WordWolf

Yes they do, and using the word "parrot" for what WTH does is more than apt. Asking WTH to provide documentation for someting- unless he can cut-and-paste it from someone else- is a lost cause. WTH's posts rarely touch on something original-neither perspective, nor thought, nor even gonzo idea. Not only that, but he's a week late. He was summoned as Mike backup a week ago, and only now is getting around to actually posting on the thread. He held off a few days because posting a few hours after I posted, announcing that PLUS the content of his posts would have just looked sad. I mean, it's one thing to be criticized for just parroting someone else's doctrine and throwing up distractions, but to have a post criticized for doing that BEFORE THE POST IS WRITTEN is a paean to UNoriginality. The closest thing WTH did to original was now he plagiarized Mike rather than vpw or someone offsite. I suppose that might be considered progress of a sort. ======== In other news, I'd not hold my breath waiting for something to back up the wild accusation that Bibles are solely printed to reinforce denominations. vpw didn't have any proof, which means Mike has none, which means WTH has none. Documentationwise, there will be no surprises here. ========== Meanwhile, as always, WTH's post was meant to distract from the main subject. Now, once I was taught that a figure of speech appearing in the Bible was meant to draw attention TO something. Then it remains to see what it was drawing attention TO. When it comes to WTH's posts, we have the opposite effect. Therefore, we know something exists from which the attention is being taken. Then it remains to see what it was drawing attention FROM. In this case, it looks like it's to change the subject off Mike's partial silence on the subject of Christ's return. Now, not posting, in and of itself, is not proof of anything. (We all get busy.) However, with WTH distracting off of this- and Mike's sudden U-turn on offering tl the books- Mike could then hope that nobody remembered either subject when he returned. ======= Star Trek fans know that detection of subspace distortions can be a warning of a cloaked Romulan warbird. That makes the attempted use of a cloaking device into a warning. Similarly, GSC posters can use the appearance of WTH as a warning device, and use them to find what's considered important enough to hide.

Here's some free advice, make of it what you will, Mike.... I think few of us would object to a new thread on the return/rapture, so long as it was a thread specifically for THAT and wasn't used as a backdoor to another thread on Mike's doctrine general. Many of us would read such a thread. If you want people to seriously consider your position, just post it. You can post "this is what I think", or "this is what I think and why", and people can discuss, maybe agree in parts, but thinking honestly in the process. IF, however, you phrase it with all sorts of diversions into "many people think" or "answer this question first" or anything NOT a direct statement, then all you'll do is antagonize your audience. Make of that free advice what you will.

"Truth needs no defense." Eh, chapter and verse, please. What I found was a different story... Acts 17:1-3 "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that 'this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ'." Acts 18:4 "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:19 "And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews." Seems the apostle PAUL disagreed with you. Who you gonna believe-the apostle Paul, or....?

[Judging from the context of his posting pattern, "those who want to learn" must mean "those who will do things EXACTLY the way MIKE wants, and follow Mike's rules without question, and not object." "Those who want to only thwart" Mike, from the context, includes people who want to know, but DON'T follow Mike off the cliff like lemmings. Explains why Mike doesn't get converts here, doesn't it? People here ALREADY did their time in a "obey without question" cult, and do not want ANOTHER.] [Note that this is how Mike ACTUALLY PERCEIVES what goes on here. He perceives himself as the humble servant, and any dissent as people whom he nimbly dodges, and occasionally "head butts into a stupor where they can't tell left from right." Now that he's provided the context of his peculiar phrase, I can contextualize it properly it its previous use where he blamed someone else because he was unable to tell the difference between a mailing address and a pm. Having done that, he claimed the other person was confused, and could not "tell left from right". Apparently, Mike must have pictured himself with his lucha mask on, headbutting people in the arena.]

[since I'm not a political analyst, I won't speculate on Haig and that incident. However, I can comment on this one here. Mike may well determine whom he deals with, and whom he supplies books to (presuming he even HAS them.) However, HERE is this thread in this forum in the GSC. The admin and moderators "are in charge here." Mike keeps wishing this would change and that HE would be in charge here. So far, no such change.]

[WordWolf's comments in boldface as usual.]

[Note that tl "working with him" here in no way suggests Mike will actually "sh* or get off the pot" by sending her the books as he initially promised before he changed his mind.]

[WordWolf's commentary again in boldface.] [For those of you playing along at home... tl said she can be "contacted through e-mail" and Mike read that, even QUOTED it, and then-TWICE- tried to send "a PM". This is the same Mike who accuses the rest of us of poor reading, sloppiness, etc. [Most people would have caught the mistake-if not sooner- when they saw their OWN message where the two things are different. Not Mike. Couldn't POSSIBLY be HIS FAULT. Must be someone else's fault. In this case, tl's the only other suspect, so it MUST be tl's fault. Must have blocked him and FORGOTTEN... ...or deliberately LIED to Mike.] [Hm. Mike is no longer in "polite" mode. We are back to rude Mike, the more default setting. Mike fails to read correctly, and fails to communicate correctly as a result, and this means that "all her respect for him AND his message are in the gutter." Wow. All that from one blocked message, which wasn't even her fault. And, of course, now he's claiming a pretext to rescind his offer. His word of honour, apparently, has a revolving door. And, apparently, he read my reference to how he's "moving the goalposts", because he's referring to them. And taking it out on tl. Apparently, she needs to earn the respect she lost when Mike was unable to comprehend what he read when reading and QUOTING her message, which was entirely his fault to begin with. He's been draining her account. He must have forged her name and written checks off her account. Is anyone besides Mike buying Mike's version of events?]

How about that. If I refer to Mike without a quote, Mike yells I'm afraid of people seeing his words. If I refer to Mike with short quotes, Mike yells I'm not providing content. If I refer to Mike with complete quotes, now I'm wrong for repeating text blocks. I guess, according to Mike, I'm only right if I stop posting entirely. Looks like Mike isn't going to think I'm right anytime soon.

Batman and Robin Arnold Schwarzenegger Total Recall

I felt this was worth repeating, without any additions, subtractions or commentary on my part.

