VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[George Aar]

Oh, and also:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson5.html

[GrouchoMarxJr]

So...if I understand Mike's argument...Wierille's books were of God because God taught Wierwille.

As in George's relevant links previously, I would point out that Mike's argument is "begging the question"...in other words, his conclusion is entailed in his premise. Instead of presenting an argument to support his claim that God spoke to Wierwille, he begins with that assumption.

I posted earlier that Wierwille's behavior and lifestyle excluded him from being a genuine Christian minister according to biblical standards...all things considered, I find Mike's logic to be both circular and self deceiving. If it's simply a matter of faith, I would rather place my faith in Christ than in the outlandish claims of an immoral man.

[Oakspear]

It was my understanding that Wierwille was getting his understanding of the bible through...(drum roll)...reading the bible and that he was teaching me (and everybody else) to read the bible and understand it, using the tools that he taught us, so that I would no longer have to depend on the interpretation of others (you know, Right Rev. So-and-So and Professor So-and-So). If I had known the process, and that he was in effect short circuiting the research by claiming to "just know", I doubt that I would have been as interested in PFAL. To me it would have been just one more scam by someone claiming to speak for God.

[Mike]

So...if I understand Mike's argument...Wierille's books were of God because God taught Wierwille.

As in George's relevant links previously, I would point out that Mike's argument is "begging the question"...in other words, his conclusion is entailed in his premise. Instead of presenting an argument to support his claim that God spoke to Wierwille, he begins with that assumption.

I posted earlier that Wierwille's behavior and lifestyle excluded him from being a genuine Christian minister according to biblical standards...all things considered, I find Mike's logic to be both circular and self deceiving. If it's simply a matter of faith, I would rather place my faith in Christ than in the outlandish claims of an immoral man.

Yes, this is correct. I have repeatedly denied that I'm making a logical argument here. It's more of a presentation.

If you want proof you got to crack the books and master them. No hard work; no proof. Sorry. If you want some kind of abbreviated algorithm for enlightenment then please don't expect it from me.

I'll try to be logical in untangling the thickets that prevent grads from giving this a try, but I will never waste my time and try to prove this stuff to grads who seem to me to have not done their homework, at least not after a certain point in time. I know lots of grads did lots of study before all the books were finished, but things slacked off in the study department for most of us well before 1985. Plus there are scads of magazine articles most grads have never looked at CAREFULLY.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

It was my understanding that Wierwille was getting his understanding of the bible through...(drum roll)...reading the bible and that he was teaching me (and everybody else) to read the bible and understand it, using the tools that he taught us, so that I would no longer have to depend on the interpretation of others (you know, Right Rev. So-and-So and Professor So-and-So). If I had known the process, and that he was in effect short circuiting the research by claiming to "just know", I doubt that I would have been as interested in PFAL. To me it would have been just one more scam by someone claiming to speak for God.

I guess you're talking about prior to our discussions here.

But Tom, you and Abagail were the only ones who figured it out that FOR DR the only rule for faith and practice was the revelation he was getting. Remember? It was maybe 5 years ago. It was a long dragged out argument here, where many were asserting that they had a "rule" while they didn't, and you and Abigail figured out what I was saying. You were the only ones.

I AGREE, I was dumfounded on this prior to 1998, when I figured it out. If Dr hadn't hidden the thing, waiting for us to figure it out, I too would have never spent the time in PFAL I did.

I'M GLAD HE HID THIS FROM US.

He gave us enough clues to figure it out, but we didn't. This NOW gives me a retro tool to see who really was a deep thinker back then. Almost NONE of us.

[waysider]

Yes, this is correct. I have repeatedly denied that I'm making a logical argument here. It's more of a presentation.

If you want proof you got to crack the books and master them. No hard work; no proof. Sorry. If you want some kind of abbreviated algorithm for enlightenment then please don't expect it from me.

I'll try to be logical in untangling the thickets that prevent grads from giving this a try, but I will never waste my time and try to prove this stuff to grads who seem to me to have not done their homework, at least not after a certain point in time. I know lots of grads did lots of study before all the books were finished, but things slacked off in the study department for most of us well before 1985. Plus there are scads of magazine articles most grads have never looked at CAREFULLY.

Maybe you could just give us a synopsis.

[leafytwiglet]

I am sitting here Appauled and stunned and angry.... I can't even put my words into a coherrent sentence.

I will have to come back to it after work tonight......

