In the same manner that I say that Al Capone was a murderer I say that Dr. Wierwille pimped out young women to TWI leadership.
Whitedove, this is not a court of law, and you have the right to an expectation from me I suppose. I have the right to not offer up any more proof than what already abounds here at the Greasespot.
(added in editing)
I have to go now, I look forward to reading the continuation of this later.
In the same manner that I say that Al Capone was a murderer I say that Dr. Wierwille pimped out young women to TWI leadership.
Whitedove, this is not a court of law, and you have the right to an expectation from me I suppose. I have the right to not offer up any more proof than what already abounds here at the Greasespot.
(added in editing)
I have to go now, I look forward to reading the continuation of this later.
I never said it is a court ,it is commen sense to speak correctly where ever the place. Look at the media and how they speak in an open forum it's pretty clear most understand that one can not attribute a guilty verdict to one that has had no such a verdict decided. I doubt if it were you you would agree that is acceptable to accuse you of crimes that you have not had charged against you. Opinions are opinions facts are facts. If opinions become proven facts then they can be stated as such, until they are they should be stated as opinions.
No one has ever objected to anyone's opinion what I did object to was
VP was a no good _______. That is a statement of guilt that is not opinion you are definitively saying he was this That would be the difference.
Another logical glitch. You're taking a statement of opinion and then trying to say it's a statement of guilt, then you're working on that statement of guilt being wrong and treating real life like it's on long legal battle. (That I believe is a strawman argument - somebody correct me if I"m wrong.)
Let's take Tricky vic out of the example.
Let's say I'm talkng to A (fictional person) and I say, "B is a real scumbag. He tried to kiss me when my boyfriend wasn't looking. I turned my face and just walked out. I'll never be in the same room with him again."
Now - that's my first hand "testimony" if you will. There is no physical evidence, because I didn't say that I slapped his face or tried to knee him in the.... If you go and ask B about the incident, there's no guarantee that he will be honest.
In my statement, B is a real scumbag..." I stated my opinion of B based on my experience with him. He wasn't accused of a crime. What kind of proof would you want? A is free to accept what I say or not - but to say that I'd have to get a court finding to state my opinion is absolutely not right - I can't even see how it would work in the real world.
If A says b did something to A that is first hand testimony and a OPINION can be formed on whether anyone chooses to believe if it is a true statement or NOT.
WD agruement is never going to end because VPW is dead and in the same voice no one is able to prove what they say is true or not because vpw is dead.
get it?
it will never end. it is a choice to believe what is written here or not .
But I think the issue is also all theses folks who are in a position to say I have heard it said by many poster countless testimonies about sexual abuse so i think he is a sexual abuser .
and then they got nothing not even those "with testimony" to back up their base line opinion.
Like Mark has asked repeatly it would be very good if all these "first hand testimonys were accessible on a certain page or thread and then the common ground could be laid out for everyone to form an opinion on what has been "already told", by those claiming to be victims.
I have not seen any such page so the confusion will continue to run rampant UNTIL such a reference is made. it would also save the victims from having to repeat their story.
this could be a place where they could write down what happened to them and why they feel it is important to be heard. without the agruement.
but no such place is on this forum. It is just the weary world of the same posters getting into the same debate about a subject that is NOT clearly documented , so how can it ever end?
Another logical glitch. You're taking a statement of opinion and then trying to say it's a statement of guilt, then you're working on that statement of guilt being wrong and treating real life like it's on long legal battle. (That I believe is a strawman argument - somebody correct me if I"m wrong.)
Let's take Tricky vic out of the example.
Let's say I'm talkng to A (fictional person) and I say, "B is a real scumbag. He tried to kiss me when my boyfriend wasn't looking. I turned my face and just walked out. I'll never be in the same room with him again."
Now - that's my first hand "testimony" if you will. There is no physical evidence, because I didn't say that I slapped his face or tried to knee him in the.... If you go and ask B about the incident, there's no guarantee that he will be honest.
In my statement, B is a real scumbag..." I stated my opinion of B based on my experience with him. He wasn't accused of a crime. What kind of proof would you want? A is free to accept what I say or not - but to say that I'd have to get a court finding to state my opinion is absolutely not right - I can't even see how it would work in the real world.
Accusation of a serious crime is different than a insult like scumbag
this could be a place where they could write down what happened to them and why they feel it is important to be heard. without the agruement.
but no such place is on this forum. It is just the weary world of the same posters getting into the same debate about a subject that is NOT clearly documented , so how can it ever end?
Yes.......a weary world of the same posters repeating the same argument trying to stir the same controversy over and over again.
It's sooooo way-ish.........like hearing the same guy at the microphone use the same enunciations on the same teaching over and over again. Indoctrination?? Absolutely.
Having new posters show up......and share new ideas, new perspectives, new deliverance stories is a rush of fresh air into The Cafe.
I have told how VP told us what HE did to his kids. And it has been deleted.
Excath was there and HEARD the same sharing from VP's own mouth.
He was teaching the corps it was OKAY because he did ...... He taught his..... by showing her how her ........ get hard.... by him touching them..... Then, he brought up culture. and how some African tribes "deflower" their daughters.... etc.
See that is the EXACT crap that p ss es people off WD - to cast doubt as if it was/can be a fuzzy memory
You degrade people, you cleverly call them liars with your constant crap. Thus a thread like this was started. Didn't it even make you take a step back and MAYBE for one minute think you have become MEAN?
You have a lot of people sick of you, I dunno maybe it is time to take a step back and look at what you are doing....
Again I'll point out this has zero to do with defending Wierwille he just happened to be the subject due to the nature of this place. It is about speaking properly, saying opinion when it is so and stating fact when it is so. It is wrong to state that some one is guilty of a crime when there has been no guilt established to them in the system of justice . It's pretty simple when you have a conviction of guilt then it is proper to refer to a person as guilty until then it is not. Most people understand this except when someone contempt for someone is so strong that they think it is ok to change the rules , it is not. We all have a right to a fair hearing before someone is declared guilty.
That's simply WRONG.
This is NOT a court of law. Have you provided ANY reference, legal or otherwise to back up this bogus claim that it is not proper to refer to someone as guilty unless they are found guilty by a court of law?
It is a forum where people can express their thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences.
As such there is NO WAY you can tell a person she is wrong and have it mean anything but that you are attacking that person.
YOU, by definition, CANNOT define the terms of that person's experience, nor can you define the conditions under which she should be limited or prevented from expressing those thoughts and feelings about that experience.
You are apparently incapable of the kind of honest self-examination necessary for you to be able to "get it."
However, you still need to STOP harassing victims for telling their own stories.
Screw wierwille (figuratively). And no matter how much you deny it, this IS about you defending wierwille. You just use the structure of the American justice system to describe your objections... but your descriptions are without merit regardless.
This is NOT a court of law. Have you provided ANY reference, legal or otherwise to back up this bogus claim that it is not proper to refer to someone as guilty unless they are found guilty by a court of law?
It is a forum where people can express their thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences.
As such there is NO WAY you can tell a person she is wrong and have it mean anything but that you are attacking that person.
YOU, by definition, CANNOT define the terms of that person's experience, nor can you define the conditions under which she should be limited or prevented from expressing those thoughts and feelings about that experience.
You are apparently incapable of the kind of honest self-examination necessary for you to be able to "get it."
However, you still need to STOP harassing victims for telling their own stories.
Screw wierwille (figuratively). And no matter how much you deny it, this IS about you defending wierwille. You just use the
structure of the American justice system to describe your objections... but your descriptions are without merit regardless.
References to a person that has not been convicted of a crime as guilty are not proper manner of speech the proper term is alleged, anyone knws that slander and libel come into play when one does so. Im betting it is equally hurtful for the Wierwille family to see their dad accused without representation . Is anyone concerned with any hurt there ,Of course not because hating must prevail....... Oh and by the way who made youthe reader of my intent? wasn't it you that just pointed out to someone that they could not know your mind? Is that a one way thing it only works for you?
I have told how VP told us what HE did to his kids. And it has been deleted.
Excath was there and HEARD the same sharing from VP's own mouth.
He was teaching the corps it was OKAY because he did ...... He taught his..... by showing her how her ........ get hard.... by him touching them..... Then, he brought up culture. and how some African tribes "deflower" their daughters.... etc.
I will get deleted.
No fuzzy sh it about it. It made my skin crawl
This is only second hand, so take it as you will.
When the aforementioned Corps incident took place, someone else , who was there, told me the exact same details.
But, this particular person used it as an example of how unlimited we are in our ability to renew our minds.
I thought it was pretty creepy, too, that he would do this an then talk publicly about it.
Im betting it is equally hurtful for the Wierwille family to see their dad accused without representation . Is anyone concerned with any hurt there
I'm sure it must be painful to see a family member exposed for their nefarious deeds.
But what are we supposed to do, change history and pretend it didn't happen?
