Sorry Abigail - I used the phrase "dirty Jew" semi-randomly - since I was called that as a child in a very Catholic - very small town. I in no way meant that directed at you for whatever your ethnic heritage is.
I will agree with your mixed opinions to some degree - yes we have to learn to deal with "real" life - and that is for OUR children. That in NO WAY lets the child off the hook who calls them Mayonnaise, etc (hell in CA you got hundreds of ethnic slurs to choose from). I will also be called on the carpet for suggesting that they be banned - in CA they get suspended. I guess my point is that words can be as harmful as any material weapon. Not the same way...maybe more painfully and slowly - when the person who gets named called enough goes home and commits suicide? Rare? True! But happens? Yes!
Shalom
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.
I wasn't offended by your use of the term, RumRunner - I understood you were using it as an example and were not aiming it at me or calling me that.
And yes, words can be very destructive - that is why I have mixed feelings on this subject. But the rules here do forbid personal attacks, which I would understand to include name calling. I think Paw and the moderators are very liberal in giving people warnings and more than one chance in that regard and I appreciate it. I think many of us have occassionally gotten overly passionate about our point of view and crossed the line in that area. But when one consistently and repeated crosses the line, then banning is appropriate if for no other reason than because Paw and the moderators shouldn't have to work so hard at deleting or editing someone else's posts.
Sorry Abigail - I used the phrase "dirty Jew" semi-randomly - since I was called that as a child in a very Catholic - very small town. I in no way meant that directed at you for whatever your ethnic heritage is.
I will agree with your mixed opinions to some degree - yes we have to learn to deal with "real" life - and that is for OUR children. That in NO WAY lets the child off the hook who calls them Mayonnaise, etc (hell in CA you got hundreds of ethnic slurs to choose from). I will also be called on the carpet for suggesting that they be banned - in CA they get suspended. I guess my point is that words can be as harmful as any material weapon. Not the same way...maybe more painfully and slowly - when the person who gets named called enough goes home and commits suicide? Rare? True! But happens? Yes!
It's become pretty clear that the whole bottom line of these recent threads expressing consternation at what the "wierwille apologists" might do (some actually DO do) in challenging the first hand testimony of those who were sexually abused by wierwille or martindale -- is a reasonable thing to decry.
And the whole bottom line is to get those people to STOP challenging those first hand testimonies.
And even though pawtucket has not directly involved himself in these discussions, they CAN and DO serve to clarify acceptible conduct even if those limits of acceptible conduct are not codified by writing them in the explicitly stated rules of this web site.
And, I think the bottom line is that EVERYONE that has expressed an opinion or an idea about this situation seems to understand the need to address the situation... EVEN Oldiesman.
Unwritten rules are a part of every social group. This unwritten rule -- NO CHALLENGING OF FIRST PERSON TESTIMONY OF ABUSE -- can be enforced, even if not solely or directly by moderators of the board here.
When Oldiesman or WhiteDove or anyone else belittles a person trying to tell her story of abuse, everyone who recognizes that belittlement can and ought to demand (of the original poster of the offending text) to edit or remove the offending post content.
It's been demonstrated that when someone refuses to behave here, that person can be banished -- either temporarily or permanently.
It (banning) can be done as a last resort, with "the community" policing the mores or unwritten rules of the posts done as first resorts.
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 would give Abi a big hug, though I dont want to offend anyone who thinks the world of my great city, such as might be offended by too big a hug. :)
Abi seems to have a wonderful record both of not wanting anyone to be hurt, and, as far as I know, not belittling those who she thinks might be doing something hurtful...but keeping the lines of communication open.
Anyone remember how years ago, two of the greatest enemies on the politcal (and a few other) scenes, Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, got together a number of times to talk about things one on one? Or even earlier, how two other political opposites found common ground to get together and co-sponser the original bill to end the draft? (Barry Goldwater and George McGovern).
IMHO a lot of people who go at each other at GS have a whole lot more in common than they realize...or perhaps they know it but keep it in the background.
sigh...but communicating meaningfully with each other can be a real bear. And, for some perhaps understandable reasons. We are generally doing it in cyber land where when it comes to deep hurts, it is hard to trust each other if we don't know them personally. Too much risk involved I guess.
I don't believe not automatically accepting someone's story is belittling him/her or calling him/her a liar. I do see how repeatedly stating publically that someone's account is unproven can be doing this, however. My reasoning is really some simple logic on dealing with peoples' feelings, if logic can be brought into this. If i am not convinced that someone's story is true, and I am not convinced it it NOT true, why risk hurting the person? Therefore I try to keep most of my questions in the private conversation realm. I may be of great confidence that I don't mean to hurt someone, but that doesn't do much good if I hurt them anyway. Likewise, I may know someone well enough to be sure they weren't thinking of me when they say something all inclusive (such as Groucho did on, I rthink, the Bumpy thread when he used the jagoff term among others), but it doesn't ease the hurt, though maybe I should just "get over it".
Now, speaking of testimonies, I will admit to a problem I have when someone refers to "all the first hand testimonies" that abound, when I cant find any of them after someone says repeatedly "There is something called the search feature, go find them yourself". But I dont go on and say they don't exist. I would really like to see them...but that gets back to the trust thing, people don't believe me, and given some of the things that have been said by others, I can't necessarily blame them. If the hurts are real, I can picture the risk involved.
But I am just sick and tired of losing...and/or not finding...friends and meaningful conversation because some people think I wouldn't accept that VPW or someone else hurt people, and because others learn that I might be willing to accept the same thing. In an ironic twist, I have a sneaking suspicion ( but in all honesty don't know for sure) that one each on these two opposite sides could be a couple of former corps roomies I was with at the same time.
I didnt so much as log in for 3 months from Feb to May, only checking in once in a while. I will explain to anyone in PM or e-mail (which is on my profile) what got me to come back in for a little while, though I doubt if anyone cares about my reasons that much.
There is one avenue recently I was hoping to learn more from, but that seems to be coming to nothing. Many would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything here, and I would have to strongly agree, so it was only a hope. That trust thing again. And very understandable. No, wasnt thinking of Abi here, though I know that she ( as well as a few others) , are available for gripes and rants I gotta get to someone else soon, to give rest to the poor guy who's taken my last 2 or 3 diatribes on PMs.
Well...like I said on another thread...you earned the label...and after disrupting countless threads with your M.O...now you want to be considered in a persecuted minority?...Playing the victim card?..Poor, poor pitiful Whitedove, who uses "expressing my opinion" as an excuse to disrupt heartfelt threads with rudeness, insensity, and insulting insinuations?...Now you're soliciting pity?
...excuse me while I barf.
I absolutely agree
Rocky said
And, I think the bottom line is that EVERYONE that has expressed an opinion or an idea about this situation seems to understand the need to address the situation... EVEN Oldiesman.
Unwritten rules are a part of every social group. This unwritten rule -- NO CHALLENGING OF FIRST PERSON TESTIMONY OF ABUSE -- can be enforced, even if not solely or directly by moderators of the board here.
When Oldiesman or WhiteDove or anyone else belittles a person trying to tell her story of abuse, everyone who recognizes that belittlement can and ought to demand (of the original poster of the offending text) to edit or remove the offending post content.
It's been demonstrated that when someone refuses to behave here, that person can be banished -- either temporarily or permanently.
Whoa, you mean someone here referred to other posters in this manner? Why, that's name calling! And, "jagooff"? Isn't that the same as a "jackoff"? And, isn'tr "jacking off a self sexual gratification thing usually referring to males who take their member in their own hand and umm, you know....
But that's okay when you of the opinion of the majority. Hmmm....sounds kind of Way brainsh to me. "Slam all others who do not believe as you do, and get patted on the back by the majority for doing so...And if not patted on the back, certainly one wouldn't be suspended for it, unless of course you are of the opposing opinion...
I don't believe not automatically accepting someone's story is belittling him/her or calling him/her a liar. I do see how repeatedly stating publically that someone's account is unproven can be doing this, however. My reasoning is really some simple logic on dealing with peoples' feelings, if logic can be brought into this. If i am not convinced that someone's story is true, and I am not convinced it it NOT true, why risk hurting the person? Therefore I try to keep most of my questions in the private conversation realm. I may be of great confidence that I don't mean to hurt someone, but that doesn't do much good if I hurt them anyway. Likewise, I may know someone well enough to be sure they weren't thinking of me when they say something all inclusive (such as Groucho did on, I rthink, the Bumpy thread when he used the jagoff term among others), but it doesn't ease the hurt, though maybe I should just "get over it".
Now, speaking of testimonies, I will admit to a problem I have when someone refers to "all the first hand testimonies" that abound, when I cant find any of them after someone says repeatedly "There is something called the search feature, go find them yourself". But I dont go on and say they don't exist. I would really like to see them...but that gets back to the trust thing, people don't believe me, and given some of the things that have been said by others, I can't necessarily blame them. If the hurts are real, I can picture the risk involved.
But I am just sick and tired of losing...and/or not finding...friends and meaningful conversation because some people think I wouldn't accept that VPW or someone else hurt people, and because others learn that I might be willing to accept the same thing. In an ironic twist, I have a sneaking suspicion ( but in all honesty don't know for sure) that one each on these two opposite sides could be a couple of former corps roomies I was with at the same time.
I do have a problem with the apologists and THEIR apologists, although I like most of your posts Lifted up.
I have never seen such cold-hearted, stick-their-head-in-the-sand cultists as I did in TWI and the very few here. We have had countless give testimony about VP's behavior and YOU people think it may or may not be true? Son of the Master told of all the women hurt and countless of first hand stories he heard, Don't worry told us. Skyrider shared things as a BIG leader in the Cult - but that was not enough! EVEN Jim Dopp shared what happened!!! Then, the women, incl me, shared account after account of the abuse FIRST HAND and that was not enough.
What kind of MIND does not GET THIS? YOU HAVE THE FORMER LEADERS TELLING YOU WHAT HAPPENED. THEN, THE FORMER VICTIMS and STILL you take a drunken scumbag and believe he is blameless and what ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAD WHAT? A mini- private ROA to discuss how to come on here and "group" lie to convince the small remedial minds of the few that there was evil in them there hills?
