RumRunner

I wouldn't go on a cruise with anybody. When I do get to go on vacation I want to be as far away as possible from other people.

I pretty much agree with you on that. Much rather be out fishing somewhere than chatting with someone on a cruise ship. Altho...it might be kinda fun just once...to get sh(tfaced drunk and stumble into a room fool of "believers"

"undue influence" i'm reading about it -- good term

Yeah - it's actually a legal term. Case in point - going back to the university. A student, of the age of consent (over 21), is failing a class. She goes to the instructor and unbuttons her blouse and says she will do anything to get a passing grade. Faculty person takes her up on the offer...the guilt lies on the faculty person. You can say all day long that she was of the age of consent and approached you - but you have undue influence over her life, her grades, and hence potentially her future success in her career. The onus is on the person who is "in charge" to maintain propriety.

Wierwille makes an argument and then comes to a conclusion. He then uses that conclusion

as part of the premise for the next argument. And so on and on.

< a few snips from the original posts>

Wierwille: If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they

were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God's Word must be perfect also.

This one breaks down like this.

Premises

1. God is perfect

2. Jesus is perfect

3. The word was given as holy men were moved by by the Holy Spirit

Conclusion: Therefore ...

God's Word is perfect

As you can see the argument is completely circular. God is assumed to be perfect because the

Word says so. And Word is perfect because it came from God.

OK, but let's assume the conclusion to be correct in spite if Wierwille's circular and flawed logic.

Let's assume that the Word of God is perfect. But Wierwille changes it to the "revealed word of God and says:

Wierwille: " so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect.

Premises:

1. The "revealed Word" is Perfect .. therefore

Conclusion:

The words which make up The Word must also be perfect.

Many of Wierwille's core teachings are based upon his use of flawed logic as in the example above.

TWI took it one more step. Wierwille would have never ascribed to the following publicly - but he sure didn't dismiss it either.

If I give you items 1-3 above then:

if you believe wierwille when he said "the word takes the place of the absent christ"

God told me he would teach me the word like it hasn't been known since the first century.

conclusion:

Wierwille is the only modern day keeper of the perfect word - which takes the place of the absent christ.

Hence wierwille can take the place of the absent christ by virtue of being the only keeper of the perfect word in the 20th century. (BTW - anyone ever wonder why God would call it the first century? Surely God new that a few centuries preceded what christians call the first century eh?)

Again the reasoning (I can't bring myself to call it logic) is flawed - but you can see how people could make those mental leaps.

Love ya Vic - especially now that you are dead and can't abuse people any more with your sadistic temper and your pornographic sexual appetite.

an exwayfer on the way corps site told me that they had talked to kris's ex and he pretty much said she was a little looney (or maybe a lot) and this person believed him over kris -- so -- it kind of bothers me they told ME that knowing what happened to ME. i guess i'm looney too, but it still happened

Actually I don't remember her as "loony" at all. At bit on the artsy side perhaps - certainly running Boeing Corp was probably not in her deck of cards - bit definitely NOT loony. I remember her as a very sweet and caring person who always went the extra mile for people. I have no idea what the last 25 years has wrought for her...I just don't remember her as loony

in other words, i guess abuse is in the eye of the abusee and it might just be one's fault for getting into that situation

Yes that was a simple formula for those drickweeds to follow wasn't it? Anything good that happens is because of them. Anything bad that happens is because of you. How pastoral of them.

i still think revered ones (reverends) and men of god or men (people) in authority should be very careful when it comes to the people they are helping, counseling, etc.

In some places, in some jobs, what you suggest is actually law. Somehow religious organizations seem to escape it. I work at a university. If a faculty member (read revered one) carried on like those TWI "revered ones" they would be terminated immediately, tenure notwithstanding, and if the person victimized filed a law suit the university would be the first to file that their human resource rules had been violated. The phrase used is "undue influence." That would seem to apply equally to clergy, medical practitioners, counselors, etc

BUT the two leaders who caused us so much grief are still in, and still leaders. I wouldn't trust them as counselors or advisers, nor would I want them influencing my children.

I cannot tell you how grateful I am that my kids were born after we left. In retrospect I wouldn't wish that organization on any child.

I suspect that leaders are still to be obeyed.

I suspect you are correct. Religious organizations, especially the more radical off-shoot types (not just TWI offshoots), tend toward a strict control structure.

about 600 micrograms of Owsley's finest..

Now we're talking!!!

I'd rather go on an excursion on one of these, if it were still running..

HEY!!! That's my new house in LA!!!!! Go easy!!!

Seems that John and his gang are planning a reunion cruise...over 60 people signed up already!

I'm wondering if they will break into twigs and have a main teaching at night...

I'll have to ask Lingo...I heard he's going.

And it will be safe because security will be provided by the stay-puft marshmallow man - long a promoter of safe teaching and part-time motor coach escort. All martyrs know they need good security and who better than stay-puft?

WG,

If you are dealing with Microsoft Office with your physicians, you can do it on a Mac. The Mac Microsoft Office interacts fine with docs from a PC.

Ummm - go download OpenOffice 3.X - you don't have to replace MS office - just download it and try it...you might be pleasantly surprised

So far I've had no major issues with W7. The GUI has a decidedly MacOS-X look and feel...in fact almost indistinguishable - however you can opt for the XP type interface if you want. If you plan on using MS Office you should wait just a bit for the new Office 2010 release to come out. 2003/2007 both run but seem a bit clunky.

No wonder I prefer Linux and OpenOffice....just not the same issues that MS seems to always bring to the dinner table uninvited.

There is also Oscar Wilde's admonition: "If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out." Or as they say in Yugoslavia, "Speak the truth and run."

Well stated. Or as the scientists say in Russia at a presentation - is it Pravda? Or is it really Pravda. (Pravda == truth)

I have no doubt as to the good intention of your post...however...

I wouldn't defend the strict rules that caused the particular problems of blood donations listed above, however...

It appears the rules are purposely overly strict in order to reduce the possibility that a blood donation will make a patient worse instead of better, especially since there are diseases in blood that are untestable, permanent, disabling or terminal. Sexual diseases lead the way, including AIDS.

While that sounds all good - please note my blood was pre-screened. If I could not donate they never should screened me...but they did...only to refuse the directed donation. I was not a full marrow match - that's a whole other story - but I was a good match for her condition. I call BS on them for that move.

Err on the side of caution. The folks making the rules really do want people to heal.

I don't believe that for a second. They want your blood for whatever their ends are. That is my experience with the death of the daughter of a colleague of mine. The rules were social and by NO MEANS medical - since I was pre-screened.

I have no doubt the nursing staff who told you of those rules was correct...however I WAS PRE-SCREENED. That means I was CLEAN and a reasonable genetic match (NOT just a blood type match) for someone who was dying. She is dead and the social rules live on...and they KNEW she was dying. What the he[[ did she have to lose with my blood?!?!?!?!? Screened and clean...and even if it wasn't...she was dying...go find her in your christian heaven and ask her if she would have wanted the blood...

Think about this...they would have (and many times did) take my blood (although I don't know how much I've given over the years)...as long as it went into their bank...to be handed out at their discretion. They said NO DIRECTED DONATIONS...from TWO STATES...You, or any competent practitioner, cannot justify refusing a directed donation for medical reasons once pre-screened...

BTW her death story is posted on here from someone else...but much more sanitized than I am describing now.

I think it noble when people give blood...I am just sickened by the social process of selection about who gives to who...perhaps that kind of SELECTION just reminds me of the mentality of people who decide ARBITRARILY not medically...who gets blood and who does not...SELECTION...please step into the showers...we just want to wash all of the lice off with our new Zyklon-B soap

Read Geisha's post. They tossed her blood. If her hubby was going to get something from her blood he likely already had it - especially if you are talking about STD's and other body fluid transmitted diseases.

Hey! I try sometimes to be a nice guy. ... I don't always succeed, but perhaps I can try better next time.

And with that final tap dance , I think I'll bow out of this conversation. I've made my point, and you've made yours.

Peace!

Dammit - it was just getting entertaining...

As a regular blood donor myself, I'm keen to encourage others to donate because I understand how needful it can be. A donor usually has no control over who may receive the donation - although it is possible to donate for intended future operations for oneself.

Points to ponder:

Question 1: would you donate your blood if you knew it would be used to benefit some of the head honchos at TWI?

