Abigail

Check your PM again before you hit the stores :D

I saw something in Google that made it appear Barnes and Noble will be carrying it - don't know if they have it yet or not. I ordered a copy through amazon and received it in less than 5 days. I think it was $18 with shipping and handling. p.s. - please check your private message

I think when someone is discussing a painful personal experience, the "big leaguers" should hold their tongues out of respect, compassion, whatever. If they see something within that thread that is separate and apart from the personal experience, i.e. "yeah, maybe vpw did those things, but his teachings are still truth . . ." they could simply start their own thread and leave out the names and specific details of the poster's personal experience. Example "There has been personal testimony that VPW raped women" this may be true (though it is "undocumented") but I still believe he taught us many truths . . . " That thread, could then discuss the pro's and con's of what was taught, without derailing the thread of or in anyway hurting the person who posted their own personal story. Conversely, however, those who have been harmed are going to have to reach a place where they either opt to ignore such threads and not respond in them, or be prepared for the "big league" responses they are going to be faced with. Ultimately, it is going to require self restraint on the part of the individual posters, in order for it to work. Maybe, hopefully, someone else will have a better solution. :)

I wasn't offended by your use of the term, RumRunner - I understood you were using it as an example and were not aiming it at me or calling me that. And yes, words can be very destructive - that is why I have mixed feelings on this subject. But the rules here do forbid personal attacks, which I would understand to include name calling. I think Paw and the moderators are very liberal in giving people warnings and more than one chance in that regard and I appreciate it. I think many of us have occassionally gotten overly passionate about our point of view and crossed the line in that area. But when one consistently and repeated crosses the line, then banning is appropriate if for no other reason than because Paw and the moderators shouldn't have to work so hard at deleting or editing someone else's posts.

I have mixed opinions on this one Rummy. Yes a pistol requires immediate banning, no problem there. I would even agree that words/names can be extremely hurtful. On the other hand, part of recovering from a cult experience is coming to accept and learn how to deal with the fact that there will always be people out there who will be cruel to you. I was (as a matter of fact) called a "dirty Jew" on quite a number of occassions growing up. My family was the only Jewish family in a very small, very Christian community. Currently, my kids attend a school where the vast majority of the students are African American and Cuban. My children are the minority. They have been called "Mayonnaise" and they have been teased by some kids for being white. I empathize with them and explain to that no matter where they go to school, there will always be a few kids who will find a reason not to like them, who will find something to tease them about. That in the end, it sadly says much more about how sand and angry the child doing the teasing is, and really says nothing at all about the one being teased. In between the harsh and destructive reproof sessions we received while in TWI, we were love bombed. Especially during our early days. While on some level some of us may miss that love bombing, it does nothing to help us deal with the real world we live in. Sad, but true, we must figure out how to deal with the a@@ holes of the world.

Exactly, Lifted!!!

Exactly, Lifted. Banning (as much as I hate the notion of it - reminds me too much of mark and avoid) has to be left open as a viable option for those who simply refuse to follow the very basic and simple rules that exist here. I just perfer to see it used as a last resort, and never used simply because one doesn't like the opinion of another.

No apology necessary RumRunner, these things happen. Yes, it is human nature, and yes it would be wonderful if adults could behave at least as well as we expect children to - would certainly be a better example. :)

Rumrunner, either I am entirely missing your point or you missed mine. Re-read what you quoted. I DID say there were other alternatives to banning.

Then attack the cult, not the people. Not complicated really. One can argue and debate what was taught in TWI, that is wrong, harmful, dangerous - I would even agree with you on many of those points. But when you label them, when you call them "waybrained cultheads" you are no longer attacking the cult and/or what it did to their minds, you are now attacking the person.

