Rocky

You may not have been able to say it better, but it clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what the issue really is. Wierwille (only capitalized because it's the first word of my sentence) has NO rights. His victims (even when SELF-identified) DO have rights. Defending wierwille is a fool's mission. It is completely unacceptable to challenge, in any way, a person giving her personal testimony of abuse from/by wierwille. This is NOT an issue of agreement or disagreement. One cannot (CANNOT) tell a person that she is wrong when she is giving her own testimony of what happened to her. Period. By definition, when OM or WD try to do so, THEY are the ones who are wrong. Generally, by virtue of rules of rhetoric, I suppose debating the definition of the term "rape" is not a personal attack. However, in the context of how it is used by OM, to challenge a person telling her own story, it IS indeed a personal attack. Which, is what I believe Abi's point was. Right. Just don't do it. anywhere on the site. You are STILL only RATIONALIZING AND EUPHAMIZING when you characterize your posts at issue as "a contrary opinion." YOU cannot define a person telling her story as being WRONG. There is NO contrary opinion. You are ONLY defending a dead man, which is a fool's mission.

Nobody is demanding anyone believe anything. However, there is NO legitimate use for "checks and balances" against personal testimony. NO one (meaningfully) can say "you are wrong" to someone who gives an account of what happened to herself. Wierwille has NO rights here. He is dead and gone. Those who defend (his APOLOGISTS) him are NOT serving god, even though they might think they are. However, wierwille's victims DO have rights.

Exactly! ---------- WD said: In addition to what Abi said, WD you are sooooooooooo off the mark in that... NOBODY here is conferring ANY legal status (as in "GUILTY") on wierwille. Here, wierwille has NO rights. Perhaps you think it is your godly duty to defend wierwille. That is so much nonsense. Where he's at now, there's only ONE judge that matters to him, and that judge ain't any of us. However, his VICTIMS, who, when they post here are STILL LIVE HUMANS, DO have RIGHTS. And among those rights is to not be harassed by you and OM.

It's already apparent that he lacks the capacity to empathize. What does the mental health community call someone incapable of empathy? No, actually, that's NOT what I'm doing to OM. OM is NOT giving his personal testimony of abuse in twi.

Rules are NOT what determines whether your posts are abusive. YOU decide to do it on your own. Man up and STOP being abusive or leave. Why do you want to stick around some place you are not welcome anyway? Are you intentionally wanting people to believe you are dumber than rocks? NO REBUTTAL can take place against a personal testimony, unless YOU HAVE PROOF the person is lying. You use the word "rebuttal" as a way to MISCHARACTERIZE what you do. The entire act of challenging someone's personal testimony is abusive. Stop or leave. Waysider, you are being too polite in this post. The entire act of challenging a personal testimony is abusive. It MUST stop. There is NO WAY oldies can have any kind of valid opinion about whether a rape was committed or not. He has NO facts on which to base such statements. He MUST stop. It should NOT have to be a burden to pawtucket for this person to recognize his conduct is unacceptible. We don't. It is completely UNacceptible for OM to even challenge someone's personal testimony of what happened. It is NOT his place to characterize the conduct of either wierwille or the victim. In their minds, they RATIONALIZE it. In their posts, they EUPHAMIZE it.

Why do you ask?

Well, I hope it made you feel better. However, it probably didn't achieve anything else (like convincing anyone besides you to take your position).

Well, I don't RULE, so it's probably a sum significantly more than is available to me!

Well, your inferences are unfounded and off the mark. First, you are NOT in my head. You are NOT qualified to comment (authoritatively) on my motivations. Second, I made an "I" statement. I did NOT do ANYTHING to ANYTHING you said, except to use the I statement to state MY views on whether anyone at twi reads or responds in ANY way to what is posted here. From: I-statements

I THINK you could have said the same thing in only a couple of sentences. -- Please don't call me names. -- I'll not challenge those who post personal testimonies of abuse in twi. Not much else that you said in the above post matters in the least... especially going on and on about hypocrisy.

