Jehovah`s Witness/The Private Chat Room/Email Forum...A Response To DW
DW, is this really the best you can do? You now want to give the readers the impression that I am a liar, because I knew the date that was being predicted, but did not know what happened at the very end?
Seems you are getting more desperate by the minute. When does it occur to you, that everything you try, backfires in your face?
Okay, so be it. If you really want to go there.....
I was very intrigued by DW’s post, regarding the chat room/email forum. Not because it contained more of his lies, because that is always to be expected. What was surprising, is that he would even have the nerve to post what he did, knowing how easy it would be to show him up.
Several things wrong with what he wrote, in an obvious attempt to deceive the reading audience. Let’s deal with the smaller ones first, because there is one aspect of this I want to deal with in some detail. But first….
DW: “the serpent Derrick spying in on the forum
But in the very SAME writing, he had just said this….
“The forum around a year ago was started by a man that went by the alias "Benyamin Grunbaum"
Wow, talk about dense….He says I spied in the forum, yet he had just ADMITTED that the forum was started by “Benyamin Grunbaum”? How dumb was that? Why do I say that?
Here is why….DW knows full well that Grunbaum personally invited me to the forum, provided me with the link to it, and told me that I could participate or make any comment that I wished to. And then DW just admitted that Grunbaum was the one who started the forum.
So, I think its hardly “spying”, when the very guy who starts the thing, and serves as the Moderator of it, extends an invitation to me, to come in and say anything that I wanted to.
Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines “spying” as….
“to try secretly to get information about a country, organization, etc. : to act as a spy”
“to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes”
I’m just wondering….What is “secret” about someone reading a forum that the creator and moderator of the forum, gave him the link to, and gave him an open invitation?
And what is “secret” about a forum, where everyone in there knew I was there observing, and even knew that I was using my screen name “MtnMan? INCLUDING DW himself....Regardless of when he actually was in the room, either when I was viewing it, or after I no longer could view it, he knew full well that I HAD been viewing it, but that the time came when I could not see it. He knew that, but he conveniently did not mention that little detail.
But at any rate, I was invited there by the very person who created the room, and was its moderator. And DW knows it.
So, that’s “spying”? Nice one, DW. Not too sharp, are you? Somebody would have to be royally stupid, to even try something like that.
Oh, and I’m going to deviate from the topic of the forum for just a moment, to go ahead and address another foolish notion that DW has. He has stated this a couple of times now, in an attempt to justify his constant lies and distortions of my words. His most recent example of using this excuse, was today, in this comment….
“In fact Derrick is so arrogant he thinks he sets the standards of what is lying and what is not. He claims that unless direct quotes are given the person is a liar. He doesn't accept paraphrasing,"in affect" or "honest quotes out of context"(yes there is such a thing).”
Its not “honest quotes out of context”, that are the problem. Its that DW’s “paraphrases” are never honest, nor do they ever get it correct. I could give a hundred examples of that, the most recent ones, being his absurd statements that “Derrick says we can pick and choose where to use logic, and which verses don’t apply today”. No point in destroying those again…He just admitted to us that he doesn’t GIVE quotes…he just “paraphrases”. That should tell you something…Namely, he’s a liar. Not if he happened to CORRECTLY paraphrase what was said, but he never does that. And also for the mere fact that he outright REFUSES to provide quotes, even when asked for them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
But let’s just go ahead and give DW’s “paraphrasing” excuse for lying, a death blow. Let’s do this by just looking at the DEFINITION of “paraphrasing”…..
Again, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary….
“a statement that says something that another person has said or written in a different way
a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form”
Well, that one didn’t take long. Simply put, a “paraphrase” is to take what someone said, and word it differently, but to CONVEY THE EXACT MEANING of what they said.
Well, that blows DW right out of the water…He hasn’t gotten one right, yet. In fact, nearly all of his “paraphrases” end up saying the opposite of what was actually said. That’s why people like Eddie and DW, have no business “paraphrasing” anything, because in order to correctly do it, you have to:
A. Be honest enough to WANT to convey the correct meaning
B. Have enough comprehension skills to understand the correct meaning.
C. Not have a personal hatred and bias against the person you are “paraphrasing”, so as to not be tempted to cast their words in a different light, than what the original intent was.
