WhiteDove

So, my question, Dove...if you had first hand personal testimony from someone whose name you knew, perhaps from someone whom you knew well, would you accept it? have you tried to learn more with the attitude that you would accept it if you got it? That's a fair question lifted up of course we all would like to trust others words but the reality is people fail you ,the way failed people those who said they loved and cared about you turned their backs faster than a New York minute. Family fails people at times even husbands and wives people at your job. Words are empty, temporal because people don't see black and white it is too easy to weasel out of your words. Honestly I may accept their account at face value if I felt that the facts supported it but I would never verify it people lie and some are very good at it. They have agendas to accomplish without proof hard evidence it will always be a guess there would be no way to be sure.

It's not a perfect world Pond life is not always fair SO? you make my point that is exactly why I demand proof before condeming someone not guesses or opinions, for exactly the reason you stated lots of people are in jail because some accepted some opinion on why they were guilty rather than truth. This is the internet and just because someone says something I don't accept it as truth. Iwill not convict someone on anomous stories and John Lynn guess. Sorry, well no I'm not actually. Im quite happy with that........ Eventually I'll get caught up Well Maybe........... wouldn't want to ignore anyone you know and all.

QUOTE Dojable You of course must know that there are plenty of crimes where there is no verification. That is why even in a court of law, expert testimony can be given by a professional. Psychologists and psychiatrists are called frequently to help assess whether or not a person is telling the truth in addition to helping to identify a person's state of mind. Indeed I do and I also know that they are not allowed to misrepresent their opinion as facts only their professional opinion and it is subject to review and dispute as such by other equally qualified people. They only verify what they indeed can verify. They also do not make claims to have been an eyewitness to something that they were not. You may wish to let that slide I will not simple as that.. and I never excused anyone either that is a constant fallacy perpetuated by Rascal and company to sidetrack the point I specifically addressed that point several times why is this still a question? I stated on several occasions that VPW could well be guilty as charged that was not the point of dispute it was verifying things that you have no proof of, which is not verifying at all its opinion passed off as truth. No, you didn't accuse anyone- but others on the thread have... You don't say VP could well be guilty as charged nearly as loudly and as often as you say that the women had a choice. (IMO) Ok so I'm not others can't they get the names straight REALLY come on do you really think after all this time it is not purposeful? I don't know there Doojie on this thread alone I think I said it several times then I referred to it a few more. I'm not going to go back through all my posts and count the times but I believe that it is pretty common knowledge that I have sufficiently made that point clear How much is enough ? Is there a quota? Do I get a star when I get there? and why do the detractors not have to meet the same standards and admit that their opinions might just not be fact as well. I think I have met by burden on this issue some others are far lacking. (And I was not referring to you for the record.)

Pond I'm not sure exactly what your point was here but you are right this an internet forum and as such that does not mean that one can just throw out anything as truth. Believe me and you know any statement made that appears to have even a slight smell at 1000 yards of possibly maybe being a slight hint toward something positive about the way is instantly called into question and proof demanded by the pack. The door swings both ways here so yes I do demand truth facts document able, without that it is only opinion. That does not imply one way or the other if the opinion is true or not only that it is not verifiable as truth. life is black and white and although I am on the white side (that's a joke- being a White dove) I have no such line of fear that you speak of. Grey is a nice area of Psycho-babble for those who don't wish to admit responsibility for their actions to hide in. Last time I looked our laws did require proof of violation and real verification of facts. The truth is either you did or did not do an action you may well have reasons why you did or did not do something but it does not negate the action. It may make you feel better that you can explain away why you have no responsibility but in a court the judge does not care why you were speeding he only wants to know if you were?

Then again it was not me Sky who stuck my face out there and claimed to be something I was not by definition now was I? Nor did I verify something that was impossible to verify without proper data now was I?

