Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299158)

I was confused at this and then looked back and realized that I made a typo and meant to type minister and not Maxwell. I realized it was a typo when I finished reading the paragraph that ended - "Mainly, because I don't know why he would say he wished he could get a minister to agree with him."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299158)

I'm disappointed David, that you would resort to grabbing clips in order to make them appear out of context. Kind of reminds me of a CNN journalist.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299158)

I said more than what you posted. You conveniently left out my point. "It won't matter what it says. JA already allowed us to know the impression he received from the text given. That isn't going to change. He responded to what he heard."

The point is that JA heard what he heard and that is what he responded to. We all have "takeaways" from things we hear, arguments, music, news reports, etc. This isn't anything different, IMO.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299158)

I am not going to play your game here. You are trying to set up JA as a liar and I refuse to play this with you.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299167)

...Not at all. It's a very basic question. One I both learned as a child and now teach my child. You're just afraid SG's quote may well prove that JA was not correct in his accusation. Very telling, and very disappointing that you would refuse to call a lie a lie just because it's a minister doing it.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299167)

Are you saying that it doesn't matter what SG really said; that just because JA claimed something (even if the DVD proves different) that's all you need? Like I commented after this, facts be damned. How absurd to say, "it doesn't matter what it (SG's DVD message) says" because JA gave us the "impression" he received.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299161)

I was speaking of his general use of the term idiot. AM doesn't appear to have a problem with his general use, it seems. It doesn't bother me, but I do acknowledge he does get heavy with it and I do acknowledge his use of it that day was problematic. He went a little further with it than normal as evidenced by the audience who appeared to gasp. IOW, they didn't have a problem with him earlier, only when he used it in the context that he did.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299161)

Now, I am done with you David. You can crucify JA ALL day, tomorrow and for weeks ahead. I have a feeling that after he apologized, as is God's way, it's over.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299169)

What did I miss? Where did JA lie?

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299169)

What did I miss? Where did JA lie?

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299173)

I don't know that JA lied. He says "one of you guys" said something, "I heard it from John Maxwell, 'Well, if you got a bunch of hell and chaos and crisis in your church after 3 years being there, it's your fault.'"

It was stated earlier that this was not what Maxwell said. Maxwell said something completely different. So far no one has heard SG's message and quote, so perhaps SG did say what JA claims he said, I don't know. I've just said that if JA made the accusation that Maxwell and SG said something, and if neither of them actually said it...it's a lie.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299171)

:lol Wow. You should run for Congress. So much tip-toeing around the issue, not willing to say JA was wrong for his attack, but instead drawing focus to his use of the word idiot. Again you say this word, "Problematic." Doesn't mean JA was wrong, just that it presented a problem.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1298665)

Being "swept away" isn't the same thing as trying to handle it in-house, which, by the way, IS the biblical method. The leaky faucet here is that the videos were posted publicly (I assume), which made the offense public. Ergo, it should probably be addressed in an equally public way (relatively speaking, since the general public probably didn't view the videos).

I object to spreading this beyond the scope of those who didn't know or were in no position to know what happened, and in that way, deliberately preventing containment. Public humiliation and castigation is the end goal; not any sort of resolution or wise correction. I mainly dislike the euphoria that some people seem to get from someone messing up or acting foolish. That's as disturbing as the name calling.

I'm not so disturbed by church people being aware that something went awry at a conference, but I don't really get the need to spill it outside the walls. I'm sure it will be addressed, especially if there's a lot of negative feedback.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299174)

Okay, that's a stretch. A misquote or even a paraphrase isn't a lie. Period.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299170)

I am saying that you were not there, I was not there, JA said "I hear it", and expounded on what he heard. So, IMO, at that point my assessment is that he commented on what he heard because he didn't agree with it. One person can say, "This is what I said", and another can say, "But this is what I heard from what you said." At that point the argument is moot, which is why I can say, "It doesn't matter what SG said."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299170)

I am not going to sit here all day doing a back and forth with you, David.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299174)

Okay, that's a stretch. A misquote or even a paraphrase isn't a lie. Period.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299178)

Sorry, I don't agree. If JA claims that SG said something, but SG didn't say it, it DOES matter what SG said. You may not want it to matter, but it does.


But if SG didn't say it to begin with...JA can't say, "but this is what I heard from what you said." He'd be making it up! That's my point. That's why it matters what SG actually said.

You know, it just hit me. I've been looking at this from a personal POV because this happened to me in the past. This explains why I've been so forceful on this issue.

I had a Pastor claim I said something I did not say. It hurt. It was the worst experience I've ever been through. And what was worse was there were people like you, PO, who didn't care whether or not I actually said what this Pastor claimed I said. They never came to me to see what I actually said. Close friends cut me off because they chose to just believe what the Pastor was saying was true.

I don't mean to crucify or hang JA more than what's been done; but it matters what SG said. Maybe not to you. To you whatever JA says can be explained, twisted, contorted, and spun to give him a pass.


Have a good day. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299175)

I agree with Bratti's comment she made earlier on this issue

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299165)

4 things:

1. I think JA did call Stan Gleason an idiot. IMO, he made that clear when he said "...I don't know which one of you guys said it, and I know that came from John Maxwell...but whoever it is, don't get offended...you're an idiot." The "whoever it is" part shows that he's referring to the minister, because he knew where the quote came from and stated that.

2. It was over the line, and must have been brought to his attention, because he apologized. Or maybe he felt bad personally and apologized of his own accord. I don't know which way it went down.

3. JA is coarse. That's just who he is, for whatever reason. People who are impulsive and hot-headed say things they regret because they don't have a good filter on their mouths. That doesn't make him useless to the kingdom, and I, for one, don't want him to "sit down and shut up."

4. It's POSSIBLE (but not plausible, considering JA's manner) that he was directing the idiot thing at John Maxwell, but that doesn't matter even if it's true. It sounded like he was calling SG an idiot, so therefore it was offensive, e.g., he needed to issue an apology or at least a clarification. Further, John Maxwell is a respected author, fellow Christian, and has been a guest at POA. If JA was directing it at Maxwell, it was still uncalled for and an apology needed to be issued.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299175)

I didn't hear both messages, so I am not going as far with the criticism as you are.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299175)

Because it's in-house, and it is offensive when any outsider posts a clip on YouTube for people all over the world to criticize him. It is only hate, IMO.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299175)

My posts are not waffling. You're just frustrated I won't agree with you.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299175)

His use of the word idiot doesn't bother me. We say shut up in a joking way in our house, but we never use the word when we are angry. So crucify me for that. I don't need your approval.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299180)

I can see that would hurt you. However, you are trying to continue arguing about this when you have NO quotes from anyone but JA. How can you continue with that? You are going off of a post in which Triumphant1 is saying could be a "possibility" of what SG quoted? If you prepared to bring JA to court, you would lose because you don't have all of your evidence before you.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299180)

That's why this conversation is a dead horse, David.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299182)

Well, per your previous post, SG's message doesn't matter, so who cares, right? :nod

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299184)

I'm done with you, David. I don't dislike JA and I never will.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299179)

I'll ask you what I asked PO. She refused to answer, but maybe you can.

If a person told you that someone said something that they didn't actually say, is that a lie? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299188)

So, in other words, who cares if he's telling the truth about it or not, you're not going to say so because you don't dislike JA.

I don't dislike JA, either. I've said it several times. I don't think he's a bad guy. I do think he was way over the line with his attack on SG, regardless if he was right about SG's quote or not. But I don't have ill will towards him.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299187)

Continue using your CNN editing skills, David. Good for you. I might could call you a liar.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299002)

I took it all as collective. If you agree with not being blamed for people sinning, then you are agreeing with the idiot comment as well. After all, that is where the being blamed for people sinning stems from.
It's not quite simple. Fishing is speculative. You present it as an evil intent of manipulation and I don't believe all ministers do that. Sometimes they are excited and sometimes it is just habit.
No, it means what he said, "and I KNOW that came from John Maxwell because I heard it". Here he is not placing the blame on the minister who repeated it.
IOW, I take him to be referencing the quote did not originate with the minister in question, thus giving me the impression that he was referencing the quote. When he said "You're an idiot", I took him to be referring to Maxwell and I still do.
I also took his apology for embarrassing the minister in question, who he never named, and not necessarily that he called him the idiot. It may possibly be a misunderstanding. And it certainly was a horrible way to embarrass himself and the minister.
Listen to what I am actually saying or I am going to shoot YOU in the derriere. :heeheehee
I SAID JA either got something else out of the quote or the minister misquoted Maxwell. Do you know EXACTLY what the minister said - word for word? Either way, it doesn't really matter. JA got an impression of the quote, whether in or out of context, and expounded on the way he RECEIVED the quote when he heard it. He has a right to do that. It is his opinion and how the comment came across to HIS ears.
Sorry, the "you're" doesn't necessarily mean he is not referring to Maxwell. When I heard it the first time, that was my impression - he was referring to Maxwell's quote. And again, whether it was in or out of context, it is how JA received it when he heard it. Maybe all he heard was - it's the minister's fault. Apparently, that is what he felt he heard from the message.
Yes, please order the DVD's.:heeheehee It won't matter what it says. JA already allowed us to know the impression he received from the text given. That isn't going to change. He responded to what he heard.
Okay, I am with Ferdinand - :beatdeadhorse

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299170)

I am saying that you were not there, I was not there, JA said "I hear it", and expounded on what he heard. So, IMO, at that point my assessment is that he commented on what he heard because he didn't agree with it. One person can say, "This is what I said", and another can say, "But this is what I heard from what you said." At that point the argument is moot, which is why I can say, "It doesn't matter what SG said."
I am not going to sit here all day doing a back and forth with you, David.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299187)

Obama is President to ALL the people in the US. JA is not everyone's pastor nor evangelist.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299190)

Really? :heeheehee

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299185)

Actually Triumphant1 gave statement to Maxwell's original comment. We still don't know what SG said. And that's why SG's comment matters to me, and why it does upset me that you don't care what SG actually said.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299189)

Only if it's an intentional misquote or misrepresentation of what was said. Since JA was speaking directly to the man who quoted it and others who heard him, it's highly unlikely that he was trying to lie about it. He may have gotten it wrong, he may have misunderstood the context and paraphrased it badly, but lying about it? Come on. :rolleyes2

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299193)

Stop twisting the things I have said. I didn't say "I don't care what SG said."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299002)

I took it all as collective. If you agree with not being blamed for people sinning, then you are agreeing with the idiot comment as well. After all, that is where the being blamed for people sinning stems from.
It's not quite simple. Fishing is speculative. You present it as an evil intent of manipulation and I don't believe all ministers do that. Sometimes they are excited and sometimes it is just habit.
No, it means what he said, "and I KNOW that came from John Maxwell because I heard it". Here he is not placing the blame on the minister who repeated it.
IOW, I take him to be referencing the quote did not originate with the minister in question, thus giving me the impression that he was referencing the quote. When he said "You're an idiot", I took him to be referring to Maxwell and I still do.
I also took his apology for embarrassing the minister in question, who he never named, and not necessarily that he called him the idiot. It may possibly be a misunderstanding. And it certainly was a horrible way to embarrass himself and the minister.
Listen to what I am actually saying or I am going to shoot YOU in the derriere. :heeheehee
I SAID JA either got something else out of the quote or the minister misquoted Maxwell. Do you know EXACTLY what the minister said - word for word? Either way, it doesn't really matter. JA got an impression of the quote, whether in or out of context, and expounded on the way he RECEIVED the quote when he heard it. He has a right to do that. It is his opinion and how the comment came across to HIS ears.
Sorry, the "you're" doesn't necessarily mean he is not referring to Maxwell. When I heard it the first time, that was my impression - he was referring to Maxwell's quote. And again, whether it was in or out of context, it is how JA received it when he heard it. Maybe all he heard was - it's the minister's fault. Apparently, that is what he felt he heard from the message.
Yes, please order the DVD's.:heeheehee It won't matter what it says. JA already allowed us to know the impression he received from the text given. That isn't going to change. He responded to what he heard.
Okay, I am with Ferdinand - :beatdeadhorse

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299170)

I am saying that you were not there, I was not there, JA said "I hear it", and expounded on what he heard. So, IMO, at that point my assessment is that he commented on what he heard because he didn't agree with it. One person can say, "This is what I said", and another can say, "But this is what I heard from what you said." At that point the argument is moot, which is why I can say, "It doesn't matter what SG said."
I am not going to sit here all day doing a back and forth with you, David.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299192)

No I don't have ill will towards the man. I can call someone out over their behavior and not have ill will towards them. You may not be able to, that's your prerogative. You refuse to even say he was wrong for his attack. Again, that's your prerogative.

:nod

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299194)

I didn't say if it was misquoted or misrepresented. I wrote if the person didn't even say it at all, is it a lie. How is that not clear? This is what I teach my 4 year old daughter.

If a person claims someone said something they did not say -- at all, in any way, shape, form, etc -- is that a lie?

As uncomfortable as it may be for some, yes, it's a lie.

Maybe it's because of past experience that I'm less willing than others to excuse it or explain it away.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299196)

Your full, unedited quotes...

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299193)

Further, to get the DVD and quote SG is not going to have anything to do with how JA received what he heard. That is why I can say it won't matter what SG said. It is how JA received what was said.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299202)

Thank you. Now you can see that I NEVER said,

"I DON'T CARE WHAT SG SAID!"

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299204)

But if SG didn't say what JA claims he said, where is JA getting it from? You keep writing it doesn't matter what SG said...because JA's brain thought he said something else.

And why call SG an idiot if SG didn't say what JA interpreted from Maxwell.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299198)

I do refuse to attack him. I'm not going to cloud over his life's ministry with something he has already apologized for. And since he has apologized, why would I want to continue attacking him? That doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299206)

Oh good grief. You're arguing semantics. Please. It's the same difference.

The intent is the same.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299211)

Oh please, you acknowledging an error (one which many others have already) won't "cloud over his life's ministry." No more than my posts have caused his life to unravel. :lol :drama

And simply stating a man was wrong for his attack isn't attacking him. It's stating the obvious.

In fact, JA would probably say he doesn't "give a flip" what you or I say. (There's another video posted on YouTube, from this year's BOTT, of him calling someone a "fool" and saying he doesn't "give a flip.")

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299210)

n_david, you're missing the meaning behind PO's comments. I completely get her point. It doesn't matter in the sense that only JA knows how he understood what was preached. You can say something and one person will understand it one way and another person will react to it differently. JA obviously reacted negatively to what SG said, which prompted his comments.

In order to call him a liar, you have to know exactly what SG said, you have to know that JA was quoting directly and not paraphrasing in any way, and you have to pretty much be inside JA's head and know what he "heard" to begin with. It's nearly impossible to know those things without talking to JA and asking him, so why try to push this accusation?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299208)

First of allllllllll, you don't have SG's quote. Second of allllll, it appears that what was said, in front of everyone, means that JA didn't agree with the quote.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299208)

You are the one saying he is lying - PROVE IT or just be quiet, David.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299208)

You have misrepresented a lot of what I have said, twisting my words and cropping out my points of explanation. You seem to be accusing JA of what you have been doing here. And you are doing it to win an argument you have no evidence to win.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 1299214)

And you have no ill feelings toward JA? I'm starting to wonder, David.

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299217)

Second of ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL, if JA didn't agree with the quote why call SG an idiot?

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1299219)

Your point? I could've posted the video. Watched it this morning.

Wonder away.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299210)

n_david, you're missing the meaning behind PO's comments. I completely get her point. It doesn't matter in the sense that only JA knows how he understood what was preached. You can say something and one person will understand it one way and another person will react to it differently. JA obviously reacted negatively to what SG said, which prompted his comments.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 1299210)

In order to call him a liar, you have to know exactly what SG said, you have to know that JA was quoting directly and not paraphrasing in any way, and you have to pretty much be inside JA's head and know what he "heard" to begin with. It's nearly impossible to know those things without talking to JA and asking him, so why try to push this accusation?