WordWolf

Ok, if that was too easy, if one of you can shoot it down then?

Next song: "No man's an island and his castle isn't home, the nest is for nothing when the bird has flown.''

"THIS SAME ADAPTATION"? Was the person an ex-wayfer? On all of cyberspace, I can find a bunch of references to St Teresa of Avila's version, but the twi version is only on ex-wayfer sites. If someone has a copy of the poetry book ("An Album of Verses?" What was the name?), they can check if this was in there, labelled "BY Victor Paul Wierwille". We already had it confirmed that the "BY Victor Paul Wierwille" label was attached to the poem "If a Million People Love You", which, except for the last line, was in use long before by people who've never heard of vpw.

So, here's the chain-of-command. vpw claimed Christ was "absent"-and, contrary to what someone claimed about vpw claiming Christ was "ONLY PHYSICALLY ABSENT"- no qualifier was made. (Kindly produce the quote from the book where vpw said otherwise, and I shall retract this statement.) vpw claimed "the Word"-i.e. the Bible- takes the place of the Christ he declared was absent. That SAME Word shows the Christ (who may or may not be absent) claimed that the Comforter would be sent, and the Comforter would be the authority in all things where Jesus currently was. So, Jesus said the Comforter would fill in for him, and never said he was "absent." vpw claimed JC was "absent" and that "the Word" takes his place. The Word claimed the Comforter takes JC's place, and that Comforter is the Spirit. JC-IN that Word- explained his followers wouldn't have rulers, and that those who meant to be in charge were to be servants. What did he mean by 'servants'-did he mean that they could rule and reign and that would be their "service"? JC demonstrated this. He washed the feet of his apostles. That was the most menial, demeaning task given to the lowliest of servants. Jesus' claims about the position of the leader contradict everything vpw claimed about leadership. vpw, of himself, wanted-and got-an airplane, motorcycleS, fancy cars, 3 catered meals a day, a continuous river of alcoholic beverage and a steady supply of tobacco- while he said that people should treat his "suggestions" as "orders". Occasionally, he said leaders had to "serve", but in PRACTICE, his concept of that was more Lord Over God's Heritage than humble servant washing their feet. === So, consider him the sole arbiter on what The Word said- which he was set up to from the time he called HIMSELF "THE Teacher"- or consider him the leader of the organization that explained HOW it was Christ in you. vpw defined procedure, and changed it whenever he saw fit. So, if you want to know in what way you were free to think for yourself- as in "Christ in you without leadership giving orders- after 1989, that was nearly impossible, (unless your local leaders wanted to risk being fired for failing to sufficiently lean on you), and thru the 1980s it was possible only face-to-face at the lowest level (and never as high as the branch coordinator, let alone territory nor state/limb.)

Watersedge, just so you know, there are a handful of people here whose posts consistently demonstrate a pattern of whitewashing twi. Things like vpw never committing the felonies he did- which means all his victims who've come forth are ALL liars who coincidentally have matching testimonies, things like just about everything harmful that was ever taught never actually happened, especially if they weren't in the room when it was taught, things like if the official statements and positions of twi said one thing that sounded right, then they never said or did anything to contradict it, even if it was also in print, or on tape, or had hundreds of witnesses and other things that don't spring to mind at this second. ======= So, what does that mean in a practical sense? It means that here-like anywhere else, you need to carefully evaluate anything said. Sometimes people are mistaken and in error. Sometimes people are misunderstood. Sometimes people sincerely post error, since they honestly think that. Sometimes people deliberately post what they know is a lie. We've had posters representing each position. And every longtime poster has made a mistake at some point, no matter how hard they tried.

vpw's thing about making changes in the work of other as suited him and conveniently forgetting to mention their names came into play here again. Remember this poem "written by vpw"? "God has no hands but our hands with which to give His people bread. God has no feet but our feet with which to walk amoung the almost dead. We say that we are His,and He is ours. Deeds are the proof of this, not words, And these are the proving hours." Well, if you knew about the FOURTEENTH-CENTURY St Teresa of Avila, this poem might have sounded oddly familiar. After all, she said === ""God has no hands but our hands to do his work today; God has no feet but our feet to lead others in his way; God has no voice but our voice to tell others how he died; and God has no help but our help to lead them to his side." " === If the average person did this, I might be open to possibilities like "they wrote this having never seen the work of the other person" or "they forgot they ever read this from another person" However, vpw had QUITE the track record on dropping labels off off things he liked, whether they were entire books of Christians, poems, etc.

I believe Hegotout meant the same thing that's meant by "trained monkey-boy" "gopher" or "lackey". Someone at the beck and call of another, who is given all the boring, time-consuming stuff of another. Like "fetching me a cup of coffee", or things like that.

If that one doesn't sing to you, My grandfather had a dog matching that description once, and they called him "Othello."

We've heard of Armand Assante. Fatal Instinct Sean Young Stripes

Sounds like "I'm Just a Singer in a Rock & Roll Band", by the Moody Blues. Maybe?

Using cutesy acronyms for stuff is really more of an American phenomenon, and mostly since the 20th century began. I forget which language has the word "ficken", but reliable sources give that as the connection.

I'll take a wild swing here, and guess that's the Bert from "It's a Wonderful Life."

Kit Sober, on friendship vs twi's "understanding" of same. "It takes being a friend to find the friend God has for us."

Thought you'd like to know. HCW informed me that this poem WAS properly attributed. However, I myself never heard the attribution, and I bet most of you didn't. "What constitutes a school? Not ancient halls and ivy-mantled towers, Where dull traditions rule With heavy hand youth's lightly springing powers; Not spacious pleasure courts, And lofty temples of athletic fame, Where devotees of sports Mistake a pastime for life's highest aim; Not fashion, nor renown Of wealthy patronage and rich estate; No, none of these can crown A school with light and make it truly great. But masters, strong and wise, Who teach because they love the teacher's task, And find their richest prize In eyes that open and in minds that ask. (Henry Van Dyke) ================= Seems that's not the entire thing, either. (Henry Van Dyke) "What constitutes a school? Not ancient halls and ivy-mantled towers, Where dull traditions rule With heavy hand youth's lightly springing powers; Not spacious pleasure courts, And lofty temples of athletic fame, Where devotees of sports Mistake a pastime for life's highest aim; Not fashion, nor renown Of wealthy patronage and rich estate; No, none of these can crown A school with light and make it truly great. But masters, strong and wise, Who teach because they love the teacher's task, And find their richest prize In eyes that open and in minds that ask; And boys, with heart aglow To try their youthful vigour on their work, Eager to learn and grow, And quick to hate a coward or a shirk: These constitute a school,-- A vital forge of weapons keen and bright, Where living sword and tool Are tempered for true toil or noble fight! But let not wisdom scorn The hours of pleasure in the playing fields: There also strength is born, And every manly game a virtue yields. Fairness and self-control, Good-humour, pluck, and patience in the race, Will make a lad heart-whole To win with honour, lose without disgrace. Ah, well for him who gains In such a school apprenticeship to life: With him the joy of youth remains In later lessons and in larger strife!" ========== If we'd had the internet back in the days of twi, vpw would have been SO pinched.

Ok, at the moment, I'll leave that as-is, and say that this particular statement- about being free to read and consider- is something we both agree on. ======== Perhaps if WTH reads more, he'll understand enough on the DNA testing to understand how Koestler's assertion was disproven. (I'd bet real money against it, but it could happen.)

