WordWolf

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.

This issue keeps getting brought up, and somehow it remains UNADDRESSED. SOME people are skipping past it. Perhaps they've missed it in all the text. Perhaps they'll see it now... Then again, perhaps all they'll see is some sort of satanic attack and not resolve the concepts at all...

AHA. That explains it. The WordWolf post preceeding this most immediately was THIS ONE HERE.... Johniam really ISN'T reading what's written here. He's responding to the imaginings he CAN'T HELP IMAGINE (his own words) which take discussing the factual accounts, eyewitness testimony, and occasionally, direct quotes from vpw, and translates that into some account of satan the accuser. Of course, this is what vpw taught to do with any criticism of vpw, no matter how fact-filled. In the case of Johniam (and perhaps others), vpw succeeded beyond his wildest expectations. John can't even HELP himself stop this mental matinee of imagery, He's a victim, too.

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. "Attempts to put us under law" must be Johniam speak for "trying to get us to see that it was wrong for vpw to plagiarize, rape, drug and rape, and aid and abet others in raping." Johniam has a non-standard use of language. (Either that, or his reading comprehension and my reading comprehension skills are translating this thread into completely different things. The first mention of the law was by me AFTER he posted this, and it was the laws of the US, which he is subject to anyway as a US citizen (even prison inmates who rejected them are STILL subject to them), and nobody ever mentioned the law as it applies to JOHN- just how it would-and should- apply to vpw, who broke them and conspired elaborately to cover up his tracks completely. It was a brilliant piece of work. It takes a fair degree of intelligence- and a complete absence of conscience- to set up the system vpw did and keep it running so well that decades later, some people can still call vpw's victims LIARS when they say what vpw did, and eyewitnesses LIARS when they say what they saw vpw do.

Be thankful to God you were overlooked or not chosen to be included. Or a guy. Jesus, and he's not particularly fond of people who cause his little ones to stumble.Better than man not have been born than he do that, that's what my Lord said. I'm inclined to consider Jesus an authority on the subject. Right. That's plagiarism-which is a legal crime and a moral wrong. It is deceptive, prideful, lazy, and criminal. If vpw had cited his sources for the material, it would have been perfectly fine.He knew EXACTLY where he got it all. WE found out decades later, and it wouldn't have been so impossible for US to cite them. He CHOSE not to for his own reasons, and that is morally wrong, and criminally wrong. Fraud is a felony in the US of A. Jesus didn't claim credit for writing the Torah. Please stop fogging the issue.The quality of the material has nothing to do with it being stolen. "Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth."-Raf. None of us claims the theft affects the material itself in any substantial manner. I agree. If vpw were alive and anyone questioned him, he would SCREAM at them AT HIGH VOLUME- which he did when alive. You left out the OTHER things he did when others MIGHT question him- he kicked them out of twi, ostracized them, and told the members they were possessed, lower than dirt, and should not be spoken to unless one wanted to get possessed also. BTW, if volume of voice =holiness, Al Sharpton is twice the minister vpw was, because he can shake a building when he screams. I was not aware, however, that volume or presentation=truth... I'm glad you admit he hurt some of our beloved sisters- some people refuse to accept that. (Plus some of the other things.) I'm glad I was taught the Word also. However, I'm mindful it was part of an agenda. And if you don't want anyone to respond to your thoughts, you shouldn't post them online. Nobody gets a free ride on that.....