You mean, "He/she who has the GOLD rules?" j/k

SNAFU

Frankly, having left twi 22 years ago, I have absolute ZERO concern about what "Mr. Linder & friends" think, say or do. And it's quite human for this type of situation to be occurring. That there is disagreement here means NOTHING as to whether or not twi is or is not good/evil, from God or otherwise... It certainly does make sense.

An excellent comparison.

My point is twofold: -- it should NOT have to be spelled out in writing, it CAN be a specific expectation (more) or unwritten rule. -- it should NOT have to be something to add to pawtucket's burden here. Those who already frequent the cafe here, who participate in the offending behavior, know who they are. If YOU are one of them, just STOP. Oldiesman has spelled out his need to blame others for his inability to behave himself. I, for one, don't buy it. He should take responsibility for his conduct, or leave. That might be it, but I think it boils down to him being unwilling to take responsibility for his own conduct.

I know... I figured out (finally) that that is what you were getting at.

And even WITH such a new forum, OM and his ilk should be expected to conduct themselves with respect, at minimum, to refrain from abusive language toward any person relating personal experience of abuse in twi, regardless of which forum such a post would be made.

This, I believe, is a delightful subject. And each post has contributed valuable insight. Indeed, such skills cannot ONLY be learned, but must be practiced to maintain a level of skillfulness! So, learn -- yes. Practice -- also. :)

Bottom line is that YOU (OM) need to recognize it, and not have someone else tell you that what someone is posting is what you should refrain from being abusive about. YOU seem to want to make it someone else's responsibility for you to behave yourself. That's NOT reasonable. YOU are responsible for YOUR conduct. Behave yourself or leave of your own volition. How old are you now anyway? 17????? THAT (and WD and maybe others) would obviate the need for pawtucket to restructure things here. That, dear Dooj... is perhaps being a bit too polite about it. Your point SHOULD BE well taken by Oldiesman and others of his ILK. And IF they CHOOSE (not anyone else's responsibility but their own) to refuse to conduct themselves as this community believes they should, they should choose to leave (on their own). IF they do NOT take these hints, they should be specifically confronted. If they do not take the hints THEN, they should be banned. No further changing of the rules OUGHT to be necessary.

Indeed, it is time for someone to call bullshirt on them. And I think that restriction idea is what pawtucket is referring to on his new thread in the open forum.

FUBAR: Eff'd Up Beyond All Repair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

Especially when your team wins.

It's become pretty clear that the whole bottom line of these recent threads expressing consternation at what the "wierwille apologists" might do (some actually DO do) in challenging the first hand testimony of those who were sexually abused by wierwille or martindale -- is a reasonable thing to decry. And the whole bottom line is to get those people to STOP challenging those first hand testimonies. And even though pawtucket has not directly involved himself in these discussions, they CAN and DO serve to clarify acceptible conduct even if those limits of acceptible conduct are not codified by writing them in the explicitly stated rules of this web site. And, I think the bottom line is that EVERYONE that has expressed an opinion or an idea about this situation seems to understand the need to address the situation... EVEN Oldiesman. Unwritten rules are a part of every social group. This unwritten rule -- NO CHALLENGING OF FIRST PERSON TESTIMONY OF ABUSE -- can be enforced, even if not solely or directly by moderators of the board here. When Oldiesman or WhiteDove or anyone else belittles a person trying to tell her story of abuse, everyone who recognizes that belittlement can and ought to demand (of the original poster of the offending text) to edit or remove the offending post content. It's been demonstrated that when someone refuses to behave here, that person can be banished -- either temporarily or permanently. It (banning) can be done as a last resort, with "the community" policing the mores or unwritten rules of the posts done as first resorts.

Life is FULL of UNWRITTEN rules, OM. And I'd bet that you follow most of them. They are called "mores" And frankly, these recent threads expressing consternation at your conduct (and that of some other wierwille apologists) is aimed at getting this point across to you (and them, as necessary).

A link?