|
|
 | | From: | vera | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:28:51 +0100 |
|
|
 | I have copied that for the record, Mark Tindall.
I will also pass it over to several other usenet groups where this belongs -
this evening.
Mark T wrote:
> "(replaced name)" wrote:
>
> ...whatever ...
>
> (name replaced), you swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that
> you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. I bet you couldn't pour
> piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A
> sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen
> with you. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You
> are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
> you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless
> newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a
> coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.
>
> You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless
> little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a
> jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are
> a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
>
> You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
> richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
> into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
> abandoned by the puke- drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and
> then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.
>
> I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
> species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
> the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
> Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are
> a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you
> smell?
>
> If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating
> one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before
> attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are
> a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be
> able to access it more rapidly.
>
> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive
> its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to
> fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink
> shame of your ignoble
> blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own
> trite, foolish beliefs.
>
> You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
> nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
> ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have with
> you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost
> in a land that reality forgot.
>
> And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
> statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What
> fantasy do you hold
> that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more
> weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a
> circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
>
> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
> obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
> emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
> disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
>
> On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
> deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
> wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
> You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
> sorrow wherever you go.
>
> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
> stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
> way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of
> stupid. You are trans- stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed
> on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten
> so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing
> hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second
> than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.
> Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be
> this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the
> original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so
> uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics
> that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid
> for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
> don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and
> half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of
> this drivel. Duh.
>
> The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
> away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say
> anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful.
> I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of
> babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have
> learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success.
> True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people
> take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we
> sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world
> who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was
> your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't
> have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish
> you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem
> to be placing such a demand on you.
>
> P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
> cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
> belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
> fascistic, bigoted, racist, ist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
> brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented,
> lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
> libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless,
> illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
> devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
> fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
> suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
> crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
> unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
> mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
> abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not
> Good.
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:49:30 GMT |
|
|
| >>> vera >>> wrote:
Vera...
This was not really a malicious post. I have seen this before. Don't do
anything about it. It didn't bother me.
>I have copied that for the record, Mark Tindall.
>
>I will also pass it over to several other usenet groups where this belongs -
>this evening.
>
>
>Mark T wrote:
>
>
>>"(replaced name)" wrote:
>>
>>...whatever ...
>>
>>(name replaced), you swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that
>>you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. I bet you couldn't pour
>>piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A
>>sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen
>>with you. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You
>>are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing
>>you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless
>>newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a
>>coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.
>>
>>You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless
>>little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a
>>jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are
>>a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
>>
>>You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
>>richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
>>into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
>>abandoned by the puke- drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and
>>then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.
>>
>>I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
>>species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
>>the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
>>Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are
>>a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you
>>smell?
>>
>>If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating
>>one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before
>>attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are
>>a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be
>>able to access it more rapidly.
>>
>>You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive
>>its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to
>>fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink
>>shame of your ignoble
>>blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own
>>trite, foolish beliefs.
>>
>>You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
>>nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
>>ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have with
>>you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost
>>in a land that reality forgot.
>>
>>And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
>>statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What
>>fantasy do you hold
>>that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more
>>weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a
>>circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
>>
>>You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
>>obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
>>emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
>>disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
>>
>>On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
>>deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
>>wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
>>You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
>>sorrow wherever you go.
>>
>>I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
>>stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
>>way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of
>>stupid. You are trans- stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed
>>on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten
>>so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing
>>hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second
>>than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.
>>Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be
>>this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the
>>original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so
>>uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics
>>that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid
>>for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
>>don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and
>>half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of
>>this drivel. Duh.
>>
>>The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
>>away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say
>>anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful.
>>I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of
>>babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have
>>learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success.
>>True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people
>>take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we
>>sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world
>>who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was
>>your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't
>>have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish
>>you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem
>>to be placing such a demand on you.
>>
>>P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
>>cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
>>belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
>>fascistic, bigoted, racist, ist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
>>brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented,
>>lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent,
>>libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless,
>>illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
>>devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
>>fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
>>suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
>>crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
>>unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
>>mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
>>abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not
>>Good.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same'
|
|
| | From: | vera | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:03:16 +0100 |
|
|
| (Sorry for the other post - I hit the wrong button - the time lack, you
know)
pedro wrote:
>>>> vera >>> wrote:
>
> Vera...
>
> This was not really a malicious post. I have seen this before. Don't
> do anything about it. It didn't bother me.
Okay, if it does not bother you... I can stand his slander. He has been
slandering me know for more than 13 months, this usenet criminal. But as I
said, he has no relevance of me and my life, and he will surely not be able
to harm God. God is a bit greater than Morkie and his Fan Club. I am glad
about that.
Mark Tindall is a friendship killer. We have to be on the watch, my dear
friend. He is possessed and will not stop before he has managed ...
