WordWolf

Raf and I used to trade stories. (While we were in twi, of course.) I was raised Roman Catholic, he was raised Watchtower Society. Fun for us at the time, but if you'd overheard us, you'd have sworn that between the two of them, they were going to destroy Christianity AND Western Civilization. But we both picked up a lot about the other group. I had the unfair "advantage" of copies of "Babylon Mystery Religion" and "The Two Babylons" on hand. So, yes, he told me back then that this is how the tracts get financed.

That's "Babylon Mystery Religion." Ralph Woodrow's followup "the Babylon Connection?" is a must-read-- it's the same writer explaining why "Babylon Mystery Religion" was full of error. And "Babylon Mystery Religion" is the user-friendly version of Alexander Hislop's "the Two Babylons", which it properly footnotes and endnotes. lcm probably never learned all the errors were errors. Yes, AFAIK, their salvation is dependent upon works, and is in hazard of revocation if they stop. Further, they buy the tracts and occasionally get a donation to recoup the expense.

No, vpw did not rip that one off of the Watchtower Society. He ripped it off Bullinger, who wrote books like "the Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" (Compare to "Are the Dead Alive Now?" which even uses the same question-format in the title.) http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/ I don't know who Armstrong stole it from. As for JCING, it's been suggested that was from Leonard.

Your avatar is FINE. If you want a DIFFERENT avatar, though, there's nothing wrong with getting a new one.

Why all the airtime? Don Henley said it long ago.... "I make my living off the evening news Just give me something-something I can use People love it when you lose, They love dirty laundry Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here I just have to look good, I dont have to be clear Come and whisper in my ear Give us dirty laundry Kick em when theyre up Kick em when theyre down Kick em when theyre up Kick em when theyre down Kick em when theyre up Kick em when theyre down Kick em when theyre up Kick em all around We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who Comes on at five She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam In her eye Its interesting when people die- Give us dirty laundry Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet? You know, the boys in the newsroom got a Running bet Get the widow on the set! We need dirty laundry. You dont really need to find out whats going on You dont really want to know just how far its gone Just leave well enough alone, Eat your dirty laundry Kick em when theyre up Kick em when theyre down Kick em when theyre up Kick em when theyre down Kick em when theyre up Kick em when theyre down Kick em when theyre stiff Kick em all around Dirty little secrets, Dirty little lies We got our dirty little fingers in everybodys pie We love to cut you down to size, We love dirty laundry We can do the innuendo, We can dance and sing When its said and done we havent told you a thing We all know that crap is king, Give us dirty laundry!"

Ok, that explains that. I think "hindsight" is the only appropriate way to review a "mooning".

Welcome, qtana. I think (this is just my opinion) that some people more than others- and more my generation and perhaps yours- feel better when they have some external benchmark on which to measure their performance. Something like knowing their skill-ranks and aptitude levels at different things. It makes it easier to define oneself with objective-or at least external- standards. I don't think that using an outside measure is necessarily bad. However, using ONLY outside measures means that someone can manipulate you by manipulating the measures. That's one reason why lcm threatened the way corps with removal of their corps status if they didn't swear an oath of loyalty to him. ======== In other news, hello. We have many things you may want to look at, especially if you're new here. My general advice for new arrivals is here... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 I hope you enjoy your stay, no matter what your individual beliefs are at the moment.

Yes. Some of us post publicly all sorts of information about ourselves- physical appearance, first name (possibly with last), place of residence (stopping before address if not sooner, usually just state or city), approximate age, profession, hobbies, etc. Others of us (like me) place a premium on their privacy. You won't find our legal names, location below city, appearance and so on. HOWEVER, limited to what we're willing to share, what we DO say is all true. For example, I give my correct hometown, and mention my hobbies, and so on. The PROBLEM is that some people volunteer information that is INcorrect-they LIE when they could simply say little or nothing. People are welcome here whether they never were in twi, or if they were in 40 years, or anywhere in-between. They're welcome to be somewhat vague on this, but to deliberately mis-inform or lie is NOT appreciated. It was probably being worked on and edited, and you looked at it IMMEDIATELY after the initial post. That sometimes happens if you don't give a post a few minutes, especially if it has complicated components.

