Try this on for size: I think all people should pee sitting down. I do, so I think you should too. And we should get rid of all urinals, and make men sit down to pee because they certainly are too stupid to figure out how to pee on their own. It's just as ridiculous as you saying ban the sympathizers....Ban the books, burn the Bible. Use your head.
Many have been here for so long and heard the same story told so many times in so many ways that it gets old(not to take away from the seriousness of it)and people tend to start getting short with each other. Since information coming out of The Way has been drying up more so in the last couple years, people tend to rehash old topics and they start to microscopically rip things apart for lack of new information
BUT
It took one woman nearly the entire 8 years to finally write out what happened as the apologist kept killing her.
She was RAPED by VPW. A humiliating, life crippling, soul robbing, heart stopping, spirit crushing, joy diminishing, seed of confusion and shameful event.
And each time she would write a few words – the apologists moved in to pick her drying bones – left in the middle of HWY 29 - so she could not speak.
It took nearly 8 years for her to be able to place it in comprehensive paragraphs to tell what happened to her. The fear of being belittled again, or called a liar, left her in a frozen state much like the wooly mammoth discovered years later frozen in his tracks.
And what did the apologists do? First, they said things were “hear say” then, when victims got an ounce of courage and reported events they said there was no proof – demanding the blue dress as it were. They will answer to God for their heinous crippling of the struggling and the injured.
Should it continue here? I do not have the answer. For what happened to the woman in Loosing the Way, or Marsha when her story was brought forth was so cold blooded and cruel it has been shocking to me as a mere human being. To think that people who proclaim to love God can be encased in such religious cruelty is heinous – they continue VP’s cruelty by their diminishing the lives of the injured. They make sick remarks because they are sick – but so hardened, I really doubt they can ever be chiseled free.
So, maybe they should go to a site that worships VPW. And yet, their sickening responses serve an odd purpose – they reveal over and over again TWI was a cruel heartless group who robbed us of much. Praise God for BG Leonard and Bullinger – dam n TWI.
Praise God for deliverance! Dam n those that want to encase and kill.
What do we do here? I think PAW has a handle on it. I think this is his “ministry” and when the soul murdering apologists cluster for the kill – he lets them expose themselves – then he steps in.
To me this video shows "our GS sister" wanting to be set free....
And the "father" who does it for her, is those who have fought for her to be "free"
But there are those who would deflate the boat, flatten the tire, or put thorns on the path so that this crippled soul might never be free.
This is how powerful I see Paw's ministry - and ours - here.
And how destructive the apologists can be... They actually hinder or try to hinder the beauty of the stories of deliverance or worse - try to stop it from happening again
Looking to make an issue? Hoping for a mass cry against the "apologists"? hoping to use peer pressure to push Paw into giving you your way? Pretty stinky if ya ask me
I didn't ask you...and besides, your speculations of my motives are dead wrong.
DWBH has spoken! Read it again! He is the one with the true perspective here at the GSCafe! This is the edict to be obeyed!
hiya greasespotters!
i don't think pawtucket would, or should do anything different than what he's been doing here since he opened this fine establishment!..........it's my favorite cyber-cafe!.........and, just like any menu, paw's menu here offers things i enjoy, and i try to avoid things i don't like the "taste" of.........point being, it's my choice!.........the same choice is available to all of us who are "regular customers" here!............and, i for one, would'nt want my choices limited to only what i like, or approve of..........and i'm sure many other greasespotters feel the same............
just because the menu choices of some are "not my cup o' tea" does'nt mean they should be denied items better suited to their personal tastes and opinions!..........i strongly defend their "right" to post here, and i would be most disappointed if they were "booted!..........(excie..........they shoot boots don't they??..........LOL!).......
they're subject to the same rules and regs we all are, as well as the even-handed interpretation and "enforcement" of those rules by the owner of this place and the several volunteer moderators..........who have, through the years, imho, demonstrated extreme patience, objectivity, and fairness in the way this site has run!.......in the words of that old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"!
