rhino

yup ... and that stuff has gone on too long ... as I see it ... I was just bleeding in from another thread :)

But what makes a great site is extreme fairness to all views, which sometimes is even "extra fairness" to the "opposition".

I do appreciate your area of expertise (not being snide, really) and I think I said I may not have seen it all ... but I think I know the "threat" email was not a threat ... so that is a false allegation. It was an invitation to meet the accuser face to face on a certain date in NYC, since Bumpy has no chance of rebuttal here. If the person feels "threatened" he just doesn't accept the invitation. I know most of the rest I think, but may have just skimmed some stuff cuz I didn't care that much. I'll review if I have to. And of course there could be more I didn't see. Also the "liar" allegations are not at all established, yet made as absolutes.

I may not have read them all ... mostly he attacked you on the issue of your "little banishment game", from what I saw ... he threw in a personal insult ... not exactly "nasty" ... but mostly he stuck to attacking you on the issues ... as I recall. He complained to me and in a post about the very nasty pm from the rock star ... yet there is now the public claim he attacked her "out of the blue" .. would you like to review that? But I am not so much defending him as "attacking" these false claims. Like I said, I don't know all the discourse, but I know he did not privately make a threat as you publicly claimed. Unless there was another email than the one I assume we are talking about. So your one public comment that trashed him was false. The liar part does not seem clear to me either. Then you banned him for ten years, and compare that to some bad things I guess he said about you ... I didn't even notice those, or when he called someone that name ... he didn't know why he was banned till the same day you told Jonny he knew, but you said he already knew and he was lying to Jonny ... the email he got did not say why ... he knew after he emailed you. Some things don't fit. DWBH ... no rebuttal ... just saying I have poor eyesight? What did I miss? I still think I am spot on ... you listed posters as TWI apologists or was it just "apologists"? Your list was wrong, even WW agreed it was wrong. Why label anyone like that? And your definition was dead wrong ... to any objective person. Instead of just saying I have bad eyesight ... why not offer an explanation of your labels? Belittling is easier I suppose. (and yes, something doesn't smell right)

I don't know what warnings he got, or how clear they were ... you did mention he got on you, so this was you getting on him ... fine I guess ... but you didn't exactly respond with a comparable response ... you used the ban button. Being silenced and banned is rather different ... he took plenty of criticism on the boards and handled it just fine. As he said to me, he knows people in prison in Africa, he was there sometimes with protection and sometimes not ... this silly little internet world is rather trivial by comparison ... I think his posts tried to be more light instead of acting like we are carrying the world on our shoulders here, as TWI used to think ... or that all this is somehow bigger than it really is ... how many are in TWI or other little splinters ... do some people really just carry on delusions of grandeur here? I saw a little different perspective from Bumpy .. and I think despite some weird style he had, he had something to offer .. still does. In any case, WW trash talked him pretty bad, and he did not threaten him, as you claimed. So saying that seems very wrong to me ... and it bothers me a little that so many seem to feel they need to fall in line behind their leader ... I think you do just fine without resorting to this stuff ... IMNSHO Nuff said ... for now ...

Well ... Bump didn't take it as a joke but as permanent banishment, I would say ... An invitation to meet someone is not really a threat ... and that person trash talked him and possibly slandered him while Bumpy was muted ... and that person never had a bad word to say about poor bumpy while he was active here ... publicly claiming Bumpy made a "threat" does not seem fair or correct. He offered to have a face to face discussion of publicly made slander ... And while we're at it .. in regards to jonny mooning dwbh ... I don't quite get dwbh listing here earlier, the people and thread numbers that gave adequate responses ... and that any more commentary was just beating a dead horse. Can people read for themselves? Why the label of those who go against the official party line? Is this the new MOG for GSC? On another thread he listed for us the Wierwille apologists by name ... so are we to mark and avoid them, since the new MOG has listed them for GSC? And in case anyone was upset by the apologist term, we have cover from the dwbh archaic revised standard version of "apologist". The real meaning is "pejorative", but to dwbh it is a positive ... at least if you are "any objective reader", as dwbh put it. Go ahead and disagree, but that marks you as not objective. I think I fairly well trounced his notion that "Wierwille apologist" is a positive or neutral term, but the tone of listing the dwbh approved posts, or listing those sanctioned as wierwille apologists ... seems strange ...almost cult like. And is it really his "humble opinion" when he says that those that disagree are "beating a dead horse", or those on his mark and avoid list are wierwille apologists? Or those that disagree with his old and wrong "apologist" definition are "not objective". and I still think those long paragraphs without punctuation are hard to discern ... Of course you can disagree with me, but not if you are objective ... and you'll just be beating a dead horse ... I'm just trying to make friends here ...

my brain cells are weak ... I can't quite remember the "no boots" story ... But perhaps confining certain people to certain forums would be better than boots ...

People are less inclined to tell their story when they know they will be attacked or harassed ... so I can see a point there ... but at most perhaps just certain forums where those types of stories are revealed, the more brutal cross examination could be restrained ... since this is not an actual trial. And when people are attempting to derail other threads without honest debate ... it is trolling, so no new rules are needed. I'm not sure on the regular suspects, and the repeated "apologies" ... they seem to play by the rules ...

I've had a lot of contact with Bumpy over many months that you know nothing of ... so now you say (sure I put what you seem to imply in shorter phrases ... still it is there) he may be making a fool of me, and you had said he was deceiving me ... that is belittling. The revelation and devil spirit thing came up, because that seemed your tone ... you KNEW he had me write these things ... now you know he manipulated me ... now that you have marked him as possessed with a deceiving spirit a troll, you have all the attributes that you want to make fit, and you seem to project them into communication I've had with him that you know nothing of. Is it possible he really did know ... sure I considered that from the start ... and then I walked him through the process ... so then he contacted pawtucket. My work was done, till you decided (in my opinion) that the decision to ban him had to be backed up with your investigative analysis, which seemed quite faulty to me. Bumpy told me several posts back that it didn't seem it was worth the effort. you said every time he touched the keyboard, it was ... blah blah blah ... My word was "hate" .. your was "naughty", so I didn't link those. np ... I thought maybe you were talking sexual stuff, which seemed another wrong implication from someone else. That you bothered to do the whole recap is somewhat "spirited" ... and I was just reusing "spirited" from your claim that I was going to make a "spirited" defense. I don't actually feel all that spirited about any of this ... it just seems that now that Bumpy is gone, some feel the need to throw some dirt on him, to confirm that the ban was correct. yes ... I know ... ad infinitum ... you spoke of his social worth ... not just here, you have no idea of his social worth, just his actions about people he feels are stuck in cult trauma from 20 years ago.... in any case ... my two word summary was adequate I thought, if not precise. You are so wordy that some consolidation is in order. Did I say he was not acting like a troll ? I don't think my forum discussions with him, he was being a troll ... like the DOW 14,000 thread, where we both commented on the apparent down trend ahead ... and here we are ... I don't recall paw calling the emails nasty ... I read them, have you? He said a couple things not helpful, but mostly he was angry and took the fight to paw ... another reason I think perhaps he really didn't have the email address figured out. Once he did, he seemed to have no problem expressing himself to pawtucket. I'm more inclined to think a troll would have ingratiated himself, and tried to worm his way back in ... Bumpy took a little bolder stance ... except for a personal insult (on info he did not get from me) .... I don't think nasty is the right term. And I think you honestly believe that ... :) Sure it is possible he was just pushing buttons to get a thread started, which jonny obliged him with. And I'm not really defending him, except from some of the non staff attacks that seem to be going way beyond what the ban was about. And since he has taken a hard line on some of his positions, it seems he is unlikely to be welcomed back any time soon. But I think the name calling is not the real issue, nor the sock puppet ... it is the aggressive attitude toward some like rascal. no ... I think this after the fact stuff is pointless ... and yes, mostly wrong. Pawtucket didn't want to embarass Bumpy by revealing his sin ... but now you have attempted this whole exegesis of your perceptions, making much worse accusations than what Bumpy was actually suspended for ... Sure ... good idea.

Could it just be the money ... associating themselves with the logo ... ? I was talking about George Foreman the other day, and his sons ... George It seems everyone now recognizes the importance of associating with the name brand ... and TWI was something under vp ... sure he was a fraud and stole his stuff ... but he did it well ... I see no other reason to cling to vpw ... they can't do their own "ministry" ... the have to latch on to that thang ... Geer ... bus driver lcm ... Home Depot clerk Jalvis ... ??? comedy club? not sure what his current job is ... of course we realize they wasted their good years as mini mogs ... well, geer wasn't a mog ... how did he get in there? There should be a class on how to glom off people and suck up to them before they die ... But then Ralph was close ... why did he walk away ... ? Perhaps he had an ounce of integrity.

Well some here seemed fairly supportive of Bumpy ... despite his conflicts in some areas. So there was some interaction that was not of this vitriolic nature ... I think. Despite your "support of ideas", you are judging me and Jonny on emails and relationships that you know little about. We are his little pawns and my statements are only saying what he wants me to say ... according to you. Good grief ... I've disagreed with Bumpy on many things in my emails to him ... but since you must be getting revelation on what he is telling me, you must already know that. So now we are possessed with the spirit of hate, or deceiving spirit from Bumpy? Is that it WW ... you think there are devil spirits involved? I went through several emails early on, getting Bumpy to see why he was banned, got copies of some things, and got him to respond to the one email directly to pawtucket so he could get more info ... so it doesn't seem to me he really knew he could just reply to what looked like an automated response. The email suggeted he didn't need to do anything, it was an automated process ... but that referred to the unbanning ... in 2018. Now you claim he had me jump in, which I know is false. Have I ever had trouble commenting on my own in the past? In any case, I've emailed him many times before on other matters and see no reason he would lie to me now. And I certainly know he did not have me jump in ... I "jumped in" because you were trying to prove him a liar on lame evidence, which seemed unfair ... still does. Not basically worthless ... so his worth revolves around annoying people or getting sympathy ... and that is different than "basically worthless"? He started some discussions that people participated in ... and offered worthy opinions on markets ... other items ... you seem in attack mode. I'm not excusing his bad behavior ... as I said, the ban seemed fair, though long. And I don't pretend to know the whole story. The sock puppet issue was already resolved .... his labeling the site naughty? I'm not sure why you are even suggesting these things ... The issue is YOUR spirited attack on him, now that he is gone.

I think the discussion moved past why Bumpy was banned .. on to a more general discussion of rules and conduct and how it all works. I suggested from the start, to Bumpy, that he talk with Pawtucket ... he said he didn't get the email .. etc. then he contacted Pawtucket ... blah blah ... and I never had a problem with the ban. So I'm not sure which people need the big girl panties ... to me what Bumpy was actually banned for, seems less egregious than the way Bumpy has been personally attacked here by WW and others to some degree. Having experience with Bumpy's internet inexperience, I think he didn't figure that he could just reply to his notice of banishment. I could be wrong, but I'm not willing to say he is a worthless liar ... and I doubt WW knows him well enough to say that either ... though it is just an opinion. But the staff has been fair ... so I guess this is Bumpy's farewell thread ... till 2018.

Oh good Rocky is here to help. And right to the name calling in the first Rocky post ... what a surprise. Are you here to demonstrate the proper way to attack people? I'm saying he believed more that gsc tends toward a hate site ... so he acted accordingly. WW called him a basically worthless liar ... and sunesis piled on a little ... I've seen other aspects ... the cult subject seems to be like discussing politics or religion ... it can be divisive, when people would behave differently discussing sports or whatever. (and this is what gets me about labeling ... if grumpy has this site labeled as full of twi haters ... he treats them differently ... and is less ready to compromise .. it is more like a war of good versus evil. The same tendency in labeling TWI apologists ... or way corps jerks, liberals versus conservatives ... etc.)

Clear enough to those on the outside ... referring to the continued discussion here about bumpy's character ... the couple emails to you that he copied to me indicated he was really not too interested in reconciling and being part of the community ... which is what I already told him. and he did not take my suggested route earlier, either ...

Well I was just pointing out that your "proof" that Bumpy was lying did not quite add up, and since he is not here, it seems a little late to pile on, as many are doing. What is the point of calling him a worthless liar now that he is banned? I've emailed Bumpy quite a bit on other things previous to all this ... it may be he had some other "mission" here, which maybe pushed him toward trollishness .... but I don't think he is so internet savy to be so evil as some seem to think. I see other aspects of Bumpy, despite his actions here in ex cult world, so I don't see the point in trashing him as a person. but Jonny made it more public than it needed to be (at bumpy's request) .. perhaps ... so there is a lot of confronting Bumpy as a liar or bully ... now that he is dead and gone. Many seemed to express some support though, so I'm not sure he was totally worthless. I continue to comment only because the late piling on seems unfair. (and I see the staff has not done that ...) Jim and Pawtucket made the problem clear enough, and yes GSC seems pretty lenient ...

I don't think you are being as precise as you say ... there are implications at best. You have no times down for these events ... and there are other possibilities. If Bumpy emailed Pawtucket (or PM'ed?) in the past, it is no guarantee he had the email or was able to PM Pawtucket now. So you made a false assumption. But assuming Bumpy hadn't checked the email address on his profile ... he did after Pawtucket brought that up in the forum. That is the one that gave no reason ... but Pawtucket hinted at the reason before Bumpy emailed him to ask ... though also later stated that Bumpy had made digs at him, so now Pawtucket was doing the same for him with that notice. It was also noted that he had been warned. So I told Bumpy to just reply to that email, it would probably go to Pawtucket. And then ... (this sounds like four crucified ) then ... time ... lol ... he emailed him ... as Pawtucket noted. And THEN Pawtucket told him what he had done, in line with what was hinted at. As far as I can tell, Bumpy then emailed Pawtucket on the 4th or 5th, but Pawtucket said that email was sent days ago ... but it was after Pawtuckets statement that Bumpy could just email him, and after his comment to me. Anyway ... Bumpy doesn't strike me as a computer whiz, and it is feasible to me that he didn't currently have Pawtucket's email address. I didn't know Jim was on staff (another issue maybe ... some staff having secret moderator (double) identities, is WW also staff?) ... but I think Jim stated Bumpy's bigger/real "crime" more accurately. The sock puppetry (showing up as Grumpy I guess ... but that was immediately noted and accepted by Pawtucket, then ModCow asked him to be just one identity) and the troll activity. I'm not sure it was exactly trolling ... but he was edgy, obtuse and tangential I might say ... but I didn't read all he wrote ... Anyway, the events as Bumpy emailed to me, lined up with what was happening in the forum ... Paw' hadn't heard from him, then he did hear from him ... lined up with the play by play I heard. The email to paw was not exactly the tone I suggested, but it is Bumpy, and I'd guess he was honest with his feelings. Bumpy had stated he felt this was more of a twi hate site ... I disagree with that, though some here may have some of that ... though Groucho stated it was an anti TWI site. With a somewhat more straight forward approach to discussing his views, Bumpy would probably be welcome and offer another perspective that might add balance or perspective... or at least allow his view to be heard. I agree I got lost in Bumpy speak several times. I don't see Bumpy (or Jonny) as TWI apologists ... in fact Bumpy's complaint about GSC is that they are like TWI ... another cult where a few rule the roost and kick out dissenters without a trial or vote. But there are standard internet rules, and I don't think staff get enough women or money from this gig to qualify as a cult ...

Well the idea was presented ... not by pawtucket ... Another idea was presented by you that perhaps (you "wondered") he was bothering other posters with uncomfortable pm's ... but that does not seem to be the case, though the "non-accusation accusation" was left sitting there ... just like a duck. That is probably NOT how it should be. Pawtucket mentioned something about calling someone something exterminators look for ... and that he has done that before. So maybe it was bumpy's characterization of the little dancing yoda ...

Free speech being "only incidental" says something else to me. It is different than saying "This is not about any surpression of free speech" The idea was presented that bumpy was bumped because of his views ... implying free speech was not allowed. But free speech is allowed ... it is not "incidental" ... it is part of your quote that ... These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. Harassment (or name calling) is not part of free speech ... it is a separate issue. "Incidental" seems to imply free speech may or may not occur, but telling the other side is what is ultimately more important. It seems now that is not what you meant.

We decide on an opinion of guilt or innocence by any means we choose. When it comes to punishment or retribution, that is decided in court. Are you saying it is a "conclusive fact" that OJ was innocent? It was "proven" in one decision and not in another. And outside that, most have an opinion of OJ's guilt based on TV and internet.

It is down right goofy to say people can't form an opinion without a case going to court. VP and TWI are not being "convicted" ... they are having an opinion formed about them ... you generally attempt to discredit many of the first hand accounts as "inadmissible". But they don't have to be cross examined (except by those here) because this is not a trial ... Trial by press or by internet refers to when an actual trial is prejudiced ... by the story being told widely in the press, so that jurors are tainted. This is not a trial of vp ... it is people forming opinion from a multitude of "testimonies" and first hand accounts. My opinion and yours are non binding on vp or twi ... they are just opinions. (but mine is correct) The term "apologist" is getting worn out though .. it gets used as an argument against everything now ... Bush apologist Clinton apologist TWI apologist Just throw the term out there, and it supposedly discredits the other person entirely ... it is rather lame but seems to pass for argument now ... While I get Groucho's point about warning people about a cult ... most points of reference here are 10-20 years old. Most of the "other side of the story" is pointing out what a fraud vp (or lcm) was ... so it mostly applies to TWI and the splinters to the degree they cling to vp (and his dogma) as some sort of MOGFOT. Or to the degree they have mini mogs trying to reclaim their old glory, using the same old schtick. There does seem room here for other reflections on our past time ... and that makes the place more interesting and fun, and less like a bunch of angry and bitter ex TWI orphans. Overall the place seems to work OK ... the bumpy one seemed to push his point quite a bit ... hopefully he can work something out if he bothers to read his email. And hopefully gsc is not central to anyone's life here ... just one of our points of distraction ...

I don't really want to play the telephone game, but bumpy says he never got an email ... unless it was sent somewhere he hasn't checked for some time. I'm not sure what is normal when banning someone ... just the banning is an embarrassment, but I can see not making it public if it wasn't done in public. Anyway ... company is here ... time to play ... :) (removed somethin that referred to something someone else removed ... )

I don't even know what bumpy's position is exactly ... he doesn't seem to be a twi sympathizer at all ... and while he seemed to consistently suggest people move on after 20 years ... he contributed and was a noted voice/character, not that that has been a requirement here that I have noticed. Most political sites allow dissenting opinions ... some get a little sassy. That is usually better, unless it gets out of hand. But it does seem open discussion is better ... a place with a free flow of opinion. The attitude that TWI has their censored site so "we" have our censored site ... seems a little off ... this has been an open place, which is what is better about it. Both sides get presented. JAL's letter gets dissected, but it would be better if he and "his side" were involved in the point by point discussion. Yes it is pawtucket's site ... I guess some contribute to it ... but the time involved is the big thing. Most sites want more traffic ... and the time everyone puts in makes it more valuable ... GSC seems more of a place where ex TWI hang out ... and the exposure of TWI here means most have moved on. Hopefully this will remain a place where other opinion is welcome ... and not just from a select few "token" sympathizers. All I can figure is several people complained that bumpy was "attacking" their views, or them personally for their seeming fixation on old TWI stuff. Hopefully this remains an open forum, which is the contrast to the closed forum sites of TWI and some splinters, I guess. Actually though, the other sites don't have any discussion that I have seen ... That corps site seems a place to remember each other and the activities and to NOT discuss the bad side, nor discuss how "righteous" TWI was ... making a "happier" environment to reunite with old pals. GSC is focused on the perils of TWI like cult thinking, and the manipulation and deceit. But there seems room for a lot of other discussion around that, and I'd think all opinion within the rules would be allowed, so I don't know what happened to Bumpy ... and he doesn't seem to know either.

Do you think they "lay awake at night thinking of ways to hurt and destroy peoples lives "back in the day" when they were doing and saying about the same as they are doing and saying now? Back when they were hurting and destroying people's lives? Every man is right in his own eyes ... right? If they were so blind back then ... when did they become so wise? The point is, Jalvis has reverted to praising vp ... indicating jalvis has regressed, not progressed. And I remember some letter from ces (and I wasn't even part of CES) about jalvis problems ... Moving on ... I think most splinters have not gone far ... those that praise a sexual predator, plagiarist, etc ... have not changed much ... and most were slow to change at all, they have just tried to collect the money that used to go to TWI ... it is pathetic ... I'm completely removed from any of these groups, and have no axe to grind ... but I feel free to speak my mind ... it might actually help one soul that might get caught up in the same old tripe ...

... same old come on ... "piece of candy ... go for a ride?" let me lead you into moving duh wuhrd ... you know how sweet it is to do gawd's will ... and you aren't gettin' it now ... but I will give it to you baby ... I'm your candy man ... I'm your cement mixer ... :o (I was sure the cement mixer thing was part of a song .. can't find it now ... oh well lol) OK .. James Tayolor, that's what I thought ... anyway .. jalvis is still trying to be da mahn ... despite his half paragraph of humble pie ... Well, I'm a steamroller, baby I'm bound to roll all over you Yes, I'm a steamroller now, baby I'm bound to roll all over you I'm gonna inject your soul with some sweet rock 'n roll And shoot you full of rhythm and blues Well, I'm a cement mixer A churning urn of burning funk Yes, I'm a cement mixer for you, baby A churning urn of burning funk Well, I'm a demolition derby (yeah) A hefty hunk of steaming junk

There is no choice about being a victim in the past. The women that were abused and others that were taken advantage of ... it is a done deal. John seems to prefer everyone forget about the people he personally harmed ... to bring that up, he seems to say, is being a victim. I think it is more victim like to not speak out against someone that appears to be returning to the scene of the crime, and cruising through the old neighborhoods looking for more victims. The people that will sign up for this new improved TWI are perhaps looking to return to the comfort of "victimhood", which makes the jalvis letter disgusting. Repeat offenders should have to wear some sort of "spiritual molester" t-shirt ... but I guess they are free to advertise ... :o