WordWolf

I forgot that would make it my turn. "Did you see that?" "What did you see?" "Looked like a big, red bird with fuzzy pink feet."

You're standing in it. This is that thread.

It might have been your area. They were actually using that term in the 80s, but I didn't connect it with Halloween. I think there was a decision among the local leaders not to encourage the term because it was f'ing lame. Then again, in NYC, we had entire territories where 95% or more left when lcm drew his line in the sand, so it's not expected that EVERYTHING he said was blindly followed in the years and months leading up to that. I think Thanksgiving and New Year's were the only holidays they didn't touch. April Fool's Day, of course, was already named FOR lcm....

Here's another thread on Howard...

Here's one of the Howard threads...

It may have been a thread from WayDale or the EZboard version. I've never seen this thread, nor heard of it, myself. And I've reviewed most of the "About the Way" threads, even the ancient ones, at some point. (If it's here, it must be in the Archives.)

Seth, this is when you tell us if I was right, or wrong and then we try to guess again...

Even if you'd never mentioned it before, I thought this was a funny line when it was said. It's from "Friends." Phoebe claimed she'd already seen it. They were commenting on "Three's Company." Lucille Ball once hosted a tetrospective on "Three's Company", and claimed that nobody ever got in as many misunderstandings as that group. "Present company excepted."

It was policy that everyone was expected to carry out. That's de facto "official doctrine" if not de jure. (Legally, that would be considered so, whether or not they said "Well, this isn't official..") I don't think that was ever the focus in twi either.

I thought you meant "did he reserve copping a feel to when he was around corps women?" to which I would have to say "Maybe." That's who seem to report he did it to them. Maybe he figured they were too deep into the group to slug him and press charges. (He was right if that's what he thought.)

Nicely put. I can't see any way to phrase this any better. :) BTW, welcome to the GSC. :)

I'm not going to argue about whether or not we're arguing. It seems, however, some of us (me included) got the impression that the thread (especially the first page) seemed slanted to dismiss a more Fundamentalist approach to the Bible. (No, I really don't want to quote the words that gave that impression, since I see that as adding fuel to the fire.) Can we agree that it either wasn't true, or that if it was true, it's not worth devoting any more time to?

Kurt Russell the Best of Times Robin Williams

I'd call that "less UNfair, and less DIShonest", but that's a lot of money for what they're getting. And it's not like this presented as OPTIONAL or anything. Either 10% or you lack "the truth" because he won't give it, and only HE's got it. Just because something is an improvement over twi does not mean I consider it "right". Some people were arm-twisted into giving more than 10% in twi. If they were arm-twisted into giving 8%, that is an improvement, but still not "right."

You can look FOREVER- nothing specific was ever mentioned. There was some vague admissions of "not doing the Word" stuff. Howard's "confession" had to do with the idea that vpw could have used his super-believing and become de-cancered "if only" he would have had support from twi's top people. That's what PoP says. It really tugs on the heartstrings... In the real world, vpw was an alcoholic and drank ALL THE TIME. This weakened his body's filtration systems-like his liver. vpw was also a chain-smoker, and took in tobacco ALL THE TIME. This exposed his body to a known carcinogen- which was publicly known back in the 1940s and onward. This meant vpw was exposed-over decades-to things that would give him cancer and reduce his body's ability to fight off cancer. According to vpw's "LAW of Believing", any exposure to cancer would be easy to destroy with a simple application of "positive believing." If you reread PoP, you'll see cg referred to this, and thought that vpw could "change his mind" and delete his own cancer. Meanwhile, vpw told the corps that the source of his cancer was the bright lights used in filming 2 weeks of foundational class in the early 1970s. Do I need to tell you that bright lights do not cause cancer? Attributing it to this "noble" source meant it wasn't the result of him spending thousands of dollars of ABS and tithes to support his VICES. He was specific that his cancerous eye was directly the result of his "moving the Word". We have eyewitnesses here that heard him speak on committments to God and say "I gave MY EYE- what are YOU willing to give?" Mind you, a lot of twi-ers didn't even know about the CANCER. A lot of us heard "he just stopped believing", and that's ALL we heard. So, what actually killed vpw? It's like some game of Clue. Was it the cigar with the tobacco in the study? Was it the successor with the leotards in the auditorium? Was it the bus driver with the bad news in the Scottish village? Was it the old pal with the opportunism in the OSC? Was it the scion with the incompatible priorities in the Kansas campus? Was it the decanter with the Drambuie in the office?

I agree. However, that presumes we accepted that hq was prepared to bend us over a chair, and didn't care about how we got stuff done locally. We were naive and thought they cared about US, not just our MONEY.

Anyone else thinks this is worthy of the "Greasespot Gems" list? Thanks. I sometimes find that a "parable" or poem articulates my thinking better than me just trying to say it plainly. (Off-topic: I find the subject of how many poems, over the years, never got all the proper attributions, or mysteriously got attributed to vpw somewhere along the lines, a fascinating one.)

Right. But that would have meant less money in their hands. Besides, if even the way corps were DISPOSABLE, the people on the field were MORE DISPOSABLE. So, you passing out was an acceptable consequence of them keeping the money. No, they didn't care about your comforts or your mentality. "Just send all the money to hq. You? 'Believe God' for whatever else you need."

These renames WERE widespread. We definitely heard them in NYC. (Actually, I didn't hear "Bless and Treat", but I figure it was only a matter of time.) It was also said that changing Valentine's Day was an improvement, because the original name wasn't actually after a Catholic saint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine but instead after a MASSACRE. http://www.prairieghosts.com/valentine.html That came from a corps person's mouth who is now on twi's national board. Your bod at work! It's possible he said it tongue-in-cheek, but he deadpanned it and certainly never gave any impression he was joking. It also fits in perfectly with lcm's claims that holidays were named after murders. After all, he claimed "Christ-mass" wasn't named after a mass attended on that day, but instead for the "massacre" of the children (those sometimes termed the "holy innocents" in Herod's attempt to have the King of the Jews killed.) He also made other comments about it like calling it " 'Happy Kill-Christ Day', celebrating the death of Christ." I was no Rhodes scholar, but I knew it was bs the first time I'd heard of it, because there's other holidays named in the same convention, like Michaelmas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas and Candlemas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemas which were Days of Obligation on the liturgical calendar. lcm was the head of twi at the time. I don't expect he should necessarily have been able to recite the derivations of all the holidays on the liturgical calendar (although he should have had a nodding familiarity with Christian topics in general if he was to be running such an organization), but-if he was going to open his fool mouth and announce what the correct history and derivation was- it should have been expected that he open a decent set of encyclopedias, and at least check he wasn't making an obvious mistake. But, hey, it's not like there was any sort of "quality control" at the top of twi. vpw never wanted ANY mechanisms that could have removed power from his hands.

As it's generally told, lucifer was one of three angels placed in authority over the others, and of the three, he was the pre-eminent one, God's "right-hand man", the bright and morning star. He was smart, persuasive, good-looking, and influential. And he became enthralled with his OWN greatness, and decided that his OWN will be done, and that he deserved the WHOLE show rather than be the Executive Vice-President and Chief-of-Operations. Thus he put his persuasive "speech" to work, and convinced his 1/3 to rebel against the status quo and the Almighty. They waged war, and lost, and were thrown to the earth. (This puts him in the same place he later is claimed to interfere with Eden.) Well, if our positions were reversed, I doubt I would have made such a move.I've never been arrogant enough to think I wasn't capable of being smacked down- there's always a bigger fish. Further, he met God Almighty directly and still decided he himself knew better. I've seen arrogant people consider themselves "above the law" and decide the rules apply to everyone BUT THEM plenty of times. That's an OLD story, frankly. Plus, it's been said that-no matter the system-there will always be malcontents. That's because it's grossly oversimplified. He decided to take God's place at the "throne", true. He decided he should become God. We judge that evil. (Well, I judge that evil, anyway.) He decided to actively oppose God, and work to overthrow his established order, and to frustrate his plans and derange his people. Some of his plans or SUSPECTED plans include the Fall of Man, an attempt to wipe out the Christ-line by polluting all bloodlines, an attempt to wipe out humanity, various plans to crush Israel, corruption of all humanity, corruption of the leaders of Israel, corruption of God's spokesmen for Israel, the death of the Messiah at various times, the subversion of the Messiah into his own agent, and attempts to subvert Christianity into his own agency and so on. His methods of executing his plans are varied, but involve a few common threads. They involve his OWN order, set in opposition to the order set in place by God. They involve dismissing ANY and ALL utterances of God. And so on. Does his EVERY action radiate "eeeee--vvviiiillll"? No. Some of it may look completely innocuous-until it's seen as a necessary part of a framework designed to oppose God. He also takes a longer view than just the sort of "smash-and-grab" of a common street-criminal or mugger. (Although he will use them as well...) If I were to consider him "the opposite of God", I might support the idea that their power-levels and intellects were in some way comparable. I think he considers himself in that category. I think his intentions often overlap what we consider "evil". I think evil actions and evil intent generally serve his purposes- especially since his purposes include "cause trouble."

Now, as to where the war in heaven fits in, that's from Revelation 12. Revelation 12:7-9 (NASB again.) "7And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon The dragon and his angels waged war, 8and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. " As to the troops being 1/3 of the angels of heaven, that's from Revelation 12:4a. "4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth..." =============== So, the supposition is that these verses at least partly refer to an event in the distant past- a war in heaven, with 1/3 the angels of heaven in open rebellion, and 2/3 the angels of heaven defending heaven, where the losers and their commander were cast down to the earth. (That it may refer to many other things as well, including events yet-to-be, is generally accepted even among those who are certain this refers to such an event in the past. Many prophecies in Scripture are said to have referred to 2 events, and been fulfilled twice, and this is confirmed right in the Gospels.) An ironclad case? Hardly. If God had asked me, I would have requested a textbook with some direct statements of fact on the subject. That fits my 21st century sensibilities. However, it would be a hindrance to many centuries of people NOT my contemporaries. That IS where the numbers come from.

"Dictionary of Misinformation", by Tom Burnam. I have a copy. Paperback: 334 pages Publisher: Perennial Library; 1st Perennial Library ed edition (1986) Language: English ISBN: 0060913150

Actually, I've found that some more erudite Wiccans say that Cernunnos was taken from Herne and was supposed to be the same guy. As for Dis Pater, he and Orcus were merged into Pluto the Roman god, where they had all previously been separate from Hades the Greek god. Is there a reference somewhere that equates him with the Horned Gods of the fields like Pan?

A) You were thinking for yourself. B) Someone at hq didn't like it-therefore it was "wrong." C) It would have resulted in you handling money yourselves, making a decision as to its disposition, and executing it. twi did NOT want you getting ANY practice at that...

That's got to be from when Julian Bashir is running his James Bond-like "secret agent" holodeck progam. I forget the title-it may be "Our Man Bashir", but I'm not absolutely certain. My favourite character title from that one was that there's a chick named Honey Bare.