Jump to content

Talk:Eduardo V. Manalo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This article is biased

  • The insinuation that the INC negotiated a deal with Arroyo is a clear indication of the author(s) bias.

Source not cited

    • IP 192.55.49.97 seem to belong to Intel Corp

NetRange: 192.55.32.0 - 192.55.81.255 OrgName: Intel Corporation OrgID: NTLS Address: 2200 Mission College Blvd, P.O. Box 58119 City: Santa Clara StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95052-8119 Country: US

      • Emico, is there a reason why you are so concerned about obtaining the IP addresses of anyone who posts something not to your approval?
  • The actual paragraph in the book "The Fall of Joseph Estrada: The inside story", pages 226-227:

[QUOTE]The plotters were closely monitored by the military and police agents. Three hotels - EDSA Shangri-La, Richmonde Hotel, and Galleria Suites - were used by the opposition as war headquarters at the height of the protests. Five rooms, including the presidential suites, In Shangri-La, four rooms in Richmonde, and several rooms on the 18th and 29th floors of the Galleria Suites were booked. Lacson, Honasan, Enrile, former First Lady Loi Ejercito and JV Ejercito had a room each at the Galleria suites, which was right behind the EDSA shrine. Opposition leaders said, however, the rooms were used, not as command centers to plot against the government, but as sanctuary to the tired leaders of the protest movement.

Honasan and Lacson, according to the military agents, were on top of the tactical planning for the rallies, the aborted negotiations with government, and the siege of Malacanang.

Room 1801, the presidential suite on the 18th floor of Edsa Plaza Shangri-La was reserved on April 29 by one Meloy Trinidad, vice-president for administration of the Antonino Group of Companies with office address in T.M. Kalaw corner Jorge Bocobo, Manila. The group of Honasan, Lacson, Maceda, and Enrile checked in at 7 p.m. and left 3 a.m. the following day. Seen with them at the hotel was INC deputy Executive Director Eduardo 'Eddie Boy' Manalo, son of Minister Manalo. He was reportedly invited to sit in at the negotiations between the administration and the opposition. [/QUOTE]

  • Hmm. He was reportedly invited to sit in the negotiations between administration and opposition. Is this the reason why he is being linked to EDSA III? For all I know he was asked to help and I don't see anything wrong with that. Tilting the issue to make it appear as if he was part of the plot smacks of blatant disregard for NPOV. Ealva 16:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is undeniable that INC has played a big part in EDSA 3. 70% of the crowd were INC members and CNN reported that members were being encouraged by the INC leadership to join [1]
    • That, my friend, is called "speculation". So what if 70% of the crowd are INC members? We were there because we felt our votes have been disrespected and it was our chance to express our anger. I am not suppressing your POV, but you also have to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. You back your statements with proof, not speculation. Ealva 22:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[QUOTE]One member of the INC told CNN that followers are being encouraged to join the pro-Estrada demonstrations.[/QUOTE] This being said, I think that it smacks of pretense denying the fact that Eduardo Manalo just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Police saw him with the plotters, and the Wiki article says just that: "he figured in a rebellion plot." It did not say he plotted a rebellion. 192422212

  • Your statements happen to be good for a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Why are you so desperate to link him with the plot? For the sake of argument that he does figure in the plot, your references do not prove that he does. Your accusation of "pretense" does not do anybody good, it just proves that you cannot back your arguments with proof. Ealva 15:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to the credibility of the book and author, it was named the Manila Critics Circle's National Book Award- Journalist of the Year, as well as Book Development Association of the Philippines' Gintong Aklat Award. 192422212

  • Newspaper report, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 7, 2001, Analysis

[QUOTE]Authorities have identified the hotel rooms and suites in which Enrile, Honasan, Jamby Madrigal, Panfilo Lacson, Maceda and Eddie Manalo, the son of INC head Bishop Eraño Manalo, met during three days of the rallies. They know the hotels used, the time they met, the false names used in booking the suites.[/QUOTE] 192422212