[WordWolf's commentary in boldface, but you all knew that by now.] [This is Mike in "nice" mode. Mike occasionally switches BACK from "nasty" mode-as you've seen in the last few pages or so- into a "nice" mode- which then becomes his excuse for saying he's been nice to people (after having riled them with insults and jabs), then having them respond in a less-than-nice mode. It's still the same Mike posting, but this post is in "nice" mode. It's NOT "ghost-written" or anything like that.] [Mind you, this was in RESPONSE...to her response to his claim previously...when she said "Being called a 'social butterfly' and implying that I only go/went to church- LDS or TWI or other- only for social concerns, not spiritual concerns- isn't attacking my Character? What else would you call it, pray tell? And then, to add icing to the cake, you attack my character again my implying I wasn't primarily in a learning mode when I took PFAL 14+ years ago. How in the bloody blue blazes would you KNOW??? You weren't there. You have no idea how many hours I spent studying and reading the collaterals." (BTW, looks like Mike was reading the mind and entire life-story of one of the posters again. This seems to be a sort-of side-profession by now. Some people read tea leaves and give a life-story, Mike reads a post and gives a life-story.) So, WAS Mike's original comment an attack on her character? Well, here's the comment... From 5/3/06, 11pm Eastern... "You seem to focus well on the soap opera here, and I suspect that when you were in the ministry it was social situations you only focused on, and the class material was a mere background for you. The same is probably happening in your Mormon church, because I know how serious my Mormon friends and customers are about doctrine and they'd NEVER waste as much time on a non-Mormon discussion board as you do. In other words, YOU'RE BUSTED! You are a social butterfly! YOu use the Mormon church as a social setting for to flit about, just like you use GSC, and just like you used TWI and the PFAL class as a place to play social games, only playing along with doctrinal matters. I see right through you..." Not only does this look like an insult, you may notice that he went from a SUSPICION to an announcement of fact. I also find it interesting that the fact that tl is having this discussion with him becomes a reason to insult her. "I know you're not serious about God because you're in here posting with me on this messageboard." Ooo, good one! If people don't respond to Mike, they're apathetic to God-now, if they DO, they are ALSO.... BTW, if you scroll up to his more recent defense of his original claim, he said "I said I suspected..." and never mentions that the next paragraph went from the suspicion to an outright claim that his suspicion (which, I suppose, will supposedly be "spiritual") became the statement of fact-becoming genuine. (One might, therefore, consider labelling it 'genuine spiritual suspicion' that this was her thinking and life-story. Interesting if one DOES...) Speaking of "busted"... this same post ends with Mike saying "my offer to get you the books stands." Mind you, tl has been rather specific. She's not only claimed that she would read the books, but that she could fill in the supposed relevant quotes FROM the books that Mike supposedly wants us to see, but seems unwilling or unable to bother posting, when he gives a page# and then changes the subject. Seems like this would be a positive thing from his perspective- direct quotes HE said were relevant, from pfal.] [This is known as "moving the goalposts." See, Mike already placed an offer on the table for himself to send tl the books. "My offer to get you the books stands." When she ACCEPTED-saying her mailing address was posted and he can see it on EVERY POST of hers, Mike then CHANGED his word to "If you can't trust me in PM, I can't entrust to you the books." Seems tl is well-aware of the long history of posters communicating with Mike by pm, or phonecall AT HIS INSISTENCE, then ALL OF THEM changing to refuse to accept any private communication with him of any kind. Perhaps she remembers one woman- was it CW? Ex-C? - who said he was taking private confidences she had shared with him and using them to try to change the subject in threads in the "About the Way" forum, incidentally using them to lead to a false conclusion. Perhaps he's familiar with others who said that he did that sort of thing in the Doctrinal forum, on THESE threads. Either way, people in general refuse to communicate privately with Mike. They also refuse to walk thru dark alleys at night in bad neighborhoods. Seems there's a consensus that these are not good ideas. Now Mike has invoked an excuse-that she's not willing to accede to what is generally considered to be an "unreasonable request"- so that he would fulfill his own word- his UNQUALIFIED OFFER to send her the books. Go back to 5/3/06, 11pm Eastern. Is there a qualification to his offer? There is not. That is why tl very naturally said "ok-here's my mailing address. I'll wait by my mailbox." (I'm using a figure of speech, an idiom.) THEN Mike saw she was serious, and began adding conditions to change her response. (First, you shall bring me a shrubbery. Then, you shall bring me another shrubbery. Then, you shall chop down the mightiest tree in the forest. With a herring. Finally, she walks off, saying it can't be done. This technique is famous among fans of "Holy Grail". ]

And it's not "noob", it's "n00b", you n00b, you! n00b: from "newbie", its usually a new person still stumbling with something and not up to speed. L337: from "elite", it's both something cool and first-rate (or "uber-"), or the online slang and typing style we're discussing. As in "I am teh L337 gamer!" "Or 'OMG do u speek l337?'" (That's usually meant ironically, as a slam.) r0x0rs: something really cool- "This game r0x0rs!" And 2 terms from Japanese animation fans (otaku): kawaii: cute (meant in an innocent way- a kitten can be kawaii, but that hot babe is not) chibi: the miniturized, somewhat more kawaii version of something I once shocked one teenager by replying, in perfect AOL/L337 slang: "OMG!!11! Teh chibis r so kawaii!!1!!" I commented that us old folks can still learn languages. And you'll want to look this instructional flash video over... http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php And here's a list of some common internet abbeviations: http://netforbeginners.about.com/cs/netiqu...eviations_2.htm

Mike, I already replied to it all, and you missed it. IMHO, they are essentially dead issues, but if you MUST drag them up, we CAN discuss them. However, since you're already QUITE busy, and supposedly don't have time for all the LIVE issues on the table, I'd recommend leaving them as poor uses of limited resources. Of course, you can always disregard that and bring them up again. It would do a disservice to all those you "don't have time for", however.

And now for some more "well-mannered conversation" from Mike.... Feel free to click back and read the entire post, or just scroll up for it. We've got more insults and more homework. Mike STILL thinks the GSC is his classroom, he is the professor, and the posters are students of his. Mike's not mentally incapable of understanding that HIS posting determines the speed of the posting here, and if he wants the thread to slow down, all he needs to do is stop posting on it, and it goes back to sleep until he returns. Therefore, he knows this-it's been pointed out several times, more than once by me-and this claim that he's too busy in all his replies- is simply another form of dodge. He's too busy to reply to everyone else's posts, but they're all supposed to read HIS posts. They're supposed to do any homework he assigns, but he can't just come out and speak plainly and say "This is what I believe". (He's been asked to do that every few months for over a year, and has no signs of doing so now. There's always an excuse-"I was GOING to, but you're now unworthy of me speaking plainly, so I'm going to continue to speak cryptically...")

The Shadow Peter Boyle Young Frankenstein

Basically, it's a strategy of distraction. It says that: A) Some people have used atrocity propaganda in the past, therefore the Holocaust didn't happen. B) It claims there were eyewitnesses who did flybys of some sites, and they claim they didn't see atrocities, therefore no atrocities occurred anywhere. C) This was virtually unknown at the time, therefore it didnt happen. As to the first, it is a non-issue, and a distraction. Some people have lied in the past-that doesn't invalidate any truth. As to the second, as Abigail pointed out, it's missing SPECIFICS. WHO made these claims? WHERE did they claim to look? And so on. Heck, if a guy looked all over England and didn't see Jews being massacred, he could not honestly say this is proof they aren't being massacred in Dachau or any other location at that very moment. (I'm making an example.) As to the third, I've done some research. Some members of the Roman Catholic Church actually operated an "underground railroad" to try to get Jews out of Nazi occupied areas. There are photos of the 'railroad', the Jews, and the Churchmen. And the non-Jew I met, who had a number tattoed into his arm by the Nazis, he said NOTHING about ANYTHING being reported being exaggerated- but he spoke of much that he DID see... ========= OM, I would respect your candor a lot more if you just came right out and said you refused to seriously consider the vast majority of the MATERIAL EVIDENCE and EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS because you do not WISH to, and do not WISH to CHANGE YOUR MIND. It would at least be more intellectually honest than claiming that you've examined the cases for and against, and honestly can't tell where the preponderance of the evidence is.

