QuietThinker

Many thanks, WhiteDove, and gives me more keywords to search off. thanks again, QT

My father is an inveterate gardener, Ron (as opposed to invertabrate, which I originally typed, and would just be gross! :blink: ), and I've seen that from time to time when I was much younger. A quick search also yields the following, which are a bit silly and fun. If you like gardening, and slightly off-center people, both of which I do. Tomato Forum Cooking for Engineers So...even though that slimey little sack is meant to keep the seeds from sprouting "In Fruitero", sometimes, that's just not the case. hehe, QT

I don't know if this open to just anyone, Oldies...but for my 2 cents. If something bad happens to me, and I was the root cause, I accept responsibility. Conversely, If someone else caused that harm to me, I assign responsibility to that camp.... If harm comes to me because of a string someone else pulled? I assign responsibility to the string-puller. And my assignation of blame and $6.58 gets you a double caramel machiato with an extra shot where I live. ...sees where this could easily head, qt

Mark, I at least thank you for the post! I just started a topic thread which was seeking just this kind of information. Cheers! qt

Hi everyone... I've been thinking about this since following the Foolhardy Topic and reading a lot which has been written by those posters who were in the corps. When I became involved in 92/93 (hoping to set a timeframe), it was made very clear to me that the Way Corps! was for those men and women who really wanted to 1. maintain top leadership positions in the ministry, 2. Move the Word with all due speed, and 3. Wanted to give their lives to God. When I asked, back then, about the ordination process and if twi "ministers and reverends" were recognized by other organizations, for example, you live next door to Reverend Smith who was the overseer of the local Baptist church, did Reverend Smith refer to you, the twi ordained minister as "Reverend Jones"? I was told that the title was equally applicable. I asked about seminary, and was told that the way corps was an equivalent program. It was a couple of years later that I realised that the way corps program was not something that was done after a candidate had completed some sort of formal education, but something that happened just "for us". I was already completely in by that time, so I really didn't question it. I've been searching the threads, I promise, and tried a little outside research, but I sure could use some help, because I'm not answering my own questions...which are as follows: 1. I understood that the corps program was first instituted by vpw as a way to train people in his way of thinking and interpretation of the bible, it was designed to equip men and women to know what he knew so they could pass it on effectively, and because of the way expansion and growth occurred, a need for local leadership grew organically . Is this correct? If it is not, and even if it is, sources I could read would be very helpful. 2. When did the thrust or focus begin to change, and when did the idea begin that the WC would be the entry program for a lifetime of ministerial service? 3. Many colleges began quite small, and worked hard with growth and oversight to gain accreditation and other benchmarks of credibility. I am curious, did the whole college campus thing have that as a goal? Was it the goal of twi to grow their "institutions of higher learning" into programs that might be recognized outside of twi? 4. Were any WC encouraged to do more than attend college, but to also pursue those subjects that might expand their knowledge of what other people thought about theology? I know this was highly discouraged among regular followers. I know that these have probably all been debated in some fashion elsewhere, I just can't find the threads. Maybe the answer is simpler than I am making it, too, but I really would like some help. I know that if you take twi from the premise that it is/still is a cult, that these questions will not have any bearing, because a cult, by its nature seeks to draw away from society and not be a part of it. But, if there was any desire for twi to be a truly recognized spiritual haven, so to speak, wouldn't the founders have wanted credibility they could stand on? The more I think about it, and the longer I am out, the more the phrase, "We have the word and that's all we need." doesn't hold water. So, thanks in advance, and I appreciate any, and all, replies. Still learning over here, QT

I hear you, Kevlar...I hear you! QT - who's moved up to gallons of iced tea

We're heat indexed at about 105 today, Pond, near Baltimore. My little guy is on his way home from school where he was in AC...I will take him to the Y later for some swim time. My daughter is in Texas with Gparents, moving from ac house to pool and back again, from what I understand. I give my little guy all the time he wants in the cool bathtub, too, on days like today...and homemade popsicles. finally, I had my groceries delivered today...to avoid taking my little guy out in this heat when the AC in my Thunderbird has been dicey all summer and the dealer hasn't been able to fix it. drinking lots of cool water, here, QT

I know the song, from college, but I don't know who sang it. Chick-a-boom.

((((WG)))) nothing else I can say, or add. QT

well, finished except for this. WordWolf was kind enough to copy my post on the last page so that it wouldn't get lost. I don't want George's to get lost, either... so, just so no one misses it... QT (I edited this quickly, because it read (even with the comma) as "well done except for this" which might have been taken to refer to George's post. I meant, finished on the thread except for this).

Ah, well, Tom... I wasn't really expecting an answer, but, yeah, I thought the questions needed to be asked. and I do agree, that those policies and so forth had nothing to do with moving the Word. Some may argue that it did, in fact, further the process of moving the Word because it taught people to believe and not fear in any circumstances, but it also seems to me to be something foolhardy as well, to believe you are "being the best for God" by scrounging rides on the side of the highway. I mean, if I'd come across someone on the highway or road, hitching, and if by some miracle I stopped to pick them up (which would happen when those pigs on the other thread start flyin' outta my @rse), and that person started telling me about the kind of "More Abundant Life I could have with *this* Ministry", then I suppose my first question would be... If your ministry thinks you are God's best, and you are an example of the kind of person it takes to be a disciple, and they have all the resources *I* will ever need to learn the Word and more...well, then, why are you out here thumbing a ride? I mean, if there are so many people who are turned on to this thing...how come they can't afford a bus ticket, or let you drive your own car?" And, I am taking this in view of my own experience. I'm 35 years old...when I was coming up, hitch-hiking was already filed under the heading of "things you never do." ...and it makes me wonder...what about the whole principle of "safety in a multitude of counselors", "safety within the household", and "strength in numbers"...? I see very little even mentioned here about the 2 x 2 thang...you know, except for the one where lcm and his hitch-partner ended up separated. ok, I'm done on this thread...what good I could do has been done. QT

You know, I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't want to derail, and I spent an hour putting together a lengthy post with quotes from the thread and my own thoughts, but, in the end, what I want to know from johniam and oldiesman in specific, and anyone else who cares to answer is this... Are you saying, because in your opinion Hitch-hiking was not 1. particularly dangerous and 2. a specific mandate of TWI (though I should think the strongest case made so far is that both of those were inherently true considering the posts we've just read)...that there was something amiss with the believing of the people who were injured, harmed, raped or more while hitch-hiking at the behest of their leadership? Because that sounds like some of the most twisted logic I can imagine. That is the sort of logic that is parallel to, "She was dressed in sexy clothes, she deserved to get raped--it's her own fault." and "Well, if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town, he would never have been mugged--it's his own fault." And, the inverse therefore is: "She had a breakdown in her believing, she brought it on herself." Which very wrongly assigns blame to the victim of a crime. But, then, why should I be surprised? Such logic has dominated the thinking of close-minded, judgmental, self-righteous hypocrites for ages. It's nothing new, but it is hard to swallow. Covering up for policies you KNOW are dangerous and have caused injury makes you nothing short of an accomplice to a crime. And do NOT try to pass off the argument of "TWI never MADE anyone hitchhike." just because LCM wasn't standing on the side of the highway with a gun pointed to a corps-person's head saying "hitchhike or else!" because anyone who has endured the extreme pressure from someone in authority knows that coercion doesn't always take place at the point of a knife or barrel of a gun. If someone tells you, "This is the highest calling for your life, and if you fail you will let down not only those who have cared for you, but, indeed, you will have failed GOD...so go, do this thing and get your mind right." That isn't just a threat for the moment, or quick consequences...that's guilt for an eternity. So...really now...is this what we're saying? I repeat my original question: Is it the opinion of some here that the people who WERE injured and worse asked for it by not "activating their believing" enough...or, even more foul, that they were believing FOR it to happen? Because, that's certainly what can be inferred by some of these posts. I, for one, find the entire idea to be the heart of wickedness. Which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used before. and...some of these posts have made me ashamed for how little progress we've made as a species. Very sorry indeed, QT

My somewhat Anal-Retentive BF cleans windows with newspapers and amonia. I think it's bizarre, but my windows look great. Of course, there's something to be said about a fella that does windows. Cheers, QT

Hey Belle :) I went from State Farm to Nationwide, to Progressive, to a small local company called Mutual benefit, and am now with Geico. I haven't had those problems, Belle...but...to be honest, they were the cheapest when it comes to my car. Cheers, QT

Oh, who choose...let's have all of the above, Tom

Tom: Yes. Abso-freakin'-lutely QT

Oh, Abi...how I LOL'd, there...I, too, wear that, ummm, particular badge of honour. I nursed the boy, but, end result? totally the same...*still giggling* QT

You're right Vickles :-) hehe, you know, once when my ex told me I was poooozzzeeeeessseed-ah... I kindly pointed out that he was labouring under the influence of the spirit of J@ck..... Of course, never having had the "advanced class" I couldn't be sure of the "technical name." I'm pretty sure this guy has the same buddy... hehe, QT sorry, I forgot to fix the swearing the first time...the @ is so helpful!

Hi Roy, Once, at the end of a wap foundational class I was helping to crew, they couldn't get the setup of the ending "photograph" just right... The plant that the coordinator INSISTED had to be in the photo was too tall, and they couldn't sort out how to get it in the picture. So, because my height happened to be "just perfect" (and I swear, the guy coordinating the class said to me: God knew you'd be here just for this!)...I had the privelege of standing below the concrete porch (it was one of those 8 steps up to the house jobs), with the plant balanced on my head, so the foiliage hit at just the right spot...the class coordinator's shoulder. Yes, in a dress, in heels, make-up done, lookin' my best for God...with a plant, ON. MY. HEAD. erm...can I have my sign for that? hehehe, QT P.S. I thought I was there to help out with the special time of watching new people receive the Word of God for the first time...but, apparently, I was really there as a plant stand--I've considered this morning how appropriate a metaphor that is!

Sharing your story must be exhausting, grand-daughter, and I couldn't share as much information as you did in this post. I am so glad that you're here and have a place to be...and having chatted with you, I think you're pretty terrific. *many hugs* QT

Hi Belle, I read the posts here, then read them again. I know one of the hardest things for me to take, and the one thing that still sticks in my mind as pivotal more than any other *single* thing, is this idea: I'd like to know if, while they were actually "counseling", that those in leadership ever questioned themselves and their own authority when they were offering counsel on issues for which they had no professional training...like marriage counseling...like financial planning (or lack thereof)...and if so, after some these leaders left twi, if they think, at all, about the damage they did under "the Word." I had a talk with a GS friend who posed to me the idea that because of the way leadership, specifically WC leadership, were trained and taught, that it might not ever have hit them that the doctrines under which they were functioning were suspect (until, perhaps, those individuals left). Recently, while researching several old threads, I found the names of the LCs from my area...the same guy who told me by "revelation" that my issues as a wife all stemmed from the "sexual abuse" I'd endured from my own brothers as a child. I've mentioned this in my initial introductory post on my story...but, since that NEVER happened, and my own brothers are all fine, upstanding men--such spurious, evil and vicious lies made me sick at the time...and since I've been here and learned about the *real* horrors and abuses that some people actually DID endure, I am even more appalled it could have been suggested. So, imagine my surprise to learn that that same man is thought of affectionately by some posters. These are posters that I think are great people already, and with whom I seem to have a lot in common. So, I know from that their experience was far different, and perhaps the "counseling session" I endured with this guy is an abberration. Now that I know where this fella landed, I've toyed with the idea of emailing and saying, "Hey, remember me? I'm the one whose life you torpedoed on a single afternoon." (there was more to the "session" than just that accusation. But, I'm not going to. First, I doubt he remembers. What was one little peon in the grand scheme of things when he was so high up. Second, how could he possibly answer in a way that would satisfy me...because even if he were to say, "Sure, I remember you and I'm sorry I was an @ssh0le.", I already know that he was wrong...and years after the fact, why should he care? Why do I still care? I can't answer it, but I do. I didn't have the strength to leave my bad marriage at that time, when I knew I should. Sure, I had some help staying--the idea that some horrible catastrophe would befall me should I leave was a major one. But, I chose to stay. I guess what I'm saying is...like I believe you are saying...sometimes I still hear that conversation in my head and I feel angry and embittered all over again. I don't know if it will ever go away. And in some ways, I just want my life to prove that I overcame all the nasty things he said about me. I'm pretty sure that I'm always going to harbour some very real resentments against this chap. I am now sure that there would some who would be shocked to hear that it *was* this chap who hit me with that bovine guano in the first place...and being here is a help to me. Reading how others, like yourself, are dealing with their questions and process of healing is helping me with my own. I don't think, however, that I could ever buy into the "kinder, gentler TWI." Not now that I know some of the source. Still confused over here, QT P.S. If faced with this guy on the street, and he was on fire, and I had to choose a bucket of water or a bucket of gasoline to throw on him...I'd like to think I'd choose the water. But, I have to admit...I'd take a long moment to think about the choice first.

Hi everyone, The third line of cover reads: An essay in Historical Interpretation. So far, I'm through the first chapter and am finding it a very detailed book, replete with footnotes and explanatory comments that enhance the historical narrative. The NYT Book Review can be found by clicking the link. This is the link for the book on Amazon. Is anyone else reading it? Any opinions? Just curious, QT

Hey WE... you know you're all right with me. (((WE))) qt

hi Catcup, I have to agree with you here. I'm not an overly suspicious person, and while I have some experience my details aren't really important--my experiences were all fine. Because of my Dad's career (he was a police officer) and my oldest brother's job, I now have everyone checked. Real background checks. Also, I try to get to know the people who know the person I might be interested in--I find recommendations or warnings from outside sources to be helpful. Since I have children, I don't have any qualms against doing checks. The gentlemen I've seen have understood my priorities. Just a quick response, QT

hi Linda, I can also attest to the "dusting" that Belle and Ron_G have recommended. When you put the powder though, I suggest using a rubber bristled broom to work the dust into the carpets, it will work more effectively than if you just leave it to sift down on it's own. Good luck, and I'll just add this little problem to my prayer list, too. Cheers, QT