WordWolf

Thanks for answering. Across the various pages, I lost track of WHICH posts were yours, so I had read them, but hadn't kept track that they were yours.

I'd appreciate a bit more on that as well...

Not to mention "You have heard rumours that there are problems. There are no problems. If you question this, you will get in trouble. If you tell personal testimony supporting this, you will get in trouble. If you look up personal testimony supporting this, you will get in trouble." Sounds a LOT like twi when lcm was in court, and anyone looking up the details online was marked and avoided. Professor Sybill P. Trelawney had given them 15 years of her life, and was being kicked out without preamble. In fact, the bum's rush was attempted, you may recall. Now THAT sounds familiar as well.

My thinking runs differently than yours on this incident. I shall elaborate. First of all, I shall agree with you on one particular: the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle he is operating. Therefore, the driver, in this case, is at least partly to blame. Now, let's look at the conditions BEFORE the driver enters the picture. A) twi REQUIRES the LEAD trip. The participants agreed to be in the corps, and did not choose to quit rather than face LEAD. They were adults and that was their choice. B) twi REQUIRES the specifics they lay out be followed. The participants were adults, and did not choose to quit rather than face LEAD. C) twi provides-for the transport of humans- one truck with a homemade hitch, and any SENSIBLE source on traffic safety would tell you that the hitch is unsuitable for human transport, since there is ZERO protection of the passengers WHATSOEVER. There are no SEATS, no SEATBELTS, no AIRBAGS, not even things to hold onto. The structure is not designed to minimize injuries should there be an accident. Even an outdated schoolbus provides MUCH better protection- with supported seats, things to hold onto, and a frame that will take impacts if needed. (They're SUPPOSED to have seatbelts, which can be added of course.) So, to begin with, this is an unsafe vehicle to operate under even IDEAL conditions. (It's also illegal.) The sensible-and safe-thing to do is for the driver to refuse to transport people under these conditions. Therefore, the driver is partly to blame for agreeing to drive this deathtrap. Furthermore, the people who agreed to climb into the coffin on wheels are adults, and partly to blame for agreeing to ride in a deathtrap. D) twi required that their artificial timeframe-determined solely by them- be followed regardless of any extenuating circumstances, like inclement weather or road closings. The twi-mandated time REQUIRED unsafe speed be used with this vehicle- even if the vehicle was safe. (As most drivers know, you can maintain more control of the vehicle by REDUCING SPEED- which means you relinquish some control and increase risk with a vehicle of this type by INCREASING SPEED, which was required.) The driver, knowing this speed was unsafe, agreed to drive at it. That was his fault. E) the weather, as the weather reports predicted, included HEAVY WINDS. That's not good for ANY vehicle, and for a hitch, that's doubly so. twi required travel at speed regardless of the weather. The driver, knowing this weather was unsafe, agreed to drive in it. That was his fault. F) twi required that evaluations be completed within the timeframe they set, which provided insufficient time to complete them. The driver, knowing it was unsafe, began to try to complete them behind the wheel. That was his fault. =========== If all those things were the faults of the driver and participants, why do some of us insist that twi was responsible? As you can easily see, everything except the heavy wind were within the control of twi. By running this program, twi had legally accepted a fiduciary responsibility to execute this program in a fashion that minimized the risks to the participants. That included controlling what they COULD control, and making a good-faith attempt to reduce risks where it was reasonable to do so. As most of us see it, they had several chances to reduce the risk in this situation- and were criminally negligent and morally negligent to the degree they did not. twi did not need to require the LEAD trip in the first place. Having required it, twi chose to send participants to travel in an obviously-unsafe vehicle. twi chose to require an artificial timeframe to take precedence over OBVIOUS SAFETY ISSUES (unsafe driving conditions.) Thus, if twi was exercising even AVERAGE safety precautions, I see no way the people would even BE in a trailer hitch-and certainly not in one when the weather was less than ideal for travel. To the average neutral observer, that's gross incompetence. And that's twi's fault. =========== Now then, what about the fault of the participants and driver? They're all adults and could refuse what sensible people would see as dangerous risks. That is true-but not the whole truth. Great social pressures and social stigmas were brought to bear on anyone who dared to question the soundness of twi decisions in the corps. If you chose to save your own neck rather than lay it under the headman's axe when a corps leader said to, you were subjected to "face-melting sessions", stigmatized, and thrown out if they were in a bad mood. However, sufficient groveling sometimes meant they allowed you to return. If those people had exercised the brains that God gave them, they would have been seen as scum, as dirt, as algae, in the eyes of the corps- and therefore in the eyes of God's people, as they were instructed to think. Furthermore, they had already been portrayed as washouts, and that leadership was looking for excuses to can them. All of that meant that sensible precautions become a secondary consideration when all of that is on the line. No, they HAD a choice to leave the corps when it came down to that- so long as they were willing to accept the corps pronouncement of judgement on them that they were failures and dirt in the eyes of God. That WAS a choice. However, twi was responsible for putting them in the position to make such a horrible either-or decision. ====== BTW, this is a long post. Despite that, it has substance. Some people will have no difficulty seeing that.

