WordWolf

We really don't need to name posters who are not participating in this thread. They're not participating in this thread, and we're better than that.

[All your posts were still there. Nobody buried them in anything. Also, declaring our posts were actually "blather" doesn't make them so. Might as well take a jar of pickles, and add the label "soup" or "apple butter." In other news, I thought the demonstration was quite effective- and it was done during actual attempts at conversation, at that.] [If you think any thread I post demonstrates flawed logic, you are welcome to post on it-civilly- and point out what you think is an actual flaw. If it's an actual flaw, that will come out. If you just don't like the thread but can't find a flaw in the logic, you can always just complain about it on a different thread.] [The word "stupid" is yours, not mine. As for the attention, it's only appropriate to point out flawed logic, especially when it's on-topic for the messageboard. Laying out the process is healthy for everyone, and there's really no downside to it, providing the logic is sound and I'm actually telling the truth. No need to celebrate getting lots of attention, it's not validation.] [I'm not quite as dismissive of them as you are. I don't fling the word "stupid" around as quickly. There's plenty of smart people who have been fooled by some trap or another, depending on the specifics, the trap and the person's specifics. I don't mind shining a spotlight on critical flaws. I also don't think "incredulity" applies to you- in this case, I find the problem is your credulity. The non-posters who can read all the posts can evaluate what we've written, and form their own opinions on things. I really don't picture them with LOW opinions. ]

Mike: "If you aren't actively renewing your mind to the Word we were taught, there is no way for you to believe me, short of an intervention by God in your lives." [Without the special procedures recommended by Mike, I agree that believing Mike's position is a slim chance at best for him. And if God Almighty intervened and told me that Mike's position was the correct one, I'd have a few burning questions, mainly to determine from whom I was getting revelation.] "In light of this, I don't care much about my credibility with you folks." [Well, that makes things easy. With him now adopting a less-incredible position than before- but insisting this was the position he held before when he actually argued AGAINST it- credibility isn't going to come easy, if at all. While we're on the subject, those grapes were probably sour anyway.] "I am grateful for the opportunity to fine tune the expression of my position for all here who can read with a mind that is thankful for what we were taught. " [I'm glad Mike's at least partly communicating his current position clearly. Now, if he would also shed the intellectual dishonesty of denying his position changed, and if he could rid himself of the hubris of acting as if his skills were equal to the other posters let alone superior, he'd have something. The doctrine would still be wildly error-ridden, but at least we could have a shot at clear, civil discussions about it.]

Next song. Arguably the first line. "Things are different today."

https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25270-was-vpw-a-con-artist-and-only-a-con-artist/

Having said all that, is there still room to claim that pfal was Divinely-something'ed? Sure. One simply has to ignore all evidence, all good sense, and the internal testimony and standard of the content itself, but one can do that if one is determined. Self-delusion is always an option, even when all the evidence is glaring, blatant, and beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

Ok, so, imagining pfal is special can't be based on the 1942 "promise" that was nothing of the kind. Imagining pfal is special can't be based on vpw being some special being. Can it be based on the actual content? A) The content never claims this standard B) The content has errors, and has had corrections (to fix previous errors.) Now, there's no basis left for thinking pfal is Divinely special- other than a dogmatic insistence that pfal is special because pfal is special. Can one find some good content in pfal and conclude from that , that pfal is Divinely special? Hardly. vpw himself said that one could get a good feeling on a Psychiatrist's couch. So, feelings are out as a determinant. As to "some good content", that's generally true of Christian writings and classes done ALL THE TIME. That would make pfal "AVERAGE."

So, the 1942 "promise" was completely invalid. Could pfal have been special because vpw was special? The man was a mediocre student ON HIS BEST DAYS. He was good at plagiarism and at delivering a sermon if someone else wrote it. He had no other skills that would qualify him for special treatment. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24593-vpws-mediocre-intellectual-accomplishments/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24587-wierwilles-failed-athletic-accomplishments/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25279-was-victor-paul-wierwille-talented-if-so-in-what-was-he-talented/ On the other hand, he was quite accomplished in sins- he used his office to rape, to molest, to drug, to indulge in his vices of tobacco and alcohol- which eventually killed him. He was also given to wrath, in addition to the plagiarism and simony. So, not qualified for special treatment, but well-qualified to be INELIGIBLE.

For the benefit of any remedial students still in the audience, I start this thread. Few of you still consider this possible. However, for those few who haven't ruled it out, there's 2 possibilities. One, you can avoid threads like this and plug your ears whenever this comes up, or two, you can look over the evidence. Now, the first matter is the alleged "1942 promise." All stated beliefs that pfal is special and God Almighty has somehow endorsed or started it stem from this "promise." This "promise" has been discredited thoroughly- and throughly. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/ "Concerning the failure of the 1942 promise." There's an entire thread that breaks down SEVERAL of the reasons we know the 1942 "promise" was no "promise" of God Almighty. So, no 1942 promise means no reason to think pfal is special.

[It either "seems so obvious" or "is absolutely amazing" or "ridiculous", depending on your level of understanding, from profound to shallow.]

Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE." [See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect. I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly. You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles. This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result. You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed." Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ] --------------------------------- Mike: "Last night you didn't get it when I was joking with you, so I had to tell you it was a joke. And then when I get serious and more open (vulnerable? Rocky?) and you think I'm joking." ============ WordWolf: [You're wrong twice. I don't buy your claim you were joking, and. again, your credibility is at a low. As for now, I didn't say you were "joking." When you change the word of WordWolf, you no longer have the word of WordWolf. You're actually pulling the "I didn't use the word "replace", so I never used the concept "replace", and if I did, it obviously was either a joke or taken out of context, so that's all your fault for misreading me." We understood what you posted just fine. I don't have any problem with you changing your positions. Frankly, I was hoping that, over the years, you'd abandoned that previous doctrine of pfal being a new Bible that supplanted the old, and gave you a chance to let everyone know. This "I never held that position" thing is wildly dishonest. If you really want a shred of credibility here, you really have to cut that out. The worst part, is that I think you really think you never posted that- which means that your memory process is really, really prone to radical editing. It doesn't affect the rest of us, but that's not useful to you. I'm sure it LOOKS like an advantage to forever convince yourself you've never been corrected or lost an argument, or held an error-filled position then reversed it, but, really, that only works in your head and, again, causes conflict once you leave it. It was never about YOU- although you've often (and inconsistently) maintained it was. People called you on blatantly-wrong doctrine. This "I'm never wrong, I'm misquoted or joking" thing flies in politics, but we don't do politics here.]

Mike: "Yes, I'd like to see the context of any quotes you have of me saying REPLACE." [See, this is what I was talking about. We've been down this road before. This is playing those silly-@$$ games we don't respect. I don't remember you using the exact word "replace." (You may have, but I didn't note it.) What you DID do is use the CONCEPT "replace" quite clearly. You said the Bibles we had were "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants." You said that God Almighty had to reissue His Word as pfal because there was no chance to get to the original by reading the modern Bibles. This was especially egregious because at least 2 posters (I was the 2nd) were able to quote, directly from the Orange Book, how that contradicted the Orange Book. vpw had specified techniques and said these were what WE were to use, and that, once WE had done this, we could say, "Thus saith the LORD." At the time, I was at least a bit shocked that you responded at least once to that by saying that this was how vpw did so, but WE were not able to do so, that WE were not supposed to try to do so, and that if WE tried, we wouldn't get that result. You referred to the Bible as "not God-breathed" and the pfal books as "God-breathed." Now, either you remember all that, or you don't. Either you meant all that, or you didn't. If your usage of "replace" is meant to say that you didn't MEAN "replace" because you evaded usage of that exact word despite expressing that concept pretty clearly, then you should already know what we all think of that without me telling you. ]

"Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent." -There's some actors that can elevate whatever movie they're in, but there's limits no matter who the actor is- and in this case, even Bela Lugosi was unable to make this movie Oscar-worthy (some people might argue it's unwatchable.)

