WordWolf

Sorry, I'm holding out for a title.

Or another quote?

I'm thinking you DID see this, just not recently.

I mean, review the quotes, and you'll have the format, the setting,

and at least one character's identifying trait.

I thought the last set included a giveaway.

I think the TIMING of this announcement is rather CONVENIENT.

There's people who seem to think this was almost accidental, since a fan asked something related.

Then again, some fans have romantically matched up nearly every character with every other

character- the Marauders in particular have had that happen a lot,

and Harry with just about every other character in the series,

including Draco. (No, I haven't read any of those stories, that's plenty of information, thank you.)

That anyone would ask about DD and relationships is expected.

However, JKR just HAPPENED to answer this one once all the sales of Book 7 have happened,

meaning there's now a lot of books that haven't been bought.

Now is the first time this has actually come up from JKR, either in the books or interviews or

her website. The timing just HAPPENS to be when she can make more money by taking

copies of the books and selling them to a subculture that normally wasn't soaking up her

books but NOW might suddenly begin buying up the paperbacks, the hardcovers....

I think that this announcement was carefully planned, and I resent the artifice that this was

supposedly some offhand comment.

It's nothing recent.

Ok, I checked, and I was right, so, next song...

"Trouble ahead, Lady in red,

Take my advice you'd be better off dead."

"You sir, are a freako!"

"Why, thank you!"

"You don't love me any more."

"Of course I love you. I'm working now!"

"And you're making a lousy job of it."

"You want to be an ex-parrot?"

"On what grounds do you interrupt my soliloquy?"

"Well, it's my coffee break."

"Coffee grounds??"

"I thought you were the only person on this show who wasn't crazy."

"Me, not crazy? I hired the others."

"Hey Bo, I've got a job for you!"

"Oh, good."

"Yeah. Just look at this mess."

"Okay, that sounds easy enough."

"Sometimes I don't know what space you are coming from."

"Well, it's just a regular backstage space."

"I gurgle Gershwin!"

"Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Switzerland has given us some watches, some chocolate, and some silliness. And, we take you now to the Alps for the latter."

"Well, do you see. I don't mind assisting, but I'm not crazy about the idea of guinea-pigging."

"What's all this smoke?"

"Uh... that is not smoke."

"It is not smoke? Then what is it?"

"It's jet exhaust."

"Jet exhaust?"

"Oh, look out! Here comes another one!"

"Hey, hey, what's this bummer called again?"

"Minuet in G Major."

"Uh, we'll send it back in to the minors."

"If you are like me, and you certainly must be, you are appalled and shocked at the weird, unnatural things going on tonight."

"What's the soup du jour?"

"Same as yesterday."

"Good, I'll have that and a chicken."

"How do you want your chicken? Baked, broiled, or barbecued?"

"I want the chicken for company!"

"what is on stage next?"

"I don't know, what's on stage now?"

"Nothing."

"NOTHING'S ON STAGE?"

"I know what is wrong, with this show, it's the theater!"

"What's wrong with it?"

"The seats face the stage!"

"I am not in my dressing room, eating! I am in my dressing room, being eaten!"

"A banana sharpener."

I suppose I should have more sympathy for WTH.

After all, ultimately, he WANTS to play with the big boys, but he's outside his weight class.

So, he tries to pretend he can keep up, by plagiarizing smarter-sounding words.

He's tried to ape my posting style other times-as if function proceeds immediately from form.

It's the sincerest of flattery, although otherwise unsuccessful.

Having been unable to pass off the words of others as his own, he's unable to keep up.

Therefore, he can quit the field, or attempt some deception.

In this case, the deception is that OTHERS can't post without plagiarizing as well,

as if HIS low standards are OUR standards.

Also, an intellectual dishonesty in his own posts makes it easier to imagine dishonesty

in others-or at least to PRETEND they are.

Doesn't make anything he's doing right-it's deceptive, and dishonest.

However, we can understand his desperation, and sympathize a bit.

Is this U-2's "One"?

Liar.

Man says I was lying about having NEVER READ NIZKOR.

Surely he can do better than that.

I mean, most people can see the logical possibility that I might

agree with someone's points in spite of never having heard them,

by virtue of having looked at the same evidence, and coming to the

same conclusions.

Not WTH.

With him, it's got to be some sort of coverup, some conspiracy.

Just like the one invented about the Holocaust.

Still has nothing to support his claim I'm lying.

Sad, sad, sad.

You were parrotting Nizkor, but I realize you are to blind to realize it.

Impossible to parrot something you've never HEARD.

Most people can understand that...

You were parrotting Nizkor in your own (and vain) attempt to defame Fred Leuchter and discredit him and his degree as an engineer.

He was already discredited, and my agreeing hardly was necessary.

And this is all in the wrong thread.

Then you went on to brag how you were even a (cough) "better scientist" than he was when you graduated from high school.

I was an average scientist in my high school.

Even the AVERAGE student would have skipped those mistakes in lab class.

They didn't have much choice if they wanted to pass.

The only problem is, if Leuchter were truly as dishonest as you (and Nizkor) have attempted to make him, he would have simply pocketed his fees, lied and told the court whatever the prosecution and the media wanted to hear for themselves. Of course you don't recognize the trait you've picked up - which is, tell the people whatever it is they want to hear.

Unless his motive was other than just money.

Some people have motives other than just money.

Some people can figure that out.

Typical WW. He simply tells GSC people whatever it is they want to hear because he is not capable of speaking the truth.

Typical WTH. Just invents a lie and expects people to believe it.

If he ever did tell the truth it would only ruin his popularity among many GSC people.

If he ever used his mind, he'd probably drop dead from the shock.

And all this, besides being inflammatory and useless,

is in the wrong thread.

I don't think cartoon voice-overs count...?

George

Voice-acting counts as acting for this thread.

However,

the rule of thumb is the movie aired in theaters at some time,

which means direct-to-video doesn't count.

Sounds almost like a George Carlin plagiarism. :)

Oldiesman, apparently, is capable of understanding me when it suits him.

As opposed to the misinterpretation whenever it does NOT suit him.

So, we see it is DELIBERATE, and not accidental.

I did. See modified post# 275. (Edited to insert post#.)

*reads*

WTH doesn't understand the concept "proof."

I quoted his post.

There's an accusation, and an attempt to justify it, but not a shred of "proof."

Sorry, I can't educate WTH as to what "proof" means.

Sad to say, since he needs to learn.

However, he does not WILL to learn, so he will retain his current error.

That's just a lousy excuse for someone not to have to deal with their sin and their own demons.

Let's not make excuses for someone, the sins the committed, and the temptations they

accepted, marched into, and planned for.

vpw did all of those, many times- he drugged women, he selected for the most emotionally-damaged

women, he treated them-not as sisters in Christ, nor as women whom he had responsibility over,

but as women he could have sex with. He cheated on his wife.

And so on.

Let's not make excuses for him.

Lots of guys have had the CHANCE to molest women or rape them.

Lots of guys DIDN'T sin.

vpw made the choice to approach sin, and perform it.

It was a sin for him to WANT to have sex with Maggie Muggins.

It was a sin for him to PLAN to have sex with Maggie Muggins.

It was a sin to SET UP A PLACE to have sex with Maggie Muggins.

It was a sin to ARRANGE A TIME AND PLACE to have sex with Maggie Muggins.

It was a sin to contrive to have Maggie Muggins arrive at that place.

It was a sin to TRY to have sex with Maggie Muggins.

It was a sin to HAVE sex with Maggie Muggins.

That's not even addressing the druggings and coercion issues.

Those with a 'victim mentality' mindset keep doing the same thing over and over again - they continue to shift the blame on someone else, yet all the while they expect a different outcome? Someone said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." I assume that you do not consider yourself a fool. But you could be sabotaging yourself by succumbing to victim mentality.

vpw did the same thing over and over- he committed adultery, rape, and so on.

He carefully planned, and carefully executed his plans.

Shifting the blame for those careful plans continually is not right, morally, Biblically, legally, or any other way.

Continuing to shift the blame for his sins off of vpw over and over is not healthy.

Romans 12:9

Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

Cleaving to that which is evil, excusing a sinner and his chosen sins, abhorring the truth, is not healthy.

Isaiah 5:20 (King James Version)

20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Woe to them that take evil and call it "good"!

God doesn't like it.

Well, let's overlook the fact and not bother to mention or bring up WW parroting Nizkor without reference to Nizkor ... oh no. I am sure others didn't recognize him doing it but I did. Not many recognized him doing it simply because not many people are familiar with Nizkor's arguments. Of course, he mistakenly though I had not heard the same "Nizkor argument" he was bringing up on the Holocaust denial thread, but wanted it to appear he originatated the argument?

I will thoroughly admit however, that a lot of the revisionist arguments and the reasoning behind those arguments hold a lot of universal application and truth behind them. The "reality" comment I found was appropriate and since it had an universal application I brought it up in this instance. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing for many of Nizkor arguments that they present, nor does one readily find a universal application to a lot of their reasoning... That's why I'm afraid you won't find me parroting Nizkor or "plagarizing them", much like WW has.

I've never READ NIZKOR.

Hard to plagiarize something YOU'VE NEVER READ.

Hard to repeat something YOU'VE NEVER READ.

Thank you for playing, have a nice day!

Proof, please, of WW plagiarizing like you do. <_<

Don't make accusations like that without backing them up.

You can't.

Hey, this is WTH we're talking about.

If you take away other people's words and thoughts,

and take away his ability to make up accusations out of whole cloth,

what does he have left except large-print?

Neither have I, but someone finally posted a movie where I know ONE star

and they didn't link THROUGH that star...

Al Pacino

the Devil's Advocate

Keanu Reeves

We haven't used either for the past page, right?

(Correct me otherwise.)

What the Hey will you please cite your sources.

My only ally on this thread is getting hammered.

If he cited his sources, it would be obvious that his only clever posts were cut-and-pasted

from Holocaust denial websites.

That would take most of what little relevance they had away from the posts.

And he's not getting "hammered", his wrongful deeds are being exposed.

That's one thing you can expect here at the GSC.

Reality, one may note, has a certain robustness. It can be picked up and scrutinised and played with. It can be tossed about in the interplay of open debate without fear that such rough and tumble will cause it to shatter. However some people's reality tends to shatter apart when they're caught up in the "rough and tumble" of an open debate.

"Reality, one may note, has a certain robustness. It can be picked up and scrutinised and played with. It can be tossed about in the interplay of open debate without fear such rough and tumble will cause it to shatter."

http://india.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/209039.shtml

WTH plagiarized "the Holocaust Hex" again.

I challenge the readers to find oldiesman actually admitting vpw bore ANY responsibility when he raped

those women. All he ever points out is their OWN involvement-

which has NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, except when oldiesman PRETENDS it's been challenged-

and that he has not stated outright vpw is innocent when he rapes women.

Even when he sets the conditions, gives the specific example we discuss,

he STILL goes out of his way to avoid vpw getting ANY responsibility for HIS actions-

apparently, the women bear responsibility,

and vpw's responsibility is a HUGE SECRET.

==============

oldiesman:

"Now for an example, there's "Marsha". The following is a summary (if these facts are wrong, someone will chime in to correct):

"Marsha" was invited to Wierwille's motor coach. She was given a drink, and fell asleep. She wakes up on the bed, and Wierwille says "I could have screwed you, but I didn't". She leaves the coach, and is furious. Next day, SHE CHOOSES TO GO BACK TO WIERWILLE'S COACH!! At that point, Wierwille had sex with her.

And so according to these facts, I believe "Marsha" is partly responsible for getting abused."

WordWolf:

"Has anyone claimed that the women had ZERO RESPONSIBILITY?

No-so Marsha's level of responsibility is not in question.

Except for the part where she was drugged unconscious, she had SOME responsibility.

The question more relevant is: did vpw have ANY responsibility for drugging women,

raping women, and using his position as their minister and spiritual leader to

cheat on his wife and have sex with women in his congregation?

