-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
 
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:14:29 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy, when it comes to a choice , a real choice, between discussing character judgments or doctrine,  you choose the character issues nearly all the time.  
 
Bald faced lie JD; I do not characterize anyone on here including yourself.  the fact that you chose not to move on when given the choice is proof positive of my claim. 
 
Secondly,  you cannot make a point with me by altering my posts and introducing words and meaning that were not a part of my original post.   I do not need a mother figure, Judy.  
 
I did not alter anything; I am dealing with your mischaracterization and trying to point out it's falsity as well as
pointlessness.  I made a compairson observation , not an insult, and I was neither speaking of "pagans" or "celerities" as you implied.   You are as wrong here as when you tried to argue that TT was not a discussion group. 
 
Third, there is nothing wrong with looking for the best in ppl,  Judy.   when you get around to doing such, perhaps I will follow your lead !!!  
 
Turning it around and accusing the other person appears to be your forte JD.  The spirit of rebillion will do you no good. 
 
But more than that  -- my comment to Linda was not an insult. She is a little rich girl    and her explanation regarding the house in Oregon presents quite a contrast.   You have made much too much out of this,  preferring to cause trouble rather than simply accept my explanation and moving on.     Move on !!! 
 
Are we talking kingdom talk here JD I am talking about what I wrote, Judy.  Trying to change the subject AGAIN will not work !!!
 
 
 
or just plain old fleshly evaluations?  I am not saying this is Linda, but the
church at Laodicea had it all layed on and Jesus called them poor, naked,  and wretched - so having an over
abundance of wordly goods is not where it's at.  Neither is sweeping problems under the rug and moving on.    And neither is the paractice of rebellion  coupled with a refusal to move on TO ANOTHER SUBJECT.  But, of course, that "new"  subject will get just as personal as any that you have ever had here on TT.   Just watch !  Your first   response to the next offered discussion will have an element of character assassination.  You will accuse the other of being tied to the "Accuser," or you will call them a liar or you will do whatever to avoid the actual discussion at hand.  
 
Anyway  --  I am moving on.   You will get the last word and you will pay for your rebellion   ---   your life
 will [does}  reflect this judgment.
 
John
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just trying to make a point with JD that he quite adamantly refuses to see.
What's wrong with looking for the best in ppl rather than for their warts?  I don't mind disagreeing about
doctrine but I hate the personal character assasination stuff.  Nothing wrong with poverty Lance, God
can use that also.  Paul said he had learned how to be abased and he had learned how to abound....
Christ is where it is at.
 
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:23:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I also was RAISED IN POVERTY but, what's that got to do with the price of tea in Virginia? As to the 'cute' thingy...well...she's somewhat older now is she not?
 
How many "cute little rich girls" do you know personally JD?
And what do they have to do with LInda since she says she was raised in poverty?
 
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:27:13 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You do add words to the posts of others and you do it often.  Here are some words added to my post  --------------   ".....most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans.  Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who  is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ?  If not then
this is ot a description of Linda. "
 
You are the one comparing "cut little rich girls" to "spoiled pagans."    You have added your bias to my post in this case. 
 
And,again,  you use words not found in my post nor implied therein with these words ---------- "Do you know of one cute little rich girl celebrity ....."    
 
You do the same with scripture.
 
jd
 
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
I take care not to add words or meaning to the words of scripture, however
your words are not in the same category JD.  I just can't figure why you would
send such a comment as this.  jt
 
 
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:24:48 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> Back to your old tactics of adding words and meaning to my post.
> If you cannot accept my explanation of what I wrote AND, at the
> same time, feel the need to add wording to the post, I see no
> point in continuing the discussion.    jd

