I challenge the readers to find oldiesman actually admitting vpw bore ANY responsibility when he raped
those women. All he ever points out is their OWN involvement-
which has NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, except when oldiesman PRETENDS it's been challenged-
and that he has not stated outright vpw is innocent when he rapes women.
Even when he sets the conditions, gives the specific example we discuss,
he STILL goes out of his way to avoid vpw getting ANY responsibility for HIS actions-
apparently, the women bear responsibility,
and vpw's responsibility is a HUGE SECRET.
==============
oldiesman:
"Now for an example, there's "Marsha". The following is a summary (if these facts are wrong, someone will chime in to correct):
"Marsha" was invited to Wierwille's motor coach. She was given a drink, and fell asleep. She wakes up on the bed, and Wierwille says "I could have screwed you, but I didn't". She leaves the coach, and is furious. Next day, SHE CHOOSES TO GO BACK TO WIERWILLE'S COACH!! At that point, Wierwille had sex with her.
And so according to these facts, I believe "Marsha" is partly responsible for getting abused."
WordWolf:
"Has anyone claimed that the women had ZERO RESPONSIBILITY?
No-so Marsha's level of responsibility is not in question.
Except for the part where she was drugged unconscious, she had SOME responsibility.
The question more relevant is: did vpw have ANY responsibility for drugging women,
raping women, and using his position as their minister and spiritual leader to
cheat on his wife and have sex with women in his congregation?
Did vpw have ANY responsibility for singling out the women who had histories of
victimization-since victims of ONE person are easier victims of ANOTHER-
and giving them his rap about how sex doesn't matter
(how many ministers tell their congregation that adultery doesn't matter?),
then arranging handy places to have sex,
then contriving to bring them there on some pretext or another,
then tell them that he believed God wanted him to show her how sex can be good
and to "heal her sexually?"
Oldies HAS posted that he thinks it's possible that vpw honestly believed he was
assigned by God Almighty to heal her sexually-
or at least he's raised the possibility himself and refused to state outright whether he
believed that was the case.
Does vpw bear ANY responsibility in all this? If so, how much?
========
In other news,
can someone familiar with Marsha's story issue the corrections?"
WordWolf:
"Actually, whenever we have a discussion, you say everything BUT
"he was at fault when he...."
Feel free to disprove me. I mentioned a bunch of things vpw did a few posts ago.
Feel free to pick one, some, or all of them, and actually admit that vpw did them,
it was wrong for him to do them, and vpw was to be blamed for doing them.
Go ahead."
Nottawayfer:
"How come you don't identify the wrongs done by Vic in this story? Is he exempt from evil in this scenario? Again, another dumb arse comment by OM!!"
Oldiesman:
"I never suggested he was.
But what do you think about Marsha going back a second time to his motorcoach? Is she exempt from criticism?
I think, by her going back a second time after she left the first time, she was facilitating and participating in any "abuse" that may have occurred thereafter."
Tom Strange:
"
OM... have you ever considered that maybe she 'went back a second time' becuause maybe she didn't want to believe that what happened the first time could ever happen again that maybe, just maybe (since he was the MOG) she could confront him or that he would apologize for his behavior or... or...
There are a number of possibilities as to WHY she went back the second time, only she knows why she did... yet you ALWAYS automatically assume that she was going back for one reason... did you ever consider that most of the thoughts in her mind and heart were that veepee was her teacher and protector? and that she should dismiss the thoughts of evil about him?
... you have no way of knowing but since your life's mission is to defend veepee that is what you assume without considering that ultimately, always, veepee was the one in a position of authority and power over her and is entirely culpable for the act."
rascal:
"I am still baffled even after all of this time as to why someone would try focus on the people victimized, rather than the man who so completely and utterly betrayed our trust.
For heavens sakes...if the women had stripped themselves naked and were doing cart wheels back and forth in front of his bus....begging for the man of God to come out and bless them with his healing member....His actions STILL would have been heinous and wrong....
