JW's defended by Greg Stafford
Apokrisis1
Please read:
Let me explain two things first: I have agreed to limit my participation on
discussion boards and in chat rooms for the benefit of my brothers and sisters.
I do not agree entirely with the reasoning behind it, but I will go along with
the wishes of others whom I respect, to a degree. I am not in "danger" as Alan
and others suggested. I will have more to say about their imaginings below. But
when I see out and out dishonest vilification taking place when those
performing such devilish acts of slander are totally unaware of what REALLY
happened, then I believe it is necessary for me to offer some additional
comments.
Do any of you, except Adam Covington, AF, and possibly a few others, realize
that there were TWO Travis posts? Did you not realize that the second post was
where I made it as clear as I could what was going on, under the circumstances,
and even requested that those who did not understand what I said email me? BOTH
posts were deleted for some unknown reason.
Now, if you did not see the second post, then when AF MISLEADINGLY reposted my
deleted POST (note the use of the singular) below, then of course you would
have been and likely were utterly confused. Don't get me wrong, I should never
have attempted to post under another name to get around the attempt to limit my
online activities, but I did. However, what has happened here over the past two
or three days is far more ludicrous than anything I tried to do. Let me share
some FACTS with you that you just might have overlooked. In what follows I will
comment primarily on posts by AF, JH, Gedanken, RW, and a couple other matters.
If this does not make it clear that folks like these are fooling you, nothing
will. Please, consider:
AF
Stafford's Deleted Post
Posted by AF [AF] on November 04, 1999 at 07:53:14
{yxewwqp4aADjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
END OF QUOTE
Here is the misleading repost of my deleted material, with only ONE of the
posts! What happened to the other one, AF? Of course, even though you misled
people here, you at least admitted certain things that were completely ignored
by others, which I will discuss below, and for that I give you some credit. But
since there were TWO deleted posts, your new thread is without question
misleading and irresponsible, and has led to the false conclusions, such as the
following post, made in response to Adam Covington:
Posted by Julie [Julie] on November 06, 1999 at 14:12:35
{p8g/8h8r5QT.q0qzQJj2RyqclwWKXQ}:
Af is just too gracious about the whole thing, IMO. As for you, I'm sure Greg
is a personal hero of yours so you can't possibly be expected to be objective.
Julie
END OF QUOTE
It has nothing to do with that, Julie. AF KNOWS what happened and he is,
indeed, at least admitting as much in certain replies on certain threads (see
below). But you are not aware of what truly happened since BOTH posts were
deleted, and therefore, to use your own words, you "can't possibly be expected
to be objective."
On the one hand, it is hard to imagine how so many people could present a
one-sided view of my mistake. But on the other hand I am speaking partly in
reference to persons like Gedanken and JH, both of whom specialize in
misinformation (supporting facts to follow). Gedanken does not offer any
scholarly reply to the material and instead proceeds based on a
misunderstanding of the issues, and he defamed me publicly. Consider, please,
his reply to barJonah:
Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999
at 02:20:20:
bJ
:If nothing else, I hope this message from Greg will give pause to some of
those who were so quick to jump all over him in the last few days.
I don't see why it would. He deserves all he has received and more. The man has
shown himself to be (a) deceitful, (b) an arrogant and boastful liar and (c) an
idiot by doing what he did. He could make some amends by apologizing but he is,
evidently, too arrogant even to do that. Let's put things in perspective; an
author of a book tries to pose as an independent and unbiased onlooker on a
noticeboard and then proceeds to label his critics liars while declaring
himself the "winner." At the same time he indulges in a level of self-praise
that can only be described as nauseating.
END OF QUOTE
JH added his own highly unusual (!) personal attack, in response to Cygnus:
Posted by J.H. [JH] on November 05, 1999 at 16:41:22
{6xiCHW3gJ2wxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: **AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Cygnus on November 05, 1999
at 15:27:09:
: Greg's maneuver was one of desperation, and I think you can grant him that,
can't you?
Not at all. There was nothing in his situation
Remember: We can talk with authority on the matter, because we were where Greg
is now, and we did not practice intellectual dishonesty, deceit and most
recently, outright intentional fraud with the petty motive of
self-congratulation.
What he did is more pathetic, ridiculous and dishonest than anything people
like YK or ABK has ever done here. Stafford deserves to be taken less seriously
than them.
END OF QUOTE
So even though barJonah and Cygnus, while they themselves were concerned about
the nature of my use of a different name, which I will explain, again, in just
one moment, could see the poor nature of what Gedanken and JH has said. I
appreciate the fact that, while they do not agree with my course of action,
they were at least understanding enough to realize that these two fellows were
at least partially out of line. The truth is, they stepped out of bounds a long
time ago.
Indeed, I would have to argue that JH and Gedanken revealed just how ignorant
they truly are, given the FACTS surrounding my situation. Both of these
good-natured fellows, with only the best of intentions, of course, chose to
attack me based on their false understanding of what happened, after I decided
to depart. Of course, this is the same JH who was caught hiding in the corner
with his tail between his legs after getting utterly humiliated (by his doing)
on issues involving the pronunciation of the divine name several months back.
His act was one of the more memorable an unfortunate displays of
pseudo-scholarship I have ever seen. No doubt that is why he is all too happy
to jump the gun in attacking me now. More recently I offered him another
opportunity to defend his indefensible and contradictory claims about the
divine name, but he did not want any part of that unsalvageable operation. If
you think I am being hard on JH, let me introduce you to a quintessential JH
argument:
JH (Posted by [JH] on November 05, 1999 at 16:48:08
{6xiCHW3gJ2wxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
I did, already then, consider Stafford to be a total joke in every acedemic
regard. He had learned a lot of fancy words to pull the wool over your eyes
(and, even more, the rank & file JWs eyes!), and you didn't believe me when I
told you he was a 100% bluff and a fraud, so intellectually dishonest he's way
beyond debate.
Well, I think I got that one right :-)
END OF QUOTE
Those familiar with this joker know that the above is quite representative of
his "acedemic" prowess. Actually, he was a bit toned down in his above remarks,
from his usual demeanor. As for being a "bluff" and a "fraud," if JH has the
gumption to reenter the debate over the divine name, I will gladly bring
everyone up to speed by showing you what a fraud he truly is, and then proceed
to address whatever else he has to say. If anyone is interested in the posts we
exchanged, I will gladly supply them. Just send me an email.
But here he is, on the bandwagon of misunderstanding and deceit being driven
into the ground by Gedanken.
Let me further explain why these two are as about as low as you can go on the
honesty meter:
I have already said that it was not a good decision on my end, to try and stay
involved in the discussion by assuming a different name, but that was not meant
to fool any of YOU! How is it that my follow-up message to my first one is
being so conveniently ignored? Why was it deleted AND NOT REPOSTED along with
the first message? I there made it clear, or at least tried to make it clear,
that I was now posting under a new name. I created a character for myself who
stood up for the issues that I wanted to continue to discuss, namely, those
issues expressed in my debate with AF, and essentially TOLD YOU that that is
what I was going to do, from now on. I even asked you to email me if there were
any questions about it. I did not even know that my name was still there, until
after posting the SECOND message, the one many of you are ignoring, for obvious
reasons.
In the first message I was, of course, highlighting my response in a positive
light, but I purposely limited my negative remarks about AF and his material. I
said he had lost to this point, and that is quite true, and I said it so
"Travis" could then defend these claims by assuming the debate! I also said
that AF was A BIT arrogant, and that is demonstrably true in view of his
repeated attempts to prove things about the INTENTIONS of persons who wrote for
the Society, which he cannot prove, and his purposefully limiting the options
to incompetence and deception, when other possibilities exist. Indeed, he
BARELY allowed for the incompetence option. But I am sure we will hear his
reasoning on this in his forthcoming reply, which I eagerly await.
But, again, how else could I have masked my presence, with the intentions I
previously stated, and still have drawn the fire of the discussion? Could I
have said, "I am now going to take Greg's place in the debate, I am ..."? Yes,
maybe I could have, and should have. But would that not have sounded a LITTLE
bit suspicious? Would you not have found yourself wondering, "WHO is this guy?"
The events that happened early that morning no doubt distorted my better
judgment. But these claims of dishonesty, of being a charlatan, etc., are a
joke. They are the meaningless and insupportable cries of victory from those of
Gedanken's ilk (see below, please). I mean, think about, what I did was so I
could CONTINUE talking with you folks at H2O! Actually, I guess that probably
should give me cause for pause, and serious reevaluation. It has.
I will, however, continue the debate with AF. Why was that ever in doubt? Why
would I let him go, now? I look forward to his reply. As I have said several
times already, if you think there is a portion of the debate that I have not
adequately handled, EMAIL ME! I have only received a couple of emails, neither
of which contained any direct reference to anything in the debate, but only a
summary of the person's opinion. So, instead of taking cheap shots at me, tell
me something worthwhile. Show me something other than your ability to dismantle
and mishandle my TWO posts, which, when taken together, are quite clear, or
should have been.
HOWEVER, while JH's and Gedanken's utter failure to perceive the clear meaning
of the second Travis post (again, why has that been lost by everyone?) is one
thing, how could they not have picked up on the two people who seemed to have
understood my intent rather clearly, namely, AC and AF. Consider:
Posted by Adam Covington [AdamCovington] on November 05, 1999 at 01:36:08
{6xiCHW3gJ2/CPYT8orz2qRFwJ6xIkI}:
In Reply to: Stafford's Deleted Post posted by AF on November 04, 1999 at
07:53:14:
AF,
I have been away from this board for a few days, and could not understand what
had transpired. After reading the TravisJ45 post, I now see what the fuss was
all about.
