Raf

heh heh heh

Arachnaphobia John Goodman Sea of Love

By the way, Linda, if it seems I'm being hard on you or overly antagonistic, I apologize. I actually respect that you write with logic and clear thinking, even when I don't agree with your conclusion. A tough argument deserves an uncompromising response. But I think you're great and I love to dialogue with you, even when we're not on the same side.

I don't think it was naivette. The man had a master's at the least, and supposedly had a doctorate too. If people want us to accept the doctorate as genuine, they cannot use "naivette" as an excuse for his poor documentation. Further, naivette makes it sound like he didn't know what he was doing. I submit that such a thesis simply CANNOT be true, on the grounds of the master's at least.

Apologetic nonsense. It may mean we have no LEGAL problem, but we have a problem of honesty and integrity. Which means more in a man of God? That he followed the law? Or that he told the truth?

"Flawed human being" is a euphemism designed to detract from the truth that the man was a manipulative predator who deliberately hurt God's people in His name.

1. The absence of a copyright notice does not mean a work is not copyrighted. The notice simply makes it easier to establish legally. 2. This is more important: whether there was a copyright notice or not, whether it was in the public domain or not, it is immoral, unethical and dishonest to take someone else's work and claim it as your own. That's why you can't go into a bookstore today to purchase "Romeo and Juliet" by Rafael Olmeda. I didn't write it. "But it's public domain!" True, but I didn't write it. "But you wouldn't be breaking any laws!" True, but I didn't write it. Nothing that is said or done can change the fact that something dishonest and unjust was done through plagiarism, period. Illegal? Maybe. Maybe not. But once we're talking about whether the actions of VPW in the supposed authorship of his works was legal or not, we've accepted plagiarism as a fact and are merely moving onto the question of "so what?" which is where I think this conversation should be anyway. Wierwille's plagiarism is an inescapable and undeniable fact. How one feels about it is individual.

A Man Called Horse ? Iman Cole Doris

FullCircle, I'm not sure about what you meant when you posted "Not agreeing to false prophecies (sp) and accusations made against a person was considered hardness of heart? I consider that to be a strong stable person." I just want to be sure you know that I did not intend to imply anything about Elizabeth's stability. My statements about mental stability are directed at John, and then ONLY if he allowed those prophecies to ruin an otherwise happy marriage. I do not know that the marriage was otherwise happy. Nor do I want to. It's none of my business.

Gotta be the Voyager where they discovered Seven of Nine.

I can see it fine. Wonder why others can't. Bank Holiday ?

Come on! :) Stakeholder is an innocent term. Non-profits use it all the time. It means people with an interest in the organization's success. They include donors, clients and potential clients, and staff. There are others. But it really is an innocent term.

Finally saw it today. I thought this was a very good movie, and yes, MUCH better than Rocky V. There's a scene early on that brought tears to my eyes, the only truly unexpected lines in the whole movie. And they revealed a piece of a character you never thought you'd see revealed. Definitely worth the price.

Hey, Cowgirl, good to see ya! Signed, and I swear I'm not making this up... Incredible Butt. But if I include my middle name, I become Doctor Crippler!

T-bone beat me to the joke. :) Alright, ready? WWWWWWWipe! Flussssshhhhhhhh!!!!!

See if I get this straight: In their hearts, everyone involved in the CESpool wants to serve God. But they're taking polar opposite approaches, and each side is convinced it is serving God. So rather than consider they might be wrong, they write the will of God to conform to their own actions and behavior. It's done subconsiously, though, a form of self-deception, right? === On a different note, if JAL really is reading this as a different screen name (as alleged by an earlier post), then hopefully this should help and he can pass it along to Mark: You DO have a case of dueling prophecies here, right? Well, doesn't the Bible refer to itself as a MORE SURE word of prophecy, more sure than the vision the apostles saw with Jesus in Gethsemane, more sure than actually HEARING the voice of God audibly? Call me silly, but if the prophetic is unreliable (and there's no ifs about it: THE PROPHETIC IN CES/STFI REGARDING THE CURRENT CRISIS IS UNRELIABLE), then why don't you guys rely on something a bit more reliable? And that's addressed to both sides.

Actually, oldies, you gave me my biggest laugh of the day with one of your posts today. Happy New Year.

She did ask me to keep it private.

No one pulled me into a van and ordered me to hate Wierwille. Wierwille pulled some people into a van, but it wasn't to wash their brains. Sycophant.

Correct

Umm, as a non-profit board member, I can say that $60,000 a month is NOT a lot of money. It's $720,000 a year. Considering the costs involved of running a national/international group, well, let's just say it's not poverty, but it's not a fortune either.

Nor should you. It's a farce, an open invitation to personal manipulation and abuse. Why invite into your lives what you worked so hard to free yourself from? Speaking of which, justpassingthrough must really like the word "vomit." A related word showed up in the unsolicited pm she sent to me, too. I promised not to share the contents, but I never said anything about sharing the fact that she sent me one.

God wasn't sending me any visions, so I just had to go to the Internet for myself. :)

It IS in their letter. I just missed it: That's I Cor. 14, for those who don't remember. So, let's see, two or three prophets should speak (which assumes there will be more than that). The others (other what? I think other prophets sounds reasonable, but it could just be referring to other Christians in the room) weigh carefully what is said. Sounds to me, however, like these folks are going through the motions. Based on the fruit being exhibited, including the destruction of a marriage (that's alleged), endless meddling in each other's personal affairs (acknowledged) and the near dissolution of a church (observed), their prophecies consist no more of words from God than they do words from Stephen King. In fact, I think they're getting more from Stephen King than the King of Kings.