WordWolf

Since I believe you honestly don't understand the difference, I'll explain, in part. Comparing and contrasting vpw's victims who've come forth with alien abductees. Alien abductees are rare, and tend towards the tinfoil-hat and conspiracy theory types. vpw's victims tend to be women whose lives were working until an event happened, leaving them emotionally scarred, or crippled in some cases. This event is reported to be sexual abuse by vpw. Their testimony agrees with each other, despite an absence of a conspiracy to coordinate their stories. Their accounts are corroborated by those who knew them at the time. Some of THEM were told right after, some saw things and were only able to make sense of them once they realized "vpw's a rapist" was an option, and the most likely one. Their accounts are further corroborated by confessions from people who were in vpw's inner circle who have since shown remorse for not stopping things. So, it's not just "their word against your opinion of vpw."

Times like this, I'm confirmed that WTH either isn't reading my posts, or isn't understanding my posts. How many times have I quoted Nizkor so far in this thread? Unless I forgot something, or you count quoting other posters, the total should hover around "zero". All the data refuting your position may as well be nonexistent for all the time you've given them. As in ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THEM, not reading around them, but we're supposed to consider all your data as sacrosanct. Interesting disconnect. And it still ignores the elementary science errors in Leuchter's report. How "reliable" are scientific studies that can skip over what high school students know? Still amazed that the finest scientific minds of the Holocaust revision movement wouldn't have gotten passing grades in lab class in my old high school. Doesn't say much of their scholarship abilities, and I don't have to get complicated or use fancy words to see that. Have I posted from Nizkor so far? Have I needed to refute anything complicatedwhen the most basic level won't pass scrutiny? Is the science good enough that I should take it even a LITTLE seriously? Hmmm, I didn't think so. WTH, do you think you sound more erudite like this? Do you think others are reading this and saying "that WTH has the right of it, science is on his side here"? They were chambers. They were at the Auschwitz facility (Auschwitz 2 and adjoining.) They were designed to put people and poison gas together, killing the people with the poison gas. They were used for their designed purpose. That's a description. ======== As for "Holocaust religion", the raising of this subject-by you- to a dogma is one reason you're missing the obvious-like what I post. It's also why some specific becomes a "central pillar", an object of fixation. To me, THAT the Nazis killed millions of people, and that they planned to kill millions of people, is more important than where they killed them (unless it was on the battlefield), how they killed them (unless it was in standard military engagement), or who they killed (unless it was soldiers of the opposing armies.) These other matters, to me, are secondary. It was wrong for them to plan to kill millions of people- which they went on record saying was their plan. It was wrong to imprison people for the purpose of killing them- which is a matter of record, obstinates to the contrary. It was wrong to wipe out the people in those prisons- which has been documented well enough for all but a handful of the most obstinate people. The Clue specifics of where they did it, and with what weapon, to me, doesn't matter. Killing those people is no MORE right if they were all beaten to death with sticks in a public park, or if they were all Russian or South American. But that many of them-and not all of them-were Jews allows some a fixation with ideologies claiming Jews secretly rule the world and the banks and so on. This shows how little WTH understands my posts. I even allow room for "maybe" if thereports are inconclusive. If they were inconclusive here, that would apply. Supposing that's true, it doesn't change the reality of something just because it hasn't appeared on television...

It's Friday night. That's your opinion. Whenever something went wrong, it was never wrong teaching, only wrong application. It was the Christian's fault. In the Word-Faith movement (Kenyon, Hinn, Copeland, vpw, etc), this is a pretty common practice- BLAME THE BELIEVER. Guarantee success if a certain formula is enacted. When the formula fails, claim the formula worked but the Christian failed to use the formula properly.

Reminds me how Psychology is no more YOUR field than it was vpw's field. During sleep-time, it's well-known even among laymen that the mind is processing the events of the last 24 hours, especially during REM sleep. Thus, after extensive study or experience, it's good to give the mind sleep-time to process the memories. I've made a point of doing just that, to maximize learning. A number of times, I've solved something that I was stuck on by napping or resting my mind- I've woken up with the answer worked out. That's not revelation, nor a portentuous dream, that's the subconscious catching up and drawing the connections the conscious mind missed. Would be strangely inefficient, considering all the more efficient ways God had at his disposal in this example, from SNS tapes/hookups, to corps grad nights, thru ROA keynote teachings, and so on. If a God determined this would be THE method of transmission, one might logically wonder if this God was serious about getting this news out after all....

And when what someone knew by their 5 senses contradicted what vpw and the inner circle had decided, they were to discard what they knew by their 5 senses and do what the MOG or MOGlet said. There's been plenty of examples posted, including Way Builders having to redo completed jobs to an inferior standard because they were told to. (And then there's the use of the inappropriate wood in Ohio, which has resulted in a LOT of frivilous maintenance work to maintain wood that was never meant for Ohio weather, just to rattle off a second example.) A rule was a rule. Except when vpw decided it didn't apply. Then you just accepted whatever came out of his mouth. (Some of us still do this one.)

Actually, it's usually brought up at the first swing of the newly-arrived zealot's 2 x 4, that their condemnation of us is based on something that's not a universal here, and thus it's misplaced- as if any OTHER form of (metaphorical) 2 x 4 is proper... Then again, they don't read the stickies, which is a basic rule of internet posting. It's a pretty well-known fact that people have to be told the contents of one of the stickies pretty routinely. Well,if someone's criticizing US for not following a rule, they should be practicing what they're preaching to us. Don't tell me to abstain from extramarital/premarital sex and boink someone not your spouse. Don't say I'm wrong for not invoking the Bible and never invoke it yourself. For that matter, I put my Bible discussions in DOCTRINAL where they belong. Please also note, I wasn't the one who asked in the first place, but I thought your question warranted an honest answer, and I saw it "first". I believe you are incorrect. That person arrived somewhere and immediately pronounced judgement upon everyone else. That got responses, which were primarily due to poor manners and only incidentally due to use of Scripture as his SPECIFIC bludgeon. Furthermore, calling what happened a "dissection", or "burning at the stake" is a gross mischaracterization. As you saw, the poster survived, responded to some posts, and is still posting. And I've noticed he's moderated his tone considerably, and his replies have reflected that. Feeling like some sort of "martyr"? The "burn at the stake" thing came from SOMEWHERE. And if you knew more about burning at the stake, you'd be a LOT slower to compare curt posting with flames searing flesh and lungs, burning hair and cloth. If someone does something I like, but does it in the wrong manner, I reserve the right to take exception.

Let's start with one exagerration- the claim that Juedes' "Godly Mission" is to expose twi's evil when he only spends a few minutes a week here, and his congregation gets all of his time. I'd be interested in seeing these supposed discussions. There's a difference between disinterest in people getting blessed, and disinterest in sycophantic drivel. (And many things that are neither, and are somewhere in between.) I'm suspicious I'm getting a less-than-fair appraisal of Juedes' interests, especially when he's being mischaracterized as having a "Godly Mission" to do stuff that's obviously a sideline for him. But ignoring 99% of the bad, and considering only the good is perfectly healthy??? Wouldn't hurt. If it's true, go ahead and say it, and see if he really just blows you off like Oldies characterizes.

Make up your mind- are you claiming you're unaware of anyone dying as a direct result of vpw? (DIRECT, yes.) Or are you claiming that anyone dying as a direct result of vpw must be considered with his intent. (Maybe he didn't MEAN to kill them, and his hands are clean no matter how dead he made them...) John Wayne Gacy was a pillar of his community, a member of the Jaycees, and entertained children as Pogo the clown. However, some people focus on his sins and see only through that little prism- after all, he didn't spend a LOT of time killing children, just small amounts of it. Can't you look at the ENTIRE man and not just his sins?

Just for fun... Pillai specified the fish was called "mushat." There's 4 fish called "mushat", which is an Arabic term. One of them is extant in the Red Sea, the "chaetodon vagabundus", or "vagabond butterflyfish". I can't find ANY mention of that fish picking up things, especially money, coins, etc. Not by its common name, even, or its Latin name.

Got an A minus. And I dispute a few of the questions.

I think he was teasing, Johnny.

waysider: Mike: [seems to me that this supposed Sanskrit meaning was cobbled together years later to add legitimacy to what was already a practice that had become NORMATIVE. When I asked about the 'horn of plenty' of a corps grad, I didn't get "well, it's from the Sanskrit..." I got an answer about symbology.] Ok, here we go again. The subject being questioned is vpw's coming up with the way tree structure, and making sure all the money went to him and stayed there-as opposed to any staying locally like had happened before and was directly what he was ending. Mike claimed that Jesus did it first. "Didn't Jesus have a horn o'plenty passed around to collect money for his enterprise and give the people an opportunity to give above their temple tithes?" I challenged him to prove this claim. He came back with verses saying that when Judas was said to hold the money for the apostles, this meant the SAME THING. I disagree. I say these verses show Judas handled the money for the apostles, but say nothing of how they GOT the money. Any of several possibilities could explain how they got the money. However, to invoke ANY of them in the absence of a verse is what vpw called 'private interpretation.' (And what other people might call 'pulling it out of your donkey.') On the other hand, Judas took the money meant for Jesus, and spent it on himself, embezzling it. Now, THAT sounds like the way tree in action. ========= We're still supposedly discussing the way tree and how it was used as a substitute for the movement of God that immediately preceeded it, and stole all its money. Is there any chance Mike will stay on-topic, or will we see a trip to the land of "let's change the subject and hope nobody notices?"]

