You are hereWhy I have Decided to Discontinue All Association with Planet Preterist

Why I have Decided to Discontinue All Association with Planet Preterist

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 04 June 2007

When I first became active in the area of eschatology, I was asked to participate as a columnist at Planet Preterist. I accepted and, for a time, enjoyed the ability to post articles there at will. However, I have since come to feel that Planet Preterist is an irresponsible forum that is used to promote unbiblical doctrines, including post-Modernism, Emergent church theology, and Universalism, to name but a few. Despite its ostenisible purpose to promote Preterist interpretation of scripture, it has probably done more to injure Preterism than help it by allowing Preterism to become associated with so many unbiblical, irresponsible, and just plain "flakey" doctrines. I do not feel in good conscience that I can have my name associated with Planet Preterist as a columnist. I do not agree with what is taught or promoted here, and do not want to appear to condone it by lending it my name. This has been a difficult decision for me, but I feel it is the right one, particularly in light of the present crisis regarding Universalism. Therefore, please remove my name as a columnist.

Kurt M. Simmons

Kent's picture

Kurt,

I can't blame you. Universalism is NOT taught in the scirptures. Scriptures that are use are taken out of context. There are still things that God "hated" before and after 70ad. Proverbs 6:12-19, Mal. 2:16. These things did NOT change after 70ad.

To say that we don ‘t have to practice living for God anymore? Col. 3:17 is wrong.

To say that Ecc. 12:13 does not apply to us or the concept, is wrong.

To say that 1 Thessalonians 4:3 does not apply to us or is it now ok to be sexual immoral, is wrong.

To say that the rules or guidelines for marriage is not for us, is wrong.

To say that we can do all of the above, because of grace is misusing the freedom given.

Presense, aka The Living Presense, were asked by me if the believed in Universalism, meanding that everyone in the world since 70ad were going to be saved or go to heaven after physical death, since they believe we are in heaven now (I understand were they are coming from in their logic) a straight answer was not given. I don't know their views on the subject, if they even have one. Since they believe that marriage and other things do not apply to us after 70ad, they in my thoughts are missing the boat.

Things like this are proving my point that Preterism (all forms) have failed. It is just another doctine that came and gone over time. In the 70's and 80's, the movement was strong and unity was there and now who wants to believe in this doctrine. A hosue divided falls.

After 30 years, Preterism (all forms, FP, IP, MP, PP, HP and anyother form that has yet to come)have failed proving it points.

What every happened to the Bible (scriptures) only have one meaining?

Richard
www.preterism-eschatology.com

Richard K. McPherson

Virgil's picture

I can't blame you. Universalism is NOT taught in the scirptures. Scriptures

Richard - where on Planet Preterist is Universalism taught?

Kent's picture

Virgil,

I am talking about Presence or LP and other Preterist sites not in Planet Preterist. As you stated, Universalism is not taught in scripture. Even you agree with me on this topic.

Richard K. McPherson

Virgil's picture

Where I stand right now, I do not see it taught, however that doesn't mean I go out of my way to condemn and destroy the lives of universalists brothers. The overreaction to this is leading to hate and outright un-christian behavior from many people.

Aussie_Andrew's picture

The yahoo group "RP" Reformed Preterist are bad mouthing PP. They appear to be ex-PP members.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RPList/

Virgil's picture

Not a big surprise Andrew :) We are honored to be badmouthed for allowing different opinions to be discussed freely here. Unlike their list, here you can write about and discuss various issues without being ostracized and condemned to hell by mere humans.

tom-g's picture

Hey Virgil,

I have been wondering for some time and I know Mick is an MD, do you think he could answer for me if we human males have 12 ribs and females have 13 ribs?

It may sound like a stupid question but in my old age I have forgotten what "ology" this might be. Behind my question is whether a skeleton with 12 ribs automatically indicates a human male and a skeleton with 13 ribs indicates a female? Is this a deciding factor for the scientists when they discover what they believe to be skeletal remains that they estimate are millions of years old?

Just curious,
Tom

Virgil's picture

Tom, are you kidding me?

