VORT is Responsible for Our Actions? - The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board

Date: Thu May 6 8:11 AM, 2004

VORT is Responsible for Our Actions?

Date: Thu May 6 8:43 AM, 2004

p.s. this is regarding Ted's letter to the editor in today's Record.

Date: Thu May 6 9:17 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Karen
"So now, Ted claims that the four members that started VORT should take responsibility for everything those of us who oppose the church do or say. Because we agree with one another on one point: Christ Church does not belong in our township. Therefore, the Salbergs and Jenkinses had best watch us all. With the exception of a scant few, everyone I've heard from in the township is vehemently against this project. Better watch out, Lisa and Kim, some guy who agrees with you is beating his wife right now. And over here, this one got a drunk driving ticket last week. Better start denouncing! Ted, you've reached a new level of ridiculous."

Karen,

Again you fill your post with unsubstantiated statements.

Drunk drivers & wife beaters in RT ?!?! You know you have no proof that either of these types of people exist anywhere in RT.

I know that they indeed DO NOT exist in RT because those types of people only live in and around urban areas, like Newark & Montclair, where the services of CC are truly needed.

If those people existed in RT, CC would be needed here, but they don't so CC isn't needed.

We know full well that the 14 churches in RT have done a splendid job of eliminating any and all social ills within Rockaway Township (soon to be renamed "Nirvana Township").

So please, PLEASE just stop persisting with your inflamatory rhetoric!

It doesn't do anyone any good.

Matthew

Date: Thu May 6 9:28 AM, 2004

Nice attempt to change the subject.

You know those were merely examples, obviously I don't know anyone who's beating their wife right now.

Very funny, though.

The point remains: VORT can't be held responsible for our actions and statements just because we agree with each other on one issue:

CHRIST CHURCH'S PROJECT IS TOO BIG FOR ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP.

Date: Thu May 6 9:36 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Matthew
"
Again you fill your post with unsubstantiated statements.

Drunk drivers & wife beaters in RT ?!?! You know you have no proof that either of these types of people exist anywhere in RT.

I know that they indeed DO NOT exist in RT because those types of people only live in and around urban areas, like Newark & Montclair, where the services of CC are truly needed. If those people existed in RT, CC would be needed here, but they don't so CC isn't needed. We know full well that the 14 churches in RT have done a splendid job of eliminating any and all social ills within Rockaway Township (soon to be renamed "Nirvana Township"). So please, PLEASE just stop persisting with your inflamatory rhetoric! It doesn't do anyone any good."

Matthew,

Is that anger I detect in your tone (nasty, nasty anger)? Or is it just a lame attempt to bait someone into a 'we don't need them here because' posting?

HAND

Date: Thu May 6 9:41 AM, 2004

Bitter sarcasm, commonly used while grasping at straws.

Date: Thu May 6 9:55 AM, 2004

VORT Responsible

Date: Thu May 6 10:03 AM, 2004

RE: VORT is Responsible for Our Actions?

Date: Thu May 6 10:07 AM, 2004

"As soon as they started collecting money they accepted the responsibility to speak for those donating."

Okay, I'll bite. Let's say VORT speaks for us because we donate money to a cause we believe in.

Okay, in that respect you could say they speak for us. To REALLY stretch it, it's almost like an elected official...

But on what planet do WE speak for them?

If I start spouting racial slurs, how is that a reflection on, say, the Mayor?

Date: Thu May 6 10:24 AM, 2004

VORT speaks for VORT.

I speak for myself.

If I choose to give money to VORT, it does not mean they speak for me or that I speak for them.

I give donations to a number of charities - some of which I disagree with on some of their policies. Because I give money to them, does that make me automatically change my opinion on those policies? NO. Does it make them change their opinion to match mine? NO. All it means is that I agree with them enough that I find giving them a donation worthy.

Since you like hypothetical questions, let me give YOU one. Suppose a member of a church is convicted of a crime. The member has donated (or tithed) money to that church. Using your logic, should the church then be responsible for the crime? Since the person gave them money, they must therefore support that person, is that correct? Should the church immediately give back any money the person gave them? Should they kick the person out of the church? Should they denounce the person? Should this occur without a trial (presuming the person is guilty)?

Date: Thu May 6 11:31 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jay R
"Suppose a member of a church is convicted of a crime. The member has donated (or tithed) money to that church. Using your logic, should the church then be responsible for the crime? Since the person gave them money, they must therefore support that person, is that correct? Should the church immediately give back any money the person gave them? Should they kick the person out of the church? Should they denounce the person? Should this occur without a trial (presuming the person is guilty)? "

Jay,

If you're the guy I think you are, I'm not surprised that you miss the point. You like to argue but usually fail to make sound argument.

My letter points to Maier's repulsive remarks and vORT's failure to denounce those words.

Regarding your hypothetical, if the criminal is known because of his association with the church, I would expect the church to condem the crime and I think you would as well.

