satori001

Very well stated, sky4it. Forgetfulness can stall healing for years, if not forever.

dmiller, I have read a few things at TruthOrPerdition.com, and only recently. Like John, though unlike John's, my life is full, and I don't have time to wade through a lot of re-hashed Wierwillian double-speak. Let me say this. The material I did read, which had to do with "Why we should trust the bible," and a few brief essays on "logic," was none too impressive. I will grant that, like Wierwille, they don't think too highly of their target audience, which in part compels them to dumb-down their doctrine to a near "Dick & Jane" level, but their thinking (not just style) was also at that level. It's really poor stuff all around, dmiller. Childish reasoning, circular arguments - in a word, garbage. We got used to it with Wierwille's condescending crap, so it feels familiar to us but I expected more, especially from a Christian crowd so hip they've heard of "post-modernism." So what's the problem if people are willing to believe these McNuggets of "awesome truth?" Won't they still get "blessed?" Doesn't "believing = receiving?" Try "believing = deceiving." I'll try to give you some examples, but I shouldn't need to. Read "Can I Trust the Bible?" You'll have to have to figure out how to skip from one McNugget to the next, since continuity was not high on their priorities list. But, if you still can, try to put yourself in the shoes of someone looking for an answer, not just some shallow re-affirmation of what they already hold true. It falls apart like a cheap cake blasted by a fire hose. But here's the real rub. It isn't even good enough for the faithful, if "education" is the goal. It really isn't. It's purposely dumb, not because they think you're dumb, but because they are TRAINING you to be dumb. What?? No!! Yes! Think about it. (Please?) Just as TWI did. Remember, dmiller, a lot of smart people (me included) accepted Wierwille's presentation, overlooking the many, many flaws, against our better judgment because we were just desparate enough to believe God was at the end of Vic's "rainbow." That might also explain bright guys like Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser and Company sticking around TWI, at least for a while. (And then there were the considerable psycho-social-sexual ego-perks of "leadership" in a cult.) But the dumbing/numbing process was more insidious than any of us realized. Our own rational (or at least, "common sense") standards for "truth" were eroding, replaced by Wierwille's sole authority. And remember, Wierwille launched a full-scale attack on "thinking." "Private interpretation" became the catch-all for any "dangerous" attempt to apply "those wonderful keys" on your own, and especially if you risked contradicting his "research." And look at the three (plus) CES Mouseketeers to this day, still wearing their Wayworld ears. They yet accept many fundamentally flawed premises, based on Papa Wierwille's authority ALONE. They've long forgotten the day they sold out, not to God, but to Vic. So have many of us. Regards...

Sky4it Your concerns are often raised on this kind of thread. People will find what they're looking for, pro or con. Can't really control that, although I do my best. The dialog is the important thing. "Move on to something more positive" is really a way of saying don't discuss anything negative, isn't it? Imagine how many verses would have to be removed if, upon your suggestion, God couldn't mention anything negative. Regards...