Give me a break
Most of the apologist’s logic? They learned something in PFAL. So, we showed you that the class was stolen -- if you were delivered whom to actually thank... Then, even with side by side pages of books that have been shown here - the apologist argue - yeah, well the Bible is for everyone and they could have come up with the same teaching? Even though VPW called Johnny Jump up and Maggie Muggins from BG's class...
Dear God, the DNA test of the sperm deposits on the raped women would not convince you people. You would retort the sperm might be from a willing participant because sperm cannot talk. So, when people are being delivered and set free by talking - LEAVE THEM ALONE. HAVE ENOUGH heart to back off and that means the couple guys who believe they have a form of godliness in their expression of indignation to the accounts sited by these former leaders and victims. What part on insensitive, heartless and mean are you having a problem with? You think we are when we say VPW was those things - and yet you are all of those things. Now, like any good apologist with a Webster’s dictionary I suppose ONE apologist will come on with the meanings of a few words I choose. Or to ask for specific places he said EXACTLY this or that....
It is an on going tortured endless stream of meanness toward the victims, Groucho has a problem with and so do most people I believe.
I do have a problem with the apologists and THEIR apologists, although I like most of your posts Lifted up.
I have never seen such cold-hearted stick their head in the sand cultists as I did in TWI and the very few here. We have had countless give testimony about VP's behavior and YOU people think it may or may not be true? Son of the Master told of all the women hurt and countless of first hand stories he heard, Don't worry told us. Skyrider shared things as a BIG leader in the Cult - but that was not enough! Then, the women, incl me, shared account after account of the abuse FIRST HAND and that was not enough.
Dot, it can be difficult enough to believe first hand stories about someone you actually knew face to face, when those stories come from people who you don't even know and they contradict your image of the person. It would be even more difficult then, to accept second and third hand accounts of these stories from people you don't even know.
I am not suggesting you or anyone else here is obligated to reveal your true identity or meet someone face to face, but it is asking a lot. I happen to believe the stories - - NOW, but there was a time when I did not, when I could not believe that sweet innocent appearing older gentleman who taught me so many truthes about God's Word could possibly have done those things he was accused of.
Sky says he was a BIG leader in the Cult. Great - but in reality he could be someone who never even took PFAL. Again, I don't believe that, I have no reason to doubt Sky's stories, but this is the internet and anyone can pretend to be anyone.
Add to that for some, and I think I can safely say for Lifted in particular, they have not seen the stories all over these boards because they do not follow all of the threads that closely. Often, these stories come up in the midst of threads that start out being about other topics. I was doing a search earlier today to see if I could find some of the stories for someone who hadn't seen them, I couldn't find them. I know they are there, because I have seen them, but I couldn't find them. I tried searching under your name, I tried searching under the names of others who have told their stories, I tried searching under the word "rape" . . . but there are literally thousands of posts that come up and frankly, I don't have the time to search through all of those posts.
Perhaps, someday, when some of this other junk gets worked out, some of you may be comfortable enough to post your stories as their own individual threads in the "my story" section. But again, I would understand why you would not want to.
I was in the corps with Sky he is who he says he is.
I was in the corps with son of the master he is who he says he is.
I was under Don't worry - he has done what he says he has done
I knew and hung out with Jim Dopp he did do and live through what he said he lived through
I was on limb staff and in the corps with Excath - she lived through what she says she lived through
I know Sunesis' friends in the 7th corps who laid down for VP and then the women were ordained - I was on staff when they were in my state
I lived with an early corps female Rev. who was a VP pimp and the most disgusting creature in the corps.
And even if YOU or anyone out there does not know me personally -- And if I shared who I was - that would help how?
does anyone really think that all these strangers got together to say the same thing over and over - that is a bigger stretch than just believing perhaps the things shared here are true.
I will not excuse them out of their behavior towards victims - do I see how they fell into the dark abyss? Certainly. Does that give them the right to try to keep others from climbing out? NOT at all.
And I knew Marsha who was ripped to shreds by those apologist guys
Oh, and responding to you in the same ilk - Abi
You might be Rosie posting as Abi to defend the defenders of VP -meeting with WD who might be Craig and Oldiesman who might be Howard... in your own mini-ROA to exchange Strategies - responding in kind to your words - afterall, it is the net...
Jonny, that is not fair. I was suspended for just as long as you, and we both are entirely opposite sides of the issue.
How can you honestly believe that one side is favored over the other?
It seems like you guys don`t want to examine what it is that is so offensive about the posts called into question.
It is far easier to claim victim hood and persecution ...effectively placing the blame on someone else and eliminating the need for personal introspection and self evaluation.
Along with what you are saying Dot....I have met Dot...and SHE is who she says she is.
And I knew Marsha who was ripped to shreds by those apologist guys
Oh, and responding to you in the same ilk - Abi
You might be Rosie posting as Abi to defend the defenders of VP -meeting with WD who might be Craig and Oldiesman who might be Howard... in your own mini-ROA to exchange Strategies - responding in kind to your words - afterall, it is the net...
