WordWolf

In case I was unclear, I was quoting OldSkool, but NOT commenting on OS. I thought that was worth quoting but made a different point. *hugs*

I have to object this this idea that all opinions must be embraced and are equally valid. Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I also have a right to mine, and that includes the right to think your opinion is foolish, and that you're conducting yourself poorly. We can agree, at least, on CIVILITY at the very least, but that doesn't mean I have to AGREE with anyone else. Oakspear and I approach things from a vast doctrinal divide and neither of us have any plans to cross it. Has anyone here seen us act uncivilly toward each other? Highly doubtful. Look- all positions are NOT equally valid, and agreeing with someone is not wrong, and disagreeing with someone is not wrong, and almost everyone holding an opinion is not discriminatory to the minority. Most of us here agree that having oxygen in the air and clean drinking water, in and of themselves, are good things. If someone disagrees, I'm going to point out why I think they are wrong. If someone gets nasty and defensive about being in the minority here, I'll call them on THAT, too. We had people posting here on HOLOCAUST DENIAL. They insisted the death tolls were highly exagerrated and so on. They were allowed to continue posting, and other posters refuted them. And they acted like they were being persecuted because everyone else was "one-sided." No, everyone else happened to agree on something and they didn't, and being called out on error was making them feel bad. If they didn't want others to call them on either poor doctrine or poor behavior, they shouldn't do either where others can see it and respond. Heck, I've been called on poor behavior online (not here) and actually thought about it and made improvements. Not everyone is willing to consider they might currently be wrong. They might say they had been wrong in the past, but have now "arrived" and that's no longer the case. Do we all agree Charles Manson's a bad guy? Do we all agree that John Wayne Gacy was a bad guy? That's not a bad thing-but some would call that "one-sided views." An attempt at "balanced views" might sound like this, depending on who is saying it: You all claim Al Capone was a terrible person, with claims he allegedly broke the law, his supposed racketeering, his (claimed) bootlegging, and the unconfirmed claims he bashed in someone's skull with a baseball bat. However, I ate at his soup kitchen during the hard Depression days, and I am offended whenever someone claims he wasn't a nice guy. Why, he never said a cross word to me, and he was quite polite." A reply to that might be that the person isn't looking at the whole picture, and that the benefits a few received were the results of the losses of many. The first person's reply might sound like this: You all are just bitter and would rather stew in negative emotions rather than just get over it and stop claiming he was a bad guy. After all, Capone is dead. I'm under no constraints to pander to anyone's opinions, positions, or delusions. I can, however, at least be CIVIL towards them and I'd appreciate the same- which, around here, isn't the case. I've been called 'the devil' before for disagreeing with someone. I didn't return the favor. Personally, I think we do NOT have "one-sided views." We acknowledge we had some good times in twi, as did some others, and later learned those good times were at someone else's expense, and good people were in twi as well as bad. Non-GSC posters would say that is NOT "one-sided", that's "fair."

When I find that I'm going to react emotionally to a post, I find it useful to log off and come back to it later, possibly even the next day. That's why people who accuse me of making emotional posts are shown to be silly when I just use logic in a reply. If you'd done that here, you would have found something you don't normally see- a post from me defending you. I was going to post (as soon as I had a chance, which was now) that you'd been quite civil on this thread and opine that criticism on this thread was, at the least, impolite and uncalled-for on that basis. I was also going to point out that we were veering off-topic. Sadly, in replying, you displayed a bit of what you sometimes get criticized for, while denying you do it. If you'd left it at that, you'd have been better off. (Actually, the last sentence was a shot and you didn't need to make it. Most of the people you think of as your harshest critics wouldn't deny that some people benefitted from time in twi. I've said, a number of times, that I'm glad I got in, and glad I got out. If you'd refrained from getting personal, you would have demonstrated an ability to rise above it, to post in a more mature fashion, and even show up your critics by posting more maturely than that did. Instead, you chose to post just as emotionally, and then go a step further. This is a "good thing" if you're trying to "one up" each other with a harsher post. If you're trying to claim you're being criticized unfairly and say you're being mis-characterized as posting poorly, then this was definitely the wrong way to respond- you just proved a point. I've just given you and some others something to think about. I think they will think about it- I hope you do, too. Your opinions early in this POST were eminently acceptable, but your "tactics", your posting style, later in this same post demonstrated what you get criticized for.

