Yeppers! He only THOUGHT he was free to do what he wanted to regarding running a site on his own. So much for "not being affiliated or run by TWI." Rude awakening, for sure. HOpefully he'll continue to awaken! :D-->
This should be no surprise. None of the clergy or higher level leadership were ever skilled at dealing with dissent of differing opinions. This malady is not confined to TWI either. Many posters here have longed for my being banned.
Not true, "none of the clergy" is hyperbole, so vague as to be uh, vague. Dissent, differing opinions...flip the mirror around Mike. You "deal" by simply ignoring or stonewalling or restating what you've already said about your presonal interpretations of PFAL, Way history and actual facts.
I got an email awhile back where a poster reminded me that I had wanted you "banned". For the record I've never asked or suggested here that you be banned. Early on in the first 1,000 posts of yours where you were getting ready to start to prepare to have something you were almost ready to post once you got everything ready, you made some statements about how in the past, the first time around, Way believers rejected PFAL's message and now, in the form of your posting here they were being given a chance to relook at and embrace PFAL (although in your repackaged and reinterpreted message) and if they didn't this time around there'd be no excuse, it would be "their fault".
You've softened that proposition quite a bit or don't say it quite as cleary, I guess to maintain some presence here. At that time I posted I'd like to see your thread deleted, "removed". Not you banned. I found your proposition unacceptable and inappropriate for this board particularly and ill founded in general. That was my opinion and suggestion and had nothing to do with you being banned, which would involve a blocking of your ip address or a range of addresses to keep you from resigning on and ever posting here.
Personally I only consider what you post when I read it here, which isn't very often. It's a free country. I've said before what many others have said - your reinventions are your business. The fact I disagree with some of them is only a matter of this board's activity, outside of GS it's a non-issue.
For the record. :)--> As a matter of fact, I can't think of too many people that have said they would want you banned but I only deal with this stuff on the board, I don't know what goes on behind the scenes in emails.
-I'd doubt that other Way site would enterain serious doctrinal or PFAL discussions at all, as that would open the door to too many questions and the appearance of a lack of "like mindedness". The Way's fellowships have long been places of just that - fellowship, not designed for the serious consideration of the bible and it's history and related matters. They're little mini-churches, and there's lots of churchs and they're just another one now. Doctrinal matters are handled by sanctioned representatives. They might as well start giving out Teaching Licenses or Certifiactions to be a "certified Way Instructor of the Prevailing Truth".
You're right, it is hyperbole. But isn't that a legitimate figure of speech?
Actually, as I look at your quote of me, I think should have written it a little better than that.
I know that lots of conversations took place involving disagreement and debate around small matters or around matters involving how to exactly move the Word in the early years, but that diminished as time went by. Things got more and more like "my way or the highway" into the 80's.
What I am expressing when I say things like that is that we had a system set up where when there was a serious difference of opinion involving serious doctrinal matters, whoever had the upper hand in the Way Tree would squash the discussion after a few very short rounds.
This system was good at first, but as we drifted from the accurate written doctrine we were given and into the TVTs, then this system was not well suited to straighten out the developing mess. Instead of being scrapped, the system of severely limiting debate became more and more the rule. Leaders rarely had the time or opportunity to experience extended witnessing situations involving much debate. When dealing with grads, leadership got more and more stingy into the 80's with ANY kinds of words.
Long, extended, and hotly contested debates like we have here were never practiced in the Way as far as I know. I also saw the pattern that leaders had less and less practice at dealing with dissent and withered in these skills. They had to resort to all kinds of deceit or anger to stifle dissent.
***
I did not have you in mind when I mentioned the calls here for my banning. I can't remember that event at all that you just brought up.
***
I had a hard time making sense of this one sentence:
"Early on in the first 1,000 posts of yours where you were getting ready to start to prepare to have something you were almost ready to post once you got everything ready, you made some statements about how in the past, the first time around, Way believers rejected PFAL's message and now, in the form of your posting here they were being given a chance to relook at and embrace PFAL (although in your repackaged and reinterpreted message) and if they didn't this time around there'd be no excuse, it would be 'their fault'."
The only re-packaging I remember going through was when I discovered that Rafael was not a leaders in the good old days, and I had to re-group to re-address most f my message to OLGs. That was when I made up that acronym. Otherwise I haven't changed anything in my approach or in the main points.
