Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

Donna, I think you are mistaken.

Besides being able to document that what we have said is true, we can also document that we had a reasonable basis for saying what we said. That goes to the question of whether we were reckless and knew that the statements were false.

For example, I explained in an interrogatory I think it was how I verified that the cash-receipt-for-donated-horse emails were not forged. Danny really did have around an extra $20,000 of cash donations reported on his 2003 tax return, which is what those emails said one would find.

Now how could reporting about the content of those emails be reckless after verifying their content like that?

Folks we can probably all agree that this is what Pickle thinks and believes, and one could argue with his opinions of himself and his conclusions obviously, but for what purpose?

We will all see in the future how the court views and Judges this.

And so folks, can we also believe that all of what Ian presents is what she thinks and believes, and one could argue with her opinions of herself, and her conclusions, but for what purpose? What has she seen herself? On whose testimony does she base her facts? She and others are evaluating the second hand sources she bases her opinions on. How can she prove they are as trustworthy as the happenings some of us have experienced ourselves?

[Cindy]

Donna, I think you are mistaken.

Besides being able to document that what we have said is true, we can also document that we had a reasonable basis for saying what we said. That goes to the question of whether we were reckless and knew that the statements were false.

For example, I explained in an interrogatory I think it was how I verified that the cash-receipt-for-donated-horse emails were not forged. Danny really did have around an extra $20,000 of cash donations reported on his 2003 tax return, which is what those emails said one would find.

Now how could reporting about the content of those emails be reckless after verifying their content like that?

Folks we can probably all agree that this is what Pickle thinks and believes, and one could argue with his opinions of himself and his conclusions obviously, but for what purpose?

We will all see in the future how the court views and Judges this.

And so folks, can we also believe that all of what Ian presents is what she thinks and believes, and one could argue with her opinions of herself, and her conclusions, but for what purpose? What has she seen herself? On whose testimony does she base her facts? She and others are evaluating the second hand sources she bases her opinions on. How can she prove they are as trustworthy as the happenings some of us have experienced ourselves?

Unlike, Pickle, may I suggest that no one take my word for anything, nor Johanns or any others.

Look at what is posted, look at the facts and diligently search out the truth and background and examine both sides and all sides and all the evidence available and every option before drawing any conclusions. Prove all things and hold fast that which is good for yourselves. And if it can't be proved then reserve judgment till and if it is.

Make sense, Johann?

[Johann]

Donna, I think you are mistaken.

Besides being able to document that what we have said is true, we can also document that we had a reasonable basis for saying what we said. That goes to the question of whether we were reckless and knew that the statements were false.

For example, I explained in an interrogatory I think it was how I verified that the cash-receipt-for-donated-horse emails were not forged. Danny really did have around an extra $20,000 of cash donations reported on his 2003 tax return, which is what those emails said one would find.

Now how could reporting about the content of those emails be reckless after verifying their content like that?

Folks we can probably all agree that this is what Pickle thinks and believes, and one could argue with his opinions of himself and his conclusions obviously, but for what purpose?

We will all see in the future how the court views and Judges this.

And so folks, can we also believe that all of what Ian presents is what she thinks and believes, and one could argue with her opinions of herself, and her conclusions, but for what purpose? What has she seen herself? On whose testimony does she base her facts? She and others are evaluating the second hand sources she bases her opinions on. How can she prove they are as trustworthy as the happenings some of us have experienced ourselves?

Unlike, Pickle, may I suggest that no one take my word for anything, nor Johanns or any others.

Look at what is posted, look at the facts and diligently search out the truth and background and examine both sides and all sides and all the evidence available and every option before drawing any conclusions. Prove all things and hold fast that which is good for yourselves. And if it can't be proved then reserve judgment till and if it is.

Make sense, Johann?

Not at all. Not in what I have experienced from you yet.

[Habanero]

Ian, you have stated that you know nothing from first hand experience. We have no reason to believe or trust anything you state as fact (and you have made many such statements). Johann, on the other hand, is a pastor and conference leader who is unquestionably established as a participant and first hand  witness to much of what you admittedly know absolutely nothing about except through the rumormill. Don't try to equate someone like him with something like you.

You talk about chest thumping? Torquemada and thousands of other blood-thirsty inquisitors and religious monsters have thumped Bibles like you and your type are doing now. Few are fooled by your venomous facade of Pharisaical  religiosity.

Linda is a first hand participant, and so is Sister. You are nothing more than a person far removed who has no experience or personal knowledge at all. That makes you a malicious rumormonger and nothing more or better than that. Others have presented documentation, but you have presented nothing more than defamatory rumors. You have made statements of fact that are absolute lies in your efforts to disparage and tear down people who actually are decent and honest human beings. You are exactly what you are accusing Gailon a Bob of being.

You know nothing and you are nothing in this saga, but you seem to be trying to be something by pretending to know and be what you absolutely are not. Your facade of religiosity is utterly absurd and is an embarrassment.

Donna, I think you are mistaken.

Besides being able to document that what we have said is true, we can also document that we had a reasonable basis for saying what we said. That goes to the question of whether we were reckless and knew that the statements were false.

For example, I explained in an interrogatory I think it was how I verified that the cash-receipt-for-donated-horse emails were not forged. Danny really did have around an extra $20,000 of cash donations reported on his 2003 tax return, which is what those emails said one would find.

Now how could reporting about the content of those emails be reckless after verifying their content like that?

Folks we can probably all agree that this is what Pickle thinks and believes, and one could argue with his opinions of himself and his conclusions obviously, but for what purpose?

We will all see in the future how the court views and Judges this.

And so folks, can we also believe that all of what Ian presents is what she thinks and believes, and one could argue with her opinions of herself, and her conclusions, but for what purpose? What has she seen herself? On whose testimony does she base her facts? She and others are evaluating the second hand sources she bases her opinions on. How can she prove they are as trustworthy as the happenings some of us have experienced ourselves?

Unlike, Pickle, may I suggest that no one take my word for anything, nor Johanns or any others.

Look at what is posted, look at the facts and diligently search out the truth and background and examine both sides and all sides and all the evidence available and every option before drawing any conclusions. Prove all things and hold fast that which is good for yourselves. And if it can't be proved then reserve judgment till and if it is.

Make sense, Johann?

[Ozzie]

Ian, you have stated that you know nothing from first hand experience. We have no reason to believe or trust anything you state as fact (and you have made many such statements). Johann, on the other hand, is a pastor and conference leader who is unquestionably established as a participant and first hand  witness to much of what you admittedly know absolutely nothing about except through the rumormill. Don't try to equate someone like him with something like you.

You talk about chest thumping? Torquemada and thousands of other blood-thirsty inquisitors and religious monsters have thumped Bibles like you and your type are doing now. Few are fooled by your venomous facade of Pharisaical  religiosity.

Linda is a first hand participant, and so is Sister. You are nothing more than a person far removed who has no experience or personal knowledge at all. That makes you a malicious rumormonger and nothing more or better than that. Others have presented documentation, but you have presented nothing more than defamatory rumors. You have made statements of fact that are absolute lies in your efforts to disparage and tear down people who actually are decent and honest human beings. You are exactly what you are accusing Gailon a Bob of being.

You know nothing and you are nothing in this saga, but you seem to be trying to be something by pretending to know and be what you absolutely are not. Your facade of religiosity is utterly absurd and is an embarrassment.

Ian
In all sincerity, I really hope that you will take on board Habanero's comments and advice here. Before you go fuming away and writing more poison, what about prayerfully considering what has been stated here?

I'm sure that there's no one person here who would want to think of one soul lost to the Kingdom; especially due to pride and arrogance. Consider carefully, the wisdom and concern contained in these words.

[Johann]

Will we get a response to this statement made almost three years ago? Truth does not change regardless of how many people call it lies, or do not believe it.

Ian, you have stated that you know nothing from first hand experience. We have no reason to believe or trust anything you state as fact (and you have made many such statements). Johann, on the other hand, is a pastor and conference leader who is unquestionably established as a participant and first hand  witness to much of what you admittedly know absolutely nothing about except through the rumormill. Don't try to equate someone like him with something like you.

You talk about chest thumping? Torquemada and thousands of other blood-thirsty inquisitors and religious monsters have thumped Bibles like you and your type are doing now. Few are fooled by your venomous facade of Pharisaical  religiosity.

Linda is a first hand participant, and so is Sister. You are nothing more than a person far removed who has no experience or personal knowledge at all. That makes you a malicious rumormonger and nothing more or better than that. Others have presented documentation, but you have presented nothing more than defamatory rumors. You have made statements of fact that are absolute lies in your efforts to disparage and tear down people who actually are decent and honest human beings. You are exactly what you are accusing Gailon a Bob of being.

You know nothing and you are nothing in this saga, but you seem to be trying to be something by pretending to know and be what you absolutely are not. Your facade of religiosity is utterly absurd and is an embarrassment.

Donna, I think you are mistaken.

Besides being able to document that what we have said is true, we can also document that we had a reasonable basis for saying what we said. That goes to the question of whether we were reckless and knew that the statements were false.

For example, I explained in an interrogatory I think it was how I verified that the cash-receipt-for-donated-horse emails were not forged. Danny really did have around an extra $20,000 of cash donations reported on his 2003 tax return, which is what those emails said one would find.

Now how could reporting about the content of those emails be reckless after verifying their content like that?

Folks we can probably all agree that this is what Pickle thinks and believes, and one could argue with his opinions of himself and his conclusions obviously, but for what purpose?

We will all see in the future how the court views and Judges this.

And so folks, can we also believe that all of what Ian presents is what she thinks and believes, and one could argue with her opinions of herself, and her conclusions, but for what purpose? What has she seen herself? On whose testimony does she base her facts? She and others are evaluating the second hand sources she bases her opinions on. How can she prove they are as trustworthy as the happenings some of us have experienced ourselves?

Unlike, Pickle, may I suggest that no one take my word for anything, nor Johanns or any others.

Look at what is posted, look at the facts and diligently search out the truth and background and examine both sides and all sides and all the evidence available and every option before drawing any conclusions. Prove all things and hold fast that which is good for yourselves. And if it can't be proved then reserve judgment till and if it is.

Make sense, Johann?