Rocky

ALWAYS remember that.

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth. ---- Asking rhetorical questions does not qualify as gaslighting, as I understand it. I will explain this. Rhetorical questions are NOT me feeding you false information (or lies). They are for you to answer your own damn questions. And again, I don't take or obey orders from you. Did your parents ever explain that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?

Are you not aware of the mission of GSC?

Dude... chill. I don't try to control or give orders to you. I don't take orders from you. I don't have the foggiest idea why you get so upset. But if you want me to explain anything, please spell out how, why and what have I written/said that you believe I was untruthful or counterfactual.

There is NO reason I would feel threatened by you. Me lying? Really? Please just stop it.

This is NOT addressed to anyone specifically. But I believe it's related to forgiveness.

That is remarkably hostile projection, btw. How is your message going to help people trying to escape TWI? Oh, and who's criticizing whom? I'm confident, however, that you understood my message but just don't like it.

Your expectations about me constitute fantasy scenarios between your own ears. You sound like Mike when you accuse people of failing to read your mind. I read your words. When a reader fails to understand your intended message, why do you think it's because of anything other than you not conveying what you intended to convey. Really, you DO sound like Mike. But if you drop the tangential malarkey, I'll forgive you.

Now you expect me to figure out what will help you understand rhetorical questions? Come on.

Do you understand the concept of rhetorical questions?

On the topic of unenforceable rules, I was directed to a definition Fred Luskin included in his book, Forgive for Good. The definition is in chapter 5 of this book. I don't own the book, but you might be able to access it either electronically or in a paper or hardbound book at your local public library. The class (webinar) I referred to provided a including copies of the pages of chapter 5. I plan to read it later this evening.

Anyway, back to the subject of forgiveness, the other day I sat through a writing class on memoir. The topic of forgiveness was a major theme in the class. Associated therewith are the concepts of emotional boundaries and unenforceable rules. I asked a question to see if I could get further insight comparing and contrasting those two ideas. On boundaries, I was given this wonderful clip by Brené Brown. And many of us who read and/or share at GSC know one of the immense and egregious problems of TWI has been, from the beginning, lack of understanding of personal/emotional boundaries or just plain refusing to honor them based on whatever justification... like the social construct that we were somehow the "property of the king." Or otherwise weren't worthy of being given the dignity of having our own agency/choices.

I believe this exchange of yours and mine on this subject starkly (or not?) illustrates and illuminates the inherent limitation of communication without access to each other's non-verbal cues. i.e tone of voice, inflection, facial expressions etc. I only point this out for your readers and mine (likely only on this topic/thread) to hold in mind that we're inherently not contradicting each other or criticizing each other or otherwise INTENDING to cause any "negative" emotion. If I could devise a way for us to more fully communicate on GSC or any other online print only forum in ways that would be less likely to cause misunderstandings and be more likely to foster compassion and forgiveness... well, maybe I'd be able to get rich. Then again, that wouldn't be my goal/objective anyway.

Why would you think I'm telling or asking you to do what I WANT you to do? I posed a rhetorical question. It's up to you to decide what YOU want to do with what said question causes you to consider.

In case anyone would like further insight on forgiveness, I suspect the late Desmond Tutu knew something about it. The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World

For the record, I wasn't implying anything about your take on the groups. I believed and believe you. I was only putting my point/understanding in the context of my experience. Clearly those spin off groups, IMO, are parasites.

I recognized his voice right away. ROA 72 was 51 years ago. Amazing to consider. Salient to me in the first minute of Craley's soliloquy was his statement that news people would be there to try to understand the phenomenon which was TWI at that time. Of course, that was only the beginning of a much longer journey to understand said phenomenon. I'm thankful we have a MUCH better grasp of the issue/subject today than anyone in society was able to figure out (without becoming engrossed/engulfed) in the high demand subculture at the time. Not that we have a full understanding of it even still...

They may or may not require victims to forgive. I don't have any experience with any of them to be able to say one way or another. However, I believe they do knowingly suppress that particular information... and do so for the purpose of their particular offshoot not having to deal with the actual problem. That would require thoughtfulness, mindfulness, introspection and difficult discussions. Refusing to do so, IMO, makes each group enablers of emotional dysfunction. I reflect back to what our good friend Skyrider wrote about GSC being to first (and perhaps the only) place where the truth has been declared. Doing so allows individuals to have a face off with the evil which has harmed them emotionally and perhaps in other ways. Some readers here might recall that I have mentioned the recent movie produced by Frances McDormand and directed by Sarah Polley, Women Talking. AARP reported months ago Amazon would make the movie available for Prime members to view the movie for no additional cost. However, I put it on my watchlist at the time and it was, for IMO too long, available to watch with a trial free membership to some other channel/network by way of Amazon Prime. Long story short, when I looked last night, that qualifier had been dropped and NOW it IS available for no extra charge (or other contingency) for Prime members to watch. So, I watched it. I LOVED IT. It's not an action movie. But it does poignantly and artistically portray a necessary story about democratic (not partisan) group decision making. I love how the movie explores the internal workings of minds by way of words and body language (non-verbal communication). Of course, that's a dimension lacking with online forums. We can't look into each other's eyes, or adequately read the tone of each others' voices. Anyway, one of the main themes of the women's deliberations was forgiveness. You might love the movie too.

Great comment. Yet, is it OUR place to determine who is right? Well, that's obviously a VERY broad question. My current view is the responsibility for said determination is between every human and her/his maker.

Meh. I understand the words better but still find this group to be somewhat more inauthentic than the lovely people from Gabon. Bless their hearts.

To recap: The topic is NOT Victor Wierwille's teachings. It's not Loy C Martindale's teaching. What did Gandhi say? The topic is THIS

Are you asking STL for clarification???? Are you sure those are the only two possibilities?

So, I take it you're asking for clarification? I apologize if I implied that was something Dr Tyson suggested. I'm thankful you viewed the video multiple times. Not everything I've learned over the 37 years since I left Victor Wierwille's cult could possibly be included in or explained by even the most brilliant American astrophysicist.

Excellent reflection and introspection. Hmmmm... it's been 37 yrs so far for me... and I didn't get pushed as far as those kids had been.

No, I do not still buy that one. However, your post raises different questions. Reasonably so. I would hope TWIers who still believe could muster the courage and rational reasoning to respond. As to relying on con-men and hoaxsters to get the job done, it seems to suggest a negative response to you musing about whether "there is a Real God." Human history suggests many cultures believed in a god or gods. I would ask how and why there's so much variation throughout the millennia. Neal de Grasse Tyson has suggested answers to such questions. He's a smart and very thoughtful guy (scientist)