WordWolf

With vpw, there were 2-3 things that motivate all the "decisions that make no sense." Whenever it's obvious logic didn't drive a decision, look at 2-3 things to see why they were done. 1) Does this method save money? 2) Does this method cement loyalty? 3) Does this method facilitate vpw using women for his lusts? 1) vpw always paid for the best for himself. Fly COACH? No, First Class or his OWN PLANE. Eat what everyone ate? No, PRIVATE COOK. Live in a small space? No, lavish quarters, and a mobile home for all the comforts of home when traveling. But, of course, a double-standard for everyone else. They ate disgusting foods in insufficient amounts after performing physical labor all day. He saved lots of money on their foods, and got manual labor out of them- and got them to PAY for working! They lived in essentially large closets- enough for a long weekend, but living like that's not acceptable in developed countries. But it saved money. Whenever he moved people, it was by bus, or for free if he could manage it. So, HITCH-HIKING, which is FREE for twi. Free in terms of MONEY. If would occasionally cost them PEOPLE- but people were DISPOSABLE. And when the people were DISPOSED, they were sent home- on a BUS. Even though most of them were emotional wrecks and could not handle a bus ride ALONE. Small wonder some of them were lost for days or NEVER MADE IT HOME and committed suicide instead. But hey, that didn't cost him any money- he didn't pay for their mental recovery or funeral. Oh-and climbing rocks is also free. Insufficient amounts of preparation were made for the climbs many times- but they saved lots of money. Oh, some people were crippled, lost toes to freezing cold, etc, but that didn't cost twi anything... Finally, we have had LOTS of incidents with people at "Root locales" who needed immediate medical attention. In incident after incident, there was NOTHING prepared for emergencies. Lots of people together for long periods of time, and not even someone on-site trained in emergency medical procedures? ONE nurse, ONE paramedic, ONE EMT, that would go a long way in addressing emergencies when they happened. Ever go to a freaking grammar school or a SKATING RINK where they didn't have a trained medical person on staff? But, of course, even one additional staffer costs money... 2) Sometimes the most senseless things were done to prove loyalty. Take people who were not at the peak of health or older, and shove them up a cliff also. This was more to demonstrate they'd do senseless things if vpw required it. Lots of things were about cementing loyalty. Groups of corps, once isolated from home, were NOW told they had made a lifelong commitment as bond-slaves to twi and to do whatever they said- although this was phrased more diplomatically. (And they paid twi for the privilege of that program, and twi would never have to pay a cent for any orders- these people were expected to cover all expenses THEMSELVES. twi was an efficient money-making operation. And still is- fools still pay twi for lots of orders and cover all expenses out-of-pocket.) Corps were whisked away for a weekend and exposed to indoctrination sessions, supposedly so they could handle attempts at deprogramming. lcm himself was chosen to succeed vpw, according to vpw, because he never questioned vpw's orders. (With all the more qualified candidates, vpw chose entirely based on who was most loyal to him, not who was best-suited for twi. That's why twi has continued with horrible choices as top leaders, lcm, rfr....) 3) Lots of little things on campus set things up so vpw could select women, target them, then victimize them. Corps candidates were required to submit an autobiography. If women mentioned a past that included an abuse incident (experts have testified such women are easier victims for future abuse), then vpw separated out their files. From those, he eliminated all women with tough husbands, all women with strong family connections in twi, and all women with self-confidence or hints of independence. Then he contrived (with assistants among his top staff like the Moneyhands and Gear) to arrange for one of these women to meet him privately in some place with a bed set up. (vpw had an office with something set up, and a mobile home office with a bed, and so on. Why does one man need so many little private places with lots of beds? Everyone else lives in a closet....) Then he would try to get them to drink alcohol, and lay on a detailed rap excusing alcohol use, sex outside of marriage, and so on. In some cases, he contrived to have someone interrupt if it didn't seem to be working, in other cases, he drugged the women and did things to them when they were unconscious. We've had women testify to all of these-including women who saw vpw try this on them while holding their autobiography in his hand. So, ask those three questions whenever trying to figure out why vpw did anything. They answer most of the lingering questions.

