WordWolf

Just reviewing WTH's last post to me. WTH STILL isn't responding to lots of things posters here posted- like video footage and so on, and still pretending he isn't responding to them. I bet this convinces HIM he's responding to it or something. He's also under some misimpression-or considers it appropriate- to pretend anyone said this was a great scholarly study here. That's one of his pieces to change the subject when I pointed out what HE posts is what he can claim credit for, not discussions happening somewhere else. We're having A discussion here. (What's next, posting to announce he's not posting?) This discussion is here-which is not specialized as a Holocaust, history, or science board. Therefore, it's not a bunch of experts posting here. That having been said, the amount of information (this is the dawn of the Information Age) available for laymen (like me, WTH, Leuchter, Hamm, and simonzelotes, for example) is considerable. Most of us need not be experts to look over historical evidence, or claims of such, to see if they are reliable or sound. Feel free to click on the arrow and check it out. WTH quoted Lifted Up's post, which pointed out WTH claimed someone was talking about some CURRENT attempts to exterminate the Jews. That means he's claiming he's addressing Lifted's post. WTH then went on for several paragraphs, completely unrelated to Lifted's post. Someone's eager to change the subject and PRETEND some things were never posted-by himself and commented on by WTH..... but then again, someone's eager to PRETEND some things never happened, and some people were never imprisoned and subsequently executed WHILE in prison... There's a systematic pattern here for someone... Since WTH claims he's not skipping over anything, then he didn't miss your earlier quotes. He saw them and made the deliberate decision to not respond, disregard them, and otherwise pretend they don't even exist. However, he expects us to adopt his own doctrines, even to the point of pretending there are no flaws in what he's presenting.

Right. Anything other than enthusiasm probably still marks you for further investigation by what's left of the WayGB.

I've recognized the song from the first quote, and I can sing the first quote. I can't name the song, though. Haven't heard it in a while, either. Maybe the next hint will trip a memory. Or I'll cudgel one up. Or someone else will get it.

When they made a year "Power for Abundant Living" the FIRST time, I was IN and I thought that was horribly unoriginal.... especially since there seemed NO CONNECTION between the supposed "theme" and anything going on that year. That was what-1987? ======= "OUR" Power for Abundant Living. Guess we can officially scratch GOD ALMIGHTY from twi's considerations. It's not HIS Power, it's THEIRS. They're still claiming a "founding" of 1942, when any 1942 origin is purely imaginary. Finally figured out why they did a night where attendance at hq was MANDATORY- they took photos of the not-empty auditorium and are going to milk those for a decade. And they still talk about those "international countries".

twi has always been pretty good at inflating self-images, and horrible at comforting those brought low. Those with big egos were seen by vpw as assets so long as they produced, but those brought low are liabilities-they take time and effort, so they were often cut loose. The way corps supposedly was training for Christian service, or Christian leadership, depending on who you asked. Why didn't it have significant time-expenditures on comforting the hurt?

Hello, sarckat. Few, if any, of us say there's anything wrong with BEING POSITIVE. Few, if any, of us say there's anything wrong with "saying bless you". I, for one, am in favour of both, and I say "God bless" to people all the time. (I like being specific about who I'd like to send the blessing, and did back in twi as well.) THAT's just fine. None of that, however, has anything to do with the discussion at hand, which is about MISTAKES and ERRORS in what we were taught concerning "believing." Being positive or saying "bless you" would not make you a "parrot." I'd say there's any number of GSC'ers who do that and are not "parrots." Let me explain what the "parrot" thing refers to. A parrot is a bird that can repeat phrases or sounds it hears. A parrot DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what it repeats back-it just repeats back sounds. If a person hears teachings, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEM and just repeats them back, then there's no LEARNING or UNDERSTANDING conveyed, just the repeating back of sounds. If you've done some serious Bible study on a subject- and not just "reread the twi materials until I agree"- and concluded that the twi position was correct- that's real thought. (I've concluded they were right a number of times.) If you're still repeating what twi said, and never took a hard look to see if the Bible agrees with this statement, then, sadly, you're not thinking on your own, you're just repeating back what you were told without understanding, just like a parrot. BTW, there's a sticky topic pinned up top with a welcome and some advice. I'd recommend reading it. Then again, I'm a little biased. (I wrote the first post.)

