Dr. Creflo Dollar
Mike
http://www.creflodollarministries.com/Public/AboutUs/Biography-Creflo-Dollar.aspx
Creflo A. Dollar is the founder and senior pastor of World Changers
Church International (WCCI) in College Park, Georgia which serves
nearly 30,000 members, and World Changers Church-New York which hosts
over 6,000 worshippers each week. With more than 25 years in ministry,
Dr. Dollar is committed to bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to
people all over the world, literally changing the world one person at
a time.
A former educational therapist, Dr. Dollar received the vision for
World Changers Ministries Christian Center in 1986. He held the
church's first worship service in the cafeteria of Kathleen Mitchell
Elementary School in College Park, Georgia, with only eight people in
attendance. Over the years the ministry grew rapidly and was renamed
World Changers Church International. The congregation moved from the
cafeteria to a modest-sized chapel, adding a weekly radio broadcast
and four services each Sunday. On December 24, 1995, WCCI moved into
its present location, the 8,500-seat sanctuary known as the World
Dome. At a cost of nearly $18 million, the World Dome was built
without any bank financing. The construction of the World Dome is a
testament to the miracle-working power of God and remains a model of
debt-freedom that ministries all over the world emulate.
A native of College Park, Georgia, Dr. Dollar has a bachelors degree
in education, a masters degree in counseling, and a doctorate in
counseling. He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from
Oral Roberts University in 1998. He is the publisher of CHANGE
magazine, a quarterly international publication with nearly 100,000
subscribers, and The Max, a bimonthly resource newsletter for
ministers and ministry leaders. His award-winning Changing Your World
television broadcast reaches nearly 1 billion homes in practically
every country in the world.
A much sought-after conference speaker and best-selling author, Dr.
Dollar is known for his practical approach to the Bible and has
encouraged thousands to pursue a personal relationship with God. Dr.
Dollar and his wife, Taffi, have five children and live in Atlanta.
<Kelly>
> A warning sign that a "Christian" is a total phony is that he's
> attended / graduated "ORU."
ORU isn't Ivy-League by any means, but ORU *is* a well-respected
university, John. No longer a Bible college only, ORU has a complete
liberal-arts program with a well-qualified and well-educated teaching
staff. When ORU graduates start looking for jobs, their resumes are
among those at the top of the pile *because* they have graduated from
ORU. There are plenty of non-Christians who go to ORU, just as there
are plenty of non-Christians who attend the well-known Christian
liberal-arts university I did.
What you once knew about colleges and universities and seminaries from
your younger years is old news, John. Time has moved on, why don't
you (and while you're at it, get a clue)?
Robibnikoff
<Kelly>
> ^ ^ ^^ I guess that depends on whose opinion you respect.
Yes, I suppose it does. And I certainly don't respect yours.
> Oral has KNOWN occult connections.
Really? Got a cite for that claim, John?
> I heard an Air Force Officer, pastor, on a local radio show the
> other day. He's a graduate of ORU, he thinks that Tim LaHaye's "Left
> Behind" NOVEL series is "The Last Word" on "The Rapture" and "The
> Anti-Christ",
Uhh...so?
> and he's absolutely POSITIVE-- no doubt / no debate -- that Barack
> Obama is
>
> The Anti Christ.
There's alot of people who believe that is a definite possibility.
> I laughed so hard my coke came out my nose!!
>
> Barack Obama is "The Anti-Christ?"
Got any reasons why he couldn't be?
> That's what ORU and Tim LaHaye are teaching?
Well...let's see: the guy is in the Air Force, he's a pastor, he's
likely been out of college for years. You don't really think that
once you matriculate you never take on any other thoughts or feelings
unless they reflect what you learned in college?!
Good grief.
> That simply isn't CREDIBLE.
Why isn't it? (And your opinion doesn't count - for once, give some
solid reasoning and evidence for what you are claiming).
> And if Oral and Rick are playing footsie and patty cake with the
> Kennys and Rod Parsley and Pat Robertson, they lose ALL credibility.
>
> The Kennys, Rod Parsley, "Dr Dollar", and the rest of that GOON
> squad are NOT credible on ANY level.
Isn't that just *your* opinion?
> > No longer a Bible college only, ORU has a complete
> >liberal-arts program with a well-qualified and well-educated teaching
> >staff.
> Oh, MY! So you are now admitting to being one of the "ORU Crew!"
Uhh...no, I didn't say that at all.
> That says SO MUCH about YOU!
>
> Let me guess: you got an undergraduate degree from ORU!
Uhhh...no. But I know a number of people who did.
> I just laughed so hard I cracked 4 ribs.
>
> I'm not questioning the liberal arts education; I'm questioning
> the Pentecostal / Pretender influences.
So? Just because their theological school has Pentecostals on staff
it's not a reputable university? You don't think that several
successful businesses in this country have their share of Pentecostals
as employees or at the helm?
> > When ORU graduates start looking for jobs, their resumes are
> >among those at the top of the pile *because* they have graduated from
> >ORU.
> Proves NOTHING other than the lunatic fringe are integrating into
> "the world at large", which is PRECISELY what the anti-Christ religion
> is going to do.
You really have a hard time grasping pertinent reality, don't you?
> > There are plenty of non-Christians who go to ORU,
> Like you?
I didn't go to ORU.
> My university was in the Top 5 for Journalism schools, and I PROUDLY
> say I have a degree from Cal State Northridge.
Hmmm...coulda swore you told us you got your degree from Pepperdine.
> >What you once knew about colleges and universities and seminaries from
> >your younger years is old news, John.
> I wasn't talking about "colleges and universities and seminaries."
>
> I'm referring to the present-day ORU.
Which you know nothing about.
> I guess you missed the story a month or so ago that Rick Roberts
His name is Richard, not Rick.
> is
> now under investigation for mis-appropriating BILLIONS.
Yeah...and? Someone in the administration being corrupt has nothing
to do with the school's academia or their students or their teaching
faculty.
> Nothing like "preaching for an hour" and missing the point.
See, you really can get a grip on your reality if you try!
NOSPAM
>
> ^ ^ ^^ I guess that depends on whose opinion you respect.
>
NO ONE in their right mind respects 'you', slime bucket.
> Oral has KNOWN occult connections.
>
Oh, my---- and you still claim to 'speak audibly with God', do you?
> I heard an Air Force Officer, pastor, on a local radio show the
>other day. He's a graduate of ORU, he thinks that Tim LaHaye's "Left
>Behind" NOVEL series is "The Last Word" on "The Rapture" and "The
>Anti-Christ",
>
When-- as you were being booted out of the camp?
> and he's absolutely POSITIVE-- no doubt / no debate -- that Barack
>Obama is
>
> The Anti Christ.
Oh, goody for him......
Instead of simply condemning Obama before he even takes office (which
I reckon he will) -- why not give him a chance to prove himself? He
also funded his own campaign. He didn't drain the public purse like
old Hillary did.
> I laughed so hard my coke came out my nose!!
