WordWolf

Hey, it's ok. All the regular posters have posted stuff they later regretted. Nobody's got a perfect batting average. And so on. Pull up a chair. Have some spring water.

" 'E' is for 'Er-gent'!!!" "Four scores and 32 bars ago, our forefathers.." "A quartet?" "...And foremothers..." "Another quartet?" "Sshh!" "What's that?" "SSSSHHH!!" "Good plan." "It's all in the mind."

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.] [Hm, what did Wigglesworth say? http://windandfire.org/2005/Main/Spiritual...igglesworth.htm "Smith Wigglesworth placed great emphasis on purity and holiness, like all true Revivalists. He said, "You must every day make higher ground. You must deny yourself to make progress with God. You must refuse everything that is not pure and holy. God wants you pure in heart. He wants you to have an intense desire after holiness... Two things will get you to leap out of yourselves into the promises of God today. One is purity, and the other is FAITH, which is kindled more and more BY PURITY." This one statement contains what is probably the key secret to Smith Wigglesworth's outstanding success in God. And it is obviously a key that is well worth remembering for us also. Another point to remember is that Smith was very aware of the dangers of money, and guarded himself carefully against the possibility of covetousness entering in. He was truly beyond reproach in this area also." Smith Wigglesworth was BEYOND REPROACH, beyond any coveting of money, and emphasized PURITY. You insult Wigglesworth by invoking his name in the same breath as a man who showed pornographic videos to his students, raped members of his congregation and covered his tracks, drugged members of his congregation and covered his tracks, exposed himself to members of his congregation, made arrangements to do all the above, and presented the quality work of other Christians as his own.] [Oh, and welcome to the GSC. Please read the pinned/sticky topic which you've obviously ignored. When you play baseball, you play by the baseball rules. When you play GSC, you play by the GSC rules. Please review the GSC rules.]

*checks the list* Ok, here's what's left so far: G) Ideas to Encourage Reading in Young Children H) Maintaining Reliable Transportation J) Powerful Paragraphs K) Sola Scriptura: An Overview of the Protestant Reformation L) Some Practical Aspects of Business Etiquette M)The "Write" Stuff" I see "J)" and "M)" as the same subject split into 2 topics. Anyone want to "run the table?"

WordWolf: "Now that I've had my fun lampooning this lampoon-worthy list, I think it's only fair we demonstrate the courage of our convictions, and save the average twi'er $52. Since some of us believe the internet (specific webpages) have all these answers, let's provide the URLs for these topics! I'll start off. A History of the Huguenots: http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm http://www.huguenotsociety.org.uk/history/ http://huguenot.netnation.com/general/huguenot.htm http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org/ Can the rest of you fill in the others?? QuietThinker: "ok, WW, I will play, too. :) Spelling Basics: Spelling it right English Learner English for Everybody HomeSchool Curric. Spelling Course" WordWolf: Ok, here's the list. "A) "Better Spelling Basics B) Building an Understanding of Vehicle Purchasing C) Early History of New Knoxville D) The First Freedom: Religious Liberty in America E) Highlights of African History and Culture F) A history of the Huguenots G) Ideas to Encourage Reading in Young Children H) Maintaining Reliable Transportation I) Making a Home-cleaning Schediule That Works for You J) Powerful Paragraphs K) Sola Scriptura: An Overview of the Protestant Reformation L) Some Practical Aspects of Business Etiquette M)The "Write" Stuff" Now, A) and F) have been covered. That leaves 10 more topics. I'm sure the rest of you will want a piece of this- it's just one more way to show up the twi hierarchy. And it's fun! :)" templelady: "Early History of New Knoxville http://www.newknoxville.com/our_past.htm" Belle: Here are my favorite sites for Making a Home-cleaning Schedule That Works for You: Fly Lady - This site is "da bomb" on cleaning schedules Heloise Strats Place - TWITs probably don't need this one And my favorite site name: REAL SIMPLE Really, between Fly Lady and Heloise you've got it covered." shazdancer: "Building an Understanding of Vehicle Purchasing Car Buying Tips More Car Buying Tips The First Freedom: Religious Liberty in America Religious Liberty, ACLU The North American Religious Liberty Association Highlights of African History and Culture African History on About.com African History on the BBC, multimedia Can we say...Google? and free? and they do it better?"

