Abigail

Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees.

Actually that statement implies adverse, opposite or Anti even though it's quoted as an EX-Way community.

I would think there is more than just one "other side" of the story. There are hundreds, thousands even, of "other sides."

And yes, I can see how one can perceive this as ANTI and not EX way - but I suspect if Paw wanted it to be strictly limited to ANTI and not open to ALL EX way people, he could have said so. He could have done something about those who post of fond memories, or less vehemently anti opinions a long time ago.

And I suppose he is free to do so. I am not an "apologist" btw and those who have used that term to label others would tell you the same about me. But I do think it would be a great harm to this place if people were banned because they didn't perceive VPW the same way others here do. And as I said before, I have left other ex-way communities because of such policies, I would leave this one as well.

There was a time, when I was newly out of TWI that I could probably have fallen into the "apologist camp." I still believed what was taught in PFAL, I wasn't convinced the stories about VPW were true. It took several years for me to rework what I was taught in PFAL and come to my own conclusions. It took me several years to become convinced the stories about VPW were true.

"yes" you may say "but these guys have been here for many many years."

So what? Who decides the timetable for another? You? Me? I don't want that job. Even if they never change their minds about VPW, they are still members of the ex-way community and in my opinion, they still need a place to go. I guess, if they didn't, they wouldn't be here anyway.

That's a valid question...I wanted to air this out in public...In my opinion, this crap has been going on for too long and I was looking to make this an issue that the posters here were aware of...This has been a persistant problem for some time.

...and why shouldn't I make this public? This is an anti twi website that has been infiltrated by pro twi people...that's not worthy of mentioning publically?

Looking to make an issue? Hoping for a mass cry against the "apologists"? hoping to use peer pressure to push Paw into giving you your way? Pretty stinky if ya ask me - - which I guess you pretty much did by airing it out in public.

BTW, I don't recall reading that this was an ANTI twi website, I thought it was an EX twi website. There is a distinct difference.

I stood up, I said my peace, I got blown off, I walked away. Anyone that was stupid enough to stay after 1988 deserves whatever they got. The signs were all there. People were screaming their heads off for years. No one listened. Fine, don't listen, you get what you get.

ahhh, Lucy, Lucy, Lucy...... some of us didn't get involved until well after 1988. By the early 1990's, in some areas at least, the signs were down and long destroyed. Some of us didn't see what was coming until we were in for a penny in for a pound - leave the ministry, lose your family.

A little snipe at me from my pal Rocky?...just because I didn't like his waycorps website?...oh never mind, I don't want to go

to the subject at hand...Make no mistake about it, Wierwille was a scum bag. He molested his own daughters (by his own admission)...I'm here to oppose any and all pro twi, pro Wierwille, pro pfal and pro waybrain. If anyone has a problem with that...too bad, I'm not here to make friends.

Then you have left a cult to start a cult. You have chosen to harrass someone because they have different experiences, perceptions and opinions than you do. You have become the very people you claim to be persecuting.

Rhino, you think Paw shouldn't make it public.? Jonny wants it public? and behind the scene Bumpy is emailing pieces of information to both of you?

hmmmmm

Rhino,

I would suggest that unless you have seen every email exchange between Bumpy, Paw, and whoever else is involved in this, you may very well not have all of the facts.

Now, on a more serious note. WhiteDove, when you return I hope you will read what Rascal wrote and pause before you hit they keyboard to defend yourself.

I ask this not because I am judging you as guilty as charged (to use your terminology :D), but because I want you to consider how she feels, how she perceives your responses to her posts.

I would ask that before you turn the table and accuse her of doing the same, again, consider how she feels and how she perceives your responses to her posts.

When someone shares a personal experience, and another person comes along and indicates they doubt the accuracy, truth, etc. of that person's experience - when they say "prove it" - it is internalized as a personal attack. Now, you would be correct, in thinking that perceptions are subjective, not objective. That memories can sometimes blur things a bit. Nonetheless, how an individual perceives an experience is a very real thing to the individual doing the perceiving. In other words, the person is telling the story as they experienced it.

It is one thing to question second and third hand stories of "so and so told me that this happened to someone else", etc. But when someone says "this is what happned to me" sometimes it is better to bite your tongue (or your finger nails :D). No one is saying you have to read the story and believe it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No one is saying you can't wonder if there is more to the story, or if the person's perception is inaccurate, but wondering it in your head does not necessarily mean you have to say it out loud.

