GarthP2000

DWBH, "Coward Allen" :biglaugh: Good one!

((shrugs)) Okay. (Putting away my 2 year old stale troll food)

Ya know, this just occurred to me. Evidently WD is endeavoring to practice law here, ... and isn't it true that (in many states) practicing law or impersonating a lawyer/attorney without a license is a felony? Or at least a misdemeanor? It's similar to impersonating a doctor or practicing medicine without a license, I think. In any event, why is it that a verbal testimony by a first hand/eye witness does not constitute evidence? ... Perhaps I can get an answer, and from a real attorney please. (Sorry WD, but you do not qualify.) And please spare us the "I'm not a Weirwille apologist" crap please, WD. ... Why do I say this? Because you have never, _ever_ gone, to this extent, in defending anyone else against 'false, spurious charges' like you have done for that stupid kraut Wierwille. ... Never! The man was a rapist. Among many other slimeball things. ... And I state that as fact. Don't like that? . . Sue me!

I can think of the perfect caption for Ron's son with the .357 Magnum and the downed tree. "Go ahead tree! Make my day!!"

Ahhh yes. That word does bring back the good ol' days of my youth.

Actually folks. Reading Oldies and What the Hey's posts are a lot like reading websites/blogs of NeoNazis and Holocaust deniers. The crap that they hold onto, and the _blind devotion_ to said crap, is so ..... ... out to lunch!

(... and other posts of the same vein) You know, some of you guys really crack me up when you act like there is an actual rule, law, regulation, or other enforced custom here at Greasespot Cafe stating that anybody who, at any time, gives a positive account of their experience at TWI, shall, without any hesitation thereto, be chastised, censured, banned, and otherwise evicted from these premises. ((Harumph! Harumph!)) Got a clue for ya. ... Never was any said rule, law, regulation, or other enforced custom here at the Greasespot. Never was, isn't, and (as far as I'm concerned) never will be. ... Period. So you can stop playing like you're the 'persecuted believer' ready to be thrown to the lions (as persuent to the American Society of Zoos rules and regs regarding the care and feeding of said lions) for your beliefs. And you can breathe easy, knowing that our Constitutional form of government is still here, and your freedom to express yourself re: TWI is still in force. (Despite having one ((cough))Dubya((cough)) in the White House. But that is a problem that shall end on Jan. 20th, 2009! )

Sorry Rocky, but I can find nothing agreeable in Oldies post. His is the same old, same old whitewashing the reputations of certain people who do not deserve such a defense. DWBH called it spot on.

NNOOOOOooooo........ Make her *STOP*!!!!! :redface: P.S., ya know, at first, listening to the thunderstorm, I thought it was gonna be the Doors' "Riders on the Storm". ...... .... then Claudette's voice brought across a much worse nightmare!! :ph34r: (((shudders)))

I wonder what his thoughts are re: Fred Phelps? Probably thinks that he is a True Believer. <_<

A PM to prove your point? As far as there being an actual Rule that expressing good opinions re: TWI go against the site agenda and are not allowed to be posted under threat? ... Ahh but because its a PM (ie., private message), you're going to honor their privacy. ... Uh huh. Sure. <_< ..... Well, when they want to validate their charge of said Rule (to prove your point, that is), then let them make that private charge public. Otherwise, all we got is your say-so. ... Ie., Hearsay. ... Ie., undocumented accusation. Oh, and no, it's not in the same category of the so-called 'undocumented' accusations against VPW, as the accusers in those situations personally experienced said situations, and have given their personal testimonies thereto (publically, I might add). AND since there are many others who not only have gone thru the same sort of situations, but others still who (like Ralph Dubofsky for one) have heard VPW himself own up to said situations, ..... You catch my drift? Like I said, ... Just let it go. (Egads! This is almost like arguing with a Holocaust denier! :blink: )

Whitedove whines--errr says in an earlier post, Hhmmmm ... okay. Well, since you are one who's so anal retentive for that biblical principle of having 2 or more witnesses are needed to make a charge stick, ... where is your 2nd witness that will testify to this Rule? Oh, and sorry, but opinions that this is the case doesn't make the cut as a viable 'witness' as, like you yourself said, everybody has opinions. A real witness testifies to documentable fact. As a matter of fact, you yourself have failed to document said fact about said Rule, as indicated by your usage of the word 'apparently'. ... Ie., you are only giving your ... opinion. Which you have a right to. ... But it is still, nonetheless, ..... opinion. But seriously, there has been FAR more than the required and biblical two witnesses given that accounts and proves the (now dead) Vicster's sexual abuse, (and its the kind of testimony that would be accepted at any court you want to name, be it related to a direct charge, or at showing a pattern of previous behavior by the defendant), that your (IMNSHO) purported loyalty to the biblical requirement of needing 2 or more witnesses to accuse is shown to be the scam that it is. A scam that is blindly loyal to to the reputation of one Victor Paul Wierwille. So take your own implicit advice. ... The man is dead. Like sleeping dogs, let him, and his now rotten reputation lie. .... And move on with your life. Have a nice day!

The joke being that there are (evidently) still some people who believe that 'Pope-was-gonna-buy-an-aircraft-carrier' claptrap. :blink: :unsure: <_<

S-o-o-o, ..... how about posting said article re: the Pope and the aircraft carrier here on the message board then? Either the whole article or, if its too long, the link to where it's stored? Not that I don't necessarily believe you outright, ... but I don't believe you outright. Why? Because if that actually happened where the Pope actually was going about shopping around for an aircraft carrier, ... well, you just can't keep something like that out of the news. ... Any news. Now, it could be that we're like a lot of other people, supposedly blinded by the 'drive by media' (gotta love ol' Rush! Such a sense of humor. ), and we never saw said proof of the Pope's wanting to build a navy. Well, this is where you come in. If you would be so kind enough to provide us with this article of yours (either by link or text), and this will clear everything up. Hopefully you'll see where a good number of us are coming from as regards this and other topics re: the Great Foreheaded One, and that its not necessarily from a standpoint of mindless 'screaming heebie-jeebies'.

I read this thread and I notice that the one thing that nobody (particularly the bible believing fundamentalists) will even consider touching is the possibility that the bible just might be wrong/flawed/erroneous/lacking in information as to its take on homosexuality. Ie., they read various scriptures as regarding homosexuality, and they take it as science. As irrevocable Truth that just cannot be challenged whatsoever. Particularly in dealing with homosexuality as an abomination. Why? And why this topic? ... Many of you bible believers have shown some flexibility (at least in your behavior in life) as regards other 'sins' mentioned in the bible. ... Gluttony. Adultery. Stealing. Dismissing the poor. Greed. Etc. (<-- Basically, if the shoe fits, wear it) A lot of fundamentalists give lip service at saying "Oh yeah! Those are sins too." but (when nobody at your church is looking) there seems to be more behavior that is tolerant of said 'sins'. But as far as homosexuality itself, aside from the obligatory goosesteppi--err I mean, mindles--ahh rather obedient loyalty to the "It Is Written" concept towards the Scriptures, ... how is it that homosexuals are indeed deviant (and I mean in a harmful manner too), immoral, a threat to the American Family, and where the allowance of homosexuality will spell the gloom and doom of our country as we know it!? Where is the solid evidence of all this? Again, sorry, but quotes from the bible just doesn't cut it, any more than using the bible as an 'alternative' science text dealing with the beginnings of the earth and the universe. <_< Please demonstrate the _facts_ that justify why homosexuals must be dealt with as tho' what they do is so harmful, or why homosexuals asking for _equal protection and treatment under the law_ somehow amounts to 'special rights'? Wordwolf, Rhino, et al, you guys whine--err talk about the 'uncivil' discourse in this thread, and maybe you're correct in the immediate sense, ... to a degree. But have you guys ever stop to think as to all the _real_ reasons why there are a lot of 'homo supporters' who bitch like we do as to this topic? Do you really think that its mainly due to us all shaking out collective fists at God and wanting to live a deviant, immoral, abusive lifestyle or to support those that do? Do you guys really think that we are just out to 'get you and persecute you' for your undying Christian faith? (Gad! Whatta bunch of drama queens you all are if that's the case! ) And frankly I think that a little dose of 'uncivility' is good in an open exchange of ideas. It's part of our human nature, and its part of a free society. And it's even sometimes part of the expression of opinions held by the so-called 'civil' people, especially when they are speaking that which they believe in. Keeps things from getting boring in any event.

77? ((ducking)) Have a good one, dude!

... and the fact that they portray environmentalism as a form of Marxism really escapes me. ... Like Karl Marx really wrote about how the proletariat would make the economy more green by overthrowing the (please pardon my pathetic French spelling) bourgeoisie capitalist running dogs? (Why can't the French spell like the English? ) Why, if you look _really_ close, you should be able to see the image of Karl Marx (or is it V.I. Lenin?) in the big red cloud. (Kinda like that image of that alien peeping into that guy's window. )

Ahhh but you see, that is where arguments like "You just gotta have faith" and "Its one of those spur-chal' things that you just cannot understand with your mind" comes into play. Makes things quite, uuhhmm, convenient, ... doncha think? ;) <_<

Straw man argument time, Caveman: Really? Like being an atheist is a 'Left' thing? ... As tho' there are no right wing conservative atheists? :unsure: Got the same kind of 'proof' for that? ... Y'know, similar to the 'proof' that your arm was miraculously healed? <_<

You mean 'PFoolish', doncha? ;)

Didn't Jimi Hendrix do a song about 'Purple Dayz'? Happy Birthday!

Gutless. Totally gutless! I notice how you focus exclusively on whatever (small) portion of responsibility that Wierwille's victims may have had, may have had, mind you. To the exclusion of any responsibility of the Vickster (or as little responsibility that you can get away with placing on him). Is what Wierwille taught in PFAL really worthy of these kinda of tactics, Oldies? Whatever it takes to prop up and defend/make excuses for his reputation, and as a result, PFAL's? ... Ie., would PFAL's validity (such that it is) really go down in flames (leaving you with nothing worth believing in), if you discarded VPW and his reputation like the trash that it is? Doesn't say much for the "integrity of God's Word" as taught by PFAL if that is indeed the case now, ... does it? <_<

Hhmmmm. So apparently, Oldies idol--errr 'godly example', wasn't as into Godly forgiveness as much as Oldies expects from the rest of us as regards our rendering of VPW. :unsure: And Nave clearly didn't murder anybody. Not in the least! But that's not Wierwille's judgment of him. ... And yet Wierwille had more to do with being a direct influence on Sullivan's suicide, and Oldies (and other VPW apologists) staunchly dismiss any culpability on Wierwille's part as far as they can get away with.

One thing for damn sure, ... and that is any and all sociopaths would just _jump_ at the chance of having their malevolent behaviors explained away/excused by calling their lack of caring/empathy/respect for others, as something that they just can't help. Ie., "Well, I just can't help myself! ((snif)) I was born this way, ... and you just can't expect me to change the way I am, ... can you?! :unsure: ... Its a syndrome. ... A sickness! " (((shrugs))) Ok! ... Let me get my .44 caliber 'pill'. .... I won't even charge Blue Cross for it either. .... Not that they would offer any coverage, mind you. "NO! Keep that maniac away from me!!!" :ph34r: