WordWolf

pg-210, 211, he speaks about Dr E.E. Higgins. She's the one who would call him up every night, asking what God taught him that day. How many people see that little comment as a dire warning, given 20/20 hindsight?

Let's see, where were we... pg-209, vpw on the genesis of the White Book. 1954. pg-210

Of course, some people will deny undue influence as significant so long as no physical means was used. The law of the US doesn't see it their way however. Supreme Court Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) wrote: 1988. Now, the courts are as neutral a 3rd party as one could find. If THEY say that's an effective method of control without a gun, then it should be obvious that it is so.

This, to me, seemed to be the honest appraisal of his own religion. He worships himself. The rest was an elaborate rationalization to justify worshipping himself. (IMHO) Now, the difference between LaVey and vpw was... Good grief! It IS the same thing! Worshipped himself and rationalized it away. Actually, LaVey's system allowed him to get his, and you to get yours. vpw's system allowed him to get his at the expense of you not getting yours. Therefore, vpw's system was LESS HUMANE THAN THE SATANIST SYSTEM. Amazing.

I'll bet you're right, Pirate... *snicker*

There's a story going around, and it was referred to by someone on that concert on NBC. Here's the WHOLE story: http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/looters.asp Please look it over when you get a chance. Thanks.

Should be Go to your Start menu select RUN type MSCONFIG find the program-in this case, MSN Messenger select "manual" save

I can see George Orwell and the John Birch Society in there. I don't see LaVey. (But I might be wrong-enlighten me.) Funny Machiavelli was mentioned. I just finished reading "the Prince" and thinking about parallels and so on. I read something that specifically reminded me of the relationship between vpw and lcm. Chapter 22, "Of the ministers of princes," paragraph 4 to the end.

Frankly, I question the assertion that they view twi thru their own experience. They filter their own experience so heavily that it would be more accurate to say "they view twi through how they wish to remember it". Frankly, if Oldies was sitting on one end of a couch, and vpw was on the other end drugging and raping some chick, I'd expect him to put a spin on THAT, not stop it from happening, and deny it happened the way it unfolded before his very eyes.

CM found this link... http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/nobody_held_a_gun.htm

Actually, it was something he said on the board, it was this... So, unless it was something in chat or elsewhere, he said he himself sent something that was screened, not that he was a screener.

It occurs to me that when these SAME women say that all of thiswasn't true, that they didn't want to have abortions and were pressured to conform until they did (no physical gun, but much social stigma) or that given the choice, they wanted to have the child but "leadership" insisted they not, or that they thought abortion was WRONG no matter what the official doctrine was, and they ONLY did it because someone was putting the squeeze on them, it occurs to me that you'd prefer to maintain your original POV rather than actually increase in understanding. Back then, they were actively pressured to do so, some freaked out when they agreed under coercion, and some "leaders" were assigned as "exit counselors" to get them to silence their consciences when they KNEW something wasn't right. That was then. Seems that for some of us, that's hardly "easy". vpw rapes someone. That's evil. Some of us can't easily call it that. No, it was meant to serve vpw under the cover of being agodly program. Was SOME good wrought? Sure. Was some BAD wrought? Sure. Its motives were impure from its inception, which tainted the reaults. The execution certainly was impure, which is why we're having this discussion.

Let's see.... "Esso" is now known as "Exxon"... Is this "The Great Gatsby?"

No, I think you mean the one with the "hey"s in it. That's Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll Part II." A different part 2. This one begins with the lines "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, We're so glad you could attend, come inside come inside..." It's a fairly famous rock song, gets airplay, and I myself have heard it played at stadiums. It's been around since the 70s. But it's Tom's turn.

Yes. I could REALLY be a pain and say that's not the ENTIRE name, since about 1/2 the album or more had songs with that as a partial title, but I say "close enough". To be specific, this is Emerson, Lake, and Palmer (not Powell if anyone remembers him)'s song "Karn Evil 9, First Impression, Part II". This is the one that gets played in sports stadiums, at least the beginning. Part I is hard to separate from the preceding song, and Second and Third Impressions never get airplay because they don't rate airplay. ========== Tom, it's your move!

Then they shouldn't have volunteered. They didn't have to. They could have just been Joe Believers.But the corps was a program that had rules. So many of the IMPORTANT rules-like EVER step out of line and your life is OVER- were SECRET rules, never written or spoken to candidates who PAID THRU THE NOSE to be used as manual labour and ordered around like chattel. If the rules were few, reasonable, public, and clear, then it would be their faults. The important rules were never stated. Again, if there were reasonable levels of rules, and open communication of them,THEN maybe I'd agree with you. Admittedly, a lot of little insults here and there I don't notice. You might consider ignoring the little ones and letting them pass. I've done that when a few of them were directed at me. I wasn't sure if "oldiesboy" should be considered an insult. If you weren't so eager to slap others, I might be a lot quicker to defend you, frankly. Further, I think there's benefit in dissecting some of the things you write because even YOU are unaware of the subtexts in them. If there was no subtext, doing so would be rather silly. I don't actually derive sexual pleasure from them as you suggested. One needs do a thorough job when dealing with someone who hides insults, misdirections and sexual innuendo in his posts. Therefore, for acknowledging my skill in exposing them, I thank you for the compliment. Now then, we were discussing the unwritten rules which were imposed on us, and were used as a bludgeon to force conformity to the rules. Sure, we could have walked away- if we were willing to forsake ALL friends and family (outsiders, we ALREADY avoided on orders previously, insiders would now be told we were pariahs), and step outside the protection, favour and will of God, setting ourselves up for imminent destruction- and the destruction of our loved ones, as later became the doctrine. Now, it was possible to ignore the suffering of others THEN by selective vision, rewrite it by selective memory, or ignore the unjust treatment you or yours faced thru rationalization. That is NOT, however, intellectually honest and most of us prefer to refrain from it when we're aware of it.

"Soon the Gypsy Queen in a glaze of Vaseline will perform on guillotine what a scene, what a scene! Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand to Alexander's Ragtime Band Dixieland, Dixieland!"

It's almost amazing that "as you saw them" is as you STILL see them. However, it's no longer news. And it's "CM". Did you intend to make that an insult?

I don't understand what you mean here. Now THAT I agree with. You don't understand. No, you see them as disobeying leadership, and so they were SCUM. Ham talked about the idea of them leaving the program and returning later, or at least facing an "honorable discharge" rather than being made PARIAHS when they returned to their local fellowship. See, this level of control over people's lives is the problem. And you won't if we wrote it out in 100 pages, with photos, recaps and summaries. Just accept that what people experienced is NOTHING like what you saw, even when it was a few feet away from you.

For full points, Tom, do you know the song's name?

Psst. Raf? We're off that song. Nobody was showing signs of recognition on the Bloodhound Gang song, so I posted a line from a different song. (Which you have heard at some point in your life.)

I think success under these circumstances is many folks in the offshoots and elsewhere continuing in the good doctrine while simultaneously abandoning the bad doctrine and practices. Of course, what is a "good" doctrine and a "bad" doctrine depends entirely on who's defining it. Which is "baby" and which is "bathwater" depends entirely on who's defining it. This is a repeat of the last sentence with a cliche added. Which is the "gold" and which...didn't I say this already? Perhaps. Some of them seem to have a higher moral standard than vpw did. Then again,so did vpw in the early days-perhaps they are just brilliant in covering their tracks. I find that some of them have some pretty good doctrine. Of course, I can say the same of many, many, many Christian organizations out there, and I have in many cases. Further, we all know that the difference between an organization that has BRILLIANT doctrine and an organization that has AWFUL doctrine depends entirely on what percentage of their doctrine matches that of the speaker. Right. That's YOUR definition, and that of other people, but what if you're wrong? Then the "good doctrine" is good in spite of being error. If they are used as "food for thought", I heartily agree. I think it's a good idea to have thought and discussion on each of these topics. I also think it's a good idea to have thought and discussion on ALL topics, ESPECIALLY "sacred cows". IF, however, the doctrine is just dropped in people's laps and discussion and dissent are SQUASHED -which has happened to many Christians in history and continues through today, including even those who are most controversial- then it is nothing more than ANOTHER set of sacred cows, and just another church.

No, and I'm fairly certain you've heard this song at SOME point.

Ok, let's see.... This episode we'll see BG Leonard, what vpw admits to learning from him, what vpw says about him, and the 3 things that vpw finds quoteworthy from BG Leonard. pg-205. Now here are ALL the direct quotes from Leonard. Please note that, like everyone else, he can ID vpw on sight. That was ALL the direct quotes from Leonard. pg-207. pg-208.

Don't know about you but if I squeeze my eyes shut really tight for a while, when I open them up I see snowflakes and white, too. Especially if I've been sipping Drambuie. Ah, yes, "phosphenes". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphene Apparently, drugs DO induce them more as well. I didn't realize that until a few minutes ago. (I suspected that, but a quick search showed it.) ========== Shaz, good point. Sitting in on a seminar becomes "I took every class they offered." However, he mentioned their correspondence programs. Was that an intentional lie to cover up the fact that he wasn't gone for years to take all their classes? ===== Thomas, I'm hoping someone with a copy of Born to Serve will chime in once I've finished posting clips from this book. I expect a lot of people are withholding their lengthier comments to make it easier to find the direct quotes on the opening pages. That's certainly my idea, and I've confined my comments to a few brief things so far for that reason. If someone with the UH biography chimes in too, that's a bonus. I have ONE quote from JD that I'm saving for the end, and if you post how to get Karl Kahler's book, I'm sure we'd appreciate it. We all reserve the right to disagree with his conclusions, however. That doesn't mean I don't want to READ them, however. Heck, if KK wants to post excerpts, I'd welcome it.