WordWolf

[Welcome! It seems that way if you read certain threads on certain pages, and skip other threads on other pages. You picked the "About the Way" forum where we post- imagine that!- about the way! As another poster mentioned, this here partly functions as a support group (like AA). Emotions can run strong here as a result. A regular problem is that a few people-not saying it's you- arrive, decide that vpw NEVER harmed anyone, ALL the victims who stepped forth are LIARS, and they personally are going to set us straight by insulting us all and yelling at us. Naturally, that gets some harsh responses. Likewise, people who refuse to even CONSIDER that twi ever taught them wrongly or ever lied to them often get harsh responses for obvious reasons. A major purpose for posting here is exposing the facts that twi tries to hide. Sometimes, we get a poster dedicated to hiding them as well. As one might expect, responses to that run harsh as well. So long as one is not IN one of those categories, the only harsh responses you get (outside the Politics forum) is usually from the people IN those categories.] [My personal summary reads: "I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out." This surprises people who think ANY criticism of vpw or pfal or twi is equal to a desire to take a bulldozer to their buildings. Myself, I can separate discussions of doctrine from behaviour- although the subjects generally ARE interrelated. (Bad doctrine leads to bad practice, and vpw's practice of loose sex led to bad doctrines permitting it and promulgated among a precious few plus victims.)] [i strongly recommend looking around at Christians OUTSIDE the ex-twi community. Yes, Virginia, there ARE other Christians out there! And some of them really know their stuff! I also recommend skipping "literal translations according to usage" (or "this is what the verse is SUPPOSED to say, so memorize it"), and maybe trying a New American Standard Bible for a while. Without notes all over it. It can stimulate new thinking and new discussions.]

IIRC, the current pattern is that everyone's expected to be on the phone hookup to hear the Sunday night service, (at a meeting, dressed up,) aka "tapped to the Root", where the pre-approved script is read. The same exact teaching is then received by the same person on the tape subscription-which they are required to have, AND one night a week, someone's supposed to teach on that EXACT same subject afterwards. They're breeding them with short attention spans at der way nowadays... I checked the threads for that yesterday to confirm my own memory. In 2004-the last time they announced #s of graduates-there were FIVE TOTAL. They have switched to announcing them in PERCENTAGES since then. (For example, "20% of them will remain on staff" means "one person added to staff".) Well, considering that vpw showed a bestiality video to some of the CFS classes and corps, and described it to the taped CFS and taped Advanced class, and seemed to enjoy describing it (I was busy trying not to even THINK about what he was saying), this qualifies, technically, as "moving away from what vpw taught." I guess you 90s/00s ex-wayfers missed part of the show...

[That was the terminology Craig used. As I pointed out-and you completely skipped over- most of that was window-dressing. What Craig wanted had nothing to do with "godly, loving, honest" or "according to God's Word" and CERTAINLY not "nothing beyond that". Craig wanted "OBEDIENCE AND SUPPORT" and couched it in phrases that allowed you to be tricked into thinking that it was for OTHER reasons-the ones in the window-dressing.] [Good lord, have you forgotten his ENTIRE reign of tyrrany?When he got to "and nothing beyond that", that's when he REALLY got going. He wanted control to the degree he thought he could potentially run every home fellowship HIMSELF-he threatened it, after all. He had all leaders reporting in, and people reporting ON the people reporting in, and if you had any "godly, loving, honest" questions, you were shown the door and kicked out. If you were living on grounds, you got the "bum's rush." We've got posters here all of that happened to. They reported all this. Where did this amnesia come from? He taught the most RIDICULOUS NONSENSE, and when honest questions came up, all were expected to just accept it and BURY any doubts. This was the era where it was ALWAYS expected that you would OBEY, OBEY, OBEY- whether Regional Coordinator or new guy at fellowship- and told that if the command was disastrous, "GOD WILL COVER."] [Did lcm want only this, or did he want people to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM? When one poster asked lcm if this very same letter was a call to BLINDLY FOLLOW HIM, lcm replied "I HAD BEEN DOING THIS ALL ALONG." So, lcm himself said this was about blindly following him. lcm's actions AFTER this show that it was all about blindly following him. But lcm made a "campaign promise", so Oldies says it must have been only what lcm said in his pious-sounding letter. Ignore the fruit in lcm's life, ignore lcm's policies. lcm CLAIMED to just have godly motives- when the cameras were on- so that must be the absolute truth. Bayloewnay, salami, luncheon loaf, and a slab of pastrami.]

