|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 19:02:16 GMT -5
what is the difference if WI copied something, he still started the fellowship/group/. He still formed a new group. If I copy something is it then new or is it the original just because I copied it? I can't claim it is the original just because I tried to copy it. In fact it would called a counterfeit if i copied it and did not put my name to it but instead claimed it was the old/original. "copying" something and taking the founder credits will end up in a court of law these days....perhaps it will be the same on Judgment Day as well!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 19:07:29 GMT -5
~~ What kind of Mission did WI start? Was it something NEW or an OLD idea?
This is what WI wrote in Oct. 16/1935 " My attempt to do as Acts and the apostles taught and tried to imitate what's there."
Do you think WI was a founder/started of something NEW from scratch or wanting to RETURN to some thing OLD?
WI wanted to return to something that already been done in the past. What is the title do you have for WI? According to George Walker's testimony in 1942 that God had laid on the hearts of others with the same idea of RETURNING the methods and the teachings of Jesus and apostles.
~~ I don't think anybody knows who God put the desire of RETURNING to Jesus and apostles method first! How could anyone be so SURE God put it in the mind of WI first?
William Irvine started the MISSION. That's nothing to do with adopting an old method or concept or philosophy or any thing of that nature. MISSION in this context means a group of like-minded people going out to preach the gospel. The other things that define our church today - meetings in homes, convention/special meetings system, workers lists, baptism of converts, saint/worker seperation, appointment of elders, etc came a few years later. Debate who founded all that if you will, but William Irvine started the MISSION from which all the rest developed over time. Do you understand what I mean by MISSION (in this context) now? To be totally factual, jo, we have to say when "the Mission" started, WI was still employed by Faith Mission or so it seems what Cherie has pointed out several times! Thus he can not take credit for the "starting" of what they were actually doing as itinerant 2X2's....there can be NO credit given to WI or any of the others who were "under his overseership" until AFTER he was legally separated from the employ of Faith Mission. He was not being honest, taking funds from them to do "his own founding" now was he....it cannot be considered his, not while he's under employ to someone else! And if contested in a court of law this day and age, the Faith Mission could easily, if they so desired, lay claim to the founding of the itinerant ministry under WI collaboration with J Long and whoever else...because of the simple fact WI stil was their employee!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 19:12:38 GMT -5
To be totally factual, jo, we have to say when "the Mission" started, WI was still employed by Faith Mission or so it seems what Cherie has pointed out several times! Thus he can not take credit for the "starting" of what they were actually doing as itinerant 2X2's....there can be NO credit given to WI or any of the others who were "under his overseership" until AFTER he was legally separated from the employ of Faith Mission. He was not being honest, taking funds from them to do "his own founding" now was he....it cannot be considered his, not while he's under employ to someone else! And if contested in a court of law this day and age, the Faith Mission could easily, if they so desired, lay claim to the founding of the itinerant ministry under WI collaboration with J Long and whoever else...because of the simple fact WI stil was their employee! We don't have documented proof that WI was ripping off the Faith Mission. He was fully employed preaching the gospel through that period so it would be hard for Faith Mission to determine exactly when he stepped outside of his commitment to them. If you deny William Irvine started Wilson McClung et al's mission, then who do you think did?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 19:36:49 GMT -5
To be totally factual, jo, we have to say when "the Mission" started, WI was still employed by Faith Mission or so it seems what Cherie has pointed out several times! Thus he can not take credit for the "starting" of what they were actually doing as itinerant 2X2's....there can be NO credit given to WI or any of the others who were "under his overseership" until AFTER he was legally separated from the employ of Faith Mission. He was not being honest, taking funds from them to do "his own founding" now was he....it cannot be considered his, not while he's under employ to someone else! And if contested in a court of law this day and age, the Faith Mission could easily, if they so desired, lay claim to the founding of the itinerant ministry under WI collaboration with J Long and whoever else...because of the simple fact WI stil was their employee! We don't have documented proof that WI was ripping off the Faith Mission. He was fully employed preaching the gospel through that period so it would be hard for Faith Mission to determine exactly when he stepped outside of his commitment to them. If you deny William Irvine started Wilson McClung et al's mission, then who do you think did? My point entirely, jo....apparently WI was still working for FM when he rounded up or collaborated with...or started the itinerant ministry....and stayed that way for a couple of years if I remember right...and then the itinerant ministry did not change much AFTER FM separated WI from their employ or he separated himself....Thus without a change and WI still under the FM employ, the itinerant ministry cannot "humanly" be attributed as "founder" to WI.....the "inspiration", the "idea" may have been WI's, no doubt along with J Long according to Cherie...but WI was still under the employ of FM...making them a rightful owners, founders or whatever title they should so well call it. That is only legally right, jo.....and it's a sad fact really, that WI caused some others to unwittingly do wrong by staying under WI's thumb, so-to-speak, while he was still employed by FM! The major change came even 2-4 yrs. later when a "fellowship of members" was collaborated on by the whole group of workers and WI was appointed their first Overseer! That removes WI as founder of the fellowship's membership, but as overseer of the ministry...much like Barry Barkley is Overseer of the workers, but not overseer of each individual state of members!
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 13, 2009 19:41:38 GMT -5
I think you all are beating the air,flailing each other. Someday we will know the answer,and you know what if we don't know the answer then we will have missed it and it still won't make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 20:00:33 GMT -5
lin, perhaps you're right...but it seems to be coming to a conclusion with Cherie's repeated assertions of her information...that really show that WI is not the founder alone or even technically nor legally! There are too many components to the whole thing to be able to grant him full credit as founder....and that's human components I'm speaking to.....as Nathan said, there's the spiritual aspect NONE of us can really know, for there are NO written documents about the spirit's leadings in all of this "human history" and I grant that there was definitely some Holy Spirit's leading...I knew some of those beginning workers and I see some workers this day and age who struggle to keep that Holy Spirit leading...but there's the truth that the human side of things has taken precedence in some areas and some things. I do not deny that....And I got the impression that some of the exes really want that much admission of what's gone wrong for some.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 20:16:18 GMT -5
Those who were there at the time have documented how William Irvine started the mission that Wilson McClung, Jack and Bill Carroll, George Walker et al. worked in.
Whether God and the Holy Spirit were behind it, and whether it was a return to the NT methods, are totally seperate issues.
If some folks want to bury their heads in the sand they are free to do that of course.
But it won't change the reality of the recorded history.
It's just as well that records have survived because we sure couldn't rely on workers and friends to be honest and open about the history of Uncle William's mission.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 13, 2009 20:27:37 GMT -5
I agree JO, but in reality what difference does it make who starts it? I have no problem with the history,and have no agreement with people that say from the shores of Galilee .I don't have anything against a website that tells this history. I do find it offensive the personal injection of Cherie's opinions being mixed in with the authenticity in an attempt to make her opinions seem credible. What means most to me is that I serve a God that does not lie,and I know of a peace and satisfaction that could only come from heaven. This to me what truth means.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 13, 2009 20:47:22 GMT -5
Sharon wrote:
Sharon, assuming you really meant John Long and not John Kelly in the quote above, could you tell us what actions J Long took toward founding the 2x2 church? What important details was he personally responsible for? And support your statements using Pattison or the John Long Journal.
And, Sharon, would you please stop using me as your source of info on this board. I've noticed that you often misquote and mistate things I have written to the point your information often isn't reliable, and I dont want to be responsible for misleading people because you can't properly reiterate information you've read. You're misleading people, even if its unintentional. It's tantamount to lying and putting my name on a lie. I dont want to have to follow you around correcting you all the time...so just dont use me as your source. Use the PRIMARY source documents.
By using the source for historical information I state, you cant go far wrong. Stick to the recognized historical documents and give them for your sources. They're more credible to the innies than my name is anyway.
Thanx.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 20:50:24 GMT -5
I agree JO, but in reality what difference does it make who starts it? I have no problem with the history,and have no agreement with people that say from the shores of Galilee .I don't have anything against a website that tells this history. I do find it offensive the personal injection of Cherie's opinions being mixed in with the authenticity in an attempt to make her opinions seem credible. What means most to me is that I serve a God that does not lie,and I know of a peace and satisfaction that could only come from heaven. This to me what truth means. It makes no difference to you or me Lin, because our faith is not centered on apostolic succession or a one-true-way religious system. Our citizenship is in heaven. However it's important that the history of William Irvine's mission is properly assembled and preserved to prevent future generations from deceiving friends and workers into investing their lives in a bag of holes.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 13, 2009 21:08:24 GMT -5
We don't have documented proof that WI was ripping off the Faith Mission. He was fully employed preaching the gospel through that period so it would be hard for Faith Mission to determine exactly when he stepped outside of his commitment to them. If you deny William Irvine started Wilson McClung et al's mission, then who do you think did? My point entirely, jo....apparently WI was still working for FM when he rounded up or collaborated with...or started the itinerant ministry....and stayed that way for a couple of years if I remember right...and then the itinerant ministry did not change much AFTER FM separated WI from their employ or he separated himself....Thus without a change and WI still under the FM employ, the itinerant ministry cannot "humanly" be attributed as "founder" to WI.....the "inspiration", the "idea" may have been WI's, no doubt along with J Long according to Cherie...but WI was still under the employ of FM...making them a rightful owners, founders or whatever title they should so well call it. That is only legally right, jo.....and it's a sad fact really, that WI caused some others to unwittingly do wrong by staying under WI's thumb, so-to-speak, while he was still employed by FM! The major change came even 2-4 yrs. later when a "fellowship of members" was collaborated on by the whole group of workers and WI was appointed their first Overseer! That removes WI as founder of the fellowship's membership, but as overseer of the ministry...much like Barry Barkley is Overseer of the workers, but not overseer of each individual state of members! You are grapsing at straws, Sharon and making it up as you go along. I can start up something while still being employed in something else.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 13, 2009 21:12:18 GMT -5
JO: Why is history important,when it lasts only for a life time. I believe God is on the throne,and I don't believe we have to worry about future generations. I know this Irvine thing could be an issue to some,but I am sure there are thousands that it doesn't mean a thing to.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 13, 2009 21:12:50 GMT -5
I think you all are beating the air,flailing each other. Someday we will know the answer,and you know what if we don't know the answer then we will have missed it and it still won't make a difference. The answers are clearly there, just you fail or don't want to see them.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 21:33:34 GMT -5
My point entirely, jo....apparently WI was still working for FM when he rounded up or collaborated with...or started the itinerant ministry....and stayed that way for a couple of years if I remember right...and then the itinerant ministry did not change much AFTER FM separated WI from their employ or he separated himself....Thus without a change and WI still under the FM employ, the itinerant ministry cannot "humanly" be attributed as "founder" to WI.....the "inspiration", the "idea" may have been WI's, no doubt along with J Long according to Cherie...but WI was still under the employ of FM...making them a rightful owners, founders or whatever title they should so well call it. That is only legally right, jo.....and it's a sad fact really, that WI caused some others to unwittingly do wrong by staying under WI's thumb, so-to-speak, while he was still employed by FM! The major change came even 2-4 yrs. later when a "fellowship of members" was collaborated on by the whole group of workers and WI was appointed their first Overseer! That removes WI as founder of the fellowship's membership, but as overseer of the ministry...much like Barry Barkley is Overseer of the workers, but not overseer of each individual state of members! You are grapsing at straws, Sharon and making it up as you go along. I can start up something while still being employed in something else. No, I'm not making anything up....I'm trying to get some to see just how the "history facts" can be interpreted! It doesn't matter to me who founded what....as well as you may say you can "found" something while working for someone else...but not if your working on their time, using their money to do that...it isn't right! There's been legal actions when people do such things and as long as one is on someone else's time and using their funds supposedly to do their assigned work, then it isn't yours!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 13, 2009 21:38:18 GMT -5
;D I dig your jokes, ilylo! Yeah, you two contribute a lot to the discussion. Trying to wear out my scroll button again? You are such an inspiration. One day I hope to be a sour puss like you.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 13, 2009 21:45:47 GMT -5
I agree JO, but in reality what difference does it make who starts it? I have no problem with the history,and have no agreement with people that say from the shores of Galilee .I don't have anything against a website that tells this history. I do find it offensive the personal injection of Cherie's opinions being mixed in with the authenticity in an attempt to make her opinions seem credible. What means most to me is that I serve a God that does not lie,and I know of a peace and satisfaction that could only come from heaven. This to me what truth means. No, truth to you means perpetuating a lie. What an odd situation. At least Cherie has the integrity to tell you which are facts and which are her opinions. What makes it so sickening to you that she would happen to hold opinions? You're so braindead to reality and facts that you will desperately do anything, say anything, to harm the reputation of anyone who presents you with truth/facts/reality. Go on with your delusions. Just keep them to yourself. They're dangerous to those who aren't interested in your fairy tales.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 21:49:04 GMT -5
No, I'm not making anything up....I'm trying to get some to see just how the "history facts" can be interpreted! It doesn't matter to me who founded what....as well as you may say you can "found" something while working for someone else...but not if your working on their time, using their money to do that...it isn't right! There's been legal actions when people do such things and as long as one is on someone else's time and using their funds supposedly to do their assigned work, then it isn't yours! So are you saying that the Faith Mission founded the mission Wilson McClung, the Carrolls, George Walker etc worked in? OR are you saying we owe them intellectual property rights for every sermon off the platform?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 21:59:06 GMT -5
No, I'm not making anything up....I'm trying to get some to see just how the "history facts" can be interpreted! It doesn't matter to me who founded what....as well as you may say you can "found" something while working for someone else...but not if your working on their time, using their money to do that...it isn't right! There's been legal actions when people do such things and as long as one is on someone else's time and using their funds supposedly to do their assigned work, then it isn't yours! So are you saying that the Faith Mission founded the mission Wilson McClung, the Carrolls, George Walker etc worked in? OR are you saying we owe them intellectual property rights for every sermon off the platform? I'm saying "IF" this "mission" purported to have been "founded" by WI was done while "he was still under the employ" of FM, that it isn't his founding......he was on their time, their finances!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 22:00:53 GMT -5
JO: Why is history important,when it lasts only for a life time. I believe God is on the throne,and I don't believe we have to worry about future generations. I know this Irvine thing could be an issue to some,but I am sure there are thousands that it doesn't mean a thing to. "If you love somebody, set them free. if they don't come back, they weren't yours to begin with." If thousands are faithfully serving God with no interest in the history of the fellowship, that's great. They won't be adversely affected by full disclosure of the truth. However if one person feels they're being lied to, is that not a good reason to put the record straight? Lies are still being told, and lies are not of God. Should we not applaud any effort to put the lies to rest? "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 22:01:53 GMT -5
So are you saying that the Faith Mission founded the mission Wilson McClung, the Carrolls, George Walker etc worked in? OR are you saying we owe them intellectual property rights for every sermon off the platform? I'm saying "IF" this "mission" purported to have been "founded" by WI was done while "he was still under the employ" of FM, that it isn't his founding......he was on their time, their finances! So who was the founder?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 22:12:07 GMT -5
I'm saying "IF" this "mission" purported to have been "founded" by WI was done while "he was still under the employ" of FM, that it isn't his founding......he was on their time, their finances! So who was the founder? Legally, it is history's finding! However history can not be completely determined in this issue....there are questions that cannot seemingly be answered. I don't think one of the beginning workers ever considered the legal ramifications of what was going on...because WI was still under the employ of FM! However, I doubt they want the credit though they possibly could legally lay claim to it esp. IF WI was still under their employ and on their time! Was it not you who questioned the fact that some of the doctrine for the ministry was like that of FM? It makes one really think seriously about settling the "history" of it doesn't it...as it was said earlier posting...dig far enough and you'll get through all the sands of man and end up with something built there that won't stand up to the "shifting sands" of history! I got the impression those who push the "history" of it wanted those who didn't know it to come up with the "truth" but maybe they want us to look at history as they declare it and stop there....as Lin said, it really isn't going to make a whole lot of difference other then you start finding out the negatives from the very beginning! One can only request that God lead us through this valley of darkness and come out on the other side more attached to Him then ever before....this is only the beginning of tribulations and persecutions and trials or whatever may befall!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 13, 2009 22:26:32 GMT -5
siwells,
why does it bother you so much to accept that WI started the 2x2 church?
