Local Attorney Involved In Malpractice Lawsuit, Appointed New Attorney In Condemnation Lawsuit
Local Attorney Chris Williams, who is currently battling against a malpractice lawsuit filed against him by a Lawrenceburg Doctor, has been appointed to represent Giles County in the long delayed condemnation lawsuit for land needed at Interstate Exit 14 for a waste-water treatment plant.
Some questions arise as to why a different attorney is needed when the county has an attorney already. This isn't the only time the county through Mrs Vanzant has reached out for the services of Mr Williams. He represented the county and Mrs Coleman in the voter fraud lawsuit I filed. The question of how he was paid and how much was never adequately answered by anyone in authority with the county.
Some questions arise as to why a different attorney is needed when the county has an attorney already. This isn't the only time the county through Mrs Vanzant has reached out for the services of Mr Williams. He represented the county and Mrs Coleman in the voter fraud lawsuit I filed. The question of how he was paid and how much was never adequately answered by anyone in authority with the county.
posted by Allen Barrett | 11:58 AM
340 Comments:
They had to hire Mr. Williams to "keep it in the family" he is after all Terry Harwell's step son. According to the wksr post this will be a very time consuming lawsuit because of all the heirs to the property that have to be notified. Still don't know why the county attorney we have contracted with cant do her job.
Won't his own personal issues keep him from concentrating on the land problem? Also, how much money have we already paid the current attorney to handle this matter? I'm sure we won't receive a refund. Great example of thought being put into a decision.
Ray
Is he not also living in Mrs Vanzant's house where she has supposed to have lived since being elected
You got it 4:03.
Probably about as much as WAB 's frivolous lawsuit cost this county!
Barrett..
i see you are again after Chris Williams? WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?????
Well, here's part of the problem 7:49 when Commissioner Flacy's daughter was considered to represent the county there were loud cry's of conflict of interest but now with commissioner Terry Harwell's son appointed, without commissioners knowledge where is the call of conflict of interest. It seems fair is fair.
Barrett...why dont you go discuss that appointment with whomever appointed Mr. Harwell and stop trying to start trouble??? Get past your failures and jealousy and be a positive force for the community. THAT would be refreshing.
Besides, aren't you calling yourself a reporter(sic). Go get the report and then put it on the blog. Isn't that responsible journalism?
Looks like he did report it, cg. You need to stop letting your feelings for Barrett get in the of your common sense. I know you're smarter than that.
Ray
What is a "reporter(sic)" I have never come across that.
It's a Latin term used to indicate meticulous accuracy. I'm not really sure why cg chose to use this term. Seems to just be giving credence to the fact that B is a reporter. Never thought he would admit that.
6:23
here's an example of this Latin term. I wonder why Allen Barrett refers to himself as a reporter [sic] when he knows better. By definition, it is used to refer most often to an erroneous statement or quote. And Barrett is certaionly no reporter in terms of professional journalism. I would define him more as an agitator and troublemaker.
Mrs Vanzant had to give Chris Williams a job. He needed something to do and she needed to repay Terry for running against Barrett for Commissioner and make up with Vicky for accusing her of making remarks about her son years ago. Soap Operas have nothing on Pulaski and Giles Co. You don't have to watch TV just keep up with the goings on in Giles County. Oh, and don't rely on WKSR for the news unless it happens in Alabama.
What does (sic) mean?
I noticed someone using it a lot.
Sic is used in writing to indicate that a word or phrase is archaic, is misspelled intentionally, or is used unusually. It is an indication to the reader or the editor that the spelling or use is not an error
When you transcribe old papers the "sic" is pretty much saying spelled as in the original document.
sic:
adverb; Latin.
so; thus: usually written parenthetically to denote that a word, phrase, passage, etc., that may appear strange or incorrect has been written intentionally or has been quoted verbatim: He signed his name as e. e. cummings (sic).
Try www.Dictionary.com.
And, learn how to use CTRL+F to find words or phrases within the "current"or "active" page.
Barrett...
I'm sure you just overlooked the recent post wherein you were asked to reveal the names of those election commission people you have accused of voter fraud. May we have those names anytime soon? Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.
And you have the nerve to accuse others of trying to stir up trouble. What do you think you are doing with your posts? Oh, but it's not trouble making when you do it, is it? What a hypocrite you are, but then you already know that, don't you?
11:04
Not true! I simply ask that the hatred and jealousy stop before someone gets into legal trouble or hurt in some way. I'd say you have some nerve to suggest otherwise.
By the way, would you agree that the accused have a right to face their accuser? Or is that situational?
11:123 Are you saying this post is asking the hatred and jealousy stop?
"Barrett...
I'm sure you just overlooked the recent post wherein you were asked to reveal the names of those election commission people you have accused of voter fraud. May we have those names anytime soon? " laughable
He most certainly is not, 12:30. It's just different when he says it. I truly think he really cannot see that his posts are part of the problem. We should all feel sorry for him.If no one responds to a post like the one you mentioned, he brings it up again until someone does. That is the classic definition of a true trouble maker.
When may we expect Mr. Barrett to name those he has accused of voter fraud?
It's a simple question that begs an answer since HE is the accuser.
Barrett is the one who brought it up in the first place. ha
Most of us know at least one he will not formally accuse. They are friends.
And once again, the enabler stirs the pot.
The only enablers I know of are those like you who, for some contentious reasopn, want to go back and start this all over. The true enablers are the ones like you who promotye a bald-faced lie. Perhaps you need to grab a dictionary and look the word up. Then go take a look in your mirror.
Your turn. If you want game "back" on, let's go.
Barrett is the one stirring the pot. CG only points out the wrongdoing and hypocrisy of his topics. Barrett is going to rot in hell for the trouble he has caused. I don't think anyone should worry too much about it.
8:17 I don't think he is through with his troublemaking yet. He's awfully silent on this blog lately.
You need to take a couple of breaths and calm down a bit. Your missing a few keys while posting in the midst of your tantrum. It's not a race;take all the time you need to address the enabling issue.
8:17, you seem to be the one worried about it. Barrett hasn't posted but once in this entire thread, yet you accuse him of stirring the pot. A bit ridiculous, ain't you?
Here's the "enabling issue". Allen Barrett has called me an enabler of wrongdoings in county government. That was a LIE when he told it, and it remains as such today. That's right; Allen Barrett told a lie, and could not humble himself to admit it, even when I presented the "proof" he demanded from me. and yet,you defend him. He Amazing.
Can we just let this die away once more, or do you want to continue this foolish game? You people should NOT be allowed to run over people. You won't get away with that with me. So please let it go.
I wasn't going to bring this up ever again, but you just can't let it go, can you? Again, shame on you.
Where has the English professor gone?
I noticed a lot of missing space bar places? Could he be the one making those mistakes and had something else to write about?
race;take 11:10
me. and yet,you defend him. 7:32
I will try to improve my typing skills. Would that make you happy? Probably not. You would just find something else to crow about. It must be tough being at the top and knowing the masses are beneath you intellectually, spiritually, and whatever other wonderful traits you have.
