the first offshoot of John Juedes

[Bluzeman]

Forsake all warning, and focus ONLY on the perceived benefits, and call those with personal

testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?

For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?

I have seen many people make this accusation about him, but have never see an instance where he called ANY victim a liar. If you can find one, then show us. Otherwise you should apologize to him for saying he said something he didn't.

Rick

[waysider]

For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?

I have seen many people make this accusation about him, but have never see an instance where he called ANY victim a liar. If you can find one, then show us. Otherwise you should apologize to him for saying he said something he didn't.

Rick

Rick

I think you may have missed the focal point of that part of WW's post.(#131)

As I understand the context, he is not accusing Oldies of calling people liars.

He is asking Oldies if he(Oldies) thinks he(WW) should call people liars.(for presenting negative testimony.)

The paragraph was presented in the form of a question.

I could be wrong. That's just my take on what was being said in that paragraph.

[WordWolf]

For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?

I have seen many people make this accusation about him, but have never see an instance where he called ANY victim a liar. If you can find one, then show us. Otherwise you should apologize to him for saying he said something he didn't.

Rick

Let me go find it. There was an entire page where we discussed this,

and he claimed he wasn't while doing it a second time..

[Bluzeman]

If Oldiesman DID call a victim a liar, I will not defend that. But I have seen him accused of that many times, yet I have never seen a post where he did so.

Rick

[WordWolf]

Sorry.

I did not find ONE instance.

I found TWO.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=140

page 8 of

"If Trinitarians are so bad..."

Follow his posts down.

He starts by INSINUATING people are liars (rascal and Garth)

then calls rascal one outright.

I quoted that post in its entirety on that page.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=120

page 7-8 of

"Renouncing the Word because of other people's sins".

Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

While claiming he never called rascal a liar,

he claims she's making false accusations,

which we discuss on page 8.

This probably wasn't the FIRST time.

=============

*checks*

It wasn't.

He also said Sunesis was full of c**p TWICE in this thread...

(When you say someone is "full of c**p", that's a common figure-of-speech in English,

meaning you are claiming what they are lies, which means you're calling

them a liar.)

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...6&hl=Patton

pg-2

"VPW- A Patton Wanna-be?"

Sunesis makes an outright statement,

Oldiesman replies "Sunesis, you're full of c**p." (He didn't star them out.)

Oakspear pointed out that normally Oldies gets circuitous rather than say that outright,

denying others' experiences without saying that outright.

pg-3,

Oldiesman REPEATS it. Top of the page.

"Sunesis, you ARE full of c**p."

Replies down that page, BTW, are pretty interesting.

"Oldies, I submit that you did know know Mr. Wilerwille at all. And my guess is that you spent little if any personal time with him.

What you "know" of Mr. Wierwille is your own fantasy image of him -- not based upon personal experience and knowledge, but rather upon what you want him to have been.

To consider these things to be true about Mr. Wierwille is to consider that many of your own ideas are wrong and is a threat to your fantasy images about VPW and TWI-1.

You are not insulted -- you are threatened with the idea that your belief system is based upon lies and deception and that your hero was not the man you imagine him to have been.

You can't handle the thought of being wrong and your little fantasy world falling apart. You are too invested in it - thus your protest."

is one such reply.

Rick

I think you may have missed the focal point of that part of WW's post.(#131)

As I understand the context, he is not accusing Oldies of calling people liars.

He is asking Oldies if he(Oldies) thinks he(WW) should call people liars.(for presenting negative testimony.)

The paragraph was presented in the form of a question.

I could be wrong. That's just my take on what was being said in that paragraph.

Actually, that WAS my point. However, since he asked for posts, I went and got them.

If Oldiesman DID call a victim a liar, I will not defend that. But I have seen him accused of that many times, yet I have never seen a post where he did so.

Rick

2 responses to direct statements that the poster is "full of c**p",

and 2 responses to direct statements that the posters posts are "false accusations."

(Provided at your requests.)

How many of those count as calling someone a liar, in your opinion?

[Larry N Moore]

Sorry.

I did not find ONE instance.

I found TWO. <snip>

I'm trying to figure out what all of THAT has to do with THIS.

If Oldiesman DID call a victim a liar.

Perhaps you may wish to quote the EXACT phrase where Oldiesman called someone who claimed to be a victim of abuse a liar. I wasn't able to do so but, perhaps I overlooked it. Reading through all the posts from the pages you cited didn't help me one bit to agree with you.

[WordWolf]

That's because you focused on the LAST post, and not everything I really

claimed and responded to.

Forsake all warning, and focus ONLY on the perceived benefits, and call those with personal

testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?

For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?