You'd say a great deal. Some of it, at times, is sensible to the average, literate adult. Leuchter supposedly wanted to test a surface for the presence of a poison that was present over 40 years before. As I learned back in high school, one problem with poison gas is that it is highly reactive-that's why it's poisonous. (That's why I can clear out chlorine fumes by introducing an open flame, which forces a chemical reaction called burning-but technically is OXIDATION, meaning I force it to react and combine with oxygen. Nobody had to tell me I could do it, either.) Given 40 years, the amount of chemical present somewhere would be extremely small, due to the passage of 40 years, and re-reaction at the microscopic level like always happens. Given exposure to the elements (WEATHER), 40 years of exposure will dilute the presence of any chemical. Given rebuilding, some of the bricks that had been exposed to poison had been moved, and some bricks that were NOW there were introduced later and were never exposed to poison because they hadn't been around when the poison gas was released. So, Leuchter, who acted on his own without permission and desecrated a grave, took some bricks- which we would call STEALING FROM A MONUMENT. He either knew that he might have taken the wrong bricks, and if they were the right bricks, they might have been exposed to poison and been purged of it in the DECADES since due to weather and time, or he did not. If he DID know, then he deliberately engaged in fraud. If he did NOT know, he's just as incompetent as even one of his own history revisionists called him. Then, he sent the "sample" (which was grossly below standards for a sample when I was in HIGH SCHOOL) to a lab. He then made an amazingly elementary "mistake"- he didn't tell them he wanted the SURFACE tested. So, they pulverized the sample and tested the AGGREGATE. Either he knew this would ruin the sample-which means he engaged in fraud- or he did not know-which means, again, he's an incompetent. The lab took the sample, and judged the aggregate as having no discernable level of poison. Of course, if there HAD been discernable levels, they would have been on the SURFACES, and the AGGREGATE diluted what little there was further yet. So, the "sample" might have been from bricks that hadn't been AT the facility when people were getting gassed. If they HAD been, they'd been exposed to time and weather for DECADES. Whatever was left was then DILUTED by combining the exposed surfaces with the unexposed majority of the brick. The presence of poison was not detected. DUUUUUHHHHH. If one pulled aside people from the labs in my old HIGH SCHOOL, they could have made the same conclusions the rest of us do- the sample was so badly compromised that the results won't tell you ANYTHING if they come back negative-and the chance of the sample coming back positive after exposure to poison and then the conditions this sample was exposed to is almost nil. It doesn't take a LOT of science to understand that-a high schooler's understanding of practical chemistry is enough. However, WTH's understanding of "basic laws of physics" gets invoked here. WTH thinks the understanding of all this contradicts the "basic laws of physics." What results is a pastiche of parrotting back whatever Leuchter said, and lots of insults to anyone who disagrees. ========= Frankly, the last time I saw someone trying to misdirect this badly was when someone claimed their doctrine was correct, and for it to not work, "God would have to change the laws of the universe." Now, we have "basic laws of physics would have to be broken." SSDD.

It's labeled as "pinned". It's what's normally CALLED a "sticky", just labeled differently. The title is "Welcome to the Greasespot Cafe" and it's up above the other topics here. You can click on it here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913

$65 for 5 hardbound books, syllabus, 1-year subscription. The books were cheap and easy to produce (so long as you have access to the reproductive facilities), and these were not big textbooks-they were little novel-sized things, with not much print on a page. The largest have pages with 1/2 the text of a standard textbook on it, with fewer pages than in a standard textbook. The expenses were all covered in-house- -The supposed author was not needed to be paid separate royalties -No license fees were ever paid for the material from other sources -the printing's stages were ALL done in-house and thus only cost (once the machines are paid for) were a factor -distribution was handled FREE by us locals -limited amounts of tapes were produced, and used over, and over, and over, showing signs of wear no normal tapes would show The costs to print up all the materials for a $65 class were less than $20. The RETAIL PRICE at a bookstore for the $65 class would be under $40 in the year you took it, and that's adding PROFIT of various kinds-for distributor, seller, author, publishing company. They made a considerable amount per class, if 6 people were paying students per class. ==== Mind you, whether or not you feel like you got something useful for the money is a separate issue- they were WELL-PAID for what you received, whether or not you got a benefit. (And good for you-you feel you benefitted from it. Me, I feel I got some benefit as well.)

