It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rebuttal to "I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
There we were, apparently taking on an air of respectability, what with our own news service and Valhall's article pulling in the masses. We had an opportunity and then the underbelly of the internet reared it's ugly head. With all this wonderful technology and access to all this information it still surprises me how dumb we can be. We now have links bringing people from all over to our little corner of the web and look at the impression they are getting of us. Post here for Death Threats and Harrasment. How embarrassing........


Please stop taking responsibility for the entire Internet. If you post your phone number somewhere being viewed by angry people 1.2 times a second (the overwhelming majority of which were NOT members of this site) I fail to see why anyone here should be grovelling.




posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Please stop taking responsibility for the entire Internet. If you post your phone number somewhere being viewed by angry people 1.2 times a second (the overwhelming majority of which were NOT members of this site) I fail to see why anyone here should be grovelling.


I'm not taking responsibility for anyone or anything. I am just bemoaning the fact that idiots exist. Ed was a little less than Net-savvy and I think he will have learned his lesson.

As for grovelling?

I just want to solve the problem and get the info flowing again.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I fail to see why anyone here should be grovelling.


I believe we should put this unfortunate turn of events behind us, just like RANT says.

I'm certain that Ed already has all the information (as to who sent what) and that the wheels are already turning to respond to the threats. He has the capability and the means to do that, imo.

If it was a member, I'm certain that person will just quietly disappear from ATS boards.

This site cannot tolerate such idiocy and Simon and SO will be told if it was a member, so I would suggest he/she do the administrators a favour and remove themselves.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I just want to solve the problem and get the info flowing again.


Agreed. Me too. That's the goal of us all.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by Valhall
Oh well isn't that just ripe!

To all the f***ing freaks out there that can't contain yourselves. Thanks a lot. Thanks a great deal.

I can't believe some one would threaten this guy...PERIOD...But what for, because he came here and started talking to us?

IDIOTS.


I think this site has the beginnings of something great and will continue to contribute, but the genral snipey and unpleasant tone is a massive turn-off.

I am also a contributer to the Wikpedea user:Cylon and I wonder if there is some way to have a bit more control over our content as they do there. Obviously the mechanism would need to be different, but they are pretty good at keeping "nonsense" out of their mix. We have far to much fluff on these boards and it does not contribute to us being taken seriously.

Perhaps we could require people to post their sources for non-opinion statements (underwater zionist overlords and such).

I guess it was a mistake for ed to post his number.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Dear Mr. Kostiuk,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my previous inquiry.

For what it's worth, please accept a humanitarian apology for those who contacted/called with comments that were obviously inappropriate and derogatory in nature. Responses of the nature you state tend only to hinder the possibility of any informative and investigative rapport.

As has been demonstrated over the past few days, this thread has grown well beyond the confines of ATS, where the original thread/post started, and is currently linked to from many sites, blogs, etc. from the [interested] Internet. Just do a Google for "I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp" and/or "Rebuttal to "I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp".

Results 1 - 10 of about 918 for I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp. (0.37 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 112 for Rebuttal to I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp. (0.36 seconds)

This after only a few days ?!

I can't account for the whole of the Internet and, in all honesty, I can't even account for all of the members on ATS. What I can account for are the many that have valid and civil questions and concerns. Topics and discussions that truly need to be addressed, discussed, and considered.

Without a doubt your free time, as of late, is extremely limited, yet if/when you have a moment your input, experience, and knowledge would be respected,appreciated, and honored.

With that said, I would greatly appreciate your response regarding certain topics and questions that many feel deserve to be addressed and, for the most part, truly need to be addressed.

Firstly, so as not to bombard, nor overwhelm:


member:
He did NOT answer my questions. He gave me the excuses for why certain policies were to be implemented. Fine. He did NOT answer the important questions that have concerned me from the time I wrote my account.
I'm not looking for a conspiracy. I'm looking to get confirmation that these people's civil rights are not going to be restricted if they come to this camp.

That's not looking for a conspiracy. That's looking out for my fellow citizens!



Could anyone argue with the topic of this person's concern? American Civil Rights
Should this person's concern be addressed, discussed, considered?



member:
I know it doesn't apply to this topic but it gets to me and I fear similar things happening here because we won't have the answers. I see a perfect opportunity to actually get some answers just thrown away, and it is very, very sad.
This type of response will more than likely affect any further participation by anyone of any official standing that is tempted to participate.



The [civil] majority have real questions and real concerns. I, We, They are simply asking for real answers and/or real opportunities to obtain said answers for valid questions.


I have conveyed my inquiry and your response to the thread.

The positive response was overwhelming.

For the most part, those truly interested in obtaining real answers to real questions feel a loss as a result of your decision (can't blame you in any way shape or form) to abandon opening a dialogue with the good folks on this website.

I am in no way requesting your return [per se] to the ATS site forums. Obviously, that is a personal decision to be made only by you. On one hand, heaven knows that much of the response was extremely aggressive, offensive, and uncalled for. One the other hand, there are many who welcome your input and simply wishe/wished to pose valid questions and concerns. Personally, I wouldn't harbor any negative feelings if you walked away and never looked back.

My request is simply for real answers to real questions.

Thanks for your time, Ed!

Awaiting your reply . . .

Sincerely,

Val and Agent, I think you'll recognize your queries.

Crossing fingers and hoping . . . .



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall If the SBC went into an agreement to have their facilities used as a camp where the occupants cannot come and go and have civil rights, you bet I meant it.
I have taken the liberty to emphasize your; 'if." For it can only mean one of two things; that you as a card-carrying Southern Baptist, are disconnected with your fellow congregation, at least with the governing body of same which signs the legal agreements on how your donation is put to use; or that you accept that only one side of that "if" coin is legal tender.


I have no problem with stating my objections with that whatsoever. If the head of the SBC attended a meeting on Sunday and was told by FEMA/OEMA that that's the way it was going to be and signed the agreement, I think it was a bad move.
And it behooves you before you write your tirade and offensive to understand exactly how your administrative members arranged this deal, does it not? Your report is a blatant one-sided representation of what you want the facts as seen by you to represent, and it is inextricably evident that you afforded no consideration to the ability of the leaders of your church when it comes to negotiating temporary appropriation of land, in that they would negotiate an agreement which turns Church holdings into one used for oppression. Either they were novices or incompetents as one discerns when wading through your basketry of words.


Falls Creek was announced as being made available for refugees late in the week prior. I guess the question would be did the agreement get made and THEN the SBC man was told on Sunday how it would be. We don't know this. Either way it doesn't make me complicit with anything. Apparently, I'm not okay with a mode of operation at this camp that results in the occupants having their civil rights usurped. Probably the point of me sharing my story in the first place, right?
To your question, the answer is—wrong! Since as I have stated already, you attributed blame first to the lessee without thought as to the due diligence of the lessor. Now granted, I am no fan of organized religion much less one out to capitalize in any fashion, even for a buck in the name of charity, but I am honest and objective. As such, yes you are complicit because you have hidden your head in the sands of ignorance and automatically assumed that if there is any wrongdoing it had to be with FEMA. Never once, Valhall, did I see you question the authoritative decision of the SBC or even those with whom you spoke.


Had you bothered reading my thread you would have noted that news articles have been referenced and discussions have taken place on Camp Gruber, and that we have all been aware of the occupants there, that many of them left to live with family and friends, etc.
I read yours, and as stated, to page 1. Your post alone should be sufficient to understand that you more than inferred that this camp was being run under nefarious conditions. But the crux of the issue is deeper than that which you concede, Valhall. The point being that if members of one camp can leave, your dissertation is incomplete as regard research since according to you, you were told that you do not understand the nature of the individuals slated to be housed at Falls creek. As much as your “host” endeavoured to explain it to you in a fashion only s/he could, it stands to reason that you do not in fact know whether these individuals are those whose stated identities have not or cannot be identified. This world is not without its criminals, neither is the smallest tract of land, and for all you know, these folks may very well be lawbreakers who roamed the streets of new Orleans but look to worm their way to a new life as a result of this disaster.


This really doesn't show a lack of "research" on any one's part since we've been discussing it. Nor does it answer some of the unanswered questions about the intended mode of operation at Falls Creek.
On the contrary, you have done none!


Was your intention to confirm my statements here? This post is dated about 8 hours after I put my story up.
Nothing hedonistic about you is there? Surely you are not trying to suggest that everyone with a different and personal story to tell would do so before you post yours and would be in tune to what you write and when, are you?


My story is from September 5th the Monday that 100's and 100's of volunteers were turned away. That's confirmed.
Indeed! How many volunteers were required, Valhall? How many were accepted? How many were still en route from across the US expanse only to get to Falls Creek and learn that the quota had been filled? These reports only corroborate what you were told, don’t they? They did not need you, nor your food, nor your clothes.


That's confirmed by hosts inside the camp, and I believe even the Oklahoma Baptist website speaks of the limit. Unfortunately the freeper quoted there was misled. Because all the cabins weren't ready. And it wasn't the Red Cross and Salvation Army running around making beds. It was SB volunteers. When the volunteers got turned away, many cabins didn't get prepared.
You mean this good Southern Baptist volunteer fabricated his/her account, or did they like you, run into some “host” who offered his own take?



For a detention centre meant to hold American citizens in some conspiratorial manner, I note that ordinary citizens were allowed past the gates and that some unnamed volunteer was quoted as though his/her understanding of events was gospel.


Yes, SOME American citizens were allowed in. SOME just made it in. And this was over the days prior to any refugees arriving - which they still haven't.
That some I refer to is you and yours. Unless I missed it in your initial post, I do not see where you speak to others like you and your family being turned away.



Wednesday, September 07, 2005
This weekend, around 15,000 volunteers poured into Falls Creek, but now the evacuation site has been put on hold and fewer than 100 volunteers remain.

Tuesday, these cribs were ready for toddlers, a stuffed animal placed in each one. But today, they?re empty, the sheets and toys are bagged up and the cribs are abandoned.

Since Sunday, hundreds of volunteers have been making beds, preparing food and sorting thousands of donations, but now there is a chance the estimated 3,000 evacuees will not come.

www.kten.com...


There you have it. That's what took place. Oklahoma citizens poured into Falls Creek and spent hours prepping their church cabins. What's your point?
Exactly that which was intended. Your rejection was as a result of an over-abundance of assistance. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand? Furthermore, since I must obviously spell it out, it is likely that the persons to whom you spoke are like you…volunteer Southern Baptists answering the call. Now I expect that unless you can prove that they were not, you should be able to provide other first-hand accounts of Falls Creek being a detention camp, for surely at least one in 1500 other fellow Baptists would corroborate your story, no?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

SomewhereinBetween


Your post addresses certain valid points/aspects, but what is the point you are actually attempting to make?~!

Lengthy, with valid concerns to quoted material, yet I am not able to grasp the overall POINT of your post.

If it's a bash, then well done


Otherwise . . . More please!?



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

I have taken the liberty to emphasize your; 'if." For it can only mean one of two things; that you as a card-carrying Southern Baptist, are disconnected with your fellow congregation, at least with the governing body of same which signs the legal agreements on how your donation is put to use; or that you accept that only one side of that "if" coin is legal tender.


You're showing a bit of ignorance you forgot to deny. The Southern Baptist Convention has nothing to do with the Southern Baptist Churches. The "Southern Baptist religion" does not have a central organization. Every single southern baptist church is autonomous. There is no "southern baptist organization" that encompasses, edicts or binds any southern baptist church. The SBC is made up of people who decide they want to attend the SBC conventions and proclamate and boycott and disseminate. They NEVER speak for the individual southern baptist churches. If a given southern baptish church decides by vote of its members to back an SBC decision - then that's their call. But that's on a church by church basis.

The SBC owns the land of the camp. The churches own the cabins. That's why the SBC had to call each church and ask if they would offer up their cabins. I CAN CONFIRM...that when our preacher was called and asked if our cabin could be used to house refugees, he was not told that they may not be able to leave the camp.

If you're going to try to act like a friggin smart-arse...at least do the research before you attempt it. WE HAVE NO GOVERNING BODY.


And it behooves you before you write your tirade and offensive to understand exactly how your administrative members arranged this deal, does it not? Your report is a blatant one-sided representation of what you want the facts as seen by you to represent, and it is inextricably evident that you afforded no consideration to the ability of the leaders of your church when it comes to negotiating temporary appropriation of land, in that they would negotiate an agreement which turns Church holdings into one used for oppression. Either they were novices or incompetents as one discerns when wading through your basketry of words.


WRONG AGAIN! I'll start keeping count now. THAT'S TWO! This has just been covered above in a couple of different ways. And no my report was not a "blatant one-sided representation". It was an accounting of statements made, and things seen.


Never once, Valhall, did I see you question the authoritative decision of the SBC or even those with whom you spoke.


I thought I told you in response to your previous post that I'm all for casting blame on the SBC if they entered into an agreement that they knew going into would prevent the free movement of these people. NO - that does not cast blame on my church, the members, or me. And you're sure showing your salt now.



