Bott '14

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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."

Well of course, it was a typo! You were right at the beginning, "I was confused." You were changing so much you couldn't remember what you meant.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

They weren't out of context. I'm not the only one who sees the spinning you were doing. I can go back and post the full quotes, it doesn't change anything. You said one thing, then said something else, then changed back again.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

Here's the error with this...You said:

We aren't going to get to the bottom of it unless we hear, and I don't mean a transcript, of the minister's words JA is referring to.

After that I mentioned I tried ordering the DVDs, to which your reply was:

Yes, please order the DVDs. It won't matter what it says.

Now, you complain that I selectively edited the quote; however, the full quote is even worse, IMO.

Yes, please order the DVDs. 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.

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

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.

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.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by n david

...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.

What did I miss? Where did JA lie?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

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.

What's ironic is you have no problem condemning me or DA for having the audacity to be offended with JA's attack. But you stumble and fall over backwards trying to defend JA's attack, by instead trying to focus on his use of the word.

"AM doesn't appear to have a problem with his general use..."
"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."

Even your quote again says, "It doesn't bother me." Then you muddle around talking about JA being heavy with it and how it's problematic...but you don't say it's wrong. What do you mean, he gets heavy with it?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

I don't mean to crucify JA any more. The past few pages really has been responding to your inconsistent and waffling posts.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What did I miss? Where did JA lie?

I know, right?

[n david]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What did I miss? Where did JA lie?

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.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

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

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

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

What's ironic is you have no problem condemning me or DA for having the audacity to be offended with JA's attack. But you stumble and fall over backwards trying to defend JA's attack, by instead trying to focus on his use of the word.

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.

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

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

"AM doesn't appear to have a problem with his general use..."
"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."

Even your quote again says, "It doesn't bother me." Then you muddle around talking about JA being heavy with it and how it's problematic...but you don't say it's wrong. What do you mean, he gets heavy with it?


I don't mean to crucify JA any more. The past few pages really has been responding to your inconsistent and waffling posts.

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

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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

Thank you!!!! Good grief, this is just getting really tiresome.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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."

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.

One person can say, "This is what I said", and another can say, "But this is what I heard from what you said."

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.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

Have a good day.