Next show: This show actually became a talking-point in a Presidential race (or a Vice-Presidential race), and that became part of the show itself!

War Games Ally Sheedy the Breakfast Club

A few times, he worked it out. Once, he threw away the milk, and just ate his sandwich. And passed out because the SANDWICH was drugged. Another time, he insisted Murdock swap glasses with him. They both drank, and Murdock fell down. BA laughed about it, then collapsed. Murdock just got up at that point. And one time he wasn't drugged- they hypnotized him.

"I feel the need....the need for SPEED!"

I was humming this song the other day. "Is She Really Going Out With Him?"

Is it "A Few Good Men"? (Sorry I missed my move.) (BTW, there's a MUCH more famous line if this is that movie.)

Of course you're not. You sure are tense right now. You haven't even drunk your milk...

As requested, "forking" off a different topic's derail.

Mark, before you posted all that, did you consider the idea of maybe honoring the requests of a few posters and maybe starting a new thread to avoid completely derailing this one? With the way you posted stuff in quotes like that, it's harder to cut/paste what you just wrote into a new thread.....

The obvious other answers include that twi doesn't want to spend time on other people so they don't WANT to open dialogues online. Splinters don't either- and when they open them, they shut them down again. And in twi, if they catch you online talking to people, they lean on you until you shut down your dialogue. (Anyone remember the "Family Tables" messageboard?) Finally, most of the people on twi staff are clueless at technology. The most intricate things they do nowadays is read all the posts at the GSC and follow links to see if they can find someone new to intimidate. (Most of the stuff they shut down was all discovered by them reading our posts because they can't use a search engine correctly.) As for the google rankings being different, google switched their algorithms some time back. This prevented people from moving sites up the rankings on purpose, since that allowed for pranks and for advertisers to manipulate the results. One consequence was that a lot of legitimate first results moved down a page or 2.

This isn't the thread for it, but if someone's going to make a serious claim for it (I'm skeptical it can be done to my satisfaction, but anything's possible) they'd need to address what I think are some clear verses in both the Gospels and Revelation (2 places twi'ers are notably weak, and some ex-twi'ers are as well.) My point was that we're looking for God to fit into neat explanations we can understand, and he's far more complex than we CAN understand. A small child has a better chance of understanding why his parents "obviously" had him hurt getting shots than we do getting God to fit in our little boxes so we can answer ALL our questions.

I'm not sure they CURRENTLY have a copy of the documents. I certainly do not, and the person, last I heard, wants their privacy a lot, so I can't tell what I DO know about who they were and how they got ahold of them. There's enough "cold, hard facts" just going from what twi documented in its "history" books to warrent leaving twi- "the way:living in love", "vp and me", and "born again to serve".

Depends on when you were in. It wasn't released before the exodus of 1988-1989. If you were in during the 90s, you might have seen it.

He mentioned once on a subject that someone once contacted him in a hotel. (I think this was from pfal.) They sent him a note saying that if he gave them an hour, they'd show him he was incorrect on a subject. He said he "didn't waste his time on them." IIRC, it was one time he claimed he'd forgotten more about Scripture than they'd ever know. He made that claim a few times.

I think the big problem is trying to figure something out when you lack both the experience and the brain-power to even identify the questions. It's easy to look at a limited picture and conclude acts are non-loving. There's a small child. He trusts his parents and loves them. They take him to a place, and sharp needles are jabbed into his arms. Does he stop loving them? Does he think, or feel, they just did something to hurt him? Can he possibly understand he's just been vaccinated to spare him possibly months of suffering? I think the small child has a better chance of understanding than we do in this discussion.

