The purpose of this message is to expose an injustice and thereby
reduce the likelihood of future injustices.
I met SDSU softball players Tara Witt and Megan Johnson through
the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the fall semester of 2000.
They remembered me from a biology class we'd had together the
preceding spring semester, and we soon became friends. In March of
2001, I expressed an interest in pursuing a dating relationship with
Megan. She declined but indicated she appreciated me coming to her
softball games and wanted to continue corresponding by email, so I
continued to do both.
In May 2001, Tara and Megan graduated and moved to the Twin
Cities, where they became roommates. In the middle of June, I called
to see how they were doing, and the person who answered said they
didn't live there. I called Tara's dad, Terry Witt, to check the
number, and he indicated that he knew I'd tried to call them and that
they didn't want to talk to me. He said they were uncomfortable with
me, but he didn't know why. Over the next couple of years I would
occasionally drop them an email, but I've never heard from them again.
After teaching at Bennett County High School during the 2001-2002
school year, I moved back to Brookings and renewed my involvement with
several SDSU campus Christian organizations during the 2002-2003
school year. My first interaction with SDSU basketball player Brenda
Davis was at an FCA meeting on March 31, 2003. She made a good
impression on me, and after thinking it over for a few days, I sent
her an email on April 9 asking whether she was seeing anyone.
By pure coincidence I saw her working at Subway later that day.
We eventually had a short conversation, after which I went to the SDSU
library and sent her another email to clarify who I was and why I was
interested. The next day she sent a reply that said she was seeing
someone else and wasn't interested in developing any kind of
relationship with me. Though I wouldn't know it until several months
later, Brenda apparently felt uncomfortable with my presence at Subway
and showed my emails to her coach, Aaron Johnston, who helped her
write the reply.
In another remarkable coincidence my friend Jimmie Walsh informed
me on May 11 that Brenda's friend Sherri Brende had told him I'd
"stalked" Megan Johnson in 2001. I felt that if Sherri had heard this
rumor, Brenda would eventually hear it too, in which case she might
become suspicious of me any time our paths crossed. The next day I
met with SDSU football coach John Stiegelmeier, the faculty advisor
for FCA, to address the rumor directly.
That afternoon I wrote an account of how my friendships with Tara
and Megan began, developed and ended, and emailed copies for Coach
Stiegelmeier, Megan, Tara, Tara's parents, and Brenda, as well as a
mutual acquaintance of Brenda and myself, Jamie Nelson. I didn't have
follow-up communication with any of the intended recipients, but I
occasionally saw Brenda when I went to play basketball on campus.
Though I sometimes felt she was a little uncomfortable around me, she
didn't seem to be seriously alarmed, so I assumed she'd accepted my
explanation.
I saw Brenda on campus three or four times in early August, and
around the middle of the month I started to wonder whether she was
still seeing the guy she'd been seeing in April. On August 19, I was
just leaving the Frost Arena basketball courts when Brenda and a
friend walked in, and I thought I heard the friend ask, "Is that him?"
At that point I thought she must be either uncomfortable with me or
interested in me, and I decided I'd try to catch her on campus the
next day and clear the situation up.
I didn't know Brenda's schedule, but I went to Frost Arena at
three o'clock the next afternoon and found her in the weight room.
She told me she was still seeing the guy she'd been seeing in April,
and I quipped that that was good because it made the situation less
complicated. She looked confused so I added, in an attempt at
self-deprecating humor, "I'm a little obsessed." Though I wouldn't
know it until two weeks later, it may have been the least successful
attempt at humor of my life so far.
I told her directly that our paths had been crossing only
coincidentally, and she said she believed me, but she also said she
didn't want any further contact with me. I told her that I was sorry
and left the building.
According to Brenda's eventual court testimony, she once again
told Coach Johnston that I'd made her uncomfortable, and he notified
SDSU Athletic Director Fred Oien, who initiated a two-week undercover
investigation by the University Police Department. Chief Tim Heaton
apparently assigned Sergeant Bill Taylor and Officer Scott Fleming to
the case. Officer Fleming's court testimony indicates they found only
that I was on campus and was not enrolled.
On September 3, Officer Fleming stopped me outside Frost Arena
and asked me to come over to UPD headquarters for an interview. I did
so and voluntarily told him the whole truth as accurately as I could
remember it. I learned through subsequent contact with Chief Heaton
that Chief Heaton then tracked down Megan Johnson, who of course
became alarmed and asked whether I was in her area when he mentioned
my name. She apparently then forwarded email I'd sent her, which
Chief Heaton later admitted to me contained "nothing really
threatening" but was "just a little different."
On September 4, Chief Heaton drafted a letter in which he banned
me from the SDSU campus, citing officers' reports that alleged
"stalking-type behaviors" toward Brenda. SDSU athletic officials, and
Brenda herself, were apparently notified of the ban that day, but I
was not. At about 1:15 p.m. on September 5, Sergeant Taylor and
Officer Fleming ordered me out of a pick-up basketball game at the
Intramural Building and served me with Chief Heaton's letter.
Later that afternoon a Brookings County sheriff's deputy served
me with a temporary protection order alleging, among other things, "He
showed up on campus after he was told not to." Though Brenda filed a
copy of this affidavit with the UPD, they apparently failed to correct
the misunderstanding. Her court testimony stood by "every statement"
in the affidavit. The affidavit also alleges, "he continuously tries
to contact me even though he has been warned by the UPD and
Administrative Council that he is not supposed to." To this day I
don't know who's on the "Administrative Council" or how they are
involved.
At my request Chief Heaton met with me for the first time on the
morning of September 8. Later that day I sent Coach Stiegelmeier an
email explaining the situation and asking him to return a copy of my
May 12 email if he happened to have kept it. He said he hadn't.
Judging by their court testimony, Coach Johnston and Brenda apparently
learned about this communication and somehow construed it as an
attempt to contact Brenda through Coach Stiegelmeier.
On September 12, I served upon Chief Heaton a pro se subpoena
prepared by Jody Odegaard at Glover, Helsper, and Rasmussen, P.C.,
which happens to be SDSU's lawfirm. The subpoena ordered him to turn
over any reports in his possession that alleged my stalking behavior.
Chief Heaton told me first that he'd been "very careful" in his letter
not to allege that I'd done anything illegal. He then told me those
UPD reports included emails I'd sent to "the girls in Minneapolis,"
which he knew I knew meant Tara and Megan. He said those emails would
be provided on September 15 after he'd had time to black out the names
and email addresses.
As of September 17, SDSU attorney Eric N. Rasmussen, of the same
firm that prepared the subpoena, was still alleging that it was
somehow irregular or unclear. I'm convinced that Mr. Rasmussen then
advised SDSU officials to remove the above documents, and probably
others, from the UPD and file them elsewhere before responding to the
subpoena. I'm also convinced that Mike Reger, the SDSU Executive Vice
President for Administration, was willfully complicit in the decision
to do so.
Their delayed response to the subpoena on September 18 included
email I'd sent to Officer Fleming after our interview, Brenda's
witness statement, and another copy of Chief Heaton's letter banning
me from the campus. It included no reports whatsoever from officers
of the UPD.
At the hearing on September 22, Judge Rodney Steele granted the
permanent protection order despite Brenda's admission that the main
reason she wanted to "do something about it right away" after I talked
to her August 20 was that she had contact with "an old softball player
for SDSU." I had told the UPD about the situation with Megan, as well
as another situation in which I'd been accused of stalking Christian
musician Rebecca St. James, in the hope that they could clear up the
misunderstandings with Megan and Brenda. Instead I believe they set
up a situation in which Megan and Brenda confirmed each other's fears.
During my conversation with Chief Heaton on September 12, he told
me the UPD had been in contact with "a lot of people" about me. The
only two we discussed specifically were Wessington Springs Police
Chief Larry Wenzel and Bennett County High School Principal Gary
McEldowney, both of whom later told me they had indicated to Chief
Heaton that their knowledge of my character did not support the
stalking allegations.
