Linda Z

Emma was my faithful sidekick for 12 years. Rescued from a local animal shelter, she won my heart with her sweet temperament, her insatiable curiosity, her perky little trot, the little blonde antennae at the tips of her ears.

When I was at home, wherever I was, Emma was. Sleeping at my feet or near my bed. Staring me down with an "I wanna go out" look. Exploring every fascinating scent the back yard.

I didn't want to say goodbye to her, not yet. But I knew it was time and the vet confirmed it. Letting her go was the only loving thing I could do for her, but damn, it sucks.

She tried to "teach" me during my last staff evaluation in 1986 that I didn't need to have any time for personal reading/study of the Bible because, after all, I was reading the Way Magazine and other Way Pubs in the course of my work every day. That was just one of many red flags she waved in my face.

Thanks, Rosalie. If I hadn't seen your true colors I might have stuck around longer than I did. And realizing that VPW gave a woman like her so much responsibility was another eye opener. It became clear to me that his judgment was nowhere near the spiritual level I had once thought it was.

Back to the original question of this thread, I can't imagine she was ever an inspiring high school teacher. I never saw her teach in twi. All I ever saw her do was parrot the party line and spit out indoctrination. Oh...and rules...lots and lots of rules.

Groucho said:

I believe what you are referring to was the "mal pack situation"...

This was a fabricated scenario that was devised for corps training...the 10th corps to be exact.

...the problem was that the training got outside of Emporia...other people on "the field" took it seriously as well. To this day, I still have my Keltny back pack.

Actually, I think it was prompted by information from one of VPW's right-wing conspiracy theory sources, more than just being contrived as a training exercise. I think it was believed that the "commies" were coming or something.

And it didn't just "get" outside Emporia, if you mean you think it just sort of leaked out. Specific instructions were sent to all the Corps on the field to buy storable food, fishing rods, wood stoves, etc.

I was a WOW team coordinator that year (79-80), so the WOWs in my city knew about it, too. It would have been pretty hard to explain buying a wood stove and flour mill and all the other stuff we were instructed to buy without their knowing.

We sold all the stuff at a garage sale at the end of the WOW year.

Socks said to Pax:

So I'm curious about some of the major points covered, if you get a sec. Thanks.

I'm sure he'll be by to answer your questions...in a year, maybe two. :D

When twi asked me to stop giving cash...I did.

They didn't have to ask me. I just stopped. No checks, either.

Update:

Many thanks to everyone who has been praying, including those who prayed even though they didn't post.

My dad is still in the nursing home but is working hard at his physical and occupational therapy and is getting stronger all the time.

Tonight the family is getting together to celebrate his 91st birthday.

I can't tell you how much I admire my dad. When this all began, he was one very sick man and extremely weak. I sat in on one of his first physical therapy sessions, and it was extremely difficult for him. But he pushed himself and continues to do so. He hasn't given up, and we haven't given up on him!

He still needs prayer, as there is another procedure ahead--the same one whose complications put him into the ICU and then the nursing home. However, the first procedure was done on an emergency basis, under less-than-ideal conditions. This one should go much smoother. We don't have a date yet, but when I know when the procedure is scheduled, I'll definitely post it here.

Thanks again, from the entire family.

What About it said:

I also am a professional editor/proofreader, and in proofreading sometimes publishers will send me the author's hard-copy manuscript along with the proofs, especially if the copy editor made a lot of changes or for ESL authors. I've proofed books before that I've needed to refer to the author's ms just to see what the au's original wording, meaning, or spelling was. So these are sometimes still used for reference, but not for actual editing. And yes, when multiple editors work on a document, they need to use different colors--but not pencils. Different colors on screen, yes; on paper, no.

Sorry to derail the thread further, but it's nice to "meet" another editor.

We keep the file for the manuscript intact so that we can refer back to the original as needed, and we edit on a separate file.

Welcome, Cal! I can't believe they're still sending out casettes. They probably have a warehouse full of them. Congrats on your decision to "fade out." That's what I did when I left. I sure didn't miss all the mandatory meetings and classes!!!

You know, VP's personal secretary, I forget her name, used a dumb terminal connected to the "mainframe" for VP's correspondence back in 1980. So it's not like his holiness thought they were evil then...

Just to clarify, he didn't say anything about computers being evil. He objected to using them for researching the Bible. Personally, although I love books and have a houseful, I find it much easier to look up something in the Bible in an online version, rather than pulling out a huge concordance.

OldSkool, I was surprised that instructions for authors in the last link you posted still called for paper submissions with disks. The journal I manage doesn't even accept hard-copy submissions anymore. For the past two years we've used an online submission system. It's a bit cumbersome and buggy, but it's better than receiving all the tattered and torn envelopes from around the world, filled with four copies of every manuscript and four copies of every photo/illustration.