Let me go find it. There was an entire page where we discussed this,

and he claimed he wasn't while doing it a second time..

Sorry.

I did not find ONE instance.

I found TWO.

(snip)

He starts by INSINUATING people are liars (rascal and Garth)

then calls rascal one outright.

(snip)

While claiming he never called rascal a liar,

he claims she's making false accusations,

which we discuss on page 8.

(snip)

This probably wasn't the FIRST time.

=============

*checks*

It wasn't.

He also said Sunesis was full of c**p TWICE in this thread...

(When you say someone is "full of c**p", that's a common figure-of-speech in English,

meaning you are claiming what they are lies, which means you're calling

them a liar.)

(snip)

How many of those count as calling someone a liar, in your opinion?

My one mistake was quoting Bluzeman's LATER post, after documenting his INITIAL

question. His LATER post asked for something slightly different.

I backed up MY statement, which is what Bluzeman INITIALLY asked me to do.

I'm fairly confident he didn't mean to change the question, and did so by accident,

just as I thought he was asking the same thing, and missed the difference by accident.

Edited July 10, 2007 by WordWolf

[Danny]

Ask him see if he is man enough to admit it.

He knows me well.

After all this time I am still amazed that he still stands up for twi.

they hurt him in all kind of ways.

And he still sings there praises.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Danny

[George Aar]

"they hurt him in all kind of ways.

And he still sings there praises."

Stockholm syndrome?

[Twinky]

This has gone way off topic.

Go attack Oldiesman somewhere else.

[Bluzeman]

Thanks for the reply WordWolf. I honestly DID think your original post was referring to rape victims and such because I have heard OTHERS (not you) accuse him of calling RAPE VICTIMS liars. THAT is what I have never heard him do. And you are also right, that I did not change what I was asking on purpose.

There is bad blood between OM and Rascal. Anyone who reads the forums enough knows that, so what is said between those 2, I put no stock in whatsoever. Both are guilty in the little war they have between them.

Again, thanks for the reply Wordwolf.

"they hurt him in all kind of ways.

And he still sings there praises."

Stockholm syndrome?

I just shake my head in wonder about that myself. But to each his (or her) own I guess.

Rick

[rascal]

That isn`t fair Rick. I`d term repeated accusations of lying/embellishing/exagerating/perpetual whining victimhood more in the catagory of ceaseless personal attacks.....yeah that could lead to *bad blood*

I have never lied. I can only surmise why my experience and testimony would offend someone to the point of accusations against my integrety and veracity.

I resent the hell out of being accused of participating in some silly little forum war when I have simply tried to defend myself when falsely accused of these things. I don`t enjoy the attacks nor the inference that I would EVER falsely accuse anybody simply because I disliked them.

I am not the only person that has been mistreated in twi that has been called a liar here, usually by the same couple of people.....and yet the accusers can offer no other proof than they just don`t want to believe that about the ministry leaders that they once liked and respected.

On second thought, maybe it is a war being waged trying to silence people sharing the more viscious side of twi experiences :(

Edited July 10, 2007 by rascal

[TheHighWay]

Bluzeman, in my experience Oldiesman rarely if ever comes right out and calls someone a liar. He just responds to their posts in a condescending, denying, snide, casually disregarding manner. And when he is called on the carpet about it, he sidesteps and raises issues with the person calling him out. He usually denies that he meant any ill will at all...

To some it may not be noticable, to others it may seem just a bit off, but to anyone who has lived with an abuser of any kind, they can recognize those tactics a mile away. And it rubs them very much the wrong way. Immediately! They are being trashed, and they know it, and the person doing it thinks they are so smooth that they can get away with it. (well, frankly, I think most people who do this don't even realize that they are dong it, and so it's easy for them to deny any culpability) How dare anyone accuse Oldiesman of living in the past, seeing twi through rose-colored glasses, doubting every negative ever said about twi, or subtly slamming the one who said it? He was just asking a question, posting his own thoughts, stating his own opinion. No ill-will intended...

I have nothing personally against Oldiesman, and he often brings interesting comments and information to this forum. But I believe he has a big blind spot when it comes to twi, and I've learned to read his posts with caution.

That being said, I'm sure there are folks here who don't like me or what I have to say much, either. That's the beauty of this place. We all HAVE a place here.

Edited July 10, 2007 by TheHighWay

[oldiesman]

Thanks Bluzeman, I appreciate the support.

I can't remember whether someone was called a liar by me or I believed they were lying. I forgot the context, it was probably very long ago. I do believe some posters are great at spinning, like Wordwolf. :D

Is evil surmising a form a lying? I don't know, perhaps. I DO believe some posters are great at surmising evil. Thinking the worst about twi and ignoring everything else. Promoting the sins and faults of people (particularly male leaders) over everything else. Is that a form a lying? I don't know, perhaps.

Is promoting factual information that is all one-sided a form of lying? This is what Dr. Juedes does on his website. Is that lying? I don't know, it is interesting.

I suppose if someone says that twi is lying when they promote only positives about their group, someone else may come along and say that Dr. Juedes is lying when he promotes only negatives about twi. Seems like a fair assessment to me.

[TheHighWay]

Is promoting factual information that is all one-sided a form of lying? This is what Dr. Juedes does on his website. Is that lying? I don't know, it is interesting.

I suppose if someone says that twi is lying when they promote only positives about their group, someone else may come along and say that Dr. Juedes is lying when he promotes only negatives about twi. Seems like a fair assessment to me.

Hmmm... now you got me thinkin' again, Oldiesman... Excellent points!!

[pond]

That isn`t fair Rick. I`d term repeated accusations of lying/embellishing/exagerating/perpetual whining victimhood more in the catagory of ceaseless personal attacks.....yeah that could lead to *bad blood*

I have never lied. I can only surmise why my experience and testimony would offend someone to the point of accusations against my integrety and veracity.

I resent the hell out of being accused of participating in some silly little forum war when I have simply tried to defend myself when falsely accused of these things. I don`t enjoy the attacks nor the inference that I would EVER falsely accuse anybody simply because I disliked them.

I am not the only person that has been mistreated in twi that has been called a liar here, usually by the same couple of people.....and yet the accusers can offer no other proof than they just don`t want to believe that about the ministry leaders that they once liked and respected.

On second thought, maybe it is a war being waged trying to silence people sharing the more viscious side of twi experiences :(

fair is fair right rascal?

indeed it is about experiences.. for everyone.

so where is your proof? proof? fair is fair? really if the standard is any type proof of a experience , I think this forum would be done.

As highway states everyone has an opinion.. and it is often those who yell the rudest loudest and longest who get read. or at least "known" as a poster and that is what is the standard here.

[Larry N Moore]

WW: That's because you focused on the LAST post, and not everything I really claimed and responded to.

Actually, I don't think I was. I'm not sure why you would think so but, I'll accept it's the way you look at it.

As I see it, Bluzeman in response to this . . .

WW: Forsake all warning, and focus ONLY on the perceived benefits, and call those with personal

testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?

. . . asked this . . .

For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?

He then goes on to say . . .

I have seen many people make this accusation about him, but have never see an instance where he called ANY victim a liar. If you can find one, then show us. Otherwise you should apologize to him for saying he said something he didn't.

This confirms that he was specifically asking for any quotes where he (Oldiesman) accused VICTIMS of lying with regards to BAD EXPERIENCES.

To this you responded . . .

Let me go find IT. There was an entire page where we discussed this, and he claimed he wasn't while doing it a second time.

When you stated you were going to "find IT" it is only reasonable to assume that you were referring to occurrences where Oldiesman called VICTIMS of BAD EXPERIENCES liars with regards to their BAD EXPERIENCES. I don't see (in the pages you cited) that occurring. There certainly wasn't an ENTIRE page where you and he discussed where Oldiesman called VICTIMS of BAD EXPERIENCES liars. If there was I don't think I would have missed it. Most of what I saw was where Oldiesman was defending himself against false accusations made concerning him.

In any case – I see where Bluzeman didn't pressure you to apologize to him, nor where Oldiesman ask for one so it doesn't really matter even though I still think an apology is in order. I agree with him when he says "I do believe some posters are great at spinning, like Wordwolf." I see the same thing and I suppose that is the only reason why I even bothered adding my two cents on this side-issue.

[WordWolf]

As I QUOTED DIRECTLY WITH THE TIMESTAMPS INTACT,

I said

"and call those with personal testimony of bad experiences 'liars'?"

Bluzeman asked

"For the record, where did Oldiesman call anyone a liar?"

and asked for the proof:

"If you can find one, then show us."

I replied

"Let me go find it. There was an entire page where we discussed this,

and he claimed he wasn't while doing it a second time.."

I then-with links- supplied between 2 and 4 examples.

Bluzeman accidentally-(" And you are also right, that I did not change what I was asking on purpose.")

changed what I was asserting, and thanked me for supplying proof for my statement.

I did not supply proof of HIS statement, which was accidentally different from mine.

Others have noted-in the past as shown in the linked threads- and in the present (scroll up)

that normally he insinuates, suggests, needles, and so on, but rarely comes right out and

calls someone a liar.