Sometimes, it is probably perfectly okay to say it out loud, to question, to ask for more information. But when (for instance) a woman is sharing about a traumatic and painful experience like rape or abortion, perhaps the most loving thing to do is hold your tongue and just not say anything, because to do so deepens the wound, tears it apart and makes it worse. It inflicts more pain, even if it isn't intended to.

I understand your desire to have the "truth" known here. But truth is a tricky thing when it comes to experiences and perceptions. Nevertheless, the experience as perceived is truth to the one who perceived it.

I am not permitted to call you a liar, but this statement is simply inacurate when it comes to your conduct here.

You have harassed, stalked, insulted, denigrated me, my ideas, denied my experiences and called into question my veracity for years. Before it was cracked down upon, you called me viscious names, accused me of lying, called into question my mental stability, my qualifications as a parent, etc.

Your treatment of others is at times cruel and vindictive as well.

It is sad to me, that you feel that anybody who doesn`t support your version of twi is considered worthy of such a lack of kindness, compassion, or just plain decency.

Adherence to Twi doctrine appears to have made you hard. This is not the behavior one would expect of a fellow Christian :(

ChasUFarley, i hate to do this to you, but we need a laugh in this thread......

i am afraid I cannot abide your being in a forum for Mac users, it's against the law...somewhere......I am a Mac opposer. and I think Mac's whould be outlawed. I think they are.

(watch some numbnut is going to read this and start a gossip thread that Mac's have been outlawed....just watch)

Lighten up people. We survived right.

Lucy

Alright Lucy, now you are just too damned funny and we CANNOT have funny people posting at the cafe!! It simply derails the threads and lightens the tension, and that is NOT ALLOWED!

p.s. Forgot to add - I totally agree with you 100% about men peeing sitting down. They simply cannot aim that thing well enough to pee standing up. Hell, in a house with two boys, there are many days when I think MY aim would be better standing than theirs is!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the responses....

Like I said, it's not that I think it's "eeee-vile" or anything but maybe it's bugging me because it's the first time I've felt a communication gap between Kristopher and I. We've always been on the same page with everything before this came along. I often feel like I'm living my second childhood through my kids and love it. But this is something I just don't get... better get on board, I guess.

When Aaron went through this phase, I just sat down with him and played the game with him. I let him explain the rules (which changed every time we played ) and I just followed along. We would look up various cards on google and figure out what it would cost to buy them, what they were worth, etc. etc.

Eventually, you will start to pick up on the game and the cards . . . .

right about the time he gets bored with them and moves on to something else.

I'll give it a go .........and I'll answer your other post later.

Well ya better, or I'll have to ban you!!

At our house it was Yu-Gi-Oh. OY how I came to hate that show, the games, the cards.

I think Aaron was in kindergarten when he first got into it. I have to say this, it really motivated him to learn math, because you have to add and subtract to play the game.

He finally got tired of it in 3rd or 4th grade and moved onto Pokemon. He grew tired of that one in about a year.

I think for most kids, it will pass. I don't believe there is some spirital harm attached to or associated with the games. Really, the Pokemon cartoons I've seen always advocated for honesty, integrity, compassion, etc.

I kind of liken it to the baseball cards of days gone by, except with these instead of simply collecting and trading the cards, they can actually play games with them as well.

WhiteDove, I am really glad you are going to read the book. I would ask this of you . . .

It makes little difference to me if you believe the events she writes of are true or false, whether you have doubts because there is no documented evidence, etc. BUT, I would ask you to really give consideration to the thought processes she writes of . . what she was searching/longing for, why she made certain decisions, how she felt/didn't feel, why she didn't tell or go to the authorities/prosecute.

I think, if you can do that, you may come to an understanding of why some say you are "re-victimizing the victim" when you post on threads about personal experiences about the need for "courtroom style evidence."

Been a little busy here Geeese your response is in the Q

Thank you. I responded in the other thread.

This is what I said to WhiteDove in the other thread -

WhiteDove,

I've said it twice now, once on this thread once on the other. I have defended your right to post, stood firm on the notion that you should not be banned. It would be nice if perhaps you would acknowledge or otherwise respond to the following:

QUOTE

In the real world, even in a courtroom, the victim does not refer to the perpetrator as the "alleged perpetrator" and the victim does not refer to the crimes as "alleged crimes." When one is speaking of personal experience, and another comes along and calls their experience "alleged" they are in essence questioning that person's honesty and integrity and that is very personal.

You don't like be referred to as a "VPW apologist." People who tell of their personal experiences in TWI don't like having their honesty and integrity questioned. You can try to be as "objective" and "lawyerly" as possible, but when you cast aspersions of doubt about someone's personal experience, you are attacking them personally.

A wise person knows when to speak and when to hold their own tongue. There are plently of opportunities on this board for you to ask your questions and state your opinions. Sometimes, however, it is best to do neither, if doing so may cause mental and emotional anguish to someone who has exposed their heart and pain.

VPW is dead. Defending him won't raise him from the dead. The accusations against him cannot hurt him, he is feeling no pain. For the living, telling of their experiences can be healing, but having to defend themselves for telling of their experiences is hurtful. Is your love for the "facts" and or your love for a dead man really so much greater, so much more important than your love for the living?

His refusal to acknowledge that even in a courtroom victims do not referr to the perpetrator or the crimes as "alleged," the completely cold and calloused responses and lack of regard for the pain he could be causing to someone who has already suffered more than enough - which is apparently not nearly as important to him as defending a dead man, really causes me to lose any respect I might have once had for him and actually does make me want to rethink my original position on this thread regarding banning.

Thank you Lucy it's nice to see that someone still supports our rights in this country for everybody not just for those we like.

And until someone has been given those rights and found guilty the proper term to refer to those offences in question is alleged.

I have stood up for your right to speak your opinion, but even in a courtroom the victim does not refer to the perpetrator as the "alleged perpetrator" and the victim does not refer to the crimes as "alleged crimes." When one is speaking of personal experience, and another comes along and calls their experience "alleged" they are in essence questioning that person's honesty and integrity and that is very personal.

can't

put

the

book

down

Must

work

tomorrow

Hi Abigail, if you didn't read the "Losing the Way" thread before the offending posts were deleted, nor listen to the podcast, you wouldn't really get the reason we find the recent posts by the apologists so offensive. It was way over the top, the debate consumed the thread and the free expression of those of us who were strongly moved by the podcast was interrupted.

I didn't read them, I haven't even listened to the interview, though I am reading the book. I'm more of a reader than a listener -listening without visuals tends to put me to sleep.

Anyway, I don't have an issue with the posts being deleted from that thread, but there is a big difference in deleting a couple ofp osts and banning someone. A number of posters here are sometimes "way over the top" in my opinion, including the person who started this thread. I too have gone "over the top" a time or two. If they were way over the top all the time, or even most of the time, that would be different. Most of the time they are respectful in their disagreements. I agree, however, that greater care is required when one is telling a story of personal experience, especially a painful one.

Abi - If you'll go back and read the very first post I made on this thread (#2) you'll see that I agree that banning 'the apologists' is not really in the best interests of anyone.

I do think that perhaps there needs to be a higher standard of decency and respect whenever a personal story is being related- whether in a post or in a thread.

We're adults here. We should know how to behave- and it should be about what we would expect if we were teaching our own kids how to behave in public.

I did see your first post, I just thought for a minute there that you were having second thoughts about that :)

I agree regarding a higher standard of decency, respect, perhaps even empathy or simply deciding it is not an appropriate time to speak up - when others are relating personal stories. I guess I'm just idealistic and hope people will moderate themselves more, instead of having others do it for them.

I'm only interested is seeing those who are opposed to the mission of this website removed...it's not just an occasional remark...these posters are on their own mission with ther own agenda...their goal seems to be to disrupt the threads that are exposing the evils of twi.

They are following the rules?...that's my point...it's time to change the rules.

These guys are not here to engage in a debate...they already know that their views are detested by the majority...they are here to disrupt...

Abigail...if you invited people into your home and they started questioning the integrity of your other guests and then started defending something that everyone else thought was detestible...you would ask them to leave...this place is NOT a public place...it's a private place...owned by one person....I think the GSC cafe needs to be tweaked a bit...not by me...but by the owner...I'm just making suggestions.

It isn't a private place, not really. Anyone in the world with internet access can read what is written here - I'd say that is pretty darned public. Likewise, this isn't my home, more like a coffee shop where I chose to hang out with my friends. If I didn't like it, I could always find another one.

I guess I just don't think the rules need to be changed, nor do I think Oldies and White Dove violate the mission of the cafe. They tell the story from their perspective. I may disagree with their perspectives - I may even find some of their points of view objectionable or detestable, but they are still telling "the other side of the story" as they experienced and perceived it.

The only real difference is that their experience and perception is not in vogue here.

I agree with Mark, if we start booting people simply because their perspective or experience goes against the grain of the majority, how is this place better than TWI? I already left one TWI community for similar actions, I'd leave this one as well if that is the way things went.

Believe it or not, despite my differences with Oldies and White Dove, I have also had a number of very positive exchanges with both of them.

Abi - perhaps they are following the rules "to the letter" but not "in the spirit" of the rules.

I'll restate - it's not respectful to demand proof or imply a victim is whining.

You and I have both been in the Politics and 'Tacks forum- even on opposite sides of an argument. We didn't insult each other.

Even as heated as those discussions can get- and yes, there are sometimes personal insults thrown, they never seem to generate the the kind of insults that 'twist the knife' in a victim here in the About the Way forum.

It seems to me that the nature of some threads demand a higher sensitivity for the feelings of the other posters.

I agree with you Dooj, but I don't think "banning the aplogists" is the answer. Not only that, but Oldies, White Dove, et al are hardly the only ones who could be accused of violating the spirit of the rules.

As far as twisting the knife in the victim - I've been a victim (not of VPW/LCM) so I get that too. It is beyond stinky and painful and for some, could cause serious harm and mental anguish. Yet for others, it can cause them to finally realize that they were a victim, that it wasn't their fault, as they learn to stand up for themselves and fight back. And one day, just maybe one of the victims will get through to one or more of the so called apologists.

There will never be a one size fits all answer, its just too complicated an issue. I'd rather see the discourse continue with all parties involved than see one party silenced and banned.

Who is next Groucho - those who have different political opinions or religious beliefs? Perhaps the non Christians???

If someone is following the rules, I cannot see why they should be booted. Add to that, I think those you call apologists also add to this website in a benficial way, regardless of whether I agree with them or not on the topic of VPW.

SNIP

Having experience with Bumpy's internet inexperience, I think he didn't figure that he could just reply to his notice of banishment. I could be wrong, but I'm not willing to say he is a worthless liar

SNIP

Internet inexperience???? The man figured out how to register and post at Greasespot. He figured out how to send private messages as well as e-mails. He figured out how to add people to his friends list and how to post little messages in their profiles. He knows how to post pictures on the internet and send links to the pictures to other people.

Somehow, I am less than convinced that he is simply inexperienced with the internet - he seems to have figured it out quite well.

Paw, maybe before you suspend or ban someone you should post a poll so everyone here can debate to death whether the poster is worthy of the cafe or worthy of a flogging. OR you could simply find out who all said poster's friends are and discuss it with them and let them decide!

Wait!! I'm seeing an image!!! Could it be a vision????

I see a giant carion bird, swooping down to pick what flesh remains on a carcass . . . .

Hi Abigal,

I really enjoyed your post-truly. My point was--I believe what I believe and that is unchangable. Because of my faith in Christ--FOR ME--He is All.

There is no other way to God--that actually is part of my faith. Perceiveable to many as intolerant. As such a steadfast believer, I can find no common ground on

issues of faith with those that don't accept Him as Savoir. To me, it is not just a belief--it is the fabric of who I now am. Does that make any sense? It is not just a

notion or an excerise in philosophy--it is my heart and my soul. It is how I live.

SNIP

Let my try this from a different direction. I get what you are saying and I respect it. You believe what you believe, you are steadfast, you love people. I don't think I would ever desire to disuade you of your faith. I don't even know that I would call you intolerant, as much as I might be inclined to think you have perhaps closed the door on opportunities for learning and growth. But then, maybe you haven't. Learning and growth are not necessarily the same thing as faith.

Learning and growth can increawse faith, to be sure. But I think head knowledge which may or may not eventually be internalized and become a part of faith, is still disctinct from faith.

So let me ask you think - could you, for instance, discourse with - give and receive information - with people of a different faith, with some degree of openness to the posibility that in doing so you might learn something or grow greater in your own faith?

Contempt breeds contempt in the best of us, and I guess I'm guilty too.

We are all, but you are willing to reveal your soft underbelly and recognize your own imperfections. That makes you pretty okay in my book - FWIW.

What I would hope to do here is to discuss with those who are willing to try to live it the means of doing so.

I think it might be a bit helpful if you explain what you mean by living it. I guess I think most people do to some degree or another, in some ways at least. And most people fail to live it in some ways, to some degree or another.

Personally, I try not to get too caught up in "living it" and try to simply live. Maybe it sounds arrogant, but despite my many imperfections, I believe my heart and intent is generally in the right place. I screw up. Shrug - who doesn't? But I do my best to be my best - some days that best is better than others.

I think, if I get to caught up in focusining on living it, I will twist myself into knots trying to perfect myself - which I will never be able to do anyway.