Ok, let's see... Here's what I said... This just goes to show you that if you keep typing long enough (I've been posting on the GSC since before Y2K, IIRC), you can make a bad post. Now, I could do like Mike and pretend I never posted a mistake, and just go on, hoping it will blow over. Or, I could demonstrate a higher standard of behaviour, and internal consistency, 'fess up, and fix it, and say what I SHOULD have said. I chose the latter. Now, then, when I said "Those who interacted with vpw in his last few months", that was hyperbole, an exaggeration. What I SHOULD have said was "Those who were active in the ministry at the time". I'm so used to multi-tasking on Mike's posts, and with Mike contradicting the live witnesses, that I sorta typed this out of habit. That was wrong, and I should pay a bit more attention when I type. As for "and that came AFTER 'the Joy of Serving", that was incorrect and not what I MEANT to say. It's true-I made an error. I'll admit I finally made one on these threads. Since Mike's been loading them with logic fallacies, errors, mistakes and outright lies, and not admitting to them, I think it should be forgiveable that I made one (or 1 1/2, depending on how you call it) and owned up to it. I shall clarify what I MEANT to say. When I said " 'THE HOPE' was the last teaching he covered for people" THAT was COMPLETELY CORRECT. vpw SPECIFICALLY taught that for EVERYONE, and expected THAT to be his very last public teaching-his last teaching for everyone. When reviewing the opening of "the Joy of Serving", anyone can see that he specifically addressed it- not to everyone, or "the people" as I called them, but to COUNTRY COORDINATORS. He was NOT teaching with a view towards this one going out to the rank and file, Joe and Jane Believer. That's because he says in the opening-and Mike himself has attested to this: "Since this is the meeting here at this time of COUNTRY COORDINATORS --and of course, what I'm going to say SHOULD be applicable to every born-again believer, but ESPECIALLY to-- our coordinators.]" He also addresses himself shortly thereafter to leadership again- "That twig and twig area leader, and the country coordinators, leadership of the Corps, of the WOWs,..." So, my main point- that "THE HOPE" was the LAST teaching vpw intended for all the people to hear- that was CORRECT. My other point- that 'the Joy of Serving' was NEVER intended to be a last message FOR ALL THE PEOPLE, but Mike has built it up to be so, and has exercised various verbal gymnastics to attempt to make it so. So, vpw's comments about what he'd say to people if he knew he was going to never see them again, those comments- if they apply to ANY teaching, for EVERYBODY- those comments apply to "THE HOPE." Now, some people are paying attention and wonder where my comments about people mentioning this before come in. Well, some entire threads have been wiped out, and, unlike Mike, I have not been keeping an archive of the threads where Mike's idolatry has been discussed and exposed. However, deleted posts to the contrary, I WAS able to find the following comment, which did NOT exist in a void. (I don't have ALL the posts, but I found this one.) It was posted by Zixar, Jan 6, 2003, 5:12pm. "Another thing. One of the most basic keys to biblical interpretation that Dr. Wierwille taught was to get 'to whom it was written' straight. Reading your transcript of the 'Last' Teaching, it is PRIMARILY addressed to the Country Coordinators, and only SECONDARILY addressed to believers in general. That makes it his last teaching specifically only for Country Coordinators. Dr. Wierwille knew his true, public Last Teaching would be tape # 1275, 'The Hope'. It was addressed to all believers, and is his final message to TWI assembled. Therefore, unless you are a Country Coordinator, the advice to master the FC, IC and collaterals is not an absolute final mandate. Look to 'The Hope' for that." Mike's reply to that was to say it ONCE applied to them, but NOW applies to everyone. "My Daddy is blind to name tag status, He looks at believing." Now, then, THAT was what I MEANT to say. I got sloppy, and didn't post it originally. Thus, this correction. I shall try to make it ANOTHER 6 years before I make another. Meanwhile, I noticed Mike saw me refute him for several pages, but skipped over THOSE posts-and most of this one, actually- and seized on my first actual mistake, as if it was the only thing I've posted all year.... Now, this was sloppy of me, but not "incredibly irresponsible" of me. If I claimed, say, that "the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God", and then spent the rest of my time saying that the Bible wasn't a Bible anymore, but a collection of books, tapes and magazine clippings were-in varying percentages- now the revealed Word and Will of God, and that the Bible that originally WAS claimed to be the revealed Word and Will of God is now "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants", then THAT would be "incredibly irresponsible" of me. That would be internal inconsistency of the first order, and it would be to my shame. However, if I was Mike, that type of internal inconsistency is just business as usual. Mike and I have different standards for an acceptable doctrine and an acceptable post. As for "huge errors" that "plague a mind", I'd say taking "the keys to Genesis to Revelation" and saying "this is Genesis to Revelation", and taking "then shall we say 'thus saith the LORD'" and saying "we will no longer to say 'thus saith the LORD then", I'd consider those "huge errors", and mixing up a pair of dates is an error, but hardly to be compared to a "HUGE ERROR." "This is one reason I find your posts repulsive." Hardly. I made ONE mistake. Mike finds my posts repulsive in general for the same reason the robber finds the policeman to be unwelcome. He had that problem LONG before I finally made a goof. I neither deliberately lie nor am MONUMENTALLY sloppy. This time I was 'sloppy', but not in a MONUMENTAL fashion. A MONUMENTAL mistake would be to throw away the meal and eat the menu, and that's not the type of mistake I made. However, that IS the type of mistake we've seen around here...

They MAY, however, suppose that we're tarring THEM with the same brush or blaming THEM for the actions of someone else. History's shown MANY people doing that. (Some people are STILL blaming Jews NOW for the death of Jesus 2000 years ago, for example, when none of those present are alive today.) We're not doing that with this family. I thought it was worth saying.

In other words, Mike is going to PRETEND he has documentation for his bold assertion, and send you off with a homework assignment to prove his assertion FOR him! Mike began with the premise that a new Bible was issued in the 20th century, therefore there must be a problem with the Bible of the preceeding 19 centuries (and change), therefore it's inadequate, therefore all "investigations" on his part will be with a view towards trying to strengthen his case. This means he will "ignore the misses and count the hits", and otherwise skip anything that documents the OPPOSITE position. I'm sure you notice (or can easily note) that he fogged the usage of the word "critical" in the above post.....