Sorry, but these guys fail on all 3 counts.
So, before DW wants to lecture us about “paraphrasing”, I would strongly suggest that he first learn what the word even means, because he obviously doesn’t have a clue.
But here’s the BIGGEST thing about this weak argument of his….it’s a COP-OUT! Why do I say that? Simple….In this forum, why would ANYBODY “paraphrase”, instead of just GIVING the actual quote? There is no need for it. If he is going to address or try and refute something I said, then why doesn’t he just list the actual quote, give the link, and then tear into it with all his “logic” and “Bible knowledge”?
3 guesses, Readers....
Like I said…There is no need to “paraphrase” here. In fact, it isn’t even the desirable or most sensible method of dealing with someone. Or, if I may say it...The most LOGICAL. How hard is it, if you decide you want to refute somebody, to just get the quote, copy and paste it, and provide the link? Its actually quite easy, and doesn’t take much time or effort at all. That way, you don’t look like such a liar, when they repeatedly ask you for the quote, and you repeatedly refuse to get it.
In short, there is no good reason to utilize “paraphrasing” here, especially if the supposed quote was recent, and easy to find. In fact, DW spends FAR more time typing post after post defending his refusal to give a quote, and rejecting questions as “SPAM” from those who ask him for the quote, than he would if he simply provided it in the first place.
So, make no mistake….This thing of “I’m paraphrasing”, is nothing more than an attempted cover up for the fact that he doesn’t HAVE the quote, because it doesn’t exist, and he cannot even provide the statement that MEANS what he claims. That’s the real reason he doesn’t want to provide one….because he knows the readers wouldn’t fall for the lie, if they actually SAW the quote.
DW isn’t even trying to convey the correct meaning. He knows it, and I know it. In short, he’s a liar. That’s why he won’t give quotes, like I personally do EACH time. It isn’t hard for me to provide quotes….Why doesn’t DW do it, as well? I think its pretty obvious.
Did DW REALLY think I was going to let him get by with that excuse?
In regards to “paraphrasing”, he then says….“The bible disagrees with Derricks made up standards and I agree with the bible!”
Yeah well, I don’t think the Bible gives you the right to lie about anybody’s words….not mine, or anyone else’s. If it does, please provide the reference from the Scripture…Or, you can “paraphrase” if you’d like.
Okay, back to the topic of the chat forum….
I want to make some observations about that debacle, as well….
DW: “"Benyamin Grunbaum" he invented many characters including"Brother Stewart" and "SAL"
I will actually say that I partially agree with this statement. Since all that blew up, I myself started thinking about some of the strange correspondences I have had over the years with people, that can only be termed as “odd”. So, I have gone back and looked over some of those, and I have also concluded that the writing style (rambling on and on in run-on sentences, and overall poor grammar), has Benyamin Grunbaum/Daniel Selinski written all over it.
Now, I honestly do not know if Sal was Grunbaum, or not. I did question Grunbaum about this in some private e-mals. SOME of those e-mails I am going to post at the end of this reply, in order to set DW straight on one of this lies in his latest reply. At any rate, I will admit that Sal’s writing style, and Grunbaum’s writing style, are eerily similar. I will not say that they are not the same person. I will say, that when I questioned Grunbaum about this, he sent me a question from NY, and Sal sent me one within just over an hour, that showed up from Michigan. So, that would indicate they are possibly not the same person. But there may also possibly be another way that he could’ve pulled that off, that I simply am not aware of, as I am not one who is skilled in much of the technology that is available, and don’t know how all of it works. What I do know, is that the time frame that I heard from both of them, would not have allowed him to travel that distance.
He also claims that Stewart was his half-brother, if my memory serves me correctly. I can neither prove, nor disprove, if that is the case. If its true, then all those writings between him and Stewart on this forum, were still a farce.
But I do have a couple of questions for DW, and I would really be curious as to his answer, if he would be so kind.
1. DW, you publicly implied that I MIGHT be the same person as Benyamin Grunbaum. I am curious if you still believe that?
Now, my next question, has to do with the way DW and Ms. T used to fall all over themselves, to stand up for him. If ANYBODY dared to say that Grunbaum was rude, obnoxious, prideful, or hateful, they were immediately jumped on by these 2 clowns, and accused of "Satanic attacks against Grunbaum's character". Isn't that true, DW?.
There was even a JW study who went by the name “Dee”, who made a comment that he was hateful and rude, and made the mistake of misspelling his “name” (Grunbaum’s). Well, Ms. T jumped all over that poor woman for that, saying she was disrespecting him, and not being humble. Before it was all over, Dee was basically a “liar” and an “apostate”….because she wrote to me, and because she didn’t go along with Grunbaum.
Then, there was the guy who wrote to me, asking me if I thought that Grunbaum was a narcissist. Naturally, I responded that I did think that, since he exhibited so many signs of being a narcissist. Well, DW took great offense to that, and even wrote a post in retaliation, showing what great qualities Grunbaum had, and why he was NOT a narcissist.
So, next question…
2. DW, do you now concede that Grunbaum is, in fact, a narcissist? And that you were completely wrong about his character, and that you verbally abused people who already had him pegged?
Bottom line…Grunbaum could talk to questioners any way he wanted to. He berated nearly every questioner he had, and it was a rare post, where he didn’t call them “stupid” or “dumb”. He even responded to a 90 year old woman in one answer, by telling her she was going to die, and then proceeded to attach a picture of a shovel, just to drive home the point. And never a peep from these people. They had nothing but praise for him.
But then, when Grunbaum crossed THEM and lied to THEM (it wasn’t a problem when he was doing it to everyone else, and it isn’t a problem now when they lie, either) , then guess what….They came unglued. All this talk about “he had no right to deceive us”. Well, I agree. But he had just as much right, as any of these people have to spread their lies.
And DW came on here with a post that shocked a lot of people, including me, when he denounced Grunbaum as an “apostate to God”. But DW made a couple other comments, as well. DW, being God’s appointed Judge as he thinks he is, told the world that there were ONLY “4 genuine JWs in this forum”, and he named them for us….
1. Himself (of course)
2. Sister T
4. Brenton Hepburn
Now, here is what is interesting about that….DW has always considered himself to be highly intelligent, and worthy of being able to judge everyone else. But conspicuous by its absence, is the name of Eddie G, who was an expert on this forum at that time. His name was left off of this “Genuine JW” list. But yet, at least 2 of the other JWs that DW considers “Genuine”, DO believe that Eddie G is a real JW. Both Rando and Sister T, whom DW regards as “genuine”, believe that Eddie G is “genuine”, but DW doesn’t believe he is. Or at least, he obviously didn’t at the time of that writing, and we are yet to see anything posted in the forum that would indicate his view has changed on this. Its almost enough to make your head spin. But somebody’s spiritual discernment is obviously lacking, regardless.
At any rate, this is what I have been referring to as the “debacle” that resulted from them forming their own little chat room cult. They were basically calling each other “apostate”, “deceiver”, you name it.
But you can also read a little between the lines in DW’s post in the link above. He made a comment here, that is interesting….
“I witnessed all this first hand and I with Jehovah's help personally destroyed the Satanic world he created , pulling all those pure in heart sheep out with me.”
There seems to be somewhat of an implication here….That those who left the room and sided with him, are the “pure in heart sheep”, and the “genuine Witnesses”. (Except for Mr. Hepburn, who had enough sense to stay out of the nonsense of that chat room to start with), while those who were sympathetic to Grunbaum (Eddie G, and D. DeLaurentos), were not “genuine”.
As I recall, Eddie left the forum within a day of that posting.
But then, DW received another question about this topic….
In that link, he made this statement….“You do not get such people in the false churches of Christendom. Benyamin Grunbaum is such a man and other's here give evidence of also being so. Jehovah's angel's will remove such men from within our midst before his precious possessions receive their reward.”
Actually, you DO get people like this in our churches. All the time. Not sure why DW feels qualified to make that comment. But that isn’t the issue here. He states that “others here give evidence of also being so.”.
But who are those “others”? Obviously not the 4 “genuine” ones, so it had to mean the ones who were also in the chat room, but did not “follow him” out. That would include Eddie G.
Now, let me just settle that one. Regardless of what DW’s opinion is now, of Eddie, I can state straight up that Eddie G is a real JW. He thinks too much like one, not to be. The same arguments, the same illogical way of thinking, the same "us against everyone else", mentality. Yeah, he's a JW.