The Way International grew out of Vic Wierwille, who in turn grew out of the E&R Church. It should come as no surprise that TWI shared many denominational traits. Does that make TWI another denomination? Well, where does cancer come from? It has the person's DNA, doesn't it? It is part of the person's body, isn't it? Sort of. Cancer, and TWI, are still abberations. Similarities are not enough to give either a pass. Oldiesman struggles with the similarities. It must be a duck! It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It sucks blood like a duck. It walks like a duck. Uh, wait a minute. Hmmm. Back up one. The rest of us must pause. Do we explain the differences in terms of the similarities, as Oldiesman does? Or do we investigate further? Is our little "duck" more like Daffy, or Dracula? Hey, what's the diff? They're both ducks. Do Christian denominations teach that God wants all Christians to follow some Moses-like "man of God?" (And who "acted" more like a Moses-type? Paul the Apostle, or Victor Paul the Assh*le?) Do Christian denominations teach their leaders and female followers that pre-marital and extra-marital sex is "profitable?" Probably not, or we'd have seen it on Geraldo Rivera. This isn't to say most denominations are anything great. But they mostly have built-in accountability. Checks. Balances. Reviews. Standards which do not change with the "revelation" of a few elites. As Athena sprang from the head of Zeus, a new-age version (what was Momentus, anyway?) of Wayworld's "bible integrity" has sprung out from TWI's... pick whatever body part comes to mind. CES folks are "not your father's Oldsmobile." They are younger, hipper, more accessible, and yessiree, you betcha, by golly folks, they hold the knowledge, the (lost) "keys." They scrupulously avoid, for the most part, any use of TWI lingo, but this should ring familiar. What are they appealing to? It's the same appeal as every other multi-level marketer on the planet. There is nothing wrong with the "promises," but there is something inherently deceitful in the promisers (God's self-appointed "teachers") and in their implied promises.They are presenting the bible as a self-improvement course, and there is no bigger snake-oil business in the universe these days. Do you want to understand the bible? READ it. The old Buddhist phrase should ring true, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." In other words, there is no way to cram yourself full of spirituality by associating yourself with others who want to show you how. Turn and run. Believing in a cult is like a mental "computer virus" that re-writes the way you look at life. It's a lot easier to clean a virus from a PC than it is to re-write the operating system and get it back to it's original state. In our own case, we're talking about personality, not just opinions. You can change a few habits, stop using the lingo, but TWI went deeper than that. Look at Oldiesman, by his own professed example. He still can't believe TWI was a cult. He didn't just drink the Koolaid, he ate it right out of the little paper packets. CES's leaders may be just as snowed as their followers, unconsciously following their own TWI instructions. I wouldn't be too surprised, seeing some of what they've written.

Shaz, Sunesis, mj412, Thanks.

Simon, this could be your own ticket back, and a special (big, spiritual bonus) ministry! You could be like Saint Peter at at the gates of New Knoxville Rd. and Highway 29, deciding who is worthy of getting back in. You could sit in a modified toll booth, and when the applicant gives you their free will, sound mind and better judgment, you raise the gate and let them back in to Paradise.(I bet a few people said to themselves, "Hey, that's not accurate!" when they read "Paradise." Gotcha.) So Simon, if you like it and apply to Rosalie for the job, I'm sure Greasespot Cafe management could give you a good recommendation.

So what does this say about those ingenuous ex-Wayfers who flock to him still, as if The Way International were a bad dream, and they were Dorothy, back from Oz, home in the loving arms of Aunt Em? Haven't they learned anything? Should TWI declare amnesty and forgive them their trespasses? Seems to me they would run, not walk, back to the old fold. TWI may take a lesson here from CES.Regards...

Did Wierwille "tend to think" he was right? Martindale? No, you are trying to justify TWI (and all cults, including CES) by saying that there is only one degree of certainty, shared by every "religion." That is at best naive, and at worst, pathological denial (something commonly found in cults). That's real Christian of you. The "right track" is a far cry from TWI's absolutist theology, and you oughta KNOW that. Oughtn't you? I don't believe they can be trusted to make the distinction between "goodies" and "errors." Their prior cult behavior should be presumed to have surpassed simple bad judgment, and because of its psychological component, that same behavior should be presumed recidivistic (you can pretty well bet they will do it again, in some way, shape or form). They should find a new line of work. How do you know YOU aren't making the same mistakes as TWI-2? VPW's "errors" weren't exactly hard to spot, if you were willing to look, and then willing to speak. EVERYBODY thought they were, so what happened? I don't know what the original context may have been, but on it's own it's meaningless.

