WordWolf

Funny how that happened. The "chapter and verse, please" approach was one of the things that I liked the most. However, it's amazing how often that came up in the homes, yet how rarely that came up at the root locales. I myself was chided for recommending that teenagers "sit around and read The Word" rather than spend time in the Blue Book and the other SIALs. That was from a corpse grad.

*reads the link* Hm. I wasnt part of the last discussion, but I see some useful information here. Thanks a lot for the link-it's rather illuminating. I thought it was going to relate more directly to "Stockholm Syndrome."

Mike, A) Goey already delivered a beatdown on this some time ago. B) I offered to accept your "Table of Challenge" if you'd address the ORIGINAL "Table of Challenge"-the evidence that pfal is less than God-breathed. With you ignoring both of those answers so completely, do you really think that your usual tactic of announcing a week later "they refused to play my game-so I win by default!" will actually cut any ice with anyone except your drone? We've been thru this a few times already.

BTW, on another thread, Mike commented abotu the two words he never previously commented on in Tom's summary. They only became an issue because, although Mike keeps complaining of the entire summary, WordWolf said he personally was not aware of those 2 words being a direct quote, as opposed to everything else in Tom's summary. In response, Mike has decided-without checking with Tom- that Tom HAS no direct source, and now is banging his drum that he caught Tom lying about him. "I deliberately let that line go for many, many months to give Tom enough rope to...tie himself up!" Personally, I think Mike is not intentionally lying here. I think Mike has deluded himself to the point that he's rewritten his previous posts in his own mind. As such, the posts on the GSC that he and others have made do not conform to the posts as he remembers them. So, he actually believes he did that, and for that reason. It also explains "I disagree that those other disputed sections are direct quotes. They are over-abbreviations, and context-wrenched." Actually, they're NOT. At least a few of those were stand-alone comments Mike posted, so they HAD no "context", and were the posts in their ENTIRETY. However, Mike's hardly going to let a little thing like objective reality get in the way of him remembering things the way he wants them to have been. After all, he also remembers himself having acquitted himself well in debate, when all he ever did was obfuscate issues and avoid certain issues he had no answer to, then months later, declare victory. Therefore, the reality he sees is not the reality the rest of us see. The posts Mike and others have posted here are NOT recalled or understood in any "fair" way by Mike....who then expects us to trust his account of vpw and God Almighty hiding secret messages in the pfal books, which Mike has uncovered. That's ok- it's the same approach he's used when facing DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE PFAL BOOKS THAT REFUTE HIM. So, they're in semi-decent company.

The part about your approval is based on how you've behaved about people not accepting your "Table of Challenge". I honestly don't remember you offering access to "advanced abilities", but that's no guarantee you did not. Your approval was predicated upon accepting your challenge. So, the second part, at least, is most definitely the TRUTH.

Mike replies to Tom Strange. [WordWolf replies in boldface as usual.]

Actually, I thought you took PRIDE in your positions. Nearly everything he said was a DIRECT QUOTE from one of your posts, and Tom isn't changing the meanings. He's just making a concise summary.

Actually when first I read that sentence I thought it could well have been taken as a slam. Debunking the myth that you need to be an "intellectual." Does that mean their team is short on supply so they have to make that attribute seem less important? Shall they ever learn they can only run ahead and change the road signs for so long and eventually people are going to actually notice it! Of COURSE that's what it means! In 1989, when 80% of the membership present as of 1989 walked away, the WOW program applications plummeted accordingly. They proudly trumpeted the verses ad nauseum about God not being constrained to save by many or by few. Gotta try that spin control and make it look like we WANTED it this way..... (Similarly, the seminar on Biblical stuff for writers was all about submitting articles for their magazine right after the writing staff for the magazine walked off.... they started using LOTS of pictures and illustrations per page, too....

Pardon the interruption, but I felt the need to make a Public Service Announcement. "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 pasttime 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." By HENRY VAN DYKE. ======== I felt the need to document the actual SOURCE of the poem we were led to be "original" to twi. Like the others, it wasn't. Sorry to interrupt. Carry on, everyone.

