Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

my opinion.............no free pass deserved!.............classic enabler and co-dependent............she knew of all der victoid's shenanigans..........and , for reasons known only to her, she chose, willfully, to suffer the indignities of vic's perversions and relentless megalomania............i saw her cry..............i saw her yell............but i NEVER saw her publicly defy what she knew to be his lies and vicious use of human beings to fulfill his personal lust and demons!...........she shared his bed........she bore his children, (well, at least 5 of them anyway), she kept his secrets, she covered his lies, she tolerated his meaness and cruelty to her own kipp family................she alone knows why...........i surely don't!................peace.

HCW claimed he was always treated well by vpw himself. I think that vpw was a lazy stereotyper. It's always easy to make disparaging comments about, say, a n1gger or a spear-chucker, but not QUITE so easy to make disparaging comments about HCW, a fellow working on periodicals. It was a LOT easier just to regurgitate (plagiarize) what he was getting from the Liberty Lobby and other conspiracy sources (just as he did much the same with Christian sources) than to make any kind of real correction for any accuracy. Big surprise lcm pulled much the same stuff with conspiracies. Everyone else out there remember hearing from lcm that the Pope bought an aircraft carrier and was getting ready to force conversions to Roman Catholicism at bayonet-point?

Yeah.. well, the comment I remember was.. "why can't we just take care of the people in the fellowships.." and that was it. The goon and goons were on him faster than a texan on a pork chop.. Honestly.. I hope he ran like hell from new knoxville and it's vile cretans..

Mark, it was a guy named J*m*l McGhee. He was shameless. But my wife sure scared the crap outa him, and then I showed up! It was funny, but really sad too. Down deep, he was a good guy, but he was following the "party line" so to speak, and trying to "save my wife" because it was evident that I was not going to follow him and Panar*llo on the glorious path of enlightenment through Martindale... And thanks Mark, for a DemocRat, you have your nice side as well! :)--> But speaking of priceless Corps moments, I have another. May I share? Thank you... Once I bout three whole boxes of Earth Grain brand donuts for my twig. I put them in a brown grocery bag in the fridge on the "garden level" (remember that? Not "basement"?) of the Hallowed Halls Of Uncle Harry Highrise. Well, the night that we were going to have a twig, and I was going to spring the surprise and give out the goodies, when I went to the fridge, the fricken donuts were all but gone! Yeah! there was three and a half donuts left in one of the three boxes, and the two empty boxers were still in my grocery bag!!! Oh! I was furious! The thievin' bast*rd even had the gall to leave a half eaten donut in the box! Well. Immediately, I got a piece of paper and left a note on the fridge that said something to the effect: "To the lowdown no count thievin scumbag who stole my donuts! Are you really in the Way Corps?!?! And you made a comittment to live a lifestyle of It Is Written?!?! What about "Let him that stole, steal no more...da da da...?" If you have any honor whatsoever, you'll fess up and tell me who you are! And then you'll pay me back!!" And then I went to twig to tell them that the surprise I had been talking about had been stolen. They were truly bummed, for we all loved those Earth Grain donuts... Well, a couple of days later, a friend of mine who had started in the ninth Corps, but ended up with the Tenth Corps came up to me and asked if he could have a word with me. I said; "Sure ****, what's up?" Ya see **** had been my WOW brother in 1976-77, and we were tight. We were bro's. We'd been through some .... together. I knew he had had some trouble with tuition, so I thought it had something to do with that. So I'm thinking that I am going to minister to his needs or some such "lofty" condesencion..(sp?) And so he says; "Jonny", uh concerning those umm, uhh, well...Well, ya know those donuts? Umm, I umm I ATE YER DONUTS MAN! It was me! I am a piece of crap! I'm sorry man! But I saw 'em in there, and they just kept starin' at me, and I couldn't help it and I ate 'em!" And he burst into tears! And I hugged him, and I told him I loved him and I forgave him, and then I just burst out laughing too, and then so did he, and then everything became ok then. I felt soo bad for him! But I punched him in the shoulder, and then laughed again, and the tears just rolled as we laughed about it. But then again, I guess he shouldn't have stolen them either. But shoot, that was kinda wild. He still paid me the money for the donuts though, and I very gladly accepted it as well! Then I went out and bought three more boxes of donuts and I ate every single one of them by myself!!

Alfa, Remember that ROA run we made in my red 68 Mustang? I believe you and I both dodged a few real and imagined cows going through Nevada the first night. You had come up with a 'shortcut' that had us in the middle of open range.

i want to apologize to cynic and zixar for my personal attack type remarks. i think they're edited out but i'm still sorry. ?

