WordWolf

I've read the opposite here- that those asked pointed to Walter or someone else, and never lcm, but that vpw picked him over everyone's objections. BTW, back then, there was some SERIOUS disinformation going around. I had been told lcm had been chosen the same way Matthias was chosen- by prayer and a vote, and not by vpw's fiat. Over time, I started hearing contradictory information on that...and top innies, even, said vpw chose lcm. The supposed reason vpw picked lcm was that he thought the corps would follow where the former corps director led. It's also been reported that someone asked vpw, and he said lcm never questioned him, but did whatever vpw required of him. If that's true, then the POP comment about vpw considering lcm and cg his top men makes more sense, since they were the 2 men most likely to follow vpw off a cliff.

How confident are you, looking back, that this is EXACTLY what happened? http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/strobe.asp

I don't normally do this, but I'm bumping the thread so readers can see it in time...

"CSI-Miami?"

Is this the one with the 21st century humans cryogenically frozen and now unfrozen, and the Klingons from some time ago before the Federation/Klingon treaty? No, it's HEART OF GLORY, isn't it? When the 3 Klingons show up on the Enterprise.

Fans of the Harry Potter books, THE THIRD WOMBAT TEST IS OPEN! That's on JKR's website. It will be only open for a short time, so don't wait forever!

Just from where I'm sitting, avoiding social contact is probably a COPING MECHANISM for someone beginning to come down with Alzheimer's. If you only deal with people you've known a long time, then the effects can appear to be minimized. If you continue to deal casually with more people, then the effects of a drifting or vanishing memory become more prominent- you can't hide that you forgot their names, who they are, etc. Further, sheer frustration can cause you to not bother with people, which means to the outsider that you're anti-social. So, I don't think it's a symptom OR a behaviour that leads to it, just a response TO symptoms.

Here's where the quotes were: "The problem is, I feel responsible for her self-nullifying behavior." Wayne, speaking in Cantonese, to Cassandra. He was a beginner, but somehow he was able to put together sentences like that one. ""Turn it off, man! Turn it off! It's sucking my will to live!" Garth, trying to get free of the invention, the Suck-Cut. (Ever notice the Flowbee was the same invention, and that was sold to people?) "I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees." Wayne talking about selling out. ""Guys! Wait up! I fell on my keys!" Garth, when they were sneaking, and Garth slipped. "I'd never done a crazy thing in my life before that night. Why is it that if a man kills another man in battle it's called heroic, yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion it's called murder?" Ed O'Neill plays this great role as the manager of that donut shop and hangout. "...marriage is punishment for shoplifting in some countries." Garth asked if Wayne was going to marry Cassandra. " Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century." Rocker Alice Cooper in his dressing room after the show in Milwaukee. "I'm not evil-I'm just good looking." Alice Cooper, the opening line to his song, "Feed My Frankenstein." "Anything wrong, Davy?" "Yeah, I got paid today." "Yeah, I know what that's like." "No. You don't understand. They laid me off. I got one of these." "Yeah, I know how that feels." "Know what I'd like to do?" "Yeah I know what you'd like to do. You'd like to find the guy who did it, rip his still beating heart out of his chest and hold it in front of his face so he can see how black it is before he dies." "Actually, I was thinking of filing a grievance with the union." "Well, the world's a twisted place." Ed O'Neill's character again. "Did you know that if you stab a man in the dead of winter you can see steam rising out of him? The Indians though it was his soul escaping from his body." And again. My next quote was going to be "Benjamin is no one's friend. If Benjamin were an ice cream flavour, he would be 'Pralines and D**k.' " Your turn.

Right!

(Yet more from the forbidden posts) ====================== "I admire your research Jr. I have been Digging it to. You attacking my faith. But i still see no threat, regardless of what you have been taught by "mens traditions". think about it Jr. if Christ is God how can he be tempted. In Heb.4:15 "was in all points tempted as us yet without sin", but in James 1:13 "God cannot be tempted" See Dr.Wierwille was making the word fit like a hand in a glove. This is one of the problems, you can not make it fit like that because here is a counterdiction in The Christ God thing. ====================== Well Let's Get into the " Accuracy of the rightly divided " RECEIVE with meekness RETAIN with Confidence. RELEASE with boldness Let us see if we can "dialegatol"(reason). like Paul did with the Jews Acts 17 You bring up a good point glad you did. again I say to you The "Greek" has the answers here too. I know this is taught by Ex-Wayer's but there not hungry for it, or meek to receive. or "they" would have found it by now. But I think you will move up to the "accuracy". Let us look at two Greek words translated "Tempted" Quote: Apeirastos This is the word for Quote: cannot be tempted in James 1:13 It is from the Prep. (prefix). "apo" and it is in the Gen. case here. "apo" here in Gen. is "governing this word "peirazo" so this is a compound word in Greek. translated "tempt" in Eng. "Apo" in Gen= the instrument of means, the cause of action, by way of, through, by. It works something like "Ek"= "out of" When in the Gen. James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, he is tempted of God: for "God "cannot be tempted" with evil, neither tempteth he any man." "God cannot be "aperrastos" with evil," "aperrastos" is a driv. of "peirazo" now the Eng. Kjv will throw you off track here. Because you do not see "apo" carried over correctly to our understanding here. does this make any sense if we translate with "apo" in the Eng ? "Let no man say when he is "peirazo", he is "peirazo" of God: for "God "aperrastos" with evil, neither "peirazo" he any man." So ask yourself how do we Transl. it ? See how "accurate God's-Breathed Word" is in Koine GK. The "pnuma hagion" knew that this would delete "MEN AND THERE TRADITION" the usage of this word cluster ,"aperrastos" here, tells us temptation does not come "by means" of God. Theos, Elohim, YHWH, Pnuma, can be "peirazo" Heb. 415 what Greek word do we see here? "Was in all points "peirazo" like as without sin" Applied to "Thee Holy Spirit": Acts 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, how is it that you have agreed to "peirazo" "ho pnuma Kurios". notice the order of Greek words ("ho" same as "0"). God Bless ============================ Now I would like to take the time here, to tell you of a lot of "Ex-Wayer's" have started a lot of offshoots of the "Way Intl." They will tell you "We are not in" the Way" or we do not fellowship with them. they are very careful in hiding "The Way International" from young converts, because there is a thing called "the Internet". Not long ago I was at a PFAL class and I said "the way is not correct in this" I noticed the reaction "sssshhhhh" the leader said in a low voice looking at me, with his back turned toward the Young Potential Convert (which was a 50-60 year old man) Here I want to say that the term "Ex-wayer" does not mean there "now Christian" and seen the "light". But they do not Fellowship regularly with the "Way International", And still hold to the Dr. VP. Wierwille's "butchering" of the Word. Now here is "some" Ex-Wayer Web sites ...........WARNING THESE GROUPS ARE A DANGEROUS NON CHRISTIAN CULT'S If you are Not stable in Christian Teaching you should Stay Out of these links If you belong to a Cult Awareness Group add these to the "DANGER" List Off Shoots of the Way International Akribos Theological Fellowship. Quote: http://www.akribos.org/ Christian Family Fellowship. Quote: http://www.cffm.org/ Ryburn Christian Clarion. Quote: http://www.godslivingroom.com/ The Way International. Quote: http://www.theway.org/ Try-God. Quote: http://www.try-god.com/ Word Centered Productions. Quote: http://wordcentered.com/index.html Cortright Fellowship. Quote: http://www.cortright.org/ Another Way Ministry. Quote: http://www.awm.org.au/ Christian Family Fellowship Mid. Michigan. Quote: http://www.cffmm.org/ Positive Word Ministry. Quote: http://www.posword.org/ Ministry of Reconciliation Quote: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mor2/ Powerfilled Ministering Quote: http://www.powerfilledministering.com/ Jamie & Debb's Place Quote: .http://www.hairys.demon.co.uk/ Ray and Donna's web Site and Bible studie's Quote: http://members.iquest.net/%7Eszkotak/

More from the forbidden public posts..... "*Let us Refresh our memory On Dr's Wierwille's "Literal Translation according to usage". *Jesus Christ not God Pg.91 "In the beginning (before the creation) God was the word, and the revealed word was in God's foreknowledge (witch was later communicated to man in spoken words, written word and incarnate word) This Word absolutely was in the beginning before the foundation of the world together with the one true God in his foreknowledge yet distinctly independent of him." The Way Intl. I wanted to post so we will not forget to look it up. and give them a chance to defend there case Some of the Way or ex-wayer's do not know Dr. Wierwille went so far to "Literally" add so many words to just 1 verse. 1) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" ? *Did not Wierwille tell us, when the Translators add to the word we no longer have a Translation but Mens Tradition ? (Power for Abundant living ) * Wierwille also told us in PFAL HOW THE WORD INTERPRETS ITSELF All scripture interprets itself: !. In the verse 2. In the context 3. used before 1) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" In the Verse? 2) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" In the context ? 3) According to Wierwille's own Theology this is a bunch of Mens Traditions, because there adding to the Word. and here he is guilty. So are we going to move up to the accuracy of the Rightly Divided Word ? God Bless ! =================== Now you got my att. It has to fit Jr. how does that fit with Heb. 1:2 "God created the world For(Dia in Acc.) Christ..." ????? IT HAS TO FIT LIKE A HAND IN A GLOVE You remember that jr. That does not fit, What about the Aramaic????? Jr. you will see Dr. had the accuracy, look at Est. Aramaic and at Psh.text ==================== It is nice that you came forward John. Can you tell us something about yourself? If not that is ok. Let us get into the Word v-1) God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. v-2) Hath in these last days spoked unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, "dia" whom he also made the worlds. * "Dia" needs to be "accurately divided" here . Is Dia in Acc. Case ? according to Wierwille in JCNG 1st Ed. when dealing with Heb.1:2. "dia' is. If this is correct then the Father made the world on account of His Son. And his Son did not Create the world. So let us use Wierwills rule of grammar in trying to divide Heb.1:2 "Dia"-=On account of, The aim of purpose "For". *Let us use Dr. Wierwilles definition of "dia", in another context, and flip the grammar to Acc. when it is in Gen., see if it makes any sense to you 2 COR.1:14,15 And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before that, you might have a second benefit; And to pass "for" you into Macedonia, and to come out of Macedonia unto you To be Brought on my way toward Judea. * It is clear this "dia" is not in Accusative here. Because the Context forbids it for one thing (also the accuracy of Greek grammar). So we are "Forced" into saying this"dia" is in Genitive. So now look at Dr. Wierwills definition for "Dia" In 1st JCNG when he accurately divides "dia" in JN 1:3 "All things were made "dia" him and without him was not anything made that was made." Wierwille accurately divides here and taught. " dia" is in Gen. Case. "through, by way of, by means of, the cause of action." because he feels no threat here prying with the English grammar, so that when he gets here,(following Pronouns) he can apply it to the Father. But he ignores the Subject of the Context "O Logos". So if we use Greek grammar in V3 to try prove the case, and again in Heb.1:2 we use Greek grammar to divided it. We "must" accept Greek all the way baby lock, stock, and barrel. And we clearly see, that in the opening of this thread. "o logos" is a" hutos' in the Greek. Remember Dr. taught in order to, "accurately divide" 'lambano, dechomai You must look at them only in the "holy spirit field". Notice how "dia" is used in creation accounts what do we see? We seen how it is used in Heb 1:2,And in JN 1:3. Look at it in Col.1:16 For in(en) him were all things created that are in the heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, principalities, or powers: all things were created "dia" him and "eis" him. * Now notice the Greek words here, (cf.Kjv.) "dia" is in a creation account again " WHO IS THE CONTEXT". Regardless if this a figure of speech here in Col. or not, the Context around this Prep. "dia " proves the case again, "dia" is in Gen.case in Heb1:2 and leads us back to the accuracy, that "all things were made by means of Christ" because there is ample evidence, that the accuracy in the Greek teaches, "all things were made by means of Christ Jesus" So that still leaves with another Question, What about the Aramaic ? The next thread we will Look at it ========================= You have something else in mind ? Or did you see problems with the way it was divided ? if so you will need a good "Greek" Concordance. But you are still stuck with the fact "you must accept" The Koine Greek "NT". is inspired " by instrument of means " of The "Father", to get the rightly divided " Word of God. " See I want you to know I believe that " it has to fit ", and you are Just as concerned as me. about the "accuracy of the Scriptures". And we both agree "the Word of God is the will God" Let us look at this, Wierwille taught that the New Test was inspired in Aramaic but he tries to prove his "case" in "Greek" many times. Either it is "Greek" or "Aramaic" ? Notice how Loy Craig Martindale, And Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, John D. Hendricks, taught how. "the Churches got their Trinity", " From Council of Nica 325 Ad." (this ia a Watchtower Teaching). Many Ex-Way followers go on about how: There is no manuscript support for "Koine Greek" Until after The Council of Nica in 3:25 AD. and the Catholic Church was merging with the Pagan's, and the translators Deliberately "forged the Word" This is how "I" see it MT 28:19 is a "Forgery" Because of men and there "Foul Mouth", "there evil to the bone" ( Father and Son Saviors by Hendricks ). Now let us keep this in mind and say: where is the Text support for the Eastrungelo Aramaic "before the Council of Nica" ? (Eastrungelo Aramaic 4th Cent. Check it out I did) So "aaaaannnnttt" (as the sound from the game show sounds as you miss). *But Rick Heeter President of "The Ryburn Christian Clarion" A Cult News letter in Every Montgomery County Library. This Ex-Wayer, claims "they just have not found them yet" (he is saying in short koine Greek is a "counter fit") So if you still accept the theory "no Greek Text before Nica". Research it, see if that statement is true. But I will tell you one thing you will not be able to do it unless you, are hungry, and meek to receive , and able to retain with confidence, " You cannot release with boldness " This is too easy for a Person as your self: Are a researcher ? If so how can you be let down by "Inaccuracy of Men" Not caring about The "accuracy" in " God's-Breathed Word " So now we will look at Dr. Lamsa the "Aramaic Scholar" and we know what DR Wierwille Sad about him now don,t we Did you Know Dr. Lamsa And Dr. Wierwille had a fall out. You know what about "misuse of Aramaic, "Customs", "Manners", "Phrases". Like in Phil.2, Well any way. Let us Get in to Dr. Lamsa's Translation of the "Pedangta" Text John 1:1:1-2 "THE Word was in The beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word The same was in the beginning with God." *Notice the order of the words here how Dr. Lamsa uses his superior knowlege in the "Pedangta Airamaic " (In this area) that he seen "God was that Word". And places the Words "accurately in order". Dr. Lamsa Was honest with this, and put the order of words "correctly" in his Translation of the Pedangta. Let us look at this part so you see what I am looking at here. This Translation Is Way more "accurate" in the "order" of the word's than most. ..."And God was that "Word the same" was in the beginning with God. (Emph. added) Look at "Dr. Lamsa's" Lit. from Pedangta Aramaic. Heb. 1:1-2 'FROM out of old God spoke to our Fathers by the Prophets in all manner in all ways: and in his latter days he has spoken to by his Son. v-2) Whom he had appointed hear of all things, and by ( the instrument of means) whom he also made the worlds. (Emph. added) *Notice the use of the word "by" here Again, Dr. Lamsa uses his superior knowledge in the "Pedangta Airamaic " Now what problems ? ===================

Let's see, what WAS on the thread that they considered too controversial to let exist once we were aware of it? (Google cache, I choose you!) ================== Could not find A thread on "The Way" But would like to say I live around Dayton Ohio and the Ways Splinter Groups is Very large and growing every day. If there is another thread on the Way here please contact me asap. This Sect is very very DANGEROUS, They appear to be Christians, but in turn they are a Satanic Cult, going against almost every thing The Bible Teaches. Brainwashing people out of the truth. They use Koine Greek, Aramaic texts, Textural critizeism. If you or someone you know has been effected by The Way, I want to tell you there is people that do believe "The Word of God is The Will of God" and can help. There is life outside of Vp Wierwille's teachings. Contact me we can have Fellowship, I do Care about the accuracy of the Word. I will spent time with you on any topic you feel comfortable with. Maybe you are stuck with some of the old WAY teachings ? Post a question. I have sat under PFAL, Researched "Jesus Christ is not God 1971:72 Ed ", 'God's Magnafied Word", " Jesus Christ our Passover, " Are the Dead Alive Now", "Also'(Ew Bullanger), Many more. Let me say Wayers or Ex-Wayers offten say "They Cannot Defend there Case" Well let me say that is a lie. You will find more detail outside the Way than in. If you take the time to see what the other side has to say you will cash in your chips if you are Meek to Receive James 1:21. Remember: Receive, Retain, Release? Are you ready to receive ? There is a very detailed teacher in Koine/Mod. Greek Today And published his book in 1967 "WAS CHRIST GOD" (Dr. Spiros Zodhiates) , Wierwille book "Jesus Christ Is Not God" 1971:72. (Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille) I have a audio copy of "Was Christ God" this is a tool of correction, you can hear the words pronounced properly and would love to let you hear and see what you think. I am Contacting AMG Intl About the Sharing of this audio on the Web so any one who has been effected by VP. Wierwille you can hear and see what Wierwill hid from you. And you will see Wierwille Did not even Know Greek Whatsoever. It is good to know a little Greek and his name is Spiros Zodhiates. Maybe you want A one on one discussion, Cool Drop me a e-mail. Or post on this thread. =================================== Well like to put this on the thread so it can be viewed by others that may have the same question. "kia Theos een o Logos" *Notice the order in Greek. not the same as in Eng. "and God was the Word" Kjv. *Now look at v2 "Hutos een en archee pros tou Theou In Kjv "The same was in beginning with God. Now together "and the Word was God the Same was in beginning with God" *Wierwille showed us to follow the pronouns to the Noun. "The Same" in Eng. grammar Is applied to "God" Now this is 100% correct in Eng. Now let us see what Wierwille hid from us or maybe he did not know? The Greek word "hutos" is a personal Adjective in 1st person sing. Form. "and God was the Word "This Person" was in beginning with God" Lit Trans. ( from the Greek) This makes "the Word" a person, not an Idea or speech. if Wierwille was right in his clams we would see "Touto" (impersonal Adjective.)- not "Hutos"(personal Adj.) See this is how we get to the Rightly Divided Word of God, The accuracy of the Scriptures. "Study to show yourself approved unto God"... Yo should know that Verse. Email me for Questions your identity will be confidential. ================================ *What does The accuracy, the Rightly Divided Word (logos) of God Teach, that "HE" in V-3 is " Who " *Was Dr. Wierwille accurate or did he poorly Divide John 1 (see JCNG Book and Dr's Transl. according to usage.) *Logos is a Big Word now is it not? Now we see the Logos is a person in Jn 1:-v2). We must look at him (Logos) in Context. A) In the beginning was" thee Word" B) and "thee Word" was with God C) and God was "thee Word' v-2) "He" was in the beginning with God * Now clearly the subject is "thee Word" in all 3 clauses. v-3) All things were made by "him": and without "him" was not anything made that was made. *Now who is subject in the entire context ? * Remember Dr. Wierwille Said the Immediate context must flow with the remote context. V 4) In "him" was (Had Been) Life: * in "him" had always been the life see "een"(was) in the Imperfect Tense. (we do not have this in Eng. so it would be hard to Translate this word in Eng.) "een" is an Eternal Verb in this Context. V5) And "the light" shineth in darkness: * Now who is THE LIGHT ? God bless you all =====================================

Easily possible. I don't even see it as "either/or" with what I posted. Both could be meant- after all, he said it twice...

I don't think that's such a sure thing. Look at the contrasts right there in the verse "you are from beneath" versus "I am from above" "you are of this world" versus "I am not of this world" Consider this set of non-figures. "You are from there" versus "I am from here" "You are not of this town" versus "I am of this town". Going back to the original example, if Jesus is contrasting "this world" (i.e. EARTH) with not of this world (i.e. HEAVEN), then those from beneath are of this world (i.e. EARTH), while those from above are not of this world (i.e. HEAVEN.) They were of Earth and minded earthly things, he was of heaven and minded heavenly things. Heaven is "above" earth by everyone's measure, whether you mean the atmosphere, or space, or God's Throneroom. ========= An entirely separate can of worms is the flexibility of the prepositions in Greek. We might say "from this", "for this world", "in this world", "of this world." A born-again Christian may be considered "from" this world, for he was born here, or "from" God if he was sent to a place by an order from God. He would be "for this world" in a sense of helping it, but "not for this world" in his preferences and his destination. He would be "in this world" for that is where he walks, but not "of this world" for he is God's and thus "of heaven." In Greek, however, with the same preposition translated ALL of those things at different times, it is difficult to draw a conclusion affected by a preposition. THERE I see PLENTY of room for disagreement.

"The problem is, I feel responsible for her self-nullifying behavior." ""Turn it off, man! Turn it off! It's sucking my will to live!" "I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees." ""Guys! Wait up! I fell on my keys!" "I'd never done a crazy thing in my life before that night. Why is it that if a man kills another man in battle it's called heroic, yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion it's called murder?" "...marriage is punishment for shoplifting in some countries." " Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century." "I'm not evil-I'm just good looking." "Anything wrong, Davy?" "Yeah, I got paid today." "Yeah, I know what that's like." "No. You don't understand. They laid me off. I got one of these." "Yeah, I know how that feels." "Know what I'd like to do?" "Yeah I know what you'd like to do. You'd like to find the guy who did it, rip his still beating heart out of his chest and hold it in front of his face so he can see how black it is before he dies." "Actually, I was thinking of filing a grievance with the union." "Well, the world's a twisted place." "Did you know that if you stab a man in the dead of winter you can see steam rising out of him? The Indians though it was his soul escaping from his body."

Still sounds like "Law and Order." Is it one of the flavours of CSI?

I can answer why I return, but not why you return... In my case, my thoughts are LESS tied up with twi since posting and reading here. Although I do not disagree categorically with EVERYTHING they taught and teach, we've examined quite a few things, both in print and on tape and in classes that twi covered, and shown that they don't reflect sound doctrine. Sometimes they're major things -like the so-called "law" of believing. Sometimes they're minor things-like "were Samson and Jesus molested". Either way, the process of thinking and examining what they taught, each time, makes me a little freer of the choices of blindly accept their docrtrine because they said so, or blindly reject their doctrine because they said to accept it. (Not that I began as wildly embracing every utterance, but every little bit counts.) ======== BTW, on the internet, there are interest groups for EVERYTHING, including ex-members of religious organizations. Here, we can learn what we didn't know, tell others what we do know, discuss what we thought we knew or know, or just socialize. I like to do all of the above, in turns. Some of us are still playing forum games in the Reading Room forum, and I think those who think this place is cheerless really ought to join in a game for a while.

I consider the trinity outrage to be a ridiculous diversion that drew attention from the REAL talking-points. Quite a few Christians are quite levelheaded and won't label their fellow Christians as Satanic for disagreeing with them-even if it's for being on "the wrong side" in discussions on the Trinity. All it takes, however, is a few extremists, and they get all the attention. You are aware that there were at LEAST a few nuts in twi down the years, right? I've heard amazing accounts here about some fellow corps members from some of the corps grads. One guy prepared to go assassinate someone because vpw or lcm said someone should kill him. (The suggestion of a leader, in his mind, was tantamount to a command, after all, which IS what vpw taught. The leader suggested it, so it was commanded.) Another guy, when needing to take a bathroom break during a long lcm teaching, elected to stay seated on a bench instead, relieving himself in his pants rather than get up. Others thought it was ok to beat kids with sticks (wooden spoons) until they were 1/2 unconscious, or until they drew blood, or for 1/2 an hour. Even if those were all the nuts in twi, there were quite a few of those. Now, if a normal person sees THEM and thinks they're REPRESENTATIVE of the AVERAGE twi-er, then it would be small wonder they thought twi'ers were nuts. On the other hand, if your impression of other Christians is based on some of the people who claim that twi was satanic, that Dungeons and Dragons is satanic, that Harry Potter is satanic, that rock and roll is satanic, etc, etc. then your impression would naturally be that THEY were nuts. ========= Me, I agree with those that say vpw LIKED that people like that were outspoken and existed. It made him look better that he could contrast himself with that, and he could pretend they were the AVERAGE Christian, and thus that the choices were between people like THAT and twi, with twi being the only sane ones. Or, to borrow a phrase, if nuts like that didn't exist, vpw would have had to invent them to make himself look better by contrast.

Anyone notice-when it was up-that among the twi offshoots, they listed twi?

Unless I missed something recent, cg has his own little corporation (probably non-profit) and sells his classes in exchange for a tithe from the locals or an annual license to run his classes. Depending on who you ask, that's either a good or a bad thing in and of itself. Some posters here could tell you more, since they seem to be in some local group under him. ========= To those of us who left twi in the 70s and 80s, it's ludicrous and ridiculous to see where things went eventually. Here's how I see the progression. vpw trained lcm, and put him in charge of the corps training. Then he put him in charge of the whole shebang. lcm thus started close to the top and stayed there, and had vpw's example of special treatment to fall back on, rather than a conventional education like seminary or grad school. lcm thus relied on his experience observing vpw, or running the corps, and extrapolated from there on how to run the entire organization. vpw kicked out an entire corps class twice, and once allowed them to return, provided they signed an oath of allegiance. So, when lcm wanted to tighten his grip, he demanded an oath of allegiance from the staff and the corps. Those that didn't agree, he kicked out, and he didn't have to deal with them anymore. Incidentally, this resulted in about 80% of twi's members leaving WITH the local staff. Those who remained (about 20%) were loyal enough to stick around despite the issues that many or most of those who left considered sufficient grounds for leaving. (I found the entire demanding of an oath sufficient grounds for leaving, myself, and added direct observation to that of lcm and company to clinch my suspicions.) Over the next few years, there was some reshuffling of assets, and some adjusting of expectations. According to eyewitnesses, about 1994, that all changed. Now, everybody began getting "orders", and they had to do whatever lcm said-which meant they had to do what the Limb leader said, which meant they had to do what the Branch leader said, which meant they had to do what the Twig leader said. We missed things like being expected (required de facto if not de jure) to provide free babysitting services for local leaders, free housecleaning services for local leaders, and all kinds of things where the response from you or I would vary between sarcastic laughter, a rude hand-gesture, just walking out, or the rough edge of your tongue. But, see, all the people who would object were gone, and these changes came so, so, slowly..... ============ "When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Hans Neimoller (translated.)

My problem with that isn't just that he was a jerk (or even my problem with lcm was that HE was a jerk), but that vpw was the one promoting he was The MOG. (As lcm later promoted of himself.) Being flawed is no surprise, being a jerk, in and of itself, is not an outrage. My purpose in making this thread-before it was co-opted recently by someone whothought it was useless because discussion had stopped- was to compile in one place the explanations, meanings, definitions and examples of what plagiarism IS, what plagiarism is NOT, why plagiarism is BAD, and how to avoid plagiarism. Pretty simple subject. What bothers me the most about this is that a number of people STILL can't seem to get many of those. When vpw slapped his name as AUTHOR on JCOP and JCOPS, that was dishonest, and deceptive, and fed into his self-promotion as MOG. However, so long as the writers consented to this (and I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not) this was perfectly legal. I've liked the Destroyer book series. Almost all the books in it I liked were written by James Mullaney. The covers say "Warren Murphy and Richard (Ben) Sapir" wrote them. The latter is especially difficult, since Sapir died before most of them were written. Mullaney (and others) ghost-wrote a lot of the series-most of the GOOD books, in fact. Ghost-writing (paying someone else to write a book in your name) is legal-so long as they consent to this usage of their writing. So, JCOPS and JCOP were examples of the research dept's work, and of ghost-writing, but NOT examples of plagiarism. Those whose words were used there consented to their use. The White Book, by contrast, was Stiles' work with some of Bullinger's work added. (Probably some of Leonard's, as well.) None of them gave consent for their work to be lifted, and none of them are properly cited. Even if all of them were in the public domain- which they were not- they would STILL need to be properly cited in order to be legal. vpw was NOT "legally right" when he put his name on the White Book, nor the Orange Book, which were unquestionably the work of others, recompiled with their names removed and his name added. That's plagiarism, and legally, it's a crime. Leonard was within his rights to sue-but he CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. (Perhaps because of one Christian standard of morality that says not to sue other Christians.) We know he was offended because he later added an elaborate notice about plagiarism to his books. Perhaps vpw lied to himself and eventually believed he was entitles to plagiarize. He knew what it was and that it was wrong because he went to high school, college, and Princeton Theological Seminary. Each of those-and especially Princeton Theological Seminary- would have taught what it was and why it was wrong. (My junior high school, even, taught me that.) Perhaps you believe he was entitled to do so. However, it was illegal, and if he had been taken to court over it, he would have lost (unless his lawyers were brilliant enough to snow the judge like Johnnie Cochran.) he violated the LETTER of the law as well as its INTENT. That it seems sinister THAT he broke the law is less of a surprise when you realize he knew it was illegal, and broke the law, and just planned not to get caught. Of course, WHY he broke the law has nothing to do with DID he break the law, nor does it affect the contents of the book. However, it reflects on the character of the plagiarist. In all honesty, (I WAS NOT THERE AND CAN ONLY SPECULATE) I suspect he was not INTENTIONALLY a jerk, and missed all the glazed eyes. My thinking is that he DIDN'T CARE ABOUT YOU. If the story bored HIM, that would have been something else. I don't think he noticed the inattentiveness, because it didn't matter so much to him unless it was brought to his attention. Even if he kept you up late for no reason, he wanted to, so what you wanted or what was fair to you didn't matter. Similarly, I think when he plagiarized he DIDN'T CARE about the law, the authors, the readers. He cared that he got to use the writing, and that he got the credit, and that he got the profit from the book sales (although I think that came last). What he wanted is what mattered, not what others wanted or what was even fair to them. I can only say why it matters to me. I won't speculate why it doesn't matter quite so much to you. I'll take your word for whichever conclusions you draw for yourself.

I hope nobody will mind if I post the next one without waiting for confirmation... "The problem is, I feel responsible for her self-nullifying behavior." ""Turn it off, man! Turn it off! It's sucking my will to live!" "I mean, Led Zeppelin didn't write tunes that everyone liked. They left that to the Bee Gees." ""Guys! Wait up! I fell on my keys!" "I'd never done a crazy thing in my life before that night. Why is it that if a man kills another man in battle it's called heroic, yet if he kills a man in the heat of passion it's called murder?"

*howl* "What was that?" "Werewolf." "Werewolf?" 'THERE." "What?" THERE WOLF. THERE CASTLE." "Why are you talking like that?" "I thought you wanted me to." "No, I don't. Suit yourself. I'm easy." It's "Young Frankenstein." (Or Frahnkensteen.) The clothing comments were from when the Doctor left by train for Transylvania. His fiancee was very particular about his goodbye. (IMHO, Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles should be on the required list for viewing for all-time funniest comedies.) I had wanted to give a decent shot in case someone else checked in and recognized the quote.

No, just a trivia fan, and huge Star Wars fan back when the original trilogy was out. (Nowadays, not so much, but I still like the trivia.) ??? 3-D version?Nevermind, I don't want to know. Not exactly. Here's a breakdown on the Darth Vaders in the original trilogy. -James Earl Jones. He did the voice, and didn't wear the costume. -David Prowse. He wore the costume in almost all the scenes, and never did the voice. -Bob Anderson. He was the swordmaster on-set who taught lightsaber dueling, and wore the Darth Vader armor in the dueling scenes. (He was effectively a stunt/action double for Prowse in those scenes.) -Sebastian Shaw. He played the former-Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker, at the very end of RotJ. Supposedly, Luke redeemed Anakin from the Dark Side, even though he died afterwards. At the very end of the movie, we see the Force ghosts of Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Anakin, proving this happened. He appears as an older gentleman not anything approaching Obi-Wan's age. The most recent change Lucas made was to swap an image of Hayden Christensen (exactly as he appears in Episode III:RotS) for Sebastian Shaw's image there. My main problem with that is that he obviously would look older in SOME way. If Lucas bothered to change it, he should have done a complete job and put some makeup on him to make him look older in some way. Come on, that's Hollywood. It's relatively EASY to age an actor with makeup and a wig. He even could have done it with digital manipulation and just alter the image. Instead, he made up excuses that said Anakin would look the same as when he became Darth Vader. Even the casual fans find that an insufficient excuse. Lucas has a bad habit of continually fiddling with movies that were already DONE.

Less than a year ago, I heard they were releasing the ORIGINAL original trilogy, with NONE of the changes that were made for the Special Editions. While some of the changes were cosmetic (Empire Strikes Back's Cloud City, in backgrounds while Lando, Han, Leia, Chewie walk, go from metal-walled corridors to some windows with vistas, a few seconds added to Star Wars' Tatooine with animals and Jawas, a musical number in Return of the Jedi with Jabba's house-band), some changed story elements (Greedo shoots and misses Han from about 3-5 feet away, and Greedo makes a living shooting things, "Blast it, Biggs, where are you?" becomes "Blast it, Wedge, where are you?", and a lot of changes at the close of Return of the Jedi) change the story, and some consider those negative changes. Some of the cosmetic changes strike fans similarly- I dislike the unnecessary changes to the Cantina in Star Wars, which just HAPPEN to excise the Shistavanen from virtually all his screen-time. Having said all of that, I haven't looked into getting the original unchanged versions. I know there was one advertised a year or so ago, but there seems to be some disagreement as to how much was completely original and how much wasn't. If I were looking for them, I'd probably look through Wookiepedia for links to follow up on the releases. Specifically, the links off of the article http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_cha...ars_re-releases might help. (Or they might not.)