WordWolf

Waysider: Oldiesman: So, there we have it. Unless vpw can send a spirit, forcing the person to commit suicide, he has "NOTHING TO DO" with that death. vpw taught that doctrine-and taught it to many people, including the loose cannon. (Apparently, vpw has "nothing to do" with teaching that man.) The loose cannon then went and disseminated it all over the place. (Apparently, vpw had "nothing to do" with someone spreading around something THAT HE TAUGHT THEM.) This loose cannon confronted someone who was emotionally fragile and-with the typical sledgehammer subtlety of twi-trained personnel- that this person was not merely POSSESSED, but "born of the wrong seed", that is, unsaved and forever INCAPABLE OF BEING SAVED. (Which is a doctrine vpw taught him, and, apparently, bears no responsibility with once the people leave the room.) That person, already fragile emotionally and now convinced God had turned His back on him, committed suicide. If vpw had never spread this doctrine-which, BTW, is not a problem OTHER Christians have- that loose cannon would not have anything to slap down that victim with. But, according to Oldiesman, vpw "HAD NOTHING TO DO" with it. Not "he didn't say to tell that man", but "had nothing to do" with it. This says a lot about Oldies' frame of reference. Fiduciary responsibility is still a nonexistent concept to him, although we've discussed it before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_duty It's like we never mentioned it nor explained it. I think it's insane to categorically absolve vpw 100% of all negative consequences of what he did- while continuing to praise him for what's perceived as positive consequences of what he did. If it's something good, he gets praise. If it's something bad, he must be defended since it's not his fault- no matter what. Duh, obviously the women who had abortions because vpw and his criminal gang leaned on them bear responsibility- DUH- because they DID make the decision. It was based entirely on incorrect information-indoctrinated by vpw and his cronies- but they DID make the decision. HOWEVER, vpw ensured they made the decision IN HASTE, and based on specific MISinformation he wanted them to believe. Try to find a HEALTHY Christian who would do that to another person.

"You sir, are a freako!" "Why, thank you!" "You don't love me any more." "Of course I love you. I'm working now!" "And you're making a lousy job of it." "You want to be an ex-parrot?" "On what grounds do you interrupt my soliloquy?" "Well, it's my coffee break." "Coffee grounds??"

Oops. Hang on.

Not when I heard him read it. It was when I heard him. I find it hard to imagine that was the ONLY time he ever left it off. I'd need access to extensive records of print and tape to speak on that with any degree of confidence. But, more importantly, I'd have to CARE enough to review all those records over a poem.

You think he did a good thing before hearing what he did, and then creatively reinterpret whatever he did so it sounds like a good thing. If he'd taken out a pistol and fired at the crowd at an ROA, it would not surprise me to hear you defend that action. That's a False Dilemma, and he's to be blamed for MAKING the ORIGINAL False Dilemma.The False Dilemma was between 2 possibilities: A) Women must have abortions. B) Women must be dismissed from the corps. Here's how he set it up, then stacked the deck to make sure all women picked the first "option".... First of all, before going into the corps, they were not warned "if you get pregnant, you will need to leave the corps." They certainly were never told "if you leave the corps, you will have pressure placed on you to stay, and your reputation will be smeared back home before you get back.: Second of all, before going into the corps- which would have been repeated early on- the participants were not warned "premarital sex is wrong, AND it will result in pregnancies, which will result in participants leaving the corps." (He had his own reasons for encouraging the participants to have sex.) Third of all, when a pregnancy DID result, the parents had a decision to make. Christians outside twi consider children a "blessing." (Ask one sometime.) They wouldn't choose to abort one unless the mother's life is in danger. And yes, I've known adopted kids who were well-cared-for and love their families. vpw COULD have said "Well, you can't stay in the program through your pregnancy. (Why?) We can discuss whether or not you wish to complete the program sometime in the future, or whether you'll have a partial refund of your tuition (yeah, right), which you'll need now that you're expecting a child." vpw made the possibility of leaving the corps a DARK BLIGHT. CONSIDERING leaving became cause for tirades about abandoning God and other nonsense about a God who can accomplish His Will without ANY of our programs, and people who DID leave had their reputations smeared, which made them an example to others who might consider leaving. Once you agreed to enter the corps, you were essentially an indentured servant, with your choices between "obey what you're told no matter what" and "don't obey and we'll ruin your life". There were a LOT of things that could have been done, which were NOT done. vpw was the one who got to decide about all that. vpw set up the situations that made women pregnant-by HIMSELF in some cases. vpw ensured that abortions were seen as the only possibility once a woman became pregnant. vpw ensured that some people saw it that way who were never there when an abortion "was necessary." (Considering some people still see it that way, he succeeded beyond his wildest aspirations there.) vpw had no choice about being born. Once he was born, he grew older and made decisions that deprived others from being born. THAT's his fault. Outside of Christian organizations, it's possible to find people who think this is acceptable. However, it's illegal, and they can be taken to court, both the individuals and the corporations. This is especially true in the military (Tailhook scandal, anyone?).

