WordWolf

I recognized the obvious typo and disregarded it, so my post took that into consideration-in case you were wondering.

The concept of personal experience-as viewed by twi- is simple. Experience before twi leading you TO twi is of God. Experience before twi leading you AWAY FROM twi is of God. Once in twi, ALL experience that you experience must be interpreted BY twi or ignored. Furthermore, twi will IMPOSE experience-and THIS experience is to be embraced without question. Experience from a twi event is supposed to be embraced. After all, the whole point of forbidding people to cover "speaking in tongues" before Session 12 (or interpretation or prophecy before the Intermediate) was to inculcate a common experience into the lives of all the students. Furthermore, experience from the mog was to be embraced without question as well. vpw was entitled to go anywhere and do anything, and we were to be thankful he did. Racetracks, porn shops, wherever.

If the concepts you purport are of God, then-according to vpw-they will be documented in Scripture. The exception was The Great Mystery-and that was revealed 2 millenia ago. If you're putting forth a concept as GODly, then where did GOD say it was so? You claimed they were "self-evident." This is a poor, poor answer from someone supposedly following techniques in pfal of understanding and applying Scripture. You-of course-were challenged on this. NOBODY gets an exemption on this. JESUS CHRIST didn't get an exemption on this one. So, make your case. "Think about it some more" is tantamount to admitting you can't find it in Scripture. And claiming others can't "keep up" is not a valid discussion tool-it's an insult. (Ad hominem attack, for those keeping up.)

How strange he never actually MENTIONED any of this.... Of course, this "perception" allows you to cover 2 deficiencies:A) not interacting with vpw daily B) the disconnect between your doctrine and what vpw said/did daily, as reported by eyewitnesses How strange, then... If you review the ROA '79 tapes, you'll hear vpw bring up speaking in tongues, and doing it at one point. The syllables were not merely "familiar"-they're almost verbatim from the class. Odd how what can be CHECKED seems the opposite of what you've said.... ....and how you spent almost no time with vpw, but you supposedly have an opposite report with nothing to base it on but convictions. Where and when are these "frequent" incidents you'rereporting? You were not on staff. Translation: I am entitled to be insulting to the other posters. They deserve it and are not adults who reason. Their maturity level is less than mine. Their understanding is far deficient compared to mine. And even if I DID use manners, it wouldn't matter. And-in the long run-they'll be thankful I was rude and abusive with them. Translation: See how God endorses my rudeness with them? I'm the same as Paul here in Hebrews, and you all are the same as Timothy here. You should all be thankful I'm making the effort.

Yellowcard, AFAIK, is a VERY recent band. THIS song is from the middle-to-late 90s. I'm really hoping someone walks in and name this. I'd hate to consider this round fruitless. That wouldn't be a crime, but it would be up there.

Or maybe they were being polite, and thought it ACTUALLY was teh crap. "Fantastic"? Depends on what you drink beforehand, and how much.

"Don't you tell me to deny it. I've done wrong and I want to suffer for my sins. I've come to you 'cause I need guidance to be true And I just don't know where I can begin." "Heaven help me for the way I am. Save me from these evil deeds Before I get them done. I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand, But I keep living this day like the next will never come." "Let me know the way before there's hell to pay. Give me room to lay the law and let me go. I've got to make a play to make my lover stay What would an angel say, the devil wants to know. What I need is a good defense, " "I need to be redeemed To the one I've sinned against Because he's all I ever knew of love."

The artist who did this song also released an album with the following title: "When the pawn hits the conflicts, he thinks like a king. What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight- and he'll win the whole thing before he enters the ring. There's no body to better when your mind is your might. So when you go solo, you hold your own hand, and remember that depth is the greatest of heights. And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land. And if you fall it won't matter, 'cause you'll know that you're right." ====== ("That's the TITLE? Then you must take a few weeks out sometime and sing it for us.") This artist is also supposedly the favourite musician of Officer Bar-Brady, on South Park. When Barbra Streistand was in the town, he didn't pay her any real attention because she wasn't this artist.

You are not qualified to judge me, and you are not my teacher. You are not qualified to issue me homework or exams. If that was your idea of an exam-let alone an incorrect answer- your exams are woefully deficient. You were doing some posturing about the so-called "law" of believing, which fails to perform as promised since it's not a "law" nor reliable. You harped on the "what is available" step of receiving anything from God, in Session One. I made a passing comment that-according to Session One- red drapes and killing your kid were available. You claimed it did not make such a claim. I then broke down-for those of you having difficulty understanding the ramifications of Session One- how it DOES make such a claim. Session One claims that receiving is dependent FIRST on what is available-which is the SAME point you YOURSELF were making. Therefore, to receive something, it must be available. If it is not available, you will not be able to receive it. That's stuff any 12-year old can easily follow. (Which seems to have eluded you anyway.) Right in Session One, two things that are mentioned as having been received are the red drapes, and the dead kid. Everybody ELSE remembers them-perhaps you've FORGOTTEN. "...she had a need. And her need was, they might as well be red drapes..." Sound familiar? According to vpw, the woman received "FIRE-ENGINE-RED" curtains. If she received it, it was-by definition-available TO be received. Since she received it, it was available. The same can be said of the woman who succeeded in killing her kid. (I can break this one down slowly if you need it, but it's exactly the same steps.) Now, that those were in the class were a matter of public record. If you dispute that these people received, you call vpw a liar-for he asserted that both most definitely DID receive. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that the so-called "law" of believing is deficient and has errors, thus defending it leads to problems. That's how we ended up with the red drapes and dead kid "examples to begin with. So far, I understand you both better than you understandme and vpw. I got the ramifications of what he said as well as just the wording. Seems you're unable to see the concepts without the exact wording. Either that, or you wish to pretend it's not what he said. If so, it's intellectually dishonest, to begin with. That's how it "seems" to you. Oddly enough, the rest of us can see this quite clearly- and you and reality had a disconnect. There's a difference between "they don't understand" and "they see it differently than me", and until you can make that fundamental distinction, you'll forever MIScommunicate with "your audience." Only what I suggested above.

It's a cookbook! The tower? The tower? RAPUNZEL!!!! RAPUNZEL!!!!

Not even a little bit. MTV played the video for this song. As did VH1, I believe. The redemption was on a relationship-level.

I thought you were saying their E-MAIL version was now being assigned a fee. I wasn't even aware there WAS a paper version. (Except for hitting "print" on the e-mail, say.)

The "Denholm Elliott" Club is just slightly smaller than the "Man who played Mr Belvedere" Club featured once on Saturday Night Live.

"Heaven help me for the way I am. Save me from these evil deeds Before I get them done. I know tomorrow brings the consequence at hand, But I keep living this day like the next will never come." "I've got to make a play to make my lover stay What would an angel say, the devil wants to know." "I need to be redeemed To the one I've sinned against Because he's all I ever knew of love."

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets again.]

Bingo. This simple fact is what's puzzling Mike this morning.

It's not that odd if they dont acknowledge that any of that corrects an error. For example, Kingdom of Heaven/Kingdom of God (the early 90s version) corrected an error from vpw- that the two terms meant 2 different things. This vpw lifted directly from Bullinger. Both vpw and Bullinger were unaware the terms were used INTERCHANGEABLY. Bullinger's explanation was clever and sounded GREAT. I LIKED his explanation. I liked his reasoning. However, that didn't change the incorrectness of it. Some people might not be aware-or may be deliberately supressing-that this was a correction of a vpw error.

"I've got to make a play to make my lover stay What would an angel say, the devil wants to know."

I'm not going to wait forever to see if the artist was remembered. That's "Hey Nineteen", all right, and that's a Steely Dan song. Here's a more recent song I happened to be thinking of. "What would an angel say, the devil wants to know."

But red drapes are on the "available list." Oddly enough, so is killing your kid.

The liabilities are listed by name-they're the management.

It's been a while since we discussed AOS. I figured some people missed that lcm ripped it off of Travolta. And missed the famous "ruptured chimpanzee" review.....

I noticed Mr "I-Dont-Going-Around-Insulting-People" wasted no time on the new thread insulting me. ====== Ok, we were discussing a few of Mike's greatest hits here... ====== Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am. "When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand and teaching you from it." Mike 2/3/04 5:22am. "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm. "So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand." Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm. "Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once." ====== Now, Tom Strange asked him about these "more than once" times Mike has claimed to see Jesus. Mike asked what Jesus looked like when Mike saw him. Mike then went into a lengthy obfuscation where he did everything BUT describe what Jesus looked like, and talked a lot about the "spiritual" versus the "physical". So-while refusing to say so outright- which should be trademarked by Mike, who always hated answering questions directly- Mike INSINUATED-SUGGESTED- that those times he saw Jesus it was some sort of "spiritual" seeing of him, and he didn't actually lay eyes on him in any conventional fashion, not even a normal vision. Tom also asked how Mike-who won't say HOW he saw Jesus-knows he saw the REAL Jesus and not some sort of counterfeit. Mike's reply was typical Mike. Mike pretended Tom never asked him, and instead challenged Tom to tell how HE would identify Jesus if he saw him. In all that, supposedly, the reader isn't supposed to notice that Mikecompletely dodged Tom's question, and pretended this was HIS question. Most people can see the difference, however. Then, of course, came another round of dodging. This was Mike pretending that Tom's question wasn't under discussion already, and that Tom was dodging MIKE's question, rather than the other way around. Here he goes again... You, of course, note that ALL of that was STILL to avoidanswering Tom's question. Then comes the famous "I meant to do that" also from the classic Mike playbook. Aaand, more reasons why he won't answer the question... Here's what Tom occasionally refers to as Mike requiringhis approval so that we have access to his advanced abilities. I previously claimed I didn't see them per se, and it looks like Mike's proven me wrong on that one... Here's Mike pretending to answer Tom by addressing what Tom didn't ask him... Here's Mike's "non-insults" of me while I'm just going aboutmy own business. Notice how Mike objects to others "attacking" him, but is swift to use derogatory terms in reference to me? Not even something of substance, just insults. The reader's supposed to not notice that he's using an ad hominem attack rather than substance, to hide the weakness of his "case." And here's another... Generously answering what Tom didn't ask him... Hey- he never actually got around to answering it..... Unless his entire answer was the matter of the preposition, which we DID discuss once. (Making this an old answer to a question nobody's asking him now.) So, here's what Mike said originally: "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so." Here's what Mike's later claimed he meant, in an incomplete answer... "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Dr told me so. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL." So far, Mike refused to explain the "Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL" part, as in "how does Mike justify this statement?" But the first part was explained as "I know vpw was appointed as Jesus Christ's spokesman, because when I read the PFAL books, I see vpw saying that Jesus Christ appointed him his spokesman." As to JC being "VERY interested in PFAL", that statement's still unexplained...

Someone asked about the ROA. Posts about a "whorehouse" are on the top of page 7.

There was a thread, "Memories of the ROA" a while back that-I think- mentioned this. To be specific, I think Jonny Lingo hit it here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=209276 or possibly it was one of the following posts...