WordWolf

However, I find that the bare handful that DON'T agree on this have the tendency to belabour this ad nauseum. If we ALL actually agreed on this, there wouldn't be endless disagreements on this subject. No names, but if you scroll back a few pages, you'll find someone posting that they consider the victims' testimonies from those who have come forth to be little more than invented slanders, meant to trivialize the wonderfulness of the wonderful vpw who did all sorts of wonderful teachings in a wonderful ministry that was mostly rainbows and ponies while he was in charge of it. pm me if you're unable to find it. (I'm exercising dramatic license with the "rainbows and ponies" thing.) I have- but not recently, and it was by the notable exception you were thinking of,who claimed all of twi/pfal was perfect. However, I HAVE seen people trivialize the sufferings of others- "they're lying" "they wanted it" "they sought it out themselves" in order to shrink, in their minds, the harm vpw PERSONALLY did, in order to justify their good experiences in twi WHILE vpw was violating those who were not themselves, and to justify the high level of respect they give vpw and pfal, claiming they were as good as can be expected of humans. That's not LITERALLY what you were speaking on, but it's a defense mechanism very close to that very thing. I agree. I think that the evils should be acknowledged and understood, and we should all do BOTH and THEN move on with our lives. There's some non-Christians who'd debate the first point with you. Not me, but I think they have some valid points. I'm perfectly fine with discussing BOTH types of experiences with twi- among the many types we experienced, all of which are worth discussing, for good or ill. I'm perfectly fine with considering acknowledgement of BOTH to be healthy and necessary. I question whether everyone actually can ACCEPT that vpw performed evils personally, and can frankly discuss them ever. Since that's 1/2 the equation, I don't see THEM completing their stage of the journey, and I think their posts can reflect that.

CA, Hello. Your intent probably is to acknowledge the damage that was done, and encourage people to acknowledge the hurts they received, and the conjobs that conned them, so that they can heal and move on. I applaud those goals. Generally, Catcup does, as well. In this particular case, however, your METHODS are striking sparks with people who would agree with you normally. Why? Your approach has a lecturing tone. Many of us have been posting and reading here for YEARS, and have already had a LOT of time processing all the information. Your posts make it sound like the ideas you're presenting are novel and new to us. Not here-we talk about this ALL THE TIME here, month after month, year after year, and between all the iterations of the GSC and its predecessor, that's been happening for A DECADE. People who arrive and decide none of us understand anything and choose to lecture don't get a favourable response- because they're not making a good impression. "We were hoodwinked? We should seek to explore how, and achieve closure, then move on with our lives?" That's the everyday report here. If you walked in announcing it, your news is very, very late. Your intentions are good, but your approaches are negating your intentions. Please consider, and formulate future posts accordingly. Thank you and have a nice day.

You're supposing the problem here exists within yourself.

This really should be no surprise when one remembers that he claimed he could have been an executive at AB Dick or whatever, and he invented the hook shot while in school, and the "microphone behind the tie" recording method, and so on.

Supposing that person even existed. We did note that the entire story does not appear in the Orange Book, only in the class the Orange Book was taken from. The class segment had the noteworthy line "She had a need. And the need was, they might as well be red drapes."

They would be, and they are, quotes from the Monkees. Your turn!

Different expectations. That's why I didn't mind the last chapter, but some people did. I expected it after reading Book 5-at least the basic content (years later...) I had worked out that DD was already GOING to die, and dying that way preserved Snape's "cover", so that was no surprise to me. Neville started coming along nicely starting Book 5, when he was able to get out of his parents' shadow and apply himself. I really expected him to get Narcissa in the big fight scene-he almost seemed to be training for that in the DA. Considering what she left out, I found the entire "deathly hallows" subplot to not only be unnecessary and steal time from the main plot, I found it muddied the story. If she was leaving other things out to save space and time, I see no reason to include this when it seems to have been needless. (I say the wand business could just have been written differently.) My thinking is that Disapparition has to be done from a stable platform, with relatively little movement, So, youcould disapparate on a train when it's stopped, or a plane in an airport, but not either when they're in motion because that could drop you moving at the same speed or do some more harmful thing like automatically "splinch" you. (Where there's a good shot of an explanation, I DO give the benefit of the doubt.) Congrats. That's a rare feeling for me. If you're looking for another series to immerse yourself in, I'd recommend Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, starting with the first book, "Eye of the World." (It's not perfect, but I give it high marks. The second book does drag a bit, which I dislike, but that doesn't ruin the second book.)

That was very naughty of you. And rather sensible, for that matter. Did you ever get in trouble for it? Or did they just save that for when they caught you fishing?

See, it's posts like this that illustrate that your position and mine are not really as far apart as some might think. 1) vpw taught some good stuff. 2) vpw chose to hurt a lot of people. 3) Anything that was taught that was good, remains so in spite of the harm to people. We both agree on those, and they seem to be the major points. Where we differ is largely in what specifically was good that was taught, (what was accurate, what was error, what was helpful, what was harmfut), which are doctrinal issues, and some wrangling over who got hurt and how much, which I don't see as particularly useful to discuss unless the parties involved are discussing them. The things I object to primarily aren't there- they are the "vpw didnt really harm a lot of people, he was really a nice guy falsely accused" stuff, the "twi never had a harmful side, and was always sweetness and light" stuff. Me, I wasn't really exposed to the harmful side, and am well aware there were many positive experiences while in twi- mine and other people's, but that doesn't erase the existence of the bad experiences had by others, and attempts to belittle or erase THOSE get my attention. My posts are a whole lot nicer and more interesting when people don't try to pull that one ad nauseum. I don't know if you've caught that.

[so, claiming that in the nation of Israel, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king", which completely contradicts the entire Mosaic Law, does that count as handling Scriptures, and not doing so correctly? How about claims that under grace, sex between 2 people not married to each other is fine "if you can handle it," which contradicts the Epistles, does that count as handling Scriptures, and not doing so correctly? And how someone handles the Scriptures PRIVATELY, is that insignificant compared to how they handle it PUBLICKLY at the podium? If so, Jimmy Swaggart was immaculate, since he was perfect AT THE PODIUM but acted poorly IN PRIVATE. That's 3 questions.] [That's wonderful.] I noticed you counted me among them. I ASKED YOU specific questions- which you didn't answer, BTW- and said what generally happened when someone arrived and began making pronouncements, which is why you got the reaction you did. You responded by saying I said YOU meant that- which is jumping to a conclusion. (Then blaming me for putting words in your mouth.) You might review the posts of the others and see if you've similarly ascribed error and malice where none existed. Just a suggestion, since you made that mistake in ONE case...] [Ah, at least some of those posts, that's not what happened, but you labelled them soIMMEDIATELY, which allowed you to dismiss them "with a clear conscience". BTW, there were also some purely knee-jerk reactions by those who see someone claim vpw was harmless and didn't really hurt anyone and say "WELL DONE! TOTALLY TRUE!" You took those as endorsement of your position-which is as fair as automatically abandoning your position because someone said "NUTS! NUTS! NUTS!" While we're on the subject, precisely WHO did that knee-jerk reaction you're claiming, and what did they say? You MIGHT be POLARIZING the issues, reducing them to BLACK AND WHITE THINKING. That's come up already.] Ever consider that there's a wealth of information, including many eyewitnesses and confessions from members of the inner circle who facilitated the felonies, and that by themselves, they're pretty damning, even leaving out the direct testimony of the victims? I BEGAN from the position that vpw was probably innocent- and didn't want him to be guilty. However, examining the wealth of testimony HONESTLY, I found that position UNSUPPORTABLE. Now, if I was eager to dismiss all of them to maintain my comfortable viewpoint, perhaps I would be posting little encouragements when you posted otherwise- another of the apologists for vpw. Of course, if you've already decided anything I post is without merit, you probably won't consider any of this no matter how sound the advice. However, I've no guarantee you've done that. And even if you did, you may reconsider.]

""Who turned on the dark?" ""One thing I can't stand is late kidnappers." "What advice would you give young people just starting out in the spy business?" "You ain't goin' no place!" "The dance in France is mainly in the stance." "I regret to inform you that Norway has just declared war on Sweden." "He's not evil... crafty and selfish, maybe, but not evil." "It's all yours, mate." "It's great, it's terrific, it's the best show on Earth!" "April is the cruelest month." "How hungry can they get in half an hour?" "She put herself in a big box, put herself in a box this big, and sent herself up and put photographs on it. And we opened it and this young lady popped out." "What happened to her?" "Popped her back in again." "We shipped her to the Beatles." Should I prepare the four beds?" "No, no, prepare four coffins. They will not live the night." "Ooh! So, uh... That's, uh... That's what [bleeped] is all about." "Yeah. [bleeped] It's pretty scary." "You know what's even more scary?" "What?" "You can't say [bleeped] on television. "

It's "THE MASK OF ZORRO."

I had more fun deconstructing the magic system and sleuthing the clues than I did anything else. I never said I didn't LIKE the books, but I'm not a diehard fan-you won't see me buying wizard robes or a wand (which they make.) No, I meant what I said- I didn't like the last book particularly, but I'm glad SOME people did. We were all looking forward to liking it, and some of us did, and I'm happy for them.

Hello, Deciderator. [Whenever I hear buzzwords aligned so precisely, so rehearsed, I maintain a safe distance and grab my hazmat gear.] [That's not bad, IMHO.] [see, every time we get a statement like this, what it's meant is "I wish to maintain the image of vpw as some sort of benevolent, wise teacher, and wish to avoid any references to him drugging women, raping women, using their 'birth to the corps' papers to decide WHICH women to rape, and arranging an inner cadre to help facilitate this and cover his tracks afterwards, monitoring women so that he could dispose of them if they looked like they were going to tell someone. Among other things." Me, I would rarely even mention the evil actions vpw did, except we keep getting people dedicated to COVERING UP the evil actions vpw did- then accusing the rest of US of being fixated because we refuse to let them cover up his evil acts. Tell me this.... Can you honestly say "I think it was terrible that vpw drugged and raped women, and organized things to make that easier and arrange things so he could get away with it"? If so, then I see little reason to continue discussing it with you- you're informed, consider it wrong, and won't be pretending it didn't happen. If not, then the motivation for us to STOP talking about it is NOT what you reported, and you're fooling yourself, if not us. You DID just claim you never put wierwille on a pedastal- is that really true? Please think that over for a bit.] [Neither have I, and many of us put action to word on that when we're not on the GSC.Our posts here =\= our lives. We CAN tell the truth about things hidden, and ALSO spread love, kindness and forgiveness! Imagine that! Sometimes love and kindness involve helping someone face their pain, and sitting with them and listening, without reciting Bible verses in response. At the GSC, a LOT of people have gotten that kind of help. And if you want to discuss DOCTRINE, we have a forum for that, called "DOCTRINAL." The idea that we must EITHER spread love, kindness and forgiveness OR report the evils that have been performed on suffering brethren is a "FALSE DILEMMA." We don't have only two choices, and they are not mutually-exclusive. For that matter, HIDING the evils that have been performed on suffering brethren is not synonymous with spreading love, forgiveness and kindness, either. [Except when people keep reporting vpw was an ok guy and didn't inflict great suffering, we don't keep circling the same old points. And make up your mind- are we "holding it in", or posting it all the time? Can't be both, can't discuss something while "holding it in." "We all were hurt." Me, I wasn't really hurt, and from what you're saying, you weren't really hurt, either. That means it's unfair to tell the women whom vpw PERSONALLY wronged, "Oh, just suck it up." Do you know how long it takes to rebuild a life when someone has decimated it with acts of rape and other destructive, evil deeds? Any PROFESSIONAL could tell you that it's not a 5-minute job with a pep talk, a verse recitation, and a pat on the back. And again, you're confusing what we post here with "what we do 99% of the time". What you SEE is not what is happening. Similarly, you may have seen vpw as some benevolent teacher who loved his people and would have suffered for them, instead of one who inflicted suffering ON them. What you SAW was not what was happening.] [This is STILL not a Christian board. Here, read this:http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913 ] [so, because some people murdered, and vpw and lcm didn't and only ruined lives without killing them- although they DID drive people to commit suicide- EACH of them, does that count as killing someone?- we're not supposed to take offense at what evils they committed? We're supposed to shrug, say "well, people sin" and just give them a free pass? That SEEMS to be what you're SUGGESTING....]

