Sounds almost like the super-caffeinated Forum would need to be like the Soap Opera Forum and the Politics and 'Tacks forum - hidden. - But I wouldn't want the stories of abuse to be hidden. I'd rather see the more "lively" threads hidden.
Sounds almost like the super-caffeinated Forum would need to be like the Soap Opera Forum and the Politics and 'Tacks forum - hidden. - But I wouldn't want the stories of abuse to be hidden. I'd rather see the more "lively" threads hidden.
I hear ya, but if that was the case, we wouldnt have Paw asking for suggestions, which brings me to why I suggested a highly caffinated area-because Paw asked for suggestions. this bickering isnt gonna do anything so something has to change whether we like it or not.
Mr. Linder & friends have to be sitting there roaring wth laughter at us right now, slapping each other on the back saying" Yep, when you leave The Way see what happens"
damn, cant people just agree to disagree, I guess not, or I wouldnt be writing this.
Frankly, having left twi 22 years ago, I have absolute ZERO concern about what "Mr. Linder & friends" think, say or do.
And it's quite human for this type of situation to be occurring. That there is disagreement here means NOTHING as to whether or not twi is or is not good/evil, from God or otherwise...
I hear you JSN.
Sounds almost like the super-caffeinated Forum would need to be like the Soap Opera Forum and the Politics and 'Tacks forum - hidden. - But I wouldn't want the stories of abuse to be hidden. I'd rather see the more "lively" threads hidden.
When I was in (granted it was 20 years ago) the in-fighting was extreme. People were always in each other's business and discussing who was possessed or who was a leader at heart... blah blah blah...
Is it that different now? Are they walking in lockstep all the time? Or is the "harmony" just a thin veneer covering up a seething torrent of unrest?
I find it hypocritical that those who chant the mantra of self-restraint and sensitivity expect it from some while taking cheap shots at others on a thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault. None of these things contribute to the conversation of the thread either yet they go on. I'll remind everyone that the whole disruption started with the Wierwille apologist remark, then the pile on and introduction of other topics which neither Oldies or myself introduced but somehow got the credit for doing so . Look at the thread line and one can see.
QUOTE(GrouchoMarxJr @ Jun 12 2008, 12:22 AM)
...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?...
...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independant "twigs", and the many who belong to the waycorps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises...
shame on them all...
Quote Whitedove
Speaking of denial........ despite the obvious, you still assume that the group that you have apparently taken upon yourself to pigeonhole with a name is in denial. I wonder just what qualifies you to speak for others?
This could have stopped here . I made No response to or about any victim I simply objected to being called something I am not and have repeatedly asked not to be referred to as. I'll point out again this has nothing to do with the book either.
If one wants restraint then perhaps they should think about taking shots at others from behind the safety of a thread that is protected. Why should either side be protected in their comments why can one declare a person a monster ? If I posted that someone was a saint would I get the same right to not be questioned? ( not that I think he was by the way ) Had the subject stuck to the book and contents rather than personal opinions on others it might have been more worthwhile.
-- it should NOT have to be spelled out in writing, it CAN be a specific expectation (more) or unwritten rule.
-- it should NOT have to be something to add to pawtucket's burden here.
Those who already frequent the cafe here, who participate in the offending behavior, know who they are.
If YOU are one of them, just STOP.
Oldiesman has spelled out his need to blame others for his inability to behave himself. I, for one, don't buy it. He should take responsibility for his conduct, or leave.
That might be it, but I think it boils down to him being unwilling to take responsibility for his own conduct.
Ya know --- this says it all. It really does. Some are quick to speak (type), and let the chips fall where they may --- without thinking of the results of their actions. Sadly -- they have NO CLUE (seemingly) about the destructive posts they are making.
If they aren't adult enough to know when they cross the line,
perhaps they aren't adult enough to post here. My (IMO).
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.\
I'm all for healthy debate, but TROLLS add little to that aspect of forums like this.
On one hand, I don't think we need any more rules.
But, on the other hand, I have a friend who could have benefited greatly from GSC but only posted briefly before being "chased off" by this type of activity.
How about this? With some of these more sensitive and personal concerns, such as the thread on Losing The Way, we set a one post limit. Say what you have to say(pro or con) and then quit yer yappin'. Or, as my Dad is fond of saying, "Poop or get off the pot!"
I also like the way that Roy and several others tend to moderate (or host) the threads they start.
So, the "host" of the thread could politely remind folks they have already taken their turn.
I still think The Golden Rule should be the standard, but, in lieu of that, those are my suggestions.
