Bad News / Good News For Ultra Conservatives

[CC1]

Originally Posted by OGIA

Thanks for proving my point.

If you are trying to soft pedal Depews opposition to the internet you are misguided.

If you are also trying to distort what I said in my initial post you are also misguided.

You and BORED try to make things into something they are not.

I will try once again try to explain the concept of the thread;

-Esteemed ultra con preacher preaches ultra con conference and lowers the
hammer on internet usage

-CC1 takes the occasion to rib his ultra con friends who use the internet

Now was that really hard? I did not have an ugly spirit or was trying to be smarty or mean in this thread. It was kidding with friends.

I am beginning to thinik it is time for me to take another long vacation from AFF if this is the kind of feces I have to deal with.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by CC1

I am beginning to thinik it is time for me to take another long vacation from AFF if this is the kind of feces I have to deal with.

Harsh words don't veil what you attempted to do, CC1. Even thought it was in jest, you used dishonesty to do it. Bro. Perdew DID NOT preach against OTHERS having internet, now did he?

If he didn't, your thread was dishonest........no matter how much you were joking.


Maybe posting something more unifying and less divisive would help to resolve the divisions you so gleefully exploit? Ever think of that?

[CC1]

Originally Posted by OGIA

Harsh words don't veil what you attempted to do, CC1. Even thought it was in jest, you used dishonesty to do it. Bro. Perdew DID NOT preach against OTHERS having internet, now did he?

If he didn't, your thread was dishonest........no matter how much you were joking.


The only feces in this context is coming from the author, IMO, and when called on it, he gets a bit perturbed. Maybe posting something more unifying and less divisive would help to resolve the divisions you so gleefully exploit? Ever think of that?

You are a liar. Yes a liar. I did not do anything dishonest. You owe me an apology.

You are as bad as Democrats at twisting the facts. I never said Depew called them heatherns and you know it. When I pointed that out you tried to go"aha!" like I was guilty of something.

I explained the thread in my last post to you and there is nothing left to explain. You are a liar if you say I was dishonest in anything in this thread.

You are really reaching to have a problem with this thread and what I posted. I am honestly amazed at your take on this.

I have nothing to apologize for and I am proud of this thread despite the fact you have turned it into something contentious and ugly.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by CC1

You are a liar. Yes a liar. I did not do anything dishonest. You owe me an apology.

You are as bad as Democrats at twisting the facts. I never said Depew called them heatherns and you know it. When I pointed that out you tried to go"aha!" like I was guilty of something.

I explained the thread in my last post to you and there is nothing left to explain. You are a liar if you say I was dishonest in anything in this thread.

You are really reaching to have a problem with this thread and what I posted. I am honestly amazed at your take on this.

I have nothing to apologize for and I am proud of this thread despite the fact you have turned it into something contentious and ugly.

I don't apologize for saying you were dishonest, CC1, but I apologize for getting you so upset. Yes, I am sorry for that. I simply asked you to look at the manner in which you used this man's words to cause even more division. You twisted them to make him look as if he were dis-fellowshipping with the UCs who use the internet. I'm sorry if you can't see how you twisted that.

The only problem I have with your post, as with so many others, is the ongoing, incessant, nauseating manner in which things are presented -- even when done jokingly. It almost seems as if you and those so many others like the division. If you didn't, you'd try to change the way you present things or you wouldn't do it at all.

Again, I'm sorry I got you upset, but I stand by my belief that you went about this in a dishonest manner, even if in jest.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by CC1

You owe me an apology.

I have nothing to apologize for and I am proud of this thread despite the fact you have turned it into something contentious and ugly.

Be fair then and give me an apology for your Apostolic Taliban thread.

I called for one there.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by OGIA

I don't apologize for saying you were dishonest, CC1, but I apologize for getting you so upset. Yes, I am sorry for that. I simply asked you to look at the manner in which you used this man's words to cause even more division. You twisted them to make him look as if he were dis-fellowshipping with the UCs who use the internet. I'm sorry if you can't see how you twisted that.

The only problem I have with your post, as with so many others, is the ongoing, incessant, nauseating manner in which things are presented -- even when done jokingly. It almost seems as if you and those so many others like the division. If you didn't, you'd try to change the way you present things or you wouldn't do it at all.

Again, I'm sorry I got you upset, but I stand by my belief that you went about this in a dishonest manner, even if in jest.

