Res Ipsa

Res Ipsa comes from the Latin, res ipsa loquitur, which mean “the thing speaks for itself.”  It’s a legal term and the name by which a lawyer who was a friend posts on SGM Survivors.  Her real name is Kim.  I’ve always liked her and respected her.  She was my secretary back in the early 90’s before she pursued her law degree.  She left the church in 2002.  I was not intimately involved in the circumstances regarding her decision.  I do remember being heartbroken.  

Last August, I asked Kim if she could meet and help answer some legal questions.  She graciously set aside time before work and her advice was helpful.  Kim and I have always gotten along.  I was unaware of her grievances until I read about them on the internet three weeks ago.  Honestly, I was hurt by the blindside and troubled by the content given our past friendship. 

I posted our interaction as a sequel to my post on Tuesday entitled “For What It’s Worth (FWIW).”  Here is my concern in general.  Any reader of any blog can be misled by anonymous commenters who may lack integrity, be motivated by offense, fail to attempt private reconciliation, and make accusations without providing proof.  As a result the reader often comes to wrong conclusions.   

Here is what Kim wrote about me three weeks ago on SGM Survivors.

Res Ipsa 
December 31st, 2011 at 1:16 pm 

Brent has a new post up that allegedly addresses his own sins [see What About My Own Sins?].  You can decide for yourself whether he actually does that but I’m far from convinced.  It’s simply a grouping of e-mails where he vaguely acknowledges things he was involved in.  You know, the same kind of vague attitude that he accuses CJ of exhibiting.

When Brent asks us to come to him if he has sinned against us, it’s the very antithesis of “First go and be reconciled to them” from Matthew 5.  Brent, I’m pretty sure you either read here or have a means to know what is posted here.  When you and I got together about 4 months ago (so that I could help you with something), I spent nearly an hour and a half listening to you describe your situation.  At the very conclusion of the meeting, you said, “If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.”  I honestly pitied you so deeply at that moment that I couldn’t respond.  I don’t pity you because you sinned, but I pity your inability to make others a priority.

Please hear me loud and clear, Brent.  You did sin against me and you sinned against every member of CrossWay Church, but I don’t need to detail those sins.  You know who those people are (surely you have lists and old membership directories!) and you know how to reach them but instead you emphasize on your blog that only 8 to 10 have contacted you.  If you honestly think that means that only 8 to 10 were hurt, you’re deceived.

Last thing.  Since our meeting, I have e-mailed you twice when you wrote things that were completely inaccurate.  You never responded.  I invited you to two meetings with former CrossWay members.  You showed interest and then backed out hours before each meeting.  If you’re serious about reconciling and serious about taking responsibility, let’s see more action and fewer words.

These comments by Kim “incited” (i.e., moved to action, stirred up) several others who made condemning comments having believed her account to be true.  For example, here is what “Stunned” had to say and then Kim’s response to her.

Stunned 
January 1st, 2012 at 10:17 am 

Res Ipsa, I can’t get your story out of my head!  “When you and I got together about 4 months ago (so that I could help you with something), I spent nearly an hour and a half listening to you describe your situation.  At the very conclusion of the meeting, you said, “’If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.’  I honestly pitied you so deeply at that moment that I couldn’t respond. I don’t pity you because you sinned, but I pity your inability to make others a priority.”

Seriously, the best thing that could happen to Brent right now (and Brent, I do say this as your sister who does not know you from a hole in the ground but genuinely wants what is good for you, cause you ARE my brother)… the best thing for him is if the very next person who sees him either slaps him as hard as they can or if they have a good right hook, balls up their fist and punches him.  Then have them say (in either a tone of concern or disinterest), “If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.” Then walk away.

I am afraid that that might be the only way Brent even STARTS to get what he has done to countless people.  Brent, I am begging you, Brother, repent!  Truly, utterly, repent.  Do the hard work of searching out people (using your handy records).  You can do it!  And you will be utterly amazed at how life transforming it is."

Res Ipsa
January 1st, 2012 at 11:30 pm

While I appreciate that some of you agree with what I wrote, I’m really not comfortable with the references to hitting or kicking Brent.  I know they’re tongue-in-cheek but I’d really appreciate it if you all would just pray that good comes of this situation and that I would handle it in a way that honors God.  Thanks.

Stunned 
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:36 am

Res Ipsa, there was nothing at all tongue in cheek about what I said.  Nor did I say about what I believe is genuinely in the best interest of Brent on your behalf, nor out of any anger toward Brent. 

