Posters posting under the names of, David Dildy, Felix Reynoso and also the SDAnet officials demonstrate Jesuit tactics for us. Will we heed the growing signs?

Honest Adventists who are studious have long watched SDAnet in order to figure out where her loyalties are also. As the oldest of the internet discussion forums there were signs that were already too clear that something was wrong. It is another forum that has shown favor to those who hate Adventism, and disfavor to those who love it. But this conclusions could be deemed as debateable. Even the evidence we are about to present will always be debateable to Jesuits. It is only their opinions that they don't put into debate.

Well let's see what we can decipher from the episode below:

David Dildy writes:

Hello Elaine,

We as a church don't often engage with the great issues of the day and too often side with the wrong side when we do (abortionists, paranoid strict separationists)...all because of our fear of a national sunday law. Sort of a reminds me of a line from one of my favorite songs "...ignorance and prejudice and fear go hand-in-hand." Keep thinking and have a blessed day.

David Dildy

Here is where the problem started. Jesuits typically have the words "paranoid," and "conspiracy theorists" on their lips against all those who can point out their super treason. This, again, is odd since they always present themselves on the forums as requiring that people disagree and that a spectrum of ideas be prevalent on all the forums. If you in any way dare to present your views that they oppose as truth, they would confront you and ask you if you think you are God for exalting your beliefs above that great sea of beliefs that is before you. Next will be time to make definite statements like the one we have just read. When we have even confronted them about their consistent unscrupulousness, they always shifted to accuse mode by posting everywhere that we hate them or call them Jesuits just because they disagree with our views. This one posting here on SDAnet, is no different.

Beverly Taylor now responds to the wily one:

Actually, I would say that the greater crime is the prepunderance of those who cry out for free speech and diverse thinking, who then call people paranoid,ignorant and separationists if they refuse to follow the mold. Now Adventists are insulted I guess, and I guess that is the solution to the problem.

There isn't a hurt that Christ can't heal, but emotions are strangely against the Adventist Church while her crimes can just cannot measure up to other issues out in the world. What are those crimes? But when we find that we will gain our salvation by insult instead of by Christ, we get into very serious trouble.

There were many people in history who were separatists. That includes the Essenes. Where do we have the proof that those who oppose communism are evil? We should start to prove that first and give some reason for the current paranoia when people want to be alone in their natural rights.

In His Grace,

Beverly Taylor

David Dildy now replies to Beverly:

Beverly,

You are using conclusory reasoning -- simply stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so.

Neither does calling people paranoid make that fact. But don’t try reasoning with a Jesuit on that fact. They like to say how concerned Adventists see Jesuits "behind every bush," "in their underwear" or "under every crack," as they work to ridicule and destroy any awareness of who they are and what their plans are. Ladies and gentlemen, we have jobs and we go to work. If we thought there were Jesuits behind every tree. That would not be possible. But leave it to Christians who claim to love the Lord Jesus with all their hearts to fabricate such things against God's people.

You have offered no proof that what you are saying is true. What Christians are calling for Sunday legislation? What Christians are trying to gain control of the government to "force the will." You may be sure of what you believe, but you will not be able to convince many others with such a paucity of evidence. Here are a couple of questions so that I can better understand your position:

What is happening here is that David, naturally, attacked the Adventist belief about the Papacy and the Global Sunday Law. He did not attack it by going to the scriptures and showing how the interpretation of the prophecies are incorrect. Jesuits have better sense than to do that. Instead he appeals to human sentiments and then tells us that we have to prove the scriptures true by looking to world events. Though there are many signs of this emerging Sunday legislation even through the growing ecumenism, Mr. Dildy is indeed ready to cut it down as soon as it is presented and he will have no problem ridiculing the beliefs of those who disagree..

Being naturally ecumenical, he pretends to be concerned for the other Protestant Christians when he actually cares not a hill of beans about them. Remember, they are still regarded as heretics also, but in order to get the churches to unite under Rome so that she can acquire power and world dominance, her workers must put on a show of unity and even deceive other Protestant denominations into working for the benefit of their agenda.

The argument and confrontation between David Dildy and Beverly Taylor here started from David attacking the Adventist interpretation without using the prophetic scripture. Therefore, notwithstanding they love to proclaim how people have a right to disagree, David continues to declare that those who disagree with him have not shown evidence of anything:

1) Are you saying that all of the things that I believe to be inaccurate -- i.e., the accusations of people like Reid and Goldstein against fellow christians--are true?

2) Do you not believe that we have a responsibility to investigate to find the truth before we accuse other christians of trying to steal our freedom?

3) How am I "adding to the problem"?

Thanks,

David S. Dildy

Beverly reproved David for his tactics. The problem is that he goes clear around expounding on what the prophetic scripture says in order to attack Adventist doctrine by using human feeling and sentiments.

