a very long thread

[Joe Sperling]

Dave---

Check out the new "snoring with the beagles" site---
everyone is welcome there doggone it.

[editor]

....
I know about the Geftakys Lodge hosted by John Malone.  No thanks for me, but if you want to, that's OK.
...

Could you imagine "moderate" John Malone on Soaring with the Eagles. Shudder.

I think John J. Malone,  Sr. would be an amazing addition to Sondra's BB.  In fact,  John would kick her @##s!   Matt, would cry if he had John on his case!

However, I like John too much to encourage him to go on there.

Brent

[Joe Sperling]

To Matt and Sondra---

I noticed the extensive Post regarding E-mails sent out "after the fact" when I was "deleted" from your BB for sarcasm. There was a bit of confusion as I took Sondra's E-mail to say that if I attempted to get a new account that would also be deleted. The fact remains, that I, along with a few others, have had accounts or posts deleted which expressed sarcasm, or a point of view not consistent with your BB's "mold".

But this is OK. It is your bulletin Board, and you can do as you well please with it. My apologies to you if my sarcasm was perceived as an "attack" on yourselves. I simply found a lot of humor in the posts there, and as is my way, I respond with humor or sarcasm.

I will refrain from speaking about your BB or the people there from now on. I pray that the Lord open your eyes, but truly, pray that the Lord bless you and make your BB a place that truly honors him.

Take care,   Joe

[retread]

From the looks of it, Sondra has a particular agenda. I have stayed off that BB because of my past experience with Sondra. We often ended up going round in circles in our communication. Too bad she deleted that latest post by Daerter (aka ??). It was so well thought out. Daerter, I hope you saved a copy. SWTE is definitely not an open forum.

Marcia

She must have deleted it with all due haste...I am afraid I missed it...
Verne

If you would like to read it, I have a copy on one of my systems that I can dig up for you.

Kind Regards,
Niaga Daerter

-
Wait a minute, who is Niaga Daerter?  Now if you could read things "backwards" on that other site you might see something:

R
ER
TER
RTER
ERTER
AERTER
DAERTER
 DAERTER
A DAETRER
GA DAERTER
AGA DAERTER
IAGA DAERTER
NIAGA DAERTER
 NIAGA DAERTE
  NIAGA DAERT
   NIAGA DAER
    NIAGA DAE
     NIAGA DA
      NIAGA D
       NIAGA
        NIAGA
         NIAG
          NIA
           NI
            N

Could it be just "Retread Again"?

[retread]

COOL!
Yes I would like to see what her royal highness got so worked up about...
Verne

I wouldn't call her too "worked up", at least not to the Matt level.  I am including below what I had posted that Sondra must of thought was too disagreeable.  I also sent Sondra a reply (for her/Matt) to see if it was okay to post on her bb.  But she thought that she did not want her bb going in the direction I was heading.  She was extremely polite in her responses and not abusive in the least (much different from someone else who made their position painfully obvious on the bb).  Hmm, I was just pondering what is more dangerous, i soft quiet voice like Sondra's or a loud voice spouting obviously obnoxious messages such as someone else who you know, hmm?  Anyway, it looked like there was nothing that I could say to make her agree with me, and I think that she most likely felt the same concerning me.  She did not want me to be disagreeable on her bb so I agreed to leave.  Again, she was very polite in her messages to me, and did not ban me from her site, but left it up to me to remove my account.  Here is a quote from one of my messages to Sondra that sums up my feelings regarding Matt:

Its your forum, if you don't want me to fight with you or Matt in it, I will respect this.  If you don't want me to disagree with your's and Matt's posts I will also respect this. I will take your advice, and if I have something to say that you may not agree with I will post it elsewhere.  At this point I feel that Matt's mind is close concerning these matters, and anything else that I could post on your bb would only fall on deaf ears, and just result an escalation of disagreement.  Perhaps a bit of quiet is best at this point, it may settle Matt down a bit and get his mind on more productive things.  But if some day you see that Matt's behavior is not quite what it should be, don't be afraid to tell him this, as he may respect you more than he does me.  All of this said I am not sorry for what I said to Matt, and I still disagree with you concerning Matt, but you are correct, I don't need to talk about this on your bb, there are other places to do this.  I am still considering sending Matt a private message,  I am just not sure if I have anything productive to say to him at this point in time.