Even if God forbid I was a party animal slut that got exactly what she deserved....anything LESS than a comforting arm around the shoulders, with offers of compassionate councel from those who CLAIMED to be God`s representative..is simply inexcusable."
"This propensity to try to make what vp and twi seem right by painting the ones who suffered at their hands as the wrong doers is to me completely incomprehensible."
oldiesman:
"I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly.
You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances."
====================
oldiesman's position is pretty clear.
A) Coercion was non-existent in twi, including the corps.
B) Entry into the corps was equivalent to taking an oath-which OM's God requires be kept no matter what.
C) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women, no matter what he said,
they were completely complicit in this.
D) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women, no matter what he said,
vpw's level of responsibility is NEVER TO BE SPOKEN OF.
E) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women,
his adultery (he was married) is a non-issue NEVER TO BE SPOKEN OF.
F) Incidents involving vpw drugging women, then having sex with them,
are by no means an indication that he was to be blamed for rape.
Pretty complete picture here.
vpw's a nice guy, and these women who claim he raped them are guilty of ruining his reputation.
I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly.
You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances.
BTW, Happy Friday. :)
Not to mention that by your very choice of words in describing veepee's actions you try to minimalize them...
excesses, you would categorize the systematic and serial raping of God's people, that he was supposed to be shepherding by the way, as excesses???
I suggest that it is impossible to assissinate something that is already dead.
Odd thing to say when you consider most of the threads on GS are aimed to do exactly that -- assassinate someone (VP) or something (TWI) that is either dead beyond doubt or dead in the sense of being a shell of its former days.
Paw, I can understand (somewhat) your reasonings for previewing my posts before allowing them to be submitted but I can't understand what you're afraid of in regards to being able to PM a member of Greasespot. If you're trying to get me to take a hike it's an effective means to an end but, I'm not sure why you just don't do the honest thing and ban me. Of course it might be a bit difficult why you would choose to ban me and not someone else who is guilty of being "mean" to fellow posters.
Not to mention that by your very choice of words in describing veepee's actions you try to minimalize them...
excesses, you would categorize the systematic and serial raping of God's people, that he was supposed to be shepherding by the way, as excesses???
That in itself is disgusting!
All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life.
They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives.
Maybe Wierwille's problem was he was born in the wrong time period? Maybe if he had been around in Solomon's time, or other times when men had many many wives, he wouldn't have been hassled so much by some posters.
B.S......YOU only took a part of that sentence to make it say what you wanted it too...not honest at all oldies, please use my quote in it`s entirety
Four year commitment doest not equal a vow to God, (heres the part you conveniently left out) the breaking of which will bring possession and death.
Well Rascal, that is your impression. But if you are saying that that was everyone's impression, I would disagree with you. you can't speak for everyone. I know folks (myself included) who were not told or ever had that impression.
"if you leave the Corps, you will get possessed and die"
B.S......YOU only took a part of that sentence to make it say what you wanted it too...not honest at all oldies, please use my quote in it`s entirety
Four year commitment doest not equal a vow to God, (heres the part you conveniently left out) the breaking of which will bring possession and death.
How is it you conveniently forget that becoming a member of the Corp entailed taking a vow but, conveniently remember what would happen if you broke that vow?
Woah woah WOAH...wait just a darned minute...ALL men are born with a sexual predatory nature????
I think that you just trashed a hell of a lot of really great men whom are NOT predatory rapists...including my husband and my wonderfull upstanding sons.
This behavior is NOT a problem for a genuine Christian, a man of the spirit such as galatians describes.
VPW doesn`t pass the test, of being of the spirit...not even close.
As far as solomon?? of course he WAS a man of the flesh...DUH....spirit wasn`t available back then...even so...we never read about him drugging raping, breaking his vow to his wife...there IS no valid comparison.
All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life.
They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives.
Maybe Wierwille's problem was he was born in the wrong time period? Maybe if he had been around in Solomon's time, or other times when men had many many wives, he wouldn't have been hassled so much by some posters.
WOW OLDIES... I can't really believe that you believe this... much less typed it... it's really flabbergasting...
And I vehemently dispute (as I'm sure most learned humans would) that "All men are born with a sexual predatory nature"... I'll give you "sexual nature"... but not sexual predatory
"if you leave the Corps, you will get possessed and [or] die"
that's what was told to me and I'd always heard (with the 'or')... not from all leadership, but from LCM, veepee and others...
Reality, one may note, has a certain robustness. It can be picked up and scrutinised and played with. It can be tossed about in the interplay of open debate without fear that such rough and tumble will cause it to shatter. However some people's reality tends to shatter apart when they're caught up in the "rough and tumble" of an open debate.
"Reality, one may note, has a certain robustness. It can be picked up and scrutinised and played with. It can be tossed about in the interplay of open debate without fear such rough and tumble will cause it to shatter."
All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life.
They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives.
Excesses? Umm there's an interesting euphemism...
You like to cite Solomon a lot. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that Solomon had a Biblical directive to have only one wife. (1 Tim 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6) were in the KJV when VP was commiting these acts.
IIRC,Solomon took wives because he was making deals with pagan countries.
The point that was lost on you was that no matter how Marsha acted, had vp been a man of integrity, had he lived up to the standard that he claimed to uphold, then even if Marsha herself had put the drugs in her drink, she should have been escorted politely home.
So now you argue that 'she went back." Well if he had been a man of integrity, the door to the motorcoach would not have been opened to her.
I'm not saying that Marsha wanted or asked for what happened to her. I don't believe she did.
Now, let's get to another point. I have a feeling that some women (NOT those saying they were raped) did feel empowered by the attention of the alleged MOG. I'd wager money that some of these women even believed they were in love with him and he with them. That doesn't change the impropriety of vp's behaviour. He was nearly 35 years older than most of them. These were "his keeds." Some women are taught at an early age to use sex as a weapon and bargaining tool. How does that exonerate vp from what he must have known was wrong?
All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life.
They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives.
Maybe Wierwille's problem was he was born in the wrong time period? Maybe if he had been around in Solomon's time, or other times when men had many many wives, he wouldn't have been hassled so much by some posters.
You like to cite Solomon a lot. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that Solomon had a Biblical directive to have only one wife. (1 Tim 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6) were in the KJV when VP was commiting these acts.
IIRC,Solomon took wives because he was making deals with pagan countries.
The point that was lost on you was that no matter how Marsha acted, had vp been a man of integrity, had he lived up to the standard that he claimed to uphold. Even if Marsha herself had put the drugs in her drink, she should have been escorted politely home.
So now you argue that 'she went back." Well if he had been a man of integrity, the door to the motorcoach would not have been opened to her.
I'm not saying that Marsha wanted or asked for what happened to her. I don't believe she did.
Now, let's get to another point. I have a feeling that some women (NOT those saying they were raped) did feel empowered by the attention of the alleged MOG. I'd wager money that some of these women even believed they were in love with him and he with them. That doesn't change the impropriety of vp's behaviour. He was nearly 35 years older than most of them. These were "his keeds." Some women are taught at an early age to use sex as a weapon and bargaining tool. How does that exonerate vp from what he must have known was wrong?
It doesn't exonerate him. But I still think its possible that many women wanted to have sex with him as well, and that fact could have just possibly encouraged him right along.
BTW Doojable, thank you for not attacking me. :) It's good to just read a calm post.
You'll have to ask Paw. Apparently he won't allow any post I submit which even remotely questions his decision to preview any posts I submit. Nor will he allow any posts which question the validity of fellow members logic. Especially if it involves rascal's penchant for contradicting herself. :)
It doesn't exonerate him. But I still think its possible that many women wanted to have sex with him as well, and that fact could have just possibly encouraged him right along.