Here now is how David responds. Often, the typical way to meet this situation for the Jesuit is to play dumb and innocent. Where once he can make overbearing and dogmatic statements, he can then ask innocent sounding questions as if he is the learner and not the dictating Pope:

From: Radrite@aol.com

Beverly,

I don't understand your post clearly. I'm not trying to run from any issue, only trying to understand what you are saying clearly. My belief is not that Sunday laws will never happen, but that many SDAs are wrongly accusing fellow believers of trying to implement Sunday laws but have little or no evidence.

In short:

1) You are accusing Christians (I think, your post is not clear on this issue) of trying to steal your freedom of religion.

2) What proof do you have that this is happening NOW?

I am NOT asking for a new interpretation. I am NOT trying to overturn SDA beliefs. Ever since the Reagan administration, many SDAs have been running around like chicken little screaming that Sunday laws are imminent and that this or that--usually Republican--politician is going to "bring them in." It hasn't happened yet. Ellen White is clear that when these things happen, it will be because the people demand it of their legislatures. Do you have any evidence that this is happening now? Unless you do, you should be a little more careful about trying to accuse fellow Christians of trying to take your liberty.

Regards,

Dave Dildy

Beverly now replies to David:

Others have a right to disagree with you David. You should know that. You claim that Adventists accuse fellow Christians of trying to institute Sunday laws with little or no evidence. Well I perceive that you know that Adventists don't accuse the common everyday Christian of this as you are leading to believe. That's the very reason why Adventists warn these Christians, for their case is far from safe also in the terrors that are to come.

David knows well that Adventists don't accuse individual Christians of trying to commit treason, destroy liberty and persecute them. If they were, why do they call other Christians out and present a hard message to them at a great potential cost to themselves?

But your dogmatic statement that the Adventist Church has little or no evidence is overbearing. If that were true, Net98, 99 and all the other nets would not have been such successful and grand occasions. That is the arena where you are supposed to prove them wrong. Not by using mere sentiments telling us that we wrongfully accuse fellow Christians of forming a conspiracy. That is dirty!

In His Grace,

Beverly

Now another poster by the name of Ron steps in. He begins to post about the meanings of the symbols of the Revelation. It is clear that he doesn't understand what the issues really are between Beverly and David. He is an innocent observer in the whole thing. Beverly therefore steps up to make the issues clear to him:

Actually Ron, all that is not what I was saying and is not the issue I was addressing to David Dildy. He keeps accusing the Adventist Church of accusing fellow Christians of being in harlot institutions. I bring out the fact that Jesus wrote these messages and that he is supposed to refute the Adventist position biblically and not with rearranged sentiments. When I do that he comes back to post, but completely ignores my point. He then brings the accusation again as if I had never posted in anything.

I am saying that the Adventist Church got their message from Jesus Christ, and that He is then the mean-spirited ape. That is what I am saying according to David's interpretation. Much of our conversations could have an ending and reach a point if so many were not intent on skipping over the dialogue and discussion in order to preserve some error.

After the Lord called Babylon women in symbolic prophecy meaning churches, He said:

This is telling us about Babylon, and it is showing us that this will be a great and tremendous issue till the whole world will be stirred and lightened by this message. The problem then shows itself just a little later as verse 4 says:

So here we see this big issue, and the problem is that God's people are found within this harlot organization. The Adventist Church interprets this as the Christian people in these organizations. I have been waiting for David to show me that this interpretation is incorrect by using methods other than accusations and twisted human reasoning. When he comes back to respond, he doesn't even mention my point, but goes on to skillfully repeat the messages that he had been giving that caused me to respond with a new point.

God is separating His people within these organizations from the organizations, but David is calling us mean for trying to separate them and is showing us that they are supposed to be inseparable from the organizations they are in. The issue of whether or not he approves of proselytizing is clearly shown here. He is supposed to have the sentiment of Christ to consider God's people separate from the organizations that God calls Babylon.

I am showing here that David should focus on Christ as the problem. He should answer the points that I have given so that the dialogue can continue and should not restate the messages he gave that prompted me to make the point in the first place, for he is plainly wasting our time here. If the message is wrong, let him come on our turf and show how the Revelation is to be interpreted here. Even the point about Christ's messages in Matthew 24 being about Christ has not been answered.

Beverly Taylor

From here, David is going to demonstrate some spectacular feats in ignoring these very pointed points. Notice clearly the points that Beverly was making to Ron. Notice what Beverly is asking. Will David answer her questions? Does he understand what she is asking? I tell you the truth that he understands exactly what she is asking, but he cannot dare answer it for the sake of the Jesuit agenda. Take a close look at consistent Jesuit tactics so that you can really know whether or not their accusations of Adventists hating them just because they disagree has any weight or foundation. Will David now answer the clear questions and points that are being directed at him?: Take note of how he starts off his supposed answer:

From: Radrite@aol.com

Beverly,

Respectfully, HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY POSTS??? I NEVER said said that we should not evangelize. Find ONE instance where I did and I'll buy you dinner! The reason that I didn't "answer your posts" was that I had no idea that that was what you meant!

David here now says that he HAD no idea what Beverly meant. Well now he knows what Beverly meant. Will he then answer Beverly's questions?

He wrote "respectfully" because this has always been the pretext for the Jesuits expelling Adventists off of "Adventist" discussion forums: that they are mean and don't have love. Pointing out that someone is a Jesuit by their great skill in being unscrupulous is always regarded as a name-call and ground to be kicked off. They then call that Jesuit PARANOIA. Now since David knows what Beverly just said about Christ sending the Revelation and talking about harlot organizations that many of God's people unwittingly finds themselves connected with, what will be David's answer? Read on!

I did not say that we should not point out where other churches are in error. I never said that we should not evangelize among other churches.

I DID say that AT THE PRESENT TIME there is no movement to persecute SDAs in the U.S. I never said that God's people will never be persecuted. I DID say that, in America at least, such persecution is almost non-existent.

I asked you for evidence that we should be criticizing individual Christians, as people like Goldstein and Reid have done, for wanting to take our liberties. There is a big difference between some as yet to be identified individuals bringing on persecution, and saying "this person right here will persecute us" (without evidence).

That's all I was saying. Not an attack on the message, but the manner of delivery. I honestly did not know that you were reading it any differently or I would have answered your concerns much earlier.

God bless,

David Dildy

You are here witnessing Jesuit tactics par excellence in a training for years that claims to be training on focusing on Christ, but the evidence demonstrates that different talents were learned for so long. So here we see that the very points and questions that were even complained about to Ron by Beverly were deliberately ignored here again by David Dildy. Was it an accident? If we ourselves did not experience it so often on these forums infiltrated out of Adventist hands, we may have thought that it might have been an accident. His first problem is that he is ecumenical. That is a fundamental papal trait.

Now, responding to David's lack of answering, Beverly again patiently requests an answer from David:

Again David you have completely walked right around my question in the discussion and have stymied the major meat of the dialogue. What you are dealing with here is not the major point of discussion. Let’s now get back to the charge about the Adventist Church being unfair in accusing fellow Christians of being in Babylon. Show us how you are going to legitimately stop them from doing this: either by riling up human or public sentiment against them, or by showing their error from the scriptures.

The prophetic symbols speaks about a harlot mother woman who has many daughters. A woman in symbols represents a church. We then found that a great message which shall lighten up the whole world will be voiced from every corner telling God’s people to come out of her. Why are so many of God’s people in her.

I therefore want this issue addressed, so please, the next time you come back to respond, address this issue as it compares to the way you were trying to cast contempt upon Adventism for doing her duty. Prove to us that Christ is not the one at fault for accusing fellow Christians of collusion with the enemy to the point of erecting persecution.

If I have not made what I want here clear, please let me know so I can bold the letters. I heard an attack upon my church and faith. It is one strong enough to raise bitter enmity against it especially in times of crisis. I want this issue cleared up. Can I again please bother to recognize what I am asking so that you can finally answer it?

In His Grace,

Beverly Taylor

All the while now, Beverly has informed us that she is receiving reprimands from the SDAnet moderators and administrators for personally attacking David.

David now responds to Beverly with the usual skillful ignoring of her simple questions. It is these who are presuming that they must lead our thoughts off of our mission. Watch how he ignores Beverly's questions and repeat his own:

Beverly,

I'm not quite sure how to respond. You accuse me of trying to undermine the SDA message. Not true.

Folks, they would usually come in naieve, not-knowing mode when they are being pursued. This is contrary to them knowing for sure who is paranoid and who accuses individual Christians of things they did not accuse them of. This naive-ness should be present before they call Adventists legalists, Pharisees in thinking they are superior to all others, paranoid, and a bunch of other things. David continues:

Many SDAs are terrified of the "Christian Right." Did you know that Ellen White spoke to a meeting of the Women's Christian Temperance Union? The WCTU advocated the imposition of Sunday laws. But they also advocated the prohibition of alcohol. Because they shared a conviction on the evils of drink, EGW spoke to them and worked with them in the areas that she could.

She didn't demonize them like many SDAs do the religious right of today. I am not saying that the message is wrong, only that our application of that message is often clumsy, hurtful to other Christians and, in the case of our accusations, innacurate.

I have asked you for evidence -- names, facts, etc. -- to back up those accusations that you defend. You haven't provided any, except to say that my method of challenging is somehow incorrect. Maybe we should just agree to disagree. No hard feelings.

God Bless,

David Dildy

Beverly has already responded where she got her facts from. She got them from the sacred prophetic symbols in the scriptures, and there is even substantial current events knowledge that can demonstrate that Sunday Laws are coming. The people who are working for the success of that tragedy have to void out all of that evidence. But now Beverly responds again with the best way to expose David's arts:

I don't want to repeat myself David. You have not addressed my points and again you do not prove Adventists wrong by going into the doctrine to even replace it.

Christ Himself is hurtful of many Christians in many ways. He says that the last days will be as in the days of Noah, and by implication that is hurtful to current Christendom agenda and bureacracy. He talks about a woman sitting on a beast having a cup filled with the martyrs of Jesus, and that this woman has many harlot daughters. What do women mean in symbolic prophecy?

