|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2014 9:06:19 GMT -5
Your secret correspondent has a distorted idea of what the TMB is all about. The TMB is not all about examining a limited array of facts, nor is it all about making a "darling" of anyone. Instead of sneaking around with negative innuendo about Graham, I would like your correspondent to publish the all the facts he/she has on the baptism case in NZ, and let's have a look at it. What did GT tell the man who was refused baptism? What did he tell others as his reason to refuse baptism? Was it a delay or a permanent ban? Let's have the facts, it may have been justified, it may have been a big blunder. Another experience of Graham's that should examined is his handling of the case of Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnston in ChCh in banning them from meetings. In both of the above cases, was Graham as dictatorial and authoritarian as the overseers he criticizes? It's a fair question and worth looking at. You mean you would like to hear the other side of the story?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 9:15:27 GMT -5
Your secret correspondent has a distorted idea of what the TMB is all about. The TMB is not all about examining a limited array of facts, nor is it all about making a "darling" of anyone. Instead of sneaking around with negative innuendo about Graham, I would like your correspondent to publish the all the facts he/she has on the baptism case in NZ, and let's have a look at it. What did GT tell the man who was refused baptism? What did he tell others as his reason to refuse baptism? Was it a delay or a permanent ban? Let's have the facts, it may have been justified, it may have been a big blunder. Another experience of Graham's that should examined is his handling of the case of Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnston in ChCh in banning them from meetings. In both of the above cases, was Graham as dictatorial and authoritarian as the overseers he criticizes? It's a fair question and worth looking at. You mean you would like to hear the other side of the story? Did you notice that I established a thread dedicated to "the other side of the story"? In case you haven't noticed it, it is here: professing.proboards.com/thread/21750/rebuttal-graham-thompsonHow about you, are you interested in all sides of the story?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2014 10:28:41 GMT -5
How about you, are you interested in all sides of the story? This story is rather remote from me physically and otherwise. I was interested in trying to learn what someone would carry forward for 10+ years without resolution. It would seem that there are a mixture of problems/perceived problems, some having to do with wrong decisions made but others seem to be the same sort of issues that arise in business. "I was supposed to get that position but you gave it to Bob." "You said you discussed this issue with the other managers but they say you made the decision on your own" "You put Bob in charge but I do not think Bob has the skills required to do the job." And then there are the vague accusations that cannot be evaluated. "On several occasions you acted in an unethical manner." "There are things going on in the company that I do not approve of and you refuse to address them." It also seems that there are indeed issues mixed all up in the pages of letters and pages of explanations but if you have issues - list them specifically so they can be addressed/corrected and put to rest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 11:28:42 GMT -5
How about you, are you interested in all sides of the story? This story is rather remote from me physically and otherwise. I was interested in trying to learn what someone would carry forward for 10+ years without resolution. It would seem that there are a mixture of problems/perceived problems, some having to do with wrong decisions made but others seem to be the same sort of issues that arise in business. "I was supposed to get that position but you gave it to Bob." "You said you discussed this issue with the other managers but they say you made the decision on your own" "You put Bob in charge but I do not think Bob has the skills required to do the job." And then there are the vague accusations that cannot be evaluated. "On several occasions you acted in an unethical manner." "There are things going on in the company that I do not approve of and you refuse to address them." It also seems that there are indeed issues mixed all up in the pages of letters and pages of explanations but if you have issues - list them specifically so they can be addressed/corrected and put to rest. This isn't a 10 year unresolved issue. What GT identifies has been identified and unresolved for a lot longer than his 10 year experience with it, and it will likely take a lot more than 10 more years to resolve it. I can understand why people feel mixed up on this as I had asked myself "what's his problem?" in reading his stuff over the last year or two. There is a dominant theme that requires no list to be made. The primary issue has always been the allegedly ungodly hierarchical authority system which GT feels is wrong, at least in the way I read his material. All other issues are secondary and/or related to the supreme dictatorial power of the overseers. It is unfortunate that GT's writing style makes it difficult for people to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 9, 2014 12:31:40 GMT -5