Did vpw have ANY responsibility for singling out the women who had histories of

victimization-since victims of ONE person are easier victims of ANOTHER-

and giving them his rap about how sex doesn't matter

(how many ministers tell their congregation that adultery doesn't matter?),

then arranging handy places to have sex,

then contriving to bring them there on some pretext or another,

then tell them that he believed God wanted him to show her how sex can be good

and to "heal her sexually?"

Oldies HAS posted that he thinks it's possible that vpw honestly believed he was

assigned by God Almighty to heal her sexually-

or at least he's raised the possibility himself and refused to state outright whether he

believed that was the case.

Does vpw bear ANY responsibility in all this? If so, how much?

========

In other news,

can someone familiar with Marsha's story issue the corrections?"

WordWolf:

"Actually, whenever we have a discussion, you say everything BUT

"he was at fault when he...."

Feel free to disprove me. I mentioned a bunch of things vpw did a few posts ago.

Feel free to pick one, some, or all of them, and actually admit that vpw did them,

it was wrong for him to do them, and vpw was to be blamed for doing them.

Go ahead."

Nottawayfer:

"How come you don't identify the wrongs done by Vic in this story? Is he exempt from evil in this scenario? Again, another dumb arse comment by OM!!"

Oldiesman:

"I never suggested he was.

But what do you think about Marsha going back a second time to his motorcoach? Is she exempt from criticism?

I think, by her going back a second time after she left the first time, she was facilitating and participating in any "abuse" that may have occurred thereafter."

Tom Strange:

"

OM... have you ever considered that maybe she 'went back a second time' becuause maybe she didn't want to believe that what happened the first time could ever happen again that maybe, just maybe (since he was the MOG) she could confront him or that he would apologize for his behavior or... or...

There are a number of possibilities as to WHY she went back the second time, only she knows why she did... yet you ALWAYS automatically assume that she was going back for one reason... did you ever consider that most of the thoughts in her mind and heart were that veepee was her teacher and protector? and that she should dismiss the thoughts of evil about him?

... you have no way of knowing but since your life's mission is to defend veepee that is what you assume without considering that ultimately, always, veepee was the one in a position of authority and power over her and is entirely culpable for the act."

rascal:

"I am still baffled even after all of this time as to why someone would try focus on the people victimized, rather than the man who so completely and utterly betrayed our trust.

For heavens sakes...if the women had stripped themselves naked and were doing cart wheels back and forth in front of his bus....begging for the man of God to come out and bless them with his healing member....His actions STILL would have been heinous and wrong....

Even if God forbid I was a party animal slut that got exactly what she deserved....anything LESS than a comforting arm around the shoulders, with offers of compassionate councel from those who CLAIMED to be God`s representative..is simply inexcusable."

"This propensity to try to make what vp and twi seem right by painting the ones who suffered at their hands as the wrong doers is to me completely incomprehensible."

oldiesman:

"I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly.

You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances."

====================

oldiesman's position is pretty clear.

A) Coercion was non-existent in twi, including the corps.

B) Entry into the corps was equivalent to taking an oath-which OM's God requires be kept no matter what.

C) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women, no matter what he said,

they were completely complicit in this.

D) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women, no matter what he said,

vpw's level of responsibility is NEVER TO BE SPOKEN OF.

E) When vpw selected, manipulated, and had sex with women,

his adultery (he was married) is a non-issue NEVER TO BE SPOKEN OF.

F) Incidents involving vpw drugging women, then having sex with them,

are by no means an indication that he was to be blamed for rape.

Pretty complete picture here.

vpw's a nice guy, and these women who claim he raped them are guilty of ruining his reputation.

Oldiesman:

QUOTE(oldiesman @ Oct 18 2007, 03:55 PM) *

A vow doesn't necessarily have to originate with God in order for God wanting the person to fulfill it. (Numbers 30:2)

But if you are saying that all corps vows were ungodly.. well I just disagree with that opinion."

WordWolf:

QUOTE(WordWolf @ Oct 19 2007, 09:11 AM) *

Since you brought it up, Oldiesman, you're disagreeing with Jesus.

Matthew 5:33-37

" 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

Another reason to gloss over the Gospels for vpw. Asking us to swear oaths was contradicting God's Word.

