Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

WordWolf

Members
  • Posts

    22,315
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    252

Everything posted by WordWolf

  1. So, in your experience, twi's in-house, 4-year training program, where they spend 4 years of a person's life- at the person's expense, teaching the person doctrine, practice, conduct, and so on, produces practice and conduct WORSE than the people who never entered that program. Doesn't that say something about twi?
  2. "I know you don't want to hear what I say. I know you're gonna keep turning away. But I've been there and if I can survive I can keep you alive. I'm not above going through it again."
  3. "There are a lot of things in my life that I thought were real and ended up being fake. Why can't the opposite be true?" " Rejection. That's what makes a college great. The exclusivity of any university is judged primarily by the amount of students it rejects." "Why, what happened?" "Some political crap. I got a zero on my SAT's." "You do know you get 600 points just for signing your name right?"
  4. The problem was, what to link to from Justin Long. I don't want to strand the thread. Oh, wait, I can do this.... Accepted Jonah Hill the Invention of Lying
  5. Must be the 80s retrospective on the threads this week or something. :) We went from "Losing My Religion" to Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians' "What I Am."
  6. Couldn't be THAT obscure if you got them that quickly. Inspiration struck on that. I thought those were decent shows, myself.
  7. This 80s TV comedy was about a teacher whose personality is broken up into its parts, each of which is represented on-screen at times, as if we can see how he thinks. He's a teacher for a classroom of exceptional students.
  8. [WordWolf in boldface and brackets.] Whew! Let me get this straight. [That opening, from some posters, means we're cutting to the heart of an issue. From some other posters, that means we're going to CONCEAL the heart of an issue. Let's see which one this is. If it's the latter, maybe we'll determine why it's so.] Walter was head of research so he HAD to be privy to the bad stuff, [Walter was head of research so he HAD to be privy to the RESEARCH. When John S (Research staff) came out with his paper (research) saying "adultery is bad" (really elementary research for a Bible student), Walter was well aware of it- buried it, and helped characterize it as evil, saying that whoever READ it would be in peril of devils infiltrating their thoughts. That's not even counting what he [iadmitted[/i] to being privy to separately. If you are in charge of something, you are privy to it and it is your responsibility. vpw liked to pretend he knew lots about the military, but all his characterizations of them were fictional and based on movies and none on the experience he never got. If he HAD gotten experience, he might have learned something simple to the officer training at any level- when you're in charge of something, you're responsible for all of it and if it goes right OR wrong, you are responsible. This is considered really simple for a lot of people, including people who never entered the military. Walter was in charge of research. The Research Department dropped the ball on adultery in a general sense, and when the issue came up in a good research paper, the response was the opposite that would have been taken if anyone RESPONSIBLE was in charge (someone WORTHY of responsibility, someone who could take a stand for truth and right rather than just write a paper and think the work ends there with no moral duties.] but Ralph D was trunk leader, international outreach cordo, etc. but he says he had no idea what was going on and you blindly believe him. Nice double standard. [supposing neither knew anything before it all came to a head, each should have been a bit better. (Walter should have had research saying what the Bible REALLY says and Ralph should have known more about what was going on. I give both the benefit of the doubt on that, until things were brought to their attention. When Ralph learned about women victimized, he didn't bury the news, he did something about it- and was punished for standing up for what's right and true. He was threatened, menaced (legal definition), and kicked off grounds for it. We all know that without anything "blind". When Walter learned about the adultery paper, he buried the paper and kept his job- not suffering any consequences because he maintained the same established, CORRUPT order that was doing wrong. We all know that without anything "blind." We all know who left when, and who was forced out. We're using a rather fair standard-judging by their deeds. You're doing everything to avoid saying that vpw and the people he personally groomed did the opposite to Scripture- committed