WordWolf

WordWolf,

I'm good at this.

Great.

Since I'm not, I can only take the new people so far.

Many of them-especially if they were ex-twi-- may be hampered by

technophobia or lack of experience.

Practice and facility will help a little with both.

My instructions for picking something off the provided galleries will work

fine for those who find EXACTLY what they're looking for.

For everyone else, it's better to have something that suits them better.

I know that someone can find any of all sorts of images by going to a website

that provides avatars (I forget whose avatar here is an ad for one),

or they can find one themselves by any of several methods.

One is to go to http://www.google.com ,

then click on "images",

then to type in what they're looking for,

in quotes if it's something where there are many possible results.

For example, if they want a picture of, say, Minnie Mouse,

they'd type in "minnie mouse" in quotes.

Then they'd find a bunch of images, and their pages.

Next, they'd click on the one they wanted,

go to its page,

then go to the image on the hostpage,

right-click on it,

select "save image as",

name it and specify where they want to save the image to,

then hit "save".

Now they have the image on their computer,

but need to trim it down to fit the avatar gallery.

They can tell this by going to the menu the image in in,

then pointing their cursor at it.

They'll then see the dimensions and the overall size of the file.

According to the forum's specifications,

the height can be no taller than 90 pixels,

the width can be no wider than 90 pixels,

and the overall file size can't exceed 50 KB.

The image would then have to be edited to fit in the specifications.

In my case, my avatar didn't fit in that size, so eventually I had to

work out how to trim down the height, width AND file size.

I know I used Picasa 2 at someone here's recommendation,

which is downloadable for free at

http://picasa.google.com/

by clicking on "free download".

Is this the free program you'd recommend that new people

should attempt to use?

Feel free to explain any method using any software you see fit.

The best one for the new, confused person, however, might be

something simple AND free, which, AFAIK, is true of Picasa 2.

Here satori seems to be opining that in that situation, the driver was applying "the law of believing" to be safe in the midst of his unsafe actions.

But, how in the world does satori know all that?

Does satori know the specific mindset of the driver, at that time?

Fairly well, he DOES.

He read the account of the guy sitting RIGHT NEXT TO HIM,

of both the expectations BEFORE the LEAD trip,

and the expectations DURING the LEAD trip,

and the exact incidents up to the exact second of the accident.

Since you read it the LAST time you argued that twi was blameless for this,

you didn't try this then.

Your attempts to pull it now either indicate

A) you're posting on this without caring about the details

or

B) you remember the details and choose to deliberately misrepresent them

or

C) A) and B)

Did he speak with him, to make an accurate assessment of what he was thinking and feeling and believing in that specific incident?

Or could satori be communicating a misconception based on ignoring the driver's actual position, which he doesn't know, and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position?

He COULD be if he hadn't read the entire first-person report of someone who WAS there.

BTW, it was TYPICAL of the type of expectations the corps got ALL THE TIME,

ESPECIALLY in LEAD.

Wordwolf, thanks for the strawman information.

It was helpful. :D

I could probably make a case that the driver wasn't really actually "believing for safety" since he seemed to be ignoring basic driving precautions.

But what the heck, its Thursday.

OH - but he was obeying the directive of the Men of Gawd!

Obedience was just believing that the MOG was right and acting accordingly.

I'm pretty sure that when the driver started driving that the wind wasn't an issue - It surprised HIM!!!!

So why is this so difficult????

Because there are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

I think you want quotes and facts - but the truth is that there was so much implied that you won't get what you're asking for.

Actually, he's COUNTING ON NOT GETTING IT.

Since Oldiesman wants to change this thread from

"criminal negligence leading to foolhardy behaviour as MANDATED by twi"

into "let's derail and discuss the LEAD accident,

I'll go along for now.

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

Satori:

"The TWI management philosophy is: "deprivation + believing = abundance." The top leadership applies this philosophy (a.k.a., magic formula) to everyone but themselves.

By hand-picking their high-maintenance Corps people (by their own cold, cynical reckoning) for LEAD Group 104 (and whose bone-headed, foolish idea was it? Lynn's? Martindale's? - whatever, they had to approve it), TWI management over-burdened the competent but small staff at Tinney.

Management's expectation, as usual, was they would be well-served by the magical "believing" of the staff, or if not, they could blame the staff for its failure to "believe" (practice effective magic). No believing (magic) required on their own part - pretty convenient.

For crying out loud, the LEAD program was in the wilderness! That was the idea for creating a "challenge." Screw-ups anywhere are dangerous enough, but even minor accidents in the wilderness can become deadly.

So dumbass TWI leadership sends this (supposedly) issue-prone "losers" group - all together. To a virtual survival camp?? And you ask the bare-bones staff, in one session, to keep them all safe, enable them to climb vertical rock walls, AND do your vetting work for you - the work that should have been done on the field, one-on-one, or in residence?

If TWI leaders couldn't "believe" to get the vetting done in a safer, controlled environment, what made them think LEAD would be such a nifty idea? They were f-ing STUPID, that's what. They were also thoughtless, or callous, or even cold-blooded, mercenary bastards, where people's lives were concerned. They made a show of "loving" people, but the love-dove stuff went down the crapper when personal priorities or ministry goals were at stake.

What TWI was hoping to do with LEAD 104 was save time, letting the LEAD program shake you all loose as efficiently as possible.

I'll be honest here. I don't think Rochelle was ever meant for the Corps program, neither for what it was supposed to be (and never was), and especially, not for what it was - from the 6th Corps(approximately) on. I believe she was looking for a place to belong, where her talents and intelligence could be put to the best possible purpose, and hoped the Corps would provide it - not just a "place," but a family.

Had TWI been a truly Christian group, and not the fraud it quickly became as Wierwille realized his ambitions, she might have found it, and herself. To the Way Corps program, as it was, she was a throw-away, along with so many others, caught in the net but to be tossed out, unwanted."

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

Satori again:

"oldiesman,

The driver was responsible for the accident. Yes. Nobody would question that, so your real point is that you are missing the point.

Who was the driver's employer? What was the driver doing while driving? Why?

Specifically, what were the circumstances leading to a distracted, young man reading an evaluation form, while operating a fast-moving truck, towing a trailer, with a load of people in the back on a windy, back-country highway. No red flags for you, huh? Blame stops with the driver? How convenient for the Board of Trustees, who consistently appointed -what shall we call them? okay - dumbasses, to run the Corps, and consequently to make asinine decisions like the one that led to (remedial) LEAD group 104, requiring extended evaluations for which there was INSUFFICIENT TIME to complete.

I'm not saying Way management wanted the accident to happen. They were just too stupid and thoughtless, oh, and NEGLIGENT!! to consider the danger of over-burdening the LEAD staff, when it was already under so many other constraints, real and administrative.

Oh, "by the way." Why is it swept under the rug? Because NEGLIGENCE = LIABILITY, that's why."

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

waterbuffalo:

"..right, satori001, and it wasn't as if twi didn't have the $$ to enlarge the staff or to train them more thoroughly..."

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

Georgio Jessio:

"I've posted either here or on Waydale about the incompetence that left my mother with a forever broken back. She's never recovered and was chastised because she wasn't "walking in the spirit". She walked right off of a mountain side and took a violent fall because a LEADer told her, a middle aged woman from The Bronx, to go back to camp to retrieve something, take a left at the oak tree and a right at the maple tree. She tried to tell them that she didn't know the difference between trees an she was reproved for not remembering what she had been taught. She obediently went , misunderstood the difference between trees and took a terrible fall.

She came home early from LEAD and I wasn't told that she had returned or that she had been in an accident. We had "sub parents": Fellow corps that kept an eye on the kids while Family Corps parents went lead. They knew she was back and didn't tell me. They continued to act as my parents while my mother was being kept away from me. I heard thru the grapevine that she was back and had gotten hurt because "her believing wasn't there". I demended to see her and get some info and finally was allowed to see her days later. I couldn't sleep knowing my mother was hurt, I wasn't allowed to see her or have any info. It was torture.

Many were talking about it in front of me, making my mother look bad without regard to my feelings. She wasn't allowed to go to a doctor until she reached a level of pain that was turned around on her as a lack of believing.

It was all her fault. She was never treated and now her bones are fused incorrectly.

Oldies man: It is neglegent and unreasonable to require people to hitch hike across the country."

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

Satori:

"oldiesman, when you put employees under the pressure of time constraints, they may have to cut corners to deliver results on time. If you're talking about the BRC offices at Headquarters, where somebody might stumble over a stapler, that's one thing. But when you're talking about Way Builders, or LEAD, or any operation where safety is a critical consideration, then management MUST stress safety above all else.

What did TWI stress? "Believing," in other words, magic. And of course, results. Safety was only a factor of your believing. If you "believed" (practiced amateur magic), God would cover (because he loves amateur magicians).

WHAT is TWI renowned for saying any time a "believer" (amateur magician) gets sick or hurt. It's their BELIEVING, right oldiesman? They believed for disease or injury or death, just like old, dead of cancer Victor P. Wierwille, uh, or was that an attack-of-the-Adversary? - stay tuned for the "present truth" to be revealed, depending on what time it is.

You can say it's impossible for TWI management to take oversight to enforce safety standards and measures adequate for preventing every accident. But they did enforce those measures, selectively. You can bet Vic's bus and airplane were well inspected, and that sufficient TIME was allowed to do the job right.

But LEAD placed a big priority on the schedule. It was a matter of honor and pride (and believing, which is magic) to arrive at LEAD, and back, on TIME. And LEAD staff was a big part of that, getting the (spiritual) hitchhikers back on the road on time. Even if it meant reading evaluation forms, driving 50 mph in strong crosswinds with a trailer and a truck load of people. Is it stupid to do that? No, not if you're "believing" is there. You're covered, bro. You can do anything with believing (magic), and do it safely, even if it looks a little dangerous.

Why didn't HCW say, "Stop this thing, I'm not proceeding with the eval while you're driving?" Because he would have been questioning the driver's believing, that's why, and his own would be on the line. After all, he was part of LEAD 104, the losers' group. He would be giving in to fear (FALSE EVIDENCE APPEARING REAL), and that would be putting everyone at risk of losing their (magical) hedge of protection, giving the Adversary an opportunity to steal, kill and destroy.

So HCW didn't confess any negatives, like "slow this goddam truck down now, dammit." That would have been negative. Why? Because that's what TWI taught, and not only taught, but enforced with systematic intimidation. Being assigned to LEAD-for-Losers group 104 was part of TWI's ugly campaign of intimidation against its own followers, especially Corps (who in turn, turned it upon others). It just stinks of Martindale, to tell you the truth, it reeks of the stain and stench of "spiritual" humiliation, L. Craig Martindale's modus operandi.

If it had come down from TWI management that safety PRACTICE was a part of the culture and structure of LEAD (as it was on the rocks), the accident wouldn't have happened, at least, not the way it did. The LEAD culture was to teach RISK-taking as an element of "believing" (magic).

I guess you weren't really there, at TWI.

The sad part is, this tragedy probably confirmed The Way management's warped assessment of the LEAD 104 group. The losers couldn't even believe to prevent an accident."

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

Mr Hammeroni:

"I don't if its really about the blame, as much- at least to me. What I find highly disturbing, is how these kind of things seemingly disappear, swept under the rug so to speak.

I can honestly say that I NEVER heard anything about this stuff. Never- after twenty years involvement. Why?

Is it possible that the BOD and minions do not want to admit that if they are cut, that they will bleed, just like anybody else? What happens to their claim of superiority and "abundance"? Apparently it did not work this time. Or that da debil somehow had access to this supposed pure, clean protected bunch? How could this be? Same stupid junk- "that da ministry be not blamed".

Anything that had a remote potential of giving them or their doctrines a black eye seems to have had a habit of vanishing in the night."

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

Alfakat:

"well, they were the BOT, om ---it was their f-ing job, no?? They wanted the accolades but not the responsibility. Everything run on a frickin shoe-string...home-made trailer, my a$$...surprised the truck wasn't home-made, too.

Too cheap and tight-a$$ed to do things right, like the world....

satori, I just read your last post...spot-on, EXACTLY. anyone who spent time on staff knows NOTHING was too much for ole vp, but everybody else could make-do... a home-made trailer???? fer krap's sake, not lik e they could buy a real one..."

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

Watered Garden:

"Maybe this is another one of my dumb remarks, but here in Buckeye Land, having ONE person riding in the bed of a pickup truck is against the law. There were 15 or so folks in the back of that one, and they were towing a trailer? That's not only dumb, it's against the law in most states."

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

TheHighWay:

"Satori... dead-on post!!!

On a trip to HQ, I was told to drive my car close enough to the leader's car that he could see me in his rear-view mirror. The guy was speeding like a demon down a road known for speed traps. So, it doesn't strike me as odd that one of us got stopped by a cop. It happened to be me. The cop was nice and just gave me a warning, but what did my leader say, "Your lack of believing is why you got stopped."

(no, dumb-a**, my being stupid enough to follow your orders while you broke the law is why I got stopped!)

This was typical both of leadership's attitudes, and follower's willingness to go against their better judgement."

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

Satori:

"Yes, that's right oldiesman. You think it's absurd?

Way management mandated the extended evaluations (not for one or two participants, but ALL of them) be completed within the limited LEAD schedule time-frame rather than providing additional needed time.

The "naked emporor" here, which nobody wants to mention, is that the patented TWI magic (the so-called "keys to believing") doesn't WORK like a light switch. Believing doesn't "work" with any predictability, if it "works" at all. If believing had worked for Ministry management, they never would have needed LEAD to sort the winners from the losers."

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

jardinero explained what it means to BE a board member of a nonprofit organization.

"1) As a board member of a nonprofit organization, I have a fiduciary oversight responsibility as a board member. Should I fail to excercise proper oversight and there is some sort of financial fraud or other mismanagement of funds and a lawsuit follows, I can be named in the lawsuit even though I've not necessarily been involved in the actual fraud or other wrong doing - - including being just plain stupid

2) As a manager in a corporation, when an employee comes to me and complains of discrimination, sexual or other types of harrassment and I don't report it to Human Resources for his/her permanent employee file and see to it some action is taken (that's my accountability in the matter) - - I can be named in a lawsuit and held liable for damages.

Ditto with safety regulations (like OSHA) when I fail to enforce them with my employees and someone is injured or dies.

Just wanted to bring that up....."

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

shazdancer:

"Oldies, you don't think there was enough money to buy a couple of vans or buses or trailers for this work? THAT was the responsibility of the BOT. They knew how many people were being transported out to the highway.

Satori, thanks for the comparison with Wierwille's insistence on perfection and safety on his AIRPLANE!"

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

skyrider:

"How many times did vpw LECTURE THE CORPS ON DETAILS.........citing how when howard allen was driving the coach that he had to be extra diligent to not swerve an inch.

ELSE......veepee would get thrown around at the back of the bus!!!!!!"

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

igotout:

"I was on the very 1st LEAD group in the mountains near Gunnison. Ours was experimental, and we too, were exposed to some hazards. Being naturally adept at climbing, I was picked with a few others to do a 400' rock climb one morning. A few moves scared even me and I LOVE heights and climbing. One slip and cartain death would have been the result. Though there was a SINGLE safety lead line, there were some close calls while transitioning from point to point while unattached.

I feel we were put at risk, none of us having had any training in rock climbing, etc., including Steve our instructor. Afterwards they asked me to be on LEAD staff but I politely declined (I don't like camping.)

Obviously the hitchiking was dangerous in many ways. I hitchiked a LOT, at least 8 times, in the Way Corps. It was tiring. Our 7th Corps brother, Ken and his wife were in one of the later groups. He was killed as he walked in the path of an oncoming semi truck one evening as Evelyn watched. We were all shocked and had sleepless nights of disbelief and pain."

The corps was about training participants to accomplish exploits and feats and sometimes, those feats were challenging and involved some harm.

(snip)

The way corps was about pushing the envelope, and if folks who volunteered for it didn't know, golly, they should have known what was expected before volunteering.