Great. Since I'm not, I can only take the new people so far. Many of them-especially if they were ex-twi-- may be hampered by technophobia or lack of experience. Practice and facility will help a little with both. My instructions for picking something off the provided galleries will work fine for those who find EXACTLY what they're looking for. For everyone else, it's better to have something that suits them better. I know that someone can find any of all sorts of images by going to a website that provides avatars (I forget whose avatar here is an ad for one), or they can find one themselves by any of several methods. One is to go to http://www.google.com , then click on "images", then to type in what they're looking for, in quotes if it's something where there are many possible results. For example, if they want a picture of, say, Minnie Mouse, they'd type in "minnie mouse" in quotes. Then they'd find a bunch of images, and their pages. Next, they'd click on the one they wanted, go to its page, then go to the image on the hostpage, right-click on it, select "save image as", name it and specify where they want to save the image to, then hit "save". Now they have the image on their computer, but need to trim it down to fit the avatar gallery. They can tell this by going to the menu the image in in, then pointing their cursor at it. They'll then see the dimensions and the overall size of the file. According to the forum's specifications, the height can be no taller than 90 pixels, the width can be no wider than 90 pixels, and the overall file size can't exceed 50 KB. The image would then have to be edited to fit in the specifications. In my case, my avatar didn't fit in that size, so eventually I had to work out how to trim down the height, width AND file size. I know I used Picasa 2 at someone here's recommendation, which is downloadable for free at http://picasa.google.com/ by clicking on "free download". Is this the free program you'd recommend that new people should attempt to use? Feel free to explain any method using any software you see fit. The best one for the new, confused person, however, might be something simple AND free, which, AFAIK, is true of Picasa 2.

Fairly well, he DOES. He read the account of the guy sitting RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, of both the expectations BEFORE the LEAD trip, and the expectations DURING the LEAD trip, and the exact incidents up to the exact second of the accident. Since you read it the LAST time you argued that twi was blameless for this, you didn't try this then. Your attempts to pull it now either indicate A) you're posting on this without caring about the details or B) you remember the details and choose to deliberately misrepresent them or C) A) and B) See above. He COULD be if he hadn't read the entire first-person report of someone who WAS there. BTW, it was TYPICAL of the type of expectations the corps got ALL THE TIME, ESPECIALLY in LEAD. It was, but not to you, since you knew all this already. Because there are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

Actually, he's COUNTING ON NOT GETTING IT.

