chockfull

Look, I didn't bring up the logical fallacy argument. I just went to the definition website waysider provided, and applied the logic there describing the fallacy. Here it is one more time: 1.Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2.Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. Now let's look at facts in evidence. Claim X is presented by side A. Raf claims that "Claim X" is "Look I can SIT, and it's a real language", and that he's just refuting that. Unfortunately, nowhere in evidence here do we see such a claim. Raf started this thread. He created the poll. The poll reinforced by Raf made the claim. Nobody came on Greasespot forums to try and flaunt SIT or make any kind of claims about it. Claim X from the position of this thread is that "everyone SIT is faking it". There is no amount of twisting of facts that eludes this logic. Raf made that claim, he has posted it numerous times on the thread, and answers almost every poster on the thread in that fashion, at times even stating his opinion on it as fact. No Raf, before I looked at the logical fallacy definition, I didn't think this. But there, everything I read about it is how you are behaving on this thread. Claim X - "everyone SIT is faking it". You say the burden of proof is on the people SIT to prove it. Side B. Side B says "they are not faking it - you can't prove that they are". In a logical fallacy claim you have to look at where the claim is made first. In this thread, it was made first by you.

1.Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2.Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. Wow. That sounds like this thread. Raf started the thread. He made a claim that everyone is faking SIT. Now with the rules of logic, making that claim would place the burden of proof on Raf to substantiate the claim. He tries, but is unable to. Side B here (at least represented by me) is saying "well, you really can't make a scientific definitive claim like X as there's no way to prove it one way or another". So by the logical fallacy reference you have there, basically you are saying that Raf has the burden to prove SIT is fake since he made the original claim, and it's a logical fallacy for him to say that the burden of proof lies on Side B to prove it's not fake. Did I get that right?

No it can't be proven that a sample of SIT is not a language. It can be shown that gibberish is not a language. "Free vocalization" is studied, and there is no conclusion on whether it is language or not definitively. Is "free vocalization" speaking in tongues? That's another thing that cannot be proven or disproven. There is no onus of proof. Prove there is a God that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch. Same thing. And we should take a leap of faith and trust you on your judgment that this situation isn't one that warrants it? That's the most accurate thing you've said all morning :B)

OK, while there are logical fallacies, we are really not in the midst of one here. People are sharing their experiences and beliefs. They are different. They believe different things. We have scientific studies of a phenomenon. However, that phenomenon is claimed to be energized by Spirit, which nobody can detect or measure scientifically. Thus it's not a shocker that they are not able to present conclusions on something they can't detect or measure. Because of this, we need to take care in our language to present things as IMO. If we don't, we quickly get the place of what is called a "Mexican Standoff" where people on each side are demanding proof and there is none to be had.

No it can't. What he spoke wasn't recorded. If it was recorded, it may be like many other samples. Polythress, to remind you, presented findings that free vocalization had many elements of language, including grammatical breakdowns like language of sentence and phrase. So by that he did NOT prove one way or another that the samples he studied were or were not languages. His conclusions were NOT that the samples were not languages, he just noted the details of what he did find. In that he was scientifically truthful to his method. Yes I noted the previous paragraph to include the word "likely". I took issue with a single paragraph. To me his statement was an expression of how he was feeling at the time, and did not come across as an expression of fact or an attempt to express fact. Yours did, so that's why I singled it out. Maybe you read his statement differently, which could have been why you made such a strong statement. And one more time - if God intended it to be proven He would have designed it such. However, there are many things in which He requires a non-scientific leap of faith. The new birth, for example.

What?

No, this sort of proof is a bit like there is something supernatural we are trying to prove, and are unable to accomplish it one way or the other.

No, that's your opinion. To state the conclusions in this fashion you would have had to prove it, which all have agreed you are not able to do. Now the paragraph before states "likely" which is more accurate. This one is inaccurate, as it is opinion stated as fact. That is definitely one thing I had more than enough of in TWI... I mean on the other side of the coin, I could state to Pete: "Pete, you absolutely were speaking in tongues, an unknown language. The scriptures speak of it, you acted on the scriptures, and God came through with the results. Don't doubt it because of skeptics." But, I don't state things in that way because they are unproven with respect to this thread.

Removed.... It wasn't that funny.

Staff at TWI HQ is the utmost in lording control over people. Since the lawsuits there is at least some semblance of keeping personal or work lives separate. However, they get around that easily. For example, there are policies as to living on grounds vs. off grounds. Living quarters many times share two families to a unit (read: trailer), and in any case of bringing someone into HQ for perceived disciplinary or reform reasons, the other couple in the living quarters is instructed to spy on and report on home behavior. HQ is a fiefdom that has been set up for decades to run around one person, to be based off of one person's ideas and input. This is why TWI will never work to reform or clean up. The infrastructure in place was set up by the original false teacher and built from to make worse. It plays in to the worst in human nature - suspicion, control, micromanagement, whispering, and of course the shunning behavior.

I don't think they were ever dropped. I think demoted to "twig coordinators", put through the wringer by the Fort/Lally leadership, then when those guys left/got demoted eventually they convinced probably Rosie of their undying loyalty and were advanced back to Limb, Region, then Trunk, now Sr. Officer positions. When you boil it down it all comes back to one thing. The single criteria for advancement in TWI is exactly like LCM taught in "VP and Me" - he was perfect at "never forgetting who taught him the Word". I mean the whole VP and Me teaching was a roadmap for the Corps - you do exactly what you're told, exactly when, with no questions, no dissention, no discussion, and a perfectly compliant attitude. People doing that advance. People not going the absolute compliance route get run over.

Well, I guess that one is a hard one to explain. "My father passed away and left me an inheritance. What was the inheritance? A cult. How thoughtful."

And, taking us back to before the days of world exploration, we have a flat map. Because really, we need the heavy revvy present truth to reflect on the evil of modern technology, and a shift back to days when people were more controllable - when the earth was flat. You see that way we can get beyond this whole "World Over the World / Word to the World" confusing bit of heavy revvy. If the world is flat, then we can change heavy revvy in the future to be "Word to the 4 Corners of the Earth" and thus make it present truth heavy revvy. Thus the shift in objective will be complete. (Along with firing everybody and absconding with the money, of course). They filled the "lower part" of the lower part of the auditorium. You see, it's like the Temple. There's the temple. Then there's the inner temple, which housed the holy of holies. The number of people qualified to be in the presence of the holy of holies - that is the current number of the attendance at the services in the auditorium.

He followed in his "father in the Word's" footsteps? Plagiarism makes it easier, right?

Can't prove it either. Well, as we learned in PFAL, it may say apples on the outside, but that doesn't change the pickles on the inside. Sometimes, these guys words fit them too well.

Wow. I think you have something there. That's TWI's natural leadership selection process. If you have an odious enough personality where your mere presence causes a thousand to leave the immediate vicinity, then you have those qualities that TWI is looking for. You are a prime "prevailing" candidate.

Does it? Wierwille's angst over "he" referring to the Spirit is about what most charismatics have trouble with. Why would God play favorites? But underlying, we know God is no respecter of persons and we also know that God respects freedom of will. So what if the translation is better of "he" the Spirit, and that the understanding is God helps those to pursue spiritual gifts they are interested in? There are lots of possibilities outside of Wierwille's shoddy Greek work.

As long as you don't put all your eggs into one basket.

Do you think that maybe they were faking, seeing as like it was such a common theme throughout the rest of their lives?

You know, from my perspective trying to prove anything based off the actions of TWI leadership (myself previously included) is kind of like trying to investigate the ink on a $3 bill. Everyone was so wrapped up in their own private version of playing their part in the long con that you're never going to prove anything truthful from that one way or the other.

Trying to keep my splinter groups straight. Isn't CES the one where we had like the dueling catfight visions of supposed "discerning of spirits" revelation between Graser's wife and John Lynn's 2nd ex-wife? "I saw a snake, and it had your face." "I saw a hobo, and it was you". Then there was like this "prophetic council" established where all the men around refused to throw water on these cats, ending up in Lynn's divorce, Graser's kicking out, and the org basically falling apart? Somehow all that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence for going with their version of SIT, interpretation, prophecy. But hey, maybe that's just me. And who knows, maybe "John Lynn v.3 My Face Looks Like a Muppet" will again gain traction. :biglaugh: Now there's something that I can get on board with. I can hear the messages now: "I the Lord Thy God hate stealing. I even made up a commandment. All those books on your bookshelf, where the author stole his material from others? Um, yeah. I don't like that". "I God, Your Heavenly Father, created the heavens and earth in 7 days. And, I did it without micromanagement. Or boring Sunday sessions of reading cue cards". "There verily will be those that come to you with their noses in the air, looking down them at you. They will pretend to know what's best for you. They are fools. Don't listen to them. They need to clean up their own cr@p, and read those scripture I inspired about studying to be quiet and doing their own business. I did absolutely nothing to put them in their perceived position of being 'over' you". I know, not enough KJV English to be authentic. But hey, if we're going to make things up, let's make the messages at least plausible with how God would think about that stuff.

I like John Darby's translation. It leaves me with a lift in my step and an ever so slight accent like Brad Pitt in "Snatch".

Hey Mom, I met these cool people and took this class. Now I'm going out WOW to move across the country for a year. Where? I don't know yet. With who? I don't know yet. I'll find all of this out at the "Rock". Will I be able to come home at all? No. Can you visit me? Very briefly. What could go wrong?

Hey Raf, I'm not sure I found the link to Samarin's paper. All I ever found was it quoted in a bunch of places. Do you have a link for the original source? Pics or it didn't happen. :)

Polythress had a pet term for it - called it "t-speech", from theologically based free vocalization or something like that. Religious free vocalization seems to be a pretty close approximation of his term and one that the average reader probably could get the meaning of without reading his full study.