So Dove let me get this straight - I'm really asking here... Is M's account not an eyewitness account? (She was there!) It may be it may not be it is words on a screen by an anonymous person on the internet that showed up on a anti way site. No I do not accept everything I read on the net as truth it may be the gospel truth it may be biased BS who can know? My point was that some who claimed to be able to verify the eyewitness account seem to be lacking in the story as being a eyewitness as I see it at best yes M would be an eyewitness I see no verification of the story by anyone else. other than second hand info and opinion. On another note, for arguments sake: Let's say that no one was drugged. Let's say no one was raped. Even with these two elements out of the picture, vp was wrong. Did I ever say once that he was not ? In fact find a post ever where I said he was not on any thread for that matter.Since you guys are so fond of quoting the Bible on this one, let's consider the David and Bathsheba story for a second. David was the one held accountable. He didn't rape or drug Bathsheba. You can argue that God wasn't angry about he and Bathsheba - that it was only because he plotted to have Uriah killed. I'm not sure that will pass muster because there's still a commandment that prohibits coveting another man's wife. David used his position and power to manipulate the situation to his advantage - he did it with Bathsheba and he did it to get Uriah killed. God never addresses how many times Bathsheba opened her home to the King. He never talks about whether or not she enjoyed it. He only says that David was wrong. Oh and Nathan didn't have any eyewitnesses either... Oh and yes - David was forgiven - after he was confronted and asked for forgiveness. He didnt' go out and do the same again, now did he? Oh and while Solomon was a good guy for a while; Rehoboam, (Solomon's son and David's grandson) made a mess of the kingdom. I never quoted any scripture on this first off and I am not God and I don't have his ability to see the truth in every situation, so I rely on facts to determine truth or not. and I never excused anyone either that is a constant fallacy perpetuated by Rascal and company to sidetrack the point I specifically addressed that point several times why is this still a question? I stated on several occasions that VPW could well be guilty as charged that was not the point of dispute it was verifying things that you have no proof of, which is not verifying at all its opinion passed off as truth. I take exception to that and that alone How God feels is his business. my concern is misrepresenting information and words which later show up again in other threads later on to be now not opinion any longer but somehow changed to the truth. John Lynn said he thought people may have been drugged fine his opinion he offers no proof but that's fine he is entitled to his opinion. But now all of a sudden it is now accepted fact people were because John thought so. is that the standard for truth? Sorry personal opinion is not fact or truth Gee just maybe John could be wrong but lets not explore that fact cause it clashes with our it must be negative if its the Way agenda. If you want me to believe what your selling you better have proof. I think people accepted opinion way too often as truth while in the way It did not work too well then either, people have all kinds of reasons for saying things many of which are dishonest and purposefully misleading. You make a claim you better have something to back it up if you say you are an eyewitness you better be personally there that what it is to be one. I've never been an eyewitness to a bank robbery but someone once told me a story that was at least they said so, that did not make me now an eyewitness it made me someone who heard a story which could have been true or part true or a complete fabrication. I had no way of knowing which it was It would be foolish to assume I could verify what was not in my power to confirm.

