WordWolf

Or he might not have answered because I already did- last post, previous page. This is the short version of what I said a page back.

Someone beat me to it....... Yeah, have a happy everything.

I've come to the conclusion that knowledge is really good, but is not the MAIN thing. (Yes, that's coming from me, so that should tell you something.) To quote a comic-book character, "I've found it's more important to be One-Who-Cares rather than One-Who-Knows."

Obviously a Q episode. Was this one "Deja Q"? The Q-less Q?

I think you meant an "inferi." We saw inferi at the end of Book 6, in the locket's cave. They appear to be mindless zombies. Bathilda Bagshot's situation was never explained, but she was definitely not "mindless". She had a programmed personality, and had Nagini implanted in her. No explanation was even suggested as to how that would work, not in any book, (including "'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them' by Newt Scamander") nor her website, nor any interview. In a word, yes. It was perhaps in his soul, perhaps in his mind, but either way, it didn't happen anywhere except Harry'sperceptions. It's a little different from the beginning of the third Matrix movie in that respect, but otherwise similar in that it had the hero temporarily stranded between life and death at a train station. He didn't SEEM like the kind to cave in normally, did he? Then again, he was trying to save his daughter. Well, it's not completely conflicting with the descriptions. Memories have been extracted- in the form of silver strands-and captured in bottles. We saw the strands in Book 4 (Dumbledore trying to divine the mystery before him, using the Pen-Sieve), Book 5 (Snape separating some memories when "teaching" Harry Occlumency) and Book 6 (Slughorn's memory.) We saw memories in a bottle all through Book 6, during Dumbledore's private sessions with Harry. I took the non-strand aspect to be Snape struggling to pass them along before he died-rather than the wand-technique used in the other books. I thought the supposed hints could have been taken either way, and found there was insufficient support to back them without the memories in Book 7. The hints WERE discussed by fans, and the ones I discussed were two: A) Why was "Snape's worst memory" his WORST memory? (Book 5) The argument FOR was him driving off Lily. The argument AGAINST was the abject humiliation Snape was suffering. B) Book 5, "Dudley Demented." When Harry was explaining about the attack by the Dementors, Vernon Dursley asked what a Dementor was. Petunia immediately rattled off "The guard the wizard prison Azkaban" (I may have paraphrased slightly.) When everyone stared at her in shock, she explained she had overheard "that horrid boy" explain that to Lily. The question was: was Snape the "horrid boy" instead of James Potter? The argument FOR was that James doesn't seem like a "horrid boy", and why else would Snape be horrified the Potters were killed? The argument AGAINST was that Petunia was negative on all magic, so ANY wizard would be "horrid", and there's no reason to suppose Snape ever MET Lily outside of Hogwarts or interacted with her in there, even. (In "Snape's Worst Memory", a stranger might have told James to stop bullying Snape, since it was wrong.) Further, Snape owed James a life-debt, and then was responsible for his death. Personally, I don't think there was much substance to the hints. They're obvious if you know exactly what information is critical and which to ignore, which is to say, almost-coincidental. I also think that it made no sense for Snape to insult Tonks for her Patronus changing shape to correspond to the person she loved, when his had been so for years. The argument for him saying that is that Snape can be a real a-hole sometimes, but I find that SPECIFIC barb out-of-character. Finally, the only things connecting Lily with a doe is that she was married to Prongs. This meant he needed to know about Prongs, first of all, which he seemed to be, at least by the time of the series. (Book 3, his comments to Lupin about the parchment by Wormtail, Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. "I think he got that parchment FROM THE MANUFACTURERS." He seemed to know he was addressing one of them...) However, of all things, Snape hated James, loved Lily, and defined Lily in terms of her marriage to James? I find that inconsistent. If there was some direct connection between Lily and the doe, that would be different. However, we have no reason to suspect she was also an Animagus, especially since it was so difficult, they are so rare, and her strength was in CHARMS, like her wand, while James' was in TRANSFIGURATION, like his wand. A lot of fans loved it, many BECAUSE of the profanity. Fenrir Greyback and Bellatrix Lestrange were the sickest followers of Voldemort, and HAD to go. Ron Weasley joined George as proprietors at Weasleys Wizarding Wheezes. She mentioned that in one of the interviews.

Oldies, I'd leave this alone, except we've seen this happen before, so I shall ask you a simple yes-or-no question or two. Whether or not you answer it, and if your answers are in simple yes-or-no format, will, I think, indicate a lot as to where your thinking is at this time. I shall begin. 1) Do you believe that the testimony of all the victims, all the people that knew the victims, the twi authority figures, and the people currently running twi, indicate that the overwhelming likelihood is that at least some of the rapes and other sexual crimes vpw has been said to have been committed, were in fact committed by him? (Yes or no: do you think the weight of the evidence says "vpw did it-he committed these sexual crimes?) 2) If so, do you believe it was wrong of vpw to have carefully set up places to commit sex crimes, and set up a structure of persons to facilitate this, and use the "from birth to the corps" papers to select his victims, and commit these sex crimes regardless of intent to "heal" or whatever justification was used, and to have women monitored afterwards, with their reputation savaged and them made pariahs if they looked like they were going to tell someone what he did? (Yes or no: do you think it was wrong of vpw to have committed these sexual crimes?) 3) Do you think that those who were victims of sexual crimes by vpw should go silent, so as to keep others from thinking negative about vpw, even if their testimony is the truth? (Yes or no: do you think it is wrong for vpw's victims to tell their stories now?) 4) Do you think that the proper response to all the victims of vpw's sex crimes is to claim that they were all willing participants, that they must have wanted it if they didn't immediately run to the police? (Yes or no: Is it right to think all his victims were consensual if they didn't go straight to the police?) 5) Do you think that the sole opinion of all aspects of twi should be reflected by the sex crimes of its founder? (Yes or no: Do vpw's sex crimes pose the beginning and end on all matters twi?) =========================== (I added the last as a softball.) See, the reason I ask these questions is simple. From time to time, there's been a "moment of enlightenment", a "turning point" of "but now I see", and then months later, the reset button was pressed, and it's like that whole conversation never happened. So, I ask outright. Please speak plainly, and answer in a yes-no fashion, using as many words as you need, but including a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal yes-no answer that any normal English reading adult could see means yes or no. If you wish, once you've done that, I'll do the same for 5 questions of your own. And if I find myself unable to on any question, I shall explain plainly, in detail, and give the answers related to it that I CAN give plainly. Fair is fair. ======= Oh, and if you elect NOT to address these questions, of course, that will tell the reading audience something in and of itself.....

It would be reasonable IF it hadn't been common knowledge that cg had wrangled rights over the pfal class from the bot when they all agreed they killed vpw at the close of POP. Depends on the TYPE of piracy. Depending how the word is used, it may be a MORAL wrong (fleecing the innocent in a legal fashion)or a legal crime so small the public thinks it's not a big deal (music piracy, pirating videos). On the other hand, it can refer to robbing ships at sea, which IS a serious crime. (Ever hear of plans by ship-pirates to sue the music industry for diluting their trademark on piracy by connecting teenagers with a pc with robbery on the high seas? :) ) Myself, I would guess-based on the reasonable informed information-that the relationship between Geer and TWI at the time they gave him rights over pfal was the direct cause of them granting him legal rights over pfal, after which he was able to use pfal as he saw fit. When it comes to "why didn't they sue when he made it again under a new name", I'm not a copyright lawyer, and would guess that there is a murky ground there where his granted rights might grant him the rights to use the material. Thus, there was no point suing someone when they weren't going to win. At twi, it's currently all about the money. Follow the money. A) There were no copyright laws in effect at the time.B) Barnabas wasn't violating any copyrights, whether de jure OR de facto. Non-issue. It was wrong for vpw to entirely take material originated by others, and intentionally refuse to give due legal credit for the original sources. That's plagiarism, and copyright violation, and those are FELONIES at the amounts they were practiced personally by vpw. Likewise, it was wrong for cg to entirely take material originated by others, and intentionally refuse to give due legal credit for the original sources. That's plagiarism, and copyright violation, and those are FELONIES at the amounts they were practiced personally by vpw. Why wasn't cg sued? He held part of the copyright, so it was a crime, but the injured party can't sue him for damages, since HE held the legal rights, so LEGALLY, he was the injured party. That means that what he did was MORALLY wrong, and LEGALLY wrong, but no one could sue on behalf of society under current laws-they'd have to sue on behalf of the ones with the LEGAL rights, which he cleverly held. Legally, he's still required to cite sources, but I don't know how a lawsuit could proceed to force him to comply. So, it was wrong for cg to take material from others and not credit them- whether that source was vpw (who took the material from others HIMSELF) or the originals, BG Leonard, EW Bullinger, EW Kenyon, and so on. WHICH person he stole from is secondary to the issue THAT he stole from them. TECHNICALLY, those holding the rights to the originals- Leonard's work, Kenyon's work- CAN sue where he stole their material. Bullinger's work is now in public domain- which does not free him from citing his sources, but would allow him to quote to any degree he wanted. Leonard, for one, elected not to sue another Christian, which was his choice, and his legal right- but he added a lengthy caution about plagiarism to the beginning of his books, which shows he WAS aware. Leonard, I expect he didn't know about vpw, but so many other people plagiarized him that vpw and cg are probably low on the list for recovering damages. And yes, it was wrong, immoral AND illegal every time someone plagiarized Kenyon- whether or not the material was error or truth. .....but he's still required to CITE SOURCES on those, Dan- both for Bullinger AND for vpw, where each is supposedly the source.

'Deadwood'?

Correct! I particularly like that there's a few quotes that say what fine young gentlemen they are.... Go, George.

