Sammy the Panderer is at it again..
Filed Under (dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 16-10-2008
Tagged Under : Samuel Frost
Hey Roderick, You Who Shall Not Be Named, I think you are once again being gossiped about back at Sammy’s kennel of trained hound-dogs. He is whining about some letter to Whitefield Theological Seminary. His readers are left guessing as to who wrote it, and since it is only you and I are who are not allowed to be named, yet still seem to be two of the primary subject matters over there, and I didn’t write it, I guess you did. Good for you. I sure hope you plan on dismantling it. If not, I will. I may write to Whitefield myself.
I also notice that Samuel is still trying to play the spin doctor with his absurdly transparent word game of “biblical preterism.” What a freakin’ joke. Hey Samuel, you inspired me. I purchased the domain name of biblicalpreterism.com just to expose your nonsense. Mark it in your browser. It is on my to-do list since you insist on being semantically dishonest. Guess who’s site will come up when people search that term now? >>>Dizzle raises her hand.
Oh to the guy over there who for some reason thinks his “curiosity” is some reason to be asking questions about my personal life: why does your “curiosity” give you that right? If you had done some research, it is no secret that Dee Dee Warren is my common law alias (look it up, it is a legal right). It is also no secret that one of the reasons I use it is because hyperpreterists have historically been prone to obsessive harassment (Exhibit A - Michael Bennett wrote me yet again after being asked never to numerous times over the years and having his crap reported as spam to to email carrier). What else do you want to know? Let’s see. I am forty, 5 foot 8 inches tall, 130 pounds, and happily married for 19 years. I own two parrots. I think Microsoft Windows sucks, but not as bad as hyperpreterism. I don’t like Pina Coladas or walking in the rain. Now mind your own business or write me yourself instead of posting your gossipy “curiousity” on some heretical site.
Toodles. You can write me at biblicalpreterism@gmail.com. I got that email address in honour of Samuel’s retarded gamemanship. No need to thank me.
David, I am not playing the hyperpreterist games here. If you come here peddling heresy, you are not going to be treated as if you rescued a drowning baby. You are going to be told in no uncertain terms to shovel the stuff out.
Second, I have zero grudge against SGP, so you can start by shoveling that out. I despise their heresy. I would call very little of what they say about me “slander” so don’t come here cry-babying for me. I don’t need it. What Samuel does is not slander, it is just silly. Calling someone the “Queen of Stupid” is not slander, or we would be suing kindergartners en masse. Samuel has only ever slandered me in private, not in public, and I don’t wish for anyone to take up my cause. That is between Samuel and I, so mind your own business. If Samuel is curious about what the private slander was, in case he forgot, he insinuated that I was a lesbian housewife, and after swearing up and down that questioning an opponent’s mental health was wrong, proceeded to write to Roderick doing just that. So stop accusing SGP of slandering me. They are not. Roderick speaks for himself. And don’t you dare accuse me of slandering SGP. That is a crime, and if you think so, then have them take the proper legal recourse. If not you are slandering me. Funny how that works. These transparent hyperpreterist games are so PATHETIC.
If you post more passive aggressive nonsense “can’t we just get along” while orthodoxy goes down the crapper, I will put you on the unwelcome list. I play nice with hyperpreterists who don’t play games. Unfortunately they are very few. David Green is foremost of them. Before Roderick repented, he was foremost, and he can tell you, I was not lovey dovey, but he didn’t play the wounded deer act either.
You are NOT my brother in Christ. Got that? We are not playing that game here. I pay the bills, I make the rules. I AM not and never will be “polite” with game-playing wolves trying to come snuggle up to the sheep. I whip out the verbal shotgun and tell them to take their sorry tails back to the pit.
This blog is for the orthodox. It isn’t for the hyperpreterists, so I have zero hesitation with the judicious application of the boot. I discuss Christian eschatology with Christians—not cultic heretics. There are a few hyperpreterists that have been welcome as they have not tried the games. So far you are minus one.
I do hope we are clear now.
PS: I edited out your email address. You are not going to promote yourself here. Sorry, I am a bit smarter than that, the Queen of Stupid has her good days. You didn’t post that for me to write you. You know full well I have your email address in the Admin panel. You were enticing the sheep. Too bad Mr. Wolf, go find some other Happy Hunting Ground.
David responded with more word games and the hurt puppy routine. I spammed the comments.
Not interested. And yes David, I re-read your post. And yes, you are being slippery.
For the readers’ sake:
In the spammed comment David cries:
Yet in his initial post he says:
Sorry David. That is Polite Lying. You admitted yourself that I could know what you believe and that you are a hyperpreterist and that I would disagree with you.
For the readers who want proof, here are a couple of things David posted at a Samuel’s hyperpreterist site:
Oh so I was wrong in my estimation of your intent to try to proselytize? O Rly? Buzz.
Oh, so I was just rudely “guessing” that you are a heretic?
There you go folks. The rest of his spammed comment(s) were likewise trying to twist words and get his speedos in a bunch that I wasn’t “nice” to his transparent tactics.
These are hyperpreterist tactics.
Spin. Obfuscate. Claim that we are brethren in Christ (yes he tried that again). Cry that I’m being mean. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I actually should thank the hyperpreterists who come here and do this. My readers get an eye-opening experience on how not to be snoggled by them.