For example most members of the public would have been more outraged if the Catholic Church refused to denounce the child abusers in there ranks

Donations have nothing to do with the situation but I sense you have a problem with pledging to a church. Again, assuming you're the guy I think you are, membership dues are required by your house of worship, right?

Date: Thu May 6 11:48 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ted Doty
"If you're the guy I think you are, I'm not surprised that you miss the point. You like to argue but usually fail to make sound argument.... Again, assuming you're the guy I think you are, membership dues are required by your house of worship, right?"

Ted,

When one assumes, one makes an ass of one's self. Please do not assume you know me. I am sure I am not the person that you think I am. I do not know you other than from your posts here and from someone pointing you out at a planning board meeting. I do not think you know me as we have never said 'boo' to each other (and I'd prefer keeping it that way).

I only wish you were half the person that you are capable of being. You write with an interesting combination of intelligence and bitterness.

As usual, you make personal attacks (You like to argue but usually fail to make sound argument) on the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you. No wonder that just about the entire town disagrees with you on most points. I'm sorry Ted. We can't all be as brilliant as you.

I really don't want to get into a conversation with you. I've seen others do it and it serves no purpose. Your only goal appears to be oppositional. Please don't converse with me. I will not respond.

HAND ,

JR

Date: Thu May 6 11:57 AM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jay R
" Please don't converse with me. I will not respond. HAND , JR"

TIP for Jay and others:

Instead of announcing

" I WILL NOT CONVERSE WITH THOU "

Why don't you just do the action you're claiming? Meaning, if you really don't want to respond to someone, then DON'T RESPOND.

And what's with the "HAND" in your signature?

FOOT

Matthew

Date: Thu May 6 12:00 PM, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Jay R
" Your only goal appears to be oppositional. Please don't converse with me. I will not respond."

You started the conversation, not me. I guess you have no justification for your off the wall hypotheticals and need to lauch your lame attack. You're right about one thing though, a conversation with you serves no purpose.

Date: Thu May 6 12:10 PM, 2004

To Matthew - HAND is internet abbreviation for Have A Nice Day

To Ted - You're not worth the effort...

L8R

JR

Date: Thu May 6 12:13 PM, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Jay R
"VORT speaks for VORT. I speak for myself. If I choose to give money to VORT, it does not mean they speak for me or that I speak for them. I give donations to a number of charities - some of which I disagree with on some of their policies. Because I give money to them, does that make me automatically change my opinion on those policies? NO. Does it make them change their opinion to match mine? NO. All it means is that I agree with them enough that I find giving them a donation worthy. Since you like hypothetical questions, let me give YOU one. Suppose a member of a church is convicted of a crime. The member has donated (or tithed) money to that church.

Using your logic, should the church then be responsible for the crime?

No.

Since the person gave them money, they must therefore support that person, is that correct?

No.

Should the church immediately give back any money the person gave them?

No.

Should they kick the person out of the church?

Possibly.

Should they denounce the person?

Possibly.

Should this occur without a trial (presuming the person is guilty)?

Yes. "

Of course, none of that really gets you anywhere close to answering the question of what Church does do with members (or leaders for that matter) who commit crimes. But you didn't ask that.

Date: Thu May 6 12:15 PM, 2004

Matthew,

BTW,

The only acronym I could find for FOOT is Forum for Object Oriented Technology.

Is that what you wanted to say???

ROTFLMAOPIMP,

JR

Date: Thu May 6 12:19 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Answers
"Should this occur without a trial (presuming the person is guilty)?

Yes. "."

Ah - another new name. Is that Mr. Answers? Ms. Answers? ah...nevermind.

So - you are saying the church should denounce someone without them being proven guilty?

It's not VORT's function to disavow themselves of any comments that any citizen makes. Again, VORT speaks for themselves. The scope of their existance is very limited to the application of Christ Church to purchase 140 Green Pond Road. They're not around to get in the middle of arguments over religion and religious intolerance and over who said what first.

Date: Thu May 6 12:38 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jay R
"Matthew, BTW, The only acronym I could find for FOOT is Forum for Object Oriented Technology. Is that what you wanted to say??? ROTFLMAOPIMP, JR"

Jay,

You're apparently not very industrious. That acronym has several meanings, but in my case, being the sensitve guy that I am, it means:

feel
other
ones
troubles

FOOT

Matthew

Date: Thu May 6 1:09 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Matthew
" Jay, You're apparently not very industrious. That acronym has several meanings, but in my case, being the sensitve guy that I am, it means: feelotheronestroubles FOOT Matthew"

Matthew,

AFAIK, I think you footed that response...You found one on time...

B4N,

Jay (member of AAAAA - The American Association Against Acronym Abuse)

Date: Thu May 6 7:49 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jay R
" Matthew, AFAIK, I think you footed that response...You found one on time... B4N, Jay (member of AAAAA - The American Association Against Acronym Abuse) "

LOL !

Date: Thu May 6 9:51 PM, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Matthew
" LOL !"

SMOFF (Serious Mode Off)

At least we can agree on humor...See...a common point (one exists)...

HAND (Have a nice day)

JR (me!)

SMBON (serious mode back on)