WordWolf

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." =======

In all honesty, Groucho, what he's posting not *THAT* bad. He's not calling anyone with experiences contrary to his own "liars" or going after them for disagreeing with him. He's avoiding posting in an abusive manner. (From what I've seen.) So I've seen worse here, and can name worse posters in the past who did those things. I think the free speech here is emphasized when one allows someone with his limited experiences the right to post about them, without FORCING him to conform. He can change on his own schedule, or not at all, on his own schedule. He can only go by what he knows. What he knows PRIMARILY is what he saw.I saw the same things, and it took me a while to examine the experiences of others and properly contextualize my experiences in light of a WHOLE life, and not just the window into it I had. That doesn't happen overnight. I'd just suggest he dig deeper. He saw cg put on the full act of humility and spiritual maturity. So did I-and I was actively looking for spiritual mistakes at the time. I didn't see what he wasn't showing me, either. Then again, I didn't get a "face-melting session" either. I don't think he's unsound-just limited in his exposure. Perhaps that will change for him-it certainly did for you and me...

Not the night-shift people I know....

Me too. Since we didn't study for this test, I think that's pretty good.

Sorry, but I'm apparently not at the top of my game lately. I even missed the Bob Dylan one a page back....

I take it that means video is out as well? *ducks* Hey, big congrats.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum."

[Thanks a lot for replying. There's no consensus among posters-we have Christians, non-Christians, and the Christians cover a wide spectrum of beliefs now. Speaking for myself, I prefer posters-whether I agree with them or not- who can document their claims and discuss them, and can allow for others disagreeing with them respectfully. Without cheapshots mixed in. I don't speak for everyone, but that's more common than some people would portray about the majority of posters.] [Technically, this is not identically-taught as pfal. The conclusions are different, and the direction to get there is different (which is why the conclusion is different.) However, the claim before you walked in was how the SUBJECTS of WIGP were all taken from pfal- how WIGP was DERIVATIVE of pfal and owes its existence and its syllabus to pfal. WD challenged this claim, and said the SUBJECTS were different. I asked him to give an example so we could evaluate that and come to our own conclusions, supporting HIS claim. You said WD was right, so I asked the same of you, and to support YOUR claim. Which you did. Which I for one appreciate, and I expect others do as well. (This isn't unusual behaviour-the request and the support- since all over cyberspace, messageboards have discussions where claims are supported, discussed, or refuted, all the time.) Your support does indeed show that the material is not identical-at least this subject is covered differently. HOWEVER, the claim was that the subjects are different- and this was indeed a subject covered in pfal, then covered in WIGP, and that as a direct result of it being in pfal. Therefore, Juedes' claim is CORRECT as stated, at least as reflected by the evidence presented. (Pending further evidence.) However, this doesn't mean the WIGP class is completely identical to pfal. Rather, it joins the family of pfal clones that began as photocopies of pfal, completely plagiarized for 90% or more of their contents, which were then later modified with "unique" turns of their own, based on the doctrine or style of the presenter. I for one now know a little more on WIGP- that it presented the "thorn in the flesh" as a different thing than vpw said it was. Which, if either, is correct is a matter of Doctrinal discussion, but that they are different is on-topic for this discussion, and that much is correct- they are different there.] [He was cool when I was around him as well. Although you DID mention he tore you one at a different occasion, which he didn't do to me. Then again, I only saw him a few weeks, under controlled circumstances. I acknowledge I hardly had a chance to see him under a variety of conditions, where he could not control the circumstances. Therefore, I have observations-I was watching him closely when I could-but they are limited observations.] [This is the internet. Welcome to the internet! If you're new to the internet, I recommend catching up on it. Here's one Flash that explains a little. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php As for this messageboard, anyone is welcome to come and just post their thoughts here, and the only times the staff interferes (they're a VERY permissive staff) is if a post is overtly ABUSIVE, or releases information about people who have not consented to be public figures, or is overtly advertising, pornographic, or otherwise inappropriate for messageboards. So, you can just post your thoughts here. (Please post them to the appropriate forum- Politics go in the Political forums, and so on.) This is the internet. Most messageboards (and all the ones I post at), whenever you post, your posts are subject to being agreed-with, disagreed-with, discussed, dissected, sneered at, sneezed at, applauded, lauded, jeered, respected, and otherwise replied-to. Even the board owner is subject to that- and HIS posts have been agreed-to and disagreed-with, and he doesn't censor those (except as I explained above). A LOT of boards-including all boards run by current twi members- if you disagree strenuously or even mildly, your posts may or will be edited or deleted, and you may be banned. If you think THIS board is tough, there's a lot of boards where you'd be subject to a lot "freer" speech- where replies may be-and are-ABUSIVE. We are NOT tough as the internet goes- we're fairly mild, or middling at worst. There's a balance to strike between "allow everything to be posted with no restrictions" and "make a harmonious environment even if that means deleting most of the posts and banning most of the users" that all boards must strike, as determined by their staff, and responded to by the posters. This board, IMHO, strikes a healthy balance. You have posted already. You are free to continue to post. Likewise, those who disagree with you are free to continue to post. You were free to disagree with Juedes, me and others, and nobody pushed for you to be censored or banned. Likewise, we are free to disagree with you, WD or others, without being censored or banned. The treatment is even-handed. ] [You've freely posted before. You freely posted now. You can continue to freely post. You've contributed to the discussions already, and added to the aggregate knowledge here, even when there's disagreement. If "freely post" means "I post and others are not allowed to disagree", then, no, this is not that kind of board. You are free to set up your own board and make it against the rules to disagree with you there. Plenty of people do that. Don't ask me where they are- even when I'm on board-staff, people can disagree with me all they want so long as they don't get abusive- and vice versa. But if that's REALLY what you want, hey, more power to you, go right ahead, it's easy to set one up, and you can invite whoever you want to it. Me, I think it would be a shame, and you and we could benefit from you continuing to read and post here, but my opinion is hardly binding on you or anyone.]

Language Social Musical I don't think this should come as a shock to anyone, really....