Dear Blackhat,
Yes you may post as you please....ahhh....the "inspiration" that can I derive just from the fiendish idiocy of one sick, sick man....
Joe would appear to be slowly becoming a "projection" of David's personality....(otherwise he could not survive in the JC cult over any length of time...).....and YET,
David is apparently a little nervous that he risks "losing" Joe....you may see his concern through his attempts to poison the communciation between Joe and his mother....David here telling us that he needs to go to the effort of "reminding " Joe why he should hate his mother...!
[
www.jesuschristians.com]
Rather luckily, last Saturday, my wife and I visited one of Korea's Shamans last Saturday....and over the course of the seance,....the medium was able to contact a wretchedly filthy spirit, that picked up the full context of Davids' contribution....not all of which David, committed to writing...
Re:Letter to Sheila (or any other Johnsons/Simpsons) 24/06/2010 03:11
Sheila, this thread is here to encourage interaction between Joe and the rest of his family (yourself included)(IN ORDER THAT I CAN TWIST THE ACTUAL EVENTS INTO A CIRCUS OF PUBLICITY FOR MY CULT), and yet you seem to have totally snubbed Joe's last post (and made assumptions about Reinhard that are not really yours to make(BUT THAT ARE MINE TO MAKE AS I OWN REINEHARDT).
Just the fact that you used the 's' word (sorry....ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE YOU MEANT TO SAY "SHIT HAPPENS" TO ME!)) is a huge step on your part after all these years. However, (I HAVE POINTED OUT TO )Joe (THAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE) pointed out that there are a lot of unresolved issues that need to be dealt with, and you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that Reinhard and others are obliged to forgive you just because you said sorry.
I'm sure there are a lot of us who have been looking on over the past few years who feel there is a very long list of offences which have been committed against Joe, Reinhard, and others. They do not need to all be resolved at once, but please understand that this could take a little more effort than what (I'M GOING TO HAVE TO RUB INTO YOUR FACE, IN THE DIRT, IN FRONT OF JOE, UNTIL) you (CONDONE) to appear to be putting into it at the moment.
Re:Letter to Sheila (or any other Johnsons/Simpsons) 14/07/2010 07:43
Sheila wrote:
I apologize for saying you have mental problems. No, I would not like to have you committed(I'D PREFER TO HAVE MCKAY COMMITTED!)
In Joe's defence, it should be pointed out that he does not have mental problems(HE JUST SPENDS HIS DAYS "SELLING" ME AND LAUGHABLY THINKING THAT HE'S SOMEHOW ESTABLISHING THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN), and never has had mental problems (...AND PLEASE DON'T MENTION A CERTAIN MENTAL HEALTH EXAM THAT I MIGHT ONCE HAVE HAD...AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF MY PARENTS!) . That may not come across in what Sheila has said above. Her apology should be for having tried to (TELL THE TRUTH WHILE I NEED HER TO SAY THAT SHE) deceive(D) the judge, whereas it could be taken as saying that Joe does, in fact, have mental problems, but Sheila apologises for having divulged that. Perhaps, Sheila, you could make it clear that Joe does NOT have mental problems and that your testimony was (WHAT WE WANT TO MALICIOUSLY PORTRAY AS) a false testimony. (....AND WHATEVER YOU DO, KINDLY REFRAIN FROM MENTIONING THE "WHITEWASH" OF THE HOME INVASION (DEFENSIBLE UNDER AMERICAN LAW) THAT WE ARE ENDEAVOURING TO PROMULGATE....)
Also, by saying that she "would not like" to have Joe committed, she is not promising that she is not, in fact, still TRYING to have him committed. (AND I'M GOING TO EXACT MY REVENGE HERE BY EXTORTING EVER FURTHER CONCESSIONS FROM YOU THROUGH WHATEVER FABRICATED ACCUSATIONS I CAN INVENT) The safest way (WELL OKAY THIS IS THE "WAY" THAT IS COMPLETELY UNSAFE FOR YOU BUT FROM WHICH I COULD MOST BENEFIT) to assure Joe that you are not trying to have him committed, Sheila, is to come out publicly and state that you were not being honest with the judge in the first place, i.e. when you said that he has been diagnosed as having mental problems. This point is crucial (TO ME EVEN IF INCONSEQUENTIAL TO JOE) in terms of winning Joe's trust.
Re:Letter to Sheila (or any other Johnsons/Simpsons) 15/07/2010 05:41
Joe does not have mental problems.(HE JUST SERVES SOMEONE WHO HAS MENTAL PROBLEMS!)
Thanks for clarifying that, Sheila. Who knows? Maybe there is hope for this relationship after all! (I'LL BUY YOUR SILENT OBEDIANCE YET, BY CONTINUING TO DANGLE THE HOPE OF COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR SON BEFORE YOU, WON'T I) (Would it be too much to ask why you told the judge (under oath) that Joseph was diagnosed as having mental problems? (YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT I'M THE ONLY ONE WITH MENTAL ISSUES!...JOE WAS SIMPLY DUPED INTO SERVICE AT A TIME OR PERSONAL VULNERABILTY, ...JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE BOOTLICKERS) Perhaps if we can get to the root cause of the deception( YOU KNOW, LIKE DUPING JOE TO BELIEVE THAT HE SOMEHOW ME TO SERVE GOD!), it will help to bring a more satisfactory resolution(...("GULP")...LIKE MY DEATH?).
For example, I could understand you saying, "I thought that it might be one way to get him out of the Jesus Christians. I thought that if I could get the courts to have him committed, then he would no longer be able to work with you guys, and maybe he could eventually live a normal life." (SO PLEASE STOP PUBLICALLY SAYING WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS THINKING)
If you have genuinely changed your stance, then it should not be so hard to admit that you have seen error in what you were thinking at the time. But if you cannot disclose what was going through your mind (MMM....SOMETHING "YOU'RE A GOD FORSAKEN BASTARD", PERHAPS)....then, can you see how Joe would continue to be very cautious about any contact with you(BECAUSE IF HE EXPRESSES ANY POSITIVE THOUGHTS TOWARDS HIS FAMILY, JOE KNOWS THAT I'LL WILL SUBJECT HIM TO ONE HUMILIATING PUBLIC GRILLING AFTER ANOTHER)... for fear that it is all a trap to snatch him away(FROM MY TRAP) again?
Please believe me that we (NEED TO LIE, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR PUBLIC IMAGE, THAT WE) all want to have as positive a relationship with you (T (and for Joe to have as positive a (NON) relationship with you) as possible. We don't want (TO APPEAR TO WANT) you to suffer or squirm about your past actions, but we do want to get them genuinely resolved(BY ALLOWING US TO RECOMMENCE LITIGATION AGAINST YOU, ONCE I'VE GOT A FRAUDULENT ADMISSION OF PERJURY YOU, IN ORDER THAT I CAN TAKE YOU FOR EVER SENT YOU'VE GOT).
MY GOD! Doesn't a little "black magic" help in one's dealings with Mckay.....!