you do not have a hard time sorting thru my posts you like to twist what I say .
actually, I don't. I don't respond much to what you say because I usually don't have the time to analyze run-on sentences without punctuation that change subject and object midstream and I'd rather not mistake what someone is trying to say. I already apologized for misconstruing your statements as implications against women who were forced to have sex under duress (which in many states IS considered rape, never mind the girls who were drugged, and I'm not going to go through and pick out posts for you when you can read the information already provided, which if you did, you'd realize how ridiculous your claim is that excathedra is the only person to name vpw as a sexual predator who committed sexual crimes against her).
So that's it. You see no need to continually bring it up. No one is forcing anyone to be here. If you have moved on, then perhaps the best thing you can do is find something else to entertain yourself.
What and ruin all Garths fun? That's not nice. Now where would he post his pretty airplane pictures? Anyway at 21 pages and 5,455 reads I'd say someone is entertained. Do you have a problem with people discussing their ideas and thinking?
they have self respect. Not to say that danger isnt out there but so is prosecution and justice which rely on truth and honesty and integrity to survive. As a victim of a horrible crime my own self while in the way the reason I was marked was because he went to jail and I pressed charges and it was a mess and he was a leader. No so sorry you rabid internet drooling for a tidbit to talk about I aint saying dates names or anything but I aint a victim and I do not blame the way that I didnt know evil people prey on innocent women they didnt know I didnt know what I do now, anymore than they knew he was the type he was.
Ok, you call yourself a "victim" of a horrible crime while in the way (I'm assuming TWI) by a member of leadership. You pressed charges; he went to jail, and then you were marked (I assume M&A) because he went to jail.
Then you said you weren't a victim.
Which is it?
You go on to say that you had no idea what kind of man he was and that they (TWI) didn't know what type man he was, but that didn't stop them for M&A YOU because apparently YOU were upsetting the calm.
What did they do with him? Was he tossed out? Was he publicly rebuked? If he didn't get tossed, then I would have to say that they preferred him over someone who was willing to do the right thing at great personal cost and they knew full well what kind of man he was. According to some here, men were trained to be abusers of women, and at the very least women were expected to be willing comforters of men - but in case one wasn't willing - that didn't matter.
they just didnt want people to know to focus on the drama of it all and I was very very hurt I was marked but in hind sight it was for the best because the "believers" would have taken sides etc... and I was so very hurt at the time.
I did go back almost ten years later and found out with eyes to see and ears to hear the real issues I had with twi .
So you don't think you should have been hurt? You don't think the handling of your situation wasn't even remotely inappropriate? You didn't cause the drama. Do you not get that? He acted inappropriately. You did what you had to do, and your closest friends and confidantes are exhorted not to take sides as the "best" response to this outrage?
and it is all shrouded with a mystery isnt it? maybe what I just told you is the truth maybe not I do not need to tell it to "get healed" . The lord Jesus christ brings me peace and comfort in my life AND I have no fear none today is a day to rejoice I know HIM the KING of KINGS nt to spin tales on the internet .
Well, if this is nothing more than a "tale" to show us all how you would have reacted to being attacked by a leader, and how you would have been treated by people you thought were the closest thing to a family in this world, you've given us all a very good reason for the forum to keep on talking.
As such, you talk in riddles and contradict yourself. Please don't accuse people of twisting your words. We're only trying to make sense of what you are saying.
What and ruin all Garths fun? That's not nice. Now where would he post his pretty airplane pictures? Anyway at 21 pages and 5,455 reads I'd say someone is entertained. Do you have a problem with people discussing their ideas and thinking?
Never - just as long as people can take as well as they can give.
