Invisible Dan: I enjoyed your post and very much agree.
Wordwolf: Thanks for the info.
Guys:
I'm not sure it serves any meaniful purpose to discuss the adventures of John Lynn, except to perhaps seek some input as to what the current practices are and provide a forum for opinion on that topic.
2 nights ago on a late show the host and star concurred that, "All publicity in show business is good show business." I am not applying this directly to Lynn's organization but answers not forthcoming about current doctrine mirroring that of "The Ways" old stuff, it certainly is the question that pops up in my mind.
Isn't it interesting that few if any who defend Momentus offers any pertinant details about it - Like how it originated, what is involved, who the trainers are, etc. They only, seem to say "well it helped me" or "if you haven't taken it you shouldn't talk bad about it" or someting like that.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I hear that there is a lot of screaming and yelling, insults, fowl language, etc. If this is the case, it seems unlikely to me that Momentus has any place in the body of Christ. It seems more like a secular invention designed to motivate people by questionable means towards a certain predefined cause. It seems like a form of hard core behavior modification adminstered by folks not qualified in either psycology or religion.
If what I have read about it is true, I doubt that Monentus training ahd it's methods can be supported biblically, which is probably why no one tries.
It is interesting to me that something like Momentus is used by folks who have claimed that their objective is "Freedom through Scriptural Accuracy".
Now that we know you return emails (some folks, doubted you would, that's part of the reason I wrote in the first place), there are a couple of questions Jeff raised with his posting that I think you can clarify.
1. Jeff headed his thread, "A letter from John Lynn - to you!" Some people were skeptical, because it seemed pretty much like a form letter. Was Jeff accurate? Did he post it on your behest, or was he operating on his own hook? Was it really a letter from you to US?
2. One sentence in the letter stirred quite a bit of controversy. Toward the end you (apparently) wrote, "In closing let me say that I honestly believe thaty Dr. Wierwille would be very proud of what we are doing." Did you really write that, John? If so, is it still your sentiment that if he were alive, Wierwille would be proud of what you are doing?
Thanks a lot. I'll pass your answer along to settle the questions in peoples' hearts at Greasespot.
I don't think this thread really has that much to do with John Lynn. I think that it has much more to do with people who, for whatever reason, are expressing their opinions about him. Perhaps some have bones to pick with him; this kind of thing is pretty much always best done in private.
Golly, Steve, why did you publish the e-mails? How do you think that made him feel? And yet, he answered you kindly.
John Lynn is not a perfect person; nobody is perfect. If that gauls some folks (not just you, Steve), they need to consider their own state of imperfection.
The truth that I know about John Lynn is that he loves God, and for his entire adult life has sought to serve God. The method of service has changed (most notably when he, like so many of us, ditched the way international), but his heart to serve God has never changed.
He's also a gentleman. He returns phone calls and e-mails. If he said he'd get back to someone and didn't, is it so hard to think that he just FORGOT? Maybe the other call was something earth-shattering. People call him with "really hard stuff" all the time. Have you ever said that you'd call someone back, and then forgotten? Not often, I'll bet; but it can happen.
Heck, everyone forgets some things, some time.
Why didn't you just pick up the phone and call him, instead of making such a big production of it here?
He's a nice person; he deserves better than this.
I'm willing to bet you're a nice person, too. I mean, like most of us, you once dropped everything to go and try to get the Word over the World. That takes a huge degree of niceness and caring.
Aren't you lucky that nobody's starting a thread about you?
Steve, I don't mean this to be an attack on you, and if that's the way it sounds, please know that I've tried NOT to sound that way. I realize that you're dealing with issues, the way that many of us are. That's one of the great things about Greasespot; we can come here to talk about things. I just don't think that what you did to John Lynn was all that nice. You could have called or e-mailed him personally, without the publicity.
It's one of those Golden Rule situations, you know?
Am I missing something in your letter? Steve Lortz didnt post the original letter, so why critique him on trying to clarify the authors thoughts? Please do explain?
I'm not arguing with any of your points in the post above. Geez, I haven't had any contact with JL for centuries. I think what Steve did was "in the spirit" of what Jeff did in starting this thread, i.e. public communication with/from JL. Jeff posted a letter from John to us. It was pointed out that this was not a "new" letter but a reposting of an old form letter. It raised a lot of questions with different people. Jeff either said, or alluded, that John had full knowledge of his posting of the letter. Jeff said that John would welcome emails from anyone who had questions.
