Bott '14

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Remember that earlier quote which you said was speculation on my part. Well, this is just a hot steamy pile of speculation. And since I'm the one who wrote it, I'm pretty sure I knew what I meant. It definitely wasn't "evil intent."

Now, were I JA I'd call you an...well you know what he said.

My use of the word "fishing" was not meaning evil intent. I meant it like when someone is "fishing for compliments." No evil intent there.

Most ministers who speak at a conference or convention go fishing at least once or twice in a message. Again, I'm not suggesting some eeeeevvvvillll intent on their part. Like you said, it can be a habit. I've been present and watched JA on DVD go fishing a lot at BOTT. Again, not suggesting he's doing it out of some evil intent or manipulation.

Stop broadbrushing everyone as fishing. Not everyone does that. And yes you did come across as using evil intent against JA. Just stop. Unless you are DA's clone and are helping him pull on those coat threads to try and unravel a man's life over something that he already apologized for. Good grief.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

David, why is it so hard for you to understand that a context being spoken is much different than how it is always received? Are you trying to deny that someone can make a statement having the hearer receive the words another way?

The hearer can claim what they want, doesn't mean they're right. Context isn't subjective. It is what it is. The hearer can argue and try to claim whatever they want, doesn't change what was said.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If JA is only hearing - "it's the minister's fault", and gets riled up over that, who are you to say that isn't what he heard or gleaned from the preacher's sermon?

Do you know SG even said anything close to "it's the minister's fault?" Maxwell wasn't suggesting such. That's why I'm surprised you wrote that I should order the DVDs....."but it doesn't matter what it says." It DOES matter, because if SG didn't say then why would JA hear it?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Hit him on using bad terminology, which I will agree with you on that, but stop trying to say he is taking things out of context. You are in fact calling him out as a liar. And now I am starting to get mad, boy.

He did take Maxwell out of context. Whether he took SG's comment out of context, anyone could listen to SG's message and find out.

And yes, if he exaggerated or took SG's words out of context and SG didn't say what JA claimed he said - "it's the minister's fault," then yes, JA lied. A spade is a spade. I'll call it regardless. Get mad all you want, won't bother me!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Stop broadbrushing everyone as fishing. Not everyone does that. And yes you did come across as using evil intent against JA. Just stop.

PO, have you been to many General Conferences or BOTT Conferences? I didn't broadbrush everyone, I said most, which is true. No, not everyone does that...but in a conference setting, I've seen most do just that. Again, no evil intent. It's the nature of being a Pentecostal preacher. OBTW...I've said a variation of that statement myself. Yes, I too, have gone fishing. You think I would suggest evil intent of something I've done myself?

And yes, when a minister says something like, "I wish I could get a minister to agree with me" -- that's fishing for applause. Just like someone saying, "I wish I could get an Amen" is fishing for an Amen. It's quite simple.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Just stop.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Unless you are DA's clone and are helping him pull on those coat threads to try and unravel a man's life over something that he already apologized for. Good grief.

Not DA or his clone.

"helping...to try and unravel a man's life??"

[n david]

Unless you are DA's clone and are helping him pull on those coat threads to try and unravel a man's life over something that he already apologized for

That could explain the phone call I got earlier from a restricted number. All I heard was sobbing and a Bronx-sounding voice saying, "You're an idiot!"

[n david]

Unless you are DA's clone and are helping him pull on those coat threads to try and unravel a man's life over something that he already apologized for

O M G...just read a tweet: "Pastor A has locked himself in his office and is curled up on the floor sobbing. Asked what's wrong he showed me his coat with some threads coming undone and mentioned some idiot on a message board is unraveling his life!" #faketweet #notreal

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

That could explain the phone call I got earlier from a restricted number. All I heard was sobbing and a Bronx-sounding voice saying, "You're an idiot!"

Originally Posted by n david

O M G...just read a tweet: "Pastor A has locked himself in his office and is curled up on the floor sobbing. Asked what's wrong he showed me his coat with some threads coming undone and mentioned some idiot on a message board is unraveling his life!" #faketweet #notreal

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

The hearer can claim what they want, doesn't mean they're right. Context isn't subjective. It is what it is. The hearer can argue and try to claim whatever they want, doesn't change what was said.


Do you know SG even said anything close to "it's the minister's fault?" Maxwell wasn't suggesting such. That's why I'm surprised you wrote that I should order the DVDs....."but it doesn't matter what it says." It DOES matter, because if SG didn't say then why would JA hear it?


He did take Maxwell out of context. Whether he took SG's comment out of context, anyone could listen to SG's message and find out.

And yes, if he exaggerated or took SG's words out of context and SG didn't say what JA claimed he said - "it's the minister's fault," then yes, JA lied. A spade is a spade. I'll call it regardless. Get mad all you want, won't bother me!

Next time you comment on a politician's words and say, "That's not what I got from what he said", I'm going to remind you of this conversation.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Next time you comment on a politician's words and say, "That's not what I got from what he said", I'm going to remind you of this conversation.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

When I was 17, I met JA at a college preview event. Shook his hand and he autographed my event schedule.

Decades later, I doubt he remembers who I am, and I'm quite sure nothing I've posted will cause his life to unravel.

Time for me to leave for now. I've done beat the horse dead I think. Funny how the thread started so well...like many threads on here. Haha!

You know, if it was some other preacher who called JA an idiot, I'd have been just as disappointed and upset about it. It's not about the person, really. Although JA's the only preacher I've heard use that word in a message.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

When I was 17, I met JA at a college preview event. Shook his hand and he autographed my event schedule.

Decades later, I doubt he remembers who I am, and I'm quite sure nothing I've posted will cause his life to unravel.

Time for me to leave for now. I've done beat the horse dead I think. Funny how the thread started so well...like many threads on here. Haha!

You know, if it was some other preacher who called JA an idiot, I'd have been just as disappointed and upset about it. It's not about the person, really. Although JA's the only preacher I've heard use that word in a message.

My problem with your argument is not about his use of the word idiot. We can both agree that it was problematic. My problem is you calling him a liar and saying he took Maxwell's quote out of context.

You don't know that he took it out of context because you don't know what SG even said, exactly. Having established that fact, even if you knew what SG had said, exactly, it doesn't negate the fact that JA interpreted the quote in the context of how he heard it or how the context of the quote came across to him personally.

That doesn't make him a liar. It means he heard something in the context of the said quote that caused him to focus on that one point and vehemently disagree with it.

I'm disappointed that in order to win the argument, you would go so far as to call JA a liar and be proud that you did with no regret.