Don't sweat it Dooj - WD also fails to recognize that in every court in the US what is called eye witness testimony is given precedent over "circumstantial" evidence. While there are admitted weaknesses in so-called eye witness testimony it has been shown over many years to be the most trustworthy. Now I grant you that if 50 people claim to have been abducted by aliens and anally probed - well - that is probably subject to further question since there is no particular reason that anal probing goes with alien abduction by inference. However, given the AMPLE and BELIEVABLE testimony given by both women and men about sexual abuse in TWI - in any court - if the drunken cr@Pmouthed, lunatic, abusive, Vic were still alive - he'd be in tough shape in any court in this country. He would fare better in a court where women are considered second rate citizens - perhaps in a country that believed in ritual genital mutilation as a male prerogative. But WTF - since he is dead (thank goodness) we can't take him to court for those crimes of rape and abuse. So let WD have his day - besides - come on - if you egg him on it provides more interesting reading.
Edited for bad grammar
But we havent been to court now have we ? ....... and if we had your eyewitness reports would have been subject to examination which again they were not were they? given that fact you have no point of comparison, you are comparing a fair day in court vs no day in court, trial by internet..... I bet every court in the US would reject that as a non binding decision.
But we havent been to court now have we ? ....... and if we had your eyewitness reports would have been subject to examination which again they were not were they? given that fact you have no point of comparison, you are comparing a fair day in court vs no day in court, trial by internet..... I bet every court in the US would reject that as a non binding decision.
It is down right goofy to say people can't form an opinion without a case going to court. VP and TWI are not being "convicted" ... they are having an opinion formed about them ... you generally attempt to discredit many of the first hand accounts as "inadmissible". But they don't have to be cross examined (except by those here) because this is not a trial ...
Trial by press or by internet refers to when an actual trial is prejudiced ... by the story being told widely in the press, so that jurors are tainted. This is not a trial of vp ... it is people forming opinion from a multitude of "testimonies" and first hand accounts. My opinion and yours are non binding on vp or twi ... they are just opinions. (but mine is correct)
The term "apologist" is getting worn out though .. it gets used as an argument against everything now ...
Bush apologist
Clinton apologist
TWI apologist
Just throw the term out there, and it supposedly discredits the other person entirely ... it is rather lame but seems to pass for argument now ...
While I get Groucho's point about warning people about a cult ... most points of reference here are 10-20 years old. Most of the "other side of the story" is pointing out what a fraud vp (or lcm) was ... so it mostly applies to TWI and the splinters to the degree they cling to vp (and his dogma) as some sort of MOGFOT.
Or to the degree they have mini mogs trying to reclaim their old glory, using the same old schtick.
There does seem room here for other reflections on our past time ... and that makes the place more interesting and fun, and less like a bunch of angry and bitter ex TWI orphans.
Overall the place seems to work OK ... the bumpy one seemed to push his point quite a bit ... hopefully he can work something out if he bothers to read his email. And hopefully gsc is not central to anyone's life here ... just one of our points of distraction ...
It is down right goofy to say people can't form an opinion without a case going to court.
Trial by press or by internet refers to when an actual trial is prejudiced ... by the story being told widely in the press, so that jurors are tainted. This is not a trial of vp ... it is people forming opinion from a multitude of "testimonies" and first hand accounts. My opinion and yours are non binding on vp or twi ... they are just opinions. (but mine is correct)
Well stated...
The term "apologist" is getting worn out though .. it gets used as an argument against everything now ...
Bush apologist
Clinton apologist
TWI apologist
Just throw the term out there, and it supposedly discredits the other person entirely ... it is rather lame but seems to pass for argument now ...
Generally I agree with you on that item - I don't use that branding as it has just become too general - I just happened to disagree with WD on his post about Vic and the evidence (or in his opinion lack thereof) - by no means calling him an Vic apologist. He could however use a simple lesson in manners.
It is down right goofy to say people can't form an opinion without a case going to court. VP and TWI are not being "convicted" ... they are having an opinion formed about them ... you generally attempt to discredit many of the first hand accounts as "inadmissible". But they don't have to be cross examined (except by those here) because this is not a trial ...
Trial by press or by internet refers to when an actual trial is prejudiced ... by the story being told widely in the press, so that jurors are tainted. This is not a trial of vp ... it is people forming opinion from a multitude of "testimonies" and first hand accounts. My opinion and yours are non binding on vp or twi ... they are just opinions. (but mine is correct)
The term "apologist" is getting worn out though .. it gets used as an argument against everything now ...
