socks

That's so weird, ROR, given that LCM was at one time the Primary Bastardizer of this concept. But it makes sense, a knee jerk prideful reaction against something he'd already proven by example would get your foot in a sling in a heart beat. VPW's basic teaching on this included one two letter word - "if". If God has something to tell you that's useful it will be "first". It's not "first thought" revelation, that's Craig's bastardization, where the first thought you get about something is supposed to be from God. In other words what qualifies as guidance is what you come up with in your brain first cuz after all God's going to be there if you're "really walking" and of course every nutbag that listened to Craig wanted to display their highly developed Walking Skills. Net result - whatever pops in to your brain is what you do. I was in Florida the first time I heard this on a tape of his and we had a long discussion over it amongst those of us that listened to it. It sounded like a recipe for suicide but some people liked it - you don't have to actually do any work to be right, you just have to have a thought, which was a lot to ask of some people anyway. The people I saw trying to live this way would let no logic, planning or argument dissuade them from whatever they came up with. I can picture VPW now, snappin' his fingers and going on about this. "You gotta be sharp, baby! Really sharp on the Word, or you'll get hoodwinked on this everytime and the adversary will beat you! God talks, you listen, God's always first, always there with what you need, just don't you get in a hurry! You just walk (snap snap) and you know that Word inside and out and when God gives you something, you got it! You just reach up in to that cookie jar and you got it! If there's no cookies, there's no cookies so stop stewing baby! (snap snap) That's right, don't tell me!" (wipes nose) Hahahah ha! I love you!" The whole thing has to be tapped down to some kind of realistic expectation IMO or you just end up acting like a jackass. The last thing I need is some dumwit out of the 58th Corps telling me to put my butt on the line because they think they had a coherent thought, a challenge in itself after 2 years at Empooria, Gunnysack or Tinnitus or Prom City or wherever they got put through the wringer at by the latest assigned Coordinator with a stick up his or her hiney.

That's bad news, wondering. I have no information about the current program to contribute, sorry. If you've been through it once and knowingly submit to it again you deserve what you get. It might be an eye opener but I wouldn't count on it. Naw, I take that back. May be, may be. The "present truth" doctrine allows them to reinvent teaching they want to under the guise of it being "guidance" for "this day and time". It's anything goes and all bets off there. It may be a relative but bottom line, they'd have to be either in a desparate personal situation or nuts.

hiway29: Saps - 'barking up the wrong tree' :D--> And we know what dogs do when that leg goes up. :D--> Hey, non-grads, they're "empties" anyway. Gotta be good for somethin'.

Really, coming back? Cool. I just remember the old DC Green Lantern. What did you think of the movie "Unbreakable"? I liked it a lot. I noticed very young how all the super heroes were misplaced out of context people trying to balance their lives out. But then I always wondered where Caspar came from since he was obviously a kid. socks - a computer term, with a phisophical component hard wired in, made of cotton. Washable, interminable, lost, but found.

Miss? :D--> The socks cult calls our women "Your Excellence", but that's another story. :D--> Me, I've always preferred "El Soques" personally. (A La taught me that the correct pronunciation to soques would be "sock-ay" with the emphasis on ay) So I like the ring - "El Sock-AY! Wassup mon ami?!" Reputations are to be loved, people to be used. No, wait...is that how it goes? :D--> I'm confused.

Mark, I was thinking along those lines myself as I read through here. White supremacists believe, by definition, in the exaltation and supremacy of a "white" pure race and the inferiority of other races. It would be a stretch IMO to state that VPW followed that belief. Not that he may or may not have battled with personal prejudices but rather that WS would have been a secret agenda driving his efforts. But - the concept of a spiritual realm influencing human activities - yes. People acting as dupes and stooges getting bounced around in trade for their own personal gain, as well as people in a hyperactive state of cooperation with that realm - yes, he certainly held to that. So he was more than suspicious, you might say he was actively trying to develop an alternate reality through the "believing action" of instructed people who would be both immune to it's influence and instrumental in defeating the forces of darkness, as it were. The Devil. I've done some poking around trying to get a better grip on the foundations for the "law of believing" as it's so often articulated in religious teaching. One of the most striking examples I found was the belief in Xeper ("Khefer"), or "coming in to being", going back to Eqyptian religious "cult" beliefs. The ritualistic approach to perparing a physical and mental place for the future you want to "bring in to being" struck me as being very similar to the rituals many Christians will set up to build an alternate reality to the one they perceive - one they're "believing" to come into being. Those who pursue Xeper as a philosphy often view "the prince of darkness" as a ruling power of this universe whose image was confiscated by Christian religions and turned in to the Devil. So for them, it's a matter of perspective.

Thanks for the feedback. I just checked it out at a Comp USA nearby and it looks like a great idea. I'm in the process of trying to get my CD and tapes organized, and have gone the route of putting all my CD's in binders. It's been traumatic, particularly labelling the ones I've made with the print labels. Lightscribe seems to get good, clear results and simple "elegant" label indexes come out really nice. I think Lightscribe is the way to go at this point, although it would mean reburning most of my personal CD's. Not sure if I want to do that. But I could use it for new ones.....pondering.....

Steve!'s got a good idea using the ascii code for the @. I've been working on a couple projects at work like this. Spammers find email address paths within company intranets this way if employees use them on the internet. Then everyone wonders how they got their email - they just do searches, for @ibm.com, etc. etc and then randomize the front part once they have the path. some get through, some don't. The Google crawler will definitely find the email addies if they're in there with the @ sign. I've used Bluzemans solution, and set up sql tables on the backend to hold things like email addresses or other data I don't want searchable and then build an app in an asp page with recordset calls to the data. Then it only appears on the page once it loads. . It's pretty simple if you want the code, your server just has to be set up to run asp if it isn't already. It's an interesting challenge, some good ideas here.

Am I gonna need a new ferret for this Raf?

George!St!George! "In brightest day In blackest night No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might Beware my power Green Lantern's light!" Green Lantern rocks!

:)--> Scarey! Yet oddly satisfying!

Muwhahahaha! I can see it, Broadway style production, tuxedoes for the women, skirts for the men, lots of glitter and high stepping. Walking canes pumping, spotlights flashing! :D--> "We prevail, we advance! Our men know who wears the pants! Starting here, starting soon! Baby everything's com-ing up New classes com-ing up Everyone throwww-ing up.......(big drum roll!!) Everyone pony's up Rosie's for me and for you!!!!!! da da daaaa da da da daaaaa da da da da DUHHHHHHHHHH! :D--> :D-->

A theme needs a SONG! "Everything's Coming Up Rosie's" I had a dream, a dream about you, baby. It's gonna come true, baby. They think that we're through, but baby, You'll be swell! You'll be great! Gonna have the whole world on a plate! Starting here, starting now, honey, everything's coming up Rosie's! Clear the decks! Clear the tracks! You've got nothing to do but relax. Blow a kiss. Take a bow. Honey, everything's coming up Rosie's! Now's your inning. Stand the world on it's ear! Set it spinning! That'll be just the beginning! Curtain up! Light the lights! You got nothing to hit but the heights! You'll be swell. You'll be great. I can tell. Just you wait. That lucky star I talk about is due! Honey, everything's coming up Rosie's for me and for you! You can do it, all you need is a hand. We can do it, Mama is gonna see to it! Curtain up! Light the lights! We got nothing to hit but the heights! I can tell, wait and see. There's the bell! Follow me! And nothing's gonna stop us 'til we're through! Honey, everything's coming up roses and daffodils! Everything's coming up sunshine and Santa Claus! Everything's gonna be bright lights and lollipops! Everything's coming up Rosie's for me and for you!