You're right, Dot, I could be anybody. You've never met me. You only know what you read in my posts. Now, I could argue you are wrong because other people have met me. I could argue you are wrong because Rascal knows me, or I could even say Paw knows me and use his "title" as webmaster/site owner. But in the end, it would be a flawed argument.
Where does it all end?
It ends with each person respecting the right of every other individual to form their own opinons, something we were rarely allowed to do in TWI. However, that should also be tempered with each person having some wisdom and self restraint regarding when to hold our tongue about our doubts, so as to not inflict further pain upon another human being, regardless of who is actually sitting on the other end of the keyboard - because in the end, we don't necessarily know what kind of harm/damage we could do to another person.
Your precepts are reasonable, perhaps ecclesiastical, definitely noble but have not been followed... So, although lofty and easily read on paper, apparently impossible for the apologist to observe considering the LONG history of attacks on the victims - as the architecture of social mores seems to elude them.
And that is where Groucho is-
When the people do not hold their tongue and attack victims telling their stories is endless... then he is suggesting an action on the victims behalf, such as the boot to those who cannot control themselves REPEATEDLY. Not now and then having a flare, but severe violations on a consistent basis.
I think their violations help to expose TWI for the warped thinking with which it has plagued its followers.
But he is proposing an even more severe resolve. I think it a merited suggestion even though I am not saying I agree with the boot "today" but if safety precautions are established in telling of ones story and they continue to violate that, then I agree with Groucho.
Groucho does not have a need to compete to be right at all costs, nor to pontificate his brand of logic. He does not need to have the last word or is even seeking favor in the eyes of the reader. He feels for the victim and is sick of the abuse, as are many. (period)
Skyrider shared things as a BIG leader in the Cult - but that was not enough!
Yeah......I've posted many specific accounts of my personal experiences with wierwille, the original trustees, martindale, geer, lynn and others......the indoctrination, the wierwille pyramid, the craziness, the insanity of cult mentality...........but "me?? -- a BIG leader in the Cult" is not something I've ever said.
Sure.......a corps grad, ordained by wierwille, hq staffer for years, all that...........but no where near the "top of the cult pyramid." LOL
And, in all fairness........I still contend that there were some awesome people in twi who knew nothing about wierwille's "secret life and agendas" until cgeer's pop paper, and even then....some of us refused to really believe it for years. Maybe that's why I try to be very patient with folks who never saw the dark side of twi.........but once waybrain dissipated, being away from the constant barrage of twi propaganda, I could see it all so clearly.
But that's okay when you of the opinion of the majority. Hmmm....sounds kind of Way brainsh to me. "Slam all others who do not believe as you do, and get patted on the back by the majority for doing so...And if not patted on the back, certainly one wouldn't be suspended for it, unless of course you are of the opposing opinion...
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...
(... and other posts of the same vein)
You know, some of you guys really crack me up when you act like there is an actual rule, law, regulation, or other enforced custom here at Greasespot Cafe stating that anybody who, at any time, gives a positive account of their experience at TWI, shall, without any hesitation thereto, be chastised, censured, banned, and otherwise evicted from these premises. ((Harumph! Harumph!))
Got a clue for ya. ... Never was any said rule, law, regulation, or other enforced custom here at the Greasespot. Never was, isn't, and (as far as I'm concerned) never will be. ... Period.
So you can stop playing like you're the 'persecuted believer' ready to be thrown to the lions (as persuent to the American Society of Zoos rules and regs regarding the care and feeding of said lions) for your beliefs. And you can breathe easy, knowing that our Constitutional form of government is still here, and your freedom to express yourself re: TWI is still in force. (Despite having one ((cough))Dubya((cough)) in the White House. But that is a problem that shall end on Jan. 20th, 2009! )
Your precepts are reasonable, perhaps ecclesiastical, definitely noble but have not been followed... So, although lofty and easily read on paper, apparently impossible for the apologist to observe considering the LONG history of attacks on the victims - as the architecture of social mores seems to elude them.
And that is where Groucho is-
When the people do not hold their tongue and attack victims telling their stories is endless... then he is suggesting an action on the victims behalf, such as the boot to those who cannot control themselves REPEATEDLY. Not now and then having a flare, but severe violations on a consistent basis.
I think their violations help to expose TWI for the warped thinking with which it has plagued its followers.
But he is proposing an even more severe resolve. I think it a merited suggestion even though I am not saying I agree with the boot "today" but if safety precautions are established in telling of ones story and they continue to violate that, then I agree with Groucho.
Groucho does not have a need to compete to be right at all costs, nor to pontificate his brand of logic. He does not need to have the last word or is even seeking favor in the eyes of the reader. He feels for the victim and is sick of the abuse, as are many. (period)
Impossible? I don't know, you could be right. But I think if someone comes up with a workable solution and that solution is put into play, it is at least worth a shot. It would appear Paw is open to suggestions, based on the thread he started in the open forums.
And I would actually like to take this discussion a step further. I think a large part of WHY the victims are so distraught, angered, hurt by the doubts and questions that they face when they tell their stories is, in part, because the questions are similar to the doubts and questions they hide within themselves, underneath the shame that was forced upon them by the perpetrator.
