Mike, if you go back and read the first post of this thread, you'll find I did quote nearly all of your post, and replied to several of the points. The only line I didn't include in my quote was the last one about you wanting to get back to my post about a single rule of faith and practice (which, by the way, you still haven't done).
Here it is in its entirety:
Mark,
I still want to answer a long post you did the other day, but havn't gotten to it yet. It might be the moved post, and if so, I'll have to chase it down there.
But here you ask a question many ask, and I've tried to answer it before, but I will again.
You wrote: If PFAL is the new God-breathed Word, Mike, how do you explain the glaring errors in it?
Now, really, what do you expect my answer is? Do you want me to say: "Sure there are errors, but I close my eyes to them."???
If I were to try to explain why there are errors in God-breathed PFAL I'd be an idiot or sorts.
Of course, my real answer (you expect this, right?) is that I disagree with the notion that there are errors!
Why do you think there are errors in there? It's because you apply a set of inquiry principles that I do not think valid. You, and many others here, seem to think that's a done deal, that PFAL errors are a proved thing. I don't. I see a lot of prejudice that goes into the "research" to find PFAL errors. I see a lot of assumptions that I don't make. But most of all, I see a profound lack of understand and awareness of what is actually in those writings. Most people shoot from the hip and don't even have the books from which to work their theories of PFAL errors, and even fewer have the magazine articles.
Does this answer your question?
As for an extended debate on something like "kingdom" I'm very disinclined to do so. Have you searched ALL of PFAL (book and magazine) to gather together ALL that is written on that subject, or are you satisfied with taking pot shots at one passage of text, or worse yet, at one fading memory of what is written?
I just don't have the time to "work the Word" in detail with antagonists who don't want to get to know the whole thing first. I prefer to work it in detail with meek and humble students of PFAL who recognize that there are a vast number of unturned stones to discover.
I do still want to get back to that other post of yours, but time is short right now. I got things to do this evening.
I believe I demonstrated in my first post that I was not "expecting" any particular answer and was wanting to know how you deal with the issues in question. I still ask, what invalid inquiry principles am I using? This is not a kangaroo court or any other kind of court. You made the claim that PFAL is the God-breathed Word. So in examining it, how do you explain these apparent contradictions?
You said "a large amount of time would be involved on your part and you're not willing to invest in it." First of all, how can you judge what I'd be willing to do? I've already invested a lot of time looking into these issues and others. If you have an explanation for these apparent contradictions, I'd like to hear them. Second, how much time does it take to explain, when reading plain English would appear to directly contradict points in PFAL? Raf accused you of dodging the question. Why not prove him wrong, and respond to my questions?
I honestly don't think that Mark's motivation or any one else for that matter . . . is to harm or to show anyone up. The bible is not a weapon. It is sharper than any two edge sword. . . . but that is God's work. . . a roadmap if you will. . . into the human heart. Often the bible reads us instead of the other way around.
Seems people were a bit surprized by your revelation, and if you really stop and think about it. . . it is quite a statement. . . . PFAL being the revealed word of God. Forgive the paraphrase.
Having a conversation with someone who is also working through the fog can often be beneficial. . . . who else understands?
I believe there is real empathy for your position and a real heart to offer another side to the coin.
Out of adages, but I choose to assume there is more than a bible gotcha game proposed here.
I for one am curious to hear more. . . . I already read that other thread. . . that was good!
Hi geisha779,
It’s nice to meet you, even here, where I feel a breech in etiquette and civility is underway, and by the same folks who decry the same treatment when it happens to them or their friends.
I felt your post deserved a response. You convinced me that you weren’t playing the “gotcha” game that the others so blatantly are. I’ll explain a little.
I declined an invitation to this thread and gave two reasons: time and method. I disagree with the entire method of investigation here in this topic, and I don’t have time to keep up with it.
Many people want to talk to me because I have a very controversial stand. It’s also the case that many want to take pot shots at me (like Steve Loretz just did) and many want to waste my time. Some people even like to post ugly pictures, supposedly of me, and call me ugly names. It’s worse than Jr. High at times dealing with these low lifers.
So I find that these demands on me, for legitimate discussion AND for idiotic emotional schoolyard play AND for pointy headed theological bs, are great and taxing.
Six years ago I had more time and got quite involved in these things, trying to accommodate all and any comers in discussion. I found myself sometimes simultaneously discussing things on six or seven threads. Even though I had the time back then, I didn’t have the brain cells or the patience to deal with such a complex set of interactions. I learned to scale back in both the number of threads I allowed myself to become engaged in, as well as the types of topics I engaged in.
When Mark invited me here I declined, yet he went right ahead and acted as if I were brought into the discussion. This is rude.
When casual people read this thread it can look to them that I am losing the debate, having no comeback for the challenges posed to me as if I am here and engaged. More thorough readers of this website have taken note that when I get hot on a topic, I can pin back the ears of anyone here. I know my topics well, and I have lots of surprises up my sleeve. I simply choose not to engage here on this thread, and for the reasons I stated on the “snow” thread.
So, Mark and others can have their little discussion about me alone here. Steve Lortz knows what a formidable opponent I am and timidly chooses to not engage me where I do put my pen. Instead he distorts my message behind my back to make himself look like he’s a grand overseer.
I see the same tactic underway on Raf’s thread with a similar title and similar methodology in the About the Way forum, where I am a ghost debater of posters who can’t face me in the flesh.
They want me to play THEIR game of methodology so they can win and feel good about themselves. I say “Nuts to them.” They can’t play my game and I wont play theirs.
I think they do want to use the Bible as a weapon, and they are playing a gotcha game to the max. They are not interested in seeing a new perspective. I continually offer then one and they continually stomp on all that I say, overlooking many fine points.
That’s why I’m not engaging here.
***
As for your questions, geisha779, I’d be happy to discuss any of this, even supposed PFAL errors, in the PM system or on the threads where I feel I should invest my time and heart.
One of the main things I do here is remind grads of things they either missed or forgot.
This is a massive topic, with many details. It seems we all only received a tiny fraction of what was offered to us in PFAL and got heavily sidetracked in a huge number of baloney issues. I count myself in this, and I’ve escaped this fate only because I decided to listen to the advice of an old friend ten years ago, a grad here in SD, and came back to the written teachings to look at them in detail.
