"I think that's the point skyrider was making when he stated the thread wasn't about JAL but TWI's rather sordid practice of character assasination of people who passed away. Why not move his stance on health care to another thread dedicated for that? Or does any post that could be remotely related to JAL become a public health pedestal? Obviously, there are people who realllllly want to discuss this facet of his beliefs based on the video......"
I think that's the point skyrider was making when he stated the thread wasn't about JAL but TWI's rather sordid practice of character assasination of people who passed away. Why not move his stance on health care to another thread dedicated for that? Or does any post that could be remotely related to JAL become a public health pedestal? Obviously, there are people who realllllly want to discuss this facet of his beliefs based on the video that was posted in another thread where he was interviewed and his views ran cross purposes to the main stream medai's. Personally, I was really hoping this thread could stay on track with the OP's desires. If this has to be that platform then I will bow out as well.
Relatively speaking to grease spot cafe, which is all about the way international and it's splinter groups. Is Rosalie, Vern, Bill, John, or Angela public figures? Yeah same logic applies.
The question I intended to ask wasn't "relatively speaking."
5 hours ago, Rocky said:
That part to me is distasteful and done all too often for political gain by our politicians and mass media.
The question I asked was a response to this statement you (old skool) made. If you meant something different, please clarify.
You also said, "On the other hand, respectful discussion of his view points and advocated positions is fair game and I am more than willing to delve into any facet of what he publicly taught. "
Is that not what was taking place when you took issue with posting the video of JAL?
Relatively speaking to grease spot cafe, which is all about the way international and it's splinter groups. Is Rosalie, Vern, Bill, John, or Angela public figures? Yeah same logic applies.
I'm not understanding what you're getting at. Those people have neither passed away nor publicly proclaimed any particular controversial perspective. What am I missing here?
The nastiest bit of character assassination - well, two bits really - were these:
(1) Rev W1ll1e Thomas's daughter died - she'd been on drugs, reason she died. The lovable LCM hugged and consoled him, right? NO WAY! He blasted W1ll1e at Corps Night and said he wasn't capable of taking care of his family, therefore wasn't capable of looking after people at TWI, and removed him from his position at TWI, and (if I recall aright) M&A'd him. LCM also banned anyone from speaking with Rev T, consoling him or otherwise being in contact. I never saw Rev T again.
(2) A young wife, Corps grad, wanted a natural birth. She'd been at HQ and some higher-up started pontificating about how and where she should have the baby. Things went wrong, she died, the baby lived, and the distraught husband and new father was castigated very unpleasantly for not having sufficient control of his wife. I think that was most of another Corps Night. I did see this young father and his baby later on grounds, though. Perhaps he never knew of the calumny heaped upon his head.
These recollections are true. I was there. I heard it all at max volume at Corps Nights.
I also heard much other denigration of people who left voluntarily, were kicked out, or died. But these two events were outstanding.
Those are deplorable incidents. What has come up this week regarding JAL's legacy are clearly unrelated to that kind of conduct.
"If this has to be that platform then I will bow out as well." OldSkool
Well, I guess that makes two of us. This thread has been derailed from its original purpose.
I disagree. This thread progressed to directly address how and why what has been posted about JAL's legacy is NOT character assassination. Directly addressed your issue and concern in the context of the contemporaneous issue at hand.
If I recall correctly, you expressed concern over the TWI practice of character assassination, which we know (understand) took/takes place whenever the cult organization feels threatened by someone or something.
If I read your concern incorrectly, please help me understand better. Thank you.
I will point out there is a Memorium post (in that forum) for Lynn. Last I looked, there was exactly one reply to it. Those who wish to not discuss his controversial stance on the primary health issue of the past two years should avail themselves of that thread, where accusations against him will not be entertained.