On October 8 my attorney, Rick A. Ribstein, sent a letter to SDSU
attorney Eric Rasmussen relating my desire for information including
contacts between the University Police Department and "any others
involved in the investigation." In a reply dated October 13, Mr.
Rasmussen wrote that he was unaware of any such information. If
that's true, then either he wasn't asking, or someone else was lying.
It's impossible for me to believe Chief Heaton would have had no
recollection of any of the interviews mentioned above.
Regarding the September 12 subpoena, Mr. Rasmussen's reply
stated, "We provided all the information maintained by the UPD related
to any investigation involving the Brenda Davis matter." As indicated
above, this is obviously a lie. He also stated, revealingly, that in
any case SDSU was under no obligation to respond to that subpoena
because the case had concluded.
In early October I moved to Mitchell to avoid inadvertently
violating the protection order, which prevents me from being within
300 feet of SDSU property or Brenda herself. We filed our appeal on
October 21, 2003.
On the morning of November 25, an agent of the Division of
Criminal Investigation, John Bierne, contacted me by telephone and
interrogated me for roughly fifteen minutes about my feelings and
actions toward Megan and Brenda. He had come to Mitchell to interview
me in person, but I declined primarily due to the fact that I was
preparing to go back to Wessington Springs for a memorial service for
my grandpa later that day.
For better or worse Agent Bierne succeeded in getting a healthy
dose of double-barreled truth out of me. At one point he indicated
he'd received evidence forwarded to him by the SDSU campus police. I
can't help but wonder what that evidence included.
We filed our brief with the Supreme Court on December 3, 2003,
making Brenda's brief due by January 20, 2004. She defaulted. On
February 12, Deputy Attorney General Craig Eichstadt filed a motion to
set aside the default. The motion explains that personnel of SDSU
personally contacted Attorney General Larry Long on January 28 and
that Long then asked Eichstadt to look into the matter. The motion
doesn't identify the SDSU personnel by name. Eichstadt was
subsequently assisted by attorney and SDSU economics professor Patrick
Lyons.
I'd notified the clerk of the Supreme Court that I was
terminating the services of my attorney on February 11. Eichstadt
finally contacted Brenda for the first time that afternoon and
prepared and filed the motion the following day. Besides asking to
set aside the default, the motion requested that the Attorney General
be allowed to represent Brenda at taxpayer expense in the appeal,
arguing that the welfare of the state demanded his involvement because
the case involved "protection of a victim of stalking, where there was
no prior relationship of any sort between the stalker and his victim."
Though I have never been charged with, much less convicted of,
the crime of stalking, and no court of law has made any finding beyond
a reasonable doubt concerning these allegations, the Supreme Court
granted the Attorney General's request on March 12. Due in large part
to financial concerns, I have since notified the court that I do not
intend to file a reply brief or to take any other further action in
the appeal except as may be required by law.
A year ago I'd just made my final student loan payments to SDSU
and become completely debt-free for the first time in my adult life.
Now as a direct result of the reckless actions of a handful of SDSU
officials, I've become unemployable as a high school teacher, and my
financial condition is substantially worse than it was when I
graduated.
I'm dealing with the situation reasonably well, but I'm seriously
considering a lawsuit against SDSU regardless of the outcome of the
appeal.
Kurt Evans
"Mercy brings life... He's in the middle... Mercy in the middle..."
--from "Ask Me" (Amy Grant and Tom Hemby, 1991)
> The purpose of this message is to expose an injustice and thereby
>reduce the likelihood of future injustices.
Y'know, Kurt, when you have multiple people in separate instances, from
athletes at SDSU to newsgroup people watching your description of your
interactions with Rebecca St. James, using the word "stalker," at the
very least you should think about taking a hard look at yourself. It's not
like ONE person thought you were a stalker, you listed 3 or 4 in your
own story. So maybe you should stop thinking of yourself as a victim
and start figuring out why you keep making people think you're a stalker.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~jr70 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Can you say stalker??????
>Now as a direct result of the reckless actions of a handful of SDSU
>officials, I've become unemployable as a high school teacher, and my
>financial condition is substantially worse than it was when I
>graduated.
Not their fault.....face you are a stalker plain and simple. You showed with
the Rebbeca St. James "story"
"Jerry B. Ray, Jr." <jr...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:c42e0t$ipt$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
Just imagine being a parent with a teenage daughter in a school
where Kurt is a teacher.
The system works.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
You graduated in 1993?
In 2000 were you working at SDSU, going to school there, or both?
In 2000 you were trying to date a girl on the college softball team?
I'm confused. You said that they remembered you from a class in 2000, but
you graduated in 1993.
Not.
Please don't contribute to this guy's fetish. It will never end, and never
will take even longer if people in rmc actually think they will get
somewhere with him. You *KNOW* it's true.
-Breeze
Have a good day.
Andrew
Kurt Evans wrote:
> * Andrew Boyett <dre...@bellsouth.invalid> wrote:
> >Just asking a few questions.
>
> That's refreshing. Really.
>
> >You graduated in 1993?
>
> Officially yes, although I actually turned in the
> last of my independent work in early 1994.
>
> >In 2000 were you working at SDSU, going to school there,
> >or both?
>
> Going to school.
>
> >In 2000 you were trying to date a girl on the college
> >softball team?
>
> No, I didn't try to date her until March of 2001.
>
> >I'm confused. You said that they remembered you from
> >a class in 2000, but you graduated in 1993.
>
> I was back as a grad student to renew my teacher
> certificate.
>
> Kurt Evans
it doesn't seem to come too difficult to bob, from what i see on here. :)
> Course...you wouldn't know about that would you? Tell me
> Jerry...you're married, right?
jerry's married? i didn't think he was. did i miss this info?
i do tend to be gone from the group for long periods of time....
i wasn't aware of jerry being known for his prowess with the
ladies either. not that i'm implying he's a loser or anything... :)
> Did you fornicate before you got
> married? Why do I ask? Because in this society, people kind of expect
> that you have.
geez. bob's in a downward part of his cycle, it would appear. how does
society expecting that you've had sex before marriage make it cool for
bob to ask such a question? oh, i forget, bob cares about everyone.
he must be doing it out of love. that bob...such a passionate, caring,
sensitive, thoughtful soul...
> [...] I get treated like crap relationally because I've held
> out and waited for my wife. I think Kurt has done this too...so
> PROBABLY that's why he get's fingered as an oddball everytime
if someone doesn't think remaining a virgin until you're married makes
sense, there is no reason they should applaud others for it. in fact,
if to them it is something normal and everyone should have done by the
time they're out of their teens, you might seem the oddball. so what?
if your view differs from theirs and you believe yours, don't worry
about it. choosing to remain a virgin until you're married is not as
popular as it used to be. and i seriously doubt managing to do so
even if you want to has ever been easy if you have much of a dating
life.
but the reality is, bob and kurt are probably getting treated like
crap for reasons other than the fact they are presumably virgins.
based on posts here, both of them have personality quirks that provide
more than enough reason to be treated differently/negatively, and it
has very little to do with their religious beliefs or convictions on
sex and marriage. too bad neither seems to get it. (pun not intended,
but i left it in anyway. i personally think sex should remain inside
the bounds of marriage, so the pun doesn't reflect my beliefs well.)
> and girls decide they prefer men who act ARROGANT. [...]
uh oh. *DANGER* *DANGER* warning signs are flashing...hold on tight...
> Here you are again going out of your way to point the finger at
> someone who, from what I can see, has had some TYPICAL interactions
> which indicate no malice on his part. WHAT DO WE DO? Just STaaaay
> away from the whole social scene and just work all the time like me?
> If I actually started trying to date any women they'd all treat me the
> SAME WAY! That's the way society is now. By default in this society,
> women are brainwashed to ONLY be attracted to arrogant guys who are
> likely that way because they've already schmoozed women and taken them
> to bed. They don't even give guys like me a second glance. They can
> instantly tell that I'm not going to push myself on them. They want
> that. They really do. Hopefully lots of guys so they can flip them
> around for a while and pick the best one in their shallow view of what
> 'best' is. Love doesn't operate that way.
*whew* can we say "issues"? no...more like a lifetime subscription.
poor guy, wondering why he can't get dates, and look at what he has to
say about women in our society...gee. i'm not saying our society isn't
screwed up sexually from a xian perspective, but the stuff above is
obviously coming from a well of pent-up negative prior experiences (or
lack of experiences, as the case may be).
when someone says they aren't interested in you, when they tell you
you make them nervous, it's a good sign you should stay away from them
forever. don't come back months later and overhear a conversation and
think maybe they like you now so you better try to run into them to
talk to them about it. that's asking for trouble. it does come across
as semi-obsessive. lots of guys have problems knowing how to interact
well with women they are interested in. i'm one of them. but some
have it worse than others. you gotta know when to give up and move on.
or know how to pick the girls who -- as bob suggests above -- like that.
unfortunately, it appears kurt picked the ones who *don't* like that.
perhaps bob should introduce kurt to the right kind of girls, since he
seems to know so many of them... ;)
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@failure.net
replace junkmail with slacker to e-mail me. really.
>jerry's married? i didn't think he was. did i miss this info?
>i do tend to be gone from the group for long periods of time....
>i wasn't aware of jerry being known for his prowess with the
>ladies either. not that i'm implying he's a loser or anything... :)
I'm not married. Nor am I a ladies man. (But oddly enough, I was talking
with a friend of mine last night about some of her other friends that
positively make me seem suave. One of the guys, who she was helping fill out
an online dating profile, would have given the following responses if not
for her intervention:
What are you looking for in a date? "Someone that doesn't scare easily."
What have you learned from past relationships? "Not to get my hopes up."
Why are you on [dating service] [or similar question]? "Looking for someone
to stalk."
Only one of those three was intended as a joke.)
>lots of guys have problems knowing how to interact
>well with women they are interested in.
That's true, but I'd like to think that any reasonably healthy person
would be able to tell where the stalking, psycho behaviour starts.
alright! i mean, not that you aren't married or a ladies man, but
that i still have some clue about the people on this group... :)
> (But oddly enough, I was talking with a friend of mine last night
> about some of her other friends that positively make me seem suave.
> One of the guys, who she was helping fill out an online dating
> profile, would have given the following responses if not for her
> intervention:
>
> What are you looking for in a date? "Someone that doesn't scare
> easily." What have you learned from past relationships? "Not to
> get my hopes up." Why are you on [dating service] [or similar
> question]? "Looking for someone to stalk."
>
> Only one of those three was intended as a joke.)
all seem like reasonable responses. ... what? why is everyone looking
at me like that? okay...but they were all funny, in the kind of
self-deprecating, loser-and-i-know-it, nervous laughter sort of way.
aren't the ladies attracted to that? ;)
>>lots of guys have problems knowing how to interact
>>well with women they are interested in.
>
> That's true, but I'd like to think that any reasonably healthy person
> would be able to tell where the stalking, psycho behaviour starts.
as samuel jackson said in _pulp fiction_: "I'd like that. But...".
not that i'm suggesting either kurt or bob are healthy.
"Jerry B. Ray, Jr." <jr...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:c483nk$h5a$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu...
I've had a favorite saying, "You aren't paranoid--if they really are out to
get you."
Didn't Jesus *promise* that we should suffer for his name? Aren't we to
count it all joy?
Kurt, if you're truly suffering for the name of Jesus, maybe you shouldn't
be warning us to "reduce the likelihood of future injustices." Maybe you
should be warning us because future injustices *will* happen to us.
I've been listening to Daniel Amos' _Doppelganger_ of late.
In the sardonic words of our beloved prophet:
"I'm one of the king's kids, I deserve the best..."
"...it's like Disneyland
Get out your golden ticket
The one they give you when you're born again
A guardian personage is watching over you
Nothing uncomfortable can ever get through
There is no suffering for the chosen few..."
And of course:
"You take too many trips down memory lane..."
--JES
*sigh*
Something doesn't have to be "biblically wrong" to know enough not to do it.
From Kurt's original post in this thread, we find that Megan declined a
dating relationship in March 2001. Tara's father then confirmed for him
three months later that neither Tara nor Megan wanted to talk to him, and
that they were uncomfortable with him. That should have been it for that
situation.
Brenda declined a relationship in April of 2003. He writes that "I sometimes
felt she was a little uncomfortable around me." That should have triggered
some self-preservation instinct in Kurt, however, he pursued a relationship
by attempting to talk to her further. She told him not to contact her
anymore.
After that it gets a bit hazy. It appears as though Kurt has some bad luck,
compounded with the fact that these things were happening in a school
situation where there are very strict "rules" about this sort of conduct
(for good reason).
I won't comment on the RSJ stuff since I didn't follow it that closely at
the time and I have no desire to wade through hours of old posts.
Perhaps, as Jerry said, Kurt should look at his behaviour around girls and
try to figure out why he makes them uncomfortable.
I am not married. I do not currently have a girlfriend, nor do I have any
real prospects. I am just about the farthest thing from a ladies man that
there can be. I've actually had two different girls tell me that I'd make a
great husband, just not a good boyfriend; both of those girls are now
married. (That's what got me into the m.o.o.r.m.c.). I can tell when a girl
is not interested, and I simply accept that and move on. One unanswered
email is enough for me to get the idea. I try not to get obsessed, I did
that once and it took three years to really get over it.
It's really sad that Kurt's situation has progressed to the point of
protection orders and potential lawsuits. Unfortunately, Kurt's seemingly
innocent (from his point of view) pursuit of Brenda, even just to "clear the
situation up," can be seen as threatening. And who's to say that Brenda
shouldn't feel threatened by Kurt's actions? Bob?
I'll address Bob's tirade against today's women in another post.
Andrew
Your reasoning is flawed, Bob, and actually works against your conclusion.
You have concluded that Jerry meant that all guys accused of stalking are
stalkers. Your proof for this conclusion is that even though there are
instances of tongues, not all people with spiritual gifts have the gift of
tongues. However, those people who were known to have the gift of tongues,
actually did have that gift. If we say the tongue-speakers are the stalkers,
who are all the gifted people who do not speak tongues? We could call them
the rest of society.
So by your logic, people who are known stalkers are stalkers, and everyone
else is not a stalker. Glad you cleared that up. :-)
Obviously, not everyone who is accused of being a stalker is a stalker.
Jerry did not accuse Kurt of being a stalker in this post. Jerry said "so
maybe you should stop thinking of yourself as a victim and start figuring
out why you keep making people think you're a stalker." Kurt would be wise
to follow this advise.
> Anyway, I find that it's real difficult being single these days.
> Course...you wouldn't know about that would you? Tell me Jerry...you're
> married, right? Did you fornicate before you got married? Why do I ask?
> Because in this society, people kind of expect that you have. I get
treated
> like crap relationally because I've held out and waited for my wife. I
> think Kurt has done this too...so PROBABLY that's why he get's fingered as
> an oddball everytime and girls decide they prefer men who act ARROGANT.
> Demeaning others and calling them 'sacks of crap' and so on. I'll
ridicule
> what you say but I believe YOU are precious in god's sight and I would
love
> to be your friend if I could. However, YOU have decided IN YOUR ARROGANT
> HEART that YOU are better than me. I ...am sack of crap. You... are not.
> What could be more simple to understand? Kurt is a sack of crap.
You...are
> not! Ultimate truth in the heart of Jerry B. Ray.
Leaving out the sacks of crap for now, do you really believe that you "get
treated like crap" because you're still a virgin? Is this something you get
out of the way on a first date? "By the way, I'm still a virgin." And you
think that Kurt is "fingered as an oddball" because he's (presumably) still
a virgin? Man, that's a strange sort of inferiority complex you've got going
there. I can't remember the subject of my virginity ever coming up in casual
conversations with women.
Perhaps, if the personality you project on this group is any indication of
your conduct in the real world, the reason you have trouble with
relationships is your penchant for insisting that you are right in every
situation, and those who disagree are automatically and utterly wrong.
That's just an observation I've made in my lurking here over the years.
> Here you are again going out of your way to point the finger at
> someone who, from what I can see, has had some TYPICAL interactions which
> indicate no malice on his part. WHAT DO WE DO? Just STaaaay away from
the
> whole social scene and just work all the time like me? If I actually
> started trying to date any women they'd all treat me the SAME WAY! That's
> the way society is now. By default in this society, women are brainwashed
> to ONLY be attracted to arrogant guys who are likely that way because
> they've already schmoozed women and taken them to bed. They don't even
> give guys like me a second glance. They can instantly tell that I'm not
> going to push myself on them. They want that. They really do. Hopefully
> lots of guys so they can flip them around for a while and pick the best
one
> in their shallow view of what 'best' is. Love doesn't operate that way.
I don't even know where to start on this one. This paragraph is quite
startling, even considering the source.
Staying away from women who are uncomfortable with you doesn't mean avoiding
the "whole social scene." If a woman is that uncomfortable with you, do you
really think that God has that relationship as part of His plan? It is about
God's will, not your wants, right?
If you really think that all women only want arrogant
and....experienced....guys then maybe you should just give up altogether. Do
you actually see all women that way? If so, that's really sad. And it's also
likely the reason you're not having any success at the love thang. It's
quite possible, by the way, that you and I and Kurt are not going to ever
find "the one." God may have something else in mind for us, trying to force
Him to do what we want never works. I am now at the point where I'm not
_actively_ looking, but my eyes are still open. And I'm (almost) okay with
that.
> Kurt nor I have stalked any women. If we were dangerous we'd have
> raped someone by now probably. If that's what was in my heart to do
there's
> nothing stopping me physically. But INSTEAD we choose to attempt to find
> the person God has for us in a way that is normal. CALLING someone who
has
> NOT told you not to call is NOT ABNORMAL.. And that's the bottom line
here.
> That type of thing is what keeps slapping Kurt. I'd personally invest in
> seeing him fully vindicated. This stinking court system will allow
> someone's life to be ruined on HERESAY accusations like this. And people
> like you are just exactly why Jerry B. Ray. Instead of encouraging a
> brother who's being kicked around by the world (which we EXPECT according
to
> Jesus!!) you just act like Job's comforters and speculate about how it
might
> be HIS problem. -Bob
Stalking is in the eye of the stalkee, not the stalker. Just because you
haven't raped someone doesn't mean you haven't stalked them.
Neither you nor I have seen the evidence, Bob. It's quite clear that several
people in Kurt's situation feel that he has engaged in "stalking-type
behaviour." Perhaps if he simply accepted that he made some mistakes
(whether or not he thought they were mistakes at the time is not an issue)
and agreed to have no further contact with any of the women involved, this
thing might have blown over. But if he wants to defend himself, he's going
to have to accept and abide by the court's decisions eventually. And it's
not "hearsay" when the accuser makes her own statements.
If Jerry, the Fool, and I can somehow help Kurt realize that his actions
were responsible for his situation, he will be much better off than if we
told him everything he did was fine when it's obviously messed up several
lives.
Andrew
That's about as likely as Bob realizing that the wretched smell coming from
the bathroom is HIS OWN. :)
(I say it with a smile but you _know_ it's the truth).
-Breeze
The two that weren't intended as jokes are *hilarious*!
> From Kurt's original post in this thread, we find that Megan declined a
> dating relationship in March 2001. Tara's father then confirmed for him
> three months later that neither Tara nor Megan wanted to talk to him, and
> that they were uncomfortable with him. That should have been it for that
> situation.
>
LISTEN MISTER> Tara AND Megan are big girls as I understand it. Daddy
isn't their mouthpiece. SOMETIMES when the last thing we hear from someone
seems to be affirming or even neutral....US MEN (which you obviously are NOT
in this respect...) like to hear it for OURSELVES because 'daddy' might be a
manipulative guy who is lying. Ever think of that? Maybe he's hoping his
daughters will find someone of better finanacial well being, rather than a
Jesus freak who gives everything away or uses it for a vision in God's
kingdom like me. Huh? That ever cross your mind. SO...I'm out of time.
Put your best shot first if there's something else I should have written
about here I'll catch it next time. But this is just wrong. You are
prejudgemental. ANYONE has the right to go AROUND DADDY to a girl of legal
age. GOT THAT? How dare you judge Kurt on the basis of something like
that...something..unbiblical. Maybe if you just stuck to the
bible...Andrew?? Instead of making up your own laws or ADOPTING A STUPID
SOCIETIE'S??. -Bob
>
> LISTEN MISTER> Tara AND Megan are big girls as I understand it.
> Daddy isn't their mouthpiece. SOMETIMES when the last thing we hear
> from someone seems to be affirming or even neutral....US MEN (which
> you obviously are NOT in this respect...) like to hear it for
> OURSELVES because 'daddy' might be a manipulative guy who is lying.
> Ever think of that? Maybe he's hoping his daughters will find someone
> of better finanacial well being, rather than a Jesus freak who gives
> everything away or uses it for a vision in God's kingdom like me.
> Huh? That ever cross your mind. SO...I'm out of time. Put your best
> shot first if there's something else I should have written about here
> I'll catch it next time. But this is just wrong. You are
> prejudgemental. ANYONE has the right to go AROUND DADDY to a girl of
> legal age. GOT THAT? How dare you judge Kurt on the basis of
> something like that...something..unbiblical. Maybe if you just stuck
> to the bible...Andrew?? Instead of making up your own laws or
> ADOPTING A STUPID SOCIETIE'S??. -Bob
>
um.. aren't you adopting societies rules for what's legal age and not?
Some people mature faster than others. Some girls even older than you
still keep in touch with their parents.
Based on your replies so far, you sir as are as kooky as this stalker
guy. Call me pre-judgmental or whatever but if he was a Jesus freak he
would not have even gotten himself in this situation in the first place.
I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and just think he's a bit
slow and doesn't realize that what he's doing is stalking. That's the
only way I can see out of his situation.
All I can see is that you're just using the Bible and societies rules as
you see fit. If they don't fit what you want you think they
automatically become unChrist-like. Unfortunately real life doesn't
operate like that, and you are not God to change the rules as you
please.
No wonder you're single, I wouldn't want you to date anyone's daughters
and if that girl has half a brain she wouldn't want to date you either.
Please change your attitude and stop acting like you're holy when you're
nothing but a bitter old man who's only excuse is cuz he's a virgin.
Newsflash buddy, Christian girls dig virgins. You must be watching too
much Jerry Springer to think otherwise. Why don't you just go to church
and see these Christian girls yourself? And no, when they don't want to
date you, it's not cuz of your virginity. It's cuz of your bitter heart.
I'm not a pharisee, I'm Canadian. I didn't invent any rules, I'm just
calling it as I see it.
So a girl's relationship with her father means nothing to you? If her father
doesn't want you to see her, then you have issues with the father that
should be cleared up before attempting to form a relationship with the girl.
She is in the position of "honouring her father and mother," you know, one
of those commandments.
If any of these girls wanted to pursue a relationship with Kurt they could
have easily done so. He certainly made his intentions known to them. The
ball was in their court, and none of them wanted to play. In both situations
he had direct verbal confirmation that neither girl was interested in a
dating relationship.
So now you're blaming your girl troubles on being poor and a virgin (from
the other post). You obviously think women should be lining up at your door,
but they're not. For someone who tries to look so interested in God's
kingdom, you obviously haven't given Him control of your relationships yet.
That's the first step, Bob, and the hardest. I'm not saying I'm there yet,
but at least I'm trying.
That's it, that's all I've got for you. You've gone off the deep end on this
one and there's no coming back unless you see reason, but I won't hold my
breath.
Andrew
Maybe I can get *plonked*, that would be cool...I've never been *plonked*
before.
Andrew
It's not all it's cracked up to be. He's plonked most of us at some point
- the problem is that he runs out of people to yell at and unplonks
eventually.
Great. Isee it as a day to save time by plonking people who waste time.
YOU DID invent OR adopt a rule that isn't in the bible NOR is it implied in
the bible. YOU TWIST MY LOGIC and say 'so a girl's relationship with her
father'...you nut! NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING HERE that I AM AWARE OF TO
ESTABLISH THAT EITHER OF THESE GIRLS HAS ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FATHER
AT ALL!
Let's see if your brain can follow this. I...thought you were one of the
sharper people in here long ago for some reason. ...but if you twitch once
more like this...you are in the killfile SO hard. Satan has control of
people's minds in here. ANYWAY...my logical 'template' over this matter
DOES NOT presume that there is any relationship there. BUT EVEN IF THERE
WAS I'd STILL expect a DIRECT ANSWER FROM THE GIRL. A FATHER THAT RESPECTS
HIS DAUGHTER>..wouldn't treat her like a wimp and be her mouthpiece in such
a matter! The bible (which has nothing to do with this I know from the way
you and others are acting...) says in respect to relationships that a man
shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. It says nothing
about getting parents approve IN FACT (here we come to the driving thrust of
this post which should revolutionize the lives of all reading...but instead
will probably just draw more pathetic attempts to twist the truth :-( )
Jesus said we must hate our father and mother...which in the only reasonable
biblical interpretation and in context obviously means to 'hate' the
direction they give and FAVOR THE HOLY SPIRIT'S!!
Jesus also says 'call no man on earth father, for you have but one
father who is in heaven'! Now...what do you make of that Andrew? Do you
water it down? Do you say 'oh ..but EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT...so we don't
want to look weird.' :-)..Nobody's gonna call you a Jesus freak. Don't
worry. heheh.
I'm a Jesus freak. I stopped calling my dad father in that way when
he (the holy spirit) weaned me of it. I loved my dad. We did have a great
relationship and he was a brother in Christ. I know he would never want a
hint of my affections that were being stolen from God OR a hint of my
direction in life! WHAT YOU ADVOCATE ABOVE...is clearly that this girl have
another human on earth called her 'father' WHO IS A PROXY YOU DUFUS! :-)
Man...how can I paint it out any more clear than that? Yet...because of
your pride I can see that you won't get it. Don't worry. Some other people
will. Praise God. Back to your pharisee ways now. -Bob
"Andrew Kerr" <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D9nac.19000$n37.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
You do realize that ALL analogies are only partial? You can't just pick and
chose which aspect you want to attach. In the case of the article above, I
used the fact that Jerry said:
---Jerry B. Ray
> Y'know, Kurt, when you have multiple people in separate instances, from
> athletes at SDSU to newsgroup people watching your description of your
> interactions with Rebecca St. James, using the word "stalker," at the
> very least you should think about taking a hard look at yourself. It's
not
--- end Jerry B. Ray
He's making an imposition. IF Kurt KNOWS he isn't a stalker...then 'at the
very least' is NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE. If he's being honest and really knows
that he isn't....then Jerry has no right to FORCE him through his words to
say "Gee..everybody says I'm a stalker...maybe I'd better look at this
closer". You either ARE or aren't. You are on a thin line man. Waste any
more of my time and in the trash ya go. You'd better start thinking about
what flawed logic really is. ALL analogies are only partly applicable. I
labelled it..now below you play the stinking GAME of cutting Jerry's
context...and trying to make it look like I said something with the analogy
that I didn't. What happend to all the brain cells you used to have Andrew?
I'd recommend a long break from RMC for regrowth. Maybe you should try
reading it backwards..works with western music right? :-) -Bob
bob never did explain where the bible "pretty specifically" tells
us how to define where psycho behaviour starts. sinful behaviour
i'd grant, but psycho behaviour? and wasn't it the pharisees who
argued for the letter of the law, while jesus argued for the spirit
of the law? which role does bob appear to play above? bob sure
is something special, i'll tell you.
> LISTEN MISTER> Tara AND Megan are big girls as I understand it.
> Daddy isn't their mouthpiece. SOMETIMES when the last thing we hear
> from someone seems to be affirming or even neutral....US MEN (which
> you obviously are NOT in this respect...) like to hear it for
> OURSELVES because 'daddy' might be a manipulative guy who is lying.
> Ever think of that? Maybe he's hoping his daughters will find someone
> of better finanacial well being, rather than a Jesus freak who gives
> everything away or uses it for a vision in God's kingdom like me.
> Huh? That ever cross your mind. SO...I'm out of time. Put your best
> shot first if there's something else I should have written about here
> I'll catch it next time. But this is just wrong. You are
> prejudgemental. ANYONE has the right to go AROUND DADDY to a girl of
> legal age. GOT THAT? How dare you judge Kurt on the basis of
> something like that...something..unbiblical. Maybe if you just stuck
> to the bible...Andrew?? Instead of making up your own laws or
> ADOPTING A STUPID SOCIETIE'S??. -Bob
such poor reasoning to create shoddy justification of abnormal
behaviour is what gets bob (and likely kurt as well) into bad
situations.
unfortunately, it appears neither of them have an ongoing
awareness and acceptance of this problem, which is what helps
lead many people on here to the conclusion that they both have
some issues they should be seeking some kind of help with.
and with bob it's even worse, because he loves to fall into
being cocky about his smarts and how stupid and misled everyone
else is.
having a discussion with bob is kind of like trying to take
an image and discuss it with someone who can only see things
through a kaleidoscope, but doesn't know it.
wow. this is the most full-on i think i've seen bob in some time.
you could see it building, but he's gonna blow a gasket soon if he
keeps up the pace.
it's these parts of his phases where you sort of just have to sit
back and soak in the sheer spectacle of it all. it's like...whoa.
as long as kurt enjoys going through what he's going through
and accepts the consequences of his actions, he should feel
free to continue to behave in ways that come across as the
activities of a stalker to numerous different people. if, on
the other hand, he would like to be able to function well in
society and interact with others, he would do well to look at
his previous interactions with similar themes and figure out
how he might consider changing himself and/or his behaviour,
because he isn't going to change anyone else.
basically, what jerry was saying is accurate: if you have
numerous situations where people seem to misinterpret you,
you should take the time to analyze the situation and figure
out why that's going on. if you come to the conclusion that
everyone else is messed up and are idiots, you're probably
not seeing the truth of the situation. at the very least you
are not going to be an accepted part of that community, and
if you aren't willing to modify your behaviour in any way
then you need to remove yourself from that community or
accept the fact you are going to be viewed negatively.
no way! it's an honour to be plonked by bob. to be his
"pharisee of the day", to be mentioned with derision in his
posts...it's a proud moment anytime that happens.
and don't forget, his "unplonking" is bob showing his grace
and mercy by giving such decontextualizing scum another chance
to see if they've become more than pseudo-christians or not.
and i'm sure it doesn't bother him too much if he learns they
are still unrepentant scum...just shows his analysis was right
the first time around.
> no way! it's an honour to be plonked by bob. to be his
> "pharisee of the day", to be mentioned with derision in his
> posts...it's a proud moment anytime that happens.
>
> and don't forget, his "unplonking" is bob showing his grace
> and mercy by giving such decontextualizing scum another chance
> to see if they've become more than pseudo-christians or not.
> and i'm sure it doesn't bother him too much if he learns they
> are still unrepentant scum...just shows his analysis was right
> the first time around.
I can only respond by saying that you have summed it all up nicely
Jeff Edwards
paranoi...@sbcglobal.net
So you're not accusing me of being a "pseudo christion", you're "flat out
denying" my salvation, because I haven't yet repented for something you see
as being a sin. Where have I lied? Where have I misrepresented anything?
