Boot the Wierwille apologists

[GrouchoMarxJr]

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.

...that's exactly right...and I am presented with the choices of believing that WD is "reality detached" person with a severe case of waybrain...or...is deliberatly trying to undermine the testamonies of people who were abused...can anyone say troll?...I'm just sayin'...

Edited July 11, 2008 by GrouchoMarxJr

[Dot Matrix]

It is reminiscent of the Mike days when he argued about PFAL

Only it is WD and he is stuck on this Court of law thing.

Between the two (WD and Mike), I am not sure if one is more destructive (certainly both have ruined threads). And yet, I do not think either one is necessarily a bad person -- WD was very sweet when he first came, it is like he morphed into this "Webster dictionary" . Not a better human being, but one who gravitated to legalism - and the legalism is to defend a cult -- not a church with a couple flaws but a cult.

It amazes me. And he truly does not see the harm he does to injured people. I think the WD who first came here would be shocked at the WD that presents today. Where OD has shown growth, IMO.

Cults are bad. Defending them idiotic - to me. Then, to say you are not defending them BUT in a court of law... Seems to be a bent, hard-hearted, perspective especially, when people who were injured, suffer all over again.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Dot Matrix

[waterbuffalo]

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

Linda, Dot, Groucho, Rocky, I couldn't agree more. OM has softened a lot.

Edited July 12, 2008 by waterbuffalo

[waysider]

And yet there is often a veiled rhetoric to his statements.

For example, on another thread he stated that he now believes drugging someone to have sex is rape.

Sounds pretty noble.

What he did not say, however, is whether he believes it happened in The Way.

It reminds me too much of the silly word games we used to play when Trinitarians asked us if we believed in The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.

[Abigail]

And yet there is often a veiled rhetoric to his statements.

For example, on another thread he stated that he now believes drugging someone to have sex is rape.

Sounds pretty noble.

What he did not say, however, is whether he believes it happened in The Way.

It reminds me too much of the silly word games we used to play when Trinitarians asked us if we believed in The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.

Waysider,

In the first place, OM acknowledged he believed ExC's story, which means he believes something happened in The Way. I don't recall if ExC's story included drugging or not, and it really makes no difference to me.

Secondly, I do not think you, I, or anyone else here has the right to demand OM believe anything!! It is one thing to ask him to be respectful and mindful of someone else's pain when he is posting a response, it is another thing entirely to demand he believe what you or I want him to believe.

[waysider]

My apologies, Abi

I did not mean to imply that I care to dictate what Oldies (or anyone) believes.

I was merely using this to show that words can be cleverly crafted to say one thing and mean quite another.

[Abigail]

My apologies, Abi

I did not mean to imply that I care to dictate what Oldies (or anyone) believes.

I was merely using this to show that words can be cleverly crafted to say one thing and mean quite another.

I agree they can. I guess I just tend to think that most of the time, or at the very least some of the time, OM tries to craft his words carefully because he knows that stating his opinions around here is a bit like walking through a mine field. I also think he honestly does not get the woman's perspective on some of this stuff. But, he does appear to be trying.

[Lifted Up]

I also think he honestly does not get the woman's perspective on some of this stuff. But, he does appear to be trying.

Let's face it, Abi, it is generally pretty hard for us males to get the woman's perspective, and all we can do is try our best. That doesn't mean we are always on the wrong side on these issues, but it deos mean we may not know how much we can hurt someone with words, even if we are not trying to hurt.

[Lifted Up]

My apologies, Abi

I was merely using this to show that words can be cleverly crafted to say one thing and mean quite another.

I have no argument with that line. And it is why I can come to understand, with discouragement instead of anger, if someone can't take my words at face value.

[cman]

It's actually possible to see through someone's eyes.

By being shown, not by your own abilities.

And not just sight but feelings as well as most of it.

It takes some courage though, once the door opens.

And although it opens, one must proceed to see.

[Abigail]

Let's face it, Abi, it is generally pretty hard for us males to get the woman's perspective, and all we can do is try our best. That doesn't mean we are always on the wrong side on these issues, but it deos mean we may not know how much we can hurt someone with words, even if we are not trying to hurt.

Exactly, Lifted. I went back through the two threads on Kristen's interview and read the posts there. I do think some of OM's posts COME ACROSS, i.e. could easily be interpreted as, calloused. But I am not convinced that his INTENTION is to be calloused. I think if you have not walked in the shoes of someone who has been physically or sexually abused, it can be a difficult thing to understand all of the ramifications of what that abuse does inside of a person.

One of the things that has come up in counselling is that in general, women tend to focus on relationships. We focus on building them, repairing them, the emotions of them, etc. Men are less focused in that direction, they are focused on doing. What do we need to DO, how do we need to DO it, how can we DO it better, etc.

Again I would like to emphasize that I am speaking in generalities and there are certainly exceptions and different men and women will fall into different spectrums in this generalization I am making. But, the point is, in general, men will have a more difficult time understanding why a woman didn't just walk away, why she put up with it, why she didn't tell, etc. etc.

Kristen nails that one on the head very well near the end of her book or on her blog, where she talks about how nobody knows for certain why some women leave and some women stay. (I tend to think the why is a mixed component of the genetic personality you were born with, combined with what life experiences have taught you to believe).

