Lee Stoneking Addresses UN

[n david]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So how do you call WII a liar when you cannot know his intent?

Are you libeling WII?

WIi claimed Stoneking lied about the wives of bin laden being baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. He posted a video of Stoneking telling an audience about this. Stoneking never once said HE performed the baptisms, nor did he even claim witnessing them. He said his friend, whom he identified only as "CP" was the one who told him this happened.

WIi claims Stoneking lied simply because he repeated what his friend told him.

Stoneking did not lie about it. WIi knows this, yet continues to claim (ie lie) that Stoneking is lying about it.

I'm not libeling WIi. I proved he's lying about Stoneking. He's also misleading and being dishonest about Stoneking's message to the meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly, and Wilson's ministry at the UN.

It's clear what WIi's intent is. He's made no attempt to hide his hatred and disdain for Stoneking. He's called Stoneking a "slimy snake oil salesman." He's written post after post calling Stoneking a liar. His posts are all done to try and discredit Stoneking and Wilson and try to get others to question their character, credibility and all of what they've been doing at the UN.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by n david

WIi claimed Stoneking lied about the wives of bin laden being baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. He posted a video of Stoneking telling an audience about this. Stoneking never once said HE performed the baptisms, nor did he even claim witnessing them. He said his friend, whom he identified only as "CP" was the one who told him this happened.

WIi claims Stoneking lied simply because he repeated what his friend told him.

Stoneking did not lie about it. WIi knows this, yet continues to claim (ie lie) that Stoneking is lying about it.

I'm not libeling WIi. I proved he's lying about Stoneking. He's also misleading and being dishonest about Stoneking's message to the meeting of the 69th Session of the General Assembly, and Wilson's ministry at the UN.

It's clear what WIi's intent is. He's made no attempt to hide his hatred and disdain for Stoneking. He's called Stoneking a "slimy snake oil salesman." He's written post after post calling Stoneking a liar. His posts are all done to try and discredit Stoneking and Wilson and try to get others to question their character, credibility and all of what they've been doing at the UN.

If what your saying WII did makes him a liar then stoneking clearly would qualify as a liar under that same assessment.

It's a bit hypocritical to claim that stoneking did not lie because he did not intend to deceive and then to turn around and claim that WII lied and presume to know his intent.

[n david]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If what your saying WII did makes him a liar then stoneking clearly would qualify as a liar under that same assessment.

WIi knew Stoneking did not lie. He knew Stoneking was relating a story from someone else and not saying he did it personally.

Stoneking did not know the story was a lie.

There's a difference of what they both knew.

Originally Posted by jfrog

It's a bit hypocritical to claim that stoneking did not lie because he did not intend to deceive and then to turn around and claim that WII lied and presume to know his intent.

Stoneking didn't lie because he didn't know the story was a lie. He didn't lie because he didn't say he did it personally nor did he claim to witness it.

WIi knew this and STILL called Stoneking a liar and a "slimy snake oil salesman."

[Barb]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If what your saying WII did makes him a liar then stoneking clearly would qualify as a liar under that same assessment.

It's a bit hypocritical to claim that stoneking did not lie because he did not intend to deceive and then to turn around and claim that WII lied and presume to know his intent.

We don't have to "presume" anything with the Islam Walker...his intent is confusion. He can say it isn't so, but his speech betrays him.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by n david

WIi knew Stoneking did not lie. He knew Stoneking was relating a story from someone else and not saying he did it personally.

Stoneking did not know the story was a lie.

There's a difference of what they both knew.


Stoneking didn't lie because he didn't know the story was a lie. He didn't lie because he didn't say he did it personally nor did he claim to witness it.

WIi knew this and STILL called Stoneking a liar and a "slimy snake oil salesman."

how can you speak as to what stoneking or wii knew?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

how can you speak as to what stoneking or wii knew?

Can Wii? If I recall, he was actually the first one labeling others (Stoneking) etc liar

[Dante]

Lee Stoneking has a history of lying, and the UPCI has a record of sweeping his homosexuality under the rug.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

WIi knew Stoneking did not lie. He knew Stoneking was relating a story from someone else and not saying he did it personally.

Stoneking did not know the story was a lie

WIi knew this and STILL called Stoneking a liar and a "slimy snake oil salesman."

Taking a break from researching just how many countries (wow so many) have permanent delegations to the UN.

The UN was pretty busy on the 21st. Just how busy involves audience screenshots.

I say he knows and knew that fantastic story wasnt true. Relating an untrue story from someone who relates an untrue story is called perpetuating a lie.

Which is also what I said. It wouldnt be perpetuated further on the internet if he had not used his self serving non annointed mouth to say it and put it out in the public arena.

With that said I only have to post the untrue story and the man telling it and the physical facts about the man and the marriages of that man to make my case. You say this is libel? Bleh.

It is not your place to post what this man did or did not know or his intent. It is his place. I already said he has not and will not correct this story. Proud, unrepentent men are not Godly men and men who in their message do and say such blatently untrue things are not annointed men. God directs men to say what is good and true.

Even the Quran has example: 'Say, Oh Mohammed, I am but a Messenger'....more than once. The bible directs men towards humility and so does the Quran.

Add proud, self-serving, and not annointed to the libel lawsuit. Say what you want about my intent. When someone shines a light on a man you uplift and hold high in esteem and you do not like what you see you better be asking yourself why and buying yourself a full length mirror.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Can Wii? If I recall, he was actually the first one labeling others (Stoneking) etc liar

Dont be distracting anyone into believing i did not post "this got said", "this is the actual truth", "this is the context" before attaching a label to it. Hopefully you see the difference. Anyone here can directly contradict what I said. Missing are the attachments that go with the contradictions.

Answer: yes, I can. I can look at available evidence, analyze it, and make my own conclusion as to intent. Judges and juries do it every single day. You can do it to me, I can do it to you.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Barb

We don't have to "presume" anything with the Islam Walker...his intent is confusion. He can say it isn't so, but his speech betrays him.

Nothing confusing about made up stories of caves and wives. Nothing confusing about posting pictures from a play in 2009 and labeling them a service. Nothing confusing about a speech to a room full of empty seats with an observation that an address at the UN is not the same as an address to the UN, with to the UN defined as to the UN members or delegates.

Its a group of unrelated events with one common denominator. Exaggeration. What appears to be systematic and deliberate exaggeration. Exaggeration can have only one intent. Only one. To mislead.