Victims of abuse almost always blame themselves, doubt themselves, ask themselves what they did to deserve what they got, what they did to bring this upon themselves, what they could have done to prevent it, etc. etc. That is a part of the shame victims feel - that they deserved it or could have prevented it.
For some, when they are ready anyway, facing these questions and discovering that they didn't deserve it, didn't bring it upon themselves, and couldn't have prevented it can be a very healing thing.
There was an incident in my life that occured while I was in high school that had a devastating effect on me, something I carried inside of me and that effected me well into my 30's. Then one day, someone who knew me back then, but whom I had not had contact with for many years asked me "why didn't you fight back." Man that question ....ed me off. But I finally looked at that question and looked within myself and realized I couldn't have fought back. It was an incredibly healing moment for me. When I finally internalized and really really came to understand, not just in my head but in my heart as well, that I didn't do anything wrong.
Those who have been abused have to reach that point on their own timetable and they shouldn't be pushed. So again, I agree, we need some protections in place for those who have been abused. Really, Dot, I think you and I are not so very far apart in how we view this.
Jonny, that is not fair. I was suspended for just as long as you, and we both are entirely opposite sides of the issue.
How can you honestly believe that one side is favored over the other?
It seems like you guys don`t want to examine what it is that is so offensive about the posts called into question.
You are right Rascal, that was unfair, to a degree. You were thrown out as was I and we are on opposite sides of things here most of the time. However, it does surprise me that calling someone a "jagoff" appears to be okay here.
And yes, you are right about offensive posts. I think that Bumpy would like to see the alleged offensive posts, and he wanted to see them posted in the "where's Bumpy" thread. But no examination of said offensive posts were allowed, just a banishment instead, until 2018...
And so, it seems as if Grouch got his wish on that one, although no offensive posts were examined by even the alleged perpetrator. Surprising thing is though, Bumpy was not a "Way apologist" whatsoever, nor, am I...
Whoa, you mean someone here referred to other posters in this manner? Why, that's name calling! And, "jagooff"? Isn't that the same as a "jackoff"? And, isn'tr "jacking off a self sexual gratification thing usually referring to males who take their member in their own hand and umm, you know....
Is jagoff the same as jackoff?...I don't know, is it to you?...
But that's okay when you of the opinion of the majority. Hmmm....sounds kind of Way brainsh to me. "Slam all others who do not believe as you do, and get patted on the back by the majority for doing so...And if not patted on the back, certainly one wouldn't be suspended for it, unless of course you are of the opposing opinion...
See...this is what I'm talking about...the Wierwille apologists consider themselves to be a minority here and thus they want "equal rights" so to speak..."the opposing opinion" is what Jonny calls it...
We are talking about a cult here...not a Christian ministry that made some mistakes...a CULT...wrong teachings and all...
This website was created to expose this cult...not give them equal rights!
Let me clarify something...I speak for myself alone. As far as I am concerned, I consider "waybrain" to be a social disease. No different than how the whackos thought when they followed Jim Jones or David Koresh...and I can't emphasis this enough...It's what twi did to their minds that I hate...NOT the people themselves...hell, we were all waybrained at one time...but it seems to me that most of us here responded when we found what was really happening...while a few others stayed in the "waybrain mode"...maybe they didn't leave enough bread crumbs on the trail to find their way back to sanity...whatever...but I have to question why they would want to hang around here and I would especially like to know why they are intent on attacking people when they tell their stories??????????????
If booting them seems to harsh for you...how about simply restricting them from posting on these particular threads?
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for any of them...they have been doing this deliberately for a long time...I just thought it was time for somebody to call bulls **t on them.
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
RumRunner
Sorry Abigail - I used the phrase "dirty Jew" semi-randomly - since I was called that as a child in a very Catholic - very small town. I in no way meant that directed at you for whatever your ethnic heritage is.
I will agree with your mixed opinions to some degree - yes we have to learn to deal with "real" life - and that is for OUR children. That in NO WAY lets the child off the hook who calls them Mayonnaise, etc (hell in CA you got hundreds of ethnic slurs to choose from). I will also be called on the carpet for suggesting that they be banned - in CA they get suspended. I guess my point is that words can be as harmful as any material weapon. Not the same way...maybe more painfully and slowly - when the person who gets named called enough goes home and commits suicide? Rare? True! But happens? Yes!
Shalom
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I wasn't offended by your use of the term, RumRunner - I understood you were using it as an example and were not aiming it at me or calling me that.
And yes, words can be very destructive - that is why I have mixed feelings on this subject. But the rules here do forbid personal attacks, which I would understand to include name calling. I think Paw and the moderators are very liberal in giving people warnings and more than one chance in that regard and I appreciate it. I think many of us have occassionally gotten overly passionate about our point of view and crossed the line in that area. But when one consistently and repeated crosses the line, then banning is appropriate if for no other reason than because Paw and the moderators shouldn't have to work so hard at deleting or editing someone else's posts.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's become pretty clear that the whole bottom line of these recent threads expressing consternation at what the "wierwille apologists" might do (some actually DO do) in challenging the first hand testimony of those who were sexually abused by wierwille or martindale -- is a reasonable thing to decry.
And the whole bottom line is to get those people to STOP challenging those first hand testimonies.
And even though pawtucket has not directly involved himself in these discussions, they CAN and DO serve to clarify acceptible conduct even if those limits of acceptible conduct are not codified by writing them in the explicitly stated rules of this web site.
And, I think the bottom line is that EVERYONE that has expressed an opinion or an idea about this situation seems to understand the need to address the situation... EVEN Oldiesman.
Unwritten rules are a part of every social group. This unwritten rule -- NO CHALLENGING OF FIRST PERSON TESTIMONY OF ABUSE -- can be enforced, even if not solely or directly by moderators of the board here.
When Oldiesman or WhiteDove or anyone else belittles a person trying to tell her story of abuse, everyone who recognizes that belittlement can and ought to demand (of the original poster of the offending text) to edit or remove the offending post content.
It's been demonstrated that when someone refuses to behave here, that person can be banished -- either temporarily or permanently.
It (banning) can be done as a last resort, with "the community" policing the mores or unwritten rules of the posts done as first resorts.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I would give Abi a big hug, though I dont want to offend anyone who thinks the world of my great city, such as might be offended by too big a hug. :)
Abi seems to have a wonderful record both of not wanting anyone to be hurt, and, as far as I know, not belittling those who she thinks might be doing something hurtful...but keeping the lines of communication open.
Anyone remember how years ago, two of the greatest enemies on the politcal (and a few other) scenes, Ted Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, got together a number of times to talk about things one on one? Or even earlier, how two other political opposites found common ground to get together and co-sponser the original bill to end the draft? (Barry Goldwater and George McGovern).
IMHO a lot of people who go at each other at GS have a whole lot more in common than they realize...or perhaps they know it but keep it in the background.
sigh...but communicating meaningfully with each other can be a real bear. And, for some perhaps understandable reasons. We are generally doing it in cyber land where when it comes to deep hurts, it is hard to trust each other if we don't know them personally. Too much risk involved I guess.
I don't believe not automatically accepting someone's story is belittling him/her or calling him/her a liar. I do see how repeatedly stating publically that someone's account is unproven can be doing this, however. My reasoning is really some simple logic on dealing with peoples' feelings, if logic can be brought into this. If i am not convinced that someone's story is true, and I am not convinced it it NOT true, why risk hurting the person? Therefore I try to keep most of my questions in the private conversation realm. I may be of great confidence that I don't mean to hurt someone, but that doesn't do much good if I hurt them anyway. Likewise, I may know someone well enough to be sure they weren't thinking of me when they say something all inclusive (such as Groucho did on, I rthink, the Bumpy thread when he used the jagoff term among others), but it doesn't ease the hurt, though maybe I should just "get over it".
Now, speaking of testimonies, I will admit to a problem I have when someone refers to "all the first hand testimonies" that abound, when I cant find any of them after someone says repeatedly "There is something called the search feature, go find them yourself". But I dont go on and say they don't exist. I would really like to see them...but that gets back to the trust thing, people don't believe me, and given some of the things that have been said by others, I can't necessarily blame them. If the hurts are real, I can picture the risk involved.
But I am just sick and tired of losing...and/or not finding...friends and meaningful conversation because some people think I wouldn't accept that VPW or someone else hurt people, and because others learn that I might be willing to accept the same thing. In an ironic twist, I have a sneaking suspicion ( but in all honesty don't know for sure) that one each on these two opposite sides could be a couple of former corps roomies I was with at the same time.
I didnt so much as log in for 3 months from Feb to May, only checking in once in a while. I will explain to anyone in PM or e-mail (which is on my profile) what got me to come back in for a little while, though I doubt if anyone cares about my reasons that much.
There is one avenue recently I was hoping to learn more from, but that seems to be coming to nothing. Many would say it would be unreasonable to expect anything here, and I would have to strongly agree, so it was only a hope. That trust thing again. And very understandable. No, wasnt thinking of Abi here, though I know that she ( as well as a few others) , are available for gripes and rants I gotta get to someone else soon, to give rest to the poor guy who's taken my last 2 or 3 diatribes on PMs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Groucho just wrote this on WD's thread
I absolutely agreeRocky said
I absolutely agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Whoa, you mean someone here referred to other posters in this manner? Why, that's name calling! And, "jagooff"? Isn't that the same as a "jackoff"? And, isn'tr "jacking off a self sexual gratification thing usually referring to males who take their member in their own hand and umm, you know....
But that's okay when you of the opinion of the majority. Hmmm....sounds kind of Way brainsh to me. "Slam all others who do not believe as you do, and get patted on the back by the majority for doing so...And if not patted on the back, certainly one wouldn't be suspended for it, unless of course you are of the opposing opinion...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Lifted said
I do have a problem with the apologists and THEIR apologists, although I like most of your posts Lifted up.
I have never seen such cold-hearted, stick-their-head-in-the-sand cultists as I did in TWI and the very few here. We have had countless give testimony about VP's behavior and YOU people think it may or may not be true? Son of the Master told of all the women hurt and countless of first hand stories he heard, Don't worry told us. Skyrider shared things as a BIG leader in the Cult - but that was not enough! EVEN Jim Dopp shared what happened!!! Then, the women, incl me, shared account after account of the abuse FIRST HAND and that was not enough.
What kind of MIND does not GET THIS? YOU HAVE THE FORMER LEADERS TELLING YOU WHAT HAPPENED. THEN, THE FORMER VICTIMS and STILL you take a drunken scumbag and believe he is blameless and what ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAD WHAT? A mini- private ROA to discuss how to come on here and "group" lie to convince the small remedial minds of the few that there was evil in them there hills?
Give me a break
Most of the apologist’s logic? They learned something in PFAL. So, we showed you that the class was stolen -- if you were delivered whom to actually thank... Then, even with side by side pages of books that have been shown here - the apologist argue - yeah, well the Bible is for everyone and they could have come up with the same teaching? Even though VPW called Johnny Jump up and Maggie Muggins from BG's class...
Dear God, the DNA test of the sperm deposits on the raped women would not convince you people. You would retort the sperm might be from a willing participant because sperm cannot talk. So, when people are being delivered and set free by talking - LEAVE THEM ALONE. HAVE ENOUGH heart to back off and that means the couple guys who believe they have a form of godliness in their expression of indignation to the accounts sited by these former leaders and victims. What part on insensitive, heartless and mean are you having a problem with? You think we are when we say VPW was those things - and yet you are all of those things. Now, like any good apologist with a Webster’s dictionary I suppose ONE apologist will come on with the meanings of a few words I choose. Or to ask for specific places he said EXACTLY this or that....
It is an on going tortured endless stream of meanness toward the victims, Groucho has a problem with and so do most people I believe.
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I was in the corps with Sky he is who he says he is.
I was in the corps with son of the master he is who he says he is.
I was under Don't worry - he has done what he says he has done
I knew and hung out with Jim Dopp he did do and live through what he said he lived through
I was on limb staff and in the corps with Excath - she lived through what she says she lived through
I know Sunesis' friends in the 7th corps who laid down for VP and then the women were ordained - I was on staff when they were in my state
I lived with an early corps female Rev. who was a VP pimp and the most disgusting creature in the corps.
And even if YOU or anyone out there does not know me personally -- And if I shared who I was - that would help how?
does anyone really think that all these strangers got together to say the same thing over and over - that is a bigger stretch than just believing perhaps the things shared here are true.
I will not excuse them out of their behavior towards victims - do I see how they fell into the dark abyss? Certainly. Does that give them the right to try to keep others from climbing out? NOT at all.
Edited by pawtucketLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
And I knew Marsha who was ripped to shreds by those apologist guys
Oh, and responding to you in the same ilk - Abi
You might be Rosie posting as Abi to defend the defenders of VP -meeting with WD who might be Craig and Oldiesman who might be Howard... in your own mini-ROA to exchange Strategies - responding in kind to your words - afterall, it is the net...
Where does it all end?
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Jonny, that is not fair. I was suspended for just as long as you, and we both are entirely opposite sides of the issue.
How can you honestly believe that one side is favored over the other?
It seems like you guys don`t want to examine what it is that is so offensive about the posts called into question.
It is far easier to claim victim hood and persecution ...effectively placing the blame on someone else and eliminating the need for personal introspection and self evaluation.
Along with what you are saying Dot....I have met Dot...and SHE is who she says she is.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Rascal :)
I love ya!
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Your precepts are reasonable, perhaps ecclesiastical, definitely noble but have not been followed... So, although lofty and easily read on paper, apparently impossible for the apologist to observe considering the LONG history of attacks on the victims - as the architecture of social mores seems to elude them.
And that is where Groucho is-
When the people do not hold their tongue and attack victims telling their stories is endless... then he is suggesting an action on the victims behalf, such as the boot to those who cannot control themselves REPEATEDLY. Not now and then having a flare, but severe violations on a consistent basis.
I think their violations help to expose TWI for the warped thinking with which it has plagued its followers.
But he is proposing an even more severe resolve. I think it a merited suggestion even though I am not saying I agree with the boot "today" but if safety precautions are established in telling of ones story and they continue to violate that, then I agree with Groucho.
Groucho does not have a need to compete to be right at all costs, nor to pontificate his brand of logic. He does not need to have the last word or is even seeking favor in the eyes of the reader. He feels for the victim and is sick of the abuse, as are many. (period)
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yeah......I've posted many specific accounts of my personal experiences with wierwille, the original trustees, martindale, geer, lynn and others......the indoctrination, the wierwille pyramid, the craziness, the insanity of cult mentality...........but "me?? -- a BIG leader in the Cult" is not something I've ever said.
Sure.......a corps grad, ordained by wierwille, hq staffer for years, all that...........but no where near the "top of the cult pyramid." LOL
And, in all fairness........I still contend that there were some awesome people in twi who knew nothing about wierwille's "secret life and agendas" until cgeer's pop paper, and even then....some of us refused to really believe it for years. Maybe that's why I try to be very patient with folks who never saw the dark side of twi.........but once waybrain dissipated, being away from the constant barrage of twi propaganda, I could see it all so clearly.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I am the one who called you a BIG leader!
You were...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
lucy, what's a fubar ? it's taken me a lot of pages to remember that question.
but i did save this one quote from you:
That wasn't very nice. Were you just trying to make a point?
--
Shaz, thank you for that post. I had saved it to copy here, but then I overrode it with the above.
--
As far as firsthand testimony, I really do believe Kris's book falls into that category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
(... and other posts of the same vein)
You know, some of you guys really crack me up when you act like there is an actual rule, law, regulation, or other enforced custom here at Greasespot Cafe stating that anybody who, at any time, gives a positive account of their experience at TWI, shall, without any hesitation thereto, be chastised, censured, banned, and otherwise evicted from these premises. ((Harumph! Harumph!))
Got a clue for ya. ... Never was any said rule, law, regulation, or other enforced custom here at the Greasespot. Never was, isn't, and (as far as I'm concerned) never will be. ... Period.
So you can stop playing like you're the 'persecuted believer' ready to be thrown to the lions (as persuent to the American Society of Zoos rules and regs regarding the care and feeding of said lions) for your beliefs. And you can breathe easy, knowing that our Constitutional form of government is still here, and your freedom to express yourself re: TWI is still in force. (Despite having one ((cough))Dubya((cough)) in the White House. But that is a problem that shall end on Jan. 20th, 2009!
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Impossible? I don't know, you could be right. But I think if someone comes up with a workable solution and that solution is put into play, it is at least worth a shot. It would appear Paw is open to suggestions, based on the thread he started in the open forums.
And I would actually like to take this discussion a step further. I think a large part of WHY the victims are so distraught, angered, hurt by the doubts and questions that they face when they tell their stories is, in part, because the questions are similar to the doubts and questions they hide within themselves, underneath the shame that was forced upon them by the perpetrator.
Victims of abuse almost always blame themselves, doubt themselves, ask themselves what they did to deserve what they got, what they did to bring this upon themselves, what they could have done to prevent it, etc. etc. That is a part of the shame victims feel - that they deserved it or could have prevented it.
For some, when they are ready anyway, facing these questions and discovering that they didn't deserve it, didn't bring it upon themselves, and couldn't have prevented it can be a very healing thing.
There was an incident in my life that occured while I was in high school that had a devastating effect on me, something I carried inside of me and that effected me well into my 30's. Then one day, someone who knew me back then, but whom I had not had contact with for many years asked me "why didn't you fight back." Man that question ....ed me off. But I finally looked at that question and looked within myself and realized I couldn't have fought back. It was an incredibly healing moment for me. When I finally internalized and really really came to understand, not just in my head but in my heart as well, that I didn't do anything wrong.
Those who have been abused have to reach that point on their own timetable and they shouldn't be pushed. So again, I agree, we need some protections in place for those who have been abused. Really, Dot, I think you and I are not so very far apart in how we view this.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
FUBAR: Eff'd Up Beyond All Repair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
You are right Rascal, that was unfair, to a degree. You were thrown out as was I and we are on opposite sides of things here most of the time. However, it does surprise me that calling someone a "jagoff" appears to be okay here.
And yes, you are right about offensive posts. I think that Bumpy would like to see the alleged offensive posts, and he wanted to see them posted in the "where's Bumpy" thread. But no examination of said offensive posts were allowed, just a banishment instead, until 2018...
And so, it seems as if Grouch got his wish on that one, although no offensive posts were examined by even the alleged perpetrator. Surprising thing is though, Bumpy was not a "Way apologist" whatsoever, nor, am I...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
I'm -- I don't know what -- about all of this
I think I'm coming into my own lol. I'm only 52 by the way.
I'm thankful for all the discussion even if I still can't read long posts.
Love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Is jagoff the same as jackoff?...I don't know, is it to you?...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
See...this is what I'm talking about...the Wierwille apologists consider themselves to be a minority here and thus they want "equal rights" so to speak..."the opposing opinion" is what Jonny calls it...
We are talking about a cult here...not a Christian ministry that made some mistakes...a CULT...wrong teachings and all...
This website was created to expose this cult...not give them equal rights!
Let me clarify something...I speak for myself alone. As far as I am concerned, I consider "waybrain" to be a social disease. No different than how the whackos thought when they followed Jim Jones or David Koresh...and I can't emphasis this enough...It's what twi did to their minds that I hate...NOT the people themselves...hell, we were all waybrained at one time...but it seems to me that most of us here responded when we found what was really happening...while a few others stayed in the "waybrain mode"...maybe they didn't leave enough bread crumbs on the trail to find their way back to sanity...whatever...but I have to question why they would want to hang around here and I would especially like to know why they are intent on attacking people when they tell their stories??????????????
If booting them seems to harsh for you...how about simply restricting them from posting on these particular threads?
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for any of them...they have been doing this deliberately for a long time...I just thought it was time for somebody to call bulls **t on them.
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.