satori001

So... anybody seen Craig in the bushes lately? I'm sort of joking, but I am curious about that incident. What ever happened?

Fair warning, Jennifer. Shouldn't you be watching "Arthur?"

Yeah, he's respectable. If he offers you a ride on his motor coach, turn him down. His heroes aren't very wholesome. I'm thinking he has a raincoat to match his hat.

Ala No, not patronizing at all. The fact that HCW got "huffy" (not my choice of words, but accurate) is something many didn't notice. I appreciated WB's mentioning it. Did you answer my question on the PT you sent to me?

Oh brother. Come down from the ceiling now. It's feeding time.

waterbuffalo, There were certain details in some of HCW's posts to me that seemed very coincidental, as if he were being coached. If I thought that coaching were coming from the CIA, or the devil, or the "WayGB," maybe that would be paranoid. But I think it might be coming from a Greasespotter or two. It would be naive to think it didn't happen, here and there. By the way, you're very perceptive.

What? What in the world does THAT mean? The "threshold of sensitivty to change." THAT makes SENSE??? Maybe in satoriWorld, but not on earth. Sounds, to me, like "Prevailing in the prevailing world of prevailingness." If YOU can explain that "threshold" thing, I MAY decide to adress your other questions. Probably not though. WHy should I talk to you when you LIE, and twist the words of others, apparently to appear as you have some sort of upperhand and "moral highground." Wanted to point this out. It was worth being a little late for my lunch thing. Alright, first you never define the "lie," so I don't know what you're saying. I said I noticed George had misspelled your handle, but didn't notice I had also done it. So? Where's the lie?-- To the main question, the "threshold" statement was a little abstract. I'm sure Zixar could explain it better. It has to do with sensation and perception. Low threshold of awareness: If you are driving alone, without the radio on, attention focused, you may be aware of countless sensory stimuli related to the vehicle. You'll hear the engine, the tires sing on the pavement, slight changes in the surface of the road. You'll see the road to its horizon. You'll register vague changes in light, as clouds vary in density. You'll notice the smell of the air from the vents. You might taste the inside of your own mouth. You'll tweak the controls to set the perfect inside temperature. Your attention is working well below its peak, and processing as much as you allow it. Your threshold of awareness is very low - everything gets in. High threshold: But then you may begin to daydream. You're driving on "auto-pilot." Your attention resources are now largely turned inward. You may not notice the vehicle gradually drifting until you feel the rough surface of the shoulder's edge under your wheels. The weather may have changed, but you hadn't noticed until now. The car's interior may have "suddenly" gotten much cooler, or hotter, but you hadn't noticed until now. In other words, much more stimulation is required before you are consciously aware of it. These are two extremes, just to demonstrate. Because attention is a limited commodity, the amount of stimulation required to register with us consciously varies with how we have allocated it. The more divided our attention is, the greater the stimulus required before a change in the environment registers upon our awareness. One more illustration of threshold: If you are sitting in a room, doing nothing, you may be aware of a 1 degree change in temperature. If you're watching the news, you may be aware after 2-3 degrees. If you're watching football, you may not be aware at all, until the commercial break, that the window is wide open and there is snow on your feet. In the first instance, the threshold is a change of 1 degree. Very low. The 2nd instance, 2-3 degrees. Somewhat higher. The 3rd, a much higher change is required. This is why TV commercials are so much louder than regular programming. They need additional stimulus to gain the same level of attention, because the subject alone doesn't command it. Visual stimulation requires more attention than auditory. Logical thinking requires even more attention. Reading (which is both logical and visual), even more. Driving may require very little, or quite a lot, depending on circumstances. In other words, "Divided attention raises the threshold of sensitivity to change." If you would like any clarification, I'll do my best.

Look Catcup, I've read bits and pieces about you and what's-his-name for a long time, here and on Waydale. If I got the biographical facts wrong here, mea culpa. I can't go back and find all the posts that gave me another impression. I know, I should have been taking acc'rate notes about your life, but I'd rather do pretty much anything else. You seem to have chosen here as a place to make some kind of stand, as melodramatic as ever. Enjoy yourself. I really don't want to argue with you on this thread.

I did the same, generally. Most of us are only too aware of our own shortcomings, so when reproof came, we felt guilty, were guilty, by virtue of being human, and imperfect. For leadership, "whispering," "backbiting," and hearsay often passed for revelation (right John Lynn?), since they got little or no true "revelation," if their lives were any measure. No matter if the facts were wrong. If the reproof missed the mark on specifics, it was still about being imperfect, falling short. I didn't screw up here, but I did screw up something else, that nobody knew about. So it was God's payback. The reprover was merely the messenger. But why didn't I apply the same rule to the errant reprovers? Don't know. Partly, I believed the BS, that their revelation, even if imperfect, was better than my own certainty. This is why I believe in the power of "cults." This could not happen now, and I would love to go back in time, to a few "special" moments where the reproof was clearly inappropriate, or dead wrong, and to stop it cold. But at the time, I had no voice with which to respond. Where had it gone? I guess I had traded it for TWI's pottage, in a moment of hunger and weakness. First of all, you don't treat God's people that way. Second of all, you don't treat God's people that way. Finally, where does one get off treating anybody that way? Well, I must have given them permission at some point. My conscience, my personal sense of inadequacy and guilt, I had signed over to TWI, to use against me at their discretion. I really don't recall when I "signed it over." I don't think I ever took it back, fully, until Waydale came along and I got a good, clear look at the "emporor," without his clothes, and realized he never did wear any.

