quote: 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.
I gotta concur with notinKansasanymore on this one, dude. Especially since it has the feel of "I'm gonna take our personal conflict and bring it out public." I mean, damn! Did he ask/give you the OK to do so? (Looks like to me that you old him you were gonna do it, instead of asking him if it was OK) Or is it one of those "Well, Jesus told me it was OK to breach personal bounderies and whatever confidentialities, and shout this from the housetops" like 'revelations'?
Oh, and I could be wrong, but it also seems to have a distinct Momentus flavor to it too. -->
Nika expressed exactly what I'm thinking. I hate to depend on someone else to speak for me, it's not my style. But she did it so well, I don't feel like I have anything to add.
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.
Not that I saw....
..and to me, that's BEEN my main purpose on this thread.
He did not confirm it, he did not deny it, he did not state that he was
refusing to do either.
Which means one of 2 things:
A) Jeff hasn't been around all week
or
B) Jeff is trying to maintain "plausible deniability"
Hey, notinKansasanymore, ex10, et al., - What did I do that was dishonest? I told John Lynn in my first email that it was a communication test because Jeff had been posting here in John's name.
I told JAL upfront that I intended this communication to be public.
I have had YEARS of direct contact with JAL. We have had many, many conversations. Enough for me to have a rough idea of how to get his attention, and how to be put on the burner farthest back.
I didn't say anything that I haven't said to his face.
I had to bring up the Momentus thing, because that was the issue we parted over, and those WERE his last words to me.
In his first email to me, he let me know where he stands. In my second email to him, I let him know where I still stand.
After all that was out of the way, I could get to the heart of the matter, which is, was Jeff really posting at John's request? and, does he really think Wierwille would approve of what he's doing?
Aren't those the questions we've been debating behind John's back?
If I had emailed John and NOT let him know that I was going to make his response or lack of response public, would you expect me to "wait by the phone" night after night wringing my hands over whether or not he would get back to me?
Or would you rather I just came back here and told everybody John hadn't answered, without letting him know that was what I was doing.
Jeff and others opened up this can of worms when they claimed John would answer his emails. How can you fault me for putting their words to the test?
After our involvement with TWI, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that we can't take MEN's words and "good intentions" for granted.
John has put himself forward as a leader, and as far as I'm concerned, by doing so, he opened himself up to a double dose of accountability.
I can see where it would be inappropriate for me to treat a private person the way I've treated John. I haven't treated any private person that way, and wouldn't.
BUT, if John Lynn wants to be a LEADER, he is no longer a private person in many important respects.
I spent time as a petty officer in the submarine service. We were trained in the principles of ACTUAL leadership, not TWI's principles of being a yes-man.
When you accept a position of leadership, you accept responsibilty and accountability.
When you are a genuine follower, you hold your leader's feet to the fire, to hold him responsible and to make him account. If you don't, things get dangerous. I could tell some sea stories.
Things got dangerous at TWI because we didn't have the gumption to hold its leaders accountable.
Things got dangerous at CES (remember, Momentus IS psychologically damgerous) as John, John and Mark gradually insulated themselves from accountability.
I, for one, am not going to make the SAME MISTAKE three times in a row.
I am holding John accountable. If that seems wrong to you, then there are still some cobwebs of waybrain you need to sweep from your hearts.
quote:What's amazing is that he got threatened for it.
what were the threats (and who made them) and what was that thing about giving the paper to a few for fear of his life or something ?
(sorry about the memory thing here.... ever since i stopped renewing my mind.... i just haven't been the same)
Sorry: I was away for the weekend and didn't see this post until just now:
Excy: I have no idea how he was threatened. Or IF he was threatened. The statement that he was threatened was made by MJ, and I was responding to her post. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it: the only thing I know is he was fired.
the reason he sent the information outside of the way was because he was afraid something may hppen to him and he wanted others to have it just in case.
I clearly remember this because I thought at the time this is a group of christian ministers out of control . Many of us still have the tapes they generated at the time and this is in writing somwhere around this spot I suppose.
quote:what were the threats (and who made them) and what was that thing about giving the paper to a few for fear of his life or something ?