After all, it was open discussion that provided an opportunity for at least two posters to tell us that they took CF&S when they were under age. Wierwille taught these classes both live and taped. One such poster was only 11 years old. CF&S was inappropriate for underage students. It is illegal to expose underage children to sexually explicit materials unless it is under the auspices of a certified training regimen. Even then, there is strict protocol that must be followed. I personally objected to this specific item and was told it was O.K because we were a closed corporation. Wierwille's response to this objection, though his response to the question was delivered second-hand, was "What better place to learn this stuff than in 'the family'"?
my apologies, pond, if I misunderstood what you were getting at. I have a hard time sorting through your posts.
you do not have a hard time sorting thru my posts you like to twist what I say .
actually, I don't. I don't respond much to what you say because I usually don't have the time to analyze run-on sentences without punctuation that change subject and object midstream and I'd rather not mistake what someone is trying to say. I already apologized for misconstruing your statements as implications against women who were forced to have sex under duress (which in many states IS considered rape, never mind the girls who were drugged, and I'm not going to go through and pick out posts for you when you can read the information already provided, which if you did, you'd realize how ridiculous your claim is that excathedra is the only person to name vpw as a sexual predator who committed sexual crimes against her).
As such, you talk in riddles and contradict yourself. Please don't accuse people of twisting your words. We're only trying to make sense of what you are saying.
I just always assumed English is not Pond's first language. I PROMISE, I am not being rude, but that has been my thought when reading her posts.
Pond, is English your first language? It might help others to know if this is not the case.
Sometimes your posts are confusing to read. . . I am not assigning motives to your words. . . just seeing if maybe it is a language issue??
oh yeah the burden comes down to the seeker to weed through all theses fights and anonymous names with stories to tell... hmmm
no it is once again certain posters saying it happened to this nameless faceless unaccount person and it must be the truth because they said it on a open public internet forum.
nah not that just a nameless face less accusation . How do I know if it is true or not? that is the problem we do not.
Am I a coward when it comes to posting on the internet ?
you bet i do not post details of my life here or anywhere on the net.
clearly every post you write is on a personal level nearly always directed at what you personly think about a poster , sooo Rascal what standard is it that gives you accountbility to any of theses posters... also how do you know who is the evil one when no names are given in the testimony?
Dear Pond,
Here are four instances where you mentioned the times that testimony is given without names. You have been bringing up this point since I came to the Greasespot and for that reason you are most responsible for my decision to post my real name. And since then I have asked you on more than one occasion who you are too.
I guess that you have your reasons for not giving your personal information. I can respect that.
What I cannot respect is that as an anonymous poster you not only take these shots at anonymous victims, but then you even fabricate reasons for their actions. And while I mentioned once feeling a little respect for you in one instance of how you handled a particular scripture you more than loose that respect in the way you make up motives for anonymous TWI victims.
I heard Christian women restore a woman who falsley said that an affair she had was a rape once. It was an intense fellowship. These women could pick up on the one woman's lying. So while I have this experience that would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt, it is because of your lack of personal contact with these TWI victims that I feel obliged to tell you that you have no basis that I can see for fabricating these TWI victims' motives. And I can understand why these TWI victims would not want to tell you who they are.
(edited for spelling)
(added in editing)
How is it Pond that I, the forthright poster is willing to let TWI victims tell their stories anonymously while you, the anonymous critic of their's cannot let this point go?
I believe it is true that they have much, much better reasons than you for their anonymity Pond. The more that I think about your lack of understanding this one thing the more I question your motives.
... Christmas!! Is this s**t _still_ going on?! :blink:
I swear, I think that the threads dealing with Smik-- errr, Mike ;) are about to lose 1st place in the Spiraling-on-and-on-and-on-into-the-Vortex Category.
((shakes head)) WD ain't gonna bend nor give on this, folks. No matter what solid legal reasoning/precedent, moral premise, appeal to compassion, etc. you throw at him, it just won't get through. It isn't gonna take with people like that.
He's like Mike in this regard (and I mean that in more ways than one! ... You figure out what I imply by that. ;) )
Pssstt, hey WD, want for me to Photoshop up a custom 'my precciiiooouussssss' pic for you like I did for Mike?
just one testimony frrom anyone? all you smart folks who claim to be learned can not come up with one snip from one post claiming VPW raped them. Not a distraction I promise I thought that was is the point of greasespot to tell the horror of the vpw and how he raped and molested.
all you smart folks and no one can do it?
speaks volunes in and of itself action louder than words and all . lol
I thought that was is the point of greasespot to tell the horror of the vpw and how he raped and molested.
You are mistaken.
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.
I answered your question with two that I knew about, is that not what you were looking for pond?
You obviously don`t get why many of us are here ... it would seem that you have no desire to....you complain about what we talk about year after year....well what would motivate someone to year after year come to insult and find fault with what others come to this site to discuss and have obviously found benefit in?
So go ahead, entertain yourself, play your games, do what you do, ask questions and then insult, deride, when folks honestly try to answer ...shoot invoke the name of Jesus a few times, that undoubtedly makes it alright....meanwhile I intend to continue to utilize this site for the purpose that it was intended....to talk about what happened in twi....Isn`t it just too damned bad that we don`t have better things to talk about? If vpw had been a man of honor and integrity ... we wouldn`t have anything unpleasant to discuss.
Creepy nasty perverted old man who raped our young sisters, who took what he did in God`s name...and yet, it is the people who simply TALK about what he did that get the spite and critisizm.
Why are the "Smart" people are supposed to answer Pond's question? Why are the "Smart" people supposed to go digging through the forums for her?
I asked Pond a question and she didn't answer me. That is okay I suppose, no one says you HAVE to respond.
But, Rascal and Waysider need to go digging up accounts posted in the last nine years to satisfy her curiousity?? Do you REALLY think you made a point here Pond?
Would an admission by Wierwille himself be enough?
You see, Wierwille made such an admission when he graphically described, to a roomful of people, how he fondled an adolescent, to "teach her about sexuality". In Ohio, that is, what was referred to at that time, as Statutory Rape. Today, there may be other crimes that are attached to it as well, such as sexual molestation, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc.
Having sexual relations with a person deemed a minor is illegal in most states. This crime is called statutory rape. While the crime is not violent and does not usually take place under threats of physical force, it is considered a violation of the victim. The reasoning behind the law is that a person who is considered to be a minor is legally incapable of making an informed decision to consent to sex.
Ohio statutory rape laws define a minor as anyone who is between the ages of 13 and 16 years old. So, my work researching Ohio statutory rape laws revealed that if you are 18 years old or older, and you engage in sexual activity with someone between the ages of 16 and 16 who is not your legal spouse, you are committing the crime of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. This is a felony in the fourth degree.
However, if you have sexual relations with a person who is age 13, 14, or 15 and you are less than four years older than that person, you can only be charged with a misdemeanor, according to Ohio statutory rape laws.
A more serious charge will be leveled against you if it is determined that you engaged in sexual activity with a person between the ages of 13 and 16, and you are 10 years older than the victim.
Some states are very specific in regard to the gender of victim and offender. However, I did not find that Ohio statutory rape laws specify the gender or either victim or offender. Therefore, you can be charged with or be a victim of this crime regardless of whether you are male or female.
Ohio statutory rape laws carry significant punishments. The crime is considered a felony and can result in severe financial penalties or time spent in prison.
Ohio statute 2907.04 Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.
just one testimony frrom anyone? all you smart folks who claim to be learned can not come up with one snip from one post claiming VPW raped them. Not a distraction I promise I thought that was is the point of greasespot to tell the horror of the vpw and how he raped and molested.
all you smart folks and no one can do it?
speaks volunes in and of itself action louder than words and all . lol
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because no one has answered your challenge that no testimonies exist. That would be a mistake in logic.
What you should consider is that people are getting tired of you and WD promoting your own form of victim mentality and are just not willing to play the games anymore. If you want to consider yourself as "winning" then I guess that's fine - but in reality you are fooling yourself.
This thread has been a bit disgusting to read. Two posters trying vehemently to promote their own victimhood (Oh poor me. I saw stuff and did stuff but I can't talk about it because I have no proof,) while they deny others the right to vent.
Am I stupid enough to say that every account of rape is true? No. But even if only ONE person told the truth and then hundreds repeated it as if it was their own story - VP was STILL WRONG.
Oh, and BTW, there is at least one example of VP's depravity that normally could be cited, but the new rules keep it from being talked about.
You want an account? Go listen to the interviews with Kristen Skedgell on the first page. That is first hand.
