LG

You know, theft by confidence (a con) isn?t armed robbery but it is still theft and, in some ways, its impact on its victims can be greater. Not only is their wealth stolen, but also their confidence is improperly gained and then betrayed. It is similar in cases of sexual ?stealing?, except that what is stolen is of far greater value and the emotional impact, including a sense of betrayal, is far greater. It may not be rape, in the sense of forcible rape, but it?s sure not mere ?sexual harassment.? Maybe a new term needs to be coined but for now, the best term that I know of that conveys the impact on the victims is ?rape.? ?Sexual victimization? is too broad and invites comments like ?playing the victim.? This is so much bigger than that. What I see is not women trying to ?play the victim,? but women realizing that they were victims, in order to analyze, understand, and overcome the victimization and what led to it. Nearly any feeling person can empathize, to at least some degree, with a victim of forcible rape. Many, if not most people, fail to understand that nonconsensual sex that is not forcible rape can be even more devastating and can have more far reaching effects. From a victim?s perspective, I think that forcible rape may be easier to deal with than some other kinds of sexual victimization. In cases of forcible rape, there can be a sort of ?disconnect? between body and soul. A victim can have a sense of, ?He stole my body but not my soul.? In cases of incest, ministerial or professional abuse, and some others, there is no such disconnect. In those cases, access to the body is gained through the soul. At minimum, it is a level of betrayal that most men, and many women, have difficulty understanding. In many cases, it is even more than that. ?Soul stealing? is an apt description.

Oldiesman, whether you intended to or not, you communicated everything I said, and more. If you truly do not understand, then out of courtesy, avoid posting on threads like this. Read them, try to understand, think to yourself, "these emotional females don't make sense to me." (No offense, ladies.) Whatever. Just don't try to turn what could otherwise be productive discussions into debates over extraneous issues. It's about courtesy and compassion. Surely you can understand that.

Does Oldiesman have the right to post what he does? Sure, but having the right to do something doesn?t make it the right thing to do. It?s not a matter of rights. It?s a matter of respect. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay out of some discussions. This one is not about Oldiesman?s dismantling or affirming his belief system. It?s about ministerial abuse. Excathedra started this thread because: She referred to THIS ARTICLE, from which she quoted the following: Notice that neither Excathedra nor the author of the article said ?always? or ?all ministers.? Referring specifically to Wierwille, excathedra wrote: In follow-ups she said that she was just trying to describe her experience.Oldiesman came along and quoted one sentence from the article: ?As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.? (Emphasis mine.) He then took off on the possibility that a pastor might just be horny, which has absolutely nothing to do with the thesis of the article or what anyone else had been discussing on the thread. He went further by saying: NOBODY claimed that!In a later post, oldiesman said: That is just not true. The article never said that and no one had said that on the thread, either.Radar O?Reilly replied to Oldiesman?s statement by saying, ?It is ALWAYS ABOUT POWER when the aggressor is in POWER over the victim.? Also, ?Maybe it isn't about power to the Aggressor (man or woman) but it is about power to the VICTIM (man or woman) and that is the perspective that counts.? Oldiesman came back with this: NOBODY suggested that!After some discussion about why abused women sometimes don?t say anything and, specifically, why women Wierwille abused didn?t say anything or weren?t heard, if they did, Oldiesman said this: The subject was NOT voluntary adulteresses! It was abused women. In the context of the discussion, Oldiesman tacitly accused at least some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses! You wonder why I called him an ***? (That will be censored. The word is A-S-S.) I?m going to write that one again, in bold-face: Oldiesman accused some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses! Excathedra replied, ?you are a fooking ashhole.? IMO, given what Oldiesman had just written, that was pretty darn mild. Then you came along, Rafael. Your first post in this thread: First of all, you?re damn right she was hurting! Oldiesman had just implied that she might be a slut who had willingly sinned with Wierwille. (No, he didn?t say that but he sure made it clear that it was a possibility.) Secondly, the thread was not and is not about people who ?might possibly fit the description oldies presented.? Thirdly, this: ?Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille?? completely ignores the WHOLE FRIGGING POINT of the thread, which is that what Wierwille did to HIS VICTIMS was much worse than engaging in adultery. Even more importantly, it is a SLAP IN THE FACE to Excathedra and Wierwille?s other VICTIMS for you to say that they ?engaged in adultery with Wierwille.? In your defense of Oldiesman, you inadvertently pointed out the reason behind his posts: ?So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.? Actually, it does more than that. The most important thing is shifting blame away from Wierwille. That can?t be done with facts, so it?s done by concentrating on the blame that other people might bear. However, since this thread is about real victims, not ?possible? consenting adulteresses, much of the blame is shifted to Wierwille?s VICTIMS, denials and statements of noble intentions notwithstanding. Later you wrote: What is unreasonable is your failure to see that this is not about ?very few possible people.? It?s about many real people and them trying to discuss the nature of their real victimization, what led to it, and how to deal with it afterwards. The dealing with it includes emotional healing but it also includes learning how to strengthen themselves against future victimization and how to help others, including their children, to avoid becoming victims themselves or to guard against further victimization if they have already become victims. Then Oldiesman popped off with this: NOBODY proposed anything like this. His claims of sincerity and objectivity notwithstanding, Oldiesman continues to distort, pick nits that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, cast ?possible? blame on ?possible? people who might not be victims, in order to distract from or completely sidetrack the discussion, which is about real people and real victimization, and will hopefully lead to real recovery and real prevention. [This message was edited by Long Gone on February 02, 2003 at 17:10.]

