Fun with James...

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Monger 1
 
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2005 09:32 pm
I have no idea what the hell you're on about. "Behind the back mockery"? For god's sake... it was neither mockery nor behind the back. For one thing, I welcomed James to join this thread, and he replied that he'd read it and had a good laugh, especially because of the Microsoft / Linux stuff. What the hell do you think I'm mocking him about? Being an open source enthusiast (like myself)? He is, and as such I was well aware he'd be unlikely to take offense to it before I started this thread. If someone like James will behind my back report on me to the xfamily editors that, based on a satirical personal profile, I am a "poor boy [who] seems to have his own cult which sounds pretty demonic", I think he can stand to take a little good-natured ribbing.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2005 10:29 pm
If it was good hearted so be it. But as mentioned, he was out numbered here and he didn't respond on this thread, so not knowing or seeing that James was O.K with your rather strange posting, I objected because I like Jame's spirit and atitude. And so surley you can understand this, and wouldn't be offended because it seems you also appreciate James, even though he is still in the Family.

Good on you if you do.. so now you know 'what the hell' I am on about it, I like good humor, if yours was I didn;t get it, so be it. I didn't see James laughter, so lighten up as you say.
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 08:53 pm
fisherman wrote:
If it was good hearted so be it. But as mentioned, he was out numbered here and he didn't respond on this thread

There were no replies to this thread when I emailed him about it, and again, there is nothing I see as negative about him in this thread. Further, it was posted in reaction to an exchange which he started.

fisherman wrote:
so not knowing or seeing that James was O.K with your rather strange posting, I objected because I like Jame's spirit and atitude. And so surley you can understand this

You presume incorrectly. I don't understand what you objected to so strongly, or why you think I was "charging" James with anything.

fisherman wrote:
and wouldn't be offended because it seems you also appreciate James, even though he is still in the Family.

I don't see a good reason to get into what I feel about James right now, but let me just say that you are rather quick to jump to conclusions.

fisherman wrote:
so now you know 'what the hell' I am on about it

Again, no. But so far my feeling is that, regardless of what it is, it seems likely you've somewhat overreacted.

fisherman wrote:
I like good humor, if yours was I didn;t get it, so be it. I didn't see James laughter, so lighten up as you say.

No worries, and I'm in fact in rather good spirits right now (even if perhaps I haven't come accross that way). Take it easy...
 
Porceleindoll
 
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 08:19 pm
fisherman wrote:
You might ask James personnally if he thinks it is Monger's posting was funny, because if he doesn't think it is light hearted and humouress, then it might not be very classy., and might even be deemed characher assination or simply foolish. And what we do to others might return back on us.

if we are to speak against the Family, we can't make the same mistakes they have, and we should be using the high ground rather than stooping to thier level.

Besides as Walker has said, James is not automatically an abuser just because he is in the Family. And as I have stated from personal correspondances with him, he is very admirable in my opinion.


Good humor hurts and offends no one. So in my opinion, saying such about one of my previous friends isn't that funny. Would you like this sort of things said about you or your friends. I don't think so... but then again your values are your values, but mine are different.

God bless James.... and all missionaries for Jesus, irregardless of whether in or OUT of the Family


Jay, I was going to ignore all your rants on this board. I am still quite upset at you for your behavior and attacks at me personally on NDN when I thought we at least were some sort of friends, using a psuedonym and making those ridiculous comments and accusations sort just rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway, James, Jotham, may be your ideal of a missionary. And he is probably sincerely doing what he can to get out that oh so wonderful message of God's Love to people. I know Jothan personally, never really had a problem with him, fellow Gemini, a bit different from the norm.

But here is where I have a problem with him, and you need to remember this the next time you communicate with your buddy--
Jotham openly stated in an email which was posted on Moving on that he didn't think there was anything wrong with Berg having sexual interactions with his granddaughter Mene because if it was done in love it was not a sin.

And this is where my problem with Jotham lies. I'm afraid I cannot view him as simply a pure missionary. Either he is defending Berg out of pure loyalty, or the hiding of something in his own past for which he wants absolution, or a desire or wish that he could have some perverted interaction with some young girl or relative. I wouldn't be comfortable to see him again, nor to leave my children with him. I doubt he would do anything to hurt or be malicous towards them, but I would still be uncomfortable nonetheless.

