Local: Visalia pastor sues son over 'cyberbullying'

Oct 18, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Fresno Bee

Visalia Calvary Church pastor, the Rev. Bob Grenier, and his wife, Gayle, have sued their estranged son, Alex Grenier, accusing him of defamation and cyberbullying.

Comments
381 - 400 of 1,861 Comments Last updated Apr 6, 2014
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#392
Nov 27, 2012
 
Obviously my 'bum' analogy struck a nerve. And for some (myself included), a funny bone. So here it is again. I'll get to the rest of your drivel later...
=
Your accounts all down the road have been quite inconsistent, and yet you get bent if I or others don't simply take your word for it.
If some bum walked up to me on the street and told me he was a bum because he was abused by his father, do I take the bum's word for it?
Or could he be lying about the abuse so as to take the responsibility for his being a bum off of his shoulders?
You are like the bum that says
"oh I own a pawn shop because my family life was crappy. If my family life wasn't so crappy I would be President right now."
To complete the analogy, I am like the dude that, rather than simply agreeing with the bum in the hopes that the bum would leave me alone, continues a conversation with the bum and asks the bum probing questions to determine whether or not what the bum (you) is telling me is the truth or not.
=
My name is Who.
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#393
Nov 27, 2012
 
This one is so good I can't let it wait till later. I'll answer your other questions in full later.
=
you says
"...you also display your dishonesty in changing your story about your identity and hiding it (you have something to hide which is telling).
Who says
What's this fetish you have with you and 'anonymity'? What does it matter? Insisting on the IDENTITY of a person taking a position is special pleading, generally.
you says
"...you've claimed your mother who you implied was inner-circle CC was insulted by people early in the topix threads..."
Who says
I do believe my mother was insulted. I never implied she was , what did you call it?'inner-circle CC'? You like that Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura show, don't'ya?
you says
"...you've claimed to be single, male, a food service worker at a restaurant/bar,..."
Who says
Yes, yes, was
you says
"...drunk, then a UC Berkley law school grad or attendee, a philosopher, a Christian,..."
Who says
Been drunk, not a drunk, never claimed to attend Cal, amateur and si senor
you says
"...then not a Christian, etc etc etc..."
Who says
I never claimed to be not a Christian
you says
"...Lots of misinformation from you and contradictions...."
Who says
Only if you read into my words things that I didn't put in them! Only if you attach to my words whatever meanings happen to serve your hate campaign at the moment the best.
you says
"...you also vacillate back-and-forth between claiming to have knowledge of inside stuff, then you've let slip a few times over the years pieces of information that were not public,..."
Who says
Depends on your definition of 'inside stuff.' Depends on your definition of 'public.' Everything I know I know from observing human behavior, correct inferences I've made about individual human behavior, and what you type on the internet as a sort of spackle to hold the thing together.
you says
"...then you revert to the "my name is who" i am a random luddite troll canard,..."
Who says
Calling it a canard doesn't make it a canard. What is a 'canard' again? It sounds goofy.
you says
"...rinse and repeat..."
Who says
Pot, meet kettle.
you says
"...again, all supporting my assertion that you've proven yourself dishonest..."
Who says
Whew. I've still got a few more of yours from the previous page to answer, point-for-point. Keep your eyes peeled.
My name is Who.
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#394
Nov 27, 2012
 