7:32 as I remember it you were called an enabler by several people and the only evidence you ever gave in your defense was that you were a Christian gentleman, so some started calling you CG, your comments remained the same. Each time you have been confronted with undeniable facts such as the missing money, the hospital fund being spent, Vanzant lying your defense has been " don't know enough about that" but as was pointed out several times if you didn't know enough about an issue why speak out and defend it?
Your comments are very hypocritical and many times just warmed over gossip from the breakfast club.
9:06
Here we go again. So be it.
Allen Barrett told a lie on me that I enable wrongdoings in county government. He lied, pure and simple. Then he demanded "proof" that I'm no promoter or enabler of things I know to be wrong. I offered up my best defense (being a Christian and a gentleman), and he and his few loyal followers scoffed at it. What better proof could I offer? NOTHING!
As for hospital funds and related matters, how could I comment, pro or con, on them since I don't know enough about those issues? I made that very clear. I never tried to defend something wrong. I also stated that I had lost my respect for people like Mr. Jackson and others; I can't remember who right now. But still I was called an enabler of wrong. I thought this had gone away but it seems you want to being it all back up. Why?
If you didn't know enough about the hospital funds etc why did you comment on them at all? Yes, you finally came out saying you had lost respect for Mr Jackson but for several years your support enabled him to manipulate and misuse school funds and abuse teachers.
10:53
All I said about the hospital fund is that you guys need to go to the source and ask questions instead of calling names and trying to cause trouble. How idiotic is that (describing behavior)?
A person who lies is a liar. A person who steals is a thief. Therefore, wouldn't one who exhibits idiotic behavior be an idiot? My lord, can't you , just for once, say what you mean? You are every bit as guilty of calling people names on here as anyone else; you just have to put your twisted spin on it to justify yourself in your rather under-developed brain, don't you? (describing traits here)
5:45 And you just made the point that YOU in fact are the liar. Why is that? First of all, I'm not the liar you accuse me of being. Secondly, I am far from being an idiot. Would you like to compare credentials, and IQ? Lastly, I am not the name-caller. Are you?
Here's what I think is going on with you and the other few disciples of Barrett. You guys just can't stand it (and probably never anticipated) that anyone would oppose you here on this "free speech" blog. Well, get over it. We can disagree without calling people names, don't you think? Peace. And don't hate.
Poor Poor Poor CG he is very sad. People are picking on him again and he doesn't like it. Poor Poor CG
CG you really think highly of yourself with such grandiose ideas as you are the only one to oppose what's on this blog, your credentials are so great, your IQ is so high. You even believe you are above questioning while questioning everyone else even claiming to know their motives and whether they are going t o hell. Sometimes I wonder if you think you're God or Obama.
Oh enabler, you would miss the point if it thumped you right between the eyes. Read your 3:42 post and the 5:45 post again. Read it slowly if you must. Perhaps the meaning will become clear after that. If not, just give up. I don't have any crayons or construction paper handy at the moment so I can't draw you a picture.
9:55 (10:44)
You are absolutely ridiculous. Don't you think Barrett is displeased that this enabler issue has cropped back up? He won't like being reminded that he told that lie. But he can count on you to defend him regardless. So sad.
Anyone heard anything from Lavergne???
Only that she and Shirley are no longer close friends.
For those who have trouble with reading comprehension I post with my name and picture only. I have been accused of posting anonymous at the same time of having too much self importance to not post my name and picture, well you can't have it both ways to pick and choose what you think is me and what is me. Ask yourself if I have been willing to put my name and picture on the things that I have written that has caused so much controversy, in your minds, why would I be concerned about anything else I could post under an anonymous heading, doesn't make sense does it.
Here's the thing one more time, I post with my name and picture so that there can be no mistake as to who did that post, I am responsible for what I post and am very willing to provide the reasons for that posting. I do not post rumors or about the non-involved family members of public personalities and I either have the support for my comments on paper or from more than one very trusted source.
this topic was posted because it is a clear conflict of interest that has been prohibited in the past but is now becoming more and more prevalent within the county.
Is that why you lost the lawsuit against Mr. McAlister?
That is a lie Mr. Barrett. I have personally witnessed a post that was initially posted with your name and picture, but somehow turned to anonymous. It was an extremely nasty post about Mrs. Vanzant. You can deny all day, but I am 100% sure it happened. I don't think you will find very many people that don't believe you are capable of telling lie. Maybe you have told so many it just comes naturally.
3:30 p.m.
What's happening in Lavergne?
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 6:46:00 PM
You must watch the blog all time or are you getting so confused you are seeing things?
I didn't say it didn't happen just my computer don't stay on the blog all time. Wish I did have time to watch it all time.
924: You must have a life, since you don't have time to blog-watch all the time. If WAB and his minion, Ray Lanier, had "better things to do" like you, there would be a lot less garbage on the world wide web. If only...
12:41, I'm flattered that you think I am highly esteemed. I am also slightly confused that you think I stay on here all the time. This is only my third post on this particular thread. I would venture a guess that you have posted more times than that. Also, you need to read more slowly if you think 9:24 was being complimentary in his post to you. Damn, some people just see what they want to see. Love ya, babe. Have a great day.
Ray
Someone asked about Lavergne! Well it appears Mr. William Allen Barrett has now taken his "I am God" mentality to another city and county. It it my understanding he is now attacking the Mayor of LaVergne! The Mayor happens to be a female. Does Barrent have a thing for females in power?
May 1, 5:33 pm
Your post does not make sense.
The reference was to Lavergne Tennessee.
I was merely trying to interject a bit of levity to a bunch of otherwise hateful and redundant posts. Laverne and Shirley? What a waste of time you people are.
3:04 Did your post of May 01, 2013 3:33:00 PM make any more sense?
What's the latest on the Lavergne, Tennessee caper? I hear it's true, and I want to know. Is Barrett really over there trying to get the mayor fired?
No one has said what the earliest is yet; how would they know the latest?
It's all over town pal. Just do some "research" on your own.
Has anyone heard the latest about the enabler and what he was doing at the Alabama welcome station. Seems he was in the bathroom stall tapping his shoe. It's all over town and everybody is talking about it.
9:15
What a sorry piece of crap you are. Don't be like Barrett though. When you make a serious allegation like that, be man enough to give your name. You are the sorriest individual I know, other than the one you worship...if you are not him posting anonymously. What a crying shame.
Oh...I slipped up and called you a name you so rightfully deserve.
Great post, 9:15. Now that's the kind of "research" I can believe. You noticed he didn't have to ask what that meant, did he?
9:20
Some people need to learn to take their own advise! If you are going to talk crap about someone, make sure you say it TO them not just about them to others.
I would like to see the person that said Barrett is in Laverenge post there name.
I tried to google and find if Barret was doing that.
What I came up with was Allen Barrett Road. More than one Allen Barrett?
10:08
You are right, and the reason I know about this is because of all the publicity stirred by that Congressman or Senator who was caught doing that. So don't try to pin your low-class smut on me. I live a Christian life (scoff if you will...and I know you will). I know what the Bible teaches about that perversion.
You won't find the answer on Google. But let's just suppose for a minute that someone presented undeniable "proof" that our own William Allen Barrett is the one over there trying to cause trouble for the mayor; would you believe it or try to make excuses for him? Just saying.
Would you people stoop to about anything in the book to hurt someone? I think you would. If so, you learned it from the master, I'd say.
How does cg and Barrett know what is going on in Giles County and everywhere else.
How does cg know if Barrett goes to a school or the jail? Keeping tabs on him?
2:34 If you can prove do it and I will believe it. just saying things on this blog is not proof of anything.
Was Barrett raised over there or why is he interested in it?
Are you ready to admit you posted wrong about 1:40? You and your Buddy who is also, means they were both doing it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
1:40 Yopu and your buddy who is also calling names need to understand that I have a right to my opinions just as you do. Have you ever wondered why Barrett has at least three negative threads on this blog about the Harwells and their son? Think about that? Think what you want, Ok?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:37:00 PM
Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:00:00 PM
These people are NOT a waste of time - they are the height of entertainment that Giles County has to offer; and, it's free.
With this question
Anonymous said...
3:30 p.m.
What's happening in Lavergne?
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 8:04:00 PM
What did most people think about?
"Laverene and Shirley"
2:34, I would love for you to present undeniable proof about anything at all. You never have so why should we expect you to now. Oh, let me guess your reply. You never said YOU had undeniable proof, you just posed the question" what if someone?" What a laughing stock you are, cg. Seriously, how can you live with yourself?
11:42. Allen Barrett Road! Is is a dead end!
10:53
Look Yopu, I only threw out the question about what might be happening in Lavergne. I NEVER said Barrett was over there causing trouble for the mayor. However, I did hear he was doing that and simply wanted to know if anyone had any information on that.
Question. If it turns out that (via undeniable proof) that Barrett is trying to get the Lavergne mayor fired, will you still defend him? You might ask Barrett a yes or no question and see what happens. Ask him if he is trying to get that mayor fired. I challenge you. Are you up for it?
6:17 or is your name now yopu?
Will ever admit you made a mistake in your post about 1:40? Maybe I need to post your post again. You sure do keep up with Barrett. laughable
LOOK Yopu, I didn't make a mistake. You two are constantly calling people names. Will YOU admit that Yopu?
Want to keep this foolishness going? That's cool. Go for it.
Yopu
I wanted to ask you a question that only you can answer, and you don't have to share it with anyone. You wouldn't anyhow. What is the underlying source of your hatred and resentment? Do you even know? You don't have to be like that.
You remind me of one of those people who followed the wrong leader in the Poseidon Adventure. Do you recall that movie?
I don't 6:17 and their fascination with Barrett even to make claims about what he's might be doing in another county. At times he's begging Barrett to leave this county and get off his crooked friends case then he gets all upset at the idea that Barrett might be involved with something in another county. IO know there is a lot of jealousy there but my goodness. I wonder if either one even knows the mayor of Lavergne. Sounds like a rumor the non-gossip gossiper is spreading. Here's an idea if you have some information you want to tell people about why not just tell it instead of sneaking around and implying stuff. If you got proof of something show it if you don't stop lying and gossiping.
If you presented proof, Barrett would delete the post!
There was an informant who knows that mayor from what I hear. Oh, but you would call it gossip.
Why not ask Barrett. Say it ain't so Joe; say it ain't so!
Gossip is unsubstantiated talk about someone else's private life and activities a gossipmonger is one who spreads such unsubstantiated gossip and rumor you sir or madam are a gossipmonger of the worst kind, you spread your vicious gossip from secret so that you can not be confronted and forced to speak the truth thus you are a cowardly lying gossipmonger in the service of the owner of all liars, gossipmongers and cowards.
I quote from an earlier poster, "Here's an idea if you have some information you want to tell people about why not just tell it instead of sneaking around and implying stuff. If you got proof of something show it if you don't stop lying and gossiping" if you can.
Intelligent people don't base their life on what someone else "might or would do" but on what is done. Post your proof, absent any vulgarities, of anything you think and see if it's deleted. I can not respond to something you think when I have no clue as to what you are talking about.
WAB
Do you recall the big fuss you made about the distinction between a person's private life and public life? Perhaps. Anyhow, the point to be made is that if what they say is true about the Lavergne situation, you are subject to the same rules. Hypocrisy and situation ethics are of no account there.
I'm not accusing you of trying to get the mayor of Lavergne even though arrogantly accused good people on the election commission of a felony.
Question. Is it true or untrue that you are trying to cause trouble for the mayor of Lavergne, Tennessee? Yes or no will suffice.
From what I understand, the one who "broke this story" didn't even know who you are! What about that? Was it a conspiracy?
Channel 4 ran the story that a city alderman was talking smack about the mayor because she wanted to double taxes and the rate for water. I suppose they're just trouble makers for even running the piece. Damn news stations.
Ray
cg a simple yes or no will do, Did you accuse the one posting 1:40 of calling names when you had no idea who posted that and there was no name calling in 1:40's post?
Yes or No?
Damn CG enabler why don't you say what you are accusing the man of and show some proof then let him answer if it's true or not. No intelligent person would answer the question as you state it, it's like asking a person if they are still beating their wife.
Tell what he has done to get the mayor fired, maybe he deserves to be fired I don't know but what you have written on here about it don't only not make any sense it's unanswerable.
10:09 (11:12)
Look, I am nor the one who accused Barrett of trying to get the Lavegne mayor fired. If you would go back and read my post at 6:00 (next to the last paragraph), you will see that I was NOT accusing Barrett of anything. Don't you think it makes you look rather simple-minded to say something to the contrary? I never accused the man.
Yes, I did say that the one who made the post at 1:40 along with one of his or her buddies consistently calls people names on this blog. But I did NOT say there was any name-calling on the 1:40 post. How can I make that any simpler for you? This is totally childish, but if you feel like you got "one up on me" then I'm happy for you.
See you in church.
Churches will be full of hypocrites.
Not saying CG is one, just it will be full of them. I'm glad people will be going to church. Straight and narrow is the way to haven and few will get there. It's very hard to lived the way God wants us to.
What do most people on this blog do first thing of a morning, read the Bible or post on this blog?
7:59
Thank you. I would agree with you that churches are full of hypocrites, and a lot of people use that as a reason to stay home from services. I admit that it is discouraging, but being in the Lord's house right along with the worst of them is still better than staying away.
I look at my own life sometimes and wonder if I am a stumbling block to anyone. And maybe ...just maybe...there's a bit of hypocrisy in all of us. But it doesn't have to be blatant and obvious such that we gain that notoriety and cause others to fall away.
Again, thanks.
6:57 again shows what a liar he is. When you write, "I did say that the one who made the post at 1:40 along with one of his or her buddies consistently calls people names on this blog. But I did NOT say there was any name-calling on the 1:40 post." you make it clear that both people are constant name callers regardless of if you say specifically in that comment one is or is not a name caller. How stupid your effort to cover your butt.
It's the same way you accused Barrett of trying to get the mayor fired. You didn't say directly that he tried to get him fired you;re to cowardly for that, what you did was try to plant a evil seed that he tried to get the man fired while you gave no proof of anything you just sat back on your pious butt and made up the whole lie.
If Barrett said he tried to get somebody else elected to be mayor would that be the same as trying to get him fired? What did he do to get the mayor fired and if you are right about Barrett having no power and nobody listens to him where would he get the power to get that mayor fired, you not just a liar you a stupid liar and that is name calling.
9:59
You are an absolute nut!!!! I'm sorry, but you really are. Your last post proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I believe I explained to you in the previous thread that I never accused your hero of trying to ruin the mayor of Lavergne. I also mentioned that it was NOT me who first brought this up. But, for some reason, you cannot or will not accept it. This makes me think you are a nut.
I'll tell you what; why don't YOU go ask Barrett if there's anything to the Lavergne story?
It astounds me how you continue to blindly defend anything this guy does. Wake up!
1:33 I'm not 9:59 but agree with most of his post. He/she is probably like me, don't care if Barrett did or didn't try to get the mayor of another county fired, so why would we want to go ask him. It's YOU and your post we reply to.
I'm not defending Barrett just trying to show a nut what a nut he/she is.
"You and your buddy means they were both doing what ever. Ask an English teacher, but you don't want to believe you meant one thing and wrote another, do you.
If I may make a comment, Mr. Barrett I wish you would start deleting any post on here that does not pertain to the topic. I have never read such stupidity on this blog before. Please keep us informed on what is going on in our county and delete the rest of the mess. Thank You.
Betsy, you have a very good idea. I second it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Translation of what Betsy was saying: Barrett, delete any and all posts that are not in total agreement with the status quo of this blog. How dare people to have dissenting opinions and viewpoints!
Barrett if you are a reporter, report the facts and leave your dumbass comments off here! They are going to get you sued again!
1:33 I'm not defending Barrett I don't even have a clue as to what I would be defending him from. What I do know is your cowardly gossiping and rumor spreading are both condemned in the bible so your behaving is not consistent with what you claim about being such a great Christian that you should be believed just because you say you are a Christian gentleman. Well, you are no Gentleman to spread such rumors and you are not much of a practicing Christians to be gossiping so much and trying to stir up trouble.
12:45
Wrong. I never claimed to be a "great" Christian. On the contrary, I am weak and sinful as are you. However, I am trying to live a Christian life. As for being a gentleman, I am precisely that. Otherwise, I would be on this filthy blog calling people every name in the book and doing my best to destroy people of my choosing. Isn't that what's going on here? Are you part of it? If so, perhaps you need to pray every bit as much as I do.
Again, I am NOT the one who brought up the subject of Lavergne. Ok?
It's too funny. Some of you are upset about a perception that Mr. B is part of another mayor situation, ie Laverne....IF he was, I'd think you'd be happy he wasn't messing with your little buddies here...you can't win can you? Then all the "commentary" please, most are anonymous anyway, how can individuals have a specific response to anyone anyway? You can't. So why argue certain things? We all know by they heading/disclaimer what the point is and what were dealing with, why complain? Ether post or not. Read/look or not.
An earlier post suggested deleting things. I agree, but at this point the blog is set--deviation now supports the replyin post that opposition would be deleted. So I've been thinking about starting my own blog? A moderated blog. Mr. B I'd still like to use the information you gathered etc, but make my disclaimer be as such that people would KNOW beforehand that deemed deviation from the topic would be removed. A "moderated" forum-? Then people could whine an complain about something removed but would do no good-nobody elevate would see it. Anybody like the idea?
8:41 Yes agree.
I would like to ask a question of the one called CG, You said you wasn't the one brought up Laverene.
The question have you posted anything about it? Just wondering. With me and so many being anonymous the same person could be posting all those post for all I know.
Why does Giles County have a lawsuit over land? Do the heirs not want to sell the land?
Who was the attorney that was slow about filing the lawsuit?
What reason did she/he give for not already having it filed?
All very good questions 901--most of which well prob never get answers
To 9:01
I'll try to answer your questions about the condemnation suit the county filed on property at the interstate exit and Hwy. 64.
In order to develop the site at the interstate there had to be a proper waste-water treatment system, this has been the problem there since the road was built.
With the commitment from Capitol Brands to build a distillery and tourist attraction there the county wisely decided to build the treatment system which required the purchase of land. The land that was needed is jointly owned by a number of heirs and the quickest and easiest way to obtain the needed land was to use the law of eminent domain, condemn the property have the courts establish a fair price and proceed.
The original attorney that was hired, on the recommendation of the county attorney, to guide this case through the courts was Ms. Ginger Shoftner. When she failed to meet the deadline set for filing by the commission, she was replaced with another attorney recommended by the county attorney and approved by the county executive. No public statements have been issued as to why she failed to file on time other than "she was too busy".
The controversy arose from the fact that Mr. Williams is the step son of a county commissioner. In the past children of county officials seeking to do business directly with the county was deemed a conflict of interest and prohibited.
I hope this information has been helpful.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
9:10 my goodness I never seen anybody get so upset because Barrett answered a question that had been asked. We his answer wrong, no it was just him answering and some dumb bunny can't stand the fact that Barrett knows more than they do.
You got to be mighty dumb if you don't see the difference between a son and a 3rd cousin doubt you would marry your son but not sure about the cousin based on your intelligence level.
Even I know that money is already going out of the county faster than it comes in, I'd sure like to know where it all goes because so far there have been millions that just disappeared. I'm sure Barrett will delete your your trashy post as soon as he reads it, I was certainly offended by it.
Is it a conflict of interest since Harwell's wife works in that office? With such a big case I am sure she will generate billable hours. Is Terry generating billable hours himself helping in the office? Maybe double dipping on taxpayer time a little bit?(just asking) Isn't that law office pretty much a family business now? As a tax payer I see a big conflict of interest since Terry's wife earns a paycheck from that office; meaning Terry shares in the benefits derived from that office.
10:23
I am likewise offended by your "defend Barrett no matter what he says or does" attitude.
Mr. Barrett, thank you for answering my question. I'm sorry the ones despising you so had to come out with their stupid remarks.
I thought the owner or as it turned out owners didn't want to sell the land.
WAB
Could you share your thought on what the Bible teaches us with respect to our avoiding every appearance of evil?
Thank you 8:18.
To the Monday 9:10 poster whose comment was deleted for obnoxiously vulgar language.
I invite you to call me that name in person.
To the Tuesday 9:38 poster who asked, "WAB, Could you share your thought on what the Bible teaches us with respect to our avoiding every appearance of evil?"
I will be very glad to share my thoughts on 1 Thessalonians 5:22, “avoiding every appearance of evil”.
Paul writes in 2 Peter 3:16, "some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures"
I’m sure you would agree that sometimes people "twist" the Scriptures. Some because they simply have an evil on their mind and don’t care what God has said, they just twist His words to justify their own actions. Of course some unknowingly "twist" the Scriptures, usually because they don’t understand what the Bible actually states.
If I were to make a list of the most abused (or "twisted") passages in the Bible, I think 1 Thessalonians 5:22 would be among the top numbers.
The King James Version states, "abstain from all appearance of evil." Most interpret this as meaning if something appears evil avoid it, the problem with this simplistic explanation is that the person doing the explaining does the determining of what "appears" to be evil and what doesn’t.
So to drink a glass of wine appears to be evil for some, even though it’s recommended in the Bible. To speak harshly to anyone appears as evil to some although Paul and even Jesus spoke very harsh words at times. There were even times when preachers preached against sitting in an ice cream store and eating a bowl of ice cream because it appeared to be evil to them. Today there are those who even condemn musical instruments in church, they have no trouble with those musical instruments in their car or homes, as evil even though the Bible tells us there are musical instruments in Heaven.
As Forrest Gump might say “evil is as evil does” not as evil appears based on the opinion of some pious hypocrite.
Things are made sinful because they “appear evil” by the thinking of those who twist Scripture. The truth of the matter is that anything can be made to appear evil or sinful to someone. To many Mennonites it appears sinful to ride in a car, wear bright colored clothes, display a photo of their family; Referring to Jesus as the Messiah appears sinful to many Jews; Saluting the American flag appears sinful to Jehovah’s Witnesses; Eating pork appears sinful to Muslims.
I’m sure you get the picture by now, that it is impossible to abstain from everything that looks evil or sinful”
I think a much better and more appropriate understanding of this verse would be, based on other writings of the Apostle, “Hold fast to that which is actually good not just avoid that which appears evil”. After all isn’t it far better to abstain from actual evil than just that which appears to be evil?
People have a tendency to be lazy when it comes to the Bible popping off comments and twisted verses and setting arbitrary standards of morality instead of seeking the true understanding of the Scriptures.
Barrett.
I knew you would deliver an epistle, but I was hoping that through study and in the preparation of this treatise you would learn something about abstaining from the very appearance of evil. In other words, keeping ourselves unspotted from the world. That is to say, come ye out from among them and be separate. I don't think calling people names and inviting people to call you a name to your face is conducive to what the Bible teaches. What about turning the other cheek and praying for those who despitefully use you? We are even told to pray for our enemies. Am I you enemy because I tell you the truth? If so, I would invite you to pray for me. I admit to being an imperfect and sinful human being before God. Would you agree that some people are far too prideful to admit that they make mistakes or that they are EVER wrong about anything?
I would hope that you will seek a deeper understanding of the scriptures mentioned above. Thank you.
6:20 CG do you pray for Barrett?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I can't help but laugh at people when they ask a man a question then get upset and criticism him for answering it. It's good to know that some on here are able to avoid even the appearance of evil but what i don't understand is how they can do that while criticizing and doing the very things they are complaining about in others.
I have to wonder why it's ok for someone like T. Harwell to "defend his wife" and condemning someone else for not turning the other cheek. Seems what's right for one would be right for the other. Hypocritical hogwash.
7:13
Yes, I pray that he will repent. In fact, I've asked him more than once to do that right here on this blog. 10:10
You make a valid point, but should Terry Harwell have asked his wife to turn the other cheek had someone walked up and slapped her? I am trying to live a Christian life, but had someone slapped my wife, you can bet that I would be all over that guy in a flash. God put that in man to defend the weaker vessel...and I know that offends the bra-burning feminist, but that's how it is.
In a way, I suppose it sounds a bit hypocritical. I would do my best to turn the other cheek if the situation involved only me, because that is the Lord's will. But I would not sit idly by and fail to protect my wife or her honor.
When did Barrett slap Vicki Harwell?
I must of missed that.
If someone had slapped my wife I wouldn't of had to come to her defense. She would of had him down before I could even think about moving.
NOBODY said Barrett slapped Mrs. Harwell. Surely, you are just trying to stir up trouble. Surely, you are not that stupid??
Boy, cg you sure like to put a spin on things. Asking if Terry Harwell should turn the other cheek if so one slapped his wife. No one slapped his wife. My opinion is you just wanted people to think you are some kind of big bad man. Everyone knows you are trying to protect the officials of Giles county government.
If anyone tried to stir up trouble you did in your post of 7:41. What a character you are. laughable.
7:41 who are you accusing of slapping Vicki Harwell?
Most men would come to the aid of their wife if she was slapped unless they were the one doing the slapping.
The point is no woman has been slapped yet!!!
NOBODY SAID ANYONE WAS SLAPPED! THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!
Poor cg everybody is picking on her. Your started it with your silly post "but should Terry Harwell have asked his wife to turn the other cheek had someone walked up and slapped her?"
Walked into that one didn't you.
7:41 did. It is in plain English.
" I am trying to live a Christian life, but had someone slapped my wife, you can bet that I would be all over that guy in a flash."
Don't back up,. It is right there in black and white. So who are you accusing of slapping Vicki?
8:56
You have got to be either one of the stupidest people on earth or one of the most devious and troublemaking. Which is it?
Who are you accusing of slapping Vicki?
Watch what you post if you can't take it.
cg is worst than WAB in trying to get around what they post. lol
NOBODY ACCUSED ANYBODY OF SLAPPING MRS. HARWELL!!! Yopu is just trying to stir up trouble and twist what was said. Right, Yopu?
" I am trying to live a Christian life, but had someone slapped my wife, you can bet that I would be all over that guy in a flash."
Plain English. Somebody was accused and we want to know who you were accusing.
3:15
Yopu...you are either the stupidest person I have ever encountered or one of the most devious. Which is it? I tend toward the former. Anyone so stupid as to not be able to tell when an example or for instance was presented and not a literal face-slapping has got to be of very low intelligence.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry Yopu, but I will NOT shut up.
Just like a stupid person.
Low intelligence would post something like that.
Ypou have more than one person posting to you. I've been gone all evening.
Who are you and why should we care? Were you going to state who you accused of smacking Vicki then? And I do not know who Ypou is.
11:22
Read this slowly. NOBODY HAS ACCUSED ANYBODY OF SLAPPING MRS. HARWELL. That was used as an example, and the troublemaker who keeps trying to make something literal out of it is either one of the stupidest people on earth or one of the most devious. Again, NOBODY HAS ACCUSED ANYBODY OF SLAPPING MRS. HARWELL.
