Then let's speak of first hand information. Skeptic king here. OK, prince...someone else is the king...
You know, I have been awfully picky on the need for first hand testimony on abuse. You read Kristen Skedgell's book? It is full of first hand testimony.
The sexual attitudes in the corps, the idea that the corps men had to loosen up sexually, and that the corps women had to be ready to please the man of God, were not universally accepted by individuals when I was in, but the idea was slowly but surely spreading from leaders to individuals. Of course, it started from the top, unfortunately for Kristen. She had to please the man of God...the one at the top.
BTW I was in the same corps (8th) Kristen was in. I was not abused as she was. But in the fall of 1979, in residence at HQ, I became a first hand witness to the loosening up doctrine. No, we didn't have sex, it was just a little minor "playing around"...Hmmm, now how does a lot of sex start now...but I always wondered if it would have stayed minor had I not beat it out of there to our own (male) side of the trailer
Don't get me wrong, WD, I'm not knocking your skepticism. Even with the above, I have been a big skeptic on abuse. Ask rascal (civilly, please). I had tought standards which have finally been met. My question for you is, what are your standards? Do you believe the abuse COULD have happened? Are you willing to accept first hand testimony? To tell you the truth, I didnt expect much of that before I got and read her book. I am hard nosed about anti cult lecturing, having had it shoved down my throat in a deprogramming. Kristen's account meets any standards for first hand testimony. Greatly exceeds tham IMO.
edited only to fix a minor typo. And to say trust me, I had no idea that I was making the 500th post on this thread, really.
My question for you is, what are your standards? Do you believe the abuse COULD have happened? Are you willing to accept first hand testimony?
Lifted I think I have made my standards pretty clear here "because I say so " is undocumentable others can say the same . One must have more than first hand testimony to consider in making a judgment. My personal beliefs are not the issue here ,nor is it a Wierwile issue either as some seem intent on claiming. I'd support anyone's rights to innocent until proven guilty be it OJ, VP, or Bozo the Clown. To claim guilt without the benefit of our justice system is wrong. We all can and do form opinions, our right as well, when we cross the line and declare guilt then it becomes more than opinion.
Dove, you took one of my posts out of context and built your whole argument. Did you or did you not confirm what ex 10 wrote?? It was your confirmation of that information that I based MY statement on, thank you very much.
Your treatment of myself and others has been calculated, hateful and mean. There is no justification or excuse acceptable for the way you chose to treat people.
Oh, and your a lousy lawyer too. Take your arranged exhibits designed to support your false premiss that lead to your rediculous conclusions, and shove em.
Lifted I think I have made my standards pretty clear here "because I say so " is undocumentable others can say the same . One must have more than first hand testimony to consider in making a judgment.
Okay, It's just when you make a point about something being only second hand testimony, I assumed you were placing value on the first hand type.
Dove, you took one of my posts out of context and built your whole argument. Did you or did you not confirm what ex 10 wrote?? It was your confirmation of that information that I based MY statement on, thank you very much.
Your treatment of myself and others has been calculated, hateful and mean. There is no justification or excuse acceptable for the way you chose to treat people.
Oh, and your a lousy lawyer too. Take your arranged exhibits designed to support your false premiss that lead to your rediculous conclusions, and shove em.
Rascal I'm not going to go back and forth with you, you have other arguments to deal with. The posts speak for themselves as to where you learned the information from, as I said it was from another poster. You took that information and ran with it in the next post long before I ever confirmed anything. I tried to give you an out but you refused it ,your mistake, they record speaks for itself.
Then let's speak of first hand information. Skeptic king here. OK, prince...someone else is the king...
You know, I have been awfully picky on the need for first hand testimony on abuse. You read Kristen Skedgell's book? It is full of first hand testimony.
The sexual attitudes in the corps, the idea that the corps men had to loosen up sexually, and that the corps women had to be ready to please the man of God, were not universally accepted by individuals when I was in, but the idea was slowly but surely spreading from leaders to individuals. Of course, it started from the top, unfortunately for Kristen. She had to please the man of God...the one at the top.