Do you "need" more examples? I'd say that one is more than enough. He was wrong. I don't need more examples of his depravity. If you do, perhaps that says something about you. It's bad enough that one young lady was manipulated by a man old enough to be her grandfather. Wanting or needing more examples is just perverse.
A useful summary of what should be obvious but isn't, from a reader:
In law school, my Constitutional Law professor Akhil Amar frequently reminded us that the presumption of innocence is a courtroom presumption only. That is, before any evidence is introduced by the state, the jury in a criminal trial is bound to assume that the defendant is innocent. They are to to make no presumptions of guilt based on the fact that the defendant was arrested, indicted, and brought to trial. If the states presents no evidence, only the presumption of innocence is left, and the defendant must be aquitted.
However, outside the courtroom no such presumption is required (emphasis mine). Hence, an employer may fire an employee for stealing from the supply closet without first obtaining a theft conviction in court. A student may be disciplined or expelled from college if marjijuana is found in his room by an RA - despite the fact that no criminal charges are brought. Likewise, outside the courtroom we are free to speculate about the guilt of defendants before trial, or even after an aquittal (after all, an aquittal only signals that the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - not that the defendant was innocent. Hence O.J. was aquitted, but later found liable for Nicole Brown's death by a civil jury who had only to find the plaintiff's case more probable than not).
It betrays a serious misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence to insist that we must refer to Brian Nichols only as an "alleged criminal" until he is convicted.(emphasis mine) Witnesses saw him commit his crimes, there are official records of his transfer to the court, and he confessed his crimes to his kidnap victim. Those following along at home are certainly entitled to draw the logical conclusion regarding his guilt.
I've been asked to explain more than once why, right from the beginning, I was saying publicly that there was no question Simpson was guilty. I take no proide in having been the first public personality to come out publiclyl against Simpson. It just happened that way. I was asked by the media how I felt about the case way back in the early summer of 1994, and I decided to be candid. Before I tell you why I did, I should point out that some people objected to my having done so. One reason was the presumptiopn of innocence in our society. Also, they felt as a member of the bar, I should, therefore, not have spoken of Simpson's guilt before the verdict.
Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in references to a pending case, that "we" -- meaning the editors and their readers -- have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities...
...I wouldn’t blame you for being annoyed at this point, wondering what, if anything, it does mean. It’s been called the most misunderstood phrase in our language.
It was rife during the O.J. Simpson catastrophe. Wouldn’t it be fun to know if some of the jurors who freed O.J. actually thought he was innocent? (I’ve decided that if I chance to meet the Juice at a party, I will chat amiably and then say, “If you’ll excuse me, I feel the need to talk to someone who hasn’t murdered anybody.”)
Anyway, have I teased you long enough? The P. of I. has nothing whatever to do with you and me. We can talk, write, broadcast and even put up a billboard (if so foolish) stating that the accused is the one who did it. It has to do with our system. If you find yourself accused of a crime, you do not have to prove your innocence. The burden is on the other side. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. That’s about it. And it is not even a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence, relevant only to the judge and the jury.
One big problem I see that prevents people from understanding the system is the fact that the media and the system itself -- judges, lawyers, etc -- keep perpetuating myths about the process that only mislead people. These myths are basically the ideals of justice -- presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt,etc -- that represent goals: they depict the way things would work in an ideal democratic society. The reality is much less laudable, but lawyers and journalists insist on portraying the myths as the way things work, rather than as the ideals they are.
... as the presumption of innocence does not attach until a criminal process commences. The right, as the model charge to the jury printed above states, belongs to “all defendants in criminal case,” but if one is not a defendant in a criminal case, the right may not be invoked.
Why are the "Smart" people are supposed to answer Pond's question? Why are the "Smart" people supposed to go digging through the forums for her?
I asked Pond a question and she didn't answer me. That is okay I suppose, no one says you HAVE to respond.
But, Rascal and Waysider need to go digging up accounts posted in the last nine years to satisfy her curiousity?? Do you REALLY think you made a point here Pond?
I don't think so.
Sometimes this place really creeps me out.
Reasonable request since they ask others to do the same routinely.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because no one has answered your challenge that no testimonies exist. That would be a mistake in logic.
What you should consider is that people are getting tired of you and WD promoting your own form of victim mentality and are just not willing to play the games anymore. If you want to consider yourself as "winning" then I guess that's fine - but in reality you are fooling yourself.
This thread has been a bit disgusting to read. Two posters trying vehemently to promote their own victimhood (Oh poor me. I saw stuff and did stuff but I can't talk about it because I have no proof,) while they deny others the right to vent.
Am I stupid enough to say that every account of rape is true? No. But even if only ONE person told the truth and then hundreds repeated it as if it was their own story - VP was STILL WRONG.
Oh, and BTW, there is at least one example of VP's depravity that normally could be cited, but the new rules keep it from being talked about.
You want an account? Go listen to the interviews with Kristen Skedgell on the first page. That is first hand.
Do you "need" more examples? I'd say that one is more than enough. He was wrong. I don't need more examples of his depravity. If you do, perhaps that says something about you. It's bad enough that one young lady was manipulated by a man old enough to be her grandfather. Wanting or needing more examples is just perverse.
I may be wrong - but that is my opinion.
Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 7
31
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 45 posts
WhiteDove 110 posts
waysider 70 posts
potato 43 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2009
39 posts
Feb 15 2009
37 posts
Feb 18 2009
36 posts
Mar 7 2009
31 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
I assume that YOUR interaction WITH people here at gs where YOU said what your actual experience was in twi was true and factual. I think you are playing word games because you don`tlike being remind
potato
actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw
waysider
Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion
potato
actually, I don't. I don't respond much to what you say because I usually don't have the time to analyze run-on sentences without punctuation that change subject and object midstream and I'd rather not mistake what someone is trying to say. I already apologized for misconstruing your statements as implications against women who were forced to have sex under duress (which in many states IS considered rape, never mind the girls who were drugged, and I'm not going to go through and pick out posts for you when you can read the information already provided, which if you did, you'd realize how ridiculous your claim is that excathedra is the only person to name vpw as a sexual predator who committed sexual crimes against her).
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
What and ruin all Garths fun? That's not nice. Now where would he post his pretty airplane pictures? Anyway at 21 pages and 5,455 reads I'd say someone is entertained. Do you have a problem with people discussing their ideas and thinking?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Ok, you call yourself a "victim" of a horrible crime while in the way (I'm assuming TWI) by a member of leadership. You pressed charges; he went to jail, and then you were marked (I assume M&A) because he went to jail.
Then you said you weren't a victim.
Which is it?
You go on to say that you had no idea what kind of man he was and that they (TWI) didn't know what type man he was, but that didn't stop them for M&A YOU because apparently YOU were upsetting the calm.
What did they do with him? Was he tossed out? Was he publicly rebuked? If he didn't get tossed, then I would have to say that they preferred him over someone who was willing to do the right thing at great personal cost and they knew full well what kind of man he was. According to some here, men were trained to be abusers of women, and at the very least women were expected to be willing comforters of men - but in case one wasn't willing - that didn't matter.
So you don't think you should have been hurt? You don't think the handling of your situation wasn't even remotely inappropriate? You didn't cause the drama. Do you not get that? He acted inappropriately. You did what you had to do, and your closest friends and confidantes are exhorted not to take sides as the "best" response to this outrage?
Well, if this is nothing more than a "tale" to show us all how you would have reacted to being attacked by a leader, and how you would have been treated by people you thought were the closest thing to a family in this world, you've given us all a very good reason for the forum to keep on talking.
As such, you talk in riddles and contradict yourself. Please don't accuse people of twisting your words. We're only trying to make sense of what you are saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Never - just as long as people can take as well as they can give.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Prove your point just find ONE just one testimony in which a victim says VPW raped me.
not had sex but raped them Remember it can not be a title just the name vpw no fear of slander he is dead .
can you do it ?
i really do want to see it, I think everyone does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I have no objection to open discussion.
After all, it was open discussion that provided an opportunity for at least two posters to tell us that they took CF&S when they were under age. Wierwille taught these classes both live and taped. One such poster was only 11 years old. CF&S was inappropriate for underage students. It is illegal to expose underage children to sexually explicit materials unless it is under the auspices of a certified training regimen. Even then, there is strict protocol that must be followed. I personally objected to this specific item and was told it was O.K because we were a closed corporation. Wierwille's response to this objection, though his response to the question was delivered second-hand, was "What better place to learn this stuff than in 'the family'"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Your point is not only moot, it's a deliberate distraction.
Suddenly, you've decided this entire discussion needs to focus on one specific item, rape.
This thread is not specifically about rape.
Start a separate thread to that effect if you so choose.
If you say Wierwille was never convicted of a crime, you are correct.
(As far as I know.)
If you say no one ever witnessed him engaging in illegal activities, you are grossly in error.
Entire rooms full of people witnessed him partaking of illegal activities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Pond, is English your first language? It might help others to know if this is not the case.
Sometimes your posts are confusing to read. . . I am not assigning motives to your words. . . just seeing if maybe it is a language issue??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Try this on for a non-sexual twist.
Wierwille insisted LEAD participants had to hitch hike from Ohio to New Mexico and back.
Guess what?
That's illegal in most parts Ohio as well as many areas they would have had to pass through.
Wierwille lived in Ohio most his life. If he didn't know that, he should have. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
People WERE raped, beaten, even killed as a result of this decision. He was complicit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I have read of two separate accounts of girls being given drinks and waking up in VP`s bed on the motor coach.
John L*nn confirmed that drugging and rape went on.
Damned right I`ll call vpw a rapist, a serial sexual predator and pig.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Pond,
Here are four instances where you mentioned the times that testimony is given without names. You have been bringing up this point since I came to the Greasespot and for that reason you are most responsible for my decision to post my real name. And since then I have asked you on more than one occasion who you are too.
I guess that you have your reasons for not giving your personal information. I can respect that.
What I cannot respect is that as an anonymous poster you not only take these shots at anonymous victims, but then you even fabricate reasons for their actions. And while I mentioned once feeling a little respect for you in one instance of how you handled a particular scripture you more than loose that respect in the way you make up motives for anonymous TWI victims.
I heard Christian women restore a woman who falsley said that an affair she had was a rape once. It was an intense fellowship. These women could pick up on the one woman's lying. So while I have this experience that would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt, it is because of your lack of personal contact with these TWI victims that I feel obliged to tell you that you have no basis that I can see for fabricating these TWI victims' motives. And I can understand why these TWI victims would not want to tell you who they are.
(edited for spelling)
(added in editing)
How is it Pond that I, the forthright poster is willing to let TWI victims tell their stories anonymously while you, the anonymous critic of their's cannot let this point go?
I believe it is true that they have much, much better reasons than you for their anonymity Pond. The more that I think about your lack of understanding this one thing the more I question your motives.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... Christmas!! Is this s**t _still_ going on?! :blink:
I swear, I think that the threads dealing with Smik-- errr, Mike ;) are about to lose 1st place in the Spiraling-on-and-on-and-on-into-the-Vortex Category.
((shakes head)) WD ain't gonna bend nor give on this, folks. No matter what solid legal reasoning/precedent, moral premise, appeal to compassion, etc. you throw at him, it just won't get through. It isn't gonna take with people like that.
He's like Mike in this regard (and I mean that in more ways than one! ... You figure out what I imply by that. ;) )
Pssstt, hey WD, want for me to Photoshop up a custom 'my precciiiooouussssss' pic for you like I did for Mike?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Cant find one?
just one testimony frrom anyone? all you smart folks who claim to be learned can not come up with one snip from one post claiming VPW raped them. Not a distraction I promise I thought that was is the point of greasespot to tell the horror of the vpw and how he raped and molested.
all you smart folks and no one can do it?
speaks volunes in and of itself action louder than words and all . lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You are mistaken.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I answered your question with two that I knew about, is that not what you were looking for pond?