Posted by Wednesday, May 08, 2013 7:41:00 AM
You make a valid point, but should Terry Harwell have asked his wife to turn the other cheek had someone walked up and slapped her? I am trying to live a Christian life, but had someone slapped my wife, you can bet that I would be all over that guy in a flash. God put that in man to defend the weaker vessel...and I know that offends the bra-burning feminist, but that's how it is.
It is crystal clear in your statement 7:00 you stated some one had slapped Vicki. Every one has read it. You are on here trying to defend the Harwell's for their white trash actions at the chili cook off.
Your "example" is a far cry from what actually happened, and you know it. I'm sure there is none among us who would not defend a loved one should there be a physical altercation of any kind. The only one who became physical was terry harwell; twice. It seems the only reason to make such a backward analogy was to stir the pot and cause trouble. Your accusatory comments are no different than those of whom you routinely show outrage at on this blog. Don't be a hypocrite and then have the nerve to call someone else one.
9:16 (9:56)
Read this slowly. NOBODY HAS ACCUSED ANYBODY OF SLAPPING MRS. HARWELL. That was used as an example, and the troublemaker who keeps trying to make something literal out of it is either one of the stupidest people on earth or one of the most devious. AGAIN, NOBODY HAS ACCUSED ANYBODY OF SLAPPING MRS. HARWELL.
There was NO accusatory comment, and Mr. Harwell reacted as any man would if his wife asked for his help, especially in light of the fact that so many mean and nasty things had been said about them on this blog.
2:05
Your words are in black and white. You ignore the truth and continue with your dispersions towards the character of others. The continuation of your post shows your motive in enabling the horrid actions of the Harwells as every one can see which also shows the character of you. By what people are writing many are as appalled by your enabling of the Harwells actions as the action itself.
3:13
That's a lie. Allen Barrett told that lie on me because he couldn't accept the fact that a Christian would not willfully go along with wrongdoings.
CG didn't say anyone slapped the Harwell woman. His explanation obviously wasn't well understood, but he didn't say she was slapped.
One would have needed help to misunderstand plain English. Nobody said anyone was slapped. Thanks for helping to clear that up.
Just made a stupid example and let someone think Mrs. Harwell was slapped. cg should of thought before making that stupid example.
cg has taken up for Harwell so much it was easy for people to believe she was now saying Vicki was slapped.
Did anyone see Vicki's statement to the police about what happen that night. I noticed the police kept asking her about some things and she never changed what she said.
The video proved she was wrong.
Terry tripped and the water went on Hughes. What a laugh.
4:58
Yopu
You are right. I should have realized that someone like you would try to twist what I said.
You are either one of the stupidest people on earth (describing YOUR behavior) or one of the most devious.
Oh boy, who is this stupid devious person?
Must be named Yopu who ever that is.
I've looked back thru post and this is the first time I've found the word yopu so it must be the one posting 1:40, but he/she didn't sign that way.
Guess 3:37 just decided to give him/her that name.
1:40 Yopu and your buddy who is also calling names need to understand that I have a right to my opinions just as you do. Have you ever wondered why Barrett has at least three negative threads on this blog about the Harwells and their son? Think about that? Think what you want, Ok?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:37:00 PM
I haven't been on this blog long so I think I will take a stab at answering 3:37's question.
Could it be because Harwell said something about Barrett at the Chilli Cook Off?
Friday, May 03, 2013 9:30:00 PM
No....I think Terry could best explain why he was mad at Allen Barrett well before the cook-off.
Because Barrett ran against Terry for Assessor and Commissioner?
6:58 Post of 3:37 asked why Barrett had three negative threads on the blog against Terry and his son. I took at guess at why. Are you saying something happen before the cook off is why Barrett post against them?
Do tell what was it.
I read and read your post. I think you are saying Terry was mad at Barrett well before the cook off.
Seems we are talking about two different things. Me Barrett mad; you Terry mad.
Hope they can both get over it.
8:30
I think the post at 8:25 holds the answer.
Here's what I believe. Allen Barrett ran for 7th District Commissioner against Terry Harwell and two other candidates (a total of four). Guess what? Allen Barrett came in a DISTANT fourth in that race. I believe he has said some harsh things about Terry since being defeated, and therein lies the root of the animosity.
In my opinion, Barrett has been bitter ever since his defeat to Terry Harwell. Furthermore, I believe he blames everybody but himself for losing...not once but twice. I don't think he ever considers that the people just do not want him. To me, that is totally delusional.
He proceeded to sue the election commission and lost. Now he's accusing some of those good people of a felony. It's my understanding that the courts found NO evidence of impropriety.
9:13
I think the courts found she did not have enough signatures to be on the ballot and there was some suspicious activity in documenting the paperwork. Remember the testimony over the date stamps. I think a fraud was perpetuated to place an ineligible candidate on the ballot. My opinion. Had the voters been properly informed to the lack of appropriate signatures by the candidate, which means she would not have been on the ballot and would have to have been a write in candidate. she might have won any way but I believe the same way about this as I do about immigration. If one cannot follow the rules to get onto a ballot or into a country, why will they follow the rules once elected or in the country?
And are we sure the Harwells were not talking bad about Barrett from the start? Wasn't ole Terry mad that he lost Assessor? From what I have seen of Terry and Barrett I have to say the 9:13 post holds as much truth as the video of Vicky telling the police what happened at the chili cook off. Didn't Vicky try telling the police that it was night when the video showed it was day? Oh and Terry throwing water on Bob, laughable? Too many lies from Vicky in that video to list. Now who seems to be the type of people to attack a persons character with malicious intent? Got to say the Harwell's from what I have seen.
1:18
Ok, since Barrett is every bit the coward he calls others for not naming those he has accused of a felony, why don't YOU step up and name the person or persons you are accusing of a fraud? Come on. But please be sure to list your name.
From what I have been able to find out, the person elected to 7th District had ample time to go out and secure a few more signatures on her petition had she known. If that be true, and I think it is, it was an honest mistake. Why wouldn't someone at the election commission office have told Mrs. Coleman that she needed to run out and get two or three more signatures had they noticed right off that it might have been short that many names? Have you ever thought about that? The obvious answer is that she would have been so advised! The courts recognized it, and that is one of the big reasons why Barrett lost the case. He should have known that he couldn't prevail against the will of the voters anyway.
Back to the Harwells, please allow me to share my opinion. I think Allen Barrett despises Terry because he (Terry) along with Mrs. Coleman prevented him from gaining a seat on the commission. I also believe that he (Barrett) tried to get Mrs. Coleman disqualified on a technicality, knowing that would guarantee him a seat on the commission. In that instance, I don't believe Barrett gave two cents about the will of the voters in his district. That should loom huge in their minds should he try to run again...and I believe he will.
Oh, and by the way, Mrs. Coleman WAS in good faith following the rules. The courts also recognized that as well.
You asked:
" Why wouldn't someone at the election commission office have told Mrs. Coleman that she needed to run out and get two or three more signatures had they noticed right off that it might have been short that many names? Have you ever thought about that?"
I wondered about that. I know Kathy and she is a good person, but she has others working under her. She did right to stand up for her employees when questioned. I bet the employees got a good talking to privately after that.
Yeah, and I wouldn't have gotten that ticket if I had only known the police were watching. What a load of hogwash. Do you not see why everyone insists on calling you an enabler? My goodness,man, take some of your own advice and "think."
650, you said it all--and you don't even realize you are making the other sides case.
"She had ample time to get more signatures if she had known she needed them..." You admit it's understood she needed more. So I should get lottery winnings even though I didn't buy a ticket huh?
How did her name get one the ballot?
It's not the election people's job to run tell anyone what they are lacking is it? Maybe it's a courtesy but its not on them to complete the filing requirements. So if the name didnst meet the requirements and was placed anyway-that would be tampering, wrong,illegal-whatever you want to call it. If you have any sense at all you'll notice that isn't an attack on the lady and she would be totally clear of wrongdoing...a she did was turn in papers and appear on the ballot.
Heck I wanted Ronald Reagan on the ballot too, but he didn't meet the deadline ether. So lets out him on cause he "meant to do it, if only he had known".....oh wait, unfortunately he has passed on.
Most candidates know and tell other people to make sure they have MORE than enough signatures before for just in case of this very thing.
So how did her name get on the ballot?
If it was not qualified whoever put it there or was in charge of putting it there did something wrong.
Sure she might have won anyway-good for her-looks like she's doing ok--that's not the point.
I'm sure none of that will sink in anyway-
8:33 (10:21)
How did I make "the other side's case? Isn't it interesting that the other side lost in court? Can't you understand something that simple? How can you argue against that? Or are you wiser than the judge?
Now, as for tampering with the ballot, you would be dead wrong and telling a lie to make such an assertion. Again, why wouldn't the court share your view on that?
No, I think it would be the election commission's job to advise a candidate about the proper amount of signatures that needed to be on a petition. I believe that's exactly what they did. Perhaps there were enough signatures to begin with; I don't know. Nevertheless, it didn't occur to the commission employee that some were outside Mrs. Coleman's district. Had the error occurred to them, Mrs. Coleman had plenty of time to secure a few additional signatures. The courts saw it that way as well. In addition, I understand that the court did not wish to override the will of the people who gave your hero a resounding defeat. The error was simply an oversight, The court knew that. It astonishes me how you can argue against that as well.
No, you are the one who made a valid point. I think Mrs. Coleman would have won anyway. No, I am sure she would have. After all, who came in dead last in that four man race. Your hero lost to the third place winner by a large amount of votes. Does that tell you anything? Probably not, but nevertheless.
What occurred as a result of court action has apparently not sunk in with you. That's too bad.
She was on the ballot but did not complete the procedure for being on the ballot. she should have not been on the ballot. The election commission put her on the ballot as though she met all requirements. That was false and a fraud perpetuated on the voters. End of story. And your defense of such wrong proves you are an enabler.
Well 127 it really is too bad. Mr. B is not my "hero" I don't care if he ran, came in last whatever. You ne'er did answer why/ who put the name on the ballot? You won't because you bend things to get your outcome. As for your remark about it occupied to an employee---what a joke. It doesn't need to occur to them--it is by definition their JOB to Make sure what is submitted is valid.
Glad the people voted---I wish more people would...however they shouldn't be able to vote for a fraudulent ballot. Heck if no one checks or by this case it doesn't matter--why even have a process or signature pettition---eclipse I'm sure all te people in the county would vote for me had they known I might be on a ballot. And no I haven't run in case you think so.
So--why was the name on the ballot if it did jot have the required number if signatures? Answer that--we might have something--sorry oversight won't cut it? Sure I agree judge did job etc....
Oh yeah, you got me by the way--why are we even having this discussion----it's not even te topic. Dang played right into your stupid loop which is your point of beig here I guess....to derail a topic.
Sorry other meaningful logical posters--I will refrain from the futility of a conversation with someone who is blind to point and truth.
2:45
That's simply a lie perpetuated by one of the most hateful and resentful individuals I have ever known. If you think someone deliberately committed fraud or an act of felony, please list them now. Don't be a coward like Barrett who made the same accusation but was too cowardly to name the accused. Name them!!!! But please give your name. Otherwise, you are just as much a coward as he is. That may not be necessary anyhow, but giving your name would be helpful to all concerned.
Sure had a good meal at Legend, but was wondering if I was missing entertainment.
I take it 7:24 knows Barrett from his first sentence. Have to say it is funny why one anonymous asked another anonymous to reveal their name.
Is there a difference in the election commission and the people working at the election office or the ones in the office called Election commission? Just wondering.
8:13
Can't you find suitable entertainment? Is this the best you can do? What about a ballgame or a movie?
Barrett not only accused those working in the election office of a felony but also at least some of the commissioners. He accused them but is showing himself to be the coward he accuses others of being by not listing who he thinks they are. If he's going to accuse someone of committing a felony, he needs to be bold enough to give the name.
8:47 Did you answer 8:13's question?
I would also like to know if there is an election commission different from the ones in the election office.
I thought I had read something about the election commission and the governor several months back on this blog.
I thought by that they were different.
Wow, this is starting to be a really unhealthy obsession for cg. Virtually every series of comments -- on every topic -- end the same way. I'm not trying to start trouble, and I say this with respect: Man, let it go. It's not possible for one person to be right all the time and everyone else wrong. As for Allen, the law of averages allows at to how he's got to get one right every now and then. I have never seen you do anything but pounce on anything he has posted. I can be feeling good and get on this blog, and all this negative crap harshes my buzz. Let's talk about something else.
Ray
Have a Happy Mother's Day everyone!!!
Ray
Thanks, my friend. Have a great day.
I think a good topic for discussion would be why the Benghazi issue isn't creating an outrage across this country. Why is the media giving Obama and Hillary Clinton a free pass on this?
Another good one might be why Tim Tebow is scorned and ridiculed for being a Christian while the newly-announced gay quarterback is lauded as some kind of giant among men. Why is this?
Does anybody care about the moral decay in this country? Oh, but isn't that what the liberal wants to see happen? Hate the military and praise homosexuality. Tax the middle class into non-existence and kill the unborn for the sake of convenience. Toss out Biblical teaching on the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and fight tooth-an-nail for a convicted murderer who gets the death penalty. Disenfranchise our own war veterans and give handouts to immigrants...legal or not. Is it any wonder out country is going into the toilet?
Its people like who makes things go in the toilet. You obviously never look at situations in depth to get a full understand of why things happen. Truth is, you don't want to. Pious at its best!