Could it all have been handled differently, and in a better fashion? YES. In the first place, if John wanted to address "the GSC crowd" he could have done it himself... but, in reading his response to Steve, and the way he references GSC, I don't know if I'm getting the feeling that John really 'authorized' the posting of that letter or if Jeff just thought it would be a good idea.
Either way, Steve was quite open in his email to John. Although Steve, by telling him you're going to post his response (or lack thereof) you're kind of backing him into a corner publicly that I don't think he had anything to do with creating.
I think this was a posting by Jeff (with good intentions) that went terribly wrong.
Now that we know you return emails (some folks, doubted you would, that's part of the reason I wrote in the first place), there are a couple of questions Jeff raised with his posting that I think you can clarify.
1. Jeff headed his thread, "A letter from John Lynn - to you!" Some people were skeptical, because it seemed pretty much like a form letter. Was Jeff accurate? Did he post it on your behest, or was he operating on his own hook? Was it really a letter from you to US?
2. One sentence in the letter stirred quite a bit of controversy. Toward the end you (apparently) wrote, "In closing let me say that I honestly believe thaty Dr. Wierwille would be very proud of what we are doing." Did you really write that, John? If so, is it still your sentiment that if he were alive, Wierwille would be proud of what you are doing?
Thanks a lot. I'll pass your answer along to settle the questions in peoples' hearts at Greasespot.
Love,
Steve
This, really,
is what I wanted to know from him, and what I thought was relevant to this discussion.
I do not think a paper on adutry is all that heavy duty stuff of revelation.
people can write what they want. I do not think he was a whistle blower who saved anyone from the evils of twi with his paper. I believe motive and loyalties went beyond what anyone wrote and that is what the slit and divsion came down to.
Are you saying a paper on how adultry is wrong was that much of a revelationto to leave or the fact the leaders participated in it? including JohnL. and John S by their own admission later of course.
If so I do not agree I think there is plenty more to the story.
Just for the record, I feel the same way NIKA does. I find it disturbing that someone would use GS to fuel a personal dispute that evidently has been going on for years. :(-->
In all these pages, did we ever hear from Jeff if the letter was posted at anyone else's request or was it his own idea? If he answered this already, many sorries.
I read your post about your disgust . Look at this site this grease spot and consider this . Is not your definition exactly what defines this site?
yes it is.. everyone is ok with being critical and making accusation untill it bites their own personal nerve on what they consider worthwhile and good and just.
then the arrogance and angry feelings shine on. and what becomes important is who knows who, who has more say so because of endurance and friends and connections or even the past and their reputation. A heirarchy is formed within the group and that is the root of all cult following and how shame guilt and fear is used with the inner need to belong and loved .
the good of the cause is more important than self and abuse can flourish unoticed untill enough is enough and an indiviual no longer needs the dysfunction with the group approval .
it is powerful stuff and it works for many for a entire life time of co-dependecy , and addiction to what others may think or say or feel about you.
quote: A heirarchy is formed within the group and that is the root of all cult following and how shame guilt and fear is used with the inner need to belong and loved .
the good of the cause is more important than self and abuse can flourish unoticed untill enough is enough and an indiviual no longer needs the dysfunction with the group approval .
I did not express "disgust" at all. That is your word, not mine. My feelings are my own, and I will not justify myself to you, or anyone else. My point of view is totally mine. If anybody agrees with it or not, so?
notinKansasanymore and ex10 - If you reread my first email to John, you will notice I told him the purpose of the message was a communication check, and that I intended to make his response or lack of response public.
One thing I've learned with ALL of these guys (ALL ex-Way leaders I've had contact with, not just CES) is that you just can't trust them to say the same things in public as they say in private. That may seem grossly unfair and ungentlemanly, but its the truth. The Word says we're to be harmless as doves, but it also says we're to be wise as serpents. I've found it wisest to keep ALL communications with these guys public.
You will also notice that John was somehow nonplussed that my letter was not an attempt on my part to reconcile myself to him. He makes an unwarrented assumption, that he is automatically right, and everyone he's driven away should come back to him. He said I still seemed to have the "same agenda" I had seven years ago. My agenda was not to argue Momentus, but to see if he would answer my email, which he did, to his credit.
