DaveH,
Something is being twisted here beyond it's bounds. The term street
preacher refers to all evangelicals that preach in the open air, but you
are using it to refer to those that offend you. That is not fair, it is a
stereotype based on the actions of just a few by your subjectivit
Furthermore, I think that street preaching as a whole has for centuries been
the backbone of reaching non-churched pagans and heathens. It seems to be
working in SLC, according to Kevin.
John the baptist was a street preacher, and Jesus was, too, as were all of
the Apostles. By disparaging
Blaine,
PERRY: Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to
mislead you!
In conversations with LDS in the past I understood from their response
that the LDS holy spirit was the spirit of the LDS god, and not a separate
god itself. That is what I originally stated. DaveH
DaveH wrote:
Does that clear up your misunderstanding of how the LDS perceive
resurrection?
No, but it clears of my understanding of how LDS misperceive the
resurrection. None of it is Biblical...all from the musings of a man, Joseph
Smith. The only thing Biblical about Joseph Smith is that
DaveH,
But when LDS use it, they mean 2 gods and a spirit.
DAVEH: That is a bit misleading, Perry. We also consider the HS to be a
God, though one without a physical body.
Okay, the LDS interpret the Godhead as 3 separate gods...sorry to mislead
you!
And, if you are a woman, you do not get
DaveH, how many prophets have there been, Joseph Smith to today, and how
many of them, other than Joseph Smith, have received revelation directly
from the LDS god? Those would be found in the DC, right?
Perry
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To:
, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never
read of any explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon
interpretation. Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner,
so please, tell me/us, OK?
BlaineRB
-- Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from
Blaine,
What may sound music to your ears sounds pretty unusual to the rest of
us. These men are speaking the truth, and Kevin quoted them because they are
affirming what we have been saying from the start...the Mormon church has
not changed; it is still the same occultic and heretical church
Kay,
Kay (to DaveH): Why not? Aren't you Mormon? Who better to ask than a
Mormon. I would think
you would know what you believe or don't believe, etc. way better than I
would.
Kay, there is a dynamic at play when Mormons speak, of which you might
not be aware, and that is that Mormons have
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I find curious is why you find the word Christian so sacred that it
must only include those who truly believe in Christ. Does one come into
relationship with Christ by joining the Christian religion, or by simple
faith in Jesus Christ?
Well, I have
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The term Christian as I have defined it does not lose all meaning. Only
those who profess an attempt to follow Christ would be included. This
would
exclude Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. who do not see that
Jesus Christ holds such a
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you knew you were going to die tomorrow, and you had a chance to tell
me
something, what would it be? I's like to know the answer to that one from
anyone on this list.
Eat less; run more.
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that
John, I think Kevin posted this originally, but I will respond anyway. Yes,
I think the blood of Christ covers them from the moment they believe. Not
all conversions are miraculouis instant fixes for life's problems. Many
come to believe then, thorough a slow process, become transformed. Some
John, I think Kevin posted this originally, but I will respond anyway. Yes,
I think the blood of Christ covers them from the moment they believe. Not
all conversions are miraculouis instant fixes for life's problems. Many
come to believe then, thorough a slow process, become transformed. Some
DavidM,
We have discussed this here before. Do you believe that the jesus and god
that LDS teaches are the Jesus and God that the Bible teaches? If so, then
say hi to your brother Lucifer, and your
once-a-man-now-a-god-from-the-planet-kolob father. If not, then why do you
consider them
DavidM,
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I consider them Christians because they embrace the Biblical testimony
that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man may come to
the Father but by him.
Which Jesus? The eternal word that became flesh through a miraculous
birth, or
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perry wrote:
A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture
that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism
because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants
to be the prime documents in
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Slade (actually, Kay) Henson wrote:
So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods,
DAVEH: Yesdoes not the Bible suggest likewise? Look at PS
82:6..
A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture
that seems to
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:24:44 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Hi, DaveH.
I'll bet you are surprised that I responded to this email :-). Kevin
Hi, DaveH.
I'll bet you are surprised that I responded to this email :-). Kevin is
much more qualified than I to answer your question, but I thought that I
would just recall some rather detailed posts I made some months, maybe a
year, back. Many of our current members have probably joined
The First Thanksgiving Proclamation June 20, 1676:
The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his
Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives
of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own
Covenant people in this
DaveH, it seems to me that the LDS have to have an explanation for
everything, even at the expense of being wrong. They cannot allow any aspect
of God to be unknown. They seem to think they understand God and His nature,
going way beyond what is scripturally revealed.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen
] The Schizophrenic God
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:14:34 -0500
To:the three named Charles Perry Locke seems to make an appearance whenever
an LDS discussion is underway..H What's the deal with that?
- Original Message -
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DaveH, it seems to me that the LDS have to have an explanation for
everything,
DAVEH: IF there is an explanation for everything, then is there a reason
why those who are searching for truth cannot find those answers?
Absolutely
Lance, I believe it was Emily Latella, another Gilda Radner character, that
said Never Mind. You are right about RR saying It's always something.
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Self-deception
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004
Lance, do you have a web page for your bookstore? I would like to get a
better feel for the stuff you sell.
Curious Perry
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:A Bookseller's 'wish'
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:32:59 -0500
When
the article away with flippant comments like others have.
Jonathan Hughes
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Kerry and Abortion
Jonathan
Jonathan,
While the numbers may indicate that abortion has increased under Bush's
administration, we must look at the moral climate of the 90's as well as the
economic climate of the 90's. (We will ignore the fact that economic policy
has a lag time from implementaqtion to effectiveness, and
Ben, welcome to TruthTalk. I will add you to the digest list. Please let me
know if you do not get the digests.
Perry
TT Moderator
From: Ben Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] digest mode?
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Hi
Slade, thanks for the list of websites. It will take me a while to work
through them. I, too, am a young earth creationist.
Perry
From: Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Young Earth Creationism
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:17:29
, 17 Oct 2004 21:57:57 -0400
Do you know of any other sites?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2004 21.32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Young Earth Creationism
Slade, thanks for the list
I was a little loose in my dates...the early date is c. 65 AD
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Myths, Lies, Half-Truths
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:56:20 -0700
Izzy, preterism is the idea that all of prophecy
Izzy, this book does sound interesting. The author, Gary DeMar, also wrote
End Times Madness. Are you aware that he is a preterist? Is preterism a
postition you share with DeMar?
Perry
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk]
Jonathan, well Done. I feel honored to be foremost in your mind that I
should appear first on the list. However, in your humorous descriptions of
the major posters in TT, you omitted someone that also deserves your
blatantly honest appraisal...yourself!
Perry, the absent moderator.
From:
John,
I took no offense whatsoever. With my baptism for the dead response I
was actually poking a little fun at DaveH, and LDS in general, since he and
I have recently discussed the verses that I paraphrased in my response to
you. I hope HE took no offense at my poke, but also hope it made a
: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:26:34 -0700
DAVEH: Sorry to take so long responding to your previous post of last
month, Perry. I'm slowly trying to catch up on my email traffic!
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
DAVEH: Do you think the foreknowledge of God figures into the passage
Slade originally quoted
Judy, welcome back. Not only does the scripture separate spirit and soul,
but while you were gone the question arose as to whether or not there are
two flavors of salvation...a salvation of the spirit, based on faith,
which leads to eternal life, and a salvation of the soul, based on works,
DaveH, why do you think body + spirit = soul? The scripture speaks as though
they are three separate things: 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Also see Hebrews 4:12
which refers to the dividing of the soul and the spirit. Also, Peter refers
to the salvation of the soul.
--
Let your speech be
Perry, did you try this website; it comes up as not available for me.
Perhaps just temporary? Izzy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spirit
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spirit/Soul
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:08:06 -0600
by whom?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:17:35 -0700 Charles Perry Locke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a salvation of the soul, based on works,
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
thought/context below related to the bias in your theoretical
issue/s?