No, don't worry, I will never accept his weird views, but it seems he can
teach many stupid people. Advertising and propaganda work the same. People
will believe everything if it is only repeated often enough. Hitler's
propaganda worked like Mark Tindall's libel - it is all the same, and his
motivation is nothing better. He wants power over people, he wants to
dominate them, to reign them, to force them to believe what he believes, to
force them to stop posting their views - and he gets it by verbal abuse, the
more evil he can be, the better his results. But you see, the friends I lost
have never been any. My claim of friendship is a bit higher than theirs.
Standing up for one another, even if one might be killed for it - that is my
ideal. What I would do in case of that? I don't know... No, I don't know. I
would be a coward like Peter when he denied Jesus three times. But it is my
ideal.
God bless you, dear friend,
Vera
>
>
>> I have copied that for the record, Mark Tindall.
>>
>> I will also pass it over to several other usenet groups where this
>> belongs - this evening.
>>
>>
>> Mark T wrote:
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:42:14 GMT |
|
|
| >>> vera >>> wrote:
>(Sorry for the other post - I hit the wrong button - the time lack, you
>know)
>
>pedro wrote:
>
>
>>>>>vera >>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>Vera...
>>
>>This was not really a malicious post. I have seen this before. Don't
>>do anything about it. It didn't bother me.
>>
>>
>
>Okay, if it does not bother you... I can stand his slander. He has been
>slandering me now for more than 13 months, this usenet criminal. But as I
>said, he has no relevance for me and my life, and he will surely not be able
>to harm God. God is a bit greater than Morkie and his Fan Club. I am glad
>about that.
>
>
I don't mind good natured humour at all. In fact I'm all for it. Like
what we had with Bob and Abby before Mark drove them away.
>Mark Tindall is a friendship killer. We have to be on the watch, my dear
>friend. He is possessed and will not stop before he has managed ...
>
>
Yes. (see above)
>No, don't worry, I will never accept his weird views, but it seems he can
>teach many stupid people. Advertising and propaganda work the same. People
>will believe everything if it is only repeated often enough. Hitler's
>propaganda worked like Mark Tindall's libel - it is all the same, and his
>motivation is nothing better. He wants power over people, he wants to
>dominate them, to reign them, to force them to believe what he believes, to
>force them to stop posting their views - and he gets it by verbal abuse, the
>more evil he can be, the better his results.
>
This is true. That is what he wants and what he does. Griz is his main
target now that he has got rid of Bob, Abby, and you're very quiet now
as well. There would be others too, but they are mostly silent to avoid
his attacks. So he gets what he wants that way as well.
> But you see, the friends I lost
>have never been any. My claim of friendship is a bit higher than theirs.
>Standing up for one another, even if one might be killed for it - that is my
>ideal. What I would do in case of that? I don't know... No, I don't know. I
>would be a coward like Peter when he denied Jesus three times. But it is my
>ideal.
>
>God bless you, dear friend,
>
>Vera
>
>
>
Thank you Vera.
>>>I have copied that for the record, Mark Tindall.
>>>
>>>I will also pass it over to several other usenet groups where this
>>>belongs - this evening.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark T wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking'
|
|
| | From: | vera | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:36:29 +0100 |
|
|
| pedro wrote:
>>>> vera >>> wrote:
>
>
>> (Sorry for the other post - I hit the wrong button - the time lack,
>> you know)
>>
>> pedro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> vera >>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> Vera...
>>>
>>> This was not really a malicious post. I have seen this before. Don't
>>> do anything about it. It didn't bother me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Okay, if it does not bother you... I can stand his slander. He has
>> been slandering me now for more than 13 months, this usenet
>> criminal. But as I said, he has no relevance for me and my life, and
>> he will surely not be able to harm God. God is a bit greater than
>> Morkie and his Fan Club. I am glad about that.
>>
>>
>
> I don't mind good natured humour at all. In fact I'm all for it. Like
> what we had with Bob and Abby before Mark drove them away.
I like to laugh as well, and I know what you mean.
Tell me the jokes you laugh about, and I can tell you what a kind of person
you are.
Jokes at other people's costs are surely not funny - not for me.
>> Mark Tindall is a friendship killer. We have to be on the watch, my
>> dear friend. He is possessed and will not stop before he has managed
>> ...
>>
>>
>
> Yes. (see above)
>
>
>> No, don't worry, I will never accept his weird views, but it seems
>> he can teach many stupid people. Advertising and propaganda work the
>> same. People will believe everything if it is only repeated often
>> enough. Hitler's propaganda worked like Mark Tindall's libel - it is
>> all the same, and his motivation is nothing better. He wants power
>> over people, he wants to dominate them, to reign them, to force them
>> to believe what he believes, to force them to stop posting their
>> views - and he gets it by verbal abuse, the more evil he can be, the
>> better his results.
>>
>
> This is true. That is what he wants and what he does. Griz is his main
> target now that he has got rid of Bob, Abby, and you're very quiet now
> as well. There would be others too, but they are mostly silent to
> avoid his attacks. So he gets what he wants that way as well.