No matter what, I try to get you to delve into the prophecies to prove Adventists wrong there, but either you don't have the intelligence to understand what I am saying, or you are trying to pull a cheap shot. What then do the symbols mean? Are Adventists wrong because they are hurtful to other Christians? Or is Christ the demon who has cast a bad shadow on other Christians? What is the Beast, his image, 666, etc. Challenge Adventists by bringing a different interpretation and not by bringing sweet talk and evasions.

Again, what about Christ was revealed to Daniel and sealed till the end of time? Again. Again. Again!

Beverly now repeats again the request for answers in an urgent appeal for David to commit Vatican suicide: to answer the question that was raised out of his accusation that the Adventist Church accuses individual fellow Christians of plotting to persecute them:

David,

Please then forgive me from straying off the point even though I am struggling to get some answers from you. For me the issue is that I heard some bad things from you about my church telling me that she is awful for accusing fellow Christians for being connected to some whore and for conspiring to persecute Adventists. What I am trying to get answered is who is at fault for bringing such messages. Jeremiah had a tough message to bring, and Jeremiah wound up accusing his fellow brothers and sisters of apostasy. My focus now is to get an answer from you about your charge and for you to tell us who is to blame for the Adventist message.

The prophetic symbols speaks about a harlot mother woman who has many daughters. A woman in symbols represents a church. We then found that a great message which shall lighten up the whole world will be voiced from every corner telling God’s people to come out of her. Why are so many of God’s people in her.

I therefore want this issue addressed, so please, the next time you come back to respond, address this issue as it compares to the way you were trying to cast contempt upon Adventism for what I see is she doing her duty. Prove to us that Christ is not the one at fault for accusing fellow Christians of collusion with the enemy to the point of erecting persecution.

If I have not made what I want here clear, please let me know so I can bold the letters. I heard an attack upon my church and faith. It is one strong enough to raise bitter enmity against it especially in times of crisis. I want this issue cleared up. Can I again please bother to recognize what I am asking so that you can finally answer it?

In His Grace,

Beverly Taylor

Folks, you can all see that the problem started with David's accusation. Since he is what we are showing you he is, he knows well that he cannot address the questions Beverly is leveling toward him. That's why he is just repeating his accusations and making sure he doesn't answer the questions.

This is David's artful reply in continuing to show what he was trained in for years:

Beverly,

My comments were not meant as an attack on the church. I have been a member of the SDA church all of my life. I love the church. Just because I love the church, however, does not mean that I believe in the manner in which the church carries out it responsibilities. In other words, though I agree with most of the church's message, I don't always agree with the way the church delivers it.

I hope that the dinstinction is clear.

I don't hold the church at fault for teaching that at some point in the future there will be persecution. The Bible is clear on that point. But the Bible does not say that THIS OR THAT PARTICULAR PERSON will bring that persecution into being. If you know of such a verse in the Bible, please point it out to me.

You say that I should be arguing with Jesus about this because He's the one who said to spread the message. Where does Jesus say to accuse people of planning to persecute other Christians with little or no proof? Of course, Jesus said no such thing.

Again, let me be very clear: Talking about future persecution is OK. But is talking about specific people as agents of Satan to bring that persecution about OK? NOT WITHOUT EVIDENCE!

Of course, it is nothing for a Jesuit to claim that someone with ideas contrary to his has provided no proof. The proof is there, but how can such people delve into the Revelation and expound upon it. The Revelation is a dramatic revelation of their master: the Pope. And how did David know about people who are "paranoid strict separationists?" What proof did he give? You can try asking him to see if he would provide any. Better yet, you can post the questions Beverly has presented to him and see if you would not get the same arts that are practiced here to avoid the issue.

He says we are not to accuse and especially without proof. Is he accusing here? Is he providing proof? Is it true that Adventists accuse individual Christians of plotting treason and persecution? Which individual Christians did he point to?

Beverly, I know family members of some of the men who SDA writers have slandered -- without proof -- and I've listened to their children talk about how people hate and slur their parents. You know, people like militant homosexuals and people who support abortion on demand. Would you like to explain to these young people why the SDA writer misconstrued what their father said and wrote about him in hostile and sarcastic language? Put yourself on the receiving end of the accusations that so many of our writers throw around with so little proof. What we do to fellow believers in many cases is not Christian.

Did you know that Ellen White spoke to meetings of the Women's Christian Temperance Union on the subject of abstinence from alcohol? Did you know that in addition to supporting the prohibition of alcohol, the WCTU was also one of the strongest supporters of Sunday legislation. She worked with these fellow Christians where conscience allowed and parted company with them when she could no longer support their causes.

The WCTU is sort of the grandmother of the Christian Right -- the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, etc. Do modern SDAs follow Ellen White's example and work with these people when we can, building bridges and relationships? No. We attack them in our books and publications. Our writers accuse these fellow Christians of the basest, most satanic of motives. It's really sad.

