oldiesman

Yes it is an offshoot.

The impression I get is that Nathan is fellowshipping with CFF, but I could be wrong.

I have a youtube question: could someone list the step by step procedure for posting a youtube clip on the GS site (or any other site) without the whole youtube webpage? i.e, just the clip alone? Thanks!

Welcome Nathan. Thanks for the invite and if I were in your neighborhood, I would like to stop by.

I still view the folks at twi as God's children, members of the body of Christ just like we are, as opposed to bastards.

cman, please stop the namecalling and personal attacks. I have reported your post to the mods.

I agree. What I'd do is try to calmly reason with the person first, one on one. If that didn't work, I start yelling back. If that didn't work, I'd seek marriage counselling. If that didn't work, I'd leave. By that time, one would probably be thankful to leave anyway.

Congratulations Tom.

Not her. Here's another pic:

yes, she was in only one episode It is not Maureen O'Sullivan or Kathleen Quinlan, and yes she is deceased. It's a voucher card that I received in the mail; you get $20.00 off when you spend $100.00 worth of merchandise. Hurry, the offer expires December 7. I need to PM or email the voucher and pin # to the winner, and the winner needs to spend the money by or on December 7.

Well said Goey.

I think it'd be both.

Not Ava Gardner. Here's a hint: She was in an episode of The Twilight Zone.

good warm socks cigars thermal underwear, for cold weather sports nose hair clipper

None of the above. I need to think of a clue that won't give it way. I will try.

Good points Oakspear and Socks, thanks. It wouldn't be a problem at all, until one makes that comment against a poster on a public forum that discourages such activity. "please don't make it personal" means what it says and says what it means. It is very simple. Besides, even if it were absolutely true that someone were actually worshipping Wierwille, still, it'd be against the forum rules to make it personal on the forum. I believe it is irrelevant to the discussion of the issues what the disposition and character of a poster might be. Want to get personal? I think the appropriate way would be to use PM, email, snail mail, the telephone, or use automobiles, trains, planes, etc., to visit in person.

Thats all the questions for me today. I have to sign off. :D Irisheyes, its not Susan Hayward, but that was a pretty good guess. :)

Marlene Dietrich No, sorry.

It's unnecessary. Let's stick to the issues.

Yes it was wrong for Victor Paul Wierwille not to give proper written acknowledgement in his books. However I continue to bear in mind that I learned from him early on that lots of the stuff he taught was not original. Any other questions? (BTW you can ask me these things in PM if you like.)

I don't think it sets a good example, but I'm not going to wag my finger at two single adults wanting privately to have consentual sex with each other. It really is none of my business.

Who is my avatar? Whoever is the first to guess it right wins a $20.00 gift certificate to Lands End. You have to purchase $100 worth of merchandise from them, but hey, $20.00 off is something. No tax. Hurry, this offer expires on December 7. I will email or PM the voucher # and pin # to the winner.

Thank you Rascal. Bumpy do you like my avatar? Can you guess who she is? I was thinking about holding a contest and first one who guesses it right will win a $20 gift certificate (with $100 purchase) to Lands End.

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.