Most movies don't have characters that are "DRAWN"- that would be an ANIMATED movie. Even fewer of THOSE movies aren't designed for an audience specifically of children. More telling is the character is aware of animation to a degree. That, to me, leaves 2 movies. It's even easier when you've seen this line of Jessica Rabbit's on t-shirts and other things. This is obviously "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

It was "The Munsters." Grandpa made the car after Herman lost the family car in a street race, to race and win the family car back. It was Grandpa's coffin, of course. If you watch the Rob Zombie video, you'll see a copy of the family car in it. Your turn.

Rob Zombie did a song and video called "Dragula." It was named after a racecar that was built in an episode of a television show. The name was appropriate- the body of the car was built from a coffin. What was the show?

Ok, let's see. 4 Jewish names. One is Lawrence- or "Larry" for short. If I trimmed "Moishe" down, I might get "Moe". "Shmuel" might be changed to "Shep". So, I might have Moe, Larry, Shep, and Shep's replacement(s), Curly. That would make any 3 of them "THE THREE STOOGES."

It was a lot nicer than the truth. One person who researched the twi history got ahold of some rather hard-to-get documents. The reason vpw was FORCED TO RESIGN involved (no surprise!) some rather inappropriate behavior concerning a church secretary. In typical vpw fashion, vpw pulled a "you can't fire me-I quit" and sent off the letter we just saw, claiming his motives for leaving were pure. The Church, of course, said, "Sure, just as long as you're leaving" and let the matter drop. The letter he fired off said he was leaving because God was directing him to spend more time with others and so on. Later, vpw told twi innies he left because he got static because he exposed "foreign missions." Typical vpw style- he told DIFFERENT lies to DIFFERENT people at different times, each tailored to their audience of the time. As we can see, he was already rewriting history when he sent off the letter.

Yet if one bothers to read vpw, it is obvious that he began the entire "POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" setup specifically selling MATERIAL ABUNDANCE, and he says so right in the very beginning of the Orange Book, "Power For Abundant Living"... ================================= ""Introduction: the Abundant Life. Jesus' proclamation as recorded in John 10:10 is the foundational Scripture for this book. ...I am come that they [believers] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. This verse literally changed my life. My wife and I began in the Christian ministry, plodding ahead with the things of God, but somehow we lacked an abundant life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read from the Word of God that Jesus said He had come to give us life more abundant. I was startled into awareness. As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church. Thus I earnestly began to pursue the question: 'If Jesus Christ came that men and women might have a MORE ABUNDANT LIFE, then why is it that the Christian believers do not manifest even an ABUNDANT LIFE?' I believe most people would be thankful if they ever lived an abundant life; but The Word says Jesus Christ came that we might have life not just abundant, but more abundant. If His Word is not reliable here in John 10:10, how can we trust it anywhere else? But, on the other hand, if Jesus told the truth, if He meant what He said and said what He meant in this declaration, then surely there must be keys, signposts, to guide us to the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant. This book, POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, is one way of showing interested people the abundant life which Jesus Christ lived and which He came to make available to believers as it is revealed in the Word of God. This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives. " =========== It's plainly obvious he wasn't saying the secular world of non-Christians had spiritual abundance. He said he SAW something. That's in the 5 sense category, which vpw said was antithetical to the spiritual. As in "the battle of the senses vs revelation/faith." That's right out of the same class.

The plagiarist plagiarized that from Billy Graham, who actually did that when younger to overcome shyness. Before the internet, that was possible to get away with. (The "praying for the trees" bit he stole. The "hide in the woods and neglect your chores" thing wasn't Graham. It didn't fool his father, either. According to twi's own publication, his father said that since vpw was too lazy to be a decent farmer, he'd be a flop as a preacher.