As it turned out, I did not end up sending any private message to Matt.  I just don't think that it is a worthwhile exercise to argue with Matt any longer.  I know you tried to warn me Verne, but I just had to see it for myself to understand what you were talking about.

Here is what I had originally posted that Sondra must of thought was too disagreeable.  Please note that there may be minor differences in this to the content that Sondra censored as I remember making a few edits after posting (grammar, spelling, etc.).

OOPS. The system says "Your message is too long. Please go back and shorten it, then resubmit.".  I will continue with the original message broken into pieces in my next posts.  Hey Brian, can you allow us to post longer messages? (Sondra's bb allows longer messages)

[retread]

My censored post from "Soaring with the Eagles" - Part 1 of 2

...
I'm sorry for your offense with matt, but there's little I feel justified in doing about it since I agree with his rebuttals of verne's thoughts on racism and since I dislike verne's general attitude toward anyone who disagrees with his ugly point of view.
...

I'm sorry, but I do sincerely differ with your agreement with Matt's Rebuttals of Verne's thoughts on racism, and although I have been exposed to a fair amount of ugliness in this thread,  I am not sure what ugly point of view you are referring to.

Matt, please forgive me if I take some of your remarks out of context (or if I at least in your opinion I do).  I will attempt to temper my words, but something does need to be said regarding your attacks and lies concerning Verne Carty.  Matt, please examine your actions with an open mind.

Matt asks Verne:

...
Why did the assembly accept black people into fellowship? It seems to me that many of the assemblies were multiracial – a strange sign for a racist church.
...

White slave owners also accepted black slaves into their service.  I assume that this fact could not be used to show that the slave owners were not racists, after all their plantations were multiracial.  Your remark would seem to have the purpose of offending rather than reconciling. Could you possibly be trying to provoke our dear bother Verne?  Let's try to be constructive in this forum.  Would you like to take the first step Matt?  It is okay to be direct and open, but please do it with honesty and not with what may appear to be hatred.  Remember your title on the bb is "Dragon Slayer", not "Carty Slayer".

When Verne says:

It is understandable how our white bretheren would not be as aware of this as were those of us who were affected by this kind of behaviour, but the instances of this kind of conduct were numerous enough that anybody paying attention could not help but notice. I early decided I would under no circumstance raise children in any assembly.

You reply with:

Verne, that’s quite an outrageous assumption. Anybody paying attention could not help but notice racism? One of our leading brothers, a white man named Eric Farien, is married to a Mexican woman. Ken and Vanessa Willadsen are a white and mexican pair. Mauricio and Sheryl are a mexican/black pair. Gordon Kim, a Korean man, is married to Keira Kim, a white woman. There were 3 other couples in the assembly here, and they were white. So, that means that more than half of the couples in our assembly consisted of spouses of different races. Also, I clearly remember going door to door in primarily minority communities – why would we do that if we were racist? So that they could cook our lunches for us while we worship? My point is, perhaps a few people in the assembly were racist. But the church was not a racist body.

Different people may like to classify the races differently, but regardless of this, "white" is a color not a race, and "Mexican" is  nationality not a race.  There is a good chance that what you call a Mexican and what you call a white both would have a good portion of Caucasoid genetic material.  Now depending on your definition of the word "racist", I would agree that not all of the body was "racist", but I also truly believe that an important part of the leadership in Fullerton was "racist".  I am also of the opinion that this racism (in Fullerton) was more directed at one specific race than at other races.  I don't think Verne is the one who is making (as you put it)  "an outrageous assumption", if you were not a perpetrator or a victim of the racism then it only makes sense that you would not be as aware of it unless you were looking for it.  I assume that most were not perpetrators, so I would tend to agree with Verne on why it is understandable that Verne's white brethren may not be as aware of the racism as he was.  I also would think that some did pay attention, but chose to look the other way and ignore it.

Ah, now I see you definition of racism:

This is not racism, sir. Racism is when one holds the belief that one race is superior to another. Telling Mr. Ling to marry a Chinese woman is by no means saying that whites are superior to the Chinese. I don’t know if Mr. Geftakys really said that or not. Perhaps he did, but that statement is not a “racist remark.”

