#VATICAN CINDY SAYS SHE WAS JUST DIALOGUING WITH ME!
Ted McMillan
recently spoken for me again to MSiciliana, by telling her she was
just dialoguing with me and I call her Vatican Cindy because I am just
upset with her. Below is more history and evidence to show this is
not true. Cindy Ford has yet to say a single word of reproof against
the man who even condemned her religion and life. As you can see, she
has been trained to have no conscience. She dares not tell us why she
would not say a word against Ted Seeber but has been expending all her
energies to attack me because I reproved the man from the Dark Ages.
Vatican Angelo Braz has done the same thing. He claimed he had to
attack me because I was damaging the reputation of his church he
claims to be the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Seeber's words
condemned all other churches but his own to destruction, but he cannot
say a word against the trained terrorist back at his Vatican.
Well Cindy is continuing this tradition as expected. Here is part of
the history of evidence. I am speaking about Lamarr Edwards here
(another one from the Vatican):
Now, Lamarr Edwards posts one of his supremely insultive posts that
passes by the eyes of Cindy... BY ACCIDENT?? You are about to see the
fruits of the spirit Cindy is talking about that by her lack of
response she subscribes to:
From: Lamarr Edwards (shmo...@webtv.net)
Search Result 1
Subject: Re: THE AFTERMATH OF TERROR!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (33 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-16 21:45:48 PST
Ted M.- You are one wacko dullard aren't you? Of course the
government let this plot go forward and kill all these
people,so they could bug your bedroom! Look out the window right
now,did you see'um? They want ya Ted,they want to know everything
about you. The CIA,the Cosa Nostra Adventista,and the Popes personal
hit squad
watch you all the time Ted, they follow you everywhere,they have
machines to read your thoughts,the whole world is against you,your
mother was one of them,aaaarrghh!!!
Get a life or some medicine,dummy.
LE
--------------------------------------------------------
My comment: Just think that these papal despots do worse when we
bring up Ellen White! How can a dead prophet cause so much panic
among these "Christians?" Then naturally they become the
self-appointed expositors on how to be calm. They murdered like no
other people or religion in all the world! If they want to take over
and do the same things again, they have to self-appoint themselves to
be the ultimate expositors on LOVE!
But look now as Cindy posts to Lamarr Edwards. Take note that no one
can bring her attention to the fact that Lamarr Edwards has made the
most insultive posts against me or in this newsgroup:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 20
Subject: Re: LAMARR EDWARDS REQUIRES SPECIFIC PROOF FROM HIS ENEMIES!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (7 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-18 17:14:38 PST
Lamarr,
You get to be called all kinds of names, I only get called the same
one, repeatedly.
I thought I was unique, but now you're a despot too. So much for that
theory.
Welcome to my world, :)
Cindy
What if,... there are despots everywhere? :)
--------------------------------------------------------
Cindy saw the names that Lamarr gave to me. Those names were purely
insultive and plainly not true. I have said that LE is a papal
despot. That is true and not insultive like dummy, ass, idiot, and
the like. But how come Cindy preached all about love or the absence
of it defined by words, and she couldn't notice the purely insultive
and hateful posts of Lamarr against me? This is not a discussion for
science folks! It is obvious why! She has already shown that she is
ecumenical, and yet she claims to be Adventist!
Lamarr Posts more insults against Cindy's false preaching about Christ
and the fruits of the Spirit. Will Cindy notice? Lamarr here posts
to the terrorist called Ted Seeber: the man who told us that
multitudes of Christians who were exterminated in the grossest of ways
during the Reformation deserved what they received BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
LIVE THE BIBLE, UNLIKE THE VICTIMS OF SEPTEMBER 11!
From: Lamarr Edwards (shmo...@webtv.net)
Search Result 1
Subject: Re: SEEBER'S HATRED OF LIBERTY!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (18 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-22 21:45:45 PST
Ted Seeber- Your pal sure shoots his mouth off about liberty. If he
is old enough to have been around in the viet nam era,I guarantee
you he was a "contientious objector",they love liberty,as long as you
have to pay the price for it. He couldn't find his own butt with both
hands,let alone have any
understanding of the law. He is an ass.LE
--------------------------------------------------------
Notice that Lamarr put there that I am an ass? That was the very same
insult that Cindy later emailed to me. Here now is another supremely
insultive post by Lamarr that Cindy will always refuse to see:
From: Lamarr Edwards (shmo...@webtv.net)
Search Result 42
Subject: Re: SECURITY VS. PRIVACY??
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (35 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-23 16:45:30 PST
Teddy boy- If you are "the last word on Adventist truth",then
Adventism
has gone the way of Jim Jones,and David Koresh,it has been consumed by
insanity and evil,to become a theological dead end to be laughed at by
all
Christendom. Of course,you are not "the last word on Adventist
truth",you are just a
mentally ill fool who spreads your message of corrupted Christianity
to
other lost souls of insecurity,inferiority and stupidity,like an AIDS
carrier blithely liasing with anyone who will respond. Your father
satan must be so proud of you.LE
--------------------------------------------------------
Cindy adds to the insultive postings of Lamarr with her arrogance:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=c20cba56.0109230715.5b6cd55b%40posting.google.com
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Subject: Re: ###SEEBER AGAIN MAKES EARTH-SHATTERING ADMISSIONS!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-23 08:15:12 PST
Ted
Have you ever seen the cartoon Pinky and the brain? LOL, I'm sorry,
sometimes little things amuse me.
Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
TED SEEBER POSTS THAT THE ALBIGENSES DESERVED TO BE EXTERMINATED, AS
THEY WERE BY ROME IN THE MOST BARBAROUS MANNER, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
LIVE THE BIBLE LIKE THE VICTIMS OF SEPTEMBER 11 DID!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=Lsqv7.29125%24xi5.1438277%40sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com
Cindy here in defending the awesomely insensitive and bloodthirsty
words of Ted Seeber tells me that I have taken Seeber's words out of
context, but she didn't take mine out of context. She does everything
to oppose me:
-------------------------------------------------------
Seeber told us we must give up our liberties. One example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=lxyr7.16142%24ey1.651789%40sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com
If there is any reason to see why Cindy can attack me and not Seeber,
take a look at this:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 10
Subject: Re: SECURITY VS. PRIVACY??
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (35 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-23 09:28:48 PST
.. You may read it above :) I would just like to add, my own thought.
I wonder how many people on
the planes involved in our recent tragedy, if they had been asked to
give up a little of their privacy, to save lives, would have refused.
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
A Fox News commentator even said that Americans are agreeing to give
up their liberties so that they can at least "LIVE." The American
public has therefore become dumbed-down and desensitized. Did anyone
who faced oppressions, slavery and tyranny realize the meaning of the
words:
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH??
Now look at Cindy claiming that she never attacked me. She claimed
that me thinking they were attacks were naturally just in my head and
that she is not a despot even though she has been trained in
techniques to exalt her views above all others even though yet
claiming that everyone should have a right to disagree:
Now, here is Cindy's false and very revealing apology to me where she
confesses that she had malice in her heart and that she did in fact
attacked me. It states that she should not have used the words that
she did even though she later told us there was no problem with her
words, her words were only expressions of love. The problem, she
claims was in her heart which she knows I can't see. That is the
object of the technique:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 1
Subject: I was wrong Ted McMillan.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-27 17:26:16 PST
Ted, When I wrote the previous post, I was angry. That does not excuse
my behavior. I knew when I wrote the things I did, that I shouldn't be
writing them, I ignored those feelings, and wrote what I did anyway.
Once I posted it, and it was too late to take back those words, it hit
me, how wrong I've been. I prayed before going to sleep, but it was
hard, to not continue trying to justify my behavior to God. You are
right, I talked about the fruits of the spirit, and then didn't show
them myself.
I woke up this morning, not feeling right, I was running late to
work, unusual for me,I usually wake up before my alarm goes off. Part
of a bible verse was in my head, I couldn't look it up, because I
didn't have time, I didn't take time to pray, because I thought I
didn't have time.
All day long, the same line kept running through my head, "
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest...think on
these things." I couldn't remember the rest of the verse, or where it
came from, also unusual for me. When I finally did pray, while I was
working, suddenly another partial verse popped into my head, " avoid
strivings.." I kept trying to put both of these out of my head,
because it was like listening to a broken record. A thought came to me
in the midst of this struggle. Another reason for not judging others,
is because in your judgement of them, you are committing a wrong,and
by doing that, it becomes easier to do other wrongs. In judging you, I
started being guilty, of the same things I was accusing you of. I
don't feel very good about that. I felt better after I acknowledged
this.
It is better to focus on God's love. When you begin to focus on
hatred, even if it's someone elses, and you do it with the best of
intentions, you lose sight of what is important, and it happens so
gradually, you don't even realize it's happening till it's almost too
late.
I pray you understand what I am saying. Your sister in christ,
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
Cindy refuses to reprove Lamarr Edwards for his supremely insultive
and hateful posts AFTER HER FALSE APOLOGY. She tells us she can't
attack anymore because of her repentance:
From: Cindy (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 2
Subject: Re: I was wrong Ted McMillan.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist,
alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
View: Complete Thread (11 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 17:53:15 PST
...
