oldiesman

Krysilis, Thanks for sharing, and many thumbs up for your son who did the right thing.

I have one cigar per day, no tobacco taste in my mouth lingers from day to day. No more phlegm in the morning. Its great. I am taking a blood test soon as gonna ask what the nicotine level is in my blood, and I will let you know. Cigar shops also are a great place for men to hang out and talk. Miami must be full of them.

Hi Raffy. My favorite cigar is Don Pepin Garcia Blue Label One of these a day, don't inhale, you can't go wrong. Not nearly as bad as smoking cigarettes and you still have the pleasure of smoking. Don Pepin Garcia lives in Miami: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_Garcia

Ok fine. If Pawtucket states in the forum rules that participants are not entitled to express their own opinions as it relates to or challenge a person giving her own testimony then I will abide by the rules.

Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and interpretations of events about Wierwille or anyone else based upon the facts presented, even if it may contradict the victims feelings thoughts and opinions. It appears all you want is group think. I'll just morph my thoughts and feelings into yours and everything will be ok.

I don't have a problem with that as long as it is understood by everyone that a response of this type is allowed and ok and not interpreted as an attack on anyone's character but simply a varying opinion. What's the sense of taking it to another place on the site if a contrary opinion about the meaning of an event is still regarded as "bad manners" "lack of empathy" and "inappropriate conduct" warranting suspension.

Well that's why I suggested a separate category for victims to tell their stories of abuse and not have any possible varying contradictions/disruptions/interpretations/debates/interrogations, etc. On a forum where all are welcome and debates are encouraged, I frankly don't see any other way around it. You also could have the reverse. You could have a category for "pro-wierwille/twi rebuttals". Would that work?

Exactly!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed." I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.

I disagree, I think the reason why we need rules or have the rules clarified is because of opinions that some conducts and behaviors are abusive. Speaking for myself, I don't believe my conduct or behavior is abusive according to the current rules. You are of course entitled to disagree, which is why I believe we need the rules clarified/updated so everyone knows what is allowed and what to expect.

I would vote for a separate category altogether titled "Victims Personal Experiences" wherein rules of that category would be very strict and in complete favor of the victim. No doubting, dissent, questioning, debating, interrogation allowed. etc.

Of course not. Starting another thread is not the problem, but what if I started another thread sharing my opinion about a victims' story and then the Owner of the website doesn't like my opinion finding it opposed to the "GS Mission" and then I get slammed again? That's why your suggestion was a good one but IMO needs his blessing and must be made part of the rules, so all participants know what is allowed and what to expect.

Well, I vote your suggestion be made part of the rules; that way it gets the blessing of the Owner of the website, and all participants know what is allowed and what to expect.

That sounds fair..... I agree to comply fully if its made part of the rules.

The teller has a right to communicate their story; the listener has a right to have their own ideas about that story and interpret the meaning and conclusion of that story, not necessarily in harmony with the teller's conclusion. In an open forum such as this where ideas and debates are encouraged, the hearer then has the right to communicate that "varying conclusion". Communicating a different meaning or conclusion about an event is not an "attack"; it is simply exercising one's options.

I would add that John goes by his real name, has a real email address, and a real phone number that anyone who ponies up their real name may call to discuss their "beefs" with him directly.

Indeed, it would appear he was a great man who shunned finger-pointing victim mentality by accepting personal responsibility for the outcome of his destiny. A real winning attitude! "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

I love that paragraph...

Wordwolf I offer an answer to your attack of JAL "he knew for 20 years and did nothing" as follows: he was a kool-aid drinker for 20 years, just like DWBH. Show some mercy bro. :D Since DWBH was there all those years, knew and experienced much or all of the same, rose up to a very high position knowing all those things for years; yet now gets exonerated from folks here at GS cafe, then we really should offer JAL the same courtesy don't you think? Its only fair.

I again read the list of differences with twi, and what caught my attention, again, was how many of the items on that list has been discussed and complained about here on GS Cafe! Good changes, positive changes for the better. Yet Lynn still gets slammed and disparaged. This proves to me one thing: that no matter how many changes are made, there will be endless criticisms, endless condemnation, endless complaining about something. It occurs to me that change will never be enough for those with an ax to grind. They want to use that ax. I would imagine that even if twi itself made these changes, the relentless attack machine wouldn't miss a beat. This attack machine is a form of godliness that I find repulsive. JAL is a brother in Christ, I wish him well always.

I think John was the first to coin the phrase "eat the fish, and spit out the bones". I like the letter, I think John does a good job of clarifying his current beliefs and intentions to carry on with "the fish...the good doctrine" of twi while abandoning the "evil...bones". He appears not to hold grudges and does not allow the sins of Wierwille to corrupt his thinking and abandon the pure and truthful doctrine. I applaud the distinctions made with twi, they appear to be trying to get rid of the bad while "holding fast that which is good". I like the list that clarifies the differences between CES/STFI and twi, this is food for thought and many of the CES points listed have been posted from time to time on GS Cafe: Differences with TWI

In other words the sins of the communicator does not negate the truths in the communication. or "If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music "because the person may be playing it wrong", the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way." or ( I am not sure whether the last one is from DWBH himself or DWBH quoting the Dove, but whoever said it, I agree. :) )

Twinky, yes he's my cat Woody. His nose is very punched in, even for a persian. He looks like a gremlin. :lol:

If the music is not played properly or with love, doesn't mean the music is wrong, it means the person playing it is playing it wrong. The solution is not to throw away the music , the solution is to go find someone who plays the same music the right way.

T-Bone, it appears those verses are talking about a distinction that Jesus makes between the commandment of God and the traditions of men. The Pharisees by their traditions, the traditions of men, have made their traditions take the place of the commandments of God in their life; thus they have invalidated the word in that life, by their traditions. Doesn't make the word or commandments any less true. "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men"... It doesn't say that the word or commandment of God is any less true because of the Pharisees behavior or traditions. Sunesis, I didn't label DWBH anything, much less a false prophet; you should not A$$-U-ME.