Thought you'd like to know. HCW informed me that this poem WAS properly attributed. However, I myself never heard the attribution, and I bet most of you didn't. "What constitutes a school? Not ancient halls and ivy-mantled towers, Where dull traditions rule With heavy hand youth's lightly springing powers; Not spacious pleasure courts, And lofty temples of athletic fame, Where devotees of sports Mistake a pastime for life's highest aim; Not fashion, nor renown Of wealthy patronage and rich estate; No, none of these can crown A school with light and make it truly great. But masters, strong and wise, Who teach because they love the teacher's task, And find their richest prize In eyes that open and in minds that ask. (Henry Van Dyke) ================= Seems that's not the entire thing, either. (Henry Van Dyke) "What constitutes a school? Not ancient halls and ivy-mantled towers, Where dull traditions rule With heavy hand youth's lightly springing powers; Not spacious pleasure courts, And lofty temples of athletic fame, Where devotees of sports Mistake a pastime for life's highest aim; Not fashion, nor renown Of wealthy patronage and rich estate; No, none of these can crown A school with light and make it truly great. But masters, strong and wise, Who teach because they love the teacher's task, And find their richest prize In eyes that open and in minds that ask; And boys, with heart aglow To try their youthful vigour on their work, Eager to learn and grow, And quick to hate a coward or a shirk: These constitute a school,-- A vital forge of weapons keen and bright, Where living sword and tool Are tempered for true toil or noble fight! But let not wisdom scorn The hours of pleasure in the playing fields: There also strength is born, And every manly game a virtue yields. Fairness and self-control, Good-humour, pluck, and patience in the race, Will make a lad heart-whole To win with honour, lose without disgrace. Ah, well for him who gains In such a school apprenticeship to life: With him the joy of youth remains In later lessons and in larger strife!" ========== If we'd had the internet back in the days of twi, vpw would have been SO pinched.

[spinning: when WordWolf says something Oldiesman can't refute with evidence or facts, requiring him to make accusations and personal attacks if he's to hang on tightly to his pet positions] [Ok, I made a mistake there.I didnt mean Allan, I meant What They Hey- as WTH has just reminded me. Just swap their names in the previous post.] [up to a point, skepticism is good. Considering all viewpoints and reading all viewpoints works up to a point. After that, it's either postponing an unpleasant decision, or refusing to declare one's position because it's unpopular. We see this every election year when candidates suddenly get silent or evasive on specific issues.] [Please don't misrepresent MY position.I never called you a neo-nazi nor an anti-semite. I said you supported the position that Neo-Nazis put forth. That they are the ones putting this forth should be obvious by now, and I can supply links if you wish to contest this and waste time. That leaves whether or not you "supported" the position. All parts of their supposed evidence have been refuted (in 20 pages of thread), yet you continue to post as though it has not, and that there's equal amounts of evidence supporting both sides. If you prefer, I can just say that you've argued FOR their position and maintained that it has merit even after it's been completely refuted. That's obvious from previous posts, and most people WOULD call that "supporting" one side, and NOT maintaining an objectivity or neutrality. If you don't want to call it that, whatever.] [That puts you in agreement with certain groups you don't want me to mention the name of, but me not naming them doesn't mean the other posters don't see the connection without me....]

The entire point that is made of the supposed Khazar connection has nothing to do with including the Khazars in the family tree. It is ENTIRELY about EXCLUDING THE JEWS from the family tree. Are some Khazars in some bloodlines of some Eastern European Jews? Yes, and nobody ever questioned that. The assertion was that the Khazar bloodline REPLACED the Jew bloodline entirely in Ashkenazi Jews, and that was what the book said. That was DISPROVEN. Then vpw & lcm came along and said ALL Jews are descended from Khazars and not from Jewish bloodlines not Khazars EVER. That was never even on the table for discussion, but they taught it.

Figures, you'd hit the most obvious movie with Corey Haim. So, I'll get a little creative..... Licensed to Drive Heather Graham Boogie Nights ("Never thought you'd see a Mercedes fit in the trunk of a BMW, did you?")

The books support every idea except that A) Hitler and Nazi Germany decided to attempt to exterminate Jews in Germany, B) and then carried out a program to exterminate Jews in Germany, C) and thus succeeded in killing millions of Jews in Germany. Feel free to review the 20-page discussion we had, which I linked to. Almost all of us view the evidence that they did all of those is conclusive and non-equivocal. Allan and Oldiesman claim the opposite position. (Is it a coincidence that the only supporters of the neo-Nazi position are those who are diehard vpw supporters? Some think it's not....) (Wikipedia again.) "Koestler's thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic has become an important claim of many anti-Semitic groups. Some Palestinian advocates have adopted this thesis quite eagerly, since they believe identifying most Jews as non-Semitic would seriously undermine their historical claims to the land of Israel." Koestler's position, in and of itself, was that the Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars and NOT Semetic AT ALL. Period. Not even a little. All Khazars who converted. THAT idea HAS been proven false thru DNA evidence. Now, some people (like vpw and lcm) took the content of Koestler's book and misread its contents and implications, so they came away with the idea that "all today's Jews are from the Khazars and not Semetic at all, not even a little, only Khazars who converted." That, technically, was not the book's contents, but an exaggeration of its contents. The actual contents WERE disproven, and the exaggeration is ridiculously false. That having been said, if vpw said it, some people will make that the final word in any discussion. (Reminds me, I wonder how our little friend's anti-GSC messageboard is doing?)