    • And what did they talk about? For all we know, EVM might have been asked to help solve the impasse. This accusation does not merit mention in an encyclopedia. Ealva 16:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it does. It's one of the reason this encylcopaedia article even exists. It's the only singular act Eduardo Manalo has done that has significance that merits the existence of this article. I believe this article was voted on for deletion before on whether Eduardo Manalo is significant as to merit the article. This part of the article shows that he is indeed significant and played a big role for the country's second largest Christian denomination in the Philippines. Deleting this part of the article, Eduardo Manalo is just someone who used to be a HAM enthusiast, and it doesn't say anything significant. 192422212
      • I am only for you providing factual information in this article. What good is this article if it contains lies? Your arguments mean that it's ok to take out the general information and just leave the EDSA III accusation. Again, Doronilla's book and the news articles only state that he was involved in talks with the administration and opposition. Why did you come up with having him involved in the plot? I would have it that you edit the section to be more truthful than the entire section taken out. Ealva 22:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This has been retracted by the newspaper, although the retraction cannot be found on the net anymore. This is what's left out there, from Malaya on jan 6, 2005.

[QUOTE]The position of ambassador to France, which is currently being held by career officer Hector Villaroel, has been promised by the President(Arroyo) to Inquirer columnist Amando Doronila.[QUOTE] --Emico 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • There was no retraction I know of. You can post a reference if you have. So what if Amando Doronilla has been promised the position as ambassador to France? Wasn't the deal of Arroyo with Manalo was the position of Ambassador to Canada to Artemio Tuquero?

"The Fall of Joseph..." page 236 [QUOTE]The National Security Council meeting in Malacanang was held next day. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel proposed a dialogue between the government and Manalo after hearing from Mendoza that INC members made up at least 70% of the EDSA 3 crowd. Some Cabinet members opposed the idea, but the president sided with Pimentel. She sent him, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, and Justice Secretary Hernando Perez to the INC headquarters. Even before the dialogue with the INC leadership was over, Net 25 and DZEC, which had been covering the rally round-the-clock, had gone off the air without warning or explanation.[/QUOTE] The deal (page 237): [QUOTE]INC sources also said that Macapagal-Arroyo had promised to Appoint former Jusice Secretary Artemio Tuquero, a respected and ranking member of the INC, to a suitable government post. As of this writing,...Tuquero also has been nominated as ambasador to Canada.[/QUOTE]

Unauthorized

  • The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation. (this contribution by User:Emico - signature added by DJ Clayworth 00:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

Preliminary POV Edits

  • removed cult reference to INC
  • removed references to nepotism
  • AFAIK, he is not the AsCII president (that should be Efren Tercias)
  • I've never heard AsCII downplay its connection with INC (I should know, I'm an AsCII member)
  • created "Political Influence in the Philippines" (for lack of a better title) section and marked as section POV

The new section badly needs POV edits. The accusations that EVM held secret negotiations with Arroyo to avoid charges should go in the absence of proof. No proof likewise was given equating Defensor's "courtesy call" to INC's support for Arroyo in the elections. Anybody care to do these? Ealva 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I've already added two sources, from ABS-CBN News and the Philippine Inquirer about Defensor's phone call and the INC's endorsement of GMA's candidacy. I would like to hear everyone's opinions regarding those links, and if they suffice for that section.--Onlytofind 22:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Still, the "courtesy call" being associated with the decision to support her during the election is a POV. Politicians "visit" (swarm?) INC locales during elections, but do not always get the support. Ealva 03:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The Inquirer and PCIJ have been at odds with the INC, with the INC suing the former for libel, and the latter publishing an article about INC's "business interests" (which turned out to be a mistake [link to Bienvenido Santiago's response in manilatimes.net can't be found anymore]). I could hardly call those sources as "proofs". Ealva 03:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's common practice for the press to be at odds with influential organizations and people. Both PCIJ and the Inquirer have enough reputation as reputable news sources in order to be linked to and quoted. I would like to see a result as to the verdict of each case, and if any of the stories were retracted, which would show who's necessarily correct in each case and if they are truly biased or not. Also, wouldn't the INC have sued for libel already over the two stories linked to if they found it unfactual?--Onlytofind 07:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • While they both have quite a reputation, I do not believe they are impartial (afaic, wrt the INC). I also don't think you should equate the libel case against Inquirer with the PCIJ articles, since the case involves serious allegations of hiding an alleged coup leader. Ealva 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Because there isn't a dispute over a specific part of this article, only it's lack of sources, who feels the {{DisputeCheck}} template should be used instead? This template reads: "This article requires attention because it may contain inaccuracies. A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for accuracy. Currently there may not be a specific dispute, but the content may need discussion on the talk page. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)

  • Done. The tag fits the article's status better. Ealva 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And the absolute authority for it's accuracy is the subject of the article. --Emico 14:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not necessarily true. Do you think if Richard Nixon had authority over the Watergate article that it would be NPOV?--Onlytofind 03:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Defamation

Onlytofind, unless you can provide sources for your 'rebellion' allegation, do not use wikipedia to defame another person. --Emico 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Emico's edit here, the site referring the book isn't a good enough resource. I agree. I don't even see reference to the INC in that webpage. In order to really warrant the refrence being here, I'd like to see the actual location of where the allegation of Manalo's involvment in the book The Fall of Joseph Estrada (ISBN 9712711544). If we find the actual paragraph and page number, then we have a more clearer look at whether or not the author alleged it. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Emico, I have not made repeat reversions of the article as you wrote at the WP:RFAr. I have only made one edit to emphisize the statment from The Fall of Joseph Estrada is an allegation and should not be considered as fact. If you look at the article's history -- other than minor edits which do not effect content -- the latest edits have been between you and Onlytofind. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 05:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can provide the pages in the book. I will go through the book today. The article in the inquirer giving reference to the rebellion link is now dis-archived but I can provide the date. I will edit as needed. 192422212 - DONE

As to the credibility of the book, it was named the Manila Critics Circle's National Book Award- Journalist of the Year, as well as Book Development Association of the Philippines' Gintong Aklat Award. 192422212

      • Emico, stop your baseless allegations. I was not the one who wrote that Eduardo Manalo figured in EDSA II as you can obviously see. Just as anti-INC bias is not tolerated here, neither is your pro-INC bias, and lack of objectivity between both sides. I already have evidence that most of your edits are borderline vandalism, and being so, I will revert them when necessary.--Onlytofind 20:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Who died? --Emico 21:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I dunno. You tell me.--Onlytofind 04:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of GMA support POV

The allegations that the courtesy call of GMA to EVM resulted in the INC's support is a POV violation. I have removed it. Ealva 21:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Political Influence Removal

I suggest that the political influence section should be removed:

  • aside from issues stemming from INC's unity doctrine (which in turn results in criticisms about block-voting), I have never heard of EVM himself engaging in politics. No press statements, radio or TV interviews, no nothing. I'm quite surprised how he got into the political picture at all.
  • Jaime Cardinal Sin became openly involved in Philippine politics, is an outspoken critic of Marcos and Estrada (among a few), and is a major figure in EDSA I and EDSA II, yet he was even hailed as a hero. EVM did nothing of those sort, yet this section implies as if his influence is that significant as putting an obviously biased statement. Ealva 05:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I totally removed the section. The quote on Doronilla's book has been tilted to make it appear as if EVM is part of the EDSA III plot. Ealva 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico's edit shows POV

He has claimed that the author was "biased against the INC," but has no proof to back it up, and relies on a quote with absolutely no source (could he have made it up himself?) He has included the personal statement While I have the utmost respect for Doronila’s opinions and writing style, I am afraid that in this particular case, his analysis is biased in favor of his personal interests. And EDSA II happened five years ago- why would Doronilla be writing about it five years later? That's stacking the facts and using personal opinion. Those are obvious violations of Wikipedia rules, and shows the intention of Emico to tilt this article towards personal opinion.--Onlytofind 20:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Clarification for everybody: The dispute is whether EVM is involved in the EDSA III (not EDSA II) plot. I think whoever vandalized the politics section is desperately trying to link EVM with EDSA III by misquoting Doronilla.
Ealva 04:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think the politics section was vandalized. I merely provided a source, as the original article already has this. [2]

192.55.40.96 23:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The original article has been vandalized from the start, and your providing a "source" (which really isn't) only vandalized it more. I am very inclined to delete the section as it stands now, but you and 192422212 (whoever that is) can do this community a favor by making it NPOV before others delete it. Ealva 05:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Vandalize means defacing an original. An original cannot be vandalized to begin with. 192.55.40.96 08:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You still have a chance to make it NPOV before others delete it. Ealva 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Since no other journalist, local or foreign collaborated Doronilla's claim, we need to explore his motivation for making such claim for the sake of NPOV. --Emico 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • If you can find an insider account that refutes the claim, then post it for us to review.192.55.40.96 06:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do allegations belong in an encyclopedia?

