WordWolf

[i'm sure we didn't, and as a gesture of niceness I'll translate it into simple English for you. If you care, you will learn something. (If not, then not.)] [Wrong TWICE in ONE sentence. That's pretty economical.Error 1: Your "opinion" was not attacked. There was no "I THINK that..." You posted "This is simple dr wierwille was an apostle." That was the ENTIRE content of your post. That was a statement of fact. So, your statement of fact was challenged. What made it worse was that there was an intelligent discussion, where positions were supported, in play at the time- "This is my opinion, and here's why I hold it"- and you just dumped a statement as if you have divine fiat to end discussions with a flat statement. Surely even a LITTLE attention would have shown there was a discussion and people supported their positions. Error 2: Your statement of fact wasn't "attacked" because it's disliked. Your statement of fact was challenged because you failed to support it in any way whatsoever. Furthermore, the opposite position had been ALREADY presented AND SUPPORTED. Thus, your post said, in effect- "I don't care what logic and evidence say, I claim the opposite position is the truth." If you spent some time among normal people on the internet, you'd see that just making bald assertions usually invites everyone to point out that you failed to supply any justification for your claim. That's HARDLY unique to here, and there's plenty of boards where they would have been a LOT harsher on you for pulling that. ] [You failed to demonstrate that this was THINKING. You presented an opinion as FACT and provided NO reason for anyone to think that it had ANY chance of being true. That made your statement as strong as if you'd claimed the earth was flat and didn't explain your reasoning. There's a difference between THINKING and REASONING, and DOGMATISM and BLIND OBEDIENCE. Your own idol, vpw, claimed that most people have been tricked, and only THINK that they think. If anything, you've demonstrated that you fall into the category he was referring to. Mind you, if you could have actually SUPPORTED your position, that would have been a different story.] [As anyone can clearly see, your "theory" (which was a SUPPOSITION,not a "THEORY" at all) was NOT proven. Form a hypothesis, and prepare and execute a double-blind, and THEN maybe you'll have a real "theory".] [Another double play! Two errors in one sentence! You've proven NEITHER that you were "hated" nor that what you believe is the truth! The facts actually are that you have no idea how to reason and debate. IF YOU PUT IN THE EFFORT, that CAN be changed. We might even help. (This here post can be considered "help", in that it's breaking down the flaws in your process, and you can apply this to later posts and make more logical posts.)] [You STILL haven't offered any support for your position, but at least you're phrasing yourself correctly there. This is your belief.]

Oops. The correct link I meant to provide is http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

I wasn't going to go there, but you asked..... I've read your posts so far. They reflect a lack of experience in communication online. (I don't know what you communicate like offline, but few communicate very differently when switching media.) They reflect a lack of understanding of basic "netiquette." That can fly here, where that's true of more than a few people, and may work in a twi-type environment where communication with the outside world is verboten. It wouldn't fly on most boards I attend, where people your age are expected to communicate better than that-and they do. You also have expressed a lack of understanding of admin and moderator duties HERE. That means you don't understand them ANYWHERE. When I got here, I understood them. That means that I've disagreed with the mods, but never questioned their suitability for their tasks, since I understood what they were doing. All of that-lack of online experience, lack of moderator experience and pathos- add to that that it's highly unlikely you'll be appointing moderators who HAVE such experience, since you'll have to basically hand over the entire board to them- and that means you've some life-lessons coming up. Thank you and have a nice day!

Technically, GS is not "the haters" of twi. We have compassion towards the people who are currently in, and many have pleasant memories of positive interactions we had when in-with each other, not the framework or its executors. Further, sounding the alarm on something is hardly the same as "hating" it, just as refusing to sound an alarm is hardly the same as "loving" it. ======== Further, vpw-love is hardly a "middle-ground" between -the group that pretends vpw is a distant memory at best, but was great once and -the people who were tricked into thinking that he was great once, but know better now Finally, as to whether a "middle ground" is necessarily any less "correct" than either, I offer this: http://www.nikzor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html Thank you all so much! :)

[WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Good point. I wasn't even paying attention to the number, there. I'm expecting that the "100,000" was a number based on the number of people SIGNED UP for pfal, not the number of people who FINISHED pfal. When I first took it, 8 were signed up, 7 appeared at Session 1, 3 completed Session 12. The best rule of thumb I've heard has been that membership in any year (or whatever you want to call being their thrall) could be figured by taking the number of attendees at the ROA, then doubling that number. That meant attendance at the ROA increased and decreased proportionally to the regular attendance at fellowships. Oddly enough, I came to the same conclusion without checking with anyone. (About proportions, not doubling the number.)

