So Teejay, what were you going to say?
Golly gee, Think, I must've forgotten. Being booted, without so much as a "cut it out, teejay" hurts... cuts me to the bone, I tellya. I'm trying to recover....
.... I'll be alright... *sniff, sniff* ..... I hope. Pray for me, willya?
All I'll say to you is that it's good you got a little 'help' but I'm sorry he only showed up with a bean flipper. I told you earlier that the big artillery was poised and ready, but I'm off to fry A bigger Fish.
Oh!... before I go...
... are you (or have you ever posted as) "msil"? Just curious.
Now!! AlanF!!!! Glad you showed up!
I didn't particularly want to get involved in this bit of nonsense, but Teejay, you're being your usual braindead self and I just can't resist tweaking you.
See my earlier comments ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=23542&page=4&site=3 ) on what it means in a debate when one resorts to name calling. Usually this happens sometime after the debate has been going... seldom before it even starts. Wonder what your opening salvo of insults means, Alan!
From the get-go you've posted mainly things to deliberately stir up trouble.
I'm presently engaged (via email) with one who made similar sweeping, generalized accusations of what I've said/haven't said here on JW.com. I eventually tired of their incessant harpings and asked for proof. I even provided the links to where I supposedly said "this and that." Silence.... then, "oh, I'm wrong. Conceded."
Fortunately (for them), that one had to eat their words privately. You are not so lucky. You had to make such allegations publicly and will be forced to answer them in the same forum. I challenge you to make your case, Big Fella. With you, I will not provide the links. You must establish the evidence or stand on flimsy words. Deal? Cool.
Even people who once defended you realized this and told you this to your face.
A link! A link! My kingdom for a link!! (and please do NOT use the only one I think you COULD use!! )
Whether you do this out of malice or simple stupidity is not objectively clear. Personally I think it's a combination of both.
We'll see in due time, Alan. We'll see.
Kent understands very well what you're all about, and he doesn't want you on his board -- it's that simple. I'll play a violin for you if it'll make you feel better.
I don't particularly like violin. A nice jazz saxophone... something along the lines of Grover Washington, Jr. or Kim Waters would be nice. Know "A Secret Place"?
It's obvious that Kent has declared that Teejay is an incorrigible spammer, and thus comes under the aegis of "spammers subject to immediate removal".
Would you mind informing one with (reportedly) half a brain what either "spam" or "a spammer" is? I know I'm not nearly as smart as you—hell, everybody knows that!—but the best definition I could find, like the one at http://spam.abuse.net/overview/whatisspam.shtml, says:
Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies
of the same message, in an attempt to force the
message on people who would not otherwise
choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial
advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick
schemes, or quasi-legal services.
Gee, either the entire Internet world knows what spam is or maybe only you and kent know. Gee... I wonder whose definition I'll accept. Decisions, decisions.
I know it's difficult for you to understand this simple idea, but perhaps if you and Teejay put your heads together you'll discover half a head and be able to understand.
Now there you go with the insults again...
No, it's not difficult to figure out what happened. I have never spammed anywhere since getting online almost ten years ago, and kent's (and YOUR) stretching a well-known expression to fit your small-minded viewpoint to justify a wrong doesn't do your reputation any favors, Alan.
When he asked earlier today, I told your
little friend er... ah.. gravedancer that I was running a little test with kent. I even inferred that I was even booted from kent's site already even as I composed that comment.
Test is over. Thesis confirmed. Results follow:
When the truth or (in the case of Simon and JW.com) a Man can handle criticism with style and tolerance—especially when he's the owner and holds all the cards—then it becomes clear to all what sort of Man he is: strong, secure, fair. By the same token, in the case of the truth that gracefully handles criticism and still stands, we know that it is really true — real.
On the other hand, when a 'truth' or a 'man' in this case cannot, will not, must not handle criticism; when they must surround themselves with parroting sycophants who defend juvenile behavior, then... well... we know what kind of 'man' (and what sort of 'truth') that is. You know... a 'man' like kent and a 'truth' like what the Governing Body peddles.
Like I said... test over.