The issue that surprised you, that I would think of PFAL as the Word of God, was not at all a surprising issue in the early 70’s.
I don’t know when you first took the class, but in those days we grads were all hip to the idea that churchianity and all its standard ideas and even it’s scriptures were riddled with error and distortions. We all, in those early days, thought that God had provided a sure way out of that thicket of error, and it was through His revelations to an ordinary, non-saint type of a man like us who was teaching us.
The closing of the Rock of Ages 1972 was in this vein, that God had chosen to re-enlighten the world with His Word and that He chose NOT the goodie-goodies to do it with, but “downers and outers like you and me.” Those were the words of VPW near the end of that Rock.
Any grad from that time who now thinks that it’s an outrage that Dr had sin in his life has a very bad memory problem or was living in their own private universe back then. We ALL knew it back then, as well as we knew that we had sin.
I’d have NEVER taken the class if my hippie friends had told me it was taught by some kind of modern saint. They endorsed Dr to me by saying he was real, so I gave him a chance. He turned me onto the God who can love any sinner.
That God should give His Word in all it’s fullness to a sinner and to sinners is a GREAT way to stuff it to the devil and his accusatory nature. It also flushes out all the religious bigots and pointy headed over-intellectual theologians making them very easy to identify and not get mixed up with.
I invite you to look at what God did in those collaterals again. It’s refreshing to the uttermost. You’ll see the real Jesus in there, and you’ll see Christ in you. Praise God for His goodness to sinful and His ability to cleanse.
When Mark invited me here I declined, yet he went right ahead and acted as if I were brought into the discussion. This is rude.
Actually, you didn't decline. You said, "I'm very disinclined to do so." (Refer to the quote of your post above.) Since part of your reasons involved a judgment of whether I would be willing to invest the time, I responded to that judgment. I also responded to your other reasons in hopes that you would see that I would welcome any explanation of your "method." It was not my intention to be rude, but to give you an opportunity to present your reasoning rather than accepting what others were saying about you. I did not "act as if you were brought into the decision" but replied to your objections and re-extended my invitation. I moved it here since it deals more with doctrinal issues and would have further detracted from the snowstorm thread where it started.
I also understand that it can look like you are losing the debate if you have no comeback, "as if you are here and engaged." That's why I responded to your reason about methodology, and invited you to at least make some kind of statement about your methods. And I did so in posts directly addressed to you, not behind your back. But you have now declined the invitation, albeit indirectly in a post to someone else. That's your choice. But please don't accuse me of being rude, or of not being interested in seeing a new perspective. You say you continually offer one, but I haven't seen it in any of your posts to me. If you feel Steve misrepresented you, why not correct the error? Still, you're entitled to post or not post wherever you wish.
Mike - In your post on this thread of 9:45 AM today, addressing geisha779, you wrote, "It's also the case that many want to take pot shots at me (like Steve Loretz [sic] just did)..."
This is what you were referring to as a "pot shot":
Mark and others - Five or six years ago Mike and I had several very interesting rounds of discussions. This is the technique he recommends for "studying" PFAL:
First, you have to turn off your will to think critically and accept PFAL as "God-breathed".
Then an "advanced Christ formed within" spirit will be born in you. This spirit is different from, and not to be confused with, the gift of holy spirit that was first poured out on the day of Pentecost, through which we were all baptized into one body.
After that, you meditate on the words of PFAL, again forsaking any will to think critcally, and your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit will whisper to you the hidden meanings of PFAL.
If you want, I suppose I could find the original threads in the archives, but I don't have time right now.
Mike used to keep saying, "Try it. You'll like it!"
Love,
Steve
Mark wanted to know the methodology you use for studying PFAL. All I did was to present your methodology in your very own language, the same language you used with me.
How is this a "pot shot"?
If I have misrepresented you, how?
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclamation
As for your questions, geisha779, I’d be happy to discuss any of this, even supposed PFAL errors, in the PM system or on the threads where I feel I should invest my time and heart.
By the way, geisha779, several posters including Raf, I think, tried to correspond with Mike through personal messages, much to their regret!
What would be the point in discussing this with private messages?
If the product is defective, every customer who bought it has a right to know.
Well, there's your problem, waysider, Mike's not here to discuss the defects of PFAL. He's here to attract recruits to his new religion which holds that PFAL has replaced the Bible as God's revealed Word.
According to Mike's religion, there are NO actual errors in PFAL, only "apparent contradictions". Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit will resolve all those apparent contradictions, if only Mike will remain "meek" to that spirit.
Wierwille's tale of snow on the gas pumps is especially important to Mike's religion, since his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit informs Mike that God's (supposed) promise to reveal His Word "as it has not been known since the first century" means that what God "revealed" to Wierwille, PFAL, is God-breathed, and has replaced the Bible as God's revealed Word and Will for this our day and time.
Whenever a poster shows any sympathy for Mike, he invites them to communicate with him privately, so he can reveal all this stuff gradually, without anybody else asking any awkward questions, and hopefully induce them to receive an "advanced Christ formed within" spirit of their own.
Actually, you didn't decline. You said, "I'm very disinclined to do so." (Refer to the quote of your post above.) Since part of your reasons involved a judgment of whether I would be willing to invest the time, I responded to that judgment. I also responded to your other reasons in hopes that you would see that I would welcome any explanation of your "method." It was not my intention to be rude, but to give you an opportunity to present your reasoning rather than accepting what others were saying about you. I did not "act as if you were brought into the decision" but replied to your objections and re-extended my invitation. I moved it here since it deals more with doctrinal issues and would have further detracted from the snowstorm thread where it started.
I also understand that it can look like you are losing the debate if you have no comeback, "as if you are here and engaged." That's why I responded to your reason about methodology, and invited you to at least make some kind of statement about your methods. And I did so in posts directly addressed to you, not behind your back. But you have now declined the invitation, albeit indirectly in a post to someone else. That's your choice. But please don't accuse me of being rude, or of not being interested in seeing a new perspective. You say you continually offer one, but I haven't seen it in any of your posts to me. If you feel Steve misrepresented you, why not correct the error? Still, you're entitled to post or not post wherever you wish.
I can accept this. I thought my declining was more forceful, but I guess I was trying to be polite.
I've already offered much on my methods and perspectives on the other thread(s). I still have one or two posts of yours I want to get to as time permits, but it is scarce right now. I'll answer when I can and in the other threads.
As for getting into apparent PFAL errors and the details, I've been pretty thorough in explaining why I refuse to take the "quickie approach with maximum content distrust" that is prevalent here in this thread. By analogy, it reminds me of trying to mix astronomy with astrology, with you guys on the astrology end. You insist on a totally different approach.
***
I'll try one more time to explain this, even though this has come up in posts to other people very recently. Let me illustrate by way of another analogy. Instead of looking closely at PFAL lets see how the Bible, the ancient scriptures can be looked at closely,
Surely you know that if the ancient scriptures are approached by a competent scholar who is a complete unbeliever, many initially apparent inconsistencies can be uncovered with little motivation and/or wherewithal to untangle them. He is content with halting his "research" when a juicy apparent inconsistency is found. He then turns his attention to promotional techniques. Said scholar is very content at this point with “proving the Bible wrong” and can make it sound very convincing to his like minded peers.
With those same apparent inconsistencies a believing scholar has an entirely different approach. For one thing, he’s not at all satisfied with halting the process like his unbelieving counterpart. Remember how Dr explained all this in the class? He told us that sometimes a believing researcher will keep a problem like this on his desk for 15 years before the solution is found. He also showed us how all the instances of the topic must be considered, not just that one area with the apparent inconsistency. He also showed us how all the key words in the apparent inconsistency must be defined by their biblical usage not their secular usage. Look at all the extra time the Bible believing scholar must put into the matter compared to the unbelieving scholar.
Apply this analogy to your thread with you in the role of the unbelieving (in PFAL) scholar.
***
Does this now make sense why I will not play your game by your rules?
I'm not trying to prove PFAL to myself or anyone else, and I'm certainly not going to try and defend PFAL to those who only want to tear it apart.
I AM trying to WORK WITHIN the PFAL material having already accepted it. This is do privately and with willing participants.
On the threads here I am most interested in proving to grads that they do not know the material, hence most of their complaints against it should be held off and and a new look warranted.
I think with the subject of "only rule for faith and practice." AS IT WAS DEFINED IN PFAL, it has been shown that you did not understand Dr's teaching on that subject. In my delayed responses to your posts I will get into this more. I think there are many more topics you didn't get right. I suggest you try learning the subject before you criticize it.
I can accept this. I thought my declining was more forceful, but I guess I was trying to be polite.
I've already offered much on my methods and perspectives on the other thread(s). I still have one or two posts of yours I want to get to as time permits, but it is scarce right now. I'll answer when I can and in the other threads.
As for getting into apparent PFAL errors and the details, I've been pretty thorough in explaining why I refuse to take the "quickie approach with maximum content distrust" that is prevalent here in this thread. By analogy, it reminds me of trying to mix astronomy with astrology, with you guys on the astrology end. You insist on a totally different approach.
***
I'll try one more time to explain this, even though this has come up in posts to other people very recently. Let me illustrate by way of another analogy. Instead of looking closely at PFAL lets see how the Bible, the ancient scriptures can be looked at closely,
Surely you know that if the ancient scriptures are approached by a competent scholar who is a complete unbeliever, many initially apparent inconsistencies can be uncovered with little motivation and/or wherewithal to untangle them. He is content with halting his "research" when a juicy apparent inconsistency is found. He then turns his attention to promotional techniques. Said scholar is very content at this point with “proving the Bible wrong” and can make it sound very convincing to his like minded peers.
With those same apparent inconsistencies a believing scholar has an entirely different approach. For one thing, he’s not at all satisfied with halting the process like his unbelieving counterpart. Remember how Dr explained all this in the class? He told us that sometimes a believing researcher will keep a problem like this on his desk for 15 years before the solution is found. He also showed us how all the instances of the topic must be considered, not just that one area with the apparent inconsistency. He also showed us how all the key words in the apparent inconsistency must be defined by their biblical usage not their secular usage. Look at all the extra time the Bible believing scholar must put into the matter compared to the unbelieving scholar.
Apply this analogy to your thread with you in the role of the unbelieving (in PFAL) scholar.
You are forgetting, there is another category of scholar. In fact, the most honest scholars don't fall into either of your two categories. You speak of those who start off believing, and those who start off not believing. What about those who start off looking for answers, and do not decide whether to believe or not until they have fully examined it? This is how the Bereans were described in Acts - they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
You continually accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not knowing what's in the PFAL material, despite the fact that many of them have demonstrated otherwise. I studied that material for years, wanting desperately for it to fit. But things like the points in question on this thread just did not fit, no matter how much I wanted to believe in Wierwille and his teachings. I didn't halt my research at the first sign of an error, nor have I approached it with the intent to disprove it because I'd made up my mind not to accept it.
Again, these are not doctrinal issues on which we disagree. I can see how that would take a lot of time to study and understand. But these are simply matters of verifiable fact that he had wrong. You seem to imply that I am not correctly understanding what VP wrote. Clarify then for me:
Did he or did he not say that 'thoroughly' meant outwardly thorough, while 'throughly' meant inwardly - an "inside job" as he called it? If he did in fact say it, then do you dispute that any dictionary that has archaic definitions will confirm that there is no such distinction?
Did he or did he not say that dechomai meant to receive subjectively, while lambano meant to receive into manifestation? If he did in fact say it, then do you dispute that any Greek lexicon including Bullinger's will confirm that this is not what the words mean?
Did he or did he not say that OT believers had holy spirit UPON them, while in the NT they have holy spirit IN them? If he did in fact say it, then do you dispute that there are OT records which speak of holy spirit IN, as well as NT records that speak of us having spirit UPON (see post #2 for references)?
You say your methodology is to begin by accepting that PFAL is "God-breathed." Giving you the benefit of the doubt, how then do you handle these questions? Even Wierwille explained apparent contradictions in light of his having accepted that the Bible was God-breathed. He didn't just ignore them. In your study of PFAL, surely you must have had to deal with matters such as these. Once you accepted it, how did you deal with these questions? What other "rules" am I playing by that you can't accept, other than simple reading?