This thread, pg-2, 1/22/05, 12:14am, eastern. A) This may surprise you, Mike, but starting from the position that anything vpw did was AUTOMATICALLY right produces a GREAT many problems. (As it would assuming ANYONE was automatically right, except Jesus Christ.) This is why you got static when you started toying with the idea that rape and molestation might have been, in some way, related to the "toughening up" process vpw supposedly directed at the corps. (Yes, you left that position fairly early.) Few others reacted in anything BUT horror when you tossed the idea out, because it's horrific. It's like saying God might suggest boiling a newborn infant for some Godly purpose. Your automatic assumption that PFAL is correct runs into similar problems when facing even SOME of the ACTUAL ERRORS IN PFAL. Since you refuse to consider their existance, they can be quite pesky for you. (See "the Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen.) B) I'm sure you missed the obvious flaw in your statement. You said "if pfal is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." pfal's status or NONstatus has ANY affect on the status of any OTHER document. A Mormon might say "if the Book of Mormon is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A 'Christian Scientist' might say "if Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Muslim may say "if the Koran is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." A Hindu may say "if the Bhagavad-Gita is not God-breathed, then NOTHING is God-breathed." Does ANY of their statements change the status of their book or anyone else's? No-they stand or fall on their OWN merits. C) Finally, Mike, the ORIGINAL Table of Challenge predates yours, and you've refused to address it. That's the one with a partial list of ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL. (Not even counting the Amazing Morphin' Man.) I offered to accept YOUR challenge over a year ago IF you dealt at least with a FEW of the most obvious items that show your Table of Challenge itself is an inferior product. You seem to have forgotten I was ready and willing to offer an exchange, one on your turf, on on ours. That's when you asked for more in return for what you need to address anyway.

Oh, this was too good to lose... Mike, the pro-pfal thread, pg-6, 1/23/05, 2:36am eastern. ========= "Abigail, You wrote: 'How does studying PFAL defeat death, Mike? We will all face death one day, unless the return comes first, no?' PFAL stands for (and I'm sure you know, but it's worth spelling it out) Power For Abundant Living. Death is the opposite of living, it stops life. The power God wants us to have is the power to stop that which limits abundance of life. With all nine manifestations in operation in the Body of Christ death can be avoided, because it's always against God's will, and God will always supply the information and the power to defeat death. The reason we say we face death is because no one has tapped into this power God supplies in Christ to its fullest. It's been available in one sense, yet elusive for 2000 years. PFAL is God's move to remove that elusiveness through the most up-front, all inclusive, yet simple teaching of how that power can be finally put into operation. (snip) We have it all in place except for one thing: we have been temporarily talked out of using what we have. But that's changing. The time of our return to God's revelation is at hand. It's time to see Jesus Christ NOW, by becoming like him through this Word we've been given. When we return to PFAL we learn how to see him and his perfect example of perfect believing. The time for waiting passively for Christ's return is over. We can return to God and see NOW. The time to see death defeated has arrived. Who wants to be among the first to believe (act) and see? THAT's how studying PFAL will defeat death." ============ Well, if that's true, then the degree to which you are in harmony with PFAL is the degree to which you defeat death. If you are MORE in harmony with PFAL, you defeat death more. If you are REALLY in harmony with PFAL, you really defeat death. Add a level of believing where you're gifted, or even OVERgifted, where the earth shakes where you walk because of your titanic believing, then you should easily reach towards the 120 years that some of the men of God of old reached, where your eye is not dim, nor your natural force abated. This, of course, sounds good on paper. However, when given the "acid" test, the performance test, when it's tried out in real life, we get this: Death:1, PFAL:0. So, this concept has been disproven by the person who was most likely to have PROVEN it since Jesus ascended into heaven.

A) The "ethics discussions" will keep coming up because GOD ALMIGHTY declared how His people should act and deal with each other. When someone is supposedly put forth as a paragon of Godliness, a virtual avatar of God, a titan of believing, who shook the earth where he walked, Then, it behooves us as Christians, to examine this person and see if they are at LEAST demonstrating principles designated by God to be exercised by people claiming to represent Him. Disregarding the laws of the land entirely, and deceiving the brethren do NOT exist on such a list of Godly behaviour. Since your erstwhile prophet was woefully deficient in them as he broke laws and defied commonsense moral codes (don't rape, don't lie, don't pretend it's your work when it wasn't), morality will KEEP coming up. B) It's obvious, Mike, that even when we bring up that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of what it means to "CITE SOURCES", you STILL make no effort to understand what it means to "CITE SOURCES". I've even made it VERY EASY to understand what it means to "CITE SOURCES". Look at the first page of this thread. Under the heading "citing sources", there's a whole thing of links. Take as many as you want. Hint: When vpw mentioned in pfal that he read some old book on Jewish customs about age 12 and bar mitzvahs, but never mentions the name, that's not a CITATION. C) I'll post an example of vpw claiming he originated the words he wrote-AGAIN. Amazing how you can keep forgetting them....

