Ha you’ve noticed my comedic anomaly- before I responded to Nathan, I looked up definition of ectoplasm and read it was a supernatural viscous substance… you know me and my twisted mind - I thought vicious was a better fit since a lot of wierwille’s baloney is deliberately cruel and violent.
58. wierwille’s process of getting back to the original God-breathed Word was by assuming his comments of the KJV were God-breathed…this eventually became known as “The Word” by PFAL grads.
61. the hypocrisy of “the teacher” who doesn’t use the interpretive “keys” he pushed in PFAL
On more than one occasion I witnessed wierwille explain to a packed crowd about how he knew what he should look into when “researching” the Bible. His answer was usually something like God would usually make a word or phrase appear one inch high in my Bible.
Why didn’t he reveal that in PFAL. There’s something fishy about that. I don’t know about you, but if there’s one important lesson I’ve learned from believing a fraudster for 12 years – it’s that I should be highly suspicious of someone who can’t walk me through how they figured out a problem or came up with an idea. We’re not talking rocket science here – just a simple explanation of a thought process. How did you get from point A to B to C to D?
You can think what you want about wierwille’s supposedly one-inch-high-divine-directives in Bible research – but do you know what I think? Those were live teaching situations. It was like an interview with an actor who doesn’t have a script in front of him…a script that he plagiarized…he didn’t write it. I think wierwille’s go-to strategy most of the time was to wing it anyway. Who needs a plan or a standard to go by – when God will be there to guide you.
There’s a great scene in the 1988 film Working Girlit’s about an ambitious secretary who takes over her new boss's role while the boss is laid up with a broken leg. The secretary, who has been going to business night school, pitches a profitable idea, only to have the boss attempt to take credit. There’s a great scene where a client asks the boss how did you come up with the idea – see clip -How did you come up with the idea for Trask to buy out Metro?
God would usually make a word or phrase appear one inch high in my Bible
Yes, I heard him teach that live at the AC. I'm not sure, but it must have been in his teaching on word of knowledge. He also taught, in the discerning of spirits session, I think, that he could tell if someone was born again of the devil because he could see a black heart in them. (white=holy spirit/black=seed of satan/nothing=unbeliever)
62. PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and the Christian lifestyle becomes more about having a relationship with a book than with a person.
Do you remember the PFAL session on the fall of man? wierwille contrasted knowledge that comes to us via the five senses as opposed to revelation faith.
He goes into Genesis 2andGenesis 3. Most Grease Spotters probably still remember the drill on the road down. wierwille’s narrative develops this imaginative and scary scenario of a devilish ploy to slowly demolish “the true Word” – and he insinuates that it is still used today: questioning “The Word”, changing “The Word”, adding a word, etc.
Few details are given – yet wierwille picks Genesis 3 apart like a CSI investigation. What was the forbidden fruit? The Bible doesn’t say. What was the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The Bible doesn’t say. How long was the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be in effect? The Bible doesn’t say.
Since few details are given, one is hard pressed to create a clear and exact picture of what really happened. wierwille’s wooden interpretation of Genesis 3 makes it a simple case of not following the rule book – it’s just a cold, clinical analysis of how he sees God’s relationship with mankind. You’ve got to know the rules. Follow them to the letter. Doesn’t matter what you think or feel. Sounds like a warm relationship doesn’t it? Naw – I don’t think so.
In PFAL wierwille makes a big deal of Eve’s mistake to add words to the prohibition not to eat it – wierwille says that was wrong when she added “and you must not touch it”. I’ve changed my take on that. Perhaps Eve was being overcautious and wanted to make it more difficult to eat the forbidden fruit if she would not even touch it. I think we all do things like this. If someone has a problem with alcohol, they might have some self-imposed rules – don’t have a single drink…don’t even take a taste…avoid bars…etc. someone watching their weight might intentionally NOT look at the dessert menu…avoid fast food restaurants.
Here's another thing. wierwille makes such a big deal about them disobeying God’s Word. But I think that’s a shallow read of the intimate interrelation of God with Adam and Eve. What is disobedience? It’s a failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.
Adam and Eve had a very close working relationship with God – the authority who set up this one rule. Their disobedience was a betrayal of trust - not being loyal to a person – God! It killed their relationship
I think this aspect of PFAL/wierwille’s fundamentalism reduces what is supposed to be a Christian’s transforming relationship with God, down to a one-sided relationship with a book. That “relationship” is not transformative – because the person relies on self-reflection based on how they interpret the Bible. There's no feedback from the author of the book.
