WordWolf

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." I... love you too much to condemn you." "I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks upon this earth is the one who finds... True love?" "Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me." "When my time comes, will you do the same to me? Will you?" "No." "Take me away from all this death! " "Last week he wanted to marry her. Now he wants to have her committed." "Hear me out, young man. Lucy is not a random victim, attacked by mere accident, you understand? No. She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple."

Good. (Not the suffering it part.) That's the first step in understanding what many people, mostly women, went through both PERSONALLY from vpw and generally under vpw's regime as he taught others to do what he did and facilitate what he did. Whether or not YOU are, there certainly are people who DO call her a liar.We've gotten people calling the women who stepped forth ALL liars. We've had people who added to their testimony called liars. We've had people who insisted there was never any sexual wrongdoing at the bod/bot level. We've had people who insisted lcm never did anything. We've had people who insisted vpw never did anything. Then we've had people suggest vpw had sex with women FOR THEIR BENEFIT- either to toughen them up spiritually, or to give them sexual healing. Then we've had people who seem determined to paint the rapist (vpw) as the innocent victim (he's in his RV on his bed innocently minding his own business when women came in, gave themselves alcohol, and threw themselves at him.) Finally, after having made a major production of things- by challenging every eyewitness, victim account, everything people personally saw or did- and having them all speak up in response- they claimed that all this time spent on vpw's evil deeds shows the ones exposing them have an unhealthy obsession with vpw. Whether or not you're any of those parties, that's gone on for maybe a DECADE between WayDale and the GSC. There's a LOT of information, both women who've come forth as direct victims offering testimony. There's people who were part of vpw's criminal gang who've admitted, ashamed, they were in on it. There's official court records that lcm admitted to wrongdoing. Then there's all the information around what's directly known from participants-willing and nonwilling- and posted here and elsewhere. There's a complete, VERY consistent picture. Feel free to look up some of it. Even 10% should be enough to remove "a reasonable doubt." I myself began from the position that vpw was innocent of wrongdoing. However, the wealth of the evidence was sufficient for me to change my mind.

Larry, I suspect you may be the only person here who missed the irony in using condescending and arrogant speech to claim someone else is being condescending and arrogant. I really recommend you review the previous situation, where you were determined to perceive condescension and arrogance where none was offered, and responded "in kind", which meant you responded to civil posts with uncivil replies.

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." I... love you too much to condemn you." "I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks upon this earth is the one who finds... True love?" "Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me."

Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 10:12 AM BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376036 Posted on: Oct 22 2007, 01:06 PM Groucho, you and others are correct, I am not a spokesman for all men and should not have written that. My apologies to all, for the blanket statement "any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay." Sorry, please forgive. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=376116

Ok, went back to discussions where we interacted. The first one was the "holy thing" discussion. The thread started here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=14337 The discussion had many people agreeing and disagreeing, some using verses of Scripture, some not. At one point, I posted this: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337336 You responded here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337622 Saying that my explanation-with verses- didn't support the conclusion with the verses. So, I said I'd lay it out again in plain English shortly. Which I did, verse by verse, and point by point, here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337794 Which took a considerable amount of time, was simple and straightforward, and addressed your concerns IN GOOD FAITH. Your response was that you couldn't see my position supported in the posts. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337841 Since it seemed to me that you were deliberately being obtuse, I asked what YOU get from those SAME verses. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=337879 Jean and I, BTW, had disagreed on a number of specifics. She and I were disagreeing rather politely on the thread at the same time. She also attempted to clarify your points. In the process, you gave a link with some text- which was UNSOURCED. ANYONE can make a statement and not SOURCE it-which is what that person did, which means none of us can check whether it was a reliable statement or just hearsay, because we can't check their SOURCE. I pointed that out, and not in an impolite fashion, right here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338246 Your immediate response to that was here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338256 Where you said there was "a limit to your patience", to something that was fairly neutral posting. I posted-again with manners-replying to it here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338260 Your reply to THAT was to tell me to get off my high horse, here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338266 At that point, I couldn't figure out what questions you supposedly had unanswered. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338402 I pointed out that whatever they were, they seem to have gotten lost, and a recap might be good-which was what I'd do for you. I also pointed out you claimed I didn't cite anything except myself, despite the fact I'd gone verse-by-verse through 2 different versions, and cited them properly. You then said you weren't going to recap your questions, and were going to instead explain where you got me on a high horse. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338422 Which I explained in the next post. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338424 Once I explained in detail, your only response was that you felt you were dealing with a teenager. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=338427 Things then settled down for several pages between us. (Other posters had their own issues.) Until you posted some people's names fully, and I told you a standing policy against that. I said "please." http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=339856 Your reply was to change the name, and add "Don't you have anything better to do?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=339856 You also seemed angry I mentioned that, but some names made it fine. So, a moderator stated the rule. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=340046 So you dropped it rather sensibly. The rest of the thread went as amicable as threads generally go. ========= "YOU happen to be one of the first ones I've engaged here that treated me in a condescending and discourteous fashion. Of course you don't see it that way, but if you were to take dan's suggestion and re-read my posts from the beginning" Ok, did that. "you (or others) might see where I just got tired of your arrogant and condescending tone in your responses to me. So I slapped you back." Others might interpret it differently, but I just reread them, and it STILL doesn't look that way. I do recall (but can't lay my hands on the post at this moment) that you later claimed you equated LONG posts with NONSENSE posts, that you objected to posts on the basis of their length rather than their content. Since some of my posts need room to explain something in detail, I noticed that would mean you would object to my posts with no regard to the content. That means a short, illogical post could be embraced while a long, clearly-stated, well-documented post would be rejected, just because it was longer. (Although the length was what made it more useful, more clear, more logical.)