you may challenge me to that.... Right after YOU show from Scripture (The Bible) that Jesus "had a horn o'plenty passed around to collect money for his enterprise and give the people an opportunity to give above their temple tithes." (Or EQUIVALENT, of course- if you can find it but it's called something else or shaped differently, of course, that would still count. You first.... Your source on "Eastern culture" being? A plumber gets charged by the job- or works for a company that does, and receives a fixed salary from them for doing so. A waiter or waitress' salary is minimal. They work with the expectation that they will receive tips for good work. Therefore, as most people would consider it, to skip tipping them is to deprive them of part of their livelihood. (Don't like it? There's places where the tip is automatically deducted and assigned to them, and you don't have to calculate. Still don't like it? Eat at Mc Donald's. No tipping expected.) A minister can receive a salary, and that's fine with me. His church either gets a tithe, or survives on donations. One or the other is EXPECTED in our society. Expecting a "tip" for preaching is a lot like expecting a "tip" for voting in the Senate. We call that a "bribe." Both men already GOT a salary-a living wage they can support their family on. Preaching is part of the JOB of a minister- a basic expectation for all ministers unless specified otherwise. Voting on bills is EXPECTED for Congressmen. Psychiatrists get paid by the hour-and don't draw a salary otherwise when doing so.I have no doubt that you believe vpw's dismissal of Psychiatrists as "give a good feeling" is a fair and accurate summary of their job. However, it's woefully ignorant. A Psychiatrist must go to MEDICAL SCHOOL, and is a MEDICAL DOCTOR. That's why they have "MD" at the end of their name. A Psychiatrist is trained in both medicine and in Psychology, which is years of training all by itself. You either spoke on the field of someone who spent 4 years in college, 2 years or more in Medical School, and then 2 or more years in internship before BEGININNG their career lacking a basic understanding of their training, or knew all that and dismissed most of a decade's work casually. A Psychiatrist doesn't just sit on a couch so you can get a good feeling. Both they and LICENSED Psychologists spend years in training so they can offer more than that. If sitting there and making appreciative noises was all it took, every Theater major in college would be able to get a Psychology license upon graduation. "COUNSELING" contains the word "counsel". That means they're supposed to be offering COUNSEL. (and every PARTLY-competent one DOES). I'm not going to try and summarize what type of counsel they offer. In the case of a Psychiatrist, however, it's often for more severe cases, since a Psychiatrist is called in when someone requires the use of Psychatric medication to function properly in society. (That's so people don't go into violent fits in public, or hallucinations, or suicidal depressions, or any of dozens of other things.) They have to monitor the effects of the medication, the non-effects, the other symptoms not affected by medication, drug interactions with everything from what's perscribed to the advil they took for a headache last night, all while still listening and offering professional counsel. THAT's why we pay a Psychiatrist by the hour. It's our poster's expectation that this is what's broken. Real ministers make a decent salary. And they don't do it for the money. Or for cars, motorcycles, planes, or free labour at their home. And they cover their shopping trips from their salary, not from the collection plate the church gets. If a supposed minister doesn't find that sufficient, he is in the WRONG line of work, for he has let a love of money interfere with his love for God and God's people. A minister making enough to satisfy all his needs and his family's needs (food, home, transportation, education for kids, clothing, basic entertainment and so on) should not feel the need for ONE PENNY MORE. He should be focusing on DOING HIS JOB.

BTW, a lot of you probably don't know or don't remember...... ....when twi finally put up a website, the first thing of any substance they put up was the Terms and Conditions. There was nothing of substance-even twi-level- but there were elaborate warnings to not use the material that wasn't even there. Is it a matter of the lawyers governing the ministry, or did they really think the most important part of what they had to offer online was the Terms and Conditions? If it's the latter, I AGREE. There's nothing else useful on their site. In other news, the only other time I saw an elaborate warning like that was on a DIFFERENT site with delusions of grandeur and ridiculous content.

These are pretty elementary mistakes for Leuchter to make. Back in HIGH SCHOOL, I would have gotten in trouble for making mistakes this basic in a lab. Then again, my high school lab teachers had a higher standard for accuracy than Leuchter has. They have titles, which reflect the study they put in, and that they know what they claim they know. That's why the don't make amateurish mistakes. (Mind you, even many amateurs would avoid such mistakes.) Then again, perhaps Leuchter DID know a CAREFUL analysis would risk disproving his thesis. So, either Leuchter is a barely-competent amateur, who made elementary mistakes that were easily avoided, and lacks the wit to acknowledge them when raised and said "Wait-they're right. This would compromise the results." or Leuchter knew FULL WELL in advance that he selected methods that were flawed, in order to deliberately obtain flawed results, which means he did NOT want ACCURATE results, but preferred FLAWED results. Either way, WTH's pinned his ideology on this. It's as foolish as pinning one's full understanding of the Bible on a sermonizer, or a homileticist, or something.

