And thats mikes goal as well...I mean its obvious from his content. Like I said, if you feel like you need to address anything have at it and Im not holding back either. Im just not interested in doing the same dance everyday so I will likely largely ignore mike unless he can actually deal with the topic. And if you notice he did not dissect not the first link I posted which means he doesnt follow the links or read much of anything and jumps in here with basically opininated ramblings that are ;likely an embarrasment to the way. So let him keep on keeping on.
In the past I had been focused on my message and would not let anyone slow me down.
But after 20 years, that project is finished, and I feel free to "actually deal with the topic." Only, one slight problem is, there are very often about 10 topics from 5 people that I am dealing with simultaneously.
Maybe we should try a “ground rule” when a flurry of posting happens, where I can just respond to one person for a while, and then backtrack to the posts I missed earlier.
I am willing to do other experiments to minimize the commotion of feverish responding my poorly written posts seem to so efficiently stimulate.
I doubt if any of you have ever had a hot, fast, long debate here with 5 people at one time. The logistics of dealing with that are staggering for those with the extra gray matter to think it through.
I just posted yesterday about copying a whole page of posts I missed, while largely away for a day, into my MS Word processor.Then I responded to everyone OFF-line and posted my responses all one after another in a form of batch processing when no one was posting any more.
I think I need to refrain more from “real-time fast flurry” posting, though the temptation to see what everyone is saying in real-time is great. Batch processing with MS Word may help me more clearly respond, not being under the pressure to respond fast to keep up with the 2 or 3 others in debate (or more likely: food fighting).
I have been trying to be as 100%responsive to people’s posts and to the many topics even one post can bring up.I want to engage in every topic. I wasn’t doing that in my first 20 years of posting.I had my own agenda then, and I accomplished it.Now I want to switch over to the role of a negotiator between GreaseSpot and HQ.I am doing as I type, assuming they are reading this.
I have said there are some topics I feel grossly incompetent to fully deal with. I am willing to discuss anything seriously, but not at the same time submit myself to a confrontational deprogramming of my ideals.
I can represent TWI-4 to you folks, because I clearly acknowledge the many, many things I embrace in common with them.
I can represent you folks here at GreeaseSpot to TWI-4 because I once sat in nearly all the same seats from which you all pontificate today.
My sitting was earlier by 10 years and in a different atmosphere, and in a much lesser intensity.
I was vaccinated in 1980 by twig incident, with a weakened form of the really Big Disease (Schoenheit Paper) that precipitated the 1986 ministry meltdown. I have told many details to this story here.
I had an early introduction (1977) to some anomalies in the Research Department, that also prepared me for the reports that started coming after 1986.
I had these things and others swirling in my head, quietly pondering them for years before GreaseSpot started.I really can empathize with the feelings. This highly motivates me to want run and help in any way I can.
I found that as I did careful and balanced thinking, some things got gently straightened out for me. So I came here hoping to do that, but found that I had not fully anticipated the intensity of opposition I’d have to face.I’ve been learning a lot over these 20 years, and I really want to switch gears here.
I would have no victory in being banned.None at all.I slogged thru 20 years with my message that the collaterals were missed and worthy of great attention.I am not going to budge on that, but I can relax my feeling of a duty to clearly deliver the message. It has been delivered, so now I am on to other things.
Banning me would seriously impede my ability to work a serious, loving set of suggestions for TWI-4 to consider.That would be a lose-lose deal for us all, I think.
*/*/*/*/*
Your perceptionis correct, OldSkool, my responding has been random, sporadic, and lots get missed.I try to not let that happen but it does. The only way to avoid that that I have found is to do it late at night, and that is iffy too.
I was half joking and half serious about requesting that the lost posts be reposted to me for responding, with ALL-CAPS declarations at the top that they are an important post.
Seriously, some text to me really does slip through the cracks. Some posts look like jokes and I gloss over them. Some even are scatological, and very un-necessarily so.
I have a right to refuse all sorts of non-serious discussion.If you want to dampen my attention levels some, just drape your posts with emotional shaming, or insults, or mocking, or bursts of distracting anti-praise to the anti-idol.I have a habit of switching over to “Evelyn Wood Magic Speed Reading” techniques for those bursts, and sometimes I accidentally gloss over serious text that immediately follows the deliberately glossed over screed.
We all know that the bursts of anti-praise to the anti-idol are mostly for the ROA (read-only audience) and have nothing to do with the discussion.How’s that been working out for you, lately?… or for the last 20 years?
How’s about a ground rule of yous guys pulling back on the bursts?That could be like paying me back for my from backing off on my message at this 20 year point.
