satori001

Trolls can be useful. As parasites they contribute nothing, but the suction they generate can teach a great deal about balance. I don't think CK is a troll, but he is trolling on this thread. For what? For who? It's better not to know. It wouldn't make any damn sense anyway. Nope, no closure in knowing. A real troll is a lot more sophisticated but as CK reminds us, any toddler knows how to be a brat. Now CK didn't include his mommy and his daddy in the poll because he knew they'd win hands down, that is, once we got to know their brown-nosing boy. Whatever they tell him, he doesn't question it. He's 19 folks. As for honoring the notorious fraud, lech, plagiarist, and two-faced, two-timing, hypocritical skunk, Dr. Wierwille, CK is only imitating mommy and daddy's mindless allegiance to Wierwille's personality cult. CK doesn't know better because he can't go beyond what he's taught - or spoon-fed. At Way World, wherever it is, the nut doesn't fall far from the squirrel cage. CK doesn't mind appearing to be a fool at Greasespot, or even discrediting his parents by his antics here. He can't think clearly enough to be affected by anyone's responses. Like a neglected child playing in its own filth, he has found his sense of purpose in the capacity to offend. Don't be offended. With CK it's not personal. Just consider him. He is the result of being raised by parents who yet follow Dr. Wierwille's sterling example, long after the truth is known. Sorry, but mommy and daddy are not right, and junior has been dropped on his head ("spiritually") every day of his young life.

I'd chip in to cover the cost if they changed the epitaph to "We wish you weren't the man you turned out to be."

That would be your mommy and daddy.

Get back to the topic CK.

CK, the conspiracy sites I mean are those wack-job sites referring to Billy Graham. On this board you answer one way or another. Respond directly to direct questions, or puss out. If you're not going to engage legitimate questions, maybe you're not ready for a board like this one. If not, try http://www.4kids.org/

What would TWI have to gain by making the women more like men? Maybe it's true, and maybe not. In my opinion, TWI wanted to make everyone less human, which is to say, less individual, and more controllable. The more you controlled your emotions at their behest, the more controllable your behavior became. This sort of organizational (or military) discipline comes more readily to the male sex, though I wouldn't call it masculine. I'd call it control.

It's pretty clear to me by his own words that mommy and daddy took away junior's internet privileges. But was it because of Greasespot, or because he was surfing the conspiracy sites and getting weirder by the minute?

...having done all, stand corrected! Nothing you didn't know, in your own terms. It was for ckmckoolaid's benefit. Where is that boy?

CK? This is satori's dad Sam, not satori. Put Ken on this thing, would you please? I think him and me were in the same Familiar Core back at Rome County. We met with Doctor Wentwelle once a month for a fact, and I believe he'd never lie to you without a dang good reason, as many of your sisters in the spirit could also testify. Bless you and your earthbound family abundancy. Sam

Tom, if you do, let me know. I can never find the dang remote. I think the reverse is true. They created "god," in their own image, a marketable product for mass consumption. God Himself is above and beyond anything they ever thought or said, and therefore anything they ever thought or said about their own creation was inherently false.

Dog years, Tom. But I lie about my age, too. Thanks for the mention. Maybe I'll have that cake now. Ought to be in back of the fridge, behind the Pabst Blue Ribbon. CK picked right up on the age thing, didn't he? A natural sleuth, unless... was it revelation? Hadda be. Damn I'm feeling suddenly nostalgic for life at Camp Piffle. Did CK write his biography here somewhere? Was I supposed to read it?

Now there's a novel way to chicken out. "I will not have a discussion unless I know your age and birthday!" - ckmckeon - or is it ckmcchicken? Ya know, you've avoided every question, but I gotta say, I appreciate one thing you said: "One person's hogwash is another person's truth." You ain't just whistlin' dixie there, CK. Have some more Koolaid.

Then what is the point of your question? Do you know? What are VPW's leadership qualities, by the way? How do you differentiate between VPW's "leadership" and that of Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or Charlie Manson? I'll grant you, he was not as extreme. But in his own way he used his followers to support a lifestyle which catered to his appetites, egotistical and sexual to name just two. Power and sex, CK, not love - those were the lodestones guiding his compass. Whatever "good" there was in TWI came in with good people who believed the bible, and believed more as they were taught more. The corruption was at the center, in the name of Victor Paul Wierwille, and as he gained more influence, he perverted the good drawn not by him, or his ministry, but by the false promise of a ministry true to the truth. Somebody's been filling your trough with hogwash CK. Would that be your mom and dad? Some people, like your sister, can't separate the bible from the Way. Some can't separate it from Wierwille. Same difference, actually.

