Rocky

I don't know.

Clearly, WE don't understand why those commandments would make sense. My sense is it boils down to cultural necessity and/or irrational discriminatory views. Such is a big part of the reason I look at the bible as a collection of stories as opposed to something we could possibly benefit from taking a fundamentalist approach and parsing words in the original languages. In that regard, Wierwille may have reasonably recognized the necessity of understanding "orientalisms." But he didn't have enough data/insight/available information knowledge to make enough sense of any of it. In that regard, you have a valid perspective in that none of what you included makes any sense to us. Therefore, contemporary humans just set it aside rather than demanding it make sense before adopting it as a guide.

Empty head...

IOW, I hear and see you in your writings even when you don't spell it out in as much detail.

IOW, Mike's convoluting (and rationalizing) plenty of stuff because he isn't prepared to cope with realization he's full of $ hit. I have to wonder if he might benefit greatly from therapy like that described in Galit Atlas' book. Nevertheless, Oldiesman, I agree with your analysis of how Mike has put it back on God.

I appreciate your bullet points and agree that each is a part of Mike's emotional inheritance from his "father in da vurd."... that is, I don't necessarily need to read your explanations of the bullet points to understand.

OTOH, From Emotional Inheritance by Galit Atlas PhD, first two paragraphs of the last chapter (page 263): GSC can be, and is for some, a part of journeys to process some of our emotional inheritance. Then there's Mike, stuck in a purgatory of his own making.

I don't necessarily agree. Perhaps certain individual readers/posters might be. But not the community as a whole, IMO.

We DO have relevant scriptures which run counter to Mike's half-baked notions. i.e. the two greatest commandments. Matthew 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Why would anyone be tempted to jump on the hamster wheel with Mike? Does his vain babblings empower or enhance any reader's ability or desire to love God or one's neighbor? Just sayin'

Mike has been our resident TROLL for a full two-decades. He's addicted to GSC, perhaps because people actually still do get on the hamster wheel with him over and over. Charity, I wish you the best. And I appreciate your music selection.

Oh come on Mike. There's NFW YOU will be involved in compiling an accurate history anytime in the future. You demonstrate poor communication and self-management skills. You demonstrate impulsivity that consistently (or not) undermines your efforts.

Btw, doesn't Mike's take on "scarcity of miracles" sound a lot (or at least somewhat) like when (gullible?) people talk about UFOs, or perhaps one of hundreds (or more) conspiracy theories? As in, WhereTF is he coming up with these things? I refer readers to my comment about going off half cocked.

According to whom, or what?

To me, it sounds like Mike has nothing, either experience or data or scriptures, on which to base any claim of "scarcity of miracles."

Makes one wonder these days whether or to what extent ChatGPT will take over the world... or at least internet forums. I spoke with my 12 and 10 year old grandkids this evening and they know about AI and ChatGPT... maybe more than I do.

Why would you care what "the devil is" doing at all?

To me, it is/was no problem for you to have published the quoted definition. I found no fault in what you posted. I simply got more specific. I hope you do not find that to be a problem.

WHAT intended consequences has GSC/Waydale had on TWI? At minimum, as reported anecdotally, TWI operating procedures (written or unwritten) have demonstrably changed at least as a result of TWI perception(s) of risk of litigation. Anything else?

I reiterate, your conclusion (re GSC being a hinderance to something) is much to broad to be valid. IF you were to narrow your argument substantially to frame it solely in terms of YOUR EXPERIENCE rather than "evidence (not cited) these websites influence those people around our families" in twi, you MIGHT be able to make a valid argument for YOU being harmed by the incidental, and apparently unintended consequences of disclosures on GSC. But that's NOT what you've done heretofore.

This actually is a KEY claim made by our good friend Bolshevik. His beef with GSC has been contrary to THIS explicit claim. Unintended denotes NOT INTENDED. Gsc, however has had intended consequence for TWI. By definition, (if GSC was a person) the consequences which Bolshevik claims harmed him, were not the result of mens rea. Therefore, IF Bolshevik's harm was caused by GSC, it was incidental and not intended. Further, I argue (and conclude) Bolshevik's claimed harm, though perhaps tangible, was unforeseeable from the perspective of the more important purpose of shedding the light of truth and facts on TWI, an actual entity organized by law in the US. Additionally, with anything thus far disclosed or published on GSC, it is not possible to factually ascertain ANY intent on the part of anyone to use anything published on this website for "personal gain."

Who is "you?" The plaintiff, right? T-Bone's definition (as quoted) I don't think mentions malicious intent. But some or all state laws do.

What IS GSC according to your construct? BTW, you said, "The Way International is people." TWI is NOT people. TWI is a formal ORGANIZATION or ENTITY organized by laws of Ohio and/or federal government.

It sounds like you imply it's up to the plaintiff to prove malice. I would suggest if, in the jurisdiction (state) in which the legal action (lawsuit) is brought has a law subject to civil actions which requires proof of actual malice. That might be every US state, I don't know but it's likely. So then, is it up to the plaintiff or defendant to prove the statement at issue is false?

Okay. I can take that claim at face value. Why? Because I have no basis for evaluating what you can vs what you cannot "see." However, others HAVE said they "see" an overall positive effect of GSC. I realize in each case, the perception is subjective, unless there are data somewhere to provide basis for objective evaluation thereof.

You've tried to make this case for months. You have not made any sound argument. However, you have made clear ONLY how you view the situation. What you also have not done is demonstrated whether anyone around the "people using the information posted here did so for personal gain." Nor have you demonstrated whether GSC posters "have to fight the people around the people..." When you claim your post is clear to readers here, you step into Mike's shoes. Something written is not clear just because the writer says so. It can only be demonstrated to be clear if feedback provided by readers shows they understood what you intended to communicate.