WordWolf

See, it's posts like this that illustrate that your position and mine are not really as far apart as some might think. 1) vpw taught some good stuff. 2) vpw chose to hurt a lot of people. 3) Anything that was taught that was good, remains so in spite of the harm to people. We both agree on those, and they seem to be the major points. Where we differ is largely in what specifically was good that was taught, (what was accurate, what was error, what was helpful, what was harmfut), which are doctrinal issues, and some wrangling over who got hurt and how much, which I don't see as particularly useful to discuss unless the parties involved are discussing them. The things I object to primarily aren't there- they are the "vpw didnt really harm a lot of people, he was really a nice guy falsely accused" stuff, the "twi never had a harmful side, and was always sweetness and light" stuff. Me, I wasn't really exposed to the harmful side, and am well aware there were many positive experiences while in twi- mine and other people's, but that doesn't erase the existence of the bad experiences had by others, and attempts to belittle or erase THOSE get my attention. My posts are a whole lot nicer and more interesting when people don't try to pull that one ad nauseum. I don't know if you've caught that.

[so, claiming that in the nation of Israel, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king", which completely contradicts the entire Mosaic Law, does that count as handling Scriptures, and not doing so correctly? How about claims that under grace, sex between 2 people not married to each other is fine "if you can handle it," which contradicts the Epistles, does that count as handling Scriptures, and not doing so correctly? And how someone handles the Scriptures PRIVATELY, is that insignificant compared to how they handle it PUBLICKLY at the podium? If so, Jimmy Swaggart was immaculate, since he was perfect AT THE PODIUM but acted poorly IN PRIVATE. That's 3 questions.] [That's wonderful.] I noticed you counted me among them. I ASKED YOU specific questions- which you didn't answer, BTW- and said what generally happened when someone arrived and began making pronouncements, which is why you got the reaction you did. You responded by saying I said YOU meant that- which is jumping to a conclusion. (Then blaming me for putting words in your mouth.) You might review the posts of the others and see if you've similarly ascribed error and malice where none existed. Just a suggestion, since you made that mistake in ONE case...] [Ah, at least some of those posts, that's not what happened, but you labelled them soIMMEDIATELY, which allowed you to dismiss them "with a clear conscience". BTW, there were also some purely knee-jerk reactions by those who see someone claim vpw was harmless and didn't really hurt anyone and say "WELL DONE! TOTALLY TRUE!" You took those as endorsement of your position-which is as fair as automatically abandoning your position because someone said "NUTS! NUTS! NUTS!" While we're on the subject, precisely WHO did that knee-jerk reaction you're claiming, and what did they say? You MIGHT be POLARIZING the issues, reducing them to BLACK AND WHITE THINKING. That's come up already.] Ever consider that there's a wealth of information, including many eyewitnesses and confessions from members of the inner circle who facilitated the felonies, and that by themselves, they're pretty damning, even leaving out the direct testimony of the victims? I BEGAN from the position that vpw was probably innocent- and didn't want him to be guilty. However, examining the wealth of testimony HONESTLY, I found that position UNSUPPORTABLE. Now, if I was eager to dismiss all of them to maintain my comfortable viewpoint, perhaps I would be posting little encouragements when you posted otherwise- another of the apologists for vpw. Of course, if you've already decided anything I post is without merit, you probably won't consider any of this no matter how sound the advice. However, I've no guarantee you've done that. And even if you did, you may reconsider.]

""Who turned on the dark?" ""One thing I can't stand is late kidnappers." "What advice would you give young people just starting out in the spy business?" "You ain't goin' no place!" "The dance in France is mainly in the stance." "I regret to inform you that Norway has just declared war on Sweden." "He's not evil... crafty and selfish, maybe, but not evil." "It's all yours, mate." "It's great, it's terrific, it's the best show on Earth!" "April is the cruelest month." "How hungry can they get in half an hour?" "She put herself in a big box, put herself in a box this big, and sent herself up and put photographs on it. And we opened it and this young lady popped out." "What happened to her?" "Popped her back in again." "We shipped her to the Beatles." Should I prepare the four beds?" "No, no, prepare four coffins. They will not live the night." "Ooh! So, uh... That's, uh... That's what [bleeped] is all about." "Yeah. [bleeped] It's pretty scary." "You know what's even more scary?" "What?" "You can't say [bleeped] on television. "

It's "THE MASK OF ZORRO."