Frankly, having left twi 22 years ago, I have absolute ZERO concern about what "Mr. Linder & friends" think, say or do.
And it's quite human for this type of situation to be occurring. That there is disagreement here means NOTHING as to whether or not twi is or is not good/evil, from God or otherwise...
It certainly does make sense.
I see you chose to reply to the latter and least part of my post instead of that which I was commenting back to you originally on.
This a perfect example of the stupid nitpicking that goes on here, on both sides of that proverbial fence that fuels fires. Instead of responding back to the main topic of my reply to you on burdening Pawtucket and rules, you choose to rip apart my sideline "statement of emphasis" about The Way and rationalizing this disgusting situation that this site is falling into by saying it's human for it to happen.
And as to that, you Do care about what Linder & Friends (The Way) DO or you wouldnt be on an (anti) ex-Way site 22yrs after leaving.
I find it hypocritical that those who chant the mantra of self-restraint and sensitivity expect it from some while taking cheap shots at others on a thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault. None of these things contribute to the conversation of the thread either yet they go on. I'll remind everyone that the whole disruption started with the Wierwille apologist remark, then the pile on and introduction of other topics which neither Oldies or myself introduced but somehow got the credit for doing so . Look at the thread line and one can see.
QUOTE(GrouchoMarxJr @ Jun 12 2008, 12:22 AM)
...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?...
...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independant "twigs", and the many who belong to the waycorps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises...
shame on them all...
Quote Whitedove
Speaking of denial........ despite the obvious, you still assume that the group that you have apparently taken upon yourself to pigeonhole with a name is in denial. I wonder just what qualifies you to speak for others?
This could have stopped here . I made No response to or about any victim I simply objected to being called something I am not and have repeatedly asked not to be referred to as. I'll point out again this has nothing to do with the book either.
If one wants restraint then perhaps they should think about taking shots at others from behind the safety of a thread that is protected. Why should either side be protected in their comments why can one declare a person a monster ? If I posted that someone was a saint would I get the same right to not be questioned? ( not that I think he was by the way ) Had the subject stuck to the book and contents rather than personal opinions on others it might have been more worthwhile.
I THINK you could have said the same thing in only a couple of sentences.
-- Please don't call me names.
-- I'll not challenge those who post personal testimonies of abuse in twi.
Not much else that you said in the above post matters in the least... especially going on and on about hypocrisy.
I see you chose to reply to the latter and least part of my post instead of that which I was commenting back to you originally on.
This a perfect example of the stupid nitpicking that goes on here, on both sides of that proverbial fence that fuels fires. Instead of responding back to the main topic of my reply to you on burdening Pawtucket and rules, you choose to rip apart my sideline "statement of emphasis" about The Way and rationalizing this disgusting situation that this site is falling into by saying it's human for it to happen.
And as to that, you Do care about what Linder & Friends (The Way) DO or you wouldnt be on an ex-Way site 22yrs after leaving.
Well, your inferences are unfounded and off the mark.
First, you are NOT in my head. You are NOT qualified to comment (authoritatively) on my motivations.
Second, I made an "I" statement. I did NOT do ANYTHING to ANYTHING you said, except to use the I statement to state MY views on whether anyone at twi reads or responds in ANY way to what is posted here.
According to the Conflict Resolution Network, I-statements are a dispute resolution conversation opener that can be used to state how one sees things and how one would like things to be, without using inflaming language.
I find it hypocritical that those who chant the mantra of self-restraint and sensitivity expect it from some while taking cheap shots at others on a thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault. None of these things contribute to the conversation of the thread either yet they go on. I'll remind everyone that the whole disruption started with the Wierwille apologist remark,
OK -- I *snipped * your quote but I find your use of the word *hypocritical* to be "WAY" off base.
You might take a time out, and ask yourself --- "WHY am I being castigated??"
"WHY" ---- don't folks listen to me??"
"WHAT" -- am I saying that *they* don't understand????
Ya know -- if you opened your eyes (spiritual or physical --- take your pick),
it's possible you MIGHT be able to SEE what is being said.
And if you opened up your EAR-BALLS (remember that from docvic???)
You might actually hear what is being said. But I'm not going to hold my breath on yhat one.
You've *waved the red flag* more than others here.
You've also thrown the *first punch to the nose* as well.
Step back and examine your conduct in the mirror.
It's as inconclusive backwards, as it is forward.
Please refrain from telling myself (or others) that WE are derelict in duty ---- >>>
when your picture is right next to that term in the dictionary.
You used to make a whole lot of sense WD, you really did.
What changed??? You're an entirely different person now.
I'd like to see a new forum that focuses on first hand abuse stories. Not to hide them but to collect them all in one place. That way any one who's still in TWI, or anyone who hasn't heard about the abuse, can find it easily. A few people mentioned in other threads that so-and-so said they had told their story but they couldn't find it, even with the search engine. I would like to be able to point people who genuinely want to know the truth to one location where they could read all the first hand testimonies. I know there are a few on John Juedes' site, but several other people here have mentioned that they have given their accounts, and it would be great to be able to find them all together.
Then perhaps we could have a second new forum - "The other side of the other side of the story" - where VP/TWI apologists, defenders, and doubters of the firsthand testimonies can post their opinions. That way the ones who post their stories don't have to get confronted by the questioners and doubters.
Within this second new forum, we could have direct confrontation or perhaps just have a section for each side to post their opinions without directly confronting each other. As an example of how it could work, there are two websites about the creation/evolution debate, one is called talkorigins.org and it presents scientific articles from an evolutionist perspective, and the other is called trueorigin.org and it presents scientific articles from a creationist perspective. They often refer to each other's articles, and provide rebuttals, but they are two separate sites that don't directly confront each other.
In either case, I would really like to see the first hand accounts collected somewhere so that they can be easily found and referred to. And not only first hand accounts of the abuse, but first hand accounts by former leaders who knew of what happened and maybe even were involved one way or another, as well as other testimonies (such as the roommates, etc. that knew what was going on) that might prove to the doubters that all was not as it appeared in TWI. I know some people still won't be convinced, but a lot of us were skeptical at first but found we couldn't discount so many corroborating testimonies.
OK -- I *snipped * your quote but I find your use of the word *hypocritical* to be "WAY" off base.
You might take a time out, and ask yourself --- "WHY am I being castigated??"
"WHY" ---- don't folks listen to me??"
"WHAT" -- am I saying that *they* don't understand????
Oh I think they understand well david they just don't like the truth and honesty gettin in the way of the mission.
Ya know -- if you opened your eyes (spiritual or physical --- take your pick),
it's possible you MIGHT be able to SEE what is being said.
And if you opened up your EAR-BALLS (remember that from docvic???)
You might actually hear what is being said. But I'm not going to hold my breath on yhat one.
You've *waved the red flag* more than others here.
You've also thrown the *first punch to the nose* as well.
Step back and examine your conduct in the mirror.
It's as inconclusive backwards, as it is forward.
Please refrain from telling myself (or others) that WE are derelict in duty ---- >>>
when your picture is right next to that term in the dictionary.
Then again I'm not whining about the fight am I, nor am I having a Dr.Phil moment either asking for self-restraint and sensitivity. The record speaks for itself I defended my position when called into question
You used to make a whole lot of sense WD, you really did.
What changed??? You're an entirely different person now.
Do we/can we have something prominently displayed to direct those who have been abused to get further information or counseling? I know you have explored this kind of thing before, but it just seems to me that the nature of forums makes it difficult to protect someone who is hurting from being hurt further by some, even while being helped by others.
When you have one person telling their story to many, and the many have no professional training in counseling (reading "Competent to Counsel" doesn't count!), they can help enormously with "so sorry to hear that" statements, and "I believe you, something similar happened to me" statements. But you can guarantee that a few people will say an unhelpful thing, even if their intent was to help. Part of that is simply not knowing the poster, and being unable to see the person to read nonverbal cues.
A forum is a social place. Trying to control responses is like trying to say "I have cancer" at a cocktail party -- invariably, someone is going to say something dumb.
More serious couseling would need to be done one-to-one. We have a method of doing one-to-one discussion: personal messaging. Perhaps there is a way to encourage people to move to that method of telling their story when needed, talking it out with someone who is trained (Juan comes to mind).
The posters who are willing to attack victims do so because they must defend the Truth like it hasn't been known etc from devil spirits.The posters/victims aren't conspiring, the devil spirits are.
Theattackers are not going to understand sensitivity and restraint. The only restraint that matters to them is getting deleted or banned.
They had a few posts deleted, and Amurika is in deep trouble because they have no free speach??? Please. Getting the posts deleted got their attention.
The possibility of being banned after x many infractions might get their attention, too. They need restraint from outside themselves--boundaries--because they have not got the normal restraints within.
Do we/can we have something prominently displayed to direct those who have been abused to get further information or counseling? I know you have explored this kind of thing before, but it just seems to me that the nature of forums makes it difficult to protect someone who is hurting from being hurt further by some, even while being helped by others.
When you have one person telling their story to many, and the many have no professional training in counseling (reading "Competent to Counsel" doesn't count!), they can help enormously with "so sorry to hear that" statements, and "I believe you, something similar happened to me" statements. But you can guarantee that a few people will say an unhelpful thing, even if their intent was to help. Part of that is simply not knowing the poster, and being unable to see the person to read nonverbal cues.
A forum is a social place. Trying to control responses is like trying to say "I have cancer" at a cocktail party -- invariably, someone is going to say something dumb.
More serious couseling would need to be done one-to-one. We have a method of doing one-to-one discussion: personal messaging. Perhaps there is a way to encourage people to move to that method of telling their story when needed, talking it out with someone who is trained (Juan comes to mind).
Just ruminating,
Shaz
This isn't a shot at you, Shaz, and please please please don't take this personally...
But most people who were/are in TWI don't have medical insurance and many would discredit formal counseling anyhow because of TWI teachings. Furthermore, as someone who tried to go this route and was basically ignored by their counselor, I don't see how having the banner will make a difference. There's a banner for supporting the troops or supporting climate change issues - but I'm not clicking on it. Sorry. I don't think a banner will made a lick of difference.
I respectfully disagree with many of you here who are suggesting an extra forum or two. I don't want to see another forum on this board - I think we have enough already. I think a "victims corner" or whatever you wish to call it would be treated like "whiners' circle" and let's not go there...
I have reservations about a separate Way board or a "Way-lite" board. I like the mix of the heavy with the frivolous (the "guess what really happened in the motor coach" vs. "crazy witnessing stories")... I'd be ready to lay in the road after spending time in the "way heavy" forum - no thanks.
I'd rather see maybe an extra moderator(s) or something. (No, I'm not applying for the job.)
Perhaps better - more detailed - forum rules are needed. I'm not saying the old rules are bad or wrong but a better code of conduct is needed, in my opinion.
Bottom line is that YOU (OM) need to recognize it, and not have someone else tell you that what someone is posting is what you should refrain from being abusive about.
YOU seem to want to make it someone else's responsibility for you to behave yourself. That's NOT reasonable. YOU are responsible for YOUR conduct. Behave yourself or leave of your own volition. How old are you now anyway? 17?????
I disagree, I think the reason why we need rules or have the rules clarified is because of opinions that some conducts and behaviors are abusive. Speaking for myself, I don't believe my conduct or behavior is abusive according to the current rules. You are of course entitled to disagree, which is why I believe we need the rules clarified/updated so everyone knows what is allowed and what to expect.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
16
12
16
Popular Days
Jul 11
68
Jul 12
40
Jul 10
26
Jul 15
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 17 posts
JustSayNO 16 posts
WhiteDove 12 posts
doojable 16 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2008
68 posts
Jul 12 2008
40 posts
Jul 10 2008
26 posts
Jul 15 2008
13 posts
doojable
I hear you JSN.
Sounds almost like the super-caffeinated Forum would need to be like the Soap Opera Forum and the Politics and 'Tacks forum - hidden. - But I wouldn't want the stories of abuse to be hidden. I'd rather see the more "lively" threads hidden.
Hope this all makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Agreed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Frankly, having left twi 22 years ago, I have absolute ZERO concern about what "Mr. Linder & friends" think, say or do.
And it's quite human for this type of situation to be occurring. That there is disagreement here means NOTHING as to whether or not twi is or is not good/evil, from God or otherwise...
It certainly does make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm just thinking on the keyboard here...
When I was in (granted it was 20 years ago) the in-fighting was extreme. People were always in each other's business and discussing who was possessed or who was a leader at heart... blah blah blah...
Is it that different now? Are they walking in lockstep all the time? Or is the "harmony" just a thin veneer covering up a seething torrent of unrest?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I find it hypocritical that those who chant the mantra of self-restraint and sensitivity expect it from some while taking cheap shots at others on a thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault. None of these things contribute to the conversation of the thread either yet they go on. I'll remind everyone that the whole disruption started with the Wierwille apologist remark, then the pile on and introduction of other topics which neither Oldies or myself introduced but somehow got the credit for doing so . Look at the thread line and one can see.
QUOTE(GrouchoMarxJr @ Jun 12 2008, 12:22 AM)
...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?...
...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independant "twigs", and the many who belong to the waycorps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises...
shame on them all...
Quote Whitedove
Speaking of denial........ despite the obvious, you still assume that the group that you have apparently taken upon yourself to pigeonhole with a name is in denial. I wonder just what qualifies you to speak for others?
This could have stopped here . I made No response to or about any victim I simply objected to being called something I am not and have repeatedly asked not to be referred to as. I'll point out again this has nothing to do with the book either.
If one wants restraint then perhaps they should think about taking shots at others from behind the safety of a thread that is protected. Why should either side be protected in their comments why can one declare a person a monster ? If I posted that someone was a saint would I get the same right to not be questioned? ( not that I think he was by the way ) Had the subject stuck to the book and contents rather than personal opinions on others it might have been more worthwhile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ya know --- this says it all. It really does. Some are quick to speak (type), and let the chips fall where they may --- without thinking of the results of their actions. Sadly -- they have NO CLUE (seemingly) about the destructive posts they are making.
If they aren't adult enough to know when they cross the line,
perhaps they aren't adult enough to post here. My (IMO).
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.\
I'm all for healthy debate, but TROLLS add little to that aspect of forums like this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
On one hand, I don't think we need any more rules.
But, on the other hand, I have a friend who could have benefited greatly from GSC but only posted briefly before being "chased off" by this type of activity.
How about this? With some of these more sensitive and personal concerns, such as the thread on Losing The Way, we set a one post limit. Say what you have to say(pro or con) and then quit yer yappin'. Or, as my Dad is fond of saying, "Poop or get off the pot!"
I also like the way that Roy and several others tend to moderate (or host) the threads they start.
So, the "host" of the thread could politely remind folks they have already taken their turn.
I still think The Golden Rule should be the standard, but, in lieu of that, those are my suggestions.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
I see you chose to reply to the latter and least part of my post instead of that which I was commenting back to you originally on.
This a perfect example of the stupid nitpicking that goes on here, on both sides of that proverbial fence that fuels fires. Instead of responding back to the main topic of my reply to you on burdening Pawtucket and rules, you choose to rip apart my sideline "statement of emphasis" about The Way and rationalizing this disgusting situation that this site is falling into by saying it's human for it to happen.
And as to that, you Do care about what Linder & Friends (The Way) DO or you wouldnt be on an (anti) ex-Way site 22yrs after leaving.
Edited by JustSayNOLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I THINK you could have said the same thing in only a couple of sentences.
-- Please don't call me names.
-- I'll not challenge those who post personal testimonies of abuse in twi.
Not much else that you said in the above post matters in the least... especially going on and on about hypocrisy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well, your inferences are unfounded and off the mark.
First, you are NOT in my head. You are NOT qualified to comment (authoritatively) on my motivations.
Second, I made an "I" statement. I did NOT do ANYTHING to ANYTHING you said, except to use the I statement to state MY views on whether anyone at twi reads or responds in ANY way to what is posted here.
From: I-statements
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
OK -- I *snipped * your quote but I find your use of the word *hypocritical* to be "WAY" off base.
You might take a time out, and ask yourself --- "WHY am I being castigated??"
"WHY" ---- don't folks listen to me??"
"WHAT" -- am I saying that *they* don't understand????
Ya know -- if you opened your eyes (spiritual or physical --- take your pick),
it's possible you MIGHT be able to SEE what is being said.
And if you opened up your EAR-BALLS (remember that from docvic???)
You might actually hear what is being said. But I'm not going to hold my breath on yhat one.
You've *waved the red flag* more than others here.
You've also thrown the *first punch to the nose* as well.
Step back and examine your conduct in the mirror.
It's as inconclusive backwards, as it is forward.
Please refrain from telling myself (or others) that WE are derelict in duty ---- >>>
when your picture is right next to that term in the dictionary.
You used to make a whole lot of sense WD, you really did.
What changed??? You're an entirely different person now.
I'll keep you in my prayers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Maybe but I choose to spell it out as what I say is often misrepresented and besides I think it is very much the point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Hey Rocky,
Do you just enjoy arguing?(no answer needed)
I made my suggestion to Pawtucket and I'll let him decide if it's useful or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well, I hope it made you feel better. However, it probably didn't achieve anything else (like convincing anyone besides you to take your position).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I'd like to see a new forum that focuses on first hand abuse stories. Not to hide them but to collect them all in one place. That way any one who's still in TWI, or anyone who hasn't heard about the abuse, can find it easily. A few people mentioned in other threads that so-and-so said they had told their story but they couldn't find it, even with the search engine. I would like to be able to point people who genuinely want to know the truth to one location where they could read all the first hand testimonies. I know there are a few on John Juedes' site, but several other people here have mentioned that they have given their accounts, and it would be great to be able to find them all together.