>
> Cindy:
>
> For the last time to get through your Christ-centered thick despot
> skull:
>
> The problem was not that you attacked, BUT THAT YOU ATTACKED ONE
> PERSON AND WAS ONE-SIDED. Ted:
I have said I was wrong for attacking you, attacking others will not
make that better.
---------------------------------------------------
Remember when Cindy told us that she was never attacking me? She
asked me why I view her expressions of love as attacks and told
everybody that I was just imagining things. In this post she is
telling us that she was attacking me, and her posts are now just the
same as before her false apology?
The result of all this is that she has qualified herself to teach us
about love, the fruits of the Spirit, Christ, and all that Christ does
for a person. But she continues:
---------------------------------------------------
>attacking others will not
>make that better. Perhaps you don't understand, that all the people
>you group together, have had disagreements, we've all had words in
the
>past, and probably will continue to do so, however we do it in a
>christian spirit, and respect each other. You have never claimed to
>feel bad about attacking me, or anyone else.
>*I WON'T REPEAT THIS AGAIN AGAIN*,
>if you do not understand, then that is your choice. I forgive
>you Ted, I have always forgiven you. If you can't treat me with
love,
>Please, leave me alone.
>Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
After refusing to reprove Lamarr for his hate-filled posts, Cindy
winds up complimenting and supporting Lamarr Edwards:
From: Cindy Ford (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 28
Subject: Re: My "attack" on Ted M.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (7 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 16:35:53 PST
Referring to his supremely insultive post against me, Lamarr writes:
"Lamarr Edwards" <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12941-3BB...@storefull-291.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> IF any of you feel like commenting on my post to Ted,feel free to do
> so,I allowed him to bait me into a response in kind....
>
> Say to me whatever you choose,I assure you,it will be no problem.
>
> ....
Go with God Lamarr :) Your words show there is no problem.
Cindy
--------------------------------------------------------
Now look closely at her insults and compare it with her continuing
false words today:
From: Cindy Ford (synt...@iei.net)
Search Result 4
Subject: Re: to Ted McMillan
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
View: Complete Thread (30 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-09-28 16:20:40 PST
"EW..." <ewy...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9p2qb8$g1hhq$5...@ID-36342.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Lamarr Edwards" <shmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:12941-3BB...@storefull-291.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > Donna,Cindy,Larry,Ted S.,et al-
> >
> > All good tries at trying to be
> > logical,kind,Christian,reasonable,forgiving with Ted M., unforunately
> > nothing will work. There are others of us who over the years have tried
> > these approaches,nothing works to get through to him.
> >
>
> LE,
>
> Like Larry said (I think it was Larry), TM may just be yanking our chains
> for certain responses which he/she enjoys. Think about it. "He" could be a
> homely little 19 year old college sweetheart who can't get a date, but is
> otherwise a cuddly little fur-ball at heart. He/she just enjoys raising
> emotions because it's the only way it works for him/her. Not possible??
> Sure it is! :-))
>
> EW
>
>
LOL EW.
Anything is possible. It is possible, he is alive and well, and living
in
FL, over double that age, and has a group of followers, who all have
tunnel
vision. Regardless, he consistently shows up here, although his
webpage
denounces this NG as a hotbed of papal infiltration. Follows people
around,
and then claims the opposite. Most likely he shows up when interest in
his
webpages die down, to try to recruit new followers.
CU, Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
It was this same Cindy Ford, the papal infiltrator to Adventism, who
posted in that she has my personal information and by emailing her,
she will give it away for you all to teach me some more how to love
and how to be American! Americans always seek the personal
information of others to publish it around!
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
Tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
THE LAST WORD ON ADVENTIST TRUTH!
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy Ford
tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is
the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me,
saith the LORD.
"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever
therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4.
"Christ and the world are not in partnership. The apostle says, "Know
ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" Conformity to
the world will never be the means of converting the world to Christ.
Christians must be entirely consecrated to God if the church is to be
efficient in its influence for good upon unbelievers. The slightest
diversion from Christ is so much influence, power, and efficiency given to
the enemy.
A Christian, as described by the Scriptures, is a person who is
separated from the world in his aims and practices and is united with
Christ--a possessor of the peace which Christ alone can bestow, finding that
the joy of the Lord is his strength and that his joy is full. Christians
will not leave the world to perish unwarned, and make no effort for the
reclaiming of the lost. Those who truly love Christ watch for every
opportunity to employ the means at their command in doing good and in
patterning after the works of Christ. They will not yield to temptations to
make alliances with the world. They will not unite with secret orders and
bind themselves by intimacies with unbelievers. But those who are not wholly
on the side of Christ are to a large degree controlled by the maxims and
customs of the world.
Satan is rich in this world's goods, and he is full of cunning to
deceive, and his most effective agents are those whom he can lead to take a
form of godliness while they deny the power of God by their un-Christlike
characters. The children of God are to stand firmly for the right under all
circumstances. They are not to be deceived by those who have the mind and
spirit of the world.
God has His faithful witnesses who are not attempting to do that which
Christ has pronounced impossible--that is, seeking to serve God and Mammon
at the same time. They are burning and shining lights amid the moral
darkness of the world and amid the gross darkness that covers the people
like the pall of death." In Heavenly Places, p. 168
Andrew
You must use Christ's methods in your work, otherwise you will be
working for the Antichrist power. The work of judging, criticizing
and condeming other people _ people for whom Christ has died_ is
the work of Antichrist.
"Christ is the only true standard of character, and he who sets himself
up as a standard for others is putting himself in the place of Christ. And
since the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22),
whoever presumes to judge the motives of others is again usurping the
prerogative of the Son of God. These would-be judges and critics are
placing themselves on the side of antichrist, "who opposeth and exalteth
himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as
God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
2 Thessalonians 2:4.
Mount of Blessing 125
E.G.White
Andrew
Angelo Braz
>Vatican Angelo Braz has done the same thing. He claimed he had to
>attack me because I was damaging the reputation of his church he
>claims to be the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Seeber's words
>condemned all other churches but his own to destruction, but he cannot
>say a word against the trained terrorist back at his Vatican.
I've already said those words agains't Ted Seeber, which you prefered
to ignore. The problem for you is that probably I wasn't insultive
with the man, that although is plain wrong, wasn't insultive to me or
others, so it would be disrespectful from my part being insultive to
Ted. As I told you, I didn't reprove you for reproving Seeber, I
reproved you for the way you do it. You behave like the enemy.
Anyway, If I were a vatican infiltrator, what would be the problem
condemning Seeber, just to reach some vatican ends?
But I'm a genuine SDA. Ted, with his excessive paranoia (unaceptable.
Understandable now that was shown to me Alberto's Story, but still
unaceptable) makes him behave like a vatican infiltrator.
The vatican wants to disrupt other religions, what is Ted doing by
constantly falsely accusing inocent people? That's right. Is Ted an
infiltrator? I don't know. If he isn't, it looks so. And the real
infiltrators must be laughing at him.
Something for you think about, Ted. If you see well, you have no real
motives to say I'm a vatican whatever. You just see what you want to
see, not what there is in reality.
Angelo
Ted McMillan
> Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every
> tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is
> the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me,
> saith the LORD.
May I ask why Vatican Cindy is quoting this? The words are true. The
Albigenses will condemn their enemies INCLUDING VATICAN CINDY. All
the Protestants who have died whom Ted Seeber gloated were put to
death will rise again. Ted Seeber will be placed in judgment, and so
will Vatican Cindy and Angelo. No place for them will be found with
these saints.
> "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever
> therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4.
No application to the issues we were talking about. I have some
startling news on what it is to have natural affection. The bible
tells us that in the last days the world will be thoroughly infested
with Vatican trained people. They will not have natural affection. I
reprove someone like that who was happy that many people were
slaughtered and from day one I was attacked by Vatican Cindy Ford,
Angelo Braz, Andrew and all the rest. They claim through their despot
eyesight that I need help because I am unloving. They have urinated
over the graves of the people of God. They now congregate to smother
over what they have done and to hopefully make their Vatican behavior
acceptable.
> "Christ and the world are not in partnership. The apostle says, "Know
> ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" Conformity to
> the world will never be the means of converting the world to Christ.
> Christians must be entirely consecrated to God if the church is to be
> efficient in its influence for good upon unbelievers. The slightest
> diversion from Christ is so much influence, power, and efficiency given to
> the enemy.
All these quotings are merely designed to cover over the truth and the
questions I have been asking Vatican Cindy which she has moved all
heaven and earth to evade. The words of Ted Seeber has condemned not
only the religion Cindy claims to subscribe, but her very life. Why
then did she attack me and refuses to say even a reproving word
against the terrorist that did this? Cindy is also trained at the
Vatican. She is in infiltrator to the Adventist Church. So is Angelo
Braz.