Oldiesman, First of all, how do you know that "all religions think they're right?" I don't see that. That's a ridiculous and foolish statement. The most common denominations claim some proximity to the truth, and they're grateful for that much, but only the fundies believe they possess the only truth, and only the cults (if there is a fine distinction) think they monopolize the most essential (obscure and special, which is to say, mind-numbing) truths. Second, I'm not getting on CES's case or condemning them because they "think they are right." I am pointing out the "viral" nature of CES's origins, and evidence that CES shares much of TWI's "DNA." This is to say, if you get in bed with CES, use "protection," or you may contract a case of the TWI'ts. Don't become a TWIt all over again. Regarding your quote, "TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow," what do one's "actions" have to do with TWI's potential influence? Wouldn't "thoughts" be a better choice of words? And what thoughts (or actions, if you insist), might ward off TWI's evil powers? Just wondering.

Sky4it, you're having a flashback.

What is the personality of a cult leader? - Is he (or she) outwardly sinister? Rarely. - Dour? Nope. - Lovable (in a creepy sort of way)? Yeah, at least at first. - Cheesy? Often to the extreme. - "Almost normal," except for something you can't quite put your finger on? Uh, "almost" is a stretch. - Steroidally charismatic? Some aren't, some are - like that obnoxious hack, Martindale. - Arrogant? They wrote the book on arrogance. - Dictatorial? Yeah, but they dictate on behalf of "God," so they play humble at the same time (like Slick Vic!) - Inflexible? On and off - see "capricious" - Capricious? As in big pains in the foot, yes. - Do they see everything in "black and white?" They see what we all see, but they are good liars. - Prone to apoplectic fits of righteous anger over seemingly insignificant missteps? Boy, could we tell stories! - Do they secretly live a double-standard? Boy, could we tell stories! - Do they openly live a double-standard? Wierwille let his "life tell the story." - Do they answer only to a "higher power?" Yeah, their egos. - Do they want you to answer to them, as well as the "higher power?" They make no internal distinction, but of course! - Do they stand between you and that "higher power?" According to them, they do, and the barrier is imposed by "revelation" and other kinds of esoteric (secret, special) knowledge, or (particularly in TWI) just the quantity of specialized knowledge. - Are they emotionally manipulative? Is the Pope Catholic? - Are they intellectually clever, substituting catch-phrases and one-liners for coherent, reasonable explanations. Uh, yeah, in their book it's called "persuasion." - Do they gratify themselves in the name of serving a "higher power?" One way or the other, that's their payoff. - Are they deeply hurt or offended when asked to justify inconsistencies? No, but they act that way because they're afraid you're calling their bluff, so they attempt to back you down with guilt or intimidation. (among Wierwille's favorite little strategies) The truth is, there is no definition of a cult-leader personality. They come in all types, as we know from experience. John Lynn was a cult leader. Nobody, least of all himself, would probably deny that. Or would they? Sure they would, keeds. Remember, the past has no bearing on the "present truth." Enough with the past. Renew our minds people! Let's meet John. He is just a Christian. He just wants to serve you. He just wants to educate you. (All those happy people CES has already educated, by the way, who are they now serving? Ohhhh, "God." Riiiiight.) John Lynn is now a "reformed" cult leader, which is to say, a "leader" of a biblical-research-and-teaching-ministry called Christian Educational Services. Does that mean he is no longer a cult leader, or just a better cult leader? I have my own opinion, but you get to decide, just like I do. It may only be a matter of opinion since, as our ex-JW friends have concurred, the whole "cult" thing is kind of fuzzy. The harder you look at it, the LESS easy it is to define, but you can take a step back again and it's undeniable. John Lynn is, to my mind, still a cult leader because he can't help himself. Out from under Wierwille's foot, from behind Martindale's shadow, and far away from the paranoid little cabal of abusive, lecherous leaders, "corps-bots," doctri-nazis, sex-blessers, office toadies, grounds lackeys, and assorted kiss-ups inhabiting or infesting the halls, walls and grounds of The Way International, he will certainly be more relaxed, mellower, more spiritual. He may begin to resemble a Buddhist. But it's what he does. He cult-ivates people, maybe even YOU! This is a valuable opportunity, and like all valuable opportunities, too easy to let go to waste. To prevent that from happening, please ask yourself, what should informed ex-TWI'ers of Greasespot Cafe inquire of the Way International-ordained "man of God" when he "arrives?" Here are some bad ideas: How was your last trip? What new "research" are you working on? Could you tell us one of your hilarious stories? Will you ever publish an exhaustive list of biblical basketball analogies? Sure, we'll see plenty of that. It's already starting. Chit-chat and small-talk will "abound," and when it's all done, he'll have had his say and be gone, like a rabbit back into a silk top-hat. And little else but chit-chat may have been accomplished, except some opportune marketing and a few book sales. Please don't let that happen... I don't intend to provide a list of questions, but I recommend doing a little "research" of your own. He will have his answers ready, so be ready with follow-up questions. (Of course, a board like Greasespot is great because the "conversation" isn't happening in "real time." You get time to "think through" those one-liners.) What does John Juedes have to say? Is it valid? Would Dr. Victor Paul ("sit on ma lap and do a little dance, honey") Wierwille, a.k.a. "Slick Vic," be proud (as John Lynn has said) of CES work? If so, is that a good thing? What do ex-CES'ers have to say about CES? Are those concerns valid? Don't ask John Lynn. Ask yourself. CES and other splinter groups tell you, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." What they're really saying is, "You don't have the baby, we do, and if you ever want to see the kid, punk, you have to come to our nursery." Talk amongst yourselves, keeds. Regards...