One of the more consistent things here is you can always count on WTH not retaining any knowledge posted here on the GSC. We discussed how the specific-HOW the people were killed by the Nazis is secondary to THAT they were killed by the Nazis, and that even WHO was wiped out was secondary to THAT many people were wiped out, but WTH's fixated. Either it's a discussion of crematoriums or he might as well not be in it.

"We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." (This is STILL not a documentary on life in a religious group.) I... love you too much to condemn you."

To say that's why you're being considered a troll is pure crap. To invoke an example, Oakspear and I disagree doctrinally on nearly every particular. However, we have civil discussions and mutual respect. Ever see a shouting match between us? NO. We treat each other with MANNERS, consistent with how people are treated online, and how Christians are supposed to treat each other. Oakspear's not a Christian, and sees that clearly. Supposedly, you should see it more clearly than Oakspear. You've been told lots of times, by lots of different people, that courtesy and manners were the main problem with your posts. You've ignored all of that and maintain that it's your opinions that people disagree with. Ever consider that many of us would agree with a number of doctrines you do, if they weren't being presented in objectionably rude ways? I LIKE to agree with other Christians and respect the differences where I can. So far, the non-Christians at the GSC- and there's a number of them- make that a possibility with them. Supposedly, it should be easier with you. A) You are the one who started this.Please don't insult our intelligences by pretending you DIDN'T mean to make a PUBLIC ISSUE of you're posting status. Therefore, this BEGAN (scroll up this thread) because they were hearing "your side of the story." Paw simply responded with his side once you'd presented yours. Saying otherwise is dishonest. And transparent. B) Admins and moderators make a lot of decisions on a board. I do not expect to see either of them all over this thread, justifying their decisions over and over to your satisfaction, partly because I believe that there would never be an end to rehashing it if it we discussed it "to your satisfaction." I see you having made the deliberate decision to conduct yourself the way you wished, and then to disregard when others politely told you your conduct was inappropriate for the format and location you were engaging in it. Eventually, action was taken to reflect this, as others made their own decisions. The staff responded to your decisions, and where you took them. Now you're objecting to standards being enforced-despite receiving warnings that there were standards, and that you weren't measuring up to them. To continue to rehash that ad nauseum is neither expected of staff, nor appropriate, nor profitable, since it won't be needed for anyone else, and it won't convince you at all. The other part is that staff normally do not engage in lengthy discussions on their actions, especially when they feel it necessary to take action on a poster who has warranted action. That's true of every messageboard all over cyberspace. You don't get to dictate policy here. Neither do I. Paw has made a point of explaining himself already on this thread. You may now choose to drop the issue and continue to post, hopefully with some manners, or leave and see if you can find a messageboard that had policies you like. You can even make your own messageboard and make your own policies, and see if anyone shows up. Or you can take the low road and throw a tantrum. Up to you- use your free will. I admit, I consider this a very inventive reinterpretation of your conduct at the GSC, and I think anyone who reviews your post history would find it so as well.

