Note also that TWI and its leaders have NEVER once challenged any of the anonymous letters, even though they would have more desire to squelch them than anyone.
good point JJ
--
as far as anonymous or real names here, i don't think it's relevant
except that i respect you and thank you for always being who you are
as far as anonymous or real names here, i don't think it's relevant
except that i respect you and thank you for always being who you are
agreed!
I had my e mail address posted in the contact section of my profile . It really wasn't necessary.People can send me a message if they feel the need and I think that's a better idea. I removed it. It IS still the internet,isn't it ?
About John J...
ok, first of all , yes ,I'm a "newbie" and how dare I ? but here goes
I understand that opinions are welcomed here.
Many of us post things about twi we don't like,that are untrue,damaging etc.
So does he.
Many give advice,counseling,stories, a shoulder, and the like.
So does he.
Why is HE so often "taken to task" in here for doing the same thing as the rest of us?
We all have opinions,perspectives, & experiences that we gladly share.
His opinions have been sought out by others and he has done a lot to be helpful. (hence the twi portion of his website). and more.
BTW, there are stories posted there that I KNOW to be true.
Why do some ,in here ,feel that HIS opinions HAVE to backed up with a long list of credentials etc. Why is he "held up" as one who must prove himself ,over and over? While the rest of us can just post whatever we want?
Occasionally somebody gets "pounced" upon but none as often as him. Let alone an entire thread dedicated to him. Seems unfair and sorta "bullying". IMHO
Even the name of this thread is sorta, i DUNNO RUDE?? Who the BLANK is he to have an opinion?
once again for emphasis
WHO IS THIS CHARACTER AND WHO IS HE TO HAVE AN OPINION??? UM, ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS WHOLE SITE IS ? Who are any of us to have an opinion? What is an open forum anyway? Must we prove our worth before we can open our mouth? That sounds a lot like the "organization" we all LEFT!
Is there now a sense of fear of anyone who heads up a church ? How can that be helpful?
Just some thoughts
"...and nobody in all of OZ no wizard that there IS or WAS is EVER gonna bring ME down"
ok, so it looks like I messed up the quote portion of my show oops lol
ExWC: Well actually the title is as it is because sometimes if things don't sound a little controversial at GSC they don't get answered. I genuinely wanted to know and am most interested in the response.
I've messaged John in case he had taken offence (which was never intended), and it seems rather than take offence he is both pleased at the kind comments people have made, and amused by the ire of others.
It's no bad thing to be enquiring about/checking the credentials of any "expert" and perhaps if we had been a bit more enquiring at PFAL stage, and allowed to question what was claimed, many of us wouldn't have been quite so messed up in the head at a later stage. The blatant hero-worship and blinkered view of VPW and the intolerance of contrary views or clarifying responses should have been an alert at an early stage. But if you're hungry, you will eat anything...
Some here respect John; some clearly have less respect. But anyone here has the opportunity to consider what he says, to take into account what he presents in light of contrasting opinions, and to formulate an unblinkered view. :)
as far as anonymous or real names here, i don't think it's relevant
except that i respect you and thank you for always being who you are
agreed!
I had my e mail address posted in the contact section of my profile . It really wasn't necessary.People can send me a message if they feel the need and I think that's a better idea. I removed it. It IS still the internet,isn't it ?
About John J...
ok, first of all , yes ,I'm a "newbie" and how dare I ? but here goes
I understand that opinions are welcomed here.
Many of us post things about twi we don't like,that are untrue,damaging etc.
So does he.
Many give advice,counseling,stories, a shoulder, and the like.
So does he.
Why is HE so often "taken to task" in here for doing the same thing as the rest of us?
We all have opinions,perspectives, & experiences that we gladly share.
His opinions have been sought out by others and he has done a lot to be helpful. (hence the twi portion of his website). and more.
BTW, there are stories posted there that I KNOW to be true.
Why do some ,in here ,feel that HIS opinions HAVE to backed up with a long list of credentials etc. Why is he "held up" as one who must prove himself ,over and over? While the rest of us can just post whatever we want?
