Response To The Enabler Who Claimed I lied
I wanted to post this earlier but I’ve only been able to stop laughing just a few moments ago. One of the amazing things about my friend Kendrick and his intellect was his incredible sense of humor. It’s that sense of humor that has once again revealed the enabler as a ridiculously small mined person who’s solitary mindset is to protect wrongdoers while attacking anyone who disagrees with him or fails to support the status quo of those who would use their positions for their own benefit. The enabler, by failing reader comprehension fell into a deep chasm of self-righteousness that once again reveals his ignorance.
This is what the enabler of wrongdoing posted under the thread “Legislative Meeting 29 November 2010”.
Anonymous said...
9:40 Another lie by Barrett.
This is straight from Kendrick and this blog: Attention! An Important New Change in Policy
Well folks, I listen... And the people of this blog have spoken... both in public, and via private email. And it’s unanimous... My new policy of "censoring" the phrases "anal buffoon" and "garbage dump" is disliked by everyone who has commented on it. But, as I said.... I listen.
Therefore, I am quite proud to announce a NEW change in policy, to take effect immediately: (drum roll)
From now on, I will continue to "censor" the two phrases I find so offensive, but I won’t be a "dictator" about it. From now on, if one of your posts falls "victim" to my extremely light "censorship," you can APPEAL its deletion to my just created "Board of Blog Appeals." This seven member panel will have an absolute power to override my "censorship" decisions. All you have to do is convince four out of the seven that I am wrong, and your post will be restored, lickety-split! What could be more fair? Who could ask for anything more?
If this ain’t "free speech" my new policy has to be the next best thing to it. And, honestly people, do you really NEED to talk about "anal buffoons" and "garbage dumps?" There are literally hundreds of billions of two word phrases in the English language, and I’m simply asking that you stop using TWO of them. Is that so unreasonable? And now that the actual final decision will be made fairly and impartially by the new "Board of Blog Appeals," only a whiner would complain that their "free speech rights" were being violated.
So, that’s the way it stands now. Never let my commitment to freedom of speech be questioned ever again! Thank you for your time and attention.... posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 8:08 PM
If the enabler would only read slowly he might not get so caught up in his own traps of humiliation. This actually is what Kendrick posted on FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 2006
“Attention! An Important New Change in Policy Well folks, I listen...
And the people of this blog have spoken... both in public, and via private email. And it’s unanimous... My new policy of "censoring" the phrases "anal buffoon" and "garbage dump" is disliked by everyone who has commented on it. But, as I said.... I listen.
Therefore, I am quite proud to announce a NEW change in policy, to take effect immediately: (drum roll)
From now on, I will continue to "censor" the two phrases I find so offensive, but I won’t be a "dictator" about it. From now on, if one of your posts falls "victim" to my extremely light "censorship," you can APPEAL its deletion to my just created "Board of Blog Appeals." This seven member panel will have an absolute power to override my "censorship" decisions. All you have to do is convince four out of the seven that I am wrong, and your post will be restored, lickety-split! What could be more fair? Who could ask for anything more?
If this ain’t "free speech" my new policy has to be the next best thing to it. And, honestly people, do you really NEED to talk about "anal buffoons" and "garbage dumps?" There are literally hundreds of billions of two word phrases in the English language, and I’m simply asking that you stop using TWO of them. Is that so unreasonable? And now that the actual final decision will be made fairly and impartially by the new "Board of Blog Appeals," only a whiner would complain that their "free speech rights" were being violated.
So, that’s the way it stands now. Never let my commitment to freedom of speech be questioned ever again! Thank you for your time and attention....” posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 8:08 PM | 51 comments”
This is what Kendrick wrote, in response to the question about the make up of the appeal board for the new censorship rules,
On 12 August 2:06 at 3:01 pm J. Kendrick McPeters said...
Anonymous asked, So who all is on the appeal board? Wab I guess?
You bet Allen Barrett is! Who could be better? He's not only an ordained minister, but he's faced jail time in his pursuit of free speech. And for those impeccable qualifications, I've named him to be chairman of the board. I'm sure he'll do a fine job keeping me in line, just like he would've done a fine job keeping the county's spendthrifts in line, had he been elected as commissioner.
Honestly, if you can't trust WAB to guarantee your freedom of speech on this blog, who could you trust????
On 13 August 2006 at 12:50 AM Kendrick wrote
J. Kendrick McPeters said... Anonymous said: Anonymous got away with saying "garbage dump" because he is an anti-zoner. Right? Right,
Dude, the joke is over, and the blog is back to normal. See the topic "GOTCHA!!!" at the top of the blog's main page.
SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 2006
GOTCHA!!! A Lesson for the LUMPsters
Years ago, before he became a shill for the GOP, I used to enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh. I especially enjoyed the times when he "illustrated absurdity by being absurd"... such as when he spent a whole day advocating "higher taxes for the poor."
Anyway, I’ve been trying to debate with the pro-zoners here, and there’s one argument that I’ve not quite found a handle on rebutting-- the "so what if we lose freedom argument." But a couple of days ago, it occurred to me that I could force the zoners to understand the value of freedom, by taking away a little bit of THEIR freedom, and seeing how much they liked it. And so, I decided to "zone" away a few of their favorite phrases and arguments. posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 10:49 PM | 28 comments
J. Kendrick McPeters said...
Of course, I would only "zone" their arguments "lightly!" I wanted to follow the precedent of the LUMP, and I did just that:
My blog: copied rules from an earlier blog, and then didn't enforce them. The LUMP: copied rules from an earlier zoning plan, and then didn't enforce them.
My blog: rules changed on a dime, in order to favor me and my friends. The LUMP: rules of amendment ignored, in order to disfavor me and my amendment
My blog: has an "appeals board" made up entirely of my anti-zoning friends. The LUMP: has an "appeals board" made up entirely of pro-zoners
My blog: "you can trust in the process because Allen Barrett is a devout man" The LUMP: "you can trust in the process because Roger Reedy is a devout man"
My blog: "freedom of speech is only slightly abridged, so quit your whining" The LUMP: "property rights are only slightly abridged, so quit your whining"
I expected a lot of bellyaching, and I got it. Frankly, I had hoped for even more negative reaction, but I may have made two tactical mistakes-- first, in giving pseudo-plausible justifications for my "new policies," and second, in bringing up my glaucoma problem. Had I simply refused to defend the new policies rationally, I probably could've stirred up more indignant anger.
Well, the experiment is over. The nonexistent "appeal board" is dissolved, and full free speech is returned to the forum. I hope you pro-zoners out there learned something of a lesson. The loss of property rights is far more significant, under the LUMP, than the last couple of day's loss of free speech rights has been on this blog. And you can bet that my "appeals board" -- not being a politically selected body -- would behave more honorably than the LUMP's.
If you are a pro-zoner that can think in abstractions, then perhaps you will realize that the very idea of taking away your God-given rights, and then having a bunch of politically appointed hacks in charge of whether you get them back, or not, is, by it's very nature, outrageous and intolerable. Yet that is the essence of the zoning plan you are so anxious to impose at bayonet point, on your neighbor.
Think about how unhappy you were to see selective enforcement of the blog rules, and the blatant favoritism of the blogmaster. And then multiply that by a hundred, to see how you'd feel if someone told you how you could use the land you "own" and pay taxes on.
Then try to realize that there are other ways, besides zoning, to achieve the goals of protection from nuisances that is your goal. And remember that I pledge now, as I have before, to offer unlimited assistance in developing a nuisance protection plan, that will satisfy both sides of this divisive issue. Working together, we can fix this problem once and for all, and make Giles County a much better place to live in. Isn't it at least worth trying??? Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:02:00 PM
wab said... (this was written at the time in response to Kendrick's joke)
It was a great experiment that revealed the reality of flaws in the good intentions of out of touch politicians and uninformed citizens. I only regret that no appeals were brought before the "censorship appeals board" so we "couldn't" have a meeting to do nothing about the situation. Allen Barrett
So the fact is I didn’t lie about Kendrick censoring something I wrote on this blog it was a matter of “Dude you been had”.
This is what the enabler of wrongdoing posted under the thread “Legislative Meeting 29 November 2010”.
Anonymous said...
9:40 Another lie by Barrett.
This is straight from Kendrick and this blog: Attention! An Important New Change in Policy
Well folks, I listen... And the people of this blog have spoken... both in public, and via private email. And it’s unanimous... My new policy of "censoring" the phrases "anal buffoon" and "garbage dump" is disliked by everyone who has commented on it. But, as I said.... I listen.
Therefore, I am quite proud to announce a NEW change in policy, to take effect immediately: (drum roll)
From now on, I will continue to "censor" the two phrases I find so offensive, but I won’t be a "dictator" about it. From now on, if one of your posts falls "victim" to my extremely light "censorship," you can APPEAL its deletion to my just created "Board of Blog Appeals." This seven member panel will have an absolute power to override my "censorship" decisions. All you have to do is convince four out of the seven that I am wrong, and your post will be restored, lickety-split! What could be more fair? Who could ask for anything more?
If this ain’t "free speech" my new policy has to be the next best thing to it. And, honestly people, do you really NEED to talk about "anal buffoons" and "garbage dumps?" There are literally hundreds of billions of two word phrases in the English language, and I’m simply asking that you stop using TWO of them. Is that so unreasonable? And now that the actual final decision will be made fairly and impartially by the new "Board of Blog Appeals," only a whiner would complain that their "free speech rights" were being violated.
So, that’s the way it stands now. Never let my commitment to freedom of speech be questioned ever again! Thank you for your time and attention.... posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 8:08 PM
If the enabler would only read slowly he might not get so caught up in his own traps of humiliation. This actually is what Kendrick posted on FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 2006
“Attention! An Important New Change in Policy Well folks, I listen...
And the people of this blog have spoken... both in public, and via private email. And it’s unanimous... My new policy of "censoring" the phrases "anal buffoon" and "garbage dump" is disliked by everyone who has commented on it. But, as I said.... I listen.
Therefore, I am quite proud to announce a NEW change in policy, to take effect immediately: (drum roll)
From now on, I will continue to "censor" the two phrases I find so offensive, but I won’t be a "dictator" about it. From now on, if one of your posts falls "victim" to my extremely light "censorship," you can APPEAL its deletion to my just created "Board of Blog Appeals." This seven member panel will have an absolute power to override my "censorship" decisions. All you have to do is convince four out of the seven that I am wrong, and your post will be restored, lickety-split! What could be more fair? Who could ask for anything more?
If this ain’t "free speech" my new policy has to be the next best thing to it. And, honestly people, do you really NEED to talk about "anal buffoons" and "garbage dumps?" There are literally hundreds of billions of two word phrases in the English language, and I’m simply asking that you stop using TWO of them. Is that so unreasonable? And now that the actual final decision will be made fairly and impartially by the new "Board of Blog Appeals," only a whiner would complain that their "free speech rights" were being violated.
So, that’s the way it stands now. Never let my commitment to freedom of speech be questioned ever again! Thank you for your time and attention....” posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 8:08 PM | 51 comments”
This is what Kendrick wrote, in response to the question about the make up of the appeal board for the new censorship rules,
On 12 August 2:06 at 3:01 pm J. Kendrick McPeters said...
Anonymous asked, So who all is on the appeal board? Wab I guess?
You bet Allen Barrett is! Who could be better? He's not only an ordained minister, but he's faced jail time in his pursuit of free speech. And for those impeccable qualifications, I've named him to be chairman of the board. I'm sure he'll do a fine job keeping me in line, just like he would've done a fine job keeping the county's spendthrifts in line, had he been elected as commissioner.
Honestly, if you can't trust WAB to guarantee your freedom of speech on this blog, who could you trust????
On 13 August 2006 at 12:50 AM Kendrick wrote
J. Kendrick McPeters said... Anonymous said: Anonymous got away with saying "garbage dump" because he is an anti-zoner. Right? Right,
Dude, the joke is over, and the blog is back to normal. See the topic "GOTCHA!!!" at the top of the blog's main page.
SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 2006
GOTCHA!!! A Lesson for the LUMPsters
Years ago, before he became a shill for the GOP, I used to enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh. I especially enjoyed the times when he "illustrated absurdity by being absurd"... such as when he spent a whole day advocating "higher taxes for the poor."
Anyway, I’ve been trying to debate with the pro-zoners here, and there’s one argument that I’ve not quite found a handle on rebutting-- the "so what if we lose freedom argument." But a couple of days ago, it occurred to me that I could force the zoners to understand the value of freedom, by taking away a little bit of THEIR freedom, and seeing how much they liked it. And so, I decided to "zone" away a few of their favorite phrases and arguments. posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 10:49 PM | 28 comments
J. Kendrick McPeters said...
Of course, I would only "zone" their arguments "lightly!" I wanted to follow the precedent of the LUMP, and I did just that:
My blog: copied rules from an earlier blog, and then didn't enforce them. The LUMP: copied rules from an earlier zoning plan, and then didn't enforce them.
My blog: rules changed on a dime, in order to favor me and my friends. The LUMP: rules of amendment ignored, in order to disfavor me and my amendment
My blog: has an "appeals board" made up entirely of my anti-zoning friends. The LUMP: has an "appeals board" made up entirely of pro-zoners
My blog: "you can trust in the process because Allen Barrett is a devout man" The LUMP: "you can trust in the process because Roger Reedy is a devout man"
My blog: "freedom of speech is only slightly abridged, so quit your whining" The LUMP: "property rights are only slightly abridged, so quit your whining"
I expected a lot of bellyaching, and I got it. Frankly, I had hoped for even more negative reaction, but I may have made two tactical mistakes-- first, in giving pseudo-plausible justifications for my "new policies," and second, in bringing up my glaucoma problem. Had I simply refused to defend the new policies rationally, I probably could've stirred up more indignant anger.
Well, the experiment is over. The nonexistent "appeal board" is dissolved, and full free speech is returned to the forum. I hope you pro-zoners out there learned something of a lesson. The loss of property rights is far more significant, under the LUMP, than the last couple of day's loss of free speech rights has been on this blog. And you can bet that my "appeals board" -- not being a politically selected body -- would behave more honorably than the LUMP's.
If you are a pro-zoner that can think in abstractions, then perhaps you will realize that the very idea of taking away your God-given rights, and then having a bunch of politically appointed hacks in charge of whether you get them back, or not, is, by it's very nature, outrageous and intolerable. Yet that is the essence of the zoning plan you are so anxious to impose at bayonet point, on your neighbor.
Think about how unhappy you were to see selective enforcement of the blog rules, and the blatant favoritism of the blogmaster. And then multiply that by a hundred, to see how you'd feel if someone told you how you could use the land you "own" and pay taxes on.
Then try to realize that there are other ways, besides zoning, to achieve the goals of protection from nuisances that is your goal. And remember that I pledge now, as I have before, to offer unlimited assistance in developing a nuisance protection plan, that will satisfy both sides of this divisive issue. Working together, we can fix this problem once and for all, and make Giles County a much better place to live in. Isn't it at least worth trying??? Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:02:00 PM
wab said... (this was written at the time in response to Kendrick's joke)
It was a great experiment that revealed the reality of flaws in the good intentions of out of touch politicians and uninformed citizens. I only regret that no appeals were brought before the "censorship appeals board" so we "couldn't" have a meeting to do nothing about the situation. Allen Barrett
So the fact is I didn’t lie about Kendrick censoring something I wrote on this blog it was a matter of “Dude you been had”.
posted by Allen Barrett | 6:33 PM
105 Comments:
So Name calling has been important to you for 5 years? wow.
wab
I just wanted to let you know that I am the one you so wantonly call an enabler of wrongdoing. As I have told you before on numerous occasions, that is simply not true. When will you STOP telling that lie?
By the way, I am NOT the one who said you lied about Kendrick's never having deleted one of your posts. Ok? Get a grip!
Hey Enabler,
Are you happy now that you've managed to become the subjuct of a thread?
"When will you STOP telling that lie?"
This line is so old. Have you no imagination at all?
11:29
I imagine I'll keep reminding barrett that he is telling that lie as long as it's necessary.
Question. Why is it that wab aand his cheerleaders call anybody who disagrees with them an enabler? There are several of us who post on this blog, and I am perhaps the most vocal. But you and I both know that's not the point. I know who I am and what I stand for, and I still believe that a lie is a lie.
11:29
I forgot to mention something. Would you agree with me that this thread (like the rest) is designed to stir up trouble? Probably not.
This thread was posted not to stir up trouble as you claim but to combat the post you made accusing me of telling a lie. For the first time you actually stated a reason for calling me a liar but your reasoning was so foolish that you once again looked foolish.
Trying to use Kendrick's words out of context was as foolish as claiming there is life in outer space because you saw the movie "Star Wars".
