WordWolf

BTW, I'm a Monty Python fan who was disappointed with "the Meaning of Life". I recommend "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as a "must-see", however.... ...starting with the opening credits. :D--> If you think that's funny, you can also try "the Life of Brian", which I also liked. It's quite funny, but not as hysterical as "Holy Grail". Plus, the very religious are often offended at it. (The same types who boycott Harry Potter.)

Humanity was outlawed in twi, since it was inefficient and takes time and energy away from twi activities. Besides, they didn't have anyone handy to rip off/plagiarize/"borrow from" in terms of decent counseling skills.

"Hell's brazen hinges!" I forgot about the Lensman series. Yes, that's a keeper. In the "adventure in the early 20th century" category, I like Leslie Charteris' "The Saint" series. The first is "Meet the Tiger". I've never seen the movies or tv show, which I think is for the best. In case you're not familiar with him, "the Saint", Simon Templar, is a gentleman adventurer. He seeks out adventure and brings criminals to justice in his own style- which, of course, happens to be illegal. So, he is, in a sense, a criminal who preys on criminals, and in another sense, a benefactor of society. He predates Ian Fleming's "James Bond" by a number of years, including this quote from "the Saint in New York", "My name is Templar-Simon Templar..." He succeeds at being a modern swashbuckler, like the four-colour heroes of yore. The strangest thing I'll recommend is the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series by Laurel K. Hamilton. The first 3 books are: "Guilty Pleasures", "the Laughing Corpse" and "Circus of the Damned". Anita Blake lives in St Louis, and is the licenced vampire executioner for the state of Missouri. She also does work with the local police's "Regional Preturnatural Investigation Team" ("the Spook Squad"). It's been a few years since "Clark vs Addison" (a landmark court case) established vampires as citizens with legal rights. Now, if one kills a human, you have to get a court order of execution, THEN blow him away. Anita's profession gives her a limited resistance to vampiric hypnosis. She's an animator, and can raise the dead as zombies. With the right manager, this means a comfortable living. She's raised corpses to dictate a will when they died without one, and she's raised them to assist in someone's therapy-they were able to get closure with someone who died. Stuff like that. Anyway, she lives in a world a lot like ours, except there are vampires, werewolves and faeries, if you know where to look. It's heavier fare than the other stuff I recommended, and I don't recommend the whole series. At least one later book can be skimmed once, then ignored. It's got some crime scenes and so on, so if you need things to stay sanitary, skip the series.

For lighter fare, Robert Aspirin's "Myth" adventure series IS a good recommendation. The first is "Another Fine Myth". He also writes "Phule's Company" and the rest of the series, which is light science fiction. Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide" series is funny, but his Dirk Gently series, well, I couldn't find something funny in it to save my life. Harry Harrison's "The Stainless Steel Rat" is a great read which slowly gets lighter and more humourous as it progresses. (Science Fiction) For the Star Wars fans, the "X-Wing" series is a lot of fun, and MUCH better than this year's Star Wars books. Timothy Zahn's trilogy is also a good read-"Heir to the Empire", "Dark Force Rising" and "The Last Command." Kevin Anderson's Jedi Academy trilogy isn't bad-"Jedi Search", "Dark Apprentice", and "Champions of the Force". If you're really interested, some of the other books are worth reading, and some aren't. Since I doubt you care, I'm not going to keep rattling off names. Were you looking for humourous or light? Heavy and involved? Anything and everything good? A specific genre, or any and all fiction? There are other books in other genres, also. Oh, Zixar? "Never get involved with a land war in Asia." :)-->

RottieGrrl, were you looking for some book recommendations? What genre? Offhand, I'd recommend 2 series. A) the Wheel of Time series, by Robert Jordan. "The Eye of the World" is the first book. B) The Recluce series, by L.E. Modesitt Jr. "The Magic of Recluce" is the first book. I'd be happy to elaborate, offer recommendations for different settings, or give critiques. Just give me a specific question for what you want.

JBarrax, Yes, Starr Daily was the preacher who had been in prison before being saved. Linda Z, it's not that BG Leonard invented Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup or Henry Bolloco. Maggie Muggins was a name you might know if you watched children's television in Canada back when. BG Leonard was a Canadian, and almost certain watched television at some point back then. Johnny Jumpup is a flower. I've never heard of Henry or Herman Bolloco outside of the classes. The thing is that BG Leonard used these names as hypothetical names of students in his class. vpw took Leonard's class, then photocopied the bulk of it and marketed it as his own, EVEN USING THE SAME HYPOTHETICAL NAMES. If you knew of both classes, that's almost begging you to spot the connection between them. ItsStillTheWord.... I don't know how much you've read here. Your sentence was perfectly grammatical. Let me give a little background, so you can see why I thought your question was an original one. BG Leonard was a man of God who taught many things concerning God. VP Wierwille was a student of BG Leonard's class. He also studied under J.E. Stiles, and read Stiles' book "Gifts of the Spirit". He also read several of EW Kenyon's books, and EW Bullinger's books. Not long after vpw was exposed to Leonard's class, he went off by himself. According to all of his own accounts (from "the Way-Living in Love and everything he wrote in the fronts of his books), vpw went off by himself with his Bible, God, perhaps a pot of coffee or tea, perhaps some cookies, and that's it. The pfal book, the RTHST book, and the Studies in Abundant Living were supposedly the work of vpw and God, with virtually no other references. It's a matter of public record, here and elsewhere, that nearly all the contents of the orange book, the RTHST book, and many of the Studies in Abundant Living were simply taken directly from books and classes written or done by all the above men. Some of them were retypings of the other mens' works in early editions, which were slowly re-phrased as the editions went on. If there was no BG Leonard, there would BE no pfal class. His work was crucial to the material, as was the format. pfal was a cheap, watered-down knockoff of Leonard's work, IMHO. vpw NEVER admitted to any of this, BTW, and several people here still seem to refuse to accept vpw's plagiarism, even when exact sentences have been displayed side-by-side, and a reconstruction of the entire process displayed. (A separate question has been raised as to whether it was appropriate for vpw to break the law like this, since someone has suggested God told him to, or dictated identical sentences to ones vpw had already read from the books of the others. At the very least, since vpw intentionally violated the copyright holdings of the other writers, then made sure all of his OWN books were under copyright, he was guily of hypocrisy as well as plagiarism.) So, I just picture your question funny, is all. vpw essentially stole pfal from Leonard's work, which Leonard taught for years before vpw heard of him. Is there a need for Leonard to sit thru a cheap knockoff of his own classes that he taught and ran live? What would he possibly need to learn from hearing his own stuff taught back to him? Or is it "unless Leonard sat thru vpw's pfal, I don't acknowledge him as knowing his stuff"? For some reason, I'm reminded of the Apollo 13 movie. Jimmy (played by Tom Hanks) is in space, trying to bring Apollo 13 back to earth in one piece. It's unsure if they'll get back alive. So, the families of the crew are getting together for mutual support as they await news. Jimmy's mother is elderly, and perhaps has a little difficulty with some of the nuances, but she understands the basics of what's going on. "I know that if they could make a BATHTUB fly, my Jimmy could land it safely!" While the families await news, she's introduced to 2 men. "This is Buzz Aldrin, and this is Neil Armstrong." "Hello. Are you boys in the space program with Jimmy?" Somehow, I think that line really happened. :)--> It's just such a perfect expression of her thinking-her son IS the space program, period. I don't know if that's the case with what you were thinking, but it just struck me the same way. You know, sort of "Who is this BG Leonard, and when did he take the class?" THAT'S why it struck me as funny.

Does somebody have a copy of the prefaces/introductions to RTHST and the orang piffle book handy? I think Ckeer would like to see them again and review exactly what vpw wrote about the "sincere" Christians he'd learned from.....

Actually, the term "athletes of the spirit" was in use LONG before twi used it. I forget which website we saw it on a few months ago. Could have been FCA, or something on Starr Daily, or somebody else. (Glenn Clark? Rufus Mosley?)

"Did B.G. Leonard ever take PFAL?" I'm sorry, I just LOVE that question.

Right. Calling him "absent" does him a disservice. You think he's spent the last 2 millenia idle? However, calling him "absent" makes it easier to suggest that others are acting as his proxies. (Like mogs.) Before the cosmetic changes, the phraseologies of his various "appropriations" (Acts of the Plagiarist) made a lot more sense.

AHA! I "KNEW" It! The issues I had with vpw's definitions WERE due to him ripping off BG Leonard! Rafael, since this scattered over several pages, please cut and paste this in one coherent thread when you get a chance. (Pretty please.) ======================================== vpw's definition of word of knowledge: "The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God by His revealing unto you, certain truths or facts about which it is impossible for you to know by the five senses." cg's definition of word of knowledge: "The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God by His revealing unto you, certain truths or facts unknown to you by the five senses." (Definition circa 1989.) cg's defintion of word of knowledge: "The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you receive from God by His revealing unto you, certain truths or facts unknown to you by the five senses." (Definition circa 1991.) =========================== If anyone's got anyone else's definition,or another iteration of the ones we mentioned, please add it-like the wap one. Ok, here's what I had a bee in my bonnet about.... When I was preparing for the Advanced class, I studied the vpw definition. I had an issue with the phraseology. After all, the point of a defintion is supposed to be an accurate and coherent explanation. I said this is NOT what it was. "About which it is impossible for you to know by the five senses?" Why does it have to be impossible? Elisha's in Dothan. A messenger gets sent to him. Someone tells him a messenger was sent to him. He doesn't move. He says the guy's boss is hot on his tail. Now, a lookout could have told him this-or a good look from his roof. That was not "impossible", just impractical. Ananias and Sapphira sell a house and give "all" (some) of the money for the church, announcing they gave it all. Someone could easily have checked the legal documents certifying the sale and shown the discrepancy between the amount sold and the amount given. That's not "impossible", that's bookkeeping. So, I said, why this compulsion to say it was "impossible"? Why constrain God so? If something COULD have been known but wasn't, does God say "well, you should have sent an investigator" and refuse to tell you something? Of course not! God is not required to limit Himself in this fashion, nor is He demonstrated to have done so at any time! So, I found that faulty. When I arrived, cg had already seen the same point I did, and had made a change to reflect that, which was already in print. (Good-I hate it when I can see things as a new student better than the instructor-that's a bad sign.) So, the problem I had was that vpw took Leonard's definition, changed the word "gift" to "manifestation" (which I think is an improvement), added his stock preface (which is of debatable value, since it is technically true, but needlessly cumbersome), then made a few cosmetic changes to make his use of Leonard's definition less obvious. In short, he did not "make the subject his own." If he HAD done his own research from there, using Leonard as a STARTING POINT ONLY, he would have had no difficulty making the same connection I did when I FIRST saw the definitions. He literally took the definitions and just made cosmetic changes, leaving their core the same. Contrasting that with what cg did... First of all, he made no pretensions he wasn't working from someone else's definition, so he didn't need to make cosmetic changes. Second of all, it's obvious he (or someone else-I'm figuring it was him) sat down and examined the subjects, seeking to understand them. It was in understanding their points he saw the need to make a change to correct the definition, and so he did. Therefore, he didn't limit God in his definition. I considered that change a definite improvement, without hearing a single word from him on when or why it was made. My opinion wasn't universal-I'd gotten into multiple debates back then as to whether or not the previous definition was improved by the change or was perfect in the form vpw gave it. (I think you can see what was the reason others disagreed with me-it was "how dare you question vpw on anything" stuff.) Now, cg went a step further and deleted a word in his next iteration, as you can see. He deleted the word "may". Another student explained this to me, and shared the reason he was given for this change. He said he was told this was because the manifestations are not a "maybe" thing-you don't "maybe" manifest. The student passed this along, and made it clear, without discussion (we only had a moment) that he did not think this was an improvement. Upon later reflection (first chance I had to mull it over), I did not consider this an improvement. As I see it (and saw it then), the manifestation is the ability to instantly commune with God Almighty, and interface with Him. That ALWAYS works. You do NOT always get an answer, and you do NOT always get an answer that directly responds to your question. To suggest otherwise is to say that "word of knowledge" FORCES or REQUIRES God to respond a certain way. He can respond any way He wants, and He can choose NOT to respond. (I have experience with both.) I'd already seen illustrations of this from other Christians long before I considered the issue. They illustrated it with a cookie jar. Your operation of "word of knowledge" is like reaching into Daddy's cookie jar. "Sometimes they'res a cookie in it, sometimes there isn't." (I'm sure LOTS of people know this example.) Anyway, it seems VERY obvious to me that vpw "appropriated" (plagiarized) BG Leonard's work on the subject. Now, if I ever take Leonard's class, I've a conversation about impossibility I'll want to have with the instructor/proctor/leader/semprini. Oh, and Rafael, feel free to quote me on any of this as needed.

