I have been reading and commenting on the first hand accounts given of rape, rapes in the corpes and lead accidents for years right here at greasespot, along with relating my own injustices and abuses suffered. That is what gs is here for last I checked....to tell the OTHER side of the story, the one we didn`t get to hear while in twi.
Isn`t it silly to be at odds with all of the first hand accounts here based on your second and third hand information?
And so have my posts been documented. I believe her point was first hand knowledge and validity of such posts without it . Last I checked reading on greasespot was not the same as first hand knowledge. But nice try....
ok, so let me get this straight (or see if I can)... "interaction with people is not second hand information it is going to the source." but if that source documents their experience, they are no longer a source, because only "information when documented with evidence is factual" otherwise it's hearsay and cannot be included in the weight of testimony? this isn't a courtroom, and none of the people in leadership positions have a right to expect anyone to take their accusations into a courtroom to prove the truthfulness thereof.
Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
in Jesus' time there was both religious and civil legals system, yet it wasn't necessary to establish someone's guilt by taking him to court. Jesus himself said so.
I came across this in your initial post in this thread, and believe me, it's a beaut! :
2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, .....
Adolph Hitler is not an American he is not subject to our legal standards his case is different from VP's if you wish to make a case for him feel free.
Now wait a minute! You're talking about the principle of having documentable proof, demonstrated in a court of law, when accusing someone of criminal activity (ie., in VPW's case: sexual abuse) Yet when it comes to Hitler's example, who has committed _far_ more serious crimes than VPW, ... all of a sudden said principles do not apply? ... And for no better reason than he's not an American, and that he wasn't under our legal standards? You mean to tell me that the principle of determining provable truth is subject to what legal standard one is under at the time? ... Do you realize how flawed/wrong that logic is?
According to history and common knowledge, Adolph Hitler is guilty is committing/being involved in a serious effort to exterminate the Jews, plus a host of other crimes, his not being tried by jury notwithstanding. Anyone can state that as a matter of fact. Said fact has been verified by testimony/evidence/verbal accounts/written accounts/etc. given by those who knew Hitler and what he did, ... and we get all this both inside _and_ outside of the courtroom at Nuremberg.
The same principle solidly applies to Victor Paul Wierwille because of the sheer amount of witnesses giving 1st hand accounts of said abuses, including from people who knew VPW well. Including the solid witness of someone whom _you_ accuse of showing bias and having his own agenda: DWBH. And you make said accusation straight off-the-cuff. ... Ie., w/o _documentation or evidence_. (Classic example of you not abiding by your own standards. <_< )
And I realized that you posted what I said here
I Just realized something. It is to protect people's freedom from being falsely imprisoned that the concept of innocent until proved guilty was constructed, NOT specifically because to protect someone's reputation from common knowledge accusations. Yes Virginia, there is a difference. And yes, there is (are) also legal remedies in our law to deal with false accusations made outside the court of law. It has to do with laws (and lawsuits) against libel, slander, and character assassinations. ... SO if what we're saying here at GS about VPW being 'guilty' of said sexual abuses amounts to libel, slander, and character assassinations, all a VPW apologist has to do is take us to court. And I'd be willing to bet that those of us who do 'accuse' VPW of said acts are confident enough in what we're saying that we're not gonna back down, so go ahead and call Judge Wapner!
but you have not challenged it. ... Why?
Oh by the way, _I_ haven't 'dragged' you into anything. _You_ decided to respond of your own freewill. Take responsibility for what you do.
... in Jesus' time there was both religious and civil legals system, yet it wasn't necessary to establish someone's guilt by taking him to court. Jesus himself said so.
A-n-d it took only 2-3 witnesses to confirm guilt. We have a HELLUVA lot more than 2-3 witnesses against Weirwille. ... A-n-n-d-d, since you are (at least supposedly) a believer in the biblical principle standard, such should be good enough for you too.
just a thought.. if at GS you find that vp, howard, et al are being "convicted" by public opinion.. why do you even care? I mean.. the site itself claims that opinions belong to those who present them..
um.. this includes opinions of jt.. walter, gear, and others.. offshoots..
it's like the Wiki's.. why can't one read what's written.. and take it with a grain of salt?