Passive aggressive behavior seems to be a requirement to be & remain a hyperpreterist. I’m glad you didn’t buy David Lee’s act. Here is another quote from him. He was responding to a post about someone selling hyperpreterist T-shirts:
They REVEL in the fact that they are heretics — David Lee was certainly being slippery with you Dee Dee, since he KNOWS & REVELS in the fact that he is a hyperpreterist.
Good show Dee Dee. Now if places like Whitefield Seminary would just man-up & stop letting panda bears run their name through the mud.
On one hand, I am glad that God has given me such discernment. On the other, it is sad that I can spot it so quickly. On TWeb, there are times when others will go, “Oh no DDW, he didn’t mean it that way” and things like that, only for me to be proven right when it comes to these kinds of things. Now on other things, I am completely clueless and quite naive. Sometimes a banned member just needs to bat their eyelashes at me, and my resolve melts, and I campaign to allow them back.
But I am not a sucker for these kinds of games. Like I told Tom, I am a wise old bird when it comes to hyperpreterists. David followed the hyperpreterist playbook to a tee. There have been very few times that my instinct has been wrong, and the one recent time, when I falsely accused that one commenter of using a fake email address, I fessed up and apologized.
Oh BTW, my fan is back and trying to sneak in comments. Since I don’t have children of my own and don’t feel like babysitting someone else’s, all commenters now have to have at least one previously approved comment for theirs to appear immediately. Their first one will be held in moderation until approved.
I am sorry for the inconvenience to any reader, but a few obsessed people make it harder on everyone. My fan exuded “I am glad I copied the comments first!!” Hey, I have David’s comments if anyone wants them in good faith. Email me.
They were deleted as useless and not what this blog is for. But I guess my trash is someone else’s treasure. Shrug. No accounting for taste.
Besides, if David Lee REALLY wanted to have a discussion he could have clicked on the ABOUT page & emailed either of us. There have been times I would have liked to interact privately with a few of the members of SGP since it appeared they weren’t completely duped — but there is no method for contacting them nor for guests to post (like people can here). Yeah, no cultish behavior from hyperpreterist leaders there.
Funnier yet, the very post he is responding to contains one of my email addresses!
Listen, I could be wrong on his motivation for posting his email address, but since he has already proven himself not forthright, I don’t believe I am wrong. Here is another hyperpreterist tactic (not all,but I found the newer ones do that): they post their emails and make sure it has some kind of “in your face” holiness that forces their position on you once again that they are your brethren. David had such an email address.
If you ever read the blog Stuff Christians Like (it is hilarious) he has a piece on “holy email addresses.” I laughed so hard because that was me as a brand new Christian. My email had to say “Praise God” in it so I could show the world I was a Christian! With hyperpreterists it is doubly so. They have to try to force Christians to think they are Christians. I still have my “holy email” addresses, but now I tend to use ones that are a bit more practical. I used to also wear very cheesy Christian T-shirts. You know the kind I mean. I still have them, as I am a packrat, but it is not something I currently run out an by. Now I wear Apple shirts LOL! I am sure in five years I will look back on that with chagrin as well. But it is fun to be exuberant.
It’s funny you should mention that. My “Little Shepherd” name that I used for a few years actually came from a spiritual gifts inventory I took in which I scored highest in “shepherding.” I doubt a 40-question survey is really all that useful, but . . . I liked the name, and thought it was “holy-themed” enough without being super in-your-face.
In person, though, I was initially in overdrive after officially dedicating my life to Christ. I had a couple friends tell me I was being overbearing, or obsessive, or something to that effect. I’m still pretty obsessive about it, as evidenced by my continued following of the Tweb forums and various blogs(like this one and Theonomy’s and Nick’s and Pyromaniacs and Challies and M&M, etc.), but I do better at fighting the urge to talk about it and stuff with everyone I come across. The urge is still there, and I have to bite my tongue a lot when theological and philosophical issues come up, but . . . yeah.
Whitefield Theological Seminary can’t be serious if it thinks it is appropriate for Sam Frost (a hyperpreteris) to respond on their behalf to my PRIVATE & DISCREET email asking for their official stance on hyperpreterism. It is like asking the fox to tell you why he thinks its ok for him to guard the hen-house.
Further, Sammy’s band of misfits think it is “sowing discord” to ask about the appropriateness of a supposed “Christian” seminary letting a heretic design its study programs. Do they have Mormon & JWs doing it too?
What I find ironic is one of Sam’s fans wrote the following about Sam’s supposed “don’t ask don’t tell” arrangement with WTS:
See, this is the motivation for heresies to infiltrate seminaries & other institutions — so that one day they can OPENLY teach their heresy as valid. If WTS is actually going for all this, it should be ashamed of itself.
I wrote them back — let’s see if they have the respect to write a response for themselves instead of having a heretic respond to a question about how WTS handles heresy.
I wrote them as well. I had been meaning to. I do not wish to swamp them, so those of you who are also concerned, let’s please give them time to respond. If they don’t, email me so that your name can be put on a list to notify and provide with copies of Roderick and my prior communications.
I am pretty sure that Whitefield was not in approval of Samuel’s way of publicly using Roderick’s letter.
[...] My Comments that Prompted Samuel’s Response [...]