WordWolf

I bumped up and updated the rfr thread. Were you asking about the others? Did you need more about rfr than was on that thread? "vp and me in wonderland" has some more on Donna, if you want to read thru it a few pages.

Its strength (ease of use) is its weakness (lack of filtration). It's a handful of teenagers who are going to save the world,being watched by a few hundred adults staring at them. It's unofficial, but the wayGB and some of us are also lurking. If they give away too much, they'll get the same fate as the Family Tables did. These kids are free to make their own board for their opinion just like anyone else. I'd recommend avoiding it, or at least being respectful when you're on "THEIR" board. Screaming at the kids may make some people feel good, but it WON'T get them to listen. They're naive, not stupid.

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: ================== Rule 001: "Once you have their money, never give it back." Rule 002: "The best deal is the one that brings the most profit." Rule 003: "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to." Rule 006: "Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity." Rule 008: "Small print leads to large risk." Rule 009: "Opportunity plus instinct equals profit." Rule 012: "Anything worth doing is worth doing for money." Rule 013: "Anything worth doing is worth doing twice." Rule 016: "A deal is a deal. (Until a better one comes along.)" Rule 019: "Satisfaction is not guaranteed." Rule 021: "Never place friendship before profit." Rule 022: "A wise man can hear profit in the wind." Rule 024: "Latinum can't buy happiness, but you can sure have a blast renting it." Rule 025: "There's always a way out." Rule 026: "As the customers go, so goes the wise profiteer." Rule 029: "What's in it for me?" Rule 033: "It never hurts to suck up to the boss." Rule 041: "Profit is its own reward." Rule 047: "Don't trust a man wearing a better suit than your own." Rule 048: "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife. Rule 050: "Gratitude can bring on generosity." Ok, that's from the first 50.

Fans of Star Trek know about the imaginary Star Trek race called "the Ferengi." Physically, they're shorter and slimmer than humans, and have big ears (and thus, great hearing)-at least the males do. They have been characterized as similar to "Yankee traders" whose motto is "let the buyer beware." They all want to make money, lots of money. The Ferengi currency is Latinum (gold-pressed), which comes in slips, strips and bars. (They seem not to be big believers in electronic funds transactions.) People who expect to deal with Ferengi make it a point to study the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Although the fans have never seen all of them (the writers never wrote a complete list), we have seen some repeated a few times. So, there is a partial list out there. I've read these lists. Some of these rules remind me of some of the practices in effect at different eras in twi-including now. Perhaps they'll sound familiar to you. I'll post the relevant ones in blocks. Feel free to discuss them. :) ==============