you says
"...you've proven yourself intellectually dishonest by moving the goal posts many times, by misrepresenting key facts about the issues,..."
Who says
I disagree. My position is that YOUR typing is , more likely than not, misrepresenting key facts about the issues. Hopefully that's not too subtle for ya.
you says
"...by discounting personal testimonies from Glen C, Paul, Geoff, Tina, Edna, myself and dozens of others, etc...."
Who says
What's this fetish of yours with the word 'testimony.' Like when you take someone's writing and call it testimony I think you think that label somehow makes the typing more than what it is---typing.
you says
"...You don't answer questions forthrightly when the shoe is on the other foot...."
Who says
Read the "you says/Who says" chronicles again and argue that I don't answer questions forthrightly. That's the WHOLE POINT of the "you says/Who says" game--to show that I answer your questions, point-for-point. There's a little humor thrown in that you don't seem to appreciate, but that's okay. Lacking a sense of humor isn't illegal. Sometimes lacking a brain filter is, though, and I think you are learning about that right about now.
you says
"...For example: If the stuff is true, is it wrong legally or morally to speak out about it? Yes or no?..."
Who says
Depends on what you mean by 'this stuff'. If you want to lump everything together along with the kitchen sink, well I think that takes the question out of 'yes/no' territory, doesn't it? Of course it does.
For future reference, Alex, don't use the phrase 'this stuff' in court. The judge won't like it; he'll think you are playing him for a fool. Which is what you play the general reader for a fool when you use the phrase 'this stuff.'
you says
"...Is a pastor and police chaplain a position of trust in society?..."
Who says
All human beings occupy a position of trust. That's why I don't like this 'position of trust' crap. My neighbor occupies a position of trust in my life. I trust him to not break into my house and kill me as I sleep. But that would lead me to give you a tutorial on property values, which is beyond the topic under discussion.
you says
"...Does the law view these positions differently than a janitor?..."
Who says
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
you says
"...Does the bible hold pastors to a "stricter" judgment and higher standard?..."
Who says
Yes. But it does not call them to perfection. They just have to be generally better behaved than those they serve. I'm thinking of the dude in First Corinthians that is banging his mother-in-law...that guy is definitely disqualified from ministry. Is Bob disqualified from ministry because YOU SAY that SO-AND-SO said SUCH-AND-SUCH? No.
you says
"...Does the bible command us to expose, warn, tell it unto the church, etc, if bad stuff happens the person who committed the sin denies it and doesn't repent and doesn't take responsibility for their bad actions?..."
Who says
A strict reading of Paul's letters would say no. Most of the prescriptions you quote are from non-Pauline Pastoral letters, and I personally don't accept them as canonical. Next!
you says
Liar Who Lies

Visalia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#395
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

F Who wrote:
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
"Fact: Who Drunk Molester Pants doesnt know anyone involved.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't.
Fact: Who is a drunk with no credibility.
Fact: Who is a paid cyber troll who works for CCVisalia.
I'll say this one again because it is the truth.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't!
You don't know anything because you don't know anyone involved. You are a liar and a fool.
More lies, less substance then Mom "it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
I gotta say, that's some really stupid reasoning Who. More pathetic then ever.
Who said "Now its not enough that I bully Alex on here, I have to go to other sites to try to peace together my own hate campaign since I coined the phrase and everyone gives me credit for the lawsuit and I'm the best!"
"Oh and I'm Who, waaaaaaaaaaah!"
Poor Who, he can't dispute the facts so he makes up his own.
Ever get tired of lying and spreading hate Who? Do you ever get tired of defending a child molester?
Have you gone to met the man you defend Who? Have you coward?
Go meet him. He'd love to pat you on the back. It's a common thing. Happens all the time. See where that leads you. Lol
I'm 100% positive that he would have nothing but contempt for you. Because you are "beneath him." But that won't matter, you'll still worship at his alter. The alter if Bob.
The Alter of Bob. That's a scary thought isn't it.
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
And that's how Who responds to anything his little troll brain can't handle.
"it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
Liar Who Lies

Visalia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#396
Nov 27, 2012
 
F Who wrote:
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
"Fact: Who Drunk Molester Pants doesnt know anyone involved.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't.
Fact: Who is a drunk with no credibility.
Fact: Who is a paid cyber troll who works for CCVisalia.
I'll say this one again because it is the truth.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't!
You don't know anything because you don't know anyone involved. You are a liar and a fool.
More lies, less substance then Mom "it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
I gotta say, that's some really stupid reasoning Who. More pathetic then ever.
Who said "Now its not enough that I bully Alex on here, I have to go to other sites to try to peace together my own hate campaign since I coined the phrase and everyone gives me credit for the lawsuit and I'm the best!"
"Oh and I'm Who, waaaaaaaaaaah!"
Poor Who, he can't dispute the facts so he makes up his own.
Ever get tired of lying and spreading hate Who? Do you ever get tired of defending a child molester?
Have you gone to met the man you defend Who? Have you coward?
Go meet him. He'd love to pat you on the back. It's a common thing. Happens all the time. See where that leads you. Lol
I'm 100% positive that he would have nothing but contempt for you. Because you are "beneath him." But that won't matter, you'll still worship at his alter. The alter if Bob.
The Alter of Bob. That's a scary thought isn't it.
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
And that's how Who responds to anything his little troll brain can't handle.
"it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"

