Abigail

For me its a real tough toss-up between Sweet Transvestite and There's a Light. Oh, and speak for yourself. I was still in highschool when I discovered Rocky Horror back in the early 80's! plbplbplb

for Shell and the others who have been following this case Jury came back with guilty of 1st degree murder and 1st degree child abuse. She will face a mandatory sentence of life in prison!

I think we will have to come to you Cathy, at least part way. It does not appear to be playing anywhere in our state. However, it plays bi-weekly in Columbus and Cincinnati; weekly in Daton and monthly in Cleveland Heights. It is also shown in a number of other towns around Ohio that I have never heard of.

Gentle Servant, I would have to agree with you that it is not good to hurt people. It is not good to post private emails either I agree and have said as much. I also understand how someone who is hurt and angry might react out of that hurt and anger and do so. Roy has likewise apologized for doing it. I have yet to see anyone apologize for saying cruel things to him. "I have never seen someone who was exiting TWI get maligned, even in past posts there." Understood, but I have. We like to laugh and have a good time as do the folks here. Again, understood. I too like to laugh and have a good time. Roy is welcome to post over there, but some do not enjoy his little idiosyncrasies like preaching, teaching, prophesying, and blowing holy kisses. It is also against the rules to come across as an elitist. You know like I am all spiritual and you are not. That kind of thing. Those who don't like his idiosyncrasies do not have to read what he writes - the delete button works very well on unread e-mails. I do it myself quite frequently. As for "coming across as an elitest", well to some degree or another, that is in the eye of the beholder. However, having taken the time to get to know Roy, he does not strike me in the least bit as elitist - though I understand how he could come across to those who haven't taken the time to get to know him. Sometimes, one has to take a little time to get to know someone, to see below the surface, to understand where they are really coming from. Conversly, if they do not wish to invest time in getting to know someone, for whatever reason, there is nothing wrong with that. But to judge someone without knowing them does strike me as wrong. "As for you being called a Troll, that was way cruel and uncalled for. I would have protested had I been there at that time. You are a good person and I hope you can forgive those who did that to you and not hold it against the rest of us." I don't hold it against those who did not participate. In some sense I don't even hold it against those who did. I understand how certain words and phrases can trigger a very negative emotional reaction. However, I have seen it happen to several people in various forms and that I do find disturbing. To see the very people who might stand to benefit the most from an honest and open discussions about their experience and beliefs be turned away is very upsetting to me, because I know how painful that can be. The front page of the list says it is for ex-wayfers to discuss, among other things, their experience in TWI. A large part of the TWI experience included doctrine. From that perspective, it seems to me doctrine would then be a valid discussion as long as it was kept polite and respetful. The impression I get from what goes on there, is that most people want it to be a place where those who are over the worst of their TWI experience can come, kick back, kid around and have a good time. There is certainly nothing wrong with that at all. But, perhaps that is what the front page should say then, that way newcomers aren't so surprised when doctrinal discussions are not tolerated.

I'd love to go with you to see Rocky Horror some day, Cathy!

Relax, have fun, and go with it. I cannot count how many times I've seen Rocky Horror. I still remember the songs and the lines. And when they do the Time Warp, if the theater allows it - get up and dance!!!

"You are way too sweet to be troubled by bitterness and unforgiveness. Hope you can put away your ax." Actually, I am rarely troubled by either of those things. What does trouble me is seeing people needlessly hurt. What also troubles me is seeing a place that claims to be there to help those who are exiting TWI hurt the very people who could benefit from it the most. Seeing people turned away because they are different, or still struggling. Seeing people turned away because they do not write well.

And think about that, Calflor - 10 bars in a town the size of Ishpeming!!! Oh man, and the snow - I miss the snow. Mind you, I am not a huge fan of winter, but if it is going to be freezing cold out, at least let there be snow to play in.

As one who was born up there, I can attest to the accuracy of the article! lol lol

For those of you who thought Escanaba in Da Moonlight was a comedy, I now have supporting documentation of what I have always maintained - that is a documentary. Go HERE FOR STORY

Gentle Servant, yes I have a few friends on the list, which is why I still keep my membership there. But I have a huge issue not so much with the rules themselves there, but how they are and aren't enforced. For example, you will notice that several posts insulting Roy and others from the cafe have been allowed to go through. However, you will also notice that my post, pointing out this and other inconsitancies will never see the light of day. I will say, I am impressed that Jim tried to take up his issue with Roy via e-mail instead of publicly. My experience in the past was that moderators over there were free to lambaste the regular crowd as it suited them, but if one of the regulars who was lambasted attempted to respond they were put on moderation. And yeah, DMiller, I probably do have an ax to grind.