[Whenever someone asks the same of you, you refuse, usually with many words to obfucate that you're refusing. (Like a long post that takes a long time to write, that explains you don't have time.) My post you quoted was on the preceding page. You're a big boy, you can go back a page like everybody else. Seriously, I'm not sure if the laziness or the double-standard is more obnoxious. ]

[True.]

[Until and unless Mike actually perceives things without this, he's never going to progress anywhere like he THINKS he has. It's been 20 years. Lots of us have grown. Mike seems to be older, but no wiser, and no different.]

"It's not like GSC is my only learning grounds. It is pretty difficult to come in here all cheery and vulnerable and face the crowd with strength. I did that for the first few days I was here, but alphacat launched a campaign against me as soon as he recognized me. Actually, he started that campaign a couple of months against me BEFORE i came and posted my first post. When he recognized me it was a pile on. " [That may be how you remember it (and your memories often seem to differ wildly with what the written posts say and people remember- but that's hardly news by now), but that's not how it happened. It was never personal against YOU- except when you insisted on making it so.] "There's no defense in vulnerability when it's almost a literary gang-rape. I fought hard, and suddenly people who dished it out could not handle it when it came back at them. " [A literary gang-rape? Something in one of Charles Dickens' books where the stevedores surrounded some young heroine? Again, this is how you remember it= after lots of editing to make you look much better and everyone else looks worse. IN YOUR MIND, you haven't lost an argument here yet. However, the rest of us and the board itself are not in your mind, and so there's disparities of accounts.] "I see how vulnerability works with dogs often, but it requires a semi-serene atmosphere. Once a fight starts it often must go to the death, because their vulnerability-signal is to expose the neck while on their backs. I thought I did that in the serenity of last night when I offered you some options to make things go smoother for you." [I hope nobody's counting on you as their expert on canine behavior, because intra-pack fights RARELY go to the death, and inter-pack fights RARELY do so either. (The one exception I'm aware of got lots of attention among naturalists because it actually was a rare exception.) If a fight goes, it goes to either a submission, or until one canine is driven off. But, again, you insist on seeing things through your own lenses, so there's disparities between your posts and reality.]

Next movie. "Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent."

I'm not sure what was said about the cabinet. About the rank-and-file staffers, twi was pretty clear there was to be no retirement fund, and they tried to withhold Social Security payments as long as possible. "THEY WILL WORK UNTIL THEY DIE." IIRC, that was Howard Allen.

It's the "wild cards" that keep throwing me. How about the something Pyramid? (With dollar amounts changing.)

Um, is this that Peter Gabriel song? "In Your Eyes"???

Mike: "I repeat: my mission here is to focus on the good we got, what was forgotten, and what was not really absorbed well long ago." No, your self-appointed "mission" is to convince people that pfal in written form is some sort of improved Bible that replaced the old one. You've said before that what we have otherwise is "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants", and said that's why God Almighty waited until the middle of the 20th century, and selected the one man who could be given the new Bible- victor paul wierwille. That man was a physical, mental and spiritual giant, and God Almighty gave him a promise in 1942. His writings thus became a new Bible- but only Mike has the keys to unlocking them, so we have to come to him to understand them. What's the reality of the Bible? It's a lot more reliable than you've ever said, and new work continues to be done to improve the reliability results. What's the reality of pfal replacing it? The Orange Book says specifically that it isn't meant to REPLACE Genesis to Revelation, but that it's a book of KEYS. So, wrong on both, rather obviously. What's the reality on vpw? As we've documented, he was a lackluster student who needed help to graduate from a NORMAL high school, and whose athletic accomplishments ended at high school graduation. His demonstrated skills were in plagiarism, and in delivering a sermon, provided someone else wrote the sermon. What's the reality on the 1942 promise? It's been disproved, over and over. Continuing to believe it doesn't change how completely fraudulent it was. Having missed so completely on all of that, what's the scoop on Mike being the one man you should follow and make your teacher, to find the hidden wisdom of God Almighty?

