JESUIT DIALOGUES !!
(Probing The Mind Of Greg Billock!)
Updated 11/15/2003: made easier to print out; Updated 12/27/2005
By Greg Billock (Gregb) on Monday, March 20, 2000 - 10:53 am:
Thank you everyone for the concern.
Robert says:
But may I suggest E. C. try to avoid sounding as if he is mad or could care less about a fellow human being. That may be the problem Gerg is having. It is something that all should work on. Did I word this in a way that makes it clear I'm not attacking a person. And no doubt, E. C. has been on the receiving end.
[Robert here is placing his judgments upon a poster on the Atoday forums whose name is EC (Emmanuel Clarke). He is just one of the many of that forum who opposes Adventism, who determines that the views of all must be respected, but who also sees a need to deal with those who too strongly reveal the fact that Adventism cannot be conquered. They then have to stage a reason to kick us off. Below he talks about abusive language as the cause. We will show you the very discussion to see if that is the reason why just this one forum alone, people who hate Adventism and are oathed to destroy it, dominate the internet Seventh-day Adventism.
Greg from thence follows with his comments as those who oppose Adventism work together:]
Greg: This is pretty accurate. I do not share details of personal communication, but let me make more explicit that more important than specific instances of denigrating or abusive comments is the attitude one takes towards those. That is, when someone 'crosses the line' in discussion here, I think we as a group are good at noticing that and calling for apologies. When this happens, is a person willing to step down from the offensive language and apologize for hurting others, or not? We see views vigorously argued here all the time, and when there is disagreement on important subjects, obviously there is going to be some anxiety. A high-anxiety climate is normal when important issues are under discussion. In that context, it is easy to be misinterpreted, or to say things in a way one later regrets. This has happened here, and posters of good conscience step away from their previous remarks and try to restore good-faith communication. Sometimes it becomes clear that a poster does not wish to operate within this kind of social control. That's fine, and there are other fora with different social controls. In this one, when we hurt each other, whether accidentally or purposefully, we apologize. If you (speaking generally, not to Robert) do not mind hurting other posters, or if hurting other posters is an important component of what you wish to say, then this environment is not the appropriate place to express your views.
[What is Greg talking about here? What did Greg mean when he thanked the other posters for their concern? Greg is giving the reasons for why he expulsed EC from the Atoday forums. What you don't know yet is the kinds of individuals that Greg deliberately ignores and tolerates and the reasons for it. What you don't know yet are the very actions of those laying judgments against EC. You have even yet to see what EC has posted in comparison. Once you see this, you will understand that Greg also does not care what he does or has to do to accomplish his objectives. Greg moves by Jesuit tactics along with most of the other posters on that forum.]
Robert: Also I noticed Greg feels this is not the place to try to convert people over to your position.
Greg: :-) I think what I said was that if a person feels like the forums are primarily an evangelistic tool to 'convert the heathen,' this approach is improper and discouraged.
[The very last post that EC submitted before his farewell address was to show evidence that he was presenting questions, points and answers for discussion in his bid to defend Adventism, in comparison to others on the forum who were demanding that EC and all other Adventists relinquish their beliefs in it. EC challenged the rest of the posters to show proof that he demanded that they change their views after he demonstrated proof that those opposed to Adventism were doing just that. The other posters naturally ignored him, reissued the same charges you just read Greg Billock write, and, as you can see here, laid out their judgments and charged EC with their crimes.
EC had to prove his point because all the people attacking Adventism on that forum kept accusing him of being intolerant, trying to force his views on others, disliking or fighting with others just because they disagree, and in other words, behaving in a manner that makes worthwhile discussion impossible. As we progress, you will be able to more understand the dark minds of Jesuits. It is thence strange to witness people who use Jesuit tactics and refuse to stop even for decency's sake. Right now we are probing Greg's mind and those of his friends. At the moment, pleasing words are needed to cover up what was done. Greg continues...]
Hopefully discussions are a way to share perspectives and (ideally!) to make progress, meaning folks will change their minds. This is not the place for mounting evangelistic campaigns aimed at people; it is a place to talk with people.
Ulrike says (another poster defending the Adventist position: Greg still narrating): I just wonder why EC was cast out for saying there were despots when others seem to be quite welcome even though they call us uneducated, deceptive, idiots, dangerous, cultic, unlike, deluded, and so on and on? [Notice here that one of the names Ulrike enumerated was "unlike." Those who hate Adventism called her this in order to ridicule her name. Greg took no notice]. I'm not saying they should be kicked out -- I'm just asking why EC was kicked out for something which those that have the "right agenda" do all the time!