You may not agree with me. That's OK. I hope that I've answered your questions. If I haven't, I'll be happy to give it another go. Again, Jesus did give us a warning message. He never said to accuse individual people,

especially without proof.

God bless,

David Dildy

Folks, as a professional papist you must understand that David doesn't care a hairs-breath about the Protestants he is talking about. I am not talking about individual honest Catholics here: I am talking about the actual personal armies of the Papacy. To him all Protestants are heretics and they are damned. You can read up Vatican documentation that says that. But you can see that David is ecumenical. That is another dead giveaway of his papal loyalty.

In the ecumenical agenda it is MANDATORY that the Adventist Church builds relationships with the other churches, because they are uniting with Rome, and by that means they will have to accept the decrees that will be handed down from Rome in the future. As with the loyal Nazis that were created by the Vatican, once the union is consummated they have to start talking about bad branches and people among them who have to be "purged" from society if it will ever expect to reach its full potential. The apparent top people to be marked, will be those who are "hateful" and who will not accept the "love-unity" that is going on all around.

David has been called upon to expound on the prophetic scriptures so that he can prove Adventists wrong in their mission. He is much smarter than Adventists (as is typical) for he knows it is suicidal to do this. That is why he is doing what he is doing here.

Notice that David again insists that the Adventist Church accuses individual people of plotting treason and plotting to persecute Adventists. The idea is that the best way to stop people from accusing is to accuse them also. Why then again do Adventists evangelize and seek individual people for salvation? It is these things that happen where God's people know that they are dealing with the sons and daughters of the Papacy. Beverly doesn't have a problem with David only because he disagrees. The problem is that David and all the rest alike have are immeasurably unscrupulous and are trained in the most profound arts of deceit.

Now that Beverly is consistently and calmly repeating to David her questions and points in order to demonstrate his talents, others have to step in to help him. One such person is a man posting as "Felix Reynoso" and another person is Tony Zbaraschuk, one of the moderators of SDAnet: 

Felix Reynoso (posted name) writes:

I disagree with Beverly on this, the fact that Net98, Net99 or for that matter Net2010 to me doesn't prove anything to the fact that Adventist are incorrect on this matter of "sunday law" I believe this is just one of the many "historical necessities" that Adventist use to prove their existence.

I hate to disagree with all of you on this issue but I don't buy this theology.

In Him,

Felix Reynoso
yussel41@snet.net

Now folks, first notice what this man has written and mark the evidence he has presented for what he has written. Now you can study the Dark Ages and the Protestant Reformation to find out where you can see similar examples.

Although to do this is supposed to be offensive to any internet discussion forum--and particularly Adventist ones--we have noticed that it usually never bothers the strange moderators that dominate almost all of them. In the statement, Felix did not support dialogue in the slightest.

But yet folks, you have to read these seeming innocent words very, very well. If you have any understanding of history, you will find these words that were just spoken very, very dangerous. Don't understand what I mean? Read on!

Beverly replies:

Making abrasive statements like this Felix without providing any proof or challenge is not supposed to establish anything except the prejudice and malice of the person who gave it.

I have said that if the Adventist interpretation was wrong, many would successfully challenge our revelation seminars which have proved so successful. In response the words of these few have to overcome the results from many who have attended these meetings and have seen the quality and power from them. These people have ideas and opinions of their own, and still yet I haven't seen anyone challenge the Net programs except in the way that it is done here. They are charged with accusing honest Christians of trying to persecute, etc. and their points and examples are carefully avoided. If even one would try to show that the Adventist Church is wrong, they don't even approach the Lord's Day Alliance or other such organizations actively pushing these agendas and get on their case by telling them they need to stop their Sunday law activities because some crackpots named Adventists are teaching the Christian world that soon the Christian churches will start a national Sunday law.!

All of the accusations then doesn't prove anything against the Adventist Church, but it proves alot against those who submit those charges.

The way to find out if the Adventist Church cooked up the Sunday law issue only to justify its existence is to challenge her. Someone needs to challenge her programs. Other than this is just prejudice, hatred and malice.

Beverly Taylor

Because of what Beverly just wrote, believe it or not, she is about to receive a reprimand from the Administrators of SDAnet. All the while she is receiving reprimands from them telling her that she is personally attacking the other posters. We will get to that in a minute, but right now let's focus again on David Dildy.

The following is a reprimand:

<sdanet@sdanet.org>
Cc: sdamod@sdanet.org

Beverly,

The personal attack on Felix in the first paragraph is completely out of line. We don't mind attacks on ideas; as you point out, the correct thing to do with an attack on idea is to defend against the attack.

Attacks on people are another matter entirely. Please repost this message without the offending comments.

