Renato or a Hoax

[steveb]

A board participant who wishes to remain anonymous has supplied me with a photo of somebody he claims is Renato. He says he snuck into Renato's office and took it just after Renato was banned last Friday evening, surprising Renato right in front of his computer, probably in the very act of trying to circumvent the CCG board moderator's barriers against him. My informant claims that right after this picture was taken, Renato erupted in a fit of angry, demonic intellectualism, screaming things about how people who deviate from Luther's doctrine of forensic justification deserve to be burned at the stake, and then tossed my informant bodily out of the office.

I'm kind of skeptical myself - I suspect a hoax. The guy pictured in the photo just doesn't convey the same impression to me that Renato's writing does. However, since this board does not suppress information the way the other board does, I've saved the photo to my Web site and am making it available to all:

<center>Could this be Renato? (http://home.comcast.net/~sr_born/rennietheterrible.htm)</center>

Everybody will have to decide for themselves.

[nellie]

The above information is obviously messaged to be a hoax, although I am obviously no fan of Renato's, who himself is a hoax, as he has proven to me many times through his assumptions of assuming that he has attempted to attribute me with on the other board. The message is hoaxed because being a attempt to picture Renato as a demonic being with long hair and playing off the Chapel's stand on long hair on men as feminine, it is obviously another attempt to discredit my study on genderless angels in heaven, which I posted on the other board and which has been accredited by a known teacher in spite of Robbin's foolish attempts to anger herself while she only humours me, no matter what she posts about clarifications. It's just all more suppositions, so I have proven Bob wrong too.

[fjf]

I will not take a position on this because I am fixing a lasasanya (sp?) and am also still loading up my RV to go rock hunting. Also, Steve said something about doctrine and every time I think to hard about things like that, my head hurts and my face turns red right to the top of my head. Then my three big Polish boys start too tease their old bald Dad about it. HA HA.

I do know that Steve and Renato are not very nice, but everybody else is. Thank you.

[calv]

Well....

I happen to know Renato and she doesn't look at all like that!
Im sure 98.623% of us would all agree!

Bea S

[calv]

Your not fooling anyone thats Renato wearing a Steve Born disguise!
The depths you have stooped too!

[calv]

Why are you insisting on arguing?

[onesimus]

Steve B and Renato keep making fun of Helen, and Bob endorsed all their statements by saying that Helen's words are sicobabble.

<font color="ff0000">In heaven they are all girly-men</font>

[onesimus]

FJF

Can I go rock hunting with you if I bring some beer?

[dr_ira_lee_noahlott]

I am a real teacher; I've read Nellie's profound study on angels, and it's good! Everyone has been proven wrong who doesn't agree and I am having fun watching you try to squirm out of the predicament you're in. And if you try to accuse me of saying you are eating dead bugs taken off of people you are the one assuming, and I assume you are assuming that I am motivated by pride which proves you are the ones assuming.

You accused me of being motivated by pride, now you prove it, or just admit you're wrong.

That's all you have to do.

[onesimus]

I think you are a phoney, Dr. Noah-Lott. Your post sounds too much like this one from CCG:


<font color="ff0000">Squirming</font>

Posted by jjb on 4/11/2006, 2:03 pm, in reply to "game called because of reign"
131.191.55.80

The kind of squirming you do is one of my favorites. You know you're wrong, you absolutely will not admit it, so you throw up what is commonly known as a smokescreen. But this is one of my favorite versions of it.

Your actions remind me of those chimpanzee on a wildlife special<font size="-2">1</font>. Screeching, grunting, posturing throwing dirt in the air, throwing objects (including dung) and charging. It's really fun to watch.

And I'm glad you decided to quit playing games. But I'm still going to respond to your claim of 'group-think' and the allegations you made. So if you were trying to run for cover, it won't work. I'll only settle for an admission, retraction and apology. So if that's what you meant when you tried to call the game, then it's still 'game on'.

Also, except for these few short breaks that I've been able to take and respond to your ranting, I'm still too busy to make that post I promised. But don't worry, it's coming. Unless you find it in your heart to do what I asked. It's really not that hard.

<font size="-2">1 Now, since you tend to take people out of context, redefine what they're saying and blow things out of proportion, let me just clarify what I meant by that.

I'm referring only to your actions, in this case your comments posted mostly in this thread, although there are a few in other threads, too. But I am not referring to your height, body hair, facial appearance, intellect, body proportions, eating habits or any other correlation you can imagine. And I'm not implying that you eat bugs taken from the bodies of family and friends. Also, I did not say that you are a chimpanzee or any other lower primate, so don't accuse me of name calling (again). </font>

[movinon]

Did Bob really call Helen's post on groupthink psychobabble????? There it is again!!! That EVILE book learning surfacing even on ccg!!! Good grief...how ridiculous can it all get?

mo

[calv]

Some comments

Posted by Bob Sackett on 4/19/2006, 8:56 am, in reply to "My conclusion concerning gender specfic angels"
68.167.251.92

I went through and read this and my wife went through and read it.

We both agree that what Helen wrote is confusing and my wife even said it was more like Sico (sp) babble.

wherein Robbin is clear and consice in what she says.

So Helen, you wrote a confusing article and then attacked Robbin for really no apparent reason other than "who knows what". I sure can not figure it out.

Bob Sackett

[calv]

Re: Ad Homonym attacks

Posted by Bob Sackett on 4/20/2006, 8:43 am, in reply to "Ad Homonym attacks"
68.167.251.92

I think this is a little more weird than just that.

Basically we probably agree with Helen. So to attack in such a manner as she did is really nonsensical.

Its not like she was losing the battle. Sid is so far out there that one does not have to do much to prove him wrong.

Bottom line it looks more like a really mixed up personal that is not there. Maybe no sleep or not enough coffee or ?????


Bob

[steveb]

Actually, it wasn't her posting on groupthink that he called "sico babble" but a long, ridiculous one on why another participant (a new Trinitarian named Sid Moser who posts with the tag "Theophilus) was wrong about angels having gender.

And, more accurately, Bob didn't say he himself thought it was "sico babble." He said his wife thought that.

Helen's posting itself was of course beyond parody. It wasn't psycho-babble. It was more of the Alice-In-Wonderland reasoning that she calls Biblical scholarship. It was so bad that even the other CCGers were all saying they couldn't understand what she was talking about. She just about popped a gasket in defending herself.

[steveb]

Hee hee. Things like this are the reasons I will probably never tire of reading the Chapel board.

[calv]

I have not kept up on this thread...so I do not have an opinion

Posted by JFJ on 4/19/2006, 4:40 pm, in reply to "Re: So Bob......show your colors... Thanks! N/T"
67.168.134.73

I copied Helen's first post and brought it into the bathroom to read and only got half way through it. This topic interests me. I have a hard time concentrating in the frontroom(where the computers are), sometimes it is like a frat dorm in my house, so the bathroom is a good place to read something you want to concentrate on. I have a hard time with long posts in general.

So I am not for or against anyone, just so no one thinks I am.

[calv]

That's so very odd!

Posted by Helen on 4/19/2006, 12:34 am, in reply to "Re: Carmelizing Onions."
64.136.26.228

That you say Sid, that Robbin did a great job of boiling down my arguments into easily digested brief statements.

It was her very strong contention that she could not understand my statements.

Odd in deed.

[steveb]

Odd in word.

[calv]

Just another ad hominem without adding to the topic at all.

Posted by Helen on 4/19/2006, 3:08 pm, in reply to "Some comments"
64.136.26.228

It really is easy to just pick on someone. I'm still okay, because I have several people that I've discussed this with who agree with me. The whole board can come in here and tell me I'm wrong, I don't care. I'm just sharing my position, and it's very telling to me that only one comment motivated me to answer its possibilities in this thread, the verse that Sid used concerning women's role on this earth being called "daughters" of God to demonstrate female gender in heaven. The rest is just demands that I obey you. Right.

I consider the criticism of Psychobabble especially humorous, because none of my comments are about the psychological ramifications at all. Just more ad hominem, that's all it is.

If others have considerations that disqualify my remarks, bring them on. I’m amazed at how you don’t realize that this thread has become 90% attack Helen, a manifestation of anger that I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole, so sue me.

That you are critical of me on this board Bob is not unusual; it's the Standard.

***Helen

[calv]

SEE!!!!....
no group think!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif

[movinon]

I wonder how Helen would describe being the object of the irrationality of groupthink?????? After all, groupthink is no respector of individuals. It will wreak its havoc on anyone that challenges it. I wonder if that warm and fuzzy feeling that was there before has vanished now that her scholarship is being challenged by those she felt were her cohorts?

This is only proving the point I made earlier about information in the hands of those that don't understand the processes behind it or the resulting data. You can quote scholarly articles, but that doesn't make one a scholar, nor does it imply understanding. Helen obviously didn't have a full understanding of what she was talking about, or she could have made her point much clearer to those on ccg. Doesn't sound like folks were getting it at all. Interesting turn of events.

Bob rarely uses logic in his opinions about things, he just blurts out what he feels (at least that is how I remember his posts), and it sounds like (from what I read above) this is still his method of operation. If we don't understand something, or it rings with the slightest bit of anything scientific or intelligent....it's psychobabble, the next worst thing to being a part of the organized church!

Good grief, it's all so illogical and to put it in the vernacular, kind of whacko.

mo

[movinon]

By the way, IF that is a true picture of Renato, I like the hair!!! You go, Renato!

mo