Wordwolf, I'm going to digress into another topic and bring it back, I think it applies. One of the assertions in the God Breathed Reissued Call to PFAL is that grads need to come back to the collaterals, study and read the collateral books of PFAL. The collaterals went through changes over the years, eventually getting put into collections, in the various books, "green", "blue", etc. So for most grads if they have that series of books they have what's considered to be "the collateral" readings of PFAL in their REWORKED versions (caps deliberate). One of the original pamphlets was titled "The First Century Church in the Twentieth", later reworked and put into one of the books. It was a short study (as they all were) on how the early church grew and prospered in the abundant life of Christ and looked at Acts records specifically. One of the major points taught was the sharing amongst the church with each other and that as the believers gave of their abundance to the apostles, the apostles distributed out of what they received from them, back to those amongst the church who had need. The example used was of a young couple, starting out, needing help to get going in business, starting a farm say. (Ohio, farms, okay) He says "That is a need. The church helps that couple to get started". This was part of a greater picture being presented - not a giveaway program as he says in the pamphlet, but rather an extension and application of the society of Christians who shared abundantly of their prosperity with each other and with the apostles. So you have people helping each other and the church leadership actively helping the church. Distribution and sharing happens at all levels and the leadership sets the example because as VPW states those doing the giving are giving it to people they feel represent God and are doing "His" work. No one's left out, no need goes "unmet", the church helps it's own people. Short point - this portion was left out of the later revised versions that went in to the books. Short point - in fact, the Way Ministry never got there. It's people did to a great extent on their own (personal assistance, Corps sponsorship, various kinds of support for the ministry's projects and activities) but the corporate organization never did. Big Point - VPW didn't follow his original vision to do what the Word says and his writings changed to reflect it. Regardless of why, who, where or when, this basic concept was abandoned early in the Way's development. Future development never reflected it in the teaching, never addressed the ways and means that The Way was following through on this basic vision. It was simply dropped and removed. I feel it's easy to see that while the other elements of the early church were reflected in parts of the Way, when it got to the "apostles' feet", there was a disconnect from the example of the early church in the Word. If I was looking for reasons why the Way Inc. has struggled so over the years, this would be one I'd consider in the mix. Basic PFAL teaching promised a broad range of possibilities that, over time, would produce a truly "New Dynamic Church" in all facets. When you look at the years of the Way's "big" growth period, from say 1968 through 1980 one thing is prominent - that the attitude of the Way people was to share readily from what they had with each other and with the Way International. The history speaks for itself - the Way took in money, and got other money (through short term loans) and used it to pursue lots of projects, The Way Corps program, the properties, building projects. But from a leadership standpoint this kind of basic, personal, grass roots interaction with the Way members was never pursued or explained as to why we weren't. It was simply dropped as if it wasn't in the bible. But we know it was and that it had at one time been taught as a basic principle of how the Chrisian church should function. This point doesn't negate everything in every collateral, that's not my point. My point is that VPW pursued some things and not others. The explanation that was given for this change here was simply "the government won't let us do it". If I go by the logic that sometimes laws don't best represent God's will and they have to be broken sometimes, then this qualifies. If it's in the Word, it's needs to be done and the Way taught many things from the bible that it knew were heresy by some standards but doggonit, it's in the Word! so we're going to do it regardless of what people say. I wouldn't have expected VPW to have brought the Way down over illegal practices, but I did expect him to pursue solutions that would allow The Way Inc. to do what the Word teaches. By moving in the direction he did, the Way Inc. had to route it's resources in to supportinng itself. If you went in the Way Corps for instance, you benefitted from the resources the Way collected because the Way underwrote the program's expenses. But if you didn't you likely never saw an organized consistent use of the "prosperity" that was laid "at the apostle's feet". You got the classes, but you paid something for them. The Way decided what it was going to do, pay for, build, buy, plan, and if you particpated in those things you had a degree of "sharing" to your "need" for teaching but not in the way Acts depicts or the way VPW initially taught was necessary. Come to think of it, this might be an "Actual Error", by virtue of ommission. At the least it's been something I've learned a great deal from. To a degree, the books are undependable, not in every book and all the material in them, but it's difficult to know exactly what VPW and his people moved, dropped, deleted or simply ignored. He had the podium for many years. What he said and taught in 1,000's of situations has to figure in to the mix of understanding, because as we see these changes going on there was rarely a clear and loud explanation as to what was going on. We knew PFAL, the basic class, was never changed from the film and tape. Two of the 3rd corps personally handled the transferral of the original to beta video in the Weirwille basement under VPW's supervision. But the vast amount of material that went forth in teachings, meetings, the Way Woods, private converations, was how a lot of the information came out when people asked about it or VPW decided to deal with it. That's why I believe the content of those events is so vital to understanding VPW's mind and intent. He didn't publish everything in the Way Magazine or a book or a SNS teaching. He was very careful about what he personally memorialized in any kind of media.

Yeah, check it out Mike. In my work I deal with copyrights, trademarks, brands and the assortment of legalese that addresses them on a regular basis. I can easily say "I'm not a lawyer" as I need clarification on these kinds of matters all the time. There's a lot to them, now and historically. But there's a "reasonable man" kind of logic to their application that can be figured out by just about anyone who wants to. It's not that hard to do the right thing if a person wanted to. As to "IMO" you can add that or not. If you want to maintain some semblance of coherency just don't tell me or anyone what we would have or not have done. That kind of rhetoric may be gobbled up by some circles, but not mine. Not to appear too manipulative, but you're always going in the direction I send you. :D--> This has become so predictable. It's true, you're not being held to accuracy, I gave up on that a long time ago. It's revealing though to see how you grapple and fall back to your "old grad" myths and legends when you're trying to get your footing. I just wanted to hear you voice that as we delve into some of these topic, it's honest. You're guessing. Honesty is refreshing. Seriously, whatever gave you the idea that I'm doing that? I expect you to say what you say when you say it or when you're moved in that direction. Face it - you came on this board panting like a wide eyed out of breath adolescent who'd just stumbled on his older brother's stash of Playboy's and was now heaven-bent on telling all his friends 'look! women are different down there!' as if you'd discovered something new. For the most part everyone who's put any thought in to has given you a noogie and said "Awwww, yer a moigatroid!"

Please Mike, respectfully, don't tell me what I would or would not have done. I'm not placing any criteria on God. I'm simply saying take PFAL's content for what it says of itself. "thus said the Lord" doesn't qualify it for what you've said. I've read that in PFAL too. On face value I don't believe it indicates what you say it does. No offense Mike but you're just not a reliable source of input and perspective on PFAL. That's why I'm posting to this thread and not the other one. Your Table of Challenge thing has been discussed interminably and it's a non-issue for me at this point. Go back and read what I've responded to previously to it. I'm not interested in revisiting it. On the plagiarism topic it's all been discussed before too and I think this thread thus far clearly documents most of the points to be considered. It's up to each person to decide what direction they want to go in, there's enough information here to at least get a person started on considering where it stands.

I don't know what it's called Mike, but your pickles are in a jar of your own making. :D--> That's not the only way to approach PFAL. Making it a god breathed reissue of the Word of God in the bible because the bible is in a form and state you don't like or can't deal with isn't the only option. This "postulate" you cite isn't new, it's just not backed up by any of the existing evidence of PFAL itself of VPW himself. It's an after the fact reinvention of known facts and history. You're guessing and using bits and pieces of texts and statements to back that up. Next you'll be saying "I haven't found a text to back this statement up, but if I'm right we will someday. If I'm not, our whole Reissued Word will fall to pieces!" I'm not interesting in you being right, I have no vested return in that, you do. Another direction would be to view it as it was intended, a teaching vehicle to provide what VPW states - keys and principles to help unlock the bible and allow us to undertand it better. Whether it does that or not is a matter for each person that examines it to evaluate. If you take that intention you're simply taking what VPW himself clearly stated, using one of the keys he taught - interpret the unclear or difficult verses or subjects in light of the clear material. And there is clear material as to what VPW intended PFAL to be, right in PFAL. When VPW makes clear statements as to what he intended PFAL to be, in clear English, those should be your marking posts. When you read or hear other parts of PFAL that talk about the content you then know what to compare it to and what direction to augment your understanding. Nowhere in PFAL does VPW say: "And I want this class to be for you, the student, the Word of God reissued. The bible once given has been subject to such change it is no longer a reliable copy of God's original intentions so we today wander to and fro at the whims of every bible teacher or instructor. But in this class on Power for Abundant Living you will receive a new form and format to understand God's will for you sir, in this day and time and in a manner in which you can clearly read and learn. Glory! What a day and a time to live, that we can work this New Word with confidence and boldness and finally now come to that place that know that we know that we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt! that we hold in our hands that New and Reissued Word of God - this class on Power...for Abundant Living!" [cut to black, load segment 5] If a person reads or listens to what is said, it's pretty simple. It gets complicated and requires continual explanation and interpretation to go into this reissued direction. That's obvious by the use of this fall-back last resort logic of "well, well....! if it isn't, then doggonit, I'm in a real pickle!" No you're not. The only pickles come from the position you've put yourself in to Mike. Go to the whole burger and leave the condiments out of it, they're matters of personal taste.

This says it all as to Deut.... Wordwolf, it's so obvious isn't it, but Mike steers around it. In my example of 1968, VPW notes copyright and states nothing can be reproduced without permission. That statement has NOTHING to do with anything about someone copyrighting it and preventing the Way from running it. It has to do with keeping anyone else from reproducing it and using it, and who "owns" it.

Who told you that Mike? All of the Way PFAL tapes and films carried the same copyright notice on them, to "The Way Inc." or "The Way International". Check your sources. The notice I quoted above is from the print syllabus, front page, which were from the first syllabuses printed for the class in 67. There are a lot of myths that circulate amongst old grads, second hand stories that VPW said this or that to so and so. Invoking copyright didn't start in the 70's, 80's or 90's. As to Deut. 29:29, if that were the case then we would never need to invoke copyright. Look at your statement as to that myth of why it was copywritten - that being the case it would be within the right of anyone to use any material in PFAL in whole or in part or in fact to reproduce it, change a few parts to reflect what was considered to need correcting and reissue it under the same name if they wanted to. It belongs to God, the material isn't VPW's or "The Way Inc". Everyone would have the right to do that amd to prevent someone from doing so would contradict Deut. 29:29 then. Backing up to plagarism, the definition, again: Plagiarism is the act of copyright infringement, that is, using another person's work without giving credit or obtaining permission. It is tantamount to stealing. ----- Giving credit or obtaining permission. It may be that VPW knew that approaching B.G. Leonard directly for permission about the RTHST sections of the last segments, he would be denied and so he went ahead and did it anyway. He could have made the same case you're making to do that - "it's God's Word, B.G. doesn't own it, I don't have to ask him or get permission". But leaving that as untended business wouldn't settle the issue. Giving credit is basic to copyright law, it's simple, basic and honest. I believe it lines up quite well with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Don't take what's not yours. Jesus taught to give to Caesar's what's his and to God what's His. He didn't teach do whatever you damned well please if it suits you. Life has order. You have the opportunity to live peacably with all men, take it. Copyright law goes back to the 1790's in the U.S. The purpose was to recognize and protect the freedom to express ideas and information. In a sense it recognizes these as "inalienable rights" of the individual, the recognition of ownership at the time of creation. In other words it attempts to formalize something that is believed to already be in force. In effect a person doesn't have to have formal registration to have those rights, "by rights" they have them already. Infringement can happen simply if previous material existed. In reality it recognizes an honor system by restating in law what should already happen amongst honest people - Credit and accounting be made for the work of another by not claiming or giving the appearance that it's your own. The most universal application of this recognizes that to be the most honest, you cite sources and give credit when in doubt or if there is any question. You err on the side of caution. What this has to do with the content of PFAL is substantial. One view says "it's still God's Word so it doesn't matter". Another view could say that given the law it would be easy for a person to take SOME of another's work, parts of it and change it just enough so that it can't be challenged. Taking small portions could pass, changing a word, a term. Taking a phrase and using it in your own material. It has a lot to do with respect too. If a person doesn't respect a persons rights they can see, will they respect a Gods instructions who they can't see?

This information isn't new, it's been kicked around in these discussion about plagarism before, but I think they bear looking at. Here's some things that come to mind: If - we define the "biblical truths" on which a class or book that teaches about them draws from as being the "ideas and information" then those truths being expounded aren't copyrightable. This follows with Mike's interpretation of VPW's work and approach - the information itself is owned by "God". And if - we define the expression of those ideas and information as being inspired and "authored" by God then they aren't copyrightable by anyone else. Not me, Mike, VPW or anyone. If the truths are God's and the "reissuing" of those ideas in the written and spoken forms of PFAL are God's, I can't claim copyright. But if - I did copyright them or invoke copyright protection in any form, it would indicate I claim ownership of the expression, either whole or in part. So if - I did, it would also indicate that I am claiming that that specific form of expression for which I claim copyright is "original" and is mine. If VPW had the same concept of ownership that Mike does, would he ever have claimed copyright to PFAL? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. We could argue an esoteric view that "God" doesn't deal with copyrights or plagarism, that those things are the product of man's views of ownership but that would mean that a person who holds to that view simply wouldn't cite copyright-they'd never use the © in relation to their works. Using it says that there is some recognition of it being an original work owned by the person. Copyright law does state that limited portions of another's work can be included in a new work. How much is legal depends. If challenged, it can be settled in court. I personally think that VPW knew very well that he was lifting portions of other's work and putting it in his. He may have felt it was the best way to state it and so he would use it. I think that's why explicit, clear recognition of the source material would be absolutely necessary if he was going to claim copyright on his new work. It would be the most honest thing to do and would allow his own work to stand on it's own. If what he did was pull together various pieces of other's work and "put it all together" it might have actually qualifed to be a "compilation" in the same way a packaging of certain songs or stories can be put in to a new collection. The collection is copyrightable but the original works contained in it are recognized as owned by the original authors. Given his description of himself as someone who "put all of this together" that would have worked fine. By invoking © he had an obligation to reconcile his work and his position on the source material in it I think, clearly and directly.

Couple points about copyrighting that I think could bear on this topic: The PFAL syllabus of 1968 says this on the cover sheet: "Power for Abundant Living with Dr. Victor Paul Weirwille Copyright, The Way Inc., 1968 No part of this work may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher The Inc. Box 328 New Knoxville, Ohio 45871 U.S.A" The oldest PFAL book I received says on the inside: © 1971 The Way Inc. All rights reserved Published 1971 Just look up the definitions and you get this from the government site: Definition of a copyright : Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works. What copyright protects : Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. Who can claim copyright : Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Who is an author? Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. What can't be copyywritten? a brief statement: Ideas or concepts. Copyright protects the expression of the idea, but not the ideas themselves. This is easier to understand if you remember the goals of our Founding Fathers – to reward creations, but protect the free flow of ideas and information.

I remember Trancenet, it was closed but viewable when I found it. Wrote somebody there, forget the name. Saw the acronym TWI was being used and searched for that. Got The Welders Institute, not much else. Ran in to Waydale, and so on. I don't remember what year, I think WayDale'd been up a few months before I found it.

Whew! Thanks JT. I had my administrations mixed up! Forgot my time sequences! I'd hate to think my personal devotions and penances have been for naught! :D-->

I thought it was Excathedra. --> Have I been worshipping in vain?

Interesting points, Sky. I seldom use the word nostalgia in relation to what I discuss about the Way because it implies a longing for something past, a pining for it if you will. "Oh they were good days and I wish they would come back and it could be like that right now." On Waydale I started a thread once where the topic was a spin off of why the Way has shrunk so in numbers and so many people have left. My observation to make was that for my part, there were a lot of great people and experiences in the Way years that I was involved and that good people are a huge asset. Really, a no-brainer. That component of some very unique and caring people was one of the things that was integral to the Way's growth. That component was denigrated and diminished by Way leaders more and more because they stupidly assumed that it was the biblical teaching and knowledge alone that had real value. The value of the real, living, breathing people was relegated to the least important. "It's the word of God that endures, not people!!!" all of that attitude. The results speak for themselves. Treat people like trash and they'll stop coming. Eventually you end up with a population whose values are, in a word, non-human. And proud of it. Posting that with examples as I did caused some posters to wag their heads in disgust at the sorry "nostaglia" for the good old days. "Sad sad, so sad". Which completely misses the point. My life is made up of a huge library of experiences, people, events, education, etc. etc. The fact that I was in the Way for a period can't be changed now, and everything adds to that library of experiences I've lived, good or bad. It accumulates whether I like it or not. The things I've done and learned include good and bad, it's really simple. I'm guess I'm about out of steam on these GS discussions as I think about it. It happens about once a year and it's amazing to me that since Waydale it's been a few. Sooner of later if I stop I'll have fonder memories of it later. Not that I'll be nostalgic for it of course. :D-->