i have "no beef" with the decisions paw and the moderators are forced to make at times..........i'm glad they're willing to make them, and their ability to "do the right thing" has been overwhelmingly demonstrated repeatedly, which is why i think the greasespot is a great place to hang out at!.........diversity is never a threat to the open-minded, nor should it be discouraged...........it can always lead to personal as well as community growth..........so it should be embraced, not feared or denied!
so, i say, "keep on keepin' on" pawtucket!!!.........i don't think there is, nor ever will be another cafe like this one!.........i'd hate to see it change, or "sold" to new management!......i'd consider that a great loss to cyberspace............keep this place OPEN to the public paw!...........you serve up great food for thought here, and the menus are as current and as necessary as they've been since opening day!..............................................peace.
I would think there is more than just one "other side" of the story. There are hundreds, thousands even, of "other sides."
Ummm...it says "other side"...not "other sides"...I thought that I would point out to you that you just changed the meaning of what was actually written when you decided to change the word "side" to the plural form of the word.
The other side (singular) sets in contrast to the "side" (singular) that is obviously being promoted by twi...or what some may call the "pro twi side"...well, this is a website that tells the "other side", which would be the "anti twi side". That's why the word "side" is used in the singular...because it refers to the two sides...pro and con.
You seem to be going through mental gymnastics trying to justify your position...let me make this easy for you...
I am offended by by the waybrained cultheads continuing to attack people here at this website...and I am using my keyboard to express my thoughts on the matter.
There's plenty of room for heated debates on other threads...there's no need for them to inappropriately attack someone when they are telling their story....that's the beef...you don't seem to be grasping the point here...
I am offended by by the waybrained cultheads continuing to attack people here at this website...and I am using my keyboard to express my thoughts on the matter.
There's plenty of room for heated debates on other threads...there's no need for them to inappropriately attack someone when they are telling their story....that's the beef...you don't seem to be grasping the point here...
First, Groucho, I do get your main point, and I actually agree with it. I do think it is inappropriate for someone to attack someone who is relaying a personal experience. I have said so repeatedly. I simply do not believe banning someone is the way to go, I think there are other alternatives.
Beyond that, I also get that you are offended by people attacking other people. Yet, you are guilty of doing the very thing you are so offended by. Indeed, I would bet that Oldies and WhiteDove (among others) take offence at being labelled "apologists" and being called "waybrained cultheads." It is, IMO, hypocracy to cry foul against others for doing what you are also doing.
Finally, you can label my thoughts and reasoning as mental gymnastics, if it makes things more black and white for you (now there is a cult thought process - black and white thinking). But the fact is, given the number of people who were touched by TWI, there are numerous "other sides."
Some had horrendous experiences of rape, abortion, etc. etc. Others believe they received great benefit from PFAL, but had bad experiences in other areas. Some were humiliated and shamed by their leadership, others were not.
And in the end, if Paw wants to limit this place to one side (as opposed to other sideS) he is free to do so at any time. The fact that he hasn't, indicates to me that he does not wish to.
DWBH has spoken! Read it again! He is the one with the true perspective here at the GSCafe! This is the edict to be obeyed!
Jonny...That's a cheap shot, even for you...
Obviously, you don't know him very well or you would see how ludicrous your statement is. Perhaps your old "ordination mind set" is creeping back up on you? Be careful now...I wouldn't want to see you slipping from your cult recovery...you've come so far.
Beyond that, I also get that you are offended by people attacking other people. Yet, you are guilty of doing the very thing you are so offended by. Indeed, I would bet that Oldies and WhiteDove (among others) take offence at being labelled "apologists" and being called "waybrained cultheads." It is, IMO, hypocracy to cry foul against others for doing what you are also doing.
No...You are wrong. I am not "offended by people attacking other people"...I am offended by the Wierwille apologists attacking people...keep it straight. I am guilty of the same things?...Not quite the same things. I come to this website to attack the influences of this insideous cult...to make known the folly of following the teachings of a monster, to battle against waybrain...so, thank you for recognizing my efforts.
As I said, I am biased...and considering what I am biased against...I think it's a healthy bias.
They might take offense?...What do they expect when they are posting at an anti'twi website?...a warm reception? They SHOULD be offended...but it's not THEM as people that I despise, it's what Wierwille and this cult did to their minds...
They SHOULD be offended...but it's not THEM as people that I despise, it's what Wierwille and this cult did to their minds...
Then attack the cult, not the people. Not complicated really. One can argue and debate what was taught in TWI, that is wrong, harmful, dangerous - I would even agree with you on many of those points.
But when you label them, when you call them "waybrained cultheads" you are no longer attacking the cult and/or what it did to their minds, you are now attacking the person.
First, Groucho, I do get your main point, and I actually agree with it. I do think it is inappropriate for someone to attack someone who is relaying a personal experience. I have said so repeatedly.
It doesn't matter if you say something repeatedly. One step out of line here and you get roasted for it. You should know that by now Abigal...
Gotta ggo to work now, can't comment anymore. Bye!
Abi - I appreciate your sentiments but have to disagree with you about your quote below - which (to me - which makes it suspect) sounds a little like you are saying there are NO alternatives at GSC.
There are plenty of alternatives - and have been applied:
a) PM from mod - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again
b) deletion of post by mod
c) deletion of post by mod with accompanying PM - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again
d) deletion of post by mod with accompanying explanation on forum
e) temporary suspension
f) being banned.
So I did a little exercise in "real life." I re-read the forms I am required to sign for my childrens' behavior at public schools in California. Pretty much identical with the addition of detention which could never be enforced on the net. 23 pages of behavioral expectation with accompanying examples and responses from the school system for violations.
Now before someone goes off on me and says that means I am making Paw "the teacher" - NO I AM NOT. The school system is part of a community - and with it carries some rules of social order. One does not walk into a school and call someone out with an ethnic slur - immediate suspension. One does not walk into a school with a cell phone turned on (used for cheating on exams with texting) - immediate suspension. Neither of those rules is a violation of free speech - and that is in "real life" not in cyber hallucination. Those rules are to promote a healthy social environment where name-calling, cheating etc are not tolerated.
GSC - is in some way a community - with commonalities, differences - as to be expected - but there still needs to be some accepted social expectations. These are posted to you when you sign up at GSC - and when you clicked on "I agree" you are then expected to arrange your behavior (to some degree) on those points.
Paw et. al. have been EXTREMELY liberal in letting those rules slip from time to time - and, as with a mature adult - some infractions can be overlooked or given a quiet PM prod. I have only seen three people put on suspension and only one banned. If only the parents and school systems in CA could do so well...........
Oh yeah - one last point - the 23 pages I signed up for applied to children - not adults - I would expect more from adults.......
edited for a couple of grammar errors
First, Groucho, I do get your main point, and I actually agree with it. I do think it is inappropriate for someone to attack someone who is relaying a personal experience. I have said so repeatedly. I simply do not believe banning someone is the way to go, I think there are other alternatives.
Rumrunner, either I am entirely missing your point or you missed mine. Re-read what you quoted. I DID say there were other alternatives to banning.
Abi - I appreciate your sentiments but have to disagree with you about your quote below - which (to me - which makes it suspect) sounds a little like you are saying there are NO alternatives at GSC.
There are plenty of alternatives - and have been applied:
a) PM from mod - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again
b) deletion of post by mod
c) deletion of post by mod with accompanying PM - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again
d) deletion of post by mod with accompanying explanation on forum
e) temporary suspension
f) being banned.
So I did a little exercise in "real life." I re-read the forms I am required to sign for my childrens' behavior at public schools in California. Pretty much identical with the addition of detention which could never be enforced on the net. 23 pages of behavioral expectation with accompanying examples and responses from the school system for violations.
Now before someone goes off on me and says that means I am making Paw "the teacher" - NO I AM NOT. The school system is part of a community - and with it carries some rules of social order. One does not walk into a school and call someone out with an ethnic slur - immediate suspension. One does not walk into a school with a cell phone turned on (used for cheating on exams with texting) - immediate suspension. Neither of those rules is a violation of free speech - and that is in "real life" not in cyber hallucination. Those rules are to promote a healthy social environment where name-calling, cheating etc are not tolerated.
GSC - is in some way a community - with commonalities, differences - as to be expected - but there still needs to be some accepted social expectations. These are posted to you when you sign up at GSC - and when you clicked on "I agree" you are then expected to arrange your behavior (to some degree) on those points.
Paw et. al. have been EXTREMELY liberal in letting those rules slip from time to time - and, as with a mature adult - some infractions can be overlooked or given a quiet PM prod. I have only seen three people put on suspension and only one banned. If only the parents and school systems in CA could do so well...........
Oh yeah - one last point - the 23 pages I signed up for applied to children - not adults - I would expect more from adults.......
My apologies then Abigail - seems I missed your point. I read it with the flavor (which I tried to explain) seemed to me as if you were suggesting there were not alternatives. Or perhaps we both missed each others points. My main point was not so much about alternatives as it was about behavior. My teenagers are expected to act with better behavior than I have seen exhibited on GSC. I am not picking on "the usual" names, the Wierwille apologists, etc. I've seen it all over these boards
BTW - if you go in "the way back machine" (an early 60's cartoon) - you will see the same thing happened on even early 70's social boards - no GUI's - no way to post youtube (didn't exist) - but the social behaviors where not that different. Just for fun look up MUSH, MUD, Mu. Same story - not religious cult background - just that when you get a couple of hundred (thousand?) people in the same room these behaviors will, pretty much, always crop up. I ran a MUSH for many years - longer than GSC has been around - it's all a "re-run" if you will let me use that figure. This re-run is generally centered around TWI - with notable exceptions in Politics and Tacks - but the posting is all of the same flavor I watched over 20 years ago.
Humans eh? - I would post a smiley for you here but I hate the damned things.
yeah edited for grammar - I wish I could type....
Rumrunner, either I am entirely missing your point or you missed mine. Re-read what you quoted. I DID say there were other alternatives to banning.
I simply do not believe banning someone is the way to go, I think there are other alternatives.
I would suggest that Abi does not mean banning should never be an alternative; i.e. that banning shoud be itself banned. I believe from the context of her remarks that she is referring to a blanket bannign such as Groucho suggested when he started this thread. I hope very much that Abi will correct me if I am wrong on this assumption.
No apology necessary RumRunner, these things happen. Yes, it is human nature, and yes it would be wonderful if adults could behave at least as well as we expect children to - would certainly be a better example. :)
My apologies then Abigail - seems I missed your point. I read it with the flavor (which I tried to explain) seemed to me as if you were suggesting there were not alternatives. Or perhaps we both missed each others points. My main point was not so much about alternatives as it was about behavior. My teenagers are expected to act with better behavior than I have seen exhibited on GSC. I am not picking on "the usual" names, the Wierwille apologists, etc. I've seen it all over these boards
BTW - if you go in "the way back machine" (an early 60's cartoon) - you will see the same thing happened on even early 70's social boards - no GUI's - no way to post youtube (didn't exist) - but the social behaviors where not that different. Just for fun look up MUSH, MUD, Mu. Same story - not religious cult background - just that when you get a couple of hundred (thousand?) people in the same room these behaviors will, pretty much, always crop up. I ran a MUSH for many years - longer than GSC has been around - it's all a "re-run" if you will let me use that figure. This re-run is generally centered around TWI - with notable exceptions in Politics and Tacks - but the posting is all of the same flavor I watched over 20 years ago.
Humans eh? - I would post a smiley for you here but I hate the damned things.
I would suggest that Abi does not mean banning should never be an alternative; i.e. that banning shoud be itself banned. I believe from the context of her remarks that she is referring to a blanket bannign such as Groucho suggested when he started this thread. I hope very much that Abi will correct me if I am wrong on this assumption.
Exactly, Lifted. Banning (as much as I hate the notion of it - reminds me too much of mark and avoid) has to be left open as a viable option for those who simply refuse to follow the very basic and simple rules that exist here. I just perfer to see it used as a last resort, and never used simply because one doesn't like the opinion of another.
