WordWolf

The original recalls concerned wet foods, so you're safer with dry foods than wet foods. The ingredient that seems to be on the news, that was affected, was "wheat gluten." So, find a package of dry food, and read the ingredients. No wheat gluten, no tainted ingredients. Please note that this is free advice, not guaranteed in any way, and I'm no expert.

BTW, if you stick around, eventually probably want to call yourself something else, something more personally descriptive.

I recognized it when you included Hyannis. ======= Ok, next song. "Rose and Valerie screaming from the gallery Say he must go free"

To be specific, it's supposedly the number of people who ever signed up for pfal. A) I question if there really were 100,000 who ever signed green cards. B) Not everyone who ever signed the green card showed up for Session I. When I first took it, one of 7 was a no-show from the beginning. C) Not everyone who ever showed up for Session 1 showed up for Session 8 (the Born Again session), or Session 12. When I first took it, we were down to 3-4 by Session 8, with 3 grads at Session 12. (Me, a coordinator's wife, and a different coordinator's teen.) I've considered the number 100,000 an inflated number for years, just when using it to measure GRADS. ==== Someone already pointed out that most pfal students were already born again long before they ever heard of pfal.

Thanks to all who've appreciated my posts. I'd like to add, you'd never SEE my posts, because there would BE no posts, if PAWTUCKET hadn't set up the GSC in the first place, and kept it up since then. I've learned a lot here, and posted a lot here in that time. So, I'd like to thank PAW once again. How anyone could know PAW runs this place and claim it was dominated by women is beyond me-if they're trying to be HONEST. ==== T-Bone, under the offensive posting, please remember that this is not entirely the result of someone just acting out. These are the result of dysfunctional thought patterns inflicted in twi, which are still in effect, never having been replaced by different cognitive processes. He's a VICTIM of vpw, TOO. His WOUNDS haven't healed, EITHER. Even if HE can't find sympathy for his fellow victims, that doesn't mean WE can't find sympathy for ALL vpw's victims, even when they are inflammatory.

That's all I've read to date. There have been discussions with variations on some of the above, but that's the brief summary, the bullet points. There's also an "argument from silence"-the lack of her EVER getting involved with a guy- which by itself is proof of nothing, but is enough to make one go "Hmmmm..." (At some point in the past she was married, but we haven't seen her in any relationship thru her entire twi history.)

Was not a "questionable" couple. They were known to be lesbians. The story that went around was that they were PREVIOUSLY lesbian, but had been delivered. Naturally, they exhibited NO behaviour that showed this was in the past, and they shared a basement apartment. You also left out something that was posted- that Donna and Rosa-lie travelled together- and shared a room- and shared a BED-they stayed in 1-bed rooms. (When I split a room with another guy, we split the room, and the bathroom, but the room has 2 beds, and each of us gets one bed.) That's independent of one person who said they walked in on them "after". (As in "right after the crime stopped blazing", so to speak.)

You must have been playing in a "ROCK AND ROLL BAND", and touring off in some city, like "BOSTON".

Wow. *does the math* You were around when vpw was alive. (I don't capitalize his initials since learning everything I've learned about him.) You're not the only one who had to leave a spouse behind because they would rather hide in the "bubble" of twi than face life outside of twi. Not me, but a number of posters have had that happen. I'm glad your kids aren't "in"-or at least are only "in" on paper and are awaiting an airlift, whichever is the case. Well, for starters, here's some advice for new posters.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 If you're completely new to the internet and/or messageboards, just say so, and the posters will provide some general guides. (In the meantime, you can just watch this video... http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php ) Many of us are still Christians-just not in twi. Some of us aren't anymore, but are still well-mannered participants in the discussions here. Some of us joined denominations. Some of us joined "splinter groups" -ex-twi groups managed by people twi taught. Some of us run screaming when someone suggests joining a splinter group. Some of us are "free agent" Christians, sort of "free tange". It's considered healthy by almost all of us to examine the doctrines you were taught- since you weren't allowed to do that until now, so you probably didn't. The Doctrinal Forum has many discussions on those. What else can you do? Well, we have games in the Reading Room, and live chat in the Live Chat room. We discuss all sorts of things in all sorts of forums. I recommend spending some time in some of the Archives, in Doctrinal, and looking thru old threads in "About the Way." You'll learn a lot, and will have many, many surprises. If you still have a copy of "the Way:Living in Love", you might want to look at the thread "the Way:Living in Wonderland" for another look at its contents. (Or if you don't still have a copy, for that matter.) I also recommend taking a few months and working thru the Documents and Editorials on the main website. They're useful and worth reading-and rereading.

The really odd thing: despite my inability to find any actual signs of a church called the Navelites, someone here claimed they spoke to someone who claimed they interacted with them- a Never-Been-Way person, yet! However, this person supposedly was a member in Ohio, and the tale of this group keeps placing them in California, home of weird doctrines. I honestly don't know what to believe on this.

*bumps thread in the hopes a quote will emerge* Looks like a Voyager or Enterprise quote, and I saw little of either.

I'll add Jesus wouldn't fog issues with SPECIFIC insults by name, meant to add irrelevant digressions, when we're discussing those who committed offenses against the little ones. Then again, Jesus isn't one of my wounded brothers, and is unlikely to make mistakes brought on by injury.

If you were paying attention, and not just focusing on justifying a worldview that venerates vpw no matter what he did, you'd see I added to the subject ALREADY. But, of course, even admitting THAT interferes with a blanket label of all my posts, which is necessary to avert one's gaze from the substance in them. Since I am not a MODERATOR, I'm free to post without worrying whether or not anything butthe substance of my posts will interfere with the free exchange of ideas, and swaying the opinion of any reader. Thus, my posts only carry THEIR OWN weight, and any reader can consider their content on their own merits. Actually, the logic and facts was all the eyewitness accounts of the VICTIMS, and the CONFESSIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THOSE WHO KNEW AND WERE ASHAMED THEY DIDN'T STOP IT. But, of course, you don't care about those... The scenario is only BARELY hypothetical. For a lot of women, that's PERSONAL HISTORY. Since you care not that vpw attacked THEM, since it touches you not as a non-participant who knew nothing of it and don't have their blood on your hands, the question was raised- what if he HAD victimized someone you actually can summon an ounce of compassion for? Amazing that you're saying that you STILL would be more interested- had it been a close loved-one of yourself- to say responding would actually be "losing sight of the facts." The facts would be "he raped my daughter." "I respected him before she reported he raped her." The only questions are: "Is my daughter claiming to me someone raped her because she is lying?" and "If I believe her, what do I do about it?" So, there's more emotion that someone would claim vpw raped them- attack the one reporting it!- than to the man who was reported as having performed the rape- "that the ministry be not blamed!" That's dedication for you. That's single-mindedness for you. That's fricking inhuman is what it is..... And if you actually WOULD attack a family member for reporting their rape by vpw, well, all I can say is, you wouldn't be the first....... Wait- so, you're saying, that, just as a hypothetical, if you raised her as a member of, say, the "Wheat Tares Church of Sheboygan" (I made that up) while you both were members, and she came to you, reporting that the head of the denomination raped her, that you actually might care? That would actually add something to the discussion.....

This has nothing to do with whether a female poster would like to use a male organ they don't have on a female they don't know. John made a claim of this. When someone posted vpw's ugly and perverted MO, and was a girl, John's refusal to admit vpw did something bad was phrased as averting his gaze from a report of "this is what vpw did to others and would do to your daughter" and labelling it "fantasize about what they would like to do to my daughter under the guise of "this is what VPW would have done", speaking of perverts." Those without dysfunctional thinking patterns, or avoidance issues, or a personal stake in defending vpw, can see that this would NOT be such a report if that poster is a woman.... since a woman wanting to use an imaginary body-part is more than a little silly. What the other posted did was "she simply related the mo of vp. YOU are the one who made that into something ugly and perverted..." The reason this produces outrage here-as it would anyplace people aren't struggling to shield vpw from his well-earned blame- is rather simple and has already been stated. "How about being offended with the freaking pervert that COMMITTED these atrocities...instead if getting your panties in a twist over the folks that are telling what the freak did to them???? Number THREE....this is what happened to MANY mens teen aged daughters at the hands of vpw...but hey I understand...as long as it wasn`t your kiddo,I suppose then it doesn`t count." So you admit the scenario-which was the STANDARD MO of vpw, what he did MANY, MANY times as reported by MANY, MANY women who are total strangers to each other, is ugly and perverted? *studies* Actually, you carefully phrased yourself to avoid admitting that it was actually ugly and perverted, while avoiding admitting that MANY, MANY victims came forth and said this is what vpw did. Clever-allows you to maintain a position of zero blame for the serial rapist. The scenario was her own, and that of MANY, MANY victims. All she did was swap in your daughter instead of the MANY, MANY women who were "the right" (or "the wrong") age when vpw was on his crime-spree. Can you even admit as a hypothetical that if ANY man raped your daughter under ANY excuse- using force, drugs, or any other coercion- that you'd think it was wrong of him to do so, and might actually CARE that he did it?