I had more fun deconstructing the magic system and sleuthing the clues than I did anything else. I never said I didn't LIKE the books, but I'm not a diehard fan-you won't see me buying wizard robes or a wand (which they make.) No, I meant what I said- I didn't like the last book particularly, but I'm glad SOME people did. We were all looking forward to liking it, and some of us did, and I'm happy for them.

Hello, Deciderator. [Whenever I hear buzzwords aligned so precisely, so rehearsed, I maintain a safe distance and grab my hazmat gear.] [That's not bad, IMHO.] [see, every time we get a statement like this, what it's meant is "I wish to maintain the image of vpw as some sort of benevolent, wise teacher, and wish to avoid any references to him drugging women, raping women, using their 'birth to the corps' papers to decide WHICH women to rape, and arranging an inner cadre to help facilitate this and cover his tracks afterwards, monitoring women so that he could dispose of them if they looked like they were going to tell someone. Among other things." Me, I would rarely even mention the evil actions vpw did, except we keep getting people dedicated to COVERING UP the evil actions vpw did- then accusing the rest of US of being fixated because we refuse to let them cover up his evil acts. Tell me this.... Can you honestly say "I think it was terrible that vpw drugged and raped women, and organized things to make that easier and arrange things so he could get away with it"? If so, then I see little reason to continue discussing it with you- you're informed, consider it wrong, and won't be pretending it didn't happen. If not, then the motivation for us to STOP talking about it is NOT what you reported, and you're fooling yourself, if not us. You DID just claim you never put wierwille on a pedastal- is that really true? Please think that over for a bit.] [Neither have I, and many of us put action to word on that when we're not on the GSC.Our posts here =\= our lives. We CAN tell the truth about things hidden, and ALSO spread love, kindness and forgiveness! Imagine that! Sometimes love and kindness involve helping someone face their pain, and sitting with them and listening, without reciting Bible verses in response. At the GSC, a LOT of people have gotten that kind of help. And if you want to discuss DOCTRINE, we have a forum for that, called "DOCTRINAL." The idea that we must EITHER spread love, kindness and forgiveness OR report the evils that have been performed on suffering brethren is a "FALSE DILEMMA." We don't have only two choices, and they are not mutually-exclusive. For that matter, HIDING the evils that have been performed on suffering brethren is not synonymous with spreading love, forgiveness and kindness, either. [Except when people keep reporting vpw was an ok guy and didn't inflict great suffering, we don't keep circling the same old points. And make up your mind- are we "holding it in", or posting it all the time? Can't be both, can't discuss something while "holding it in." "We all were hurt." Me, I wasn't really hurt, and from what you're saying, you weren't really hurt, either. That means it's unfair to tell the women whom vpw PERSONALLY wronged, "Oh, just suck it up." Do you know how long it takes to rebuild a life when someone has decimated it with acts of rape and other destructive, evil deeds? Any PROFESSIONAL could tell you that it's not a 5-minute job with a pep talk, a verse recitation, and a pat on the back. And again, you're confusing what we post here with "what we do 99% of the time". What you SEE is not what is happening. Similarly, you may have seen vpw as some benevolent teacher who loved his people and would have suffered for them, instead of one who inflicted suffering ON them. What you SAW was not what was happening.] [This is STILL not a Christian board. Here, read this:http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 ] [so, because some people murdered, and vpw and lcm didn't and only ruined lives without killing them- although they DID drive people to commit suicide- EACH of them, does that count as killing someone?- we're not supposed to take offense at what evils they committed? We're supposed to shrug, say "well, people sin" and just give them a free pass? That SEEMS to be what you're SUGGESTING....]

Should I take it?

