New Beginnings - Quaker Perspective on New Life in Jesus Christ by Bill Samuel
crunch
"The Lord Brings Joy
Now all this above may sound very heavy. It is about the life of the
cross but, as Jesus promised, this is also a life of joy. George Fox,
generally called the founder of Quakerism, wrote about his key turning
point in his Journal:
And when all my hopes in them and all men were gone. . . I heard a
voice which said, "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to
thy condition," and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy."
Peace,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
(<<Kelly>>)
Wonderfully, Fox writes here of "Christ Jesus" rather than the more
common (amongst lay people and non-believers) "Jesus Christ". In so
doing, Fox is recognizing the Deity of Jesus. Good for Fox.
Too bad for you, Soggy - you don't believe in the same Jesus Fox did.
You lose.
(of course, that could all change if you finally stopped being
Oppositional-Defiant/NPD-Boy and actually read the Bible for what it
truly is, rather than what your Goddess Thiering tells you it is)
crunch
> On Jan 4, 1:03 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.quakerinfo.com/new_beg.shtml
>
> > "The Lord Brings Joy
>
> > Now all this above may sound very heavy. It is about the life of the
> > cross but, as Jesus promised, this is also a life of joy. George Fox,
> > generally called the founder of Quakerism, wrote about his key turning
> > point in his Journal:
>
> > And when all my hopes in them and all men were gone. . . I heard a
> > voice which said, "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to
> > thy condition," and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy."
>
> Wonderfully, Fox writes here of "Christ Jesus" rather than the more
> common (amongst lay people and non-believers) "Jesus Christ". In so
> doing, Fox is recognizing the Deity of Jesus. Good for Fox.
No surprise here to any RSOF members who may
be present; common knowledge.
> Too bad for you, Soggy - you don't believe in the same Jesus Fox did.
How do you know what I believe? Hint - you never
asked me.
> You lose.
Bunk; depends on your definition of winning or losing.
> (of course, that could all change if you finally stopped being
> Oppositional-Defiant/NPD-Boy and actually read the Bible for what it
> truly is, rather than what your Goddess Thiering tells you it is)
More of Kelly's obnoxious libel, which will soon be
reported fully to appropriate authority at Cambridge Meeting.
Sir David
to ...
> " ... cheap bigot ..."
"Cheap Bigot!" Everyone in the Crunchy drinking game has to take TWO
drinks: one for Crunchy's catch phrase "cheap bigot," and a bonus
drink for it being in the subject line.
> More of Kelly's obnoxious libel, which will soon be
> reported fully to appropriate authority at Cambridge Meeting.
What "appropriate authority" at Friends Meeting at Cambridge? How does
tattling on Kelly benefit you, her, the NG, or FMoC? The Friends at
Cambridge are really getting tired of your tattle-taling and whining
to them about this newsgroup. For reporting NG behavior that you don't
like, there is no "appropriate authority" at FMoC. You're just being a
whiny and bratty little child.
Sucks to be you, Carl.
> Carl "Crunchy" Crunchystain
(<<Kelly>>)
> > > George Fox,
> > > generally called the founder of Quakerism, wrote about his key turning
> > > point in his Journal:
>
> > > And when all my hopes in them and all men were gone. . . I heard a
> > > voice which said, "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to
> > > thy condition," and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy."
> > Wonderfully, Fox writes here of "Christ Jesus" rather than the more
> > common (amongst lay people and non-believers) "Jesus Christ". In so
> > doing, Fox is recognizing the Deity of Jesus. Good for Fox.
> No surprise here to any RSOF members who may
> be present; common knowledge.
You have told us numerous times that you are just like George Fox -
from reading th above you obviously are nothing like George Fox
because you don't believe in Christ Jesus. Just some Jesus guy you
think lived in Qumran, wasn't divine, and didn't die on the cross and
was subsequently resurrected.
> > Too bad for you, Soggy - you don't believe in the same Jesus Fox did.
> How do you know what I believe? Hint - you never
> asked me.
