|
Post by emy on Apr 16, 2010 19:54:08 GMT -5
Kiwi, think of this...those who are in the fellowship and have continued to say "we were not lied to and we don't really think anyone else was" would be the most to lose face IF this letter by A Dorothy proved to be an authentic William Irvine of the 2X2 founder's sister...it would make THEM liars wouldn't it? I mean then they'd have to come forth and say they'd been lied to about the history of the fellowship because they'd known all along that it was founded in 1897! Come on we can't make liars out of them now can we? They're so steady in believing in the fellowship even THOUGH it WAS founded in 1897 by William Irvine...we don't want to rock their boat of belief now, do we? I don't really care about William or Dorothy or who it effects, I care whether the letter is true or not. Don't you get it YET? Imagi nation Molly Keddle Eileen Dover.........
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 16, 2010 20:00:31 GMT -5
I don't really care about William or Dorothy or who it effects, I care whether the letter is true or not. Don't you get it YET? Imagi nation Molly Keddle Eileen Dover......... Christina Box...
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 16, 2010 20:07:51 GMT -5
Don't you get it YET? Imagi nation Molly Keddle Eileen Dover......... Christina Box... Interesting pronunciation of Christina : cry - stinn - uh
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Apr 16, 2010 20:11:26 GMT -5
emy Christ in a box
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 16, 2010 20:50:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure Kiwi has the truth of the issue, YET! i CAN'T BELIEVE IT IS THAT HARD FOR HIM?!!!
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Apr 16, 2010 23:14:04 GMT -5
Hahaha Ram! That's a good letter. I'm seriously impressed that you managed to get your hands on it. ;D bahahahhah how he managed to get his hands on it. Bahahahhah sorry friends, especially kiwi who desperately wants this to be true, but ram wrote this. Hey ram I love the comment about Christ in a box. Good one.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 17, 2010 0:46:05 GMT -5
I don't really care about William or Dorothy or who it effects, I care whether the letter is true or not. Don't you get it YET? Imagi nation Molly Keddle Eileen Dover......... I'm not stupid
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 17, 2010 0:49:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure Kiwi has the truth of the issue, YET! i CAN'T BELIEVE IT IS THAT HARD FOR HIM?!!! Yes I know it's just a sick joke based on lies
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 1:27:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure Kiwi has the truth of the issue, YET! i CAN'T BELIEVE IT IS THAT HARD FOR HIM?!!! If this is merely a sick attempt at humour, then I am thoroughly disgusted. It is monumentally unethical, particularly given the fact that I wasted significant time carefully reading the contents of the letter, looking into the minutia of its detail, in the assumption that Ram was being forthright. It is one thing to "kid" around with people, it is quite another to lead them up the garden path, allow them to persist in a lie that has been concocted, and to set people up in a situation where there is potential for this kind of nonsense to get out and become part of an urban myth. Concocting lies and falsehoods in order to get some fireworks out of professing people, and to see whether they will swallow it hook, line, and sinker is utterly reprehensible. I point out, Sharon, that you seemed fairly convinced a few posts back too. Unless that was merely part of the charade - the "fun" of baiting people and stirring up dissension. Revolting conduct from all involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 3:33:27 GMT -5
I can vouch for the fact that the letter originated from the home territory of the Irvine's in Scotland. I know things. Gene, you looked at the address at the top of the letter didn't you? Cheat!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 3:51:06 GMT -5
Let me say this (especially for the benefit of Kiwi). I can truly state that this is a genuine letter. That I do know. However, I personally do not trust its contents.
Nevertheless, with all the controversy this letter has caused I am now beginning to believe the contents of the letter may be authentic after all? In fact I'm now growing suspicious of the possibility of a conspiracy at work here?
Here are some things to consider, which when added together leads one to only one proper conclusion, i.e. the contents of the letter are authentic. Indeed the following factors drive us at uncontrollable speed towards that certainty. Anyway, here they are:
1) Why has Nathan PM'd me asking for my bank account details saying he wants to gift me $50 via paypal?
2) Why is Jason repeatedly trying to engage me in conversation about golf and to a lesser extent, cricket?