Sincerely,

Tony Zbaraschuk
SDAnet moderator

Just before this, Beverly was kicked off of the Atoday forums by Greg Billock, because he also is so careful about the curse of making personal attacks except when his equally strange posters attack Ellen White all the time. Even Adventists are religiously called cult members, legalistic and bigots on all these systems without a problem. Now Gregg Billock is well known to the SDAnet team and the other way around. He has served as moderator and more likely a member of their board before. The thing is that the same wording is used against Beverly in this example here by Tony. It looks very clear that they understand what had just happened to Beverly on the grounds of "making personal attacks" upon others. To dare even state that the man has emanated Nazi principles is horrible to the SDAnet moderators. Why?

Beverly now responds to Tony. Listen very closely to what she says about Felix:

Tony,

I was about to say that I am surprised at you, but had to stop viewing how all forums are today. I’m not surprised, for it is typical. Felix had not only made accusatory statements, but he made some very dangerous statements. He talked about what he claims were tricks the Adventist Church used to "prove [or justify] their existence." This is far more than just an attack. It is a Nazi statement that even violates basic human rights and claiming some form of prerogative not only to judge a religion not fit to exist upon no stated evidence at all, but giving momentum to the idea that it could be annihilated. I read a book on multiculturalism that even talked about the Constitution being unfair to grant minority religions the right to exist, for it claimed that it denied the majority the right to choose what it doesn’t want to have among them. 

You then mentioned about personal attack, but you don’t appear to know the meaning of the word. Your very wording gives indication that you must have some idea what has been going on in other places where I have posted. What I have said against Felix is more than just the truth. It is far less attack and far less dangerous than what Felix has mentioned. Being a Christian, it is plainly none of his business in the Christ he claims to love that he would make such a fascist statement. He issued more than just a personal attack. It hints motions beyond words, and it involves many more people!

Tony, I would respectfully request that you give me some idea about your thought patterns in matters as this in the near future. But I can smell the stench of Nazism when it circulates throughout the air. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Episcopalians, ... Them as organizations existing or not is none of my business nor his to be concerned to even hint that he wants it annihilated to be addressing a direct attack upon its very foundations itself when the Adventist Church never has been an instrument for cruelty or the invasion of the rights of any people at least not of her spheres. What Felix did was so much worse. What I did in that little mention was a duty the most solemn. It was ordained of heaven, and someone else stepped in to stop a good work! Your response to me and non to him is well over the line!

In His Grace,

Beverly Taylor

I personally have never known SDAnet officials to admit when they are wrong, so I certainly would not expect them to do it here. Let's see what their response is:

Dear Beverly,

I have forwarded your note to the rest of the moderators. Let me just say that you shouldn't assume anything about what we may or may not be saying to Felix, and that calling the moderators Nazi's is generally not a good way to win friends and influence people.

You may complain all you wish but your posts are not going to make it to net untill you learn to post in a reasonable tone. And whether it may seem like it to you or not, we are trying to make all sides use that tone.

Steve Timm

SDAnet moderator

Notice how on all the forums there is a terrible concern about the tone of speech. That way their Jesuit posters are preserved because they always do accuse and call names, but they are trained for years in how to do it "sweetly." The officials of SDAnet couldn't notice that David accused and that he offered no evidence of support for his claims that Adventists accuse individual Christians without any proof. As you can see, Steve accuses Beverly of calling Tony the moderator a Nazi. Beverly responds:

Mr. Steve Timm:

I have reread my note that I sent to Tony where you replied that I should not assume anything and that I should not have called the moderators Nazi. I am now confirmed that I did not do such a thing, and would like you to show me where I have not done it.

Next thing is that you stopped my post to David where it said that he did not address the question. You told me I should not deal directly with David, but he in the post I was responding to, dealt directly with me and outside of the point in discussion.

Can you please break these things down for me?

Beverly then asked for proof that she called any of the SDAnet moderators Nazis. Here is Steve's reply:

Dear Beverly, the quote I referred to in your post is the following:

> This is far more than just an attack. It is a Nazi statement that even

> violates basic human rights and claiming some form of prerogative not only

> to judge a religion not fit to exist upon no stated evidence at all,

> but giving momentum to the idea that it could be annihilated.

On closer examination I see that this reference was referring to Felix's statement, not the moderators. But your statement was still out of line. Felix was not advocating the destruction of the SDA church or that we don't have a right to exist...and even if he was, your tone wouldn't have been warranted.

and this:

> Tony, I would respectfully request that you give me some idea about your

> thought patterns in matters as this in the near future. But I can smell

> the stench of Nazism when it circulates throughout the air.

IT was this that led me to believe you might be referring to the moderators. No matter. You do not have the right to call anyone a Nazi, even yourself, or refer to anyone's ideas as Nazi, even your own, on this net.

> Next thing is that you stopped my post to David where it said that he did not address the question. You told me I should not deal directly with David, but he in the post I was responding to, dealt directly with me and outside of the point in discussion.

>

> Can you please break these things down for me?

In any discussion like this, there will always be someone that we have to stop the tactic with first. In this case we stopped your post first. You should not make any assumptions on what we may or may not have said to David.