Mike: "If my words were so delusional as you describe, then this thread would still be in About the Way for more people to see. LoL " Your doctrine is as delusional as I describe. Your posts are evasive so they're less obvious, generally in an attempt to get some customers to go along. (Why else de-emphasize pfal when first talking to people when you believe pfal is all that, and why else de-elphasize vpw despite you thinking he was OVERgifted and "where he walked, the earth shook"? Letting them know you're pushing your own flavor of cult, of gnosticism, of occulted knowledge, right up front would get them to walk away fast.) As to what criteria the staff uses for "About the Way", it isn't "popular vote." Since your content rarely actually addresses twi/pfal/vpw content, it's not what they consider for "about the way" since it's about "Mikean pfal" rather than the way or any portion thereof. Mike:"If my words were as delusional as you describe, then y'all would not put hours into refuting them, and then when that fails, more hours into documenting my delusions from scattered past references. LoL " WordWolf: Whenever we don't bother refuting you, you celebrate and announce we could not refute you. As you already know, leaving something unaddressed can suggest agreement. We're refuting you because you're wrong and should be refuted. As for your delusions being documented from scattered past references, well, that's due to the standard Mikean practice- no matter how many times you're asked to speak clearly, don't speak clearly. No matter how many times you're asked to post one thread with your basic doctrine, don't put it in sight. No matter what you're saying, don't put it all in one thread- spread it out hidden among pages of other people's threads to make it hard to document what you've said.

It's the consistent black-and-white and partly delusion-based thinking that keeps him from seeing what's obvious to other people. One example was one of his supposed "victories", where he was both RIGHT AND WRONG. How can he be both right AND wrong? Well, under black-and-white thinking, it can't be done. To children and cult- type thinking, it can't be done. The adults here don't see much of a problem with it. What was the conflict? People remembered vpw's pfal class as having an injunction from vpw to read the pfal books for 3 months. The actual tapes had vpw saying to read the Epistles for 3 months. Mike goes off celebrating, insisting it was ENTIRELY a matter of people MISREMEMBERING, and then follows with 3 pages on how pfal doesn't seem like a re-issued Bible primarily due to people MISREMEMBERING. While Mike was busy patting himself on the back, he missed the more significant matter. Why did so many people remember pfal saying that across decades and across states if it was just a faulty memory? It wasn't simply a faulty memory. The taped class did not mention the pfal books- those books hadn't been printed yet, just a handful of pamphlets. After the pfal books were printed, the class wasn't retaped. Why, then, did people remember this? They remember because it was part of their class. Rather than refilm the entire thing to include that, vpw passed along instructions to class instructors to tell the new "grads" to read the pfal books for the next 3-6 months. That saved vpw a LOT of effort, and was a standard part of the classes for people who sat through them with a live coordinator. We know that wasn't just "the class coordinators going on their own" because vpw later addressed that very point. He complained that outsiders complained about his instruction to put down magazines and newspapers to only read pfal for 3 months. Rather than correct them for hearing wrong or imagining that, he doubled down on the instruction. Why would he do that if it wasn't in the class? He wouldn't- it was in the class, just not in the TAPE. That was the perfect time to correct anyone who'd heard it wrong, but he insisted it was correct to do so. If Mike were approaching all of this in a more mature matter, he might find it an interesting avenue of discussion. But Mike isn't here for mature discussions of anything, even pfal. Mike is here to advertise his pfal-flavored delusion, and doesn't like that nobody's falling into his net. "In vain is the net spread in sight of any bird." Mike's black-and-white thinking is also why he counts almost all the ex-twi splinter people as on his side....which is funny because, by his definitions, I'm on his side, but he's also specific that I personally am not on his side. So, simultaneously black AND white? No. It's either "He that is not for us is against us" or "He that is not against us is for us", and that usually covers black-and-white thinking.