>
And what did you HAVE in that 'coke'?
> Barack Obama is "The Anti-Christ?"
>
> That's what ORU and Tim LaHaye are teaching?
>
> That simply isn't CREDIBLE.
>
Neither are you, liar-johnnie!
remainder of insanity quashed.
NOSPAM
>
> "There IS alot of people?
>
>
> Where did you study English?
>
> Try "there ARE a lot of people."
Hey, short bus:
There's too much information known about ---
There's too many pamphlets on this desk...
There's too much going on...
etc...
That is a perfectly ACCEPTABLE use of the word, idiot.
Live with it, old boy.
<Kelly>
> Nor do I know a single scholar (and I know LOTS of scholars)
> who would consider YOU credible.
I see. You know, when I first met the Campolo's a few years ago, we
had a very nice, long discussion on theology and the modern church
over dinner. They seemed my opinions and thoughts pretty credible.
> >> Oral has KNOWN occult connections.
> >Really? Got a cite for that claim, John?
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> Do you actually believe that every book in print is quoted-- cover
> to cover-- somewhere on the internet?
>
> snicker.
I take it that's another "no"? Yet another opportunity you had to
finally prove something you claim, but you blew that opportunity once
again because you are obviously just talking out of your hat.
> For ANYONE to publicly state that Barack Obama could be The Anti
> Christ
>
> is absurd beyond words!
>
> All that indicates is that they don't understand End Times prophesy,
> or the Bible.
And you think you do?
> >Got any reasons why he couldn't be?
> SEVERAL.
>
> The key one is: he's not JEWISH.
>
> I have never heard one single word about Barack having ANY Jewish
> roots. NONE.
>
> Anti Christ MUST be Jewish.
Where do you find that in the Bible, John? Give me a reference,
please.
> Anti Christ MUST be of the tribe of King David.
Have you ever considered that the anti-Christ will be Muslim?
> He made a MAJOR point of
>
> being an ORU grad. Being a fan of Tim LaHaye.
So? You make a big deal about alot of things. Should your entire
identity be formed just because of one part in your life? If not, you
shouldn't do the same to the man you are speaking of.
> If LaHaye is suggesting that Barack Obama is Anti Christ (don't
> know that he is, but likely, he is)
>
> LaHaye is more of a joke than I was aware!
I've never heard of Tim LaHaye publically stating that.
> >> That simply isn't CREDIBLE.
> >Why isn't it? (And your opinion doesn't count - for once, give some
> >solid reasoning and evidence for what you are claiming).
> To YOU?
>
> Give me a reason to bother.
A couple of days ago you were claiming that I never give you credit
for anything - I'm try to give you opportunities to be seen as
anything other than the liar your are purported to be. Over several
posts in the last few days I have asked you to provide references to
back up what you are saying - and you haven't complied once. Not even
once. How do you expect anyone to ever take you seriously is you
never backup what you say with proof?
> Since I know UP FRONT that you wouldn't agree if I said "Jesus
> Christ is God the Father in human flesh..."
Why do you think I wouldn't agree with that? I definitely agree with
that.
> Why would I bother? Your "theology" is skewed, and your "doctrine"
> is skewed.
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
> >> And if Oral and Rick are playing footsie and patty cake with the
> >> Kennys and Rod Parsley and Pat Robertson, they lose ALL credibility.
>
> >> The Kennys, Rod Parsley, "Dr Dollar", and the rest of that GOON
> >> squad are NOT credible on ANY level.
>
> >Isn't that just *your* opinion?
>
> ?????? "hardly."
>
> We simply don't run in the same circles.
>
> I'll trust my sources; I won't trust yours.
>
> You've already demonstrated that you have ZERO credible Bible
> knowledge or understanding.
Why? Because I don't always agree with yours? I think you'd be
surprised how much we agree on theologically.
> >> Let me guess: you got an undergraduate degree from ORU!
> >Uhhh...no. But I know a number of people who did.
> As do I! But I'm not bragging about it! I had any number of
> people encouraging me to go to
I'm not bragging about it, either.
> I got my education at two liberal arts universities -- one
> Christian ( Pepperdine U)-- and at an ecumenical seminary and a
> liberal seminary.
So you have undergraduate degrees from *both* Pepperdine and CSUN?
> >So? Just because their theological school has Pentecostals on staff
> >it's not a reputable university?
> Who's the kook who runs the show? Oral.
Not for a very long time now.
> As usual, you are so busy hammering your point, you don't have
> time-- or sensitivity -- to absorb mine.
>
> And you have to define "successful."
So, I take it that's another "no"?
> smirk. If I don't buy what you've said, I'm "not grasping
> reality."
>
> Why you think you're pertinent, I will never know!
Why you think I'm not says alot about you and how much you value
people other than yourself.
> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
"eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"? What does that mean?
> Wrong AGAIN! As usual.
Not "as usual" at all, John.
> I did 1 1/2 years (sophomore and half my jr ) at Pepperdine. I got
> my DEGREE at CSUN.
So where did you do your freshman year?
> I thought you had my life history MEMORIZED by now!
Uh...no. Why would I?
> >> I'm referring to the present-day ORU.
> >Which you know nothing about.
> I know who RUNS it.
>
> And I doubt seriously if you know diddly about ORU.
You know who runs it? You think that Oral Roberts himself runs it and
he hasn't for a long time.
> >> I guess you missed the story a month or so ago that Rick Roberts
> >His name is Richard, not Rick.
> you say what you like about me; I give Rick Roberts ZERO respect.
> He's a phony, like his daddy.
His name is Richard. And I agree.
> >Yeah...and? Someone in the administration being corrupt has nothing
> >to do with the school's academia or their students or their teaching
> >faculty.
> It's corrupt at the TOP. Like America.
Okay, here's another opportunity for you to prove what you are saying
is truth and not just your opinion. Do you have any proof at all that
ORU's entire administrative staff, faculty, and other peripheral staff
are "corrupt"?
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Like I've said about you any number of times, "trying
> to communicate with you "adult- adult" is a waste of time!
Then why did you spend so much time answering my questions?
<Kelly>
> Oh, goody for him......
> Instead of simply condemning Obama before he even takes office (which
> I reckon he will) -- why not give him a chance to prove himself?
The time to prove oneself is *before* the election, Elaine. Not after
and we get to take our chances.
> He
> also funded his own campaign.
Which concerns me, personally, because I'd like to know who's backing
him and why.
> He didn't drain the public purse like
> old Hillary did.
Excuse me? Exactly how did Hillary "drain the public purse" with her
campaign?
> > I laughed so hard my coke came out my nose!!
> And what did you HAVE in that 'coke'?
I can't believe I missed this one...
So, John, how long have you been sniffing cocaine?
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:18:52 -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 Jun 23, 11:45 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A warning sign that a "Christian" is a total phony is that he's
>>> attended / graduated "ORU."
>> ORU isn't Ivy-League by any means, but ORU *is* a well-respected
>> university, John.
>
>
>
> other day. He's a graduate of ORU, he thinks that Tim LaHaye's "Left
> Behind" NOVEL series is "The Last Word" on "The Rapture" and "The
> Anti-Christ",
>
> Obama is
>
> The Anti Christ.
>
Was that because you were snortin' it or drinkin' it?
...Hahaha...[Clue]
>
SNIP
NOSPAM
<316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 7:57 am, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>
>> Oh, goody for him......
>> Instead of simply condemning Obama before he even takes office (which
>> I reckon he will) -- why not give him a chance to prove himself?
>
>The time to prove oneself is *before* the election, Elaine. Not after
>and we get to take our chances.
>
I believe I have already indicated same, Kelly.
>> He
>> also funded his own campaign.
>
>Which concerns me, personally, because I'd like to know who's backing
>him and why.
>
Beats me.
>> He didn't drain the public purse like
>> old Hillary did.
>
>Excuse me? Exactly how did Hillary "drain the public purse" with her
>campaign?
>
She used public funds to do her campaigning, or at least she admitted
she had.
<Kelly>
> >The time to prove oneself is *before* the election, Elaine. Not after
> >and we get to take our chances.
> I believe I have already indicated same, Kelly.
That isn't the way your reply read - I can only go by what your
replies state.
> >> He
> >> also funded his own campaign.
> >Which concerns me, personally, because I'd like to know who's backing
> >him and why.
> Beats me.
I think it's a good question - Obama has some friends in high-finance
places that aren't so reputable. One of them has recently been on
trial for fraud.
> >> He didn't drain the public purse like
> >> old Hillary did.
> >Excuse me? Exactly how did Hillary "drain the public purse" with her
> >campaign?
>
> She used public funds to do her campaigning, or at least she admitted
> she had.
"Admitted"? There was nothing to admit. In this country it is
perfectly legal to use public funds to campaign - in fact, when we
sign our tax returns, we are asked it we want to donate $2.00 to the
presidential campaign fund. While we have bills that have passed
regarding campaign financing, it is not illegal in this country (nor
in yours, I believe) to finance a campaign with public monies.
Regardless, you still didn't explain why you used the wording
"drained" - how do you think she "drained" public $$?
John Henry
I caught it first time around. Problem is, I responded to it about 90
minutes after you posted this.
BTW, I also noted his "cra(k)ked 4 ribs" comment, but left temptation alone.
<Kelly>
> I wondered how long it would take you to catch that.
Oh, really? How long did you wonder?
> "Funny!"
>
> That's just too absurd for further comment!
>
> Other than, I didn't say "cocaine."
>
> So you mis-quoted me.
No, I didn't. You said "coke" - "coke" is another name for cocaine.
> I said "coke." I failed to capitalize "Coke." < short for "Coca
> Cola."
>
> You have pointed at me for not laughing at your "jokes."
No, I haven't. I *have* pointed out when you didn't see the humor and
made something into what it was never intended to be.
> Fine. I've laughed at ONE.
>
> Happy now?
Sure! Glad you saw the humor.
<Kelly>
> Obama refused the federal money some say he agreed he would take
> earlier, so Obama is now allowed to use
> 1. private contributions
> 2. his own money
He has from the beginning. Where have you been? Under a rock?
> This time 2 years ago, no body (including ME) could IMAGINE ANY
> CANDIDATE who could stand up to Hillary.
>
> Obama came along and KICKED her butt.
>
> She played dirty;
How did she "play dirty", John?
> he played Presidential.
How did he "play presidential" (hint: "presidential" is not
capitalized)
> He kicked her ASS.
No, he didn't. She won the majority big states, Obama didn't.
> What's made MY jaw drop is-- in 2008, -- the RACE card hasn't been
> played YET!
You've "got* to be kidding! Obama and his wife and his former pastor
have been playing the race card over and over again.
Again - where have you been? Living under a rock?
<Kelly>
> "Tony Campolo?" The "motivational speaker?"
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ Now THERE's a "theologian / scholar" if ever there was!
>
> smirk.
Tony Campolo is not a "motivational speaker", John. He's a well-known
and well-respected theologian and pastor.
Get a clue.
> I'm so glad! The two thieves broke bread together!
Excuse me? You don't know anything about Tony and Peggy Campolo, do
you?
> I have a HUGE problem with that. That a "scholar" would sit down
> and swap thoughts on scripture with YOU.
Yes, I'm sure you do. You seem to have a problem with alot of things
that aren't a problem at all.
> > They seemed to think my opinions and thoughts were pretty credible.
> ^ ^ ^ ^ " What ? "
Were you asking me to repeat what I wrote?
> >> >> Oral has KNOWN occult connections.
> >> >Really? Got a cite for that claim, John?
> >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> >> Do you actually believe that every book in print is quoted-- cover
> >> to cover-- somewhere on the internet?
> >> snicker.
> >I take it that's another "no"?
> How many times do I need to say it:
>
> I don't answer to you.
>
> If you want to "clarify" information I've given you, I'm betting
> with your TALENTS, you could find it on the web.
>
> Look up "Oral Roberts occult connection" and variations on that
> theme.
Did that. Found alot of conspiracy garbage. Nothing substantial.
Once again, it appears you are operating on delusion.
> When you are challenged, you seem quite incapable of finding the
> information.
No, that would be you.
> And since I'm not interested in proving the time of day to YOU
Your responses to my posts show otherwise.
> , if
> you NEED "proof", and you're counting on ME, you're kinda SOL.
Yes, I've already figured that out. You say what you want and expect
us to just take your word for it. Another sign of a narcissistic
personality.
> "Prove?" Prove to WHO, EXACTLY?
That should read "whom", not "who", oh wannabe wordsmith.
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ Just as you could say, "The moon TRULY IS made of
> green cheese." You saying it doesn't make it true.
Yes, exactly my point here with you, John. You say a lot of things -
and I do mean *a lot* of things - and you expect us all to take your
word for everything you say, never offering to provide anything to
back up what you have to say. Don't you see the irony here?
> In fact, it's a safe bet that if YOU say it, it's not so!
Wow. Major projecting going on here.
> >> For ANYONE to publicly state that Barack Obama could be The Anti
> >> Christ
> >> is absurd beyond words!
> >> All that indicates is that they don't understand End Times prophesy,
> >> or the Bible.
> >> The key one is: he's not JEWISH.
> >> I have never heard one single word about Barack having ANY Jewish
> >> roots. NONE.
> >> Anti Christ MUST be Jewish.
> >Where do you find that in the Bible, John? Give me a reference,
> >please.
> Oh, PLEASE!
>
> You don't even get THAT?
>
> And you call yourself "seminary-trained?"
>
> What seminary? 'Sears Roebuck?"
Hey, you're the one who is claiming to know something for fact - the
onus is on you, not me. Now, can you provide a Scripture reference
for the Bible telling us that the anti-Christ will be Jewish or not,
John?
> >> Anti Christ MUST be of the tribe of King David.
> >Have you ever considered that the anti-Christ will be Muslim?
> That's not possible.
Why is it "not possible"?
> AGAIN, you prove that you aren't a credible "pastor" or "minister."
>
> We can certainly agree to disagree, but for you to flat tell me I'm
> WRONG, when you are wrong,
>
> that's laughable.
A statement like that and you honestly don't believe you are a
narcissist?
> We aren't discussing ME at the moment.
Not yet, but in the next sentence...
> I make "a big deal" of things I consider a big deal.
Now we're talking about you again.
> >A couple of days ago you were claiming that I never give you credit
> >for anything - I'm try to give you opportunities to be seen as
> >anything other than the liar your are purported to be.
> smirk.
> That's not a reason. I have ZERO need to "be credible IN HERE."
So, what you're telling me is that you are credible because you say
you are, yet at the same time you have no reason to be credible in
here. Now, if that isn't convoluted logic I don't know what is.
And an interesting way to dodge.
> You believe that the Son is the Father in flesh?
>
> That definitely surprises me!
Why? I've stated it many, many times in here.
> >> >Isn't that just *your* opinion?
> ??? Isn't this the place (one of them) to come and state our
> opinions for the whole PLANET to read?
Yes, but stating one's opinion is one thing, stating your opinion as
if it is the only opinion that matters is another. You demonstrate
the latter on a regular basis.
> >> You've already demonstrated that you have ZERO credible Bible
> >> knowledge or understanding.
> >Why? Because I don't always agree with yours?
> I don't recall you EVER agreeing with me.
Well, John - then you don't have a very good memory. Or maybe your
hatred of me and anyone who challenges you clouds reality?
> I certainly would agree that I could be wrong 10% of the time.
> I don't see you admitting that YOU can be wrong 10% of the time, and
> you're wrong WAY more than that.
No, not more than that. Definitely less ;-)
> >So you have undergraduate degrees from *both* Pepperdine and CSUN?
> Is that what I just said? No, it's not.
It's hard to tell what you *are* saying sometimes, John. That's why I
asked for clarification. See? You get mad even when someone asks you
to clarify something you said. Sheesh.
> I did 1 YEAR at Pepperdine. (3 "tri-mesters", or 1 1/2 years at most
> other schools)
No, 1+1+1 equals three trimesters at any school, John. As much as you
want to be, you're not so terribly special.
> I GRADUATED with my DEGREE from CSUN.
>
> You continue to read one thing (black and white), and with all your
> ASSUMPTIONS, you come up with WAY more than is SAID.
>
> ^ ^ ^ That's not my fault.
Sure it is. You write stuff that's not always decipherable. Ofter,
with your writings, it's necessary to try and read between the lines.
That's why I asked you for clarification (and you got so bent out of
shape).
> However, to encourage you, it IS a symptom of bi-polar disorder.
>
> You have problems communicating. You READ IN WAY more than is
> stated.
See above. With you it's practically imperative.
> And you are MORE than willing to blame the other party.
"Blame" for what? What do I have to blame *you* for?
Oh...you mean your own behavior - yes, I do blame you for your own bad
behavior, John.
> >> >So? Just because their theological school has Pentecostals on staff
> >> >it's not a reputable university?
> >> Who's the kook who runs the show? Oral.
> >Not for a very long time now.
> Fine! Then his son, kook jr Rick.
No, not for quite a while now. And his name is still "Richard", not
Rick. Never has been "Rick".
> ^ ^ ^ ^^ we are discussing YOU and ME, not "other people."
"You and me"? There is no "you and me", John.
> There are a handful of people in here I DO value.
>
> You are not one of them.
No kidding. I never would have noticed.
> >So where did you do your freshman year?
> Who is asking?
Uhhh...me?
> >> I thought you had my life history MEMORIZED by now!
> >Uh...no. Why would I?
> Because you keep "quoting me" about "my history", and every time you
> do (you obviously have been digging in the archives)
> you get it WRONG.
No, not everytime.
> >> >> I'm referring to the present-day ORU.
> >> >Which you know nothing about.
> >> I know who RUNS it.
>
> >> And I doubt seriously if you know diddly about ORU.
> >You know who runs it? You think that Oral Roberts himself runs it and
> >he hasn't for a long time.
> I didn't say EXACTLY that.
Pretty much.
> I believe he is still VERY much in
> control, through his dirty son.
Oral Roberts is 90 years old, in declining/failing health and has
lived in Florida and California for years. His son is no longer in
control of the school (remember the scandal you brought up - did you
forget that he resigned from the school's presidency in November of
'07?) and so neither of them are. Please try to keep up, John.
> And I'm AGAIN shaking my head at how much of my time I've allowed
> you to WASTE.
The key phrase being "I've allowed", John. But even more interesting,
after blustering about your time being wasted, you will continue to
waste your time even further...
> I believe I just said "it's corrupt AT THE TOP." As in "The
> President / CEO of ORU: Rick / Oral is as corrupt as cow shit."
Actually, cow manure is great for many things - gardening for one.
Why, just today I planted some new perennials and tulip bulbs in one
of those half wine barrels and used a great topsoil with lots of good
cow manure for natural fertilizer.
Oh, and see above - Richard and Oral are no longer running ORU.
> >> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Like I've said about you any number of times, "trying
> >> to communicate with you "adult- adult" is a waste of time!
> >Then why did you spend so much time answering my questions?
> I've just been asking MYSELF
> ...
You've been asking yourself what? Did you just have a stroke? A
heart attack? A seizure? Where did you go while you were in mid-
sentence?
<Kelly>
> I didn't say he's allowed or not allowed to take private
> contributions, public funding, or use his own money.
>
> I said, some are saying that he said he would not use his own money.
But he has. Alot of it.
> Perhaps you should pay attention and actually READ what has been
> said, so you can comment intelligently.
Ditto.
> I'm voicing my opinion. I don't expect you to agree with me on the
> time of day.
You made a statement that indicated you knew what you were talking
about. I asked you to clarify. Can you? Will you?
> For ONE thing, she's been calling him a "One-term senator" since
> the beginning.
> Last I looked, Hillary is a "one-term senator."
Once again, you speak without knowing the facts. "Last you looked"?
This isn't 2004, it's 2008. She was elected for the first time in
2000, John.
> So what?
>
> She's consistently said "he has no experience." She has no
> experience as President, either.
She has more years of experience in politics and policy than he has
even been in public life.
Get a grip, John.
> She's said "I know how the decisions a President makes are made.
> I've been there when those decisions were being made! I was IN on it!"
> No, she wasn't.
Oh, and you know this because...?
> No she doesn't.
Sure she does. She lived in the White House, doofus.
> If she had sat in on cabinet meetings, that would have been against
> the law.
Show me the law, John. And you know what? You can't because such a
law doesn't exist.
> Many cabinet meetings are classified.
"Classified"? The President makes the decision on who is there and
who isn't and who has clearance and who doesn't.
Get a grip, John.
> She is not authorized
> to hear classified material.
How in the world could you possibly know that? And you know what,
John? You don't know that, so stop trying to pretend you do.