Dammit! I was going to stay out of this, which is exactly what Oldiesman and Rafael should do. Oldiesman, I think you know exactly what you're doing. If so, you're an ***. If not, you are still acting like one. Rafael, I'd like to think that you just don't get it. IT MATTERS NOT ONE BIT that some woman, somewhere along the way, could have possibly had truly consensual sexual relations with Wierwille. THE POINT is that TWI believers, who thought of him as THE MAN OF GOD, did not. "It's not about sex but about power" does not mean that either the abuser or the VICTIM is necessarily thinking about power, rather than sex. It means that the abuser uses his POWER to deceive, coerce, manipulate, or whatever it takes to gain the "consent" or overcome the nonconsent of the VICTIM. Oldiesman, your constant nit-picking about "consent" and what it means to be a victim is designed to deflect accusations away from your precious ABUSER, by constantly offering up the possibility that his VICTIMS might not have really been victims at all, but consenting adults. Hell, the way you stretch and distort things, I'm surprised you don't say that a woman who consents to sex at the point of a gun is a consenting adult, and therefore not a rape victim. We have read numerous accounts of Wierwille having used several different means to get his VICTIMS to "consent." Sometimes, he used his power as "Man of God" to deceive the victim into thinking that sex with him was God's will. At best, that would be consent based on fraud, which is not genuine, informed consent. Sometimes, Wierwille used the power of his position to lure women into situations in which they felt like they had no way out, even though no actual force was used. That would be "consent" by coercion. Some accounts indicate that Wierwille drugged women in order to get their "consent." That would be rape, plain and simple. This is about real people and real life, not some remote possibility that you seem to think offers some sort of defense for your precious Wierwille. There are many accounts of Wierwille using his power to victimize women. You can't cite a single example of Wierwille's having genuinely consensual sex outside of marriage. Even if you could, it wouldn't change a thing but, since you can't, you should SHUT THE HELL UP!

An afterthought: Whether or not people are still being hurt or still dealing with hurt caused by Wierwille, Martindale, or anyone else involved with TWI, as long as anyone can learn, and thereby avoid hurt, there will be reason to discuss them.

I'm going to quote verse 14 also. Wierwille (and others) didn't stop with devouring widow's houses. They devoured young women.

If I claimed to be a Christian and especially a Bible believing one, I'd look long and hard at Matthew 23 before I even thought about jumping on folks at Grease Spot Cafe. I'd look especially hard at verse 15 and think about how it might apply to Wierwille, Martindale, and some others. Wierwille trained Martindale and some other rather despicable "MOGs." Martindale trained others. BOTH their DOCTRINE and the PRACTICE it enabled hurt people. Both continue to hurt people. When that is no longer true, then there may be little reason for further discussion. Until then, there seems to be good reason.

