modcat5

How much you give is up to you. If you can spare $5, great. $25, better. $100, even better. More? I'm not gonna stop you. I am going to thank you though.

Folks,

Last year a bunch of us came together to demonstrate our appreciation for GSC by making a contribution to the cost of maintaining the site.

We set a goal of $1,500 to cover the cost of upgrading the server and covering the hosting fees for the year (about $100 a month). We came pretty close, and we are grateful for your support.

We're coming back to you, hat in hand, to renew our request. Our goal this year is $1,200. That will cover the majority of the hosting expense for a full year.

It is NOT tax deductible. It is NOT a requirement for participation on the forum. You don't get a special badge. You get our thanks, privately. If you'd like to make the fact that you donated public, we will acknowledge it publicly. But that's your call.

And to be absolutely clear: I personally do not benefit one red cent from this. If someone came in and dropped a million dollar tip for the GSC wait staff, modcat5 and my alter-ego would not benefit from it at all not even a little. I am not asking for me. I am asking for the site's actual owner, who is not me.

$1,200. Let's see if we can do it by April 30.

I'll get us started. Will you join me?

The donate button is on every page, upper left.

Thanks.

To be continued...

I just went in as a moderator and tried to fix the attribution. Unfortunately, the site does not give moderators that option. Anyone who sees my original post can see from the post RIGHT ABOVE IT that you are not the originator of the quote.

What are you talking about? ;)

Gentlemen, you are off topic, as Mark has accurately pointed out. If you'd like to discuss universalism, please start a new thread. Let's leave this one for anyone who's interested in discussing the Trinity.

Moved from "Questioning Faith" after consultation with original poster. Enjoy.

I deleted references to the year StayQuiet was born in order to make it a little more difficult for The Way to pinpoint who he/she is. If you remember, please don't repeat it. Thx.

Later edit:

After further consideration, StayQuiet asked me to remove his original post. I've asked him to write a replacement and I've substituted the original post with some generic placeholder stuff.

Not that we want to encourage paranoia, but I do believe that those who are still in deserve as much ID protection as we can provide.

Welcome, StayQuiet.

Please check your private messages.

Responding publicly to a private message:

I suppose one could argue that Bapsy's contribution to this thread was technically "off-topic," as it did not spring from the original post or the subsequent discussion. But I do believe, after reviewing the thread, that we're on related topics that, while not explicitly connected, can be connected without much of a mental stretch. So I'm letting the thread continue as is.

Bapsy, Welcome to GSC. Please be advised that you are welcome, entitled and encouraged to start a new thread topic if you don't see a topic already being covered in an existing or recent thread topic. It helps all of us keep track of conversations. As far as newbie errors go, this one was so minor that I won't even bother correcting it.

And Brainstormer, as an atheist I am keeping my mouth shut about your questions. I do think the other Christians on this board have provided effective encouragement, and I wish you well.

Signed,

Raf

That would be "One Her Majesty's Secret Service."

How do you determine who wins this round? 

Raf

Maybe a little.

Mod note: Chatty Kathy started a thread in In Memoriam. Raf (I) started a thread in open. They are now merged.

I will be reviewing the content of this thread and deleting offending posts. There will be no further action at this time, but guys, come on. Is it that hard to stay on topic?

...

I've finished reviewing this thread, and I tried to take as light an approach as I could. Fixed a few obvious grammatical errors (people sow discord, they don't sew it. I suppose they can sew with this cord, but that's not the same thing).

But I deleted several posts where the namecalling got out of hand. I tried to be reeeeal flexible about "on topic" v. "off topic" posts. As long as the conversation is flowing naturally and no one objects, I'm not about to go from thread to thread approving or unapproving posts on that basis. I'd be here 24/7. I don't like you guys THAT much.

There are a lot of good posts on this thread in which people disagree with johniam vehemently without making the post about HIM (short quips notwithstanding).

I made some ease-of-reading edits (John, is it too much to ask you to figure out how the "quote" function works. I mean, you have been here at least, what is it, 4 weeks now? Oh, LONGER? You see my point. If you need a tutorial, PM me).

I tried to put notes on the bottom of posts I edited significantly or that I felt required a mod statement.

Now, let's make one more thing really clear:

Everyone is welcome to post here.

If you think VPW was the greatest apostle since Paul, you may post here.

If you think VPW was the greatest con man since Prof. Harold Hill, you may post here.

If you think someone is too harsh in judging VPW, you may say so.

If you think someone is too gullible in praising VPW, you may say so.

But anyone can do any of that without resorting to juvenile namecalling. And I will delete, without warning, any post that crosses the line. I tried to do that in a fair manner. I think I did that in a way that does not break up the flow of this thread. The fact that I could do so (if I succeeded) is a strong indication of how off-topic those posts were.

Carry on.

Reading through this thread, and a couple of observations:

At first, you guys were doing fine, arguing positions over personalities. That includes DWBH. TLC went after DWBH's positions, Twinky posted observations, DWBH challenged them to think through the consequences of their positions. WW weighed in substantively as well.

Things start to go south with post #18. TLC went after DWBH, not his position.

Post 19: DWBH responds in kind.

BOTH are out of line.

Post 20: I disagree with WW. I don't think DWBH "went after" Twinky. I think he challenged her position by carrying his interpretation of her position to its next logical steps (post 17). DWBH called her no names (I'm assuming Twinky is a her. Correct me if I'm mistaken). I can understand WW's concern about the tone of DWBH's posts, but on this one, I think he's misguided.

Post 21: DWBH responds in kind to WW.

20 and 21 are honest reflections of how the posters feel and don't cross any lines, but neither was necessary to the subject being discussed. We're going off topic.

Post 22: WW takes issue with DWBH using the words "waybrained pontificators." Reading the quote in context, I think DWBH may have been a bit harsh in his word choice, but it does go back to his post 17 and challenges the substance of TLC's and Twinky's comments. Borderline at best, and in context, he's talking (post 21) about the difference between "impartiality" and "bending over backwards" (ie, declining to address the consequences of what someone says). Again, I would have used different words, but that's me.

I think WW tried to be reasonable here, but again, I think he overstates DWBH's position when he accuses him of "going after" Twinky. He went after a position she stated.

23: I agree with the beginning of what DWBH says here, but no, I don't think WW needs an emotional timeout. I might, after this post. :)

24: Twinky, you lost me. You quoted TLC and directed a post at DWBH. Did you realize that?

25: Sort of agree with Twinky. However, the comments DWBH made were specifically related to what TLTF is teaching, so I would leave it be. Yes, the content quoted is appropriate for doctrinal. But it is not necessarily inappropriate here, as long as we're still relating it back to TLTF.

Twinky made none of this personal, for which I am grateful. You other guys, check yourselves. I don't see a huge issue with what anyone posted, but you're straying off topic.

I second the notion that we've veered off topic. A CFFM thread would be most welcome.

--Raf

Hi BlueCord. This is Raf. This is the hat I wear when acting in official capacity as a moderator. (If you see "mod" in front of a screen name, it's a moderator). Great to have you on board.

I have better things to do, gang.

No politics.

No rebutting deleted posts about politics.

No whining about the no politics rule.

No. Damn. Politics.

This is not up for discussion or debate.

If you want to cite someone's expertise but you can't do it without political imagery, don't. It's getting deleted. If you want to rebut someone's opinion based on research or credentials, fine. Based on his political conclusions or biases? Don't. Just don't.

Complaints can be directed to the moderators through private messages.

A post featuring blatantly political commentary and all posts that followed it (because they referred back to it) have been removed.

It was decided some time ago that we would no longer host political discussions on GSC because passions ran so high that it became nearly impossible for the moderators to keep peace. It was not done to punish conservatives or liberals. It was done because political discussions bring out passions that we simply could not handle, and that was when we had oodles of moderators. Today we have one to three mods actively monitoring the forums on any given day. We all have jobs and we're unanimous in our lack of desire to make sure political discussions abide by the rules.

This applies to everyone and every political persuasion. We. Don't. Do. Politics. Here.

Well the majority of posts don't even address (...The Way Corps: Victims or Oppressors?). There's alot about twi but don't directly address the victem/oppressor {?}. Yes, yes, you can probably drag a thought back to the posed question but that's not answering the question you posed - it's a tangent, it's a related issue.

My point: it's a very uncomfortable topic and somewhat unanswerable without first specifying the the era of the 40 year old corp.

I made my peace - in my own thoughts, to the corp. They were both. The early corp folk (that I encountered) don't seem to be doing any posting here (I classify them "mostly" as oppresors) and the later corp folk, whom I only know by reading their posts here on GSC appear to me as victems who were trained to be oppressors.

Raf, I reiterate: the topic was too general yet, appropriate. I don't think there can be a yes/no (victim/oppressor) answer to the question since the corp eras were so different and the folks in any of those corp were so different.

Speaking as both Raf and Modcat5: The thread question was open-ended and included an opportunity to reframe the question and answer it accordingly. As such, I see a lot of discussion about how TWI operated, and while those discussions don't directly address the "victim v. oppressor" question, they absolutely do address that question indirectly (by expanding on the "it's more complicated than black-or-white" answer).

So far, I don't see any post on this thread that has derailed the topic. Expanded and explored? Yes. But not derailed.

The exceptions to this observation have been made invisible. They need not be addressed here.

