Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/03/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Hey Guy: Did you ever graduate from Elementary School? Just wondering. Have a great day storming the castle. Bye bye now. Please get the medical and/or psychological help you obviously need. Thank you, and good luck!
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
    And here I thought the age for legally consuming alcoholic beverages was determined by each state. But in 1984 (under Reagan), federal legislation was enacted that apparently allowed the federal government to withhold funding that would otherwise go to states if the particular state allowed drinking by persons under 21. State legislatures moan and complain when the federal government does things like that, but they usually comply, as it has been with this issue. I was 18 when I took technical training at Keesler AFB, MS in 1973-74. I clearly remember drinking Miller Beer (not Miller Lite) during that time. Of course, off base strip clubs in Biloxi were strictly and officially off limits to impressionable youngsters like me at that time.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    Taxi, I heard VPW teach live many, many times. I throught he was boring as S--t, but many of the audience members throught he was a MOG. However, I used to hear some guy named Ralph D teach live, and his teachings were funny, passionate, and articulate. God, what a teacher he was! He was one of the very few people I loved to hear teach in TWI; he really rocked!! Taxi, in MHO you didn't miss a lot by not hearing VPW teach live. OTOH, if you didn't hear Ralph D teach live, you really did miss out! But again, that is just my opinion; others may feel differently.
  6. 1 point
    Galen, I too am a Navy Veteran. I didn't know this; thanks for the information.
  7. 1 point
    Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
  8. 1 point
    Some stuff to catch up on here - I heard VPW play that tune a few times, "Ol Rattler" or whatever it was. Later years, on one occasion, he did it on one of the Saturday "Doos" on the "Asphalt Terrace" outside the Wierwille Home and the Barn. I remember dropping in and thumping out the chords behind him the second time through - C and G7. VPW had told me way back in 1971 when he was out on the West Coast that he played some guitar, just a few chords and had played a little when he was young. I was showing him my Gibson LP, a '67 Gold Top and one of the other members had a Gibby SG he liked too. He was interested in the way you'd expect, like okay, now what. But it's funny, while he'd play that tune with all of it's two chords, he could strum with his thumb and keep the beat. Not exactly a player but he could play that. Shazdancer - the music was weak, I agree, but they had enough talent to do something decent. It seemed to be just all wired together wrong, the arrangements didn't sound coherent to me but there wasn't really any "story" for the music to follow. It was so abstract, yet struggling to communicate a complete vision. As I posted above early - it reminded me of that old 50's horror flick "The Mask". Today it would be one of those "so bad it's funny" movies, if you're doing a year in County. In fact, the only way I'll ever watch AOS again is if it's shown by Mystery Science Theater 3000.
  9. 1 point
    At 18, I enlisted and immediately after bootcamp I was able to drink beer on-base. I served on Active Duty for 20-years, on military bases it is up to the base commander whether or not he wishes to allow his underage troops to drink. The Navy's general policy is that if there is a nearby jurisdiction [within 40-miles or so] where troops could travel to and drink, then it is better to let them drink on-base. So like San Diego allows drinking on-base and Whitbey Island. Also Groton allows it.
  10. 1 point
    Your shrink ran off to Europe and didn't even... ok, no need to draw weapons. I was getting to it. The answer is "Cheers." I was stuck until I started narrowing down "an actor died, replaced by an actor who shares his character's name". "Coach", aka "Red" as his teammates called him, ("Because your hair was red?" "No, because I read a book.") well, his actor died, and Woody Harrelson came in as Woody Boyd to replace him. The theme song is nice, and has a second verse. Way back in high school, I sang in the chorus. I showed my friend Ben (Michael S' son) the theme song, and he agreed it was nice. Later, he recommended it to the chorus teacher, who got the whole thing. The second verse is weird. "Roll out of bed, Mr Coffee's dead- the morning's looking bright. And your shrink ran off to Europe, and didn't even write. And your husband wants to be a girl. Be glad there's someplace in the world where everybody knows your name...."
  11. 1 point
    I thought of something else today. VPW was keen on saying that every generation needed to work the word and make it that generation's own. He had these special revelations from God to enable him to make it his generation's own; that's why he was the (cough) Man of God For Our Day and Time (yeah, right). Well. The man has been dead for 30 years. It's a different generation now. And by VPW's own criteria, what he taught is out of date. So we need a different MOGFODAT or WOGFODAT to freshly work the word. To make it relevant for the next (current) generation. The issues that have to be faced now are doubtless basically still the same; but the approach to dealing with those issues needs to be very different. Younger people's values are somewhat different from older people's, parental age; and definitely different from their grandparents. Hey, plagiarise VPW all you like, Rozilla, others "leading" TWI; you still just plain don't - get - it.
  12. 1 point
    Back in the early lcm era, lcm redefined "research" as "re-search", or "search again," as in "to search twi materials again to memorize their contents." The Oxford English Dictionary says "research" means: "The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." Dictionary.com says it means: "diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.: " American Heritage: "1. Careful study of a given subject, field, or problem, undertaken to discover facts or principles." Merriam-Webster: "studious inquiry or examination especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws " Nothing about "searching again." Except for those people who think twi or vpw and lcm are more authoritative concerning word definitions than dictionaries, that's pretty clear. lcm sounded foolish when he said it- because it was foolish and obviously incorrect.
  13. 1 point
    In the taped/filmed class, he was specific about what he was willing to let everyone hear up front. Some things, you had to be in twi for some time to hear. In the class, vpw said he'd "dedicated his life" to the holy spirit field, and so on. He went so far as to say that God "called" him to it. He never said THERE that God spoke to him audibly, and issued the alleged 1942 "promise." (If vpw would teach it to others, God would teach him His word like it hadn't been known since the First Century, a promise that doesn't even work on paper, which wasn't even told to his wife until DECADES later, a poorly-manufactured "promise.") vpw said that he'd taken all his research books to the down dump ('"the gehenna, where the fires never go out") and started over with his Bible as his guidebook. It was the Orange Book and the White Book that began with claims vpw did all the research himself... although the White Book initially at least REFERRED to Stiles (ANONYMOUSLY) IN PASSING as someone who explained this to vpw, but by the 3rd edition, he was gone and vpw had studied and worked it all out himself. As Karl K and others have pointed out, the lack of citing the sources of the material in all the books that lack them is plagiarism, and illegal (and became felonies in each case once the dollar amount of profit raised them above the level of "misdemeanor"- since even a free plagiarism offering is a crime.) The White Book and the Orange Book use material from Leonard, Stiles, and Bullinger, and there's no proper citation of any of them. The "Studies in Abundant Living" likewise ripped off a number of writers (like Kenyon) and rarely cited them. (IIRC, ONE citation of Kenyon, in the same book he was plagiarized in a different chapter. Raf would remember.) One of the problems with ERRORS in twi/vpw was vpw's claims that "his" work came from God Almighty. This means that some people (not you) have gone around claiming it was INERRANT, and even OBVIOUS errors are UNABLE to actually BE errors. In at least one case, someone has hallucinated out secret messages hidden in them that only he has been able to find- so far- and that it's superior to the Bibles we know because this is modern Divine Revelation and the Bible is older Divine Revelation that no longer reflects the originals (according to him.) The Bibles we have are of varying levels of error and interpolation, depending on whether vpw quoted a particular verse or not. (I kid you not.) With vpw using plagiarism to make himself look like himself was some great one, there's still a few people saying "This man was the great power of God". Simon Magus would have been envious of how long his con has continued to last.
  14. 1 point
    Here's my thinking on that, which of course is contractually binding on nobody, least of all me..... Providing the discussion is not in a place that prevents it (the GSC does not prevent it, but message boards specific to a belief may), simply joining a discussion and disagreeing with anyone or everyone's POV is not rude in and of itself. My one previous objection to this was in a discussion about Bible content where someone who disbelieved it posted on it repeatedly, saying they disbelieved it, and said nothing else. I felt that seeing this REPEATEDLY added nothing to the discussion (how about "I disbelieve the book of Hezekiah because blah-blah-blah" or something). I didn't object to someone posting and disagreeing as such. So, my thinking is that I would probably offer the following general suggestions (not even "guidelines") as to such posts. Ask yourself the following questions before posting it: A) Am I adding something to the discussion, in terms of information ("some scholars think this book was a total forgery", "This seems to contradict itself in alternating chapters", etc) or in terms of discussion ("What if one approaches this as if one were about to die in 10 minutes? Your entire perspective would change, for example...) Either of those would add to a discussion, even if everyone disagreed with it. B) If I'm just posting my opinion and not adding something (an absence of the previous point), am I being concise (i.e. am I spending 5 paragraphs to just say "I believe there is no god and no reason to think there is one". Have I posted the same opinion in this discussion already without adding something else in that post or this one? (Most active discussions don't need the same posts reposted, even if they're on-topic and agreed with.) C) Can I make the exact same point by phrasing myself more diplomatically or tactfully? If so, why not do so? We're mostly aware of who disagrees with whom, here. We don't have to be mean about our posts. (IMHO, of course. Others have said the opposite was welcome.) So, I consider the relevant points to be tact, contribution to the discussion by information or introduced perspective, and whether the same poster said exactly the same thing in the same thread already. It is my considered opinion we can all get along with a little effort to be polite if not respectful, and restrict ourselves to curt and not abusive when we feel unable to do that.
  15. 1 point
    Wouldn't it be great if there was one definitive answer to this? Unfortunately, there isn't. I think it becomes rude, though, when the statement becomes condescending or mean spirited. When my son was young, he wanted to take an old lawn mower engine and make a go cart. It can be done, for sure. But, that's not the point I'm leading to. Rather than tell him outright that we had neither the materials or tools or the know-how to take on such a project, I asked him a series of questions, things like "How will we bolt the engine on?", How do we go about connecting the engine to the axle?", and on and on. He concluded for himself that the project was probably beyond our reach. You can do the same type of thing with scriptural discussions. You can pose questions like "How is _______ scientifically possible?" or "Are you aware that event conflicts with historical reality?" Well, I think you get the point. You ask lead-in questions that call for them to draw a conclusion for themselves. That may not be the best answer but it's the only one I have at the moment.
  16. 1 point
    DWBH, I had enough JBS at the AC back in 1985; I hated it then, and I hate it now. I personally do not want to waste my time on anyone who is a VPW "Wannabe." If others want to support them, and listen to their Donkey Dung, so be it. Ten years in TWI, was more than enough for me.
  17. 1 point
    friscoguy...welcome to the Grease Spot Cafe. There's no strangers here...only former cult members we haven't met yet. :)

Announcements

×