When you are trained in such exploits of deceit and terrorism, and you
are trained at the Vatican this is another talent you will acquire as
demonstrated by Vatican Cindy:
> A Christian, as described by the Scriptures, is a person who is
> separated from the world in his aims and practices and is united with
> Christ--a possessor of the peace which Christ alone can bestow, finding that
> the joy of the Lord is his strength and that his joy is full. Christians
> will not leave the world to perish unwarned, and make no effort for the
> reclaiming of the lost. Those who truly love Christ watch for every
> opportunity to employ the means at their command in doing good and in
> patterning after the works of Christ. They will not yield to temptations to
> make alliances with the world. They will not unite with secret orders and
> bind themselves by intimacies with unbelievers. But those who are not wholly
> on the side of Christ are to a large degree controlled by the maxims and
> customs of the world.
You will acquire the talent to teach people how not to become like
yourself. She goes on and on, but I will snip here for your sakes.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Ted McMillan
> Dear Ted,
>
>
> You must use Christ's methods in your work, otherwise you will be
> working for the Antichrist power. The work of judging, criticizing
> and condeming other people _ people for whom Christ has died_ is
> the work of Antichrist.
Dear Vatican Andrew,
Did you see a post above that detailed the methods that fellow Vatican
Cindy has used? How come you missed it? Are you reveling still in
those dark days that made you happy just before the Reformation?
You have been sending me posts telling me I must surrender to Christ.
Have you been judging, criticizing and condemning other people? Are
these really people you claim I am condemning? How are people going
to know their lives are in danger and their government is changing if
I don't expose and identify your people Vatican Andrew?
> "Christ is the only true standard of character, and he who sets himself
> up as a standard for others is putting himself in the place of Christ. And
> since the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22),
Are you saying I am setting myself up as Christ? How did you get so
judgmental and condemnatory? When did you learn to do that behind the
walls of the Vatican?
> whoever presumes to judge the motives of others is again usurping the
> prerogative of the Son of God. These would-be judges and critics are
> placing themselves on the side of antichrist, "who opposeth and exalteth
> himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as
> God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
> 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
And how long have you seen the evidence for why Vatican Cindy and
Angelo and also yourself have been attacking me and judging my
motives? You must know Vatican Joe Meehan. Have you noticed him
doing anything wrong as it relates to the words here you have twisted
for deceit?
>
> Andrew
I have asked you over and over again also to sever your ties with the
Vatican. I keep telling you that you will neither get wealth, rest
nor heaven under that organization.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy Ford
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
news:<3c68a...@news.teranews.com>...
> > Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every
> > tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This
is
> > the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of
me,
>
> May I ask why Vatican Cindy is quoting this?
It should be obvious. Although you accuse me of judging you, the truth is I
have not. I have reproved you for your words and methods only, using
scripture to do so. NEVER have I said your doctrine, or the issues you talk
about are wrong.
The evidence you use against me consists for the most part of other's words,
not mine. You judge me by what others have said, or by what I have not said
to them, as if you can read my heart.
I have answered your question many times as well as emailed you an answer.
You continue to falsly accuse, and judge me.
I am made heartsick thinking of all the people who have been killed in the
name of the lord, and will be. Yet you say those people will rise up to
judge me, as you do.
The words of mine that you do use are before the apology I mailed you months
ago. You did not and have not forgiven me, and although the bible says up to
70 times 7 should you forgive, You can not even do it once. You have nothing
on me, since that time. That is proved by the fact that all you can bring up
now is charges that I am lying. And by the fact that you continually post
old words that have been apologised for. False accusation is wrong, and you
know that, as does everyone else who reads your words.
You have judged me, and condemned me. The words of yours which follow prove
that. I do not need to assume what your motives are by taking your words out
of context as you do mine.
The Text above has to do with you, who insists on being an enemy despite the
genuine love I have. It is you who judges. It is you who falsly accuses.
My righteousness is of the Lord.
In His Infinite Love,
Cindy
Ted McMillan
> "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> news:c9dac66d.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
> news:<3c68a...@news.teranews.com>...
> > > Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every
> > > tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This
> is
> > > the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of
> me,
> > > saith the LORD. The words are true.
> >
> > May I ask why Vatican Cindy is quoting this?
>
> It should be obvious. Although you accuse me of judging you, the truth is I
> have not.
You mean you all have lied about the right to disagree as you and the
rest of the Jesuits claim? Have you not said that I call people names
just because they disagree with me? Who can disagree with you here?
Do you not know that your fellow Vatican Colleague has condemned all
Adventists and all other religions?
> I have reproved you for your words and methods only, using
> scripture to do so. NEVER have I said your doctrine, or the issues you talk
> about are wrong.
So how do you feel when people use the wrong words and methods against
Osama Bin Laden? Why do you keep avoiding my questions and yet have
no conscience? Can you please document for us the time you learned
these techniques behind the walls of the Vatican? What do you think
about the example of driver safety?
> The evidence you use against me consists for the most part of other's words,
> not mine. You judge me by what others have said, or by what I have not said
> to them, as if you can read my heart.
You mean you noticed that Ted Seeber condemned even your life and
reproved him? Or did you only reprove me because you claim I wasn't
civil, but I was damaging the reputation of my church Seeber
condemned? I ask again that which you have evaded: Do you understand
that Seeber by his words condemned your religion, your life, and the
religions and lives of all others not Catholic?
> I have answered your question many times as well as emailed you an answer.
> You continue to falsly accuse, and judge me.
OF COURSE YOU HAVE! Everyone trained at the Vatican claims that.
Just a couple of days ago you said that you give up and that you don't
have to answer my questions. A while back you told me that you never
attacked me, but that all our dialogues were merely your expressions
of love. You still didn't answer why you apologized to me even
earlier for attacking me as you said! Of course you claim things.
You are one of the children of the Antichrist. I don't expect you to
tell the truth.
I falsely accuse you? Seeber has condemned you to death if you are
Adventist. Why don't you have a problem with that, and why doesn't
Seeber and the rest of the Vaticans here have a problem with you.
Of course you answered my questions. You work for the Vatican and you
would naturally claim that you have.
> I am made heartsick thinking of all the people who have been killed in the
> name of the lord, and will be. Yet you say those people will rise up to
> judge me, as you do.
Yes, you demonstrated that you are heartsick since Ted Seeber
condemned them again and clearly in your witness. I reproved the man
and you have been attacking me for doing that since day one but has
said nothing against Ted Seeber. Of course you will claim that the
deaths of millions of people, nevermind Christians, will make you
sick, but your actions tell a different story.
> The words of mine that you do use are before the apology I mailed you months
> ago.
I don't want to hear anything about your fairy tales of emails. You
posted publicly after I reproved a genuine super-terrorist that the
Lord showed you that I have a problem with love and attacked me every
since. You can insult and accuse me publicly, you can send what
falsity you are talking about publicly.
> You did not and have not forgiven me, and although the bible says up to
> 70 times 7 should you forgive, You can not even do it once.
Vatican Cindy believe that you readers here are stupid. What have I
forgiven Cindy for? She claims she is guilty of nothing and she still
has not said a single word against a man who even condemned her
religion and her life. Why is it that she is saying that I haven't
forgiven her? All her postings are the same since the beginning. She
is now accusing me of the same: being mean.
Why don't you forgive me Vatican Cindy? Forgive me and I will do the
same again and again as you do! Readers: Why don't you forgive the
Vatican? Why doesn't the Korean Lady forgive the Japanese government:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Contention.htm
> You have nothing
> on me, since that time.
A true Vatican despot. This is not true? Where is the documentation
that this is the case? Do you believe that people can disagree with
you?
> That is proved by the fact that all you can bring up
> now is charges that I am lying.
You mean I don't make reference to what Ted Seeber has said that
condemns all religions? You mean I don't make mention that he
condemned the lives of millions and you have not said a word against
him yet but sweat and pout in endless manhours of posting against Ted
McMillan because he reproved the monster?
> And by the fact that you continually post
> old words that have been apologised for. False accusation is wrong, and you
> know that, as does everyone else who reads your words.
Oh, you mean you have acknowledged that Seeber gloated that millions
of Christians were wrong? You answered my questions? You answered
what you would do if someone reproved Osama Bin Laden? You told us
that you would attack Osama Bin Laden with your words and would not
jump upon the person who reproved the man?
Vatican Cindy: Do you agree that people can disagree with a Vatican
despot that you see everyday in the mirror when you brush your teeth?
Why do you ACCUSE me of calling people names just because they
disagree with me when you do not allow people to disagree with you?
Are you telling me you have really answered all my questions?
What is it that irks you and Vatican Angelo why you keep posting to
me? I am really touching some very sensitive Vatican chords I see.
> You have judged me, and condemned me. The words of yours which follow prove
> that.
Is that wrong? Well then, have you judged me? Have you condemned me?
Have you told the world the Lord showed you that I was unloving after
I reproved a man who gloated that millions of Christians were
persecuted and savagely killed? How did this whole situation start
Vatican Cindy? Did I approach you and truthfully call you Vatican
Cindy? Or did I first know you because you approached and began to
tell the world how I am mean for reproving someone who even condemned
your religion and life? You are not a despot? Why do you keep making
statements and don't allow people to disagree with it?