Since Oldiesman wants to change this thread from "criminal negligence leading to foolhardy behaviour as MANDATED by twi" into "let's derail and discuss the LEAD accident, I'll go along for now. ================= Satori: "The TWI management philosophy is: "deprivation + believing = abundance." The top leadership applies this philosophy (a.k.a., magic formula) to everyone but themselves. By hand-picking their high-maintenance Corps people (by their own cold, cynical reckoning) for LEAD Group 104 (and whose bone-headed, foolish idea was it? Lynn's? Martindale's? - whatever, they had to approve it), TWI management over-burdened the competent but small staff at Tinney. Management's expectation, as usual, was they would be well-served by the magical "believing" of the staff, or if not, they could blame the staff for its failure to "believe" (practice effective magic). No believing (magic) required on their own part - pretty convenient. For crying out loud, the LEAD program was in the wilderness! That was the idea for creating a "challenge." Screw-ups anywhere are dangerous enough, but even minor accidents in the wilderness can become deadly. So dumbass TWI leadership sends this (supposedly) issue-prone "losers" group - all together. To a virtual survival camp?? And you ask the bare-bones staff, in one session, to keep them all safe, enable them to climb vertical rock walls, AND do your vetting work for you - the work that should have been done on the field, one-on-one, or in residence? If TWI leaders couldn't "believe" to get the vetting done in a safer, controlled environment, what made them think LEAD would be such a nifty idea? They were f-ing STUPID, that's what. They were also thoughtless, or callous, or even cold-blooded, mercenary bastards, where people's lives were concerned. They made a show of "loving" people, but the love-dove stuff went down the crapper when personal priorities or ministry goals were at stake. What TWI was hoping to do with LEAD 104 was save time, letting the LEAD program shake you all loose as efficiently as possible. I'll be honest here. I don't think Rochelle was ever meant for the Corps program, neither for what it was supposed to be (and never was), and especially, not for what it was - from the 6th Corps(approximately) on. I believe she was looking for a place to belong, where her talents and intelligence could be put to the best possible purpose, and hoped the Corps would provide it - not just a "place," but a family. Had TWI been a truly Christian group, and not the fraud it quickly became as Wierwille realized his ambitions, she might have found it, and herself. To the Way Corps program, as it was, she was a throw-away, along with so many others, caught in the net but to be tossed out, unwanted." ==================== Satori again: "oldiesman, The driver was responsible for the accident. Yes. Nobody would question that, so your real point is that you are missing the point. Who was the driver's employer? What was the driver doing while driving? Why? Specifically, what were the circumstances leading to a distracted, young man reading an evaluation form, while operating a fast-moving truck, towing a trailer, with a load of people in the back on a windy, back-country highway. No red flags for you, huh? Blame stops with the driver? How convenient for the Board of Trustees, who consistently appointed -what shall we call them? okay - dumbasses, to run the Corps, and consequently to make asinine decisions like the one that led to (remedial) LEAD group 104, requiring extended evaluations for which there was INSUFFICIENT TIME to complete. I'm not saying Way management wanted the accident to happen. They were just too stupid and thoughtless, oh, and NEGLIGENT!! to consider the danger of over-burdening the LEAD staff, when it was already under so many other constraints, real and administrative. Oh, "by the way." Why is it swept under the rug? Because NEGLIGENCE = LIABILITY, that's why." =================== waterbuffalo: "..right, satori001, and it wasn't as if twi didn't have the $$ to enlarge the staff or to train them more thoroughly..." ================== Georgio Jessio: "I've posted either here or on Waydale about the incompetence that left my mother with a forever broken back. She's never recovered and was chastised because she wasn't "walking in the spirit". She walked right off of a mountain side and took a violent fall because a LEADer told her, a middle aged woman from The Bronx, to go back to camp to retrieve something, take a left at the oak tree and a right at the maple tree. She tried to tell them that she didn't know the difference between trees an she was reproved for not remembering what she had been taught. She obediently went , misunderstood the difference between trees and took a terrible fall. She came home early from LEAD and I wasn't told that she had returned or that she had been in an accident. We had "sub parents": Fellow corps that kept an eye on the kids while Family Corps parents went lead. They knew she was back and didn't tell me. They continued to act as my parents while my mother was being kept away from me. I heard thru the grapevine that she was back and had gotten hurt because "her believing wasn't there". I demended to see her and get some info and finally was allowed to see her days later. I couldn't sleep knowing my mother was hurt, I wasn't allowed to see her or have any info. It was torture. Many were talking about it in front of me, making my mother look bad without regard to my feelings. She wasn't allowed to go to a doctor until she reached a level of pain that was turned around on her as a lack of believing. It was all her fault. She was never treated and now her bones are fused incorrectly. Oldies man: It is neglegent and unreasonable to require people to hitch hike across the country." ================ Satori: "oldiesman, when you put employees under the pressure of time constraints, they may have to cut corners to deliver results on time. If you're talking about the BRC offices at Headquarters, where somebody might stumble over a stapler, that's one thing. But when you're talking about Way Builders, or LEAD, or any operation where safety is a critical consideration, then management MUST stress safety above all else. What did TWI stress? "Believing," in other words, magic. And of course, results. Safety was only a factor of your believing. If you "believed" (practiced amateur magic), God would cover (because he loves amateur magicians). WHAT is TWI renowned for saying any time a "believer" (amateur magician) gets sick or hurt. It's their BELIEVING, right oldiesman? They believed for disease or injury or death, just like old, dead of cancer Victor P. Wierwille, uh, or was that an attack-of-the-Adversary? - stay tuned for the "present truth" to be revealed, depending on what time it is. You can say it's impossible for TWI management to take oversight to enforce safety standards and measures adequate for preventing every accident. But they did enforce those measures, selectively. You can bet Vic's bus and airplane were well inspected, and that sufficient TIME was allowed to do the job right. But LEAD placed a big priority on the schedule. It was a matter of honor and pride (and believing, which is magic) to arrive at LEAD, and back, on TIME. And LEAD staff was a big part of that, getting the (spiritual) hitchhikers back on the road on time. Even if it meant reading evaluation forms, driving 50 mph