Rocky

The did mention this during the first round... The guy was amazing. I wonder if his shoulder's sore today...

Have you contacted state's attorneys in Idaho, Colorado and Kansas to let them know you have some folks for them to prosecute? Or do you have some other plan to see to it that these "criminals" (here at GSC) are brought to justice?

Thanks for the humor Hap! However, in a PM, Bumgarner told me he has had me on ignore, along with those others... so, apparently he's making that statement without even reading things that ANY of those he named had posted.

Was it earlier on this thread where someone asked if it was acceptible for a person to have multiple screen names for this site, even if it was not for the purpose of getting around a suspension? I believe Pawtucket responded with a simple, direct, "NO." It might have been on the Where's Bumpy thread... anyway, I just saw that there are several people with birthdays today (July 14). Three of them might be the same person. Hills Bro is Hills Bro. But he has said before that his business is as a carpet cleaning contractor. That could be the same as a "ProRug Sucker"... and if his first name (or nickname) is "Jimbo" then it's possible all three of them are the same person. I don't know if that's the case, but it sure looks like it could be...

Adversity can do that to a person!

Wow... I'm so sorry you guys had to go through that. Dooj is soooooo right, there were MANY victims, not just the women seduced into adultery by malignant narcissists and their self-justifying false doctrines. And I'm VERY glad your son was able to regain his life, much better than it had been before.

HEY! Any of you guys ever heard of this kid, Josh Hamilton? :blink: (just kidding, I know Tom stRanger has had him in his sights this year) 28 HRs in round one!?

It would seem to me that the only one who could say whether WD had been in the WC or not is WD... This is NOT first hand testimony. Let's get (regain) some perspective here friends. Look, I don't know you from Adam (or Eve)... And it's quite obvious you don't know me. It's also obvious you don't READ many posts here. But you've been corrected more than once on where I stand regarding wierwille. STOP it. Or would you just rather we all have the impression that you are a moron?

Now THAT'S exciting baseball! Hey! I heard that!!!!

I realize I'm being picky about semantics. And essentially I agree with you P-Mosh. But there's a significant difference between "made mentally ill" and "harmed by." At minimum, use of the expression "harmed by" puts the focus where it belongs, on the fact that the ramification was caused by the action of those who did wrong. As to the "until they are beliggerent..." well, the example of the conduct of the poster on these threads over the weekend... was not a person claiming the harm to her had been done by wierwille or others in twi.

There's a time and a place for everything. On some issues, voicing disagreement does equal being disruptive. It appears people are saying that there is a legitimate need here for twi sexual abuse victims to express themselves without being hassled in return. That does not make this a hate site.

Apparently you haven't read far enough... Kris Skedgell is a REAL person who posts here using her REAL name. She wrote a book about her experience. She has been interviewed by pawtucket for two GS radio interviews... what more do you need?

Hey Skyrider, I appreciate your perspective on this...

Not only that, but he (it) has been doing so with posts addressed to someone else... btw, mental health professionals have a term for the type of conduct you described... and that term represents a classic/standard personal emotional defense mechanism.

Excellent point Dooj... Not ONLY that, but long time LA County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder the paperback edition was published in February of this year. This seems to say that a real live PROSECUTOR can call someone a MURDERER, not simply an ALLEGED murderer, even when a criminal jury does not return a verdict of guilty. That would seem to put to rest that fool's claim about wierwille... the fool that introduced THIS particular MURDERER as the example of his point that we should not say wierwille is guilty of raping young women. okay, it did not introduce OJ (Abi did).

That's simply WRONG. This is NOT a court of law. Have you provided ANY reference, legal or otherwise to back up this bogus claim that it is not proper to refer to someone as guilty unless they are found guilty by a court of law? It is a forum where people can express their thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences. As such there is NO WAY you can tell a person she is wrong and have it mean anything but that you are attacking that person. YOU, by definition, CANNOT define the terms of that person's experience, nor can you define the conditions under which she should be limited or prevented from expressing those thoughts and feelings about that experience. You are apparently incapable of the kind of honest self-examination necessary for you to be able to "get it." However, you still need to STOP harassing victims for telling their own stories. Screw wierwille (figuratively). And no matter how much you deny it, this IS about you defending wierwille. You just use the structure of the American justice system to describe your objections... but your descriptions are without merit regardless.

WD... How many times do you have to have it spelled out for you? THIS is not a court of law. THIS place does NOT provide rights for wierwille. And YOU are doing something markedly different than what you claim is being done to you. YOU harass victims of abuse. Of course, these are self-identified victims of abuse. But their self-identification does NOT negate their experience. OTOH, you come here and only claim that you are being abused by those who demand you stop abusing victims of abuse in real (non-cyber) life. And without question, you avoided really answering waterbuffalo's questions. YOU need to STOP harassing victims of abuse. Perhaps, if YOU do so, then you will see a dramatic decrease in what you claim is improper treatment here by others against you. What do you have to lose...? Have you given any thought/reflection to what I posed as my theory?

Yes, for a long time the Catholic Church tried to hide the scandals. Eventually, they had to change direction and face the music. It took persistence on the part of the victims, tremendous persistence. Yes, for a long time, the victims of the priests were treated with similar disrespect and disbelief. They persisted, as a group anyway. The scandals that church faced were pervasive. The practices by wierwille/martindale and perhaps some others were amazingly too common. Because of the persistence of a few, twi has had to deal with some of it. Martindale's personal ministry was destroyed by his horrible acts, that he apparently learned from wierwille.

I appreciate you pointing that out. In fact, I can recognize progress with OM in that he has acknowledged (conditioned on pawtucket changing the rules) the need to allow victims to tell their stories without challenge...

Really, I don't care if they defend wierwille either... just not anywhere near where a victim of abuse is telling her story.

You need to get the point whether the explicitly stated rules change or not. It's not something I'm making up... I'm just summarizing what too many people have been trying to tell you for a long time. Don't blame pawtucket for your behavior. Believe what you want to believe. Just STOP DOING (challenging the victims) it.

Indeed. However, I'm still pessimistic on this point. It appears OM and WD consider it their mission to defend a dead man. They don't appear to be capable of recognizing the actual person who is alive and needing to express/relate/tell her story. To them (WD and OM), it appears the wierwille's victims are THINGS that are challenging their world view. When that world view is threatened, they MUST respond or (figuratively) die. I wanted to be able to say that they (OM and WD) probably view wierwille as a person, as opposed to a thing, but if I'm correct about their mission, wierwille is also just an object. That object representing something in themselves that will die if they don't succeed in subverting the testimony of the victim. And for the record, this is just a theory of mine, not a diagnosis/conclusion.

There is NO rebuttal. NO, that's NOT what anyone wants. NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE. It's your ACTIONS that are at issue. Your conduct is inappropriate. NOBODY cares what you believe. This is NOT about beliefs. It is about what you DO. Of course, you are entitled to your own beliefs and interpretations. You are NOT entitled to express them in challenging a person giving her own testimony. There is NO issue of "facts presented."

You may not have been able to say it better, but it clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what the issue really is. Wierwille (only capitalized because it's the first word of my sentence) has NO rights. His victims (even when SELF-identified) DO have rights. Defending wierwille is a fool's mission. It is completely unacceptable to challenge, in any way, a person giving her personal testimony of abuse from/by wierwille. This is NOT an issue of agreement or disagreement. One cannot (CANNOT) tell a person that she is wrong when she is giving her own testimony of what happened to her. Period. By definition, when OM or WD try to do so, THEY are the ones who are wrong. Generally, by virtue of rules of rhetoric, I suppose debating the definition of the term "rape" is not a personal attack. However, in the context of how it is used by OM, to challenge a person telling her own story, it IS indeed a personal attack. Which, is what I believe Abi's point was. Right. Just don't do it. anywhere on the site. You are STILL only RATIONALIZING AND EUPHAMIZING when you characterize your posts at issue as "a contrary opinion." YOU cannot define a person telling her story as being WRONG. There is NO contrary opinion. You are ONLY defending a dead man, which is a fool's mission.

Nobody is demanding anyone believe anything. However, there is NO legitimate use for "checks and balances" against personal testimony. NO one (meaningfully) can say "you are wrong" to someone who gives an account of what happened to herself. Wierwille has NO rights here. He is dead and gone. Those who defend (his APOLOGISTS) him are NOT serving god, even though they might think they are. However, wierwille's victims DO have rights.