We are not going to get along

[now I see]

Second what I did say is that I, ME, Myself , will not charge someone as guilty of a crime without such evidence,

WD, that would be fine if you stopped there, where you go wrong is you then call the testimony of the eye witness into question, that is wrong by your own definition.  If you truely thought it through your response should be to say we don't know the answers and you would not draw a conclusion either way.  You do attack the testimony of the eye witness' which breaks your own rule, making you a hypocrit.

 

[socks]

anotherDan, another way I look at the fallen tree question is - if the condition "and no one hears it" is removed, it forms a loop. Or a loopy question. Or sumpin. "if a tree falls.......[ ]......did it fall?"

The answer's obviously "yes" and has nothing to do with me. Again, how I relate to it doesn't have anything to do with what did or didn't happen. If the answer is "But I can't know that it fell to begin with" I'm done. Nothing else to discuss.

now I see, I think that's where the whole issue of this thread topic goes. The discussion of "what happened" etc. is one thing, "it can't be proven" is another. They cross paths but they can't really be ongoing at the same time, can they? Can a determination be made one way or the other? I say yes - for the sake of discussion. :) To keep crossing swords over the two side by side doesn't advance or promote either one.

Advancement or promotion may not be the point of any of it, either. The point doesn't have to be "and this proves that etc. etc. etc." Clearly GS provides a unique type of forum for people to say things that in many cases have just gone unsaid for a long time and long enough, for some. For them it's time to "say it", express it, open it up, there, it's out. Was it important? If it is to them, yes.

But if I was the tree, I wouldn't care what anyone thinks either way and it wouldn't change a thing what they thought anyway.

Edited July 15, 2008 by socks

[waterbuffalo]

I would love to hear from WD regarding his experience when someone went to jail for a crime they didn't commit or something along those lines

thank you

WD, I wasn't sure if you saw ex's request....I'd love to hear about it, too. :)

[Belle]

Dove, I enjoy bantering with you when we are not talking about Harry Potter or TWI. :) Dogs, Flying Pigs and music are much safer (and enjoyable conversations).

Regarding your vehement desire to defend all things vee pee and TWI, can you please answer these simple, straight forward questions?

I ask again:

WERE you a WOW?

WERE you in the Corps?

WERE you at HQ?

WHAT IS your basis of knowledge about these matters?

[pawtucket]

Was it earlier on this thread where someone asked if it was acceptible for a person to have multiple screen names for this site, even if it was not for the purpose of getting around a suspension? I believe Pawtucket responded with a simple, direct, "NO."

It might have been on the Where's Bumpy thread... anyway, I just saw that there are several people with birthdays today (July 14). Three of them might be the same person.

Hills Bro is Hills Bro. But he has said before that his business is as a carpet cleaning contractor. That could be the same as a "ProRug Sucker"... and if his first name (or nickname) is "Jimbo" then it's possible all three of them are the same person.

I don't know if that's the case, but it sure looks like it could be...

Rocky,

There are cases, usually due to inactivity, where someone re-registers with a new name and different email address that in effect is allowing duplicate addresses. Almost all cases the registration is due to someone forgetting their old screen name.

[Walk This Way...]

I skimmed through all of the posts on this topic and completly read a number of them. Quite a few heart felt responses with quite a few opposing views! In my opinion this a tough one...but here's my two cents worth...

The problem I think, is not that there will be totally polarized opinions and points of view, rather, I think the problem is that what is understood to be common sense, common courtesy and respect can vary widely from coast to coast and person to person. What is off limits in one persons view is food for the hungry in another's estimation...but there absolutly needs to be room for the hurting, room for the offended and room for those feeling strong to express themselves in a positive way. I would exhort those feeling strong to step back and give room to the others if direct support or sensitive questions cannot be offered.

Pawtucket has his finger on a pulse here and is asking for constructive input that he ends with ..."hopefully the community can mold a solution that is agreeable to all." I read quite a few posts that contain good ideas; some posts that demonstrated some bad ideas; and some posts that were examples in the making of how to do it right. Post #122 by JustSayNO is a great example of that last item.

Here's what I think should work; people use compassion when responding to someone's post about a personal experience...plain and simple. From what I see on this site, that is already the rule rather than the exception. It seems a problem builds when someone discounts in some way another's personal experience...or the telling of a personal experience of someone they know or knew.

When compassion is in short supply, something else needs to be in place.

One possibility:

I agree with Doojable:

I'd actually prefer a forum where those that want to argue and ask for proof can do it on their own threads.

Or else it's like making the victims keep their stories hidden - again.

(post #19)

I too think victims should not be directed to a 'restricted' area. That should be done for other more "lively" threads.