There are many places in the Bible that speak of the validation of truth by the Holy Spirit when we consider the words of God and try to follow the message the best we can. The Bible then becomes necessary as facilitating a relationship with God. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
63. wierwille uses double-talk that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense; it is intended to mislead
For example, the following excerpts are from volume III of studies in abundant living by wierwille, The Word’s Way, in chapter 2, Who is the Word? pages 26ff:
…The first chapter of the Gospel of John has been misread and interpreted as follows: “In the beginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Crist was with God, and Jesus Christ was God.” This is not what the verse says.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
…How was this revealed Word with God? The Word was with God in His foreknowledge…
John 1: 2
The same was in the beginning with God.
The preposition “with” in verses 1 and 2 of John 1 further confirms this whole truth: “…and the Word was with [pros] God…The same was in the beginning with [pros] God.” There are a vast number of different Greek prepositions translated “with”, but only pros could fit here. Pros means “together with and yet having distinct independence.” The revealed Word was together with God and yet distinctly independent of Him.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
For the sake of clarity, to restate wierwille’s ideas another way: The Word – Jesus Christ - waswithGod by existing only in God’s foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge was together with yet distinctly independent of God. Does God have a split personality? Was God into astral projection?
I don’t know where wierwille got his pros definition from – maybe he made it up. Though awkward, it does have somewhat the same idea as what Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of the Greek Work “pros” Strong's # 4314:
advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Usage: to, towards, with.
2. it is used of close proximity — the idea of direction, though not entirely lost, being more or less weakened.
pros: advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Original Word: πρός
Part of Speech: Preposition
HELPS Word-studies
4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to "interface with" (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).
What it looks like to me is that wierwille intended to mislead students by a pretentious use of the Greek language. Basically, trying to prove Jesus Christ was NOT preexistent. With double-talk he is saying:
In the beginning Jesus Christ only existed in God’s foreknowledge and God’s foreknowledge is distinctly independent of God.
Edited by T-Bone the Grease Spotter is together with but distinctly independent of the editor
Translation according to usage, math, and prepositions: No questions allowed; we didn’t think that far ahead.
Also, if it’s cold, wear a bookcase.
But the sure as h3ll know how to kick that can on down the road! Heck, I had to quit the way corps and twi all together to get my questions answered...
12. He taught a false trichotomy of man - body, soul and spirit
A. pushes a Gnostic concept of strict separation of spirit and matter
B. teaches an incoherent idea of how the Spirit "works" - as evidenced in the contradictory Great Principle "God who is spirit, teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit, etc. "
C. wierwille teaches the holy spirit is nothing much more than something like a spiritual car battery that energizes all nine manifestations in each and every Christian.
D. Promotes an unhealthy fascination with demonology and spouts off speculations like he knows what he’s talking about – for example his studies in human suffering on Job.
E. He teaches people can be born again of the wrong seed - but does not specify how the person can do that.
F. He pretends to be an expert on all things spiritual so he charge for more classes so you can learn from “the master”
12
G. wierwille’s erroneous trichotomy has fostered elitism in TWI-followers
My short rebuttal of wierwille’s trichotomy doctrine (humankind was originally a 3-part being of body, soul, and spirit) is that humankind never lost the image and likeness of God in Genesis 3.
wierwille asserts the image and likeness of God is spirit from verses like Genesis 1:26, 27However there are passages written after the fall of humankind which indicate man still retains the image and likeness of God – though in light of sin that image is now tarnishedGenesis 9:6James 3:9
wierwille’s trichotomy doctrine was expanded upon – I think it was Craig who derogatively referred to those who are not born-again Christians as “empties floating by...Advanced Class grads and way corps were usually prone to adopt this elitist attitude that they were superior to anyone not in TWI.
~ ~ ~ ~
*FYI - I’ve started a thread in doctrinal that expands on this point – Human nature and the fall- all Grease Spotters are invited to participate. come on - it could be fun
65. Taking classes from teachers with no formal background in the languages studied and with no theological background and either no accredited education or education in other fields not Bible study opens the student up for establishing a habit pattern of exegetical fallacies. You can find many of these directly in the class.
But the sure as h3ll know how to kick that can on down the road! Heck, I had to quit the way corps and twi all together to get my questions answered...
Me too!