Most of Book 5 was the tail wagging the dog. 1/2 the book was dragging the plot to put the gang in the Dept of Mysteries, where there was a fight over the prophecy, and all the rooms there. The Death Room and the Door-That-Is-Never-Opened were inserted into the story rather conspicuously. Neither reference was needed. For a dramatic scene, it would have worked AT LEAST as good if she used the Avada Kedavra in the book. And the book distinctly does NOT use that. Bellatrix fires a red Stunner. Bellatrix follows up immediately with a follow-up, which is seen by Harry and the color is unspecified, but the effect is not the same as the AK, and it pushed Sirius. Harry saw it and didn't identify it as the green AK, and the effect didn't match. Plus, Harry expected to see Sirius get up. So, in the book, it was NOT an AK, and was PROBABLY a Stunner. And if it was SUPPOSED to be an AK, it was VERY poorly handled-since all ways to identify it were missing. (The colour, the effect, Harry expecting to see Sirius awake...) Then the question is, does going thru the Veil and Arch kill someone or trap them? If it traps them, then Harry has a reason to undertake the step in the Hero's Journey where, like Orpheus, Hercules and others, he descends to the Underworld to perform a rescue. It seemed foreshadowed in the other books... Book 1: Harry, Ron and Hermione (the Golden Trio) bypass a 3-headed dog (from Greece), and descend into a dark chamber below. Book 2: The Golden Trio pass a heavy veil, interact with the dead, and return safely (Nick's Deathday Party.) Book 3: A dead man returns (Wormtail.) Book 4: A dead man returns fully from the dead, in a graveyard (Voldymoldy). The first 2, at least, seem to point in that direction. If it just kills them, then the entire introduction of this chamber is completely needless- Bellatrix could have fired the AK and just hit him with it. (Apparently, the director of Movie 5 saw it the same way, and just used it there.) Further, I object to JKR's elaborate evasions of whether or not Sirius is dead, when she said Dumbledore was dead outright. She went to a lot of trouble to avoid saying it one way or the other. That's a separate discussion. I think Book 7 had a higher concentration of holes than any one SW movie.And I thought the pacing was off. My best explanation: "It was late, and JKR was tired." It felt like she just added their deaths in when she tallied it up and said "Not enough deaths..." BTW, earlier today, she confirmed that one of them was one of the two that she chose to kill off instead of letting him live. You forgot "Enough....effing.....OWLS!" -Vernon Dursley in Book 2. (I think it was 2, with all the notes.)And you didn't recognize the line from Aliens? I saw teenagers citing it! Ripley:"GET AWAY FROM HER, YOU BITCH!" Some of them voted the HP line "Best line ever!" for reasons I find insufficient. It WAS supposed to be aimed at a young audience. The line I liked was a callback from Book 1. "Are you a wizard or not?"- Hermione to Ron, calling back Hermione's dilemma as to how to start a fire to free Ron from the Devil's Snare. Hermione:"...but there's no wood!" Harry:"ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" It's roughly what I expected, and saccharine enough to end a story meant for kids. Me, I'm working my way through the Dresden Files while I wait for the greatly-superior "Wheel of Time" series' last book. HP was largely to keep me occupied while waiting for Wheel of Time books. Oh, and those of you who loved this one, congratulations! More power to you! I'm glad you got more enjoyment than I did.

Ok, this one's not so easy, so I'm going to include more quotes. Fair's fair. ""Who turned on the dark?" ""One thing I can't stand is late kidnappers." "What advice would you give young people just starting out in the spy business?" "You ain't goin' no place!" "The dance in France is mainly in the stance." "I regret to inform you that Norway has just declared war on Sweden." "He's not evil... crafty and selfish, maybe, but not evil." "It's all yours, mate." "It's great, it's terrific, it's the best show on Earth!" "April is the cruelest month." "How hungry can they get in half an hour?"

Oops. Ok, hang on....

God knows what he's doing. I'm confident He's worked something out.

Wow. Norman Borlaug is made of win.

Anyone got a link to the discussions about vpw's attempts to make it into a private police force, complete with police insignias and stuff? I saw PHOTOS....

The Fidelius Charm means ONLY THE SECRET-KEEPER can tell-and no one else. One Secret-Keeper means ONE person can tell- by speaking or by writing a note as in Book 5 when Harry arrives at 12 Grimmauld Place. Her website specifies that once a Secret-Keeper dies, there's ZERO Secret-Keepers. NOBODY else can learn. (Unless, say, an old note was found.) The book specifies that now there's OVER A DOZEN Secret-Keepers, and ALL of them can tell. The status of the secret is now fluid, and not fixed, and will not "remain as it was at the moment of their death." New people CAN learn-and as we saw, DID learn. Right. But they had a LONG time where Harry, Ron, Hermione were hanging out IN 12 Grimmauld Place, and they STILL thought Snape was a traitor, but they STILL were living there. If so, they should NOT have felt secure-they should have expected an ALL-OUT ATTACK like the "Seven Potters" chapter. If they felt secure-they should have concluded Snape wasn't a traitor. How comfy could you be, setting up to live in a place you expect should be flattened in a mortar attack without warning?

