Abigail

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.

I don't have a problem with that.

See, we are making progress :)

Exactly!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

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.

Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."

I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.

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."

I do care when they speak of someone as though they have been found guilty of a crime that they have not had due process of law for. We have the right to be innocent until proven guilty I'll speak up for that right.

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.

I am not concerned with any conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. Nor am I concerned at all about his name . Again you miss the point I am concerned about rights we enjoy and the preservation of those. In particular Innocent until proven guilty, be it for VP or anyone else. It is wrong to publicly charge a crime to someone without having given them the benefit of those rights to a fair hearing of both sides of any evidence of such crime and the dispute of said evidence. As usual you choose to make this appear to be about VP and some love for him it is not , it is about rights as Americans being preserved for all this example just happens to include VP. I would object to Daniel Watson being called a murderer just the same until he has had his day in court and such a determination has been made.

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.

Your precepts are reasonable, perhaps ecclesiastical, definitely noble but have not been followed... So, although lofty and easily read on paper, apparently impossible for the apologist to observe considering the LONG history of attacks on the victims - as the architecture of social mores seems to elude them.

And that is where Groucho is-

When the people do not hold their tongue and attack victims telling their stories is endless... then he is suggesting an action on the victims behalf, such as the boot to those who cannot control themselves REPEATEDLY. Not now and then having a flare, but severe violations on a consistent basis.

I think their violations help to expose TWI for the warped thinking with which it has plagued its followers.

But he is proposing an even more severe resolve. I think it a merited suggestion even though I am not saying I agree with the boot "today" but if safety precautions are established in telling of ones story and they continue to violate that, then I agree with Groucho.

Groucho does not have a need to compete to be right at all costs, nor to pontificate his brand of logic. He does not need to have the last word or is even seeking favor in the eyes of the reader. He feels for the victim and is sick of the abuse, as are many. (period)

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

And I knew Marsha who was ripped to shreds by those apologist guys

Oh, and responding to you in the same ilk - Abi

You might be Rosie posting as Abi to defend the defenders of VP -meeting with WD who might be Craig and Oldiesman who might be Howard... in your own mini-ROA to exchange Strategies - responding in kind to your words - afterall, it is the net...

You're right, Dot, I could be anybody. You've never met me. You only know what you read in my posts. Now, I could argue you are wrong because other people have met me. I could argue you are wrong because Rascal knows me, or I could even say Paw knows me and use his "title" as webmaster/site owner. But in the end, it would be a flawed argument.

Where does it all end?

It ends with each person respecting the right of every other individual to form their own opinons, something we were rarely allowed to do in TWI. However, that should also be tempered with each person having some wisdom and self restraint regarding when to hold our tongue about our doubts, so as to not inflict further pain upon another human being, regardless of who is actually sitting on the other end of the keyboard - because in the end, we don't necessarily know what kind of harm/damage we could do to another person.

Lifted said

I do have a problem with the apologists and THEIR apologists, although I like most of your posts Lifted up.

I have never seen such cold-hearted stick their head in the sand cultists as I did in TWI and the very few here. We have had countless give testimony about VP's behavior and YOU people think it may or may not be true? Son of the Master told of all the women hurt and countless of first hand stories he heard, Don't worry told us. Skyrider shared things as a BIG leader in the Cult - but that was not enough! Then, the women, incl me, shared account after account of the abuse FIRST HAND and that was not enough.

Dot, it can be difficult enough to believe first hand stories about someone you actually knew face to face, when those stories come from people who you don't even know and they contradict your image of the person. It would be even more difficult then, to accept second and third hand accounts of these stories from people you don't even know.

I am not suggesting you or anyone else here is obligated to reveal your true identity or meet someone face to face, but it is asking a lot. I happen to believe the stories - - NOW, but there was a time when I did not, when I could not believe that sweet innocent appearing older gentleman who taught me so many truthes about God's Word could possibly have done those things he was accused of.

Sky says he was a BIG leader in the Cult. Great - but in reality he could be someone who never even took PFAL. Again, I don't believe that, I have no reason to doubt Sky's stories, but this is the internet and anyone can pretend to be anyone.

Add to that for some, and I think I can safely say for Lifted in particular, they have not seen the stories all over these boards because they do not follow all of the threads that closely. Often, these stories come up in the midst of threads that start out being about other topics. I was doing a search earlier today to see if I could find some of the stories for someone who hadn't seen them, I couldn't find them. I know they are there, because I have seen them, but I couldn't find them. I tried searching under your name, I tried searching under the names of others who have told their stories, I tried searching under the word "rape" . . . but there are literally thousands of posts that come up and frankly, I don't have the time to search through all of those posts.

Perhaps, someday, when some of this other junk gets worked out, some of you may be comfortable enough to post your stories as their own individual threads in the "my story" section. But again, I would understand why you would not want to.

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.

I'll have to check that out, even after that pm. I really don't know what I'm going to think of it, but would be interesting to see if it gets there (God's town here has a nice big B & N.).

Check your PM again before you hit the stores :D

Okay, dumb question of the day...will the book be on anyone's shelves at all, or is it one (like Karl's I think, unless it was well hidden) you can only get by ordering?

I saw something in Google that made it appear Barnes and Noble will be carrying it - don't know if they have it yet or not. I ordered a copy through amazon and received it in less than 5 days. I think it was $18 with shipping and handling.

I saw something in Google that made it appear Barnes and Noble will be carrying it - don't know if they have it yet or not. I ordered a copy through amazon and received it in less than 5 days. I think it was $18 with shipping and handling.

p.s. - please check your private message

I think when someone is discussing a painful personal experience, the "big leaguers" should hold their tongues out of respect, compassion, whatever.

If they see something within that thread that is separate and apart from the personal experience, i.e. "yeah, maybe vpw did those things, but his teachings are still truth . . ." they could simply start their own thread and leave out the names and specific details of the poster's personal experience.

Example "There has been personal testimony that VPW raped women" this may be true (though it is "undocumented") but I still believe he taught us many truths . . . " That thread, could then discuss the pro's and con's of what was taught, without derailing the thread of or in anyway hurting the person who posted their own personal story.

Conversely, however, those who have been harmed are going to have to reach a place where they either opt to ignore such threads and not respond in them, or be prepared for the "big league" responses they are going to be faced with.

Ultimately, it is going to require self restraint on the part of the individual posters, in order for it to work. Maybe, hopefully, someone else will have a better solution. :)

I wasn't offended by your use of the term, RumRunner - I understood you were using it as an example and were not aiming it at me or calling me that.

And yes, words can be very destructive - that is why I have mixed feelings on this subject. But the rules here do forbid personal attacks, which I would understand to include name calling. I think Paw and the moderators are very liberal in giving people warnings and more than one chance in that regard and I appreciate it. I think many of us have occassionally gotten overly passionate about our point of view and crossed the line in that area. But when one consistently and repeated crosses the line, then banning is appropriate if for no other reason than because Paw and the moderators shouldn't have to work so hard at deleting or editing someone else's posts.

Sorry Abigail - I used the phrase "dirty Jew" semi-randomly - since I was called that as a child in a very Catholic - very small town. I in no way meant that directed at you for whatever your ethnic heritage is.

I will agree with your mixed opinions to some degree - yes we have to learn to deal with "real" life - and that is for OUR children. That in NO WAY lets the child off the hook who calls them Mayonnaise, etc (hell in CA you got hundreds of ethnic slurs to choose from). I will also be called on the carpet for suggesting that they be banned - in CA they get suspended. I guess my point is that words can be as harmful as any material weapon. Not the same way...maybe more painfully and slowly - when the person who gets named called enough goes home and commits suicide? Rare? True! But happens? Yes!

Shalom

I guess Abigail my thinking on banning is like this (going back to the school behavior post I sent above) - If a student walks into a HS with a .357 pistol - then yeah - banning is in order. I don't want them around my kids. Now we can extrapolate this to no end - and someone will attack me for this extrapolation. One could easily say that a gun could cause immediate physical harm whereas a web forum post does not. On that I would disagree. There are reasons that students are not allowed to use ethnic slurs - and indeed if anyone called you a 'dirty Jew" as a child - you would feel the immediate (though probably not life threatening) harm. I don't want those people in my childrens' schools either.

I have mixed opinions on this one Rummy. Yes a pistol requires immediate banning, no problem there. I would even agree that words/names can be extremely hurtful.

On the other hand, part of recovering from a cult experience is coming to accept and learn how to deal with the fact that there will always be people out there who will be cruel to you. I was (as a matter of fact) called a "dirty Jew" on quite a number of occassions growing up. My family was the only Jewish family in a very small, very Christian community.