Then John it was: Now I see it is several chapter heads: So which of the three is it John? that you mean I'm getting confused with all the spinning. Hey why don't you just admit you were mistaken and that every was a poor choice and correct it. What do you think? Did Chris Geer make these up on his own, or did he copy them from PFAL? The cover and copyright pages of the WIGP book identify Christopher C. Geer as author and print this detailed copyright statement: "Copyright Word Promotions Ltd. 1995. All rights reserved. No part of this Student's Study Guide to the Walking in God's Power foundational class may be copied, reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of Word Promotions Ltd." Geer shows some knowledge of referencing other authors when he uses footnotes to identify a few authors he disagrees with on one topic. However, although Geer claims to have produced the book, it is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of TWI that he took all its content, lock, stock and barrel, from Wierwille's PFAL. No footnotes, bibliography or acknowledgments identify Wierwille or PFAL as Geer's source. Geer never cites Wierwille in the text of the book. Someone suggested that Wierwille gave verbal permission to rework his class. There is no evidence of this. But if Wierwille had done so, Geer should have identified himself as an editor of a previous work (PFAL), not as an original author, which is a common practice in the academic world. Geer doesn’t actually copy Wierwille's PFAL book word for word, and Geer does tweak a few details. But WIGP reproduces almost all of Wierwille's class, topic by topic. WIGP is PFAL piracy. John I gave you a reference to audio on that Some of the charges above of errors in my article on Geer’s class are simply judgement calls on specific words I use rather than errors. One post claims that “coup” is an error. In common use, a coup is an attempt to exert control over a group or government. I think Geer’s actions were an attempt to gain control, something he couldn’t do formally because the 3 trustees wouldn’t fire themselves and appoint him as trustees. Nice theory John but he never asked to be appointed as a trustee had he wanted too he could have done that while the blubbering trustees were were yes siring him on stage at Corps week. You present no evidence in support of your claim that he attempted a coup there is audio and paper letters where he addressed that notion as well as on tape to the Way Corps when John Lynn and Ralph and company were fired. Exactly what he thought of anyone supporting a coup as it was an idea that was being circulated. But I guess you prefer to avoid the hard evidence and simply assert your theory with no hard evidence as truth. Exactly how do you harmonize the statements and audio when Chris says that he is not in favor of nor supports any move toward a coup as you put it with your theory which lacks any evidence? Another claim is that “followers” is a bad word for Geer’s followers. I thought of using “readers” instead, but Geer’s followers are more than readers. I’ve read hundreds of authors over the years, but I remember few of their names, don’t use their classes, don’t get their newsletters and wouldn’t vehemently defend them if I saw their names in a forum. So I think “followers” is a reasonable word to use for many, though not all, of Geer’s... well, followers. Someone else might pick words others than “coup” and “followers,” but these are reasonable choices, not errors. No they are not reasonable choices. To have followers one must have a group to follow, your ignorance of his operation shows Word Promotions is not a fellowship group it is a publishing and resource producing company. Printers do not have followers churches or fellowships might. He has no followers and lists no followers or members of a group because none exists. He claims no head of any such group nor does he control or guide any such groups actions or government within any group that may use his material other than honoring the business agreement with the license agreement for WIGP his product. Geer and Wierwille come to basically the same conclusion about Paul’s thorn in the flesh, that it was not illness (this is the main point that these two men who want to defend “the law of believing” want to make) but was buffeting such as beatings. The post above said I was in error because Geer won’t license his class to all ex-wayers. But my article doesn’t say that he licenses to all ex-wayers. Ex-wayers are Geer’s audience, because they want a class that look, sounds and tastes just like PFAL... and Geer (and some other ex-way leaders) provided it. Actually not ,they come to very different conclusions but hell whats a small truth to get in the way of your theory. We'll just ignore that. People who think that “Lutherans” follow Luther in the way that people in TWI followed Wierwille don’t know much about it. The average Lutheran has probably read only two things by Luther- the Small Catechism, which is the length of a short magazine article (the book-sized “Small Catechism with Explanation” was written by Schwann not Luther) and the words to the hymn “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” The majority of Lutheran clergy have probably read less than 400 pages of Luther’s writings, a tiny percentage of the reading needed to get the required Master’s Degree (equal in size to only two “collaterals”). The majority of “The Lutheran Confessions” which are the theological foundation for Lutherans today were not written by Luther; most were written or approved by committees. Luther never wrote a “foundational class” (nor intermediate nor advanced) to be used in churches (although the tiny Small Catechism is often used in classes). I never said that was the case did you dream this up as well? The Lutheran church has never targeted TWI. The normal reaction I get from Lutherans when I say I study TWI is “what’s that?” The few exceptions are some churches located near TWI campuses or locations. Some pastors had some vague knowledge of TWI when Rome City was open, because it was near a Lutheran seminary in Ft. Wayne. But most campuses are closed now, so TWI and its splinters are back under the radar again. Even when TWI was at its peak, it was quite tiny and unknown (optimistically less than 1/10 of 1% of US population). Not true I know for a fact that locally elders of the church had many meetings on TWI they did target us they also stole a grads syllabus and books to discuss how to refute the teaching. You are a liar John! They were a major force behind the deprogramming movement as well. And the KBI told us that they were responding to a inquiry from the church about our home and what was going on there. They fed them stories so they would investigate us and hopefully move us away. TWI was well know in the Lutheran community. So I guess that's you response business as usual don't want to change my slant on my agenda with some small thing like the truth here.

It's always amazing that when some have no real answers to the questions they drag out the tired old argument about who wrote what book like that has anything to do with the subject at hand, and how we have the insane need to marginalize and minimalize what these men and their pimps did. I guess its easier to change the subject and accuse people of something that the posts clearly show that they did not do. Go ahead read back through the pages I never marginalized or minimalized one thing in fact several posts I went out of the way to address that issue but I guess that's easy to ignore when you only want to see a negative slant to the story. I took exception with specific facts and words posted as they were being misrepresented. The first which I have yet to get back to is verify, this is what it means to do so : 1. to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate: Events verified his prediction. 2. to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison: to verify a spelling. 3. to act as ultimate proof or evidence of; serve to confirm. 4. Law. a. to prove or confirm (an allegation). b. to state to be true, esp. in legal use, formally or upon oath. If one verifies a check for instance the procedure is to call the bank issuing the check and confirm that the money is there in the account that is how it is verified. One does not call the teller who may or may not know me and ask them if in their opinion the check is good. They don't ask John Lynn if he thinks in his opinion my check might be good but I guess when dealing with Way issues logic goes out the window. When you verify whether someone was drugged you do a toxicology report ,pending that as proof or verification you have no case to assume that due to your opinion on the case you can just decide that they were" just because". worse yet some think that due to some unknown training that they now have they can travel back through time and verify a case that they have no data secured from but hey John Lynn said he thinks that maybe that might have happened (of course after he was fired and lost his job he comes to this knowledge) so that settles that. GEE I guess I missed That's my opinion so that verifies anything I want as a definition of the word. Lacking the proper proof one can not validate or confirm something and Catcup your best guess does not count you have no evidence one way or another ,you can have your opinion all you want but that is what it is and that does not count as verifying something it counts as an opinion period. Honest people accept the fact that it could be either way as I did but somehow some defy all logic and have found the truth with out any evidence to get there. Here is another word: eye·wit·ness –noun 1. a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing and can give a firsthand account of it: There were two eyewitnesses to the murder. –verb (used with object) 2. to view with one's own eyes: to eyewitness a murder. Notice absent is "the victim told me the story and so now I can verify it as the truth." that's not what the word means challenging the misuse dishonest use of that word neither marginalized or minimalized anyone it simply challenged the misuse of a word to support a personal opinion that was being passed off as truth. I think maybe someone missed a person who actually sees some act, occurrence, or thing so Catcup you said you were an eyewitness to the incident with R**K were you standing there when it happened did you actually see or hear the proposition because that is what an eyewitness is. How about the rest of you., If not then one can not say they can verify anything in that situation, you have an opinion which is your prerogative but that is not the same as fact or truth. I seemed to miss the part in M's story where any of you were along that night. So quit trying to pass yourself off as some authority that you are not. By the same standard I was not an eyewitness either which is why I must acknowledge that the story may or may not be true. I can have an opinion ,one way or the other and for the record again I would lean toward it being true but it verifies nothing, (that has does not marginalize or minimalize anyone either by the way) It is pretty sad that your need to portray the TWI in a negative light has led you to fabricate new meanings for words and ignore common logic. Sorry this is not I can just make s**t up day.

I think white dove believes these girls could have said NO and i also believe they could have said NO. but i do not get what his point is either. is it to blame the girls who had sex because they had sex as well as the man ? so it is BOTH of them that is wrong. ok. The point started pages back it is always the same speak truth don't make s**t up......... your opinion may or may not be truth that does not mean it verifies anything it means that you believe it . As I pointed out in her own story It appears from her story that she did in fact have a chance to walk away. read her account: Two days later Cathy came to get me. I followed her to the camp where VP's motor coach was parked. The front of the motor coach was a sitting area and a table, both made into beds. He appeared to like the gifts we brought and poured himself a drink. Cathy, Howard and I also had one. VP then went into the back of the coach. He called me back there. He had undressed and was lying nude, face down on one of the two beds in the rear of the coach. He asked me to give him a back rub. Odd as it sounds, I did not find this at all strange. Back rubs were very common with the Corp and WOW's. While he was laying face down I gave him a rub from head to toe. He rolled over on his back and indicated I should continue, so I gave him a rub again from head to toe, except for his genitals. When I was done, he looked at me and said, "You are not finished." I was sitting on the side of the bed. I looked at my hands that were laying palm up in my lap and I started to jabber. That is really the only word for it. I began to talk in a sing song voice about Greg. I told him all I could think of to say about Greg. When I fell silent he smiled at me and said, " That's nice, now go on." And I did. I cannot tell you everything that happened next; (the reason will become evident). But later, (much later for when this started it was light outside and it had been dark for a long, long time) he told me to get into the other bed. As I was climbing over him he smacked me on my bare bottom and said, "I didn't screw you, but it wouldn't have hurt you if I had." I got into the other bed and laid there with my eyes wide open, not blinking, but with silent tears running out, until day light. When it was light, I got dressed and went out to my car. I was in a rage. I spun the tires of my car until I had flung all the gravel, grass and dirt beneath them onto the motor coach and I roared out of there. That was the first time. She had left and was free and clear drug free, she returned to be alone knowing what had transpired, I think one has to accept a level of personal accountability for putting oneself in harms way. She was not drugged when she returned she walked in of her own power. That does not excuse what happened or make it justifiable in any way but it does not by the same token excuse the truth that she did have a way out and was not drugged and had no options as insinuated. No one is blaming anyone here just keeping the truth of the record straight.

Truth is truth it is so because it fits the perimeters for defining it. None of those perimeters are dependant on the teachers life, or character. 2+2 will always equal 4 no matter who or what says it, and one can learn the mathematical truth regardless. but the question at hand is by the way Is john going to change the inaccurate statements as he promised in his articles or will it just go on as is because it fits the agenda?

Yeah whatever if I don't agree with your theory it must be wrong........

No one said people don't make mistakes we all do I just choose to admit mine and not blame someone else for them, or at least my part in them. and whether life goes good or bad makes no difference when you know you did your best to stand on what you believe. I always say well, they may beat me down, they may slow me down, they may hurt or even kill me but they will never break me. If it's not Gods Word then it's got to go, consequences are of no consideration to me. They might make life hell but my father is there with me. I'm sorry that those who should have lived by It Is Written failed to see the importance when life got tough. That’s not a judgment that is looking at the facts did they or did they not follow scripture.

No one argued that it was ethical that does not make it rape nor does it make it impossible to resist it's easy to hold someone else accountable for your actions but we all have free will.

Well i did just that i was marked and avoided for speaking up . sounds like a good thing now. almost thirty years later. but let me say whether you chose to believe it or not it also destroyed many many years of MY life. i for years thought God was angry at me i was a lesser not funny for a cult girl . sooooooooo white dove i did do "the right thing" in your eyes and i also suffered alot for it. so did my family. that is why i can not judge those who did put up with abuse, i do not get it but i cant judge it. Truth is always a good thing and no one ever said the path was an easy one, but in the end we all stand accountable for our actions was it talk or walk? Those who follow the path can and face the person in the mirrorand be at peace knowing they did the right thing.

No one is ignoring your link it's another opinion which one can subscribe to or not. You do because it fits your purpose it's not the all in all answer who made her the only authority? That would be a fine theory if no one ever walked away and said no enough is enough but many did. Apparently they were not all turned into robotic zombies that must obey by the all mighty power and authority, or perhaps they just exercised some common sense or maybe Gee....... here is a thought some biblical sense. Now what ever will we do with those who don't fit in her pat theory?

Tom you apparently have not read my posts I did not defend any ministry, can you cite a quote here where I have. I only requested that stories and opinions not be treated as facts or truth until they have been verified which by the way does not mean that's my opinion so it's verified.

I read the accout I also unlike you read what jonny said read it again .That was the first time Jonny spoke of read the story based on her account: she was in a rage rightfully so, yet despite the fact that she was in this rage and knew of the potential danger having experienced it first hand once, she returned anyway. As I said that does not excuse the action but at some point personal judgment also plays into the mix she did have the choice not to return and therefore would not have experienced any drugs if that was the case. To say she had no chance is inaccurate to say she had no chance once she returned to put herself in harms way after knowing of the potential danger would be. that's the difference. One could debate that she should not have had to worry about the choice and I'd agree she should not have. But if one knows that hanging around a certain situation or person is potentially dangerous at some point they have to accept their mistakes if they choose to do it anyway. I should be free to walk anywhere I want but if I am dumb enough to walk at night where I know there to muggings going on then I have to accept my responsibility for my choices.It's misleading to say she was drugged she did not have a chance ,she did ,she could have never returned anywhere near the motor coach and given her self described rage I have no clue why she would have.

Jonny's statement makes perfect sense although maybe one could substitute sense rather than guts. It appears from her story that she did in fact have a chance to walk away. read her account: Two days later Cathy came to get me. I followed her to the camp where VP's motor coach was parked. The front of the motor coach was a sitting area and a table, both made into beds. He appeared to like the gifts we brought and poured himself a drink. Cathy, Howard and I also had one. VP then went into the back of the coach. He called me back there. He had undressed and was lying nude, face down on one of the two beds in the rear of the coach. He asked me to give him a back rub. Odd as it sounds, I did not find this at all strange. Back rubs were very common with the Corp and WOW's. While he was laying face down I gave him a rub from head to toe. He rolled over on his back and indicated I should continue, so I gave him a rub again from head to toe, except for his genitals. When I was done, he looked at me and said, "You are not finished." I was sitting on the side of the bed. I looked at my hands that were laying palm up in my lap and I started to jabber. That is really the only word for it. I began to talk in a sing song voice about Greg. I told him all I could think of to say about Greg. When I fell silent he smiled at me and said, " That's nice, now go on." And I did. I cannot tell you everything that happened next; (the reason will become evident). But later, (much later for when this started it was light outside and it had been dark for a long, long time) he told me to get into the other bed. As I was climbing over him he smacked me on my bare bottom and said, "I didn't screw you, but it wouldn't have hurt you if I had." I got into the other bed and laid there with my eyes wide open, not blinking, but with silent tears running out, until day light. When it was light, I got dressed and went out to my car. I was in a rage. I spun the tires of my car until I had flung all the gravel, grass and dirt beneath them onto the motor coach and I roared out of there. That was the first time. She returned to be alone knowing what had transpired, I think one has to accept a level of personal accountability for putting oneself in harms way. She was not drugged when she returned she walked in of her own power. That does not excuse what happened or make it justifiable in any way but it does not by the same token excuse the truth that she did have a way out and was not drugged and had no options as insinuated.

