Mike

Oh yeah! And I've finally settled that little argument with my co-pilot.

I'm high alright! But not on false drugs! I'm high on the REAL thing: Powerful gasoline, a clean windshield, and a SHOESHINE!

Tom, I've not only known about the tape-to-print processes you just mentioned, but I've posted on them too. I posted last month here how I lived with one of Dr's editors for two years, and how I discussed these processes many times with him over a span of almost 30 years. AND I've discussed similar things (in less volume) with several other editors who worked with Dr's writings. I've included all of that in my messsage from the start. Getting back to that is in my backlog of items, and I will get to that in detail someday soon. The same holds with private conversations with Dr and my posting on that in past. All of that is in my backlog of things I truly WANT to post on. Just be patient. All these things were in my mind both before and after I came back to PFAL in 1998. I thought them through in great detail long before I started posting here.

WordWolf, Did you hear what HCW said? I'm manipulating. Is that why you spend so much time on me? ...because I'm dragging you into the fray?

Goey, I accept your criticism that the usage of exact words versus non-usage of exact words doesn't prove much. The reason I went down that path is because WW was dodging the issue. I wanted to make it harder for him to do that. I don't usually talk that way at all. I find it interesting that Dr avoided specifying "Bible" in certain situations. It shows me that the interchangeability of the two phrases "Bible" and "Word of God" should be suspect. I find it VERY interesting that I can't find a single place where Dr says things LIKE "It's the Bible, and nothing but the Bible" but there were LOTS of places where he said things LIKE "It's the Word, and nothing but the Word." There, now we're off the exact wording kick. I find it interesting that in Dr's last months he often told us master, NOT the Bible, but the collaterals. This becomes especially interesting with his LAST KNOWN public teaching, his last teaching for which a tape has surfaced in 20 years, he repeatedly urges us to master not the Bible but the collaterals. In the 1979 Way Magazine article "Masters of the Word" he never says we should master the Bible, the KJV, wide margin corrected Bibles, Greek texts, or anything like that. The only "how" that's offered in that issue is in the Our Times Editorial titled "How the Word Works" in which he brings up the importance of how the Word is presented in "book and magazine form" by his ministry,and in which the word "master' occurs twice. If he had said "master the Bible" anywhere it would have been an impossible task, let alone ambiguous. Even if our culture only had the KJV to offer us, no one can master that one man-produced document. The fact that there's a multiplicity of Bibles out there makes it even more impossible to master "the Bible." God made it much easier and actually possible for us to master His Word when he made His move in 1942 and the PFAL writings were eventually produced.

dmiller, For what it's worth to you, it was NOT a great fear of me that I was suspecting in others, and then a smaller fear of me in you. A fear of ME was WW's idea in misreading my posts, not mine. It's a great fear of losing their status as ones who "in the know" that I suspect in them, and less in you, maybe even none in you. It's possible I wrote this poorly somewhere, but I think not, so far. There's a similar situation with two others here. I've often marveled here at how much better Oakspear and Abigail have been able to understand some of the more subtle concepts I bring up. Both of them have backed off from traditional Christianity and the Bible, and with that move they have less (or no) fear that God will strike them dead if they actually listen and contemplate my posts.

def59, I agree with you you except for the word "delusional." You must concur, then, that WW is wasting his time. Right?

Lindy, You wrote: "I seem to remember a poster using his first post to list two hundred different words and phrases for "fear". Now that is just plain crazy." It was lying, not fear. I compiled and reported those many words for "lying" or confabulating first for a group of brain scientists. I explained this, but you may have forgotten. They thought the list was very interesting. They study confabulation in brain damage victims, and often wondered about confabulation in normal people. I accommodated them first, and duplicated the list here secondly. I'd give the link, but it's been pruned, I think. I used to be involved in making lie detectors back in the 60's, then also had that involvement with the brain scientists in the 90's, PLUS I noticed a lot different types of lying done by leadership in the ministry meltdown period. Some of this coincided with Bill Clinton's well publicized lying and before that a man named Larry Lawrence was on the national front pages for a well told lie. It was pretty easy for me to draw on all these sources to collect my list. I don't think it was crazy at all. I now use that list often at poetry readings and it is found to be highly entertaining and informative to people who spend a lot of time with words.