I don't have to ask you; you've told us ad-nauseum.
> > You lose.
> Bunk;
Bunkless.
> depends on your definition of winning or losing.
Being seperated with the goats when you could be seperated with the
sheep is losing, Soggy.
> > (of course, that could all change if you finally stopped being
> > Oppositional-Defiant/NPD-Boy and actually read the Bible for what it
> > truly is, rather than what your Goddess Thiering tells you it is)
> More of Kelly's obnoxious libel, which will soon be
> reported fully to appropriate authority at Cambridge Meeting.
Oooh...I'm so frightened. A group of people who don't know me and I'm
not affilliated with, involved in a denomination whose precepts I
don't subscribe to.
And what, exactly, do you expect them to do once you "report" me to
them, Soggy?
Seebs
> Oooh...I'm so frightened. A group of people who don't know me and I'm
> not affilliated with, involved in a denomination whose precepts I
> don't subscribe to.
I don't think we *have* precepts. I mean, not as a denomination.
> And what, exactly, do you expect them to do once you "report" me to
> them, Soggy?
My guess would be that, eventually, you may or may not receive a very
polite email informing you that some guy has been complaining about you,
and they'd like you to prayerfully consider what might be the best ways
to interact with him.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
(<<Kelly>>)
> On 2010-01-05, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oooh...I'm so frightened. A group of people who don't know me and I'm
> > not affilliated with, involved in a denomination whose precepts I
> > don't subscribe to.
>
> I don't think we *have* precepts. I mean, not as a denomination.
Of course the RSOF does. It's an organization and all organizations
have precepts of one kind or another which are the foundation of
certain basic beliefs and practices.
> > And what, exactly, do you expect them to do once you "report" me to
> > them, Soggy?
> My guess would be that, eventually, you may or may not receive a very
> polite email informing you that some guy has been complaining about you,
> and they'd like you to prayerfully consider what might be the best ways
> to interact with him.
And, if that happens, I will be happy to remind them this is a free
country and that Usenet is something those living in this free country
utilize to exercise their right to free speech and expression.
Then I will proceed to tell them (in very "plain language") to mind
their own business.
Seebs
> Of course the RSOF does. It's an organization and all organizations
> have precepts of one kind or another which are the foundation of
> certain basic beliefs and practices.
I dunno, I get to make fun of my UU friends for being dogmatists.
Basically, I can't think of a single basic belief or practice which is
essential to Quakerism. It's pretty generally accepted that theism is
optional, which pretty much kills any attempt at a universally-required
theological position.
>> My guess would be that, eventually, you may or may not receive a very
>> polite email informing you that some guy has been complaining about you,
>> and they'd like you to prayerfully consider what might be the best ways
>> to interact with him.
> And, if that happens, I will be happy to remind them this is a free
> country and that Usenet is something those living in this free country
> utilize to exercise their right to free speech and expression.
>
> Then I will proceed to tell them (in very "plain language") to mind
> their own business.
Maybe tone is translating poorly in text.
Such a letter would not be, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination,
a request that you stop. It would merely be the fallback default way of
politely stating "this nutjob tells us you annoy him, so, it is theoretically
possible that you did something annoying, in which case maybe you shouldn't,
otherwise carry on."
(<<Kelly>>)
> On 2010-01-05, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course the RSOF does. It's an organization and all organizations
> > have precepts of one kind or another which are the foundation of
> > certain basic beliefs and practices.
>
> I dunno, I get to make fun of my UU friends for being dogmatists.
>
> Basically, I can't think of a single basic belief or practice which is
> essential to Quakerism. It's pretty generally accepted that theism is
> optional, which pretty much kills any attempt at a universally-required
> theological position.
You might want to take a look at this: http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
> >> My guess would be that, eventually, you may or may not receive a very
> >> polite email informing you that some guy has been complaining about you,
> >> and they'd like you to prayerfully consider what might be the best ways
> >> to interact with him.
