@Steve2
You have been insulting me and talking down to me since my 3rd topic post (9th post altogether) and I had to do research on you because I couldn't understand why you're being a colossal turd to me.
So let me repeat something I said in reply to your first ingratiating response to my topic:
"if anyone thinks so then please send me an email with the congregation they go to and i will leave an apology with a vow to never reference people and experiences in the experiences section of the forums."
Well? It's been over a month. Where do they go?
Let's share guideline 1 for posting on here, shall we? Please avoid "Insulting, threatening, or provoking language."
You're smart enough to know not to threaten someone because of the legal ramifications, let alone what will probably happen to your account. But you have been provoking me and insulting me almost every time you talk to me.
Take a look at guideline 4: Please avoide "Breaking the law. This includes libel."
The definition of libel:
"libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published."
Are you seriously going to tell me that in this post and the Russian Government commentary that you never posted anything similar to the definition of libel?
I cannot understand why you are singling me out. I truly can't. I would love to see what responses you get in a topic post entitled "Why arko_n9ne bothers me." You have been the sole nay-sayer in the JWN Public's responses to my comments.
I took you back to gradeschool in our last go-around. Let's see if I can put you back in daycare.
_________________________________________
Steve2 accuses me of:
"putting stuff on his (brother-in-law) desk top without his knowledge."
Ryan Kent says:
"$2000 to the person who can quote me that I put these files on his desktop without his knowledge." I'll settle for "putting stuff on his desk top without his knowledge."
This is a baseless, uninformed accusation. Putting stuff on his account desktop without his password does not indicate I did it without his knowledge. Nor have I used any words or wording to indicate as such. The closest would be the word "slipped," but in it's private sense, it means to pass something to someone secretly. Again, there is no admission or denial of my brother-in-law's knowledge. For all you and the World Wide Web are aware, he knows but I'm not making a spectacle about it.
You do not get to make any more false accusations about me @steve2.
_________________________________________________
Focusing on the other point of contention you have with my post:
@steve2 doesn't like that I'm:
"keeping a track of what he accesses."
Ryan Kent says:
"Unless you are under my roof, are a friend of mine, have any idea of the goings on at this house, or see how the story unfolds, then you have no idea why I am keeping track of his actions on the computer."
$500 to the one who can quote me on who this computer belongs to.
Extra money to the one who can quote why I am keeping track of my brother-in-law's activity.
Steve2, you DON'T know the answer to either of those two questions, and because you decided to run your mouth to me on my 9th post, you won't know. Nor will others. I remember some guy who I never heard of using a screen handle that rhymes with "Leave You" talking down to me for posting personal details about others. Despite my challenge for this seemingly uptight individual to expose my error in posting those details, I was being mindful of what he asked of me.
I don't post intimate details when I write topics now. And now this same guy is making accusations about me, insulting me, based on what I wrote using the guidelines HE suggested.
________________________________________
I am new and you are established steve2. I got that. I also got from your treatment of me "once a Witness, always a Witness." You are condescending, judgemental, and factually inaccurate in undeserved accusations. I would hate to think that given time, most people on JWN will conform to your "once a Witness" attitude to newcomers.
Unlike you, I don't pass judgement until someone has wronged me. Your first contact with me was patronizing and judgemental. ANd those colors don't fly in my ocean.
You have been making strident efforts to discredit me. Why? Only you and God know, but at this point, I don't care. You've been here since the end of 2004. I would have figured you'd realized after all these years that the only way to take someone down is with their own words. Your accusations don't match my words at all. Never have. Never will.
Instead, you resort to taking liberties (like the WTS) with sentences of mine and providing an empty meaning that suits your need (like the WTS). You (like the WTS) make efforts to dictate the way people talk and when they conform, you hang them with that rope (like the WTS). But with me, you need to have a few extra knots. I've got a thick neck and a heck of a backbone. I don't take well to what you're trying.
I will leave you with a quote from some random guy on here who seems to think this quote is clever enough for a t-shirt:
" the JWs wll love you because you are a perfect specimen of how they envisage opposers and/or apostates to be: Sensationalist and unbalanced" -steve2 (JWN Forum, Kelly Jarka Case pg2, 2012)
And I say that with alot of irony. So if you decide to reply, do understand that the next insult (which I avoided with you) or accusation (which I avoided with you), unless you can hang me with my words once and for all, I'll be sending a PM to the big boss.
~Ryan Kent
