Abigail

I really think that if mankind could only follow the simple rules of love God and love your neighbor as yourself the world could heal.

Amen to that!!!

And yes, I remember our discussions on the tree of life. It is probably still down here somewhere burried in the pages. :)

Also worth noting is

With you. A bit personal I would say.

That would seem to say, if the poor is with us.

Then we are with the poor.

Basically no distinction of some sort of 'status'.

I like that, on a couple of different levels. But I think the thing it makes me think of the most is how connected all of us really are, even if we don't realize it.

I think this book gives a tremendous amount of insight into the thought processes of someone who had been abused. It is something that would be difficult to understand if you haven't walked in those shoes, but Kristen has done an excellent job of telling it!!!

I kinda of wanted to move into that topic as the next part of the book discussion, where she talks a bit about being molested and her early experimentation with sexuality. I'm just not sure how to proceed with it, how to do it justice.

It is so incredibly liberating to undo the teachings of TWI!!! I ceased believing in many of them a long time ago, but I had no new understanding to replace many of them with, so I've been sort of stuck in limbo.

Now, I am finding the replacement understandings and it feels GREAT.

In TWI we were taught that we need not and really should not give to charities, because Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you."

Here's another take on that statement . . .

Judaism teaches that we give to the poor, not because we feel like doing it, but because it is the right thing to do. In fact, the Hebrew word that is often translated into charity doesn't really mean charity as we understand it today, it really means something closer to "doing the right thing." It is, in a sense, an obligation.

With that backdrop on the Jewish attitude towards "charity" and keeping in mind Jesus was Jewish . . .

A woman pours expensive oil on Jesus' head and the disciples reprove her, because she could have sold the oil and given the money to the poor. Jesus responds by saying "the poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."

The 'poor you will always have with you' is a paraphrasing from Deuteronomy. "For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command you to open your hand to your poor and needy brother."

In other words, Jesus would have known that this woman would fulfill her duty to assist her poor and needy brother. And, because there will always be poor people on earth, she would not be lacking in opportunities to do so. But Jesus would only live on this early for a limited time period. This woman wanted to honor him and do him a kindness and this may have been her only opportunity to do so.

Black and white thinking again. TWI took this verse and turned it into and either or. Either you honor Jesus and cease giving to the poor or you dishonor Jesus and give to the poor. They never stated it in those terms, to be sure. But they made it clear all of our giving should be to TWI and none to charity.

Right, Eyes. In fact, the "healing of the world" is what many Jewish people believe we were chosen to do. It isn't because Jewish people are somehow special, either. Nor is it that non-Jewish people cannot heal the world - in fact, to heal the world requires all parties to participate.

The idea is that for whatever reason, God chose Abraham. Perhaps God saw Abraham as the man who would teach his children. Or perhaps as Harold Kushner points out and as the Bible even says, God stuck it out with the decendents of Abraham because of the love God had for Abraham. Not entirely different from how we might favor the children and grandchildren of an especially close friend. In other words, there isn't anything particularly special about Jewish people, we had no say in our lineage.

Eventually God "codified" the laws via Moses, but most of those laws already existed prior to Moses. Perhaps they were codified the way they were at Mt. Sinai because the Jewish people had been salves in Egypt for so long that they no longer remembered/knew the laws, or at least all of them.

But in any event, the point of the laws were to teach us how to live as a community. The Jewish people were then to set an example for how to live as a community so that other people would also eventually come to live in communities (as in, in communion with one another, taking care not only of themselves, but their neighbors as well. This would be in oppisition to living in anarchy and chaos, sacrificing children, etc. etc.) Eventually, the world would be healed and the Kingdom of Heaven will come to pass on earth.

And I agree, both Jesus and Paul would have understood these concepts.

Interesting take, Cman and I agree. I think this entire life is the process of being and becoming holy. :)

Exactly, WaterGarden.

Here's a quote from Harold Kushner that I also find very interesting, in light of what we were taught in TWI

"The goal of Judaism is not to each us how to escape from the profane world to the cleansing presence of God {Rember in the world but not of it? In TWI we were to separate ourselves from "worldly things"?}, but to teach us how to bring God into the world, how to take the ordinary and make it holy."

I mentioned in another thread that I am reading a book by Harold Kushner called "To Life". In it, he briefly touches on the practice of shunning (which is very rarely ever seen in the Jewish sects anymore, except rarely among some of the ultra-orthodox communities).

