WordWolf

[You get fired, kicked out of a group, and family and friends are told to shun you because you're serving the devil, when you speak up? That's typical of what polar bear was talking about. YOU get people who disagree with the content and style of your posts, and are asked to keep them to the appropriate forums and threads. Except to those eager to see the two as the same thing, they don't resemble each other at all.] [Actually, you keep getting refuted that you're interpreting the written texts correctly, and keepforgetting that. And nobody kicks you from a group and tells your friends and family to shun you. It's not the same thing. Disagreement =/= shunning and persecution. Nobody follows you off the GSC to harass you. twi has done that. Woe is you for not having a popular opinion! Cry me a river.] [since there's no connection-and you're not "attacked", let alone "thusly", there's no problem with the integrity of polar bear's complaint or anyone else's complaint about twi going after people and punishing them for asking questions.] [You're welcome to post here, have you noticed that?You're NOT welcome to post at twi-where NOBODY is welcome to post, have you noticed that? We disagree with you- which is hardly "silencing" you. Even though you're hallucinating some connection to polar bear's legitimate topic about twi suppressing thought and discussion. That you can even post, claiming you're being suppressed, shows you're not being suppressed. If you WERE, you wouldn't be able to post about it. See how simple that is? Of course you don't.] [We considered your "input", and concluded it makes very little sense AT BEST, and lacks understanding at many levels. That's not "ignoring". Furthermore, we've considered MANY unpopular ideas here, and they all got a fair hearing. People have been free to consider, ask questions, and draw their own conclusions. In some cases, they rejected them as unsound. In other cases, they accepted them as sound. In your case, it's been rejected as unsound, and your response has been to claim the grapes were sour after all and that's why you don't want any.]

WTH: "I don't recall making any claim that these Holocaust revisionists are also poster's here at GSC. I don't even know where you got that idea." Well, WTH, I actually explained it already, but it seems you missed it. It was in the very post you quoted. I shall quote myself and you and show it AGAIN. Please try to follow along this time. == WordWolf said: WTH read this, quoted it-including the part where it specifies it's referring specifically to posters on the GSC and came back with After quoting both, I then said-which WTH quoted now and was unable to understand... ========= The connection between the two was right in the post WTH made. I spoke of Holocaust denier who post here, and WTH replied by invoking those names. HE drew the connection, which any adolescent or adult English reader should have no trouble understanding. WTH continues. "I don't even know where you got that idea. But then again, it appears that you are making "a connection" where none exists -" WTH seems rather good at denying connections between things that OBVIOUSLY exist- like errors in his posts, and the content of the errors (like saying "in the GSC" applies to all sorts of Holocaust deniers then denying he ever connected them). He continues "But then again, it appears that you are making "a connection" where none exists - which apparently you are very good at, especially when you drop little comments like: "but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender." This claim, BTW, is pretty self-evident to everyone else here. I said not every person on the GSC who is a vpw defender/apologist is a Holocaust denier (AFAIK), but those posters at the GSC who ARE Holocaust deniers are also all vpw defenders/apologists. There being only a tiny handful of Holocaust deniers at the GSC, it's easy to see what they seem to all have in common. Off the top of my head, the few of them are all male, and they all come out to defend vpw's memory and engage in apologetics to excuse his felonies and misdemeanors and other bad things. To say otherwise is like denying giraffes have long necks. You won't convince anyone, and you just sound silly. But that doesn't stop SOME people... WTH: "(Apparently you consider me to be one of those "VPW defender's" though - which only goes to prove how little you know because there are many things VPW did I don't care to or want to defend.) " WTH, apparently, is in denial over the content of many of his posts, in which he has gone to great lengths to attempt to excuse vpw of crimes, or draw attention away from them. Is he convincing anyone other than himself that his posting history has no connection with defending vpw? WTH still can't let drop the connection that HE drew by responding to "on the GSC" with the names of Holocaust deniers he's quoted. " will simply go on record by saying: "There is no connection between them and VPW and TWI, anymore than there is a connection between them and the GSC." That is the point I was making and am still making. Remarkable though how you chose to respond to everything I said, except for this comment I also made: And I keep wondering ... exactly what makes you think there ever WAS a connection there to begin with? Well WW, do you care to respond to that comment or not? Probably not. And why is that?" A) I KNOW there is no connection between them-your own post notwithstanding. That's the one where you invoked their names in response to me specifying "on the GSC." It's really sad that I can say this REPEATEDLY in such clear terms and you can still miss it. Perhaps there's a biological problem that's preventing this-I'm aware some victims of Traumatic Brain Injuries can be physically unable to draw connections. If so, I'm very sorry and you should have mentioned that. If you're trying your best, I can try to make allowances. If not, your insistence on highlighting your OWN mistake repeatedly is baffling, and your attempt to pass it off on someone else rather than just say "whoops-I posted before I read" and moving on is rather transparent, to everyone except possibly your own self. I can't see a reasonable motive for doing it. B) I not only have no problem responding to why any connection was drawn, but I ALREADY did, since I ALREADY had explained it, and all I did now was REPOST the previous explanation. It was clear to everyone else the FIRST time I posted it. WTH again: "Because none of us really knows exactly what your basis is/was for drawing any connection beween Holocaust deniers and VPW defenders, regardless if they happen to post on GSC or not. Of course I realize you "conveniently" choose not to respond to that particular comment I also made, simply because you wanted to make it appear as though I were the one drawing that connection instead of you." Actually, I responded specifically to every comment so far. I didn't see the need to explain that the Holocaust deniers at the GSC are all vpw defenders (but not necessarily vice versa), because everyone except those few have no difficulty seeing that they are both. However, I've spelled it out now. And not every light-skinned person has red hair, but most naturally red-headed people have light skin. And I don't need to explain that one, since it's obvious to anyone not deliberately trying to miss it. As to what connected those authors to the GSC, YOU did, and I quoted you doing so- TWICE now, and explained the quotes, TWICE now. Everyone except you can see it without difficulty, TWICE now. It would surprise few if you STILL miss what you YOURSELF connected. Of course, we're supposed to respect your interpretation of the Holocaust's evidence even though you can't see the direct connections in your own replies. Forgive us if WE can see the disconnect in one, and conclude the other has little hope of making sense. WTH: "WELL - HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR NOW? Or are you still deaf? But then, with all the "noise" you make, it's a wonder anyone can hear at all.: You made yourself clear before. You were so eager to try to discredit me, that you didnt even read my post, and when I specified Holocaust deniers [u[on the GSC[/u], you skipped over it completely-and connected my post with Holocaust deniers worldwide- unaware you now connected all of them with posting on the GSC. Then you displayed an intentional denial you made that mistake, and even when it was explained, you remained adamant you never said it. You've been coming in loud and clear. Error-ridden, but loud and clear. I have had no difficulty understanding you-although you've been deficient in understanding me. I've never been "deaf", but your own "blindness" is on display- and not just because I'm recognizing it in a post- everyone else can see it whether I mention it or not. But since you're speaking on "deaf", it seems apt to mention it in passing. Finally, I post, and you post. You seem under some illusion that refuting all the flaws in your post is identical to shouting you down. Sorry, I'm unable to correct that illusion. Also, you're under a separate illusion-or deliberately lying- that my posts lack content. Do you think you're convincing anyone? But since WTH is either unable or unwilling to notice the connection, apparently, there's ANOTHER thing to deny for WTH while he's busy denying...

If you have the right adapters, and a VHS machine and a DVR (DVD recording device), you can copy to DVD from VHS. Presumably, the same thing applies here. The catch is probably finding the adapters. Then again, for all I know, they may be easy to find.

