WhiteDove

By the way this has nothing to do with torturing dogs which is the subject so now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Well we will disagree then because I don't see it as any different to consciously deceive someone to, do that which you know to be wrong is sin ,and sin is sin. If your going to hold one man accountable then you need to hold every man accountable for their lifestyle choices. Who decides who gets a free pass and who does not?

Not so fast Every time? Really ...I know people that think angels appeared as animals. regardless people or animals what they appear to be is not necessarily what they are. Hense the old saying Things are not what they seem.

Now see There you go again ,why do you asume I think they are without merit? I don't recall that I stated that .What I said is they are not doccumentable. not the same. (see above posts) First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts. Each party will have their own first hand story. rarely does one coincide with another. Evidence helps in determining which is truthful. we have no factual evidence to compare with the testimony as such it is simply he said /she said. No doubt you would convict based on an agenda.

I can see people feeling bad about actions that in retrospect they realize better choices could have been made. I'd classify that as mistakes in judgement. I can't see espessially those attempting to live a Christian lifestyle doing things that are dishonest and know to be wrong. Isn't that the complaint against VP he did not live the life he spoke about. Are they any different? Were they the man they knew to be?

So which is it ? New or the same? Indeed it was ,due to the facts presented ,not the distraction of a tie color which of course would not change a class it appears it is a new class, although one can argue it is the second edited. After all no new content just less. Nothing new per say. But ain't it grand when the facts not speculation or tie color show us the truth. I suppose we can agree on this I bet they charge for it again to see the same class with the edited part left out. I suppose that might be the real measure of things, if they are letting them repeat the class then it would not be new. You can bet they would charge for a new one.

Just a question without starting WW3 If you felt so strongly about this as you have indicated. Why did you instruct the class. Had I been so embarrassed I think one would decline to do so? Were you honest with the class or did you misrepresent it anyway as something of worth to take.

Undocumented would be the answer. But since you did not try to speculate on some number as a basis for a claim of content or something I think your OK. By the way I don't consider any argument to stop the surpression of truthful facts as silly.....

David It degenerated into a squabble about a damm syllabus because some people just can't stand the fact that any information put out here is questioned, and found to be in error. It does not go well with the mission that as long as it is anti Way it is good enough. It matters not if its truthful or not. I reject that point of view ,truth matters and I will defend it. It was a simple correction should have gone unchallenged , much like the torture of a dog but some as I said think the mission gives them the right to make error palatable. I beg to differ. As much as I may have a personal theory that Bill Clinton was not president the facts tell us that he was. My guess does not make it any different. I can't comment on how privileged the info was, anyone that sat through the tape could write down the same notations, to me it's a friggin set of notes. That's all ! But being in existence I must truthfully represent their existence all 34 pages of them. Especially if one bases an argument on the misinformation about them. It is documentation of my point as such needs to be submitted.

I couldn't agree more David I posted a simple correction for records sake and as usual one poster wants to pick at the record, offering nothing in return to validate the claim. I try to be very factual in what I post. Despite the fact that I just live in Kansas. Eventually some will get it that I do know what I speak of. I do so because accurate information is paramount to discussion here. Why anyone wants to argue in support of any other is beyond me. I can only surmise that the agenda must be right, is more important than factual record. that is sad....... By the way I agree Adultery should of and could of been a valuable topic in CF & S as well as afew other things. I just hope The song of the day thread will not end up questioning that BB King sang blues or something because of some agenda. Now back to CFS.....The discussion. Edited to add that in no way did I mean to imply(in case anyone thought I did) that Wordwolf was being any less than honest in his post . I believe it was an honest mistake in that he did not have access to the document to know that the two were part of a larger set of notes. That said it does challenge and I believe invalidate his premise (based on his knwledge of pages) that it was short on substance. See below Quote..... In retrospect given the volume of pages correctly noted as to incorrectly noted as 2, it appears it had substance . If that substance was useful is debatable according to personal viewpoint.

First you assume the story is highly questionable that of course is your right ,however the facts of the case clearly show otherwise. There are none ,zero that show the case to be questionable. All of the officials and others as well are in agreement that it happened. Only George and a few others here have decided without any factual evidence presented, only speculation and theories just because they think thats not the way it happened are in disagreement. The official record agrees it happened and the party was sentanced. Let me refresh your memory......... QUOTE Quote Snopes ....Based on a Reunion newspaper article which acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, We'd have to say that there is some truth to the shark fishing claim........ QUOTE The French Embassy in Washington D.C. has also maintained that although the practice is not unknown its occurrence is not as prevalent as recent news reports have made it seem In your letter that you referenced QUOTE Quote "We would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is exceptional and isolated It was never widespread nor traditional but intruduced by ruthless individuals." Introduced meaning that it did in fact go on...case closed QUOTE " The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated individual parties that are being sought after by police and will be brought to justice." Now that that is out of the way part two of your assumption. As in the case of the dog, factual evidence is paramount to the truth. I have neither pardoned or condemned anyone in the case of abuse of humans. I have found lacking any evidence. Not verbal testimony undocumented by facts. As such it neither validates the claim or invalidates the claim .It is insufficient evidence to make a determination either way .It comes down to he said she said. As such I am not willing to make a judgment on a person for such a serious crime based on non documentable words. Some may choose to based on feeling or emotion, anger or other motives that's their right I suppose. but hopefully they will never serve on a jury with that premise. Again your accusation is unfounded I have made no such determination of pardon.