First, Groucho, I do get your main point, and I actually agree with it. I do think it is inappropriate for someone to attack someone who is relaying a personal experience. I have said so repeatedly. I simply do not believe banning someone is the way to go, I think there are other alternatives. Beyond that, I also get that you are offended by people attacking other people. Yet, you are guilty of doing the very thing you are so offended by. Indeed, I would bet that Oldies and WhiteDove (among others) take offence at being labelled "apologists" and being called "waybrained cultheads." It is, IMO, hypocracy to cry foul against others for doing what you are also doing. Finally, you can label my thoughts and reasoning as mental gymnastics, if it makes things more black and white for you (now there is a cult thought process - black and white thinking). But the fact is, given the number of people who were touched by TWI, there are numerous "other sides." Some had horrendous experiences of rape, abortion, etc. etc. Others believe they received great benefit from PFAL, but had bad experiences in other areas. Some were humiliated and shamed by their leadership, others were not. And in the end, if Paw wants to limit this place to one side (as opposed to other sideS) he is free to do so at any time. The fact that he hasn't, indicates to me that he does not wish to.

(((Oak)))) I have missed this place, and you. :) I wanted to add to my previous post - I am of the opinion that regardless of what one believes or doesn't believe, whether one labels themself agnostic, athiest, Christian, Muslem, Hindu, etc. etc. - If they are loving their neighbor and taking care of the planet and creatures that have been placed here, then they are loving God. Where else would God dwell??

The writers of the epistles (correct me if I'm wrong) and really, if you think about it, the writers of the entire Bible were Jewish. Or at least, came from a Jewish background. It could then, be beneficial to understand a bit more about the perspective/background in this regard. In addition to the OT, the Jewish people have many writings that they rely upon and teach from. Most of these writings are arguments/debates about what one thing or another means, and how it is to be applied in ones life. The only text that I know of that is absolute (as in though shall obey) are the laws and even in that there is much debate as to how those laws are to be followed and applied in our lives today. At the center of Jewish thought (regardless if one is Ultra-Orthodox or Ultra-Liberal) is to love God and love your neighbor (as Jesus taught). To be a member of your community and give back to that community, improve that community. Really, most everything else just comes down to HOW to love God and love your neighbor. People have been arguing about the "how" pretty much since "in the beginning." Even the stories of Adam and Lilith come down to how were these two people to love each other - Lilith apparently did not feel loved and rebelled. And again, in the early days of Christianity, within the writings of Paul, one can see there was still argument and debate about the "how." I like to think as people we have evolved in this regard. That we are learning and growing as a species in the how. Nevertheless, I think we will continue to debate the "how" until the "new heaven and new earth" is here.

I would think there is more than just one "other side" of the story. There are hundreds, thousands even, of "other sides." And yes, I can see how one can perceive this as ANTI and not EX way - but I suspect if Paw wanted it to be strictly limited to ANTI and not open to ALL EX way people, he could have said so. He could have done something about those who post of fond memories, or less vehemently anti opinions a long time ago. And I suppose he is free to do so. I am not an "apologist" btw and those who have used that term to label others would tell you the same about me. But I do think it would be a great harm to this place if people were banned because they didn't perceive VPW the same way others here do. And as I said before, I have left other ex-way communities because of such policies, I would leave this one as well. There was a time, when I was newly out of TWI that I could probably have fallen into the "apologist camp." I still believed what was taught in PFAL, I wasn't convinced the stories about VPW were true. It took several years for me to rework what I was taught in PFAL and come to my own conclusions. It took me several years to become convinced the stories about VPW were true. "yes" you may say "but these guys have been here for many many years." So what? Who decides the timetable for another? You? Me? I don't want that job. Even if they never change their minds about VPW, they are still members of the ex-way community and in my opinion, they still need a place to go. I guess, if they didn't, they wouldn't be here anyway.

Looking to make an issue? Hoping for a mass cry against the "apologists"? hoping to use peer pressure to push Paw into giving you your way? Pretty stinky if ya ask me - - which I guess you pretty much did by airing it out in public. BTW, I don't recall reading that this was an ANTI twi website, I thought it was an EX twi website. There is a distinct difference.

ahhh, Lucy, Lucy, Lucy...... some of us didn't get involved until well after 1988. By the early 1990's, in some areas at least, the signs were down and long destroyed. Some of us didn't see what was coming until we were in for a penny in for a pound - leave the ministry, lose your family.