I did find a post from Greg stating the following:
:Since I am involved in this discussion with AF, I decided to use another name
for a JW participant, with which I could continue my discussion with AF, having
stood up for "Greg's" material, and thus drawing his attention to the "new kid"
on the block. In using a friend's email address I had hoped to be able to
continue in this manner, but without stumbling my brothers.:
From what I gather, Greg purposely posted the TravisJ45 so as to continue the
discussion under an assumed name, in hopes of concealing his identity. I now
believe he felt it best not to do so. I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post
was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.
AC
END OF QUOTE
AF responded with the following:
Posted by AF [AF] on November 05, 1999 at 06:00:52
{6xiCHW3gJ2DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: *Stafford's Deleted Post posted by Adam Covington on November 05,
1999 at 01:36:08:
: I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than
what he stated above.
I think you're right. However, it's pretty obvious that he went off the deep
end under the stress of threats from the Society. Had he been thinking clearly,
he would have seen that a simple "I agree with Greg and disagree with AF, and
will state my reasons in subsequent posts" would have been sufficient. That
would have been appropriate even when he messed up on hiding his identity.
As for the stress, I suspect you're still a JW, so you have no idea how
shocking it is when Mommie takes off the velvet glove and bashes you upside the
head. People have been known to do far worse than merely embarrass themselves
by exposing their arrogance for the world to laugh at.
AF
END OF QUOTE:
So while AF accepts what AC says, he then adds his own perspective on the
matter, in relation to the action taken by the Society, which I will further
explain below. As for the "arrogance for the world to laugh at," please, get
real. If you think that using a different name, and telling those on the board,
or at least hoping to, selectively, that this is what I have chosen to do in
order to remain involved in the debate, in the cyberworld OF different names
and aliases, is 'embarrassing,' then you should think again.
The only thing that is embarrassing is how a number of people on this board
have twisted the facts about the situation, and the glee with which they have
launched personal attack after personal attack. I mean, these guys have not
just said, "Well, that was stupid," or "C'mon, Greg, use what little brains
you've got," no, they have gone far beyond even their previously known
abilities for substituting legitimate argumentation with character
assassination.
What is even more revealing is that AC posted the essence of what he told AF,
to Gedanken:
Posted by Adam Covington [AdamCovington] on November 05, 1999 at 19:57:16
{6xiCHW3gJ2/CPYT8orz2qRFwJ6xIkI}:
In Reply to: *AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Gedanken on November 05, 1999
at 12:06:54:
Gedanken,
I dont agree with your handling of Greg Stafford's posting under the name
"TravisJ45". It is rather obvious was his intentions were as he himself said:
:Since I am involved in this discussion with AF, I decided to use another name
for a JW participant, with which I could continue my discussion with AF, having
stood up for "Greg's" material, and thus drawing his attention to the "new kid"
on the block. In using a friend's email address I had hoped to be able to
continue in this manner, but without stumbling my brothers.:
As I stated to Alan, from what I gather, Greg purposely posted the TravisJ45 so
as to continue the discussion under an assumed name, in hopes of concealing his
identity. I now believe he felt it best not to do so. I do not believe that the
TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.
Alan himself agreed to the above, and would hope that others would stop the
whining and screaming and notice the real intent of that post.
AC
END OF QUOTE
Gedanken has yet to reply to this post from AC, even though he has replied to
several others. Indeed, Gedanken makes a very interesting admission. I am sure
you will find it interesting, too:
Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 15:50:57
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: **AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Cygnus on November 05, 1999
at 15:27:09:
Cygnus,
My problem is not with him trying to post under a different identity but with
his using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising himself.
END OF QUOTE
Well, that is sure a switch (see below)! From the above we see that Gedanken's
"problem" is "with [my] using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising
himself." Of course, while my statement about Alan being arrogant may have been
new, in terms of my opinion, if anyone here thinks I do not believe Alan has
lost and continues to lose in this debate, what did you think I thought? Not
only that, but I TOLD YOU that **I** was the one who thought it!
The only embarrassing part about this whole thing is that I regret my brothers
and sisters may have been confused about why I did what I did, namely, to keep
the knowledge of my posting to this board from them. For that, I am truly
sorry, but please be assured that I did what I THOUGHT was best, and erred in
my judgment, under the circumstances (see below), in order to defend the truth.
But Gedanken is either lying or trying to get out of the embarrassing situation
of having totally overshot his mark, by failing to accept or by ignoring my
intent, as stated above by AC, and confirmed by AF. Gedanken wrote in response
to barJonah:
Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999
at 02:20:20:
bJ
:If nothing else, I hope this message from Greg will give pause to some of
those who were so quick to jump all over him in the last few days.
I don't see why it would. He deserves all he has received and more. The man has
shown himself to be (a) deceitful, (b) an arrogant and boastful liar and (c) an
idiot by doing what he did.