I wonder how that selective reading is working out for WTH. He QUOTED me as saying this.... (WW) and replied with this.... (WTH) Once again, WTH seems to forget that we're supposedly having a discussion HERE and not across many other messageboards. He can't take credit for discussions elsewhere- just his own participation in this one. As such, my point about "everything we've mentioned in the thread that he's skipped over" (exemplified by some things mentioned a few times and summarily ignored by him) can't LOGICALLY be addressed by saying "the revisionists have already covered" it, "So truly, nothing has been 'skipped over' like you claim they have." I don't see "the revisionists" posting on this thread and commenting on what was posted here- just him. And he's skipped over several things. That's his choice, and he's entitled to stick with it, but it's rather silly of him to pretend he's not doing it, and to attempt to obfuscate that by mentioning other people elsewhere are discussing it, which has nothing to do with whether he looks at video footage, for example. So, it's a matter of A) ignore the evidence that challenges his position B) pretend there's no problems with evidence supporting his position which are old twi tactics which are archaisms for most of us, but not all of us, just as vpw's comments concerning Jews (which were disproven with genetics) are archaisms for most of us, but not all of us.

Despite vpw saying-in print-something completely different.... Here's what you said vpw meant... Here's what vpw said vpw meant... ========= Orange Book, pg-19 to 21. "If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must not only know what is available, how to receive it, and what to do with it; but we must also get our needs and wants parallel. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our wants are light and our needs are heavy, we will never get an answer. When we believe, we get results in prayer if our needs and our wants are equal. Look at Matthew 18:19. ...If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. In the Greek text the word 'agree' is ' symphonized'. If the two people agree, they are in harmony; they have their needs and wants parallel because 'it shall be done.' John 14:13 is another tremendous truth. John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Again, whatsoever we ask in Jesus' name, having our needs and wants parallel, he is going to do. In John 15:16 is another wonderful promise. John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. If we know what is available, how to receive it, what to do with it, and have our needs and wants parallel, then whatsoever we shall ask shall be done unto us. There is another promise in I John 5:14. I John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: If we have our needs and wants parallel, we can ask him anything according to His will. How can we know His will without knowing His Word? His Word is His Will. " ====== "Sorry you have your brain turned off", but I stand behind vpw explaining what he meant.

Some people would claim vpw didn't intend this result. They would put forth that all the changes that happened together JUST HAPPENED to be vpw-serving, and that was an unintended coincidence. Then again, some people think 'professional wrestling' is real. From his start as a minister to 1953, vpw seemed interested in working with youth, but didn't seem to be exceptional in what he wanted to accomplish, not being noteworthy one way or another at the time. In 1953, he stole Leonard's class, and began to teach it as HIS class, and stole Stiles' book, and began to sell it as HIS book. Now he had a product- the results of quality Christians. (he added to them with Bullinger, Kenyon, and Lamsa.) However, for the next DECADE, numbers did not swell, which probably is why vpw didn't "give up his day job" and continued to draw a paycheck from his denomination. It was only his recruitment of the Jesus People that led directly to large numbers of people hearing about his group, visiting, and liking it. (Actually, they liked H33fn3r's group and D00p's group, and vpw was just part of the package.) vpw diverted Christians from what they were then doing, and put them to work as his recruitment arms. (Someone's suggested that vpw was the devil's way of making the Jesus People less effective.) Once they brought in the numbers, vpw kicked out H33fn3r and D00p and consolidated all control and decision-making, and especialy all money- into his own hands.

Sorry, I had to structure this. I left your words the same, except for punctuation, and I think I dropped one (redundant) word.

Since we have no info on the group called "the Zero Corps" (to cover how the 2nd Corps was renamed the First to hide what happened), I'd appreciate it if you shared what you have on them. That question's come up before. True. Can't be "self-supporting" since all the money goes from there to hq and vanishes. Was occasionally self-propagating, but mechanical efforts were pushed from above, with all sorts of events. Was never self-governing, from the early 70s on- vpw was in charge, period, and his rule was extended thru the Limb leaders to the Branch leaders.

I'll go on record saying that I'd be amazed if anyone but WTH thinks this is me putting any significant effort into something. As for WTH thinking the Holocaust is a "lie", "myth", or any type of religion, he's entitled to think that, but we're entitled to examine the evidence more closely. Such as, everything we've mentioned in the thread that he's skipped over, such as footage from the sites, and discussions of non-Jews who said what they saw, and bore the serial #s on their skin. Exactly WHO's believing something false is really not that difficult to determine. If one is really honest and trying. A) Still not putting in SIGNIFICANT effort, let alone "a lot." B) I never said anything about adding more education on the Holocaust. However, since the subject's been raised, I believe WTH himself has provided the strongest evidence that some REAL education on this subject needs to be introduced in some places. Otherwise, you get what we've seen on this thread.... Myself, I think education in general could always use some improvement, and that's when things are less dire than this....

I'm giving the occasional players a chance to ring in.

Here's how the quotes ran down. "Do unto others-then run." That was part of a routine where they were singing, and the jokes were all captions. While BH was singing, one set began "Benny lives by the following maxims...Do unto others-then run." "Relax. Do you understand 'relax'?" "Yes-a little piece of dark chocolate." That was when "Fred Scuttle" was trying to hypnotize the mystic, "Pinch-Me-Body." No, "Prince Mivati." (Played by Jack Wright, that little bald guy.) "'Omelet', ja, to be, or not to be, that is the question!" "And this is the answer! *smack* Dumbkopf!" A foreign language cooking show. "After the meal, you will want an after-dinner mint. You will need an after-dinner 'mint' to pay for the bill! But ve, of course, haff conquered inflation. Just as ve conquered Poland. And Czechoslovakia..." This German on television, who "got carried away a little bit." "No, I'm wearing black for my poor, departed husband." "Oh... how long's he been gone? " "Ten minutes. He won't be back till 1." This was a throwaway sequence, where that was almost all of it. "Drink and sex. That's what killed your uncle - drink and sex!" "Yeah. He couldn't get either, so he shot himself." A number of times, there were arguing couples as characters. "With the way you treat me, people would think I was the cook here." "Not if they came to dinner." This was another arguing couple. "How do women get ahold of your Lotharios?" "Not as often as I'd like..." Fred Scuttle was running a male escort service. Henry McGee meant to ask how women arrange escorts. "Hello? Brown Owl here. No, not brown ale, Brown Owl. Is that the Black Fox? Is that YOU, BF? Yes, well this is...BO. Of course I know Moscow. It's where the Kremlin lives." "Dagger? Oh, he poisoned her. Well, when you said he 'gave her arsenic', I thought..." These were from "The New Avengers." "How did you choose him?" "I chose him because he represents the youth of Great Britain." "How old is he?" "58. He's a late developer." "He looks older." "Well, he worries a lot." When Captain Fred Scuttle made his spaceship, Indestructible the Second, he chose his assistant, played by Jack Wright. "That's because I'm using Fairly Liquid. It contains lemon juice." "Lemon juice?" "Yes, lemon juice. That's what gives it its nice sparkle." "Sparkle?" "Yes, sparkle. That's what makes everything all lovely and fresh." "Fresh?" "Yes, fresh. Are you bloody STUPID or something???" A send-up of those commercials where the narrator is an idiot, and the people on-screen have to completely explain EVERYTHING, while the narrator feigns ignorance of even the tiniest aspects. I thought this was a hysterical exchange. "I think for me, the most memorable moment in films was when you played the doctor to that sick family." "'Inherit the Wind." Yes, I remember." "Opposite Margaret Lockwood's nurse . . ." "That's right. Yes, I know what you're going to say, the scene in the operating theatre." "That's the scene. You kissed her when she least expected it." "I beg your pardon?" "You kissed her when she least expected it." "Oh, I thought you said 'where'. " Sometimes he was interviewed as some actor or other. "What about him? He makes an Egg Foo Young, it's not 'egg', it's not 'young', it's just 'foo'!" "He should have put more men on the job!" This was another interesting skit. There was a labour dispute between the employer- who ran a restaurant and overworked his employee, and the worker, who apparently was a lousy cook. (The most-repeated line was "he should have put more men on the job!") The judge/arbitrator found in favour of the employee, and ordered the employer to pay money. When he asked why, the judge said it was to support the man's wife and children. The employee made a correction- he was happily married, but had no children. Employer:"You know what you should do about that, right?" Employee""What?" Employer:"PUT MORE MEN ON THE JOB!" "Then he marry sixteen wives." "Sixteen?" "Yes-four richer, four poorer, four better, and four worse!" Chou Minh being interviewed. "I thought she was talking about her boyfriend." "She no have time for boyfriend-she too busy getting hold of the Husbands." "How many husbands are there?" "Six." "Six?" "One of the Husbands is a girl." "One of the husbands is a girl?" "Yes. That's Murray Husband. Then there is, uh, Donny Husband.... and little Jimmy Husband, who sing 'I'm a Rong-Haired Rover from Riverpool'." A different interview with Chou Minh. Last time I posted this, someone questioned the timing, whether or not the Osmonds and Benny Hill were active at the same time. However, the Osmonds were active earlier than they probably thought. "Long-Haired Lover from Liverpool", by Little Jimmy Osmond, according to Wikipedia, was a UK #1 single in December of 1972, bumping Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-Ling". (That's about a little toy with a bell on it, approximately.) At 9 years, 8 months, he was the youngest singer to take the UK #1 Singles spot. "How is the old reverend gentleman?" "He's a Canon now." "Wow. My Daddy, a Canon. Well I'll be a son-of-a-gun!" "You've been at 'the front', fighting for peace." "Now I'm home, now I want a piece of what I was fighting for!" A spoof on a soldier returning from the Civil War. "Listen to this: *reads aloud* Define the following words: 'relax'- 'a piece of dark chocolate' lagoon- 'a French idiot' 'macadam'- 'the first Scotsman' 'What is a sausage?' 'A hamburger in tights'???" This was from early in the SuperTeech segment, where the teacher-in his non-superhero guise- was reviewing answers one student gave.

