WordWolf

I certainly can't argue with THAT...

One should never confuse aphorisms with ACCURACY or a LEGITIMATE POINT. "A witty saying proves NOTHING."- Voltaire. ================= "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H.G. Wells." Sure saves time if one presumes ALL indignation is jealousy, doesn't it? The other day, someone struck a child with a car. Rather indignant locals beat the driver to death. Their moral indignation- "safe driving is paramount when driving" "always protect children" resulted in their action- "punish the driver by beating him." According to this witty saying, they were JEALOUS OF THE DRIVER. I'm sure HG Wells would be less than pleased to see his words used to defend criminal acts of vpw or anyone else. ==================== "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewritters. - Frank L. Wright" It is true that some people, when they express ideas, don't express ideas that are wholesome. Sometimes they try to justify rape or other crimes, for example. I consider the words of Alexander Pope to be more relevant to the printed word: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." That is, to learn A LITTLE is dangerous, to STOP LEARNING is dangerous. To CONTINUE LEARNING and to GAIN KNOWLEDGE in larger amounts increases UNDERSTANDING. =================== "It's better to be quotable than to be honest. - Tom Stoppard." I suppose when one's contribution to the discussion consists of quoting others, this is a laudable sentiment. However, other than that, it lacks relevance to the discussion whatsoever. =================== "I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right. - Credrick (II) The Great." Here's another example where a LITTLE LEARNING is shown to be DANGEROUS. The quote was from a tyrant who claimed that anything he COULD seize hold of and plunder, he was ENTITLED to seize hold of and plunder. Morality was irrelevant, since he could later find (or pay) people to turn his greed into a virtue, and make it sound as if his self-centeredness, his greed, his apathy towards the rights of others, his basic contempt for human morality, was all actually a virtue. Hey- that's the connection here! vpw performed a bunch of criminal acts because he COULD get away with them, and people later (and NOW!) are 'demonstrating' his 'perfect right' to do so! So, that WAS relevant, but not in the fashion HOPED FOR. =================== "Copy from one it's plagiarism. Copy from two it's research. - Wilson Miznet." Here's another example that a witty saying proved nothing. Even after links to intelligent, well-documented information on what plaigiarism IS and IS NOT, some still choose to proudly trumpet their ignorance of same and declare that which plagiarism is NOT, IS plagiarism, and that which plagiarism IS, is NOT plagiarism. If you use one as a source, or two as a source, it's research. If you copy from one, or copy from two, it's plagiarism. (This is the difference over-simplified, but even the slow-witted should be able to understand it if they wished.)