> Then she turned it around when asked if she would allow her husband
> to sit in on cabinet meetings. She said, "Of COURSE NOT! That wouldn't
> be appropriate."
Because so many people were afraid that Bill Clinton would be getting
a third-term, John - she was trying to allez their fears.
> Too many (perhaps you) didn't catch her in that LIE.
What lie?
> >How did he "play presidential" (hint: "presidential" is not
> >capitalized)
> I don't take your cue on proper grammar.
You don't take anyone's cues on anything, John.
Now, can you answer the question? How did Obama "play presidential"
during the primaries?
> >> He kicked her ASS.
>
> >No, he didn't.
>
> Yes, he did.
No, he didn't.
> She won the majority big states, Obama didn't.
>
> Evidently not. He's the nominee, and it's not the end of June.
Do you understand anything about modern politics? About delegates?
Super delegates? The electorial college?
> I see you're a Clinton supporter! Maybe in 2020.
It's not over yet.
> >You've "got* to be kidding! Obama and his wife and his former pastor
> >have been playing the race card over and over again.
> I would call that -- AGAIN -- a matter of perspective.
>
> Perhaps his pastor played the race card; he managed to stay above
> it.
Obama and his wife have been playing the race card since he won Iowa.
> Sorry your candidate (Bill Clinton II) didn't win.
I know you were trying to be clever, but my support was behind
Hillary, not her husband.
NOSPAM
Her numerous trips at the taxpayers' expense. Her numerous billboards
and campaigning signs, etc. and I'm willing to bet she didn't just go
to a fast-food restaurant for a burger and fries!
Oh well -- she isn't running any longer, but I'm sure she still wants
to be VP...
NOSPAM
>
> This time 2 years ago, no body (including ME) could IMAGINE ANY
>CANDIDATE who could stand up to Hillary.
>
> Obama came along and KICKED her butt.
>
> She played dirty; he played Presidential.
>
> He kicked her ASS.
Yes -- but politely so. All she did was try to run him down, and that
removed any semblance of credibility she might have had.
NOSPAM
>
> It's also another name for "Coka Cola."
That should be COCA COLA. no 'K'
<Kelly>
> Her numerous trips at the taxpayers' expense. Her numerous billboards
> and campaigning signs, etc. and I'm willing to bet she didn't just go
> to a fast-food restaurant for a burger and fries!
So? These are all things associated with campaigning in the United
States. She didn't do anything with her campaign money that has been
done before and was done by the others running for office. If there
was malfeasance on her part or on the part of her campaign staff, no
one certainly has ever brought it up. I think you are getting your
kinckers in a twist over nothing, Elaine. And seriously, what do you
care? You're not even a US citizen.
Aside from all of that: a campaign is not going to "drain the public
purse", Elaine. Candidates use what is set aside for their campaigns,
if they go through that money the go through it. It's not like she
was taking a loan from the US government and the country ran out of
money. Your thought process here is...well...I'm not really sure what
it is - other than uninformed.
> Oh well -- she isn't running any longer, but I'm sure she still wants
> to be VP...
Yeah - and she's extremely qualified to be VP - if she's put on the
ticket, it will be the first time in my memory that a presidential/
vice presidential ticket has been so unbalanced. Obama is not
presidential material yet, and in my guy I really believe that this
country will be so sorry and in so much trouble if he is elected.
<Kelly>
That is so not true. Do you even have the slightest idea what has
been going on in this election, Elaine? From what you have said so
far, it appears you haven't got a clue. Obama and his campaigners
have whined like children that they weren't being treated fairly
because of this and that and because of race. Hillary did NOT play
dirty with Obama - and nothing she said while campaigning was outside
the realm of status quo politics.
You seem to have another reason why you are insisting that Hillary is
bad and Obama is good - and I think it has a little to do with the
fact that she is strong woman going up against the guys. I've seen
you do this before, Elaine. Any time a woman gets what you might see
as "out of line", you're right there telling her she shouldn't be
wearing pants and telling men what to do.
<Kelly>
> >> Oh well -- she isn't running any longer, but I'm sure she still wants
> >> to be VP...
> ^ ^ ^ ^^ I think that's highly unlikely. Unless she's cooking a
> plan for being VEEP, then bumping off Barack, and taking the OO.
I didn't write that, Elaine did - but I will answer your statement:
It's not unlikely that Hillary now wants the VP slot - in fact, it's
very likely. Suggesting that she would "bump off Barack" is a really
stupid and careless statement, John. This is still a public forum and
anyone, including the government, can be reading it.
> "Good luck with that one!" If Barack becomes the next President,
> count on him having more security than any President in history.
> (Yes, because he's black.) I have relatives who would probably kill
> him in a heart-beat, BECAUSE he's black!
Another really stupid thing for you to say in here, John. You'd be
wise to never mention it again.
> > if she's put on the
> >ticket, it will be the first time in my memory that a presidential/
> >vice presidential ticket has been so unbalanced. Obama is not
> >presidential material yet,
> It seems the majority of voting Democrats disagree.
No, it doesn't seem so at all. In fact, many of them who are Clinton
supporters plan on voting Republican in the fall. I'm one of them.
And seriously, even if the majority of Dems agree, I couldn't care
less. I generally vote my party, but there are times when I refuse to
vote my party and vote my conscience. This election will be one of
those times.
> Hillary not only isn't "Presidential material", she'll likely never
> be.
Your opinion.
> Being the wife of the former President, a man who should never have
> been elected to begin with
But he was - twice. Get over it, John.
-- likely history will describe him in 20
> years as our most corrupt President in HISTORY-- that doesn't qualify
> her.
Again, your opinion. A whole lot of Americans don't share it.
> If she was elected President, she would not be "Bill Clinton II."
>
> She'd be "President Hillary."
Yeah - and...? Her name is Hillary and if she were president, that's
what people would probably call her.
> ^ ^ ^ She simply isn't qualified. Barack may be a "one-term
> senator." She's a "one-term senator" too.
How many times do I (or does anyone) have to tell you for you to get
it, John? Hillary Clinton is in her 2nd term - hello?
> I've heard any number of commentators-- including the late Tim
> Russert-- comment, "what the heck is she talking about, "" Barack is
> a one-term senator?""" "Hillary is a one-term senator!!"
Yeah...well...I know for a fact that Tim Russert never would have said
that because it's not true. She was first elected to the Senate in
2000, John - this is 2008...
...do the math.
<removed remaining tangental rant>
<Kelly>
> >> He kicked her ASS.
> >Yes -- but politely so.
> Agreed. She did everything she could think of BUT throw rocks and
> mud and broken beer bottles at him.
>
> He INSISTED on "let's keep this focused on THE ISSUES, shall we?"
>
> I spoke with MANY people (I'm no Barack fan), and I said,
>
> "When I see Hillary speak, I see LITERAL tears (good makeup), and I
> see whiney, and I see "gushing."
>
> " When I Barack, I see a man who ACTS like "A President."
>
> I heard AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, "You know, John, you're
> absolutely right!"
>
> She focused on Barack's _______, and _______, and ________.
>
> Barack focused on, "this country needs ________ and _______, and
> ______.
>
> I've heard MANY say, "Hillary defeated Hillary. Barack simply stood
> back, focused on the issues, and let Hillary shoot herself in the foot
> a hundred times."
> > All she did was try to run him down,
> PRECISELY!
>
> She was AGAIN trying to push a "Health Care System" that Americans
> had already said "NO!" to a dozen times.
>
> She didn't learn a thing during her husband's first 4.
>
> and that
>
> >removed any semblance of credibility she might have had.
>
> smirk. (not at YOU) "If she ever had any!"
Who are you talking to? Elaine? Yeah...if you're so desperate that
you're going to talk nice to Elaine, you're definitely losing it.
<Kelly>
> From what you have said, you want to paint Obama as black as you can
> (not a racist comment), and you want to paint Hillary as white as you
> can.
>
> It's not a "black and white" world.
I've never indicated I feel that way. You're reading something into
what I've written and taking it somewhere else. I'm no idiot, John -
there will never be a perfect candidate for anything. But you watch
what the media and the Democratic (and some of the Republican) party
are doing with Obama - by November, the majority of the country will
be seeing him as nearly pristine.
> > Obama and his campaigners
> >have whined like children that they weren't being treated fairly
> >because of this and that and because of race.
> I don't remember any "whining" over "racism" from the Obama camp.
No doubt. You don't even know that Hillary Clinton is in her second
senatorial term.
> Since you've never had a Security Clearance, you don't know how that
> works. I've had a Clearance; I DO know how that works.
Oh, I see. And you know that I've never had a security clearance,
why? Got news for ya, John - not only do I have a personal history in
the United States military, my father was a highly decorated military
officer, who, after retirement, was a military contractor and worked
for an aviation engineering firm in the D.C. Beltway. Don't think I
know anything about security clearances? Think again.
<snipped remaining predictible anti-Clinton rant>
<Kelly>
> I can't help having thousands of relatives down there, but I don't
> have to like them, and I don't have to put up with their trash.
>
> There are half-a-dozen famous Weatherlys [Mike on NCIS; Sean
> Nichols, who used to be Miss Universe; Jim, the country singing star,
> my brothers) who have turned out pretty well. So I think it's safe to
> say that "The Weatherlys" aren't all bad.
So, let me get this straight now: you are saying that you are related
to Shawn Nichols Weatherly (interesting that you don't know how to
spell her name if you are related), Michael Weatherly (another
"relative" whose name you don't know how to spell), and your brother
is Jim Weatherly the country music songwriter?
Uh-huh....okaaaayyy.
Wanna elaborate?
> I certainly turned out ok, and I've even achieved a few things.
Yes, we know about your achievements, John.
> You live in a fantasy world. Barack won the nomination.
>
> He's a Democrat, for cryin' out loud! You can't exactly blame the
> Florida recount on him THIS time, now can you?
And you obviously don't understand how delegates and super delegates
and the electoral college works.
> That would be fine with me. I'm sure John would be delighted to
> have your vote.
> I AM amused that you have chosen to "Change Parties" rather than vote
> for the candidate Hillary has now ENDORSED!
I am not "changing parties", I'm still a registered Democrat but will
be voting for McCain in the general election. And don't be stupid,
John (Hillary's not), she's endorsing Obama because it's the right
thing to do for the party in order to win in November (and because she
wants him to consider her for VP).
> When it was Hillary, you were GUNG HO! Now that she's lost, you
> aren't remotely interested in the candidate SHE ENDORSED!
>
> Kinda sounds DOGMATIC!
Sounds to me like I'm voting my conscience.
> So, now you're saying, "ANYTHING--- ANYONE---- (Ted Bundy? )
> would be better than Barack!"
Yep, it's official: you're an idiot.
>
>
>
> >> Hillary not only isn't "Presidential material", she'll likely never
> >> be.
>
> >Your opinion.
>
> >How many times do I (or does anyone) have to tell you for you to get
> >it, John? Hillary Clinton is in her 2nd term - hello?
> smirk. Actually, she's not. And-- let's say she is. Does 2 terms
> in the Senate make her more qualified than Barack?
> I don't think so.
>
> Two term senator? I don't think so. AGAIN, you prove you typically
> don't know what the HELL you are talking about.
>
> Congressmen / women serve 4 years. Senators serve 6 years.
>
> This from Wik:
>
> Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born on October 26, 1947) is the junior
> United States Senator from New York, and was a candidate for the
> Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. She is
> married to Bill Clinton—the 42nd President of the United States—and
> was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.
Dig away, John - you'll bury yourself soon...
> Hillary was First Lady from 1993 to 2001.
> It's now 2008.
> I don't recall frankly what year she was elected to the US Senate,
> but... let's say it was 2002. (I believe it was 2002, since that would
> have been the "next ELECTION year")
> If she was elected to the US Senate as "The Junior Senator from New
> York" in 2002, and it's 2008 now, that's 6 years.
> Senators serve 6 year terms.
>
> She's a one-term senator!
>
> AND-- last I heard-- she had to resign her senate seat to run for
> President.
You never heard that, idiot. Over the last few days it's been all
over the news how she has returned to work - in the Senate.
> So not only was she a one-termer when she ran for President, she's
> now a one-termer who didn't get elected!
>
> So now, she's not President, and now, she's not a senator anymore!
>
> :-(
And you are a complete idiot.
> No, she wasn't "first elected to the Senate in 2000."
Yes, John she was.
> However, even if she was,
She was, doofus. Boy, you really are stupid sometimes, John.
> Senators serve a 6-year term.
>
> snicker.
Yeah, and...? Hello? She was elected in 2000, this is what year,
John? 2005? 2006? No! I'ts 2008! 2008 - 2000 = ?
8 years! Imagine that...
Oy vey.
> You sure do pound the table when you're WRONG!!
I'm sorry...who's "pounding the table"? Who's the one who's
shouting? Not me...that would be you.
> Can ANYBODY TELL this person that our US Senators serve a term of
> SIX years, not FOUR?
>
> Look it up, Kelly! You're DEAD wrong. Again.
>
> Do the math.
>
> And stop ranting.
>
> It's ok to be wrong. (I hope so/ you're wrong A LOT)
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post is absolutely priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Kelly>
> >> Since you've never had a Security Clearance, you don't know how that
> >> works. I've had a Clearance; I DO know how that works.
> >Oh, I see. And you know that I've never had a security clearance,
> From what you've said.
From what I said? I've never said one word in here before today about
my knowledge of military and government operations from personal
experience.
> >why? Got news for ya, John - not only do I have a personal history in
> >the United States military, my father was a highly decorated military
> >officer, who,
> Wow!
> And if I told you who my people are (I can't), you wouldn't be trying
> to blow smoke up my butt.
