Oakspear

When I first took PFAL I was taken in by Wierwille's enthusiasm and by his confidence. I didn't know enough to argue with him and he made what seemed to be sense at the time. By the time I left TWI I had seen enough made-up definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, references to documents that nobody else had seen, assertions that there just "had to be" a text that backed up one of his positions despite there being overwhelming evidense to the contrary, numerous mentions of what "the original" said when he also said there were no originals, twisting of verses and contexts that would have made a pretzel maker envious, screwy applications of obscure verses...that I threw it all out. If any of my current beliefs line up with PFAL it is purely by coincidence.

Whitey: I disagree that it is dishonest; inflammatory maybe, but dishonest, no. The most common Hitler-Wierwille comparison that I have seen goes like this: Poster A: Wierwille did such-and-such bad thing Poster B: So what? He taught me The Word (or substitute some other good that Wierwille did) Poster A: (Thinking that poster B is excusing Wierwille's bad behavior due to some positives) Well Hitler did some good too! The comparison is made, not to show that Wierwille is as evil as Hitler, or that he committed the attrocities that Hitler did (I'm speaking in general here), but that even someone as evil as Hitler did some things that were perceived as good so therefore bringing up any good that Wierwille did as a mitigating factor for the bad doesn't hold any water. Raf makes a similar point in his Dahmer comparison. He is not saying that Wierwille ate people, but that even someone as depraved as Dahmer wasn't always eating people, there were some people that he didn't eat, and in some contexts he probably did some good things. The problem with invoking Hitler, Dahmer, Attila the Hun, et al is that they are names that push buttons, they bring out a reaction far in excess of the point being made. Which is perhaps part of the point being made.

C'mon WD, do you really believe that, or are you just annoyed that people aren't showing the proper respect for Wierwille? If you compared someone to a liar, showed them a picture of Pinochio (sp?), or even said that he was like a liar, what would be the point of comparison? You'd be calling them a liar. The point isn't that anyone is pretending that using a figure of speech to make a point about Wierwille makes it anything other than what it is: pointing out something negative about him. The point is that the figure of speech is a valid comparison even if there isn't similarity on all points. Maybe, but the point is that a figure of speech will not be literally true, nor need there be a similarity on all points for it to be valid. No poster has ever suggested that Wierwille was like Hitler in all points. Various posters have used the Hitler analogy to make different points.

I believe that you missed the point. The point of a figure of speech is that it's not literally true.

On another thread someone compared Wierwille to Hitler and another compared him to Jeffrey Dahmer. Still another poster (actually more than one) took exception to the Hitler comparison pointing out that Wierwille didn't kill people, etc, expressing the opinion that the comparison was absurd. Can some people not understand the concept of analogies, metaphors and other figures of speech, or for that matter, exaggeration? Generally the Hitler analogy comes up in response to pro-Wierwille posters tossing out the old "Wierwille did some good" or "he taught me the Word" rationale. The anti-Wierwille response goes along the lines of "yeah...well Hitler did some good too...". The idea is not that Wierwille was exactly like Hitler in all particulars, but that the fact that he also did good as well as evil is a valid point for comparison. A figure of speech is by its very definition not literal, so why do so many act like it is?

"L" for "Lingo"?

I left everything with my ex-wife, but she boxed up my set of Way books and gave them back to me when she moved. I tossed them all in the trash. About the only time I miss them is when I have to sit on the sidelines of a doctrinal debate and have to depend on WordWolf for quotes!

I believe that you're correct JL. I met the Agape lads and lasses once. The Way Home that I lived in was pretty close to Kennedy Airport, so we had the responsibility of hosting some of the overseas Way Corps or other wayfers on their way in or out of the U.S. - one of the Wierwille sons-in-law and most of Agape showed up just in time for me to feed them greasy home fries and bacon and eggs one morning.

I've got some too: The Old B*stard Tells Me So (two copies of this book only) Old Times The Way Living In Adultery Take Vic At His Word VP's Magnified Word The New Destructive Church The Vicster's Way Order Me Around, My Word! Deceiving The Holy Spirit Today The Laughable Bible

Jean:John has posted that he believes that in some situations it is acceptable to strike a woman as a response to words. In the several times that this has come up he has stuck to that position. He has made it clear that he was not misunderstood. He has not back pedalled or tried to weasel out of his stance. Many of us here have a hard time reconciling those words with the image of him that you paint. I personally have not pitied you, traeted you like a child or anything like that, I see the situation as one of several possibilities: 1. John is a great husband and father in all categories and what he has posted is just talk - he would never do it himself 2. John is a great husband and father in all categories and what he has posted is an attempt to stir up a hornets nest. 3. John is a potential abuser who talks big but is held back from acting on the potential due to morality or fear of arrest 4. John is an active abuser and you are an enabler and a victim. 5. John is a potential abuser but is afraid of you! 6. John has abused others and you don't know about. The fact that there are 4 choices that make him a bad guy and 2 that make him a good guy doesn't indicate my opinion of the likelihood of abuse. Notice that none of the choices are: John is a great husband and father in all categories and doesn't believe that violence is a possible proper response to words.

1. TWI's interference was a requirement at a certain level of your continued participation - at GSC there is no such requirement 2. TWI people could show up at your house - most of us don't know where your house is 3. In TWI disagreement was grounds for getting booted out - at GSC disagreement is grounds for getting disagreed with I for one applaud you both for taking non-traditional roles upon yourselves and for refusing to allow the interferers to interfere. I'll only speak for myself, and I'm jumping in because you quoted Groucho who was agreeing with me...Do I think something is "wrong" with your marriage? I don't even think about it. I don't know you guys, don't know if your real names are John & Jean, don't know anything but what I read here. I don't consider myself qualified to judge your marriage. So I don't. You may have the perfect marriage, you may have the marriage from h*ll, but probably it's in-between somewhere like most of us. But since you brought up the term tie-breaker, and used your own marriage as an example, you opened yourself up for comments from the peanut gallery. Yes I do think that designating one spouse as the tie-breaker is no different than saying that that person makes all the decisions. Yes I do think that puts the woman in an inferior position, that's my opinion. However, that doesn't mean that I think your marriage is bad, or in need of "fixing". It's not my marriage! I had a similar experience last year. I mentioned my wife in a post as an example of some kind. Another poster referenced my post. I was incensed! How dare that poster drag my wife into it. The other poster refused to delete his post or apologize. After a while I realized that I had made my personal life fair game by mentioning it in a post. It was a good lesson to learn. You routinely use your marriage as examples to make your point. Of course anyone who disagrees with your point will refer to those examples.

Personally I have neither the time nor the inclination to search through every one of Oldiesman's posts to back up my opinion of his opinions. He very obviously doesn't believe what a lot of us report about TWI and its top dogs. In my opinion he is willfully ignorant about what went on behind the scenes and views his time in TWI through PFAL-colored glasses. He has every right to his opinions. If his opinion is that someone is lying, so what? That's what he thinks. Recently I suggested that another poster's colorful story was a fabrication, several other posters suggested the same, because that was our opinion. If you don't like his opinion, so what? If one has little respect for what another psoter says, what difference does it amke what they say?

Escalating an argument either by yelling back or by hitting is a bad thing from a practical standpoint, (the moral or ethical view is another thing entirely) mainly because they don't work. Think about all the times that someone has been yelling, screaming or ranting at you. Has it ever helped to start yelling back? A person who tries to "make their point" by raising their voice is either frustrated due to the perception of not being listened to or just doesn't have a good argument on their side. Even telling somene to calm down or listen generally has no effect, if it did they wouldn't be yelling in the first place. Then there's hitting. Think about it. Someone is yelling at you. You pop them in the mouth. Unless they cower in fear that you are going to continue to beat them and injure them seriously, violence is not going to win the argument for you and it will only win you at best a temporary respite from the yelling. The idea that one possible acceptable way to respond to a domestic argument is violence is ludicrous, even if it is admitted to be an option in a vanishingly small percentage of cases. Take that to the extreme. You're a manager at your place of business. An employee gets out of line and mouths off to you. You clip him across the teeth with a right hook. Argument over. So now you've set the precedent that you can settle arguments with your fists. Where does that end? Should people defend themselves? In my opinion, yes. No one should stand idly by and let themselves get beaten. If a woman hits a man, he is under no obligation to turn the other cheek, but to offer violence as a response to words? One who does such a thing is immature, small minded, a bully.

the non sequiter club has been heard from..."we don't make sense, but we like pizza" The point wasn't whether the bible is or isn't divinely inspired, but that some of it has to be understood in light of the culture.

Johniam: any way you can be a little clearer when your quotes of other posters end? Thanks

Yes, Groucho, that's what I'm talking about. This is not to say that sometimes one spouse has the expertise or knowledge to make a call and sometimes the other spouse does. But in most situations it's discussion, consensus, compromise and more discussion. there must be maturity, there must be love and mutual respect.

Not to pick on the poster who first used the term "tie-breaker", but in a relationship that includes only two human beings (e.g. a marriage) the one who is the "tie-breaker" is the one who gets to make the decisions, plain and simple, calling it anything else is semantics, and misleading semantics at that. It's no more and no less than a dictator who condescends to listen to his (inferior) advisors. That's not to say that the dictator or tie breaker or "head" can't be a great guy, good father, loving husband, but to pretend that there is any kind of "vote" is just that, pretending.

johniam is being misquoted, here is his original post and the link http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=4101&st=60

TWI doesn't condemn anyone? B*ll..... No, maybe not on their website, but it has always been part of their agenda, even back in the golden years when you were invoved. So again I say "So what?" TWI's "positive" presentation of their own beliefs is (at least in my opinion) a distraction from all the negative and poisonous things that they do and teach. Hooray for someone who presents the other side. Why the heck should he present the good that happened in TWI when there are other sources for that. TWI presents their side, Juedes presents another side and people get to decide. Oldies, not everyone is going to be as evenhanded as pawtucket and allow information that undermines the message of the website to be deseminated.

Yeah, so? TWI doesn't allow varying opinions on their website, nor do most sites run by current or former members. He's giving information, not inviting debate. You want to write glowing information about TWI? Start your own website.

How the heck is Zixar still ahead of me?

i think I hear an echo

Hmmmm...bad at telling jokes? Or mornonic anti-semite? :huh:

I can't speak for others, but in a medium where all we have are words, that what I judge people by: words. Think all ya want...ya gotta catch me first

Sorry, I had to break it up intp paragraphs: