I find arguing over the proper definition of the term "apologist" in this context of "VPW apologist" about as silly as arguing with WD over legal termonology. The fact is, it is a grouping and pretty much stereotyping of a small number of people here. It is often used to dismiss what they are saying (and at least some of the time they have something valid to add) and at least WD, if not anyone else, has made it clear they find it offensive.
Therefore, as we are asking WD to use more wisdom and compassion regarding responding to personal testimony, I think it is fair play to ask others to refrain from calling people "VPW apologists."
I don't agree with that assesment of it being used as a slur, it identifies a poster's MO. I couldn't find a negative definition of the word apologist anywhere from any reputable source. Websters trumps wikiwiki.
Most everyone here has no problem with the vpw apologists stating their beliefs, we have said that ad infinitum, what the issue is - the attack mode, all wierwille apologists are not created equal, they all don't respond like WD, ranting on the use of the word apologist was a lame point to begin a tirade, if anyone used the words, anti-wierwilist apologist term to describe the other side of the coin, I assure you, no one would have objected to that usage. I think attempting to police the GS community at large's choice of words like this is a form of censorship spawned by someone who likes to pick fights and derail threads and panders to a bully.
This minutia is getting tiring, lets agree to disagree, ok? No hard feelings. :)
These "two cents" might be old - but I gotta say it anyway.
This business of "making WD answer those three questions. I don't see how it can be beneficial, and here's my reasoning:
I've not actually seen WD attack a poster in quite a while. Even on the Losing the Way thread, Groucho did not name individual posters - WD took up the banner and led an attack FIVE days after the term "Wierwille apologists" was used. He derailed - but many of us, myself included :( , added to the derail and kept it going.
WD is not going to answer these questions. Instead he'll play the game and let us do his dirty work - derailing our own threads. He's going to make his wisecracks and keep us from a productive conversation that seeks a solution.
The reason I posted a link to his post was simple. In a courtroom a lawyer cannot get a person to incriminate himself - but he can ask him to confirm that he has written certain words in his handwriting and read that back to the jury. (Yes this isn't a courtroom, but the logic still would apply.)
In essence, I think we should do the same thing. If we find the links and post them, then WD can't deny it and can't claim that it is second hand information. By posting the links, we keep his words in context. (In the case of his saying he was spouse corps - he started that thread!)
Otherwise we derail a thread by prodding him to answer.
It certainly ironic that WD's worst posts have been "censored" - which means there is less evidence to show...Yet he complains.
More than one poster, has stated that the best thing to do would be to ignore his derail attempts as a community. I'm not sure we have that level of discipline.
Rumrunner, my comment to Rocky pertains to a situation years ago in which Rocky got the boot for fighting with Satori (or whatever Satori's name was then...I forget). At that time I stuck up for Rocky, even though I didn't agree with everything he said or how he said it. Hence my response to his smart-a$$ remark.
now I see, I did read both "Losing the Way" threads before WD's posts were deleted. I have already said there have been times when WD's comments have been ill-timed and insensitive. That was one of those times. However, I also saw people pushing his buttons before he pushed theirs back. People shouldn't kick a cat (or in this case a bird, I guess) and not expect the claws to come out.
I maintain that it has become a witch hunt. Example: Even though Oldies has stated very clearly that he believed excathedra, his name continues to be coupled with WD's in an effort to discredit him along with WD. I've seldom agreed with Oldies on twi matters, but good grief, give the guy a little credit for growing. Enough with the darn labels.
Let me say this again for anyone who missed this point: I am not defending WD's views. I am defending his right to voice those views. I would like it if he used a lot more compassion in choosing when to state them, and I'm not sure what the solution is for that, but I don't believe it is banning him, as Groucho advocated by starting this thread.
By the way, did anyone notice this comment from WD to Exsie in the thread he started in the Open forum?
Thanks Exie me too as well. I'll say again I don't doubt your story or Kris's either for that matter that was not the issue
Then of course he launched into his "due process of the law" deal, but at least it's an acknowledgment! And I understand the distinction he's making, even though I think he's wrong.
I've been around here since the beginning. I've watched and, to some degree, come to know the other long-time posters. If you just watch and listen long enough without jumping into the fray, you can learn a lot about people from their behavior month after month and year after year. I've seen WD extend many kindnesses to others. I've also seen him be a brickhead. It's frustrating and a waste of time to argue with a brickhead, so I rarely do. But I don't think his stubbornness on this issue negates the nice things he does or the funny things he says.
Despite the fact that I think WD is wrong on the VP/abuse issue, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Why? It's not because he's a close personal friend of mine. We've never exchanged as much as one PM or an e-mail, and to my knowledge I've never met him. In fact, I don't even know who the heck he is. So why do I care if he gets banned? Because for some crazy reason, I care about this place and the people who make it what it is. I would hate to see it become a pack of "likeminded" people who won't allow those with unpopular opinions their voice. Period. You can cloak that however you like, but that's what this comes down to, IMO.
I would like it if he used a lot more compassion in choosing when to state them, and I'm not sure what the solution is for that/quote]
This is the problem for me too, I don't think he should be banned at this point, but if he continues to do what he did before I think it is an option. He needs to show the compassion side, but he's proven he can't see the line of demarcation.
I don't think Oldies has anything to do with this discussion, IMO he has shown great strength in holding back where its appropriate lately.
Rumrunner, my comment to Rocky pertains to a situation years ago in which Rocky got the boot for fighting with Satori (or whatever Satori's name was then...I forget). At that time I stuck up for Rocky, even though I didn't agree with everything he said or how he said it. Hence my response to his smart-a$$ remark.
number 1, I apologized to Rocky for including him about this topic. 2. Had White Dove limited his posts to music, he would not now be on my ignore and block options. 3. For a short time Oldiesman showed some humor and seemed human, but showed his true colors. 4. Mike hasn't been on this in a while. 5. I publicly apologised for my behavior and regret that I acted infantile. Besides I shudder that I would act like Craig or Chris, or even VPW like spoiled little brats who neede a good spanking for their behavior/attitude. BTW, Rocky presently is not on blocked or ignore, and yes I went back and read his posts which supports his
Despite the fact that I think WD is wrong on the VP/abuse issue, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Why? It's not because he's a close personal friend of mine. We've never exchanged as much as one PM or an e-mail, and to my knowledge I've never met him. In fact, I don't even know who the heck he is. So why do I care if he gets banned? Because for some crazy reason, I care about this place and the people who make it what it is. I would hate to see it become a pack of "likeminded" people who won't allow those with unpopular opinions their voice. Period. You can cloak that however you like, but that's what this comes down to, IMO.
...For the most part, I agree with the above statement made by Linda. The exception would be that I do not think that deliberately interupting and insulting people as they give their testamonies and causing those threads to disintigrate should be included in "allowing those with unpopular opinions their voice".
A desire to see civility and good manners in certain situations should not be construed as an effort to silence opposing views...I have no desire to see this place become a mutual admiration society of likeminded greasespots...I encourage people to express their individuality, to debate and to disagree...but deliberate attempts to to discredit people as they give their personal testamonies and thus minimilizing the damage inflicted by twi should not be tolerated...especially at an anti-twi website...There should be SOME limits on what is allowed.
...For the most part, I agree with the above statement made by Linda. The exception would be that I do not think that deliberately interupting and insulting people as they give their testamonies and causing those threads to disintigrate should be included in "allowing those with unpopular opinions their voice".
A desire to see civility and good manners in certain situations should not be construed as an effort to silence opposing views...I have no desire to see this place become a mutual admiration society of likeminded greasespots...I encourage people to express their individuality, to debate and to disagree...but deliberate attempts to to discredit people as they give their personal testamonies and thus minimilizing the damage inflicted by twi should not be tolerated...especially at an anti-twi website...There should be SOME limits on what is allowed.
IMO.
Easy solution,
Civility would entail taking a debate on someone elses thread and starting your own. And labeling it "DEBATE- whatever the topic is" that way people know it is an open thread for controversy. that way you can have at it all you want there. And if someone insists on derailing an defacing someone elses thread, then they are destructive, being intentional in their actions and deserve to be banned for being an uncivalized troll.
Civility would entail taking a debate on someone elses thread and starting your own. And labeling it "DEBATE- whatever the topic is" that way people know it is an open thread for controversy. that way you can have at it all you want there. And if someone insists on derailing an defacing someone elses thread, then they are destructive, being intentional in their actions and deserve to be banned for being an uncivalized troll.
25 pages of this thread... a lot has been said... but one wonders what's really going to be DONE.
I can't and don't speak for pawtucket, but I do observe.
I observe that there's been PLENTY of indignation expressed by plenty of people here about the conduct of a few.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has been booted from here.
Everybody that has participated in the practice upon which scorn has been heaped here has effectively been put on notice -- not necessarily by pawtucket -- but by the community here, that challenging those who post about their personal stories of abuse at the hands of leaders in twi, that said practice of challenging will not be tolerated by the community.
A "norm" or "more" (pronounced more - A) has indeed been established.
How it will be dealt with will only be determined if the offending conduct is resumed.
And given that WD has let us know that he's effectively on "hiatus" due to some gig with Bob Dylan in California, perhaps his time away will serve him well in decisions he may make on how he chooses to conduct himself here from henceforth.
I tell you, its been nice without him, since WD's been gone.
There's been a whole thread of personal story telling in the "Ten years Ago" thread with no interjections of attacks, and endless debating of the authenticity of the poster's comments, or with the word police natzi whining on the choices of words used by the rebutters.
It is really quite annoying to contend with that everytime someone does a big sharing.
i lost my post, i hope i'm in the right thread now
now i see, i didn't realize, but now that you mention it, i'm so so grateful that kryssie can tell what happened without being interrogated or without arguments going on all around her. she is such a lovely honest lady
WOW I go away and lynch mobs, and food fights and a new menu item, even the roasted bird plate has been replaced with The “Eat My Words“Special?
Looks like someone switched the Decaf again, and Belle I told you about that gum thing. Well there are too many posts to catch up on every one but I’d be remised if I did not speak to a few misconceptions. (Oh come on…. you did not REALLY think I would let them slide did you?)
Now this new menu item eat my words thing, it does not look all that tasty so I’ll pass for myself, but I’m always up for a discussion so…….
I’ll Play……I’ll take Rascal for 500.00
The claim: This information I gathered from your own personal public posts here.
You know, I tried to give you an out, but you refused to take it.
Instead you pushed it playing your game as usual. You know that what you posted was not true. We both know exactly where the information that you posted came from. The truth is this is not the first time you resorted to this tactic, its pretty common to divert the attention of the thread subject for you when you are faced with facts that you can not dispute.
