spoke vulgarities and obscenities, so
where is that recorded? Where, john w?
>
>>> Peter and Paul being men, it would be expected that they might curse
>>> once or twice.
>>>
>> Expected? Maybe. Known? That has to be proved.
>
> You? I have NOTHING to prove to you!
>
> But I am astounded that you have never read in the Passion accounts
> that Peter realized he had betrayed Christ, and so Peter "cursed and
> swore."
>
Other than that one, isolated time, john w, when Peter realized that he
had denied the Lord, the Savior, and the Son of God, where else is it
written in scriptures that Peter cursed and swore, or that any of the
other disciples would curse and swear?
>
> I will leave you to find the passage for Paul!
>
Paul said "dung" once, but other Greek words for dung are "garbage"
and/or "trash," not just necessarily the four-letter word that so often
flies out of your mouth or off your fingertips.
>
> ( you aren't going to take my word for the price of eggs anyway! --
> your hatred is an ugly thing )
>
Well, you've got this about half-right, anyway.
Scout Lady
"Peter Winslow" <pe...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:f46b0q$e1m$2...@aioe.org...
>
> Second, there are ladies present. Would you use this kind of language to
> your own wife, or your mother?
>
Scout Lady
> Make all the excuses you like. I choose to not archive.
> That is my right.
> That you are so stupidly PETTY that you go in and change the
> words,
> JUST TO MAKE A POINT.
> You are very deliberately STEALING, with malice UP FRONT.
>
How exactly does she "go in" and change the words?
CB
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:53:50 -0500, CB <count...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:45:52 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:48:05 -0500, mòt <m...@eat.mud> wrote:
>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:32:58 -0700, john w wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:12:29 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote:
>>>>> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>>>>> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>>>>>On Jun 4, 8:43 pm, "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote:
>>>>>>> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> news:1180984432....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Vernona, out of curiosity, how do you define "KJV phobia"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NOTHING
>>>>>>> Just a heading to grab attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Okay. I was just wondering where you were going with it. Thanks for
>>>>>>the clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>> He lied. He was using the title to bash someone.
>>>>> Namely me.
>>>>
>>>>How very paranoid of you,
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>>
>>> do you really think you are that important to
>>>>anything, let alone anyone?
>>>
>>>Ummm. As a matter of fact, I do!
>>>:-)
>>>
>>>I have a pretty long list of friends.
>>
>>Yes.
>>And you hate every one of them.
>
>That comment made no sense whatsoever.
That's because you make no sense.
>But I suspect you knew that, didn't you?
>
>:-)
>
>>
>>>How are you up for buddies?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I happen to be one who doesn't mentally process the KJV. I find it
>>>>> almost impossible to read. It comes out like gibberish.
>>>>
>>>>Yet, you read posts that have KJV passages in them,
>>>
>>> As I have said MANY times, slow-minded one-- I have seen enough KJV
>>>in my many years that-- while I don't read an entire passage, I
>>>recognize it, and am then able to look it up. In like a New American,
>>>or NIV, etc.
>>>
>>>I also don't read a KJV passage posted here if it runs into 20 - 30 -
>>>50 verses.
>>>
>>>I try to get the jist (often missing the jist) from a verse or two.
>>
>>"jist" isn't in the dictionary.
>
>Poor you! I believe I communicate.
You communicate your hatred toward others quite well.
>
>john w
>
>snip
CB
wrote:
>>
>>Why don't you answer his question?
>
>I did. I suppose I need to use smaller words for you.
No you didn't.
Here, I'll repost it for you.
It's a yes or no question.
I know it's tough but I'm sure you can come up with an answer
Would you use this kind of language to
your own wife, or your mother?
Yes or no.
>
> Are my "ugly words" any worse than your ugly behavior?
Are you still a child molester?
>
>I don't think so.
>
>john w
CB
wrote:
>>John, your choice of words is a disgrace.
>
>In your view.
>
> In my view, I try to match my words to the situation and to the
>person.
>
>I'm honest
LOL!!!
That's a lie.
> Some (perhaps you) bite your lip and find
> OTHER words to use!
>
>>
>>Firstly, you call yourself a Christian.
>
>Yes, I do.
>
>>Would a Christian swear like this? I certainly hope not.
>
> Evidently, Christians DO "swear" like this. I'm doing it, now aren't
>I?
>
>Surely, Pete, you can find other, more heinous sins to point at. Why
>if you just like in your mirror, you'll see pride, arrogance, and
>haughtiness.
>
>
>>
>>
>>Second, there are ladies present.
>
>???
>
>Really?
>
> I can't think of one I've seen in here recently!
>
>SL is no lady, galia isn't, Kelly isn't, Elaine certainly isn't.
>And this isn't 1950.
Are you a lady?
>
>john w
>
> Would you use this kind of language to
>>your own wife, or your mother?
>
>????
> Prude alert!
> Yes, and yes.
That's because you're a moron.
>
>My mother, by the way, was a Southern Belle, and I guarantee you that
>with a handful of brothers, and with a handful of uncles, my mom
>likely heard every word there was to hear before she turned 21.
And I bet you taught her some new ones.
>
>
>>
>>Pete
CB
I hope they print it on nice soft paper.
I have a good use for it.
Scout Lady
>
> Would you use this kind of language to
>>your own wife, or your mother?
>
> ????
> Prude alert!
> Yes, and yes.
>
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> wrote:
> © 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
But many are rightly or wrongly thinking you do!
From: John W (john_Wea...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Wanted REAL Incest Videos M-S, F-D, B-S
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories
Date: 2002-12-30 02:41:18 PST
Scout Lady
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>
mother indicates a lack of respect.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
x-no-archive: strictly forbidden by order of liar-johnnie's
supervisor.
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:29:48 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:22:03 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Go away, Elaine, you are psychotic, and you are a thief! ^ ^
>>
>>
>>I have NO INTENTIONS of going away, old boy.
>>
>>Your 'Usenet copyright' is nothing but a piece of garbage.
>> Has it never occurred to you, short-bus, that every time someone
>
>All YOU need to know,
> Stupid One,
> is that I choose to not archive.
> You do not need to know WHY.
I DO KNOW WHY- you're a lying coward who is terrified of people
knowing what crap you're posting where.
> ALL you need to know is that I choose to not archive.
> That YOU then CHOOSE to go in and very deliberately find those
>words, and ALTER them, because you're so damned PETTY,
> says you're a thief, and a liar, and that you are TOTALLY amoral.
>
That's nice.
>Make all the excuses you like. I choose to not archive.
> That is my right.
> That you are so stupidly PETTY that you go in and change the
>words,
> JUST TO MAKE A POINT.
> You are very deliberately STEALING, with malice UP FRONT.
>
That's nice--
> You think you're being cute.
> Let's see if a Judge finds you "cute."
>
Sure, sure, the old phony lawsuit crap again, huh liar=johnnie?
> else
>>replies to a post of 'yours' -- that it gets archived anyway?
>
> You do not need to figure out WHY I don't archive.
I already have.
remainder of paranoid rant removed!
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:27:04 -0400, NOs...@no.spam wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:20:06 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Look for it on the bookstore shelves around Christmas time.
>>
>>
>>Yes- as a shelf liner, no doubt!
>
>I hope they print it on nice soft paper.
>I have a good use for it.
You bet -- I hear those pages are excellent for ling the bottom of
bird cages too.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 02:37:55 -0400, "Scout Lady" <scou...@nospam.net>
>wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>You didn't know my mother.
>
>john w
>
>>
You obviously have NO respect for anyone, Legion.