My count was that 80% of those active in twi as of ROA '88 had left as of ROA '89, and some people (unsure the numbers) left before that (as a result of PoP) or after that (needed to finish something up before leaving.) One statistic I saw was that 18% of attendees remained after about 1991, so my numbers matched pretty well. The people who left 85-88, IMHO, left more due to PoP than other reasons, and the people who left 88-90, IMHO, left due to lcm's line in the sand. However, that might have been "the straw that broke the camel's back" if they were thinking about PoP already. Of course, if lcm hadn't been thinking about PoP, he would never have drawn his line in the sand in the FIRST place (IMHO.)

John Cleese Shrek 2 Eddie Murphy

Really? So you knew: A) the entire contents of "How to Enjoy the Bible" was incorporated into the Foundational class, and therefore the Orange Book? B) the book "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit"/"The Giver and His Gifts" was added to Stiles' book to make the White Book (RTHST)? C) "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was the compilation of 2 of Bullinger's books, including "The Rich Man and Lazarus:an Intermediate State?" I noticed you skipped mentioning the people whose names NEVER came up but whose material did-with vpw's name on it... BG Leonard JE Stiles EW Kenyon (Ok, we knew about 1-2 of Kenyon's books.)

No, we just needed a longer memory. It's "Benny & Joon."