BTW I was in the same corps (8th) Kristen was in. I was not abused as she was. But in the fall of 1979, in residence at HQ, I became a first hand witness to the loosening up doctrine. No, we didn't have sex, it was just a little minor "playing around"...Hmmm, now how does a lot of sex start now...but I always wondered if it would have stayed minor had I not beat it out of there to our own (male) side of the trailer
Don't get me wrong, WD, I'm not knocking your skepticism. Even with the above, I have been a big skeptic on abuse. Ask rascal (civilly, please). I had tought standards which have finally been met. My question for you is, what are your standards? Do you believe the abuse COULD have happened? Are you willing to accept first hand testimony? To tell you the truth, I didnt expect much of that before I got and read her book. I am hard nosed about anti cult lecturing, having had it shoved down my throat in a deprogramming. Kristen's account meets any standards for first hand testimony. Greatly exceeds tham IMO.
edited only to fix a minor typo. And to say trust me, I had no idea that I was making the 500th post on this thread, really.
Lifted... please don't feed the troll.
Dove, you took one of my posts out of context and built your whole argument. Did you or did you not confirm what ex 10 wrote?? It was your confirmation of that information that I based MY statement on, thank you very much.
Your treatment of myself and others has been calculated, hateful and mean. There is no justification or excuse acceptable for the way you chose to treat people.
Oh, and your a lousy lawyer too. Take your arranged exhibits designed to support your false premiss that lead to your rediculous conclusions, and shove em.
Rascal, the ONLY thing you succeeded in doing with this post is to give the troll feedback letting him know someone actually read what he posted.
I can't believe anyone, after the discussion we've had thus far over the last couple of weeks, would take it (WD) seriously enough to actually read its drivel.
I know I didn't and pledge to not.
There's NO question that he is a p1$$ poor debater/arguer/"advocate"/"attorney"
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
He ain't worth the time at this time.
He'll get his own first hand testimony in his time.
More real then anything he has ever known.
I have no doubt.
Excellently put. Succinct and poignant.
Cman said, in different words, DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.
“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
Then I wrote:
Having posted all that, I will say that while it proves that in a court of law, the truth of the allegations can be used as a defense against libel, the point is still that this is not a court of law. I posted this in response to WD on the "We Are Not Going To Get Along" thread:
There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?
So far he has not responded.
WD, would you care to respond now that you're back?
Mark...Nice job in presenting the logic and the heart of the matter...but WD is not interested in what really happened...he is interested ONLY in his one point of contention...that VP Wierwille was not convicted in a court of law.
...but what kind of point is that?...really? We KNOW Vic was never convicted in a court of law....it's really a non-point. It's antics with semantics. It doesn't matter to WD the damage that was done the the victim...his only passion is to seek out places in posts where he can remind us all again that Wierwille was never convicted of a crime.
...By clinging to his one point, WD can then cast doubts on the integrity of every individual that was victimized by Wierwille.
Wasn't the resurrection of Christ recorded as having been seen by eyewitnesses who gave first hand accounts? ..and come to think of it...was Hitler ever convicted in a court of law?...or Chairman Mao? When people discuss the atrocities of these individuals, does WD point out that they were never convicted of a crime and that they are being unfairly labeled?
It would seem that WD's "point of contention" is nothing more than a straw dog argument, fueled by circular reasoning. It would also seem that WD has his own agenda for doing this...as I've been saying all along.
Cman said, in different words, DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Please don't quote the troll either. That defeats the purpose of the ignore button. I haven't seen a single quote I haven't seen before. Subtantially the same material, over and over and over.. nothing new. Nothing "newsworthy" enough to bring to the attention of the community.
I think all the haranguing just advertises the trolls resolve to endlessly deny, object in a psesudo legal matter, decry the supposed character assasination of hoodlums.. I think it sends the wrong message to those who lurk here, that they WILL be challenged if they share personal experiences. And grilled. And endlessly cross examined..
Some may consider it a little rude, but maybe a few private messages to a newcomer rather than replies to a troll might curtail a lot of this nonsense..
Lifted I think I have made my standards pretty clear here "because I say so " is undocumentable others can say the same . One must have more than first hand testimony to consider in making a judgment. My personal beliefs are not the issue here ,nor is it a Wierwile issue either as some seem intent on claiming. I'd support anyone's rights to innocent until proven guilty be it OJ, VP, or Bozo the Clown. To claim guilt without the benefit of our justice system is wrong. We all can and do form opinions, our right as well, when we cross the line and declare guilt then it becomes more than opinion.
