WordWolf

Originally posted by WTH. [WordWolf in boldface.] Perhaps that's because you (and even others) prefer to mind the things of the flesh and not the things of the spirit [No, that's because God's Word clearly marks the standard a man of God is supposed to live up to. One supposed man of God miserably failed to live up to it, and ruined some people's lives. It is not ungodly to use standards given by God for the offices under God to determine if the officeholder is godly. To NEGLECT to do that for any reason- like "but I learned so much from him!" is to place CARNAL views before what God SAID to do. ] - and I am especially refering to those who really love to go around wearing the "minister" tag in the Christian church and wish to be recognized as one. The apostle Paul wasn't perfect even after he was born again. That is why Galatians 4:13,14 says... _Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. _ Some have gone so far as to remark that the apostle Paul was a "changed man" after being born again - implying he never made any mistakes after he was born again. [ Paul WAS a changed man. Haven't you read ANYTHING? This disingenuous position of yours- that Paul was either carnal or perfect- is a dodge and a strawman. NOBODY expected PAUL to be PERFECT, EITHER. WHat they expected of PAUL, and PETER, and TIMOTHY, and PHILEMON, and any other MAN OF GOD, was that they meet or exceed the minimum standards of conduct established by God. There are no accounts of Paul raping his way thru the churches on his journies. There's no record of Paul loving luxuries. There's no record of Paul lying and defrauding people. Do you know why? It was NOT because Paul was perfect. We all KNOW Paul was not perfect. PAUL knew PAUL was not perfect. However, Paul exceeded the minimum standards of behaviour and codes of conduct written by GOD, and Paul was zealous to seek perfection. Paul was not perfect, but he had a batting average in the acceptable range. ] That isn't the testimony of God's Word. The truth is the apostle Paul never let the infirmites of his flesh bug him or keep him from teaching the truth of God's Word [i'm sure the acts of his flesh really bugged the self-righteous Pharisees though. They always seem to come around whenever someone is speaking the truth of God's Word] as he kept preaching the gospel despite the infirmities of his flesh. [Ooooo-that's supposed to be a clever "dig" at the rest of us-to depict us as self-righteous and as Pharisees. Did anyone feel a sting from that one? What's next-claiming I'm a lousy clogdancer? ] I'll never understand why people want to bring up the works of a dead minister - someone who died nearly 20 years ago. People bring up the works of godly men centuries after they die, as examples and figures to emulate. Just counting modern times, I'd have loved to have learned under BG Leonard for a week, or George Mueller for a week. These men are shining examples of men who loved God, made a difference, and exceeded the standards established by GOD.] [ On the other hand, names like Caligula, Lucretia Borgia, and Benito Mussolini come down thru the decades and centuries as well. Charles Manson is safely behind bars-but everyone in the US knows his name. Why? What he did is old news......HOWEVER, each has set his own life as an example of the evils that men do-exemplars of cruelty and insanity. People still talk about Manson and Mussolini, in particular, depending on where you go, because THE EVIL THAT THEY DID STILL AFFECTS SOME PEOPLE. It's been a few years since the 9/11 attacks. Thousands of people died-in the Twin Towers, in the Pentagon, in the planes, in a field in Pennsylvania ("let's roll".) A few days ago marked the one-year anniversary of a horrible disaster involving a Staten Island Ferry. The pilot made an error in judgement, and his medication put him to sleep-he collapsed onto the steering wheel while the ferry was at speed. His supervisor made an error of judgement-only the pilot was in the control cabin, when 3 people should be there. The ferry crashed into the dock, and the side of the boat was sheered away. Several people were killed, several lost limbs. (The pilot went straight home and attempted suicide.) Now, with the first anniversary passing, you might say that the survivors should "just get over it", after all, it's "in the past". However, some haven't gotten over losing loved ones, or limbs. So, they haven't stopped talking about it. Some people still bring it up because they want the entire ferry system reformed to prevent the further suffering of others. From the sound of things, a year after Christopher Reeve was thrown from his horse, you would have told him to suck it up. ] I've come to realize it's because it makes _them_ (their flesh) look real big and spiritual and important both to themselves and to others - it really puffs up their ego. The result is they stir up other peoples emotions (the flesh) for the purpose of getting others to think evil, to stir up strife, hatred and bitterness among the brethren. Doesn't the Word of God say these are also the works of the flesh? What is amazing to realize it is always these acts that end up manifested - not the dead works of a dead VPW or any other minister you happen to dislike - whether they are dead or alive! [ Oh-you're privy to the 955-99% of our lives when we are NOT on this messageboard? You know NOTHING about the works we accomplish elsewhere. This characterization only serves to try to pretend there's another reason to EXPOSE CORRUPTION, other than TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION. ] _WAKE UP PEOPLE. VPW IS DEAD._ All the works he ever did have been over and done with for a very long time, both the works in his flesh and in his spirit. [...and yet...the damage lives on in the lives of the people who were hurt, the years that were lost, the webs of self-delusion some have been unable to shed..... Until THAT is all past, it's not "old news". ] Certainly you don't need me or anyone else to remind you of you it. But if your only out to prove to others that your the spiritual top dog, the least you could do is quit minding his work and start minding your own. [Nobody is here to SHOW OFF. (Well, no one EXPOSING THE CORRUPTION OF VPW IS HERE TO SHOW OFF, anyway. We are here to EXPOSE CORRUPTION, inform, interact, and heal. Again, you know nothing of what we do when we're not here. ] Time is very short! [ All the more reason to free your mind of self-defeating, destructive habit-patterns, and see things as they are. ]

Oldiesman, pg-6, 10/18/04, 10:22am. [WordWolf in boldface as usual.] Goey, yes, this is how I read what some folks are saying when they talk about the Leaven Principle as it relates to twi. I think you're misstating what the Leaven Principle means and what folks think about it.Here's what Excathedra quoted that article said: THAT is the Leaven Principle, [That IS The Leaven Principle. Do you know how little the amount of CYANIDE it took to turn the "Jonestown koolaid" (flavoraid) from a refreshing drink into a deadly poison? Not a lot. Probably didn't affect the taste, even. Take the ventilation system of a skyscraper, with ionized, filtered air. Clean and pure. Introduce a TINY amount of SARIN to the air, and the people will all suddenly drop dead. Why? Because when something pure has small amounts of something DANGEROUS and DEADLY added to it, adulterating its contents, the entire substance is compromised. Would you be willing to drink a liter of spring water that had a 1/2 ounce of arsenic added? If so, do so in the lobby of the hospital, or you'll never make it in time. ] [bTW, "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" is a DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE. Do you truly feel comfortable arguing AGAINST A VERSE OF GOD'S WORD? ] the baby is tainted/spoiled/no good. I think some folks are so angry and disappointed at VPW because of his transgressions, they've thrown out the baby with the bathwater because, as Pat described it, "most of the time, the crap is so integral in the baby so that even though you have thrown out the bath water, you still have a crap filled baby." ============= Do you really believe some folks would have the problems they do with twi, had Wierwille lived a devout life? Let's take all the spin away, and answer that one question. [ Another trick question, which contained more spin in its phrasing. If vpw had lived a devout life, there would not have BEEN the "problems" in twi, so there would be little to object to. If he wasn't a molester and rapist, there would be no molestations and rapes to object to. Men representing God are supposed to conduct themselves far above the molesting/raping level. If he had been honest about "his" sources and did not plagiarize in a prideful attempt to inflate his image into some superhuman Teacher, there would BE no criminal action to object to there. Fraud is a felony, in case you didn't know. If vpw had actually conducted himself in a manner at least above the minimum threshold established by God Almighty in His Word, I expect there would be far fewer doctrinal errors, and a multitude less of practical errors. ] Some folks may not say outright they believe "everything" about twi was bad, but, they may just as well say it, because that's the way I read their writings. That's why, when I bring up some "good things" about twi-1, why do some folks get so angry and defensive and engage in sarcasm, namecalling and put-downs? I think because they don't really care what good happened and don't want to hear any of it because in their mind, it doesn't matter what good existed. To them, the evil is the only thing that has any real meaning. I don't think I am misrepresenting and lying about those who think this way. It appears obvious to me by the way some people react to what I have to say that this is the way of things. [Has everyone besides Oldies, WTF and the other wierwillites noticed that the REST of us have had quite civil discussions on MANY threads, where we discussed good times as well as bad, healings as well as harmings, blessings as well as curses, helps as much as hurts? Most of us can discuss the good and bad civilly and mostly reasonably. That's because we don't pretend that experiences survived by others are lies. Do some recount suffering? Yes. Do some recount blessings? Yes. Does either get challenged on it? Well, not unless Oldiesman is there to suggest, intimate or outright call a survivor a liar, fake or fraud. So, everyone ELSE here has a genuine representation of their thoughts. If Oldies was less zealous in his drive to silence the testimony of some, he'd find this place would be a lot less contentious for him. ]

(Here comes an irrelevant interlude. Skip down if you bore easily.) One episode of MASH, Colonel Henry Blake has a meeting of his officers. He opens the meeting-a briefing on a current crisis- by saying things like "Men, we've got to put our shoulders to the wheel, we've really got to put our noses to the grindstone!" Trapper leans towards Hawkeye and says "Welcome to the Henry Blake Cliche Festival." So, when I think of this subject, I think of that response. ==================================== I believe it was Voltaire who wrote that "a witty saying proves nothing." However, in our advertised and spun-control society, it is often mistaken for such. Colossians 2:4. "And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words." I once had some fun with the Greek words in this verse. "Beguile"-paralogizomai, "para" as in "parallel" lines which never cross each other and meet, "logizomai" which is related to our words "logical" and "logic". "Enticing words"- "pithanologia", literally, pithy saying, clever phrases, slogans, cute sound bytes. We've all heard too many of them in our lives. We still hear too many. But, this forum is not about television or anything else, it's about twi. In twi, we heard a flock of such phrases. OUT of twi, some splinters have made it a policy to continue to use pithy phrases. Now, I've nothing against a clever saying in and of itself. What I object to is-how often-it is used as a substitute for actual THINKING. In twi, when confronted with a chance to THINK, at some point, nearly all of us responded with a stock phrase. Some of us STILL do that. So, this thread. What are some of your favourite-or least favourite- stock phrases, used far beyond any hope of communicating meaning to the hearer? ================== "Renew your mind". That one was whipped out when people faced just about any type of problem, and presented as if it was the magic bullet that slew it. Got a broken arm? Renew your mind! Reminds me of the Old Philosopher. ("Well lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun!...") "Where's your believing?" This one was whipped out when someone could see an obstacle and wanted to consider avoiding it. This phrase specifically was the antithesis of thinking. "What the Bible says God knows, He knows. What the Bible says God doesn't know, He doesn't know." I heard this one OUT of twi. That was when people were challenging the omniscience of God. When I asked for an explanation from Scripture, from more than one person, I got that EXACT SAME RESPONSE....and they were LEADERS. I didn't demand a followup, since it was obvious at the time that the speakers didn't know anything of substance beyond that on the subject, and that was meant to AVOID discussion. The statement was about as informative as "This triangle has three sides."

Wow. Not even Earthlink runs DSL in your area? That's rough. I doubt any kind of wireless service will help you- but then, I know diddly about them.

Hm. We've had more reliable accounts than I expected. ========== I think we all agree the Jubbulpore thing was made up out of whole cloth-on examination, it makes progressively less sense.

WHEN was it $200, and roughly how long?

I'm missing a lot of critical information to fill in some blanks. I know that the East and West Coasts were spearheaded by Heefner and Doop, and then vpw swooped in and choked the spiritual life out of them to centralize control, but I could use some accounts, but especially a TIMEFRAME. Also, when was pfal $100, $200, and other prices?