> > And, if that happens, I will be happy to remind them this is a free
> > country and that Usenet is something those living in this free country
> > utilize to exercise their right to free speech and expression.
>
> > Then I will proceed to tell them (in very "plain language") to mind
> > their own business.
> Maybe tone is translating poorly in text.
>
> Such a letter would not be, in any way, by any stretch of the imagination,
> a request that you stop. It would merely be the fallback default way of
> politely stating "this nutjob tells us you annoy him, so, it is theoretically
> possible that you did something annoying, in which case maybe you shouldn't,
> otherwise carry on."
And in so doing, they would be crossing a boundry they have no
business crossing. My hope is that it doesn't happen because, if it
does, they will wish they had never butted in.
But seriously - unless Soggy has severely misrepresented what actually
occurs here, I can't imagine any reason why they would want to get
involved in his Usenet life. Moreover, I think they probably already
have his number and take, as we do, what he says with whatever is less
in size than a grain of salt.
Seebs
> You might want to take a look at this: http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
I have. :) I've also been to a Quaker meeting house, regularly for a
couple of years, where there's a big sign on the wall saying there are no
dogmas or doctrines.
> And in so doing, they would be crossing a boundry they have no
> business crossing.
What boundary is that?
I don't get it. What's the problem with letting you know that they got
complaints and don't particularly care about the complaints, as a
hypothetical? (I agree that they're unlikely to go even that far.)
I mean, it's Usenet. You're posting where millions of people can see and
respond to your posts. I don't see the big deal.
(<<Kelly>>)
> On 2010-01-05, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You might want to take a look at this:http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
>
> I have. :) I've also been to a Quaker meeting house, regularly for a
> couple of years, where there's a big sign on the wall saying there are no
> dogmas or doctrines.
>
> > And in so doing, they would be crossing a boundry they have no
> > business crossing.
>
> What boundary is that?
>
> I don't get it. What's the problem with letting you know that they got
> complaints and don't particularly care about the complaints, as a
> hypothetical? (I agree that they're unlikely to go even that far.)
Uhh...because they don't know me, don't know anything about me, I'm
only a name online as far as they are concerned and I am not a part of
their group. To write to someone clear across the country who isn't a
Quaker and is only a name on the internet and has not contacted them
first is crossing a boundry they have no right (and really no reason)
to cross.
> I mean, it's Usenet. You're posting where millions of people can see and
> respond to your posts. I don't see the big deal.
Ibid.
Yowie
news:ff04ee52-1ac4-424b...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
> On Jan 5, 3:01 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-05, (<<Kelly>>) <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You might want to take a look at
>>> this:http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
>>
>> I have. :) I've also been to a Quaker meeting house, regularly for a
>> couple of years, where there's a big sign on the wall saying there
>> are no dogmas or doctrines.
>>
>>> And in so doing, they would be crossing a boundry they have no
>>> business crossing.
>>
>> What boundary is that?
>>
>> I don't get it. What's the problem with letting you know that they
>> got complaints and don't particularly care about the complaints, as a
>> hypothetical? (I agree that they're unlikely to go even that far.)
>
> Uhh...because they don't know me, don't know anything about me, I'm
> only a name online as far as they are concerned and I am not a part of
> their group. To write to someone clear across the country who isn't a
> Quaker and is only a name on the internet and has not contacted them
> first is crossing a boundry they have no right (and really no reason)
> to cross.
To contact somone via snail mail, I'd agree - its a boundary that shouldn't
be crossed except in the most extreme of circumstances (ie, this does not
warrent such a contact). But to use the e-mail address supplied in the
Usenet headers to contact someone on Usenet to talk about what they said in
Usenet, is IMHO, fair game
After all, I seem to recall I did just that and got a perfectly reasonable
response from you, which I appreciated.