For those playing along, I posted this (I'm adding emphasis to point out what WTH seems unable to read): WTH, demonstrating the consistency with which he's approached the evidence of the Holocaust, replied-quoting that in its entirety, as follows: So, apparently, Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith, etc, are all posters on the GSC, since WTH replied to my comments-which were specifically flagged to refer ONLY to the GSC in case someone was skimming or lacked the wit to contextualize properly- by saying they applied to these people. Somehow, they have how magically become posters on the GSC as I specified. == Again, he responded to my with his own Apparently, when I specified this wasn't an equation ("I'm NOT saying every vpw defender is a Holocaust denier"), WTH "fully realized" I was saying it WAS an equation ("Every Holocaust denier = a VPW defender.") Since I never made it, that's little problem of mine. It's the problem of the imaginary poster whom WTH supposedly "fully realizes". Somehow, he's reading a post that specifies each Holocaust denier around the world defends vpw, despite the posts actually specifying otherwise- A) the connection is only between posters on the GSC] B) the connection does not equal an equation, since there's no equivalence (it doesn't apply in both directions) If he's looking at the evidence the Holocaust happened the same way he can read "this only applies to posters at the GSC" and translate that as "this applies to everyone around the world" and read "I'm not saying this" and translate that as "I'm saying this", then there's small wonder that he can view piles of evidence for something, and still miss that there was any strong evidence in it. This is the kind of "logic" in play when one is denying the Holocaust happened, as we can all see. (Scroll up and see it for yourselves, those posts are from a few hours ago.) ====== Oh, and the irony of the mentally-blind calling the mentally-sighted people "deaf" is just too funny.....

Does that mean you're currently undecided, and cannot honestly say your convictions point distinctly at either direction at this moment? (That's what it sounds like, so I'd like to clarify.)

Let's see.... if you're not on dialup, then something's wrong. If you're on dialup, that's STILL way too slow. I'd see about editing the picture down a little, and seeing if that helps. IIRC, about 1/2 an hour is the timeframe for about SIX GIANT DIGITAL pictures to load up to most online photo galleries on DIALUP speeds. So, a GIANT DIGITAL picture should be less than 15 minutes. I doubt your image there is QUITE that "big" (both in size and in density of image, which both affect the size of the file, and it's the overall filesize that affects the upload speed.) Maybe you should try Imageshack. ======== Then again, maybe you can email it to someone on staff here or something, since this website HAS A PHOTO GALLERY. I don't know how it works, but this site hosts the images.

Oldies, for now I'm leaving alone that you skipped HALF my statement- that a link is demonstrated- to deny the existence of a link without refuting the demonstration- because I'd like to give you a chance to set the record straight on your current thinking. So, Oldiesman, do you believe that over 100,000 or millions of people, some of them Jews, were imprisoned during World War II by the Nazis and under the order of their command (Hitler and the boys), and thousands or more of them were killed BY the Nazis at that time? Or, do you believe that the branded numbers in the skin of people, the recovered video, photos, the confessions, the eyewitness accounts from all sides, and the sites recovered, do you believe they were all invented in some sort of grand conspiracy to frame the Nazis for attempted genocide and mass-murder of prisoners? Or, do you refuse to say either way what you think?

Ah, you can host it on an external website (like Photobucket or Imageshack), and post a link to it here. Or you can shrink the image using Photoshop or the GIMP or something, but I think we'd be better served with the full-size image. (Or you can use them to trim out the borders, or both.)

I'm still curious why there are people who keep saying that vpw was neither anti-Semetic, nor pro-Nazi in any way, and never taught along those lines, and yet the only times we EVER see ANYONE denying the millions of Jews and non-Jews imprisoned and killed for the "crimes" of being different by Nazi Germany during World War II, these are people who are enthusiasts of vpw, and feel the need to defend both the public image of vpw and the public image of Holocaust denial. Is this connection supposed to be accidental? I'm not saying every vpw defender is a Holocaust denier, but it seems that every Holocaust denier (on the GSC) is a vpw defender. (I expect there may be some vpw defenders who are NOT Holocaust deniers, but there don't seem to be any GSC Holocaust deniers who are NOT vpw defenders.)

WTH then QUOTED Belle's question, and went on for several paragraphs, coming nowhere close to her question in actually addressing it. All the bombastic BS was to draw attention away from his refusal to answer the question, and pretend he actually addressed it. Just in case you were wondering. I can read his bombastic bs lightning-quick.