END OF QUOTE
Well, where would the deceit have been if not in using a different name? So,
when he says, "My problem is not with him trying to post under a different
identity but with his using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising
himself," he is lying to try and cover over the fact that he completely
mishandled the Travis posts. Of course, his vilification continued, in spite
of his misguided attack:
Gedanken (Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 17:13:07
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
Jan,
That was my opinion too after reading his book. Every single thing he has said
on this board has only served to confirm that opinion. I sometimes think that
too many people on this board view academic integrity and intellectual honesty
as being optional. It is beyond me how anyone could have anything at all
positive to say about such a pompous fraud. If the guy were a physician he
would be selling snake oil.
Gedanken
END OF QUOTE
Also, according to Gedanken:
Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 18:15:04
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: ****AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Rick on November 05, 1999
at 17:55:57:
Rick,
Is it true or is it not? He is a published author and he is propagating many
things that the Society teaches which we know to be lies, plain and simple.
Further, and by necessity, he uses lying and deceit to do this under the guise
of being a "scholar." How else can one say it?
Gedanken
END OF QUOTE
Funny, I do not recall proclaiming myself to be anything special. Why the
quotes around "scholar," Gedanken? Is that "scholar" in a quasi sense? Or are
you quoting something I said? Of course, you know where this is going to lead,
do you not (see below)? My books stands on its own, and you have certainly done
nothing to argue effectively against it, as I will show momentarily, after
further exposing your double-talk.
If you ask Gedanken about what he thinks concerning the debate and how he views
himself, he will tell you:
Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999
at 02:20:20:
However, I have no interest whatsoever in debating someone as intellectually
dishonest as is Stafford. In any case, only a half-wit could conclude that AF
did not only win the debate but did so by several miles. As an academic myself
I cannot begin to describe how appalled I am by the way that Stafford has
misused and sullied the mantle of scholarship. He is a disgrace and a
charlatan.
END OF QUOTE
There are a number of problems with the above: 1) He claims to have "no
interest" in debating with me because I am "intellectually dishonest." But from
his own mouth he convicts himself of asininity, saying:
Gedanken (Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 17:13:07
{6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
Jan,
That was my opinion too after reading his book. Every single thing he has said
on this board has only served to confirm that opinion. I sometimes think that
too many people on this board view academic integrity and intellectual honesty
as being optional.
END OF QUOTE
So Gedanken knew after reading my first edition, and from everything I have
said on this board since I have been here, that I am "intellectually
dishonest"! If that is the case, and if he is being truthful when stating that
he has "no interest whatsoever in debating someone as intellectually dishonest
as is Stafford," then why did he write a response to my Chapter 9 back on
October 11: Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on October 11, 1999 at 18:12:51
{mEtmxYJNyoHdgEG/iekYGxDfY}?
Gedanken does not know which way is up, and that is why he merely shows himself
capable only of insulting remarks over an issue he has horribly misunderstood
and miscommunicated to others. Below I will consider a part of his October 11
reply, a full consideration of which will follow my discussion with AF, as I
previously stated. But we also learn from Gedanken's above remarks that "only a
half-wit could conclude that AF did not only win the debate but did so by
several miles." Of course, Gedanken does not even give ONE example from my
rather lengthy discussion with AF thus far, to support his claim. I doubt he
even read them.
Given Gedanken's mishandling of the Travis posts and his failure to take notice
of things that were pointed out to him on the board (though he may have noticed
them and instead of openly acknowledging his error he merely covered it up by
claiming that his problem was not with my "trying to post under a different
identity," which is not true, according to his own words [see above]), it is no
wonder he apparently has not noticed the many problems that exist with respect
to AF's responses to date, namely:
FROM PART ONE OF MY SECOND RESPONSE TO AF:
ALAN_2
on page 270:
The March 15 article, on page 187, states that the "fact that Jehovah appeared
to him [Ezekiel] in a remarkable vision (and later in the vision revealed
things to him that could not otherwise have been known by Ezekiel), also that
Jehovah commissioned him directly -- all these things prove that what Ezekiel
said and wrote in prophecy was inspired by Jehovah." Yet, when speaking of
those who are needed today to speak as a "true representative of God," the
article states: . . .
Clearly, you know very well that Ezekiel's being directly commissioned by
Jehovah proved that Ezekiel was inspired by Jehovah, according to The
Watchtower, and therefore that he was a "true representative of God." Yet when
I asked a terse question containing exactly the same ideas - "Do you accept the
Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and
exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?" you beat around the bush
and avoided a direct answer.
GREG_2
Your question has nothing explicitly to do with what I wrote two years ago, and
you did NOT reference any WT article such as the above, so that your claim
might have been properly qualified. Do you honestly think I am going to pick up
on your use of "directly" in an unqualified statement such that which you gave,
and tie that in with a WT article from the 70s?! Being "God's direct and
exclusive representatives to the world of mankind" is hardly the same as being
directly commissioned by Him! In the first instance, in your false claim,
"direct" modifies "representative," but in the WT article the adverb "directly"
modifies the commissioning. There is not even a grammatical parallel to what is
said, let alone a semantic one! Also, and perhaps most importantly, my
rejection of your false claim was primarily in relation to your inappropriate
use of EXCLUSIVE. Where does the WT article on say anything about that? I think
you should give up this hopeless attempt to justify your false claim, admit you
were wrong, and then we can discuss your new question, based on a 'rephrasing'
of your false claim.
