Oakspear

Ditto being "blessed" that our kids are not involved. None of mine are anymore. I don't really have an issue with the "I'm blessed" droning, what I find alarming is the lack of any evidense of critical thinking skills. Several of us have been asking questions that have been pretty much softballs compared to what goes on at GS, yet they seem to curl up in a ball and avoid even thinking about the questions, let alone the answers. Gsers have been referred to "leadership", had it suggested that we were straining at semantics, focussing on negatives and on the past, and had meaningless circular phrases subsituted for actual answers. Opinions are only welcome when they are in alignment with "the Word" as taught at TWI. I'm proud that my kids are making decisions based on what is best for their lives, not on some arcane doctrine, although they have to clear out the waybrain just like I do.

Mike: I had no problem with your response to me over at FT. I do second Igotout's suggestion that you keep posts shorter, but it doesn't look like they are interested, but who knows. We're gluttons for punishment over here at GS, but I'll bet that they'd call that a masochistic spirit ) I hope that you're not serious about messing me with their kids...I recognize one of the names of the "kids" who post there, he's started several threads. He's been in my home and my daughter was friendly with him at one time, I believe that he is about twenty. Dmiller: I really don't know if there is "leadership" in my area any more, I do know that there are no Way Corps any closer than Kansas City. They were "overseeing" Nebraska from there when I left a few years ago. I believe that some of the folks think that we're just innies who are kinda slow , while the administrator knows full well that we are involved with GS. I for one am not looking for a fight with any of these folks, but have gotten used to not having to phrase all my statements in wayspeak.

Hmm...according to a poster at Familytables.net they announced at the Advanced Class Special that the "Florida Household was like the biggest ever"

I finally saw it last night. I enjoyed the movie, despite the bad, bad, bad, movie physics. Smith was good, I thought (he hasn't been doing the "Fresh Prince" thing for years IMHO -->) They tagged it "I, Robot" to cash in on Asimov, yet the movie had little to do with the book, which is a collection of short stories. The connections were several characters who are nothing like the characters of the same name in the books, and of course, The Three Laws. Anyone who has read the later Asimov Robot/Foundation fusion novels would recognize Daneel Olivaw's "Zeroth Law" articulated by "Viki": A robot must protect humanity, even if some humans are hurt.

Lot's of suspension of disbelief. Absolutely NO indication that what was going on was going on; characters popping up in the last five minutes to save the day...fun though. The scene where several characters are guessing George Clooney's age (too high) was based on a real incident where he asked a woman "How old do you think I am?" - she replied "Fifty, fifty-one". - He's forty-three :D-->

I believe I was the first to have a post deleted :(--> (I'm trying to be nice, really :D-->) A poster in the Youth Forums was gushing about the Advanced Class Special and how she learned that the Florida Household was "like the biggest ever". I commented that that surprised me, that I would have thought that trhe early 80's would have had more people, especially before the mass exodus of the late 80's. The post disappeared. Otherwise the folks do appear "nice" I received a few friendly emails from the administrator, and Abigail, igotout and I have received advice to talk things over with our leadership

That verse about the most high God being "posesser of heaven & earth" (Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek?) always caused me to question that one

and just why is that probable? For someone who constantly demands proof and dismisses anyone else's opinions when they don't line up with his own, that's quite a statement.

Thank you

Hey Radar, I care :D--> I'm going to go to bed, but will skip the warm milk, just so johniam has enough ;)-->

Fair enough JL, I did make an assumption that was unwarranted. I went back and re-read what you posted and I did read into what you were saying. My apologies, especially in light of your dad's wartime experiences. I'm sorry that I misrepresented what you wrote. I do think that we disagree about the Nazis however, at least as regards how a Jew might be offended by wearing of Nazi paraphenalia. People die in war. Granted, it makes little difference to those who are killed or their families whether a number of people were killed because they stood in the way of an approaching army, were executed for political reasons, gassed because of their religion, or were "collateral damage". They were just as dead. That I'll agree with. What I disagree with you on is why the Nazis are such a hot button for many Jews: Just as many people died due to Allied military operations as those of the Germans. The Germans weren't the first to attempt to conquer their corner of the world by force. The Germans weren't the first or the only nation to kill civilians as a consequence of war. And the Jews certainly weren't the only people killed by the German Nazis But... The ruling Nazi party in Germany went beyond killing the enemy to genocide. The Jews (as well as Gypsies and other targeted groups) were either German citizens or non-combatants in conquered nations. When the Nazis took over a country the Jews were rounded up, packed into cattle cars and executed. The Poles and others who got in the way of German army were killed in large numbers, but once the Nazis defeated them, they didn't come back and systematically eliminate all the survivors. Maybe that's why the Jews don't feel like "lightening up".

Maybe the Jews will "lighten up" when they can go more than a generation or two without somebody trying to wipe them off the face of the earth. While "being murdered of left childless" doesn't feel any different to the victim whether it's done in war or in a pogram, the Germans bombed Britain, as the Allies bombed Germany, because they were at war. The Jews were German citizens. When they invaded Poland, they did not seek to exterminate the Poles, the Russians, or the British, they did seek to exterminate the Jews wherever they found them. Yeah, me too, but not to the extent of excusing the Nazis or winking at some inbred "spare" prince who thinks it's funny to dress up as a Nazi.