Question 2: if you were to receive a donation and knew it was from (say) RFR, would you accept it?

(Edited cos the link didn't work)

I am, quite frankly, completely fed up with, and massively angry at how blood donations are being handled these days. NOT, mind you, the concept of being a donor. Before my surgery a few years ago they recommended two units of self-directed donation. Fair enough, until I found out that in CA I DO NOT get my blood...I get whatever they haul out of the bank and my donation is used to replenish any that might be used.

OK - maybe that's not so bad...but this one pi$$ed me to this day.

A colleague of mine had a daughter who contracted a vary rare leukemia, went right for the bone marrow...she exhausted all standard protocols and went on experimental protocols. Hospital (in Seattle) was looking for donor matches for more than blood type. Oddly enough I was a close enough match to donate. But NO NO NO....both California and Washington have laws - LAWS MIND YOU - forbidding directed donations, even in potentially lethal cases, except for immediate family members...she had no other matches other than mine...and she died...she died because someone decided to make sure blood was handed out based on some social rules rather than based on medical need.

Screw all of your blood donation rules. She died at 37 because of blood donation rules....social rules...

I wonder if da way is taking a percentage of the "donations"..

Maybe Rozilla is just keeping 15% for her own drinking pleasure

There is a telephone number you can call and have your name/number removed from the call lists. Sorry, I don't remember the number as it was several years ago. I haven't had any telemarketer calls since.

Just a little info in case some are bugged by them...

Just go to http://www.donotcall.gov You can add multiple numbers including cell phones. Telemarketers will still BS you and tell you they are only calling with a survey and are exempt...that's when you can have some fun...like tell them you'll take their survey if they'll take yours. Then, without hesitation, you immediately start asking questions about their personal hygiene and sexual appetites. They usually hang up pretty quickly.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=a49u1kJtIQY

And let us not forget Tom Mabe who makes a living at harassing telemarketers...good for him

I have been known to rescue mice if they are caught in the house.. Only because I hate to see them toyed with that way too. The cats all know to keep their catches outside and kill promptly if they want to eat them LOL

*smirk* and I bet you think you are an animal enthusiast!!! Why leafy dear you are robbing those cats of their exercise, long history of surviving as natural hunters, recreation, and last but not least, their entertainment!!!

I was hysterical. The cat's were, I swear, laughing at me. . . and shamelessly taking advantage of my unhinged state. Chaos for 1/2 an hour until my son came home and rescued me. I was cat wrangling while watching icky mice whose lives I didn't really want to save, but dangit. . . . I had company coming.

I have to be voting for the cats on this one....heck sounds darned near like an SNL skit

I seem to remember a film with Jean Reno as a professional assassin and a young girl he grudgingly protects. It was a while ago, so maybe that was Portman. I think it was called "The Professional."

George

Bingo - over to you

I always found that whispering to unruly cats the classic phrase "crock pot" does wonders for human/feline social interaction. For those cats which need more remedial help; a reminder of Stubb's BBQ sauce adds "emphasis for clarity"

That's it. You're up, Rummie!

George

OK I know I seem to watch obscure movies so I will give a hint besides the "one line" First line actors were Jean Reno, Gary Oldman, Natalie Portman. The line...

"This... is from...Matilda"

Naw.. in Lysergis.. he was the liberator.. from what though..

Oh yes.. the tartarate.. didn't that keep the isomer where it needed to be?

Now you do realize that that was unfair. Only about five people on this board who would get that...Hmmm lemme go put on some Grateful Dead

Aye lads!! Now we're makin' progress. Thanks for adding to the threads!

I gotta love the "spittle of the drunken lecher"

OK we all had our fill of the red thread...but a dear friend suggested a couple of new threads tonight. And all due credit goes to that person ...really..honestly...trust me...so please, please add to the threads

The Black Thread

The New Red Thread

The New Read Thread....

In Cannabis he was the stamen on the plant

In Lysergis he was Tartrate-25

The Black Thread

In Genesis he was the seed who thought he had a serpent

In Leviticus he was the issue of blood

In New Knoxville he owned a coach with motors

In Rome City he was the wooden spoon of abuse

In Emporia his date was the wicked witch of the west