Then we could talk up some more ways we can have some new modes of conversation grow up here and replace the ever repeating show we put on here.Twinky cracked me up today, noticing that the same show was playing for the ROA back 5 years ago.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Anyway, OldSkool, that was my way of answering all the points I could pull out of your post just now.…without re-formatting your post.
Now, I have to post this and sort through other posts that have appeared during the time I was writing this.I can never fully catch up, but we can work out ways where I am not avoiding topics you think are most important.
Lamsa also attempts to establish scholarly credentials as a means of gaining acceptance. He claims to have been born about 1892, and to have acquired an A.B. degree equivalent in 1907 and a Ph.D. equivalent in theology in 1908 from Archbishop of Canterbury’s College, Turkey.50 He also claims to have graduated from Episcopal Theology Seminary in Virginia51 and to have studied at the University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College.
Lamsa, however, appears to have exaggerated his academic credentials. First, he claims to have attained a Ph.D. at age 16, only one year after his A.B.52 Second, there are no records of his graduation from a seminary, and his own writings suggest that he was never at any school long enough to attain any valid degree.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
31
47
39
Popular Days
Jan 2
99
Dec 30
98
Dec 29
25
Dec 31
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 32 posts
chockfull 31 posts
OldSkool 47 posts
Nathan_Jr 39 posts
Popular Days
Jan 2 2023
99 posts
Dec 30 2022
98 posts
Dec 29 2022
25 posts
Dec 31 2022
6 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
I guess I just don't understand why he would even need this degree, seeing as how God gave him access to all the secrets of the universe anyhow.
waysider
Allow me to state this in the simplest way possible,. This statement is simply false. Error after error after error has been scrutinized here. Thread upon thread upon thread has dissected these errors
chockfull
It would mean they came to the truth of the realization that worshipping an idol of VPW is not a viable future for a Christian ministry. It would mean they discarded the old wineskin and were fre
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
I ignore it all.
Who says he is a MOG? He himself, that's who. Am I supposed to accept an engraved bracelet as supporting evidence for this self-referential claim?
Didn't Jesus say something about calling someone your father?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ok...I'll look that phrase up when I'm back on my computer...thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I can't verify VPW ever even existed. I never met him.
The people I have always known claim he's The MOG. I'll understand later. No unlearning to do and stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It has also been claimed here that victor was "The 7th THE MOG."
This would make Loy "The 8th THE MOG" because victor put oil on Loy's head -- OIL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That's important because each of us should feel inspired to do the same. Since there can only be one at a time, that's a huge margin for failure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Who were the other six THE MOGs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well see, you must first understand to divide the Holy Fook into slices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Man what kinda oil? Linseed, palm, canola, olive..or maybe it was motion lotion...that oil thing I'm sure was quite dramatic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Have you seen the video?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No...that was pre-oldskool...I've seen pictures though...would love to see the video...hook a brother up!...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'll need to renew my mind to remember where I saw it. It's probably on YouTube. I'll look.
It's simultaneously hilarious and depraved. A special type of wicked pretentiousness. I'm shivering just thinking about it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Sounds about right. Corny @$$ dog and pony show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So, if there's a mantle to pass, one must simply find the mantle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If you can't find the mantle, just make it up.
Snow, gloves, Quaaludes, oil... OIL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No he had green robes or black ones. Or a different color. Maybe they weren't robes.
But they definitely wore them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In the past I had been focused on my message and would not let anyone slow me down.
But after 20 years, that project is finished, and I feel free to "actually deal with the topic." Only, one slight problem is, there are very often about 10 topics from 5 people that I am dealing with simultaneously.
Maybe we should try a “ground rule” when a flurry of posting happens, where I can just respond to one person for a while, and then backtrack to the posts I missed earlier.
I am willing to do other experiments to minimize the commotion of feverish responding my poorly written posts seem to so efficiently stimulate.
I doubt if any of you have ever had a hot, fast, long debate here with 5 people at one time. The logistics of dealing with that are staggering for those with the extra gray matter to think it through.
I just posted yesterday about copying a whole page of posts I missed, while largely away for a day, into my MS Word processor. Then I responded to everyone OFF-line and posted my responses all one after another in a form of batch processing when no one was posting any more.
I think I need to refrain more from “real-time fast flurry” posting, though the temptation to see what everyone is saying in real-time is great. Batch processing with MS Word may help me more clearly respond, not being under the pressure to respond fast to keep up with the 2 or 3 others in debate (or more likely: food fighting).