My goal is not to tear PFAL apart. It will either stand or fall on its own merit. If it is indeed God-breathed, it will stand up to closer scrutiny and prove itself. If it isn't, it will fall apart.
On the threads here I am most interested in proving to grads that they do not know the material, hence most of their complaints against it should be held off and and a new look warranted.
To prove that I don't know the material, would you not have to respond to my questions and demonstrate the errors of my logic? If you can do that, be my guest. Weigh your truth against my error.
I think with the subject of "only rule for faith and practice." AS IT WAS DEFINED IN PFAL, it has been shown that you did not understand Dr's teaching on that subject. In my delayed responses to your posts I will get into this more. I think there are many more topics you didn't get right. I suggest you try learning the subject before you criticize it.
I responded to this in the "only rule for faith and practice" thread.
Appreciate the reply. I don't want to derail Mark's thread. . . . but, I wanted to tell you something. Forgive me Mark, I will not make this a seperate conversation after this. :)
Mike, although it may seems really personal here, and I know it can, it is not so much personal towards you as towards your theology. There is a palpatable frustration with your worldview and much of it is because we all shared it and many have rejected it. That frustration can manifest itself with seemingly personal affronts. . . and sometimes they are, but not all who disagree make it a personal crusade to persecute you.
In fact, it seems many have spent great time and effort to try and work through some things here with you and with each other. We all takes some hits here. We are grown-ups. . . we can take it. . . right?
If you have something you think is the revealed word of God. . . . you should be ready to give a defense of it. You should be ready to share it. God tells us to love Him with all our mind. We as Christians defend the gospel. You have a somewhat revelatory claim of a new gospel, one not known for centuries. I think people are just asking to honestly discuss it.
As for the true Jesus being found in the collaterals? I disagree. He is where He said He would be. . . . with those who believe on Him. He IS in churches where Christians gather to worship in His name. He is where they fellowship, study, pray,baptize, and take communion. . . . He does live in the hearts of those who know Him. He is not hidden from their sight. He is revealed to us through scripture.
I see the results in the lives of those who love Him. . . .they are busy helping others, forgving and praying for the lost. He never left His people. We never lost Him to so much error He could not find His own. The real Jesus? He is with His people.
I hope you chat with Mark. I don't agree with his theology at ALL, he knows I don't. . . but, I can see past alot of that to the intent of His posts and I never mind discussing something with him. . . I don't think he is out to hold a kangaroo court at all. . . . really. . . .what fun is that?
I have been called "Misguided" on here more times than not. More often by atheists, pagans, witches, and those of other faiths, along with the unitarians. . . . It is not like going to a like-minded church here. I usually stop and consider what they say. . . why they would think that. . . if I am wrong. . . I change. . . if not, so what? I defend it.
It is still good to be able to defend, with logic, reason, love and scripture, what you say and claim. If it is right it will hold up. . . if not. . . why keep it?
It is still good to be able to defend, with logic, reason, love and scripture, what you say and claim. If it is right it will hold up. . . if not. . . why keep it?
Hi geisha,
It's nice to talk with you. With Mark I have also talked but he seems unable to hear me. Did you notice how I mentioned the time element with him several times? He just doesn't seem to get it that his detailed challenges to me are not high priorities on my already full schedule. I don't want to deal with someone who has already showed me that he will not fully digest what I show him. With every point I make he simply runs off to another sub-topic.
Let me give you an example.
In my post to you the following paragraph was included:
“With those same apparent inconsistencies a believing scholar has an entirely different approach. For one thing, he’s not at all satisfied with halting the process like his unbelieving counterpart. Remember how Dr explained all this in the class? He told us that sometimes a believing researcher will keep a problem like this on his desk for 15 years before the solution is found. He also showed us how all the instances of the topic must be considered, not just that one area with the apparent inconsistency. He also showed us how all the key words in the apparent inconsistency must be defined by their biblical usage not their secular usage. Look at all the extra time the Bible believing scholar must put into the matter compared to the unbelieving scholar.”
I was making an analogy in the above paragraph. Substitute PFAL for biblical to get the message I was conveying. Following the analogy I had made there, this would indicate that in order to discuss these apparent errors in PFAL, all the instances in PFAL would need to be on the table. Also, it would be crucial to look at how certain words were define within PFAL, and not in the common usage.
Of course he read this, even though it was addressed to you, and he quoted part of the same post in another thread soon after I posted.
The portion that I just bold fonted above was not the first time I mentioned these two ideas. I had mentioned it a few days prior, AND a few days before that, AND several more times in previous years here.
Yet, not one iota of evidence was posted that he has any inclination to check all other instances of his current challenges in the PFAL canon. For instance, he completely ignored the idea of checking with the internal definition of Dr’s use of the words“thoroughly” and “throughly” and wants to play with external dictionaries.
I’ve also noted that there’s been no attempt to search all the other instances of this idea within PFAL.
He thoroughly discards what I posted, and I suspect in this case too, it’s because he doesn’t understand what was taught in PFAL. Do you remember how we were taught that God would teach the prophets in THEIR vocabulary? Why hasn’t this come up in his analysis instead of dictionary definitions?
You see, geisha, I have been round and round on this very issue with others here. I’ve thoroughly discussed thoroughly with other posters here, and what I had to say was totally ignored. It still may be in the GreaseSpot archives. He can look there. I’m not only low on time, but I’m also bored with the prospect of again trying to teach something to someone who is dead set on remaining ignorant.
It’s been nice talking to you this way. BTW, your PM mailbox is full, and that prevents you from receiving PMs from anyone on the board.
On the "only rule" thread Mark just asked me a question and I answered it. However I had already addressed the same issue on the "snow" thread and in MUCH detail. He had totally overlooked that previous answer. I'm telling you this to demonstrate how much he is wasting my time by not paying attention to what I post.
...It’s been nice talking to you this way. BTW, your PM mailbox is full, and that prevents you from receiving PMs from anyone on the board.
