"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
Honus wrote:
"seigezunt" wrote in message
oups.com...

Re Pastor Peters and "Christian Identity"::

http://www.equip.org/free/DI100.htm

the fact that this was heard on a Christian Identity program should
discredit it outright.


Only if you're prone to knee-jerk reactions. It's more than possible,
and
I'd say very likely that Peters or his agent approached the interviewee
and
represented Peters as a God-fearing, Bible-thumping Christian pastor who
also transmits on SW to spread the word throughout the nations, which of
course is just what he is in addition to the other unsavory aspects of
his
beliefs, which he perhaps felt no need to convey. I'm guessing the
interview
was over the phone, that the guy had never heard of Peters before, was
probably a Christian and took Peters at his word, and would probably
crap
his pants if he knew just how he'd been used, and I'm not prepared to
assume
that the guy being interviewed knew just who he was associating with.
YMMV.


Honus,

You are very true to form in this post.

In other words I clearly stated my opinion as such. I was speculating, and I
said so. I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt. Where I wasn't
speculating, well...I made that clear as well. You and Peters are so full of
**** you both must have brown eyes, regardless of their original color.
Dull, vacant and listless brown eyes.

However, the man had been on
the program a number of times before, and knew who he was associating
with. He usually gets on Pastor Peters program sometime in June and
preferably around the anniversary of the awful event.

Well then, the guy isn't doing the cause much good and I stand corrected.
For the most part I must agree with seigezunt when he says "the fact that th
is was heard on a Christian Identity program should discredit it outright."
I was willing to assume for the interviewee's sake that he didn't know what
he'd gotten himself into; I was wrong. If he's a Peters fan, then he's got
brown eyes as well. Regardless, I urge people to not dismiss this particular
story just because it's being examined by Peters, or because you posted the
URL, both of which are damning indictments of the veracity of any story. As
a matter of fact, believing in the truth of James Ennes' account as I do,
I'd appreciate if you'd shut up about it. Your endorsement of it is doing
more harm than good.

i.e. your last comment in the post; YOU probably are an expert on the
"full of .... " comment but you probably need to look into the mirror.
:-)

**** yourself, Al.