Another thing that is very interesting . . . . FreeatLast - you said you tried to write to Jim about this situation and were "banned" = but then it was explained later in this thread that your email was being bounced. Funny thing, I too tried to post and mysteriously my email was "bounced" as well. But what makes it even more funny is that I got a private response from someone on the list that quoted my "bounced" e-mail. Now, I don't know the technical ins and outs of how an e-group works, but obviously "bounced" emails seem to get received by someone. However, I'm betting mine never sees the light of day over there. Another funny thing . . . Jim had to ask someone to contact you, Free, to let you know your emails were being bounced. However, he had no trouble whatsoever sending me a private email telling me mine were being bounced. The whole thing makes me go "hmmmmm"

Yes, I welcomed Roy, though I rarely post. I welcomed Roy, because I know Roy from the cafe and consider him a friend. Yes, I do read some of the posts that go up over there, though certainly not all. It depends on who wrote it and what the topic is. It also depends on how busy I am. The reason I rarely post over there is because I was put in the moderators queue several years ago, over an incident that is not altogether different than this one (though the specifics most certainly are different). I simply don't have the time or inclination to post where I am not wanted and/or am moderated. I make an exception to that on a very rare occassion. Yes, Roy's experience there has touched a nerve. As I tried explaining to someone on the list, the Oddlist was one of the first ex-way places I ever found. I was new to the world wide web and I was very very newly out of TWI. I was labeled a Troll by one of the popular posters over there, despite the rules that exist about insulting each other. That label stuck so well it even carried over here to the cafe when I found this place. No one would talk to me at either place. Imagine how I must have felt. No friends in the real world because I had just left TWI. No ex-wafers to help me either, because I was marked and avoided by them as well. Desperation won out and I changed names and became "Abigail". However, it is not an experience I ever forgot, nor ever will. I very much understand being cautious on the internet. Experience has taught me that as well. But I think withholding judgment and allowing time to reveal a person for who they are is far better than dumping all over them simply because they seem a bit "different".

I posted a response in the e-group, to Jim's post in the e-group. I'm wishing I had saved it to post here as well, because odds are it will never see the light of day over there. Jim is very careful about the version of the truth posted there. Notice how in his post he left out the fact he not only insulted Roy's writing style, but his religious beliefs, and who he is as a person. However, I find it very interesting that another poster there was allowed to insult Roy, as well as a number of other GSC posters. I find this interesting because such insults are supposed to be against the rules. However, the person who posted it is part of the "popular crowd", so Jim's rules don't really apply to him. Just like Jim can tell Roy that religious discussions are not really allowed on his forum, and then proceed to tell Roy his religious beliefs are wrong. Hypocrites. That's why I post here. Say what you want about this place, but in the roughly 6 years I've been here, my experience has been the moderators try very hard to be impartial. They may not be perfect at it, they are after all human, but they do a darned good job. I would add, I also find it intersting how many of the people who have posted on this thread are Ex-Oddlisters because they too got sick of the hypocrisy over there.

great post, Bramble. I chose to affiliate myself with the religion of my choice because it best suited my already formed values and philosophies, because I liked some of the traditions/rituals, and because it left me feeling more connected to my heritage. I don't claim to agree with everything that is taught in my religion of choice, but I do greatly appreciate the freedom I have found within this particular group to form my own beliefs without feeling I have to justify them to the rest of the group.

its a yahoo e-group of ex-wafers, but not the one you found Vegan.

Roy, I could go on for a long time on this topic, but I'm too tired and that place isn't worth the time. Sufficite to say that you are in good company in being not wanted there (IMO anyway). While the response you got may have stung, IMHO you have just been spared the pain of joining the ex-cult cult. I cannot stand the way some people are allowed to walk all over the feelings of others at that place. I have spoken up about that in the past and was put on moderation for it. As far as I know, I am still on moderation. That's okay, its not my website and they are not my rules. Those who run that website are free to make whatever rules they want. I am free to chose not to follow them and therefore not to post. They seem to dislike or fear anyone who doesn't fit their cookie cutter. Reminds me very much of a cult we once belonged to.

Thanks, Vegan. I didn't find the one I was looking for yet, but I did find one that is very relevant to this thread. The entire article can be found HERE I will post a few excerpts: 'The human mind, no matter how great, is finite; i.e., its capacity for understanding and knowledge is limited. Hence, the concept of an infinite Being who possesses infinite wisdom and power can be confounding. In order to get a "grasp" on the Divine we require an approach that is familiar to our human experience. To this end G-d convenes His heavenly tribunal on the day known as Rosh Hashana. Certainly G-d does not require a court system in order to judge His mortal subjects. For us, however, the familiarity of a judicial proceeding can be a great benefit." And another excerpt from HERE Yet G-d withholds His own judgment and allows for a nay-sayer who might indeed not be that persuasive to the members of "the board". . . . . . Understand, though, that satan is also an internal phenomenon, and has far deeper inner implications. He and the "yetzer harah" -- our so very human inclination to avoid G-dliness -- are said to be one and the same. Satan is thus that part of the "committee", if you will, that meets in our being each and every moment that we "convene" to make decisions.

I have GOT to find the article on the book of Job from a Jewish perspective! I've done a couple of searches, I just don't remember what word or phrase I was searching when I found it the first time. Anyway, Lindy, you might really enjoy reading "Job" by Robert Heinlein (sp). It won't answer any doctrinal questions, but I think you will really like the irony of it!

Lindy, I hear you, especially when it comes to the divide that can occur between career and personal life. Working in the legal field that can be especially tricky - do you use every loophole you can find to win, because professionally you are to use the existing laws to represent your client to the best of your ability? Or do you ignore certain technicalities in the interest of overall justice and fairness? Thankfully, I work for two very ethical attorneys who truly do seem to be intereseted in justice and fairness as opposed to winning at all costs, justs for the sake of being able to say they won. Sir, "english seems an increasingly difficult language to define, let alone use these days and finding the meat of the intent behind them takes a little more time than we are often inclined to give" It is a battle I have struggled with my entire life. I used to dread taking tests because I would read a question and could interpret it in so many different ways. I would get so caught up in trying to understand exactly what was being asked that I would miss the overall picture of what the subject matter was supposed to be about. I see my older son struggle with this issue as well. We have many conversations about sarcasm v facetiousness v figures of speech, etc. "it seems to me that if i am a whole being of many parts but i think i am only a piece of what i really am in a sense...i am broken simply for not knowing how whole i am and those pieces i do not think are mine simply haunt me as if it was an "invading or oppressive other"" Amen. It takes a great deal of time, wisdom, self-confidence, self-love, and self-acceptence to see and accept our many parts. It requires overcoming all the negatives that have been tossed at us regarding some of those parts - overcoming the shame that was intentionally or unintentionally instilled in us by our parents, friends, society, etc. I think that is a large part of the root (from a psychological perspective) of the need for a savior. Yet, at the same time, I think religion also often (though not always) plays a large role in preventing us from seeing and accepting all of our pieces.

It looks very interesting, Sir. Some first reaction thoughts: "It is a failure of human wholeness" I can't help but wonder though, is it entirely a failure of human wholeness, or simply another part of the process? I keep silent on an issue I should address or actively break faith with one of my own con­victions. I wish the author would give us some specific examples, because on the one hand I entirely understand what is being said here. On the other hand, I sometimes think in breaking faith with a conviction we discover that the conviction may have been an erroneous one - at least in part. Again, a part of the process? Wholeness does not mean perfection: it means embracing brokenness as an integral part of life. Knowing this gives me hope that human wholeness-mine, yours, ours-need not be a utopian dream, if we can use devastation as a seedbed for new life. And here I agree 100%, except I am not sure I would call us broken. I often think what appears broken to others, may in fact, be entirely perfect just the way it is. Like that worn out pair of tennis shoes that others think we should toss in the garbage, yet we know fit our feet better than any new pair ever could.

Actually Allen, I have no issues with the "o" in God, what was posted above was a cut and paste, which I forgot to post the link to. However, the reason many of the more stricter practicing Jews leave the "o" out has to do with respect and a concern for the name of God being desecrated - as in when a piece of paper is thrown in the garbage. I do not entirely understand the reasoning behind it, which is why I don't practice it. Mo, unfortunately I can't shed anymore light. As I have posted already, the Christian understanding of the devil is simply that, the Christian understanding. Jews don't believe in the devil. There is an understanding of Satan, as I also posted above, but even there I see it more as figurative than literal. There are a few contradictory practices within Judaism regarding names, depending ethnic background, but again those are not beliefs I adhere to or see as being documented Biblically.

Here's a great definition: The word satan means challenger. With the leading ha- to make haSatan, it refers to /the/ challenger. This describes Satan as the angel who is the embodiment of man's challenges. Satan works for G-d. His job is to make choosing good over evil enough of a challenge so that it can be a meaningful choice. In Jewish thought, the idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic--you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.

As promised and at long last - Judaism's understanding of "Satan" in the book of Job: I will start with the verses and Rashi's Commentary: 6. Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them. Now the day came about That day which was Rosh Hashanah, (known as a day of sounding the shofar, and the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the Adversary to bring the merit and the guilt of all creatures. This is the meaning of “from going to and fro on the earth.”) and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord to contend with Him, because the expression of standing refers only to judgment, as it is stated (Isa. 3:13): “The Lord stands to plead.” and the Adversary, too, came among them to accuse the people. In other words, once a year, on Rosh Hashanah it was the "Adversary's" job to come before God and report to God the merit and guilt (or worthiness) of all things living) 7. The Lord said to the Adversary, "Where are you coming from?" And the Adversary answered the Lord and said, "From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it." “From going to and fro on the earth and from walking in it.” So is my wont to go to and fro, to see the evil ones and the good ones. Now I went to and fro throughout the entire earth and I did not find anyone like Abraham, about whom it is said (Gen. 13:17): “Rise, go to and fro in the land.” The Sages of blessed memory (Baba Bathra 16a) said that the Adversary meant this for the sake of Heaven, in order that Abraham’s merit not be forgotten by our God. 8. Now the Lord said to the Adversary, "Have you paid attention to My servant Job? For there is none like him on earth, a sincere and upright man, God-fearing and shunning evil." Have you paid attention to My servant Job that you should desire to denounce him? 9. And the Adversary answered the Lord and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing? “Does Job fear God for nothing?” This is a question. 10. Haven't You made a hedge around him, his household, and all that he has on all sides? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock has spread out in the land. Haven’t You made a hedge around him Because he knows that You visit him frequently to perform miracles for him, and he is fruitful and multiplies; therefore he performs all these righteous deeds-but You have not tested him. 11. But now, stretch forth Your hand and touch all that he has, will he not blaspheme You to Your face?" But were you to touch all that he has, would he not blaspheme You to Your face immediately? This is a question. And then, the Lord said to the Adversary, “Behold, all that he has is in your hands.”

Oakspear, "Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; " There is a clear reference here, in my opinion, to Lucifer as a "man". From a Jewish perspective, all men - Jew or not - are loved by God and have a purpose on this earth and in the worlds to come. Most Jewish sects do not view the world with the mentality that you are Jewish or you are scum/condemned to hell/an unbeliever mentality. We don't have the "saved or unsaved" thing going on. Instead, it is believed that the over 600 Mitzvot in the OT apply to the Jewish people for a specific purpose; and the rest of the people are only commanded to follow the 7 commands given by Noah. With that in mind, the King of Babylon would have been loved by God, and his breaking of the 7 Noahic laws would have greatly disappointed God. The same would apply to the prince of Tyrus. Remember too, that throughout history, many kings/pharohs/rulers did see themselves as God's and were worshipped as such. "Someone pointed out that no man is ever called a "cherub". But is Satan called a cherub anywhere else. What exactly are the cherubs? " Cherubs are the highest ranking angels, much like the king of Bablylon and the prince of Tyrus were once among the highest ranking men. I view it as a figure of speech. "When was it decided that this did refer to Satan? Was it ever viwed that way in pre-Christian times? Did the Church Fathers view it that way? " I cannot speak for what the Church Fathers thought. However, it is unlikely that these verses were understood to have been speaking of a devil in pre-Christian times by the Jewish people, as that concept simply is not a Jewish concept. Over time, after the Christian movement took hold, and particularly in the 1400's and 1500's there were groups within Judaism who adopted some of Christianity's concepts regarding evil spirits, resulting in some interesting superstitions that even our more fundamental believers here on the board would laugh at. But even then, there was no belief in a "devil".