WordWolf

It certainly made an impression on vpw. After all, he heard it from Leonard FIRST in Leonard's class, and wasted no time in repeating it when he taught Leonard's class with his own name on it. It was quite powerful when Leonard said it, and quite powerful when vpw said it.

lcm said that was forbidden. That was EXPECTED for lcm. See the difference? One is giving something to someone (who is not lcm) that they will use for the furtherance of God's Word. The other is cash given directly to lcm-tax-free, untraceable- for whatever he wanted. The first one was evil and forbidden, the second one was expected and required.

"the Way, Living in Love". vpw is telling, in his own words, some stories. ================== pg-199. "Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need. Meet me at 9am.' I thought, 'Women never tell the truth.' " pg-200. "At lunchtime Stiles came in with his wife and the pianist. I just remember thinking to myself, 'There aren't going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.' I was just watching and waiting. Lunch was kind of light talk- we talked about Oral Roberts, the Holy Spirit, lots of stuff. When we were done, I picked up the check, and then Stiles turned to his wife and said, 'Honey, I'm going with VP.' She said something to him like, 'How long will you be?' And he said, 'That's none of your business.' That was it, and my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent. His stature increased in my eyes. just from the way he handled her." =======

In all honesty, Groucho, what he's posting not *THAT* bad. He's not calling anyone with experiences contrary to his own "liars" or going after them for disagreeing with him. He's avoiding posting in an abusive manner. (From what I've seen.) So I've seen worse here, and can name worse posters in the past who did those things. I think the free speech here is emphasized when one allows someone with his limited experiences the right to post about them, without FORCING him to conform. He can change on his own schedule, or not at all, on his own schedule. He can only go by what he knows. What he knows PRIMARILY is what he saw.I saw the same things, and it took me a while to examine the experiences of others and properly contextualize my experiences in light of a WHOLE life, and not just the window into it I had. That doesn't happen overnight. I'd just suggest he dig deeper. He saw cg put on the full act of humility and spiritual maturity. So did I-and I was actively looking for spiritual mistakes at the time. I didn't see what he wasn't showing me, either. Then again, I didn't get a "face-melting session" either. I don't think he's unsound-just limited in his exposure. Perhaps that will change for him-it certainly did for you and me...

Not the night-shift people I know....

Me too. Since we didn't study for this test, I think that's pretty good.

Sorry, but I'm apparently not at the top of my game lately. I even missed the Bob Dylan one a page back....

I take it that means video is out as well? *ducks* Hey, big congrats.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html "These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion. In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant. Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area. All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum."

