Re: About Anger -- The Question -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:21:00 11/13/11 Sun
Author: George
Subject: Re: About Anger -- The Question
In reply to: john 's message, "Re: About Anger -- The Question" on 13:52:24 11/13/11 Sun

>show me where i said i came here to post with you
>because you had stopped posting somewhere else...
>
>and, 3 & 4...
>
>john
>
>
>
>>>so george... the lunacy that follows
>>>notwithstanding... you can't provide proof to back
>up
>>>the serious allegations you have made? well, that is
>>>quite telling...
>>>
>>>john
>>>
>>Nope, John. There is no communicating with you. If I
>>posted what you are asking for you'd just ignore it
>>and point out that it had been posted before -- which
>>would be the usual kind of strangeness prevalent here
>>with liberal posters. It would be strange, because if
>>you actually remembered well enough to know that it
>>had been posted before, you wouldn't be asking for it
>>again.
>>
>>I do recall though, you and Wally saying that you two
>>came here to post because I had quit posting on the
>>other group. It makes no sense that you would have to
>>come here to post if you don't like any of the
>>answers? I have no control over whether you post or
>>not, nor any real concern about it, except for this:
>>
>>The continuing paradoxical things you say --
>>
>>According to you, you came here because you wanted to
>>continue to post conversation with me, but you can't
>>stand me. Stuff like that. I know you said the two
>>opposite things on different days, but there is a
>>continuity problem there.
>>
>>You can take this as an insult, if you are determined
>>to do so, but please clear up which it is.
>>
>>Are you posting here because you want to be around
>>me,
>>or
>>are you doing it because you don't like to be
>>around me?
>>
>>It isn't really as complicated an issue as the
>>identity of whoever really started the church, so a
>>straight answer is possible.
>>
>>I haven't asked you the question before. You can't
>>say that I'm posting the same old stuff, and I can't
>>say that you are still refusing to answer.
>>Nothing about the leadership of the church, or the
>>1986 lockouts, or Conference has anything to do with
>>the question. So we can have a real fresh start here.
>>
>>If you want to communicate, then you could start by
>>answering the question I just asked. In the interest
>>of simplicity, I went back and removed all
>>interrogatory expressions from the above post so that
>>the question would be clear.
>>
>>George

John, I'm not even going to bother reading your next post.
I used to have a friend who had Alzheimer's. He died a few years back, and I'm not interested in choosing to deal with your memory problems.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: About Anger -- The Question -- john, 07:42:53 11/14/11 Mon
Re: About Anger -- The Question -- john, 16:47:26 11/14/11 Mon
- Re: About Anger -- The Question -- George, 20:28:39 11/14/11 Mon
  - Re: About Anger -- The Question -- john, 06:47:17 11/15/11 Tue