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.

<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

"Preach the gospel always, if necessary, use words." -- St Francis of Assisi

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.]

GW as kork coord. is another sto-owwree for another day. LCM was no longer the day-to-day campus guy anymore by then, lifted. he was the 6xxkkppthh kork's first year...

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.

Here Here Trefor I havent weighed in on this here and probably wont, but I have to wonder how many of these people are actually Massachusetts taxpayers like myself. Few I would would venture a guess, and that puts you all in the same boat

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...

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.

OK, I haven't followed exactly what is happening or how it's happening in Mass. Are there any articles or other information on the web? If so, it would be nice to have a link...and if that's already been done in this thread, I'm sorry for not catching it sooner. ?????????????

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.

"I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage. " That sounded so reasonable and logical, Laleo. But it really isn't. Because traditionally, a married woman was the property of her husband, who had the right to force sex upon her if she refused, and who and the final say in how many children were to be had. About the only thing a marriage offered a woman, traditionally, was some degree of financial security. Then came the sixties, abortion, birth control, and equal rights. New laws to protect married women were created and old laws done away with or changed. A woman could use birth control, a woman could legally tell her husband no to sex and expect that decision to be respected, a woman could go out and get a job and demand something closer to equal pay. NOW there is empowerment and protection for a woman. With those changes, divorce rates doubled, tripled, skyrocketed to a rate of 50+%. The concept of the traditional marriage has been changing ever since. People resist change, change is often scary to them. But not all change is bad. Today, marriage really doesn't offer any special protection to a woman and she doesn't even need it anyway. There are still many flaws to be worked out and some of these changes have brought up issues which we still haven't resolved. But I for one am very glad we no longer have those traditional protections offered by marriage which basically made a woman the property of her husband. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

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

That, plus Cynic has this rather irritating habit of talking like a cliquish prep school bookworm who confuses bandying about big sounding words for utilizing 'Scripture for faith and practice'. Never mind that you don't see biblical individuals like Peter, Paul, David, or even Jesus Christ going around and talking like they are some William Buckley knock-off, and then getting all huffy about 'orthodoxy' and 'polemic heretical hacks' when challenged. No, they acted more real than that. Heck, and they weren't even Republicans! Update: Cynic spouteth: ".... off!" Now, now Cynic, who'se acting polemic now? Or are you going to give us a Buckleyesque critique and apologetic about why your snit towards Ex is justified? Defending the 'Gospel', no doubt? 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 ? ?

. [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 11:05.]

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?

okay i don't get this comparisonand the next one.... SAME ????? what ? now i'll go back and keep reading ?

ohmygosh catch me i'm about to faint i didn't know this was a religious discussion ?

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

i think we should take away all married people's rights ?

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.... ?

Zixar appears to be aiming at the uncritical sloganeering of Trefor's appeals to equality and liberty by demonstrating that equality and liberty could not reasonably be deemed controlling evaluative factors for all situations and issues.

I don't get the point of zixar's analogies either... and Coolwaters, I don't know how you came up with the connection on pursuit of happiness, but I appreciate it, because it takes the matter back to the foundation of our society. And as to the point regarding polygamy, I don't see polygamy inherently as something that should be subject to specific exclusion, but as with homosexuality, some of the related cultural manifestations are or may be highly undesirable. Welfare fraud, closed societies with no accountability and high levels of personal intimidation, and child sexual exploitation are very real issues inherently tied to polygamist subcultures in northern Arizona and Utah.

Anyone care to argue why appeals to equality and liberty should advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of homosexual relationships, but should not advance as compelling a cause for full legal recognition of polygyny?

Ex: The point is that marriage has a traditional definition, with certain rules. Now, homosexuals want to redefine it to suit their wishes, regardless of how it has always been practiced. There have been many, many homosexual men who married women, either for appearance's sake, or to have children, or some other reason. There is currently no sexual-preference check in order to get a marriage license, but you do have to have one and only one of each gender to do so. There is no ban on homosexuals entering into marriage, they just can't do it with another person of the same gender. That's just how marriage works--like the priesthood. You want to be a priest? Fine. But you have to obey the rules, and one of those is that you must be celibate. Why should they have to make an exception because some people don't want to choose celibacy? There are other churches which do allow marriage of the clergy. I've forgotten at the moment who was making the "democracy" argument for states voting on gay marriage one by one. That doesn't wash. Why? Well, what would have stopped the Southern states from re-instating slavery at the first general election after the Civil War? We should address the secular inequity from gay/single vs. married, but only that. Anything more would build even more on the new state-sponsored religion--political correctness.

Let's not be naive. It already is a Federal issue. Proponents of gay marriage intend to use Massachusetts law to challenge DOMA. Shortly after the Massachusetts law takes effect, gay couples married in Massachusetts will file suits in Federal Courts to require other States to recognize the marriages, based on Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. I'm pretty sure that some U.S. District judges, and one or two Circuit Courts of Appeals would rule it unconstitutional. I think the current U.S. Supreme Court would probably uphold it, , based on the second sentence of Article IV, Section 1, but that's not certain. Also, a future Supreme Court could reverse that ruling.I think this is going to backfire on gay rights advocates. There will almost certainly be a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I think has a good chance to be ratified. I don't like the idea of amending the constitution for such things, but it's becoming the only option left to people of States who want to continue to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

I have no idea... I've not been invited to their meetings. I'm neither gay nor republican.

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

Hey, Zix, you asked: "Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function." How 'bout Queer Eye For The Sraight Guy!

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?

JL: And if you were a teenage girl instead, you'd have probably still kicked his heterosexual a$$, right? :)--> That's why I said that the bad acts of individuals are as irrelevant as the good acts of individuals.

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?

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 work for LCM's *twin sister*, I swear - at least I had practice on dealing with this kind of ego before...)" Chas, is that "work",present tense or "worked", past tense? I didn't know LCM has a twin. I heard a few years back that he was estranged from his entire "earthly family", even before the Allen Lawsuit. Do you know if they managed to patch things up? What was it like, working for the sister of The Most Hight Way god?

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!)

Greetings all and happy holidays. My wife and I were at that TC meeting and it was so uncomfortable just to be there. The young man was exhorting the crowd in the tent to "Keep it simple" and that set LCM off on his diatribe. I remember as the words were coming out of his mouth We were cringing in our chairs, not because the young man was wrong, but I guess only LCM and his ego could give direction at "HIS" meeting and we knew what was comming. It was L#$RY Pan^&*$%o who LCM sent to clean up his mess. I must admit at the time I thought it was funny, But it must have been humiliating for the guy and I'm sorry I felt that way. It would have been so easy to have handled it in a kind and loving manner but bullies will do what bullies do. One either earns another's respect through love or intimidates with fear. LCM always chose the latter. Peace and Blessings IMA

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.... ?