I genuinely feel that sometimes people need word pictures to understand what they are doing.  Jesus turned over tables, whipped things/people and said he came to bring a sword.  There is a time for everything and a season for everything.  There are all sorts of things said in scripture about negative physical happenstances honoring God.

If Brent can just BEGIN to understand that what he did was a million times worse than simply getting slapped or punches, then he may start to be able to truly repent.

I appreciate that you’re not comfortable with what I said, but I spent a lot of time praying about it and asking advice before I posted.  And it wasn’t said in any anger or any desire to defend or reflect you in the least.

The minute I heard about Kim’s posting, I wrote her and asked to talk with her. 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 5:12 PM
To: Kim 
Subject: Phone Number

Jenny just showed me your post on Survivors.  I was not aware you thought I’d sinned against you.  When I asked at Panera’s your response seemed to indicate you had no concerns.  What’s your number?  I’d like to talk.

She responded in part by saying “I believe that you and CrossWay’s other leaders sinned against the church.  I do not feel like you have sinned against me in any direct manner – you haven’t treated me badly or wronged me on an individual level…. In my opinion, you and the other leaders at CrossWay developed and promoted an atmosphere of control, legalism and fear.” 

After receiving her email, I followed up on the December 31^st blog post with questions about some of her comments.  Here is the email history.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 4:20 PM
To: Kim 
Subject: Resend

You said, “Since our meeting, I have e-mailed you twice when you wrote things that were completely inaccurate.  You never responded.”  I’m glad to provide a response but I don’t know what this is in reference to.  Could you resend the two emails?

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Kim 
Subject: RE: Resend

I have no record of ever receiving any emails from you regarding things I wrote that “were completely inaccurate.”  Am I somehow mistaken? 

From: Kim 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:50 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Resend

Brent, they were messages sent through your blog.  I didn’t keep a copy of the first one but I did keep a copy of the second, which I think was sent in October.  I have that copy on my computer at home so when I get home tonight, I’ll forward it to you.

In essence, you had posted a copy of correspondence between you and (I think) Dave Harvey.  In that correspondence, you said that someone had said you had met with an attorney.  You denied it and said the accusation was “absurd.”  (Again, I’m doing this from memory so I might not be exactly accurate.)  My e-mail to you said I was surprised that you called it absurd since you and I had met just a few weeks earlier to discuss this very situation. 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday 03, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Kim 
Subject: RE: Resend

We met on August 30.  I wrote you in part on August 31, “In asking for the information, it was not my intent to threaten SGM with a lawsuit.  Only, if I decided to include this information in correspondence, to underscore the basis for such actions which I have forfeited.”  I didn’t come into our meeting with the intent of suing and I didn’t leave with the intent of suing.

Nine weeks later (not a few) on October 30, Dave Harvey wrote, “You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries.”  I responded on the same day with “I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation.”  This is an altogether truthful statement.  I was not in contact with any attorney on October 30 and it was an absurd accusation that I desired to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and PM.  I never did such a thing.  What I wrote was not “completely inaccurate” as you claimed on Survivors.  Just the opposite.

I closed comments on my blog on August 23.  Anything you tried to post would have been refused.  I don’t know what happened to your correspondence but I never received them.  I would certainly have responded so it is not true that I “never responded.”  Truth is I never received them. 

If you remember the first one please let me know.  I am glad to provide you an answer.  Back to you later with more.

It is never fun to be maligned on Survivors or Refuge or by folks like Tim Challies or Al Mohler.  What Kim said pained me but I did not want to respond to her in public.  Instead, I addressed her misrepresentations in private.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:33 AM
To: Kim 
Subject: Feedback

Kim,

Here are some thoughts for your consideration regarding your December 31 posting on Survivors.    

“When Brent asks us to come to him if he has sinned against us, it’s the very antithesis of “First go and be reconciled to them” from Matthew 5.”  This is not a fair statement Kim.  I’ve always gone to anyone I believe I sinned against.  In asking people to contact me, I am not neglecting this responsibility.  I am simply acknowledging that I may have sinned against someone but I am unaware of the offense and therefore I invited people to approach me. 

“Brent, I’m pretty sure you either read here or have a means to know what is posted here.”  I don’t read Refuge or Survivors.  Occasionally Jenny scans them.  Luckily she caught your comments.  Please communicate with me via email. 

“When you and I got together about 4 months ago (so that I could help you with something), I spent nearly an hour and a half listening to you describe your situation.  At the very conclusion of the meeting, you said, “If I have sinned against you, I want to give you an opportunity to tell me about that but I don’t have time today.”  I honestly pitied you so deeply at that moment that I couldn’t respond.  I don’t pity you because you sinned, but I pity your inability to make others a priority.”  This is a total misrepresentation of what I said.  Jenny had a very important doctor’s appointment and she needed the car.  I had to leave.  I would have liked to stay longer.  I said so.  I would have gladly continued our discussion but I simply could not.  We did not gather to talk about ways I might have sinned against you.  But as I was leaving I wanted you to know I was happy to have another conversation regarding the same.  You responded in the negative and said it was not necessary.  If you had expressed an interest I would have followed up.  It is wrong to say “I pity your inability to make others a priority.”  I made a sincere offer to make you a priority. Your quote of me is not accurate but worse it is entirely misrepresentative of my attitude and actions at the time.

“Please hear me loud and clear, Brent. You did sin against me and you sinned against every member of CrossWay Church, but I don’t need to detail those sins.”  In context everyone would assume I sinned against you in a direct manner and treated you badly in some grievous ways and then backed out from meeting with you to be reconciled.  I’m glad that is not the case per your follow up clarification, "First and foremost, my post on Survivors was never intended to be about any way that you have sinned against me as a result of any personal interaction we have had.  I appreciate that you are concerned about that but it was not my point at all.” 

“If you honestly think that means that only 8 to 10 were hurt, you’re deceived.”  I don’t.  That is why I said in that same blog post, “I assume there are more folks and I am happy to hear from them.” 

“Last thing. Since our meeting, I have e-mailed you twice when you wrote things that were completely inaccurate.  You never responded.”  This implies I am trying to avoid accountability for things I’ve said that are “completely inaccurate.”  I’ve never done that.  Here is my previous response. 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Kim 
Subject: RE: Resend

We met on August 30.  I wrote you in part on August 31, ““In asking for the information, it was not my intent to threaten SGM with a lawsuit.  Only, if I decided to include this information in correspondence, to underscore the basis for such actions which I have forfeited.”  I didn’t come into our meeting with the intent of suing and I didn’t leave with the intent of suing.

Nine weeks later (not a few) on October 30, Dave Harvey wrote, “You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries.”  I responded on the same day with “I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation.”  This is an altogether truthful statement.  I was not in contact with any attorney on Oct 30 and it was an absurd accusation that I desired to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and PM.  I never did such thing.  What I wrote was not “completely inaccurate” as you claimed on Survivors.  Just the opposite.

I closed comments on my blog on August 23.  Anything you tried to post would have been refused.  I don’t know what happened to your correspondence but I never received them.  I would certainly have responded so it is not true that I “never responded.”  Truth is I never received them. 

If you remember the first one please let me know.  I am glad to provide you an answer.  Back to you later with more.

“I invited you to two meetings with former CrossWay members. You showed interest and then backed out hours before each meeting. If you’re serious about reconciling and serious about taking responsibility, let’s see more action and fewer words.”  This gives the impression that these meetings were about reconciliation and I “backed out” in order to avoid you and others.  This is so wrong.  In your first invitation you said the meeting was casual, informal, and had no agenda.  I assumed the same of the second.  I didn’t back out of anything.  The first time, Jonathan and Katie [my son and his wife] dropped in unexpectedly from Augusta.  The second time I was sick.  

Kim, I have never treated you in this fashion.  I’ve not incited people against you.  I’ve not been malicious.  I’ve always appreciated and respected you and I am grateful for all the ways you helped build CrossWay.  I have carefully read your letter regarding your assessment of CrossWay.  We have our differences.  Let me know if you want to meet to discuss them and the issues above.  I genuinely thank God for you.

Sincerely,
Brent

I provided Kim “thoughts for [her] consideration.”  She wrote back expressing appreciation but no sorrow for any of her online comments.  I figured she needed more time to think about my input.  I didn’t feel the need to press her further. 

From: Kim
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 3:50 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: RE: Feedback

Brent, thanks for your response.  I appreciate the time that it took to prepare it and the gentleness with which you have responded.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 8:06 AM
To: Kim 
Subject: RE: Feedback

You’re welcome Kim.

It seems Kim thought I was [still] being dishonest about several things [despite my gentle and detailed responses].  For instance, not answering her two emails and telling Dave Harvey I was not in contact with a lawyer.  She followed up and I responded with more information.

From: Kim 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:05 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Contact through blog

Brent, below you will find a screen shot of my AOL in-box that shows that I wrote to you (and received your automated responses) through your blog on September 24 and October 12.  Below that screen shot is another screen shot that shows an example of the actual responses I received – they were identical, of course, since they were generated by your system.  Finally, at the very end of this e-mail is a copy of what I wrote on October 12.  I did not keep my e-mail from September 24. 