[WhiteDove]

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.

Again I'll point out this has zero to do with defending Wierwille he just happened to be the subject due to the nature of this place. It is about speaking properly, saying opinion when it is so and stating fact when it is so. It is wrong to state that some one is guilty of a crime when there has been no guilt established to them in the system of justice . It's pretty simple when you have a conviction of guilt then it is proper to refer to a person as guilty until then it is not. Most people understand this except when someone contempt for someone is so strong that they think it is ok to change the rules , it is not. We all have a right to a fair hearing before someone is declared guilty.

[JeffSjo]

Yeah right. We're convinced you've got the skinny and the truth about VPW - and everyone and everything that has ever been associated with TWI.

Don't be offended that we just can't come to the same conclusions you have - that is, that you've got everything competely in balance regarding VPW, TWI, etc., when we see your vindictive fingers still stuck upon the scales of justice.

Again I'll point out this has zero to do with defending Wierwille he just happened to be the subject due to the nature of this place. It is about speaking properly, saying opinion when it is so and stating fact when it is so. It is wrong to state that some one is guilty of a crime when there has been no guilt established to them in the system of justice . It's pretty simple when you have a conviction of guilt then it is proper to refer to a person as guilty until then it is not. Most people understand this except when someone contempt for someone is so strong that they think it is ok to change the rules , it is not. We all have a right to a fair hearing before someone is declared guilty.

So you two, how did Paul judge the Corinthian pervert without a fair hearing, was he wrong too?

[WhiteDove]

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.

Opinion would be I think VP was a so and so .....

or

I believe VP was a so and so.......

or

In my opinion VP did so and so .....

No one has ever objected to anyone's opinion what I did object to was

VP was a no good _______. That is a statement of guilt that is not opinion you are definitively saying he was this That would be the difference.

[JeffSjo]

Yeah right. We're convinced you've got the skinny and the truth about VPW - and everyone and everything that has ever been associated with TWI.

Don't be offended that we just can't come to the same conclusions you have - that is, that you've got everything competely in balance regarding VPW, TWI, etc., when we see your vindictive fingers still stuck upon the scales of justice.

Again I'll point out this has zero to do with defending Wierwille he just happened to be the subject due to the nature of this place. It is about speaking properly, saying opinion when it is so and stating fact when it is so. It is wrong to state that some one is guilty of a crime when there has been no guilt established to them in the system of justice . It's pretty simple when you have a conviction of guilt then it is proper to refer to a person as guilty until then it is not. Most people understand this except when someone contempt for someone is so strong that they think it is ok to change the rules , it is not. We all have a right to a fair hearing before someone is declared guilty.

Sorry about the accidental double post.

Edited July 12, 2008 by JeffSjo

[pond]

Paul was face to face with those he accused .

[JeffSjo]

How is writing an epistle without talking to anybody in person face to face POND?

[pond]

He didnt write it decades after they died they knew Paul and Paul knew them they were in real time and place not invisabe posters without a name on the world wide website.

if you can not figure out the difference well then have at it. compare bible stories and fantasy world all you like.

[JeffSjo]

There are a lot of guilty people that I read about in the Bible, and the stories are all true IMO, and they happened long, long ago. Many sinned even worse than Dr. Wierwille too, and I read about them also. No fantasies there either.

[bowtwi]

Opinion would be I think VP was a so and so .....

or

I believe VP was a so and so.......

or

In my opinion VP did so and so .....

No one has ever objected to anyone's opinion what I did object to was

VP was a no good _______. That is a statement of guilt that is not opinion you are definitively saying he was this That would be the difference.

WhiteDove - With all due respect, what would you call a man that told the Corps himself that he fondled his own daughters?

[JeffSjo]

Dear Pond,

Please note that my name is out. I think Dr. Wierwille was a scumbag that also spoke Bible.

Who are you anyway?????

[WhiteDove]

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.

It would be unnecessary to reputedly state the same thing over and over if some people would read what is said. How many times have I posted that this has zero to do with defending Wierwille and yet just a few posts up someone again says the same thing. This is a place for way discussion so Wierwille comes up ,he is the subject as such one responds to the example given. It could be about OJ or Daniel Watson until one has had due process unless stating an opinion it is incorrect to speak of someone as a criminal until they have a criminal charge . It should not hurt anyone to speak that which is true factually. Everyone is free to state what they believe, what they think I may even agree that is notthe point .If we start basing peoples rights on how they may make some feel we are heading down a wrong road. How we feel ? what if others feel diferently then who gets to pick which gets the choice?

?

[pond]

exactly

[WhiteDove]

WhiteDove - With all due respect, what would you call a man that told the Corps himself that he fondled his own daughters?

If upon examination of facts it was a proven statement and not someone's fuzzy memory thanI would call that person a molester. But whoever they are they still get their chance at justice as lacking as it is at times.

[JeffSjo]

It seems obvious to me that I can conclude that Dr. Wierille, LCM, and Chris Geer covered up criminal activity without them being convicted in a court of law.

Al Capone was a murderous mobster IMO, and I haven't read of one conviction on him except tax evasion.

Edited July 12, 2008 by JeffSjo