> From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well JD the tone of your email was negative so I read it as
> something
> > other than a compliment along with the fact
> > that most of the time cute little rich girls are spoiled pagans. 
> Do you
> > know of one cute little rich girl celebrity who
> > is a "steadfast" believer in the Lord Jesus Christ?  If not then
> this is
> > not a description of Linda.  jt.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:06:40 +0 000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Nothing wrong with being a cute little rich girl, Judy.   You have
> > fashioned an argument for no good reason.   I do not need lessons
> on
> > wealth and happiness.   The contrast between her young life in
> Oregon and
> > the life she now has as a successful doctor's wife has to be
> remarkable.
> > And it my understanding that she rather enjoys her present
> circumstance.
> >  You made too much of my second paragraph below. 
> >
> > jd
> >
> > From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > JD, what's this "cute little rich girl" stuff?  Haven't you read
> what
> > Linda has been writing all these years.
> > She has hardly had a "cute little rich girl" life.  Anyway money
> doe s not
> > make anyone happy. Our daughter is
> > married to someone who makes big bucks but is proving to be
> spiritually,
> > emotionally, and morally desolate.
> > Ask her if "rich is where it is at?"  She is cute and so are our
> three
> > grandaughters but it is not enough. Hurting
> > ppl hurt other people and seldom hold themselves responsible. 
> judyt
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:47:25 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I don't consider you as one who is qualified to discuss anything
> > concerning the condition of the heart.   You will disagree, of
> course,
> > but you have shown a distinct harshness towards those who disagree
> with
> > you, who are not of the same poltitical party,  who do not share
> the same
> > social standing (i.e. the poor blacks in N.O.) .  Still, at other
& amp;g t; times,
> > you almost seem human.  
> >
> > Your   account of the home in Oregon perhaps explains why you
> enjoy, so
> > much, being a cute little rich girl.  
> >
> > jd
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > You and your ilk can’t tell the difference between war heroes and
> > murderers.  Your loss.  What a pitiful state of mind.  What an
> empty
> > heart.  iz
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] o.com
> > Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 12:03 PM
> > To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Real men kill people
> > 
> > real women marry murderers??
> > 
> > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:51:41 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Has he ever killed anyone from a mile and half away?
> > 
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It’s great to know there are some real men in Canada, in spite of
> the
> > wimps that run the P.C. government.  (In fact, my husband was born
> on a
> > US AF base in Newfoundland. J )  iz
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > Sniping with the .50 BMG in Afghanistan
> &g t; New l ong-di stance record set!
> >
> > (The following is from the Canadian newspaper National Post. The
> shooters
> > were using .50 BMG rifles that had Lilja barrels on them outfitted
> with
> > Nightforce 5.5-22x NXS scopes.)
> > OTTAWA BLOCKS U.S. EFFORT TO HONOUR OUR SNIPERS: Canadian snipers
> pose
> > with their 50-calibre rifle at base camp in Kandahar. Five of the
> men,
> > whose names the military withheld for security reasons, were
> nominated
> > for Bronze Stars by the U.S. for their prowess in fighting near
> Gardez.
> > The sixth joined the unit later in the war.
> > Wait due to 'Canadian protocol'
> > A kill from 2,430 metres
> > By Michael Smith and Chris Wattie
> > National Post
> >
> > The United States wants to give two teams of Canadian snipers the
> Bronze
> > Star, a decoration for bravery, for their work in root ing out < BR>> Taliban and
> > al-Qaeda holdouts in eastern Afghanistan, but Canadian defence
> officials
> > put the medals on hold, the National Post has learned.
> > The five snipers spent 19 days fighting alongside the scout
> platoon of
> > the United States Army's 187th "Rakkasan" brigade last month,
> clearing
> > out diehard fighters from the mountains near Gardez in eastern
> > Afghanistan.
> > The Americans were so impressed by the Canadian snipers that they
> > recommended them for medals after the battle.
> > Sources told the Post that U.S. General Warren Edwards had already
> signed
> > the recommendation for five Bronze Stars for the sniper teams,
> drawn from
> > 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, last
> month.
> > Gen. Edwards, deputy commanding general of coalition land forces
> in
> > Afghanistan, had recommended thre e Canadians for a Bronz e Star and
> two
> > for a Bronze Star with distinction.
> > The night before the troops were to be awarded the medals, about
> three
> > weeks ago, Canadian military officials in Ottawa put the
> decorations on
> > hold, according to a U.S. Army source in Afghanistan.
> > The Canadian military told their U.S. counterparts to wait before
> > awarding the medals for reasons of "Canadian protocol."
> > Spokesmen for the Department of National Defence would not comment
> on the
> > award last night, but a source within the department said the
> medals are
> > on hold while the military decides whether or not to award the men
> a
> > similar Canadian decoration.
> > However, Dr David Bercuson, director of the Centre of Military
> and
> > Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the real
> reason for
> > the delay was likely offici al squeamishness .
&g t; > "Canadians don't kill -- they don't even use the word kill; that's
> the
> > problem," he said. "I think the military is not sure that the
> government
> > is prepared to accept the fact, let alone celebrate the fact ...
> that
> > Canadian soldiers do sometimes end up killing people."