Other than in the Memorium thread, feel free to express yourselves on the subject where appropriate. You needn’t wait six months as a grieving period for John. His legacy is ongoing his teaching is currently continuing to affect others as of this day. Lynn made himself fair game on the subject, and spent years developing- and teaching to others- his position. It was not a single, momentary, lapse. It was nothing like the examples given in this thread from TWI’s legacy. He taught it for years.
That being said, this thread is in “About The Way”, and as such, The Way Int. should be the *primary* focus.
However, in the OP’s second post on this thread, he indicated that part of the reason the topic came to mind was the direction the Lynn Legacy discussion in Open Forum had taken. It was reasonable therefore for that controversy to be mentioned here also, with an explanation as to how it differed from the given examples of TWI’s practice. Point made.
A) He said masks are useless against COVID. That's false. That was known `100 years ago with the "Spanish Flu" and it's true now as well. He said all the authorities speaking up were wrong and that if you listened to the "right sources", you'd know that. No mention of WHO those right sources were, can't fact-check if he's correct, of course. At that level, he's floating a rumor.
If this post ends up getting chopped up by staff, I'm sorry. I tried to stick to the medical facts and as clear of politics as I could manage.
Allan says :There is often 'two sides' to a debate and I'll admit, it's getting harder and harder to elicit, ascertain truth from 'mainstream media'....I and many others I know choose NOT to wear a mask, believing it's better to exhale viral loads than breathe them into a mask and re-ingest it again !! There has really only been ONE unbiased study into mask wearing benefits/non-benefits and that was the Danmask-19 study trial. The results were inconclusive...of test subjects wearing masks 47% still contracted Corona. Of the test subjects NOT wearing masks, 53%...make up your own mind but don't damn well 'mandate' mine for me !!
Allan says :There is often 'two sides' to a debate and I'll admit, it's getting harder and harder to elicit, ascertain truth from 'mainstream media'....I and many others I know choose NOT to wear a mask, believing it's better to exhale viral loads than breathe them into a mask and re-ingest it again !! There has really only been ONE unbiased study into mask wearing benefits/non-benefits and that was the Danmask-19 study trial. The results were inconclusive...of test subjects wearing masks 47% still contracted Corona. Of the test subjects NOT wearing masks, 53%...make up your own mind but don't damn well 'mandate' mine for me !!
My original post made NO reference to any one person. My intent was to start a discussion about the CONCEPT. As I've said, twi leadership would go into attack mode on the individual immediately upon death.......lest the ministry be blamed. More often than not.....it funneled the end of one's life down to a fraction of minor decisions. This topic could be worthy of discussion if we delve into the wide spectrum of life and lilving.
If others choose to make this thread all about the recent passing of John Lynn, then I will bow out.
Peace.
Your original post- and the thread- was posted/begin right now SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of one person. Please don't pretend it was an amazing coincidence.
We've been discussing the difference between what twi did and what we consider appropriate for the entire length of the thread. It's not "all about" JAL any more than it's "all about" twi's former practices of the hatchet job at the microphone.
I wasn't aware that Lynn had died. But I was aware of the character assassination that took place upon death on occasion, often of people who, up until death, were 100% cheerleaders for whatever Martindale or Wierwille were peddling. If these people were suck F-ups, why were they in leadership positions in the first place? (not saying they WERE F-ups, just that post-mortem, LCM SAID they were). For a group that was so hot on "discerning of spirits" and "in-depth spiritual awareness", they sure were terrible at spotting spiritual issues until it became completely obvious.
Did one of my posts get eaten yesterday?
What twi did was to have people who were lock-step with them until one day they disagreed- then twi immediately went in to hatchet jobs, slandering their reputations, screaming about them, and trying to ruin their lives while ostracizing them. If twi was to be believed, those people were model twi'ers until the day they left- when they suddenly became villains of the deepest dye who must be avoided at all costs.
