|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: A-MeisterA-Meister Date: Oct 5, 2007 00:52
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> According to the book you promote, nobody is "fully innocent" except
>> the fictitious Jesus the Christ that some attribute as being the
>> inspirational author to a sadly delusional Helen.
>
> If you think this, why are you here? You should find a group more in tune
> with your views.
Hey Chuck, here's one for you:
talk.dopeler
--
Dopeler: The tendency of really stupid ideas to
seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Oct 5, 2007 01:08
A-Meister meister.com> wrote in news:Q6GdnXajxp6mcZjanZ2dnUVZ_h-
vnZ2d@comcast.com:
> Chuck wrote:
>
>> According to the book you promote, nobody is "fully innocent" except
>> the fictitious Jesus the Christ that some attribute as being the
>> inspirational author to a sadly delusional Helen.
>
> Wow, you got it wrong in the very first sentence.
>
> (Make that the first line of the first sentence.)
>
> Way to go, Chuckles, your credibility is smokin'!
He does seem to have ACIM mixed up with traditional Christianity, doesn't
he?
|
| Show full article (0.91Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ChuckChuck Date: Oct 5, 2007 02:14
On Oct 5, 3:48 am, A-Meister meister.com> wrote:> Chuck wrote:
>> According to the book you promote, nobody is "fully innocent" except
>> the fictitious Jesus the Christ that some attribute as being the
>> inspirational author to a sadly delusional Helen.
>
> Wow, you got it wrong in the very first sentence.
>
> (Make that the first line of the first sentence.)
>
> Way to go, Chuckles, your credibility is smokin'!
>
> [snip]
Hmmm, if I'm "fully innocent", I can't be wrong, hypocrite.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: KatieKatie Date: Oct 5, 2007 07:46
John,
Someone I know recently mentioned their intention to post the names of your family members here,
should you continue to post my husband's name. Evidently someone posted enough personal
information about you at one time that the information, including your location and contact
information became readily available.
Just so you have a heads up on this, so you can decide how you'd like to proceed.
It's just that you should face the fact that not everyone agrees with all your excuses and
justifications, especially the one about how you are acting for the common good to protect it
against all the bad people.
My husband is an intelligent, kind, gentle, and well-liked person who has an excellent
reputation that none of your psychotic ravings are going to damage. He does not post here and
never has. He has absolutely zero interest in this group. You are wasting your time posting his
name, except that you're putting yourself and now your own family at the same risk you choose for
my husband, if you wish for your own family members to be subjected to the same behaviors you
exhibit toward him.
The same for Queenie, by the way. Evidently his pertintent details and those of his family in
Texas aren't too hard to track down either.
That's more kindness than either of you deserve.
|
| Show full article (2.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: KatieKatie Date: Oct 5, 2007 08:50
"TerraFreeNews" homail.com> wrote in message
news:470530df$0$26398$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>
> "Katie" yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4703d854$0$20564$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Do you believe that there is ANYONE else here or anywhere who truly shares your belief that I
>> put men in dresses, John?
>
> Well, Katie I guess that depends on how someone interprets your bizarre and unwelcomed
> proclivity to metaphorically place your male targets in dresses. Which isn't a question of
> belief but a matter of public record.
You are aware, John, that you are the one who initiated that idea, aren't you? You saw
something on the CF board that you evidently couldn't understand or didn't bother to take the
time to read, decided it was about me putting Chuck in a Little Bo Peep dress, and everything
grew from there. It was a joke to begin with, it's always been a joke, and you're the only one
who is taking it seriously.
|
| Show full article (1.51Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: KatieKatie Date: Oct 5, 2007 08:54
> On Oct 5, 3:48 am, A-Meister meister.com> wrote:>> Chuck wrote:
>>> According to the book you promote, nobody is "fully innocent" except
>>> the fictitious Jesus the Christ that some attribute as being the
>>> inspirational author to a sadly delusional Helen.
>>
>> Wow, you got it wrong in the very first sentence.
>>
>> (Make that the first line of the first sentence.)
>>
>> Way to go, Chuckles, your credibility is smokin'!
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Hmmm, if I'm "fully innocent", I can't be wrong, hypocrite.
ROFLMAO!
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TerraFreeNewsTerraFreeNews Date: Oct 5, 2007 09:04
"Katie" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47064ea7$0$19631$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...> John,
>
> Someone I know recently mentioned their intention to post the names of
> your family members here, should you continue to post my husband's name.
> Evidently someone posted enough personal information about you at one time
> that the information, including your location and contact information
> became readily available.
>
> Just so you have a heads up on this, so you can decide how you'd like to
> proceed.
~Well gee, Katie. Are you saying your legal last name is not now the legal
last name of your husband? Are you saying you can use the last name of other
people, but its somehow against your rules of engagement to use yours?
What exactly are you claiming is the name you use when you publically
present yourself as an anti-cult activist? That's hardly clear at all.
|
| Show full article (2.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CarrieCarrie Date: Oct 5, 2007 09:18
"TerraFreeNews" homail.com> wrote in message
news:470654ae$0$26493$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> As such, I think all this will soon resolve itself. TRCM will be a ghost
> town soon enough.
Is that your goal?
Has it been all along?
|
| Show full article (0.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: NancyNancy Date: Oct 5, 2007 10:40
On Oct 5, 10:04 am, "TerraFreeNews" homail.com> wrote:
> "Katie" wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> Someone I know ...
Hmmm... someone she knows is threatening
to post something she read somewhere. I
wonder who that could be... :)
Hmmm... :)
>> recently mentioned their intention
>> to post the names of your family
>> members here, should you continue
>> to post my husband's name. Evidently
>> someone posted enough personal
>> information about you at one time
>> that the information, including your
>> location and contact information
>> became readily available.
|
| Show full article (2.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: TerraFreeNewsTerraFreeNews Date: Oct 5, 2007 10:58
"Katie" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47065db9$0$11018$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...>
> "TerraFreeNews" homail.com> wrote in message
> news:470530df$0$26398$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>
>> "Katie" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4703d854$0$20564$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>> Do you believe that there is ANYONE else here or anywhere who truly
>>> shares your belief that I put men in dresses, John?
>>
>> Well, Katie I guess that depends on how someone interprets your bizarre
>> and unwelcomed proclivity to metaphorically place your male targets in
>> dresses. Which isn't a question of belief but a matter of public record.
>
> You are aware, John, that you are the one who initiated that idea, aren't
> you? You saw something on the CF board that you evidently couldn't
> understand or didn't bother to take the time to read, decided it was about
> me putting Chuck in a Little Bo Peep dress, and everything grew from ...
|
| Show full article (1.62Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