Currently, my kids attend a school where the vast majority of the students are African American and Cuban. My children are the minority. They have been called "Mayonnaise" and they have been teased by some kids for being white. I empathize with them and explain to that no matter where they go to school, there will always be a few kids who will find a reason not to like them, who will find something to tease them about. That in the end, it sadly says much more about how sand and angry the child doing the teasing is, and really says nothing at all about the one being teased.

In between the harsh and destructive reproof sessions we received while in TWI, we were love bombed. Especially during our early days. While on some level some of us may miss that love bombing, it does nothing to help us deal with the real world we live in.

Sad, but true, we must figure out how to deal with the a@@ holes of the world.

I have seen it mentioned here that we should be considerate of what other people perceive, that it may not be enough to be convinced even in your own heart that you meant no harm or that you didn't mean to call this or that person specifically "waybrained cultheads", "jagoffs", or other such flattering terms. Especially after you have been informed that such terms are offensive to others, whether or not you intended them to be. Anyone who has undergone instruction on sexual harassment should know generally what I am speaking of.

Exactly, Lifted!!!

I would suggest that Abi does not mean banning should never be an alternative; i.e. that banning shoud be itself banned. I believe from the context of her remarks that she is referring to a blanket bannign such as Groucho suggested when he started this thread. I hope very much that Abi will correct me if I am wrong on this assumption.

Exactly, Lifted. Banning (as much as I hate the notion of it - reminds me too much of mark and avoid) has to be left open as a viable option for those who simply refuse to follow the very basic and simple rules that exist here. I just perfer to see it used as a last resort, and never used simply because one doesn't like the opinion of another.

No apology necessary RumRunner, these things happen. Yes, it is human nature, and yes it would be wonderful if adults could behave at least as well as we expect children to - would certainly be a better example. :)

My apologies then Abigail - seems I missed your point. I read it with the flavor (which I tried to explain) seemed to me as if you were suggesting there were not alternatives. Or perhaps we both missed each others points. My main point was not so much about alternatives as it was about behavior. My teenagers are expected to act with better behavior than I have seen exhibited on GSC. I am not picking on "the usual" names, the Wierwille apologists, etc. I've seen it all over these boards

BTW - if you go in "the way back machine" (an early 60's cartoon) - you will see the same thing happened on even early 70's social boards - no GUI's - no way to post youtube (didn't exist) - but the social behaviors where not that different. Just for fun look up MUSH, MUD, Mu. Same story - not religious cult background - just that when you get a couple of hundred (thousand?) people in the same room these behaviors will, pretty much, always crop up. I ran a MUSH for many years - longer than GSC has been around - it's all a "re-run" if you will let me use that figure. This re-run is generally centered around TWI - with notable exceptions in Politics and Tacks - but the posting is all of the same flavor I watched over 20 years ago.

Humans eh? - I would post a smiley for you here but I hate the damned things.

yeah edited for grammar - I wish I could type....

Rumrunner, either I am entirely missing your point or you missed mine. Re-read what you quoted. I DID say there were other alternatives to banning.

Abi - I appreciate your sentiments but have to disagree with you about your quote below - which (to me - which makes it suspect) sounds a little like you are saying there are NO alternatives at GSC.

There are plenty of alternatives - and have been applied:

a) PM from mod - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again

b) deletion of post by mod

c) deletion of post by mod with accompanying PM - <person> that was uncalled for - don't do it again

d) deletion of post by mod with accompanying explanation on forum

e) temporary suspension

f) being banned.

So I did a little exercise in "real life." I re-read the forms I am required to sign for my childrens' behavior at public schools in California. Pretty much identical with the addition of detention which could never be enforced on the net. 23 pages of behavioral expectation with accompanying examples and responses from the school system for violations.

Now before someone goes off on me and says that means I am making Paw "the teacher" - NO I AM NOT. The school system is part of a community - and with it carries some rules of social order. One does not walk into a school and call someone out with an ethnic slur - immediate suspension. One does not walk into a school with a cell phone turned on (used for cheating on exams with texting) - immediate suspension. Neither of those rules is a violation of free speech - and that is in "real life" not in cyber hallucination. Those rules are to promote a healthy social environment where name-calling, cheating etc are not tolerated.