He required communication to be more than "yes" or "no", and, as we're discussing,

that certainly came of evil.

But don't let a little thing like God's Word stop you from insisting that the corps and its founder were the cutting

edge of God's Will....even though this requires you to say

"God's Word does NOT equal God's Will-but the corps requirements WERE God's Will."

Oldiesman:

QUOTE(oldiesman @ Oct 19 2007, 10:50 AM) *

Wordwolf,

So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?

Goey:

QUOTE(Goey @ Oct 19 2007, 12:32 PM)

Let me take a stab at this.

I don't think WW is representing that at all.

As I read the verses quoted, I think was was represented was that it was contrary to the teaching of Jesus for an oath to be given/ required in the first place.

You are making a strawman argument by implying that WW was representing that we ought not keep promises.

Typical Oldies, when are you going to muster up one small spark of intellectual honesty?

Goey is correct.

Oldiesman claimed that HIS God wants oaths to be fulfilled, and HIS God considers it important

to fulfill oaths, even if they had nothing to do with them.

He then referenced the Old Testament.

I countered- completely quoting in the New Testament- that Jesus nullified oaths, that he said to just

say things outright, but not to make oaths of any kind.

"Swear not at all", Jesus said, which is the opposite of what Oldiesman said.

Since the Word of God contradicted Oldies' doctrine, he was faced with a choice-

change his doctrine

hide that the Word of God contradicts his doctrine.

Oldiesman, in another example of intellectual dishonesty, attempted to hide that his doctrine contradicted

the Word of God that he supposedly believes.

His doctrine HAS to defend the ungodly actions done in the way corps

(and I'm not saying all actions there were ungodly, so you can save THAT misrepresentations)

and in this SPECIFIC case, the coercion (which he is unable to perceive ever existing or affecting anyone)

which used "making an oath" as a bludgeon to enforce conformity by women, and get them to

get abortions because vpw preferred abortions to

A) telling them "no sex during the corps"

B) allowing corps to leave peacefully when pregnant

(meaning young, sexually-able women, and their money, would leave his reach).

He HAS to defend the supposed making of oaths, even if he has to contradict the Bible to do so.

It's hypocritical to claim to believe the Bible, while intentionally contradicting it,

but it is the action he has chosen.

(He does the same thing trying to invalidate the concept of "leaven", so this is hardly a new tactic

of his, but that makes it no less shameful for being long-term.)

"You sir, are a freako!"

"Why, thank you!"

"You don't love me any more."

"Of course I love you. I'm working now!"

"And you're making a lousy job of it."

"You want to be an ex-parrot?"

"On what grounds do you interrupt my soliloquy?"

"Well, it's my coffee break."

"Coffee grounds??"

"I thought you were the only person on this show who wasn't crazy."

"Me, not crazy? I hired the others."

"Hey Bo, I've got a job for you!"

"Oh, good."

"Yeah. Just look at this mess."

"Okay, that sounds easy enough."

"Sometimes I don't know what space you are coming from."

"Well, it's just a regular backstage space."

"I gurgle Gershwin!"

"Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Switzerland has given us some watches, some chocolate, and some silliness. And, we take you now to the Alps for the latter."

"Well, do you see. I don't mind assisting, but I'm not crazy about the idea of guinea-pigging."

"What's all this smoke?"

"Uh... that is not smoke."

"It is not smoke? Then what is it?"

"It's jet exhaust."

"Jet exhaust?"

"Oh, look out! Here comes another one!"

"Hey, hey, what's this bummer called again?"

"Minuet in G Major."

"Uh, we'll send it back in to the minors."

"If you are like me, and you certainly must be, you are appalled and shocked at the weird, unnatural things going on tonight."

A vow doesn't necessarily have to originate with God in order for God wanting the person to fulfill it. (Numbers 30:2)

But if you are saying that all corps vows were ungodly.. well I just disagree with that opinion.

Since you brought it up, Oldiesman, you're disagreeing with Jesus.

Matthew 5:33-37

" 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

Another reason to gloss over the Gospels for vpw. Asking us to swear oaths was contradicting God's Word.