Doojable posted this quote below exhibit A and many happily proclaimed that it somehow proved Rascals claim. It was a valiant effort at super sleuthing…. Really, close but no cigar though. It’s not your fault, how could you know that you would be sucked into someone’s scheme.
So now I’ll set the facts straight…..
Rascals quote: post 362
Dove, the only thing that I THINK that I know, (and please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that you never went through the wow or way corps. program, and that you spent your time in twi in the same geographic area.
This information I gathered from your own personal public posts here. I do not presume to know anything about you outside of what you yourself personally chose to share here.
Rascals Quote: post 369
Rocky, it was indeed WD himself that shared that info on a thread a while back.
WhiteDoves Response Quote: post 373
Really? Is that your story and your sticking to it? Because I thought you learned it from another poster?
Rascals Quote: post 379
Dove, please....this was information that you yourself shared in these forums. Do you not remember?
As for you THINKING that I learned this information from another poster...I have no idea what you are talking about. Number one, that would be sneaky and mean, and number two, I try very hard NOT to discuss someone behind their back, and number three, I would not divulge what a third party alleged.
If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct my misunderstanding of what you wrote.
If you will notice the Exhibit B you will notice the post from my dear friend Ex10 dated March 13 2006 that would be well before the post Doojable posted in defense of Rascals position exhibit A dated January 22 2008. Where I supposedly spoke. Upon examination it was in fact another poster that Rascal learned this information from my dear friend EX 10, note the post Exhibit B. and Rascals response of surprise Exhibit C both dated well before the post where I spoke in 2008.
Exhibit A
WhiteDove
Jan 22 2008, 09:55 AM
Post #3
Well in any case it was more like a R2 droid designation than a nametag. My model number was SPF-3 It did provide some amusing moments though people would stare at the tag and wonder what it meant, you could see the wheels turning. Once someone asked if I was in the Spanish Corps. Do I look like I live south of the border?
--------------------
Exhibit B
ex10
Mar 13 2006, 01:07 AM
Post #85
Dove, not to be argumentative or anything, but you never went into the corps, never went WOW, or anything.
Did you know something we didn't?
--------------------
Exhibit C
rascal
Mar 13 2006, 10:46 AM
Post #102
Are you SERIOUS dove? You never went in the corpes but presume to speak as to what we were told BEFORE entering the program in the promos and info sessions...in the meetings held in our states and at the roa for those interested ....concerning what the corpes program was .... and then get slammed after entering the program with the reality of the hoops being moved......the bait and switch tactics???
Good grief, you have no business assuming the voice of authority in this matter....you just weren`t there. You are completely ignorant of what happened after enrolling in the program....
. In conclusion we see that in fact Rascal did learn the information just as WhiteDove said she did from another poster…… and was well aware of the information before the 2008 post.
Because she did in fact learn it from another poster.
Now what was that you said oh yes…….
“Number one, that would be sneaky and mean, and number two, I try very hard NOT to discuss someone behind their back, and number three, I would not divulge what a third party alleged.”
I concur it would be, but you did anyway now didn’t you?
Oh and by the way I’m correcting you and you are wrong.
At this point I’ll add this as well……..
This is not a site for ask Dove questions about information for his personal life and he is required to respond. It’s a site for discussion of topics no one, myself included is required to put forth personal information upon demand. I abstained from comment because I thought that maybe Rascal would take her foot out of her mouth and do the right thing, put on her big girl panties as Shellon likes to say and admit she was wrong, but she did not. Enjoy the lunch it’s on me……
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
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.
Kansas
"(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, 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.
It appears in fact that the law seems to think otherwise, at least in some states. With all due respect to the other thread that was started with the Google searches for definitions. I’m guessing that a judge faced with a choice between the legal statutes of the law and a Google definition, he will most likely go with the law code. Call me crazy but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Now of course faced with the law, the subject quickly turned to discussions like would they file a complaint? Would the complaint be defendable? and a variety of other sidebar discussions. I spoke to none of those topics although they most likely would make great ones. The truth is none of those things changes what the law says.
Which brings us to Rocky for the daily double?
Au contraire... it IS the point.
Unless you can get a law enforced, in a practical sense, there IS no law.
There are numerous reasons you cannot/could not/would not be able to get such a law enforced. Yes, NUMEROUS.
It obviates your point. In no uncertain terms.
This has got to be one of the most ridicules things I’ve read in a long time. Try selling that to any law enforcement officer or judge. No Rocky laws become laws when they are enacted by proper governing bodies. They get statute or ordinance numbers when that occurs, and they are enforceable as such despite your rhetoric.
WD,
Once again, I find myself discussing what the law SAYS on a thread with you.
And you claimed it said one thing, and even a cursory glance says it says ANOTHER.
Your definition of libel is missing a critical ingredient.
One may call someone a murderer, molester, or rapist openly ALL THEY WANT and it is NOT libel-
IF THE STATEMENT IS TRUE.
That's why someone here posted at length about a convicted child molester who was in twi and
freely called him "a child molester" and it's not libel-
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media,
that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring
a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander
(an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."
Whether or not a statement is related to something with or without a criminal conviction is not relevant to whether
or not it is libelous. It is relevant to HOW EASY IT IS TO PROVE IT IS NOT LIBELOUS,
but a true statement is no less true for not having seen a court,
and, according to the US courts, a TRUE statement is, by definition, NOT LIBEL.
And once again I find myself explaining your example to you.
