WordWolf

I've said in the past that the best solution for radical fundamentalism and hate-speech in Islamist countries is EDUCATION and JOBS. The reasons I've said that are clear to me- the people who feel powerless and have nothing (no jobs or underemployment, and undereducated so their prospects are limited) are vulnerable to manipulation. The HAVES (rich Arabs who have all the local wealth and rely on locals having no access to the wealth, enabling themselves to grab it all) manipulate the HAVE NOTS (people with no prospects, struggling to raise families) by giving them simple answers- but especially by telling them WHO TO HATE. So, the Have Nots learn who to hate. Then they are told they can provide for their family by blowing themselves up to blow up their hate targets, because those with lots of money will hand over a little to the family. That's how a lot of suicide bombers get sucked in- they think blowing themselves up accomplishes something God wants and feeds their family. ============================= twi ALSO told people who to hate. "Bushwah!" you might say. I'd point out that all the people who still revere wierwille also still HATE THE SAME HANDFUL OF TARGETS. Who is a loyal twi'er supposed to hate? 1) The Roman Catholic Church. Can't discuss the RCC with them without hearing about how the RCC is unmitigated evil and should be shut down. Anyone remember lcm talking about the previous Pope buying an aircraft carrier and preparing to convert everyone by threatening to blow them up? It's ok to resent the sexual predators and molesters in the RCC, but those in twi must be defended to the last. (Me, I'd prefer both prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and possibly beyond, but according to vpw apologists, I can't be fair or even-handed, so I must not be typing this at all. 2) Women. vpw and lcm stressed how women should be kept in their place. Wives especially must submit to their husbands- and this was meant to mean wives should be submissive and pliant to whatever their husbands said, and should never have a mind of their own. Wives can't make decisions without finding out what he thinks, and all decisions are subject to him overturning them no matter what. Any woman who doesn't fit in that category is to be ignored or vilified. The only time to listen to them at all is to look for talking points to illustrate how misguided they are. (Why else would one quote COMEDIENNES to illustrate how women are hateful?) 3) Jews. vpw insisted that the modern Jews were not the historical Jews at all- and this was definitively refuted using DNA tests. Yet, vpw apologists STILL say that, and say the Holocaust was wildly exaggerated, using the must flimsy of refuted excuses to claim that is so. All the evidence showing vpw was completely wrong in each assertion is to be ignored completely. There were a few others, too. 4) In general, "the establishment" was never to be trusted, whether it's government, any industry (like entertainment), or educational (people with degrees who are recognized authorities on any subject. Anyone else want to chime in on WHY each of these is such a SPECIFIC target, and why vpw was down on them, or why vpw apologists still hate them?

Indeed, it IS. I thought that was a big clue, myself. I also included a few quotes that would have reminded ME of the movie. Most of you are overdue to see this movie again. See it, it's funny. =========================================== "Life's like a movie, write your own ending..." "..keep pretending, keep believing, and that's just what we've set out to do...." "...with the lovers...the dreamers...and you!" The Muppets in the theater at the end, working on the movie. (The last line was a callback to "the Rainbow Connection" from early in the movie.) "Hey you. You with the banjo. Can you help me? I have lost my sense of direction." "Have you tried Hare Krishna?" The Hare Krishna thing was a running gag in the movie, and was even said to be one IN the movie. "We am, is, are, and be, they whom as are known as: The Electric Mayhem!" Dr Teeth's band is The Electric Mayhem! I would have worked out the movie just from that. "They don't look like Presbyterians to me." Fozzie, looking in the church and seeing the band practice. "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?" "A four foot prune!" Floyd and Dr Bunsen Honeydew. "Jack, get rid of this heap. Come out here! "What? What?" "That's my jack." "Oh, hi Jack!" "Jack not name! Jack job!" That big Muppet, who picked up care. "When a German scientist tells you to hold on to your hat, it's not casual conversation. HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT! HAT! HOLD! Good." Mel Brooks as the mad scientist. Go, Raf!

Don't soften what he's doing. It's plagiarism. If someone takes the words of another and uses them without attribution, it's plagiarism. If someone takes the words of another, and substitutes a few words, without attribution, it's plagiarism. If someone takes the words of another, and substitutes a lot of words, without attribution, it's plagiarism. If someone takes the concepts of another, changes the wording, and does not attribute, it's plagiarism. Hendricks knows full well where he got his material. Hendricks knows full well there's copyright notices in the source material. When he used it without attribution, it was both plagiarism and copyright infringement. Don't pretend he didn't know that was both morally and legally wrong. That goes for all the others, too. Even when they break the law for what they perceive to be sufficient reason, they're aware (or are idiots in denial) that they ARE breaking the law.