Yes, Benny Hill.

Well, since the Orange Book mentions NOTHING of this 'parallel to the Bible' stuff, it's interesting-maybe- but certainly is not what he MEANT to teach. ========= Orange Book, pg-19 to 21. "If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must not only know what is available, how to receive it, and what to do with it; but we must also get our needs and wants parallel. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our wants are light and our needs are heavy, we will never get an answer. When we believe, we get results in prayer if our needs and our wants are equal. Look at Matthew 18:19. ...If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. In the Greek text the word 'agree' is ' symphonized'. If the two people agree, they are in harmony; they have their needs and wants parallel because 'it shall be done.' John 14:13 is another tremendous truth. John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Again, whatsoever we ask in Jesus' name, having our needs and wants parallel, he is going to do. In John 15:16 is another wonderful promise. John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. If we know what is available, how to receive it, what to do with it, and have our needs and wants parallel, then whatsoever we shall ask shall be done unto us. There is another promise in I John 5:14. I John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: If we have our needs and wants parallel, we can ask him anything according to His will. How can we know His will without knowing His Word? His Word is His Will. " ======

"Back in the days of caveman, history recalls, Man had this burning desire to scratch his messages on walls. On these walls you'll find Joey loves May Or Mavis loves Little Jim, Or Little Jim love Charlie- We're gonna keep an eye on him. This is known as graffiti, graffiti, You even see it on the tombstones in the ceme'try. Beneath 'Here lies Dentist Rafferty', Someone's written 'He is filling his last cavity.'" "Stamp out vandalism- Or I'll break all your windows." "Clumsiness-is it catching?" No, it's dropping."

I just wanted to point out that WTH did a compare-and-contrast between Leuchter- who claimed expertise in an area he was a layman in and got caught pretending he had credentials- and Jesus Christ, The Son of God, King of Kings, who WAS qualified as a Rabbi in addition to his being The Son of God. "you tell the truth"- true of Jesus, but not true of Leuchter, who decided what he believed and then ignored any evidence to the contrary, and used poor science to invent "evidence" to support his position "you don't have a degree (recognizable qualifications)" true of Leuchter-who had no education in the fields he claimed to be qualified in, but not true of Jesus-who put in the time and was recognized as a Rabbi. "then you end up being crucified for telling the truth" arguably true of Jesus-who told the truth and was crucified for it, although the reasons were more political than anything else, since he told a politically-inconvenient truth and his death was plotted for it on the human level (the devil, of course, wanted him dead long before Jesus taught ANYONE, but WTH's skipping that) but NOT true of Leuchter, who is currently ALIVE, and has never been hung on a cross, nor, for that matter, executed by any other device, ancient nor modern (no guillotine, no electric chair, no gas chamber, no lethal injection, no hangman's noose.) Thus, Leuchter most obviously was not "crucified", nor executed by any substitutional method. He WAS, however, subjected to criticism. Few people, when actually comparing directly to 6 hours of agony on a cross after torture and physical duress, would have the gall to compare criticism and harsh words to it. WTH, however, has taken it upon himself to do just that. And he expects us to respect his positions and take him seriously when he addresses serious subjects. I, for one, reserve the right to disagree with him, and to even criticize his positions, his rationales, his documentation, and his conclusions. Judging from the post I'm quoting, he'd be internally-consistent to claim that people like me are crucifying him, and that it's like what happened to Jesus. ======== I thought this comment by WTH was too interesting to skip over, and wanted to make sure that those following this thread for fun would not miss it.