And some of the answers were not what I expected to find out
And some things I found out about I can’t un-know them now
What it looks like to me is that wierwille intended to mislead students by a pretentious use of the Greek language. Basically, trying to prove Jesus Christ was NOTpreexistent. With double-talk he is saying:
Speaking of preexisting - I think wierwille had a preexisting condition that had a big impact on his teaching “ministry “ - it’s called malignant narcissism
wierwille asserts the image and likeness of God is spirit from verses like Genesis 1:26, 27However there are passages written after the fall of humankind which indicate man still retains the image and likeness of God – though in light of sin that image is now tarnishedGenesis 9:6James 3:9
Humanity can be the image of God after death is destroyed and humanity bows down to Jesus Christ and sees Jesus in a favorable way as Lord and someone to follow with the same or at least a similar loving mindset. More detail for this is read in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Regarding God's love, this is read in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13.
Quote
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (New International Version)
Speaking of preexisting - I think wierwille had a preexisting condition that had a big impact on his teaching “ministry “ - it’s called malignant narcissism
I don't think he has to worry about health care coverage anymore.
22. in PFAL wierwille asserts the Bible interprets itself. And he is not consistent when he does use the interpretive keys that he plagiarized from Bullinger (as if Bullinger got it all right). He ignores context when it suites his twisted interpretation.
A. Disparages commentaries to elevatehisexplanations of Scripture
B. Uses proof texting to ignore immediate context, remote context, theological reasoning consistent with the whole Bible on a given subject.
C. wierwille assumes what he teaches is "The Word" and has the same authority as the Bible
22.
D. One the greatest obstacles to discovering the original message of the Bible is not being aware of the PFAL-filter that we as grads adopted in our reading habits.
PFAL grads are trained to think the tenets and theories expressed in the class are the only proper framework to understand the Bible.
In the class, wierwille would go on and on about “the Word means what it says and says what it means”…but wierwille pushed an obfuscating misconception…the Bible was written a long time ago by people in different cultures. How can one possibly know what an ancient author meant when the pervasive tendency of PFAL grads is to filter the KJV Bible through wierwille’s modern twisted ideology?
At its best solid Biblical theology can be useful to help distill the words and ideas of the Bible and to give them the appropriate perspective and importance they deserve - but we should never assume OUR theology is the ultimate authority or inspired of God. As our knowledge and understanding of the ancient times and cultures of the Biblical writers grows, as we get a better sense of their worldview, we should be in better shape to understand what THEY intended to say.
the Bible was written a long time ago by people in different cultures. How can one possibly know what an ancient author meant when the pervasive tendency of PFAL grads is to filter the KJV Bible through wierwille’s modern twisted ideology?
I think also of Johnny Townsend's propaganda claiming he was a simple man who believed simple (gobbledygook).
Life is complicated. Ancient cultures and just having one guy to translate "orientalisms" and everything will be just fine... is total BS.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
Rocky
Norm Crosby master of malapropisms
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes ! He's my hero!!!!!
thanks for that video Rocky! "this can't go on eternally..." 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
57. Behold I show you a mystery - we shall not all sleep - but we will all get bored
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Of course, but when new students are present we have to act excited.
"If I act excited, I'll be excited."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
58. wierwille’s process of getting back to the original God-breathed Word was by assuming his comments of the KJV were God-breathed…this eventually became known as “The Word” by PFAL grads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes - you have identified reason # 59 of why PFAL sucks:
59. PFAL grads are required to function like the applause light up sign for recorded classes playing in front of a live audience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
60. PFAL is nonsense
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
61. the hypocrisy of “the teacher” who doesn’t use the interpretive “keys” he pushed in PFAL
On more than one occasion I witnessed wierwille explain to a packed crowd about how he knew what he should look into when “researching” the Bible. His answer was usually something like God would usually make a word or phrase appear one inch high in my Bible.
Why didn’t he reveal that in PFAL. There’s something fishy about that. I don’t know about you, but if there’s one important lesson I’ve learned from believing a fraudster for 12 years – it’s that I should be highly suspicious of someone who can’t walk me through how they figured out a problem or came up with an idea. We’re not talking rocket science here – just a simple explanation of a thought process. How did you get from point A to B to C to D?
You can think what you want about wierwille’s supposedly one-inch-high-divine-directives in Bible research – but do you know what I think? Those were live teaching situations. It was like an interview with an actor who doesn’t have a script in front of him…a script that he plagiarized…he didn’t write it. I think wierwille’s go-to strategy most of the time was to wing it anyway. Who needs a plan or a standard to go by – when God will be there to guide you.