I shall try to be brief but cover all the points. lcm ("L. Craig Martindale", as he billed himself) was a college student whose skills were strictly average, whose claim to excellence was being on his college's football team, and participating in "the big game" (he neglected to mention he "rode the bench" and didn't PLAY in "the big game." He was recruited straight from college (he graduated with a Bachelors in Psychology, according to him), was impressed by vpw, and immediately afterwards, rushed into the relatively new "way corps" program. When he was unsure he'd be able to pay the full 4 years of tuition, vpw told him he could stay as long as his money held out. Shortly after he "graduated" that program, he was immediately put in charge of the "WOW" program. According to his own account, he began by making elementary mistakes (understandable given how he was never trained in any way for it.) Some time after that, he was placed in charge of the Way Corps program. His entire adult life after college was spent on-site with twi with no time out in a real apartment holding down a real job. His "training" was sporadic, and consisted of vpw trying to make lcm into a younger version of himself-giving him a motorcycle, telling him he would have to "loosen up" concerning sex outside his marriage if he ever wanted to "lead God's people" and so on. When it came time for vpw to retire, vpw made a big deal out of an open search for his replacement, but he had lcm planned for years as his replacement. He once said that the reason was that lcm never questioned his orders-if he told lcm to do something, he'd just do it. The general thinking was either that lcm had been voted in (what I'd been told) or that the Corps "vets" would follow where he led. However, he lacked all the skill at conning people vpw had-and genuinely thought vpw was telling the truth. So, he was a lot more OVERT where vpw would do things quietly and slyly. Shortly after vpw's death, people began hearing about sexual abuse by vpw, or endorsed by vpw and performed by his inner circle including lcm. A number of higher-ups in twi started to try to address this, and over a few years, the result was lcm insisting that his position as President of twi in essence granted him "papal infallibility" and everyone had to follow him. This led to several top twi'ers being kicked off grounds or leaving, and maintaining communication with others in twi. Eventually, lcm demanded an oath of loyalty to him from all twi staff, and all twi Corps "vets". One said it sounded to him like "Craig" was asking him to follow him "BLINDLY", to which lcm replied that HE HAD BEEN DOING THAT ALL ALONG. lcm followed this up with demanding an oath of loyalty all around. About 80% of twi staffers and members in general left twi rather than swear an oath of loyalty to lcm, for any of a number of reasons. This left twi at 20% of its previous membership. lcm seemed nicer for a short time, but then began to sound truly insane, making weird pronouncements and announcements, and making policy decisions that kept damaging twi over and over. Meanwhile, he continued to do what vpw insisted he would need to do-and pressed women into having sex with him. Eventually, one sued, and twi was unable to hush her up. So, all the people who had collaborated with lcm and conspired with him (including Mrs LCM and the current President of twi) all threw him under the bus, claiming they knew nothing of this, he acted alone, etc. Eventually, he was dismissed as President and from other positions and has dropped from sight. (Unconfirmed accounts have him living with twi'ers and having twi provide for his financial needs despite him no longer being OFFICIALLY connected in any way.) A discussion of his own account of his early twi days was on the thread called "vp and me in wonderland." www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/8019-vp-and-me-in-wonderland/

No promises. I don't know this one, and if I don't, and you're excluded from guessing, it's likely no one might. Or someone could surprise me, but that's not a sure thing. Just saying.

"Life's like a movie, write your own ending..." "..keep pretending, keep believing, and that's just what we've set out to do...." "...with the lovers...the dreamers...and you!" "Hey you. You with the banjo. Can you help me? I have lost my sense of direction." "Have you tried Hare Krishna?" "We am, is, are, and be, they whom as are known as: The Electric Mayhem!" "They don't look like Presbyterians to me." "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?" "A four foot prune!" "Jack, get rid of this heap. Come out here! "What? What?" "That's my jack." "Oh, hi Jack!" "Jack not name! Jack job!" "When a German scientist tells you to hold on to your hat, it's not casual conversation. HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT! HAT! HOLD! Good."

Correct, of course. I suppose you recognize that text block as the counterpoint in the song. The drummer sings it twice in the song, at different times.