(sorry about the memory thing here.... ever since i stopped renewing my mind.... i just haven't been the same)
Ex, to answer your question, John Schoenheit emailed me the following information years ago, and I communicated this information on Waydale, under my name at that time "ppolizotto". This info. was copied onto Greasespot and noted
go all the way to the bottom and it's there as well.
quote:My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions.
In the midst of interviewing the women I suspected might have had sexual relations with leadership, I had three different women tell me I would be killed if I tried to stop it. The first time I thought it was a totally stupid thing, but by the third one I really stopped and thought about it. David had Uriah killed for the same reason. To protect my work I sent it to about 7 people I knew and trusted (I do not remember the exact number or all the people now) sealed in an envelope inside an envelope with instructions to "go public" if I ended up dead. I told them that the paper was going to be sent up proper channels, and not to share the work with others. As you know, The Way had strict guidelines for handling research, and at that time I had been in the Research Dept. for six years, loved my job and believed in the system even though I was beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the leadership. I handed the paper in to Walter Cummins in late September. It just sat on his desk. One of the people I had given a copy to had been hurt by the sex stuff and really wanted it to "make an impact." She went to Ralph, who, of course, knew nothing of the paper (like I said, I had not gone public). Ralph talked with somebody (who?) and the next thing I knew there were all kinds of meetings about the paper and all kinds of untrue things being said about me.
On October 23d I was "released" from The Way by order of Chris Geer. It was a Friday. I had a lot of friends at HQ still. On Monday at noon Walter got up in front of the staff and told some made-up lie about me violating department procedures and thus being let go. A friend snuck out of lunch and called me to let me know what was said (I did not ask for that but he did it anyway). I got right on the phone with Walter and told him what he did was wrong and that he should not lie about a brother to all those other Christians. I asked to meet with him face to face but he refused. After that there was a huge witch-hunt and more lies were told about me than you can possibly imagine. Even really weird stuff like I believed in the Trinity and the dead being alive.
Because I still had friends around the country, I got some requests for my paper. Since I was no longer on staff, and since my "belief in the system" had really taken a blow, I mailed it to anyone who asked. By that time the Trustees and Corps Coordinators were starting a rumor that the paper personally attacked Dr. Wierwille and taught all kinds of false doctrine. Corps going home for "ho-ho relo" were told if they read my paper not to come back in residence. It was also stated that the paper had devil spirits and anyone who read it became possessed. Well, that all backfired because as people read it they could tell that what was said about it was lies. And so there was an escalation of people challenging the leadership and leaving The Way.
In time I hooked up with Ralph Dubofsky, Tom Reheard, John Lynn, Mark Graeser, Robert Belt, and some others and CES was born. It took awhile for the smoke to clear, but when it did all that was left of us was John Lynn, Mark Graeser and myself, and we have been together ever since. The Lord has been leading us, and now I think we are turning out some really first-class stuff.
Perhaps a quick note on John Lynn. I do not think I have ever met a man that has had so many lies and false accusations leveled against him. I travel once or twice a month, and the things that people "out there" say they have heard about him blow my mind. There are not many people on the planet that know John better than I, and he is a first-class servant of Jesus Christ.
Hope you did not find this boring. By the way, the carbon is going to the Home Office so I can save it. Please do not think I am mailing this around to anyone. On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years, and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, it is just that it has not been that profitable to share them. People are still so angry and hurt over things that happened years ago. We all need to come to Christ, and let him teach us how to get healed and move on. There is a world out there that needs the Truth. The Way International and Dr. Wierwille did a lot for me, and I will always be thankful for that. Yes, they caused me some pain and heartache, but the foundation of the Word that was built in my life in The Way has an inestimable value.
Write again if I can help, and please check out the stuff CES has available.
Jeff's intial post that started this thread smacks of dishonesty.
One possibility is that Jeff posted John's letter without John's knowledge. If that were the case, then Jeff would be dishonestly misrepresenting John.
One possibility is that John had Jeff post the letter. If that were the case, then John would be dishonestly having Jeff "carry his water" for him.
As WordWolf pointed out, Jeff hasn't answered our questions.
I have no regrets about going to the horse's mouth, so this shadow of dishonestly can be lifted.
I was beginning to wonder what John Schoenheit would say about the situation, so thanks, Oldies for posting what you ahve. Regardless of the circumstances, imo, he did a bold and helpful thing when he presented the paper and circulated despite the wishes of the leadership. Yes, common sense would tell someone that adultery is wrong, but we weren't always using our common sense in TWI or we wouldn't have been suckered and stuck there for so long. At least I know I wasn't.
Whether Steve is right or wrong I'm not one to say, but I can't say I'm surprised by John Lynn's response. It sounds like the standard crap dished out by TWI leadership for years. He sounds just like the WC I'm familiar with and I haven't been out very long. I guess that's why I've never been interested in any of the off-shoots even though I highly respect some of the leaders and people involved, they just remind me of TWI too much.
Rule 1: never admit error or take the blame for anything
Rule 2: Turn the focus to the initiator
Rule 3: Belittle the initiator as much as possible, condescension being the best method
Rule 4: Never directly answer any question
Rule 5: Always end with some syrupy sweet fake Christian jabber
He appears to have learned well and continued practicing what he learned in TWI, imo.
The hit and run post by Jeff is rather curious, too. I wonder if it's a good intention gone wrong or if there is something amiss and that's why Jeff nor John has responded with a simple answer to the question of the origins of the post.
quote:Regardless of the circumstances, imo, he did a bold and helpful thing when he presented the paper and circulated despite the wishes of the leadership.
Belle,
It appears to me that he did not circulate the letter until he was no longer employed by TWI (and thus, no longer bound by its regulations).
quote:From John S:
To protect my work I sent it to about 7 people I knew and trusted (I do not remember the exact number or all the people now) sealed in an envelope inside an envelope with instructions to "go public" if I ended up dead. I told them that the paper was going to be sent up proper channels, and not to share the work with others...
Apparently one of the people he sent that to did not adhere to John S.'s instruction (assuming, of course, that his account is accurate and true).
So sum it up: he did not violate company policy.
He believed himself to be threatened (whether that was reasonable or not depends on the credibility of the people to whom he spoke: I do not feel I have enough info to draw a conclusion there). He wrote a paper saying adultery was wrong (no duh) because he identified that subject as a doctrinal weakness in TWI (and rightly so).
Jeff's intial post that started this thread smacks of dishonesty.
One possibility is that Jeff posted John's letter without John's knowledge. If that were the case, then Jeff would be dishonestly misrepresenting John.
One possibility is that John had Jeff post the letter. If that were the case, then John would be dishonestly having Jeff "carry his water" for him.
As WordWolf pointed out, Jeff hasn't answered our questions.
I have no regrets about going to the horse's mouth, so this shadow of dishonestly can be lifted.
Love,
Steve
Tecnically,
7/10/04,
Jeff's did answer.
However, his answer was an evasion, and was phrased ambiguously.
It could be taken either way. (See page 1.)
Since then, the question has come up (7/17).
No answer was given then, when a "yes or no" answer was asked.
This may mean that Jeff unintentionally evaded the question the
first time, and MEANT to speak clearly,
and he has somehow missed all the comments since then in this thread
where he's been asked again, or it was said again that he did NOT
answer. That would be an innocent mistake and misunderstanding.
This may also mean that Jeff intentionally meant, from the beginning,
to refuse to impart any answer that was not misleading, and has
refused to post on this thread since then to retain "plausible
deniability", and claim the first option was correct.
Since then, John's been asked also. We're still waiting for an answer
from him.
When he arrives here and posts himself, I shall also ask him the same
question.
=============
Mind you,
if Jeff is intentionally hiding,
then he is hiding one of three things:
A) he posted this without asking JAL, whom he is in regular
communication with, thus, he did this intentionally leaving JAL out
of the loop
B) he posted this having first consulted JAL and recieiving his
approval.