ALAN_2
:: So, given all of the above, let me rephrase my question:
(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that "anointed ones" among Jehovah's
Witnesses, represented by those on the Governing Body, are God's only directly
empowered representatives, where "empowered" means that Jehovah has actively
and therefore directly appointed them to their claimed position of spiritual
oversight over all true Christians, which position began in 1919?
GREG_2
First let us compare the above with your original question, as the differences
are highly revealing:
ALAN'S ORIGINAL QUESTION:
(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are
God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?
ALAN'S 'REPHRASING' OF THE ABOVE:
(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that "anointed ones" among Jehovah's
Witnesses, represented by those on the Governing Body, are God's only directly
empowered representatives, where "empowered" means that Jehovah has actively
and therefore directly appointed them to their claimed position of spiritual
oversight over all true Christians, which position began in 1919?
GREG_2
Now, I guess Alan thinks most of you are of very average or even below average
intelligence, since he expects you to swallow his claim that his original
question is semantically equivalent to his rephrasing of the original. I think
it is rather obvious that he has abandoned his first claim, as it was shown to
be in serious error, and is now moving in another, more specific direction.
That is fine, but you should primarily take note of the hard time he is having
in admitting his error, which should be an indication that he is not about to
admit his mistakes without a fight, and therefore you are not likely to obtain
any objective conclusions about his analysis, from Alan himself. If you doubt
what I say, just read his two questions above a few more times, and ask
yourself, "Does Alan really expect me to believe this"?
In answer to your new question, Alan, I see no reason to reject the Governing
Body as a group of representatives from those substituting for Christ, who are
guided by God in accordance with their correct interpretation of His Word, in
dispensing healthful words of truth to mankind, and particularly to their
Christian brothers and sisters, and thus they do indeed have a position of
spiritual oversight. They are "empowered" to the extent that they act in
harmony with what God has revealed in His Word. When and if they should stray
from this source, they are acting on their own power, not with God's.
END OF QUOTE
FROM PART TWO OF MY SECOND RESPONSE TO ALAN:
ALAN_2
:: You said, on page 269 of JWD1, that "this commission is given to all who
will accept and fulfill it." To be fair, then, you'd have to admit that
Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Mormons, etc., who "accept and fulfill" Christ's
commission to preach have just as much right as do Jehovah's Witnesses to claim
that God gave this commission to them, and just as much claim to "divine
direction".
GREG_2
Just prior to your quotation of my "this commission is given..." are the words,
"But they have been 'commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God's
Messianic kingdom and to give a warning to Christendom.'" So, of course, any
Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Mormons, or person from any other religious group
may accept this commission. But that would mean they are no longer
Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Mormons, for they would be warning those in
Christendom, which includes Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Mormons! I am not
sure how you missed my/our understanding of what this commission involves,
since, again, it is in the sentence just prior to the one which you quoted, but
you did.
END OF QUOTE
As I said, that's only part of what you are missing...
But you will convince yourself out of that, right?
Mean Mister Mustard
>Let me tell you what l would do if i had written a creepy,
>self-stroking, self-praising post under an Alias......and then noticed
>that it had ALSO posted my real name..... I'd do exactly what YOU
>did...and post a convoluted, bogus, ridiculous sounding SECOND post
>with an excuse for the first post. Good goin!!!
Doh!!!!
>But actually, that would be too humiliating.....I'd probably just melt
>and disappear into netland... This recovery effort is even MORE
>pathetic than the original post. It's laughable all the way through.
>Face it, you blew any credibility you ever had.
Now I'm sorry I missed this one! What was it about,
in a nutcaseshell?
--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
~
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 1 line, 40 characters
brian
Tinky wrote:
>
>
> "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it is good enough for
> Texas children." Texas Governor Ferguson, on Spanish taught in Texas
> schools.
This is one of the best quotes I have ever read. Brian
Sherwood
Later
Tinky wrote:
> On 07 Nov 1999 02:58:02 GMT, apokr...@aol.com (Apokrisis1) wrote:
>
> >Your lies continue...
>
> Let me tell you what l would do if i had written a creepy,
> self-stroking, self-praising post under an Alias......and then noticed
> that it had ALSO posted my real name..... I'd do exactly what YOU
> did...and post a convoluted, bogus, ridiculous sounding SECOND post
> with an excuse for the first post. Good goin!!!
>
> But actually, that would be too humiliating.....I'd probably just melt
> and disappear into netland... This recovery effort is even MORE
> pathetic than the original post. It's laughable all the way through.