BTW Doojable, thank you for not attacking me. :) It's good to just read a calm post.
I'm attacking your statements. I don't know you well enough to attack you personally.
The point remains that vp rape victims. He encouraged others.
Just because there (may have been )many women that wanted to have sex with him doesn't mean he had a good excuse to drop his pants. It certainly doesn't excuse him at all from drugging and raping any woman at any time.
NOW- if he had to drug ANY WOMAN - that would indicate that she wasn't a willing participant, wouldn't it?
You're still making concessions for vp. Why can't you just come out and say that he was wrong?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
49
68
30
33
Popular Days
Oct 19
97
Oct 18
73
Oct 17
50
Oct 22
46
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 49 posts
oldiesman 68 posts
WordWolf 30 posts
doojable 33 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
97 posts
Oct 18 2007
73 posts
Oct 17 2007
50 posts
Oct 22 2007
46 posts
Larry N Moore
:) Depends. It's somewhat irksome to have my post pre-modded. Takes all the fun out of participating in such humorous threads. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I challenge the readers to find oldiesman actually admitting vpw bore ANY responsibility when he raped
those women. All he ever points out is their OWN involvement-
which has NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, except when oldiesman PRETENDS it's been challenged-
and that he has not stated outright vpw is innocent when he rapes women.
Even when he sets the conditions, gives the specific example we discuss,
he STILL goes out of his way to avoid vpw getting ANY responsibility for HIS actions-
apparently, the women bear responsibility,
and vpw's responsibility is a HUGE SECRET.
==============
oldiesman:
"Now for an example, there's "Marsha". The following is a summary (if these facts are wrong, someone will chime in to correct):
"Marsha" was invited to Wierwille's motor coach. She was given a drink, and fell asleep. She wakes up on the bed, and Wierwille says "I could have screwed you, but I didn't". She leaves the coach, and is furious. Next day, SHE CHOOSES TO GO BACK TO WIERWILLE'S COACH!! At that point, Wierwille had sex with her.
And so according to these facts, I believe "Marsha" is partly responsible for getting abused."
WordWolf:
"Has anyone claimed that the women had ZERO RESPONSIBILITY?
No-so Marsha's level of responsibility is not in question.
Except for the part where she was drugged unconscious, she had SOME responsibility.
The question more relevant is: did vpw have ANY responsibility for drugging women,
raping women, and using his position as their minister and spiritual leader to
cheat on his wife and have sex with women in his congregation?
Did vpw have ANY responsibility for singling out the women who had histories of
victimization-since victims of ONE person are easier victims of ANOTHER-
and giving them his rap about how sex doesn't matter
(how many ministers tell their congregation that adultery doesn't matter?),
then arranging handy places to have sex,
then contriving to bring them there on some pretext or another,
then tell them that he believed God wanted him to show her how sex can be good
and to "heal her sexually?"
Oldies HAS posted that he thinks it's possible that vpw honestly believed he was
assigned by God Almighty to heal her sexually-
or at least he's raised the possibility himself and refused to state outright whether he
believed that was the case.
Does vpw bear ANY responsibility in all this? If so, how much?
========
In other news,
can someone familiar with Marsha's story issue the corrections?"
WordWolf:
"Actually, whenever we have a discussion, you say everything BUT
"he was at fault when he...."
Feel free to disprove me. I mentioned a bunch of things vpw did a few posts ago.
Feel free to pick one, some, or all of them, and actually admit that vpw did them,
it was wrong for him to do them, and vpw was to be blamed for doing them.
Go ahead."
Nottawayfer:
"How come you don't identify the wrongs done by Vic in this story? Is he exempt from evil in this scenario? Again, another dumb arse comment by OM!!"
Oldiesman:
"I never suggested he was.
But what do you think about Marsha going back a second time to his motorcoach? Is she exempt from criticism?
I think, by her going back a second time after she left the first time, she was facilitating and participating in any "abuse" that may have occurred thereafter."
Tom Strange:
"
OM... have you ever considered that maybe she 'went back a second time' becuause maybe she didn't want to believe that what happened the first time could ever happen again that maybe, just maybe (since he was the MOG) she could confront him or that he would apologize for his behavior or... or...
There are a number of possibilities as to WHY she went back the second time, only she knows why she did... yet you ALWAYS automatically assume that she was going back for one reason... did you ever consider that most of the thoughts in her mind and heart were that veepee was her teacher and protector? and that she should dismiss the thoughts of evil about him?
... you have no way of knowing but since your life's mission is to defend veepee that is what you assume without considering that ultimately, always, veepee was the one in a position of authority and power over her and is entirely culpable for the act."
rascal:
"I am still baffled even after all of this time as to why someone would try focus on the people victimized, rather than the man who so completely and utterly betrayed our trust.
For heavens sakes...if the women had stripped themselves naked and were doing cart wheels back and forth in front of his bus....begging for the man of God to come out and bless them with his healing member....His actions STILL would have been heinous and wrong....
Even if God forbid I was a party animal slut that got exactly what she deserved....anything LESS than a comforting arm around the shoulders, with offers of compassionate councel from those who CLAIMED to be God`s representative..is simply inexcusable."
"This propensity to try to make what vp and twi seem right by painting the ones who suffered at their hands as the wrong doers is to me completely incomprehensible."
oldiesman:
"I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly.
You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances."
====================
oldiesman's position is pretty clear.
A) Coercion was non-existent in twi, including the corps.
B) Entry into the corps was equivalent to taking an oath-which OM's God requires be kept no matter what.
C) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women, no matter what he said,
they were completely complicit in this.
D) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women, no matter what he said,
vpw's level of responsibility is NEVER TO BE SPOKEN OF.
E) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women,
his adultery (he was married) is a non-issue NEVER TO BE SPOKEN OF.
F) Incidents involving vpw drugging women, then having sex with them,
are by no means an indication that he was to be blamed for rape.
Pretty complete picture here.
vpw's a nice guy, and these women who claim he raped them are guilty of ruining his reputation.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I suggest that it is impossible to assissinate something that is already dead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Woah Goey, I`d laugh at that if it wasn`t so sad :(
Thanks again wolf for cutting through the crap and putting the salient points together in a concise understandable manner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Not to mention that by your very choice of words in describing veepee's actions you try to minimalize them...
excesses, you would categorize the systematic and serial raping of God's people, that he was supposed to be shepherding by the way, as excesses???
That in itself is disgusting!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Odd thing to say when you consider most of the threads on GS are aimed to do exactly that -- assassinate someone (VP) or something (TWI) that is either dead beyond doubt or dead in the sense of being a shell of its former days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
That would depend on the heart and mindset of the person making the commitment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It has not been challenged by me that VPW bore responsibility when he allegedly raped women. I never challenged that point. He does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Paw, I can understand (somewhat) your reasonings for previewing my posts before allowing them to be submitted but I can't understand what you're afraid of in regards to being able to PM a member of Greasespot. If you're trying to get me to take a hike it's an effective means to an end but, I'm not sure why you just don't do the honest thing and ban me. Of course it might be a bit difficult why you would choose to ban me and not someone else who is guilty of being "mean" to fellow posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
B.S......YOU only took a part of that sentence to make it say what you wanted it too...not honest at all oldies, please use my quote in it`s entirety
Four year commitment doest not equal a vow to God, (heres the part you conveniently left out) the breaking of which will bring possession and death.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life.
They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives.
Maybe Wierwille's problem was he was born in the wrong time period? Maybe if he had been around in Solomon's time, or other times when men had many many wives, he wouldn't have been hassled so much by some posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well Rascal, that is your impression. But if you are saying that that was everyone's impression, I would disagree with you. you can't speak for everyone. I know folks (myself included) who were not told or ever had that impression.