in strong crosswinds with a trailer and a truck load of people. Is it stupid to do that? No, not if you're "believing" is there. You're covered, bro. You can do anything with believing (magic), and do it safely, even if it looks a little dangerous. Why didn't HCW say, "Stop this thing, I'm not proceeding with the eval while you're driving?" Because he would have been questioning the driver's believing, that's why, and his own would be on the line. After all, he was part of LEAD 104, the losers' group. He would be giving in to fear (FALSE EVIDENCE APPEARING REAL), and that would be putting everyone at risk of losing their (magical) hedge of protection, giving the Adversary an opportunity to steal, kill and destroy. So HCW didn't confess any negatives, like "slow this goddam truck down now, dammit." That would have been negative. Why? Because that's what TWI taught, and not only taught, but enforced with systematic intimidation. Being assigned to LEAD-for-Losers group 104 was part of TWI's ugly campaign of intimidation against its own followers, especially Corps (who in turn, turned it upon others). It just stinks of Martindale, to tell you the truth, it reeks of the stain and stench of "spiritual" humiliation, L. Craig Martindale's modus operandi. If it had come down from TWI management that safety PRACTICE was a part of the culture and structure of LEAD (as it was on the rocks), the accident wouldn't have happened, at least, not the way it did. The LEAD culture was to teach RISK-taking as an element of "believing" (magic). I guess you weren't really there, at TWI. The sad part is, this tragedy probably confirmed The Way management's warped assessment of the LEAD 104 group. The losers couldn't even believe to prevent an accident." ================= Mr Hammeroni: "I don't if its really about the blame, as much- at least to me. What I find highly disturbing, is how these kind of things seemingly disappear, swept under the rug so to speak. I can honestly say that I NEVER heard anything about this stuff. Never- after twenty years involvement. Why? Is it possible that the BOD and minions do not want to admit that if they are cut, that they will bleed, just like anybody else? What happens to their claim of superiority and "abundance"? Apparently it did not work this time. Or that da debil somehow had access to this supposed pure, clean protected bunch? How could this be? Same stupid junk- "that da ministry be not blamed". Anything that had a remote potential of giving them or their doctrines a black eye seems to have had a habit of vanishing in the night." ==================== Alfakat: "well, they were the BOT, om ---it was their f-ing job, no?? They wanted the accolades but not the responsibility. Everything run on a frickin shoe-string...home-made trailer, my a$$...surprised the truck wasn't home-made, too. Too cheap and tight-a$$ed to do things right, like the world.... satori, I just read your last post...spot-on, EXACTLY. anyone who spent time on staff knows NOTHING was too much for ole vp, but everybody else could make-do... a home-made trailer???? fer krap's sake, not lik e they could buy a real one..." =================== Watered Garden: "Maybe this is another one of my dumb remarks, but here in Buckeye Land, having ONE person riding in the bed of a pickup truck is against the law. There were 15 or so folks in the back of that one, and they were towing a trailer? That's not only dumb, it's against the law in most states." ================ TheHighWay: "Satori... dead-on post!!! On a trip to HQ, I was told to drive my car close enough to the leader's car that he could see me in his rear-view mirror. The guy was speeding like a demon down a road known for speed traps. So, it doesn't strike me as odd that one of us got stopped by a cop. It happened to be me. The cop was nice and just gave me a warning, but what did my leader say, "Your lack of believing is why you got stopped." (no, dumb-a**, my being stupid enough to follow your orders while you broke the law is why I got stopped!) This was typical both of leadership's attitudes, and follower's willingness to go against their better judgement." =============== Satori: "Yes, that's right oldiesman. You think it's absurd? Way management mandated the extended evaluations (not for one or two participants, but ALL of them) be completed within the limited LEAD schedule time-frame rather than providing additional needed time. The "naked emporor" here, which nobody wants to mention, is that the patented TWI magic (the so-called "keys to believing") doesn't WORK like a light switch. Believing doesn't "work" with any predictability, if it "works" at all. If believing had worked for Ministry management, they never would have needed LEAD to sort the winners from the losers." =============== jardinero explained what it means to BE a board member of a nonprofit organization. "1) As a board member of a nonprofit organization, I have a fiduciary oversight responsibility as a board member. Should I fail to excercise proper oversight and there is some sort of financial fraud or other mismanagement of funds and a lawsuit follows, I can be named in the lawsuit even though I've not necessarily been involved in the actual fraud or other wrong doing - - including being just plain stupid 2) As a manager in a corporation, when an employee comes to me and complains of discrimination, sexual or other types of harrassment and I don't report it to Human Resources for his/her permanent employee file and see to it some action is taken (that's my accountability in the matter) - - I can be named in a lawsuit and held liable for damages. Ditto with safety regulations (like OSHA) when I fail to enforce them with my employees and someone is injured or dies. Just wanted to bring that up....." =============== shazdancer: "Oldies, you don't think there was enough money to buy a couple of vans or buses or trailers for this work? THAT was the responsibility of the BOT. They knew how many people were being transported out to the highway. Satori, thanks for the comparison with Wierwille's insistence on perfection and safety on his AIRPLANE!" ============== skyrider: "How many times did vpw LECTURE THE CORPS ON DETAILS.........citing how when howard allen was driving the coach that he had to be extra diligent to not swerve an inch. ELSE......veepee would get thrown around at the back of the bus!!!!!!" ============ igotout: "I was on the very 1st LEAD group in the mountains near Gunnison. Ours was experimental, and we too, were exposed to some hazards. Being naturally adept at climbing, I was picked with a few others to do a 400' rock climb one morning. A few moves scared even me and I LOVE heights and climbing. One slip and cartain death would have been the result. Though there was a SINGLE safety lead line, there were some close calls while transitioning from point to point while unattached. I feel we were put at risk, none of us having had any training in rock climbing, etc., including Steve our instructor. Afterwards they asked me to be on LEAD staff but I politely declined (I don't like camping.) Obviously the hitchiking was dangerous in many ways. I hitchiked a LOT, at least 8 times, in the Way Corps. It was tiring. Our 7th Corps brother, Ken and his wife were in one of the later groups. He was killed as he walked in the path of an oncoming semi truck one evening as Evelyn watched. We were all shocked and had sleepless nights of disbelief and pain."

As someone asked recently, where in the corps literature is there an explanation of "accomplish exploits and feats"- or any reference to them at all, for that matter? Or "pushing the envelope?" We've had plenty of direct testimony of the old "bait-and-switch" and how expectations of the corps changed once they were on grounds, or without warning WHILE on grounds, and peer pressure used to enforce the new "policies" (which were STILL not put in writing.) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person." Give WTH, Allan and Mike a hug for us next time you reply to them.

NO EXCEPTIONS WERE EVER MADE FOR "CIRCUMSTANCES". And even approaching the subject left one open for criticism for "lack of believing." The driver WAS expected to make it on time and pay NO ATTENTION to safety considerations which made this an impractical goal. Pretending it wasn't does not change that, and does not speak well of your ability to view what DID happen fairly. "Dear sirs:I understand that Believer X was subjected to a face-melting session when he drove slowly and stopped due to inclement weather returning from LEAD. The arbitrary return time was not kept due to his concern for the safety of the passengers. Was he expected to disregard all safety in this situation?" "Dear peon: In the situation you speak, the considerations were concerning the failure to believe God, and the failure to maintain commitments, of Believer X. This situation has been dealt with to our satisfaction, and will no longer be entertained. However, we are concerned about your lack of faith in our ability to administer our program. Have you taken it to God in prayer? Your lack of faith in your leadership is disconcerting. If you have any further doubts and misgivings, please take them directly to your twig or branch coordinator rather than stepping outside channels to contact us." It's one paragraph down from "Your 'Birth to the Corps' papers will be used as determinants to see if you're ready to join an elite cadre who engage in casual sex, and your suitability as a sex object for vpw to 'utilize'." Read the fine print. I think any reasonable person can see that this sentence has nothing to do with your motivations. We've already seen this was the PRACTICE.

Staying IN the house runs the risk of radon poisoning, being caught in a housefire, slipping in the tub, and sitting minding your own business when a car crashes through the wall. (It's been in the news, just not recently.) DUH. Nobody said "twi is responsible for preventing ALL harm from befalling its participants." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person." Those are "acceptable risks." Oldiesman's intentional ignorance of the concept of "unacceptable risk" is sad, but characteristic. Since we've covered it in detail ALREADY on this page, and preceeding pages, repeatedly, I trust there's no reason to do so again.