My Automated Response - September 24, 2011

I appreciate you taking the time to write.  I read everything but I might not be able to respond due the sheer volume of mail I receive.  I hope to incorporate your questions or comments into my posts so thanks for helping me out.

Kim’s Email – October 12, 2011

Brent, your latest post included these sentences: “I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation."

While it’s technically true that we are not currently in contact, we were in contact about this very situation.  Did you forget about our conversation at Panera?  We didn’t get together that morning to catch up.  We got together because you contacted me and asked me to meet you.  You wanted to know your legal rights and you wanted my advice.  Therefore, it’s hard for me to see how Harvey’s accusation is absurd.

Also, I haven’t received your response to my last e-mail, also sent through your blog.  Are you getting my e-mails?

Kim

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:50 AM
To: Kim 
Subject: RE: Contact through blog

Here is the context.  A person by the name of [redacted] asked me to forward an email from her to Ted Kober (below).  That is all I did.  I did not comment on her email.  I did not endorse her email.  I did not reference her email later.

Somehow Dave concluded “You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries…”  That was completely absurd.  I did not inform anyone of any such thing at any time in any manner.  Dave’s comments were crazy and had nothing to do with me.  They were solely about her email to Ted and had nothing to do with our meeting nine weeks earlier. 

I know you wrote me through the blog but for whatever reason I did not see the emails.  I’m not sure why.  I used the “automatic response” you received on Sept 24 before I closed the blog for comments on August 23.  I’m not sure why it was still working.  I never saw the Oct 12 email either.  If I had it would have been easy to correct your misunderstanding. 

Cheers
Brent

From: [Redacted]
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 10:31 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Contacting AOR as a consumer advocate as I intend to write directly to the lawyers involved with AOR and PM

Dear Brent,

Can you do me a favor and forward this e-mail?  I’d like to tell Ted Kober that in my capacity as a consumer advocate I’m afraid that people are being harmed by AOR and Peace Makers as neither organization follows the protocols of well-known conflict resolution institutes and also appear to be misrepresenting how they approach legal issues regarding confidentiality, conflicts-of-interest, and some other important things.  This is an especially big problem for the lawyers involved with AOR and PM who are expected to uphold the law and act with great integrity.

As such I will be trying to contact the board members and staff members at AOR and PM who identify themselves as practicing attorneys with my concerns via certified snail mail.  If I am unable to communicate with them directly or they ignore my correspondence I will contact the state bars of which they are members and ask them if these attorneys are acting with integrity.

My concerns have nothing to with SGM.  I actively advocate against many forms of arbitration due to the fact that it denies people important aspects of due process such as discovery and cross-examination.

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 10:57 AM
To: [Redacted]; Ted Kober
Cc:  Edgar Keinath; Bryce Thomas; Ken Sande; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Dave Harvey; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert
Subject: RE: contacting AOR as a consumer advocate as I intend to write directly to the lawyers involved with AOR and PM

Hello Ted,

I’ve been asked to forward this notification to you from [redacted].

Would you also furnish me the names and email addresses of all Board Members for Ambassadors of Reconciliation.  People want to write them and share their observations or concerns [regarding the Group Reconciliation Process].

Thank you

Brent

From: Dave Harvey
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:45 PM
To: Brent Detwiler; Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert 
Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

…Bryce sent you this proposal on October 3 and asked you to respond regarding your willingness to participate by today, October 10.  During the past week you have sent us emails attacking our credibility and the credibility of our plan.  You have informed us that you are in correspondence with an attorney who desires to challenge the legal credibility of both AoR and Peacemaker Ministries… 

From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Aron Osborne; Craig Cabaniss; John Loftness; Mark Prater; Mickey Connolly; Pete Greasley; Rick Gamache; Steve Shank; C. J. Mahaney; Jeff Purswell; Joshua Harris
Cc: Ted Kober; Edgar Keinath; Ken Sande; Bryce Thomas; Adam Malcolm; Ben Wikner; Bob Schickler; Braden Greer; Corby Megorden; Dave Brewer; Don DeVries; Eric Sheffer; Eric Simmons; Grant Layman; Greg Somerville; Issac Hydoski; Jamie Leach; Joe Lee; Jon Smith; Kenneth Maresco; Mark Mitchell; Matt Maka; Robin Boisvert 
Subject: RE: Crucial Questions

…I don’t know what Bryce has told you (and I suspect you badly misinterpret him) but I am not in contact with any attorney about anything.  What an absurd accusation…

It had been nineteen weeks since I met with Kim.  After all of this, she continued to make misrepresentative comments on Survivors this past Saturday. 