He uses the Roman Catholic Church as an example, but it fits with what TWI taught perhaps even better. In the Christian groups that practice shunning, it is often applied to a person because he or she has a theological difference (i.e. are the dead alive now, is Jesus Christ God). In TWI one wasn't just cut off from the community, but we were taught that we were cut off from God as well. (greasespot by midnight, anyone?)

However, he asks, how can anyone cut someone else off from God????

In Judaism, when excommunication occured, it was a cutting off from the community, and it was never understood to be a cutting off from communion with God. AND shunning didn't occur over theological differences, shunning occured when a person was not acting as a member of the community - in the best interest of the community.

Now, if Paul, as a Jew, understood the concept of "mark and avoid" in this light - his writings on the topic make much more sense!!! You don't mark and avoid someone because they have a different belief, you mark and avoid them because they are harming the community (such as someone who manipulates and/or forces a woman to have sex with him - hmmmmmm).

Its great to see you Sir! :) Some great thoughts in your post. To become holy is to become whole. But it isn't simply about the individual becoming whole (or as we were taught in TWI - body, soul, and then spirit makes us whole) it is about the COMMUNITY becoming whole. That is the glue that holds Judaism together - not doctrine or theology.

Ask any two Jews a theological or doctrinal question and you will probably get at least 3 answers. :). I have started reading a second book called "To Life" by Harold Kushner. He made an interesting point, in that before Judaism was a religion, it was a people, a community - the ritual and religion came later. Much later, really.

The laws weren't written so we could show our blind allegiance and obedience to a power tripping God, they were written so we could successfully live together as a community. God would rather we show our love to each other than to Him. Hence, there are exceptions to the laws and examples of when someone was right and justified in breaking them. It isn't supposed to be black and white - it can't be, because we are not.

And yes, I guess the rituals are important, I just haven't yet learned enough about them for all of them to have significance to me. :) I think another part of the idea behind the rituals is to live life in its fullest. To not just be happy but to be full of joy - to celebrate. To not just mourn, but to really deeply grieve - to cry, scream. To experience every part of it!

Anyway, I am still going to work my way through this book, and I may still post things on this thread as I am moved to do so. But in all honesty, I am find this book to be a bit of a sleeper - sort of elementary with very few "ah ha!" moments. The introduction was great and really hooked me, but now I sort of feel like I am sitting in a Sunday School classroom with a group of children. In fact, this book would probably be an excellant read for the kids if it were pared down a bit.

Still, I think there will be some good stuff in there, but my mind needs something a bit more than I am finding in it, so I will read a few pages a day here and there and work my way through the book (mentioned earlier in this post) that Sushi brought home from the library.

I will say this though - one of the reasons why I wanted to read this book was because I do want to teach my kids - another reason why I will stick with it, too. But as I was reading the other book, I realized something . . .

In Judaism, the kids go to Hebrew school from a young age, but most of what they learn is not so different than what I already try to teach them at home and in many respects not so different than what any kid in any Sunday School setting would learn. Then the kid goes through the Bar or Bat Mitzvah and the school ends. This is truly sad, because the reality is that they aren't really even mature enough to learn what it truly means to be/ live as a Jew (and probably this would be true in Christianity or any other religion) until they have reached that age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah.

So, I will continue to do what I've been doing. I may add some things here and there, but I think until they reach an age where they can really comprehend and question and put together some of this stuff, I don't need to worry about it too much. And by that age they will be mature enough to sit through Shabbat services, to ask questions about them, etc. . . .

hi abi and all

good thread

a lot of good points

thanks all

while i havent read his book, and ive only googled the rabbi

the many good points arising in this thread already seem very familiar to me

ive talked with and heard from and practiced with and read a number of different rabbis in the years since twi

many in the context of hospice, history, and medicine

...a lot of good stuff there

i especially like the kind of rabbis who can talk and eat with catholics and buddhists and hindus and hopi and such...all monks and nuns

...as if the "kingdom of God" is some very elaborate bar joke

and i have especially come to appreciate jewish wisdom and history for things such as:

+ the very vital roles of effective rites of passage and rituals in birthing, aging and dying and all the spiritual stages of life in between them

+ the critical distinctions between theology/theory and spiritually transforming practices/disciplines

+ a full body of spiritual practices... via breath, via the heart and breath, via dreams, via martial arts, via holy days, via song and dance and art, via diet, via contemplation, via envisioning, via the arts of dialogue, etc...the usual perennial suspects

+ and 4 millenia (or so) of profound interfaith and interreligious activity all around the globe

to me, these elements are all integrated and very mutually supportive and resonate with the hundreds of very good points ive read in this thread

i would even go as far as to say that they (rites, ritual, practice, dialogue, etc...) help "unfold" what one might call our "ethical line of development"

...which is also what invites those occasions of authentic interreligious and interdisciplinary and intergenerational dialogue in the first place

then on to stimulating peace on earth, good will towards all humanity...yada yada yada

...

to "be holy" is to "become whole"

which is really about "becoming all together here now"

by noticing and including all the various parts at play in your "self"

...parts we will find are simply already always here, hiding in shadows, waiting to feel the simplest light of our attention

...

still flickering

+ODD

Warning - adult language. The singer/guitar player and the guy on keys used to practice in my basement in a land far far away from here in another lifetime that pre-dates TWI

You know those clean pristine 'dont sit on the furniture' homes just annoy me. Our house was always clean but we could sit on the couch and pet the cat if we wanted. My first TC tried to get my parents to get rid of our pets and when they told him to take a flying leap he tried to have mom move the bird into the bedroom during twig because Buzzy liked to sing when we were singing and he often told the tc to 'shut up'. Because that's what the tc said to him. Turn about is fair play in a parakeet world.

My ex's grandmother had a parakeet that could make a sailor blush. Wonder where it learned such language

One thing that I find kind of amusing is the time-period and description of mayhem and disarray among those early NY "believers". I'm sure not all of you will be amused but . . . .

During the time period that the book is written about, I wasn't even in high school yet and had never heard of TWI. By the time I did get involved with TWI, everything was whitewashed and pristine. Way posters framed and hung on walls, homes polished to a shine most "worldly" mothers could only dream of achieving. Children sitting quietly, entertaining themselves (or at least too afraid to voice an objection) while the adults held fellowship.

It was definitely "Stepfordville" by the time I got involved. Of course, I am not sure if I would have stuck around if things had been as they were "back in the day." I was already living in chaos and clutter and was desperately searching for structure and order.

Well, they do say, sometimes when you are trying to find balance, you end up first going to the opposite extreme

(((Lifted))))

I find arguing over the proper definition of the term "apologist" in this context of "VPW apologist" about as silly as arguing with WD over legal termonology. The fact is, it is a grouping and pretty much stereotyping of a small number of people here. It is often used to dismiss what they are saying (and at least some of the time they have something valid to add) and at least WD, if not anyone else, has made it clear they find it offensive.

Therefore, as we are asking WD to use more wisdom and compassion regarding responding to personal testimony, I think it is fair play to ask others to refrain from calling people "VPW apologists."

Two sides - again.

I am willing to give the old curmudgeon another chance, it is obviously Paw's will too, since WD is still here, but I am not willing to let him play in the fields of GS by harrassing viewpoints he doesn't like and playing us all for fools.  Banning is the end point for any troll, I didn't even mention banning in the last post, I wonder why you put it in your rebuttal to me?

I brought banning up because in your earlier post you said," "Maybe if you had been witness to what WD posted you might have changed your opinion. What WD did was the difference between heckling at a kids birthday party vs heckling at a funeral, it was inappropriate, callous, and harrassing. He disrupted the whole thread and silenced any posters who were expressing the opposing viewpoint."

I can't see what else you would want me to change my opinion on, beyond the banning, because I have agreed that WD's posts have been inappropriate and lacking in compassion and I'm fairly certain THAT is NOT what you wanted me to change my opinion on.

And NO, Groucho simply mentioned "wierewille apologists" and WD started his hissy fit rant over the use of the word apologist and wierewille used in conjuction of eachother, an inane argumentitive ploy, pure, raw, flamebaiting.

Well here is how the threads read in their current condition: First thread for Kristen's first interview, there was quite a bit of back and forth between Oldiesman and others, but White Dove was not posting on the thread. Then, on page 5 Thomas Loy Bumgardner brought up WD, specifically named WD, in two separate posts.

On the second thread for the second interview, you are correct, WD was not specifically mentioned prior to posting there. BUT - both Groucho and DMiller posed questions regarding and/or to the "apologists." WD would have to be pretty stupid not to know he has been categorically lumped into that group, so he responded.