> > Many of the U.S. scouts who worked directly with the Canadian
> snipers
> > were incensed that the Canadians did not get the Bronze Star, the
> medal
> > for bravery the U.S. military usually gives foreign soldiers
> serving
> > alongside its troops.
> > The snipers themselves, all of whom spoke on condition their names
> not be
> > printed, have said they would prefer to receive a medal from their
> peers
> > in the field rather than from National Defence Headquarters in
> Ottawa.
> > Dr. Bercuson said there should be no objection to Canadians
&g t; receiving a
> > U .S. decoration: As recently as the Gulf War, two Canadian CF-18
> pilots
> > were given the Bronze Star.
> > He said the medals would be a badly needed boost to the morale of
> the
> > almost 900 Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan,
> especially
> > after four of their comrades were killed and eight others wounded
> in last
> > week's friendly fire incident.
> > "Absolutely they should get it," Dr. Bercuson said. "It would be
> good for
> > the morale of the guys and good for the morale of the whole unit,
> and
> > they need a morale boost right now."
> > Canadian snipers were reportedly outstanding in the fighting
> around the
> > mountainous al-Qaeda bastion east of Gardez, code-named Operation
> > Anaconda.
> > The battle pitted the two Canadian sniper teams against an enemy
> that
> > showered the assaulting coalition troops with mort ars and
& gt; machine-gun
> > fire as soon as they jumped from their helicopters.
> > One member of the team, a corporal from Newfoundland, said on his
> first
> > night in combat he and his partner got an al-Qaeda machine gun in
> their
> > sights as it was hailing bullets down on U.S. troops below.
> Crawling up
> > into a good position, they set up their .50-calibre rifle -- the
> McMillan
> > Tac-50, a weapon the corporal compares to having superhuman power
> in your
> > hands. "Firing it feels like someone slashing you on the back of
> your
> > hockey helmet with a hockey stick." (These are the rifles fitted
> with
> > Lilja .50 caliber barrels and Nightforce NXS scopes.)
> > When he hit his first target, an enemy gunman at a distance of
> 1,700
> > metres, he said all that ran through his mind was locating his
> next
> > target.
> > "All I t hought of was Sept . 11th and all those people who didn't
> have a
> > chance and the American reporter who was taken hostage, murdered
> and his
> > wife getting the videotape of the execution; that is my
> justification."
> > A master corporal from Ontario, the lead sniper of his three-man
> team,
> > said when they first landed in the combat zone "our spider senses
> were
> > tingling.... It was night and we didn't know what to expect."
> > By daylight, after coming under enemy machine-gun fire, he managed
> to
> > ease his rifle barrel between two rocks and quickly located an
> enemy
> > sniper hiding behind a small piece of corrugated steel between two
> trees.
> > He guessed the distance at 1,700 metres and fired one shot through
> the
> > metal, killing the man instantly.
> > He said afterward he remembered thinking: "That's one less bullet
&g t; that's
> & gt; gonna be coming at us, one less person we have to think about."
> > During the next four days of fighting, the Newfoundland corporal
> set what
> > is believed to be a record for a long-distance shot under combat
> > conditions, hitting an enemy gunman at a distance of 2,430 metres.
> > The days of crawling, shooting and long hours waiting in cover
> left the
> > Canadian snipers exhausted. "You don't realize what you've done to
> your
> > body and how tired you are till it's all done. I think we slept 14
> or 15
> > hours when we got back," the master corporal said.
> > Three of them, along with U.S. special forces soldiers, also
> rescued a
> > company of the U.S. 101st Airborne Division that was pinned down
> by enemy
> > fire on the first day of Operation Anaconda.
> > They also participated in Operation Harpoon, with Canadian troops
> on "the
> > ; whale," a mountain ove rlooking the Shah-e -Kot valley where
> al-Qaeda
> > fighters were putting up stiff resistance.
> > Operation Harpoon, carried out in conjunction with Operation
> Anaconda,
> > consisted of 500 Canadian and 100 U.S. troops under the command of
> > Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran, who leads Canadian Forces in
> Afghanistan
> > in the biggest ground offensive since the Korean War.
> > Lieutenant Justin Overbaugh, of the American scout platoon to
> which the
> > Canadian snipers were attached, said it was a pleasure to work
> with the
> > Canadian troops. "Their professionalism was amazing," Lieut.
> Overbaugh
> > said. "The Canadians were a very large asset to the mission. I
> would have
> > loved to have 12 Canadian sniper teams out there. I'd have no
> problems
> > fighting alongside of them again."
> > He said the Canadian snipers had equipment f ar superior to theirs. > Their
> > rifles had longer range than the U.S. weapons and better high-tech
> > sights. Lieut. Overbaugh said if another mission comes up, he will
> > request the Canadian sniper teams be sent with his unit.
> > Senior military officials in Ottawa made a point of praising their
> work
> > at the time. "The sniper teams suppressed enemy mortars and heavy
> > machine-gun positions with deadly accuracy," Vice-Admiral Greg
> Maddison
> > said after Operation Harpoon ended. "Their skills are credited
> with
> > likely having saved many allied lives."
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >                                          judyt   &n bsp;  &nbs p;             
>      
> >            
> > He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
> >                               is a liar (1 John 2:4)
> >
> >
> >
> >                                          judyt                    
>      
> >&nbs p;      ;       
> > He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
>                               is a liar (1 John 2:4)
>
>
>
 
 
                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Reply via email to