There’s a great scene in the 1988 film Working Girl it’s about an ambitious secretary who takes over her new boss's role while the boss is laid up with a broken leg. The secretary, who has been going to business night school, pitches a profitable idea, only to have the boss attempt to take credit. There’s a great scene where a client asks the boss how did you come up with the idea – see clip - How did you come up with the idea for Trask to buy out Metro?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, I heard him teach that live at the AC. I'm not sure, but it must have been in his teaching on word of knowledge. He also taught, in the discerning of spirits session, I think, that he could tell if someone was born again of the devil because he could see a black heart in them. (white=holy spirit/black=seed of satan/nothing=unbeliever)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
62. PFAL endorses a rigid mindset of fundamentalism – and the Christian lifestyle becomes more about having a relationship with a book than with a person.
Do you remember the PFAL session on the fall of man? wierwille contrasted knowledge that comes to us via the five senses as opposed to revelation faith.
He goes into Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 . Most Grease Spotters probably still remember the drill on the road down. wierwille’s narrative develops this imaginative and scary scenario of a devilish ploy to slowly demolish “the true Word” – and he insinuates that it is still used today: questioning “The Word”, changing “The Word”, adding a word, etc.
Few details are given – yet wierwille picks Genesis 3 apart like a CSI investigation. What was the forbidden fruit? The Bible doesn’t say. What was the tree of knowledge of good and evil? The Bible doesn’t say. How long was the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to be in effect? The Bible doesn’t say.
Since few details are given, one is hard pressed to create a clear and exact picture of what really happened. wierwille’s wooden interpretation of Genesis 3 makes it a simple case of not following the rule book – it’s just a cold, clinical analysis of how he sees God’s relationship with mankind. You’ve got to know the rules. Follow them to the letter. Doesn’t matter what you think or feel. Sounds like a warm relationship doesn’t it? Naw – I don’t think so.
In PFAL wierwille makes a big deal of Eve’s mistake to add words to the prohibition not to eat it – wierwille says that was wrong when she added “and you must not touch it”. I’ve changed my take on that. Perhaps Eve was being overcautious and wanted to make it more difficult to eat the forbidden fruit if she would not even touch it. I think we all do things like this. If someone has a problem with alcohol, they might have some self-imposed rules – don’t have a single drink…don’t even take a taste…avoid bars…etc. someone watching their weight might intentionally NOT look at the dessert menu…avoid fast food restaurants.
Here's another thing. wierwille makes such a big deal about them disobeying God’s Word. But I think that’s a shallow read of the intimate interrelation of God with Adam and Eve. What is disobedience? It’s a failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.
Adam and Eve had a very close working relationship with God – the authority who set up this one rule. Their disobedience was a betrayal of trust - not being loyal to a person – God! It killed their relationship
I think this aspect of PFAL/wierwille’s fundamentalism reduces what is supposed to be a Christian’s transforming relationship with God, down to a one-sided relationship with a book. That “relationship” is not transformative – because the person relies on self-reflection based on how they interpret the Bible. There's no feedback from the author of the book.
There are many places in the Bible that speak of the validation of truth by the Holy Spirit when we consider the words of God and try to follow the message the best we can. The Bible then becomes necessary as facilitating a relationship with God. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
63. wierwille uses double-talk that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense; it is intended to mislead
For example, the following excerpts are from volume III of studies in abundant living by wierwille, The Word’s Way, in chapter 2, Who is the Word? pages 26ff:
…The first chapter of the Gospel of John has been misread and interpreted as follows: “In the beginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Crist was with God, and Jesus Christ was God.” This is not what the verse says.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
…How was this revealed Word with God? The Word was with God in His foreknowledge…
John 1: 2
The same was in the beginning with God.
The preposition “with” in verses 1 and 2 of John 1 further confirms this whole truth: “…and the Word was with [pros] God…The same was in the beginning with [pros] God.” There are a vast number of different Greek prepositions translated “with”, but only pros could fit here. Pros means “together with and yet having distinct independence.” The revealed Word was together with God and yet distinctly independent of Him.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
For the sake of clarity, to restate wierwille’s ideas another way: The Word – Jesus Christ - was with God by existing only in God’s foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge was together with yet distinctly independent of God. Does God have a split personality? Was God into astral projection?
