Why Tom and Dave read words that others can't see

[skeptic]

As an example: We've had very rude and dominating contributors, wacko atheist/liberal posters, false mystic posters, malacious lying wolves holding forth, former members now wanting to pursue same sex partners, and now the pinnacle of destructive evil----- the long and boring poster!

 Tom deleted one or two of the wacko liberal's rantings, I believe, but it took the sarcasm of Skeptic to finally convince the errant soul to flee to his leftist friends elsewhere. It isn't just deletion of posts that did the trick, because that just made him mad; no, it was a special gift that used anonymous ridicule and like an arrow expertly aimed it found it's mark!

 
 Slander you say Marcia? Certainly not! It was perfectly just to suggest that the Moderators of this BB wish to keep Lenore weak so that we can teach and influence her. Skeptic knows what goes on in the hearts and minds of Tom and myself, it is apparent in how we have handled this whole situation!!

 God Bless, Mark C.

OK, you say all she is is boring and tedious.  Well, she said this in her last post:

Quote from: tenderhearted on August 07, 2005, 08:30:05 pm
.....
MAYBE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD,
WHY TOM AND DAVE READ WORDS THAT OTHERS CANT SEE ?

In my opinion, may be they can see by being intimate with the Holy Spirit, and listening to the Holy spirit of what God is telling them , talking to them in their hearts.
Maybe they can see because God is allowing them to see, what is beyond the words that are being written.
I have not developed that skill yet. I hope as I avail myself to God's teaching I will be blessed with that gift as well.
.....

I was immediately accused of slander for something I didn't say...not by you.

Lenore was immediately ignored for saying something really whacky...by everyone except Marcia and myself. 

Why would you not show some care and gently correct her regarding the spiritual gift of "seeing beyond the written word."

This is hardly merely being boring!  If you read some of what she says, you would have a different position.

I also remember vividly, your misquoting, mis-using and flat out lying about scripture---Romans 14---in order to protect Lenore.  You really don't know what I'm talking about? 

It's good that you have decided to wear the beanie, it helps.

What's your opinion regarding Tom and Dave being able to see hidden words and phrases, and Lenore earnestly desiring this gift?  I, personally think these three could be wounded pilgrims, and we might not even have known it.

S'sS

[Margaret]

I have a suggestion for Lenore:

How about starting a blog (weblog)? I don't know if you're familiar with the concept--it's basically an online journal. You can post whatever you want, however lengthy, and the good thing about it is that you could give your other friends from church, Alpha group, etc. the URL so they could read your meditations without gettting into post-Assembly conversations.

When you have it set up, post the URL on the BB, too. Blogs are free, and really easy to set up at "blogger.com". They give you  a choice of preset designs, and you can even post pictures. Then you can limit your input to the BB to taking part in the conversations, with shorter posts. 

Back to the general conversation:

There is something else that's been sitting in the back of my mind and I think it's trivial, except that the subject keeps getting brought up. It's the "issue" of Tom "reading into" Ss's post, and then not apologizing for it. Maybe I live in a different environment from the rest of you guys, or maybe it's a generational thing--being a doddering old grandma and all. But it seems obvious to me that Ss's use of the word "entertain" in the context he did was definitely ambiguous. I think the meaning he intended was "to consider". But if you look up the word "entertain" in the online dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=entertain, that's not the main idea you get, it's only one out of five, some of the others being "show hospitality" and "provide entertainment".

So it seems to me that Tom's guess was not particularly out of line. And here's the grandma part--In my day, (quavery voice here, sonny) it was the person whose communication was vague that did the apologizing and said, "Oh, I'm sorry I left the wrong impression. What I meant to say was...."

Okay, grandma's had her say.

[vernecarty]

There should have been some reflective comments on Lenore's post.
I seriously doubt that either Dave or Tom would endorse her view of their being clairvoyant. To apply the work of the Spirit of God to such  a context as this is simply nonsensical.

MAYBE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THIS THREAD,
WHY TOM AND DAVE READ WORDS THAT OTHERS CANT SEE ?

In my opinion, may be they can see by being intimate with the Holy Spirit, and listening to the Holy spirit of what God is telling them , talking to them in their hearts. Maybe they can see because God is allowing them to see, what is beyond the words that are being written.
I have not developed that skill yet. I hope as I avail myself to God's teaching I will be blessed with that gift as well.  

This is the worst kind of superstition, and is the stuff of whch assembly dogma and propaganda is made.
What possible basis could any Christian have for making a statement like this in this particular context?

I am amazed at Christians condemning another Christian for sharing things of God.
I am really amazed at this. Questioning things of God that is being share. And Questioning the condition of another Christian heart and motives.
I am really amazed , I am really amazed.

You know what has just cross my mind: THE HEARTS OF MANY WILL GROW COLD.

Well it is almost 12 midnight.

See you next LORD'S DAY.

Lenore

No need for amazement. The BB community is simply saying whatever your motives, posting in the manner you do is unacceptable and disruptive. The gracious and mature thing to do is shorten your posts and stop making so many in rapid succession. Trying to make this some sort of spritiual issue is dishonest and self-serving Lenore.

I have a suggestion for Lenore:

. 

Back to the general conversation:

There is something else that's been sitting in the back of my mind and I think it's trivial, except that the subject keeps getting brought up. It's the "issue" of Tom "reading into" Ss's post, and then not apologizing for it. Maybe I live in a different environment from the rest of you guys, or maybe it's a generational thing--being a doddering old grandma and all. But it seems obvious to me that Ss's use of the word "entertain" in the context he did was definitely ambiguous. I think the meaning he intended was "to consider". But if you look up the word "entertain" in the online dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=entertain, that's not the main idea you get, it's only one out of five, some of the others being "show hospitality" and "provide entertainment".

So it seems to me that Tom's guess was not particularly out of line. And here's the grandma part--In my day, (quavery voice here, sonny) it was the person whose communication was vague that did the apologizing and said, "Oh, I'm sorry I left the wrong impression. What I meant to say was...."

Okay, grandma's had her say.

Granted Margaret. None of the definitions of "entertain" however, would justify Tom's notion of "servicing", a rather startling conclusion in view of the context of the remarks.

Verne

[M2]

.....
Back to the general conversation:

There is something else that's been sitting in the back of my mind and I think it's trivial, except that the subject keeps getting brought up. It's the "issue" of Tom "reading into" Ss's post, and then not apologizing for it. Maybe I live in a different environment from the rest of you guys, or maybe it's a generational thing--being a doddering old grandma and all. But it seems obvious to me that Ss's use of the word "entertain" in the context he did was definitely ambiguous. I think the meaning he intended was "to consider". But if you look up the word "entertain" in the online dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=entertain, that's not the main idea you get, it's only one out of five, some of the others being "show hospitality" and "provide entertainment".

So it seems to me that Tom's guess was not particularly out of line. And here's the grandma part--In my day, (quavery voice here, sonny) it was the person whose communication was vague that did the apologizing and said, "Oh, I'm sorry I left the wrong impression. What I meant to say was...."

Okay, grandma's had her say.

Hi Grandma

While I agree with Verne's response, I would ask that, hypothetically speaking, if skeptic had responded as both you and Dave S claim he sould have, then what??  Are you saying that then Tom would have apologized for his misunderstanding?  Tom just came and went and no straightening of the matter.  The only response we have had, to date, from Tom was to "justify" his stance for misunderstanding, rather than to you know what.

Marcia

[Oscar]

Hi folks,

There is so much going on in this topic that I must limit myself to brief responses.

1. Once when I was teaching, we had a science classroom containing a wading pool with a number of crawdads in it.  During the week they were fed daily.  But after the weekend there would always be at least one less crawdad in the pool.  Lacking other food, they ate each other.  The strong ate the weak.

Could this board be suffering from a lack of intellectual stimulation?

2. Regarding my unwillingness to apologize.  

I criticized our "skeptic" (SS) for its rude statement about a girl it (neuter prounoun) does not know.  She was, it said, "servicing" other "clients".  
a. Clients are people for whom someone performs a service for pay.
b. A few weeks ago I walked down a road in west Texas where I used to go with my cousin Cecil to call the cows home for milking.  The cows were milked by hand as they only had 10 or so.

A cow cannot be milked indefinitely.  You have to repeatedly have them impregnated so that they will produce a calf and then you can keep them "fresh" (giving milk) for a couple of years by regular milking.  When that period is over, you must have them "serviced" so they will get pregnant again.

Nowadays on modern dairy farms they use artificial insemenation.  But FYI mares, sows, and cows are being "serviced" on farms and ranches all over the world for the continued production of milk, pork, beef, and the occasional horse.  The term is understood to mean that all over the USA.  In fact, I have Dr. Laura Schlesinger use it on her nationwide radio broadcast.  She applies it to unmarried live in partners.

