Leaderboard

The interesting part about this is how similar this sounds to many apocalyptic stories and tales. I'm considering many in various Seventh Day Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians) in particular. There are conspiracy theories with other Christian sects, as well. And it's not limited to religions. If you look at the Alex Jones / Jeff Rense brand of political belief, they are big-time into conspiracy theories, as well. (I am not including all 9-11 Truth conspiracy types, though. While the full extent of that theory is that Bush did it, but he did it at the behest of the Bilderbergers, I think that most 9-11 Truthers just believed that Bush did it for his own jollies, without being ordered around by shadows beyond Cheney). I think that the common thread is that they are looking for some theory of theories that they can use to rationalize feeling powerless and small.

This weekend marks the 40-year anniversary of the Manson murders. For me, it is a chilling reminder to see the shocking outcome when blind allegiance to a cult leader runs its course. When I attended wierwille's advanced class, I was surprised to see all the conspiracy theories... ie the illuminati, the myth of the six million, the marxist minstrels, every denomination is headed by seed men etc. etc. Far removed from reading bible verses, this "advanced class" was ushering in ideologies, unsubstantiated theories, us-versus-them agendas. In this isolated class-setting, one needed to severely ante-up to be counted as a faithful advanced class grad. Then, the corps indoctrination included aspects of MAL-pack (more abundant life in survival settings) where each corps twig was required to map out a secret destination in the event of government collapse/takeover. More so in the corps indoctrination program, the mantra "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" was well-known and voiced by the corps coordinators. So, the "general" (wierwille) might suggest something in private...and the "soldier" was to follow orders. Wierwille manipulated an "army" to jump at his command. Don't ask questions, don't ask how high to jump.........just jump. Thaaaaaat's riiiiiight. IMO, it's chilling to see the parallels of Manson's followers and the extreme subtle suggestions to the corps. Manson directed his followers' actions from behind the scenes. He didn't bloody his own hands. Thankfully, wierwille didn't project violent "prophecies" to his followers.....at least, not to my knowledge. BUT...........how close to the edge did we go???? When so many blame martindale for twi's downfall, they fail to recognize wierwille's ultra-smooth conning of one's conscience. Chilling reminders.......... :blink:

It was staged. One long time poster has detailed how she and VPW were sitting under a tree having a casual conversation, when a certain believer walked by. Wierwille jumped up and got in his face, delivering an enraged tirade. Then, when he had dismissed the person, he sat back down, smiled, made some off the wall comment about spiritual anger and casually resumed the conversation as if nothing had happened. It was all an act. He slipped in and out of character like a walk-on in a broadway show.

With the 40th anniversary of the 1969 Woodstock Festival coming up I'm curious if there was anyone here who had been there.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jq_u-M37lo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jq_u-M37lo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jq_u-M37lo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

What interesting things you miss when you're field Corps, and have the privilege of serving by scrubbing the portaloos! Bravo the guy who tossed the armband at the tosser

Interesting. I was at this meeting too and always had the impression the man about to share hadn't done a thing wrong. I was mortified for him, and it contributed to my fear of speaking up honestly.

Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't really matter if I am opposed or not. Why am I opposed? Well, I'll tell ya. But let me first preface it with this: The gay community has many times said; "What difference does it make what a man does with a man in the privacy of his own bedroom, Or a woman with a woman in her own bedroom". Ok, I do in fact think that homosexuality is incorrect behavior, and off of God's Word, but as you know, I am entitled to that opinion. You may not agree, but that's ok. This is America, and we are all entitled to our own opinions. Now, the gay community wants to say, well, we have rights too, and we believe that gay marriages will have no negative impact on our society in these here United States. Well, this is where I disagree. I do believe that it would, or very well could have a negative impact on our society. Why? Here it is: In this country, it is illegal for a boy or a girl to be married under the age of eighteen without parental consent. And many times, there have been girls under eighteem y.o, who with parental consent have married men that are far older than themselves. It has probably happened with young boys marrying older women, but no doubt it is more often older men marrying young girls. We as Citizens have seen this in the news from time to time, and maybe have even been close to it in our circles of friends and families. To many of us who have seen this, we have thought, "yeah, that's pretty weird, a thirty eight or forty year old guy marrying a seventeen year old girl. Just because the parents gave consent, don't make it right. He just wants some young booty"... Now, enter same sex marriages: Once this becomes established as "Ok", "No big deal", "Hey, it's legal!", we will begin to see what amounts to legalized pedophilia! If it is legal according to the Law, for a young woman under the age of eighteen to marry a man much much older than herself as long as she has parental consent, why should we, under the same Law disclude homosexuals-be they gay or lesbian-from marrying underaged children of the same sex as long as they have parental consent? It's ok for heteros, why should NAMBLA members be discluded? Now. Some of you may think that this possible scenario is really "reaching way too far." But, is it? Who would have ever thought twenty five years ago that we would even have an organization in this country known as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Not many of us to be sure. So I, for this reason among others, am definitely against same sex marriages. Anybody agree, disagree? [This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 05, 2004 at 11:25.]

Alfa, Remember that ROA run we made in my red 68 Mustang? I believe you and I both dodged a few real and imagined cows going through Nevada the first night. You had come up with a 'shortcut' that had us in the middle of open range.

well longgone ---its all sort of a joke around here to see all these crazies from elsewhere wanting to change my states constitution. Even the Freaking president, who thinks it is OK to invade a country on false pretenses, killing thousands, weighed in thinking it wrong people of the same sex should enter into a loving marriage.. .OOOOOOOOO KKKKKKKKK-whatever you say---but he and alot of these people were never big on honoring or upholding the constitution or giving respect to people other than those who are within their narrow camp, so what else would I expect, its just sort of a scary joke at how inconsistant, foolish and transparently antiamerican people can be. The Mass constitution states that all are equal under the law. If other states think it in their best interest to live under a discriminatory system, where one class of people is by definition better and more entitled than another -- then have at it ---in yourstate --reinstitute 3/5ths of a vote for blacks,or make other laws making discrimination legal. I thought as a nation we had moved beyond that but apparently not or at least not in some quarters.. For all the ridiculous arguments and loopholes on these pages its all a simple matter of right and wrong, gays and lesbians are full fledged contributing members of society as much as any other and deserve to be recognized and rewarded equally with all others. All the other arguments are smoke and mirror distractions that only exist to self justify the narrow. Take care of business in your own house, dont come in and mess with mine.

As an adult, I was eligable to get married. Since I'm heterosexual, I chose a woman to marry who happened to be an adult and eligable as well. If a 40 year old man wishes to marry a 10 year old girl, that doesn't work because the girl is not old enough to be eligable for marriage. Marriage can be seen as an individual right or priveledge. If someone is an adult, they should be able to marry another eligable person. This could mean homosexual marriages. This could eventually even mean polygamy. Guess what? I think that if people are old enough and mature enough to decide for themselves, I don't have a right to restrict what they do to themselves in their own life. As for the validity of homosexuality, I don't really think I should question that either. I don't like it, but I don't feel that I have the right to restrict it either. I've learned to respect gay people for everything else as individuals and leave their bedrooms to themselves. Even if we don't like what they are doing, as long as they keep it to themselves it's their right to do so.

I think that if God says to put to death any man who lies with another man in Leviticus 20:13, that a law that allows a man to legally marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman is to say the very least, "wrong". We do live in another time than the time of Leviticus, and therefore I do not believe that they should be put to death. I do believe that they should be treated with the love of God, as Jesus Christ told us to love others. Times have changed. Christ has come and done the redemption thing and Grace is here. But I do not believe that we should change our laws which will essentially say that "they are really the same as us" and therefore should have the same privileges. If God says it is wrong and is deviant behavior, then laws permitting their legal marriage would a be a law that would be contrary to God's will and would be the same as putting a "Government Stamp Of Approval" upon the lifestyle.. Hey, I have worked with a number of gay chicks on board ships, and one of them I consider a good friend. She is funny, intelligent, and a very hard worker. And when she gets drunk she likes guys and I have had to fend off her amorous attempts a time or two. Haha! But when she asked me what I thought of the fact that she was gay, I told her that I didn't think it was right with the way I believe God designed life to be (my reasoning being purely Biblical), but that I loved her as a friend and that I believed that God wants the best for her. And, we are still friends. Saw her just last week when I was aboard one of the ships I used to work on. We hugged and said hi and caught up with our goins ons.. Love the person? Well of course! Put a government stamp of approval on the lifestyle? No...

Zix, hmm, now I AM confused. I can't recall Trefor calling anyone here a gaybasher, let alone you. What are you saying ? and why are you planting that charge against Trefor? there were indeed lots of names slung around at various posters, but I can't find where trefor was a slingee. Oh well, I s'pose you have a reason to think you were called a gaybasher. Never mind. ~HAPe4me A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.

i want to apologize to cynic and zixar for my personal attack type remarks. i think they're edited out but i'm still sorry. ?

It is NOT simply "a piece of paper." It is a cultural symbol. It is represents an entire set of legal considerations all balled up, or rolled up into one "solemn" moment of commitment symbolized by the wedding. It is a currently hot topic in our society and culture because of its cultural significance, even though most of the technical and legal aspects of marriage can be invoked separately otherwise (except for income tax considerations, some of which are often characterized as penalties instead of benefits).

I originally wrote "right or power of a spouse" but I figured someone would quibble over two different meanings of "right" in my post. Still, none of the things you are privileges or powers of a spouse, such as I listed. I was primarily referring to a list of (shall we say?) grievances Trefor posted earlier. Joint tax returns are an option extended to a married couple, not a singular spouse. The option of filing either separately or jointly is one of the incentives to promote marriage, like IRA deductions are an incentive to promote private savings. Even if you and 1000Names were married, you would not have the privilege of placing yourself on his insurance. That would be his prerogative, not his spouse's. Again, covering a spouse under a health insurance policy is an incentive offered by society to promote marriage. There are private plans through which people can provide health insurance coverage for non-spouses. Same with Social Security survivor benefits. Again, there are private life insurance options.

It supports the theory that homosexual behavior is not simply some satanic deviant behavior.

Linda Z wrote, "What is 'spirated,' because I can't find it in any American English dictionary." ***** According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christia...ogy-philosophy/ , "breathe forth." It is a word I came across some years ago in a theological handbook written by a guy who apparently used it for its stronger semantic character than equivocally used words such as inspired or inspiration.

Abigail: A good question. I often wonder if many things are illegal because those who have the power don't like them rather than any real or demonstrable damage to the public good. I have somewhere a list of really weird local laws and prohibitions no doubt because somebody there didn't like a particular thing. Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to deal on point of law, not on their own individual viewpoints or to pander to the interest group that they may have been nominated by. They are human like everyone else, as are legislators but they have greater security of tenure and therefore can afford to be a little more dispassionate. That it was illegal for the slaves to have a voice once did not guarantee that viewpoint for ever. It's funny also how reasoning you may not agree with has to be dubious zix, no doubt any that you yourself agree with has to be wonderful! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

That too.

1. Depends on who chooses the "competent" professional. 2. Your obtuse language sure sounds like you just called me a name. 3. and btw, regarding your comments to Excie, you don't answer to me when you call people names, and you certainly don't justify it with the rationalization you offered.

As usual, Cynic needs links to every historical source every time a commonly known historical fact is made, particularly when regarding Calvin. And he does so in such a straw man like fashion. (After Goggling the internet for the supposedly non-existant references) OK, Cynic, here are some references that show that Calvin wasn't such the non-persecuting saint you wish to make him: 1) http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM - Showing the mindset of the one whom you can't seem to believe that he'd do such things. 2) http://online.sksm.edu/ouh/chapter/13_XIII.html - And what if Gribaldo hadn't backed down like he did, wouldn't he too have been executed for heresy? 3) http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:5pFu4...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 - Ohh look! Others who were actually killed, or at least whom Calvin went after with the intent of killing. How many of those whom I have failed to prove is it whittled down to now? :D--> Your turn, Mr. Strawman. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Rocky, I made a big mistake in my post to you. Please forgive me. I wasn't doing anything on purpose...just not thinking at all. I'm very sorry! ?????????????

Garth, does Cynic pay you to make him look good, or is it just a reflexive thing you do?

Zix, Insteresting that Cynic tells Ex to '.... off', and acts in his usually condescending and derisive manner to her as well, and yet ex's 'snits' seem to stand out to you more? Here she is trying to get him to speak in a form English that more people than just William Buckley can understand, and he just blows her off. Let someone try that .... on you, and then let's see what you think. And frankly, I think that your attempts to disguise your opposition to homosexuality behind 'legal reasoning', 'special rights', 'comparative analysis', etc. wears a little thin. Especially with your line of "If there were no homosexuals, would the world miss them" 'logic' to help bolster your case. That is so transparent, its not even funny. Tell us truly: why does homosexualtiy really get to you? Apart from the biblical injunction, that is? My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

Then challenge them. And please base it beyond your typical and thinly-veiled loyalty to your orthodoxy. It does get old after a while. My own secret sign-off ====v, Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations. Prophet Emeritus of THE, and Wandering CyberUU Hippie, Garth P. www.gapstudioweb.com

cynic are you talking to me or QQ ? ?

Trefor, Why should homosexual relationships be grouped with heterosexual relationships, rather than with relationships historically viewed as aberrant in biblically influenced cultures, for the purposes of assigning legal standing?

? [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:02.]

cynic: Or rather your reading of scripture, or the reading of scripture you have been taught. After all, scripture can be read,understood and translated mamy different ways. Take a look at http://www.truluck.com/index.htm sometime. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

okay so i'm still here cynic, can you tell me in plain english what you think ? really i mean it ?

who the hell decides who controls evaluative factors for all situations and issues ????? (i had to copy and paste what you said, cynic ;)-->) are you telling me ? the constitution is god's word ? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha the more i read the more i am confused.... ?

well the first thing that comes to mind is that homosexuals are not asking to marry a bunch of people ??????? ?

" TARGET=_blank>http://www.adrianplass.com/articles/chainsaw_fellowship.htm Oh come on Cynic, don't forget your pals in the Log Cabin Republicans.

I think all consenting adults should be able to enter into a contractual, personal partnership, a mutual commitment. The whole old-fashioned marriage thing needs to be modified and modernized. Whether the consenting adults in particular choose to call it marriage or partnership or domestic bondage is up to them. The label should be whatever they like - the bottom line is partnership. A mutual commitment contract should fulfill certain legal requirements to be recognized by the law as such, and therefore entitle the licensees to all commensurate rights and privileges in accordance with their commitment status, and in their state of residence. And why limit it to two partners? Does Webster say a partnership is limited to two? How sad for the characters on Friends that they can't all be together - a married quartet. I was thinking it might be cool if you could also marry your car, your new DVD burner, or your Rottweiler, but they are not now nor ever able to vote or pay taxes - and it's only a one-way commitment, if you really think about it. And, your Rottie will leave you someday. The first day somebody in the neighborhood's in heat, in fact. Doggies are loyal but not very faithful. Next issue?

Trefor, Your country doesn't have gay marriages, and only recently legally recognized homosexual civil relationships, so it seems to me you have little grounds to criticize the U.S.

Tell me, what is preventing this from happening now? How do we know it is NOT happening now?

I have to agree with Trefor, as his argument makes sense. Here's why: America was NOT founded on any principle even remotely related to any argument for the furtherance of "society". America WAS founded on the fundamental concept of the sovereignty of the individual citizen. Now, what we face in this debate on gay marriage probably would like much like debates in the 1700s and 1800s regarding slavery and women's rights. You see, blacks were denied the freedoms (why should they have special treatment, after all) by denying them the dignity to be considered citizens. I'm not sure how they worded or justified denial of voting rights to women, other than the original notion that a citizen was a white property owner... but the fact is that the commonly understood applicability of the rights of citizenship as spelled out in the founding documents is where the limits were made. So, any application of limitations of freedoms today (which is the real issue) must be put in terms of clarifying that gays apparently are not worth being considered citizens in our society. And that seems downright silly. Arguments about basing current societal rules on the issue based on "what's 'good' for society" or whether this would be to grant "special" rights to a "special interest group" quietly but most definitely deny the fundamental sovereignty of the individual citizen, and deny the validity of America's founding philosophy.

Just a joke, lighten up ehh? Zix I agree that there should not be any "special circumstances" or laws or rules for homosexuals. Being straight does not give us any advantages, why should it apply in their case? I just think it is thought about WAY too much. And just because many homosexuals in the past contributed greatly to society it was NOT because they were gay, it was because they contributed, imo WAYWho?

Most of the anti arguments have been rehearsed before and they are still invalid as arguments, reflecting prejudice far more than they do cogent thought. America was founded on the right to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness. It was founded to prevent religious oppression and domination, for individuals to have the right to be different and to be respected. When you deny people rights to have their relationships accepted and protected, whether or not you agree with them, you demean the founding principles and create a class of second class citizens. Even heterosexual couple are allowed to be married whether or not they intend to undertake a breeding programme - they are given protections, recognition and responsibilities which are denied to other citizens. The religious reich think that their interpretation of morality is the only correct one and throw a hissy fit when they cannot get their own way. Politicians desperate for votes climb upon the bandwagon of reaction. In many parts of the world this unfairness has been recognised, it is happening in Canada too. Religions may define marriage how they will but they have no right to dictate in a civil or secular sense about how marriage should be defined by others. Courts are there to interpret the law and one such court has broken ranks and set off a panic reaction. From my understanding of the legal situation, this ruling is only applicable in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts and, thanks to DOMA, is not binding upon any other state of the union. Most states have already passed legislation to exclude same sex marriages in their own state in any case. Bush talking about a constitutional amendment is NOT to protect his beliefs about marriage but to enforce them upon the entire nation. It seeks to deny the right of a state, which DOMA actually supported, to make its own definition, if it cared to, to define marriage being one man and one woman or otherwise. Believe it or not, this is NOT a sexual issue - it is not legitimising what people do in their bedrooms, but it is everything to do with legitimising relationships of citizens who are supposedly equal under the law and who have expectations of equality under the law. So throw up all the old red herrings - NAMBLA, paedophiles, the family, reproduction or whatever. Bring up all the religious objections you can think of, but that still does not detract from the CIVIL and SECULAR issue at hand. In the early 20th century, there was another group of people who thought their way was best for the nation - forcing through a constitutional amendment called PROHIBITION. Look what good that did for the nation. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

well... why shouldn't they have to go through all the crap straight folks do if they divorce! they've been getting away with skating free for too long! ...and MasterP brings up a valid point, it's a question of pedophilia, gay or straight, not sexual orientation... at least that's what I'm thinking... I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.

Jonny, Granted you are entitled to your opinion. However, you appeared to have presented it as a topic for discussion. And you used the court rulings in Massachusetts (spelling?) as a logical segue into the gloom and doom "inevitability" that we will be forced to accept "legalized pedophilia". We have common ground on this issue, at minimum, in concern about children being exploited. However, you don't make any logical sense in connecting the point, and I can't see any relationship between the issues. So, we agree we don't want children exploited. We don't agree that what the MASS. court ruled will lead to that happening. Further, while I can't deal with imagining the notion of two guys having sex, I cope by not imagining it. I'm not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their homes will be harmful to society. But even if it is, I am strongly against amending Constitutions for religious purposes.