You THINK it's a weak argument, but it isn't. You THINK it's like saying those other things. Of course, auto manufacturers HAVE been held responsible for deaths- when it has been shown that something was unsafe about the cars they manufacture. People have a right to expect that cars should be as safe as a car can be reasonably expected to be. When cars are shown to have that not be true- that is when they issue RECALLS. Auto companies know they are held responsible for unsafe vehicles they made. ALL programs are held to be responsible for the safety of the participants. So, if a participant is forced to hitch-hike and is killed, the program is held responsible, as hitch-hiking is known to be unsafe. If a participant is forced to hitch-hike and is raped, the program is held responsible, as hitch-hiking is known to be unsafe. If a participant is forced to mountain-climb, and takes a serious injury (or a mild injury), the program is held responsible, as mountain-climbing is known to be unsafe, and measures should have been in place to forestall injury. (Virtually all injuries in those cases could be avoided by PLANNING AHEAD.) If a participant is forced to have an abortion (which is a ridiculous thing to say unless one is in twi), the program would be held responsible. For anyone not desperate to remove all responsibility for wrong-doing from vpw, this is pretty straightforward.

I'm reasonably certain you knew full well that rascal did NOT mean "and vpw knifed him and he died" or "and vpw shot him, killing him instantly." Pretending that she did- which you may or may not have meant- would be grossly dishonest. vpw directly being responsible for the deaths of innocents, that depends. It depends on how you define "innocents", and how you define "at vpw's hands." Most people would define "innocents" as "people not sentenced to death or otherwise eligible for such a sentence based on their actions", since we know that all of us have a sinful nature, and we're talking about actual people here. "Innocents" defined as "those who have not warranted execution nor brought death on themselves", and by that I mean, an innocent who picks up a machinegun and points it at someone, then is killed, is no longer considered an innocent- he or she was aware of the possibility of death as the result of participating, and made the decision to do so. As for vpw, he didn't wield the knife, nor pull the trigger. People died. Innocent people. Who died? There were 2 categories of death I'm aware of: -those who were aborted because vpw insisted all pregnancies in the corps were to be aborted, -those who committed suicide because vpw raped them or kicked them from the corps ============== As to the first, whether or not one considers vpw complicit or responsible for their deaths depends on two things: A) do abortions count as deaths? B) to what degree was vpw responsible for the abortions? As to the first, I leave that to the individual consciences of the readers. I'm aware that the only Christians who do NOT consider abortions to be "taking a life" are those who learned their definitions from vpw, or from those he taught. If one is certain that anything vpw said is automatically true, then they won't consider abortions to be anything more than a medical procedure. If one can consider the possibility that vpw had a self-serving reason for saying something that was not true (like God being ok with orgies), then it is up to them to look things over. In twi, there were times-and on this thread, even- where it was said that God APPROVED of abortions, at least SOME of them if not all of them. That first question can't be resolved here-either one believes abortions are deaths, or one does not. Perhaps a separate thread should discuss that. The second question, however, IS resolvable. vpw never put a policy in writing for the corps saying that "any pregnancies in the corps will either result in leaving the corps or abortions to remain in the corps, and those who elect not to have an abortion will be pressured to have one done." That meant the participants did not enter the program with the understanding that they might need to have an abortion. Heck, if there was a policy saying "sex is not recommended while in the way corps and here's