Catchphrases ARE among Figures of Speech, so long as they're addressed to the community that uses them. At least, Bullinger listed them as so, and twi did as well-there were even 3 different books on it from Pillai- "Light Through an Eastern Window" "Orientalisms of the Bible" volumes 1 and 2. As a figure, one wanted to analyze it, this specific phrase is "synecdoche", where the parts are placed for the whole. That is, to name all of humanity, you name 2 extremes and imply everything between them is included. So long as it's not overthought and considered for what it is, it's not a problem. Remember when vpw was explaining about the potential for life? He went into a short digression on Humpty Dumpty. During that explanation, he explained that Humpty Dumpty was an egg, an egg that a chicken laid "WITHOUT ANY STRESS OR STRAIN". It was an expression, meant to sound clever, not a literal post-analysis of the laying of the egg. I imagine a number of eggs are laid WITH stress, or at least STRAIN. So, when considering what vpw said about "sinner and saint alike", one should consider that the Orange Book, at least some of the time, rendered it as "Christian and non-Christian", and consider THAT the technically-accurate phrase. Of course, there WILL be people out there who will probably come up with a doctrine for why it says ONE thing in ONE place, and the deep, spiritual significance of saying the OTHER thing in ANOTHER place. I can't do anything about those people, but they're not taking part in this discussion, so it's not] exactly any stress or strain on me.

I think I can agree with this, pending any possible permutations taking a hard left into the wilderness. (I'm just being cautious. On the face of it, this sounds like I can agree.)

You made no exception whatsoever. We addressed WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP and did not pretend you hold positions you don't. You just tossed that in and PRETENDED there's no connection with you saying that- in MORE THAN ONE POST- and any posts you're responding to. I'm well-read enough to know when someone's trying to INSINUATE a connection between two things. I'm aware they make that Holocaust deniers make that claim of their own. I'm also aware the evidence doesn't support their claim. Furthermore, one of the major issues, I've noticed, you've been ducking. That is, do you believe SOME Jews were exterminated by Hitler and his Nazis during World War II, whether that was 100,000 or 1 million or some other number, or are you claiming there was no concerted effort to round up and kill Jews and other minorities in Germany during World War II by Nazis as directed by Hitler? Personally, I think your persistent refusal to address this from ANY angle is quite telling. If you DID believe that SOME were killed but the numbers were inflated, you'd sound less nonsensical to the average poster, and stand to gain by posting it. If you believe that there was NO such effort, then you only stand to look silly in the face of all the photographic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and confessions from people who were there in one form or another, so you stand to lose by posting THAT. Therefore, ignoring this perfectly reasonable question, and changing the subject, is quite telling on its own. After all, we didn't presume you held EITHER position, but you must hold ONE of them- since you've rejected "the accounts everyone ELSE hold as accurate ARE accurate". Ok, so are you saying that there WAS no roundup of Jews and other minorities in Nazi Germany AT ALL, let alone executions of them for being minorities of their particular sort? Or are you just intending to prevaricate and pretend you said "yes" or "no" whenever it suits your whims? That's not intellectually honest....... .......which hardly comes as news....

The problem with that is, this "when he said 'sinner and saint alike' he meant Christians both times" thing completely ignores what he said other times- in the Orange Book, this phrase is written, at least part of the time- as "Christian and nonChristian alike". Therefore, he CLEARLY meant sinner as non-Christian, and saint as Christian, and claiming he meant otherwise is demonstrably incorrect.

Hello, zarko. I'll try to fill in a few blanks for you. (I shall also sum up, so this isn't comprehensive, just the main points.) Back when vpw was a minister with a congregation, he was always looking for something bigger-he had ambition. What he DIDN'T have was something bigger- talent to match his ambition. That changed the first time in the early 1950s when-in the space of one year- he got Stiles' book on the holy spirit, and Leonard's class on "Gifts of the Spirit." By reteaching Leonard's class and claiming it was entirely his own, and retyping Stiles' book and claiming it was entirely his own, he began having success more along the lines of what he wanted. It changed at second time in the late 60s when he travelled to the House of Acts- a bunch of hippie Christians operating in the Haight-Ashbury area of San Francisco. He succeeded in convincing a few of them that he had something special to offer (true) that was unique to him (false-it was the work of others.) It was once he had these Christians working for him that twi took off. vpw had been trying for something since the early 50s, but he now had the right people under him who could expand the organization. He sent them out to both coasts to grow the ministry as much as possible, as Way East and Way West. Once these were grown to a "self-propagating" point, vpw announced he was taking over what were effectively THEIR ministries- the East and West- and all leadership was to come directly from him, and all moneys collected were to go directly to his hq in Ohio, with none of it staying locally. Somewhere in there (early 70s), Peter Wade cut ties with vpw. That was the time it was EASIEST to see vpw evidencing power-hunger. We could get into an analysis of the way corps for further discussion along those lines if you want.

