potato

actually, it is not subject to the process of law until such a time as someone brings suit against the testimony in question. until that time, the testimony can be accepted as factual even though it has not been entered as evidence in a court of law.

that doctrine was firmly in place by the late 80s, but I don't know where it originated. there was a difference in believing the trinity because you didn't know any better (devil spirit influence) and being "sold out" to (possessed by) the trinity, which was supposedly a big-time devil spirit.

did you actually read http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence? I know you quoted an uncited wikipedia article to support your position on evidence, but that's a pretty weak source. so far, no one has stepped forward to say they were with vpw to testify he could not have committed the crimes in question. NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR HIS NAME, and there are sufficient, independent sources of evidence indicating his guilt.

yeah, "teaching" is way-speak for "I'm about to bore you to death for 20 minutes" or "I'm going to make you regret you were ever born, today, next week, in fact as many times as I can so the cumulative effects will last for years".

yes! it's been such a relief to not have to seem perfect all the time, or have to explain where I "missed it" when something "wrong" happened, then feeling bad and guilty for not "living up to the standard". it's nice to just be human, and a slightly crazy one at that.

and hallelujah, sista!

what "word", mex? I'm a grad and have no interest in "moving" anything that came from twi, except moving it somewhere handy to flush it. the "word" is independent of graduating from anything, and being a "grad" is independent of having any interest in the "word". my long association with twi, contrary to building a strong christian faith, has turned me back into an agnostic. I would friend the myspacer as well, but I'm not going to promote CFF or any organization built on the teachings of vpw.

ok, I had to go back and read some of your posts, because I seriously don't get your line of questioning. you were on staff, you were involved during the lcm trainwreck. yeah, it's unbelievable that anyone would join during those years. I think I got involved before what became known as "the fog years", but only superficially. it was after I accidentally married someone with a personality disorder that I got sucked into the twi machine. I guess you maintain disbelief that people get lured into twi's inner circle of hell, like a pedophile luring a child with a tale of a lost puppy, but yeah, people are that naive, or they're willing to ignore the warning signs because IT'S A LOST PUPPY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

so, you weren't ever "in"? were you a recruit that wouldn't commit?

sigh. ok, l thought you were once in twi. were you not? I don't understand your line of questioning. you come across as ignorant, or baiting. which?

excellent point, Tzaia. does twi also have a right to bring suit to defend his reputation? seems like they, if anyone, would have the most to gain by taking it to court, if they could win, which after reading the federal rules of evidence seems highly unlikely. they don't have any problem going after other churches that use the name "the way", but apparently vpw's pristine reputation is of lesser consequence.

no, then resting in the nice cool water, the burner is turned on. the heat gradually rises until the frog is boiled to death without a struggle, not having noticed the danger it was in until it was too late. on the other hand, if you toss a frog into boiling water it'll do it's best to escape in the seconds of life before it boils to death. note: I haven't tested this. snopes (http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp) reports the fable is not true, but although it is false it aptly illustrates what happens when things change from good to horrific over time, instead of just being visibly horrific from the get-go.

LOL! exactly :) here's a better source than an uncited wikipedia article opinion piece. http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence

citation please. if you're going to cut and paste someone else's words to argue your point, let us read the rest of it in context.

or the frog just gets so used to the hot water it doesn't realize when it starts to boil. maybe some people loved it for the high (I think my ex did) but most of us didn't didn't have an addiction. we just learned to keep our heads low to survive.

issues of libel and the law have already been addressed. now seems like a good idea to give a real definition of "evidence", because WD persists in pushing his made-up definition (I just love how twi does that, don't you?) from American Heritage: ev·i·dence n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove. 2. To support by testimony; attest. oh, and how about: guilt·y adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est 1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party. 2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime. 3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience. 4. Hinting at or entailing guilt: a guilty smirk; a guilty secret. obviously, WD takes only the definition he likes, and adjusts it to make his argument seem the correct one.

American Heritage Dictionary: fact n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy. 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact. b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case. c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact. 4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact. dog crap on the lawn is information based on a real occurrence (namely the dog crapping on the lawn), ergo it is a fact that crap on the lawn is a fact, because it can be demonstrated to have existed if anyone saw the dog put it there.

I witnessed a crime: a "clergyman" failed to report domestic abuse that resulted in the injury of a child. that was a crime in the state where it took place, as there was mandatory reporting required of ordained ministers who knew of child abuse or spousal abuse that put children at risk. the "clergyman" also told me not to report it, because my children would be taken away. he failed to explain my children would only be taken away if I insisted on staying with my abuser.

you're not the first person who's asserted that Bullinger's continued popularity is due in some part to vpw's work, and that Bullinger would have slipped into obscurity if it weren't for vpw, or even that Bullinger was obscure before vpw made him popular. I'd really like to see some numbers to back this claim up.

I could interview vpw's and lcm's victims, publish a book revealing the sordid details of those two men's criminal lifestyles, without ever once having to use the word "alleged" or being obliged to assume them innocent. it doesn't take a judge's decision in court to demonstrate guilt.

actually, WD, I think she was just pointing out your double standard.

ok, so let me get this straight (or see if I can)... "interaction with people is not second hand information it is going to the source." but if that source documents their experience, they are no longer a source, because only "information when documented with evidence is factual" otherwise it's hearsay and cannot be included in the weight of testimony? this isn't a courtroom, and none of the people in leadership positions have a right to expect anyone to take their accusations into a courtroom to prove the truthfulness thereof. in Jesus' time there was both religious and civil legals system, yet it wasn't necessary to establish someone's guilt by taking him to court. Jesus himself said so.

those incidents have been documented, here at GS, where anyone can read and refer to them.

it's really classic narcissistic behavior to create drama to bring the focus back on what's important: the narcissist. if vpw's narcissistic ego was indeed suffering from a lack of adulation and attention, seems like the best thing to do would be to stir up the pot of contention between top leadership, because vpw guaranteed his name would be brought into the fray, that focus would come back to his traditions, and at the very least, he could have a sense of accomplishment that even though it seemed he was being ignored, he still had the power to create chaos on his way out.