Wierwille was a public figure. He hurt many, many people. It's tragic he didn't consider that his behavior would have a negative impact on his family as well as the many people he exploited.
I'm sure it must be painful to see a family member exposed for their nefarious deeds.
But what are we supposed to do, change history and pretend it didn't happen?
Wierwille was a public figure. He hurt many, many people. It's tragic he didn't consider that his behavior would have a negative impact on his family as well as the many people he exploited.
That's his fault, not ours.
That's the point where are the documentations of those deeds thatyou accuse of ? You assume the charges are true because you wish to , perhaps they don't ,when you have proof the question will be answered.
Exactly Jeff you spoke your opinion I'm fine with that. On the other hand had you said Dr. Wierwille was a scumbag that would be a statement of fact and I would expect you to offer some proof for your claim or admission that it was simply a misstated opinion.
.
Jeff we can discuss the Corinthian justice system after we get the American one straight.
WD - I believe that this is exactly what Jeff did in fact. He stated, " I think" and this would qualify as his OPINION.
That's the point where are the documentations of those deeds thatyou accuse of ? You assume the charges are true because you wish to , perhaps they don't ,when you have proof the question will be answered.
The documentation is in the truth of those that were there.
What WD is doing now is exactly what we want to avoid on the "story telling" threads...
His reasoning is circular and void of any real honesty or empathy...In my opinion that is.
Wierwille was not convicted in a court of law for the things he did...and because of that, WD wants to silence his critics....personal first hand testamonies by NUMBERS of people do not count because they were not part of an official court record. You tell me if this is being honest? The bible exhorts people to avoid those that are evil...it doesn't require court convictions to determine who the evil ones are...does it Whitedove?
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
JeffSjo
In the same manner that I say that Al Capone was a murderer I say that Dr. Wierwille pimped out young women to TWI leadership.
Whitedove, this is not a court of law, and you have the right to an expectation from me I suppose. I have the right to not offer up any more proof than what already abounds here at the Greasespot.
(added in editing)
I have to go now, I look forward to reading the continuation of this later.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You can hide behind facts.
But you can't hide behind the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I never said it is a court ,it is commen sense to speak correctly where ever the place. Look at the media and how they speak in an open forum it's pretty clear most understand that one can not attribute a guilty verdict to one that has had no such a verdict decided. I doubt if it were you you would agree that is acceptable to accuse you of crimes that you have not had charged against you. Opinions are opinions facts are facts. If opinions become proven facts then they can be stated as such, until they are they should be stated as opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Another logical glitch. You're taking a statement of opinion and then trying to say it's a statement of guilt, then you're working on that statement of guilt being wrong and treating real life like it's on long legal battle. (That I believe is a strawman argument - somebody correct me if I"m wrong.)
Let's take Tricky vic out of the example.
Let's say I'm talkng to A (fictional person) and I say, "B is a real scumbag. He tried to kiss me when my boyfriend wasn't looking. I turned my face and just walked out. I'll never be in the same room with him again."
Now - that's my first hand "testimony" if you will. There is no physical evidence, because I didn't say that I slapped his face or tried to knee him in the.... If you go and ask B about the incident, there's no guarantee that he will be honest.
In my statement, B is a real scumbag..." I stated my opinion of B based on my experience with him. He wasn't accused of a crime. What kind of proof would you want? A is free to accept what I say or not - but to say that I'd have to get a court finding to state my opinion is absolutely not right - I can't even see how it would work in the real world.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
what a waste
it's just a distraction being pulled here
i hope you get paid what your worth wd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
yes dooj
If A says b did something to A that is first hand testimony and a OPINION can be formed on whether anyone chooses to believe if it is a true statement or NOT.
WD agruement is never going to end because VPW is dead and in the same voice no one is able to prove what they say is true or not because vpw is dead.
get it?
it will never end. it is a choice to believe what is written here or not .
But I think the issue is also all theses folks who are in a position to say I have heard it said by many poster countless testimonies about sexual abuse so i think he is a sexual abuser .
and then they got nothing not even those "with testimony" to back up their base line opinion.
Like Mark has asked repeatly it would be very good if all these "first hand testimonys were accessible on a certain page or thread and then the common ground could be laid out for everyone to form an opinion on what has been "already told", by those claiming to be victims.
I have not seen any such page so the confusion will continue to run rampant UNTIL such a reference is made. it would also save the victims from having to repeat their story.
this could be a place where they could write down what happened to them and why they feel it is important to be heard. without the agruement.
but no such place is on this forum. It is just the weary world of the same posters getting into the same debate about a subject that is NOT clearly documented , so how can it ever end?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Accusation of a serious crime is different than a insult like scumbag
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yes.......a weary world of the same posters repeating the same argument trying to stir the same controversy over and over again.