Remember: "Whenever a poster shows any sympathy for Mike, he invites them to communicate with him privately, so he can reveal all this stuff [his new religion and the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit] gradually, without anybody else asking any awkward questions..."
The tactic Mike has now taken with my posts is to totally ignore them and hope everybody simply forgets them.
...I had already addressed the same issue on the "snow" thread...
Mike meant to say, "the "ONLY rule of faith and practice" thread.
Notice he neither confirms nor denies what I've stated in my posts. He can only call me names, something he accuses others of doing to him here (often with good reason), but something I've NOT done to him.
Love!
Steve
PS for Mike - I prefer that you call me "OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclamation"
Using the methods you have outlined, can you demonstrate how you used those methods to arrive at your conclusion regarding the apparent genealogy errors?( ie: used before, in light of previous usage within PFAL, understood according to PFAL definition, etc.)
So, Steve, you really want me to waste my time on you too?
This is the second post where you've wasted your time by not moving the discussion forward in any substantive way. If you're so worried about wasting your time, why don't you simply ignore me and answer some of the other poster's valid questions? That is... if you can.
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclamation
Please keep the thread on topic. If the personal sniping continues, the thread may end up in the soap forum.
Thank you, modbaker. The topic of this thread is how Mike addresses the actual, blatant errors of PFAL. Yet he dodges, and reduces the level of discussion to personal attacks! I second your motion.
My post was directed to anyone on this thread who has engaged in personal sniping. I believe the thread topic is Blatant PFAL Errors, not how Mike addresses them.
If someone has the time to respond it should be on topic. the thread is too good to be moved to "soap opera" IMO.
If someone has time to respond, maybe they shouldn't complain about not having the time.
It certainly would be better to stay on topic than to say how good they are and how bad others are.
It certainly would be better to stay on topic than to flatter just one, while avoiding the subject.
After all, PFAL did have blatant errors, of which any honest person should want to know the truth of, I would think.
(added in editing)
I remember hearing in the old days that everyone in the research department knew of PFAL errors. If a nobody like me would hear that, then why would anybody deny the errors? I just don't get it!
I'll try a new thread and maybe we can move on....sowwee.
I started a related thread asking to clarify what I heard at street level in 1983 about doctrinal errors known by the research department at that time. No need for doctrinal discussion on that one IMO, just recollection.
My post was directed to anyone on this thread who has engaged in personal sniping. I believe the thread topic is Blatant PFAL Errors, not how Mike addresses them.
You need to go back and reread the first post on page one of this thread, modbaker. This thread IS about how Mike addresses the actual, blatant errors in PFAL. I've posted things I've learned from Mike himself about how he addresses these errors, things that Mike now seems reluctant to discuss openly (but he WILL tell you if you PM him). Mike does NOT deny the things I have written, he only ignores them, or resorts to time-wasting name calling.
Thank you for your concern, modbaker. It's easy to see how Mike's style of "debate" can raise those sorts of concerns. But I assure you, my posts are spot on topic, and I have been perfectly gentlemanly with Mike, as you will see if you simply review my posts.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
16
11
13
Popular Days
Jan 29
28
Jan 27
10
Jan 30
9
Feb 1
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Clarke 25 posts
Mike 16 posts
geisha779 11 posts
waysider 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2009
28 posts
Jan 27 2009
10 posts
Jan 30 2009
9 posts
Feb 1 2009
9 posts
Mark Clarke
Mike, if you go back and read the first post of this thread, you'll find I did quote nearly all of your post, and replied to several of the points. The only line I didn't include in my quote was the last one about you wanting to get back to my post about a single rule of faith and practice (which, by the way, you still haven't done).
Here it is in its entirety:
I believe I demonstrated in my first post that I was not "expecting" any particular answer and was wanting to know how you deal with the issues in question. I still ask, what invalid inquiry principles am I using? This is not a kangaroo court or any other kind of court. You made the claim that PFAL is the God-breathed Word. So in examining it, how do you explain these apparent contradictions?
You said "a large amount of time would be involved on your part and you're not willing to invest in it." First of all, how can you judge what I'd be willing to do? I've already invested a lot of time looking into these issues and others. If you have an explanation for these apparent contradictions, I'd like to hear them. Second, how much time does it take to explain, when reading plain English would appear to directly contradict points in PFAL? Raf accused you of dodging the question. Why not prove him wrong, and respond to my questions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi geisha779,
It’s nice to meet you, even here, where I feel a breech in etiquette and civility is underway, and by the same folks who decry the same treatment when it happens to them or their friends.
I felt your post deserved a response. You convinced me that you weren’t playing the “gotcha” game that the others so blatantly are. I’ll explain a little.
I declined an invitation to this thread and gave two reasons: time and method. I disagree with the entire method of investigation here in this topic, and I don’t have time to keep up with it.
Many people want to talk to me because I have a very controversial stand. It’s also the case that many want to take pot shots at me (like Steve Loretz just did) and many want to waste my time. Some people even like to post ugly pictures, supposedly of me, and call me ugly names. It’s worse than Jr. High at times dealing with these low lifers.
So I find that these demands on me, for legitimate discussion AND for idiotic emotional schoolyard play AND for pointy headed theological bs, are great and taxing.
Six years ago I had more time and got quite involved in these things, trying to accommodate all and any comers in discussion. I found myself sometimes simultaneously discussing things on six or seven threads. Even though I had the time back then, I didn’t have the brain cells or the patience to deal with such a complex set of interactions. I learned to scale back in both the number of threads I allowed myself to become engaged in, as well as the types of topics I engaged in.
When Mark invited me here I declined, yet he went right ahead and acted as if I were brought into the discussion. This is rude.
When casual people read this thread it can look to them that I am losing the debate, having no comeback for the challenges posed to me as if I am here and engaged. More thorough readers of this website have taken note that when I get hot on a topic, I can pin back the ears of anyone here. I know my topics well, and I have lots of surprises up my sleeve. I simply choose not to engage here on this thread, and for the reasons I stated on the “snow” thread.
So, Mark and others can have their little discussion about me alone here. Steve Lortz knows what a formidable opponent I am and timidly chooses to not engage me where I do put my pen. Instead he distorts my message behind my back to make himself look like he’s a grand overseer.