You see how Who answers all questions. "it all depends on what the the meaning of "is" is." the Clinton defense. Lies on top of lies.
Liar Who Lies

Visalia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#397
Nov 27, 2012
 
Liar Who Lies wrote:
F Who wrote:
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
"Fact: Who Drunk Molester Pants doesnt know anyone involved.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't.
Fact: Who is a drunk with no credibility.
Fact: Who is a paid cyber troll who works for CCVisalia.
I'll say this one again because it is the truth.
Fact: If Who doesn't actually know anyone involved how can he have any facts? He can't!
You don't know anything because you don't know anyone involved. You are a liar and a fool.
More lies, less substance then Mom "it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
I gotta say, that's some really stupid reasoning Who. More pathetic then ever.
Who said "Now its not enough that I bully Alex on here, I have to go to other sites to try to peace together my own hate campaign since I coined the phrase and everyone gives me credit for the lawsuit and I'm the best!"
"Oh and I'm Who, waaaaaaaaaaah!"
Poor Who, he can't dispute the facts so he makes up his own.
Ever get tired of lying and spreading hate Who? Do you ever get tired of defending a child molester?
Have you gone to met the man you defend Who? Have you coward?
Go meet him. He'd love to pat you on the back. It's a common thing. Happens all the time. See where that leads you. Lol
I'm 100% positive that he would have nothing but contempt for you. Because you are "beneath him." But that won't matter, you'll still worship at his alter. The alter if Bob.
The Alter of Bob. That's a scary thought isn't it.
Who wrote:
oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK
And that's how Who responds to anything his little troll brain can't handle.
"it's not that I defend Bob its that Alex won't answer my stupid poorly worded open ended questions. I asked really stupid things and when nobody answered them, I made up my own answers and that's how I know he truth, I created it"
I know a real hate campaign when I see one. Who enjoys pestering this poor abuse victim and his family. THAT is a hate campaign.
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#398
Nov 27, 2012
 
And you obviously like heaping the personal insults on me. THAT is a hate campaign! Why don't you accuse me of child molestation while you are at it. I'm SURE Alex taught you that trick, too.
My name is Who.
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#399
Nov 27, 2012
 
Who wrote:
"oh that's funny. If i WASN'T DRUNK RIGHT NOW i'D TRY TO GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
iF Y9OU HAVE FACTS, LET THEM FLY, IF NOT GO FUCK YOURSELF. i DON'T LIVE IN CHURCH AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE.
MY NAME IS wHO.
pS I KNOW THE CAPS LOCK"

Yes, pretty telling.
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#400
Nov 27, 2012
 
who said, "Your accounts all down the road have been quite inconsistent, and yet you get bent if I or others don't simply take your word for it."

You have failed to give specific instances to support this claim over and over again. This is an example of your dishonesty. When challenged, you have nothing to back up your claim.
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#401
Nov 27, 2012
 
another example of your dishonesty:

who said, "so apparently you've been talking to yourself in the internet mirror for the last three hours. Pretty impressive!"

knowing full well you've also stated this many times and you've practiced this many times:

who said, "See how this goes? You post, I post."

which is it? am I talking into an "internet mirror" as you stated in an attempt to paint me a certain way, or as you promise here "You post, I post"?

They both can't be true at the same time. Obviously, you are locked into an ongoing discussion with me on these threads and I assume you will continue to respond, therefore I am not "talking to myself in the internet mirror"
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#402
Nov 27, 2012
 
who said, "To complete the analogy, I am like the dude that, rather than simply agreeing with the bum in the hopes that the bum would leave me alone, continues a conversation with the bum and asks the bum probing questions to determine whether or not what the bum (you) is telling me is the truth or not."

But you then state you can't believe anything you read on the internet and that it's just typing.

How do you even know who it is that is responding to you right now?

...another example of your inconsistency and dishonesty. You pick and choose what you want to believe, even though it is "typing on the internet"

You have claimed a Standard and then you move the Goal Posts all the time

If your Standard was consistent, you wouldn't believe anything I write and you wouldn't even assume to know who it is on this end of the phone, but you choose (for your own agenda) to "believe" some of the things I write, while intentionally stating you disbelieve other things, even to the point of who it is your dialoguing with on this end, which is ironic (and amusing)
opps

Aliceville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#403
Nov 27, 2012
 
opps
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

you says
"...Your accounts all down the road have been quite inconsistent, and yet you get bent if I or others don't simply take your word for it...."
Who says
My point here is that I nor others are privy to any and all communications that you have had with your family over the years. For some time now you have said "Bob said this, then I said that, then Bob said this, and I replied with that," and the general reader (myself and others) have no way of knowing if you are accurately representing the communications you've had.
For example, you called your mom a hypocrite, right? Well, what ELSE did you say to her? Are other parts of that conversation relevant to determining why you have the relationship with your family that you do now? You betcha.
And THAT'S my point. You just recount conversations, and we are left to assume that you are not misrepresenting the facts. Forgive me for not taking your word for it. And if your family in various writings gives a different account of the conversations you've had, then the general reader must choose which of the accounts is more likely true, and thus which of the accounts more likely deserves to be believed.
Is it possible that your hatred and anger (which is obvious to all) would cause you to provide a different account than you would give if you weren't so pissed? You betcha.
You says
"...You have failed to give specific instances to support this claim over and over again. This is an example of your dishonesty. When challenged, you have nothing to back up your claim...."
Who says
Reread what I just wrote.
you says
"...am I talking into an "internet mirror" as you stated in an attempt to paint me a certain way, or as you promise here "You post, I post"?..."
Who says
Forgive my joviality. Merely referring to the fact that sometimes your string of posts says "3 hours ago" then the next post says "Two hours ago" then the next post says "One hour ago" and it gives me the picture that you are available at your computer for three hours. Which gives me the picture of you talking to yourself. I'm being a bit poetic. Nice try, though!
you says
"...therefore I am not "talking to myself in the internet mirror..."
Who says
Well you certainly aren't locked into communicating. As AV and others have noticed, you latch on to any little thing that allows you to rant about your family at PP, and you just start posting. When anyone (and I mean ANYONE) WOULD DEIGN TO QUESTION YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE JUST WRITTEN, YOU START RANTING AT THEM. THEN YOU PRETEND TO APOLOGIZE. RINSE. REPEAT.
If that doesn't give the general reader a picture of someone talking to themselves in a mirror, I don't know what will. Especially because the mirror only hears what you tell it.
you says
"...But you then state you can't believe anything you read on the internet and that it's just typing..."
Who says
Nice try. I have a healthy skepticism. And often times wikipedia gets things right, and you blast me for quoting wikipedia. If the account of 'sophism' is generally correct on wikipedia, I'm going to hypertext it. If I believe that the account of 'sophism' on wikipedia is in general outlines correct, then obviously there are some things on the internet that I have no problem accepting as true. But NOT BECAUSE they are on the internet, mind you. Some of your sycophants believe there are internet police deleting every false thing on the internet, and since the internet police have not deleted you, therefore what you Alex are saying is true. And THAT would be gross malfeasance in the usage of brain power.
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#405
Nov 27, 2012
 
you says
"...If your Standard was consistent, you wouldn't believe anything I write and you wouldn't even assume to know w..."
Who says
My grasp of the English language places me in the top tenth percentile in this country, so I am qualified to judge tone. Sounds like you. Maybe it's not. I don't care either way, because I am determining the truth of positions and propositions, and that requires no reference to identity of speaker.
Socratic of me, isn't it?
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#406
Nov 27, 2012
 
Her we are again! Another page in the "you says/Who says" chronicles. I've hit most of your points. Would that you were as forthcoming as I.
My name is Who.
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#407
Nov 27, 2012
 
