Abigail

The sin of idolatry has never been completey wiped out. I'd dare say all of us are idolatrous at some point or another in our lives. Yes many Jews have recanted their faith, so have many Christians, Muslims, Buhdists, Pagans, etc. What I got out of the article is that we all have moments of doubt - sometimes years and years of doubt. But many of us, when placed in a tight spot, will find a faith inside of us which we weren't even aware existed. Very rarely do I read such articles from a completely literal perspective. If I did, I would reject most of what I read out of hand and walk away feeling like I wasted my time. In fact, I may just give up reading and researching all together. I try to see beyond the literal and find a positive lesson from it which I can apply in my life. In this case, the lesson being we all doubt at times and should not be ashamed of that doubt when our faith returns. And also that our faith often does return.

Def, I'm not sure how to answer your question because I am not entirely sure what you are asking me. In MY Jewish tradition - there would absolutely be room for "Jews for Jesus", Messianic Jews, Christians, Pagans, whatever. I believe we all have our path to walk in this life. My focus is in walking my own path, it is not my place to tell someone else where to walk. Likewise, while it is my desire to expose my children to the Jewish tradition, faith, and ethics, if at some point they chose another path in life I would not have a problem with that. Within the reconstructionist group, which I am seriously considering joining, there is also room. They will welcome anyone who wants to become a part of the community, whether they wish to convert or not. Their goal is to do what they can to make this world we live in a better place, not convert people. In fact, 1000Names came to services with me last Friday and was very welcomed. Within other groups the answer will very depending on the movement and the individual community. For example, many orthodox groups would reject my children because their father was not Jewish. Some would likewise reject me because I was once married to someone who is not Jewish or because I am currently with someone who is not Jewish. So I hope, somewhere in all of that I answered your question.

"But as far as the religion itself goes, surely you must see a difference in the religions, else why would you decide to study Judaism rather than Shintoism? Don't you make any distinction between the two?" Absolutely, there are differences, Laleo. I'm sorry if I came across too aggressively in making my point. :)--> I look at this world we live in and the history of it, and it saddens me to see how much hatred, anger, and fear there is regarding religious differences. We kill each other every day over these differences. Yet the truth is, despite the differences there are also so many similarities. So, I guess I tend to think, why focus on those differences which so often bring about fear and/or anger? Why not focus instead on how much we have in common? So why did I choose Judaism instead of something else? First, even though I am of Jewish heritage, I grew up in a Christian community in a largely Christian society. So initially, it was Christianity I looked to when I sought answers about God. However, eventually I rejected Christianity for a number of reasons, which by and large have already been discussed here. One which has not, I suppose, is that TWI pretty much left a bad taste in my mouth in terms of my own Christianity. This is not to say I reject Christians. It simply means that it no longer is the path which meets my needs and interests. After leaving TWI, I spent two years or so researching various religions, including Native American and the new age movement. Then finally it dawned on me. I have this heritage I know very little about, so I began to study it. There is much about Orthodox Judaism I reject and my initial researching was one more of curiosity than of a quest for God. However, eventually I stumbled upon a wealth of information about the reform and reconstructionist movements. I have found a great deal of depth to their teachings as well as a great deal of history I never knew existed. Many of their ethics sit well with me. I find their parables to be rich with beautiful imagery I also enjoy. Additionally, because much of Judaism is about ethics and behavior and not about defining God, there is much freedom to believe what you wish about God. The spectrum is full from those who are full of faith to those who do not believe in the existence of God at all, and all are accepted. I like the tradition, particularly the weekly lighting of the Shabbat candles. I like the sense of connectedness I receive, knowing that all over the world there are people who are also lighting their candles. I want to pass this heritage, tradition, and sense of connectedness on to my children. Finally, I find within Judaism the blend of religion, tradition/ritual, and respect for an individual's beliefs and faith, etc. which suits my needs and personality very well at this time in my life.