3) Why is Scott Ross sitting on the fence waiting to see which way this debate will go before he pounces?
4) Why has Dorothy Irvine been massaged out of the Irvine family records? To discredit the letter?
5) Why have the Irish TMB contingent remained generally silent over this matter? Knowledge of truth perhaps?
6) Do we really believe the Icelandic volcano eruption at this time was merely a matter of coincidence. After all, fall-out coming from two sources tends to prove a matter doesn't it?
7) Why is everyone avoiding the McGillycuddy's Reeks connection? Is this another case of a truth that nobody wants established?
Yes there are more factors that I could list and I've no doubt more will come to light in the coming days,
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2010 7:46:06 GMT -5
Ram states that this a genuine letter, meaning only that someone other than himself wrote this forgery. Searching TMB on misspelt words in the letter, like "definately" yields some clues as to the actual writer.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 17, 2010 7:54:09 GMT -5
Ram states that this a genuine letter, meaning only that someone other than himself wrote this forgery. Searching TMB on misspelt words in the letter, like "definately" yields some clues as to the actual writer. Stating that it is a 'genuine letter' does not necessarily indicate anything about its author. 'Genuine letter' could simply distinguish it from being, say, a 'genuine parakeet'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 8:05:20 GMT -5
One thing for sure, it is genuinely intended to make a point. The reactions to this genuine spoof letter have been genuinely remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2010 8:13:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure Kiwi has the truth of the issue, YET! i CAN'T BELIEVE IT IS THAT HARD FOR HIM?!!! If this is merely a sick attempt at humour, then I am thoroughly disgusted. It is monumentally unethical, particularly given the fact that I wasted significant time carefully reading the contents of the letter, looking into the minutia of its detail, in the assumption that Ram was being forthright. It is one thing to "kid" around with people, it is quite another to lead them up the garden path, allow them to persist in a lie that has been concocted, and to set people up in a situation where there is potential for this kind of nonsense to get out and become part of an urban myth. Concocting lies and falsehoods in order to get some fireworks out of professing people, and to see whether they will swallow it hook, line, and sinker is utterly reprehensible. I point out, Sharon, that you seemed fairly convinced a few posts back too. Unless that was merely part of the charade - the "fun" of baiting people and stirring up dissension. Revolting conduct from all involved. Actually Jason, I wasn't convinced from the start and I can't say what I really think about it on a public forum! I agree it is a sick hoax! I'm shocked that ram either fell for it OR he wrote it!
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 8:31:40 GMT -5
One thing for sure, it is genuinely intended to make a point. The reactions to this genuine spoof letter have been genuinely remarkable. Actually, I think they have been pretty mundane and ordinary. Certainly nothing to write home about. If there is anything remarkable, it is this: namely that the veracity of the letter was questioned by everybody, it was accepted by nobody even those professing people who ostensibly had most to "gain". What this proves is that professing people are not quite the brainwashed idiots who uncritically absorb every bit of nonsense that confirms their persuasion; if it has done anything, it has shown that professing people exercise due dilligence and caution in regards to matters of faith. Conversely, it has also shown that there are reprehensible and immoral people who are willing to play with people's faith, convictions, and trust in order to realise some disgraceful and ungodly end. It shows that wickedness abounds, for what kind of man (or woman) would write something like this? Assuredly one in whom the love of the truth of God is foreign; one in whom a hunger and thirst for righteousness is not to be found. No man who claims to worship the Father of Lights, the God of all truth in whom no darkness is found, would lend himself to engineering such a deception. It is a warning too for all of us who accepted that this letter was serious, and invested time, effort, thought and energy into what has proved to be a futile and worthless waste of human life. The warning is that there are those who will tug on people's deepest convictions for their own amusement; who will set them up to twist in the wind, goading them onward, and who have no thought for the promotion of the Gospel. This is not the narrow path that Jesus pointed us to. Let those of us who love the truth as it is in Christ labour to stay "on the road", living as though we were in the Promised Land of God, for if this wicked, nasty hoax proves anything, it is that this earth is not our home; there is no righteousness here! The Apostle's words come to mind: " And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own... they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them."While on earth there is deception and moral contamination all around, we nevertheless look toward the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, God has promised.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2010 9:08:37 GMT -5
One thing for sure, it is genuinely intended to make a point. The reactions to this genuine spoof letter have been genuinely remarkable. Actually, I think they have been pretty mundane and ordinary. Certainly nothing to write home about. If there is anything remarkable, it is this: namely that the veracity of the letter was questioned by everybody, it was accepted by nobody even those professing people who ostensibly had most to "gain". What this proves is that professing people are not quite the brainwashed idiots who uncritically absorb every bit of nonsense that confirms their persuasion; if it has done anything, it has shown that professing people exercise due dilligence and caution in regards to matters of faith. Conversely, it has also shown that there are reprehensible and immoral people who are willing to play with people's faith, convictions, and trust in order to realise some disgraceful and ungodly end. It shows that wickedness abounds, for what kind of man (or woman) would write something like this? Assuredly one in whom the love of the truth of God is foreign; one in whom a hunger and thirst for righteousness is not to be found. No man who claims to worship the Father of Lights, the God of all truth in whom no darkness is found, would lend himself to engineering such a deception. It is a warning too for all of us who accepted that this letter was serious, and invested time, effort, thought and energy into what has proved to be a futile and worthless waste of human life. The warning is that there are those who will tug on people's deepest convictions for their own amusement; who will set them up to twist in the wind, goading them onward, and who have no thought for the promotion of the Gospel. This is not the narrow path that Jesus pointed us to. Let those of us who love the truth as it is in Christ labour to stay "on the road", living as though we were in the Promised Land of God, for if this wicked, nasty hoax proves anything, it is that this earth is not our home; there is no righteousness here! The Apostle's words come to mind: " And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own... they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them."While on earth there is deception and moral contamination all around, we nevertheless look toward the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, God has promised. Thank you, Jason! Reminds me of this scripture! Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by september on Apr 17, 2010 9:31:37 GMT -5
I think Ram, most here don't get your humour. It was evident to me that the letter was a blatant hoax. They're either taking themselves too seriously or taking you too seriously. I rather think the former though am prepared to be corrected but come on folks - Eileen Dover? Molly Keddle? Imagi nation? Christina Box?
The academic critiques offered were just as funny as the letter. Thanks for the chortle, all. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 10:14:45 GMT -5
September, I think people are inclined either one way or the other: either they are inclined to believe what they read or hear and then need to have it proven false, or they are disinclined to believe what they read or hear and then need to have it proven true.
I had the same reaction as you. I judged it a spoof after the first couple of sentences and then chuckled over the humour from there.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 17, 2010 10:30:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure Kiwi has the truth of the issue, YET! i CAN'T BELIEVE IT IS THAT HARD FOR HIM?!!! If this is merely a sick attempt at humour, then I am thoroughly disgusted. It is monumentally unethical, particularly given the fact that I wasted significant time carefully reading the contents of the letter, looking into the minutia of its detail, in the assumption that Ram was being forthright. It is one thing to "kid" around with people, it is quite another to lead them up the garden path, allow them to persist in a lie that has been concocted, and to set people up in a situation where there is potential for this kind of nonsense to get out and become part of an urban myth. Concocting lies and falsehoods in order to get some fireworks out of professing people, and to see whether they will swallow it hook, line, and sinker is utterly reprehensible. I point out, Sharon, that you seemed fairly convinced a few posts back too. Unless that was merely part of the charade - the "fun" of baiting people and stirring up dissension. Revolting conduct from all involved. Oh dear, Jason, I thought you were responding in your usual academic way with clear understanding that it was a spoof! Sorry you were at all offended. I appreciate subtle humor! (I DON'T appreciate that it may have been directed with the intention of confusing anyone in particular.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 11:17:20 GMT -5
Let me say this (especially for the benefit of Kiwi). I can truly state that this is a genuine letter. That I do know. However, I personally do not trust its contents. Nevertheless, with all the controversy this letter has caused I am now beginning to believe the contents of the letter may be authentic after all? In fact I'm now growing suspicious of the possibility of a conspiracy at work here? Here are some things to consider, which when added together leads one to only one proper conclusion, i.e. the contents of the letter are authentic. Indeed the following factors drive us at uncontrollable speed towards that certainty. Anyway, here they are: 1) Why has Nathan PM'd me asking for my bank account details saying he wants to gift me $50 via paypal? 2) Why is Jason repeatedly trying to engage me in conversation about golf and to a lesser extent, cricket? 3) Why is Scott Ross sitting on the fence waiting to see which way this debate will go before he pounces? 4) Why has Dorothy Irvine been massaged out of the Irvine family records? To discredit the letter? 5) Why have the Irish TMB contingent remained generally silent over this matter? Knowledge of truth perhaps? 6) Do we really believe the Icelandic volcano eruption at this time was merely a matter of coincidence. After all, fall-out coming from two sources tends to prove a matter doesn't it? 7) Why is everyone avoiding the McGillycuddy's Reeks connection? Is this another case of a truth that nobody wants established? Yes there are more factors that I could list and I've no doubt more will come to light in the coming days, ~~ Ram, how, when and where did you obtain this Dorothy's letter? Did you write this "genuine" Dorothy's letter yourself? Yes or No answer, please. Let us put this Dorothy's letter to rest in peace once and for all.Nathan, you know as well as I do that people will only believe or reject what they want to, depending on which way they are persuaded with the 2 and 2 faith. Certified proof would not be sufficient for many. E'en though I went to Motherwell Sheriff Court and had the letter certified "All Truth" under Oath of Verity, do you think that would convince the skeptics? £50 down the drain! Which reminds me, where is the $50 that was supposed to be transferred into my account? How could I write Dorothy's letter myself? If it's Dorothy's letter then it surely must have been Dorothy who wrote it? You know full well that I was making searches in the imagi vaults, well in advance of this letter coming to light. I have said several times that I consider the letter to be a genuine letter (big deal!) but I am concerned about the accuracy of its contents. You ask me for a yes or no answer. I am really curious about this. We all know that if Dorothy Irvine's letter contains authentic details, this would be a massive boost for yourself. Why then have you distanced yourself from it right from it's production on this board?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 11:30:18 GMT -5
I think Ram, most here don't get your humour. It was evident to me that the letter was a blatant hoax. They're either taking themselves too seriously or taking you too seriously. I rather think the former though am prepared to be corrected but come on folks - Eileen Dover? Molly Keddle? Imagi nation? Christina Box? The academic critiques offered were just as funny as the letter. Thanks for the chortle, all. :-) September, methinks some need to embrace the Blarney and summon up a leprechaun? I strongly suspected that Dorothy's letter would cause a stir, but let me assure you it was not posted with any intention to deceive. Rather, I thought it might test some incontinence levels? It seems to have done both? As you have Irish background maybe you could verify some of the details, or refute them? I'm inclined to think that despite my suspicions about the letter's contents, it must have some substance in view of the fact that for years workers have been promoting a diluted version of it?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 11:35:19 GMT -5
I strongly suspected that Dorothy's letter would cause a stir, but let me assure you it was not posted with any intention to deceive. Rather, I thought it might test some incontinence levels? It seems to have done both? "It was just a joke" - that age old escape hatch. I think this whole episode was designed to stir up certain professing participants; and then laugh smugly behind one's hands at their responses. The mutual congratulations of those who laud unethical conduct is staggering indeed. I cannot put my disgust, aversion and loathing for such conduct into words.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 11:41:59 GMT -5
I think Ram, most here don't get your humour. It was evident to me that the letter was a blatant hoax. Ergo, it is okay to tell lies if it achieves some purpose (what I cannot fathom). While I think Ram probably considers himself something of a comedian, I certainly do not find deliberate, purposeful hoaxing amusing. I do not find it amusing when newspapers do it on April 1st, and I do not find it amusing when it is done in relation to people's cherished convictions. Or maybe they were altogether too trusting - damn and curse that Christian trait! Trust me, if other people feel as strongly about this as I do, there's nothin' that Ram's posting that I'm going to believe. Credibility down the proverbial drain. My anger at this statement knows no bounds. Let us hope a hoax is coming your way which will prompt you to waste time, effort, energy and intellect on somebody else's deception - when you become a plaything in somebody else's sick drama, I am sure you will laugh equally hard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 11:43:35 GMT -5