In the interest of factual record here I do. It is doubtful misinformation will be of any benefit to discussion.

By the way I ran a few of these classes and as an instructor you did not even know who wrote what, the pages were mixed together and handed in , unless you had them handed in in the order of the seating arrangement it would be impossible to know who's paper was who's Generally people handed them in when done, not in seating order. I made a point to shuffle them so no one could tell. That's in a room with 10 people imagine a room with hundreds of such nameless papers. Impossible..... Look its pretty simple it's like a deck of cards each card say representing a students paper. shuffle the deck or not tell me which card is which student? The only way International would know who wrote what was if the papers were collected and kept in order and then the instructor were to write a seating chart to accompany the stack of papers with each persons name. I know of no such cases. This is a strawman argument to attempt to make a point that is not factual. Unfortunatly for the straw man it was not well thought out and common sense can tell you it has no merit.

Perhaps you did not notice that funny looking little mark at the end of the sentence . That's referred to as a question mark it follows a question ,or so I'm told. It is not a twisted interpretation of anything . it's purpose is to seek to clarify a point that is unclear. It is also not a statement it is a question.

Clearly you are confused between two papers the From Birth to Corps papers with a name on them and a questionnaire without one. Whether the Corps papers were held in confidence or not has no bearing on another paper that has no relation to it. That’s a straw man argument.. they are two different things or papers as it is. It is impossible to determine from an X who is speaking on a sheet of paper. Here let me demonstrate X X X X X Please kindly give the names of those responsible for the above answers.... I'd stop now while you are hopelessly behind.... and quit trying to supress the facts

Wrong again someone misrepresented the questionnaire it has everything to do with the discussion, one can't discuss questions honestly that were on a questionnaire that were factually not there. It is fundamentally dishonest to make up questions that did not appear on a questionnaire and then theorize about them. Not that I think that was the case here I'd guess it was a case of poor memory. None the less before the theorizing gets out of hand it is indeed proper to correct the error. . No the exact verbiage is relevant to discussion one can not prove the point or disprove the point when they simply can't even figure out the question.

edited to add this: Yes, they were anonymous but HQ had a list of students in every class. They had to keep that for determining eligibility for the Advanced Class. So, suppose you had a class of 10 people, 7 were female , 5 of them were married and, of the two remaining single women, only one went into the Way Corps. I think you can do the math. Exactly what math could you do? You have a envelope with a class of ten peoples papers ,no names, you can determine from a class list at best, that there were x amount of men and x amount of women only. Which parties went to which papers one would have no way to determine. Even if someone were to enter the Corps program at some later time and someone were to dig for information, all that would be on record was 10 people took this class 10 questionnaires' were turned in who went with what questionnaire is not determinable. That’s assuming that they kept the class lists and each set of questionnaires' together which is doubtful since the list did not accompany the questionnaires' in the first place. Oh and By the way they were mark an x questions so there was no handwriting to analyze . ( just in case someone might decide to grasp at some straw to further their case along) Real facts are so much fun.... No it's not it is correcting a point made that was in error. Not a big deal but still should be corrected. Is it your contention that erroneous information should be used to somehow discuss the truth?

Just for the record their are 18 questions on the questionnaire NONE have to do with if one had homosexual experiences. the questionnaires were sent to The Way Int. the purpose or as I was told was to provide feedback for areas of future development based on participants answers. Note from the instructors guide (all CAPS) THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHOULD NOT BE ANALYZED OR SUMMARIZED BY THE CLASS INSTRUCTOR. THEY ARE TO BE SENT CONFIDENTIALLY TO THE WAY INTERNATIONAL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EXTENSION AND OUTREACH DEPT.

Indeed it is those two pages that were part of the full syllabus As you did I used those same pages instructing "on the field classes"But those pages were" pulled" out from a much larger 36 page syllabus. Just as the smaller later PFAL syllabus was "pulled" from the expanded PFAL syllabus.

Better yet, let's leave it here and descend into a quibble over how many pages the syllabus had while completely ignoring the content of the class being discussed. It seems that you are the one trying to quabble over a point that you can't defend mainly because it is nonexistent. I simply set the record straight on the number of pages in the syllabus a factual post of which I would have been happy with. You on the other hand seemed to want to immediatly challenge that fact,then of course in the face of having no ground to stand on (that means speaking on what you have absolutely no knowledge of vs one who has in hand a copy of said document) You then bail out by accusing the factual poster of quabbeling when in fact he was only trying to clairify your confused postings and relay the real facts for you.. I submit it was you who were Quabbeling.....

Whitedove says sloooowly ......... Same class, same material, one syllabus ,transscript of material in said class neither required more pages as they were the same in content It is simply how many pages they choose to hand you.