If they didn't research their investment, knowing what was expected, they made a mistake.

As someone asked recently,

where in the corps literature is there an explanation of "accomplish exploits and feats"-

or any reference to them at all, for that matter?

Or "pushing the envelope?"

We've had plenty of direct testimony of the old "bait-and-switch" and how expectations

of the corps changed once they were on grounds, or without warning WHILE on

grounds, and peer pressure used to enforce the new "policies"

(which were STILL not put in writing.)

And you'll deny to your last breath that TWI was culpable for anything negatively that happened to some...

Tell me this OM... how would you react to this scenario?

YOU have a company that teaches leadership classes. Folks come to your campus from all over the country to take your courses. One of these courses is similar to 'Outward Bound' and helps folks overcome doubts about their abilities, helps them gain confidence, builds leadership! This course is part of the curriculam yet is located hundreds of miles from campus. YOU REQUIRE them to hitch hike to and from this class. Now even if you have no idea or thought that hitching is perilous you send them to the class. On the way to the class ONE person is raped or ONE person is killed (choose either, but only one occurrance).

You would be ruined and broke because IN COURT you would be found liable for having put those folks in that predicament. It doesn't matter that it never happened before, it doesn't matter that you didn't know that hitching was perilous. YOU would be found responsible of negligence... if not in whole, at least in part.

Now, take that to the next level... over the course of time, while YOUR STUDENTS were hitching to and from the class, there had been rapes, a student was killed, and others had many harms befall them. YOU would be found GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in court as well as losing all you own.

The same is true of TWI, whether you believe it or not. They are fortunate that the statute of limitations has expired...

I don't blame TWI for everything that happened as you so wonderfully like to throw out there as you paint with your broad brush of denial... I blame them for what they were responsible for... it just happens that there's a whole lot that they were responsible for...

Tonto, let's say that's true, and twi didn't want to spend the loot to get you there.

So?

Had twi spent the loot, to get you there, and something bad happened in transporting folks there with the loot they spent, they'd get blamed anyway.

Don't ya get it yet?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

(Some folks do, I've gotten some emails so I know some folks do get what I'm saying.)

Give WTH, Allan and Mike a hug for us next time you reply to them.

So then your position is that twi wanted/expected the driver to disregard all safety, in that situation? That seems to be what you are alleging, specifically.

NO EXCEPTIONS WERE EVER MADE FOR "CIRCUMSTANCES".

And even approaching the subject left one open for criticism for "lack of believing."

The driver WAS expected to make it on time and pay NO ATTENTION to

safety considerations which made this an impractical goal.

Pretending it wasn't does not change that, and does not speak well of your

ability to view what DID happen fairly.

Have you interviewed the BOT and asked them if this is what they wanted/expected?

Or the cabinet, or corps director, at that time?

I understand that Believer X was subjected to a face-melting session when he

drove slowly and stopped due to inclement weather returning from LEAD.

The arbitrary return time was not kept due to his concern for the safety of

the passengers. Was he expected to disregard all safety in this situation?"

"Dear peon:

In the situation you speak, the considerations were concerning the failure

to believe God, and the failure to maintain commitments, of Believer X.

This situation has been dealt with to our satisfaction, and will no longer

be entertained.

However, we are concerned about your lack of faith in our ability to

administer our program. Have you taken it to God in prayer?

Your lack of faith in your leadership is disconcerting.

If you have any further doubts and misgivings, please take them

directly to your twig or branch coordinator rather than stepping outside

channels to contact us."

Where in corps or lead literature does it advise drivers to and from lead to disregard all safety while driving?

It's one paragraph down from

"Your 'Birth to the Corps' papers will be used as determinants to see if you're

ready to join an elite cadre who engage in casual sex,

and your suitability as a sex object for vpw to 'utilize'."

Read the fine print.

I think if you want to access that kind of specific blame, you must get very specific with your facts.

I think any reasonable person can see that this sentence has nothing to do

with your motivations. We've already seen this was the PRACTICE.

Driving has harm.

Getting up at 5 in the morning and exercising has harm.

Hitching has harm.

Door to door witnessing has harm.

Speaking to people has harm.

Anything done out of the house has harm. Otherwise, gee, just stay home.

Staying IN the house runs the risk of radon poisoning, being caught in a housefire,

slipping in the tub, and sitting minding your own business when a car crashes

through the wall. (It's been in the news, just not recently.)

DUH.

Nobody said "twi is responsible for preventing ALL harm from befalling its

participants."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

Those are "acceptable risks."

Oldiesman's intentional ignorance of the concept of "unacceptable risk" is sad, but characteristic.

Since we've covered it in detail ALREADY on this page, and preceeding pages, repeatedly,

I trust there's no reason to do so again.

I said this....

Supposing that the people who made the initial decision to REQUIRE hitchhiking were not

aware of the dangers OF hitchhiking, that was a bad decision based on insufficient information.

They were unfit to lead, since they made decisions that others were required to follow

that placed them in risk.

Once that decision was put into action, and there were victims (people were killed and raped),

"you would have to be stupider than stupid" (to use vpw's saying)

to NOT expect it to happen AGAIN.

At that point (if not much sooner), and proper leader of ANY kind would have said

"we're exposing our people to unnecessary risk of death and rape.

Let's replace this with something that does NOT do that."

Oldies replied

Nothing does not do that, except staying home.

"unnecessary risk of death and rape"

can be replaced with something that does NOT have

"unnecessary risk of death or rape."

That's easy.

Put them in a vehicle.

Now, the risks of them getting in a vehicle with someone who will

kill or rape them has been reduced from "unnecessary risk"

to "acceptable risk". (If one seemingly-sane corps person goes

insane and rapes and kills the others in the car, you can't control

for that beyond screening the applicants. Thus, that is an

"acceptable risk." People take "acceptable risks" every day.)

How about the risks of people hit by vehicles?

Remove the unnecessary risk by putting them in a vehicle.

Now, if something hits them,

they're surrounded by detroit steel and a seatbelt.

Even cheap cars have seatbelts and a body.

Those are 2 layers of protection the hitchhiker lacks.

That's why most Christian organizations that have "training

programs" DON'T have "body counts."

They can't affect ALL risks, but they can remove

"unnecessary risk"-so they do.

Even the heathens and publicans do that without difficulty.

(Apologies to any heathens and publicans out there.)

Ok, where does the money for the vehicles come from?

(Someone already outlined a BETTER plan that included that

on this thread-and they did it offhand, without a program.)

That's easy-the tens of thousands a year that was paid for each

participant. They were housed in little dorms and fed

bottom-of-the-budget foods like familia, millet and broccoli,

and borscht. Even prisons feed better than that, last I heard.

So, there was LOTS of money for NECESSARY expenses.

Unless you were determined to make as big a FINANCIAL profit

off the program as possible. The operating costs of vehicles were

well within the income FOR the program.

As for "well, they didn't have the money when they STARTED

the LEAD program",

I simply say

"Don't run ANY program until you have the CAPACITY to run it."

And if they didn't know that-which they didn't-

I say they have no business PRETENDING to run a program

and letting the participants pay the price.

And again, had twi chosen cars & trucks to transport folks to lead, and there was a crash, twi would get blamed anyway. The anti-twi folks would blame twi, not Greyhound.

Again, doesn't anyone else get tired of Oldiesman inventing this complaint that

nobody is making?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person."

The driver himself could have gone slow and waited for less wind, and avoided the accident.

Because the driver didn't, and they crashed, you blame twi.

Golly, doesn't even the driver bear some responsibility here?

After all he's the one person who was in control of the truck, at that specific time.

Correct.

The driver was in control of the truck, at that specific time.

Therefore, the ultimate decisions rested in his hands.

That makes him the final decision-maker in this process,

which means he bears some responsibility.

DUH.

That having been said, the driver was placed in a situation where all expectations were

placed on him to disregard all safety.

He was expected-by participants/passengers AND the powers-that-be

to exceed safe speeds and drive regardless of the circumstances.

Rather than take heed and exercise safe driving,

he was EXPECTED and TRAINED to ignore the situation and rely on

"believing" to "believe away" any problems.