adultery, set up opportunities to commit more adultery, and set up a whole structure to facilitate it- from grooming the targets to monitoring the victims and savaging their reputations if they showed signs of doing their legal and civic duties and reporting it. What vpw and his cronies did was wrong. It was right to write a paper saying "adultery is wrong." John S did that. It was wrong to bury a paper saying "adultery is wrong." Walter did that. It was right to say "rape and molestation is wrong" and do something about it. Ralph did that. It was wrong to punish people for speaking up about it. vpw's cronies did that. You want to absolve Walter for what he did and blame Ralph for what he did. I don't know what kind of "standard" that is, but it's seriously bent.] Is it not true that you are the self appointed pope of gsc and since Ralph has kissed your ring by being penitent you absolve him, but Walter hasn't been penitent yet so you can't absolve him...aww...whatever. [it is no true. This sentence was nonsense that detracts from the discussion. One guy did the right thing, and that's been noted. One guy did the wrong thing, and that's been noted. This whole "pope" thing was inserted nonsense.] In a related matter, Kris in her book says she was at Gunnison in VPs office and he left the room for a bit and she saw what he was writing and it said unflattering things about jews and she was horrified. She made it sound like she JUST THEN realized VP had issues with jews. What? I don't think so. Stanley Reahard posted on waydale that in 1981 she was at a night owl at HQ with VP and he said that the USA fought on the wrong side during WW2. Kris' account happened AFTER 1981. She knew! [so, 1) You're saying vpw was wrong in REPEATED STATEMENTS pro-Nazis and anti-Jews 2) Kris and Stanley were part of a bunch of people who heard these REPEATED STATEMENTS 3) People who worked on-grounds-who got little sleep each night as has been reported-should still be intellectually alert late into the evening after getting up early and working all day and still being at it into the night- and should have stopped in their tracks mentally and reevaluated the nonsense that was sprung on them late at night As someone who wasn't there, you're forgetting critical details you weren't present to see. The racist tripe was saved until people were walking zombies and less likely to catch it and say "Wait, what?" Yes, Kris and others didn't catch it. However, people who are exhausted are mentally dulled and vulnerable to tripe. That's probably why it was sprung on them then. vpw seemed to save the antiBiblical stuff for late at night rather than after breakfast or after lunch. So, she was present. It's understandable she might have been completely zoned out and waiting for a chance to fully go to sleep. She may not have even HEARD what was being said. Being exhausted does that. Heck, being in a repetitive business meeting during the day after enough sleep can lead to a person zoning out. Why should it be a surprise that someone could miss something under "extreme conditions"? Maybe she heard it and didn't evaluate it because she was exhausted. Maybe she didn't even hear it because she was exhausted. MAYBE she knew-but the evidence seems against it.] But you certainly absolve her as well. [No. First of all, you brought her up. Second of all, you missed critical details. Everyone who was in twi bears some responsibilities for what they did, depending on exactly what they did and did NOT do. Kris is no exception. You're the one who's introducing "black and white thinking" into this. Walter seems like a nice guy who did some horrible things when someone said "adultery is wrong." He saved his cushy job at the time, and has never said anything like "it was a poor decision to disagree with what the Bible said to support an organizational structure." I can own MY mistakes, and I do. It keeps me honest and it keeps me trying harder to avoid making them again, or making new ones.] I don't give a damn about kissing your papal ring. [That's fine, since nobody here-except you- suggested either a physical or a metaphorical ring, papal or not. Hm, you posted that at 8:30am. I was hoping you had the excuse, at least, of being able to say you were tired and not at your best. You were awake and alert posting that. I can't "absolve" you of that post. Too bad.] After leaving twi, people have the freedom to be free of nonsensical tripe being spewed, being blamed for the failings of those who led, and absolving those who led and failed. They also have the freedom to KEEP that nonsensical tripe. As we can see from this thread, they're free to do either. As we can see from this thread, most people seem to prefer freedom from nonsensical tripe. We're happier that way.
  9. *wild swing* Otis Redding's "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay"?
