WordWolf

"Are you going to take me home to meet your parents?" "No." "Why? Are you ashamed of me? "No, them! "Oh!" "If you want to leave, go ahead. But you're going to miss out on all the fun." "What fun?" "Ick invented a new virus and we're going to release in Kent's room." "Is that popcorn? Get it away from me-I can't stand popcorn!" "Hello? Hello, Jesus?... He hung up..." "I'm sorry, but have you ever seen a body like this before in your life?" "She happens to be my daughter." "Oh. Then I guess you have." "Why is that toy on your head?" "Because if I wear it any place else, it chafes." "Kent put his name on his license plate." "My mother does that to my underwear." "Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?"

"Is that popcorn? Get it away from me-I can't stand popcorn!"

Thanks, Larry. Perhaps he'll listen to you, since he's probably not going to listen to me. However, since he asked me directly, I shall answer him directly. I never said it did. Bolshevik didn't understand Oldies' reasons for posting what he does, and why he does. I answered Bolshevik's question. THAT Oldiesman values his memories of twi as a fine, fine organization that he was in while it was a fine, fine organization and gets antagonistic when someone disagrees has been mentioned before-BY HIM. I see nothing controversial about agreeing with that and just telling B or anyone else what he missed. (He could dig thru the old posts and find it himself, but I saw no reason for him to do so.) I did nothing to try to change either the positions of Bolshevik OR Oldies. If someone saw me conclude that vpw chose to drug and rape women-based on the personal testimony of the victims- and then later said "WordWolf believes vpw chose to drug and rape women"- that would be informative, and in and of itself, not controversial. That's what I said. Whether or not what I said is agreed-with is a different subject. So, if Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions, I will go out on a limb and say that's a good thing, but if he doesn't, that's his own business, which is why I wasn't attempting to change his perceptions- just declare them and answer Bolshevik's question. Which I did. I left his opinions as they were, INTACT. They're his opinions. That you completely missed that I left his intact may, in fact, reflect that YOU have an agenda to twist other people's perceptions. Then again, it simply may reflect an inability to understand my posts-either intentionally or not. He's welcome to have opinions contrary to my own. I'm less than thrilled when he hijacks a thread onone subject to take a discussion of abuses in twi and attempts to make it about something else, ending the original discussion. I think that's unfair. I also am less than thrilled when his posts seem to position immediately after someone's personal testimony, and appear to claim they're not being truthful. That having been said, I even attempted to make a thread where it's on-topic to have his position so he could post without US antagonizing HIM, and I try to leave options in polls that reflect his beliefs. I wouldn't do either if him just HAVING his perceptions-or even just discussing them- was something I found problematic. I find that there's polite, reasonable ways for him to express his positions, but he chooses not to do so in a fashion that is not antagonistic. And don't think you're fooling the vast majority of people into thinking you're an impartial observer. I for one DO seek to update my opinions, as new information comes in. That's what I do, even when it's information I don't WANT to believe. I initially didn't believe vpw plagiarized or committed any OTHER crime. And I HAVE taken Oldies' information into account. That I HAVE suggests that my perception is not as incomplete as you wish to portray it. None at all, which is why I consider it a non-issue. I consider this a MANUFACTURED issue, since you seem determined to invent it and pretend it's MY issue. Sorry, I won't lay claim to it. It will be convenient if you understand and accept this. And if you don't, then at least everyone else will have little problem seeing that the disconnect is not in MY posts.

Regardless of differences of opinions, regardless of heated discussions, regardless of when I consider a post to demonstrate all the understanding of a bowl of clam chowder, none of you are my ENEMIES, and none of you are EVIL. Sometimes it helps to remember that posts are rarely meant as a PERSONAL AFFRONT, and may have nothing to do with yourself unless your name is on it. The last time I had an emotional reaction to a post, it was in no way addressed to me, the poster had no intention of applying it to me, and when I sent them a pm, they said so outright. (I don't consider PERSONAL issues worth PUBLIC posting.) Thus, we settled that little misunderstanding privately and plainly, as adults often do.