I see the same tactic underway on Raf’s thread with a similar title and similar methodology in the About the Way forum, where I am a ghost debater of posters who can’t face me in the flesh.
They want me to play THEIR game of methodology so they can win and feel good about themselves. I say “Nuts to them.” They can’t play my game and I wont play theirs.
I think they do want to use the Bible as a weapon, and they are playing a gotcha game to the max. They are not interested in seeing a new perspective. I continually offer then one and they continually stomp on all that I say, overlooking many fine points.
That’s why I’m not engaging here.
***
As for your questions, geisha779, I’d be happy to discuss any of this, even supposed PFAL errors, in the PM system or on the threads where I feel I should invest my time and heart.
One of the main things I do here is remind grads of things they either missed or forgot.
This is a massive topic, with many details. It seems we all only received a tiny fraction of what was offered to us in PFAL and got heavily sidetracked in a huge number of baloney issues. I count myself in this, and I’ve escaped this fate only because I decided to listen to the advice of an old friend ten years ago, a grad here in SD, and came back to the written teachings to look at them in detail.
The issue that surprised you, that I would think of PFAL as the Word of God, was not at all a surprising issue in the early 70’s.
I don’t know when you first took the class, but in those days we grads were all hip to the idea that churchianity and all its standard ideas and even it’s scriptures were riddled with error and distortions. We all, in those early days, thought that God had provided a sure way out of that thicket of error, and it was through His revelations to an ordinary, non-saint type of a man like us who was teaching us.
The closing of the Rock of Ages 1972 was in this vein, that God had chosen to re-enlighten the world with His Word and that He chose NOT the goodie-goodies to do it with, but “downers and outers like you and me.” Those were the words of VPW near the end of that Rock.
Any grad from that time who now thinks that it’s an outrage that Dr had sin in his life has a very bad memory problem or was living in their own private universe back then. We ALL knew it back then, as well as we knew that we had sin.
I’d have NEVER taken the class if my hippie friends had told me it was taught by some kind of modern saint. They endorsed Dr to me by saying he was real, so I gave him a chance. He turned me onto the God who can love any sinner.
That God should give His Word in all it’s fullness to a sinner and to sinners is a GREAT way to stuff it to the devil and his accusatory nature. It also flushes out all the religious bigots and pointy headed over-intellectual theologians making them very easy to identify and not get mixed up with.
I invite you to look at what God did in those collaterals again. It’s refreshing to the uttermost. You’ll see the real Jesus in there, and you’ll see Christ in you. Praise God for His goodness to sinful and His ability to cleanse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Blatant errors in PFAL
Pretty straightforward concept, really.
Is "throughly" really any different from "thoroughly"?
Were there genealogy errors stated?
Are the differences between "dechomai" and "lambano" real or perceived?
Are the two "Kingdoms" synonymous?
Etc.
It all seems fairly basic and devoid of personal prejudice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Actually, you didn't decline. You said, "I'm very disinclined to do so." (Refer to the quote of your post above.) Since part of your reasons involved a judgment of whether I would be willing to invest the time, I responded to that judgment. I also responded to your other reasons in hopes that you would see that I would welcome any explanation of your "method." It was not my intention to be rude, but to give you an opportunity to present your reasoning rather than accepting what others were saying about you. I did not "act as if you were brought into the decision" but replied to your objections and re-extended my invitation. I moved it here since it deals more with doctrinal issues and would have further detracted from the snowstorm thread where it started.
I also understand that it can look like you are losing the debate if you have no comeback, "as if you are here and engaged." That's why I responded to your reason about methodology, and invited you to at least make some kind of statement about your methods. And I did so in posts directly addressed to you, not behind your back. But you have now declined the invitation, albeit indirectly in a post to someone else. That's your choice. But please don't accuse me of being rude, or of not being interested in seeing a new perspective. You say you continually offer one, but I haven't seen it in any of your posts to me. If you feel Steve misrepresented you, why not correct the error? Still, you're entitled to post or not post wherever you wish.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - In your post on this thread of 9:45 AM today, addressing geisha779, you wrote, "It's also the case that many want to take pot shots at me (like Steve Loretz [sic] just did)..."
This is what you were referring to as a "pot shot":
Mark wanted to know the methodology you use for studying PFAL. All I did was to present your methodology in your very own language, the same language you used with me.
How is this a "pot shot"?
If I have misrepresented you, how?
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclamation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
By the way, geisha779, several posters including Raf, I think, tried to correspond with Mike through personal messages, much to their regret!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What would be the point in discussing this with private messages?
If the product is defective, every customer who bought it has a right to know.
*Yeah, I know, we didn't "buy" it, we gave a "donation".
What say we keep that aspect in a separate thread?
*(Requisite obviation)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Well, there's your problem, waysider, Mike's not here to discuss the defects of PFAL. He's here to attract recruits to his new religion which holds that PFAL has replaced the Bible as God's revealed Word.
According to Mike's religion, there are NO actual errors in PFAL, only "apparent contradictions". Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit will resolve all those apparent contradictions, if only Mike will remain "meek" to that spirit.
Wierwille's tale of snow on the gas pumps is especially important to Mike's religion, since his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit informs Mike that God's (supposed) promise to reveal His Word "as it has not been known since the first century" means that what God "revealed" to Wierwille, PFAL, is God-breathed, and has replaced the Bible as God's revealed Word and Will for this our day and time.
Whenever a poster shows any sympathy for Mike, he invites them to communicate with him privately, so he can reveal all this stuff gradually, without anybody else asking any awkward questions, and hopefully induce them to receive an "advanced Christ formed within" spirit of their own.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I can accept this. I thought my declining was more forceful, but I guess I was trying to be polite.
I've already offered much on my methods and perspectives on the other thread(s). I still have one or two posts of yours I want to get to as time permits, but it is scarce right now. I'll answer when I can and in the other threads.
As for getting into apparent PFAL errors and the details, I've been pretty thorough in explaining why I refuse to take the "quickie approach with maximum content distrust" that is prevalent here in this thread. By analogy, it reminds me of trying to mix astronomy with astrology, with you guys on the astrology end. You insist on a totally different approach.