"You exemplify a fine new crop of young Americans who will grow into the leaders of this great country." " This desert is stupid. They should put a drinking fountain out here. " "Hey Baby. Are we gonna do it?" "You have 2 seconds." "Uh, is that gonna be enough time?" " I'm sorry, how many Hail-Marys?" "A thousand! And I want you to hit yourself! Right now!" "Um, now?" "Yes, do it!" "Agent Hurley, I want you to give this scumbag a cavity search! I'm talking Roto-Rooter! Don't stop until you reach the back of his teeth!" "Are you threatening ME?" "It's so nice to meet young men who are so well-mannered."

vpw implied it and never said so outright. Prevarication- suggesting something while maintaining plausible deniability because "I never said that" has a longstanding tradition in twi, and is still popular among vpw's apologists.

Supposing-just to humour Oldiesman- just supposing he was completely sincere- "I genuinely want to bless you by drugging you and having sex with you when you lose consciousness," is this something that should be considered legal or moral behaviour? Is it ok to drug and rape a woman IF ONE HAS GOOD INTENTIONS? Or is that only ok if The Man Of God For Our Day And Time drugs and rapes a woman? IS IT POSSIBLE that this is anything but unacceptable behaviour, ALWAYS? IS IT POSSIBLE that he was a sick sexual predator who should have been put in prison for his crimes against women?

I appreciate the effort, but do you really think you can hit a little target like their consciences when the choices are between an unpleasant truth and their devoted adoration of "the good old days" and "vpw was a great Christian leader"?

To say nothing of the parts that were lifted entirely from 2 of Bullinger's books: A) The Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State? http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/ B) Saul and the Witch at Endor: did the dead arise at her bidding?

"You exemplify a fine new crop of young Americans who will grow into the leaders of this great country." " This desert is stupid. They should put a drinking fountain out here. " "Hey Baby. Are we gonna do it?" "You have 2 seconds." "Uh, is that gonna be enough time?" " I'm sorry, how many Hail-Marys?" "A thousand! And I want you to hit yourself! Right now!" "Um, now?" "Yes, do it!"

I've had lots of fun with the locals, over the years. Seems that once a guy had a title, he was no fun anymore, but everybody else was often a blast, and didn't see a need to stand on ceremony.

See, except for people dedicated to seeing vpw kept clear of even the suggestion of impropriety (i.e. "do anything to keep a charge from sticking"), this is pretty clear. For those of you for whom this is not a clear-cut and straightforward account, NOTHING will be sufficient for you to even consider this is likely to be true, let alone possible, and any blame accruing to vpw for inflicting this on a victim is inconceivable. Why bother saying it's anything other than that? I can respect our differences if you're being up-front and honest about your reasons. You refuse to seriously entertain any thoughts that demonstrate serious moral depravity or felonies on the part of vpw, so anything and anyone that suggests otherwise must be dismissed, belittled, labelled, and ridiculed. Be honest with yourselves about this, at least.

In other words, you won't even seriously consider the idea that the victims might all be telling the truth and that's why their stories all form a cohesive whole, unless there's DNA evidence, video footage and a confession signed by vpw. Anything else would be considered "reasonable" doubt.

Actually, I remembered "You were trying, she was succeeding." That and "Pointy end goes into the other guy" are the quotes I can rattle off from it. ======== Ok, next movie. "You exemplify a fine new crop of young Americans who will grow into the leaders of this great country." " This desert is stupid. They should put a drinking fountain out here. "

I agree, and think that's a good approach. However, it contradicts what twi taught, and teaches. It also contradicts the literal interpretation of the verses we're discussing. twi taught "believe it and ask, and you'll get it. Didn't get it? Didn't ask, or didn't believe. Try to do better next time." We got that it works for sinner and saint alike, and that we should use the analogy of a camera to focus our believing better. (That's in the Blue Book.) That it's about RELATIONSHIP CONFLICTS with what was taught.

That anyone can say it was too bad that a woman who was drugged didn't "just walk away" i.e. "she had a choice and could choose not to ose consciousness and thus tacitly approve of anything done to her while unconscious" illustrates my point. (I think it's also telling that people keep trying to compare vpw-not with rapists, for he was one- but with David, a king of Israel, a prophet, and a man selected by God, as if vpw somehow shares any of those qualities with David. vpw's more like Hophni and Phineas, Eli's sons (Eli taught Samuel), who supposedly served God in his temple, but had sex with the women serving in the temple, and otherwise corrupted his temple.) Exactly how even-handed is this approach to what vpw did? You left out the insinuation that ANY allegations by ANY number of people are BY DEFINITION false accounts,which saves the trouble of actually READING THE ACCOUNTS. And we've seen that again, too.... If the ONLY thing important is "the Word" (and what that means is open to the interpretation of the person who's saying it), then the PEOPLE are of lesser importance, or NO importance AT ALL. We learned that the hard way in twi, some of us a LOT harder than others. Seems some people are still walking around thinking that's perfectly acceptable.

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

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

You're supposing the problem here exists within yourself.

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