So, I simply want the questioner to know what it is I have been referring to. They gripe and complain about my being here as if I am causing trouble, but when they got their own little group where I was a non-factor, it was the biggest spectacle that you would ever care to witness.
On a side note, DW also states….“Right from the beginning of the forum the place stank to high heaven. The behaviour was not what you would expect of strong Jehovah's witnesses it was more like you would expect in christendoms churches.”
Is the behavior in THIS forum, what you would expect of “strong Jehovah’s Witnesses”? Please clarify. Truth be told, I have never seen anyone in our churches, act like you people do. And I’ve seen some pretty bad stuff. But nothing that rivals the lies and slander told here, from the “genuine JWs”…Mr. Hepburn excluded.
Now, all that lays the groundwork for my response to DW’s foolish and dishonest assertion that…..
“Whats interesting about the forum is a few days later "SAL" another one of "Grunbaums" aliases wrote to "Derrick Hollsnd" to try and make me look a liar. Unfortunately for him he attributed quotes to me that I hadn't even said but some one else had. So his efforts backfired. But whats more interesting is "Derrick Holland" at that time claimed he didn't know what had gone on because he wasn't there. Yet in the link you gave me he claims to "remember" exactly the date and time pinpointed by the forum!! Interesting right?? My dad always used to say "to be a good liar you have to have a good memory" Derrick unfortunately for him doesn't. Did he lie again here?? His track record would certainly suggest that. His comment certainly would show that. I shall leave you to draw the conclusion for yourself.”
I wonder why my name is in quotes here? Is he subtly trying to imply that this is not my real name? As if he is using HIS real name?
Regardless, from the start, let me just say that I’m quite confident that my memory is 50 times what DW’s is. And this quote evidences that. Or, maybe he’s just lying again. Actually, that is very likely the case. It is consistent with what we see from him on a regular basis.
Why do I say he’s lying? After all, I did tell Sal that I wasn’t aware of what went on in the “shake up”. And I certainly DID know what date they were predicting to be the end….April 3, 2015, and 11:00 a.m., I believe it was. So, to someone unfamiliar with the forum, this would certainly raise suspicion, and would be a logical question to inquire about.
EXCEPT…..DW was IN the room when it disbanded, or at least right up until close to that time, and knows FULL WELL what the situation was, so for him to even dare to come on here and imply that I am lying here, well, that was a really stupid move. He himself knows better. He’s simply a man full of hate, who will try to take any and every situation he can, to slander me. Well, its not going to work.
That is, unless his memory is far worse than he claims mine is.
DW knows good and well that I was invited by Mr. Grunbaum to be in that room. In fact, I was given the liberty to actually comment and voice ANY disagreement that I had. However, I chose NOT to, for one simple reason…I was a guest. Unlike THIS forum, that one really WAS a JW forum. I was there by invitation, and I was not going to abuse that privilege, by being disruptive. There is not one JW here who was in that chat room, that can deny that I was completely respectful, and did nothing to disrupt their discussions. I did not present any dissenting viewpoints. In fact, I only made a handful of comments, most of those simply thanking them for the “Welcome”, and stating my intention to merely observe the discussions.
Deny that this is a fact, DW.
When you followed the link to the chat room, there were “pages” that you could read not only the current dialogue, but you could go back to previous “pages”, and read past dialogue, as well. If I could not follow the room for a couple of days, or a week or so, I could always go back and review the previous “pages”, and catch back up with the discussions.
Truthfully, the comments being made in there, were so off the wall, I myself was shocked. And make no mistake….Eddie G, and Sister T, were all in on it. I don’t recall DW actually being in there at the time I was observing, but he may have been. I remember distinctly, Sister T, Terri Welker, Eddie, D. DeLaurentos, Steve, “Prophet Stewart”, Prince Rogers Nelson, Samuel Herd, and some guy named Fabio, making regular comments. I do not recall seeing DW make any comments, but I do remember there being some references made to him, most notably, by Prince Rogers Nelson. So, perhaps he was there then. If he was, then this whole accusation looks even worse on him, because he knows full well that I was viewing the forum, up until a certain time, after which, I was not. .