I wish he was stopping closer to me-I'd seriously consider a little travelling to see him in person.

When they're being VERY pushy, there's ways and ways of getting THEM to decide to leave. Back when I was in twi, I remember one twi'er exploting their aversion to speaking in tongues- he got one to run away. Me, back in twi, I used them for Bible practice. I'd listen to them begin on a subject, then we'd go to a different book and address the same subject. (At a reasonable pace.) I did that partly for my OWN practice (I think that understanding ALL the books is a laudable goal, and the more, the better), and partly to test how well they knew verses outside their own approach. I disdain relying SOLELY on knowing ONE approach with ONE passage. If that's all you know, you're not ready to play with the big boys. Read up, and try again in 3-6 months to a year. It was also a measure of their poise to see how well they dealt with the unexpected. (Pretty well, mostly.) Anyway, I got some practice and some entertainment in, and I think they learned something as well. This approach may not work as well if your locals aren't up to this caliber.

There probably were nicer ways to phrase it, but overall, I don't think that was impolite in and of itself. It doesnt sound like they were rude, nor you. I've had a variety of experiences like that, some of which weren't so polite. But-they started. I was awakened from a nap some years ago by a ringing of my doorbell. (Early morning.) I went to the door, asked who it was, and the person deliberately mumbled, intentionally making it so I could not make out a response without opening the door. Obviously, their INTENTION was to force a conversation. Obviously, they didn't think through what type of conversation would result if they pulled a stunt like that. So, having heard the mumble, I looked through the security peephole to look at the person there. I saw a tie, and someone DODGE out of line of sight of the hole. Obviously, he was DETERMINED I receive no information about who was bothering me at my door before opening the door. So, I opened my door, visually confirmed who it was, then shut my door and locked it as he was opening his mouth. I now had all the information I needed, and-based on his actions, that's all the interaction I was interested in. I then went back to bed. I heard he stood there for several minutes, but I don't know why. ========= Another time, a guy tried a new, equally dishonest tactic. He said he was going around to encourage neighbors to read their Bible. I thanked him, and said I already did. His immediate response was "Well, many people SAY that..." (A bystander asked me afterwards "Did I hear him call you a liar?") Since he was challenging my reading of the Bible directly, I decided to accept his challenge....which should have been accompanied by a "dun-dunn-DUNNN!" in the soundtrack.... We then went all over the Bible in succession. He'd bring up a subject, and I'd take him to books he was unfamiliar with, and right to verses relevant to the subject. Hey, if he really WAS reading it all the time, he should be able to keep up.... He came back another time, and I told him directly that my specific disinterest in what he had to say was due to his previous words to me-which I quoted back, complete with context. I let him consider that for a moment, and formulate his response. Now, HAD HE accepted responsibility for his words, and apologized as an adult, I might have reconsidered-which is why I paused. (He was older than me, and should have SOME maturity.) His response was right out of some people's twi playbook of "never admit you're wrong." He began saying that IF he said such a thing, and continued with a further evasion. I pointed out exactly what I was thinking- HAD he accepted responsibility, I MIGHT have listened to him further, but it's clear to me that whatever I need to hear, he doesn't have within him. I think the person travelling with him got the lesson, whether or not he did. No, not everyone is like that, but approaches of those kinds will receive what I deem to be responses appropriate to them.

My apologies. I was under the impression that cg had boiled the subject down to its essence, rather than leave all the artificial titles and unnecessary categories in place. I gave him more credit than he earned. My mistake.

THERE'S an ugly truth we all had to face....

Ok, get your GPS navigators ready, we're going to get lost now....] [Can anyone find ANY relevance to the last few paragraphs, concerning why WTH finds it necessary to deny the Holocaust? He really doesn't care about what happened to all those people, and if he has to claim it's fake to not care about them, he will, but in the meantime, he's just going to pretend you didn't ask him.

Bear in mind that the corps was presented as teaching to apply the Bible and serve God. As such, one should come to expect bullying to be rare and accidental, mis-steps by the one who bullied. This FICTION that the corps was supposed to be some sort of paramilitary organization where Christians were sent through some sort of Boot Camp and were expected to be some sort of soldier/athlete Christian is not reflected in anything anyone was handed before joining, nor part of what they signed, nor in the official comments made verbally for those interested. It was supposed to be some sort of Christian education-partly in the classroom, partly outside the classroom by doing, but an education overall. That's one reason why the "graduates" got a DIPLOMA at the conclusion. If the corps was supposed to be some sort of military training, then it was an INCREDIBLY poor model of one- partly because vpw designed it, and vpw's knowledge of the military came second-hand AT BEST, and primarily from movies and television like many of us have seen- but we at least admit we don't really know about it. If it HAD been based on some sort of military model- and not a CHRISTIAN EDUCATION model, (which would have been news to most of the students, especially the Family Corps who never planned to take their families into military training) then-at most- the opening few weeks should have been when any high-pressure activities took place. However, based on what I've heard from people actually IN the military- the bullying is seen in MOVIES and possibly when applying for elite units like Navy Seals, Special Forces, etc, and is not seen in actual training, neither during a normal tour, nor in boot camp. It's more like Sergeant Hulka in "Stripes"- where he tells the men they're going to learn how to do everything the army's way, and he's going to be their instructor. This whole "yell-at-the-trainee" stuff is reserved for when a trainee does something SPECIFIC and STUPID. (For example, when a trainee at the firing range stands up, and carelessly points his rifle at someone, with live ammo in the gun. THAT's worth yelling over- and he got yelled at over it.) Movies show sergeants screaming at cadets, calling them worthless, and commercials show sergeants yelling at length over a small ketchup stain on an undershirt. That's FICTION, not reality. However, vpw really didn't seem to have anything more substantial than that sort of cinematic background when considering additions to the program that were supposedly "military". That's CARELESS, and IMPROPER PREPARATION on his part. He should have been FAR better prepared when proposing a multi-year training program. If one HAS TO "take some bullying" and "hard knocks", one may not have the right PROGRAM. Criticism-of PRODUCTIVE KINDS- are healthy parts of ANY training program, no matter how inconsequential the program. (Trainees at fast-food restaurants receive constructive criticism as well.) The disciples were beaten by the religious authorities of their day, and rejoiced to be counted worthy to suffer in Christ's name. Didn't mean the beatings were correct. Their attitude was healthy- but they were responding to something UNhealthy, and UNgodly-but dressed up as something godly. After all. "it's the stones in the brook that make it sing" makes a dandy rationalization for "I yell because I care" and "I yell because you can take it", but of those three sayings, all three are from vpw, and NONE of the three are FROM SCRIPTURE. The first one, "it's the stones in the brook that make it sing" bears a resemblance to "what doesn't kill me only makes me stronger", which of course is from Frederich Neitzche, the same man who said "God is dead." Neither of those, of course, appear in Scripture, either.

[This doctrine was in need of an overhaul- so much so that when cg-who virtually worshipped vpw at the time he wrote this- worked on this subject, he completely overhauled the categories, reducing them from 5 categories to 2 easy-to-follow categories: 1) believing-trusting information received-from whatever source- and acting on it. A verb. 2) "The right way of believing", which makes it the canon of doctrine we are to follow. In short, a noun. THIS makes sense. The pfal one added categories where none were needed. I shall clarify.]

It WAS disappointing. It was also EXPECTED and MANDATED by vpw, who-as can be seen in your OWN story- demanded his positions be embraced whether or not they were understood. Someone had the guts to ask a question that SHOULD have been asked all the time- and vpw punished him for it. Then again, vpw's position-as came up on another thread- was that, in his OWN WORDS, "...So, when I teach, I expect people to understand what I teach, ‘cause I try to make it so simple that nobody is stupid enough to miss it. You just can’t miss it when I teach. ‘Cause nobody would be that stupid."

http://www.google.com put the name of the series in quotation marks, and the word "quotes" in quotation marks, and you should find at least one good site with some more quotes from the show. Usually they're pretty accurate-at least, sites like IMdb and wikiquote tend to have more accurate ones, as do some others.