LMAO!!!
Nice one jerseyshorejohn!! Perfect "smack down"!!
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, Jersey Shore John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I got "an interesting phone call", too. This "caller" didn't
agree
> with you.
>
> On Sep 9, 2008, at 10:29 AM, justifiedright wrote:
>
> > --- In
I got "an interesting phone call", too. This "caller" didn't agree
with you.
On Sep 9, 2008, at 10:29 AM, justifiedright wrote:
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Tom, as usual logic need not apply when you get into your "win an
> > argument
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Tom, as usual logic need not apply when you get into your "win an
> argument at all cost" mode.
I got an interesting phone call about this issue yesterday. I guess a
lot of people who don't post here actually d
Tom, as usual logic need not apply when you get into your "win an
argument at all cost" mode. You continue to twist words and
misrepresent the intent and meanings of others. I didn't appreciate
it when you just did it to me. Jennifer has already written a reply
echoing mine and clearly did n
AsburyCouple you picked out the non-relevant quotes where they weren't
talking about the objection being to folk's religion.
Let's take a look at the quotes where they did. I'll ask any objective
onlooker to determine if the topic in each one is a disagreement over
the Mission's interpretation of
Actually, you "tried to end it" by putting words in my mouth. That's
not "trying to end it"...
This is all about how people interpreted a single quote in a much
larger article, whether it was an attack on Christianity - which was
the basic problem you had. Fom there you attacked those who did
Fine, I tried to end it, but you want to get into it.
Sandpiper said she didn't like that shelter would only help people
that accepted their religion.
Do you agree that she said she didn't like that?
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> No, I just
No, I just don't add to or modify people's statement that put them
out of context.
I would agree with your point of view on this if it was what they
actually said. As I said in my initial note, I can see how you
interpreted things in the way you did however your statements below
are neither
Yea, enough already, I get it.
He put in the paper an objection to their "brand" of Christianity.
She doesn't like "how" they Evangelize.
You're OK with it.
I'm not.
That's probably where it ends.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Again, we ca
Again, we can quibble over specific words used but I believe what I
wrote below was the intent of both Paul's initial statement and the
others who have commented in this dialog. If I have not captured the
essence of their actual meaning then I ask them to please correct me.
--- In AsburyPark@
Thats quite different than what the others said.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> While we can all quibble over wording Tom, what I believe people are
> trying to articulate is that the real problem with the mission was
> attracting the homeless fr
While we can all quibble over wording Tom, what I believe people are
trying to articulate is that the real problem with the mission was
attracting the homeless from a broad area into Asbury with the
promise of food and a place to sleep, only to discard the vast
majority of them onto the streets
gnore the rest.
- Original Message
From: Jennifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2008 5:15:45 PM
Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Note to Paul Vail
No. I did not call their evangelism offensive. I was offended that
the mission was n
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> No. I did not call their evangelism offensive. I was offended that
> the mission was not offering shelter unless homeless men converted
to
> their faith. That is more like the crusades or the Spanish
> inquisition t
No. I did not call their evangelism offensive. I was offended that
the mission was not offering shelter unless homeless men converted to
their faith. That is more like the crusades or the Spanish
inquisition than evangelism. I think forcing your faith on people is
wrong. That is my opinion.
Jennifer's comment below makes it even worse.
She calls their evangelism "offensive."
Paul Vail reads this board, and he ought to speak up and clarify this
quickly.
SUFA was supposed to be about safty, not condemning anyone's religion.
What's the story, Paul?
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sandpiper said she didn't take it as an attack on the whole of
> Christianity, just certain "brands" and she went on to give examples
> of brands.
>
Certain interpretations. I probably should have said "practic
To all of the posters who signed on with SUFA:
It appears that none of you understood what SUFA was fighting for!
Was it a fight against religion or a fight to keep indigent
individuals off the streets? If Mr. Vail seeks a council office he
can win with as little as 300 votes, a no-brainer in
Tommy,
It wasn't a fight against any religion per se. What I believe Paul
is referring to is the lack of a real program to treat the addictions
and/or psychological problems that are often present in some homeless
populations. The mission described their "treatment" on their
earlier web page
I respect what you are saying, AsburyCouple, but you probably
shouldn't say that you "also" didn't read it that way.
If I'm understanding Sandpiper correctly, she said she did read it
that way,
Sandpiper said she didn't take it as an attack on the whole of
Christianity, just certain "brands" a
I also didn't read it as fighting against Christianity Tom but also
could understand how you might take it that way.
I read it as them saying their objective was to help the homeless
when the actual goal was to circulate a large number of homeless
through the system so they could find a small
Sandpiper your comment confirms for me that the reader might think
the fight was in some way about Christianity.
That's not what Stand Up For Asbury was about.
I certainly expressed my concern about the non-profit status of the
church when they wanted to profit by selling cars. That's about
t
In fairness, there is nothing in the posted article that suggests to
me, as a reader, Mr. Vail was fighting against Christianity. Here is
the line to which I assume you were referring:
> "The more we looked into it, it was clear this mission's larger aim
> was not to help poor struggling men,"
In fairness, there is nothing in the posted article that suggests to
me, as a reader, Mr. Vail was fighting against Christianity. Here is
the line to which I assume you were referring:
> "The more we looked into it, it was clear this mission's larger aim
> was not to help poor struggling men,"
24 matches
Mail list logo