[Ham]

As in George's relevant links previously, I would point out that Mike's argument is "begging the question"...in other words, his conclusion is entailed in his premise. Instead of presenting an argument to support his claim that God spoke to Wierwille, he begins with that assumption.

Maybe he can't go beyond what he was taught.. I mean, in way terms, if that's "honest" research and all..

stuck in a loop somewhere between premise and conclusion.. isn't that kind of "captivated" in one's thinking?

Cauterized on both ends by an irrational belief of dire consequences upon abandoning either premise or conclusion..

[WordWolf]

I am sitting here Appalled and stunned and angry.... I can't even put my words into a coherent sentence.

I will have to come back to it after work tonight......

This is new to you. If you'd been exposed to 5 or more years of posts like this,

it would be less shocking.

[JeffSjo]

I'm really thankful to look at the back and forth between DWBH and Mike,

I was never even close to those types of TWI meetings and for the most part have had to approach these things without any inside info.

An important factor to Mike on this thread is that THEY BELIEVE THAT WIERWILLE WAS LEARNING FROM GOD. As with any belief, we are entitled to have them and we have the right to defend them.

But I remember hearing that Wierwille once said of somebody who tried to tell him something, and Wierwille said it with a growl mind you, "I've forgotten more of the Bible than he will ever know." Or how about in PFAL where he wouldn't even listen to the person that wanted to tell him that he was wrong while he was with the great theologian. I remember hearing TWI leadership respond to "unknown to me" critics by blasting "red letter Christianity" and implied that TWI critics were not spiritual with the same TWI and Wierwillian style of put down. Never mind that the "RED LETTERS" plainly condemn hating the bretheren by despising them or the red letters concerning sexual immorality.

That being said, I have to agree with leafy that some of this info is appalling. But for me, I am not as emotional about it as when I first started to hear these things. I am looking forward to Leafy's posts.

As far as personal experience goes I will share how it was for me in my little splinter group and let the rest of you who saw the inner workings of TWI decide whether or not they apply.

My splinter group leader viewed evey opinion other than his that I can recall as a spiritual threat. When I was right once he responded by comparing me to a nagging woman. You see, he got to keep his manhood while immasculating me even though he was wrong. My ex-wife thought it was funny.

Every TWI person that I know of that visited our little group he put down in front of us but behind their backs. Once, after a second corps family visited our little group, he pointed out how they and their children had the eating manner and demeanor of pigs. But he did this after they left. I guess he didn't want anyone to think highly of anyone but him.

Since I believe that my former splinter group leader learned how to do these things in the Way Corps and that he learned these things from watching how Wierwille operated I think that it a huge friggin mistake to think that Wierwille ever agreed with God on anything unless I can document every "jot and tittle" of his words by the scripture. But even then it seems plain to me that he would use these words for his own ends; self-glorification and covering up his perversions being the two that are at the front of my mind right now.

I feel no compulsion to master every "jot and tittle" of Wierwille's words in order to criticize them. Wierwille's one liners are not comparable to scripture and I will not treat them so. I'm more than happy to criticize Wierwille's words even if I cannot quote them but remember the gist of them. Some of you guys swallow a camel but choke on gnats as you seek to hold Wierwille's words above reproach. I mean, c'mon, I may not have said Wierwille's words in the right order..... gack....darn gnats.

(edited for spelling and grammar)

P.S. Raf sent me a video clip that made the moonwalking bear reference very plain. Thanks Raf.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Mod Cow

[Oakspear]

I guess you're talking about prior to our discussions here.

I thought that was obvious. I got involved in TWI long before I ever posted here.

But Tom, you and Abagail were the only ones who figured it out that FOR DR the only rule for faith and practice was the revelation he was getting. Remember? It was maybe 5 years ago. It was a long dragged out argument here, where many were asserting that they had a "rule" while they didn't, and you and Abigail figured out what I was saying. You were the only ones.

I recall the vague outlines of the conversation, but I highly doubt that I ever believed that Wierwille was getting revelation, I have however believed for quite some time that the rule of faith and practice was what Wierwille said it was, despite his pretence or pose of being a biblical reseracher

I AGREE, I was dumfounded on this prior to 1998, when I figured it out. If Dr hadn't hidden the thing, waiting for us to figure it out, I too would have never spent the time in PFAL I did.

I'M GLAD HE HID THIS FROM US.

Well, we disagree on something else :o I think he hid it because he was dishonest, you think he hid it for other reasons.