I don’t know where wierwille got his pros definition from – maybe he made it up. Though awkward, it does have somewhat the same idea as what Joseph Henry Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of the Greek Work “pros” Strong's # 4314:
advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Usage: to, towards, with.
2. it is used of close proximity — the idea of direction, though not entirely lost, being more or less weakened.
pros: advantageous for, at (denotes local proximity), toward (denotes motion toward a place)
Original Word: πρός
Part of Speech: Preposition
HELPS Word-studies
4314 prós (a preposition) – properly, motion towards to "interface with" (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).
From: Bible Hub: Greek pros Strong’s # 4314
~ ~ ~ ~
What it looks like to me is that wierwille intended to mislead students by a pretentious use of the Greek language. Basically, trying to prove Jesus Christ was NOT preexistent. With double-talk he is saying:
In the beginning Jesus Christ only existed in God’s foreknowledge and God’s foreknowledge is distinctly independent of God.
Edited by T-Bonethe Grease Spotter is together with but distinctly independent of the editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Uhhm...please hold your questions until the end of the class...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Translation according to usage, math, and prepositions: No questions allowed; we didn’t think that far ahead.
Also, if it’s cold, wear a bookcase.
Edited by Nathan_JrSnow and gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
But the sure as h3ll know how to kick that can on down the road! Heck, I had to quit the way corps and twi all together to get my questions answered...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
12
G. wierwille’s erroneous trichotomy has fostered elitism in TWI-followers
My short rebuttal of wierwille’s trichotomy doctrine (humankind was originally a 3-part being of body, soul, and spirit) is that humankind never lost the image and likeness of God in Genesis 3.
wierwille asserts the image and likeness of God is spirit from verses like Genesis 1:26, 27 However there are passages written after the fall of humankind which indicate man still retains the image and likeness of God – though in light of sin that image is now tarnished Genesis 9:6 James 3:9
wierwille’s trichotomy doctrine was expanded upon – I think it was Craig who derogatively referred to those who are not born-again Christians as “empties floating by...Advanced Class grads and way corps were usually prone to adopt this elitist attitude that they were superior to anyone not in TWI.
~ ~ ~ ~
*FYI - I’ve started a thread in doctrinal that expands on this point – Human nature and the fall - all Grease Spotters are invited to participate. come on - it could be fun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
64. Push-play Christianity - no need to meet or interact with a teacher - just sit like a potato and send in your $$$.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
65. Taking classes from teachers with no formal background in the languages studied and with no theological background and either no accredited education or education in other fields not Bible study opens the student up for establishing a habit pattern of exegetical fallacies. You can find many of these directly in the class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Me too!
And some of the answers were not what I expected to find out
And some things I found out about I can’t un-know them now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Speaking of preexisting - I think wierwille had a preexisting condition that had a big impact on his teaching “ministry “ - it’s called malignant narcissism
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Humanity can be the image of God after death is destroyed and humanity bows down to Jesus Christ and sees Jesus in a favorable way as Lord and someone to follow with the same or at least a similar loving mindset. More detail for this is read in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Regarding God's love, this is read in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't think he has to worry about health care coverage anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
22.
D. One the greatest obstacles to discovering the original message of the Bible is not being aware of the PFAL-filter that we as grads adopted in our reading habits.
PFAL grads are trained to think the tenets and theories expressed in the class are the only proper framework to understand the Bible.
In the class, wierwille would go on and on about “the Word means what it says and says what it means”…but wierwille pushed an obfuscating misconception…the Bible was written a long time ago by people in different cultures. How can one possibly know what an ancient author meant when the pervasive tendency of PFAL grads is to filter the KJV Bible through wierwille’s modern twisted ideology?
At its best solid Biblical theology can be useful to help distill the words and ideas of the Bible and to give them the appropriate perspective and importance they deserve - but we should never assume OUR theology is the ultimate authority or inspired of God. As our knowledge and understanding of the ancient times and cultures of the Biblical writers grows, as we get a better sense of their worldview, we should be in better shape to understand what THEY intended to say.
Edited by T-BoneThe editor means what he says
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I think also of Johnny Townsend's propaganda claiming he was a simple man who believed simple (gobbledygook).
Life is complicated. Ancient cultures and just having one guy to translate "orientalisms" and everything will be just fine... is total BS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Excuse my ignorance here, who was Johnny Townsend?
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.