Occasionally somebody gets "pounced" upon but none as often as him. Let alone an entire thread dedicated to him. Seems unfair and sorta "bullying". IMHO
Even the name of this thread is sorta, i DUNNO RUDE?? Who the BLANK is he to have an opinion?
once again for emphasis
WHO IS THIS CHARACTER AND WHO IS HE TO HAVE AN OPINION??? UM, ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS WHOLE SITE IS ? Who are any of us to have an opinion? What is an open forum anyway? Must we prove our worth before we can open our mouth? That sounds a lot like the "organization" we all LEFT!
Is there now a sense of fear of anyone who heads up a church ? How can that be helpful?
Just some thoughts
"...and nobody in all of OZ no wizard that there IS or WAS is EVER gonna bring ME down"
ok, so it looks like I messed up the quote portion of my show oops lol
I agree with you
I agree in part, because the people here who STRONGLY defend VPW, Chris Geer and the like, never have to prove their "good times" their "good vibes" their "healing" while in PFAL or fellowships. But myself and other's almost had to bring out the blue dress when we told of the behind the curtain events.
I have said that the class was healing and nobody argued, but when I said the man who taught it was NOT - I got slammed in the past.
To people who are against twi and want only to see one side of it, the bad side, Dr. Juedes provides medicine and goodness, I suppose.
So because he's critical of twi, you CATEGORICALLY label his information as negative?
Most of us prefer to READ and EVALUATE item by item, and consider blanket accusations
to be lazy.
But for me, it is poison. I was involved for 19 years and do not accept only one side, only the negative comments and situations that Dr. Juedes promotes.
You were involved for 19 years and DO accept ONLY ONE SIDE-
but that side is "things were always perfect where I was, all the leaders I ever heard of were
perfect, and then just before I left something unpleasant happened, but except for that,
twi was a veritable Shangri-La that always gave full disclosure to everyone."
Just forget everything good that happened and focus only on the dirt and sins of people. Is that godliness? Is that what God wants me to do? I doubt it; but where twi is concerned, I think this is what Dr. Juedes is all about.
Forsake all warning, and focus ONLY on the perceived benefits, and call those with personal
testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?
Is that godliness?
Is that what God wants me to do?
I doubt it-but where twi is concerned, I think this is what Oldiesman is all about.
=============
I imagine the right-wing Republicans are QUITE critical of the left-wing Democrats,
and vice-versa.
But their testimonies about each other are not to be trusted-
I don't understand Oldies, you don't stand with twi, but you defend them?
I was with twi almost my whole life, I don't need websites or anything to convince me something is terribly wrong with twi. There were no "good times" for me to look back on (I missed the 70s).
What are you defending? (It's just no making sense to me)
Bolshevik, were you one of the children of twi that had no choice but to be there? If so, then you have legitimate victim status! Kind of reminds me of my time in the church of my youth. I had no choice... my parents said I had to go, so I went. :D
I guess I'm defending my perceptions and experience of twi. My own opinions. Everyone has them, and of course, you have a right to defend yours.
But, I am sorry you had no "good times" in twi. I wish you did. I wish you were never involved and I'm sure Dr. Wierwille wished the same. I believe he didn't want folks to be there who didn't want to be.
See, Bolshevik,
although most of us don't question that Oldiesman had the experiences he had-
and that some other people had similar experiences-
and that some other people experienced horrific nightmares-
most of us can accept that both types of experiences co-incided.
Oldiesman, however, when he sees posts discussing the horrific nightmares,
apparently perceives difficulty maintaining his perceptions
when faced with experiences that the people he wanted to laud did horrible things
and advocated doing horrible things.
Evidence suggests that his perceptions may be incomplete and require
adjustment.
That means the perceptions he wishes to maintain are in jeopardy.
Therefore since he is vitally concerned-not with adjusting his perceptions,
but with defending his perceptions and experience of twi,
he attacks any posts that offer counter-evidence that his perceptions and experience
may be limited and incorrect.
So,
what he's defending is the "Shangri-La" of "the good old days",
when every decision he made was perfect, because the ministry was perfect and he decided
to be involved. After all, if the ministry was less than perfect, then he might have made some
bad decisions no matter how well-intentioned he was,
I recognize the problem of publishign anonymous letters. Anonymity reduces accountablity (as you've seen here on greasespot, where everyone is anonymous, except for me). I don't like to publish anonymous letters, but do so for a few reasons: First, the stories in some of them are very private, sexual abuse being a good example. By comparison, law courts commonly do not publish the names of alledged victims (such as when Kobe Bryant was accused). So the choice is to insist on publishing names and embarrassing people, or not publishing. Not publishing protects the abusers and (in some cases when they were still in power) allowing them to continue to abuse. This doesn't serve justice or help the vulnerable.
I don't publish all stories sent to me. I satisfy myself that the ones I do publish have the earmarks of being accurate and true. I can't prove every detail, just as a jury in a sexual abuse case generally cannot prove all details of a crime that happened with only the perp and the victim present. In some cases stories have been corraborated by other people in some way before publication. I know the real names of those who posted anonymous letters.
I don't publish letters or accept them as truth without question just because they fit with my view, but because they atre important and appear to me to be credible. This isn't a perfect system, but I think it works fairly well.
The post above mentioned disputing letters. This actually is possible to some degree. I do not give out the names or email addresses of people who post letters (anonymous or signed), but sometimes I forward a response to the anonymous letter writer so that they can correspond directly. The anonymous writer has the option to respond driectly or not. This allows some communication or potential correction while protecting the identity of the writer (and gives her/him the option of identifying herself in private email).
For more on this, see my Editors Staement on Sex Stories in which I explain why we published them. It's well thought out, not just being anxious to attack TWI blindly.
Note also that TWI and its leaders have NEVER once challenged any of the anonymous letters, even though they would have more desire to squelch them than anyone.
However, anonymity is a very small part of our web site. I sign everything I write. I answer email and criticisms (Ive missed a few over the years, but very few). My email and office addresses are published and easily found. I'm the only person I know of on greasespotcafe who uses his real name and who "everybody" knows who he is. Overall, www.abouttheway.com very much supports accountability and responsibility, as much or more than you'll find elsewhere.
John, I use my real name and am not afraid to admit so.
There are more people who use their actual names in posts here than was apparent to me before.
At any rate, I didn't mean to imply that it's bad to use a screen name. (It seems some people aim to be amusing anyway) My note about screen names was just one of several points in a larger topic, namely that www.abouttheway.org and I take responsibility for what we write and don't hide behind anonymity.
Oldiesman, however, when he sees posts discussing the horrific nightmares, apparently perceives difficulty maintaining his perceptions when faced with experiences that the people he wanted to laud did horrible things and advocated doing horrible things. Evidence suggests that his perceptions may be incomplete and require adjustment.
That means the perceptions he wishes to maintain are in jeopardy. Therefore since he is vitally concerned-not with adjusting his perceptions, but with defending his perceptions and experience of twi, he attacks any posts that offer counter-evidence that his perceptions and experience may be limited and incorrect. ...
Why should it matter one iota to you whether or not Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions of TWI? What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't - other than the fact it proves you have an agenda to twist other peoples perceptions. It seems to me Oldiesman has no difficulty maintaining his perceptions of TWI, other than the fact that his perceptions of TWI bothers you as well as some others here. It suggests that your own perceptions of TWI (as well as theirs) may be incomplete and require adjustment - especially when his perceptions of TWI apparently bothers you (and them) all this much - even to the point of even starting threads about it. Again I ask, What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't?