It is NOT simply "a piece of paper." It is a cultural symbol. It is represents an entire set of legal considerations all balled up, or rolled up into one "solemn" moment of commitment symbolized by the wedding. It is a currently hot topic in our society and culture because of its cultural significance, even though most of the technical and legal aspects of marriage can be invoked separately otherwise (except for income tax considerations, some of which are often characterized as penalties instead of benefits).

Linda Z. said, And what if there were? I just don't get people who want to control that which doesn't affect them. What goes on behind (pardon the pun) closed doors is NONE of my business. I am no longer trying to save the world. I'm just trying to brighten my little corner of it. The lessons repeat until they are learned.

People keep wanting to make this an equal rights issue. It's not. Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else. The issue is not one of rights or freedoms, but of societal preferences. Unmarried people are free to join in relationships, cohabit, have children, build homes together, buy personal or real property together, etc. They are free to enter into contracts together, name others of their choice as beneficiaries, heirs, medical decision makers, and other such things. They are free to open joint accounts with rights of survivorship with whomever they please. They can confer almost every privilege and power of a spouse, and even more, upon whomever they choose. There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage. So what is marriage? It is a special, privileged institution designed to encourage, support, and protect a particular family structure that is overwhelmingly viewed as advantageous to society. From a governmental point of view, it's essentially an incentive program. In that sense, it's not unlike Zixar's military example. We offer incentives to people to encourage them to join the military, and support for them that is not offered to others. We offer even more benefits to encourage them to remain in the military through retirement. It is not illegal to not join the military, or to not make it a career, but for those who do, there are special privileges and special responsibilities. Similarly, we offer incentives to people to encourage them to marry and remain married, and support for them that is not offered to others. It is not illegal to not be married, but for those who are, there are special privileges and special responsibilities.

It also supports the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. And that gay parents can be (and usually are) just as loving, supportive and capable of raising well-adjusted children as any other parent. ?????????????

It supports the theory that homosexual behavior is not simply some satanic deviant behavior.

The courts have been "making laws" since before there ever was a constitution. In fact our Constitution and our court system was built largely upon the concepts of what was onced called common law and today is usually referred to as case law. One of the "jobs" of the court for as long as there have been courts has been to try and make sure the laws are equally and justly applied to all and prevent laws and court rulings from favoring one class or individual over another. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Linda, Dovey, Abi... :D--> You all are saying things I want to say....and doing soooooo much better. ******* A point I ponder sometimes... People want to say that god set things up a certain way "in the beginning" and that way hasn't changed since then. It's been said here often that god created "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Frank" (or some variant thereof) and that it was so they could go forth and multiply. OK. Logical. At first blush. But with whom did they "multiply"? The only logical answer if one relies soley upon the bible is with each other, with their children, and their children with one another. Somebody ought to get our modern day laws in alignment and harmony with the word... ?????????????

I agree with coolwaters.....gay marriage should be a legal contract between two people of the same sex. My best friend that I grew up next door to was gay and lived with his partner for over 25 years, he died of a heart attack just last Feb.2003 He was in the TWI for many years and was accepted by VPW. Was in the 6th corps, wow several times. He was very feminate so wasn't hard to pick off. He left TWI volunarily because he met his partner of over 25 years. They each made legally binding contracts to leave everything to whoever survived the other. This man had more love for God and Gods people than anyone I ever met. I miss him so much, we had so much fun growing up together and I thank God for his love and friendship. So I beleive they should have rights of survivership. Yes even social security benefits. Do I think Homosexuality is right no I don't, but I don't hate the person just don't care for the act. Some of the nastiest people I know were heterosexuals eg. LCM...He was the worst of the worst and many others. But maybe I'm getting off the thread, I don't know. As to poligamy.....most of them have so many wives and children that they can't support them and therfore are on welfare, which we pay for. They ARE a burden to society unless you like your high taxes to go to them. Very few gays are on welfare, so economically they are not usually a burden on our pocket books. OK I've had my little say about this so cynic have a go at me and leave our dear exxie alone. If you had one once of the love she has you just might be tolerable. And I agree with most in here that the least you can do is speak plain Inglish, you can even misspell a word here and there just like the rest of us do. Love ya anyway, you are a child of God just like the rest of us. Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... too dumb to post pics http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?s=9716057...a&ul=4846073735

Garth, [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:49.]