Perhaps you should ask Jotham to clarify his statements since you are so friendly with him. And I would be curious to know how you view your friend's opinion of Berg's incest with his granddaugther, and the justification that it was good because it was in accordance to love, despite the fact that it drove such girl to insanity, beatings, and she is now living a desperate life. [/b]
 
fisherman 1
 
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 10:33 pm
Actually Porcelain Doll, I am not a groupie, so I do overlook the fact that you are on a groupie board called NDN, and NO I didn't make any comments that were out of line ....... and we were talking about sexual health, so was on topic. But you got offended because of your religious non beliefs. That is your choice. But Yes, if James comments are true, I definitely would have disagreed with him quite vigorously and yet on NDN I would have been censored for saying such even though I never swear or am disrespectful.

And now James no longer communicates with me because I started the BB called truths against the Family, [Moderator: Link removed.] and there I have agauin blasted the family for their sexual sins.... so you saying I wouldn;t tell james his error is unfounded, as I don;t like groupie relationships, where you look the other way when others are being abused. Group politics and friendships that back others no matter what are not my style. It is unChristian. I know you are not a Christian, but still, the principle is SPEAK UP about atrocities....and I have, even though censoring happens when the quilty parties get uncomfrotable.
Porceleindoll wrote:
fisherman wrote:

Anyway, James, Jotham, may be your ideal of a missionary. And he is probably sincerely doing what he can to get out that oh so wonderful message of God's Love to people. I know Jothan personally, never really had a problem with him, fellow Gemini, a bit different from the norm.

But here is where I have a problem with him, and you need to remember this the next time you communicate with your buddy--
Jotham openly stated in an email which was posted on Moving on that he didn't think there was anything wrong with Berg having sexual interactions with his granddaughter Mene because if it was done in love it was not a sin.

And this is where my problem with Jotham lies. I'm afraid I cannot view him as simply a pure missionary. Either he is defending Berg out of pure loyalty, or the hiding of something in his own past for which he wants absolution, or a desire or wish that he could have some perverted interaction with some young girl or relative. I wouldn't be comfortable to see him again, nor to leave my children with him. I doubt he would do anything to hurt or be malicous towards them, but I would still be uncomfortable nonetheless.

Perhaps you should ask Jotham to clarify his statements since you are so friendly with him. And I would be curious to know how you view your friend's opinion of Berg's incest with his granddaugther, and the justification that it was good because it was in accordance to love, despite the fact that it drove such girl to insanity, beatings, and she is now living a desperate life. [/b]


Incest is absolutely wrong..... notice my recent anti-rape postings that we are even now posting about on our newsgroup.

[Moderator: Link removed.]

and especially

[Moderator: Link removed.]

So I hope you aren;t now offended that I am so opposed to INCEST and protecting the young sexually, because one of the Family's greatest sins was their sexual abuse of the young. They never got our kids, and we never particpated as they deemed us out of it. thank the Lord. And we reported all of their evil deeds which is why they excommunicated us. Do read the posts here and on our website and discussion boards, but our newsgroup is only for the strong and closed.
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 11:04 pm
fisherman wrote:
Actually Porcelain Doll, I am not a groupie, so I do overlook the fact that you are on a groupie board called NDN, and NO I didn't make any comments that were out of line ....... and we were talking about sexual health, so was on topic. But you got offended because of your religious non beliefs.

Fisherman, please keep in mind that this is a moderated forum intended as a place for civil exchange of information, and that personal attacks will not be tolerated.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 10:23 am
No where did I attack Porcelain Doll above and just because she accuses me of such elsewhere, Yes that should not be allowed.... as that is not a topic of this research board.

So do remind her of that as well, as this topic is about James and the fun you were having with her.

I civillly responded to her with exact hyperlinks that I against INCEST and believe in Protecting the YOUNG. She asked I responded..I see nothing wrong with that.

If James wrote and believes in Incest as Porcelain Doll suggested, I would suggest that James would need a warning not I. I would have warned james if he wrote in favour of INCEST, as I am not a groupie. This also I explained to Porcelain Doll.

groupies whether in or out of the Family want all their friends to back them up no matter what, or every issue, so they all speak the same thing. I disagree as my friends and I can vary on different topics, but the main ones we agree on. ...and if one gets astray into something like incest that is hurtful, we tell'em.