Res Ipsa 
January 14th, 2012 at 2:10 pm 

For the past 2 weeks I’ve been exchanging e-mails with Brent in a conversation that started with my 12/31/11 post here.  He learned of that post and sent me an e-mail to request my phone number.  I provided my number by e-mail but also detailed my thoughts about how Brent had sinned against CrossWay Church and, since I was a member, against me.  I was not claiming that he sinned against me in any direct, personal way but rather that his leadership of the church harmed people.

A few days later he sent me a line-by-line analysis of my 12/31/11 blog post and how I was inaccurate or misrepresented him.  In fact, there’s even an implication (that I really hope I misunderstood) that I was inciting people against him.

Since his e-mail also said, 'I’ve always gone to anyone I believe I sinned against', I’m left with the understanding that he must not think he sinned against me or the other members of CrossWay.

I think I need to change my screenname to Don Quixote.

Two observations.  First, whereas Kim said before, “Brent, thanks for your [January 5] response.  I appreciate the time that it took to prepare it and the gentleness with which you have responded.”  Now she said, “A few days later he sent me a line-by-line analysis of my 12/31/11 blog post and how I was inaccurate or misrepresented him.  In fact, there’s even an implication (that I really hope I misunderstood) that I was inciting people against him.”  Kim dismisses all of my concerns as “inaccurate or misrepresentative.”  She also implies I did something wrong in providing her “a line-by-line analysis.”  Instead of rejecting all my concerns, I wish she had included them and provided a contrite response to them.

Second, she implies I am not willing to meet with her.  “Since his e-mail also said, ‘I’ve always gone to anyone I believe I sinned against,’ I’m left with the understanding that he must not think he sinned against me or the other members of CrossWay.”  I don’t believe I’ve sinned against Kim in the ways she has outlined but that doesn’t mean I am correct or won’t change my mind.  What she fails to make clear is that I’m the one who has always taken the initiative with her to talk or meet.  She typically responds by posting against me on the blogs. 

For example, I asked to talk to her by phone on January 1.  Instead, she responded with an email.  At the end of that email she said, “Feel free to call or to e-mail, whichever you believe is better.”  I responded via email thinking that was her preference.  That should not be used against me to say I won’t “first go and be reconciled” to her. 

Furthermore, when I provided Kim feedback on January 5, I ended my correspondence this way.  “Kim, I have never treated you in this fashion.  I’ve not incited people against you.  I’ve not been malicious.  I’ve always appreciated and respected you and I am grateful for all the ways you helped build CrossWay.  I have carefully read your letter regarding your assessment of CrossWay.  We have our differences.  Let me know if you want to meet to discuss them and the issues above.  I genuinely thank God for you.”

She never got back to me.  She wasn’t interested in meeting.  Posting on Survivors was her answer.

As I’ve said before:

“There are approximately 100,000 hits each month by people who read my blog posts.  If I lie, distort the facts, or make something up, there are plenty of people who can expose my deception.  That is not the case with some anonymous writers who provide little or no evidence but make sweeping statements of condemnation with impunity.  Or they twist the truth or manufacture a story line that is bogus.  They answer to no one.  They want accountability for SGM but not for themselves.  They confront abusive practices in SGM but commit the same sins on line.  I would not want them as my pastors.” (For What It’s Worth (FWIW), January 17, 2012)

Kim, I no longer trust you like I once did but I am happy to meet provided I can also raise your sins against me.  Though I care not, you have “incited” people against me by your misrepresentations which continue despite my invitation to meet and hear your concerns.  I hope it ends.  Please let me by phone or email if you’d like to meet.   

Post Script – “Definitely Still SGM!”

FWIW posted the following on Wednesday.  It is an excerpt.  I’ve including it because it made me laugh.  She took my statement literally when I was clearly spoofing.

“Brent wrote at the end of his rant: 'Definitely still SGM!  But for some reason, I haven’t been getting my six figure paycheck.  And didn’t one Board Member command his church to treat me like a tax gatherer.  I wonder if the IRS has any openings so I can pay my bills?  Yes, I stink and all of SGM stinks!  And what about all your comments above?  What do they smell like – roses?’  Brent admits he is still SGM.  That was my point”

I should have added "lol" or an animated emoticon after “Definitely still SGM!”  I was being facetious not serious.  Ask C.J. or Dave.