Abigail

ExC, while I am more sorry than you could know that you are a firsthand accounter, I am honored and grateful that I was here to see you unfold your account. Elsewise I could still be one who had doubts about what happened and what did not. Thank you for sharing your story, especially in the face of all the flak you received for doing so.

Really? Who died and left you in charge? I am pretty certain that we are pretty free to post opinions and facts, as long as Paw allows it. When Paw decides otherwise and changes the rules, THEN the rules will be different. It really is that simple White Dove. We are allowed to post opinions, we are allowed to post our stories, we are even allowed to call VPW a scumsucking rapist without adding "IMO" or "alleged" for as long as Paw and the moderators allow us to.

I don't know what happened to you, WhiteDove, there was a time, back when our other sweet Dove was around, that you seemed like a pretty okay guy. You certainly seem to have changed. I am sorry for whatever occurred that brought about this change in you.

If only . . . . And yet, if he had been convicted in OT culture, the woman would have suffered as well. She would have been "damaged goods" and as such, ummarriageable. Sadly, the 1940's - 1970's weren't so much better. No stoning, to be sure. But women were still often seen in a very negative light in cases of rape and sexual abuse. But you have no empathy for these women, you have only your vehement, hard and legalistic stance that words be used with mathmatical precision. Your love for perfect grammar seems to supercede your love for your fellow man and woman. You very much come across as one of the Pharisees Jesus reproved. Full of pride and knowlege, but a whited sepulchre inside.

RumRunner you make an interesting and good point. By WD's logic the schools should stop teaching about the atrocities Hilter commited - he was never convicted for them.

I guess it depends on which court you hold in higher esteem. In our legal system, one would not be guilty without due process. Of course, you know this isn't a court room. But there is a higher law, too, no??? In the O.T. a person was found guilty by the mouths of two or three witnesses. I believe we have at LEAST two or three witnesses. In fact, I can name 4 people off the top of my head who have told stories that would convict VPW of sexual assault (I am avoiding the word rape for you, OM ;) ).

Oh give me a friggen break, WD. That is a word game and you know it!! One does not have to say "IMO" every time they state an opinion. Most people of average or even somewhat below average intelligence are capable of separating opinion from fact. Opinion: VPW was a scumbag Fact: VPW taught a class called PFAL. DOH!!! And though I have stood up for your right to express your opinions, I can promise you, I will NOT take the time to type IMO, every time I express an opinion about VPW or any other topic. The custom and practice around the GSC has been, for as long as I have been here, that the names of public figures can be used when one is telling their stories. However, the non-public figures are not to be named. In other words, it is and has been perfectly acceptable to say VPW is a scumbag who sexually abused me. But it would not be acceptable for me to say White Dove is a scumbag who sexually abused me.

That could very well be. Perhaps that is why we get along so well. :) I don't think being polarized does, but having opposing views CAN, if the opposing parties are willing to truly give an honest and critical consideration of what the other person is saying and one's own pov.

I know I sound terse and tense. I apologize. It is, in part, because of that terseness and tenseness that comes out in me when I've been hanging around the cafe for too long that I leave this place for stretches at a time. I just get very frustrated with the us v. them. Christians v non-Christians, Apologists v Anti-TWIers, Liberals v. Conservatives. This place is so completely polarized on nearly every issue that it becomes damned near impossible to have a civilized conversation with anyone!!

Exactly, Lifted. I went back through the two threads on Kristen's interview and read the posts there. I do think some of OM's posts COME ACROSS, i.e. could easily be interpreted as, calloused. But I am not convinced that his INTENTION is to be calloused. I think if you have not walked in the shoes of someone who has been physically or sexually abused, it can be a difficult thing to understand all of the ramifications of what that abuse does inside of a person. One of the things that has come up in counselling is that in general, women tend to focus on relationships. We focus on building them, repairing them, the emotions of them, etc. Men are less focused in that direction, they are focused on doing. What do we need to DO, how do we need to DO it, how can we DO it better, etc. Again I would like to emphasize that I am speaking in generalities and there are certainly exceptions and different men and women will fall into different spectrums in this generalization I am making. But, the point is, in general, men will have a more difficult time understanding why a woman didn't just walk away, why she put up with it, why she didn't tell, etc. etc. Kristen nails that one on the head very well near the end of her book or on her blog, where she talks about how nobody knows for certain why some women leave and some women stay. (I tend to think the why is a mixed component of the genetic personality you were born with, combined with what life experiences have taught you to believe).

I agree they can. I guess I just tend to think that most of the time, or at the very least some of the time, OM tries to craft his words carefully because he knows that stating his opinions around here is a bit like walking through a mine field. I also think he honestly does not get the woman's perspective on some of this stuff. But, he does appear to be trying.

Waysider, In the first place, OM acknowledged he believed ExC's story, which means he believes something happened in The Way. I don't recall if ExC's story included drugging or not, and it really makes no difference to me. Secondly, I do not think you, I, or anyone else here has the right to demand OM believe anything!! It is one thing to ask him to be respectful and mindful of someone else's pain when he is posting a response, it is another thing entirely to demand he believe what you or I want him to believe.

I'm with you, Bramble. I've been on the "outside" of Christianity since I was a child, at least as it is known in the traditional sense. I apparently "didn't get it" then and I don't now. The closest I have ever been to being on the "inside" of Christianity, was with TWI - what does that say???? Even to this very day, I am on the outside of any religious organizations. I am sure there are probably some pretty okay ones out there, but weeding out the bad from the good just sounds like too much work. Personally, I don't care to surround myself with people who are only willing to accept me if I think/believe/worship exactly as I do, with little room for self expression and individualization. That is one of the draws to Judaism for me. Judaism was really designed for the individual. While it does teach the "hows" of being a community, most certainly, the worship portions are pretty much performed in the home and with the family. Yes there are synogugues, but there is no "sin" in not going - at least not that I've found. I don't believe that is how God intended it. If it were, he could have just made us a bunch of little pre-programmed robots, but He didn't. He designed us to have our own personalities, our own thoughts, our own feelings. Speaking of gnostics and the love of knowledge . . . . . I love to learn. Yup, I truly do. I enjoy reading about history, God, many different religious beliefs, etc. etc. But I think the true danger of knowledge isn't the knowledge itself or even the love of knowledge . . . it is becoming "puffed up" and assuming you have all the answers and everyone else is just ignorant/mislead/deceived. I'll take Clay's "religious pluralism" over the narrow minded "us v them" religious co-dependence every time.

I get what Oldiesman is sayiing. On some level it seems like word games and it IS frustrating, but on another level I totally get where he is coming from. He holds VPW with some degree or another of esteem and he has the right to do so, regardless of what anyone else things of VPW. So terms like rape strike him as being very harsh, though he is willing to acknowledge there was sexual impropriety/wrong doing that took place (and you should give him credit for that, there was a time when he would not acknowledge even that much!). Rape does have a number of definitions both within the legal field and the medical field, as well as on the streets. Now, in my mind, damn near any unwanted physical, sexual contact is rape, but I will leave room for the notion that others may not see it that way. They may see it as sexual assault or even a violation, but not technically rape. In fact, if someone grabbed my breasts, it wouldn't constitute rape in a courtroom. So, yes, I think having threads to discuss the definition of these terms is not only reasonable, but could be benefitial, PROVIDED those threads are their own unique threads and not part of someone's personal account. Similarly, if such a thread is started and you chose to share your own personal account within that thread, then you have pretty much left yourself open to whatever responses may come. I think that is the most fair way to protect those have been hurt, without closing the door on people who still hold VPW or PFAL with some degree of esteem.

See, we are making progress :)

It IS a personal attack when you are essentially accusing someone of lying. Now, debating the definition of the term rape is not a personal attack, but compassion and respect should probably mandate that it be done on a thread that is not discussing someone's personal experience of being raped.