I read yours, and as stated, to page 1. Your post alone should be sufficient to understand that you more than inferred that this camp was being run under nefarious conditions. But the crux of the issue is deeper than that which you concede, Valhall. The point being that if members of one camp can leave, your dissertation is incomplete as regard research since according to you, you were told that you do not understand the nature of the individuals slated to be housed at Falls creek. As much as your “host” endeavoured to explain it to you in a fashion only s/he could, it stands to reason that you do not in fact know whether these individuals are those whose stated identities have not or cannot be identified. This world is not without its criminals, neither is the smallest tract of land, and for all you know, these folks may very well be lawbreakers who roamed the streets of new Orleans but look to worm their way to a new life as a result of this disaster.


I have nothing to respond to toward the above drivel. But I decided to quote it so you can't ever deny saying such nonsensical crap.



Nothing hedonistic about you is there? Surely you are not trying to suggest that everyone with a different and personal story to tell would do so before you post yours and would be in tune to what you write and when, are you?



Again, just capturing your quote because your comment doesn't even make sense to my question. The person quoted was in line with what has been stated. HINT: Turn the screen over and see if it makes sense.



Indeed! How many volunteers were required, Valhall? How many were accepted? How many were still en route from across the US expanse only to get to Falls Creek and learn that the quota had been filled? These reports only corroborate what you were told, don’t they? They did not need you, nor your food, nor your clothes.


More than were let in. Because on Tuesday there were still cabins that were not prepared - didn't even have made beds.


That's confirmed by hosts inside the camp, and I believe even the Oklahoma Baptist website speaks of the limit. Unfortunately the freeper quoted there was misled. Because all the cabins weren't ready. And it wasn't the Red Cross and Salvation Army running around making beds. It was SB volunteers. When the volunteers got turned away, many cabins didn't get prepared.




You mean this good Southern Baptist volunteer fabricated his/her account, or did they like you, run into some “host” who offered his own take?


Another quote captured to show how much you'll twist my words. I didn't say that person fabricated anything. I said the reports she/he had been given were WRONG. The cabins were not all prepared, not even on Tuesday.


That some I refer to is you and yours. Unless I missed it in your initial post, I do not see where you speak to others like you and your family being turned away.


You mean while I was there? That would be pretty hard to speak to people who couldn't get in while I was in, now wouldn't it? You mean afterward? Yes. Also, if you would like me to do your research for you, I can pull up the news articles that confirm the volunteers turned away. Just u2u.


Exactly that which was intended. Your rejection was as a result of an over-abundance of assistance. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand? Furthermore, since I must obviously spell it out, it is likely that the persons to whom you spoke are like you…volunteer Southern Baptists answering the call. Now I expect that unless you can prove that they were not, you should be able to provide other first-hand accounts of Falls Creek being a detention camp, for surely at least one in 1500 other fellow Baptists would corroborate your story, no?


I wasn't rejected! WTF are you talking about? I personally got everything delivered to some cabin while I was there, with the exception of my clothes. Which are now going to Mississippi. I made beds. I fixed buckets. And I delivered all my goods.

And yes, I stated that the "hosts" were Oklahomans selected from around the state. And yes, Springer verified what was told to me in his subsequent phone call the next morning to the preacher. And what are you insinuating that I need to drag local southern baptists off the street and flop them in front of my computer and demand they tell what they know?

DON'T THINK SO! My son has come on and verified my account. He was right there with me when the statements were made.

I haven't seen any southern baptists on here saying they were told something totally different.

*crickets*



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   


You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


My thoughts exactly!


Valid questions and points, but they don't really apply to the situation at hand . . .

[edit on 9/12/2005 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ValhallYou're showing a bit of ignorance you forgot to deny. The Southern Baptist Convention has nothing to do with the Southern Baptist Churches. The "Southern Baptist religion" does not have a central organization. Every single southern baptist church is autonomous.
First let me tell you what the deny ignorance has come to symbolize when I read many posts in here, and that is to deny it exists,. Consequently if I forgot to deny ignorance’s existence, then I am in fine shape. What you are telling the audience then is that the Southern Baptist Umbrella can be bought and paid ofr? Either that or the Southern Baptists forgot to copyright their corporate name, and you surely would not be trying to get that past me, would you? Why yes you would, so let me take you on an excursion of the very foundation you think you know…

It was such a call that caused J.B. Rounds and W.D. Moorer to see the desire God had for the trails and trees and to pursue that call to fruition.