One must have more than first hand testimony? They've got to do better than that? That has to be one of the most illogical things I've ever heard. VPW will never be proven guilty by your standards because: a) he's dead and b) the chance there was a rape examination and DNA samples of semen fluid taken are probably non-existent due to the climate of the era, which includes looking the other way. There was more than enough of that kind of denial going on at the time, which is how it was able to happen.
To discount testimony from the numbers of victims is even beyond the standard of scripture itself, and is nothing less than ironic since VPW himself claimed that man's problem was falling below the standards of God or setting a standard higher than what God demanded in living a godly life. According to scripture, witness by 2 is sufficient to get a death sentence in a crime punishable by death. So I'm wondering who you think you are to demand more to establish guilt than what is even demanded by the scriptures? Who are you to go beyond even what the man you are defending himself claims is wrong (i.e. setting a standard higher or lower than the word)?
We're not conducting legal proceedings here, but if we were, the first hand accounts would serve as sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, due to the number of people who have come forward. A single witness could use additional evidence, such as identifiable physical characteristics, such as scars and moles which would only be seen if the man were naked to serve as an additional "witness." However, the point is moot because he is dead, and the dead can't have a criminal complaint filed against them, nor can one be prosecuted when one is dead. That does not make one any less guilty of what one does; it just doesn't allow for a legal remedy.
All of your legal posturing is just that - posturing.
One must have more than first hand testimony? They've got to do better than that? That has to be one of the most illogical things I've ever heard. VPW will never be proven guilty by your standards because: a) he's dead and b) the chance there was a rape examination and DNA samples of semen fluid taken are probably non-existent due to the climate of the era, which includes looking the other way. There was more than enough of that kind of denial going on at the time, which is how it was able to happen.
To discount testimony from the numbers of victims is even beyond the standard of scripture itself, and is nothing less than ironic since VPW himself claimed that man's problem was falling below the standards of God or setting a standard higher than what God demanded in living a godly life. According to scripture, witness by 2 is sufficient to get a death sentence in a crime punishable by death. So I'm wondering who you think you are to demand more to establish guilt than what is even demanded by the scriptures? Who are you to go beyond even what the man you are defending himself claims is wrong (i.e. setting a standard higher or lower than the word)?
We're not conducting legal proceedings here, but if we were, the first hand accounts would serve as sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, due to the number of people who have come forward. A single witness could use additional evidence, such as identifiable physical characteristics, such as scars and moles which would only be seen if the man were naked to serve as an additional "witness." However, the point is moot because he is dead, and the dead can't have a criminal complaint filed against them, nor can one be prosecuted when one is dead. That does not make one any less guilty of what one does; it just doesn't allow for a legal remedy.
All of your legal posturing is just that - posturing.
Tzaia -- PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
The preponderance of evidence shows that he/it (WD/WD) is NOT doing ANYthing other than seeking attention and throwing out bait to see if anyone will pay attention. The ONLY way to get it to stop is to NOT FEED the troll.
The preponderance of evidence shows that he/it (WD/WD) is NOT doing ANYthing other than seeking attention and throwing out bait to see if anyone will pay attention. The ONLY way to get it to stop is to NOT FEED the troll.
I understand what you are saying, but let me offer a bit of my perspective on ignoring trolls. Unless it can be done in such a way that it is unmistakable that the troll is being ignored, while being nothing but supportive to the victim, the troll will take it as acceptance of what he/she is saying. I don't think that's good.
Bringing up VPW's very own words regarding "establishment" through 2 or more witnesses was my way of pointing out the error in his logic and I believe strongly that anyone with half a brain (which has been established is more brain than a "Way" brain) who is reading these posts will be able to discern truth from mere posturing. On the other hand, logic and the academically accepted standards for argumentum, is something that a way-brained person just does not get.
Groucho, I agree. There is an agenda. For a long time, the most ardent of the wierwille supporters called people liars who talked about ANY kind of abuse...then the teachings that were used to enforce and ensure compliance declared non existent. The people who suffered were then maligned as having been foolish or deserving some how..their motices called into question...As more and more people stepped forward and said...hey wait, that happened to me too....switch tactics again, attack the credibility of the person, attack their veracity....when the person responds, the battle begins, the fur flies...the testimony is buried and the thread gets moved to the soap opera basement. Mission accomplished.
Heck one of them even admitted to enjoying stirring the post, watching the thread degenerate, smugly proclaiming that most of the time nobody ever knew he was behind it.
It was deliberate, it was focused, and it was really really mean.
The forum rules were tightened to where stalking and name calling were eliminated. Simply amazing how many of these posters dropped right off the map when they weren`t allowed to be mean and disruptuve. I think that says a lot about why they were here.
You are down to the last few, who have found yet a new way to circumnavigate the rules to cause disruption. Cry foul, whine about persecution for their pov, argue semantics and legality and presto...disruption...fighting...people step in not understanding that this is yet another tactic....
I think that people who are here with a purpose to simply limit what others share are a problem.
I understand what you are saying, but let me offer a bit of my perspective on ignoring trolls. Unless it can be done in such a way that it is unmistakable that the troll is being ignored, while being nothing but supportive to the victim, the troll will take it as acceptance of what he/she is saying. I don't think that's good.
Bringing up VPW's very own words regarding "establishment" through 2 or more witnesses was my way of pointing out the error in his logic and I believe strongly that anyone with half a brain (which has been established is more brain than a "Way" brain) who is reading these posts will be able to discern truth from mere posturing. On the other hand, logic and the academically accepted standards for argumentum, is something that a way-brained person just does not get.
It is unambiguously unmistakable ignoring of the troll when there is a complete disregard for it (the troll).
When (any) one person addresses the troll (as you did in your 7:34am (pdt) entry today in the last sentence), it feeds the troll.
When (any) one person addresses, quotes, or responds to the troll's post, it feeds the troll.
If it comes up that a new person seeks to post a first hand experience, and the troll replies, that new person can be contacted by PM to encourage the new person and explain that the troll will not be acknowledged openly.
It is unambiguously unmistakable ignoring of the troll when there is a complete disregard for it (the troll).
When (any) one person addresses the troll (as you did in your 7:34am (pdt) entry today in the last sentence), it feeds the troll.
When (any) one person addresses, quotes, or responds to the troll's post, it feeds the troll.
If it comes up that a new person seeks to post a first hand experience, and the troll replies, that new person can be contacted by PM to encourage the new person and explain that the troll will not be acknowledged openly.
Please, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
I disagree ...
if there is someone you think is a troll ... you don't reply to them (you don't feed "the troll"). But if you go around pm'ing or trashing someone privately because you decide they are a troll ... that may just be hate mail. An organized effort by a few to do that may mean a few are subverting the power/authority/desires of the people actually running the site.
Complain to the mod's ... it is their place ... they should police the trolls. If they do not, then they must have decided this is not troll like behavior for their site.
That would mean that an organized effort by one or a few, to trash people by pm, just because you don't like what they are saying ... would be an underhanded or silent attack on that person.
That seems wrong.
and sending hateful pm's to the "troll" may not help either. If you are going to bother pm'ing ... might as well try to reach out to him and be understanding a little ... if the owners of the site have not declared this person's actions wrong ... why send them hate mail? Maybe you are the problem ....
That would mean that an organized effort by one or a few, to trash people by pm, just because you don't like what they are saying ... would be an underhanded or silent attack on that person.
That seems wrong.
It is. That is exactly what has happened to so many that some of the apologists want silenced, and why the community now has a problem.
I don`t know what you think is the answer to bullying when people refuse to abide by the rules of the forum.
Rules are pretty clear...you either abide by them or leave. It has been my experience that the offender is given ample chances to change the offending behavior if one wishes to remain a participant...
That would mean that an organized effort by one or a few, to trash people by pm, just because you don't like what they are saying ... would be an underhanded or silent attack on that person.
That seems wrong.
It is. That is exactly what has happened to so many that some of the apologists want silenced, and why the community now has a problem.
You're saying the "apologists" are pm'ing people about people they want silenced?
I don`t know what you think is the answer to bullying when people refuse to abide by the rules of the forum.
Rules are pretty clear...you either abide by them or leave. It has been my experience that the offender is given ample chances to change the offending behavior if one wishes to remain a participant...
If the rules are clear, then you abide by them or the moderators ban you. That IS my answer. Not a private pm'ing campaign against those that have NOT been banned. That is harassment or slander or whatever.
If they are not banned, report to the moderator ... don't be a vigilante. Maybe you have a completely wrong perspective ... or maybe the site owners want to allow some things ... and not others .. or favor some, and slam others. In any case, it is up to them.
