Rocky

Please don't apologize, you made your point very clear, I was just adding to it, with a little irony sprinkled in. Your posts always are well written and have a lot of heart.

It does get frustrating though, how many of us have made our points? I hope we are going to see more compassion from certain board members here when there is sensitive content on threads.

Indeed.

However, I'm still pessimistic on this point.

It appears OM and WD consider it their mission to defend a dead man. They don't appear to be capable of recognizing the actual person who is alive and needing to express/relate/tell her story. To them (WD and OM), it appears the wierwille's victims are THINGS that are challenging their world view. When that world view is threatened, they MUST respond or (figuratively) die.

I wanted to be able to say that they (OM and WD) probably view wierwille as a person, as opposed to a thing, but if I'm correct about their mission, wierwille is also just an object. That object representing something in themselves that will die if they don't succeed in subverting the testimony of the victim.

And for the record, this is just a theory of mine, not a diagnosis/conclusion.

There is NO rebuttal.

Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and interpretations of events about Wierwille or anyone else based upon the facts presented, even if it may contradict the victims feelings thoughts and opinions.

It appears all you want is group think.

I'll just morph my thoughts and feelings into yours and everything will be ok.

NO, that's NOT what anyone wants.

NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.

It's your ACTIONS that are at issue.

Your conduct is inappropriate.

NOBODY cares what you believe.

This is NOT about beliefs. It is about what you DO.

Of course, you are entitled to your own beliefs and interpretations.

You are NOT entitled to express them in challenging a person giving her own testimony.

There is NO issue of "facts presented."

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

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.

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.

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.

I don't have a problem with that as long as it is understood by everyone that a response of this type is allowed and ok and not interpreted as an attack on anyone's character but simply a varying opinion. What's the sense of taking it to another place on the site if a contrary opinion about the meaning of an event is still regarded as "bad manners" "lack of empathy" and "inappropriate conduct" warranting suspension.

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.

Dr. Rocky who is diagnosing, maybe it isnt lack of "empathy" maybe is the fact He doesnt agree with the testimony as being a true statement.

this is a public Internet forum where in anyone can write anything they chose, to assume everything written on a public internet forum with ZERO checks or balance is just silly and niave.

Maybe a new rule could be.

Believe all Sexual stories written within this forum without regard to the areana, and only use personal attacks and threats itowards those who question the integrity of an open public forum being used as a platform .

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.

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.

Exactly!

----------

WD said:

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. No body is attacking people ,I have gone out of my way to post numerous times that their story may be true or untrue that is not the issue. The issue is untill they have had the rights granted to them in this country one can not refer to them as guilty.

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.

Oldies, maybe you shouldn't post that on the same thread, maybe it should be the start of new one, if the poster is saying they were victimized in some way, even if it was consentual sex, then you saying that would be harassing the victim and sort of insensitive of you....are you married? If so don't you tone it down a bit when speaking to women about subjects they deem sensitive? I'm sure I don't have to say this to you, you are a smart man, you can figure it out.

The only reason I can see you posting something like that in the above scenario, is if you really don't care.

It's already apparent that he lacks the capacity to empathize.

What does the mental health community call someone incapable of empathy?

.

Rocky says "the enitre act of challenging someones personal testimony is abusive" and yet is that \EXACTLY what he is guilty of in this post towards OM?

No, actually, that's NOT what I'm doing to OM. OM is NOT giving his personal testimony of abuse in twi.

I disagree, I think the reason why we need rules or have the rules clarified is because of opinions that some conducts and behaviors are abusive. Speaking for myself, I don't believe my conduct or behavior is abusive according to the current rules. You are of course entitled to disagree, which is why I believe we need the rules clarified/updated so everyone knows what is allowed and what to expect.

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?

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.

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.

OM said:

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."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In such a situation, politely state your opinion and step aside. There is no need to belabor the point. Belaboring the point is tantamount to calling the person a liar. It is very hurtful. Stop and ask yourself, "Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?"

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.

I cannot believe we have to have a debate about the definition of the word rape.

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.

Oldiesman, you don`t believe what you do is abusive according to the current rules....you have all of these logical arguments to sanction what you do. The bottom line is that what you and dove do, HURTS people...ok?

You guys offend people with your callousness.

Justify it, explain it, qualify it...but that is the direct result of your actions. This is a course that you and Dove have taken...so be it...but one I find unfathomable from someone whom wants to proclaim themselves a Christian.

In their minds, they RATIONALIZE it. In their posts, they EUPHAMIZE it.

Hey Rocky,

Do you just enjoy arguing?(no answer needed)

Why do you ask?

Maybe but I choose to spell it out as what I say is often misrepresented and besides I think it is very much the point.

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).

Hmmmm!

That's not exactly the one I had in mind.

BTW---How much gold are we talking about here?

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

I see you chose to reply to the latter and least part of my post instead of that which I was commenting back to you originally on.

