WordWolf

I thought she called him "DAH-ta", when his name's pronounced "DAY-ta." Something like that. But I liked his explanation. "One is my name, the other is not." ========================== "I avoided the first thrust... he came at me again... I hit him with a left jab... there was a furious exchange of blows. The next thing I knew, his knife was at my throat... so I twisted it from his grasp and plunged it into his chest."

* FEBRUARY 27, 2009 Presumed Innocent? Bernie Madoff? Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment. By DAN ABRAMS People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it. I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American. As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television: "So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?" "Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible. While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so. Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings. Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction. The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned. Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection. The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media. Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court. What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided. Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well. But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts. Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that. Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.

The entirety of lcm's education was everything he learned through college (mostly, football) plus everything he learned in twi. Remember- he went straight from college to twi, and may never have worked for a paycheck a day in his life (he had that in common with vpw, who went from school to "ministry".) vpw KNEW what he built, KNEW when to ease up on the "marks", and when to reel in the "pigeons." lcm was "educated" in twi and thought it was all REAL. So, he didn't cover his tracks like vpw did.

To be specific, when vpw first found out about BG Leonard's class, he intended to take that class with the intention of subverting it, teaching it himself for money, and claiming it was his own work. So, when vpw first attended Leonard's class, it was a means to an end. 3 months later, vpw retook Leonard's entire class (previously he INTERRUPTED a class IN PROGRESS.) A few months after that, vpw taught Leonard's class as "vpw's 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" class, then continued to do so, eventually renaming it "pfal" and adding material, stretching it to 3 classes. However, the few people who took Leonard's class were AUTOMATICALLY considered grads of the RtHST class because they were functionally identical. That, IIRC, was 1953. Since he'd been fishing for SOMETHING to plagiarize for years before that, I think the damage was done when vpw decided on "minister" as his CAREER.

Unlike some posters, I have never doubted your sincerity nor your honesty. You type what you think and feel no matter what that is. On the one hand, I find the candor refreshing. You're keen on reading every OTHER kind of Christian writer (among them some excellent choices), and credit the Holy Spirit for your understanding. However, one subject you "splunge" from (however you want to phrase it, it's the diametrically-opposed approach you do to all the other writers. I used a placeholder word to make the sentence more neutral.) If the Holy Spirit IS your guide, then the only possible consequence to be concerned about from reading a page or two would be that the Holy Spirit would guide you TO it. If you find the Holy Spirit guiding you TO a particular doctrine to be distasteful, I could easily see why it would be a subject to be avoided at all costs. Neither Mark nor myself said there was anything wrong with "REJECTING" this doctrine or any other, BTW. I think we both respect your right to form your own conclusions as to doctrine even if we disagree with your conclusions. (Not that Mark and I agree on everything, either, but we seem able to respect our differences without calling down judgement on the other's position. What doctrines you accept are between you, God, and (probably) whoever is nearest and dearest in your life. Those of us on the other end of the internet are not likely to be them. (We're certainly not you or God. :) ) My only disagreement was with your singling out ONE doctrine as "too dangerous to READ" while the others all got a free pass. However, hey, your approaches to doctrine, Scripture, books about doctrine, and anything else you read are not subject to my approval. We disagree on approaches just as we disagree on doctrine. Personally, I'm MORE concerned about your APPROACH than about your DOCTRINE. However, there's nothing I can do about that other than tell you I think it's unsafe, and that Mark recommended a more sound approach. What you do with my opinion's up to you.

No, it's a hard sell for many reasons, partly because that PARTICULAR poster's idea of "returning to pfal" includes taking books that have KNOWN, DEMONSTRATED imperfections and errors, and treating them as if INSTEAD they are PERFECT and are given by God Almighty, so good JC himself will read from them and teach us from the Orange Book HIMSELF. That's a hard sell anywhere because it's a pile of nonsense. The man set out to treat serving God as a CAREER, not a holy calling, from the beginning. Whenever possible, he set out to increase his audience, and to find something newer and better to SELL. When he found material he could SELL, he did so, lying about its origins as he saw fit. Meanwhile, the money meant for God went to feed the lusts of his flesh- alcohol, tobacco and the lusts of his eyes- a plane, a FLEET of motorcycles. (Not to mention setting up specific places and orchestrating the manipulation of women into having sex with them, even to the point of drugging them if they were unwilling.) This "ministry" was founded by a man who used The Ministry as an excuse to feed and sate his lusts. Some might see this as "complicated", but I think that's pretty straightforward. I do agree, however, it is "messy." It's certainly what "THE Teacher" wanted people to think, and what twi wants people to think now. However, the problems in my life have never been worthy to be compared to the rapes, simony and other felonies comitted by "The Teacher", so that's never been a motivator for me, even when I had no knowledge of his crimes. twi, however, had-and has- many problems. Chief among them is their POOR PERFORMANCE as a Christian organization, all while prating loudly of their superiority. Depends on who's running the advertisement. FEW of us (but still SOME of us) want to turn back the clock and live in the "original twi ministry", knowing what we know now. It might. In any event, it will involve elevating error-ridden doctrines and demonstrably-harmful practices to the level of Divine Edict once again. Almost all of us are quite done with being that stupid as to fall for it. I'd suggest and put forth that the PARTICULAR poster who asked you to cut-and-paste his advertisement FOR him do his OWN dirty work.

That first quote's obviously Dr Pulaski. Let's see, the USS Lantree....Oberth-class ship (creaky-old science vessel) IIRC, involved in science. Is this the one where "Darwin Station" bioengineered these kids so that they would survive anything, but their own bodies' own immune systems would kill off other humans?

Talking about amazing and misguided statements.... Did I miss something, or did Mark actually post that churches are "missing the gospel"? Is it possible that you're so determined to keep away Mark's POV that you're not only hiding from anyone who might teach you something you're not prepared to hear (like the Christians Mark mentioned without even getting into names, but some are geniuses), but you're not even reading what Mark has written? He said Did he say "churches" (that is, churches as a whole) are "missing the gospel" (that is, the entire Good News)?" If you can say "yes", then I can't help you. If you can read it and realize the answer is "no", then it helps to know what he DID say. He said that "a lot of preaching" (doesn't give a number of churches) "in other churches" (still doesn't give a number) Have "this gospel" as "conspicuously absent", that is, they don't preach it when they preach. Did he say "THE GOSPEL" was absent? No, not the entire "Gospel." What then, did he mean was missing? Scrolling back 1 post of his, we find "A belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom." Is that Biblical? Yes. Do you need some verses on it? I can post them on request. John can read SDA materials and be exposed to them without special safety gloves. Afterwards, he doesn't run out and embrace their doctrine- he's not a Sabbaterianist. =============== You, I noticed, are completely unaware of there being non-twi writers who were both Biblical and Unitarians, but won't even consider they may have something useful among their writings. Mark: You: So, if you were to read their writings, you would automatically convert to their position? If that's true, then Mark's doctrine is correct and yours is false! Mark can be exposed to doctrines he disagrees with, consider them, and go about his merry way. If you, on the other hand, were exposed to doctrines Mark agrees with, you would find them so compelling you would change your positions to match his. Meanwhile, all this time you've been reading Sounds like the Holy Spirit, according to you, is on the side of Mark's beliefs, not yours. Otherwise, hundreds of hours of reading the other authors, plus the Holy Spirit's guidance, would surely be a sufficient innoculation against reading a page or 2 from someone who agrees with Mark. Unless, of course, as soon as you do start reading, the Holy Spirit enlightens the eyes of your understanding, and shows you that all your tightly-clenched beliefs are wrong, and what you're reading NOW is correct. I've been following the discussions, but I've been limiting my posting, because there's often a fine line between debating, discussing, and harassing, and I'm doing my best not to cross that line.

http://www.uia.net/~messiah7/tw_momentus.htm http://www.uia.net/~messiah7/mom_psychtechniq.htm http://www.uia.net/~messiah7/brk_quickq&a.htm http://www.reiniersonneveld.nl/accd-breakthrough-EN.html

