Boot the Wierwille apologists

[dmiller]

Ya gotta luv the fact that some folks here are allowed to post their suspicions of, refutation of, and denial of what others have gone through twice. Once during the original incident, and then again in the re-telling thereof. Paw has been more than fair.

When folks are allowed to say things here at an ex-twi site that are pro-twi, that is even more than fair. It's magnanimous on the part of Paw, and the Mods.

With that being said --- there seems to be a growing tendency (amongst certain posters), to *step up the attack* on folks who post something *anti-wierwille* by those who are still in love with him and the doctrine he taught. If THEY (and I use that word in the anonymous sense), choose to defend docvic and pfal ---- Paw and the mods have seen fit to allow them to do so.

However -- when THEY decide to post negatively attacking another's PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, the line has to be drawn. (Just my imo). THEY have no respect for human dignity, nor do THEY care about the feelings or condition of the person to whom it actually happened, nor do THEY think about other's, but are rather still stuck in the same ideological rut we were all in (at one time or another).

THEY are only concerned about miniscual crap like proof, details, time, place, who, what, when, where, how, while entirely ignoring what the person telling the story has just laid on the line for them (and all others) to read. I have NO USE for folks like this --- not in real life, and CERTAINLY not on this site.

I suggest allowing them to post on the *In the Kitchen Forum*, but nowhere else.

THEY are a cancer, given the accusations and scoffings offered so *abundantly*.

You don't live with cancer --- you do your best to eradicate it.

[Rocky]

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.

Indeed, it is time for someone to call bullshirt on them.

And I think that restriction idea is what pawtucket is referring to on his new thread in the open forum.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

dmiller...WELL SAID!

You're a class act as always...

[dmiller]

I forgot to add -- I only know (personally) 5 or so posters on this site. (Jeast, George Aar, and Jardinero to name three.

Given the ABUNDANCE of info about docvic and his corrupt Org FROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES;

It doesn't take a monkey scratching his @$$ to figure out there's an irritation there, somewhere.

(edited --- cause the filters found one word faulty. Guess which one, eh??) ;)

Edited July 11, 2008 by dmiller

[lucyvanpelt]

About Us

Welcome to the GreaseSpot Cafe!

GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery.

We want people to be able to make informed decisions regarding their past, present, and future affiliations with The Way International (TWI). Whether you are standing with TWI, thinking about leaving, trying to help someone else get out, or looking for support from others who have left, we believe the information here is highly relevant and well worth considering.

Look at our WayDale Documents section and see for yourself what information has come to light as a result of lawsuits against TWI, resignations of various limb and branch coordinators, letters from Martindale to the Way Corps regarding controversial issues and policies, notes from actual Way Corps meetings, and much more. Consider the longstanding patterns of conspiracy at the trustee level, questionable doctrines and practices, ongoing cover-ups, and sexual abuse of numerous women at the hands of certain TWI leaders. It's no wonder that TWI is desperately trying to shield their followers from this information by warning them off the Internet. We think that if you give this information an honest reading, you'll see that you haven't been told the whole story.

Browse through our forums and read what people are saying about their experiences in TWI. Find old friends or make new ones. Elicit support or offer an insight. Share information or simply read and consider. The opinions expressed here are often passionate and while disagreements are not uncommon, the online Ex-Way community is a great arena for conversing and connecting with others. You may get caught in a food fight now and then, but unlike TWI, GreaseSpot Cafe is a place where questions are encouraged and people make up their own minds.

No Shirt, No Shoes... No Problem!

Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 June 2006 )

Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees.

Actually that statement implies adverse, opposite or Anti even though it's quoted as an EX-Way community.

You may get caught in a food fight now and then...Dang-we must be at a feast!

I thought that's what I read before I clicked agree. So Groucho, by attacking, wanting to ban VPapologists, you are actually breaking the rules, ad asking others to go down the primrose path with you. So that said, Groucho......in my left hand I have a big ol spoonful for chocolate pudding, my right is pulling back the globby filled spoon, now you just sit still......quit squirming, you know you got this coming,.......stop squirming, it won't hurt, PLOP, gottcha, FOOD FIGHT!!!!!!

And Miss Abigail, you are right, somepeople did get involved after 1988. Point of clarification, those who were around before 1988 and stayed either weren't paying attention or they bought into the scene. Is that better?

Sorry Abigail. I got ol Groucho pretty good, right between the eyes........splat!

Lucy.

FUBAR: Eff'd Up Beyond All Repair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

It's a military term, thanks Rocky for helping her. I forget not everybody grew up around the fubars I did.........Tell her what a SNAFU is.

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: the 1988 comment as noted a few pages back.

That wasn't very nice. Were you just trying to make a point?

--

Yes, and not very well. I corrected myself with Abigail.

And sorry everybody if I hurt your feelings. I was angry with Groucho and forgot I was writing to the nations.......my bad.

Edited July 11, 2008 by lucyvanpelt

[Rocky]

It's a military term, thanks Rocky for helping her. I forget not everybody grew up around the fubars I did.........Tell her what a SNAFU is.

SNAFU

[WhiteDove]

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??????????????

I'll give it a shot at your question perhaps you'll read what I say maybe. If they would stick to telling their stories rather than making claims that have not been proven and charging others of crimes that that have not been charged then perhaps the result would be different. I could care less if they tell their story , I do care when they speak of someone as though they have been found guilty of a crime that they have not had due process of law for. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty I'll speak up for that right. No body is attacking people ,I have gone out of my way to post numerous times that their story may be true or untrue that is not the issue. The issue is untill they have had the rights granted to them in this country one can not refer to them as guilty.

[doojable]

Deleted - just because.

Edited July 11, 2008 by doojable

[Abigail]

I do care when they speak of someone as though they have been found guilty of a crime that they have not had due process of law for. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty I'll speak up for that right.

It has been said, repeatedly, that Greasespot Cafe is not a courtroom. I will take it a step further for you. No one has a right to due process in the court of public opinion. People are found guilty every day in the court of public opinion, without due process.

Due process is a right granted to those who have been charged in a court with a crime. Due process does not govern personal opinion. I have as much right to opine someone is guilty, as you do that they are innocent. However, when a person is revealing a piantful story about a personal experience, and you deem the perp is innocent, or at least has not been proven to be guilty, you are (as I have said repeatedly) in essence calling the person who told their story a liar. You may not use that term - you may be good at wordsmithing, but the connotation is the same - just as when one calls you a VPW apologist, they may be good at wordsmithing, but they are still insulting you personally.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Abigail

[Rocky]

It has been said, repeatedly, that Greasespot Cafe is not a courtroom. I will take it a step further for you. No one has a right to due process in the court of public opinion. People are found guilty every day in the court of public opinion, without due process.

Due process is a right granted to those who have been charged in a court with a crime. Due process does not govern personal opinion. I have as much right to opine someone is guilty, as you do that they are innocent. However, when a person is revealing a piantful story about a personal experience, and you deem the perp is innocent, or at least has not been proven to be guilty, you are (as I have said repeatedly) in essence calling the person who told their story a liar. You may not use that term - you may be good at wordsmithing, but the connotation is the same - just as when one calls you a VPW apologist, they may be good at wordsmithing, but they are still insulting you personally.

Exactly!

----------

WD said:

I do care when they speak of someone as though they have been found guilty of a crime that they have not had due process of law for. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty I'll speak up for that right. No body is attacking people ,I have gone out of my way to post numerous times that their story may be true or untrue that is not the issue. The issue is untill they have had the rights granted to them in this country one can not refer to them as guilty.

In addition to what Abi said, WD you are sooooooooooo off the mark in that... NOBODY here is conferring ANY legal status (as in "GUILTY") on wierwille. Here, wierwille has NO rights.

Perhaps you think it is your godly duty to defend wierwille. That is so much nonsense. Where he's at now, there's only ONE judge that matters to him, and that judge ain't any of us.

However, his VICTIMS, who, when they post here are STILL LIVE HUMANS, DO have RIGHTS.

And among those rights is to not be harassed by you and OM.

[doojable]

I do care when they speak of someone as though they have been found guilty of a crime that they have not had due process of law for. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty I'll speak up for that right. No body is attacking people ,I have gone out of my way to post numerous times that their story may be true or untrue that is not the issue. The issue is untill they have had the rights granted to them in this country one can not refer to them as guilty.

I'd almost like to see WD write out a possible (and fictional) post that would meet his standards while also revealing some very very sensitive information.

I've heard (but do not have first hand knowledge) that the reason some rape victims don't take a case all the way through the trial is because they know they will be cross-examined and made to look like they are the criminal and not the victim.

That is one reason why it is necessary for attorneys to "prepare a witness." They need to help the woman be prepared for the opposing counsel's attempts to impeach her testimony. So they run through a mock cross-examination so she knows what could and would be thrown at her.

Once again, this is not a courtroom. There is not a system set in place to prepare a person who wants - or even needs - to give a firsthand account of any abuse. I'm amazed that it even has come to this.

Edited July 11, 2008 by doojable

[now I see]

Dooj, this was suppossed to be the place where victims could tell their story.

I think Paw has been way more than fair to those who've contradicted the victim's stories.

[doojable]

I was just trying explain that the concept of holding a public discussion board to the standards of a criminal trial doesn't hold water.

I most likely didn't make my point well. I apologize.

Edited July 11, 2008 by doojable

[now I see]

Please don't apologize, you made your point very clear, I was just adding to it, with a little irony sprinkled in.     Your posts always are well written and have a lot of heart.

It does get frustrating though, how many of us have made our points?  I hope we are going to see more compassion from certain board members here when there is sensitive content on threads.

Edited July 11, 2008 by now I see

[Rocky]

Please don't apologize, you made your point very clear, I was just adding to it, with a little irony sprinkled in. Your posts always are well written and have a lot of heart.

It does get frustrating though, how many of us have made our points? I hope we are going to see more compassion from certain board members here when there is sensitive content on threads.

Indeed.

However, I'm still pessimistic on this point.

It appears OM and WD consider it their mission to defend a dead man. They don't appear to be capable of recognizing the actual person who is alive and needing to express/relate/tell her story. To them (WD and OM), it appears the wierwille's victims are THINGS that are challenging their world view. When that world view is threatened, they MUST respond or (figuratively) die.

I wanted to be able to say that they (OM and WD) probably view wierwille as a person, as opposed to a thing, but if I'm correct about their mission, wierwille is also just an object. That object representing something in themselves that will die if they don't succeed in subverting the testimony of the victim.

And for the record, this is just a theory of mine, not a diagnosis/conclusion.

[Lifted Up]

I've heard (but do not have first hand knowledge) that the reason some rape victims don't take a case all the way through the trial is because they know they will be cross-examined and made to look like they are the criminal and not the victim.

Pretty moderate statement to have in there about not having first hand knowledge. This male has heard the same. Anyway, I see the dilemma, but don't have the answer, for the courtroom at least. I'll explain.

Being falsely accused or convicted of rape or any other sexual abuse is hurtful and carries a great stigma. It hasnt happened to me, but I know that it has happened. Therefore, we stick to our principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Via this process, using my Spock logic, someone falsely accused of rape is rightfully set free, while for that one, several others who are guilty also are set free. This ratio is because if you are only FAIRLY sure he did it (OJ trial, anyone?), it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. So in this process several victims get hurt more in the process of lawyers trying to show reasonable doubt, and others cant bear to go through more of that hurt.

IN GS forums I can have my skepticism...and I do, as I just explained to someone in a PM...but assuming my skepticism means I dont know one way or the other...there is no need to risk hurting someone. Besides, if i ever get some of the answers I seek, they can't come in a battle of accusations; they have to be voluntarily given. And if I have my skepticism in believing someone else's account, I can't help but accept someone else's hesitancy as well in believing someone they know only as a cyber handle. So I can well accept restrictions on publically and repeatedly pointing out how someone's account is unproven. I will reject ideas...and I think it has been carried to this extreme a couple times...that even the THOUGHT that someone's account may not be true is wrong. But unless you know and can offer proof that it's untrue, why risk hurting someone?

edited for silly minor typos, of which I probably didnt get all.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Lifted Up

[Lifted Up]

It appears OM and WD consider it their mission to defend a dead man. They don't appear to be capable of recognizing the actual person who is alive and needing to express/relate/tell her story.