The nastiest bit of character assassination - well, two bits really - were these:
(1) Rev W1ll1e Thomas's daughter died - she'd been on drugs, reason she died. The lovable LCM hugged and consoled him, right? NO WAY! He blasted W1ll1e at Corps Night and said he wasn't capable of taking care of his family, therefore wasn't capable of looking after people at TWI, and removed him from his position at TWI, and (if I recall aright) M&A'd him. LCM also banned anyone from speaking with Rev T, consoling him or otherwise being in contact. I never saw Rev T again.
(2) A young wife, Corps grad, wanted a natural birth. She'd been at HQ and some higher-up started pontificating about how and where she should have the baby. Things went wrong, she died, the baby lived, and the distraught husband and new father was castigated very unpleasantly for not having sufficient control of his wife. I think that was most of another Corps Night. I did see this young father and his baby later on grounds, though. Perhaps he never knew of the calumny heaped upon his head.
These recollections are true. I was there. I heard it all at max volume at Corps Nights.
I also heard much other denigration of people who left voluntarily, were kicked out, or died. But these two events were outstanding.
Few of us are so thick that we can't see that these were unacceptable and mean-spirited, and unhealthy.
"If this has to be that platform then I will bow out as well." OldSkool
Well, I guess that makes two of us. This thread has been derailed from its original purpose.
Then that's two of you. The original purpose is still being discussed, and there's more being compared and contrasted at the same time. Threads take on a life of their own, and that's hardly news.
WordWolf quote: "Your original post- and the thread- was posted/begin right now SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of one person. Please don't pretend it was an amazing coincidence."
My original post was posted ONE WEEK AFTER a controversial ex-twi leader died. When the announcement of Lynn's death was posted in the Open Forum, John Lynn's Legacy .... there was a sharp division amongst posters. Some wanted to immediately detail John's stance on vaccines, mask wearing, etc. and relate that to his death (leaving the underlying cancer issues and any other personal health issues aside). Others suggested that it was not the proper time to address these issues and to keep it a memorial thread.
So, a week passed by......and I started a thread to address the CONCEPT that *The Way International leadership used one's death as a tactic to publically (and selectively) castigate or disparage corps upon death.* Sure, the subject matter (the concept) had relevance to the death of John Lynn.......BUT in my original post, I made no mention of Lynn. I highlighted my stance in this paragraph stating......."There have been dozens of corps who were laid bare as examples of what not to do. Corps meetings were laced with them. Oftentimes, it would be the centerpiece of what wierwille or martindale wanted to indoctrinate us with that night. In hindsight, we were incrementally manipulated and herded into their agendas. This was not education...... this was manipulation, indoctrination and exploitation."
So, I thought discussing the CONCEPT of this tactic was pertinent.
Having sat thru hundreds of corps meetings noting how twi-leadership use this tactic.......to me, was grating and disturbing. I detest it strongly. And, when it appeared to be "raising its ugly head" here at the GSC Community.....I thought it pertinent to draw attention to it. Not the person, the concept.
If others choose to discuss John Lynn's stance on mask mandates, vaccines, lockdowns, freedom vs tyranny, governmental overlords, etc........ then start another thread and address that. My thread was NOT for that purpose.
1. No. That discussion fits perfectly fine on the legacy thread and here, for the reasons outlined. It really seems you want to have it both ways, indirectly criticizing what happened on the first thread by comparing it to the character assassination carried out in and by TWI. It is perfectly "on topic" to demonstrate how what happened on the legacy thread does NOT match the distasteful conduct described in the opening post.
2. Allan's post, for anyone reading, is deadly misinformation of the sort that encourages the spread of COVID, filling hospital beds and funeral homes across the country. JAL died spreading it.
Masks work. Allan posted a link defending his view. Here's my link supporting mine. This thread is not about masks, but it was a fair response to the discussion. That sub-subject is now closed.
1. No. That discussion fits perfectly fine on the legacy thread and here, for the reasons outlined. It really seems you want to have it both ways, indirectly criticizing what happened on the first thread by comparing it to the character assassination carried out in and by TWI. It is perfectly "on topic" to demonstrate how what happened on the legacy threaddoes NOT matchthe distasteful conduct described in the opening post.