I'm not by any means agreeing with everything Zixar and Cynic have posted, but both bring up some good points, IMO. (Speaking only of the topic, not the sidetracks.) A few disclaimers: The Bible is not even a rule of faith and practice for me. I don't look upon this as a religious issue, and certainly not a church vs. state issue. I don't care about people's sexual preferences. Now... Homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals (people with no sexuality or sexual desire, if such people exist) have exactly the same marriage rights, privileges, and responsibilities as do heterosexuals. Any of them can marry a person of opposite gender, subject to certain restrictions. Unmarried people, no matter what their sexual preference may be, have legitimate concerns that have been brought to light by gay rights activists. (I mean nothing negative by "activist.") Other than official societal sanctioning of homosexual unions, most of those concerns can be addressed through wills, powers of attorney, and contracts. To the extent that they can't, there seems to be fairly broad support in many locations for changing laws to address those concerns, to the extent in some locations of establishing civil unions that are, within the corresponding jurisdiction, essentially the same as marriage. This issue is about none of the above things. It is about forcing society to legally recognize homosexual partnerships as being the same as, or at least indistinguishable from, heterosexual marriages. They are not, and never will be, even if the drastic changes in technology and practice that I mentioned earlier become reality. For all the societal faults that have weakened many marriages, and perhaps the institution of marriage itself, I and many others believe that the traditional marriage and family structure of one man and one woman marrying for life and together raising a family is an ideal worthy of special societal promotion and protection. We recognize also that many people's lives don't conform to that ideal. Heck, mine doesn't. I intended to marry for life, and did my utmost to make that happen, but I ended up as a divorced father, raising my daughter on my own. I don't care for the way Zixar presented his argument, but I think the thrust of it is similar to the above paragraph. The traditional marriage and family is an ideal that is clearly beneficial to society and worthy of its promotion and protection. From a societal point of view, other arrangements may be worthy of some legal protection, but probably not of promotion, and neither to the same extent as traditional marriages. I'm opposed to gay marriages. I'm very open to considering extending some, if not all of the protections afforded through marriage to others. I'd want to consider those individually. Note that nothing I've said has been religiously based.

. [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:42.]

Yes Garth, something like that.

As usual, Cynic needs links to every historical source every time a commonly known historical fact is made, particularly when regarding Calvin. And he does so in such a straw man like fashion. (After Goggling the internet for the supposedly non-existant references) OK, Cynic, here are some references that show that Calvin wasn't such the non-persecuting saint you wish to make him: 1) http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM - Showing the mindset of the one whom you can't seem to believe that he'd do such things. 2) http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html - And what if Gribaldo hadn't backed down like he did, wouldn't he too have been executed for heresy? 3) http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:5pFu4...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 - Ohh look! Others who were actually killed, or at least whom Calvin went after with the intent of killing. How many of those whom I have failed to prove is it whittled down to now? :D--> Your turn, Mr. Strawman. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Garth, does Cynic pay you to make him look good, or is it just a reflexive thing you do?

Cynic, Ex shows us all clearly that you need to learn the basic principle that is illustrated in I Corinthians 14:9 : There ya go, orthodox Bible verse even. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Garth, Any progress on finding 23 additional victims of John Calvin? Or, are you still cruising with the intellectual vitality of a lazy fabricator? Which is it, Punk?

Personally, I can't think of a single reason, beyond religious ones, why polygamy can't be legal. Sure tax forms and social security rules would have to be changed. Big deal. It isn't like there aren't already guys out there making babies with five and six different women and women making babies with five or six different men. The government has already found ways to deal with the paternity and maternity issues in such cases, at least to some degree. There could even be some value in it, if all the people could figure out how to get along and not be jealous. (I'm woman enough to admit I couldn't do that.) Think about it, more people to help pitch in and raise the kids, keep house, share expenses. Hell, I have no romantic or sexual interest in a woman, but I sure would love to have a wife. :D--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

? [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:02.]

FORGET IT. i'm not going back to read the fact that you just said that as there is an obvious downside to it, just the same as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia i do not care if you come back and say you didn't mean they are the 'SAME' thing you have lost all my respect by your whatever you call it logic i KNOW ABOUT incest and pedophilia firsthand HOW DARE YOU !!!! bible man you and cynic and everyone else HOW DARE YOU you make me puke ? [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:01.]

question peas what is written in the Constitution about marriage ? as to polygamy and the constitution.... were africans given any voice ? did they believe in polygamy ? (mormons weren't around yet, were they?) how 'bout the native americans ? was marriage based on the christian background of the Constitution guys ? what is the basis of all of this and the laws instituted or built on after this ? can we keep it secular ? religion rules !!!!!!!!! ?

Cynic, you're just raising the same point I did before. If marriage is open to homosexuals, why not polygamists (with an m, by the way - a polygynist would be very interesting though). It seems as if people are less and less willing to be defined in the traditional ways. After all, we know a lot more about everything those who handed down those traditions. Sort of. Much of our tradition comes from our biology, and its profound influence upon our psychological and social behavior. Even today, in the modern world.

hey abi, i meant to thank you before for being confused too :)--> mwah ?

Oh, good grief! What is it with you people and analogies? All right, fine. Here's another one that's entirely secular, and government-based, to boot. Scene: Outside an American Air Force base GUARD Good morning, sir. May I see your military ID? MAN I haven't got one. GUARD What is the nature of your visit today, then, sir? MAN Oh, I heard that you can buy things cheap at the BX, so I came to do some shopping. GUARD Sir, the base exchange only sells to active or retired military personnel. MAN Oh. You won't make an exception for me? I'm a citizen after all. I pay your salary, and the subsidy on that merchandise so you can buy it cheap at the BX! GUARD Military personnel only, sir. MAN Well, how do I become one, then? GUARD You could enlist, but... MAN But what? GUARD How old are you, sir? MAN 60. What's it to you? GUARD I'm afraid that's too old to enlist. MAN Isn't that age discrimination? GUARD Well, can you run an 8-minute mile with a full backpack? MAN Not any more. GUARD Well, there you go. MAN So I can't shop at your store because I'm not military, and I can't join the military because I'm too old. That means I can't shop at your BX just because I'm too old? That certainly is ageist! GUARD Well, indirectly, that's correct. MAN There ought to be a law! GUARD As soon as they pass it, I'll defend it, sir. Until then, it's off to Wal-Mart with you. MAN I don't want to go to Wal-Mart! I want to shop at the BX! Since when did this become Nazi Germany? GUARD If this were Nazi Germany, I'd have shot you by now. Now please clear the gate area, sir. MAN (driving off) I'll suuuuuue...

and another thing, i can't remember what was said about sheep and children but that is so unbelievably mean and nasty. try to put yourself in foggie's daughter's shoes or tref's shoes or anybody else you love and guess what, i'm no friggin saint. i've even made jokes about gay people. i'm trying to stop that. takes a while to get over years of brainmolding ?

"cystic fibrosis or downs syndrome" ohmygosh what in the heck are you talking about M&A ? ** i don't understand so much about religion and government and politics ** i do know i sure as hell wouldn't want to be gay since there doesn't seem to be true liberty, justice, happiness for gay people i still fight a prejudice and sometimes do not even realize it. it's like ingrained (sp?) in me and as far as the priest crap and pedophile nonsense goes, i personally know pedophiles who like different sex children and same sex children and i am really really disgusted when someone talks about homosexuals in the same breath ?

i didn't get it, zix ?

M&A How could you possibly have been marked and avoided when you or so clearly in agreement with Craigipoos upon this issue? Fred Phelps would welcome you with open arms as would any group who believes in hatred and discrimination against millions of Americans. Why not form your own version of the Klu Klux Klan in order to enforce heterosexual purity? Why not do the Nazi thing of forced expulsions and concentration camps? Why not turn the USA into the equivalent of the Taleban rule in Afghanistan? Why not have special centres for treatment where you can administer electric shock treatment and other forms of torture? If you think that you are angry then remember the anger of those of us who have to face discrimination and hatred, ignorance and bigotry every day. The right to discriminate is not in the US Constitution and it still took nearly two centuries for that to be established. Don't hold your breath about being able to change it back in your lifetime. I am glad that posts such as yours will only serve to show people the dangers and implications of what you propose. I rejoice that it sticks in your craw - you are only having to put up with what gay people have had to endure for centuries. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

The Massachusetts Supreme Court should not forget those other Democrats who might want official legitimacy for a sexual relationship with a sibling, a cousin or that favorite sheep. http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm

Trefor, The Massachusetts legislature proposed civil unions similar to the British partnerships. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled such arrangements unconstitutional.

Rocky: No, that's insufficient reason for opening marriage to any two individuals. The reason why I say that is that the same argument can be used for polygamy and consensual incest, all of whose downsides to society outweigh any personal upside.

Rocky: I should have been more clear. The context was two heterosexuals of the same gender entering into a marriage of convenience. Currently, they are prohibited under the same restrictions as homosexuals from doing so.