[supposedly, you've already examined all of this and should be able to rattle them off like the definitions of the manifestations. You mentioned this work perhaps 24 hours ago on this very thread. Things sure change fast around here...] [it is esoteric, and not to be shared with the unenlightened.] [That was on the post that took up several written pages all in one shot, not indexed for actual read-ability. You may remember it. The lack of format strongly suggested Mike didn't actually want it READ or STUDIED- just posted so he could say "I posted it." I would have responded to the claims of Mike's that vpw made such claims-but if Mike didn't care enough to make his material read-able, I'm not going to do all his work FOR him. Mind you, if he'd been communicating plainly with us for the past few years rather than playing word-games and assigning homework, I might have volunteered to add a format (you know, chapters and verses) just to facilitate maintaining discussion. However, technically, he DID post them, and that's where you'll find them.] [it's not your imaginations, folks, he ducked the question.] [Are you saying you didn't say this, Mike? Are you saying that she is unable to use the search function and find your own posts saying exactly this, Mike? Are you saying you DON'T believe this, Mike? No-you're not saying any of those- your answer, if it was in a court of law, would have been called "UNRESPONSIVE." Or, in other words, YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION AGAIN. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...] ["PFAL IS THE WORD IN WRITTEN FORM", in the same fashion, or analagous, to how Christ is The Word in flesh form. See, you CAN give plain answers to what you believe when you want to. Why waste weeks and months REFUSING to do so and diluting your posts when you could say all the basics in ONE PAGE?] ["Dr produced the written Word of God given in English". There's another concise sentence. We knew you were CAPABLE of them, Mike, nice to see them emerging from your posts. Of course, the "copies of copies of copies" sounds a LOT less extreme and harsh in comparison to your normal distain for critical Greek texts. Are you feeling less antithetical of them now, possibly even respectful? Any thoughts that the extant ones actually contain God-breathed Word? It would be worth saying so if you did...] [As is obvious to most of us who read her post, she was asking rather obvious questions, and comparing your direct answers to HER to claims made ABOUT what you've said. In other words, she had some honest questions, and you're suggesting something about them- either that there's some sort of "agenda" besides inquiry, or that there's some other problem with asking. With this type of response to even respectful questions, is it any wonder you inspire some barbed replies from several people?] [That was ANOTHER ducked question. (Aw, and after he actually ANSWERED some...) First, he belittled her ("do I need to prove this to you?") then he SUDDENLY CHANGED THE SUBJECT and began phrasing himself AMBIGUOUSLY, DELIBERATELY OCCULTING HIS ANSWER. If "PFAL should enable us to implement God's Word and will" is meant here to say "PFAL should enable us to defeat death", then Mike should say so outright. If it is meant to say ANYTHING ELSE, why, then, did Mike frame the question and the first part of the answer to suggest he would be addressing whether or not he's saying PFAL will defeat death? Either way, it's a sudden, sharp turn from candor to dishonesty. He's deliberately attempting to confuse the reader and PRETEND to answer the question. This is the same type of thing you get when one person claims to have played basketball all thru high school and college and be "involved with" a local amateur team, when you want them to conclude you were saying you were a member of the team, when the truth of the matter was you answered their phone or did their taxes or announced their games or something. Why not simply answer the question?] [The following is a lie that Mike has attempted to claim about the researcher EW Bullinger, and about other respected writers, in an attempt to smear their respectability and drag them to the level of a plagiarist.] [The TRUTH of the matter is that if a professor attempted to have a student write ANY portion of a book OR a dissertation he is going to attach his name to-without featuring their name SPECIFICALLY as having written part of it- the student could have the professor FIRED WITH CAUSE from the institution, and the professor's reputation would be DESTROYED. That's because colleges and universities take plagiarism VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. Is it TECHNICALLY possible a professor (or professors) did this? Yes-but "getting away with it" makes it no less a crime than theft or murder ceases to be a crime if you don't get caught. A professor may have a respected grad student REVIEW his work before it's published-as a technical proofreader. A professor may ask a respected grad student to COMPILE DATA- which the professor will then read, evaluated, then write on. That's not "writing" his book-not even a single letter of text. However, Mike's attempting to play an "everybody does it" game with plagiarism so that it makes vpw's crimes seem less harsh. Interesting how he tried to sneak that one by while aiming for a different target, which is the NEXT point....] [And the relevance of this anecdote? Was it just to claim you've seen MANY professors and grad students BREAK THE LAW AND NOT GET CAUGHT, or were you trying to suggest something you never said?] [some related questions bear answering. No need to attack her for it.] [Can hardly blame her for that, but nice try anyway.] [Ah, a direct link! That was nice of you!] [According to you, Mike, everyone else has been so poor at reading comprehension that a plain declaration might well be beyond their talents. So, based on your previous claims, one MIGHT expect you to whip something obvious out and say "See? It was in plain sight all along and you all missed it!"] [i wonder if you realize just how patronizing and arrogant you come off in posts like this. Presuming to read her mind-which is a common presumption on your part-displays a sloppy mentality which does NOT place a favourable light on you ANYTIME you do it.] [Congratulations! You answered your own questions from above and explained WHY she might ask questions that seem obvious to you! Will you now berate YOURSELF for EXPLAINING IT like you attacked her for asking? It would be internally consistent, at any rate. (Like the traffic judge fining himself for poor driving.)] [Cheap shot on other leaders, cheap shot on Mormonism, or both? What do the other readers say?] [Cute. Made some assumptions based on what a section of Acts did NOT say (it did NOT say Paul declared things FROM the Scriptures- at least NOT IN THE CITED VERSES), so therefore, Paul must not have shown them the verses. (Likewise, this account says nothing about Paul using an outhouse or going abroad, so he must never have used a bathroom when he was with them. Same principle-let's be CONSISTENT!) Then he says his dodging of questions is the same thing Paul did. Like I said, cute. Hey, Mike, I'll get back to your other posts as soon as I have time. Only so many hours in a night...]