***
I'll try one more time to explain this, even though this has come up in posts to other people very recently. Let me illustrate by way of another analogy. Instead of looking closely at PFAL lets see how the Bible, the ancient scriptures can be looked at closely,
Surely you know that if the ancient scriptures are approached by a competent scholar who is a complete unbeliever, many initially apparent inconsistencies can be uncovered with little motivation and/or wherewithal to untangle them. He is content with halting his "research" when a juicy apparent inconsistency is found. He then turns his attention to promotional techniques. Said scholar is very content at this point with “proving the Bible wrong” and can make it sound very convincing to his like minded peers.
With those same apparent inconsistencies a believing scholar has an entirely different approach. For one thing, he’s not at all satisfied with halting the process like his unbelieving counterpart. Remember how Dr explained all this in the class? He told us that sometimes a believing researcher will keep a problem like this on his desk for 15 years before the solution is found. He also showed us how all the instances of the topic must be considered, not just that one area with the apparent inconsistency. He also showed us how all the key words in the apparent inconsistency must be defined by their biblical usage not their secular usage. Look at all the extra time the Bible believing scholar must put into the matter compared to the unbelieving scholar.
Apply this analogy to your thread with you in the role of the unbelieving (in PFAL) scholar.
***
Does this now make sense why I will not play your game by your rules?
I'm not trying to prove PFAL to myself or anyone else, and I'm certainly not going to try and defend PFAL to those who only want to tear it apart.
I AM trying to WORK WITHIN the PFAL material having already accepted it. This is do privately and with willing participants.
On the threads here I am most interested in proving to grads that they do not know the material, hence most of their complaints against it should be held off and and a new look warranted.
I think with the subject of "only rule for faith and practice." AS IT WAS DEFINED IN PFAL, it has been shown that you did not understand Dr's teaching on that subject. In my delayed responses to your posts I will get into this more. I think there are many more topics you didn't get right. I suggest you try learning the subject before you criticize it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
You are forgetting, there is another category of scholar. In fact, the most honest scholars don't fall into either of your two categories. You speak of those who start off believing, and those who start off not believing. What about those who start off looking for answers, and do not decide whether to believe or not until they have fully examined it? This is how the Bereans were described in Acts - they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
You continually accuse anyone who disagrees with you of not knowing what's in the PFAL material, despite the fact that many of them have demonstrated otherwise. I studied that material for years, wanting desperately for it to fit. But things like the points in question on this thread just did not fit, no matter how much I wanted to believe in Wierwille and his teachings. I didn't halt my research at the first sign of an error, nor have I approached it with the intent to disprove it because I'd made up my mind not to accept it.
Again, these are not doctrinal issues on which we disagree. I can see how that would take a lot of time to study and understand. But these are simply matters of verifiable fact that he had wrong. You seem to imply that I am not correctly understanding what VP wrote. Clarify then for me:
Did he or did he not say that 'thoroughly' meant outwardly thorough, while 'throughly' meant inwardly - an "inside job" as he called it? If he did in fact say it, then do you dispute that any dictionary that has archaic definitions will confirm that there is no such distinction?
Did he or did he not say that dechomai meant to receive subjectively, while lambano meant to receive into manifestation? If he did in fact say it, then do you dispute that any Greek lexicon including Bullinger's will confirm that this is not what the words mean?
Did he or did he not say that OT believers had holy spirit UPON them, while in the NT they have holy spirit IN them? If he did in fact say it, then do you dispute that there are OT records which speak of holy spirit IN, as well as NT records that speak of us having spirit UPON (see post #2 for references)?
You say your methodology is to begin by accepting that PFAL is "God-breathed." Giving you the benefit of the doubt, how then do you handle these questions? Even Wierwille explained apparent contradictions in light of his having accepted that the Bible was God-breathed. He didn't just ignore them. In your study of PFAL, surely you must have had to deal with matters such as these. Once you accepted it, how did you deal with these questions? What other "rules" am I playing by that you can't accept, other than simple reading?
My goal is not to tear PFAL apart. It will either stand or fall on its own merit. If it is indeed God-breathed, it will stand up to closer scrutiny and prove itself. If it isn't, it will fall apart.
To prove that I don't know the material, would you not have to respond to my questions and demonstrate the errors of my logic? If you can do that, be my guest. Weigh your truth against my error.
I responded to this in the "only rule for faith and practice" thread.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mike,
Appreciate the reply. I don't want to derail Mark's thread. . . . but, I wanted to tell you something. Forgive me Mark, I will not make this a seperate conversation after this. :)
Mike, although it may seems really personal here, and I know it can, it is not so much personal towards you as towards your theology. There is a palpatable frustration with your worldview and much of it is because we all shared it and many have rejected it. That frustration can manifest itself with seemingly personal affronts. . . and sometimes they are, but not all who disagree make it a personal crusade to persecute you.
In fact, it seems many have spent great time and effort to try and work through some things here with you and with each other. We all takes some hits here. We are grown-ups. . . we can take it. . . right?
If you have something you think is the revealed word of God. . . . you should be ready to give a defense of it. You should be ready to share it. God tells us to love Him with all our mind. We as Christians defend the gospel. You have a somewhat revelatory claim of a new gospel, one not known for centuries. I think people are just asking to honestly discuss it.
As for the true Jesus being found in the collaterals? I disagree. He is where He said He would be. . . . with those who believe on Him. He IS in churches where Christians gather to worship in His name. He is where they fellowship, study, pray,baptize, and take communion. . . . He does live in the hearts of those who know Him. He is not hidden from their sight. He is revealed to us through scripture.
I see the results in the lives of those who love Him. . . .they are busy helping others, forgving and praying for the lost. He never left His people. We never lost Him to so much error He could not find His own. The real Jesus? He is with His people.
I hope you chat with Mark. I don't agree with his theology at ALL, he knows I don't. . . but, I can see past alot of that to the intent of His posts and I never mind discussing something with him. . . I don't think he is out to hold a kangaroo court at all. . . . really. . . .what fun is that?