Now, I happen to agree with Dooj, in that if you don't want to be classified as an "apologist" it would HELP (though certainly not solve) if you didn't respond to anything addressed to an "apologist." I also would say his return fire was inappropriate in that thread on that topic.

On the otherhand, if you want WD to refrain from posting on a thread that he has not previously posted on, then it might also HELP (though certainly not solve) things, if you refrained from mentioning him or the "apologists."

So again, I guess I still think that the problem comes from both sides of the fence and cannot simply be completely blamed on WD.

I find it ironic that the ones decrying this thread and labeling the posters here who have a strong opinion about it and WD are the ones who were not a part of the "losing the way" thread and only read it after WD's posts were deleted.  You do have the right to voice your opinion here, but you really didn't see and read what happened on that thread.

Maybe if you had been witness to what WD posted you might have changed your opinion.  What WD did was the difference between heckling at a kids birthday party vs heckling at a funeral, it was inappropriate, callous, and harrassing.  He disrupted the whole thread and silenced any posters who were expressing the opposing viewpoint.

If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?  WD's tree fell, we heard it, we don't want any more trees falling here. 

Am I wrong in my perception that WD did not post on those threads until after someone else brought his name into the thread?

I am not condoning bad behavior on his part, I am simply pointing out that with some posters, this is a two way thing.

BTW, I suspect of Paw and the moderators had a "strong opinion" about banning WhiteDove, he would have been banned by now. I am assuming at least one of them saw exactly what went on in those threads, and opted to delete the posts, rather than ban him.

Awww (((Rascal)))) I wasn't offended by the "load of crap" comment - I knew what you were trying to say.

Lucky for you though, that I had my "big girl" pants on

(((Abby)))

Thank you for understanding. I wanted to edit my post about a *load of crap* but got booted from spouses computer.

What I SHOULD have said....and wish I HAD said...was that you might be mistaken in the perception that *my side* getting leniency...I apreciate you not taking offense.

Thanks, Rascal. :) more below:

I don`t want anybody booted either...I DO however want the freedom to post without harassment or my veracity being called into question. As noble as your ideals are in defense of this guy...his deliberate non stop campaign to limit others participation and sharing here in spite of many polite requests to cease and desist have made it necessary to word things a bit stronger. What can you do with a bully that refuses to stop?

I appreciate you clarifying your position in this regard and I agree, you should have a right to post without being harassed or called into question when you are speaking of your own personal experiences.

No doubt he is relishing his martyrdom, dismissing his ugly behavior and need to examine himself and his postings by beating his chest and crying harassment and discrimination...and then he has people come to his defense and scold those whom are taking him to task.

I guess I don't want to speculate too much on what is going through his mind. It also occured to me that the Dylan job could have been a way for him to make as gracefull an exit as he knew how to do, because the pressure of all of this was too much. But again, I would have no way of knowing his mind in either case. I am idealistic and I do prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. I prefer to refute what they have said and not who they are in their hearts, because that I just don't know.

Oh and as far as *my side* being given more leniency?? Now that I WILL call that a load of crap ...as much as I like you abby...you have NO idea how many times that I have been asked to voluntarily remove posts, been moderated, had my posts have been deleted...or that I was actually suspended from these boards for a MONTH!

Again, I can't argue with your point here. It is simply something I don't know that much about. I was speaking more specifically to what I saw in the two threads regarding Kristen's interview.

With all do respect, I think that you are posting from an *ideals* standpoint* while not really understanding the dynamics of doves orchestrated campaign to bully, discredit and drive people from these boards.

I am sure you may be correct in this regard.

I find it ironic that none of you decrying poor wd`s treatment ever came to my aid or anybody elses when good old dove was leading the lynch mob with his buddies...Hell a few of you jumped right on the band wagon with a few well placed kicks of your own when he had folks down.

Rascal, as one who has defended the right of WD to stay here, I am a little hurt by that assessment. I have come to your defense, as well as the defense of others when WD and some of the others have posted personal attacks. Granted, it has been a while, but then I had been away from this place for quite a while too. Moreover, I am fairly certain I have never kicked you or anyone else when they were down. In fact, it is because I consider you my friend that if I disagree with something you've said I often keep my mouth shut or if I think I have something to say that will be benficial, I PM you.

Even in this thread, where I have posted my opinion that WhiteDove should stay, this is the first time I have responded directly to one of your posts. Moreover, I have stated over and over again my agreement that WhiteDove and others need to temper their posts with more wisdom regarding personal accounts AND when Lucy went after Dot and ExC I spoke up loud and clear!!