I said this.... Oldies replied Which means Oldies can't possibly imagine a program where "unnecessary risk of death and rape" can be replaced with something that does NOT have "unnecessary risk of death or rape." That's easy. Put them in a vehicle. Now, the risks of them getting in a vehicle with someone who will kill or rape them has been reduced from "unnecessary risk" to "acceptable risk". (If one seemingly-sane corps person goes insane and rapes and kills the others in the car, you can't control for that beyond screening the applicants. Thus, that is an "acceptable risk." People take "acceptable risks" every day.) How about the risks of people hit by vehicles? Remove the unnecessary risk by putting them in a vehicle. Now, if something hits them, they're surrounded by detroit steel and a seatbelt. Even cheap cars have seatbelts and a body. Those are 2 layers of protection the hitchhiker lacks. That's why most Christian organizations that have "training programs" DON'T have "body counts." They can't affect ALL risks, but they can remove "unnecessary risk"-so they do. Even the heathens and publicans do that without difficulty. (Apologies to any heathens and publicans out there.) Ok, where does the money for the vehicles come from? (Someone already outlined a BETTER plan that included that on this thread-and they did it offhand, without a program.) That's easy-the tens of thousands a year that was paid for each participant. They were housed in little dorms and fed bottom-of-the-budget foods like familia, millet and broccoli, and borscht. Even prisons feed better than that, last I heard. So, there was LOTS of money for NECESSARY expenses. Unless you were determined to make as big a FINANCIAL profit off the program as possible. The operating costs of vehicles were well within the income FOR the program. As for "well, they didn't have the money when they STARTED the LEAD program", I simply say "Don't run ANY program until you have the CAPACITY to run it." And if they didn't know that-which they didn't- I say they have no business PRETENDING to run a program and letting the participants pay the price. Again, doesn't anyone else get tired of Oldiesman inventing this complaint that nobody is making? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

Correct. The driver was in control of the truck, at that specific time. Therefore, the ultimate decisions rested in his hands. That makes him the final decision-maker in this process, which means he bears some responsibility. DUH. That having been said, the driver was placed in a situation where all expectations were placed on him to disregard all safety. He was expected-by participants/passengers AND the powers-that-be to exceed safe speeds and drive regardless of the circumstances. Rather than take heed and exercise safe driving, he was EXPECTED and TRAINED to ignore the situation and rely on "believing" to "believe away" any problems. In this situation, the time-constraints were so bad that-faced with the option of disappointing the powers-that-be and doing paperwork while driving, he felt the less-objectionable choice was to drive less safely. Was that an incredibly poor decision? Obviously. (For those with short attention spans and Oldiesman, that means he's responsible for his decision.) Why did he make such an incredibly poor decision? He was TRAINED and EXPECTED to act in that fashion. The program he was in was orchestrated to be as financially cheap as possible, and to be as restrictive (time-and decisionwise) as possible. For a program purported to train leaders, it had neither a leadership-training portion nor chances to learn proper-decisionmaking. Decisions included this one. "You are in charge of getting these people to this location in this timeframe using this vehicle. You are able to make all the decisions here- so long as you operate within a too-narrow timeframe, and use only this unsafe vehicle." Some decisions. If the driver regarded even HALF the hazards, he got into a LOT of trouble from the powers-that-be as soon as they got in, and so would the people whose lives he regarded, and BOTH would give him static. He was not handed a written set of instructions specifying "You are required to engage in this foolhardy act." That notwithstanding, he was nevertheless REQUIRED to engage in foolhardy behaviour. This is actually an EXCELLENT example of that.

I figure it's about time to run this subject for the new people. I think some people don't know how to select an avatar. The easiest way is to be logged in, select "My Controls", (up and right) then "Edit Avatar Settings" (down and left, under "Personal Profile") then look at "pre-installed avatars." Go to "choose an avatar from one of our base galleries", pick which gallery (there's 4 in this menu), and "go". You can go thru all 4 galleries, and hopefully you'll find one you like and isn't being used by someone else. (You CAN use one someone else is using, but people get attached to their avatars, and people stop and can get confused if you use the same one as someone else, and so on.) You can also use an avatar of your OWN. In my case, my avatar was designed and drawn for me by someone else. This takes a bit of work. If you don't have the pic you want, you can wander around online and find one and download it to your computer. Once you have the pic you want, chances are it's too big to use as an avatar. So, you'll need to edit the thing down. Unless you're already good with editing images, you won't be ready to fiddle with image-editing software like Photoshop or the GIMP. That means taking a program like Picasa 2 and shrinking the image down, with a degree of experimentation. If those people who are good at this sort of thing were to chime in, this would be a good idea.

Welcome to the forum, MaggieM!

Why does this not surprise me? I've read a number of times that the entire library of the Way College was composed of used textbooks that twi asked people to send in to the Way College. This alongside all the claims that the Way offered a superior education to non-twi. Anyone who was IN that library, can you elaborate on the books?

For those who missed the previous discussion, my position has ALWAYS been-whether in twi or out- that those administering ANY program of ANY kind are responsible for minimizing the risks connected with that program. In plain English, what does that mean regarding transport? That means you find a relatively risk-free method of transporting people from one place to another. Simple. Need to get people from one place to another? You put them on a plane that's passed government certification, a train that's done the same, a bus that's done the same, or a car that's done the same. One option is to use commercially-available transport- like putting them all on a Greyhound bus. (Greyhound has all their buses and drivers certified with the government, etc.) Another option is to arrange your own of any of the above. You can get your OWN bus, make sure it can pass government inspection, then have it inspected. Then get a driver certified for buses-or train him and certify him. Then you have a bus you can put people on and transport them. You can also do this with a passenger van, or cars and a van or truck accompanying with the luggage. This is not hard for most sane Americans to see. Even an uncertified bus-which is illegal- would provide obvious protection against the most immediate dangers. What did twi do? It put people in the back of a truck-which, of course, was NOT fitted with any kind of security for people or anything else- then added a trailer behind the truck. In heavy wind, the people-as always-were required to travel at unsafe speeds even for a normal truck plus trailer hitch, instead of going slow or waiting for less wind. How were they supposed to stay uninjured? "Their believing was supposed to protect them!" Well, the truck was flipped over, and the people inside the cargo area received horrible injuries. In this, I blamed twi. They REQUIRED people to travel from place to place under UNSAFE conditions at UNSAFE speeds in UNSAFE transport. Would a normal, sane American blame them for the same? I'll let the normal, sane Americans answer that for themselves. At least one person has said that transporting people in the truckbed of a truck was considered perfectly normal in that place and time. If true, it makes this no less safe-and I seriously would be surprised if it was habitual for most people to SPEED with them- even without winds or a trailer hitch. (And if they were all insane, that does not excuse them for "trying to kill the people in the back." Try that in court and see how the judge interprets that one.) So, in that instance, twi REQUIRED FOOLHARDY BEHAVIOUR. Hm. This WAS relevant to the discussion. MORE foolhardy behaviour twi required.

Supposing that the people who made the initial decision to REQUIRE hitchhiking were not aware of the dangers OF hitchhiking, that was a bad decision based on insufficient information. They were unfit to lead, since they made decisions that others were required to follow that placed them in risk. Once that decision was put into action, and there were victims (people were killed and raped), "you would have to be stupider than stupid" (to use vpw's saying) to NOT expect it to happen AGAIN. At that point (if not much sooner), and proper leader of ANY kind would have said "we're exposing our people to unnecessary risk of death and rape. Let's replace this with something that does NOT do that." At that point, however, twi's people (remember-individual people made decisions, there wasn't a machine in a corner, an anonymous "twi" deciding things) either CHOSE TO IGNORE PLACING OTHERS IN DANGER, or DECIDED IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DO SO. Therefore, the person giving the assignment either didn't know about the danger- which makes them underinformed to be making such decisions once the victims had been found; which makes them unfit to lead, or the person giving the assignment knew about the danger that an evil would occur, which even OM admits is wrong, and this makes them unfit to lead. What the participants in the program thought at the time is a NON-ISSUE. The participants trusted that those administering the program were doing so in a responsible fashion. Exposing participants INTENTIONALLY to danger of death or rape, or remaining unaware that there WAS such a danger to a program- that is NOT administering a program in a responsible fashion. It was wrong of them, and would have left them open to lawsuits if anyone HAD sued. Ever wonder why we never hear of OTHER programs requiring hitchhiking? That's because people running REAL programs can look over this option and say "That's f*ing stupid. We're not going to do that to our people-we LIKE them." What was the intent of the participants? NON-ISSUE. Was requiring hitchhiking foolhardy? Only a fool can say otherwise at this point. YES IT WAS FOOLHARDY. And vpw himself-once the victims were victimized- insisted PERSONALLY that this would remain a REQUIREMENT. Did the leadership think the holy force-field would protect the participants? If they started by deciding to "tempt God", that was foolish. Once the victims came forth-which proved it DIDN'T work that way- it was criminally careless to maintain that concept. It was criminally poor stewardship. It was considering individual Christians DISPOSABLE. Which was more important-the doctrine and practices, or the LIVES OF THE CHRISTIANS? As we saw from vpw's decisions, the doctrines and practices were MUCH more important than the LIVES of the Christians. They were not really 'people' so much as 'assets.' And the money expended to transport participants to LEAD was a more valued asset than the safety of the people. Of course, we're only taking his OWN word that he was never involved and never saw ANYTHING. Hm. The description of Gaslighting certainly sounds familiar, like I've been hearing this recently...

Some people here MAY have heard him say that aloud. However, a number of people heard him say that and leave the specifics VAGUE. vpw was an expert at covering his tracks, and having a message that was heard ONE way from most people, and ANOTHER way from the minority. vpw DID set up a sort of "inner circle" of people who were complicit in his rapes and molestations- from singling out women and sending them to him, to watching and "counseling" them so they didn't tell the cops or anyone else. Some of those people have come forth. (Check the archives.) Some of his victims-and INTENDED victims-have come forth and spoken of the "inner circle" doctrine of "the lockbox". Never heard of that? Neither did I. It was never in an official teaching at an SNS, nor in a book nor class nor wayrag article. It WAS, however, taught word-of-mouth by vpw and selected people in his circle. First rule of vpw's sex club was 'do not talk about vpw's sex club.' vpw made it sound like knowing all this was a special privilege- like you were a mature, special Christian who "could handle it" if you were ever told of it. Feel free to look up "lockbox" for all sorts of discussions on the same. ========== If you go over the oldest of the old SNT tapes, you may find some strange things here and there. I was reviewing someone else's old vpw tapes once, and found a peculiar sentence from vpw. He was reviewing the account of Joseph refusing to have sex with Potiphar's wife when she threw herself at him. I've heard a number of people talk about what Joseph was thinking and feeling, over the years, on the subject, whether twi, ex-twi, never-been-twi, who-is-twi. Out of all of them, vpw was the only one who used the word "erection" when speaking of it. ("It doesn't say that Joseph didn't have an E-rection when he left.") Everyone else seemed to think that the subject should be approached at least a little more tactfully or reluctantly. One of the few people living who seem to completely WORSHIP vpw looked into his personal history, and HIMSELF said of his IDOL that he had a habit of introducing inappropriate things into his sermons, which embarassed the person whom he was interviewing ABOUT vpw-who at the time was a fan of vpw. So, his FANS admit that he kept bringing up sex in the pulpit. After reviewing the "lockbox" and how there was an inner circle of people who were privy to the secret sex doctrines, if you still want to believe there is a "reasonable doubt" that vpw did NOT mean lcm needed to "loosen up sexually" when he said he needed to "loosen up", that's your business. vpw seemed obsessed by it at times. Another example: before lcm ever married or courted dlm, care to guess who'd slept with her? The answer is not lcm... That was reported by posters here who knew all the participants....

Most of us (those who aren't vpw apologists/defenders) have come to similar conclusions. What I would say is: The evils that vpw did do NOT negate the good experiences and good memories you have. HOWEVER, they add CONTEXT and DETAIL to them. Those of us without any bad memories of the time received them, true- but at the expense of those who DID have bad experiences. I would not say you never had good times. Some of those good times were due entirely to wonderful people that are still wonderful people. Contrary to advertising, they were so before pfal and remained so after pfal. I wouldn't say forget them all. They are part of who and what you are. But, just as good times can't erase the evil vpw did, neither can his evil erase the good you experienced.