WordWolf

True. Mike's very good at doing his best to try to draw attention to that which he is UNABLE to defend. You remember when he stated OUTRIGHT what his policy was, some time ago- distract, deflect, evade-but never admit an error is an error. Since he is unable to answer Steve's question, Steve's question is "unimportant". Since Goey pointed out that he violated vpw's own rules of taking the CONTEXT into account when trying to make a theology out of the placement of the word "necessarily" in one sentence, Goey's guilty of disregarding a "local contra-context." What IS a "local contra-context", BTW? Must be a new term made up to obfuscate the fact that Mike's own vocabulary of legitimate terms isn't up to keeping pace with Goey's own assertions. Mike's been pretty consistent in disregarding ANY part of PFAL (which, according to Mike, is God-breathed) which invalidates his position. ------------------------------------------ Any chance we'll see him actually address Steve's perfectly legitimate question about realms superceding each other, and their use as an analogy? Doubtful. It's either "umimportant" or a "dishonest question" or some other vague accusation.

On other forums where younger teenagers post, I have occasionally had a specific comment. It was this. They felt very defensive that they posted what were seen as silly ideas, and were challenged on them. So, they reacted in a hostile and defensive fashion. My reply was to explain a basic rule of decorum in debate, which works on other boards. You put forth a statement, or advance a position. That position is then challenged by others. You now have three possible VALID responses. A) RETRACT your position- "I've seen the error of my ways!" B) REPHRASE your position- "I've been misunderstood, and here's how!" C) SUPPORT your position- "Here's why you should agree with me!" -------------------------------------------- Like many people here and elsewhere, I have found it necessary to rephrase myself from time to time. That's because I know what I meant, but somehow it didn't translate into a post that others could easily understand. That happens sometimes. We're human. Anyone here who's seen me start a post with the words "thank you for giving me another change to explain that", or "Yeah, THAT'S what I meant" has seen that in action. I DON'T think it's proper to immediately attack people for misunderstanding what I MEANT to say. I accept that I make imperfect posts, and that's not proof of a conspiracy. Some people might reconsider their approach to the INEVITABLE misunderstandings. Shazdancer has ALREADY pointed this out, with both eloquence and greater brevity than me. ----------------------------------------------- Further, it's BAD form to advance a position and then insist it's right without defending it. "My position is right! You disagree because you are too lazy to read up on it, and those of you who've read up and still disagree are wrong because you didn't read it correctly!" Steve Lortz addressed a specific issue. He asked a specific question. Steve pointed out the reasoning is circular and incomplete. Mike then had 3 valid possible responses- A) agree and RETRACT his position B) REPHRASE his position C) SUPPORT his position Mike's response? "..you're more interested in tripping me up in some statement that I made..." "I'm admitting that I am not paying much attention to the details of your demands." "My priorities are such that proving anything to you is very low in how much time and attention I'm willing to give it." That's NONE of the three approaches. That's an evasion. Further, it's a clear violation of Robert's Rules of Order, concerning decorum in debate. That is, you debate the POSITION, not the PERSON. Tossing around accusations and insults does NOT support one's position. Steve was approaching Mike's assertions in a respectful tone, and with honest discussion. Mike's response: I'm not answering that! You're obviously trying to trip me up! NO, MIKE-he's challenging your thesis! If your position is CORRECT, it can stand a little HONEST scrutiny in discussion. If it CAN'T stand up to scrutiny, then it's NOT correct, and you should sit down. (I'm not addressing comments that were not made between Mike and others that were more insult-slinging, just between honest attempts at discussion and Mike's responses.) ----------------------------------------- Further, Mike, "posing challenging questions" is not the same as "I told you to read everything VPW wrote!" That's not a question at all-that's a demand. Further, it's an evasion, and a refusal to support your position. If you're going to post at the GSC, you have accepted the climate here. That includes the reality that you will be engaged in REAL DEBATE. Either roll up your sleeves and prepare for some INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE, or be prepared to have the deficiency of your positions pointed out over...and over...and over...and over...... with your only response being "None of you can read correctly! You are all unfit researchers! You have all decided to misunderstand me! I'm the only honest one here! All of your challenges are invalid!" That's just going to look worse and worse as time rolls on. Tiresome, too. Well, you've got a choice. I figure I know what decision you'll make, but, hey, you might surprise me (and the rest of us who actually discuss things.)