Then you have left a cult to start a cult. You have chosen to harrass someone because they have different experiences, perceptions and opinions than you do. You have become the very people you claim to be persecuting.

Rhino, you think Paw shouldn't make it public.? Jonny wants it public? and behind the scene Bumpy is emailing pieces of information to both of you? hmmmmm

Rhino, I would suggest that unless you have seen every email exchange between Bumpy, Paw, and whoever else is involved in this, you may very well not have all of the facts.

Now, on a more serious note. WhiteDove, when you return I hope you will read what Rascal wrote and pause before you hit they keyboard to defend yourself. I ask this not because I am judging you as guilty as charged (to use your terminology :D), but because I want you to consider how she feels, how she perceives your responses to her posts. I would ask that before you turn the table and accuse her of doing the same, again, consider how she feels and how she perceives your responses to her posts. When someone shares a personal experience, and another person comes along and indicates they doubt the accuracy, truth, etc. of that person's experience - when they say "prove it" - it is internalized as a personal attack. Now, you would be correct, in thinking that perceptions are subjective, not objective. That memories can sometimes blur things a bit. Nonetheless, how an individual perceives an experience is a very real thing to the individual doing the perceiving. In other words, the person is telling the story as they experienced it. It is one thing to question second and third hand stories of "so and so told me that this happened to someone else", etc. But when someone says "this is what happned to me" sometimes it is better to bite your tongue (or your finger nails :D). No one is saying you have to read the story and believe it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No one is saying you can't wonder if there is more to the story, or if the person's perception is inaccurate, but wondering it in your head does not necessarily mean you have to say it out loud. Sometimes, it is probably perfectly okay to say it out loud, to question, to ask for more information. But when (for instance) a woman is sharing about a traumatic and painful experience like rape or abortion, perhaps the most loving thing to do is hold your tongue and just not say anything, because to do so deepens the wound, tears it apart and makes it worse. It inflicts more pain, even if it isn't intended to. I understand your desire to have the "truth" known here. But truth is a tricky thing when it comes to experiences and perceptions. Nevertheless, the experience as perceived is truth to the one who perceived it.

Alright Lucy, now you are just too damned funny and we CANNOT have funny people posting at the cafe!! It simply derails the threads and lightens the tension, and that is NOT ALLOWED! p.s. Forgot to add - I totally agree with you 100% about men peeing sitting down. They simply cannot aim that thing well enough to pee standing up. Hell, in a house with two boys, there are many days when I think MY aim would be better standing than theirs is!!!!!!!!!!

When Aaron went through this phase, I just sat down with him and played the game with him. I let him explain the rules (which changed every time we played ) and I just followed along. We would look up various cards on google and figure out what it would cost to buy them, what they were worth, etc. etc. Eventually, you will start to pick up on the game and the cards . . . . right about the time he gets bored with them and moves on to something else.

Well ya better, or I'll have to ban you!!

At our house it was Yu-Gi-Oh. OY how I came to hate that show, the games, the cards. I think Aaron was in kindergarten when he first got into it. I have to say this, it really motivated him to learn math, because you have to add and subtract to play the game. He finally got tired of it in 3rd or 4th grade and moved onto Pokemon. He grew tired of that one in about a year. I think for most kids, it will pass. I don't believe there is some spirital harm attached to or associated with the games. Really, the Pokemon cartoons I've seen always advocated for honesty, integrity, compassion, etc. I kind of liken it to the baseball cards of days gone by, except with these instead of simply collecting and trading the cards, they can actually play games with them as well.

WhiteDove, I am really glad you are going to read the book. I would ask this of you . . . It makes little difference to me if you believe the events she writes of are true or false, whether you have doubts because there is no documented evidence, etc. BUT, I would ask you to really give consideration to the thought processes she writes of . . what she was searching/longing for, why she made certain decisions, how she felt/didn't feel, why she didn't tell or go to the authorities/prosecute. I think, if you can do that, you may come to an understanding of why some say you are "re-victimizing the victim" when you post on threads about personal experiences about the need for "courtroom style evidence."