Just reviewing WTH's last post to me. WTH STILL isn't responding to lots of things posters here posted- like video footage and so on, and still pretending he isn't responding to them. I bet this convinces HIM he's responding to it or something. He's also under some misimpression-or considers it appropriate- to pretend anyone said this was a great scholarly study here. That's one of his pieces to change the subject when I pointed out what HE posts is what he can claim credit for, not discussions happening somewhere else. We're having A discussion here. (What's next, posting to announce he's not posting?) This discussion is here-which is not specialized as a Holocaust, history, or science board. Therefore, it's not a bunch of experts posting here. That having been said, the amount of information (this is the dawn of the Information Age) available for laymen (like me, WTH, Leuchter, Hamm, and simonzelotes, for example) is considerable. Most of us need not be experts to look over historical evidence, or claims of such, to see if they are reliable or sound. Feel free to click on the arrow and check it out. WTH quoted Lifted Up's post, which pointed out WTH claimed someone was talking about some CURRENT attempts to exterminate the Jews. That means he's claiming he's addressing Lifted's post. WTH then went on for several paragraphs, completely unrelated to Lifted's post. Someone's eager to change the subject and PRETEND some things were never posted-by himself and commented on by WTH..... but then again, someone's eager to PRETEND some things never happened, and some people were never imprisoned and subsequently executed WHILE in prison... There's a systematic pattern here for someone... Since WTH claims he's not skipping over anything, then he didn't miss your earlier quotes. He saw them and made the deliberate decision to not respond, disregard them, and otherwise pretend they don't even exist. However, he expects us to adopt his own doctrines, even to the point of pretending there are no flaws in what he's presenting.

Right. Anything other than enthusiasm probably still marks you for further investigation by what's left of the WayGB.

I've recognized the song from the first quote, and I can sing the first quote. I can't name the song, though. Haven't heard it in a while, either. Maybe the next hint will trip a memory. Or I'll cudgel one up. Or someone else will get it.

When they made a year "Power for Abundant Living" the FIRST time, I was IN and I thought that was horribly unoriginal.... especially since there seemed NO CONNECTION between the supposed "theme" and anything going on that year. That was what-1987? ======= "OUR" Power for Abundant Living. Guess we can officially scratch GOD ALMIGHTY from twi's considerations. It's not HIS Power, it's THEIRS. They're still claiming a "founding" of 1942, when any 1942 origin is purely imaginary. Finally figured out why they did a night where attendance at hq was MANDATORY- they took photos of the not-empty auditorium and are going to milk those for a decade. And they still talk about those "international countries".

twi has always been pretty good at inflating self-images, and horrible at comforting those brought low. Those with big egos were seen by vpw as assets so long as they produced, but those brought low are liabilities-they take time and effort, so they were often cut loose. The way corps supposedly was training for Christian service, or Christian leadership, depending on who you asked. Why didn't it have significant time-expenditures on comforting the hurt?

Hello, sarckat. Few, if any, of us say there's anything wrong with BEING POSITIVE. Few, if any, of us say there's anything wrong with "saying bless you". I, for one, am in favour of both, and I say "God bless" to people all the time. (I like being specific about who I'd like to send the blessing, and did back in twi as well.) THAT's just fine. None of that, however, has anything to do with the discussion at hand, which is about MISTAKES and ERRORS in what we were taught concerning "believing." Being positive or saying "bless you" would not make you a "parrot." I'd say there's any number of GSC'ers who do that and are not "parrots." Let me explain what the "parrot" thing refers to. A parrot is a bird that can repeat phrases or sounds it hears. A parrot DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what it repeats back-it just repeats back sounds. If a person hears teachings, DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEM and just repeats them back, then there's no LEARNING or UNDERSTANDING conveyed, just the repeating back of sounds. If you've done some serious Bible study on a subject- and not just "reread the twi materials until I agree"- and concluded that the twi position was correct- that's real thought. (I've concluded they were right a number of times.) If you're still repeating what twi said, and never took a hard look to see if the Bible agrees with this statement, then, sadly, you're not thinking on your own, you're just repeating back what you were told without understanding, just like a parrot. BTW, there's a sticky topic pinned up top with a welcome and some advice. I'd recommend reading it. Then again, I'm a little biased. (I wrote the first post.)