Then perhaps we could have a second new forum - "The other side of the other side of the story" - where VP/TWI apologists, defenders, and doubters of the firsthand testimonies can post their opinions. That way the ones who post their stories don't have to get confronted by the questioners and doubters.
Within this second new forum, we could have direct confrontation or perhaps just have a section for each side to post their opinions without directly confronting each other. As an example of how it could work, there are two websites about the creation/evolution debate, one is called talkorigins.org and it presents scientific articles from an evolutionist perspective, and the other is called trueorigin.org and it presents scientific articles from a creationist perspective. They often refer to each other's articles, and provide rebuttals, but they are two separate sites that don't directly confront each other.
In either case, I would really like to see the first hand accounts collected somewhere so that they can be easily found and referred to. And not only first hand accounts of the abuse, but first hand accounts by former leaders who knew of what happened and maybe even were involved one way or another, as well as other testimonies (such as the roommates, etc. that knew what was going on) that might prove to the doubters that all was not as it appeared in TWI. I know some people still won't be convinced, but a lot of us were skeptical at first but found we couldn't discount so many corroborating testimonies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why do you ask?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
As far as I know nobody is accusing you of being either truthful or honest.
Most people would welcome that here as a positive change.
Its the facades that people object to
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Hey Paw,
Do we/can we have something prominently displayed to direct those who have been abused to get further information or counseling? I know you have explored this kind of thing before, but it just seems to me that the nature of forums makes it difficult to protect someone who is hurting from being hurt further by some, even while being helped by others.
When you have one person telling their story to many, and the many have no professional training in counseling (reading "Competent to Counsel" doesn't count!), they can help enormously with "so sorry to hear that" statements, and "I believe you, something similar happened to me" statements. But you can guarantee that a few people will say an unhelpful thing, even if their intent was to help. Part of that is simply not knowing the poster, and being unable to see the person to read nonverbal cues.
A forum is a social place. Trying to control responses is like trying to say "I have cancer" at a cocktail party -- invariably, someone is going to say something dumb.
More serious couseling would need to be done one-to-one. We have a method of doing one-to-one discussion: personal messaging. Perhaps there is a way to encourage people to move to that method of telling their story when needed, talking it out with someone who is trained (Juan comes to mind).
Just ruminating,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
The posters who are willing to attack victims do so because they must defend the Truth like it hasn't been known etc from devil spirits.The posters/victims aren't conspiring, the devil spirits are.
Theattackers are not going to understand sensitivity and restraint. The only restraint that matters to them is getting deleted or banned.
They had a few posts deleted, and Amurika is in deep trouble because they have no free speach??? Please. Getting the posts deleted got their attention.
The possibility of being banned after x many infractions might get their attention, too. They need restraint from outside themselves--boundaries--because they have not got the normal restraints within.
Perhaps Paw needs a warning system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
This isn't a shot at you, Shaz, and please please please don't take this personally...
But most people who were/are in TWI don't have medical insurance and many would discredit formal counseling anyhow because of TWI teachings. Furthermore, as someone who tried to go this route and was basically ignored by their counselor, I don't see how having the banner will make a difference. There's a banner for supporting the troops or supporting climate change issues - but I'm not clicking on it. Sorry. I don't think a banner will made a lick of difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
I respectfully disagree with many of you here who are suggesting an extra forum or two. I don't want to see another forum on this board - I think we have enough already. I think a "victims corner" or whatever you wish to call it would be treated like "whiners' circle" and let's not go there...
I have reservations about a separate Way board or a "Way-lite" board. I like the mix of the heavy with the frivolous (the "guess what really happened in the motor coach" vs. "crazy witnessing stories")... I'd be ready to lay in the road after spending time in the "way heavy" forum - no thanks.
I'd rather see maybe an extra moderator(s) or something. (No, I'm not applying for the job.)
Perhaps better - more detailed - forum rules are needed. I'm not saying the old rules are bad or wrong but a better code of conduct is needed, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I disagree, I think the reason why we need rules or have the rules clarified is because of opinions that some conducts and behaviors are abusive. Speaking for myself, I don't believe my conduct or behavior is abusive according to the current rules. You are of course entitled to disagree, which is why I believe we need the rules clarified/updated so everyone knows what is allowed and what to expect.
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.