Dude. That sucks. I just point-for-pointed you and it got lost in the soup. Here we go again.
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#408
Nov 27, 2012
 
you says
"...When challenged, you have nothing to back up your claim...."
Who says
My point is that you regularly recount events, and the general reader (like myself) has no way of determining truth under those circumstances.
For example. You called your mother a hypocrite, right? Well, I don't know what was said in that conversation. Is it possible that some things said in that conversation could explain why your relationship with your family is the way it is currently? You betcha. But you have regularly left out the other side of the conversation. And I don't believe you would admit to calling her worse than a hypocrite, but I think it likely that you did. But you are the last person we would hear it from.
Similarly in conversation with your father. Is it possible that in the past words were said or events transpired that would help explain why your relationship with your family is the way it is currently, and doubly is it possible that those words or events have been left out or misrepresented by you? You betcha it's possible. And given the hate and anger and boundary issues you regularly display at michaelnewnham.com , I'd hasten to add 'likely.'
THAT'S what I mean when I say you misrepresent. You just give the reader what YOU think the reader should know, and we have to assume there is no whitewashing of history coming from your side of the fence. And I am not willing to make that assumption. Nor are others, I assume.
you says
"...am I talking into an "internet mirror" as you stated in an attempt to paint me a certain way, or as you promise here "You po..."
Who says
I am speaking specifically of the many times where I have visited topix.com and have seen a string of your posts labelled "Three hours ago," then the next is "Two hours ago," then the next is "One hour ago," and seeing those posts in a sandwich with those time stamps makes me think that you are somewhere, for three hours, available to type on your computer. It gives me a mental picture of you talking to yourself. That is all. Most especially because the mirror only knows what you tell it! But that might be too subtle for you.
you says
"... you are locked into an ongoing discussion with me..."
Who says
This is NOT an ongoing discussion. You (exhibited regularly at michaelnewnham.com ) have a hate campaign to conduct, and you will say anything that serves your hate campaigning ends. If you took what I said into account and allowed what I said to change your mental moves, THAT would be a discussion. As it stands now, you have been framing on the internet for years, and I am providing a counter-narrative that takes the facts into account more efficiently than your frame does. So, I don't know what you call this, but it doesn't deserve the name 'discussion.' Neither do your 'contributions' at michaelnewnham.com .
you says
"...But you then state you can't believe anything you read on the internet and that it's just typing...."
Who says
I've said no such thing. If the account of 'sophism' at wikipedia is substantially correct and I refer to it, you might make fun of me for referring to wikipedia, but if the account is substantially correct, well? It's not that I don't believe anything on the internet, it's that ALL information taken from the internet needs to be triangulated with other sources of information/knowledge.
you says
"...How do you even know who it is that is responding to you right now?..."
Who says
I don't. But since I am determining the truth of positions and propositions, you identity is largely irrelevant for my purposes.
My knowledge of the English language places me in the top tenth percentile of human beings in this country; I am qualified to judge tone. Sounds like you. But if it's NOT you, is it important? No. Especially if the 'not-you' is saying things that accord with what the 'you' would say.
It's about positions and propositions, not personalities.
Very Socratic of me, isn't it?
Who

Manteca, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#409
Nov 27, 2012
 
And the post I thought was lost magically reappears. Notice how similar in content they are?
Damn. I am good...
Damn. I am Who...
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#410
Nov 27, 2012
 
who said, "continues a conversation with the bum and asks the bum probing questions to determine whether or not what the bum (you) is telling me is the truth or not."

yes, likewise. I've been (in part) using our discussions as an opportunity to learn more about the spin coming out of camp bob/ccv and to point out and expose the inconsistencies and lying going on there

it was successful in me predicting very closely what would be asserted in the lawsuit
CalvaryChapelAbu sedotcom

Caldwell, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#411
Nov 27, 2012
 
who said, "Nice try. I have a healthy skepticism."

yes, likewise. I have a healthy skepticism of bob's public narrative about himself in his book, his public internet sermons, his police chaplain-ing, his radio show etc etc and I have a healthy skepticism of calvary chapel, chuck smith etc

based on my personal experiences and the experiences of others

and I can discuss it all I want and that doesn't make it a hate campaign or cyberbullying etc as you have claimed (yet you do the same)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••