by comforter 78 Replies latest jw friends
???Now, come clean....who have you posted as before on this forum. You denied earlier that you had. If we ask Simon to check will we be needing to call you a liar???
You asked if I "post" as anyone else. I took your question to be present tensed and not past tensed. Besides, my email address would be different now if I had posted here in the past since you cannot use the same address twise in this place.
Comforter,
You asked if I "post" as anyone else. I took your question to be present tensed and not past tensed. Besides, my email address would be different now if I had posted here in the past since you cannot use the same address twise in this place.
You are a wicked and cunning old scallwag are you not...lol
So in your earlier posts to this forum, whom did you post as? What identities have you used in an attempt to create mischief here?
HS
As if you could somehow separate the JW belief from the group of old men with undying devotion to deadly principles that have outlived their time. comforter did that mean old AlanF disturb your comfort zone? Is that why you attack him personally, or perhaps is it that you like those old bastards in Bethel, would say anything to protect your good name? Keep twisting words to suit or confuse, we all know you're part of Jehovah's canal spewing new light.....
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Mr Step
???You are a wicked and cunning old scallwag are you not...lol
So in your earlier posts to this forum, whom did you post as???
I think you need to give me a little more credit than that. I have not said I posted as anyone else to this forum. But if I did use other names, why would I announce it to the entire board? I wonder why you are so interested in knowing what names I may have used before. Maybe I should exercise my miranda rights.
???What identities have you used in an attempt to create mischief here?>>>
My intent is never simply to create mischief anywhere. My vocation in life is described at Isaiah 61:1-3. I want to provide comfort to others. But I do it differently. I comfort through discomfort. So, as I said, I will neither affirm nor deny having used other monikers in the past here and other places. But my present client does not think it would be in his best interest to divulge said details you are fishing after.
comforter continues to play idiotic games:
: Let us see who the idiot is in this place. The word "negative" has different meaning in different context.
First comforter states that "respect" doesn't mean "respect" at all, but can mean what normal people think respect means AND mean exactly the opposite of what normal think think respect means: non-respect or negative respect.
Now comforter states that the word that means the opposite of respect (i.e. "negative respect") doesn't really mean "negative" as everyone understands the word to mean, but means different things other than "negative."
Next, it will be tell us that the "different" things its is talking about means other things than "different" and that "different" doesn't always mean different, depending upon the context, and "things" aren't really "things" but can be OTHER things than just "things" depending upon the context, and "context" depends upon the the context that is being used and in certain contexts, "context" can really mean "context," but other times doesn't really mean "context" as we understand it, depending upon the definition of "respect which actually means respect," "respect which actually doesn't mean respect, "positive respect," "negative respect which doesn't really mean respect at all," "negative respect which does mean respect," the "context of the negative respect" in which context actually means context, and "the context of the negative respect" in which "context" doesn't mean context, but means something else other than context, like "negative context of the negative respect."
You're a real piece of work, dummy.
Farkel
We see that some people in this place have trouble grasping abstract thought.
???comforter continues to play idiotic games:
: Let us see who the idiot is in this place. The word "negative" has different meaning in different context.
First comforter states that "respect" doesn't mean "respect" at all, but can mean what normal people think respect means AND mean exactly the opposite of what normal think think respect means: non-respect or negative respect.???
Do you really take me for a fool. I did not say that respect does not mean respect. I merely made distinctions between negative respect and positive repect that lesser minds fail to make. I make a distinction between positive and negative respect. You gettin' lost in the ether, man.
???Now comforter states that the word that means the opposite of respect (i.e. "negative respect") doesn't really mean "negative" as everyone understands the word to mean, but means different things other than "negative."???
I said no such thing. I don't know which dictionary you use, but pull it out and you will see that the word "negative" can be defined as "consisting of negation." The catholic church and others use the word in this way.
Work on your prescension abilities, young man.
But if I did use other names, why would I announce it to the entire board?
Ehhh....as a display of honesty and integrity.
So the Board could assess what type of person you are and what motivates your nonsensical posts.
So that people would not waste time corresponding with persons whose agenda is not to debate but to debase.
So that the thousands of JW lurkers who visit this site with geniune doubts, looking for an expansion of knowledge and truth, can see that you all are about mischief, regardless of your slippery attempts to convince otherwise.
Need I go on...?
Well one thing is for sure. You are not You Know, not intelligent enought, you are not Friday, not intelligent enough, you are not DunsScott, not intelligent enough...lol..Do you see a pattern emerging here.
Please be honest enough to admit to the Board which identities you own on this Board, then let them judge your motives publicly.
HS
Maybe I should do like Bill Bowen and say that over 90 % of Witnesses are not child molesters.
90%?. GOD's Organisation has no child molesters!!!!!!!!!!!!
remember the promise .............andy
Yeah, AlanF. Comforter is definately You Know. I was reading comforters posts and thinking, how can one person have such a long argument about something he sounds so stupid in because he's so clueless and blind, and I thought "You Know used to write like that...hey it's him--he's back!!"
Amazing. Comforter/You Know, you really need to leave your current congregation and join Bethel. The fit is so, so perrrrrfect.
???Ehhh....as a display of honesty and integrity.???
I have not admitted to using other names in this place. So I think this topic is a non issue. But what I find perplexing about the whole matter is that no ex-jw in this place are asked to reveal what names they have had in the past or now have. I believe in fair treatment for all.
???So the Board could assess what type of person you are and what motivates your nonsensical posts.???
My initial post was serious. I think it is a shame that people on this board insult old people, jw or not. They need to have more respect for the elderly. That is not nonsensical. As for what type of person I am, I do not think that people can discern my character by a few posts. Human beingness is a inexhaustible mystery characterized by the numinous nature of Da-sein. Man is hidden man instead of revealed man. So just let others judge me by my words. If they want to talk, then fine. But if you think I am a waste of time, avoid me. I will go away.
???So that people would not waste time corresponding with persons whose agenda is not to debate but to debase.???
I have no desire to debase anyone except for AF and Farkel.
???So that the thousands of JW lurkers who visit this site with geniune doubts, looking for an expansion of knowledge and truth, can see that you all are about mischief, regardless of your slippery attempts to convince otherwise.???
I am not all about mischief. I can assure you of that. So there is no need to answer your question.
???Need I go on...?
Well one thing is for sure. You are not You Know, not intelligent enought, you are not Friday, not intelligent enough, you are not DunsScott, not intelligent enough...lol..Do you see a pattern emerging here.???
I think.
???Please be honest enough to admit to the Board which identities you own on this Board, then let them judge your motives publicly.???
I don't own any identities on this board. They will have to judge my motives on the basis of my posts under the name that I am using at this moment.