While wikipedia often gives one point of collaboration.. some nice information.. I wouldn't use it for a documentable SOURCE for a RESEARCH PAPER..
but it does have some value.
maybe it gives me a place to look.. or a motivation to look further..
I have been reading and commenting on the first hand accounts given of rape, rapes in the corpes and lead accidents for years right here at greasespot, along with relating my own injustices and abuses suffered. That is what gs is here for last I checked....to tell the OTHER side of the story, the one we didn`t get to hear while in twi.
Isn`t it silly to be at odds with all of the first hand accounts here based on your second and third hand information?
Exactly the point you comment based on accounts YOU READ yet you question validity supposedly based on second and third hand accounts where you arrived at that conclusion one will never know. Somehow that voids my right to post yet insures yours ,in your mind. Your commenting on something you have not witnessed, yet seem to think I need to post under different rules. My documentation at the least is the same as yours first hand accounts. At the best it is my own observations first hand. Somehow you seem to think I need to be geographically present to have a valid post ,yet you can simply read an opinion and follow along the crowd and we are supposed to not question your validity.
I came across this in your initial post in this thread, and believe me, it's a beaut! :
2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, .....
Adolph Hitler is not an American he is not subject to our legal standards his case is different from VP's if you wish to make a case for him feel free.
Now wait a minute! You're talking about the principle of having documentable proof, demonstrated in a court of law, when accusing someone of criminal activity (ie., in VPW's case: sexual abuse) Yet when it comes to Hitler's example, who has committed _far_ more serious crimes than VPW, ... all of a sudden said principles do not apply? ... And for no better reason than he's not an American, and that he wasn't under our legal standards? You mean to tell me that the principle of determining provable truth is subject to what legal standard one is under at the time? ... Do you realize how flawed/wrong that logic is?
No I was talking about accusing one of a crime in relation to US law. not International law. His case has nothing to do with VP and the subject at hand nor does his case prove another ,each stands on their own merit. It is a straw man argument
According to history and common knowledge, Adolph Hitler is guilty is committing/being involved in a serious effort to exterminate the Jews, plus a host of other crimes, his not being tried by jury notwithstanding. Anyone can state that as a matter of fact. Said fact has been verified by testimony/evidence/verbal accounts/written accounts/etc. given by those who knew Hitler and what he did, ... and we get all this both inside _and_ outside of the courtroom at Nuremberg.
Debatable their are many who would not agree such as David Hoggan who wrote The Myth of the Six Million
The same principle solidly applies to Victor Paul Wierwille because of the sheer amount of witnesses giving 1st hand accounts of said abuses, including from people who knew VPW well. Including the solid witness of someone whom _you_ accuse of showing bias and having his own agenda: DWBH. And you make said accusation straight off-the-cuff. ... Ie., w/o _documentation or evidence_. (Classic example of you not abiding by your own standards. <_< )
Again debatable there are sheer numbers that would disagree who also knew VPW well ,I'd wager far more than the few here. DWBH posts are evidence enough of his bias I could not make it any clearer..
And I realized that you posted what I said here
I Just realized something. It is to protect people's freedom from being falsely imprisoned that the concept of innocent until proved guilty was constructed, NOT specifically because to protect someone's reputation from common knowledge accusations. Yes Virginia, there is a difference. And yes, there is (are) also legal remedies in our law to deal with false accusations made outside the court of law. It has to do with laws (and lawsuits) against libel, slander, and character assassinations. ... SO if what we're saying here at GS about VPW being 'guilty' of said sexual abuses amounts to libel, slander, and character assassinations, all a VPW apologist has to do is take us to court. And I'd be willing to bet that those of us who do 'accuse' VPW of said acts are confident enough in what we're saying that we're not gonna back down, so go ahead and call Judge Wapner!
but you have not challenged it. ... Why?
What's to challenge it is libel but just because no one fights the battle does not change the fact.
Oh by the way, _I_ haven't 'dragged' you into anything. _You_ decided to respond of your own freewill. Take responsibility for what you do.
Just keeping the record straight that it was not me who started this conversation, because I knew that eventually someone would post something just as this below. I was not bothered at all until you brought up the subject but since you chose to include me in a conversation that I had not been involved in I responded..
Why do you do this? What bothers you so much about people telling their stories? WD, it was a bad cult. We all got tricked. I have posted here about 9 months now. . . . I have seen this same conversation again and again.
A-n-d it took only 2-3 witnesses to confirm guilt. We have a HELLUVA lot more than 2-3 witnesses against Weirwille. ... A-n-n-d-d, since you are (at least supposedly) a believer in the biblical principle standard, such should be good enough for you too.
..... Right, WD?
Nice try but No , we have laws and truth to uphold and we are to obey those laws also a biblical principle.
The word to describe this.. it took some time.. but to me, it's JUVENILE..
sorry I'm so slow..
I don't share your view that it is juvenile to speak up for presumption of innocence. IMO it is juvenile to argue that one should not support our rights.
just a thought.. if at GS you find that vp, howard, et al are being "convicted" by public opinion.. why do you even care? I mean.. the site itself claims that opinions belong to those who present them..
Public opinion is not the same as declaring guilty without due process. accusing one of a crime requires documentation.
and..
if you are really from Kansas..
please pass my greetings to K*rt.
might remember me, or not.. I was just a fly on the wall during a lot of "crap"..
I have not seen him for a number of years but you can reach him through CES/ John Lynn he fronts their group in Wichita or at least last I knew.
Exactly the point you comment based on accounts yet somehow question my doing the same somehow that voids my right to post yet insures yours ,in your mind. Your commenting on something you have not witnessed, yet seem to think I need to post under different rules. My documentation at the least is the same as yours first hand accounts. At the best it is my own observations first hand.
actually, WD, I think she was just pointing out your double standard.
we have Wiki's that ANYBODY in the whole WORLD can edit..
and you're looking for truth, justice, and the American Way ( excuse me.. whatever that is any more) here??
you find offense.. in an OPINIONATED forum..
sorry.. it just seems kind of.. Juvenile.
a little forum, a little, itty bitty place.. out in the great expanse..
it just does not make a whole lot of sense to me..
Sorry for you ! one would think that someone that had a background in learning and living a standard of truth and moral values would continue in such.
( Cue America The Beautiful in the background here) those values start in those itty bitty places and continue into the expanse each injustice is as important as the next, the small as important as the large. Is one man's freedom and rights expendable anothers not? What determines this injustice? Who chooses the one that looses? Not me, with every breath I'll fight for truth justice and the American way. Stand up, stand up I say and fight, for those rights so many have given life for. Awake from the slumber of apathy, Take a stand, fight for your right to party. Live long and prosper! Free the whales and kiss a kitten. Seek truth here and everywhere......
Exactly the point you comment based on accounts YOU READ yet you question validity supposedly based on second and third hand accounts where you arrived at that conclusion one will never know. Somehow that voids my right to post yet insures yours ,in your mind. Your commenting on something you have not witnessed, yet seem to think I need to post under different rules. My documentation at the least is the same as yours first hand accounts. At the best it is my own observations first hand. Somehow you seem to think I need to be geographically present to have a valid post ,yet you can simply read an opinion and follow along the crowd and we are supposed to not question your validity.
Not at all Dove, It`s just that I don`t use second and third hand opinions of other people to call into question posters veracity or to try to obstruct their testimony as to their personal experiences in twi.
Pretty silly to accuse me of not wanting you to post your 2nd and 3rd hand information here at gs, when you have been doing it for years. What you DON`T like is that someone has challenged you on the hypocracy of insisting that there be documentation, and a legal conviction in order for someone to be guilty of a crime, when you yourself have no personal knowledge or experience of what you claim others are lying about.
People are assaulted every day, murders go unsolved, that doesn`t mean a crime wasn`t committed. That doesn`t mean it didn`t happen, or the damage inflicted wasn`t real.
No, we will never bring these guys to legal justice in THIS world, but one of the things we ARE permitted to do is discuss our experiences, call into question the morals, ethics and beliefs that led these criminals to believe that this was acceptable to do to people. In so doing, maybe begin the healing process and grow beyond the toxic doctrine that empowered them, and kept us enslaved.
