rhino

But didn't you say God does all things ... so God caused the "naturally occuring event". You seem to feel when people disagree with you, they are upset so you take that as ... well I won't discuss this becasue you are upset, and I take it as .. you won't discuss it becasue you disagree. I agree people should agree with me, because I am right ... but I usually take the time to try to correct their ill conceived ideas. But I don't see much progress here, we still don't know why God allows evil to exist. Why didn't he just make us perfect and happy all the time?

I still don't know what happened with WayDale. If WayDale was bought, then it appears they did nothing wrong. Things embarrassing to TWI were exposed, and they were willing to pay to cover them up? So the more people openly discuss their experiences the better. TWI will have to pay Pawtuckett even more, though I don't think anything I wrote is owned by Pawtucket. If someone is copying all these pages, I would gladly give them the right to put my info on their web page somewhere else. (not that I am the one holding the valuable info here). This being the internet age, it would all probably stay cached in Google anyway. But I imagine Pawtucket looks at his liability ... though it seems abundantly clear people express opinions and first hand experiences. I'm not sure how responsible the site is to be sure people tell the truth ... probably not very ...

God not preventing is much different than God doing, as I see it. (which separates you from catcarr on this) It indicates God did not over rule free will. The evil doer had free will and woe unto him ... as WW quotes. Learning from these times we are "stolen" from by evildoers is also different than learning from times when God steals from us. Turning to a loving God when bad things happen is different than turning to an "abusive" Father just after he "abused" us. If a thief steals from us, we can prosecute and buy better locks and a security system. But if it is God stealing from us, it becomes more arcane or mysterious. It does seem in the OT that God was depicted as more of a vengeful God, and that He opened the door for evil to be done to a good Job. I guess there are many ways to evaluate that. But certainly the NT is more the loving Father, with bad things being the act of the thief. You can trust people and still be trusting God. When someone is entrusted with a trust and they break that trust, I want them prosecuted. People that take on greater responsibility (positions of trust) have greater obligations. Embezzlement should be dealt with more harshly than theft, because not only did they steal, but they broke their higher duty of trust. When you go to a TWI minister, you should have reasonable espectation that they will minister God's Word to you to the best of their ability. If they use your trust in them to convince you sex with them would be healing, this is a most heinous act of corruption. You probably realize that professional counsellors are not supposed to have sex with their patients. Ministers should be held to a higher standard, not lower. I still blame TWI leaders for being dishonest and deceitful. I received no recompense to what I believe amounted to a fraudulent operation. The assets TWI has now, I believe were accumulated by deceit. Monies that were collected to do good, were used ony for the good of a few at the top, putting them in a position to do harm to more innocent people that came to them. They should be blamed. That doesn't mean I didn't go on with my life. Unprosecuted bad things happen all the time. But the people that get away with things should be blamed and viewed with contempt. I see nothing wrong with that. I trust God will deal with them later perhaps, but I also believe in dealing with bad deeds now. I don't plan to prosecute TWI now, but it doesn't mean they are blameless.

OK, thanks ... but I don't quite get this "offical input" you require. I thought we were just talking to WD the individual. Are you an agent for something more official?

Well in order to keep us all quiet, why not turn Gunnison over to the 1000 or so here ... that would be a good remedy for the fraud perpetrated on us. We could do time shares. Shoot, if you figure our labors and ABS and fellow slaves we won over for them ... we bought the place at least twice anyway. I can be bought, I'm tired of TWI talk anyway ... :) Is Gunnison anything more than a vacation spot now? Does it really serve a charitable function? of course the next phoenix would rise up, as you said. They can have HQ.

WD, can you point out a specific example where Rascal or whoever posted something as factual, where it wasn't clear she was expressing her opinion of other's testimonies? I'm not even sure if she said "that rapist lcm", if that would be defamation. As a very public figure, and assuming there is someone "testifying to that", it is clear it is an opinion. You even keep saying she is posting her opinion .. as truth. So you recognize it as opinion, as do all of us. I just don't quite get that her statement somehow turns into more than her opinion just because she didn't use your magic word. It may be incumbent on a news agency to do a minimum level of fact checking, but even they get it wrong. In a discussion forum you hear what peope think. I have no expectation whatsoever that Rascal has done any sort of investigation to turn her opinion into some sort of substantiated fact. Besides the freedom to state what she wants (clearly her opinion), to be guilty of defamation it would also have to be shown the testimonies here are false. How would that be done? I think the point you try to make, that you said someone was finally understanding, was understood from page one. But you want to brow beat people into agreeing with you, when they don't. After the 100th time, I'd call it harassment more than your trying to educate us knaves. is there more detail on the Waydale closing? As part of the settlement, Allens got more money if Waydale was closed? So there was no wrong doing by Waydale? As WD seemed to be implying? And the material reappeared here anyway ... so those opinions were not bought.

good point, but he was guilty in the civil trial ... so I guess he is both innocent and guilty ...

I take it that means you believe God does the "evil" and the good, but that the "evil" is done for a greater good. As you said, we made the choice to join TWI, but you said we were "delivered" from TWI. I think we made the decision to leave TWI, just as we decided to "join". I also see others have free will to do harm to me. I don't believe it is God's will when they decide to shoot me in the head, and I don't learn anything from that experience. I'm not planning to debate this with you verse by verse .. maybe I am just lazy, but my philosophy does not depend on a strict interpretation of various Biblical texts, so we are on different wavelengths anyway. I don't think people here will be angry with you, I'm certainly not ... it sounds like a good Bible topic. But in essence if there is a thief that can steal and kill and destroy, is that thief of God? I think some bad things happen in our life that are not our fault and are not sent by God. That thief fell by disobedience, he isn't said to be a strict schoolmaster ... he is a thief. That means he takes things that "belong" to others. And he kills and destroys too. If you are saying he only does that to people that are "out of fellowship", I think plenty here would recognize that as old TWI teaching. Anyway, many here have given thought to many interpretations of the Bible. You said Although the intent in your minds might have been to learn of God and the bible and be saved and live right and find God, God's intent was to take those thoughts and show you himself in your tribulations and trials. I don't think God is that tricky. Also you would have to say He has a purpose in sending murderers to murder, or sending clergy to rape. It seems your philosophy comes up short fairly quickly, in my mind. But it is worth discussing ... if God is all good, why does He allow evil to exist?

I asked a question ... how can it be untrue? I haven't read any of the lcm charges or decisions ... it was just a simple question ... I should have said in "the lcm case" I guess, where apparently the trial was avoided by compromise? Whatever the compromise was, it didn't seem to turn out too well for craig.

It should be simple, shouldn't it :) I wonder if I can't get more "truth" in forums like this than in a trial. Here are people I know, and I have a history with some and can verify their character for myself. In a trial decision, some testimony may not be allowed, a good defense lawyer may instill doubt when there really is none, police can mishandle something getting vital facts or cases thrown out, and big moeny can sway other lawyers or even judges. Deals may bet cut in the end to save costs, and then the decision may be made private. Did "truth" get fully revealed in the lcm trial? Since decisions are overturned at times, a trial is clearly not the ultimate maker of truth.

A person gives first hand testimony and tells "the truth" Experts might prove he is lying, but if he is not lying, the expert witnesses help corroborate the "truth" he spoke. They aren't witness to "the truth", but are there for verification. DNA matches are a good example. A trial does NOT. decide. the truth. A trial MAY only show who has the better lawyer. A trial is for recovery of damages or penalizing for crime. But an honest first hand witness swears to tell the truth ... and to the best of their brain's ability ... they tell "the truth." That same person can tell the same truth here in a message board. When testimony is given here, it is just as much truth as in a courtroom. Before there is a remedy or punishment, verification would be in order. The consequences for lying here are different, and there is no recovery or penalty meted out here. That is what the trial is for. Juries come to decisions based on what they believe to be truth. They are ideally really just a collection of more informed, unbiased opinions. They do not make "truth." Perhaps you have some deep legal "truth" here ... but I don't think so. If a jury's decision was that the tree is blue, the truth would still be that the tree is green. Trials can't make or change truth.

But the "truth" is the same ... it is the consequence of lying that is different. My point was that WD was stating that Rascal was not being honest, but he did not say "allegedly dishonest" and he offered no evidence she was dishonest. Rascal's opinions are based on testimony of others (I presume), but WD's statement that she is dishonest are an accusation with no basis at all. I'm saying WD appears to have a double standard.

Actually you can not say that. Well, you can say it, but it is only your opinion based on thin air. Probably they are usually truthful statements, and may wll be "verifiable". When people are on a witness stand, they promise to tell the "truth". How is that any different than people here that tell the "truth"? And let me ask you again ... Are you WD, stating it is a fact that Rascal is not giving an honest opinion? If someone says "so an so raped me", you would want them to say they were "allegedly raped"? If Rascal states an opinion of that person's statement, she can say what she wants. She might not know it is a fact, but she can believe it is. She has every right to state her certainty of the testimony. If she blatantly stated it is a fact that so and so is a rapist, she would only be incorrect if it was false, in which case she maybe defamed so and so. News agencies use the term "alleged" because they are reporting things as factual. Rascal is stating opinion and does not need the term. It is self evident her statements about someone else's testimonial are her opinion. On the other hand WD, you have stated that "it may be true period, I have no way to say either way, but what I can say is that it is not verifiable " You seem to say it is a fact that those statements are NOT verifiable, when you don't know that. You also stated your opinion is that Rascal is not honest in her opinion ... or are you saying it is a fact that she is not honest? well, I just read the last 3 posts, so I am overlapping a little .... oh well ...

These ARE honest opinions WD ... you have given NO evidence to the contrary. Are you WD, stating it is a fact that Rascal is not giving an honest opinion?