ckmkeon What are you trying to learn? What is is it about leaders or leadership, or about the list of candidates, which drives your question? Your question is so open-ended and vague, no respondent can hope to answer on the same criteria. Why not? Because "leader" is a highly subjective term. How do we define it? By the success of the organization? By the leader's motivational skills? Speaking skills? Integrity? Sincerity? Ability to inspire loyalty in "followers?" Any one of them might apply. Any combination. Here's my opinion, such as it is... If you were ten years older, I'd say you were making a fool of yourself. But at 19, you're only asking, not a foolish question, but a question foolishly, because you haven't really thought about it. You're entitled to be intellectually lazy. It goes with being a know-it-all teen and most of us have been through it, or at least close to it in our Way daze. At 19, you are clearly a follower, not a leader. A man can't even lead himself, if he can't think straight enough to pose a question intelligently. It appears that you are given pat answers from someone you love and trust, maybe fear, as a dog is given pats on the head, and you faithfully and dutifully accept them, as if they were directly from God. Those many pats have become your core belief system, and your question here is intended (I'm guessing) to lead others one or two steps toward sharing that belief system. But your own "thinking" is so shallow (sufficiently evidenced by references to various, ridiculous websites) that you come across as a naive zealot, and nobody can take you seriously, even if you happen to stumble quite accidentally over something true. At 19, I'd say you're pretty much normal for that certain type of teen, looking not so much for a belief to hold as a cause to hold you. You think you've found it. Accordingly, nobody else can convince you of anything else. You are convinced, and you are convinced that being convinced is the best way to be. You are convinced that others need your convincing. ckmkeon, you won't convince anyone else of anything, until you consider your own positions a little more thoughtfully. Don't become cynical, but develop a little healthy skepticism for EVERYTHING you believe, a willingness to reflect. Above all, reject junk - like those absurd websites, especially if it supports your own position. There's nothing to be gained if a liar sings your praises. (And how gullible could you possibly be?) Reject pat answers. Question authority. There is nothing disloyal or unfaithful in the desire to prove your own beliefs. It might be blasphemy, of course, to some people. Those people are not to be trusted. It's before your time maybe, but The Way taught (probably an unwritten "principle") that questioning was proximate to betrayal. I recall being reminded that Dr. Wierwille's vision would never be the same because of the strong, harsh lights used to film PFAL, so how dare I question what he gave so much to teach? -- Can ya believe that crap? I didn't, but I did shut up, unfortunately. By the way, didn't Jesus say the greatest leader was the greatest servant? What do you think he meant by that? What did he mean by servant? I'd be interested in your opinion, if it is actually yours. Do you have any opinions of your own, that you haven't been given by someone else, one way or another?

Conditional forgiveness is not forgiveness, just as a pardon is not an acquittal. Forgiveness is release, not absolution. It does not revoke the past, and not the truth. Only the "guilt." Guilt is the outcome of choice. To forgive is to believe that the perpetrator did not choose. To forgive is to redefine a human event as inevitable, to say in effect, "It was fate." With that perspective, Vic Wierwille was a bastard, but he did not choose to be. He was compelled, caused by some prior cause, in turn by some prior cause, that of some prior, and some prior..., just as we were compelled to follow, or in some cases, to become his victims. He was a bastard, but a congenital bastard. He couldn't help it. Like a dog with rabies. You don't hate it. You don't blame it. You deal with it. -- Evil's power is a kind of "anti-force," like a vacuum in nature, around which a vortex will form. Tornados, hurricanes, whirlpools... It is not just darkness but an abyss in the midst of the light, a "black hole" which cannot be seen except by its powerful influence. We don't burden ourselves with figuring out the causes. Suffice it to say, "$*@! happens." Vic Wierwille was the $*@!. He happened. But most importantly, he couldn't help it. To forgive is to see the perpetrator as the effect of an irresistable or unforseeable force, and incapable of resistance. There is no harm in understanding that person may or may not continue to be the effect of those forces. Caution remains, while blame is irrelevant. The time it takes to forgive others is the time it takes to forgive (release) ourselves for our perceived part, even if we don't know what we did, and even if we did nothing. We too were the effect of external forces, drawn in and trapped, but it is our nature to believe, at some level, that we are partly responsible. Without releasing our own sense of guilt first, forgiving the perpetrator leaves just ourselves to blame. We won't permit that. But just as Vic Wierwille "happened," so did we happen. And we must therefore forgive ourselves, release ourselves, for any part we may have played. Our choices were not true choices. We too were compelled. As for Vic Wierwille, anger becomes meaningless. He was the vehicle, not the driver. We will never fully comprehend the driver. -- So when does responsibility begin, if we and others have always been "compelled" by forces beyond our understanding? Right now. Not a moment ago. Not a moment from now. Now. It will always be so.

I tried the Bose. Heard the Bose band when they came through. It's more hype than truth. Sure, they all exaggerate, but Bose is really making some bold claims, and charging a lot for its design, so it deserves extra attention. It's impressive for a moment, but if you stand back and just ask yourself what you're hearing, it falls flat. The idea of all them little speakers is to create an array, a virtual speaker, capable of moving lots of air with little effort. But most Bose products have problems, and this product does too. It doesn't deliver its promise. The sound is brittle, the frequency response is unnaturally "dry" despite the impressive design. Plenty of bass & highs, but the mids didn't travel nearly as well. I asked the Bose engineer about what I heard. I also pointed out that the little Fender tube amp he brought along for "side-by-side comparison" with the "famous tube sound" was EQ'd about as badly as possible. I asked (privately) why not compare it with a Fender at it's best? It was the worst sounding Fender amp I've ever heard. He didn't really respond. The Bose' projection properties are intended to kep the volume almost the same wherever you go in the room - isn't exactly true either. It does project some of the sound well, but they don't mention that the frequency response of the Bose varies dramatically from one part of a room to another, front to back, side to side, moreso (to my ringing ears) than a standard pair of decent Mackie 12H's (or whatever the model # is). It does look cool. $2000 will buy a lot of cool.

Nice Gretsch. Tele American?

1 4 fun 2 2 screw 3 2 flee 4 no more

An embarassment of wretches.

Power corrupts. Power For Abundant Living corrupts abundantly.

I dunno. There's a lot of ways to look silly. This coach may have issues. Doesn't make him a perv or a threat necessarily. But combine cross-dressing, the inherent exhibitionism of shaving his legs, and an audience of children, and something in the guy should have clicked on the warning sign. He could dress as a chicken. He could wear a tutu and sing The Battle Hymn of the Republic. There's no limit to silly ideas if that's the point. There's not much you can do but go along - but make a mental note, keep a record of the event, with (innocent) pictures preferably, and just file them away. One nutty event does not make a pattern, but we'll miss the patterns if we fail to mark these sorts of things. I think your feelings have some validity, though it by no means suggests there is anything -dangerous- going on. If you find out it was someone else's idea, where he took a dare, lost a bet, something like that, you can breathe a sigh of relief and forget about it. Otherwise, be mindful.

I see implicit questions here, and even though they weren't exactly asked, I'm going to risk being a bad greasespotter (living on the edge, that's me) and answer them. It's about truth, or "integrity," if we can possibly wrest that poor, abused word from Vic Wierwille's posthumous and bony grip for a minute or two... For my part, a "good greasespotter" is one who holds the truth in the highest regard, whether or not it meets the approval of fellow greasespotters. (It has more to do with citizenship among citizens, and in this context, Greasespot represents more or less any social group.) If truth is so simple, and so obvious, they why do we so often feel it is out of our reach? Because the truth does not serve everyone, whether at Greasespot, or anywhere else. Plenty of people are heavily invested in Vic Wierwille's legacy, for instance, and live to rehabilitate Vic's stock. So then, what stands so effectively in opposition to the truth? Lies? Wickedness? Evil? Sure, they get all the attention, but they're really way down on the list. High on the list, among the real enemies of truth are the authoritarian pillars of the status quo. They include authority figures, prevailing opinions of our "peers," our personal sentiments (emotional "reflexes"), our passivity and/or resignation, traditional values inherited or adopted, tribal loyalties, dogmas of every kind, and most of all, that part of ourselves which measures truth by any of the above criteria without additional reflection or examination. The very first "authority" we must question is ourselves, because without our consent, there is no other authority. Even God asks our consent. (See Romans 10:9,10.) If we want acceptance, here or anywhere else, we risk losing our way, placing our need to belong above our need to be true to ourselves. There is nothing wrong with needing to be accepted, but fulfilling that need always requires compromises. Some compromises are acceptible, even beneficial - putting another's immediate needs above your own, in a family for instance. Others are insidious and degrading. The Way International, and Wierwille's exploitations of "believers" comes to mind for some reason. The compromises which may be required of us are defined by the group, and how we esteem ourselves in the group's company. The Way was (and is) a "cult," but every individual participating had a unique experience. The descriptions here run the gamut, from good to bad. Where does the personal experience come from? A highschool graduate in the company of PhD's may feel inferior, but a social diva/football quarterback in a room full of "nerds" may feel superior. Both descriptions may refer to the same group. It's all perspective, individual versus collective, and which ones we allow to prevail in our own heads. And neither is necessarily healthy, by the way. Status-consciousness and labels, if we allow them to, will suck the joy out of any meaningful association or relationship, no matter how well we are accepted. What we bring to the association makes us more or less valuable to the group, and more or less vulnerable, too. That's where truth comes in. Before we share our "truth" with anyone else, we need to find it for ourselves. And that is the process of being a good greasespotter.

To over-simplify somewhat, there are two versions of vertigo. One spins, the other sort of wobbles. Both result in a loss of balance, but they may have different origins. One drug for it is called antivest. That's all I know, from reading on it. Hope you find some relief.

Where in the bible is "tapping in" to the power...? Is it like tapping a keg? Must be a lesser known figger of speech, tapakeggadunamis. Even so, it seems kind of illicit. Like siphoning a few gallons out of the Holy Gas Tank. Anyway, that's what I've been researching lately.

Smart Balance. It's not bad. Just wait though, somebody's gonna say it's made of asbestos and old tires.