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
rascal
I have been reading and commenting on the first hand accounts given of rape, rapes in the corpes and lead accidents for years right here at greasespot, along with relating my own injustices and abuses suffered. That is what gs is here for last I checked....to tell the OTHER side of the story, the one we didn`t get to hear while in twi.
Isn`t it silly to be at odds with all of the first hand accounts here based on your second and third hand information?
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
ok, so let me get this straight (or see if I can)... "interaction with people is not second hand information it is going to the source." but if that source documents their experience, they are no longer a source, because only "information when documented with evidence is factual" otherwise it's hearsay and cannot be included in the weight of testimony? this isn't a courtroom, and none of the people in leadership positions have a right to expect anyone to take their accusations into a courtroom to prove the truthfulness thereof.
in Jesus' time there was both religious and civil legals system, yet it wasn't necessary to establish someone's guilt by taking him to court. Jesus himself said so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Whitedove,
I came across this in your initial post in this thread, and believe me, it's a beaut! :
Now wait a minute! You're talking about the principle of having documentable proof, demonstrated in a court of law, when accusing someone of criminal activity (ie., in VPW's case: sexual abuse) Yet when it comes to Hitler's example, who has committed _far_ more serious crimes than VPW, ... all of a sudden said principles do not apply? ... And for no better reason than he's not an American, and that he wasn't under our legal standards? You mean to tell me that the principle of determining provable truth is subject to what legal standard one is under at the time? ... Do you realize how flawed/wrong that logic is?
According to history and common knowledge, Adolph Hitler is guilty is committing/being involved in a serious effort to exterminate the Jews, plus a host of other crimes, his not being tried by jury notwithstanding. Anyone can state that as a matter of fact. Said fact has been verified by testimony/evidence/verbal accounts/written accounts/etc. given by those who knew Hitler and what he did, ... and we get all this both inside _and_ outside of the courtroom at Nuremberg.
The same principle solidly applies to Victor Paul Wierwille because of the sheer amount of witnesses giving 1st hand accounts of said abuses, including from people who knew VPW well. Including the solid witness of someone whom _you_ accuse of showing bias and having his own agenda: DWBH. And you make said accusation straight off-the-cuff. ... Ie., w/o _documentation or evidence_. (Classic example of you not abiding by your own standards. <_< )
And I realized that you posted what I said here
but you have not challenged it. ... Why?
Oh by the way, _I_ haven't 'dragged' you into anything. _You_ decided to respond of your own freewill. Take responsibility for what you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
A-n-d it took only 2-3 witnesses to confirm guilt. We have a HELLUVA lot more than 2-3 witnesses against Weirwille.
... A-n-n-d-d, since you are (at least supposedly) a believer in the biblical principle standard, such should be good enough for you too.
..... Right, WD?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
just a thought.. if at GS you find that vp, howard, et al are being "convicted" by public opinion.. why do you even care? I mean.. the site itself claims that opinions belong to those who present them..
um.. this includes opinions of jt.. walter, gear, and others.. offshoots..
it's like the Wiki's.. why can't one read what's written.. and take it with a grain of salt?
While wikipedia often gives one point of collaboration.. some nice information.. I wouldn't use it for a documentable SOURCE for a RESEARCH PAPER..
but it does have some value.
maybe it gives me a place to look.. or a motivation to look further..
or ask the "hard" questions..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It's like.. the claims "this is the INTERNET.. I won't BELIEVE (blindly) the claims of others.."
isn't that kind of.. what can I call it..
not "immature".. what's the word I'm looking for..
maybe it's "obvious".. or "overstated"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I would view it as a golden "opportunity"..
if one has access to the lives of these (allegedly, in the "court" of public opinon judged as sycophants or worse) as to ask the HARD questions..
"what about the allegations of sexual misconduct"..
abuse..
etc..
see.. I wouldn't exactly throw it all away.. simply because of the media it happens to present itself..
I would suggest..
because you claim to have kept up some kind of communication with the "accused"..
that you are horrifically fearfull to ask the "hard questions"..
maybe you can't even rationally consider the consequences of the answer..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The word to describe this.. it took some time.. but to me, it's JUVENILE..
sorry I'm so slow..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exactly the point you comment based on accounts YOU READ yet you question validity supposedly based on second and third hand accounts where you arrived at that conclusion one will never know. Somehow that voids my right to post yet insures yours ,in your mind. Your commenting on something you have not witnessed, yet seem to think I need to post under different rules. My documentation at the least is the same as yours first hand accounts. At the best it is my own observations first hand. Somehow you seem to think I need to be geographically present to have a valid post ,yet you can simply read an opinion and follow along the crowd and we are supposed to not question your validity.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and..
don't take it as a compliment. Really..
It has to be really, really bad, before one gets this kind of sarcasm out of me..
God bless you brother..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Nice try but No , we have laws and truth to uphold and we are to obey those laws also a biblical principle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and..
if you are really from Kansas..
please pass my greetings to K*rt.
might remember me, or not.. I was just a fly on the wall during a lot of "crap"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't share your view that it is juvenile to speak up for presumption of innocence. IMO it is juvenile to argue that one should not support our rights.
Public opinion is not the same as declaring guilty without due process. accusing one of a crime requires documentation.
I have not seen him for a number of years but you can reach him through CES/ John Lynn he fronts their group in Wichita or at least last I knew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe you don't "get it"..
sheesh.. it's the INTERNET..
I mean..
we have Wiki's that ANYBODY in the whole WORLD can edit..
and you're looking for truth, justice, and the American Way ( excuse me.. whatever that is any more) here??
you find offense.. in an OPINIONATED forum..
sorry.. it just seems kind of.. Juvenile.
a little forum, a little, itty bitty place.. out in the great expanse..
it just does not make a whole lot of sense to me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
actually, WD, I think she was just pointing out your double standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
unless..
you have something PERSONALLY involved here..
well.. just a thought..
well..
if you happen to see K*rt..
I'm sure he'd remember me with the few details I've given.
I don't care to go through the CES (or STFI) hoops to contact him.
West Virginia. Bluefield, 1976. There were not many of us there.. only three or four. I'm sure he can remember..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If it makes any difference.. I'm more than glad he and offspring found a living with financial consultation and such..
I't's just.. there are a few "dead bodies" in the closet he's got to deal with. And I'm not going to chase him down to deal with it.. sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Sorry for you ! one would think that someone that had a background in learning and living a standard of truth and moral values would continue in such.
( Cue America The Beautiful in the background here) those values start in those itty bitty places and continue into the expanse each injustice is as important as the next, the small as important as the large. Is one man's freedom and rights expendable anothers not? What determines this injustice? Who chooses the one that looses? Not me, with every breath I'll fight for truth justice and the American way. Stand up, stand up I say and fight, for those rights so many have given life for. Awake from the slumber of apathy, Take a stand, fight for your right to party. Live long and prosper! Free the whales and kiss a kitten. Seek truth here and everywhere......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Actually Not!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe what I'm trying to say.. you seem to confuse OPINIONS with VERDICTS.
they really are not the same..
are opinions valuable? Yes.
Are verdicts? I would say generally, yes..
but are OPINIONS and verdiicts.. are they supposed to be one and the same?
generally- no.
So a RESPONSIBLE individual.. takes what one is presented with.. and pursues truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
actually, you do..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
unless you live in a vacuum..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I never saw a response to this question.
Might also be interesting to note that not everyone who posts here is in America.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Not at all Dove, It`s just that I don`t use second and third hand opinions of other people to call into question posters veracity or to try to obstruct their testimony as to their personal experiences in twi.
Pretty silly to accuse me of not wanting you to post your 2nd and 3rd hand information here at gs, when you have been doing it for years. What you DON`T like is that someone has challenged you on the hypocracy of insisting that there be documentation, and a legal conviction in order for someone to be guilty of a crime, when you yourself have no personal knowledge or experience of what you claim others are lying about.
People are assaulted every day, murders go unsolved, that doesn`t mean a crime wasn`t committed. That doesn`t mean it didn`t happen, or the damage inflicted wasn`t real.
No, we will never bring these guys to legal justice in THIS world, but one of the things we ARE permitted to do is discuss our experiences, call into question the morals, ethics and beliefs that led these criminals to believe that this was acceptable to do to people. In so doing, maybe begin the healing process and grow beyond the toxic doctrine that empowered them, and kept us enslaved.
Edited by rascalLink 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.