Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2010 6:27:14 GMT -5
You are going to have to explain this to me. In oppressive states the government controls all the media outlets. Obviously, that's make criticism of the government impossible. Now, if Rupert Murdoch controls TV networks, newspapers and radio stations around the world, which he now does, are the employees going to criticize his business dealings. Or the dealings of his "friends". That's the problem. Ten or twenty years ago there was much more diversity of ownership. The TV stations, newspapers and radio stations in your town or city would have all been owned by different people instead of by a few media conglomerates. Fortunately, we live in a free country, so anyone can start a newspaper, web site or whatever. And they do. But it takes big bucks to build something people actually will use, so it's not quite as free as it should be. The solution is not too allow too much concentration of media ownership, in a similar way to not allowing any company to monopolize a market. However, in media the laws need to be much more stringent. If you hear Fox tell it, they are the minnow in the ocean of the wild eyed far left media. They point out that in the TV news world, they are but a cable channel (albeit the biggest over CNN now) but are still dwarfed by CBS, NBC, ABC, and of course the granddaddy of all lefty media, PBS. People who follow Fox think they are watching David fighting Goliath and so give them a wide berth, even when they say they are "fair and balanced". As far as News Corp's presence in the media, I doubt that they are in a position to do anything more than toss in their right wing influence amongst a still-mainly leftish media. Some of the largest newspapers in the US are quite liberal: NY Times, LA Times, and USA Today. Once News Corp manages to buy them up, then we may see a tipping point to the right in the media. Until then, I think the media remains largely leftish.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 6:58:57 GMT -5
They didn't even get up to urinate or defecate? Oh well, some people work better reclining! Now, when you caught them, was it in flagrante delicto?!? And what was the offense? The offense illustrated by Todd is what happens when someone doesn't proofread their posting. I actually did proof read it, and as much as I knew it sounded harsh, which is why I mentioned that, how else could I say that they were constant liers without saying they were constant liers? That's how it was unfortunately. And it is for this very reason that I mentioned earlier in this thread that they need our prayers and maybe even more so now for what they are going through at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 7:02:33 GMT -5
That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They didn't even get up to urinate or defecate? Oh well, some people work better reclining! Now, when you caught them, was it in flagrante delicto?!? And what was the offense? Yes, in delicate fragrance, and the offence was lying.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Nov 4, 2010 7:28:31 GMT -5
They didn't even get up to urinate or defecate? Oh well, some people work better reclining! Now, when you caught them, was it in flagrante delicto?!? And what was the offense? Yes, in delicate fragrance, and the offence was lying. Definition of IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO? 1: in the very act of committing a misdeed : red-handed 2: in the midst of sexual activity Origin of IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO? Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing Lier - one who lies as in lies down in bed Liar - one who lies as in tells a lie That's proofreading...
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 7:55:25 GMT -5
I'm not choosing sides, but no lies ever told here? That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds). I caught them out way too many times. They had 2 choices... either admit they were wrong, or kick me out so that they could continue to wallow in their anguish without anyone correcting the false statements and assumptions. I got kicked out. Well Lin and todd..... I am sure that there are 'lies' told here. The difference between the VOT and the TMB is that here people are free to express their views in any manner they see fit, as long as they do not attack each other but rather attack the message that is posted. Yes I have no doubt that lies get told here as well, though I am reluctant to call someone a lier for simply stating their belief, even if that belief is wrong. To me, liers are the ones who say something that the know is wrong. I can tell you with full confidence that they were truly lying on VOT. The reason I know this is because they would often contradict themselves, and when the contradiction was put in front of them they could didn't have an answer for it. So there wasn't any need for me to say which part they were lying about (even though I had my opinion) because the fact that the 2 statements contradicted each other, at least one of them was a lie. It is quite possible that you remember being taught this, but that you mistook the message and made assumptions. Maybe the worker happened to be speaking about the way that they have been sent to preach about, which goes back to the shores of Galilee. You would be well aware I'm sure that "we don't take a name", so when a worker says that the true fellowship goes back to Galilee, you don't have to be too bright to work out that he is not meaning fellowship as if it is the name of a religion. Anyway, let's assume you were taught this, and we obviously know that some people think this unbroken line is not the truth. How do they know that? Some people will say that the explanation to this is because William Irvine heard the Gospel from John McNiell who was a Presbyterian worker, so there is your evidence that it wasn't an unbroken line in the fact that is came through the Presbyterians. Now, here's where it all gets a little weird... Those same people, when questioned about William Irvine starting having apparently started this is 1897 at a time when he was part of the Faith Missionary and continuing to join his converts to the Faith Mission meetings, and even wanted his companion to join the Faith Mission, are happy to say that it doesn't really matter about what religion he belonged to. How is it not possible for there to be some sort of succession between John McNiell and William, when yet there can be between William and the converts who went against William Irvine's desire, and decided to not take the Faith Mission name. The truth is that there was in fact succession between John McNiell and William according to the historical records that I have read, which was no different to the denominational separation between William Irvine and John Long, in that William would have had John join the Faith Mission, and John Long was convicted by God to not take a name but go out in faith without the support of a denomination. So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction. If you have to contradict your argument to prove the point you are trying to make, you are clearly not telling the truth. And getting back to VOT, I continually saw contradictions in what they preached to those who would listen, and unfortunately at times they were blatant lies, which even they could not deny when confronted. What I find so amusing is that for as long as I have sought an answer to the question about what William Irvine did that he is considered the founder, there hasn't been an answer. That tells me something. I'm surprised that more than just a few others haven't picked up on it. While we are on contradictions, I will leave you with this link that I posted here a few weeks back, as another example of contradictions. professing.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=12827&page=60#276947
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 7:58:40 GMT -5
Yes, in delicate fragrance, and the offence was lying. Definition of IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO? 1: in the very act of committing a misdeed : red-handed 2: in the midst of sexual activity Origin of IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO? Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing Lier - one who lies as in lies down in bed Liar - one who lies as in tells a lie That's proofreading... No, that is not having a clue how to spell. I could proof read all day and not pick that up if I don't know how to spell liar. Maybe spell checker might have helped there. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 8:11:51 GMT -5
So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction. If you have to contradict your argument to prove the point you are trying to make, you are clearly not telling the truth.
So you are calling me a liar. Interesting....
So you are calling the workers that contradict other workers liars. Interesting....
Anyone that doesn't believe what you post is a liar because of the contradiction. Interesting....
How many of you other professing folks believe that I am a liar for sharing my experiences?
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Nov 4, 2010 8:12:32 GMT -5
Definition of IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO? 1: in the very act of committing a misdeed : red-handed 2: in the midst of sexual activity Origin of IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO? Medieval Latin, literally, while the crime is blazing Lier - one who lies as in lies down in bed Liar - one who lies as in tells a lie That's proofreading... No, that is not having a clue how to spell. I could proof read all day and not pick that up if I don't know how to spell liar. Maybe spell checker might have helped there. Sorry. Apology accepted. Now stop calling people liers:D
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 4, 2010 8:35:34 GMT -5
So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction. If you have to contradict your argument to prove the point you are trying to make, you are clearly not telling the truth.So you are calling me a liar. Interesting.... So you are calling the workers that contradict other workers liars. Interesting.... Anyone that doesn't believe what you post is a liar because of the contradiction. Interesting.... How many of you other professing folks believe that I am a liar for sharing my experiences? Scott you are mis-reading Todd and I think you know it, right? Todd's talking about a single person making contradicting statements, and using the work "you" to represent that single person. I don't think Todd used the word you to mean Scott Ross... The same thing happened to Jason L. ; he often used the word "you" with the meaning - any hypothetical person doing what is being referred to. The judgment and correction of wishy-washiness is most effective when it's done within one's self. That takes ruthless honesty though, to admit that you are being a bit dishonest. (Whoops, not you Scott Ross, the hypothetical you whoever you are.)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 8:45:06 GMT -5
Scott you are mis-reading Todd and I think you know it, right? Todd's talking about a single person making contradicting statements, and using the work "you" to represent that single person. I don't think Todd used the word you to mean Scott Ross...
No, I don't think I am misreading todd.
If you notice, he was quoting my post, and in this he definitely was trying to tell me that I was a liar.
todd is quite free with telling people that they are wrong (meaning liars)
He goes waaaaay out of his way to try to prove that other people are liars actually, and totally discounts other peoples experiences as being somehow 'misinterpretations' and usually tries to discount anybody elses experiences as either not happeniing or somehow misinterpreted. I really doubt if I am the only one that notices this.
It is quite possible that you remember being taught this, but that you mistook the message and made assumptions. Maybe the worker happened to be speaking about the way that they have been sent to preach about, which goes back to the shores of Galilee. You would be well aware I'm sure that "we don't take a name", so when a worker says that the true fellowship goes back to Galilee, you don't have to be too bright to work out that he is not meaning fellowship as if it is the name of a religion.
I actually believe that he was trying to call me a liar and also not too bright.
I am bright enough to figure that out, although I will readily admit to being a dumb ol' biker.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 8:52:15 GMT -5
The judgment and correction of wishy-washiness is most effective when it's done within one's self. That takes ruthless honesty though, to admit that you are being a bit dishonest. (Whoops, not you Scott Ross, the hypothetical you whoever you are.) And coming from you Jesse, I would not even think that you meant me personally. Although you did start with using within one's self and then changed it to to admit that you rather than continue with the one's self line of thought....
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 8:55:33 GMT -5
So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction. If you have to contradict your argument to prove the point you are trying to make, you are clearly not telling the truth.So you are calling me a liar. Interesting.... No, like I said earlier, if you belive that you were taught that particular thing, I am not about to call you are liar if you are simply expressing that belief. As far as the part that you quoted me on above, if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar, not just because I want to sound harsh like that, but because that is what you are doing (well... not that you ARE doing but ummm... hypothetically saying that you would be doing it if you were...umm... doing it... hmm... maybe see Jessie's explanation). Again, see where I wrote about deliberately telling untruths. They are the liars as far as I am concerned. And yes, this would include a worker if they were deliberately not telling the truth. It is also slightly different when 2 different people contradict each other, but when it is the one person contradicting themselves, it is very hard to say that it is just their particular belief. Where did you get this idea from? Are you making stuff up again? Haven't I spoken to you about this before? Not me. As you would have read in an earlier post, I don't call people liars who are simply just stating their belief.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 9:02:09 GMT -5
Scott you are mis-reading Todd and I think you know it, right? Todd's talking about a single person making contradicting statements, and using the work "you" to represent that single person. I don't think Todd used the word you to mean Scott Ross...No, I don't think I am misreading todd. If you notice, he was quoting my post, and in this he definitely was trying to tell me that I was a liar. todd is quite free with telling people that they are wrong (meaning liars) He goes waaaaay out of his way to try to prove that other people are liars actually, and totally discounts other peoples experiences as being somehow 'misinterpretations' and usually tries to discount anybody elses experiences as either not happeniing or somehow misinterpreted. I really doubt if I am the only one that notices this. It is quite possible that you remember being taught this, but that you mistook the message and made assumptions. Maybe the worker happened to be speaking about the way that they have been sent to preach about, which goes back to the shores of Galilee. You would be well aware I'm sure that "we don't take a name", so when a worker says that the true fellowship goes back to Galilee, you don't have to be too bright to work out that he is not meaning fellowship as if it is the name of a religion. I actually believe that he was trying to call me a liar and also not too bright. I am bright enough to figure that out, although I will readily admit to being a dumb ol' biker. Yep, you completely misread me. You said that you remember being taught that, and then I said it is quite possible that you remember being taught that. Where in that am I saying that you are lying about remembering being taught that. I actually agreed that it was quite possible. BTW, you are also free enough to tell me when you think I am wrong too ... and that is great that we can feel free to discuss these things as brothers But I don't take it as you accusing me of lying.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 9:07:10 GMT -5
So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction. If you have to contradict your argument to prove the point you are trying to make, you are clearly not telling the truth.So you are calling me a liar. Interesting.... No, like I said earlier, if you belive that you were taught that particular thing, I am not about to call you are liar if you are simply expressing that belief. As far as the part that you quoted me on above, if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar, not just because I want to sound harsh like that, but because that is what you are doing (well... not that you ARE doing but ummm... hypothetically saying that you would be doing it if you were...umm... doing it... hmm... maybe see Jessie's explanation). Again, see where I wrote about deliberately telling untruths. They are the liars as far as I am concerned. And yes, this would include a worker if they were deliberately not telling the truth. It is also slightly different when 2 different people contradict each other, but when it is the one person contradicting themselves, it is very hard to say that it is just their particular belief. Where did you get this idea from? Are you making stuff up again? Haven't I spoken to you about this before? Not me. As you would have read in an earlier post, I don't call people liars who are simply just stating their belief. From above: Yes I have no doubt that lies get told here as well, though I am reluctant to call someone a lier for simply stating their belief, even if that belief is wrong. To me, liers are the ones who say something that the know is wrong.And then: As far as the part that you quoted me on above, if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar, not just because I want to sound harsh like that, but because that is what you are doing (well... not that you ARE doing but ummm... hypothetically saying that you would be doing it if you were...umm... doing it... hmm... maybe see Jessie's explanation).OK. Could you share where I was blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction ? Thanks. I will try to explain whatever it was in as simple a way as possible so you might be able to understand it. If someone else sees where I was: blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liarcould you PLEASE point that out to me so I can understand that I am lying to all of you. If it is so obvious to todd, then others MUST be seeing the same contradictions in my posts. Jesse? emy? clearday? any other professing folks? PLEASE point this out to me, as I try to be honest in what I post here. Thanks, Scott
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 9:15:04 GMT -5
They weren't on my radar. I thought they succeeded better at giving exes a bad reputation than giving the F&Ws a bad reputation. I see what you mean by that. I was told on there that my input was valued, and that I would never be told to "shut up", and that they were happy to discuss things with 2x2's, but I got kicked out and told to never post there again. I don't mean to be judgmental here, but they seemed to be compulsive lier's, as if they knew they were wrong but were so in deep that they couldn't get out, and just like I said back then, I actually got kicked off for telling the truth. Anyway, I wasn't a bit surprised to see the last postings on that forum which ultimately ended in it's demise, because there sure are some people out there who need our prayers. They are human
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 9:16:36 GMT -5
Usually if we are destroyed,it's our own doing. They are human.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 9:18:26 GMT -5
My view is that VOT was merely a tabloid of the National Inquirer ilk and reflected the tastes and interests of the owners and administrators. Any internal turmoil is likely of the same underbelly of relevance. I finally concluded its content fed the insatiable thirsts of a small niche and, therefore, was of little consequence. they are human.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 4, 2010 9:20:28 GMT -5
No, like I said earlier, if you belive that you were taught that particular thing, I am not about to call you are liar if you are simply expressing that belief. As far as the part that you quoted me on above, if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar, not just because I want to sound harsh like that, but because that is what you are doing (well... not that you ARE doing but ummm... hypothetically saying that you would be doing it if you were...umm... doing it... hmm... maybe see Jessie's explanation). Again, see where I wrote about deliberately telling untruths. They are the liars as far as I am concerned. And yes, this would include a worker if they were deliberately not telling the truth. It is also slightly different when 2 different people contradict each other, but when it is the one person contradicting themselves, it is very hard to say that it is just their particular belief. Where did you get this idea from? Are you making stuff up again? Haven't I spoken to you about this before? Not me. As you would have read in an earlier post, I don't call people liars who are simply just stating their belief. From above: Yes I have no doubt that lies get told here as well, though I am reluctant to call someone a lier for simply stating their belief, even if that belief is wrong. To me, liers are the ones who say something that the know is wrong.And then: As far as the part that you quoted me on above, if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar, not just because I want to sound harsh like that, but because that is what you are doing (well... not that you ARE doing but ummm... hypothetically saying that you would be doing it if you were...umm... doing it... hmm... maybe see Jessie's explanation).OK. Could you share where I was blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction ? Thanks. I will try to explain whatever it was in as simple a way as possible so you might be able to understand it. If someone else sees where I was: blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liarcould you PLEASE point that out to me so I can understand that I am lying to all of you. If it is so obvious to todd, then others MUST be seeing the same contradictions in my posts. Jesse? emy? clearday? any other professing folks? PLEASE point this out to me, as I try to be honest in what I post here. Thanks, Scott Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. I said "if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself" IF IF IF.... the word IF is the key there... I didn't say that you WERE contradicting yourself.... I said "IF I see you". And that is when I would consider you lying, and not for what you said. I was telling you that I DON'T consider you are liar, because you were only telling your experience. There was NO contradictions in your posts. This thread is about VOT and this whole topic started because I mentioned about their lies, and I knew about their lies because THEY were contradicting themselves, not YOU. Does that makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 9:40:01 GMT -5
Hey, don't worry about us. We're doing fine without the site. They could say the same about this one. The national enquirer would go out of business if no one read it. How many people go by the checkout counter, see the headline and say, "OH! That is disgusting! I am going to buy it just to see what kind of smut they are writing." Waterguy, you keep talking about how corrupt this site is but you are one of the main supporters. If you don't like it, find something else to do with your precious time. Read your Bible. Isn't that what the workers say about TV sometimes? "TV might not be bad but it is a robber of time; time you could use to read your Bible." You are saying a lot of negative things about folks under the guise of "telling the truth". Yet, you decry those who are doing the same about the workers. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 4, 2010 9:42:31 GMT -5
Yes it makes sense Todd. Scott, the "if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar," is in reference to a hypothetical you, NOT Scott Ross. It's in reference to the thread Todd linked, and VOT. Now go lie down, breath slowly, and let it soak in. I will say I think using the word liar is not very edifying no matter who uses it.... because of the difference between how intercession/inspiration and accusation/criticism works. But that was the subject of the other post, no need to repeat it here.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 9:52:59 GMT -5
I dunno - I think criticism is a good thing sometimes... I know for myself, if someone has a critical eye on what I'm doing, I tend to be more careful about what it is I'm doing and how I'm doing it. The Australian Democrats (cmpletely different to the Democrats in the USA) were a minority party in the Senate, and flourished in the 80s and 90s before fading out in the last 10 years. Their catch phrase was "keeping the b*****ds honest" - this referred to their vocal criticism and holding to account of the two major political parties, Labor and Liberals I think sites like VOT have had a fairly important role in causing a large amount of introspection amongst the 2x2 - self examination is a good thing and it sometimes (usually) takes an outside influence to start the process. Just my thoughts on the matter There's a way to do criticism properly, and they don't do it. There is a way of taking criticism and the workers do not take it at all. If the workers took criticism, there would be none of this falling out that we have experienced. The normal means of making changes (in order to stop abuse) have broken down because the workers are not approachable. The abusers in power were put there by other abusers and they stay there by fear and intimidation. They have the friends convinced that the way to handle it is to sit passively by while the abusers police themselves. Some did not agree with that approach so they started these sites which gave the abused people a voice. Being heard is an essential part of the human experience.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 4, 2010 9:54:00 GMT -5
The national enquirer would go out of business if no one read it. How many people go by the checkout counter, see the headline and say, "OH! That is disgusting! I am going to buy it just to see what kind of smut they are writing." National Enquirer publisher files for bankruptcy
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 4, 2010 9:55:19 GMT -5
I mean, look what the words liar, lies, lying did to the spirit of this thread.
Like Todd said we all need to pray, and need the prayers of others, to overcome our own human faults and failures - ts has been pointing some out.
Sow the God given seeds of edification, exhortation, and comfort...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 10:02:41 GMT -5
Yes it makes sense Todd. Scott, the "if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself and do not have an explanation for the contradiction but continue on with it regardless, especially to prove a point that can't be proven any other way, then yes, I will call you a liar," is in reference to a hypothetical you, NOT Scott Ross. It's in reference to the thread Todd linked, and VOT. Now go lie down, breath slowly, and let it soak in. I will say I think using the word liar is not very edifying no matter who uses it.... because of the difference between how intercession/inspiration and accusation/criticism works. But that was the subject of the other post, no need to repeat it here. Well..... It sure looks as if todd is insinuating that I am a liar. Yeah..... It pisses me off, because he goes out of his way to try and show everyone that they are wrong or misguided if they do not accept what he says as being true. It is like how he regularly tries to say that no one has explained ol' Willie's role in founding the church. I haven't even figured out why that is such an issue for him. Even you accept that Wille had a role in how your church started (and for you I will add the word 'carnal' to the starting of the church) Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. I said "if I see you blatantly contradicting yourself" IF IF IF.... the word IF is the key there... I didn't say that you WERE contradicting yourself.... I said "IF I see you". And that is when I would consider you lying, and not for what you said. I was telling you that I DON'T consider you are liar, because you were only telling your experience. There was NO contradictions in your posts. This thread is about VOT and this whole topic started because I mentioned about their lies, and I knew about their lies because THEY were contradicting themselves, not YOU.All right. I will accept that you now are saying that I DID tell the truth about being taught in meetings that there was an unbroken line of workers that went back to the shores of Galilee, and that I WAS taught that the truth fellowship has been in existence since that time. Glad you agree with me on that being something that was taught. You accept that as being truly spoken from the platform, as it is my experience (and ronhall's and others that have mentioned that here) Does that makes sense? Sure. I'm glad that you finally accept that as being what we were taught out there in Washington. Funny how I misinterpreted that you somehow would know what the workers were teaching in another country where you hadn't been isn't it? Of course you still are on record as saying that workers are liars if they are teaching something different in different meetings. I'm glad that you see that now. I assumed for a long time that you felt that whatever the workers were teaching and preaching had to be true, and it is nice to hear you acknowledge that there are workers that lie to people. Or am I misunderstanding you again on the subject of lying? ;D Scott
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 10:41:41 GMT -5
The national enquirer would go out of business if no one read it. How many people go by the checkout counter, see the headline and say, "OH! That is disgusting! I am going to buy it just to see what kind of smut they are writing." National Enquirer publisher files for bankruptcyI don't believe that news source that said that the National Inquirer was bankrupt. It sounds like a smear campaign. ;D The point is, of course, if there are no readers, the paper "folds." If the professing people quit posting and reading here, our sessions would be quite dull and most of the bitter exes would get bored and go away, too. Waterguy is actually fueling that which dislikes.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 10:49:57 GMT -5
I mean, look what the words liar, lies, lying did to the spirit of this thread. Like Todd said we all need to pray, and need the prayers of others, to overcome our own human faults and failures - ts has been pointing some out. Sow the God given seeds of edification, exhortation, and comfort... I sure do agree with you Jesse. As soon as one person posted a blanket statement accusing everyone on the VOT as being constant liars: That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds)No wiggle room on that one is there? todd's statement means that there was no truth to anything they posted. And after stating that, to me it then seemed that he was inferring that others were also liars. (and I have now seen that he really didn't mean to say that I was a liar), and that certainly pushed me over the edge. I guess partly it was because he posted that : So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction.Another blanket statement as far as I can see. We often see here opposing points of view. They are based on our personal experiences, and our personal convictions. It sure looks to me that if todd has a conviction/belief/thought on any subject, and someone disagrees with him then in his mind that means that the other person is wrong. (regardless of the circumstance/issue) Maybe I am misunderstanding him and he is now admitting that it could be him that is wrong. We could use the William Irvine issue here as an example, and he is now admitting that he could very well be the one that is wrong? After all, we have had both exes and professing folks try to answer his questions, but he hasn't accepted anyone else's viewpoint other than his own it seems. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 4, 2010 10:53:03 GMT -5
The point is, of course, if there are no readers, the paper "folds." I disagree with that statement. If there aren't enough buyers/advertisers to cover the cost of "investigating" and writing the stories, the paper "folds". The National Enquirer depends on payers, not readers. How many people read the headlines without paying money to buy the paper? Unless someone decides to finance the paper out of the goodness of his heart, the paper needs paying readers or paying advertisers. (Or in the case of the National Enquirer, it might "badness" of heart.)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 10:57:29 GMT -5
And I actually got todd to growl at me!! Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. I actually think that is quite humorous! He has made me growl here on the board several times because has he this way of twisting my words to try to discredit or diminish what I have posted. Payback usually sucks doesn't it? And I still think of you as a brother todd. Scott
|
|