Why should it matter one iota to you whether or not Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions of TWI? What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't - other than the fact it proves you have an agenda to twist other peoples perceptions. It seems to me Oldiesman has no difficulty maintaining his perceptions of TWI, other than the fact that his perceptions of TWI bothers you as well as some others here. It suggests that your own perceptions of TWI (as well as theirs) may be incomplete and require adjustment - especially when his perceptions of TWI apparently bothers you (and them) all this much - even to the point of even starting threads about it. Again I ask, What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't?
What The Hey -- You're a day late and a dollar short. No offense but you're in the wrong thread on this one. Just a couple more posts Pawtucket is going to have to move. ;)
Thanks, Larry. Perhaps he'll listen to you, since he's probably not going to listen to me.
However, since he asked me directly, I shall answer him directly.
Why should it matter one iota to you whether or not Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions of TWI?
I never said it did.
Bolshevik didn't understand Oldies' reasons for posting what he does, and why he does.
I answered Bolshevik's question.
THAT Oldiesman values his memories of twi as a fine, fine organization that he was in while it was a
fine, fine organization and gets antagonistic when someone disagrees has been mentioned before-BY HIM.
I see nothing controversial about agreeing with that and just telling B or anyone else what he missed.
(He could dig thru the old posts and find it himself, but I saw no reason for him to do so.)
I did nothing to try to change either the positions of Bolshevik OR Oldies.
If someone saw me conclude that vpw chose to drug and rape women-based on the personal testimony
of the victims- and then later said "WordWolf believes vpw chose to drug and rape women"-
that would be informative, and in and of itself, not controversial. That's what I said.
Whether or not what I said is agreed-with is a different subject.
So, if Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions, I will go out on a limb and say that's a good thing,
but if he doesn't, that's his own business, which is why I wasn't attempting to change his perceptions-
just declare them and answer Bolshevik's question. Which I did.
What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't - other than the fact it proves you have an agenda to twist other peoples perceptions.
I left his opinions as they were, INTACT. They're his opinions.
That you completely missed that I left his intact may, in fact, reflect that YOU have an agenda to twist
other people's perceptions.
Then again, it simply may reflect an inability to understand my posts-either intentionally or not.
It seems to me Oldiesman has no difficulty maintaining his perceptions of TWI, other than the fact that his perceptions of TWI bothers you as well as some others here.
He's welcome to have opinions contrary to my own. I'm less than thrilled when he hijacks a thread on
one subject to take a discussion of abuses in twi and attempts to make it about something else, ending
the original discussion. I think that's unfair. I also am less than thrilled when his posts seem to position
immediately after someone's personal testimony, and appear to claim they're not being truthful.
That having been said, I even attempted to make a thread where it's on-topic to have his position
so he could post without US antagonizing HIM, and I try to leave options in polls that reflect his beliefs.
I wouldn't do either if him just HAVING his perceptions-or even just discussing them- was something I
found problematic. I find that there's polite, reasonable ways for him to express his positions, but he
chooses not to do so in a fashion that is not antagonistic.
And don't think you're fooling the vast majority of people into thinking you're an impartial observer.
It suggests that your own perceptions of TWI (as well as theirs) may be incomplete and require adjustment
I for one DO seek to update my opinions, as new information comes in. That's what I do, even when it's information
I don't WANT to believe. I initially didn't believe vpw plagiarized or committed any OTHER crime.
And I HAVE taken Oldies' information into account. That I HAVE suggests that my perception is not
as incomplete as you wish to portray it.
- especially when his perceptions of TWI apparently bothers you (and them) all this much - even to the point of even starting threads about it. Again I ask, What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't?
None at all, which is why I consider it a non-issue.
I consider this a MANUFACTURED issue, since you seem determined to invent it and pretend it's
MY issue. Sorry, I won't lay claim to it.
It will be convenient if you understand and accept this. And if you don't, then at least everyone else
will have little problem seeing that the disconnect is not in MY posts.
Thanks, Larry. Perhaps he'll listen to you, since he's probably not going to listen to me.
However, since he asked me directly, I shall answer him directly.
Fine by me but, you do realize that this issue with Oldiesman is exactly why Pawtucket splintered it off into another thread. Nothing like tossing more coals on the fire but, suit yourself.