Men and women have the same number of bones in their bodies, specifically 24 ribs - two sets of 12. The idea that women have more bones than men is an urban legend...I assume it's based on the story of Adam and Eve.

Forensic anthropologists determine that a skeleton is male or female based on the shape and size of the pelvis and the skull. Based on other measurements they can also determine age and race.

flannery0's picture

I remember being taught that "urban legend" in Sunday School. It was presented as proof that Eve was made from Adam's rib. It is bizarre on many levels. Years later my own gullibility amazed me when I actually thought it through.

For example, Virgil, if you were in an accident, and lost some body part, and then had a son, would he be born missing that same body part?

On another note, I think the bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh picture in Genesis is beautifully descriptive of Christ's relationship to His church.

Tami

Virgil's picture

Tami - another example of theology dictating reality and science.

Could it be, like you said, that the rib story is about something higher..bigger than just a rib?

tom-g's picture

Hey guys,

You see all the garbage us old folks have. And here I've been ending any argument with my wife for over 50 years by telling her if she was unhappy I would ask God to put me back to sleep and give me back my rib. (I think I'll keep that one, she doesn't read these comments)

Thanks,
Tom

flannery0's picture

Tom, your secret is safe with us. :)

tom-g's picture

Hey Virgil,

While I've still got your attention. Why can't I log in to comment on some of the blogs?

I've tried every password on the face of the whole earth that I can think of and it still says "log in failed". So, I went to "my account" and changed my password twice, that doesn't seem to work either.

These new fangled computer thing-a-ma-jiggies are usually beyond my comprehension. Can you help me?

Thanks,
Tom

Virgil's picture

Just enter in a name Tom, you don't need a password to post comments since you don't have a blog account.

Ed's picture

Amen Virgil Amen.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

flannery0's picture

"To say that 1 Thessalonians 4:3 does not apply to us or is it now ok to be sexual immoral, is wrong.

To say that the rules or guidelines for marriage is not for us, is wrong.

To say that we can do all of the above, because of grace is misusing the freedom given."

I am just curious: who on planet preterist says these things? Or is it someone at presence.tv who says them? Could you provide the link to where these things are being said?

Thanks.

Kent's picture

Flannery0,

This is from other Preterist web sites and from talks with Steve Smith, who has now donounce Pretersim and has put us as small gods.

Richard K. McPherson

flannery0's picture

OK, thanks. Since the topic of this thread is Kurt Simmons discontinuing his association with Planet Preterist, I am just not seeing the connection.

davo's picture

Hey Tami... you don't always have to see any connections, as long as dubious assertions can keep being made sometimes that will suffice, as opposed to dealing with things "actually said".

davo

tom-g's picture

Come on Guys,

You all know what this person is saying. It is obvious that he is very emotional and feels very strongly about the points he made.

Be compassionate Christians, agree with him that the points he made are true and that anyone who would teach differently is anathema. You all know that the scripture is truth and that words have meanings that do not change yesterday, today or tomorrow.

He seems to think that universalism teaches these things. If it does not then assure him that it is not true. Be charitable to one who seems to have the wrong understanding about this theory, edification not condemnation is what he is asking for.

Regards,
Tom

Barry's picture

Richard?
Is that "one meaning" the one you had yesterday or the one you think you have today or is it the one you will have in 10 years from now?

Will you decide it or will I?

When exactly was this time when everyone saw this one meaning? Who were these people?

I did not find your post very accurate at all. You seem to be speaking from your own perspective of how you define "salvation" and "universalism".

Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

Kent's picture

Salvation is for the Jews and not for us. Today people uses this word "salvation" from Hell, which does not exist anyway.

Universalism--EVERYONE will be going to heaven after they have lived on this earth and no matter what they do on earth today grace is there to give them a one-way ticket to Heaven.

The scriptures are for us NOT to us. There is only one meaning for scriputure when put in the correct time-frame and context. There are still concepts that still applies to us today in how we are to act and live.

We are fine the meaning that what God meant at the time the words were spoken and that doesn't change over time.

