Send a Message
to FH Chandler

Comments

11,707

Joined

Dec 7, 2006

FH Chandler's Favorites

FH Chandler Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Jehovah's Witness

Shunning someone is a sin!

**WARNING: MAJOR butthurt ahead**  (Friday Jun 24 | post #3)

Jehovah's Witness

Marvin Shilmer

Almost everything he ever posted on the Internet has been "goofy" in one way or another. It's amazing the lies people are capable of concocting.  (Friday Jun 17 | post #27)

Jehovah's Witness

Marvin Shilmer

http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T D05G5S7L7O0T0A82/p ost515 http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T D05G5S7L7O0T0A82/p ost478 http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T D05G5S7L7O0T0A82/p ost586 While I find his assertion that multiple "clients " (including some alleged JW all-stars we'd all be familiar with) were paying him to engage with people on the Internet on the subject of blood to be laughable, his comments provide additional support for my belief regarding his true identity.  (Friday Jun 17 | post #23)

Jehovah's Witness

Marvin Shilmer

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not a person who makes the sort of grandiose claims he did (and who expected a great deal of adulation for it, and was never shy about attacking people when he felt he didn't get his due) while consistently refusing to allow himself to be vetted is "respectableH e cared more about the debate itself, and whether or not it was carried out to his exacting standards, rather than establishing the truth of a matter. He was a self-aggrandizing jerkYou're kidding, rightI typically like your comments, but you're bordering on moonbat territorySelective ly quoting WT material [typically WT material that was decades old], and generally out of context, isn't praiseworthy. I believe I once used the analogy of a 21st century medical student chimping out over the fact that a 19th century medical textbook is inaccurate in the context of 21st century medicine - that's what you had in "Marvin ShilmerMr. King has some intriguing views that, were I to care much about the JW sect, I wouldn't disregard out of hand. He, at least, has the guts to show his face. His YouTube videos are a little creepy, but he's infinitely more engaging than the MarvTowerShill - who had all the poor character traits and behaviors he ascribed to his JWGB boogeymenAs I said, I have no love for Simon or the vast majority of the users of the cesspool known as JWN, where I've been defamed on several occasions, despite the fact that I don't post there. That said, I think you're entirely off base in your belief that Simon and "Bethel" are co-conspirators in some schemeEhhhh... OkaySo you believe "Bethel" is funding [to the tune of "a billion"] its own destruction, in league with, among others, Simon Greene? If you ask me, they're getting ripped offThis "Bethel's " goal, you say?  (Friday Jun 17 | post #19)

Jehovah's Witness

Marvin Shilmer

If I've ever claimed I was some sort of JW secret-agent, I'm unaware of it. Also, unlike the MarvTowerShill, I #zfg on whether or not you agree with me.  (Friday Jun 17 | post #18)

Jehovah's Witness

Marvin Shilmer

I wasn't aware he claimed that. Do you have a reference?  (Friday Jun 17 | post #17)

Jehovah's Witness

Candace Conti's parents don't back her story...

The dolts that have resurrected this thread are out of touch with reality. They simply can't understand the fact that, regardless of Michael Clarke's retconned testimony [that contradicts the earlier document I referenced previously, and that was quoted by "Dreamweaver "], Kendrick didn't "confess " anything to Clarke and Abrahamson in November of 1993 and that, as such, even if they didn't believe his story, they had no basis to take any action other than internal congregation discipline - which judicial committees do all the time despite lacking both evidence and confessions.  (Friday Jun 17 | post #1229)

Jehovah's Witness

Candace Conti's parents don't back her story...

Two witnesses to what? Clarke and Abrahamson were not witnesses to an act of molestation. They were witnesses to a guy stating that he came home, had accidental contact with his stepdaughter who was sleeping in a darkened room. That Clarke and Abrahamson didn't believe him, and subjected him to internal congregation discipline is not "proof" of anything as far as knowing he was guilty of a crime. Judicial committees discipline people all the time even though the person denies a charge simply because they don't believe their story. That's what happened in this case. They had no "evidence " of an act of molestation, and Kendrick had denied that the incident was an act of molestation. Yes, he changed his story more than 6 months later in the summer of 1994, as I have repeatedly said. That's irrelevant as far as what they "knew" in November of 1993. It's also irrelevant with regard to Candace Conti, who Kendrick did not admit to molesting and who was neither charged with nor convicted of molesting.  (Friday Jun 17 | post #1228)

Jehovah's Witness

Candace Conti's parents don't back her story...