Lkewise, I have never seen Linda "kick" anyone. Please don't lump everyone into on category.

I understand you are angry and you have a right to be. But please, consider where some of that anger is landing.

It would seem that ones level of outrage is directly determined by how much you dislike the view point of the poster under attack

I haven`t seen anything here that comes close to what he and his buddies did when ganging up and smacking down posters.

Well, I can't argue with you there, because I have by no means read all of White Dove or "his buddies" posts. Then again, I haven'[t ready all of any one person's posts. Either way, I agree with Linda that this thread does have something of a lynch mob feeling to it and certainly some of the posts from the "ban them" side of things have, IMO, crossed over into personal attacks. If we are going to say WD isn't allowed to personally attack anyone - how are we any better if we do the same?

He called us all KINDS of names, liars, exaggerators, whiners and complainers....denied the teachings that were used to facilitate the evil....accused us of horrible things...gleefully sided with any who were willing to smack down a poster he didn`t like when they pronounced us insane or a danger to ourselves and our children....He trolled the forums constantly with no other purpose than to discredit particular posters.....sometimes posting nothing to do with the topic at hand but simply to jeer and insult\....hi fiving his buddies for doing the same. He was a viscious bully.

But hey...I guess this isn`t such a big deal because you really didn`t like thr posters he targeted anyway..right??

Oh come one!!! Don't like them???? I count you as friend, I've never even met WD. I count ExC as my sister soul mate and have told her so on many occassions - because she so often has the courage to say things that I cannot. Dot and I have had our disagreements, no doubt, but I like her and care about her just the same and never expected any friend to have the exact same opinions as I have.

Baaah the hypocracy is glaring.

The rules have tightened to the point now where there are only a couple left that bother to try to find loop holes to continue their relentless campaign and harassment.....Now that he isn`t allowed to stalk, to bait, to insult, to deride and attempt to discredit...he has found yet another way to disrupt within the parameter of the rules ...I guess that people, the majority of the forums have had enough of this deliberate and disruptive behavior.

Well, in all honesty - as far as I have been able to tell in re-reading the two threads about Kristen's interview - WD did not take the first shots. His name was brought into those threads before he ever even posted on them. His name was left in those threads even after his posts were deleted. So, I think this problems comes from both sides of the fence and if anything, "your side" is given a lot more leniency than his is.

It just really sucks and to me completely negates ones claims of neutrality or fairness when you would come to the defense of a guy that has been so hurtful.... after all of these years of ignoring his campaign to discredit and surpress any poster who`s experience that doesn`t paint twi in a positive light.

I don't think anyone has been defending WD, per se, just his right to post. Most everyone who has sided with his right to post has agreed that his "attacks" on personal accounts are poorly timed, poorly executed, and lacking in compassion.

Edited to add: This is rascal (if you couldn`t tell already :) btw.

:(

Unfortunately their grandchildren live a life similar to yours, parents divorced and for whatever reason they dont get the type of supervision that really nurtures a child. I hope they turn out as well as you sound like you have, minus the whole cult thing.

Minus the cult things, the drugs, the alcohol, the . . . . believe me, I made a tremendous number of mistakes before I got to this place in my life!! But it also shows me, it is never to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start a new and turn your life around!!

I personally never could have children so the ones that I often claim were actually my ex's. I havent seen any of them in years and have only heard from one of them in the past two. They have no structure now either, but I cannot help that if they wont let me.

That is very sad, Eyes, for you and for them. My step brothers and sister pretty much fell off the face of the planet too, after my step-dad died. I did manage to track my step-sister down once, many years ago, and she gave me the brush off. I was actually trying to find my step-brother, who is apparently (or was) also looking for me. He tried to reach me through classmates, but I wasn't a paid for member and rarely go there. By the time I did a couple years have passed. I tried to reach him the same way, but so far have not had a response. :(

I bet you were a pain in some unsuspecting TC's tail! That could have been fun to watch.

I most certainly was for a few years. But then when the screws were clamped down in TWI and all the people I was closest to left, it became obvious I was fighting a losing battle. Add to that, I had my first son and was pregnant with my second . . . I guess the fight pretty much went out of me for a while.

Okay, back to judging others . . . .

I guess this topic strikes me especially right now, given all of the controversy and tensions we have seen in the forums of late.