A nadbook? --- Refiner, either renounce the devil this very minute or I will throw myself off the coffee table. It'll be all your fault, too. Maybe you need more time. You have 24 hours, but I could slip and spill my coffee, so don't dawdle. I bet you wouldn't want THAT on your conscience, or your carpet either.

Still exhausted and reeling from the ordeal, are you? Simply amusing. -->

WW There's nothing like good sheep to restore one's vitality! I'm wild and I'm wooley! Oh -- sleep. Well, that helps too.

Hmmm. Okay, so which one is me again? The big pond is the small fish and the little fish is the bigger..., but then the pond with the little...? Could you make it less complicated?

I think excathedra does fit in well at JWO. Her candor and humor are easier to appreciate in an unmoderated environment. She might even have a positive influence where the exDUBS' cynical outlook is concerned. They haven't seen anything like her before. Then again, neither had GSC or Waydale.

Prisca, when you say "... the others mean nothing to us," that better defines the cynicism I see than any "rebel spirit" you perceive within yourselves.

This is certainly way over the top - I had a relatively few individuals in mind. It would be impossible to assess the community so quickly.Then again, the majority prefers to lurk (or "ignore") rather than intervene to correct the impression.

When somebody posted that Chuck had lost his brother, I said I would stop sparring with him. Rather than moving on, he continued to use me to vent his anger. The way he went about it was an obvious provocation. Why would he rather fight with me than continue his tirade against the bible? Hell if I know, but I have a couple of thoughts. Anger needs a target. For Chuck I personify his frustration. He continues to think (as others there do) that I went to JWO to defend Greasespot's honor, Pawtucket, Zixar, the bible, and you can probably throw in the Holy Roman Empire while you're at it. None of that is true, and none of that matters. So if Chuck needs a foil, I'm his man. If he needs to beat a post with a stick, I'm that post. But as long as I have his attention, I'm going to try to give him a few things to think about. Hey, call me "Mr. Sensitive." If you are consumed with grief, what do you do? Log on to the internet? No. That comes later. If you are bitter about life, angry at God, processing through a catalog of conflicted thoughts, that's when you log on and hash things out if you're web-inclined. And you know when you arrive "attack mode" is going to engender "defense mode" out there, and that is the IDEA. *** Chuck is venting his hostility publically because that is his chosen process. He's a grown man, he knows people have their limits, and he is vigorously pushing those limits. He wants a fight. Isn't that obvious? He wants to kick somebody's foot. He wants a scapegoat, a whipping boy, a sacrifice to offer up in payment for his own (natural, normal, to-be-expected) sense of guilt about his brother's death. Well that never works, but human beings will never stop trying. Giving in to the anger and grief eventually opens the door to (other) destructive emotions, and eventually the grieving process can be co-opted by more ego-centered urges. Such as? We may begin to enjoy the sympathy, and the attention, and the credibility it gives us. Loss can be a social badge of honor. Crosses-to-bear become virtue surrogates, like scars from a painful operation or a battlefield wound. It is a seductive temptation which can redirect our most creative energies to its exclusive care and feeding. That's bad. I hadn't known about Chuck's brother's death, and would have avoided him if I had. Probably. But I found him at JWO, not only lashing out, but holding court, and being encouraged, cheered on, to blaspheme to his heart's content, to be their pastime. Chuck is not their "buddy," but they are making him feel welcome as if he were. JWO (a significant few there, at least) is using him, and other GSC exports, expatriots, and ex-communicateds, as a diversion from the bloodless monotony of their own closed society. So I questioned one of his statements, and we were off and running. (His statement was something like: offensive tactics help you tell the idolatars from the true worshippers. My question was something like: Can you explain how?) JWO says it is "open," but life as a Jehovah's Witness has made the ex-DUBS the creatures of another God. There is something fundamentally different about the JWO community. They are far more cynical, for one thing. Breaking all rules is more important to them than discerning the good ones from bad ones. They seem to have run out of things to complain about, and even reasons (beyond their own convenience) to care, so they seek and welcome malcontent outsiders, from which they "feed," almost like vampires. "Bleed, cry, scream, anything, just entertain us." So my prime offense was to point out that Chuck's "grieving process" was becoming more about giving others grief than resolving his own (phrased more politely here than at JWO). I don't think that was heartless, but I can accept that others may. -edited for clarification, and spelling-

Just one point of clarification, laleo. While Chuck characterized my post as an insult to his deceased brother, the object of my remark was Chuck, and certainly not his brother. I think I was fairly clear. I couldn't find the "royal we" either. Why would I spend time at an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses' site? I have no idea. Just for kicks maybe. Refiner's Fire made it sound both challenging and interesting. I found that to be true, to a point, and also both amusing and disappointing. The lack of moderation is a two-edged sword. You'll get the dregs who believe freedom of speech was the Founding Fathers' desire that we should all use the vilest language we can, but you'll get some very creative people too, who flourish in that same freedom. It isn't for the faint of heart, but there are plenty of threads which abide by all standards of civility. Like here, everyone can choose to read and post somewhere else. I have no intention of bringing that thread over here, and should any participant from JWO attempt to do so I will not respond. The admins can handle it.

Doesn't sound like "whining" to me. Hitchens is lying when he says the movie says that Iraq never threatened America. The movie says that the Iraqi civilians never threatened America. This comment is just silly. Iraqi civilians couldn't wipe their @sses without permission from the regime. Hitchens misstates the movie’s claims about the Saudis. He says that movie claims that the Bush's and the Saudis “live in each other pockets” but the movie only claims that the Bush's live in the Saudis pockets. I don't think so. There was a strong inference of quid pro quo, but it doesn't really matter. Moore's phrasing was artful innuendo, as when he lumped the Bush family together with "friends and associates" in estimating the amount of commerce. The implication was that all the money went to Bush. Only earnest parsing and fact checking will reveal Moore's deceptive wording. Hitchens' claim that the movie has “bias against the work of the mind” is as artful as it is wrong. That was Hitchens' well-documented assessment, not a mere "claim," artful or not. I thought the phrasing was a little awkward but I cut him some slack because he's British. satori001 on Hitchens: That's because he's British. That was funny, though it was probably unintentional. Here’s his take on the latest British import sweeping the nation – F-off Mania http://slate.msn.com/id/2103467/ The British Empire's second-greatest gift to the world I'm guessing this article is supposed to discredit Hitchens in some way? Maybe you didn't read it. It's on-the-mark social criticism, and (intentionally) funny too. I saw the Politics thread. Your love affair with Michael Moore is almost... obsessive. You must have a lot more time on your hands since the midnight showing of Rocky Horror was discontinued at your local movie house. I'll admit, Moore is the closest thing around to a cross-dressing alien vampire, if you're looking for that kind of role model.