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface as usual.] 'M. D. Vaden' date='May 22 2006, 01:49 AM' post='241937' I like that posted reply. You don't seem to have jumped the gun or hopped into a band wagon. [Appearances are deceiving in this case. OM sounds oh-so-reasonable in any one post, but try to follow the conversation whenever any wrongdoing of vpw is discussed. Then the only things OM never knows for sure is that vpw ever wronged anyone. That's true in this thread as well as others. However, an eagerness on your OWN part to exonerate vpw of anything he was caught doing and whitewash anything away there's any hope to- that might bias your responses somewhat. OM says the same thing-therefore he's "reasonable". (He also shows this same skepticism when facing the subject of 6 million people killed when vpw says they weren't- and you disagree with OM there. However, he uses the same approach on both threads. Perhaps the same "ignore the evidence" approach on that thread is in use here? Maybe...] It reminded me of a verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (punctuation?). I think many times about OT men who went to the already written word and took possession of the words as their own too. [No-they credited Scripture as the source when it was the source. Agreeing with Scripture, quoting Scripture, citing Scripture- few people would ever raise an issue with that.] Nothing under the sun is new. Unless Dr. Wierwille knowingly concealed that other people had the same teaching as himself, it would not really be stealing or plagerism. [bINGO! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! vpw retyped Stiles' book and produced the 1st edition of RTHST. vpw added books from Bullinger and produced later editions. The first iteration of the pfal class was called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." It was held 3 months after vpw retook BG Leonard's CTC's "Gifts of the Spirit" class, which he first took earlier that year. vpw got permission from Leonard to run Leonard's class on a one-time basis locally, and sent Leonard a photo of the class for his scrapbook. Meanwhile, vpw told the students of this class "this is my class on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today'". It was Leonard's class with Leonard's name crossed out, and vpw's name written in with crayon. vpw took 2 books of Bullinger, and retyped them as "Are the Dead Alive Now?", including "The Rich Man and Lazarus-An Intermediate State?" (You can read Bullinger's book online and compare it all you want.) In NONE of those cases did vpw say "I'm taking the material of this person's book and presenting it here" nor "this class is a modification of the class taught by BG Leonard". vpw knowingly concealed that these books and that class were direct copies of the work of other people. (This could have been avoided the same way Woodrow's book "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a rewrite of Hislop's "the Two Babylons", yet NOBODY complains because it was done in an honest-and LEGAL-fashion. The way vpw did it is illegal in all 5 states. It was plagiarism. In some cases, it was BLATANT plagiarism- like when he used the characters from Leonard's class: Johnny Jumpup and Maggie Muggins and Henry Belocco. He copied them over when he copied over the material. BTW, those 285 occurrences of the word "spirit" that vpw makes a big deal of studying out? You can make a GREAT headstart on studying them if you do what he did and read Bullinger's book "the Giver and His Gifts", aka "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit", which lists all 285 occurrences and gives the number. vpw never mentioned that little detail, either. In the Orange Book (PFAL) and in the White Book (RTHST), the introductions are rather clear that each book is the product of vpw and his study- and has little, if anything, to do with other Christians- who, BTW, are sincere but ignorant. The closest he ever comes to admitting both books are retypings and paraphrases of the books of others (like Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible) was buried some 200-300 pages into "the Way:Living in Love", where he says "Nothing I do is original." Some people suggest this is equivalent to an outright admission of the copying he intentionally did, and that his actions were not illegal. (One person claimed God TOLD him to plagiarize.)] Any teaching that Dr. Wierwilled had, could not have originated with anybody whom he supposedly "stole" it from. Because any valid teaching material would have been in the scripture for hundreds of years. Possibly hundreds of men and women would have recognized and taught portions of it through the centuries without a guarantee of it being recorded. Many critics that cry "plagerism" spend little time holding the spotlight on the people they think are the ones stolen from. Why don't they take it a step further; take it deeper by another layer? Did it originate with the person whom it was stolen from? Or did the other person plagerize it too. [Fascinating. You might want to spend a few minutes reviewing what plagiarism IS. Here's a quick link to something on it, right on this site: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm Here's a dumbed-down rule of thumb on the subject... If I reproduce someone else's work, and cite the source, that is not plagiarism. (Like that linked editorial: If I cut and pasted it here, and said "this is what Raf said in the editorial "the Integrity of Your Word", that's not plagiarism.) If I happen to say something similar to someone, that's not plagiarism. (Many Christians have taught on John 3:16. If I happen to make the same points as a local clergyman made in 1972 from his pulpit at his local church, then that's not plagiarism.) If I take the work of someone else and present it as my own, THAT is plagiarism. (If I took that editorial, changed a few words, and just posted it, THAT would be plagiarism. If I got a copy of the sermon of that local clergyman, and then taught it myself with no mention of him, that is plagiarism. (It's possibly forgiveable if I do that for a little sermon from one podium-albeit still a crime. To commit it to tape, video or print and use it to make a profit, that's both illegal AND immoral.)] It can still boil down to the "from one extreme to another mentality". The important part is not the person with whom a teaching originated, but "what does the word say?" Is it the Word? It's again the game of putting the focus on a man or woman, and taking the focus off of God. [Actually, it's the opposite. When someone takes credit for the work of another, then it becomes about THAT person. HE deliberately places the focus on HIMSELF rather than on God where it should be. He also disrespects his fellow Christians whom he plagiarized, and his fellow Christians to whom he lied. Uncovering his deceptions and lies is NOT "ungodly" or "carnal", it's exposing the "ungodliness" and "carnality" of someone claiming to represent God, and God thought that task was so important, he designated prophets to carry out that function. If it's an unnecessary job, you can go ahead and tell God that He got a bunch of His own men killed for nothing. (Prophets often spoke at the risk of being murdered for speaking the truth.)] When the focus is taken off God and put on any man or woman, that's an indirect and subtle attack of Satan: a way of gaining indirect worship. [Correct. And for a man to take the best work of a number of Christians, reproduce it and claim he's the sole author, calls himself "THE Teacher", puts forth that he's the best man of God in 20 centuries, and that all other Christians alive today are in error or worse, THAT is a way of gaining worship. When one adds all sorts of special privileges-like expensive vehicles, airplanes, and lots of luxuries- then it becomes even more blatant.] And the "pawns" that carry out that task unknowingly become Satan's little alter boys; Satan's little priests. Such men and women are then "dished-out" the little reward of feeling important, of apparently looking smart like they have solved some difficult case. [if you mean the posters that post here, they do quite an effective job of exposing lies told by twi, past and present. They have done a lot to help others escape twi, or move on after having been severed from twi, simply by posting. (Some have done more and are MORE helpful.) As to any cause for complaint against them... Why is it perfectly acceptable for a minister to construct an elaborate framework to rape women, then use that framework to drug and rape women, and kick them out of the group and slander their names and ruin their reputation if it looks like they'll talk, but to expose his felonies to the light of day is deplorable? Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil 'good', and good 'evil'; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" ]

And not always even in homes, unless the Tyrannus' school qualifies as a "home." This should be old news to anyone who had a copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion", which had a chapter on this being antithetical to 1st century Christianity- and you all HAD a copy... Further, there was accountability and nobody was inviolate. Paul gave Peter a stern talking to in public. Imagine how many people would have grabbed you and dragged you bodily off grounds if you had tried that to vpw sometime.

