WordWolf

We may have not, but he can't be used in this manner. Michael Keaton was not in a movie called "Jack Nicholson." First link to a movie, THEN the actor, when linking from an actor....

Certainly, the frustrations felt in twi would lead to hostility, which could erupt at any time. To have it ENCOURAGED would only reinforce it was good to blow up periodically.

vpw never actually FELT the emotions the same way normal people feel them. Sociopaths don't. vpw, more often, found emotions as TOOLS to be used to get people to feel and think the way he wanted them to. That's why he learned to FAKE them and to deliver a PERFORMANCE. Think about it-we've seen accounts of people having a casual chat with him, him turning, screaming at someone for a moment, then INSTANTLY chatting casually as if the screaming didn't happen. Even an actor who does that needs a moment to come back to the calm self- since the actor feels the emotions to a degree when faking them. Only someone not feeling the emotions could switch between displays of them like channels on a television. vpw saw that as a useful skill to cultivate- so he did. It didn't fool the people closest to him, but young, naive hippies, they were fooled when he didn't let them see the man behind the curtain. vpw didn't feel healthy emotions- but, like any bully, he felt frustration when things didn't go his way, and, like any bully, he lashed out. LOTS of people saw him do that for little or no reason. lcm DOCUMENTED it in his book PRAISING vpw. lcm learned to do all of that FROM vpw. As someone from a jock subculture, lcm was perfect for grooming to be heartless that way- don't feel any pain or compassion- there's no crying in baseball and no compassion on the field. You can be loud and boisterous all you want, and be a two-fisted partier and a jock-type guy. That's it. So lcm buried everything except that. Between lcm and vpw, twi all learned to do that as well- with some leaders imitating them, and some local leaders NOT- and being punished for it... The rank-and-file were taught it as well, with some swallowing it and some not. The handful who ALWAYS swallowed it seem to still be twi'ers, or ex-twi'ers who still teach that the vpw way was THE path.

No, it depends on how one reads I Cor 3:10-15 AND the verses I cited. If the Bible is not consistent, it doesn't really matter what we believe, and we're largely wasting our time. For those of us who believe the Bible is consistent and reading it is profitable for learning things, then ALL of it has to jibe. If what we read in one section makes perfect sense with our beliefs, but then we have to ignore another section because we can't make heads nor tails of it but it MIGHT contradict what we thought about what we read in the first section, might the problem be our beliefs are either incomplete or incorrect? If there is no real punishment for evil deeds done to the brethren, then some people will be very disappointed. If there are real punitive measures sentenced for the very guilty, then some other people will be very disappointed. But our disappointment in something does not determine whether it is true or not, popularity of a belief does not determine whether it is true or not. That's one reason we have to read the whole thing and try to understand it. Jesus promised something in the Gospels, and the last book speaks of the future and seems to show how the promise will be carried out. If you disagree fundamentally-and say it CAN'T be carried out that way- then I ask you, what did Jesus mean, and what does the account in the last book mean? Go through the events of the End Times. Subtract everyone who's destroyed/obliterated before Revelation 21 begins. Then go over the accounts of who is outside the Holy City. At first glance, it looks like the same kinds of people who were already destroyed...which means it's time for more than a first glance. If all Christians survive obliteration, but there is a just distinction between "did his best to live piously and help others and love them as God does" and "became a Christian, then raped the brethren and stole their lives, souls and money", then it seems there will be a punishment short of obliteration. If so, then it makes perfect sense that they'd be excluded from the holy city and FINALLY sorry for what they did. If there IS no punishment, then we have lots of people alluded to in the gospels, and mentioned outright in Revelation, and we have no information whatsoever as to who they COULD be. (Can't be bad non-Christians, can't be bad Christians.) Whether or not we're displeased about them facing punishment is a distant consideration compared to "Well, if that's not vpw and his peers, who CAN it be?" (Edit, another thing, where in the Bible does it say we'll be in HEAVEN? We shall be "ever with the Lord." The Lord shall be in New Jerusalem on the new Earth- Revelation 21 and 22 are very clear about that. Why would we then be separated eternally from him by being in the new Heaven if he is on the new Earth? What actual verses say this- or is this a supposition?) We're going far afield off this topic, and perhaps we should go to pm's on this.

Mark!!!! Was just thinking about you the other morning when I was posting. Yes, you pronounced it correctly. :) I agree doctrinally with what you posted, but I'm still curious to see where he's going with this. I'm well aware that there are truly beautiful theories and concepts that are completely error-ridden, but are beautiful and people can WISH they were true since they're so picturesque and poetic. It's quite frustrating when you have one, then have to discard it because reality rudely intruded. (I've felt that one before, too.) Can I get some info- by pm unless others want it too- of that study you got your hands on? I'm curious about it.

Even fictional characters nowadays know this "believing" isn't any sort of "law". (Nor is it "magickal.") http://imgur.com/apSst6C

John 11:35 Jesus wept. Gotta ignore those Gospels, you know. Bad example Jesus was showing. The man was said to have "compassion" on strangers, and wept with grief and/or similar emotions- which he was allowed to feel. In twi, the only thing allowed to BE felt was ANGER. vpw and lcm exemplified anger to face-to-face audiences, with vpw teaching lcm how to do it, and lcm codifying it by coining the phrase "spiritual anger" to justify yelling at others rather than controlling his mind and feeling the anger but not letting it control him.

If every unprofitable thing will be burnt off, what are the chances that vpw will just crisp away and disintegrate? Ok, seriously, vpw will have to give account of himself before God Almighty, (The Great Judge of All), and Jesus Christ (The Righteous Judge). There won't be any bs about how vpw thought God Almighty wasn't offended by his evil actions and evil deceptions, how he caused the brethren to stumble. He'll envy people who have had a heavy rock attached to them and dumped into the ocean. (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2.) I've been musing, on and off, about whether or not vpw is one of the excluded idolators referred to in Revelation 22:15, who are forbidden to enter New Jerusalem and the presence of The Lamb. I've also been musing about the light of the holy city being The Lamb, and whether "the outer darkness" prophesied of in the future refers to a place or places on Earth exterior to New Jerusalem. That's referred to 3 times, and all 3 times there's wailing and gnashing of teeth there. It's the place the "unprofitable servant" is sent to in the parable. (Matthew 22:13, Matthew 25:30, Matthew 8:12.) Me, I strongly suspect that, even if vpw is not obliterated, he will be penalized FOR ETERNITY for the magnitude of his transgressions, how he wounded the brethren. The descriptions I've read in the verses I cited seem to suggest-if there is consistency in what's to be understood of the future after The Lord returns- that there will be survivors who behaved abominably, were not obliterated, but suffered a heavy, heavy penalty that fit their crimes. It is also my opinion that we will be allowed to see the sentencing, so we can finally see the payoff- that we can be demonstrated that God's Justice may not be swift, but it is definite and it is truly Just.

It was a BRILLIANT piece of misdirection-and of advertising. In advertising, you need to understand your target audience. vpw became an expert on the hippie youth counterculture. He figured out what they wanted and didn't want- then framed his presentations accordingly. He took youths that felt disenfranchised and told them that they could have power-through believing. He told them not to trust religious authorities-which they wanted to hear- and that everything they wanted to do was just cool with God. (Who doesn't want to hear that?) Later came the various means to extract money from the kids, but initially, they were recruited, and made into a SALES FORCE and RECRUITMENT ARM, swelling the twi numbers in a way vpw had not been able to even begin without them to exploit. And all of it started with a marvelous show that was presented, first when vpw went to the House of Acts and the groovy Christians around Haight-Ashbury, and continued from there.

We all have our little psychological blind-spots, me included. George was on the right track, and I missed it. I keep thinking that all posters actually think before they post, and read before they think. That's been proven to be wrong, more than once. I'm not dealing with someone who actually looked over the controversy, thought it over, then picked a position. I'm dealing with someone who skipped the links, scrolled down the text, found a few buzz-words (alleged perpetrators, unfounded assertions) and REACTED. The rest of the text might as well have been "Blah blah blah instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators blah blah blah The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded assertions to be spread without proof blah blah blah", for all the attention paid to the actual issues. Someone allegedly was raped- and the documentation trail includes a school official eyewitness to the aftermath (a security guard), the hospital (who treated them afterwards and can document evidence supporting a claim of rape), and the police (who were required to file a report when a claim was made, and are required to investigate...which raises some interesting questions on its own.) Then the alleged victim, still injured from something and claiming the injury was from the rape, was called into the school and punished for making an accusation of rape. No investigation as to whether the allegation is true or false- the making of an accusation was sufficient reason to be punished and expelled from the school. That's a gross miscarriage of injustice by the school, independent of any actual rape. John missed the entire thing- he saw someone saying an alleged criminal had to be punished without due process (which isn't fair any more than punishing the victim for making the claim), and stopped there. He saw the school make a statement that they didn't know anything about this until the fuss was kicked up online (an obvious lie since the school took action, which resulted in the fuss online), and didn't wonder if this was an obvious coverup lie by the school, he just latched onto a comment about how the internet can spread unfounded accusations without proof. Technically true, but a distraction in this instance because the school DID take the action that was being protested. John missed that rather fundamental detail because he WASN'T READING- he was skimming for buzzwords and just replying to THOSE. The actual substance of the complaint was missed because John didn't bother. He didn't care what he was reacting to, he just found his buzzwords to react to, so he did, then went off, probably feeling a sense of accomplishment. So, I made the mistake of over-estimating John, and it means I made the mistake of putting a lot more thought into his words when reading them than he did writing them. For that, I apologize to the other posters.