GSC - is in some way a community - with commonalities, differences - as to be expected - but there still needs to be some accepted social expectations. These are posted to you when you sign up at GSC - and when you clicked on "I agree" you are then expected to arrange your behavior (to some degree) on those points.

Paw et. al. have been EXTREMELY liberal in letting those rules slip from time to time - and, as with a mature adult - some infractions can be overlooked or given a quiet PM prod. I have only seen three people put on suspension and only one banned. If only the parents and school systems in CA could do so well...........

Oh yeah - one last point - the 23 pages I signed up for applied to children - not adults - I would expect more from adults.......

edited for a couple of grammar errors

They SHOULD be offended...but it's not THEM as people that I despise, it's what Wierwille and this cult did to their minds...

Then attack the cult, not the people. Not complicated really. One can argue and debate what was taught in TWI, that is wrong, harmful, dangerous - I would even agree with you on many of those points.

But when you label them, when you call them "waybrained cultheads" you are no longer attacking the cult and/or what it did to their minds, you are now attacking the person.

I am offended by by the waybrained cultheads continuing to attack people here at this website...and I am using my keyboard to express my thoughts on the matter.

There's plenty of room for heated debates on other threads...there's no need for them to inappropriately attack someone when they are telling their story....that's the beef...you don't seem to be grasping the point here...

First, Groucho, I do get your main point, and I actually agree with it. I do think it is inappropriate for someone to attack someone who is relaying a personal experience. I have said so repeatedly. I simply do not believe banning someone is the way to go, I think there are other alternatives.

Beyond that, I also get that you are offended by people attacking other people. Yet, you are guilty of doing the very thing you are so offended by. Indeed, I would bet that Oldies and WhiteDove (among others) take offence at being labelled "apologists" and being called "waybrained cultheads." It is, IMO, hypocracy to cry foul against others for doing what you are also doing.

Finally, you can label my thoughts and reasoning as mental gymnastics, if it makes things more black and white for you (now there is a cult thought process - black and white thinking). But the fact is, given the number of people who were touched by TWI, there are numerous "other sides."

Some had horrendous experiences of rape, abortion, etc. etc. Others believe they received great benefit from PFAL, but had bad experiences in other areas. Some were humiliated and shamed by their leadership, others were not.

And in the end, if Paw wants to limit this place to one side (as opposed to other sideS) he is free to do so at any time. The fact that he hasn't, indicates to me that he does not wish to.

Anamchara did we entice you over to this thread with all the talk of a civil discussion?

(((Oak)))) I have missed this place, and you. :)

I wanted to add to my previous post - I am of the opinion that regardless of what one believes or doesn't believe, whether one labels themself agnostic, athiest, Christian, Muslem, Hindu, etc. etc. - If they are loving their neighbor and taking care of the planet and creatures that have been placed here, then they are loving God. Where else would God dwell??

All in all, one cannot study early Christian history without the writings of the Church Fathers. The works however weren’t always written from a “fair and balanced” perspective. The writers naturally stood for their [version of] faith over against other versions. I can’t fault them for that.

The writers of the epistles (correct me if I'm wrong) and really, if you think about it, the writers of the entire Bible were Jewish. Or at least, came from a Jewish background. It could then, be beneficial to understand a bit more about the perspective/background in this regard.

In addition to the OT, the Jewish people have many writings that they rely upon and teach from. Most of these writings are arguments/debates about what one thing or another means, and how it is to be applied in ones life. The only text that I know of that is absolute (as in though shall obey) are the laws and even in that there is much debate as to how those laws are to be followed and applied in our lives today.

At the center of Jewish thought (regardless if one is Ultra-Orthodox or Ultra-Liberal) is to love God and love your neighbor (as Jesus taught). To be a member of your community and give back to that community, improve that community. Really, most everything else just comes down to HOW to love God and love your neighbor. People have been arguing about the "how" pretty much since "in the beginning." Even the stories of Adam and Lilith come down to how were these two people to love each other - Lilith apparently did not feel loved and rebelled.

And again, in the early days of Christianity, within the writings of Paul, one can see there was still argument and debate about the "how."

I like to think as people we have evolved in this regard. That we are learning and growing as a species in the how. Nevertheless, I think we will continue to debate the "how" until the "new heaven and new earth" is here.