Its people like who makes things go in the toilet. You obviously never look at situations in depth to get a full understand of why things happen. Truth is, you don't want to. Pious at its best!
10:23 (10:24)
How can you argue with the facts? Those jokers ought to be in jail!!!
Tim Tebow ought to be the hero. Our military should be strong and respected instead of made weak and hated. Spending cuts should trump more taxes on the already-overburdened middle class to pay for entitlements to those who sponge off the working class. People all across this land ought to be standing up to defend Biblical teachings on marriage. Even now, a lot of our young people are saying being gay is ok. Murderers convicted beyond the shadow of doubt ought to be executed...not our innocent newborn children. Out war vets need and deserve proper treatment before freebies are tossed out to immigrants, legal or not.
You say I don't want to understand why things happen? That's an interesting statement from those like you who seem to have no problem with the ruination of our country. Is that what you want?
10:23 (10:24)
Yes or no. Are you a Democrat?
3:35
I am glad the majority does not think like you. You seem a little psycho. Are you a Democrat, Republican, Constitutionalist or Nazi?
Im a conservative and a patriot who loves his country and sees what the left is doing to it.
Even your hero Barrett would agree with me on these issues. Ask him.
8:41 I suggest you go back to the two topics I posted on 12 Sept 2012 and take a good look at the denials and attacks against me for simply providing the facts about the Benghazi attacks.
Ray Lanier wrote, "I can be feeling good and get on this blog, and all this negative crap harshes my buzz."
Now we know why he writes the crazy, threatening and violent things that he does on here. It isn't just because he's an uneducated, classless redneck. He is apparently taking something to give him a buzz. Explains alot.
Now, I'm sure he'll attack/threaten me with one of his "butt kickings" or tell me to come find him. If and when he does, I will just feel bad for him because he obviously has a self-professed issue with something that gives him a "buzz." Also, this makes sense, as to why he agrees with WAB all the time.
Note: I am not spreading gossip or lies or slandering Ray's "good" name. I quoted an exact statement he wrote on here. He said it so himself.
223-I love your take on ol' Ray. I have thought many a time about how he always says he can beat someone up and how it doesnt make sense at all because hes on disability. In my opinion if someone is so hurt that they are on disability they shouldnt be able to beat someone up.
2:41 You just made Ray sound like cg.
cg is always posting what he would do if someone bothered his wife like at the chili cook off.
Yopu
While I am striving to live the Christian life, I never claimed perfection. If my wife asked me to intervene on her behalf, I would unquestionably do just that. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about that.
Oh, and could you explain how the 2:41 post relates to your perception of me? This ought to be interesting. I look forward to your spewings on that.
yopu, you are a joke. Looked to me like 8:06 told why 2:41 made Ray look like you.
It's to pretty of a day to stay inside on the computer. Go outside enjoy the weather.
Wish I could go outside and enjoy the day, but got to get a little shut eye before my night shift.
See you in the morning Yopu.
Yopu
See you then partner...the Lord willing. I didn't think you would be able to explain an abstraction. And you call me a joke?
Have any of the finger pointers ever consumed caffeine, sugar or cinnamon on a regular basis? It is well documented two are stimulants and one is a hallucinogen. Now that stuff will give you a buzz.
Big man changes things and uses big words to try to make himself big.
Would that by any chance be a little man syndrome?
2:41 posted: "Ray. I have thought many a time about how he always says he can beat someone up"
Yopu or 8:15 posted "and could you explain how the 2:41 post relates to your perception of me?"
8:06 gave this answer: "cg is always posting what he would do if someone bothered his wife like at the chili cook off."
And you still can't understand it.
8:15 if being a Christian don't make you perfect then why do you say that because you are a Christian you CAN'T be a enabler of wrongdoing? Sounds like something ain't right with that. If we ain't perfect don't we all have the possibility of doing wrong?
8:03
\Look Yopu, I have said more than once on this blog that I am by no means perfect and have admitted that we are ALL sinners. Why do you have to put your spin on what I say? I, like YOU, am a sinful creature who needs God's grace every day of my life. I have also said that on more than one occasion, but YOU keep attacking. Unbelievable!
Now, as for being an enabler of wrongdoing, that is a lie Allen Barrett told on me, and you are the true enabler for promoting his lie. Don't you think this is getting embarrassing for him?
Red your Bible and you will see that none of us are perfect...not even you.
Seems to me several people are putting their spin on things. Makes me think of the president.
4:58
Just quit your lying it is not Christian. Every one read where you stated it was proof that you do not enable wrong doing because you claim you are a CG. You can not have it both ways. you are too stupid to know you are enabling every time you blindly defend those whose actions are wrong with out being educated on the facts. You are a really sickening individual. I think the devil has found a disciple in you.
6:22
You really have me in your crosshairs, don't you. That's ok; I've been under the gun before.
I will say this again. I AM a Christian and a gentleman whether you like it or not. The only reason I ever made those claims is because of the lie Allen Barrett told on me that I willfully go along with wrongdoings. After I called his hand to telling that lie, he then DEMANDED proof that I am not one who would promote wrong. I was also accused of being a female, so I then referred to myself as a gentleMAN, hence Christian gentleman. But you know this, don't you?
Being a Christian doesn't make one perfect, and I never claimed to be anywhere close to perfection. We are all sinful, and that's where the grace of God comes in. If you don't know this, then I would suggest that you read your Bible. I think that would be a far better use of your time than sitting here on this blog calling people nasty names and such.
As for my going along with wrong, you know that's a lie, and yet, you keep enabling it. What is wrong with you? Doesn't that make you look stupid? I think so.
7:17 I've never accused you of being an enabler but I think 6:22 is no more stupid acting than you, keep crying about it. Sounds like two year olds crying over the same toy.
2:23/2:41, I am pleased that I could clear a couple of things up for y'all. Now you can be sure of something instead of just wandering around ignorant all of the time. I guess I'm just a helpful sort of fellow. Later, dumbasses.
Ray
cg since you admit that being a Christian does not make you perfect the question was and is how can you use being a Christian as the reason why you "CAN'T" be a enabler that's what i gather from every question that has been asked by people about you being a Christian. If WAB lied and you are not a enabler tell why instead of just repeating the same old same old. WAB gave reasons why he thought you was a enabler so it's only reasonable to convince people you are not with some facts not contradictory reasons like I'm a Christian and therefor I can't be a enabler.
yopu
Are you as stupid as you show yourself to be? I think you are. The more you argue a point that is pointless, the more I am convinced.
I SAID that a Christian is far from perfect and is a sinful creature who needs God's grace every day. Nobody said anything about being perfect. However, the fact that Christians are saved by grace and not of themselves does NOT give them license to go out and willfully partake in wrongdoings. That is exactly why the lie Allen Barrett told on me is just as much a lie today as it was when he told it. By the way, would you agree with me that true Christians would likewise never be involved in calling people nasty names or in trying to destroy those they resent?
Post a Comment
<< Home