Jehovah`s Witness/Eddie, Is That How You "Answer" Your Questioner?
Seems like it isn’t just me, that has trouble getting Eddie to give a straight answer to a simple question. That’s just his game, evidently. When Eddie is asked a question that he finds embarrassing, the logical course of action is to ignore the question, and make the “reply” all about me. Nice one, Eddie.
What a weak attempt to create a diversion. But hey, this is typical of how they act, when someone points out and questions what everyone knows they’re doing anyway.
Guys, I think the charade of writing questions to yourselves under different names, is about over. Seems like everyone is catching on.
Case in point, from Eddie’s questioner named Chris….
“Why do you and Rando pretend to be other people and ask and answer your own criticisms regarding Holland? It weird. You make yourselves look way worse than what you say about Holland svAnyone can see it, so why do you do it? Legit question.”
Now, notice how Eddie completely ignores the question, and tries to change the subject, and create a diversion…..
EDDIE: “Problem with your question is that I don't really know who is asking.
(What does that matter? Does it prove that he ISN’T doing what the questioner knows he is doing? The identity of the questioner is completely irrelevant to the question.)
EDDIE: The only thing that I can go by is the assumed name of the questioner - like you Cris.
There's no email or the known name to go by.
(Since when do we need the questioner’s email, to answer their question? We are NEVER shown their email, in the first place.)
EDDIE: So like you Chris - how do I know that you're not Holland?
(Not really….Although Chris is not me, even if he was, it has nothing to do with why they fraudulently write themselves under aliases. And Eddie knew full well that it wasn't me, as he received questions from me, the very same day. I don't have any way of changing where my location shows from, Eddie.)
So in Chris's follow up question, after directly answering Eddie’s objections (which is more than Eddie did for Chris), Chris makes another attempt to get a straight answer, by asking….“why do you ask and Rando orchestrate your own q & a,s to discredit Holland? Legit question.”
I was amused and amazed, that Eddie brought up his false notion that I had “challenged” him to a debate. What ON EARTH did that have to do with what Chris asked? LOL! Unbelievable!
How does Eddie go from being asked about why he and Rando write themselves under phony names, to talking about my so-called “challenge” to a debate on Hell? Because that is what Eddie does. He was being exposed for being deceitful, so he just had to try and get the attention off of that, and make me the liar….so typical.
After which, Eddie completely ignored the question asked of him, and made the rest of his response, an attack on me. Again, this is Eddie’s typical dancing act. Like I said before, you might as well be trying to eat Jell-O with chopsticks, as to get Eddie to give a straight answer to a question.
Rather than answer the obvious, and what everyone here already knows….that he and Rando make up aliases and write to themselves/each other, he tries to pass it off on me, by bringing up something that was a million miles from what the questioner asked him.
But here is what is interesting….Even though Eddie didn’t answer Chris’s question, neither did Eddie come out and deny that he and Rando do this, either. Very interesting.
Now, I certainly can deny it. Eddie tried to pass it off in another response to Chris, by saying….
“Oh, and BTW, DHolland writes to himself too, you know?”
Nice try, Ed. But here’s what you failed to mention….That wasn’t Chris’s question. If we go back to his original writing to you, then we see that he was asking about doing so in a FRAUDULENT manner. I quote him….
“Why do you and Rando pretend to be other people and ask and answer your own criticisms regarding Holland? It weird.”
Not about posting something under our own profile, but being HONEST and UP FRONT about doing it. I don’t think anybody has a problem with any expert here posting something to themselves….provided they don’t CLAIM to be someone else, or pretend to be conversing with someone else.
When I post something to myself, its obvious that is what I’m doing, and I don’t write myself as “Jeff”, “Joseph”, “Linda”, etc. Nor do I write myself, and “thank” myself for my own posts, and “brag on” myself. Shucks, Rando used to even RATE himself, and nominate himself as "Volunteer Of The Month"! That is just downright hilarious, that anyone would be so insecure, as to have to do that. That’s a sure sign of desperation. Just because Rando does this himself and then claims that people who write me are actually me, doesn’t mean a thing. I don’t need to do that. I’m not that desperate.
So yes, we ALL post things under our own names. But some of us are actually honest about it, and don’t pretend to be having conversations with imaginary people, like you clowns do. I do not post things under OTHER names, which I sent to myself. You guys do….Big difference.