Hello convicted ….Hello convicted….. Hello convicted…. My point exactly when convicted it is proper to refer to someone as guilty. By the way those were not my definitions they are laws as they read in those states.
I was going to let him speak for himself Dooj, and Tom, I don`t think Dove ever mentioned where he was (W is close enough though) , that being said, nothing wrong with sp corpes, I am one as well, and there were a whole unique set of problems associated with that.....but even so...that can`t possibly give one the same perspective, or exposure as those who actually participated in and completed in the corpes program, as those whom lived with and interacted with the leaders, or even was a leader themselves.....
To claim that ones perspective is greater than the people whom were actually present to the teachings and pressures, or to understand the wow field and the commitment level expected, what the standards one was held to...the manipulation applied etc...or to believe that one has any idea of what leadership was like outside of your geographic area is simply not realistic.
To insist that second hand information is a credible source to try to discredit others first hand accounts of abuse, mistreatment, and trauma at the hands of twi leaders while involved is simply not reasonable.
I don`t care if you do believe that wierwille was the greatest teacher since the first century....it is when someone tries repeatedly to suppress information to the contrary, or try to discredit people telling their stories that are at odds with this perception, or tries to intimidate or bully into silence someone with jeering or insinuations that someone is a liar or sick or crazy in order to lessen the impact of their testimony. That is when I have a problem.
I’ve never made such a claim, nor have I spoke concerning the WOW program, pure fabrication. Speaking of second hand information, you seem to be among the most prominent spokes persons for the victims of abuse. I wonder were you there as well on the coach or is it you have read stories here and made the choice to believe them? Correct me there but that seems to be second hand information as well. By the same standard what gives you the right to claim your second hand information is more credible?
Does he say that? I thought he was claiming that "there is not enough evidence to make a judgment either way." (Not that I agree with him, mind you.)
That is correct Mark that is exactly what I said, Thank you, and I spoke for me, myself, and I only.
Yup...there is a lot more going on here ... and unless you personally have been the target of his relentless stalking, of his malicious attacks questioning everything from your sanity to your veracity to your character and motives....claiming that what happened to you and what was taught to sanction the evil and the other insane cruelty that we lived never really happened because those of us that tell any type of abuse stories are simply the product one would expect of perpetually whining victims ......I`m betting that you probably WON`T get it.
Please believe that Dove is finally reaping what he has sown. People when they realize that he wasn`t even there to be able to deny that these doctrines were enforced or the teachings that facilitated the cruelty was taught....he loses all credibility to harass the posters sharing their stories.
Responding to your posts is not stalking this is a discussion forum and everyone can post their point of view. If you are more vocal on a thread than others then it is highly likely that you will get more response time than others. My responses to you have been in direct proportion to your comments to me.
At first I tended to think so also --- however Groucho brought up a valid point.
We (the GSC community) have NO objection to opposing viewpoints aired here.
The objection is to the personal attacks, doubts, etc. that have occurred
ALL TOO FREQUENTLY when some decide to bare their soul, and tell their story.
Suddenly they are in the *Hot Seat*, and the burden of proof is on them
for a personal experience that they went through, and someone else doubts it.
We owe the doubters NOTHING.
When posting negative aspirations against those who tell their story ---
for the common good of others who were in the same (or similar) situations,
they breed contempt, doubt, and wild speculation against those who have spoken.
M & A??? No. Not by a LONGGGGGG shot. Getting rid of a cancerous growth??
Yea -- you betcha. If M & A were the order of the day here --- you wouldn't see
all the threads about pfal there in the doctrinal section.
Paw has been more than kind and tolerant of all here (myself included).
Somehow I'm thinking it's time to *thin the herd*.
When a person (male or female) calls into question a personal testimony made by another,
and DEMANDS proof, names, dates, etc. --- I've 4 words for that poster:
HIT THE ROAD -- JACK!!!
I Never demanded proof. I’ve said that it is lacking because there is no hard evidence only one sided testimony. I understand why that is, but it is none the less a true fact. As such one is left to:
A - Agree because they like the poster or hate VP.
B - Disagree because they dislike the poster or like VP
C Have no clear decision based on the lack of supportive evidence.
Look at any police investigation and you will see that testimony is not taken as literal ,it is recorded and worked against hard evidence. what I believe personally is not the point, it does not alter the facts.
OMG
I never realized that WD never went WOW, worked limb staff or any FIRST HAND program. Corps spouse is nice but it is kinda like a 2nd hand program (no offense to Rascal) whereby you tap into the spouses corps training.
Geez, and he gets on here and DOUBTS our stories because he knew Steve Sands or the like... Isn't that 2nd hand information?
OMG, and we gave credence to his opinion allowing it to derail threads and disturb flow for years?
And all this legal talk? He is not a lawyer either.
And even if he were, how many guilty people go free and innocent are in jail the court system is deeply flawed.
His arguments are troll like in nature and circular in execution.
Sorry WD, you were a nice guy when you came here, but progressively became more brick headed, blind, and have lost the ability to go down any other track than the the one you are on - and that track is deeply flawed and not in the least bit compelling. Gosh, just stop it already. You have brought this upon yourself by your troll like appetite which feeds upon the emotionally lame, vulnerable or once injured.
You question my right to speak and yet you speak as to what the spouse Corps program was about? Were you one? If first hand experience is the criteria to speak, where is yours on this subject? I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer (but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night), and I can read laws. And while we are on the legal subject here I’ll point out I never said it was a court here but when one takes an accusation out of the opinion mode and claims that it indeed is a fact unquestioned then it becomes a potential legal issue at that point and as such bears the right for legal discussion. By the way this is not a newspaper either but I saw no objection to analogies about one posted. I guess” what it is “depends on which side of the argument one is on.
Maybe "Boot the Wierwille Apologists" was a bad choice for a thread title. Maybe it was what Groucho meant. What I've perceived this thread to be about was "tell WD to quit harrassing people or pack it in"...
People that visit the cafe have different experiences with TWI that they relate to. To some it was all good. To some it was a lot good and a little bad. To others it was about 50-50 and then there are those that had mostly bad with a little good. I don't think that anyone really cares whether or not opinions are expressed or experiences related across the spectrum... folks relate their pros and cons...
Linzee, you said:
I respectfully disagree. WD has never given anyone the courtesy of "well, that may have been how it was where you were but..."
WD's response has been along the lines of "I never saw that happen and unless you can prove it to me with evidence that will stand up in a court of law, then it didn't happen to you or anyone else either"
That is telling people "you are a liar" in so many words.
Again, I really don't think the majority of the people on this thread want to get rid of anyone with an opposing viewpoint. I know that I don't... heck, there wouldn't be any fun in that... my experiences with TWI weren't all bad but then I always kind of lived in my own world anyway... I can see both sides and still remain clear in my convictions. My opinion can also be swayed at times by the postings and thoughts of others that differ from mine...
But that is not where WD has been coming from for a long time (if ever). Because he doesn't just post his opposing view he says yours didn't happen.
Linzee also said:
I usually don't even bother "getting into it anymore" with him... it's not worth my time or effort. But that doesn't mean that I don't agree with others that he either needs to change his approach or leave.
I think this thread was started because some feel that they've had enough of his badgering. I think that folks don't want it to continue. I'm thinking that 'we' don't want folks who might come forth with a story to feel as if they're being victimized all over again... This place has been a source of healing, reconnection and amusement for most of us here.
'We' are initially (I think) supposed to be somewhere that folks can come to that is somewhat of a safe haven from their torment. Someplace where folks can be heard without fear of being told 'I don't believe you'. I've never been the victim of most of the abuses that have been related on this site but I sure can put two and two together and see the immense possibility that all of them (and more) happened.
I know that none of us are 'perfect posters', we all make mistakes, have good days and bad... but I don't think there's any place here for someone with an obvious agenda to stifle every single person who relates a story of abuse... maybe there's a better title for the thread in there somewhere.
WD's response has been along the lines of "I never saw that happen and unless you can prove it to me with evidence that will stand up in a court of law, then it didn't happen to you or anyone else either"
No Tom that is not what I have said. You also ignore the fact that I have repeatedly said that I speak only for myself. I stated what I believe is necessary to make an informed decision, not one based on who I like or dislike. If the information is lacking then for me it remains undocumentable. (That means no hard evidence to confirm testimony) As I also have stated many times as such that does not make it false or true but without sufficient evidence to render a decision based on facts not a persons words. You continue to misrepresent my words. What I believe personally has no bearing on what is documentable.
You are right Abby, I had already gone back and changed *all* to *many*.... but apparently we had been posting at the same time. You were not the target of my post, I wasn`t even thinking of you when I wrote it.
I DO count you as a friend and have always respected your ability to post disagreement without being insulting.
I don`t want anybody booted either...I DO however want the freedom to post without harassment or my veracity being called into question. As noble as your ideals are in defense of this guy...his deliberate non stop campaign to limit others participation and sharing here in spite of many polite requests to cease and desist have made it necessary to word things a bit stronger. What can you do with a bully that refuses to stop?
No doubt he is relishing his martyrdom, dismissing his ugly behavior and need to examine himself and his postings by beating his chest and crying harassment and discrimination...and then he has people come to his defense and scold those whom are taking him to task.
Oh and as far as *my side* being given more leniency?? Now that I WILL call that a load of crap ...as much as I like you abby...you have NO idea how many times that I have been asked to voluntarily remove posts, been moderated, had my posts have been deleted...or that I was actually suspended from these boards for a MONTH!
With all do respect, I think that you are posting from an *ideals* standpoint* while not really understanding the dynamics of doves orchestrated campaign to bully, discredit and drive people from these boards.
Unfounded claim I have never asked for anyone not to post or supported such an idea, I have welcomed all discussions. And those polite requests to cease and desist that you speak of are often buried in backhanded insults.
Martyrdom? Hardly Rascal I think the record will show I have complained about one thread in all the years, because I felt that no rules were broken. I still don’t see where any were. And the response was that it violated the mission of GreaseSpot not the rules. I spoke my opinion and Paw spoke his, it’s his board I honored his request. I also have refrained in posting on related threads as well. I did remark that if the interest was in keeping the thread on track that I would think it fair to eliminate all the posts that distracted from that, not just the (quote) apologists (unquote) but the insults as well including the one that started the whole thing to begin with which I find as offensive as calling a black man a nigger. Others have said the same thing, there are two sides to the problem. That was my opinion; he weighed it and made the call. I’m fine with that, I have no other complains about the moderation here. I believe that they work hard to be fair.
I have spoken on the playing field but that is not a moderation issue, It is related strictly to the number of pro and anti posters here, I think it is a fair statement to say that the amount is far from balanced in the two, then again I don’t expect it to be given the mission here. If A is greater than B it is not martyrdom to point out a true fact.
Easy solution,
Civility would entail taking a debate on someone elses thread and starting your own. And labeling it "DEBATE- whatever the topic is" that way people know it is an open thread for controversy. that way you can have at it all you want there. And if someone insists on derailing an defacing someone elses thread, then they are destructive, being intentional in their actions and deserve to be banned for being an uncivalized troll.
again, my opinion
This seems reasonable to me would everyone abide by the same rule? Or is it just the (quote) Wierwille apologists (unquote) that would have to start separate threads? For instance if someone were to start a thread say My testimony of why VP was the greatest thing since sliced bread would no one derail that thread as well? What do you suppose the chances are on that happening? I’m betting slim and none are the choices……
Finally thanks Abigail and Linda for your usual objective assessment of my posts. All differences aside I appreciate your words both in support and opposition, they did not go unnoticed. thats not to say either were sticking up for me ,but only that they objectivly viewed the posts and still maintained their personal perspective on some matters.
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
Abigail
I find arguing over the proper definition of the term "apologist" in this context of "VPW apologist" about as silly as arguing with WD over legal termonology. The fact is, it is a grouping and pretty much stereotyping of a small number of people here. It is often used to dismiss what they are saying (and at least some of the time they have something valid to add) and at least WD, if not anyone else, has made it clear they find it offensive.
Therefore, as we are asking WD to use more wisdom and compassion regarding responding to personal testimony, I think it is fair play to ask others to refrain from calling people "VPW apologists."
Two sides - again.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
I don't agree with that assesment of it being used as a slur, it identifies a poster's MO. I couldn't find a negative definition of the word apologist anywhere from any reputable source. Websters trumps wikiwiki.
Most everyone here has no problem with the vpw apologists stating their beliefs, we have said that ad infinitum, what the issue is - the attack mode, all wierwille apologists are not created equal, they all don't respond like WD, ranting on the use of the word apologist was a lame point to begin a tirade, if anyone used the words, anti-wierwilist apologist term to describe the other side of the coin, I assure you, no one would have objected to that usage. I think attempting to police the GS community at large's choice of words like this is a form of censorship spawned by someone who likes to pick fights and derail threads and panders to a bully.
This minutia is getting tiring, lets agree to disagree, ok? No hard feelings. :)
Edited by now I seeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Wow! Go to work and a thread gains new life!
These "two cents" might be old - but I gotta say it anyway.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Rumrunner, my comment to Rocky pertains to a situation years ago in which Rocky got the boot for fighting with Satori (or whatever Satori's name was then...I forget). At that time I stuck up for Rocky, even though I didn't agree with everything he said or how he said it. Hence my response to his smart-a$$ remark.
now I see, I did read both "Losing the Way" threads before WD's posts were deleted. I have already said there have been times when WD's comments have been ill-timed and insensitive. That was one of those times. However, I also saw people pushing his buttons before he pushed theirs back. People shouldn't kick a cat (or in this case a bird, I guess) and not expect the claws to come out.
I maintain that it has become a witch hunt. Example: Even though Oldies has stated very clearly that he believed excathedra, his name continues to be coupled with WD's in an effort to discredit him along with WD. I've seldom agreed with Oldies on twi matters, but good grief, give the guy a little credit for growing. Enough with the darn labels.
Let me say this again for anyone who missed this point: I am not defending WD's views. I am defending his right to voice those views. I would like it if he used a lot more compassion in choosing when to state them, and I'm not sure what the solution is for that, but I don't believe it is banning him, as Groucho advocated by starting this thread.
By the way, did anyone notice this comment from WD to Exsie in the thread he started in the Open forum?
Then of course he launched into his "due process of the law" deal, but at least it's an acknowledgment! And I understand the distinction he's making, even though I think he's wrong.
I've been around here since the beginning. I've watched and, to some degree, come to know the other long-time posters. If you just watch and listen long enough without jumping into the fray, you can learn a lot about people from their behavior month after month and year after year. I've seen WD extend many kindnesses to others. I've also seen him be a brickhead. It's frustrating and a waste of time to argue with a brickhead, so I rarely do. But I don't think his stubbornness on this issue negates the nice things he does or the funny things he says.
Despite the fact that I think WD is wrong on the VP/abuse issue, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Why? It's not because he's a close personal friend of mine. We've never exchanged as much as one PM or an e-mail, and to my knowledge I've never met him. In fact, I don't even know who the heck he is. So why do I care if he gets banned? Because for some crazy reason, I care about this place and the people who make it what it is. I would hate to see it become a pack of "likeminded" people who won't allow those with unpopular opinions their voice. Period. You can cloak that however you like, but that's what this comes down to, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
My apologies then Linda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
No apology needed, Rummie. I was just clarifying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm still not understanding what I did today to cause you to make that statement... ???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I never understood the use of the word 'apologist' anyway
i guess it can be used in a good sense or bad
i just don't use it cuz it doesn't fit with what i post i guess
well till this post anyway, idon't think i've ever used the word
people who defend vpw or pfal or twi don't bother me
unless they are doing it and lieing, knowing what happened
and like rubbing it in the face of someone who has been hurt
which is probably all of us
i defended pfal/twi/vpw for years
so i can understand if someone is honestly doing that
in dealing with those who are defending honestly
i don't think the nuclear war heads should be used first
let's get to know these people and learn from them
it is possible
and yes i learned a bit out of 20 years in the way
i can only defend those who honestly where seeking God
that would not include vpw anymore because of what i have been shown
or pfal or twi
i listen to the stories, the actual things taught and the actions and results
letting it come together in my mind without forcing anything
and answers start coming
rambling on i guess....