Skeptic, IMHO, called the girl a whore, and I am still of that opinion, hence, no apology will be forthcoming.  

3. Regarding deletion of posts.

Brent informed Marcia that her posts have been erased.  Perhaps so, but not by me.  I have deleted no more than, (I believe) six posts in two years, and have altered four of five more.

Brian has the ability to strip me of my "powers" at the stroke of a key.  Until he does so I will just have to use my best judgement, for good or for ill.  No one has ever supplied me with a list of rules as to what is allowed or disallowed.  

4. Lenore

a. I do not have the direct instruction and/or illumination of the Holy Spirit concerning people's posts that she has conjectured.  However, since most American Evangelicals believe in this, or something very similar, I have no wish to go "tilting at windmills" in order to cure the evangelical community of its error.

b. As some have stated, and have criticized me for doing, I decided a long time ago to simply scan over and or skip Lenore's interminable posts.  IMHO, she does this because it satisfies some need/desire/whatever that she has.  From time to time someone posts that what she has said has been very encouraging.  In fact, much of what she says in intended to encourage.  

In addition, other than keeping a constant watch on her and immediately deleting, I can't stop her.

c. LENORE, please be aware that many on the board find your constant posts very annoying.  Could you perhaps be a little more sensitive about this?

5. "Skeptic"

This genderless and anonymous troll, IMHO, is only here to cause trouble.  It looks to me as if it is succeeding in doing so.

I was amused by the tinfoil helmet thing when it first mentioned it.  As with most jokes, the humor content is reduced by repetition.

SS was, however, quite wrong about one of the statements it made.  There is far more evidence for God than there is for Belgium.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Lenore,

Vern Carty said:

No need for amazement. The BB community is simply saying whatever your motives, posting in the manner you do is unacceptable and disruptive. The gracious and mature thing to do is shorten your posts and stop making so many in rapid succession. Trying to make this some sort of spritiual issue is dishonest and self-serving Lenore.

I agree with Verne's admonition. 

I also refuse to become involved in personal quarrels between board members, unless they excessively disrupt the board.

Thomas Maddux

[M2]

Hi folks,

There is so much going on in this topic that I must limit myself to brief responses.

1. Once when I was teaching, we had a science classroom containing a wading pool with a number of crawdads in it.  During the week they were fed daily.  But after the weekend there would always be at least one less crawdad in the pool.  Lacking other food, they ate each other.  The strong ate the weak.

Could this board be suffering from a lack of intellectual stimulation?

2. Regarding my unwillingness to apologize. 

I criticized our "skeptic" (SS) for its rude statement about a girl it (neuter prounoun) does not know.  She was, it said, "servicing" other "clients". 
a. Clients are people for whom someone performs a service for pay.
b. A few weeks ago I walked down a road in west Texas where I used to go with my cousin Cecil to call the cows home for milking.  The cows were milked by hand as they only had 10 or so.

A cow cannot be milked indefinitely.  You have to repeatedly have them impregnated so that they will produce a calf and then you can keep them "fresh" (giving milk) for a couple of years by regular milking.  When that period is over, you must have them "serviced" so they will get pregnant again.

Nowadays on modern dairy farms they use artificial insemenation.  But FYI mares, sows, and cows are being "serviced" on farms and ranches all over the world for the continued production of milk, pork, beef, and the occasional horse.  The term is understood to mean that all over the USA.

Skeptic, IMHO, called the girl a whore, and I am still of that opinion, hence, no apology will be forthcoming. 

3. Regarding deletion of posts.

Brent informed Marcia that her posts have been erased.  Perhaps so, but not by me.  I have deleted no more than, (I believe) six posts in two years, and have altered four of five more.

Brian has the ability to strip me of my "powers" at the stroke of a key.  Until he does so I will just have to use my best judgement, for good or for ill.  No one has ever supplied me with a list of rules as to what is allowed or disallowed. 

4. Lenore

a. I do not have the direct instruction and/or illumination of the Holy Spirit concerning people's posts that she has conjectured.  However, since most American Evangelicals believe in this, or something very similar, I have no wish to go "tilting at windmills" in order to cure the evangelical community of its error.

b. As some have stated, and have criticized me for doing, I decided a long time ago to simply scan over and or skip Lenore's interminable posts.  IMHO, she does this because it satisfies some need/desire/whatever that she has.  From time to time someone posts that what she has said has been very encouraging.  In fact, much of what she says in intended to encourage.   

