Steve Lortz

Arrogance was the DNA of The Way Tree. Arrogance was the DNA that gave birth to The Way Tree, it was the DNA The Way Tree used to preserve itself, it was the DNA The Way Tree used to propagate itself, and arrogance is the DNA that runs through ALL the The Way Tree off-shoots. There was no fear of God in The Way Tree's DNA to prune the pride and arrogance. Love, Steve

I just listened to the audio. Here are some of my impressions. I loved the public personna that Wierwille projected. When I first heard about adultery, it was in the context of Martindale, and only gradually (relatively speaking) that I came to understand Martindale had been privately taught that adultery was okay by Wierwille. It was only after I had read first hand accounts here at Greasespot by survivors of Wierwille's depredations that I realized how perfectly Wierwille's public personna masked the evil attitudes of his heart. It was only after I began studying dispensationalism myself, and how it contradicts what the Bible says about the New Covenant, that I began to see through the tissue of lies that Wierwille taught as Bible. Wierwille preached exegesis, reading the meaning OUT FROM what is written. But he practiced and taught eisegesis, reading foreign meanings INTO the scriptures. A case in point is this teaching entitled Principles of Research. Wierwille addresses only ONE principle of reading the scriptures, and that is: pay attention to the pronouns. Wierwille makes two disparaging remarks about formal theological training. One is that a person who has been theologically trained is not free to change his beliefs, and the other is that theological schools require students to take a course on how to apologize for being a Christian. He dresses the last one up as a joke, but the audience gets the point that he considers theological training a bad thing. He says that "this" [presumably HQ] is the only place in the world for research, and a person has to hang around to absorb it all, because it's simply their way of life at HQ. Wierwille addresses no other principles of research in the teaching. (As an aside, currently being a student in a theological seminary, I can testify that there is much more freedom to change your beliefs in seminary than there ever was in TWI! I was never located at HQ inrez, but I can truly say that there are many places in the world vastly superior to Emporia, Gunnison and Tinnie for research!) Wierwille says that Acts chapter 1 used to disturb him because he couldn't understand why Jesus would not have appointed another apostle to take Judas Iscariot's place if Judas had run out and hung himself immediately after the betrayal. I doubt that Wierwille was ever disturbed by the question at all. I think he got this teaching from someone else. Probably Bullinger. WordWolf is probably better able to answer that question than I am. Wierwille used the principle of paying attention to pronouns to read Judas' presence INTO the first chapter of Acts. Judas' presence in the first part of the chapter was simply NOT IMPORTANT to Luke. Verse 2 refers to "apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen." Wierwille says this MUST include Judas Iscariot, even though nothing in the actual language requires that. Judas might have been present, he might not have. It just doesn't say. Yet Wierwille WANTS Judas to be present, so he READS it that way. If you notice, Wierwille frequently has the audience vocalize, to actually speak, the word that occurs in the passage of scripture. At other places, he has the audience vocalize the remainder of a slogan that he initiates. This is an element of conditioning so that the audience accepts what Wierwille is saying as something they should say their selves, and it confuses the sayings of Wierwille in their minds with the words of the Word. At one point, talking about how badly "they" have misinterpreted (in his not so humble opinion) Acts 1, Wierwille states, "If they've blown it, why would you want to go along with that junk?" Good question. And if we have our minds in critical thinking mode, since Wierwille HAS demonstrably blown it, why would we want to go along with his junk? At one point, Wierwille said, "The Way never said we know it all! We never will!" Good thing he's dead, or he'd be munching on a lot of corvus corax! Love, Steve

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I will within a day or so in order to give you the feed-back you requested. My gag reflex didn't kick in while I was reading the description of Wierwille's accomplishments, but I couldn't figure out why it didn't. Back around 1987 or '88, there was a former TWI leader, a female if I remember correctly, going around the country showing the "Athletes of the Spirit" tape, using the pause and rewind buttons to carefully examine what was being said and what was being done on the stage at the same time. It was highly revealing of the evil of the production. This project reminds me of that. I look forward to parsing the teaching. Thanks! Love, Steve

Sometimes I dream that I am inrez in the Corps, and have just arrived at one of the campuses after a relocation, and nobody there yet knows that I no longer believe in PFAL. What to do? What to do? Lay low? Stand up and shout to every one that PFAL is a hoax and a fraud (which I HAVE done in some dreams)? Just try to get away and ease on down the road? It's been 25 years since I left from in-residence corps training, and I had one of those dreams just a few days ago. It was a doozy. Love, Steve

I'll be able to post some more lengthy responses tomorrow, but here's a quick, drive-by observation: I've been reading up on the physiology of fear, and it strikes me that there is no seeming neurological difference between fear and awe. If there is a difference, it would seem that the effects of awe are at a much lower order of magnitude than the effects of fear. Here's a list of the physiological effects of fear, from Anne M. Chalfant, Managing Anxiety in People with Autism, [bethesda, MD: Woodbine House, 2011], pp. 14-5, - Racing heart - Hyperventilation and shortness of breath - Turning pale or flush or alternating between both - Digestion slowing down or stopping - Constriction of blood vessels in many parts of the body - Nausea - Dilation of blood vessels for muscles - Inhibition of gland responsible for tear production and salavation, resulting in dry eyes and mouth - Dilation of pupils - Relaxation of bladder, resulting in "accidents" - Faster reflexes - Shaking It makes some sense out of the pairing of "fear" and "trembling" in some occurances of phobeo/phobos. If there's a good short-hand description of the physiology of fear, it is "trembling." Fear is controllable, that is the mind can still function in the state of fear, but if the mind is overwhelmed (deer in the headlights), the resulting paralysis or spastic response is called "panic." Love, Steve

I'm inclined to think that EVERY ministry should sell off its assets and donate the proceeds to the poor when its founder dies. The second generation is NEVER the same as the original, and the post-founder ministry just settles into an ossified relic... dead. I just went and browsed around at John Lynn's website. In the Statement of Beliefs, it reads in part, "It is possible to understand each verse by applying logic and the sound linguistic principles of biblical interpretation in conjunction with the spirit of God in us." Notice that the first item listed is "logic." This is not the logic of a middle-school class in Logic; propositions, syllogisms, etc. It is a strange system of rationalization, originally birthed by Wierwille in PFAL, but engorged on steroids by CES. As far as "sound linguistic principles of biblical interpretation", PFAL/CES/TLTF "logic" trumps everything else, even what's clearly written in black and white. When it was pointed out to the leaders of CES that Wierwille's interpretation of Romans 8:9-11 contradicted what Paul actually wrote, those leaders came out with a teaching that the book of Romans couldn't be trusted because it was tainted with Paul's "Jewish mindset". God couldn't reveal the fulness of the Administration of the Sacred Secret to Paul until Paul's Jewish mindset was "broken" by his Momentus... er... Jerusalem experience. Also notice that the purpose of Lynn's hermeneutics is not to comprehend the whole message of the gospel, but to understand "each verse", seemingly in isolation. TWI hermeneutics are like a Chinese finger-trap. The more you struggle to make its "logic" work, the more tightly ensnared you become in error. Love, Steve

Speaking of splinter groups, has anybody heard about Dale Sides and his Liberating Ministries for Christ International lately? I looked on his website, and he now imitates Wierwille by inviting people to address him as "Dr. Dale". My wife and I took his "Exercising Spiritual Authority" class back in the mid-'90s. It seemed like a version of PFAL stripped down to its high points, especially PFAL's themes of "dealing with the adversary" dressed up as spiritual WARFARE! His doctrine was pretty much YOU have the authority to cast out demons!, YOU have the authority to command angels to "Bring back my money!", YOU have the authority to tell people to get healed! Not much about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. His Believers' Bible Camp was ordaining people as if ordinations were boxes of Crackerjack for a while, until some people he ordained went off and made fools of themselves AND of Believers' Bible Camp. Then, all of a sudden "the Holy Spirit" got real picky about who He let Sides ordain, and Believers' Bible Camp changed its name to Liberating Ministries for Christ International (WHY! OH, WHY! Does every podunk spin-off of TWI call itself INTERNATIONAL!?! It's like Wierwille calling himself DOCTOR!) I went to one of Sides "ministerial weekends," which turned out to be a series of lectures on how to set up your own incorporation as a tax-exempt organization. Talk about multi-level marketing! During that weekend, he talked about the marketing importance of getting "denominational cover", that is, of getting certain denominations (take your pick, whichever ones you think have the largest market for your product) to endorse your "parachurch ministry" for use among their congregations. It was shortly after that weekend, he sent out a mail telling how "the Holy Spirit" had revealed to him that it's okay to use Trinitarian terminology, even though you don't attach Trinitarian meanings to the terms, because of some gobble-de-gook about there being three members of the godhead, so the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three head gods. Never mind the fact that the word "godhead" is simply an idiosyncratic, archaic English spelling of the word "godhood" or "divinity." Sides teaches a subordinationist tritheism disguised to sound like trinitarian doctrine. At least that was what he was doing the last time his teachings came to my attention. During the Momentus brouhaha, some of us asked Sides for help in exposing the practices of Momentus that violated the principles of Exercising Spiritual Authority, and he became remarkably reluctant to speak "evil" of any other "parachurch" ministries. He had a disturbing practice of saying "Will you pray this prayer out loud with me?", and then inserting oaths to do this or that into the middle of the prayer. And of course, once you had made a vow, foolish or not, you were bound to fulfill it. No repentence of foolish vows, whatsoever. My impression is that Sides has kept a very, very close control over the image of LMFCI since whatever happened at Believers' Bible Camp. Love, Steve

The Jesus movement was much bigger, and a much more genuine movement of the Holy Spirit than TWI ever was. Even with the Trinity. The Lord Jesus Christ is still able to work better with people who believe in the Trinity than He can with people who think He's absent. Wierwille didn't so much "steal" people from the Jesus movement as he leeched them from it. Bloodsucker. Love, Steve

You may not realize it, John, but your comment about the Jesus movement demonstrates a colossal ignorance of the history of Christianity in the 20th century United States... ...just sayin'... ...not very persuasive... Love, Steve

For more years than I care to remember, I worked retail during the Christmas season. If a customer wished me a merry Christmas, I would respond in kind. If I didn't know what a customer's persuasion was, I might make some comment about how thankful we were that they put up with all the hassle to shop at our store. The object of the final greeting, after all, is to make the customer feel comfortable in coming back. Sometimes I would say something non-formulaic like "I hope you have a really good time during the holidays this year!" If I knew any of the personal circumstances of a customer,. I would work something personal into the greeting to help build customer loyalty. Those things being said, it DOES FEEL GOOD to be free to say: MERRY CHRISTMAS! HO, HO, HO! Love, Steve

Geisha, I like you! I admire your passion for the Lord, and your willingness to engage with people on the subject. I agree with you 99% of the time. That percentage may seem a little high to you, but if you stop and think about what I'm actually saying, you may be pleasantly surprised. You know, there are NO grammars or dictionaries surviving from antiquity. ALL the rules of Greek grammar (with their multitude of exceptions!) and ALL the definitions are derived by inference. And that goes for the writings of Homer and the Greek philosophers, as well as the Koine Greek of the Bible. Figuring out what the phrase "the fear of God" means is what we're doing here, not from PFAL, not from Pavlov, but from how the word is used in its contexts in the Bible. That's what it means to derive a definition by inference. I John 4:18 says "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that hath fear is not made perfect in love." I John 5:3a, only about a mere 100 words later in the King James Version, says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments..." Now... if John defines "the love of God" in this particular context as "keeping His commandments", then we should be able to learn something about what John means by "fear" when we substitute "to keep His commandments" for "love" in verse 4:18. (The word "perfect" in verse 4:18 is based on telos, a Greek word which means "finished" or "completed". The word "torment" in 4:18 is based on kalasis, a "pruning" or a "cutting off".) If we do so, we get, "There is no fear in keeping God's commandments; but completely keeping God's commandments casts out fear: because fear prunes, he that fears is not finished in keeping God's commandments." Is there anything wrong with that, other than that it is stated in language you aren't familiar with? You wrote, "We can? We can just make that leap and read that into the verse? I guess we can just pull any verse about love out of the scriptures and say it means fear." Did I "just pull any verse out of the scriptures"? Did I say that "love" means "fear"? If you go back and re-read carefully, you'll see that I did neither of those things. =========== Regarding II Corinthians 7:1b you wrote, "This is one wonderful and encouraging verse.....but I would caution building an entire theology around what you are gleaning from these verses because it seems you are heading towards a works based theology." I appreciate your thoughfulness and concern for me, and I don't intend that in a sarcastic way. Your care for me as well as for the Lord comes through. II Corinthians 7:1b says, "...let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." It isn't just an isolated verse. Philippians 2:12 says, "Wherefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." The word translated "work out" is katergazomai, literally to "work down" meaning to bring something into effect through work, sort of like bringing a plan into effect by working to accomplish its objectives. And here it is in the imperative mood. This is NOT simply a wonderful and encouraging verse, it is a COMMANDMENT. We are commanded to work out our own salvation in or with fear, and combined with II Corinthians 7:1b, we see that this fear is most probably the fear of God. Does this mean we should adopt a "theology of works", whatever THAT means? No, we Christians from gentile backgrounds receive salvation by grace through faith, the same way Christians from Jewish backgrounds receive it. But once we receive that salvation, we are to work that salvation out into expression, we are to accomplish works that are appropriate for a person who has been saved. Is the fear of God reverence, awe, etc., etc. YES, it is! But it also has a reflexive component. When we recognize the holiness of God, then we also recognize the elements in our hearts, pride and arrogancy, that cast themselves up in rebellion against God's holiness. The reverence of God includes a hatred of of the pride and arrogancy in our own hearts. I am confident that a strong case can be made that the "pride and arrogancy" of Proverbs 8:13 are the desperate wickedness of Jeremiah 17:9. Wierwille, in PFAL, sought to divorce the hatred of pride and arrogancy in our own hearts from reverence for God. Does the goodness of God lead men to repentence? Yes it does, when people recognize that God is good, and they want to be LIKE him, making their holiness more complete or more finished through their works. Will their holiness become absolutely complete through their works? No, it will not. That will only happen when that which is perfect is come and we are changed. Thank you, geisha! Love, Steve

Wierwille taught that the "fear" of God doesn't mean that we are to fear Him, but that we are to "respect" Him. "Respect" is indeed a major, perhaps the dominant component of "fear". ANY kind of fear. What kind of respect did Wierwille mean? We see from the Scriptures that the proper "fear" or "respect" of God results in obedience to His Word, and this obedience casts out any accompanying torment. In other parts of PFAL, Wierwille taught that we are no longer expected to be obedient to God. In this "wonderful administration of the grace of God", we get a free-pass on all our sins. There is no longer any thing wrong with sin, only with sin-consciousness. We can do anything we want, as long as we don't condemn ourselves for doing it. I submit that "sin-consciousness" IS the fear of God in its reflexive component. When people recognize the holiness of God, they are also compelled to acknowledge their own falling short of that holiness. Wierwille's definition of "respect" divorced the reflexive component of the fear of God from the awe and reverence component. Wierwille said, just pay attention to how wonderful God is, don't pay any attention to how you can come up to the standard He expects of you. You can sing praise songs all day long, if you aren't moved to repent, you don't really respect God at all. If you read back over my posts, I think I almost always qualified the way Wierwille taught us to respect God as the same way we would respect an elderly uncle we are no longer expected to obey. The "fear" in the fear of God does NOT mean "fear" in the Pavlovian sense. But neither does it mean the reverence of singing praise songs all day with pride and arrogancy in our own hearts. Love, Steve

You hit the nail on the head, Kit! Probably in language more easy to understand than mine! :) Love, Steve