Oh, you don't believe me? Fine - send me your email address and I
will send you links to information about my dad and his service to
this country for over 30 years.
<Kelly>
<Snipped JW drivel and general baloney>
> Let's see. How many people can you call "idiot" today?
Just you. The label has been fitting you quite well today - wear it
with pride (you can put it in with your other "accomplishments")
Robibnikoff
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> pissed & moaned....
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Robibnikoff
<Kelly>
nonsense and more excuses as usual:
> >> From what you've said.
>
> >From what I said?
>
> Excuse me! ^ ^ ^ ^ v v v v
>
> Wrong reference; wrong connection. As usual.
I think I was following along just fine - it you made an error in how
you expressed yourself, that's not my fault.
> I've never said one word in here before today about
>
> >my knowledge of military and government operations from personal
> >experience.
>
> >> >why? Got news for ya, John - not only do I have a personal history in
> >> >the United States military, my father was a highly decorated military
> >> >officer, who,
> You're telling me you PERSONALLY have served in the military?
> You're telling me you PERSONALLY have held a security clearance?
>
> I don't believe it.
Fine. Don't believe it.
> >> Wow!
> >> And if I told you who my people are (I can't), you wouldn't be trying
> >> to blow smoke up my butt.
>
> >Oh, you don't believe me?
>
> No, but I'm actually not all that interested.
Oh, okay. Whatever you say, John.
> Fine - send me your email address and I
>
> >will send you links to information about my dad and his service to
> >this country for over 30 years.
>
> I --- AGAIN --- wasn't referring to your father.
Yeah, you were. You basically told me I was lying about his
accomplishments in the military and as a military contractor and then
you quickly shifted the conversation back over to yourself to brag
about you and your family (as if what your family has done in their
lives reflects directly on you - you do know that is exactly what
narcissists do, don't you John?)
> However, as I have nothing to prove to YOU; you have nothing to
> prove to me.
>
> I'll put it this way. Without naming names or relationships, I have
> had a clearance, and I have family and friends at FBI, CIA, and NSA.
>
> So I doubt SERIOUSLY if you "know stuff" I don't know.
Go ahead, John - continue to believe what you wish. Live in your
delusions - they obviously keep you going on some level.
NOSPAM
<316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>So, let me get this straight now: you are saying that you are related
>to Shawn Nichols Weatherly (interesting that you don't know how to
>spell her name if you are related), Michael Weatherly (another
>"relative" whose name you don't know how to spell), and your brother
>is Jim Weatherly the country music songwriter?
>
>Uh-huh....okaaaayyy.
>
>Wanna elaborate?
Isn't it amazing, how EVERYONE liar-johnnie 'no's' is 'famous in some
way or another....! Typical narcissistic boasting and bragging over
nothing.
NOSPAM
>
> I'm never stupid.
Of course not, short bus. That be why you be known as
'WRONG-WAY-Weatherless' by some...
NOSPAM
>
> ^ ^ ^ That's called "being opinionated." And she IS that. And she
>has ADMITTED that.
Show the post, liar-johnnie.
NOSPAM
>
> I won't speak for anyone but myself. (as I've said many times, I'm
>quite sure I have relatives who are KKK. I am not this sympathetic =
>to that world view.)
Are you bragging or complaining?
The KKK's are nothing but white-sheet-covered COWARDS.
NOSPAM
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:00:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
><witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>>"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> bragged and lied....
>
> Shut up, psycho!
>
Make her, Washington Wanker.
NOSPAM
<316...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've seen
>you do this before, Elaine. Any time a woman gets what you might see
>as "out of line", you're right there telling her she shouldn't be
>wearing pants and telling men what to do.
Oh, good grief! How utterly absurd.
john w <j
<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.
>On Jun 26, 12:03 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote a bunch of
>nonsense and more excuses as usual:
>
>> >> From what you've said.
>>
>> >From what I said?
>>
>> Excuse me! ^ ^ ^ ^ v v v v
>>
>> Wrong reference; wrong connection. As usual.
>
>I think I was following along just fine -
^ ^ ^ ^ What you think isn't the issue.
And I said, "wrong reference" < me
Wrong connection. < you (based on my wrong reference
We don't communicate. So why bother?
it you made an error in how
>you expressed yourself, that's not my fault.
^ ^ ^ ^ True. But you do it (make errors in expressing yourself,
make errors in how you "understand") DAILY.
That's not MY fault!
I have said things a number of times that were FRANKLY none of your
business or anyone else's. So I left out key, (identifying) details.
which you bothered to FILL IN with conjecture.
Like, if I attended Metropolitan Baptist Church, it HAD to be, the
BLACK one. And you went on about that for DAYS, until you BOTHERED to
check, and
you were WRONG. Like I said.
I should certainly know if I attended an "all-black" baptist
church.
I even gave you the ADDRESS several times. "Not good enough."
It is YOU who are full of yourself.
Even when I showed you you were wrong, even when you FINALLY
BOTHERED to check and find out, it was "you were WRONG (I wasn't), I
was wrong." (YOU were wrong)
But damned if you'll admit you were wrong.
You just expect everyone ELSE to!
>
>> I've never said one word in here before today about
>>
>> >my knowledge of military and government operations from personal
>> >experience.
>>
>> >> >why? Got news for ya, John - not only do I have a personal history in
>> >> >the United States military, my father was a highly decorated military
>> >> >officer, who,
>
>> You're telling me you PERSONALLY have served in the military?
>> You're telling me you PERSONALLY have held a security clearance?
>>
>> I don't believe it.
>
>Fine. Don't believe it.
LOL!!
I don't. You just got done saying
" I've never said one word in here before today about
my knowledge of military and government operations from personal
experience."
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
That's a DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU.
It reads, YOU have never been in the military!
I don't care if your daddy, your momma, your sister, your 5
brothers, your aunt, and your 4 uncles were all generals.
You weren't in the military. If you haven't had the 1st hand
experience, don't tell me about it!
"I've been there! I've done that!" YOU have not.
I've had a security clearance. When you work on projects like the
Space Station, you get "cleared", "vetted".
Family members and friends have had clearances.
You have NOT.
>>
>
>> >> Wow!
>> >> And if I told you who my people are (I can't), you wouldn't be trying
>> >> to blow smoke up my butt.
>>
>> >Oh, you don't believe me?
>>
>> No, but I'm actually not all that interested.
>
>Oh, okay. Whatever you say, John.
>
>> Fine - send me your email address and I
>>
>> >will send you links to information about my dad and his service to
>> >this country for over 30 years.
>>
>> I --- AGAIN --- wasn't referring to your father.
>
>Yeah, you were. You basically told me I was lying about his
>accomplishments
AGAIN, you have mis-interpreted. I kinda think it was DELIBERATE.
AGAIN, I don't give a rat's ass about your "father." (no disrespect
to your father), but I'm talking about YOU.
You keep talking about "the experience" of people you know, as if
that gives you "first-hand knowledge."