I would have to disagree with this idea of racism.  I don't think that you have to say one race is superior than another to be a racist.  Viewing and treating different races differently would be enough (equal but different notion).  Of course racists may have a different view of this.  For example if you hosted a dinner and served the white skinned guests chateau briand, and the black skinned guests fried chicken, not because the white skinned guests were superior, but because you thought that all of the black skinned guests would like the fried chicken better because they were black, and you were only trying to please them and everyone else at the table, I would still consider this offensive racist behavior.  This would be true even if those receiving the fried chicken did like it better.

Also, remember your opinion of what is superior may differ with others.  Remember, leadership in Fullerton did not state that marriage should be within each specific race, but rather that some races could inter-marry while others shouldn't.  Sounds like they may have had a superiority problem after all.  That said, I don't believe discrimination based on race is always wrong for example if an actor with white skin got the part in a movie to play the character of Adolf Hitler over an actor with black skin because of the color of their skin was a superior representation of Hitler's skin, I would say that this was based on a racial discrimination, but I would not consider it offensive.  I would not call the person who made this decision a racist.  However, I do believe that there are those in the assembly leadership who could be justly called racists.

[retread]

My censored post from "Soaring with the Eagles" - Part 2 of 2

There were many who failed this test and are now wondering what might have been. Take another look at the Schockley-esque and profoundly ignorant bilge Dan Notti spouted to Clarence about Blacks, and Timothy Geftakys moronic musings about the subject. Where do you think they got that hogwash? Dan Notti of all people seems to be totally consumed with self-loathing and in total denial regarding his own racial ancestry. What a pitiful, pathetic and contemptible creature he is!

hmm…from your mouth to God’s ears.
Dan Notti and Timothy Geftakys are sons of God, and they are your brothers, Verne. These men are precious in God’s sight, as you are Verne, for He gave His Son that these men might be saved. How can you call them “ignorant, moronic, pitiful, pathetic, and contemptible bilge?” It is quite clear that you have not forgiven these men, it’s quite clear that you don’t love these men, and it’s quite clear that you totally disregard the fact that these men are precious in God’s sight.

Again I would have to agree with Verne.  Dan Notti is a sinner like all of us and is easily capable of spouting profoundly ignorant bilge, regardless if he is precious in God's sight or not.  And Tim Geftakys is also fully capable of having moronic musings.  I don't think that Verne said that these men were not precious in God's sight.  And I can't see where he called them ignorant, moronic or "contemptible bilge" (these things describe the ideas that they produced).  Yes he did call Dan pitiful and pathetic, but  "pathetic" means to be capable of arousing pity, sympathetic sadness and compassion.  Now I assume that in Verne's case he may have had a contemptible form of pity.  But don't even you have pity for this man?  I don't think that Verne's comments say that Tim and Dan are not precious in God's sight.  You surely must realize that despite all these things we can still be precious in God's site.

Verne, as an elder, it’s quite hypocritical of you to condemn the sins of other elders until you look at your own sin first. In just this post, you have hated God’s people, you have demonstrated gross  unforgiveness, and below, you condone a physical attack on your brother – clearly against Biblical teachings. In no way is that acceptable behavior for an elder, and therefore it is inappropriate for you to condemn Notti and Geftakys for the same. Leave that to a more Godly man.

Matt, what do you have against Verne?  Please examine your heart.  You are coming off as being outright hateful. Verne didn't state that he condoned a physical attack on his brother.  He said that he exercised restraint against his instinct to cause physical harm.  This is quite the opposite of what you implied.  (Sondra: are you sure that you really "agree with his rebuttals of verne's thoughts"?)  Here is what Verne actually said:

p.s it was only later I understood why that thug Dan (Snotty) Notti, rudely interrupted a conversation I was having during my first visit to Fullerton and grabbed my shoulders and pushed me towards a chair. My first instinct was to break both his wrists for his effrontery. I excercised restaint, as every good warrior always does. I would have had a difficlut time explaining myself otherwise. He never knew how close he came to being very seriously injured.

I think that I am reading the exact same words that you are, but something must be changing the meanings of the words between what is on the page and your understanding.  Could it be that you have preconceived notions regarding Verne?  I have an idea what may be forming such notions, but I will not express this here.

It looks like I just might have a different opinion than you on who is or is not Godly.