The "charges" made here are NOT legal charges, just statements. They are not being added to any list for court action. If you believe the eyewitnesses referred to here are defaming someone, you would need your own evidence they were making malicious false statements. These "other charges" are just statements from other people, again not part of any legal action. Rascal can state any opinion she wants about those statements AND about the court charges. More from wikipedia, for what it is worth. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. I don't know what statements you are referring to by Rascal, but if you think there is libel, you would have to show Rascal stated "charges" as facts ... AND YOU have to show that they are false. Since you were able to tell Rascal is stating her opinion "She is offering an opinion only" , how could you possible say she is claiming they are facts? In a discussion forum, opinions are the rule.

it is dishonest for you to say that is true, since you have not met my burden of proof for calling it so. I can send you some forms, and if you can get some witnesses and return the notarized forms, then you may be honest again, till then you are dishonest. You also have to prove it is YOUR lawnmower. We know how sneaky you are.

The charge is real, I guess you are claiming the evidence is false, but they claim to be an eye witness, you claim to know they are lying based on no evidence. Even in a civil case it would seem the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the person telling the story, unless there are witnesses of that incident to the contrary. But here where these are bascially testimonials, certainly the burden of proof is on the denier. How can you say they are dishonest? They were a first hand witness and you are not. At best you can say that wouldn't hold up in a criminal case without more witnesses ... but as there are so many testimonials of similar behavior, there is plenty of evidence that the bad behavior happened. It is dishonest to cliam their eye witness account is false, based on your off the cuff denial. How goofy can you get?

I really just wanted to be post number 1000, but I see Waysideer beat me to it ....

Well I haven't read all 1000 posts, but wanted to see what the commotion was about. I read Mike making suggestions, and WD, and WW and you ... about what should be on the site, so I put in a comment about something I think is middle ground between what you guys are arguing, and you think I should do it in a PM? With the comment "who are we to disagree ..."I don't think it was very critical, just an idea. I sense some defensiveness ... and I'm just comparing it to the mog attitude ... defending "your" turf. It sure feels to me like the less than civil environment.

It is just an opinion ... and with all the talk about being civil, I thought I'd throw it out the idea of being more civil to TWIts would fit in. Rascal you do seem to feel this place is ordained of god at times, with the talk of God leading people here, and leading people to post things, and who am I to question the man of God Pawtucket. ... That seems a little TWI like to me. I don't think there needs to be a forum for only postiive things about PFAL .. there is no section for only negative things ... people can respectfully voice a counter opinion, but the intent to derail or harass is now judged more closely, it appears. Anyway, this is a discussion ... so it is discussed ...

Actually, I don't think Pawtucket said what you just said ... I would say it IS a tool for people leaving TWI, whether you want to concentrate on being enticing or insulting is just a matter of approach. But Pawtucket can speak for himself .... Here are a few Pawtucket approved quotes though, from the "About Us" page .... We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. TWI is desperately trying to shield their followers from this information by warning them off the Internet. We think that if you give this information an honest reading, you'll see that you haven't been told the whole story. Browse through our forums and read what people are saying about their experiences in TWI. This sounds pretty welcoming to current TWI people. Perhaps you feel Mike and WD are wanting a lot more positive content, but I'm just saying it wouldn't hurt to put the more friendly welcome on the front page, since that seems to be the intent buried in the "about us" page. It can't see how it hurts to treat visitors more empathetically, instead of slapping them for being tools and fools.

No, but he can express an opinion ... If the main thrust here is to tell the other side, to whom is it being told? If it is partly to those that are still in TWI, then making the main entrance less confrontational would make sense. I'm not in sales, but why not try to relate to the new person rather than blast them right off with how screwed up TWI is. The current front page is all about slamming TWI ... which it may deserve, but assuming a large part of the effort here is to help the oppressed go free, then at least a modicum of cordiality might be prudent. The goof on AOS is funny to us, but a short letter of intro, expressing commiseration with an innie's position, may help get them in the door, so to speak. Welcome to GSC, many of us here spent a decade or more wholly dedicated to TWI convictions, and it was only with great deliberation and heavy hearts that we broke our affiliation with the organization that we had dedicated a large portion of our lives to building. So while at this site you may see mostly the reasons we do not associate with TWI, please keep in mind that we also at one time shared fully in the hopes and dreams as we believed them to be of God, and we welcome the chance to share our thoughts with you. When we remember our times in home fellowships and at the Rock of Ages, it evokes certain passions we had then. How could we forget our WOW experiences, or times in The Way Corps ... but most here were compelled to move on for a variety of reasons, which you will find ... blah blah blah .... Or it could be more directly from Pawtucket, on how this started, and then how "we" feel ... There is a little of an intro in the "about us" portion, but I think something more inviting should be on the front page. It seems there should be at least a little attempt to relate and connect, rather than smacking them in the face first thing with the AOS frying pan ... If this place is partly to help those that are in, get out, why not listen to what Mike says about how some innies feel when they come here? Making it less of an "us versus you" would be helpful, I think. Our common experiences would help tear down that wall.

that came up under an image search for dancing chicken, and was titled somebody and their dancing chicken, I think. Clearly it is possessed, though the spirit may be ready to jump into the guy with the hat.

I'm just glad choking was not one of the options ...

This is as good a place as any to put this news clip. We hear how paranoid some of TWI leadership was ... like CG checking his car for bombs. Of course I'm not sure they quite qualified as paranoid scizophrenics, but possibly, and this clip offers suggestions to help them. In The Know: Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough?