WordWolf

Maybe 1/4 chagrined. But we'll take whatever we can get. (Whoever? Whatever.)

It was never stated Lily HAD a Patronus. Not every wizard DOES- only those that master the Patronus Charm. We can safely infer she DID have one because her wand was good for Charms (therefore, it was a strength of HERS as well) and she was a member of the Order-and their standard method of communication was the Patronus Charm. JKR said this on her website a few times, and we saw Kingsley use it in Book 7 in the manner they did. (We saw the delivery end in Book 4 and Book 6, by Dumbledore and Tonks, respectively.) I still feel that dig was inconsistent with the complete picture of Snape-since I feel it elevates him from "annoying" to "a-hole". However, I'm not the author, and it IS open to interpretation. It was explained partly in Book 7. I forget if it was Kingsley who cast it (was it Mad-Eye?) It was, in effect, a magical trap, programmed to reset and attack, trying to hit Snape. I'll have to be in the mood to read the book a second time to know for sure, and that hasn't happened yet.

John, have you ever considered making the effort to indicate what's a quote and what's your reply? That last post was one of your more confused muddles, and I get dizzy trying to untangle the spaghetti. You've been here for years now. It's not rocket science. Do SOMETHING visually to mark the 2 as different, please!

It says it right there in the KING JAMES VERSION, which it does NOT say in the originals, as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The word "study" there is an ERROR which exists in the King James Version, but not in other versions. ======= II Timothy 2:15 KJV 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. II Timothy 2:15 NASB 15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. II Timothy 2:15 NIV 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. ======= You should remember the Greek word "spoudazo", to put forth a diligent effort. There's nothing about "studying" in it. That's why the KJV isn't joined by many other versions in this error. (I imagine there's a few versions that will agree if one looks hard enough.) One of the problems with the pfal class-and twi in general- was that when the KJV phraseology matched vpw's theology, then the KJV phrasing was held to be the true and correct one- despite existing only in the KJV and not in the Hebrew or Greek. So, this "study" thing was ADDING a word. And when you ADD to God's Word, do you still have God's Word?

No, what you wrote wasn't that funny. I was just surprised, you're not ready to answer this now?

"He may have been a hero... he may even have been a great man... but in the end, he was a bad captain." "I came to see Ferenginar. I've heard a lot about it -- I can't wait to see all the... the rain... and the muck... "But this is work for a... a mechanic. A repairman. A lowly engineer." "I'm going to tell Chief O'Brien you said that." "It's the Defiant!" "What??"

We're talking twi here. A Christian leader cuts associations with twi. The story going around twi is that he's "possessed" and/or "born of the wrong seed." Do I know that was used to apply to this Christian leader? No, but since it was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, frankly, I'd be more surprised if they DIDN'T say that about him. It's been applied to MANY OF US since WE left, although for most of us it was softened to "sold out to the world", but some of us DID get that one.

Going back to the initial statement... I'm sure there ARE people who will say that statement A=statement B. There are also people who say that the space program is faked, the earth is flat, and that pfal is superior to the Bible. HOWEVER, those people are not representative of the population or their respective subcultures as a whole, and, as such, it is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST to pretend that they are representative of anything but their own personal positions. Therefore, let's freely admit that Trinitarians, as a whole, say Statement A AND Statement B, but don't say "these are the same thing." They say "these are both true and both apply." That having been said, it is sometimes possible to get a knee-jerk reaction from a Christian who will rattle off that they ARE the same if asked and pressed on it. I don't consider that a particularly HONEST method to find out what someone believes or how they explain it. But, they are 2 different statements, and those who believe both claim that both apply but not, generally, that they are the same statement.

For those who missed that and are following along from home, I shall break it down. There are 2 statements. For discussion, we shall limit ourselves to 2 specific statements. A) Jesus is the Son of God. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was and is The Messiah, The one and only Son of God, pre-eminent among God's children and worthy of greater honours then they, both from his position "genetically" and from his own acts which showed him finer than any other human that ever walked the earth, showing he was worthy of the honours God Almighty granted him. B) Jesus is God the Son. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was and is The Messiah, The Son of God, who, in addition to honours granted Him by His Father by virtue of His birth, was and is eternally part of God, as co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. For discussion, we shall simplify the positions of most Christians. We shall say that ex-twi non-Trinitarian Christians believe the first statement. (We're skipping all minority positions for this discussion.) We shall say that Trinitarian Christians believe both the first and second statements. (We're skipping all minority positions for this discussion.) We'll come back to that in a minute. ========= As of the time I'm posting this, George W. Bush is the President of the United States. As of the time I'm posting this, George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief of the United States. So, let the statements be represented as follows: H) George W. Bush is President of the US. I) George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief of the US. Can he be both at the same time? Yes. Do both apply to him correctly? Yes. Does that mean that H=I, that President=Commander-in-Chief? No, those are 2 different statements. However, both apply to him, although they mean 2 different things. =========== Going back to the initial statement....