> I do not need to assume what your motives are by taking your words out
> of context as you do mine.
You call people names and claim they take things out of context just
because I disagree with you.
> The Text above has to do with you, who insists on being an enemy despite the
> genuine love I have. It is you who judges. It is you who falsly accuses.
>
> My righteousness is of the Lord.
>
> In His Infinite Love,
> Cindy
But I told you I love you too Vatican Cindy? Why do you keep
entertaining in your Vatican head alone that this is not true? You
all keep falsely accusing me and judging me, but where did you learn
to do that and to preach against doing that at the same time? Is this
not back at the Vatican?
Please tell me which class in the curriculum back there you learned
all these techniques.
Ted McMillan
> >Vatican Angelo Braz has done the same thing. He claimed he had to
> >attack me because I was damaging the reputation of his church he
> >claims to be the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Seeber's words
> >condemned all other churches but his own to destruction, but he cannot
> >say a word against the trained terrorist back at his Vatican.
>
>
> I've already said those words agains't Ted Seeber, which you prefered
> to ignore. The problem for you is that probably I wasn't insultive
> with the man, that although is plain wrong, wasn't insultive to me or
> others, so it would be disrespectful from my part being insultive to
> Ted. As I told you, I didn't reprove you for reproving Seeber, I
> reproved you for the way you do it. You behave like the enemy.
> Anyway, If I were a vatican infiltrator, what would be the problem
> condemning Seeber, just to reach some vatican ends?
If you were a Vatican infiltrator, what would be the problem
condemning McMillan, just to reach some Adventist ends? Vatican
Seeber condemned you Vatican Braz. He gloated that millions of
Christians were condemned because they did not practice religion as he
does. You are now asking me what is the problem in denouncing Seeber.
You can't see it. How is it that you can see a reason to condemn
McMillan while preaching that to condemn someone is worse than to
exult that millions of Christians were savagely put to death?
This is another question you will ignore and cover this over by
ACCUSING me of the same. You promised not to post to me anymore, but
then said you will merely send a repeat post to clear up the people's
minds about me. You violate everything you state because you were
trained back at the Vatican. That's why someone like Seeber, who
condemned you, loves you and you love him.
> But I'm a genuine SDA.
But I am a loving person. I am not "evil Ted" the "Incomprehensible
Man With a Twisted Mind!" as you have said in your papal realm of
anti-accusation.
> Ted, with his excessive paranoia (unaceptable.
Ted McMillan has a problem and that problem is that he disagrees with
the despots of the Vatican posting here.
> Understandable now that was shown to me Alberto's Story, but still
> unaceptable) makes him behave like a vatican infiltrator.
But I claim that I am not. Are you going to respect what I say? If
you can't, you can understand why I can't believe your lie that you
are an SDA.
> The vatican wants to disrupt other religions, what is Ted doing by
> constantly falsely accusing inocent people?
Who among those who go nuts about people making accusations will know
that someone else falsely accuses innocent people? Innocent people
died. Vatican Angelo told us they were members of a suicidal cult.
If that were not true, he would answer why suicidal cults always got
rid of themselves and did not need the government or Rome to do it.
Vatican Angelo Braz, unlike any Protestant you have ever seen in your
life, posted publicly that I was a terrorist for supporting the
Albigenses of the Reformation. Why then does Vatican Angelo tell us
he is against accusing people and is charging me with the crime? He
said I was a terrorist for supporting the Albigenses. I demonstrated
that John Foxe, Charles Spurgeon and the Reformation supported them.
> That's right. Is Ted an
> infiltrator? I don't know. If he isn't, it looks so. And the real
> infiltrators must be laughing at him.
I don't mind! ACCUSE all the way Vatican Angelo Braz! I have been
accused of that before, but I never make efforts to deny it. That is
because my works prove that is not the case. You guys of Rome have to
constantly declare you are not all the time. By your actions, YOU
HAVE TO!
> Something for you think about, Ted. If you see well, you have no real
> motives to say I'm a vatican whatever. You just see what you want to
> see, not what there is in reality.
>
> Angelo
You mean you respect the right for people to disagree? If you don't,
why do you preach that you do? Is it because you were trained back at
your Vatican?
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy Ford
"Ted McMillan" <t-m...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:dfc66dfc.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
news:<3c69b...@news.teranews.com>...
> > "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9dac66d.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3c68a...@news.teranews.com>...
Ted,
If I do not answer all your questions, it is because there are alot. I do
feel like I am writing an encyclopedia here. I am confident you will point
out what I have missed.
> > > > Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and
every
> > > > tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.
This
> > is
> > > > the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is
of
> > me,
> > > > saith the LORD. The words are true.
> > >
> > > May I ask why Vatican Cindy is quoting this?
> >
> > It should be obvious. Although you accuse me of judging you, the truth
is > > I have not.
>
> You mean you all have lied about the right to disagree as you and the
> rest of the Jesuits claim? Have you not said that I call people names
> just because they disagree with me? Who can disagree with you here?
> Do you not know that your fellow Vatican Colleague has condemned all
> Adventists and all other religions?
You might refer to yourself in the 3rd person, or plural, I do not. I am one
person not "you all" I do not speak for anyone but myself, and I do not
want to be accountable for others, nor should I be, so please keep your
comments to me, and about me, to just me.
1. I have not lied2. yes,in the past I did. 3. anyone 4. his statements
have, I am not sure if he realizes the signifigance of them, just as I did
not at first.
>
> > I have reproved you for your words and methods only, using
> > scripture to do so. NEVER have I said your doctrine, or the issues you
talk
> > about are wrong.
>
> So how do you feel when people use the wrong words and methods against
> Osama Bin Laden? Why do you keep avoiding my questions and yet have
> no conscience? <snip>
I am not trying to avoid your questions, I can not answer them the way you
like, I may agree with your sentiments, but I do not speak or express myself
the way you do. And when you start posting on many threads and are not
staying with the thread where I am answering, or listen to me, I usually
quit, till things calm down. This time things are not calming down. I do
have a conscience.. you weigh on my conscience. Now what?
It is obvious that Osama Bin Laden is a murderer. Still I don't understand
why the first answer this world ever has to a problem, is hate and death.
Osama Bin Laden although a terrorist see's himself as a freedom fighter. And
that is the problem, and not just with him, when people consider themselves
to be in the right they do not give up, they do not give in, and they will
die for what they believe in, and they will kill others and consider
themselves justified. You can point out a terrorist, you can not stop
terrorism. Nor will pointing them out, change their beliefs. Apply this to
the Vatican and you will see that events will march on just as stated in
Daniel and the Revelation. Those who recieve the mark of the beast will
consider themselves to be in the right and fully justified, clear up to the
moment when they start praying for the rocks to fall on them.
>
> > The evidence you use against me consists for the most part of other's
words,
> > not mine. You judge me by what others have said, or by what I have not
said
> > to them, as if you can read my heart.
>
> You mean you noticed that Ted Seeber condemned even your life and
> reproved him?
I am not the same woman I was all those months ago.
I noticed nothing at first. You know that. How long did you try to explain
while I saw nothing? Neither will most others reading this understand.
Without studying and comparing and really looking into the History and polic
ies of the Vatican, it seems preposterous. I tried to talk to him, he did
not answer, now he is not posting. The issues are still there they exist
without Ted Seeber. And.. there are others who say and believe the same
things.
Or did you only reprove me because you claim I wasn't
> civil, but I was damaging the reputation of my church Seeber
> condemned?
Yes, I only saw a lack of the fruits of the spirit. Being right, does not
excuse your behavior even still. Saying this means I believe the bible, it
doesn't define me as a Vatican infiltrator. Or mean I am judging you. You
know these word's and the truth of them as well as I do. The quote you
deleted was Ellen White and she was talking about the same subject I have
tried to talk to you about for the longest...
I ask again that which you have evaded: Do you understand
> that Seeber by his words condemned your religion, your life, and the
> religions and lives of all others not Catholic?
YES I DO. How many ways do I have to answer this?
>
> > I have answered your question many times as well as emailed you an
answer.
> > You continue to falsly accuse, and judge me.
>
> OF COURSE YOU HAVE! <snip>
> Just a couple of days ago you said that you give up and that you don't
> have to answer my questions.
It was longer than a couple of days ago, and everytime you bring up a new
point I feel I should try again. I choose to answer, I do not have to.
>A while back you told me that you never
> attacked me, but that all our dialogues were merely your expressions
> of love. You still didn't answer why you apologized to me even
> earlier for attacking me as you said!
When I first spoke to you I WAS WRONG! I did not know that till "much"
later. I apologised because I knew my heart wasn't right, the apology only
had to do with one post. I still didn't understand what you had been talking
about, or how wrong I really was.
Later is when I was trying to talk to you in love, as the Lord led me to do,
You asked me about the apology, and kept referring to the way I attacked
you, so I used your words trying to help you understand. I said " I have
said I apologised for attacking you." I wanted to move on, you didn't.