I strongly suspected that Dorothy's letter would cause a stir, but let me assure you it was not posted with any intention to deceive. Rather, I thought it might test some incontinence levels? It seems to have done both? "It was just a joke" - that age old escape hatch. I think this whole episode was designed to stir up certain professing participants; and then laugh smugly behind one's hands at their responses. The mutual congratulations of those who laud unethical conduct is staggering indeed. I cannot put my disgust, aversion and loathing for such conduct into words. Jason, you can think what you want. I will make allowances for you since you are still struggling to extricate the hook, line and sinker. You swallowed the gaff, now you need another type of gaff to remove the obstruction from your gullet. Now, I really don't know what you're getting at regarding the leisure activities of golf and cricket. It makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2010 11:45:43 GMT -5
I think Ram, most here don't get your humour. It was evident to me that the letter was a blatant hoax. They're either taking themselves too seriously or taking you too seriously. I rather think the former though am prepared to be corrected but come on folks - Eileen Dover? Molly Keddle? Imagi nation? Christina Box? The academic critiques offered were just as funny as the letter. Thanks for the chortle, all. :-) September, methinks some need to embrace the Blarney and summon up a leprechaun? I strongly suspected that Dorothy's letter would cause a stir, but let me assure you it was not posted with any intention to deceive. Rather, I thought it might test some incontinence levels? It seems to have done both? As you have Irish background maybe you could verify some of the details, or refute them? I'm inclined to think that despite my suspicions about the letter's contents, it must have some substance in view of the fact that for years workers have been promoting a diluted version of it? IF this was actually an "aged" letter from the time period in which it tries to be from...then it was a "coverup" letter to start with....I can almost guess who might have originally wrote it for that person was wild with preaching the continous line to the apostolic days...there are sermons out there by this one person who reek of the same "thought" of the "realness" of the apostolic succession from days of yore! Ram, I do not know why you'd enjoy posting something you have said you do not believe in...knowing full well you would be ranking on some people's chains...this is cruel, IMO! You've disappointed me!
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 17, 2010 11:47:40 GMT -5
If this is merely a sick attempt at humour, then I am thoroughly disgusted. It is monumentally unethical, particularly given the fact that I wasted significant time carefully reading the contents of the letter, looking into the minutia of its detail, in the assumption that Ram was being forthright. It is one thing to "kid" around with people, it is quite another to lead them up the garden path, allow them to persist in a lie that has been concocted, and to set people up in a situation where there is potential for this kind of nonsense to get out and become part of an urban myth. Concocting lies and falsehoods in order to get some fireworks out of professing people, and to see whether they will swallow it hook, line, and sinker is utterly reprehensible. I point out, Sharon, that you seemed fairly convinced a few posts back too. Unless that was merely part of the charade - the "fun" of baiting people and stirring up dissension. Revolting conduct from all involved. Oh dear, Jason, I thought you were responding in your usual academic way with clear understanding that it was a spoof! Sorry you were at all offended. I appreciate subtle humor! (I DON'T appreciate that it may have been directed with the intention of confusing anyone in particular.) No, I was fully and completely deceived, because, being a mere simpleton that I am, I was foolish enough to believe Ram was being forthright and upfront. Given that he will not answer a simple "yes"\"no" question from Nathan with a straight bat, I should not now be surprised that he was the author. Do I find it amusing? Assuredly I do not.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2010 11:49:45 GMT -5
Oh dear, Jason, I thought you were responding in your usual academic way with clear understanding that it was a spoof! Sorry you were at all offended. I appreciate subtle humor! (I DON'T appreciate that it may have been directed with the intention of confusing anyone in particular.) No, I was fully and completely deceived, because, being a mere simpleton that I am, I was foolish enough to believe Ram was being forthright and upfront. Given that he will not answer a simple "yes"\"no" question from Nathan with a straight bat, I should not now be surprised that he was the author. Do I find it amusing? Assuredly I do not. Don't internet police often catch "hoax writers" and prosecute them? I'd think Ram would know that!
|
|