Uh, No, Mike, it's NOT news. Many of us ARE quite capable of reading with comprehension, and have been doing so for years. (Even when material isn't quite up to scratch.)

Steve, I'm betting you catch what I saw in the last post, in answer to your question. Since it's your question, I'll let you address it, though. :)--> --------------------------------------------- Mike, for now, I'll drop the discussion of credentials, training, education and experience, mainly because, at present, it's not going to enhance the discussions. Keep in mind that I reserve the right to do so if it becomes germane to any thread. (Like someone claiming qualifications.) It's certainly not because I thought your answer addressed my question. For now, I can agree to "table" it.

So, without a degree in ANYTHING, you found a place willing to employ you doing "thirty years of research in quantum physics INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.) I openly challenge THAT happened, then. BTW, if you are under 45, that means that you started younger than age 15, and have just finished doing that research. If you are 50, you started at age 18 and stopped to years ago. (Or just stopped and started at age 20.) ---------------------------------------------- Unless you have your own special definition of "research" or "30 years". Was that it?

After seeing how you "handled" other scientific subjects, I openly challenge you having a degree in physics, qualifying you to do "30 years of research in quantum physics INCLUDING THE MATH". (Emphasis yours.) Furthermore, I'm just a little curious how someone with a veritable lifetime's worth of research in physics is not working in anything vaguely resembling academia, unless he can do better for himself (like, say, run a corporation.) Sorry, Mike, I just don't take anyone's word that they're well-researched, qualified, or "THE anything" anymore.

Being born again gives one considerable tools for doing the will of God. It does NOT make one immune to committing sinful behaviour, nor does it make one immune to devilish influence. What one is SUPPOSED to do is make the decision to "make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof." One is SUPPOSED to call on the power of God, not automatically assume He's zapping every devil that approaches you. The idea that leadership could provision places and times for sinful behaviour, inviting devilish influence, and expect God to force His protection on him despite his choices was profoundly silly, and practiced from the top.

seaspray, I'm glad you're tone has improved. I'm hoping we can disagree with fewer insults this time around. HOWEVER, you said "the greatest scientific and religious minds on the planet all agreed the earth was flat". This makes for a nifty song, and a fable exalting eurocentric colonialism, but in NO way reflects the historical accounts. Columbus' sailors and captains all knew the world was round. The REAL question on those ships was whether or not there would be time to reach the East Indies before they ran out of room. (Incidentally, if they did NOT bump into an entire other hemisphere, they WOULD have run out of food, returning to Europe or starving.) This was OLD NEWS. In the days of the GREEK EMPIRE (BC times), they knew the world was round. A few evidences of this included the round shadow the earth casts on the moon, how the horizon curves, etc. Sailors have plenty of evidence of this, so this was common knowledge. In fact, it was Eratosthenes who calculated out the circumference of the earth using calculus. His figure was correct, plus or minus a tiny fraction/margin of error. In fact, we've discussed this in the GSC before. (That was when someone pointed out that it was Eratosthenes who did the math, not Anaxander.) In case you are wondering, I learned this in college, I saw this on PBS, and I reread this in a book I bought fairly recently. This is NOT secret knowledge. The tendency to speak authoritatively on subjects in which one is not an authority was epidemic in twi, and is more common at the GSC than among most Christians. (From what I've seen.) -------------------------------------------------------- I DID want to address Mike's repeated insult of the rest of the GSC again. Coolwaters beat me to it, of course. Mike, this may come as a surprise to you, again. THE REST OF US CAN THINK. WE HAVE BEEN THINKING. WE ALL CAME TO CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN YOU. That's not because we were "lazy". Lots of people here are equally determined as you, lots have equal or greater experience to you, lots are smarter than you. NONE OF THEM CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS YOU. We don't need to "RE-THINK" anymore. The only things "significant" about your opposition are the huge blocks of time you give it, and the fact that Pawtucket hasn't canned your @$$ long ago. (BTW, I DID vote NOT to force you out. I would rather have had you moderate your tone and learn manners than you be dumped.) You owe Paw an inestimable thanks. Your insistence that you are the one voice crying in the wilderness is insulting and amazingly narrow-minded. "Ever want to obey God on this?" Well, if your definition of obeying God is your idolatrous worshipping of a man-especially THAT man-then I can pass. I'll stick with the Bible's definition of obeying God. I'll obey the things clearly written, and the things He tells me directly, NOT the things one man claims another man was told by God. You know, if your manner was a LOT less arrogant and insulting, you'd get a LOT less flak for your idiotic posts. (Idiotic being from "idios", meaning "one's own", as taught in pfal.) Actually, Coolwaters said it all better than me.

Somebody just mentioned this, so I thought I'd bring it back now, for those of you who missed it the first time.

Mike, you've got a LOT of nerve invoking Joseph and vpw in the same sentence. Joseph suffered quietly for YEARS in prison and never turned his back on God. When a female FORCED HER affection on Joseph, a slave, what did he do? Did he say "well, I've been a slave for years, I have 'needs', she has 'needs', she's obviously consenting, and she's hot, so..."? NO! He was resolved not to sin against God, and, when normal methods of reinforcement proved insufficient, he RAN! He refused to sin against God, no matter WHO consented. ---------- Compare that to vpw, who insisted on his creature comforts, and everyhing being EXACTLY the way he wanted it. Compare that to vpw, who premeditated sin, who designated places for sin, figured out targets for sin, conducted approaches to said targets (separating sheep from the herd), approached said targets or sent designates to approach them, had them sent to places so he could sin, violated them, then did whatever he "needed" to gag or silence them when awestruck devotion was not enough to silence someone who was the victim of a "Hophni/Phineas" level of sin. ------------ You've got a lot of nerve putting those 2 men in the same category. vpw was not fit to loose the sandals of Joseph. vpw a victim of persecution? Tell that to the women he violated. Tell that to their families. Tell that to the people whose lives he ruined by turning them into accomplices. Tell that to all the writers that he (and God, you suggest?) stole from. Tell that to everyone whose reputation he ruined when they challenged any of that, and whom he counted on to vanish-before the internet. Oh, BTW, their suffering at his DIRECT actions (not the actions of those who somehow "failed to follow his teachings") was NOT the result of their failing to believe or carry out anyone's instructions. It was the result of being the victim of someone else's crime. Are you ready to claim the victims of crimes are generally responsible for the crimes, since they failed to believe-away the criminal? (Edited to correct Joseph's timeline.) [This message was edited by WordWolf on April 30, 2003 at 19:22.]

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that song.... It's always a good one to remember just in case you're going to be on Jeopardy. Zix, Steve, if I ever get the time, I may start sketching out rules for that RPG you mentioned. However, I'd almost certainly use White Wolf's Storyteller system, since it's accessible, and people can read and understand it within the first 1/2 hour. I just need a catchy name in the "Noun:the Adjective" format.

I can't speak for free internet service providers (ISPs). I CAN tell you something about free e-mail services. I disdain hotmail and yahoo. You can find free e-mail services by going to http://www.fepg.net/ and using their "Posty" widget. Select from their list what advantages you want, and they'll tell you which free services offer it.

*grabs pen and paper* Let's see. Three-thousand people, prayer for 60 seconds each. That's 50 hours a day each day to pray for them all one minute. Let's cut the time in half. Thirty seconds of prayer a day, for all 3000. That's half the time, or 25 hours a day , each day. (Reminder: each day has 24 hours.) Let's cut it in half AGAIN. This means 15 seconds of prayer a day, every day, for all 3,000. That's not a lot of time to pray for someone. *steps away for a moment* Having just timed 15 seconds of prayer, I have indeed determined that 15 seconds of prayer CAN cover the basics for a person, although it leaves no time for specific needs or intentions. So, let's suppose 15 seconds. (My experiment showed LESS time would be insufficient unless you were PRETENDING to pray.) That's half the time AGAIN, or 12 1/2 hours a day, each day, CONTINUOUSLY, without a pause, to pray JUST for the WOWs. Pulling that off ONCE would be taxing, and be a peculiar absence of the person 1/2 the day. This does NOT include any prayers for the WC, the onsite staff, the grounds, or the "huge network of believing" to protect the USA. Adding even 15 seconds-worth of prayer for each, EVERY day, would require the ability to pray and believe at speeds exceeding a tobacco auctioneer. That's not in the Superhero category? The Flash could keep up with you, but Batman couldn't. Remember, he wasn't a machine in the basement- he needed to at least spend minimum amounts of time eating, sleeping, meeting the fans, and blessing a few of them in the back of the prayermobile once in a while. -------------- Man, Dot beat me to it. We could give life and take it away. ----------------- I think IGotOut and Dot Matrix's combined believing was what saved us from Y2K returning us to the Dark Ages, before the internet and cellphones. Well done, you two. :D-->

A) When discussing any work, whether in the spoken or written medium, it is always understood that the CONTEXT and FORMAT affects the discussion. In the case of storytelling to little children, (or adults), the expectation unless told otherwise is that you are passing along a story that you've heard. I've enjoyed hearing such stories, and enjoyed passing them along. (Having a high-recall is great for reciting entire stories verbatim.) When referring to things anecdotally, however, I always give my source. That's usually considered intellectually honest, and is expected of my by everyone whom I respect. (Including some sharp children.) In any literary format, including comic books, the writer is morally and LEGALLY bound to cite his references. Now, unless you're trying to say that vpw's collateral readings were morally and situationally equivalent to bedtime stories to children, that's another strawman. ------------------------------------------ B) Technically speaking, I suppose I could dream up dozens of theoretical ways that vpw's sentences could mysteriously duplicate those of other authors that he'd been previously exposed to. That's a mental exercise, though. To state that any or all of them have any reasonable chance to have happened, though, is silly. One addresses the possibilities that had any reasonable chance to have occurred. I've seen some sad conspiracy theories. One thing they have in common is an absence of facts. Another thing they have in common is the concealment of a lack of data by insinuating and suggesting that various theoretical possibilities are likely. Unless one is trying to blindly push an agenda, though, this is never seen with respect. I suppose Johnny Cochran sees this differently than I do. C) Yes, you caught me. No denying it. I assumed you had NOT spent extensive amounts of time among Christians outside the OLG twi framework you are fond of. The reason is very, very simple. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since there are PLENTY of wise, experienced, learned Christians out there, and you STILL have the expectation that only the pfal grads know stuff, there were 3 possibilities: A) Mike has met other Christians, and utterly dismisses their knowledge as effectively worthless (especially compared to pfal) B) Mike has met other Christians, but had somehow missed meeting any with significant knowledge due to being sheltered from them C) Mike has NOT met other Christians, and is honestly overgeneralizing. Since "C" was the most intellectually-honest, I assumed that was the correct answer. That is, you have NOT met other Christians and blown off all those whose opinions differ from your own. ----- So, if I NOW understand correctly, you've been exposed to the learnings of OTHER CHristians, and you STILL honestly believe there's no REAL wisdom outside of pfal? And that the English versions of the Bible are nearly worthless "remnants", made virtually useless by time and forgery?? Let me know if you really do want to address the whole idea-theft concept. Normally, you evade it whenever possible, but I'm game to supporting my view if you're game.

Translation for the home audience: Yes, Mike thinks it's perfectly fine for vpw to lift exact quotes from the books of others and put them in his own book, without citing that they are quotes, or citing the source. He does NOT view that as intellectually dishonest, since he deems that the end-teaching- justifies the means-misrepresentation, and what's now referred to as "idea theft". Further, the act of citing would have cluttered up the book and make it difficult to read, despite the fact that many books group all their footnotes at the END of the book or chapter to prevent just that sort of thing. Since vpw was a genius with a degree, he obviously considered such an approach, but obviously deemed his normal method-absence of citation-would be so much more beneficial to us. That's how much he loved us-he would use an approach unpopular among intelligensia and in virtually all 'research' books in order to provide the maximum blessing to us. Further yet, since those approaches were typical of the establishment, he used his 'anti-establishment' posture to claim solidarity with us. ___________________________________________________ I am unsure if his current stance also reflects a belief that vpw did NOT lift whole sentences word-for-word out of the books of others; his earlier statements had reflected a stance that got "airlifted" whole sections verbatim to vpw, coincidentally using EXACTLY the same words as writers vpw just happened to have read before. That assertion was alluded to on page 10 of this thread and addressed. -------------------------------------------------- Mike, If you spend significant amounts of time among learned Christians who never heard of vpw or twi, you'll make at least one amazing discovery.... They've learned amazing things that somehow were never part of our "education". Among them are far MORE detailed studies of the history of Scripture than we were exposed to. If you go out there expecting you know it all, you will get a rude awakening from experts in areas you've barely scratched the surface in. Our education was grossly deficient in showing the history of the texts. However, some information DID reach us. What do the names "Masoretic Text" and "Samaritan Pentateuch" mean to you? (That's in initial response to the question you claim no one wants to address.) It's only fair, since you've made an attempt at my question, that I make one at yours. This is not my FINAL word on this subject, just as I'm hoping for a definition of mastery. (Seems someone else is asking for it, as well, Mike-perhaps you didn't define it as clearly as you thought?)