Should I take it?

Most of Book 5 was the tail wagging the dog. 1/2 the book was dragging the plot to put the gang in the Dept of Mysteries, where there was a fight over the prophecy, and all the rooms there. The Death Room and the Door-That-Is-Never-Opened were inserted into the story rather conspicuously. Neither reference was needed. For a dramatic scene, it would have worked AT LEAST as good if she used the Avada Kedavra in the book. And the book distinctly does NOT use that. Bellatrix fires a red Stunner. Bellatrix follows up immediately with a follow-up, which is seen by Harry and the color is unspecified, but the effect is not the same as the AK, and it pushed Sirius. Harry saw it and didn't identify it as the green AK, and the effect didn't match. Plus, Harry expected to see Sirius get up. So, in the book, it was NOT an AK, and was PROBABLY a Stunner. And if it was SUPPOSED to be an AK, it was VERY poorly handled-since all ways to identify it were missing. (The colour, the effect, Harry expecting to see Sirius awake...) Then the question is, does going thru the Veil and Arch kill someone or trap them? If it traps them, then Harry has a reason to undertake the step in the Hero's Journey where, like Orpheus, Hercules and others, he descends to the Underworld to perform a rescue. It seemed foreshadowed in the other books... Book 1: Harry, Ron and Hermione (the Golden Trio) bypass a 3-headed dog (from Greece), and descend into a dark chamber below. Book 2: The Golden Trio pass a heavy veil, interact with the dead, and return safely (Nick's Deathday Party.) Book 3: A dead man returns (Wormtail.) Book 4: A dead man returns fully from the dead, in a graveyard (Voldymoldy). The first 2, at least, seem to point in that direction. If it just kills them, then the entire introduction of this chamber is completely needless- Bellatrix could have fired the AK and just hit him with it. (Apparently, the director of Movie 5 saw it the same way, and just used it there.) Further, I object to JKR's elaborate evasions of whether or not Sirius is dead, when she said Dumbledore was dead outright. She went to a lot of trouble to avoid saying it one way or the other. That's a separate discussion. I think Book 7 had a higher concentration of holes than any one SW movie.And I thought the pacing was off. My best explanation: "It was late, and JKR was tired." It felt like she just added their deaths in when she tallied it up and said "Not enough deaths..." BTW, earlier today, she confirmed that one of them was one of the two that she chose to kill off instead of letting him live. You forgot "Enough....effing.....OWLS!" -Vernon Dursley in Book 2. (I think it was 2, with all the notes.)And you didn't recognize the line from Aliens? I saw teenagers citing it! Ripley:"GET AWAY FROM HER, YOU BITCH!" Some of them voted the HP line "Best line ever!" for reasons I find insufficient. It WAS supposed to be aimed at a young audience. The line I liked was a callback from Book 1. "Are you a wizard or not?"- Hermione to Ron, calling back Hermione's dilemma as to how to start a fire to free Ron from the Devil's Snare. Hermione:"...but there's no wood!" Harry:"ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" It's roughly what I expected, and saccharine enough to end a story meant for kids. Me, I'm working my way through the Dresden Files while I wait for the greatly-superior "Wheel of Time" series' last book. HP was largely to keep me occupied while waiting for Wheel of Time books. Oh, and those of you who loved this one, congratulations! More power to you! I'm glad you got more enjoyment than I did.

Ok, this one's not so easy, so I'm going to include more quotes. Fair's fair. ""Who turned on the dark?" ""One thing I can't stand is late kidnappers." "What advice would you give young people just starting out in the spy business?" "You ain't goin' no place!" "The dance in France is mainly in the stance." "I regret to inform you that Norway has just declared war on Sweden." "He's not evil... crafty and selfish, maybe, but not evil." "It's all yours, mate." "It's great, it's terrific, it's the best show on Earth!" "April is the cruelest month." "How hungry can they get in half an hour?"

Oops. Ok, hang on....

God knows what he's doing. I'm confident He's worked something out.

Wow. Norman Borlaug is made of win.

Anyone got a link to the discussions about vpw's attempts to make it into a private police force, complete with police insignias and stuff? I saw PHOTOS....

The Fidelius Charm means ONLY THE SECRET-KEEPER can tell-and no one else. One Secret-Keeper means ONE person can tell- by speaking or by writing a note as in Book 5 when Harry arrives at 12 Grimmauld Place. Her website specifies that once a Secret-Keeper dies, there's ZERO Secret-Keepers. NOBODY else can learn. (Unless, say, an old note was found.) The book specifies that now there's OVER A DOZEN Secret-Keepers, and ALL of them can tell. The status of the secret is now fluid, and not fixed, and will not "remain as it was at the moment of their death." New people CAN learn-and as we saw, DID learn. Right. But they had a LONG time where Harry, Ron, Hermione were hanging out IN 12 Grimmauld Place, and they STILL thought Snape was a traitor, but they STILL were living there. If so, they should NOT have felt secure-they should have expected an ALL-OUT ATTACK like the "Seven Potters" chapter. If they felt secure-they should have concluded Snape wasn't a traitor. How comfy could you be, setting up to live in a place you expect should be flattened in a mortar attack without warning?

The explanation of James' and Lily's jobs, and how they thwarted Voldy 3x. The explanation of the Veil/Arch. The explanation of Sirius' supposed death-which was promised. The door that NEVER opens in the Dept of Mysteries. For starters. AFAIK, all of these (except the last) were all promised. She also mentioned that Book 7 was going to go MORE into why some people become ghosts and others don't. I worked that one out in detail when we knew Snape & DD argued in the middle of Book 6. DD's death was predictable- and predicted. I expected him to die early in Book 7, but wasn't shocked it was sooner. She kept foreshadowing it. Besides, she herself said to Emerson of Mugglenet.... "Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is. We all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it? If you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot." "The wise old wizard with the beard always dies." "Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. " When we saw the portrait of him in the headmaster's office, that was the "stick a fork in him" moment. Her website says: "Section: F.A.Q. When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead? Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard after their death - think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map. " And Sunday,Aug 5,2004, at the Edinburgh Book Festival, she said "Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them? JKR: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost." And, since some people needed her to say it outright, during "An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp", (Aug 1, 2006) JKR said the following: "I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely dead. And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now. But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief , and I'm just helping you get past denial." Now with Sirius, JKR made an elaborate effort to DUCK THE QUESTION every time it came up. (I looked most carefully at her interviews, website, etc, and watched it happen.) Contrasted with the above, and note that no body was ever recovered (which, actually, was a rule consistent with the rest of the series) and so on, it was obvious JKR deliberately wanted to be AMBIGUOUS about his "death". That means either: A) He's alive and she wants us to believe he's dead or B) He's dead and she wants us to believe he's alive. etc. Sure. Want to start with "how was The Prophecy actually fulfilled?" After all, JKR's own website says "Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully and that is all I have to say on the subject!" Why, then, is it IRRELEVANT to the actual climax of the series? The Prophecy states: ""The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." The part I'm especially concerned with is "and either must die at the hand of the other" (not "and either must die AT HIS OWN HAND") ========== Oh, and for fun, here's the first thing that bothered me in Book 7. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm "Result of F.A.Q. Poll (SPOILER WARNING) What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? I was surprised that this question won, because it is not the one that I'd have voted for… but hey, if this is what you want to know, this is what you want to know! When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." Book 7, page 90, US edition. "...after the death of Dumbledore, their Secret-Keeper, each of the people to whom Dumbledore had confided Grimmauld Place's location had become a Secret-Keeper in turn." Besides the fact that this contradicted what she herself said while writing Book 7, the characters were oblivious to what it meant. Either they should have been convinced Snape was a Death Eater, or Snape was working against Voldemort. If they were convinced Snape was a Death Eater, page 91 and following should have reflected the obvious conclusions: "Since I'm convinced Snape's working for Voldemoldy, and tells him everything important, obviously he's ALREADY told him all about 12 Grimmauld Place. Therefore, Death Eaters are on their way now and I have to pack." If the non-arrival of Death Eaters made it obvious Snape was ABLE to give away the location and DIDN'T, the rest of the book should have reflected the obvious conclusions: "Since Death Eaters haven't already arrived, Snape's sitting on the Secret he's Keeping, and therefore he's not REALLY working for the Volderoni."

I disagree. It was an acceptable read, but I was expecting a lot better. For one thing, the middle dragged, and we had a few chapters of "and nothing much happened to our heroes." I've seen that twice before, and hated it both times. (Once in "Return of the King", once in "the Great Hunt.") It's forgiveable, but annoying. For another, JKR had promised to include several things, and they're nowhere to be seen. That includes a number of elements introduced in Book 5 ("Why is Book 5 so big?" "I had to include a lot of things I'll be using later..." -paraphrased) And I found the ending didn't sound like it makes sense on paper. I'll need to recheck to see if it does. I don't mind character death, but a number of them just seemed thrown in to rack up the body count. I've been objecting to that in stories for years now, and JKR doesn't get a free pass on that. I DID find the "Aliens" semi-quote amusing, but I imagine some parents won't find it so. And when someone has a few weeks to do nothing BUT make up a plan, (infiltrate the MoM), I expect them to have worked out the most obvious aspects like "entrance", and especially "exit", and "what to do if the obvious things don't work right". For some clever kids that had nothing BUT time to think and plan, they sure made some easy-to-avoid mistakes. Then again, it's not like they were properly prepared for this- DD's plans fell FAR short of giving them all the information they needed. I considered it a passable read- but a lot of "this will make sense later, I promise!" stuff...never did. I have the distinct impression-based on a partial list of what was promised and never included- that JKR never made a list of the things she had to include to bring the series to a successful close, and just winged it and went from memory. Me, I had a partial list memorized, and it was mostly left out. There were some good scenes, but as a whole, I found it inadequate to the task of ending the series.

Well, when it comes to a matter of "this is what he did", and informing others (few of us don't want a fuller understanding, if not all the explicit details), I see profit in it. When one wonders if twi under lcm was actually bad, I think the truth rings pretty clear. Plus, some people like to try to rewrite history, and pretend great evils done by vpw personally and lcm personally never happened. Under those conditions, I see a point to discussion. When it comes down to just posting insults and things, well, personally, I don't see any point in it. It informs no one, and brings no benefit to him or the reader. However, I can understand what I think of as a normal human urge to vent, and pay back a little for all the harmful words lcm spewed out at us or about us. I don't usually partake of it, but I understand. As to what we KNOW, we knew he was dropped by twi officially, and he was living in a small home owned by twi and with a doctor. (It's been speculated he was placed there so the doctor could keep an eye on him.) We knew he's worked as a personal trainer, and at UPS. I think he's working at both currently, but I really don't care. I wish I'd seen signs he had some understanding that he wrought hurt in other people's lives, but all reports show he's sorry he was caught, and removed from a cushy job.