I dunno Groucho... the apologists actually help tell the other side of the story. In fact, they serve to make the case for how sick, twisted and prevailing the teachings of TheDrambuieDrunk really are.
We could discuss it all day long - but an example is worth a thousand posts...
Sure, I get annoyed as hell every time I read another post demanding "proof" or saying that a victim is whining, or even misrepresenting the criminal justice system; but if anyone were to ever doubt that the teachings of der Victoid were cancerous, all they'd have to do is read a post or two from the list I just mentioned.
I'm all for limiting them greatly when their posts attack and belittle victims, but as an art teacher I sure can't deny the power of having a visual aid as an example.
People are less inclined to tell their story when they know they will be attacked or harassed ... so I can see a point there ... but at most perhaps just certain forums where those types of stories are revealed, the more brutal cross examination could be restrained ... since this is not an actual trial.
And when people are attempting to derail other threads without honest debate ... it is trolling, so no new rules are needed.
I'm not sure on the regular suspects, and the repeated "apologies" ... they seem to play by the rules ...
...at the very least, maybe they should be booted from the "About the Way forum" with a close monitering of their other threads...
I think they have caused too much disruption in threads that would have otherwise stayed on topic and allowed the "other side" to be told. These posters have taken advantage of Paw's tolerance and open door policies by destroying threads and insulting those who have stories to tell...
They wouldn't allow pro nazi rallies at a synagogue...these posters should not be allowed to cause anymore disruptions like they have been doing. I left twi a long time ago...I don't cause disruptions at the waybrain website...they shouldn't be causing them here...IMHO
Who is next Groucho - those who have different political opinions or religious beliefs? Perhaps the non Christians???
If someone is following the rules, I cannot see why they should be booted. Add to that, I think those you call apologists also add to this website in a benficial way, regardless of whether I agree with them or not on the topic of VPW.
It would probably save Paw a lot of bandwidth, since most threads begin fairly innocuously and then become a ping-pong match. I remember the "good old days" when every thread somehow morphed to be about food.
Which brings up an interesting point: would the "Wierwille apologists" be allowed to post recipes, even ones from HQ?
How about the game threads? We could have "Name that Reverend" or "Triple M&A Links"!
Who is next Groucho - those who have different political opinions or religious beliefs? Perhaps the non Christians???
If someone is following the rules, I cannot see why they should be booted. Add to that, I think those you call apologists also add to this website in a benficial way, regardless of whether I agree with them or not on the topic of VPW.
Abi - perhaps they are following the rules "to the letter" but not "in the spirit" of the rules.
I'll restate - it's not respectful to demand proof or imply a victim is whining.
You and I have both been in the Politics and 'Tacks forum- even on opposite sides of an argument. We didn't insult each other.
Even as heated as those discussions can get- and yes, there are sometimes personal insults thrown, they never seem to generate the the kind of insults that 'twist the knife' in a victim here in the About the Way forum.
It seems to me that the nature of some threads demand a higher sensitivity for the feelings of the other posters.
Abi - perhaps they are following the rules "to the letter" but not "in the spirit" of the rules.
I'll restate - it's not respectful to demand proof or imply a victim is whining.
You and I have both been in the Politics and 'Tacks forum- even on opposite sides of an argument. We didn't insult each other.
Even as heated as those discussions can get- and yes, there are sometimes personal insults thrown, they never seem to generate the the kind of insults that 'twist the knife' in a victim here in the About the Way forum.
It seems to me that the nature of some threads demand a higher sensitivity for the feelings of the other posters.
That's an excellent point. But Abigail's point is a good one too.
I personally think Groucho's suggestion would amount to overreacting.
I don't know if it's possible, but might it not be a bad idea to figure out if there's a way to establish "rules" or guidelines that better encourage (euphamistically speaking) such enhanced sensitivity for the feelings of others regarding the posting of first hand accounts of abuse by twi?
Abi - perhaps they are following the rules "to the letter" but not "in the spirit" of the rules.
I'll restate - it's not respectful to demand proof or imply a victim is whining.
You and I have both been in the Politics and 'Tacks forum- even on opposite sides of an argument. We didn't insult each other.
Even as heated as those discussions can get- and yes, there are sometimes personal insults thrown, they never seem to generate the the kind of insults that 'twist the knife' in a victim here in the About the Way forum.
It seems to me that the nature of some threads demand a higher sensitivity for the feelings of the other posters.
I agree with you Dooj, but I don't think "banning the aplogists" is the answer. Not only that, but Oldies, White Dove, et al are hardly the only ones who could be accused of violating the spirit of the rules.
As far as twisting the knife in the victim - I've been a victim (not of VPW/LCM) so I get that too. It is beyond stinky and painful and for some, could cause serious harm and mental anguish. Yet for others, it can cause them to finally realize that they were a victim, that it wasn't their fault, as they learn to stand up for themselves and fight back. And one day, just maybe one of the victims will get through to one or more of the so called apologists.
There will never be a one size fits all answer, its just too complicated an issue. I'd rather see the discourse continue with all parties involved than see one party silenced and banned.
I think extra scrutiny is deserved on any thread where the victimized are telling their story. Â If posters here cannot controll themselves or determine what an appropriate response is or whether no response is appropriate, then yes, they should be held in time outs, or banned.
Like Rhino said, trolling and flamebaiting is against the forum rules as it inhibits and derails the contributing posters and the thread. Â I think Pawtucket does need the community here to rise up and say we've had enough though. Â
I think some of these poster's mission is to search and destroy anytime they see any anti-wierwille apologist postings, disrupting any thread that mentions it. Â They should be delt with if that is their mission. Â Which is quite ironic, seeing that this whole website is dedicated to lifting the veil off of the golden image of der vey and its golden cow-der vicster.
Hi Abigail, if you didn't read the "Losing the Way" thread before the offending posts were deleted, nor listen to the podcast, you wouldn't really get the reason we find the recent posts by the apologists so offensive. It was way over the top, the debate consumed the thread and the free expression of those of us who were strongly moved by the podcast was interrupted.
Abi - If you'll go back and read the very first post I made on this thread (#2) you'll see that I agree that banning 'the apologists' is not really in the best interests of anyone.
I do think that perhaps there needs to be a higher standard of decency and respect whenever a personal story is being related- whether in a post or in a thread.
We're adults here. We should know how to behave- and it should be about what we would expect if we were teaching our own kids how to behave in public.
ps. not wanting to sound like i have a secret. one time me and don and rhino were in chat and i was telling them a story about when i smoked the wacky weed, and it had to do with boots, just wanted you to know
and groucho, i love you. you've always been there for me, what can i say? i'm thankful
--
maybe the last nine or so years has desensitized (sp?) me
or they're so less mean now
or i'm doing better yea me !!!! :)
--
but i will tell you, getting doubted even in a slick way, caused me much emotional and mental heartache, so much so i left for almost a year because i couldn't take it
for what that's worth
hearing people say that, oh never mind, some of you get it
--
and another thing, sometimes i wish i had saved my letters from vp and lcm. they would make your hair curl. but they're gone. i never thought i would need to save them as "evidence" lol
Couldn't we just make it a policy to ignore the Wierwille Apologists? Often they post things in hopes of baiting an argument. If such an argument would derail the topic of the thread, then don't take the bait. If they then continue to try to derail the thread, escpecially in a sensitive area like Kris Skedgell's interviews, the offensive posts can be deleted. If anyone really wants to take on the arguments of the Apologists, they can always start a new thread. Booting them from the site or from whole sections would just be playing into their hands. They could then accuse GSC of being as narrow minded and one-sided as TWI was.
Who is next Groucho - those who have different political opinions or religious beliefs? Perhaps the non Christians???
If someone is following the rules, I cannot see why they should be booted. Add to that, I think those you call apologists also add to this website in a benficial way, regardless of whether I agree with them or not on the topic of VPW.
I'm only interested is seeing those who are opposed to the mission of this website removed...it's not just an occasional remark...these posters are on their own mission with ther own agenda...their goal seems to be to disrupt the threads that are exposing the evils of twi.
They are following the rules?...that's my point...it's time to change the rules.
These guys are not here to engage in a debate...they already know that their views are detested by the majority...they are here to disrupt...
Abigail...if you invited people into your home and they started questioning the integrity of your other guests and then started defending something that everyone else thought was detestible...you would ask them to leave...this place is NOT a public place...it's a private place...owned by one person....I think the GSC cafe needs to be tweaked a bit...not by me...but by the owner...I'm just making suggestions.
Abi - If you'll go back and read the very first post I made on this thread (#2) you'll see that I agree that banning 'the apologists' is not really in the best interests of anyone.
I do think that perhaps there needs to be a higher standard of decency and respect whenever a personal story is being related- whether in a post or in a thread.
We're adults here. We should know how to behave- and it should be about what we would expect if we were teaching our own kids how to behave in public.
I did see your first post, I just thought for a minute there that you were having second thoughts about that :)
I agree regarding a higher standard of decency, respect, perhaps even empathy or simply deciding it is not an appropriate time to speak up - when others are relating personal stories. I guess I'm just idealistic and hope people will moderate themselves more, instead of having others do it for them.
I'm only interested is seeing those who are opposed to the mission of this website removed...it's not just an occasional remark...these posters are on their own mission with ther own agenda...their goal seems to be to disrupt the threads that are exposing the evils of twi.
They are following the rules?...that's my point...it's time to change the rules.
These guys are not here to engage in a debate...they already know that their views are detested by the majority...they are here to disrupt...
Abigail...if you invited people into your home and they started questioning the integrity of your other guests and then started defending something that everyone else thought was detestible...you would ask them to leave...this place is NOT a public place...it's a private place...owned by one person....I think the GSC cafe needs to be tweaked a bit...not by me...but by the owner...I'm just making suggestions.
It isn't a private place, not really. Anyone in the world with internet access can read what is written here - I'd say that is pretty darned public. Likewise, this isn't my home, more like a coffee shop where I chose to hang out with my friends. If I didn't like it, I could always find another one.
I guess I just don't think the rules need to be changed, nor do I think Oldies and White Dove violate the mission of the cafe. They tell the story from their perspective. I may disagree with their perspectives - I may even find some of their points of view objectionable or detestable, but they are still telling "the other side of the story" as they experienced and perceived it.
The only real difference is that their experience and perception is not in vogue here.
I agree with Mark, if we start booting people simply because their perspective or experience goes against the grain of the majority, how is this place better than TWI? I already left one TWI community for similar actions, I'd leave this one as well if that is the way things went.
Believe it or not, despite my differences with Oldies and White Dove, I have also had a number of very positive exchanges with both of them.
I think the 'opposition' can give exway folk a good snap shot of what TWI doctrine can turn you into, so I am not really in favor of banning them. Their ugliness serves a purpose.
But I have no problem with them being muzzled on particularly sensitive threads involving what could be delicate victims, who have already seen much harm. Why should they have to pay another high price to tell their story? And the fact that they can go after such posters is chilling.
I think Pawtucket is well with in his rights and--not to mention his responsibilities--as the owner to delete such posts. Otherwise the stories might never get told.
I don't believe the followers of Wierwille and his teachings should be banned or restricted from posting anywhere. Many who've posted in this thread are right, they serve a purpose -- to show what Wierwille's teachings can do to people, how much people can be brainwashed. But dealing with just having got out of a cult, whether it was years ago or even a month or two ago, can be very damaging to one's spirit. So for these people to just barge into these threads, where others are trying to reason within themselves things that are rather sensitive subjects, and start debates and argue...it's sad. Either ignore them, or ask Paw to find a way to suppress such people from posting in such sensitive topics.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
52
39
48
Popular Days
Jul 12
84
Jul 13
71
Jul 9
59
Jul 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 34 posts
Abigail 52 posts
Rocky 39 posts
WhiteDove 48 posts
Popular Days
Jul 12 2008
84 posts
Jul 13 2008
71 posts
Jul 9 2008
59 posts
Jul 10 2008
54 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi, Revictimizing the victims of abuse is itself abusive. It speaks volumes about the one doing it. What they still adhere to shapes their perspective and ability to inflict cruelty on those so horr
doojable
I posted this on another thread:
Sure, I get annoyed as hell every time I read another post demanding "proof" or saying that a victim is whining, or even misrepresenting the criminal justice system; but if anyone were to ever doubt that the teachings of der Victoid were cancerous, all they'd have to do is read a post or two from the list I just mentioned.
I'm all for limiting them greatly when their posts attack and belittle victims, but as an art teacher I sure can't deny the power of having a visual aid as an example.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
People are less inclined to tell their story when they know they will be attacked or harassed ... so I can see a point there ... but at most perhaps just certain forums where those types of stories are revealed, the more brutal cross examination could be restrained ... since this is not an actual trial.
And when people are attempting to derail other threads without honest debate ... it is trolling, so no new rules are needed.
I'm not sure on the regular suspects, and the repeated "apologies" ... they seem to play by the rules ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...at the very least, maybe they should be booted from the "About the Way forum" with a close monitering of their other threads...
I think they have caused too much disruption in threads that would have otherwise stayed on topic and allowed the "other side" to be told. These posters have taken advantage of Paw's tolerance and open door policies by destroying threads and insulting those who have stories to tell...
They wouldn't allow pro nazi rallies at a synagogue...these posters should not be allowed to cause anymore disruptions like they have been doing. I left twi a long time ago...I don't cause disruptions at the waybrain website...they shouldn't be causing them here...IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'd want to keep them from insulting victims and twisting their stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And while we're at it, let's not leave out the BUMPY/GRUMPY "apologists!" (j/k) ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Who is next Groucho - those who have different political opinions or religious beliefs? Perhaps the non Christians???
If someone is following the rules, I cannot see why they should be booted. Add to that, I think those you call apologists also add to this website in a benficial way, regardless of whether I agree with them or not on the topic of VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
It would probably save Paw a lot of bandwidth, since most threads begin fairly innocuously and then become a ping-pong match. I remember the "good old days" when every thread somehow morphed to be about food.
Which brings up an interesting point: would the "Wierwille apologists" be allowed to post recipes, even ones from HQ?
How about the game threads? We could have "Name that Reverend" or "Triple M&A Links"!
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Abi - perhaps they are following the rules "to the letter" but not "in the spirit" of the rules.
I'll restate - it's not respectful to demand proof or imply a victim is whining.
You and I have both been in the Politics and 'Tacks forum- even on opposite sides of an argument. We didn't insult each other.
Even as heated as those discussions can get- and yes, there are sometimes personal insults thrown, they never seem to generate the the kind of insults that 'twist the knife' in a victim here in the About the Way forum.
It seems to me that the nature of some threads demand a higher sensitivity for the feelings of the other posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That's an excellent point. But Abigail's point is a good one too.
I personally think Groucho's suggestion would amount to overreacting.
I don't know if it's possible, but might it not be a bad idea to figure out if there's a way to establish "rules" or guidelines that better encourage (euphamistically speaking) such enhanced sensitivity for the feelings of others regarding the posting of first hand accounts of abuse by twi?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I agree with you Dooj, but I don't think "banning the aplogists" is the answer. Not only that, but Oldies, White Dove, et al are hardly the only ones who could be accused of violating the spirit of the rules.
As far as twisting the knife in the victim - I've been a victim (not of VPW/LCM) so I get that too. It is beyond stinky and painful and for some, could cause serious harm and mental anguish. Yet for others, it can cause them to finally realize that they were a victim, that it wasn't their fault, as they learn to stand up for themselves and fight back. And one day, just maybe one of the victims will get through to one or more of the so called apologists.
There will never be a one size fits all answer, its just too complicated an issue. I'd rather see the discourse continue with all parties involved than see one party silenced and banned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
No boots
(especially want don39 and rhino to see this)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
I think extra scrutiny is deserved on any thread where the victimized are telling their story. Â If posters here cannot controll themselves or determine what an appropriate response is or whether no response is appropriate, then yes, they should be held in time outs, or banned.
Like Rhino said, trolling and flamebaiting is against the forum rules as it inhibits and derails the contributing posters and the thread. Â I think Pawtucket does need the community here to rise up and say we've had enough though. Â
I think some of these poster's mission is to search and destroy anytime they see any anti-wierwille apologist postings, disrupting any thread that mentions it. Â They should be delt with if that is their mission. Â Which is quite ironic, seeing that this whole website is dedicated to lifting the veil off of the golden image of der vey and its golden cow-der vicster.
Hi Abigail, if you didn't read the "Losing the Way" thread before the offending posts were deleted, nor listen to the podcast, you wouldn't really get the reason we find the recent posts by the apologists so offensive. It was way over the top, the debate consumed the thread and the free expression of those of us who were strongly moved by the podcast was interrupted.
Edited by now I seeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Abi - If you'll go back and read the very first post I made on this thread (#2) you'll see that I agree that banning 'the apologists' is not really in the best interests of anyone.
I do think that perhaps there needs to be a higher standard of decency and respect whenever a personal story is being related- whether in a post or in a thread.