He gave us enough clues to figure it out, but we didn't. This NOW gives me a retro tool to see who really was a deep thinker back then. Almost NONE of us.

The "deep thinkers" who figured it out left in disgust, or compromised.

From quotes that have been posted by you, DWBH and others and my own memories, it doesn't appear that Wierwille was saying that he was getting revelation that overrode what the actual texts were saying, but that there were what he called apparent contradictions that weren't resolved by existing available texts; framing it as a biblical research question. What I believe it was in reality was Wierwille being so enamoured of his theology that he couldn't bear to admit that he might be wrong.

Naturally you'll have a different opinion.

[Raf]

WD,

I notice in your chastisement that you neglected to quote the post I was responding to in the first place, thus being able to conclude that I was bringing up the "evidence" issure out of thin air.

So here's the post I was referring to...

My oh my. All this discussion and you are only lead to this conclusion:

Some people believe: God forbid anything VPW ever said or taught from the bible = "Thus saith the Lord."

But if the Lord himself would have said or taught it instead ... to them it still wouldn't prove to be anything.(emphasis added)

So, you see, far from bringing it up out of nowhere (your second demonstrably incorrect accusation against me on this thread), I brought it up as a specific parallel to the post immediately before it.

Regardless, we've both been told this is off topic. So let's keep it that way.

[Mike]

The following was a response of mine to skyrider on another thread, but it belongs even more here in this somewhat immediate context.

QUOTE (skyrider @ Jan 14 2009, 07:56 AM) *

The only rule for faith and practice for wierwille......was the revelation he was getting???

Well, he said his only rule for faith and practice was GOD'S WORD.

Now many thought that meant the KJV, but then we saw him point out errors there, so we had to look back a notch to the critical Greek texts to see VPE's only rule for faith and practice. He had to have something more straight than the KJV to spot where it was crooked, he had to have some OTHER RULE or RULER that he went by to judge the KJV in error. It sounded to us like "critical" meant "most crucially important" so the critical Greek texts, we reasoned, must be his only rule for faith and practice.

But then SOME of us found out that those critical Greek texts didn't agree with each other, AND we saw some had glaring errors, AND a small few of us noticed the critical Greek texts were NOT ancient nor critically important BUT were relatively modern. It shocked me to find out that the ink was still wet on the Stevens (oldest) in 1550! We were told all these things about the critical Greek texts but few of us assimilated it.

So some small few of us went back another notch in search of VPW's only rule and landed on the ancient tests ONLY TO FIND that they to had problems: only went back to the 400's, were fragmentary, were in disagreement with each other, had errors.

So then we took a leap of faith and said AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN was VPW's only rule for faith and practice. But HOW did he access that? I figure hardly anyone reading this now in 2009 ever got this far back then. I know I didn't, not until the mid to late 80's and even then I still didn't have the answer to it, only the question.

If you haven't gone down this path before and long ago, then you might ask yourself WHY? What were you doing that kept you from trying to figure all this out? Did you leave it to others? Were you too busy? Did you not care?

Anyway, it all came together in 1998 for me and I finally got it. I had to have someone show me.

Now I'm SO happy that I DO have an only rule for faith and practice, it has physical weight,it's not abstract, it's bigger than me and I dare not correct it, it has a Library of Congress number (or set of numbers) and it's my standard that I plunk on my Table of Challenge. Do you old time posters remember me talking about all this years ago?

Oakspear and Abigail seemed to be the only ones who got it back then. They didn't accept it, but the at least GOT it. If you're just getting it now, join the club and give it some thought. It's a new set of synapses waiting for your pondering.

Remember in the quyotes we saw on the other thread that the night before the snow in 1942 VPW asked God to give him something that he'd "never have to back up on." He and God worksed something out were Go would show him the end of the road, the only rule he couldn't break, the rule for faith and practice. Yes, he got it by revelation. Now we can get it in printed fonts. If you don't accept written PFAL as your only rule for faith and practice, THEN WHAT IS????

Remember, a rule for faith and practice must be the end of the road. You can't appear to a higher authority to change any of it, otherwise THAT HIGHER AUTHORITY will have to be your unbreakable ruler.

A rule for faith and practice can't be abstract (VPW's was, but that was an God's behest to solve a deep problem), and it mus have weight. It must be readable by other people where they read the same thing you read.

What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice? Is it a document that's unalterable, or do you wing it as you go. If you wing it then YOU are your only rule for faith and practice. If you alter a physical document, take exception with some aspect of it, then that document is NOT your ruler.