You obviously don`t get why many of us are here ... it would seem that you have no desire to....you complain about what we talk about year after year....well what would motivate someone to year after year come to insult and find fault with what others come to this site to discuss and have obviously found benefit in?
So go ahead, entertain yourself, play your games, do what you do, ask questions and then insult, deride, when folks honestly try to answer ...shoot invoke the name of Jesus a few times, that undoubtedly makes it alright....meanwhile I intend to continue to utilize this site for the purpose that it was intended....to talk about what happened in twi....Isn`t it just too damned bad that we don`t have better things to talk about? If vpw had been a man of honor and integrity ... we wouldn`t have anything unpleasant to discuss.
Creepy nasty perverted old man who raped our young sisters, who took what he did in God`s name...and yet, it is the people who simply TALK about what he did that get the spite and critisizm.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Why are the "Smart" people are supposed to answer Pond's question? Why are the "Smart" people supposed to go digging through the forums for her?
I asked Pond a question and she didn't answer me. That is okay I suppose, no one says you HAVE to respond.
But, Rascal and Waysider need to go digging up accounts posted in the last nine years to satisfy her curiousity?? Do you REALLY think you made a point here Pond?
I don't think so.
Sometimes this place really creeps me out.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Would an admission by Wierwille himself be enough?
You see, Wierwille made such an admission when he graphically described, to a roomful of people, how he fondled an adolescent, to "teach her about sexuality". In Ohio, that is, what was referred to at that time, as Statutory Rape. Today, there may be other crimes that are attached to it as well, such as sexual molestation, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc.
**************************************************
Ohio Statutory Rape Laws
Having sexual relations with a person deemed a minor is illegal in most states. This crime is called statutory rape. While the crime is not violent and does not usually take place under threats of physical force, it is considered a violation of the victim. The reasoning behind the law is that a person who is considered to be a minor is legally incapable of making an informed decision to consent to sex.
Ohio statutory rape laws define a minor as anyone who is between the ages of 13 and 16 years old. So, my work researching Ohio statutory rape laws revealed that if you are 18 years old or older, and you engage in sexual activity with someone between the ages of 16 and 16 who is not your legal spouse, you are committing the crime of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. This is a felony in the fourth degree.
However, if you have sexual relations with a person who is age 13, 14, or 15 and you are less than four years older than that person, you can only be charged with a misdemeanor, according to Ohio statutory rape laws.
A more serious charge will be leveled against you if it is determined that you engaged in sexual activity with a person between the ages of 13 and 16, and you are 10 years older than the victim.
Some states are very specific in regard to the gender of victim and offender. However, I did not find that Ohio statutory rape laws specify the gender or either victim or offender. Therefore, you can be charged with or be a victim of this crime regardless of whether you are male or female.
Ohio statutory rape laws carry significant punishments. The crime is considered a felony and can result in severe financial penalties or time spent in prison.
Source: http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/10/21/oh...tory-rape-laws/
**********************************************************
Ohio statute 2907.04 Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor
(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard.
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...19103318AA06GAt
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because no one has answered your challenge that no testimonies exist. That would be a mistake in logic.
What you should consider is that people are getting tired of you and WD promoting your own form of victim mentality and are just not willing to play the games anymore. If you want to consider yourself as "winning" then I guess that's fine - but in reality you are fooling yourself.
This thread has been a bit disgusting to read. Two posters trying vehemently to promote their own victimhood (Oh poor me. I saw stuff and did stuff but I can't talk about it because I have no proof,) while they deny others the right to vent.
Am I stupid enough to say that every account of rape is true? No. But even if only ONE person told the truth and then hundreds repeated it as if it was their own story - VP was STILL WRONG.
Oh, and BTW, there is at least one example of VP's depravity that normally could be cited, but the new rules keep it from being talked about.
You want an account? Go listen to the interviews with Kristen Skedgell on the first page. That is first hand.
Do you "need" more examples? I'd say that one is more than enough. He was wrong. I don't need more examples of his depravity. If you do, perhaps that says something about you. It's bad enough that one young lady was manipulated by a man old enough to be her grandfather. Wanting or needing more examples is just perverse.