"Manalo allegedly figured". Does an unproven allegation belong in an encyclopedia? In a forum, certainly, but NOT in an encyclopedia. The other mistake: "local newspaper reports (Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 7, 2001),". I don't know if anyone noticed, but "reports" is plural and the source quoted is singular. But either way, did the book quote its source? No. Making allegations without the requisite proof is simply wrong, and those allegations certainly don't belong here. One last note: "One member of the INC told CNN that followers are being encouraged to join the pro-Estrada demonstrations." That, people, is called hearsay. If what one unnamed, unidentified person says is to be taken as fact in an encyclopedia, there's a real problem! PROVABLE FACTS, NOT ALLEGATIONS AND HEARSAY, people!--gcessor 12:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does a large portion of this article consist of statements about people who are not the subject of this article? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
Uhuh, somebody desperately wants to link EVM with EDSA III, but can't prove it. Saying EVM "allegedly figured" as an escape goat. I'd really want to delete the whole section, but coming from me, it might sound POV. Ealva 20:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is there any written evidence supporting the allegations. Because if there isn't, that becomes a rumor, something which can undeniably be removed from Wikipedia. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Just a statement from Doronilla's book that EVM was reportedly invited to sit in the negotiations between administration and opposition during EDSA III. See discussion above. Ealva 19:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antonio Abaya's Article on the Opinion Page of Manila Standard

Antonio Abaya's article wasn't referring to Amando Doronilla's book, rather, it was regarding an article written in the Inquirer on May 9, 2005. As such, it has no bearing in this article about Eduardo Manalo. I am deleting this reference.

Antonio Abaya's column speaks about Doronila's article written in the Inquirer on May 9, 2005 (GMA ouster calls echo nostalgia for strongman): My esteemed colleague and friend Amando Doronila, in a think piece in the May 9 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer titled “GMA ouster calls echo nostalgia for strongman,” analyzed recent political developments.

When Abaya has said: While I have the utmost respect for Doronila’s opinions and writing style, I am afraid that in this particular case, his analysis is biased in favor of his personal interests, he was referring to Doronila's article about those calling for Arroyo's ouster as being nostalgic for Ferdinand Marcos, to which Abaya disagrees.

Doronila's article being referred to by Antonio Abaya has nothing to do with the book he wrote containing the reference to Eduardo Manalo. He was referring on to a "particular case," specifically, the May 9, 2005 article.

Proof Needed

To those editing the Political Influence section, please provide proof for the following:

  • that Eduardo Manalo was involved in the EDSA III plot (no, Doronilla's book never mentioned it, and allegation is NOT appropriate in an encyclopedia, especially if THE ALLEGATION ITSELF IS DUBIOUS)
  • that a circular has been passed ordering INC members to go to EDSA III, and what is Eduardo's involvement with it (since this is the article about EVM, and no, the CNN article NEVER mentioned a circular)

All editors here are more than happy to accomodate your edits, provided you follow Wikipedia's NPOV policies. And please, sign your posts. If you're smart enough to provide proofs, you should be smart enough to create an account. Ealva 29 June 2005 02:32 (UTC)

    • Asiaweek is the source. I won't argue with you about the circular. However, I think that most would agree that Asiaweek is a much more credible source than a faceless Wiki contributor.
  • I agree that your source is more credible, but you also forget the fact that the article is about Eduardo Manalo. The "circular" does not belong to this article, you can try adding it to the INC article and argue it there. Faceless as I am, at least I have the guts to create an account and sign my posts. Ealva 1 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
  • The thesis the circular, or encouragement, or whatever it actually was that made the the composition of the crowd and those actually arrested tells the true story of what Eduardo Manalo's actual role was. With out the account on the "circular," we can only speculate why the crowd was composed of 70% INC. BTW, thank you for signing your posts. For now I do have an account, but for now, I won't log in so you'll know that I am the same person who did the previous edits. I believe that my IP is static enough so as to be the same as if I have actually logged in. This will be my last post in this mode. Thanks.
  • I'm confused, but how does this link Eduardo with the plot? And I think one source who claims he is INC does not mean he is, and the circular does not mention it was done by Eduardo. I agree that allegations do not belong in an encyclopedia.
    • Correct. That is why the article contains the updated sources. There is no reason to doubt the person if he says he is INC. Asiaweek is a credible weekly mag, and there is no reson to doubt it either. Unless there is some other credible source that speaks otherwise, I guess there is no reason to complain. The wiki article never claims the circular is made by Eduardo either.

Is there any way we can shorten the excerpt from the Doronila book? Besides it being long, it can be considered copyvio. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 10:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's my suggestion:

According to Amando Doronila's The Fall of Joseph Estrada: The Inside Story, (ISBN 9712711544; pages 226-227) – as well as local newspaper reports (Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 7, 2001), Manalo was seen in meetings with the opposition on the height of the EDSA III mass gatherings:

The group of Honasan, Lacson, Maceda, and Enrile checked in at 7 p.m. and left 3 a.m. the following day. Seen with them at the hotel was INC deputy Executive Director Eduardo 'Eddie Boy' Manalo, son of Minister Manalo. He was reportedly invited to sit in at the negotiations between the administration and the opposition.192.55.40.96 01:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll see how it plays that way, since it's better than a long, borderline-copyvio. Appearently, the allegation is coming from reputable sources, nor does it state anything that is dubious, such as his role in EDSA III. For all I know, the PDI isn't a tabloid, so it's valid as far as WP is concerned. As far as what he actually did at that hotel is still up for speculation. About the part which says "He was reportedly invited to sit in at the negotiations..."; Who actually reported it? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your edits, it's much more NPOV than Ironbrew's and Ipso-Facto's.
      • This is actually my suggestion, to which you disagreed with this statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEduardo_V._Manalo&diff=19055203&oldid=18717446 By the way, I am IpsoFacto.192.55.40.96 01:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

      • You missed the part that says no credible evidence exists that he is involved in the plot, that makes it different from LBMixPro's edit.
  • This is still purely baseless allegation desperately meant to link Eduardo with the plot. I think an encyclopedia should, in no uncertain terms, provide facts. If this still goes on, I am posting this article for arbitration.
    • Please specify which item you think is "purely baseless allegation." I think the article fairly recounts whatever the resource links say. What the article mentions are facts, not allegations.Ipso-Facto 09:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And I shall repeat what has been said above: All the sources are from respected journalists and news sources; unless there is some other credible source that speaks otherwise, there is no reason to doubt what has been recounted; what we would consider as allegations here are those that tell a different story without the benefit of any credible source or reference. So, for all practical purposes, I can confidently say that the article is made up of nothing but facts, and that it is worthy of being an encyclopedia entry.Ipso-Facto 09:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Read this section: It's staring at you in the face. I won't stop reverting your edits unless you stop your baseless accusations. At the very least, make your edits conform to NPOV.
To the anonymous user posting this, your bias towards the INC seems to be quite evident. Your edits are mainly personal opinion, while Ipso-Facto's is backed up by legitimate sources.--Ironbrew 04:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
And what do you call yours and Ipso-Facto's? "Unbiased"? I'm only asking that this article be taken to NPOV, no more, no less.
Removing legitimate sources that do not agree with your personal viewpoint is not NPOV according to the Wikipedia definition. Please also sign in with a username, checking the history of this article, your edits seem familiar.--Ironbrew 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You are the one violating the NPOV rule who has an axe to grind against the INC. --Starbucks 66.141.123.151 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice nickname, 66.141.123.151. We can argue this into the ground, but it would be better to let someone more neutral (not affiliated with the INC) decide who's right and who's not.--Ironbrew 22:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless somebody can dispute the credibility of the source, this item remains. Or else, there is no point for an article about Eduardo Manalo at all. But the fact remains, he is the No. 2 man in the INC, and one of the highlights of his life is his involvement in the May 1, 2000 rebellion plot.
  • Unless you can prove your allegations (no, your so-called source does not prove anything), I will keep reverting it. Besides, these do not really belong in an encyclopedia.
  • At least I have the references. You don't even have anything. I will revert to the most comprehensive version.
  • Your references do not prove anything.

NPOV Violation

  • Why is EDSA III ever mentioned at all, only to point out that there is no credible evidence that EVM is involved in the plot?
  • Why is the so-called "proof" of the circular ever mentioned at all, not even proving that EVM made the circular?

Unless these items are resolved, this article is in violation of NPOV rules. Ealva 23:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Starbucks is probably Emico again.

For those of you that haven't heard, Emico has been banned from editing any INC-related article until next September, after he has been proven to use sockpuppet accounts to circumvent Wikipedia rules, with the names AypeeESME (IP is me?) and BrewCoffee (a parody of my name as well as Coffeemaker's). I have reported it to Theo Clarke, a Wikipedia sysop and await his decision.--Ironbrew 08:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I am the original Starbucks, and I am not Emico. You have to accept that, Onlytofind.
    • Whatever happened to Ironbrew. I just found out he spilled his guts on the berean site, see here -> http://thebereans.net/forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg138750#msg138750. onwards and upwards! ~peets coffee
      • Your, I mean 'our', brethren Bryan, Glenn and RS have complimented my courage and honesty in this matter. If you read my post thoroughly, it's "brethren" like you that led me to actions like this. I'm sure your intentions are good, but you don't realize that you are hurting the INC and the fellowship when you do such acts, especially against your fellow members. Now that you found out I'm your fellow member in the INC, why are you doing this?
        • I thought you were Emico, but since I have buried the hatchet with him and will take his word, then I extend my apologies to you for any past hostilities. I'm not interested in getting anyone "banned" or fighting anyone anymore. I hope God gives you the same courage and enlightenment to do the right thing, whomever you might be.--Ironbrew 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
File:UserCoffeemaker.png
Explain this!