One more thread discussing the MLM connection...

Here's another MLM discussion...

MLM? We discussed MLM's here...

The preceeding posts are ALL very interesting. I was going to quote from them, but I found I would have just quoted them all....

I'm sorry, but I HAVE to get this out of my system.... I was going to question whether or not they currently HAVE enough people to circle the wagons, but it hit me.... How many people does it take to circle ONE WAGON? Thank you all and have a nice day!

It is amazing to see how some people can't summon up a drop of compassion for 6 million people who were systematically killed because of their religion or ethnicity. Why do some people pretend their belief in such things is not directly related to "I learned this from vpw"? BTW, John Sack believes 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. I suppose you'll admit they were, now? IF that is true (and coming from WTH, that's always highly suspect),I'd expect publishers always have asked what they ask today, "Will this make money?" A publisher will authorize a criticism of ITSELF if it will make money. I've also noticed that historians aren't lining up anywhere to support John Sack's conclusions. A) So we get this clear- this is a thread about 6 million Jews the Nazis killed. You accept this as truth now, correct? B) This author is hardly wildly embraced by any reputable sources. Instead, we get replies like this: http://www1.us.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s...n-sack.19931223

[Welcome! It seems that way if you read certain threads on certain pages, and skip other threads on other pages. You picked the "About the Way" forum where we post- imagine that!- about the way! As another poster mentioned, this here partly functions as a support group (like AA). Emotions can run strong here as a result. A regular problem is that a few people-not saying it's you- arrive, decide that vpw NEVER harmed anyone, ALL the victims who stepped forth are LIARS, and they personally are going to set us straight by insulting us all and yelling at us. Naturally, that gets some harsh responses. Likewise, people who refuse to even CONSIDER that twi ever taught them wrongly or ever lied to them often get harsh responses for obvious reasons. A major purpose for posting here is exposing the facts that twi tries to hide. Sometimes, we get a poster dedicated to hiding them as well. As one might expect, responses to that run harsh as well. So long as one is not IN one of those categories, the only harsh responses you get (outside the Politics forum) is usually from the people IN those categories.] [My personal summary reads: "I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out." This surprises people who think ANY criticism of vpw or pfal or twi is equal to a desire to take a bulldozer to their buildings. Myself, I can separate discussions of doctrine from behaviour- although the subjects generally ARE interrelated. (Bad doctrine leads to bad practice, and vpw's practice of loose sex led to bad doctrines permitting it and promulgated among a precious few plus victims.)] [i strongly recommend looking around at Christians OUTSIDE the ex-twi community. Yes, Virginia, there ARE other Christians out there! And some of them really know their stuff! I also recommend skipping "literal translations according to usage" (or "this is what the verse is SUPPOSED to say, so memorize it"), and maybe trying a New American Standard Bible for a while. Without notes all over it. It can stimulate new thinking and new discussions.]

IIRC, the current pattern is that everyone's expected to be on the phone hookup to hear the Sunday night service, (at a meeting, dressed up,) aka "tapped to the Root", where the pre-approved script is read. The same exact teaching is then received by the same person on the tape subscription-which they are required to have, AND one night a week, someone's supposed to teach on that EXACT same subject afterwards. They're breeding them with short attention spans at der way nowadays... I checked the threads for that yesterday to confirm my own memory. In 2004-the last time they announced #s of graduates-there were FIVE TOTAL. They have switched to announcing them in PERCENTAGES since then. (For example, "20% of them will remain on staff" means "one person added to staff".) Well, considering that vpw showed a bestiality video to some of the CFS classes and corps, and described it to the taped CFS and taped Advanced class, and seemed to enjoy describing it (I was busy trying not to even THINK about what he was saying), this qualifies, technically, as "moving away from what vpw taught." I guess you 90s/00s ex-wayfers missed part of the show...