So why can't I say that I would tell james off if he wrote in favour of incest. Yes, sexually is a difficult topic to discuss, and people take it personnally. But when it comes to INCEST we have to speak up. And if this topic is poking fun at James, then I say if james was pro-incest, that's not FUNNY.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 10:36 am
Monger, please explain why Porcelain Doll can say the folowing and you don't warn her.

"""""Jay, I was going to ignore all your rants on this board. I am still quite upset at you for your behavior and attacks at me personally on NDN when I thought we at least were some sort of friends, using a psuedonym and making those ridiculous comments and accusations sort just rubbed me the wrong way.""""

She attacking using the very pointed and inflamatory words like 'rants' 'rubbed' 'attacks' 'upset' and 'ridicul;ous'... why are her words deemed a civil exchange when they have no revelance to this board. Why can she bring up an issue of hers, from another board ?

And if I said our differences are because of no belief in religion (or Christianity)...that is something we have established through years of emailing each other. i do like Porcelain Doll, but we can;t be close friends because she is not a Christian anymore. So I wasn;t accusing her of her beliefs at all, we know why we differ, and in a discussion this truth eventually comes out.

So do be fair and warn sides, but do notice I didn't attack Porcelain Doll. besides she is mature and a mum and a long time poster on many boards. She can surely handle a little discussion especially when she brings up the topic of James supposed Incest Values.

So again, maybe we should invite james back HERE to defend his ideals in person rather than attacking him on what he may or may not have written. I never heard him say he was for incest. And so YES I would discuss it like men, in front of him. The topic is James and Humour, and now Porcelain Doll has thrown in incest which isn't funny. So maybe that attack by Porcelain Doll against James should be substantiated, for all along I have been against mockery behind the back, and so if that was not done, let's settle also if James is rightly or wrongly accused of favopuring incest.

And maybe we can find out if the Family still believes in incest secretly or openly. Now that would be a valid thread. Maybe Porcelain Doll should have brought it up on a separate thread... but she did try to attack me with it. And it doesn;t apply, so let's see if it does apply to James. Ask him personnally.

LIJIYLJOYCGTH

D
 
fisherman 1
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 11:09 am
Monger,

Can I ask if someone using the expression " Hey sh!t-stick. idiot. .... Eat sh!t." is accepatble civil discussion HERE, Because jusy yesterday it was used against me, on the other thread.

But I overlooked it and went on with a discussion with him, and maybe now we both understand each other better. I ma not offended by such language as long as it moderates itsself by coming out, and the tone tones down.

So do consider warning All if you warn some., and do use the same standard for ALL not just for some or one.

I can give the exact thread posting number and title if you like.

Yours sincerely and civilly

David Jay Jordan Fisherman

PS) My wife would post but on a certain Exer Board in the past when she wrote about how Sam perfilio raped her and almost killed our baby, other well known and respected Exers jumped on her for being a Filippina, and said "She was so full of shit that her eyes were brown'...and yet the other well respected and well known Exers said nothing and allowed it. So maybe if our discussions were fair and respectful and OPEN and moderated fairly, we would bring ourselves together in real discussion for real progress...
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 03:10 pm
David Jay,

You have been on this site for a total of 5 days. At the time of this post you have made nearly 40 posts to this Website. That is an average of 8 posts per day.

Please be advised that your presence here is tolerated, not welcomed.

Just because you are on a new forum, does not mean you are beginning with a clean slate.

Thank you.

--WalkerJ
Editor for xFamily.org
 
Craven de Kere 1
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 08:57 pm
WalkerJ wrote:
Please be advised that your presence here is tolerated, not welcomed.


By whom?
 
Acheick
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 10:57 pm
me for one
And since Jay has been banned from every other exmember site by a unanimous vote, then I would say an awful lot more people than me. He's found this site where people don't know him yet. He'll start off tolerable and then once he has people talking to him, you'll see what happens.

Also, a few years back when we heard that Zac Pendergast (sp?) was getting parent of the year award and realized he was a bona fide F. member and that there were several accusations of abuse from SGs we all got together and decided to do a letter campaign and alert the media that he was a F. member. Jay worked against us every step of the way. He foamed and fumed and said all sorts of nasty things about us because we didn't think an abuser should get parent of the year.

He's come up with prophecies and said he's going to curse people. He has a way of being very hurtful in a sly sort of way. Just look at Porcelein Doll's reaction to his presence here.

It goes on, but you get the idea.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 11:29 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
By whom?