I have been trying to be as 100% responsive to people’s posts and to the many topics even one post can bring up. I want to engage in every topic. I wasn’t doing that in my first 20 years of posting. I had my own agenda then, and I accomplished it. Now I want to switch over to the role of a negotiator between GreaseSpot and HQ. I am doing as I type, assuming they are reading this.
I have said there are some topics I feel grossly incompetent to fully deal with. I am willing to discuss anything seriously, but not at the same time submit myself to a confrontational deprogramming of my ideals.
I can represent TWI-4 to you folks, because I clearly acknowledge the many, many things I embrace in common with them.
I can represent you folks here at GreeaseSpot to TWI-4 because I once sat in nearly all the same seats from which you all pontificate today.
My sitting was earlier by 10 years and in a different atmosphere, and in a much lesser intensity.
I was vaccinated in 1980 by twig incident, with a weakened form of the really Big Disease (Schoenheit Paper) that precipitated the 1986 ministry meltdown. I have told many details to this story here.
I had an early introduction (1977) to some anomalies in the Research Department, that also prepared me for the reports that started coming after 1986.
I had these things and others swirling in my head, quietly pondering them for years before GreaseSpot started. I really can empathize with the feelings. This highly motivates me to want run and help in any way I can.
I found that as I did careful and balanced thinking, some things got gently straightened out for me. So I came here hoping to do that, but found that I had not fully anticipated the intensity of opposition I’d have to face. I’ve been learning a lot over these 20 years, and I really want to switch gears here.
I would have no victory in being banned. None at all. I slogged thru 20 years with my message that the collaterals were missed and worthy of great attention. I am not going to budge on that, but I can relax my feeling of a duty to clearly deliver the message. It has been delivered, so now I am on to other things.
Banning me would seriously impede my ability to work a serious, loving set of suggestions for TWI-4 to consider. That would be a lose-lose deal for us all, I think.
*/*/*/*/*
Your perception is correct, OldSkool, my responding has been random, sporadic, and lots get missed. I try to not let that happen but it does. The only way to avoid that that I have found is to do it late at night, and that is iffy too.
I was half joking and half serious about requesting that the lost posts be reposted to me for responding, with ALL-CAPS declarations at the top that they are an important post.
Seriously, some text to me really does slip through the cracks. Some posts look like jokes and I gloss over them. Some even are scatological, and very un-necessarily so.
I have a right to refuse all sorts of non-serious discussion. If you want to dampen my attention levels some, just drape your posts with emotional shaming, or insults, or mocking, or bursts of distracting anti-praise to the anti-idol. I have a habit of switching over to “Evelyn Wood Magic Speed Reading” techniques for those bursts, and sometimes I accidentally gloss over serious text that immediately follows the deliberately glossed over screed.
We all know that the bursts of anti-praise to the anti-idol are mostly for the ROA (read-only audience) and have nothing to do with the discussion. How’s that been working out for you, lately? … or for the last 20 years?
How’s about a ground rule of yous guys pulling back on the bursts? That could be like paying me back for my from backing off on my message at this 20 year point.
Then we could talk up some more ways we can have some new modes of conversation grow up here and replace the ever repeating show we put on here. Twinky cracked me up today, noticing that the same show was playing for the ROA back 5 years ago.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Anyway, OldSkool, that was my way of answering all the points I could pull out of your post just now. …without re-formatting your post.
Now, I have to post this and sort through other posts that have appeared during the time I was writing this. I can never fully catch up, but we can work out ways where I am not avoiding topics you think are most important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Whats with the robes anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thats interesting. Lamsa called himself a doctor as well.
From: https://www.equip.org/articles/george-m-lamsa/
Lamsa also attempts to establish scholarly credentials as a means of gaining acceptance. He claims to have been born about 1892, and to have acquired an A.B. degree equivalent in 1907 and a Ph.D. equivalent in theology in 1908 from Archbishop of Canterbury’s College, Turkey.50 He also claims to have graduated from Episcopal Theology Seminary in Virginia51 and to have studied at the University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College.
Lamsa, however, appears to have exaggerated his academic credentials. First, he claims to have attained a Ph.D. at age 16, only one year after his A.B.52 Second, there are no records of his graduation from a seminary, and his own writings suggest that he was never at any school long enough to attain any valid degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe to look scholarly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...does look like they bout to graduate somebody, no doubt...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know what Jesus said. But Kenyon? Wrote a Father and His Family.
Cult is Family. I'm sure vpw wanted to be seen as Daddy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
https://ses.edu/logical-fallacies-101-appeal-to-authority-ad-verecundiam/
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.