You have spun this around and around and around to the point you've made yourself dizzy.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 22:41:05 GMT -5
Who cares about the legal side of it? Do you think we are all going to be sued??? If you care to read the history you will clearly see that William Irvine started the mission that Wilson McClung, the Carrolls, George Walker etc worked in. The history of this mission is what it is - history of a mission - whether God was in it or not makes no difference to the historical record of the mission. Whether William was sane or not at the time makes no difference either. I happen to believe that God was working powerfully through William and the others in those first years. But I also happen to believe God is not in any lies or deceit involved in a cover-up of William's role in starting the mission. Even if it was wrong in the beginning - and I certainly don't think it was wrong - why would that stop us from acknowledging the recorded history? Legally, it is history's finding! However history can not be completely determined in this issue....there are questions that cannot seemingly be answered. I don't think one of the beginning workers ever considered the legal ramifications of what was going on...because WI was still under the employ of FM! However, I doubt they want the credit though they possibly could legally lay claim to it esp. IF WI was still under their employ and on their time! Was it not you who questioned the fact that some of the doctrine for the ministry was like that of FM? It makes one really think seriously about settling the "history" of it doesn't it...as it was said earlier posting...dig far enough and you'll get through all the sands of man and end up with something built there that won't stand up to the "shifting sands" of history! I got the impression those who push the "history" of it wanted those who didn't know it to come up with the "truth" but maybe they want us to look at history as they declare it and stop there....as Lin said, it really isn't going to make a whole lot of difference other then you start finding out the negatives from the very beginning! One can only request that God lead us through this valley of darkness and come out on the other side more attached to Him then ever before....this is only the beginning of tribulations and persecutions and trials or whatever may befall!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 13, 2009 23:12:39 GMT -5
Who cares about the legal side of it? Do you think we are all going to be sued??? If you care to read the history you will clearly see that William Irvine started the mission that Wilson McClung, the Carrolls, George Walker etc worked in. The history of this mission is what it is - history of a mission - whether God was in it or not makes no difference to the historical record of the mission. Whether William was sane or not at the time makes no difference either. I happen to believe that God was working powerfully through William and the others in those first years. But I also happen to believe God is not in any lies or deceit involved in a cover-up of William's role in starting the mission. Even if it was wrong in the beginning - and I certainly don't think it was wrong - why would that stop us from acknowledging the recorded history? Legally, it is history's finding! However history can not be completely determined in this issue....there are questions that cannot seemingly be answered. I don't think one of the beginning workers ever considered the legal ramifications of what was going on...because WI was still under the employ of FM! However, I doubt they want the credit though they possibly could legally lay claim to it esp. IF WI was still under their employ and on their time! Was it not you who questioned the fact that some of the doctrine for the ministry was like that of FM? It makes one really think seriously about settling the "history" of it doesn't it...as it was said earlier posting...dig far enough and you'll get through all the sands of man and end up with something built there that won't stand up to the "shifting sands" of history! I got the impression those who push the "history" of it wanted those who didn't know it to come up with the "truth" but maybe they want us to look at history as they declare it and stop there....as Lin said, it really isn't going to make a whole lot of difference other then you start finding out the negatives from the very beginning! One can only request that God lead us through this valley of darkness and come out on the other side more attached to Him then ever before....this is only the beginning of tribulations and persecutions and trials or whatever may befall! jo, the historical facts that are known support the idea that WI AND other workers started a mission that has evolved into what we know as the truth's fellowship. However those facts that I've been made aware of are heavy on the side of those who were excommunicated or left the truth's fellowship... Whereas the facts from those who remained within the ministry of the truth's fellowship are being questioned again and again.......I have to wonder why? I agree that there is a difference between some of the two sides....but to be fair there isn't as "much historical evidence" from the side of those who stayed within the truth's fellowship until their death which makes an imbalanced historical reporting.... I do not deny that the facts that are historically presented support what you're declaring nor have I really done so...... I have a whole lot of trouble that WI was actually a "real and bonafide" founder all alone! Even the historical facts point to the fact he had assistance in the whole thing and outside of his own "after excommunication" proud boasts...I still have questions as to who really "thought of the itinerant ministry" as he supposedly has been declared to have done....JUST WHO thought that up? WHO? I agree that it looks like he was, but there has been enough evidence supplied, I have to fairly question that and in all sides of the issue can not readily agree that he did it with intention or equanimity!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 13, 2009 23:37:58 GMT -5
jo, the historical facts that are known support the idea that WI AND other workers started a mission that has evolved into what we know as the truth's fellowship. However those facts that I've been made aware of are heavy on the side of those who were excommunicated or left the truth's fellowship... Whereas the facts from those who remained within the ministry of the truth's fellowship are being questioned again and again.......I have to wonder why? I agree that there is a difference between some of the two sides....but to be fair there isn't as "much historical evidence" from the side of those who stayed within the truth's fellowship until their death which makes an imbalanced historical reporting.... I do not deny that the facts that are historically presented support what you're declaring nor have I really done so...... I have a whole lot of trouble that WI was actually a "real and bonafide" founder all alone! Even the historical facts point to the fact he had assistance in the whole thing and outside of his own "after excommunication" proud boasts...I still have questions as to who really "thought of the itinerant ministry" as he supposedly has been declared to have done....JUST WHO thought that up? WHO? I agree that it looks like he was, but there has been enough evidence supplied, I have to fairly question that and in all sides of the issue can not readily agree that he did it with intention or equanimity! Have you read the Pattison Account? There's two sides to this issue: 1. The historical record 2. Those who are desperately refusing to acknowledge it. Was Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft? Did he do it on his own? Of course not. Does that make him any less of a founder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2009 5:30:28 GMT -5
How much longer must we prevail with all this Satan Stimulated bilge attempting to deflect the "credit" away from William Irvine from being the Founder, or main founder, or even co-founder of the F&W's mission, group, sect, ministry or whatever.
The one man, indepedent of Irvine who should have known the facts is the man Edward Cooney who is/was by a long mile the "greatest" two by two (F&W's group) ever to have lived, quite simply because not only was he the least, but the group owed much of its early success to him (naturally speaking).
As the "main" man in the sect, still professing diligently, he took the People newspaper to court because of false allegations. He won his case.
Now spin this guy forward in these circumstances to 2009 and every drip of saliva that poured from that guy's mouth would be scooped up and regarded as some kind of Holy water.
Now, as a devout Christian and possessing an intimate knowledge of this sect and its foundation that you can get, this "leader" swears on oath in the court (aware that perjury and prevarication as serious offences) he testifies when asked if he was the "founder," - "William Irvine was the first !"
Getting back to Matthew 10, we read of times when God's servants would be brought before councils, etc as a testimony against them. Now here we have an excellent opportunity for the then "spiritual" leader (or near as d--- it) to give account of the foundations as he sees and knows it.
Did Cooney say, "we have no earthly founder."
Did he say "this way goes all the way back to Jesus."
"Shores of Gallilee ?"
"It was started by God in Heaven ?"
"I don't know what you're talking about your Lordship. We have no founder, finder, establisher, leader, etc, save our Lord in Heaven."
"If you come along to the Gospel mission you'll get all your questions answered."
"I'm sorry your Lordship but it is wrong to ask questions."
"Your Lordship the court mustn't have doubts. That is the devil working. You must just accept."
No, Edward simple said "Your Lordship, I would like to make clear to the court today, that I was not the founder of this movement, it was Mr William Irvine (who has left our fellowship/ or is abroad ?) who was the first."
Now if Eddy baby was alive and well today and still at or near the helm, those words would be rock solid. The doubters on this board would defend them to the hilt. If there had been no lies or deception about the origins, then there would have been pride in Cooney's testimony, not shame or guilt at having the truth pointed out.
Yet, Cooney's honest testimony is not enough for some. However, as discussed on this thread and others there are many other fingers pointing at Irvine, that it beggars belief that even one sensible person would quibble over the issue.
|
|
Pink
Senior Member
Posts: 411
|
Post by Pink on Feb 14, 2009 7:31:05 GMT -5
God, that was good. I need a cigarette....
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 14, 2009 9:07:35 GMT -5
Well said, ram. Thanks for taking the time to show the matter in such a simple light. Couldn't have been said better IMO.
Truth Is Truth, Regardless Of: Who perceives it, or fails to recognize it; Who understands it or misunderstands it; Who agrees or disagrees with it; Who believes or disbelieves it; Who accepts, objects or rejects it; Who is convinced or unconvinced of it; Who accuses or excuses it; Who proves it or seeks to disprove it; Who opposes, challenges, questions or doubts it; Who misinterprets, misconstrues, perverts or distorts it.
Whether it is spoken, written or acted out; Whether it is withheld, omitted, falsified; Whether it is expressed, suppressed, or unexpressed; Whether it is disputed, contested or tried; Whether it is covered up or uncovered; Whether it is revealed or concealed.
For Truth is Truth ... independent of man.
Even a talking donkey can speak the truth
|
|