According to vpw, there is no such thing as an "on-again, off-again" true CHRISTIAN. Luke 9:62. (KJV) "But Jesus said to him, 'No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

The Thirteenth Tribe claimed the modern Jews were essentially counterfeit Jews. (DNA testing has disproven this one entirely.) Myth of the Six Million... Here's what wikipedia says about the author, David Hoggan... "In 1955, Barnes encouraged Hoggan to turn his dissertation into a book, which was published in West Germany as Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), a book which blamed the outbreak of World War Two due to an alleged Anglo-Polish conspiracy to wage aggression against Germany headed by the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax and the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who were allegedly assisted by Polish Foreign Minister Colonel Józef Beck in what Hoggan called a monstrous anti-German plot. Hoggan argued that Hitler's foreign policy was entirely peaceful and moderate, and that it was Nazi Germany that was in Hoggan's opinion an innocent victim of Allied aggression. Moreover, Hoggan accused the Polish government of engaging in what he called hideous persecution of its German minority, and claimed that the Polish government's policies towards the ethnic German minority were far worse then the Nazi regime's policies towards the Jewish minority. Hoggan justified the huge one billion Reich-mark fine imposed on the entire Jewish community in Germany after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom as a reasonable measure to prevent what he called "Jewish profiteering" at the expense of German insurance companies and alleged that no Jews were killed in the Kristallnacht. A particular area of controversy centered around Hoggan’s claim that the situation of German Jewry before World War Two was extremely favorable to the Jewish community in Germany, and that none of the various anti-Semitic laws and measures of the Nazis had any deleterious effects on German Jews. In the early 1960s, Hoggan's book attracted much attention, and was the subject of a cover story in Der Spiegel magazine in its May 13, 1964 edition. Hoggan’s thesis was widely attacked as wrong-headed. Further increasing fanning the flames of the criticism was the revelation that Hoggan had received his research funds from and that he himself was a member of several neo-Nazi groups in the United States and West Germany, and the charge that Hoggan had wilfully misinterpreted and falsified historical evidence to fit his argument. Another source of controversy lie with Hoggan's choice of publisher, the firm of Grabert Verlag which was run by former Nazi who made little secret of his belief that Germany should have won World War Two. When Der Erzwungene Krieg was translated into English in 1989, it was published by the Institute for Historical Review. One of Hoggan's leading detractors was the historian Hans Rothfels, the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History), who used the journal of the Institute, the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte to attack Hoggan and his work, which Rothfels saw as sub-standard pseudo-history attempting to masquerade as serious scholarship. In a lengthy letter to the editor of the American Historical Review in 1964, Rothfels exposed Hoggan's membership in a neo-Nazi group. Another leading critic was the U.S. historian Gerhard Weinberg, who wrote an harsh book review in the October 1962 edition of the American Historical Review. In response, Barnes and Hoggan wrote a series of letters attempting to rebut Weinberg's arguments, who in his turn wrote letters replying to and rebutting the arguments of Hoggan and Barnes. The exchanges between Hoggan and Barnes on one side and Weinberg on the other became increasing rancorous and vitriolic to such an extend that in October 1963 the editors of the American Historical Review announced that they cease publishing letters relating to Hoggan’s book in the interests of decorum. In a 1964 article, the German historian Helmut Krausnick, who was of the leading scholars associated with the Institute for Contemporary History accused Hoggan of manufacturing much of his "evidence". Hoggan’s former professors at Harvard described his book as bearing no resemblance to the PhD dissertation that he had submitted in 1948. Another point of criticism was the decision of two German historical societies to award Hoggan the Leopold von Ranke and Ulrich von Hutten Prizes for outstanding scholarship; many such as the historian Gordon A. Craig felt that by honouring Hoggan, these societies had destroyed the value of the awards. The majority opinion of historians was that Hoggan’s work was a worthless book that merely sought to acquit Adolf Hitler of responsibility for World War Two. In following years, Hoggan maintained a close association with various neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups. In 1969 Hoggan wrote a book The Myth of the Six Million denying the Holocaust and another one in 1985 called The Myth of New History that once again denied the Holocaust. In the 1980s, Hoggan was a leading member of the Institute for Historical Review (I.H.R) and a featured speaker at the I.H.R.’s Sixth Conference in 1985. Hoggan died in Menlo Park, California. Hoggan's work has remained popular with anti-Semitic groups, but is generally dismissed by historians as little more than an apologia for Nazi Germany. In the opinion of historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz and Deborah E. Lipstadt, Hoggan was a pioneer of the Holocaust Denial industry in the 1960s, and he has been accused of blazing a trail that many subsequent Holocaust deniers followed." Here's what Wikipedia has on him & it in their 'Holocaust denial' entry... "A prominent early Holocaust denier was the American historian David Hoggan, who wrote a book in 1961 called the Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War), which was primarily concerned with the origins of World War Two, but also down-played or justified the effects of Nazi anti-Semitic measures in the pre-1939 period. Subsequently, Hoggan wrote one of the first books denying the Holocaust in 1969 entitled The Myth of the Six Million, which was published by the Noontide Press, a small Los Angles based publisher noted for specializing in anti-Semitic literature. Hoggan became one of the early stars of the Holocaust denial movement, because he had a number of professorships at prestigious universities." And wikipedia on "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century"... "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry is a book by Arthur R. Butz. It has been seen as having formed the basis of much of the Holocaust denial movement, of those who deny that the Germans attempted to exterminate the Jews of Europe during World War II. It has been subject to a number of attempts to prevent its display at library events, and its importation to Canada. It was first published in 1975 by Historical Review Press (Great Britain)." And wikipedia on its author, Arthur Butz.... "Arthur Butz is an American Holocaust denier and professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University. He has been tenured there since 1974. In 1976, Butz wrote The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, in which he asserted that the Holocaust (a) did not occur and (b) has been deliberately contrived in order to justify the creation of the state of Israel. Most recently, Butz attracted attention when he issued a statement in which he agreed with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's alleged statement that the Holocaust is a "myth." In a press release dated December 18, 2005, Butz wrote, "I congratulate him [Ahmadinejad] on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on these issues [the alleged fabrication of the Holocaust], and regret only that it was not a Western head of state. His political remarks receive no comment on my side. By 'political remarks' I mean those that deal with questions of what ought to happen now." " ================= Looks to me like those books "dispute that the above killings happened." You're welcome. :) I don't think twi was a neo-nazi or any other kind, but he sure expressed a lot of pathos and sympathy for them, and never seemed to condemn them in the middle of all that. Most of his anti-Jew, anti-Israel stuff seemed to be US-grown conspiracy stuff swallowed whole after being manufactured from whole cloth by the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby. BTW, we had 20 pages of discussion on this here... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...c=9836&st=0

Perhaps someone can confirm or refute something I read long ago about two fingers outward becoming "v for victory", famous under Churchill in WW2, (and then later being "the peace sign", and two fingers inward-pointing meaning "up your nose". I've never read any RELIABLE account of "amputate a finger" for enemies in time of war. It's always been more efficient to amputate the opponent's HEAD and then you know for SURE he can't kill any of your men.

One of the things about dealing with real people-and not robots- is that they can hold contradictory thoughts at the same time. So, vpw could-at least part of the time- believe every word he was saying about the auditorium needing to be about God and NOT people, even himself and-at least part of the time- see it as nothing less than his due that the auditorium was named after him. It's not that different from preaching God's love and grace one afternoon, then drugging and raping a female that night. None of that changes his SINCERITY. As vpw HIMSELF said, the salesman who tries to sell you the toothbrush with only one bristle, he has to be very sincere when he's talking to you.

*checks the cast of Copycat* Yes, that was correct. Connected from the last one, into another movie, then another actor. Which means the next person has to connect into another movie to actor to movie. Let's see... Star Wars Carrie Fisher Blues Brothers