why", they'd have had an understanding this was going to be discouraged. Of course, vpw never discouraged sex among corps- which would have forestalled this potential situation from happening, since that would have resulted in corps less ready to be sex partners, which was not something vpw wanted done. The policies were entirely vpw's idea, and vpw's implementation. vpw himself told some women they HAD to have abortions (placing pressure on them, since the alternative was to "break a vow unto the Lord" or "displease God" or the like.) vpw set in place the policies that specified exactly that be done with ALL women becoming pregnant in the corps. vpw decided that the corps were to be free to have sex whenever they wanted (so long as they weren't supposed to be somewhere else at that moment), and that any pregnancies were to result in abortions, not staying, and not leaving, and women were to be leaned on until they agreed. Did he wield the knife? No. Was he responsible for the abortions? Yes. We'll never know how many were genetically HIS offspring. But whether or not, HE was responsible for the policies leaning on the women, which were the reasons the abortions were performed. Anywhere except in the minds of vpw defenders, the person who enacts a policy, and enforces a policy, is held responsible for the RESULTS of that policy. That's why-whenever there's investigations of wrongdoing, the people IN CHARGE of the ones that did something are investigated. The Iraqi people didn't say "Oh, Saddam Hussein didn't fling gas grenades at people, so he's not responsible for their deaths." They said "Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to fire poison gas at people, so he is responsible for their deaths." And when King Saul was told to kill Amalek, and Saul ordered the army to take their king alive, God held SAUL responsible, not the army. So, God Almighty understands that the person giving the orders is responsible for actions taken as a result OF his orders. vpw defenders, of course, will disregard what is common-sense among everyone else, including all other Christians, and disregard that the Bible calls it the same way. As for anyone willing to honestly think it over, vpw determined that abortions would be performed in the corps. When abortions were performed, he was responsible. =========== As for the others, that's a bit more direct, as some of us see it. vpw wanted some people out of his way. (Literally.) When women on-staff or in the corps were raped by him, in some cases, they were ready to expose his felony. vpw moved swiftly- he kicked them out, and destroyed their reputations. Efficient, if ungodly, evil and inhuman. In a few cases, those women then made the conscious decision to commit suicide. Was vpw responsible for their death? He traumatized her once by raping her. He traumatized her a second time by kicking her from the corps/staff. He traumatized her a third time by destroying what was left of her ego when he kicked her out. He removed the safety net most people have- by making sure they didn't have friends/family outside of twi, then telling all the twi'ers to shun her, so she had no one to turn to. Small wonder some of them committed suicide (although many did not.) Was vpw DIRECTLY responsible for that death? He didn't pull the trigger, but anyone except a vpw defender would hold him DIRECTLY responsible. In a few other cases, vpw operated a physically-dangerous program, and then kicked out SOME people who became injured as a result. (In some cases, doing the shunning bit like in the last case.) Some of them committed suicide. (Some did not, and we're not talking many people to begin with.) was vpw DIRECTLY responsible for that death? He didn't pull the trigger, but anyone except vpw defenders would say he was DIRECTLY responsible. He enacted policies, and the immediate results ended in the death of a participant. (Naturally, corps were not told before signing up that they would engage in potentially fatal activities.) ========== Did innocents die at vpw's hands? Anyone other than a vpw defender would say "yes." vpw defenders would say "No", but then, ANY wrong-doing by vpw is dismissed, belittled, or distracted-from when a vpw defender is at work, and truth is irrelevant.

[it would be possible if we didn't look at ALL the verses on the subject. God doesn't endorse immorality. God doesn't endorse the immoral. I Corinthians 6:8-10 "8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21 "19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Whatever that means, it sounds serious-and sounds like God disapproves of those who engage in immoral acts repeatedly- quite a lot. Ephesians 5:5-6. " 5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." I'm not even to let someone deceive me about that online. God's wrath-whatever THAT is- hits the "children of disobedience" SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF SINFUL CONDUCT. God doesn't care? He does if you actually read the ENTIRE BIBLE. Hophi and Phineas in the Old Testament were in the offices of priests. They engaged in sinful conduct, and encouraged others to engage in sinful conduct. (Sounds familiar.) They died SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of their sinful behaviour. God didn't care that they were sinful flesh. They represented Him- and they sinned and caused others to sin. God DID NOT APPROVE. God does not endorse the immoral, nor immoral acts. And pretending these verses represent some sort of modern "political correctness" and handwaving them away doesn't change that.] [Well, you're making an arbitrary distinction between 2 things: the sinful nature and sinful imaginations, and the sinful ACTS and sinful LIFESTYLES. Noah, I'm confident, was tempted to sin. Noah didn't go around sinning, nor encouraging others to sin. What was "in the imagination of his heart" was his own business- he didn't make it an ACTION. vpw, on the other hand, put a considerable effort into sinning. He sinned. He made plans to sin, and executed them. He sought out pornographic theaters and possibly orgies. He put forth that God accepted ORGIES- that God "had a different standard" than disapproving of fornication. (Just like we're hearing now, defending vpw.) He set up an elaborate framework to sin- preparing to commit adultery (he was married), rape, and molestation, complete with an "exit system" to make sure he covered his tracks and ruined the reputation of any victim who prepared to expose his evil deeds. He used the office of a representative of God to rape and encourage others to rape. (Like Hophi and Phineas.) He also treated God's money like his personal piggybank. He made a LIFESTYLE of this, and did it until he was too ill to exercise his evil intentions. He never repented his evil deeds- he never attempted to make amends for his evil actions. The only things he ever repented of was "not being better" (which was within his power) and not "having wrought evil."] [This has nothing to do with this discussion.] [And within 24 hours of Saul disobeying, God sent his prophet to confront him and fire him. And he disobeyed by doing what God told him not to do. What is this "abused people" thing- is it that he had a royal staff? That's not "abusing people."] I'd go that far-and he paid a heavy price for it.And after he sinned, he REPENTED, and turned his life around. And still paid. He didn't LIVE in sin.] [solomon 'abused people'? Please refresh my memory-what are you speaking of?] [This idea that God disregards sin and considers it "politically correct" and a "man-made standard"is itself POLITICALLY CORRECT and a MAN-MADE STANDARD. The word "SIN" in Greek, in many places (I can supply some if you lack a Concordance) is the Greek word "anomias". It's an interesting word, and the roots of it are the prefix "a", or "not", and "nom", or "name". Not imputing something a sin when it is one, not NAMING a sin, is itself SINFUL. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; This concept, that everything is permitted, and nothing is bad, wrong, evil, sinful, THAT is POLITICALLY CORRECT and a MAN-MADE STANDARD. II Thessalonians 2:3-4 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. That man of sins who is to come shall oppose the entire CONCEPT of God, and shall put HIMSELF forth as the standard, setting for that HE, a man, is GOD. That he puts HIMSELF as the standard, incidentally, began long before him, and people OTHER than vpw have done it through history. And the concept that everything is permitted, and nothing is wrong or sinful, that's pretty modern and idolatrous. And it's not unconnected to the rise in teenage suicides in modern society, as Emile Durkheim could tell you, and he was born a Jew and lived as a secular Jew, so he certainly didn't connect them because the New Testament did...] [This thread proves to me something I've suspected in other threads- that even though sin is roundly condemned in Scripture, that Christians are told to not-sin, that it's a clear subject in the Epistles "which are addressed to them", those seeking to adore and revere the myth of victor paul wierwille as some sort of great believer, and not a vain, sinful man who engaged in fraud and used his office as a Christian leader to SYSTEMATIZE SIN, who SYSTEMATIZED ERROR, will engage in any sort of deception or gambit to do so, including vpw's own tactic of distorting Scripture to say God doesn't disapprove of sin, or lessen its meaning, or excuse lifestyles of sinning that God condemned. I thank my God that most people are free of the deceptions which would seek to engage in such dishonesty, even to the point of perverting Scripture to excuse evil. Those people ARE greatly outnumbered-at least here. One deception, however, easily leads to another- like that perverting Scripture and wrenching the meanings is fine, and reflects their actual meaning, and have more impact than the straightforward, uncomplicated messages therein- like God saying "don't sin." Rather than saying "I love truth and must change my mind to match God's Word, for God's Word is Truth," they can say "my words have more impact! I am a lone sentinel for God!" and believe it.]

