Deciderator

In my opinion, this site was begun with the best intentions, but unfortunately an unintended consequence was it served to pick at scabs to keep them from healing. I have never heard anyone say there is too much kindness in the world I have never heard anyone say there is too much forgiveness in the world I have never heard anyone say there is too much love in the world. Be kind, forgive and love as you would have others be kind to you, forgive you and love you, in spite of your flaws large and small.

First, we don't have all the facts in the first allegation. LCM has not presented his side of things. Would you like to be judged, convicted, and stalked largely on the basis of lurid accusations and not be given a chance to defend yourself? Would you want a biased set of jurors decide your fate before you had any opportuntiy to defend yourself, challenge or cross-examine evidence and witnesses against you, present your own evidence and not give you any chance at an appeal? Good grief, justice in the colonies 400 years ago was more advanced than what is being practiced here. Narcissist? I agree with you. Long ago I learned to leave clinical, medical diagnoses to the pros. I imagine we all worked "diagnosis" - experiential firsthand knowledge. On the last point, I also agree. I never met the man and back in the day didn't like the way some things were done. When one looks at the way the crowd here is, they have already convicted the man and have no shyness about not only 'diagnosing' him from afar, but in deciding what God should do about it. We see what could be taken for an endorsement of the Roman Catholic practice of confessing one's sins to people, instead of God. Isn't that one of the things the mob is clamoring for?

I can't deny what you said because I have come across the same things. People are more complicated than either being totally forgiving or being totally in a permanent rage. In McCain's case, yes he has a reputation for being a hothead with people, but please go back over my post and notice I was describing the way he has dealt with his former captors and the trauma he experienced. I wasn't talking about him being short-tempered with a hill staffer or a colleague. So, we can learn from the good part of McCain's character and try not to practice that which we don't like. Rascal took note of my use of the word "club." I was speaking figuratively. It is a colloquial expression simply menaing to strongly criticize someone. Racal also asked about me objecting to these things being discussed. Sorry, but I have been misunderstood. The topics don't bother me at all. On the other hand, I am seeing the stuff of lynch mobs and kangaroo-court justice and I have been pointing that out. At the same time,I have been pointing out the injustice being practiced by the accusers and the fact they are in some cases practicing exactly what they purport to abhor. I m not saying any of these accusations are false, either. Lastly, Rascal asked if MCain's torturers did so in the name of God. I don't know. I have read quite a bit about the subject in general and it would be logical to believe they would uses such a tactic, but I don't recall a specific instance with McCain.

How fair a hearing do you think he'd get? One thing I have found interesting is that so many people were, by their own admission suckered into being a part of the unthinking herd already in thrall. Now they are out, so many seem willing to join another herd, in this case a cyber-lynch mob out to persecute others while employing standards they would not like used upon themselves if they were accused. I mean, do you have any idea how it looks for people to put up posts demanding the accused to show up and try to make their case against a loud, jeering, foul-mouthed mob? I find it incredible that these posts appear all through the threads here, as if the GS-ers posting them have a realistic expectation they will get their wish.

Making it worse is those who object to these things have chosen to practice the very behavior the deplore in others. Of course! That way you can practice what you condemn, and get around the requirement to confront someone you have an issue with in person, privately. The impulse to hold kangaroo courts when there is no authority to enforce the standards of fairness this country was built upon is a strong one, not easily resisted, especially with the emotional aspect of the charges exciting those with pitchforks, torches and cudgels. I have indeed looked around. This is not the first time I have seen people aroused to the end they abandon principles of justice. I doubt any of them would want to have the same applied to them, to be tried, convicted, stalked and denounced without having a chance to defend themselves. Yes, I have indeed looked around. I have seen the appeals for Mr. Martindale and others to post here, and usually the invitation is from someone busy sharpening a great big carving knife and wiping the slobber of anticipation from the corner of their mouth with their sleeve. The charges made are serious ones and I have not denied any of them nor have I said much, if anything in defense of those accused, other than to relay my own experience. What I have done, is point out that proceedoing as a lynch mob is not the way to go. Serious charges need to be dealt with seriously and dispassionately. Serious, felonious crimes have been alleged, and the place to deal with them is the court system of the United States. Anyone accused is entitled to be dealt with justly, and that means the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and evidence, the right to present their own evidence, to offer explanations or exculpatory evidence, to call their own witnesses, to have a presumption of innocence, and to have the right to appeal, just to name a few. Let's say they took you up on this one. Given your outburst, above, do you think you could be considered to serve on a jury and to give a fai and just verdict, reaching a conclusion only after all the evidence was presented? How would you like to have someone talking like that about you, before the trial, serving on a jury where you were charged with felony counts that could put you in jail for the rest of your life? I can help you get past this one. Just remember a lesson a lot of us received as children. It's ok you didn't, but it's easy to remember and you'll find the following lesson will serve you well in the future: JUST BECAUSE LITTLE JOHNNY DOWN THE STREET JUMPS OFF THE ROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO JUMP OFF THE ROOF, TOO! In other words, using someone else's bad behavior to justify your mimicking that bad behavior is not the way to go...

I was in the D.C. area limb when John Lynn ran it. I remember when this letter came out. At the time, there were things I didn't like about how the limb was run and I thought there were mischaracterizations in the letter. Sorry, folks, I am not going to be more specific. Being aware of my own failings and those of others, as well as not having the chance to confront Mr. Lynn in person with my concerns at the time; I'm choosing to not jump on the bandwagon of those who want to continue attacking him lo all these decades later. Back then there were others with whom I disagreed about this or that, and there were times when I got hurt. It's been so long no, I feel no anger or anything else negative toward those other believers. I'm just not able to carry that sot of baggage for that long a time and I am not envious of those who do. I wish them all well, those with whom I disagreed with or had any problem with, those who were for or against Mr. Lynn, then and now. I wish I could remember how long ago it was that I got over it all, but that, too, was so long ago I just can't recall when it was, other than to place it during the 20th Century. I also wish others could get over it the way I have, but I understand that what comes easy to one person may be very difficult for others and vice versa. I think it is worth pointing out that just saying "get over it" is npt too helpful to those still in the anger phase...

The Southern Dixiecrats were conservative. They were brought over to the Republican Party largely by the "Southern Strategy" of Harry Dent, the godfather of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. Strom Thurmond would bean example. I believe Jese Helms was also a Dixiecrat. Dent died about a year or so ago. Harry Dent is largely forgotten in politics, but to comprehend what took place and the growth of modern conservatism, one needs to understand Dent and the critical role he played in the Republican Party breaking into the "Solid South." The Dixiecrats were a solidly conservative bunch with racist views that made them eventual outcasts from the Democratic Party, but the GOP welcomed them with open arms because then they were abl to expand to the extent they have today in my beloved Dixie...

Those would be separate topics, better dealt with in a separate discussion thread. This subject of this one is his academic credentials and more specific in the immediate case, whether a master's degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary is a degree "fit for the outhouse" or represents more substantial academic achievement. In the various forums on the board, please not that discussion threads have titles which indicate the subject being discussed. This serves to organize and focus discussions on a particular subject. That way, when the subject is, sayyy, academic credentials, the conversation is on academic credentials, rather than, say, sports or favorite recipes..... Those topics would get their own discusson threads. See how that works, having things organized and all?