[That was the terminology Craig used. As I pointed out-and you completely skipped over- most of that was window-dressing. What Craig wanted had nothing to do with "godly, loving, honest" or "according to God's Word" and CERTAINLY not "nothing beyond that". Craig wanted "OBEDIENCE AND SUPPORT" and couched it in phrases that allowed you to be tricked into thinking that it was for OTHER reasons-the ones in the window-dressing.] [Good lord, have you forgotten his ENTIRE reign of tyrrany?When he got to "and nothing beyond that", that's when he REALLY got going. He wanted control to the degree he thought he could potentially run every home fellowship HIMSELF-he threatened it, after all. He had all leaders reporting in, and people reporting ON the people reporting in, and if you had any "godly, loving, honest" questions, you were shown the door and kicked out. If you were living on grounds, you got the "bum's rush." We've got posters here all of that happened to. They reported all this. Where did this amnesia come from? He taught the most RIDICULOUS NONSENSE, and when honest questions came up, all were expected to just accept it and BURY any doubts. This was the era where it was ALWAYS expected that you would OBEY, OBEY, OBEY- whether Regional Coordinator or new guy at fellowship- and told that if the command was disastrous, "GOD WILL COVER."] [Did lcm want only this, or did he want people to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM? When one poster asked lcm if this very same letter was a call to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM, lcm replied "I HAD BEEN DOING THIS ALL ALONG." So, lcm himself said this was about blindly following him. lcm's actions AFTER this show that it was all about blindly following him. But lcm made a "campaign promise", so Oldies says it must have been only what lcm said in his pious-sounding letter. Ignore the fruit in lcm's life, ignore lcm's policies. lcm CLAIMED to just have godly motives- when the cameras were on- so that must be the absolute truth. Bayloewnay, salami, luncheon loaf, and a slab of pastrami.]

Ozzy Osbourne Austin Powers: Goldmember John Travolta

It's not so much folly as inconsistency. Poor lcm- vpw can do almost anything, and people will justify his actions- be a drunkard, rape, kick people out for insufficient grovelling.... but let lcm try the same things, and they say "hey! rape is wrong!" etc. The key to what lcm wanted was the "obedience and support." The window-dressing was "godly, loving, honest", which is why the "godly, loving, honest" disagreements were met with FURY. It WAS pushing people to carnality. It was pushing people to carnality when vpw did it. It was pushing people to carnality when lcm did it. vpw got away with it. So, it was ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes, people gave vpw a free pass when he did wrong, although they would have realized it was wrong if ANOTHER person did it. We saw examples of this in the "vp and me in wonderland" thread. vpw would have a chat with lcm, them announce the corps were all kicked out. This was in violation of the gentleman's agreement, and the verbal and possibly written contracts that were written. They agreed to show up, PAY MONEY, and do their best without backing out. He agreed to run a program to the best of his ability without backing out. However, vpw (and lcm, who was the program's administrator) violated their ends of the agreements when it suited vpw. Then vpw offered the people-who had been acting in good faith up to the moment vpw demonstrated BAD faith and kicked them all out- a chance to re-enter the program where they were kicked out without cause. The chance required people to submit a 3 x 5 card EXPRESSING THEIR WILLINGNESS TO OBEY LEADERSHIP. vpw did it AGAIN with the people who had trouble making their money requirements. He got them to agree to quit smoking and use that money for their requirements. When some of them later admitted to still smoking, vpw kicked them all out. Then he allowed them to re-apply with their 3 x 5 cards- so long as they agreed to OBEY LEADERSHIP and GOT THEIR MONEY IN.

Someone mentioned the dreaded 3 x 5 cards that came up here, at least twice....

Looks like Paul would STILL disagree with your statements. You said what Paul did was what PFAL does. PFAL is a class. It sits there. PEOPLE have to be dynamic and actually DO stuff. Paul went into the synagogues and discussed Scriptures, held for positions, and supported them with Scripture. Positions like "Christ must needs have suffered" and that "this Jesus..is Christ". A class sits there. We're having discussions HERE. PFAL, last I checked, has not logged on and posted here. By comparison, Paul would have posted in the Doctrinal or About the Way forum, supporting his positions. So, claiming "that's what PFAL does" when discussing what Paul did is just silly. ---- No, Paul didn't discuss the rationality of whether or not The Scriptures were the Word of God- not when he was in the synagogues. He DID have to do that on Mars' Hill and when he debated in the Agora. (I can fetch the verses if you've forgotten them.) However, many of the discussions here are different Christians discussing positions and doctrines. So, the connection between Christians supporting their statements from Scripture before other Christians, and Paul supporting his statements from Scripture before "other Jews", should be obvious. (Let me know if you need it spelled out.) As for God working in peoples' hearts, that's a non-issue. God expects you to open your mouth, and speak. (I can fetch the verses on that one as well- they're in Romans 10.) Him working in hearts is NEVER an excuse for shirking your duties to speak. (Or, in this case, to type.) C'mon, this is not difficult to see. I KNOW you can see this easily enough. (And no, that's neither a personal attack nor an excuse for one.)