At any rate, these people actually believed that they had knowledge that nearly 8,000,000 other JWs didn’t have. They were talking about having to be careful what they said at the KH, so as to not “arouse suspicion”.
I mean hey, that’s what we are SUPPOSED to do with the knowledge of the end of the world, right? Sit on it in some chat forum, and keep it quiet at the meetings, and keep out those whom you hate? We wouldn’t want anybody to actually BENEFIT from that knowledge, would we?
And someone even suggested that the chat forum was actually fulfilling a prophecy in Daniel, about things being “shut up until the time of the end”.
There are simply no words that are adequate to describe it. Actually, DW said it best….”It stank to high heaven”. I would agree with that.
But anyway, as time went on, there was some obvious tension in the room. Prince was making some comment which aroused my personal curiosity, about how he didn’t care what DW or Rando thought, and that he was sticking with Daniel Selinski/Benyamin Grunbaum. That was sort of interesting talk, from a group of people who are supposed to be the most “united” in the world.
Well, I went to Florida for a week, on vacation. When I came back, the board was no longer going, and no longer viewable. So, I did not know what had transpired to bring it all down. There had been a previous reference to the board suffering its “3rd major shake up”, and this prompted me to inquire of Mr. Grunbaum through private e-mail, as to what had happened.
In short, my presence there bothered some of them…Most notably, DW and Rando, and likely Sister T, as well. Even though I wasn’t doing or saying anything disruptive, they simply didn’t like the idea of me even knowing what they were talking about.
Now, DW referenced Sal writing to me. Since DW almost never provides a link to anything he says, I assume he is referring to this one…..
Or, possibly this one….
If not, then perhaps he can show which one he IS referring to.
At any rate, for anyone interested in the above link, I would encourage you to click the “View Follow Ups” tab at the bottom of the response, and read the remorse shown by David DeLaurentos. He is about the only one who has actually shown any willingness to take responsibility for their part in this, and any sadness at how the name of God was disgraced. Now, DW claims that DeLaurentos is not “genuine”, but all we have seen from DW in regards to this forum, is a lot of chest thumping, while DeLaurentos seems far more “genuine” in his regret than anyone.
That being said, DW knows full well that I was able to access the forum for a time, but then did not access it, and that it was disbanded during a period of time when I had not been able to view. So that FULLY explains why I knew the date of the prediction (I was following at the time), and why I also was unaware of the details of what happened LATER (I was not following at that time).
I will now post excerpts from various e-mails between myself and Daniel Selinski/Benyamin Grunbaum, which will show that I followed for a time, but was not following when it disbanded.
The first one, is when it was actually an e-mail forum, prior to its becoming a chat room, and shows how some of these people felt about me being able to see what they were discussing….
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:09:47 -0400
Subject: Jehovah Witness Chat room
Hello Derrick,the last time I contacted you inviting you several didn't want it,it caused a major problem with me,calling you an apostate ect,so I started a chat room where most are readers from the email forum,I still want you to come and say anything you like,some of us get so arogant because we have the truth,they know you been invited so come join us:
About a month later, and after observing some of the fanatical discussions that were taking place, I wrote to Selinski/Grunbaum and asked him how this was not violating the WT teaching of not “pushing ahead”….
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Derrick Holland <email@example.com> wrote:
Hello, Dan. I hope you are well. I just returned back into town, but I want you to know that I have been reading and keeping up with the chat room.
I also, in light of your last e-mail reply to me, and subsequent post in the chat room where you referenced my saying this was "pushing ahead", …
However, my reason for bringing that up, is that I DO believe that is what you guys are doing, in the way the WT defines "pushing ahead". And I have seen you yourself advise against this very thing numerous times, yet it is going on in the chat room, in unprecedented proportions. You quote me the article that says "pushing ahead" would be the teaching of a "false doctrine", or teaching something contrary to the Organization, or joins another religion.
I agree that the WT would certainly consider all of these things as "pushing ahead". But I have also seen "pushing ahead" described as the very thing you guys are doing in this chat room....speculating on future events, or teaching something NOT YET taught by the Watchtower. May I remind you of several years back when you were still using the name Daniel Selinski on Allexperts, you yourself contacted Rando about this notion of "pushing ahead", because he was advancing teachings not taught by the Watchtower. Now, as far as I can remember, Rando had not joined another religion, was not teaching anything that YOU would regard as "false doctrine", nor was he really teaching anything that was CONTRARY to the Organization....he was merely advancing ideas that the Org was NOT YET teaching. You wrote and cautioned him about "pushing ahead", and told him to "wait" on the Organization, and you also told him that perhaps his ideas would one day be taught by the Society. But until then, he should refrain from advancing those ideas. May I remind you that you sent me a copy of the correspondence, where you told him this? So, I know that was said in your writing to him.