=== II Timothy 2:15 KJV 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. II Timothy 2:15 NASB 15Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. II Timothy 2:15 NIV 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. ======= I think Raf was the first person I heard, way back when, who mentioned that this verse doesn't say "God approves of us because we rightly-divide God's Word, and that the "showing" isn't to show God "see, you should approve me." God loves us unconditionally. We may put forth to God that He was right to do so, and do this via rightly-dividing God's Word, as a workman who can take pride in doing his work right, but this doesn't win God's approval. I don't remember ANY of this being taught in twi or pfal, IN PASSING even, but that IS what the verse means. In pfal, this verse was used to suggest the opposite, that God cares most that we rightly-divide God's Word, and that other concerns are secondary. Therefore, we are primarily to learn how to rightly-divide God's Word. Therefore, the most important thing to do is to take the pfal class and apply ourselves to that, the most important class, which handles the most important subject, which you can take now... I'm thankful to have learned value in the Bible, but this verse was mistaught, AND used deceptively to puff up the pfal class. Hey, if you know he broke the law and plagiarized and don't care, well, that's that.If you understand the issues and made the choice not to care, then we disagree and that's all there is to it. NOBODY considers that plagiarism, because that's not what plagiarism IS. The only time I ever hear THAT discussed is when someone who tries to excuse vpw- and it's always vpw, never other plagiarists- by changing the meaning of plagiarism, watering it down, and making it look like plagiarism really isn't a big deal, and that it's ok even if he DID do it. This is simple. If you're in a chemistry class, and the teacher teaches chemistry, and even quotes extensively from the assigned textbook, that is not plagiarism. If you learn chemistry and can teach someone else, that's not plagiarism. If you take the chemistry textbook from that other class, cut-and-paste the contents and print out another textbook with the contents of the first one, and sell it to students in YOUR chemistry class, with your name as author on the textbook, THAT is plagiarism. Written forms of plagiarism are easier to document, especially when a supposed author takes the material from one book to a LARGE degree, and refuses to cite that book in his own book as a source. Teachers, to a degree, are EXPECTED to draw from other sources. They are NOT expected to make specific statements to the effect that THEY are the SOLE AUTHOR of material in their classes. When vpw did that-in pfal- he plagiarized in the class as well as in the textbooks. But "needs and wants parallel" are not from "the Word of Truth". They're not Biblical. It is possible that-as well as you're able to recite the material and present it to others- that you don't understand the underlying subjects as well as you think you do. That's a possibility. I'm just saying.

Do they want to please God, or do they want the money and power MORE? It's a simple question.... They don't even need a title- God doesn't need people holding out for titles or even official organizations.

He cut his associations VERY early in twi history. He hasn't shared with us his reasons for doing so. Since he's obviously acting as a Christian, and doesn't appear to be in it for the money, one can SPECULATE that vpw attempted to hijack his ministry just as he hijacked some of the hippies, and W*de just refused to become part of the twi/pfal sales machine early on. In doing this, he skipped having little surprises like when vpw pushed D00p and H33fn3r aside and took over what they were doing, once they brought in the people in the West and East Coasts. Since he has not stated anything outright-or, for that matter, confirmed anything stated that I recall along those lines, those represent our best guesses. On the other hand, he never volunteered that they separated on GOOD terms, or even NEUTRAL terms, either.

Ok, even if you're not helping, I'll see what I can do on my own here. I personally am unaware of any legal wrongdoings by any medical dr in twi or formerly in twi, and among them, I am specifically stating that I am unaware of any legal wrongdoings by W1n*g*rn*r. I am generally unaware of any legal wrongdoings by W1n*g*rn*r as well. Period. ========= That having been stated, there's something that's been raised, and I'd like the input of those who were on grounds and personally know more to try to complete the picture. I THINK I asked that before, but in case I didn't, I'm asking now.

So, WG, can we resolve this directly, or would you prefer to insult me some more? I'd rather resolve this, and said so.

They're fishing for your credit card number. Or, to be more accurate, they're "phishing" for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing Hm. This might even be an example of "vishing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishing Legitimate agencies already HAVE your information. You can say "yes, you can go ahead and access my information already in your files", since that tells them no new information, or you can call them back on a phone# you ALREADY have for them, or access a website you ALREADY have for them. If you use a phone# the caller provided, or a web link they provided, you could use something they faked up, and think you're on the real thing.

*snicker*

I was a bit directionless. I could have gotten focus lots of places, but I DID get it there in one step. I got a reason to just put my head down and slog through everything. Also, the basic strategy of straightforward reading, while not the be-all and end-all of study, came in handy for me in school. So, the latter was practical.

I keep making that initials mistake. ==== Ok, let's save some time. WG, tell me what you're looking for me to say, and we can see if it's something I can agree with and say in good conscience. I think you're looking for something specific here, and will need me to state it outright before we move on to anything else.

YEAH!!!!! Deny them the power! Gotta love it....

If you PERSONALLY know he wasn't on staff at or even NEAR hq, I'll accept that. I don't PERSONALLY know one way or the other. He certainly showed up as if he was, a number of times, and he apparently travelled in to sign his death certificate if he wasn't on-site. Unusual, but that was not a usual situation, so hardly unlikely. If dogotel is correct, then SOMEONE was cranking out any Rx's vpw wanted. If not BW, I wonder who, since I always heard HIS name as a medical doctor, and no other- and one would expect THAT guy to be the one to sign the death certificate. So, either BW cranked out Rxs, or another medical Dr cranked out Rxs, or someone not a Dr FORGED Rxs, or the security was breaking into pharmacies to get codeine without Rxs, or security was paying off pharmacists to get codeine without Rxs, or dogotel's account is incorrect. Seems you said the first one is untrue- how do you interpret the other possibilities? Then again, we hear about people getting caught after several years of this sort of thing,and some people who "doctor-shop" don't get caught. If dogotel's account is true, someone or other was committing an unethical act (cranking out Rxs), or an illegal act (forgery, theft, trafficking in illegal goods). Either way, that was actionable, and risky for the participants. I don't see it as that difficult to find SOME twi'ers who would be willing to break the law for vpw, but I don't know who SPECIFICALLY would do it here. (Unless dogotel's account is false, in which case there were no laws broken and no improper actions of this type.) I don't see it as unfeasible. Outside of twi, it's hard to imagine, but there were always those people in twi who would have died for vpw or killed for vpw. The only questions are what was done, who did it, and did it actually happen. If your statements are correct, my comments are in error, period. How do you see dogotel's account having come to pass? I ran down all the possibilities I see, which do you think is the more likely?

Oh, right. lcm wrote about this. Courtesy of the thread "vp and me in wonderland", http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=195492 lcm: "Dr and LCM invite/request all the (in-residence and on-field) Corps to write their autobiographies. Oct 79 was set for the deadline. Dr was hurt when not many responded to the deadline." WordWolf: "Was it an "INVITATION" (thus optional) or a "REQUIREMENT" (thus compulsory)?" lcm: "LCM had not done his yet either" WW: "Not a problem if it was an "INVITATION", but if it was, lcm should have known it would be expected of him specifically." lcm: "Dr reproved LCM in front of the corps." WW: "A little public humiliation is standard operating procedure for vpw. (As it was later for lcm.) So much for "He handled it in private of course."" lcm: "How can you expect the younger Corps to do something when the leadership didn't do it, either?" WW: "Who wants to bet money vpw failed to set the example and write out HIS?" lcm: "Dr displayed great love and tenderness to him the next morning by inviting him to lead the 10:30am fellowship." WW: "Or, he got over himself." The whole thread is here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=8019

Sorry I never got back to this. I was referring to this editorial off the main site: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/editor...to-suicide.html

That's interesting. Occasionally, some poster tries to assert everything was in the open on-grounds, that everyone on staff knew. Obviously, that is NOT true. That's very interesting. Patients with persistent pain problems can get a number of medications legally by prescription to handle persistent problems with pain. That was true in 1984-1985 also. They weren't exactly bleeding people with leeches in Ohio medical offices at that time. However, vpw has to get HUGE Rx's of CODEINE. Not any medication that's used LEGALLY for EXTENDED PERIODS for persistent pain- he's using a NARCOTIC used for LIMITED PERIODS. Here's something from Wikipedia's page on codeine: "Tolerance to many of the effects of codeine develops with prolonged use, including therapeutic effects." "is often used as a recreational drug. This is mainly due to its easy availability over the counter or on prescription in combination products (which, in certain countries, are scheduled lower than codeine as a single-agent). People use it in order to obtain the euphoric effects associated with use of opioids." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine Here's something from Wikipedia's page on narcotics/opioids: "Moreover, it isn't always the case that those with a physical dependency to opiates find it too difficult to get over their "addiction," because so-called medical addicts (those that become physically dependent on opiates given for pain relief after treatment) only have to "give-up" the physical symptoms - they don't also have the all important psychological and life-style attachment to the drug which goes to make up the all-encompassing "addiction."" "There are two major patterns of narcotic dependence seen in the United States. One involves individuals whose drug use was initiated within the context of medical treatment who escalate their dose through "doctor shopping" or branch out to illicit drugs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotics vpw didn't have to "doctor-shop" to get prescriptions- "scrips"- from different doctors to keep getting Rxs from them. He had one on-grounds to crank out any Rx he wanted: W1n*garn*r, if memory serves, was on staff AND the Dr who signed his death certificate later. He DID, however, need to "pharmacy shop", since he couldn't just keep going to one local pharmacy to place large, continuous orders for a controlled substance without rousing suspicion by law-abiding pharmacists. Thus, the need to sneak all the Rxs. Naturally, this is considered an abuse of medication, and is not legal-which is why it wasn't a matter of "who cares what they think?", but "We don't want them notifying the authorities." Since vpw had an addictive personality-tobacco, alcohol, adulation, sex, power- it's really not a shock to hear he might have showed signs of addiction to a narcotic which he might have gotten initially as a poor choice of painkiller, and then gotten addicted to. Naturally, I'd be more comfortable if a poster who was once on staff came forward to corroborate this, to say "yes, I saw this as well". And, lest I forget, Hello, dogotel. I hope you enjoy your stay. There's a sticky with advice here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 You may find it useful.

Deciderator, I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious you're either skipping over posts and just pulling stuff out of context out of grand laziness, or you're deliberately doing your best to misrepresent this, and either way, I can't see a SENSIBLE reason for doing it. You and I spent a few pages speaking PURELY THEORETICALLY- and I labelled each of my posts accordingly- concerning a lawsuit that may or may not have happened. I can discuss theoreticals easily without confusing them for discussing the PROVEN. We came to some disagreements on the theoreticals, even, and ended up at an impasse, where you are almost certain there WAS a lawsuit, and have added "plagiarism" to the charges based on a persistent, insistent misunderstanding of the details. After pages where we discussed theoreticals- and I said as much, but not in every single sentence because I don't think the posters here are f'ing morons, you interpreted it thusly: Meanwhile, my posts keep saying the same thing: IF there was a suit, it would have specifically been about the rights to print, publish and teach the twi/pfal materials. PERIOD. Somehow, you've succeeded in misreading the first part, that we discussed theoreticals (accepting the premise "there was a lawsuit" purely for the sake of continuing the discussion) as the opposite. Since I said as much in many posts, that's either intentional, or dreadful comprehension. It's compounded when I KEEP correcting you over what I said twi WOULD sue over- the rights to print, publish, and teach the twi/pral materials, and not "plagiarism" in any form. So, what would be "apparent" to almost everyone else as the content of my posts is apparently NOT what's "apparent" to you. It's also intellectually-dishonest to claim I changed my position when I KEPT saying the same thing. REASONABLE people accept that something that affects publication rights does not necessarily relate to EVERYTHING that relates to ANY degree with publication rights. You keep shoehorning in "plagiarism" into "rights to reprint", and they're not the same thing to just about everyone except you. We could if I felt like reproducing a stack of posts in succession on this thread. You keep making the same unsupported assertion- 1) there definitely was a lawsuit 2) twi definitely sued cg for plagiarism 3) twi lost suing cg for plagiarism My response-that those are unsupported- are not an ASSERTION- they are an ANALYSIS. Your claims are unsupported. That's not a speculation. You took an unsupported claim OF a lawsuit, and to that, added the entire subject of plagiarism and an entire legal judgement based on the subject you added. I didn't "speculate" you did that, it's all over the last several pages and so are my posts pointing that out. The evening news doesn't "speculate" what happened, it just announces it, and occasionally offers analysis. Either you're deliberately making a persistent effort to blind yourself about what plagiarism is, or are determined to manufacture any attack you can, and try to pass it off as truth. I shall demonstrate for the benefit of anyone honestly seeking to understand. (Perhaps you will see this as well.) You posted this in post #289: In post 290, the very next post, I QUOTED THAT, by name, with a link to your post, which was immediately above itand plainly obvious to be the post I was replying to, and directly below that, I posted the following: My point was, that your own post applied MORE to yourself than Juedes, as demonstrated IN your post. In the process, I made it clear I was quoting, named the person, provided the quote, and did everything but force the readers to reread your post to read mine. Any honest adult should have NO DIFFICULTY seeing that. You, however, are insisting that all of that constituted rather than proper attribution documented more than one way.Furthermore, since this demonstrates you either are clueless on the subject of plagiarism, or deliberately intent on misinforming others on the subject of plagiarism while accusing me AND Juedes of the same, I agree with your other comment that this Mr Juedes, I expect, could use a few updates, but your obsession with his usage of ONE English word (how many posts, how many pages, how many weeks on this "pirate" thing have we seen?) need not be HIS obsession. I HAVE provided credit where credit is due, your insistence on creatively reinterpreting the facts notwithstanding. ANYONE can scroll up and see it in black and white. You CAN easily do so, but at THIS point I expect you are determined NOT to. (I was expecting otherwise, and have been disappointed in my expectations of your intellectual honesty.) You have a nice posting STYLE, but style =\= SUBSTANCE. All the style in the world can't reform misinformation or faulty reasoning. That was one of the problems with pfal, during the dramatic session on the "law" of believing. =========== Since you're obviously not going to convince anyone except yourself of your position at this point, and since your unsupported assertions are obviously going to be challenged, can we end this circular discussion, or need this persist for post after post after post still?

