QUESTION: DId only 72 or 225 join WPF???????

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Well you will have to figure a little bit out for yourself, but....

You could start with the 62 ministers named to the various commitees on the WPF website and then you need only 10 more. I could actually name names from that point, but would rather not, however I am quite sure that there are 10 more ministers working in the local churched of just the 6 executive council members. Not to mention their "sons in the Gospel."


Like I say, it sure makes ya miss the "accurate" reporting we used to get from Thad!!

Originally Posted by dizzyde

My point is that you are making the assumption that the information on the website is 100% accurate. It would seem that is not the case.

Originally Posted by embonpoint

I think you assume what my assumptions are.:biggrin:

I don't assume that the site is 100% correct. Lets assume it is only 90% correct that means you only have to come up with another 16 or 17 names other than those listed, again a pretty safe assumption based on the churches of the 56 or so that would still be associated.

I do admit to making assumptions. Just not the one you assumed.

[StillStanding]

It seems to me that a forthcoming list of membership would be benificial, so other members would know exactly who to fellowship and who to blacklist!

Originally Posted by ogatt

well i know one thing i about got tv preached out of our church. I stood up last nite and told those morons that if they didnt put 20.00 apiece in the offering i was going to make them openly confess
to watching tv at shoneys after church.

i had a 60.00 dollar offering and 3 I.O.U.'s that said
' i will pay up next sunday."

You are in the wrong profession Ogatt. I have been reading your stuff and am crying from laughing so hard. You should be a comedian.

Originally Posted by StMark

I predict that the UPC will pass a rule that you cannot be apart of WPF and the UPC at the same time.could be wrong,but I know there are a lot of people pushing for this.

already(i was told )there was an employee of WEC that was fired because her husband joined WPF

do I smell a lawsuit?

[Dan'D]

Originally Posted by MissionsJD

Nothing is obvious with this group. I know for a fact at least three of the names on the website actually asked for their names to be removed from the list. They had never given permission for their names to be used and were quite upset that this happened.

What does that tell you about this group?

You need to check your facts.

Dan'D

[Pastor G]

Originally Posted by Dan'D

You need to check your facts.

Dan'D

Please note: no one knows anything about Tulsa, WPF or anyone on the flyer they sent out except Dandy... He is the authority!!! So no one mention anything unless Dandy authenticates it first....

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by MissionsJD

I don't have their permission to post their names. They didn't ask for this negative publicity and posting thier names here would only add insult to injury.

Tell you what. When this list does come out, (assuming there will be one) compare the names that were on the pre Tulsa list, and which ones actually joined up. Better yet, check with some that were "on committees" and see if they actually joined WPF. That will at least let you narrow it down a little bit.

On second thought, that may not be a very good way to tell because I don't think many have joined up at all... sorry.

If you are not able to substantiate your claims of wrong doing, then your testamony is void of credibility. It has been stated plainly by the Tulsa group that they did in fact speak to each person on the list. Thus far, no one has been bold enough to come forward that was on the original list and state openly that they did not speak to them. Until that occurs, I will continue to give the Tulsa group the benefit of the doubt, and disbelieve all those that come saying "he said/she said".

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Well you will have to figure a little bit out for yourself, but....

You could start with the 62 ministers named to the various commitees on the WPF website and then you need only 10 more. I could actually name names from that point, but would rather not, however I am quite sure that there are 10 more ministers working in the local churched of just the 6 executive council members. Not to mention their "sons in the Gospel."

Like I say, it sure makes ya miss the "accurate" reporting we used to get from Thad!!

Originally Posted by dizzyde

My point is that you are making the assumption that the information on the website is 100% accurate. It would seem that is not the case.

Originally Posted by embonpoint

I think you assume what my assumptions are.:biggrin:

I don't assume that the site is 100% correct. Lets assume it is only 90% correct that means you only have to come up with another 16 or 17 names other than those listed, again a pretty safe assumption based on the churches of the 56 or so that would still be associated.

I do admit to making assumptions. Just not the one you assumed.

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Sis. Dizzy,

I try to be careful on AFF as to what I post and what assumptions I make. This is only fair as I have been one questioning, even in this thread, the hearsay that is being used to convict the organizers of the WPF. The best bluff is always, no bluff.

The little exchange you I have been having is again a microcosm of the over all debate and rush to judgment based on what appears to be obvious facts. Many times on closer examination the facts are not exactly as they first appeared.

The missing fact in the above posts is that there are actually 63 different ministers names listed on the committees of the WPF not including any on the Ladies Committee.

My actual assumption was that the list might not be 100% accurate particularly the youth committee, thus the 62 number, but the thread was not about the accuracy of the website but the accuracy of only 72 joining.

Not trying to pick a fight and am in fact probably done with AFF.
God Bless

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Sis. Dizzy,

I try to be careful on AFF as to what I post and what assumptions I make. This is only fair as I have been one questioning, even in this thread, the hearsay that is being used to convict the organizers of the WPF. The best bluff is always, no bluff.

The little exchange you I have been having is again a microcosm of the over all debate and rush to judgment based on what appears to be obvious facts. Many times on closer examination the facts are not exactly as they first appeared.

The missing fact in the above posts is that there are actually 63 different ministers names listed on the committees of the WPF not including any on the Ladies Committee.

My actual assumption was that the list might not be 100% accurate particularly the youth committee, thus the 62 number, but the thread was not about the accuracy of the website but the accuracy of only 72 joining.

Not trying to pick a fight and am in fact probably done with AFF.
God Bless

Bro./Sis.?

I certainly hope that it did not seem like I was trying to pick a fight, that was not my intention. One of my biggest struggles since joining AFF is learning how to have discussions without being able to hear the tones of voices. I am not a confrontational person by nature, and I have gotten more riled up on here than I would prefer on a few occasions.

I sincerely hope that nothing that I have said or done would cause you to leave here, if that is the case I apologize.

I understand the point that you were trying make, I think that my problem stemmed from the fact that I didn't realize you were looking at the bigger picture with your comments, while I was focusing on that one comment.

I really hope you don't leave AFF, especially not because of me!

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Bro./Sis.?

I certainly hope that it did not seem like I was trying to pick a fight, that was not my intention. One of my biggest struggles since joining AFF is learning how to have discussions without being able to hear the tones of voices. I am not a confrontational person by nature, and I have gotten more riled up on here than I would prefer on a few occasions.

I sincerely hope that nothing that I have said or done would cause you to leave here, if that is the case I apologize.

I understand the point that you were trying make, I think that my problem stemmed from the fact that I didn't realize you were looking at the bigger picture with your comments, while I was focusing on that one comment.

I really hope you don't leave AFF, especially not because of me!

No it did not seem you were picking a fight. I am sorry for making it sound that way. You are not responsible for my decision. Our exchange has made me look at myself and realize that I am engaging unknown people in discussions that I would never feel comfortable doing in person and certainly not with members of another flock. It is my comfort level and ethics that is the issue. Not saying I will never postagain but not for some time and not in the same manner. Again may God bless you and yours.