Back to the subject at hand, what I find amazing is RFR's aversion to computers. One of the last things I did in Way Pub in 1986 was take a class from the IT dept. on using a computer. My memory's kind of fuzzy, but I think the brand was Leading Edge. What happened to all those computers? (Of course, those particular computers are probably in a computer museum somewhere (:D), but I do find it amazing that they don't use computers for any part of the editing process.)

I vaguely remember VPW pitching a fit when a Way Mag cover featured a (posed) photo of a family sitting around a computer with their open Bibles and concordances, apparently using the computer to research the Bible. I forget what his objection was, but he was steamed.

Heck, my almost-91-year-old dad, until he became ill a month ago, did all his correspondence via e-mail and was a frequent EBay buyer and seller of items he collects.

Get with it, Rosie the Pivoter! This is not 1959.

I will sell you my alias...

Do you have change for a dollar?

OldSkool said:

It's typical for books to be edited using tracked changes in MS Word - this covers substantive editing (a.k.a developmental editing /comprehensive editing) and copy editing.

I don't work on books anymore, but I do work on a peer-reviewed academic (medical) journal. Our journal, and others whose "Instructions for authors" I've read, forbid the use of the "track changes" function of MS Word in submitted manuscripts. It can leave "artifacts" that mysteriously pop up during conversions from Word to the more complex publishing software, and if there are too many people adding their two cents, it can get confusing.

Then, after the book has gone to the type setter there is a proof copy made that a proof reader looks over and marks corrections by hand.

I didn't realize some publishers were still using typesetters. My friend, who was a book typesetter in NY for many years, found himself out of work once everyone had their own computers to generate text, so I thought typesetters were pretty much history. I haven't seen one since 1969. :D

The proof read is a pretty fast process. The process utilized by the way international is simply not industry standard anymore. I work in the publishing industry.

Me too....have done so for 30+ years. The proofreading step should be a fast process, if the editors and copy editors have done a thorough job. I agree that the use of all those different colors to designate every step in the process is overboard and a waste of time. But there is a place, IMO, for using different colors early in the editing process.

To have departments doing an edit by colored pencil method is simply backwards and inefficient.

As much as it irks me to defend anything even remotely connected to Rosalie Fox Rivenbark, I have to respectfully disagree. If there is more than one editor working on the same copy, using different colors identifies each editor's changes, so that a senior editor, the one who does the final approval of the edits, knows who did what and can ask, "Why did you change that?!?" when someone goes astray. I know that could be done with track changes, but I just don't like it. Personal preference, I guess.

When I train new editors, I do not just turn them loose with a computer so that they can change whatever they like willy-nilly. I want to see what they're doing and guide them in another direction if they're too heavy- or light-handed. Maybe I'm the one whose GS name should be "OldSkool." :D .

Ham said:

I usually put little marks on the paper as part of the process. Especially with an important or critical work.. its a process. "Write up" a draft, on the computer, make SEVERAL revisions before printing, make at least one print of the "close to the end" product, and mark it up with a pen.

That's pretty much what I do when I write something.

The process for editing someone else's writing is similar. I usually correct clearcut errors electronically, and then when I think I've ferreted out most of those little rascals, I print out the document and read it again on paper. It's amazing what you can miss when staring at a computer screen.

If I'm editing something that's extremely long, complex, and in extremely bad shape, I will clean up all the glaring errors--like misspellings, wrong format, bad punctuation, etc.--electonically, then print the whole mess out so that I can look over the organization, syntax, transitions, etc., more deliberately, mark the corrections, and then input and proof them.

As for where the books and Way Magazine were printed, when I was in Way Pub/Way Mag (from 1982-86), neither the mag nor the books were printed at HQ. They didn't have the right kind of press. What they're doing now I couldn't tell you. Doesn't sound like they're producing any books these days anyway.

In the 1980s, the books were printed by a big printer in Kingsport, TN. I don't remember where the mag was printed at that time.

I used to get a kick out of seeing that tepee in the campground every year. It definitely didn't belong to Bo. I remember it being there during the 80s, maybe as late as '85.

I never heard a rule against the tepee being set up. Perhaps the owner of said tepee just got smart and quit going to the ROA.

Sounds like a pricey version of one of those "Who's Who in <fill in the blank>" books. You get a sappy letter: "You have been chosen as one of the up and coming young grand poobahs of whatever, and we want to put you in our Who's Who book. You only have to pay $XX so everyone will know how whosy whosy you are!" bleah

Abi, is the new medication helping? Still praying.

Thanks, everyone. Dad's getting stronger, and Mom is getting over her bronchitis. Family could still use some prayer. Everyone appreciates it!

Great news! Praying for a speedy recovery.

Hi:

I know I'm not here much anymore, but I do stop in here and pray for the needs posted here. Now I need to ask for prayers for my family.

My family has been very hard hit on many fronts all at once. Lost jobs, lost health insurance, my dad nearly died and is now in a nursing home, and my elderly mom, handicapped sister, and my other sister are very sick with a nasty bug.

Please pray for everyone's health and for peace for my sister and her husband.

Please pray that my son and I stay healthy so we can take care of everyone else. Thanks very much.

This sign I saw at a church might help:

"Honk if you love Jesus. Text while driving if you want to meet him."

Seriously, I won't argue the existence of a living Christ. I've had all the proof I need, but I don't think that would convince anyone who wants some sort of scientific evidence.

Praying here, too, Kit. Love you, and sending my love to Paul and his precious loved ones.

Thanks Waysider for this information. I've had a chance to read it.

In an earlier post your claim was "Speaking in tongues has been proven to decrease your level of resistance to suggestibility. (Reduces your ability to think on a critical level). I asked you to give me the information from which you based this statement.

First of all, the control group cited in this study consisted of 5 people...only 5. 5 is a very very low number for drawing significant scientific conclusions. Furthermore, if you check the NY Times article you included, one of the women in the control group was a co-writer of the research paper.

The NY Times Article you cited says, "A recent study of nearly 1,000 evangelical Christians in England found that those who engaged in the practice were more emotionally stable than those who did not.". That's 1,000 people who were said to be more emotionally stable. I don't know if I believe that either. My point is, there seems to be no evidence to suggest that mental acuity and stability are adversely affected by speaking in tongues. You may want there to be a difference, but there is no evidence for such an opinion.

Even the study you cited and quoted reads, "...it's not so clear what this finding says" about speaking in tongues'.

I know people who speak in tongues. Two of them have their Master's degrees in education, another is an attorney who was on the faculty of a nationally known law school, another is a medical doctor who graduated third in his class from an Ivy League medical school. I'm not saying that speaking in tongues helped them do these things, but they are obviously intelligent people.

I respect your opinion as to the authenticity of the practice of speaking in tongues. But there is no credible evidence to suggest that those who do so are unable to think critically, or that their resistance to suggestability is lower. Even the studies you cited don't suggest that.

Thanks, erkjohn, for digging a little deeper. I had to come out of lurkdom to agree with you on this one.

I also want to comment on Waysider's statement that "Speaking in tongues has been proven to decrease your level of resistance to suggestibility. (Reduces your ability to think on a critical level)."

The Wikipedia article you quoted only cites 3 references under the "Neuroscience" subhead. One reference, as erkjohn has already pointed out, is to the study that involved only 5 subjects who, by the way, claimed that they SIT'd involuntarily, that they had no control over it. As erkjohn also has pointed out, a study with only 5 subjects hardly constitutes scientific "proof," regardless of whether it reached the conclusion you say it did.

The second reference is to a poster presented at a meeting by some radiologists who evaluated only 3 subjects, which offers even less evidence than the study in the first reference. The third reference is to a NY Times article basically rehashing the 5-subject study and expanding on it.

I'm defintely not seeing any "proof" here. I'm not interested in arguing the validity of SIT. I have my opinion and Waysider clearly has his. But what Waysider claims is "proven" clearly has not been proven.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, I have to say that those long, twi-leadership-heavy "lift lists" were tedious as he|| and stifled people's sponteneity and heartfelt prayer. Trying to legislate people's private prayer lives is just one more example of how twi leadership tried to stuff people into their mold. But it has no bearing on whether I SIT or not. I did it long before, during, and after twi--and today certanly not with an 8-page list of someone else's idea of who and what I should pray for.

I don't think we have to throw out everything that was associated with twi. Sometimes at meals at HQ we ate strawberry shortcake. I enjoyed eating it before I was in twi, during my time in twi, and I still enjoy it today. I'm not going to stop eating strawberry shortcake or try to prove how bad it was just because it was served to me while on twi HQ staff.

Saw this on Saturday at a cemetery, and it made me chuckle.

Isn't this ridiculious to discuss whether or not this site meets ones needs or not?

Not really, no.

It's been made CRYSTAL clear what this site is for, what Paw's intentions are, what is and isn't tolerated here.......

over and over and over and.......Gawwwwwwwwd

And this precludes our being able to discuss how we, as an online community, could do things better???

If someone doesn't like this site, last I checked this was The United States Of America, thus giving us a fair amount of freedom.

The ones that bi+ch about whether or not this site does what they think it should, I suggest they go somewhere else. Why in the heck be someplace you don't want to be?

If it doesn't have the variation, the threads, the whatever it is you want, start a thread, kick in your ideas, make suggestions, put on your big girl panties, grab your sack and do something about it. Start a forum and find out what it's like, volunteer to help Paw do stuff around here, DO something constructive.

Been there, done that. As long as constructive criticism is viewed as trashing, it's a waste of time.

I never recall gossip and back biting getting anything accomplished.

And I don't recall doing either. Any beefs I've had about GSC, I've expressed right here, in the forums.

Don't like it here, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Why should it be any different than real life, not happy, go do something else.

How could I refuse such a gracious invitation?

I've been here from the beginning, and every time, every single time anyone has dared to say we could do a better job...WE, not Paw, not you, not GSC per se, but WE, the people who spend time typing away, trying to say stuff here that might help someone else a little bit, it's interpreted as trashing this site and trashing Pawtucket.

I think you're a fine person, Shellon. But I think it's time to check your own underwear drawer and put on the pair of big-girl panties that would allow you to look objectively at some valid points that have been made in this thread.

Although a few disgruntled former "followers of GSC" might have some negative things to say about this place on other forums, that is a minor factor in how GSC's reputation among the extwi community at large has been built.

I think I now know how people felt who stuck around twi too long. It's a "What was I thinking" moment for me.

Bow, there might have been trashing going on over there by some people that I didn't see because it happened before or after I looked at the posts and lurked there. My point was that when RR was called out for leveling this accusation against excathedra without substantiation, not only did he offer no proof, but it turns out he's not even registered on the site so he couldn't have seen what he accused her of for himself.

As far as Paw getting trashed on the JW site, or anywhere, it's pretty obvious to me that anyone who runs an online discussion forum is going to be the object of criticism, some of it legitimate, some of it not. Misunderstandings happen. Mistakes happen. Anger flares. People feel wronged or get their feelings hurt, and they speak up. It sorta goes with the territory. Anyone who runs a site like this has to grow some thick skin, IMO. It's not fun, but it's not surprising.

What's trashing to some may be voicing legitimate beefs to others. We don't know all sides of every story, do we?

If you got spoken ill of on that site, I don't know why. I've never seen you do anything to warrant that.

It's just my opinion, but I think if people who once participated here and now choose not to or were kicked off (not saying anyone was...just saying if) want to criticize how this site is run, it's their right. Their criticisms may be correct sometimes and sometimes not, but it's a public forum and subject to public comment.

Some of this is a matter of perception. I'm sure people in twi look at all of us as people who "really benefited" from what they have to offer and are now "throwing temper tantrums" and "taking sides." I would disagree with that assessment, but it's how they view it.

Clearly, many people have benefited from GSC, myself included. But if some people feel they were treated unfairly here, or don't like some of the decisions that have been made, they're probably going to say so. I got some benefit out of my time in twi, too, but that doesn't mean I won't speak up about the parts that weren't so beneficial.

I withheld comment on RR's sarcastic post to excathedra because I was waiting, watching, to see if his usual pattern would emerge.

This time it starts with an unsubstantiated accusation and a mean-spirited zinger:

Excie - perhaps you should go back to the JW site where you have been trashing GSC as well as Pawtucket by his real name. It has not been missed by several here on GSC. Pawtucket gave you safe haven and you have endeavored to trash him on the net. Wanna buy a used motor coach too?

BTW, when this same accusation about "trashing Pawtucket" was leveled at two or three GSC posters some time ago, I registered on the JW site, read the posts there, and lurked for a while to see if it was true or a product of the GSC rumor mill. It wasn't true. Were there criticisms about how some things were handled on this site? Yes, but no one was "trashing" anyone or naming names.

Then someone calls him on his over-the-top remark:

That WAS more than a little harsh Rum, and not equal to your usual self.

HAP, you must have missed equally cruel cracks made by RR to excathedra in the past. This isn't new territory.

Next comes the feigned innocence with another not-so-subtle dig (in bold):

Uhhh harsh to whom? TWI? If so then yes it was harsh. I figured with all of Excie's posts about abuse that if anyone would grin about buying up that coach and setting it on fire she might be first on the list. As long as TWI is selling of property etc I think it might me a real gas to set the coach on fire and post vids on you tube.

If anyone on God's green earth thinks that the motor coach crack was made to make excathedra or anyone else "grin," I have some prime swamp land for sale. Call me.

And when someone asks for the accusation to be backed up with fact:

Perhaps, Rumrunner - - - you could provide some sort of proof of your statement I quoted from your post above?? You're making (imo) a fallacious statement that requires an apology to both Excie specifically, and GSC in general.

RR dodges that and responds with more sarcasm:

Ain't a member, ain't got the time, ain't got the interest. But thanks for standing up for her. She's been through a lot.

Quelle surprise! "I'm not going to back up what I said. I'd rather just fling out the rumor and, for good measure, follow it with another zinger." Again, if anyone thinks "She's been through a lot" was said in sincere empathy and wasn't just another sarcastic dig, I also have an old Ford Pinto for sale.

You're way too predictable, RR.

Maybe if RR is finished back-pedaling, we could get back to the topic at hand, which prompted a good discussion, IMO.