This story is rather remote from me physically and otherwise. I was interested in trying to learn what someone would carry forward for 10+ years without resolution. It would seem that there are a mixture of problems/perceived problems, some having to do with wrong decisions made but others seem to be the same sort of issues that arise in business. "I was supposed to get that position but you gave it to Bob." "You said you discussed this issue with the other managers but they say you made the decision on your own" "You put Bob in charge but I do not think Bob has the skills required to do the job." And then there are the vague accusations that cannot be evaluated. "On several occasions you acted in an unethical manner." "There are things going on in the company that I do not approve of and you refuse to address them." It also seems that there are indeed issues mixed all up in the pages of letters and pages of explanations but if you have issues - list them specifically so they can be addressed/corrected and put to rest. ...The primary issue has always been the allegedly ungodly hierarchical authority system which GT feels is wrong, at least in the way I read his material. All other issues are secondary and/or related to the supreme dictatorial power of the overseers.... Earlier I had recommended a list of specifics that would answer the question "...ungodly hierarchical authority system, as evidenced by what?", and several have been provided. But maybe there's another route to getting clarification about the issues. GT, what do you propose as an alternative solution to the current ungodly hierarchical authority system?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 9, 2014 12:42:08 GMT -5
...The primary issue has always been the allegedly ungodly hierarchical authority system which GT feels is wrong, at least in the way I read his material. All other issues are secondary and/or related to the supreme dictatorial power of the overseers.... Earlier I had recommended a list of specifics that would answer the question "...ungodly hierarchical authority system, as evidenced by what?", and several have been provided. But maybe there's another route to getting clarification about the issues. GT, what do you propose as an alternative solution to the current ungodly hierarchical authority system? Each person should individually be Spirit led. Fellowship should only be about coming together and encourage. Talk about what fed us that week. Remember Christ. thats it! oh...sorry, my initials are not GT....you weren't talking to me.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 9, 2014 12:49:42 GMT -5
What happens when you set up a hierarchy system is that people no longer depend on the leading of the Spirit for guidance. It creates a dependency for people to instead, depend on the guidance of the hierarchy rather than the Spirit. The result is, the more dependent one is on the hierarchy, the more devout they are considered by the hierarchy - whether the Spirit is involved or not.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 9, 2014 12:57:09 GMT -5
I think that the concerns raised by reallyandtruly, christiansburg, rational, and others, are fair and reasonable. So far what we’ve got is portions of Graham’s letters spread across various threads and muddled with musings, opinions, questions, and other posts. The result is that the issues get confused, difficult to determine (or have never been clearly stated). I think the best solution would be to create a dedicated thread where Graham’s letters are published in full (As Maja points out, GT has given consent to that) so that the audience can then read the complete letters and get a clear sense of the issues. The thread should be locked to prevent replies (other threads can be created for discussion), so that the letters don’t get lost amoungst the other posts. Also, I suggest that it ought to be pinned, ensuring the letters remain easily accessible to new comers (I anticipate there’ll be a few as word gets around about where the letters can be read). This is simple, open, and honest. If TMB administration are not willing to accommodate this, I’m sure that there are various other website proprietors who’d be happy to. that I'm not sure, but it seems that the genesis of GT's was in Australia and weren't resolved and remain unresolved. It then progressed to an indictment of NZ, a different country and environment, and of AR specifically. While AR's statement of position on CSA might have been lacking in some regards, it was a start and should be allowed to mature. I think the further progression is an indictment of the fellowship as a whole, and I wonder if GT hasn't allowed an obsesseion with Australia problems to leak into his relations at home. Just wonder.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 9, 2014 13:41:28 GMT -5
I think that the concerns raised by reallyandtruly, christiansburg, rational, and others, are fair and reasonable. So far what we’ve got is portions of Graham’s letters spread across various threads and muddled with musings, opinions, questions, and other posts. The result is that the issues get confused, difficult to determine (or have never been clearly stated). I think the best solution would be to create a dedicated thread where Graham’s letters are published in full (As Maja points out, GT has given consent to that) so that the audience can then read the complete letters and get a clear sense of the issues. The thread should be locked to prevent replies (other threads can be created for discussion), so that the letters don’t get lost amoungst the other posts. Also, I suggest that it ought to be pinned, ensuring the letters remain easily accessible to new comers (I anticipate there’ll be a few as word gets around about where the letters can be read). This is simple, open, and honest. If TMB administration are not willing to accommodate this, I’m sure that there are various other website proprietors who’d be happy to. that I'm not sure, but it seems that the genesis of GT's was in Australia and weren't resolved and remain unresolved. It then progressed to an indictment of NZ, a different country and environment, and of AR specifically. While AR's statement of position on CSA might have been lacking in some regards, it was a start and should be allowed to mature. I think the further progression is an indictment of the fellowship as a whole, and I wonder if GT hasn't allowed an obsesseion with Australia problems to leak into his relations at home. Just wonder. What has already been posted shows that the NZ older brothers, like the Australian older brothers, placed more importance on obedience to hierarchy than obedience to conscience. Australian problems are NZ problems because NZ older brothers make it so. They consider that unity with the Australian overseers is "an overriding factor". Instead of addressing Graham's legitimate concerns in South Australia, the Australian older brothers sent him home to NZ. Instead of the NZ older brothers addressing Graham's Australian concerns they continued to send workers to Australia and carry on business as usual. This left a festering sore.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 9, 2014 14:54:57 GMT -5
Earlier I had recommended a list of specifics that would answer the question "...ungodly hierarchical authority system, as evidenced by what?", and several have been provided. But maybe there's another route to getting clarification about the issues. GT, what do you propose as an alternative solution to the current ungodly hierarchical authority system? Each person should individually be Spirit led. Fellowship should only be about coming together and encourage. Talk about what fed us that week. Remember Christ. thats it! oh...sorry, my initials are not GT....you weren't talking to me. Thanks for responding, JD! The question was addressed to GT only rhetorically! So, if each person should be individually Spirit-led, then a worker should not bar a person from taking part in meeting, nor should a worker bar a person from being baptized, right (assuming he could find someone Spirit-led to do the baptizing)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 15:11:24 GMT -5
Each person should individually be Spirit led. Fellowship should only be about coming together and encourage. Talk about what fed us that week. Remember Christ. thats it! oh...sorry, my initials are not GT....you weren't talking to me. Thanks for responding, JD! The question was addressed to GT only rhetorically! So, if each person should be individually Spirit-led, then a worker should not bar a person from taking part in meeting, nor should a worker bar a person from being baptized, right (assuming he could find someone Spirit-led to do the baptizing)? Wade in the water, children, God's gonna trouble the water....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 15:45:32 GMT -5
Each person should individually be Spirit led. Fellowship should only be about coming together and encourage. Talk about what fed us that week. Remember Christ. thats it! oh...sorry, my initials are not GT....you weren't talking to me. Thanks for responding, JD! The question was addressed to GT only rhetorically! So, if each person should be individually Spirit-led, then a worker should not bar a person from taking part in meeting, nor should a worker bar a person from being baptized, right (assuming he could find someone Spirit-led to do the baptizing)? I have never seen GT convey his vision of what an ideal system would look like in detail. I believe he does envision a "spirit led" ministry as JD suggests but also acknowledges the need for certain bare-bones administrative functions. From what I gather there would be worker-coordinators but these wouldn't be top guns, just organizers who could be frequently rotated in and out of the functions. However, there wouldn't be an exclusive out of touch old-boys club running the show and making all kinds of decisions about people's lives. There would no longer be anyone who figured that criticism of them is the same as criticizing God. I would like to see a detailed vision of GT's. I suspect it isn't far off the ideals that most of us learned as children in the '50's-'70's until we discovered what a top-down political machine it really was.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 9, 2014 16:59:28 GMT -5
Thanks for responding, JD! The question was addressed to GT only rhetorically! So, if each person should be individually Spirit-led, then a worker should not bar a person from taking part in meeting, nor should a worker bar a person from being baptized, right (assuming he could find someone Spirit-led to do the baptizing)? I have never seen GT convey his vision of what an ideal system would look like in detail. I believe he does envision a "spirit led" ministry as JD suggests but also acknowledges the need for certain bare-bones administrative functions. From what I gather there would be worker-coordinators but these wouldn't be top guns, just organizers who could be frequently rotated in and out of the functions. However, there wouldn't be an exclusive out of touch old-boys club running the show and making all kinds of decisions about people's lives. There would no longer be anyone who figured that criticism of them is the same as criticizing God. I would like to see a detailed vision of GT's. I suspect it isn't far off the ideals that most of us learned as children in the '50's-'70's until we discovered what a top-down political machine it really was. Yes, the ideal may well be what we were taught as young people. The ministry was once like that it seems "before dominion began to appear" as Alfred Magowan wrote. It worked in the beginning, so why shouldn't it work now? Is the Living Witness Doctrine a reason that it couldn't work today?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 9, 2014 17:05:58 GMT -5
Each person should individually be Spirit led. Fellowship should only be about coming together and encourage. Talk about what fed us that week. Remember Christ. thats it! oh...sorry, my initials are not GT....you weren't talking to me. Thanks for responding, JD! The question was addressed to GT only rhetorically! So, if each person should be individually Spirit-led, then a worker should not bar a person from taking part in meeting, nor should a worker bar a person from being baptized, right (assuming he could find someone Spirit-led to do the baptizing)? Absolutely. And if prompted by the Spirit, someone could refuse to baptize as well. The whole shibang should not be in any one man's hands, or in the hands of any one hierarchy group of a few men.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 9, 2014 19:12:51 GMT -5
What happens when you set up a hierarchy system is that people no longer depend on the leading of the Spirit for guidance. It creates a dependency for people to instead, depend on the guidance of the hierarchy rather than the Spirit. The result is, the more dependent one is on the hierarchy, the more devout they are considered by the hierarchy - whether the Spirit is involved or not. I feel this is exactly why the gospel preac hed has little to do with Jesus Christ(not by all workers). It's about the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the meetings in the home...nothing wrong with either one of them IF they serve to show and tell the gospel of Jesus Christ! BUT as LS mentioned they have 2 beliefs that BM never got and that was the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the meetings in the home. JUST 2? True, the people in the fellowship who lean hard on the workers for their supposed salvation, that is IF the workers grant them that status, has become a sickness within the church! It's a terminal illness, btw! People need to go back to their "first love" in this religious sect....and I'm afraid then again since the "discovery" of the 2x2 itinerant ministry has been the NUMBER ONE reason/effort/love that Jesus got left out of it from the start.....NO need for a 2x2 itinerant ministry IF the message isn't "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." However IF anyone is interested, then they can keep coming to gospel meetings and those wonderful workers will keep their belief that the 2x2 itinerant ministry is of the utmost importance, and go ahead and answer people's questions "What about the kingdom of heaven is at hand?" "What does that mean?" etc And most important of all, it doesn't take a month of Sundays or Thursdays to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ....think of how Phillip and the Ethiopian Euncuch did it in one brief afternoon! Also baptism should never be held off of anyone wanting it....it is one of the "first" steps into the family of God....repentance and baptism is what Jesus told His Apostles to go and do.,...
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 10, 2014 5:41:43 GMT -5
In the previous post details were provided of Graham's request for a review of the decision to appoint Ian Taylor as overseer of Sth Australia which lead to Stan Cornthwaite requiring Graham to agree to accept all rulings of overseers, even future rulings, because of the overall imperative of unity. This resulted in Graham being effectively banned from returning from New Zealand to Sth Australia. On March 6, 2006 Graham wrote to Alan Richardson, the NZ overseer, expressing his feelings of being abandoned and noting that his writings had been issued in pursuance of the good of the kingdom. Part of the letter seems to deal with the manner in which Alan handled a matter in Graham's field of Christchurch without Graham's involvement. Dear Alan,
Thank you for your letter, I appreciated you writing in reply. I am not surprised that you weren’t happy with the letter or the way it was written. I am not happy either that our communication has been reduced to that level, but unfortunately the basis of better communication that we did have has been eroded over the past year, and was finally completely destroyed in the visit we had at Masterton. What I wrote to you covered the things that I believed were my duty to bring to your notice. You made some mention that in writing to me you were replying to statements of criticism. It was not criticism; it was a matter-of-fact statement of the situation as it is, and I feel that I could have written in a more wide-ranging and sterner manner without testing the boundaries of accurate and fair comment.
