socks

Redressed - yes! A better word for a better understood process. Sort of a smarmy mix of excreta and paste, formed to insure the original ingredients maintain texture and integrity. I like it. That's the living freaking truth.

Hey peace to you too DWBH! EST - yeah, EST. http://www.rickross....andmark269.html "EST". EEEEEEST. EST. I read about "Landmark" recently, a real milestone gem, that one, by the sounds of it. John Juedes has a very succinct writ upon the wonder that is Momentus, or Breakthough or Brokeyourback or whatever it's called now. http://www.equip.org...hrough-momentus Momental is basically reboiled bulls--t, although John J puts that in better language than the baser sort of rank swill laden phrases I'm thinking. It's a good read. The many sides of the man, the myth, the mothra: http://dantocchini.com/my-websites/ He might want to drop flyers over Hiway 29 and Weirwille Road with this one - http://www.accd.org/ the foot ociation for Christian development. They deserve each other's efforts. These Slick Willies all find each other, sooner or later, I've noticed. Guess it's like gravity and possibly the way that greatest of modern inventions - literally one of the all time Top 10 Great Ideas of Modern Man - works and that's of course The Toilet. Now there's an idea that's worth a weekend and 500 bucks. That'll be one hecka toilet but hey - do we deserve any less? But yes, the toilet, the way water inevitably, inexorably and without the slightest bit of additional effort, swirls and flows and draws together the gook and well, flushes it out. That my friend is a metaphor worth giving at least 30 seconds to. Like a great spinning swirl of universal inevitability it all comes together and joins the clean with the filthy and sends it on it's way to become recycled, over and over and over and over.Different form, different name, cleaned up and spiffy sparkling and new but still pretty much recycled hmmm....stuff.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/455Z161u1Uc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Hr9T44Vyx7M?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/it1krjmG-aI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> oh yeah.... <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B9wbumIKJJ0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Limbaugh on crack reads like Rick Warren on meth by comparison to anything that I, socks, write. I haven't even gotten started on what I REALLY think of the oozey anal drip of Momentus and it's afterbirths but needless to say - I'm agin it. Why? Because it runs counter to all known and unknown principles of productive human engagement and would probably benefit going back to prototype stage and testing for an intended use within colonies of angry mutant squid who could use enhanced tools and methods for tearing open the carcasses of dead whales prior to feasting on the putrified blubber. That's just one suggestion, I have more.

"Have they ignored the scriptures in Timothy and Titus (New Testament) that clearly state that an elder or bishop must be the husband of one wife?" I think Schoenheit's got a youtube video that explains that in great detail - something about how the original Greek actually reads "one wife at a time".

Dan Tochini's "Momentus" and other hot air propositions are a load of badly packed sputum delivered by a smiley faced lung whose mental interior is coated with the black tar of years of smoke. He's reinvented his spiel over and over, now into corporate-speak-personal-trainer-success blather. His intellectual visage moderately resembles a an undernourished possum's private parts wrapped in a condom sheet cake frosted with you-don't-wanna-know. If he would stop using the word "Christian" I wouldn't mind, but since day 1 in Sonoma County and then fanning out across the land, where now-L.A. I think - he's been on this mission to help others by bastardizing the message of Jesus Christ - where'd it come from and what qualifies his iluminations of grandeur to be worth cash money - is a good question. He, Loynn, Greaser - they deserve each other. Sales, baby. Sell it and they will buy. Back to a kinder gentler thread...........I just don't like to miss a chance to pack the search engines with a reference to Dan Tochini.