Where have I gossipped? This is a public forum and Kurt initiated the
conversation. Therefore it's not gossip. He may not be reading this thread
any more, but there's no way for me to know that.
> Great. Isee it as a day to save time by plonking people who waste time.
> YOU DID invent OR adopt a rule that isn't in the bible NOR is it implied
in
> the bible. YOU TWIST MY LOGIC and say 'so a girl's relationship with her
> father'...you nut! NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING HERE that I AM AWARE OF TO
> ESTABLISH THAT EITHER OF THESE GIRLS HAS ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR
FATHER
> AT ALL!
Which rule did I invent? Honouring your father and mother?
> Let's see if your brain can follow this. I...thought you were one of the
> sharper people in here long ago for some reason. ...but if you twitch
once
> more like this...you are in the killfile SO hard.
The reason you thought I was one of the sharper ones is because a long time
ago you and I almost agreed on something. I can't remember what it was.
> Satan has control of
> people's minds in here. ANYWAY...my logical 'template' over this matter
> DOES NOT presume that there is any relationship there. BUT EVEN IF THERE
> WAS I'd STILL expect a DIRECT ANSWER FROM THE GIRL. A FATHER THAT
RESPECTS
> HIS DAUGHTER>..wouldn't treat her like a wimp and be her mouthpiece in
such
> a matter! The bible (which has nothing to do with this I know from the
way
> you and others are acting...) says in respect to relationships that a man
> shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. It says
nothing
> about getting parents approve IN FACT (here we come to the driving thrust
of
> this post which should revolutionize the lives of all reading...but
instead
> will probably just draw more pathetic attempts to twist the truth :-( )
> Jesus said we must hate our father and mother...which in the only
reasonable
> biblical interpretation and in context obviously means to 'hate' the
> direction they give and FAVOR THE HOLY SPIRIT'S!!
Uh-huh. So now you simply deny the 5th commandment. Jesus is talking about
the cost of following Him (this is from Luke 14, the "hate" thing). He is
saying that nothing can come before Him; father, mother, brother, sister,
wife, children, even self. I don't see where Jesus says to ignore the
direction your parents give, unless you think He's contradicting God's law
from Exodus.
> Jesus also says 'call no man on earth father, for you have but one
> father who is in heaven'! Now...what do you make of that Andrew? Do you
> water it down? Do you say 'oh ..but EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT...so we don't
> want to look weird.' :-)..Nobody's gonna call you a Jesus freak. Don't
> worry. heheh.
I can't find a reference for your quote. If you point it to me, I'm sure
I'll be able to explain it to you in context.
In 1 Cor 4 Paul tells the church at Corinth that "in Christ Jesus I became
your father. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." Paul considered that
church his children, and he asked them to treat him as a father. Do you
think he was being vain and urging them to idolize him? I think not. The
parent-child relationship is important to God, Bob, whether you want to
believe it or not.
> I'm a Jesus freak. I stopped calling my dad father in that way when
> he (the holy spirit) weaned me of it. I loved my dad. We did have a
great
> relationship and he was a brother in Christ. I know he would never want a
> hint of my affections that were being stolen from God OR a hint of my
> direction in life! WHAT YOU ADVOCATE ABOVE...is clearly that this girl
have
> another human on earth called her 'father' WHO IS A PROXY YOU DUFUS! :-)
> Man...how can I paint it out any more clear than that? Yet...because of
> your pride I can see that you won't get it. Don't worry. Some other
people
> will. Praise God. Back to your pharisee ways now. -Bob
"Dufus", wow, haven't heard that one in a while. If her father is a proxy,
who is he representing? Do you have some arbitrary age where Christians are
weaned off of the influence of their earthly fathers?
You're just straining to defend yourself now. So who's pride is getting in
the way?
Andrew
It would be funny if it wern't so darned sad.
Andrew
Your analogy wasn't applicable at all, yet you used it anyway.
Sometimes the only way someone finds something out about himself is when
somebody else points it out to him. That's when it's time to look at
yourself. Jerry isn't forcing Kurt to do anything. He suggested that Kurt
look at his methods of dealing with women.
Those brain cells of mine simply arn't agreeing with you this time, that's
why you think they're not functioning. You also didn't address any of the
rest of my post, which I can only conclude means you can't find a way to
argue with it.
Killfile me if you want. This has certainly provided a diversion for me
these past few days. If you want to end it here, go ahead.
Andrew
That's it Jeff......just brust my bubble...LOL
You all know that passage, "Judge not, lest you be judged?"
The passage that is often mis-used to excuse all sorts of sins, and to try
to get Christians to avoid calling anything sinful?
Well, that passage is aimed at precisely this kind of behavior. Jesus is
telling us not to presume on earth that we can judge who is redeemed and
who is condemned.
there are times where i feel bad for him. but on the other
hand, there are numerous times throughout the years where i
and others have tried to deal with him very sincerely, and it
doesn't do any good. and evidently no one around him or that
he knows has been able to do anything to help him either.
(i don't know that for sure, but he hasn't changed on here so
i assume nothing has changed in his "real" life.)
so it's sort of a case where there's not much else left to
do -- he's gonna be the way he is when he's on here, and the
rest of us just have to deal with things being that way as
best we can.
you've gotta follow bob closely. he's the king of implication. he'll
say things to suggest you are something or behave a certain way, but if
you question him on it he's got an out, which he will use as a chance to
belittle your logic and reading skills. note how he said you used words
a pseudo-christian would use, but he's in no way stating you are in fact
a pseudo-christian. you evidently just talk like one sometimes. ;) and
he's not denying your salvation, he's just saying *if* you don't repent.
but that part's not just directed at you -- it's at everyone. then he
goes off to talking about everyone, and you are hardly involved anymore.
>> Great. Isee it as a day to save time by plonking people who waste
>> time. YOU DID invent OR adopt a rule that isn't in the bible NOR is
>> it implied in the bible. YOU TWIST MY LOGIC and say 'so a girl's
>> relationship with her father'...you nut! NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING
>> HERE that I AM AWARE OF TO ESTABLISH THAT EITHER OF THESE GIRLS HAS
>> ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FATHER AT ALL!
>
> Which rule did I invent? Honouring your father and mother?
he said "invent OR adopt". i'm interested to see if he details what
"rule" exactly it is you invented or adopted. i'm assuming he means
you misapplied the commandment. that's why he's got the angle that
a relationship with their father wasn't brought up...he hadn't thought
of it. (note his comment below that his "logic 'template'" didn't
presume there was any relationship.) bascially, bob can assume or
imply unknowns when he needs to, but he doesn't like it when anyone
else does. it seems pretty obvious a father and daughter would have
*some kind of* relationship, especially since [1] kurt called him and
[2] he presented it as if the dad knew at least something about what was
going on. the assumption that he and his daughter don't have any kind
of relationsihp comes across as more a way to try and justify bob's
weakened position than a choice based on the evidence available.
>> [...] Satan has control of people's minds in here. ANYWAY...my
>> logical 'template' over this matter DOES NOT presume that there is
>> any relationship there. BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS I'd STILL expect a
>> DIRECT ANSWER FROM THE GIRL. A FATHER THAT RESPECTS HIS DAUGHTER
>> ..wouldn't treat her like a wimp and be her mouthpiece in such
>> a matter! The bible (which has nothing to do with this I know from
>> the way you and others are acting...) says in respect to relationships
>> that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.
>> It says nothing about getting parents approve IN FACT (here we come
>> to the driving thrust of this post which should revolutionize the
>> lives of all reading...but instead will probably just draw more
>> pathetic attempts to twist the truth :-( ) Jesus said we must hate
>> our father and mother...which in the only reasonable biblical
>> interpretation and in context obviously means to 'hate' the
>> direction they give and FAVOR THE HOLY SPIRIT'S!!