John, you've already established that what things sound like to you is not reliable and not consistent. I'll translate the above to you- which you quoted and replied to. (In case Jean is misreading this, I'm answering JOHN here like it says in the quote-flag, not Jean.) rascal said nobody would have wasted their time writing out their accounts of what they experienced first-hand, if the person who supposedly was INTERESTED in knowing what happened admitted that they DIDN'T CARE what happened after all. To write out one's experience to enlighten the DISINTERESTED is a WASTE OF TIME, as most rational people would readily admit. That's what you quoted. You then said that this very reply "sounds like conditional love to me", and went off on a lecture about "conditional love". But this doesn't sound like "CONDITIONAL LOVE" to anyone else. This sounds like people NOT WASTING THEIR TIME. If a parent decided to spare their child a 20-minute account of their own upbringing because the child was disinterested, was that UNLOVING? No, they're just not wasting their time, partly BECAUSE they love their child. Most people can see the difference, and love-conditional or unconditional- has no bearing on whether or not someone chooses not to waste the time of the disinterested. I can post a lengthy diatribe in the history of swords throughout history. I don't. Is it because I don't care about the posters, or because I don't want to spend hours writing something that doesn't interest them? I'll leave that for you to work out on your own- most people can solve that one without any help from me. ========= As to your (unsolicited) speech about the conditional love in twi being superior to that in the GSC, almost everyone here would find that silly. In twi, past and present, if you're not interested in toeing the company line, you're to be ignored, and in most places, cast adrift even if you want to hang around. You won't even get discussions on the weather. In the GSC, you're welcome to read, post, and participate fully if you're in complete disagreement and post in complete opposition to most people- so long as you don't post abusively, troll, or break rules common across the internet. You can even play the games in the Reading Room indefinitely. The non-Christians on the GSC are a lot more "loving" in "unconditional" fashions than twi innies are now, or ever were when in. But of course, your diatribe didn't REALLY relate to the discussion as it stood, nor should anyone expect it to.... John, I know twi called mental health professionals all kinds of scummy things, but please consider finding a Christian with a professional license and experience, and seeing if you can derive some benefit from addressing unresolved issues from your time in twi. You'd derive lasting benefit, even if you only resolved a little. (In case you can't tell, this is sincere, legitimate advice, meant in the hopes that a brother in Christ will consider it and take action on it, to his own benefit.)

Jeaniam: "I really have no intention of getting sucked into Rascal's and Word Wolf's universe on this thread." rascal: "Why do you call it my universe?? Are you in an alternate one??? I have simply TOLD you what happened in twi. What problem do you have with reality?" Jeaniam: "You have told me your VERSION of what happened in TWI. And I have told you repeatedly my experience in TWI was very different. You have your explanation for that and I have mine. I don't think that means I have a problem with reality; I think it means that I am not going to run to ascribe the worst possible motivation to everyone I meet." rascal: "You are ignoring several people that have told you what happened.....their *version* is the same as my own." (snip) 1) I noticed Jean misspelled my screenname. 2) I noticed Jean claims she's in a different universe than I am. 3) Jean has made the error of confusing rascal's EXPERIENCE, WordWolf's EXPERIENCE, and Jean's EXPERIENCE, and what actually HAPPENED. Me, here's what I do. I take my EXPERIENCE, and to that I supplement accounts from others-including news reports if available- and analyze the sum total, and make my best conclusion based on the evidence at hand. My EXPERIENCE of 9/11 was that the news was covering a supposed incident, and lots of people were discussing it as well. Some train service was disrupted, all of Manhattan smelled like char for about a week, with concrete dust across almost all of it, and one person north of NYC said it looked like NYC was burning, judging from the thick cloud. Therefore, IF ONE PERSON'S EXPERIENCE was the be-all and end-all of finding the truth on a subject, then I would be unable to categorize 9/11 beyond "Manhattan got dirty and train service was unreliable." Of course, we can interview neither the hijackers of any plane, nor the passengers of them. According to some people, that means we will never know the truth of what happened concerning all 4 planes. ANYTHING is possible, since NOTHING can be determined. Perhaps the government hijacked them. Perhaps they were blown up in midair. Perhaps there were 4 planes abducted by aliens. We can't know since the passengers and alleged hijackers can't be interviewed. Oh, wait. We can rely on an investigation of 9/11. We can rely on investigations of most things considered historical facts and the results of investigations- but when it comes to what vpw did, we can't rely on ANYTHING. THEN we are crippled and doomed to complete uncertainty. "I didn't see him do it"= "He must not have done it." vpw's crimes get SPECIAL TREATMENT, and ANYTHING ELSE we can draw reliable conclusions on. I sometimes forget, for a moment, the SELECTIVE NATURE of criticisms of discussing ANY crime, wrongdoing, or any OTHER type of evil performed by vpw. Since I'm not crippled mentally by viewing any human as sacrosanct (save only the one seated at the right hand of God Almighty) , I forget not everyone is free of injury in this fashion.

More proof some people aren't actually reading this, and are heavily-filtering, or "cherry-picking", the discussion. Jeaniam quoted me saying "The context was caring about the crimes vpw committed- "his lying his plagiarism his abuses both sexual and mental" You don't care about THAT. You even quoted that YOURSELF." Jeaniam replied. "Actually I didn't say precisely that. Someone else took it upon themselves to embellish what I said. You need to pay attention and make sure you're reading accurately." Jeaniam obviously was NOT paying attention. She quoted me from a post further up the same page, post 28, which was especially easy to find since the quote had the arrow to link directly to the post. MY post quoted JOHN, includes his name, the date and time of HIS post, the entirety of HIS post, and the arrow to link directly to HIS post. HIS post said "quote: is it not a damned shame when people don't CARE? quote: And that my friends, is one reason why Wierwille was able to get away with his lying, his plagiarism, his abuses both sexual and mental. Enough people who knew, didn't care. We care; everybody cares about something." The last line was HIM, the others were quotes from other people. They said-and he quoted- that we were discussing Wierwille's lying, plagiarism, his abuses both sexual and mental. John replied he cared about SOMETHING. My reply, again, was "The context was caring about the crimes vpw committed- "his lying his plagiarism his abuses both sexual and mental" You don't care about THAT. You even quoted that YOURSELF. If you have a strong emotional response about US trade relations, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Everybody cares about SOMETHING (DUUUUHHHH), but not all care about vpw's abuses and crimes." Jean then took THAT post-complete with quoting John, and said "Actually I didn't say precisely that. Someone else took it upon themselves to embellish what I said. You need to pay attention and make sure you're reading accurately." Well, Jean, as anyone COULD have seen-and I've requoted here- nobody said YOU said that, precisely, approximately, or any other way. I was addressing JOHN and what HE said- and that EXACTLY- word for word, WITHOUT any embellishment. Since she brought it up, JEAN could use paying attention and make sure she's reading accurately. (She brought it up.) And again, John would sooner fog the issue than admit indifference to the lying plagiarism mental abuses sexual abuses of vpw. Since John is not completely in control of his faculties (his mind responds in a dysfunctional pattern, carefully perpetrated by vpw, when facing vpw's crimes, and John is another wounded victim on this forum,) so some empathy and pathos for this CAN be extended towards him.

What's Jesus attitude about those who prey upon the young, naive Christians? Matthew 18:6-7 " 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Better for him that he was drowned in the sea. Woe to him that performs the evil deed-the "offence." Mark 9:42-43. " 42And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:" We have it repeated. Even vpw would say it's "established." Better for him he was drowned. And, judging from Mark 9:43, Jesus would say that if one's choices were ONLY limited to "rape one of the young, naive Christians" and "castrate yourself", Jesus would say self-castration would be preferable. If the HAND caused performance of evil, it would be better to cut off the HAND than to let it lead one to evil.... Luke 17:1-2 "1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." We have it three times, here. BTW, Matthew repeats the warning about body parts. Matthew 18:9 "9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." Jesus was serious about telling us that sinning was seriously bad, and that sinning and harming the young, naive Christians was seriously bad. I'm sure glad Jesus HAS (I've no reason to think he has changed it) that attitude. He certainly wouldn't fog issues with vague insults meant to add irrelevant digressions, when we're discussing those who committed offences against the little ones. Then again, Jesus isn't one of my wounded brothers, and is unlikely to make mistakes brought on by injury.

If FullCircle leaves, then the terrorists have won! Wait, what are we talking about?

Some people have put a lot of work into not knowing anything, and hate to break up a streak like that.

Here's how the scenes broke down....

YES! And very few people, I think, are currently following this thread.

YES! What gave it away- all the quotes about swords and dueling, the quotes about people who lived for centuries, the beheading one, Richie Ryan calling Duncan "Mac", or Joe Dawson, the Watcher, and his club, "Joe's"?

Interested enough to criticize anyone who posts their account, or believes their account, but not interested enough to READ their account. What interests people is a very personal thing. Me, I'd read both sides of the story, but that interests me. That doesn't interest EVERYONE.