oldiesman

Yes! Which is why calling them docvic worshippers is a personal attack against their character. It is essentially accusing someone of idolatry. Unless you know that the person or people actually are worshipping Victor Paul Wierwille, it is entirely accusatory and speculative. Why use it? Exactly! Even if someone WAS ACTUALLY worshipping Wierwille, to mention that on the forums is a personal attack. Who cares? It's like if someone was fat and you called them grossly obese on the forums. You could be absolutely correct, but why would you mention it? What does the person's fatness have to do with the issues? You can discuss FAT without calling the poster FAT.

Nero, I have always maintained, for years, that the alleged drugging was wrong. That hasn't changed. What I did do a few weeks ago which I now see was an error was pose a possible motive as to why Dr. Wierwille did it. I actually got that idea (drugging someone to loosen them up sexually) from a television show. In the show, it worked. But obviously I shouldn't have posed it because, as I believe Goey pointed out, it really doesn't matter what the reason was, it was WRONG because it was non-consensual. Drugging someone without their consent is always wrong. I hope this explanation clarifies my position to all and we can move forward from here.

Rascal, I apologize for the personal attacks which I greatly regret, and ask for your forgiveness. While we're on this , I hope you understand that you, too, have made some hurtful and damaging accusations against me and my family. But for me its all water under the bridge ... and I hope we can move forward from here.

Danny, IF and where I called someone a liar, yes, that was a personal attack and I am guilty. I don't even remember whether I ever actually directly called someone a liar but yes, that would be wrong and not in accordance with the forums rules. As I stated previously I have been guilty of engaging in personal attacks on the forums and but have resolved to change for the better. Additionally part of the change also is expecting the same behavior from others and not be a punching bag for someone's amusement. No.

Not a problem. But again, if you find the need to resort to personal ridicule and acrimony, you can always PM.

Yes Jesus did engage in reproof and correction many times, but he would have handled it in a responsible and godly manner; not use public insults and acrimony to humiliate or scare someone into repentence. I think if Jesus saw a fault in a brother, he would go to them privately first to offer correction: Although the GS forum isn't a Christian forum, I believe the rules of the forum are in congruence with the above Christian principle. Accordingly if someone has a personal beef with anyone, rather than resorting to personal attack and ridicule on the open forum, one should contact the person privately though PM, if one feels it necessary to get personal at all.

Tom, I see the concept as a very simple one. Keep your anger and contempt and disgust against a poster, to yourself. Conversely, disagree all you want to and show your contempt and disgust against THE IDEA presented; but not the poster.

Irisheyes, I have to disagree with you there because the forum page states the following: The moderators can't catch every personal insult, and all personal attacks are not complained about. But it still doesn't make it right. The guideline is: please don't make it personal. Posters should be able (or at least willing) to make points and share opinions, without going off on personal or judgmental attacks against a poster they may disagree strongly with. It can be hard and sometimes takes a lot of work. But it is possible. It took me a while to fully understand this as I've been guilty of personal attacks in the past myself. But I've come to realize that making it personal only obscures the points and opinions expressed. There is no need to get personal -- its totally unnecessary. I'm trying to elevate the discussion so from this point forward, all personal attacks against me are going to be reported to the moderators. That is the way I'll handle it and see what happens. Maybe it will help some folks tackle the issue rather than the poster.

Thanks Jeaniam. Tell Johniam I said hi. :) As I see this, John responded with vulgarity to a personal attack by Danny: Danny's bait was offensive and personal. He first asks whether John hit any woman today. Then he calls us (John and me) wolves that tend to stick in packs. Danny then accuses John of deception by logging on as Jean. Then he accuses WTH of having an idol. John responded with anger and vulgarity, falling for the bait. But, John's response was no less offensive and disparaging than Danny's bait. Danny gets away with it. John gets banned. I guess its ok for posters to engage in personal attacks, as long as one isn't vulgar about it?? :huh: John can speak for himself when he returns. But John doesn't need to clear his good name, say nice words, share how he blew it. He doesn't even need to be prayed for about this. All he needs to remember (as we all do) is quit engaging in personal attacks.

Thank you PAW and Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

Washington's God

I think so. I think it's so much better not getting personal in the public forums. It takes work, but in the long run makes for better discussion. One may use PM if needed to communicate personal issues.

I was just speaking generically about unnecessary personal details (a whole lot of stuff including a persons occupation applies here) and personal insults against a poster which is unnecessary and detracts from the discussion. I agree that accusing a poster of having a spirit of jealousy is a personal insult and should be avoided as it detracts from the issue being discussed.

The meaning of "please don't make it personal" is very simple. It means that posters should be able to communicate opinions without adding personal details about or insults against another poster. If you have a personal opinion about a poster and want to say something about them that is of a personal nature, why not PM them directly? My PM is always open to anyone here.

It asks posters right on the forums page "please don't make it personal".

The bias or lack of bias of a poster is not the issue. I don't care. The point is one doesn't (and I believe shouldn't) have to invoke anything personal about the poster in order to engage in a debate about the issues.

Larry, good point and I agree. A posters occupation or even personal bias, has nothing to do with discussion and debate of the issues. Keeping the debate about the issues and not getting personal makes for much better and fairer posting.

Evidence that she puts her wealth ahead of God in her life? I haven't seen any. Just because she makes a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't put God first and seek His kingdom first. What she does with the money, i.e., she should give to the congregents, she should give to the poor, etc. is her business on how she spends her money. If she declines to give her money to the congregants or poor, what does that mean? God knows. But it is her money, how she spends it is her business. Having said that, I'm not opposed to the legal challenges made in favor of tax payments. As much as I dislike taxes, if it is proven legally that according to U.S. law her ministry should be paying taxes, then she should abide within the U.S. law. She's paying the taxes under protest but legally challenging it, which is her right.

Victor's Egg Nog. :) Makes Eight six ounce servings: Enjoy! 8 ounces Drambuie 1 quart whole milk 1/2 teaspoon ground allspice 4 eggs 1 teaspoon vanilla extract 1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon Freshly grated nutmeg for garnish Break eggs into large bowl and whisk until frothy. Add Drambuie, vanilla, cinnamon, and allspice; whisk to combine. Slowly add milk whisking until thoroughly mixed. Pour into glasses; sprinkle on the nutmeg.

The way I see it, it isn't the accumulation of wealth that matters, but how one uses it. Money is not the root of all evil; it is "the love of money" that is the root of all evil. Does Joyce Meyers put wealth ahead of God? Is wealth her God? This is what Jesus was warning against... not that one has wealth but does it keep one away from God. In Joyce Meyers case I haven't seen any evidence of same.

Right on, WG! Spiritual truth stands despite the alleged "fleshly disposition and carnality" of the communicator.

Golly, that sounds just like something I would say about VP... :o :D

Edi I love your stuff. "if you don't like it kick me out." Advanced Class, March 1978 at Virginia Beach, VA, as I recall there was some sort of a public question and answer session and a woman got up and asked Craig a question. (Dr. Wierwille was running the class and Craig was his assistant). Craig answered the question, and Wierwille hammered him about the answer he gave. Sorry but I can't remember any more about that story other than getting the impression that it was part of a training process.

Thanks for the clarification. It just seemed like you were blaming folks like me for your lack of faith, when it appears to be something else entirely.

Left the Way or left the Faith?