Linda Z

How many GSers does it take to screw in a lightbulb” I’d say roughly 31: 1 to go get the ladder. 1 to tell him that the ladder isn’t tall enough. 3 to say, “Yeah, you need a taller ladder.” 1 to say, “Let me get out my measuring tape.” 1 to say, “How do I know your tape is accurate?” 2 to say, “His tape is perfect , quit attacking him!.” 3 to say, “He didn’t get attacked. Quit whining!” 1 to go to the store to buy a light bulb. 3 to go along with him and argue about the best route to the store and which store has the cheapest light bulbs. 1 to remind everyone that incandescent light bulbs are evil. 2 to opine that the “enviro-friendly” bulbs are more evil. 1 to climb up the ladder. 3 to warn him that the ladder is faulty and that he’ll fall, crushing everyone below. 2 to argue that gravity doesn’t exist, therefore he won’t fall. 5 to get into a debate about gravity vs. weightlessness. 1 to slip past the arguing crowd and screw in the darn light bulb. Ta da! 31! Humans are funny, aren’t we?!?

Hey, Dan, I'm sure you're joshin', but let me just say that some of the most wonderful men I've ever known were wayfer men!! (including Socks and DWBH). :)

Now I See said: That's true. And it extended beyond wives. Once I was on chair-stringing duty in the chapel at Rome City. One of my male friends was being a butthead and I told him so in no uncertain terms. Dottie M overheard me and sternly yelled at me, "Don't you EVER speak to a man of God like that!" I responded, "When he's acting like a man of God, I won't." It was sad that even some women in "leadership" positions perpetuated the idea that men were so far superior and more important than women. I got far more respect from that woman's husband than I ever got from her. Edited to add this: I'm highly in favor of women not bad-mouthing their husbands in public, but in many cases women were discouraged from even expressing an opinion that was different from her husband's. Respect is one thing. Being expected to be a lap dog is another story.

Sure I am, cuz who's gonna stop me??? Thanks, HAP.

HAP, I get what you're saying in my head, but my heart still loves the thrill it gets from watching anyone do anything that looks that diffucult so unbelievably well. I love the precision, and I reallllllly love the sound of the planes rushing so low overhead. It makes me feel like a kid at my first parade. Geo, I hardly think that these two precision flying teams bring to mind "military might." To me they show what well-trained people can do with a lot of discipline and courage. I think of the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds more like the aerial version of one of the military bands. They're soooooooo good it makes me proud. This may be totally illogical and 100% emotional, but that's how I feel.

I'm with ya, Dot. Alligator tears! Thanks for posting that, HAP.

Brushstroke, as with any group of people, some police officers can be respectful and pleasant and some can be jerks. Too bad that second cop was such a jerk to you, but be glad he was just a smart a$$ and not one of those bully types who pull you out of your car and beat the crap out of you for no good reason. :) A couple years ago I encountered a young, arrogant policeman like the one Kit describes. I know how frustrating it is, for sure! But Kit, it's ironic that you mention Reno cops, because it was in Reno that I overcame the blanket distrust and dislike for policemen I'd gained while living in Los Angeles and seeing "LA's finest" abusing their authority too many times. I was visiting my friend's family in Reno in 1970. A large group of young, drunk punks had been harassing and threatening an elderly neighbor lady for several hours because she had complained about their loud music. Someone finally called the police and several motorcycle cops answered the call. It really hit me how vulnerable those officers were, facing a drunken mob without so much as even a patrol car to hide behind. (Okay, so they had guns, but the punks probably did, too.) I really saw "protect and serve" in action for the first time since my opinion of police had soured. That experience made me lose my generalizations about police. Some are jerks, but many aren't, and their job isn't an easy one.

Ron, I love the photos of your small town and the people enjoying themselves there. I share Chas's envy. Ahhhh, pinto beans and cornbread. My mom's from Arkansas, and she made that for us often when I was growing up. It's still one of my favorite comfort meals. Goat meat, not so much. One night when I was maybe 5 years old, we were eating hamburgers at my grandparents' house. I was enjoying mine in blissful ignorance until my grandfather said, "Lindy, do you know what you're eating?" It was "Billy," my grandpa's little goat that I played with every day and considered a pet. It would have been really nice if he had prepared me by letting me know Billy was destined for the dinner table! It also would have been nice if he'd refrained from telling me mid-bite. Speaking of the goat, is that goat skull really from the same goat as the living goat in the other photo? The horns are different, but can they start out straightt when a goat is young and then twist (like on the skull) as a goat gets older? Just curious.

It was a rhetorical question, but I'll rephrase it anyway. What do we care whether they pray for us? They certainly aren't our models for behavior or spirituality, as I'm sure you'd agree.

What difference does that make? Do we want to be like them?

Krys, I can't even imagine how much it hurt to see that happen to your son and daughter-in-law. And of course, it happened to your whole family. As a mom, nothing hurts me more than seeing my child in pain and/or treated badly. Thank God your son's life is happy and successful now, despite what he's been through. I know it has to be painful to talk about this, even 10 years later. Thank you.

Be still, my heart. Great video, DMiller! My office is just up a little hill from the smaller commuter airport in Cleveland, where the Cleveland National Air Show is held every year. The Blue Angels (or the Thunderbirds, who perform at the show here every other year) practice starting on Wednesday or Thursday before the show, and they fly so low over our building it seems like you could reach up and touch them. Watching these precision flying teams (as well as hearing and even feeling them) is one of my top 5 favorite things! Thanks for reminding me what we have to look forward to soon!

WW, I got into twi in 1972, in the same area where Waysider was. Twi was already organized into the way tree structure, with "twigs, branches, and limbs." I can confirm what Waysider says, that it wasn't particularly chaotic, although you're right, it was a lot more casual and relaxed than it became later. The first twig I attended met in a local park because the twig leader's parents wouldn't let him have it in their home. Sometimes we met at people's homes, though. I recall hosting it in my parents' back yard at least once. Branch meetings were held weekly in a rented American Legion hall. Although young people were definitely in the majority, quite a few adults were involved in our area by the early 70s. A lot of adults were in fellowships around HQ, too, with their entire families. John Shr*yer's family comes to mind, and the Hearnes and several others. Some of them had come with VPW from Van Wert when he left the church there. I didn't see the suit-wearing, briefcase-toting types in any great numbers until near the end of the 70s. I have a good friend, born and raised in New Knoxville, who quit going to HQ when Sunday morning fellowships ceased to be simply "teaching the Word under the apple trees" and when the suits began to appear.

No apology needed, Rummie. I was just clarifying.

Rumrunner, my comment to Rocky pertains to a situation years ago in which Rocky got the boot for fighting with Satori (or whatever Satori's name was then...I forget). At that time I stuck up for Rocky, even though I didn't agree with everything he said or how he said it. Hence my response to his smart-a$$ remark. now I see, I did read both "Losing the Way" threads before WD's posts were deleted. I have already said there have been times when WD's comments have been ill-timed and insensitive. That was one of those times. However, I also saw people pushing his buttons before he pushed theirs back. People shouldn't kick a cat (or in this case a bird, I guess) and not expect the claws to come out. I maintain that it has become a witch hunt. Example: Even though Oldies has stated very clearly that he believed excathedra, his name continues to be coupled with WD's in an effort to discredit him along with WD. I've seldom agreed with Oldies on twi matters, but good grief, give the guy a little credit for growing. Enough with the darn labels. Let me say this again for anyone who missed this point: I am not defending WD's views. I am defending his right to voice those views. I would like it if he used a lot more compassion in choosing when to state them, and I'm not sure what the solution is for that, but I don't believe it is banning him, as Groucho advocated by starting this thread. By the way, did anyone notice this comment from WD to Exsie in the thread he started in the Open forum? Then of course he launched into his "due process of the law" deal, but at least it's an acknowledgment! And I understand the distinction he's making, even though I think he's wrong. I've been around here since the beginning. I've watched and, to some degree, come to know the other long-time posters. If you just watch and listen long enough without jumping into the fray, you can learn a lot about people from their behavior month after month and year after year. I've seen WD extend many kindnesses to others. I've also seen him be a brickhead. It's frustrating and a waste of time to argue with a brickhead, so I rarely do. But I don't think his stubbornness on this issue negates the nice things he does or the funny things he says. Despite the fact that I think WD is wrong on the VP/abuse issue, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Why? It's not because he's a close personal friend of mine. We've never exchanged as much as one PM or an e-mail, and to my knowledge I've never met him. In fact, I don't even know who the heck he is. So why do I care if he gets banned? Because for some crazy reason, I care about this place and the people who make it what it is. I would hate to see it become a pack of "likeminded" people who won't allow those with unpopular opinions their voice. Period. You can cloak that however you like, but that's what this comes down to, IMO.

Sealed said: Hmmmmm. I read all 5 of your posts and don't see where WD and his "buddies" were attacking you, so I can't really respond to that. What I posted isn't about defending WD. It's about the mob rule mentality that seems to have crept into GS, and it's about how easy it is to stop someone like WD when he's on his high horse by ignoring him or saying. "Yeah, we know what you think" and moving past his stuff, rather than engaging in an endless arguement with him. I've commented to WD before that I felt he was wrong or out of line. I think he knows that's how I feel. I don't need to tell him so a thousand more times. I have to get to work. I'm sure there'll be plenty of critics to respond to when I get back here. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. Not in the least. The freedom to do that is one of the things that's always made GS better than some of tne earlier ex-way sites, IMO. Oh, and Rocky, remind me not to defend you ever again when you swim against the tide and have everyone crawling up your butt. You're on your own, bud. ;) Tommy S, I love you and have missed you around here! Ah, I see that Sealed has added that she's really Rascal while I was posting. Now I get it.

My cousin Simon Z makes some excellent points. I'll add my 2 cents in bold. I agree, Simon. If I'm not welcome here because my own personal mission is not so much to bring an "anti-twi" message to these threads as to reconnect with old friends and have discussions with people I have something in common with, I think Paw would have said so by now. He hasn't though. I don't see him jumping on the "boot the Wierwille apologists" bandwagon. When Simon asked Paw (back during the Bumpy controversy) whether Groucho was right in stating that this is an "anti-twi" Web site rather than an ex-way Web site, Paw responded by saying something like "the mission hasn't changed." I interpreted that to mean that although this place is for telling "the other side of the story," that differing opinions are still welcome and that we're allowed to talk about other topics besides what an evil SOB VPW was. It's been said before by several people, but it's obviously gone unheeded, that WD couldn't have these interminable arguments if he didn't have anyone to argue with. Why not ignore him on the subject of VPW's abuse and talk to him about dogs. Or talk to him about music. And when he interjects his "I need proof" into a discussion, why not just say, "I've heard you say that a hundred times and I still disagree," rather than putting on the boxing gloves and going at it with him one more time for dozens of pages? Just a thought.

Rocky said: Rocky, I don't think it's fair to lump OM in with WD. OM has softened his position over the years, and aside from the occasional poorly timed quip, I don't see him in the same category as WD (who appears to be as immovable as a 20-ton boulder) at all.Oldiesman, yesterday in the “Where’s the Beef” thread: Oldiesman earlier yesterday”

Rocky, I'd never heard that. Please PM me the person's name (the one from my neck of the woods). I wonder if I knew her.

Does he just leave former involvement with twi out of his bio? All I could find was: "I also have significant personal experience. When I was younger, I belonged to what the field refers to as an 'Eastern Meditation Cult.'"

Pawtucket asked: Not exactly (I'll explain in a sec). Would you rather have dozens of people PMing you to ask if someone got banned? If you just said, "So-and-so was suspended for breaking the name-calling rule," then there would be no need for you to answer a bunch of individual posters privately. It would be out in the open. IMO, that would take the wind out of the sails of Bunpy's attempts to stir things up behind the scenes. So to answer your question, I don't think it's necessary to give the specific details. I do think, though, that there'd be a lot less speculation and behind-the-scenes "buzz" if it were just stated.

Waysider, I agree. I've never been of the "just shut up and just get over it" camp. However, there is some wisdom in moving on eventually, wouldn't you say, for the sake of one's own peace of mind? Bumpy expressed that view in, shall we say, not the most diplomatic way, but not in a hateful, mean way, either. I said years ago on the old GS site, or maybe on Waydale, that how long it takes for someone to get over past abuse or hurts is a very individual thing, and no one else can dictate it. I still stand by that. My role in life is not to judge others' journeys. But a little nudge in the direction of replacing all the anger and hurt with something that can bring some joy and happiness to life today isn't a bad thing, is it?

Hear, hear, SimonZee. And good points, Lifted Up. First of all, I for one think it's a good thing that JL raised this in public. Seems to me that there's inherently plenty behind-the- scenes activity involved in running any discussion forum. So if someone has a question, why not ask it out in the open? I like things out in the open. It's certainly Pawtucket's prerogative to like for such matters to be handled privately, but that's just me. As for Bumpy...Bumpy is a provocateur. That's not necessarily a bad thing. One can provoke new ways of thinking with humor and satire, which seems to be what Bumpy is about. I agree with Rhino on this point: Bumpy doesn't strike me in the least as a "twi sympathizer." So to say, as some have in this thread, that he deserves to get the boot becasue he's somehow interfering with telling the "other side of the story" is, to me, ridiculous. I know Bumpy can be hard to understand, but I think I "get him" enough to say he's not painting any kind of rosy picture of twi, past or present. What he's saying is basically, "OK, so live life now. Enjoy! Quit rehashing the same stuff over and over." (I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but that seems to be his recurring message.) For those who have forgotten, on the home page of GS, under “Forums,” it says: But Oakspear said (which, by the way shocked me, coming from him): If free speech were incidental, then wouldn’t that pretty much eliminate any debates? And what would there be to discuss in the “About the Way” forum? I can see it now: Poster 1: TWI really sucks. Poster 2: Yes, it does. It was all bad. Poster 3: Boy, you two are so right. Great posts! Poster 4: TWI was soooooooo bad.... Posters 1-3: How bad was it? Poster 4: It was so bad that I left. Poster 1-3, in unison: Yeah! Me too! Poster 1: (thinking) Poster 2: (pondering) Poster 3: (snoring a little) Poster 4: Anyone wanna go shoot some hoops?

This one, from WhiteDove, really cracked me up:

I have a theory. I may be completely off-base, but here goes. It appears John is trying to appeal to people who long for the "good old days." Maybe he perceives that there are lots of folks who think twi was just swell until Craig came along and screwed it up. (I also think a lot of people fit that category, based on communications that I've seen outside GS.) Who better to fill out the ranks of his current group? Perhaps this latest marketing campaign became necessary because all the spiders and controversies and craziness that have plagued CES/STFI of late surely must have hurt the CES/STFI numbers a little bit. If I sound cynical, it's because I am. I liked John. I liked the other John even more. I have no animosity toward either them as human beings. However, I have a high level of suspicion when someone says how wonderful and inspired of God twi was and (out of the same mouth) how sinful and fouled up it was. I think JAL (and many others like him) are where they are today because they rolled out of twi and right into their splinter groups, without taking time to quietly examine what they believe and why...just them and God, with nothing to prove, no one to prove it to, and no one pushing an agenda at them. No one can squeeze God into a concordance or a Greek lexicon. God's too big and His message is really too simple and gets lost amidst all the big words. Those are great tools, and research, in its place, can be exhilarating and enlightening, but those things are so much less effective than simply letting God quietly speak to your heart as you try to live love. I hope JAL and others like him find the simplicity of life with God. I pray for them, because I feel sorry for them. They're like hamsters on a wheel, running this way and that way and just going in circles.