Seriously- they "marked and avoided" you, and that was the reason, either stated or actual???

"This song was in my head, now it's in my mind, call it reach it get some words and get some timing. And though I realize, I cannot emphasize, I'll stick around but just don't promise, nothing binding. And baby can't you see, that you're so desperately, a standing joker like a vocal one-liner. Instead of sing-a-long, this song is monotone, I've gotta get some soul I gotta get some feeling." "I never say anything at all, But with nothing to consider they forget my name (name, name, name) They call me hell They call me Stacey They call me her They call me Jane." "They call me quiet But I'm a riot Mary-Jo-Lisa Always the same" "Are you calling me 'Darling'? Are you calling me 'Bird'?" If anyone knows the song, they'll get it now. Otherwise, I'll switch songs because nobody here knows it.

"Life's like a movie, write your own ending..." "..keep pretending, keep believing, and that's just what we've set out to do...." "...with the lovers...the dreamers...and you!"

No, but we're dealing with a people at a similar tech level.

We can also count him out because I indicated it wasn't rap...

Tough to say. However, vpw had dogs on ground that were trained to attack (RD was threatened with them), and some of the enforcers were armed (with guns.) People WERE threatened with dogs and bullets on different occasions, but I don't know for a fact of any that were SHOT or directly attacked by dogs. I do, however, know of at least one person who was directly threatened with violence for asking ABOUT discussing things with someone, when on grounds. That was me, at my last ROA. In case it's not obvious to the usual people, I failed to respond in the expected fashions. First, the other person tried to use body language to intimidate me, looming over me. I recognized the attempt at the time, and that it was meant to steer the conversation off-topic. So, I kept it on-topic and iced down all my own reactions, getting less and LESS emotional as the other person attempted harder and harder to intimidate me, and got more and more frustrated it wasn't working. So then he tried with a verbal, direct threat of violence. I iced my reactions down even further, and kept talking as if our conversation was utterly normal. I was getting some really good information at the time- more about what was causing that reaction than the information itself. (Subtext and context was speaking VOLUMES.) I was also enjoying the discomfiture the bully was causing HIMSELF while I was controlling myself. Finally, I also reviewed my prospects if he actually attacked me. He was bigger and had more reach, but I was a LOT faster than him, and better-trained. (He relied entirely on bulk and not skill.) If he attacked, he would not have won-I had a number of gambits prepared, and we were talking with plenty of room to maneuver, which gave me the advantage. Any way, HE learned intimidation while in the corps, which he was in at the time. (I'd met him before this.) Some people were apparently TRAINED specifically for this. Why does a supposed Bible group have people trained in intimidation, recommended they learn gun use, and have dogs trained in intimidation?

Ok, next movie. "Life's like a movie, write your own ending..."

"Quite peaceful and highly rational." "Before you start quoting the Prime Directive -- he'd already seen us; the damage was done. It was bring him aboard or let him die." "Then why didn't you let him die?" "Because we were responsible for his injuries!" "I don't know if I concur with that reasoning, Doctor." "Like the Vulcans, they have highly ordered minds...A very sensible people. For example, Mintakan women precede their mates. It's a signal to other women." " 'This man's taken; get your own?' " "Not precisely... More like, 'if you want his services, I'm the one to negotiate with.' " "What kinds of 'services'?" "All kinds." "Ah. They are a sensible race." "There are the stories of the Overseer... who could appear and disappear at will..." "And couldn't this Overseer heal the dead?" "He had supreme power -- or so our ancestors believed." "I believe I've seen the Overseer..." "Uh-oh..." "He is called the Picard." "If you are father and daughter, you may have shared the same dream." "That is not reasonable." "No one's believed that for countless generations. Just as we no longer believe the stars control our fates, or that the spirits of the dead haunt the living." "I'm not saying all the old beliefs are true. But I did see the Picard, and I was restored to life." "This Palmer is one of the Overseer's servants?" "Yes -- the Picard has many servants. Isn't that true?" "According to the legends. But if Palmer is a servant of the Overseer, what was he doing in the cave?" "The Overseer was said to be all-powerful. He could provide gentle winters, plentiful hunting, fertile crops... anything." "You've angered the Picard -- and we may all suffer for it!" Weren't there stories of the Overseer destroying those who offended him?" "Stories. Nothing more." "Perhaps we should punish her -- to let the Overseer know that she and Riker acted alone." "Horrifying... Dr. Barron, Your own reports describe how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned all belief in the supernatural. And now you're asking me to sabotage that achievement... send them back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition." "It's not the season for lightning. It must be a warning..." "We've had storms at this time of year before." "Not like this one..." "It must mean something!" "It is beyond my power." "Nothing is beyond your power! You are the Overseer -- I'll prove it!" ""Dr. Barron, I cannot, I will not impose a set of commandments on these people!" ""Look at me... feel the warmth of my hand, the rhythm of my pulse. I'm not a supreme being. I'm flesh and blood, like you." "Not like me." "Like you. Different in appearance, yes, but we are both living beings. We are born, we grow, we live... and we die. In all the ways that matter, we are alike." "Perhaps one day, my people will travel above the skies..." "Of that, I have absolutely no doubt."