If Lay said it, consider the alternatives. Like if Lay said "the world is round", check it with a level. Just a thought. Yes, my own reaction to Spigrong's work is one of a reaction to his shoddy research - which isn't really any kind of research work at all but rather an imaginative narrative-on-a-theme that reads more like the lost 4th book of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy that explains exactly what the relationship of the Nazgul were to Sauron's illegitimate Orc spawn and if they survived into the next Generation of Men long enough to make it to the south Pole as has been postulated but which I personally think is PREPOSTEROUS, I mean come on, really?? ??. But also for me the topic of Paul and his various inclinations kinda requires a different way of looking at the available information (somewhere around here roams an Invisible Dan who is not often seen but sometimes heard who could speak to the relative layers of the man we know from these records as "Paul" , but not sure if ID is on prem). Some of the N.T. books attributed to him are most likely not written by "him", whoever that person of the books was - but rather are compliations written by later scribes. So who knows, maybe they thought he was gay.... you know, or maybe they were gay. There's no lack of gay possibilities and angles to consider here. Maybe I'm gay, thinking I'm not but really am, because I think I'm not, so oh sure, what better way to hide the secret message of my gayness than not thinking I am when I really am. Who'd've thought? Really, there's a lot of work to be done in the maybe-coulda-been category, lotta work my friend. No less inspired is the bible however, having said that, as frankly and IMO - we don't know "Paul" any better than we would know Rabbi Bob Scribe or whoever. I create a character profile and humanity from the information but as much as I feel a closeness to "Paul" and clarity into the humanity of the records I read.......it's really just information. I believe the true characteristics of the truth of the records can still open to us however and the "truth is out there" or in there, as you prefer. Either way and no matter what, I stand on the veracity of the scriptures and the truth of the accuracy of the original - Paul was NOT a goy. The evidence is clear, the vote is in and the tally is hmmm, tallied and stuff. No way he was a goy.

"Maybe, but in cases where an outsider is harassing you, a well placed cuss word could be exactly what is needed. " (Not in my world, the exact opposite of what you're implying is more likely) But....actually I think you've made a solid case for temperance with your examples. Now, let's avoid knee jerk reactions to the word "temperance". Moderation, forbearance, consideration and thoughtfulness - we've seen those words used thus far in this thread....I'm not talking about prohibition, why we should all be able to drink anything we want or the time someone drank a bottle of vodka and saw God. "Temper" our words and actions, mix in balancing elements to keep our words and actions on an even keel so as to be able to avoid extremes of anger and/or violence. Pretty much in our American culture today - not when our grand daddies plowed soy bean in the front 40 or 2000 years ago in the middle east but today - swearing, profanity, cussin', toilet talk, bad words and nasty language, that stuff - is used in different ways to mean different things, I think we all agree. When it's associated with, used with, attached to, an extension of - a confrontational situation, like say anger or conflict of some kind, it tends to - and this in America today not 30 years ago in Adolffs or while I was a WOW in Boote Kamp, Idaho or somewhere - but today.....it tends to capture and escalate that confrontation, that anger, that bad cha cha goin' on. Not everytime, not always without fail as if it were a principle like gravity or believing if I SIT and sit just right the clock will tick faster....but pret' near most of the time - If two people start cussin' at each other in anger, it's going to continue and potentially escalate the situation. Like being thirsty and drinking water - hmmm that's good, I'll have more the thirst is going away the more I drink the water. but now I gotta pee - y'know? It's not quantum physics. The angry curse words of profane origin and nasty badness feed the situation as it is. I think. IMO. To me, based on 60+ years of observation and participation. Crowley noted "do as thou wilt". I wilt to temper my verbal and physical and language to pursue a balance. I get angery, wiff off a choice word here or there. I don't try to baddass anyone like that these days - like the women in the parking lot, if you're staring down a barrel, well, more likely today, feeling a ping in the side of your neck before you black out - it's just not a good way to go. I live a pretty mellow life, overall. But as we all know, geez - there's 12 year old girls with black belts now all over the place. Tack some smack the wrong time, you're likely to be eating sneaker for lunch. I'm a lovah, not a fightah, but push come to shove I'm not going to get into a swearing festival with somebody or play spank-the-horsey for 5 minutes, it's going to have to be a drop-'em-now kind of deal, I'm too old to blow hot air posturing ans swearing at each other. That just seems lame. The Wayfers - ? Sequestered in a protected insulated world, inside/internal bullying and baddassing - totally different. And insulting, even for a thick skinned weel wart like me. Hey, if they can't take a little ribbing, f-k 'em. :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

"Personally, I think articles like this are only intended to try to "normalize" homosexuality by attaching the label to our most revered heroes. " I agree. The effort to find a biblical character and make the case they were homosexual is so transparently forced. I don't begrudge the effort nor the interest. The screwy part to me is when a guy like Sporng admits he has created a scenario, one he admits is unlikely, and has overlayed it on the biblical records and then calculated results from it. He validates it as if he's mapping a trip to Canada from Arkansas as "go north thataway till you see snow" and then when he hits snow in Minnesota says "outta the car kids, we're here". In the Cotton Candy Land of I'm Right If I Think I Am.....he'd be in Canada alight, just not everyone else's Canada. Put another way it's hard to come back from somewhere you've never been. So goes Spaang. I agree that as a man of his background and training he knows better, he'd have to be aware he's winging it so I do wonder what his agenda is and what he gains from it. The other buggy thing about the whole broader discussion of this topic is that if one disagrees, they'll be labelled "haters" by some, and not having the "love of God" of by others. If one disagrees they're "yelling" at others and have "pride". :blink: Very weird, very weird. The understanding we have who "Paul" was is likely a composite understanding anyway with a few specific things known from Acts and Galatians. Focusing on "him" as if he were a person to be understood by every word attributed to him in the N. T. .... not a good idea IMO. Those who want Paul to be gay will make him gay. Fine. Frankly, respecting other points of view - ? Yes, but I don't respect everything and anything regardless of what it is. I'll listen to it once but if an idea or point of view seems whack to me, I'm not going to respect it, sorry. I'll try to be nice, and be respectful to the person but not ideas that are ill founded, indefensible and hmmmm, rather incoherent to begin with. What can I say? Just being honest.

Hmmmm.....flies hovering..... Language is a form of human communication and contact, a verbal gesture if you will. Basically, more or less but mostly more. We impact others externally through our language, communicate our thought and intent. Words that signify force - think about it. It's tempting to think that an aversion to "swearing" is an outcome of religious convictions but I don't think so. "god damm (sp)".... The "n" word.....one of the most volatile words in our language, today. I can guarantee there's no religious ties to how that would be interpreted by most people today. No religious convictions are required to demand that language reflect respect for others. Me, I'm not "afraid" of using certain words but I would use certain words carefully so as not to offend others unnecessarily. Living peacefully with others? How I speak and communicate is something I control - if I use language that will insult or offend others that's not acting responsibliy.... Unless I want to insult and offend. In that case, I get what's expected. The practice of swearing by Wayfer "Leaders" - an ignominious practice. Stupid, unnecessary and wihtout merit. There's no excuse for it, if there is I'd like to hear it specifically and how it benefited those involved. Say on, all who would.

More serious percussion, Steve Jordan skinning it, some snappin' guitar and of course, the great Jimmy Johnson bearing gifts of xxx rated bass. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/naUdueljRas?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes, I was a seeker, sought Him both night and day. Asked the Lord to help me, He showed me the way. <br><br> With assistance from some mighty fine singers and the great Jimmy Johnson on bass, Taylor tells it nicely. <br><br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ifEUn1AxDYo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And to add - VPW would shoot off about anything that got under his craw.....at the Way Nash, on Corps Night, The Woods, or in meetings there or on the field. Sometimes it was fine, sometimes it seemed like he was just goin' off as we say, for no good reason, because his pride had taken a hit or was just being vindictive. Generally he was short on the use of profanity but knew how to make a comment sting or cut. An interesting case study there. He could be insulting and offensive without ever dropping an "F" bomb, or a S--t storm. Whatever the case he NEVER went to completely external audiences and spoke or taught. His presentations were always in-house, planned and run by Way representatives. He'd pretty much always say whatever he wanted to anyway regardless but I think it's good to remember that he always did internal facing teachings and meetings, speak to Wayfers and their guests.

To sort out the red herrings from the sushi - Defining "swearing" from the bible doesn't relate to the topic directly or even indirectly. I guess there's some historical fuzz that informs the modern use of the word 'swearing" when it's used to mean what we might loosely call "bad words" but the fact that the biblical definition of swearing to an oath is different than.......well, it's a silly point IMO. As an adult I try not to allow or disallow what I do or say based on what someone else does or doesn't do or say. Ya gotta set your own standards be they from the bible, or whatever, understand what you do and why and then act thoughtfully. I missed most of the Cuss Bucket era of Craig's. He was straight as an arrow language wise when I first met him and for years after. Maybe this reflects an area he was being told he need to "loosen up in if he was really going to minister to God's people". :biglaugh: Obviously it was successful as he's been cursed to he ll and back by more people than I'm sure he ever thought possible. Mission accomplished. If this is still happening at the Way it's only because it's a captive audience. They can hide at the Way Nash and do whatever they want. They can rub possum pe e on their waffles and eat them with their toes. In public? Different story, isn't it? It's a social cultural thing IMO, and what the words mean and are intended to mean when they're said. Using certain words in contexts where the people around are offended.... DUH. Only a boorishly oafish gumball would insist on using language that is offensive to his or her audience. As if to say, I'm going to offend you by this language I'm using and that's GOOD, because I'm making a point.....or I should be free enough to say whatever I want.....or hey, YOU are the weirdo being offended.......or....or.....or..... At the end of the day - if someone insists on using language offensive to their audience, they get what's coming to them. It should come as no surprise to anyone that if you pull out the stuff like that you know that will shock or insult someone - guess what - You're going to get what's coming to you.

Boop bip bip boop bip bip, yeah. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PStzQW6XVkM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Must be that time again. Still satisfies in the way that only an absolutely crystalline moment of authentic clarity can, give or take. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao-Sahfy7Hg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wasn't all that long, but it was worth the wait. Same one for a long time now. <br> <br> <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Fme0YpQMW5o?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't know about anyone else but that's the first time I've seen that idea for using a tag for that...........awesome. If this is something completely new, cheers, kudos and the next free Beer is on me. Very very cool! /sarcasm on/ ..........That's really funny. Thanks. I wish there were a tag like that that would render a universally accepted text enhancement - maybe wavy italics. What would "droll" look like? It's an interesting proposition, what would a sarcasm font look like? There's a gazillion fonts as it is - there must be something that would work or something that would catch on. Good topic, and would agree.

That's why I do kinda prefer "Genius Love Diety", as I completely understand what it means and frankly can agree wholeheartedly any time it's applied to me. It's the only one like that though. There used to be an animated show in TV - "Dinosaurs" - really funny, in the tradition of the characters and plot of The Flintstones and The Honeymooners from years ago. The "family" had male and female parents, and three children including a Baby, named "Baby". The father had a name, "Earl" but whenever Baby would talk to the father he'd call him "Not the Momma". Which I thought was a really ingenious use of a name that was more than a label or reference, but a really cool view into Baby's understanding ot it's world. What's this got to do with fundamental names and labels? Nothing. Or maybe............everything. Or maybe nuttin'. Or maybe everything.

"I suggest you repeat the experiment of looking at you extended thumb, first through one eye, and then through the other. How can you draw the logical conclusion from these two images alone that your thumb is not actually in two different places?" Hmmm....how I am able to do that is what makes them non-contradictory. The same ways I know I'm not not you or someone else, for that matter. When I look in a mirror, how do I know there aren't two of me? Or are there....? Sometimes that guy's a little leaner around the edges...he may be happier. It's hard to say. But I'm definitely not buying into the way he dresses. I dress snappier than that. My purpose wasn't to go into a Webster-war, rather to observe my impression of what seemed to be how "contradiction" is being discussed here in context. That's a moving target too, as expected in discussions. And this is a good one, I'm enjoying the read. I'm sure there's also many nuanances to the meaning of that word, many many many. Labels?..... are pretty limiting, I try to draw the line there. "Fundamentalist" means nothing to me, I don't even know how to apply it. I probably should but I don't travel enough in these circles to use it or even hear it used, unless I'm around it's use, as in TV, media, etc. I suppose anyone who would call themselves by that term would know what it meant but to someone like me it would still reguire explanation. Most other labels too IMO. Although I always accept "Genius Love Diety" if it's forced upon me.

Robes! Yes, the robes, the robes. I got one, a gift from the finest folks any fellow shipped with, and it was much appreciated. While I appreciate the need for formal settings, it got kinda tweezey in this category the last few years I was around. It had been moving that way for a long time and finally got to where it was going, the apex being a couple hundred men and women promenading through the Big Top Tent at Corps Week like a flank of lost Druids hired to perform in the Wapakoneta Drama Queen Production of the Magical Waltz of the Walnuts. Or something. For me those Corps ceremonials were always something that were really really good. As soon as they were over. An indulgence granted begrudgingly but hey, it was a small price to pay for the privilege of sitting on a hard metal chair in a stinky tent, sweating under 10 pounds of gray and black fabric. Who wouldn't like that? Coco may have had the best deal going though - good food, good treatment and none of that "chase the stick" stuff Tic was always into. All Coco had to do was fluff it up and stay out of the way and 'sall good.

Back in the day, there was a kind of medieval formality for formal meetings, "etiquette", protocols, etc at the Way. You'd see the wives of various luminaries, "Trustees", "cabinet staff" at larger meetings with an "escort", someone to accompany them to the meeting because, I dunno, in some form of formal formalities that's what's done, women don't show up at an event alone, you see it in social events, political stuff, and of course presidential kinds of events and the VPster was El Presidente and things like that had a way of escalating in the Way as a sign of prestige and it also included other wives too. Given that VPW or Craig or whomever might be teaching, preaching or presentin' or otherwise be busy with incredibly important business that required their attention they couldn't be bothered with a spouse, too busy and important, so their wives would come to these larger events - picture opening of ROA or some large class - with someone to bring them to their seating and sit with them. An "escort". Harve was in fact her escort at Emporia, apparently to make sure that Mrs.W wouldn't have to walk from one place to another alone as in some alternate universe that would be inappropriate. Or I don't know, maybe she got lost easy. Incredibly quaint, unnecessary and out of place it was one of those efforts VPW made to try and bring the Way's status up to - I dunno, some level of importance he held in his mind I guess. To me, it kind of characterized that have a tea-party-ladies-that's-what-women-do 50's mentality that mixed into Wayfer culture and an effort to inform the activities with the same kind of hoo haw that the Big Boys do. Amongst a group of people who all basically knew each other it set a level of formality to events that seemed just - weird, to me, for want of a better word. Yet I suppose it had it's function and helped to up the game for all us neanderthals who could manage to get to things without a guide and just sit down and thought that was okay. The Coco Chronicles thread was a hoot, agreed.

I don't know that the Way didn't want that incident known, or did anything to hide it. Obviously it was a sensitive situation and I'd expect care would be given to the concerns of everyone involved. I don't remember much of the details around it however. To recap my own illustrious and vital opinions on this part of the discussion: How people handle their own business is a personal decision, of course. Every incident between people wouldn't be cause to call the police or find some civil authority to get involved to arbitrate or take control. There has to be some judgment involved and people have the privilege of making their own decisions about how to handle things. The law of the land applies to all - local, state and federal as well as whatever the social norms are in our own spheres of activity. When our actions fall outside those laws and standards we may well expect to encounter confrontation and enforcement, that's part of the system we live in and why we have laws and standards. They're not always fairly applied or even make sense in all situations - which is why it's always best to stay out of the gray areas as much as possible and certainly stay within the law of the land at the minimum. The Way had a closed corporation mentality to it's own problems and issues, for all of it's years. That' lack of outside influence is IMO a major reason as to why it failed and appears to continue to do so. They make the rules, they enforce them, or don't as they see fit. They're not accountable to anyone outside their own authority - they think - and that's how they act. They've always had an "us versus everyone else" mentality, where God is on their side and anyone who differs is on the "Devil's" side. That lack of connectivity to the outside world has created an environment that is what I'd call "high risk". It depends on the reliability and consistency of specific individuals, "leadership" and to a degree the individual member who makes decisions within the framework of doctrine that they're taught. When that fails - and it always does and always will at some point, the "weakest link" principle goes into effect and dominoes up and/or down the organization. There haven't been sufficient protections and back ups built into the system to reinforce failure when it occurs, instead they expect that if everyone believes God and everyone does the right thing as they've been instructed everything will be alright. Once we look at how all that sets up and works in real time, it can be seen to be VERY high risk and even dangerous. I'm not suggesting it's dangerous trusting in God, or using the Bible as our standard - but rather that The Way obviously doesn't have the ability to live that way responsibly and make it work. That's painfully clear by the snowball of conflict, problems and failure that have followed it throughout it's history. People do well sometimes, sometimes efforts succeed, there's good work done at times but overall, the foundations of how it works as an organization aren't sound enough to allow for measurable growth, progress and success. I doubt anyone outside of the Way Nash today would consider it a successful endeavor and anyone outside the Way Nash won't be allowed access into what they do, how they do it and who does what to either understand or contribute - so it's a running cycle of failure IMO. Good enough for those who don't get too involved and don't let them get too tight a hold on them. How this relates to the "WOW" program -well, my involvement was nearly 40 years ago - all of this regurgitation I'm coughing up is old fish wrap and doesn't really mean much of anything. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this now, to be honest. To theorize on how someone whipping out a pistol in a group and what would be the right thing to do - I dunno, I don't know if I would call the police to be honest. I might, it would depend on the people and circumstance. I can see some people would and that would be fine by me if they felt threatened - don't see how you couldn't feel threatened. Why would anyone think it necessary to do such a thing? Me, I can promise you then or now, it would get ugly real fast, once I'd disarmed the person. If I couldn't I'd get away from them. I don't treat that kind of thing lightly, never have, never will, it's not a joke or a social faux pas or a so-what deal. I'd do whatever I could to beat the crap out of them just on principle for doing such a stupid thing. I'm an old guy, I don't have the energy for anything that would take too long, it would be quick and conclusive, guaranteed. Put it this way - pull a gun in front of a Police Officer, just to make a point - and see what happens. Report back with the "war story" on that one and how it was appropriate and wasn't a problem. God - this is so interminably long I can't even remember what time I started. Why do I do this? Perhaps a smiley will pull it all together. Yeah, that works.

Interesting. Happy reading! About 5 minutes ago - and this is no joke, seriously - I was trimming my 'stache and the name "Harve Platig" crossed my brain. When those kinds of random thoughts cross my mind for no seeming reason, I simply pray briefly for it or the person and move on. If nothing sticks, that's it. So I did and that was it. I sat down and opened up GS, saw your thread and had to laugh myself. Reason - when I thought of ol' Harve I briefly remembered the nickname he had from certain mischiefs at The Way who shall now go unnamed, when he was Mrs. W's "escort" there for a spell, back in his Way Corps days. He had the curly hair look popular in the 70's and had cut it by that time, and the nick he got was "Coco with a tie"..........it never caught on but there was that blank lap dog look that kind of brought the Coc'ster to mind I guess. So then when I saw this reference I had to chuckle. Apparently the Coco Mind Meld lives.