By me.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:28 am
Walker, it seems you may not be speaking for ALL or all moderaters when you suggest that you only tolerate me and yet don't welcome me.
And when you say new people don't start here with a new slate.

For what evil have I done in discussing whether Monger was mocking James ? I don't like mockery as too many exers boards are into this rather negative depressing mode. I like substained accussations, because they help us grow and learn.

And what evil did I do in helping bring down Family Care because they were stealing from the poor, I thought you would have welcomed that didn;t just complain but put pen to paper electronically and figured out exactly where the FC thefts were coming from.

And especially Walker, why do you not WARN, Jack for telling me a respectful poster to " Hey sh!t-stick. idiot. .... Eat sh!t. " Why was he not Warned for his uncivil discussion, and yet I was. All I did was suggest to porcelain Doll, that our differences are hinged almost entirely on our differences in faith in the Lord.That was not an accussation against her, as we through years of emailing between each other know this. Porcelain doesn't believe in the Lord, that's her choice. So am I not allowed to believe in the Lord ? And should I be warned about such a belief system ?

I also don't think Porcelain Doll should accuse James of being in favour of INCEST, as that is very infl;amatory. It may be true, but we would definitely have to have proof of that. And again, if this thread was suppose to be humouress, I don;t think such an accussation against james should be put on this thread. I don't like false accussations but verified and confirmed ones.

As for postings, its quality not quantity, and I think I have brought certain principles and similarities to the table with each posting. I don't like posting without a prupose and an AIM and with no meaning like some.

Here my aim was lets not mock, and I am partially convinced that Monger wasn't and it was done in good fun, even though I haven't heard from James, whether he took it that way.

So 40 posts seems rather biblical to me, and a good start if I can keep posting good helpful revelatory posts in my opinion and from our experiences.

Don;t you agree, or am only I limited in how many posts I can post.?

Got to fly and answe Aschiek, I hope that is permissable ?

Love in Jesus and His Love

david
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:54 am
Achiek, alow me to answer you more specifically in ...(...) after your comments


*****************************

And since Jay has been banned from every other exmember site by a unanimous vote, (Voting of board members in secret is hardly a unamous vote, but much more along the lines of Family leadership voting to excommunicate those that are causing others to think and get away from their domination. ) then I would say an awful lot more then I would say an awful lot more people than me. (Yes, groupies tend to bring in their groupie friends to any exer board I went to and caused soooo much trouble that even moderate boards kicked me off, because of their outrageous rage) He's found this site where people don't know him yet. (As always my writing remains the same. I hope to make people see family sins and WHY, and see our own prersent sins so we don;t repeat the same mistakes. So should I be ashamed of speaking up, when that is the main reason why family atrocities got so bad. Should I just shut up even though I don;t write out of control and write objectively..) He'll start off tolerable and then once he has people talking to him, you'll see what happens. (Yes, people will vary in opinions once we get talking, as we each start to stand up individually and seek out what we truly believe. Achieck, truth comes from personal search and discussion not from obeying leadership and becoming a group whether in or OUT of the Family. A GROUP can't save us.... and we all should differ in what we think, the more we talk. We don;t have to think alike, Achieck so don;t be so fearful if others disagree with you. You need not kick them out and chase them from board to board, to silence their objective messages that might make you think. How quickly you have forgotten why the Family failed.)

Also, a few years back when we heard that Zac Pendergast (sp?) was getting parent of the year award and realized he was a bona fide F. member and that there were several accusations of abuse from SGs we all got together and decided to do a letter campaign and alert the media that he was a F. member. (No I protested the stopping of a charity work in giving food to the poor. I am a missionary that knows the plight of being poor and being hungry. I hate to see the food for the poor being taken away on the basis that a person is in the Family. I don;t know about Zac's personal history, as this was a briother and a charity work in Denver that I fought for. YES, I am quilty of wanting food for the poor to get to the poor. Quilty as charged. Sword of the Lord tried to get me fired from work, Sword of the Lord got Faithy ousted from her Siberian work for the poor on religious grounds, so YES I did and am proud of the fact that I have tried to stop the religious persecution of Family members who are truly feeding the poor. Quilty as sin if you think that is evil. I Don;t. I still will fight for the poor, even if later on in the past I got FC kicked out of California. Why, because they were in FACT stealing from the poor, So in that case, I eventually said, this is different. FC is NOT doing charity work. FC is stealing gfrom the poor and so YES I composed and sent letters to the media against them, giving specific details against FC. I offerred to work with any NDN members in California against FC, but they not even knowing my idenity still refused. So YES I am against stopping charity works unless that charity is stealing themselves from the poor.)

Jay worked against us every step of the way. (Amen amen, I hate false worldly persecution that hurts the poor and the abused. I dfon;t like Vengeance, I prefer the Lord's justice. if that is a SIN, again quilty as charged by the worldly wrathful NDN) He foamed and fumed and said all sorts of nasty things about us because we didn't think an abuser should get parent of the year. (NO, the Denver charity was taken away simply by saying he was a family member. Being a family member is not in and of itself a crime. I am not a groupie and see individuals first rather than their group association. I was not aware of the charges against Zac, was was aware of the consistent wrathful presecution of anyone Sword of the Lord aimed their worldly sword against...including me and my family.

He's come up with prophecies and said he's going to curse people. (No I pray and the Lord is the one that answers prayer. for His justice and judgment is much better than man's worldly vengance or the justice of weorldly courts. So there again is why they booted me off NDN, I oppposed going to worldly ccurts because it won;t work, and as you can see it hasn;t worked until NOW. Worldly courts hardly ever get things right and they are more hurtful than hel;pful, so why can;t I say this when it has been proven trueto this date. Why can;t their be an opposing voice to worldly wrath. Why can;t I believe in the Lord;s judgments. Is not NDN Christian ? Hmmmm so why can;t they believe in the Lord taking the family down ?)

He has a way of being very hurtful in a sly sort of way. Just look at Porcelein Doll's reaction to his presence here. (Yes, she doesn;t like to be reminded of our differences in approach to the family. I like a Christian judgment appraoch, she differs. So.... I allow her to have her opinion even if it hasn;t worked til now, so why not allow me to have my opinion Here without again trying to silence it.)

It goes on, but you get the idea. (Exactly.. Thanks for the confirmation that you all stick together... and yet individuals will go because when it comes down to it, we all have to decide individually and live with our decisions individually.)

Sincerely

David

(As Sword of the Lord didn;t succed in getting me fired from my job and hasn;t succeeded in stopping our missionary work..... or me defending charity works that actually feed the poor.)
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 12:01 pm
fisherman wrote:
Walker, it seems you may not be speaking for ALL or all moderaters when you suggest that you only tolerate me and yet don't welcome me.


Read it again, fisherman. It doesn't seem that way, it is that way. Notice that I didn't sign the post as "on behalf of the xFamily editors"?

Much love in a-crucified-Jewish-carpenter-who-never-said-half-of-the-stuff-attrributed-to-him-and-whose-love-has-left-me-with-a-sore-ass,

WalkerJ
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 12:10 pm
Thanks Walker for explaining why you don't speak for all moderaters, as its obvious from your closing remark.

Is this why you don;t mind Jack saying to me " Hey sh!t-stick. idiot. .... Eat sh!t" ?

Anyway if you tolerate my difference of opinion, that's sufficient for me. Never have shirked from a true objective discussion of principles...as it is always beneficial if others are able to read a true debate. because then they have to decide, think and/or pray and make decisions.

If this is your tolerance, then Good on ya.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 12:20 pm
fisherman wrote:
Is this why you don;t mind Jack saying to me " Hey sh!t-stick. idiot. .... Eat sh!t" ?

Jack is an editor here as well. His opinion is his own, but I don't doubt it is shared.
Besides, it's only an insult. I'd think you'd be mature enough to have dealt with it by now?

fisherman wrote:
Never have shirked from a true objective discussion of principles

Hmmm... I have yet to come across an objective post by you. But, hey, I'm willing to be surprised.
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 04:27 pm
Hey Fisterman, I stand unwaveringly by my immature yet significantly descriptive name-callings. You insulted me by accusing me of joining COG. You went too far by suggesting I ever wanted to "serve the Lord."

Besides, your spelling and inability to form a coherent statement clearly indicates that you are either twelve years old or by definition a moron. I was merely trying to speak on your level. I don't care what excuses you bring or what degrees you claim to possess, you have to at least have a GED to get into a university. I was raised in fxcking sex cult never having had the opportunity to spend a day in school and yet I still eclipse you in spelling and apparently intelligence.

Much love in Satan and his affiliates,

Joe
 
Acheick
 
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 05:51 pm
Jack - thanks for making me laugh till tears were coming out of my eyes.

Laughing
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 01:38:43