============ And I discuss many, many things with people who have opinions other than my own, ALL THE TIME. They are of a variety of ages, from a variety of places, and a variety of religious backgrounds. And many are non-Christians. And we all get along fine. Because we "agree to disagree." Since I do not find a "neutral ground" where you can "agree to disagree" with those who have horror stories of twi, I disagree that those who tolerate opinions other than their own have no difficulty with your posts. Using the GSC alone, I "agree to disagree" with the non-Christians here ALL THE TIME, since I'm a Christian, they are not, and we agree that the worth of the other person's posts are not dependent upon either positions. Yet some of them disapprove of your posting "style". Therefore, I consider it DEMONSTRATED that your assertion does not hold up to the evidence. But hey, if anyone wants to believe that the proper posting position is to CATEGORICALLY ENDORSE all positive experiences, while CATEGORICALLY DOUBTING all negative experiences, that's their decision. Me, I've even openly doubted someone's negative testimony posted when they arrived. Supposedly, that's impossible since I'm supposedly incapable of doing such, if certain posters are to be believed. However, I think ALL posts are to be considered before deciding whether to believe or disbelieve (or decide not to decide.) I find that skipping that step for any reason is not a good thing. Naturally, since that's still my opinion, it's binding on nobody, including me, but there it is.

I don't get what the controversy is. If you call people "liars", why should anyone pretend you didn't? If someone asks where it happened, why not just see where it happened and let it drop? If you want to call people "liars" outright, that's your decision and your posts. Stand by your posts, or retract them, or don't post them to begin with. I don't see why much emotion should be connected with it. You insinuated it lots of times, and said it outright twice (that we found), and said someone was "full of ...." outright twice (that we found.) That's a matter of record. I don't get the emotion or controversy at all. I certainly am not making a big deal. I just made one post that I thought wasn't even controversial. But why deny saying it twice and twice more, using other words outright?

So, maybe August we'll see some pictures. Cool.

Funny, I had a movie in mind for the next chance I got..... "Are you going to take me home to meet your parents?" "No." "Why? Are you ashamed of me? "No, them! "Oh!" "If you want to leave, go ahead. But you're going to miss out on all the fun." "What fun?" "Ick invented a new virus and we're going to release in Kent's room."

That seems to have been some people's plans, yes.

As I QUOTED DIRECTLY WITH THE TIMESTAMPS INTACT, I said "and call those with personal testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?" Bluzeman asked "For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?" and asked for the proof: "If you can find one, then show us." I replied "Let me go find it. There was an entire page where we discussed this, and he claimed he wasn't while doing it a second time.." I then-with links- supplied between 2 and 4 examples. Bluzeman accidentally-(" And you are also right, that I did not change what I was asking on purpose.") changed what I was asserting, and thanked me for supplying proof for my statement. I did not supply proof of HIS statement, which was accidentally different from mine. Others have noted-in the past as shown in the linked threads- and in the present (scroll up) that normally he insinuates, suggests, needles, and so on, but rarely comes right out and calls someone a liar. As for your perception, if you perceive-after reading posts from both posters- that WordWolf is a spin doctor and Oldiesman is NOT, well, that's your opinion, but I think it doesn't speak well of your ability to discern one from the other. You are of course entitled to your discernment and opinion, no matter what I think of it. My involvement in this was simply to point out that-at worst- Juedes is guilty of doing exactly what Oldies does, but in the opposite direction, whereas Oldies sees it as fine when HE does it, but reprehensible when Juedes does it. After that, my comments-which I really didn't think were worth commenting on- were challenged to be proven, so I provided links. I'd still have preferred to drop it once answering a direct question, but responses to my answers have included some nice vague (AND UNDOCUMENTED- note I documented MINE on request) accusations that I engage in spin, by 2 different posters. I, for one, didn't "attack Oldiesman".

That's because you focused on the LAST post, and not everything I really claimed and responded to. My one mistake was quoting Bluzeman's LATER post, after documenting his INITIAL question. His LATER post asked for something slightly different. I backed up MY statement, which is what Bluzeman INITIALLY asked me to do. I'm fairly confident he didn't mean to change the question, and did so by accident, just as I thought he was asking the same thing, and missed the difference by accident.

Sorry. I did not find ONE instance. I found TWO. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=140 page 8 of "If Trinitarians are so bad..." Follow his posts down. He starts by INSINUATING people are liars (rascal and Garth) then calls rascal one outright. I quoted that post in its entirety on that page. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=120 page 7-8 of "Renouncing the Word because of other people's sins". Scroll down to the bottom of the page. While claiming he never called rascal a liar, he claims she's making false accusations, which we discuss on page 8. This probably wasn't the FIRST time. ============= *checks* It wasn't. He also said Sunesis was full of c**p TWICE in this thread... (When you say someone is "full of c**p", that's a common figure-of-speech in English, meaning you are claiming what they are lies, which means you're calling them a liar.) http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...6&hl=Patton pg-2 "VPW- A Patton Wanna-be?" Sunesis makes an outright statement, Oldiesman replies "Sunesis, you're full of c**p." (He didn't star them out.) Oakspear pointed out that normally Oldies gets circuitous rather than say that outright, denying others' experiences without saying that outright. pg-3, Oldiesman REPEATS it. Top of the page. "Sunesis, you ARE full of c**p." Replies down that page, BTW, are pretty interesting. "Oldies, I submit that you did know know Mr. Wilerwille at all. And my guess is that you spent little if any personal time with him. What you "know" of Mr. Wierwille is your own fantasy image of him -- not based upon personal experience and knowledge, but rather upon what you want him to have been. To consider these things to be true about Mr. Wierwille is to consider that many of your own ideas are wrong and is a threat to your fantasy images about VPW and TWI-1. You are not insulted -- you are threatened with the idea that your belief system is based upon lies and deception and that your hero was not the man you imagine him to have been. You can't handle the thought of being wrong and your little fantasy world falling apart. You are too invested in it - thus your protest." is one such reply. Actually, that WAS my point. However, since he asked for posts, I went and got them. 2 responses to direct statements that the poster is "full of c**p", and 2 responses to direct statements that the posters posts are "false accusations." (Provided at your requests.) How many of those count as calling someone a liar, in your opinion?

Let me go find it. There was an entire page where we discussed this, and he claimed he wasn't while doing it a second time..

See, Bolshevik, although most of us don't question that Oldiesman had the experiences he had- and that some other people had similar experiences- and that some other people experienced horrific nightmares- most of us can accept that both types of experiences co-incided. Oldiesman, however, when he sees posts discussing the horrific nightmares, apparently perceives difficulty maintaining his perceptions when faced with experiences that the people he wanted to laud did horrible things and advocated doing horrible things. Evidence suggests that his perceptions may be incomplete and require adjustment. That means the perceptions he wishes to maintain are in jeopardy. Therefore since he is vitally concerned-not with adjusting his perceptions, but with defending his perceptions and experience of twi, he attacks any posts that offer counter-evidence that his perceptions and experience may be limited and incorrect. So, what he's defending is the "Shangri-La" of "the good old days", when every decision he made was perfect, because the ministry was perfect and he decided to be involved. After all, if the ministry was less than perfect, then he might have made some bad decisions no matter how well-intentioned he was, and we can't have that......

So because he's critical of twi, you CATEGORICALLY label his information as negative? Most of us prefer to READ and EVALUATE item by item, and consider blanket accusations to be lazy. You were involved for 19 years and DO accept ONLY ONE SIDE-but that side is "things were always perfect where I was, all the leaders I ever heard of were perfect, and then just before I left something unpleasant happened, but except for that, twi was a veritable Shangri-La that always gave full disclosure to everyone." Forsake all warning, and focus ONLY on the perceived benefits, and call those with personal testimony of bad experiences 'liars'? Is that godliness? Is that what God wants me to do? I doubt it-but where twi is concerned, I think this is what Oldiesman is all about. ============= I imagine the right-wing Republicans are QUITE critical of the left-wing Democrats, and vice-versa. But their testimonies about each other are not to be trusted- they are TOO BIASED.

That would have been my first guess, there was a scene like that in it. So I'll take a swing and say "the Menagerie"? in case that wasn't it.

*staggers in, yawning* Uh, "Diamonds Are Forever"? *wild swing*

Both can be enjoyed for what they are. I try not to judge the movies or the books against each other. Except where something I think is critical may be left out. *cough 3rd movie cough*

How does vpw replace a lightbulb? He holds the lightbulb in place and waits for the world to revolve around him.

Going from what's been posted before, it's easier to follow in 20/20 hindsight. See, when she first joined up, she was older by a decade than the "kids" in her area. (Remember? twi was a hippies-and-young folk group in the early 70s, mostly?) So, she joined up, and she had more life experience (and cold cynicism) than the idealistic kids who were there. Then, she knew how to suck up low-key to vpw. (Remember? Sucking up to vpw was a fast-track to the inner circle back then?) She gave the appearance of competency plus loyalty. Of course vpw signed her into the inner circle. She made it a policy to make sure she quietly had vpw's ear and micromanaged anything she ran until it was as bleached of personality as she was. She made a point to avoid the limelight (she doesn't play well on camera) while making sure she was included in all the backroom deals and so on. And so long as she had vpw's ear, she had carte blanche to run whatever she had been placed in charge of. (Sorta like Imogene A- ACTUAL competency was optional.) Then vpw handed over the throne to the next pretender. (Pretender to Christ's throne, like vpw himself was.) Once that happened, she went from "has the ear of the president" to "is in the inner circle and that's it." Now, Donna M had made a point that she was going to marry a top dog in twi, after which she married lcm. $he made her deci$ion for her own rea$ons. Rozilla made a similar decision. Since lcm never liked Rosa-lie, she knew she couldn't get in with HIM, but as soon as lcm was announced as the successor, she hitched her wagon to Donna and suddenly became GREAT friends with her. Nothing official, just made sure Donna knew she was there, and was ready to listen, etc etc, and slowly wormed her way into Donna's circle of close friends. (Apparently, squeezing out the others a step back, as well.) Once she had Donna's ear, the rest can be traced. lcm realized he was in over his head and not competent for his responsibilities, lcm begins to spend his time in "the fog years" and goes on psychiatric medication, lcm delegates his responsibilities to others- why, look here, Rozilla is in a position to handle some of those while he needs to hand some off! How convenient! So she was positioned, so to speak, on lcm's unofficial cabinet (his "kitchen cabinet", if you will.) From there, all she had to do was keep herself within arm's reach, and keep Donna convinced she (Rozycheeks) was able to handle responsibility, and it's almost a forgone conclusion. Then it was just a matter of waiting until someone else stepped down, and sneaking her behind into their chair, subtle-like. What's she REALLY like? Let me put it this way.... When we discussed vpw himself, some people had a few positive memories of him from personal encounters- when he was friendly and helpful. (That happened sometimes.) When we discussed lcm himself, some people had a few positive memories of him from personal encounters- when he was new and "just one of the guys." (That also happened.) However, even when we asked specifically for them, not one of the people who had met Rosa-lie was able to summon up a good thought for her- not one! I think that says plenty without the details, although there's been some specifics around here, too....

Don't forget to let us know when the online photo gallery is up!

Hello. In my opinion, the most dangerous things about twi are not the general doctrines (OSAS vs conditional salvation, the state of the dead), but its general practices (every aspect of your life must be signed-off-to by leadership, they're the only REAL Christians.) If you wanted to get into Doctrinal discussions, we have a whole forum for doctrine-wrangling. For everything else, I recommend the GSC tour, so to speak. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 Greasespot Cafe 101 is the forum here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showforum=12 Enjoy your stay, and don't be afraid to answer questions, preferably questions phrased politely. We prefer those when we can get them.

It certainly made an impression on vpw. After all, he heard it from Leonard FIRST in Leonard's class, and wasted no time in repeating it when he taught Leonard's class with his own name on it. It was quite powerful when Leonard said it, and quite powerful when vpw said it.

lcm said that was forbidden. That was EXPECTED for lcm. See the difference? One is giving something to someone (who is not lcm) that they will use for the furtherance of God's Word. The other is cash given directly to lcm-tax-free, untraceable- for whatever he wanted. The first one was evil and forbidden, the second one was expected and required.

"the Way, Living in Love". vpw is telling, in his own words, some stories. ================== pg-199. "Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need. Meet me at 9am.' I thought, 'Women never tell the truth.' " pg-200. "At lunchtime Stiles came in with his wife and the pianist. I just remember thinking to myself, 'There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.' I was just watching and waiting. Lunch was kind of light talk- we talked about Oral Roberts, the Holy Spirit, lots of stuff. When we were done, I picked up the check, and then Stiles turned to his wife and said, 'Honey, I'm going with VP.' She said something to him like, 'How long will you be?' And he said, 'That's none of your business.' That was it, and my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent. His stature increased in my eyes. just from the way he handled her." =======