If Rosie & Donna... VP's judgment was how good?

[alfakat]

's ok, OM can't hear U, he's got carrots in his ears....

THANK GOD, twit CANNOT take credit for the good people that were involved but were ignored. too bad for that....

[oldiesman]

quote:

---

OM, You're doing a nice job of redirecting again.

---

JustThinking, I think the reason why folks diverted the discussion was because your original premise went out with a whimper ...

quote:

---

The existance of good people does not make an organization good.

---

Total disagreement here. TWI-1 was good because folks were good, fellowship was good, learning and love was good. Spirituality was good. It's the many many folks that manifested fruit of the spirit that made up the organization and since folks were like that, that made twi good and spiritual.

Thanks, Rascal.

:)-->

[JustThinking]

You're good OM, I'll give you that. Well practiced. It's unfortunate.

[rascal]

Yeah ... a lot of em were loving spiritual christians.....too bad about the founder and his hand picked leaders indulging in darkness you know....the those guys who were hiding their corruption and evil behind those of us with pure hearts and motives.....sigh

[Linda Z]

OM said: "Linda Z, my view is, he did the best he could under the circumstances. Yeah, Craig was a novice coordinator who made lots and lots of mistakes; and I saw proof of that from being in the Sick Corps for a few months. And who was around to do a better job? If anyone was, don't you think VPW would have put that person in charge? He wanted the thing to work, didn't he?"

No, you don't get a "thing" to work by putting someone unqualified to run it in charge of it. You wait until you have someone who's qualified.

Especially if the "thing" is going to affect a lot of people's lives.

I don't think LCM's "leadership" of the Corps was the only thing wrong with the program--not by a longshot. But putting LCM in charge of it reflected VPW's tendency to put style over substance and to promote yes men over people who'd call a spade a spade.

OM again: "I think you have to take what you've got and make the best of it; that's how I view VPW's handling of Craig, Rosalie and gang.

Sorry, OM, but from someone who was around during the time those two gained ascendancy: That's just ridiculous.

I can guaran-dam-tee you that there were more qualified people to preside over the Way Corps than a young pup with a big bark. And I can think of several who could have run Way Publications and Way Productions better than Rosalie Rivenbark.

[alfakat]

I heartily second what you say, LinZee...OM, apparently, again, you just do not KNOW enough of what was up at the time. Vic could count on big forehead to toe the company line, not ask difficult questions, sit up, beg, roll over and any other trick tick could do...

[rascal]

Yup I agree with Linda Z... I remember one time when VP answered the question *Why Craig?* ...n he said...My in depth spiritual percep...oops ..um the fruit manifested in his life lend me to....WRONG! No....what vpw SAID was the MAIN reason when asked was.... *I dunno other than ... Craig never asked how high....he just jumped when told*

The epitome of a bu tt kisser imo....and vpw rewarding him because he liked it....certainly not the criteria one would deem necessary for leading a ministry

[oldiesman]

Linda Z, you made some excellent points and I can't argue with them. Thanks!

:)-->

[rascal]

Flattered though I am that you would post something that I wrote...I would prefer if you are going to use my quote oldies that you used the whole thing, instead of halfing it and changing the meaning for your own agenda.

That is just plain dishonest.....though why this would suprise me...I don`t know.

[oldiesman]

Rascal, if I use your entire quote instead of a paraphrase, is it ok if I use your name as well?

If not, if you don't want me to use your name, then I have to paraphrase. It's a good statement and reminder of what kind of ministry we were in and who was there. Please let me know.

:)-->

[rascal]

You betcha, by all means use my name and the quote in it`s entirety...otherwise come up with your own gems of wisdom.....

Using a partial quote for your own agenda is dishonest and DOES speak volumes about the type of ministry that we were in....but then again ...since you don`t see much of a problem with vp`s plagerism....I understand how the lines could be a bit blurry.

[oldiesman]

Thanks Rascal.

:)-->

[rascal]

Use the whole quote or desiste immediatly oldies...

You are a manipulator.... your mo since appearing on these boards is to take a truth and misrepresenting what was said...you make it appear a lie ....You are a reprehensible person...you attack innocent peaopl in order to defend an evil man and an organisation that visited great evil upon those who trusted ......You are an outstanding example of what was vile and wrong in twi.

You are a dark bleak soul...and strangely enough, rather than anger me...I feel only pity.

[oldiesman]

Rascal, don't you ever consider that someone can make an error? I looked again at the quote and left out the first sentence of it. Sorry about that.

But, now that I look at it, that's not what I said you said I said. I said:

quote:

---

Linda Z, my view is, he did the best he could under the circumstances.

---

I didn't say "Craig and rosie and howard were the *best* that vp had available." I said I thought VPW did his best under the circumstances. So I don't want to add that in because it gives the wrong impression and misquotes what I actually said.

However, if you want me to remove your name, I will do so. Let me know.

:)-->

[waterbuffalo]

Oldies,

Rascal has asked you to stop misrepresenting her meaning by using only part of her post as YOUR quote.

I think it would be only right of you to delete it immediately and use your own sordid quote instead.

wb

[rascal]

Use the entire quote or desist immediatly.

I think that saying that vp did the best he could with what he had is laughable...there were so many qualified individuals that wouldn`t have gloried in hurting and destroying folks....but then again...vp never DID care much about the people did he?...it was always the *word*

It`s kind of funny now, seems like the bible was given to folks as a guide in how to *Love God and Love your neighbor* least that was what Jesus said....

VP taught folks how to utilise those same scriptures as a tool to hurt and destroy folks....hmmm

Nice distraction though...since you apparently cannot answere the question of incompetance or corruption..being the source of vp`s poor choices..

[oldiesman]

Rascal, I just went in my profile and removed your name. The quote is now paraphrased.

I'm not adding the first sentence, because you misquoted me, and I don't want to be misquoted. What's more, the first sentence has little to do with the point I want accentuated, that twi had many many outstanding folks that were kind hearted and manifested fruit of the spirit in their lives.

I think you're hassling me so much because you don't want that part of twi accentuated or repeated too much; no, I think you just want only the trash accentuated and repeated continuously. It's apparently your M.O. ...

So I took off your name and it will go when the system updates, and it's up to the Greasespot Gods whether or not I'll be allowed to paraphase your quote. It's a good one. But if it disappears, you know that they dispproved of it as paraphrased.

:)-->

[WordWolf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WordWolf:

A) You haven't yet-why should he think you'd start now?

He has as much evidence that loyboy has reformed and is now a

model Christian living quietly and humbly.

B) vpw either walked with great revelation or he did not.

If he DID, he failed majorly by handing out important positions

to people who were unqualified to hold them, to the detriment

of LARGE NUMBERS of people who had to deal with them

(the Bookstore, the way corpse, etc.)

If he wanted to give a cushy, "make-work" job without harming

people, he could have made up a bs job. It would have wasted

money but hurt no one. However, he was more concerned with the

money he'd lose, and having the unreserved loyalty of them.

If he did NOT, then he was a fraud and lied intentionally about

the deep spiritual walk and decision-making.

So, either it was accidental, or intentional.

He was incompetent, or corrupt.

Now, that was presented as a case using as evidence the

testimony in this thread.

What are the Greek's odds you'll agree?

---

Ok, for those of you tuning in late....

The discussion was about the possible reasons for vpw personally

choosing staff assignments for people, when the people who filled

them were incompetent or harmful to the rest of God's people

when filling the job.

There have been eyewitnesses seeing Donna and Rosa-lie in

compromising positions and just barely shy of "enflagrante

delicto". There have been accounts where it was known that both

adults went on vacations together, and their sleeping

accomodations-which could easily have been 2 single rooms,

a quad room with two double beds, or a big suite (the bod has

never skimped on travelling in style)- were arranged where they

shared a bed, which, for unmarried adults, is VERY peculiar to

US citizens with money (or without money, for that matter)-

if there wasn't something else going on.

Imogene Allen was a tyrant and anti-people, making her ill-suited

to run the Bookstore-requiring her to interact with people all

the time. Her personality made work in that department MUCH

harder than it needed to be...except, of course, when she was

goldbricking and watching her soap operas. Rosa-lie knew how to

suck up, and squeezed the life out of anything she was put in

charge of. Craig lacked ANY positive trait for a task of the

magnitude of running a national ministry, AND raped and molested

women-but he was incredibly loyal to vpw, and this allowed him to

be placed in positions where his lack of experience and training

placed him increasingly ill-suited jobs for him.

Supposedly,

vpw touted that leaders needed great acumen in matters of the

spirit, that they needed to be servants, that they needed to be

qualified for their tasks, that they must "walk by the spirit",

that they must rely on revelation from God.

Now, this means that either he acted with such qualifications,

or he did not.

===============

If he did NOT, that means he was a fraud and deliberately placed

a standard before everyone else that he had no intention of using

himself, ever.

If he DID, then he carefully considered the functions of each

position, and the demonstrated skills and shortcomings of each

candidate, and, with considerable deliberation, put people who

were incompetent for each job IN those jobs.

WORSE, if he DID, then he walked by DIVINE REVELATION and his own

GOD told him to put these incompetent people in those jobs.

=========

One or the other.

Could vpw guarantee that he was qualified people in jobs they

would at least perform in a satisfactory fashion, that they were

better than someone chosen at random to fill that job?

According to Oldiesman,

No.

Nothing vpw could have done could have done that.

"Nothing.

No man can guarantee the actions of another."

(10/4/04, 12:17am, pg-1 of this thread.)

Rascal pointed out that vpw said that the RESULTS showed whether

or not supposed actions taken by revelation were REALLY done by

revelation or not.

That is, if someone claimed to take action by revelation, and

the results were "perfect", it probably WAS done by revelation.

If someone claimed to take action by revelation, and the results

were disastrous, it probably was NOT done by revelation.

(Either that, or the god granting it is an idiot.)

======

JustThinking pointed out that, if a person IS placed in such a

position, and they're ill-suited, it is the responsibility of

their supervisor or director to remove them from that position.

Therefore, the possibilities for the unfolding events are as

follows:

A) vpw puts the right people in the right job,

either thru diligence or revelation or both.

This is invalidated-we all know they were poorly suited.

B) vpw gets "revelation" by a foolish god, and puts the wrong

people in the wrong jobs.

This means that vpw was a total spiritual incompetent and listened

to an error-ridden god.

Then, over time, vpw asks his god for revelation about their

suitability, and his error-ridden god says that, despite

appearances, they're fine where they are.

This means the previous result was compounded periodically

by his error-ridden god.

C) vpw gets "revelation" by a foolish god, and puts the wrong people

in the wrong jobs,

then, over time, vpw evaluates them by his senses, and judges them

fine as they are, evidence to the contrary.

This means he has an error-ridden god AND vpw lacks mental discernment

expected of any supervisor or manager in the world, let alone the

household.

D) vpw gets "revelation" by a foolish god, and puts the wrong people

in the wrong jobs,

then, over time, vpw neither seeks revelation as to their suitability,

nor evaluates them by his senses.

This means he has an error-ridden god AND vpw lacks the moral integrity

and care for the household that is expected of any Christian leader

at ANY level.

E) vpw uses his own mental facilities to evaluate and place candidates

in positions, putting the wrong people in the wrong jobs.

This means he lacked the courage of his convictions, and refused to

seek divine revelation. THEN this means his own evaluative skills

were severely lacking, making him incompetent.

Later, vpw gets revelation from an error-ridden god who tells him they're

fine.

See the previous points.

F) vpw uses his own mental facilities, and carefully places the wrong

candidates in the wrong jobs. See the previous point.

Later, vpw refused to seek revelation on this and uses his own

facilities to examine the candidates.

This means the man who told us to always seek revelation went out of

his way to avoid doing so in critically-important matters, and

was ALSO an incompetent in handling this by his understanding.

G) vpw declined to use either divine revelation or his own skills to

determine the best candidates, and used a criteria

OTHER THAN divine revelation

or

THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE RIGHT JOB

as his determination.

The most obvious alternate criteria would be a PERSONAL one-

he chose who would suit HIM and not who would suit GOD or the PEOPLE.

Does ANYONE see ANY alternate criteria for a supposedly RESPONSIBLE

man of God to deliberately install people in jobs that they were

unsuited for, as determined by revelation or performance?

================================================

Oldies insisted that he'd be more inclined to accept the earlier

explanation if it was backed with logic.

So, I provided the post I quoted,

which Oldies was disinclined to accept.

(Top of page 2, 10/5/04, 12:59am.)

He ignored my other points, and seized on the money issue,

as if it was all I said. He then said he would need proof

before accepting this was done out of a prioritizing of

money over God's people, and closed with a pious comment

about God being the searcher of people's hearts.

(In other words, if an evaluation of vpw's results has a

negative outcome, the godly thing is to ignore it.

Apparently, this type of thinking took vpw very far back when.)

Rascal pointed out that Oldies ignored INCOMPETENCE as the

only alternate explanation to CORRUPTION, which Oldies skipped.

Oldies characterized the horrible people as the best that were

available.

When Rascal pointed out that a large number of competent people

would have been better choices, Oldies twists this to mean that

twi was a competent organization.

(What about the idiots in all the authoritative position, then???)

Oldies claimed that the existence of good Christians in some places

means that the entire organization was good and was entirely composed

of good Christians.

JustThinking pointed out the derail Oldies deliberately inserted in

the thread.

Oldies claimed the thread went off-course because it lacked substance.

Then Oldies started a new argument by deliberately misquoting

Rascal and slapping Rascal's name on it.

This had all the honesty of quoting Psalms and saying it says

"...there is no God."

So, I provided this RECAP for the people in the cheap-seats,

and I expanded on my previous point which Oldies claimed was

so ungodly.

Carry on.

[oldiesman]

Wordwolf, you've misquoted some of my statements and surmised things I didn't say, and forgot to include in your diatribe that I agreed with Linda Z, who made excellent points against VPW's judgment.

This thread started off with the supposition that VPW had bad judgment because Rosalie was possibly a lesbian. He should have known, or whatever. I think I disproved that point, and nobody else came in to argue it further. And when the thread was diverted, I agreed with some of the later points.

I disagree with you that VPW's motives and decisions were motivated by money. In order to know that, one has to have inside knowledge on a person's heart and innermost being, and perhaps you think you're that all knowing and smart; but I'm not making that assumption or surmising that evil accusation unless I know for sure.

:)-->

[Steve!]

om, despite what you say, motives CAN and often ARE inferred from outcomes and methods used.

The reason that nobody rebuts your points is that it is like trying to argue with a sheep. The sheep just looks at you with blank eyes and says, "Baa-a-a-aaa". Of course, you're probably going to take a comparison to a sheep as a compliment.

[rascal]

Nice job of bringing things back on track word wolf...thanks.

Inept or corrupt? The fruit in vp`s life lends weight to the argument for the latter...Could be a combination of both though.

[JustThinking]

WW,

Great job on a balanced, comprehensive synopsis. Thank you for rescuing the thread.

JT

[WordWolf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldiesman:

Wordwolf, you've misquoted some of my statements and surmised things I didn't say, and forgot to include in your diatribe that I agreed with Linda Z, who made excellent points against VPW's judgment.

This thread started off with the supposition that VPW had bad judgment because Rosalie was possibly a lesbian. He should have known, or whatever. I think I disproved that point, and nobody else came in to argue it further.

[so, in the quote I provided, and my further exposition, you didn't see a refutation? Everyone ELSE did.]

And when the thread was diverted, I agreed with some of the later points.

I disagree with you that VPW's motives and decisions were motivated by money. In order to know that, one has to have inside knowledge on a person's heart and innermost being, and perhaps you think you're that all knowing and smart; but I'm not making that assumption or surmising that evil accusation unless I know for sure.

:)-->

---

[WordWolf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve!:

om, despite what you say, motives CAN and often ARE inferred from outcomes and methods used.

The reason that nobody rebuts your points is that it is like trying to argue with a sheep. The sheep just looks at you with blank eyes and says, "Baa-a-a-aaa". Of course, you're probably going to take a comparison to a sheep as a compliment.

---

[ And yes, most people say you can infer motive and intent by an analysis of the methods, goals and results. Unless, of course, ithe result is against one's own interest. ]

[WordWolf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rascal:

Nice job of bringing things back on track word wolf...thanks.

Inept or corrupt? The fruit in vp`s life lends weight to the argument for the latter...Could be a combination of both though.

---

That is the crux of the question, isn't it? Inept? Or corrupt?