I looked up the web site that you posted johniam. http://www.dadbeatdead.com/ In scanning it I didn't see advocation of beating women, but a call for fathers to have rights to their children that they are being denied in many divorce cases. Hmmm...nothing in theer about "clocking" those women who don't cooperate -->I can attest that there are women out there who do their best to turn the children against their father in the event of a divorce. Women who physically prevent their ex-husbands from seeing their children, yet want every PENNY of that child support money. What's the solution? Beat the women? Slap some sense into them so that they don't dare try to prevent you from exercising your fatherly rights? I know about all of this first hand. Yeah, maybe if I had slapped my ex-wife around regularly, especially when she got "mouthy" with me, I would still be happily married. Doh!

--> Wait a minute johniam...Andea Yates' delayed aquital is the price we have paid for more women not getting beaten up? --> --> --> So, in order for justice to be done more consistantly, women need to be slapped more often? -->

Hey Garth, try this one: "I know you are, but what am I?" - it's at about the same level of discourse that "manly man" johniam is sending your way :D-->

Oldies, in most jurisdictions, it is legally justifiable to use sufficient force only to stop the perpetrator from carrying out their act. It would have been legal to kill her only if that was the only way to keep her from killing her kids. Usually less than lethal force is sufficient. May not be right, but that's the law.Similar to me not being legally justified in beating johniam to a bloody pulp if I catch him hitting a woman.

Why don't you fill us in, tough guy?

Garth, I suggested that a while back, internet annoyance doesn't measure up ya know, the tone of voice has to be there, etc. :P-->I've encountered my share of big-mouth, woman-slapping worms, and they do tend to run at the mouth when arguing with others. They also tend to back off pretty quickly when they realize that they don't have the muscle to back up their words.

I enjoyed Ocean's Eleven, especially the scene when everyone got safely out of the casino with the money, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to rob casinos.

Remember what I said about violence being the last refuge for the idiot? The second last refuge of the idiot is using the bible to back up his (or her) idiocy.

Oldies: When you dismiss others' observations and experiences as preposterous, you aren't seeing them as valid, or merely challenging them, you are judging them unworthy of consideration. However you backpedal and rationalize - this has been your M.O. for quite some time, on a variety of topics. For your information, my own personal experience is not an experience of gender bias in general. For a good chunk of my time in TWI I was in an area populated by mainly overbearing, controlling women and weak wimpy men. The women called the shots and ran things behind the scenes. The men said "yes dear" and tried to avoid confrontation. A few years before I got out things changed. We got a few newly graduated Way Corps who were very much into "confronting evil" and "smoking out" all kinds of error. This particular group of leaders was very abusive toward women, very disrespectful, and the atmosphere changed to one where the women were expected to have no opinion, but "shut up and submit". Then the Corps were reassigned, a non-Way Corps guy started running the area and things reached an equilibrium of sorts. So in my own experience I observed a variety of behaviors. I have also corresponded with a number of others whose experiences leaned more toward the "gender bias". Women and men who I believe and trust. If all or most of your TWI experiences lean a certain way, of course the impression is that it's widespread and ministry-wide. When your experiences are repeated by others from widely separated parts of the country, it's as logical as heck to believe that it was a pattern, if not a policy.

When I first got involved there were seven regions, shortly increased to eight. That's when TWI was at the peak of their membership. Twelve regions figures to about four states per region, and a lot of states don't have their own limb leaders. When I left about three years ago there were eleven states without in-state limb leaders due to tiny numbers. It's gotta be more now.

I hope you understand that, since you and I have never met (as far as I know, since I don't know your real name) the analogy I presented was the best that I could come up with. The point was to illustrate how stupid your solution to annoyance was. And yes, I was married, for nineteen years, but I'll get back to that in a minute. Johniam: Let me clarify my position. I am not against violence as a response to violence, but I am opposed to violence as a response to annoyance. There were many times during my marriage when I did not want to hear what my wife had to say, there were many times when I felt that she was very annoying and wished that permanent muteness would befall her. Never during any of those times was I even tempted to strike her. Do I put women on a pedestal and refrain from hitting them when I would "clock" a man for the same infraction? Johniam, I have learned how to both defend myself and do damage to others if necessary. I know some very quick and effective ways to "clock" people that would leave them "eating" through a straw among other things. Maybe my training has given me a better appreciation for the consequenses of violence than you have. Maybe my own ethics are such that I believe that violence is the last refuge of the idiot. I can't think of any situation where I would hit anyone for simply annoying me, even if it were purposeful. Hitting someone because their words bite you is to admit that you are outmatched intellectually, that you have no control over your emotions, that you are so much of an idiot that the only solution that you can come up with is to shut them up by hitting them.

I recall that when we were told to calculate our percentage based on net and not gross we were also told that we shouldn't reduce our total amount of giving. For instance, if you were grossing $500 per week and were giving 13%, your check would be for $65.00. If your net income from a $500 gross was say, $375, you would still give $65, but it would then be recalculated as 17 1/3%.

How horrible for the rest of us to have family "not involved in TWI", how awful to have relatives who weren't blinded by Wierwille's b.s.