Lifted Up

Dunno who "you-know-who" is. I have some differences of opinion with Rascal's posts on the subject, but one of them is not what TWI taught, even though maybe you are right. I'll explain. Before being yanked out at the very end of 1979, I dont recall any teaching on the "breath of life" doctrine relating it to abortion. The only time I heard the subject brought up was at ROA 1978, when VPW called the corps who were going WOW into the woods for a burger and comments. Basically he said there had been some problems leading to abortions. Even though he said "you know I dont like abortion", he had had to pay for some (dunno how many) as a result of corps not "watching themselves". Then he said he wanted us to be sure we did just that. Anyway, I dont know what was taught later. But Rascal (I accept her testimony) and evidently others were "advised" to have an abortion on the premise that it would not be destroying a life. That is, whatever TWIs teaching was, in practice they were telling her that the fetus was never alive.

Good point, Tonto. Very good point in fact. But then, your were once 8th corps, weren't you? :) There are people who feel their lives were wonderfully helped in and by TWI who do not believe that anything real bad happened. There are people who feel their lives were deeply hurt and cannot acknowledge that there was any good. I think there is a lot of resentment on both of these sides. If nothing else, judging by the personal communication avenues I have lost over the years, again from both sides of the issue. And by the way, I think all of your post was good. And double by the way, you're not boring me. If there is more you'd like to say, please go on, here or in PM is so needed.

I think I get what you are saying. PFAL of course taught that Santa Claus is not God, and that the Bible is not fairy tales and fables. And if someone had a horrendous experience in TWI, done in the name or pretense of following those principles, then they may throw those principles out, and you understand that. But iit "rips your heart out" because you believe, as I do, that God and Jesus and the Bible are real.

Okay, Rummy, a couple questions... Did you ever cheat the two beer limit at Emporia? And do you remember our other two (6th corps) roomies in that first room?

My fellow 8th corps on the Philly WOW branch 1978-79 didnt do any of that. In fact, the 6th/8th corps sister pair who ran the regular Philly branch complained to us that we didnt ask them out at all. One time I was in downtown Philly and saw a lamp; I was suddenly motivated to buy a lamp for one of our female WOWs who was in south Philly. When I gave ot to her, it turned out that she was the only one of the four in that family without a lamp and had been wanting one; I had not knowm that at all. Just a happy coincidence, I guess(!). But I never asked her (or anyone else) out the whole year.

The late Ron Luciano, former big league umpire, once explained how a player or mamager's survival in a game can depend on the personal neature of the argument. Tha is, someone might get away with saying he made a horse**** call, but if they call him horse***, they're outta there.

I would simply say wrong instead of nuts. I have seen too many call others nuts and fools on GS to join that crowd. If I strongly disagree on a subject with someone I respect personally...or even with someone I don't know...I cannot call them nuts. BUT...Otherwise I agree with your statement. But I also believe we need to be consistent. If we call TWI wrong for their stance on the beginning of life (and I will) , are we going to back off when another group or person takes the same stance? Or do we change our stated position because it is someone we dont want to offend?

All from our Philly WOW branch 1978-79; the first three being my WOW 'family". As in the other thread I started at this time, name change probable for Kathy since then.

Knew them both from the corps though there is no other connection between the two that I know of. Renee's name could be different of course; I have never heard her name mentioned on any ex-way sites. Vini on the other hand I ran into in chat a few years ago, then never "saw" or heard of him again.

Happy birthday...may your heart be touched in special ways by the love given to you.

Now that things are a little less hectic, just trying to get a little contact once in a while on this thread.

Hey Evan, dunno what came over me a while back...check out the Peter Qualtieri In Memoriam thread to see what I mean.