Bush apologist
Clinton apologist
TWI apologist
Just throw the term out there, and it supposedly discredits the other person entirely ... it is rather lame but seems to pass for argument now ...
While I get Groucho's point about warning people about a cult ... most points of reference here are 10-20 years old. Most of the "other side of the story" is pointing out what a fraud vp (or lcm) was ... so it mostly applies to TWI and the splinters to the degree they cling to vp (and his dogma) as some sort of MOGFOT.
Or to the degree they have mini mogs trying to reclaim their old glory, using the same old schtick.
There does seem room here for other reflections on our past time ... and that makes the place more interesting and fun, and less like a bunch of angry and bitter ex TWI orphans.
Overall the place seems to work OK ... the bumpy one seemed to push his point quite a bit ... hopefully he can work something out if he bothers to read his email. And hopefully gsc is not central to anyone's life here ... just one of our points of distraction ...
I never said one could not have an opinion , that is different than conclusive fact. What I said is that one can not reach a verdict as many have without a fair hearing. Surely on this Independence weekend you are not suggesting that we decide guilt or innocence by the internet?
Earlier in this thread I said something along the lines of fre speech being only incidental to what goes on here. Another poster expressed some surprise that I said it. Let me expand upon it a bit.
I did mean it.
Here is an exerpt from the "About Us" and "Forums" section on the home page
GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery.
These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum.
The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the cooks, waitresses, bus boys, or cashier of the GreaseSpot Cafe.
The mission of GSC is "to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees". The primary mission of GSC isn't to provide a forum for free speech. Now I'm of the opinion that free speech allows for a better flow of ideas and allowing dissenting or minority opinions gives greater credibility to the "mission". But free speech for its own sake isn't why GSC exists. There are many places where TWI's side of the story is presented, TWI's own website, their Sunday services including tapes, as well as numerous fellowship meetings. Then there's the unofficial TWI sites like Family Tables. On none of these is there even the pretense of free speech. Disagree, or even ask a question and you're out! Add to this the numerous sites affiliated with various splinter groups, where disagreement with the prevailing doctrine is not permitted. Even among anti-TWI sites there is no allowance for dissenting opinions.
GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered.
Note that harrassing behavior and personal attacks are not allowed. Of course the poster doing the harrassing is not going to think that they are harrassing or attacking. That's one of the jobs of the administrator and the moderators, to determine whether posts fall into those categories and what to do about it. Is everybody going to be pleased 100% of the time? No. Does that mean we don't have standards? Also no.
This is not about any surpression of free speech, it's about stopping harrassing behavior in the forums.
GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered.
Note that harrassing behavior and personal attacks are not allowed. Of course the poster doing the harrassing is not going to think that they are harrassing or attacking. That's one of the jobs of the administrator and the moderators, to determine whether posts fall into those categories and what to do about it. Is everybody going to be pleased 100% of the time? No. Does that mean we don't have standards? Also no.
This is not about any surpression of free speech, it's about stopping harrassing behavior in the forums.
Nicely put.
I still think more posters would have a realistic impression of what moderators had to do if THEY had
to moderate a board at some point. It's not so hard when there's no disagreements and it's all a
mutual admiration society. When that isn't the case, sooner or later someone will "go too far",
and staff has to make that determination, and decide what reponses to make.
In case I'm unclear, I'm NOT advocating anyone start HERE. That's just inviting trouble.
I meant at an easy-to-manage board. Start with the bunny slope before trying to ski down Dead Man's Curve.
I never said one could not have an opinion , that is different than conclusive fact. What I said is that one can not reach a verdict as many have without a fair hearing. Surely on this Independence weekend you are not suggesting that we decide guilt or innocence by the internet?
We decide on an opinion of guilt or innocence by any means we choose.
When it comes to punishment or retribution, that is decided in court.
Are you saying it is a "conclusive fact" that OJ was innocent? It was "proven" in one decision and not in another. And outside that, most have an opinion of OJ's guilt based on TV and internet.
Earlier in this thread I said something along the lines of free speech being only incidental to what goes on here. Another poster expressed some surprise that I said it. Let me expand upon it a bit.
I did mean it.
....
This isnot about any surpression of free speech, it's about stopping harrassing behavior in the forums.
Free speech being "only incidental" says something else to me. It is different than saying "This isnot about any surpression of free speech"
The idea was presented that bumpy was bumped because of his views ... implying free speech was not allowed. But free speech is allowed ... it is not "incidental" ... it is part of your quote that ...
These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
Harassment (or name calling) is not part of free speech ... it is a separate issue. "Incidental" seems to imply free speech may or may not occur, but telling the other side is what is ultimately more important. It seems now that is not what you meant.
We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees.
GS, and Waydale before it, have always struck me as fulfilling a need to draw people of interest into a place
where information and opinion could be shared, openly and unfettered. The fact that there are users shows there's a need.
There are constantly differing opinions - the "other" side of the story is really "any other side" of the story, as told by a participant, from their viewpoint and experience. The Way has told their side over the years, what they choose to release. They don't provide any open forum physically or virtually for discussion of anything, other than what they allow. GS does.
There's no restriction on that, other than those imposed by the community itself. Oakspear makes a great point -
GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered.
Any opinion can be posted, and the community responds to it as they do.
The only real restrictions revolve around two things, I've noticed: how the participants of GS treat each other, and those being discussed. There's occasional deviances but they really don't deal with the opinion or idea or item being posted, they deal with how the reactions to it progress. The rules are more social than ideological - again, some deviation from that such as in regards to people's past stories and how they're responded to - but I think it still comes back to the perceptions of how they're being treated - with respect or not.
How those who post their experiences are responded to falls into that. I can disagree with you - that's part of the basic mission statement - "The other side of the story" is an open book participants write. If I write "I think the Way was great! You guys are nuts!" no one comes along and deletes that and says "you can't write that here".
But the community of posters can respond in such a way that the reaction and responses fall into disarray, get ugly and become "abusive" to some degree - again that behavior is outlined in GS's statements of purpose and expectations for participation in the forums. Once threads do that, some form of management occurs - it should, the board has rules for behavior - courtesy,reasonable civility - that should be upheld, otherwise they should be taken down. As long as they're up, they stand.
The rules ebb and flow - things continue, slow down, stop, go away, come back. That form of self-management seems to work most of the time, at least to me. Some threads I think geez- when's this rat gonna drown? But there's stuff that always comes back up voer and over. Some of the disagreements seem kind of dull to me but the fact that they go on says something - they can be posted here, for whatever it's worth.
A recurring form of posting seems to be when someone disagrees and chooses to goof on everyone over and over. The disagreement is there, but it's expressed in a way that doesn't really provide a way to respond to what's said other than "huh?" That's where the trolling stuff comes in I think - some humor enters into discussions all the time, but if that's all someone does in disagreement, it will end up appearing to be belligerent, "passive-agressive" as they call it. Rather than state and restate an opinion, I could choose to just make fun of someone else's. That's going to have a short shelf life.
Still, a lot of us make fun of the Way and it's principles, it's ideas, it's history and it's actions. Again, if that's all the was done, it would wear thin. This would end up a satire/parody site rather than a discussion forum. Maybe it is a satire site, in some abstract way.
And so first of all: Until 2018? Most posters here will probably be dead or geezin' bad by that time. And second of all, there is absolutely no explanation at all as to WHY he got suspended. One would think that if one broke the rules, the suspended one should at least be afforded the courtesy as to WHY he had been relegated to the suspension heap, ya know? But no. And ya know, even though we are all "cyber people" here, in reality, we are all actually real people here, and if Bumpy was supposedly discourteous, at least he has the right to be told just how he was, in the eyes of the moderators, being discourteous.
To me, this lack of an explanation shows a serious lack of courtesy, and throws a shadow over why there was his suspension in the first place. Maybe Bumpy just isn't "liked" by the moderator and was thrown out because of it. And if those are the rules here: "We don't like you so just leave", then fine so be it, it is your site as RR stated. But I didn't think this was a place like that. And it's weird too ya know? WD, Oldies, Mike and me aren't liked by many, but they/we are still here. And even though I was a blatant violator of the rules (calling Rascal an expletive), I was banned for but a month. But Bumpy for ten years and without an explanation? Just seems pretty unfair, that's all.
And so, maybe Bumpy's "offending post" should be displayed here for all to see and judge. How bout it? Post it. He has expressed his desire to have his offending post displayed, so go ahead and do it so we can see if it is way worse than the offending post that earned me a one month suspension...
Oh, and yeah, I forgot one more thing about his suspension notice:
"This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.".
Gee thanks. Kinda like an automated response form letter from someone who you supported faithfully as a Way Corps Sponsor: "And by the way, don't bother writing me again and asking why I don't want any more letters from you....
Duh..... A quick look through the threads will tell one that for years despite the fact that many have corrected this misconception some still don't seem to get it. Count the times some of us are referred to as such and you will see that it is clear the intent, even though some don't have the guts to actually name us. It was not a generic term, look up who is consistently called Wierwille apologists it is a small few. and you are perfectly aware of it so don't act dumb it does not become you.
You know... I can call you a lot of things - but if you don't respond to those names they won't stick.
Why is it that when someone says the phrase "Wierwille apologist" you come running? It's a title you respond to. If someone insisted on calling me that I certainly would keep on walking. If they looked me dead in they eye and said it I'd give them that look :blink: that kinda means "WTF"?
In any case, I'd not jump to that name every time I heard it.
BTW- nice attempt at ending your post with a backhanded compliment. I think I saw that technique taught on another thread ... something about ... a letter...
You continually deny that you are a "Wierwille apologist" and yet you found offense in a quote that didn't name you specifically. Groucho didn't say, "How long will the Wierwille apologists, WhiteDove et al, continue to live in denial?..." He used a generic term. He named a group of folks. Why did you take up the cause for a group you urgently claim has no relation to you?
You could have said to yourself, "Huh... doesn't apply to me. I wonder what's going on on another thread." Even if you suspected you were implied in that statement, you could have declined to answer to a title that you say isn't your's. The statement could have been buried on the thread amidst other comments about the interview and the pending release of the book.
*Edited to fix grammar*
The idea was presented that bumpy was bumped because of his views ... implying free speech was not allowed.
I don't recall the reason Bumpy was bumped as ever really being stated. This is how it should be.
And so first of all: Until 2018? Most posters here will probably be dead or geezin' bad by that time. And second of all, there is absolutely no explanation at all as to WHY he got suspended. One would think that if one broke the rules, the suspended one should at least be afforded the courtesy as to WHY he had been relegated to the suspension heap, ya know? But no. And ya know, even though we are all "cyber people" here, in reality, we are all actually real people here, and if Bumpy was supposedly discourteous, at least he has the right to be told just how he was, in the eyes of the moderators, being discourteous.
To me, this lack of an explanation shows a serious lack of courtesy, and throws a shadow over why there was his suspension in the first place. Maybe Bumpy just isn't "liked" by the moderator and was thrown out because of it. And if those are the rules here: "We don't like you so just leave", then fine so be it, it is your site as RR stated. But I didn't think this was a place like that. And it's weird too ya know? WD, Oldies, Mike and me aren't liked by many, but they/we are still here. And even though I was a blatant violator of the rules (calling Rascal an expletive), I was banned for but a month. But Bumpy for ten years and without an explanation? Just seems pretty unfair, that's all.
And so, maybe Bumpy's "offending post" should be displayed here for all to see and judge. How bout it? Post it. He has expressed his desire to have his offending post displayed, so go ahead and do it so we can see if it is way worse than the offending post that earned me a one month suspension...
Oh, and yeah, I forgot one more thing about his suspension notice:
"This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.".
Gee thanks. Kinda like an automated response form letter from someone who you supported faithfully as a Way Corps Sponsor: "And by the way, don't bother writing me again and asking why I don't want any more letters from you....
Why is this any of your business? If Bumpy needs answers why is he using you to get them? He doesn't know how to contact Paw? I think he does. I think he is using you to do what he likes. What do you think?
The idea was presented that bumpy was bumped because of his views ... implying free speech was not allowed.
I don't recall the reason Bumpy was bumped as ever really being stated. This is how it should be.
Well the idea was presented ... not by pawtucket ...
Another idea was presented by you that perhaps (you "wondered") he was bothering other posters with uncomfortable pm's ... but that does not seem to be the case, though the "non-accusation accusation" was left sitting there ... just like a duck. That is probably NOT how it should be.
Pawtucket mentioned something about calling someone something exterminators look for ... and that he has done that before. So maybe it was bumpy's characterization of the little dancing yoda ...
Oh, and yeah, I forgot one more thing about his suspension notice:
"This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.".
Gee thanks. Kinda like an automated response form letter from someone who you supported faithfully as a Way Corps Sponsor: "And by the way, don't bother writing me again and asking why I don't want any more letters from you....
When a poster is suspended the moderator is asked to check whether an email should be sent, if "yes", then the template that you copied is sent; the moderator can type in the date and time or put in an additional message. The automated part refers to the suspension coming off automatically without the poster having to ask to be unsuspended or the moderator having to take any further action. It does not preclude communication by the suspended poster.
And so, maybe Bumpy's "offending post" should be displayed here for all to see and judge. How bout it? Post it. He has expressed his desire to have his offending post displayed, so go ahead and do it so we can see if it is way worse than the offending post that earned me a one month suspension...
I'm not going to display it. Bumpy seems to enjoy having fun making digs at me -- I did the same thing for him with that notice. And he has been suspended numerous times for the exact same thing. We are not going to hold a public trial.
And the fact that he has been in contact with me, this thread is now moot.
And that email was sent days ago, by the way, Jonny. Bumpy really has you at his disposal.
imho, the questions posted on this thread, and in the various responses from this thread's "originator", as well as several others who have posted on this thread, have been more-than-adequately answered by the following posters...............
pawtucket, in posts #25, 27, 29, 42, and 68
modcow, in posts #35 & 67
wordwolf, in posts #37, & 58
jim, in post #39
socks, in posts #44, & 62
oakspear, in post #57
i believe, however, that it is the "right" of all greasespotters who choose to do so, to continue "beating this dead horse", and i strongly support their "right" to do so!....................carry on, if you must!.......................................peace.
****POSTED BY ABIGAIL - - - I KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING I FORGOT TO DO BEFORE I POSTED THIS***
Jonny,
I kinda liked Bumpy. He irritated me at times, but he also made me laugh at myself at times. BUT . . .he does know how to contact Paw - at least he used to. Paw has confirmed this as well - unless you think Paw is outright lying??
Also, earlier in the post you said Bumpy never got an email from anyone regarding his suspension, yet you just posted one that he did, apparently, receive . . . makes me go hmmmmmmm
Bumpy is a very skilled communicator. IF he wanted to truly work something out with Paw or any other moderator, he is quite capable of taking it up with him/them, directly.
I have been caught in this snare you currently find yourself in more than once. A time or two my heart strings were tugged or my emotions rattled and I took up the cause with Paw directly. A time or two I got involved with threads similar to this one, that someone else started.
The last couple of people who attempted to drag me into this type of situation, I refused to play with. Why? Because it is a game. Its a popularity contast. The idea is that if you can stir up enough posters to get mad at Paw and side with Bumpy, then maybe he will be allowed to play here again. Or conversely, if you can get enough people mad at Paw he will suddenly become a different person with a different perspective.
But think about that . . . do we really want the moderators to base decisions on popularity? Do we want those who are "popular" to be allowed to violate the rules while those who are not, get suspended or banned? Or do we want the rules to be applied as equally as possible across the board - regardless of how much they are liked or disliked by the majority of the posters here???
Me, I prefer the latter.
For whatever reason, Bumpy is pulling you into his game. He is, in a sense at least, using you to stir a pot.
You don't have to like or agree with all of the decisions made by Paw and the moderators here. I certainly don't like them or agree with every one of them. But I have learned to respect the fact that they do the best the can.
Bumpy is a grown man. He doesn't need you to be his spokesperson. he is baiting you and you have swallowed the hook. Let him fight his own battle.
Really, he is far more likely to earn respect from the moderators, as well as other posters here, if he talks this out privately with Paw and the mods, than if he continues to use you as his "champion."
It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred. For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication. It seems to him that he's been chucked out unfairly and spoken of disparagingly with out the ability to defend himself while others judge him. As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that? And, I am not Bumpy's "champion". He is a grown man, and can defend himself quite well. I opened this subject up because he is a friend and I think the subject should have been aired and he can't do it himself. The reason he is in agreement that this has been aired publicly is because the "automated response" offered him no information as to why he was kicked out. Well, I'm tired of this too for nothing will change...
Bumpy DOES know why. He is lying to you. He is doing very typical trollish things. Add confusion to the whole thing and you are buying into it. If you are so irritated with the management here, then leave. I can't please everyone.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
11
8
20
Popular Days
Jul 6
38
Jul 4
31
Jul 7
29
Jul 9
19
Top Posters In This Topic
pawtucket 15 posts
J0nny Ling0 11 posts
WhiteDove 8 posts
rhino 20 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2008
38 posts
Jul 4 2008
31 posts
Jul 7 2008
29 posts
Jul 9 2008
19 posts
WhiteDove
But we havent been to court now have we ? ....... and if we had your eyewitness reports would have been subject to examination which again they were not were they? given that fact you have no point of comparison, you are comparing a fair day in court vs no day in court, trial by internet..... I bet every court in the US would reject that as a non binding decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
See Dooj? Now wasn't that fun - and oh so predictable? I bet if Groucho jumps in this can go on for days - maybe weeks...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It is down right goofy to say people can't form an opinion without a case going to court. VP and TWI are not being "convicted" ... they are having an opinion formed about them ... you generally attempt to discredit many of the first hand accounts as "inadmissible". But they don't have to be cross examined (except by those here) because this is not a trial ...