I do remember in those months constantly trying to get to something and being constantly distracted by sex and plagiarism issues. I have spent many hours dealing with those two distractions, and feel they are finally put to rest SOMEWHAT in their ability to distract me. Someday I may gather all my posts on these two recurring issues, along with a few from other posters, like HCW's recent reports, and put them into a summary.
That "something" I was wanting to get to amid the distractions was eventually brought into the mix. It's the return of Christ and the new administration we can walk into by mastering PFAL.
Maybe you could re-write that one long sentence if I missed the mark of what you were getting at.
I will admit that my writing skills two years ago may have needed some refinement (and still some more now). I have grown a little to better express some things. I do sometimes use hyperbole to hit hard on an important issue. When asked I can explain, and maybe my writing skills will progress more to make my intentions more clear in the future.
Ban Mike?...NO WAY! Readng Mike's posts keeps me in stitches... :D--> It's sorta like a combination of "Fire Sign Theater" and the "Twilight Zone"...with the ghost of Wierwille always present. Mike IS that man that he always knew to be...that one true disciple of the great one...and a constant reminder to all of us, what we escaped from...Hal a loo ya! ;)--> :D-->
I feel somewhat (that's SOMEWHAT) complimented by you both.
In the late 60's and early 70's I was an avid FT fan... and still am. I met them and partied with them for a weekend in 1970. Even got their home phone numbers, or some of them. My first acid trip was spent on the phone with Rocky Rococco for a half hour. I was in a FT "fellowship" of other FT fans before taking the PFAL class. In 1989 I made an imitation FT album of my own, sent it to one of them (David Ossman), and got a positive review in writing. Even prayed with him on the phone for his wife one night as she was about to birth to their second baby. Nowadays as a hobby I do standup comedy gigs in their style at open mic poetry meetings.
So you can see, I'm a little confused if you just insulted me or complimented me.
Would you like me to send you a CD of my attempt to duplicate their comedy? Free?
No, It's Rocky. And no, I didn't feel all that complimented, but it sure was a good way to deflect the insult, wasn't it? :D-->
Otherwise, JT, my FT story was completely true.
***
Mr. Hammeroni,
I didn't take the official acid test.
I was in NY and several years removed from Kesey, but I did talk to him on the phone once and his wife several times. I got tons of stories about them. His number was actually listed in the phonebook.
Kesey's acid tests were pretty hairy, and I'd have probably freeked out. I did go through some crazy times with later East Coast hippies, though...AND passed their tests.
I never had a bad trip... until I got into the Word. Oh boy! THEN I had a few VERY bad trips, and quit right away!
Hey Mr Ham, I may need you help on another thread, the PFAL one. Def59 thinks he's sniffing devil spirits in me again. Steve Lortz does that all the time. I'm asking you for your help because you so disdained that kid of control mechanism in TWI on a thread the other day. Are you game? You aren't going to allow that junk on GSC are you? I mean it. I want someone to tell them to stop! :(-->
"My first acid trip was spent on the phone with Rocky Rococco."
I think it's Ricky Rococco.
JT
JT -- it's Rocky Roccoco and he faced off against Nick Danger, Third Eye.
I'm thinking this was on the All Hail Marx and Lennon album that Firesign did, but it's been so long since I heard it, I'm not sure now.
We used to listen to that constantly. It was kinda like the *class*, ya know? Everytime you heard it, some new *revelation* popped out that you missed in the previous *session*. :D--> :D-->
I'm always trying to be nice. This thread is turning out to be a little R&R. Are you objecting to me mixing this pleasure with business? I'm not quite following you.
Have any of you FT folks, Just Folks, ever heard "Roller Maidens from Outer Space" ???
It's extremely rare, but I finally fond it about 10 years ago. It's their positive version of the Apocalypse. Firesign's "Everything You Know Is Wrong" is also apocalyptical but very negative.
Roller Maidens actually has a positive portrayal of Jesus Christ in it. He's undercover in the story as a Mexican gardener, and in the end.... Oh! ..Oops... I won't spoil it. It's very blasphemous to the religious mentality, but I thought it was the best media portrayal of Jesus ever. I liked him in "Godspel" pretty much before hearing Roller Maidens, though.
Now don't get me wrong. Roller Maidens is totally off doctrine wise. In fact, it's not doctrine at all; it's comedy. But it portrays Jesus as a character that I can like much better than the glassy eyed zombie that Hollywood often portrayed him in the past. (I haven't seen Mel Gibson's movie yet.) Roller Maidens is VERY offensive to tradition, and I certainly wouldn't want to seriously incorporate any of it in with my walk with God, but it can be a refreshingly good chuckle that I don't think God is uptight about. Anything out of balance and in excess can be sin, but this thing is FUNNY!
I've heard that it's two hours of abuse on a human body. I kinda don't need that.
When I read "Jesus Christ Our Passover" 20 plus years ago I was stunned at how much more Jesus took than I had been aware of previously.
From what I've heard of Mel Gibson's movie, it too falls short of the scenery in Dr's book. Instead of two hours of on-screen abuse, Jesus actually had to deal with 40 hours of it, 6 of those hours hanging from the nails on the cross.
Ever consider the effect that Charleton Heston playing Moses had on our culture's mental image of that Biblical character. Now that it is firmly buring into everyone's mind, try to read the Bible seeing that the real Moses stuttered, and had no public leadership abilitys. He never spoke directly to the people of Israel, he had to use his prophet for all public speaking. But it is difficult for us to imagine such after we have all watched the movie.
Mel Gibson no doubt tried his best to be accurate to his beleifs. Was he fully accurate to the Biblical account? If not then he has frimly set into all veiwer's minds error. Correcting that error in any beleiver's mind will be terribly difficult.
I have heard it taught that there is good reason NOT to watch some movies.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
74
18
61
Popular Days
Jan 18
40
Jan 17
33
Feb 19
26
Feb 18
25
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 18 posts
Mike 74 posts
JustThinking 18 posts
Ham 61 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2005
40 posts
Jan 17 2005
33 posts
Feb 19 2005
26 posts
Feb 18 2005
25 posts
Ham
"So, John B's experiment showed him that it was more difficult than anticipated to have even a cyber two-way communication situation."
I bet it showed him a heck of a lot more. I bet he found that he has to kiss TWI's backsides in more ways than he thought possible even before..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yeppers! He only THOUGHT he was free to do what he wanted to regarding running a site on his own. So much for "not being affiliated or run by TWI." Rude awakening, for sure. HOpefully he'll continue to awaken!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Not true, "none of the clergy" is hyperbole, so vague as to be uh, vague. Dissent, differing opinions...flip the mirror around Mike. You "deal" by simply ignoring or stonewalling or restating what you've already said about your presonal interpretations of PFAL, Way history and actual facts.
I got an email awhile back where a poster reminded me that I had wanted you "banned". For the record I've never asked or suggested here that you be banned. Early on in the first 1,000 posts of yours where you were getting ready to start to prepare to have something you were almost ready to post once you got everything ready, you made some statements about how in the past, the first time around, Way believers rejected PFAL's message and now, in the form of your posting here they were being given a chance to relook at and embrace PFAL (although in your repackaged and reinterpreted message) and if they didn't this time around there'd be no excuse, it would be "their fault".
You've softened that proposition quite a bit or don't say it quite as cleary, I guess to maintain some presence here. At that time I posted I'd like to see your thread deleted, "removed". Not you banned. I found your proposition unacceptable and inappropriate for this board particularly and ill founded in general. That was my opinion and suggestion and had nothing to do with you being banned, which would involve a blocking of your ip address or a range of addresses to keep you from resigning on and ever posting here.
Personally I only consider what you post when I read it here, which isn't very often. It's a free country. I've said before what many others have said - your reinventions are your business. The fact I disagree with some of them is only a matter of this board's activity, outside of GS it's a non-issue.
For the record.
:)--> As a matter of fact, I can't think of too many people that have said they would want you banned but I only deal with this stuff on the board, I don't know what goes on behind the scenes in emails.
-I'd doubt that other Way site would enterain serious doctrinal or PFAL discussions at all, as that would open the door to too many questions and the appearance of a lack of "like mindedness". The Way's fellowships have long been places of just that - fellowship, not designed for the serious consideration of the bible and it's history and related matters. They're little mini-churches, and there's lots of churchs and they're just another one now. Doctrinal matters are handled by sanctioned representatives. They might as well start giving out Teaching Licenses or Certifiactions to be a "certified Way Instructor of the Prevailing Truth".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
You're right, it is hyperbole. But isn't that a legitimate figure of speech?
Actually, as I look at your quote of me, I think should have written it a little better than that.
I know that lots of conversations took place involving disagreement and debate around small matters or around matters involving how to exactly move the Word in the early years, but that diminished as time went by. Things got more and more like "my way or the highway" into the 80's.
What I am expressing when I say things like that is that we had a system set up where when there was a serious difference of opinion involving serious doctrinal matters, whoever had the upper hand in the Way Tree would squash the discussion after a few very short rounds.
This system was good at first, but as we drifted from the accurate written doctrine we were given and into the TVTs, then this system was not well suited to straighten out the developing mess. Instead of being scrapped, the system of severely limiting debate became more and more the rule. Leaders rarely had the time or opportunity to experience extended witnessing situations involving much debate. When dealing with grads, leadership got more and more stingy into the 80's with ANY kinds of words.
Long, extended, and hotly contested debates like we have here were never practiced in the Way as far as I know. I also saw the pattern that leaders had less and less practice at dealing with dissent and withered in these skills. They had to resort to all kinds of deceit or anger to stifle dissent.
***
I did not have you in mind when I mentioned the calls here for my banning. I can't remember that event at all that you just brought up.
***
I had a hard time making sense of this one sentence:
"Early on in the first 1,000 posts of yours where you were getting ready to start to prepare to have something you were almost ready to post once you got everything ready, you made some statements about how in the past, the first time around, Way believers rejected PFAL's message and now, in the form of your posting here they were being given a chance to relook at and embrace PFAL (although in your repackaged and reinterpreted message) and if they didn't this time around there'd be no excuse, it would be 'their fault'."
The only re-packaging I remember going through was when I discovered that Rafael was not a leaders in the good old days, and I had to re-group to re-address most f my message to OLGs. That was when I made up that acronym. Otherwise I haven't changed anything in my approach or in the main points.
I do remember in those months constantly trying to get to something and being constantly distracted by sex and plagiarism issues. I have spent many hours dealing with those two distractions, and feel they are finally put to rest SOMEWHAT in their ability to distract me. Someday I may gather all my posts on these two recurring issues, along with a few from other posters, like HCW's recent reports, and put them into a summary.
That "something" I was wanting to get to amid the distractions was eventually brought into the mix. It's the return of Christ and the new administration we can walk into by mastering PFAL.
Maybe you could re-write that one long sentence if I missed the mark of what you were getting at.
I will admit that my writing skills two years ago may have needed some refinement (and still some more now). I have grown a little to better express some things. I do sometimes use hyperbole to hit hard on an important issue. When asked I can explain, and maybe my writing skills will progress more to make my intentions more clear in the future.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Ban Mike?...NO WAY! Readng Mike's posts keeps me in stitches...
:D--> It's sorta like a combination of "Fire Sign Theater" and the "Twilight Zone"...with the ghost of Wierwille always present. Mike IS that man that he always knew to be...that one true disciple of the great one...and a constant reminder to all of us, what we escaped from...Hal a loo ya! 
;)--> 
:D--> 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
UH,
Fire Sign Theatre! COOOOL!
Mike Danger, Third Eye?
We're all bozos on this board?
For everyone else here, google the comedy group. Classic stuff for those who survived the chemically enhanced lifestyle of the 60s.
:)-->
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
UncleHairy and JustThinking,
I feel somewhat (that's SOMEWHAT) complimented by you both.
In the late 60's and early 70's I was an avid FT fan... and still am. I met them and partied with them for a weekend in 1970. Even got their home phone numbers, or some of them. My first acid trip was spent on the phone with Rocky Rococco for a half hour. I was in a FT "fellowship" of other FT fans before taking the PFAL class. In 1989 I made an imitation FT album of my own, sent it to one of them (David Ossman), and got a positive review in writing. Even prayed with him on the phone for his wife one night as she was about to birth to their second baby. Nowadays as a hobby I do standup comedy gigs in their style at open mic poetry meetings.
So you can see, I'm a little confused if you just insulted me or complimented me.
Would you like me to send you a CD of my attempt to duplicate their comedy? Free?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
Now I know where all the VPisms come from. Are you Rich Little?
I will defend your right to say whatever you want. I hope you never leave. Georgie Porgey Tire Biter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
justloafing,
No, sorry, I'm only just a little rich.
It looks like a bunch of us are finding some common ground!
:D-->
If anyone starts a Firesign Theatre thread in the Just Plain Silly forum, PLEASE let me know about it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just one question. "did you pass the acid test?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
You feel complimented because you happen to like the same thing someone else does? ????
I think it's Ricky Rococco.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jt,
No, It's Rocky. And no, I didn't feel all that complimented, but it sure was a good way to deflect the insult, wasn't it?
:D-->
Otherwise, JT, my FT story was completely true.
***
Mr. Hammeroni,
I didn't take the official acid test.
I was in NY and several years removed from Kesey, but I did talk to him on the phone once and his wife several times. I got tons of stories about them. His number was actually listed in the phonebook.
Kesey's acid tests were pretty hairy, and I'd have probably freeked out. I did go through some crazy times with later East Coast hippies, though...AND passed their tests.
I never had a bad trip... until I got into the Word. Oh boy! THEN I had a few VERY bad trips, and quit right away!
Hey Mr Ham, I may need you help on another thread, the PFAL one. Def59 thinks he's sniffing devil spirits in me again. Steve Lortz does that all the time. I'm asking you for your help because you so disdained that kid of control mechanism in TWI on a thread the other day. Are you game? You aren't going to allow that junk on GSC are you? I mean it. I want someone to tell them to stop!
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
.....and mike, here I thought you were being nice....now I find you are just playing a different kind of game...
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
JT -- it's Rocky Roccoco and he faced off against Nick Danger, Third Eye.
I'm thinking this was on the All Hail Marx and Lennon album that Firesign did, but it's been so long since I heard it, I'm not sure now.
We used to listen to that constantly. It was kinda like the *class*, ya know? Everytime you heard it, some new *revelation* popped out that you missed in the previous *session*.
:D--> 
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Here! here! Where? Where? There. There.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Vickles,
I'm always trying to be nice. This thread is turning out to be a little R&R. Are you objecting to me mixing this pleasure with business? I'm not quite following you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
Didn't Firesign Theater do a thing about "We're
All Bozos on this Bus"?
I love that line! Sometimes I say it and people don't get the reference. They look at me like "Huh?"
"We're all bozos on this bus!" Love it!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Funny.. I just listened to that one last night. Found it on CD at local bookstore. Brings back a few memories..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
outandabout,
YOU TOO are a Firesign Freak!!!!?
Maybe we could start a local fan club here in SD!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Have any of you FT folks, Just Folks, ever heard "Roller Maidens from Outer Space" ???
It's extremely rare, but I finally fond it about 10 years ago. It's their positive version of the Apocalypse. Firesign's "Everything You Know Is Wrong" is also apocalyptical but very negative.
Roller Maidens actually has a positive portrayal of Jesus Christ in it. He's undercover in the story as a Mexican gardener, and in the end.... Oh! ..Oops... I won't spoil it. It's very blasphemous to the religious mentality, but I thought it was the best media portrayal of Jesus ever. I liked him in "Godspel" pretty much before hearing Roller Maidens, though.
Now don't get me wrong. Roller Maidens is totally off doctrine wise. In fact, it's not doctrine at all; it's comedy. But it portrays Jesus as a character that I can like much better than the glassy eyed zombie that Hollywood often portrayed him in the past. (I haven't seen Mel Gibson's movie yet.) Roller Maidens is VERY offensive to tradition, and I certainly wouldn't want to seriously incorporate any of it in with my walk with God, but it can be a refreshingly good chuckle that I don't think God is uptight about. Anything out of balance and in excess can be sin, but this thing is FUNNY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
DM, Mike,
You guys are correct and I'm wrong. My new story:
TWI's evil stopped on a dime...
;)-->
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Mike, do you mean you haven't seen passion of the Christ yet ??!!!!
If you haven't, I urge you to go look.
"I wish you could have seen it in the original."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I've heard that it's two hours of abuse on a human body. I kinda don't need that.
When I read "Jesus Christ Our Passover" 20 plus years ago I was stunned at how much more Jesus took than I had been aware of previously.
From what I've heard of Mel Gibson's movie, it too falls short of the scenery in Dr's book. Instead of two hours of on-screen abuse, Jesus actually had to deal with 40 hours of it, 6 of those hours hanging from the nails on the cross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Ever consider the effect that Charleton Heston playing Moses had on our culture's mental image of that Biblical character. Now that it is firmly buring into everyone's mind, try to read the Bible seeing that the real Moses stuttered, and had no public leadership abilitys. He never spoke directly to the people of Israel, he had to use his prophet for all public speaking. But it is difficult for us to imagine such after we have all watched the movie.
Mel Gibson no doubt tried his best to be accurate to his beleifs. Was he fully accurate to the Biblical account? If not then he has frimly set into all veiwer's minds error. Correcting that error in any beleiver's mind will be terribly difficult.
I have heard it taught that there is good reason NOT to watch some movies.
:-)
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.