Actually, rapes and DEATHS didn't stop the last program. When vpw himself was addressed about the dangers of participants being RAPED as the direct consequence of dangers he was REQUIRING that were not necessary except for his arbitrary rules, he went on the record, telling the Way Corps that they COULD get raped ANYWHERE, so-despite him INCREASING the risk, he was going to keep insisting on putting them deliberately in danger. Obviously, he considered his program and his whims to be more important than human lives, the lives of those for whom Christ died- since he chose to assign a higher priority to his whims and program than to HUMAN LIVES.

I am not ashamed of the gospel-it's the power of God for salvation to every one that believes. (Of course, YMMV.)

In fairness, Bramble, I've participated in at least one discussion-thread with Mrs Iam, where we both contributed, discussed, disagreed and agreed, with thinking, reasoning and evaluating involved. In short, a real discussion. She's offered more here than just, say, adding fuel to the fire of flame-wars. If that wasn't the case, I'd consider the term "sidekick" to apply, but I think it does not.

http://sowersonline.com/newsletter.aspx "The bottom line is this. I lay down for no one. I surrender to no one. I stand for my Lord Jesus Christ and I stand for God. I plan on speaking to the whole city wherever it is and uprooting the devil's kingdom myself and I will step on anyone and anything that gets in my way. So who's with me? Who wants to join the fight? Who wants to help the people? We're going to let them walk on our feet until they can walk on their own. Nurture them up in the word and love them." Now this is another example of slogans and buzz-words TAKING THE PLACE OF THINKING. No, stop and think about what you're saying before you say it, and especially before you hit "send". If all you do is spit back slogans and catchphrases, then you'll find you contradict yourself because YOU DIDN'T THINK FOR YOURSELF. Example: Sentence 1: "I will step on anyone and anything that gets in my way" Seconds later, Sentence 2:"We're going to let them walk on our feet until they can walk on their own. Nurture them up in the word and love them." (Yes, Sentence 2 was 2 sentences, but the idea continued, so I included it.) In case anyone suspects otherwise, this post was specifically to address the external page I linked to, and the quote FROM that page I quoted. If anyone from this site thinks it was also about them, they are grossly mistaken and should consider some time with a therapist to possibly get a healthier perspective and sense of boundaries.