"If you love God, and love your neighbor as yourself, you can do as you fool well please." ============================= Ok. Take a minister who leaves his denomination with stories of "inappropriate behavior with his secretary". Then send him to where there are Christians and some people pushing "free love" and orgies. Why is he there? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=160989 Jim D explained it. " As we relaxed and had a second drink, he asked Judy and me to describe what is was like to attend an orgy. We were taken back by the question and embarrassed by it, because even though it was part of our testimony in our deliverance from sin to God's righteousness, no one had ever asked us to describe what it was like to go to an orgy. We found his curiosity shocking. But we gave him a brief description which is really all we could give him since our encounter with an orgy had been so brief. We had attended one orgy sponsored by the San Francisco Sexual Freedom League, but we were so overwhelmed by the spectacle that we had left after twenty minutes. "You know that's all available," V.P. said. "God put it in I Corinthians 7:1 which He said 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' If it wasn't available to have sex outside the marriage God would have said 'best' instead of 'good.'" I could not believe what I was hearing. I responded with, "I just thank God that He pulled our soul out of that pit of debauchery." When Judy and I went to bed, I said to her, "I don't believe what he said tonight, and I'm going to forget it. I must have misunderstood him." vpw told Jim God said orgies were "available." ============== ""Weirwille sought things to validate his position. He did NOT research the word and change his opinion to IT. I becamed pretty good friends with Jim D*0p. He told me that he, Jim, had a ministry where they were sexually loose and an anything goes kinda group out in California. Weirwille flew out there, telling folks it was to talk with Jim about the Bible and witness or something to him. Jim told me Weirwille flew out there to LEARN from Jimmy about the free sex thinking. Weirwille said he always believed sex should be free and allowed with as many as you feel you want to be with -- but could NEVER prove it from the Bible. He was there to see if Jimmy could prove it was okay via scripture. D0*p never really could and was more of a hippie minister than a sexual pervert looking for Biblical validation. Weirwille had these concepts, notions, urges, illnesses and tried to find a way to SELL them to us. He was not about to CHANGE his thinking according to scripture. He was not a researcher. He was similar to a lot of cult leaders. He had an idea and looked for people who would buy into it. Like Charlie Manson." ================= ""He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage -- he thought it to be beautiful. VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."

Because otherwise they'd actually have to PAY ATTENTION. This way, they could PRETEND to care, and only look up when there's NOISE.

Someone mentioned this again...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7901337.stm Child abuse 'impacts stress gene' Abuse in early childhood permanently alters how the brain reacts to stress, a Canadian study suggests. Analysis of brain tissue from adults who had committed suicide found key genetic changes in those who had suffered abuse as a child. It affects the production of a receptor known to be involved in stress responses, the researchers said. The Nature Neuroscience study underpins the impact of stress on early brain development, experts said. Previous research has shown that abuse in childhood is associated with an increased reaction to stressful circumstances. “ Whilst these results obviously need to be replicated, they provide a mechanism by which experiences early in life can have an effect on behaviour later in adulthood ” Dr Jonathan Mill But exactly how environmental factors interact with genes and contribute to depression or other mental disorders in adulthood is not well understood. A research team led by McGill University, in Montreal, examined the gene for the glucocorticoid receptor - which helps control the response to stress - in a specific brain region of 12 suicide victims with a history of child abuse and 12 suicide victims who did not suffer abuse when younger. They found chemical changes which reduced the activity of the gene in those who suffered child abuse. And they showed this reduced activity leads to fewer glucocorticoid receptors. Those affected would have had an abnormally heightened response to stress, the researchers said. Long-term It suggests that experience in childhood when the brain is developing, can have a long-term impact on how someone responds to stressful situations. But study leader Professor Michael Meaney said they believe these biochemical effects could also occur later in life. "If you're a public health individual or a child psychologist you could say this shows you nothing you didn't already know. "But until you show the biological process, many people in government and policy-makers are reluctant to believe it's real. "Beyond that, you could ask whether a drug could reverse these effects and that's a possibility." Dr Jonathan Mill, from the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London said the research added to growing evidence that environmental factors can alter the expression of genes - a process known as epigenetics. "Whilst these results obviously need to be replicated, they provide a mechanism by which experiences early in life can have an effect on behaviour later in adulthood. "The exciting thing about epigenetic alterations is that they are potentially reversible, and thus perhaps a future target for therapeutic intervention." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7901337.stm Published: 2009/02/23 01:16:12 GMT © BBC MMIX