I did not find Garth's comment inappropriate, myself. ========= In other news, on their own website (http://www.pcj.edu/intro/intropage.html) Pontifical College Josephinum says this: "ABOUT THE JOSEPHINUM Founded in 1888, by a German immigrant priest, Msgr. Joseph Jessing, the Pontifical College Josephinum was granted pontifical status in 1892 by Pope Leo XIII, thus becoming, and remaining, the only pontifical seminary in the Western Hemisphere. Originally founded by Msgr. Jessing, in 1875, as an orphanage, today it educates seminarians from the United States, Asia, Africa and Europe. Alumni serve the universal Church in 22 foreign countries and 48 states. The Josephinum is comprised of a four-year College of Liberal Arts and a four-year graduate School of Theology. The Josephinum prepares priests for: U.S. dioceses that do not have their own seminaries; missionary areas of the United States; regions of the U.S. with growing Hispanic communities; and dioceses around the world in need of help with the education of their seminarians." It's located in Columbus, Ohio, so its mention here is hardly shocking. I'm not sure about the chain of "who salutes to who" here, but it doesn't sound like a secret papal training ground or an independent group not accountable to anyone short of the Vatican. Not that anyone SAID they were, but the phrasing was peculiar and I wanted to say that outright.

Of course, some people would say you don't REALLY know that's why she's the sole exception to the rule of kicking out the spouse and so on, unless you contact twi in writing and they say that's the reason....

I wonder where the enigmatic Peter Wade falls in the continuum. I know he had the brains to leave early-perhaps it was an educated brain.

*checks* Apparently, it IS DareDevil. I didn't realize DD got to kill Joe Quesada. A lot of comics readers would like to do that, or at least beat him down. :) They snuck in a number of names of comics people into the movie- John Romita was another. (Senior or Junior, I guess.) And they used the best lines from the Daredevil/Elektra fight in the 80s- the lines that ended the fight. I'm not a Frank Miller fan, but that issue was a classic. ======== Ok, next movie. " 'E' is for 'Er-gent'!!!"

Given the tape series they're selling, I think twi is supposing exactly that.

Weren't we discussing the helplessness of twi members?

Technically correct. Because Matt Murdock, who said that, was blind. Making this movie "DareDevil." Ben Affleck said that to Jennifer Garner.

I have NEVER understood what the heck was in the punch when someone decided Romans 12:1 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." that the word "reasonable" in Romans 12:1, which is the Greek word "logikos", meaning "logical" most obviously, should always be given as "RELIGIOUS", as in "which is your RELIGIOUS service." That was in the Intermediate (E@rl Burt0n) and Renewed Mind (Walter C) classes, and I have no idea WHY. I do know it was OFFICIAL, since it was being taught in the taped classes for MULTIPLE classes, and vpw signed off on both, introducing the Intermediate.

*quotes the link's article* "Among his descendants was the noted Biblical scholar E.W. Bullinger." E.W. was the guy vpw ripped off. That's the Figures of Speech and How to Enjoy the Bible/"All Scripture explains itself" guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

And others have attempted the same, and NOT gotten "correction of the leader" nor "clearer communication." Two immediate examples: One person asking for clarification when they were sent the Spring 1989 "I fired all your leadership because they were self-serving" letter was sent a response. The letter was boilerplate and differed only in the names of the people fired. The response sent was boilerplate and said that leadership was not going to go into specifics (which it couldn't since there WERE none beyond "refusal to swear an oath equals self-centering") and that the questioner's job was to now follow along without question. Another was someone who spoke directly to lcm after receiving the 1989 "corps must swear loyalty" letters that preceeded this. He asked lcm over the phone if this meant he wanted blind loyalty- whether this meant he expected the corps to follow along without question. lcm told him that he had already been doing this all along. MOST people who tried to correct error-or even asked the wrong question at the wrong time- faced "sanctions". Those included firing, shoving off-grounds, "mark-and-avoid", and so on. Some people are quite familiar with hq punishing questions, or blowing them off. A third, of course, sent a list of problems to the CURRENT head, and how practices and doctrine had gone off course, and were harming people. The response ignored all the questions, and invited him to visit hq and look around. Just because Oldiesman got a good response-and, I'd expect, SOME people got good responses in certain places and certain times- in no way suggests that ALL or even MOST people didn't face punishment for questioning- and that's the CURRENT state of affairs at der way.