Bramble: " Ever notice how every thread j-iam posts on becomes ABOUT j-iam? Been that way for years. Have had him on ignore since his last run through GSC, Sigh. It doesn't change. Ruins thread after thread unless you find the topic of j-iam interesting." IMHO, it happens a LOT more now than it used to. It stands out so much more than that, even, because he's currently the only chronic derailer currently derailing. What's amazing about that is that we even had a previous chronic derailer post recently, and not derail a thread at all. lovematters: "It appears to me that he replies to posts (often personal attacks) directed at him. Perhaps if the posters who call him names or make up psychological diagnosis about him poured some cool water on their heads-on-fire then maybe the threads would be shorter." It may APPEAR that way to you, but he also responds to anything he THINKS is directed at him, which may have NOTHING to do with him. I posted about something "drive-by posters" do, and he claimed I was trying to shut him up. Perhaps if he cooled himself down and didn't type angry, he wouldn't make mistakes like that, and suddenly make things about him, derailing existing discussions. Then threads would DEFINITELY be shorter. I'm sure few posters other than lovematters miss how this is NOT true, since they're around and watch thread after thread get pulled off course by the same poster. Once Johniam has decided some subject that's been posted is about him, the thread's pretty much shot. This very thread's not a bad example of that. Even the original poster has noticed how others responded to HIM, continuing his discussion, but John made it about John, geisha779: "This is an interesting and provocative question. I have wondered the same thing too...are there talking points issued somewhere? Good observation...thanks for making me think. Where else did we hear that term baby and bathwater used?" My post was never ABOUT John. Did he mention babies and bathwater, or being tripped out? I was addressing a "HANDFUL OF PHRSASES" and the original poster SPECIFICALLY. I even quoted the post I was responding to. How did John ever enter the discussion? "I think he was trying to bully me into silence." "WWs message was very clear." For John to think it was "very clear" I was even ADDRESSING HIM, let alone "trying to bully him", it's obvious he's not reading the same posts everyone else is reading. The rest of us discussed the handful of phrases and moved on. socks was nice enough to identify their source. socks: "I'll leave "the" alone, it's earned it's place. Baby and bathwater was fine the first 100 times I heard it in the context of Wayfer's leaving the Way. Think it was in a John Lynn writ. John Lynn's about as glib as it gets and is kind of a poster child for fast-talking-now-u-see-it-don't-worry-if-you-don't-get it. So it didn't surprise me there. Then it seemed to gather steam in ex-Wayfer circles. THIS and many other LINKS googled can shed light on the origin of the phrase. As always I'd recommend some comparative reading to get a handle on it. (note to self: check on "handles" and possible origins relating to "scandals" and the relationship of rhyming to meaning). But I get your point johniam. Use the word "available" in certain circles and they'll go nuclear on you (note to self: check that one too). And that's good because using that word post-Way indicates the need for a good brain scrub to avoid a rash of bad dreams populated by people dressed in polyester suits carrying bibles. Yet - I admit it. I'm tired of that phrase "baby and the bathwater". It's "glib" - it indicates to me a lack of thought, an easy way to refer to a topic that is really much larger and deeper. (snip)" John rarely seems to let what the posters actually post keep him from objecting to something- even if it's nothing at all like what the posters ACTUALLY SAID...

vpw, "The Way:Living in Love", pg-199 "WOMEN NEVER TELL THE TRUTH." vpw, same book, pg-200 (Speaking of JE Stiles and Mrs Stiles) "She said something to him like, 'How long will you be?' And he said, 'That's none of your business.' That was it, and my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent. His stature increased in my eyes. just from the way he handled her." vpw put his misogyny in black and white for all of us to read. It didn't alarm him because he's USED to thinking like he was depicting himself there.

Then, for his own sake, it sounds like he picked the PERFECT time to say it. I didn't even know you were SICK! :o

Well, I can see that some of us (me, Tony, etc.) have no problems discussing what we consider the "baby" and what we consider the "bathwater." (I didn't quote my answer, but it's on page 1. IIRC, in my first post.) Hey, Tony, it's not that I think it's an swful expression per se, but, really, I KEEP hearing it over and over, so it gets tiresome. Most of the time when it comes up, someone says that and then runs off, and never posts about what they consider "baby" or "bathwater" or whatever. I'm in favor of actual discussions that are polite- even when I disagree with them. So, hey, Tony, you're ok with me. I hope I'm ok with you.

My point-if anyone besides John missed it-was that pithy phrases and slogans are used to skip the thinking process-they save time by allowing one to just grab a slogan rather than compose one's own opinions on a subject and express them. "A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire. It seems others already SAW the same point-socks, among others, raised it.

Playing armchair detective. I would say that vpw would never have cut the ties. vpw would have considered him a man of at least a little influence- and vpw had so few of those and courted those he met. IIRC, twi got in trouble because vpw did exactly that and ASSIGNED people to work for the election-which is a violation of the claimed separation of church and state. So, it is unlikely vpw cut the ties. On the other hand, look at it from the candidate's perspective. He's a "believer", and has bought in to the entire pfal package, at least at the Foundational level. This means he's a firm believer in the supposed "LAW" of Believing. So, he Believes to win the election, and does all the pfal keys to appropriate the result of his Believing, and even has other Believers who are doing the same. Then he loses the election- clearly indicating the so-called "LAW" of Believing didn't work. The natural response to such a discovery is backing off from the organization pushing it down your throat as "how things happen"- because you can prove that is NOT how things happen. So, purely as speculation, I would say HG left, and vpw wanted him to stay. It's pure speculation, but I think it's pretty sound speculation, pending more information. It at least matches what we know of the 2 parties. [Well, it's not like he HAS to discuss the abuse. AFAIK, he was neither a participant, nor a victim, nor an eyewitness, of the personal abuses of people, so he probably figures it's not his business and he has his own life to deal with. The internet already has US discussing the abuse. It's not like he's been "drafted" into discussing it, too. He doesn't want to-so I think he shouldn't HAVE to. He can just move on.

I think he wanted to make it crystal clear that he was not going to participate in discussions here. He doesn't HAVE to, of course- there's no Constitution Right to the GSC, nor is there a Constitutional Obligation to post here, either. He wishes to get on with his life post-twi. It HAS been over 30 years, after a 4-year involvement. He's lived an entire lifetime since he left twi. I have to feel just a LITTLE sorry for him. We all made the same stupid mistake of thinking twi was good and not harmful because we met some nice folks in twi. We left when we discovered twi was not good and was harmful. We've all been free (mostly) to move on without our names forever connected to twi. His name keeps getting connected with it, and probably will after his death. I don't see how his involvement was fundamentally worse than the rest of us. We had convictions, we acted on them. I haven't heard of him being in the twi circle of criminals or anything, vpw's circle of rapists and molesters. vpw probably kept him well clear so he could think the group was squeaky-clean and support it openly. (If I'm wrong, I'll wait until there's more than speculation to indicate he was actually a partaker of evil deeds.)

You've never Googled your own name just to see what came up?

[in other news, why do all the people who object to the GSC all use THE SAME LANGUAGE? There's always this obsession with infants in a tub. EVERY FREAKING TIME someone doesn't like us, they mention a baby, and bathwater, and a few other things, and that's about all they say. It's like they're all reading from a short script or something. Aren't any of you permitted to think for yourselves? I mean, if we got the same complaints, I'd expect them to use different phrases to make them. Again with this "tripped out" thing. Same language again! Is there some "anti-GSC Manifesto" or something with the handful of phrases? It's got to come from SOMEWHERE.] Actually, I wasn't even THINKING of Johniam at all when I posted that. I was thinking of how we always seem to get the EXACT SAME HANDFUL OF PHRASES whenever someone wants to object to the GSC. Even if we only consider posters from the USA, each one will have a slightly different manner of speech-and thus of typing. So, the exact phrases used to express the same concept will be different. Hell, this was covered back in the Intermediate class, so it's old news for all the ex-twi'ers. (How TIP and prophecy will vary with the speaker's idioms.) In pfal, we even saw this in passing, how Amos (a shepherd) had a simple, direct speech, while John had a more educated, flowing style. So, that a handful from all over the country, posting often in drive-by posts, but sometimes staying for a time and rarely as regulars, ALL seem to use the same HANDFUL of phrases by COINCIDENCE strains credibility. If everyone addressing THE SAME SUBJECT uses THE EXACT SAME PHRASES to describe it, I know they're all getting it from the same source-the same book, the same document, etc. In the past, I also tended to find that it meant they had not explored the subject on their own. (Whenever I heard anyone defend cg33r's ideas of a God who is not All-Knowing, I ALWAYS got EXACTLY the same phrases EACH AND EVERY TIME supporting it. Later, when people began disagreeing, they all began using different phrases again. They were all quoting from his presentation rather than "making the subject their own" by "searching the Scriptures if those things were so." I would mind less if the same words were quotes from Scripture-since they might all independently study and quote the same verses, and have the common source be the Bible's King James Version. So, John was way off in thinking I was even THINKING of him. His reference to a "self-appointed damage control czar", however, is telling. Rather than actually think about what I posted- a number of posters all agreed I raised a legitimate question that needed addressing- John immediately tried to dismiss the question and object to even consideration of it. Now THAT sounds like a "damage control czar", self-appointed or not. But when I posted yesterday, I was really surprised. All these posters, across, whar, a decade? All over the country, yet all using the SAME HANDFUL OF PHRASES. Obviously, they are getting their phrases from a common source.