In reading the why Christianity and why not Christianity threads, I got to thinking, why God? I found this on a Chassidic website and thought it was rather interesting. It is written from the perspective of Jewish teachings, but I think one could eliminate the references to "Jewish people" and apply it to people of any faith. I'm not going to quote the entire article because it's rather long, but you can find it here "Remember what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt. That he encountered you on the way and cut off those lagging to your rear, when you were tired and exhausted; he did not fear G-d. Therefore... you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget. Deuteronomy 25:17-19 The Jewish people had just experienced one of the greatest manifestations of divine power in history. Ten supernatural plagues had compelled the mightiest nation on earth to free them from their servitude. The sea had split before them, and manna had rained from the heavens to nourish them. How could they possibly question "Is G-d amongst us or not"? Yet such is the nature of doubt. There is doubt that is based on rational query. There is doubt that rises from the doubter's subjective motives and desires. But then there is doubt pure and simple: irrational doubt, doubt more powerful than reason. Doubt that neutralizes the most convincing arguments and the most inspiring experiences with nothing more than a cynical shrug.. . . . . Amalek "knows his Master and consciously rebels against Him." Amalek does not challenge the truth with arguments, or even with selfish motivations -- he just disregards it. To the axiom, "Do truth because it is true," Amalek says "So what?" Armed with nothing but his chutzpah, Amalek jumps into the boiling tub, contests the incontestable. And in doing so he cools its impact.. . . . . Faith is not something that must be attained; it need only be revealed, for it is woven into the very fabric of the soul's essence. Faith, continues Rabbi Schneur Zalman, transcends reason. Through faith one relates to the infinite truth of G-d in its totality, unlike the perception achieved by reason, which is defined and limited by the finite nature of the human mind. Thus Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains the amazing fact that, throughout Jewish history, many thousands of Jews have sacrificed their lives rather than renounce their faith and their bond with the Almighty, including many who had little conscious knowledge and appreciation of their Jewishness and did not practice it in their daily lives. At their moment of truth, when they perceived that their very identity as Jews was at stake, their intrinsic faith -- a faith that knows no bounds or equivocations -- came to light, and overpowered all else. The Jew's response to Amalek is to remember. To call forth his soul's reserves of supra-rational faith, a faith which may lie buried and forgotten under a mass of mundane involvements and entanglements. A faith which, when remembered, can meet his every moral challenge, rational or not."

"Christianity, and maybe Buddhism, too, seem the most malleable, maybe because they tend to be missionary religions, reaching out to the four corners of the earth, absorbing other cultures. Ethnic religions, like Judaism and Hinduism, for instance, tend to be a little more fixed, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of variety within them. " True, Jews do not prosyletize. Perhaps this is one of the things which appeals to me about Judaism - no door to door witnessing! :D--> But seriously, the Jewish people have been scattered all over the world and taken on the culture of others. Certain traditions remain fairly steadfast. This is because the Jewish people see those traditions as what connects all of us, despite our many differences. However, there is also tremendous diversity. I cannot speak much for Hinduism, because I've never studied it. "There are very fundamental differences among the religions regarding the nature and definition of reality, which translates into passivity and detachment in some religions, not so in others. " Even within Christianity, you have those who believe things are fated and cannot be changed and those who believe the individual has choice and can change their path. "Since the concepts of good/evil, right/wrong form the basis of this religion, and it follows that humans are required to do what is good/right, then any evil/wrong can be corrected, unlike the concepts of karma or fate, which have the gods determining the outcomes in life, no matter their moral value. In other words, as I understand it, Jews believe that morality is a human endeavor, powered (not thwarted) by God, therefore able to be accomplished" Yes, this is correct. However, there are also Jewish people who believe much of it is up to God and there is little they can do to change it. Again, it comes down to what individuals within a group believe and what movement of Judaism you are speaking of. The Orthodox Jews often believe they individually must choose to do good, but there is little they can do to improve the world at large. Whereas on the other end, the reconstructionists believe individually and as a group, there is much which can be done to improve the world. "Plus, since the story of Judaism (almost) begins with the children of Israel in slavery to the Egyptians, empathy for the politically oppressed, and a strong belief in justice, seems rooted in Jewish culture. " This tpp varies. Jewish people are as capable of racism and oppression as any other people. "In fact, suffering (oppression) for a Jew is something which can be corrected or avoided, rather than accepted, because it is a human condition, brought about by humans who do not act ethically, rather than a spiritual condition that is mandated by the gods. " Again, it is an individual thing. There are those who would say their suffering is the will of God and there is nothing they can do to change it, just as there are those who believe they are in charge of their lives and can change things.