I don't think I know any of them either. On the other hand, I know this song...

I've heard at least one claim of people who've been listening to newer stuff. So, something from 2007-2008. "This song was in my head, now it's in my mind, call it reach it get some words and get some timing. And though I realize, I cannot emphasize, I'll stick around but just don't promise, nothing binding. And baby can't you see, that you're so desperately, a standing joker like a vocal one-liner. Instead of sing-a-long, this song is monotone, I've gotta get some soul I gotta get some feeling."

I'll take a wild swing. "When Harry Met Sally"?

[i linked this way so you can follow back to the original post. I'm going to interrupt the quote more than the tags can handle. But anyone can easily see it's all honest quoting.] johniam: "What VP did to Sarah does not constitute "sexual molestation"." A) Let's not use names of non-leaders who don't consent to posting here. B) We do not have proof vpw did what he claimed in public to have done. It is consistent with everything else he said and did, so we all agree he PROBABLY did. If his victim steps forward and confirms it, that's something else. Survivors coming forth and giving direct testimony carries more weight than "I don't think it happened". If he didn't do it, he obviously fantasized in detail about doing it- which is sick and unhealthy, then talked about it- which is demeaning to his MINOR CHILD and also affects his audience. If he did do it, it constituted "sexual molestation" as defined in every state in the Union, including Ohio where he did it. If you intend to put your hands on the "private parts" of someone who is not consenting, that is "sexual molestation." If you put your hands on the "private parts" of a minor, they are legally (and morally) unable to give consent, so that is "sexual molestation" even if the minor lacks a full understanding as to what's going on. And doing that to your own child is even sicker than doing it to a total stranger-which is already sick and perverted. The only obvious exceptions to this would be a medical examination in a doctor's office by a licensed MEDICAL doctor under extremely specific conditions. (A doctor can also go to jail if he's a pervert trying to get sick thrills off his patients.) Or, a paramedic dealing with trying to keep a critically-injured person from dying, which, again, is an extremely specific action. vpw was hardly doing anything approaching either scenario.] johniam: "It wasn't his intent," [A man intends to put his hands on a minor's 'private parts.' He does so. You find out and ask him why, and he claims he meant no harm-he was trying to educate the minor. You believe him and he goes on his way. The police arrive a minute later, and ask him why. He makes the same claim. The police then cart him away because sexual molestation was just performed by him, which is a felony. Then he goes to jail, where even the other inmates look down on those who sexually molest minors. If the man actually told the truth to you, he meant to educate, and sexually molested a minor to perform that education. If he grew up in the US, he HAD to know it was a felony, no matter WHY he wanted to do it. He chose to sexually molest a child regardless. If the man lied to you, he did so knowing full well he was sexually molesting a minor, and lied to the minor and yourself to cover his tracks. So, he committed a felony, knew he committed a felony, and thought you were stupid enough to buy a pack of lies as to it not being a felony and why.] johniam: nor did it do any damage. She married, had children, and she and her husband continue to support a spinoff which follows in the foot steps of VPs teachings. [For someone claiming to understand what happened or didn't happen, you're displaying an impressive amount of ignorance and misinformation. Sexual molestation happens. The victim usually was completely innocent- especially when the victim is a MINOR. Most of the victims of sexual molestation get on with their lives eventually. That does not erase what happened nor make it any less a molestation. Christopher Reeve went on with his life after getting paralyzed from a tragic fall from a horse. That he got on with his life neither negated what happened, nor restored him from paralysis. He survived and did his best to get on with his life despite what happened, IN SPITE OF the damage he suffered.] johniam: How foolish to assign damage and blame where none exists. [A man puts his hands on a minor's "private parts" on purpose. He claims it's not sexual molestation when he sexually molests them because he meant to educate them. Another man says "that's right, and it's foolish to think it was really sexual molestation." A third man says "WHY you molested a minor doesn't erase the fact that you molested a minor" and calls for the police. One of those men spoke "foolishly." Was it the man who said the sexual molester was actually a molester no matter what his excuse was, or was it the man who said that sexual molestation is negated if you have a good enough reason and a pure enough motive to put your hands on a minor's private parts? How foolish to erase blame and claim there was no damage where damage exists.] johniam: I believe most of those women consented. [Even IF that was the case, that doesn't even address sexually molesting a minor, nor does it change what he did to the women who clearly didn't consent- like the ones he drugged unconscious. There's no question as to whether or not THEY consented. Unless one is a 24-carat ignoramus. Then again, since those clearly indicate vpw knew what he was doing and victimized women for his sexual gratification, we'll have to skip over those and address whatever might allow for "wiggle room" and claim vpw was not to blame when he molested women and raped them and so on.] johniam: At least, at the time, thought it an honor to serve the man of God. [That's certainly what vpw pushed quietly, behind the scenes. He passed it along in little whispers and private meetings, so it wouldn't get out to the public- or to the average twi person. Few would have entered twi with the idea that it was a privilege or an "honor" to have sex with a married man and that they should want to have sex with him because he was "the man of God." All or nearly all the people who said or thought that was TAUGHT that IN TWI. That's not taught in mainstream US society. In fact, the only places you hear any talk like that is in CULTS- David Koresh claimed the same privileges, and said he was allowed to have sex with any woman in his Branch Davidians. A tiny minority in twi was watched for, and selected. Those people were told lots of things to get them to believe that men of God should be allowed to commit acts of adultery and fornication, and that the Bible which said it was wrong actually said it was all right. Some of those people rejected that from the beginning and didn't get the full indoctrination. A relative few didn't realize what was going on, and accepted lies and deception about what God wanted, one idea at a time, and then eventually found themselves espousing doctrine the opposite of what the Bible said. vpw taught that doctrine. Was he blameless? Well, was the serpent blameless in Genesis 3 when he got Eve from God's clear instruction to its opposite, and got her to believe a lie? (God said fornication and adultery are wrong, God said they would surely die. vpw said fornication and adultery are acceptable "if you can handle it", the serpent said they would NOT surely die. God said one thing, the serpent- and vpw- said the opposite. Really, this is not hard to understand if one is actually TRYING to understand. Some Kindergarteners could follow this.] johniam: There's no way he could have kept that up for more than 10 years if all those women immediately responded like the girl in Marcia's story. He was already under fire for being a "cult leader". If there had been any evidence whatsoever that he was routinely drugging and raping women the media would have been all over it. Most of those women were Ok with him doing that. [it's a fallacy to think that all the women he molested or raped would immediately have responded in the SAME way. vpw covered his tracks BRILLIANTLY. First, he selected the "best" victims. He found women he thought would not be assertive, who were trusting and naive, and not cynical. (They would trust him more and think "he's trying to rape me" slower than the average woman would.) He especially targeted, among those, women who had previously been victimized by other sexual molesters and rapists. As is commonly known (and should be obvious by now), survivors who grew up with such a history are easier to victimize later because they suffered molestation when they were trying to understand what "normal" is. Second, he set up places to be alone where he could operate uninterrupted. He had LOTS of private little places- he had an office in different buildings, a home, and a SEPARATE OFFICE apart from the buildings. So, he arranged for places he could claim just HAPPENED to be efficient for molesting someone in private. Third, he "primed the pump" by releasing lots of doctrine and ideas on campus about how all that was acceptable, so that people were all desensitized, and he had phrases he could now repeat as "buzzwords" when he decided the time was right to molest and rape the women. Fourth, he prepared a detailed script to play upon a number of emotions- pity (my wife can't satisfy me), pride (it's a privilege to service a man of God when he has 'needs'), and so on. Fifth, he assembled a cadre of people around him, to facilitate this. There were people who looked for sex victims for vpw, people who arranged for them to be alone with vpw, and people to "exit counsel" his victims. If the victim seemed CONFUSED and in shock, the "exit counselors" would bury them in jargon and buzzwords until they were too confused to speak up. If the victim seemed to understand what happened, understood a line was crossed, and was likely to tell someone rather than stay silent, those are the women vpw IMMEDIATELY kicked out of wherever they were, and sent home on a slow Greyhound bus. As soon as they were on the bus, vpw's cadre was busy making phone calls to deatroy the woman's reputation at home, so no one would believe her and vpw's dirty little secret was safe. At least one woman committed suicide because her life was so completely destroyed- She wanted to serve God, and was raped by the man she trusted the most. Confused and emotionally crushed, she was then kicked out of the one group where she invested all her hopes, the only place to serve God and the only purpose in her life. Getting home, she would face all her friends turning against her. With nothing left to turn to, with no one to lean on or lend an ear, and nothing left to live for (AS SHE SAW IT AND AS WAS PLANNED), she just gave up and committed suicide. vpw didn't necessarily PREFER that, but he was fine with that as a result, because a dead woman can't press charges.] johniam: I don't buy the 'authority negates consent' BS either. You can't have it both ways: either they consented (at the time) or they didn't. [You don't understand people at all. Even when signing contracts, under US law, any contract is voided if either party was under DURESS at the time they signed it. There are lots of things that make "consent" MEANINGLESS. "Sign this or I carry out my blackmail." "It's all legal-they signed this, see?" There's other things, but that one is pretty clear-cut as just one example.] johniam: Nobody's letting VP have it both ways, but women today can consent at the time, then claim they didn't consent one day or ten years later and everybody believes them. Nice double standard. [That has nothing to do with the women vpw set out to molest and rape. (Certainly, it's unrelated to the women he drugged and raped.) Sounds like, if he got away with it at the time, it was fine and he shouldn't be blamed for it. Yet if someone murdered your family and got away with it, you'd blame them despite them getting away with it. Nice double standard.] johniam: Being an attractive woman is what LCM called an "arche". A position of dignity. A position of power. It can be that for a guy too, but not nearly as much. Throughout history any woman who is reasonably attractive will have a vehicle of power. Back in the day, when someone got themselves a new car, the tradition was they would take the car to a rural road and see how fast it would go. 100mph? It was possible then. A car has a sphere of power to it's owner. It's natural to wonder what can I do with this power. So it's only natural for women to wonder what they can do with whatever power they have as attractive women. What will happen when I wear this outfit around this crowd? How often do men stop what they're doing and look at me when I walk by? Research. That's not evil, it's even prudent. [You're taking the rationalizations of a man who was TRAINED to rationalize sexual molestation and rape of women by men as ACCEPTABLE and NECESSARY. (vpw told him he would NEED TO "lighten up" in the area of monogamy and faithfulness in marriage.) It's the woman's fault for being attractive- she should have known not to be anywhere around vpw or lcm without wearing a full-body burka? Sure, there's women out there who decide they're going to dress trampy and try to get men (and women) to stare, but there's also men who do the same, and that hardly means that most normal people want to do that. You're married- ask your wife. Did she run around in trampy outfits, glorying in how guys made disgusting noises as she passed by? Is that what she was dressed like when you met her? Or was she a normal woman wearing normal clothing and doing normal things?] johniam: But it must make your blood boil if any man, minister or not, can anticipate your thoughts and take advantage of you. Sexually. Financially. That must hurt. 'Made the world a wilderness' indeed. [it hurts ANY person whenever ANY person takes advantage of them- whether sexually, financially, socially, or any other way.] johniam: I read John Schoenheit's adultery paper once, ten years ago. It was a word study. It made sense. The #1 scripture I think of on that subject is in Proverbs. A wound and dishonor will he get. Not good. I really did benefit from being in twi much much more than I suffered anything. I don't believe VP is near the monster some of you make him out to be, but he's got to have some 'splaining to do. That's good enough for me. [You need to reread it again. You've been arguing against some of his points. Congratulations on getting more out of twi and suffering less for being in it. As I've said many times, I'm glad I got in, and glad I got out. I received benefits- but the cost of those benefits was paid for by many of my fellow Christians, for whom Christ died. Please note that "I received benefits" can still be true even if "the person I got the benefits from was a greedy, lying pervert" is also true. One doesn't negate the other. (Of course, a SEPARATE discussion would be whether or not the PERCEIVED benefits were ACTUAL benefits, but any ACTUAL benefits would still be true.]

