I don't suppose the thought occurred to you that there's a flip-side to this coin. If TWI was (as many claim) opposed to exploring the writings/teachings of others then can it not be said that those who oppose the exploration of VP/TWI writings have the same mind-set as those who were/are followers of TWI?
True freedom is being able to read the writings of anyone and have the ability to think through what's taught and make up your own mind.
Yes, I beleive I see your point, and yes I've thought of that. But that's just an ideal. I do not believe the innies are free to think, no, I know they aren't. Their information is skewed. They are instructed over and over and over to look at ministry publications first, (which in their minds is "going to the word") It takes a lot to get any information through to them that isn't presented "on behalf of the Board of Directors"
My opinion is that those of us with twi material is to keep it to ourselves, for our own use, to understand what we were a part of. There's no need for sharing it really, since any good information they contain is presented in works having nothing to do with twi. Promote an idea, but not twi, wierwille, lcm etc.
I agree -- and that "idea" was/should have been -- Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Somewhere along the path that idea became lost in the promotion of TWI. Never did sit well with me and probably explains why I never was very successful at starting PFAL classes.
I suppose the true measure of success would be determined not by sampling just one (your) opinion but to ask everyone who read the book what they thought. Unless the vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest, I'd say the majority of them thought he succeeded in what he set out to do. Now, it would be easy to say that the vast majority were brainwashed into accepting anything VP did or set out to do was successful and while that may be true it would still follow that he succeeded if he felt he had a following which blindly followed wherever he led them. I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at it and define success.
Honestly, I think most in TWI read it and tried to memorize it, but I wonder how many really tried to digest it and critique it. I daresay few. I tied to line my thinking up to it, supposing it to be a stronger argument than it was. Once I realized it was not that strong a presentation, I changed my approach.
I don't think a vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest. But I do think the vast majority were being uncritical. Who are they, after all, to say the MOG could have done a better job on John 1? We were living in a distorted little world where this guy was a pre-eminent scholar. Plagiarism? Why, other authors should have been HONORED to be plagiarized by VPW!
So I don't think the John 1 presentation was effective at all. And I think that its "success" is not up for a vote. It's an individual opinion, no more disputable than someone saying they like the taste of organges.
Who are they, after all, to say the MOG could have done a better job on John 1?
I agree with your point here. Long before VP died -- actually before he stepped down as President of TWI -- I was saying that when he died many would "fall away" from TWI. I just wasn't sure how long it would take.
But, I suppose this line of discussion is off-topic and so I apologize.
I agree with your point here. Long before VP died -- actually before he stepped down as President of TWI -- I was saying that when he died many would "fall away" from TWI. I just wasn't sure how long it would take.
But, I suppose this line of discussion is off-topic and so I apologize.
if it is a problem being off topic then do not answer me and i also apologize, but im courious as to why you think that many woould "fall away" from twi after he died?
true enough it did happen that way.. but why do you think it did?
Mention was made early on of Bob C.'s book "One God: The Unfinished Reformation." I've known Bob for 20 years. He leads an offshoot in the Chicago suburbs. His book is pretty good. If you want to check it out the website is WWW.GCFNAPERVILLE.ORG
Ergo-- It was, indeed, taught in formal setting, thus negating the question of whether or not it is urban legand that these things were taught.
Even though my post about urban legends followed this post:
Didn't the Devil quote scripture? Did that make it less of God's Word? Did it make the Devil less of a devil?
Sounds like a TWI urban legend to me...
It is actually a response to this post, which was on the thread's previous page:
(relevent part retained, rest of post edited out)
The following is a second hand account that happened to a GSC poster 25 years ago. John Schoenheit came to STL back then and related this story that happened to a believer friend of his. The guy was driving around the city he lived in at the time while listening to talk radio. That day's program was about some individuals who had threatened to douse themselves with gasoline and ignite themselves if certain demands of their's weren't met. Most of the callers thought the individuals were altruistic and worthy of praise for daring to give their lives for whatever the cause was.
