John weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com on 26 Dec 2003 17:50:22 GMT
Did attempt the following futile attempt to play the injured innocent
while attemptiong to bring others down to its level.
Followup set, its sad enough that arcb has to put up with him.
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:30:54 -0600,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:
In <nluluvg13qf1v3dhlhu937ufcgd0b1qfgc@4ax.com>, on 12/25/2003
at 02:59 PM, John W <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> said:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:32:04 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote
in <b26kuv06h2hknr5agpd134ddl2p8l7cn3d@4ax.com>:
x-no-archive:yes
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:38:19 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote
in <mv5juvspo838oclhpc74jolmp6hj51tjcm@4ax.com>:
Since we still have standing churches from the 1st century, (with 1st
century cornerstones)
Haven't you given up on that lie yet?
What lie is that? Until you have been to Izmir yourself, keep your
trap buttoned.
I don't have to disprove a claim that is inconsistent with all known
history of a region. You are responsible to provide evidence to support
your claim. We've already shown why your claim is false.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The information isn't inconsistent with all known history. There is
It is indeedd inconsiostant with the history of +1G-+75G, but you would
have to have studied that to be aware of that. Not that you are pone to
let facts get in your way when it comes to defending your known lies.
The chief known liar in here, crawlsonhisbelly, is Elaine; you're a
close second.
You sure doi seem enamoured of some strabnge peoplke. But then, ypou have
the posting hiostory to show that you are the chamion liar in arcb since
Aug of 2002. Now, not saying Elaine doesn't lie, but I will say she does
not lie about everything & everyone.
Whereas a lie comdes to your lips & fingertips faster than a song to a
meadowlark. In case you can't fiugure it out, though others can, that
means for all practical purposes not only does no one care what you have
to say, but no one beleives you either. This might exclude someone that
hasn't bothered to check out your posting history, but even then, you will
run them off when you start lieing on them. Just a matter of time with
you.
Now, what evidence can you post that this person [who must be a bit of all
right if you don't like them, beyond your standard attempt to drag
everyone down to your level that is] has lied. Did he claim to be drafted
like you did? Did he claim to be drafted into the USAF like you did? Did
he claim that he was rejected by the USN as you did? Did he claim to help
the USAF re-write as 30k page manual, like you did? Why I am willing to
bet tghat he never advertised for incestial porn like you did, & then
denied it. Nor do I beleive that he has canceled any messages on googkle,
like you have. IOW, compared to you, that person can be held as a probably
hoindest source of information.
& lets not even go into ylour claimed bragging rights,
bragging rights you show no indication of in your posting history.
It is your shame that you are trying to dicvert attention from, & with me,
it won't work. I've seen to many like you during my 20 year tour of duty,
& you are just one more wannabe that hasn't a clue about what they
wannabe.
John W
history of which you are not aware, perhaps, that doesn't favor the
false Roman view.
True, much history is not known, we are not certain about the whys of the
*Burnt House Horizen*, but we are certain it occured. We are not certaion
of the exact datge of either Roman or Arabic numerals were accepted, but
we are cwertain of the century. We are not certain when the first
cornerstone was inscribed, but it is noit the +1+75G window you claim. So,
what has that to do with the price of your favorite hooker?
The above is typical of the sound of silence from John w, nothing but
finger pointing from it, & even that is predictable.
I repeat, until you have been to Izmir and confirmed for yourself that no
Anybody notice how much he repeats himself, but never backs up his claims
with hard evidence.
Repeat all you want to, a lie often enough repeated by a person that is
credible has a good chance of being believed, you are not that person.
1st century church is there, button it! You otherwise merely repeat the
mistakes and indifference of others.
The mistake of not knowing that because you say something, it is subject
to be ridiculous or totally outright false? Welcome to reality john w,
you set the stage & when the props, like this claim of yours, were
examined they were found to be false.
If all goes as planned, I will be documenting the two churches myself
within the next 6 months or so, but knowing folk like you would find some
excuse to CONTINUE in unbelief would NOT encourage me to post the
findings here.
Lets cut to the chase, ypoiu've m,ade that claim before, & you will not
p;ost the eviidence for you already know that enough p;eople know enough
aboiut history, & photography, that your clims wouldd be reduced to the
idiotic babblings they are. That is the only reason you won't post them,
here or anywhere. Were you able to do so, you would have done so, you
haven't.
But surprise us, send them to the Journal of the Evangalistic Theological
Society, The Annals of Arcvhaeology & Anthropology, there are several
more, so just let me know when you are ready & I will subscribe to those
journals. Now, when your article[s] are rejecteed, be sure to post the
reason for rejection here so we an all sympathise with you
Now here is a thing we will never see.
Even Andrew, who was supposedly determined to find the English church,
He never said he could make a dteremined search, & ghe did donate his time
as best he could. So, your attempt to denigrate him is noted. Or have you
forgotten, he chastised scout lady for a drawing she posted involving your
false claims. Those churchs still haven't been found as described.
gave it a half-assed effort and then declared (falsely) "no such church
exists."
Nor did he say no such church exists. He did point out that he could not
find one in the time he had available, & that there could have been a
reason for that, removal, demolition, etc. That would take more time than
he had to devote to checking out your claim. & in your ingratatude, you
continue to denigrate his efforts on your behalf. Typical of you really.
Your posting history is loaded with such denigrartions of others that
don't toe your line in the sand.
I don't need your approval. If I found out I suddenly had your total
confidence, THAT would rattle me! You know little yet proclaim with much
noise!
Talking about yourself again I see. Your lack of knowledge & willingness
to lie for your selfaggrandizement is well documented. In your case,
google is not your friend.
John W
Is that the john w that trolls arcb, the one that according to it, its
life really sucks & even women legally married to him won't tolerate his
abuse. That one?
walksalone who has to wonder, is john w a pschology student working on a
doctorate? Titled *lieing as a form of communication among American
Christians*
walksalone who left the lies in, so others can judge for themselves
whether john w is the lair his posting history says he is.
.