Yeah - seems I missed her point - read further interactions between Abigail and me as above. Please also note that the interactions between us were - hmmm - polite?!?! It took only four or so posts to come to a consensus. How weird is that?
I would suggest that Abi does not mean banning should never be an alternative; i.e. that banning shoud be itself banned. I believe from the context of her remarks that she is referring to a blanket bannign such as Groucho suggested when he started this thread. I hope very much that Abi will correct me if I am wrong on this assumption.
But when you label them, when you call them "waybrained cultheads" you are no longer attacking the cult and/or what it did to their minds, you are now attacking the person.
I have seen it mentioned here that we should be considerate of what other people perceive, that it may not be enough to be convinced even in your own heart that you meant no harm or that you didn't mean to call this or that person specifically "waybrained cultheads", "jagoffs", or other such flattering terms. Especially after you have been informed that such terms are offensive to others, whether or not you intended them to be. Anyone who has undergone instruction on sexual harassment should know generally what I am speaking of.
I guess Abigail my thinking on banning is like this (going back to the school behavior post I sent above) - If a student walks into a HS with a .357 pistol - then yeah - banning is in order. I don't want them around my kids. Now we can extrapolate this to no end - and someone will attack me for this extrapolation. One could easily say that a gun could cause immediate physical harm whereas a web forum post does not. On that I would disagree. There are reasons that students are not allowed to use ethnic slurs - and indeed if anyone called you a 'dirty Jew" as a child - you would feel the immediate (though probably not life threatening) harm. I don't want those people in my childrens' schools either.
Exactly, Lifted. Banning (as much as I hate the notion of it - reminds me too much of mark and avoid) has to be left open as a viable option for those who simply refuse to follow the very basic and simple rules that exist here. I just perfer to see it used as a last resort, and never used simply because one doesn't like the opinion of another.
I guess Abigail my thinking on banning is like this (going back to the school behavior post I sent above) - If a student walks into a HS with a .357 pistol - then yeah - banning is in order. I don't want them around my kids. Now we can extrapolate this to no end - and someone will attack me for this extrapolation. One could easily say that a gun could cause immediate physical harm whereas a web forum post does not. On that I would disagree. There are reasons that students are not allowed to use ethnic slurs - and indeed if anyone called you a 'dirty Jew" as a child - you would feel the immediate (though probably not life threatening) harm. I don't want those people in my childrens' schools either.
I have seen it mentioned here that we should be considerate of what other people perceive, that it may not be enough to be convinced even in your own heart that you meant no harm or that you didn't mean to call this or that person specifically "waybrained cultheads", "jagoffs", or other such flattering terms. Especially after you have been informed that such terms are offensive to others, whether or not you intended them to be. Anyone who has undergone instruction on sexual harassment should know generally what I am speaking of.
I guess Abigail my thinking on banning is like this (going back to the school behavior post I sent above) - If a student walks into a HS with a .357 pistol - then yeah - banning is in order. I don't want them around my kids. Now we can extrapolate this to no end - and someone will attack me for this extrapolation. One could easily say that a gun could cause immediate physical harm whereas a web forum post does not. On that I would disagree. There are reasons that students are not allowed to use ethnic slurs - and indeed if anyone called you a 'dirty Jew" as a child - you would feel the immediate (though probably not life threatening) harm. I don't want those people in my childrens' schools either.
I have mixed opinions on this one Rummy. Yes a pistol requires immediate banning, no problem there. I would even agree that words/names can be extremely hurtful.
On the other hand, part of recovering from a cult experience is coming to accept and learn how to deal with the fact that there will always be people out there who will be cruel to you. I was (as a matter of fact) called a "dirty Jew" on quite a number of occassions growing up. My family was the only Jewish family in a very small, very Christian community.
Currently, my kids attend a school where the vast majority of the students are African American and Cuban. My children are the minority. They have been called "Mayonnaise" and they have been teased by some kids for being white. I empathize with them and explain to that no matter where they go to school, there will always be a few kids who will find a reason not to like them, who will find something to tease them about. That in the end, it sadly says much more about how sand and angry the child doing the teasing is, and really says nothing at all about the one being teased.
In between the harsh and destructive reproof sessions we received while in TWI, we were love bombed. Especially during our early days. While on some level some of us may miss that love bombing, it does nothing to help us deal with the real world we live in.
Sad, but true, we must figure out how to deal with the a@@ holes of the world.
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
now I see
....Bumpy??....??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
BUT
It took one woman nearly the entire 8 years to finally write out what happened as the apologist kept killing her.
She was RAPED by VPW. A humiliating, life crippling, soul robbing, heart stopping, spirit crushing, joy diminishing, seed of confusion and shameful event.
And each time she would write a few words – the apologists moved in to pick her drying bones – left in the middle of HWY 29 - so she could not speak.
It took nearly 8 years for her to be able to place it in comprehensive paragraphs to tell what happened to her. The fear of being belittled again, or called a liar, left her in a frozen state much like the wooly mammoth discovered years later frozen in his tracks.
And what did the apologists do? First, they said things were “hear say” then, when victims got an ounce of courage and reported events they said there was no proof – demanding the blue dress as it were. They will answer to God for their heinous crippling of the struggling and the injured.
Should it continue here? I do not have the answer. For what happened to the woman in Loosing the Way, or Marsha when her story was brought forth was so cold blooded and cruel it has been shocking to me as a mere human being. To think that people who proclaim to love God can be encased in such religious cruelty is heinous – they continue VP’s cruelty by their diminishing the lives of the injured. They make sick remarks because they are sick – but so hardened, I really doubt they can ever be chiseled free.
So, maybe they should go to a site that worships VPW. And yet, their sickening responses serve an odd purpose – they reveal over and over again TWI was a cruel heartless group who robbed us of much. Praise God for BG Leonard and Bullinger – dam n TWI.
Praise God for deliverance! Dam n those that want to encase and kill.
What do we do here? I think PAW has a handle on it. I think this is his “ministry” and when the soul murdering apologists cluster for the kill – he lets them expose themselves – then he steps in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
To me this video shows "our GS sister" wanting to be set free....
And the "father" who does it for her, is those who have fought for her to be "free"
But there are those who would deflate the boat, flatten the tire, or put thorns on the path so that this crippled soul might never be free.
This is how powerful I see Paw's ministry - and ours - here.
And how destructive the apologists can be... They actually hinder or try to hinder the beauty of the stories of deliverance or worse - try to stop it from happening again
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...faca5dd9ea45513
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I didn't ask you...and besides, your speculations of my motives are dead wrong.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Hey wait a minute everybody:
DWBH has spoken! Read it again! He is the one with the true perspective here at the GSCafe! This is the edict to be obeyed!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Ummm...it says "other side"...not "other sides"...I thought that I would point out to you that you just changed the meaning of what was actually written when you decided to change the word "side" to the plural form of the word.
The other side (singular) sets in contrast to the "side" (singular) that is obviously being promoted by twi...or what some may call the "pro twi side"...well, this is a website that tells the "other side", which would be the "anti twi side". That's why the word "side" is used in the singular...because it refers to the two sides...pro and con.
You seem to be going through mental gymnastics trying to justify your position...let me make this easy for you...
I am offended by by the waybrained cultheads continuing to attack people here at this website...and I am using my keyboard to express my thoughts on the matter.
There's plenty of room for heated debates on other threads...there's no need for them to inappropriately attack someone when they are telling their story....that's the beef...you don't seem to be grasping the point here...
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
First, Groucho, I do get your main point, and I actually agree with it. I do think it is inappropriate for someone to attack someone who is relaying a personal experience. I have said so repeatedly. I simply do not believe banning someone is the way to go, I think there are other alternatives.
Beyond that, I also get that you are offended by people attacking other people. Yet, you are guilty of doing the very thing you are so offended by. Indeed, I would bet that Oldies and WhiteDove (among others) take offence at being labelled "apologists" and being called "waybrained cultheads." It is, IMO, hypocracy to cry foul against others for doing what you are also doing.