That's it.

Granted, comparing a serial rapist to an incident with a non-serial rapist (we hope) doesn't seem like much of a connection (especially 2 non-serial rapists.) However, there's similarities in having the institution punishing any victims who dare to come forth and try to speak. Earlier posts made the points.

"Yes, but why is the rum gone?"

Correct. And, honestly, wouldn't "Gilligan's Island of Dr Moreau" be worth watching? It's like someone's wish, in the 80s, for "A Very Brady Chainsaw Massacre."

Ferris Buehler's Day Off Charlie Sheen Hot Shots!

The actual life of Jesus is written in the Gospels- the accounts of the life of the man we're supposed to be adherents of if we ARE Christians. vpw soft-pedaled the Gospels and pushed the Epistles. Someone introduced to twi after vpw was dead and right around when lcm was drawing his line in the sand heard lcm going off in his brash, shouting fashion, and commented. He talked about when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, and said they should do the same. He said that, if lcm could get himself to where he could wash the feet of the disciples, he'd be all right. I've often thought about how that can apply, to some degree, to everyone who ever had time in twi. Sometimes I thought of it more literally in terms of washing off sneakers people were wearing, but I've also thought about things like washing people's toilets, stepping forward to help the homeless, the poor and hungry. A real Christian is supposed to have compassion- like Jesus did/does- and the actions of the compassionate seem diametrically opposed to the actions of the arrogant and prideful. Some of us could use a little time now and again doing the acts of the compassionate. Even if one isn't compassionate while doing it, I think there's a trickle-up effect where one starts to develop compassion while there in the middle of things. Hm. Compassion can be trained and grown.

Oh, good. It seemed amusing to me when I came up with it.

Ok, I much prefer you coming right out and being your mean, vicious self openly, rather than hide behind "weasel words", and just say what you're really thinking. Then people can agree or disagree openly. "control freak"- I refused the offer to moderate when it was offered. A control freak would have JUMPED at the chance. Swing and a miss. "Hubris" - I've OPENED discussions with people I thought were wrong just in case I might learn something new, and I've changed my mind when following threads here, and that's just counting time I've spent here. Swing and a miss. "Thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here." No, I actually leave a LOT of threads alone. When I see something that I think is wrong and needs a response, THEN I respond. It just so happens that a lot of your posts have logic errors and other things I think need to be challenged. Any post, any place, they can all be challenged, and the person can try to support their claims or post. "Actually, I was correct because...." With you, the responses in this thread don't relate to the actual topic (abuse of power, victims) but about the person who called you on it. (Ad hominem, personal attacks.) If you want your statements to just sit there unchallenged, you have to put them someplace private, where others aren't ALLOWED. Go to the vpw cheerleader locations and post them there, where you're preaching to the choir. Any place else, and they're free game to be REFUTED. (Refuting successfully is not a crime, even if it's you that's refuted.) Swing and a miss. "Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". You posted. You were refuted. I disagree with LOTS of posters and "agree to disagree" with most of them on most subjects. So, most people who don't "track" with me (whatever that's supposed to mean when you're using it) are left alone. This "possessed" thing is a common claim for people who cling to vpw and his doctrines, but I didn't even make those claims when I was young, naive, and in twi. "Marked and avoided." I didn't advocate for that when lcm started it, either. So, we're getting knee-jerk reactions with stock phrases from twi and ex-twi, none of which actually relate to me. Swings and misses. "There, is that insinuating enough for you?" You objected to me calling you on being "insinuating" and didn't even bother to find out what "insinuating" means before trying to use it in a sentence. This is the internet. You could have found it in seconds without getting up from your chair. And I know you didn't look it up because you used it incorrectly here, and I know you didn't use it ironically (and correctly) here because you would have written it differently if that's what you meant. All this over me catching you ignoring proven victims (the people who were kicked out were victimized by the school) while siding with the alleged victimizers, and proclaiming the internet as a location for smears rather than a place for "the other side of the story." Could only see how some people thought the alleged attackers should have been punished (not stated if any investigation should have proceeded first, so it looked like they wanted them lynched), and could NOT see how those who stepped forth were punished without any investigation. Also automatically accepted the official statement even when it clashed with events. Gee, it's a sore point that the internet (the GSC and other places) have been "the other side of the story", and how an establishment can act against the best interests of the people, and that, since certain people were never charged in court, he can claim that nobody can recount personal experiences that reflected negatively on them because they were never charged with a crime- as if that was the measure of truth or falsehood. I get that. But when caught on it, you could have either accepted it, or let it go. Instead, we get the typical "attack the dissenting voice and try to intimidate, make cheap shots when possible, and silence them if possible." That's such an old strategy. It was used, pre-internet, with great success in twi, and post-internet, has been seen on all the ex-twi messageboards every time a victim said "this happened to me." They were called liars, they were told they were accomplices, they were told they wanted it, they were told the fault was theirs- all as a smokescreen, and all to attempt to silence them, to attempt to fog the issues, to attempt to take the emphasis off who actually did what.

I thought he was misnaming the older movie, since I didn't know there WAS a newer movie. But, let me see what I can come up with... In this TV movie, the 7 survivors of a shipwreck discover they've ended up stranded near a lab where a scientist has been genetically manipulating humans and animals.

We've talked about the connections between "Castle" and "Firefly" more than once, IIRC, so I'm hoping this isn't a reference to "Firefly."

Throwing out a guess based on knowing 2 Butches, "Pulp Fiction."

That's the greasy thing about INSINUATIONS. People refuse to just state outright what they think or mean, and cover it up by speaking indirectly. There's a subtext in play that colors what they said- so that it means something other than just what's written. I resent that more than if it was just said outright because I can agree to disagree honestly, but I find insinuations inherently dishonest since they are deceptive. He objected to precisely 2 things, and left everything else alone. When called on it, he didn't say "I was misunderstood, here's what I was thinking..." and address how the accusers were made into victims by the establishments whether or not they were victims of the accused. (If they are, they were victimized twice, if they were not, they were punished without any investigation nor due process.) If he didn't have a history of relying on insinuations and zero pathos for possible victims, I'd suspect he somehow missed commenting on equally important points rather than very specific ones that match his usual position (accusers make things up, accused are innocent, establishments don't abuse their power and don't lie or deceive.) Psychologically, it's fascinating how consistent that's been, but it's really not my place to get into that, especially since he hasn't hired me as any kind of professional to do so. As I said earlier, INVESTIGATING before any action is taken is sensible. However, the school in question did nothing of the kind. They AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED the accused was innocent- then penalized the accuser without any investigation before doing so. The accused was left alone. However, the accused was automatically punished. BTW, seems Broken Arrow agreed with me, since they quoted my longer post and didn't seem to add to it. So, there's differences of opinions as to whether it was appropriate and on-topic (for those who thought it was not). Meanwhile, it does seem part of the human condition that there will always be social structures, and some people will use them to abuse others and be bullies, and cover their tracks if caught. Yes, that is disconcerting (I would say 'dismaying'), and it is a strange comfort to know it wasn't just us and the people we knew who were victimized by the one corrupt group out there...there's lots of other victims who were never abused and used by vpw and his criminal cadre.

"The Picture of Dorian Gray's Anatomy." I was informed the other day of what TV show had Dr Mc Dreamy.

I'm also aware that, when certain posters suddenly change the subject- often with ad hominem personal attacks or cheap shots, like this one- that it's as good as an admission that A) they didn't like what we were talking about B) were unable to refute what we were saying, not with evidence nor logic Really. It's a consistent set of flaws in posting that are as good as coded messages once someone knows how to read them. (Know the code, and all the subtext might as well be plain text.) In this case, the translation works out to "Well done! You have made a strong, logical case for your position and shown the opposing one to be error-ridden and flawed!" In response, I say "Thank you for the kind words, even if they were accidental."