WordWolf

Ha! Was thinking of using this one again myself.... And you can always put exchanges that are quotes as : "1: 2: 1: 3:" So people don't get confused who's saying what.

Or they might have read the thread where you and I discussed this poem. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...mp;#entry252618 You mentioned it was in that book, correctly credited, back then. Or seen where someone asked about it later, I gave the name of the author, and said it was posted here AND online.

*does a search* Ok, my preliminary search seems to confirm what was stated- that the mustard plant in question grows and becomes a tall garden plant. The impression that it makes a "tree" that can support birds, however, is incorrect. It can SHADE birds that aren't IN the plant. It can RESEMBLE a tree.

someone else: "I have never lied about ANYTHING that I have posted here...." Oldiesman directly responding to that: "I disagree: you've made false accusations, assumptions, and false conclusions..." When one person says "I never lied" and the other person says "I disagree", anyone with the brains God gave them and INTELLECTUAL HONESTY would say that the second person called the first a liar. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=140 Sep 3 2004, 11:22 AM Oldiesman again: "I never called you or anyone a liar. Produce the quote please. I HAVE called you a false accuser, which is exactly what you are doing right now." Oct 18 2004, 04:46 PM http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...liar&st=120 When Oldies denied that "calling someone a FALSE accuser" means "calling someone a liar", I explained. "[Her personal testimony IS what she stated. It includes an indictment and accusation of wrongdoing by that evil ringleader, vpw. You claim her "accusation" is "false", which means that you're saying her "personal testimony"-which is the body of her accusation and indictment of wrongdoing-is not true. You're saying that her "accusation" is not "true". YOU'RE CALLING HER A LIAR. You know, most humans don't have these sorts of problems, because they don't torture the English language and strive to ascribe alternate meanings to words to fit their convenience. YOU JUST CALLED RASCAL A LIAR AGAIN, in the process of claiming you didn't. ]" Then there was this one: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...amp;#entry78667 May 17 2004, 03:57 PM "S******, you're full of crap." ======= So, shame on Oldiesman for his intellectual dishonesty when calling people liars while denying he's calling them liars. When I call someone a liar, I do so with the word "liar", and stand by it unless proven wrong. Well, that's USUALLY his M.O.- to hide calling someone a liar by an aversion to the WORD "liar" while using the CONCEPT "liar."

Seems it's pretty straightforward. vpw taught that prayer for healing was important, and once healing was prayed-for, it was a sign of a lack of believing to continue taking medications, and to be avoided, since you were already healed and there was no need to confirm this with a doctor. (Besides, doctors cost money, and you should be plurality-giving it.) Then someone followed these instructions, and dropped dead because she wasn't taking the medication that kept her alive, and the miraculous healing never materialized. So, shortly thereafter, vpw changed his tune, and advocated taking medication rx'd by a doctor, at least until it's proven you no longer need it.

[This supposition was unsupported by the evidence. The angel of death intended to kill everyone it could. It was permitted-one way or another-to do so. It was not permitted-one way or another-to kill in households with the markers at the threshold. It was allowed to do certain things and not allowed to do certain other things. The idea that it was "tricked" is not there. It is added by the poster. vpw would have called it "private interpretation." But what else is new?] [see, Don,Mike considers the pfal books-and not the tapes, videos, etc- to be God-breathed, which is a state not accorded to the Bible. For Mike to truly believe that vpw had the greatest revelation since the First Century Church, he had to discredit the Bible in his own mind. So he did. He ignored the entire history of the texts- since vpw never bothered to learn it, HE never taught it, and if vpw never learned it, that's good enough for Mike- and pretends the texts were nullified once 101 AD rolled around. He considers them error-ridden, and useless. On the other hand, vpw can teach errors, and his stuff is completely viable. No, it doesn't make sense to anyone ELSE, either.] [The thing that Mike has elevated into a holy crusade is a teaching called "the Joy of Serving" , one of the last tapes of vpw teaching. The entire contents can be summarized as follows: 1) Christians outside twi dont have any truth, and no answers. (That, apparently, included Leonard, other students of Stiles, Bullinger...) 2) pfal-foundational and intermediate- are really great. 3) You should do your best to serve-which means get people to take the foundational and intermediate class. That's the best way to serve. Mike has embraced that like Gabriel came down and issued him a personal message. The rest of us see it as a sign that vpw was still pushing this elitist crapola all the way till the end- shilling his classes, insisting twi was elite.]

[Aren't the rest of you abundantly blessed and thankful that WTH does not work in your local law-enforcement? Apparently, the substance of everything they said doesn't even exist for vpw- just that they got emotional. DUH. Any cop could tell you, someone being emotional- IN AND OF ITSELF- tells you little. But any cop could tell you, someone being emotional IS NOT REASON TO DISCOUNT WHAT THEY SAY. That's when you actually exert the effort to see if what they're saying is TRUE. For WTH, however, this is the time to STOP looking, since emotion=lying.] [What this reply proves is that there are some people who automatically disbelieve what they hear, without bothering to look into them, and extrapolate from that to conclude that everyone ELSE exerts as little effort- and as little THINKING- when determining if a story is true. Why do they make someone else out to be foolish, but never wonder if it's THEM that's sloppy mentally? (Vanity, laziness...)] [Considering what some people are gullible enough to accept without UNDERSTANDING, I'd say there ARE still gullible people nowadays.]

One thing that's pretty famous about p2p software like limewire (or SOME things downloaded from the 'net) is that all kinds of things you DON'T want get installed WITH them, like ticks or barnacles that have to be pried off. Right after someone else messes with your pc like that, you should run an anti-virus, an anti-spyware, and anti-adware program. (one you've just updated, for that matter.) Let me know if you need those- there are free versions of each that are easy to use. I already figure you're using a firewall.

Is this that new show, "Heroes"? I've heard there's a cheerleader on it.

I wonder if anyone else is playing along right now....

I can see parallels there, also. I could debate whether or not "researcher" really applied, given that his approach was generally to rely EXCLUSIVELY on the work of others, and the few things that seem vpw-originals are really gonzo, like the original sin-stuff. That he borrowed some things and not others is true, but I really don't think that qualifies as "research" or originality, by itself. I do agree pfal was his product. I think parts of it were good product, and parts of it were not.

I found it more interesting- even when in twi- that "Strange Scriptures That Perplex the Western Mind" gave an entirely DIFFERENT explanation of the eagle being renewed, and even then I thought it was more plausible as an answer. That book said that the eagle's beak continues to grow, and when it gets too long (I'm typing from distant memory so don't consider this a quote), the eagle pecks a rock until the current beak breaks off. Then the eagle hides itself until a new beak grows and hardens into place. While it waits, it can't eat, so it's essentially on a fast. During that time, its old feathers typically fall out, leaving new feathers growing under it. Eventually, the eagle steps forward again, with a new, shorter beak, and new feathers, looking like a much younger eagle. Please note that a quick web-search on this shows that others have asked about this, and bird students have said this isn't true either. One pointed out that the verse works as a metaphor, and taking it too literally isn't necessary.

After doing some checking online, I don't see anything substantial connecting the fish people mention as a real fish, with the fish people SAY was in the story, nor have I seen documentation proving those fish collect money. A separate issue is the level of detail Pillai gave- which leapt into the category of myth.

Since I believe you honestly don't understand the difference, I'll explain, in part. Comparing and contrasting vpw's victims who've come forth with alien abductees. Alien abductees are rare, and tend towards the tinfoil-hat and conspiracy theory types. vpw's victims tend to be women whose lives were working until an event happened, leaving them emotionally scarred, or crippled in some cases. This event is reported to be sexual abuse by vpw. Their testimony agrees with each other, despite an absence of a conspiracy to coordinate their stories. Their accounts are corroborated by those who knew them at the time. Some of THEM were told right after, some saw things and were only able to make sense of them once they realized "vpw's a rapist" was an option, and the most likely one. Their accounts are further corroborated by confessions from people who were in vpw's inner circle who have since shown remorse for not stopping things. So, it's not just "their word against your opinion of vpw."

Times like this, I'm confirmed that WTH either isn't reading my posts, or isn't understanding my posts. How many times have I quoted Nizkor so far in this thread? Unless I forgot something, or you count quoting other posters, the total should hover around "zero". All the data refuting your position may as well be nonexistent for all the time you've given them. As in ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THEM, not reading around them, but we're supposed to consider all your data as sacrosanct. Interesting disconnect. And it still ignores the elementary science errors in Leuchter's report. How "reliable" are scientific studies that can skip over what high school students know? Still amazed that the finest scientific minds of the Holocaust revision movement wouldn't have gotten passing grades in lab class in my old high school. Doesn't say much of their scholarship abilities, and I don't have to get complicated or use fancy words to see that. Have I posted from Nizkor so far? Have I needed to refute anything complicatedwhen the most basic level won't pass scrutiny? Is the science good enough that I should take it even a LITTLE seriously? Hmmm, I didn't think so. WTH, do you think you sound more erudite like this? Do you think others are reading this and saying "that WTH has the right of it, science is on his side here"? They were chambers. They were at the Auschwitz facility (Auschwitz 2 and adjoining.) They were designed to put people and poison gas together, killing the people with the poison gas. They were used for their designed purpose. That's a description. ======== As for "Holocaust religion", the raising of this subject-by you- to a dogma is one reason you're missing the obvious-like what I post. It's also why some specific becomes a "central pillar", an object of fixation. To me, THAT the Nazis killed millions of people, and that they planned to kill millions of people, is more important than where they killed them (unless it was on the battlefield), how they killed them (unless it was in standard military engagement), or who they killed (unless it was soldiers of the opposing armies.) These other matters, to me, are secondary. It was wrong for them to plan to kill millions of people- which they went on record saying was their plan. It was wrong to imprison people for the purpose of killing them- which is a matter of record, obstinates to the contrary. It was wrong to wipe out the people in those prisons- which has been documented well enough for all but a handful of the most obstinate people. The Clue specifics of where they did it, and with what weapon, to me, doesn't matter. Killing those people is no MORE right if they were all beaten to death with sticks in a public park, or if they were all Russian or South American. But that many of them-and not all of them-were Jews allows some a fixation with ideologies claiming Jews secretly rule the world and the banks and so on. This shows how little WTH understands my posts. I even allow room for "maybe" if thereports are inconclusive. If they were inconclusive here, that would apply. Supposing that's true, it doesn't change the reality of something just because it hasn't appeared on television...

It's Friday night. That's your opinion. Whenever something went wrong, it was never wrong teaching, only wrong application. It was the Christian's fault. In the Word-Faith movement (Kenyon, Hinn, Copeland, vpw, etc), this is a pretty common practice- BLAME THE BELIEVER. Guarantee success if a certain formula is enacted. When the formula fails, claim the formula worked but the Christian failed to use the formula properly.

Reminds me how Psychology is no more YOUR field than it was vpw's field. During sleep-time, it's well-known even among laymen that the mind is processing the events of the last 24 hours, especially during REM sleep. Thus, after extensive study or experience, it's good to give the mind sleep-time to process the memories. I've made a point of doing just that, to maximize learning. A number of times, I've solved something that I was stuck on by napping or resting my mind- I've woken up with the answer worked out. That's not revelation, nor a portentuous dream, that's the subconscious catching up and drawing the connections the conscious mind missed. Would be strangely inefficient, considering all the more efficient ways God had at his disposal in this example, from SNS tapes/hookups, to corps grad nights, thru ROA keynote teachings, and so on. If a God determined this would be THE method of transmission, one might logically wonder if this God was serious about getting this news out after all....