Most of the anti arguments have been rehearsed before and they are still invalid as arguments, reflecting prejudice far more than they do cogent thought. America was founded on the right to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness. It was founded to prevent religious oppression and domination, for individuals to have the right to be different and to be respected. When you deny people rights to have their relationships accepted and protected, whether or not you agree with them, you demean the founding principles and create a class of second class citizens. Even heterosexual couple are allowed to be married whether or not they intend to undertake a breeding programme - they are given protections, recognition and responsibilities which are denied to other citizens. The religious reich think that their interpretation of morality is the only correct one and throw a hissy fit when they cannot get their own way. Politicians desperate for votes climb upon the bandwagon of reaction. In many parts of the world this unfairness has been recognised, it is happening in Canada too. Religions may define marriage how they will but they have no right to dictate in a civil or secular sense about how marriage should be defined by others. Courts are there to interpret the law and one such court has broken ranks and set off a panic reaction. From my understanding of the legal situation, this ruling is only applicable in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and, thanks to DOMA, is not binding upon any other state of the union. Most states have already passed legislation to exclude same sex marriages in their own state in any case. Bush talking about a constitutional amendment is NOT to protect his beliefs about marriage but to enforce them upon the entire nation. It seeks to deny the right of a state, which DOMA actually supported, to make its own definition, if it cared to, to define marriage being one man and one woman or otherwise. Believe it or not, this is NOT a sexual issue - it is not legitimising what people do in their bedrooms, but it is everything to do with legitimising relationships of citizens who are supposedly equal under the law and who have expectations of equality under the law. So throw up all the old red herrings - NAMBLA, paedophiles, the family, reproduction or whatever. Bring up all the religious objections you can think of, but that still does not detract from the CIVIL and SECULAR issue at hand. In the early 20th century, there was another group of people who thought their way was best for the nation - forcing through a constitutional amendment called PROHIBITION. Look what good that did for the nation. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Jonny, I was concerned with my spelling of the name of the state in question, not yours. I don't criticize spelling here. But I still don't see the connection between your concern and the issue at hand in the discussion of gay marriage. Even IF such a scenario could reasonably be expected (which may be possible, I'm not challenging you on it), there are NOW laws related to underage marriage and sex. Granted some states allow a 16 year old to marry with consent, and maybe 14, but there are still, and currently, even limits to that. AND, there are laws (though difficult to enforce) related to FORCING children to get married. THIS is not an issue of gay marriage, but IS an issue related to closed societies as offshoot to the mormon church in southern Utah/Northern Arizona. Officials in both states for about 50 years "winked" at, or allowed, knowingly but not officially endorsing, polygamy in a very closed culture around Colorado City, which is on the border of Arizona and Utah. But as, in the last couple of years, more horror stories of young girls being forced into plural marriages at ages as young as 13, efforts have stepped up to try to get the problems dealt with. That community is run by religious zealots, politically and commercially. They have intimidated state law enforcement and witnesses with impunity, for years. Such a thing would take a heck of a lot of intense effort to set up with same sex underage marriage. I just don't see the connection you make as being a reasonable fear. by all means, lets make sure children cannot be subject to such situations, however.

well... why shouldn't they have to go through all the crap straight folks do if they divorce! they've been getting away with skating free for too long! ...and MasterP brings up a valid point, it's a question of pedophilia, gay or straight, not sexual orientation... at least that's what I'm thinking... I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

thanks my3cents and all Zshot, what you said about courts should enforce laws, not make them. is this a really bad thing ? and does it happen a lot ? ?

One of my concerns is... IMO, Law's and leglislation should be done in congress (either at the state or federal level) instead on the court room. Courts are to inforce exsisting law not to make new laws.

It was 1992, my last year with the Way as I was a twig coordinator and the "Keep it simple" is the one that year. He was African-American. He was the gutsy guy to turn away from Martindale instead of take it in his face. Martindale then lost an entire black fellowship. LCM, what drives his intellect is beyond me...the guy wasn't even trying to run the meeting or criticize Martindale. He may have ripped his armband off when I wasn't looking. It was Larry Panarello that chased him. Marked and Avoided

What year was this infamous meeting? Was it ROA 91 or 92? Was it the same year that the nightly teachings focused on a different ministry program? (Family Camps, WOW, etc.)

Yea* JT "* woulda jo*ned t*e army........" *f * t**nk about *t we really s*oulda... we'd *ave been pa*d, more and better food, a cons*stant set of rules and regulat*ons, a recognzable c*a**n of command, etc etc. o** and d*d * ment*on t*at we'd *ave been pa*d?

That was absolutely rediculous and totally uncalled for. What a way to attract and keep people. --> ____

If I remember correctly, the guy at the microphone talked about love. His (abbreviated) topic definitely dealt with the lack of love he saw and we needed to get back to that. BTW, I was in the front row at that meeting. Mr "I'm so anxious to go in the Corps." Well, we never did end up going in the corps. That meeting had a lot to do with it. If I wanted screaming, I would have joined the Army.