I may be wrong - but that is my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Awww Geisha, don`t let it.
I don`t think that pond is looking for answers or dialog.
I don`t think that you are wrong Dooj.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
More on the fallacy of presumption of innocence from [gasp] a law professor
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Z...mYxMzJlYjJkNGQ=
Monday, March 14, 2005
Presumption of Guilt [Jonah Goldberg]
A useful summary of what should be obvious but isn't, from a reader:
In law school, my Constitutional Law professor Akhil Amar frequently reminded us that the presumption of innocence is a courtroom presumption only. That is, before any evidence is introduced by the state, the jury in a criminal trial is bound to assume that the defendant is innocent. They are to to make no presumptions of guilt based on the fact that the defendant was arrested, indicted, and brought to trial. If the states presents no evidence, only the presumption of innocence is left, and the defendant must be aquitted.
However, outside the courtroom no such presumption is required (emphasis mine). Hence, an employer may fire an employee for stealing from the supply closet without first obtaining a theft conviction in court. A student may be disciplined or expelled from college if marjijuana is found in his room by an RA - despite the fact that no criminal charges are brought. Likewise, outside the courtroom we are free to speculate about the guilt of defendants before trial, or even after an aquittal (after all, an aquittal only signals that the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - not that the defendant was innocent. Hence O.J. was aquitted, but later found liable for Nicole Brown's death by a civil jury who had only to find the plaintiff's case more probable than not).
It betrays a serious misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence to insist that we must refer to Brian Nichols only as an "alleged criminal" until he is convicted.(emphasis mine) Witnesses saw him commit his crimes, there are official records of his transfer to the court, and he confessed his crimes to his kidnap victim. Those following along at home are certainly entitled to draw the logical conclusion regarding his guilt.
and another...
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/004405.html
p 8 & 9
I've been asked to explain more than once why, right from the beginning, I was saying publicly that there was no question Simpson was guilty. I take no proide in having been the first public personality to come out publiclyl against Simpson. It just happened that way. I was asked by the media how I felt about the case way back in the early summer of 1994, and I decided to be candid. Before I tell you why I did, I should point out that some people objected to my having done so. One reason was the presumptiopn of innocence in our society. Also, they felt as a member of the bar, I should, therefore, not have spoken of Simpson's guilt before the verdict.
Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in references to a pending case, that "we" -- meaning the editors and their readers -- have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/28...sunderstanding/
...I wouldn’t blame you for being annoyed at this point, wondering what, if anything, it does mean. It’s been called the most misunderstood phrase in our language.
It was rife during the O.J. Simpson catastrophe. Wouldn’t it be fun to know if some of the jurors who freed O.J. actually thought he was innocent? (I’ve decided that if I chance to meet the Juice at a party, I will chat amiably and then say, “If you’ll excuse me, I feel the need to talk to someone who hasn’t murdered anybody.”)
Anyway, have I teased you long enough? The P. of I. has nothing whatever to do with you and me. We can talk, write, broadcast and even put up a billboard (if so foolish) stating that the accused is the one who did it. It has to do with our system. If you find yourself accused of a crime, you do not have to prove your innocence. The burden is on the other side. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. That’s about it. And it is not even a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence, relevant only to the judge and the jury.
more from pbs...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january98/tvcourt3.html
One big problem I see that prevents people from understanding the system is the fact that the media and the system itself -- judges, lawyers, etc -- keep perpetuating myths about the process that only mislead people. These myths are basically the ideals of justice -- presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt,etc -- that represent goals: they depict the way things would work in an ideal democratic society. The reality is much less laudable, but lawyers and journalists insist on portraying the myths as the way things work, rather than as the ideals they are.
and the icing on the cake...
http://aspen.conncoll.edu/politicsandcultu...age.cfm?key=537
... as the presumption of innocence does not attach until a criminal process commences. The right, as the model charge to the jury printed above states, belongs to “all defendants in criminal case,” but if one is not a defendant in a criminal case, the right may not be invoked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Reasonable request since they ask others to do the same routinely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hey, WD
Do you have any business interests tied to all this controversy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion.
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.