Trial by press or by internet refers to when an actual trial is prejudiced ... by the story being told widely in the press, so that jurors are tainted. This is not a trial of vp ... it is people forming opinion from a multitude of "testimonies" and first hand accounts. My opinion and yours are non binding on vp or twi ... they are just opinions. (but mine is correct)
The term "apologist" is getting worn out though .. it gets used as an argument against everything now ...
Bush apologist
Clinton apologist
TWI apologist
Just throw the term out there, and it supposedly discredits the other person entirely ... it is rather lame but seems to pass for argument now ...
While I get Groucho's point about warning people about a cult ... most points of reference here are 10-20 years old. Most of the "other side of the story" is pointing out what a fraud vp (or lcm) was ... so it mostly applies to TWI and the splinters to the degree they cling to vp (and his dogma) as some sort of MOGFOT.
Or to the degree they have mini mogs trying to reclaim their old glory, using the same old schtick.
There does seem room here for other reflections on our past time ... and that makes the place more interesting and fun, and less like a bunch of angry and bitter ex TWI orphans.
Overall the place seems to work OK ... the bumpy one seemed to push his point quite a bit ... hopefully he can work something out if he bothers to read his email. And hopefully gsc is not central to anyone's life here ... just one of our points of distraction ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I never said one could not have an opinion , that is different than conclusive fact. What I said is that one can not reach a verdict as many have without a fair hearing. Surely on this Independence weekend you are not suggesting that we decide guilt or innocence by the internet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Earlier in this thread I said something along the lines of fre speech being only incidental to what goes on here. Another poster expressed some surprise that I said it. Let me expand upon it a bit.
I did mean it.
Here is an exerpt from the "About Us" and "Forums" section on the home page
GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery.
These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum.
The opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the cooks, waitresses, bus boys, or cashier of the GreaseSpot Cafe.
The mission of GSC is "to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees". The primary mission of GSC isn't to provide a forum for free speech. Now I'm of the opinion that free speech allows for a better flow of ideas and allowing dissenting or minority opinions gives greater credibility to the "mission". But free speech for its own sake isn't why GSC exists. There are many places where TWI's side of the story is presented, TWI's own website, their Sunday services including tapes, as well as numerous fellowship meetings. Then there's the unofficial TWI sites like Family Tables. On none of these is there even the pretense of free speech. Disagree, or even ask a question and you're out! Add to this the numerous sites affiliated with various splinter groups, where disagreement with the prevailing doctrine is not permitted. Even among anti-TWI sites there is no allowance for dissenting opinions.
GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered.
Note that harrassing behavior and personal attacks are not allowed. Of course the poster doing the harrassing is not going to think that they are harrassing or attacking. That's one of the jobs of the administrator and the moderators, to determine whether posts fall into those categories and what to do about it. Is everybody going to be pleased 100% of the time? No. Does that mean we don't have standards? Also no.
This is not about any surpression of free speech, it's about stopping harrassing behavior in the forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Nicely put.
I still think more posters would have a realistic impression of what moderators had to do if THEY had
to moderate a board at some point. It's not so hard when there's no disagreements and it's all a
mutual admiration society. When that isn't the case, sooner or later someone will "go too far",
and staff has to make that determination, and decide what reponses to make.
In case I'm unclear, I'm NOT advocating anyone start HERE. That's just inviting trouble.
I meant at an easy-to-manage board. Start with the bunny slope before trying to ski down Dead Man's Curve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
We decide on an opinion of guilt or innocence by any means we choose.
When it comes to punishment or retribution, that is decided in court.
Are you saying it is a "conclusive fact" that OJ was innocent? It was "proven" in one decision and not in another. And outside that, most have an opinion of OJ's guilt based on TV and internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Free speech being "only incidental" says something else to me. It is different than saying "This is not about any surpression of free speech"
The idea was presented that bumpy was bumped because of his views ... implying free speech was not allowed. But free speech is allowed ... it is not "incidental" ... it is part of your quote that ...
Harassment (or name calling) is not part of free speech ... it is a separate issue. "Incidental" seems to imply free speech may or may not occur, but telling the other side is what is ultimately more important. It seems now that is not what you meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'm always up for improving my communication skills, Rhino. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
GS, and Waydale before it, have always struck me as fulfilling a need to draw people of interest into a place
where information and opinion could be shared, openly and unfettered. The fact that there are users shows there's a need.
There are constantly differing opinions - the "other" side of the story is really "any other side" of the story, as told by a participant, from their viewpoint and experience. The Way has told their side over the years, what they choose to release. They don't provide any open forum physically or virtually for discussion of anything, other than what they allow. GS does.