[Thanks a lot for replying. There's no consensus among posters-we have Christians, non-Christians, and the Christians cover a wide spectrum of beliefs now. Speaking for myself, I prefer posters-whether I agree with them or not- who can document their claims and discuss them, and can allow for others disagreeing with them respectfully. Without cheapshots mixed in. I don't speak for everyone, but that's more common than some people would portray about the majority of posters.] [Technically, this is not identically-taught as pfal. The conclusions are different, and the direction to get there is different (which is why the conclusion is different.) However, the claim before you walked in was how the SUBJECTS of WIGP were all taken from pfal- how WIGP was DERIVATIVE of pfal and owes its existence and its syllabus to pfal. WD challenged this claim, and said the SUBJECTS were different. I asked him to give an example so we could evaluate that and come to our own conclusions, supporting HIS claim. You said WD was right, so I asked the same of you, and to support YOUR claim. Which you did. Which I for one appreciate, and I expect others do as well. (This isn't unusual behaviour-the request and the support- since all over cyberspace, messageboards have discussions where claims are supported, discussed, or refuted, all the time.) Your support does indeed show that the material is not identical-at least this subject is covered differently. HOWEVER, the claim was that the subjects are different- and this was indeed a subject covered in pfal, then covered in WIGP, and that as a direct result of it being in pfal. Therefore, Juedes' claim is CORRECT as stated, at least as reflected by the evidence presented. (Pending further evidence.) However, this doesn't mean the WIGP class is completely identical to pfal. Rather, it joins the family of pfal clones that began as photocopies of pfal, completely plagiarized for 90% or more of their contents, which were then later modified with "unique" turns of their own, based on the doctrine or style of the presenter. I for one now know a little more on WIGP- that it presented the "thorn in the flesh" as a different thing than vpw said it was. Which, if either, is correct is a matter of Doctrinal discussion, but that they are different is on-topic for this discussion, and that much is correct- they are different there.] [He was cool when I was around him as well. Although you DID mention he tore you one at a different occasion, which he didn't do to me. Then again, I only saw him a few weeks, under controlled circumstances. I acknowledge I hardly had a chance to see him under a variety of conditions, where he could not control the circumstances. Therefore, I have observations-I was watching him closely when I could-but they are limited observations.] [This is the internet. Welcome to the internet! If you're new to the internet, I recommend catching up on it. Here's one Flash that explains a little. http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php As for this messageboard, anyone is welcome to come and just post their thoughts here, and the only times the staff interferes (they're a VERY permissive staff) is if a post is overtly ABUSIVE, or releases information about people who have not consented to be public figures, or is overtly advertising, pornographic, or otherwise inappropriate for messageboards. So, you can just post your thoughts here. (Please post them to the appropriate forum- Politics go in the Political forums, and so on.) This is the internet. Most messageboards (and all the ones I post at), whenever you post, your posts are subject to being agreed-with, disagreed-with, discussed, dissected, sneered at, sneezed at, applauded, lauded, jeered, respected, and otherwise replied-to. Even the board owner is subject to that- and HIS posts have been agreed-to and disagreed-with, and he doesn't censor those (except as I explained above). A LOT of boards-including all boards run by current twi members- if you disagree strenuously or even mildly, your posts may or will be edited or deleted, and you may be banned. If you think THIS board is tough, there's a lot of boards where you'd be subject to a lot "freer" speech- where replies may be-and are-ABUSIVE. We are NOT tough as the internet goes- we're fairly mild, or middling at worst. There's a balance to strike between "allow everything to be posted with no restrictions" and "make a harmonious environment even if that means deleting most of the posts and banning most of the users" that all boards must strike, as determined by their staff, and responded to by the posters. This board, IMHO, strikes a healthy balance. You have posted already. You are free to continue to post. Likewise, those who disagree with you are free to continue to post. You were free to disagree with Juedes, me and others, and nobody pushed for you to be censored or banned. Likewise, we are free to disagree with you, WD or others, without being censored or banned. The treatment is even-handed. ] [You've freely posted before. You freely posted now. You can continue to freely post. You've contributed to the discussions already, and added to the aggregate knowledge here, even when there's disagreement. If "freely post" means "I post and others are not allowed to disagree", then, no, this is not that kind of board. You are free to set up your own board and make it against the rules to disagree with you there. Plenty of people do that. Don't ask me where they are- even when I'm on board-staff, people can disagree with me all they want so long as they don't get abusive- and vice versa. But if that's REALLY what you want, hey, more power to you, go right ahead, it's easy to set one up, and you can invite whoever you want to it. Me, I think it would be a shame, and you and we could benefit from you continuing to read and post here, but my opinion is hardly binding on you or anyone.]

Language Social Musical I don't think this should come as a shock to anyone, really....

Daniel Stern Very Bad Things Jeremy Piven (Even I can link from Piven, so I'm sure someone else can...)

That's open to debate. Feel free to open the debate. Small portions of copyrighted material are allowed to be quoted for the purpose of reviews,and this would qualify as a review. So long as you cited the sources of the material, it would be completely legal. But I congratulate you for having a concern for copyright laws- that's not a mindset that some people display. But you made an accusation about someone else, claiming that there's original subjects not found in pfal, which are found in WIGP. When asked to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM, you're saying that proving that you yourself are neither mistaken nor lying, you're claiming "it's not a worthy endeavour." Me, I consider the integrity of my word worth more than that. Of course, you're not me, and I'm not you. Not when YOU were the one making the claim.If I claimed the world was flat, and when you asked me to support my claim, I responded with telling YOU to do the work, would that make YOU excited? The one making the claim is the one to "do the work" and SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM. I've gotten used to people saying "Reverend X is a wonderful person and all the people who claim they had negative personal experiences are all liars!" That's happened A LOT around here. Thus my question. "Overly suspicious?" No, just not wasting any time, and asking outright. If you saw this happen all the time, you'd expect it again, too. And I never asked if YOU were lying, nor suggested it. However, you're saying you've only heard them "second-hand via anonymous posters". So, do you think they're lying, or not? Seems like you didn't say one way or the other. You may have MEANT to be clear one way or the other, but your response was ambiguous, intentionally or no. Ok, my fault, I skipped over the year. Right, the final corps at Gartmore were graduated by 1989. It is curious, though, that he spoke up about it at one point, but remained silent at another point. Perhaps he reconsidered over the years. So, you've ALSO seen him capable of kindness and temperance, AND ALSO capable of meanness and pettiness. Neither experience erases the existence of the other. Doesn't it argue FOR the similar experiences of those who've seen him berate someone until they were reduced to tears?

Again, I ask for ONE EXAMPLE. Or, are we supposed to believe you without support that what you're saying is true? (I asked WD for ONE EXAMPLE as well, and I'm still waiting for one. Maybe he'll have the time to post one soon...) Gee, hardly sounds like the same man who did some unspeakable things in twi, in frontof witnesses. I had a positive experience with him myself, but I consider all information, not just my own experience. Do you conclude that all personal accounts of negative experiences with him are all lies? I'm suspicious you do, but won't know until you say one way or the other... So, cg WAS aware that corps considered themselves qualified to counsel people, and considered that objectionable enough to say something, but not to try to address it with those running the program, to actually try to put a stop to it as a policy. Interesting.

The policy of people as DISPOSABLE was begun with vpw, and has continued to this day. Most of the people don't see THEMSELVES as disposable, which means when the FIND THAT OUT, it causes conflict. Further, the "present truth" is a continually-moving-goalpost, and twi drones have to keep moving continually to keep hitting it, and that means they have to just embrace EVERY thing that comes out of twi even if it contradicts what came out of twi YESTERDAY. Eventually, most people either notice it and get tired of it, or get sick and tired of being sick and tired. Finally, getting older and not being on the bod is frowned-upon by twi, which means that eventually twi will disapprove of you for the sin of getting older, and for doing ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST FOLLOW THEM BLINDLY AND SEND IN ALL THEIR MONEY. Of course, some followers have been successfully conditioned to NEVER THINK, which means the blindingly obvious is still not visible to them even if transparent. Everyone else, the information is at their fingertips. For which I will be among the many that will take a bow. True, UNChristian, and nonsensical. Small wonder that those who CAN think eventually "jump ship." And that's one thing that gives me a warm feeling, even in winter. (That and chili.)

I'm not a moderator or staff, but I know a few answers here. It is a "real word" in that language is organic and that word was used, and dictionary appearances don't determine whether that's so, the recognize existing usage. If not, we'd never get new words like "fax" or "email" or even "internet." This word WAS, however, made up in twi as a portmanteau of the words "retain" and "memorize". So, before twi, this wasn't a real word, and it's only used by people who picked it up IN twi or FROM twi. Occasional posters are completely welcome here. Feel free to post whenever you want. As for the protocol for name-tossing, the usual policy here is: the people at the top of twi, on the actual BOARD, are fair game to mention. Thus, you can type "victor paul wierwille, ermal owens, harry ernst wierwille, loy craig martindale, rosemary fox rivenbark" and so on through the current and past board members. If you want to give YOUR OWN name, you can. However, anyplace you post it will be searchable online for as long as the board exists, and thus it's not recommended you include any information you don't want the entire internet to have. (So I don't post my name, address, phone#, birth date, Social Security#, and so on.) If you want to name someone other than yourself or a member of twi's board, or the tiny handful who were up at the very top of twi, there's policies for that. For example, if you want to discuss the Bob who, along with his wife ensured that a lot of vpw's PERSONAL victims were not going to press charges, you can substitute characters, so that the names don't show up in internet searches. Thus, B*b M*yn1han is one way to render it, and we know who he is. Or B*b Mo****an (which is harder to recognize.) Or just initials (which is handier when discussing less-famous people like you or me.) Then again, some people-like my example- have gotten nicknames like "Moneyhands" which are recognizable AND seem to fit all on their own.

That's one of the few comedy routines that have reduced me to considerable hysterics the first time I saw it- as in "unable to see the screen because I'm laughing so hard." I can also DO that routine- but not NEARLY as well as Nelson. George Carlin's material in the 70s and 80s ranks among my favourite all-time comedy. Carlin's material in the early 90s, not so much so, and I feel he's lost what made him such a hysterically funny comedian since then. About the guy suing McDonalds because he didn't know it wasn't health food. "WHAT? You didn't know that FAT fried in FAT makes you FAT????" The Blue Collar Comedy Tour actors in general, I find pretty funny. Including Ron White, who often doesn't travel with it. I can't even pick one or two favourites. However, the late Mitch Hedberg is one of the more cerebrally funny comedians, IMHO.

Now, THAT I can get behind. Preserve the symbolism, but feel free to alter the specifics.

Actually, a LOT of posters have announced they got everything they needed from here, thanked everyone, and said they were getting on with their lives. I count each one a success story. Ditto a lot of posters who check in rarely. Gee, a front-man who acknowledges that others do a lot of the work, and doesn't take all the credit for their work! How refreshing!

I just wish I could find another S.P.E.W. button.... In other news, the W.O.M.B.A.T. grades are in! Click on the WOMBAT card on the desktop, enter your Student ID Code, then click on the envelope to open it and get your grade....

Here's the breakdown of the quotes. "No yelling." "I DO NOT YELL." "Then you should have no trouble with that part." Deanna Troi mediating between Worf and Alexander. Worf wanted Alexander to do his chores, and Alexander wanted Worf to not yell, which Deanna pointed out-since he said he DIDN'T, should be an easy agreement to make. "But mostly, a true friend is a person you can always tell the truth to without worrying about it." Lwaxana to Alexander. "Do you ever drop one?" "No, no, no. They are my worlds, and I protect them. I am a master of worlds, and they fly only as I wish." Alexander and the juggler in the holodeck program, of the colony of free spirits. "I'll bet you've never been to the colony of free spirits." "What do they do there?" "Whatever they want. Artists, philosophers, free-thinkers... .. people who don't quite fit other people's rules." "Hold! What is the lesson for today!?" "Damned if we know. We're just here for some fun and a mudbath." "Every moment requires a purpose." "No, it doesn't." "Every purpose requires a plan." "He does this every day; usually while everybody's food gets cold." "The higher, the fewer!" "Well, that's a conversation-stopper if I ever heard one." I thought the philosopher who kept expounding his philosophy was very memorable. Especially since Alexander kept saying "The higher, the fewer" whenever he wanted to stop a conversation. "To all the creatures within us!" "All the creatures within us?" "Of course. Every one of us has a thousand different kinds of tiny people inside us. Some of them want to get out and be wild; some want to be sad, or happy, or inventive or even go dancing. That's why we have different urges at different times." "Are we ready for the entertainment?" "Ready! Yes! Absolutely!" "And all those different little people inside us? We must never be afraid to take them with us wherever we go. Who knows when we might need one of them to pop up and rescue us from ourselves." "The great secret is not the variety of life; but the variety of us!" Lwaxana explaining to Alexander in the holodeck program. "So, my little warrior wants to see more in life than just fighting. Ah, the mind opens, and in creeps wisdom. Onward, to the laughing!" Alexander stopped the couple that loved to argue by telling them "The higher, the fewer!" and confusing them. "I wanted to say I'm sorry if I got you in trouble." "That's very sweet, dear. But I really wasn't in any trouble... until I saw this dress. Come sit down." "Ugly, isn't it? What's it for?" "I'm getting married." "Why?" Lwaxana was sent this antique wedding dress, since she wasn't going to get married in a traditional Betazed wedding. Alexander apologized, and asked the obvious question, which Lwaxana needed a friend to ask, anyway. "Protocol master?" "He is nonetheless welcome." "Campio, dear, personally I adore every ounce of ostentation I can get, but... a protocol master?" "I would not do you nor our benevolent hosts the disservice of failing to ensure that priorities are observed." "Oh, well that's... very thoughtful." "After all, it would be unpardonable to simply abandon ourselves to the moment, would it not?" ".......Unpardonable." Lwaxana met the stuffed-shirt Campio, who brought a professional killjoy to prepare for the wedding. Your turn, George!

That about covers it. Worf had trouble with Alexander ducking responsibility, and Lwaxanna Troi was there to get married to Campio-whom she never met. Lwaxana made things difficult by teaching Alexander to be carefree to the point of frivolity, and brought Alexander to a holodeck program where people did whatever. The irony was that Campio was much more rigid than Worf, and Alexander pretty much taught Lwaxana that she had to keep from choking her sense of self for the sake of a marriage that was totally wrong for her except on paper. The episode was called "Cost of Living", and the Enterprise also had a crisis-of-the-week which involved a meteorite infecting the ship with space parasites that needed to be lured off the ship.

I was getting ready to use that line. Can you give me just a LITTLE more information from this episode?

"No yelling." "I DO NOT YELL." "Then you should have no trouble with that part." "But mostly, a true friend is a person you can always tell the truth to without worrying about it." "Do you ever drop one?" "No, no, no. They are my worlds, and I protect them. I am a master of worlds, and they fly only as I wish." "I'll bet you've never been to the colony of free spirits." "What do they do there?" "Whatever they want. Artists, philosophers, free-thinkers... .. people who don't quite fit other people's rules." "Hold! What is the lesson for today!?" "Damned if we know. We're just here for some fun and a mudbath." "Every moment requires a purpose." "No, it doesn't." "Every purpose requires a plan." "He does this every day; usually while everybody's food gets cold." "The higher, the fewer!" "Well, that's a conversation-stopper if I ever heard one." "To all the creatures within us!" "All the creatures within us?" "Of course. Every one of us has a thousand different kinds of tiny people inside us. Some of them want to get out and be wild; some want to be sad, or happy, or inventive or even go dancing. That's why we have different urges at different times." "Are we ready for the entertainment?" "Ready! Yes! Absolutely!" "And all those different little people inside us? We must never be afraid to take them with us wherever we go. Who knows when we might need one of them to pop up and rescue us from ourselves." "The great secret is not the variety of life; but the variety of us!" "So, my little warrior wants to see more in life than just fighting. Ah, the mind opens, and in creeps wisdom. Onward, to the laughing!" "I wanted to say I'm sorry if I got you in trouble." "That's very sweet, dear. But I really wasn't in any trouble... until I saw this dress. Come sit down." "Ugly, isn't it? What's it for?" "I'm getting married." "Why?" "Protocol master?" "He is nonetheless welcome." "Campio, dear, personally I adore every ounce of ostentation I can get, but... a protocol master?" "I would not do you nor our benevolent hosts the disservice of failing to ensure that priorities are observed." "Oh, well that's... very thoughtful." "After all, it would be unpardonable to simply abandon ourselves to the moment, would it not?" ".......Unpardonable."

A) Please give one example (feel free to give more than one) of a topic in WIGP that-in your estimation-does not come from pfal. Never having taken it, I have no way to know if any exist, nor if things I don't consider a "topic" are being considered as such. I don't consider off-hand comments made in passing between subjects that are the focus of a class to be "topics", and I don't know if that's what you're referring to. So please give an example and then we'll all know. B) Juedes' site's materials were not written last week, nor are they updated daily with a continuous newsfeed. The articles were written with the perspective of the time they were written, and reflect that- or reflect the perspective of their most recent update, whenever that was. If the answers at ONE TIME are accurately recorded, and events change, the non-changing of an article is not proof of an agenda, it's proof the article needs updating. That becomes more the case when it's based on a subject that keeps a low profile. One need not presuppose a conspiracy where scarcity of news is present. You don't presuppose a conspiracy and agenda about cg lacking an online presence of any kind, do you? Please be even-handed and fair when making accusations. If you find something that needs correcting, you can just say "I think this needs correcting." As it is, I think that sentence DOES need correcting, and the words "to his followers" is better left off no matter how the sentence will read with an adjustment. I'm making a wild guess here, but I suspect Juedes appreciates being able to correct his articles to make them more accurate, and thus appreciates the notice. (Whether or not he appreciates the lecture tacked-on to it.)