In this situation, the time-constraints were so bad that-faced with the option

of disappointing the powers-that-be and doing paperwork while driving,

he felt the less-objectionable choice was to drive less safely.

Was that an incredibly poor decision? Obviously.

(For those with short attention spans and Oldiesman,

that means he's responsible for his decision.)

Why did he make such an incredibly poor decision?

He was TRAINED and EXPECTED to act in that fashion.

The program he was in was orchestrated to be as financially cheap as

possible, and to be as restrictive (time-and decisionwise) as possible.

For a program purported to train leaders, it had neither a leadership-training

portion nor chances to learn proper-decisionmaking.

Decisions included this one.

"You are in charge of getting these people to this location in this timeframe

using this vehicle. You are able to make all the decisions here-

so long as you operate within a too-narrow timeframe, and use only

this unsafe vehicle."

Some decisions. If the driver regarded even HALF the hazards,

he got into a LOT of trouble from the powers-that-be as soon as they got in,

and so would the people whose lives he regarded,

and BOTH would give him static.

He was not handed a written set of instructions specifying

"You are required to engage in this foolhardy act."

That notwithstanding, he was nevertheless

REQUIRED to engage in foolhardy behaviour.

This is actually an EXCELLENT example of that.

Actually, I just recently read the thread in question now. As I recall, the writer didn't blame TWI or the driver - he said that the driver did the best he could.

OTOH - HE did blame twi for how they handled the injured, how they humiliated them by dismissing them and making them feel like they were somehow not worthy of the WC.

OM - I understand placing the blame on the true perpetrators of the crime - the rapists, the muggers, the devil, etc. BUT - TWI DOES HAVE A BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY. In a court of law the jury would be asked to consider "what a reasonable man would do," among other standards. In the instance of hitching, a reasonable NUMBER OF "REASONABLE" MEN should have looked for a different solution with lesser odds of harm.

You are fond of quoting the number of accidents associated with driving. Multiply that number by - ohhhh let's be conservative and say double - for hitching. Why? Well, because not only are there still people riding in cars, they are standing on roads and highways, getting into cars with strangers, traveling while tired and cold at all hours of the morning with no more than $10.00 in their pockets, (which, BTW, had to be returned upon returning to campus,) and sometimes sleeping on the side of the road from sheer exhaustion.

So these folks were still subjected to the "dangers" of driving, but with ADDED DANGERS!!!!! ADDED UNFAVORABLE ODDS! How was/is this acceptable? Vpw was always touting that the WC was God's elite. He called us "his kids" - yeah right.

You are simply not thinking here....maybe you are protecting an ideal and having to ignore the facts in order to do so.

I figure it's about time to run this subject for the new people.

I think some people don't know how to select an avatar.

The easiest way is to be logged in,

select "My Controls", (up and right)

then "Edit Avatar Settings" (down and left, under "Personal Profile")

then look at "pre-installed avatars."

Go to "choose an avatar from one of our base galleries",

pick which gallery (there's 4 in this menu), and "go".

You can go thru all 4 galleries, and hopefully you'll find one

you like and isn't being used by someone else.

(You CAN use one someone else is using, but people get

attached to their avatars, and people stop and can get confused

if you use the same one as someone else, and so on.)

You can also use an avatar of your OWN.

In my case, my avatar was designed and drawn for me by someone else.

This takes a bit of work.

If you don't have the pic you want, you can wander around online and

find one and download it to your computer.

Once you have the pic you want, chances are it's too big to use as an avatar.

So, you'll need to edit the thing down.

Unless you're already good with editing images, you won't be ready to

fiddle with image-editing software like Photoshop or the GIMP.

That means taking a program like Picasa 2 and shrinking the image down,

with a degree of experimentation.

If those people who are good at this sort of thing were to chime in,

this would be a good idea.

Welcome to the forum, MaggieM!

Just a small addition to Catcup's post:

When VPW was purchasing the Way College he had hoped to do it in a way that kept the accreditation. That didn't work. One of the motivations was that if it were accredited, then students could get money from the GI bill and other government programs to attend.

I don't know how high up on the list of motivations that was, but it was on the list. I heard him talk about it several times.

Why does this not surprise me?

I know he was trying to do it in a way that would "keep" the accreditation. However, that was a ridiculous concept from the start.

TCE GOT their accreditation by meeting rigorous standards set by the accreditation agency, which I believe was the Northwestern Association. This requires a college to include requiring core subjects such as college level science, math, and composition. TWCE would have had to meet those standards in order to "keep" any such status. They offered the 6th Corps a ....-poor english supplement that had NOTHING to do with composition, and mostly had to do with spelling. As far as college level comp, there was NOTHING offered to us that even compared.

And TWCE didn't offer ANYTHING where mathmatics is concerned, not even basic arithmetic. And science?

HA!

Our first year in-residence (1975), Don W was I believe, either working on his PhD or recently gotten it . He (I think I remember him telling us), for his thesis was working on how the "block" system could be implemented in an educational institution and was a superior means of education. I remember people from his college coming to TWCE to check out how he had implemented the program there. When the Northwestern Association people came (also during my first year in-residence) they rejected accreditation for the following reasons, among more:

Lack of qualified teachers with advanced degrees (Masters, PhD) in the subjects they were teaching

Inadequate core curriculum including science, math, english.

I've read a number of times that the entire library of the Way College was composed of used textbooks

that twi asked people to send in to the Way College.

This alongside all the claims that the Way offered a superior education to non-twi.

Anyone who was IN that library, can you elaborate on the books?

Nothing does not do that, except staying home.

Had TWI abandoned the hitchhiking concept, and instead went for cars and trucks, and a truck crashed, you'd blame twi. You have done so.

For those who missed the previous discussion,

my position has ALWAYS been-whether in twi or out-

that those administering ANY program of ANY kind are responsible for minimizing the

risks connected with that program.

In plain English, what does that mean regarding transport?

That means you find a relatively risk-free method of transporting people from

one place to another. Simple.

Need to get people from one place to another?

You put them on a plane that's passed government certification,

a train that's done the same,

a bus that's done the same,

or a car that's done the same.

One option is to use commercially-available transport-

like putting them all on a Greyhound bus.

(Greyhound has all their buses and drivers certified with the government, etc.)

Another option is to arrange your own of any of the above.

You can get your OWN bus, make sure it can pass government inspection,

then have it inspected. Then get a driver certified for buses-or train him

and certify him. Then you have a bus you can put people on and transport

them. You can also do this with a passenger van, or cars and a van or

truck accompanying with the luggage.

This is not hard for most sane Americans to see.

Even an uncertified bus-which is illegal- would provide obvious protection

against the most immediate dangers.

What did twi do? It put people in the back of a truck-which, of course,

was NOT fitted with any kind of security for people or anything else-

then added a trailer behind the truck.

In heavy wind, the people-as always-were required to travel at unsafe

speeds even for a normal truck plus trailer hitch,

instead of going slow or waiting for less wind.

How were they supposed to stay uninjured?

"Their believing was supposed to protect them!"

Well, the truck was flipped over, and the people inside the cargo area

received horrible injuries.

In this, I blamed twi.

They REQUIRED people to travel from place to place under UNSAFE conditions

at UNSAFE speeds in UNSAFE transport.

Would a normal, sane American blame them for the same?

I'll let the normal, sane Americans answer that for themselves.

At least one person has said that transporting people in the truckbed of a

truck was considered perfectly normal in that place and time.

If true, it makes this no less safe-and I seriously would be surprised

if it was habitual for most people to SPEED with them-

even without winds or a trailer hitch.

(And if they were all insane, that does not excuse them for "trying to

kill the people in the back." Try that in court and see how the judge

interprets that one.)

So, in that instance,

twi REQUIRED FOOLHARDY BEHAVIOUR.

Hm.

This WAS relevant to the discussion.

MORE foolhardy behaviour twi required.

Thanks Pipes, I think that sums up EXACTLY why we did foolish things.

oldies has tried to focus this thread on hitchhiking good or bad....That isn`t the point, we were forced to do that which was unwise in order to be in good standing with God.