"Beating Up on Peoria" Doesnt do this team justice anymore. Longest winning streak in pro sports history. And don't laugh to hard; I bet they could beat at least some of the AFL teams. See above mentioned thread to refer to the "Matt Holmlund catch". Of course i was there...our seats are 5 yards from midfield on the front...we've gotten players dumped in our laps a few times over the years. 4th-down TD saves Storm By: Matt Zimmer Sioux Falls Argus Leader - Aug. 06, 2007 United Bowl III MVP Casey Veenhof and Storm Head Coach Kurtiss Riggs celebrate as the Storm won their third consecutive United Bowl 62-59 over the Lexington Horsemen. (Photo by Lloyd Cunningham Argus Leader) It all came down to one play - one play to extend the streak to 38 consecutive wins, one play to secure a third straight UIF championship. With 12 seconds left and Lexington clinging to a 59-54 lead, Sioux Falls faced a 4th-and-3 from the nine-yard line. Terrance Bryant lofted it. Casey Veenhof went and got it. It was "The Catch" - UIF style. "I look up," said Storm safety Shannon Poppinga, "and see Casey Veenhof, the slowest white guy you'll ever see, do a stutter route and the guy bites on it. Then it was Matt Holmlund all over again." Veenhof went up and over the wall - just like Holmlund did for the key score in last year's United Bowl - and came down with the ball, giving Sioux Falls a 60-59 lead with seven seconds left. It became 62-59 after a two-point conversion, and the Storm escaped in a game where phrases such as "heart-stopping" and "nerve-wracking" didn't go far enough toward describing the action. Lexington had one last chance for a game-tying field-goal - two, actually, thanks to a penalty for a fan being on the field of all things - but both were no good, and the Storm secured their second straight perfect season. "I didn't think we'd ever be able to top last year's championship game," said Storm coach Kurtiss Riggs. "But I said that the year before that, too. We seem to be able to go above and beyond every year and top each game. I think if it had been a blowout a lot of people might've taken it for granted. But winning a game like this reminds the players and the fans just how fun it is to be a part of a game like this and a season like this." Trailing from the opening play of the game until late in the fourth quarter, Sioux Falls took its first lead with 3:23 to go on a four-yard run by Leon Hall that put the Storm up 54-53. The Horsemen answered in two plays and missed a two-point conversion, giving them a 59-54 lead with 1:39 to play. At that point, it was down to one last series, and whether the Horsemen defense could hold. They could not. The Storm had had chances to tie or take the lead earlier, but a pair of Bryant interceptions ensured the Storm were playing from behind until the very end. But when it mattered most, Bryant made the big throw. "I pressed the whole game," admitted Bryant, who threw for 203 yards and three touchdowns while running for another. "After that second interception, I told myself, 'You're better than that. Go out and execute like you have for 17 weeks.' " He did just that, which came as a surprise to no one. "Terrance doesn't get down," said receiver James Terry, who had six catches on the night. "He's clutch, and he always handles the pressure." Added Riggs: "He made a perfect throw. They blitzed and he was under serious pressure right away. He held on just long enough for Casey to make a move." Collin Barber, who previously hit field goals of 47, 42, 47 and 32 yards, was wide right as the clock expired on the second of the two last-second field goals, and the 4,907 fans, who had been as loud as any crowd the Sioux Falls Arena has ever seen, flooded the field in a mixture of relief and jubilation. "The game itself was a memorable experience," said Storm defensive end Leif Murphy, who earned his first ring with the Storm. "When you add on the fact that it was a championship game, the streak was on the line, against one of the best teams and best quarterbacks in the league, that just makes it unbelievable. I'll have an ulcer tomorrow." The Horsemen came out strong, as quarterback Eddie Eviston gave the Storm the same problems he did in last year's title game. William Mulder returned the game's opening kickoff 50 yards for a touchdown, and the Storm couldn't get the ensuing kick out of their end zone, giving the Horsemen a one-point rouge to make it 8-0. While Sioux Falls settled for field goals on their first two series, the Horsemen paired two touchdowns with a 47-yard Barber field-goal to take an 18-6 lead after one quarter. The teams traded scores through much of the second until, with Lexington leading 31-27, Eviston was picked off by Justin Landis, who returned to the Horsemen nine-yard line. That gave the Storm a shot at their first lead, but Bryant was intercepted on an ill-advised toss into the end zone. Lexington quickly pushed their lead back to 10 on a pass to Chad Spencer, and the teams went into the half with the score at 37-27. "It was frustrating that we couldn't make a stop," said Poppinga. "It seemed like something was always there for them. It made you want to go outside your own job to make a play. We just tried to wear them down." Veenhof, who caught seven passes for 74 yards after catching only four balls during the regular year, was MVP. "It's a great group of guys," Veenhof said. "You can't ask for a better team." Marques Smith rushed for 53 yards on 14 carries and scored two touchdowns for the Storm, who outgained Lexington 293-213. Eviston threw for 183 yards and five touchdowns. Storm players and staff hung around on the field long after the game, seemingly aware not only of the magnitude of their accomplishment in winning a third straight title and completing a second straight perfect season, but also of how difficult the final step proved to be. "It's a mixture of thankfulness, elation and sadness," Murphy said. "Sadness that I have to wait six more months to play again."