Re: what you said about what would attract them... It would have to be custom-tailored to reel in THEM. vpw succeeded in "hijacking the hippies" because he had a plan designed to fool THEM- not the people they'd be in a decade, the people they were THERE and THEN. That same plan wouldn't work on anyone else. As to rising anomie, that's one consequence of the silicon age, but it includes its own cure as well- it's possible to get to know hundreds more people and make face-to-face friends using the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

Apparently, LOTS of people joke about Captain Harriman, and what Cameron Frye ("Ferris Buehler's Day Off") is doing in charge of the Enterprise. Michael Okuda HIMSELF wrote up John Harriman's biographical file for the game "ST: Starship Creator". It says he has a wife named Sloane, a son named Ferris, they live in Chicago, and he likes 20th century Italian sportscars. ("Chicka-chicka.") Okuda has a bigger sense of humor than I expected. Harriman's also appeared in 3 novels. 2 of those appearances were written by Peter David. This DOESN'T surprise me. I've known Peter David to have a wacky sense of humor for some time now.

I'm possibly the only one who thinks of J. Wellington Wimpy, Popeye's pal, when watching this movie. Other people think about Chicago, for equally vague reasons. (Since Chicago doesn't appear in this movie.)

"Who Watches the Watchers." But your description is otherwise correct. One of the more interesting things about the episode is the writing slant. To have ANY religious beliefs is equated with human sacrifice (killing Deanna), fear, superstition, the Dark Ages, inquisitions, and holy wars. Furthermore, Picard's FINE with a local just dying if it means the Prime Directive is upheld. (Funny how the Bajorans' beliefs weren't this problematic, nor Chakotay's....)

"It was bring him aboard or let him die." "Then why didn't you let him die?" "Because we were responsible for his injuries!" "You're saying that belief will eventually develop into a religion." "It's inevitable. And without guidance, that religion could degenerate into inquisitions... holy wars... chaos." "Your own reports describe how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned all belief in the supernatural. And now you're asking me to sabotage that achievement... send them back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition." "It's not the season for lightning. It must be a warning..." "We've had storms at this time of year before." "Not like this one..." "It must mean something!" "I was sure you were dead." "I think I was... but I was brought back to life. I awoke in an incredible place -- and my wounds were gone. I had been healed." "How is that possible? " "Long ago, our people believed in beings with great powers. These beings made the rains come, told the sun when to rise, and caused all life to be born, to grow, to die." "But those are just tales -- old superstitions." "Perhaps the beliefs of our ancestors are true. Nothing else can explain what's happened. Everything's changed now, Oji. We must tell the others."

twi used an extended analogy of a TREE when referring to itself- with Root locales, Trunks, Limbs, Branches, Twigs and so on. When groups break away- or broke away from twi, they're referred to as "splinter" groups. Despite having a lot of variety in what they stressed as they left twi, there are amazing similarities between them that most of Christianity does not share. So, it's a general term.

A tired piece of fiction trotted out to salve the conscience of a few. Some people here have had positive reminisces about vpw and lcm. (I REQUESTED those at one point.) Nobody has any about rfr, which says something about rfr.

"It was bring him aboard or let him die." "Then why didn't you let him die?" "Because we were responsible for his injuries!" "You're saying that belief will eventually develop into a religion." "It's inevitable. And without guidance, that religion could degenerate into inquisitions... holy wars... chaos." "Your own reports describe how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned all belief in the supernatural. And now you're asking me to sabotage that achievement... send them back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition."

Ok, NOW I see some of my favorite quotes. Is this when the Klingons declared war on Cardassia, and the Defiant went to Cardassia Prime to rescue the Detapa Council. And DS9 faces a Klingon invasion force of its own. Quark dragged a briefcase of latinum all over the station....

I'm pretty sure that's not it.

What should you expect? Coverups of "Momentus" and "personal prophecy." Check out our subforum for specifics. They're the "high-pressure salesmen" of the ex-twi "family."