We are taking some extra time to make sure you understand the rules of SDAnet because you are new to the net and obviously have a great burden to defend the faith. Some of us years ago also came on to the net with guns blazing, but we have found over the years that a gentle approach is better. We hope you will find that this is the case as well.

Steve Timm

SDAnet moderator

Now listen to how Steve breaks down the the case of Beverly in the following most surprising episode. After Steve's reply to Beverly that Felix was not advocating the destruction of the Adventist Church, here is what Beverly wrote to Steve and the replies by Steve in the dialogue:

Ah but Felix WAS advocating the destruction of the SDA church and telling us that we don’t have a right to exist. It is your minds against so many others even in history who can tell the difference. When I debate with Felix, I make no mention of his church having any right to exist or not and with such a lack of evidence that is startling. Did you or did you not notice it? When statements like that come out, then the whole issue comes completely out of debate. I am not talking about foundations nor giving him any impression that he has to come before me and bow and plead with me for either his beliefs or his church to exist. Not only that, I don’t even have to concentrate hard to know what would happen if Felix obtained absolute power. I don’t even have to think about it.

Here is Steve's reply:

Felix is a Seventh-day Adventist himself and so your point is moot... he will not call for his own destruction.

Are you surprised folks that Felix is Adventist and yet says that the Sunday law issue is just one of those necessities for Adventists to adopt to "prove their existence?" Notice that this, with Felix's membership, doesn't spark the curiosity or question from any of SDAnets officials? This has been the most estounding demonstration of the same disease as so many others attacking the SDA Church that we have ever seen. Other than this, Steve has shown himself to be the most composed of all those who committed the strange acts in tolerance to those who hate the faith, and intolerance to those who love it.

> In that sense, Felix was not debating at all. I said that he needs to show that his view is correct above the Adventist Church by challenging the Net revelation seminar programs. His response came right out of the Dark Ages. He was saying that he doesn’t care how many Net programs come, they have not proved the right for the SDA Church to exist, and he certainly doesn’t have to prove that his statement against the SDA foundations is correct.

My response to his was no different than your recent responses to me. It was termed "personal attack" by you, when it was just the same as your comments against me. I said that his statements were abrasive. I know what I am talking about, for it is better that he come, rape and beat me to a pulp than make such a dangerous statement. We have too much history to know which condition is worse.

> and this:

> > Tony, I would respectfully request that you give me some idea about your

> > thought patterns in matters as this in the near future. But I can smell

> > the stench of Nazism when it circulates throughout the air.

>

> IT was this that led me to believe you might be referring to the moderators.

> No matter. You do not have the right to call anyone a Nazi, even yourself, or

> refer to anyone's ideas as Nazi, even your own, on this net.

>

>

> Beverly:

> To Tony it was that I would know his thought patterns due to the fact that he would make light of the dangerous statement, but I can smell Nazi ideas even though he can’t. All I have to do is to read any authoritative account of the Protestant Reformation and I would see many Felix’s there. That’s all I need.

>

> So if the posters present Nazi ideas shamelessly: If one of them posts that they love Himmler and Hitler, I can’t say that he has Nazi ideas on your forum? Is that what you are telling me? It is worse to call an idea Nazi than the Nazi idea itself? Do you know and realize that Hitler’s Nazi ideas were published for years in front of the German people and they elected those ideas? That was because the ideas sounded good, but they were Nazi ideas itself.

>

No... Himmler and Hitler would get their posts rejected here.

If that was true, Felix would not have even been able to succeed in his post reaching the public eye.

> Talking about a right to exist involves spiritual ethnic cleansing. It involves the deepest despotism. I am saying that his statement was far more abrasive than mine, and it has such a history of blood to prove it. I merely told the truth. His statement was abrasive and did indicate malice and hatred.

The statement is not only true, but it is appropriate.

>

> You have talked about a gentle approach, but when will common sense reign? Is this the first time you heard a statement like this coming out of your posters?

What has that gentle approach succeeded in doing these many years? Does the Adventist Church have a right to exist before the ultimate man Felix? I just made a mild statement with reproof that was true. There was yet no compunction for Felix to add evidence to his prejudice. If the object is discussion, it is certainly not fulfilled by allowing him to make such statements right out of the decretals of the holy Roman Empire, since his post was accepted, and yet he provide no evidence for what he says while telling us that the Adventist Church has no right to exist before what?

>

> His statement always involved mass murder and death of millions as it was demonstrated throughout history. I myself have no right to travel to India and tell them as a people that neither their religion nor themselves have a right to exist or to prove that they need to exist. I may well say that the definition of personal attack and abrasiveness will differ quite well between how you have it and history and heaven regards it. My statements against Felix were even mild. The statements were as follows:

>

> Making abrasive statements like this Felix without providing any proof or challenge is not supposed to establish anything except the prejudice and malice of the person who gave it.

>

> And...

>

> All of the accusations then doesn't prove anything against the Adventist Church, but it proves alot against those who submit those charges. The way to find out if the Adventist Church cooked up the Sunday law issue only to justify its existence is to challenge her. Someone needs to challenge her programs.

Other than this is just prejudice, hatred and malice.

>

>

> If these statements were attacking Felix personally then even all your commentary against my posts were personal attacks for it was made in the same manner.

>

> In His Grace,

>

>

> Beverly

Beverly now replies to Steve in order to impress upon him the seriousness of Felix's remarks:

Mr. Timm:

Your statements were so outrageous that there is certainly no fruit in talking to you any further and what you said cannot possibly be an accident. I am just trying to put things in order and be a witness against you for fairness here.

The statement that I think that people are trying to annihilate me just because they disagree with me makes even your statement that I should not assume anything null and void. If the problem was someone disagreeing with me, I would have told you so instead of you telling me so.

In my previous posts, you said that I am supposed to deal with the ideas and not the person. Felix made the statement that the Adventist Church has not proved its right to exist. I then told him that he needs to stop making such baseless assumptions and should challenge the Revelation seminars. Here I was encouraging him to deal with the ideas and not the INSTITUTION. I was not saying that he was to deal with the ideas and not the person. Felix wasn’t even dealing with the person, but an institution housing millions of people. He was not dealing with the issues, and that was your criteria for filtering out my posts.

So then he comes and posts again that he doesn’t care about the Revelation Seminars and net programs. He doesn’t care what they say and he doesn’t have to prove anything nor challenge them to show or prove anything. He doesn’t care about discussion. All he knows is that the Adventist Church has not proved its right to exist, and it can go on with Net 2010, it still would make no difference. No one exists in this world but Felix. I repeat again that I heard words like these during the Inquisitions. He was turning away from discussion, and that was the complaints that you had against me. You let him post and you censor me even though Felix condemned millions of people! But then the result of that is you daring to tell me that I think people are trying to annihilate me just because they disagree. Is it a policy on your forum that people are not to back up anything they say with proof? Is it your policy to reconstruct what people say? Did I say that someone was trying to annihilate me personally if they disagree? Or was I talking about a full institution that was condemned with the condemner not just disagreeing but providing no proof for what he says? Even in that sense my words were unfairly reconstructed by you.

When I then told you that Felix was advocating the destruction of the SDA Church, you dare to tell me that he is an Adventist himself and so my point has no basis? I mean it is every day I even hear a Catholic telling us that the Catholic Church has no right to exist, but he has a right to be a member of something that has no right to exist! I hear Baptists saying the same thing all the time! It makes sense! All this gives the more intelligence to the person who knows that the church he is a member of doesn’t have a right to exist! This is proven by the fact that he is a member yet!

The last thing is you said that Hitler’s and Himmler’s posts would be rejected on your system. Did any of these advocate a collectivism? Did any of these advocating a cleansing away of ideas or people that were determined to be not deserving of a right to exist? I don’t expect a real Hitler to reveal his identity and say that he is Hitler. When Hitler came to power, he was Hitler, but no one knew what he was pushing and no one knew the fruit of his ideas. Can someone with a totally different name bring on the same principles? Can I post on your forum that the Catholic Church has not proved its right to exist and not be censored? Are there Catholic posters on your forum?

**This is Outrageous!**

In His Grace,

Beverly

With that said, Beverly again posts a reply to David Dildy, who has done everything to avoid her probing questions after his constant accusations that the Adventist Church and Adventists accuse individual Christians of trying to plot their persecution:

David,

Revelation tells us that Babylon is fallen. She is represented as a woman in symbolic prophecy which means a church. There is a loud voice that lights up the earth proclaimin, "Come out of her *MY PEOPLE*! The question I asked again is what is the true interpretation of Babylon, and why did Christ accuse fellow Christians of being married to whores? It was that point that I requested that when you deal with the topic again, you answer this.

What is the true interpretation again? Christ wrote this message. What are Christ's people doing in relationship with whores? Why did Christ accuse His own people? At least Christ as well as His servants call those who are yet in Babylon His people.

What is the interpretation again? I missed it. That's what I had asked of you.

In His grace,

Beverly

Here now is SDAnets final "appeal" to Beverly. This reply was the result of her posting above. The actual posting never made it to the SDAnet system. It was blocked and you can see by this posting that part of the issue is to block the questions that Beverly is giving to David Dildy that he has clearly avoided for so long:

Dear Beverly,

We as moderators are waiting for you to acknowledge in your response to some of your recent rejection notices that you (1) realize that posting on SDAnet is a privilege and not a right, (2) apologize for the harsh words that you've used to your fellow netters and to us as moderators, and (3) state your intention not to be confrontational.

Until you are prepared to do this, we will delete any further postings from you unread, and your posting privileges on sdanet will be suspended indefinitely.

Steve Timm

SDAnet moderator

for the SDAnet board

At that, no one had to tell Beverly that she was defrocked from the forum. The officials were telling her that she has to now fit their Jesuit mold or no more posts will be forwarded to the system by her. Her different beliefs are not respected.

That is how you more and more learn that you are dealing with the single most dangerous creatures on the planet as all history attests!