Pooh’s Think

… with comments

Bringing an Ugly Ship to Shore

A writer for Still Fed Up responds to Fisher’s new story in a way that illustrates my original concern:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ministry Watchman is no more. They are not a watchman of anything. They are now merely an extension of the Epstein household. They have staked their whole reputation on two excommunicants known (and now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt) for lying and deception. They believed that Doug Phillips counseled Ligonier Ministries in their lawsuit against Frank Vance, which was proven to be an outright lie by the VFM board (Read the VFM board statement). Since they had worked tirelessly to bring down Ligonier they thought they could bring down Phillips too! They have risked everything over a couple that spent more than a decade fighting like cats and dogs over the wife’s adultery. Even now they could save face, by recognizing that they have a tiger by the tail. I want to believe they were simply duped, but at this point they have the facts and appear committed to linking their integrity with the Epstein’s.

If the Watchman had dealt with this story in a truth seeking and judicial fashion, we could have landed this ugly ship to shore one way or the other while maintaining integrity and the ability to “watch” other issues and personalities. But they have proven that this was not their intention now that I have raised my objection. They had a job to do and this was war. A man needed to be assassinated, and they were going to use any weapons available to get the job done – including the weapon of rolling on those who they were using just weeks before. I fear for what they might do with the Epsteins once they move on to the other evidence and testimony they have on Phillips. Given the level of vicious attack on those concerned about the appropriateness of this story, however, I think that yesterday we went past the possibility of “saving face” on this story. What I’m now curious to see is how far they are willing to erode their original Ligonier story. Unfortunately, we have fresh evidence here about the motives and methods of Ministry Watchman that do cast some interesting light on some of those question marks still lingering over Frank Vance’s pursuit of Ligonier Ministries.


December 8, 2006 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Whoever is behind this blog: Thank you. I hope more people find it. I think poor Mr. Metzler has just lost his mind and it attempting to find his way back into the good graces of SOMEBODY! I was one who was very uncomfortable with MW’s cozy relationship with Metzler.

    Whether he is right or wrong about Wilson, his one man crusade has blurred his senses. People cannot understand why he does not move on. Or move away.

    Today on his blog he posts a letter written to him but he does not tell us who wrote it. Are we to believe that he, himself, did not write it? He claims his integrity and honesty but keeps any form of criticism and debate closed without comments. Yet, we are regaled with his own reasoning of why we should always believe him. He is fair and just while everyone else who happen to disagree are not.

    He also tells us that he posts what people send him if they ask him to and that justifies his not allowing comments. But think of this for a moment. He can post what someone sends him and then using his newly aquired ‘academic speak’ analyze it to death using circular logic that does not communicate but obfuscates. He is the master of authoring confusion bringing in nuances and literally ends up arguing his own points!

    Just like he did after posing as Steve and Stacy on Wilson’s blog. He is so irritated that he cannot defend himself on Wilson’s blog, yet, he himself does not allow the same on his blog. How is that for fair and just? He is the one who sounds like Hillary.

    He demands evidence and justice from others when he skates over it all the time on his own site. His post on the Montana Cave theory was unworthy of his own much touted newly aquired academic skills.

    Now he has linked himself with a very childish and hateful blog called Fed Up. The vulgar language and childish writing should offend Metzler since he is such a champion of lofty writing using his newly aquired ten dollar words.

    Perhaps he can teach them some big words.

    Comment by Anonymous for a reason | December 10, 2006 | Reply

  2. Anonymous for a reason,

    You go girl.

    Comment by DJ | December 11, 2006 | Reply

  3. Anonymous for a reason:

    Yes, indeed, you are most certainly anonymous for a reason: Chief of Watchman Cult’s shills employing every possible piece of rhetoric in order to malign me now that I have dared challenge the Watchman Cult. Punish Pooh!

    In case you haven’t noticed, I didn’t get criticism like this on the internet until Watchman made me the next object of assassination. And Behold, it comes from Watchman shills! Isn’t that somethin’?

    “I was one who was very uncomfortable with MW’s cozy relationship with Metzler”

    Sure. That’s believable.

    If you want to comment about me without having me analyze it to death then I am afraid you will have to comment somewhere I am not allowed, such as Wilson’s site. After all, I’ll analyze your comments about me, particularly if they are dishonest and irrational, whether in a thread or in a post. There is no difference, as I imagine you know—take this thread for instance! But I’m glad you don’t have any better criticism for me.

    However, I would rather analyze for the defense of others and not myself, as I did for Frank Vance. Unfortunately, I just have to defend myself in order to keep defending others! This time, strangely, Doug Phillips and his wife Beall.

    Your nature of your motives here are very clear Anoymous For A Reason; these are evidenced in the singular incoherent claim about Steve and Stacey, since you would know perfectly well that I posted under Steve and Stacey, knowing that Wilson knew it was me, in order to defend Frank Vance, the work he did, and speak judicially to the madness of Ligonier’s actions. So what was it about my “posing” on Wilson’s blog that you don’t like?

    I doubt you even believe what you are saying here, but just for the record for any honest person who might be reading this who is not familiar with the Wood: Anyone can make a primary post right to the Wood by sending me an email. You can even give me a call on my cell phone to make sure I get your email and understand it: 509-330-1503. And contra the Watchman’s libelous and unfounded claim, I do not refuse criticism in this way; and you will not be able to find somebody I have refused in this way (yet ironically, I already have had one short and charitably put question rejected by the Watchman and the Watchman refused to allow a cordial comment through by an otherwise agreeable supporter simply because it had a link to my criticism). There is no way in the world I can moderate comments right now, given my time constraints. The last post I allowed to the Wood had almost 80 comments, and I had Wilson supporters pretty much admitting that they were sabotaging my site (I didn’t have a Word Press with moderation back then). And almost nobody in the ‘opposition’ would follow my classroom like blog rules. I have given lengthy explanations for why I don’t have comments right now, so that is all I will say here for the record. Please go to http://www.poohsthink.com for the real thing.

    Michael Metzler

    Comment by Michael Metzler | December 11, 2006 | Reply

  4. Michael writes: “In case you haven’t noticed, I didn’t get criticism like this on the internet until Watchman made me the next object of assassination>>

    Where was any criticism of your blog articles to be posted? Your site does not take comments and I just found this site. You have shielded yourself from criticism very well….until this site… which I hope others find.

    BTW: Uh, I don’t think you were ‘helping’ FV by posing as someone else to defend him on Wilson’s blog. As a matter of fact, when your deceit was publicized, I think it probably hurt him to be associated with you.

    Comment by anonymous for a reason | December 12, 2006 | Reply

  5. Anonymous for a reason,

    You/you all are a funny person/people. I’ve been noticing the incoherence in your attempt at looking like you have an argument since you hopped on here. I am no doubt sure that you were hoping this site would be used as some kind of Metzler bashing place now that I threw out MW’s case. Apparently, that is not going to happen even after MW shills gave it a good shot.

    I doubt you believe your claim here that one must have comments on their own blog to receive criticism on the world wide web! Sure, intelligent readers are going to buy that! And it is ironic how you continue to gloss over the fact that I continue to ask my critics to send in posts to the Wood, which they at times do; go for it anonymous for a reason. Send us your thoughts! Frankly, I think there is often something a bit wrong with comment sections where anonymous people can hang out; it is like folks who need a dark, back alley in order to feel comfortable gossiping and bitching.

    Your attempt to claim that I was “deceitful” to post under Steve and Stacey is likewise clearly disingenuous, as I’ve already pointed out. You keep saying this, but fail to explain why it is deceitful to use an alias for an obvious reason, make it clear to the blog owner that its you, and never refuse a straight-up answer to the question of your identity (while playing along with the blog owner’s game who you knew was attempting a staged set up—I’ve got that in writing by the way; three weeks before Wilson pulled his stunt I had already predicted it). Coming from “Mr. Anonymous” who’s intentions are highly dubious, this is a strange suggestion. Given the fact that my presence on Wilson’s blog while Steve and Stacey was highly judicious and in many ways charitable to the blog owner, this makes your allegation here even more suspect. But perhaps you would like to respond to my 10 posts addressing your allegation before commenting further on this.

    This does not strike me as reasoning from an honest man/women/people. Could you please tell us who you are Mr. Anonymous? What is your reason for not letting us know who you even are? I’m inclined to start refusing answers to people who will not even give their real name…….

    Michael Metzler

    Comment by Michael Metzler | December 14, 2006 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: