markomalley

Indeed. It's a conspiracy!

You might be interested in getting in contact with Deacon Joe Pasquella (former TWI and now a Catholic deacon up in Buffalo). (posted here for a while as joepascha). His conversion story is here. He might be able to give you some info or support that you could use.

Ain't that the truth!

I heard that the site is going to be going the way of the dinosaur in the near future. While I am saddened that the forums will no longer be available for those who need them, I can fully understand and appreciate the amount of one's life that would have to be involved in managing this mob and can also fully appreciate the need to offload that responsibility, particularly after this many years. While I was still on active duty in the Air Force, I lurked a bit around some of the precursor sites. I didn't feel comfortable putting my opinions out in public -- I'd already learned how opinions posted on the Internet had come back to haunt a person even back in the dim dark days of the 90s. After I retired, I came to feel comfortable enough in putting my opinions out there that I made the plunge and joined up. Although I don't ever believe myself to be a victim of TWI, I always had questions about what happened after my departure back in 1989. The resources from Waydale and this place really demonstrated to me how glad I was to have left when I did. But all of you Greasespot docents taught me exactly how glad I should be that I got out when I did. Not only did all my questions get answered, I got answers to a huge number of questions that I never knew that I had. And to Pawtucket and anybody who provided me those answers (whether you knew you were providing answers or not), you have my eternal gratitude.

Congratulations! I hope you two have a wonderful life together.

To Excathedra and any other victims of abuse by VPW, I received word a little while ago that this site was closing. When I first started posting here several years ago, I was of the initial impression that LCM caused all the garbage and that if VPW was still around, none of the bad that happened in TWI would have happened. It took me quite a while to come to a realization that this, in fact, was an incorrect understanding. My style of posting can be taken as rather forceful and opinionated at times. I do not believe that I ever posted anything hurtful toward any of you in regards to your past experiences. If I did or if the tone of my posts led you to believe any degree of skepticism in what you experienced, I would like to apologize while this site is still operational. Like I said, I don't specifically recall anything that I said that may have been untoward, but 7 years is a long time. And I do know that my degree of understanding about TWI and its evils has mushroomed in the seven years that I have participated on this site and so it is possible, particularly considering how opinionated (read: what a jerk) I can be at times. If I did, in fact, write something untoward, I make no excuses other than ignorance. And if you were offended by anything I wrote that may have even indirectly cast aspersions, I humbly beg your forgiveness.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas. Actually, the word "Mass" comes from the dismissal in the Latin Liturgy Ite missa est Meaning, "go, it is the dismissal" The word "missa" comes from the Latin "mitto", to dismiss/to send off. (You can read the full entry on the word from Lewis & Short)

If you examine the doctrine that was taught, you would, in fact, be confronted with the fact that it is just an extreme form of Restorationism.

Christian Family and Sex Christian Family and Sex So what was the Christian Family and Sex class about? Was Wierwille's Christian Family and Sex Class Any Good? The above are some threads where it was discussed. There are more (see the above for additional links)

The guests are web crawling robots indexing web pages for search engines like Google and Yahoo. At least most of them.

Now I wasn't in the Corps so I can't speak to that one way or the other...so I'll take your word for it. I was relating my experiences as a lowly Advanced Class grad, where, apparently, we were given a bit more freedom.

Well, not that I care about drive-by posting. But getting wrapped around the axle about a first time poster who starts a controversial thread as his only post is about as useful as feeding a troll. But as you say, we'll see...

I hope they won't be. I hope that they take advantage (or took advantage) of the ability to repent of their errors before they died, allowing God to shed His mercy upon them. (Luke 15:11-32) But I'm not holding my breath. Self-righteous types are not generally capable of the humility necessary to do so.

It's interesting that they can acknowledge the metaphysical aspects of Christianity in certain areas ("Gawd knew it in his fore------knowledge") but at the same time deny it when it comes to something else ("He didn't die for my sins...they hadn't been committed yet"). Sure, why not. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Cor 1:18

Drive-by posting, anybody?

I saw the same thing when I took (and re-took and re-took) PFAL, Intermediate Class, collaterals, yada yada yada. But here's the point: you were encouraged to do it all. You were not sanctioned for not doing it. Therefore, I would say "indoctrinated" is accurate, but "censorship" doesn't really apply. It would only be "censorship" if they either forcibly prevented you from doing so or sanctioned you for doing so. But that's all IMHO, FWIW, and YMMV

So did he say that 1 Cor 15:3 was a blatant forgery? How about Romans 5:8? Or what, exactly, was his excuse?

Religion and politics CAN BE bedfellows in their attempts... TWI used censorship, that is true. I understand this censorship got dramatically worse during the 90s, after I had gotten out, so I can't speak to then. I know when I was in, most of it was on a more-or-less voluntary basis: if you were seen to spend to much time listening to secular music or watching secular TV, somebody would invariably talk to you about "the renewed mind," but I don't recall any specific sanction (keep in mind I got out in '89 and was more-or-less a rebel for a year before that time) As far as the content of True Christianity, I can appreciate one making a statement that "True Christianity" having no religion in it, looking through a TWI lens at "religion" -- and I, myself, have made that very same statement, when I was in TWI, but I see religion a bit differently these days...not through a TWI lens. As far as 'true Christianity' having no politics in it, again, from a certain perspective, I agree with you. But Christianity should shape the character and conscience of the politician. So there should be some sort of a tie there. Politics, as we see it in our culture, has very little to do with Christianity, I will be the first to grant you that. But, the word politics comes from the Greek, politikos, things of the polis, or city. And people are almost always organized together in villages, towns, and cities. In Rev 21:10, we see "the new Jerusalem" descend out of heaven. The point is that we will always have some variety of politikos as long as we have a polis. How that politikos is conducted can and should be shaped by our Christian faith...not in an effort to censor people, but rather in an effort for each of us to censor ourselves and our own conduct and own speech, so that we, through our actions can show ourselves as examples.

Of course, religion plays a huge role in politics. And vice versa. Why? Because they both deal with the social nature of man. And both directly involve addressing what man believes. Frankly, I don't see that this, necessarily, is a bad thing...but rather as something that could easily be abused to become a very bad thing. Looking on the perspective of religion influencing politics, you have two potential extremes: There is one extreme of fundamentalism, where certain religions cause adherents to completely abandon reason in favor of their interpretation of the transcendent. On the other extreme, there is a form of militant atheism as a matter of official state policy (note the adjective "militant"), which utterly denies the possibility of the transcendent in favor of dogmatic reason. In the case of fundamentalism, people can then be manipulated to justify any manner of abuse in the name of that fundamentalist belief. In the case of militant atheism, there is no higher authority than man. As a result, all social mores become strictly man-made and thus are relative and can be man-changed. On the other hand, we've seen many times where politics influences religion. One big example is where the Republicans co-opted the fundemental / evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity in this country starting in the late 70s. Another example is where the Democratic Party co-opted the black church since the mid 1960s. I know it goes both ways: Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson were just as manipulative on the other side, as well. I think the best recent example, though, was Barack Obama's phone call with selected leaders on the "religious left" last where he implored that these religioius leaders start preaching about the "moral imperative" of supporting his "health care reform." The reason I say manipulative is that he did not, from the beginning, ask for their support or even ask for their input...he only did so in an effort to get religious leaders on the left mobilized when it was apparent that his health care reform effort was in trouble. And this is where it ties into your post so that this is not an utter derail: by imploring religious leaders to extol his plan as a "moral imperative," he was attempting to use religious leaders to shut up opposition (after all, if you oppose his plan, you are being utterly immoral, bearing false witness, and are not acting as Christ would act...)

I agree

I agree. But, consider that it is currently illegal to discriminate against them in healthcare. Before you suggest a "personal filter" keep in mind what I said before, I don't personally care. If they pay, I don't have a problem with them being insured. Healthcare is not the place to control immigration. But until the text of the law is changed, it says what it says. Regardless of the White House statements. Remember: the White House said no earmarks. Then he signed HR 1...which is nothing but earmarks. The White House said "no lobbyists." But they seem to have no problems signing waivers. And so on.

Time Mag: The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS." Some Republicans have claimed that these protections are too weak, since they do not require stringent eligibility checks that would prevent illegal immigrants from gaming the system. Time's reporting is also not hard to check. TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS <h4>Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option Subtitle C--Individual Affordability Credits </h4> SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. "This subtitle" = Subtitle C. Individual Affordability Credits. (by the way, the underlining above is mine) On the other hand, check out Section 152 SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE. (a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services. (b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services. Note subparagraph (a), above. They may not discriminate against ANYBODY for any reason in providing health insurance or health care. (BTW, for the record, as long as my tax dollars aren't subsidizing it, I personally have no problem with anybody getting health insurance or receiving health care, regardless of their legal status. And, if my tax dollars are involved, I wouldn't have a problem with it either if the person or office receiving the tax dollars were obliged to report a suspected crime (being here illegally) just like they'd have to report any other suspected crime) So it sounds like Time is joining Mr. Obama in the "YOU LIE" column.

You use Wikipedia??? as a source and complain about the use of the Telegraph? Seriously.... First of all, the lawsuit was against New World Communications (d/b/a WTVT). Case # 98-CA-002439 filed in Hillsborough Circuit Court (FL). It was not filed against Fox News. I'm glad you think that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have the time to monitor a story produced by a local affiliate, but reality says that this is highly unlikely. The case was filed by both Steve Wilson and Jane Akre. All of Wilson's claims were dismissed. All of Akre's claims were also dismissed. Here is some verbiage from the decision filed by the 2d District Court of Appeal in 2003 (it's a darned shame that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article couldn't take the time to link to the actual decision) In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone ("BGH") in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT's management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH. In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the story, and consequently, the story never aired. In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages. Of course, the user-developed article on Wikipedia didn't bother to include these portions of the court's decision. Based on the written decision of the court, the claim is laughable anyway. The station asked Akre and Wilson to substantiate their claims and Akre / Wilson respond by accusing the station of trying to distort the story. They are fired in 1997 and they respond by threatening to report the station to the FCC. Then they sue the station on the basis of a whistleblower law. Let's think about this a second. Here's the sequence (according to the court's decision): - They work on a story - Management asks them for documentary proof - They don't provide proof but, instead, accuse management of trying to distort their story - This goes back and forth a few times - They get canned - They threaten to report management to the FCC - They sue the station for a bunch of things, including whistleblower protection Just as an FYI, had they ACTUALLY reported the station to the FCC before they were fired or threatened to report the station to the FCC before they were fired, they might have a case about whistleblower protection. But they're fired and only then threaten to report the station. Whistleblower protection NEVER works that way. Ever. First, all claims made by Steve Wilson, Jane's husband were dismissed. Second, all claims made by Jane Akre were dismissed...except the whistleblower claim. What the whistleblower claim does is accuse the station for firing her because she threatened to go to the FCC. The jury was not asked to review the validity of the claim at all, just that she was was improperly fired because she threatened to file a complaint (though the chronology written into this decision does not indicate that this was, in fact, the order of events). Now, let's go back to the decision: While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matterthat Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Translation: she didn't have a valid claim under the Florida whistle-blower law. Now let's skip down a little bit in the decision (you can read the whole thing by the link, which Wikipedia didn't provide but I did): The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses. The policy's roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that "[a] licensee would be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass communications were he to withhold from exp​ression over his facilities relevant news of facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news." There are two points to get at here: 1) The Florida Appeals Court did not rule that it was OK for a news outlet to lie 2) They indicated that truth-telling was not a rule, regulation, or law. It was a factor that was developed as part of the requirement for license renewals. Back to the decision: It is undisputed that the FCC's news distortion policy has never been "adopted" as defined by section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1997). Translation: Akre's attorney did not attempt to argue this point. The bottom line: Wilson's case was dismissed out-of-hand at the county court level. Akre's case was dismissed at that level as well, except for whether the whistle-blower complaint stood. By the way, what were the counts? According to a website maintained by Wilson and Akre, here are the counts: Count 1) Breach of Contract: NEW WORLD, nonetheless suspended PLAINTIFFS' employment in violation of the employment Agreements, threatened to terminate the Employment Agreements immediately unless the PLAINTIFFS agreed to engage in activities, as described above, which they believed to be unethical and in violation of the Federal Communications Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. Count 2) Declaratory Judgment: PLAINTIFFS demand: a. A declaratory judgment construing the rights of the parties under the Employment Agreements. b. A declaration that requiring PLAINTIFFS to participate in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading information is not a reasonable assignment of duties within the meaning of ¶1(B) of the Agreements; c. A declaration that the direction to the PLAINTIFFS that they participate in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading information is not reasonable or valid and cannot predicate a charge of misconduct or insubordination within the meaning of ¶2(B)(i) or (ii) of the Employment Agreements; d. A declaration that, because the DEFENDANT breached the Employment Agreements, the provisions in ¶¶4, 5, 7(B) and © are void or voidable by the PLAINTIFFS; e. A declaration that notes, records, copies of tape recorded interviews and materials obtained from the public domain do not fall within the scope of ¶4(A) or 5 of the Employment Agreements; f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Count 3: Whistle-blower Act Violation 68. At the time described herein, the actions of DEFENDANT and its agents, constituted violations of section 448.102, Fla. Stat., including, but not limited to: a. Taking retaliatory personnel action against PLAINTIFFS for disclosing violations of laws, rules, and regulations, including violations of the Federal Communications Act; and b. Taking retaliatory personnel action against PLAINTIFFS for their refusal to participate in the activities, policies and practices of DEFENDANT which were in violation of law, rules, and regulations, including violations of the Federal Communications Act Counts 1, 2, and 3 were all dismissed in Wilson's case by the trial court. Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed in Akre's case by the trial court. Count 3 was dismissed upon appeal. In other words, the substance of the matter, that they were ordered to knowingly put out a false report, was dismissed at the trial court level. Bottom line: Wikipedia is not a reliable source... Now, do you have any real evidence to back up your claim, or is it just that you don't like Fox's editorial position and, therefore, don't want to see it used?

Since nobody else has started one, <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Myself, I was on Andrews at the time. My daughter had just been released from the hospital after having some pins inserted in a broken elbow after a playground accident. My wife was teaching at the nearby elementary school. Watching the tube that morning, I saw the breaking news...daughter asked, "What happened Daddy?" My answer: "Honey, you just saw the world change forever."

Thank you for clarifying what I was saying: we are basically in agreement. As far as more of a burden of proof being on the alleged perpetrator, I'm cautious about agreeing with you, not that I'm in favor of the perpetrator, but that it's very difficult to prove a negative, particularly in a he-said, she-said type of argument with little or no physical evidence being available (as a lot of harassment suits are). During my time in the military and my time in the corporate world thereafter, I've had to take a whole lot of training on ethics subjects, to include sexual harassment. As a manager for a number of years (both military and civilian), I have learned to be extremely cautious that nothing I say or do could possibly be perceived as even approaching harassment, because of the already-existing "burden of proof" issues you mention. The basic assumption is where there's smoke, there's fire. And how the alleged victim feels about something is just as important as what actually happened. For example, if a female were to walk by your desk and look at your monitor and you had a picture of a scantily clad or nude woman on your monitor, you could be charged. Likewise, if a "victim" walked past a couple of people who were telling the wrong type of joke (not even realizing he/she was within earshot), both could be charged. Why? For creating a "hostile work environment." And that is considered a form of harassment nowadays. I'm not saying that it is uniformly the same standard everyplace, but in both companies where I've worked since retiring, and in the Air Force since about the 90s, that has been the standard. (I personally know a 26 year E-9 who was forcibly retired due to him having a huge catalog of jokes and not using adequate discretion as to when and within earshot of whom to recount them) As far as teachers and clergy, again, as far as accusations go, there is already a strong informal degree of guilt assumed when an accusation is made, due to the number of cases that have actually been dealt with. I actually sort of feel sorry for them, as this must change how they do their jobs significantly (I feel for the 98.4% who are good, honorable people whose ability to effectively do their jobs has been impacted by the 1.6% who have abused their positions -- stats are mine and are just for reference only). Take, for example, a clergywoman: dare she counsel a member of the opposite sex behind closed doors? What if the member of the opposite sex, upon receiving spiritual direction he does not wish to receive, decides to accuse the clergywoman of making an advance toward him? Or a teacher keeping a kid after school for tutoring? It's got to be in their minds, how do I protect myself...and that's got to make doing their jobs far more difficult. I could imagine that the same situation would exist with psychologists, as well. As far as the bad ones, they need to be caught, prosecuted, and removed from their positions. But I don't want to advocate lowering the bar for proof so much that good, honorable ones get swept away with the bad ones.