Rocky

Did you say something that suggests you were looking for feedback (in your prior comment)?

1) What experience gives you legitimate perspective to make declarations about "their grandiose out to lunch effort?" And have anyone take you seriously, that is? 2) "... it is not really all that unique, uncommon or unheard of for a prominently positioned individual (be it a "boss" at work, a team leader, a university professor, or any number of other "responsible" parties) to "assume command" and take over a project once it reaches a certain stage of development or success and "put their name on it." Or so you have been led to believe. Care to document and put parameters or constraints on that particular declaration? Intellectual property is an intriguing topic in the legal literature. Are you a specialist in that field?

Were you intending to push emotional buttons with that accusation, or was it just incidental?

Now that wasn't so difficult, was it. :) Oh puhleeze! as if what VPee taught was any such thing? Just more irrational rationalization... and critical lack of critical thinking skills.

Is that a request for clarification? ;) Thanks for refocusing the discussion. :)

In other words, you assumed. You declared what you interpreted from johniam's post/comment and now say that if you were wrong, it was up to him to say so. Maybe that's true... maybe it was up to him to correct you. But is it really intellectually honest to concoct a scenario based on your assumption of his meaning... rather than asking him for clarification?

What DO you mean by "these men really seem like 'your kind of people?'" Hey TLC... your comment seems more like an assumption than a request for clarification. Is that what you meant to do?

Watch for release this fall of Penworks' memoir, "Undertow." That will provide a great deal of insight. Of course, I think it would be great if Skyrider and others wrote a memoir of their time in TWI.

I'd like to see the discourse take place without general accusations which characterize posters' comments as supportive of TWI and offshoot dogma positions if the poster hasn't specifically indicated affinity or support for those groups.

Indeed... fear is in the DNA of the subculture that VPW built. And fear is a powerful motivator. But you've done some of the most important work already -- learning by experience that the expectations they gave you are simply unfounded.

:offtopic:/> Sorry... meanwhile back to our regularly scheduled discussion of Wierwille's plagiarism.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Depends on whether we eventually figured out that it was all bunk.

Had to have been someone in his inner circle... as if he could have figured it out on his own?

The bottom line to all of that makes the answer to the question posed in the thread topic: yes, most obviously, perhaps even to the most casual observer.

The TPP completely undermines the sovereignty of the US, it's constitution and its citizens. It IS the fruition of the concept of One World Government. It does so by making the trade agreement supercede the lawful rights of US citizens and makes us SUBJECT TO corporate rule by mega-corporations. An example of how trade agreements make US citizens into subjects is in the recent news that Canadian tar sands/oil interests are suing the US government for $15B for refusal to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. My comment is only to explain what it is.

Since that's not about VB, perhaps a new thread would be appropriate.

Yep. Pretty much. The letters mostly lack coherence, mostly were rambling bulls*it. Mostly, if not exclusively "poor me" for the failures of the WC.

There are 30 letters posted in that archive on google docs. One has to be a translator of sorts to understand them. I suspect that you, T-Bone, will be able to do a fabulous job ferreting out the ironic "truths" in them. I'm trying to sort them in chronological order (not sure those posted are the only ones he wrote to the WC). Here's a gem from the December 2, 1977 letter that holds glaring irony. Wierwille wrote, "A comment on scripture is one thing, but inserting that comment in the body of the scripture text as scripture is Biblical immorality and forgery. This has happened not infrequently regarding one God and other fields in the Word." Isn't that just a rewrite of his definition of the expression "literal translation according to usage?" When HE did it, it was justified, because as he got us to believe, if HE said it, it was as if God had said it. But when someone else said it (outside of TWI, or anyone on his research team who determined Wierwille's pronouncements were wrong) it was forgery. Anyone have any examples handy to help lurking innies grasp the significance of Wierwille's deception?

Well, sounds like it was a good conversation. Did he give any indication that he knows anything about Greasespot Cafe?

PREACH it, brother! Great post. Thanks.

And amazingly, it NOW finally dawns on Barnard's wife that perhaps she ought to divorce him... ... speaking of suspicious timing.

Key word: almost.

I'd love to be able to listen in on that conversation.

I agree completely. Btw, New York Magazine has this write up now.