It's ok- Annam doesn't recognize she's being arrogant and nasty either. Ok, here's the insults, all from posts from annam on this very thread..... Jun 8 2007, 12:46 PM "I hope for the best for you all that keep this endless worthless babel going...... as for me I can't see the profit and I'll say Good bye and good luck..." annam didn't see the profit in this discussion, so immediately labelled it "WORTHLESS BABBLE" rather than even ask if it HAD profit she wasn't aware of. In the process, she "necro'ed" a thread with no activity on it for 2 months, saying "this thread is worthless" but choosing to revive it just to make that pronouncement. Obviously making that statement was important enough to re-open a discussion. (This is not WRONG but indicates the subject darn well DOES matter to the poster, which means they themselves are declaring it is NOT "worthless" in the process. --------------- Jun 11 2007, 04:26 PM "I am sorry that I offended some of you , Thats not my intention , nor is it my intention to judge anyone here for being here." "I have looked around and for the most part what stands out is what I have commented on the underlying current seems to be angry and gossipy" "I doubt anyone can find a reason for this kind of continuous forum... I can see this site is exclusive and those with my opinion are not welcome here, how is that unlike how we were in the way? Not much......" There's an apology there, which is a good thing, but there's a pronouncement that she didn't intend to judge anyone, followed by some judgements. "angry and gossipy", plus this forum-which has a LOT of activity across a number of years- has NO REASON to exist. Further, despite not having been banned-and allowed to post alongside other people who disagree with the majority of the posters here- she announces that we're "exclusive" and she's "not welcome" despite not having been run off. That's contradictory, and more a sign of PASSING JUDGEMENT than seeing if experience is matching expectations. ---------------- There were some responses, some quite nice and reasonable. Then annam responded again. Jun 12 2007, 11:40 AM "the back lash is almost comical ... caustic is so endearing" "not a one of you has any defense for your offense.... rock on with your mean selves" annam has also refused to explain what "offense" she perceives- but continues to pronounce that it's being offered, which does nothing to AFFECT it, but allows the pronouncer to feel and look holy for pointing a finger at other posters and finding fault. -------------------------- Jun 20 2007, 01:31 AM "humble is the least of your endearing attributes." ---------------- Jun 20 2007, 01:49 AM "My point from the beginning .(if anyone has bothered to listen), has been this.........God gave his word so we could have instruction in everything...right? what is spoken of here is mostly against Gods instruction.....read the book kids.. It doesn't take a genius to understand . " annam seems to think this explains what she's so worked up about, and clearly indicates what she's offended about OBVIOUSLY would offend Jesus, but despite the condescending tone, has failed to get specific. Apparently, the idea that anyone is warning others of evil deeds of twi and members and leaders in the past AND PRESENT is objectionable to annam, but how this ties into Jesus is ASSUMED by annam and not EXPLAINED. However, she has no problem suggesting we can either AGREE with her or lack intelligence. "It doesn't take a genius to understand." annam seems to indicate the ONLY "godly" response to people performing evil is NOT to warn others to steer clear of them-as is common at the GSC- but the ONLY "godly" response is to "Go confront these bad way people in person, that would at least be more like Christ." Of course, that means traveling across the country to go to a place that uses armed personnel on grounds to police itself and deal with trespassers. Have a chance to speak to the offenders? No, you'd be kicked off grounds and shot if you persisted, no matter how many verses you quoted directly. annam refuses to admit this is what happens, of course. This doesn't fit with her world-view, so it must not happen. I imagine a response would be something like if I thought they'd shoot and it was useless to confront them ad infinitum over the evils, then I would be making God a liar or some other "you can agree with me or defy God" witticism popular in twi/extwi circles at times. ------------------- Jun 20 2007, 09:47 PM "you might be nuts biglaugh.gif" "your crazy too rolleyes.gif" Those were in response to 2 reasonable, inoffensive posts to annam. ------------------- Jun 20 2007, 09:53 PM "Heres a thought ...everyone is all up in arms about my being offended or an offense, saying "we all have our own opinions and" we should be tolerant of each others,......guess what ? Take your own advice people, if your so right then what are you all upset about.......and who the hell cares if you are.....so far I have stated my opinion and you alllllll have chopped it to bits.. talk about way heads. realmad.gif" annam doesn't see the difference between reasoned discussion (e.g."we disagree and here's why") with personal attacks (e.g."you walk in error and your mother dresses you funny!") annam doesn't see the difference between open discussion, disagreements, and often agreements HERE with the "you must agree with everything the leader says" at twi. That's poor reasoning skills in action, but what can one do about that? We tried being polite and reasonable- the only ACCEPTABLE response to annam seems to be wildly embracing her viewpoint. Now, THERE you can "talk about way heads." ------------------ Then there was a run of jokes of questionable quality in a few directions, which didn't add to the discussion, but may or may not have been meant purely in humour. That's when I said (June 21, 01:37 AM) "You're presuming he cares about intelligent discussions. He got to make his declarations, and when intelligent discussions-including disagreements- were offered, he just labelled them and began tossing out insults and jokes. Seems his interest in "discussion" ends there." There had been a number of posts disagreeing intelligently, and annam was fine with replying by pronouncing disagreeing with her as unprofitable and "worthless babble", "gossipy", "comical", to call people "nuts" or "crazy", and "way heads." annam's reply, again was "where were the insults......I see the joke ....did I call u stupid or ignorant, or pigheaded or infantile or ridiculous or foolish ? Naw I never insulted I just spoke the truth and you couldn't take it so you got mad..... There how's that for insulting? nono5.gif" Well, annam, the insults included calling the posts "worthless babble" and "gossip", and the posters "comical", "nuts", "crazy" and "way heads." You suggested those of us who disagreed WERE stupid or ignorant ("It doesn't take a genius to understand") and suggested-using different words but expressing the same concept- that those of us who disagreed with you WERE pigheaded, infantile, ridiculous or foolish. You insulted several times, but missed when you were doing it because you were busy being superior to those you were replying to. "I just spoke the truth" No, you spoke your opinion, claimed it matched Scripture, and failed to demonstrate it. "you couldn't take it so you got mad" No, I certainly didn't have emotion-this is too common and too sad for me to get emotional about it. We DID intelligently disagree and explain our positions, and explain how your position did not follow from your claim of Scripture. Naturally, you didn't consider we may have intelligent, logical, Scripture-matching points to make-you were too busy pronouncing judgement on us and our posts. "There, how's that for insulting?" Yes, it's insulting, and it matches your posts so far, despite your claims of not having offered insult while you were insulting us. You can certainly post here, but when you're busy focusing on insults, few will agree, and when you post AT people rather than dialogue with them, you post ANTAGONISTICALLY. Due to extensive exposure to the logic-damaging world of twi, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT EVEN AWARE YOU DID ANY OF THIS. However, those WERE your words, you DID post them. If it were me, I'd give a good long think as to whether I was sending the message I MEANT to send, instead of one I did NOT mean to send. You, of course, are welcome to do whatever you want.