BTW, based on the book "The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels", and the explanation they gave on the "rope" "camel" business, I'm inclined to think that Lamsa's rendering, "ROPE through the eye of a needle" is the correct one. I examined the 2 words as rendered in Aramaic-for "rope" and "camel", and was unable to see the difference between them. Whether or not it was "rope" or "camel", however, the meaning is the same. Jesus spoke a metaphor describing an impossible act.

Or they might have known some other way. Seems I wasn't the only person who didn't see the Album of Verse, but heard the poem, and seem to have heard it uncredited. I'm stricter about PRINT, but I think that's not worth dismissing entirely. That having been said, I don't want to push past making a note about it, and am fine moving on from here.

Ha! Was thinking of using this one again myself.... And you can always put exchanges that are quotes as : "1: 2: 1: 3:" So people don't get confused who's saying what.

Or they might have read the thread where you and I discussed this poem. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...mp;#entry252618 You mentioned it was in that book, correctly credited, back then. Or seen where someone asked about it later, I gave the name of the author, and said it was posted here AND online.

*does a search* Ok, my preliminary search seems to confirm what was stated- that the mustard plant in question grows and becomes a tall garden plant. The impression that it makes a "tree" that can support birds, however, is incorrect. It can SHADE birds that aren't IN the plant. It can RESEMBLE a tree.

someone else: "I have never lied about ANYTHING that I have posted here...." Oldiesman directly responding to that: "I disagree: you've made false accusations, assumptions, and false conclusions..." When one person says "I never lied" and the other person says "I disagree", anyone with the brains God gave them and INTELLECTUAL HONESTY would say that the second person called the first a liar. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=140 Sep 3 2004, 11:22 AM Oldiesman again: "I never called you or anyone a liar. Produce the quote please. I HAVE called you a false accuser, which is exactly what you are doing right now." Oct 18 2004, 04:46 PM http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=120 When Oldies denied that "calling someone a FALSE accuser" means "calling someone a liar", I explained. "[Her personal testimony IS what she stated. It includes an indictment and accusation of wrongdoing by that evil ringleader, vpw. You claim her "accusation" is "false", which means that you're saying her "personal testimony"-which is the body of her accusation and indictment of wrongdoing-is not true. You're saying that her "accusation" is not "true". YOU'RE CALLING HER A LIAR. You know, most humans don't have these sorts of problems, because they don't torture the English language and strive to ascribe alternate meanings to words to fit their convenience. YOU JUST CALLED RASCAL A LIAR AGAIN, in the process of claiming you didn't. ]" Then there was this one: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...amp;#entry78667 May 17 2004, 03:57 PM "S******, you're full of crap." ======= So, shame on Oldiesman for his intellectual dishonesty when calling people liars while denying he's calling them liars. When I call someone a liar, I do so with the word "liar", and stand by it unless proven wrong. Well, that's USUALLY his M.O.- to hide calling someone a liar by an aversion to the WORD "liar" while using the CONCEPT "liar."

Seems it's pretty straightforward. vpw taught that prayer for healing was important, and once healing was prayed-for, it was a sign of a lack of believing to continue taking medications, and to be avoided, since you were already healed and there was no need to confirm this with a doctor. (Besides, doctors cost money, and you should be plurality-giving it.) Then someone followed these instructions, and dropped dead because she wasn't taking the medication that kept her alive, and the miraculous healing never materialized. So, shortly thereafter, vpw changed his tune, and advocated taking medication rx'd by a doctor, at least until it's proven you no longer need it.

