WordWolf

"How do you spell that, 'Honkey'?' "Uh, 'Y,T'!" " 'Y,T'?" "Yeah! Say it again!" "Y,T, Y,T'..." "Whitey!" "You said that two of them held you, and one of them beat you. What about the fourth man?" "That's the one that yelled 'Get him.'" "Watch it, sucka." "The fungus is among us!" "You can say that again!" "Who you calling ugly, sucka?" "I'm calling you ugly, I could push your face in some dough and make gorilla cookies."[/b]

the Crush Alicia Silverstone Batman & Robin

"How do you spell that, 'Honkey'?' "Uh, 'Y,T'!" " 'Y,T'?" "Yeah! Say it again!" "Y,T, Y,T'..." "Whitey!" "You said that two of them held you, and one of them beat you. What about the fourth man?" "That's the one that yelled 'Get him.'" "Watch it, sucka."

You forgot angel pins were also banished-couldn't wear crosses, couldn't wear angel pins.

If twi could use kidnapping and other measures to enforce their will and conformity, they would. As you've seen, at some places and times, they've really put people to the screws to get them to conform when IN twi, and convinced them that to leave twi was to leave God's approval, so that only when desperate did people decide to try leaving, even if it meant God rejecting them. The internet has been a boon towards making information easy to find and exchange. Since twi thrives on a BLACKOUT of information, and controlling communication, it's small wonder that twi has considered the internet its greatest threat and told people to never go online. Years ago, when ex-twi survivors began to communicate together on Waydale, they traded notes and realized THEY weren't the ONLY ones who suffered, and the more complete picture of twi began to form. Waydale became a previously-nonexistent information resource, even to innies. It hosted some documents, and was the only source of information on things like a civil suit by an ex-staffer who sued for inappropriate stuff inflicted while on staff, which vpw taught lcm was perfectly normal. AFAIK, (As Far As I Know), Waydale agreed to shut down as a consequence of the out-of-court settlement on the aforementioned civil suit. Shortly thereafter, the GreaseSpot Cafe opened up, and some of the old Waydale Documents are in the documents file. The GSC's been around for what must be approaching a decade. If twi COULD shut it up, it WOULD. But, that would have happened a decade ago, if it could have happened. AFAIK, there's no pressure on Paw (from twi) to be quiet, conform, shut the site down, or anything else. The First Amendment the the US Constitution guarantees certain rights, and this site operates well within those rights (free speech, association, and so on.) Some might suspect that posted concerns that Paw would suddenly be forced to shut the GSC down by twi are not really about that at all, since it's been shown not to matter by now.

Correct. Too easy?

There will always be someone advocating some extreme view. (For example, paying money for a Bible is wrong, or something.) To most Christians, saying that "praying is a good thing" or "prayer is recommended" is fine. REQUIRING a certain amount of prayer in minutes, or at a specific time-or both- would probably be seen as "legalism"- MANDATORY prayer, just like MANDATORY Bible-reading time. Some people are more alert when getting up, others are more alert when turning in. Requiring EVERYONE to act like one or the other is probably a lot more legalistic than not. (Thus, MANDATORY Bible-reading and prayer for 30 minutes first thing in the morning, and refusal to let anyone switch it to "last thing at night" if it works better for them- and it's not all being done as a group in one room, say- would be seen by many as needlessly legalistic.) I once stood for someone- not because it was REQUIRED, but because I CHOSE to. I prefer that to "stand whenever anyone in leadership enters the room". That's something else you can generally get a consensus about, concerning legalism.

Right. Ok, let's see... "Back off man, I'm a scientist."

No, WD missed both MY and Stephen Leacock's point. Personally, I'd be inclined to consider that WD MIGHT be out to protect us from twi's lawyers, if he hadn't waited 45 pages to bring it up. Before that, he was trying to convince us that this messageboard and our discussions have to follow standards for going before the grand jury. This is not a court of law, and this is not a newspaper. (Under WD's type of ruling, to be CONSISTENT -and not just reluctant to believe NEGATIVE testimony-one would have to preface EVERYTHING with ELABORATE disclaimers or extensive documentation, thus we'd end up with comments like "I'd like to thank Pawtucket, who allegedly runs this messageboard, for allegedly giving us the chance to allegedly speak." It's as sensible as calling the Queen of England "the alleged Queen of England" or the President of the USA "the alleged President of the USA." But, again, one is only hearing that ONE SIDE need preface all comments...

[Emphases mine.] I'd like to address this, very simply: Matthew 18:4-7 (KJV) 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Luke 17:1-2 (KJV) 1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. [Emphases mine.] THAT'S why we blame so-called "leaders" who caused God's children to stumble, who committed offences against them.

I think that small amounts of legalism were installed from the beginning-specifically BY vpw, as you can see. (The groovy Christians who arrived early on, who went from denim to suits and briefcases like DF...) I think the evidence is in that vpw wanted everything under his thumb from the beginning, and never liked it otherwise but tolerated that it couldn't START that way. However, he could make adjustments to keep making it MORE legalistic over time. That it was GRADUAL made it harder to see and object to. So, vpw set up that the corps were to learn CONFORMITY and ENFORCE CONFORMITY. (Some remembered God's Love despite this.) Then he set everything up so that it was seen as THE Big Thing to enter the corps. Meanwhile, he centralized everything so all the money pointed towards him, and authority proceeded from him. As time passed, more corps grads were "on the field", in leadership positions, able enforce the conformity they learned. (That was the plan, and it worked, just gradually.) The "temperature" was also ramped up slowly, as they thought up new rules, eventually ending up with grass that can't be walked on, and mandatory hat-wearing. Grounds eventually piled on so much legalism it resembled a work-release prison program more than a Bible program. This trickled down as graduates entered the field, very slowly. Early on, vpw had kicked out 2 different classes of corps, and allowed one of them back, so long as the members were willing to write out an oath of allegiance. lcm learned most of his twi "leadership" from vpw, so he ended up a more "refined" bad leader, two-fold the child of hell vpw was. In 1985, lcm's leadership was challenged. His eventual response was to demand an oath of allegiance from all the corps, and their blind loyalty. (One poster here spoke to him personally, and lcm expected blind loyalty to him, period, no qualifier.) He learned it from vpw, but lacked the wit to see what would happen if he took something that worked on a handful of the most faithful, and applied it to hundreds of people having doubts. This proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back, and 80% of twi walked in 1989/1990. Once they were gone, the next few years were a slow tightening of the screws, and MORE legalism went from staff and corps to every "follower". Now, EVERYONE was expected to conform to corps standards they never signed up for. 1994, it seems was when lcm really went into overdrive, stacking on the draconian rules, putting the corps on as full-time staff, etc. Now corps were required to spend large blocks of time delving into people's private lives. Soon after that came the "two by two everywhere" and "your entire day must be scheduled in 15-minute blocks" things. Yes, a few people were still leaving each year, either from being thrown out, or being sick and tired of being sick and tired. However, the changes were so slow, most of the new people had no idea that this was the same group that once had a bunch of hippies just pleased to get together, and talk about God and pray together. Could you imagine the two groups ever meeting?

It also has nothing to do with either recommendation concerning the Doctrinal forum.

That's two of us recommending the Doctrinal forum already...

You started with a legitimate question- do I need this to be a Christian site to post about God at all? The answer is "No." You may post on whatever you wish, within the limits of good taste and US law. Having posted it, however, anyone is free to respond as their conscience dictates. If you post something claiming the Bible is true, you'll get agreements on a Christian site. If you post something claiming the Bible is true, your welcome won't be so warm, say on an automobile fan- site. The GSC has people with different perspectives, opinions and positions. Just because I am a Christian, just because I read the Bible, has no bearing on what the rest of the posters do. If a poster posts something, and I reply with some response straight from the Bible, they're free to say they don't consider that correct, and consider it wrong. If this was a Christian site, that would be a lot less likely. If you come out with "and we know The Truth is that which God told us in His Word, that..." expect you've just turned off most of the audience for several reasons. 1) the Non-Christians have just seen that and concluded your answer will not apply to them. 2) The Christians will see you did that in a forum that is dedicated to open discussion, but declared the non-Christians are all wrong with that statement, and concluded you either can't behave well in that environment, or can't respect the freedom to DISagree which is part of messageboards like this. Those whom you didn't turn off, they have their own agendas, and I'd trust them least of all. It's really not that hard once you sit and think about it. If your ONLY method of communication is "And the Bible says...", then you're going to findit hard to communicate in a polite fashion anywhere except the Doctrinal forum, and should confine your posts to there, where such is acceptable in discussion-at least, for THAT discussion. Paul became all things to all men, so that by some means he could save some. If you can only be one thing, that's going to limit your usefulness to God in this board. As your brother in Christ, and as a poster here, I would strongly recommend that you LEARN. When you post, you're not responsible for how the individual poster takes it. A perfectly innocently-phrased post can trigger a VERY painful memory from someone, and it's possible they can lash out-wrongly- because of it. HOWEVER, you are responsible for the message your post conveys. If there is a statement there, you're responsible for the statement. ("God is in control, no matter what.") If there's an implication there, you're responsible for the implication. ("Christians who don't want me to answer everything with verses are ashamed to be Christians.") And so on. What you say, and how you say it, are your responsibility. Therefore, remember that if you want your posts read and taken seriously like our posts, you will need to take YOUR OWN posts seriously. Think before you type, think before you hit "reply." Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to delete the message before sending it, or wait 24 hours before replying- especially since you might not WANT to reply, or might want to completely change the message a day later. I can appreciate and respect your goals, but I recommend you consider some changes to how you're approaching them. If you're going to be effective-and I don't think that's a bad idea- then this would be prudent. Even the people who disagree with you would prefer you approach tactfully and tastefully. You will get more accord and agreement. You might even change some minds, make some "converts."

"Newspapermen learn to call a murderer 'an alleged murderer' and the king of England 'the alleged king of England' to avoid lawsuits."- Stephen Leacock.

I was one of the people-there was at least one other- who started up a thread SPECIFICALLY LABELLED as being a thread for pro-vpw, pro-pfal, pro-"positives" stuff, and asked people who wanted to post otherwise to avoid posting "off-topic" threads. As you can see, it wasn't very popular, and wasn't used.

Unless someone defines "negative" as "what I don't want to hear", in which case, they've redefined it so they'll be disappointed, or everyone else must be silenced. But I DO think that if someone wants to make up a NEW discussion board and/or website with their goal as "positive talk about twi" or something, they can go ahead and do it. Then they can determine how things go there. Happens all the time, all over the internet. Someone perceives a need, and makes a website or messageboard. Hey-someone did that for the corps, and that board, from what I hear, is doing fine and some people like it. So, there's recent precedent.

Ok, I can easily see that. (Without getting into it, that wasn't exactly what was meant. )

A number of people, seeing unflattering things said about vpw, for example, will not ask "Can this be true?" but will instead say "I have decided this will not be true, and I will leave rather than permit myself to even consider it MIGHT be true." They're entitled to never post, or to leave, if that's their decision. Harassment. Hah. Tell you what. This is the internet. If you want a messageboard where your point of view is the pre-eminent one and you can set the tone, you can do what everyone else does and make your OWN messageboard. You can't tell Paw what to do with HIS messageboard. (I could swear I've mentioned this a number of times before.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Were you the parent that was given the recommendation to take the kid out into the woods, thrash him just short of needing a hospital, then tell him if he stepped out of line again, you'd exterminate him? I know SOMEBODY said their leadership told them this. (I'm using my words but their concepts.)

My story is a lot milder than some. I got in because I wanted answers. I wanted to be right. twi convinced me they were right, and had the answers. When twi convinced me they weren't right, and didn't have the answers, I left. Pretty fast. It helped a LOT that this was in 1989, when 80% of the active members got up and left. Locally, everybody I'd hung out with had left at the same time. (I would have left without them, but this made it easier.) I still thought what I'd learned was the best out there. Of course, I was young and foolish. And the internet has REALLY made learning otherwise a LOT easier. I'm still a Christian, and I think Christians worldwide should consider the internet to have IMMENSE benefits, both for communication, and information. Of course, that's just my opinion-everyone else has theirs.

This was also during the same timeframe that every single person was REQUIRED to submit an agenda of their plans for the entire week. Filled out in 15-minute increments. And if the actual day ran differently, you were expected to file an update with the corrections. And this didn't chase ALL the people out. (Some, but not all.) It's like the story that says that if you put a frog in a pot of water, and increase the temperature very, very slowly, he won't notice the difference and jump out when it gets hot.

Sounds familiar, but I'm npt getting the song yet...

Usual rule, is naming a COVER of a song is perfectly acceptable, so long as the artist DID perform the song. Thus, when I posted "Little Red Riding Hood", a poster correctly named it, along with the artist Sam the Sham. If he's named the artist as "Bowling for Soup", I would have accepted it also, since they did a cover of the song. So, if Guns N Roses did a cover, then Sharon was the first to answer with correct title and artist.