Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover (Post 371949)

To encroach; trespass:

To attack as false or questionable; challenge in argument:


Hey... they both fit

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 371939)

I could levy a charge of them being unethical, but I am hearing 2 differing stories from both sides. One side impinges the other, and the other side says they did it not. Who do I believe since I do not have any evidence one way or the other? Its all supposition at this point.

Originally Posted by OfInterest (Post 368255)

This was a dialogue between myself and whoever answers their email (info@worldwidepf.com) at the WWPF.

I first emailed and asked the following:

"Do you think it is unethical to steal a mailing list from an organization you are planning to leave and use that mailing list to advertise for your new "fellowship"/organization?"


Their reply:

"it was not stolen.
Sincerely,
God Bless You"

My response:

"If that is true, why was my UPCI ministerial ID on it?"


Their 2nd reply:

"The list was bought and paid for from the UPC. They used to give them
away and now they sell them. I helped sponsor a meeting and we used
to get a new one every year.

In case you wondered, there are UPCI mailing lists ALL over this
nation. I know of literally hundreds of ministers that have
them...Sorry.
God Bless You,"

I sent this third reply I sent on the 15th of January. I have not received a reply. (not that I anticipate receiving one):

"If you read the guidelines to using such a list, it states that they are for a one time use and your district superintendent must sign his approval for the use. Did you have district superintendent approval to use this list? Have you used it more than once? Also, was this the first time you has used that list? How many times have you used this same list? Also, UPCI idnumbers are not supposed to be included on out of the building mailings. This is a clear example of unethical behavior unbecoming ministers of the gospel."

I know the UPCI is not perfect. I have plenty of complaints, but organizations/fellowships are made of people and people are not perfect, thus this new fellowship will have plenty of it's own problems. If they were truly starting this organization over the TV resolution, it would make them look pretty silly and inconsistent when most of them have web broadcasts. You cannot legislate every media source. If they have other complaints, they should start talking about them instead of creating new fellowships/organizations.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 371829)

Your post was questioned here and here - and questioned rather gently, I think, given the inflamatory nature of your accusations.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 371931)

You seem to want to keep playing the victim card here. Why can't you say, "You know, the way I strung those anecdotes together about shacking up and social drinking being allowed in UPC churches could have been seen as a slam against the UPC?"

You have now taken it so far as to say that I "lack integrity." You have attacked the entire fellowship with your accusations. I have said that your accusations are exaggerated. Then you fold up into a little ball of self pity and attack me for defending the card you carry in your wallet (or keep in your sock drawer, or whatever).

I did not "impugn" your character. You simply over reached in trying to defend the WPF men. That is my perspective. Unfortunately, the real victim was the UPC which you persist in saying allows "shacking up" and "social drinking." I think that's wrong.

But if I am mistaken, show me the cases where "shacking up without backsliding" and "social drinking" is being tolerated within the UPC. I would willingly join you in evangelizing these folks.

I'm not naive. I know there are instances of terrible trangression among us. I resigned my position because of what I perceived to have been tolerance for adultery. I resigned and kept my mouth shut about it. But years later I found out that my silence had actually hurt my DS and put him in a bad situation. I should have gone to him and trusted him, but I honestly failed in keeping that trust. The reason was I thought that I was "supposed" to just keep silent.

But when you tar the fellowship with the "shacking up" and "social drinking" I feel that I should rise and challenge you on that. I certainly don't know the details about every situation everywhere, but I feel that after 30 years I do know the UPC a little bit. There are isolated instances of these types of "issues." They are isolated. The way to keep them from becoming a part of our culture is to speak out against it.

But to justify men splitting the fellowship by indicting the fellowship with "shacking up" and "social drinking" is going too far. If this belief reveals a "lack of integrity" to you then I will wear that badge with honor. My reputation is solid with good men despite years of false accusation.

Unless it came to "blood" I don't think I could be hurt any worse than I aleady know how to heal from. And that includes a little loss of blood along the way.

Originally Posted by Encryptus (Post 372248)

Hate to attempt to hijack the thread back to Tulsa but...

Granted we have an idea of how many attended. When will there be indication of how many actually signed up??

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover (Post 372267)

I will be surprised if it is more than 1/10 th of the attendance initially.


I wonder if Lurkers are welcome at the Branson meeting?? I might go. Do I take a pledge to join?