Then I messed everything up again by being led by my own feelings and
thoughts, instead of the Lord, and you took all my words wrong, as I did
yours. So I emailed you the apology, FOR EVERYTHING. I had been reading
through the old posts was starting to realize that I hadn't really heard
what you were saying to me, and I could see where my responses to you had
given you the wrong impression. It also raised alot of questions. Then I
began to study and read everything I could find on the Vatican and the
Jesuits, and history since 70AD,... This also led to questions I had about
certain SDA writings and beliefs which are different now then when I last
attended church. Now here we are again...
Of course you claim things.
> You are one of the children of the Antichrist. I don't expect you to
> tell the truth.
Do you believe that people can change? Do you believe that it is possible
for me to change? Do you believe it is possible that I am not an infiltrant
and never have been, and that I was instead just a stupid woman?
>
> I falsely accuse you?
Yes, I am a child of God! I do not lie. I understand you have done so
because my words led you to believe this. Your words have led others to
believe the same about you, so surely you can understand how it is possible
to be falsely accused.
Seeber has condemned you to death if you are
> Adventist. Why don't you have a problem with that, and why doesn't
> Seeber and the rest of the Vaticans here have a problem with you.
I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT! but I am not afraid, Nor is it my character
to attack when I have a problem. Prophesy says this will happen in the end
times. AND.... If you think no one has a problem with me, then that is only
because you do not read the NG's. Being civil doesn't mean there are no
problems. "A soft answer turneth away wrath", this works with some, with
others... they tell you God said to kill anyone in their way. If you don't
think I don't realize that I am in their way, just because I do not freak
out at their words, then that is because you do not understand me. If you
think I appreciate being called legalistic, and being told some one is
praying that I will one day fall into the loving arms of my Savior and
recieve his free gift of eternal life, or that I am calvinist, or arian, or
a coward, hateful, a liar, paranoid etc. etc. etc.
then again you do not know me, but that does not mean I stop saying what I
believein or give up, and I usually( not always) can keep myself from
responding in kind. So for you to say that, is simply because that is your
opinion.
>
<SNIP>
> > The words of mine that you do use are before the apology I mailed you
months
> > ago.
>
> I don't want to hear anything about your fairy tales of email You
> posted publicly after I reproved a genuine super-terrorist that the
> Lord showed you that I have a problem with love and attacked me every
> since. You can insult and accuse me publicly, you can send what
> falsity you are talking about publicly.
Public apologies are humiliating, and may appear hypocritical, or like I had
an agenda in doing so. In emailing you personally, I believed you would
understand I was sincere. Apparently not. Refer to my explanation above.
>
> > You did not and have not forgiven me, and although the bible says up to
> > 70 times 7 should you forgive, You can not even do it once.
>
> Vatican Cindy believe that you readers here are stupid. What have I
> forgiven Cindy for? She claims she is guilty of nothing and she still
> has not said a single word against a man who even condemned her
> religion and her life. Why is it that she is saying that I haven't
> forgiven her? All her postings are the same since the beginning.
> She is now accusing me of the same: being mean.
NO I AM NOT. Apparently you feel that way, maybe it's your conscience and
not me saying it? Is that possible?
>
> Why don't you forgive me Vatican Cindy? Forgive me and I will do the
> same again and again as you do! Readers: Why don't you forgive the
> Vatican? Why doesn't the Korean Lady forgive the Japanese government:
I do forgive you Ted. You know that.
Forgiveness does not mean you forget the lessons learned, you learn and go
on, the past is still there, it is the bitterness and anger that are gone.
Jesus said "Father forgive them they know not what they do" Did that mean we
have now forgotten what they did? NO Do we hate them? No
Matt 5 speaks very eloquently on how to behave with those who are our
enemies.
>
> http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/Contention.htm
>
> > You have nothing
> > on me, since that time.
>
> A true Vatican despot. This is not true? Where is the documentation
> that this is the case? Do you believe that people can disagree with
> you?
Of course they may, it happens all the time, you are disagreeing with me
now.
<snip>
>
> Is that wrong? Well then, have you judged me?
Yes I did although not intentionally, I am sorry. I am not doing so now.
> Have you condemned me?
No, I havent.
> Have you told the world the Lord showed you that I was unloving after
> I reproved a man who gloated that millions of Christians were
> persecuted and savagely killed?
This is how you saw it, not how I meant it. Again I apologise
> How did this whole situation start
> Cindy? Did I approach you and truthfully call you Vatican
> Cindy?
I approached you, since then you have carried on for the most part by
yourself.
Or did I first know you because you approached and began to
> tell the world how I am mean for reproving someone who even condemned
> your religion and life?
Problem is I didn't know that, as I have said many times! I had not read
every post you and he ever had, even now those who read this are going to be
saying "HUH?" Many of the things said weren't even on this newsgroup,
anything truly objectionable seems to be uncrossposted and only appear on
the catholic NG, and so no one here even knows what those things are!
You are not a despot? Why do you keep making
> statements and don't allow people to disagree with it?
Because you say I do! Are you a despot then?
>
> > I do not need to assume what your motives are by taking your words out
> > of context as you do mine.
>
> You call people names and claim they take things out of context just
> because I disagree with you.
Again thats what you say.
>
> > The Text above has to do with you, who insists on being an enemy despite
the
> > genuine love I have. It is you who judges. It is you who falsly accuses.
> >
> > My righteousness is of the Lord.
> >
> > In His Infinite Love,
> > Cindy
>
> But I told you I love you too Vatican Cindy? Why do you keep
> entertaining in your Vatican head alone that this is not true?
I told you before I have given you the benefit of the doubt, I am waiting on
the proof..
You
> all keep falsely accusing me and judging me, but where did you learn
> to do that and to preach against doing that at the same time?
I am not "YOU ALL" and this is just your opinion.
<SNIP>
>
> For the Work Finished!
Amen.
In His Love,
Cindy
Ted McMillan
> tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is
> the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me,
> saith the LORD.
Then maybe that can hold true for Ted McMillan's words also, and
Vatican Cindy would not worry about it. In truth, Vatican Cindy is
not worried about it at all for conscience sake. What she is worried
about is if honest people can understand what is being said and damage
can happen to her Pope.
These words are meant for God's Children. NOT for the workers of the
Antichrist like Cindy Ford. These words were meant for Christ's
people many of whom were slain. I spoke up for them and have since
been attacked by their murderers such as Cindy Ford who accused me of
condemning innocent people who urinate on their graves in her crusade
against accusations.
> "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever
> therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4.
Vatican Cindy is describing herself here.
You can see that Vatican Cindy is trying a new tactic to cover over
the truth. You can get to know another person who does the same
thing: Preaches alot of things they disregard continually. One of
them is a person posting by the name of Dr. Patti. She constantly
tells us that Christ is in control when we show any concern about the
conspiracy of Rome. She then starts to attack Ellen White and cannot
calm down when people accept her writings.
What she is doing now is trying to cloud out the truth shown about her
and also continuing to refuse to answer the questions. Ted Seeber
said words that even condemn her Vatican soul and the SDA Church. She
refuses to see that because she also works for Rome.
If she knew that no weapon would prosper against her Vatican self, she
would not be trailing my posts because of her concerns.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Ted McMillan
> "Ted McMillan" <t-m...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:dfc66dfc.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
> news:<3c69b...@news.teranews.com>...
> > > "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c9dac66d.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<3c68a...@news.teranews.com>...
>
> Ted,
>
> If I do not answer all your questions, it is because there are alot. I do
> feel like I am writing an encyclopedia here. I am confident you will point
> out what I have missed.
As confidently I can point out that you have no conscience and you are
a habitual liar. I even gave you one simple question asking you how
come you have done nothing but attack and condemn me, but though
Seeber spoke against your very religion and life, you have said
nothing against him, but you and him get along very well. When I gave
you that one question to answer, you ignore it and put questions in
your reply I didn't even ask and proceeded to answer all of them.
So why did you lie here Vatican Cindy? Is it because you work for the
Vatican? Is your statement above as true as when you came on the
forum asking me why I believe your expressions of love are attacks?
Is your statement as true as when I proved you had already apologized
to me for attacking me?
Here is more documentation of the Vatican unscrupulousness of Cindy
Ford proving that she is not Adventist at all:
LE
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=c20cba56.0109230715.5b6cd55b%40posting.google.com
Cindy
-------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=Lsqv7.29125%24xi5.1438277%40sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com
-------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=lxyr7.16142%24ey1.651789%40sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com
Cindy
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
Tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy Ford
I gave you a chance. Never again can you say I didn't answer your questions.
The fact that every time I have answered you, you have deleted that part
out, or not answered proves you have never been interested in the answers.
I Could have before, and still can copy and paste my answers to your
questions, on every post you write accusing me. That I haven't before now is
because I was not trying to prove you a liar.
My patience is limited however, and you are disrupting this Newsgroup.
I have answered your questions and you did just what I told you, you would
do.
You do not make me look bad, you have never made me look bad,the evidence
you post is nothing. Words by others, and me asking "Have you ever seen
Pinky and the brain?" Yeah... that's what all the Vatican infiltrants say.