I'm just going to leave this right here:

The GSC Forum Rules

Be courteous, and please don't make it personal. Remember, others feel as strongly about their opinions as you do about yours. It's okay to disagree, but when doing so, criticize the message, not the messenger. For example, "I remember that event differently," is appropriate; "you're an idiot" is not. Also, don't assume someone is calling you a liar just because he/she disagrees with you.

Please do not engage in insulting behavior, personal attacks, and inflammatory language. This includes:

calling fellow posters names

accusing them of "needing a therapist/shrink/meds"

labeling others with terms such as "Wierwille apologist" or "perpetual victim"

distorting another poster's name to insult or ridicule

making disparaging remarks about fellow posters' character, motives, intelligence, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or life outside these forums.

Implying negatives about fellow posters is also not acceptable.

Be aware that sarcasm toward another poster can quickly turn a discussion into a flame war.

And by the way, "He hit me first" didn't work with your mom, and it won't work here.

We disapprove of comments that stifle discussion or label a particular viewpoint as unwelcome. Such comments hinder thoughtful and open discussions.

Do not accuse fellow posters of being "trolls." If you suspect someone is trolling, PM the moderators; please don't start a thread about it.

Do not "stalk" another poster from thread to thread to perpetuate an earlier disagreement (but don't accuse someone of stalking if he/she just happens to disagree with you often).

Do not talk negatively about a fellow poster in a thread where he or she is not participating or start a new thread to "call out" that person.

Do not challenge a fellow poster's personal recollections of his/her TWI experience. People deserve the freedom to share how TWI affected their lives and should not have to fear interrogation or feel pressured to "prove the unprovable."

Generalizations about how TWI affected everyone who was ever involved in the organization may be challenged, however. If you wish to question those generalizations, start a new thread.

This conversation has clearly been taking place over multiple threads. I am not reading closely enough to have an opinion about the substance of your disagreement with each other, and I'm not taking sides. But the next time you guys disagree with each other, if it's not on topic and if it is personal, it's getting moved to the Soap Opera Forum.

Look, I'm the LAST person to lecture anyone about letting emotions get the best of us. And I'm turning a blind eye to most of the posts where you seem to be slugging it out. We get it -- you're not in each other's fan clubs.

We want to keep this place somewhere EVERYONE can participate and work out their concerns with open-minded survivors, which we all are or should strive to be.

My inclination is to leave this post up as a warning for one day, then remove it and remove any post above that is not on topic. This thread is about TWI starting a Twitter account, for Pete's sake. We can be flexible with how we define "on topic," but I think we can agree that at this moment, we're not on topic even a little.

To be clear: A discussion about whether Jesus is God, Biblically, belongs in doctrinal. I haven't analyzed every thread here, but...

A discussion about when Wierwille began teaching that Jesus is not God belongs here. A discussion about why most groups teach he is but TWI teaches he is not can be at home either here or in doctrinal.

It's inevitable that a topic like this will have some doctrinal overlap. But I don't see any threat of this becoming a doctrinal discussion so far.

All seems good. Carry on.

This thread has been moved to "Out of the Way: The Offshoots."

Greasespot Cafe needs your help.

As many of you know, this site is owned and operated by one guy, Pawtucket, who has shouldered the entire burden of the cost of its operations. While posters have volunteered to contribute from time to time, the burden has remained mostly his for 16 years.

Here's what Paw said on Facebook recently:

Quote

I pay close to $100.00 a month just to maintain the web server. I try to offset that by hosting other sites, but most of that has dried up. The latest forum software would be at least $200 [Note: A one-time fee]. I'd have to talk to greasytech [one of the moderators] about further costs. I may have to get a newer server to move it and then get rid of the old server after the transfer. Aren't you glad you asked!

I replied, "Nope." And he responded:

Quote

Most people on Greasespot love to offer help until they find out how much is spent.

So, $100 a month plus the $300 in one-time fees of updating the software and moving the server brings us to $1,500.

So we have a fundraiser and a goal: $1,500 to maintain and improve GSC for a year.

I just made my donation (and I'm not going to say how much it was, nor do you have to).

HOW?

There's a DONATE button on the right hand side of the main page of GSC.

Click it and help us keep this site going. This thread will be pinned to the top of the open forum until April 30, 2016. If we reach our goal before then, we'll tell you. Anything that comes in after we reach our goal will be handled by Pawtucket. My belief is he should consider it a reimbursement for 16 years of doing this on his own. We do kind of owe the guy. But Paw says he'll just apply it to the monthly service fee and pay ahead.

In other words, the more we raise now, the less we have to ask next time around.

Some of you can give more than others. Decide what's best for you.

This is not tax deductible and it is not a requirement for participation on the forum.

If you value this site and this forum, please show your support.

Thank you.

And courtesy is courtesy, name-calling is name-calling and rules are rules.