The issue of Momentus had to be raised, because that was the issue on which we parted. Those WERE his last words to me, prior to his email. Now we both know where each other stands, and we can procede to the heart of the matter at hand, which is, did he tell Jeff to post that old form letter or did Jeff do it on his own? and, does John really think Wierwille would be proud of what he is doing?
Instead of sitting here talking about John behind his back, I took the conversation TO him and invited him to express himself.
Why do you find that so terrible? I don't understand your position.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I ACTUALLY DID get through to him personally, something that Jeff apparently cannot do.
Im so sorry I misread you and put the word disgust instead of disturbed EX10.
I went out with my people last night and asked them why I do this write on Grease spot.
one is an ex-twi who never blinks her precious friendship eyes about twi or any of its off shoots. we have been best friends for over thirty five years . before in and beyond twi and never skipped a beat honestly we do not speak alot about it because it is not the base line of our friendship or ever even played a part in it.
I wish I could say that about other friends from high school who have gone on and are still in twi or involved in a off shoot.
the other friend is a catholic girl who is seventy years old and looks and lives not a day over thirty (she kills me) that I have known for only about three or so years but is a trusted loved friend.
they both think it isnt a good practice for me if I have to doubt or be "disturbed'(good word), they tell me cable tv is better!
but the very facts I wonder and think about what is said here and it "disturbs" you is a red flag. we are not normal . we struggle with a thinking pattern that is ingrained and not healthy.
and yes it does indeed belong to each of us.
your statement of SO? well I feel a connection to people to God to one another and I want to share fully who I am with others and not hold back and be me. I think cult(group think) thinking stilfes that and isolates our interaction to think as it may please the others or a leader we may esteem higher than our self.
for me this is not a genuine me it is a manufactored self that manitains relationships and interactions on a baseline other than honesty and love and a true knowing and sharing of one another. namely co-dependcy on the group and/or its leaders and their esteem .
sadly so. watch how the conversation gets ugly real quick without the fans to back him up..been there done that.
he neeeds the people to believe what he says and they need to believe what he says. everything said must be calculated and controlled . he is a leader and they will follow. fame has a price .
I like making mistakes I like having relationships even life long ones where I can no longer fool people about who I am it is truly alife of freedom and Love Christ speaks of in His fellowship.
I wouldnt trade it for the fake power and control some desire to live for an ego stroke .
"One thing I've learned with ALL of these guys (ALL ex-Way leaders I've had contact with, not just CES) is that you just can't trust them to say the same things in public as they say in private."
I disagree with you there. Not about all of the leaders, but certainly about John Lynn, John Schoenheit, and Mark Graeser. Even when it's personally uncomfortable, they tell the truth. I don't hang with their ministry, but I have more respect for them than for almost anyone, because of the consistent integrity that they have shown in their personal dealings with me, over a protracted period of years.
As for the public e-mail thing, I think Tom Strange had it right on the money in his remarks. The whole "backed into a corner" thing. It's certainly not how I would have wanted someone to contact me. The Bible says that if you have a problem with someone, you go to that person. This feels more like gathering up a crowd, and then going to the person as a mob. It just feels wrong.
Steve, I don't doubt that you felt that you had valid reasons for doing that; I just don't agree. To stand by and say nothing about it would be tacit agreement; I had enough of tacit agreement when I lived in New Knoxville.
Good luck with the thread; I'm not sure how often I'll be checking in on it. I kind of wish that I never had.
notinKansasanymore - Your experience has been different from mine.
I applaud your willingness to stand up and say what you think. From session one of PFAL we were drilled to sit back in passive silence and accept whatever these guys say. A number of years ago, I decided I'm NOT going to sit back in passive silence, anymore. I applaud your similar decision.