I have been called "Misguided" on here more times than not. More often by atheists, pagans, witches, and those of other faiths, along with the unitarians. . . . It is not like going to a like-minded church here. I usually stop and consider what they say. . . why they would think that. . . if I am wrong. . . I change. . . if not, so what? I defend it.
It is still good to be able to defend, with logic, reason, love and scripture, what you say and claim. If it is right it will hold up. . . if not. . . why keep it?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi geisha,
It's nice to talk with you. With Mark I have also talked but he seems unable to hear me. Did you notice how I mentioned the time element with him several times? He just doesn't seem to get it that his detailed challenges to me are not high priorities on my already full schedule. I don't want to deal with someone who has already showed me that he will not fully digest what I show him. With every point I make he simply runs off to another sub-topic.
Let me give you an example.
In my post to you the following paragraph was included:
“With those same apparent inconsistencies a believing scholar has an entirely different approach. For one thing, he’s not at all satisfied with halting the process like his unbelieving counterpart. Remember how Dr explained all this in the class? He told us that sometimes a believing researcher will keep a problem like this on his desk for 15 years before the solution is found. He also showed us how all the instances of the topic must be considered, not just that one area with the apparent inconsistency. He also showed us how all the key words in the apparent inconsistency must be defined by their biblical usage not their secular usage. Look at all the extra time the Bible believing scholar must put into the matter compared to the unbelieving scholar.”
I was making an analogy in the above paragraph. Substitute PFAL for biblical to get the message I was conveying. Following the analogy I had made there, this would indicate that in order to discuss these apparent errors in PFAL, all the instances in PFAL would need to be on the table. Also, it would be crucial to look at how certain words were define within PFAL, and not in the common usage.
Of course he read this, even though it was addressed to you, and he quoted part of the same post in another thread soon after I posted.
The portion that I just bold fonted above was not the first time I mentioned these two ideas. I had mentioned it a few days prior, AND a few days before that, AND several more times in previous years here.
Yet, not one iota of evidence was posted that he has any inclination to check all other instances of his current challenges in the PFAL canon. For instance, he completely ignored the idea of checking with the internal definition of Dr’s use of the words“thoroughly” and “throughly” and wants to play with external dictionaries.
I’ve also noted that there’s been no attempt to search all the other instances of this idea within PFAL.
He thoroughly discards what I posted, and I suspect in this case too, it’s because he doesn’t understand what was taught in PFAL. Do you remember how we were taught that God would teach the prophets in THEIR vocabulary? Why hasn’t this come up in his analysis instead of dictionary definitions?
You see, geisha, I have been round and round on this very issue with others here. I’ve thoroughly discussed thoroughly with other posters here, and what I had to say was totally ignored. It still may be in the GreaseSpot archives. He can look there. I’m not only low on time, but I’m also bored with the prospect of again trying to teach something to someone who is dead set on remaining ignorant.
It’s been nice talking to you this way. BTW, your PM mailbox is full, and that prevents you from receiving PMs from anyone on the board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
geisha,
On the "only rule" thread Mark just asked me a question and I answered it. However I had already addressed the same issue on the "snow" thread and in MUCH detail. He had totally overlooked that previous answer. I'm telling you this to demonstrate how much he is wasting my time by not paying attention to what I post.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Remember: "Whenever a poster shows any sympathy for Mike, he invites them to communicate with him privately, so he can reveal all this stuff [his new religion and the "advanced Christ formed within" spirit] gradually, without anybody else asking any awkward questions..."
The tactic Mike has now taken with my posts is to totally ignore them and hope everybody simply forgets them.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hello SNL Church Lady. That's a lovely dress you're wearing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike meant to say, "the "ONLY rule of faith and practice" thread.
Notice he neither confirms nor denies what I've stated in my posts. He can only call me names, something he accuses others of doing to him here (often with good reason), but something I've NOT done to him.
Love!
Steve
PS for Mike - I prefer that you call me "OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclamation"
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So, Steve, you really want me to waste my time on you too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
Using the methods you have outlined, can you demonstrate how you used those methods to arrive at your conclusion regarding the apparent genealogy errors?( ie: used before, in light of previous usage within PFAL, understood according to PFAL definition, etc.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
This is the second post where you've wasted your time by not moving the discussion forward in any substantive way. If you're so worried about wasting your time, why don't you simply ignore me and answer some of the other poster's valid questions? That is... if you can.
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Popular Acclamation
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
modbaker
Please keep the thread on topic. If the personal sniping continues, the thread may end up in the soap forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you, modbaker. The topic of this thread is how Mike addresses the actual, blatant errors of PFAL. Yet he dodges, and reduces the level of discussion to personal attacks! I second your motion.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modbaker
My post was directed to anyone on this thread who has engaged in personal sniping. I believe the thread topic is Blatant PFAL Errors, not how Mike addresses them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I think the thread title speaks for itself.
If someone has the time to respond it should be on topic. the thread is too good to be moved to "soap opera" IMO.
If someone has time to respond, maybe they shouldn't complain about not having the time.
It certainly would be better to stay on topic than to say how good they are and how bad others are.
It certainly would be better to stay on topic than to flatter just one, while avoiding the subject.
After all, PFAL did have blatant errors, of which any honest person should want to know the truth of, I would think.
(added in editing)
I remember hearing in the old days that everyone in the research department knew of PFAL errors. If a nobody like me would hear that, then why would anybody deny the errors? I just don't get it!
I'll try a new thread and maybe we can move on....sowwee.
I started a related thread asking to clarify what I heard at street level in 1983 about doctrinal errors known by the research department at that time. No need for doctrinal discussion on that one IMO, just recollection.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You need to go back and reread the first post on page one of this thread, modbaker. This thread IS about how Mike addresses the actual, blatant errors in PFAL. I've posted things I've learned from Mike himself about how he addresses these errors, things that Mike now seems reluctant to discuss openly (but he WILL tell you if you PM him). Mike does NOT deny the things I have written, he only ignores them, or resorts to time-wasting name calling.
Thank you for your concern, modbaker. It's easy to see how Mike's style of "debate" can raise those sorts of concerns. But I assure you, my posts are spot on topic, and I have been perfectly gentlemanly with Mike, as you will see if you simply review my posts.
Love,
Steve
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.