No. You mean with soldiers, and armed forces, and artillery, and battlefields, and stuff. Some variation of that. This is not. Someone does 'war' on someone else, but it's not a film that anyone would classify as a 'war film'

In case he was waiting for an official notice, yes, Tom, it's your turn. :)

Darn, Belle beat me to it! If you read the Snopes page, you'll see that Petition 2493 was defeated IN 1975.

WordWolf again. And that's not exactly something you'd necessarily want. I mean, the name "Sinatra" is free publicity, especially if you are a performer who's Frank S' kid. On the other hand, Jeff Gilooly changed his own name because it was TOO recognizable.

(Emphasis mine.) Sure would be nice if we could take our posters all at face value. This is the first board I've participated in that doesn't consider that a banning offense- attacking the staff.It's almost as if he's begging for a ban. Either that, or thinks he runs things here, and the staff just have to bend over when he wants them to. I prefer not to warrant moderation. However, if I did so, I'd like to think I'd bear earning it with the grace of an adult, and skip the tantrums or public displays. "Victims of GSC" are generally of the self-made kind. I don't remember the last time that wasn't the case. I suspect most of the people who criticize moderators rather than just asking or just trusting them have never been moderators themselves. I've been both- and in several cases, I was drafted as a moderator, meaning I discovered after-the-fact that an announcement had been made that I was now made a moderator. I've also recruited moderators, and screened moderators. It's a LOT more difficult than a lot of people think. To be a moderator, you have to continually put the good of the board overall over your own opinion. It's usually a thankless job, but people will sometimes be swift to criticize you as soon as they disagree. (As in "when I do right, no one remembers, when I do wrong, no one forgets." Even on boards where I don't like the staff, I give them the benefit of the doubt on their duties. As for the behaviour that warrants staff here, I often suspect people pull it here because if they pulled it anywhere else, they'd get slapped down quickly. So, they abuse the laissez-faire posting policy until they REALLY go over the line.

I just wanted to keep this moving without cheating. ========== Ok, then, next one. "We've all become God's Madmen. All of us." (No, this is not a documentary about life in twi.)

That makes Larry part of an "elite" group. Out of hundreds and hundreds of posters that have ever posted at the GSC, only a handful have ever worked hard enough to "achieve" the status of having their posts screened. Those are the tiny few that proved to the staff-beyond all hope of a reasonable doubt to their satisfaction- that these posters needed moderation. That takes a lot of work. People have to put in a lot of time, and a lot of effort, to get that. Having made that a goal, and having achieved that goal, it's silly not to accept one's status. Since personal attacks by themselves do not get moderation, then your premise is incorrect,and it's far more than just a poster making personal attacks. And whether or not something's a personal attack IN YOUR OPINION does not guarantee the STAFF sees it the same way you do. They certainly don't see it the same way I do.

*guess* Is it "How to Marry a Millionaire?" or "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?" if not, Raf should be next up at bat...

One of the more consistent things here is you can always count on WTH not retaining any knowledge posted here on the GSC. We discussed how the specific-HOW the people were killed by the Nazis is secondary to THAT they were killed by the Nazis, and that even WHO was wiped out was secondary to THAT many people were wiped out, but WTH's fixated. Either it's a discussion of crematoriums or he might as well not be in it. So, with lots of different definitions of "Holocaust" in use- even on websites he quoted, he deliberately goes for an archaism, one that no longer conveys the meaning used in discussions. He uses the only one fixated on crematoriums. "I guess we can all agree that Holocaust means 'something burnt.'" No, that would make every backyard barbecue a "Holocaust", which perverts the plain English discussion the rest of us are capable of having. With WTH unable or unwilling to even communicate fairly on what the Holocaust WAS, or means in regular use, what's the point in trying to follow his tortured "logic"?

[Here we go again...] [Compare that statement of WTH's to this statement from ] http://www.vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html "The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs.Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence." [When I have more time, I'll see about what else I can find he's plagiarized in this post... Quoted so I have a reference copy for later-in case the original post's plagiarized sections suffer a sudden edit and mysteriously disappear.... Have a nice morning, everyone!