If I was on another sight and someone started a thread like this that obviously included ME among those that were being considered for being given the boot I would count it as an opportunity to restate my case, and my premise along with my intentions of not being harmful, but instead proving to the best of my ability my good intentions.
This would be the simple, direct, and honest way of handling the thread IMO.
Has WD made any attempt to convince anyone that his heart's motivation is love WHILE he's handling the issues that surround Dr. Wierwille at this site? Certainly not that I've seen. Does White Dove hold Dr.'s memory as a thing to be treasured, probably IMO. I just wish that he'd say it so that we all could be very clear on where he's coming from.
If someone said to me, "I love and honor Dr.'s memory and I think that you are all a bunch of lying scumbags!", I would at certainly feel respect and compassion for such a person!!!!!
But when a person who may or may not feel this way about Dr. Wierwille attacks good people who I've come to respect and care for and then does everything in their power to dominate the conversation and belittle those that are sharing; my respect for the pro-Dr. Wierwille folks must need to be replaced by standing up for legitimate TWI victims even if the conversation becomes intense.
This is exactly what I found happening here at the Greasespot not long after I arrived. This is also what I will continue to do.
It is not just the personal testamony of some, even though the abundance of it is very convincing here. It is the number of faults that become readily apparent in Dr.'s biblical workmanship, and the vast difference between his words and his actions. Many of these things are real memories for me that before now never grew past the questioning stage and into finding answers.
White Dove, Oldies and others have served the purpose of helping me make up my mind as far as deciding who is being truthful or not. When I compare their love, compassion, directness and honesty with those who they've attacked it seems obvious to me that they are the one's who are lacking. At least for the most part I've told them up front how I'm thinking about them too.
What is all this about PMing networks to besmirch each other's reputations, how trite and backstabbing can a human get anyway, I think it is just shameful.
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
WhiteDove
Lifted I think I have made my standards pretty clear here "because I say so " is undocumentable others can say the same . One must have more than first hand testimony to consider in making a judgment. My personal beliefs are not the issue here ,nor is it a Wierwile issue either as some seem intent on claiming. I'd support anyone's rights to innocent until proven guilty be it OJ, VP, or Bozo the Clown. To claim guilt without the benefit of our justice system is wrong. We all can and do form opinions, our right as well, when we cross the line and declare guilt then it becomes more than opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dove, you took one of my posts out of context and built your whole argument. Did you or did you not confirm what ex 10 wrote?? It was your confirmation of that information that I based MY statement on, thank you very much.
Your treatment of myself and others has been calculated, hateful and mean. There is no justification or excuse acceptable for the way you chose to treat people.
Oh, and your a lousy lawyer too. Take your arranged exhibits designed to support your false premiss that lead to your rediculous conclusions, and shove em.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Okay, It's just when you make a point about something being only second hand testimony, I assumed you were placing value on the first hand type.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Rascal I'm not going to go back and forth with you, you have other arguments to deal with. The posts speak for themselves as to where you learned the information from, as I said it was from another poster. You took that information and ran with it in the next post long before I ever confirmed anything. I tried to give you an out but you refused it ,your mistake, they record speaks for itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
He ain't worth the time at this time.
He'll get his own first hand testimony in his time.
More real then anything he has ever known.
I have no doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Lifted... please don't feed the troll.
Rascal, the ONLY thing you succeeded in doing with this post is to give the troll feedback letting him know someone actually read what he posted.
I can't believe anyone, after the discussion we've had thus far over the last couple of weeks, would take it (WD) seriously enough to actually read its drivel.
I know I didn't and pledge to not.
There's NO question that he is a p1$$ poor debater/arguer/"advocate"/"attorney"
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Excellently put. Succinct and poignant.
Cman said, in different words, DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thanks Rocky, you make a good point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I find that funny...........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I posted the following in that thread about libel laws, in response to the references WD had posted:
Then I wrote:
WD, would you care to respond now that you're back?
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mark...Nice job in presenting the logic and the heart of the matter...but WD is not interested in what really happened...he is interested ONLY in his one point of contention...that VP Wierwille was not convicted in a court of law.
...but what kind of point is that?...really? We KNOW Vic was never convicted in a court of law....it's really a non-point. It's antics with semantics. It doesn't matter to WD the damage that was done the the victim...his only passion is to seek out places in posts where he can remind us all again that Wierwille was never convicted of a crime.