Thank you lindyhopper. I've noted before too, that it's highly unlikely that any injured or immature people are going to pay any attention to my posts. I am only addressing OLGs, Older Leader Grads, and it's usually only that category of people that respond to me heavily, and thus read, my posts. What I write is so anti-traditional, very few people give it a second glance. I have seen that reason for refuting me posted long ago, but not recently. I do not buy it. I think my refuters know that hardly anyone but PFAL grads even come here to GSC in general. Of that tiny few of non grads that do, even fewer would read me, and even still fewer would believe me. Speaking from within their mindset: With such a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people WW and other major refuters of me are protecting, aren't they missing the opportunity to protect likely much larger populations of injured and immature people out there being hurt by much more successful propounders of error than me? If I can only "hurt" one or two people, and other errors our there are currently hurting hundreds and thousands, I would expect a much more wise use of WW' time and others' would be to refute the more successful heretics. They are smart enough to see this and make better use of their time shooting at much higher priorities, but they don't. This is why I don't buy it, the force that drives which you quoted. I've noted that ex10 sees it. She posted yesterday: "If I may interject.... __ Why give any time or credance to the insane? __ We could better spend our time, no? on stuff that really matters?" If I am insane like my major refuters also claim, why do they bother wasting their time on me? I do not try to spread my message to anyone but OLGs. If a non-grad were to believe me I'd have a HUGE responsibility on my hands in under shepherding them that I don't yet feel qualified for. I'd first have to see them get a very healthy exposure to the KJV, like all us OLGs got, and that would take years. I've noted before too, that it's highly unlikely that any injured or immature people are going to pay any attention to my posts. I am only addressing OLGs, Older Leader Grads, and it's usually only that category of people that respond to me heavily, and thus read, my posts. What I write is so anti-traditional, very few people give it a second glance.

WordWolf, My use of the word "filibuster" is figurative, and most closely tied in with, as you put it: "the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking for the purpose of delaying legislative action." Obviously you are not engaged in legislative action, but otherwise my figurative use of the word is to protest your purpose delaying my message posting action, fits pretty well. I've often heard that literal filibustering is sometimes filled with useless details just to fill up the time and bore people. This is all the more reason I used that term figuratively. Would it be ad hominem for me to call your focus and style on useless details like this "anal retentive"? If it's not filibustering me that you are doing, then the common usage of being "anal retentive" seems to fit you. I don't know how that term was derived, but the way it's used in our culture nowadays fits you well. The reason I brought up filibustering is to explain why I periodically feel a need to ignore your "prolonged speechmaking" on endless unimportant details... like this one. If I had the time I'd deal with all your points to help others who might be more sincerely bogged down with them. I don't have that kind of time or energy, so I choose to ignore you when you get into hounding me with endless loops of "speechmaking," whether it's out of fear of my message, or just plain misplaced attention on useless details and missing the big heart issues.

WordWolf, If I said anywhere I thought you were fearful OF ME, then I mis-spoke, and should correct it. The fear I think is most likely here is not a fear of me, but a fear of my message, a fear others will believe it, and most of all a deep fear that it might be true. Otherwise, why do yo put so much time into refuting me, and poorly I might add. What drives you to put so much time into this? What are you getting out of it?

WordWolf, You wrote: "VPW went out of his way to enforce the idea that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God" all over that session." YES! I agree with this statement of yours, as long as that word "revealed' is in place. The Bible, as it was originally given, is the REVEALED Word of God. It is the Word of God in written form. It imparts a flesh understanding, a 5-senses understanding, of God's will for those people and in those places where it's accurately known and rightly divided. To get a spiritual understanding of God's Word and will, it must be revealed directly to a person. We were taught in the Advanced Class' "16 Keys to Walking in the Spirit" in key # 4: "Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know." Here "the Word" refers to the flesh realm Bible versions, with their PFAL corrections. As I discussed with Linda Z last week, there were SOME times when Dr co-mingled the terms "Word of God" with the flesh realm "Bible" and dropped the Word "reavealed" or "in written form" if the context allowed it. Here in Key #4 "the Word" obviously is used in conjunction with the phrase "five senses" so it's unnecessary to spell it all out in long form using the words "revealed" or "in written form."

Greek2me, You never did answer my challenge last year to put your only rule for faith and practice, your unalterable standard, on my Table of Challenge. It was for you I built that table in the first place, but you cut and ran from the challenge. What book do you use that's bigger than you? You wrote: "Mike can not, will not, and does not, want to see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ. He's more interested in the enslaving gospel of pfal." Could you please tell me one item in your theology concerning "the glorious gospel of Christ" that cannot be seen by someone spending a lot of time reading PFAL. Please document JUST ONE item of doctrine of that gospel which is omitted from PFAL. I'd also be interested in one item that's occluded or confused by PFAL. I think this would be a good exercise for all of us. If PFAL enslaves as you assert, and you are not just blowing off steam, then surely you already have performed this exercise. You don't need to fully document it, just name it. What am I missing out on that you are so sure PFAL prevents me (and others) from seeing. If not to answer me, what about all those potential "converts" out there I might sway into this PFAL prison you are so sure of? Please answer my question FOR THEM!

WordWolf, I completely disagree with this statement of yours: "In pfal, the phrases "The Word of God" and "the Bible" were used interchangeably by its teacher." Many times I've posted this, and just recently too, in a long post to Linda Z if you care to find it. Because you chose to go down the path you do, I don't bother much to try and respond to what you find there. The simple yes/no answer you refused to answer is: No, Dr never said "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!" There are many man-made "bibles" and they say different things, so there's nothing definitive in saying "It's the Bible, it's the Bible...and nothing BUT the Bible!" There's only one Word of God, though. Dr was very explicit in stating that the Bile was in the flesh realm. He says so TWICE on page 27 of RHST, 7th edition. On pages 23,24 of BTMS he notes the Word of God is in the spiritual realm. The Word of God is eternal and existed "in the beginnig" with God. It IS Him. The Bible, the original scriptures, had a beginning just like Jesus Christ had a beginning. Both were "i the begining" with God in His foreknowledge. All this Dr taught. He did NOT use those two terms interchangeably. They are sometimes very close and similar, but not identical. *** The other question you refused to answer is easy for me to post. In his final instructions Dr told us to master the "collateral readings." In that very last teaching he did NOT tell us to master the Bible. I am unaware of ANY time he told us to master the Bible. Master "the Word," yes, he did talk about that, but never master the "Bible" using these exact words. I almost always read your posts, but I refuse to allow you to filibuster me from my message with your focus on details I am uninterested in or have not the time for.

HCW, Yes. I do have a single "convert" as you put it. Actually, there's more. I'm really surprised that this would be such an important question to you to have repeated it so often. Suppose I said there were zero? What would that tell you? What should it tell me? Truth is truth, even if NOBODY believes it. It makes me wonder at what number of "converts" would you say "Hmmm. Maybe I should listen to Mike a little closer and with a little meekness." But why you would think this number is important in the first place baffles me.

def59, Yes, I did get out. I'm single and never had children, so I can both post a lot and still get out a lot. On Friday I read a brain science essay of mine at an "open mic" poetry meeting with a lot of young Bohemian types. It's like a time travel adventure for me to be with them, going back to a world I left in 1970. On Saturday night I was with some of the same crowd and others in a hippie crash pad living room for three hours. There were seven musicians playing very loud Rock music and four audience members (I was one) enjoying the blast. I was very surprised the next morning that I could still hear. Because of my self-unemployed status I can make it a "weekend" anytime of the week, pretty well. How about you? Do you have immediate family? I've noticed that oldiesman also takes off for the weekends. Do you do most of your posting from work or something?

dmiller, If God gave partial revelations to other men, then gave Dr revelation to put all their contributions together, then God is the real Author. It may be the case that there's stuff in PFAL that you know not. It could be that God made it bigger than you are aware of. You're just going on your memories and they can be lacking the total picture of what's in PFAL. I am sure this is the case because I came BACK to it and have been working it from within for 7 years now. All the biblical writers were sinners and fell short of the messages they wrote. They all yearned for their Savior from sin. Their sin did not negate their service to God in writing his revelations.

WordWolf, I've seen a number here post that they are sure Dr did not repent, and that was out of fellowship when he taught the Word. I've also often heard this verbally since 1988. It's these reports that I had in mind when I posted above: "Many here claim to have inside knowledge of whether a man, in his heart, has restored broken fellowship with the Father." We don't know anything authoritative about Dr's heart with God. We have some few accounts of his actions, but those reporters ALSO know not the heart of the man, only a few actions. We DO have authoritative knowledge that Solomon had a sinful "career." God had foreknowledge of this, yet still gave him great wisdom. We can surmise that David likely had many more unreported sins to jade him up to the level of his reported sins. Human beings just don't go from being tight with God to evil overnight. It's a slow seduction process. *** A few do care how many threads I post on. I also care because the more I post on the more I have to keep track of.

I just remembered more about that impromptu restaurant communion "service" at the end of my last post. It occured to us that chewing solid food reminded us of how Jesus' flesh was torn up. Then we flashed on how drinking liquids "washed away" that image. *** Cindy! This is all I've on my mind to post here for two years, so I'll now bow out of your thread and not leave any of my usual commercial messages here. OK? :)-->

May I have the envelope please? (fumble, fumble, tear, rattle) And the award for the "MOST DERAILED THREAD OF THE YEAR" goes to .......... "New TWI Website" :)--> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abigail, would you step up to the podium and accept your trophy?

dmiller, I noticed that you didn't answer my question about this thread's very recent attacks falling into the ad hominem category. Please try. I see many attacks on me as well as some on my message. Try putting yourself in my shoes and imagine how you'd feel if you were trying to help people and were addressed as I have been. Nuff said. *** You wrote: "The only problem we (I) have -- is your lack of willingness to take a total view of things (Wierwille included), and look at it from an over-all perspective." I think you actually mean to say here when using the phrases "a total view of things" and "an over-all perspective" is that you want me to adopt YOUR (plural) view and YOUR (plural) perspective here. Are you willing to entertain, even just temporarily, that your (plural) perspective is wrong? Haven't you seen from history and from the Word that it is OFTEN the case that whole populations drift unawares from the perspective God would have them embrace to a wrong one? Do you ever consider the possibility that you all are wrong? Thinking that there is strength and surety in numbers is also a logical fallacy. It's a very strong illusion to think that because everyone else thinks a certain way, then it's got to be true. If going alone against the mainstream would mean castigation (like I get) then that's all the more reason to never consider leaving the herd. But if the whole herd is wrong, as often DOES happen in life, then that safety in numbers is a total illusion. It is a fact that I most certainly DID embraced for 27 years your (plural) total view of things and over-all perspective. When I finally decided to obey Dr's final instructions I found that my perspective was lacking. It was an abbreviation of Dr's teachings I had held in my mind for many years, and I saw that I had drifted away from Dr's teachings. I had forgotten many things and many things had slipped by me unnoticed. I noticed the same in every other grad I talked to. I understand that you (plural) here are in great disagreement with me on the overall perspective of the PFAL writings. I know the feeling well of trusting my memory and trusting my ability to have gotten the message right way back when. I understand this disagreement. I am saddened to see that some loathe me for it, and even more saddened that almost no one here, even the calmer ones, wants to take me up on my challenge and come back to PFAL to see what got forgotten and what slipped by us. But I think this rejection is temporary. All it will take is a few who dare to think that maybe we didn't get EXACTLY what Dr was talking about. Maybe we did forget some. Maybe we could use some experimentation with our grand perspective of things. Maybe God did actually do a drastically good change in the format of His Word, switching from working with people repairing the problems that crept into the traditional canon and it's reconstructions and translations to the simple modern English of PFAL. He did it before, switching from supporting His Word written in the stars to stone and parchment. Maybe we ought to allow God to reissue his Word like He did in Jeremiah 36, and with many words added to the scroll. Once a few grads start to consider this GREAT blessing of God in giving us His pure simple Word in PFAL, and they act on it by coming back to master the collaterals like Dr urged us all to do in his final instructions, and they start seeing great things they never saw before, and start getting blessed like never before.... THEN it will be easier for others to come back to PFAL and get blessed again. *** You wrote: "In all honesty -- talking to you about pfal is pretty much the same as talking to an LDS person about the book of Mormon. They hold their book in very high regard too, and when stacked up against the bible -- guess which one is on top?" Yes, I can totally appreciate that. But this is yet another logical fallacy. Just because it LOOKS like I'm committing the same error they commit because I have some things in common with them, that doesn't mean I have ALL things in common with them. I often witness to customers of mine who are Mormons. Although they give lip service to the Bible, they contradict it all the time, and are woefully ignorant of it, compared to PFAL grads, especially regarding the epistles of Paul. A huge difference between me and Mormons is that I do know the KJV pretty well, spent 27 years attempting to master it, and nothing in PFAL contradicts it. That's a HUGE difference between me and them. I understand your impressions of some similarity between me and LDS. Can you see that many first century Christians must have had very similar impressions when hearing of a maverick like Paul writing letters, and some (I Thess 2:13) possibly regarding his words as not the word of a man but as the Word of God? They must have though that those Paul idolators were horribly violating the well established canon of the Old Testament and disappointingly departing from the majority's prevailing overall perspective. Have you ever carefully thought through how God's Word was received in the adversary's kingdom whenever portions of it were freshly written? I have. I spent 11 years (during that 27 year period when I thought more like you) thinking through and researching how the New Testament Canon was developed. It's worth spending some time on. *** On a similar note: I've noticed that many people are well aware of the prevailing majority perspective 2000 years ago and their expectations of Christ's first coming. Most people nowadays know very well that back then the popular theological expectations of what it would be like when Christ would come were very far off what God had in mind. Did the most learned religious leaders of that time ask themselves questions and challenge themselves to see if maybe they were off? Did they notice when Christ came? Did they recognize him as he was fulfilling prophecy after prophecy? In recent years I've asked many people if they ever considered that for the SECOND coming THEY TOO may be off the mark in their expectations and mental images of those events. So far no one has answered in the affirmative. Everyone likes their established mind picture, and won't consider the possibility that THEY TOO are far off the mark. I think it's good to be challenged in fundamental expectations and perspectives. I think you should be thankful that I have come here with a vastly differing point of view. If I'm wrong, then people have strengthened their belief system in resisting me. If I'm right then we have been blessed abundantly with a vastly more simple Word to master. Of course, the theologians will suffer vast shame first, but they'll get over it. *** I think ex10 has a much healthier point of view than my strident attackers. She thinks I'm crazy so she stays away from me. Those theologians who strongly attack, ad hominem or not, are not so well off. If they really thought I was as crazy as they say, they'd ignore me. Like I said the other day, they'd wait for me to run out of gas, paint myself into a corner, or die from defying God. Why do they instead attack me with so much energy, and put so much time into it? I think it's a little like the situation with the Pharisees and Jesus. If he was communicating to them that he was God, they'd have recognized that his message was hopelessly impossible according to the scriptures, and that he had to be either crazy or trying to pick a fight with God or both. They would not have felt threatened by him, felt that the miracles were mere mass hysteria, and that he and his following would soon die off all by themselves. But Jesus was NOT saying that he was God, only the SON of God, and that scared the leaders deep down inside, because that WAS possible. He threatened their entire world, so he HAD to be lying. The possibility that Jesus was telling the truth was so scary they couldn't even consider it one iota's worth. What he was saying made just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that he was right they put all their energy into attacking him. I see my attackers as falling into a similar fear trap. I see ex10 as not having this fear, so she leaves me alone. The possibility that I could be reporting accurately of God blessing us grads with His pure Words is so scary they can't even consider it one iota's worth. What I am saying makes just enough sense to threaten them, and not just mildly. Without putting any energy into considering the possibility that I am right they put all their energy into attacking me. I see you, dmiller, as having far less fear of me, so you are able to politely discuss these things. I'm grateful for that. P.S. I have a question for you in the Doctrinal forum.

WW, Please answer these two questions with a simple "yes" or "no." Did he ever say the following EXACT WORDS? "It's the Bible, it's the Bible.... and nothing BUT the Bible!" Were the EXACT words in his final instructions to us to master the "Bible" or the "collateral readings?"

HCW, Until I'm ready to deal with the volumes you've challenged me with, I think I better keep quiet with you, lest I further increase my workload. I will ask you (and everyone else) this one thing, though. Did you ever hear Dr say the following? "It's the Bible, it's the Bible, it's the Bible.... and nothing BUT the Bible!" I do know that in his dying last words to us he told us to MASTER the written collaterals that come with the class, and that he did so TWICE in that last lost teaching. I am obeying those final instructions, because I firmly believe God gave him that final teaching by revelation, so it's really God Who told us to MASTER those collaterals and He did so TWICE.

Cindy!, I very much agree with you. Dmiller also has a point about not allowing things getting to get too far into the party atomsphere, but we certainly never had that happen in TWI. Just the opposite extreme plagued us. I've posted this before, about two years ago, but I edited it and cleaned it up a little. In the late Eighties and early Nineties, in TWI and then in the splinters here, I noticed that the format of Communion was getting more focus than the heart. The the original instructions given to us for formatting had by then been stretched way out of proportion. One such original instruction was to not talk. There was a reason for that instruction: to get chatty teenagers (which many of us were at that time) to think a little. But instead of this guideline being relaxed as the average age increased it was instead intensified, and had degenerated into a false solemnity that was very offending if not downright spooky. In the Seventies we were instructed to spend a whole month in twig preparing people for a special night of reflection. That one month of preparation made communion a joy. But this preperation period didn't last long. By the mid 80's preparation had been reduced to a quickie. One time I saw communion done with NO EXPLANATION whatsoever, even though there were two relatively new people there who had no clue what communion was all about. It more resembled a spooky seance than a happy healing family meal. All that was missing were the priest's habit and vestments, which are ancient Roman ceremonial clothing.The two new people were spooked pretty bad. Coming from an RC background I saw in our twigs once familiar RC priest-like actions and intonations coming from normally regular people. Lots of their previous religious training came out instead of the Word of God and healing. It became a costume party for the leader with lots of Thee's and Thou's thrown in to look spiritual. *** As for the 'damnation' of the 'unworthy' Communion verse in Corinthians that was often read, I never saw that explained very well at fellowships in the later years. From Dr's writings and much discussion with leaders earlier I finally got an understanding that this verse says something much more simple than the religious buzz words 'damnation' and 'unworthy' conjure in the context of our cultural/religious use of them. I learned that God provided communion as a way to help people's believing: 'Do these things in remembrance of me.' That remembrance would be a believing one. It's like the spit-mud that Jesus put on the eyelids of the blind man. It helped his believing. Same with the woman who touched the hem of his garment. Same with the brass serpent Moses erected in an emergency situation. All these things were cultural believing builders. So if someone refuses or is unaware of this special believing aid provided by God, it's a little like not using an umbrella in a rainstorm. Walking out into the rain without this umbrella (communion) deployed (unworthy) a person is doomed (damned) to get wet (sick), sooner or later. If there are any language experts out there, I'm interested in knowing if the English words 'damned' and 'doomed' are etymologically related. If not, I think the explanation I reported still works, but I've often wondered about these two words. *** I can't remember who I got this from, but I think it was Steve H or someone else at the early 70's Rye NY scene who gave me this following idea: In the mid 80's, when things were dying all over in the ministry, I tried to get leadership here to put some heart back into communion. I couldn't get their attention about the need for the month long preparation, and that the heart of Communion had been squashed badly under the formatting. So, I pulled out this old suggestion I heard at Rye to help us disrupt the formatting idolatry. I suggested we do communion not with bread and wine, but with potato chips and beer! Instead of getting the heart of my proposal they thought I was crazy, and one leader did a word study on bread and wine to prove me wrong. *** I once did an impromptu communion service in a restaurant with three young twigees. It was extremely brief, and I used an absolute minimum of religious or biblical sounding language. They didn't even know I was doing a communion service because the format I used was so casual. It came off to them like explanatory conversation. I didn't pass around any food or liquid; everyone just used their own. It was totally underground, but the understanding was there and it was a happy healing family meal, just like the last supper. We remembered Jesus Christ, and focused with thanksgiving that he took on all our sicknesses just as well as he took on our sin, and that we were forgiven and healed.

dmiller, I agree that you are far more diplomatic than some. I enjoy discussing matters with you, even if we strongly disagree. There are others who also are in this category with you, in my mind. Olus, there are some who seem to be slowly moving to that category now that their initial fury has calmed down. I also agree that sincerity is no guanantee of truth. It's a very nice human quality, but it ALONE does not guarantee that the sincere seeker will find. Other qualities and situations must act in concert with it for truth to be found. Would you agree with me in my complaint above, though? I see HCW on the ad hominem warpath with me and WW even more so. In his ad hominem accusations against me, he also accuses me of the same. GADS! I hate it when we get sidetracked LIKE THIS into talking about what was said and how, about what was said and how, about what was said and how.... As Nick Danger once demanded: "Let's get down to business!"