Oldies, Some people had some truly horrific experiences at twi. You didn't and I didn't. Go review the audio clips if you think this is just hearsay. Donna blamed someone's religious affiliation for their death, and so on. I'm still hoping for a copy of, say, BG Leonard's definition of "word of knowledge". I want to compare his with vpw's, and cg's also. If anyone has the wap version, I'd like to see that also. What the heck. Mainly, I want to see if the things I had issues with were added by vpw, or were lifted from Leonard. If I were to make a wild guess, I'd guess that they were a distortion of Leonard. However, that's a wild guess.

Shaz, He DESIGNED his own definition specifically so people WOULD leap upon that conclusion. There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert had to define his job requirements, so he wrote them so specifically that he was the only person who could fit them. He included things like "overwhelming cynicism" and so on. With the exception that this was a work of fictional comedy, it's the same thing. Wierwille's definitions look different because he slapped on wordier and wordier additions to the beginning and end of them. That definition of tongues above-Leonard's-is straightforward and makes more sense to me than Wierwille's. Wierwille, for example, felt the need to tack the following prefix to the beginning of the definition of EACH manifestation: "The manifestation of (name of manifestation) is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God, by His revealing unto you,...." The words "by His revealing unto you" don't show up on tongues because it bypasses the conscious mind. Other than that, it's a "high-faluting" rewording of the simpler way Leonard said it. Can we get Leonard's definitions on the revelation manifestations? I can quote the vpw and cg versions for them, and I want to see if the problems I had with vpw's were entirely vpw's or if they're in the Leonard version. cg fixed them in his before I heard his, and then couldn't resist tweaking them further and adding something I consider error. (I'll explain when outlining them.)

Hm....... In the movie "the Solid Gold Cadillac", a company drove another company out of business-before someone realized it was one of their subsidiaries.

I agree on "the Exorcist". We knew this one guy who saw it 150 times. I don't know what possessed him.... The Director's Cut is out. I also think the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" movie qualifies. Part 3 is not bad as a sequel. How about "Young Frankenstein"? "Dracula: Dead and Loving It"? ("Is she dead?" "She is..nosferatu." "She's ITALIAN??")

....don't do drugs or drink..... ..don't split up..... ..don't say "I'll be right back, because you won't.... ...don't run up the stairs when you should run out the door.... ..don't say "Who's out there?"..... ...the killer must be killed three times.... ...when he calls you, he is usually inside the house... ...beware the moon, stick to the road... ...don't stand with your back to an open window....

Oh. Johniam, where appropriate, scratch out what I said and fill in what Trefor just said. Hey, I posted what I THOUGHT was Trefor's position. Sounded to me like he was saying it had no authority. Ok, people, nothing to see here....

Johniam, Trefor's decided the Bible's just some book. With that in mind, he's reveiwed the materials one uses to try to invalidate its accuracy, its historical consistency. etc. (In that one aspect, he and Mike are in agreement-the Bible's an inferior tool, devoid of authority.) I'm not going to make any claims about the accuracy of Trefor's position-simply declare it. Since you are coming from the opposite position, you're using a reference book Trefor does not consider canonical. Therefore, if you feel the need to continue this subject, you will need to invoke other sources- psychology, biology, sociology, etc. Personally, I think there's no chance at all either of you will change your position, but hey, you post what you want to post.

*adjusts his Archbishop robes* Hey! Both of you play nice. I don't see the point in making up whole denominations over this. WordWolf. Archbishop of the First Global Church of the Werewolf.

I don't know where you took it where it didn't have pictures. The taped ones I took had pictures. It's impossible to forget- one person on the crew bore a passing resemblance to one of the people in the pictures and he took a LOT of ribbing for it. (As if, 20-some-odd years ago, he looked like that.)

Dot, Wolves protect their pack and care for them. I ask that you not put them in the same category as sex perverts, molesters, rapists, etc. ========= BTW, as anyone can tell from looking at a good collegiate dictionary (as I did), the definition of "testimony" taught at twi, like so many things, was bull-kaka. The word is derived from the Latin "testari" or "three". That's because a "witness" is a "neutral third party". Go ahead-look it up. I suspect worship and preoccupation with your johnson could lead to explanations like the one we were taught. At least, that's what Freud would have said.

Man, I hardly know what to comment on... "What kind of intense emotional testing of a woman CAN be done outside of sex requests?" "I'll bet the best tests on men were ego-crushing scenarios." I'll just take these two... Let's see-you can't think of any intense way to test a woman emotionally without molesation-attempted or performed? I can think of several related to work or other projects, off the top of my head. Ego-crushing scenarios are good tests? According to WHOM? WHO claimed EITHER of these were healthy? Boot Camp doesn't even do either of these! Oh, sometimes Boot Camp is portrayed as being stressful, but it does NOT go for crushing self-esteem, and even the toughest drill sergeant watches his troops, and knows when to lighten up and help a trainee. Plus, Boot Camp is a few weeks, not years and years of humiliation. =========================================== BTW, if your father molested my sister, you could be as indignant as you wanted, while accompanying his hospital and wondering if they can repair his damaged trachea from when I found out. If MY father molested someone, they'd be trying to repair him in the ambulance. Calling it "righteous indignation", however, is mislabelling, to say the least. Your "father in the Word", btw, was a serial molester, an adulterer, dishonest, and a ruiner of lives. Go ahead and tell me to go wherever you wish.

Yes. The internal inconsistency with saying it was ok NOW when it was supposedly responsible for the fall of man ONCE is one I had difficulty repeating at all, let alone with conviction. (I told ONE person, and that without sounding like I was firmly agreeing.) Rottie, the answer to your two questions was exactly the same answer. The "mirror" thing probably came up because even in the taped class, vpw said that women, at some time when they're alone, should look at themselves in a mirror, that most women don't. (That's one reason I may not remember any comment about any woman's body part being ugly, "cognitive dissonance". Besides, I wouldn't have believed it.) We DID cover some verses. About 1 class' worth of it, maybe, was Scripture. The other 6 would then have been "Bible-optional." And, again, we did cover ONE time, in ONE session, how extramarital sex was bad. It DID come up. However, that's a poor showing for a "Christian" organization. I'm sure a lot of differences happened between the live and taped classes. Mine sounded a LOT less vulgar than the live ones. Somewhere on a thread, some people said vpw had SHOWN that video with the dog, in one class. I don't remember if it was CF & S, or Advanced class. I'm STILL trying to figure out the relevance.

Seriously, though.... A) It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus. That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance. B) It's the only class I ever took where I was embarrassed of the name. "I have to head out-I have a Bible study class tonight." "Really? What on?" "Um, Christian Family." C) The "original sin", Proverbs 31:10ff was covered, as was I Corinthians 7:1ff was also covered. How he could read I Corinthians 7:2, commit adultery many times, and look himself in the mirror is beyond me. D) Everyone remembers the session with all the slang terms. It seemed to relax us a little, since you can't be embarassed while laughing, but other than that, wasn't necessary. E) It was largely a Sex Ed or "Hygiene" class. Complete with photos and illustrations. F) I honestly don't remember vpw's comments mentioned above. I do remember (and even back then, others had commented) how beautiful he thought a woman's funbags are. (Funbags, you know, Thelma and Louise.) G) I remember him saying a few things here and there about various sex topics. The most off-the-wall ones will stay with me till I die. Like, how a man wants a woman who's a bit of an angel and a devil- an angel in public, and a devil in the bedroom. Or, concerning one position I have no intention of trying, "ever couple probably tries it at some point". To which, I say, "Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew." If someone out there has tried it, DON'T TELL ME. I do NOT want to know. And of course, in my class, he described-but did NOT show- that pornographic video with 2 women and a dog. He said the dog was trying to get away from the women, which showed it had more sense than they did. THANKS FOR SHARING. WHY did I need to know ANYTHING about that video? Was that instructive in some way? H) One of the main points, one that was repeated in several sessions, was the destigmatizing of sex as "dirty". Oddly enough, the proper place of a sex life in a MARRIAGE and not as OUTSIDE a marriage seemed not to be repeated in several sessions. Strange sorting of priorities for a Christian class. I) Of course, the one thing that I still find TRULY bizarre was that wierd "casualwear" outfit he wore teaching that class. I can understand getting out of the suit, but was that thing actually worn in PUBLIC? That thing was uglier than a leisure suit! J) The hero of that class was Tick. Anything else you want to know? Kudos to whoever managed a session breakdown-my goal was to just get thru it.

It was about seven sessions.