Sir, one last tip for you. Do not blame everything in your life on racism. If you only knew how many times I was poked and prodded in the assembly for falling asleep, or reading a novel underneath my Bible at Bible Study, or making faces at the little kids to make them laugh during Sunday afternoons…but alas, I can’t attribute this to racism because I’m white! I’m can’t attribute it to sexism because I’m a guy. Hmm…maybe it was age discrimination because I was young??? Oh the mysteries of Life….

Matt, Verne does not blame everything on his life on racism.  But just because you can't say that all of the evil in the world is all the fault of racism, does not mean that you can just simply excuse it.

Think about your post, Mr. Carty. Would you want other elders of the CMA to see how you treat others?

Think about your post, Matt.  Others can already see how you treat others.

And when you feel that you "must help out Verne", remember to do it from love.

Here is a song that I was listening to today.  It has a message that we all could do well to pay attention to  (yes this includes me, you, and even Verne):

Replace It With Your Love

Where there's hate give me love
And where's there pride make me be humble
And where there's pain don't let me feel resentment
Deep inside I want You to make it right

So replace it with Your love in my heart
Replace it with Your love in my heart
Just take out all the hatred and cleanse every part
And replace it with Your love in my heart

When I'm tired lift me up
And when I'm weak, Lord don't let me falter
But if I fall don't let me harden to bitterness
Inside I want you to take it out

So replace it with Your love in my heart
Replace it with Your love in my heart
Just take out all the hatred and cleanse every part
And replace it with Your love in my heart

Lord, I'm just a man who wants to be like You
Living in Your perfect love in everything I do
So now I'm yielding, I'm giving all to you
To take out every wrong I feel inside

And replace it with Your love in my heart
Replace it with Your love in my heart
Just take out all the hatred and cleanse every part
And replace it with Your love in my heart

- Words and music by David Meece (from the album 'Count the Cost')

[retread]

Thanks for sharing the  posts. I am a bit startled that they were found objectionable as the tone seems so reasonable and politely conversational, whether one agrees or not. Honest and open exchange however is not now, nor ever was the purpose of that forum.
...

In a message to me she said that she did not want me to come to her bb "to fight or to be disagreeable".  I assume she must have censored my post, since my message disagreed with Matt's. It's her board and her purpose for it, who am I to argue. I do like "Honest and open exchange", so I am more than happy to not participate in her board.  I think that she has been very honest and open on what she wants her board to be, so let's just let it be.  For now, I can't see how arguing with them can do either them or me any good.  It has been a painfully frustrating but eye opening experience thus far.

[retread]

For completeness, here is the reply that I referred to in my earlier message (the one I sent to Sondra for approval to post on her bb - she declined).  I will split this one into two pieces as well, as Sondra's bb allows for longer posts then this one (hmm, I wonder why).

My Rejected Response - Part 1 of 2

Sondra,

I am making my reply to you in a PM to see if it meets with your approval rather than first posting it on the public board.  It was my impression that the "Bitterness and Offense" topic had more bitterness and offense added to it by Matt, rather than as stated on the bb "give opportunity to discover God’s remedies to bitterness and offenses".  Despite what any of our views and opinions are of Verne Carty we should not be the perpetrators of lies against him.

Lets take a look at my post piece by piece.  I will include the portions which seem to have provoked a reaction from you and Matt.  I said:

Matt, please forgive me if I take some of your remarks out of context (or if I at least in your opinion I do).  I will attempt to temper my words, but something does need to be said regarding your attacks and lies concerning Verne Carty.  Matt, please examine your actions with an open mind.

Before I list the lies again, let me first clear something up.  You stated that I called Matt a liar:

You sounded nice, but the first red flag came up when you called Matt a liar.  Nope, can't do that.

And Matt stated that I said that he was a liar:

Now, Daerter, I did notice you said that I am a "liar" because of what I said to Verne. Firstly, I can safely say that I have never said a falsehood on any bb. You have to be careful not to call someone a "liar" because you disagree with their opinion.