As for your perception,

if you perceive-after reading posts from both posters-

that WordWolf is a spin doctor and Oldiesman is NOT,

well, that's your opinion, but I think it doesn't speak well of your ability to discern one from the other.

You are of course entitled to your discernment and opinion, no matter what I think of it.

This has gone way off topic.

Go attack Oldiesman somewhere else.

My involvement in this was simply to point out that-at worst- Juedes is guilty of doing

exactly what Oldies does, but in the opposite direction, whereas Oldies sees it as fine when

HE does it, but reprehensible when Juedes does it.

After that, my comments-which I really didn't think were worth commenting on-

were challenged to be proven, so I provided links.

I'd still have preferred to drop it once answering a direct question,

but responses to my answers have included some nice vague

(AND UNDOCUMENTED- note I documented MINE on request)

accusations that I engage in spin, by 2 different posters.

I, for one, didn't "attack Oldiesman".

[Larry N Moore]

As for your perception, if you perceive-after reading posts from both posters- that WordWolf is a spin doctor and Oldiesman is NOT, well, that's your opinion, but I think it doesn't speak well of your ability to discern one from the other. You are of course entitled to your discernment and opinion, no matter what I think of it.

Your opinion (regarding my discernment ability) is noted. I would be more inclined to accept your opinion regarding Oldiesman IF you would actually provide the direct and exact quote where he called those who had BAD EXPERIENCES liars -- meaning they were lying about their bad experiences. Your response -- as it is -- is very wordy and whenever I see a lot of wordiness, when it's not necessary, I'm inclined to think some spin is taking place. I don't think you've done it intentionally but, rather you're just seeing things which aren't really there. But you could very easily prove me wrong by providing the exact phrase in the pages you cited which support your assertion that Oldiesman called VICTIMS of BAD EXPERIENCES liars.

BTW -- I could never keep you on my ignore list. You're too interesting of a character for me to ignore -- for too long. :)

[doojable]

Larry - I would suggest that you read a LOT of Oldiesman's posts.

As you well know, sometimes in a forum there is a history that follows someone.

I am neither confirming nor denying that Oldiesman has done what he is accused of - because I really don't want to get into this fight - but I think that you will see where WW and other posters are coming from if you do as I suggest.

[Larry N Moore]

Larry - I would suggest that you read a LOT of Oldiesman's posts.

As you well know, sometimes in a forum there is a history that follows someone.

I am neither confirming nor denying that Oldiesman has done what he is accused of - because I really don't want to get into this fight - but I think that you will see where WW and other posters are coming from if you do as I suggest.

Thanks for the suggestion doojable. I sensed there was "history" between Oldiesman and other posters. I just didn't see what he's been accused of in this (now splintered) thread. I think that accusation should be retracted if support can't be provided for it. What WW provided, imo, didn't meet that level of acceptability.

[WhiteDove]

Sorry but this question just begs to be asked......

It's obvious that Geer took all Wierwille's teachings at face value and didn't assess them thoroughly

Will it be obvious that his offshoot will just take all of his teachings at face value and not ascess them as well?

[Oakspear]

Personally I have neither the time nor the inclination to search through every one of Oldiesman's posts to back up my opinion of his opinions. He very obviously doesn't believe what a lot of us report about TWI and its top dogs. In my opinion he is willfully ignorant about what went on behind the scenes and views his time in TWI through PFAL-colored glasses. He has every right to his opinions.

If his opinion is that someone is lying, so what? That's what he thinks.

Recently I suggested that another poster's colorful story was a fabrication, several other posters suggested the same, because that was our opinion.

If you don't like his opinion, so what? If one has little respect for what another psoter says, what difference does it amke what they say?

[Larry N Moore]

If you don't like his opinion, so what? If one has little respect for what another psoter says, what difference does it make what they say?

I agree, for the most part, with you. What I question is -- If you have little respect for what someone else says, why would you even dignify their opinion with a response?

[Ham]

considering his (geers) concerns at pop with the supposed value of the vicster's work.. I would agree with the statement. He did NOT really weigh them with "the word" or even reality for that matter.

Afraid that some guy who published a juvenile paper about adultery would threaten the existence of the vicster's moghood..

you tell me..

it was ALWAYS about the vicster.. how he met him, how he showed the proper protocol, how he was soooooo daggone "obedient" when the "others" failed..

how he practiced with him, in the unlikely event someone would try to assasinate the vicster..

how the vicster was so "blesssssed" with his performance in Gartmore..

how he was supposedly the vicster's spokesman..

how he reduced people to crying in the corners of Gartmore, in the name of the vicster..

sooooo afraid.that vic's work won't survive to the next generation..

I don't know whether to think it is pitiable, or laughable.