Jehovah`s Witness/Reply From Sister T
Sister T, this is in response to your reply that you sent me this evening, to my follow-up question to you....
I am adding on to this and making it public since you put my name in your rebuttal trying to prove your case. You Mr. Holland have done exactly what I said you were planning to do and I knew your tactics already and that is the only reason why you wrote to me in the first place to try and make a case against another expert and trying to use me to support your ongoing campaign.
What you did is no surprise, but very typical!!! I knew what you were up to...your post is exactly what I said you were planning....typical tactics. I specifically told you I didn't know all the details, so I won't speak on it, you still used my name throughout your tirade, I'm on Jehovah's side, and my dear Bro Rando is on Jehovah's side as well. Let it be known I have never written to you in public or in private"
First of all, it is perfectly fine for you to make it public. As I stated to you, I preferred it that way. Why the first question to you was public but the follow ups came in as Private, I do not know. My intention from the beginning was for it to be public. Now everyone can see what was said, and how you declined to answer questions about honesty, which resulted from previous statements that you yourself made.
They can also see that it was you, not me, that brought up this situation with the lying expert, whom I did not mention to you, until you brought it up. It is quite clear that these were simple questions based on your own statements, and that you only declined to answer because you knew it would implicate a fellow JW who practices lying.
The fact that he lies continually, really is not my fault, now is it?
Also, I did use your name in the exposing of this charlatan, that I told you yesterday evening that I was going to write. Everything I said in that post was true...I submitted three questions to you, and you declined to answer them, because of who it would implicate. By making the full correspondences Public, you will confirm this to be the case.
You state: " I am adding on to this and making it public since you put my name in your rebuttal trying to prove your case. You Mr. Holland have done exactly what I said you were planning to do and I knew your tactics already and that is the only reason why you wrote to me in the first place to try and make a case against another expert and trying to use me to support your ongoing campaign."
Wrong. Let's just be clear....I do not need, nor did I seek, your assistance in "making a case". I did that just fine by myself. His own comments condemn him. They are right there in black and white, and I showed them to be false, with irrefutable evidence. Your help was neither sought, nor needed, for that.
Now, I understand it must've been embarrassing to read, but facts are facts. And the facts are there, they are clear, and like it or not, they prove that your Brother Rando is a liar.
His lying is not a debatable point, nor has it been for some time. You can get upset, but you cannot deny his statements, and how he lies and twists things. Its right there, for everyone to see. He has been clearly exposed, and he will be the next time he spews forth his dishonesty, as well.
So, do not lecture me about "tactics"...It was your lecture about "honesty" that got the questions sent to you in the first place. Had you not made those implications, I never would've sent you those questions. The "tactics" here, have been exposed....Lying is an evil "tactic". Your fellow JW practices lying....his "tactic" has been exposed yet again, for the readers to see.
There is no "case" to make...His own words have shown him for what he is. He continually provides us with the statements that always come back to bite him, and prove him a liar.
YOU: "What you did is no surprise, but very typical!!!"
Yes, you should not be surprised. When a person is slandered, misquoted, and lied about, it is only fitting that they respond. Like I said, I didn't need your help for that.
But the hypocrisy here is interesting...You have seen the lies, you KNOW he lied, yet you write about my reaction being "typical". I think you are more interested in sticking with a fellow JW, than you are about right and wrong, and truth vs. lies. That is what those remarks show.
Like it or not, I have every right to expose him for lying and misquoting me.
Its almost funny, Sister T, to read your rants. You are perfectly fine with a Witness lying, and you talk to the guy he lied about, about "tactics", and what is "typical". Almost amusing....Worse than my "typical" pounding of Rando when he lies, is his "typical" method of employing dishonesty.
YOU: "I specifically told you I didn't know all the details, so I won't speak on it, you still used my name throughout your tirade"
Nor were you asked anything about getting involved, either. So what are you complaining about? Again, YOU brought up the situation...not me. I simply questioned you about your statements on honesty, and YOU immediately realized that you could not answer my questions, because it would implicate the liar, Rando.
Those should've been easy questions for you to answer, especially since they stemmed from your own statements.
You people need to learn that it isn't my fault, that Rando lies, and that you join sides with him. That is at your peril, not mine. I know what the Scripture says about it.
So, your comments about not knowing all the details, was completely pointless. I didn't ASK you for any of the details, nor did I ask you to get involved. I asked you to expound on your own statements. If that bothers you, then you should've known better to come on here and make your comments about "honesty" directed at me, right alongside a JW post full of lies. What were you thinking?
YOU: "I'm on Jehovah's side, and my dear Bro Rando is on Jehovah's side as well."
Well, so you say. But unfortunately, the Bible says something different. Again, John 8:44 leaves us no doubt who's "SIDE" a liar is on. Here, let's look at it again...
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Now, he's been caught lying continually, for years. You know it, and everybody knows it. It cannot be denied, in light of the posts that have had to be written, exposing him.
YOU say he's on Jehovah's side, yet it was also YOU who informed us of Jehovah's view of lying. Seems a little contradictory to me. You can't have it both ways, Sister T. You can't tell us one day that "Jehovah is truth and is the opposite of lies", and then turn around and tell us that a proven liar is "on Jehovah's side". Just doesn't add up.
Does this constitute a change of position on your part, in regards to Jehovah's view of lying? I would think not. So, this actually has to do with my 3rd question to you, that you declined to answer...."Do you believe that lying is acceptable, when done in opposition to one you view as an opposer?"
You wouldn't answer that question...Is this why?
At any rate, your saying that he is on Jehovah's side, does not make it so. The BIBLE says he is led of Satan, when he speaks a lie. Jehovah does not need His own personal liar, to defend Him, Sister T. Seriously...
So, if its all the same to you, I'll just go with what the BIBLE says, about who's side a proven liar is on.
Now really, stop doing like he does and trying to twist things into claiming I somehow needed your help in making a case. There is no "case"....He is simply a liar, he was exposed, and now we will watch him lash out and desperately try to change the subject to the Trinity, like he always does.
Do you actually think that I believed for one minute, that you were going to jump to my side? Seriously? I think I have seen enough from you, to know better than that. Who are you trying to kid? You would be one of the last people in this forum, whom I would ask for "help in making a case".
That is why it is good that you made the entire conversation public. Everyone will see that my questions were simple, that you declined to answer them, and that YOU brought up the situation with Rando. It is also quite clear that you didn't answer, not because you don't KNOW the answer, but because you knew it would make him look bad.
You can talk all day about "not knowing the details", but its funny, you sure didn't want to answer those very simple questions because of the implications. You must know ENOUGH of the details, to know he would've looked bad.
YOU: "Let it be known I have never written to you in public or in private"
Well, WHO in the world said that you did? Surely you aren't concerned that poor Rando might think that you were one of the JWs who wrote to me and apologized for his sorry behavior? Well, let me help you clear that up...You were NOT one of the ones who wrote to me. Several have, but you were, much to your discredit, not one of them.
I didn't think that even needed to be said, as I don't think anyone here would believe for a minute, that you would apologize to ME for anything. That's just a given.
Anyway, thanks for sending me another reply to my questions, which went 3 inquiries without being answered. And now, everyone knows why you didn't answer. He lied, you knew it, and therefore, your hands were tied.
We understand, Sister T. I don't envy you guys, having to defend that rascal. I'm just glad none of my brethren here, act like that.