Tulsa Report Day 2

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

PO, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I don't mind admitting that.

But it is just slightly possible that there might not be near as much intrigue and guile here as the detractors want to perceive.

It seemed to me early on that different things, slightly, were being stated by different members of the original six. That tells me that they really might not have totally worked out all the details months in advance the way some want to think.

The concept seems to have evolved somewhat since the first tentative reports came out.

That is what I think.

But I will admit openly that I am biased in favor of men I have respected my whole life, and am hesitant to believe ill of them.

I have many thoughts, but I guess I'll just hide and watch.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I am saying some of these men claimed they were not going to do the exact thing they are currently doing. They made these claims while planning for a new org was under way.

This is not debatable. It has been verified by many good people.

However, you chose to believe their denials, and still continue to support and uplift these men even though their actions can be viewed as nothing short of deceptive.

Please tell me how you can honestly and objectively chastise men who sign the affirmation statement with no intent to abide by it, while at the same time commending this Tulsa group, who have obviously engaged in unethical and deceptive behavior?

Where is your consistency?

PP, I really have not seen any evidence that these men lied about their intentions.

I think it is entirely possible that there may have been some differences of intent among the original six, that were ultimately worked out and unified in a single direction.

A changed mind isn't the same as a lie.

And as for where my consistency is?

I don't recall ever saying that I was totally without inconsistency. I don't know anyone who is, really. I tend to agree with Emerson on "a foolish consistency."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Stop this, or I will be glad you are back!

You are glad that I'm back and I know it!!! Did you get your check?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Barb

I am disappointed in you, PP...for what it is worth, very disappointed.

On the one hand you say that Steadie and Coonskinner are fine men, but you question their integrity.

They are two of the finest men I have never met...what has happened to you?!

Barb, don't take this the wrong way, but I really couldn't give a flyin' fajita if you are disappointed in me.

Furthermore, I did not say they had no integrity. I believe the opposite is true.

That's why I continue to be amazed at the obvious double standard.

CS and I are friends. I love and appreciate him. I just wanted to know how he can continue to defend this.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

PP, I really have not seen any evidence that these men lied about their intentions.

I think it is entirely possible that there may have been some differences of intent among the original six, that were ultimately worked out and unified in a single direction.

A changed mind isn't the same as a lie.

And as for where my consistency is?

I don't recall ever saying that I was totally without inconsistency. I don't know anyone who is, really. I tend to agree with Emerson on "a foolish consistency."

But isn't that egotistical?

To require consistency and honesty for some, while denying the need for it from others?

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Barb, don't take this the wrong way, but I really couldn't give a flyin' fajita if you are dissapointed in me.

Furthermore, I did not say they had no integrity. I believe the opposite is true.

That's why I continue to be amazed at the obvious double standard.

CS and I are friends. I love and appreciate him. I just wanted to know how he can continue to defend this.

You have changed, PP...

And for the record, you DID say their integrity was in question.

Carry on...

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

How is my post troubling?

I am not trying to be vicious here, I just don't think that entire conversation should be swept under the rug.

I was banned over that event.

I took my punishment - no problem.

I just think there is an issue that is being overlooked here.

I don't remember the exact events of your banning, but if I recall, the issue was not your opinion, but the way in which you expressed it.

I am not trying to sweep anything under any rug here.

Go back and pull the quotes from that exchange if you like.

I have been wrong about stuff before, and have had to retract statements I made in error. I am not terrified of that prospect.

If I am guilty, it is of being overly trusting of men I respect.

I can live with that.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Barb

You have changed, PP...

And for the record, you DID say their integrity was in question.

Carry on...

Thank you for your analysis Barb.

Yes, I have changed. I become more and more independent-minded as the years go by. I no longer believe everything leadership says unless there is a proven record of trustworthiness.

And Barb, I have many good role models who completely agree with me on this, including leaders in the org I am a part of.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

If I am guilty, it is of being overly trusting of men I respect.

I can live with that.

I see nothing wrong with this at all! This is completely normal!

[StMark]

Coon,

Are you and others aware that NW ran for Dist Supt of Calif. back in May of 2007?

just wondering