The Voice of Offence

[JeffSjo]

Thanks DontWorryBeHappy, am I a geasespotter too?

[Ham]

(And yes, I personaly know someone who was made to feel guilty by religious folks for what he had done. He found no escape from his guilt and likewise committed suicide).

the religious seem to be the most cruel. I know of one who was made to feel helpless and inferior because he found his wife was being boinked continually by the then supposed mog.. yes, he committed suicide as well. His last known words to a friend- "I just can't compete with him (lcm)"..

the only difference between him and loy, at least in my opinion.. loy had the benefit of meds and docs when he was cut loose..

the ONLY reason I think they stood behind him.. was NOT for humanitarian reasons or anything. He got them in soooo much "trouble".. I don't think they had an ounce of compassion.

I think it was only to save the organization.. imagine the local newspaper.. ""retired" mogster snuffs himself in a fit of despair.."

it would have been the real end of the organization..

in my opinion anyway..

I'd say "God have mercy on those scumbuckets.." but it's not up to me..

[GarthP2000]

Wordwolf, I don't know if this has already been covered earlier in this thread, but here goes:

If twi could use kidnapping and other measures to enforce their will and conformity, they would.

Interesting point, since during their more profitable days they could have done just that, ... but they didn't. The only specific instances of kidnapping were done by deprogrammers. Instead, TWI's basic means of enforcing conformity is either by shouting you down or marking and avoiding you.

AFAIK, (As Far As I Know), Waydale agreed to shut down as a consequence of the out-of-court settlement on the

aforementioned civil suit.

((sigh)) This Urban Myth continues still. For your (and everyone's) information, Paul and Fern Allan did NOT shut down Waydale as part of some legal plea agreement with TWI. ... This kind of situation would make no sense whatsoever. Paul and Fern had TWI by the, uhh, 'family jewels', litigationally speaking. The party (TWI) who is in such a disadvantagous situation has no place to be calling ANY terms whatsoever. (I mean, what are they gonna threaten Paul and Fern with? "Shut down your site, ... or we're gonna lose badly??" Must've had them shiver in their shoes -- NOT! )

Paul even told some of us himself why they were shutting down Waydale: So that they can get on with their lives. Anyone running a sizeable message board can readily identify with this. (Right Paw? ;) ) It takes a lot of time, effort, ... and money to run a message board of this magnitude. And Paul and Fern, after a year and a half, wanted to hang it up and 'pass the torch' as it were to Greasespot.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

[WordWolf]

Interesting point, since during their more profitable days they could have done just that, ... but they didn't. The only specific instances of kidnapping were done by deprogrammers. Instead, TWI's basic means of enforcing conformity is either by shouting you down or marking and avoiding you.

Personally,

I think that shouting you down or marking/avoiding you leaves almost no "paper trail"

(there's posters here who keep denying it happened!)

but actually kidnapping people-and police reports being filed-

leave evidence that twi would REALLY hate to have around.

I think it was PHYSICALLY possible for them to do it, but I don't think they

would have "gotten away with it"-I think the various consequences would have followed

them for a long time. Why commit crimes when you can get results ALMOST as good

by just using deceit and morally-questionable-but legal- methods?

They could have robbed banks, too-but it was easier to convince people to voluntarily

give them money, then log the money as donations to a religious organization.

((sigh)) This Urban Myth continues still. For your (and everyone's) information, Paul and Fern Allan did NOT shut down Waydale as part of some legal plea agreement with TWI. ... This kind of situation would make no sense whatsoever. Paul and Fern had TWI by the, uhh, 'family jewels', litigationally speaking. The party (TWI) who is in such a disadvantagous situation has no place to be calling ANY terms whatsoever. (I mean, what are they gonna threaten Paul and Fern with? "Shut down your site, ... or we're gonna lose badly??" Must've had them shiver in their shoes -- NOT! )

Paul even told some of us himself why they were shutting down Waydale: So that they can get on with their lives. Anyone running a sizeable message board can readily identify with this. (Right Paw? ;) ) It takes a lot of time, effort, ... and money to run a message board of this magnitude. And Paul and Fern, after a year and a half, wanted to hang it up and 'pass the torch' as it were to Greasespot.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

It does for me. I can't speak for the others. Next time someone raises the question,

I'll have a more-informed answer.

[now I see]

Paul even told some of us himself why they were shutting down Waydale: So that they can get on with their lives. Anyone running a sizeable message board can readily identify with this. (Right Paw? ) It takes a lot of time, effort, ... and money to run a message board of this magnitude. And Paul and Fern, after a year and a half, wanted to hang it up and 'pass the torch' as it were to Greasespot.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Then why aren't the archives available to those of us who've never read them?  Are they worried about some sort of litigation if the information was still out there?  I don't get it, why wouldn't they have sold it or passed it on to someone who'd maintain it?  Everything on that website, for all intensive purposes, is now buried, and will never be known again except for the very few thread excerpts that have been reposted on GS.  I, for one, would have liked to have had access to what was posted there, I wish I could have read it.

[Bramble]

Archiving large amounts of data on the internet is not free, it could be costly. And Pawtucket didn't run Waydale, so that data may be in someone elses control.

[socks]

Sidebar on the Offencive:

Paul Allen - I'm pret' near sure that he posted after their lawsuit was settled, one of the agreements was that he would close Waydale. Time was allowed, and then it closed. Am I the only one remembering that - or mis-remembering?

(Closing down was fine to me. The lawsuit was always a personal action by the Allens and my impression of Waydale was that it was an extension of that, kind of like him opening up his kitchen table to anyone who wanted to take a peek around or "talk". It certainly brought a community of people together on the internet, in way that hadn't happened before. There was the Trancenet thing, I only caught the tail end of that but Waydale was different, at least to me. I think it was historic in the history of the Way (albeit ex-Way) - a completely open and uncontrolled community of discussion about what ended being all-things and anything Way related.)

On the one hand it might seem like a gimme to the Way to credit the closing of Waydale to a demand made by them, even as part of the Allen's settlement. But as Paul stated online himself, he was ready to move on and let someone/something else continue what had developed. Enter GS, ready to go. I think it was wise of him to go that route. I think it made sense for the Way to ask that his internet site shut down, given that the lawsuit was being settled. But - they had no fist in their glove at that point. It was a win-win for everyone. Except the Way, since they don't seem to have completely embraced any process towards resolving all of the issues that were raised. Given the situation, I trust it worked out as well as the Allen's had hoped and worked towards. Seemed like it did.

There was a lot of downloading of Waydale stuff at that time - somebody may still have their downloads stored somewhere. Dunno.

[Mike]

Sidebar on the Offencive:

one of the agreements was that he would close Waydale. Time was allowed, and then it closed. Am I the only one remembering that - or mis-remembering?

Ditto in my memory.

It was during that allowed time that Pawtucket set up GreaseSpot,

or am I the one now mis-remembering?

Edited February 24, 2008 by Mike

[socks]

To add something of moderate but possibly questionable substance on the original thread topic -

I don't see it as a big deal that anyone would ever be "offended" by something or someone. Biblically or otherwise, however it's viewed - people, me, you, whoever, are offended by all kinds of things all the time. To me it's a silly topic, on face value. Don't mean to insult anyone, you What The Hey, but honestly - what's the beef with having a beef? Being put out about something that's done?

It sounds like you want to get into everyone's shorts and tell them to stop being offended. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, it shouldn't happen, IMO. You can't tell me that "Paul" lived without being offended. He wrote about that one guy that had done him wrong, must have bugged the crap out of him to tag it on to a letter where he was holdin' forth. It's surmising to say he wrote that and dropped it. In fact, it sounds to me like he didn't drop it all the way it reads in II Timothy.

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. - 2 Tim 4:13-15

Pauls takes some serious Timmy Time to warn him about this guy. "Great harm". I'd say Paul was a little MIFFED. The Lord'll take care of him? Those are strong words.

I suspect - surmise - based on what he did write that wasn't the only time he said it. What's he going to do - NOT warn others about someone he feels is a threat to the Christian church? That would be kinda petty.