You said that you haven’t undermined me in anything you said in your visits, and I believe that. But in going together and excluding me you made a far more resounding statement of no-confidence in me than could ever have been expressed verbally, even though I realise it was not your intention to do that. And it could not have failed to be interpreted by _________ as a clear statement that you do not hold with the position we took on the matters, and are willing to take a different course independent of what has been done. I believe that going there without me is a course that should never have been contemplated at any cost, for that very reason.
You remarked that you felt I would not want to be a party to an “official initiative or approach” to these people. I stand by that remark, which I did make, but you will surely remember that this position was clearly stated to be a consequence of other serious matters having been raised and not attended to, and so it would amount to hypocrisy and impartiality. That gives you no licence whatsoever to claim you are excluding me on my own insistence, it only means that those other things should have been attended to as a matter of urgency first which would then give us all the liberty to pursue this matter without fear of condemning ourselves.
Concerning my reminder about not allowing Bill to have influence in plans concerning me, I noted you said that you will respect it. I wouldn’t have thought that you could have seen yourself as having a choice in that. My request is not limited to suggestions of visiting West Australia. In that connection though, may I say that the possibility of this having been discussed is astounding to say the least. That such a suggestion could have been advanced or considered when I am officially in the position of being undischarged from a ban on being in Australia, by one of the persons most responsible for that ban being in force, is ample testimony to the lack of uprightness in the whole affair.
etc,etc
I want to say that I sincerely appreciate your kindness in expressing confidence in me at the close of your letter, but unfortunately I feel I have been brought to the place where it brings little encouragement, just as it would bring little concern if you felt unable to express it. I don’t say that to be disparaging in any way. It is purely a reflection of the disappointments of the past period of time. I know you understand how I felt upon returning here from Australia, and I know that you are fully aware of developments since that time so there is no need to elaborate. I suppose Robin told you that in my visit with him at Winchester I said that I felt I had been abandoned, I was tired of being treated like an enemy, and that I had come to the place where I had seriously contemplated asking to be sent to another country and never setting foot in NZ again. And I meant never, ever. There are things that at one time I firmly believed anyone in the Ministry could have counted on, but some months ago I expressed in a letter to a brother in another place that “I no longer expect support in matters of principle from any elder in this part of the world”. I am not writing this to be antagonistic or controversial, but telling you because I consider that your brotherly care is such that you would feel unhappy if I was bearing such a burden in my heart and you were not fully aware of it.
In closing, and in order to make clear to you how I now feel about the many things I have written to you over the last couple or years or so, I feel I must add the comment that I continue to stand behind every statement I have written to you in my various letters over that time. I believe that every one of them is true as written. Many things have been ignored, others you have attempted to rebut. I was not looking for rebuttal, nor was I seeking vengeance or vindication – I was seeking redress. And that redress was sought not for myself but for the sake of the Kingdom, that others might be spared. My concern has been for the good of the Kingdom and the welfare of the sheep.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 10, 2014 12:00:15 GMT -5
I wonder if GT sort of tipped his agenda by letting a surrogate (Stevenz) "leak" the "stupid, dumb" quote which in my opinion was sort of a "gotcha" action on GT's part and was a sort of a reverse nastiness. I'm not defending the comment, but somehow this decade long debacle seems to have started in Australia where GT was at the time and where some real problems seem to have been occurred. I'm sure stevenz can respond better but I have been fortunate to have been reading some of GT's correspondence over the last couple of years. One thing you have to bear in mind is that GT hasn't just suddenly released all of this, but what you are reading these days are from informal "archives" that have been read by a certain number of people who have chosen, until now, not to release any of it into the public sphere. From what I can see of GT, he has an anti-secrecy policy for anything he writes and is always prepared to be fully accountable for what he writes. I believe that the decisions for release are being made entirely by others, not GT. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the idea to release the "stupid, dumb" quotation did not come from either GT or stevenz because I know exactly who it came from. I don't even think we can say there is a "campaign" going on here, except to get the story out. Not sure how this computes, nor if this issue is an overarching matter, but unless GT showed the quote to SOMEONE, it would have never been released, and the man (GT) is on record as having no problem with his writings being made public. (according to SteveNZ, who by the way, should identify exactly what his role in this is unless he's merely the clarion; is SteveNZ actually an independent person or is selfappointed to inform us of these matters. I for one, distrust his role unless it's merely as a surrogate. I see no independent thought on his postings.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2014 12:15:08 GMT -5