In the presidential race going on, there is an aspect of John McCain that may be helpful to look at. (And I'll say up front I don't plan to vote for him, but I have a lot of respect and admiration for the man). John McCain, as you know, was captured by the North Vietnamese and horribly tortured during the 5-1/2 years he was held prisoner. Some, perhaps much of what was done to him is known, but none of us can know experientially, and I am sure other horrible things took place that are not known to the public. When he came back, he had a lot to deal with in terms of recovery. His body healed to a cetain extent, but he also had extrordinary trauma to deal with. There was not only the physical acts of violence committed on his body, but also some serious mental injuries, if you will, from being kept in a tiny cell in his own filth, having little communication with others, knowing little of what was going on in his country and much less with the wife and children he left behind. Broken by torture, he gave the enemy information beyond name, rank and serial number, and he had to wallow in the shame, disgrace and humiliation of having done so, compounded by the knowledge the enemy would use it in ways he was unaware of, and he had no chance to even offer an explanation to his country or to his family for why he did it. Weakened by torture and swill for food, the mental trauma inflicted on him was magnified further. It would be understandable if he went through life hating the Vietnamese, or at least his captors. He dealt with it differently. He found a way to forgive, and without his torturers expressing contrition, either. In fact they deny it, but that didn't hold him back. Not only did he manage to jetison the bitterness, but in Congress, McCain led the effort to normalize relations with the commies in Vietnam, and made many trips back there. I think the way he handled it kept the rage he otherwise would have kept within him from eating him up from the inside out. There is a lot we can learn from John McCain, even if we disagree about politics.

I don't know what part of my post gave you the impression I was deciding what was appropriate for anyone else. Please ignore that part of my post, because my intention was to only say what goes for me. I don't know how I can forgive someone for evil they may have done to others. It seems that is not my business, when it comes to whom I forgive. For me, when it comes to forgiving others, I'm pretty much occupied with those who have done me wrong, and that's pretty much a full-time job. As far as alleged criminal activity, I would suggest you take your evidence to the authorities and have him thrown in the slammer. We have an entire system in this country devoted to dealing with criminals, and there are also civil suits available to pursue one's case. Yeah, I remember that "probably" part from PFAL. Unlike you, I am not aware of what Mr. Geer has repented of, he never bothered to tell me. It didn't seem to be my place to ask, either. Guess I should have grilled him, eh? If he has done people wrong, I hope he has done something about it. If it were me, and I had done someone wrong, and that person decided to not only tell the whole world about it but also stalked me and carried a grudge for years and organized people against me and conducted investigations and kangaroo courts and declared my guilt without giving me a chance to defend myself, it might take me longer to reconcile. Especially when they put on a pretense of having overwhelming evidence of bloodcurdling crimes, but never bother to pursue their case in the courts. Lately I have been reading on how justice was administerd a thousand years ago and I think you would find encouragement on how to proceed, being free of the accused having troublesome "rights" and all. Too bad we can't go back to the good old days of making convicts look at their guts cut from their bodies before they were drawn and quartered, burned at the stake or otherwise tortured to death. Western civilization sure has gone soft, hasn't it? Ever thought of maybe forming a Torquemada fan club?