[GarthP2000]

Again, why would Paul and Fern need to do this in the first place? They was 'in the driver's seat'. They had TWI by the family jewels. They didn't owe TWI *anything*. The person who has such a commanding position is obligated to do ... _nothing_. So what was TWI going to do if Paul didn't acquiesce to shutting down Waydale? ... Go on and get their a$$ smeared all over the courtroom by going ahead to trial? That was what TWI was desperately trying to avoid! :blink:

This kind of supposed threat by TWI reminds me of a one-liner wisecrack by the character Lennie from Law & Order: "I love it when they're stupid!"

Socks, you wouldn't happen to have the specific quote/source where Paul specificually said this, would you?

And as far as I remember it, Pawtucket started Greasespot _before_ Waydale ended, and mainly as a chatboard, if I'm not mistaken. But I do remember clearly that there was about (at least) a few months overlap of Waydale and Greasespot.

So nahh, this idea of Waydale shutting down as a condition to a TWI demand is totally out-to-lunch. Sorry! No sale!

[rhino]

Again, why would Paul and Fern need to do this in the first place? They was 'in the driver's seat'. They had TWI by the family jewels. They didn't owe TWI *anything*. The person who has such a commanding position is obligated to do ... _nothing_. So what was TWI going to do if Paul didn't acquiesce to shutting down Waydale? ... Go on and get their a$ smeared all over the courtroom by going ahead to trial? That was what TWI was desperately trying to avoid! :blink:

I have no idea about that case, but it would seem any settlement has some give and take. P&F could continue to have their site, but they didn't really want to. And it would probably be worth something for

TWI to get rid of it. So perhaps it was another bargaining chip that TWI had to pay for.

I don't know that .. just sayin' they may have gotten more money by shutting it down. Yes apparently P & F had won, but when TWI went to the check out counter to pay for all their sins, that may have been added to the tab.

And people were given time to copy all they wanted it seems... some of which appears here at GSC.

[socks]

Yeah GS was started before Waydale closed, was up and running.

I don't have the statement, no. but then if I did, what would it be - an html/text

statement to that effect, "signed" by Paul Allen?

That'll buy you one empty cup of java.

Logic is an interesting thing. I'm sure PawT can confirm Waydale's closure status. Let's see what comes back, it'll be nice to know eggsackly the fax, jax!

Good to s-ee you Garth! by the by!

[What The Hey]

To add something of moderate but possibly questionable substance on the original thread topic -

I don't see it as a big deal that anyone would ever be "offended" by something or someone. Biblically or otherwise, however it's viewed - people, me, you, whoever, are offended by all kinds of things all the time. To me it's a silly topic, on face value. Don't mean to insult anyone, you What The Hey, but honestly - what's the beef with having a beef? Being put out about something that's done?

It sounds like you want to get into everyone's shorts and tell them to stop being offended. Ain't gonna happen.

It seems more to me that everybody here has gotten into "everyone's shorts" and at one time or another have offended others and likewise been offended themselves. I didn't start this thread to discuss how someone should "not to be offended" but rather how to deal with offences when they do come. (Maybe you haven't been paying that close attention to the topic of this thread?)

Of course, that process has been and still is difficult for most because people here keep bringing up the sins of a dead minister and discussing that, rather than discussing this topic - Dealing with offences. If that topic was being discussed, God forbid it might actually lead someone to forgiveness and to forgiving others. But then, that's not the purpose and the reason why most people come and post here on GSC, is it?

...

The rest of what you posted I don't have any problem with.

Edited February 25, 2008 by What The Hey

[rascal]

Aww be fair wth, we bring up the sins of the twi ministers still alive too :)

I am an equal opportunity discusser of the crimes of scum bags masquerading as ministers for God, be they living OR dead, in twi or out.

I suppose if one doesn`t want their lives the topic of discussion...the solution is simple...don`t commit heinous crimes against unsuspecting victims. If you did it...and don`t want people STILL talking about it...repent, apologize, and make amends......THEN I guess all we will have to talk about is the healing.

[rascal]

It STILL suprises me the venom that is directed against the people who merely TALK about the evil acts committed in twi, yet at the same time those so outraged, wanting to nominate the perpetrators of these crimes for saint hood.

Geemany, you gotta wonder where folks heads are at :(

Edited February 25, 2008 by rascal

[rhino]

It STILL suprises me the venom that is directed against the people who merely TALK about the evil acts committed in twi, yet at the same time those so outraged, wanting to nominate the perpetrators of these crimes for saint hood.

Geemany, you gotta wonder where folks heads are at :(

People read the Bible about jerks that did bad things thousands of years ago. Perhaps we should remove all those accounts from history so we can "get on with our lives" ... and not be so bitter.

Or perhaps tagging and remembering deceivers or rapists as bad people, rather than trying to rewrite history ... is the way to go. Sure there were some good times for some despite the bad things ... so what.

[frank123lol]

People read the Bible about jerks that did bad things thousands of years ago. Perhaps we should remove all those accounts from history so we can "get on with our lives" ... and not be so bitter.

Or perhaps tagging and remembering deceivers or rapists as bad people, rather than trying to rewrite history ... is the way to go. Sure there were some good times for some despite the bad things ... so what.

They(twi,c%% c&& whatever) would love you to forget the past..

Then they can go doing what they do best with no accountability by this site or others exposing them

for what they are.

[socks]

Okay What the Hey - let's get to dealing withi offenses.

One of the key traits I see of Jesus in the gospels, the way He's described, is His ability to deal with everyone on their own terms. More than dealing, acceptance.

I don't see Jesus accepting wrongful behavior, evil, sin, in others. Rather accepting the person, as is, warts and all.

From that vantage point He was able to appeal to each person we read about, on "their level", while presenting Himself and His instruction on "His level".

There's an apparent dichotomy there - how could Jesus accept "the person", while not accepting what they did? It begs the question - how can what I do be separated from what I am? Don't actions speak louder than words, and isnt' what goes in less important than what ultimately comes out?

Therein lies the answer, methinks. What goes in is anything and everything. What I do with it is up to me and I choose, decide, act. The actions DO represent who I really am.

And Jesus recognized that all men are sinners before God. Who I am can only go so far, good as it may be at any given time.

Jesus can accept that, as the natural condition of man and not hold it against him or her. He doesn't, didn't, expect anyone to be anymore than what they really are, in their essence. Willing, but struggling. Looking but not clearly seeing. Reaching but not wholly grasping. He knew - mankind needs help, not guilt. We've got the guilt going in. We need a light at the end of the tunnel.

It would have been wrong - immoral and unethical - for Jesus to know that, if He did and let's say He did - and not accept each person for who they were. Anything else would be wrong.

What Jesus did was both simple and immensely difficult at the same time. He appealed to each person to accept who they truly are and then turn to face God in a new and completely honest way - His way if you will. Open, honest and with a desire to accept forgiveness and be at peace with God. "Not my way, but your way", God.

If and when a person didn't do that there wasn't much further He could go. That was what He preached, a way, a truth, a new life. Follow Him. He was "followable".

I can apply that in 2 ways - knowing that in life I will be hurt, as He was hurt. I have an example to aspire to. Idealized though He may be, endlessly repeated in reading after reading, the true essence of both His humanity and godliness becomes clearer and clearer. When I'm hurt, it hurts and all the more when I feel it's unjust. No one's been hurt more unjustly then He and ulitmately, in the end, He forgave all. He knew mankind better than themselves, seemingly.

The 2nd way is to understand as He did - that mankind's behavior can always be wrong, bad, deplorable. Sometimes there's no resolution to be made, nothing that can be done or will be done. At that point, that's that.

Offering forgiveness is one thing. What's done with it by someone else, another. If it's refused, that's the end of it, at least for the time being. There's no resolution.

If it's accepted, we go on. It's pretty simple, but can be difficult in practice.

Simply forgiving someone else isn't the complete answer for a past hurt though. There may be other things that have to be dealt with. Fine, it's up to us to do that. For me, it comes back to the same point of Christ and God. I would certainly look to them for help, where there's a willingness, there's a way.

[mchud11]

I found this thread, within a thread. I read like 20 or 30 posts, theres like 60 pages worth.

Anyway, my opinion, on what the thread appears to be about:

The things I have read, say that those who experience abuse do tend to become abusers. Hence, getting couselling after abuse is a common sense response and may enter into that area of "personal responsibility". That is, I owe it to myself to get counselling so that that tendency to become an abuser does not take form. Personally, I have met many individuals who were never involved in TWI, but have experienced date rape, assault, and so on, and unfortunately they never sought out help or counselling or even filed a police report. I do feel I can relate to this, the embarrassment of talking about being abused to someone, after all, its a situation where the individual is acting against their deep feelings (fear), moving forward and in effect "trusting" someone with intimate details of an incident, not really the easiest thing to do.

I personally do not feel I handled "rage", "anger" and "contempt" with my experience in TWI all that well. I have had periods of my life, with some individual who were at the time still in TWI and I in every way you can put it, "let them have it", as in uncontrolled, illogical, nasty, personal, and illegal behavior. Those incidents were some time ago. And to me, the process of going from TWI to being "normal" was very rocky at the beginning. I was always responsible for my actions, they did not reach the legal standard of "temporary insanity" and it is very true, I could have been held accountable in a court of law... but that never happenned. Fortunately for me, the human condition does include tolerance, and many, many individuals, none of whom have any idea of what TWI is or was about have helped me over the years.

Our legal system, well, actually our government, is based on the idea of "a republic", that is, we are a democracy, but with an added kick of genius. Its not enough in our country to convict someone based on a majority vote, there are balancing elements, one of which is called the Bill of Rights. The Judicial System of the United States, is an ever evolving branch of the Federal Govenment, it changes, ever so slowly behind the real world, but it does respond.

Courts of law, in my experience, knowledge, schooling, do not decide issues of "fairness", per se. They only determine facts. Those facts apply to the circumstance(s) of the specific issue/context of the case before them, whether that is determining what damages are due to a party that has suffered or endured a loss, or whether a law/statue flows with the constitution, whaterver.

Where I am going with this is very specific. TWI promised me they "endeavored" to rightly divide the word. I gave them, freely, money. If I were to call TWI at HQ and ask them where the closest twig was, I doubt they would tell me. One of TWI's positions was that you do not have to donate money to us, as a matter of fact, TWI even used to say, that if I did not trust them, sure, go ahead and take money out of our abundance sharing. If, I had the opportunity, I would be at International, the Sunday meeting and remove every dollar, up to the amount I donated some years ago. They would most likely not like that, and say it wasn't fair. What I say, and believe is that its not "fair" that TWI made a promise to me and was/is unable to keep that promise. Is it an issue I can take to a court? No.

My empowerment in daily living, is due to my legal training, just one year, one year of assocation in a classroom environment with ex-judges and practicing attorneys. TWI, did not, in my opinion, empower me or anyone else with regard to dealing with the real issues of daily living. The lawsuits that came about, with regard to LCM I have read and to me, I feel the plaintiffs in the action got very, very lucky, far luckier than I ever was. The plaintiffs, in my opinion, could not have possibly been as trusting as I felt I was while in the TWI, and I say that, due to the result, they got something.

With regard to dealing with an offense. If its available, I feel confrontation is available until I am dead. I feel I have forgiven those who have offended me, its not like I carry around anger at them anymore...and yet, if I come in direct contact with any of the "offenders", I will be confrontational about the details of those offenses. I do not feel forgive means forgetting, I feel forgiving means taking the emotions of victimization off the table, the why me's of the offense. And I feel I trust myself enough to have the communication skills to be as objective with a confrontation, if it ever occurs, to get to the truth of a matter with someone who has in the past committed an offense with me, just like a court of law. And the amazing thing is, that from my experience, the countless situations I have been in with daily living, it is so incredibly obvious to me, that almost no one can handle being treated the way I perceive they have treated me...it really is a big secret...

So, in closing, the best offense is still a good defense.

michael

Edited January 19, 2009 by mchud11