But Eddie, I noticed something in the several correspondences with Chris….He too, had problems in getting you to answer a straight question. Seems like that is a recurring problem with you.
Instead, you attacked and insulted him. You implied he was a fool, you called him names, and you called him a “lunatic”, after getting all upset that he called Rando a “lunatic”….Even though Chris was exhibiting no signs of being a “lunatic”, while Rando consistently exhibits those signs, and people all over the internet pick up on his mental instability, even after only a conversation or two. Even fellow Witnesses have picked up on it.
If Rando doesn’t want to be viewed as a “lunatic”, then he should stop acting like one. There is something bad wrong with a person who acts the way he does. And I think you know more about his mental state, than you are willing to admit, Eddie. Unless you share the same problem.
But it really speaks badly of you, Eddie, that you attack a questioner and ask him if he is me, all for asking you a question that is obvious to everyone.
Like this one….“Which makes me wonder, are you a clone of Dholland?”
Now, is that really any way to answer a direct question, as to why you and Rando write to yourselves? No, its just another one of your cowardly cheap shots, because you didn’t like the question.
No, Chris is not me, nor is he a “clone” of me. If anything, people might see you as a clone of Rando, though. Never seen 2 people act so much alike….Not since DW resigned as an expert, anyway.
But what does that have to do with the question….”Why you and Rando pretend to be other people?”
And if it isn’t true, then why didn’t you just come out and deny it?
Well, since you couldn’t answer Chris’s question, I will answer it. I know why you do it. Its to give a FALSE impression, that there are multitudes of people who actually see your point, and support you. When in fact, you 2 are the laughing stock of this forum, and the only handful of people who actually support you, are the ones who are of the same mentality, and have the same disregard for truth.
But when you invent aliases, and write in under those aliases, praising yourselves for your writings….well, the reason is obvious. You want to make it appear that you are in the right, and you have a great deal of support from readers. In other words, you thinks it looks better, if you can make it appear that you have mountains of support from many people.
There’s the answer that you didn’t want to admit to, Eddie. I’ve noticed a trend too many times, that these other “aliases” start showing up, right on cue, after REAL readers write to me and point out what clowns you guys make of yourselves. You push the “panic” button, and resort to inventing aliases, and writing to yourselves and to each other.
Now, sort of off topic, but I wonder if you really meant to say what you just said here, Eddie? This comment….
“BTW, I'm not a regular Jehovah's Witness, I'm one of those who will not back down if my God is being defamed or my brother is being called a "lunatic" by the likes of you.”
Now, do you actually mean to imply, that a “regular Jehovah’s Witness” WOULD back down if God is being defamed, and would not stand up for a fellow “brother”?
Is that what you meant to say, Eddie? Cause that’s what you just said.
But hey, I’ll vouch for that statement. If Eddie thinks you are defaming Jehovah, which basically means that you believe something in the Bible that he doesn’t, then he’s not going to stand for it….He’ll flat out lie on you, and tell people you said things you didn’t. Eddie will show you what he’s all about. Don’t mess with Ed, or he will lie on you, no matter how foolish he ends up looking....all in the name of Jehovah God, and "defending" the Organization.
And about the “my brother being called a lunatic", thing….The bigger question here, is why a REAL JW would call his “brother”, someone who practices lying and has been caught numerous times in lies. And why a REAL JW would call his “brother”, someone who attacks another JW who is making a plea for Christian conduct, while himself disagreeing with the very Governing Body that he claims to support. And why a REAL JW would call “his brother”, someone who flat out contradicts a statement from Scripture, out of the mouth of Christ, no less. That’s the real issue. Chris pointing out the obvious about Rando’s behavior, is merely stating the facts as they are.
Chris about summed it up, Eddie….“I am not the one slinging hateful words and at another CONSTANTLY. I am not the one pretending to be a christian. I am not the one who hides behinds scriptures that actually describes himself. I am not the one excusing my bad behavior in the name of God. I would NEVER do what you do to another human being....NEVER. I feel so blessed for knowing right from wrong and following it to a tee.”
Yet, Eddie is the one who claims that his religion alone, teaches the truth from the Bible. He wants to convince people that his religion’s teachings are superior to all others. And he disregards his own teachings, and conducts himself in a way that is completely contrary to what he is taught. And wonders why people don’t take him seriously.