Anyone at that meeting know or have a audio recording of that meeting ? I would pay someone for it just so I could have a historical record of the damage a counterfeit man of God can inflict and maybe even send it to LCM (any sightings of him ? )Maybe it would spur him to issue a public apology for his mean spirited behavior of the past. I have gotten over my bitterness I think toward him but it would be something if he ever stepped up to the plate & issue a public apology. This site would be a wonderful place to start. In the long run I guess it's between him & God so I won't hold my breath ! At least it hasn't caused as Elvis sings about a "Blue Blue Christmas's. Anyone here going to any New Years Advances ? Oh the memories !!!!!! It's so nice we had this time together la la Just to share a laugh or two with you ! Keep on the sunnyside all & have a freakin fun New Year's Eve & a healing 2004 ! [This message was edited by dougie73 on December 28, 2003 at 22:06.] [This message was edited by dougie73 on December 28, 2003 at 22:09.]

I had posted on Cherished Child's comment on the Twig Coordinators meeting that she went to and the difference in the one I witnessed in 1992 that I attended. They are definitely two separate events, and that does not surprise me that LCM would pull this more than one time. Martindale in 1992 chewed out a WOW African American guy that had an armband then, saying "I AM IN CHARGE HERE!", and the guy just turned and walked out of the tent with Martindale ridiculing him all the way out. No profanity then and the guy did not rip his armband off where we saw anything, (though I am sure he ripped it off later). Larry Panarello was the one to chase him, and out of curiosity, I slipped out the back of the tent to chase Panarello to see what was happening. The WOW guy went back and reported to his fellowship, mostly black, what had happened, and they all decided to leave. The WOW armbands came off not just one but several of them. Since there were more WOWs in that fellowship, they all took them off. It was peaceful, but I could pretty much tell they were telling Panarello to take a hike. Cherished Child's one gives a later time period, as the WOW program was canceled some years later after 1992, this guy ripped his armband off in front of everyone including Martindale, and John Reynolds chased him down. Really, it doesn't at all surprise me this happened twice at two different times with different events and people. Consider Martindale's ability to learn from his own previous mistakes... Marked and Avoided

i find that most men of god are not comfortable unless THEY are the one man-of-godding ?

Oh, I understand that LCM perceived an "it." I just think LCM manufactured it. That was my point.

I was there - I can't speak for freeman but I would have to say *it* was LCM's perceived notion that someone was trying to run the show. I never did see what the guy did - i.e. ripping off the arm band - but I remember LP running after him for damage control. I'd love to know where that guy is now. (I bet he wasn't at the ROA that night after that!)

Unfortuately, it seems that whenever I think back to being residence in the corps, not about the laughs shared with friends, but "doing" the abnormal daily routine, most of what I remember was reproof sessions, complete with strained eyeballs and bursting jugulars. Particularily during and after lunch (lovingly referred to as dinner). Ex, I too wish we could go through that now. I think I'd rip more than an arm band off. What a bunch of F-heads. Is it any wonder Way "membership" is so lean?? Who in their right mind would consider it Godly to be the subject of these insane rantings? Yes indeed, LCM's choice use of words sure inspired me, sure set a godly example. The fact he was selected to "lead" the ministry is proof enough to me that the Selector, the Creature, Box 328 New Knoxville, OH 45871, was as spiritual as his own testicles. Deck the halls with his balls this wonderful Holiday season ... CHMF.

Amazin' huh? He seemed pretty humble about it too. Not pushy in any way. Almost pleading. Poor guy. I really felt for him.

okay well i gotta say thank you oak for re-posting this because i skimmed right over it before in the other thread (oh and thank you cherished child) this may sound arrogant but no way do i mean it to be AT ALL when i was "in," this kind of lashing out was reserved for the frikkin way corps ~ meaning now that you sold your soul (with your loving sponsors' money) you are able to handle this kind of sh!t. just ask a few here what happened at microphones OHMYGOD so i see the cruelty became more common for wows, whoever i gotta say though that i love this guy for ripping off his armband. i would love to have ripped off my nametag and said %@*!_(##!_ to the men in the golden chairs but i thought i was privileged to get yelled at or watch others.... (not really, made me sick) sooooooooooooooooooo boy would i love to be able to go back in time and grab that microphone now. it would be so much fun to confront veepee publicly about his "personal" walk.... ?