What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice?

If you haven't pondered this your just beginning (at best) to hear PFAL.

[sirguessalot]

speaking of "rulers" and such...

here is a loose summary of "faith" development again...for those who are interested...

...you tell me...but its not hard for me to see where the snow stories seem to fit...as well as where many of our endless arguments are stuck

the ego trip begins...

...magical faith believes God takes care of ME supernaturally...primary mode of communication and relationship with the divine is through supernatural phenomenon and fantastic experience.

My personal belief, the "law" of believing and "law" of attraction are primary doctrines. God kings, pharoahs, etc...

...natural for a 3 year old...or an adult at the dawn of civilization...but not for an adult today, let alone a leader

when this fails...

...mythical faith believes God takes care of US supernaturally...primary mode of communication and relationship with the divine is via texts, writings, stories, cliches...the words of very special people who are typically dead.

Safety and purity of an exclusive household are primary interests.

Ethnocentricity, fundamentalism, etc...

when this fails...

...rational faith believes "God" is a self evident truth that is to be discovered...primary mode of communication and relationship with the divine is via evidence, experimentation, demonstration.

Facts, data, and scientific methods are key. Age of reason, etc...

when this fails...

...pluralistic faith believes God is whatever the word God means to any given person....primary mode of communication and relationship with the divine is via authentic self-discovery and deconstruction of unconscious habits and history.

Empowerment, social and civil rights, equality, self-help, therapy are all expressions.

And even though this faith has been active in people since the dawn of time...the boomers were the first in the world to make it mainstream.

when this fails...

...unitive and universalizing faith and beyond believes God is All in All...primary mode of communication and relationship with the divine is via all of the above ordinary modes of faith.

God is seen as all in all and everywhere...and all magic, myth, reason and social interpretations are merely different qualities of languages.

Silence, stillness, observation, and simple "witnessing" are the bread and butter of this kind of faith. ...Living, present, extra-ordinary.

...the first post-anthropocentric stages of faith = no more enmity between inside and outside...or self and other

...

all religions (and non religions) have people at all stages of "faith" development

but most world scripture was likely written by those with highest levels of faith development,

even though most all people were communicating and interpreting at a different level of faith at the time.

thus, much of the bible is authentic expressions of rational, pluralist and unitive "faith"

...expressed in ethnocentric mythic languages

...

and so each level of faith has a gravity

and so is at war with the levels directly next to them

and while we sit here or there from time to time

we also tend to be on the move and between rungs at any given time

in other words....

...magic faith is at war with mythic membership against comformity...me and my own personal jesus against everyone else's church

...falling back into magic after failing out of myth is not uncommon...each faith has a natural pull.

...mythic faith is trying to save individuals from self-centered magic by converting them to the cult and some sense of family and tradition

all the while trying to reach up and trump reason with what they innocently think is a more rational story of things

...rational faith is trying to save cults from myths by pointing to objective reality and myth's pre-rational subjective position

all the while resisting all the squishy language and talking and sharing and self-discovery of pluralism and greater social awareness

...social faith is trying to get beyond the reductionist tendencies of reason and the consequences of mere materialism and autonomy

but in its attempt to include everything equally and universally, hypocritically rejects natural structures and hierarchies and critical distinctions

...which essentialy keeps us from a full unitive faith...because unitive uniquely notices values in all previous stages

...

most all of the big and little conflicts in the world today

here and elsewhere

not only involve a clash between these "faiths"

but some even involve sub-faiths clashing on the same level

...a cult versus a religion, or a science versus a science, or an ego versus an ego....for example

Edited January 14, 2009 by sirguessalot

[waysider]

. If you don't accept written PFAL as your only rule for faith and practice, THEN WHAT IS????

Sad----Truly sad

[RumRunner]

Sad? I would suggest someone in need of a serious evaluation / assessment.

. If you don't accept written PFAL as your only rule for faith and practice, THEN WHAT IS????

Sad----Truly sad

[JeffSjo]

What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice?

If you haven't pondered this your just beginning (at best) to hear PFAL.

Since you believed that Wierwille learned directly from God through the spirit what you say makes sense to me Mike.

Since I believe that the best of PFAL has lead me to recognize bad PFAL doctrines and TWI practices I hope that is clear to you also.