He required communication to be more than "yes" or "no", and, as we're discussing,

that certainly came of evil.

But don't let a little thing like God's Word stop you from insisting that the corps and its founder were the cutting

edge of God's Will....even though this requires you to say

"God's Word does NOT equal God's Will-but the corps requirements WERE God's Will."

"You sir, are a freako!"

"Why, thank you!"

"You don't love me any more."

"Of course I love you. I'm working now!"

"And you're making a lousy job of it."

"You want to be an ex-parrot?"

"On what grounds do you interrupt my soliloquy?"

"Well, it's my coffee break."

"Coffee grounds??"

"I thought you were the only person on this show who wasn't crazy."

"Me, not crazy? I hired the others."

"Hey Bo, I've got a job for you!"

"Oh, good."

"Yeah. Just look at this mess."

"Okay, that sounds easy enough."

"Sometimes I don't know what space you are coming from."

"Well, it's just a regular backstage space."

"I gurgle Gershwin!"

"Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Switzerland has given us some watches, some chocolate, and some silliness. And, we take you now to the Alps for the latter."

If your "God" thinks that it's preferable to abort a child (or child-to-be or whatever)

than to leave a program meant to teach the Bible,

then I want nothing to do with your God.

My God is a bit smarter than that, and has a LOT more compassion.

He's more of a "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" kind-of God,

as in

lives are more important than ceremony and promises to God,

if one is in a situation where it is now an "either-or" and one can't have BOTH.

Your "God" would say "Yes, you made a promise to me, so abort that child so you can keep it."

Your "God" sounds like a real d* to me.

Sure OM... and God certainly cherishes a commitment to an organization FAR MORE than a human life... no doubt at all...

Welcome LKH,

No not at all, I'm not saying it was all the woman's fault. I'm saying that the women are partly responsible, depending on the facts of the situation.

No, the leadership is not without any blame.

Actually, whenever we have a discussion, you say everything BUT

"he was at fault when he...."

Feel free to disprove me. I mentioned a bunch of things vpw did a few posts ago.

Feel free to pick one, some, or all of them, and actually admit that vpw did them,

it was wrong for him to do them, and vpw was to be blamed for doing them.

Go ahead.

Or you can do something Oldiesman-typical,

that is,

water the subject down, and "blame" him for something stupid like

"vpw was wrong when he went 20 minutes over in a teaching"

and skip all the felonies and evil actions.

Watch this one.

It was an attempt at a misdirection.

Check this out.

(I'm not addressing the story, since I didn't study the details of her account.

I'm not confirming or refuting in any way the story here.)

Now for an example, there's "Marsha". The following is a summary (if these facts are wrong, someone will chime in to correct):

"Marsha" was invited to Wierwille's motor coach. She was given a drink, and fell asleep. She wakes up on the bed, and Wierwille says "I could have screwed you, but I didn't". She leaves the coach, and is furious. Next day, SHE CHOOSES TO GO BACK TO WIERWILLE'S COACH!! At that point, Wierwille had sex with her.

Has anyone claimed that the women had ZERO RESPONSIBILITY?

No-so Marsha's level of responsibility is not in question.

Except for the part where she was drugged unconscious, she had SOME responsibility.

The question more relevant is: did vpw have ANY responsibility for drugging women,

raping women, and using his position as their minister and spiritual leader to

cheat on his wife and have sex with women in his congregation?

Did vpw have ANY responsibility for singling out the women who had histories of

victimization-since victims of ONE person are easier victims of ANOTHER-

and giving them his rap about how sex doesn't matter

(how many ministers tell their congregation that adultery doesn't matter?),

then arranging handy places to have sex,

then contriving to bring them there on some pretext or another,

then tell them that he believed God wanted him to show her how sex can be good

and to "heal her sexually?"

Oldies HAS posted that he thinks it's possible that vpw honestly believed he was

assigned by God Almighty to heal her sexually-

or at least he's raised the possibility himself and refused to state outright whether he

believed that was the case.

Does vpw bear ANY responsibility in all this? If so, how much?

========

In other news,

can someone familiar with Marsha's story issue the corrections?