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
(<<Kelly>>)
> "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, but you are someone I already know from Usenet. For a group of
people to contact someone as representatives of a religious group a
Usenetter is a marginal part of (not a member, mind you, just someone
who attends - and even then, probably not regularly) is crossing a
boundry. I can tell you as someone who has been in numerous governing
positions in relation to secular as well as religious groups that to
contact someone who has no connection whatsoever to their group *in a
chastising fashion* (as Soggy suggests will happen) is waaaaayyy out
of the boundries of that group. *Especially* for a religious group.
And yes, I seriously doubt it will happen, as well. If it does,
however, they will wish they hadn't become involved on behalf of David
Christainsen and David Christainsen will wish he had kept his moutth
shut. Because - at that point - *they* will have opened the door for
a Usenetter who has observed DC's antics, lies, delusions, and
obsessions over a substantial amount of time to let the proverbial cat
out of the bag regarding *his* behavior. And what I will then be
perfectly within my rights to inform them of will not be a pretty
picture.
Soggy should hope these events do not unfold as he has suggested they
might.
Ian Davis
You really should learn that David saying something will happen, is
near meaningless. He is not very reliable when it comes to either
understanding the past or predicting the future. And as Seebs was
pointing out, Quakers are not in the least bit antagonistic so
would hardly be inclined to chastise. More likely they'd suggest
that you needed to join them in prayerfully considering how best
to cope with David.
>And yes, I seriously doubt it will happen, as well. If it does,
>however, they will wish they hadn't become involved on behalf of David
>Christainsen and David Christainsen will wish he had kept his moutth
>shut. Because - at that point - *they* will have opened the door for
>a Usenetter who has observed DC's antics, lies, delusions, and
>obsessions over a substantial amount of time to let the proverbial cat
>out of the bag regarding *his* behavior. And what I will then be
>perfectly within my rights to inform them of will not be a pretty
>picture.
>
>Soggy should hope these events do not unfold as he has suggested they
>might.
They won't.
Ian
crunch
wrote:
> In article <c63d0894-f753-4264-85d8-5adc0f8d5...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Earth to Ian Davis - in my original statement on SRQ
I said "may", not "will". So, your statement here is
NOT SOLIDLY GROUNDED.
> He is not very reliable when it comes to either
> understanding the past or predicting the future.
On the contrary I am very reliable about it; instead, it is
Ian Davis who is outrageous and immoral concerning
his SRQ statements about me in general, going back
many years. BTW Ian Davis refuses to correct himself
even after his many errors have been pointed out to him.
That's on Ian Davis.
> And as Seebs was
> pointing out, Quakers are not in the least bit antagonistic so
> would hardly be inclined to chastise. More likely they'd suggest
> that you needed to join them in prayerfully considering how best
> to cope with David.
More bunk by Ian Davis; instead, other SRQers need
to make prayerful consideration on how best to cope
with Ian Davis.
> >And yes, I seriously doubt it will happen, as well. If it does,
> >however, they will wish they hadn't become involved on behalf of David
> >Christainsen and David Christainsen will wish he had kept his moutth
> >shut. Because - at that point - *they* will have opened the door for
> >a Usenetter who has observed DC's antics, lies, delusions, and
> >obsessions over a substantial amount of time to let the proverbial cat
> >out of the bag regarding *his* behavior. And what I will then be
> >perfectly within my rights to inform them of will not be a pretty
> >picture.
>
> >Soggy should hope these events do not unfold as he has suggested they
> >might.
>
> They won't.
>
> Ian
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
Ian Davis
crunch <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 11:26�am, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis)
>>
>> near meaningless.
>
>Earth to Ian Davis - in my original statement on SRQ
>I said "may", not "will". So, your statement here is
>NOT SOLIDLY GROUNDED.
>
You didn't. Ergo you say something with happen is near meaningless.
SOLIDLY GROUNDED.
>>�He is not very reliable when it comes to either
>> understanding the past or predicting the future.
>
>On the contrary I am very reliable about it; instead, it is
>Ian Davis who is outrageous and immoral concerning
>his SRQ statements about me in general, going back
>many years. BTW Ian Davis refuses to correct himself
>even after his many errors have been pointed out to him.