As for the term "enabler of wrongdoing", I have not used the stronger term "enabler of evil" as some others have, I have used it to describe only your behavior of defending wrongdoing through your gossip, redirection, personal attacks and direct defense of wrongdoing. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me but everything to do with the simple facts of your actions.
There are a number of posters to this blog and the thing that makes it so easy to identify you is the consistently boring catch phrases that you alone find humorous, claims with out substance, and the same methods of whining and use of gossip as your foundational support. You cry out "come listen to me" but you offer nothing but your prejudiced feelings. It's like telling everyone to come drink from my cup but your cup is empty.
*yawn*
wab
I am not the 0one who said you lied about Kendrick's never having deleted anything you said. How can I make that any clearer to you?
Do you actually claim to be an ordained minister as someone said? If so, how did that happen? I'd really like to know who ordained you.
I'm the one who first called her the "Enabler of EVIL". And she is!
At least on this blog that is. I'm sure that in real life she is the sweetest person on the planet.
How do I know? She says so!
3:48 Do ministers have to have your approval before they are ordained? You come across as thinking you are God.
10:25
No, I simply asked a legitimate question.
That was way too long to read.
Kendrick's post were always too long and I never wasted my time reading them. He always rambled on and on and on.
He still is in WAB.
Kendrick was truly a village idiot.
You didn't have to announce that the thing was to long for you to read it's obvious that your attention span is equal to that of a three year old and "fun With Dick and Jane" is closer to your level of comprehension. If you would have read more of what Kendrick had written you probably wouldn't be as dumb as you are now.
5:18 And if you hadn't written, people might actually think that you had some intelligence. Now they know that you don't!
Kendrick was an idiot. What does that make you?
That was too long, and what is wrong with a short attention span. The time goes by quickly enough without wasting it on someone that long winded.
So much love. 5:18 sounds just like WAB.
9:44
I was reading that post and thinking the same thing. Sure sounds like him, doesn't it?
I am the one who commented that it was way too long. It has nothing to do with attention span. It was boring, he could have said what he was trying to say in two sentences. I usually did speed reading when it came to Kendrick and picked out what I thought was important. And by the way you should have said too not to. Intelligent huh?
Did anyone watch the Geminids Meteor Shower last night or were you to busy thinking how you detest WAB?
The reason the thread topic was so long was in order to fully cover the question of me being a liar and the enabler of wrongdoing being duped from a lack of paying attention.
wab
Actually, you keep telling that lie about my being an enabler of wrongdoing when, in my opinion, it is YOU who promotes strife and discord. Won't you stop it at least for the Christmas season?
+1 on what 10:36 a.m. wrote
Does the phrase "methinks thou dost protest too much" mean anything to you?
Play ground bullying.
I was born and raised in Giles County. I moved about five years ago to another state. While in contact with family, I asked about County politics. My family member told me to go to this site.
WOW...don't believe I will ever admit where I am from again. I have never seen such petty riff raff coming our of grown people.
Can you not agree to disagree without all of the name calling. I understand that there are issues that need to be brought to the public's eye....but come on guys and gals...this is embarassing!!
Can you imagine how much good you could be doing for others if you would just put half the time you spend on this blog (hurting and name-calling) being good to someone else?
Think about it!!!
10:49
Amen! I've been saying this for quite sometime now and have been called all sorts of names such as enabling wrong, a buffoon, etc. It is shameful and realqly embarrassing.
It never occurred to 11:37 that 10:49 was referring to him/her,
8:47
Interesting. I have asked that we be able to disagree without being called a host of names or being accused of ignorance, apathy, and even helping to cover up "corruption". Those are lies. Now, exactly who is it that does the name-calling, makes the accusations, and stirs trouble at every hand? Your post certainly implies someone other than 11:37.
I would submit that the "enabler of wrongdoing" fits your description and answers your question far better than anyone else in Giles County 7:19.
wab
I believe promoter of strife far better describes me than the lie that I enable wrong.
wab
EXCUSE ME. I need to proof what I type before submitting posts.
I meant to say I believe promoter of strife far better describes YOU than does the lie you keep telling that I enable wrongdoing. I would never do that, so what else can we call it but a lie? I wish you would stop telling it, because it's simply not true.
11:56 I like that.
I like 11:59.
11:56 is the most accurate thing the enabler has ever written on here.
7:19 You got that right.
What I intended to say was clearly explained in the 11:59 post. The suggestion that I am an enabler is a lie. I simply stand opposed to the promotion of strife and discord. Why shouldn't we all stand opposed to such activity?
To 7:06 By your actions you are known and that's why you are the enabler.
10:14
No, the term "enabler" is a lie that was started by one who should know better. How many times do I have to say that?
These post sound like 1st grade recess or Pee Wee Herman saying..."I know you are, but what am I"! Grow up!!! Stop the name calling and talk like grown ups!!! Stay on "real" topics!!! The blogger that said these kind of post are embarassing is so right!
I think the one who started the lie is the one who needs to grow up.
9:59 Poor you. Get over it and grow up instead of constantly whining.
I would like to read something about the thread not you crying. Have you ever told why Barrett was wrong about anything except you are not an enabler.
12:15
Sounds like you are the one who needs to get over it and stop whining.
Oh me Oh my he's at it again.
Yep, 12:15 ia at it again.
There is no enabler. That happens to be a lie.
Yes you are! And you love the Debil too!!!!
12
;16
No, I'm not. Grab a dictionary or google that word. An enabler is normally viewed as a negative term for one who promotes or allows something that is wrong. Troublemaking and the promotion of discord and strife would be good examples of wrong. So, in reality, the real enabler couldn't be me, because I beg and plead that these things stop and that we begin to get along as God would have us to do.
Your definition of an enabler is only confirmation that you are an enabler of major proportions. Problem is that log in your eye only allows you to see the splinters in others.
9:57
No; that's a lie you have bought into, hook, line and sinker. I stand opposed to those who promote and/or enable the evils of sowing strife and discord, name-calling, character assassination attempts, and needless troublemaking. Having said that, let me assure you that I have NEVER stood against people's right to question government. Ok?
You apparently have nothing better to do than to argue with me over word definitions. Why don't you look the word up in a dictionary? How can I be an enabler of evil when I beg that it stop? Exactly what evil am I enabling? I await your answer to those last two questions. Thank you.
10:18 What would you do if 9:57 didn't post so you could post back?
3:33
Are you suggesting that one shouldn't respond to insults?
3:54 Yes, then they would stop.
Keep responding and keep it going.
9:48
Sorry, but I don't put up with bullying. Some people might, but not me.
4:45
If you were on a school ground and two boys got in a fight, would you join in?
I think you bully WAB is why I like to needle you.
11:30
You have got to be out of your mind if you think barrett is bullied by anyone. He reminds me of a little banty rooster who is always crowing about something. Notice that I did not call him a little banty rooster.
If two people got in a fight, would you join in? What a strange question.
3:52 would not join in the fight until he found out which of the boys was wrong then he would take that ones side
8:48 Only if it could be words on a blog.
8:48
That happens to be a lie.
3:52 You remind me of a banty rooster, notice I didn't call you one.
9:31
Is this what the blog is all about now? Do you have anything else? If not, at least try to be original.
It seems the blog has gotten all about one person. He/she thinks what she/he says is ok, but no one else better say it or it's wrong.
I noticed above 3:52 said WAB reminded him of a banty rooster, then 9:31 says 3:52 reminds him of one.
I alwsys heard what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
9:31 I guess you was suppose to say something bad about Mrs. Vanzant. As for me I think she is a nice lady.
9:33
She is a nice lady.
Hey 9:33 he agreed with you on part of your post. You should be honored.
8:32
No, Mrs. Vanzant should be honored.
6:03 you spouse and children should be honored for putting up with you.
You come across as everything is my way, I know best.
Wrong again. My spouse and children honor me just like I honor them. Isn't that what the Golden Rule is all about...treating others like you want to be treated?
I rarely seem to know what's best and even more seldom demand my own way. But one thing I know for sure is that making trouble is not best for anyone, including the troublemakers.
Hey, what about that Golden Ruule? Wouldn't that be best for all concerned? Would you mind answering that question for me?
Wednesday night, did anyone go to church tonight?
8:19 Yes, Giles County even the world would be a better place if everyone obeyed the Golden rule.
The problem is they don't. I know you will reply you do, but you don't.
9:25
You are right; I do treat others as I want to be treated. That's why I continue to ask that the name-calling and smearings stop. What possible good does this do our county?
6:20 Do you want to be treated like you treat WAB?
Would you mind answering that question?
9:12
Look, barrett deserves every ounce of the criticisn people give him. I have said on more than one occasion here that he has greatly toned down his hateful rhetoric and that I hope he will continue to improve in that area of his life. I don't mistreat him, but I do point it out when he smarts off or calls someone a name. Isn't that how you would treat me if I were spewing venom and resentment?
Just because I tell someone he has a booger, doesn't mean I mistreat him.
3:41 Guess that is why I keep posting to you.
7:53
Do you think I have a booger? Haha.
No, I think you keep volleying back and forth with me because you have nothing else to do with your life.
"I rarely seem to know what's best"
Enabler (Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:19:00 PM)
11:32
There is no enabler if you refer to me. The real enabler is the one who allows those like you to promote that lie.
Don't forget. If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names.
"If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost. "
Who is it that can't answer Mr. Barrett's arguments?
10:52
What arguments? He's letting you do that for him while he watches the drama.
Doubt anyone will argue with you about the accuracy of your quote, "I rarely seem to know what's best"
Enabler (Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:19:00 PM)
10:01
There is no enabler. That is a lie started by one who ought to be ashamed.
argument, is it not one when Barrett post something about Mrs. Vanzant and when you post back you don't tell WHY he's wrong?
8:42
If someone told an outright lie about you or some loved one, would you remain quiet about it?
What I'd do is prove it was a lie instead of whining that it was a lie for weeks on end.
7:54
Look, I know what I am and who I'm not. I've sufficiently explained that the name is a manufactured lie. When the name-calling stops, I'll stop pointing it out. So I will ask it again; who is the real enabler here?
Question. How does one prove or disprove something intrinsic about himself, particularly when those who call names would make sport of whatever is said? It's an impossibility.
Is this really what you guys want to discuss on this blog? Is there anything else?
When most people post anonymous how do you know who is who. No one knows who is being called enabler. I've often wondered if the same person calls someone enabler then complains about it. This morning I've seen both post so close together, I think I must be right.
10:06
No, I must respectfully say you are mistaken about that. I am the one the lie was told on, and I have made no secret of the fact that I strongly resent it. I have asked the one or two who keep perpetuating the lie to stop it, but I don't think they will. It appears that they delight in mischief and strife. Therefore, I will defend myself and call it a lie as long as necessary. It's unfortunate, but these people should not be allowed to get away with mistreating others.
3:06 How are they mistreating you, when no one knows who you are?
4:55
Where have you been? One or perhaps two people on here keep calling me an enabler, which is a lie. As long as that goes on, I will be here, the Lord willing, to point out that out. My integrity is important to me, and I don't appreciate the falsehood.
I've seen someone being called enabler, but didn't know who it was. So wondered how you knew it was you.
She knows because she is all knowing even the thoughts of others and what motivates them. Besides when the shoe fits the person wearing it knows.
6:48
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know these guys are referring to me. But you see, I'm not and never was an enabler of wrong. That is a lie started by one who ought to be ashamed of himself.
I thought you guys wanted to discuss issues on this blog? Do you have anything else?
Well, you sure have proven you ain't no rocket scientist with "I rarely seem to know what's best"
Enabler (Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:19:00 PM)
8:31
Why don't you have another glass of sour grapes wine and relax? The only enabler I now of is the one who started that lie about me to begin with.
I thought you guys wanted to talk about issues? Is there anthing else?
The critic, whatever his pretensions, does not labor in the same vineyard as those he criticizes; his grapes are all sour.
_______Frederic Raphael
Just got to have the last word. I bet all three post was made by the same person.
Does he/she ever work like he/she has claimed?
What difference does it make? When the lie stops this drama will go away.
I wonder what difference a lot of things goes on this blog makes.
I love Barret's comment "Dude you been had."
11:53
Yes, I think that was quite outrageous, but...are you trying to get something started? Just wondering.
6:10 You do enough of that.
7;55
No, I'm only defending myself against a lie.
6:10 I thought the comment was funny. I don't know has been had, just like the comment.
Poor enabler or Christian gentleman, all he knows is how he dislikes WAB or to say kool-aid or move away.
How many times has the enabler threaten to quit posting? He'll never quit.
Post a Comment
<< Home