Now, just as in my post how I explained with example how I would not necessarily call someone a racist because they made a decision based on racial discrimination, it is also true that I would not "call" someone I liar because they say lies (i.e. statements that are not true).  This is why I had chosen not to "call" Matt a Liar, but rather comment on the details and lies of his post.  But this small but significant fact was lost when you deleted the content of my post and left behind your false statement that I called him a liar.  This leads to your readers getting a false impression of me.  BTW, I am quite capable of graciously accepting an apology.

Now on to the lies that Matt denies making.  I thought that I stated them clearly before.  But of course you deleted that post, so here it goes again.  Matt said:

Verne, as an elder, it’s quite hypocritical of you to condemn the sins of other elders until you look at your own sin first. In just this post, you have hated God’s people, you have demonstrated gross  unforgiveness, and below, you condone a physical attack on your brother – clearly against Biblical teachings. In no way is that acceptable behavior for an elder, and therefore it is inappropriate for you to condemn Notti and Geftakys for the same. Leave that to a more Godly man.

Matt actually said that Verne condoned a physical attack on his brother, when in fact Verne said in the "below" message:

p.s it was only later I understood why that thug Dan (Snotty) Notti, rudely interrupted a conversation I was having during my first visit to Fullerton and grabbed my shoulders and pushed me towards a chair. My first instinct was to break both his wrists for his effrontery. I excercised restaint, as every good warrior always does. I would have had a difficlut time explaining myself otherwise. He never knew how close he came to being very seriously injured.

Notice that Verne didn't state that he condoned a physical attack on his brother.  He said that he exercised restraint against his instinct to cause physical harm.  This is quite the opposite of what Matt implied. I made this fact clear in my post that you censored.  But now that you removed the content of my post this little fact is lost, and Matt now freely states that he has never said a falsehood on any bb, when in fact this statement along with others in his reply are just more falsehoods used in Matt's path of seeming hatred.  Despite any preconceived notion of how bad or wrong Verne may be, this is no excuse to twist the truth to condemn him.  When I see someone acting like Matt with impunity, it deeply hurts my heart.  I thought that your bb was going to be a place where this type of thing wasn't supposed to happen, yet Matt's posts remain, and my post is censored.  Promoting lies and censoring truth is not the direction that we should be headed here.

[retread]

My Rejected Response - Part 2 of 2

Well now lets take a look at something else that Matt said:

hmm…from your mouth to God’s ears.
Dan Notti and Timothy Geftakys are sons of God, and they are your brothers, Verne. These men are precious in God’s sight, as you are Verne, for He gave His Son that these men might be saved. How can you call them “ignorant, moronic, pitiful, pathetic, and contemptible bilge?” It is quite clear that you have not forgiven these men, it’s quite clear that you don’t love these men, and it’s quite clear that you totally disregard the fact that these men are precious in God’s sight.

Now to be fair to Verne (which we should be no matter how much you disagree with him) I stated in my message that Verne didn't call these men "ignorant", "moronic" or "contemptible bilge". He said that Dan Notti spouted profoundly ignorant bilge, and Tim Geftakys had moronic musings.  This is quite a different thing than to actually "be" contemptible bilge.  Any implication otherwise is wrong (again despite what we think about Verne, and what we think his real feelings may be).  Remember, Dan Notti is a sinner like all of us and is easily capable of spouting profoundly ignorant bilge, regardless if he is precious in God's sight or not.  And Tim Geftakys is also fully capable of having moronic musings.  Despite all these things we can still be precious in God's site.  I don't think that Verne said that these men were not precious in God's sight.

Now looking at Matt's reply I see that he also has an issue with my example of why accepting blacks into fellowship to form a multiracial assembly is not proof that racism didn't exist (The "I can't be a racist, some of my best friends are black defense").  So that I don't misinterpret or twist Matt's words, here is his original statement:

...
Why did the assembly accept black people into fellowship? It seems to me that many of the assemblies were multiracial – a strange sign for a racist church.
...

And as a response I said:

White slave owners also accepted black slaves into their service.  I assume that this fact could not be used to show that the slave owners were not racists, after all their plantations were multiracial.

Now the point here is that being multiracial is not proof that racism doesn't exists.  I never said that I was comparing black slavery to the assembly situation.  I only gave a clear example designed for easy understanding by Matt that the "fact" of a  multiracial environment was not enough to prove innocence of racism.  Yet Matt is permitted to post the following on your bb:

Also, I noticed that you said something about white slave owners and comparing it to the assembly situation. Well, there is something a little skewed in that regard. First of all, black people were free to come and go in the assembly as they pleased. They also weren't subjected to physical punishment for not doing what the leaders asked of them. I think your comparison is inappropriate because it belittles the experience of slavery that the southern US practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that helps explains things a bit, sir or ma'am.