Richard K. McPherson

SuperSoulFighter's picture

I just wanted to echo many of the sentiments being expressed concerning the openness of this site to a variety of views, ideas and beliefs falling within the Preterist camp (in the broadest sense and terms). I believe it's very healthy to consider openly and honestly the various potential ramifications of our eschatology, and how our somewhat controversial treatment of the Scriptures (where mainstream Churchianity is concerned) impacts the various areas of Christian doctrine as a whole. If newcomers to Preterism find some of these things unsettling, they may also find our generous consideration of conflicting and alternative views refreshing and it might even give them a whole, new perspective in certain areas.

I don't see this site promoting any one, specific doctrine or position per se. Whatever Mr. Simmons' experience has been here...I tend to shy away from any site that endorses a very restrictive, limited understanding with artificially-established, arbitrary interpretive parameters where the Scripture are concerned. If this is the kind of site Mr. Simmons prefers...I applaud his decision to move on. Godspeed, sir!

JM

Ed's picture

John,
What is astonishing is that Kurt has his own site. Why is he here anyway? Is it not to drum up traffic for his own piece of the pie?

The problem is that at a site like this, there are people who disagree with him. His intellect is challenged, questioned, not taken for granted. That's a difficult thing to bear.

There have been others on this site who left in much the same way, some in worse ways. Thankfully, some of those who left with the others returned after seeing the dark side of that particular Pope of Preterism.

People like Kurt (and others who have left in a huff) hope that a whole bunch will leave with him. Then, Virgil will have to beg him to come back. It would seem that the opposite is true. Some here are welcoming Kurt's departure (I know I am).

I think back to this last TruthVoice which was my first one. I met people with whom I disagreed, and yet we connected as brothers. That's what makes this site so good. Virgil has allowed all, as long as they behaved like Christians, and been willing to respectfully disagree. That's sets a good atmosphere for growth here. God will honor that. God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

SuperSoulFighter's picture

I think back to this last TruthVoice which was my first one. I met people with whom I disagreed, and yet we connected as brothers. That's what makes this site so good. Virgil has allowed all, as long as they behaved like Christians, and been willing to respectfully disagree. That's sets a good atmosphere for growth here. God will honor that. God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.

Amen, Ed. I agree completely. I consider Full Preterism to be, essentially, "Advanced Christianity" (in modern terms). I hope that doesn't sound immodest or arrogant, but for those who aren't ready to advance to this level of understanding just yet (with the necessary humility and maturity required to generously permit others to disagree - and yet maintain dialogue - with us), they will probably find involvement here a little uncomfortable at times (which is a good thing) and will seek the kind of edification they prefer elsewhere. So be it.

One thing this site doesn't need is grandstanding and those who love to dominate discussions and those involved in them, thereby imposing their beliefs on those people. Ego trips and good, edifying dialogue are mutually exclusive. I, for one, prefer the give-and-take present in most discussions here and the peer relationships we enjoy. It's a healthy environment for growth and learning by all of us, together.

JM

flannery0's picture

Ed,

Amen! I appreciate Planet Preterist for all the reasons you mentioned. It truly is a site which welcomes all perspectives and allows all views to be aired, debated, and challenged.

There are of course more definitively focused preterist sites which serve a purpose, albeit a very different one (I am a partner in one of those myself.) It's not about which aproach is better; again, both serve a purpose. But what should be the common thread between them all is charity and respect, *especially* toward those of different views than our own. It is after all, easy to be nice to people who agree with us. :)

See you soon,
Tami

Ed's picture

Tami,
I agree too. Your site is informational. Virgil's is propositional. Here people propose their ideas. We discuss them, sometimes vehemently. If someone doesn't want their ideas discussed, just accepted, then this isn't the place for posting their articles. That's my opinion anyway.

ed
PS. see you next month.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Good-bye Kurt,

It's been fun,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Marty's picture

"Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word."

So....This disclaimer at the end of each and every column means nothing? As a "lurker" on several preterist websites, I rather enjoy being able to read a variety of opinions and thoughts in order to keep challenged in my thinking and to remain humble in my understanding of the Word of God. Once I've decided I have arrived at complete understanding, I believe I am most at risk of becoming a fool. For who among us has not changed their mind on doctrine a time or two. Looking at your articles over time, Kurt, I see you have changed your opinion on things several times. You are condemning others for not being where you are now? Those of us who love to study the scriptures and seek out the truth are sometimes most at risk of violating the wisdom of 1Cor.13:1-7.

PS...Maybe this is the time to ask the question that has been lurking in my mind in the recent "Universalism" debate....why are christians so adamant and happy about sending people to everlasting torment? Nothing gets the hair raising rage going like a suggestion that the gospel is actually "Good News/Glad Tidings"... unconditionally. My experience has been that most people we think are going to experience the fires of everlasting condemnation of hell are already living in their own personal hell. So what was that "good news" again? :)

Virgil's picture

Marty, folks have been pointing out that disclaimer for a long time here. Some don't mind it when articles on one point of view are being posted here, but they blow up when someone posts something they disagree with. The bottom line is that they want to control the content and the dialogue on the site by making it biased or promoting one personal interpretation over another. That goes against the principles on which the site operates, which is to openly discuss any topic, no matter how controversial; that's why we have calvinists, arminianists, universalists, dispensationalists, etc participating here, because we often find the dialogue beneficial.

Regarding Universalism, I can't even remember the last time an article in support to Universalism was posted here. Most articles related to Universalism posted here in the last year have been in opposition to the system; that includes my own articles in which I outlined why Universalism is not viable because of free-will issues. Why let facts get in the way of personal grudges though? :)

Jamie's picture

I don't understand how people can claim there is a particular thing 'being taught' here when as you said..."calvinists, arminianists, universalists, dispensationalists, etc participate here, because we often find the dialogue beneficial."
Need I say more? its obvious one person can not believe all of these contradicting things at once and therefore obvious that its just an open dialogue from different perspectives. It seems a good way to reach out to everyone and learn and hopefully come closer to the truth. Especially if we all put God first in our hearts. If something is said that is wrong or against what the Bible teaches, we should not fear it, we should face it and even discuss it and hopefully it will bring everyone closer to the truth, closer to God.
But anyway,.....thats just me.

Mick's picture

This is a sad day. I, in the past, and I believe many others have found this site as one place we felt "safe" too speak what is on our hearts. I am sorry you do not find this a safe place any more

Mickey

Mickey E. Denen

davo's picture

In Kurt's last article here on PP in one of his responses to someone else's comment he declared the following:

I deny I have misunderstood or misrepresented King's views. I challenge you or anyone to prove it. I challenge King to prove it. Until you can prove it, I stand my ground. But that I have not misunderstood him is clear from the fact that the Universalist crowd has understood him the same way.

I must say that Kurt Simmons' dishonesty is disappointing, thought not to be expected for someone who champions himself as a defender of truth against the wiles of "universalism" – something he no doubt has labeled myself as. But in all honesty, Kurt has chosen rhetoric over reply and HAS NOT interacted with the various issues I have raised that are pertinent to this area of sotierology. I among a few have posted some responses to some of Kurt's points and yet while answering most others HAS NOT or perhaps in more likelihood CANNOT answer to the consistency of which a consistent prêteristic hermeneutic lends itself in regards to the "realised redemption" of the comprehensive and inclusive nature that I among others have shared for some time.

Simmons for some time now, for reasons probably more personal, has made it his business to deride and decry the likes of Max King with his endless charges of "universalism" – charges that he claims are according to Max's to-date works etc, and berates him otherwise for not having clarified further his position – CLEARLY again Simmons is relying on King's available material to bring such allegations. Simmons in claiming not to misrepresent King's views now says: "I challenge you or anyone to prove it" otherwise. In light of this I submit the following:Where does man go today when he experiences physical death? This depends on upon his state before God at the time of death. If he is a faithful citizen of the everlasting kingdom he will be resurrected to a full and complete spiritual state of existence in that eternal kingdom which was entered by spiritual birth during his fleshly sojourn. If he is found outside of that kingdom, or disinherited, he is consigned to an eternal Hell, known as the second death.

p. 179 'The Spirit Of Prophecy' 3rd printing 1990 [1971]Although I do not have Max's more recent and updated 2002 2nd edition on hand, I did read similar sentiments in it as well. For Simmons to make these spurious claims based on King's works in print is patently mischievous, dishonest and uncharitable – and blatantly false.