============ Sunesis previously posted the following concerning cg, vpw's bus driver and the writer of Passing of the Patriarch: "I believe CG has a very sadistic mean streak. I saw him verbally devastate a young woman from Europe during corps week at HQ one year. She had had a bit too much to drink one evening, as they had been celebrating another European believer's wedding. The party, after the wedding went to a local St. Mary's watering hole that evening. She was pretty plastered and didn't want to leave the place so they just left her at this bar. I was out that night at the same bar, and waited until closing to bring her home to H.Q. I was not going to leave her with the townies leering at her. I don't know who told on her - probably some of the wedding party people who left her, but PL and I were told the next day to be in the courtyard of VP's house the next morning. I went there clueless, and there she was with CG, her leader, and PL, the corps coordinator at that time. Well, first CG yelled, then lowered his voice and hissed saying awful, sick, destructive stuff about this woman. The thing was though, usually, people calm down after a few minutes, but he ended up going on and on and on, and literally hissing at her for almost 45 minutes. I started wondering, what the heck is going on here? All of a sudden it dawned on me, 'he is enjoying this!!' I watched in horrified fascination. I have never, in all my years in TWI, seen someone as verbally torn down as this woman was - it was evil, just plain evil. Even PL was mortified - and she's hard to do that to. After it was over, the woman went away in tears and PL took me aside and said, go talk to her. I looked at her incredulously and said, what could anyone possibly say to her. She told me to go talk, then send her over to PL at noon. I spent the morning with her, got her back to some semblance of normalcy, then PL took over. They became great friends. Anyway, I was glad I never had to serve under him, and was glad God let me see the sick side of him about a year before POP. I got in TWI in Rye when he did, and he was my limb leader in college. He was always cold, unfriendly and aloof. Why did he get worse? Well, it was always in him, it just took a mentor to bring it out. I always think of a hissing snake when I think of him." ========= As for me, once someone in the corps tried a non-yelling version on me, when I visited hq grounds. When it was obvious he was going to keep talking and not listen, I let him run till he finished, then matter-of-factly asked him "Been saving that speech up all month?" after which I effectively pretended he hadn't said most of it. He unclenched and actually acted human after that. I just rejected the mask he was forced to assume as a corps person, and that freed him to be more like he WANTED to be, as I see it, looking back. At the time, I just thought he was trying far too hard.