I wish Starbucks, or whoever posted as 213.55.89.8 would bury hatchet with me, instead of going under these anon names, suggesting me to leave these articles. If 213.55.89.8 really was Emico, I'd very dissapointed. I was anticipating to give him a resilience barnstar, but if he's gonna act like this. No. That's just not cool. I have always respected INC, and I hold some of their beliefs to my heart. But it's that kind of act 213.55.89.8 had displayed gives INC a bad name. That's why Wikipedians are saying INC doesn't look like a attractive organization. Becuase they deal with that holier-than-thou attitude, which screams as loud as a CWS service. It's this kind of act that makes me not want to return to INC. Of course there are some great people who are part of INC, no doubt. You guys are so worried about doctorines and beliefs, but in truth, it's that self-centered attitude which made me leave. Why would I want to join a church who seems to persecute like that? Of course INC is expected to be percecuted. It's a doctorine. A doctorine I signed as an inductee stating I understood it. But in my opinion, it doesn't give anybody an excuse to persecute in the name of the Church. If the INC will be evangelically succsesful, some of its members must drop their holier-than-thou and you-don't-follow-us-exactly-or-we'll-hate-you attitudes, so they would not make INC look like some kind of clique where only the ones who they feel are worthy. PS. Thank you so much Ironbrew for pointing out Starbucks. I didn't have this article on my watchlist, and I still stood blind to what really was going on. As for now, I got other things to do around the site. I have serious articles to help reformat, so I'll steer clear of these articles for a while. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 13:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Whenever you try to extricate yourself from the hole dug, the more you bury yourself. Let me respond line by line. Let me ask you: will you serve God because it's your duty? or just because all the wikipedians you know do it and you want to conform? This question has two implied meanings. 1. Serve God because it's the purpose of man. 2. Do it becuase it is a duty, regardless what people around you think. You said "You guys are so worried about doctorines". Again, showing you lack of knowledge of the subject matter. This is really pretty basic, and if you don't get it you really should stay away. Doctrines are the basis for the faith. You listen to the doctrines, you believe and have faith. I hope you understand the importance now. I was'nt persucuting you, rather pointing out your ignorance of the doctrines of the INC. You're entitled to your opinion. The INC is now in 82 countries, so it's hardly a clique. And one more thing Ironbrew, you don't join the INC because you want be INC. You join because you believe its the only true church. This is why the apostles and their followers were the only Christians in their time.
Tell me, Starbucks, how long have you been a member of the INC? I've been a member for over 20 years and to be frank, it was the attitude that our church held towards other religions and people of other faiths that led me to question it. And how could our administration be infallible if they support such "leaders" (I use the term loosely) like Estrada, Marcos and Arroyo? As I was born into the INC, I never really made the decision whether I wanted to join the INC or not. And as of now, I do not believe it is the only way to salvation as I believed in the past. I could explain further, but everything I could say is in the post linked to above by Starbucks.--Ironbrew 21:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
"I do not believe it is the only way to salvation". 'nuff said. You are not an INC. Don't you have any shame at all? Just curious. Which are the other way to salvation? careful now, your answer will reveal who you truly are. you're an amateur.
If I wasn't a member of the INC as you claimed I was, how come even Glenn and Bryan acknowledged the fact that I am a member based on my post? And would you like to share with us how long you have been a member of the INC? After all, you did say that the age of baptism is twelve when my sister was baptized (not offered, baptized) at age ten. Your activity here is neither courageous nor Christian.--Ironbrew 06:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
How? Simple. You're a good liar. I've been a member since birth. I answered your question, now answer mine. Which are the other way to salvation? ~lg
You cannot deny the evidence so you resort to personal attacks because you want to deny the fact that there are a sizeable number of members in the INC who have doubts about its practices and doctrines. Why do you think there are always detailed analyses of each week's lesson at 70213? I've been a member since birth too, but that's not telling me how long. Also, you're not interested in knowing why I believe what I do, but using my statements against me as you did in the past. Let me be frank with you, you are embarassing the INC and your brethren with your obnoxious posts and only giving critics more ammunition to use against the Church.--Ironbrew 00:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Stating a fact is not personal attack. And nothing you say is believable anyway. So you are cultic research, even more proves you are not INC. I'm almost 100% you are "INC Insider" too. I'm getting close to knowing who you really are. Back to my question, when you said "I do not believe it is the only way to salvation", which are the other way to salvation? I'm not going to leave this question until you answer it. 203.172.215.210 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfounded accusations never become fact just because you want them to be. You misquoted my words to use against me in the past, and it seems you are thinking about doing it again. Emico, your writing style is distinctive and everyone here believes it's you. I'm not angry, but you need to consider how you are representing yourself and representing the Church here. Would a minister conduct himself in a matter like this if he was online? Listen, you've made quite a few people at Wikipedia angry and it's not hard to see the INC articles being locked in the future. Wikipedia isn't going to go away and neither will these articles. The best thing all of us can do is contribute in a positive manner to allow people to understand the INC better..--Ironbrew 06:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
You being a liar is a fact. Look back at your denial of being a sockpuppet. I ask you again, when you said "I do not believe it is the only way to salvation", which are the other way to salvation? I'm not going to leave this question until you answer it. For the nth time, I am not emico, nor do I care what you think. You and lbmixpro where the ones touting that writing style is not a proof of being a sockpuppet. Don't dare talk about what is right or wrong as you don't have any moral credibility. You brought down all your supporters with you when you spilled your guts. Now answer the question. YOu are not INC, so stop lying.
Emico, nobody believes you and they're mad at you to boot because the evidence is plain to see. It's there in your writing style, it's there in your anger, unreasonability and crass insults. You have denied the use of the over six sockpuppet accounts that you have been proven to use, and have the gall to call me a liar? Remember Starbucks? And how about that unconvincing IMNOTEMICO phase you went through? And now for your most recent adventure, you took the name ILoveWWF and proceeded to make dirty remarks about LBMixPro's positive contributions, which you had no right to do. Your conduct has no place within Christianity, and although I have my disagreements with the INC, you do not deserve to be reinstated as a member until you mend your ways.
As for your comments about my past, I made my mistakes and I'm glad I had a chance to atone for them. I am also grateful for the kind words and support from Glenn, Bryan, RS and Leon. Their input meant a lot to me and thanks to them, I rediscovered the love in the fellowship. I learned a lot from my experiences here at Wikipedia, and at this moment, I've felt that I've accomplished everything I wanted to and thensome. I came back only to help settle the editing dispute and to talk to you about the Wikistress you've been causing LBMixPro. You seem to be in the same place where I was regarding anger and sockpuppets and I'd like to help you, but it seems whatever I say, you won't listen, so I'll end with this- I wish you the best and that God will bless and enlighten you. PS: I already answered your question shortly after we first met. I don't know why you're so adamant on me answering that again unless you want to use it against me which judging from your tone, seems highly plausible.--Ironbrew 10:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
You're a frequent poster on 70213 and the berean site, so you know similar writing style does not mean same person. So stop making as somebody else and answer the question. When you said "I do not believe the INC is the only way to salvation", which are the other way to salvation? Being anonymous, anyone can claim to be INC. But pronouncement like this reveal the fakes. It's obvious now you're not going to answer this. I'm now just waiting for you to spill your guts again and admit you are not an INC. Until you stop lying I will not stop asking the question. Anything you post is considered a lie.
Emico, the more I try to help you work towards legitimizing your conduct is the more you embarrass yourself. Now, you just admitted that you wanted to entrap me. Shame. Your reckless and unapologetic arrogance makes it hard for me (or anyone else) to take anything you say seriously. Your denials aren't that original either- they sound like what I used to say :) --Ironbrew 05:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eduardo_V._Manalo/Archive_1&oldid=789373512"