This a perfect example of the stupid nitpicking that goes on here, on both sides of that proverbial fence that fuels fires. Instead of responding back to the main topic of my reply to you on burdening Pawtucket and rules, you choose to rip apart my sideline "statement of emphasis" about The Way and rationalizing this disgusting situation that this site is falling into by saying it's human for it to happen.

And as to that, you Do care about what Linder & Friends (The Way) DO or you wouldnt be on an ex-Way site 22yrs after leaving.

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

According to the Conflict Resolution Network, I-statements are a dispute resolution conversation opener that can be used to state how one sees things and how one would like things to be, without using inflaming language.

I find it hypocritical that those who chant the mantra of self-restraint and sensitivity expect it from some while taking cheap shots at others on a thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault. None of these things contribute to the conversation of the thread either yet they go on. I'll remind everyone that the whole disruption started with the Wierwille apologist remark, then the pile on and introduction of other topics which neither Oldies or myself introduced but somehow got the credit for doing so . Look at the thread line and one can see.

QUOTE(GrouchoMarxJr @ Jun 12 2008, 12:22 AM)

...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?...

...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independant "twigs", and the many who belong to the waycorps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises...

shame on them all...

Quote Whitedove

Speaking of denial........ despite the obvious, you still assume that the group that you have apparently taken upon yourself to pigeonhole with a name is in denial. I wonder just what qualifies you to speak for others?

This could have stopped here . I made No response to or about any victim I simply objected to being called something I am not and have repeatedly asked not to be referred to as. I'll point out again this has nothing to do with the book either.

If one wants restraint then perhaps they should think about taking shots at others from behind the safety of a thread that is protected. Why should either side be protected in their comments why can one declare a person a monster ? If I posted that someone was a saint would I get the same right to not be questioned? ( not that I think he was by the way ) Had the subject stuck to the book and contents rather than personal opinions on others it might have been more worthwhile.

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.

How about The Golden Rule?

That one covers a lot of territory.

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

j/k

It's a military term, thanks Rocky for helping her. I forget not everybody grew up around the fubars I did.........Tell her what a SNAFU is.

SNAFU

I hear ya, but if that was the case, we wouldnt have Paw asking for suggestions, which brings me to why I suggested a highly caffinated area-because Paw asked for suggestions. this bickering isnt gonna do anything so something has to change whether we like it or not.

Mr. Linder & friends have to be sitting there roaring wth laughter at us right now, slapping each other on the back saying" Yep, when you leave The Way see what happens"

damn, cant people just agree to disagree, I guess not, or I wouldnt be writing this.

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...

I hear you JSN.

Sounds almost like the super-caffeinated Forum would need to be like the Soap Opera Forum and the Politics and 'Tacks forum - hidden. - But I wouldn't want the stories of abuse to be hidden. I'd rather see the more "lively" threads hidden.

Hope this all makes sense.

It certainly does make sense.

You sir (and I use the term loosely), are a David Duke looking to attend an NAACP rally.

You're asking for rules???!!!??? I seriously am ROFLMAO!

Ya think the NAACP might give you some *rules*??

You REALLY can't figure them out on your own???

Good Gawd --- what kind of world do you live in, anyway??

An excellent comparison.

BUT, that would give definition to the forum area and a reason for banning and not just because of their view, it wold prove a harassing and destrucive intention and THAT would be grounds for banning.

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.

I dunno - this whole - "I want a written rule" stuff just irks the crap outta me.

It's like asking for a new way to make a loophole.

That might be it, but I think it boils down to him being unwilling to take responsibility for his own conduct.

That's what I meant. I don't really want to see more rules. I find it almost absurd that adults cannot manage to take responsibility for their actions.

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

Paw...I think it would be appropriate to create a forum where people who tell their stories can do so without detractors...

It would be a good idea for a lot of reasons...

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.

:)

I would vote for a separate category altogether titled "Victims Personal Experiences" wherein rules of that category would be very strict and in complete favor of the victim. No doubting, dissent, questioning, debating, interrogation allowed. etc.

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.

I'm not so sure this would work. So many times the stories come out in the middle of a thread. Would that mean that since the post started in "About the Way" or "Open" that the derail posts were up for grabs?

I personally like the idea of asking posters to have some self-restraint and sensitivity. A different thread should be started for discussion.

Those who post their need to feel safe in doing so. They also would need to understand that there most likely would be a thread started questioning their story and that they should ignore it if they don't feel up to being cross-examined in any way.

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.

If booting them seems to harsh for you...how about simply restricting them from posting on these particular threads?

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for any of them...they have been doing this deliberately for a long time...I just thought it was time for somebody to call bulls **t on them.

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.

lucy, what's a fubar ? it's taken me a lot of pages to remember that question.

FUBAR: Eff'd Up Beyond All Repair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

Baseball is funny that way. As I've often quoted Yogi-'in baseball, you don't know nothing'.

I never made it to the Dodger game last night, due to emergency circumstances. Nothing sadder than an unused ticket sitting in the drawer.

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.