Goey, I meant no offense. My point was that there is no reason for any of us to read Wierwille’s unfounded ideas into the Bible (or anything else, for that matter). Most of us did and many of us still do, at least to some extent. I include myself. I have found several of Wierwille’s so-called discrepancies in the Bible that have turned out not to be discrepancies at all, once I stopped reading Wierwille’s presumptions into them. What seemed difficult suddenly became easy to understand. I hadn’t meant to post any more on this but I will address your points. I didn’t say that “espoused” doesn’t mean “espoused.” I accepted both Luke and Matthew as true and offered an explanation that harmonizes them. In Luke 1:27, Mary is “a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph.” In Matthew 1:18, she is “espoused to Joseph.” In Luke 2:5 (after Joseph “took unto him his wife” in Matthew 1:24), she is “his [Joseph’s] espoused wife.” There are a couple of subtle differences in Luke 2. In addition to the addition of the word “wife,” there seems to be a difference in viewpoint. If Luke 1 and Matthew 1 are from a general viewpoint, including that of the community, and Luke 2 is from Joseph’s viewpoint, then everything fits nicely without changing any definitions or assuming a situation contrary to the culture. Matthew 1:24,25 says that Joseph “took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:” I assumed that he did that legally and considered the cultural implications. I don’t see how it is reading things into the Bible to assume, unless stated otherwise, that Jesus’ parents obeyed God’s laws and conformed to their culture. The Bible doesn’t mention Mary and Joseph’s marriage ceremony at all. That doesn’t mean that they never had one. It is reasonable to think that they did, just as it is reasonable to think that the other married couples in the Bible had ceremonies, in accordance with the law and culture, even though the Bible mentions very few marriage ceremonies. That people were married implies that they got married, which implies that they had a ceremony. There was no “tokens of virginity” part to a wedding ceremony for Joseph and Mary to have faked or omitted. A woman’s “tokens of virginity” was a cloth with blood on it from her torn hymen, which was regarded as proof that she was a virgin until her first time with her husband. If that came into play at all, it was after the wedding. It would have been irrelevant in Joseph and Mary’s case because Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” For her to still have an intact hymen after that would have been a miracle indeed! I don’t know how what I wrote communicated the idea that Joseph and Mary “masqueraded around as if they were having sex.” I merely pointed out that people assume that newlyweds have sex and wouldn’t think otherwise unless the newlyweds told them. Last words on this subject: Although I no longer believe the Bible to be revelation from God, I hold it in higher regard than any other literature. I do not wish to denigrate it and I have tried to treat it honestly here. If my thoughts are of any value to anyone, that’s great. If not, at least I’ve gotten a little typing practice. If I’ve offended, I apologize. Adios

It seems to me that y’all (I’m a Texan too!) are making this way too difficult. (From Luke 1) Mary was already espoused to Joseph when the angel appeared to her. The angel spoke to Mary about Jesus’ conception in the future tense. If the “also” of Luke 1:36 means that Mary had already conceived, the conception would have happened while the angel was speaking, between verse 35 and verse 36, and before Mary consented in verse 38. Her saying “Be it unto me according to thy word” seems an odd reply if it had already been “done unto her” without her consent. It seems more likely that the sense is “even Elizabeth has conceived…” The example of Elizabeth’s miraculous conception seems to have been cited in order to help Mary to believe that the seemingly impossible promise to her was genuine and that “With God, nothing shall be impossible.” After her conversation with the angel, Mary went “with haste” to visit Elizabeth, possibly to see for herself the miracle that she “who was called barren” was pregnant, thereby helping Mary to believe that what the angel told her would come to pass. Not only did Mary see that Elizabeth was pregnant, she also heard Elizabeth prophesy that “there shall be a performance of those things which were told her [Mary] by the Lord.” That would be physical confirmation that the promise was possible and verbal confirmation that it would come to pass, both of which would help Mary to believe the promise. Elizabeth’s use of the future tense allows for the possibility that the conception had not yet occurred. Mary’s statement that “he that is mighty hath done to me great things” is part of a list of things that God had done, is not specific, and does not necessarily indicate that the conception had occurred. It could even be that Mary did not conceive until after she returned to her own house. (From Matthew 1) Before Mary and Joseph came together, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” How her pregnancy was discovered, and by whom, is not said. It could be that she was not visibly pregnant. It could be that a missed period or morning sickness led to her finding herself with child and that she told Joseph and no one else. Thinking that she wouldn’t have done that calls her honesty and her faithfulness to her vows to Joseph into question. Forget the question of lying to the neighbors! Would she have lied to Joseph for three or more months? Anyway, the Bible doesn’t say how far along in her pregnancy Mary was when Joseph found out that she was pregnant. It does say that he was considering what to do with her when the angel appeared to him in a dream. The angel said, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” and explained why. Then Joseph got up and did what the angel said to do. He “took unto him his wife.” Given the culture, that can’t mean that they shacked up. If they had, sullied reputations would have been the least of their worries. It means that they began living together as husband and wife, which would require the proper legal ceremony. From that point on, no one else would have considered them to be still espoused. The community would think no differently of them than of any other married couple. Unless Joseph went around complaining about “not getting any,” no one else would know that Joseph and Mary waited to consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born. That pretty well explains “espoused” in Luke 2:5. From Joseph and Mary’s perspective, they would have been still espoused until they consummated their marriage. From anyone else’s point of view, they would have been no different than any other married couple expecting a child. I see no reason in the Bible to think that anyone except Joseph thought for a moment that there was the least impropriety surrounding Jesus conception or birth. Joseph did, until the angel told him otherwise. Rafael has cited I Thessalonians 5:21 a few times in this thread. The next verse says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” It seems to me that if Joseph and Mary were good Jews, they would have wanted to avoid the appearance of evil. It seems to me that the God of the Bible would want them to avoid the appearance of evil in the birth of His Son, the Messiah. What the Bible says about Jesus’ conception and birth makes sense without any appearance of evil. Why read one into it? (I can think of several reasons why Wierwille might.)

This insensitive bastard thinks that your use of those words in this thread is legitimate. ;)-->

Ex10, Sidetrack or not, it stems from the main discussion and you’re interested. As I said, I haven’t studied this stuff in years but I did once. Here are a few things I remember from that study that you may wish to consider. (Throw in qualifiers like “I think” or “it seems to me” wherever it seems appropriate.) An illegitimate child is one born out of wedlock, not one conceived out of wedlock. Even modern cultures don’t consider a marriage to be consummated until the couple has sexual intercourse. In our culture, a marriage that is not consummated can be annulled. After it is consummated, a divorce is required to end the marriage. That first time was even more significant in the Bible (tokens of virginity – Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Mary was already espoused to Joseph when Gabriel visited her. Espousal was not the same as a modern engagement. It was legally binding and espoused couples were considered to be married. “Espoused” simply meant that they had not yet consummated their marriage. Biblically, the only permissible reason for a husband to put away his espoused wife was fornication, which is why the tokens of virginity were so important to them. The Bible does not say that Mary conceived at the time of Gabriel’s visit or that she was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. Elizabeth said, “there shall be a performance of those things…” That could include a yet future conception. Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was espoused to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant. It does not say how far along her pregnancy was. It also does not say who found her to be pregnant. Considering the loose clothing she would have worn, it probably wouldn’t have been the neighbors. It would be much more likely that Joseph found her to be pregnant just before their intended first “get together.” That would be the normal time when the question of what to do about a wife who had (possibly) committed fornication would come up (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Joseph was considering that question when the angel appeared to him. Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph did not know Mary until after she had brought forth Jesus. That is why Mary was still Joseph’s “espoused” wife at the time of Jesus’ birth. They had not yet consummated their marriage. However, they were clearly living together, so everyone else would likely have thought that they had. The people clearly thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Even if counting back from Jesus’ birth would have brought up questions about when Joseph and Mary first came together, it would not have brought up questions about Jesus’ legitimacy because Joseph and Mary were already married before Jesus was conceived, even though they had not yet come together. Even if Joseph and Mary had never known of each other’s existence until after Jesus was conceived, it is likely that the people would have just assumed something along the lines of Deuteronomy 22:28,29, in which case Jesus would still be legitimate. They almost certainly wouldn’t have assumed that Mary had “played the whore in her father’s house” (Deuteronomy 22:21) because they would have assumed that if she had, Joseph would have done exactly what he considered doing, except that they probably would have assumed the “publick example” option. [This message was edited by Long Gone on January 18, 2003 at 13:26.]