I find these statements offensive beyond words.  The only thing that makes this worse is that you removed my original post, that would have allowed people to see what I actually posted.  I am sorry, but I need to ask this question, and would appreciate a thoughtful answer:  With this type of behavior, why does Matt continue to be allowed to have an account on your bb and post his hateful, hurtful messages, yet I get censored?  A thoughtful answer is more important than a quick answer.

I also found Matt's statements on racism offensive.  I addressed this in my post that you censored, since to the best of my knowledge, Matt hasn't yet objected to my views on the bb, I won't bring this up again in this message.

When Matt says "Verne, I feel I must help you out - again", and then continues on in the way he does, it appears at least to me that he is simply trying to mock Verne, not help him.  This is wrong, and supporting this type of behavior is wrong.  As Christians it is a very worthwhile exercise for us to all look deep down in our hearts and examine our true motives.  You say that you would be surprised if I don't delete my account, well I am still undecided (surprise).  It may just well depend on my opinion of the admin of this here bb (I am still forming my opinion on her).  So what will it be, can I post my response to you and Matt on the bb?  I haven't sent a personal reply to Matt yet, as I anxiously await your response.

I leave you with a couple of verses from Psalm 139 that were going through my head when I woke up this morning (actually read the whole Psalm, it is quite beautiful!)

"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." - Psalm 139 Verses 23-24

[matthew r. sciaini]

All:

I posted on the "Soaring with the Eagles"  board and had the privilege of being e-mailed by Matt Peeling telling me he had to remove my post.  Too bad I can't recover it now...just wanted to show it to others to be sure I wasn't being offensive.  He accused me of continuing and defending "Verne's hatred of God's people" and that, when I asked me if he was saved (because I have heard from another that he wasn't) he assured me that he was and was indicated that he had reason to question my salvation.  Is this guy hypersensitive or playing a big game and why?

Matt Sciaini

[retread]

It looks like Matt is still at it over at that other site:

I also found Matt's statements on racism offensive. I addressed this in my post that you censored, since to the best of my knowledge, Matt hasn't yet objected to my views on the bb, I won't bring this up again in this message.

...
My statement on racism came directly from the dictionary. I guess you hold an uncoventional view on racism? Verne has hid behind the color of his skin when he has been called on his hateful, vicious ways. I don't know why Verne thinks that being black gives one license to hate God's people...

As a quick reminder here is what Matt said:

...
This is not racism, sir. Racism is when one holds the belief that one race is superior to another. Telling Mr. Ling to marry a Chinese woman is by no means saying that whites are superior to the Chinese. I don’t know if Mr. Geftakys really said that or not. Perhaps he did, but that statement is not a “racist remark.”
...

And here is part of what I said (see earlier message for complete context - I have added red highlighting here to my statements that define my view that Matt seems to think is unconventional):

I would have to disagree with this idea of racism.  I don't think that you have to say one race is superior than another to be a racist.  Viewing and treating different races differently would be enough (equal but different notion).  Of course racists may have a different view of this.  For example if you hosted a dinner and served the white skinned guests chateau briand, and the black skinned guests fried chicken, not because the white skinned guests were superior, but because you thought that all of the black skinned guests would like the fried chicken better because they were black, and you were only trying to please them and everyone else at the table, I would still consider this racist behavior.  This would be true even if those receiving the fried chicken did like it better.

I am sorry Matt, but I would not call this as you put it "an unconventional view on racism".  You do not  have to say one race is superior than another to be a racist.  If someone feels that this is unconventional and feels that this isn't racism, then I dare say that they just may be a racist.  I don't know about your dictionary, but all mine give multiple definitions or examples of racism such as "discrimination or prejudice based on race".  Just because you don't meet one of the definitions of racism, does not mean that you are not a racist.  For example I read in the dictionary that "murder" means "to kill brutally" as well as other meanings such as "to kill another human unlawfully", now if someone kills another human unlawfully but not brutally, they are still guilty of committing murder. Well, yet once again communicating with Matt is producing extreme frustration for me. Could we possibly have a racist over on the SWTE site?  It could definitely explain some of the nasty attacks coming from there.  Anyone else out there think my view on racism is unconventional?

...
Verne has hid behind the color of his skin when he has been called on his hateful, vicious ways.

Hey Verne, did you realize that you hide behind the color of your skin.  Strange, I have never known you to be one to hide Verne.

...
I don't know why Verne thinks that being black gives one license to hate God's people...

Hey Verne, did you know that you think "that being black gives one license to hate God's people"? And Matt, just in case you don't realize it, Verne's being black does not give you license to hate him.

I have read racist drivel, but I don't think that Verne is the one spouting the racist drivel here.

I have to wonder why I even bother to look over at SWTE.  Now where is my blood pressure medication.  Oh when will I ever learn?

[editor]

BRENT

This may not be helpful to you, but brother, you are now going to find out that you have allowed a certain little guy to raise up disciples in your own "house."  You will not be afforded the "right" to have been spoken to by God and see things differently in any respect.  Verne's disciples are legalists like he is and I'm afraid he's got you.  He will not stop because he hates authority.  It is now his board isn't it?  

Me thinks some of your old training is going to have to kick in here soon.  You need a snake hoe brother and Me thinks you are going to be quite busy unless you just decide not to ever go back into your own garden.  

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36

George used to say, The fool will do anything so he won't have to look the fool he is.  Hmmmmm.....

Good hoeing,

Affirming

For the record:

This BB is not a house.  I have never intended it to be my house, or God's house.  I have never deleted anyone's speech here, with the exception of a long, very long humor thread.  I deleted that on January 18th, 2003, because the LB's in SLO found it offensive, and we were beginning a new relationship based on good will in Christ.  I do not regret deleting that thread, although several have expressed disatisfaction in my doing so.  (there might have been some anonymous posters that were deleted, but I don't think so.  Perhaps my critics can dig this up and correct me.)

I am not trying to raise up disciples,  and Verne certainly has not raised any for himself,  whether they are of the legalist or antinomian variety.

This is Brian Tucker's BB.  He alone bans and deletes.  I don't.  The only reason I am admin again has to do with a certain unpleasant situation a while back known as St. Louis Sister.

If I was trying to use this forum, or the website in order to meet some personal, emotional need, I would not have turned it over to Steve Irons.  In fact, the needs that I have, (my family mainly) were hindered by the website!  Quite the opposite of my "house."

I would like to point out a few minor differences between me and George, mainly for the benefit of 2 or 3 people who claim that I am like him.

1.) I admit my mistakes, in writing.
2.) I don't silence others who gainsay me
3.) I report all my income and pay as little tax as possible under the current laws.
4.) Instead of trying to get people to follow me, I am trying to get them to go to other churches, different churches.
5.) I have written my own thoughts, and have not plagiarized a single thought.  Contrarily,  I give credit where credit is due to my sources.
6.) I have never been unfaithful to my wife, and turned from my immoral ways before I was married.
7.) I have not repeatedly lied

Here are some similarities:

1.) I have been to Greece, Israel, Spain, Turkey, and other places.
2.) I am prideful and arrogant.
3.) I have read many of the same books that George has read
4.) I have gone to meetings where he was the main speaker
5.) We both had a significant financial interest in "the work."

You get the picture.  I know I said I wouldn't say more on this thread, and wouldn't have done this, unless Verne "snake" Carty had posted this nonsense.  

I enjoy reading what everyone has to say about Jonathan and Fletcher Lynn,  but please leave me out of it.  Okay?

jBrent

[Oscar]

I have been unable to look into the "seagull" site until today.  I guess the graphics overload Ole Betsy's RAM or something.

Today I had a few minutes at school, and the library computers are the manygigsdsl kind.

Sooo I took a look.

I looked like three people pretending they have something to say.

I suggest that the "seagulls" be accorded the same treatment the John D. Malone SEEEENIOR received.  

Why bother with arguing with the members of Operation Obtuse?

Thomas Maddux

[M2]

Matt Peeling called me to apologize for his post on SWTE. I had emailed him about it this morning and someone posted something in my defense.

Got to go.
Lord bless,
Marcia