Lol. Midgley has downvoted the poster EV, who has given Colvin an update on Midgley’s shenanigans:
EV • 7 days ago • edited
Hi Gina, just wanted to give you a heads up. Louis Midgley, the guy stalking you who tried to get information about you from your husband on a recent trip, is telling people the LDS Area President and LDS stake president set it up:
“ I was more than a little surprised when we arrived at one of the four meeting houses in the Christchurch Stake that the Stake President immediately directed me to Dr. Nathan McCluskley, who is Gina Colvin's husband. We immediately became good friends. And on March 12, the Area President phoned me and wanted to know if the Stake President had been successful in this endeavor.” http://disq.us/p/29g26dl
I’m pretty sure it’s not true, but please, be aware of Midgley. He has been trashing you on Dan Peterson’s blog ever since he returned from his visit, making intrusive remarks about your personal life and saying your husband wanted to meet him.
"And, much to my surprise, his Stake President and the Area President and
also Nathan, were anxious that we meet. So much for stalking."
So, let me see if I understand you. You travel to New Zealand with your group and the Area President, Stake President and Dr. McCluskey were "anxious" as you put it that you have a meeting with Dr. McCluskey and you are wearing a name tag. So, how did the Area President, Stake President and Dr. McCluskey know you were coming to that very ward building on that day? You say you were surprised by the meeting, so, are you saying that spontaneously, the above three somehow knew you were coming and then became anxious to have you meet Dr. McCluskey, the husband of Gina Colvin? Also, why wear a name tag?
Dr. Exiled continues to make excellent points. Meanwhile, Colvin has noted her husband didn’t know who Midgley was when Midgley approached him, but, apparently because Midgley was disingenuous, assumed he was a legitimate friend of Colvin. She set him straight.
Kiwi needs to make sure he and Midgley get their stories straight, regarding Midgley’s stalking of Colvin:
Kiwi57 Dr. Exiled 13 hours ago
[dr exiled:]”Further, why even mention how many congregations there are for the community of Christ in New Zealand and if Ms. Colvin got it wrong? Who cares? Although, it was a great zinger for you and your buddies. You really got Ms. Colvin on that one.”
No it wasn't, and no he didn't.
It is mildly unusual that someone would join a church when there isn't a local congregation to meet with; unusual enough that it's worth remarking on. But it's certainly not impossible, and such things have been heard of. Mentioning it in nowise constitutes an accusation of any kind against Ms Colvin.
It would be interesting to know how she goes about meeting with her coreligionists, although in a post-Covid world, I rather suppose that online meetings remain a lot more common than formerly (i.e. three months ago.)
So kiwi feels Midgley was just expressing interest in how Colvin worshipped. He should have confirmed with Midgley before going with that lie:
Midgley:
Instead, I more than hinted that she is the only member of the Community of Christ south of Auckland. What is "creepy" about mentioning that she is likely to be the only member of that sinking ship in Christchurch?
I have exactly no interest in where or when she does her Anglican thing.
Instead, I more than hinted that she is the only member of the Community of Christ south of Auckland. What is "creepy" about mentioning that she is likely to be the only member of that sinking ship in Christchurch?
I have exactly no interest in where or when she does her Anglican thing.
Dr. Midgley should know better than to write of other people's religions disrespectfully. "Her Anglican thing?" It is called Anglican worship. Worship, Dr. Midgley. Try to remember that the next time you write of others' religious beliefs, if you are going to get up on your high horse regarding how people refer to your faith and its sacred practices.
Shades, perhaps I wasn't clear enough before. Permit me to clarify now.
Your denials merely confirm what you try to deny because you have negative credibility.
Dan doesn't. Lou doesn't. Joseph Smith didn't.
But you do.
Is that clear now?
Your negative credibility was established for all time when you committed yourself on Gina Colvin's blog (you rarely have the courage to do that, anywhere) by accusing Lou of "stalking."
An accusation only a completely shameless liar would make.
An accusation only a completely shameless liar did make.
Wow. McGregor is really going all out. Kind of silly, given that Midgley’s stalking is well established in Midgley’s own words and behavior. (Also, who posts like that? What a drama queen.)
It’s quite a rant for a guy who does this. Maybe he’s trying to rehabilitate his reputation.
Wow. McGregor is really going all out. Kind of silly, given that Midgley’s stalking is well established in Midgley’s own words and behavior. (Also, who posts like that? What a drama queen.)
It’s quite a rant for a guy who does this. Maybe he’s trying to rehabilitate his reputation.
It seems that that is the only type of reaction that Baby McGreger is capable of. I really haven't seem him add anything substantial to any conversation on SeN.
Wow. McGregor is really going all out. Kind of silly, given that Midgley’s stalking is well established in Midgley’s own words and behavior. (Also, who posts like that? What a drama queen.)
It’s quite a rant for a guy who does this. Maybe he’s trying to rehabilitate his reputation.
It seems that that is the only type of reaction that Baby McGreger is capable of. I really haven't seem him add anything substantial to any conversation on SeN.
His limited station is only as a praising Seraphim amongst the mighty Elohims........
Anyway, Lou's story about his "chance" meeting with Gina Colvin's husband obviously doesn't make any sense other than as a stalking scenario. It's probably best that the accused remain silent.
Quite a fascinating rant by the proprietor. A young black girl working at a fast food joint failed to prove a linguistically adequate interlocutor for the great world-traveling white professor. The funny thing is, the great anglophile displayed his inadequate understanding of basic logic. He admitted to be pedantic; a defender of the precise meaning of words, and loathes the decline of proper speaking. The implication is that many folks out there would, for instance, be likely to misuse "a couple" to refer to values other than two. That means, when he places the order and says "a couple", the person taking the order has no way to know if the person giving the order is one of those who understands what "a couple" means or one of those who doesn't, and so the burden of clarification rests squarely on the shoulders of the belligerent customer in this case.
Bear in mind, Dean Robbers, that Dr. Peterson has just admonished the whole world that "weaponizing" the term "white privilege" is the *real* thing that people should be protesting. Maybe "a couple" of self-reflective moments are in order?