So in my understanding, the WT also considers it "pushing ahead", when people are advancing ideas or "truths" not yet revealed in the publications. There is no way you can say that this chat room is not doing that.
I have watched the comments as this thing progresses. I know you have given me permission to comment, but I simply have not felt it best to do so, as of yet. I have seen many, many statements that are quite troubling to me. I am seeing it go from a "we could be wrong", to "THIS IS IT....ITS A SURE THING!!", to "we could be off by months, not years" (sound familiar?), to "ITS A CERTAINTY", along with all the patting ourselves on the back for knowing things that 8 million others don't know.
How is not "pushing ahead", when there are comments such as "We have to be discreet and not say anything at the KH, or we will arouse suspicion?"
That tells me one thing....You yourself must know that the WT is going to announce something soon. That's all I can make of it.
Also, help me with another matter. You said in your last e-mail, that there is a GB member in the room, as well as a member of the Writing Dept. I have to conclude that the GB member is Mr. Herd, and that YOU are the member of the Writing Dept, is that correct? Its the only conclusion I can come to. I first thought the Writing Dept. member might have been Fabio, but then I read where he is in Italy, I believe? So that rules him out. That only leaves you, Dan. Are you a member of the Writing Dept?
That is why I said that there must be an announcement coming soon....No way Mr. Herd himself would go along with what is being said in the room, unless the GB is also on board, and planning to come out with something.
Again, I thank you for personally inviting me to view the room. I am keeping up with it, as I promised. I am quite certain that Sister T, especially, was less than thrilled about my being invited. I believe for me to comment, might be disruptive, and I respect the fact that you invited me to view, and I don't want you to regret doing that.
Have a great afternoon, Dan. Take care.
He replied with this….
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 19:59:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Jehovah Witness Chat room
Hello again Derrick I hope you are well you and your family.
Let me first start by saying one of the things I liked about you was your ability of deductive reasoning with little or no information to go on to draw a conclusion,thats all I will say on that.
Now to the question of the Berean site,we are not pushing ahead of the Watchtower believe me!
This is not a public site
and most there are believers,we have some who are questioning what's said,here is an excerpt:
"But I do have something to say to all of our brothers and sisters on this forum. I don't want anyone feeling that I am challenging what has been revealed. I just want to see us using Biblical proof not just stating inspired expressions. That is why we are comparing ourselves to the Beroe'ans in Acts 17:10. **Beacause they received the word but tested it against the scriptures to see if these things were so. I understand that there are deeper things and those that love Jehovah are eager to understand him, But I am one who will not accept any inspired expression unless Biblical proof is shown. I left the Catholic church because of their " it's a mystery reasoning".
Thats why I said I want you to comment on the site,you have that right,after all if this information is correct it will have an adverse affect on your future
propects for salvation so you should raise questions,we know who you are on the Bereans,several has asked me who the icon MtMan is and like you I reasoned it's you.
The brother you mentioned was on a public site and that made a difference and is one of the reasons I was asked to leave as I gave my personal views on dates on a public forum.
Bereans is by invite only and it's a private site so anything said there is off the record and no we are not teaching these views and thats is what pushing ahead is,going against the scriptures and dogma.The brothers here are in lock step with what we are saying on Bereans.
Our subject as you know is the 40 year pattern used by God in the past,Mal 3-6 says he does not change,so then he would continue to use 40 in some capacity in the furure.
We have for the very first time ever ,announced congregations will be tuned in on our 2013 Annunal Meeting in October held in NJ.
That should tell you something for any future anouncement made live to all the congregations worldwide.
I told you when I left Allexperts I wanted you to keep up with what we are doing so you can have an advance warning where most will not be in a position to heed any warning as they are not taking note of what we are doing.Our new updated information says no one is a sheep or Goat until Christ is revealed at the coming great tribulation so many will have a chance by faith to act on what events may or may not unfold.