>
> Uh-huh. So now you simply deny the 5th commandment. Jesus is talking
> about the cost of following Him (this is from Luke 14, the "hate"
> thing). He is saying that nothing can come before Him; father, mother,
> brother, sister, wife, children, even self. I don't see where Jesus
> says to ignore the direction your parents give, unless you think He's
> contradicting God's law from Exodus.
bob's sort of misapplying the husband/wife bond to create a false
wedge in the father/unmarried-daughter relationship. it's funny
that bob thinks a father would force his daughter to interact with
someone she's admitted to being frightened by, and this would somehow
be appropriate because it's not treating her like a wimp and being her
mouthpiece...what an obviously jacked up perspective. and now the guy
calls the father...how does it not seem reasonable for the father to
just say "look man, leave my daughter alone"? and bob's "driving
thrust" above is meaningless in this context, because we have zero
indication the father's advice/direction goes against the holy spirit.
bob obviously is also trying to minimize the honour commandment, but
even the rest of his position has no legs.
>> Jesus also says 'call no man on earth father, for you have but one
>> father who is in heaven'! Now...what do you make of that Andrew? Do
>> you water it down? Do you say 'oh ..but EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT...so
>> we don't want to look weird.' :-)..Nobody's gonna call you a Jesus
>> freak. Don't worry. heheh.
>
> I can't find a reference for your quote. If you point it to me, I'm
> sure I'll be able to explain it to you in context.
matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have
one Father, and he is in heaven." growing up in the churches of
Christ, i heard this one mentioned often when they were explaining
why some churches were so messed up. bob's obviously about to take
a somewhat literal interpretation on something...
> In 1 Cor 4 Paul tells the church at Corinth that "in Christ Jesus I
> became your father. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." Paul
> considered that church his children, and he asked them to treat him as
> a father. Do you think he was being vain and urging them to idolize
> him? I think not. The parent-child relationship is important to God,
> Bob, whether you want to believe it or not.
don't muddy the water! ;)
>> I'm a Jesus freak. I stopped calling my dad father in that way
>> when he (the holy spirit) weaned me of it. I loved my dad. We did
>> have a great relationship and he was a brother in Christ. I know he
>> would never want a hint of my affections that were being stolen from
>> God OR a hint of my direction in life! WHAT YOU ADVOCATE ABOVE...is
>> clearly that this girl have another human on earth called her
>> 'father' WHO IS A PROXY YOU DUFUS! :-) Man...how can I paint it out
>> any more clear than that? Yet...because of your pride I can see that
>> you won't get it. Don't worry. Some other people will. Praise God.
>> Back to your pharisee ways now. -Bob
>
> "Dufus", wow, haven't heard that one in a while. If her father is a
> proxy, who is he representing? Do you have some arbitrary age where
> Christians are weaned off of the influence of their earthly fathers?
i'm sure bob meant her father becomes a "proxy" for G-d, who should be
the father. note how earlier he implied that calling his own father
"father" would have stolen affections that were supposed to be for
G-d? that calling his biological father "father" would have given him
the power to direct his life? bob's sort of ignoring the context of
the scripture where jesus is talking about folk utilizing a title that
denotes religious control and expanding it to include biological roles,
except he's still sort of intertwining them in some odd way. but it's
not like he's the first to do this...as i mentioned earlier, there is
a strain of such thought in more rigid conservative evangelical groups,
and i've little doubt the ultra rigid might have problems calling your
"earthly" father "father". although "dad" or "papa" or "daddy" or
"pops" (or "sperm donor" ;) would probably be just fine even though
they are being used to mean exactly the same thing.
> You're just straining to defend yourself now. So who's pride is
> getting in the way?
i'm sure bob struggles with pride -- he's mentioned it before as
something he has had issues with -- but i don't think in most cases
it's really a pride issue...he really thinks he has this stuff figured
out and it's plainly obvious how everyone else is horribly wrong. he
feels convicted to stand firm in his knowledge and explain the mistakes
of others to them, and it's not his fault if they choose to remain in
darkness...it just shows how evil or misguided they really are.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@failure.net
replace junkmail with slacker to e-mail me. really.
Yeah, I think I'll just give up on this thread.
Andrew
"Andrew Kerr" <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aAHac.10270$R37....@read1.cgocable.net...
"Cheef" <ch...@cheef.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94BDD71BCB...@207.69.154.205...
1) Jerry B. asserted that AT THE VERY LEAST Kurt should be considering again
whether he's a stalker based on the opinions of a bunch of nobodies on the
freakin' internet!!
2) The dissociated connection of all these people to the actual
circumstances that would lend to them being any kind of authority in the
matter they are trying to accuse him in
3) led me to compare it to the case in scripture where there are for example
multiple cases of something that happen along with something else that is
not logically tied to it. Tongues/the holy spirit, for example, which other
scripture clearly tells us 'there are many gifts' 'tongues is the least of
them' and 'not all have the same gifts'!. HERE the analogy, for your
obviously simple mind, is drawn between Kurt's involvement with certain
women and the holy spirit's appearance in one's life...AS associated with
accusations of stalking AND the manifestation of tongues.
So, AS many (this is kind of complex...maybe people who don't do this
stuff all the time really do need it explained.. To me it's like another
language I just speak fluently because I just work these kinds of things
constantly.) FIRMLY HOLD that when you receive the holy spirit you GET the
gift of tongues...based on that fragmented association..... Jerry B. RAY was
FIRMLY SAYING that at the very LEAST Kurt should consider (and next he'll be
saying 'go to therapy' if he doesn't come babbling in repentance...like he's
always done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) that he might be a
stalker based on these WORTHLESS GOSSIPPING SLANDEROUS PEOPLE'S FREAKING
OPINIONS!!!! Ok. I came. I spent 15 minutes that I don't have. I Kicked
your argument into another dimension. Now...go pray or something
seful. -Bob
PS...I didn't read all of your last post. In fact, I didn't read beyond the
line in this post where you accused me of writing a completely bogus
analogy...which is now documented crrrrap. And then as I was almost to hit
send I felt led to read the END where you said the garbage about "i can only
assume". The FACT is that I see where you aren't even remotely tracking and
I just give up. That's the way I am. Otherwise I'd be wastoid like ....oh
do I need to name names. Sheesh. Get a life people. Quit your old lady
gossipping! Dont' judge? Yea. Don't judge. Kurt. Don't judge me. Then
90% of these stupid threads will never start. Be slow to post accusations
when you don't know ALL of the FACTS. In fact...just don't post 'em when
you don't know all the facts. There. That would do it huh?
"Andrew Kerr" <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VOHac.10273$R37....@read1.cgocable.net...
I have also had enough of this thread. Responding to you using reason is, as
I knew it was, useless. I think Kurt should look at his behaviour and ask
himself (and someone he trusts) if there is something about the way he deals
with women that turns them off. Look through my posts if you wish, you will
not find one instance where I accused Kurt of being a stalker.
I grow tired of this. You arn't going to change my mind, and I'm obviously
not having any effect on you.
Andrew
Kurt brought this up. If he didn't want our attention he should have kept it
to himself.
> 2) The dissociated connection of all these people to the actual
> circumstances that would lend to them being any kind of authority in the
> matter they are trying to accuse him in
See above.
Would it be so harmful for Kurt to look at his actions from another
perspective? What are you afraid of?
> PS...I didn't read all of your last post. In fact, I didn't read beyond
the
> line in this post where you accused me of writing a completely bogus
> analogy...which is now documented crrrrap. And then as I was almost to
hit
> send I felt led to read the END where you said the garbage about "i can
only
> assume". The FACT is that I see where you aren't even remotely tracking
and
> I just give up. That's the way I am. Otherwise I'd be wastoid like
....oh
> do I need to name names. Sheesh. Get a life people. Quit your old lady
> gossipping! Dont' judge? Yea. Don't judge. Kurt. Don't judge me.
Then
> 90% of these stupid threads will never start. Be slow to post accusations
> when you don't know ALL of the FACTS. In fact...just don't post 'em when
> you don't know all the facts. There. That would do it huh?
Fine, I think we've all had enough of this anyway. Unless you have something
new to add I'm going to stop responding to this thread.
Andrew
What I was stating is that Jesus is not saying we shouldn't commit those
kind of judgements. Rather, he was saying that we shouldn't sit in
judgement in the sense of condemning (literally "damning") a person...
as opposed to condemning an action.
"Bob Weigel" <soundod...@mfire.com> wrote in
news:106t27p...@corp.supernews.com:
--
visit CHEEF.COM - Your CHEEF source for nudist info
Subscribe to NUDIST NEWS! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nudist-news-
group
"Cheef" <ch...@cheef.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C07CACBD...@207.69.154.205...
Of course. And you've gone SO far to reason with me. uha....
I think Kurt should look at his behaviour and ask
> himself (and someone he trusts) if there is something about the way he
deals
> with women that turns them off.
I'd have to ask myself the same thing...and ask....and ask...because there
are NOT ANY WOMEN (apparently) with enough love in their heart to tell me
exactly what it is...save confessions I've managed to eek out of former
women who were friends:
1) I'm like damaged merchandise on a grocery shelf. J. Jones. She married a
guy who like herself had already had sexual activity with someone...and who
later had me actually pray for him because he realized his committment to
the Lord had been a crock.
2) Wouldn't enter into pre-marital intimacy; Sherry was engaged to another
guy within a week of me praying for her.
3) Wouldn't be manipulated to walk down a street of sin in NYC for the
purpose of gawking at all the absurdity. Things never were quite the same
with Kimmi as she wound up moving in with a guy shortly after that I heard.
4) "That worries me" said Karen after I responded to her question about the
direction our relationship would take when I honestly responded that I
enjoyed spending time with her and would like to spend a lot more.....what
the heck was she doing going out with me all the time if that worried her?
Oh she had some non-christian she'd screwed around with and that totally
fouled her perspective...as usual.
Shall I go on? I could go ON and ON Andrew. This..pathetic world of lost
people. Most here have at least one foot in it...and they don't want to
knock it too bad. So that's why all the vain speculations take place here.
There's nothing wrong with anything Kurt has expressed doing SAVE things
he's already repented of here. LOVE HOPES all things ENDURES all
things...BELLIIIIIEEEVVESSSSS all things. :-) That's why I'm saying repent.
Your writings, Jerry's, KJC's, and others I haven't bothered to read
probably are tainted with 'HATE DISBELIEVES before there is evidence to
positively condemn' etc. C'mon. You guys..haven't been very positive
here. If I respond posititive to your negativity it would only be to
encourage it! Kurt is just relaying his situation. The 'polarity' of it is
arbitrary. These are just the facts I assume by love because there is
nothing to make me think otherwise...SOUNDS...VERY MUCH LIKE EVERY
INTERACTION I HAVE EVER HAD WITH THE POOR BRAINWASHED FEMALE
POPULATION...sorry. But that's the way it is. If some...female out there
wants to change the image of the rest then start acting like a Sister in
Christ I guess. This manipulation, talking behind the back, making charges
against someone for calling on the phone when some second party has said not
to, etc.....is not Christian behavior. -Bob
Your attention is negative/contrary to the holy spirit which says "love
believes all things, hopes all things" etc. My attention is to affirm Kurt
as a brother and point out the inconsistency in those who accuse the
brethren without foundation. Kurt hasn't even spoken evil of these deluded
women who went to other people instead of him to share the truth of the
matter. WHY is Kurt making them uncomfortable. A TRUE SISTER would SHARE
that. Kurt has been way too easy on the women in my opinion in what he's
shared here. These women we have discussed are the typical ones who don't
have a deep enough spiritual relationship to simply share the truth with a
brother about how they are feeling. no .. they have to turn it into some
police/worldly arbitrator scenario. Puke. Anyway, I'll not respond further
until you deal with the sin of being involved in this unbased accusation
stuff that has gone on against Kurt. Kurt can post whatever he wants here
to inform those who are praying for him. He's not making any spiritual
allegations against anyone. You and others have been. -Bob
i'd say that's definitely a good piece of advice. lots of guys
don't have "skillz with tha ladiez", but having multiple different
ones over time be frightened enough of you to fear that you might
be a stalker is a "bad sign". you can write it off as really bad
luck, or really bad picking on your part...but i'm thinking maybe
it's an indication that some tactics should change if these are
the kinds of women you're interested in.
of course, then you've got bob's solution/answer:
> I'd have to ask myself the same thing...and ask....and ask...
> because there are NOT ANY WOMEN (apparently) with enough love
> in their heart to tell me exactly what it is...save confessions
> I've managed to eek out of former women who were friends:
>
> 1) I'm like damaged merchandise on a grocery shelf. [...]
>
> 2) Wouldn't enter into pre-marital intimacy; [...]
>
> 3) Wouldn't be manipulated to walk down a street of sin in
> NYC for the purpose of gawking at all the absurdity. [...]
>
> 4) "That worries me" [...]
>
> Shall I go on? I could go ON and ON Andrew. This..pathetic world of
> lost people. [...] ...SOUNDS...VERY MUCH LIKE EVERY INTERACTION I
> HAVE EVER HAD WITH THE POOR BRAINWASHED FEMALE POPULATION...sorry.
> But that's the way it is. If some...female out there wants to change
> the image of the rest then start acting like a Sister in Christ I
> guess. [...]
which basically shows that bob is willing to ask the question,
but any answer he does hear he reworks and manipulates in his
head to make the women look like brainwashed, sinful, pathetic,
screwed up humans and make himself into the golden child who
is just honestly searching earnestly for one truth but has so
far searched in vain.
of course, that sounds like the way he deals with pretty much
everything on r.m.c too...no one's answers are ever good enough,
and it's always a sign of the other person's stupidity or fallen
nature or sin or whatever. so i guess at least he's consistent.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@failure.net
Good, keep asking. I don't have a girlfriend either, and I personally think
I'm a great catch. :-)
But, I know I'm not a very social guy, probably stemming from some
unresolved body-image issues. Most nights I'd rather be at home watching the
Leafs in another futile effort to win the Stanley Cup than out eating wings
at some noisy restaurant. So I don't hang out with 'the guys' very often,
thus I'm not all that visible.
Plus, I can come off as sarcastic and cynical at times. That's usually not a
winning combination when it comes to sweet-talking the ladies. It's
something I work at, and I'm getting better at keeping those comments to a
minimum at most.
> 1) I'm like damaged merchandise on a grocery shelf. <snip>
> 2) Wouldn't enter into pre-marital intimacy; <snip>
> 3) Wouldn't be manipulated <snip>
> 4) "That worries me" <snip>
> Shall I go on?
Nope, that's enough. So your relationship problems are ALL due to the
"brainwashing" of today's women, and the fact that there are a lot of women
out there who have been sexually active? Remember that the question was to
ask yourself if there was something about You that turned women off.
Andrew
"Andrew Kerr" <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%slcc.10961$R37....@read1.cgocable.net...
Well there's your problem right there, Andrew.
Everyone KNOWS that the Canucks are Canada's team this year.
;-)
peace....jer
>>This..pathetic world of lost people. [...] ...SOUNDS...
>>VERY MUCH LIKE EVERY INTERACTION I HAVE EVER HAD WITH THE
>>POOR BRAINWASHED FEMALE POPULATION...
>which basically shows that bob is willing to ask the question,
>but any answer he does hear he reworks and manipulates in his
>head to make the women look like brainwashed, sinful, pathetic,
>screwed up humans and make himself into the golden child who
>is just honestly searching earnestly for one truth but has so
>far searched in vain.
I think this latest example from Bob is, unfortunate or not, a very strong
argument in favor of natural selection.
Michael
--
A man may be a fool and not know it. But not if he is married. - H.L. Mencken