Ozzy Osbourne Austin Powers: Goldmember John Travolta

It's not so much folly as inconsistency. Poor lcm- vpw can do almost anything, and people will justify his actions- be a drunkard, rape, kick people out for insufficient grovelling.... but let lcm try the same things, and they say "hey! rape is wrong!" etc. The key to what lcm wanted was the "obedience and support." The window-dressing was "godly, loving, honest", which is why the "godly, loving, honest" disagreements were met with FURY. It WAS pushing people to carnality. It was pushing people to carnality when vpw did it. It was pushing people to carnality when lcm did it. vpw got away with it. So, it was ALWAYS wrong, but sometimes, people gave vpw a free pass when he did wrong, although they would have realized it was wrong if ANOTHER person did it. We saw examples of this in the "vp and me in wonderland" thread. vpw would have a chat with lcm, them announce the corps were all kicked out. This was in violation of the gentleman's agreement, and the verbal and possibly written contracts that were written. They agreed to show up, PAY MONEY, and do their best without backing out. He agreed to run a program to the best of his ability without backing out. However, vpw (and lcm, who was the program's administrator) violated their ends of the agreements when it suited vpw. Then vpw offered the people-who had been acting in good faith up to the moment vpw demonstrated BAD faith and kicked them all out- a chance to re-enter the program where they were kicked out without cause. The chance required people to submit a 3 x 5 card EXPRESSING THEIR WILLINGNESS TO OBEY LEADERSHIP. vpw did it AGAIN with the people who had trouble making their money requirements. He got them to agree to quit smoking and use that money for their requirements. When some of them later admitted to still smoking, vpw kicked them all out. Then he allowed them to re-apply with their 3 x 5 cards- so long as they agreed to OBEY LEADERSHIP and GOT THEIR MONEY IN.

Someone mentioned the dreaded 3 x 5 cards that came up here, at least twice....

Looks like Paul would STILL disagree with your statements. You said what Paul did was what PFAL does. PFAL is a class. It sits there. PEOPLE have to be dynamic and actually DO stuff. Paul went into the synagogues and discussed Scriptures, held for positions, and supported them with Scripture. Positions like "Christ must needs have suffered" and that "this Jesus..is Christ". A class sits there. We're having discussions HERE. PFAL, last I checked, has not logged on and posted here. By comparison, Paul would have posted in the Doctrinal or About the Way forum, supporting his positions. So, claiming "that's what PFAL does" when discussing what Paul did is just silly. ---- No, Paul didn't discuss the rationality of whether or not The Scriptures were the Word of God- not when he was in the synagogues. He DID have to do that on Mars' Hill and when he debated in the Agora. (I can fetch the verses if you've forgotten them.) However, many of the discussions here are different Christians discussing positions and doctrines. So, the connection between Christians supporting their statements from Scripture before other Christians, and Paul supporting his statements from Scripture before "other Jews", should be obvious. (Let me know if you need it spelled out.) As for God working in peoples' hearts, that's a non-issue. God expects you to open your mouth, and speak. (I can fetch the verses on that one as well- they're in Romans 10.) Him working in hearts is NEVER an excuse for shirking your duties to speak. (Or, in this case, to type.) C'mon, this is not difficult to see. I KNOW you can see this easily enough. (And no, that's neither a personal attack nor an excuse for one.)