Good idea about setting the record straight. I took some time to look into it, and it appears one can't make a blanket statement saying there is no connection at all or that the two are identical. It's a little more complex than than. I googled Princeton Theological Seminary. First up was a Google map that appears to show the West Windsor Campus of the seminary located on the campus of Princeton University. and This is the website of Princeton Theological Seminary. In the history of the school given on the site, I found the following: Under "Campus Life," I found the following: and then at the bottom of the page, ... So it appears that Princeton Theological Semminary was founded as a part of Princeton University by the Presbyterian Church. At major universities, it is common for them to have branches so large that they are referred to as "schools," not because they are entirely separate, unconnected institutions. I also googled Princeton University and this is their website home page If you clic on "Visiting Campus" and go to Campus Map you'll see the grounds of the seminary included, just as they are on the other map. Noodling arond the Princeton University site, I took a look at their Religion Department. There, the graduate courses for this fall include classes on religions other than Christianity, so that would help understand why the Presbyterian Church would want to endow a separate school on campus for seminary instruction. As I looked around the seminary site, a significant degree of independence from Princeton is apparent, perhaps due to the connection with the Presbyterian Church. For example, the two have different chapels. There is a separation between the faculties. Princeton University is a secular institution whereas the seminary, of course, is not. I would guess that keeping them separate has tax and other legal ramifications. My guess would be they have separate books for financing. On the Princeton University site, I searched for the theological seminary and This FAQ came up, which shows the extent of the division between the two. It says there is no "organic connection," we see they work together in other ways, for example students at the seminary can use the secular school's library. I couldn't find whether seminary students can get into university keggers. The university has other schools, such as the Princeton School of Architecture, which also has its own faculty and structure. My guess would be the school of architecture, though separate, is more closely tied to the rest of the university because it doesn't have the theological aspect. Perhaps someone can dig deeper and find out if Princeton Theological Seminary doesn't have the rigorous academic standards that Princeton University does, which would gve merit to the implication that Wierwille got a masters from some slacker school glomming on to the name of Princeton just to make themselves look good. That argument is eroded when we discover that a Masters Degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary is the highest qualification listed for an Associate Dean of Religious Life and the Chapel at Princeton. So, what we see are the two schools are closely affiliated in some ways, but in others they are separated. Ptrinceton University established the seminary, but it is separate in a number of ways and joined in a number of others. It would be instructive to discover how Princeton Theological Seminary ranked academically with other seminaries in thecountry at the time V.P. was there, and see if he had a degree from a prestigious school or some fly-by-night rinky-dink institution whose students couldn't get into other, more selective seminaries. And that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Was the man's masters degree from the seminary a significant academic achievement or not? After all, the fact that Harvard Law School is not the same as Harvard doesn't make a degree from Harvard Law any less significant, does it?

Well said. Of course there is the other view that if the man is stalked enough and held up to ridicule long enough then he'll have a change of heart...... I think I read about that in II Constipatians.......

McCarthy? Joe, Eugene or Charlie?

Good move. I hope you worked in the phrase, "It would be unAmerican."

That's someone I think I would have had some fun with. I may have made it point to go to them and get up close and ask, "Hey ____, guess who I voted for today?" Then when they asked, I would refuse to tell them, no matter whether I voted for the candidate they wanted me to or not. To have that sort of presumption in thinking they can tell me what to do is off-putting, to say the least, and certainly disrespectful and I am not going to stand for that sort of treatment from anyone.

I gotta agree with WhiteDove on this one. While the presumption of innocence is a building block of our legal system, it also carries over nicely when applied in personal life. In my own experience, there have been many times where I thought wrongly that someone had done or said something I didn't like, only to find out otherwise. Additionally, there have beentimes where things I have said or done have been misrepresented, and I was glad that someone was fair enough with me to give me a chance to present my side of things before taking a decision. Often a case comes up involving something outrageous, such as child molestation, and reason gives way to an emotional reaction, and of course no one wants to be taken as being "soft" on child molesters, so in every case they hear of, they decide the accused is guilty right away. This happened in the McMartin School case about 20 years ago, where children accused their teachers of all sorts of horrible crimes including sexual abuse. The community was ready to burn the teachers at the stake, and when it hit national news, so were millions of Americans. It took a long time for the truth to come out, but all those who decided guilt merely upon hearing the accusations all got facefulls of egg when it came out the kids made it up. The lives of those teachers were ruined and there were a number of people who never got the word when the truth came out and who still believe a false story of what took place. Everyone should be given a chance to defend themselves, both in and out of court, before judgement is made. It is distressing to see those who do not practice this principle, and who judge merely on the basis of an accusation. Sometimes it takes decades before the truth comes out. I would direct your attention to the The Innocence Project for hundreds of real life lessons to learn from. According to their site, Marty Tankleff appeared on Oprah today. Tankleff was pressured by the po-lice into falsely confessing to a crime when he was 17 years old. He spent 17 years in prison before he was exonerated by DNA evidence. There may come a time in our lives when we are falsely accused, and will be grateful to those who give us a chance to give our side of the story and who wait untill all the facts are in, rather than being carried away emotionally by the seriousness of the charge. It is distressing to come across those who have seen many cases in their life, whether it is the McMartin School case, the ones given on The Innocence Project website, or examples from their own lives, but who never get around to learning the lesson of the presumption of innocence that each of those cases represent.

Chris Geer was always nice to me so I can't club him. In my personal dealings with him (which were not many) he was a good guy. I am glad I have all the back copies of Future Considerations. I'm sorry others feel differently, especially if they still carry around anger and resentment. In my own life, when someone does me wrong, it takes time to get to where I forgive them. Sometimes when I was done really dirty, it took longer. It has never taken me as long as 20 years or so to forgive anyone, and my own life is unburdened by wrongs that took place that long ago. That's just me.

Way back in the day, I went to a presentation titled something like "Gods Word in Government," put on by some guy dining out on the fact that he was the son of some prominent person at HQ. Anyways, after the chap showed how our Founding Fathers came up with our form of government from the Bible (convenienlty omitting the influence of folks like Voltaire and Rousseau), we were given the opportunity to purchase some lovely glossy 8x10s of Ronald Reagan....... who and which had nothing to do with what was presented. This set off a warning bell in my head. As time went on, this episode helped me to be wary and to not believe everything I heard.

I'd like to hear from those in the Fredericksburg twig....

It's called something like "the royal right" or "royal priveledge" and goes back to ancient times. It is still practiced and not just by the ruler of the country, but by local or regional warlords in areas such as Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and Kurdistan where the societies are still feudal. From what I understand, it is not a regular thing and about a year and a half to two years ago in Turkey there was quite a controversy when some local warlord showed up at a wedding and carried off the bride to practice this custom. As I recall, it was challenged in court and the "royal right" was upheld. As I understand it, it has mostly been practiced with women about to be married or on their wedding nights. Hi everyone, sorry I haven't been able to get back. I occasionally still poke my head in and look around, though. I wish all y'all the best...

Just going by what we have been given in the discussion. A number of times I have said that I am going by the facts we have been given in this discussion and that as new facts emerge we should be able to change our opinion to fit the new information. When you posted in #261 - - you apparently believed there was not only a suit, but the substance of that suit was certain publishing rights.Unsuccessful in that line of argument, you appear to be changing your tune as to whether there was a lawsuit and what it was about. Right. I mean, what reasonable person would be crazy enough to think that a lawsuit about publication rights would have something to do with publication rights? We have your speculation, above. Can you please refer to a specific quote for that one? That's what I said in post #289, above.. While having you quote me is flattering, to fail to attribute the source of the quote, and then put it out as if it were your own words, is rather ironic, given the subject at hand, eh? Mr. Juedes needs to edit and you need to learn to give credit where credit is due. Perhaps Mr. Juedes can help you with that....

I think she misunderstood what he was saying. As discussed previously, to some people there is a huge difference between stating something is true versus stating you believe it to be true or hold it to be true. And from a legal perspective, they are correct. And to say it is not true from a legal pov is not to say it is false, but that is unproven in legal terminology. That leaves room for anyone to come to their own belief concerning it, and holding their belief to be true. Yep yep yepyepyep. Definitely misunderstood. This led rascal to once again claim I said something I did not. She made other false statements in the post about what I said. This appears to be a habitual thing with rascal.

Thanks, dooj. Let's stay on topic. Mr. Juedes' allegation has not been proven, indeed going by what we have been told, in, as far as I can tell was good faith, that related if not identical charges were brought in a lawsuit that failed. TWI had what advantage there was - they had all the time they needed to prepare the case, they selected the venue for the case to be heard and thus could search for a sympathetic judge, and the timing for their filing was all in their control. I understand they do not pinch pennies when it comes to attorneys so it is doubtful the excuse of poor legal talent could be made. Mr. Juedes needs to do some editing in order to honestly reflect the facts as they are known. Intentionally, insistently posting false information has a way of tearing one's credibility down. Once lost, that credibility can be quite difficult to restore.

WHEW! Glad I missed out on all that! Rascal, I sure wish you had been in my twig....