All of those things forms of manipulation that you listed were used. The bad part is that the one and only God almighty was used as the threat...

I mean if you blew it spiritually and God couldn`t spit in your direction, or you were no longer under his umbrella of protection, if he got mad at you and decided to kill you for breaking your vow like he did with annanias n saphira....it wasn`t like you could go out and get ANOTHER God to love and protect you :(

I wonder how HE feels about being the weapon utilized to force people into unsafe behavior.

I wonder if he felt as bad as we did when we tearfully submitted to the orders of twi, some times heart broken. sometimes scared, some times just sick at heart at what we felt we had to do in order to prove our love to him.

Then when things went bad we turned to him and asked why? We were just trying to serve you :(

If the person giving the assignment knew that by giving that assignment, an evil would definitely occur, then I would agree with you.

But in twi, we didn't think that way of hitchhiking. We believed God would protect us, shield us from evil. We believed in the shield of believing.

Supposing that the people who made the initial decision to REQUIRE hitchhiking were not

aware of the dangers OF hitchhiking, that was a bad decision based on insufficient information.

They were unfit to lead, since they made decisions that others were required to follow

that placed them in risk.

Once that decision was put into action, and there were victims (people were killed and raped),

"you would have to be stupider than stupid" (to use vpw's saying)

to NOT expect it to happen AGAIN.

At that point (if not much sooner), and proper leader of ANY kind would have said

"we're exposing our people to unnecessary risk of death and rape.

Let's replace this with something that does NOT do that."

At that point, however, twi's people (remember-individual people made decisions,

there wasn't a machine in a corner, an anonymous "twi" deciding things)

either CHOSE TO IGNORE PLACING OTHERS IN DANGER,

or DECIDED IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.

Therefore,

the person giving the assignment either didn't know about the danger-

which makes them underinformed to be making such decisions once the victims

had been found;

which makes them unfit to lead,

or the person giving the assignment knew about the danger that an evil would occur,

which even OM admits is wrong,

and this makes them unfit to lead.

What the participants in the program thought at the time is a NON-ISSUE.

The participants trusted that those administering the program were doing so in a

responsible fashion.

Exposing participants INTENTIONALLY to danger of death or rape,

or remaining unaware that there WAS such a danger to a program-

that is NOT administering a program in a responsible fashion.

It was wrong of them, and would have left them open to lawsuits if anyone HAD

sued.

Ever wonder why we never hear of OTHER programs requiring hitchhiking?

That's because people running REAL programs can look over this option and say

"That's f*ing stupid. We're not going to do that to our people-we LIKE them."

What was the intent of the participants? NON-ISSUE.

Was requiring hitchhiking foolhardy? Only a fool can say otherwise at this point.

YES IT WAS FOOLHARDY.

And vpw himself-once the victims were victimized-

insisted PERSONALLY that this would remain a REQUIREMENT.

Did the leadership think the holy force-field would protect the participants?

If they started by deciding to "tempt God", that was foolish.

Once the victims came forth-which proved it DIDN'T work that way-

it was criminally careless to maintain that concept.

It was criminally poor stewardship.

It was considering individual Christians DISPOSABLE.

Which was more important-the doctrine and practices,

or the LIVES OF THE CHRISTIANS?

As we saw from vpw's decisions,

the doctrines and practices were MUCH more important than the LIVES

of the Christians. They were not really 'people' so much as 'assets.'

And the money expended to transport participants to LEAD was a more

valued asset than the safety of the people.

Tom, I think he posts to get attention and because he's so miserable he can't stand to see others with answers and having the truly "more abundant life" WITHOUT TWI that we were promised BY TWI. ;)

I also pity him because he, of all people, must be most miserable. He tries so hard to justify the things of TWI and the abuses, maybe he was actually very involved with and responsible FOR those abuses and to acknowledge those things makes him responsible FOR them and that would mean that he's less than perfect - so it's easier to blame the rest of us for NOT being perfect like him than to face up to things that are wrong and, God forbid, to apologize for being imperfect and making mistakes.

To hear OM tell it, TWI NEVER did anything wrong and HE never did anything wrong. If we are hurt, in pain, remorseful, confused, in ill health, have terrible, awful scars, it's all our fault for not being perfect like he and TWI.

I hope people get to read this before it gets censored and deleted. :)

Of course, we're only taking his OWN word that he was never involved and never saw ANYTHING.

OldiesMan

"The corps believed that God would protect from harm, so no. I don't think twi lied to folks when they claimed that God would protect them, because the bible itself claims that. We believed the bible."

T-Bone

OldiesMan, please show me that in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it promise God will protect you – even when you make stupid decisions – or follow the stupid instructions of your spiritual leader? Proverbs 27:12 "The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." [NIV]…I don't see anything about using the magic power of believing in that verse. The smart person in that verse is the one who looks ahead, identifies risks/dangers and takes appropriate action to avoid them…

…Who was the dumb*$$ that came up with the idea to test God - - to tempt God - - to make God protect you by hitching to a leadership training program? What was the point of having people hitch? "Oh – to put people in a situation where they have to believe God," is the typical TWI reasoning, "You know - to walk on water you've got to get out of the boat." Hmmmmmmmm…Hitchhiking is like walking on water – eh? I think anybody can hitch – just takes a little nerve. I know of only two people who walked on water – Jesus and Peter who asked permission of Jesus…But I guess this adventure of hitchhiking is an easy way for TWI to claim the Way Corps are actually manipulating reality by the non-existent power of believing. Wow, thank you TWI for training me to be a great spiritual leader by bumming rides across the country and mooching off people – oh wait – that is good training for a TWI leadership position.

OldiesMan

"Now when bad happens, who do you blame, if anyone/anything?

I blame the actual perpetrator, if any. On a spiritual level, I blame the devil."

T-Bone

I'm keeping this in context with my contention that TWI promoted followers to tempt God – specifically in directing them to hitchhike to Tinney. If some great evil befell a person en route – I too would blame the actual perpetrator – but now – now – after leaving TWI 20 years ago – no longer thinking I could alter reality to my liking [and various other La-La-Land lines of reasoning] – I think TWI shares some of the culpability for the double whammy of encouraging people to do something potentially dangerous and yet giving them a false sense of security [rendering them ill-equipped and unprepared].

I haven't read all the way through this thread yet. I was Corps; I hitchhiked all over the country and I was one of the ones who had fun doing it. The subject here is foolhardy behaviour and putting people (kids) in harms way for unreasonable purposes.

"Freely avail" is a misnomer. And maybe someone has already addressed that term here. It is a misnomer still today in TWI. No one put a gun to our heads for us to do the things we did.....but emotional abuse and manipulation were/are skillfully used in TWI.

From the book The Emotionally Abusive Relationship (I am changing some of the words, like from partner to party):

"Emotional blackmail is one of the most powerful forms of manipulation. It occurs when one party...coerces the other into doing what it wants by playing on the other's fear, guilt, or compassion. (sound familiar?)

The following are warning signs that you are being emotionally blackmailed:

- The party asks you to choose beween something you want to do or the party.

- The party tries to make you feel like you are selfish or a bad person if you do something the party doesn't want you to do.

- The party asks you to give up something or someone as a way of proving your love.

- The party threatens to leave you if you don't change. "

Other types of emotional abuse (listed in this book) used by TWI are:

" -Domination (ordering another around, monitoring time and activities, restricting resources and social activities, isolating from family and friends, interfering with opportunities, etc.)

- Verbal assaults (berating, belittling, critizing, humiliating, name-calling, screaming, threatening, shaming, etc.)

- Abusive expectations (unreasonable demands, the party can never be pleased because there is always something more the other could have done)

- Unpredictable responses (inconsistent responses to the same behaviour)

-Character assassination (blowing someone's mistakes out of proportion, humiliating, criticizing, making fun of someone in front of others, etc.)

-Gaslighting (continually denying that certain events occurred or statements made, insinuating that the other is exagerrating or lying)

-Sexual Harassment (unwelcome sexual advances or any physicl or verbal conduct of a sexual nature that is uninvited and unwelcome)"

This was the force applied. It is not physical force; it can be far more treacherous...because it is "invisible."

Hm. The description of Gaslighting certainly sounds familiar, like I've been hearing

this recently...

OM,

Again, once the first or maybe second incident of harm happened - SOMEONE in authority should have seen the potential for harm and seen that sending out sometimes hundreds of Corps at a time to hitch was a bad idea! It's not like it was a sometimes thing - it was a policy.

I think that as such, to admit that it was dangerous would have to admit some form of responsibility - and that wasn't about to happen.

Some people here MAY have heard him say that aloud.

However,

a number of people heard him say that and leave the specifics VAGUE.

vpw was an expert at covering his tracks, and having a message that

was heard ONE way from most people,

and ANOTHER way from the minority.

vpw DID set up a sort of "inner circle" of people who were complicit in his

rapes and molestations-

from singling out women and sending them to him,

to watching and "counseling" them so they didn't tell the cops or anyone else.

Some of those people have come forth.

(Check the archives.)

Some of his victims-and INTENDED victims-have come forth and spoken of

the "inner circle" doctrine of "the lockbox".

Never heard of that? Neither did I.

It was never in an official teaching at an SNS, nor in a book nor class

nor wayrag article. It WAS, however, taught word-of-mouth by vpw and

selected people in his circle.

First rule of vpw's sex club was 'do not talk about vpw's sex club.'

vpw made it sound like knowing all this was a special privilege-

like you were a mature, special Christian who "could handle it" if you

were ever told of it.

Feel free to look up "lockbox" for all sorts of discussions on the same.

==========

If you go over the oldest of the old SNT tapes, you may find some strange

things here and there. I was reviewing someone else's old vpw tapes once,

and found a peculiar sentence from vpw. He was reviewing the account

of Joseph refusing to have sex with Potiphar's wife when she threw herself at him.

I've heard a number of people talk about what Joseph was thinking and feeling,

over the years, on the subject, whether twi, ex-twi, never-been-twi,

who-is-twi.

Out of all of them, vpw was the only one who used the word "erection" when

speaking of it. ("It doesn't say that Joseph didn't have an E-rection when he

left.") Everyone else seemed to think that the subject should be approached

at least a little more tactfully or reluctantly.

One of the few people living who seem to completely WORSHIP vpw looked

into his personal history, and HIMSELF said of his IDOL that he had a habit

of introducing inappropriate things into his sermons, which embarassed the

person whom he was interviewing ABOUT vpw-who at the time was a fan

of vpw. So, his FANS admit that he kept bringing up sex in the pulpit.

After reviewing the "lockbox" and how there was an inner circle of people

who were privy to the secret sex doctrines,

if you still want to believe there is a "reasonable doubt" that vpw did NOT mean

lcm needed to "loosen up sexually" when he said he needed to "loosen up",

that's your business. vpw seemed obsessed by it at times.

Another example: before lcm ever married or courted dlm, care to guess

who'd slept with her? The answer is not lcm...

That was reported by posters here who knew all the participants....

It was hard for me to believe VPW did this kind of behavior, and hard to accept. But now I know. It blows off a lot of good memories I had in the early days.

Eagle

Most of us (those who aren't vpw apologists/defenders) have come to similar conclusions.

What I would say is:

The evils that vpw did do NOT negate the good experiences and good memories you have.

HOWEVER,

they add CONTEXT and DETAIL to them.

Those of us without any bad memories of the time received them, true-

but at the expense of those who DID have bad experiences.

I would not say you never had good times.

Some of those good times were due entirely to wonderful people that are still wonderful

people. Contrary to advertising, they were so before pfal and remained so after pfal.

I wouldn't say forget them all. They are part of who and what you are.

But, just as good times can't erase the evil vpw did,

neither can his evil erase the good you experienced.

twi took action... WOWs took action, Corps took action. Special thumbs up for do-ers.

It's not the critic that counts

Press On - No matter what they say to you

And there we have it.

Pressing on gets applause from Oldiesman.

The worth of the action gets NO MENTION.

Whether, even, the action is good or evil gets NO MENTION.

Whether it is smarter to return, reassess, retool, and try again later gets NO MENTION-

and in fact, would be heartily discouraged.

Press on-no matter what!

=====

Here's a story for you.

The Light Brigade of the song was a "light" infantry unit.

That means they're good for fast actions, but not pitched combat like a "heavy" unit.

They were given orders to advance upon the enemy by travelling thru the valley.

The opposite end of the valley was the high ground,

occupied by enemy ARTILLERY.

That's the stuff that blows stuff up.

It was pointed at the valley.

The sides of the valley were also occupied by the enemy,

specifically the enemy ARTILLERY.

This is what's referred to as a "killing field"-

passing thru it is a huge invitation to be blown to bits by lots of cannon.

Chances of survival in a killing field: not so good.

Odds of success associated with passing thru a killing field THEN engaging the enemy

with the survivors: slim to none.

Anyone should be able to see why it's a STUPID idea to just take a bunch of

guys with swords and run them thru a gauntlet of cannons blowing them up,

to engage the rested fighters on the other side after running thru the gauntlet.

However,

this was a fine example of "don't think-just follow orders."

Don't evaluate the situation and see if this is a SMART or EFFECTIVE thing to do-

just go out and do it with everything you've got.

So, they did.

And the enemy blew the cr@p out of them.

And they lost the battle. Big surprise.

Alfred Lord Tennyson immortalized the account,

and a sentiment OM has already endorsed ends it.

The Charge of the Light Brigade

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

"1.

Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade! "Charge for the guns!" he said:

Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

2.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!" Was there a man dismay'd?

Not tho' the soldier knew Someone had blunder'd:

Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die:

Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

3.

Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them Volley'd and thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell

Rode the six hundred.

4.

Flash'd all their sabres bare, Flash'd as they turn'd in air,

Sabring the gunners there, Charging an army, while

All the world wonder'd: Plunged in the battery-smoke

Right thro' the line they broke; Cossack and Russian

Reel'd from the sabre stroke Shatter'd and sunder'd.

Then they rode back, but not Not the six hundred.

5.

Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them Volley'd and thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell, While horse and hero fell,

They that had fought so well Came thro' the jaws of Death

Back from the mouth of Hell, All that was left of them,

Left of six hundred.

6.

When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made!

All the world wondered. Honor the charge they made,

Honor the Light Brigade,

Noble six hundred."

Not only design, but action, is required.

No sh*, Sherlock.

The initial design was made with intent to be used.

I'm not running a program NOW because no one's beating down my door

to sign up for one.

Maybe if I snowed a bunch of youngsters and convinced them I and I alone

had a UNIQUE and SPECIAL knowledge, then I'd get demand.

We all know it worked GREAT for vpw....

twi took action... WOWs took action, Corps took action. Special thumbs up for do-ers.

NO thumbs up for leaders who raped and molested the followers-

although technically that qualified as "action."

NO thumbs up for stealing the work of others and passing it off as your own-

although technically that qualified as "action."

NO thumbs up for ANY corrupt leader of ANY kind in ANY organization-

no matter how much "action" they take.

"It's not the critic that counts."

Of course not- the policeman who arrests the criminal counts,

and the whistleblower who exposed the danger and evil counts,

and the one who warned the others not to leap into danger counts

but NOT the critic.

Oldiesman:

(this situation seems exciting to me, allowing one to believe God while going door to door, a challenge, no doubt, in any neighborhood)

HA! Oh, gawd, Phil, that's just rich. I had no idea that you STILL subscribed to the "law of believing" nonsense to this degree.

Maybe you could pull your head out every now and then and get a little sun? Really, it's gotta be unhealthy keeping it there ALL the time...

And another thought, geeze if it seems that exciting to you (Lord knows I"M getting aroused), why don't you just DO it?

Oldies again:

George, I see you may need to get out of the house more. I do do it. I just don't witness... but I go door to door in my cooperative when comes time to vote for the BOD. I ask shareholders for their proxies. Got 28 last month, out of 104 units. smile.gif

WordWolf now:

So, then,

you witness for your cooperative unit or for BOD candidates,

but NOT for the greatness of God's Word?

You allow yourself the challenge of going door-to-door for them but not God?

What happened to the courage of your convictions?

It's good enough for temporal things but not eternal things?

Were the expectations of the corps clear and consistent?

Well, let's hear from some participants...

GrouchoMarxJr:

...And another thing that bugged the .... out of me while in

residence, were their bait and switch tactics. When I signed up, I made a FOUR YEAR

commitment. That was it! It was optional to take assignments upon graduation...at

least, that's what they said in WRITING! A couple of months into the training, at

Emporia, they tell us all that we have made a LIFETIME commitment to the corps!...

and if we don't "understand THAT"...then we are "spiritually out to lunch." I sat

there listening to this crap, muttering under my breath that I only committed

for 4 years, getting angrier by the moment as everybody just sat there with a

glazed look on their faces saying "yup, yup"...not me! I regret not packing my

stuff up and splitting right then and there!

Manipulation-mongers! They waited a couple months and then, slam-dunk our

commitment level when we are behind CLOSED DOORS and surrounded by PEER PRESURE.

What a bunch of low-life tactics!

Was this tactic used in the zero corps? And, everyone left???

When the atrocities of the corps program are exposed...vpw was a major player in

scamming people. He may have been on the stage a lot, but some of us know that vpw

could easily hide in the shadows.

Skyrider also said

By the early 80s...the term cop out had

gained legs...and had evolved to mean...any corps person or corps grad who

quit taking assignments was a cop out.

Twi changed the parameters.

Now, it was a LIFETIME COMMITMENT to stand with twi.

And, that labelling is still in effect to this day.

Yeah......I said it THEN, and I'll say it AGAIN.

When twi did their little corps promos....and sent out their literature....there was NO HINT of the corps program being a lifetime commitment to the way exaggerational.

I did NOT make a "lifetime commitment" to serve twi doctrine"......NO WAY. Only behind closed doors, did twi have the sleazy tactics to try and put their hooks into us young corps. And, yeah....for years, I kept taking on assignments to appease the guilt. But in my heart, I knew my allegiance was to God Almighty.

And, the further from hq....the BETTER my year. To avoid suck-up leaders and the bureaucratic cesspool of committee indulgence was NOT SOMETHING THAT APPEALED TO ME. I detested the lording over of God's heritage. I detested martinfail's scream-sessions. I detested the idolizing of the wierwille-owens-wierwille hierarchy. I detested the lcm-wannabes and the golf club gang.

Sure, I could have left......but, I kept waiting to see if "the new classes" and "sanctifying of the household" would produce godly results. I knew too much about cgeer to want to follow his groupies and his mentality. NO THANKS.

To me, the corps program was THE BEGINNING OF THE END. Yeah, it could have been a wonderful blessing....if godly agendas were backing it. But wierwille, in his lust for power formed and conformed THE CORPS PROGRAM INTO HIS IMAGE......an image of arrogance, and self-serving lust.

Signing on the line to go corps......was ONE of the worst decisions of my life. I deeply regret it......STILL.

Shazdancer said

I was committed to God long before I went into the Corps.

I signed up for Recognized Family Corps because I wanted the in-depth knowledge

that the Corps was supposedly being taught, before my husband and I were to join

Staff. We were accepted into the Corps on that basis. I still have a Recognized

Corps certificate to prove it.

Long after our in-res year, a couple of Corps leaders tried to explain to me that

I had made a lifetime commitment to the Corps program--to submit to evaluations,

and go to any and go to any Corps meetings that were required. Silly me for

requiring them to honor their agreement with me.

I am just as committed to doing good and respecting God as I ever was, I just don't

express it in the same way that I did while in TWI.

what Skyrider is alluding to is that the Way Corps

"commitment" we originally made became a "we own you and you WILL do what we say

for the rest of your lives" commitment.

And if you didn't like it then you were dropped from the Corps if not kicked out

all together from TWI. That's pure BS.

Originally back when larger groups of us were going into the Corps by the hundreds

(I was in the 7th, I believe Sky was in the 9th) it was not implied that there

would be this "dog soldier leash" around your life after you graduated. Only

much later did this become specifically stated.

Heck I remember LCM stating one evening at a Corps meeting in Emporia...

"not all of you can become branch leaders. Many of you need to go out and get

jobs and careers and go to college."

Well some of us did. Later we were resented for it. Yes it was implied that once

Corps always Corps. No prob. Think Marine Corps. You have had the training and

served your country and now you serve in society as a better man for it.

It was more promoted as another program like WOW or other such ministry

commitments. A Wow Vet was not under this short leash and control, for example to

move every three years and such. Yet he is still a Wow Vet. I still have one of

the old Corps Vet tee shirts which I would bet they discontinued in latter years.

A lifetime of Christiand service? No prob...Still doing the best I can. A

lifetime of volunteer enslavement on a dog's leash?

No way, Rosie!

Were these inconsistent expectations FAIR?

Let's here from lcm himself, about how vpw ran the show....

After talking with LCM one day, Dr dismissed all the corps for bad attitude problems.

He told them

'Ok, as of right now, you're all out of the corps.'

He then made it available to all of them to reapply to him by filling out a 3 x 5 card,

The card had to express their willingness to obey leadership. Some of them

decided to leave rather than obey.

"Discussions with Dr regarding Corps with low levels of sponsorship. Dr allowed

LCM to sit with him for a week as he (Dr) talked with each corps person in

that predicament. Dr came up with suggestions to help people and

challenged them to figure out things themselves. He told the corps that

smoked that they needed to quit if they wanted to stay. The money they

saved could go towards their sponsorship. Dr required committment from

people. Then he helped them with their believing. He made smoking

agreements with a number of people."

"Later on that year, one of the people came to LCM to confess that they had

breached the no-smoking agreement. That spurred LCM to ask each one of

the people involved if they had kept the committment. Had they, at any time

since the agreement, had a cigarette. 15 of them said that they had smoked."

"After some careful deliberation, LCM dismissed the 15 from the Corps for

the breach. He felt he didn't need to ask Dr. W. for clearance. Dr had told

them they could stay if they hept their part of the deal. Once they broke

it, they had disqualified themselves.

Dr, upon hearing the news, agreed with LCM's decision but a few days later

decided to offer these people a new chance, He challenged them to get all

of their money together in one week and re-commit to the agreement if they

wanted back in. A number of them did come back in."

Incident of a guy not taking notes during a session in the BRC. Dr stopped and told him to pack up

and go home.

Oakspear summed this all up.

What I'm seeing here is how much "doctor" dry.gif jerked people around: you're in the Corps, you're out of the Corps, aaw, you can have a second chance...

Assuming then your position is that the program should have been discontinued, yeah, I disagree.

Golly, I thought you were going to give advice on how to do it better; not discontinue it.

Frankly,

since you asked,

the program was instituted poorly and on a whim,

was designed by a few people with NO training nor experience with training programs,

was designed far too quickly (especially for people with no skill at such),

was executed poorly,

and was NEVER evaluated with a view towards redesigning it with improvements.

That it was MADE to work for many participants (many people came out and managed

to gain benefit while in it) is a testimony to many participants and many staff.

The WORST program can be MADE to work by SOMEBODY,

and the BEST program will never be 100% effective.

Therefore,

it should never have been instituted in the first place.

If it was GOING to be set up, it should have been designed completely differently,

by people with experience, training and skill.

(In short, not vpw, who designed this one mostly single-handedly

and added some stuff later with the input of a few.)

That having been said,

Yes, I PERSONALLY could design a program superior in most (or all) ways.

I will not POST such advice because I don't put a loaded pistol in the hands of a toddler,

and I don't tell twi how to improve fleecing people.

Feel free to disbelief me on being able to design better.

(Frankly, I DID design better once, and I could vastly improve on the process NOW.)

Here's how the "requirements" and "committment" process went for the average

corps person....

If you hadn't taken pfal, you were leaned on to take pfal.

If you had taken pfal but not the intermediate, you were leaned on to take pfal.

If you had taken the intermediate but not the advanced, you were leaned on to take the advanced.

If you completed the advanced, you were leaned on to go wow.

If you finished wow AND the advanced (either order), you were leaned on to go corps.

What if you didn't go corps?