You remember correctly. We were responding to a position he held at the time. (I don't know what his current position is.) He didn't use the term, but it was what's called "Openness Theology" in Christian circles (or "Open Theism".) He stated it with a presentation on Genesis 3 he titled "A Pivot Point in History." We both concluded that his presentation had a number of fundamental errors in it, and addressed each in turn. We never intended to make its details public, so it was never presented as such on the GSC. That having been said, there were some interesting ideas that WERE discussed on a thread here. Personally, I think one of the thread's posters behaved poorly and kept interrupting the discussion, but we had an interesting discussion around him, and addressed some issues that the original paper never touched on. The thread was called "What does God know?"

John Candy Planes Trains and Automobiles Steve Martin

[i think it's sad some ex-twi are no longer Christians, also. However, they are ADULTS and I respect their rights to CHOOSE. I do, however, blame twi and vpw for the reason they so chose. If my experience was that Christians were terrible people who ruined lives, controlled lives, and their leadership was free to rape and destroy reputations if someone disagreed with them, then I might be prepared to discard all Christians as a lost cause. I certainly discarded Christians as a lost cause for much less reason when I was young and foolish, so substantial reasons make some sense. So, SHAME ON VPW. SHAME ON LCM. SHAME ON RFR. SHAME ON TWI. They have done the things that displease God, and have hurt His people and driven His people far from Him. God will hold each of them responsible for their evil deeds.]

[it's a site with many Christians that is not specifically a "Christian" site. All are welcome here, especially those with twi history, for whom this site is meant. (Them and people seeking information on twi.] [i, personally, wasn't treated particularly badly by twi people. If you don't count toxic doctrine and bad practical and doctrinal error, it wasn't bad for me particularly. (Then only various a-holes account for any bad experiences.) It's all the crimes and moral wrongs done by vpw, lcm, rfr and others that were done-and are STILL done- that need to be exposed. We were all lied to, deceived-and it was an orchestrated plan with a LOT of lies- and it worked. We were all deceived. That's morally wrong, and various crimes were also committed-including Fraud and Rape. Some lost their lives because of twi. If that's not enough of a reason for having more than a "dislike" for someone or some thing, then SHAME ON YOU. In other news, why do all the people who object to the GSC all use THE SAME LANGUAGE? There's always this obsession with infants in a tub. EVERY FREAKING TIME someone doesn't like us, they mention a baby, and bathwater, and a few other things, and that's about all they say. It's like they're all reading from a short script or something. Aren't any of you permitted to think for yourselves? I mean, if we got the same complaints, I'd expect them to use different phrases to make them. I've also noticed that different people count different things as "baby"- what's important- and "bath water"- what's to be discarded. If you mean "believe the Bible and trust it", I've retained that "baby". If you mean "believe twi's package and sum total", I've tossed that out as "bath water." What was true before vpw was born is still true. What are lies and deceptions are useless to me no matter whose name is on the label.] [it's not a Christian site, but you'll still get treated better here as a dissenter than as a dissenter in twi. They're a LOT more cruel to their objectors. Again with this "tripped out" thing. Same language again! Is there some "anti-GSC Manifesto" or something with the handful of phrases? It's got to come from SOMEWHERE. I left twi because twi as a whole decided-openly-to follow men rather than God. I consider twi to have "tripped out." I've done my best to follow God no matter who was alongside me and what titles were used. ]