Finally, you can label my thoughts and reasoning as mental gymnastics, if it makes things more black and white for you (now there is a cult thought process - black and white thinking). But the fact is, given the number of people who were touched by TWI, there are numerous "other sides."
Some had horrendous experiences of rape, abortion, etc. etc. Others believe they received great benefit from PFAL, but had bad experiences in other areas. Some were humiliated and shamed by their leadership, others were not.
And in the end, if Paw wants to limit this place to one side (as opposed to other sideS) he is free to do so at any time. The fact that he hasn't, indicates to me that he does not wish to.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Jonny...That's a cheap shot, even for you...
Obviously, you don't know him very well or you would see how ludicrous your statement is. Perhaps your old "ordination mind set" is creeping back up on you? Be careful now...I wouldn't want to see you slipping from your cult recovery...you've come so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
No...You are wrong. I am not "offended by people attacking other people"...I am offended by the Wierwille apologists attacking people...keep it straight. I am guilty of the same things?...Not quite the same things. I come to this website to attack the influences of this insideous cult...to make known the folly of following the teachings of a monster, to battle against waybrain...so, thank you for recognizing my efforts.
As I said, I am biased...and considering what I am biased against...I think it's a healthy bias.
They might take offense?...What do they expect when they are posting at an anti'twi website?...a warm reception? They SHOULD be offended...but it's not THEM as people that I despise, it's what Wierwille and this cult did to their minds...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Then attack the cult, not the people. Not complicated really. One can argue and debate what was taught in TWI, that is wrong, harmful, dangerous - I would even agree with you on many of those points.
But when you label them, when you call them "waybrained cultheads" you are no longer attacking the cult and/or what it did to their minds, you are now attacking the person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
It doesn't matter if you say something repeatedly. One step out of line here and you get roasted for it. You should know that by now Abigal...
Gotta ggo to work now, can't comment anymore. Bye!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
"get roasted for it"...and this coming from a guy who just launched an attack against DWBH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Abi - I appreciate your sentiments but have to disagree with you about your quote below - which (to me - which makes it suspect) sounds a little like you are saying there are NO alternatives at GSC.
There are plenty of alternatives - and have been applied:
a) PM from mod - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again
b) deletion of post by mod
c) deletion of post by mod with accompanying PM - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again
d) deletion of post by mod with accompanying explanation on forum
e) temporary suspension
f) being banned.
So I did a little exercise in "real life." I re-read the forms I am required to sign for my childrens' behavior at public schools in California. Pretty much identical with the addition of detention which could never be enforced on the net. 23 pages of behavioral expectation with accompanying examples and responses from the school system for violations.
Now before someone goes off on me and says that means I am making Paw "the teacher" - NO I AM NOT. The school system is part of a community - and with it carries some rules of social order. One does not walk into a school and call someone out with an ethnic slur - immediate suspension. One does not walk into a school with a cell phone turned on (used for cheating on exams with texting) - immediate suspension. Neither of those rules is a violation of free speech - and that is in "real life" not in cyber hallucination. Those rules are to promote a healthy social environment where name-calling, cheating etc are not tolerated.
GSC - is in some way a community - with commonalities, differences - as to be expected - but there still needs to be some accepted social expectations. These are posted to you when you sign up at GSC - and when you clicked on "I agree" you are then expected to arrange your behavior (to some degree) on those points.
Paw et. al. have been EXTREMELY liberal in letting those rules slip from time to time - and, as with a mature adult - some infractions can be overlooked or given a quiet PM prod. I have only seen three people put on suspension and only one banned. If only the parents and school systems in CA could do so well...........
Oh yeah - one last point - the 23 pages I signed up for applied to children - not adults - I would expect more from adults.......
edited for a couple of grammar errors
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Rumrunner, either I am entirely missing your point or you missed mine. Re-read what you quoted. I DID say there were other alternatives to banning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
My apologies then Abigail - seems I missed your point. I read it with the flavor (which I tried to explain) seemed to me as if you were suggesting there were not alternatives. Or perhaps we both missed each others points. My main point was not so much about alternatives as it was about behavior. My teenagers are expected to act with better behavior than I have seen exhibited on GSC. I am not picking on "the usual" names, the Wierwille apologists, etc. I've seen it all over these boards
BTW - if you go in "the way back machine" (an early 60's cartoon) - you will see the same thing happened on even early 70's social boards - no GUI's - no way to post youtube (didn't exist) - but the social behaviors where not that different. Just for fun look up MUSH, MUD, Mu. Same story - not religious cult background - just that when you get a couple of hundred (thousand?) people in the same room these behaviors will, pretty much, always crop up. I ran a MUSH for many years - longer than GSC has been around - it's all a "re-run" if you will let me use that figure. This re-run is generally centered around TWI - with notable exceptions in Politics and Tacks - but the posting is all of the same flavor I watched over 20 years ago.
Humans eh? - I would post a smiley for you here but I hate the damned things.
yeah edited for grammar - I wish I could type....
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I would suggest that Abi does not mean banning should never be an alternative; i.e. that banning shoud be itself banned. I believe from the context of her remarks that she is referring to a blanket bannign such as Groucho suggested when he started this thread. I hope very much that Abi will correct me if I am wrong on this assumption.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
No apology necessary RumRunner, these things happen. Yes, it is human nature, and yes it would be wonderful if adults could behave at least as well as we expect children to - would certainly be a better example. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Exactly, Lifted. Banning (as much as I hate the notion of it - reminds me too much of mark and avoid) has to be left open as a viable option for those who simply refuse to follow the very basic and simple rules that exist here. I just perfer to see it used as a last resort, and never used simply because one doesn't like the opinion of another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Yeah - seems I missed her point - read further interactions between Abigail and me as above. Please also note that the interactions between us were - hmmm - polite?!?! It took only four or so posts to come to a consensus. How weird is that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I have seen it mentioned here that we should be considerate of what other people perceive, that it may not be enough to be convinced even in your own heart that you meant no harm or that you didn't mean to call this or that person specifically "waybrained cultheads", "jagoffs", or other such flattering terms. Especially after you have been informed that such terms are offensive to others, whether or not you intended them to be. Anyone who has undergone instruction on sexual harassment should know generally what I am speaking of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I guess Abigail my thinking on banning is like this (going back to the school behavior post I sent above) - If a student walks into a HS with a .357 pistol - then yeah - banning is in order. I don't want them around my kids. Now we can extrapolate this to no end - and someone will attack me for this extrapolation. One could easily say that a gun could cause immediate physical harm whereas a web forum post does not. On that I would disagree. There are reasons that students are not allowed to use ethnic slurs - and indeed if anyone called you a 'dirty Jew" as a child - you would feel the immediate (though probably not life threatening) harm. I don't want those people in my childrens' schools either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Strong point Rummy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Exactly, Lifted!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I have mixed opinions on this one Rummy. Yes a pistol requires immediate banning, no problem there. I would even agree that words/names can be extremely hurtful.
On the other hand, part of recovering from a cult experience is coming to accept and learn how to deal with the fact that there will always be people out there who will be cruel to you. I was (as a matter of fact) called a "dirty Jew" on quite a number of occassions growing up. My family was the only Jewish family in a very small, very Christian community.
Currently, my kids attend a school where the vast majority of the students are African American and Cuban. My children are the minority. They have been called "Mayonnaise" and they have been teased by some kids for being white. I empathize with them and explain to that no matter where they go to school, there will always be a few kids who will find a reason not to like them, who will find something to tease them about. That in the end, it sadly says much more about how sand and angry the child doing the teasing is, and really says nothing at all about the one being teased.
In between the harsh and destructive reproof sessions we received while in TWI, we were love bombed. Especially during our early days. While on some level some of us may miss that love bombing, it does nothing to help us deal with the real world we live in.
Sad, but true, we must figure out how to deal with the a@@ holes of the world.
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.