btw...you guys lighten up on each other please
no one is "wrong" if they are honest
it's just where they are at the time
life is to big to have only one "right"
one is we, we are still one
humanity is one
get it? maybe...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
number 1, I apologized to Rocky for including him about this topic. 2. Had White Dove limited his posts to music, he would not now be on my ignore and block options. 3. For a short time Oldiesman showed some humor and seemed human, but showed his true colors. 4. Mike hasn't been on this in a while. 5. I publicly apologised for my behavior and regret that I acted infantile. Besides I shudder that I would act like Craig or Chris, or even VPW like spoiled little brats who neede a good spanking for their behavior/attitude. BTW, Rocky presently is not on blocked or ignore, and yes I went back and read his posts which supports his
opposing Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...For the most part, I agree with the above statement made by Linda. The exception would be that I do not think that deliberately interupting and insulting people as they give their testamonies and causing those threads to disintigrate should be included in "allowing those with unpopular opinions their voice".
A desire to see civility and good manners in certain situations should not be construed as an effort to silence opposing views...I have no desire to see this place become a mutual admiration society of likeminded greasespots...I encourage people to express their individuality, to debate and to disagree...but deliberate attempts to to discredit people as they give their personal testamonies and thus minimilizing the damage inflicted by twi should not be tolerated...especially at an anti-twi website...There should be SOME limits on what is allowed.
IMO.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Easy solution,
Civility would entail taking a debate on someone elses thread and starting your own. And labeling it "DEBATE- whatever the topic is" that way people know it is an open thread for controversy. that way you can have at it all you want there. And if someone insists on derailing an defacing someone elses thread, then they are destructive, being intentional in their actions and deserve to be banned for being an uncivalized troll.
again, my opinion
Edited by JustSayNOLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Good idea!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
25 pages of this thread... a lot has been said... but one wonders what's really going to be DONE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I can't and don't speak for pawtucket, but I do observe.
I observe that there's been PLENTY of indignation expressed by plenty of people here about the conduct of a few.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has been booted from here.
Everybody that has participated in the practice upon which scorn has been heaped here has effectively been put on notice -- not necessarily by pawtucket -- but by the community here, that challenging those who post about their personal stories of abuse at the hands of leaders in twi, that said practice of challenging will not be tolerated by the community.
A "norm" or "more" (pronounced more - A) has indeed been established.
How it will be dealt with will only be determined if the offending conduct is resumed.
And given that WD has let us know that he's effectively on "hiatus" due to some gig with Bob Dylan in California, perhaps his time away will serve him well in decisions he may make on how he chooses to conduct himself here from henceforth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
I tell you, its been nice without him, since WD's been gone.
There's been a whole thread of personal story telling in the "Ten years Ago" thread with no interjections of attacks, and endless debating of the authenticity of the poster's comments, or with the word police natzi whining on the choices of words used by the rebutters.
It is really quite annoying to contend with that everytime someone does a big sharing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Of course this is not a democracy and Paw will make his own decisions...but I think we have provided some "food for thought".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i lost my post, i hope i'm in the right thread now
now i see, i didn't realize, but now that you mention it, i'm so so grateful that kryssie can tell what happened without being interrogated or without arguments going on all around her. she is such a lovely honest lady
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Big ol jet airliner
Don’t carry me too far away
Oh, oh big ol jet airliner
Cause its here that I’ve got to stay
Oh, oh big ol jet airliner
Don’t carry me too far away
Oh, oh big ol jet airliner
Cause its here that Ive got to stay
Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah….Steve Miller
WOW I go away and lynch mobs, and food fights and a new menu item, even the roasted bird plate has been replaced with The “Eat My Words“Special?
Looks like someone switched the Decaf again, and Belle I told you about that gum thing. Well there are too many posts to catch up on every one but I’d be remised if I did not speak to a few misconceptions. (Oh come on…. you did not REALLY think I would let them slide did you?)
Now this new menu item eat my words thing, it does not look all that tasty so I’ll pass for myself, but I’m always up for a discussion so…….
I’ll Play……I’ll take Rascal for 500.00
The claim: This information I gathered from your own personal public posts here.
You know, I tried to give you an out, but you refused to take it.
Instead you pushed it playing your game as usual. You know that what you posted was not true. We both know exactly where the information that you posted came from. The truth is this is not the first time you resorted to this tactic, its pretty common to divert the attention of the thread subject for you when you are faced with facts that you can not dispute.
Doojable posted this quote below exhibit A and many happily proclaimed that it somehow proved Rascals claim. It was a valiant effort at super sleuthing…. Really, close but no cigar though. It’s not your fault, how could you know that you would be sucked into someone’s scheme.
So now I’ll set the facts straight…..
If you will notice the Exhibit B you will notice the post from my dear friend Ex10 dated March 13 2006 that would be well before the post Doojable posted in defense of Rascals position exhibit A dated January 22 2008. Where I supposedly spoke. Upon examination it was in fact another poster that Rascal learned this information from my dear friend EX 10, note the post Exhibit B. and Rascals response of surprise Exhibit C both dated well before the post where I spoke in 2008.
Exhibit A
--------------------Exhibit B
--------------------
Exhibit C
I concur it would be, but you did anyway now didn’t you?
Oh and by the way I’m correcting you and you are wrong.
