To Michael Bennett, Samuel Frost, and Jason Bradfield
Filed Under (dee dee's posts, harassment, hyperpreterism) by dee dee on 08-03-2009
Tagged Under : David Green, Jason Bradfield, Michael Bennett, Samuel Frost
Michael Bennett:
In reference to this post:
http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/an-apology-to-dee-dee
I accept your qualified apology. You should apologize without qualification, but I accept and thank you for what you are willing to give. I still ask you for a unqualified apology, but I will not pursue it. What you said is enough for me. Thank you.
Now that takes care of the picture incident between you and me. However, in your apology you perpetrated two falsehoods that must be dealt with.
Also, I might mention that Sam and Dave Green tried to get a “reconciliation” where we would all forgive each other of past issues on both sides and move on and avoid ad-homs etc. We wanted to have **** and **** involved. The other side refused to do this. I will leave it to them to explain why as I do not want to put words in their mouths.
This is false on multiple levels, and you know it Michael. I have already detailed this in these two posts:
Mr. Jones had already affirmatively told Samuel prior to his suggesting this to David, that he DID NOT WISH TO BE INVOLVED. You are disrespecting him by using his name when he has made it clear that he does not wish to be involved. Samuel was not forthright to David or Mr. Jones. It is all documented in my prior two posts. You are not involved in that Michael, you would do best to stay out of it.
I had called your pic “ugly” only because you had joked that you had “warts and a goiter” and so I was just joking because of what you had said in your previous email. Obviously I had no idea what you look like at the time as I had never seen you.
False. False. False. And you slandered me to Roderick claiming that you never sent such an email. The email chain is quoted in this post:
I said in that post,
You have to read from bottom to top for it to make sense. Gmail is like that.
Your comment about my “ugly picture” was PRIOR to my joke. I joked with you as a response to your bullying threat to post my picture. Sorry Michael that justification won’t work, since it is FALSE. Try again on that one. I have the actual email chain. I can forward it to anyone to examine to prove that you made your threat first.
In closing, you apologized for the recent picture incident. I accept your apology. You continue to misrepresent as I noted above, and you still must deal with that. The recent picture incident is over and done with; I forgive you. Please come clean on your 2004 threat. Please either stay out of the numerous misdeeds done by Samuel in the conversations between myself, Phil, and Rod with David or deal with the lies I documented. I would rather you stay out of it. You were not directly involved in the conversation, and Samuel needs to deal with his own sins. I would rather you admit you were wrong about 2004 threat and apologize for it. Then you and I can be resolved in full.
PS: Do not go on a hurt puppy routine about sarcastic jokes about flying monkeys. Samuel Frost is known to call me all kinds of names that are direct attacks and not satire. For example, Queen of Stupid and lesbian housewife. Oh and a person who would burn his house down if only it weren’t illegal.
Samuel Frost and Jason Bradfield
Michael has shown more character than you. I draw the readers’ attention to the two posts linked above. Samuel and Jason must deal with that.
That was an apology??? It certainly sounded like a “defense” but it didn’t look like repentance. I can’t believe his buddies are praising him for it. It is more Clintonian than Clinton himself… It was a: “I’m sorry but you had it coming” type of apology. These guys are corrupt to the core.
I will accept what I can get. For Michael, that was a huge step. I expect more of Samuel as a “leader.” I still would like Michael to remove the justifications, but that is on his conscience.
Michael, I do have a question for you. An anonymous female commented here that you sent her a copy of that email. Is that true? You claimed in your post that you only sent it to Jason, Samuel, and Rod.
If the anonymous female wishes to contact me and show me the email, my email is preteristblog@gmail.com. Otherwise, I have to take Michael at face value.
Michael, are you sure you only sent it to those three?
Samuel has the nerve to criticize my response:
So Samuel, if you choose to dig the hole deeper, I will expose you once again. There is nothing at all wrong with my response. Why didn’t you post a link to it at SGP? I accepted Michael’s apology despite the fact that it was not unequivocal.