I'm going to tell you again, in the hopes that your stupidity and ignorance is finite: Kendrick did not "confess " to anything in November of 1993 with Clarke and Abrahamson. Clarke and Abramanson may have believed Kendrick was guilty of something beyond what he claimed in their meeting in November of 1993, but he neither "confessed " to them, nor did they have any proof that he was guilty of a crime because of that meeting. Kendrick's confession came in the summer of 1994, and it was a confession to police, not to JW eldersIt was clear when he owned in up to it to police in the summer (July, I believe) of 1994. It was not clear, nor was there proof, in November of 1993Clarke is either lying outright, or he is distorting the facts. The document I referenced previously [1] states an entirely different story of that November 1993 meeting. Reference: _____ [1] http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T E2HF1BOPUGJP1V8I/p ost23Emphasis added] See also: _____ http://www.topix.c om/forum/religion/ jehovahs-witness/T 4D6SD9ML75HO4L0U/p ost262  (Friday Jun 17 | post #1227)

Jehovah's Witness

Marvin Shilmer

While I have no particular love for JWN or Simon Greene, he must have gotten fed up with the arrogant blowhard MarvTowerShill verbally abusing [even if passively] anyone and everyone who wouldn't be forced into wholeheartedly agreeing with everything he said. It probably didn't help that he wanted to be accepted as being an expert in numerous fields, as well as some sort of JW super-agent, while refusing to personally identify himself so that his grandiose claims could be verified.  (Thursday Jun 16 | post #9)

Jehovah's Witness

Orlando Shooter

It's amazing the sort of scenarios a sick-minded mental defective like this JW-throwaway can come up with when they want to malign a person or a group. You might have seen that the operators of the club encouraged people who were able to run away from the club as the event was happening and, "keep running". He wants to talk of the cowardice of JWs [of whom there were likely none in that particular crowd]... There were only three-hundred-some people in that club, whereas there was only one shooter. Granted, the single shooter had a Sig-Sauer MCX [not an AR-15, as has been inaccurately reported; go media!], but still... there wasn't a single person, maybe two or three, who had the fortitude to put their lives on the line on the chance that they might have prevented some, if not a majority, of those deaths? I'd like to see what a sissified Internet whiner like you would have done in the same circumstances.  (Thursday Jun 16 | post #47)

Jehovah's Witness

Orlando Shooter

Or maybe you're just not funnyI didn't say you said itThat's among the most ridiculous items you've ever posted, and you've posted some pretty dumb thingsYou don't like being called out for being a mentally defective dolt, I understand.  (Thursday Jun 16 | post #46)

Jehovah's Witness

Candace Conti's parents don't back her story...

Only against an unproven allegation. As I've repeatedly said, Kendrick acknowledge or was found guilty of other charges. He is not "innocent ", by any stretch of the imagination. That said, he was never charged with or convicted of molesting Candace Conti, and it remains a fact that, her self-serving and impossible testimony aside, no tangible, verifiable proof was offered that she was molested by anyoneI neither twisted truth, nor did I suggest that Kendrick was not a pedophile. Kendrick clearly was a pedophile; he admitted, albeit not in November of 1993 to Clarke or Abrahamson, that he had made sexual advances on his stepdaughter and he was convicted of another instance of molestation in 2004. He is not "innocent ". I have never said he was "innocent ". It remains that he was neither charged with nor convicted of molesting Candace Conti, he did not admit to molesting Candace Conti, which really is the only thing that matters insofar as it concerns your illogical and, frankly, creepy obsession with this topicYes, it's priceless that you want to hold up JW elders as bastions of truthfulness in this particular instance to fit your narrative, despite the fact that it's clear to anyone who read the original document I referenced yesterday that his story changed between the time between his original deposition and the trial testimony you keep referring to. And while Clarke and/or Abrahamson may not have believed Kendrick's original claim in the November of 1993, that doesn't mean that they knew - or could prove - he was lying. It's also priceless that despite holding yourself up as a paragon of virtue amidst a maelstrom of political corruption, you keep illustrating that you're both incredibly stupid and totally unconcerned with the facts of a matter - a matter of justice, at that. Rule of Law? Innocent until PROVEN guilty? Presumption of Innocence? Burdens of proof? Due process? Such things obviously mean nothing to you.  (Thursday Jun 16 | post #1215)

Jehovah's Witness

Candace Conti's parents don't back her story...

Did you actually read the deposition as it appeared in the document I referred you to? No, you didn't, otherwise you'd know what was actually said, not just what a PBS "documentary " claimed - wrongly - he saidYou're not repeating Clarke's statement; you're repeating what someone is is incorrectly saying he said.  (Wednesday Jun 15 | post #1213)

Q & A with FH Chandler

Headline:

NO, YOU MOVE.

Hometown:

Republic of Elbonia

Neighborhood:

Just off of Krem Ln, #666

Local Favorites:

Trolls to the left of me, griefers to the right...

I Belong To:

A roving gang of Tom Brokaw clones, the 'Burt Rettig' appreciation society and the "NOBODY LOSES TO DOUGLAS CLARK" protection plan.

When I'm Not on Topix:

I'm waiting patiently for the FBI [and their KGB handlers] with hot coffee, donuts, ponchiki and Stolichnaya vodka at the ready.

Read My Forum Posts Because:

Don't worry, I'll beam my posts into your brain.

I'm Listening To:

http://youtu.be/JjTd-hypnYI

Read This Book:

http://thereligionofpeace.com/

Favorite Things:

Synthetic telepathy neural decoding your every thought. EW! You just wished you could sniff my socks! Also Snake People.

On My Mind:

You mother-[expletive] communications is corrupted. Whatever. WHATEVER. YOU GOTS ME NOW!

Blog / Website / Homepage:

NadINDYa's favorite (yes, FAVORITE!) song [SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE WARNING]: http://youtu.be/gncW1zqMFgs

I Believe In:

the system.