Tony Anthony and Avanti Ministries derail

Reviews, Videos, and Everything Else Trollshido
161

[quote=terrafirma;2291617]No, I am not a member of Avanti and had not even heard of Tony Anthony until a few weeks ago. I wrote what I did because I think it unacceptable to be a prolific poster on the Internet, which is after all a public place, stating without any caution whatsoever that a named, public individual is a liar, serial killer, murderer, fantasist, is unsafe to work with children etc., when that poster has not even had the decency to read the source material, and does not even have a copy to refer to.
[/quote]

[quote=Mr P;2291756]With regards parents,

What if the Italian/Chinese thing is just another part of the fantasy.

Just imagine Tony is Cypriot and his parents or at least one of them are in Cyprus.

Perhaps if this was the case the key to his real past is in his real name and his previous job as an insurance broker?

If anybody else is researching this I would ask them to consider this scenario.[/quote]

I see this as a contradiction. If you have read the book, you can state he is a fantasist, but if you had been to his meetings, seen his youtube recordings, listened to his radio shows, but not read his book, you cannot?

And, from his own mouth, he is either a murderer/serial killer, which to me, makes me not want him near my kids, or he has to be a liar and a fantasist.

162

I am not going to be drawn into another pointless argument. I hold by my view that the Book is the most important source material. Yes, I have also seen the YouTube videos. I saw these, and read through the thread here, before receiving the Book. But reading the Book gave me a more balanced and full account of some of the incidents related in the thread, and in the videos.

I gave one example earlier: from reading the thread I was under the (false) impression that TA claimed to have stroked a wild tiger with her cubs present. However, when I read the Book I found no mention of cubs in the account. In fact the account in the Book reads as far more plausible. For example, far from being a chance encounter with a wild tiger and her cubs, the story is of an encounter with a wild tiger that has been partially tamed by TA’s grandfather over an extended period, has been left food etc on frequent occasions by him, and is familiar with their scent.

You should bear in mind that the talks TA gives in the videos are not as carefully prepared as the final manuscript of the Book, and that the Book is therefore definitive.

For example, the Book is important for fleshing out the detail of the killings that TA confesses he was responsible for. If you just watch the video snippets, you could be forgiven for thinking that TA was a homicidal maniac, who just enjoyed killing for killing’s sake. I agree with Mr P that some of the video account is chilling. However, when you read the accounts in the Book, you find that the killings all took place “in the line of duty.”

I can almost anticipate the reaction to my saying this. I will be accused of defending TA. I am not. All I want is the truth, and we won’t reach it by embellishing or distorting the account given by TA, to make it seem even more fantastic than it already is.

However I would like to see the focus remain on whether or not TA is a fake, and, most importantly, whether it can be proved conclusively, sufficient to be able to go to the pastor of his church and summon a meeting with him and the board of the charity and to insist that the man be exposed and removed from his position.

If, in pursuing that goal, it turns out that TA is in fact what he claims to be, then that, to my mind, will be an equally satisfactory outcome.

163

[quote=terrafirma;2292706]I am not going to be drawn into another pointless argument. I hold by my view that the Book is the most important source material. Yes, I have also seen the YouTube videos. I saw these, and read through the thread here, before receiving the Book. But reading the Book gave me a more balanced and full account of some of the incidents related in the thread, and in the videos.

I gave one example earlier: from reading the thread I was under the (false) impression that TA claimed to have stroked a wild tiger with her cubs present. However, when I read the Book I found no mention of cubs in the account. In fact the account in the Book reads as far more plausible. For example, far from being a chance encounter with a wild tiger and her cubs, the story is of an encounter with a wild tiger that has been partially tamed by TA’s grandfather over an extended period, has been left food etc on frequent occasions by him, and is familiar with their scent.[/quote]

You cannot “tame” wild tigers over a period of time.

Please do not take my word for it, ask any naturalist.

As for even seeing a white tiger in the wild, let alone stroking it, it just would never happen.

So according to you the book is definitive because it was “carefully prepared”?

How can that be? Even if careful preparation = truthful (and I don’t think it does) the book was ghost written by Angela Little. Tony did not write the book.

Also how do you know how much preparation goes into the book or the videos? Are you on close terms with Tony and his associates or are you just making this up as you go along?

[quote=terrafirma;2292706]
For example, the Book is important for fleshing out the detail of the killings that TA confesses he was responsible for. If you just watch the video snippets, you could be forgiven for thinking that TA was a homicidal maniac, who just enjoyed killing for killing’s sake. I agree with Mr P that some of the video account is chilling. However, when you read the accounts in the Book, you find that the killings all took place “in the line of duty.”[/quote]

Ah, but in the videos (where Tony is speaking for himself rather than Ms Little telling his story) he says that the killings went way beyond duty which is why he now says that feels so bad about them.

[quote=terrafirma;2292706]
I can almost anticipate the reaction to my saying this. I will be accused of defending TA. I am not. All I want is the truth, and we won’t reach it by embellishing or distorting the account given by TA, to make it seem even more fantastic than it already is.[/quote]

Nobody is embellishing Tony’s story. The way he tells it it’s bad enough and fantastical enough without any embellishment.

[quote=terrafirma;2292706]However I would like to see the focus remain on whether or not TA is a fake, and, most importantly, whether it can be proved conclusively, sufficient to be able to go to the pastor of his church and summon a meeting with him and the board of the charity and to insist that the man be exposed and removed from his position.

If, in pursuing that goal, it turns out that TA is in fact what he claims to be, then that, to my mind, will be an equally satisfactory outcome.[/quote]

So you will be happy if he is proven to be a serial killer but not a liar?

Utterly bizarre.

164

Im part way through reading his book now, I must say it is a painful read and taking some time.

Today Tony has deleted me from his Facebook fan page and appears to have blocked me from it.

165

Unfortunately, Santeria Claus once again shows herself unable to engage in rational debate. She will not even allow the facts to be considered dispassionately, which must surely earn her the title “e.c. of the year”. I am sorry that she is once again trying to pull this thread off course and to fill it with hot air. I do wonder at her true agenda. It is certainly not to arrive at the truth. She is not going to allow her prejudiced mind to be tainted by fair reasoning.

Keep in mind that she by her own admission was personally responsible for embellishing the story about the tiger, and has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any value in reading the Book. This is nothing other than sheer blind prejudice.

166

Give it a rest, no one really cares much what you think, you’ve been very suspect in your posts for quite a while now, repeatingly attempting to make it seem that TA may in some way be being honest with just a few embellishments rather than an out and out liar. Occams razor and common sense makes it obvious to anyone that has critical think skills that it’s in all likelyhood that a great deal of his story is fabricated, and that he is a fraud and a snake oil salesman.

If you really care about the subject quit trying to address the readership in that manner that tries to be divisive and go and prove something yourself.

You keep saying how simple it would be to prove some of his claims. Go do it. Provide the proof you keep expecting from others and when they haven’t provided it you claim that in that case maybe TA is telling the truth.

Same standards for you and everyone else would be nice.

167

A predictable response which I shall ignore in favour of those who wish to pursue this matter to a fair and just conclusion.

168

Quoted before you start one of your editathons. I do like how much subtext you managed to get between the lines there though. Folk here won’t buy it though, you’ve underestimated your audience.

169

[quote=terrafirma;2292775]Unfortunately, Santeria Claus once again shows herself unable to engage in rational debate.
[/quote]

You are not doing much better. You want us to only use the boo, which is really being blind and one sided. All evidence should be considered, and if Tony is in the habit of contradicting his story in the book and videos, it goes to show he is unreliable.

She will not even allow the facts to be considered dispassionately, which must surely earn her the title “e.c. of the year”.

You might just be runner up or might even edge her out for the win. You have been less than dispassionate striking out at all who disagree and choose to cite other sources to make their claims.

She is not going to allow her prejudiced mind to be tainted by fair reasoning.

Pot meet kettle

Keep in mind that she by her own admission was personally responsible for embellishing the story about the tiger, and has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any value in reading the Book. This is nothing other than sheer blind prejudice.

Can you cite evidence of this admission and how it embellishes the story? I need some context here.

170

Read the thread, and then read the Book. Don’t be lazy!

171

Funny hot air? I’m still waiting for you to post anything that refutes Tony’s own words. That is the epitome of Hot air. Many words, protestations, complaints attacks but, nothing with substance.

Keep in mind that she by her own admission was personally responsible for embellishing the story about the tiger, and has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any value in reading the Book. This is nothing other than sheer blind prejudice.

I was waiting for the hyperbole to start. I’ve read hundreds if not thousands of short stories and novels. Yes, some had zero value. So, why should someone acknowledge that a book has value when you don’t agree with that assertion?

Yes. that is your own Bias and prejudices showing.

172

I read the book, but unfortunately, I forgot it at my parents’ But I remember that the tiger story is not very plausible alltogether.

173

You are the one being lazy. Post specific examples of where Santeria Clause embellished the story. Otherwise SHUT UP already.
What is your hangup with people reading the book? You assume I have not read it. I want YOU to point out the facts of the claims you are making. All I have heard from you is “You are meanies since you have not read the book.”

You get replies, “I’ve read the book and my mind is not changed.” or “The book and the videos are saying what we said.” You have offered no proof of where the thread is different from the book or where embellishments were made by any poster here. Offer something or go away.

174

[quote=It is Fake;2292818] I was waiting for the hyperbole to start. I’ve read hundreds if not thousands of short stories and novels. Yes, some had zero value. So, why should someone acknowledge that a book has value when you don’t agree with that assertion?[/quote] What hyperbole? You are distorting the clear meaning of what I am saying. I did not say that the “Book has value”, but that in the context of this discussion there is clearly value in reading it. Is that more understandable to you?

175

[quote=SantaDog;2292888]You assume I have not read it.[/quote]I don’t assume anything. So let us know: Have you read it? Don’t leave us guessing. “Yes” or “No” will suffice.

And if “Yes”, then why can’t you see the clear discrepancy between the account in the Book and that embellished by Santeria with her cubs, and posted in this thread? I am puzzled.

176

[quote=terrafirma;2293156]I don’t assume anything. So let us know: Have you read it? Don’t leave us guessing. “Yes” or “No” will suffice.

And if “Yes”, then why can’t you see the clear discrepancy between the account in the Book and that embellished by Santeria with her cubs, and posted in this thread? I am puzzled.[/quote]

Please post the exact discrepancies.

177

[quote=Santeria Claus;2238928]Maybe his story is entirely true, a white tiger with cubs existed in Southern China when Tony was there and allowed him to pet her like she was a domestic cat.[/quote] Hope that helps. My point is that you cannot just make up these things, and then pillory the guy for saying them, when he did not.

178

Where is the discrepancy?

179

[quote=terrafirma;2292706]I gave one example earlier: from reading the thread I was under the (false) impression that TA claimed to have stroked a wild tiger with her cubs present. However, when I read the Book I found no mention of cubs in the account. In fact the account in the Book reads as far more plausible. For example, far from being a chance encounter with a wild tiger and her cubs, the story is of an encounter with a wild tiger that has been partially tamed by TA’s grandfather over an extended period, has been left food etc on frequent occasions by him, and is familiar with their scent.[/quote]A clear discrepancy.

180

A wild tiger vs. a tiger that had somehow been “partially tamed” by leaving out food? That’s hardly a huge discrepancy and both stories are preposterous. Neither are something a rational person could accept without some proof.