We're adults here. We should know how to behave- and it should be about what we would expect if we were teaching our own kids how to behave in public.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. not wanting to sound like i have a secret. one time me and don and rhino were in chat and i was telling them a story about when i smoked the wacky weed, and it had to do with boots, just wanted you to know
and groucho, i love you. you've always been there for me, what can i say? i'm thankful
--
maybe the last nine or so years has desensitized (sp?) me
or they're so less mean now
or i'm doing better yea me !!!! :)
--
but i will tell you, getting doubted even in a slick way, caused me much emotional and mental heartache, so much so i left for almost a year because i couldn't take it
for what that's worth
hearing people say that, oh never mind, some of you get it
--
and another thing, sometimes i wish i had saved my letters from vp and lcm. they would make your hair curl. but they're gone. i never thought i would need to save them as "evidence" lol
dot, did you save any ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Couldn't we just make it a policy to ignore the Wierwille Apologists? Often they post things in hopes of baiting an argument. If such an argument would derail the topic of the thread, then don't take the bait. If they then continue to try to derail the thread, escpecially in a sensitive area like Kris Skedgell's interviews, the offensive posts can be deleted. If anyone really wants to take on the arguments of the Apologists, they can always start a new thread. Booting them from the site or from whole sections would just be playing into their hands. They could then accuse GSC of being as narrow minded and one-sided as TWI was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I'm only interested is seeing those who are opposed to the mission of this website removed...it's not just an occasional remark...these posters are on their own mission with ther own agenda...their goal seems to be to disrupt the threads that are exposing the evils of twi.
They are following the rules?...that's my point...it's time to change the rules.
These guys are not here to engage in a debate...they already know that their views are detested by the majority...they are here to disrupt...
Abigail...if you invited people into your home and they started questioning the integrity of your other guests and then started defending something that everyone else thought was detestible...you would ask them to leave...this place is NOT a public place...it's a private place...owned by one person....I think the GSC cafe needs to be tweaked a bit...not by me...but by the owner...I'm just making suggestions.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I did see your first post, I just thought for a minute there that you were having second thoughts about that :)
I agree regarding a higher standard of decency, respect, perhaps even empathy or simply deciding it is not an appropriate time to speak up - when others are relating personal stories. I guess I'm just idealistic and hope people will moderate themselves more, instead of having others do it for them.
It isn't a private place, not really. Anyone in the world with internet access can read what is written here - I'd say that is pretty darned public. Likewise, this isn't my home, more like a coffee shop where I chose to hang out with my friends. If I didn't like it, I could always find another one.
I guess I just don't think the rules need to be changed, nor do I think Oldies and White Dove violate the mission of the cafe. They tell the story from their perspective. I may disagree with their perspectives - I may even find some of their points of view objectionable or detestable, but they are still telling "the other side of the story" as they experienced and perceived it.
The only real difference is that their experience and perception is not in vogue here.
I agree with Mark, if we start booting people simply because their perspective or experience goes against the grain of the majority, how is this place better than TWI? I already left one TWI community for similar actions, I'd leave this one as well if that is the way things went.
Believe it or not, despite my differences with Oldies and White Dove, I have also had a number of very positive exchanges with both of them.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
my brain cells are weak ... I can't quite remember the "no boots" story ...
But perhaps confining certain people to certain forums would be better than boots ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh rhino i love you so much
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I think the 'opposition' can give exway folk a good snap shot of what TWI doctrine can turn you into, so I am not really in favor of banning them. Their ugliness serves a purpose.
But I have no problem with them being muzzled on particularly sensitive threads involving what could be delicate victims, who have already seen much harm. Why should they have to pay another high price to tell their story? And the fact that they can go after such posters is chilling.
I think Pawtucket is well with in his rights and--not to mention his responsibilities--as the owner to delete such posts. Otherwise the stories might never get told.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Boots? Wacky weed?
I need to get into Chat more. I'm missin' out.
With the right boots, a good bootin' might be, well enjoyable.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Steel-Toed Cowboy Boots
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
"you guys" are cracking me up
and i love you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
I don't believe the followers of Wierwille and his teachings should be banned or restricted from posting anywhere. Many who've posted in this thread are right, they serve a purpose -- to show what Wierwille's teachings can do to people, how much people can be brainwashed. But dealing with just having got out of a cult, whether it was years ago or even a month or two ago, can be very damaging to one's spirit. So for these people to just barge into these threads, where others are trying to reason within themselves things that are rather sensitive subjects, and start debates and argue...it's sad. Either ignore them, or ask Paw to find a way to suppress such people from posting in such sensitive topics.
~Phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.