I cannot believe we have to have a debate about the definition of the word rape. Oldies, I think in such a situation you could hold your tongue out of respect for the person who told their story. Alternatively, if the person makiing the comment was not the person telling the story, you could take it up with them in PM. Another option, is to simply accept the fact that said person has a different definition of rape than you do and that you do not have to try to persuade them that their definition of rape is wrong. Finally, yet another option is to start a thread entitled "what is the definition of rape."

It seems like the simplest way to handle this would be to have a more strict code of conduct for the "About the Way" forums. Something that prevents people from casting doubt upon another person's credibility when they are telling of their own personal experience. "Oppossing opinions regarding TWI, LCM, VPW, PFAL, etc. are welcome, but this is not a Courtroom and tangible proof of your own personal experience is not required and should not be requested. Please be respectful of others when they are revealing their own personal accounts. Failure to do so could result in your post being edited or deleted. Repeated failure to do so could result in a suspension or banning."

It has been said, repeatedly, that Greasespot Cafe is not a courtroom. I will take it a step further for you. No one has a right to due process in the court of public opinion. People are found guilty every day in the court of public opinion, without due process. Due process is a right granted to those who have been charged in a court with a crime. Due process does not govern personal opinion. I have as much right to opine someone is guilty, as you do that they are innocent. However, when a person is revealing a piantful story about a personal experience, and you deem the perp is innocent, or at least has not been proven to be guilty, you are (as I have said repeatedly) in essence calling the person who told their story a liar. You may not use that term - you may be good at wordsmithing, but the connotation is the same - just as when one calls you a VPW apologist, they may be good at wordsmithing, but they are still insulting you personally.

This isn't a courtroom, WhiteDove. Of course you know that, just as you know these women will never be able to offer courtroom style evidence and there will never be a trial. Thus, you are free to harangue them until a rule is put in place to prevent it. How very convenient for you, to try these women here, where you know they cannot "prove" their claims. I don't buy it WhiteDove. You claim it is wrong to publicly try someone without a hearing. I say it is wrong to abuse someone and THAT is a greater crime. This isn't about American rights, this is your way of justifying your behavior, which at times is very bad.

Impossible? I don't know, you could be right. But I think if someone comes up with a workable solution and that solution is put into play, it is at least worth a shot. It would appear Paw is open to suggestions, based on the thread he started in the open forums. And I would actually like to take this discussion a step further. I think a large part of WHY the victims are so distraught, angered, hurt by the doubts and questions that they face when they tell their stories is, in part, because the questions are similar to the doubts and questions they hide within themselves, underneath the shame that was forced upon them by the perpetrator. Victims of abuse almost always blame themselves, doubt themselves, ask themselves what they did to deserve what they got, what they did to bring this upon themselves, what they could have done to prevent it, etc. etc. That is a part of the shame victims feel - that they deserved it or could have prevented it. For some, when they are ready anyway, facing these questions and discovering that they didn't deserve it, didn't bring it upon themselves, and couldn't have prevented it can be a very healing thing. There was an incident in my life that occured while I was in high school that had a devastating effect on me, something I carried inside of me and that effected me well into my 30's. Then one day, someone who knew me back then, but whom I had not had contact with for many years asked me "why didn't you fight back." Man that question ....ed me off. But I finally looked at that question and looked within myself and realized I couldn't have fought back. It was an incredibly healing moment for me. When I finally internalized and really really came to understand, not just in my head but in my heart as well, that I didn't do anything wrong. Those who have been abused have to reach that point on their own timetable and they shouldn't be pushed. So again, I agree, we need some protections in place for those who have been abused. Really, Dot, I think you and I are not so very far apart in how we view this. Peace.

WB, here is a website that will give you a good overview of various logical fallacies: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ When I took my logic and critical thinking class, we spent a lot of time breaking arguments down and looking for the fallacies. There are some examples on the website. and this is a logical fallacy we see frequenty here at the forum: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

I learned by taking a logic and critical thinking class at our local community college not too long after I left TWI. It was a great class, and yes, it can be learned like math or science. I think of logic and critical thinking as the math of the language arts.