Whatever may be "speculated" about Max King's present views is simply that, speculation – until such time as Max "clarifies" otherwise. Either way, IF anyone can construe "universalism" out of the in print quote above then they'll give Houdini a run for his money.

None of that however excuses the shabby and dubious treatment by Simmons of Max King works – works he claims he knows; neither misunderstanding nor misrepresenting them – cough, cough!!

davo – pantelism.com –

Malachi's picture

I don't think a 17 year old quote qualifies for what King is saying or teaching today. FACT: 10/06 Presence Ministries posted David Timm "Grace for All" - a patently universalist article. He is also teaching "comprehensive grace" which clearly tends toward Universalism.

"We need to see anthropology through the lens of a transformed cosmology. Simply stated, man is changed because his world is changed. Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift of Christ he dwells in a world of righteousness and life. The issue is cosmic and corporate, not individual and limited" Tim King, Comprehensive Grace, 2002.
As the above quote suggests, and the article posted on the Presence site demonstrate, King has expanded the "corporate body view" to include all men. Your charge of dishonesty is as false.

Ed's picture

Haven't you left yet? What, are you going to stick around for a couple of more weeks hoping that we'll all see how much we will miss your wisdom? Leave already. Enough is enough.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

davo's picture

Malachi: I don't think a 17 year old quote qualifies for what King is saying or teaching today.

Yeah typical Kurt – make all the blanket accusations and charges under the sun, then believe so much in your own advertising and rhetoric to finally blunder by coming out and declaring a "challenge", only to have such proven to you otherwise, and yet you dismiss it. A really weak effort and leaving you with NO credibility. As for Max's quote being 17 years old – like I said, such was repeated in essence in the 2002 update; funny how you ignored that.

If you are going to continue to mouth off, as everybody has seen you do for some time now, you simply need to put up the quotes or shut up – simply provide "what King is saying or teaching today". It is pointless trying to divert away from your demonstrated foolishness by now quoting other contributors to the Presence site and saying "thus and so" about Max King. Like I said – you were the one big-noting yourself putting out a challenge – the challenge was dealt with. Just because you don't like being shown up, doesn't change the fact that YOU tripped up on your own bravado.

Max has said many things [in print], much of which others have drawn differing conclusions on – such has been evident here on PP; do we really need Max to sanction and divide between them? I don't think so.

PP has been a sight where folk have been free to express differing perspectives around the prêteristic hermeneutic – and what a blessing it is to be able to interact, agree to disagree, to contend many points of view etc, all part of adults in dialogue – now if taking your bat and ball and sulking off to your own comfort zone meets your need, then so be it, but you don't need to denigrate others [like Max King for one] along the way.

davo

mazuur's picture

Kurt,

The problem is you are referencing Max's current works (ie. The Cross and Parousia) and saying he is teaching Universalism. How many quotes did you use out of that book in your various articles to "prove" that Max teaches Universalism? Many, if my memory serves me correct.

Now, if you were to merely quote these "new" works from their website, such as the one you just listed, that is different. But don't take something he may say now, and then interject that back into his past work, and then use that as proof. You have misrepresented his position in that book.

Like I said before, Max may have moved to Universalism, I do not know. But his past works do not teach it, period.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

davo,

That is a good quote. I thought about posting some of Max's comments such as the one you provided, from his other work "The Cross and the Parousia", but then decided not to. I don't think I have the energy to sort through that big book looking for the statements where Max deals with charges of Universalism.

I wish they would put out a PDF of that book like they did Spirit of Prophecy. A PDF makes it real easy to search for things, like the word "Universal", which Max mentions in order to reject the connection with what he had stated.