Thats all I asked of you and you have continued to contact me and thats good.
Express your objection on the site,as I told several from Allexperts you have that right to question whats said as you have been invited to the site personally by me and I'm the moderater on Bereans and the email forum.
Now, THIS is where the “shake up” happened, at a time when I had NOT been viewing. So, there was NO lie, DW. Why would I be emailing Selinski in private, asking questions about what happened, over a year ago? I guess you will say that I was anticipating this latest attack of yours?
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Derrick Holland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Good afternoon, Daniel. I hope this writing finds you well, and in good health.
It has been awhile since I have been able to view the chat room, but it seems that there is not as much going on there now, as before. Also, I am not able to go back and read the pages of the room that I missed, in order to catch up, as I was before. I think the last time I was on there, it was "Page 8", and now its on "Page 11".
Might I ask what was meant by the room "suffering its 3rd major shake-up", and numerous members (including you) being "reinstated to the room"? I am also curious if the prediction is still on, or if it has been backed off of some, or if perhaps the Society has stepped in and asked to back off with the predictions? It just seem the room isn't as active as it was, and I was wondering why.
Again, I hope you are well, and take care.
From: Daniel Selinski <Daniel‘s e-mail address deleted>
To: Derrick Holland <email@example.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 14, 2013 22:06:08 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Jehovah Witness Chat room
Hello Derrick,nice to hear from you again.In terms of the chat room it seems that since you were discovered a member of the chat room they moved to the email forum but I instructed Brother Stewart to post highlights weekly for some in the forum who miss the weekly emails.As far as the belief of the Great Tribulation date we still believe even more than ever as additional information has come to light,it not a prediction or a prophecy from the Watchtower its individual members believing it.As I have mentioned before the Watchtower has never predicted a date as coming from God there is a difference between speculation [which is what we are doing on this forum] and a prophecy.I hope this reply finds you and your family in good health as well,I cant comment on the other questions in length but to say on the forum was a member of the Governing body who left due to problems.Keep in touch.
My reply back to him….
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:55 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello, Daniel. Thank you for the reply.
So I was the reason? Wow. I went to great lengths to be respectful, and not share my views, even though you gave me liberty to do so. I believe that I certainly did nothing to cause concern.
I know you say that the WT is not making a prediction, but you did hint that the Annual Meeting might bring forth something significant?
Sent from my Alltel Android
His reply, confirming that I did nothing wrong, but they simply didn’t want me there….
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:16:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Jehovah Witness Chat room
You are correct you did nothing so they should have continued with the chat room,its still utilized but not like before,in terms of knowing who you were they didn't know who Mt-Man was but when some did see it was you several addressed you respectfully if I'm not mistaken.Yes the next months Annunal Meeting in New Jersey might bring something very significant,remember on our email forum and chat room was a high member of the Governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and he was in full agreement with the comments and was a contributor as well,so that should tell you the Watchtower society is well aware of the 40 pattern and April 3rd 2015
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Derrick Holland <email@example.com> wrote:
Okay, thanks for the response. I simply couldn't make it compute when you said that they discovered who I was, when my understanding was, that they knew that I had been invited. Perhaps not all of them knew who MtnMan was, but I know for a fact that D. DeLaurentos and Sister T knew, because they both told me they did. Yes, several spoke respectfully, and I was not spoken harshly to by anyone. That is why I don't really understand what they were worried about. I never caused any trouble, and was not going to. I simply wanted to observe, and understand the basis for the view.
Anyway, I appreciate your inviting me, and allowing me the chance to be there. Thanks again, and take care
END OF EMAILS
Well, I think it has been clearly shown now, that there is no “lie” or contradiction, between my seeing enough of the forum to know some of the claims made, but not seeing it at the end, when the whole thing imploded.
Or, maybe DW wants to say that I e-mailed Mr. Selinski in advance with all these questions, just so that I would have them when he brought up this latest false charge over a year later.
So DW, don’t play your stupid games with me, Pal, or I will make you look ridiculous.
If you’re going to slander someone and falsely accuse them of lying, then you might want to pick someone who isn’t smarter than you. Right off hand, I don’t know who that would be. But its something for you to consider, nonetheless.