[This supposition was unsupported by the evidence. The angel of death intended to kill everyone it could. It was permitted-one way or another-to do so. It was not permitted-one way or another-to kill in households with the markers at the threshold. It was allowed to do certain things and not allowed to do certain other things. The idea that it was "tricked" is not there. It is added by the poster. vpw would have called it "private interpretation." But what else is new?] [see, Don,Mike considers the pfal books-and not the tapes, videos, etc- to be God-breathed, which is a state not accorded to the Bible. For Mike to truly believe that vpw had the greatest revelation since the First Century Church, he had to discredit the Bible in his own mind. So he did. He ignored the entire history of the texts- since vpw never bothered to learn it, HE never taught it, and if vpw never learned it, that's good enough for Mike- and pretends the texts were nullified once 101 AD rolled around. He considers them error-ridden, and useless. On the other hand, vpw can teach errors, and his stuff is completely viable. No, it doesn't make sense to anyone ELSE, either.] [The thing that Mike has elevated into a holy crusade is a teaching called "the Joy of Serving" , one of the last tapes of vpw teaching. The entire contents can be summarized as follows: 1) Christians outside twi dont have any truth, and no answers. (That, apparently, included Leonard, other students of Stiles, Bullinger...) 2) pfal-foundational and intermediate- are really great. 3) You should do your best to serve-which means get people to take the foundational and intermediate class. That's the best way to serve. Mike has embraced that like Gabriel came down and issued him a personal message. The rest of us see it as a sign that vpw was still pushing this elitist crapola all the way till the end- shilling his classes, insisting twi was elite.]

[Aren't the rest of you abundantly blessed and thankful that WTH does not work in your local law-enforcement? Apparently, the substance of everything they said doesn't even exist for vpw- just that they got emotional. DUH. Any cop could tell you, someone being emotional- IN AND OF ITSELF- tells you little. But any cop could tell you, someone being emotional IS NOT REASON TO DISCOUNT WHAT THEY SAY. That's when you actually exert the effort to see if what they're saying is TRUE. For WTH, however, this is the time to STOP looking, since emotion=lying.] [What this reply proves is that there are some people who automatically disbelieve what they hear, without bothering to look into them, and extrapolate from that to conclude that everyone ELSE exerts as little effort- and as little THINKING- when determining if a story is true. Why do they make someone else out to be foolish, but never wonder if it's THEM that's sloppy mentally? (Vanity, laziness...)] [Considering what some people are gullible enough to accept without UNDERSTANDING, I'd say there ARE still gullible people nowadays.]

One thing that's pretty famous about p2p software like limewire (or SOME things downloaded from the 'net) is that all kinds of things you DON'T want get installed WITH them, like ticks or barnacles that have to be pried off. Right after someone else messes with your pc like that, you should run an anti-virus, an anti-spyware, and anti-adware program. (one you've just updated, for that matter.) Let me know if you need those- there are free versions of each that are easy to use. I already figure you're using a firewall.

Is this that new show, "Heroes"? I've heard there's a cheerleader on it.

I wonder if anyone else is playing along right now....

I can see parallels there, also. I could debate whether or not "researcher" really applied, given that his approach was generally to rely EXCLUSIVELY on the work of others, and the few things that seem vpw-originals are really gonzo, like the original sin-stuff. That he borrowed some things and not others is true, but I really don't think that qualifies as "research" or originality, by itself. I do agree pfal was his product. I think parts of it were good product, and parts of it were not.

I found it more interesting- even when in twi- that "Strange Scriptures That Perplex the Western Mind" gave an entirely DIFFERENT explanation of the eagle being renewed, and even then I thought it was more plausible as an answer. That book said that the eagle's beak continues to grow, and when it gets too long (I'm typing from distant memory so don't consider this a quote), the eagle pecks a rock until the current beak breaks off. Then the eagle hides itself until a new beak grows and hardens into place. While it waits, it can't eat, so it's essentially on a fast. During that time, its old feathers typically fall out, leaving new feathers growing under it. Eventually, the eagle steps forward again, with a new, shorter beak, and new feathers, looking like a much younger eagle. Please note that a quick web-search on this shows that others have asked about this, and bird students have said this isn't true either. One pointed out that the verse works as a metaphor, and taking it too literally isn't necessary.

After doing some checking online, I don't see anything substantial connecting the fish people mention as a real fish, with the fish people SAY was in the story, nor have I seen documentation proving those fish collect money. A separate issue is the level of detail Pillai gave- which leapt into the category of myth.