I think that Wierwille on more than one occasion said things like, "I don't guarantee that everything that I say is God Breathed Word and you should check it for yourself." I don't think that your stand even measures up to Wierwille's lip service to the truth. But I'm fairly certain that Wierwille would have privately been very pleased with your willingness to use his books as your rule of faith and practice. In other words he would have liked to have you around, but wouldn't have wanted you to speak for fear of discrediting his organization with your views.

(Edited for grammar)

Edited January 14, 2009 by JeffSjo

[WhiteDove]

WD,

I notice in your chastisement that you neglected to quote the post I was responding to in the first place, thus being able to conclude that I was bringing up the "evidence" issure out of thin air.

So here's the post I was referring to...

So, you see, far from bringing it up out of nowhere (your second demonstrably incorrect accusation against me on this thread), I brought it up as a specific parallel to the post immediately before it.

Regardless, we've both been told this is off topic. So let's keep it that way.

The post before yours, had nothing to do with VPW leaving signed confessions, videotaped addendums, preditors ,sex,moneyl,ust and power. You introduced those ideas to the thread. You then theorized what some people might think, when I responded to the ideas you introduced and your theories you then claimed I wanted something . I made no such request.

[Raf]

The post before that referred to what it would take for someone to believe Wierwille said anything right.

My post referred to what it would take for someone to believe Wierwille was a predator who abused God's Word and people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power.

Not my fault you tried on the shoes and found a snug fit.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Raf

[waterbuffalo]

I AGREE, I was dumfounded on this prior to 1998, when I figured it out. If Dr hadn't hidden the thing, waiting for us to figure it out, I too would have never spent the time in PFAL I did.

I'M GLAD HE HID THIS FROM US.

He gave us enough clues to figure it out, but we didn't. This NOW gives me a retro tool to see who really was a deep thinker back then. Almost NONE of us.

[doojable]

Mike - I never cease to be amazed by your ability to stretch the truth until it is so thin it is non-existent.

You think PFAL is God-breathed? You think God taught VPW?

Even VP said it wasn't true - and this was the man who never passed up an opportunity to look larger than life.

So is this the argument? :

*God taught PFAL to VPW

How do you know?

*VP said that God taught him the Word.

(So you're ignoring all the research VP stole.)

*How did VP know that God taught him?

God told him so...

*How do I know that God taught VP?

VP said so....

The reasoning couldn't be more circular if a compass was involved.

So - for all you sports fans - where is the proof that Gawd spoke to VP?

Anybody?

*sounds of crickets*

Edited January 14, 2009 by doojable

[RumRunner]

Raf - as a journalist you must have noticed the pattern...

While most of us take shots at the organization of TWI along with some personal shots at Dicter Small Wierwille and Lewd Craig Martindork that's usually where it stays.

Mike, Oldies and WD have a very specific pattern - they almost always make it personal - oh not a personal attack in violation of GSC rules - but personal.

Count the pronouns in their in their rebuttals...

You said, you misquoted, you, you, you (how wrong you are ad infinitum)

I said, I quoted correctly, I, I, I, (how cool I am ad infinitum)

Ain't worth the time to argue - they have little logic, little personal integrity in interpersonal communications, - just ain't worth the time friend

The post before that referred to what it would take for someone to believe Wierwille said anything right.

My post referred to what it would take for someone to believe Wierwille was a predator who abused God's Word and people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power.

Not my fault you tried on the shoes and found a snug fit.

Edited January 14, 2009 by RumRunner

[Oakspear]

Here’s the history: make up your own minds:

What the Hey makes a statement:

My oh my. All this discussion and you are only lead to this conclusion:

Some people believe: God forbid anything VPW ever said or taught from the bible = "Thus saith the Lord."

But if the Lord himself would have said or taught it instead ... to them it still wouldn't prove to be anything.

Raf quotes WTH & responds:

Speak for yourself. Some of us are led to other conclusions. Such as: VPW could have left a signed confession with a videotaped addendum, and some people would still refuse to acknowledge that he was a predator who abused God's Word and His people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power.

You only need to eat one person to be a cannibal, no matter how many people you met and did not eat.

WD quotes Raf and responds, even though WTH was being responded to by Raf:

Actually I have been a consistant supporter of such hard evidence, and by the way I'm still waiting to see some.

Even though later WD says that he has not asked for hard evidence, he says in the previous exchange that he is waiting to see some, seems like splitting hairs to me

The initial exchange was Raf responding to something WTH said, WD of course is free to respond, but he is not being addressed at this point, nor are his positions being misrepresented

Jeff Stj quotes WD & responds:

Good one WD,

I'm waiting for hard evidence too, about the snowstorm. <_<

I read on this sight the police report where Wierwille claims that the Lord told him to have sex with the young lady in question!!!!!

Groucho quotes WD & responds:

Really?...I have seen plenty of hard evidence here...are you not looking at the same things I am or are you, perhaps, in some kind of denial?

WD quotes Jeff & resonds

Really perhaps you would like to refresh my memory. I don't recall any hard evidence as Raf discussed. I have seen personal testimony ,opinion. Words...... could be true ,could be not. People's words are what they are nothing more ,nothing less without hard evidence they are not documentable. That makes them neither true or false it just makes them someones words.

Then quotes Groucho & responds:

To my knowledge there is none so I suppose if one is in the business of just accepting peoples words, then they would also accept his as well without the same hard evidence. I say so works equally for all.

Raf had not mentioned hard evidence, only a hypothetical situation where he expresses his opinion that even if such evidence appeared, some would still not believe it

Raf responds to WD's staement that trhere is no "hard evidence":

WD wants proof. Do you have any rock solid proof. Not testimony from abused Christian after abused Christian, many of whom are turned off Christ forever as a result. No, testimony is not proof. He wants stains on dresses. He wants videotape. He wants to do a drug test that can pick up traces of laced drinks imbibed 35 years ago. Nothing short of that will consitute proof!

Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!

[Oakspear]

WD quotes Raf & responds:

Actually Raf you are the one who brought the subject up I did not ask for anything. I merely responded to your assumption that Quote:

VPW could have left a signed confession with a videotaped addendum, and some people would still refuse to acknowledge that he was a predator who abused God's Word and His people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power.

I reaffirmed that that would indeed by documentable evidence, only it seems to be missing in action. As such we are left with words. Pretty much the same as VP's snow story one can make up their own mind if they want to accept such words as truth without hard evidence. I don't I'll leave it where it belongs undocumentable either way.

WD responds to Jeff's question about the monnwalking bear:

Jeff I can do that for you, that would be called veiled name calling

Raf responds to WD:

And that would be a false accusation, WD.

I replied to Jeff in a PM, as he requested.

But the answer to the question is in this thread.

The "Moonwalking Bear" is that which is plain for anyone to see, as long as you are not distracted by irrelevancies that call your attention away from it.

[Oakspear]

WD responds to various posters:

(Raf @ Jan 13 2009, 07:29 PM)

Amen, Mark. That's my point, exactly.

Gee if that was your point then why did you bring it up It was you who introduced it out of nowhere Raf. No one else was discussing it. It was you who said

Speak for yourself. Some of us are led to other conclusions. Such as: VPW could have left a signed confession with a videotaped addendum, and some people would still refuse to acknowledge that he was a predator who abused God's Word and His people to satisfy his lust for money, sex and power.

Speaking for myself as "some people" I pointed out that the opposite was true I very much support such documentable evidence as it collaborates verbal words.

WD wants proof. Do you have any rock solid proof. Not testimony from abused Christian after abused Christian, many of whom are turned off Christ forever as a result. No, testimony is not proof. He wants stains on dresses. He wants videotape. He wants to do a drug test that can pick up traces of laced drinks imbibed 35 years ago. Nothing short of that will constitute proof!

Pay no attention to the moonwalking bear!

You then decided I wanted something that I did not ask for, a misrepresentation of what I said. I did not ask for it I only said if it were there as YOU suggested, it would solidify the verbal claims made.

I made no request for anyone to prove their story.

The "Moonwalking Bear" is that which is plain for anyone to see, as long as you are not distracted by irrelevancies that call your attention away from it.

What's plain to see is that you brought up the subject, What's plain to see is that you claimed I wanted something that I did not ask for, What's plain to see is that you assume you know what people think or will or will not believe . You Don't! What's plain to see is that without collaborating evidence words are believed based on things like emotion, gut feelings, guesses, likeability all of which can be wrong.

That is that which is plain for anyone to see, as long as you are not distracted by irrelevancies that call your attention away from it

Yeah Pay no attention to the Moonwalking bear ...Only the mission

I'll be perfectly happy to leave it out of the discussion as long as you are not bringing it up and theorizing what people may or may not believe.

WD,

I notice in your chastisement that you neglected to quote the post I was responding to in the first place, thus being able to conclude that I was bringing up the "evidence" issure out of thin air.

So here's the post I was referring to...