Mike posted the original. [WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Same old Mike, isolating statements out of context and attributing new meanings to them that suit him. Acts:4:18a "And they called them...." Who are "they", and who are "them"? The "them" includes Peter and John in the next verse, so we know "them" are disciples of Jesus. Who's "they"? According to Mike, this is a meeting of the local courts under Caesar, this being a Roman province. I get that from Mike saying that this citation refers to "man's lower courts" as opposed to God, and in using this to attempt to refute the idea that Christians are supposed to obey the laws of local government. HOWEVER, since this verse doesn't tell us who "they" are in the verse right where it is written, we must read the context. According to Acts 4:1, we're seeing "the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadduccees". According to Acts 4:5, we're seeing "their rulers, and elders and scribes". That's not an appelate court. What was the "crime"? Acts 4:2 says they "preached thru Jesus the resurrection from the dead." Preaching was NOT a crime under Roman Law, unless you preached sedition. The disciples NEVER preached sedition. So, who ran this meeting? Acts 4:6 says it was the high priest and his family (nothing like a little nepotism to stack the deck in your favour.) "Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest..." What was the charge? Acts 4:7 says it was: how did you do this miracle? When the council concluded, they told the disciples to stop preaching in Christ's name, and let them go. No fine, no lashes, no jurisdictional investigation into sedition. Why? This wasn't a legal trial. This was an ecclesiastical "trial" that had no force of law. The disciples obeyed every law of man. Jesus set the example-he paid his taxes and said everyone was supposed to. What about Acts 5? I'm not going to go over the entire chapter when any grad of pfal should be able to make sense of it without me. I will, however, point out that the context of chapter 5 is, of course, chapter 4. Acts 5:27 shows who's running this meeting: the high priest again. Here's a guy who's not afraid to disregard the law and use his connections to have the captain of the temple (Acts 5:24) act as his trained monkey-boy. Even this illegal meeting, you notice, wasn't fought against by the disciples. They COULD have said "it's illegal for them to beat us" (Acts 5:40.) Instead, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer in Jesus' name. Paul spent a lot of time in jail for serving Christ. Paul didn't ignore the law, either.

Courtesy of Rafael, some links on how Christians approach plagiarism (unless they're vpw)... http://www.freshministry.org/articles/plagiarism.html http://www.belief.net/story/94/story_9413_1.html#cont http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8844.htm

Mike in normal font. [WordWolf in boldface as normal.]

Def59, please check your links. When you added the comma in the sentence, it altered the URL you typed. I moved it over in this reply so people can see what you linked to.

Actually, that's why YOU think other people care, or the reason you wish to attribute to why they care. Paraphrased, they care whether he lied and deceived because they're eeeevvvviiilll like that. I think the reason is better explained elsewhere. This is why we care... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm

http://www.monpa.com/dwc/world.html

Is this the first time you've heard that vpw wildly plagiarized? If so, then proceed immediately to http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm

Re: vpw's multiple acts of plagiarism... First, What is plagiarism? http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml http://science.widener.edu/svb/essay/plagiar.html http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html http://hnn.us/articles/514.html http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/usemplagiarism.html http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/plagiarism.htm http://www.piercecollege.edu/faculty/kudlers/termpaper.html Citing sources: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/about/what.html http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_citation.html http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/citing.htm Ok, so, now we know what plagiarism is, and how to avoid it, a few things to remember. A) All HIGH SCHOOL students are taught to avoid plagiarism. B) All COLLEGE students are taught to avoid plagiarism. C) All candidates for a MASTERS degree are taught to avoid plagiarism. D) All candidates for a DOCTORATE are taught to avoid plagiarism. Hm, flashback. vpw stated at ROA '79-and this is on the tapes-that he completed the requirements for his Doctorate before he completed the work for his Masters. The obvious implication of this is that it was easier to complete the Doctorate, which means it had easier requirements. So, did vpw know what plagiarism is, why it's wrong, and how he should avoid it? That should be beyond question. So, remembering all that, why do we care? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm

(Paw): "YoPhoto, I would like to talk to you about a trade. You take Mike for 3 posters of your choosing."