I'm sure stevenz can respond better but I have been fortunate to have been reading some of GT's correspondence over the last couple of years. One thing you have to bear in mind is that GT hasn't just suddenly released all of this, but what you are reading these days are from informal "archives" that have been read by a certain number of people who have chosen, until now, not to release any of it into the public sphere. From what I can see of GT, he has an anti-secrecy policy for anything he writes and is always prepared to be fully accountable for what he writes. I believe that the decisions for release are being made entirely by others, not GT. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the idea to release the "stupid, dumb" quotation did not come from either GT or stevenz because I know exactly who it came from. I don't even think we can say there is a "campaign" going on here, except to get the story out. Not sure how this computes, nor if this issue is an overarching matter, but unless GT showed the quote to SOMEONE, it would have never been released, and the man (GT) is on record as having no problem with his writings being made public. (according to SteveNZ, who by the way, should identify exactly what his role in this is unless he's merely the clarion; is SteveNZ actually an independent person or is selfappointed to inform us of these matters. I for one, distrust his role unless it's merely as a surrogate. I see no independent thought on his postings.) The way I look at it, it's difficult enough trying to make sense of the letters and issues, let alone try to figure out what GT and/or stevenz are thinking about right now. Once it all gets released, for those who are having difficulty following the issues,it might make more sense to read it all at once, and chronologically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2014 15:50:34 GMT -5
The way I look at it, it's difficult enough trying to make sense of the letters and issues, let alone try to figure out what GT and/or stevenz are thinking about right now. Once it all gets released, for those who are having difficulty following the issues,it might make more sense to read it all at once, and chronologically. Well, you did say you knew exactly who released it, and although I wouldn't expect you to break a confidence, that mysterious remark adds to the intrigue here, with all due respect. It was released by stevenz, I just stated that the idea didn't come from that participant or GT. There is no intrigue here or deliberate campaign, that's the point, and certainly there is no involvement from GT to have anything posted here, at least none that I know of. If anything, it's a public service being provided by stevenz and I appreciate what has been provided so far. Hopefully all the material finds a place on a permanent site and in chronological order so that readers can come to their own conclusions on it all.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 10, 2014 16:21:20 GMT -5
Well, you did say you knew exactly who released it, and although I wouldn't expect you to break a confidence, that mysterious remark adds to the intrigue here, with all due respect. It was released by stevenz, I just stated that the idea didn't come from that participant or GT. There is no intrigue here or deliberate campaign, that's the point, and certainly there is no involvement from GT to have anything posted here, at least none that I know of. If anything, it's a public service being provided by stevenz and I appreciate what has been provided so far. Hopefully all the material finds a place on a permanent site and in chronological order so that readers can come to their own conclusions on it all. No, the point was my simple observation that by releasing the "the dumb stupid comment" seemed to be a sort of reverse "gotcha" on the part of who ever released it and unless it was DT, then it seems perhaps a mistake on GT 's part or that of his surrogate if everybody here is playing nice. So if I'm cynical as DJ likes to suggest, then my next question is "what is the agenda" or was it simply a mistake in judgment. I can handle either, just let's not pretend the release of the comment was intended to heal or had well meaning intentions. Hey, I'm appalled by the comment too.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 10, 2014 16:36:21 GMT -5
No, the point was my simple observation that by releasing the "the dumb stupid comment" seemed to be a sort of reverse "gotcha" on the part of who ever released it and unless it was DT, then it seems perhaps a mistake on GT 's part or that of his surrogate if everybody here is playing nice. So if I'm cynical as DJ likes to suggest, then my next question is "what is the agenda" or was it simply a mistake in judgment. I can handle either, just let's not pretend the release of the comment was intended to heal or had well meaning intentions. Hey, I'm appalled by the comment too. So are you cynical, skeptical, or simply would like to know all the facts before passing judgment? It doesn't really seem to matter because there are those who accept the story and if you dare to question the story or their judgement of the veracity of the story you are painted with a very unflattering brush. It is the same old thing - accept the story without question or you are disparaging the person telling the story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2014 16:51:17 GMT -5
It was released by stevenz, I just stated that the idea didn't come from that participant or GT. There is no intrigue here or deliberate campaign, that's the point, and certainly there is no involvement from GT to have anything posted here, at least none that I know of. If anything, it's a public service being provided by stevenz and I appreciate what has been provided so far. Hopefully all the material finds a place on a permanent site and in chronological order so that readers can come to their own conclusions on it all. No, the point was my simple observation that by releasing the "the dumb stupid comment" seemed to be a sort of reverse "gotcha" on the part of who ever released it and unless it was DT, then it seems perhaps a mistake on GT 's part or that of his surrogate if everybody here is playing nice. So if I'm cynical as DJ likes to suggest, then my next question is "what is the agenda" or was it simply a mistake in judgment. I can handle either, just let's not pretend the release of the comment was intended to heal or had well meaning intentions. Hey, I'm appalled by the comment too. I don't think there are any lofty intentions here other than bringing out the "whole story" as many posters keep complaining is not forthcoming. Readers have to take the good with the bad if they clamour for full disclosure......people usually get what they ask for. There is no playing nice or mean when there is full disclosure, it is what it is. Surely you are not advocating censorship of certain comments and disclosure of others?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 10, 2014 16:59:16 GMT -5
nope.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 10, 2014 17:25:33 GMT -5
No, the point was my simple observation that by releasing the "the dumb stupid comment" seemed to be a sort of reverse "gotcha" on the part of who ever released it and unless it was DT, then it seems perhaps a mistake on GT 's part or that of his surrogate if everybody here is playing nice. So if I'm cynical as DJ likes to suggest, then my next question is "what is the agenda" or was it simply a mistake in judgment. I can handle either, just let's not pretend the release of the comment was intended to heal or had well meaning intentions. Hey, I'm appalled by the comment too. So are you cynical, skeptical, or simply would like to know all the facts before passing judgment? It doesn't really seem to matter because there are those who accept the story and if you dare to question the story or their judgement of the veracity of the story you are painted with a very unflattering brush. It is the same old thing - accept the story without question or you are disparaging the person telling the story. What is it about Graham's correspondence that you are doubting?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 10, 2014 17:50:16 GMT -5
We see in the following excerpt a heartbroken man back in March 6, 2006.
He saw the folks he gave his life to serve being thrown under the bus.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 10, 2014 20:37:03 GMT -5
So are you cynical, skeptical, or simply would like to know all the facts before passing judgment? It doesn't really seem to matter because there are those who accept the story and if you dare to question the story or their judgement of the veracity of the story you are painted with a very unflattering brush. It is the same old thing - accept the story without question or you are disparaging the person telling the story. What is it about Graham's correspondence that you are doubting? That is the point - I am not doubting anything. Asking for the other side of a situation does not mean you doubt anything.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 10, 2014 21:37:29 GMT -5
What is it about Graham's correspondence that you are doubting? That is the point - I am not doubting anything. Asking for the other side of a situation does not mean you doubt anything. What do you mean by "the other side of the story"? Graham's correspondence has been made available. It was never intended to be a one-sided story. It is what it is. Graham has stated his views. Either you agree with them or not.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 10, 2014 23:27:01 GMT -5
From a message sent to me, from a New Zealand reader: Anyway why don't you in your own words and way put this before us all on one of the threads.....
So, the thoughts/questions paraphrased here. There is a great need for a concise, specific statement from Graham, giving answers to the following:
a- What are the current problems that exist now in New Zealand?
b- What are Graham's suggestions as to how those problems need to be addressed and fixed?
c- Does New Zealand need to replace the current overseer? If that is not the solution, then what is? Should the overseer position be abolished?
There is little purpose in posting correspondence from years past if they do not address specific problems, especially if there are no suggested solutions to correct those problems.
The regular everyday professing Kiwi friends will continue to be confused by the selective posting of letters and emails from years gone by. They tend to raise more questions, and give a lack of understanding for not having the above questions addressed.
So where is a point by point list of the problems and wrong and the suggested solutions to them?
And of course a footnote added...... Here is an opportunity for you to further cement in your reputation as an impartial mediator! I do appreciate you LOTS...even if I do get brassed off a bit here and there!
|
|