Lifted Up

You're right, Rocky. I didnt look sharply enough. I know I have several years on Simon, and I have kids down to high school freshman, but not everyone got as late a start as we did, heh heh. Of course at that level, not much rules bending or laxing! That plus at that level, the umpires should be pretty good. Coaches as well should know the rules.

I submit that not using VPW as a reference point...especially if that is not believing everything just because VPW taught it...is not the same as "rejecting everything that comes out of the mouth of VPW as untrustworthy". "Prove all things" does not mean you have to reject it...perhaps only that you reject the idea that it is the truth because VPW taught it. I think a lot pf people who learned things about God in TWI know that VPW teaching something is not what established its truth.

You can get plenty of opinions and info here, starting with this thread. But obviously you got here somehow...did someone direct you here, or did you see something on another website that steered you here?

If the other team stayed on the field, they did one part right. The game isnt over until the umpire walks of the field himself. An appeal in this situation is handled just like it is if the play wasn't game or inning ending. The other team needs to ask for the ball to be put in play; the pitcher gets the ball, steps off the mound, tosses the ball to third and the appeal is made that the runner left too soon. This can be done without having a batter in the box. Yes, the other team still has the right to appeal, but I cant be sure from your description if they blew it, or the umpire blew it, or maybe the umpire judged that the runner didnt leave too soon. if there is a base umpire (s), the plate umpire will normally still make the call, since he would be the one in best position to see both the catch and the runner at third, unless a base umpire was at third base and had lined himself up to make the call. But normally, if a fly ball is hit to the outfield, the base umpire needs to go out in case there is a catch/nocatch question. Depending on the level of the league, especially if we have the kids playing, we oftend bend or run a little lax on rule enforcement if it is for learning purposes. One of the most often used situations I can think of for this is the balk rule, when the kids progress to the age where they have t hold runners on (here it's not till age 12). the problem with your situation is you cant do the teaching in this case until the play is really over, or you give one team an advantage. Then again, I don't know if your umpires are as good as I am.

WW is right. Going into the details here would derail this thread, and I dont feel right now like starting a seperate thread on it. However until/if I do, I will be happy to explain to anyone who wants to know enough to PM or e-mail me (my e-mail is on my profile I believe). In line with this thread, and RAF's original comments, I think people do themselves a great disservice when they reject (or accept) something only because VPW taught it.

Simon, I applaud you for an admission that an umpire might have missed a call in your favor, but there are a couple points I want to mention... Most importantly, leaving a base too soon on a sac fly is an appeal play. Simply put, if the other team doesn't squawk, the runner wont be called out. Also, they have to squawk the right way; I will go into that upon request. Secondly, payback is a dirty word to a good experienced umpire (of which I am one, of course). If we get a big argument on a play, and later there comes another close and ctritical call, we are faced with a choice if we have to stop and think whon we least want to anger...get accused of "payback", or get accused of favoring one team. The solution is to keep our thinking to the play at hand and call it as we see it. There is no "payback". Over the long run, close calls will even out. But in the short run, if a runner is out by a whisker, I'm gonn call him out even if a runner right before from the same team was also out by a whisker. As I say, if there was abig squawk over a close play, then on the next close play we are going to hear it from one side or the other. So, integrity or not, we may as well call it as we see it without regard to what happened on any play before.

Not to knock the way you put it, Oldies, but I personally prefer the way Raf put it (at the end of your quote of him); I like his source. As far as seperating the teaching from the teacher, when it comes to the Bible anyway, I had that lesson reinforced strongly by my wife and her family years ago, specifically back in 1987 when Billy Graham brought his crusade to our town.

Yea, I sent that PM, but a little too late. I didnt mention I also knew Ed before the corps at Indy. And, I'll never forget how during that Philly WOW year, the 6th/8th corps sister pair (they were actually sisters) who ran the non WOW Philly branch, complained to Ed and me about why we never asked them out.

Still here? We don't bite. I dont think...

If it happened to you, couldn't speaking up in TWI...as essential as it might be...be even harder than your other example? As I am not a victim, that is not a rhetorical question but an honest one.

Fellow 8th corps and fellow Philly WOW on our interim year 1978-79. Havent seen or heard his name mentioned once in all the years Ive been around Waydale/Greasespot.

Yea, and on both sides. I remember at Emporia when JAL, who was there for a teaching visit, got into the salvation thing; that is, those who believed jesus is God might not be saved. And about getting hung up, I know that it was the reacion to jesus Christ not being God that started the process that led to my deprogramming.

Rummy where are you???

I went back to the first post on this thread because it may be a reason, when someone testifies to their experience, that they want to stimulate conversation, or "talking about it" by others, that may benefit many others. Yes, talking about it by the rest of us can be of great benefit...and in fact it is people telling about the horrible things they went through that helps the rest of us realize it's not something that could happen, but something that does actually happen to people. Limiting talk to victims testimony only would not do them or anyone much good. Neither would the talk without anyone at all stepping up and saying, "hey, it happened to me".

I remember hearing all about the Big Texan, then seeing it...but only from the outside. One thing about LEAD I remember was the 9th corps leader of our group. She seemed very impressed with my cozy and presumably well insulated solo shelter. Not insulated enough to keep my water bottle from freezing solid though.

There is a good reason at the start for your question that follows. I don't either. And, no matter how much you try to put yourself in a victim's place mentally, to try to understand how horrible the victim's experience was, you can't really know. More importantly, posting accounts instead of just talking about how "so many" suffered makes a big difference in believability. Your question is actually a very good one. One would wonder why a victim would want to relive a horrible experience, and risk getting hurt more by others in the process. Maybe it would be to help some of us non victims understand better. Where I get pasted is my assertion that there are not all that many actual accounts such as your post might imply; and I think it is probably for the reasons you gave....reliving the hurt, getting hurt more by others, a resulting mistrust of others that can be very understandable, and so on. Often it is just people talking about the subject. Sometime after I have heard someone refer to all the testimony that has been given, and ask where is it, I have been told I should be able to look it up myself, or just discounted with a response like "If you wont believe my (second hand) recounting of someone's experience, you wouldn't believe her direct testimony" as a reason why I don't get to see/hear that firsthand testimony. That kind of response makes me wonder if it exists, even though I can otherwise try to understand how difficult it must be for someone to relive an experience that was horrible beyond anything I have gone through. If an actual testimony, like we see at the start of Sunesis' post on page 7 of the "Does TWI need to be good" thread is just the "tip of the iceberg", then if someone DOES think it important to relive their actual experience to others, maybe it is because they see the importance and/or believe that there are people who can honor the trust given to them. If neither of us has experienced abuse, then we need these accounts to understand "the other side". Maybe...just maybe...a victims way of thinking can sometimes be to help the rest of us understand.

I haven't posted here in a llooonnnngggg time. Not sure when the last time was, but I know I havent made more than an isolated post in a couple or three years. There might be a reason, but I shouldnt go into it here. Anyway, in honor of Simon still being arond, I am popping in to plug my unbeaten Indians.

I think you are partly right. maybe completely right if I catch your drift correctly. I think people care and I think it is important...as are many things related to the knowing of God and his Son. To the extent people can discuss it reasonably and not judge each other, I don't think it is an idiotic subject. But you're right about it being a divider. And I get the impression that you as well would go in for a reasonable discussion of the subject. But since people often get so worked up about it to the point of division, then I can see your "who cares" remark very well. I never believed Jesus is God, even before TWI, and desite being raised in the Methodist Church. Honestly, my first though upon finding about Jesus Christ is not God...the book and TWI doctrine...was like...what else is new? I've seen too much of God working in people to think someone could not be saved, or to think that someone could be disqualified from being a Godly person, just because he/she belies that jesus is/is not God. For a little while after being yanked from TWI, I drifted back nto the Methodist Church. In a membership "class", the senior pastor of the church here in Sushi's favorite TWI city let it briefly but plainly slip that he didn't believe JC is God. He didn't elaborate and I wasn't about to press the issue. And VPW in the book basically admits that in his early years as a Christian he believed JC was God, as did several with whom he interacted, which means believing JC was God did not disqualify them. I don't believe we have to discard the subject. If it divides so much, I can definitely see where you are coming from on your remarks. I just dont want to have to discard all discussion about jesus Christ, God, and things related. I'm just an optimist; thinking that people can have fruitfil dicussions about these things. If it comes to people comdemming others for wat they believe about it, well OK, that's idiotic.

Simon, I know I haven't been around a whole lot lately, but it's nice to run into you somewhere other than the 9th corps or baseball threads. (Go Tribe!). No doubt I have missed plenty of previous opportunities. I like your post. Of course I'm not the collective judge here of whether or not you are right on. But then, that's a big reason I like it. I have seen a lot of collective judgements here over the years of the "we were all screwed" type. I am big on trying to learn more about how others were hurt in ways that I wasn't. I don't know if everyome I've talked to about that believes me or not, though I don't really care anymore whether they do or not. Somewhere along the line I get the feeling that if you mention even mention that not everyone was hurt, or that you personally were not hurt, it is like denying someone else's hurt. Or you get hit with the next step, like being asked if the good you or someone else got from TWI was worth someone else's hurt. An unfair question IMO because someone who has been badly hurt probably cannot know the good I see, just as I cannot really now their hurt. Anyway, in bringing this up, you are in no way whatsover denying that many were hurt, some deeply. You are just saying that not everyone fits into that category. But in just saying that, some seem to believe that it takes away from the idea of how bad TWI has been to many. I don't consider myself as being hurt by my TWI life, or more specifically by my corps time. That includes that fall of 1979 at HQ, fellow taxman (inside remark). I got a lot out of those times that helps me now, though I would hardly categorize my Christian life as cozy and peaceful (I'll spare you the details). And yes, you are right, there was disapointment. I'd be happy to share with you or anyone about that, in the unlikely event that anyone wants to hear it. My e-mail is on my profile, I believe. By the way, I fit into neither of your categories...I neither left or was kicked out; I was yanked out right after the end of that fall. Now, someone will say that of course no one was blaming you personally for anything bad. But as I think you are saying, there is a lot of collective blaming around. Somehow I get the feeling, partly from a response by someone else on another thread, that in the corps and elsewhere in TWI, you were to some extent (maybe a big extent?) a pretty good "fountain of living waters".

Have a BIG happy one, Hope!!!

Actually there is a better reason...it is getting too lonely on this thread. I know there are still a couple of you around.

I guess I'll post if for no other reason than to put the 9th corps thread (briefly, no doubt) down to fourth. But I wont cheat and start posting on every other corps thread that is still lower. Just trying to teach humility.

Okay. I've received a few timely e-mails over the years from Waydale/GS people for which I am thankful. But there was an actual physical gift I got a few years ago that still provides a lift from the thought involved. Thank you, wacky Funster.

Happy Birthday!!!! or hope it was! ttrrriiippppp!!!!!