Dmiller, "Suppose you asked a Pharisee "What is Torah"? they would have given you an entirely different answer than what Jesus did. Pharisees knew the letter of the law, Jesus knew the heart of it all. The Pharisees saw what was written, but had no idea as to the concept behind it all. Jesus also knew what was written, but He saw the underlying factors that made it so. Christianity is no different." I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. 1. All of the Pharasee's would have agreed as to "what is Torah" though there would have been much arguing about what it all meant. As there have been since the days of Moses and still are today. 2. Not all Pharasee's were like those depicted in the gospels. If you ever have an opportunity to puruse a section of Midrash of even a Torah with commentaries in it, you would be very suprised at the different perspectives/interpretations of just the first five books of the Bible. These thoughts and arguments were passed down orally for centuries and eventually placed in writting. They still to occur even today. 3. I don't believe for one minute Jesus had some sort of inside track on the "heart" behind the letter of the law. Much of what Jesus taught comes from Kabalah (Jewish mysticism), but not as it is somewhat commercially known today. "Blame whomever you want, say what you will, but the fact is -- deliverance is available, and speculating about all the why's and wherefore's won't fill that bowl." Deliverance from what? I'm very interested in finding out what it is I need deliverance from because I have no idea.

Sky, "1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father. Actually, I dont have a problem with this. I believe the fall of man broke God's heart. Maybe the concept of God , as a wounded person as we are at times, makes him much more reachable for me." Why would God's heart be broken over something which He already knew would occur? Something, which according to the bible seems to have been "foreordained" to happen? I think God has more faith in humankind than we often have in Him or in ourselves and He is just patiently waiting for us to figure this out. I see the Bible as a history a mankind. Of how we have evolved and grown ethically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. Certainly think there are things in there we can learn about God, but even moreso, I think there are things we can learn about ourselves.

Laleo, "I think there is a striking difference between the religions, " Funny, I see the opposite. While there are most certainly differences, I am amazed by how many similarities there are as well. "difference between the religions, between Hinduism and Islam, or between Confucius and pagan rituals." Differences betweein rituals yes, and world view as well. However there are a tremendous number of similarities in the ethical systems. "Christianity is probably the most diverse of all the religions. There seems to be a sect within Christianity to accommodate practically every worldview" In your perspective it is, mostly likely because it is the religion you are the most familiar with. However, if you study Judaism you will find it too is extremely diverse, not just in the number of different "movements" but within in each synagogue as well. Likewise with Islam, you will find everything from the extremely fundamentalist groups to the quite esoteric ones. I've never studied it, but I'll bet the same would be true for most religions.

Gee Oak, why don't you tell us what you really think. ;)--> Why not Christianity? 1. I have a very difficult time seeing someone who would allow their son to die on a cross as being a loving father. 2. I have a very difficult time with the "us v them"ness not only in Christianity, but within many religions. 3. Pretty much what Oak said. :)-->

A Jewish perspective (though this is just two perspectives from two websites and you could probably find as many pov's as you can Jews - lol) here JEWISH REASONS The truth is, there is no "logical" argument for cutting a piece of flesh off a helpless baby. Yet circumcision has been practiced on Jewish males for close to 4,000 years, ever since Abraham was so commanded by God. Why does the foreskin need to be removed? In Kabbalistic terms, the foreskin symbolizes a barrier which prevents growth. For example, when the Torah speaks about getting close to God, it calls upon us to "remove the Orlah, the foreskin of your heart" (Deut. 10:16). Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "barbaric" behavior than in the sex drive. When Abraham circumcised himself at age 99, God added the letter "heh" to his name. "Heh" is part of God's own name, signifying that through Bris Milah, the human being adds a dimension of spirituality to the physical body. It is a foundation of Judaism that we are to control our animal desires and direct them into spiritual pursuits. Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "barbaric" behavior than in the sex drive. That's why the Bris is done on this specific organ. If we bring holiness into our life there, then all other areas will follow. IDENTIFYING THE JEW Another aspect of circumcision is that it is integral to Jewish identity. This point was made quite powerfully by a movie called "Europa Europa," It is the true story about a young Jewish boy trying to escape detection by the Nazis. The boy resembles an Aryan and speaks German fluently, so he poses as a non-Jew and is eventually recruited into an elite training program for the next generation of SS officers. This boy was on his way to a fully non-Jewish life, except for one thing: His circumcision. He couldn't hide it. And that is what kept him Jewish throughout the entire ordeal. Bris is the sign of the covenant. So a boy who is not circumcised has basically lost his spiritual attachment to the Jewish people. The man survived the war, and made a new life for himself in Israel. Instead, he may have ended up becoming a Nazi officer. It all depended on the Bris. MEDICAL DATA It is a principle of Jewish life that our decision to perform mitzvot is not based on the "practical benefit." At the same time, the mitzvot frequently have positive observable effects in our everyday life. Regarding the medical issues, Rabbi Yonason Binyomin Goldberger writes in "Sanctity and Science": As an operation, circumcision has an extremely small complication rate. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine (1990) reported a complication rate of 0.19 percent when circumcision is performed by a physician. When performed by a trained mohel, the rate falls to 0.13 percent or about 1 in 1000. When a complication occurs, it is usually excessive bleeding, which is easily correctable. No other surgical procedure can boast such figures for complication-free operations. One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal. One reason why there are so few complications involving bleeding may be that the major clotting agents, prothrombin and vitamin K, do not reach peak levels in the blood until the eighth day of life. Prothrombin levels are normal at birth, drop to very low levels in the next few days, and return to normal at the end of the first week. One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal. In the words of Dr. Armand J. Quick, author of several works on the control of bleeding, "It hardly seems accidental that the rite of circumcision was postponed until the eighth day by the Mosaic law." Furthermore, circumcision has been known to offer virtually complete protection from penile cancer. According to a recent review article in the New England Journal of Medicine, none of the over 1,600 persons studied with this cancer had been circumcised in infancy. In the words of researchers Cochen and McCurdy, the incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men. The incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men. Also, research at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore have shown that circumcised men are six to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers believe that protection is due to the removal of the foreskin, which contains cells that have HIV receptors which scientists suspect are the primary entry point for the HIV virus. (Reuters, March 25, 2004) Several studies reported that circumcised boys were between 10-to-39 times less likely to develop urinary tract infections during infancy than uncircumcised boys. In addition, circumcision protects against bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections and a variety of other conditions related to hygiene. The extremely low rate of cervical cancer in Jewish women (nine-to-22 times less than among non-Jewish women) is thought to be related to the practice of circumcision. As a result of studies like these, a number of prestigious medical organizations have recognized the benefits of circumcision, and the California Medical Association has endorsed circumcision as an "effective public health measure." BRIS IN THE HOLOCAUST Bris has been the hallmark of Jewish identification for millennia. The following powerful story appears in "Hassidic Tales of the Holocaust" by Yaffa Eliach: One of the forced laborers in the camps relates that one day he heard frightening cries of anguish the likes of which he had never heard before. Later he learned that on that very day a selection had been made -- of infants to be sent to the ovens. We continued working, tears rolling down our faces, and suddenly I hear the voice of a Jewish woman: "Give me a knife." I thought she wanted to take her own life. I said to her, "Why are you hurrying so quickly to the world of truth..." All of a sudden the German soldier called out, "Dog, what did you say to the woman?" "She requested a pocketknife and I explained to her that it was prohibited to commit suicide." The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child. The woman looked at the German with inflamed eyes, and stared spellbound at his coat pocket where she saw the shape of his pocketknife. "Give it to me," she requested. She bent down and picked up a package of old rags. Hidden among them, on a pillow as white as snow, lay a tender infant. The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child. "Master of the Universe," she cried, "You gave me a healthy child, I return him to You a worthy Jew." and here The medieval Jewish philosophers, with their strong rationalizing tendencies, were moved to ask why, granted that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, the sign had to be on this par­ticular organ of the body. Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed, 3.49) advances two reasons. The first (which Maimonides considers to be the best) is that circumcision weakens, without actually harming, the organ of generation so that the sexual desires of the circumcised man are moderated. (Maimonides, more than any other medieval Jewish thinker, had an aver­sion to sex.) The bodily injury caused to that organ, he says, does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of gen­eration, but it does counteract excessive lust. Maimionides' second reason is that the sign of the covenant had to be in that particular organ in order to prevent those who did not believe in the unity of God claiming to be members of the covenant for reasons of their own. The opera­tion is so difficult and so disagreeable that no one would undergo it unless he sincerely wished to belong to the people of faith. Philo of Alexandria was the first to advance the hygienic reason. The foreskin is literally un­clean and can be a cause of disease. The more usual reason given by Jewish thinkers is the obvious one that the sign of the covenant through all the generations has to be in the very organ of generation. But, whatever the origin and the reasons for the practice, faithful Jews have circumcised their male children as the most distinctive sign of their loyalty to God. Even Spinoza [the unorthodox 17th-century Dutch Jewish thinker] can remark: “Such great impor­tance do I attach to the sign of the Covenant, that I am persuaded that it is sufficient by itself to maintain the separate existence of the nation for ever.”

"The original point of this thread was to ask Christians why they are Christians." I was just discussing this very issue with a Rabbi today. :)--> When I sought "outside" help with my journey to know God I chose Christianity because that is the predominent relgion in our society. It is also the most easily accessed. Had I grown up in a predominantly Muslim culture I would have chose that path instead of Christianity. Now, however, I choose to take the path that makes the most sense to me and sits the most comfortably with me. For now that path seems to have lead me to a Reconstructionalist Synogogue. Should that change in the future, so be it.

Oak, Ask a Jew :)--> "An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 in his section on "formed, made, created" as "berere sh ith, barah, elohim..." and "I don't have access to an Aramaic text of Genesis, and couldn't find one online, so I can't verify the word order in that language, but since Aramaic is similar grammatically to Hebrew it is likely that the word order is the same. The fact that Lamsa translated Genesis 1:1 to put the word "God" first, does not guarantee that it was first in Aramaic." I looked this up for you, it is the Hebrew . . . 1:1In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Bere**** bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets. and these are the Rabbinical scholar notes to this verse " Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.' (Bere****h Rabbah)." From what I recall from my studies on Judiasm, it seems to be pretty well agreed upon that the word "God" was NOT placed first.

Yup, used the reward system. Another thing I DIDN't use was pull-ups. I think they sort of confuse the issue becaue they are so much like a diaper. I think I waited until my boys were closer to four, but what I did was explained to them that they were big boys who no longer needed to wear diapers and could use the toilette. We talked it through for a couple of days and then I just started putting them in underwear. I think for the first two or three days I took them to the bathroom to try every fifteen or twenty minutes, then gradually spread over the next week to half our, then an hour, until they were pretty used to and comfortable with the idea. With my oldest son, it took about four days. With my youngest, I thought he would never get the hang of it, but eventually, with the proper rewards (which for him was cold hard cash) it did work.

((((Dot)))) I am truly sorry for what is going on at the other site. When I saw what was being said about you over there, as well as about others from here at the cafe it literally made me nauseaus. It makes me wonder about the state of humanity when people are so vicious and cruel to someone and worse yet, take pleasure in it. It is exactly that kind of cruelty that made me want to hide out in the "safety" of a little cult. Not that it was really safe, but you know what I mean. You take care of yourself and I hope, when things quiet down, you will pop in and let us know how you are doing.

(((Anamchara)))

To clarify... My statement of disgust at this back stabbing, cross posting stuff was not aimed at Zixar, but over the whole thing, starting with the threads I've seen here which called out them and including the thread over there which calls out Zix.