"if you leave the Corps, you will get possessed and die"
I don't know Rascal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
How is it you conveniently forget that becoming a member of the Corp entailed taking a vow but, conveniently remember what would happen if you broke that vow?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Woah woah WOAH...wait just a darned minute...ALL men are born with a sexual predatory nature????
I think that you just trashed a hell of a lot of really great men whom are NOT predatory rapists...including my husband and my wonderfull upstanding sons.
This behavior is NOT a problem for a genuine Christian, a man of the spirit such as galatians describes.
VPW doesn`t pass the test, of being of the spirit...not even close.
As far as solomon?? of course he WAS a man of the flesh...DUH....spirit wasn`t available back then...even so...we never read about him drugging raping, breaking his vow to his wife...there IS no valid comparison.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
WOW OLDIES... I can't really believe that you believe this... much less typed it... it's really flabbergasting...
And I vehemently dispute (as I'm sure most learned humans would) that "All men are born with a sexual predatory nature"... I'll give you "sexual nature"... but not sexual predatory
that's what was told to me and I'd always heard (with the 'or')... not from all leadership, but from LCM, veepee and others...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
That has got to be the single dumbest statement dismissing wierwilles culpability as a serial adulterating rapist that I have ever read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Reality, one may note, has a certain robustness. It can be picked up and scrutinised and played with. It can be tossed about in the interplay of open debate without fear such rough and tumble will cause it to shatter."
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/209039.shtml
WTH plagiarized "the Holocaust Hex" again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What the Hey will you please cite your sources.
My only ally on this thread is getting hammered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If he cited his sources, it would be obvious that his only clever posts were cut-and-pasted
from Holocaust denial websites.
That would take most of what little relevance they had away from the posts.
And he's not getting "hammered", his wrongful deeds are being exposed.
That's one thing you can expect here at the GSC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Excesses? Umm there's an interesting euphemism...
You like to cite Solomon a lot. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that Solomon had a Biblical directive to have only one wife. (1 Tim 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6) were in the KJV when VP was commiting these acts.
IIRC,Solomon took wives because he was making deals with pagan countries.
The point that was lost on you was that no matter how Marsha acted, had vp been a man of integrity, had he lived up to the standard that he claimed to uphold, then even if Marsha herself had put the drugs in her drink, she should have been escorted politely home.
So now you argue that 'she went back." Well if he had been a man of integrity, the door to the motorcoach would not have been opened to her.
I'm not saying that Marsha wanted or asked for what happened to her. I don't believe she did.
Now, let's get to another point. I have a feeling that some women (NOT those saying they were raped) did feel empowered by the attention of the alleged MOG. I'd wager money that some of these women even believed they were in love with him and he with them. That doesn't change the impropriety of vp's behaviour. He was nearly 35 years older than most of them. These were "his keeds." Some women are taught at an early age to use sex as a weapon and bargaining tool. How does that exonerate vp from what he must have known was wrong?
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
:o
:(
You are sick! A sick, sick man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It doesn't exonerate him. But I still think its possible that many women wanted to have sex with him as well, and that fact could have just possibly encouraged him right along.
BTW Doojable, thank you for not attacking me. :) It's good to just read a calm post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You'll have to ask Paw. Apparently he won't allow any post I submit which even remotely questions his decision to preview any posts I submit. Nor will he allow any posts which question the validity of fellow members logic. Especially if it involves rascal's penchant for contradicting herself. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm attacking your statements. I don't know you well enough to attack you personally.
The point remains that vp rape victims. He encouraged others.
Just because there (may have been )many women that wanted to have sex with him doesn't mean he had a good excuse to drop his pants. It certainly doesn't excuse him at all from drugging and raping any woman at any time.
NOW- if he had to drug ANY WOMAN - that would indicate that she wasn't a willing participant, wouldn't it?
You're still making concessions for vp. Why can't you just come out and say that he was wrong?
Edited by doojableLink 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.