Correct on 'rube.' As for 'berk, the HP Lexicon says "berk Idiot, objectionable person. The word is actually derived from a very crude and offensive bit of rhyming slang, but in this form is considered to be inoffensive. "If we were sometimes arrogant little berks, you mean," said Sirius. (HP and the OotP, chapter 29.) He was describing the attitude demonstrated in the chapter "Snape's Worst Memory", which was an example of the Marauders "strutting about the school", as Snape put it, as if they owned it. I occasionally pick up little phrases from things I read, hear or see. I think everyone does-but I'm a bit more obvious about it.

Show you're better than them! Give them TWO hours to pack, and give them the one ticket and $10 for food. That's STILL a lot more than they did, which is saying something...

If 50 people in the branch was a "typical" meeting and not "everyone we were able to coerce into going from the territory", then they wouldn't have been all over him like he was the last chopper out of 'nam. You missed the entire 90s, when this was instituted. Before that, the entire "can't think without orders" thing was in part of the corps and part of the at-root-locale staff. In the 90s, it became an organization-wide thing. You missed so much in the 90s, but now you might be less slow to blow them off as preposterous, made-up stories. Things like going 2 x 2 everywhere, even to go to the grocery to buy milk or something. And writing out your week's schedule in advance, in 15 minute increments, and being required to stick to the submitted schedule. And worse stuff. But you can catch up here. Welcome. My best advice to you is already here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.] Nothing about "how would I get born again." She asked what it meant. She asked for a website. I provided a link and posted the contents. Then I answered that link based on what twi said what born again WAS. I call that "sticking to the question I was asked." If I'd felt like it, I probably could have editorialized and explained why my position is the only correct one, but if she wanted to know about that, she would have asked.] Sidestepping the answer with symantics (is it really born again? or born from above? or....) is far from an earnest desire to help someone. [Actually, sidestepping the answer to the question SHE ASKED by saying HOW to get born again without even explaining what it was would have expressed "an earnest desire to help someone", and demonstrated the poster is an arrogant little berk who can't address the actual question-but only can go into the canned responses. Up to you which actually HELPS someone, but I call it at "being a poor witness".] I chose not to participate in the discussion because there was just to much to address. I decided to do it on another thread. [Call it what you will, but this IS participating in the discussion. It's editorializing on it on a separate thread. This is bad form because the discussion was in one place, and you chose to comment apart from it-which means that you get to frame everyone's posts in the light YOU want, and you didn't link to them for reference, as if you didn't want people to make up their OWN minds. Instead of being "above the fray", your message-intended or not-was "See how above the fray I am!" I shall now pronounce judgement on those who answered her!" ] Cynic: I expect you have the honor of having the longest thread in the cafe. After reading the post, that's probably the worse answer to the question I've ever heard or read. Good Gravy! ! ! You finally gave her the verse while responding to a few that had poked fun at you. Even that was a casual reference to Romans 10:9. [by not actually going in and making your OWN attempt at answering, you did no better. How about rolling up your sleeves and showing the rubes how it's done?] Belle: I've always enjoyed your post. I was surprised with your questions about speaking in tongues. In the 25 years I was in, I never heard a teaching that it was required to SIT in oder to be born again. Rather, the opposite. It's impossible to speak in tongues if you aren't born again. Later even that changed. At the point that you wrote that, Noni still had no answer. [And yet, in practice, in many places it was done, especially in the 90s. It's amazing how many people will accept that practice was different in different places and different times- UP TO A POINT. From then on, anything that happened elsewhere was a hallucination of the participants.] johniamthat was agreeing with what VPW had said about being "saved = born again = received holy spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues". SIT was the "evidence"...not the requirement. I'll probably get a load of emails with daggers attached to the files. But, I figured I've been wounded in here before. [Woe betide me for having an unpopular opinion....fetch me my sackcloth and ashes...] My observations are just as valueless or valuable as anyone elses. When I surf through radio stations and pick up a guy claiming to teach the Bible, I listen for about 2 or 3 minutes before I start screaming at the dashboard. These guys are so lost and out of touch with what the Bible says....it boggles the imagination. Muchless use the Bible to teach anyone how to get born again. They're stuck in the Gospels as doctrine and as a result mishandle the rest of the Bible. John 3:ff is not instruction on how to get born again....it's an invitation! ! ! !! ! ! ! Gee. I hope I didn't just sound like a Wayfer. :unsure: [No, but it was completely irrelevant to the discussion....] For those of you who want to get into an shouting match by way of email... I'll apologize later if I offended you. :unsure: [Me, I prefer to handle communications all in public. That way, there's no questions later on "he said/she said." I learned that from twi- some people use their non-published communications as an excuse to pretend they didnt happen.] Me, I thought it was obvious that's what and why.

And by "what twi actually publicly taught", he means "only that which was stated directly at an STS or as written in the waymag." "Someone's perception" includes "teachings by regional coordinators and limb coordinators" as well as "lcm at the microphone at lunchtime", and "anything passed thru channels but not to the rank-and-file." And if there's the tiniest wiggle-room, it didn't count. And any OTHER twi source will be inadmissable (deniable) as proof. Dear Moneyhands: You kicked that dear woman out on her ear because she wouldn't speak in tongues. Please explain the reasoning behind this decision. Love, Loyal Peon. Dear Loyal Peon: Her refusal to speak in tongues had nothing to do with it. During the nights we didn't have fellowship, she would drink the blood of widows and orphans. Therefore, it was my responsibility to see her gone. This is therefore a dead issue, and further discussion will be punished. God bless you. Love, Bob Moneyhinds.

Belle: "Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?" Johniam: "C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 'cared to SIT' ". WordWolf responds: "John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?" I diagrammed it for ease of answering: A) do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? (i.e. -Is speaking in tongues required of God?) B) If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? C) How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to? (Do you consider Christians as born again if they do not plan to sit at any point, or are they not born again on that basis?) ============ Johniam: "As already discussed, no, SIT is not a requirement for salvation, it's an option after salvation. A very good option, IMO." ========= Belle: "Are ya gonna answer my questions? ;)" ==== Johniam: "Belle: Hello! I already did. If not, please specify." ======== WordWolf responds: *checks diagram* One might work out what you'd say to her questions, but you didn't address them directly. Since they're diagrammed for ease of address, you might try directly answering them. I included them in this post, and broke them down by letter. Otherwise, one might think you had some reason you were avoiding just answering the questions, and chose to post AROUND them instead. (This takes longer than just answering them.)

There was quite a double-standard about emotions in twi. Emotions were WRONG when: A) They were inconvenient. If we're running a class, can't feel sadness over the death of a family member. "Control your mind." B) They said whatever the leader du jour wasn't saying. "Your emotions are tricking you away from The Truth." C) ONE emotion is being demanded and you have ANOTHER. "You're supposed to be enthusiastic about door-to-door witnessing, not dreading it!" Emotions were RIGHT when: A) the leader du jour demanded one. If a class is running, you're supposed to be excited about it. B) If the leader du jour is the one having the emotion. If YOU yell, it's a capital crime; if the leader yells, it's "spiritual." vpw yelled plenty in his time-all "spiritual." "I yell because you can take it!" and other excuses for him not to "control his mind." (Of course, if he'd controlled his mind better, he'd have left fewer victims in his wake.) lcm yelled so often that he invented new terms like "spiritual anger" and so on. lcm also cursed so much that some kids on staff learned to curse from listening to lcm. Local leaders were entitled to share the bellowing at the peons. Seems that the only emotions allowed were anger and fear- so long as you called them "spiritual anger" and "genuine spiritual suspicion." Compassion, mercy and love NEVER were- unless it was in the strict context of "I'd like you to bless me with some sexual congress now."

vpw himself said as much. He derided people feeling something as a barometer. He pointed out some people feel better after "sitting on a psychiatrist's couch!" So, vpw acknowledged that people can have "a feeling" or even "an experience", but that either that feeling or experience may not be what they were expecting or calling it. It's only fair to use the same measure on his OWN material.

Belle: "Johniam, do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to?" Johniam: "C'mon, you're a pfal grad. God never oversteps man's freedom of will. I'm glad the 12 on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 'cared to SIT' ". WordWolf responds: "John, are you aware that you didn't answer her question? Any plans on actually answering it?" I diagrammed it for ease of answering: A) do you believe that one has to speak in tongues? (i.e. -Is speaking in tongues required of God?) B) If someone does not speak in tongues, do you consider that person to not be born again? C) How about someone who not only does not SIT, but also does not care to? (Do you consider Christians as born again if they do not plan to sit at any point, or are they not born again on that basis?)

IIRC, "Burn the Chaff Day" aka "Uncle Harry Day" WAS every year. I'm thinking it was on Harry's birthday-is that true or did I make that up or something?