The explanation of James' and Lily's jobs, and how they thwarted Voldy 3x. The explanation of the Veil/Arch. The explanation of Sirius' supposed death-which was promised. The door that NEVER opens in the Dept of Mysteries. For starters. AFAIK, all of these (except the last) were all promised. She also mentioned that Book 7 was going to go MORE into why some people become ghosts and others don't. I worked that one out in detail when we knew Snape & DD argued in the middle of Book 6. DD's death was predictable- and predicted. I expected him to die early in Book 7, but wasn't shocked it was sooner. She kept foreshadowing it. Besides, she herself said to Emerson of Mugglenet.... "Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is. We all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it? If you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot." "The wise old wizard with the beard always dies." "Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. " When we saw the portrait of him in the headmaster's office, that was the "stick a fork in him" moment. Her website says: "Section: F.A.Q. When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead? Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard after their death - think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map. " And Sunday,Aug 5,2004, at the Edinburgh Book Festival, she said "Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them? JKR: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost." And, since some people needed her to say it outright, during "An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp", (Aug 1, 2006) JKR said the following: "I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely dead. And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now. But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief , and I'm just helping you get past denial." Now with Sirius, JKR made an elaborate effort to DUCK THE QUESTION every time it came up. (I looked most carefully at her interviews, website, etc, and watched it happen.) Contrasted with the above, and note that no body was ever recovered (which, actually, was a rule consistent with the rest of the series) and so on, it was obvious JKR deliberately wanted to be AMBIGUOUS about his "death". That means either: A) He's alive and she wants us to believe he's dead or B) He's dead and she wants us to believe he's alive. etc. Sure. Want to start with "how was The Prophecy actually fulfilled?" After all, JKR's own website says "Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully and that is all I have to say on the subject!" Why, then, is it IRRELEVANT to the actual climax of the series? The Prophecy states: ""The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." The part I'm especially concerned with is "and either must die at the hand of the other" (not "and either must die AT HIS OWN HAND") ========== Oh, and for fun, here's the first thing that bothered me in Book 7. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm "Result of F.A.Q. Poll (SPOILER WARNING) What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? I was surprised that this question won, because it is not the one that I'd have voted for… but hey, if this is what you want to know, this is what you want to know! When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." Book 7, page 90, US edition. "...after the death of Dumbledore, their Secret-Keeper, each of the people to whom Dumbledore had confided Grimmauld Place's location had become a Secret-Keeper in turn." Besides the fact that this contradicted what she herself said while writing Book 7, the characters were oblivious to what it meant. Either they should have been convinced Snape was a Death Eater, or Snape was working against Voldemort. If they were convinced Snape was a Death Eater, page 91 and following should have reflected the obvious conclusions: "Since I'm convinced Snape's working for Voldemoldy, and tells him everything important, obviously he's ALREADY told him all about 12 Grimmauld Place. Therefore, Death Eaters are on their way now and I have to pack." If the non-arrival of Death Eaters made it obvious Snape was ABLE to give away the location and DIDN'T, the rest of the book should have reflected the obvious conclusions: "Since Death Eaters haven't already arrived, Snape's sitting on the Secret he's Keeping, and therefore he's not REALLY working for the Volderoni."

I disagree. It was an acceptable read, but I was expecting a lot better. For one thing, the middle dragged, and we had a few chapters of "and nothing much happened to our heroes." I've seen that twice before, and hated it both times. (Once in "Return of the King", once in "the Great Hunt.") It's forgiveable, but annoying. For another, JKR had promised to include several things, and they're nowhere to be seen. That includes a number of elements introduced in Book 5 ("Why is Book 5 so big?" "I had to include a lot of things I'll be using later..." -paraphrased) And I found the ending didn't sound like it makes sense on paper. I'll need to recheck to see if it does. I don't mind character death, but a number of them just seemed thrown in to rack up the body count. I've been objecting to that in stories for years now, and JKR doesn't get a free pass on that. I DID find the "Aliens" semi-quote amusing, but I imagine some parents won't find it so. And when someone has a few weeks to do nothing BUT make up a plan, (infiltrate the MoM), I expect them to have worked out the most obvious aspects like "entrance", and especially "exit", and "what to do if the obvious things don't work right". For some clever kids that had nothing BUT time to think and plan, they sure made some easy-to-avoid mistakes. Then again, it's not like they were properly prepared for this- DD's plans fell FAR short of giving them all the information they needed. I considered it a passable read- but a lot of "this will make sense later, I promise!" stuff...never did. I have the distinct impression-based on a partial list of what was promised and never included- that JKR never made a list of the things she had to include to bring the series to a successful close, and just winged it and went from memory. Me, I had a partial list memorized, and it was mostly left out. There were some good scenes, but as a whole, I found it inadequate to the task of ending the series.