Perhaps oldiesman would be willing to come forth and clarify his position on this matter?
Everyone is talking about his previous posts, his attitudes, his opinion on "victims" of twi...it's only fair that HE weigh in on this subject...
...C'mon oldiesman...tell us what you think about the girls that Wierwille dragged into the back of the motorcoach
Were they victims or willing participants?
Just an observation but, It looks like you have answered your own question there
tell us what you think about the girls that Wierwille dragged into the back of the motorcoach
If he had to drag them to the back of the motercoach then they would not be willing participants now would they? If they were willling on the other hand they would have walked there one would think. You have predetermined the answer to your question when you offered one option on how they got there dragged. It would be imposible to give any other logical answer than the one you wanted to hear, by your predetermined question. sorta like saying a willing murder victim ................
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
11
11
11
Popular Days
Jul 6
28
Jun 24
20
Jul 5
15
Jun 21
11
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 10 posts
Dot Matrix 11 posts
Ham 11 posts
johnj 11 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2007
28 posts
Jun 24 2007
20 posts
Jul 5 2007
15 posts
Jun 21 2007
11 posts
excathedra
good point JJ
--
as far as anonymous or real names here, i don't think it's relevant
except that i respect you and thank you for always being who you are
Link to comment
Share on other sites
exwaycorps
--
as far as anonymous or real names here, i don't think it's relevant
except that i respect you and thank you for always being who you are
agreed!
I had my e mail address posted in the contact section of my profile . It really wasn't necessary.People can send me a message if they feel the need and I think that's a better idea. I removed it. It IS still the internet,isn't it ?
About John J...
ok, first of all , yes ,I'm a "newbie" and how dare I ? but here goes
I understand that opinions are welcomed here.
Many of us post things about twi we don't like,that are untrue,damaging etc.
So does he.
Many give advice,counseling,stories, a shoulder, and the like.
So does he.
Why is HE so often "taken to task" in here for doing the same thing as the rest of us?
We all have opinions,perspectives, & experiences that we gladly share.
His opinions have been sought out by others and he has done a lot to be helpful. (hence the twi portion of his website). and more.
BTW, there are stories posted there that I KNOW to be true.
Why do some ,in here ,feel that HIS opinions HAVE to backed up with a long list of credentials etc. Why is he "held up" as one who must prove himself ,over and over? While the rest of us can just post whatever we want?
Occasionally somebody gets "pounced" upon but none as often as him. Let alone an entire thread dedicated to him. Seems unfair and sorta "bullying". IMHO
Even the name of this thread is sorta, i DUNNO RUDE?? Who the BLANK is he to have an opinion?
once again for emphasis
WHO IS THIS CHARACTER AND WHO IS HE TO HAVE AN OPINION??? UM, ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS WHOLE SITE IS ? Who are any of us to have an opinion? What is an open forum anyway? Must we prove our worth before we can open our mouth? That sounds a lot like the "organization" we all LEFT!
Is there now a sense of fear of anyone who heads up a church ? How can that be helpful?
Just some thoughts
"...and nobody in all of OZ no wizard that there IS or WAS is EVER gonna bring ME down"
ok, so it looks like I messed up the quote portion of my show oops lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
ExWC: Well actually the title is as it is because sometimes if things don't sound a little controversial at GSC they don't get answered. I genuinely wanted to know and am most interested in the response.
I've messaged John in case he had taken offence (which was never intended), and it seems rather than take offence he is both pleased at the kind comments people have made, and amused by the ire of others.
It's no bad thing to be enquiring about/checking the credentials of any "expert" and perhaps if we had been a bit more enquiring at PFAL stage, and allowed to question what was claimed, many of us wouldn't have been quite so messed up in the head at a later stage. The blatant hero-worship and blinkered view of VPW and the intolerance of contrary views or clarifying responses should have been an alert at an early stage. But if you're hungry, you will eat anything...