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:08:33 -0700 Charles Perry Locke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[]the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.[]
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To help me figure this out, please really explain to me the difference
between the spirit and the soul. I'm never really clear on that. :-)
Izzy
Izzy, I am not real clear on that either, but it seems clear from scripture
that God distinquishes between
Izzy, there is a pastor and author named Arlene Chitwood that has written
that there are essentially two flavors of salvation...salvation of the
spirit, which results from faith and which grants eternal life, and
salvation of the soul, which is based on one's works and will determine
one's
James 2:10 - For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all.
From: Slade Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Interesting Article
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:50:42 -0400
JONATHAN HUGHES SAYS:
When some introduce a response to a previous post they often preceed it with
a name followed by a colon, such as Perry:. However, some use this to mean
This is a response to Perry:, while others use it to mean Perry wrote the
following:. Most of the time we know exactly who posted which lines,
Good idea, Terry. I checked the TT guidelines posted at innglory.org, and
found the following:
IDENTIFY THOSE WHOM YOU QUOTE: Remember to put some indicator above the
quote that indicates who said it. Many e-mailers do this for you
automatically. Discussions are much easier to follow if we
. Is that
coincidence?
Alright, DAVEH... there ya go! You wanted to know my position, and you
have it in a very small nutshell. Anything more will take a lot more
typing.
(please be kind)
-- slade
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
Sent
,
(Bless The LORD)
Chris Barr
a servant of YHVH
- Original Message -
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/02/2004 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
Chris, since you don't accept the 1+1+1=1 view of the Trinity, will you
refresh me on your view
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DAVEH: I understand that is common Christian belief.. But, I would think
there is a reason the common beliefs evolved that way. I thought there
might be a passage in the Bible that would persuade Christian thought to
develop along that line of reasoning.
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
Sorry to jump into your discussion, DaveH,
DAVEH: No problem, Perry. I appreciate your viewpoint and comments.
but I think something important needs to be pointed out with respect to
the LDS view of Angels, Jesus, and humans.
DAVEH
Izzy, no fear. This video was an ultrasound.
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Check out MSN Video
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:38:31 -0500
I couldn't get it to play. The sad thing about videos like this is that
the
-186,000 fps
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Time and speed of light
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:07:59 -0500
I have heard it said that for every action, there is an equal but opposite
reaction. If this
Sorry to jump into your discussion, DaveH, but I think something important
needs to be pointed out with respect to the LDS view of Angels, Jesus, and
humans.
DAVEH wrote: If Jesus could pre-exist, why not others? Jer 1:4-5 seems
evidential. And, Job (38:4-7) speaks of the morning stars and
In Habakkuk 1 we are told that God raised the Chaldeans (today known as
Iraq) against Judah. Are we to believe that the Chaldeans knew they were
doing God's will? I suspect not. God may have just removed his hand of
restraint, and the Chaldeans did what came natural to them. And they were
that this is how God gets godly leaders to
do his will -- i.e., he removes his hand of restraint, that they will do
what comes natural to them?
- Original Message -
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk
natural to them?
- Original Message -
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Bush blundered in his preemptive move
In Habakkuk 1 we are told that God raised the Chaldeans (today known as
Iraq) against
. An occasional bit of
levity or insight is not unreasonable. Let common sense be your guide.
Perry the Moderator
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Reminder from the Moderator
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:59:54 -0700
Charles Perry Locke wrote
private
to public when I did not hear back.
- Original Message -
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 12, 2004 00:30
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] the real vs false
Sorry for choosing this email as an example...but here goes...
Lance and Izzy seem
Izzy,
David's funnies are not often enough to be considered a problem, and he
is careful to remove the FW from the header and give some attribution,
like From my cousin Buford in Idaho... or some such. It was not those that
I was shootiing for. He is playing with me by feigning martyrdom by
Sorry for choosing this email as an example...but here goes...
Lance and Izzy seem to be conducting personal business on TT. As soon as the
topic became an issue ONLY between Izzy and Lance, it should have been taken
to personal email. I could care less about your book exchange, and prefer
not
DavidH wrote:
I do intend to do some studying of the passage when I get time. I simply
don't have the time to deal with it right now.
Excellent. I look forward to hearing from you on this when you get the time.
I gave you a nod to the effect that you produced some viable evidence that
I intend
This is just a reminder that TT is a discussion group. It's purpose is to
facillitate the discussion of truth (whatever that is). With this in mind,
please limit yourself to posts that discuss the topics presented by members.
Yesterday one poster had 24 posts, another just under 20, most of
Laura,
I am glad you brought that up. In the post I was listing specific things
that should be excluded from posts, sort of a 'negative' list. I added
prayer requests as item 7 as something that are okay to post because, after
all, we are Christians (for the most part) and that is something
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 10:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Reminder from the Moderator
This is just a reminder that TT is a discussion group. It's purpose is to
facillitate the discussion of truth
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
So, all are without excuse. It is not necessary that one has heard
the gospel to face the judgement, or to be redeemed, for that matter. It
appears that ALL have had the opportunity to know and worship God,
either through the gospel
Terry must have posted the list below, because i did not. But, I do consider
it an honor to be confused with Terry.
Perry
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Those who have never heard
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:20:17 -0400
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After reading vss 15ff..., I just don't see why you think these
apply. When vs 18 says /all/, it is referring to/ ungodliness/ and
/unrighteousness/. That is distinctly different from *those *who are
ungodly or unrighteous. As vs 16 infers, salvation is
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry: My hero is neither. From one 'leading authority' to another allow me
to suggest that you check out TFT. He's considered to be, by some, (not by
you I know but, then you haven't read him) to be the leading theologian in
the English speaking world for
Lance wrote to Terry:
From someone who is likely to re-electa sincere but pretty stupid
fundamentalist Christian to be the 'world leader' for four more years...
I take offense and find it a bit smug of you to make the comment above. It
is easy to sit in your armchair, far removed from the
.
Can you explain to me why you believe this particular passage in Romans is
referring to the Gospel?
-- slade
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry
Locke
Sent: Thursday, 03 June, 2004 09:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk
DavidH, somehow I am not surprised that you have ignored Romans 1:17ff and
how it addresses those who have not heard the gospel. Your comments below
indicate you have taken the same path as JS, and either do not beleive it,
or have not understood it. I am interested in hearing why you do not
Yes, I did respond before reading later posts, and acknowledge that you
addressed the Romans passage in a later post. I plan to respond to that when
I have more time.
As for my replied to your post to Judy, why do you find it so
interesting?This is a discussion group, not a dialog group. If
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After reading vss 15ff..., I just don't see why you think these
apply. When vs 18 says /all/, it is referring to/ ungodliness/ and
/unrighteousness/. That is distinctly different from *those *who are
ungodly or unrighteous. As vs 16 infers, salvation is
Perry
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Those who have never heard
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:13:20 -0700
DAVEH: To me it is a very real question, because I don't believe God
behaves the way many Christians think he does in
DAVEH wrote: ??? How can you perceive it as a second chance IF they
never had a first chance prior??? Let me ask it this way, Laura..do
you think God gives everybody a FIRST chance to hear the gospel and accept
Jesus? IOW..do you think there are any mortals who never had the
From: Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
In Romans 1:17ff Paul says The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be
known of God
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 5/20/2004 11:23:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure anyone can be a genuine Believer (in God's definition) if
they don't believe in God's promises of eternal judgment for sinners who
reject the Savior. I am assuming
Lance, you are right. It was the AMERICANIZED understanding of Christianity.
But, why do you say sadly?
Doing those things on Sunday had to do with respect and moral decency. Izzy
did not mention that we also dressed up for church. As a kid I had one
sportcoat, and one tie, and I wore them
Chris, how old is your youngest? Does he read TT himself, or do you just
tell him about it. If his comment is based on what you tell him, I fully
understand his reply.
Perry
From: Chris Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hognose
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is rich Elsman ... snip ... You truly will not be satisfied until
the women are gone and you can resume the crude scatalogical dialogue that
you appear to enjoy.
Judy, Elsman was not reprimanded for his scatological talk because women
were present...it was because
Jim,
If you are really considering leaving this forum, why not stay and vote
with your delete key. You can follow the threads that interest you and skip
or delete the rest. I think your input and point of view are important and
would like to see you stay around a bit longer.