And when what someone knew by their 5 senses contradicted what vpw and the inner circle had decided, they were to discard what they knew by their 5 senses and do what the MOG or MOGlet said. There's been plenty of examples posted, including Way Builders having to redo completed jobs to an inferior standard because they were told to. (And then there's the use of the inappropriate wood in Ohio, which has resulted in a LOT of frivilous maintenance work to maintain wood that was never meant for Ohio weather, just to rattle off a second example.) A rule was a rule. Except when vpw decided it didn't apply. Then you just accepted whatever came out of his mouth. (Some of us still do this one.)

Actually, it's usually brought up at the first swing of the newly-arrived zealot's 2 x 4, that their condemnation of us is based on something that's not a universal here, and thus it's misplaced- as if any OTHER form of (metaphorical) 2 x 4 is proper... Then again, they don't read the stickies, which is a basic rule of internet posting. It's a pretty well-known fact that people have to be told the contents of one of the stickies pretty routinely. Well,if someone's criticizing US for not following a rule, they should be practicing what they're preaching to us. Don't tell me to abstain from extramarital/premarital sex and boink someone not your spouse. Don't say I'm wrong for not invoking the Bible and never invoke it yourself. For that matter, I put my Bible discussions in DOCTRINAL where they belong. Please also note, I wasn't the one who asked in the first place, but I thought your question warranted an honest answer, and I saw it "first". I believe you are incorrect. That person arrived somewhere and immediately pronounced judgement upon everyone else. That got responses, which were primarily due to poor manners and only incidentally due to use of Scripture as his SPECIFIC bludgeon. Furthermore, calling what happened a "dissection", or "burning at the stake" is a gross mischaracterization. As you saw, the poster survived, responded to some posts, and is still posting. And I've noticed he's moderated his tone considerably, and his replies have reflected that. Feeling like some sort of "martyr"? The "burn at the stake" thing came from SOMEWHERE. And if you knew more about burning at the stake, you'd be a LOT slower to compare curt posting with flames searing flesh and lungs, burning hair and cloth. If someone does something I like, but does it in the wrong manner, I reserve the right to take exception.

Let's start with one exagerration- the claim that Juedes' "Godly Mission" is to expose twi's evil when he only spends a few minutes a week here, and his congregation gets all of his time. I'd be interested in seeing these supposed discussions. There's a difference between disinterest in people getting blessed, and disinterest in sycophantic drivel. (And many things that are neither, and are somewhere in between.) I'm suspicious I'm getting a less-than-fair appraisal of Juedes' interests, especially when he's being mischaracterized as having a "Godly Mission" to do stuff that's obviously a sideline for him. But ignoring 99% of the bad, and considering only the good is perfectly healthy??? Wouldn't hurt. If it's true, go ahead and say it, and see if he really just blows you off like Oldies characterizes.

Make up your mind- are you claiming you're unaware of anyone dying as a direct result of vpw? (DIRECT, yes.) Or are you claiming that anyone dying as a direct result of vpw must be considered with his intent. (Maybe he didn't MEAN to kill them, and his hands are clean no matter how dead he made them...) John Wayne Gacy was a pillar of his community, a member of the Jaycees, and entertained children as Pogo the clown. However, some people focus on his sins and see only through that little prism- after all, he didn't spend a LOT of time killing children, just small amounts of it. Can't you look at the ENTIRE man and not just his sins?

Just for fun... Pillai specified the fish was called "mushat." There's 4 fish called "mushat", which is an Arabic term. One of them is extant in the Red Sea, the "chaetodon vagabundus", or "vagabond butterflyfish". I can't find ANY mention of that fish picking up things, especially money, coins, etc. Not by its common name, even, or its Latin name.

Got an A minus. And I dispute a few of the questions.