Oh, I don't know about "no quarter".... I think idolatrous errors can be exposed with some decorum. I think we've done so in the past, and can do so again in the present and future. We have class, we have couth. No need to carry on as couthless cads, is there? I've got extra couth here if you need me to e-mail you some or something. I got it off e-bay. ;)-->

This thread is intended to serve in a similar function as the underground hits: "Digest..." and the "Ubiquitous Index" did. Apparently, few told me how much so many of them liked it. So, this is a new edition. Apparently, Mike has decided that, since people have mostly stopped telling him to stop eating Paw's bandwidth and memory space, and only mentioned stopping for a different board, this represents some sort of deficiency on their part for not bringing up yet again what he has consistently shown a casual disregard for. "Maybe some of my regular antagonists are so blinded by their rage against me that they didn't see the opportunity when it was right in their faces. ;)--> " ==== When Mike has previously said he wanted to group all his comments about other threads into one thread, it was pointed out before that he would then be isolating his posts from the context they originated from, divorcing them from their natural connections. Since that seems to be on the agenda now, I've made this thread, partially to offset that. Links from one thing to another thing can be posted here for easier reading (and less hunting by the reader.) "My purpose in posting is NOT to aggravate anyone, but to help." MY purpose in posting is NOT to insult, but to inform and help facilitate the honest exchange of ideas. My intention is to include Mike's ideas intact, and to summarize some of them intact and add commentary when appropriate. Mike's separating his posts from their original threads, I'm doing the same-but alongside the original, with dates and page-markers to make them easy to find. "The reason I continue is because I firmly believe the message I have embraces is true even if nobody believes it, AND that it is vital to all." The reason I continue is because I firmly believe the message put forth by Mike is false even if everyone believed it, AND that it is harmful to those who embrace it. Therefore, I wish to facilitate INFORMED decisions about the doctrine, statements and so on that he puts forth, so the reader can make an informed judgement. Mike's still putting forth that his message is "the contents of the written PFAL", despite the accounts showing that, often, what he has said is the OPPOSITE of what the books say. I'll repeat those and add newer proof as situations warrant. Mike's announced his intentions to attempt to prove that vpw's plagiarism of Stiles, Leonard and so on were NOT plagiarism (nor copyright violation, I imagine), and his intentions to excuse vpw for drugging, molesting, raping and kicking out women. "I may also do one on the sex issue..." For those wondering, "the sex issue" is what I was just referring to, minus the euphemistic tag removed. "I'm one of the few who have taken advantage of the great information and instruction available to those who come back to PFAL with intentions to meekly master it. By 'meekly' I mean 'recognizing it as God's revelation and not merely vpw's opinions'." I think that statement speaks for itself. =========== Now then, for the rest of you people... This is a public forum. You can post whatever you want, and I have no authority to enforce whether or not I like that. (Pawtucket and the staff can do that.) I would ASK, and respectfully request of my fellow posters that they try to consider a few ground-rules as profitable and agree to use them. (You guys have been pretty good about this in the past, and for that, I thank you.) A) "Rule" 1. Pro-Mikes-message, anti-WordWolf's-message stuff goes in Mike's thread that this accompanies. Anti-Mikes-message, pro-WordWolfs-message stuff goes in THIS thread. Everyone gets to play in their own thread, and no boggarting the other person's thread. If people want to see Mike go on for pages and be patted on the back, they can. If people want to see WordWolf go on in critiques of those pages, for pages, and have his fur stroked, they can. B) "Rule" 2. With that in mind, anyone can post on either thread. (If Mike wanted to wildly support a post of mine without debate or qualification, or an attempt to sneak an insult in, he would be welcome to do so.) C) "Rule" 3. Please keep the posts relevant to this thread and the thread it's commenting on. Please, please. The goal here is intelligent critique and insightful commentary, not casual conversation. D) "Rule" 4. Please keep insult posts off this thread and the thread it's commenting on. (If you must, please make it a brief post.) Please mind the goal: critique and commentary, not insults or snaps. Those dilute the substance of the material presented. E) "Rule" 5. Anything relevant to intelligent critique and commentary of the accompanying thread and its posts are welcome here. That includes links to webpages with direct refutations of something said, or direct links to posts at the GSC with direct refutations of something said. When commenting on the other thread, please, PLEASE cite the page and date of the post you're commenting on. If possible, be more specific than that. F) "Rule" 6. Nobody needs my permission to post anything on this thread. I ask posts mind these so-called "rules", but I encourage intelligent, insightful participation at any time by any poster on any relevant topic. (So, don't ask me if it's ok to post a link or make a tasteful comment-just post it. You're adults and don't need me holding anyone's hand.) G) "Rule" 7. "Be excellent to each other." Try to respect posters on both threads, even if you think their every post drips with stupidity. In doing so, you will respect your posts, and demonstrate the class you should have directed towards you. :)--> Thank you all, and I look forward to the unsung task I have volunteered for once again. :)-->

From what I've seen, this is currently the most popular scam.... http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/scams/carsale.asp