laleo

Paw: I don't think I've ever stopped posting because of forum speed. Lots of other reasons, but not forum speed, although no annoyance here compares to those pop-up ads from the old forums. I never paid that fee to make them go away (seemed like extortion to me), but there were definitely times it made the place seem cheesy. Actually, I've noticed a big improvement over the past few days, maybe even a week, as far as speed goes. It's much faster when I'm reading, although it still bogs down sometimes when I'm posting. The search thing here is what drives me nuts, but, so far, I've managed to survive without it.

diazbro: I like your analysis. And you're right that the forum has been taken hostage from time to time by manipulators. It's funny, when you can laugh about it. The in-your-face crowd can be intimidating at times, but, boy, if it's power you're after, take notes when those passive-aggressives start posting. When they grab the reins, there's no choice but to hang on until the ride is over.

If you take out all the insults, mischaracterizations, innuendo, self-congratulation, and self-promotion, it's what he said.

Al, I wouldn't have had a bit of curiosity, or even a comment, if John had said something along the lines of: "You heard correctly. I'm divorced, and have resigned from CES, although I still support their valuable ministry. However, I don't wish to talk about this publicly. Questions? Email me privately." What was that little two-step he was doing? (Slippery? You bet. I'm surprised he didn't sprain an ankle performing all those fancy pirouettes.) How can you defend his privacy when he protects it at your expense? I've read your posts, and your respect for John seems out of character. I don't get it. These former Way leaders for years thought nothing of making up and disseminating their own false rumors -- unsuspecting people publicly disgraced and kicked out of the Corps for performing satanic rituals, pregnant women abandoned because men of God were trapped and tricked into engaging in sex acts against their will and better judgment. (John, surely you remember?) Even if these accusations weren't factually correct, we accepted that they were at least somehow spiritually correct. And here we have information that is factually correct, and we should stay quiet about it because it (the truth) is none of our business. Like I said, I don't get it. If John had shown some respect for these forums, I would have responded in kind. socks: That was funny.

Abigail, I'm going to echo Shellon. I don't know all that you're going through, but I hope you don't underestimate the "natural" healing potential of a healthy diet, long, solitary walks in the evening, and lots of sleep. If you take any of those herbs and vitamins you've been recommended, please monitor the effects with a doctor. St. John's Wort can cause problems with your digestion, and also high blood pressure, among other things. Sometimes it aggravates anxiety. Kava-kava was all the rage for awhile, but I understand that that might negatively affect your liver (I think that's the organ). If you take Vitamin D, or any other vitamin, be careful about the quantity. Too much of a good thing can cause a lot of damage. I remember a long time ago, someone once recommended mega-doses of B-vitamins as a cure for some ailment so I tried it and started having really disturbing, vivid dreams. Turns out that's a side effect of too many B's. Plus it didn't do much to cure anything that I could tell. I hope you find the solutions you need. I know you're cautious by nature, so I don't need to remind you to do your research. Be careful with any treatments. And go easy on yourself.

John: I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure grateful that you would deign to answer all those "false rumors". Since you were divorced in August, and resigned in January, what exactly is "false" and what makes it a "rumor"? Sounds to me like you're verifying correct (public) information that has (rightly) been circulating. What is the point of your mischaracterization? Is it to assert your dominance (gotta love that "natural leadership ability")? Or maybe it's to muddy the reputations of the people who post here (you did call us "gossips"), in order to protect your own sterling character. Amazing. You've managed to turn the whole thing around with one well-placed insult, as if it's an act of charity ("In Christ's love" no less) on your part to live up to the standards that you so demand of others.