Well, then the subject is dropped-today.

Tomorrow it will come up again.

And the next day.

In short, once you showed up, you were on either the fast track or the slow track

to going corps and thus, hitchhiking and going to LEAD.

The slow track:

you were never a viable candidate for the corps,

so you'll be sold as many classes as possible, and that you can be talked into.

The fast track:

you're the right age for the corps.

You will now be leaned on first to take all classes,

THEN to go corps.

To NOT go corps means you'll have to make the deliberate decision NOT to

go at some point, and steadfastly maintain it from then on,

and ignore anything said about you from then on.

The "screening process" for the corps was encapsulated in vpw's phrase

"You can stay as long as your money holds!"

After that, people were released from the corps only on 2 conditions:

A) they became a financial or legal liability

or

B) vpw got into a mood and kicked them out or their entire class out

For a program touted as highly as the way corps was,

it was ill-conceived,

ill-prepared,

and ill-executed,

and ill-screened.

Diligence and consideration SHOULD have been part of each step.

The only things we saw "diligence" in (mostly) were

"is your money on time?" and "I read your 'birth to the corps' paper."

So, you were fairly well swept along by the process unless you made a deliberate

effort to stop. Otherwise, you'd be talked into the next step and the next,

eventually ending up in the corps unless you had a compelling reason NOT

to be there.

That's the OPPOSITE of how MOST groups train and select leaders,

and find candidates for what is supposedly an ELITE program.

And what if you changed your mind?

doojable:

I was thinking tonight (uh-oh dangerous stuff!) Many of us did not leave because we were wanting to keep our commitment to God.

When thou vowest a vow defer not to pay it. Proverbs....

We wanted to please God. We wanted to do our best for His Highest. Can't you see that leaving wasn't really a viable option? (This isn't only for OM - its for any lurkers still out there thinking that we still had the choice to leave)

I always have hated it when I see how some people have the talent of using a person's wanting to do what is right to help further evil. And believe me - many of the ordained MOG's had that talent - not all, but many.

But really, no one was turned away, there was always a place for the goofballs (you know who I'm talking about) wave.gif

OK, sorry again, but the most qualified never got caught up in twi, then many of the very qualified briefly in twi steered clear of a lot of the major bs and persued those lowly secular jobs (and now make six figures) or found more productive organizations that actually used their wealth to help people, not to build shrines.

One father of a corps guy, an executive type was talking about vp as being so hard headed. About the WOW auditorium, he said he knew somewhere there was some guy waiting with a chisel to put VP's name on there after he died. The real qualified people had a pretty clear picture of what was going on, while we with the "in depth spiritual perception and awareness" were just twisting in the wind.

See,

there's big differences between at least 3 different things,

and someone-for reasons they keep avoiding-

keeps trying to say the 3 things are nearly identical,

whereas their differences often strike at the heart of the discussion.

For example:

There ARE orders where Christians make lifelong commitments to

go where they are told to go,

serve where they are told to serve,

and leave when they are told to leave.

Those are referred to by many names,

among them Holy Orders, the Priesthood, and so on.

Now, THOSE people don't just make ONE decision to enter

one program and now they're the property of the organization.

(No matter WHAT you were told.)

They receive training, and counseling.

They are questioned as to their commitment and reasoning.

They receive more training, and are REQUIRED to

meditate upon, and consider deeply, over and over,

the consequences of their decision.

It is FAR better for the organization to lose 90% of their

candidates than for them to place unstable, corrupt people

in all their offices.

Those that decide to go ahead swear their oaths,

and leave modern society, in a sense.

THEY'VE sworn oaths of poverty and chastity and stuff

I don't know about because I've never sworn their oaths.

Now,

THEY signed up for a lifetime serving their organization.

Clear.

Unambiguous.

Everything spelled out for YEARS long before they sign up.

THEIR programs don't get the participants raped or killed.

They actually CARE when someone gets hurt during the process.

Mark!

Can you give us something about what goes into THAT?

I'd bet my life it's more than

"pay us money"

"sign your name"

"write out your biography"

and then you're committed to 4 years of involuntary servitude

that you PAID FOR,

followed by a lifetime where you must obey our whims whenever

we declare them...

WordWolf:

Same answer can be applied to the following....

A leader gathers all the wows in the state together.

He announces a massive witnessing campaign for "the people who need it the most."

He sends dozens of wows into housing projects to speak God's Word.

By morning,

several have emerged with contacts from people who want to hear more

or attend twigs.

Several have emerged empty-handed.

A few were mugged.

Two were raped.

Is the leader who sent them there to be blamed?

According to OM's thinking, not at all.

He didn't mug or rape anyone.

His goals were laudable-help the wows grow, help people hear, help more pfal classes start.

He facilitated the wows to be the best in the wow program.

That was his INTENTION-not to have evil befall them.

Therefore, despite the fact that his direct instructions REQUIRED them to be placed

in a position of unnecessary risk, OM would say he bears NO responsibility for anything

that happened to them there.

Perhaps the person failed to believe sufficiently.

The felons, of course, were to blame-everyone agrees about that.

The "heart behind" the instruction means that-

although it was poorly-considered and planned, and placed people in unnecessary risk-

the people who made those decisions are COMPLETELY BLAMELESS.

That's applying OM's standard to this situation.

INTENT IS EVERYTHING.

RESULTS DON'T MATTER.

Wordwolf, your assessment here is pretty good, although I definitely wouldn't say that results (crimes) don't matter.

Since your answer to that one is "the leader is completely blameless"

"go ahead and do that again anytime, that's fine",

then either the RESULTS don't matter (participants being raped or killed doesn't matter)

or the PEOPLE don't matter (anything making them unuseable is a mathematical consideration)

Either way, nearly every thinking person would disagree with you.

I can't think of ANYONE who would expect that program to continue,

and the leader to not get into LEGAL trouble.

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

doojable:

I'd say that people dying and getting raped during hitching was a major change in circumstance.

I repeat - the watchmen were asleep. For THAT they are wrong.

Oldiesman:

Doojable, I just think they were following a different path. I think they looked at these incidents as the adversary ripping us off, and saying "we aren't stopping our training program because we do not admit defeat to the adversary." If they stopped hitchhiking, they would be admitting that the adversary won in that situation and stopped the corps from training individuals to abandon their fear of hitchhiking and confidence building ...something that the corps wasn't about. The corps was about pushing the envelope, as you well know.

As crazy as that logic and concept may sound today, I don't see any evil in that. It was part of doctrine of twi and we all bought into it at the time. Today I wouldn't do it. Today, I wouldn't go into the special forces of U.S., I wouldn't and couldn't hack it. But at 18 years old, it might have been an exciting adventure.

"I just think they were following a different path."

This path involved considering people raped and killed as "the cost of doing business."

Unusual path in the United States...

"I think they looked at these incidents as the adversary ripping us off, and saying "we aren't stopping our training program because we do not admit defeat to the adversary." If they stopped hitchhiking, they would be admitting that the adversary won in that situation and stopped the corps from training individuals to abandon their fear of hitchhiking and confidence building"

Or they could find a way for people to confront fear and increase confidence

WITHOUT making rape and murder an expected consequence for some.

But- if they did that, it would cost money. Hitchhiking was $0.00....

"As crazy as that logic and concept may sound today, I don't see any evil in that. It was part of doctrine of twi and we all bought into it at the time."

"As crazy as that logic and concept may sound today, I don't see any evil in that. It was part of doctrine of twi and we all bought into it at the time."

"As crazy as that logic and concept may sound today, I don't see any evil in that. It was part of doctrine of twi and we all bought into it at the time."

That was worth repeating.

There we have it.

We bought into it then. Therefore-although 20/20 hindsight makes it look crazy-

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT.

We bought into it then.

Anything we bought into then was perfectly fine-never having ANY EVIL.

No matter how clear it looks now with more information, or maturity, or any other information

enlightens us. We did it then, we had good intentions == it was perfectly fine.

Had a problem with it THEN-you were a coward and lacked committment.

Have a problem with it NOW-you're "thinking evil".

Interesting personal philosophy.

Forgive us for not lining up to join your church.