Some here respect John; some clearly have less respect. But anyone here has the opportunity to consider what he says, to take into account what he presents in light of contrasting opinions, and to formulate an unblinkered view. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I agree with you
I agree in part, because the people here who STRONGLY defend VPW, Chris Geer and the like, never have to prove their "good times" their "good vibes" their "healing" while in PFAL or fellowships. But myself and other's almost had to bring out the blue dress when we told of the behind the curtain events.
I have said that the class was healing and nobody argued, but when I said the man who taught it was NOT - I got slammed in the past.
So, you are right.
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So because he's critical of twi, you CATEGORICALLY label his information as negative?
Most of us prefer to READ and EVALUATE item by item, and consider blanket accusations
to be lazy.
You were involved for 19 years and DO accept ONLY ONE SIDE-but that side is "things were always perfect where I was, all the leaders I ever heard of were
perfect, and then just before I left something unpleasant happened, but except for that,
twi was a veritable Shangri-La that always gave full disclosure to everyone."
Forsake all warning, and focus ONLY on the perceived benefits, and call those with personal
testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?
Is that godliness?
Is that what God wants me to do?
I doubt it-but where twi is concerned, I think this is what Oldiesman is all about.
=============
I imagine the right-wing Republicans are QUITE critical of the left-wing Democrats,
and vice-versa.
But their testimonies about each other are not to be trusted-
they are TOO BIASED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
See, Bolshevik,
although most of us don't question that Oldiesman had the experiences he had-
and that some other people had similar experiences-
and that some other people experienced horrific nightmares-
most of us can accept that both types of experiences co-incided.
Oldiesman, however, when he sees posts discussing the horrific nightmares,
apparently perceives difficulty maintaining his perceptions
when faced with experiences that the people he wanted to laud did horrible things
and advocated doing horrible things.
Evidence suggests that his perceptions may be incomplete and require
adjustment.
That means the perceptions he wishes to maintain are in jeopardy.
Therefore since he is vitally concerned-not with adjusting his perceptions,
but with defending his perceptions and experience of twi,
he attacks any posts that offer counter-evidence that his perceptions and experience
may be limited and incorrect.
So,
what he's defending is the "Shangri-La" of "the good old days",
when every decision he made was perfect, because the ministry was perfect and he decided
to be involved. After all, if the ministry was less than perfect, then he might have made some
bad decisions no matter how well-intentioned he was,
and we can't have that......
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I've given my ham radio callsign here on more than one ocassion. Even told people where they could look it up.. I am in the FCC database.
If people don't know what my name really is.. they don't know how to type a dozen or so characters in on a keyboard, I don't know what to say..
So I'm not exactly anonymous either..
http://www.qrz.com
hit the tab key three times
kb8pgw
hit enter..
don't even have to fish around with a mouse..
OH.. you can send me a christmas card if you want..
:)
Just as a general practice, I don't post my name here. I'm not afraid anybody will know who I am or anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Plus, if somebody does an internet search with my name, I'd rather them find the sites where I'm involved in ham radio.
Some of us have good reasons not to post with our real names, other than paranoia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
There are more people who use their actual names in posts here than was apparent to me before.
At any rate, I didn't mean to imply that it's bad to use a screen name. (It seems some people aim to be amusing anyway) My note about screen names was just one of several points in a larger topic, namely that www.abouttheway.org and I take responsibility for what we write and don't hide behind anonymity.
John
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I've moved the way off topic to a new thread with Brother Rick, Dr. Oldiesman and Fr. Wordwolf. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Excellent idea. I was wondering if you had that feature on this board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Why should it matter one iota to you whether or not Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions of TWI? What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't - other than the fact it proves you have an agenda to twist other peoples perceptions. It seems to me Oldiesman has no difficulty maintaining his perceptions of TWI, other than the fact that his perceptions of TWI bothers you as well as some others here. It suggests that your own perceptions of TWI (as well as theirs) may be incomplete and require adjustment - especially when his perceptions of TWI apparently bothers you (and them) all this much - even to the point of even starting threads about it. Again I ask, What benefit is it to you if he does or if he doesn't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
What The Hey -- You're a day late and a dollar short. No offense but you're in the wrong thread on this one. Just a couple more posts Pawtucket is going to have to move. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Thanks, Larry. Perhaps he'll listen to you, since he's probably not going to listen to me.
However, since he asked me directly, I shall answer him directly.
I never said it did.
Bolshevik didn't understand Oldies' reasons for posting what he does, and why he does.
I answered Bolshevik's question.
THAT Oldiesman values his memories of twi as a fine, fine organization that he was in while it was a
fine, fine organization and gets antagonistic when someone disagrees has been mentioned before-BY HIM.
I see nothing controversial about agreeing with that and just telling B or anyone else what he missed.
(He could dig thru the old posts and find it himself, but I saw no reason for him to do so.)
I did nothing to try to change either the positions of Bolshevik OR Oldies.
If someone saw me conclude that vpw chose to drug and rape women-based on the personal testimony
of the victims- and then later said "WordWolf believes vpw chose to drug and rape women"-
that would be informative, and in and of itself, not controversial. That's what I said.
Whether or not what I said is agreed-with is a different subject.
So, if Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions, I will go out on a limb and say that's a good thing,
but if he doesn't, that's his own business, which is why I wasn't attempting to change his perceptions-
just declare them and answer Bolshevik's question. Which I did.
I left his opinions as they were, INTACT. They're his opinions.
That you completely missed that I left his intact may, in fact, reflect that YOU have an agenda to twist
other people's perceptions.
Then again, it simply may reflect an inability to understand my posts-either intentionally or not.
He's welcome to have opinions contrary to my own. I'm less than thrilled when he hijacks a thread onone subject to take a discussion of abuses in twi and attempts to make it about something else, ending
the original discussion. I think that's unfair. I also am less than thrilled when his posts seem to position
immediately after someone's personal testimony, and appear to claim they're not being truthful.
That having been said, I even attempted to make a thread where it's on-topic to have his position
so he could post without US antagonizing HIM, and I try to leave options in polls that reflect his beliefs.
I wouldn't do either if him just HAVING his perceptions-or even just discussing them- was something I
found problematic. I find that there's polite, reasonable ways for him to express his positions, but he
chooses not to do so in a fashion that is not antagonistic.
And don't think you're fooling the vast majority of people into thinking you're an impartial observer.
I for one DO seek to update my opinions, as new information comes in. That's what I do, even when it's information
I don't WANT to believe. I initially didn't believe vpw plagiarized or committed any OTHER crime.
And I HAVE taken Oldies' information into account. That I HAVE suggests that my perception is not
as incomplete as you wish to portray it.
None at all, which is why I consider it a non-issue.
I consider this a MANUFACTURED issue, since you seem determined to invent it and pretend it's
MY issue. Sorry, I won't lay claim to it.
It will be convenient if you understand and accept this. And if you don't, then at least everyone else
will have little problem seeing that the disconnect is not in MY posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Fine by me but, you do realize that this issue with Oldiesman is exactly why Pawtucket splintered it off into another thread. Nothing like tossing more coals on the fire but, suit yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Perhaps oldiesman would be willing to come forth and clarify his position on this matter?
Everyone is talking about his previous posts, his attitudes, his opinion on "victims" of twi...it's only fair that HE weigh in on this subject...
...C'mon oldiesman...tell us what you think about the girls that Wierwille dragged into the back of the motorcoach
Were they victims or willing participants?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Just an observation but, It looks like you have answered your own question there
tell us what you think about the girls that Wierwille dragged into the back of the motorcoach
If he had to drag them to the back of the motercoach then they would not be willing participants now would they? If they were willling on the other hand they would have walked there one would think. You have predetermined the answer to your question when you offered one option on how they got there dragged. It would be imposible to give any other logical answer than the one you wanted to hear, by your predetermined question. sorta like saying a willing murder victim ................
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.