Later..............

[stmatthew]

My response is in red

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

This was posted by Timlan on Feb 15th of last year.


I see this forum eventually becoming another GNC.

It's already a good bit down that road.


stmatt - That is definately a false claim, as many liberal folks have continued to post here without fear of discipline


This forum isn't 42nd cousin relative to carrying on Jim Yohe's vision.


stmatt - No one ever stated that AFF was here to carry on Jims vision. We left that behind with NFCF


First is the anonymous owner thing.

It reminds me of the want-ads in the paper: "Come down to such-and-such-address to hear about an exciting, rewarding career!"

Well, the "career" was selling vacuum cleaners

Those guys knew if they put "selling vacuum cleaners" in the advertisement, no one would show up so they had to use a "bait-and-switch."

If owners have to be anonymous, they know that people would be unhappy with the situation if they were revealed.

Jim Yohe had a vision of an open forum and open discussion. He was willing to pay the price for it.

It cost him revivals and income.

These guys, in contrast, have to remain anonymous because they are afraid of getting caught in something "controversial"?

It reminds me of Richard Nixon saying that some men sought political office to make a difference. Others sought it just to "be somebody."

These present anonymous owners are definitely the latter, stroking their egos with being a "forum owner" with their hands on the ban button.


stmatt - This is ridicules. How does one be attempting to be "known as sombody" and at the same time hide their identity? Now as to their wanting to guard their ministry, it seems that they had good cause, as one of them had several issues over their "ownership".


And then we of course have some crowing that on here there is no "preacher bashing" like on NFCF.

I challenge someone to give me a specific example of "preacher bashing" on NFCF.


And most posters are like those little fish in aquariums that swim in groups; flitting from one side of the aquarium to the other, following the lead fish.

Now everyone is talking about "preacher bashing."

I'll tell you what it was a "code word" for on NFCF - when those espousing typical "ole time pentecostal" rhetoric and postions and the same tired old assumptions got their heads handed to them in argument, they then retreated behind the shield that anyone opposing their point-of-view was "preacher bashing."

I said it on the other forum and I'll say it here.

You have a majority of UPC preachers owning this forum and remaining anonymous with a few "libs" as moderators for window-dressing and you'll see bannings for "preacher-bashing" and the owners and such can convince themselves that they are "right" when they can't prove their positions with any substance.

It would be interesting to know what the financial split of paying the bills are among the supposed "owners" and we'd see how much some of the libs are there just for window dressing.

So no.

This forum is not close to NFCF.

I find it laughably ironic that BOOMM and others are on here talking about "preacher bashing" and others following their lead; herd-like, when the root problems at NFCF leading to its closure were caused by a preacher who was a big part of the forum.

If someone has to remain anonymous, it's the same principle, the same "bait-and-switch" as the vaccuum cleaner sales ad.

Of course none of this will bother some; they just need to get their internet fix so they'll post anywhere.


stmatt - more rhetoric. Many were aware of the venomous posting toward ministry of NFCF. And no, I do not believe we saw that here. But then again, you weren't here to see that.


As for me, I don't think I'll be around here long.


stmatt - Now you finally state something that is true. You didn't stay here long.