>That's on Ian Davis.
>
You post endless drivel about fantasy. Those who are interested in
the past tell you endlessly that you are talking rubbish, and suggest
in the strongest possible language where you should be going and what
you should be doing with your fixed delusions.
STRONGLY GROUNDED.
>> �And as Seebs was
>> pointing out, Quakers are not in the least bit antagonistic so
>> would hardly be inclined to chastise. �More likely they'd suggest
>> that you needed to join them in prayerfully considering how best
>> to cope with David.
>
>More bunk by Ian Davis; instead, other SRQers need
>to make prayerful consideration on how best to cope
>with Ian Davis.
>
You were expelled from one meeting for disruptive behaviour, and you
have shown no sign here of any improvement. Ergo it is reasonable to
presume that you are as much a problem to those who know you as ever.
Probably more so since they can't kill-file you.
STRONGLY GROUNDED
Whatever.. Ian
crunch
wrote:
> In article <b4c282e4-d908-4a2e-a866-eff4c5d06...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 6, 11:26 am, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis)
>
> >> You really should learn that David saying something will happen, is
> >> near meaningless.
>
> >Earth to Ian Davis - in my original statement on SRQ
> >I said "may", not "will". So, your statement here is
> >NOT SOLIDLY GROUNDED.
>
> You said that after prayerful consideration that you were leaving SRQ.
> You didn't. Ergo you say something with happen is near meaningless.
> SOLIDLY GROUNDED.
Explanation specially for Ian Davis, who does not
read my precise language and consequently is not
solidly grounded -
I wrote that I decided not to post for a while. That
"while" is up BECAUSE too many defamatory attacks
on my character quickly ensued so that I am compelled
to defend myself. Your attitude on SRQ is distinctly
UNQUAKERLY in your comments about me and in
your interaction with me.
> >> He is not very reliable when it comes to either
> >> understanding the past or predicting the future.
>
> >On the contrary I am very reliable about it; instead, it is
> >Ian Davis who is outrageous and immoral concerning
> >his SRQ statements about me in general, going back
> >many years. BTW Ian Davis refuses to correct himself
> >even after his many errors have been pointed out to him.
> >That's on Ian Davis.
>
> You post endless drivel about fantasy.
This is YOUR LIBEL. Please correct yourself.
> Those who are interested in
> the past tell you endlessly that you are talking rubbish, and suggest
> in the strongest possible language where you should be going and what
> you should be doing with your fixed delusions.
> STRONGLY GROUNDED.
This is YOUR LIBEL. Please correct yourself.
> >> And as Seebs was
> >> pointing out, Quakers are not in the least bit antagonistic so
> >> would hardly be inclined to chastise. More likely they'd suggest
> >> that you needed to join them in prayerfully considering how best
> >> to cope with David.
>
> >More bunk by Ian Davis; instead, other SRQers need
> >to make prayerful consideration on how best to cope
> >with Ian Davis.
>
> You were expelled from one meeting for disruptive behaviour,
Correct terminology - my membership was removed
from Wellesley Meeting in Wellesley, Mass. USA.
Further, there was NO DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR on
my part. This allegation has reverberated throughout
SRQ for ages; it is and always was COMPLETE BUNK.
I'll go one step further; it is libel that meets the legal
definition.
> and you
> have shown no sign here of any improvement. Ergo it is reasonable to
> presume that you are as much a problem to those who know you as ever.
> Probably more so since they can't kill-file you.
> STRONGLY GROUNDED
>
> Whatever.. Ian
Your own behaviour is immoral, outrageous, and
unquakerly. Please correct your many errors.
Ian Davis
crunch <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 12:59�pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis)
>I wrote that I decided not to post for a while. That
>"while" is up BECAUSE too many defamatory attacks
>on my character quickly ensued so that I am compelled
>to defend myself. Your attitude on SRQ is distinctly
>UNQUAKERLY in your comments about me and in
>your interaction with me.