C) JAL specifically sought out Jeff and ASKED JEFF to post this on
his behalf. If this is true, then JAL intentionally meant to
"sound out" the impressions of people on this board, and deliberately
employed Jeff as a "stalking horse" and to allow a certain degree
of "plausible deniability" to himself.
Whether or not a response EVER comes from Jeff or from JAL,
those ARE the possibilities.
It thus falls on the readers to determine what they believe-
and, in fact, to determine if any response is truthful.
Reading back on this thread, I believe Jeff did answer the all-important question of whether JAL gave permission to post the letter on page 2, July 11. He said he was bored and just thought he would post it. That would be consistent with my interaction with Jeff and how he loves to promote CES at any down time in his life. Since he is back to work on full schedule, I imagine neither he nor JAL will have much time to respond to most of the questions posed on this forum.
Steve, I have attempted to send you a private topic. Would you please check and see if you received it? By the way, I have read the responses to your posts about making your dialogue (yes, pardon the expression) with JAL public. While I can understand other people's views, I don't think you have done anything wrong or dishonest. You have been up front with JAL and he certainly has the right to decide whether or not to respond knowing it will be posted in a public forum. I think most of the principles of CES would say they are too busy with their ministry to correspond, so I'm not looking for posts from them.
How 'bout them junior trustees? Have they got a few minutes to say a few words for the ministry they are now sharing in?
"Gopher Boy (not that John Lynn knows or even asked me to post his letter here, I was just bored!)
I took that to mean that Jeff took it upon himself to spread joy, sunshine, and CES all over the place. Like I said, knowing Jeff it doesn't surprise me that he would do that and ask questions later, if at all.
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
excathedra
i gotta give it to you on this one, mj
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Steve,
I gotta concur with notinKansasanymore on this one, dude. Especially since it has the feel of "I'm gonna take our personal conflict and bring it out public." I mean, damn! Did he ask/give you the OK to do so? (Looks like to me that you old him you were gonna do it, instead of asking him if it was OK) Or is it one of those "Well, Jesus told me it was OK to breach personal bounderies and whatever confidentialities, and shout this from the housetops" like 'revelations'?
Oh, and I could be wrong, but it also seems to have a distinct Momentus flavor to it too.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you could be right garth.... i can't tell when i'm right in "exposing" someone or when i'm full of sh i t
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Steve
Nika expressed exactly what I'm thinking. I hate to depend on someone else to speak for me, it's not my style. But she did it so well, I don't feel like I have anything to add.
I just ain't right or honest, brother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Not that I saw....
..and to me, that's BEEN my main purpose on this thread.
He did not confirm it, he did not deny it, he did not state that he was
refusing to do either.
Which means one of 2 things:
A) Jeff hasn't been around all week
or
B) Jeff is trying to maintain "plausible deniability"
and thus trying to be deliberately ambiguous.
Take your pick.
Me, I'd prefer to just ask JAL.
So, I will, next chance I get.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hey, notinKansasanymore, ex10, et al., - What did I do that was dishonest? I told John Lynn in my first email that it was a communication test because Jeff had been posting here in John's name.
I told JAL upfront that I intended this communication to be public.
I have had YEARS of direct contact with JAL. We have had many, many conversations. Enough for me to have a rough idea of how to get his attention, and how to be put on the burner farthest back.
I didn't say anything that I haven't said to his face.
I had to bring up the Momentus thing, because that was the issue we parted over, and those WERE his last words to me.
In his first email to me, he let me know where he stands. In my second email to him, I let him know where I still stand.
After all that was out of the way, I could get to the heart of the matter, which is, was Jeff really posting at John's request? and, does he really think Wierwille would approve of what he's doing?
Aren't those the questions we've been debating behind John's back?
If I had emailed John and NOT let him know that I was going to make his response or lack of response public, would you expect me to "wait by the phone" night after night wringing my hands over whether or not he would get back to me?