> Face it, you blew any credibility you ever had.
>
> Tinky
Mean Mister Mustard
<squi...@echelon.alias.net> wrote:
>Remember, folks - the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses is a SHAM
>and a FRAUD from start to finish. They have been caught CHEATING and LYING
>and WRITING NONSENSE any number of times - explore the links in my sig for
>just a few (hundred) examples. So, it is hardly surprising when their most
>"Prominent" (LOL!) Current Public Apologist also gets caught CHEATING.
Yuk, yuk, yuk....
For those of us pleasantly disremoved from all the nonsense
of the JW / ex/anti-JW "whatever", I would like folks
tuning in to remember that the excellent post which I
snipped most of (above) was essentially the judgement OF
one *individual* ABOUT *one* individual and, thus, hardly
constituting reasonable and/or complete evidence for so
much as anything *about* anything, let alone something so
important as that which the esteemed lurking audience of
this newgroup might burden itself to consider.....
I'm sorry, PB, but there's no way that you or any of your
lesser compadres (and God help you, they're ALL lesser!
and some so much so that good money is bound to be thrown
after bad...) will *ever* be able to worm your way around
the all too prevalent belief in "free will", which MMM
retains as a trump card that can sink even the most obvious
seven no trump hand some fool might imagine them"selves"
to hold.....
;-)
LOL! LOL-CAROL! LOL-TINKY! LOL-JANEY! LOL-A7! LOL-MMM! LOL!
LOL! LOL-CAROL! LOL-TINKY! LOL-JANEY! LOL-A7! LOL-MMM! LOL!
LOL! LOL-CAROL! LOL-TINKY! LOL-JANEY! LOL-A7! LOL-MMM! LOL!
Deal.................................. ;-)
Mark Gonzales
I really want to thank you for explaining this whole Greg Stafford thing
(minus your colorful adjectives) in simple enough language so that I (a
simple minded person) and everyone else you cross-posted to can easily
understand what happened.
And I congratulate you (being the most Prominent one of the anti-JW machine)
and your friends on the incredible speed and efficiency you have to attack
and devour a JW when they make even the slightest mistake. I can only sit
here in awe as I watch you do what you do best. Absolutely amazing!
Much Impressed,
Mark
Prominent Bethelite wrote in message ...
>Mean Mister Mustard) wrote...
>>On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 07:25:28 GMT, Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Let me tell you what l would do if i had written a creepy,
>>>self-stroking, self-praising post under an Alias......and then noticed
>>>that it had ALSO posted my real name..... I'd do exactly what YOU
>>>did...and post a convoluted, bogus, ridiculous sounding SECOND post
>>>with an excuse for the first post. Good goin!!!
>>
>>Doh!!!!
>>
>>>But actually, that would be too humiliating.....I'd probably just melt
>>>and disappear into netland... This recovery effort is even MORE
>>>pathetic than the original post. It's laughable all the way through.
>>>Face it, you blew any credibility you ever had.
>>
>>Now I'm sorry I missed this one! What was it about,
>>in a nutcaseshell?
>
>
>To follow up from the previous post (where we showed how "famous"
>Jehovah's Witness Apologist Author Greg Stafford - being roundly thrashed
>in open forum debate by some of my cyber-friends - decided to join in
>PRETENDING to be a third party and write words congratulating himself!)...
>
>We'll now demolish his lame and pathetic attempts at an excuse!
>
>Here is the post from the H2O bulletin board
>http://www.hourglass2.org/wwwboard/hourglass2board.html :-
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: "Stafford Wins..Now what?"
>Posted by TravisJ45 [GregStafford] on November 03, 1999 at 07:53:07
>{eZOTANvCI6/CPYT8orz2XxZ4XktaQ.}:
>I spent all day yesterday and most of the night reading through Greg
>Stafford's responses to AF. I am currently a member of a JW congregation
>but over the years I have had doubts about some things. I still do. But as
>far as this debate between Greg and AF goes Greg wins. To me AF's
>arguments are not that strong and he comes across a bit arrogant. I am not
>sure if I am more impressed with Greg's patience or his ability to argue.
>I honestly cannot see the point in continuing this debate. I recommend AF
>step out of the debate circle and let someone like COJ debate Greg about
>something like the gentile times chronology. Or maybe we can hear more
>about the blood issue. I for one do not plan on reading through nearly 100
>pages of this debate again!
>TJ45
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>This was received at 7:53:07 a.m. (H2O time).
>
>Then when the message appeared on his screen, this idiotic Jehovah's
>Witness must have realized that the game was up as his real handle
>(GregStafford) had shown up (on the post, and on the index of posts) in
>square brackets next to the assumed extra handle (TravisJ45) - H2O allows
>dupe-handles, but reveals the main one (especially to prevent this sort of
>abuse).
>
>Realizing that there was no time to contact a Moderator (H2O is run by
>fellow JWs) and get it all deleted before the message got seen by
>"apostates" AS THIS WAS A PEAK TIME OF THE DAY (indeed, the message got
>its first reply at 8:02:52 a.m. - less than 10 minutes later) - together
>with the giveaway ("[GregStafford]"), the shameless CHEATER then posted a
>second post about 10 minutes after the first one - to whit:-
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Take a hint, please...
>Posted by TravisJ45 [GregStafford] on November 03, 1999 at 08:03:18
>{eZOTANvCI6/CPYT8orz2XxZ4XktaQ.}:
>
>Events have happened that jeopardize his presence here, but that can be
>overcome, as you now see. See below for more on AF.
>Greg would rather move on to something else, but there is a new procedure
>he must follow. Any questions, please email me. I have the details.
>TJ45 (?)
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Firstly, this #2 post explains nothing - and IN NO WAY lets Greg Stafford
>(Cheater) off the hook.
>
>On this second post (not the predecessor) an email address appeared -
>travi...@hotmail.com - significantly, not the email he uses for posts
>which he intended to show originating from himself (viz:
>GregS...@aol.com)
>
>An obvious shoddy cover-up of a botched attempt at CHEATING.
>
>Why else would it have been in TWO posts? At 8:03:18 a.m. (or slightly
>earlier, as the time is H2O time), the posting-receipt time for this
>second post he would *NOT* have had time to SEE, READ and RESPOND to the
>first reply to his first post (H2O receipt time 08:02:52 a.m., sender:
>"Friend"). So any claim the second Stafford post was to explain the
>"misunderstanding" over the first one FAILS MISERABLY - for this to
>happen, the TOTAL of ALL the times for:-
>
>(a) H2O to place "Friend"'s post on the BB after receiving it;
>(b) Stafford to refresh his H2O screen and notice the response, allowing
>for Internet timing delays;
>(c) Stafford to read the response (which spotted the botched forgery);
>(d) Stafford to consider what and how to respond;
>(d) Stafford to type out a 4 or 5 line response 9as above - not a short
>one);
>(e) Stafford to send this response to H2O; and
>(f) Stafford's response to travel across the net and be received by H2O.
>
>must be no more than 27 seconds (YES - IN TOTAL!!!!!!) - the difference
>between 8:02:52 and 8:03:18, plus a second in Stafford's favour for the
>maximal rounding difference..
>
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! MMM-LOL! LOL!
>
>WOW! We knew the Light flickered for these crazy JWs - a change in policy
>every now and again - but this is ridiculous!
>
>
>Well, so Stafford's second post was CLEARLY NOT IN RESPONSE to the first
>response to his first post.
>
>So, was it "second thoughts" - in just 10 minutes?
>
>Sure it was - triggered by the appearance of the unexpected
>"[GregStafford]".
>
>Stands to reason it is nothing else.
>
>That this cheat has written a couple of ~30,000 character (!!!)
>explanations for "what really happened" speaks for itself. The truth, my
>friends, is usually much shorter than "the truth" ;-)
>
>He tried to cheat, and got caught.
>
>Well, Greg Stafford, in my eyes and that of all right-thinking people, you
>a MISERABLE CHEAT and a LOSER.
>
>I will be contacting the News Services (using the non-angelic channels I
>developed when I conributed to their coverage of mass- and child- murderer
>Jwhovah's Witness Mark Barton) to ensure this fiasco by the JW's most
>visible apologist and defender gets the news coverage it deserves -
>SANCTIMONIOUS HUMBUG CAUGHT CHEATING!
>
>Not to mention the Borg. I look forward to greeting you as an ex-JW, soon.
>
>And, as you know, Greggie - the message has been copied to you too. Please
>do respond to the NGs. had you simply responded when caught with an "I'm
>sorry" I would have let you be. Your credibility is sub-zero, and falling
>like... mercury ;-)
>
>
>Remember, folks - the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses is a SHAM
>and a FRAUD from start to finish. They have been caught CHEATING and LYING
>and WRITING NONSENSE any number of times - explore the links in my sig for
>just a few (hundred) examples. So, it is hardly surprising when their most
>"Prominent" (LOL!) Current Public Apologist also gets caught CHEATING.
>
>
>Love
>
>Prominent Bethelite.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>THE LIST OF AMAZING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' CLAIMS, BELIEFS & PREDICTIONS
>http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/the_list.html
>http://members.xoom.com/Gator999
>http://www.3dom.freeserve.co.uk/main.htm
>http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
>
Mean Mister Mustard
spydr...@yahoo.com (Tinky) wrote:
> Ok, Greg and a fella with the handle of AF were having a debate on
> H20, and things seemed to be rolling along smoothly....well sorta.
> Then some guy with the handle of Travis, comes out of nowhere and says
> that he believes Greg won the round of debates, and commends him on
> his patience and ability to argue, and makes some comment about AF's
> arrogance. He also says he sees no reason to continue the debates and
> makes a suggestion as to whom "Greg" SHOULD debate instead. He posts
> it, and then.....hmmm like 15 minutes later, posts a followup that
> says that Travis IS Greg and that he had to post under an assumed
> name because of the KM insert that warns JW's who to talk to online.