He will always fight me, because I will be his licence to justify his sins
against God.
>> But you see, the friends I lost
>> have never been any. My claim of friendship is a bit higher than
>> theirs. Standing up for one another, even if one might be killed for
>> it - that is my ideal. What I would do in case of that? I don't
>> know... No, I don't know. I would be a coward like Peter when he
>> denied Jesus three times. But it is my ideal.
>>
>> God bless you, dear friend,
>>
>> Vera
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thank you Vera.
You are always welcome, Pete, and in my prayers.
>>> vera >>>
--
>>> http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::
>>> http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:32:42 +1100 |
|
|
| "pedrododo" wrote:
> I don't mind good natured humour at all. In fact I'm all for it.
Pedrododo is the best laugh around since the Blob.
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:36:30 -0800 |
|
|
|
"Mark T" wrote in message
news:41e7759c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "pedrododo" wrote:
>
>
>> I don't mind good natured humour at all. In fact I'm all for it.
>
> Pedrododo is the best laugh around since the Blob.
No, Mark, you still have the title, with Lawrence a close second.
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:23:47 +1100 |
|
|
| ">>> vera >>>" wrote:
> (Sorry for the other post - I hit the wrong button - the time lack, you
> know)
More like "brain lack".
--
#################################################
My Testimony at
http://www.alt-christianlife.com/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves HER enemy.
#################################################
.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
|
|
| | From: | vera | | Subject: | Re: Message for Pedro | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:15:42 +0100 |
|
|
| > (Sorry for the other post - I hit the wrong button - the time lack,
> you know)
>
> pedro wrote:
>>>>> vera >>> wrote:
>>
>> Vera...
>>
>> This was not really a malicious post. I have seen this before. Don't
>> do anything about it. It didn't bother me.
>
> Okay, if it does not bother you... I can stand his slander. He has
> been slandering me know
Well, I meant "now"
> for more than 13 months, this usenet
> criminal. But as I said, he has no relevance of me and my life,
I meant "for me and my life".
> and
> he will surely not be able to harm God. God is a bit greater than
> Morkie and his Fan Club. I am glad about that.
>
> Mark Tindall is a friendship killer. We have to be on the watch, my
> dear friend. He is possessed and will not stop before he has managed
> ...
>
> No, don't worry, I will never accept his weird views, but it seems he
> can teach many stupid people. Advertising and propaganda work the
> same. People will believe everything if it is only repeated often
> enough. Hitler's propaganda worked like Mark Tindall's libel - it is
> all the same, and his motivation is nothing better. He wants power
> over people, he wants to dominate them, to reign them, to force them
> to believe what he believes, to force them to stop posting their
> views - and he gets it by verbal abuse, the more evil he can be, the
> better his results. But you see, the friends I lost have never been
> any. My claim of friendship is a bit higher than theirs. Standing up
> for one another, even if one might be killed for it - that is my
> ideal. What I would do in case of that? I don't know... No, I don't
> know. I would be a coward like Peter when he denied Jesus three
> times. But it is my ideal.
>
> God bless you, dear friend,
>
> Vera
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I have copied that for the record, Mark Tindall.
>>>
>>> I will also pass it over to several other usenet groups where this
>>> belongs - this evening.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark T wrote:
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Mark T | | Subject: | Re: Message for Pedro | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:24:44 +1100 |
|
|
| ">>> vera >>>" wrote:
>> (Sorry for the other post - I hit the wrong button - the time lack,
>> you know)
.....
> Well, I meant "now"
....
> I meant "for me and my life".
More examples of "brain lack".
--
#################################################
My Testimony at
http://www.alt-christianlife.com/testimonials/mark_tindall.htm
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves HER enemy.
#################################################
.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
|
|
| | From: | vera | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:46:12 +0100 |
|
|
| pedro wrote:
>>>> vera >>> wrote:
>
> Vera...
>
> This was not really a malicious post. I have seen this before. Don't
> do anything about it. It didn't bother me.
>
>
>> I have copied that for the record, Mark Tindall.
>>
>> I will also pass it over to several other usenet groups where this
>> belongs - this evening.
>>
>>
>> Mark T wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "(replaced name)" wrote:
>>>
>>> ...whatever ...
>>>
>>> (name replaced), you swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you
>>> know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. I bet you
>>> couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You
>>> are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a
>>> lawyer than be seen
>>> with you. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You
>>> are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for
>>> knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody
>>> nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature
>>> of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would
>>> go away.
>>>
>>> You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless
>>> little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are
>>> a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You
>>> are
>>> a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
>>>
>>> You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared
>>> richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth
>>> into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
>>> abandoned by the puke- drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and
>>> then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.
>>>
>>> I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same
>>> species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at
>>> the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
>>> Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You
>>> are
>>> a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you
>>> smell?
>>>
>>> If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating
>>> one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before
>>> attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you
>>> are
>>> a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be
>>> able to access it more rapidly.
>>>
>>> You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up,
>>> drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you
>>> loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the
>>> frothy pink
>>> shame of your ignoble
>>> blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own
>>> trite, foolish beliefs.
>>>
>>> You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid,
>>> nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
>>> ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have with
>>> you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost
>>> in a land that reality forgot.
>>>
>>> And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important
>>> statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What
>>> fantasy do you hold
>>> that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have
>>> more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a
>>> circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
>>>
>>> You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
>>> obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
>>> emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a
>>> disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
>>>
>>> On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are
>>> deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of
>>> wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
>>> You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and
>>> sorrow wherever you go.
>>>
>>> I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard
>>> stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes
>>> way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of
>>> stupid. You are trans- stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed
>>> on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid
>>> gotten
>>> so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing
>>> hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one
>>> second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.
>>> Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really
>>> be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the
>>> original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so
>>> uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics
>>> that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of
>>> stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a
>>> while. I
>>> don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions
>>> and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the
>>> rest of
>>> this drivel. Duh.
>>>
>>> The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped
>>> away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say
>>> anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful.
>>> I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load
>>> of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you
>>> have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
>>> success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us
>>> "normal" people
>>> take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we
>>> sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world
>>> who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was
>>> your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't
>>> have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish
>>> you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that
>>> seem
>>> to be placing such a demand on you.
>>>
>>> P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful,
>>> cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable,
>>> belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal,
>>> fascistic, bigoted, racist, ist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic,
>>> brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented,
>>> lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic,
>>> fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant,
>>> clueless,
>>> illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking,
>>> devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic,
>>> fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased,
>>> suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim,
>>> crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim,
>>> unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive,
>>> mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive,
>>> abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not
>>> Good.
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | 16 Jan 2005 19:45:24 -0800 |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
died
> > for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
> > another's testimony to that very act.
>
> You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
claim of
> reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
That God convicted her.
What is the fruit of the Spirit's conviction, according to the Bible ?
Reconciliation.
It is therefore the same conclusion I make - that God HIMSELF brought
reconciliation between all parties involved (well, apart from Vera and
yourself).
> Then I point out to you the very
> narrow limits of what "reconciliation" actually means in the state of
> affairs you're expounding upon. You fire back that I have it all
wrong;
> that reconciliation doesn't mean total reconciliation of all beliefs.
Actually, Chuck, these are your words.
I have never stated such a thing. I have said repeatedly that
reconciliation does not mean total AGREEMENT with ALL beliefs, and I
have given the reasons why this is so. You will note there is a
significant difference between what you *thought* I said, and what I
actually say. Your thoughts, and the due consequences of those
thoughts, are therefore at fault; something I am not held accountable
for.
Reconciliation is the restoration of a broken or non-existent
relationship. Since it is primarily aimed at *how* people relate, not
at what people *think*. Reconciliation is about coming back into *right
relationship* (i.e. righteousness) - for Scripture itself teaches that
when reconciliation *happens*, God himself gives *us* HIS
righteousness.
> I fire back with the argeement that you're right, it doesn't
necessarily mean
> that, and repeat that my objection to your characterization is more
narrow
> than any such broad and sweeping connotation of the word.
You seem to have intellectually masturbated my words into something
they're not. I suggest you rethink and apologise to save your
integrity.
> You then dissemble a little more, at which point I accuse you of
trying to
> make it seem as if Abby has changed her religious beliefs to align
with
> Mark's, because I think that's a dishonest characterization of what
actually
> transpired.
I have never endorsed or even considered that Abby changed her
religious beliefs to align with Mark. The crux you seem to miss or
gloss over is that GOD convicted her, and you are the one DENYING God's
conviction. I posit that what transpired between Abby, Mark and myself
had *all* the signs of God present within it. I have yet to see you
prove me wrong.
> You then FLATLY DENY you're making any such broad
> characterization by the word "reconciliation"!
And I do so again, since you (as Sean has pointed out) seem to suffer
from comprehension problems. I denied it before and I do so again.
> And now you making what you're talking about in using the word
analogus to
> the reconciliation accomplished by Jesus Christ??!! What broader
example of
> reconciliation could you point to?!!
Scripture teaches that Christ reconcilied the world to himself. Now not
everyone in the world has the *same* beliefs or understanding AS
Christ, yet the Scripture testified that Christ has reconciled *the
world*.
"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and
gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the
world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And
he has committed to us the message of reconciliation" 2 Cor 5:18,19
This Scripture and teaching mirrors what has happened between Abby and
Mark.
> You remain the most confused and conflicted person I know, Lawrence,
and as
> long as you are, you're not much more than wolf food.
> You simply won't listen to anyone who truly has your best interests
at heart
> in this newsgroup.
You don't have my best interests at heart, and you don't listen.
The fact you've only responded with droll insults to my rational
questions about your claims, and also managed to bastardise my words
into something they're not through your mindfuck, confirms this.