Another possibility:

socks pointed to self regulation a couple of times and I think a form of it may be a very workable solution. As I understand it right now, a post can be directly reported to the moderators and they can determine if it merits further action. I think that's a necessary item, but it can also be burdensome if 'less offensive' posts are reported for moderator review in bulk...so keep that type of reporting for the blatent offenses, but add:

A community 'voting' option. It's used on a game board called iSketch (and probably other places). Adding a button, such as "Vote to Suspend This Poster" would give the community the option to make the call. A total of 'x' number of votes (an individual user would be limited to one vote per occurance) suspends the offending poster from that thread for 'x' amount of time. Repeated 'suspends' would ban the offending poster from that thread all together. A person either learns what's offends the community and stops, or they're closed out of that topic by the community.

That seems like a workable option to me...of course, I don't know if it's realistic for Pawtucket to implement it or not.

[cman]

[cman]

[excathedra]

oh now i'm just being a pain

dan, you said :)

For me, the question of whether VPW was a philandering scoundrel is a matter that is to be settled between VPW and the Lord.

I don't take issue with the part about it being settled with him and the lord. I take issue with "philandering scoundrel."

Here's that dictionary thing the smart people use --

Philandering:

- To carry on a sexual affair, especially an extramarital affair, with a woman one cannot or does not intend to marry. Used of a man.

- To engage in many love affairs, especially with a frivolous or casual attitude. Used of a man.

--

I don't think that was the problem, Dan. I think the problem was using the position of a pastor, maybe, over God's lovely flock.... being a minister.... being a man of God.... ABUSE.... SEXUAL SPIRITUAL ABUSE.....

--

thank you !

[anotherDan]

excie, In my mind, you are 100% right about that. You've clarified what I left muddy.

Something else about my previous post bothers me too. I didn't mean to project (at all) an attitude of not caring about what VP did or didn't do. I care very much. My point, though, was in regard to my own life, and how I compromised myself. That's all I was trying to say. In other words, what I have come to feel most strongly about is not what others did or what they may have done, but what I did.

[Oakspear]

I was out of town for over a week and missed all of this discussion until this morning. Interesting stuff.

I believe that outright banning and even agressive moderating/editing causes more problems than it solves. Part of what makes this a unique and valuable site is the presence of many who swim against the stream, who hold minority views. There are many places where the pro-Wierwille, pro-PFAL, pro-TWI position is heralded with no dissension whatsoever allowed, e.g. TWI's own site, web pages of the offshoots, and privately owned sites like Family Tables. Even an anti-TWI site like Juedes' doesn't allow dissenting opinions.

Personally I find that encountering reasonably stated opposition sharpens my own position, helps me to be more logical in what I think and believe.

That being said, there are posters who are not logical, not reasonable, and contribute little to the discussion. What do we do with them? I've always been a proponent of letting the idiots prove that they're idiots by their idiotic words. We've got posters who repeatedly tells us that first-hand testimony isn't reliable for a variety of reasons, but carefully avoid using the words "lie", "liar", "lying", etc. Does anyone seriously believe that the posters who do this have any agenda other than propping up their dead idol, despite their protestations to the contrary?

Let the fools trumpet their foolishness.

[Mark Clarke]

...We've got posters who repeatedly tells us that first-hand testimony isn't reliable for a variety of reasons, but carefully avoid using the words "lie", "liar", "lying", etc. Does anyone seriously believe that the posters who do this have any agenda other than propping up their dead idol, despite their protestations to the contrary?

Perhaps. Or maybe they just like to argue for the sake of arguing? In either case, as you say, "Let the fools trumpet their foolishness."

[JustSayNO]

From: Boot the Wierwille apologists

...For the most part, I agree with the above statement made by Linda. The exception would be that I do not think that deliberately interupting and insulting people as they give their testamonies and causing those threads to disintigrate should be included in "allowing those with unpopular opinions their voice".

A desire to see civility and good manners in certain situations should not be construed as an effort to silence opposing views...I have no desire to see this place become a mutual admiration society of likeminded greasespots...I encourage people to express their individuality, to debate and to disagree...but deliberate attempts to to discredit people as they give their personal testamonies and thus minimilizing the damage inflicted by twi should not be tolerated...especially at an anti-twi website...There should be SOME limits on what is allowed.

IMO.

Easy solution,

Civility would entail taking a debate on someone elses thread and starting your own. And labeling it "DEBATE- whatever the topic is" that way people know it is an open thread for controversy. that way you can have at it all you want there. And if someone insists on derailing an defacing someone elses thread, then they are destructive, being intentional in their actions and deserve to be banned for being an uncivalized troll.

again, my opinion

This was a response on another thread I think would be better posted here.