Hey, Garth, what's with the "ciao" stuff? Since you started the thread, you may as well stick around, don't you think? You've made some assumptions and drawn some conclusions that I'm not convinced are well-founded. What Long Gone is doing (which you describe as "weak reasoning") is assessing actual damage, rather than perceived or imagined damage. When it comes to Wierwille, the same "weak reasoning" should apply, if you ask me. Wierwille is often associated with things like atrocities, massacres, horrors, genocides, and much, much worse, which I think only minimizes and obscures the damage that he actually caused, and the contributions he may have made. Rather than standing or falling on the merits of his own actions, inactions, doctrines, and teachings, he's judged by people's hurts, disappointments, expectations, and prejudices. It's the same yardstick you're using to judge Calvin. (Didn't you compare Calvin earlier to either Hitler or Stalin or both? I think you forgot Pol Pot.) And maybe it's even the same yardstick the Genevan Court used to judge Servetus. As far as Calvin's beliefs regarding "unconditional election," I think your gripe is with Augustine, who lived -- how many centuries? -- before Calvin. As far as Calvin's actions and stringent beliefs being acceptable today, of course they aren't. But I also understand what others are saying about Calvin being humane in an intolerant sort of way, or intolerant in a humane sort of way, if you prefer. What is or is not considered "humane" is relative, and considering his times, requesting a less brutal death for Servetus does speak to his character. It doesn't excuse him, or justify his actions, but it does contradict your characterization of Calvin as "bloodthirsty." Anyway, I don't know what your beliefs are about the Bible or Christianity, but surely you acknowledge that these events happen on a continuum, and that ultimately, eventually, the Protestant Reformation introduced greater tolerance, more dialogue, more "diversity" (if you don't mind the term) to Christianity. The same can't be said for Stalin or Hitler. Cynic, I was right there with you, until I got to the part about being “soteriological.” My dictionary wasn’t much help, even though it’s two inches thick and promises me “the right word every time.” What is “spiritual salvation by divine agency”? Does this relate somehow to unconditional election, or crisis conversion or what?

Okay, Garth, but now I have to wonder why you're misrepresenting Cynic's argument. I don't see where Cynic is defending Calvin's every act and decision, as if his entire being, his every action and inaction, his every utterance, is a reflection of God's perfect word and will. In fact, he seems to be acknowledging Calvin's fallibility, and the limits of his influence. I get your point, but I'm not sure who you're arguing with. Is anyone here making the claims you're refuting? Like I said, I'm not all that familiar with Calvin, outside of reading early American literature, and seeing his influence in his Puritan followers. What specifically offends you? Is it that others admire Calvin? Or is it his theology? Or both?

Actually, I think Garth is making a legitimate point (not that I necessarily agree with it, if only because I'm not very familiar with Calvin). If God is God, and right is right, and wrong is bad, and Calvin was (ultimately) good, or on the side of God, then the cultural influences he was subject to should be irrelevant. He should have lived by a higher standard, like Christ did. And since Wierwille is held to a biblical standard that transcends cultural expectations, Calvin should be, too. At least I think that's what he's saying.

I tried to drag my daughter to Because of Winn Dixie, but she won the tug of war, and we saw Hotel Rwanda intead. I'm glad we did. Part history lesson, part family drama, partly a lesson in international relations, but mostly a study in situational ethics, this movie focuses on one person -- a hotel manager -- and his considered, deliberate response to a growing horror. The explanations for the genocide were oversimplified -- Belgium's colonialism, America's indifference, France's arms supply, but little mention of the internal politics of the Hutus and Tutsis, other than that they were divided by racial characteristics (Hutus being more "black," with Tutsi's having more light-skinned characteristics) -- it was still a very thought-provoking analysis of the convergence of multiple forces ending in chaos, indecision, and massacre. Because of the backdrop for this movie, I expected it to be dark and violent and depressing, but instead it was thoughtful, and compassionate. Worth seeing.

I hope you take time to enjoy your day today. Happy Birthday.

THAT has been my question since the beginning. What is the outcome, the benefit, the meaning, the reason, the purpose, the result of Mike's doctrine? He's a salesman without a product, peddling bottled air. Other than whatever smug satisfaction people get from thinking they are right, what else is there? It's all ego, as far as I can tell. There is no "abundant life" (or even the promise of one) at the end of it all.

