A Night of Supernatural Events

[Ferd]

Daniel it works like this. a few days ago, I told a story on the forum about a couple of ministers that I found very funny. someone took issue with what I said. I could have stuck to my guns or made sure to correct what was bothersome. my FIRST instinct was to correct the issue and both publically and privately appologize for any possble wrong....when it was FIRST brought to my attention.

This is the standard I hold MYSELF to bro. That tact is clearly missing here.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Daniel it works like this. a few days ago, I told a story on the forum about a couple of ministers that I found very funny. someone took issue with what I said. I could have stuck to my guns or made sure to correct what was bothersome. my FIRST instinct was to correct the issue and both publically and privately appologize for any possble wrong....when it was FIRST brought to my attention.

This is the standard I hold MYSELF to bro. That tact is clearly missing here.

Was the same standard used w/ various of Brother Strange's prophecies ... one of his own ... and another prophecy that came from SC? Some of those calling for blood here were the same detractors in those threads. [and I don't mean Admin]

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Was the same standard used w/ various of Brother Strange's prophecies ... one of his own ... and another prophecy that came from SC? Some of those calling for blood here were the same detractors in those threads. [and I don't mean Admin]

More spin and attempted misdirection.

More refusal to deal with facts and plain statements.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Was the same standard used w/ various of Brother Strange's prophecies ... one of his own ... and another prophecy that came from SC? Some of those calling for blood here were the same detractors in those threads. [and I don't mean Admin]

Yes. and yet there is a clear difference. we are not talking about someone speaking of future events. we are talking about a preacher that reached out to someone in pain via the Holy Ghost and that man being called a Charlatan.

SC clearly was challenged on his MESSAGE which is now quite different from what it once was. he was not attacked for the prophecy he gave.

You have the capasity to be objective. I dont understand why you arent.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Yes. and yet there is a clear difference. we are not talking about someone speaking of future events. we are talking about a preacher that reached out to someone in pain via the Holy Ghost and that man being called a Charlatan.

SC clearly was challenged on his MESSAGE which is now quite different from what it once was. he was not attacked for the prophecy he gave.

You have the capasity to be objective. I dont understand why you arent.

Type of gift bears no issue here ... integrity is at issue here ... no?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Type of gift bears no issue here ... integrity is at issue here ... no?

No. very differnet gifts and a personal attack here and not there. except that Brother Strange points out that he has been called a liar and while, I am not privy to that exchange, if that happend I should hope it was reviewed.

the issue here is that RW called GG a liar and said that Steafast was "smelly" or some such. and while you have provided an out for RW, he never took it.

[Theresa]

besides, what about you saying "you dont know my private coversations with RW" is so damaging to his stand that you couldnt have shared it pages ago?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Theresa

besides, what about you saying "you dont know my private coversations with RW" is so damaging to his stand that you couldnt have shared it pages ago?

Maybe we should start peeping into PMs? oloroid I think not.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Welcome folks to another tour of the Grand Ballroom of Dancing around an answer to a direct question.

[Theresa]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Welcome folks to another tour of the Grand Ballroom of Dancing around an answer to a direct question.

it's more than that...he's saying RW didnt say what he clearly said...

well he didnt MEAN what he clearly said

that he had been having private coversations with RW and the content proves us alllll wrong.

*shakes head*

I just dont understand

dont really care to either.

I'm having Larry Boy flashbacks