No, that is not what I meant. I can verify much more than what you insinuate. This is NOT, I repeat NOT me "believing what she told you." I know M. I, first-hand, know not only her and Rick, but several of the people she mentions in her story. I am part of what happened to her. I watched her change over that time period from the happy person I knew into someone who was more and more withdrawn, depressed, and confused by what happened to her. There's much more I am not going to say about it, to protect her privacy. This is not an account of an incident I "accepted at face value." Please don't tell me you are equating M's account of what happened to her with this woman in the Duke rape trial. There is no comparison whatsoever of M's life and the life of the person who did that. Are you saying M lied about VPW the way Crystal Gail Magnum lied about the Duke athletes? You are comparing M, who was drugged and raped, with a man who is accused of dogfighting? I was not asking you to divulge any privacy details and I was not comparing her in all parts to Ms Magnum or Mr. Vick the point being is that anyone can say anything it goes on all the time and there are always people around who will accept at face value what they say. That does not make it right or wrong it makes it what it is an account. To verify something is a different matter ver·i·fy 1. to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate: Events verified his prediction. 2. to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison: to verify a spelling. 3. to act as ultimate proof or evidence of; serve to confirm. 4. Law. a. to prove or confirm (an allegation). b. to state to be true, esp. in legal use, formally or upon oath. I am not choosing to believe M's story just because I was a "friend" or roommate. It is based on a deeper evaluation of the totality of what I observed. Here's what I can verify for you as: 1.) Someone with first hand knowledge of M and several of the people mentioned in M's account 2.) Someone professionally trained and educated to spot physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse in victims 3.) Someone with first-hand knowledge of dealing with and counseling such victims 4.) Someone who has recovered from rape myself So you are saying you evaluated her as a qualified doctor at the time of the event? or were you present as an eyewitness? That is verifying That's proving or confirming (an allegation). Did you do a toxicology test if not you can not say with any proof that she was drugged that may be your opinion and you can believe as you wish that does not verify anything as fact. And if you were sure of your diagnosis shouldn't you have addressed the issue at that point? Rather than chaulking it up to a misunderstanding of craigs words. M was identified as potential prey. She was groomed and unknowingly prepared. She was pimped by Cathy Oriard. She was drugged. She was raped. She was used against her will by a man she was told and believed was the "Man of God of the entire world." She was devastaed emotionally, physically, psychologically, and financially. And her life will never be the same. I understand that there are some people who simply cannot believe that VPW actually did these heinous things. I am sorry you are having such a hard time with this, but he did these things. He ruined peoples lives, used them, and threw them away like so much trash when he was done, because he felt he was entitled to. You assume that I am having a hard time with this. You assume wrong , I never addressed that I believed either way on the issue only that it was not verified. I am having a hard time with accounts being regarded as verifying, proof, to be accepted as truth or fact when they are not verifiable according to standards which one would use to do this. Here's another clue for you. VPW also tried to do this to my own 17 year old, virginal sister, and when she resisted, he ruined her life. I and my parents were left to deal with the fallout of the damage he caused. When I confronted him, he blustered, stormed, intimidated, and lied straight to my face. And yet you stayed around and supported this group for how many more years. One has to ask why did you not verify your account at that time. Your a Corps grad you were supposed to be doing what the word says if you had knowledge of this behavior you should have taken it to whatever level you needed to rectify it. Here's another clue. A member of VPW's own family has admitted to me that although they at first found these things difficult to believe, they now understand, from me, how it in fact happened. You're welcome.

Too bad she didn`t walk away??? Did you even READ the account??? That she was probably drugged?? That John Lynn himself told her that it had been happening for years??? Actually to keep the record straight that is what M said John said and he may well have. John can come here and speak for himself, And what makes John who has an ax to grind after loosing his cush job and who also is in the thick of it himself, the sole authority on what did or did not happen?

WhiteDove, Your post mentioned that my article on Chris Geer has some erroneous facts and implications. I'd like to clear them up if I could. What particular ones did you see? Thanks for your help. John John it has been a month since the erroneous facts were brought to your attention just wondering if you still planned to fix them?

Exactly Suda it is a straw argument made to make someone feel bad for not seeing their point of view, by the same logic we all should feel bad that we learned math at some students expense that was molested by the teacher, and some how that changes the truth of the math into non truth. What a bunch of BS....

. Thanks for the reply Catcup so when you said I can verify what you meant was, I can verify "part" of the story, the part that deals with R**k, and how you can verify is that you believe what she told you. No offence but that is hardly verifying anything that is accepting an account of an incident at face value. This happens all the time Crystal Gail Mangum recounted her incident in the Duke rape trial and many believed her account until the facts determined otherwise. Michael Vick is telling his account of how he is innocent in his dog fighting case, although the evidence is not looking good for him. There are those that believe him as well but that hardly verifies his story it just means that they choose to believe it for various reasons maybe because they are friends or teammates. I can understand how you might accept the account at face value as she was your roommate and knowing of R**k and other things he has done you may be correct in your assessment but it still falls short of verifying and this is how stuff starts here , later on it shows up as this story was verified by posters on GreaseSpot. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Catcup what exactly is it that you can verify?

Ha Socks There was something about that band that I always liked, Maybe it was the name or something......... hey you forgot Sky High! , they may have been later on though..