Def's Question: Why live a good life if everyone is going to be saved? Chuck's Answer: 1. Def is an idiot. 2. Def is stupid. 3. Def is a hypocrite. 4. Def is mentally unstable because his religious beliefs are different from Chuck's. 5. Def is unforgiving. 6. Def is unloving. 7. Def should pray. 8. Def should be shot. (Just kidding. Ha. Ha.) 9. Def is evil. 10. Def is paranoid. 11. Def is full of hate. When I opened this thread I thought I was going to read something about the relative benefits and risks of living a moral life compared to an immoral or amoral one. This isn't a discussion. It is harassment.

It isn't "counseling." It's entertainment. I listened to Dr. Laura years ago. Her show was broadcast during the late afternoons and I would listen while I was picking up kids and running errands. At first I liked her no-nonsense approach. But over time I became increasingly annoyed with her until her screeching became intolerable. I still remember the last radio broadcast I listened to -- it must have been eight years ago or so -- a woman phoned in because she wanted to know if it would be ethical to have her husband's best friend since childhood (who was traveling from another state) stay at her home as a house guest. Evidently the friend was recently divorced and newly engaged, and the caller felt she would be disloyal to his first wife, whom she still considered a friend. What do you think? Should she have had him as a guest? Well, it didn't take Dr. Laura long to diagnose this woman's problem. Evidently (according to Dr. Laura) she had some sort of personality disorder, else she wouldn't have married a man who had a friend who was so fickle. Dr. Laura spent the few minutes she had her on the phone reaming her out for being such a poor judge of character, for not having chosen a better husband. I turned off her show and never tuned in again. Now I listen to Fresh Air if I'm out and about around that time. I have no idea if her show is even still broadcast around here. If you enjoy it, by all means, listen in. I wouldn't take any of it too seriously, though. It's all about ratings and market share. Good principle? You may be giving her too much credit. socks: I used to love Bruce Williams. Is he still around? It's been years and years since I've listened to talk radio.

My own private chauffeur. My own personal secretary. My own (chair) stringer. And now I even have alfakat showing up as a screaming success story. All those wasted, unsuccessful attempts to sign people up for PFAL when I should have been soliciting GreaseSpots. Who knew? I was in Maryland then. I no longer remember the details – whether he was scheduled for a visit and canceled, or whether the whole thing was still in the planning stages when it fell through. It didn’t happen. That much I remember.

Oh. When you called me a he (I'm a she) I thought maybe we were doing some sort of weird gender exchange thing.

I tend to agree with HCW, especially when she talks about her impressions of VPW. Her conclusions about what VPW meant are about the same as mine, i.e. VPW's "exhortation" to "master PFAL" was more of a call to get back to basics, rather than form an entirely new and exclusive relationship with the Orange Book. Back in the early eighties (about the time VP put out this "call" according to Mike) there was a push to go back to the foundational materials, from which we were in the process of straying (to hear our leaders tell it). But Mike has taken VP's words far more literally and far more seriously than they were ever intended to be, IMO. I don't know that this makes him "mad" or "evil" or "insane," but I do think there is something sad and wrong and futile in exulting transcripts (which are often poorly worded and grammatically incorrect) as if they contain answers to the mysteries of life. Which reminds me of something else. Back in 1981 (I think), VPW was supposed to visit our state (I was on limb staff). Back then, before any leader came, we were given a schedule and a list beforehand of all the things each "leader" (or "teacher") wanted or needed to make him comfortable, i.e. espresso and Tropicana orange juice (in a glass bottle) for the Trunk leader, a private hotel room for the Orientalisms instructor, etc. Before VP came, we were told to have an assistant with him at all times because (we were told) he was showing signs of dementia, routinely making disgusting suggestions and vulgar passes at the women. I remember feeling sorry for him. Anyway, his plans changed and he didn't visit, but even back then, I didn't expect the women to take him seriously, any more than I would have expected anyone (Mike) to take him literally when he made the equally outrageous suggestion to "master the collaterals."

CK: It didn't hurt at all. Please continue. Yeah, Mike, I'd say you're well-qualified for the "mad prophet" position, except I'm not so sure "prophet" is a fitting description. Truth be told, I don't think you're "mad" either, although I do wonder why you so stubbornly disregard relevant input from people who are not only intelligent, but also caring, and just as familiar with "Doctor's" writings as you are. Never mind. On second thought, you're not qualified. How 'bout you play the part of the meek, hungry searcher, and listen again to what your peers here at GreaseSpot are saying? Maybe, just maybe, you'll benefit from some of the collective wisdom and experience here.