Interesting you don't have a source of vpw saying "this us what I've been trying to tell you all" for your explanation. Doesn't mean your explanation is any better or any worse than anyone else's in and of itself (it rises or falls on its own merits), just that it's not based on vpw. It would be a lot less stressful to just admit what he was teaching was wrong, than to go to this length to try to rehabilitate his statements. Statement 1 is what he was trying to say-and actually SAID. Statement 2 is an interesting interpretation of his gestures, which coincidentally contradicts the first statement-which is what he actually SAID, and is meant to alter his statements to match your understanding. Even if what you said completely accurately describes his gesture, you're ignoring equally- or MORE LIKELY- reasons he did so. The most obvious meaning to me was that he incorporated his Bible into his gesture intentionally, for a different meaning than you say. That is, he meant to imply that the Bible was included in his statement- or, more to the point, that his statement was included in the Bible- and meant to connect the two in the mind of the student- "You believe the Bible" "the 'law' of believing is in the Bible" "therefore, you believe the 'law' of believing". As showmanship goes, it's appropriately dramatic. As indoctrination goes, it's subtle and effective. As homiletics goes, it's in-keeping with various methods to hold the attention of the audience. Otherwise, if you're going to insist that this PARTICULAR gesture completely rewrote what he said, I'll await further internal consistency from you- that is, a more complete guide to every hand-gesture he made during the pfal class, and its translation into plain English and how the meanings of each changed the meaning of what he was saying.

I've noticed you've gone into that mode where you're having a conversation that barely interesects the thread again. I don't need to read books with opinions about the guy to form my own opinion. (I do this thing I like to call "thinking for myself". It beats cutting-and-pasting from others exclusively.) Guy announces to his wife their honeymoon's going to be visiting a concentration camp site, I already seriously question his grip. Guy goes to a site, and takes an inadequate sample, and jumps to conclusions based on tests never meant to address the conclusions he was planning on making. Even in high school, I knew to address sampling error and other problems that interfere with an experiment. He either knew about them and chose to ignore them, or was insufficiently-educated to be aware of them. I don't need a PhD to know that if anyone endorses such a slipshod process, I don't respect them as a scientist-since I was better than that when graduating HIGH SCHOOL. Since you keep calling this guy a respected researcher or whatever- and in a court of law, he was exposed as a layman with delusions of competency- you'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced when you say someone ELSE is a respected scientist. He also wasn't afraid to LIE IN A COURT OF LAW, which carries the thread of being thrown in jail for perjury or contempt of court, depending on how he did that. Lying to the public, especially when it's a lie his public WANTS to hear? Piece of cake. The judge exposed him as a self-labelled "expert" who was no such thing. That meant his testimony is shot. As for it still meaning something to someone, that's hardly noteworthy. Some people are firmly convinced the Moon landings were faked, and tv wrestling is real. David Koresh was able to convince his congregation that he was married to all the women, including the underage ones. "Do" of "Heaven's Gate" convinced a bunch of people to commit suicide. So, somewhere, there's a bunch of people embracing this guy's thoughts.

Then again, that's really more of an EXAMPLE, and not a DEFINITION.

Back when lcm drew his line in the sand in '89, I knew a man who thought this account was really all he needed to understand to grasp the main problem. ========== John 13:1-15. (NASB) " 1Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. 2During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, 3Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, 4got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. 5Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, "Lord, do You wash my feet?" 7Jesus answered and said to him, "What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter." 8Peter said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me." 9Simon Peter said to Him, "Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head." 10Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." 11For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, "Not all of you are clean." 12So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? 13"You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15"For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. " ======== Unless I was completely mis-educated concerning this account, the job given to the lowest menial in the house was to wash the feet of the guests. That's why Peter was scandalized at the thought of Jesus washing his feet. However, Jesus was teaching them something.

For most of us, this hardly qualifies as news. And for the remainder, it qualifies as heresy.