Yes they do, and using the word "parrot" for what WTH does is more than apt. Asking WTH to provide documentation for someting- unless he can cut-and-paste it from someone else- is a lost cause. WTH's posts rarely touch on something original-neither perspective, nor thought, nor even gonzo idea. Not only that, but he's a week late. He was summoned as Mike backup a week ago, and only now is getting around to actually posting on the thread. He held off a few days because posting a few hours after I posted, announcing that PLUS the content of his posts would have just looked sad. I mean, it's one thing to be criticized for just parroting someone else's doctrine and throwing up distractions, but to have a post criticized for doing that BEFORE THE POST IS WRITTEN is a paean to UNoriginality. The closest thing WTH did to original was now he plagiarized Mike rather than vpw or someone offsite. I suppose that might be considered progress of a sort. ======== In other news, I'd not hold my breath waiting for something to back up the wild accusation that Bibles are solely printed to reinforce denominations. vpw didn't have any proof, which means Mike has none, which means WTH has none. Documentationwise, there will be no surprises here. ========== Meanwhile, as always, WTH's post was meant to distract from the main subject. Now, once I was taught that a figure of speech appearing in the Bible was meant to draw attention TO something. Then it remains to see what it was drawing attention TO. When it comes to WTH's posts, we have the opposite effect. Therefore, we know something exists from which the attention is being taken. Then it remains to see what it was drawing attention FROM. In this case, it looks like it's to change the subject off Mike's partial silence on the subject of Christ's return. Now, not posting, in and of itself, is not proof of anything. (We all get busy.) However, with WTH distracting off of this- and Mike's sudden U-turn on offering tl the books- Mike could then hope that nobody remembered either subject when he returned. ======= Star Trek fans know that detection of subspace distortions can be a warning of a cloaked Romulan warbird. That makes the attempted use of a cloaking device into a warning. Similarly, GSC posters can use the appearance of WTH as a warning device, and use them to find what's considered important enough to hide.

Here's some free advice, make of it what you will, Mike.... I think few of us would object to a new thread on the return/rapture, so long as it was a thread specifically for THAT and wasn't used as a backdoor to another thread on Mike's doctrine general. Many of us would read such a thread. If you want people to seriously consider your position, just post it. You can post "this is what I think", or "this is what I think and why", and people can discuss, maybe agree in parts, but thinking honestly in the process. IF, however, you phrase it with all sorts of diversions into "many people think" or "answer this question first" or anything NOT a direct statement, then all you'll do is antagonize your audience. Make of that free advice what you will.

"Truth needs no defense." Eh, chapter and verse, please. What I found was a different story... Acts 17:1-3 "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that 'this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ'." Acts 18:4 "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:19 "And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews." Seems the apostle PAUL disagreed with you. Who you gonna believe-the apostle Paul, or....?

[Judging from the context of his posting pattern, "those who want to learn" must mean "those who will do things EXACTLY the way MIKE wants, and follow Mike's rules without question, and not object." "Those who want to only thwart" Mike, from the context, includes people who want to know, but DON'T follow Mike off the cliff like lemmings. Explains why Mike doesn't get converts here, doesn't it? People here ALREADY did their time in a "obey without question" cult, and do not want ANOTHER.] [Note that this is how Mike ACTUALLY PERCEIVES what goes on here. He perceives himself as the humble servant, and any dissent as people whom he nimbly dodges, and occasionally "head butts into a stupor where they can't tell left from right." Now that he's provided the context of his peculiar phrase, I can contextualize it properly it its previous use where he blamed someone else because he was unable to tell the difference between a mailing address and a pm. Having done that, he claimed the other person was confused, and could not "tell left from right". Apparently, Mike must have pictured himself with his lucha mask on, headbutting people in the arena.]

[since I'm not a political analyst, I won't speculate on Haig and that incident. However, I can comment on this one here. Mike may well determine whom he deals with, and whom he supplies books to (presuming he even HAS them.) However, HERE is this thread in this forum in the GSC. The admin and moderators "are in charge here." Mike keeps wishing this would change and that HE would be in charge here. So far, no such change.]

[WordWolf's comments in boldface as usual.]

[Note that tl "working with him" here in no way suggests Mike will actually "sh* or get off the pot" by sending her the books as he initially promised before he changed his mind.]

[WordWolf's commentary again in boldface.] [For those of you playing along at home... tl said she can be "contacted through e-mail" and Mike read that, even QUOTED it, and then-TWICE- tried to send "a PM". This is the same Mike who accuses the rest of us of poor reading, sloppiness, etc. [Most people would have caught the mistake-if not sooner- when they saw their OWN message where the two things are different. Not Mike. Couldn't POSSIBLY be HIS FAULT. Must be someone else's fault. In this case, tl's the only other suspect, so it MUST be tl's fault. Must have blocked him and FORGOTTEN... ...or deliberately LIED to Mike.] [Hm. Mike is no longer in "polite" mode. We are back to rude Mike, the more default setting. Mike fails to read correctly, and fails to communicate correctly as a result, and this means that "all her respect for him AND his message are in the gutter." Wow. All that from one blocked message, which wasn't even her fault. And, of course, now he's claiming a pretext to rescind his offer. His word of honour, apparently, has a revolving door. And, apparently, he read my reference to how he's "moving the goalposts", because he's referring to them. And taking it out on tl. Apparently, she needs to earn the respect she lost when Mike was unable to comprehend what he read when reading and QUOTING her message, which was entirely his fault to begin with. He's been draining her account. He must have forged her name and written checks off her account. Is anyone besides Mike buying Mike's version of events?]

How about that. If I refer to Mike without a quote, Mike yells I'm afraid of people seeing his words. If I refer to Mike with short quotes, Mike yells I'm not providing content. If I refer to Mike with complete quotes, now I'm wrong for repeating text blocks. I guess, according to Mike, I'm only right if I stop posting entirely. Looks like Mike isn't going to think I'm right anytime soon.

Batman and Robin Arnold Schwarzenegger Total Recall

I felt this was worth repeating, without any additions, subtractions or commentary on my part.

[WordWolf's commentary in boldface, but you all knew that by now.] [This is Mike in "nice" mode. Mike occasionally switches BACK from "nasty" mode-as you've seen in the last few pages or so- into a "nice" mode- which then becomes his excuse for saying he's been nice to people (after having riled them with insults and jabs), then having them respond in a less-than-nice mode. It's still the same Mike posting, but this post is in "nice" mode. It's NOT "ghost-written" or anything like that.] [Mind you, this was in RESPONSE...to her response to his claim previously...when she said "Being called a 'social butterfly' and implying that I only go/went to church- LDS or TWI or other- only for social concerns, not spiritual concerns- isn't attacking my Character? What else would you call it, pray tell? And then, to add icing to the cake, you attack my character again my implying I wasn't primarily in a learning mode when I took PFAL 14+ years ago. How in the bloody blue blazes would you KNOW??? You weren't there. You have no idea how many hours I spent studying and reading the collaterals." (BTW, looks like Mike was reading the mind and entire life-story of one of the posters again. This seems to be a sort-of side-profession by now. Some people read tea leaves and give a life-story, Mike reads a post and gives a life-story.) So, WAS Mike's original comment an attack on her character? Well, here's the comment... From 5/3/06, 11pm Eastern... "You seem to focus well on the soap opera here, and I suspect that when you were in the ministry it was social situations you only focused on, and the class material was a mere background for you. The same is probably happening in your Mormon church, because I know how serious my Mormon friends and customers are about doctrine and they'd NEVER waste as much time on a non-Mormon discussion board as you do. In other words, YOU'RE BUSTED! You are a social butterfly! YOu use the Mormon church as a social setting for to flit about, just like you use GSC, and just like you used TWI and the PFAL class as a place to play social games, only playing along with doctrinal matters. I see right through you..." Not only does this look like an insult, you may notice that he went from a SUSPICION to an announcement of fact. I also find it interesting that the fact that tl is having this discussion with him becomes a reason to insult her. "I know you're not serious about God because you're in here posting with me on this messageboard." Ooo, good one! If people don't respond to Mike, they're apathetic to God-now, if they DO, they are ALSO.... BTW, if you scroll up to his more recent defense of his original claim, he said "I said I suspected..." and never mentions that the next paragraph went from the suspicion to an outright claim that his suspicion (which, I suppose, will supposedly be "spiritual") became the statement of fact-becoming genuine. (One might, therefore, consider labelling it 'genuine spiritual suspicion' that this was her thinking and life-story. Interesting if one DOES...) Speaking of "busted"... this same post ends with Mike saying "my offer to get you the books stands." Mind you, tl has been rather specific. She's not only claimed that she would read the books, but that she could fill in the supposed relevant quotes FROM the books that Mike supposedly wants us to see, but seems unwilling or unable to bother posting, when he gives a page# and then changes the subject. Seems like this would be a positive thing from his perspective- direct quotes HE said were relevant, from pfal.] [This is known as "moving the goalposts." See, Mike already placed an offer on the table for himself to send tl the books. "My offer to get you the books stands." When she ACCEPTED-saying her mailing address was posted and he can see it on EVERY POST of hers, Mike then CHANGED his word to "If you can't trust me in PM, I can't entrust to you the books." Seems tl is well-aware of the long history of posters communicating with Mike by pm, or phonecall AT HIS INSISTENCE, then ALL OF THEM changing to refuse to accept any private communication with him of any kind. Perhaps she remembers one woman- was it CW? Ex-C? - who said he was taking private confidences she had shared with him and using them to try to change the subject in threads in the "About the Way" forum, incidentally using them to lead to a false conclusion. Perhaps he's familiar with others who said that he did that sort of thing in the Doctrinal forum, on THESE threads. Either way, people in general refuse to communicate privately with Mike. They also refuse to walk thru dark alleys at night in bad neighborhoods. Seems there's a consensus that these are not good ideas. Now Mike has invoked an excuse-that she's not willing to accede to what is generally considered to be an "unreasonable request"- so that he would fulfill his own word- his UNQUALIFIED OFFER to send her the books. Go back to 5/3/06, 11pm Eastern. Is there a qualification to his offer? There is not. That is why tl very naturally said "ok-here's my mailing address. I'll wait by my mailbox." (I'm using a figure of speech, an idiom.) THEN Mike saw she was serious, and began adding conditions to change her response. (First, you shall bring me a shrubbery. Then, you shall bring me another shrubbery. Then, you shall chop down the mightiest tree in the forest. With a herring. Finally, she walks off, saying it can't be done. This technique is famous among fans of "Holy Grail". ]

And it's not "noob", it's "n00b", you n00b, you! n00b: from "newbie", its usually a new person still stumbling with something and not up to speed. L337: from "elite", it's both something cool and first-rate (or "uber-"), or the online slang and typing style we're discussing. As in "I am teh L337 gamer!" "Or 'OMG do u speek l337?'" (That's usually meant ironically, as a slam.) r0x0rs: something really cool- "This game r0x0rs!" And 2 terms from Japanese animation fans (otaku): kawaii: cute (meant in an innocent way- a kitten can be kawaii, but that hot babe is not) chibi: the miniturized, somewhat more kawaii version of something I once shocked one teenager by replying, in perfect AOL/L337 slang: "OMG!!11! Teh chibis r so kawaii!!1!!" I commented that us old folks can still learn languages. And you'll want to look this instructional flash video over... http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php And here's a list of some common internet abbeviations: http://netforbeginners.about.com/cs/netiqu...eviations_2.htm

Mike, I already replied to it all, and you missed it. IMHO, they are essentially dead issues, but if you MUST drag them up, we CAN discuss them. However, since you're already QUITE busy, and supposedly don't have time for all the LIVE issues on the table, I'd recommend leaving them as poor uses of limited resources. Of course, you can always disregard that and bring them up again. It would do a disservice to all those you "don't have time for", however.

And now for some more "well-mannered conversation" from Mike.... Feel free to click back and read the entire post, or just scroll up for it. We've got more insults and more homework. Mike STILL thinks the GSC is his classroom, he is the professor, and the posters are students of his. Mike's not mentally incapable of understanding that HIS posting determines the speed of the posting here, and if he wants the thread to slow down, all he needs to do is stop posting on it, and it goes back to sleep until he returns. Therefore, he knows this-it's been pointed out several times, more than once by me-and this claim that he's too busy in all his replies- is simply another form of dodge. He's too busy to reply to everyone else's posts, but they're all supposed to read HIS posts. They're supposed to do any homework he assigns, but he can't just come out and speak plainly and say "This is what I believe". (He's been asked to do that every few months for over a year, and has no signs of doing so now. There's always an excuse-"I was GOING to, but you're now unworthy of me speaking plainly, so I'm going to continue to speak cryptically...")

The Shadow Peter Boyle Young Frankenstein

Basically, it's a strategy of distraction. It says that: A) Some people have used atrocity propaganda in the past, therefore the Holocaust didn't happen. B) It claims there were eyewitnesses who did flybys of some sites, and they claim they didn't see atrocities, therefore no atrocities occurred anywhere. C) This was virtually unknown at the time, therefore it didnt happen. As to the first, it is a non-issue, and a distraction. Some people have lied in the past-that doesn't invalidate any truth. As to the second, as Abigail pointed out, it's missing SPECIFICS. WHO made these claims? WHERE did they claim to look? And so on. Heck, if a guy looked all over England and didn't see Jews being massacred, he could not honestly say this is proof they aren't being massacred in Dachau or any other location at that very moment. (I'm making an example.) As to the third, I've done some research. Some members of the Roman Catholic Church actually operated an "underground railroad" to try to get Jews out of Nazi occupied areas. There are photos of the 'railroad', the Jews, and the Churchmen. And the non-Jew I met, who had a number tattoed into his arm by the Nazis, he said NOTHING about ANYTHING being reported being exaggerated- but he spoke of much that he DID see... ========= OM, I would respect your candor a lot more if you just came right out and said you refused to seriously consider the vast majority of the MATERIAL EVIDENCE and EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS because you do not WISH to, and do not WISH to CHANGE YOUR MIND. It would at least be more intellectually honest than claiming that you've examined the cases for and against, and honestly can't tell where the preponderance of the evidence is.

Ok, let's see... Here's what I said... This just goes to show you that if you keep typing long enough (I've been posting on the GSC since before Y2K, IIRC), you can make a bad post. Now, I could do like Mike and pretend I never posted a mistake, and just go on, hoping it will blow over. Or, I could demonstrate a higher standard of behaviour, and internal consistency, 'fess up, and fix it, and say what I SHOULD have said. I chose the latter. Now, then, when I said "Those who interacted with vpw in his last few months", that was hyperbole, an exaggeration. What I SHOULD have said was "Those who were active in the ministry at the time". I'm so used to multi-tasking on Mike's posts, and with Mike contradicting the live witnesses, that I sorta typed this out of habit. That was wrong, and I should pay a bit more attention when I type. As for "and that came AFTER 'the Joy of Serving", that was incorrect and not what I MEANT to say. It's true-I made an error. I'll admit I finally made one on these threads. Since Mike's been loading them with logic fallacies, errors, mistakes and outright lies, and not admitting to them, I think it should be forgiveable that I made one (or 1 1/2, depending on how you call it) and owned up to it. I shall clarify what I MEANT to say. When I said " 'THE HOPE' was the last teaching he covered for people" THAT was COMPLETELY CORRECT. vpw SPECIFICALLY taught that for EVERYONE, and expected THAT to be his very last public teaching-his last teaching for everyone. When reviewing the opening of "the Joy of Serving", anyone can see that he specifically addressed it- not to everyone, or "the people" as I called them, but to COUNTRY COORDINATORS. He was NOT teaching with a view towards this one going out to the rank and file, Joe and Jane Believer. That's because he says in the opening-and Mike himself has attested to this: "Since this is the meeting here at this time of COUNTRY COORDINATORS --and of course, what I'm going to say SHOULD be applicable to every born-again believer, but ESPECIALLY to-- our coordinators.]" He also addresses himself shortly thereafter to leadership again- "That twig and twig area leader, and the country coordinators, leadership of the Corps, of the WOWs,..." So, my main point- that "THE HOPE" was the LAST teaching vpw intended for all the people to hear- that was CORRECT. My other point- that 'the Joy of Serving' was NEVER intended to be a last message FOR ALL THE PEOPLE, but Mike has built it up to be so, and has exercised various verbal gymnastics to attempt to make it so. So, vpw's comments about what he'd say to people if he knew he was going to never see them again, those comments- if they apply to ANY teaching, for EVERYBODY- those comments apply to "THE HOPE." Now, some people are paying attention and wonder where my comments about people mentioning this before come in. Well, some entire threads have been wiped out, and, unlike Mike, I have not been keeping an archive of the threads where Mike's idolatry has been discussed and exposed. However, deleted posts to the contrary, I WAS able to find the following comment, which did NOT exist in a void. (I don't have ALL the posts, but I found this one.) It was posted by Zixar, Jan 6, 2003, 5:12pm. "Another thing. One of the most basic keys to biblical interpretation that Dr. Wierwille taught was to get 'to whom it was written' straight. Reading your transcript of the 'Last' Teaching, it is PRIMARILY addressed to the Country Coordinators, and only SECONDARILY addressed to believers in general. That makes it his last teaching specifically only for Country Coordinators. Dr. Wierwille knew his true, public Last Teaching would be tape # 1275, 'The Hope'. It was addressed to all believers, and is his final message to TWI assembled. Therefore, unless you are a Country Coordinator, the advice to master the FC, IC and collaterals is not an absolute final mandate. Look to 'The Hope' for that." Mike's reply to that was to say it ONCE applied to them, but NOW applies to everyone. "My Daddy is blind to name tag status, He looks at believing." Now, then, THAT was what I MEANT to say. I got sloppy, and didn't post it originally. Thus, this correction. I shall try to make it ANOTHER 6 years before I make another. Meanwhile, I noticed Mike saw me refute him for several pages, but skipped over THOSE posts-and most of this one, actually- and seized on my first actual mistake, as if it was the only thing I've posted all year.... Now, this was sloppy of me, but not "incredibly irresponsible" of me. If I claimed, say, that "the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God", and then spent the rest of my time saying that the Bible wasn't a Bible anymore, but a collection of books, tapes and magazine clippings were-in varying percentages- now the revealed Word and Will of God, and that the Bible that originally WAS claimed to be the revealed Word and Will of God is now "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants", then THAT would be "incredibly irresponsible" of me. That would be internal inconsistency of the first order, and it would be to my shame. However, if I was Mike, that type of internal inconsistency is just business as usual. Mike and I have different standards for an acceptable doctrine and an acceptable post. As for "huge errors" that "plague a mind", I'd say taking "the keys to Genesis to Revelation" and saying "this is Genesis to Revelation", and taking "then shall we say 'thus saith the LORD'" and saying "we will no longer to say 'thus saith the LORD then", I'd consider those "huge errors", and mixing up a pair of dates is an error, but hardly to be compared to a "HUGE ERROR." "This is one reason I find your posts repulsive." Hardly. I made ONE mistake. Mike finds my posts repulsive in general for the same reason the robber finds the policeman to be unwelcome. He had that problem LONG before I finally made a goof. I neither deliberately lie nor am MONUMENTALLY sloppy. This time I was 'sloppy', but not in a MONUMENTAL fashion. A MONUMENTAL mistake would be to throw away the meal and eat the menu, and that's not the type of mistake I made. However, that IS the type of mistake we've seen around here...