I liked the picture of "Baby Vic," and especially my caption, and I only removed it because I realized it would be too much of a distraction. (It was a baby, flipping the bird. The caption read, "I wish you could read this in the original." - Baby Vic) Bad me. It was in reply to Evan's remark about the baby and the bathwater. HCW, your initial topic was dedicated to Rochelle's memory. You were doing a great job, despite evidence it had become more about you than Rochelle. That's okay, false pretenses aside, because you've been through the mill and you have an important story to tell, but it does begin to take a toll on your credibility. You must have known, posting here, that your account would be seen in the context of TWI's endemic corruption. Yet you reacted somewhat defensively, even describing Greasespot as a kind of anti-cult. That's nothing new. It's been discussed, debated, joked about openly. But there's the difference. The open-ness. Dissent is what drives many of these discussions. Greasespot isn't a cult, HC. What you call "majority-think" is simple agreement, where the facts and common experience bear out the truth. Even with all the TWI believing you can muster, renewing your mind won't change facts about that pathetic, little cult. An aside - by their own comments, Catcup and her husband have never been truly "whole" since they were livin' the doulos dream as pampered (Way-style) ministry lap dogs. Things deteriorated, and they were expelled from their Way World Paradise (HQ), but they still wish they'd be invited back, last I read, so the "validation" shouldn't mean much, other than you probably remind her of Corps from the golden days of yore. You remind me of Corps too, but it's not a compliment, coming from me. (The best of the Corps, and there were a lot of great people, never remind me of "Corps." Ironic, no?) Another aside - Sorry to call you HCM - I noticed George wrote that but I didn't see I had posted it too. Could have been a subconscious slip. HCM - LCM, or just habit. Not intentional though, for what it's worth. Another aside - Did you call Catcup "honey?" You are a livin' TWI time-capsule. And that "pickles on the inside" reference, too. Deja voodoo, fer sher. Now this was a real trip, and why I feel I need to respond rather than let the thread just continue. Where did you get this from? First of all, "had her grave and memory stomped..." Huh? This kind of garbage really brings me back. Explain yourself. What are you talking about? I haven't dishonored Rochelle in any way, so explain it. Frankly, I don't have the ability to channel Rochelle's ghost, as you do, but I can wonder how she might view the sugar-coating of TWI's part in all of this. Finally, a lot of what you seem to be reading into my posts makes no sense. To echo your own question, HCW, do you read?

T.h.a.n.k.s. l.a.l.e.o... (also to JL). Now I know what it means, I still don't know how it really applies to HCW's experience here. -- Here are some things that occurred to me reading your post, and George's. There were lots of good times at TWI. Friendships, adventures, great memories, some "learning," for better or worse. And there was the bad. For some, the "baby" was the experience of living through TWI's experience for a time. We may wish to turn our backs on that part of our lives, but it's better that we embrace and understand what happened - denying neither the good, nor the bad. For others, the "baby" is the ministry itself, the corrupt source of it all, the twisted teachings, the flawed leadership, the bureaucracy and social caste system, and Vic Wierwille who was always corrupt, along with his henchpeople who either were or became bad to join the (evil) enterprise. Some may not have clearly seen the corruption, flaws, etc., which is why they want to "save the baby" so badly. Either perspective is accessible to everyone, though we often fail to define them, or to recognize them, in context. This causes some unnecessary confusion, I think. oldiesman loved the experience, so much so, he forgives the enterprise. He reminds me of the assassin in the DaVinci code. It's as if the ministry gave his life virtually all of its meaning. TWI = his redemption. Where else can he go? Others believe the corrupted root eventually corrupted the fruit, and differentiate between the quality of their initial experience and the integrity of the enterprise. Those found the experience worthwhile enough to stay until they were harmed by the enterprise, which changed their experience from good to bad. When the experience went sour, some discovered the evil nature of Wierwille's enterprise. This sometimes tainted everything that came before it, depending upon the individual. Others blamed themselves, often because they were blamed by others, or they remain confused.

Okay, so what happened with Rochelle?

Can anyone spell out for us what "piling on" is taking place? HCW, other than the "bum's rush" (I still don't get that), are you feeling "piled" upon? Seems to me that you're doing alright.

It was always your best side (from what everybody says).

Is Greasespot "anti-TWI?" I guess that's reasonable, it's been said enough. But I don't consider myself "anti-TWI," except in the context of being pro all ex-TWI'ers who are sorting out the damage and deceit they've experienced. By default, if you're supporting ex-TWI'ers, you are "anti" TWI. Otherwise I couldn't give a crap about TWI. By the way, it's s.a.t.o.r.i, not santori. I'm wondering if you haven't been getting email or private messages from a few weak-minded individuals attempting to "help" you understand my POV. When it comes to "healing," there is nothing "un-healed" about reacting angrily to behavior I find offensive, is there? It would be un-healed not to react, to take it passively when there was no reason to do so. Catbox, Festivus is over. (Get the reference?)

No, a truck driver did it, kidnapping his female passenger (hitch hiker) while the Corps guy was inside a rest stop.

I missed out on the fried chicken? Probably couldn't afford it.

Which positive Way principles have been met with a tsunami of scorn, by the way? If you're going to make negative assertions, you're welcome to back them up. HCW, George is a Japan-ophile. Tsunami is an anglicized Japanese word, as you probably know. Mis-spell it at your peril.

Let me put in a good word for WOW-burgers here, possibly TWI's only redeeming quality.

Most inconsistency is not hypocrisy, HCW. Your (apparent) inconsistency led to the question. I have no idea what you mean by "bum-rush." Can you be more specific? I think we're now clear on the driver's role in the accident. We can agree to disagree on the role of TWI leadership in laying the foundation for that accident - to which we were all (in my opinion) witnesses. I'm still interested in your account of the person you originally wanted to remember. She can't speak for herself now. It's up to you.

This is just plain wrong. You're blaming the ditch now? He lost control of the vehicle. THAT was the single contributing factor. You seem to be saying the ditch had no right to be there because it wasn't "there" earlier. The ditch compounded the damage, but it caused nothing at all.

You asked the "Dragon lady" what a fireball was? I just hope you worked "fireball" in the Greek afterward. Too funny! As if she were an expert, right? Had she been working fireballs so she could share them with the Corps? Was there a shortage? Maybe we shouldn't go there. I'm trying to remember if I ever saw any smoke rising from her. Don't think so. If so, it was probably gas, since there wasn't much heat. Obviously, Dragon lady was an idiot, another dumbass, who could lecture everyone else all day, and all night, on Ephesians, the great mystery, the one body, members in particular, and THEN, accuse you of not being a "fireball," instead of just being yourself as God made you, and allowing you to grow and be the best YOU you could be. What's wrong with that picture? - Dragon breath had no clue. See oldiesman, more dumbasses, everywhere you turn. She and her hubby were a virtual tag-team of dumbasses. "Dumb and Dumber." Of course they weren't stupid in the sense of low intelligence. But their hearts-full-o'-malice blinded them to the obvious hypocrisy of enforcing their personal likes and dislikes as if they were biblical mandates. Bottom line though, they were dumbasses, just the same. By the way, "fireball" as I understand it, has to do with kissing the leadership's foot with adequate heat and pressure to cause combustion. Apparently, you didn't.

"Point a finger?" This isn't about finger-pointing (blame), it's about responsibility. Since you were in TWI for quite a while after the incident, maybe you just never had the opportunity to clearly process that difference. TWI was always about blame and condemnation coming down from the top. Anybody who was around can recall VPW's unpredictable (which meant they were "inspired") and rapacious tantrums, his ugly and spiteful recriminations against individuals, or groups, within TWI. Of course, he was at his unholy meanest toward individuals who couldn't (or wouldn't) defend themselves. That wasn't a man of God's "reproof." It was sheer sadism, torment for the pleasure of the tormentor. Anybody who "blew it," or "screwed up," had better concoct a good defense to ward off the accusers (leaders and wannabe's) sure to rush in. Woe unto you, Jack. Martindale was relentless, and Lynn was filled to overflowing with his sarcasm and acrimony. They could go on for days. Read what Vickles had to say here because she couldn't come up with the stinkin' ten dollars using believing (magic). "I'm sorry" was never good enough. Vic's sick pricks had to crucify you until the last drop fell and spashed on the rocks below, and then they'd stick it to you one last time - to make sure you were done. TWI leaders were intentionally cruel. They got off on the human sacrifice, as much as they could get away with. You could see it in their faces. So we learned, for self-preservation's sake, to hide behind the devil. "The devil, he did it. The Adversary attacked us. Did you see that wind? Straight from the pit." Ever read The Crucible? (I know, it's not in the bible. Spare me.) So all I'm saying is, we need find and accept our responsibility. The driver is responsible, at fault. There is no need to take it further, no judgement, no sentence, but neither should it be denied because personal responsibility is essential to healing ourselves after emerging from the cult. For that matter, it's just essential. That is to say, we learn to clearly see our own responsibility, and theirs.

This method solves the problem of where to put the cork.

skyrider, good discussion.