That's how they always give themselves away!
When they aren't singing sesame street songs...
My motive in posting to you has never been concern for myself, otherwise I
would have stopped long ago. The only thing that has made me look bad is
that I kept answering you.
You only hurt yourself. You only make yourself look bad. What I was trying
to stop.
Cindy
<Snipped same old revilings and judgements>
Ted McMillan
> Ted,
>
> I gave you a chance. Never again can you say I didn't answer your questions.
Vatican Cindy, I gave you MANY CHANCES. You have not answered my
questions. Why are you on good terms with Ted Seeber who condemned
all non-Catholics to persecution and death even though he condemned
your church and your life again? Yes you will claim that you have
answered my questions because you work for Rome.
> The fact that every time I have answered you, you have deleted that part
> out, or not answered proves you have never been interested in the answers.
The problem is that I did not do any such a thing. Just a short time
ago you posted that you don't have to answer my questions and that you
cannot because they are too many. Both statements were false. The
question is even above. If anyone can show me what the answer is for
your friendship with a man who has condemned many innocent people to
death and even your religion, show me where and how it was answered.
> I Could have before, and still can copy and paste my answers to your
> questions, on every post you write accusing me. That I haven't before now is
> because I was not trying to prove you a liar.
You were accusing me left and right of being mean and of condemning
innocent people while I was constantly raving about thousands and
millions of innocent people who were killed. Ted Seeber came in to
gloat and to tell us those people were killed because they didn't live
the bible according to Catholic standards. I reproved your brother
monster terrorist of the faith and you moved in to attack me to this
day. You now come and complain and accuse that I have condemned
innocent people when the only ones I have mentioned were the
super-criminals: Seeber, Meehan, Cindy Ford, Angelo Braz, Lamarr
Edwards, and Andrew. How are all these unscrupulous people going to
get the concern of the Lord when millions more of real beautiful
people were slaughtered by their religion and they cannot notice the
toll of blood while I am raving about it here on these newsgroups?
> My patience is limited however, and you are disrupting this Newsgroup.
But you being a despot never ends. Why are you accusing people just
because they disagree with you and your pope?
> I have answered your questions and you did just what I told you, you would
> do.
Why then didn't you say that clearly when I asked it, but told me you
don't have to answer my questions and that you give up, you can't
answer it because THEY are too many? Why did you claim that you are
in all your posts just expressing love for me after you apologized
because you have attacked me? Is that because you habitually lie?
> You do not make me look bad, you have never made me look bad,the evidence
> you post is nothing.
Why are you a bigot? Why don't you allow people to disagree with you?
> Words by others, and me asking "Have you ever seen
> Pinky and the brain?" Yeah... that's what all the Vatican infiltrants say.
> That's how they always give themselves away!
They give themselves away by being unscrupulous. Not by any specific
Pinky and the Brain or example. You know this, but why do you think
the readers are as stupid and damned as the Protestants who were
martyred were?
> When they aren't singing sesame street songs...
You will present them in their antics when your murderous friends are
around. When they are accusing me while teaching me not to accuse,
you would show them the benefit of bringing Pinky and the Brain in
serious discussion. Else, show us how Christ used such tactics only
against people who disagreed with him.
And what happened to all those friends who advised you to block my
postings? Those were people from the Vatican: your friends. They
said it is only common sense and you agreed. Why do you lie
habitually Vatican Cindy?
> My motive in posting to you has never been concern for myself, otherwise I
> would have stopped long ago. The only thing that has made me look bad is
> that I kept answering you.
That is according to your despot babblings, but not according to the
facts. Did you come and ask why I believed your expressions of love
were attacks and how that was not true after you apologized for
attacking me? That doesn't look bad? It doesn't look bad to your
fellow Vatican terrorists, but it does look bad to sane people. Does
it look bad that you accuse and attack me after demonstrating to the
world that it is worse to reprove a terrorist than being a terrorist
itself? If someone reproved or insulted Osama Bin Laden, would you
attack that person and then refuse to say anything against Osama Bin
Laden? Your behavior here shows that you would. Actually you won't
just for the Vatican show, but you have excused a worst terrorist
posting on these newsgroups and relentlessly attacked someone who
reproved your fellow Vatican-born monster.
> You only hurt yourself. You only make yourself look bad. What I was trying
> to stop.
That's why you keep posting to me. How do you know I only hurt
myself? Are you speaking for the New World Order again Vatican Cindy?
Why are you accusing me just because I disagree with you?
>
> Cindy
>
> <Snipped same old revilings and judgements>
Accusations just because I disagree with an infiltrating Vatican
despot.
For the Work Finished!
Ted McMillan
tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com
Cindy Ford
"Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
news:c9dac66d.02021...@posting.google.com...
news:<3c6b3...@news.teranews.com>...
> > Ted,
> >
> > I gave you a chance. Never again can you say I didn't answer your
questions.
>
> Cindy, I gave you MANY CHANCES.
I know that you did, at first, I see that now, BUT are you still giving me a
chance? will it really matter what I say now? I doubt it, but lets test your
words: I am answering only your questions same as before.
You have not answered my
> questions. Why are you on good terms with Ted Seeber who condemned
> all non-Catholics to persecution and death even though he condemned
> your church and your life again?
"I AM NOT anymore. Accusing him of lying, and asking him to explain his
comments on the Catholic church killing because the martyrs didn't live the
bible ended that, or haven't you noticed he's not around? Also my
conversations with others on the subject did not help I am sure. "
Did you notice I answered the question there?
> Yes you will claim that you have
> answered my questions because you work for Rome.
A despot opinion.
>
> > The fact that every time I have answered you, you have deleted that part
> > out, or not answered proves you have never been interested in the
answers.
>
> The problem is that I did not do any such a thing.
The problem is you have done that! You do not hear what I say at all! This
is why you believe me to be a liar. You posted twice that I had not answered
your question just a couple of weeks ago, then I copied and pasted my answer
from an earlier post in response and you said " At last she answers half the
question..." Well I had answered you! And asked for clarification on the
second part of the question. YOU just ignored half of my post, where the
answer was and said, "I will stop right here..." And that is just one
example...
Just a short time
> ago you posted that you don't have to answer my questions and that you
> cannot because they are too many.
FACT is: I never said you posted too many questions before yesterday. You
had that conversation with Larry from the Catholic group, not me. And as I
said yesterday, in the post you didn't answer; I do not have to answer
anything,.You may act despotic, but you don't rule me. IF I answer, it is
because I choose to.
>Both statements were false.
Because you say so only.
The
> question is even above. If anyone can show me what the answer is for
> your friendship with a man who has condemned many innocent people to
> death and even your religion, show me where and how it was answered.
Answered above.
>
> > I Could have before, and still can copy and paste my answers to your
> > questions, on every post you write accusing me. That I haven't before
now is
> > because I was not trying to prove you a liar.
>
> You were accusing me left and right of being mean and of condemning
> innocent people
Any proof I ever said you accused innocent people? I have never called you
mean! you just feel that way I'm assuming.
while I was constantly raving about thousands and
> millions of innocent people who were killed. Ted Seeber came in to
> gloat and to tell us those people were killed because they didn't live
> the bible according to Catholic standards. I reproved your brother
> monster terrorist of the faith and you moved in to attack me to this
> day.
I questioned you, and I have said I was wrong. I explained this yesterday.
Why do you insist on keeping to your despot opinion?
You now come and complain and accuse that I have condemned
> innocent people when the only ones I have mentioned were the
> super-criminals: Seeber, Meehan, Cindy Ford, Angelo Braz, Lamarr
> Edwards, and Andrew. How are all these unscrupulous people going to
> get the concern of the Lord when millions more of real beautiful
> people were slaughtered by their religion and they cannot notice the
> toll of blood while I am raving about it here on these newsgroups?
I did not speak about anyone but myself, I think you are quoting someone
elses words here, and Man looketh on the outward appearance, the Lord
looketh on the heart.
And it is precisely of the way you talk to these people that blocks them
from hearing the rest, this part I have said before.
I have also said "I care" but you call it a lie.
>
> > My patience is limited however, and you are disrupting this Newsgroup.
>
> But you being a despot never ends. Why are you accusing people just
> because they disagree with you and your pope?
Because a despot says so!
>
> > I have answered your questions and you did just what I told you, you
would
> > do.
>
> Why then didn't you say that clearly when I asked it, but told me you
> don't have to answer my questions and that you give up,
Because talking to you is like beating my head against the wall! You just
respond with the same thing no matter what I say!
> you can't
> answer it because THEY are too many?
Answered above. Wasn't me.
Why did you claim that you are
> in all your posts just expressing love for me after you apologized
> because you have attacked me?
FACT _ READ MY APOLOGY_ DID I APOLOGISE FOR ATTACKING YOU?
NO! thats the words YOU used. I apologised because when I wrote the "ONE
POST" I was hurt, and angry, and I was being judgemental in response. THAT
is what I was apologising for. Later_ one month later_ I asked you why you
thought my recent posts were attacks when I wasn't attacking you. Different
time, different conversation, or at least I thought so, it seems to all be
the same to you! LOOK at the posts!
> Is that because you habitually lie?
Only in a DESPOTS opinion!
>
> > You do not make me look bad, you have never made me look bad,the
evidence
> > you post is nothing.
>
> Why are you a bigot? Why don't you allow people to disagree with you?
Because a despot says I do!
>
> > Words by others, and me asking "Have you ever seen
> > Pinky and the brain?" Yeah... that's what all the Vatican infiltrants
say.
> > That's how they always give themselves away!
>
> They give themselves away by being unscrupulous. Not by any specific
> Pinky and the Brain or example. You know this, but why do you think
> the readers are as stupid and damned as the Protestants who were
> martyred were?
Because you say so.
>
> > When they aren't singing sesame street songs...
>
> You will present them in their antics when your murderous friends are
> around. When they are accusing me while teaching me not to accuse,
> you would show them the benefit of bringing Pinky and the Brain in
> serious discussion. Else, show us how Christ used such tactics only
> against people who disagreed with him.
Show me how he used the tactics of sesame street songs first. "Mr. one of
these things just doesn't belong here..." Or sang beatles songs "Mr. Help, I
need somebody.. Not just anybody..."
>
> And what happened to all those friends who advised you to block my
> postings?
I do as I choose.
Those were people from the Vatican: your friends. They
> said it is only common sense and you agreed. Why do you lie
> habitually Vatican Cindy?
Because I am often ruled by my heart and not always by common sense ... and
I habitually lie because you say I do.
>
> > My motive in posting to you has never been concern for myself, otherwise
I
> > would have stopped long ago. The only thing that has made me look bad is
> > that I kept answering you.
>
> That is according to your despot babblings, but not according to the
> facts. Did you come and ask why I believed your expressions of love
> were attacks and how that was not true after you apologized for
> attacking me?
Yes I did ask because I just didn't get it, still don't. How am I attacking
you now?
That doesn't look bad? It doesn't look bad to your
> fellow Vatican terrorists, but it does look bad to sane people.
Sane people being you and ??
Does
> it look bad that you accuse and attack me after demonstrating to the
> world that it is worse to reprove a terrorist than being a terrorist
> itself?
I understand what you are saying... Does the world I doubt it! They have
probably blocked both you and I long since....
If someone reproved or insulted Osama Bin Laden, would you
> attack that person and then refuse to say anything against Osama Bin
> Laden?
Not anymore. :-) I do learn from my mistakes you know.
I have called him a murderer, and a terrorist, is that not enough?
Your behavior here shows that you would. Actually you won't
> just for the Vatican show, but you have excused a worst terrorist
> posting on these newsgroups and relentlessly attacked someone who
> reproved your fellow Vatican-born monster.
More despot opinion.
>
> > You only hurt yourself. You only make yourself look bad. What I was
trying
> > to stop.
>
> That's why you keep posting to me. How do you know I only hurt
> myself?
I can see the results, your message is not getting to as many people as it
could.
Are you speaking for the New World Order again Vatican Cindy?
> Why are you accusing me just because I disagree with you?
Because you say I am.
>
> >
> > Cindy
> >
> > <Snipped same old revilings and judgements>
>
> Accusations just because I disagree with an infiltrating Vatican
> despot.
And who would that be according to despot opinion?
BTW:
I am feeling a trifle witchy at the moment, I just quit smoking, so add that
to your "she is not an adventist story"! My nerves are shot and you are
jumping on my last one! So maybe you should not post to me for a week or
two, you might really not like me.
Cindy
Ted McMillan
> "Ted McMillan" <tmac...@seventh-dayadventism.com> wrote in message
> news:c9dac66d.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Cindy Ford" <synt...@iei.net> wrote in message
> news:<3c6b3...@news.teranews.com>...
> > > Ted,
> > >
> > > I gave you a chance. Never again can you say I didn't answer your
> questions.
Why do you Vatican despot insist that the world runs around your
murderous brainwaves? What questions have you answered and where
after you have thrown your hands up in the air and posted that you
don't have to answer them as in fact you haven't?
> > Cindy, I gave you MANY CHANCES.
>
> I know that you did, at first, I see that now, BUT are you still giving me a
> chance? will it really matter what I say now? I doubt it, but lets test your
> words: I am answering only your questions same as before.
The problem is that you are lying here. You did not answer my
questions. If you did, what is the answer to this question again:
Ted Seeber gloated that millions of Christians were put to death
because they did not live the bible according to his Catholic
standards. That happened October 5, 2001. Since that time I reproved
the terrorist for saying such words during the climate of September
11th. As a consequence of being soundly identified as a super
terrorist from the Dark Ages, Vatican Seeber ducked out. This enraged
Vatican Cindy and Angelo so bad that they have today attacked me
without stop ONLY. They refuse to see what Ted Seeber has done, and
they put preaching against making attacks against people worse than
the crime of the attacks done by Seeber's ancestors upon innocent
Christians.
Since Seeber gloated that Christians were put to death because they
didn't live the bible according to is standards, what does Vatican
Cindy think since she claims to be Adventist and obviously doesn't
live the bible according to Seeber's standards? Why does she get
along well with Vatican Seeber and he with them and they love each
other even though Seeber's words condemn her religion and her very
life?
What was the answer to that question again I gave you, you refuse to
answer telling the world that you don't have to answer my questions
and now you tell us that you have answered?
> You have not answered my
> > questions. Why are you on good terms with Ted Seeber who condemned
> > all non-Catholics to persecution and death even though he condemned
> > your church and your life again?
>
> "I AM NOT anymore. Accusing him of lying, and asking him to explain his
> comments on the Catholic church killing because the martyrs didn't live the
> bible ended that, or haven't you noticed he's not around? Also my
> conversations with others on the subject did not help I am sure. "
How can you tell me that this whole situation is ended because you are
trained to be a despot back at the Vatican? Isn't it nice that only
now after this many months you are abruptly telling everyone here that
the situation is ended because you say so and obviously cannot answer
the questions for the Nazis, communists and Ustahis' sakes?
From day one when Vatican Seeber made those comments and he was
informed about the established definition of a terrorist he ducked out
and then you all moved in to defend him. Why tell me this new news
all non-despots have to accept from the despot? Why tell me that
Seeber ducked out, when you already posted and told us that he didn't
duck out?
> Did you notice I answered the question there?
Yes, Vatican style. You told us we have to accept that this argument
is over before you answer the questions. It is obvious why you cannot
afford to answer it. You are a trained despot infiltrator to
Adventism from the Vatican.
> > Yes you will claim that you have
> > answered my questions because you work for Rome.
>
> A despot opinion.
Why are you accusing? Did you not preach against it? Wasn't that so
important that we cannot even consider people without natural
affection who gloat that millions of Christians were put to death?
> > > The fact that every time I have answered you, you have deleted that part
> > > out, or not answered proves you have never been interested in the
> answers.
A despot opinion. Is it true? Answer the question above I gave and
you have refused to answer, but, of course, being trained at the
Vatican, you can easily claim that you have answered it.
> > The problem is that I did not do any such a thing.
>
> The problem is you have done that!
The problem is that you are a Vatican despot and you have lied. I
gave you the question above. For the sake of the readers who need to
know how bottomlessly unscrupulous you papal people are, just answer
that one question again. None of them can find where you have
answered it before. Show us that you have by just at least providing
the location on the newsgroups.
> You do not hear what I say at all!
You mean you hear what I say? Is it true now that I am loving
contrary to your attacks as you preached against attacking for so
long?
> This
> is why you believe me to be a liar.
Because it's true and because you work for the Vatican. If that is
not true, why did you attack me, apologize for it, and then returned
to tell everyone that you never attacked me but was just expressing
love for me?
> You posted twice that I had not answered
> your question just a couple of weeks ago, then I copied and pasted my answer
> from an earlier post in response and you said " At last she answers half the
> question..."
Just show us where it is and I will not tell the truth about you
anymore.
> Well I had answered you!
I want an answer to the question and not any evasive response.
> And asked for clarification on the
> second part of the question. YOU just ignored half of my post, where the
> answer was and said, "I will stop right here..." And that is just one
> example...
Where is the location of this. Just show us the answer to the
question above as a man condemned your stated religion and life but
you say nothing against him, but get along with him well. The man's
name is Ted Seeber.
> Just a short time
> > ago you posted that you don't have to answer my questions and that you
> > cannot because they are too many.
>
> FACT is:
Oh the Vatican despot again has all the facts without shame!
> I never said you posted too many questions before yesterday. You
> had that conversation with Larry from the Catholic group, not me. And as I
> said yesterday, in the post you didn't answer; I do not have to answer
> anything,.You may act despotic, but you don't rule me. IF I answer, it is
> because I choose to.
Okay then dear, get the midol and understand that I am not unloving
just because Bloody Mary incarnate says so.
> >Both statements were false.
>
> Because you say so only.
I am unloving because you say so only. You preach against making
judgments and attacking. Why do you violate it? Because I say so
only?
> The
> > question is even above. If anyone can show me what the answer is for
> > your friendship with a man who has condemned many innocent people to
> > death and even your religion, show me where and how it was answered.
>
> Answered above.
I am a loving person. Answered above. Why then are you attacking me
Vatican Cindy above your claims and preaching that a person who
attacks another is worse than a super terrorist who thirsts for the
blood of his opponents?
> > > I Could have before, and still can copy and paste my answers to your
> > > questions, on every post you write accusing me. That I haven't before
> now is
> > > because I was not trying to prove you a liar.
You seem to hate accusing. Why do you do it?
> > You were accusing me left and right of being mean and of condemning
> > innocent people
>
> Any proof I ever said you accused innocent people?
Any proof I am unloving?
> I have never called you
> mean! you just feel that way I'm assuming.
You have describe me as mean, accusative and hateful many times. I am
not interested in semantics as you try to deceive the, according to
you, stupid Protestant heretics listening here who may not understand
you are trying to tell me you never exactly said that I was mean in
those words. You said I was mean by your constant descriptions and
PMS postings.
> while I was constantly raving about thousands and
> > millions of innocent people who were killed. Ted Seeber came in to
> > gloat and to tell us those people were killed because they didn't live
> > the bible according to Catholic standards. I reproved your brother
> > monster terrorist of the faith and you moved in to attack me to this
> > day.
>
> I questioned you, and I have said I was wrong. I explained this yesterday.
What is a worse crime: viewing a terrorist gloat that millions of
Christians were savagely put to death? Or reproving the monster for
saying those things. Vatican Cindy now, after pulling all teeth,
tells us that Seeber was wrong and she was wrong. She still did not
say a single word against the Super terrorist. Vatican Seeber has no
reason to reply posts against Vatican Cindy, for Vatican Cindy has not
posted against his total lack of natural affection.
> Why do you insist on keeping to your despot opinion?
Because you were trained back at the Vatican, you will naturally see
things opposite to what they really are. What do you do when people
insult Osama Bin Laden again? Do you attack them and then just make
brief mention that Osama was wrong?
> You now come and complain and accuse that I have condemned
> > innocent people when the only ones I have mentioned were the
> > super-criminals: Seeber, Meehan, Cindy Ford, Angelo Braz, Lamarr
> > Edwards, and Andrew. How are all these unscrupulous people going to
> > get the concern of the Lord when millions more of real beautiful
> > people were slaughtered by their religion and they cannot notice the
> > toll of blood while I am raving about it here on these newsgroups?
>
> I did not speak about anyone but myself, I think you are quoting someone
> elses words here, and Man looketh on the outward appearance, the Lord
> looketh on the heart.
How then do you claim to despot know that I am unloving if God looks
on the heart? How do you do that and get the intestines to stage a
crusade against attacking people?
> And it is precisely of the way you talk to these people that blocks them
> from hearing the rest, this part I have said before.
If they block the rest, how come they respond to those rest that you
despot claim they block? You mean you blocked this post?
> I have also said "I care" but you call it a lie.
I have also said that I am loving, but you call it a lie while in your
crusade against attacking people. You keep attacking me.
> > > My patience is limited however, and you are disrupting this Newsgroup.
> >
> > But you being a despot never ends. Why are you accusing people just
> > because they disagree with you and your pope?
>
> Because a despot says so!
Are you name-calling Vatican Cindy?? Remember, according to your
cult, it is worse to attack people, than to reprove or point out super
terrorists! Why do you violate that principle at will as it is
documented that workers from the Vatican can do?
> > > I have answered your questions and you did just what I told you, you
> would
> > > do.
The problem is that you haven't. Just above you even said that you
didn't have to as I was pursuing you for an answer.
I am a loving person regardless of what an unscrupulous despot
infiltrator of the Vatican named Cindy Ford, who has defended a fellow
Vatican super terrorist who gloated that many Christians perished
because they were not Catholic October 5, 2001.
> > Why then didn't you say that clearly when I asked it, but told me you
> > don't have to answer my questions and that you give up,
>
> Because talking to you is like beating my head against the wall!
You mean you are accusing me and attacking me O toxically unscrupulous
one? I just asked you to answer the question and you did everything
to evade it. How is that like beating one's Vatican head on the wall?
You didn't answer the question, HOW DO YOU EXPECT THAT A STUPID
PROTESTANT HERETIC WILL NOT ASK YOU AGAIN TO ANSWER IT?
> You just
> respond with the same thing no matter what I say!
That's right. I responded that you need to answer the question
because you haven't. The question is above. What is the answer to it
again? If you tell me the answer is above, I will say that my proof
that you are a Vatican despot is all over the newsgroups.
> > you can't
> > answer it because THEY are too many?
>
> Answered above. Wasn't me.
It is not answered above. I don't know what the answer is. The only
thing that's proven is that you are a worker for the Antichrist
infiltrated into Adventism. Just kindly repeat the answer, for I
never saw it because it was never answered. Ted Seeber doesn't post
against you because you never posted against him. All that you posted
to him were blessings and concerns.
> Why did you claim that you are
> > in all your posts just expressing love for me after you apologized
> > because you have attacked me?
>
> FACT _ READ MY APOLOGY_ DID I APOLOGISE FOR ATTACKING YOU?
FACT. . . YES!! It's in the post.
> NO! thats the words YOU used. I apologised because when I wrote the "ONE
> POST" I was hurt, and angry, and I was being judgemental in response. THAT
> is what I was apologising for.
So you were judgmental of me, but you weren't attacking me? Calm down
Vatican Cindy!! Remember, "CHRIST IS IN CONTROL!!"
> Later_ one month later_ I asked you why you
> thought my recent posts were attacks when I wasn't attacking you. Different
> time, different conversation, or at least I thought so, it seems to all be
> the same to you! LOOK at the posts!
And what was the difference between Vatican Cindy's posts during the
apology and her posts afterward to this day? NO DIFFERENCE!! She
came asking me questions about love after publicly stating the Lord
showed her that I have a problem with love after I reproved a demon
super-terrorist from the papacy for urinating over the graves of
millions of Christians.
> > Is that because you habitually lie?
>
> Only in a DESPOTS opinion!
You know you are a liar also?
> > > You do not make me look bad, you have never made me look bad,the
> evidence
> > > you post is nothing.
THEN IGNORE THEM!! What is this crime that comes from exercising
common sense to these unscrupulous Vatican people???
> > Why are you a bigot? Why don't you allow people to disagree with you?
>
> Because a despot says I do!
If you agree that you do, then what is the problem?
> > > Words by others, and me asking "Have you ever seen
> > > Pinky and the brain?" Yeah... that's what all the Vatican infiltrants
> say.
> > > That's how they always give themselves away!
> >
> > They give themselves away by being unscrupulous. Not by any specific
> > Pinky and the Brain or example. You know this, but why do you think
> > the readers are as stupid and damned as the Protestants who were
> > martyred were?
>
> Because you say so.
Then you will believe me when I say I am not unloving according to
your Vatican accusations in your crusade against making accusations.
> > > When they aren't singing sesame street songs...
> >
> > You will present them in their antics when your murderous friends are
> > around. When they are accusing me while teaching me not to accuse,
> > you would show them the benefit of bringing Pinky and the Brain in
> > serious discussion. Else, show us how Christ used such tactics only
> > against people who disagreed with him.
>
> Show me how he used the tactics of sesame street songs first. "Mr. one of
> these things just doesn't belong here..." Or sang beatles songs "Mr. Help, I
> need somebody.. Not just anybody..."
You can answer my question first, if you have conscience.
> > And what happened to all those friends who advised you to block my
> > postings?
>
> I do as I choose.
You choose to be unscrupulous and to work for the Vatican. You also
chose to agree with them in your postings, but, of course, being
trained at the Vatican frees you from all conscience.
> Those were people from the Vatican: your friends. They
> > said it is only common sense and you agreed. Why do you lie
> > habitually Vatican Cindy?
>
> Because I am often ruled by my heart and not always by common sense ... and
> I habitually lie because you say I do.
What then is your problem against me in your Vatican crusade against
attacking people except if they gloat that the Protestants were
mass-murdered?
> > > My motive in posting to you has never been concern for myself, otherwise
> I
> > > would have stopped long ago. The only thing that has made me look bad is
> > > that I kept answering you.
> >
> > That is according to your despot babblings, but not according to the
> > facts. Did you come and ask why I believed your expressions of love
> > were attacks and how that was not true after you apologized for
> > attacking me?
>
> Yes I did ask because I just didn't get it, still don't. How am I attacking
> you now?
Answer above.
> That doesn't look bad? It doesn't look bad to your
> > fellow Vatican terrorists, but it does look bad to sane people.
>
> Sane people being you and ??
What, the answer is above?
> Does
> > it look bad that you accuse and attack me after demonstrating to the
> > world that it is worse to reprove a terrorist than being a terrorist
> > itself?
>
> I understand what you are saying... Does the world I doubt it! They have
> probably blocked both you and I long since....
Because a Vatican despot says so? Why should the world have
commonsense but you can't and you don't block my postings even though
you agreed to?