Yea, Rascal...first of all, in my mind, since our discussions were private...to the extent no one was cyber-eavesdropping on our PMs...I had the thought in my mind that I was not revealing to anyone else who had made the statements I talked about. Assuming I was right (whether or not I was), I still should have had more regard for your peace of mind. That is, even though no one else knew about our exchanges, I can see where it would still bug you. I should have had more consideration and I am sorry. In no way did I or would I expect you to give me names, although I can see how I could have conveyed that impression. That would have to come directly from the person giving the testimony by that person's choice (which has happened in one case since that PM exchange). Regarding the point I was TRYING to make, about whether or not I would believe personal testimony if I had it, it is very understandable about not being believed, considering some of the "discussion" on this thread. Your reply coulld not have been personal, since on a personal basis we REALLY dont know each other...just know some things about each other. Kind of like understanding the refusal of an old H.S. classmate to go more than a millimeter into e-mail exchanges. He's a celebrity, and I suppose he has run into other people who think he owes them something (or worse, who think he owes them something because they once knew him almost 40 years ago). I could launch into what I think is a pretty good defense of the importance I attach to pesonal testimony, which would probably be answered by you in the vein of what happens to those who dare to give that testimony. So I will call it a wash and not get more into it.

yea, I've heard of it. Among other things, it was the difference between OJ's criminal and civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard in a criminal case, I believe. But I am still waiting to hear from Dove on his apparent reluctance to believe even first hand testimony if he had it.

Dove, Yesterday morning Pond's quick response to my post included the statement, "no one is trustworthy in life? that is not going to get the job done at some point we just have to take a risk and decide for our own self who it will be or not" Some people, including I...and including you on this thread...have attached importance to first hand testimony from real live non anonymous people. from an earlier post of yours... _______________________________________________________ Is M's account not an eyewitness account? (She was there!) It may be it may not be it is words on a screen by an anonymous person on the internet that showed up on a anti way site. No I do not accept everything I read on the net as truth it may be the gospel truth it may be biased BS who can know? My point was that some who claimed to be able to verify the eyewitness account seem to be lacking in the story as being a eyewitness as I see it at best yes M would be an eyewitness I see no verification of the story by anyone else. other than second hand info and opinion. ________________________________________________________ You make a big point about not trusting anonymous accounts on the net and/or second hand information and opinions, and not trusting accounts where there is a lack of an eyewitess. Good. I have dome the same. By saying this, we are both therefore attaching great importance to real first hand accounts. When we do that, we are ready to accept the credibility of such accounts or we are lying hypocrites. Many (too many ) years ago, in school, I had a teacher who showed a picture, I think it was on a bus or something and there were several people in the picture, and someone was wielding a knife, and there were other details I don't remember. Anyway, the teacher had one person look for a while at the picture, then describe it in as much detail as he could to someone else who had not seen the picture, who in turn relayed the description to someone else and about five time over that way. Of course by the time the last person related the description, it had completely changed. So when we trust a first hand account, there is a lot of risks that we eliminate. Now add this: If someone knows who you are, and you are telling them about a terrible personal experience that happened to YOU, exposing yourself to personal attacks and questions, but you go ahead and do it anyway, I think that falls into the category of trustable if ANYTHING does. Or, before you bring this up, if it DIDNT happen to you, would you lie about something like that and expose yourself for no reason? We have some who proclaim that this is not a court of law, that our standards for finding out what really happened don't have to be that stringent, with those same people usually pointing out that the volume of talk overcomes this. My point is, from your reply...and I thank you for making it...you dont seem ready to accept even the first hand accounts from live non anonymous people that you earlier post attached so much importance to. In other words, why the talk about the accounts being second hand and anonymous if a personal first person non anonymous account of abuse wouldnt make any difference to you? I guess I can see why I get some responses to my efforts such as I described in my earlier post.

True, true IMO.

This is a good point, Dove. I have a follow up question for you, but first a point or two of my own... Catcup has made a big point of how she knew (knows?) M personally very well around the time described in M's account, therefore she know's M's account is true. I think that is a good reason to believe someone. It of course goes way beyond "words on a screen by an anonymous person on the internet". Quite some time ago, Linda Z made the same point (on the start of a thread entitled "Why some don't get the abuse stories"), that she knew the person who gave an account, and therefore believed her account. Obviously, Dove, others attach importance, as you do, to personal non anonymous testimony. So, maybe we dont have that much reason for conflict here? So, my question, Dove...if you had first hand personal testimony from someone whose name you knew, perhaps from someone whom you knew well, would you accept it? have you tried to learn more with the attitued that you would accept it if you got it? We are dealing, I believe, with a described personal hurt which is beyond what either of us can conceive. I don't know if you could really get that personal testimony (if you really wanted it). I know that you don't have a hope of getting it if you give the impression that you wouldn't believe first hand testimony even if you had it. I have tried, I thought in all honesty, and despite that, on one occasion I got just that response...that I wouldn't believe first hand testimony if I wouldn't accept the person's second hand account. This response from a person whose name I knew; in fact from one of the very few GSers with whom I have had personal non cyber contact, albeit minimal and over the phone. from a poster I have respected. So it's not easy. But if you demand personal non anonymous non cyber testimony, would you be willing to give it credibility? I may get caught in the crossfire; hit from both sides for this...dunno why I keep trying.

Is it possible to be greatly thankful for what you got from TWI and deeply sorrowful for the unimaginable hurt someone else received in TWI? Whether or not certain people fit that category is not my question. Just wanna know, is it possible?

Too much.

I don't think people have to say it; many times it is obvious that this is what they believe.

What behavior, the cussing?

29 straight, 51-17 over the Colorado Ice...again on the road. 5 of the last 6 regular season games are home.

No argument of course, but can they be true friends? (ref the title of this thread) In one case, someone who I thought was a "true friend" I met at "Waydale & GS" wound up a lot more distant after our first face to face meeting. Whoever's fault it was, it came down to a lack of trust. Not to knock this place for that reason...maybe call it the fault of depending on cyber relations.

The Patton thing came as a result of that movie being screened for us in the corps. I helped him out with his original performance at Emporia. While it was of course tailored to fit in with what we were being taught, there was no denying his unique personal touch. the parody of George C. Scott's opening speech of the movie seem to come to its peak with the way he rendered "Allright, you sons of God..." At the following ROA, it might have been corps week, there was an announcement made requesting whoever had any army type boots and other army looking gear to please contact Phil, and I as well as some other 8th/6th corps around knew what was coming. I don't remember Phil doing anything halfway or half heartedly. Yes, I knew him in TWI, but I guarantee that part of him was Phil and I would guess he has always been that way. He worked in refinishing for a while, and once I helped him transport a large and heavy dresser he had finished for DM from the shop to the Martindales' apartment. We loaded it into the back of a pickup and I drove the short hop very slowly while he stood in the back with the dresser to be sure it didnt get bumped on the way. We then carried it carefully into the apartment under DM's watchful eyes. Later he would remark at how happy she was with the work he did. If you're still around, I'll see what I can do about getting back in touch but no guarantees. E-mail is on my profile BTW, it is smile092850@hotmail.com