P.S. No, I don't mind "doing research" for people who don't have the means at their disposal. I apologize for sounding arrogant.
I do though, get frustrated at people who have the facts at their fingertips, but are too lazy or unconcerned with the truth to bother to check them. It's easier for them to spin in the direction their anger takes them regardless of who they hurt, than to take the time to check their facts.
It ticks me off that I can take hours or even a whole day to check my facts to make sure I have them right, and get jumped for missing one thing, and someone else posts off the edge of his rage without thinking, hurting innocent people, and goes not only unchallenged, but cheered. It happens here, folks, it does. It's frustrating. And then we come off looking to innies like that documentary claiming there were missles in the barn silo.
As a somewhat recently departed Wayfer, I can attest to Catcup's comments on the importance of accuracy. One thing that kept me around early on was seeing one critic after another launch attacks that were full of errors. It made for a convincing "gee, if they would only see who we really are" argument.
There is a good chance I might still be in TWI if it weren't for this site. The first hand accounts from numerous folks here were invaluable. If I had seen criticisms that seemed to be erroneous or from someone who didn't have his/her facts straight, I might have just dismissed GS like all the rest.
JT, I agree wholeheartedly. To say that WD was an eye opener to me would be an understatement and it was the credibility of even the anonymous posters that convinced me that TWI was more rotten than I ever imagined. There were too many people with the same story for it to have all been lies.
That being said....I don't see any inaccuracies - intentional or otherwise in this thread.
If things weren't credible I would have logged off and continued drinking the kool-aid.
I had forgotten about this thread. One of my "I'm frustrated" days and needed to throw a punch back at TWI.
I agree with you Belle. If the posts hadn't had some semblance of credibility, I would probably still be drinking the kool-aid too. I'm glad we stopped. It didn't even taste very good.
BTW, since VPW still held pastorate at this time with his denomination, we can only assume they accepted his doctorate from Pikes Peak Seminary.
This seems contradictory to the content and tone of most of your input to this thread. Why in the world would you suggest that "we can only" make a completely unfounded assumption? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make no assumption at all regarding this matter?
By THEIR definition, fellowship is to share FULLY. While this perhaps, may have been true once, it is now no longer.
They claim to "share fully" with their followers, supposedly everything from peas to apple butter, according to their public spokesman. But how is it I did not even hear a quarter of the real story until years out of that mess? Not a peep about the real goings on.
I guess fellowship means you may share your finances and support fully with them. They will fully share their latest version of shinola with you.
I guess fellowship means you may share your finances and support fully with them. They will fully share their latest version of shinola with you.
Mr. H, I think you've pretty much nailed it for these days. The new people will find out as soon as they start asking questions. That uncomfortable feeling like you've just wandered into forbidden territory and then you wonder WHY it would be forbidden territory. Later you just observe what's okay to talk about and what's not. It's pretty amazing to think back on how those unwritten rules are established.
"Simply because our collective experiences wouldn`t hold up in a court of law does not in anyway invalidate what we experienced, what we witnessed,...How we were impacted..and because that is recognised here... praise GOD we are ALLOWED to speak of them here....for some of us...it is the first time ever."
Huh?
If you witnessed something, then you ARE it's witness.
Why couldn't you testify to everything that you have witnessed in court?
I dont follow. Speak what you want to speak.
"... nor hampered by having to support anybody`s elses case in a court of law, and so are allowed much more freedom to examine..."
Who cares what is going on in any court room? How does that influence what you can speak about?
Outofdafog-
"... supervised fellowship"
Dont think I ever heard of one of those, can anyone attend?
"Simply because our collective experiences wouldn`t hold up in a court of law does not in anyway invalidate what we experienced, what we witnessed,...How we were impacted..and because that is recognised here... praise GOD we are ALLOWED to speak of them here....for some of us...it is the first time ever."
Huh?
If you witnessed something, then you ARE it's witness.
Why couldn't you testify to everything that you have witnessed in court?
She didn't say that she couldn't testify, just that it wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Not the same thing. Several people found out over the past few years that speaking your mind doesn't come close to guaranteeing that a judge will believe it or allow it as evidense.
quote:
I dont follow. Speak what you want to speak.
Which she does. She is not saying that she can't speak what she wants to speak...geez...she is stating how she can and does.
quote:
"... nor hampered by having to support anybody`s elses case in a court of law, and so are allowed much more freedom to examine..."
Who cares what is going on in any court room? How does that influence what you can speak about?
If you are to be a witness in a court case you must be careful about what you say so as not to prejudice the case. She is saying that she is not hampered by the courtroom thing...
Galen for my post to make any sense whatsoever, you must read catcup`s previous post containing the remarks about the *higher standards* of Way dale verses gspot.
I did try to read it previously but, found it perplexing.
I was not stateside for Waydale and as such have not seen it.
I got 'here' during the first Greasespot Cafe on EZ-board.
I thought that Paw was the moderator of this board? but I confess that I simply do not study the interal-workings and politics of those here that closely.
my apology for intruding.
:-)
It is amazing how much the 'internet' changes with each decade.
The last time I was stateside, we were doing stuff with BBS's and FIDONET. Lived overseas for another tour, using 12.2 dial-ups for e-mail access [when power-spikes did not threaten], but no surfing [like all of Europe]. Come back stateside and found DSL. WOW
"If you are to be a witness in a court case you must be careful about what you say so as not to prejudice the case. She is saying that she is not hampered by the courtroom thing.."
I have had to testify in a court, was while I was serving as a MP. 3 years in Ct, and 3 years in Europe. And again stateside in Juvenile court for custody hearings, as a foster-parent.
When I testified, I had to be focused on telling the truth. Factual and detailed, without opinions or conjecture. [unless I was asked for my opinion].
I answered what I was asked, and did not volunteer anything extra.
That was my understanding of what all witnesses are supposed to be doing. I have not felt 'hampered' by the need to testify, nor have I felt the 'need' to be careful.
I speak what I know to be true, or else I try to clarify that what I am saying is my opinion.
That is why I dont hessitate to use people's names here on Greasespot. Libel and slander must first be something other than factual history. Yes, I know that we have had discussion about using other characters in people's names, to hide their identity. I followed the discussions, and saw that Paw was non-commital on the issue. Some people walked away 'saying' that rules had now been setup. I did not see any, and thus far Paw has not commented to me that I need to stop speaking as my manner is.
thus I speak as my manner is.
If a potential future juror is going to hear what I say, and possibly be sub-consciously influenced by what I say now, then the person can be honest. When you are asked by the judge if you honestly have any prior knowledge. If you want to lie, the blood is on you at that time.
No problem Galen. Posting on waydale was different because the administrator was involved in a law suit against twi. We tried to be very carefull about any info posted, as it was felt that it had to be able to be backed up in a court of law, in order to not adversly affect the host or the outcome.
It is simply different here that is all.....I got a bit prickely at what I percieved to be swipes taken at the posters here and the our host. I adore you guys and this place.
To indicate that that we indulge in some lower standard because we don`t fit someone elses notions of what we oughtta be as good li`l ex wayfers sometimes gets my hackles up....(if you didn`t notice) lol
This place imo, and its patrons have been responsible for many joys and blessings, many people were able to make their decision to seek freedome from twi because of the info and support found here.
I took the comments rather personally, probably shouldn`t have.
I cannot speak for your personal experience, but I can certainly speak for mine, AND I HAVE, both here and to legal counsel.
And legal counsel could not refute my testimony because I testified to Baker and Hostetler et al what I personally knew first hand, and to what could actually be documented.
What I have seen on this site lately and more commonly could be shot down in a court of law, very easily. And it hurts your credibility.
I'll say...the part about having spoken from your personal experiences, that is. And I don't know how the h*** else we are going to really know about what happened. Especially when the person giving testimony is a real live person giving his/her own testimony.
God knows (and the rest of us who have been around should) that you are not shy in giving your opinion. Neither are many others, actually. But you back it up as best you can. Not with rhetoric. I could give some good examples, but I dont think everyone wants to hear my deprogramming story again now.
Credibility is hurt by exagerration and by second, third, or fourth hand accounts replacing personal testimony.And, if I am making an honest effort to learn about some things, I understand that personal testimony is not always available. But when I find it hard to get any of it at all, then am told, as I once was, that if I didnt accept someone's second hand account of someone else's experience that I probably wouldn't believe the person's first hand account anyway, then I really start to doubt that the event happened at all.
I could have taken it personally, that the person who told me this was calling me a liar in stating I really want to know what happened. However, I didn't, because I think it reflects a general attitude that certain things are to be taken as the gospel truth here without question.
I don't think Cat means in the least to say that we shouldn't talk about TWI stuff if it isn't our personal testimony. But I think she strikes a wise note about credibiity.
So, don't go to far Cat, ont he "I don't fir in" idea...stick around.
By the way, want some tuna? Or too much mecury for you?
Your first hand testimonies about the abuse that happened TO YOU can speak to those still in who are having second thoughts about how they are being treated.
I missed this one somehow the first time around. This says it exactly. Cat caps the "TO YOU", even though it is obvious...if you talk about what happened to someone else, it is not first hand testimony. And especially, in the web world of GS ( and any other web group) where we don't really know each other at all if we have not had further personal contact, the attitude that you have to accept what people say about others as the gospel without question, leads to disbelief of what some like to headline with WE KNOW, or These are the FACTS. Phrases like that raise red flags, just as they do with many regarding TWI doctrine and policy.
First hand testamony is always desireable in determining the truth, however, when second hand and third hand testamony is given by HUNDREDS...credibility gravitates to their testamonies.
The majority of folks at GS are anti twi...no question about it...there's a reason for that. I could easily give a personal FIRST HAND testamony of how I was abused...of course people are looking for the more sensational testamonies to hang their hat on. I was not drugged or raped, but I was the recipient of false and abusive doctrines that led me into a personal cul de sac in my life. It took me time to recover from 13 years of believing the wrong stuff...my career suffered, my finances, my marriage, my family relationships,...shall I continue?...
The fact is that most of us could easily give FIRST HAND testamonies as to the destructive results that our association with twi brought into our lives. Of course, suffering abuse from twi makes it easier to believe the testamonies of others who were abused in a variety of ways.
Basically, you seem to be saying that the existence of first hand testimony lends credibility to all the accounts of abuse suffered by others...that is, not by the person giving the account.
And, of course, for someone who has suffered abuse, it is easy as you say to believe accounts of abuse to others, even if those accounts are given by others.
But this, IMO, is like the proverbial preaching to the choir. To provide real information to those outside the circle of abuse, it is the testimony of real people...that is, not anonymous and not someone talking about someone else's experience...that can convince others. Others, such as those outside the TWI fold, those considering TWI involvement (the original subject of this thread), and even those such as me who had the TWI experience, but did not experience the worst of what people keep talking about.
Or, when I hear something talked about time and again, as though it were established fact, but can never get the least bit of first had testimony, I am naturally going to be skeptical. Especially when I am told, as noted earlier, that I will have to keep listening to all the non-first-hand accounts and accept them because if I didn't believe them I wouldnt believe the first hand account, then my skepticism changes to doubt.
Second and third and nth hand testimony given by HUNDREDS can be just more people talking about the subject and agreeing among themselves.
I will not deny someone's first hand account of any horors he/she may have gone through. And, once I have gotten that far, it is much easier to put myself in that person's shoes and imagine just how horrible their experience was. I think you are that kind of person; and I'll never forget the understanding and support you (among some others) gave me when I told of my deprogramming experience several years ago...as I mentioned on the current deprogramming thread.
Anyway, maybe it IS because of the climate at GS, that so many are "like-minded" if you will, that it is at times felt that personal testimony isn't needed. If there is some of that around in the first place.
Since I come here rarely (although more often lately!) I hadn't seen this before. I always come to these TWI sites wondering what kind of things do people see for the first time when they are trying to get answers and there's so much to sort through.
Bob, this is a great thread to give a brief rundown on TWI. Catcup, excellent facts. I agree, the truth and facts ARE important. Very important, as are our experiences. As you said, it is vital that we don't 'spout off' making many errors that end up making this site look foolish.
I remember when my father, a minister, sat me down and confronted me about the 'guns' and the 'guard dogs' in the 70's or 80's. I thought it was ridiculous. Some of the things he said was not factual, therefore he lost his credibility with me. Too bad. It would have saved me a lot of trouble if he'd had accurate information and was able to tell me things that were true and easily backed up.
I admire some of you who were close to the upper echelons. I was a mere 'leaf'. All I knew was people hugged me and said God loved me. When I came back, years later, as an older and wiser adult, I began to see things that alarmed me. I wrote it off to the area I was in at the time. Wrong again. It wasn't until I was able to find information about TWI online that I finally got answers, and began to heal.
Thanks to all of you here who are so faithful to report so many details factually. Thanks also to those of you who report on thoughts & feelings, of which no facts exist outside of your mind. Both are very valuable to learning about TWI and healing from the hurt.
I will frequently refer to first hand testimonies in my posts, but I always try to remember who and where I got the information so that if there is a question or something is mis-stated it can be corrected. In fact, Linda Z corrected me once on a story about her and Moneyhands. :)-->
The testimonies, too, have to come from people with established credibility if they are to be used to persuade someone "in" TWI to consider the evil of the group. I know my ex could hear about something bad that happened to someone and, if he didn't much care for or respect them, he would dismiss it - sometimes to the point of saying they deserved what they got.
The 1985 brochure on TWI history says that Wierwille started intensively studying the Bible "in the late summer of 1942," after Rosalind Rinker spoke with him. After that he had the vision. VP supposedly was looking at a "crystal blue, autumn sky" before the blizzard. Then the radio program began "approximately one month after God audibly spoke to him," on October 3rd.
I remembered reading about that, but something doesn't make sense there:
"approximately one month" would mean that Wierwille saw his snowstorm in early September of 1942. Impossible. That's summer.
Raf, I believe that's part of what made it so incredible and had so much impact on people who believed it.....it SNOWED in the SUMMER because God wanted to prove to vee pee that HE would teach HIM so he could get rich!
Some people posted here or on WayDale that they checked the weather charts for the time frame it was supposed to have happened and that there was absolutely no record of this amazing event.
Someone posted a picture that had the view from his office window to the gas pumps and someone else said that snow flurries out of nowhere like that were not uncommon in that area.
Mind you, I suffer from CRS really really bad, but that's the way I remember reading about it.
If the snow happened, and if it were a miracle of God for VPW, then it could have happened in July. But let's get to some meteorological aspects of this...
Actually, there have been rare but recorded instances of snow falling in the middle of summer...outside of the mountaintops. What happens is that in a thunderstorm, a strong downdraft is cooled by precipitation, so that the melting process of the snow that starts ten or fifteen thousand feet up is slowed dramatically, and the snow reaches the ground as such. Extremely rare, with any frozen precipitation almost always in the form of hail, which takes much longer to melt, but snow has reached the surface in those rare cases.
(Interestingly enough, a DRY thunderstorm downdraft can warm dramatically, producing a heat burst at the surface, where the temperature warms to above 100 degrees even in the middle of the night. This happened in Pierre, SD 20 or so years ago, but has happened several other times as well.)
As for the snow VPW described, it fits the description of your common snow shower or squall, in which the visibility drops suddenly to near zero in blinding snow, but the event passes often in less than five minutes. Any snow accumulations are light due to the very brief nature of the event, and can also be very very localized...not occurring anywhere close to a weather observing station perhaps. I remember a couple of those at HQ in late fall of 1979; once while I was out running. It was almost like a solid wall approaching and hitting.
In September in Ohio it would, meteorologically speaking, be very hard for this kind of event to occur, but I wouldnt say impossible. Perhaps somewhat harder than it would be to get an inch of snow on my September birthday (1985) because that happened in South Dakota.
IF it were a message from God to VPW, then why couldn't it have happened? And, while God knows His business better than I do (ha ha ha ha on the understatement), I wouldnt think that a sudden snow shower in January would carry the same message. If it werent from God, and/or VPW made it up, then it doesn't matter how meteorologically impossible it was.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
7
8
6
Popular Days
Oct 26
12
Oct 25
9
Jan 17
8
Oct 27
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Lifted Up 6 posts
Belle 7 posts
Catcup 8 posts
Bob 6 posts
Popular Days
Oct 26 2004
12 posts
Oct 25 2004
9 posts
Jan 17 2006
8 posts
Oct 27 2004
5 posts
Catcup
P.S. No, I don't mind "doing research" for people who don't have the means at their disposal. I apologize for sounding arrogant.
I do though, get frustrated at people who have the facts at their fingertips, but are too lazy or unconcerned with the truth to bother to check them. It's easier for them to spin in the direction their anger takes them regardless of who they hurt, than to take the time to check their facts.
It ticks me off that I can take hours or even a whole day to check my facts to make sure I have them right, and get jumped for missing one thing, and someone else posts off the edge of his rage without thinking, hurting innocent people, and goes not only unchallenged, but cheered. It happens here, folks, it does. It's frustrating. And then we come off looking to innies like that documentary claiming there were missles in the barn silo.
Edited by CatcupLink to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
As a somewhat recently departed Wayfer, I can attest to Catcup's comments on the importance of accuracy. One thing that kept me around early on was seeing one critic after another launch attacks that were full of errors. It made for a convincing "gee, if they would only see who we really are" argument.
There is a good chance I might still be in TWI if it weren't for this site. The first hand accounts from numerous folks here were invaluable. If I had seen criticisms that seemed to be erroneous or from someone who didn't have his/her facts straight, I might have just dismissed GS like all the rest.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
JT, I agree wholeheartedly. To say that WD was an eye opener to me would be an understatement and it was the credibility of even the anonymous posters that convinced me that TWI was more rotten than I ever imagined. There were too many people with the same story for it to have all been lies.
That being said....I don't see any inaccuracies - intentional or otherwise in this thread.
If things weren't credible I would have logged off and continued drinking the kool-aid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Bringing this to the top again by request.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob
I had forgotten about this thread. One of my "I'm frustrated" days and needed to throw a punch back at TWI.
I agree with you Belle. If the posts hadn't had some semblance of credibility, I would probably still be drinking the kool-aid too. I'm glad we stopped. It didn't even taste very good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"and fellowship ministry..."
By THEIR definition, fellowship is to share FULLY. While this perhaps, may have been true once, it is now no longer.
They claim to "share fully" with their followers, supposedly everything from peas to apple butter, according to their public spokesman. But how is it I did not even hear a quarter of the real story until years out of that mess? Not a peep about the real goings on.
I guess fellowship means you may share your finances and support fully with them. They will fully share their latest version of shinola with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Mr. H, I think you've pretty much nailed it for these days. The new people will find out as soon as they start asking questions. That uncomfortable feeling like you've just wandered into forbidden territory and then you wonder WHY it would be forbidden territory. Later you just observe what's okay to talk about and what's not. It's pretty amazing to think back on how those unwritten rules are established.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
...meets together in private homes for supervised fellowship...........
RED FLAG RED FLAG RED FLAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
rascal:
"Simply because our collective experiences wouldn`t hold up in a court of law does not in anyway invalidate what we experienced, what we witnessed,...How we were impacted..and because that is recognised here... praise GOD we are ALLOWED to speak of them here....for some of us...it is the first time ever."
Huh?
If you witnessed something, then you ARE it's witness.
Why couldn't you testify to everything that you have witnessed in court?
I dont follow. Speak what you want to speak.
"... nor hampered by having to support anybody`s elses case in a court of law, and so are allowed much more freedom to examine..."
Who cares what is going on in any court room? How does that influence what you can speak about?
Outofdafog-
"... supervised fellowship"
Dont think I ever heard of one of those, can anyone attend?
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Rascal: May I? Thank you!
:D-->
She didn't say that she couldn't testify, just that it wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Not the same thing. Several people found out over the past few years that speaking your mind doesn't come close to guaranteeing that a judge will believe it or allow it as evidense. Which she does. She is not saying that she can't speak what she wants to speak...geez...she is stating how she can and does. If you are to be a witness in a court case you must be careful about what you say so as not to prejudice the case. She is saying that she is not hampered by the courtroom thing...Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thank you Oak dear,
Galen for my post to make any sense whatsoever, you must read catcup`s previous post containing the remarks about the *higher standards* of Way dale verses gspot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Ooops, my apology.
I did try to read it previously but, found it perplexing.
I was not stateside for Waydale and as such have not seen it.
I got 'here' during the first Greasespot Cafe on EZ-board.
I thought that Paw was the moderator of this board? but I confess that I simply do not study the interal-workings and politics of those here that closely.
my apology for intruding.
:-)
It is amazing how much the 'internet' changes with each decade.
The last time I was stateside, we were doing stuff with BBS's and FIDONET. Lived overseas for another tour, using 12.2 dial-ups for e-mail access [when power-spikes did not threaten], but no surfing [like all of Europe]. Come back stateside and found DSL. WOW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Oakspear:
"If you are to be a witness in a court case you must be careful about what you say so as not to prejudice the case. She is saying that she is not hampered by the courtroom thing.."
I have had to testify in a court, was while I was serving as a MP. 3 years in Ct, and 3 years in Europe. And again stateside in Juvenile court for custody hearings, as a foster-parent.
When I testified, I had to be focused on telling the truth. Factual and detailed, without opinions or conjecture. [unless I was asked for my opinion].
I answered what I was asked, and did not volunteer anything extra.
That was my understanding of what all witnesses are supposed to be doing. I have not felt 'hampered' by the need to testify, nor have I felt the 'need' to be careful.
I speak what I know to be true, or else I try to clarify that what I am saying is my opinion.
That is why I dont hessitate to use people's names here on Greasespot. Libel and slander must first be something other than factual history. Yes, I know that we have had discussion about using other characters in people's names, to hide their identity. I followed the discussions, and saw that Paw was non-commital on the issue. Some people walked away 'saying' that rules had now been setup. I did not see any, and thus far Paw has not commented to me that I need to stop speaking as my manner is.
thus I speak as my manner is.
If a potential future juror is going to hear what I say, and possibly be sub-consciously influenced by what I say now, then the person can be honest. When you are asked by the judge if you honestly have any prior knowledge. If you want to lie, the blood is on you at that time.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
No problem Galen. Posting on waydale was different because the administrator was involved in a law suit against twi. We tried to be very carefull about any info posted, as it was felt that it had to be able to be backed up in a court of law, in order to not adversly affect the host or the outcome.
It is simply different here that is all.....I got a bit prickely at what I percieved to be swipes taken at the posters here and the our host. I adore you guys and this place.
To indicate that that we indulge in some lower standard because we don`t fit someone elses notions of what we oughtta be as good li`l ex wayfers sometimes gets my hackles up....(if you didn`t notice) lol
This place imo, and its patrons have been responsible for many joys and blessings, many people were able to make their decision to seek freedome from twi because of the info and support found here.
I took the comments rather personally, probably shouldn`t have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I'll say...the part about having spoken from your personal experiences, that is. And I don't know how the h*** else we are going to really know about what happened. Especially when the person giving testimony is a real live person giving his/her own testimony.
God knows (and the rest of us who have been around should) that you are not shy in giving your opinion. Neither are many others, actually. But you back it up as best you can. Not with rhetoric. I could give some good examples, but I dont think everyone wants to hear my deprogramming story again now.
Credibility is hurt by exagerration and by second, third, or fourth hand accounts replacing personal testimony.And, if I am making an honest effort to learn about some things, I understand that personal testimony is not always available. But when I find it hard to get any of it at all, then am told, as I once was, that if I didnt accept someone's second hand account of someone else's experience that I probably wouldn't believe the person's first hand account anyway, then I really start to doubt that the event happened at all.
I could have taken it personally, that the person who told me this was calling me a liar in stating I really want to know what happened. However, I didn't, because I think it reflects a general attitude that certain things are to be taken as the gospel truth here without question.
I don't think Cat means in the least to say that we shouldn't talk about TWI stuff if it isn't our personal testimony. But I think she strikes a wise note about credibiity.
So, don't go to far Cat, ont he "I don't fir in" idea...stick around.
By the way, want some tuna? Or too much mecury for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I missed this one somehow the first time around. This says it exactly. Cat caps the "TO YOU", even though it is obvious...if you talk about what happened to someone else, it is not first hand testimony. And especially, in the web world of GS ( and any other web group) where we don't really know each other at all if we have not had further personal contact, the attitude that you have to accept what people say about others as the gospel without question, leads to disbelief of what some like to headline with WE KNOW, or These are the FACTS. Phrases like that raise red flags, just as they do with many regarding TWI doctrine and policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
First hand testamony is always desireable in determining the truth, however, when second hand and third hand testamony is given by HUNDREDS...credibility gravitates to their testamonies.
The majority of folks at GS are anti twi...no question about it...there's a reason for that. I could easily give a personal FIRST HAND testamony of how I was abused...of course people are looking for the more sensational testamonies to hang their hat on. I was not drugged or raped, but I was the recipient of false and abusive doctrines that led me into a personal cul de sac in my life. It took me time to recover from 13 years of believing the wrong stuff...my career suffered, my finances, my marriage, my family relationships,...shall I continue?...
The fact is that most of us could easily give FIRST HAND testamonies as to the destructive results that our association with twi brought into our lives. Of course, suffering abuse from twi makes it easier to believe the testamonies of others who were abused in a variety of ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Basically, you seem to be saying that the existence of first hand testimony lends credibility to all the accounts of abuse suffered by others...that is, not by the person giving the account.
And, of course, for someone who has suffered abuse, it is easy as you say to believe accounts of abuse to others, even if those accounts are given by others.
But this, IMO, is like the proverbial preaching to the choir. To provide real information to those outside the circle of abuse, it is the testimony of real people...that is, not anonymous and not someone talking about someone else's experience...that can convince others. Others, such as those outside the TWI fold, those considering TWI involvement (the original subject of this thread), and even those such as me who had the TWI experience, but did not experience the worst of what people keep talking about.
Or, when I hear something talked about time and again, as though it were established fact, but can never get the least bit of first had testimony, I am naturally going to be skeptical. Especially when I am told, as noted earlier, that I will have to keep listening to all the non-first-hand accounts and accept them because if I didn't believe them I wouldnt believe the first hand account, then my skepticism changes to doubt.
Second and third and nth hand testimony given by HUNDREDS can be just more people talking about the subject and agreeing among themselves.
I will not deny someone's first hand account of any horors he/she may have gone through. And, once I have gotten that far, it is much easier to put myself in that person's shoes and imagine just how horrible their experience was. I think you are that kind of person; and I'll never forget the understanding and support you (among some others) gave me when I told of my deprogramming experience several years ago...as I mentioned on the current deprogramming thread.
Anyway, maybe it IS because of the climate at GS, that so many are "like-minded" if you will, that it is at times felt that personal testimony isn't needed. If there is some of that around in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LearnedTooLate
Since I come here rarely (although more often lately!) I hadn't seen this before. I always come to these TWI sites wondering what kind of things do people see for the first time when they are trying to get answers and there's so much to sort through.
Bob, this is a great thread to give a brief rundown on TWI. Catcup, excellent facts. I agree, the truth and facts ARE important. Very important, as are our experiences. As you said, it is vital that we don't 'spout off' making many errors that end up making this site look foolish.
I remember when my father, a minister, sat me down and confronted me about the 'guns' and the 'guard dogs' in the 70's or 80's. I thought it was ridiculous. Some of the things he said was not factual, therefore he lost his credibility with me. Too bad. It would have saved me a lot of trouble if he'd had accurate information and was able to tell me things that were true and easily backed up.
I admire some of you who were close to the upper echelons. I was a mere 'leaf'. All I knew was people hugged me and said God loved me. When I came back, years later, as an older and wiser adult, I began to see things that alarmed me. I wrote it off to the area I was in at the time. Wrong again. It wasn't until I was able to find information about TWI online that I finally got answers, and began to heal.
Thanks to all of you here who are so faithful to report so many details factually. Thanks also to those of you who report on thoughts & feelings, of which no facts exist outside of your mind. Both are very valuable to learning about TWI and healing from the hurt.
A GREAT thread. Thanks to all!
LRND2L8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I will frequently refer to first hand testimonies in my posts, but I always try to remember who and where I got the information so that if there is a question or something is mis-stated it can be corrected. In fact, Linda Z corrected me once on a story about her and Moneyhands.
:)-->
The testimonies, too, have to come from people with established credibility if they are to be used to persuade someone "in" TWI to consider the evil of the group. I know my ex could hear about something bad that happened to someone and, if he didn't much care for or respect them, he would dismiss it - sometimes to the point of saying they deserved what they got.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I remembered reading about that, but something doesn't make sense there:
"approximately one month" would mean that Wierwille saw his snowstorm in early September of 1942. Impossible. That's summer.
There's conflicting info on this, I know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Raf, I believe that's part of what made it so incredible and had so much impact on people who believed it.....it SNOWED in the SUMMER because God wanted to prove to vee pee that HE would teach HIM so he could get rich!
Some people posted here or on WayDale that they checked the weather charts for the time frame it was supposed to have happened and that there was absolutely no record of this amazing event.
Someone posted a picture that had the view from his office window to the gas pumps and someone else said that snow flurries out of nowhere like that were not uncommon in that area.
Mind you, I suffer from CRS really really bad, but that's the way I remember reading about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
If the snow happened, and if it were a miracle of God for VPW, then it could have happened in July. But let's get to some meteorological aspects of this...
Actually, there have been rare but recorded instances of snow falling in the middle of summer...outside of the mountaintops. What happens is that in a thunderstorm, a strong downdraft is cooled by precipitation, so that the melting process of the snow that starts ten or fifteen thousand feet up is slowed dramatically, and the snow reaches the ground as such. Extremely rare, with any frozen precipitation almost always in the form of hail, which takes much longer to melt, but snow has reached the surface in those rare cases.
(Interestingly enough, a DRY thunderstorm downdraft can warm dramatically, producing a heat burst at the surface, where the temperature warms to above 100 degrees even in the middle of the night. This happened in Pierre, SD 20 or so years ago, but has happened several other times as well.)
As for the snow VPW described, it fits the description of your common snow shower or squall, in which the visibility drops suddenly to near zero in blinding snow, but the event passes often in less than five minutes. Any snow accumulations are light due to the very brief nature of the event, and can also be very very localized...not occurring anywhere close to a weather observing station perhaps. I remember a couple of those at HQ in late fall of 1979; once while I was out running. It was almost like a solid wall approaching and hitting.
In September in Ohio it would, meteorologically speaking, be very hard for this kind of event to occur, but I wouldnt say impossible. Perhaps somewhat harder than it would be to get an inch of snow on my September birthday (1985) because that happened in South Dakota.
IF it were a message from God to VPW, then why couldn't it have happened? And, while God knows His business better than I do (ha ha ha ha on the understatement), I wouldnt think that a sudden snow shower in January would carry the same message. If it werent from God, and/or VPW made it up, then it doesn't matter how meteorologically impossible it was.
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.