From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose
Keywords: The distortinons of a frenzied mind
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:04:50 GMT

In article <54TU02RX2fmF01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.165938.10934@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>>
>>   I may need to apoligize here, Tony's problem may not be entirly due to
>>   the overworkings of simply a frenzied mind. It may also be due to his
>>   inability to understand the technology with which we are dealing.
>>
>>   <Afterall, :-) Amdahl only makes IBM mainframe clones right :-) >
>>
>>   Puts me in mind, of a Garrison Kelnor (sp) monolog, you remember the
>>   "Institute of Lower Technology, ya know, doors and doorstops..
>
>Kermit,
>
>We started with the issues, then you went to attacking my character
>because you couldn't deal with the things I brought forth to expose
>Mormonism.  Then you stared throwing more mud.  Now you are attacking my
>employer?  What gives man?  Do you realize you dig your credibility
>grave about a foot deeper with every letter you send.


 Do you know what smilies mean  ie ;-)  or :-) it usualy mean a smile or
 a grin. Lighten up. You work for one Computer company and I work for another.
 Why even some of my best friends have worked for Amdahl...   :-)


 in times past, you _have_ made a big deal out of people changing
 the subject on you. As we can see, it's not really _your_ fault
 that you have made these _inaccurate_ accusations, it really the
 fault of your technology.


>>  if anybody _else_ want to try and explain the nature of usenet discussions
>>  and threads to Tony, be my guest. It's been fairly obvious that he
>>  won't respond and/or read what I post.
>>
>>  Most of the newsreaders that read News (rn,mxrn,nn,trn) track the messages
>>  with identifiers. The article to which you responded has
>>  the idenfier 1992Dec15.141435.5962@infonode.ingr.com
>>
>>  Some of the newsreaders group the response not on title, but on which
>>  article the author was responding to, when the response was writtten.
>>
>>  Just for demo purposes this was 1dgF02AN2fte01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
>>
>>  See how easy that was!
>
>Maybe it is your intellect that is in question by assuming that my
>reader works like yours.  I don't ALWAYS get every letter because of the
>way our reader works.  In fact, if our reader goes down for 5 or more
>hours, I lose those letters posted at that time.


    these aren't letters, these are posts in Usenet. My reader will
    present me with a list of topics withing t.r.m.  When I have read
    a post, the next set of posts will be the response to the post
    I have read.  This is called "threads"

    Get the picture? People haven't been changing the subject, you
    havn't been reading them in order.

    As for the message identifier, that done by CNews. If your machine
    doesn't yet support Cnews, I would suggest that you'all upgrade
    to a "better" machine that runs a "real" operating system       -> ;-) <-

>
>Funny you now want to criticize not just me, but my employer, but my
>reader, how I use it.  Why can't we discuss why the all-knowing God
>doesn't know of any other Gods (Isaiah 44:8), but you do?

  oh
>
>>The article in which you "challenged" me has the identifer
>>            1992Dec14.134023.3332@infonode.ingr.com 
>>
>>And the Article to which I responded had this identifier
>>
>>References:  <e9KT02da2eTu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
>>	     <1992Dec15.141435.5962@infonode.ingr.com>
>>
>> Gee I didn't cut a thing, did I. I guess this lack of understanding
>> of how threads works or how newsreaders work, would proably also account
>> for _why_ you think that the subject of _all_ your discusion change
>> so much.
>
>Yes, you did!  I have challenged you in my past four letters to come up
>with the details you accused me of in plagerizing material.  You said
>that I copied such detail.  If you recognize the detail I "copied",
>you obviously know where it came from.  But each time you respond, you
>clip that part out.  You know I never did that and it was just another
>of your lies.  But now you want to change the subject and accuse me with
>another lie.  If I prove that to be a lie to, when you just go on and on
>and on and on with more lies?


 No one clipped anything, No one change the subject. I have responded
 twice to your alligations and frothings at the mouth. If you want to 
 rehash again, can we do this in an envrionment where we (you and I)
 can discuss (without the involvment of egos) ie e-mail?


 [ Boy I wish that this newsreader had a on-line spell-checker! ]
>
>> I don't think that anyone
>> has yet taken you seriously (except you'r blood brother Antti Silvoean)
>
>I don't know what this is suppose to mean, but I don't really care
>anymore about what comes flying from your foaming mouth while you keep
>sinking in the bottom-less-pit of Mormon quicksand.  I don't agree with
>Antti's theology, but at least he and I can have a logical discussion
>about the differences without him attacking my employer.  He has got more
>class that you could ever have, and as far as theology, I have as much
>to discuss with him as I do you.  That is what this newsgroup is for.

  Relax, your employer is just fine, and your relationship with Antti
  is just what you both deserve. I'm glad you two are _such_ good friends!


>
>>	I have offered to "discuss" your challenge with you.    in email.
>
>Why in email?  I only talk with sincere Mormons in email.  And many of
>them can testify that I talk very kindly with them  (ANDIE, wanna tell
>Kermit about our discussions; if you are reading?)
>
>There is no reason why you can't discuss here on trm, unless it is that
>you don't want the world to see the true Mormon in you.

 As has been sugested, in E-mail, you don't seem to need to defend
 or be defensive as much as you do here. side's in e-mail, you won't
 be as likly to change the subject as much  |-!  (that's a tounge-in_cheek,
 for you humor impaired readers!)

>
>>   The rest of the Group has already sat through your garbage once, we
>>   don't need to punish them again. I'm having second thoughts about
>>   dealing with you at all, since you can't seem to discuss anything
>>   of substance without resorting to inuendo, cursings, misrepresentaions
>>   and other forms of "common curtesy", NOT.
>
>If you can post a legitimate article that I have sent with a curse
>word that _I_ originally used, I'll never post another letter here again.
>That is how sure I am that you are lying through your teeth!

  Does _that_ go for the other forms of "inuendo, misrepresentaions
  and other forms of "common curtesy", NOT"?

  Maybe we should agree, what cursing might mean? the only time I've
  come close to cursing you, is when you argued that I must have
  agreed with you because I "didn't" argue against your point.

  I told you what kind of person that your would be _if_ you had
  seen my prior post and then made such a malicous statement, but
  since I concluded that you weren't that type of person, I would repost
  the articles in question. Since the juxtapostions of your accustations
  and the evidence was so overwhelming, you immediatly told the world
  that you could no longer discuss anything with me.

  Should I have concluded that since the discussion was ended, that you
  in fact agreed with me?

>
>>
>>  How clearer can it be? I've read your posts and most of the 
>>  barnyard material in you post becomes even more apparent after two 
>>  or three readings!
>
>     "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in
>      the last day."   John 12:48

 because I have told you the truth, am i your enemy?

>
>
>>>>	As for "Only married Mormons will do that"  that is another of
>>>>	your deliberate distortions. This point has been discussed to
>>>>	death in this forum. Since you seem incapable, of understanding
>>>>	what has been presented before, why repeat anything for you.
>>>
>>>Are you saying that anyone other than Mormons who have been married in
>>>the Temple will go to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom?  If
>>>that is your claim, could you post where the church teaches that?
>>
>> No I (and others have posted many times) that God dwells with those in
>> the telestial, and terestial kingdoms as well. [ but you knew that
>> didn't you?]
>
>Your Jesus is in one of the others and your Unholy Spirit is in the other,
>but your God with the erect penis is only in the one where married
>Mormons will go.  You and other Mormons reading this KNOW that.

 Are you trying to deliberatly offensive again? Is that your most common
 response when painted into a corner?
>
>>
>> So all those who have died without ever hearing of Christ Jesus and
>> his Gosple of hope and faith are doomed for every. No don't think so.
>
>That is a totally different issue altogther.  We are talking about the
>people who KNOW, and believe me, you have heard it enough to accept the
>truth or reject it.


	Personnaly, I believe that the issues and personality, that
	one has in this life, will also go with the spirit. If one
	has rejected the message here, I think that it is lilkly to
	be rejected later. I don't see a problems with this, do you?


>
>> While it may be true, that those who reject the message in this life,
>> proably would not accept the message later, there are some who are
>> seeking the truth even in this life, but have been blinded by the
>> craftiness of men. I think Jesus has a big enough heart to forgive
>> even this people.
>
>Yeah, do you mean the Jesus that said this:
>
>     "I said therefore unto you that you shall die in your sins;
>      For if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your
>      sins.  John 8:24"

	I don't think the isssue here is death, I think the issue here
	is sin and any sin that isn't repented of, with still effect
	the individual even after death.

	It's sin that keeps one out of the presence of God, nicht whaar?


>God said:
>
>     "Pride goeth before destruction"   (Proverbs 16:18)
>
	couldn't have said better myself


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc