Tulsa Report Day 2

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Totally agree and right there with you Abigail!

[Nahum]

Miss B, I just have a hard time believing all the garbage about "they changed their mind since conference."

Where are all of those affirmation statement threads where these guys called for "the truce breakers" to be thrown out on their ear?

The inconsistency reeks.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Maam...you are hard to argue with...so I'll just say.....good post

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Great Post Mrs. B................

Thanks, guys.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Miss B, I just have a hard time believing all the garbage about "they changed their mind since conference."

I understand. I just don't see the point in trying to force men who love and respect the WPF founders to say something negative about them.

Where are all of those affirmation statement threads where these guys called for "the truce breakers" to be thrown out on their ear?

I guess I missed something, because I don't know what you're referring to here.

The inconsistency reeks.

Inconsistency always reeks, but then we're all a little smelly, dontcha think?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand. I just don't see the point in trying to force men who love and respect the WPF founders to say something negative about them.



I guess I missed something, because I don't know what you're referring to here.



Inconsistency always reeks, but then we're all a little smelly, dontcha think?

I give up.


I say we go ahead and give a free pass to everyone involved in deception.




LOL

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by CC1

LOL!!! I thought you would appreciate that.

BTW - Has the WWPF affected Canada much? Are there many churches conervative enough there for the pastors to leave the UPC and join the WWPF?

It hasn't affected Canada much at all. I only know of a few pastors in the whole Canadian fellowship who would be much interested in the WPF, and the largest district in Canada isn't affected or interested at all.

People here in this district at present seem to be pretty contented in general.

[Admin]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Hey, Pelathais.........why did you go and change this post??????????

I thought we were not supposed to threaten people on here.............makes me say a huge ........... HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............

Oh how I love the consistancy of the AFF.................

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

LOL............. If you only knew................

So true brother.

Pelathais was not the one that changed the post.

I believe everyone has moved on.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Admin

So true brother.

Pelathais was not the one that changed the post.

I believe everyone has moved on.

Be that as it may, it would be nice if Admin were answering PM's.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Hey, Pelathais.........why did you go and change this post??????????

I thought we were not supposed to threaten people on here.............makes me say a huge ........... HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..............

Oh how I love the consistancy of the AFF.................

I didn't "threaten" anyone. I did make a badly worded sentence. I'm glad that this apparently was a source of glee for you, but it did also appear to cause some unintended confusion.

I was reaching for a way of saying something like: "Most reasonable people would agree with me on this particular point" and I used the rhetorical tool known as an appeal to authority. This tactic obviously sets me up for some witty come backs, but I guess that's just part of the show for you.

It seemed to me that only someone steeped in a culture of control, paranoia and dictatorial oversight could possibly have misunderstood that as a "threat." Since I don't exist in such a culture the thought of it being taken as a "threat" never even occured to me. Instead of a wimpering complaint, I honestly expected a spirited rejoiner. Needless to say, I was left disappointed. I find it baffling that anyone would contemplate taking a dust up on the Internet to denominational authorities.

Do you have any idea what kind of gut wrenching things they have to deal with? And then for someone to come skipping into a board meeting saying, "He posted... Nuh-uh! ... did so... did not..."

The way that I changed the post was with the same secret hacking skills that were used to break into the index of the public pages at the WPF that were available to anyone in the world at Google.com. I have kung-fu that would make your hair curl! Well, maybe not your hair, but somebody's hair.

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

PP, you were belaboring this point a few days ago, and its still moot. It is highly possible that their intent did change, OR its possible they did not share their full intent at the beginning.

If your point is (as it seemed to be on your other thread) that trusting in these men, respecting them, and thinking they are honorable even when evidence may indicate otherwise somehow taints the character of the man who trusts them, then I am going to strongly disagree with you.

I have a hard time believing ill of people I love, even if there is clear evidence that ought to persuade me, and if it turns out that I am wrong, I will not accept it until the evidence is irrefutable. Even then I am not happy about it.

Any reluctance on the part of CS, Steadfast and others to think badly of any of these men, or worse, to indicate that publicly...that doesn't speak ill of their personal character; it speaks well of it.

Oh my goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That statement brought tears welling up.

That is EXACTLY the way that I feel too.