I can see that some of us can't cross from "idyllic fantasy of my youth" to "the ugly truth behind the scenes while I thought everything was fine."

www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-lawsuit/john-schoenheits-adultery--fornication_4.html Appendix A Reason: In the Old Testament men were allowed to have more than one wife. Surely things are not stricter in the "Grace Administration" than they were under the Law. God must allow men to have intercourse with other women besides their wives, especially single women. Answer: Men were allowed to have more than one wife in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15). That is not the case in the Grace Administration as Corinthians, Timothy, and Titus make clear. Timothy and Titus are specifically addressed to leaders in the church. According to I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, a "bishop" (episkopos), i.e., one who is a ruling elder, an overseer, in the church, must be the "husband of one wife." According to I timothy 3:12, the "deacons" (diakonos), i.e., one who serves in the Body of Christ, are also to be the "husband of one wife". Thus the Word of God clearly states that any man who serves in the Body of Christ must only have one wife. More than that, however, the Word of God declares that every Christian man should have just one wife and every Christian woman should have just one husband. Corinthians, which is addressed to every believer, addresses the one-husband, one-wife issue. Corinthians says "Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:2). This verse clearly sets the monogamous Christian marriage. If the wife is sharing her husband with other wives, then the husband is not "her own," but is shared property. Similarly, a woman is not to have more than one husband, for then she would not be "his own." Thus although the Old Testament Law allowed for more than one wife, the New Testament does not. Believers in the Grace Administration are not allowed to have more than one wife, and they are not allowed to "sleep around" either. I Corinthians 7:1: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. The essential meaning of the word "touch" in this context is "touch as if the woman were your wife." Bauer's lexicon handles the word "touch" as sexual intercourse with a woman. In the Grace Administration, the wife is to meet the sexual needs of the husband and vice-versa. Even though the Old Testament Law made provision for a man to have more than one wife, there were laws governing people's sexual behavior. Each wife was to be well taken care of, having food, raiment and sexual companionship. Deuteronomy 21:10 If he take him another wife, her food her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Adultery was forbidden in the ten commandments and was punishable by death (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10). Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that shall lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a man had sexual intercourse with a free woman who was betrothed, that was also considered either adultery or rape. If the act occurred in the city, the act was considered to be adultery and the man and the woman were stoned to death. If the act occurred out in the countryside, the act was considered rape and only the man was killed (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). Thus, whether the betrothed woman was willing or not, if a man had intercourse with a betrothed free woman, he was killed. If a man had sexual intercourse with a slave who was betrothed, there were still consequences, but they were less severe. The woman was scourged (whipped) and the man fined. Leviticus 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. It is noteworthy that even though the consequences for adultery with a betrothed slave girl were less severe, the act itself was called a "sin" twice in verse 22. If a man had sexual intercourse with a single woman, he had to marry her. Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. The one exception to this occurred if the girl's father absolutely refused to let the man marry his daughter. In that case, the man was required to pay a fine equal to the "the dowry of virgins" (Exodus 22:17). Even if a man found a single woman and raped her, he had to marry her. Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away (i.e. divorce her) all his days. These two verses refer to rape, according to the context. Verses 26 and 27, just prior to these, refer to rape, and the words "lay hold on her" in verse 28 indicate rape. The New International Version translates Deuteronomy 22:28 and 29 as follows: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.* One reason the Law of Moses specified that single girls marry the man who seduced or raped them was that if a girl was not a virgin on her wedding night she could be stoned to death. Deuteronomy 22:10-21 But if this thing (the woman's not being a virgin) be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. From the above information it can be seen that Israel under the Law was not a sexual panacea, where men had the sexual affections of women freely available to them. If they had more than one wife, they had to make sure that each was well taken care of. If he seduced or raped a married or betrothed woman, he was stoned to death. If he seduced or raped a single woman, he was forced to marry her. People have tried to say that the Old Testament Law does not forbid a man to visit a prostitute or have intercourse with his slave girls. Although it is true that in practice men did visit prostitutes and take advantage of their slave girls, had the Law been properly applied, this would not have happened. Thus, if the Law was carried out, the master would have married his slave girl, and the prostitute would have married her first customer.** From the above evidence it can be seen that the men of the Old Testament did not live in a society where they had vast sexual freedom. Yes, they could have more than one wife, while we today in the Grace Administration cannot. Although the reasons why God allowed more than one wife in the Old Testament but only allows one wife today may not be clear, one thing is clear: The Word of God does say that today, in the Grace Administration, marriage is to be monogamous. Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not your wife is a sin. www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-lawsuit/john-schoenheits-adultery--fornication_18.html My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions. {So, his KNOWN victims over the legal age of consent should be thankful he waited until they were of legal age of consent before he raped, molested, drugged them? And he had to SEE THE FACES of SOME of those women to know "that they weren't blessed" to see a problem? A man who supposedly not only knew the Bible, but knew it well enough to teach others and claim he had an understanding that surpassed all those of the last 2000 years?]

The Wilburys are worth a listen. You'd listen, probably, if you didn't know them as Jethro, Muddy, Boo, etc but as Bob Dylan, George Harrison, Tom Petty, Roy Orbison, and Jeff Lynne (ELO).

I suspect there's almost no Traveling Wilburys fans here. Me, I'm a fan of Boo, Muddy, Otis, Charlie T Jr, etc. *snicker* This was the opening of "End of the Line." I forget if that was off the first album (Volume One) or the second (Volume Three.) BTW, some of us have Javascript turned OFF for any of a number of reasons. (Security, office firewall...) So, when you give the answer as a link or hotlink to a video, we see a blank space, or some abstract symbol. That means we have no idea what you were trying to say. So, how about actually writing out the name below the link, in the post, somewhere? If someone's logging in from a mobile device and they pay for bandwidth, they have to use up rationed bandwidth to get an answer you could have typed just as fast....

"Quite peaceful and highly rational." "Before you start quoting the Prime Directive -- he'd already seen us; the damage was done. It was bring him aboard or let him die." "Then why didn't you let him die?" "Because we were responsible for his injuries!" "I don't know if I concur with that reasoning, Doctor." "Like the Vulcans, they have highly ordered minds...A very sensible people. For example, Mintakan women precede their mates. It's a signal to other women." " 'This man's taken; get your own?' " "Not precisely... More like, 'if you want his services, I'm the one to negotiate with.' " "What kinds of 'services'?" "All kinds." "Ah. They are a sensible race." "There are the stories of the Overseer... who could appear and disappear at will..." "And couldn't this Overseer heal the dead?" "He had supreme power -- or so our ancestors believed." "I believe I've seen the Overseer..." "Uh-oh..." "He is called the Picard." "If you are father and daughter, you may have shared the same dream." "That is not reasonable." "No one's believed that for countless generations. Just as we no longer believe the stars control our fates, or that the spirits of the dead haunt the living." "I'm not saying all the old beliefs are true. But I did see the Picard, and I was restored to life." "This Palmer is one of the Overseer's servants?" "Yes -- the Picard has many servants. Isn't that true?" "According to the legends. But if Palmer is a servant of the Overseer, what was he doing in the cave?" "The Overseer was said to be all-powerful. He could provide gentle winters, plentiful hunting, fertile crops... anything." "You've angered the Picard -- and we may all suffer for it!" Weren't there stories of the Overseer destroying those who offended him?" "Stories. Nothing more." "Perhaps we should punish her -- to let the Overseer know that she and Riker acted alone." "Your own reports describe how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned all belief in the supernatural. And now you're asking me to sabotage that achievement... send them back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition." "It's not the season for lightning. It must be a warning..." "We've had storms at this time of year before." "Not like this one..." "It must mean something!" "It is beyond my power." "Nothing is beyond your power! You are the Overseer -- I'll prove it!"

Romans 1:1-7 (KJV) 1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1-7 (NASB) 1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [The entire LETTER of Paul to the Romans was a single letter, which was addressed to the Christians of Rome. Anything in the actual letter that appears to be otherwise must be read in the context of THE ENTIRE LETTER. Stop and think. It is SENSELESS to think that Paul would be instructed to write a letter to the Christians and suddenly have it diverge for a page to address local Jews, and another page to address local Gentiles. They would never READ the letter! It's all ONE letter. It talks TO Christians. Therefore, when it speaks "to you Gentiles", it should be amazingly OBVIOUS it is not addressing Joe Gentile down the street, but Christians in Rome- and when you remember that, it takes little thought to realize it's addressing the born again GENTILES rather than unbelieving ones, just as some letters were addressed to born again JEWS rather than unbelieving ones. ("To the 12 tribes"..) I got to thinking about that after it was just used again today to excuse us from having to ACT rightly since we're Christians. vpw misused this verse (what else is new?) to allow himself room to sin with impunity and insist God wouldn't mind. He taught it accordingly, and we all bought into it for a time. (Anyone still buying into it after their next read after this, however, has no excuse for just blowing off what it REALLY means.]