Rounds and Moorer first viewed the Falls Creek property in a photograph on a barber shop wall in Davis, Oklahoma. They were immediately attracted to the 160 acre parcel and agreed it was the place for the annual Summer meetings of the Baptist Young People's Union.

Programming, facilities, philosophies and personnel have regularly expanded and refocused to meet the ever changing needs of the Baptist family and those to whom they minister. From a Summer encampment for the B.Y.P.U. in 1917, Falls Creek has grown to become a year round conference center addressing children, church musicians, single adults, college students, men's and women's ministries, church volunteers…..the list and the call grows with each new year. In 1917, after that first affirming Summer, Baptist leaders prophesied that Falls Creek would form the foundation of "…a great denominational university of methods…" representing "…every line of denominational interest…" With each year Falls Creek stretches and adapts to fulfill that vision.Falls Creek and Baptist ownership established. Why would you open these doors for me to prove that one of the most revered and alarmist conspirators on this site does not know what her own religious roots are?


Unless there is more than one Southern Baptist Church, then I have wrongly accused Southern Baptists as belonging to one congregation. So the next question then is: what are the Southern Baptists?

According to the official description of The Southern Baptist convention; www.sbc.net... You become a Southern Baptist by uniting with a Southern Baptist church


So then we have this:

From the Baptist General convention of Oklahoma:
The North American Mission Board (NAMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention coordinates disaster relief efforts of the state convention disaster relief teams. NAMB works in conjunction with FEMA, the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross to best utilize volunteers with the least chaos and confusion. Southern Baptist Disaster Relief teams represent the second largest trained disaster relief volunteers organization in the United States. It is estimated that Southern Baptist Disaster Relief teams prepare 80% of the hot meals distributed by the American Red Cross.
www.bgco.org...[57F338A6-2B68-47B7-9AD0-3583FE4931D5]&sc=-1&ni=515&fr=news


Need I say more? Why yes I do, just because you incite me to.

“Oklahoma Southern Baptist churches are sending volunteers to welcome survivors to Falls Creek, Jordan explained… www.bgco.org...[57F338A6-2B68-47B7-9AD0-3583FE4931D5]&sc=-1&ni=518&fr=news
But let us take me at face value since you are the Baptist:

YOU- I'm extremely depressed to report that things seem to only be getting sadder concerning the people so devastatingly affected by Katrina last week. Two car loads of us headed over to Falls Creek, a youth camp for Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma that agreed to have its facilities used to house Louisiana refugees….

This past week the Southern Baptist association of Oklahoma offered the facility as a place to house refugees from the Katrina disaster…
Well, decide where you want to go now with this obfuscation of yours, either you lied on that post of uyours or you lie now, I really don’t care which of the two options you choose, they both come up with the same verdict.

Having now covered my position, I am sure you do not mind if I dismiss the rest of your strawman on Southern Baptists. Now I really don’t care how many ways from sundown you are going to try and claim singular ownership of each of those buildings or the property they sit on, I can assure you that as a communal project, they are governed by assembly as you can well see, and all of the sites are covered by policies in one name. That is the way insurance works dear Valhall. Now if you wish to prove otherwise, then put up, or simply, shut up!


If you're going to try to act like a friggin smart-arse...at least do the research before you attempt it. WE HAVE NO GOVERNING BODY.
I prefer you would not digress. I am not just trying to act like a smart ass, I am smart. Your resorting to this type of rhetoric does nothing to substantiate your very tenuous position, does it? Nor in fact does it adequately cover your attempt at diversion. Since you have taken on this tangent, I trust that you have found yourself to be in a most precarious position relative to rebutting my rebuttal. Should I presume now that I am I to expect more of this deflection of yours?


And it behooves you before you write your tirade and offensive to understand exactly how your administrative members arranged this deal, does it not? Your report is a blatant one-sided representation of what you want the facts as seen by you to represent, and it is inextricably evident that you afforded no consideration to the ability of the leaders of your church when it comes to negotiating temporary appropriation of land, in that they would negotiate an agreement which turns Church holdings into one used for oppression. Either they were novices or incompetents as one discerns when wading through your basketry of words.



WRONG AGAIN! I'll start keeping count now. THAT'S TWO! This has just been covered above in a couple of different ways. And no my report was not a "blatant one-sided representation". It was an accounting of statements made, and things seen.
Now now, don’t just tell me I am wrong again, make your case, at least once, and my eyesight is just fine thank you, I do not need caps to read simplistic words. So then, I must backup here, you have yet to prove me wrong about one issue, much less 1.5, and 2 is a gold medal you can only hope for. Your report was nothing but a one-sided pre-disposed fabrication of that which you thought you would write about to incite anger at an agency which as I have pointed out would have to be in cahoots with your church.


Never once, Valhall, did I see you question the authoritative decision of the SBC or even those with whom you spoke.


I thought I told you in response to your previous post that I'm all for casting blame on the SBC if they entered into an agreement that they knew going into would prevent the free movement of these people. NO - that does not cast blame on my church, the members, or me. And you're sure showing your salt now.
Maybe you did, I have not read all of your posts, however, before you sit and write such inflammatory nonsense, it behooves you to be sure of your position and to be sure that your eagerness to raise alarmist issues are in fact valid. You did no such thing.


I read yours, and as stated, to page 1. Your post alone should be sufficient to understand that you more than inferred that this camp was being run under nefarious conditions. But the crux of the issue is deeper than that which you concede, Valhall. The point being that if members of one camp can leave, your dissertation is incomplete as regard research since according to you, you were told that you do not understand the nature of the individuals slated to be housed at Falls creek. As much as your “host” endeavoured to explain it to you in a fashion only s/he could, it stands to reason that you do not in fact know whether these individuals are those whose stated identities have not or cannot be identified. This world is not without its criminals, neither is the smallest tract of land, and for all you know, these folks may very well be lawbreakers who roamed the streets of new Orleans but look to worm their way to a new life as a result of this disaster.


I have nothing to respond to toward the above drivel. But I decided to quote it so you can't ever deny saying such nonsensical crap.
Of course you don’t! That is because I am right and you know it.

Then you ramble incoherently--how does one turn a screen over? And why are you always so childish when cornered?


Indeed! How many volunteers were required, Valhall? How many were accepted? How many were still en route from across the US expanse only to get to Falls Creek and learn that the quota had been filled? These reports only corroborate what you were told, don’t they? They did not need you, nor your food, nor your clothes.



More than were let in. Because on Tuesday there were still cabins that were not prepared - didn't even have made beds.
Really now? Did you see the roster as to when those beds were supposed to be made? Are you calling the poster which I cited and the very Southern Baptist organization overseeing the volunteers liars, when they said that volunteers were more than sufficient and excess were turned away? Tell me you would not really be so gung ho to whiz over top your church’s dormitory and then accuse them of lying. Why I would have to ask why on earth you are a member of their church.


You mean this good Southern Baptist volunteer fabricated his/her account, or did they like you, run into some “host” who offered his own take?

Another quote captured to show how much you'll twist my words. I didn't say that person fabricated anything. I said the reports she/he had been given were WRONG. The cabins were not all prepared, not even on Tuesday.
I am not twisting anything of yours dear, you are doing a very job of that all by yourself. But I desire more than just you telling me s/he was wrong, I want proof! Where is it?


You mean while I was there? That would be pretty hard to speak to people who couldn't get in while I was in, now wouldn't it? You mean afterward? Yes. Also, if you would like me to do your research for you, I can pull up the news articles that confirm the volunteers turned away. Just u2u.
Re-read my post, and try and understand it this time. And the very fact that you can pull up reports of others being turned away goes to show just how irreconcilable is your detention camp position. These rejected volunteers goes to show that the church issued a call and its members answered it, and once the 400/500 was achieved, the rest was turned away. Now you either believe that these hosts of yours were not church volunteers or were volunteers who were quite willing in the name of their humble faith to accept a position in a detention camp. I have stated this already.


I wasn't rejected! WTF are you talking about?
Can the expletives, you know quite well that for the lesser connected in here such language is met with punishment. Besides it makes you look frazzled. And re-read my statement relative to this too, you are losing focus and I hate to repeat myself.


I personally got everything delivered to some cabin while I was there, with the exception of my clothes. Which are now going to Mississippi. I made beds. I fixed buckets. And I delivered all my goods.

And yes, I stated that the "hosts" were Oklahomans selected from around the state. And yes, Springer verified what was told to me in his subsequent phone call the next morning to the preacher. And what are you insinuating that I need to drag local southern baptists off the street and flop them in front of my computer and demand they tell what they know?
I am not insinuating anything, I am however telling you that you are an alarmist, that you cried wolf, that you wrote a story that is corroborated nowhere else, and that said story is in fact so full of holes it could sink the Queen Mary II.


DON'T THINK SO! My son has come on and verified my account. He was right there with me when the statements were made.
Good for your son, but seeing police and medical personnel and listening to some unnamed volunteer tell you how it is does not equate to what you, your son, Springer, or your car has interpreted.


I haven't seen any southern baptists on here saying they were told something totally different.
Point me to the posts by Southern Baptists who are not family members who corroborate your story.


*crickets*


I prefer ladybugs.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
I think the brainwashing towers seem to be working, and what is it about splitting couples up into male/female? Isn't that devisive?



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Somewhere -

www.sbc.net...://www.bgco.org/


Autonomy

We affirm the autonomy of the local church. Each church is free to determine its own membership and to set its own course under the headship of Jesus. It may enter into alliance with other churches as it chooses, so long as those other churches are willing.

The same is true for other Baptist bodies - local associations; state conventions; national conventions. They, too, may determine their membership and set their own course.

If, in its autonomy, a Baptist body expels a church from its fellowship, it does not negate that church's autonomy. The church is perfectly free to go on with its business - but not as a member of that larger Baptist body.



We are autonomous. We have no governing body. As the statement says above, any given church can decide to enter into an alliance with any SB association/convention, etc. It can never be "drafted" into one. But it could be kicked out of one.

FOR EXAMPLE, the only association my church is allied with is an association that is regional for collecting funds for domestic and international missionary work. Our church sends donations for these efforts forward to that association as a "clearinghouse" for the appropriation of funds to missionary efforts.

So I THINK we can put the whole SBC is the southern baptist churches to rest now - CAN'T WE.

Concerning your attempt to make my account null and void by quoting an enthusiastic SB at the prospect of some tremendous group hug moment. There are two explanations that if you are NOT trying to beat a dead horse that really deflects from the important issue in my account - that we were told these people wouldn't be able to have free movement while at the camp - you will see makes a whole lot of sense:

1. There WERE volunteers over there - the "hosts". He could have very well been talking about the hosts.
2. The statements made on September 5th by this man are the same things our preacher thought would happen until he was over there and told differently later in the day on September 5th. Further to that, up until we were over there and told what we were told later in the day on September 5th my mother was of the opinion that the church groups would be able to go and greet and welcome these people. My point being - if the man who made the statement in the article was interviewed early on September 5th (and the article is dated September 5th, so he could have very well been interviewed before that date!), he may well have been under the same warm and fuzzy misunderstanding that a whole lot of other people were under early on September 5th. If he didn't go over at all on September 5th, and was interviewed from his church or a separate location, he could have remained under the misunderstanding that the church members would be able to welcome the arrivals.

Concerning the freeper poster who was told that there were more than enough volunteers and that "excess were turned away".

Once again - and for the final time - NO I'M NOT CALLING THAT PERSON A LIAR! I AM saying for the third time, that what they were told was wrong. I know the following explanation may have too many numbers involved - but try to follow:

You have, say, 500 churches with cabins to be used. You set a limit of 400 volunteers who can come in to help prepare. 40 churches have an average of 10 members show up to prepare their cabins.

VOILA! I'm counting 460 churches that would not have had any members be able to go into their cabins and prepare. This example is in the extreme, because many churches might have had members come on Saturday, Sunday as well as Monday (that's where the 15,000 number comes from) - but hopefully it points out to you what was reported by HOSTS in the camp on Tuesday, that there were still church cabins that members had not been able to get into on MONDAY to even make the beds! (And please note that MONDAY is the important point in this as apparently the sheets were not passed out by whomever (FEMA/Red Cross) until later in the day on Monday. That's why the "turn away" resulted in unprepared cabins! FEMA/Red Cross whomever was not making beds or preparing cabins. They were simply leaving linens. If the churches didn't make up the beds, the new arrivals would be met with the task of having to make them up. That's part of what the volunteers on Monday were trying to avoid. Having the cabins prepared!

Concerning your request for a "non-family member's" account. That was provided when Springer phoned the preacher the next morning and confirmed that what we had been told the day before was correct.

You have done nothing but try to attack me personally. You've done nothing but twist my words and ignore facts. And you have done it in the face of me repetitively pointing out that either you were making false statements about my account/replies, or either ignoring or twisting facts. You seem hell bent on staying that course. I've got news for you. You'll be walking that path by yourself now.

The fundamental problem here, somewhere, is your attempts to sidetrack and obfuscate do not change a single thing we were told that day. It does not make "not true" a single thing I recounted. I told what was said, and I told what I saw. And you can't change that - EVER. If you want to tag me an "ALARMIST" - you go right ahead. I would hope you would be alarmed too if you were told the things we were told.

[edit on 9-13-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoubleJoy
I think the brainwashing towers seem to be working, and what is it about splitting couples up into male/female? Isn't that devisive?


They didn't say they were going to split couples up. They didn't say that to me. They had male, female, and family cabins.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

In the mayhem... many of our members didn't notice what happened... a representative of the government registered to address our concerns... think about that... keep thinking... despite your opinion of his response, we should make an effort to be more welcoming to ensure this is not the only time.


i agree 1000% this should have been a banner day for ATS. we here on this board caught the attention of the US GOV.............VALHALL in particular due to her outstanding info she provided early on.........

i'm very happy that ED came out here to talk w/us.............BTW welcome ED.......rather belatedly. i hope that we can at some point get an interview with him to discuss further.

i hope that ED and any other members of FEMA or REDCROSS would come out to speak with us about their efforts in regards to KATRINA rescue and recovery.

we basically got an inside scoop................and we didn't handle it as well as we could have.


angie



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
It would certainly be helpful if Ed returned to answer our questions. It would be even more helpful if we did get some feedback from anyone else with first hand accounts of the situation. There are still questions that need to be answered about this situation. I stand by Val and her article.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Fine, plead for his return...
but if he does come back...YOU ALL BETTER BEHAVE YOURSELVES...
and that goes for the lurkers also...

lambasting will not be tolerated... neither will the derisive use of newby nagging be permitted...

violaters will be spitballed... you wont know when or where... but it will be coming... you will feel the fear of the hunted for the rest of your life...never knowing when a big sloppy spitball will come out of nowhere and whapppp.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I didn't do it!


(Seriously)

But I DID tell him it was a bad idea to post his phone number. Now he knows why.

As usual, RANT echoed my thoughts quite well, and pretty much made my opinion redundant when he beat me to the punch. Right on!


Thanks to Zedd for editing my post that contained Ed's phone number, I was fairly sure, from the beginning, that it would eventually come to that. There are some things you just don't do on the internet, basic rules for safe surfing, and probably the most important one is: don't ever post contact information in public areas where anyone can access it.

All it takes is five or ten minutes, and your number can circulate all around the globe and back again, gracing everything from hacker BBS's to transexual swingers forums. It's universally stupid to drop drawers if you've got a bullseye painted on your buttocks, and you're smack-dab in the middle of the world's largest shooting gallery.

Let this be a lesson to all ATSers, and to Ed himself. Be smart, use common sense, protect yourself with magical +5 armor of anonymity.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Am I the only one who can see what is going on? After all of the shots taken at Ed to rebut what he says you are going to just take his word that there were death threats? It has pretty much been established that the man is a professional spook and he is going to post his phone number on a conspiracy site after admitting that he works for the government? Then you have Shuffleon who also is a new member posting about military studies on the effects of disasters on the population and disputing Ed’s information. People pull your heads out of the sand! Val’s post was getting way too much attention and was on the verge of becoming a mainstream media issue, not any more. There is a thread asking when the government will decide that ATS is a threat to national security. Want an answer? NEVER! We are too easily used by them. As soon as word gets out about the internal bickering and the supposed death threats, the credibility of this site and Val’s post has been blown all to hell. We were the victims of a government disinformation ploy and fell for it hook, line and sinker.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Am I the only one who can see what is going on? We were the victims of a government disinformation ploy and fell for it hook, line and sinker.


spook, huh?... tinfoil hats are no longer required on this thread... if we were to have a "spook" on board, giving us disinfo, then he probably wouldn't sign up under such a well known real name. We didn't hear disinfo... we heard the company line, and that is not the same thing... sometimes the company line is the truth, even if it does suck...

We are trying to establish a little modicum of interaction with officials that could provide much info, if they were to find logical mature interaction here... being called names, and drawing conspiracies where there are none, is not helpful.
I also want answers, but if we scare off every official word giver that graces our board, then we will be left in the same place we began... the dark.

PToooIEEEE...............................SPLAT!

deny ignorance, but don't kill the messenger of truth...




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join