Granting that as true, AND that "hitch-hiking is very dangerous", A) Was it a good idea to REQUIRE hitch-hiking in a program? B) Once the dangers were encountered, was it a good idea to CONTINUE to REQUIRE hitch-hiking in a program?

I think that's quite an observation, and I'd like to add one of my own. (Not original, but I'm relating it here, anyway.) Some people, I think, are internalizing that MISPLACED GUILT, and saying "Well, since I refuse to be held responsible for their sins, I'm going to belittle or deny the harm they did, since this is the sole way to absolve me from wrongdoing", when the wrongdoing was most likely none of theirs to begin with.

You're entitled to your opinion. Myself, I say that if just the hitch-hiking to LEAD produced at least one death from being run over (which it did) and a number of rapes as women got in vehicles with total strangers (which it did), I would classify it as a "dangerous" practice. vpw himself told the corps to continue with it, even AFTER rapes took place. His explanation was that they could get raped anywhere. (Therefore, there was no reason to lower the risks of rape in his program by eliminating anything that increased the risk. This makes very little sense and is probably an excuse. More likely it was the care for money and LACK of care for people that drove a status quo once dangers had emerged.)

That was straight out of pfal. "Lambano, lambano, la-ball-o, ball.." *pantomines a pitch* "throw it out there." Even IN pfal, that sounded like nonsense to me. Just keep changing syllables until it made sense to you? Might as well speak of the ice cream the bedouins always eat. "Desert, desert, dessert.." *pantomine dishing ice cream* "serve up dessert." Makes about as much sense. What makes this weirder is Bullinger made this same jump out of nowhere. When I read that, I concluded that Bullinger, like most people, could pull stuff out of his gluteus maximus when he wanted to.

I mainly judge them on their own merits. Some changes I view as improvements, and some things are left out to the movie's detriment, IMHO. Why was no explanation ever stated for why the name "Dumbledore's Army"? They could have fit it in as dialogue spoken OVER shots of the group practicing. Personally, I REALLY missed having Marietta Edgecombe appear in the story. ("Sneak.") Someone suggested Kingsley Shacklebolt would look more like Michael Clark Duncan than the guy they cast, which I think is correct, but I think they didn't make a bad choice. GREAT moment in the OoTP-DE fight.... "Good one, James." I thought that fight was ALMOST too fast to follow. I'll want to review it later. :) Helena Bonham Carter SO owned her role as Bellatrix Lestrange. NICE scenes with the DA- but bringing "levicorpus" means it HAS to be excluded in the next movie. "Snape's Worst Memory" was included-as it just HAD to be. And Umbridge was portrayed just PERFECTLY. Although I really missed Dumbledore's replacement for Sybill as Divinations teacher- since Umbridge LOATHES hybrids and other beings. DD having him as a replacement IMMEDIATELY showed he was still on top of everything despite Umbridge. And, naturally, I'm expecting Book 7 will show that Bellatrix had a completely incorrect line in the big fight scene- one that was neither stated NOR SUGGESTED in Book 5- which will run flat against canon in about 2 days.

Right. It's not a lack of intellectual knowledge, it's a DELIBERATE ignorance, a conscious choice to say "there's hundreds of figures of speech, but when you're using one to make a point I don't like, I'll pretend figures of speech don't exist and attempt to obscure your point."

Since you asked.... My positions have been fairly consistent. (I reserve the right to learn things over the years.) However, some people have been fairly consistently MISrepresenting my positions, so when asked, I will often clarify them. [That's great! Many if not most of us have no problem with that. Many of us learned that BEFORE vpw, twi and pfal, many did not, but don't begrudge those who learned for having learned WHERE they learned.] [There's a variety of positions here on that one, and all their holders consider THEIR position to "make perfect sense", and have their reasons WHY. The Doctrinal forum is THE forum to discuss this one. You're welcome to visit it to read the reasonings-from Scripture and otherwise-of the various holders of the positions. Me, I say all those who claim to be Christians and how Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian positions ARE Christians, and not "inferior" or "greater" ones based on that one issue. Which puts me at odds with the general practice in twi...] [Having studied out the matter to my satisfaction from Scripture, I found I came independently to the positions Bullinger seemed to come to- which are notably DIFFERENT from twi positions in several places. And I think it's not that hard to see where Bullinger-and I- got our positions. (Or, to answer the question directly, me and Bullinger both say what you said.)] [What I believe Scripture shows, that I teach, no matter where I learned it. I HAVE, however, divorced myself from the elitist attitudes inflicted upon me by various organizations, primarily twi. And welcome to the GSC. We have a sticky at the top of this forum, with some free advice.]

Please remember that the same man who was reported- in twi's OWN "the way:living in love"- to have shirked his own chores growing up and slipping off for hours at a time instead- and convinced his dad that he should go to college rather than the farm (no small task)- THAT was the one who insisted that HE knew how to work, and NONE of the younger folk DID- even the ones who DID work on farms, or come right out of the military, and so on. So, there was a "work program" that didn't actually "educate" how to perform various jobs, but got menial work on the grounds performed without paying for workers. In fact, the workers PAID TO PERFORM MANUAL LABOR. Of course, once you completed your "tour of duty" with the military, you were free to live your life as you wished. However, once you completed the corps training- at least how it was reported after the first few corps- it became, as participants put it, "we own your @$$ and will tell you where to live and what to do for the rest of your life."

It did more than "heavily influence" his portrayal. Watch that part of the movie sometine- "Satan's Alley", the musical show in the movie. You'll see the entire thing was ripped off as AOS. The costumes, evil spirits, SCAFFOLDING, the shirt-off-for-the-final-combat, there's little that didn't find a home in AOS. If AOS had been the same length, it probably would have looked "separated at birth."

You raised the same issue Catcup did- but she identified it more precisely. You were thankful for what you experienced- God answered your prayers with genuine Christians with genuine love.

But...but Nottawayfer.... "Actions speak louder than words" when it's US, but when it comes to vpw, his actions are to be dismissed, and his words fixated upon, didn't you know that? So if he talked a good talk, and ruined some lives IN PRIVATE, you just go with his good talk, after all, who cares about a few ruined lives when the rest of us are learning The Wonderful Greatness Of God's Matchless Word?

That's plenty profound for me, thanks. :)

Indeed, and one of my all-time favourite movies. "Thinks a phone-call from God is daring. If he'd made it COLLECT- THAT would be daring...."

Let's see.... Future/space setting, dog that talks cutesy English-with-doggie-accent, father has 2 kids, I'm going with-the Jetsons.

"Do you mind if I name my first child after you? 'Dips**t Knight' has such a lovely ring to it.'" "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who said 'I drank WHAT?' " D'oh! Got it in one. After this the quotes would have gotten weirder. Go, exwaycorps! (Nice to see some new variety in these threads...)

Interesting how me and Oldiesman agreed on this one... I think it might simply be lcm thought he was immortal, and Donna and Rozilla were already doing all his thinking for him.

"Are you going to take me home to meet your parents?" "No." "Why? Are you ashamed of me? "No, them! "Oh!" "If you want to leave, go ahead. But you're going to miss out on all the fun." "What fun?" "Ick invented a new virus and we're going to release in Kent's room." "Is that popcorn? Get it away from me-I can't stand popcorn!" "Hello? Hello, Jesus?... He hung up..." "I'm sorry, but have you ever seen a body like this before in your life?" "She happens to be my daughter." "Oh. Then I guess you have." "Why is that toy on your head?" "Because if I wear it any place else, it chafes." "Kent put his name on his license plate." "My mother does that to my underwear." "Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?"

"Is that popcorn? Get it away from me-I can't stand popcorn!"

Thanks, Larry. Perhaps he'll listen to you, since he's probably not going to listen to me. However, since he asked me directly, I shall answer him directly. I never said it did. Bolshevik didn't understand Oldies' reasons for posting what he does, and why he does. I answered Bolshevik's question. THAT Oldiesman values his memories of twi as a fine, fine organization that he was in while it was a fine, fine organization and gets antagonistic when someone disagrees has been mentioned before-BY HIM. I see nothing controversial about agreeing with that and just telling B or anyone else what he missed. (He could dig thru the old posts and find it himself, but I saw no reason for him to do so.) I did nothing to try to change either the positions of Bolshevik OR Oldies. If someone saw me conclude that vpw chose to drug and rape women-based on the personal testimony of the victims- and then later said "WordWolf believes vpw chose to drug and rape women"- that would be informative, and in and of itself, not controversial. That's what I said. Whether or not what I said is agreed-with is a different subject. So, if Oldiesman adjusts his perceptions, I will go out on a limb and say that's a good thing, but if he doesn't, that's his own business, which is why I wasn't attempting to change his perceptions- just declare them and answer Bolshevik's question. Which I did. I left his opinions as they were, INTACT. They're his opinions. That you completely missed that I left his intact may, in fact, reflect that YOU have an agenda to twist other people's perceptions. Then again, it simply may reflect an inability to understand my posts-either intentionally or not. He's welcome to have opinions contrary to my own. I'm less than thrilled when he hijacks a thread onone subject to take a discussion of abuses in twi and attempts to make it about something else, ending the original discussion. I think that's unfair. I also am less than thrilled when his posts seem to position immediately after someone's personal testimony, and appear to claim they're not being truthful. That having been said, I even attempted to make a thread where it's on-topic to have his position so he could post without US antagonizing HIM, and I try to leave options in polls that reflect his beliefs. I wouldn't do either if him just HAVING his perceptions-or even just discussing them- was something I found problematic. I find that there's polite, reasonable ways for him to express his positions, but he chooses not to do so in a fashion that is not antagonistic. And don't think you're fooling the vast majority of people into thinking you're an impartial observer. I for one DO seek to update my opinions, as new information comes in. That's what I do, even when it's information I don't WANT to believe. I initially didn't believe vpw plagiarized or committed any OTHER crime. And I HAVE taken Oldies' information into account. That I HAVE suggests that my perception is not as incomplete as you wish to portray it. None at all, which is why I consider it a non-issue. I consider this a MANUFACTURED issue, since you seem determined to invent it and pretend it's MY issue. Sorry, I won't lay claim to it. It will be convenient if you understand and accept this. And if you don't, then at least everyone else will have little problem seeing that the disconnect is not in MY posts.

Regardless of differences of opinions, regardless of heated discussions, regardless of when I consider a post to demonstrate all the understanding of a bowl of clam chowder, none of you are my ENEMIES, and none of you are EVIL. Sometimes it helps to remember that posts are rarely meant as a PERSONAL AFFRONT, and may have nothing to do with yourself unless your name is on it. The last time I had an emotional reaction to a post, it was in no way addressed to me, the poster had no intention of applying it to me, and when I sent them a pm, they said so outright. (I don't consider PERSONAL issues worth PUBLIC posting.) Thus, we settled that little misunderstanding privately and plainly, as adults often do.

============ And I discuss many, many things with people who have opinions other than my own, ALL THE TIME. They are of a variety of ages, from a variety of places, and a variety of religious backgrounds. And many are non-Christians. And we all get along fine. Because we "agree to disagree." Since I do not find a "neutral ground" where you can "agree to disagree" with those who have horror stories of twi, I disagree that those who tolerate opinions other than their own have no difficulty with your posts. Using the GSC alone, I "agree to disagree" with the non-Christians here ALL THE TIME, since I'm a Christian, they are not, and we agree that the worth of the other person's posts are not dependent upon either positions. Yet some of them disapprove of your posting "style". Therefore, I consider it DEMONSTRATED that your assertion does not hold up to the evidence. But hey, if anyone wants to believe that the proper posting position is to CATEGORICALLY ENDORSE all positive experiences, while CATEGORICALLY DOUBTING all negative experiences, that's their decision. Me, I've even openly doubted someone's negative testimony posted when they arrived. Supposedly, that's impossible since I'm supposedly incapable of doing such, if certain posters are to be believed. However, I think ALL posts are to be considered before deciding whether to believe or disbelieve (or decide not to decide.) I find that skipping that step for any reason is not a good thing. Naturally, since that's still my opinion, it's binding on nobody, including me, but there it is.