Perry
From:
John,
I feel the statement below is inflamatory and uncalled for. It is clearly
an ad hominem, in that it attacks the persona of Jim and his wife rather
than the topic of head coverings for women. I have cut you some slack from
time to time, as I have Jim, but statements like the one below
One of my college math profs was named Grady Cantrell.
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] a promise kept.
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:15:37 -0400
Hi Judy. So your husband's name is Grady? I think this is the first
time
offended either--it just seemed humorous to me that
Elsman thought the word mixture was supposed to be manure. Where did he
get
that idea? LOL! Izzy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:03 PM
Judy,,
I believe the phrase Love means never having to say you're sorry comes
from Love Story, not Jonathan Livingston Seagull.
Perry
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Hubert and women
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:02:06
Izzy, this is the second or third time you have responded to Jim by
referencing the men's room. You seem to be the only one dwelling on this.
And I must say, I was not offended by the word manure, compared to how he
used to say it!
Perry, not as the moderator.
PS. I like Jim's personal style
E. F. Hutton, actually. My broker is E. F. hutton, and E. F. hutton
says... John Houseman spoke for Smith-Barney. We make our money the
old-fashioned way...we earn it.
Yes, I like trivia.
Perry
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
I thought I would give you guys a backstage pass to the TT Theater.
Since I last checked my TT inbox, at 5:32 last night (14 hours ago) , 91
messages have been posted.
For each message I receive on TT, I usually receive two or three more
messages telling me that some of the messages TT sent
Jim,
This is not the first time you have printed all of this stuff about John,
we have seen it before, and quite frankly it is old stuff. Why not lay it
aside so we can move on?
Perry the Moderator
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Jim, yes, I saw that. I am trying not to become the TT gestapo, believing
that adulsts either will not make such comments, or will be able to resolve
these issues themselves, but you are very challenging in that regard. I have
let you slide with more ad-hominem talk than JS has ever said on
Jim, as I would say to my kids following a decision they did not relish, I
am not running a popularity contest, I am being a parent!. It is impossible
to catch every word that might offend, to please everyone, to be exactly
consistent on every post. Much of this is due to my own biases and
Jim, can you keep this kind of talk off of the group? I feel like a
baby-sitter now on TT, and that is not how TT should be operating. Try to be
civil and keep personal opinions of others out of the forum.
Perry the Moderator.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Jim, Ding-bat and Butches are a bit demeaning, don't you think? Please
do not offend by name-calling.
Perry the Moderator
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] CAN WE ELIMINATE WOMEN FROM THIS FORUM
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004
Daniel, what is your line of work? Your 9-5. Your chosen career field?
Perry
From: Daniel Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Shabbat Shalom Report: 5/1/04
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 00:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Glory unto YahShua, even YHVH who rules
Terry, and other TT'rs this will not go on indefinitely. Soon he will
eaither clean up his messages, leave the list on his own, or be barred from
the list. It is totally his choice, although I feel I know what he will
choose.
Perry the moderator.
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Perhaps Chris can appeal to Daniel, being someone who
Daniel obviously respects, to stop using profanity and to stop demeaning
others. I have a feeling if Daniel could control his anger that his posts
would become welcomed on TT.
Perry the Moderator
From: Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED
Izzy, yes, I am speaking primarily for myself, but I feel that Daniel would
become welcome in TT. Chris and Elsman, both of whom were not initially
welcomed on this group, both have become welcomed, if not by all, by most. I
gauge this by the fact that their posts evoke responses and they
Izzy, if I had wanted women off of this forum I would have said so a year
ago last December when I first joined TT, and many times since then. It is
pretty catty to imply things that you know aren't so and cannot
substantiate.
Daniel's opinions about women not being on the group, and Elsman's
language and stays
it would be similar to covering up a pile of dung. It will still reek as
long as it is allowed to stay in the room.
Izzy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 8:50 AM
To: [EMAIL
been
forgotten by their families. The need for attention is a strong driving
force, but it does not excuse inexcusable language.
Respectfully,
Terry
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
I was thinking about what the chances are that Daniel will clean up his
language and demeaning comments. At this point
601 - 700 of 1011 matches
Mail list logo