As far as "backing into a corner" goes, these guys make their living by playing hardball in intellectual discourse. If they don't like it because I play hardball back, they're in the wrong business.
really I mean do ya think a conversation with John LYnn will change anything? and that is what this all is a game to distract people from who Jesus christ is alive today in our thoughts .
a hard ball game that has far to many innings in a very short life
, then again Im not living for a deep seated cause and effect world anymore.
why? do you really wish to reconnect and fix your broken relationship with CES? thats nice. if not that then why are you so invested in this? just curious.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
32
35
26
Popular Days
Jul 22
45
Jul 23
43
Jul 24
34
Jul 11
24
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 18 posts
Raf 32 posts
mj412 35 posts
Steve Lortz 26 posts
Popular Days
Jul 22 2004
45 posts
Jul 23 2004
43 posts
Jul 24 2004
34 posts
Jul 11 2004
24 posts
TheInvisibleDan
Very interesting post, Mr.Steve "You've-been-conned" (lol).
I think the last thing I heard JL dub about me (after corresponding with him via the Onelist a few years ago) was "Mr.Off-the-Word" (lol).
WHat was CES' previous motto - "Freedom through Scriptural Accuracy"?
In reality it actually should be "Bondage Through Scriptural Tyranny".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
damn.... he could have at least said rev. off the word....
what a buncha....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Invisible Dan: I enjoyed your post and very much agree.
Wordwolf: Thanks for the info.
Guys:
I'm not sure it serves any meaniful purpose to discuss the adventures of John Lynn, except to perhaps seek some input as to what the current practices are and provide a forum for opinion on that topic.
2 nights ago on a late show the host and star concurred that, "All publicity in show business is good show business." I am not applying this directly to Lynn's organization but answers not forthcoming about current doctrine mirroring that of "The Ways" old stuff, it certainly is the question that pops up in my mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
A "vehicle in the body of Christ" ?
Gimme a break.
Isn't it interesting that few if any who defend Momentus offers any pertinant details about it - Like how it originated, what is involved, who the trainers are, etc. They only, seem to say "well it helped me" or "if you haven't taken it you shouldn't talk bad about it" or someting like that.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I hear that there is a lot of screaming and yelling, insults, fowl language, etc. If this is the case, it seems unlikely to me that Momentus has any place in the body of Christ. It seems more like a secular invention designed to motivate people by questionable means towards a certain predefined cause. It seems like a form of hard core behavior modification adminstered by folks not qualified in either psycology or religion.
If what I have read about it is true, I doubt that Monentus training ahd it's methods can be supported biblically, which is probably why no one tries.
It is interesting to me that something like Momentus is used by folks who have claimed that their objective is "Freedom through Scriptural Accuracy".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't know what CES' current motto is, but it used to be "Speaking the Truth in Love".
In practice it worked out to, "It must be true, WE said it. It must be loving, WE did it."
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I just sent the following e-mail to JAL,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notinKansasanymore
I don't think this thread really has that much to do with John Lynn. I think that it has much more to do with people who, for whatever reason, are expressing their opinions about him. Perhaps some have bones to pick with him; this kind of thing is pretty much always best done in private.
Golly, Steve, why did you publish the e-mails? How do you think that made him feel? And yet, he answered you kindly.
John Lynn is not a perfect person; nobody is perfect. If that gauls some folks (not just you, Steve), they need to consider their own state of imperfection.
The truth that I know about John Lynn is that he loves God, and for his entire adult life has sought to serve God. The method of service has changed (most notably when he, like so many of us, ditched the way international), but his heart to serve God has never changed.
He's also a gentleman. He returns phone calls and e-mails. If he said he'd get back to someone and didn't, is it so hard to think that he just FORGOT? Maybe the other call was something earth-shattering. People call him with "really hard stuff" all the time. Have you ever said that you'd call someone back, and then forgotten? Not often, I'll bet; but it can happen.
Heck, everyone forgets some things, some time.
Why didn't you just pick up the phone and call him, instead of making such a big production of it here?
He's a nice person; he deserves better than this.
I'm willing to bet you're a nice person, too. I mean, like most of us, you once dropped everything to go and try to get the Word over the World. That takes a huge degree of niceness and caring.
Aren't you lucky that nobody's starting a thread about you?
Steve, I don't mean this to be an attack on you, and if that's the way it sounds, please know that I've tried NOT to sound that way. I realize that you're dealing with issues, the way that many of us are. That's one of the great things about Greasespot; we can come here to talk about things. I just don't think that what you did to John Lynn was all that nice. You could have called or e-mailed him personally, without the publicity.
It's one of those Golden Rule situations, you know?
love, niKa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Notinkansas:
Am I missing something in your letter? Steve Lortz didnt post the original letter, so why critique him on trying to clarify the authors thoughts? Please do explain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
niKa,
I'm not arguing with any of your points in the post above. Geez, I haven't had any contact with JL for centuries. I think what Steve did was "in the spirit" of what Jeff did in starting this thread, i.e. public communication with/from JL. Jeff posted a letter from John to us. It was pointed out that this was not a "new" letter but a reposting of an old form letter. It raised a lot of questions with different people. Jeff either said, or alluded, that John had full knowledge of his posting of the letter. Jeff said that John would welcome emails from anyone who had questions.
Could it all have been handled differently, and in a better fashion? YES. In the first place, if John wanted to address "the GSC crowd" he could have done it himself... but, in reading his response to Steve, and the way he references GSC, I don't know if I'm getting the feeling that John really 'authorized' the posting of that letter or if Jeff just thought it would be a good idea.
Either way, Steve was quite open in his email to John. Although Steve, by telling him you're going to post his response (or lack thereof) you're kind of backing him into a corner publicly that I don't think he had anything to do with creating.
I think this was a posting by Jeff (with good intentions) that went terribly wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This, really,
is what I wanted to know from him, and what I thought was relevant to this discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I do not think a paper on adutry is all that heavy duty stuff of revelation.
people can write what they want. I do not think he was a whistle blower who saved anyone from the evils of twi with his paper. I believe motive and loyalties went beyond what anyone wrote and that is what the slit and divsion came down to.
Are you saying a paper on how adultry is wrong was that much of a revelationto to leave or the fact the leaders participated in it? including JohnL. and John S by their own admission later of course.
If so I do not agree I think there is plenty more to the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Just for the record, I feel the same way NIKA does. I find it disturbing that someone would use GS to fuel a personal dispute that evidently has been going on for years.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
In all these pages, did we ever hear from Jeff if the letter was posted at anyone else's request or was it his own idea? If he answered this already, many sorries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
ex10
I read your post about your disgust . Look at this site this grease spot and consider this . Is not your definition exactly what defines this site?
yes it is.. everyone is ok with being critical and making accusation untill it bites their own personal nerve on what they consider worthwhile and good and just.
then the arrogance and angry feelings shine on. and what becomes important is who knows who, who has more say so because of endurance and friends and connections or even the past and their reputation. A heirarchy is formed within the group and that is the root of all cult following and how shame guilt and fear is used with the inner need to belong and loved .
the good of the cause is more important than self and abuse can flourish unoticed untill enough is enough and an indiviual no longer needs the dysfunction with the group approval .
it is powerful stuff and it works for many for a entire life time of co-dependecy , and addiction to what others may think or say or feel about you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
MJ,
wowza!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
TReading all this stuff--wading through the he did/didn't (pick your topic) and reading the resposnse from Nr Lynn THe bottom line renmains unchanged
A CAsper Mil"quetoast approach to the evils of the past--a I can't be botherd with your pain--it's all behind me now" attitude
Happy for you JL
Just dont want to be ya
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
mj
Please read carefully what I wrote.
;)-->
I did not express "disgust" at all. That is your word, not mine. My feelings are my own, and I will not justify myself to you, or anyone else. My point of view is totally mine. If anybody agrees with it or not, so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
notinKansasanymore and ex10 - If you reread my first email to John, you will notice I told him the purpose of the message was a communication check, and that I intended to make his response or lack of response public.
One thing I've learned with ALL of these guys (ALL ex-Way leaders I've had contact with, not just CES) is that you just can't trust them to say the same things in public as they say in private. That may seem grossly unfair and ungentlemanly, but its the truth. The Word says we're to be harmless as doves, but it also says we're to be wise as serpents. I've found it wisest to keep ALL communications with these guys public.
You will also notice that John was somehow nonplussed that my letter was not an attempt on my part to reconcile myself to him. He makes an unwarrented assumption, that he is automatically right, and everyone he's driven away should come back to him. He said I still seemed to have the "same agenda" I had seven years ago. My agenda was not to argue Momentus, but to see if he would answer my email, which he did, to his credit.
The issue of Momentus had to be raised, because that was the issue on which we parted. Those WERE his last words to me, prior to his email. Now we both know where each other stands, and we can procede to the heart of the matter at hand, which is, did he tell Jeff to post that old form letter or did Jeff do it on his own? and, does John really think Wierwille would be proud of what he is doing?
Instead of sitting here talking about John behind his back, I took the conversation TO him and invited him to express himself.
Why do you find that so terrible? I don't understand your position.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I ACTUALLY DID get through to him personally, something that Jeff apparently cannot do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Im so sorry I misread you and put the word disgust instead of disturbed EX10.
I went out with my people last night and asked them why I do this write on Grease spot.
one is an ex-twi who never blinks her precious friendship eyes about twi or any of its off shoots. we have been best friends for over thirty five years . before in and beyond twi and never skipped a beat honestly we do not speak alot about it because it is not the base line of our friendship or ever even played a part in it.
I wish I could say that about other friends from high school who have gone on and are still in twi or involved in a off shoot.
the other friend is a catholic girl who is seventy years old and looks and lives not a day over thirty (she kills me) that I have known for only about three or so years but is a trusted loved friend.
they both think it isnt a good practice for me if I have to doubt or be "disturbed'(good word), they tell me cable tv is better!
but the very facts I wonder and think about what is said here and it "disturbs" you is a red flag. we are not normal . we struggle with a thinking pattern that is ingrained and not healthy.
and yes it does indeed belong to each of us.
your statement of SO? well I feel a connection to people to God to one another and I want to share fully who I am with others and not hold back and be me. I think cult(group think) thinking stilfes that and isolates our interaction to think as it may please the others or a leader we may esteem higher than our self.
for me this is not a genuine me it is a manufactored self that manitains relationships and interactions on a baseline other than honesty and love and a true knowing and sharing of one another. namely co-dependcy on the group and/or its leaders and their esteem .
I no longer desire or need such relationships .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
your right Steve.
sadly so. watch how the conversation gets ugly real quick without the fans to back him up..been there done that.
he neeeds the people to believe what he says and they need to believe what he says. everything said must be calculated and controlled . he is a leader and they will follow. fame has a price .
I like making mistakes I like having relationships even life long ones where I can no longer fool people about who I am it is truly alife of freedom and Love Christ speaks of in His fellowship.
I wouldnt trade it for the fake power and control some desire to live for an ego stroke .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notinKansasanymore
Steve, you said:
"One thing I've learned with ALL of these guys (ALL ex-Way leaders I've had contact with, not just CES) is that you just can't trust them to say the same things in public as they say in private."
I disagree with you there. Not about all of the leaders, but certainly about John Lynn, John Schoenheit, and Mark Graeser. Even when it's personally uncomfortable, they tell the truth. I don't hang with their ministry, but I have more respect for them than for almost anyone, because of the consistent integrity that they have shown in their personal dealings with me, over a protracted period of years.
As for the public e-mail thing, I think Tom Strange had it right on the money in his remarks. The whole "backed into a corner" thing. It's certainly not how I would have wanted someone to contact me. The Bible says that if you have a problem with someone, you go to that person. This feels more like gathering up a crowd, and then going to the person as a mob. It just feels wrong.
Steve, I don't doubt that you felt that you had valid reasons for doing that; I just don't agree. To stand by and say nothing about it would be tacit agreement; I had enough of tacit agreement when I lived in New Knoxville.
Good luck with the thread; I'm not sure how often I'll be checking in on it. I kind of wish that I never had.
Love (yup, I really mean Love), niKa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
notinKansasanymore - Your experience has been different from mine.
I applaud your willingness to stand up and say what you think. From session one of PFAL we were drilled to sit back in passive silence and accept whatever these guys say. A number of years ago, I decided I'm NOT going to sit back in passive silence, anymore. I applaud your similar decision.
As far as "backing into a corner" goes, these guys make their living by playing hardball in intellectual discourse. If they don't like it because I play hardball back, they're in the wrong business.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Steve
where do you get the energy?
really I mean do ya think a conversation with John LYnn will change anything? and that is what this all is a game to distract people from who Jesus christ is alive today in our thoughts .
a hard ball game that has far to many innings in a very short life
, then again Im not living for a deep seated cause and effect world anymore.
why? do you really wish to reconnect and fix your broken relationship with CES? thats nice. if not that then why are you so invested in this? just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
when john lynn posts here as himself, i'll be happy
goddamn let's hear from the man of god
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.