And neither does anyone else. Why don't you stop the intentional misrepresentation of what people are saying. FEW IF ANYONE HERE HAS EVER SAID THAT "EVERYTHING" ABOUT HIS LIFE AND TEACHINGS ARE BAD. Yes I am yelling, cause you have a real problem hearing - either that are you one dispicably dishonest human being. Get it through your thick head - and stop lying to yourself and to others about what folks are really saying. Not "EVERYTHING", but rather "SOME". SOME of his teachings were bad. SOME parts of his life were bad. As far as the Leaven Principle goes - first the "some" of his sins scripturally disqualified him for true leadership within the Church. The minimum standards are clear and concise. No one sins all the time. So let's say that VPW only commited adultery once per month and only got drunk once a week. Of all of his time that probably amounted to less than what - 5 -10 percent? Yet it was still enough to disqualify him as a leader according to the scriptures. So here is a case of a little leaven leavening the whole lump as far as being a true leader. It is similar for teachings (doctrine). For argument sake, let's say that 95 percent of what VPW taught was doctrinally correct. That leaves 5 percent being doctrinally incorrect. Now, let's look at what the 5 percent was. First in my mind is problems with the law of believing. Next is his teaching on tithing. Then there is the one where the king owns all the women in the kingdom. And then consider the backroom teachings where adultery is not even really adultery - especially if it blesses the Man of God. Now stir this stuff all up and we have the sum of all the individual parts - All of VPW's behavior - good and bad and his all his teachings - good and bad. - We now have "the lump" which is basically TWI-1 based upon VPW's teachings and leadership. The point folks are making is NOT that "everything" individually that VPW did was bad, or that "everything" individually he taught was bad. So for Pete's sake get honest for once and stop saying that. The point is that the bad (the leaven) was enough to spoil the whole lump (TWI as it was lead by VPW). Oldies, I simply don't know how I could make it any clearer for you. But just remember this - Whenever you represent folks as saying that "everything" that VPW taught was bad/wrong because of his sins - know for a fact that you are misrepresenting and lying about the truth of what is really being said. ===================== I thought it might get missed the first time. A number of things seem to slip by that way. Alfakat also summarized the main points of the above as follows: "Yes, Virginia, of course there was good and good times in twi-- but it came to naught, NOT cuz the debill didn't like us, but because there was leaven- i.e. error, evil, sin, what-have-you--- in the doctrine and practice of twit. QED."

OM, I think I _finally_ understand what is going on. Are you equating what twi taught with "the word"? Oldiesman's reply, 10/15/04, 12:42pm, was "The simple answer is yes, with the proviso that some of what twi taught/ teaches is wrongly divided. Stated another way, I don't think everything twi taught was/is rightly divided, but that part that was/is, is "the Word". ============================ So, that explains a few things. The rest of us mean one thing when talking about "The Word". We mean "the Bible as God's Word", or things along those lines (e.g. "the originals before translation".) When Oldies talks about "The Word", he means what vpw taught, packaged as twi materials like pfal. That stuff is "The Word" (i.e. "God-breathed"), except where it isn't. (Where it isn't is where it can be caught being blatantly wrong, like tithing.) ===================== So, when Oldies says "People renounced The Word", he means "People renounced vpw's teachings". Ok, if he had SAID that, we would have agreed, to varying degrees. Some of us believe some of the things he taught, but not simply because vpw taught them. We concluded they were sensible on their OWN merits. Some other people (obsessed with infant hygiene analogies, mostly) seem to view vpw's teachings as having an internal merit of their own, where they are not meant to be keys or assists to understanding the Bible, but of equal (or greater) merit to the Bible on their own. Those people would consider vpw's teachings to be "The Word". ============== So, have we renounced vpw? Yes we have? Have we renounced everything he taught? Most of us renounced his package of material as a whole; some of us have rejected all of its parts, most have rejected some parts and consider other parts reliable on their own merits. Personally, I think it's deceptive and dishonest to intentionally substitute one concept for the other, when it is clear the majority of us understand the words to mean one thing, and one or two others wish to reassign meaning to terms and words. To do so accidentally is inferior, sloppy work. (By this time, it's obvious it's not accidental.)

Bravo, Catcup!

That says it better than I did, I think.

That may be where all past performance has gone, and where the smart money would go, but, anything can happen. Perhaps this time, OM will take a long, hard look at the long, hard road inflicted on some people, and broaden his perspective. It could happen.

How much are competent DSL accounts in your area?