Mine is part of a larger picture that was a piece of personally-commissioned artwork. (Albeit cut and squished a bit so I don't have a whole page in here.) I use wolf-with-book insignias of one sort or another, and have for a long time. It's symbolic of me. The book represents a number of books- and a few artists have drawn me free variations with different titles added- but primarily, it represents a Bible, as most here would have guessed. The wolf himself represents me. The KJV and every English bible I know of translates certain things in the Bible as "wolf" or "wolves" which more properly would have been a DESERT-JACKAL, since the wolf we know wasn't a fixture in Palestine. The wolf we know is a figure that has been the object of a consistent smear campaign and a target for MISinformation for centuries. Wolves are NOT rampaging psychopaths who will kill humans at any excuse. "Throw him to the wolves"- abandon him to trouble with no assistance "The wolf is at the door"- danger is upon us "Cry wolf"- claim danger is present (usually meant when NO wolf/danger is present) The greatest enemy of the wolf is man. Wolf is the animal whose social structure is closest to that of humans- moreso than any primate. Wolf is a FAMILY-ORIENTED animal. A wolf is part of a family- a pack. (Or is attempting to form a new pack, which is when you find a disperser or "lone wolf.") Wolf will hunt down food, of course. Wolf therefore will kill for food. However, wolves don't war on other wolves, they prefer to DRIVE OFF threats rather than kill them, and when one challenges for leadership of the pack, the challenge goes until one is evidently the loser, then the challenge is over and there's no scheming and continual attempts to do so again. Despite being animals, they're nicer than many people I know. For animals, they're also pretty intelligent, and have shown a variety of emotions among each other and among humans they are acculturated to- playfulness, generosity, friendship, protectiveness. The entire pack joins in to raise and protect the cubs, and they're quite tolerant of them. If there was such a thing as a werewolf, a half-human, half-wolf monster, it would get its violent tendencies from its HUMAN half- since wolves don't attack except to get food or to defend the pack or the pups most especially, but humans will often resort to one form of violence or another for greed or whim. Thus, a wolf.

"No yelling." "I DO NOT YELL." "Then you should have no trouble with that part." "But mostly, a true friend is a person you can always tell the truth to without worrying about it." "The higher, the fewer!" "Well, that's a conversation-stopper if I ever heard one." " They are my worlds, and I protect them. I am a master of worlds, and they fly only as I wish." "I'll bet you've never been to the colony of free spirits." "What do they do there?" "Whatever they want. Artists, philosophers, free-thinkers... .. people who don't quite fit other people's rules." "Every moment requires a purpose." "No, it doesn't." "Every purpose requires a plan." "He does this every day; usually while everybody's food gets cold." "The great secret is not the variety of life; but the variety of us!"

Nice use of logic equations. :) Let's see, more quotes, same episode...

Maybe you were spared from the sun tea as a blessing.... http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/suntea.asp

You're presuming he cares about intelligent discussions. He got to make his declarations, and when intelligent discussions-including disagreements- were offered, he just labelled them and began tossing out insults and jokes. Seems his interest in "discussion" ends there.

You're half-right.

The GSC is a website that welcomes all people, primarily twi survivors, but will accept anyone who wishes to post, preferably in a civil manner. It is NOT a requirement that the poster be a Christian. That would deny a voice to those non-Christians who felt driven from Christianity after certain lewd fellows of the baser sort AMONG Christians (and leaders appointed under twi) did things and said things that no human should. I recommend giving this a once-over: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 Sorry to hear that. Unless the therapist was an incompetent- sadly, that happens in ALL professions, not just religious "leaders" like twi people- then what you got out of it was equal to what you put into it. That is, those who saw a therapist after twi often had their first chance to evaluate in a reasonable, normal manner, what they were told to do and told to think, and to come to their own conclusions-without the listener influencing them- as to what was healthy and what was unhealthy in it all. That has great value to people. So long as they are ready to do such evaluation, and need to do so. Me, I didn't need that SPECIFIC help, since twi's touch on my life was very light. I just needed distance and time. Others, under more restrictions and under longer "sentences" of twi, found such assistance necessary and valuable. (Plus, I found the posts at the GSC provided the information I needed to complete closure.) Similarly, if I DID need such help, but was not ready to evaluate rules, restrictions, actions, and so on, I could have gone in for sessions all century, and accomplished nothing, because I was not ready to put INTO the sessions what I needed to get OUT of the sessions.

"No yelling." "I DO NOT YELL." "Then you should have no trouble with that part." "But mostly, a true friend is a person you can always tell the truth to without worrying about it." "The higher, the fewer!" " They are my worlds, and I protect them. I am a master of worlds, and they fly only as I wish."

Richard Gere First Knight Sean Connery

Obviously a James Bond flick, complete with traditional female character's trick name. It's possible it's a spoof, but, say, Austin Powers doesn't reply with James Bond's slick responses.

"No yelling." "I DO NOT YELL." "Then you should have no trouble with that part." "But mostly, a true friend is a person you can always tell the truth to without worrying about it."

Why does that not surprise me?

Maverick James Coburn Hudson Hawk

"Woof woof tweet tweet baa!"

So, Chas, did you take the WOMBAT?

Honestly couldn't say, there's no posted time and apparently it went up Thursday. I'd take it tonight. Make sure you have about 45 minutes of uninterrupted time. It's a TIMED test. It's also amazingly difficult. The last one was hard-this one is harder. If I get the same score this time as I did last time, I'll be impressed. Oh, and the entry code: by one ON the other, that doesn't mean stacked in a pile, it means each superimposed on the last, into one symbol.

No, you're trying to get scores. What you want to do is sneak in and take the next test. First, click on the eraser on the desk- it is a Portkey. It takes you to the door to take the (TIMED) test. You can spend time working it out yourself, but last time, I wasted a lot of time on that. So, per Mugglenet, here's the access: 1. Click on the fly (on the window). It turns into a key. 2. Drag this to the keyhole. 3. Stack the shapes on top of each other: Triangle on line, circle on triangle. 4. Click this shape, then click the exam paper to begin. Expect it to be hard. Part II was.

Forgive me for considering him either A) mistaken, or B) a liar, or C) both. It's been a long time since they could claim 5000, and they've been hemorrhaging members since then for years. Granted, the more people leave, the more hardcore the remaining handful are, and are less likely to leave, but they still lose numbers from 1) adults leaving 2) kids growing up and leaving 3) deaths of innies for any reason (happens everywhere) Even if they stopped actively KICKING people out, that's still true. Meanwhile, the only ways to increase membership #s are to either: 1) attract new people, or 2) increase #s of births. twi was officially anti-births for a very long time. What other Christian organization ever had a top leader encourage abortions? Kids were-AND STILL ARE-seen as INCONVENIENCES since they can't be controlled like an adult can, and don't produce income. That's more people that can't give twi 10% of their income, and money spent to raise them doesn't get sent to twi. If they suddenly changed polices and did a 180 and recommended EVERYONE have kids, they'd really end up in a jam. They'd lose more control over parents, and have less to offer FAMILIES, REAL families with REAL lives than they do singles or married "singles". As for attracting new people, don't make me laugh. twi has nothing to attract them. Older folk are set in their ways, and younger folk would see twi as quaint, outdated, and lacking anything to offer. So, less than 3000 people, including children, in the US. I can't speak for other countries. As for 7000 in the US, I say, "Bushwah."

I've read the opposite here- that those asked pointed to Walter or someone else, and never lcm, but that vpw picked him over everyone's objections. BTW, back then, there was some SERIOUS disinformation going around. I had been told lcm had been chosen the same way Matthias was chosen- by prayer and a vote, and not by vpw's fiat. Over time, I started hearing contradictory information on that...and top innies, even, said vpw chose lcm. The supposed reason vpw picked lcm was that he thought the corps would follow where the former corps director led. It's also been reported that someone asked vpw, and he said lcm never questioned him, but did whatever vpw required of him. If that's true, then the POP comment about vpw considering lcm and cg his top men makes more sense, since they were the 2 men most likely to follow vpw off a cliff.

How confident are you, looking back, that this is EXACTLY what happened? http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/strobe.asp

I don't normally do this, but I'm bumping the thread so readers can see it in time...