Or would you rather I just came back here and told everybody John hadn't answered, without letting him know that was what I was doing.
Jeff and others opened up this can of worms when they claimed John would answer his emails. How can you fault me for putting their words to the test?
After our involvement with TWI, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that we can't take MEN's words and "good intentions" for granted.
John has put himself forward as a leader, and as far as I'm concerned, by doing so, he opened himself up to a double dose of accountability.
I can see where it would be inappropriate for me to treat a private person the way I've treated John. I haven't treated any private person that way, and wouldn't.
BUT, if John Lynn wants to be a LEADER, he is no longer a private person in many important respects.
I spent time as a petty officer in the submarine service. We were trained in the principles of ACTUAL leadership, not TWI's principles of being a yes-man.
When you accept a position of leadership, you accept responsibilty and accountability.
When you are a genuine follower, you hold your leader's feet to the fire, to hold him responsible and to make him account. If you don't, things get dangerous. I could tell some sea stories.
Things got dangerous at TWI because we didn't have the gumption to hold its leaders accountable.
Things got dangerous at CES (remember, Momentus IS psychologically damgerous) as John, John and Mark gradually insulated themselves from accountability.
I, for one, am not going to make the SAME MISTAKE three times in a row.
I am holding John accountable. If that seems wrong to you, then there are still some cobwebs of waybrain you need to sweep from your hearts.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf - You wrote, "Me, I'd prefer to just ask JAL."
I already did. Watch out, that doesn't set well with some people around here.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sorry: I was away for the weekend and didn't see this post until just now:
Excy: I have no idea how he was threatened. Or IF he was threatened. The statement that he was threatened was made by MJ, and I was responding to her post. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it: the only thing I know is he was fired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
the reason he sent the information outside of the way was because he was afraid something may hppen to him and he wanted others to have it just in case.
I clearly remember this because I thought at the time this is a group of christian ministers out of control . Many of us still have the tapes they generated at the time and this is in writing somwhere around this spot I suppose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks MJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
EX
Ex, to answer your question, John Schoenheit emailed me the following information years ago, and I communicated this information on Waydale, under my name at that time "ppolizotto". This info. was copied onto Greasespot and noted
HERE
go all the way to the bottom and it's there as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jeff's intial post that started this thread smacks of dishonesty.
One possibility is that Jeff posted John's letter without John's knowledge. If that were the case, then Jeff would be dishonestly misrepresenting John.
One possibility is that John had Jeff post the letter. If that were the case, then John would be dishonestly having Jeff "carry his water" for him.
As WordWolf pointed out, Jeff hasn't answered our questions.
I have no regrets about going to the horse's mouth, so this shadow of dishonestly can be lifted.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
This is all quite fascinating.
I was beginning to wonder what John Schoenheit would say about the situation, so thanks, Oldies for posting what you ahve. Regardless of the circumstances, imo, he did a bold and helpful thing when he presented the paper and circulated despite the wishes of the leadership. Yes, common sense would tell someone that adultery is wrong, but we weren't always using our common sense in TWI or we wouldn't have been suckered and stuck there for so long. At least I know I wasn't.
Whether Steve is right or wrong I'm not one to say, but I can't say I'm surprised by John Lynn's response. It sounds like the standard crap dished out by TWI leadership for years. He sounds just like the WC I'm familiar with and I haven't been out very long. I guess that's why I've never been interested in any of the off-shoots even though I highly respect some of the leaders and people involved, they just remind me of TWI too much.
Rule 1: never admit error or take the blame for anything
Rule 2: Turn the focus to the initiator
Rule 3: Belittle the initiator as much as possible, condescension being the best method
Rule 4: Never directly answer any question
Rule 5: Always end with some syrupy sweet fake Christian jabber
He appears to have learned well and continued practicing what he learned in TWI, imo.
The hit and run post by Jeff is rather curious, too. I wonder if it's a good intention gone wrong or if there is something amiss and that's why Jeff nor John has responded with a simple answer to the question of the origins of the post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Belle,
It appears to me that he did not circulate the letter until he was no longer employed by TWI (and thus, no longer bound by its regulations).
Apparently one of the people he sent that to did not adhere to John S.'s instruction (assuming, of course, that his account is accurate and true).
So sum it up: he did not violate company policy.
He believed himself to be threatened (whether that was reasonable or not depends on the credibility of the people to whom he spoke: I do not feel I have enough info to draw a conclusion there). He wrote a paper saying adultery was wrong (no duh) because he identified that subject as a doctrinal weakness in TWI (and rightly so).
Hero? Never said it. Never will.
Did the right thing? I think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Raf, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If it didn't come across that way, I'm sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No apology necessary. I just seized on something you said to make a point. Forgive me for "using" you like that.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Tecnically,
7/10/04,
Jeff's did answer.
However, his answer was an evasion, and was phrased ambiguously.
It could be taken either way. (See page 1.)
Since then, the question has come up (7/17).
No answer was given then, when a "yes or no" answer was asked.
This may mean that Jeff unintentionally evaded the question the
first time, and MEANT to speak clearly,
and he has somehow missed all the comments since then in this thread
where he's been asked again, or it was said again that he did NOT
answer. That would be an innocent mistake and misunderstanding.
This may also mean that Jeff intentionally meant, from the beginning,
to refuse to impart any answer that was not misleading, and has
refused to post on this thread since then to retain "plausible
deniability", and claim the first option was correct.
Since then, John's been asked also. We're still waiting for an answer
from him.
When he arrives here and posts himself, I shall also ask him the same
question.
=============
Mind you,
if Jeff is intentionally hiding,
then he is hiding one of three things:
A) he posted this without asking JAL, whom he is in regular
communication with, thus, he did this intentionally leaving JAL out
of the loop
B) he posted this having first consulted JAL and recieiving his
approval.
C) JAL specifically sought out Jeff and ASKED JEFF to post this on
his behalf. If this is true, then JAL intentionally meant to
"sound out" the impressions of people on this board, and deliberately
employed Jeff as a "stalking horse" and to allow a certain degree
of "plausible deniability" to himself.
Whether or not a response EVER comes from Jeff or from JAL,
those ARE the possibilities.
It thus falls on the readers to determine what they believe-
and, in fact, to determine if any response is truthful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
valerie52
If VPW would be proud of us then we are all in a "world of hurt"!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Has Jeff been here since the question was asked?
Maybe he's just busy and hasn't been by here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wwjesuslaughat
Reading back on this thread, I believe Jeff did answer the all-important question of whether JAL gave permission to post the letter on page 2, July 11. He said he was bored and just thought he would post it. That would be consistent with my interaction with Jeff and how he loves to promote CES at any down time in his life. Since he is back to work on full schedule, I imagine neither he nor JAL will have much time to respond to most of the questions posed on this forum.
Steve, I have attempted to send you a private topic. Would you please check and see if you received it? By the way, I have read the responses to your posts about making your dialogue (yes, pardon the expression) with JAL public. While I can understand other people's views, I don't think you have done anything wrong or dishonest. You have been up front with JAL and he certainly has the right to decide whether or not to respond knowing it will be posted in a public forum. I think most of the principles of CES would say they are too busy with their ministry to correspond, so I'm not looking for posts from them.
How 'bout them junior trustees? Have they got a few minutes to say a few words for the ministry they are now sharing in?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I reviewed that page.
Please copy the post you meant, and indicate EXACTLY what you
thought addressed this question.
I shall respond by either agreeing and dropping the question,
OR
showing that the response was ambiguous and did NOT say it one way
or the other.
Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is the only thing he says on the subject on p.2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wwjesuslaughat
Raf and Wordwolf:
quote:
"Gopher Boy (not that John Lynn knows or even asked me to post his letter here, I was just bored!)
I took that to mean that Jeff took it upon himself to spread joy, sunshine, and CES all over the place. Like I said, knowing Jeff it doesn't surprise me that he would do that and ask questions later, if at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oops! Sorry I missed that.
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.