The verse you bring up, I John 4:18, points up the truth that we can't accept a simplistic, either/or definition of fear, the way Wierwille did and taught. If we read on to I John 5:3 we see "...this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments..." So we can read 4:18 as: There is no fear in keeping God's commandments: but perfectly keeping God's commandments casts out fear, because fear has torment. He who fears is not made perfect in keeping God's commandments. II Corinthians 7:1b also applies, "...let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." It is the fear of God that moves us to get rid of filthiness of the flesh and spirit. But if the fear of God is simply, passively adoring Him, how does it move us to get rid of filthiness? (rhetorical question) The fear of God has a reflexive component, remember, the fear of the LORD is to hate the pride and arrogancy in our own hearts! If a person DESIRES to harbor pride and arrogancy in her or his own heart, then the fear of God can carry quite a bit of torment with it, torment that can be relieved only by becoming humble, and keeping God's commandments. Some people try to relieve the torment by ignoring the fear of God, which they do by flattering their own selves, or by redefining the fear of God as simply "respect". Or they try to deaden the torment with Drambuie and the endorphins of sexual activity. In the long run, those things don't work. I still believe that ALL the evil perpetrated by TWI can be attributed to the truth that Wierwille did not fear God, and he taught us to do the same. Love, Steve

Wierwille liked to pretend that he arrived at his conclusions as a result of careful research, during which God would teach him the Word of God as it had not been known since the first century. For the past two days I've been using Blue Letter Bible to do a cursory examination of the idea of "fear" in the Old Testament. It's one of the most fascinating things I've done in a long time, both for how radically different the things I am finding are from what Wierwille taught, and for the wonderfully intricate elegance of the idea. Wierwille taught that fear is always negative, that it is believing in reverse, that it is sand in the machinery of life, that it always encases, always enslaves, always binds. The truth is a little more complex and a lot more profitable than that! The complete title of this thread is Fear of God, What it is? What it is NOT? ========================================== Proverbs 8:13a "13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate." This doesn't mean we're supposed to look at other people and say, "Ooooo... they're evil. I hate them!" It means we're supposed to look into our own hearts, and hate the pride and arrogancy we find in our own attitudes. Fear of God, what it is: hating the pride and arrogancy in our own hearts. ========================================== I Samuel 12:14a "14 ...ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD..." Fear of God, what it is NOT: rebelling against the commandment of God, serving our own selves, disobeying God's voice. ========================================== Love, Steve

God bless you, Naten00! I just picked up a big batch of Alleve for my sister-in-law, who is having a sinus headache. So... It would appear that there is a trust/fear parallel in the Old Testament with a minor undertone of respect. There is a greater variety of words used in the OT, but usage in the New Testament seems to subsume these different words under the umbrella of phobos or phobeo. In the NT, there are places that clearly use phobos to indicate trust, which could be read as reverence or awe, but there are also places where phobos is used in the good old-fashioned sense of fear. Wierwille taught that Romans 11:20b, "Be not high-minded but fear..." could not be addressed to Christians, and spun a whole segment of PFAL baloney, lying about who Romans 11:20b was addressed to. When he couldn't use that same excuse to disregard the fact that the word "fear" is addressed to Christians, such as Philippians 2:12b, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," he taught that it doesn't mean fear, it just means respect. Well, it does carry a sense of respect, but the fear part of it is stronger than the respect part, and is emphasized by the "and trembling [tromos = trembling, shaking, shivering with fear]." I believe that ALL the corruption, ALL the devastation, ALL the ruination, ALL the evil of TWI can be linked to the truth that Wierwille did not FEAR God, and he taught us that we shouldn't either... but that's a story for another day! Love, Steve

I've been having a blast today with Blue Letter Bible! My link You can do in a few clicks what it used to take hours of compiling lists from the backs of concordances to do. I had especial fun looking up uses of phobeo, the verb form of phobos. Among other things, Herod didn't immediately kill John the Baptist because Herod feared the multitude (Matt. 14:5), the chief priests and the Pharisees didn't lay hands on Jesus because they feared the multitude (Matt. 21:46), the disciples feared to ask Jesus the meaning of a parable (Luke 9:45), the parents of the man born blind denied Jesus because they feared the Jews (John 9:22), and the captain and the guards treated the apostles without violence because they feared that the people would stone them (Acts 5:26). I'm gonna post this now, and finish it after I make a run to the drug store! Love, Steve

Well, I spent a little more time on Blue Letter Bible and found some interesting things: ======================== Psalm 40:3&4, "3 And he [the LORD] hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it and fear, and shall trust in the LORD. "4 Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies." So here in verse 3 we see the fear of the LORD paralleled with trust in the LORD. In verse 4 we see respect of the proud contrasted with the trust/fear of the LORD. The idea of "respect" is associated with trust/fear in a minor sort of way. We also see the dynamic of going away from the safety of the path in "such as turn aside to lies." ==================== Psalm 56:4 "4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me." There seems to be a theme of trusting/fearing God or trusting/fearing flesh. ==================== Psalm 115:11 "11 Ye that fear the LORD, that trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield." Fear of the LORD and trust in the LORD are put into apposition with each other here. ====================== Psalm 31:19 "19 Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men!" Again we see a trust/fear identity. All for now. Love, Steve

It would appear that one of the deficiencies in my earlier groping toward a definition of phobos was thinking of it in terms of stationary boundaries. The language of Proverbs 3 speaks of trust and fear in dynamic terms. When we trust the LORD, He directs our paths. When we stray off the paths the LORD sets before us, then the fear of the LORD moves us to depart from evil, that is, to get back on the right path. When people saw the miracles Jesus did, they were moved to get back on the right path. How's that for regarding the way they experienced the phobos of the LORD? The trust/fear of man would present a snare because it would entangle a person's feet, and prevent her/him from being moved back onto the right path by the trust/fear of the LORD. Love, Steve

And then there's always the ever-popular Proverbs 3:5-7 "5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. "6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. "7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD and depart from evil." Love, Steve

I haven't had time to even start a word study, but just off the top of my Blue Letter Bible I found Proverbs 29:25 "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." The first part of the verse contrasts the negative side of the trust/fear thing with the safe (literally) side of the trust/fear thing in the second part of the verse. The trust/fear of Wierwille certainly brought a snare! Love, Steve

This morning, after I woke up, I was working a sudoku puzzle to clear my mind of the cobwebs of dreams, when a thought occured to me: "What if the conflict we're having over 'phobos' is one of those 'Certs is a breath mint! No, Certs is a candy mint!' or 'Great taste! No, less filling!' kind of arguments?" What if "trust" and "fear" are simply two different ways of looking at "phobos"? Like "freedom" and "responsibility"? The two things are like the faces of a coin. You can't have one without the other. Generally speaking, if you accept responsibility, you gain freedom. If you repudiate your responsibility, you will lose some degree of your freedom. Remember, we're not trying to impose our own definitions, here. We're trying to figure out what the Bible means by the word "phobos". What if the way we view the "trust/fear" thing depends on how we stand in relation to a boundary set by the object of our "trust/fear"? If we're standing in a safe relation to the boundary, then we experience trust/fear as awe, if we're standing in a dangerous place in relation to the boundary, we experience trust/fear as terror? What do you think? Am I being symptomatic? Love, Steve

Thanks for the kind words, WordWolf! I can see it might be useful to open up another approach to understanding the nature and purpose of the FEAR!!! :o of the LORD! ...but I haven't got time to develop the next argument fully right now... Soooo.... I 'll hand out a little bit of homework for your amusement and edification (once you've taught seventh-graders, there's no going back). The key to understanding the importance of the fear of the Lord is in Jeremiah 17:9. I won't ask for a 500 word paper by tomorrow, but you might read the verse and start considering how you intend to "stump the teacher" in the near future! Love, Steve

By the way, WordWolf, what do you think Benji would have done if Dunkie had not given the sign of submission? They DID use Yorkies as pit fighters, you know, though mostly against rats. Love, Steve

I don't have time to give any fuller responses right now, and probably won't until after a couple of days. I too am glad we are having this discussion in a more appropriate place (though my understanding of the fear of the Lord comes from my experience with Momentus as well as with TWI). In all my years at Greasespot I have always admired your thought processes and ability to articulate, so I welcome this opportunity, not as a disagreement, but as a process for iron to truly sharpen iron. I've already had to refine my thinking several notches. Just out of curiousity, what do you imagine my standing might be as a professional word-smith? I ask, not least of all, because I wonder myself how my current standing as a professional word-smith might be accurately described. :) Love, Steve