[WordWolf replies in boldface.]

That website says the writer there studied math and physics. He doesn't seem to have even STUDIED Sociology much (if at all), let along achieved any degree with it. Where did "according to some socialogists" come in? If someone had said this in the CFS class, there at least would have been a pretext to show some of the live classes that sex-with-the-dog video. Since he never studied zoology or veterinary medicine, however, I'm hesitant to consider JM as any sort of expert on dogs, so I'm not sure how authoritative his webpage is on them.

Here's how the quotes ran. "You sir, are a freako!" "Why, thank you!" Sam the Eagle, and Alice Cooper. "You don't love me any more." "Of course I love you. I'm working now!" "And you're making a lousy job of it." "You want to be an ex-parrot?" John Cleese and a parrot. "On what grounds do you interrupt my soliloquy?" "Well, it's my coffee break." "Coffee grounds??" Christopher Reeve, doing a soliloquy from Hamlet (alas, poor Yorick) when Beauregard walks in with a thermos and lunchpail, and sits down. "I thought you were the only person on this show who wasn't crazy." "Me, not crazy? I hired the others." I forget which guest, with Kermit. "Hey Bo, I've got a job for you!" "Oh, good." "Yeah. Just look at this mess." "Okay, that sounds easy enough." Kermit and another muppet. "Sometimes I don't know what space you are coming from." "Well, it's just a regular backstage space." "I gurgle Gershwin!" All the old Star Wars fans should remember this one. It was said a few times in the episode guested by Mark Hamill. Mark Hammill as himself, Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, Anthony Daniels as C-3PO, and Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca (plus the Radio-Controlled version of R2D2) appeared in that one. 2 different characters, an auditioning gargoyle, and Mark Hamill as himself, said this line- and, later, gurgled Gershwin. As a duet. I SWEAR I am not making this up. You see Mark Hamill gurgle Gershwin once as a kid, and it stays with you whether you want it to or not... "Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Switzerland has given us some watches, some chocolate, and some silliness. And, we take you now to the Alps for the latter." "Well, do you see. I don't mind assisting, but I'm not crazy about the idea of guinea-pigging." I forget which guest, to Dr Bunson Honeydew, Muppet Labs. "What's all this smoke?" "Uh... that is not smoke." "It is not smoke? Then what is it?" "It's jet exhaust." "Jet exhaust?" "Oh, look out! Here comes another one!" "Hey, hey, what's this bummer called again?" "Minuet in G Major." "Uh, we'll send it back in to the minors." The band on one song. "If you are like me, and you certainly must be, you are appalled and shocked at the weird, unnatural things going on tonight." Sam the Eagle, when Vincent Price guest-starred. "What's the soup du jour?" "Same as yesterday." "Good, I'll have that and a chicken." "How do you want your chicken? Baked, broiled, or barbecued?" "I want the chicken for company!" I thought this would be THE giveaway. Gonzo socializes with chickens. AFAIK, he's the only character on tv who ever made a point of it. "what is on stage next?" "I don't know, what's on stage now?" "Nothing." "NOTHING'S ON STAGE?" Kermit panicking that there's a lull onstage. This was one clue the show, whatever it was, was set at a theater. "I know what is wrong, with this show, it's the theater!" "What's wrong with it?" "The seats face the stage!" Who could forget Waldorf and Statler, the hecklers? "I am not in my dressing room, eating! I am in my dressing room, being eaten!" Zero Mostel having a small problem while a guest. "A banana sharpener." Dr Bunson Honeydew, Muppet Labs. This became SUCH a running gag for me long ago, because the scene was so funny. Honeydew was deadpanning how useful sharp bananas are. For example, you could hang a coat on a banana. Later, he began throwing bananas into the wall at Beeker, like a knife-throwing act. Plus, I think the name "banana sharpener" is one of the most ridiculous names for an invention I've ever heard of. And, it's hiway29's turn.

I knew one of you could figure it out!

"Trouble ahead, Lady in red, Take my advice you'd be better off dead." "Trouble with you is The trouble with me. Got two good eyes, but we still don't see"

There's something original about Mike misremembering and rewriting history in his mind? :blink: I've DOCUMENTED it before!