Anyway . . . the ability to make judgments is a unique one to humanity. To the best of our knowledge, the rest of the animal world cannot and does not judge moral character. Unfortunately, while we have the ability to judge between good and evil, we often misuse it. We make snap judgments without enough information, we forget to be empathetic, we set standards for others that we ourselves often fail to achieve.

We should look for the good in each other - see the whole person and not just the flaws that irritate us. There is a talmudic teaching that says "Don't judge your fellow until you have been in his place." I usually say, "until you have walked in his shoes."

Rabbi Telushkin then points out that Noah was considered to be a righteousman who was blameless in his generation. The Rabbis asked "why does the Torah add "in this generation?" The most favored answer to this question is that it emphasizes that Noah lived in a generation of moral depravity and only in such a generation could Noah have been seen as great. Had he lived in a more moral generation, he would not have been so special.

Another Rabbi, Rabbi Lakish argued that if Noah was capable of being righteous in such a depraved generation, the he would also have been righteous in a more moral generation. This is because if "someone like Noah could grow up without a good role model and emerge as righteous, how much greater would he have been iwith support and encouragment from other moral people."

Of course, as in all things there is a balance to this. I'd say many, perhaps most of us ex-wafers clearly understand that there are people out there who are pretty much morally deprived!! That is covered later in the book, I believe. :)

Hmmm. I'm not quite sure I can explain myself. I guess I'm still trying to make the concept of God work in my head. I want something I can dig into and not just cute bromides to help me temporarily feel better.

In the end, maybe the 'jerk' who cut me off last night really was just a jerk. How do I remain holy in the face of God without resorting to little mind tricks such as that prayer implies? I was hoping for something more substantial.

Did that help clarify anything at all?

-JJ

JJ, I'm going to back up and cover some of the things I left out, the move forward (if time permits) and hope something in all of this answers what you are looking for. :)

This first part probably has nothing to do with what you are looking for, but when I was going back through some of this it struck me as important. Rabbi Telushkin writes, "The acknowledgement that we have free will and bear resopnsibility for our actions is the essence of human dignity." Earlier he wrote of a Holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankel, who said "soemtimes the only free will we hav is how we choose to meet our death." Franekel spoke of those in the concentration camps who would give away their last piece of bread to help another person. It wasn't just an act of kindness, it was also one of the few freedoms they had left, to chose to die with some level of internal dignity.

In Judaism, improving ones character is the goal in this life. The Midrash states "The Torah's commandments were not given to mankind for any purpose other than to refine people." I agree with this concept. What else could our purpose here be? We certainly aren't going to take all our stuff with us when we die, so accumulating weath certainly isn't the point!!

Rabbi Telushkin later writes, "When trying to improve your character, don't despair and lose heart when you do something wrong . . . we must remember that even imperfect or incomplete improvement is far better than none at all." He also quotes Rabbi Israel Salanter who was responding to Rabbi Chayyim regarding a book he was publishing, "If all you accomplish is to evoke one sigh from one reader, then your book is worthwhile."

In my own experience, most of the greatest lessons I've learned in this life were the result of a poor decision/mistake I had made.

ROFLMAO Bride - that truly is funny. Talk about getting lost in the details!!!!!

Yes it did and I really loved the way that she said some of the things. Some of it even sounded 'logical' for that split moment before I remembered what year it was...

My roommate said something to me yesterday that really kind of made me mad...because she was right...I was good in the Corps because I was obedient, not because I was spiritual, or called, or gifted, but obedient. When I ceased being obedient they told me to leave. That just p!sses me off!

ROFLMAO - Obedience was definitely something that didn't come naturally to me!! I think somewhere inside I knew that, even though I didn't think of it on a conscious level back then. That probably has a lot to do with why I never went WOW or Corps - it was hard enough just to be obedient on a twig level!!

With regard to the parental supervision, Eyes, my parents divorced when I was 8. My father was very busy building his career and had limited visitation with us anyway. My mother went back to school, worked, and eventually remarried only to lose my step-father to cancer a short time later. So, by the time she was done with school and somewhat done grieving (his loss really took a lot out of her - she pretty much disappeared inside herself for about 4 years) and remebered she had children, it was pretty much too late. I was 17 when she finally decided I needed some discipline and guidance in my life, at which point I was convinced I was all grown up, new everything, and was not going to stand for being treated like a child. I moved out when I was 1/2 way through my senior year.