Rafael, it has been years since I’ve studied the Bible so I’m not prepared to lay out a full case. I did read the two chapters I cited from Ezekiel, as well as the whole of John 8. John 8:41 is easy to understand if we look to the verse, the context, and prior usage. (Not because scripture interprets itself, just because that's sensible.) I’ll discuss them in reverse order. In the Old Testament, “fornication” (more often translated “whoredom”) seldom refers to literal fornication, but rather to “whoring after” other gods. (Ezekiel 16 and 23 are good reference chapters, in which the words are used repeatedly.) In the context, the Jews counter Jesus’ statements about continuing in his word and the freedom that gives with an appeal to their free standing as Abraham’s seed. Jesus deals with that and goes on. He says that he speaks that which he has seen with his father and they do that which they have seen with theirs. They say that Abraham is their father. Jesus says that if that were so, they would do the works of Abraham. Jesus then goes on to say that what he spoke he had heard of God, which because of what he said earlier, says that God is his father. In verse 41, after already contrasting his words and the Jews works and indicating that God is his father, Jesus says that the Jews do the deeds of their father. He obviously is not talking about their literal, human fathers. He is challenging their “spiritual” fatherhood. They respond by saying, “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” In other words, “We’re not offspring of whoring after other gods; we have one Father, even God.” It has nothing to do with Jesus’ father, in either a human or a spiritual sense. Jesus goes on to challenge their claim that God is their father and even says that they are of their father, the devil. Nothing in the context has anything to do with anyone’s literal father or the circumstances of anyone’s actual birth. [This message was edited by Long Gone on January 17, 2003 at 21:38.]

Outside of what Wierwille seems to have pulled out of (somewhere), where does anyone get the idea that Jesus was considered to be illegitimate? (I know Wierwille mentioned John 8:41, but that doesn't mean what he said it meant. Matthew 1:19 would seem to indicate that no one but Joseph, Mary, and maybe some close family knew anything about Mary being pregnant before she and Joseph came together.)

I know it's not in PFAL but this is a glaring error. There is no "semi-official" GS belief system. It's official and those "in the know" adhere to it. That's why Zixar and I always agree. :)-->

Not only should assigned parking and a parking sticker tell you that you need to put the sticker on your car, the parking rules are almost certainly spelled out in your lease or an accompanying set of rules that is also part of the contract. You made a mistake. It cost you some time and money. It's not really a big deal.

Leonato (to Dogberry and Verges): Neighbours, you are tedious. Dogberry: It pleases your worship to say so, but we are the poor duke’s officers; but truly, for mine own part, if I were as tedious as a king, I could find in my heart to bestow it all of your worship. Shakespeare, Much Ado about Nothing, Act III, Scene V "Much Ado about Nothing" ... Seems like a pretty good title for this thread. Mikewiery seems to have found it in his heart to bestow all his tediousness on GreaseSpot. Praise Grifter!

:)--> [This message was edited by Long Gone on January 04, 2003 at 17:13.]

Garth, Rafael asked about the doctrine, not the show. Chapter 13 of Karl's book, The Cult That Snapped, discusses Martindale's teaching in some detail. As he records, Wierwille put his stamp of approval on it and Walter Cummins offered some rather feeble support for it. I don't remember exactly when that teaching came out but I do remember that Wierwille's and Cummins' support of it was what finally convinced me that TWI cared little about "the integrity and accuracy of God's Word."

Mike, Most folks here have considered a lot more than you think they have. "All this" is nothing new. Your whole spiel is premised on Wierwille's tale of God speaking to him audibly in 1942. If that happened as Wierwille described, then what you say could have some merit. If it didn't, then Wierwille was not only a lier and a fraud, but also A FALSE PROPHET, which is a pretty big deal to anyone who believes the Bible. Even if the tale were true, that would not mean that Wierwille didn't become a fraud and a false prophet afterwards. You haven't offered a single reason for anyone to think that Wierwille's tale was true. The Bible offers a lot of reasons for Bible believers to think that Wierwille was a false prophet.

RG: "I did say those things that someone quoted from the website. .... I cannot change them now even though I have learned much since about vpw." You could say whether or not you still think the same things. You could just come right out and say whether or not you think of VPW as an apostle and "our father in the Word." You haven't. I think that's pretty telling. RG: "However, one thing that I think we need to realize is we need to separate the doctrine from the practice." I think it would be wise to realize that you can't separate corrupt practice from the corrupt doctrine that facilitates it. The practice is the fruit of the doctrine. RG: "Of all the heart-cries in this thread, I think that the statement of Long Gone is the most poignant." That was no heart-cry. That was a statement of opinion, worded in the most diplomatic way I could manage. I'll be more straightforward. My opinion of Wierwille as a person is that he was corrupt at least as far back as the fifties and that he became quite evil over time. The evidence of his personal corruption in the form of repeated plagiarism is overwhelming and undeniable. The evidence of other forms of corruption and evil is more than convincing, in my opinion. More importantly, I think that Wierwille's doctrinal system was designed from the beginning, at least in part, to facilitate the satisfying of his personal lusts (not only sexual). Even where it was not specifically designed for that purpose, I think that his personal corruption corrupted his teachings, on a foundational level. None of that extends, by default, to his former followers. However, if they are using Wierwille's teachings as the foundation of their doctrinal system, the corruption that interlaced those teachings will interlace their system as well. Just as corrupt doctrine facilitated Wierwille's corrupt practice, their corrupt doctrine will also facilitate corrupt practice, whether that is intended or not.

Satori, I didn't say give it a chance. I said that I think the foundation is faulty. I said that the splinter group leaders have no business setting themselves up as teachers. I said that I think that people would be wise to look elsewhere. I have no more regard for Wierwille, his teachings, or his legacy that is carried on in various splinter groups than you do. I just don't have to be ugly all the time.

Since you asked... I think that what TWI became is a natural result of the foundation on which it was built. I think that people whose "spiritual perception and awareness" was dull enough that they couldn't see the manifestations of TWI's problems until the late nineties have no business setting themselves up as teachers of classes on how to walk by the spirit. I think that people who want to "see if there was a baby in all that bathwater" would be wise to look elsewhere than to people who supported TWI for years, even during the Martindale years, apparently unable to tell that the bathwater was filthy or unwilling to pull the stopper for fear they'd go down the drain with the filth. I also think that people can do what they want. [This message was edited by Long Gone on August 07, 2002 at 13:51.]

I can't speak for anyone else but I wasn't on a witch-hunt when I went to CFF's web site. I was simply curious. I didn't quote from "Paul's Foundational Class" in order to tear at anyone. I quoted what I did because it tells the foundation on which CFF is building. It isn't necessary to attend a CFF function to have a pretty good idea about it. It is obvious that it is patterned after pre-LCM TWI and that its leaders think that VPW was an apostle and their father in the Word. They are patterning their ministries after his. They are building on his foundation, or a recreation of it. In my opinion, the primary issue shouldn't be Wierwille's personal life, corrupt as I think it was. The main issue should be the foundation he built. If it was a good foundation and TWI was a good and godly work brought down by Martindale and the successors to the original BOT, then building a Christian work on a similar foundation is a good idea. If the problems of TWI were natural outgrowths of the foundation that Wierwille laid, then building a Christian work on a similar foundation is a bad idea.

This thread roused my curiosity enough to go look at CFF's web site. I titled this post "WOW" because I noticed that CFF has a WOW training and commissioning in Venezuala later this month. It appears to me that CFF is attempting to recreate TWI of the seventies and early eighties. Much of their "about CFF" material is so close to being exact quotes of "About the Way" material I remember that I'm surprised they haven't been sued by TWI for copyright violations. From what I read, it appears that anyone who would have liked pre-LCM TWI might find CFF appealing. I think that the following two paragraphs are very telling. From "Paul?s Foundational Class" by Jon Nessle (aka Research Geek): "Now some might say that this entire study is superfluous in light of the fact that we are all familiar with and have all partaken of a wonderful example of a foundational class: the Power for Abundant Living class taught by our Father in the Word, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. But I, as my manner is, like to go back to the primary evidence and re-inspect it and now I can better understand and appreciate that great example. Perhaps we allowed Doctor's original class to be too easily dismissed in favor of the promise of something new but untested. Its replacement despite the yes-men's accolades did not turn out to be the quality of the former. And that, perhaps was, in part, a reason why we lost access to it and now have to build one anew. I pray that when we are done rebuilding our foundation, we'll have something to shout about as the builders of the second temple's foundation did in Ezra!"

Sudo, if you could limit your practice to "preferred" patients, that would be a lot better than sticking your hands in their mouths, wouldn't it?