>
You obviously understand "for a while" differently from the average
member of our species. I remember Sir David proposing a sweep stake on
how long "for a while" might mean, and your "for a while" lasting less
time than my ability to enter the sweep stake. I remember how amused
Sir David was. If I (or I'd hope most who prayed) were to prayerfully
reflect on a situation and arrive at a conclusion, I'd trust the power
of that conviction to lead me rightly more than a mere five minutes.
Hardly seems worth the praying five minutes, if having arrived as consequence
of that prayer at some right path, to take to so immediately discard that
publically professed chosen path. You discredit yourself, the worth you
attach to pray, and your respect for leadings I imagine you considered given
you by God, in claiming to pray and then having been enlightened by answer to
pray, to so conspicuously discard that answer so readily and for so little
cause.
>> >> He is not very reliable when it comes to either
>> >> understanding the past or predicting the future.
>>
>> >On the contrary I am very reliable about it; instead, it is
>> >Ian Davis who is outrageous and immoral concerning
>> >his SRQ statements about me in general, going back
>> >many years. �BTW Ian Davis refuses to correct himself
>> >even after his many errors have been pointed out to him.
>> >That's on Ian Davis.
>>
>> You post endless drivel about fantasy.
>
>This is YOUR LIBEL. Please correct yourself.
>
So sue me. I'd love to see you squirm in court. You've been
damning yourself a full nine years here. I can't imagine that
I'd have difficulty convincing a jury of eleven sober individuals
that your postings here the last nine years are both obnoxious
drivel and fantasy resulting from your suffering from a fixed
but false delusion. I believe that if it is you that sues me, the
case would be in a Canadian court. Hope you can afford the expense..
I can.
>> �Those who are interested in
>> the past tell you endlessly that you are talking rubbish, and suggest
>> in the strongest possible language where you should be going and what
>> you should be doing with your fixed delusions.
>> STRONGLY GROUNDED.
>
>This is YOUR LIBEL. Please correct yourself.
>
Consider the last 20 posts on this forum. This is what others have been
saying about you. It is little different from what they've been saying
about you the last 9 years, and will I imagine be little different from
what they say about you whenever I might check, presuming that you remain
unfaithful to the leading that you should leave this forum.
[ Now fuck off, sicko.
[
[ Respect is earned... as is the
[ approbation with which you and your posts are recieved here.
[ Go away and Peter will have no need to show his contempt for you
[
[ So, fuck off then
[
[ What I said: fuck off then.
[
[ You never earned any respect, you driveling idiot,
[ and you will never get any. You are an evil empty-headed
[ egomaniac.
[
[ So take your nonsense and fuck off little crunchy thing
[
[ Carl rides his hobbyhorse
[
[ Different hobbyhorse, same ol' hobbyrider!
[
[ And within a few hours, he has spammed a half-dozen or more cross-
[ posted newsgroups with hundreds of cut-n-paste paragraphs in dozens of
[ posts, all on the subject of Carl's hobbyhorse and his pathetic
[ incompetence as a rider. This is the paradox that is Carl the Crunchy
[ thing; that he can go to such great lengths to prove that he's a
[ pathetic liar and an obsessive kook.
[
[ Don't try so hard, Carl! You don't have to convince anyone that you're
[ a liar and a kook. Everyone already knows; your reputation is solid.
[ As a lying kook. Sucks to be you.
[
[ You declared war on the newsgroups. Take the consequences.
[
[ What did you use to kill your father? Your insanity?
[ And what to beat your wife? A whip?
[
[ If so, it would go a long way to explaining his behavior. He is
[ clearly not in control of his responses to others.
I don't think it libel to say that:
"[Others] tell you endlessly that you are talking rubbish, and suggest
in the strongest possible language where you should be going and what
you should be doing with your fixed delusions."
If anything it wass generous regarding your true situation. If the above
is not telling you how much others despise you, what language would others
have to use to tell you that you are despised? I'm sure that armed with
that knowledge others would immediately express their opinions in
whatever language you proved capable of understanding.
>> >> And as Seebs was
>> >> pointing out, Quakers are not in the least bit antagonistic so
>> >> would hardly be inclined to chastise. More likely they'd suggest
>> >> that you needed to join them in prayerfully considering how best
>> >> to cope with David.
>>
>> >More bunk by Ian Davis; instead, other SRQers need
>> >to make prayerful consideration on how best to cope
>> >with Ian Davis.
>>
>> You were expelled from one meeting for disruptive behaviour,
>
>Correct terminology - my membership was removed
>from Wellesley Meeting in Wellesley, Mass. USA.
>
With cause. The cause being your disruptive behaviour in meeting for
worship. If I precipitated a crisis in meeting for worship which
provoke numerous people to rise in opposition to my conduct, I'd call
my behaviour disruptive of meeting for worship. What would you call
it? If I was twice banned from certain behaviour and bragged about
how I ignore bans placed upon my behaviour, I'd think others had
cause to call my behaviour disruptive. Clearly you and I have
different notions about what constitutes "disruptive" behaviour.
I suspect that this is because you'd apply one standard to me if
I were "disruptive" and a different standard to yourself, if you
did precisely what you'd label "disruptive" if I were to do it.
>Further, there was NO DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR on
>my part. This allegation has reverberated throughout
>SRQ for ages; it is and always was COMPLETE BUNK.
>I'll go one step further; it is libel that meets the legal
>definition.
>
So sue me. Or better yet, provide me with the addresses of those who
rose against you so that I might explore with them whether my description
of your behaviour as being disruptive wrongs you in any way.
>> and you
>> have shown no sign here of any improvement. Ergo it is reasonable to
>> presume that you are as much a problem to those who know you as ever.
>> Probably more so since they can't kill-file you.
>> STRONGLY GROUNDED
>>
>> Whatever.. Ian
>
>Your own behaviour is immoral, outrageous, and
>unquakerly. Please correct your many errors.
>
My conduct here is saintly when compared to your own. Take the planks out
of your own eyes before having the audacity to suggest that any other here
is in need of correction. I do not spam, I do not troll, I do not endlessly
offend in the ways that you do. In what way is my conduct here worse than
your own?
Ian
Yowie
Fair enough.
> I can tell you as someone who has been in numerous governing
> positions in relation to secular as well as religious groups that to
> contact someone who has no connection whatsoever to their group *in a
> chastising fashion* (as Soggy suggests will happen) is waaaaayyy out
> of the boundries of that group. *Especially* for a religious group.
Yes, good point: I agree. If this was (for example) an Opus Dei group and
you wre a memberof Opus Dei, perhaps someone in authority within Opus Dei
might wish to 'speak' to you (but they'd also wish to speak with David, and
no-doubt wish to speak to him far more). However, you are not a member (or
even attender or even someone who would like to attend) so the RSoF has no
authority over you. Then again, Quakers have no authority figures that would
be acting as representatives of the RSoF, and I cannot perceive of a
Quakerly way of contacting you that would be in any way chastising. Its just
not how Quakers usually operate.
Some random Quaker *might* contact you as an individual (although very
unlikely) - but that would be (IMHO) no different from anyone contacting you
via e-mail because of your Usenet posts. And I severely doubt that a Quaker
member, even an individual one, would be anything other than polite and
respectful on their first contact.
> And yes, I seriously doubt it will happen, as well. If it does,
> however, they will wish they hadn't become involved on behalf of David
> Christainsen and David Christainsen will wish he had kept his moutth
> shut. Because - at that point - *they* will have opened the door for
> a Usenetter who has observed DC's antics, lies, delusions, and
> obsessions over a substantial amount of time to let the proverbial cat
> out of the bag regarding *his* behavior. And what I will then be
> perfectly within my rights to inform them of will not be a pretty
> picture.
Aye, very true
Yowie
(Sorry for the late reply, have been enjoying Real Life with the family
while I've got the chance)