As far as, “Mike, as far as I am concerned, and those on this site, you are free and clear.” You are lying to your members. Michael IS free and clear on the picture incident. Why do you keep lying Samuel? You can bet I will mention this lie if you write an article that I will have to respond to.
You are also lying to your audience about how many articles I have written and lying by omission for not disclosing why. Do you have no integrity at all? Each and every article has been in response to something you have done. I suppose you think you should just do whatever you please, and if someone dares to call you out, they are a wasp buzzing around your head. Interesting. Wasps not only buzz; they sting. Don’t you dare to compound your sin.
If you dare to lie again, I will respond. I can’t believe you were so disgusting to act as if my post were inappropriate. With each of my posts, the issue has been over pending any further lies or tactics. Of course you never link to my articles, though I link to yours because I am not scared for my readership to read what you have written.
I dare you to post a link to my response. Why don’t you want your members to check your words? Why am I surprised when Samuel plays games? Why do I continue to subject myself to them?
SGP member Chuck has the chutzpah to judge my response when he hasn’t read it. He just takes Samuel word for it. How do I know he hasn’t read it?
What is unclear about my statements:
In closing, you apologized for the recent picture incident. I accept your apology.
The recent picture incident is over and done with; I forgive you.
Chuck, why do you slander me? I do expect an answer since you decided to judge something you haven’t even read. If someone has Chuck’s email address, please send him this message since he has decided ignorance is bliss.
Samuel posts yet again:
I wonder if laying out the facts will include linking (wow… what a concept, allowing your readers easy access to the source material). If Samuel had things “sitting on his chest” it is very odd that he never even bothered to give a counter-offer during the negotiations with David or bring any of that up.
Keep talking Samuel. I am preparing an article as well if you are going to do anything but repent for what you did. Of course, I am not publishing anything unless you do, and if you do, if it is a misrepresentation. It is possible you will not misrepresent anything.
Michael contacted me yesterday to explain how it might be thought that he sent it to someone else. That email started a chain conversation about a subject I am not involved in and two people were copied. I am satisfied with his explanation.
Samuel, if you don’t retract your manipulation of SGP members in the comments I will dedicate some time to answering your slander. You can play the martyr all you like, but every time you pull that kind of tactic, which is particularly disgusting when it is done in an apology thread; which apology I accepted and forgave Michael; to act like I didn’t. Chuck has blindly accepted your word for it, and you have yet to correct him in his false claim that I did not forgive Michael for the main issue (the Whore of Babylon emails).
That is behaviour very unbecoming a leader. I look forward to seeing your retraction today.
Hi,
I’m glad Michael has apologised and glad you have accepted his apology.
I think we need to remember that repentance is a turning away so I don’t think we should be questioning this apology instead we should rejoice that he at least publicly has done so. Time will tell if Mike is truly repentant. I for one hope he is.
Phil
Chuck is SGP token ostrich — more than anyone else there he makes comments completely without context like an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. He even made verbose comments when Jason posted his little “experiment” video using his own kids — Chuck admitted he was so out of the loop in what was going on, that he didn’t know about the news stories the cartoon was based on. He is out of the loop in his theology & in what his “leaders” are doing.
When Michael emailed me to answer my question about who he sent that email to, I asked him point blank to admit that he threatened to post my picture, and that it was not in response to any joke. My joke was my way of dealing with being harassed and bullied by someone who refused to honour my request to stop emailing me and who had just threatened me and demeaned my appearance.
Michael didn’t respond. I had thought that might be because he was sick, or had long work hours, but that is not the case. During the time he should have just admitted to that 2004 issue, he was emailing other people making demands. The 2004 email wasn’t even an issue until Michael chose to misrepresent and justify it.
I had wanted to settle everything with Michael. I have given him opportunity. He has spurned it. I wish no further contact from or on behalf of Michael.
[...] you will see what I had to say about this apology in the comments section of this posting. (source) And while we’re at questioning apologies and motives care to address the following comment [...]
[...] To Michael Bennett, Samuel Frost, and Jason Bradfield [...]