2. Allan's post, for anyone reading, is deadlymisinformation of the sort that encourages the spread of COVID, filling hospital beds and funeral homes across the country. JAL died spreading it.
Have it both ways?
Several posters agreed that the "John Lynn's Legacy" thread in the Open Forum was not cool (not proper). Are we to funnel the "legacy" of his life of some 50 years of Christian service into the context of lambasting him for his stance on mask wearing, vaccinations, etc.?? The concept of disparaging someone upon death is unseemly.
As we all know......even doctors disagree right now on the vaccine mandates, mask wearing, etc. It's everywhere.....all over the internet. Can't we have a discussion ON ANOTHER THREAD about that?
Why are nurses refusing the vaccines? Is this a topic of discussion? Medical Institutions have politicized this debate.
And, as we all know........here at GSC, politics is not allowed. Right?
This has nothing to do with respecting JAL's legacy and everything to do with stifling the observation that he spread the kind of misinformation that killed him.
I keep addressing how unseemly and disturbing it is to funnel the legacy of someone's life into fragments.....John Lynn served in Christian ministry for over 50 years and we are supposed to highlight that???
You keep talking about how he spread misinformation. If you want to address point-by-point this misinformation...... why don't you start another thread and put the bullet points out there?
But instead of discussing his legacy on the thread about his legacy, you started a whole new thread comparing people who discuss that one part of his legacy to THE WORST of TWI, then have a massive case of the vapors when it's pointed out, on topic, they are not the same thing. Top it off with the snti-vax viewpoint you just could not contain.
Let's get this straight: there is a JAL legacy thread, and no one is stopping anyone from commenting on any aspect of his legacy. YOU chose to start this thread to rsk-tsk those who made a perfectly valid observation. No one made you do that, and to blame us for derailing the thread when you're the one who laid the tracks is disingenuous at best.
Now. I am not going to spend my entire Sunday defending science and public health against a crackpot fringe that wants to turn those things into political issues when they are not. If you want to honor JAL's legacy, there are two threads where that is fair game. If you want to complain about TWI character assassinations, feel free.
But if you want to casually equate the two, pushback is fair game.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
12
23
8
Popular Days
Oct 2
31
Oct 3
18
Oct 4
15
Oct 9
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 14 posts
skyrider 12 posts
Rocky 23 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
Popular Days
Oct 2 2021
31 posts
Oct 3 2021
18 posts
Oct 4 2021
15 posts
Oct 9 2021
15 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
Ah, but a DIFFERENT thread is a memorial. I was going to leave that thread completely alone. I had no PERSONAL dealings with JAL, and thus no memories to share. I also wasn't going to make a new
Raf
Not for a moment do I think it's fair game to go after grieving family members.
waysider
I apologize for being drawn into what became a side discussion. I felt the need to clarify some information that I felt had the potential for misinterpretation. That being said, I'm remind
skyrider
"I think that's the point skyrider was making when he stated the thread wasn't about JAL but TWI's rather sordid practice of character assasination of people who passed away. Why not move his stance on health care to another thread dedicated for that? Or does any post that could be remotely related to JAL become a public health pedestal? Obviously, there are people who realllllly want to discuss this facet of his beliefs based on the video......"
OldSkool....... I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
"If this has to be that platform then I will bow out as well." OldSkool
Well, I guess that makes two of us. This thread has been derailed from its original purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The question I intended to ask wasn't "relatively speaking."
The question I asked was a response to this statement you (old skool) made. If you meant something different, please clarify.
Edited by RockyYou also said, "On the other hand, respectful discussion of his view points and advocated positions is fair game and I am more than willing to delve into any facet of what he publicly taught. "
Is that not what was taking place when you took issue with posting the video of JAL?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm not understanding what you're getting at. Those people have neither passed away nor publicly proclaimed any particular controversial perspective. What am I missing here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Those are deplorable incidents. What has come up this week regarding JAL's legacy are clearly unrelated to that kind of conduct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I disagree. This thread progressed to directly address how and why what has been posted about JAL's legacy is NOT character assassination. Directly addressed your issue and concern in the context of the contemporaneous issue at hand.
If I recall correctly, you expressed concern over the TWI practice of character assassination, which we know (understand) took/takes place whenever the cult organization feels threatened by someone or something.
If I read your concern incorrectly, please help me understand better. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There's like half a dozen subjects popping up over the passing of one person not named VPW.
And everyone's a medical expert now.
Maybe ban all discussions around this passing for six months. If a subject is important it will come up again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Seriously?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Modgellan
I will point out there is a Memorium post (in that forum) for Lynn. Last I looked, there was exactly one reply to it. Those who wish to not discuss his controversial stance on the primary health issue of the past two years should avail themselves of that thread, where accusations against him will not be entertained.
Other than in the Memorium thread, feel free to express yourselves on the subject where appropriate. You needn’t wait six months as a grieving period for John. His legacy is ongoing his teaching is currently continuing to affect others as of this day. Lynn made himself fair game on the subject, and spent years developing- and teaching to others- his position. It was not a single, momentary, lapse. It was nothing like the examples given in this thread from TWI’s legacy. He taught it for years.
That being said, this thread is in “About The Way”, and as such, The Way Int. should be the *primary* focus.
However, in the OP’s second post on this thread, he indicated that part of the reason the topic came to mind was the direction the Lynn Legacy discussion in Open Forum had taken. It was reasonable therefore for that controversy to be mentioned here also, with an explanation as to how it differed from the given examples of TWI’s practice. Point made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Allan says :There is often 'two sides' to a debate and I'll admit, it's getting harder and harder to elicit, ascertain truth from 'mainstream media'....I and many others I know choose NOT to wear a mask, believing it's better to exhale viral loads than breathe them into a mask and re-ingest it again !! There has really only been ONE unbiased study into mask wearing benefits/non-benefits and that was the Danmask-19 study trial. The results were inconclusive...of test subjects wearing masks 47% still contracted Corona. Of the test subjects NOT wearing masks, 53%...make up your own mind but don't damn well 'mandate' mine for me !!
link supplied The curious case of the Danish mask study | The BMJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That, I don't think, was the discussion subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Your original post- and the thread- was posted/begin right now SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of one person. Please don't pretend it was an amazing coincidence.
We've been discussing the difference between what twi did and what we consider appropriate for the entire length of the thread. It's not "all about" JAL any more than it's "all about" twi's former practices of the hatchet job at the microphone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Did one of my posts get eaten yesterday?
What twi did was to have people who were lock-step with them until one day they disagreed- then twi immediately went in to hatchet jobs, slandering their reputations, screaming about them, and trying to ruin their lives while ostracizing them. If twi was to be believed, those people were model twi'ers until the day they left- when they suddenly became villains of the deepest dye who must be avoided at all costs.
(That's more or less what the other post said.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Few of us are so thick that we can't see that these were unacceptable and mean-spirited, and unhealthy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Then that's two of you. The original purpose is still being discussed, and there's more being compared and contrasted at the same time. Threads take on a life of their own, and that's hardly news.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It doesn't even show an understanding of what the things are for- which is MAKING OTHER PEOPLE SAFE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
My original post was posted ONE WEEK AFTER a controversial ex-twi leader died. When the announcement of Lynn's death was posted in the Open Forum, John Lynn's Legacy .... there was a sharp division amongst posters. Some wanted to immediately detail John's stance on vaccines, mask wearing, etc. and relate that to his death (leaving the underlying cancer issues and any other personal health issues aside). Others suggested that it was not the proper time to address these issues and to keep it a memorial thread.