  10. Burt Reynolds Cannonball Run Jackie Chan
  11. A writer is raised by a single mother who chose to have him alone, leaving him to find his way in a world that doesn't understand him. While driving, he witnesses a man crash his car, and blurt out to witnesses present about a missing fortune hidden in a park, and they all race to the park to try to claim it.
  12. It should be easy to spot intellectual cowardice if one is being honest. If someone is more concerned about TRUTH and HONESTY than security, then one will take TRUTHFUL positions even when it jeopardizes their security. If one is intellectually cowardly (or simply exercising intellectual cowardice at the moment) then the truth will be BURIED or ATTACKED when it is inconvenient. Let's see- which did Walter do when the decisive moment came? After being the research head of a group and someone who's full-time job was to see that proper research was done, which affects doctrine, he himself failed to come up with anything saying "adultery is wrong." That's peculiar, since it doesn't take any kind of degree to find that in Scripture. Let's say it was a lapse because the subject never came up. Ok, so it never came up-until one day, it did. Someone came out with a research paper that demonstrated what nearly every Christian knows, since it's so freaking easy to see- that the Bible says adultery is wrong. The HONEST response, the BRAVE response, is to review the paper, see that it was actually correct (it IS correct and anyone can see that-if it wasn't, then refuting it was correct) and then come out agreeing with it. Specific actions would proceed from there. The INTELLECTUALLY COWARDLY thing to do, the thing to do if one cares more about a comfortable living and less about the communications of God Almighty to us on the Earth, is to bury the paper, claim it was error, threaten the person into silence (easy if one's group has goons who have experience) and spread propaganda against reading it. Which did Walter do? Walter buried the paper. When it came up again, he said it was error. twi's bullies DID try to silence the writer- for saying adultery is wrong- and the official report from his office was that people would GET POSSESSED reading a paper that said ADULTERY IS WRONG. That's pretty much a predictable response for someone who is being intellectually cowardly. Since then, has he EVER come out with a repudiation and said "It was actually correct, but I was being strongarmed into disagreeing with it" now that he has had DECADES to reconsider and now that we can all see that this "get possessed if you read it" thing was exposed as NONSENSE? No. He has, however, maintained a comfortable career as a Bible teacher. Intellectually, that's COWARDICE when the heat was on, and determination to maintain that cowardly position once the heat was off. If he came forth and told the truth now, he WOULD NOT wake up like others did in twi, with someone at his door, armed and telling him to get out now. On the other hand, there were others who did the right thing even when it was inconvenient to them, when others THREATENED them. Try reviewing what Ralph did and what was done to him as soon as adultery problems were brought to his attention. I don't owe John S anything- and I certainly don't raise him to hero status- but HE did the right thing on adultery AND showed courage when the heat was on. Walter did the opposite-and was part of the reason heat WAS on John S. Like I said, intellectual cowardice.
  13. And anything is easy to MISS if you're dogmatic about it.
  14. That's it. At the end of the lyrics, Sinatra did a scat improvisation. "Scooby dooby doo." Iwao Takamoto, the animator who created the cartoon dog Scooby-Doo, said that he got the inspiration to name his character from Sinatra's ad-lib. Cartoon Network's shown video of Takamoto explaining the details of inventing the cartoon, including this detail. And the dog, of course, has said "Scooby dooby doo" a lot, as has one theme song.
  15. I don't think that's haughty or prideful. I think it's intellectually cowardly. Now, most of the other people on the list were haughty and prideful. (Those still living still are, too.)
  16. The name of this cartoon/title character came from Frank Sinatra singing "Strangers In the Night".
  17. (Here I thought someone confused me & Raf again.) Ok, so the turns proceeded properly and it's Raf's turn now.
  18. Hm. *thinks* Can't remember the previous night. A baby's appeared. Sounds like the plot of "The Hangover", I think. (If not, the commercials lied.)
  19. I'm at least a year away from listening to music I like again. I haven't heard that song for at least a few years.
  20. I'll go with "Hannibal" as the movie. I suspect it's correct, and I would have guessed it to hedge our bets anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...