...By clinging to his one point, WD can then cast doubts on the integrity of every individual that was victimized by Wierwille.
Wasn't the resurrection of Christ recorded as having been seen by eyewitnesses who gave first hand accounts? ..and come to think of it...was Hitler ever convicted in a court of law?...or Chairman Mao? When people discuss the atrocities of these individuals, does WD point out that they were never convicted of a crime and that they are being unfairly labeled?
It would seem that WD's "point of contention" is nothing more than a straw dog argument, fueled by circular reasoning. It would also seem that WD has his own agenda for doing this...as I've been saying all along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Please don't quote the troll either. That defeats the purpose of the ignore button. I haven't seen a single quote I haven't seen before. Subtantially the same material, over and over and over.. nothing new. Nothing "newsworthy" enough to bring to the attention of the community.
I think all the haranguing just advertises the trolls resolve to endlessly deny, object in a psesudo legal matter, decry the supposed character assasination of hoodlums.. I think it sends the wrong message to those who lurk here, that they WILL be challenged if they share personal experiences. And grilled. And endlessly cross examined..
Some may consider it a little rude, but maybe a few private messages to a newcomer rather than replies to a troll might curtail a lot of this nonsense..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mark, please DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Ha Ha ha ha ha! Good one Rocky!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
One must have more than first hand testimony? They've got to do better than that? That has to be one of the most illogical things I've ever heard. VPW will never be proven guilty by your standards because: a) he's dead and b) the chance there was a rape examination and DNA samples of semen fluid taken are probably non-existent due to the climate of the era, which includes looking the other way. There was more than enough of that kind of denial going on at the time, which is how it was able to happen.
To discount testimony from the numbers of victims is even beyond the standard of scripture itself, and is nothing less than ironic since VPW himself claimed that man's problem was falling below the standards of God or setting a standard higher than what God demanded in living a godly life. According to scripture, witness by 2 is sufficient to get a death sentence in a crime punishable by death. So I'm wondering who you think you are to demand more to establish guilt than what is even demanded by the scriptures? Who are you to go beyond even what the man you are defending himself claims is wrong (i.e. setting a standard higher or lower than the word)?
We're not conducting legal proceedings here, but if we were, the first hand accounts would serve as sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, due to the number of people who have come forward. A single witness could use additional evidence, such as identifiable physical characteristics, such as scars and moles which would only be seen if the man were naked to serve as an additional "witness." However, the point is moot because he is dead, and the dead can't have a criminal complaint filed against them, nor can one be prosecuted when one is dead. That does not make one any less guilty of what one does; it just doesn't allow for a legal remedy.
All of your legal posturing is just that - posturing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Tzaia -- PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
The preponderance of evidence shows that he/it (WD/WD) is NOT doing ANYthing other than seeking attention and throwing out bait to see if anyone will pay attention. The ONLY way to get it to stop is to NOT FEED the troll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I understand what you are saying, but let me offer a bit of my perspective on ignoring trolls. Unless it can be done in such a way that it is unmistakable that the troll is being ignored, while being nothing but supportive to the victim, the troll will take it as acceptance of what he/she is saying. I don't think that's good.
Bringing up VPW's very own words regarding "establishment" through 2 or more witnesses was my way of pointing out the error in his logic and I believe strongly that anyone with half a brain (which has been established is more brain than a "Way" brain) who is reading these posts will be able to discern truth from mere posturing. On the other hand, logic and the academically accepted standards for argumentum, is something that a way-brained person just does not get.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Some people have a desperate need to live in some form of self-delusion. Why not give it to them?
Either way it goes, they are "right". One way avoids all the argument..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Groucho, I agree. There is an agenda. For a long time, the most ardent of the wierwille supporters called people liars who talked about ANY kind of abuse...then the teachings that were used to enforce and ensure compliance declared non existent. The people who suffered were then maligned as having been foolish or deserving some how..their motices called into question...As more and more people stepped forward and said...hey wait, that happened to me too....switch tactics again, attack the credibility of the person, attack their veracity....when the person responds, the battle begins, the fur flies...the testimony is buried and the thread gets moved to the soap opera basement. Mission accomplished.
Heck one of them even admitted to enjoying stirring the post, watching the thread degenerate, smugly proclaiming that most of the time nobody ever knew he was behind it.
It was deliberate, it was focused, and it was really really mean.
The forum rules were tightened to where stalking and name calling were eliminated. Simply amazing how many of these posters dropped right off the map when they weren`t allowed to be mean and disruptuve. I think that says a lot about why they were here.
You are down to the last few, who have found yet a new way to circumnavigate the rules to cause disruption. Cry foul, whine about persecution for their pov, argue semantics and legality and presto...disruption...fighting...people step in not understanding that this is yet another tactic....
I think that people who are here with a purpose to simply limit what others share are a problem.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It is unambiguously unmistakable ignoring of the troll when there is a complete disregard for it (the troll).
When (any) one person addresses the troll (as you did in your 7:34am (pdt) entry today in the last sentence), it feeds the troll.
When (any) one person addresses, quotes, or responds to the troll's post, it feeds the troll.
If it comes up that a new person seeks to post a first hand experience, and the troll replies, that new person can be contacted by PM to encourage the new person and explain that the troll will not be acknowledged openly.
Please, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I disagree ...
if there is someone you think is a troll ... you don't reply to them (you don't feed "the troll"). But if you go around pm'ing or trashing someone privately because you decide they are a troll ... that may just be hate mail. An organized effort by a few to do that may mean a few are subverting the power/authority/desires of the people actually running the site.
Complain to the mod's ... it is their place ... they should police the trolls. If they do not, then they must have decided this is not troll like behavior for their site.
That would mean that an organized effort by one or a few, to trash people by pm, just because you don't like what they are saying ... would be an underhanded or silent attack on that person.
That seems wrong.
and sending hateful pm's to the "troll" may not help either. If you are going to bother pm'ing ... might as well try to reach out to him and be understanding a little ... if the owners of the site have not declared this person's actions wrong ... why send them hate mail? Maybe you are the problem ....
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
http://www.goodlucktrolls.com/
Remember these?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It is. That is exactly what has happened to so many that some of the apologists want silenced, and why the community now has a problem.
I don`t know what you think is the answer to bullying when people refuse to abide by the rules of the forum.
Rules are pretty clear...you either abide by them or leave. It has been my experience that the offender is given ample chances to change the offending behavior if one wishes to remain a participant...
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
You're saying the "apologists" are pm'ing people about people they want silenced?
If the rules are clear, then you abide by them or the moderators ban you. That IS my answer. Not a private pm'ing campaign against those that have NOT been banned. That is harassment or slander or whatever.
If they are not banned, report to the moderator ... don't be a vigilante. Maybe you have a completely wrong perspective ... or maybe the site owners want to allow some things ... and not others .. or favor some, and slam others. In any case, it is up to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
If I was on another sight and someone started a thread like this that obviously included ME among those that were being considered for being given the boot I would count it as an opportunity to restate my case, and my premise along with my intentions of not being harmful, but instead proving to the best of my ability my good intentions.
This would be the simple, direct, and honest way of handling the thread IMO.
Has WD made any attempt to convince anyone that his heart's motivation is love WHILE he's handling the issues that surround Dr. Wierwille at this site? Certainly not that I've seen. Does White Dove hold Dr.'s memory as a thing to be treasured, probably IMO. I just wish that he'd say it so that we all could be very clear on where he's coming from.
If someone said to me, "I love and honor Dr.'s memory and I think that you are all a bunch of lying scumbags!", I would at certainly feel respect and compassion for such a person!!!!!
But when a person who may or may not feel this way about Dr. Wierwille attacks good people who I've come to respect and care for and then does everything in their power to dominate the conversation and belittle those that are sharing; my respect for the pro-Dr. Wierwille folks must need to be replaced by standing up for legitimate TWI victims even if the conversation becomes intense.
This is exactly what I found happening here at the Greasespot not long after I arrived. This is also what I will continue to do.
It is not just the personal testamony of some, even though the abundance of it is very convincing here. It is the number of faults that become readily apparent in Dr.'s biblical workmanship, and the vast difference between his words and his actions. Many of these things are real memories for me that before now never grew past the questioning stage and into finding answers.
White Dove, Oldies and others have served the purpose of helping me make up my mind as far as deciding who is being truthful or not. When I compare their love, compassion, directness and honesty with those who they've attacked it seems obvious to me that they are the one's who are lacking. At least for the most part I've told them up front how I'm thinking about them too.
What is all this about PMing networks to besmirch each other's reputations, how trite and backstabbing can a human get anyway, I think it is just shameful.
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.