AssemblyBoard
January 16, 2019, 08:22:52 pm *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: New Info on David Geftakys  (Read 31687 times)
M2
Guest
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2005, 02:09:54 am »

In the spirit of being helful, may I suggest this for Tom?

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/alumeyes.jpg

the skeptic's skeptic

Funny!! Grin

Is that hellful or helpful??

What I want to know is if the Philippines even exists?

Marcia
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2005, 02:32:19 am »

Skeptic,


Unless you know more than the rest of us, this is nothing more than slander.
 Thomas Maddux

Is this really even possible in David G's case though?  I wonder... Smiley
Verne
« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 02:34:26 am by VerneCarty » Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2005, 03:07:27 am »

The concern for slander was against the girl, not David, Verne.

How this got started is that skeptic said:
"Certainly some of the other men she is entertaining are better suited to her goals!"

This came across like she is some slut with multiple boyfriends.  This, I believe, is what Tom objected to.

Instead of Skeptic clarifing his statements (that he meant multiple contacts on the board, not multiple intimate relationships), he just started insulting Tom.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 03:10:14 am by Dave Sable » Logged
skeptic
Guest
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2005, 03:42:59 am »

The concern for slander was against the girl, not David, Verne.

How this got started is that skeptic said:
"Certainly some of the other men she is entertaining are better suited to her goals!"

This came across like she is some slut with multiple boyfriends.  This, I believe, is what Tom objected to.

Instead of Skeptic clarifing his statements (that he meant multiple contacts on the board, not multiple intimate relationships), he just started insulting Tom.

Dave, wear a beanie!  It helps, and it helps a lot.


If you took the time to look at the website that David Edward Geftakys posted on, and followed some of their links, you would discover that Filipinas voluntarily put their bios and pictures on the web, for the purpose of obtaining a husband. 

Using the beanie, in order to clear the mind from Psychotronic influence, it becomes apparent that these women have the option of meeting, corresponding with...or not, with any men that may show interest in their profiles on the web.  It could be that several men have varying degrees of interest in one or more women, simultaneously.

That's not slander, my good man.  That's just the bleeding obvious.  No suggestion of sluttiness was ever intended, or made.

You also said this:  Instead of Skeptic clarifing his statements (that he meant multiple contacts on the board, not multiple intimate relationships), he just started insulting Tom.


Again, I understand that you are unprotected, and are under the influence of PMC, so I excuse your comment.  However, if for no other reason than to further impress upon you the need for a properly constructed Aluminium Foil Deflector Beanie, AFDB, ....

The Moderator should have said,  "skeptic, can you clarify what you mean by this?  Do you mean that she has mulitple contacts through the Internet, or that she is a slut?

It is not encumbent on me to sort out who is and who isn't under the influence of PMC and the rudeness that is one of it's chief symptoms.   

Had you been wearing a beanie, you would have noticed the even keeled, reasonable nature of my post.  You would not have seen the word "slut," nor would you have read the hidden phrase "multiple boyfriends," in my post.  Again, the reason you did is due to PMC.  Wear the beanie lad,  wear the beanie.

Tom insulted me by popping off with the slander comment when it was totally unwarranted.  That's all.

Wear the beanie!

the skeptic's skeptic



Editor's note:  skeptic typed: Certainly some of the other men she is entertaining are better suited to her goals!"" 
It must be understood that to a person who is unshielded from Psychotronic Mind Control, the phrase actually looks like this:

Certainly <this slut is entertaining multiple boyfriends>some of the other men she is entertaining <having kinky long-distant phone sex with> are better suited to her goals."

this whole board is rife with PMC and PHTML code.  (Psychotronic Hypertext Markup Language)  If you don't wear a beanie, you can't help but be influenced like dear Dave and Tom.....It's not their fault, to them it really said all that.


« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 03:57:01 am by Brent T » Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2005, 07:12:52 am »

The concern for slander was against the girl, not David, Verne.

How this got started is that skeptic said:
"Certainly some of the other men she is entertaining are better suited to her goals!"

This came across like she is some slut with multiple boyfriends.  This, I believe, is what Tom objected to.

Instead of Skeptic clarifing his statements (that he meant multiple contacts on the board, not multiple intimate relationships), he just started insulting Tom.

Tom and Dave,  I suspect that you are first borns.  The ability to pick on one possible problem with a post, and miss the message of the post.  I know people like that who pride themselves for their editorial skills.  Bugs me to bits, though I am a first born myself.  Maybe, you are indeed suffering from information overload.  KISS.

Marcia
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2005, 07:31:58 am »

The concern for slander was against the girl, not David, Verne.

Got it
I did not at all consider the observation made to be uncharitable though. Blunt, yes, but hardly slanderous in view of the apparent facts...
Verne

ps Of coursed if she indeed received a visit from David, to say nothing about accepting financial support, that may suggest that she has already somewhat narrowed the field no?  Wink
« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 07:39:10 am by VerneCarty » Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2005, 07:33:56 am »

Skeptic:

Your ambiguous statement was misunderstood.  It may have been unwarrantedly misunderstood and we may have read into the post our pre-conceived notions about pick-up web sites.   Nevertheless, it was simply misunderstood.  Instead of being a decent human being and saying, "look, that's not what I meant; you read into my words something that wasn't there" or "what do you mean by slander?  I'm not following you." , you take off flagrantly insulting everyone.

You're not attempting to communicate.  You are meeting some other self-serving need by belittling others.

You can now return to your metal beanie gag as it seems to really float your boat.



Marcia:

No, I am not a firstborn.  My issue was not with the post.  Tom made a statement which I may or may not agree with.  Skeptic turns around and open fires with insults.  I was only trying to clarity what I thought Tom might have been saying to bring peace to the situation.  More insults.  Simplicity isn't the issue.  At attempt to communicate is.  Unfortunately, that isn't Skeptic's goal.
Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2005, 08:02:27 am »

Skeptic:

Your ambiguous statement was misunderstood.  It may have been unwarrantedly misunderstood and we may have read into the post our pre-conceived notions about pick-up web sites.   Nevertheless, it was simply misunderstood.  Instead of being a decent human being and saying, "look, that's not what I meant; you read into my words something that wasn't there" or "what do you mean by slander?  I'm not following you." , you take off flagrantly insulting everyone.

You're not attempting to communicate.  You are meeting some other self-serving need by belittling others.

You can now return to your metal beanie gag as it seems to really float your boat.



Marcia:

No, I am not a firstborn.  My issue was not with the post.  Tom made a statement which I may or may not agree with.  Skeptic turns around and open fires with insults.  I was only trying to clarity what I thought Tom might have been saying to bring peace to the situation.  More insults.  Simplicity isn't the issue.  At attempt to communicate is.  Unfortunately, that isn't Skeptic's goal.

I believe that what we have is history.  Tom often misunderstands.  The reason: Maybe not enough time on board to get the flow/sense of the communication?  Maybe too much information?  Maybe something else...

The effect is that we are now side tracked from the message of the post to "you should have said it this way", just because Tom misunderstood yet again.

I actually like what Tom has to say, on its own merit, but not in the way it is sometimes used to respond to a poster's comment.

The subtle comments I have made in the past have possibly not been understood, so that was my blunt straightforward opinion stated for all to see.

Re. the beanie "insults".  Dave, lighten up.  Some of you guys are too touchy and sensitive.  If it was directed at me, I would have laughed and dished it right back.

Good will to all.
Marcia
Logged
Margaret
Guest


Email
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2005, 09:44:21 am »

Back to the original topic of this thread--I emailed the couple who run the website David posted on. Here is my email and their reply:

Hello Josie and Delaney--

I don't know what is your level of involvement with the matchmaking reported
on your site, but I have a concern about one of the men who has posted a
message about his Filippina fiance. His name is David Geftakys. This man was
divorced by his wife after 20+ years of domestic violence. There is a
restraining order filed in the court of California against him. A web search
on the name "David Geftakys" will bring up quite a bit of information. I
hope Edna is fully informed about what she might be getting into.

I personally knew David and his wife before they were married in the early
70s, until 1990. I and am sure that the man signed on your site is the same
person.

Sincerely,
Margaret Irons

*******************************************************************************

Hello Margaret,

The only thing we know about David Geftakys is that he entered our Form
Email and made his comments after visiting our sites.
Also we just received an email from him requesting that we remove his entry,
which was strange, but we honored the request.

Sorry we do not have any information on Edna other than what he provided in
his email to us.

This type thing is always a concern for both the man and the woman.  I know
Josie had to attend a class
advising the Filipina of the dangers and what to do if they encounter any
problems with the husband.

For the man, a very through process and background regarding ex-wives has to
be completed for the Immigration Dept. to allow a Filipina to come to the
US.  It is much more difficult now than it was several years ago.  However
as far as I know of today, they still do not require a Police or FBI check
in all states.

Thanks for your message to us and hopefully everything will be okay if they
continue their relationship.

Delaney & Josie Davis

**************************************************************************************
Interesting that David deleted his post. I suppose chances are he got wind that it was being discussed here.
Logged
skeptic
Guest
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2005, 12:16:06 pm »

Skeptic:

Your ambiguous statement was misunderstood.  It may have been unwarrantedly misunderstood and we may have read into the post our pre-conceived notions about pick-up web sites.   Nevertheless, it was simply misunderstood.  Instead of being a decent human being and saying, "look, that's not what I meant; you read into my words something that wasn't there" or "what do you mean by slander?  I'm not following you." , you take off flagrantly insulting everyone.

You're not attempting to communicate.  You are meeting some other self-serving need by belittling others.

You can now return to your metal beanie gag as it seems to really float your boat.



Marcia:

No, I am not a firstborn.  My issue was not with the post.  Tom made a statement which I may or may not agree with.  Skeptic turns around and open fires with insults.  I was only trying to clarity what I thought Tom might have been saying to bring peace to the situation.  More insults.  Simplicity isn't the issue.  At attempt to communicate is.  Unfortunately, that isn't Skeptic's goal.

Dave,

Are you trying to say,  "I blew this out of proportion and read something into the post that wasn't there?" 

Or, are you saying,  "I may have misunderstood something, but the fact that you're an indecent person, and the fact that I was trying to bring peace to the situation and all you did was flagrantly insult everyone means that even if I did something wrong, I have no need to admit it, humble myself apologize or even consider it."

I'm not sure if you are apologizing, or making an oblique swipe at me.  Your message is garbled due to the extremely heavy PMC around you, which has effected the hypocampus and cingular lobe of your brain.  Use the beanie lad.  You'll see yourself in a whole different light.

In Belgium, we have the custom of apologizing if our error causes a fuss.  If we are embroiled in a fuss that we didn't cause, we attempt to clear the matter up.  Of course, we have taken extreme steps to protect ourselves from PMC, so relationships are much more honest and forthright as a result.

It is perfectly clear to everyone that our esteemed moderator read the PHTML version of the statement, and reacted the way he did.  He can't really apologize for something he doesn't understand, and neither can you.   What is so obvious to everyone else is simply unfathomable to you, because you need to DePsych.  (Lighten up)

I accept your apology,  <disdain for others>  , when you said that you were sorry <angry> that my goal wasn't communication. <I'm not as smart or godly as you, and should leave ASAP>.  You are most kind to offer it.  Let's start afresh, shall we?  <Dave Sable will never admit a mistake, Tom Maddux will never admit he overreacted, we are the spititual fathers, older and wiser.   We do not need to admit a mistake, we need not apologize>

Dave, wear the beanie.  I suspect that due to Psychotronic Mind Control, you will get sidetracked and disgronified with this post as well. 

Extra fiber in the diet, along with warm prune juice before bed also helps.

Nevertheless, thanks for your gracious, humble apology. 

skeptic

PS, I didn't flagrantly insult everyone, as you claim, only you and Tom. 



Here's something else to keep in mind:  do you suppose that it's possible that some of these women on the websites collect "support" from more than one man?  It would make a good scam, no?  <jump on him for slander> For that matter, is it even possible that someone would stoop so low as to take financial advantage of lonely men, using sexy, younger women as bait? 

Probably not, the Internet is rarely used for shady business. <pay no attention to the facts, react against him and castigate him for tone and style.  He is less of a person than you are>

« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 12:30:56 pm by skeptic » Logged
skeptic
Guest
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2005, 12:20:01 pm »

Back to the original topic of this thread--I emailed the couple who run the website David posted on. Here is my email and their reply:

Hello Josie and Delaney--

I don't know what is your level of involvement with the matchmaking reported
on your site, but I have a concern about one of the men who has posted a
message about his Filippina fiance. His name is David Geftakys. This man was
divorced by his wife after 20+ years of domestic violence. There is a
restraining order filed in the court of California against him. A web search
on the name "David Geftakys" will bring up quite a bit of information. I
hope Edna is fully informed about what she might be getting into.

I personally knew David and his wife before they were married in the early
70s, until 1990. I and am sure that the man signed on your site is the same
person.

Sincerely,
Margaret Irons

*******************************************************************************

Hello Margaret,

The only thing we know about David Geftakys is that he entered our Form
Email and made his comments after visiting our sites.
Also we just received an email from him requesting that we remove his entry,
which was strange, but we honored the request.

Sorry we do not have any information on Edna other than what he provided in
his email to us.

This type thing is always a concern for both the man and the woman.  I know
Josie had to attend a class
advising the Filipina of the dangers and what to do if they encounter any
problems with the husband.

For the man, a very through process and background regarding ex-wives has to
be completed for the Immigration Dept. to allow a Filipina to come to the
US.  It is much more difficult now than it was several years ago.  However
as far as I know of today, they still do not require a Police or FBI check
in all states.

Thanks for your message to us and hopefully everything will be okay if they
continue their relationship.

Delaney & Josie Davis

**************************************************************************************
Interesting that David deleted his post. I suppose chances are he got wind that it was being discussed here.


Good work Margaret!

Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2005, 08:11:19 pm »

Back to the original topic of this thread--I emailed the couple who run the website David posted on. Here is my email and their reply:

Hello Josie and Delaney--

I don't know what is your level of involvement with the matchmaking reported
on your site, but I have a concern about one of the men who has posted a
message about his Filippina fiance. His name is David Geftakys. This man was
divorced by his wife after 20+ years of domestic violence. There is a
restraining order filed in the court of California against him. A web search
on the name "David Geftakys" will bring up quite a bit of information. I
hope Edna is fully informed about what she might be getting into.

I personally knew David and his wife before they were married in the early
70s, until 1990. I and am sure that the man signed on your site is the same
person.

Sincerely,
Margaret Irons

*******************************************************************************



Admirable. And also necessary in my humble opinion.
Just think of what might have been prevented had some of those who knew all about Mr.Geftakys  taken even the slightest initiative to alert others?
The couple's response clearly indicated they have no idea what kind of person they are dealing with and that is understandable given the lack of history.
Nonetheless, they have been warned.
This is more than many of us got with the apostate Geftakys.
Verne
« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 08:18:51 pm by VerneCarty » Logged
skeptic
Guest
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2005, 09:04:50 pm »

In an attempt to look at the positive aspects of this, I should point out the following:

David hasn't died of Diabetes yet....in spite of his claims of being mortally ill for all those years.

And this is the big one.....

Money is flowing FROM David,  TO someone else.  That's huge.

In all honesty, I do wish the guy would just admit what he did, and who he is, get his career going and start fresh.  It just strikes me as rather odd that he would abandon the principles on marriage and divorce, send money to someone he barely knows, AND maintain that he was being persecuted and was innocent of all wrong doing.

If the latter was true, why would he not continue on serving God, and not entangle himself in adultery.  He preached often that re-marriage was sin....if he believes this, what is he doing?

skeptic

Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2005, 09:33:06 pm »

In an attempt to look at the positive aspects of this, I should point out the following:

If the latter was true, why would he not continue on serving God, and not entangle himself in adultery.  He preached often that re-marriage was sin....if he believes this, what is he doing?

skeptic


Continue on serving God? Fact is he never did.
This is hardly anything new. He is being the person he always was, just without a cadre of sycophants to cover and excuse his perversion. The extreme legalism practiced in the assemblies - interminable meetings, no television, no dating, no marriage, no re-marriage, stultifying and painstaking detail about meal preparation, consequences, etc. etc. ad nauseam, had one purpose and one purpose only - contol and subjugation of the masses. All the crowing about the "Testimony to Jesus" was nothing short of high blasphemy in view of the way many of the these crowers, including the head rooster, were behaving secretly. Nothing was insisted on for reasons of conviction or principle.
The demise of the assemblies has served to reveal many of us for what we truly are...
Verne
« Last Edit: August 06, 2005, 07:08:05 am by VerneCarty » Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2005, 02:19:43 am »

In an attempt to look at the positive aspects of this, I should point out the following:

David hasn't died of Diabetes yet....in spite of his claims of being mortally ill for all those years.

And this is the big one.....

Money is flowing FROM David,  TO someone else.  That's huge.

In all honesty, I do wish the guy would just admit what he did, and who he is, get his career going and start fresh.  It just strikes me as rather odd that he would abandon the principles on marriage and divorce, send money to someone he barely knows, AND maintain that he was being persecuted and was innocent of all wrong doing.

If the latter was true, why would he not continue on serving God, and not entangle himself in adultery.  He preached often that re-marriage was sin....if he believes this, what is he doing?

skeptic

Maybe we can cut a deal with Edna and get some of our money back.

Margaret, Great that you wrote.  Hope the message gets through to Edna.

Marcia

Dave S. and TomM

Recently I was with a group of people and a couple of us were conversing with a brother about his Mum's poor health.  Another person entered the room and asked "Wow, what kind of flowers are those?" or something like that.  That killed the conversation and started another about the beautiful flowers.  I was very ticked off because I really did not care how beautiful the flowers were, I was more interested in listening to the brother tell us about his mother.  I did not show my anger at the time, but if I had, it would have been pathetic if I got exhorted for getting angry rather than exhort the person who had been rude.

Tom, sorry to have to say this, but it has been happening for a while now.  We have a discussion going on, and you remain offline.  Then all of a sudden you don't just enter in, but rather you tend to butt in with some sort of related comment to educate or exhort us.  The discussion goes off on a side track, which is very frustrating, and we are all supposed to keep our cool and be impressed with your wisdom.  Then one loses it, and the one who loses it gets exhorted for losing it.  IMO your behaviour is more GG-like than the one who loses it is.  This all reminds me of how the local LBs deal with 'issues'.  Maybe there is some of the LB mentality still residing deep within.  Something to consider anyway.

Respectfully,
Marcia
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!