So, a week passed by......and I started a thread to address the CONCEPT that *The Way International leadership used one's death as a tactic to publically (and selectively) castigate or disparage corps upon death.* Sure, the subject matter (the concept) had relevance to the death of John Lynn.......BUT in my original post, I made no mention of Lynn. I highlighted my stance in this paragraph stating......."There have been dozens of corps who were laid bare as examples of what not to do. Corps meetings were laced with them. Oftentimes, it would be the centerpiece of what wierwille or martindale wanted to indoctrinate us with that night. In hindsight, we were incrementally manipulated and herded into their agendas. This was not education...... this was manipulation, indoctrination and exploitation."
So, I thought discussing the CONCEPT of this tactic was pertinent.
Having sat thru hundreds of corps meetings noting how twi-leadership use this tactic.......to me, was grating and disturbing. I detest it strongly. And, when it appeared to be "raising its ugly head" here at the GSC Community.....I thought it pertinent to draw attention to it. Not the person, the concept.
If others choose to discuss John Lynn's stance on mask mandates, vaccines, lockdowns, freedom vs tyranny, governmental overlords, etc........ then start another thread and address that. My thread was NOT for that purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. No. That discussion fits perfectly fine on the legacy thread and here, for the reasons outlined. It really seems you want to have it both ways, indirectly criticizing what happened on the first thread by comparing it to the character assassination carried out in and by TWI. It is perfectly "on topic" to demonstrate how what happened on the legacy thread does NOT match the distasteful conduct described in the opening post.
2. Allan's post, for anyone reading, is deadly misinformation of the sort that encourages the spread of COVID, filling hospital beds and funeral homes across the country. JAL died spreading it.
Masks work. Allan posted a link defending his view. Here's my link supporting mine. This thread is not about masks, but it was a fair response to the discussion. That sub-subject is now closed.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Have it both ways?
Several posters agreed that the "John Lynn's Legacy" thread in the Open Forum was not cool (not proper). Are we to funnel the "legacy" of his life of some 50 years of Christian service into the context of lambasting him for his stance on mask wearing, vaccinations, etc.?? The concept of disparaging someone upon death is unseemly.
As we all know......even doctors disagree right now on the vaccine mandates, mask wearing, etc. It's everywhere.....all over the internet. Can't we have a discussion ON ANOTHER THREAD about that?
Why are nurses refusing the vaccines? Is this a topic of discussion? Medical Institutions have politicized this debate.
And, as we all know........here at GSC, politics is not allowed. Right?
Even Bill Maher says these health issues have become political.......Real Time with Bill Maher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well THAT didn't take long.
This has nothing to do with respecting JAL's legacy and everything to do with stifling the observation that he spread the kind of misinformation that killed him.
Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
We keep talking PAST EACH OTHER.
I keep addressing how unseemly and disturbing it is to funnel the legacy of someone's life into fragments.....John Lynn served in Christian ministry for over 50 years and we are supposed to highlight that???
You keep talking about how he spread misinformation. If you want to address point-by-point this misinformation...... why don't you start another thread and put the bullet points out there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But instead of discussing his legacy on the thread about his legacy, you started a whole new thread comparing people who discuss that one part of his legacy to THE WORST of TWI, then have a massive case of the vapors when it's pointed out, on topic, they are not the same thing. Top it off with the snti-vax viewpoint you just could not contain.
Let's get this straight: there is a JAL legacy thread, and no one is stopping anyone from commenting on any aspect of his legacy. YOU chose to start this thread to rsk-tsk those who made a perfectly valid observation. No one made you do that, and to blame us for derailing the thread when you're the one who laid the tracks is disingenuous at best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now. I am not going to spend my entire Sunday defending science and public health against a crackpot fringe that wants to turn those things into political issues when they are not. If you want to honor JAL's legacy, there are two threads where that is fair game. If you want to complain about TWI character assassinations, feel free.
But if you want to casually equate the two, pushback is fair game.
Decide how you want to spend your Sunday.
Edited by RafLink 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.