You think incorrectly. Pfal, mark 1, was Leonard's class with vpw's name swapped in and Leonard's swapped out. That was not his work. He compiled the work of Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles, and Kenyon.Mind you, I have no problem with compiling their work- so long as the letter and spirit of the laws of the USA are adhered to, which means CITING SOURCES. vpw-for those who actually care about the truth- went out of his way to remove the names of the men whose work he performed a cut-and-paste on. The PUBLIC aspects of the minstry nosedived when lcm took the reins. lcm was chosen by vpw over EVERYONE's objections, and was trained for the job BY vpw before he was so chosen. Therefore, lcm's rank incompetence was vpw's invention, thus the deterioration under an incompetent was vpw's choice. (Either he didn't CARE about the results, or he was so oblivious he couldn't see what everyone else told him. He DID fixate on how lcm always did whatever he told him and never questioned vpw on anything, which seems to answer WHY vpw selected him. The PRIVATE aspects of the ministry were already deteriorated- that's the private activities of vpw and ha, the 2 top dogs of twi, who committed felonies and covered them up, victimizing the Christians, for whom Christ died. THAT couldn't deteriorate any worse. Well, that's something you care about-vpw getting praise. And that's something you DON'T care about- that the praise vpw receives is actually EARNED. vpw can receive credit for the accomplishments of others, and that's just fine with you. I can't tolerate deception like that, but then I'm not you. You're free to tolerate whatever you want. That is a very good question. Jean, if it WAS your daughter who had had sex with vpw and you found out about it, would you care about that? If not, feel free to just post "I wouldn't really care." I wasn't the first one to raise this question, but it's a good question and I think you lost it in the discussion.

He taught some good Bible. He plagiarized it and pretended it was solely his discovery to puff up his ego and image, but he still taught it, and I still heard it. I've never said otherwise, nor forgotten that. With the exception of usage of the word "manifestation", and the sex stuff, it's all been traced to other, better Christians. That covers the good stuff, as far as I've seen, as reflected by what HE did. Everything else was done by others, whether in the group or whom he stole from. He was fond of warming himself at a fire he did not build, and taking credit for chopping down the trees, curing the wood, chopping the logs, stacking them, setting them in the fireplace, and lighting them. But he taught some good Bible anyway. That was 2 of Bullinger's books, retyped and reshuffled. "The Rich Man and Lazarus- Death, an Intermediate State?" and Saul and the Witch at Endor-Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?" The former is available for free online. If the concept is as rare as some apologists think, why does it have a name outside of twi- "soul sleep"? It's been discussed enough to have been assigned a name.

Judging from your post on the other thread, you know the movie format and who's IN the movie. Which, given a little thought, means it can only be one movie.

It's not "V for Vendetta." Read the quotes one at a time, slowly, and you'll get at least 2 things about the characters that should make this easy to guess even if you NEVER saw ANY episode from ANY season. As for the movie thread, finish the thought. If what you were reminded of is correct, it could only be one movie!

"I know. I'm fast. All my teachers said so. 'Fast, but lazy'." "As long as I can remember knowing you, you've had all the fun and most of the good women. "Lately." "Lately?" "That's what I said." "What are you talking about?" "Well, I seem to remember that girl in London. The red head. Healthy girl. " "Come on. That was nearly one hundred and sixty years ago. "That's what I said. Lately." "Sooner or later, everyone comes to Joe's." "Just because I don't like to fight, doesn't mean that I can't." "I'm too old for this." "You won't let me change, you know that? You really expect me to steal." "I expect sharks to bite too. Don't take it personally." "You don't understand, I am the end of time!" "You're history." "Sometimes in life you have to do more than just watch." "Mac, I'm alive." "Just how old are you? Are you a Christian, or do you paint yourself blue and bay at the moon?" "You ever had it bad for an older woman?" "Well, the situation hasn't come up recently." "You try being her. You try living one year knowing that your time is running out. That no matter how much you train, no matter how many tricks you have, you STILL lose. That's the way it is for them. So little time for them to SEE anything or DO anything." "Did you really kill all those people?" "Yes, is that what you to hear? Killing was all I knew, is *that* what you want to hear?" "It's enough." "No, it is not enough. I killed, but I didn't just kill fifty, I didn't just kill a hundred. I killed thousands. I killed ten thousands. And I was good at it. And it wasn't for vengeance. It wasn't for greed. It was because I liked it. Cassandra was nothing, her village was nothing. Do you know who I was? *Death*! Death. Death on horse! When mothers warned their children that the monster would get them, that monster was me. I was the nightmare that kept them awake at night. Is that was you want to hear? Than the answer... is yes. Oh, yes." "I'll kill you in a second, boy. Leave while you still got your head." "There's only one thing that I hate more than being called a boy, and that's your stupid paintings!" "You know, considering how shot to pieces you were, it's amazing you're still alive." "Ow! Considering who's treating me, I'd say it's a miracle. Watch out. Ow! Where'd you say you studied medicine?" "Heidelberg. 1453." "Did you major in medicine or dueling?" "Both. A couple more days, you'll be able to travel." "You don't have to look quite so happy about it." "He says he heard a strange noise, we went to go check it out, and he saw three grown men with drawn swords, having it out." "Did he also see a guy in a bat costume and a long cape?"

"Help!" "No thanks, don't need any." "Won't you please, please help me!" "Well, lads, what do you think?" "I think that..." "Remember, there'll be rough seas ahead! What do you think?" "Well, um..." "Pounding overwhelming waves! What do you think of that, eh?" "Well, I think that..." "As a matter of fact, I think that..." "I think..." "Well?" "I've forgotten." "Okay, instruments at the ready..." "Okay, on the beat of one, a-two, a-three, a-four, a-five, a-six..." "Hey, can't you make it three?" "Oh, all right, on the beat of three: A-one, a-two, a-three..." " This place reminds me of Blackburn, Lancashire." "Ah, the hills are alive..." "... with the sound of music!" "WHO DID IT? Who is responsible for this?" "Rimsky-Korsakov?..........Guy Lombardo?" "Four scores and 32 bars ago, our forefathers..." "A quartet?" "....and foremothers..." "Another quartet?" "He does, in truth, seem quite annoyed. Some reference material be-be-before I'm destroyed! 'Where ground is soft most often grows, arise! Arise! Arouse! A rose!'....A rosy nose???" "SPEAK YOUR LAST PIECE!" "Peace! Peace! Supplant the doom and the gloom! Turn off what is sour! Turn into a flower and BLOOM! BLOOM! BLOOM!" "The Glove is losing his touch!" Is anyone even READING this thread lately???

I can confirm that this moderator posts the truth- things he knows, or qualifies his statements if he is unsure. So, his ANSWER TO THE QUESTION YOU ASKED is confirmed. You can thank him for answering you now-complete with phone#. I'm WordWolf. That's how I think of myself and how I have since the early 1990s. That's the name a LOTof people have known me by for years, including good friends. My involvement was on the local level, with limited visits, and classes up to and including the AC, and I left in 1989 following ROA '89 when lcm orchestrated a week of "remain loyal to me and the ministry" speeches and demonstrations. Talk about myself? Ok. I'm a casual dresser. I like the Bible, wolves, and Christian females. I have a long memory and a thirst for truth even when it is UNPLEASANT truth. I'm great in bed. In fact, given enough time, I can sleep around the clock. I'm an avid science fiction reader and internet surfer. Is that enough or do you need something more biographical? Well, I didn't know her, I only knew Tom. He was NOT a suicidal man when he was on the field, but I am aware that being loyal to the company line and being at hq when loyalty was being crammed down everyone's throat made him VERY loyal, possibly to a fanatical, unsound level. Thus, the idea that he was placed in a cleft stick where the only sound answer was "the ministry leader is a very bad man, and the ministry is wrong" was unthinkable for a very loyal company man. Perhaps if someone close to him had not placed him in the bullseye of that situation, he wouldn't have faced such a lifecrushing (to him at the time) set of options. No, there don't "have to be." twi thrives on cutting off information and hiding in the shadows. You invited attitude. It would be rude not to accept it once it's reached your doorstep with the engraved invitation.

Then I recommend hiring a private detective for an hour's work. You get what you pay for. And that was a perfectly-civilized answer. Unlike your response. And that had NOTHING to do with the reply you got. According to you, the response to that should have been "thank you." You don't sound very thankful. That is OPINION, not fact. (Except you believing in her- I'll buy you believed in her without proof.) I STILL don't get why you're spooling all this information.You asked for information, and GOT information. Nobody ASKED for a biography or even WHY you wanted it. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't conduct yourself with what is considered AVERAGE manners on the internet, then you're a twit, I don't care who paid you to be a webmaster. You should ALREADY know how to conduct yourself online. If not, you should at LEAST know the rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Most Christians are familiar with this rule..... Behold! All the information someone needs, so long as they know how to use a telephone! Most people would say "thank you" at this point.