Well I've finally taken my first peek at the other site. Must say I'm not impressed. I don't care for censorship but that place exemplifies why it is sometimes needed. I'm also totally sickened by all the "back stabbing" for lack of a better term. Why must one post here about people and issues from over there? and vice verse? Seems pretty chicken s**t to me. The entire experience has left me feeling very nauseated.

Securtiy gets to be a tricky business, eh? And it isn't just about hurting someone's feelings, it is also about who you hire and how well paid they are. Frequent "changing of the guard" would probably help as well. Here's another true story. The attorney I work for was in trial last week. This meant I too was in and out of the courthouse quite a few times. The courthouse is supposed to be a secured building. You have to go through a metal detector and your purse and briefcase are scanned. I don't even recall how many times I passed myself and my things through those scanners last week. Well, it turns out, for most of those passes, I had a rather large pair of scissors in my brief case and no one caught it, though one guard almost did. This past spring I had been making fliers for the boys' school and had put the scissors in my briefcase so I could cut the paper in half. I had forgotten about them. The only reason I even found them this past Thursday was because after one of my trips through the scanner, while I was waiting for the elevator, I noticed the security guard was looking over the picture of the contents of my briefcase. He stopped and zoomed in on an image that looked like a knife. I knew it was my briefcase and I kind of wondered what it was I had in there that looked like that. The security guard never did stop me or ask me to empty my briefcase. I got on the elevator and proceeded to the courtroom. Later, when I went home, I emptied my briefcase to figure out what it was that had made that image on the scanner, and there the scissors were. Kind of spooky to think I spent four days making numerous trips in and out of the courthouse with those scissors in my bag and no one stopped me.

Yeah, I think by and large it stinks. The mandatory testing forces teachers to teach to the test instead of teaching to the children. Passing the test may prove a child can take a test. Doing poorly on a test doesn't necessarily/always mean the child hasn't learned or doesn't understand the material, it may simply mean the child doesn't take tests well. Schools which do not do well on tests are not necessarily bad schools. It was exactly this emphasis on testing which closed down the school my children have attended. I KNOW my kids were learning there. I also know about 70% or so of the kids going to this school were at or below poverty level. This means the parents were so busy struggling to make ends meet, many of them didn't have the time to work with their kids. Testing can be valid as a tool to see where things can be improved, but it should not be used as the end all determination of how a school is doing. I watched my children's school spend money which could have been used in the classroom to bribe parents (incentives) to make sure their children were present on testing days and to bribe children into trying harder to do well on the tests. It stinks.

I would agree and would love to hear from them!

well I'm with whoever said it first - you say "for men only" and I just have to look. That being said, the awful images running through my head are, I suppose, completely my own fault. However, Galen, I am extremely grateful we have never met in "real life" and I have no face to put with the image, so to speak.

E-mail me if you are around and I'll tell you who I am. I would love to hear from you.

Incident #1 - public berating received by me for bringing my very young children to a showing of a Martin Luther movie. I brought them ONLY because leadership told me to. The very same leadership which told me to bring them, chastised me in front of everyone for doing so. What is worse, many of the people present KNEW I had been told to bring them, but never spoke up on my behalf. Incident #2 - I brought my very young children to fellowship because I was told to by my leadership. I did not want them there and neither did their father because they could not sit still and quiet and it was past their bedtime. I was later publicly reproved by my fellowship coordinator's leadership for bringing them. Incident #3 - my best friend was publicly reproved for praying for "cop-outs" in fellowship. Incident #4 - during incident #3, the fellowship coordinator used the "f-word" on his wife and ordered her to leave the room and go upstairs. Those are just the four incidents which come immediately to mind. Believe my, by the late 1990's public humiliation was no longer only for the NaziCorps or "initiated". It was becoming quite common place. In fact.......... #5 I witnessed to my best friend who lived in another state. She was publicly reproved for not making her toddler close his eyes during prayer, BEFORE she ever even took PFAL. Needless to say, she didn't hang around TWI very long.

I would love to hear from you, I knew you in Michigan!

Anyone know what happened to him?