> Earlier, this whole KM insert thingy had been posed to Greg and it was
> a non-issue to him.
>
> But to complicate matters, when you start a thread over there, your
> regular posting handle appears right next to any name you type in to
> post under.......so it looks like Travis/Greg posted, saw the Greg
> right next to the Travis name..and then 15 min. later did some major
> damage control. ;o)
>
> So, basically, Greg used an alias to pat himself on the back and then
> later, came up with the reason that he did so.....
And I take it the flashing red "field day" icon appeared on many
a web browser not long thereafter.... ;-)
I'm constantly being amazed and re-amazed at what some individuals
will go through in order to feed that little "self" monster they've
chained them"selves" to! I mean, the existence of a said "self" is
right up there with the sound of one hand clapping, but I'll be
damned if there ain't a whole lot of one hand clapping going on
in an attempt to applaud these selfsame selves.....
And I don't understand the rationale some seem to employ that there's
somehow greater power in being anonymous. I mean, the *first* thing
that comes to my mind when interacting with an anonymite is that I
have the tremendous advantage of not having to divert energy into a
hiding effort, into a "keeping all the inevitable stories straight"
effort. Plus, I get to openly receive credit due, whereas the hiders
can never know this satisfaction. If/when (we're talking some pretty
slim odds, here...) they kick my ass in discussion, it's just some
handle of theirs associated with the credit, glory, etc. Too bad!!!
I mean, this Stafford thing sounds even more pathetic, really.
Praising one's self via an auxiliary handle? Whew.... that's
getting pretty desperate.....
Oh well, you live and burn.... ;-)
--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
~
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 1 line, 40 characters
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Banana
Tinky <spydr...@yahoo.com > wrote in article
<3827a629...@news.zebra.net>...
> Sher....i hope you're not going to disappoint me....do I detect
> bitterness?
> ============
Yep,... he's frustrated that you're not kissing WT behinds.
--
Carol......
---<---<---({@ ---<---<---({@ ---<---<---({@ ---<---<---({@
>
Mean Mister Mustard
spydr...@yahoo.com (Tinky) wrote:
> Hello!!! Isn't that the truth? Where's the glory if it's not with the
> "real self"....*giggle*
>
> I gotta be meeeeeeeeeee, I gotta be meeeeeee. I mean, if I don't be
> me...nobody else sure as hell will......
A-friggin'-men!!!!
> >I mean, this Stafford thing sounds even more pathetic, really.
> >Praising one's self via an auxiliary handle? Whew.... that's
> >getting pretty desperate.....
>
> Well, he certainly had an "interesting" reason for doing so.....if
> there is such a thing.
It's probably just yet another instance of "pride before a fall"
kind of thing. It almost reminds me of that commercial were someone
is putting together some mock letter to the boss, and sends it by
mistake, and the boss corrects him on a spelling of the key word
in the transmission. Only this time it's not a TV commercial.
This time it's the ex/anti-JW infested waters of H2O (I keep wanting
to type "HBO" for some reason...) and a.r.j-w! (If there were only
one more such venue we'd be able to refer to them collectively as
the "Blame-uda Triangle", where many a self-proclaimed godly vessel
has inexplicably disappeared..... ;-) )
> Oh.....that's true. I prefer to burn in private though, that's some
> sort of constitutional right isn't it?
Yes. The right to bear Pepto-Bismol.....
Mean Mister Mustard
>There is, if you count witness.net. They advertise themselves as,
>"The only place on the Internet where over 4,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
>gather in a safe environment on a daily basis.". Hell, they're so
>safe, they close their own threads before anything "real" happens.
>They'll start a thread, and when it starts picking up, they promptly
>shut it down....it's kinda funny, and very frustrating at the same
>time. But sometimes, the regs at h20 refer to them.
Hmmm. Never heard of it. It does, however, call to mind
the old saying that "there's safety in numb-ers"....
Mean Mister Mustard
>It's like sitting in on a ladies society tea party where the brownies
>are made with weed and they all schmarm each other endlessly....kind
>of a "i'm wonderful, you're wonderful too" loop.....
That does it! Next Halloween I'm going as the Pillsbury
DoughBoy!
Mean Mister Mustard
>>That does it! Next Halloween I'm going as the Pillsbury
>>DoughBoy!
>
>Oh good....I'll be an M&M ;0)
Cool! I mean, that would greatly facilitate the notion
of taking a roll in the snack.... ;-)
Mean Mister Mustard
>>Cool! I mean, that would greatly facilitate the notion
>>of taking a roll in the snack.... ;-)
>
>Nuttin.....like......a......tootsie......roll......**groan**
I've got this thing for Slo Pokes, come to think of
it......