It doesn't.
in the military and as a military contractor and then
>you quickly shifted the conversation back over to yourself to brag
>about you and your family (as if what your family has done in their
>lives reflects directly on you - you do know that is exactly what
>narcissists do, don't you John?)
LOL!!! You're so full of yourself.
How come you keep weaseling?
>
>> However, as I have nothing to prove to YOU; you have nothing to
>> prove to me.
>>
>> I'll put it this way. Without naming names or relationships, I have
>> had a clearance, and I have family and friends at FBI, CIA, and NSA.
>>
>> So I doubt SERIOUSLY if you "know stuff" I don't know.
>
>Go ahead, John - continue to believe what you wish. Live in your
>delusions - they obviously keep you going on some level.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ LOL!!! ^ ^ ^ ^Ditto, you ditzy broad!
<Kelly>
> I have said things a number of times that were FRANKLY none of your
> business or anyone else's. So I left out key, (identifying) details.
Yes, you continue to talk about stuff that's none of our business,
don't you?
> Like, if I attended Metropolitan Baptist Church, it HAD to be, the
> BLACK one. And you went on about that for DAYS, until you BOTHERED to
> check, and
> you were WRONG. Like I said.
No, I didn't say that it had to be the one - I thought that you were
mistaken about the name, John. Your Usenet history of remembering
exact details about churches isn't exactly stellar, John.
> I even gave you the ADDRESS several times. "Not good enough."
Yep, and that's exactly how I was able to go to Google Earth, look at
the satellite photos of that corner, see that there indeed was a
church there and then go to Google Maps to find out *what* churches
were in that area. Which is, then, exactly how I was able to find out
*what* church was in that spot.
> I don't. You just got done saying
> " I've never said one word in here before today about
> my knowledge of military and government operations from personal
> experience."
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> That's a DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU.
Yes, it is.
> It reads, YOU have never been in the military!
No, it doesn't "read" that way - well, maybe to you and six year-olds
that are learning to read...
> You weren't in the military.
Are you sure about that, John?
> "I've been there! I've done that!" YOU have not.
Are you sure about that, John?
> I've had a security clearance. When you work on projects like the
> Space Station, you get "cleared", "vetted".
Oh...you worked on "projects" related to the international Space
Station, did you? Whatever you say. John.
> Family members and friends have had clearances.
>
> You have NOT.
Are you sure about that, John? Oh, and you do realize that not only
those in the military get security clearances, don't you?
JohnH
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:10:17 -0400, John Henry <johnhe...@yahoo.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.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
> >> <316k...@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.
>
> >>>> A warning sign that a "Christian" is a total phony is that he's
> >>>> attended / graduated "ORU."
> >>> ORU isn't Ivy-League by any means, but ORU *is* a well-respected
> >>> university, John.
>
> >> ^ ^ ^^ I guess that depends on whose opinion you respect.
>
> >> Oral has KNOWN occult connections.
>
> >> I heard an Air Force Officer, pastor, on a local radio show the
> >> other day. He's a graduate of ORU, he thinks that Tim LaHaye's "Left
> >> Behind" NOVEL series is "The Last Word" on "The Rapture" and "The
> >> Anti-Christ",
>
> >> and he's absolutely POSITIVE-- no doubt / no debate -- that Barack
> >> Obama is
>
> >> The Anti Christ.
>
> >> I laughed so hard my coke came out my nose!!
>
> >Was that because you were snortin' it or drinkin' it?
>
> Funny, John H!
>
Yep, but you're not even finished yet!
>
> Actually, I typed that, missed the capital "C", and AFTER I sent it,
> I realized my error.
>
Go on.
>
> I meant to say "my Diet Coke went up my nose."
>
I see. So you not only missed "the capital 'C'," but the "Diet" part
as well, AND you actually meant "up" your nose, not "out" your nose.
Would you like to change anything else now?
>
> To respond IN KIND: I drank it, THEN I "snorted it."
>
Snortin' Diet Coke ain't none too bright either, you know. ;-)
>
> >...Hahaha...[Clue]
>
> >SNIP- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NOSPAM
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ You lied AGAIN! (and you mis-spelled "know."
Only following YOUR example, knothead!
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
> 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 Jun 24, 7:57 am, NOSPAM <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, goody for him......
>>>> Instead of simply condemning Obama before he even takes office (which
>>>> I reckon he will) -- why not give him a chance to prove himself?
>>> The time to prove oneself is *before* the election, Elaine. Not after
>>> and we get to take our chances.
>>>
>>>> He
>>>> also funded his own campaign.
>>> Which concerns me, personally, because I'd like to know who's backing
>>> him and why.
>>>
>>>> He didn't drain the public purse like
>>>> old Hillary did.
>>> Excuse me? Exactly how did Hillary "drain the public purse" with her
>>> campaign?
>>>
>>>>> I laughed so hard my coke came out my nose!!
>>> I can't believe I missed this one...
>>>
>>> So, John, how long have you been sniffing cocaine?
>> I caught it first time around. Problem is, I responded to it about 90
>> minutes after you posted this.
>>
>> BTW, I also noted his "cra(k)ked 4 ribs" comment, but left temptation alone.
>
> Congrats! It's nice to know that-- once a year or so-- you can
> overcome temptation.
>
And you can relate to that, precisely how?
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
> <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.
>>
>>> Oh, goody for him......
>>> Instead of simply condemning Obama before he even takes office (which
>>> I reckon he will) -- why not give him a chance to prove himself?
>> The time to prove oneself is *before* the election, Elaine. Not after
>> and we get to take our chances.
>>
>>> He
>>> also funded his own campaign.
>> Which concerns me, personally, because I'd like to know who's backing
>> him and why.
>>
>>> He didn't drain the public purse like
>>> old Hillary did.
>> Excuse me? Exactly how did Hillary "drain the public purse" with her
>> campaign?
>>
>>>> I laughed so hard my coke came out my nose!!
>>> And what did you HAVE in that 'coke'?
>> I can't believe I missed this one...
>>
>> So, John, how long have you been sniffing cocaine?
>
>
> I wondered how long it would take you to catch that.
Liar! You didn't even have a clue until others mentioned it.
>
snip
John Henry
> x-no-archive: yes
You provided the rich foundations, and now you're crying?
>
> So, to confirm it, 1 Cor 13
> (give one another the benefit of the doubt), that passage is NOT in
> your Bible, correct?
>
> Didn't think so.
You didn't think, PERIOD.
>
> At any rate,
You're getting ready to go delusional again, huh?
>
> you sure waste a lot of time turning yourself on that bbq spit I
> put you on a few years ago.
You do delusional better than anyone.
>
> You keep cookin' and basting, cookin' and basting.
>
> (if you think you're hurting me...
>
> laugh out loud)
We barbecue pigs here. Glad you can relate.
>
>>> To respond IN KIND: I drank it, THEN I "snorted it."
>>>
>> Snortin' Diet Coke ain't none too bright either, you know. ;-)
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ Bad grammar. You were talking about "bright?"
You thought that I was going for good grammar there? You really are too
stupid for words.