It's sooooo way-ish.........like hearing the same guy at the microphone use the same enunciations on the same teaching over and over again. Indoctrination?? Absolutely.
Having new posters show up......and share new ideas, new perspectives, new deliverance stories is a rush of fresh air into The Cafe.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
My memory is not FUZZY
I have told how VP told us what HE did to his kids. And it has been deleted.
Excath was there and HEARD the same sharing from VP's own mouth.
He was teaching the corps it was OKAY because he did ...... He taught his..... by showing her how her ........ get hard.... by him touching them..... Then, he brought up culture. and how some African tribes "deflower" their daughters.... etc.
I will get deleted.
No fuzzy sh it about it. It made my skin crawl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
See that is the EXACT crap that p ss es people off WD - to cast doubt as if it was/can be a fuzzy memory
You degrade people, you cleverly call them liars with your constant crap. Thus a thread like this was started. Didn't it even make you take a step back and MAYBE for one minute think you have become MEAN?
You have a lot of people sick of you, I dunno maybe it is time to take a step back and look at what you are doing....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That's simply WRONG.
This is NOT a court of law. Have you provided ANY reference, legal or otherwise to back up this bogus claim that it is not proper to refer to someone as guilty unless they are found guilty by a court of law?
It is a forum where people can express their thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences.
As such there is NO WAY you can tell a person she is wrong and have it mean anything but that you are attacking that person.
YOU, by definition, CANNOT define the terms of that person's experience, nor can you define the conditions under which she should be limited or prevented from expressing those thoughts and feelings about that experience.
You are apparently incapable of the kind of honest self-examination necessary for you to be able to "get it."
However, you still need to STOP harassing victims for telling their own stories.
Screw wierwille (figuratively). And no matter how much you deny it, this IS about you defending wierwille. You just use the structure of the American justice system to describe your objections... but your descriptions are without merit regardless.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
References to a person that has not been convicted of a crime as guilty are not proper manner of speech the proper term is alleged, anyone knws that slander and libel come into play when one does so. Im betting it is equally hurtful for the Wierwille family to see their dad accused without representation . Is anyone concerned with any hurt there ,Of course not because hating must prevail....... Oh and by the way who made youthe reader of my intent? wasn't it you that just pointed out to someone that they could not know your mind? Is that a one way thing it only works for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is only second hand, so take it as you will.
When the aforementioned Corps incident took place, someone else , who was there, told me the exact same details.
But, this particular person used it as an example of how unlimited we are in our ability to renew our minds.
I thought it was pretty creepy, too, that he would do this an then talk publicly about it.
Maybe that's why I remember it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Personal attack removed
Edited by pawtucketLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm sure it must be painful to see a family member exposed for their nefarious deeds.
But what are we supposed to do, change history and pretend it didn't happen?
Wierwille was a public figure. He hurt many, many people. It's tragic he didn't consider that his behavior would have a negative impact on his family as well as the many people he exploited.
That's his fault, not ours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Because of your lies WD.
This site is DOWN.
No one is opening up to talk about what really happened.
Why don't you sit in a corner,
and have a big bowl of shutup.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
That's the point where are the documentations of those deeds thatyou accuse of ? You assume the charges are true because you wish to , perhaps they don't ,when you have proof the question will be answered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
WD - I believe that this is exactly what Jeff did in fact. He stated, " I think" and this would qualify as his OPINION.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Which had you read was exactly what I said he did .. Your Point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
The documentation is in the truth of those that were there.
Answer the question.
You avoid them so obviously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Sounds like someone needs a nap and a timeout......... which ever comes first
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
People do think, yes, in spite of people like you.
I don't care what a proven liar thinks.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...And on it goes...
What WD is doing now is exactly what we want to avoid on the "story telling" threads...
His reasoning is circular and void of any real honesty or empathy...In my opinion that is.
Wierwille was not convicted in a court of law for the things he did...and because of that, WD wants to silence his critics....personal first hand testamonies by NUMBERS of people do not count because they were not part of an official court record. You tell me if this is being honest? The bible exhorts people to avoid those that are evil...it doesn't require court convictions to determine who the evil ones are...does it Whitedove?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
No hating prevailing here,
People get healed by releasing what they have been through.
Yes, WD, We see the hatred that stands out here.
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.