George Aar

Well, the real answer is 17. Trust me, I know...

Oh! The HORROR! http://www.diamond-jim.com/catjuggler/

Oh boy, ya got me. Next month will make 20 years since I LEFT WayWorld. I've long since forgotten more than I can remember re:The Vicster and His Class. I haven't gotten over REGRETTING it yet, but the contents of it are pretty dim about now...

As I've mentioned several times in the past, I think the most OBVIOUS of errors that Mr. Wierwille made in "The Class" is stating that the Council of Nicea was in FRANCE! Nice, Nicea, I guess anybody could make that mistake...

From the National Geographic article: "Live and dead dogs and cats are being used as shark bait by amateur fishers on the French-controlled island of Réunion, according to animal-welfare organizations and local authorities. " And just what is THEIR proof? Saying it, doesn't make it so. (as I'm sure Mr. Dove would be more than eager to agree, were we discussing Mr. Wierwille's rape victims)

Cheranne's utube post exemplifies exactly my point. Lots of handwringing and legwetting, but NO actual proof of anything EXCEPT the picture of the poor doggie with the (barbless) hook in his nose. The dog was found -according to the text - wandering around on shore near where fishing takes place. The assumption the folks that put the video together would like you to make is that the dog was used for fishing - AS BAIT! But what PROOF is there that that happened? Wouldn't it be more likely (as I've proposed numerous times already) that the dog simply - and tragically - ate the baited hook and got entangled in the adjacent fishing gear? But, AGAIN, that doesn't make for a heartrending story (or open up an wallets). Read the snopes snippet again. The article from the French newspaper states that it WASN"T likely that the dogs were being trolled around with hooks in their noses. Jeezus people, can't you tell when you're being stroked? Just use a modicum of common sense and put your emotions on a back burner for a minute. If this really was the story that's trying to be sold, wouldn't ANY of the major new's shows jump all over it? Rather than having the vignettes of poor impaled doggies (with violin accompaniment), wouldn't it be nice to have some proof that anything really nefarious happened to begin with? If I remember Berne correctly, this one's called "Ain't it awful"...

No, I think it's a pretty effective way...

Umm, may if you imagine that the story claimed DR. WIERWILLE did it, you could manage to bring the requisite amount of skepticism to bear? Lookit, the story just doesn't make any sense. NOBODY would fish for sharks (even a rank amateur) with hooks placed in the dog the way they are. You simply wouldn't catch any sharks. Look at what REAL shark bait looks like. The bait is generally TIED to some sort of shaft and the hooks protrude FROM the bait all over it (usually trailing well behind the bait as well. And again, why use a BARBLESS hook? And, given the fact that a dog, trolled behind a boat, would drown within a very few minutes, (the ocean not being their natural habitat) why would a fisherman risk getting bitten a gazzillion times trying to put a freaking MEATHOOK in a LIVE dog's nose? And are dogs some sort of candy-like temptation for sharks? I've always seen chum lines used to draw sharks in and then raw chunks of MEAT used as the actual bait. I've got a hunch that maybe even a stupid amateur fisherman could figure that much out as well. My limited exposure to humans has generally taught me that - unless acting on some sort of religiously-inspired compulsion - people usually act in fairly moderate, humane ways. It would be really remarkable to find a heinous practice such as described in the story being indulged in by people who were not mentally unbalanced. Do weird, whacked out loonies perform really gruesome acts at times? Sure, happens all to often. But this story is just too suspect to put any faith in - for all the reasons I've outlined. Fisherman MAY use dead dogs for bait ( most likely cut up into nice, shark-appetizing chunks), that wouldn't be at all surpising (or particularly upsetting) to me. But the photo/video that is THE real hook (pun intended) is FAR more likely (I would say "most probably") the result of some poor pup getting tangled up in some fisherman's gear after gulping down a chunk of bait meat - with the hook still inside. It's far and away the most easily understandable reason the the "shark bait" didn't meet his ultimate fate. But then, that doesn't make a very dramatic story, does it?

And you'll also note, there's no barbs on those hooks. Why would that be? The evil badman wants to be more sporting? Hey, here's a thought, there was some kind of meat on that hook and the unsuspecting doggie come upon what he thought was an easy meal and wolfed down the morsel, and the hooks did the rest. Now what's more believeable? The nasty, conscienceless foreign fishermen routinely subject poor cute doggies to unbelieveable agony in a ridiculously convoluted and ineffective fishing technique - OR - Rumors abound about nefarious practices committed on the high seas, and some organization milks it for all it's worth in order to bolster donations to their cause?

And after viewing the dramatic video again, another thought just struck me. How in the hell is that hook supposed to hook the eventual prey (the SHARK, remember, they're shark fishing), especially the ones supposed placed in the dogs paw? Maybe the evil, bad bad foreigners are just trying to hurt the dog as much as possible before he gets eaten? You know how those bad guys are. Especially those FOREIGN bad guys. And just how is it that the dog got back out of the water and made his way to the veterinarian's place? I mean, the evil bad man looks like he had the dog pretty much under control. How'd the dog get away? Maybe the line broke (sometime before the dog drowned) and the doggie swam back to shore? I'm sorry Mr. Dove. The story is fishy and I don't mean sharks...

My point is that - as it says in the snopes post - that the story is likely blown out of all proportion. And the photo doesn't even LOOK very convincing, does it? It almost looks like it's been photo-shopped. But I'll even give you that the dog very well could be hooked like that. I've seen dogs do themselves serious harm, left to their own devices, and I wouldn't be too surprised that this one had done something like that. But what would be the point of some evil, knuckle-dragging ne'er do well putting a hook like that into a dog (and just how would he go about doing it?)? It certainly seems HIGHLY unlikely that a dog that size could be trolled by a hook like that without immediately tearing out. Now am I certain that live dogs have NEVER been used for shark bait? No. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me too much if some cretin was found to have done it. It just doesn't seem too definitive in the reports. And I'd wouldn't doubt at all that some guys use DEAD dogs for bait, maybe even commonly. The workability of using a dead critter would seem much more probable. But make the story really dramatic, and couple it with an picture of a cute doggy being horribly misused by some evil, bad, bad man (no matter how improbable), probably sells a lot more newspapers. So am I CERTAIN that Bowser isn't being trolled behind a fishing boat (with one of those horrible FOREIGNERS at the helm) with a meathook in his nose? No, but I find it not at all likely simply due to the implausiblity of it being an effective method. But, gosh, there's no telling what those uncouth non-Anglos might do...

O.K., before we all get TOO worked up: http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/sharkbait.asp BTW, I was sorta suspicious of the photo right from the git-go, as I couldn't imagine a dog as large as that being able to be held by a hook without ripping out. Also, a similar rumor used to circulate around Minnesota about kittens and "Muskie" bait. I don't think there was much substance to that either...

Well, seeing as how the emminent "doctor's" WURD's chief fan at this website has come right out and declared that he willfully utilizes a logical falacy in order to ferret out the great truths in the Vicster's written legacy (see "Begging the question" at "skepdic.com"), I guess it's not too hard to completely dismiss his earthshattering "research". Persuing such a depraved agenda eventually HAS to take a toll on one's mental health, though, wouldn't you think? It's so sad when you think about all the wasted effort that has gone down the rat hole. Time could be better spent doing just about anything, grooming roadkill, polishing firehydrants, or maybe making dentures for chickens. ANYTHING else would make more sense...

Oh, and also: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson5.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

LT, The Sidney House was a (I think) Victorian mansion, built in Sidney, Ohio, probably late1890s or so. Somewhere along the line it was purchased by WayWorld (Mid '70s?) and converted into a museum of sorts. After Wierwille's death and the decline of TWI, the contents were sold off and/or relocated and the building was sold about 1988 or so. HWY29, IIRC, the WayBuilders bought the window from the building's current owner or maybe they'd heard that the windows were being replaced or somesuch, and just grabbed it up. Imean, it was just an old woodsash, single-pane window. The memories are a little vague at this point...

Well, this is getting a little off the beaten path, but hey, we're on page 11 or so, it's about time. Does anybody else remember the TWI Fine Arts Museum in the Sidney House? There they had the very window that His Holiness VP peered out of on the blessed fall day in Ohio. It was all restored, and sanded and painted and mounted in some sort of display rack. Yes, as you can well imagine it was a moving experience to be in the presence of such an historical artifact. :blink: It was at about that time (of my first visit to said museum) that I had my first really serious attacks of doubt, as to the whole mission of WayWorld. What with seeing the various Holy Relics that the museum curators had on display, I found myself doing a whole lot of head shaking. Nevertheless, it still took a few more years for reality to sink in...

It appears that you're indulging in a bit of projection again. I'm not yearning for much of anything right now, certainly not some sort of explanation for why a disparate collection of old fables doesn't "fit like a hand in a glove". I find religious arguments to be among the most absurd of mankind's endeavors, and yours especially so. Sorry...

So, if I'm understanding correctly, Almighty GOD, who created the entire universe and everything therein, who knows every being in that universe intimately, down to keeping a running tally of the amount of their operable hair follicles, can't quite seem to figure out how to push "print" on his cosmic Xerox machine. NO! It's up to us to play "magic decoder ring" and make all sorts of profound guesses and surmisings to determine what His will REALLY is. It's beyond absurd. Ludicrous, laughable, nonsensical, I dunno, words fail me when it comes to the yawning gap between religious dogma and basic, barnyard variety, common sense. I guess ultimately, none of us is doing anything really meaningful (when viewed from a perspective of "eternity"), but do you really wanta spend your few years on earth totally absorbed in superstitious nonsense? Yer choice I guess...

I've learned that I'm probably a bit smarter than I thought I was. And that creepy feeling that I get about squishy, unverifiable, mystical claptrap is probably a good thing. I guess I've learned mostly to be more in touch with my basic responses. More cynical? Yeah, I'm sure that's true too. So what else is new?

No only do I not much care anymore, but I'll be damned if I can find anybody else who does either. It almost never comes up in conversation, unless the question of "what were you doing in Alabama?" or suchlike gets touched on. When I mention that I was in a cult and was trying to promote their dogma, virtually everybody I've conversed with replies with - at most - a shrug. Hey, it was the focal point of a lot of our lives while we were involved, but the whole rest of the world has NOTHING invested in it, and as a result, just doesn't much give a damn. Works for me...

Likewise to what the other George said. I was at every ROA from '79 to '89 and I never saw such a lady...