-Rich

-Rich

davo's picture

Yeah Rich you are right about how handy a PDF of "The Cross and the Parousia" would be.

As for the "charges of Universalism" -- I wish folk who blab this stuff would please give their definition of the universalism they berate. Like I'm a universalist when it comes to "for ALL have sinned" [funny how that one doesn't get whittled down to a specific or local group]. I'm a universalist with Paul when he further says "ALL Israel shall be saved" -- it sure fits the greater context of the passage etc. And here's a thought -- I believe in the virgin birth; does that then make me a Catholic? Hang on a second, maybe I am, because Catholic means "universal" lol ;)

davo

mazuur's picture

"make me a Catholic? Hang on a second, maybe I am, because Catholic means "universal" "

LOLOL!!!!!

That was a good one.

When it comes to universalism, you know very well what every person (besides you) relates to when that word is used.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

The problem is that Kurt is not completely off base concerning Max’s teaching. He was making a case that Max has moved toward universalism and that many universalist have taken his teaching and run with it building a position that Max originally rejected. Kurt made a point that Max could easily put this question aside if he just would and I have made the same point. Virgil seems to think that is imposing upon Max to do so but I strongly disagree.

Now concerning Kurt’s supposedly slandering Max and Tim I only partially agree with Virgil. I believe Virgil overreacted to Kurt’s statement as Kurt did not use completely dogmatic language. Kurt was making a personal assessment of the consequences of universalism that many of us do here on occasion. This is part of debating and positing our positions. I don’t think Virgil’s antennas are as perceptive toward universalism issues as some of us may be. But that is a matter of opinion and I am disappointed that Kurt decided to quit instead of responding to Virgil. I thought about responding to Virgil jumping on Kurt but decided to wait and see if Kurt would defend himself but no he chose his usual course and just quit. Kurt’s problem in my estimation is he can’t handle difficult dialogue and tends to bail out when the going gets rough.

I’m sending you a message and would recommend that you read it before you respond to this.

Blessings

Norm

davo's picture

Starlight: I thought about responding to Virgil jumping on Kurt but decided to wait and see if Kurt would defend himself but no he chose his usual course and just quit. Kurt’s problem in my estimation is he can’t handle difficult dialogue and tends to bail out when the going gets rough.

Hmmm???

Starlight's picture

Davo,

On second thought, I think you are completely out of line here. I interface as much as anyone here on pp and probably should cut back because I’m over represented.

I look back on some of our discussion and counted the number of replies I have given to you, Barry and Paige. I have replied to you 7 times in this last dialogue. Previously I interfaced with you three with over 20 posts. Previous to that encounter I remember our first interface which amounted to around 10 replies to you, Barry and Ed. Also Davo most of my replies are not short ones because you constantly are restating the same mantra over and over again and I have to patiently endure your repetitious ignoring of my main point.
Which is that you apparently don’t believe in heaven and that you seem to believe today the dogs have broken into the city somehow.

Norm

davo's picture

Hey Norm... I think you're way over reacting -- I didn't have you in mind at all, as you HAVE indeed interacted as you ponited out. I was having a big hmmm moment as in "you're right again" about your reflection on Kurt's actions -- that which what you were saying in your statement I quoted.

And I will get back to that other issue you reposted too -- you sure do have some funny ideas as to what you think I believe :)

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

In the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna.

Never mind <:-)

Norm

PS. I have never been a good interpreter of hmmm.

Ed's picture

Rosanna Rosannadana said, "it's always somethin'"

Emily Latella, another character by Gilda, was the one who said "never mind."

Signed,
an old SNL fan.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

Like she said, "it's always somethin" ;-)

Signed,
a really old SNL with bad memory fan.

Ed's picture

Just remember, "don't bite your toenails."

Rosanna Rosannadanna.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Barry's picture

Hmmmm that Norm!

LOL ROFL
[just joking Norm :) ]

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Comon Barry, you know I can't handle jokes ;-)

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43