In addition, other than keeping a constant watch on her and immediately deleting, I can't stop her.

c. LENORE, please be aware that many on the board find your constant posts very annoying.  Could you perhaps be a little more sensitive about this?

5. "Skeptic"

This genderless and anonymous troll, IMHO, is only here to cause trouble.  It looks to me as if it is succeeding in doing so.

I was amused by the tinfoil helmet thing when it first mentioned it.  As with most jokes, the humor content is reduced by repetition.

SS was, however, quite wrong about one of the statements it made.  There is far more evidence for God than there is for Belgium.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

You know Tom, I did not expect it from you, but life is full of surprises.

You accuse skeptic of lying and validated Lenore's POV that you have that special gift to see the motives and deeper meaning in other's posts, though you stated that you did not.

This confirms for me why George was able to continue for as long as he did.

Got to go lift my lower jaw.  It seems to be locked in open mode.

Marcia

[Oscar]

Folks,

I just read this, posted by Dave.

Skeptic was able to change my profile which tells me he has administrative priviliges.  My guess is Brent as Skeptic's tyrades are similar in attention-seeking nature to the type of stuff Brent has done in the past.  Could be wrong.  Just a guess

If this is true, there are only four people that could be "skeptic".  Myself, Mark C, Brent, or Brian.

Brent, are you "Skeptic"?

Tom Maddux

[skeptic]

Folks,

I just read this, posted by Dave.

If this is true, there are only four people that could be "skeptic".  Myself, Mark C, Brent, or Brian.

Brent, are you "Skeptic"?

Tom Maddux

Of course I am, Tom.  Had you been doing any reading at all, you would have known it.  I made it quite clear, dropping little hints here and there, and then flat out proving it several times.

Most people know it was me, and I have certainly owned up to it when asked.  Yes, Skeptic is Brent and Brent is Skeptic.

Tom,  I never used the word "servicing" or "client," in my post.  Didn't even come close.  You obviously haven't taken the time to read them.

You said this:

2. Regarding my unwillingness to apologize. 

I criticized our "skeptic" (SS) for its rude statement about a girl it (neuter prounoun) does not know.  She was, it said, "servicing" other "clients". 
a. Clients are people for whom someone performs a service for pay.

This is outrageous!  Either you:
1.) Didn't bother to read what I said, let alone re-read it after being REPEATEDLY told that you were wrong
2.)Did read it, but insist on lying about what I said

Both of these are unacceptable and offensive. If you're going to enter into conversation with someone for the first time by telling them they are committing slander, you should have at least a ruimentary basis for your charge.  You have nothing but your imagination and arrogance!

Again, for the fourth or fifth time, here's what I actually said:

How is it that David finds the means to support himself, let alone his fiance?  Did the "Work" send him that much cash, that he can still live off of it?

I wouldn't worry too much about Edna.  She will find out that this fish hasn't got what she wants, and that his past would indicate a bumpy ride in the future.  Certainly some of the other men she is entertaining are better suited to her goals!

I know of two of these Filipina Internet marriages, both of which involve men who are around 25 years older than their brides.  The men are soon as docile as lambs and their brides rule over them with an iron hand, obtaining airfare and housing for family members who immigrate to the US as soon as possible. 

I don't think David could/would provide this service for Lady Edna!

Also, is it possible that there is another David Edward Geftakys, who attends the Maritime academy?  It certainly doesn't seem likely, neither does it seem likely that someone planted this info, although either are possible. 

It would be nice to ba able to verify this information.

the skeptics's skeptic

Please notice the entire absence of the words "servicing" and "clients."

Let me also remind you that your went on in some detail about how I called this woman a whore.  Dave Sable used the words "Multiple boyfriends," and "slut."

Nowhere in my post was any of this suggested, in any fashion whatsoever!  The word entertain doesn't mean the same as impregnating a cow, Tom. 

What you are saying, and the way you are going on with defending yourself is ludicrous.  You know quite well that I never said anything about clients, whores, servicing, sluts, or multiple boyfriends.  You have no basis whatsoever for carrying on like this.

Here is the plain fact of the matter:

You are too proud to admit a mistake.  Your pride is so great that you imagine that I typed words that I didn't---I am assuming you really believe this and aren't just lying like a child caught stealing---furthermore, you expect everyone else to go along with your ruse!

This is why you were so ineffective at dealing with George when you knew better Tom.

Again, if you're going to claim I said any such thing as you say above, at least provide a link to it.  The words have not been altered, as many can vouch.

There is something seriously wrong with you. Why can't you back down when you're wrong? 

Can anyone provide me one instance where Tom has ever admitted the smallest mistake?

Finally, In response to Tom's first post to me, where he accused me of slander,  I wish I had said, "Why do you say that?"  Then he could have said all this garbage and wouldn't have the feeble excuse that I was ambiguous!  Ambiguity on my part doesn't allow a college student to manufacture words and intent out of thin air.

I have cleared up what I meant many times over, and you get more outrageous in your delusion every time you post!

S'sS

[Suzie Trockman]

So  Verne, in other words, the sentence could read,"Certainly some of the other men she is (considering) are better suited to her goals." and "I don't think David could/would provide this (assistance)."

I guess calling Brent a slanderer is easier to do than read at a 6th grade level.

Tom, I do hope you can see how off you were/are and apoligize, as it does make you look very foolish and arrogant.

Suzie

[M2]

So  Verne, in other words, the sentence could read,"Certainly some of the other men she is (considering) are better suited to her goals." and "I don't think David could/would provide this (assistance)."

I guess calling Brent a slanderer is easier to do than read at a 6th grade level.

Tom, I do hope you can see how off you were/are and apoligize, as it does make you look very foolish and arrogant.

Suzie

Tom's gone again.  Looks like he breezed on board and cleared the decks with his wisdom.  Reminds me of LBs who refuse to admit that they could even remotely or possibly have done anything wrong, and have the the insight to know how the members are really thinking.

Suzie, why would you want Tom to apologize.  His problem is that he isn't even wrong, ever.  I hate fake apologies.  He's not going to trouble himself with "fighting" you know, just cause the fighting.  It's called being above approach (or is it reproach).

This is so sick,  I needed to take a break.

It would be interesting to note where Brian stands on this.

Marcia

[Margaret]

Marcia,

No, I couldn't predict what Tom would have done, and it's a good thing I didn't try. I think Tom should apologize, but that point has already been driven into the ground. I was just feeling the need to point out another facet to the debacle. If anyone wants to know what I think about apologies, read the article on ga.com--empathy is the key word, something a lot of us are short on, including myself. I'm done now.

"Grandma"

[vernecarty]

So  Verne, in other words, the sentence could read,"Certainly some of the other men she is (considering) are better suited to her goals." and "I don't think David could/would provide this (assistance)."

I guess calling Brent a slanderer is easier to do than read at a 6th grade level.

Tom, I do hope you can see how off you were/are and apoligize, as it does make you look very foolish and arrogant.

Suzie

Not only could it read as such Suzie, the context in my view demanded that any reasonably intelligent reader get that sense, Margaret's interesting counter notwithstanding...
Verne

My! my! my! I have not seen the BB humming  like this in quite some time. I suspect some of what is driving the current debate lies way beneath the surface doncha think y'all?

[editor]

Not only could it read as such Suzie, the context in my view demanded that any reasonably intelligent reader get that sense, Margaret's interesting counter notwithstanding...
Verne

My! my! my! I have not seen the BB humming  like this in quite some time. I suspect some of what is driving the current debate lies way beneath the surface doncha think y'all?

Verne,

I think I understand you clearly, but some of our other readers may not. May I take the liberty of re-phrasing what you wrote above? Please correct me if I don't have it right.

"Of course it reads like that! Any fool can see it, and to suggest otherwise is plain stupid, even if someone tries to grasp at straws by using other definitions of a word."

PS, none of the other definitions of "entertain" mean "servicing" cows or mulitple boyfriends!

Here's a nifty definition: 

slander: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=slander&x=16&y=18

Brent

[vernecarty]

Verne,

I think I understand you clearly, but some of our other readers may not. May I take the liberty of re-phrasing what you wrote above? Please correct me if I don't have it right.

"Of course it reads like that! Any fool can see it, and to suggest otherwise is plain stupid, even if someone tries to grasp at straws by using other definitions of a word."

PS, none of the other definitions of "entertain" mean "servicing" cows or mulitple boyfriends!

Here's a nifty definition: 

slander: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=slander&x=16&y=18

Brent

Thank you for that most excellent clarification.
I sometimes have a tendency to be somewhat subtle..
Verne