[Question: How is Greg going to get out of this one? Simple: just restate his position and essentially ignore what was said. Cover it over by repeating the accusations. After hearing Greg's reply, please remember Ulrike's reference to the fact that others do the same things EC does (actually EC is not even guilty of what they charged, but I am just making an "if" situation here) and even worse. THAT IS THE QUESTION. Watch as Greg ignores this:]
As I said above, being asked to leave does not happen because of some specific remark. It happens after there is a recognition that the social controls within which a poster wishes to participate do not match well with the controls we've selected for this environment. Those controls are always open for discussion, and there is always room for volunteers who wish to take the responsibility of keeping us on track.
[Notice that no reference was made to the others that Ulrike commented about. Do not think that this was an oversight. If it was, as is common, how can you trust these to lead God's Church? Either which way, YOU LOSE!
The remarks that Ulrike was talking about that Greg tolerates are continually done and has not stopped to this day. Greg is skillfully moving around the point here.]
Ulrike (and everyone), if there are times when you feel that posts against you cross the line into becoming personally abusive, feel free to say so. This can be done privately, publically, or to a third party.
[Ulrike did say so even here in this post, but you can see what happens when anything is mentioned against those who support the Anti-Adventist, pro-Papal agenda on internet discussion forums that consistently claim to be "Adventist," that consistently claims there must be free discussion, but which consistently claims we must not know there is a conspiracy, and we must not be "paranoid."]
Johan says: I do not think the huge hand of censorship should be used in a Christian fellowship. And how can we have a meaningful discussion or debate if one of the participants is gagged. My use of the phrase "blind idiot" was uncalled for but I do not know how to amend these postings so let me just apologize to Ulrike and Brother Clarke and any others I have offended.
Perhaps it is now more clear what the social controls are which we try to maintain. This is indeed censorship: views which rely on attacking others personally, or which rely on disrespect, are not welcome.
[The accusation Greg placed upon EC here is the common tactic those defending Adventism had to face all the time. We will examine the posts of EC to see if Greg is honest here in telling all that his messages are only backed up by attacking others personally. Yet what then does Greg see when the messages of those attacking Adventism everywhere, through pushing what they claim is "the Gospel," see the necessity for attacking Ellen White always in order for this "gospel" to succeed?
What Greg is doing here is diluting the natural responses that will always appear after those who claim to have erected free forums reveal that they actually did not do that to talk or discuss anything. Greg continues as he pushes more accusations with subtle skill:]
Given that we talk about important issues, though, it is inevitable that we make mistakes, and say things we later regret. Apologizing, as you do here, is the honorable thing to do. Thank you!
When this regret is absent, however, it becomes clear that there's a mismatch of values.
[Now time for the proud scoundrel to do what the other figments of Jack Chick's very vivid imagination have done: they have to proudly demonstrate that they are unscrupulous. Watch the words you see here that the following strange poster makes and compare it with what you are about to see demonstrating his nature. Take note of his name:]
Tom Norris: I believe that this is a very tolerant forum, perhaps something has occured that has not come out into the open. Possibly, this could be some type of privacy issue. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be those who want Greg to share personal information that is inappropriate.
[For those of you who don't know, this Tom (Tom Norris) is the most unscrupulous of all the posters on that forum. We will give demonstration of his actions aligned with the incredible statements he has just made in time.
How best to cover up the reality with something that is false? Just be in union with each other and force the words of men to overcome that reality. The voices of those who disagree and object must be overwhelmed by the voices of those who are here to take over:]
Greg: I agree, Tom. I think we are tolerant, and I think we have a large variety of viewpoints present as a reward for that. And you are right that "official" communication is private. I do not disclose details of such communication, and what I've said here should be interpreted generally, not individually.
[It is probable that this lie contributed to the reason why this particular forum had to close down. We believe that the denomination Adventist Church actually approached Greg Billock and shut the forum down. Greg's forum--The Atoday forums--were well known to host and specially favor the most rabid Anti-Adventists.]
Maggie: I don't enjoy reading angry, accusing posts, but I think over time, with some moderate voices joining in, some of the energy can be spent, and a more productive dialogue can ensue. There's just a lot of pain in this church family, and it comes out in its raw form when people are just starting to talk. I think, over time, we can learn to respect each other's views without feeling that our very identity is being threatened.
Greg: I think the present system we have allows for a great deal of this, Maggie. That is, there is no inescapable 'punishment' for speaking "out of bounds." At the same time, we do not welcome all forms of 'being yourself' here. Specifically, if one's self takes as important being able to speak hurtfully without regret, then one needs to find another place where that is welcome. I know from our previous discussions that you'd like us to have more of a group therapeutic role. That's a valuable function, but one that we cannot perform without individuals with the time and resources to commit to it. Perhaps someday that will be more of an option than it is at present.
-Greg
END
Check out the sequel here:
A SMALL TASTE OF THE POSTINGS GREG BILLOCK REFUSES TO SEE! Witness just this one sample of the amazing postings which demonstrate the ultimate agenda and climate of internet discussion forums claiming to uphold free thought while demanding the SDA Church to change.