Your "effort" to assure kindness and decorum in discussion of TWIt-n-Vic is noble and admirable, WordWolf. It is also highly opinionated and expresses your opinions regarding "decorum" on these threads. Your OPINIONS are respected here as you know. However, imo, it is not the "official" proclamation of the history of GSC, nor its mission. To blame the lack of "decorum" on those who are the brunt of consistent ad hominem attacks and false allegations regarding mental state or motivation is self-serving and myopic imo. You know better. You've been here long enough. If the poor little posters can't speak on their own behalf why do you think that's the fault of other posters telling the TRUTH and FACTS about TWIt-n-Vic? Why is it YOUR job to speak for them? Your platitudinal hypothetical scenarios of various possible "personal conditions" of new posters or members are just that......hypothetical. Your opinions are not fact, nor should they be generalized to all new or long-time members here. Your opinions are exactly that, your opinions. They are respected and considered here. But they are NOT the governing rules of this site, imo. Everyone's honest opinion is valued here equally. If your position is that posting "style" or "decorum" is more important than delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic and the other side of the story, you have every right to post those opinions any time and anywhere you want. But I implore you, please do not insist that the rest of us are duty-bound to post according to your style preferences. Thanks, WordWolf, and........peace.
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum."
Now then, if you disagree as to WHY we tell the other side of the story, by all means,
let's discuss that. I posted why I think we tell the other side of the story. Why do YOU
say we tell the other side of the story?
To blame the lack of "decorum" on those who are the brunt of consistent ad hominem attacks and false allegations regarding mental state or motivation is self-serving and myopic imo. You know better. You've been here long enough.
I know better, which is why I never said that.
(Some might characterize that misrepresentation of what I said as an "ad hominem attack",
but I'll start from the position that it's a misunderstanding.
I hold every single poster responsible for what they post and for how they post.
In general, when posters disagree, I ask for BOTH SIDES to post with kindness
rather than saying "You who started it first-cut it out first."
We're all adults here. Just as peace and accords can begin with one person,
decorum can also.
If the poor little posters can't speak on their own behalf why do you think that's the fault of other posters telling the TRUTH and FACTS about TWIt-n-Vic?
You left out the poor, little LURKERS also. They CAN speak on their own behalf. However, if they're under the impression that this place is hostile and unwelcoming, how many of them will post to try to set us straight? Very few have-and those usually have been the ones who were even MORE hostile than the ones they objected to. Those threads were moved to the Soap Opera forum.
I think their "inability" (their UNWILLINGNESS, as I see it) to address us IS the fault of the posters here.
Those who post in a hostile manner scare them off-and if we say nothing against it, we suggest we support that as the status quo, since "silence implies consent" is a well-known maxim.
Why is it YOUR job to speak for them? Your platitudinal hypothetical scenarios of various possible "personal conditions" of new posters or members are just that......hypothetical.
I was thinking of specific posters in the past-the "hypothetical" is that present and future lurkers and posters would appear in the manner that others appeared.
For that matter, when I arrived, a hostile environment would have encouraged ME to leave promptly.
Your opinions are not fact, nor should they be generalized to all new or long-time members here. Your opinions are exactly that, your opinions. They are respected and considered here.
I never said that referred to "all new or long-time members here."
As for my opinions actually being opinions, yes, I believe I was the first one who pointed that out.
I also asked for the opinions of others-which are also opinions and not fact- if we need to
keep mentioning that.
But they are NOT the governing rules of this site, imo. Everyone's honest opinion is valued here equally.
That they are not the governing rules of this site is rather clear from their being my opinions.
(We're rephrasing that a lot.)
I might argue that everyone's opinion is not LITERALLY valued here equally, but that's a different
discussion, and I'd rather continue this one than get side-tracked to that one, at least for now.
If your position is that posting "style" or "decorum" is more important than delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic and the other side of the story, you have every right to post those opinions any time and anywhere you want.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever HOLD those opinions. I'll take it as axiomatic, then, that you'd say that
my actual opinions are equally welcome (or equally unwelcome, as the case may be.)
I never argued that "style" or "decorum" was MORE IMPORTANT than "delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic"
nor MORE IMPORTANT THAN "the other side of the story." I have always maintained (for almost my entire posting history
back thru the ezboard days) that "the other side of the story" is the reason we are here- and I said so to begin with.
I consider this ANOTHER False Dilemma-
Choice 1- Tell The Truth and Facts about twi, vpw and so on in any manner whatsoever, even if it drives off posters and lurkers
Choice 2- Remain silent about the Truths and Facts about twi, vpw and so on-but be courteous to posters.
If the goal is "telling the other side of the story to people", then I reject BOTH positions as inferior.
To drive off posters and lurkers means they're not present to HEAR the other side of the story.
To remain silent but welcoming denies the lurkers and posters the information they need.
So, I would say:
Tell the other side of the story. Deliver the truths and facts on vpw, twi and all things related-
but remember that the people we're telling ARE PEOPLE, and getting personal with them, or just plain being rude
to posters, sends a message to them just as clearly as the INTENDED content, if not clearer.
But I implore you, please do not insist that the rest of us are duty-bound to post according to your style preferences. Thanks, WordWolf, and........peace.
Actually,
that's what I want to discuss. ARE we duty-bound to post with kindness?
The rules DO clearly say
"please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal."
BTW,
who said that courtesy and politeness were my personal preferences?
I can appreciate making it personal and letting someone have it as much as the next person.
More-if they were never a New Yorker, probably.
I've been thinking about my OWN culpability in this over the years, and the effect lots of posters-
including myself and including you- have had on lurkers especially, whether or not it's affected posters.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor. I stated my opinions, you stated your's. I agree to disagree with you. Argue at length with yourself. I look forward to more opinions from other posters, as I'm sure you do. Have a great day today. Peace.
I'd like to see the discourse take place without general accusations which characterize posters' comments as supportive of TWI and offshoot dogma positions if the poster hasn't specifically indicated affinity or support for those groups.
I appreciate that comment and agree with the sentiment, Rocky, but given that from before the start of posting here I've never been supportive of TWI or of any offshoot dogma position (that I'm aware of), I'm inclined to think the chances of that happening here are probably about as close to nil as you can get. Of course, if you (or anyone) think(s) I'm wrong or mistaken about that and have been... well then, you're certainly free to prove me wrong by pointing out said post. (But do keep in mind that truth is truth, even if or when carved off the heel of the devil, and there's a great distance between finding any truth in what was/is taught - in spite of where it might have been plagiarized from - and being "supportive" of how it was/is done.)
As for the earlier statement that "everyone's honest opinion is valued here equally"... well, that's a joke. Okay, sure.... some here probably do live or think by that creed. But not all, that's for darn sure.
Personally, I'd much rather leave all the personal drama behind, and am far more intrigued and interested in the doctrinal side of what others do (or don't) think.
Does the GSC have a purpose? I believe we all agree with the statement that the GSC "exists to tell the other side of the story." But let's continue from there.
WHY tell the other side of the story?
To inform others so they can make informed decisions.
(SNIP)
That's why I think we need to reconsider our tone.
(SNIP)
I'm for that
I'd like to see you guys (and others, TLC, MRAP, anyone else) hash this out peacefully. I think this thread is healthy. Please continue.
There's a lot of information in the threads by a number of the more regular, long-time, posters, who've spent years researching TWI, that ought, IMO, put that knowledge into article or book form and posted online. Less drama, more concise and easier to read. If resources to moderate discussion forums are scarce, wouldn't that be better?
There's a lot of information in the threads by a number of the more regular, long-time, posters, who've spent years researching TWI, that ought, IMO, put that knowledge into article or book form and posted online. Less drama, more concise and easier to read. If resources to moderate discussion forums are scarce, wouldn't that be better?
Watch for release this fall of Penworks' memoir, "Undertow." That will provide a great deal of insight.
Of course, I think it would be great if Skyrider and others wrote a memoir of their time in TWI.
There's a lot of information in the threads by a number of the more regular, long-time, posters, who've spent years researching TWI, that ought, IMO, put that knowledge into article or book form and posted online. Less drama, more concise and easier to read. If resources to moderate discussion forums are scarce, wouldn't that be better?
I think it's great we already have both! I've read a few revealing books by ex-way folks and as Rocky mentioned I also look forward to Penworks' Undertow – btw she does have a very interesting blog too. I bet there will be more books by others coming out in the future. WordWolf has done a fantastic job on various timelines – an invaluable resource on Grease Spot, and don't forget the analysis coherently expressed in podcasts and posts by some very articulate folks.
I'm ok with any drama at Grease Spot – I figure it comes with the territory; sorting through the ugly details, dealing with any mental baggage or just trying to articulate an issue can get messy and challenge one's interpersonal skills. I also believe when something rings true it comes across loud and clear through any "noise" – even if it has to make the long and arduous journey through emotionally laden posts /> .
A lot can be said for the interaction on Grease Spot. I like the give and take dynamic on threads and in chat (haven't done that in a long time though) - you don't get that from reading a book.
(edited to add the interactive feature of Grease Spot - came to me 2 seconds after i posted)
I heard a wonderful teaching yesterday. The preamble to it was the adage "hate the sin; love the sinner"; but it went on to describe HOW to do that. Certainly, Jesus had no problem spelling out for the Pharisees exactly what he thought of them, but how different his "tone" was in dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Her sin was not in question. The Law concerning the subject was clear. But Jesus dealt with her with great compassion. The point of the teaching is that we need to BE JESUS to people, especially at critical points in their lives. I think that that principle applies to posting as GSC, as well. In general, we should be loving to the others, even if they seem to be obstinate and wrong-headed. There may be times, though, when a stronger "tone" is appropriate. When Jesus let the Pharisees have it, it wasn't for the Pharisees' sakes (they weren't going to change), but for those "lurking."
George
PS. Part of the problem has been the removal of the politics thread. Now GSCers have no place to call each other Denebian Slime Worms, and get away with it.
(SNIP) ... (But do keep in mind that truth is truth, even if or when carved off the heel of the devil, and there's a great distance between finding any truth in what was/is taught - in spite of where it might have been plagiarized from - and being "supportive" of how it was/is done.)
(SNIP)
Personally, I'd much rather leave all the personal drama behind, and am far more intrigued and interested in the doctrinal side of what others do (or don't) think.
Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky but I wanted to comment on "truth", plagiarism, and doctrine (i highlighted them in bold red in the above quote)
Plagiarism: I think VP is way beyond any sort of "typical" plagiarist you might find in the world of published authors. I don't really see him as any sort of theologian or scholar with more or less the same intellectual skills as his supposed peers and merely stealing a few ideas here and there from others. Like he was some dedicated scientist working on the cure for cancer and was so close he just lacked one ingredient to make it all work – and lo and behold that scientist over there figured it out…oh and that one too…and that one…and that one…
I suggest folks "upgrade" VP's status of plagiarist to grand impersonator…fraud extraordinaire. It's not like he demonstrated any proficiency of skills he "taught" in PFAL or alluded to in print. Those were merely scripts that any unschooled actor could follow. I will grant you this, his performance was certainly Oscar quality – but I don't think that can be attributed to some method acting skill but rather that he was so swallowed up in his own lies that he lived and moved and had his being inside a delusion.
If you've ever followed live presentations of his "doctrine" you may recall his ego-centric reasoning for making a particular point in a passage of scripture. At Advanced Class 78 and 79 and in teachings to in-residence way corps VP one of his most used techniques for adding weight to the point he was making was to suggest God revealed it to him or God was reigning him in so he wouldn't say too much. You hardly ever hear him driving a point home by utilizing one of those "keys on how the Bible interprets itself".
For example, "Father showed me the heart of this…" or "Father says shut up Wierwille." And maybe it was at PFAL 77 (it's been so long I can't remember the setting) he talked about how when God wanted him to focus on a word in scripture "the Father would make that word appear real big like it was one inch high." I don't know if he had his prosthetic eye put in yet – but if so – maybe it was actually bionic and the zoom feature was acting up. All kidding aside – my point is these incidents give you a glimpse behind the theologian-scholar-man-of-god façade that VP had erected – with the help of devoted fans of course.
Truth:There have been discussions that basically asked did you throw the baby out with the bathwater; which I think is a legitimate concern of not wanting to toss out something valuable along with the waste. In a similar vein, you'll find some posters who don't think plagiarism is that big a deal with perhaps the fuzzy reasoning that truth is truth no matter the source. In a generic sense I guess I don't have a problem with that. Such as used in a criminal investigation – "your co-worker told us the truth – that you both conspired to steal the petty cash while assembling the office furniture near the paymaster's office."
But in a philosophical sense, perhaps truth is the aim of a belief system. I'm not sure – just throwing that out there. As a Christian I believe the Bible is true. I believe the Bible is true because I believe in God – and not the other way around. The fact that I am still a Christian after leaving TWI makes me wonder sometimes – is that the nature of faith, being raised in a Christian home, stubbornness, or afraid to think outside the box – I really don't know. I say that not as a means to soft sell my ideas but in an effort to be intellectually honest - expressing the limitations of being human.
Perhaps there are some "TWI-baptized" Christians reading this post - who wonder if a genuine faith is possible based on PFAL and other Way material class in which VP "demonstrated" that "The Word" fit together with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. In that case, I suggest a self-diagnostic might be in order.
I could be wrong but I tend to believe that if something is genuine it will withstand any acid test. And I don't mean testing the Bible or TWI doctrine for truth as in a philosophical sense as if you are endeavoring to validate the precepts therein. I said self-diagnostic. It's about developing intellectual standards in order to be as accurate and honest as possible during your process of analysis. I think that should be a lifelong ever-fine-tuning habit in anything worth doing.
Critical thinking involves YOU taking an active role in the reasoning process; that is the exact opposite of the mentally stifling "priori" in PFAL and other way material – there you are encouraged to absorb information – and NOT analyze it! In the Blue Book, VP Tells Me So…oops I mean The Bible Tells Me So, chapter 3 Are You Limiting God?, on page 23, VP states
"We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the knowledge that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual, where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true."
According to VP's premise you can just throw your brain overboard. You are then invited to come aboard the SSN TWI-Light - a "spiritually-deep" submersible vessel with the promise of fun and adventure like in the Yellow Submarine. However, do keep in mind the actual journey will be more like a lowly crew member in The Hunt for Red October; you will have to place complete trust in the captain – for only the captain knows the real plan and will keep you posted as to where you are in the vast ocean of doubt and uncertainty and what the conditions are topside….
by the way, if you happen to steal a peek through the periscope and see the SS Grease Spot – give us one ping and one ping only if you want to abandon ship – there's plenty of folks here at Grease Spot who can throw you a life preserver..... .....In order to navigate in the real world you must be willing and courageous to remove the nonsensical GPS provided by TWI – which by the way is the TWI mindset – it's the flux capacitor that makes TWI doctrine plausible. Some people mix metaphors – I usually do that through movie references /> .
As I was in the slowly-drifting-away-from-TWI phase of my journey – I committed one of my first acts of intellectual defiance. I purchased several commentaries at 50 cents each at an estate sale down the block. Nothing remarkable to report about the content – except that it gave me a glimpse of alternate viewpoints – with substantial arguments and legitimate references by genuine scholars.
One of them was Word Studies: Galatians in the Greek New Testament by Kenneth Wuest. It was just one short simple comment he made in passing that inspired me to re-examine my own knowledge of the Bible. He speculated what a doctrine-shattering experience Paul may have had after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Similarly in the months following my continuous drifting – I could describe the experience by adapting Paul's in a screenplay for two bizarre alternate TWI-Light episodes. In one version, I am the one who knocks VP off his high horse – a position that he assumed and I reinforced by holding him and his teachings in such high regard. In the other version, I am experiencing the TWI-doctrine-shattering effect of exposing the intellectual dishonesty of VP. Even with just the fledgling skills of a newcomer to critical thinking – I was able to see the stark reality of the nonsensical underpinnings of TWI-doctrine….Anyway, if you buy the DVD T-Bone's Diversion on the Road to TWI-Light, you can view both versions in bonus features. Warning this DVD is rated X – since I am an Ex-follower of TWI.
Doctrine: In seeking the "truth" in a doctrine or teaching perhaps restating the question is in order. A good starting point might be to ask if a particular doctrine or teaching stays true to the textual evidence and natural sense of the passage.
Contrary to popular belief in some circles doctrine is not God-breathed. It is man-made and is a theologian's attempt to organize relevant scripture on a given subject. The Bible reads like a collection of very long running narratives rather than a textbook on theology; and taking into account the variety of authors, their writing styles and vocabulary, the biblical languages, idioms, cultures, etc. - the process of codifying seemingly related ideas may prove to be a daunting task. I found the short and easy read of Alister McGrath's Understanding Doctrine helpful to putting doctrine in perspective:
Is formulating a doctrine even necessary? As a Christian I would say yes – and I also believe each Christian should take a more active role in developing their faith. A related topic is systematic theology. Systematic theology – a collection of biblical data arranged in an orderly, rational, and coherent manner to present the doctrines of the Christian faith. Systematic theologies are man-made too – and I enjoy reading the ones that I believe try to stay true to the textual evidence and natural sense of the scriptures.
One of the most interesting discussions you will find on Grease Spot is over the lack of logic and coherency in the theology of TWI. Perhaps even more mission critical to one's journey through life is looking at the practical impact of TWI's doctrine. That is a real acid test – where the rubber meets the road – where TWI-doctrine comes in contact with reality.
Flashing back to the time of my "protracted exit" again: I was in an office supply store copying some interesting pages out of a book I got from the library - Kingdom of the Cults. By the way – I am the area coordinator, on my practicum year corps assignment. In the store walks one of the WOWs sent to my town. Nervously I'm trying to hide the cover of the book I am copying – even though I had already announced to "my people" I was stepping down from my position and intend to re-examine all things yada, yada, yada. I did not want to alarm him by the latest resources I was checking out. Although I will mention with me being upfront about the doubts I had seemed to encourage honesty in others…Anyway the WOW told me he had just quit his job because he "could not think The Word there."
Reflecting on that time I really don't see that as a failure on the WOW's part. It's a failure of TWI doctrine – referring back to that acid test thing – it's the practical consequence of a belief system that does not work in the real world! One of the claims on the back of the PFAL sign up card was disciplines the mind by believing. All the drills, activities, exercises, regimens, positive affirmations, believing images of victory, yada, yada, yada does nothing to prepare one for work in the real world!
Another promise of TWI-doctrine is that it increases prosperity. Yeah – I sold an electric guitar, circular saw and cabinet clamps to have some money so I could hitch to and from the Rock of Ages…yeah increases prosperity my foot (well ….sometimes I did have to walk if a ride wasn't "available"). Develops more harmony in the home? Want to talk about the prevalence of divorces, families splitting up and maybe you want to throw in disassociating with anyone who doesn't think "The Word comes first."
It seems ridiculous to advertise that your "product" will enable you to achieve all these great things – when the experience of your customers proves otherwise. It might make more sense to join a monastery, take vows of poverty…celibacy or whatever monk candidates do to enroll – at least you're more likely to receive recognition by outsiders for the sacrifices you've made.
First, the salty language and all doesn't really bother me. And sometimes confrontation can get people to re-think things.
However, here's the rub for me. If people are yelling all the time at each other how is that example any different than the narcissistic drunkards rants or the foreheads screaming sessions, no matter how much truth a person feels they have all contained up inside themselves?
But overtly kind apologistic whitewash doesn't help either. I mean that's the realm of rosie the riveter and that is vomit inducing, especially when you are carrying on with Machiavellian antics behind the scenes kicking people out and firing them off staff just like the predecessor narcissists.
I mean we are all basically sitting around a large circle looking at a 100 foot high pile of steaming manure, and describing it from different perspectives, kind of like Plato's cave. Most of us have never met each other, so we are the actors reflected in the shadows. The actors do like to argue about who has more manure on the brain, but there are probably streaks of it in everyone's hair whether they realize it or not.
Which reality is real? Was that one? Or is this one now? I mean you can't divide your life and disassociate yourself from the past, no matter how hard we try. However at least this reality doesn't smell so bad and doesn't have us living like persecuted slaves.
What the f that has to do with decorum and tone I have no f'ing idea.
It had gotten to the point that my posts ignited a harsh exchange; I don't mind getting into heated "debate" but came to realize that it became personal rather than being professional and worse yet, counter productive to the purpose of GSC in helping new folks.
It was just as much my fault as that of anyone else - I just had the need to get in the last word.
I am having a great time lurking, there's plenty of great stuff to read and if I just hold my tongue for awhile, someone else will usually post my sentiments.
Recommended Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Your "effort" to assure kindness and decorum in discussion of TWIt-n-Vic is noble and admirable, WordWolf. It is also highly opinionated and expresses your opinions regarding "decorum" on these threads. Your OPINIONS are respected here as you know. However, imo, it is not the "official" proclamation of the history of GSC, nor its mission. To blame the lack of "decorum" on those who are the brunt of consistent ad hominem attacks and false allegations regarding mental state or motivation is self-serving and myopic imo. You know better. You've been here long enough. If the poor little posters can't speak on their own behalf why do you think that's the fault of other posters telling the TRUTH and FACTS about TWIt-n-Vic? Why is it YOUR job to speak for them? Your platitudinal hypothetical scenarios of various possible "personal conditions" of new posters or members are just that......hypothetical. Your opinions are not fact, nor should they be generalized to all new or long-time members here. Your opinions are exactly that, your opinions. They are respected and considered here. But they are NOT the governing rules of this site, imo. Everyone's honest opinion is valued here equally. If your position is that posting "style" or "decorum" is more important than delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic and the other side of the story, you have every right to post those opinions any time and anywhere you want. But I implore you, please do not insist that the rest of us are duty-bound to post according to your style preferences. Thanks, WordWolf, and........peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Thank you you for the "kind" words.
Thanks for noticing. I thought I made that clear in the second sentence when I said exactly that.
My opinion is my own, and I am entitled to it. I opened this discussion to open a dialogue
with the other posters about their opinions and my own. I mentioned that in the first 2 sentences.
As for the mission of the GSC, by all means, let's discuss it.
Was I incorrect? Where did I err?
Do you plain disagree? Exactly what is the point of divergence where we disagree?
You yourself posted recently that the GSC has always existed "to tell the other side of the story."
I thought that was common knowledge, and not open to dispute.
For that matter, that there IS to be SOME degree of decorum, at some level, is stated outright,
and not by me.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum."
Now then, if you disagree as to WHY we tell the other side of the story, by all means,
let's discuss that. I posted why I think we tell the other side of the story. Why do YOU
say we tell the other side of the story?
I know better, which is why I never said that.
(Some might characterize that misrepresentation of what I said as an "ad hominem attack",
but I'll start from the position that it's a misunderstanding.
I hold every single poster responsible for what they post and for how they post.
In general, when posters disagree, I ask for BOTH SIDES to post with kindness
rather than saying "You who started it first-cut it out first."
We're all adults here. Just as peace and accords can begin with one person,
decorum can also.
You left out the poor, little LURKERS also. They CAN speak on their own behalf. However, if they're under the impression that this place is hostile and unwelcoming, how many of them will post to try to set us straight? Very few have-and those usually have been the ones who were even MORE hostile than the ones they objected to. Those threads were moved to the Soap Opera forum.
I think their "inability" (their UNWILLINGNESS, as I see it) to address us IS the fault of the posters here.
Those who post in a hostile manner scare them off-and if we say nothing against it, we suggest we support that as the status quo, since "silence implies consent" is a well-known maxim.
I was thinking of specific posters in the past-the "hypothetical" is that present and future lurkers and posters would appear in the manner that others appeared.
For that matter, when I arrived, a hostile environment would have encouraged ME to leave promptly.
I never said that referred to "all new or long-time members here."
As for my opinions actually being opinions, yes, I believe I was the first one who pointed that out.
I also asked for the opinions of others-which are also opinions and not fact- if we need to
keep mentioning that.
That they are not the governing rules of this site is rather clear from their being my opinions.
(We're rephrasing that a lot.)
I might argue that everyone's opinion is not LITERALLY valued here equally, but that's a different
discussion, and I'd rather continue this one than get side-tracked to that one, at least for now.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever HOLD those opinions. I'll take it as axiomatic, then, that you'd say that
my actual opinions are equally welcome (or equally unwelcome, as the case may be.)
I never argued that "style" or "decorum" was MORE IMPORTANT than "delivering the Truths and Facts re:Twit-n-Vic"
nor MORE IMPORTANT THAN "the other side of the story." I have always maintained (for almost my entire posting history
back thru the ezboard days) that "the other side of the story" is the reason we are here- and I said so to begin with.
I consider this ANOTHER False Dilemma-
Choice 1- Tell The Truth and Facts about twi, vpw and so on in any manner whatsoever, even if it drives off posters and lurkers
Choice 2- Remain silent about the Truths and Facts about twi, vpw and so on-but be courteous to posters.
If the goal is "telling the other side of the story to people", then I reject BOTH positions as inferior.
To drive off posters and lurkers means they're not present to HEAR the other side of the story.
To remain silent but welcoming denies the lurkers and posters the information they need.
So, I would say:
Tell the other side of the story. Deliver the truths and facts on vpw, twi and all things related-
but remember that the people we're telling ARE PEOPLE, and getting personal with them, or just plain being rude
to posters, sends a message to them just as clearly as the INTENDED content, if not clearer.
Actually,
that's what I want to discuss. ARE we duty-bound to post with kindness?
The rules DO clearly say
"please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal."
BTW,
who said that courtesy and politeness were my personal preferences?
I can appreciate making it personal and letting someone have it as much as the next person.
More-if they were never a New Yorker, probably.
I've been thinking about my OWN culpability in this over the years, and the effect lots of posters-
including myself and including you- have had on lurkers especially, whether or not it's affected posters.
Again, this is a discussion forum.
Two of us have said our peace on this subject.
How about the rest of you?
What do YOU think?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
One man's ceiling is another man's floor. I stated my opinions, you stated your's. I agree to disagree with you. Argue at length with yourself. I look forward to more opinions from other posters, as I'm sure you do. Have a great day today. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'd like to see you guys (and others, TLC, MRAP, anyone else) hash this out peacefully. I think this thread is healthy. Please continue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'd like to see the discourse take place without general accusations which characterize posters' comments as supportive of TWI and offshoot dogma positions if the poster hasn't specifically indicated affinity or support for those groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I appreciate that comment and agree with the sentiment, Rocky, but given that from before the start of posting here I've never been supportive of TWI or of any offshoot dogma position (that I'm aware of), I'm inclined to think the chances of that happening here are probably about as close to nil as you can get. Of course, if you (or anyone) think(s) I'm wrong or mistaken about that and have been... well then, you're certainly free to prove me wrong by pointing out said post. (But do keep in mind that truth is truth, even if or when carved off the heel of the devil, and there's a great distance between finding any truth in what was/is taught - in spite of where it might have been plagiarized from - and being "supportive" of how it was/is done.)
As for the earlier statement that "everyone's honest opinion is valued here equally"... well, that's a joke. Okay, sure.... some here probably do live or think by that creed. But not all, that's for darn sure.
Personally, I'd much rather leave all the personal drama behind, and am far more intrigued and interested in the doctrinal side of what others do (or don't) think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm for that
I'm for that too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There's a lot of information in the threads by a number of the more regular, long-time, posters, who've spent years researching TWI, that ought, IMO, put that knowledge into article or book form and posted online. Less drama, more concise and easier to read. If resources to moderate discussion forums are scarce, wouldn't that be better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Watch for release this fall of Penworks' memoir, "Undertow." That will provide a great deal of insight.
Of course, I think it would be great if Skyrider and others wrote a memoir of their time in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think it's great we already have both! I've read a few revealing books by ex-way folks and as Rocky mentioned I also look forward to Penworks' Undertow – btw she does have a very interesting blog too. I bet there will be more books by others coming out in the future. WordWolf has done a fantastic job on various timelines – an invaluable resource on Grease Spot, and don't forget the analysis coherently expressed in podcasts and posts by some very articulate folks.
I'm ok with any drama at Grease Spot – I figure it comes with the territory; sorting through the ugly details, dealing with any mental baggage or just trying to articulate an issue can get messy and challenge one's interpersonal skills. I also believe when something rings true it comes across loud and clear through any "noise" – even if it has to make the long and arduous journey through emotionally laden posts
/> .
A lot can be said for the interaction on Grease Spot. I like the give and take dynamic on threads and in chat (haven't done that in a long time though) - you don't get that from reading a book.
(edited to add the interactive feature of Grease Spot - came to me 2 seconds after i posted)
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I heard a wonderful teaching yesterday. The preamble to it was the adage "hate the sin; love the sinner"; but it went on to describe HOW to do that. Certainly, Jesus had no problem spelling out for the Pharisees exactly what he thought of them, but how different his "tone" was in dealing with the woman caught in adultery. Her sin was not in question. The Law concerning the subject was clear. But Jesus dealt with her with great compassion. The point of the teaching is that we need to BE JESUS to people, especially at critical points in their lives. I think that that principle applies to posting as GSC, as well. In general, we should be loving to the others, even if they seem to be obstinate and wrong-headed. There may be times, though, when a stronger "tone" is appropriate. When Jesus let the Pharisees have it, it wasn't for the Pharisees' sakes (they weren't going to change), but for those "lurking."
George
PS. Part of the problem has been the removal of the politics thread. Now GSCers have no place to call each other Denebian Slime Worms, and get away with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky but I wanted to comment on "truth", plagiarism, and doctrine (i highlighted them in bold red in the above quote)
Plagiarism: I think VP is way beyond any sort of "typical" plagiarist you might find in the world of published authors. I don't really see him as any sort of theologian or scholar with more or less the same intellectual skills as his supposed peers and merely stealing a few ideas here and there from others. Like he was some dedicated scientist working on the cure for cancer and was so close he just lacked one ingredient to make it all work – and lo and behold that scientist over there figured it out…oh and that one too…and that one…and that one…
I suggest folks "upgrade" VP's status of plagiarist to grand impersonator…fraud extraordinaire. It's not like he demonstrated any proficiency of skills he "taught" in PFAL or alluded to in print. Those were merely scripts that any unschooled actor could follow. I will grant you this, his performance was certainly Oscar quality – but I don't think that can be attributed to some method acting skill but rather that he was so swallowed up in his own lies that he lived and moved and had his being inside a delusion.
If you've ever followed live presentations of his "doctrine" you may recall his ego-centric reasoning for making a particular point in a passage of scripture. At Advanced Class 78 and 79 and in teachings to in-residence way corps VP one of his most used techniques for adding weight to the point he was making was to suggest God revealed it to him or God was reigning him in so he wouldn't say too much. You hardly ever hear him driving a point home by utilizing one of those "keys on how the Bible interprets itself".
For example, "Father showed me the heart of this…" or "Father says shut up Wierwille." And maybe it was at PFAL 77 (it's been so long I can't remember the setting) he talked about how when God wanted him to focus on a word in scripture "the Father would make that word appear real big like it was one inch high." I don't know if he had his prosthetic eye put in yet – but if so – maybe it was actually bionic and the zoom feature was acting up. All kidding aside – my point is these incidents give you a glimpse behind the theologian-scholar-man-of-god façade that VP had erected – with the help of devoted fans of course.
Truth: There have been discussions that basically asked did you throw the baby out with the bathwater; which I think is a legitimate concern of not wanting to toss out something valuable along with the waste. In a similar vein, you'll find some posters who don't think plagiarism is that big a deal with perhaps the fuzzy reasoning that truth is truth no matter the source. In a generic sense I guess I don't have a problem with that. Such as used in a criminal investigation – "your co-worker told us the truth – that you both conspired to steal the petty cash while assembling the office furniture near the paymaster's office."
But in a philosophical sense, perhaps truth is the aim of a belief system. I'm not sure – just throwing that out there. As a Christian I believe the Bible is true. I believe the Bible is true because I believe in God – and not the other way around. The fact that I am still a Christian after leaving TWI makes me wonder sometimes – is that the nature of faith, being raised in a Christian home, stubbornness, or afraid to think outside the box – I really don't know. I say that not as a means to soft sell my ideas but in an effort to be intellectually honest - expressing the limitations of being human.
Perhaps there are some "TWI-baptized" Christians reading this post - who wonder if a genuine faith is possible based on PFAL and other Way material class in which VP "demonstrated" that "The Word" fit together with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision. In that case, I suggest a self-diagnostic might be in order.
I could be wrong but I tend to believe that if something is genuine it will withstand any acid test. And I don't mean testing the Bible or TWI doctrine for truth as in a philosophical sense as if you are endeavoring to validate the precepts therein. I said self-diagnostic. It's about developing intellectual standards in order to be as accurate and honest as possible during your process of analysis. I think that should be a lifelong ever-fine-tuning habit in anything worth doing.
Critical thinking involves YOU taking an active role in the reasoning process; that is the exact opposite of the mentally stifling "priori" in PFAL and other way material – there you are encouraged to absorb information – and NOT analyze it! In the Blue Book, VP Tells Me So…oops I mean The Bible Tells Me So, chapter 3 Are You Limiting God?, on page 23, VP states
"We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the knowledge that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual, where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true."
According to VP's premise you can just throw your brain overboard. You are then invited to come aboard the SSN TWI-Light - a "spiritually-deep" submersible vessel with the promise of fun and adventure like in the Yellow Submarine. However, do keep in mind the actual journey will be more like a lowly crew member in The Hunt for Red October; you will have to place complete trust in the captain – for only the captain knows the real plan and will keep you posted as to where you are in the vast ocean of doubt and uncertainty and what the conditions are topside….
by the way, if you happen to steal a peek through the periscope and see the SS Grease Spot – give us one ping and one ping only if you want to abandon ship – there's plenty of folks here at Grease Spot who can throw you a life preserver..... ..... In order to navigate in the real world you must be willing and courageous to remove the nonsensical GPS provided by TWI – which by the way is the TWI mindset – it's the flux capacitor that makes TWI doctrine plausible. Some people mix metaphors – I usually do that through movie references
/> .
As I was in the slowly-drifting-away-from-TWI phase of my journey – I committed one of my first acts of intellectual defiance. I purchased several commentaries at 50 cents each at an estate sale down the block. Nothing remarkable to report about the content – except that it gave me a glimpse of alternate viewpoints – with substantial arguments and legitimate references by genuine scholars.
One of them was Word Studies: Galatians in the Greek New Testament by Kenneth Wuest. It was just one short simple comment he made in passing that inspired me to re-examine my own knowledge of the Bible. He speculated what a doctrine-shattering experience Paul may have had after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Similarly in the months following my continuous drifting – I could describe the experience by adapting Paul's in a screenplay for two bizarre alternate TWI-Light episodes. In one version, I am the one who knocks VP off his high horse – a position that he assumed and I reinforced by holding him and his teachings in such high regard. In the other version, I am experiencing the TWI-doctrine-shattering effect of exposing the intellectual dishonesty of VP. Even with just the fledgling skills of a newcomer to critical thinking – I was able to see the stark reality of the nonsensical underpinnings of TWI-doctrine….Anyway, if you buy the DVD T-Bone's Diversion on the Road to TWI-Light, you can view both versions in bonus features. Warning this DVD is rated X – since I am an Ex-follower of TWI.
Doctrine: In seeking the "truth" in a doctrine or teaching perhaps restating the question is in order. A good starting point might be to ask if a particular doctrine or teaching stays true to the textual evidence and natural sense of the passage.
Contrary to popular belief in some circles doctrine is not God-breathed. It is man-made and is a theologian's attempt to organize relevant scripture on a given subject. The Bible reads like a collection of very long running narratives rather than a textbook on theology; and taking into account the variety of authors, their writing styles and vocabulary, the biblical languages, idioms, cultures, etc. - the process of codifying seemingly related ideas may prove to be a daunting task. I found the short and easy read of Alister McGrath's Understanding Doctrine helpful to putting doctrine in perspective:
https://www.amazon.c...anding+doctrine
Is formulating a doctrine even necessary? As a Christian I would say yes – and I also believe each Christian should take a more active role in developing their faith. A related topic is systematic theology. Systematic theology – a collection of biblical data arranged in an orderly, rational, and coherent manner to present the doctrines of the Christian faith. Systematic theologies are man-made too – and I enjoy reading the ones that I believe try to stay true to the textual evidence and natural sense of the scriptures.
One of the most interesting discussions you will find on Grease Spot is over the lack of logic and coherency in the theology of TWI. Perhaps even more mission critical to one's journey through life is looking at the practical impact of TWI's doctrine. That is a real acid test – where the rubber meets the road – where TWI-doctrine comes in contact with reality.
Flashing back to the time of my "protracted exit" again: I was in an office supply store copying some interesting pages out of a book I got from the library - Kingdom of the Cults. By the way – I am the area coordinator, on my practicum year corps assignment. In the store walks one of the WOWs sent to my town. Nervously I'm trying to hide the cover of the book I am copying – even though I had already announced to "my people" I was stepping down from my position and intend to re-examine all things yada, yada, yada. I did not want to alarm him by the latest resources I was checking out. Although I will mention with me being upfront about the doubts I had seemed to encourage honesty in others…Anyway the WOW told me he had just quit his job because he "could not think The Word there."
Reflecting on that time I really don't see that as a failure on the WOW's part. It's a failure of TWI doctrine – referring back to that acid test thing – it's the practical consequence of a belief system that does not work in the real world! One of the claims on the back of the PFAL sign up card was disciplines the mind by believing. All the drills, activities, exercises, regimens, positive affirmations, believing images of victory, yada, yada, yada does nothing to prepare one for work in the real world!
Another promise of TWI-doctrine is that it increases prosperity. Yeah – I sold an electric guitar, circular saw and cabinet clamps to have some money so I could hitch to and from the Rock of Ages…yeah increases prosperity my foot (well ….sometimes I did have to walk if a ride wasn't "available"). Develops more harmony in the home? Want to talk about the prevalence of divorces, families splitting up and maybe you want to throw in disassociating with anyone who doesn't think "The Word comes first."
It seems ridiculous to advertise that your "product" will enable you to achieve all these great things – when the experience of your customers proves otherwise. It might make more sense to join a monastery, take vows of poverty…celibacy or whatever monk candidates do to enroll – at least you're more likely to receive recognition by outsiders for the sacrifices you've made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Thanks for that post, T-Bone. Good stuff to ponder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So - decorum and tone here.
First, the salty language and all doesn't really bother me. And sometimes confrontation can get people to re-think things.
However, here's the rub for me. If people are yelling all the time at each other how is that example any different than the narcissistic drunkards rants or the foreheads screaming sessions, no matter how much truth a person feels they have all contained up inside themselves?
But overtly kind apologistic whitewash doesn't help either. I mean that's the realm of rosie the riveter and that is vomit inducing, especially when you are carrying on with Machiavellian antics behind the scenes kicking people out and firing them off staff just like the predecessor narcissists.
I mean we are all basically sitting around a large circle looking at a 100 foot high pile of steaming manure, and describing it from different perspectives, kind of like Plato's cave. Most of us have never met each other, so we are the actors reflected in the shadows. The actors do like to argue about who has more manure on the brain, but there are probably streaks of it in everyone's hair whether they realize it or not.
Which reality is real? Was that one? Or is this one now? I mean you can't divide your life and disassociate yourself from the past, no matter how hard we try. However at least this reality doesn't smell so bad and doesn't have us living like persecuted slaves.
What the f that has to do with decorum and tone I have no f'ing idea.
Carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Chockfull nailed it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Excellent thread choice WW.
I suppose that I now ID as a "lurker".
It had gotten to the point that my posts ignited a harsh exchange; I don't mind getting into heated "debate" but came to realize that it became personal rather than being professional and worse yet, counter productive to the purpose of GSC in helping new folks.
It was just as much my fault as that of anyone else - I just had the need to get in the last word.
I am having a great time lurking, there's plenty of great stuff to read and if I just hold my tongue for awhile, someone else will usually post my sentiments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
There is no shortage of opinions. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
How 'bout a round of cappuccino for everyone….
….and I snuck in some Saint Brendan's Irish Cream in case anyone wants to jazz it up
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that Galen just posted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Do you find this unusual ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Did you say something that suggests you were looking for feedback (in your prior comment)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
All opinions to the decorum and tone of discussions are valid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, that would be your opinion. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I thought calling for a round of cappuccino said enough
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.