How can I refuse a specific request like that? (I'm presuming I'm the "WW", and it's not WashingtonWeather or WaywardWayfer, both of whom haven't posted in a while.) ====== *Looks at the choices* Well, I consider it a bit of a trick question. That's because none of them existed "in a void" from each other. (Except one.) So, they AFFECTED each other. Therefore, an honest answer from me that actually tried to answer the question would give my opinions on the suitability of each as a leader. 1) Pope Benedict XVI I honestly don't know much about him. I thought John Paul II was pretty good for the most part, and Benedict (the man who became Pope Benedict 16) acted in a sort of "Chief Operations Officer" capacity for him. Votes for him as JP2's successor were seen as a conservative choice-to maintain the direction set by JP2. IIRC, the predecessor to JP1 (JP2's immediate successor who passed away shortly after assuming the office) didn't have nearly the same public outcry when he passed away, so I think the people considered JP2 very highly, and that included NON-CATHOLICS. So, people who had no reason to just fall in behind him (besides me) felt a need to show respect and so on. Do I think that some things in the RCC need reform? Yes. Do I blame Benedict for them? No. So, he'll PROBABLY come out on top in this dustup. (BTW, you can scratch "they were all good" or "all bad" for me.) That leaves me with the "4" twi top dogs. 2) Rosalie F. Rivenbark. This woman seems bereft of a conscience or the milk of human kindness. From the beginning of her exposure to twi, she seemed to have the skill of keeping things organized to the degree all humanity was squeezed out of them, and the other skill of sucking up to the boss. (Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 33: It never hurts to suck up to the boss.) She kisses vpw's foot when he was looking- and backstabbed HIM like everyone else when he wasn't looking. She had a standing policy of "tell him I'm not in" when he phoned her office. She made it a point to cozy up to whoever looked to be in power. When vpw made lcm his successor, she was unable to get in with lcm-but she made nice-nice with lcm's wife. She is FINE with having one standard for herself and one for everyone else. When others on twi payroll were ORDERED to get rid of their pets (like cats), she got to keep her cats. When corps were forbidden even once cent for luxuries of ANY level, she got a boat and sailing lessons, and she has a swimming pool-all maintained by twi worker drones. Spiritual? The rare times she's supposedly said or done anything at the podium like that, she's read-not taught-and then mostly lists of verses. She demonstrated the ability to run programs in twi-and have her workers go out of their way to avoid her. NOBODY ever said a single nice thing about her, EVER. (Even the other twi people have had one or two nice things said about them.) There have been questions here as to if she was ever an actual Christian, or if it was just an elaborate charade, a scheme to get money and comfort, a cushy job. 3) Chris Geer. My PERSONAL dealings with him were quite nice. On the one hand, they were limited; on the other hand, I was SCRUTINIZING him, ACTIVELY LOOKING for mistakes and failings. I didn't find any at that place and time, and, looking back, I believe I didn't miss any clues I was exposed to. (I found a very minor error in one session at the time, and I still don't think it's a big deal.) As to his personal failings, they seem to center around his blind worship of vpw. He accepted that vpw was justified in screaming at people when it suited him, and-apparently- yelled at some people in imitation. (Not as OFTEN as vpw, but the principle's the same.) He assisted with the support network vpw put in place that facilitated vpw's molestations and rapes- presumably because he believed vpw was honestly entitled to rape. 4) L. Craig Martindale. This man is ANOTHER man who accepted that vpw was justified in anything he did. Before vpw, lcm was an athlete in college who was a Christian. If he never met vpw, he might have matured into a good Christian. However, vpw "spellbound" him from the beginning with his persona of a man who had the exclusive Scripture and connection to God, and lcm fell in line. So, lcm was slowly taught to care less and less about people, and more and more accept vpw's actions as always correct. So, where vpw did things subtlely and hidden, lcm-convinced they were acceptable-did them less hidden- and was caught. lcm was a student who studied vpw, and applied everything he learned. It's a wonder that didn't land him behind bars. 5) vpw. What can I say about the ringleader? He set up an organization with the specific purpose of channeling the money and power to himself, and his lack of skills and lack of caring about people put everybody ELSE on this list in positions to hurt others-and taught them to hurt others in 2 cases. (How do I support this claim? The way it was all done- he centralized money and power to himself, and that's a matter of public record.) So, who was the BEST of that list? Probably Pope Benedict XVI. Who was the WORST of that list? Making a cold analysis, I can't make an easy distinction. HOWEVER, people who DID take real leadership training all know that you accept the responsibility for the success and failure for those under you. Since the triple-disaster of lcm, rfr and cg was all under vpw's regime, it is all HIS failure, and thus all his fault. That means the evil deeds of the others are charged to vpw's account as well as their own accounts. That's how I see it-others may disagree.

There's a few ways. The easy way: 1) Find the post you want to quote. 2) Look at the bottom right corner of the quote. 3) Click the "quote" button. 4) If necessary, erase the parts you DON'T want to quote. You might add "(snip)" at those points to make it obvious you're cutting out part of the original post. 5) Post your comments after the quote block.

Now, I'll give them this: if someone's supposed to know the material in all those books first (which was effectively what happened ANYWAY before it was a real requirement), then they should have that as a prerequisite: read and learn the contents of these books. Back when, I COULD have been tested on the contents of those books. Instead, the tests I took were divided into 3 sections: A) PFAL itself-class and Orange/White Books (I filled in those answers as fast as I could write; finishing a 90 minute section, complete with triple-checking answers, in 27 minutes) B) the Studies in Abundant Living (I paced myself and finished this in about 47 minutes, including double-checking answers) C) the practical: doing Word Studies then and there (I never liked to rush those, so I deliberately paced myself to use the entire time, less 3 minutes, and chose the shortest options, maximizing my time) Now, I probably COULD have taken tests on the other books. Oddly enough, the process of being fully ready to take tests on all of these was almost antithetical to vpw's vision. He saw any person as potentially able to take Foundational, Intermediate, and Advanced classes all in ONE YEAR. Me, I saw it-bare minimum-as one year EACH, with 2 years more practical if you want people to actually spend time on the material. That's why I buzz-sawed thru the exam- I didn't even seriously consider taking it until I had absorbed the material to MY satisfaction. Actually, I joined a study group of people preparing for the Advanced Class, and had to drop out due to the physical details (I couldn't attend without arriving consistently late, so I bowed out.) The people running it said it was ok, since, apparently, I was pretty much ready for it based on my performance to date, and didn't NEED the study group. So, interesting how the vision for taking the Advanced Class is now 180-degrees from what vpw used to say.

Igotout, on the subject of having crews to set up for phone hookups nobody attended:

This would be disconcerting if the GSC was supposed to be a church or a Christian ministry or something. It is not. It is a board designed to allow as much free speech as possible, and is dedicated-not towards Christianity- but towards exposing the truth about twi, past and present (for the past EXPLAINS the present.) People dedicated to being contentious and argumentative would be kicked out of twi in a hot second, but they're allowed in the GSC so long as they don't completely abandon taste or completely impede discussion. (And those get warnings before anything really extreme happens.) Posts can sound worse than current twi problems here, of course. Then again, discussion of twi problems is verboten in twi, and there's few places to discuss them, past OR present. Further, the current problems ARE the result of decisions made and actions taken in the past. Example: rfr is in charge now. Why? She was in a position of authority because she knew how to suck up once in the inner circle to work her way up to the top. She did this with lcm. How did she get there? vpw lacked the ability to hear God's voice warning him about her untrustworthiness, and she presented an image of competency to him while feeding his ego-which he thought he deserved. So, you can trace THAT back all the way to vpw. lcm would never have HEARD of her otherwise. How did she get to displace lcm and take the brass ring? lcm was caught in acts of sexual misconduct. Why did lcm commit acts of sexual misconduct? vpw taught him that he would need to "loosen up sexually". vpw set the "example" with his OWN sexual misconduct. Why was lcm in the big chair in the first place? vpw hand-chose his successor. He asked everyone to recommend who they thought would be a good replacement for him. They named a small handful of people. vpw then dismissed their suggestions, and chose out lcm entirely on his own. See, lcm was one of the most loyal unto painful death to vpw himself. So, a man with no life-experience or training outside of twi (he went straight from college to the corps), picked solely on the criteria of blind loyalty, was placed in charge of tens of thousands of people, possibly more. Worse, his "training" consisted of what vpw said training should consist of, so he "inherited" all of vpw's weaknesses on top of his own. So, that also goes all the way back to vpw. Now, then, can you see the relevance of discussing the past of twi when looking at its present?

There's possibly 2000 people still in, among them some teenagers who still think they can fix everything, and have no idea of the depth and number of problems- or their perpetrators. I'd hardly call 2000 people "nobody". Jesus talked about joy in heaven over ONE sinner that repented.

If you meant me, then "envy" was a miss. However, one quick dictionary check suggests "bitter" was on the mark. Here's what I found: 1. "having or being a taste that is sharp and acrid" 2. "causing a painful or stinging sensation" 3. "difficult or distasteful to accept, admit or bear" 4. "resulting from or expressive of severe grief, anguish or disappointment" 5. "marked by resentment or cynicism" I think all of those might refer to my posts in this thread. I won't speak for anyone else's posts.

socks, in a discussion on twi's Advanced Class requirements, which includes "monthly updates" on everything you might conceivably pack for said class, for the next 17 months, including a monthly update on "snacks"....

[so, at the time you FIRST took pfal, you came away from the sessions saying "all this material came from others, but vpw assembled their work into classes"? That's REALLY what you said?] [vpw claimed he was THE TEACHER. You said he was your "INSTRUCTOR",which means exactly the same thing as he was your "TEACHER." If you had made the claim to vpw-aka "THE Teacher", that others "taught" you during the 12 sessions of pfal, you would have been subjected to one of the famed face-melting sessions he showed lcm how to conduct. When he called himself "The Teacher", did you actually come away saying, "No, he didn't 'teach' during those 12 sessions'? And if he really was incidental to everything you learned, why try to defend him so vociferously?] [We're not blaming them for vpw's poor conduct and self-centered 'ministry'. (I summed up some of the basics on that above, in case you forgot what I meant by 'self-centered'.)] [You said it, but that's not what happened. vpw spent one of his hour-blocks on the whole thing. Then the students were shown a photograph from a page in a book. If what you're saying was true, the students would have been told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material." Instead, they were told "this is a picture that supports vpw's claims in this session." That's what I heard EVERY TIME I sat thru that session, from a variety of teachers, mostly corps. If it was an attempt for vpw to say "I got this from Bullinger", then he did a pretty poor job of it- vpw "forgot" to mention it in the taped session vpw "forgot" to mention it in the edited books vpw "forgot" to mention it in the syllabus-even the Advanced class version vpw "forgot" to mention it in the Home Studies]

[i suppose you had an average education for the 20th century. If so, then you heard about Martin Luther independently of twi, more than a little. Christians in general know more than a bit about him. If vpw sent his people out with Martin Luther's comments on justification by faith and not works, and sent them out to interact with other Christians-or even attempt to graduate a good high school or college- there would have been a rather disturbing event. I know that in high school, I learned MORE about Martin Luther than I ever learned in twi. Now, John Calvin isn't QUITE as famous to the average Christian, to the average American. Calvin spent a lot of time on the subject of free will. (A LOT of time.) vpw claimed he spent more time teaching on free will than they do in any seminary. Considering the seminaries teach Calvin, and vpw KNEW they did because he supposedly went to decent schools, he knew he was lying. However, the students he told this to didn't know Calvin NOR his teachings, so vpw was able to take credit for this subject to them.] [Luther never claimed to speak for God. Luther didn't take the money from God's people and spend it on luxuries for himself. Luther, in fact, argued vigorously against such. Luther never molested or raped God's women. Whatever Luther was, he was a man who was of appropriate character-at least as laid out by Scripture. So, Luther wasn't a false ANYTHING. Did Luther claim to speak on God's behalf? This statement lacks logical support, and thus lacks merit.]

Most people don't have any problem seeing this point, but I'll explain it anyway. Leonard, Welch, Kenyon and the others: none of them endorsed vpw or twi. Neither did Oral Roberts-who first taught the "Red Thread". Plagiarizing their work does not mean they endorsed the end result. Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were "taught by them." They were the source of the material. Look- when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture. That did not mean God endorsed the devil doing that, and it did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment. See the connection? As to the other Christians vpw ripped off, their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source, who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make it all about him. The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal. Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should be replaced with material that CAN stand up. The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is- the framework. People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on many things, because they buy into the image of him that he originated and propagated, and others passed on. Truth will always remain true. However, supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should be examined exceedingly carefully, since its origin places it under suspicion. ==== This really is not difficult for most people to understand.

Fine, then. I shall apply it SWIFTLY the NEXT time the 12 nations of Israel are taken captive and carried away to another nation because they forsook God.

Your initial post seemed to say that. Your most recent posts seem to say-more specifically- that's not the case at all. Therefore, I'll consider the former to be bad communication and scratch it as a dead issue. That was an ERROR propagated by vpw.If we were to "split hairs", then the Gospel of John will ALWAYS be an exception, since it was written approximately AD 57-58. The Gospel of John is traced back-at the earliest- as AD 80. The Gospel of Luke is traced back-at the earliest- as AD 58. Therefore, if Paul were to strain at a gnat here, he might be saying that Matthew and Mark are "for our learning" and didn't apply to us, since they were penned before AD 57, BUT Luke and John were written AFTER, and therefore TO us, since their date EXCLUDES them from being simply "for our learning." HOWEVER, no matter what vpw said- it seems obvious that Paul wasn't trying to place the Gospels as "written aforetime." The books of the Old Testament were written over a period of time ending some 400 years before Paul arrived on the scene, and their canon was considered fixed at his time. (Let me know if you need documentation.) Stuff that's 400 years old-or older- was written "aforetime" to now. The books of the New Testament were being written at the same timeframe as Paul was writing Romans. Rather than divide things by what month they were written-and even suppose he KNEW which books were being written while he was writing- it seems obvious-WHEN WE LOOK AND ASK THE QUESTIONS- that Paul referred to stuff centuries ago as "aforetime", and did NOT mean "what was written a few years ago" as "aforetime." Therefore, Paul did not intend to exclude anything from the "New Testament." The Gospels were written ABOUT a time before Pentecost. The Gospels were actually WRITTEN AFTER Pentecost. Well, previously in this thread, you said there was NO REASON to do so, but I'll accept this-"It's not something I read"- as a more honest represenation of your position. It was written after Pentecost, and as early as 68 AD.(After the "aforetime" cutoff, if you're absolutely wedded to the concept.) Therefore, it was written to Christians, same as the Epistles. I can really go off on this one, but I'll leave it at this.... You have no idea what vpw did in the beginning. You know what he TOLD someone he did in the beginning. If you want an introduction to what he did, check out the "wonderland" threads, if you want to know specifically what he did "in the beginning", check out "the way:living in wonderland".

Ok, let's see, I Kings 8:50. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...ter=8&version=9 "And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them:" Captive? To whom is this verse addressed? Per vpw (Bullinger), if the explanation is not in the verse right where it is written, we look at the CONTEXT. (See the link for the entire chapter.) According to the chapter, this is not addressed to men (nor women), but to GOD, in regards to when His people mess up and reject Him, and end up in servitude to other nations. (Go ahead, read the entire chapter, or, if you're in a hurry, from I Kings 8:44 onward.) So, this verse is completely inapplicable to this discussion, as is made clear by using the techniques advocated by vpw. Any adherent to vpw or admirer of his should consider this obvious. ==== Moving on.... I see we have another person who has arrived and appointed himself the arbiter for how long a person should take to heal from wrongs done to them. I'm a little curious. Some people are DEAD because of wrongs done to them by vpw and lcm. Some others were ALMOST killed or ALMOST died as a result of wrongs done by vpw and lcm. What is the statute of limitations of considering that a wrong, and what is the source for this figure? Furthermore, "forgive and forget" the evils done by vpw. I notice no verse was supplied for man (or woman) to do this. Evildoers who DO NOT REPENT are to be treated as dangerous and we're to act accordingly. We are definitely not to FORGET. We are to be careful not to fall into their traps. I know Paul never "forgot" the evils done by others. II Timothy 4:14 "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works." That's a record IN God's Word ("God has a purpose for everything He says"), where an evil-doer is named so Christians could be wary of him. That record is nearly 2000 years old. Apparently, this "forgetting" thing was NOT God's Will on this subject. "Forgetting" is a BAD thing, when it comes to evil-doers. Pray for them? Yes. Try to forgive? Yes-admitting this is a hard thing to ask. Forget? NO. People need to be warned. There are STILL people who arrive here, who were kicked out and hurt, and still trying to make sense of their suffering. They find some answers when they read up and see the evils that were done to them and DISGUISED as other things. vpw did evil to others in the setting up of "his" class, and the preparation of "his" materials. vpw did greater evil to specific Christians in "his" ministry, who were fooled into thinking all the excellent material "he" (others) produced meant he had a special connection to God-an image he originated and cultivated. vpw used this image and position to do specific acts of evil to specific Christians, and said it was God's Will. Repent? A few people claim that vpw's decades of plagiarism, rape, and other things were all wiped away by one claim as he was close to death, that he wished he'd tried harder not to sin. ("I wish I'd been the man I'd known myself to be.") Of course, a VAGUE and NONSPECIFIC claim like that is nothing at all like an admission of guilt to FELONIES and devastating the lives of Christians he assumed responsibility for. At best, it's a cheap imitation of such a claim; at worst, it's a sign he STILL cared nothing for the ruined lives- only that he wished HE'D been BETTER. (That is, "Yeah, it's a shame I ruined all those lives. If I'd been a better man, this wouldn't have ever happened. Too bad I wasn't a better man...")

I agree with MOST of this. What I disagree with was the idea that vpw's "work" was "the best of HIS ability." It's been documented that "vpw's" work was the best that he was able to plagiarize from the work of OTHERS. Bullinger wrote on death, and his stuff was rewritten into "Are the Dead Alive Now?" BG Leonard taught a class, and 3 months after vpw sat thru the entire class, vpw taught the EXACT same class with HIS name on it. JE Stiles wrote a book, and vpw rewrote it into the 1st edition of the White Book. Later versions of PFAL (originally taught as "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" by vpw, later renamed by him) and the White Book itself ("Receiving the Holy Spirit Today") incorporated the work of OTHER Christians as well, in a cut-and-paste fashion. (Mostly Bullinger in BOTH cases.) "vpw's" later books- "Jesus Christ Our Passover" and "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" were written by the research dept, and vpw added an introduction and the words "BY Victor Paul Wierwille" to the cover. All of this explains why "his" "writing style" changes RADICALLY from book to book, and has NO common markers from book to book. He didn't "write" them at all. He either adapted them or they were ghost-written by the staff. None of this is news. We've been discussing it for years here.

For those who missed it, this should sound familiar. A) I don't care about the PEOPLE that were hurt in God's name by the evil actions of those people who supposedly were leaders in God's name and claimed to make God known to us. B) What I DO care about is the Bible, which I read everyday. Mechanical knowledge of the Bible isn't a bad thing, but it is only "spiritual kindergarten". Until you care for God's people, you're not ready for primetime. vpw himself quoted that people don't care what you know, until they know that you care. I Corinthians says that knowledge puffs up, but God's Love BUILDS up.

Except the Gospels, the record OF our Lord? Well, that leaves out the Gospels-they weren't written "aforetime". Then why did God bother having it written? I thought "ALL" of the Bible was good. Is this a case of "I do not know its value-therefore it must have none"? Oh, but that leaves out so, so much.... Why limit your fellow Christians to only what vpw knew at the time-or ANY Christian, for that matter? And are you currently teaching the occult-type doctrine that you can compel God to act by a supposed "LAW" of believing which has been thoroughly (and throughly) discredited? That WAS in twi, after all, and it's a doctrine that harmed a LOT of people.

The patchwork monster, like some modern-day Frankenstein, slowly gave up its unnatural imitation of life, rotting away a piece at a time.