This is why I deal in *verbatim* testimony when delivering a case in
debate. Anything else can be considered heresay and not worth the salt
of the earth.
> You only open your itching ears to those who would simply use
> you, and toss you aside the moment you've served your purpose.
I see your "Christianity" is only limited to those whom you like or
agree with, Chuck. Remember, we are in agreement about what matters as
a believer and now you have pretty much said I don't follow Christ,
even though I still have the *same* beliefs we *both* affirmed.
I will remind you of this every time you chose to use your faith to
exclude others.
> You're a lamb running to its own slaughter, and you break my heart.
So the fact God convicted Abby means absolutely NOTHING ?
Surely God, being God, and His spirit convicting people of sin and
helping them gain right relationship with others is a thing to be
celebrated, right ?
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:31:37 -0800 |
|
|
|
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>> news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
> died
>> > for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>> > another's testimony to that very act.
>>
>> You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
> claim of
>> reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>
> It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>
> What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:01:34 +1100 |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
>>
>>died
>>
>>>>for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>>>>another's testimony to that very act.
>>>
>>>You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
>>
>>claim of
>>
>>>reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>>
>>It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>>
>>What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
>
>
> Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
Oh, *now* you're interested..
"I have been convicted of God about treating people respectfully
(specifically Mark and Lawrence) whether I like them or not. You have
demeaned God's holy direction by your statements above.
I have told you about this conviction God has given to me and we have
discussed it on several occasions."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ce550a6680735877,
dated Dec 18 2004
Confirmed by:
"When God convicted me of it, I could no longer stand with you so I am
tossed aside and now slandered publicly."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ee17f831fb9fd3a6
Dated Jan 9 2005
and
"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
certain people on this NG.
Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like it that He
convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must obey
Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/209f2a52358b2ea0
Dated 16 Jan 2005.
Now, where do you want to go from here with your claims that
reconciliation didn't happen ?
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:17:31 -0800 |
|
|
|
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
news:41eb70b7$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>> news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
>>>
>>>died
>>>
>>>>>for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>>>>>another's testimony to that very act.
>>>>
>>>>You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
>>>
>>>claim of
>>>
>>>>reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>>>
>>>It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>>>
>>>What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
>>
>>
>> Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
>
> Oh, *now* you're interested..
Not really. Your nonsensical (to me) outlook on things seems to be
permenant, and so has lost some of its interest for me. However, I DID read
what Abby had to say on this subject before I read this latest bit of artful
dodging below:
>
> "I have been convicted of God about treating people respectfully
> (specifically Mark and Lawrence) whether I like them or not. You have
> demeaned God's holy direction by your statements above.
> I have told you about this conviction God has given to me and we have
> discussed it on several occasions."
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ce550a6680735877,
> dated Dec 18 2004
>
> Confirmed by:
>
> "When God convicted me of it, I could no longer stand with you so I am
> tossed aside and now slandered publicly."
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ee17f831fb9fd3a6
> Dated Jan 9 2005
>
> and
>
> "To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
> certain people on this NG.
> Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like it that He
> convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must obey
> Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not."
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/209f2a52358b2ea0
> Dated 16 Jan 2005.
>
> Now, where do you want to go from here with your claims that
> reconciliation didn't happen ?
I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
1/16/05 without your artful editing:
"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two certain
people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like
it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must
obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So Lawrence and I
had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk. We reached an
agreement to be civil to
each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was ==NO==
reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
Just what I've been saying all along, Lawrence, even before I knew anything
at all about this from anyone but you. Civility is not acceptance, nor is
it an endorsement of anything, nor is it any sort of significant
reconciliation. The fact that you're so anxious to promote what little Abby
has been convicted of as somehow being analogous the the reconciliation we
have in Christ, speaks for itself, and proves what I've been saying about
your efforts in this since the very first post I wrote you on this subject.
You're blowing it out of all proportion, and you're doing it with a
transparent agenda. Your trumpeting of the glorious reconciliation is
simply ludicrous in the face of Abby's "There was no reconciliation other
than being civil to each other." For crying out loud, Lawrence, most of us
ARE civil to any who are civil to us, and we don't care WHAT they believe.
But what does that mean? Absolutely nothing, except that it's an exercise
in good manners. And here you are (in your earlier responses to me) making
an analogy between a return to good manners and Christ's propitiation for
our sins??? Remarkable....truly remarkable.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:14:44 GMT |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>news:41eb70b7$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>>news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>died
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>>>>>>another's testimony to that very act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>claim of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>>>>
>>>>What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
>>>
>>>
>>Oh, *now* you're interested..
>>
>>
>
>Not really. Your nonsensical (to me) outlook on things seems to be
>permenant, and so has lost some of its interest for me. However, I DID read
>what Abby had to say on this subject before I read this latest bit of artful
>dodging below:
>
>
>
>>"I have been convicted of God about treating people respectfully
>>(specifically Mark and Lawrence) whether I like them or not. You have
>>demeaned God's holy direction by your statements above.
>>I have told you about this conviction God has given to me and we have
>>discussed it on several occasions."
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ce550a6680735877,
>>dated Dec 18 2004
>>
>>Confirmed by:
>>
>>"When God convicted me of it, I could no longer stand with you so I am
>>tossed aside and now slandered publicly."
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ee17f831fb9fd3a6
>>Dated Jan 9 2005
>>
>>and
>>
>>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>>certain people on this NG.
>>Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like it that He
>>convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must obey
>>Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not."
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/209f2a52358b2ea0
>>Dated 16 Jan 2005.
>>
>>Now, where do you want to go from here with your claims that
>>reconciliation didn't happen ?
>>
>>
>
>I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
>there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
>reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
>1/16/05 without your artful editing:
>
>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two certain
>people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like
>it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must
>obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So Lawrence and I
>had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk. We reached an
>agreement to be civil to
>each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was ==NO==
>reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
>Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
>
>
Which is exactly what I told both you and Lawrence Abby had told me.
>Just what I've been saying all along, Lawrence, even before I knew anything
>at all about this from anyone but you. Civility is not acceptance, nor is
>it an endorsement of anything, nor is it any sort of significant
>reconciliation. The fact that you're so anxious to promote what little Abby
>has been convicted of as somehow being analogous the the reconciliation we
>have in Christ, speaks for itself, and proves what I've been saying about
>your efforts in this since the very first post I wrote you on this subject.
>You're blowing it out of all proportion, and you're doing it with a
>transparent agenda. Your trumpeting of the glorious reconciliation is
>simply ludicrous in the face of Abby's "There was no reconciliation other
>than being civil to each other." For crying out loud, Lawrence, most of us
>ARE civil to any who are civil to us, and we don't care WHAT they believe.
>But what does that mean? Absolutely nothing, except that it's an exercise
>in good manners. And here you are (in your earlier responses to me) making
>an analogy between a return to good manners and Christ's propitiation for
>our sins??? Remarkable....truly remarkable.
>
>God bless
>
>Chuck Stamford
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Life does not need to be perfect to be great'
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:13:57 -0800 |
|
|
|
"pedro" wrote in message
news:U_NGd.121997$K7.33031@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>
>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>news:41eb70b7$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>died
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>>>>>>>another's testimony to that very act.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
>>>>>>
>>>>>claim of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
>>>>>
>>>>Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
>>>>
>>>Oh, *now* you're interested..
>>>
>>
>>Not really. Your nonsensical (to me) outlook on things seems to be
>>permenant, and so has lost some of its interest for me. However, I DID
>>read what Abby had to say on this subject before I read this latest bit of
>>artful dodging below:
>>
>>
>>>"I have been convicted of God about treating people respectfully
>>>(specifically Mark and Lawrence) whether I like them or not. You have
>>>demeaned God's holy direction by your statements above.
>>>I have told you about this conviction God has given to me and we have
>>>discussed it on several occasions."
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ce550a6680735877,
>>>dated Dec 18 2004
>>>
>>>Confirmed by:
>>>
>>>"When God convicted me of it, I could no longer stand with you so I am
>>>tossed aside and now slandered publicly."
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ee17f831fb9fd3a6
>>>Dated Jan 9 2005
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>>>certain people on this NG.
>>>Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like it that He
>>>convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must obey
>>>Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not."
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/209f2a52358b2ea0
>>>Dated 16 Jan 2005.
>>>
>>>Now, where do you want to go from here with your claims that
>>>reconciliation didn't happen ?
>>>
>>
>>I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
>>there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
>>reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
>>1/16/05 without your artful editing:
>>
>>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>>certain people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did
>>not like it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God
>>so I must obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So
>>Lawrence and I had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk.
>>We reached an agreement to be civil to
>>each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was ==NO==
>>reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
>>Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
>>
>
> Which is exactly what I told both you and Lawrence Abby had told me.
Yes, I know. You were very quick to point out the facts "unspun", so to
speak, after I challenged Lawrence on what he was doing in this thread. And
of course, Abby herself has now publicly posted HER clarification. However,
Lawrence, as usual oblivious to facts, continues to live in his own little
world. He apparently can't even accept ABBY'S version of the facts about
Abby!
Chuck
|
|
| | From: | pedro | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:08:51 GMT |
|
|
| This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020508070400020509040609
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chuck Stamford wrote:
>"pedro" wrote in message
>news:U_NGd.121997$K7.33031@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>> <>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
>>>there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
>>>reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
>>>1/16/05 without your artful editing:
>>>
>>>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>>>certain people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did
>>>not like it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God
>>>so I must obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So
>>>Lawrence and I had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk.
>>>We reached an agreement to be civil to
>>>each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was ==NO==
>>>reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
>>>Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Which is exactly what I told both you and Lawrence Abby had told me.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I know. You were very quick to point out the facts "unspun", so to
>speak, after I challenged Lawrence on what he was doing in this thread. And
>of course, Abby herself has now publicly posted HER clarification. However,
>Lawrence, as usual oblivious to facts, continues to live in his own little
>world. He apparently can't even accept ABBY'S version of the facts about
>Abby!
>
>
That's Lawrence for ya! :)
>Chuck
>
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'If time heals all wounds, how come bellybuttons don't fill in?'
--------------020508070400020509040609
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chuck Stamford wrote:
"pedro" <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:U_NGd.121997$K7.33031@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<>Chuck Stamford wrote:
I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
1/16/05 without your artful editing:
"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
certain people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did
not like it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God
so I must obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So
Lawrence and I had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk.
We reached an agreement to be civil to
each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was ==NO==
reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
Which is exactly what I told both you and Lawrence Abby had told me.
Yes, I know. You were very quick to point out the facts "unspun", so to
speak, after I challenged Lawrence on what he was doing in this thread. And
of course, Abby herself has now publicly posted HER clarification. However,
Lawrence, as usual oblivious to facts, continues to live in his own little
world. He apparently can't even accept ABBY'S version of the facts about
Abby!
That's Lawrence for ya! :)
Chuck
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'If time heals all wounds, how come bellybuttons don't fill in?'
--------------020508070400020509040609--
|
|
| | From: | (: Lawrence Meckan :) | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:59:27 +1100 |
|
|
| Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
> news:41eb70b7$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>>news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
>>>>
>>>>died
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>>>>>>another's testimony to that very act.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
>>>>
>>>>claim of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>>>>
>>>>It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>>>>
>>>>What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
>>
>>Oh, *now* you're interested..
>
>
> Not really. Your nonsensical (to me) outlook on things seems to be
> permenant, and so has lost some of its interest for me. However, I DID read
> what Abby had to say on this subject before I read this latest bit of artful
> dodging below:
>
>
>>"I have been convicted of God about treating people respectfully
>>(specifically Mark and Lawrence) whether I like them or not. You have
>>demeaned God's holy direction by your statements above.
>>I have told you about this conviction God has given to me and we have
>>discussed it on several occasions."
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ce550a6680735877,
>>dated Dec 18 2004
>>
>>Confirmed by:
>>
>>"When God convicted me of it, I could no longer stand with you so I am
>>tossed aside and now slandered publicly."
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ee17f831fb9fd3a6
>>Dated Jan 9 2005
>>
>>and
>>
>>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>>certain people on this NG.
>>Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like it that He
>>convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must obey
>>Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not."
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/209f2a52358b2ea0
>>Dated 16 Jan 2005.
>>
>>Now, where do you want to go from here with your claims that
>>reconciliation didn't happen ?
>
>
> I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
> there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
> reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
> 1/16/05 without your artful editing:
>
> "To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two certain
> people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like
> it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must
> obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So Lawrence and I
> had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk. We reached an
> agreement to be civil to
> each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was ==NO==
> reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
> Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
>
> Just what I've been saying all along, Lawrence, even before I knew anything
> at all about this from anyone but you. Civility is not acceptance, nor is
> it an endorsement of anything, nor is it any sort of significant
> reconciliation.
Why not ?
Abby spoke of conviction by God to start this road she has been on.
Therefore, it is wise to consider what Scripture tells of the due
response to conviction..
> The fact that you're so anxious to promote what little Abby
> has been convicted of as somehow being analogous the the reconciliation we
> have in Christ, speaks for itself, and proves what I've been saying about
> your efforts in this since the very first post I wrote you on this subject.
> You're blowing it out of all proportion, and you're doing it with a
> transparent agenda. Your trumpeting of the glorious reconciliation is
> simply ludicrous in the face of Abby's "There was no reconciliation other
> than being civil to each other." For crying out loud, Lawrence, most of us
> ARE civil to any who are civil to us, and we don't care WHAT they believe.
In all this, you ignore what my point is.
Since it's God's conviction we're talking about here, then we must go to
Scripture to see what is the usual response to God's conviction -
reconciliation.
> But what does that mean? Absolutely nothing, except that it's an exercise
> in good manners. And here you are (in your earlier responses to me) making
> an analogy between a return to good manners and Christ's propitiation for
> our sins??? Remarkable....truly remarkable.
You *yet* again fail to see the significance of God's Holy Spirit
convicting someone.
My case has been closed and will remain closed *until* you either
acknowledge God convicted Abby, or provide proof and evidence to counter
her testimony.
lawrence
|
|
| | From: | Chuck Stamford | | Subject: | Re: Message for (name replaced) | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:07:10 -0800 |
|
|
|
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
news:41eba876$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>> news:41eb70b7$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
>>
>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>
>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>news:1105933524.325908.146590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1105912624.661932.222730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Every time you chose to posit that whilst we were sinners, Christ
>>>>>
>>>>>died
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>for us as a sign of reconciliation, I will remind you that you deny
>>>>>>>another's testimony to that very act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are truly unique. First you make some sweeping and ambiguous
>>>>>
>>>>>claim of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>reconciliation between Abby and Mark.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is neither sweeping or is ambigious.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does Abby speak of her own free will, in her own testimony ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go find the quote (not the link) and we'll talk.
>>>
>>>Oh, *now* you're interested..
>>
>>
>> Not really. Your nonsensical (to me) outlook on things seems to be
>> permenant, and so has lost some of its interest for me. However, I DID
>> read
>> what Abby had to say on this subject before I read this latest bit of
>> artful
>> dodging below:
>>
>>
>>>"I have been convicted of God about treating people respectfully
>>>(specifically Mark and Lawrence) whether I like them or not. You have
>>>demeaned God's holy direction by your statements above.
>>>I have told you about this conviction God has given to me and we have
>>>discussed it on several occasions."
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ce550a6680735877,
>>>dated Dec 18 2004
>>>
>>>Confirmed by:
>>>
>>>"When God convicted me of it, I could no longer stand with you so I am
>>>tossed aside and now slandered publicly."
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.christianlife/msg/ee17f831fb9fd3a6
>>>Dated Jan 9 2005
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>"To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>>>certain people on this NG.
>>>Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not like it that He
>>>convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I must obey
>>>Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not."
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/209f2a52358b2ea0
>>>Dated 16 Jan 2005.
>>>
>>>Now, where do you want to go from here with your claims that
>>>reconciliation didn't happen ?
>>
>>
>> I'm satisfied with not placing the word in her mouth when I can't find it
>> there, and I really don't consider your doing it evidence that she has
>> reconciled with Mark or you. Here is what she said in her OWN words on
>> 1/16/05 without your artful editing:
>>
>> "To Vera: God spoke to me and convicted me of being uncivil to two
>> certain
>> people on this NG. Those two people are Lawrence and Mark. I did not
>> like
>> it that He convicted me of this sin, however, I am devoted to God so I
>> must
>> obey Him whether ==I== like what He is telling me or not. So Lawrence
>> and I
>> had a conversation and YES WE USED YOUR CHAT ROOM to talk. We reached an
>> agreement to be civil to
>> each other on the NG. The same thing occurred with Mark. There was
>> ==NO==
>> reconciliation other than being civil to each other. I do not agree with
>> Mark Tindall nor do I embrace Lawrence's beliefs."
>>
>> Just what I've been saying all along, Lawrence, even before I knew
>> anything
>> at all about this from anyone but you. Civility is not acceptance, nor
>> is
>> it an endorsement of anything, nor is it any sort of significant
>> reconciliation.
>
> Why not ?
BECAUSE SHE SAYS NOT, that's why. Read it for yourself....or better yet,
have someone read it to you.
>
> Abby spoke of conviction by God to start this road she has been on.
> Therefore, it is wise to consider what Scripture tells of the due
> response to conviction..
>
>> The fact that you're so anxious to promote what little Abby
>> has been convicted of as somehow being analogous the the reconciliation
>> we
>> have in Christ, speaks for itself, and proves what I've been saying about
>> your efforts in this since the very first post I wrote you on this
>> subject.
>> You're blowing it out of all proportion, and you're doing it with a
>> transparent agenda. Your trumpeting of the glorious reconciliation is
>> simply ludicrous in the face of Abby's "There was no reconciliation other
>> than being civil to each other." For crying out loud, Lawrence, most of
>> us
>> ARE civil to any who are civil to us, and we don't care WHAT they
>> believe.
>
> In all this, you ignore what my point is.
>
> Since it's God's conviction we're talking about here, then we must go to
> Scripture to see what is the usual response to God's conviction -
> reconciliation.
Oh please! God's word is VERY clear on the response he wants to our being
convicted, and it's ALWAYS repentance. Do you know what repentance is,
Lawrence? It's when you stop doing whatever God's Spirit convicts you to
stop doing, or when the Spirit prompts you to start doing something you're
not.
Sure, repentance involves a reconciliation, but the reconciliation is first
and always between the sinner who repents and the God who forgives, and only
secondarily, if at all, between us mortals. If God convicts me not to drink
alcholic beverages, who do I reconcile with when I stop? If God convicts me
that I don't love my wife enough, and I begin to obey, who have I sinned
against and to whom am I to be reconciled? If God convicts me that my
language is too harsh in addressing the heresies of Christ betrayers, and I
obey, to whom am I reconciled? Let me give you a hint...God.
>
>> But what does that mean? Absolutely nothing, except that it's an
>> exercise
>> in good manners. And here you are (in your earlier responses to me)
>> making
>> an analogy between a return to good manners and Christ's propitiation for
>> our sins??? Remarkable....truly remarkable.
>
> You *yet* again fail to see the significance of God's Holy Spirit
> convicting someone.
>
> My case has been closed and will remain closed *until* you either
> acknowledge God convicted Abby, or provide proof and evidence to counter
> her testimony.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never question Abby's
statement that she felt convicted about her tone towards Mark in the past.
I'm not the one trying to spin it into something I can use for my own
agenda....remember?
Chuck Stamford
|
|
|
