Bott '14

[n david]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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

I'll ask you what I asked PO. She refused to answer, but maybe you can.

If a person told you that someone said something that they didn't actually say, is that a lie? Yes or no?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

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.


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.


Have a good day.

I can see that would hurt you. However, you are trying to continue arguing about this when you have NO quotes from anyone but JA. How can you continue with that? You are going off of a post in which Triumphant1 is saying could be a "possibility" of what SG quoted? If you prepared to bring JA to court, you would lose because you don't have all of your evidence before you.

That's why this conversation is a dead horse, David.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

But do you agree with her comments here?

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

4 things:

1. I think JA did call Stan Gleason an idiot. IMO, he made that clear when he said "...I don't know which one of you guys said it, and I know that came from John Maxwell...but whoever it is, don't get offended...you're an idiot." The "whoever it is" part shows that he's referring to the minister, because he knew where the quote came from and stated that.

2. It was over the line, and must have been brought to his attention, because he apologized. Or maybe he felt bad personally and apologized of his own accord. I don't know which way it went down.

3. JA is coarse. That's just who he is, for whatever reason. People who are impulsive and hot-headed say things they regret because they don't have a good filter on their mouths. That doesn't make him useless to the kingdom, and I, for one, don't want him to "sit down and shut up."

4. It's POSSIBLE (but not plausible, considering JA's manner) that he was directing the idiot thing at John Maxwell, but that doesn't matter even if it's true. It sounded like he was calling SG an idiot, so therefore it was offensive, e.g., he needed to issue an apology or at least a clarification. Further, John Maxwell is a respected author, fellow Christian, and has been a guest at POA. If JA was directing it at Maxwell, it was still uncalled for and an apology needed to be issued.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

Well, per your previous post, SG's message doesn't matter, so who cares, right?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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'll remember this the next time you post or comment on some video released about obama.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

No, as both shown and agreed with by someone else, your posts were waffling, spinning like a top, etc.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

That still says nothing in regards to his attack on a fellow minister! I'm not offended by his use of the word "idiot," either. Until it's aimed a fellow minister. Which is where we part ways; because I am offended with his attack on a minister, but you're not. Because if AM is okay with it, meh, it's all good. I mean, it's heavy and problematic...but not wrong.

[Pressing-On]

I'm done with you, David. I don't dislike JA and I never will.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can see that would hurt you. However, you are trying to continue arguing about this when you have NO quotes from anyone but JA. How can you continue with that? You are going off of a post in which Triumphant1 is saying could be a "possibility" of what SG quoted? If you prepared to bring JA to court, you would lose because you don't have all of your evidence before you.

Actually Triumphant1 gave statement to Maxwell's original comment. We still don't know what SG said. And that's why SG's comment matters to me, and why it does upset me that you don't care what SG actually said.

I'll post it for the record here and now -- and in bold

If JA is correct, and SG said what JA claims he said, I will make sure to post that I was completely wrong about all this. I will create a thread, "N David was wrong," and admit to it.

Of course, in order to do that, we need to know what SG said. See why it does matter?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That's why this conversation is a dead horse, David.

Ha! You must've missed my post several pages ago where I was beating several dead horses.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Well, per your previous post, SG's message doesn't matter, so who cares, right?

Continue using your CNN editing skills, David. Good for you. I might could call you a liar.

I'll remember this the next time you post or comment on some video released about obama.

Obama is President to ALL the people in the US. JA is not everyone's pastor nor evangelist.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm done with you, David. I don't dislike JA and I never will.

So, in other words, who cares if he's telling the truth about it or not, you're not going to say so because you don't dislike JA.

I don't dislike JA, either. I've said it several times. I don't think he's a bad guy. I do think he was way over the line with his attack on SG, regardless if he was right about SG's quote or not. But I don't have ill will towards him.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by n david

I'll ask you what I asked PO. She refused to answer, but maybe you can.

If a person told you that someone said something that they didn't actually say, is that a lie? Yes or no?

Only if it's an intentional misquote or misrepresentation of what was said. Since JA was speaking directly to the man who quoted it and others who heard him, it's highly unlikely that he was trying to lie about it. He may have gotten it wrong, he may have misunderstood the context and paraphrased it badly, but lying about it? Come on.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

So, in other words, who cares if he's telling the truth about it or not, you're not going to say so because you don't dislike JA.

I don't dislike JA, either. I've said it several times. I don't think he's a bad guy. I do think he was way over the line with his attack on SG, regardless if he was right about SG's quote or not. But I don't have ill will towards him.

Really?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Continue using your CNN editing skills, David. Good for you. I might could call you a liar.

Prove it then, PO. Show me where you did NOT say SG's message doesn't matter. Because here are two full, unedited posts which proves you DID say that.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I took it all as collective. If you agree with not being blamed for people sinning, then you are agreeing with the idiot comment as well. After all, that is where the being blamed for people sinning stems from.
It's not quite simple. Fishing is speculative. You present it as an evil intent of manipulation and I don't believe all ministers do that. Sometimes they are excited and sometimes it is just habit.
No, it means what he said, "and I KNOW that came from John Maxwell because I heard it". Here he is not placing the blame on the minister who repeated it.
IOW, I take him to be referencing the quote did not originate with the minister in question, thus giving me the impression that he was referencing the quote. When he said "You're an idiot", I took him to be referring to Maxwell and I still do.
I also took his apology for embarrassing the minister in question, who he never named, and not necessarily that he called him the idiot. It may possibly be a misunderstanding. And it certainly was a horrible way to embarrass himself and the minister.
Listen to what I am actually saying or I am going to shoot YOU in the derriere.
I SAID JA either got something else out of the quote or the minister misquoted Maxwell. Do you know EXACTLY what the minister said - word for word? Either way, it doesn't really matter. JA got an impression of the quote, whether in or out of context, and expounded on the way he RECEIVED the quote when he heard it. He has a right to do that. It is his opinion and how the comment came across to HIS ears.
Sorry, the "you're" doesn't necessarily mean he is not referring to Maxwell. When I heard it the first time, that was my impression - he was referring to Maxwell's quote. And again, whether it was in or out of context, it is how JA received it when he heard it. Maybe all he heard was - it's the minister's fault. Apparently, that is what he felt he heard from the message.
Yes, please order the DVD's. 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.
Okay, I am with Ferdinand -

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

"It won't matter what it says." "It doesn't matter what SG said."

Those are what you wrote. Call me a liar, cause if "you're prepared to bring" me "to court" you would lose based on your own posts.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Obama is President to ALL the people in the US. JA is not everyone's pastor nor evangelist.

Nice spin.