There's no restriction on that, other than those imposed by the community itself. Oakspear makes a great point -
GSC is unique (AFAIK) in that opinions that do not support the mission of the site are allowed to be posted virtually unhindered.
Any opinion can be posted, and the community responds to it as they do.
The only real restrictions revolve around two things, I've noticed: how the participants of GS treat each other, and those being discussed. There's occasional deviances but they really don't deal with the opinion or idea or item being posted, they deal with how the reactions to it progress. The rules are more social than ideological - again, some deviation from that such as in regards to people's past stories and how they're responded to - but I think it still comes back to the perceptions of how they're being treated - with respect or not.
How those who post their experiences are responded to falls into that. I can disagree with you - that's part of the basic mission statement - "The other side of the story" is an open book participants write. If I write "I think the Way was great! You guys are nuts!" no one comes along and deletes that and says "you can't write that here".
But the community of posters can respond in such a way that the reaction and responses fall into disarray, get ugly and become "abusive" to some degree - again that behavior is outlined in GS's statements of purpose and expectations for participation in the forums. Once threads do that, some form of management occurs - it should, the board has rules for behavior - courtesy,reasonable civility - that should be upheld, otherwise they should be taken down. As long as they're up, they stand.
The rules ebb and flow - things continue, slow down, stop, go away, come back. That form of self-management seems to work most of the time, at least to me. Some threads I think geez- when's this rat gonna drown? But there's stuff that always comes back up voer and over. Some of the disagreements seem kind of dull to me but the fact that they go on says something - they can be posted here, for whatever it's worth.
A recurring form of posting seems to be when someone disagrees and chooses to goof on everyone over and over. The disagreement is there, but it's expressed in a way that doesn't really provide a way to respond to what's said other than "huh?" That's where the trolling stuff comes in I think - some humor enters into discussions all the time, but if that's all someone does in disagreement, it will end up appearing to be belligerent, "passive-agressive" as they call it. Rather than state and restate an opinion, I could choose to just make fun of someone else's. That's going to have a short shelf life.
Still, a lot of us make fun of the Way and it's principles, it's ideas, it's history and it's actions. Again, if that's all the was done, it would wear thin. This would end up a satire/parody site rather than a discussion forum. Maybe it is a satire site, in some abstract way.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Here is the message Bumpy eventually got from the owner of the site. I've been given permission to post it:
Bumpy,
> Your member account at GreaseSpot Cafe has been temporarily
> suspended.
>
> Your account will not be functional until Jun 29 2018,
> 08:16 PM (depending on your timezone). This is an automated
> process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the
> unsuspension process.
>
> Board Address: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php
And so first of all: Until 2018? Most posters here will probably be dead or geezin' bad by that time. And second of all, there is absolutely no explanation at all as to WHY he got suspended. One would think that if one broke the rules, the suspended one should at least be afforded the courtesy as to WHY he had been relegated to the suspension heap, ya know? But no. And ya know, even though we are all "cyber people" here, in reality, we are all actually real people here, and if Bumpy was supposedly discourteous, at least he has the right to be told just how he was, in the eyes of the moderators, being discourteous.
To me, this lack of an explanation shows a serious lack of courtesy, and throws a shadow over why there was his suspension in the first place. Maybe Bumpy just isn't "liked" by the moderator and was thrown out because of it. And if those are the rules here: "We don't like you so just leave", then fine so be it, it is your site as RR stated. But I didn't think this was a place like that. And it's weird too ya know? WD, Oldies, Mike and me aren't liked by many, but they/we are still here. And even though I was a blatant violator of the rules (calling Rascal an expletive), I was banned for but a month. But Bumpy for ten years and without an explanation? Just seems pretty unfair, that's all.
And so, maybe Bumpy's "offending post" should be displayed here for all to see and judge. How bout it? Post it. He has expressed his desire to have his offending post displayed, so go ahead and do it so we can see if it is way worse than the offending post that earned me a one month suspension...
Oh, and yeah, I forgot one more thing about his suspension notice:
"This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.".
Gee thanks. Kinda like an automated response form letter from someone who you supported faithfully as a Way Corps Sponsor: "And by the way, don't bother writing me again and asking why I don't want any more letters from you....
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
You know... I can call you a lot of things - but if you don't respond to those names they won't stick.
Why is it that when someone says the phrase "Wierwille apologist" you come running? It's a title you respond to. If someone insisted on calling me that I certainly would keep on walking. If they looked me dead in they eye and said it I'd give them that look :blink: that kinda means "WTF"?
In any case, I'd not jump to that name every time I heard it.
BTW- nice attempt at ending your post with a backhanded compliment. I think I saw that technique taught on another thread ... something about ... a letter...
I don't recall the reason Bumpy was bumped as ever really being stated. This is how it should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lizzy
Why is this any of your business? If Bumpy needs answers why is he using you to get them? He doesn't know how to contact Paw? I think he does. I think he is using you to do what he likes. What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well the idea was presented ... not by pawtucket ...
Another idea was presented by you that perhaps (you "wondered") he was bothering other posters with uncomfortable pm's ... but that does not seem to be the case, though the "non-accusation accusation" was left sitting there ... just like a duck. That is probably NOT how it should be.
Pawtucket mentioned something about calling someone something exterminators look for ... and that he has done that before. So maybe it was bumpy's characterization of the little dancing yoda ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I'm not going to display it. Bumpy seems to enjoy having fun making digs at me -- I did the same thing for him with that notice. And he has been suspended numerous times for the exact same thing. We are not going to hold a public trial.
And the fact that he has been in contact with me, this thread is now moot.
And that email was sent days ago, by the way, Jonny. Bumpy really has you at his disposal.
Edited by pawtucketLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
hello greasespotters!
imho, the questions posted on this thread, and in the various responses from this thread's "originator", as well as several others who have posted on this thread, have been more-than-adequately answered by the following posters...............
pawtucket, in posts #25, 27, 29, 42, and 68
modcow, in posts #35 & 67
wordwolf, in posts #37, & 58
jim, in post #39
socks, in posts #44, & 62
oakspear, in post #57
i believe, however, that it is the "right" of all greasespotters who choose to do so, to continue "beating this dead horse", and i strongly support their "right" to do so!....................carry on, if you must!.......................................peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
****POSTED BY ABIGAIL - - - I KNEW THERE WAS SOMETHING I FORGOT TO DO BEFORE I POSTED THIS***
Jonny,
I kinda liked Bumpy. He irritated me at times, but he also made me laugh at myself at times. BUT . . .he does know how to contact Paw - at least he used to. Paw has confirmed this as well - unless you think Paw is outright lying??
Also, earlier in the post you said Bumpy never got an email from anyone regarding his suspension, yet you just posted one that he did, apparently, receive . . . makes me go hmmmmmmm
Bumpy is a very skilled communicator. IF he wanted to truly work something out with Paw or any other moderator, he is quite capable of taking it up with him/them, directly.
I have been caught in this snare you currently find yourself in more than once. A time or two my heart strings were tugged or my emotions rattled and I took up the cause with Paw directly. A time or two I got involved with threads similar to this one, that someone else started.
The last couple of people who attempted to drag me into this type of situation, I refused to play with. Why? Because it is a game. Its a popularity contast. The idea is that if you can stir up enough posters to get mad at Paw and side with Bumpy, then maybe he will be allowed to play here again. Or conversely, if you can get enough people mad at Paw he will suddenly become a different person with a different perspective.
But think about that . . . do we really want the moderators to base decisions on popularity? Do we want those who are "popular" to be allowed to violate the rules while those who are not, get suspended or banned? Or do we want the rules to be applied as equally as possible across the board - regardless of how much they are liked or disliked by the majority of the posters here???
Me, I prefer the latter.
For whatever reason, Bumpy is pulling you into his game. He is, in a sense at least, using you to stir a pot.
You don't have to like or agree with all of the decisions made by Paw and the moderators here. I certainly don't like them or agree with every one of them. But I have learned to respect the fact that they do the best the can.
Bumpy is a grown man. He doesn't need you to be his spokesperson. he is baiting you and you have swallowed the hook. Let him fight his own battle.
Really, he is far more likely to earn respect from the moderators, as well as other posters here, if he talks this out privately with Paw and the mods, than if he continues to use you as his "champion."
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
gosh i hope i'm alive in 2018
and thank you rumster, i'm an eyewitness
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred. For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication. It seems to him that he's been chucked out unfairly and spoken of disparagingly with out the ability to defend himself while others judge him. As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that? And, I am not Bumpy's "champion". He is a grown man, and can defend himself quite well. I opened this subject up because he is a friend and I think the subject should have been aired and he can't do it himself. The reason he is in agreement that this has been aired publicly is because the "automated response" offered him no information as to why he was kicked out. Well, I'm tired of this too for nothing will change...
JL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Jonny,
Bumpy DOES know why. He is lying to you. He is doing very typical trollish things. Add confusion to the whole thing and you are buying into it. If you are so irritated with the management here, then leave. I can't please everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
dedicated to jonny lingo............the eight cow poster............................peace.........................
Link to comment
Share on other sites