Rocky

That's simply WRONG. This is NOT a court of law. Have you provided ANY reference, legal or otherwise to back up this bogus claim that it is not proper to refer to someone as guilty unless they are found guilty by a court of law? It is a forum where people can express their thoughts and feelings regarding their experiences. As such there is NO WAY you can tell a person she is wrong and have it mean anything but that you are attacking that person. YOU, by definition, CANNOT define the terms of that person's experience, nor can you define the conditions under which she should be limited or prevented from expressing those thoughts and feelings about that experience. You are apparently incapable of the kind of honest self-examination necessary for you to be able to "get it." However, you still need to STOP harassing victims for telling their own stories. Screw wierwille (figuratively). And no matter how much you deny it, this IS about you defending wierwille. You just use the structure of the American justice system to describe your objections... but your descriptions are without merit regardless.

WD... How many times do you have to have it spelled out for you? THIS is not a court of law. THIS place does NOT provide rights for wierwille. And YOU are doing something markedly different than what you claim is being done to you. YOU harass victims of abuse. Of course, these are self-identified victims of abuse. But their self-identification does NOT negate their experience. OTOH, you come here and only claim that you are being abused by those who demand you stop abusing victims of abuse in real (non-cyber) life. And without question, you avoided really answering waterbuffalo's questions. YOU need to STOP harassing victims of abuse. Perhaps, if YOU do so, then you will see a dramatic decrease in what you claim is improper treatment here by others against you. What do you have to lose...? Have you given any thought/reflection to what I posed as my theory?

Yes, for a long time the Catholic Church tried to hide the scandals. Eventually, they had to change direction and face the music. It took persistence on the part of the victims, tremendous persistence. Yes, for a long time, the victims of the priests were treated with similar disrespect and disbelief. They persisted, as a group anyway. The scandals that church faced were pervasive. The practices by wierwille/martindale and perhaps some others were amazingly too common. Because of the persistence of a few, twi has had to deal with some of it. Martindale's personal ministry was destroyed by his horrible acts, that he apparently learned from wierwille.

I appreciate you pointing that out. In fact, I can recognize progress with OM in that he has acknowledged (conditioned on pawtucket changing the rules) the need to allow victims to tell their stories without challenge...

Really, I don't care if they defend wierwille either... just not anywhere near where a victim of abuse is telling her story.

You need to get the point whether the explicitly stated rules change or not. It's not something I'm making up... I'm just summarizing what too many people have been trying to tell you for a long time. Don't blame pawtucket for your behavior. Believe what you want to believe. Just STOP DOING (challenging the victims) it.

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. 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."

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.