waysider

When I first took the class, it was presented on cassette for classes of 7 or less and on reel- to- reel film for more. Geeze! Louise!---Those projectors were a real pain in the butt. If the film broke, you had to splice it right then and there. And, they were noisy. The tapes or film cans had to be stored in a very "secure" location per HQ. They were never to be left at the class location which was usually a VFW or Amer. Legion hall or such, even though the rest of the eqt. could be. Then along came those clunky Beta machines that top loaded.(playback only) I remember shopping for a replacement for my jalopy that bit the dust and passing up some sweet deals because they didn't have enough trunk space for all the crud we had to haul. Then, at one point, HQ let branch and twig leaders in on a special one time bulk purchase they were going to make on Beta players(pre-VCR days) They were ONLY $800 dollars!!!! And you thought they only sold classes and books!!! That was "pert near" a years pay for me.:-(

While they're at it, maybe they could sue the estate of Frank Sinatra. How dare he record anything so blatantly obvious as "My Way"?

Larry Re: Your post #67 Just thought I would point out that the topic being discussed is not an "and" question. It is an "or" question. "Do you think he was a false prophet-----OR----- a minister who, at one time, was good---- BUT--- "went bad"?"

snipI have had some trouble with that myself but you know what? Why exactly is it so danged important that I refuse to consider that maybe(just maybe) that issue is just not as cut and dry as they insisted? Maybe they were even wrong. The spiritual, philosophical magnitude of the subject is too large for human understanding anyway. So why worry about it? God will not punish you because you DON'T "know that you know that you know." Maybe He is, maybe He isn't.(JC= God) It's just not that important that you swear your unrelenting vow of loyalty to either side of the argument. PHEW! Guess I got carried away there.

Gosh, golly, gee! You would have thought a "prophet" would have had the inside scoop.

Oh had I a golden thread And a needle so fine I'd weave a magic strand Of rainbow design In it, I'd weave the bravery Of women giving birth In it, I'd weave the innocence Of children all over the Earth.--------------Pete Seeger

Sorry, I was not around for the fog years. I do remember, though, that in the early 1970s, some of us who were on the class crew(Stringing chairs, running the tape recorder, etc.) wanted to get together and listen to the class tapes in an unofficial setting. We were quickly informed that the tapes were NEVER, EVER to be listened to outside of an official class setting. Knowing what I do now about sales presentations, I understand the logic. Outside of its showcase setting it might have been a bit more transparent. Couldn't have anybody listening to it without the proper emotional hype, dontcha know!

OK---While the old geezer mode is still on. Anybody remember how, when color T.V. first came out, you could buy a plastic sheet that had green on the bottom for grass, blue on the top for the sky and something else(I'm thinking red) in the middle? It was for people who couldn't afford color T.V.(which would have been my family) What a hoot! I think I was about 35 before I ever had a color T.V.(bought it used.) OK--- I know that was but, HEY!, we're only talkin' about Raisin Bran!

Not to worry, Sky Someone should stop by tomorrow to rationalize it for you. (History tends to repeat itself.)

Please pardon my poor syntax. When I stated" Dispose of the good along with the bad.", it was not intended to be interpreted as a directive. Allow me to rephrase the expression as a question in order to convey the manner in which it is generally used. "Should you throw out the baby along with the bathwater?" (It is usually used in a rhetorical sense.) The baby can be anything you want it to be that represents "good" and the bathwater can be anything you want it to be that represents "bad". Identifying which is which is where the process can start to become complicated.

We are making it far too complicated. The expression is not unique to TWI. The baby= "good". The bathwater= "bad". Hence, "Dispose of the good along with the bad". Can't see the forest for the trees. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Spend a dollar to save a dime. Etc.,Etc.,Etc.

Of course, it's only my opinion, but I believe he was a "false prophet" or, at the very least, not at all that he portrayed himself to be.(Intentionally) I am basing that opinion on an experience that I had in the early days of my involvement that had me baffled until just recently. I am not going to go into specifics. I think everyone,TWI and non TwI, has moments in there life that fall into the category of; "Ah Hah!---So that's what that meant!" My "Ah Hah" moment came to me as I reviewed various subjects here on GSC. Just my opinion

Remember the *listening with a purpose* questions that were covered at the end of each session of PFAL? In session #3, one of these questions posed the query"how do we stand approved before God?" The supposedly correct answer to that question was " By studying in order to rightly divide The Word." In retrospect, it seems rather silly that we accepted that to be correct. For centuries and centuries, the vast population of Planet Earth was illiterate. So what does that mean?, that they were just SOL because they had no avenue of satisfying this "requirement"? This is just a small example of how the class was designed to put a disproportionate emphasis on "knowledge obsession". Wierwille had a vested interested in this "knowledge obsession". It (the knowledge obsession) was the backbone of his skeleton of classes, books, programs, advances and so on. In other words, he was a business man and "knowledge obsession" was the core product that he sold. Even after all these years, we're still talking about what we "learned" instead of what we actually accomplished that had any lasting, redeeming value. That doesn't mean we didn't accomplish anything of lasting, redeeming value, only that our priorities were way out of kilter. Wierwille, on the other hand, had his priorities in clear focus(IMO). He identified his product correctly and set about launching a very aggressive promotional campaign. Maybe "the baby" grew up on his own and climbed out of the dirty bathwater when no one was looking.

"Offended?" Not in the least. A multiple of perspectives gives a clearer picture.

"He was a mean, mean man."-----------Dottsie

I think it is perfectly acceptable for one's actions on- stage to be at the opposite end of the spectrum off- stage. If they happen to be an actor!!! And---------- The audience knows it is not viewing reality.

Hi, rosestoyou, First, let me say "welcome" to the cafe. I probably don't have any more real answers than you do. The very fact that you recognize you were under mind control and now wonder about its lingering presence is, in my opinion, a mighty good sign you are seeing thing more clearly. Throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater? The problem arises (IMO) when some people insist on keeping the baby immersed in the dirty bathwater. There were good things that came from our involvement and there were bad things as well. Separating the two can be somewhat tricky at times. Again, Welcome! Oh, yeah. Cool thumbnails!

Doojable Actually it was Johniam, not Jonny Lingo, who stated there where things in BG's class that were deliberately left out of PFAL. I asked if he would care to elaborate but never saw these differences addressed. Might now be as good a time as any to do so?

Biker Babe Be VERY, VERY careful about where you keep those weapons. It might not be such a good idea to keep them in plain view. Many years ago, I knew a gal who was attacked in her apartment. She was a big, strong farm gal who was in excellent shape and could bail hay with the best of them. Unfortunately, the guy who forced his way through her front door was stronger and very determined. When she realized she could not overpower him, she ran to the kitchen and got a butcher knife. She got off a few deflected strikes before he managed to take the knife away from her and turn it against her. She escaped from him and showed up at my front door. She bled on my coach until the squad arrived. She survived. The point is this: Any weapon you present, can and may likely be used against you if you are not skilled enough to render it effective and maintain possession of it.

Well, I have the tests, but I'm not going to let YOU use them!!! HeeHeeHee. Just kiddin'. I still have the *home studies* series that had to be completed in order to be accepted into the Advanced Class. Is there a specific question you were interested in? I'd be glad to post it for you.

Well, now That looks like it might be relevant to the topic at hand. Care to elaborate?

We interrupt this regularly scheduled program to bring you this brief message from "one of the guys". A long time ago, I was hitchhiking on a dark, deserted inner city street ,late at night in a very tough area of town. I got a ride. After a few blocks, it became apparent to me what this guy had in mind and he didn't seem to be the type who was interested in the idea of "consent". (need I say more?) So, some may say" But you're a guy." That's true, but guys get raped ,too. Don't kid yourself. But that's not really the point I'm driving toward. I'll shorten the story and tell you that a tire iron he had left on the cab floor(it was a pick-up truck) proved to be a very persuasive tool in convincing him to let me go. I escaped unharmed and moments later, all by my self, walking down the street, I spoke in tongues for the very first time. Another time, many years later, I stood at the front door of a home to inform the occupant I was there to take repossession of some equipment. When the door swung open, I found myself looking down the business end of a shot gun. I backed down and called the sheriff in to help me. Anyway, I didn't get raped or shot. I did, however, come face to face with at least a sampling of the kind of terror that rape victims probably feel. It's a helpless feeling and I only got a SMALL SAMPLING of it. It's scary stuff, guys. Here's my point: As a guy, you tend to rehearse in your mind what you would do if this or that happens. "Hey, first I'll sucker punch him, then I'll spin around and grab the gun"------- and on and on. Don't fool yourself. You really don't know exactly how you would react until you are staring reality square in the face. Now, stop to realize that some of this stuff happened in Podunk, Ohio, in the middle of nowhere and the victims may have been hundreds or thousands of miles from home, with no real kind of support system, with very little money and limited access to transportation or even a phone. Yeah, it's easy to say "Well, I would have Karate chopped him and broke his nose"---- and so on. But really, you don't know what you would have done any more than I knew what I would do in the two incidents I cited. How these women reacted is not relevant to whether they were betrayed or mistreated. "Walk a mile in my shoes." Was that in the PFAL class? It should have been. .

Outfield Interesting -----Very interesting.

When I read Mr. Strange's post, I thought, "Holy Crud! The guy's reading my mind!" I too had been away for quite some time before I came here and got a byotch slap of reality straight to the face. For a long time, I felt like bad things that had taken place in my life must have been caused by my leaving the "one true household" or because I was "out of fellowship" in some way that I couldn't quite put my finger on. In some strange way, it brought me a sense of relief to find that it wasn't because of my leaving TWI. Why would God allow bad things to happen in my life because I chose to leave a CULT??? That just doesn't make sense. I haven't told everything I know or have seen, but I have my own special reasons for feeling quite strongly that VPW was not the great Man Of God he has been portrayed to be. In fact, I have my own personal reasons for believing he was much to the contrary. I don't feel compelled to elaborate. When I read Groucho's post, it set the wheels( of thought) spinning. I formally studied acting at one time in my life about a thousand years ago. I even worked with two different Equity companies. Mostly, my parts were limited to the "Dinner is served." variety. I was never any kind of great actor. I did, however, have enough formal training, by well known professionals, to at least offer an educated critique. I, too, think the guy was giving a performance. Real people can't simply turn it on and off at the drop of a hat. Actors can----------at least in the context of a performance.That's why it's called "acting". Wierwille was clever enough to never "fall out of character" while he was "on stage". Here is part of my critique of his performance, both in PFAL and live on stage. He was masterful at manipulating both pace and timing. He was exceptionally skilled at reading the mood of the audience, or, in the case of PFAL, the anticipated audience. He was quite good at drawing on previous experiences to elicit the appearance of genuine emotion(ie: method acting.) He knew how to separate himself off stage from the character he portrayed on stage----- a skill that is vitally important to maintaining believability when the curtain goes up. I guess I should really say those are some big things I learned as a RESULT of taking PFAL.

One could only hope so. At least then there would be some kind of punch line to look forward to.