Linda, nice of you to fly that old broomstick back in just to say hey. I've missed you too.

This "quotation" is from the same source as so much of Michael Moore's information - out his lyin' foot. When Pilate asked "What is truth?" he inadvertantly spoke for millions, and throughout the ages. A person without sight might ask, "What is light?" Or without hearing, "What is music?" Or without the sense of touch, "What is real?" Pilate asked, "What is truth?" So then, are some really born without this inner sense? Why sure, keeds! They are "truth-blind." To them, "truth" is no more than a prevailing opinion, which they may work feverishly to change. Michael Moore is such a person. His true believers are such people too. This mental/moral deformity is difficult to detect, because the truthless are often better at assessing circumstances around them then their truth-perceiving neighbors. They have to be, or, like bats, they might constantly be flying into unexpected impediments with a BIG splat! To survive they become keen observers of human weakness, exploiting it to the fullest to stay ahead of the game. How do these creatures escape immediate detection? Well, the better question is how to detect them at all. It ain't easy. We can shut our eyes and experience blindness. We might stop our ears and understand deafness. But how do we separate ourselves from truth? The eyes of truth are always open. We could never relate to truth-blindness, so we may fail to believe it's even possible. But it's not so hard to understand why we don't easily believe in it. Humanity produces examples of grisly and horrific behavior, and we may hear of it, but we cannot grasp it. Who can grasp Al Qaida's attack upon innocent civilians? Who can grasp suicide bombers' motivation? We know of them, yet we cannot know them. Enter Michael Moore, and his seedling followers. We see a pattern emerge, a resolute defiance of all standards for integrity. "Surely they must be joking," we may think. "Nobody is that dishonest!" No, not so much dishonest, as without truth. Honesty is not even in the picture for them, because without the perception of truth, honesty is meaningless. So there's a rudimentary, metaphysical explanation of Mr. P-Mosh's reply, and of his (de-)mentor Michael Moore. Regards...

Here's my take on this crazy thread: ExWay Daryl said Americans "owe it to themselves" to see F911. In the same way, they owe it to themselves to roll in dog crap. Why? Because dog crap is real man! And Republicans are sending the dogs to your neighborhood to crap all over them. They have secret poodle farms all over the mid-west. It's time we experienced dog crap up close, or else how can we honestly discuss it? Not really, but that is the only "debt" which might be compared to that of needing to see a Michael Moore production. Mr P-Mosh said it was "pro-military." Really? It represented the military as a killing machine, a way that white guys use to get black guys to die for them, a blood-thirsty horde out to kill as many civilians as possible. Individual soldiers are represented as cold-blooded killers, hapless stooges, or misguided children (who can somehow be "enlisted" by their parents). Zixar said "Moore won't get my money." Mine bought a ticket for "The Notebook" at the local multiplex. I saw F911 instead. Mr P-Mosh said "If you don't see it and have no idea what it's really about, what will be the basis for your unfounded criticism of the film?" He also (later) said Christopher Hitchens was "wrong," indicating he could not possibly have read the article. Wrong about which of the many facts and conclusions? All? Tell us which. Zixar said "His demonstrated lack of integrity in the past, coupled with his personal admission that the film is heavily biased." Well, yeah, but like, uh, so?? What does that have to do with anything? Suz said, "I appreciated what he said and how he approached the information." Dishonestly, that is? Wordwolf said, "I'm not a fan of either political side, but I resent attempts to lie or deceive, especially under the guise of "reporting the facts". Wordwolf, you're not very progressive, are you? We'll be watching you. Suz said "you guys bicker on about what is true..., none of this moves me." Apparently not. "Green is good!" If you mean money, that's just what Moore is saying right now. If you mean politics, slogans like that are designed to short-circuit the thought process. Like in religious cults. Long Gone obviates for the sake of the oblivious. Mr P-Mosh quotes the only part of Snopes that appears to validate Moore's contention. Had any of the bin Ladin family been hurt or killed by vengeful vigilantes in the ensuing American outrage, Moore would be asking why these people weren't allowed to get out. After all, we have hundreds of billions in Saudi's US investments. That gives us a little leverage, right? Anyway, Snopes goes on to correct the Moore version. Worth reading. niKa said, "Any American who isn't afraid of a good discussion" should see F911. I almost agree, but I hope a little fact-checking is done before attempting to discuss a "documentary" universally (UNIVERSALLY, folks) acknowledged to be propaganda. It's purpose is not to inform, but to SELL YOU SOMETHING. Radar said you should see F911 "if, for no other reason than to get EVERYBODY OUT TO VOTE, for whoever they want to." Sure. Let a mercenary, political hatchet job help you make your choice. Good policy. simonz made several observations. The most discerning, for my money, was where he said, "I got the feeling he was trying to win over the uninformed,rather than convert the 'other side.'" Exactly. By inference, the "other side" IS informed, and therefore harder to win over. The other reason is to energize the Democrats' base. Looking around the theater, I got the impression certain people in the audience had transported certain others to the movie, with the hope of converting them into votes. Mr. P-Mosh replies to simonz, "I would agree with you, but the cheap shots are the humor I think. I don't really recall anything funny that wasn't a cheap shot at someone." Yes, Moore does rely on "cheap shots" for humor. What does that tell you? Well, at LEAST he isn't "smug" about it. Or, maybe he is. To be smug is: Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent. Seems to me the word describes Moore a lot better than Hitchins. Complacency would explain relying on cheap shots where facts might be preferable. Mr P-Mosh goes on to re-iterate discredited statements from the Moore flick, including the "42%" time on vacation claim. Hitchins, and others, speak to that and so much more - "smug" or not. suz said, "Guess I could have seen Dodgeball instead." For the record, Dodgeball is much more truthful and informative than Fahrenheit 9/11, even though it isn't a documentary and never mentions politics. You owe it to yourself as an American to go see Dodgeball, as much or more than seeing F911! niKa said, "I also thought that it was very important that he showed the horrors that the Iraqi civilians are going through, however, in living color. We need to see what they are living with." Yes, and I respected how he showed all of those shiny, happy, carefree Iraqis laughing and flying their kites prior to the Coalition attack. 30 years of Baathist Stalinism is in the past, let's move on. Zixar said, "Leni Riefenstahl made pretty convincing movies too, as did Sergey Eisenstein." They were far more convincing than Moore's movies, but they were trying to influence a more informed and intelligent audience. He also points out that when a political force relies on brazen and blatant propaganda, they have nothing to hide but the truth about themselves. Moore however doesn't really know what he stands for. He only knows what he hates. Primarily, himself, secondarily, anyone who makes him hate himself in the light of comparison, which is most of America. Mr. P-Mosh answers Zixar by drawing a false dichotomy between mindless leftist sentimentality and mindless leftist lust for power. Leftists' primitive urges co-exist like fleas on a dog. Plenty of dog to go around, and flea brains detect neither irony nor contradiction. Zixar answers P-Mosh, saying, "I couldn't find a single sentence in that reply that wasn't sadly-deluded bull****." I take great issue with this. There is nothing sad about it. "Happily" is the better word. Radar said, "Well folks, we might just have the first "movie thread" to end up in the soap opera forum." Let's not get the hen house into an uproar, Zixar. We need the eggs. Mr P-Mosh gets frustrated when "GOP" types compare communist and Nazi tactics to Communism and Nazism. I see his point. That would be frustrating! niKa arrived on the Mayflower, and thought Bush was crooked before seeing a crooked documentary calling him crooked. Just because Moore relies on lies doesn't mean he doesn't mean well, well does it? If the fox is guarding the hen house, one needs to speak out (as long as the hens don't quit laying, I might add). ExWayDaryl returns to ask if Bush is as culpable for lying as Moore. This seems to justify Moore's lies, if any. Fascinating statistic about how many cops in NY versus how many soldiers in Afghanistan. Of course, one block in Manhattan is worth more than the entire Afghan infrastructure at the time we booted the Taliban. He is also disappointed in Zixar's reply, which expressed earnest disappointment in Mr. P-Mosh's reply. Someone said, you shouldn't have had to look too far to find people against World War II, or even the Revolutionary War. Show scenes of war casualties and you're going to hate war. "War is hell," was not a cliche. But war is sometimes necessary. Watered Garden plays the religion card - GWB is a Christian, and that's why people hate him so. I think it's because he's a Republican and he occupies the Whitehouse. So crucify me. Mr P-Mosh quotes Zixar. Is ExWayDaryl equally disappointed?? We shall see. He goes on to re-reiterate the discredited claims. "Ignorance is bliss," they say. This would be our chance to find out. Who wants to ask? 1searcher offers the link to Hitchins' article. Get thee behind me!! The Girl from Oz is easily frightened, apparently. Mr P-Mosh says the Hitchens article makes no sense, and is wrong. Those of us who actually READ the article might scratch our heads and say, "WTF!??" lindyhopper detects a personal hatred for Moore in Hitchens' words. Really? What about contempt for a slovenly opportunist whose dishonesty risks discrediting those on Hitchens' side of the political spectrum with "integrity?" I don't see hate. I do see contempt, well-earned, entirely justified, and (most importantly here) properly explained contempt. Doesn't sound the least bit smug to me, but he does sound like he belongs to an intellectual elite we rarely see in the US, at least on TV or in the movies. Hope R. declares her disapproval of Hitchens' personality, and therefore she has no binding obligation to acknowledge any facts he may offer, however pertinent. Good one. Thomas Heller disregards Hitchens. Possibly the smugness thing? Good call! Moore doesn't want to reveal or otherwise expose Bush. He wants to SMEAR him. Revealing and exposing are a job for facts. Smearing is the job of innuendo and "cheap shots." Let's be fair about it. Moore set the ground rules, and thereby defines his work. Linda Z, finally, says, "Smug, oh yes very smug, yes indeed! Smug to a "T" he is. Don't like it. No sir, don't like it at all. He is smug. You betcha!" Well, not quite like that. It was the word "absolutely" that sort of translated well. Hey ho, look at the time. I've got to be somewhere else and I'm already late, late, late. XJW's have come to call at GS? I'll bet they're GAY too!! And probably trying to recruit ex-Ways to become ex-JW's, like them. Well, I'm getting out of here before they try to talk to me or something. If they can get in here, ex-Presbyterians can't be too far behind. Regards... PS Others have done some great work exposing Moore. I won't repeat their efforts. You don't have to look too far. Think for yourselves, those of you still willing.

Humanity is the thing, Trefor. Every dogma seeks in one way or another to mold it into the craven image of a slave. Humanity is too much for them. They might call it the "natural man," and they fear it, but they realize they need it too. So they seek to confine it, enslave it. That may be why slaves are held in such high esteem by the great religions. It's propaganda. "Mind control." We are universally exhorted by their holynesses to aspire to become slaves of Truth, for only as slaves can we become "free." We'll believe just about anything, won't we? As for the Reagan point, there was no directly critical comment, yet you included the Argentinian junta, neo-Nazism, Hitler, and even Pat Robertson (for whom you have no time) in the same paragraph. Random coincidence? Very likely. But on the off chance I was correct, I thought I'd put in a good word for the Gipper's character. Regards...