I see I am not the only one you villify on a regular basis. "Nauseating manner" is hilarious to me. Your language is sooooo over the top. Get a grip on yourself man. Smile. Laugh.

I'm sure you never cause division do you? Tell me, did you comment about the Nix situation of CAF?

[tv1a]

If he believes internet is wrong yet alllows a man in his church to work with internet, he should allow me to drive a beer truck. Sound like this gentleman is making exceptions to the rules... Anyone suprised?

Originally Posted by CC1

OGIA,

Good grief! He made it very clear that he does not believe in using the internet and that is what I was joking about here.

It was the "new" "gentler", "kinder" Depew that kept him from sending the room full of preachers to hell I guess.

He made it clear he did not think anybody should be on the internet and that the only person in his church who is has to out of job neccessity and then he told the man to make it where he could only access the three or four sites he needed to work and nothing else.

Where are you getting that my thread contradicts this?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Let me make it simple;

* This highly esteemed ultra con preacher preaches against and does not
use or allow the internet in his church

* CC1 uses his position put forth at the AMC conference as a basis to
tease my ultra con friends who DO use the internet.

Nothing more, nothing less. You are paranoid my friend.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Be fair then and give me an apology for your Apostolic Taliban thread.

I called for one there.

I stand by that thread also. I would be willing to bet the farm that a significant portion of the ministers at the AMC conference if suddenly empowered to govern as the Taliban did would indeed make many laws similar to what the Taliban have.

I am surprised that this is an issue. I would like for Elder Epley, Agape, Acteon, Steadfast and some others post to me that they do not know ultra con preachers who would do that.

Of course it is all a moot point because the situation will never exist but there is no doubt in my mind that some of these folks who think elbows showing is a sin would not attempt to enforce morality laws that more reflected their application of the biblical principles of modesty. As I clearly pointed out I am talking about the same folks who castigate the President or conservative lawmakers because they don't outlaw nudity, alcohol, R rated movies, not to mention all of the horrible music and video games out there.

Do you honestly think if ultra cons suddenly had unchecked governing power they would not address these things in a way similar to the Taliban? I don't think they would be doing it to "save" people but out of a desire to apply what they see as godly behaviour nationwide.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by OGIA

I don't apologize for saying you were dishonest, CC1, but I apologize for getting you so upset. Yes, I am sorry for that. I simply asked you to look at the manner in which you used this man's words to cause even more division. You twisted them to make him look as if he were dis-fellowshipping with the UCs who use the internet. I'm sorry if you can't see how you twisted that.

The only problem I have with your post, as with so many others, is the ongoing, incessant, nauseating manner in which things are presented -- even when done jokingly. It almost seems as if you and those so many others like the division. If you didn't, you'd try to change the way you present things or you wouldn't do it at all.

Again, I'm sorry I got you upset, but I stand by my belief that you went about this in a dishonest manner, even if in jest.

Thank you for this post. I think I just rub you the wrong way. Posting is always iffy because you are only reading words and not the attitude, humor, etc behind them.

I believe you are looking to find offense from me because of my views and so you do. Everything I write rubs you the wrong way and you over react to it twisting it into something not intended.

I will try to remember all of this and remind myself you are just one person and I can't please everybody.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by CC1

I stand by that thread also. I would be willing to bet the farm that a significant portion of the ministers at the AMC conference if suddenly empowered to govern as the Taliban did would indeed make many laws similar to what the Taliban have.

I am surprised that this is an issue. I would like for Elder Epley, Agape, Acteon, Steadfast and some others post to me that they do not know ultra con preachers who would do that.

Of course it is all a moot point because the situation will never exist but there is no doubt in my mind that some of these folks who think elbows showing is a sin would not attempt to enforce morality laws that more reflected their application of the biblical principles of modesty. As I clearly pointed out I am talking about the same folks who castigate the President or conservative lawmakers because they don't outlaw nudity, alcohol, R rated movies, not to mention all of the horrible music and video games out there.

Do you honestly think if ultra cons suddenly had unchecked governing power they would not address these things in a way similar to the Taliban? I don't think they would be doing it to "save" people but out of a desire to apply what they see as godly behaviour nationwide.

I agree.
Some would be very much a "Cristian" taliban in their enforcement of "righteousness and holiness."