At this point I’ll add this as well……..
This is not a site for ask Dove questions about information for his personal life and he is required to respond. It’s a site for discussion of topics no one, myself included is required to put forth personal information upon demand. I abstained from comment because I thought that maybe Rascal would take her foot out of her mouth and do the right thing, put on her big girl panties as Shellon likes to say and admit she was wrong, but she did not. Enjoy the lunch it’s on me……
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Now back to the topic at hand when I left.
The claim: One can not libel a dead body.
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
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.
Kansas
"(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, 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.
It appears in fact that the law seems to think otherwise, at least in some states. With all due respect to the other thread that was started with the Google searches for definitions. I’m guessing that a judge faced with a choice between the legal statutes of the law and a Google definition, he will most likely go with the law code. Call me crazy but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Now of course faced with the law, the subject quickly turned to discussions like would they file a complaint? Would the complaint be defendable? and a variety of other sidebar discussions. I spoke to none of those topics although they most likely would make great ones. The truth is none of those things changes what the law says.
Which brings us to Rocky for the daily double?
This has got to be one of the most ridicules things I’ve read in a long time. Try selling that to any law enforcement officer or judge. No Rocky laws become laws when they are enacted by proper governing bodies. They get statute or ordinance numbers when that occurs, and they are enforceable as such despite your rhetoric.
And once again I find myself explaining your example to you.
Hello convicted ….Hello convicted….. Hello convicted…. My point exactly when convicted it is proper to refer to someone as guilty. By the way those were not my definitions they are laws as they read in those states.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I’ve never made such a claim, nor have I spoke concerning the WOW program, pure fabrication. Speaking of second hand information, you seem to be among the most prominent spokes persons for the victims of abuse. I wonder were you there as well on the coach or is it you have read stories here and made the choice to believe them? Correct me there but that seems to be second hand information as well. By the same standard what gives you the right to claim your second hand information is more credible?
That is correct Mark that is exactly what I said, Thank you, and I spoke for me, myself, and I only.
Responding to your posts is not stalking this is a discussion forum and everyone can post their point of view. If you are more vocal on a thread than others then it is highly likely that you will get more response time than others. My responses to you have been in direct proportion to your comments to me.
I Never demanded proof. I’ve said that it is lacking because there is no hard evidence only one sided testimony. I understand why that is, but it is none the less a true fact. As such one is left to:
A - Agree because they like the poster or hate VP.
B - Disagree because they dislike the poster or like VP
C Have no clear decision based on the lack of supportive evidence.
Look at any police investigation and you will see that testimony is not taken as literal ,it is recorded and worked against hard evidence. what I believe personally is not the point, it does not alter the facts.
You question my right to speak and yet you speak as to what the spouse Corps program was about? Were you one? If first hand experience is the criteria to speak, where is yours on this subject? I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer (but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night), and I can read laws. And while we are on the legal subject here I’ll point out I never said it was a court here but when one takes an accusation out of the opinion mode and claims that it indeed is a fact unquestioned then it becomes a potential legal issue at that point and as such bears the right for legal discussion. By the way this is not a newspaper either but I saw no objection to analogies about one posted. I guess” what it is “depends on which side of the argument one is on.
No Tom that is not what I have said. You also ignore the fact that I have repeatedly said that I speak only for myself. I stated what I believe is necessary to make an informed decision, not one based on who I like or dislike. If the information is lacking then for me it remains undocumentable. (That means no hard evidence to confirm testimony) As I also have stated many times as such that does not make it false or true but without sufficient evidence to render a decision based on facts not a persons words. You continue to misrepresent my words. What I believe personally has no bearing on what is documentable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Unfounded claim I have never asked for anyone not to post or supported such an idea, I have welcomed all discussions. And those polite requests to cease and desist that you speak of are often buried in backhanded insults.
Martyrdom? Hardly Rascal I think the record will show I have complained about one thread in all the years, because I felt that no rules were broken. I still don’t see where any were. And the response was that it violated the mission of GreaseSpot not the rules. I spoke my opinion and Paw spoke his, it’s his board I honored his request. I also have refrained in posting on related threads as well. I did remark that if the interest was in keeping the thread on track that I would think it fair to eliminate all the posts that distracted from that, not just the (quote) apologists (unquote) but the insults as well including the one that started the whole thing to begin with which I find as offensive as calling a black man a nigger. Others have said the same thing, there are two sides to the problem. That was my opinion; he weighed it and made the call. I’m fine with that, I have no other complains about the moderation here. I believe that they work hard to be fair.
I have spoken on the playing field but that is not a moderation issue, It is related strictly to the number of pro and anti posters here, I think it is a fair statement to say that the amount is far from balanced in the two, then again I don’t expect it to be given the mission here. If A is greater than B it is not martyrdom to point out a true fact.
This seems reasonable to me would everyone abide by the same rule? Or is it just the (quote) Wierwille apologists (unquote) that would have to start separate threads? For instance if someone were to start a thread say My testimony of why VP was the greatest thing since sliced bread would no one derail that thread as well? What do you suppose the chances are on that happening? I’m betting slim and none are the choices……
Finally thanks Abigail and Linda for your usual objective assessment of my posts. All differences aside I appreciate your words both in support and opposition, they did not go unnoticed. thats not to say either were sticking up for me ,but only that they objectivly viewed the posts and still maintained their personal perspective on some matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
WhiteDove, please check your Private Messages
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.