waysider

OOPS! I thought you were talking about THIS kind of "dope". "Thou art a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver’d, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mungril bitch." Kent, King Lear (2.2.15-23) edit: That's Shakespeare's version of "--------and the horse you rode in on." (Not you, Ham, just a generic portrayal of a "dope"."

Perzactly my point!

My "kid" is an only child and a latchkey kid, to boot. He has, out of necessity, done his own laundry since he was old enough to understand the mechanics of the process. (9 or 10?) Talk about picky. Gotta use the right detergent with the right temperature with similar fabrics/colors/fabric weights, etc. Everything must be folded or hung properly. I think I was 40 before I ever reached the level of proficiency he takes for granted.

You know, this whole discussion makes me think about the controversy that erupts, from time to time, regarding the works of William Shakespeare. (Stick with me; there is a parallel.) For the past 200 years or so, people have debated whether one man was capable of being the author of the many works we attribute to The Bard. Are they the works of one man or a conglomeration of the works of many? That's the essence of the ongoing debate, complete with references, citations and irrefutable proof from both camps. Does any of that matter when Puck frolics about the stage, in Midsummer Night's Dream, practicing his trickery and mischief? Does any of that matter when, in The Tragedy of Hamlet, the observer is faced with real life questions about insanity, incest and corruption? One man wrote it all or a hundred men put their pens to paper. No matter. "The play's the thing."

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, I think it's important to understand that lots of bullying is of a non-physical variety. I think anyone who spent much time in TWI understands that concept. So, most of bullying that went on in TWI was not a good candidate for physical retaliation. I think, perhaps, the type of bullying that happened in this situation is probably more along those lines. edit: "Sure, you're free to leave TWI whenever you want, if you don't like your work assignment. Just don't forget that the devil is waiting for you at the next freeway exit. You'll probably be a greasespot on the highway before the sun comes up."

Of course there is folklore in the Bible. Does that, in itself, detract from its value? I think you have to consider the intrinsic purpose and value of folklore. Folklore exists because people want to preserve information that they feel is important. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that parts of Proverbs or Jesus' parables were derived, at least in part, from "folklore". Why should that disqualify or devalue the messages they contain?

If only it ended with, "They lived happily ever after."

No. Then they become committed to each other instead of the ministry.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

If you live/work in Ohio, you are not allowed to smoke in a fleet vehicle. It's really not much different than the ban on smoking in your office cubicle. The company owns it and other people are affected by the smoking. Pretty straightforward, in my opinion. Now, to clarify about the company I previously noted, there was no smoking, anywhere on company property or in company vehicles. If you were hired in before the prohibition, smoking was permitted during off-hours. New hires, however, knew exactly what was expected of them when they signed on for the job. Don't like the rules? Don't accept the job.

There are many companies here that will not hire you if you are a smoker. My wife worked for a company, about 10 years ago, that fired people for smoking on their off-hours. They cited insurance costs as their justification.

In Ohio, it's illegal to smoke in public places, including bars. Lots of companies have had smoke free policies for years and even decades.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odx-YYd021I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odx-YYd021I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odx-YYd021I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Geeze. I just come here for the free coffee. Will there be any cookies? I'm just askin'.

Happy birthday, .

Why, yes. I believe it sucked even more than it really needed to.

I don't really think it was all that fundamentally different than selling vacuum cleaners. We were selling something (PFAL) that sucked.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEDncCrNMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEDncCrNMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEDncCrNMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This paper had about as much credibility as a job character reference from the devil.

Mean people suck!

Maybe you should investigate Mr. Wierwille and call it your every day cup of reality. (You do know he wasn't a "Dr.", right?)

Do tell. What are these signs, miracles and wonders you've been seeing?

Hey there, Mrt. Welcome to GSC. Do they still have THESE at twig meetings?

I think the franchise concept was part of Wierwille's business plan all along. What was Fellow Laborers if not a franchised version of the Corps? It just took Geer a while to figure out how to cash in on it himself.

When P.O.P. was written/read, the average schmoe, like myself, had no idea the depth of depravity Wierwille was entrenched in. But, Geer knew. He, in fact, was instrumental, not only in fueling the depravity, but, also, and perhaps more importantly, in helping to create this false persona of Wierwille being some "great one". So, while he (Geer) is reading all these accolades that appear in P.O.P., he is simultaneously aware of the falsehood he is presenting. He knows he is lying through his teeth. How could anyone possibly now give an ounce of credibility to anything at all that this man might say?