Well, the believer finally had enough and stopped his car, went to a pay phone, called the radio station, miraculously got to talk on the air shortly, and reamed the callers who praised these people, calling what they did terrorism, and basically giving the word's pov about the matter. After he returned to his car, every single caller for the next hour referred to his call, some for some against, yet his words had so much impact that he rattled their cages and shook up their darkness. They HAD to deal with his words. That's the impact the true word of God has always had. Shoenheit told that story to illustrate how the word cuts through the bs of the world when spoken with boldness and love.
if it is a problem being off topic then do not answer me and i also apologize, but im courious as to why you think that many woould "fall away" from twi after he died?
true enough it did happen that way.. but why do you think it did?
Pond, it took me awhile to relocate your post. I had forgotten which thread you asked your question in. Silly me. Anyways, I think this thread would be a more appropriate place to continue this line of discussion but, give me some time to think through how I should respond. Thanks.
Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books.
YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.
Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.
....
The reference to VPW as somone who was a: "Johnny-Come-Lately to the party" could have been in one of the cult books written by Jack Sparks (wrote: The Mindbenders) or Walter Martin or any Trinitarian apologist's writing cult books and "Chrisitian" tracts from the same time period - circa late 1970's. The meaning of the phrase: "Johnny-Come-Lately" is referring to someone who recently started a job or a project and suddenly became successful, or it is used to refer to someone who lately became a recent adherent to a cause or a trend. It was a phrase the critics pulled from JCING by VPW (BTW, they never cited where they got that phrase - which by your definition would make them guilty of plagarism) to infer that VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and recently decided to make his case by writing JCING.
Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove thatpoint to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later.
But the way I recall reading it is because I thought it was remarkable they couldn't even come up with or origninate a derogatory remark about VPW themselves - they had to "steal it" and plargarize it from his book! But if you still think I made up this claim that the critic's referred to VPW as someone who was a: "Johnny-Come-Lately" then that's your problem, but their claim certainly does not have to be supported by me.
Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling.
Very mature.
Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway? That's why it doesn't matter one iota to me what you think is mature.
Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway? That's why it doesn't matter one iota to me what you think is mature.
I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest. I'm saying you have poor to non-existent reading comprehension skills, are dishonest in your handling of this discussion and unworthy of another pixel.
You made the claim, and you were asked to support it.
Unable to support it, instead of dropping it like some adults, you switched to name-calling.
I never made the claim VPW was a "Johnny-Come-Lately" and I have no need to support that claim. It was a phrase the critics used (as I already explained) to infer VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and decided to make his own case by writing JCING. That is what the critcs wanted everyone to believe to garner support for their case. So I am asking the critics to support that claim [they should be able to support their claims better than I] - but then they can't, and that is why they resorted to name-calling VPW.
YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim. Can you even READ?
WTH makes the assertion that Wierwille's critics called him a Johnny come lately.
I say he/she made that up too. I know, WTH read it in an old piece of literature he can no longer find. WhatEVER.
It was a phrase the critics pulled from JCING by VPW (BTW, they never cited where they got that phrase -Note from Raf: Bulls hit. Prove it. which by your definition would make them guilty of plagarism) to infer that VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and recently decided to make his case by writing JCING.
Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was.
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."
WordWolf:
"Got a source for this claim? Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.
It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.
They did not care at ALL what his background was like.
They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.
Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,
most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too."
WTH:
"If you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later."
Raf:
"Then we have that gem from WTH:
WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive:
Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian?
Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim. "
WordWolf:
"Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books.
YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.
Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.
Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote
Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.
That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one
claiming the existence of something."
=============
For those with short attention spans, the claim that has been questioned has always been
WTH's claim that vpw's critics claimed vpw was always anti-Trinitarian.
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."
WTH claimed it, and his claim was challenged.
Let's continue.
============
WTH then went off for several paragraphs about his "Johnny-come-lately" claim,
ignoring his other claim that was actually being discussed.
He included some personal comments, & started some namecalling:
WTH:
"Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later."
Raf:
"Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling.
Very mature. "
WTH:
"Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway?"
Raf:
"I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest."
WTH attempted to make the discussion about his "Johnny-Come-Lately" assertion again.
Then Raf responded.
Raf:
"YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim."
"Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was."
==========
So,
will we see WTH actually address his claim anytime soon, that supposedly
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"?
Doubtful.
He seems unable to tell that's what's being asked of him. Either that, or-understanding that IS what's
being asked of him, and unable to support it, he'd rather do his best to change the subject and distract
from the question than admit he doesn't have documentation for his claim.
Usual responses at this point-based on his previous posts- tend to center around personal attacks
and more changes of subject. Most likely, that's what we'll see here.
Pond, it took me awhile to relocate your post. I had forgotten which thread you asked your question in. Silly me. Anyways, I think this thread would be a more appropriate place to continue this line of discussion but, give me some time to think through how I should respond. Thanks.
Perhaps start a new thread entirely?
Even though my post about urban legends followed this post:
It is actually a response to this post, which was on the thread's previous page:
(relevent part retained, rest of post edited out)
Sorry for the confusion.
Oak,
Had I taken a step back I probably would've realised what you were referring too and wouldn't have asked "?". I'm sorry also.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
9
20
17
Popular Days
May 31
41
May 30
28
May 29
15
Jun 1
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 15 posts
WordWolf 9 posts
Bolshevik 20 posts
Larry N Moore 17 posts
Popular Days
May 31 2007
41 posts
May 30 2007
28 posts
May 29 2007
15 posts
Jun 1 2007
11 posts
Larry N Moore
It's much easier if you don't attach yourself to any group at all. You have no vested interest in supporting your group's theology.
I think we agree on many points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes, I beleive I see your point, and yes I've thought of that. But that's just an ideal. I do not believe the innies are free to think, no, I know they aren't. Their information is skewed. They are instructed over and over and over to look at ministry publications first, (which in their minds is "going to the word") It takes a lot to get any information through to them that isn't presented "on behalf of the Board of Directors"
My opinion is that those of us with twi material is to keep it to ourselves, for our own use, to understand what we were a part of. There's no need for sharing it really, since any good information they contain is presented in works having nothing to do with twi. Promote an idea, but not twi, wierwille, lcm etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I agree -- and that "idea" was/should have been -- Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Somewhere along the path that idea became lost in the promotion of TWI. Never did sit well with me and probably explains why I never was very successful at starting PFAL classes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Honestly, I think most in TWI read it and tried to memorize it, but I wonder how many really tried to digest it and critique it. I daresay few. I tied to line my thinking up to it, supposing it to be a stronger argument than it was. Once I realized it was not that strong a presentation, I changed my approach.
I don't think a vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest. But I do think the vast majority were being uncritical. Who are they, after all, to say the MOG could have done a better job on John 1? We were living in a distorted little world where this guy was a pre-eminent scholar. Plagiarism? Why, other authors should have been HONORED to be plagiarized by VPW!
So I don't think the John 1 presentation was effective at all. And I think that its "success" is not up for a vote. It's an individual opinion, no more disputable than someone saying they like the taste of organges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I agree with your point here. Long before VP died -- actually before he stepped down as President of TWI -- I was saying that when he died many would "fall away" from TWI. I just wasn't sure how long it would take.
But, I suppose this line of discussion is off-topic and so I apologize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
if it is a problem being off topic then do not answer me and i also apologize, but im courious as to why you think that many woould "fall away" from twi after he died?
true enough it did happen that way.. but why do you think it did?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
AC silly-bus page 17, item # 1
Devils know the scriptures.
Matthew 4:6; Mark 1:24; Matthew 8:29.
-----------------------------------
AC silly-bus page 17, item #7
Devils do speak at times. Mark 5:9.
Ergo-- It was, indeed, taught in formal setting, thus negating the question of whether or not it is urban legand that these things were taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh damn. i didn't read the thread, but i just can't stand not chiming in
one christmas i brought home gifts for my huge roman catholic family
"a jesus christ is not god" yellow red and black book wrapped beautifully for everyone
hey they still love me !!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOMMYZ
Mention was made early on of Bob C.'s book "One God: The Unfinished Reformation." I've known Bob for 20 years. He leads an offshoot in the Chicago suburbs. His book is pretty good. If you want to check it out the website is WWW.GCFNAPERVILLE.ORG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Even though my post about urban legends followed this post:
It is actually a response to this post, which was on the thread's previous page:(relevent part retained, rest of post edited out)
Sorry for the confusion.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Pond, it took me awhile to relocate your post. I had forgotten which thread you asked your question in. Silly me. Anyways, I think this thread would be a more appropriate place to continue this line of discussion but, give me some time to think through how I should respond. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The reference to VPW as somone who was a: "Johnny-Come-Lately to the party" could have been in one of the cult books written by Jack Sparks (wrote: The Mindbenders) or Walter Martin or any Trinitarian apologist's writing cult books and "Chrisitian" tracts from the same time period - circa late 1970's. The meaning of the phrase: "Johnny-Come-Lately" is referring to someone who recently started a job or a project and suddenly became successful, or it is used to refer to someone who lately became a recent adherent to a cause or a trend. It was a phrase the critics pulled from JCING by VPW (BTW, they never cited where they got that phrase - which by your definition would make them guilty of plagarism) to infer that VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and recently decided to make his case by writing JCING.
Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later.
But the way I recall reading it is because I thought it was remarkable they couldn't even come up with or origninate a derogatory remark about VPW themselves - they had to "steal it" and plargarize it from his book! But if you still think I made up this claim that the critic's referred to VPW as someone who was a: "Johnny-Come-Lately" then that's your problem, but their claim certainly does not have to be supported by me.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling.
Very mature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway? That's why it doesn't matter one iota to me what you think is mature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We certainly have no reason to believe they did.
You CLAIMED that a lot of them did, but have yet to provide even ONE instance where ANYONE did.
You made the claim, and you were asked to support it.
Unable to support it, instead of dropping it like some adults, you switched to name-calling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest. I'm saying you have poor to non-existent reading comprehension skills, are dishonest in your handling of this discussion and unworthy of another pixel.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I never made the claim VPW was a "Johnny-Come-Lately" and I have no need to support that claim. It was a phrase the critics used (as I already explained) to infer VPW was just another anti-trinitarian who jumped on the anti-trinity bandwagond and decided to make his own case by writing JCING. That is what the critcs wanted everyone to believe to garner support for their case. So I am asking the critics to support that claim [they should be able to support their claims better than I] - but then they can't, and that is why they resorted to name-calling VPW.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh my GOD!
Poor reading comprehension skills at work AGAIN!
YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim. Can you even READ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WTH makes the assertion that Wierwille's critics called him a Johnny come lately.
I say he/she made that up too. I know, WTH read it in an old piece of literature he can no longer find. WhatEVER.
Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oakspear
I just saw your response in post #87.
It appears that I was a bit confused, also.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The sequence had me confused.( not hard to do, these days.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
No prob...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WTH:
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."
WordWolf:
"Got a source for this claim? Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.
It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.
They did not care at ALL what his background was like.
They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.
Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,
most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too."
WTH:
"If you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later."
Raf:
"Then we have that gem from WTH:
WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive:
Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian?
Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim. "
WordWolf:
"Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books.
YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.
Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.
Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote
Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.
That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one
claiming the existence of something."
=============
For those with short attention spans, the claim that has been questioned has always been
WTH's claim that vpw's critics claimed vpw was always anti-Trinitarian.
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."
WTH claimed it, and his claim was challenged.
Let's continue.
============
WTH then went off for several paragraphs about his "Johnny-come-lately" claim,
ignoring his other claim that was actually being discussed.
He included some personal comments, & started some namecalling:
WTH:
"Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later."
Raf:
"Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling.
Very mature. "
WTH:
"Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway?"
Raf:
"I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest."
WTH attempted to make the discussion about his "Johnny-Come-Lately" assertion again.
Then Raf responded.
Raf:
"YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim."
"Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was."
==========
So,
will we see WTH actually address his claim anytime soon, that supposedly
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"?
Doubtful.
He seems unable to tell that's what's being asked of him. Either that, or-understanding that IS what's
being asked of him, and unable to support it, he'd rather do his best to change the subject and distract
from the question than admit he doesn't have documentation for his claim.
Usual responses at this point-based on his previous posts- tend to center around personal attacks
and more changes of subject. Most likely, that's what we'll see here.
But hey-he COULD surprise us all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Perhaps start a new thread entirely?
Oak,
Had I taken a step back I probably would've realised what you were referring too and wouldn't have asked "?". I'm sorry also.
B
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.