Thank you, Kathy. I'll be counting on you to keep us all indecent and disorderly. WordWolf: You can keep your title. Just not your wallet. Too Gray Now: Years ago, when I would watch spoofs like that, I would cringe, just a little, in recognition. Then I'd quickly talk myself out of what I must have known on some level to be true. Nah, they couldn't have been describing us. No way. Now I feel like I'm part of the Church of What Happened When.

Sure, George, you can be on top. Works for me. But, hey, aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves?

Wow. My own church. This is overwhelming. I've never had disciples before. Or even a following. I didn't even know anyone was reading my posts. I don't know where to begin, beings that I'm in no condition to conquer the world at the moment, what with being all congested and achy and sneezy and stuffy and fuzzy and all, but as soon as I'm feeling better, we should organize a planning committee and start accepting tithes and all that. The first thing we'll need is money, then we can decide on a set of precepts. You in, George? Tom? Mr. Hammeroni? WordWolf? (Should we invite Mike?) Oh, the possibilities.

You'll read a couple of self-help books and give yourself a pep talk each morning, and that will be enough. And if it isn't enough, you'll spend the money and go to a counselor and you'll be grateful you did. You'll volunteer for Big Brothers, and go to the library to teach kids how to read. You'll serve lunch at the Soup Kitchen, and donate blood. You'll take up an instrument and join a rock band, an orchestra, a string ensemble. You'll write (but never finish) your first novel. You'll fall in love and raise kids and fall out of love and the kids will be grown and maybe you'll fall back in love. Or maybe not. You'll meet people. You'll make and lose friends, and the people you care about will get sick and die. You'll play poker. You'll go on hikes and build a bird house and plant an herb garden and catch butterflies. You'll take up photography and sky diving and Renaisance literature and white water rafting and meet up with the guys in the morning before work for a quick game of basketball at the middle school gym. You'll sign up for a class at the Community College. You'll post at GreaseSpot. Your life won't be perfect because no life is perfect. You'll deal with it. You'll know joy and anger and forgiveness and longing, and you won't berate yourself for feeling all those things. And everything you've done up to this point will be part of your life experience, and you'll find the good in it all. Or not. You'll find God in all sorts of places you never thought to look, and occasionally you'll even find the meaning of life. You'll be just fine.

satori, I think the search function went into information overload sometime last summer. I used to be addicted to it, especially that "new since last visit" feature. I'd scroll down the list, read the first half a dozen words from each post, pick which threads I wanted to look at, and the whole visit took maybe ten minutes, unless I was replying to something. Then everything went kittywumpus, and the search turned up random (and few) new posts. When I check my own profile, there are lots of threads from the last half of last year that are still on the forum that don't show up in my profile. I think Paw may be right that it only shows the threads that we started, and even then, it usually only shows one post from the thread. Maybe the reason your post count is low is because a lot of your posts are from the fall, and those are the ones that don't show up. In other words, older posts and more recent posts are there, but only a few stragglers from late 2004. At least that's my theory. For what it's worth.

Happy Birthday to you, Dot. I hope you're enjoying your day. Glad you stopped in.

I was banned twice. All I did was ask what was allowed on his site, and whether I had permission to start a thread in the Elders Table. (I forget the topic, something about truth and opinion, I think.) Anyway, he said I could, even encouraged it, then deleted my user name. When I re-registered, I was deleted again before I even had a chance to post. I took the hint, subtle as it was. Not that I mind, although I would have liked interacting with current followers, if only to see for myself the transformation in the "ministry." My questions were answered as far as that goes. There's no reason for me to bother visiting again. I wonder what pleasure he could possibly have in administering a site that is so controlled. If it were left up to him, I had the impression that he would have wecomed some of the older past members. That a grown man would let someone else override that decision is a puzzle to me, but, hey, there's all kinds of people in the world.