I don't think there is something wrong with defending a dead man, but i dont think Rocky is saying that this by itself is wrong. I must also agree with his following point.

I think the reason I have never mad much squabble with Rocky is that I generally have stayed away from the political forum!

[Rocky]

I don't think there is something wrong with defending a dead man, but i dont think Rocky is saying that this by itself is wrong. I must also agree with his following point.

I think the reason I have never mad much squabble with Rocky is that I generally have stayed away from the political forum!

Really, I don't care if they defend wierwille either... just not anywhere near where a victim of abuse is telling her story.

[cman]

But that's their only defense of vp.

Prove it.

Why they defend him is because of his teachings imo.

But his teachings promote what he did to others wrong.

That is the point of his teachings, the way he twisted what he stole.

I don't need any proof from these victims of vp.

It's already in his class, the proof.

And most of all MY judgement of the one telling what happened.

For those who attack these victims.

Do they enjoy hurting people? Vp did.

What is their motive for defending vp and pfal.

They won't answer that, they probably don't even know.

That's how powerful the grip of pfal is on them.

And deliberately turning blind to the truth.

But not for long, there won't be any place to hide.

[rascal]

Rocky, I think that you nailed it dead on as to why it is so important to protect vpw. If his credibility as a minister dies, the whole standard that they have used to define themselves and the world around them collapses.

[Linda Z]

Rocky said:

It appears OM and WD consider it their mission to defend a dead man.

Rocky, I don't think it's fair to lump OM in with WD. OM has softened his position over the years, and aside from the occasional poorly timed quip, I don't see him in the same category as WD (who appears to be as immovable as a 20-ton boulder) at all.

Oldiesman, yesterday in the “Where’s the Beef” thread:

Yes, as I said in the past as well as now ... I do believe Excathedra's story; I believe she has no reason to lie. I also believe that being narcotized constitutes rape, because the person is unable to give a response yes or no. I thought my opinion on being narcotized was clear but I guess not.

Oldiesman earlier yesterday”

Mark, I agree that the teller's story about an experience should be respected and taken as fact. This is where WhiteDove and I may have a different view... however, let WhiteDove explain his side of things. But I myself read the post and assume their experience is true. If someone says "Dr. Wierwille and I had sex in the motorcoach" I will believe them.

[Dot Matrix]

Rocky!!!!

OMG!!!!

Brillant!!!!!

I wanted to be able to say that they (OM and WD) probably view wierwille as a person, as opposed to a thing, but if I'm correct about their mission, wierwille is also just an object. That object representing something in themselves that will die if they don't succeed in subverting the testimony of the victim.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

Rocky, I don't think it's fair to lump OM in with WD.

That's a fair enough statement...every person here is an individual and were all somewhat different...

...That being said, the real issue here is about conduct...Personally, I think that what Paw has been doing here is quite remarkable. He conducts interviews, brings us book reviews, presents very relevant information from very credible people who were there...not to mention the development of GS Radio...

I think it's only fair that people respond with at least a modicum of respect for what is going on here....Let them present their doubts on another thread...the "story telling threads" should be treated in the same manner as the prayer room or memorial thread...at least ibn terms of antagonistic posts....a rule is needed, IMNSHO.

[Rocky]

Rocky said:

Rocky, I don't think it's fair to lump OM in with WD. OM has softened his position over the years, and aside from the occasional poorly timed quip, I don't see him in the same category as WD (who appears to be as immovable as a 20-ton boulder) at all.

Oldiesman, yesterday in the "Where's the Beef" thread:

Oldiesman earlier yesterday"

I appreciate you pointing that out. In fact, I can recognize progress with OM in that he has acknowledged (conditioned on pawtucket changing the rules) the need to allow victims to tell their stories without challenge...

[Dot Matrix]

Linda, you DO have a strong point Oldies does seem to show some heart toward the victim but WD is like talking to a brick wall.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Dot Matrix