Well, when it comes to a matter of "this is what he did", and informing others (few of us don't want a fuller understanding, if not all the explicit details), I see profit in it. When one wonders if twi under lcm was actually bad, I think the truth rings pretty clear. Plus, some people like to try to rewrite history, and pretend great evils done by vpw personally and lcm personally never happened. Under those conditions, I see a point to discussion. When it comes down to just posting insults and things, well, personally, I don't see any point in it. It informs no one, and brings no benefit to him or the reader. However, I can understand what I think of as a normal human urge to vent, and pay back a little for all the harmful words lcm spewed out at us or about us. I don't usually partake of it, but I understand. As to what we KNOW, we knew he was dropped by twi officially, and he was living in a small home owned by twi and with a doctor. (It's been speculated he was placed there so the doctor could keep an eye on him.) We knew he's worked as a personal trainer, and at UPS. I think he's working at both currently, but I really don't care. I wish I'd seen signs he had some understanding that he wrought hurt in other people's lives, but all reports show he's sorry he was caught, and removed from a cushy job.

Thanks for answering. Across the various pages, I lost track of WHICH posts were yours, so I had read them, but hadn't kept track that they were yours.

I'd appreciate a bit more on that as well...

Not to mention "You have heard rumours that there are problems. There are no problems. If you question this, you will get in trouble. If you tell personal testimony supporting this, you will get in trouble. If you look up personal testimony supporting this, you will get in trouble." Sounds a LOT like twi when lcm was in court, and anyone looking up the details online was marked and avoided. Professor Sybill P. Trelawney had given them 15 years of her life, and was being kicked out without preamble. In fact, the bum's rush was attempted, you may recall. Now THAT sounds familiar as well.

My thinking runs differently than yours on this incident. I shall elaborate. First of all, I shall agree with you on one particular: the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle he is operating. Therefore, the driver, in this case, is at least partly to blame. Now, let's look at the conditions BEFORE the driver enters the picture. A) twi REQUIRES the LEAD trip. The participants agreed to be in the corps, and did not choose to quit rather than face LEAD. They were adults and that was their choice. B) twi REQUIRES the specifics they lay out be followed. The participants were adults, and did not choose to quit rather than face LEAD. C) twi provides-for the transport of humans- one truck with a homemade hitch, and any SENSIBLE source on traffic safety would tell you that the hitch is unsuitable for human transport, since there is ZERO protection of the passengers WHATSOEVER. There are no SEATS, no SEATBELTS, no AIRBAGS, not even things to hold onto. The structure is not designed to minimize injuries should there be an accident. Even an outdated schoolbus provides MUCH better protection- with supported seats, things to hold onto, and a frame that will take impacts if needed. (They're SUPPOSED to have seatbelts, which can be added of course.) So, to begin with, this is an unsafe vehicle to operate under even IDEAL conditions. (It's also illegal.) The sensible-and safe-thing to do is for the driver to refuse to transport people under these conditions. Therefore, the driver is partly to blame for agreeing to drive this deathtrap. Furthermore, the people who agreed to climb into the coffin on wheels are adults, and partly to blame for agreeing to ride in a deathtrap. D) twi required that their artificial timeframe-determined solely by them- be followed regardless of any extenuating circumstances, like inclement weather or road closings. The twi-mandated time REQUIRED unsafe speed be used with this vehicle- even if the vehicle was safe. (As most drivers know, you can maintain more control of the vehicle by REDUCING SPEED- which means you relinquish some control and increase risk with a vehicle of this type by INCREASING SPEED, which was required.) The driver, knowing this speed was unsafe, agreed to drive at it. That was his fault. E) the weather, as the weather reports predicted, included HEAVY WINDS. That's not good for ANY vehicle, and for a hitch, that's doubly so. twi required travel at speed regardless of the weather. The driver, knowing this weather was unsafe, agreed to drive in it. That was his fault. F) twi required that evaluations be completed within the timeframe they set, which provided insufficient time to complete them. The driver, knowing it was unsafe, began to try to complete them behind the wheel. That was his fault. =========== If all those things were the faults of the driver and participants, why do some of us insist that twi was responsible? As you can easily see, everything except the heavy wind were within the control of twi. By running this program, twi had legally accepted a fiduciary responsibility to execute this program in a fashion that minimized the risks to the participants. That included controlling what they COULD control, and making a good-faith attempt to reduce risks where it was reasonable to do so. As most of us see it, they had several chances to reduce the risk in this situation- and were criminally negligent and morally negligent to the degree they did not. twi did not need to require the LEAD trip in the first place. Having required it, twi chose to send participants to travel in an obviously-unsafe vehicle. twi chose to require an artificial timeframe to take precedence over OBVIOUS SAFETY ISSUES (unsafe driving conditions.) Thus, if twi was exercising even AVERAGE safety precautions, I see no way the people would even BE in a trailer hitch-and certainly not in one when the weather was less than ideal for travel. To the average neutral observer, that's gross incompetence. And that's twi's fault. =========== Now then, what about the fault of the participants and driver? They're all adults and could refuse what sensible people would see as dangerous risks. That is true-but not the whole truth. Great social pressures and social stigmas were brought to bear on anyone who dared to question the soundness of twi decisions in the corps. If you chose to save your own neck rather than lay it under the headman's axe when a corps leader said to, you were subjected to "face-melting sessions", stigmatized, and thrown out if they were in a bad mood. However, sufficient groveling sometimes meant they allowed you to return. If those people had exercised the brains that God gave them, they would have been seen as scum, as dirt, as algae, in the eyes of the corps- and therefore in the eyes of God's people, as they were instructed to think. Furthermore, they had already been portrayed as washouts, and that leadership was looking for excuses to can them. All of that meant that sensible precautions become a secondary consideration when all of that is on the line. No, they HAD a choice to leave the corps when it came down to that- so long as they were willing to accept the corps pronouncement of judgement on them that they were failures and dirt in the eyes of God. That WAS a choice. However, twi was responsible for putting them in the position to make such a horrible either-or decision. ====== BTW, this is a long post. Despite that, it has substance. Some people will have no difficulty seeing that.

Granting that as true, AND that "hitch-hiking is very dangerous", A) Was it a good idea to REQUIRE hitch-hiking in a program? B) Once the dangers were encountered, was it a good idea to CONTINUE to REQUIRE hitch-hiking in a program?

I think that's quite an observation, and I'd like to add one of my own. (Not original, but I'm relating it here, anyway.) Some people, I think, are internalizing that MISPLACED GUILT, and saying "Well, since I refuse to be held responsible for their sins, I'm going to belittle or deny the harm they did, since this is the sole way to absolve me from wrongdoing", when the wrongdoing was most likely none of theirs to begin with.

You're entitled to your opinion. Myself, I say that if just the hitch-hiking to LEAD produced at least one death from being run over (which it did) and a number of rapes as women got in vehicles with total strangers (which it did), I would classify it as a "dangerous" practice. vpw himself told the corps to continue with it, even AFTER rapes took place. His explanation was that they could get raped anywhere. (Therefore, there was no reason to lower the risks of rape in his program by eliminating anything that increased the risk. This makes very little sense and is probably an excuse. More likely it was the care for money and LACK of care for people that drove a status quo once dangers had emerged.)

That was straight out of pfal. "Lambano, lambano, la-ball-o, ball.." *pantomines a pitch* "throw it out there." Even IN pfal, that sounded like nonsense to me. Just keep changing syllables until it made sense to you? Might as well speak of the ice cream the bedouins always eat. "Desert, desert, dessert.." *pantomine dishing ice cream* "serve up dessert." Makes about as much sense. What makes this weirder is Bullinger made this same jump out of nowhere. When I read that, I concluded that Bullinger, like most people, could pull stuff out of his gluteus maximus when he wanted to.