Actually, I was thinking specifically of HCW. I don't discount the possibility of others chiming in and me missing it, though. HCW broke down how the editing process in the books AND magazines was done-which was identical to how it was also explained by one of the editors-was it Linda Z? They used their brains and their best understanding to make whatever they were working on as good as possible as defined by the framework they were working in. In the case of the magazine articles, that sometimes necessitated radical restating/rephrasing in different words, and sometimes it meant trimming out extraneous sentences. Thus, in transcribing the film to print, they started with EVERYTHING word for word. Then they cleaned up some awkward language and obvious errors (like anabalepto being corrected to eidon, and fixing the "Felix or Festus" when it was Agrippa who said "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian", as the KJV renders it.) In some cases, entire anecdotes went on the chopping block since they were NOT able to be functionally-restored. They were SERIOUS about retaining as much of the film as possible-so any absences are telling. Furthermore, as we've seen in discussions right here, the "red drapes" anecdote falls on its face when examined. So, to "strengthen" the book, the anecdote is removed. Since you've taken all accounts they posted, as well as the face-to-face encounters you've had with editing staff, and rewritten the accounts to say "they inadvertently operated revelation" (you did this addressing HCW previously), I figured you'd continue to just do so ad infinitum. Have you changed your mind, or are you asking just to try to throw doubt on what happened before?

Every once in a while, someone decides they got everything they needed to from the GSC and sail off to enjoy their life sans-GSC. Based on that criteria, if Jung must leave, I'm glad this was the reason-I can find no better one. Take care, Jung, fare well.

If anyone in the wierwille family is reading this, I'd like to let them know that I view them as total strangers, and have neither a positive, negative or neutral view of them at all, but rather one where I know that I know nothing of them and see no need to speculate in the slightest. I will give them the common courtesy I would give any total stranger.

I wouldn't go that far. Just because there was a one-attribute similarity did not 180-degree all his comments from God Almighty to the devil. As I've noted before, cg attempted to resolve the age-old debate and a question many others have failed to answer before him: how do you incorporate a God who is All-Knowing and a God who is Love with a God who permits evil to exist at all? cg's answer was to retain the Goodness of God as his requirement by definition, and sacrificed All-Knowing for it. If such a sacrifice was NEEDED, this would be a fair trade. As someone said once, I'd rather be the One-Who-Cares than the One-Who-Knows. If either of you want to get into the nuts and bolts of this subject, feel free to open it in Doctrinal, and I'll join you for the fun. And yes, I believe it sells God quite short, as well...