Ok, I give up. I can post the entire script and you won't get it. This is "10 Things I Hate About You." It's a modern retelling of "the Taming of the Shrew", set in a high school. Some of the names were taken directly from the book, and there was a quote from the book, as well as various nods to Shakespeare across the movie. Julia Stiles is in this one, of course. It seemed like, if you were going to do a modern version of Shakespeare, you had to include Julia Stiles for a while. (She played the shrew.) Heath Ledger was also in this one. In this movie, Bianca can't date until her father gives permission. He gives CONDITIONAL permission- she can date when Katherine dates-but Kat doesn't like ANYBODY. One guy hopes to try to date Bianca, so he pays another guy to ask out Kat so he can try to have a shot. Bianca and Kat's dad is terrified something will happen to his daughters as soon as they are out of sight. I numbered the poem Kat wrote at the end, so that it more obviously lists the 10 things she hates about him (which things count as the 10 are debatable, I made my best guess) in the hope someone would see the list and think of the name of the movie, and put 2 and 2 together. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147800/ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/10_Things_I_Hate_About_You_(film) "A loose adaptation of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew set in a modern Seattle, Washington, American high school, the screenplay was written by Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith. The film's title is a reference to a poem written by the film's female lead to describe her bittersweet romance with the male lead. The film was released March 31, 1999, and it was a breakout success for stars Stiles and Ledger." "The movie contains several references to William Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, on which the plot is loosely based. The first reference in the film to this fact is that Michael calls Kat a Shrew in the beginning of the film. Also, the high school's name is Padua, and Padua is the Italian city where the Shakespeare play is set. The main characters are given names similar to their counterparts in the play. Shakespeare's Petruchio from Verona is the movie's Patrick Verona. The sisters Katharina ("Kate") and Bianca Minola become Katarina ("Kat") and Bianca Stratford (Stratford being Shakespeare's city of birth). Lastly, in the play, Bianca is successfully wooed by Lucentio as he disguises himself as a tutor named Cambio, from which comes the name Cameron and the plot device of becoming her French tutor. Also in the play, the father reacts to his younger daughter's many suitors by stipulating that Kate must be married before Bianca can be. However, the movie takes a different direction from the play..." ============================================ IF ANYONE'S GOT A MOVIE, GO AHEAD. FREE POST!!!

There was other stuff italicized besides names-like 2 full sentences.

I'm curious. What leads you to think he honestly didn't understand the difference between truth and lies?

Oh, please. Over a decade, and you STILL don't know how the internet works? If you post ridiculous tripe, people will "call you" on it. As they should. Look- if I posted some ridiculous nonsense without supporting it, I'd get replies pretty fast. The nicer posts would insist on some evidence to support my claim. The rest of the posts would show my claim was silly. If I said "vpw used to dress in women's clothing at the SNS, and preferred to be called "Sapphire" when he was dressed up," you'd be all over that in a second. The same is true of everyone, all over cyberspace. But you seem to think you're special and get special treatment. That would be cute if THAT wasn't sad also.

That's a startling thing to say. If this was from a new poster, I could excuse it as "they have read little" or "someone misinformed them." This black-and-white, you-are-against-me-or-for-me type of thinking is typical of the dysfunctional thinking patterns twi foisted on its participants. Some of us have rid ourselves of it, some of us have tried and failed, and some of us are happy with living a simpler life where there are no nuances or anything in between the extremes. This position stated above is a bizarre caricature of a position, something nobody has put forth. (Notice no references to anyone having actually SAID it in any form, even "many ways" or "elaborated.") How does one come to the place where posting this is "correct" after years of seeing it obviously is non-factual? There's a few possibilities: A) Lying is perfectly acceptable if the poster is the one doing it. B) One can't see outside the mental "prison" of a framework that only holds extremes. C) One can distort things if one is upset. D) One is hallucinating completely and doesn't see the posts others make at all. I find all the possibilities disappointing and sad.

Please read the poll, think it over, and then select the one that most closely reflects your opinion.

Please read carefully, think this over, and select your HONEST answer.