Original post by Oldies. [WordWolf in boldface .] I guess part of my question was how to view the above quote and the quote from Steve. [Amazing you needed this broken-down into plainer English. This is composed of five parts: A) the plagiarism/fraud and harm to others B) I gained knowledge C) "I got mine" D) "Who cares if you suffer?" The first three words are "I don't care." This is repeated at the end. The emphasis is NOT about what possible gain was received- rather, how that gain was used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others. It's the same attitude that allows corrupt businessmen to exhort all their Enron employees to keep buying shares in Enron-their company- while liquidating all their stock because they thought it was going to fall. Few people would be so silly to claim it would be wrong to make money. However, there was public outrage on this. Because they made money? NO, NOT because they made money. The OUTRAGE was because they were numb and apathetic to the sufferings of others. Worse, their financial gain was at the PRICE of the economic impoverishment of employees living paycheck to paycheck-which THEY orchestrated and arranged. ] [Or, to make it simpler, in deference to you, Oldies, "I DON'T CARE. I GOT MINE-WHO CARES IF YOU SUFFER?" ] I could ignore them, but wanted to really think about it and see if there was a way to view those things positively or try to see where these folks were coming from. All I could see was that maybe renouncing the Word was what they were talking about without really saying it. [ Well, if "that's all you could see", then you should be concerned that your vision lacks range. ] Even though I am cognizant that VPW was a flawed man who didn't live circumspectly, as the bible mandates a man of God should, thereby hurting others -- should I feel bad that "I Got Mine"? No, you should feel bad that OTHERS SUFFERED, particularly due to the man and the framework that you feel you've received so much benefit from. ] ["A flawed man who didn't live circumspectly"- is this your way of saying "he raped women, he pretended to research and discover what he didn't, he used God's money for his luxuries, and he fired people to cover his tracks?" If not, perhaps you should consider that THESE are what we object to. If SO, then perhaps you might consider that using such an extreme euphemism sweeps greivous sin, felonies and suffering under the rug.] By the way, I still view the "I Got Mine" as GOD meeting my needs via twi, so to see something bad about "I Got Mine" would be in essence to renounce God working in my life. And that's not an easy thing or even a smart thing for me to do. [ twi's operation was at the expense of others, who suffered, and you don't care. Consider this analogy: A man receives financial benefit from investing in "vpw Investing". He gets his money with interest, and is happy. Later, he finds out that 'vpw Investing' was a fraudulent corporation that operated on a ponzi scheme. When it came time for this investor to get his money and interest, 'vpw Investing' had spent it, so they robbed a bank serving a retirement community and used the deposits to pay him and other investors. Upon seeing this in the news, and the special reports on how the Sunset Retirement Home's residents were now bankrupt and were forced to move out and had no place to live and nothing to live on, the investor says "how sad" and goes about his business. After all, that is a sad story, but he got his investment and doesn't see the need to feel in any way complicit in the robbery..even though the news showed that's exactly where his money came from. After all, he got his money, who cares that the others suffered? ] If something is wrong with the fact that "I Got Mine", I'd like to know what. That fact that we got something from God is good, isn't it? ["The blessing of the LORD, it makes rich, and He adds no sorrow with it." The blessing of twi, it benefits some and beats down others. Why is it so difficult to see that these are two different things? ] If nothing is wrong with the fact that "I Got Mine", then would it be fair to say that the statement is nothing more than a put-down? or even perhaps a slap in God's face, since He was the one who gave me "Mine"? [ Your assumption that it was God who provided the "benefits" you received from twi turns this into a trick question. What's wrong with you getting yours is that it came at the expense of others suffering. If you had gotten yours by robbing someone on the street, there would be something wrong with THAT, too. ] [ The emphasis and point is about the SUFFERING OF OTHERS. You "got yours", but others SUFFERED AS A RESULT. ] [so, let's be clear here. Are you saying God is complicit in the rapes and plagiarism? Someone else here made that claim. ] I guess it's the idea some folks might think, by their statements, that those of us who are still thankful for their past relations with twi seem to come off (to them) as "not caring that others suffered"? Where does that come from, and how is it that these folks say that? [it's the continual whitewashing of the felonies and rapes that we object to. ] ["Where does that come from?" When people's lives were devastated by the direct action of vpw, you call them liars and claim they're not telling the truth. EVERY. TIME. Any time testimony comes up about actions vpw took that damaged others, you've engaged in a campaign of rewriting events and hiding eyewitness accounts and documents. EVERYBODY here for more than a few months has seen that. You've done it the whole time I've been here, plus the older GSC board. Do you refuse to acknowledge that is the content, intent and purpose of a large percentage of your posts here? ] Of course I care that others suffered and things went wrong. Duh. What reasonable person wouldn't? The question is, what is the appropriate response, knowing these things? [ According to you, THERE ARE NO OTHERS SUFFERING, and vpw didn't rape any women. I've read your posts. Duh. What is the appropriate response to someone trying to hide the facts, lives and eyewitness accounts? ] And so what is to be learned and what should be the godly response to the above quote from Wordwolf, if any? [ How about genuine sorrow over callousness in response to the suffering of others? How about at least neutrality in response to them, which is an improvement to calling them liars? A more appropriate response might be a desire to offer amends to someone, somewhere, someone who suffered because you got yours. However, ceasing to injure them further by ceasing to attack their character would be a step in the right direction. ] I'm going to read and consider and hope somebody can write something that makes sense, cause I can't make sense of it right now. [based on previous posts and previous encounter, none of this will "make sense" to you. It WILL make sense to almost everyone else. However, you CAN change your mind at any time. We'll see. ] [iT'S NOT WRONG TO BENEFIT-IT IS WRONG TO BENEFIT FROM THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS. IT IS NOT WRONG TO SEEK THE TRUTH-IT IS WRONG TO CAUSE OTHERS TO SUFFER WHO SEEK TO EXPOSE LIES AND DECEIT. ]

Thanks for chiming in, Belle. If I can ask one follow-up question... Around what year did you join twi? I'm thinking the odds are in favour of that being in the 1990's or later.... Feel free to confirm that or say I'm wrong.

So... do ANY posters here remember being "loyal to the Limb" or anything equivalent? Did the other posters swim against the stream of exiting members? Please don't let me or anyone else make assumptions about you.....

I don't think ANYONE suggested that, Oakspear, but that doesn't seem to stop Oldiesman from demonizing and labelling fellow-Christians who don't believe exactly the same way he does. After all, he learned how to do exactly that from "THE Teacher".

Who expects "perfection"? Anyone here ever say that they expected perfection? - Another strawman. Let's cut to the chase. This is about Wierwille and those of us that point out and expose his "sins". We are being falsely portrayed as expecting perfection, when we do no such thing. Wierwille was supposed to be a Christian leader, a pastor, a teacher, an evangelist and to some an apostle. The Bible establishes clear and concise minimum standards for those who are to lead within the church. What is expected is not perfection, but rather for those who seek to lead to meet those minimum standards - no more - no less. Wierwille (and quite a few others in TWI and in Christianity in general) did/do not meet those minimum standards and were/are therefore unfit to be leaders within the body of Christ. At least as good as I would have said it. :)-->

Hm. Seems a number of people here were NOT mindless drones who just followed the herd.....

I'll answer my own questions, in the interest of disclosure. A) If your Limb stayed, and you thought twi was wrong, would you have stayed, or left? Did this happen in your life? My position when I "signed on" was that twi was the tops, and if anyone else outperformed twi, even if twi was not in error, I would leave. So, if I had needed to leave alone, I would have. My Limb left en masse in 1989, when lcm demanded an oath of allegiance. B) If your Limb left, and you thought twi was right, would you have left, or stayed? Did this happen in your life? If it had happened, I would have stayed. C) Was the opinion of your Branch/Territory/Limb/Regional coordinator a deciding factor in your decision to leave? Hardly. I listened to each and made my own decisions. D) Would you still be in today if you had not been kicked out/marked and avoided by them? (If this applies to you.) N/A. E) Did you attempt to communicate with on-grounds staff before you decided to leave, or to stay? Did that communication figure into your decision? I spoke to a lot of people, some on staff, and some just from different areas, most of them at least semi-loyal to twi. Their input helped solidify my opinion, especially the responses I got from the on-site staff and higher-ups, which I judged to be error at the time it was spoken.

I didn't know how to make a poll that would accept multiple possible answers. So, I open this for discussion. It has been opined that an overwhelming number of people left because they followed the crowd out. So, I ask the posters here, please consider carefully, and answer truthfully. A) If your Limb stayed, and you thought twi was wrong, would you have stayed, or left? Did this happen in your life? B) If your Limb left, and you thought twi was right, would you have left, or stayed? Did this happen in your life? C) Was the opinion of your Branch/Territory/Limb/Regional coordinator a deciding factor in your decision to leave? D) Would you still be in today if you had not been kicked out/marked and avoided by them? (If this applies to you.) E) Did you attempt to communicate with on-grounds staff before you decided to leave, or to stay? Did that communication figure into your decision?

You probably already knew to go with an "optical" mouse rather than the one that has the ball under it....