Dizzy: A) Yes, you were right. You didn't come to the same conclusions he did, therefore, you didn't REALLY arrive. Mike knows the material better than you. QED. B) Dizzy, if you return to the "discussion", PLEASE cite page, paragraph, etc, and provide a quote. C) Please consider returning. I hate being the only canine in the discussion. ------------------------------------------ Mike, A) I honestly thought I did a fair job of summarizing your previous statements on what I cited. With the exception of a single parenthetical editorializing, they were near-verbatim quotes of what you've said on various subjects, As someone pointed out, they may not be the WAY you'd like them summarized, but they are the same points. Frankly, although they're phrased in a way that most GSC'ers would disagree with them, that does not mean that any point was misrepresented. Honestly, pick ONE. If you'd like a point-by- point analysis, we can do that, but you seem inclined against it. So, pick ONE and make a case. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm going to misrepresent you, intentionally or no. (Unless you're convinced that's impossible.) ---- B) Technically, I'm still waiting for a "definition" of mastering. You provided a checklist of things to do to GET to mastery, but you still haven't defined the end-gial, the destination. That's a partial answer, and does give me some information. As I said from the beginning, I thought about what you wrote on the subject. I will think some more on it before coming to any conclusions, and I'd prefer the rest of the information before forming an opinion. The world is not filled with 1) your acolytes, 2) your enemies 3) people who've not heard enough to believe the doctrine of Mike. If you REALLY think I've been coming after you, you grossly underestimate my persistence.

Dizzy, let me brief you on a little that you missed. Mike has rather proudly proclaimed, on several occasions, that vpw's writings-pfal as a class and the collateral books-are of superior value than that Bible you respect (as did vpw, in that SAME class.) He's called the modern Bible versions "remnants", as if they were left-over pieces of something useful left behind. He's said it's of dubious benefits to study at all, and thinks believing it is silly, simply a kow-towing to religious traditions and blind acceptance of leadership's statements. On the other hand, Mike has PROUDLY proclaimed that pfal and all vpw-written pfal materials are of far surpassing benefit. He's said they are God's communication to us, just as Romans, say, was God's communication to Christians in Rome. He views them as superior in every way to that Bible-thing you value. He bases this claim on the "1942 promise" and the snowstorm, and vpw's claims that vpw heard from God, saw a miracle vision of snow, and received all his important writings at the direct communication of God Almighty. In the event vpw's work and the Bible in your hands contradict, your Bible is in error and vpw is right. That's because vpw was superior in both the mental and physical categories. ----------- Mind you, that's not me, that's from various posts Mike himself has made. (I'm not counting anyone else's claims to Mike's account.) ---------------------------- There's a lot more, but that's the basics. This post directly above mine illustrates the contrast. "..the not-so-God=breathed KJV..the very-much-so- God-breathed PFAL writings..." -------------------------------- Let me know if you need to be directed to specific threads where he's made claims.

Anyone here heard the claim that we expected Jesus Christ to show up during vpw's lifetime? 'Cmon, don't be shy, I know SOMEBODY heard it. You don't even have to admit you said it...

This thread's purpose is NOT to claim that all evil in the world proceeded from vpw. (Some did, most did not.) This thread's purpose is NOT to claim that vpw's works-his teachings, his books, etc. were of zero usefulness whatsoever. (Some were quite nice, some had considerable error, in doctrine as well as phrasing, as written by the author.) Since certain people keep trying to claim this is the stance of anyone who fails to fall in a prostrate manner and venerate his writings, I felt the need to get that out of the way AGAIN. ------------------------------------------------------------ This thread IS, specifically, for the wild, grandiose, inflated claims you've heard over the years. Some of you've heard all sorts of wild fanboy adulation about vpw. I suppose anyone's entitled to be a fan(atic) when they want to be, but there's a limit to REASONABLE claims. I'd like to see some of the ridiculous abilities, experiences and claims attributed to vpw. ------------------------------------------------------------- I'll start off. I was told, back in 1989, one of the reasons there were problems after vpw's death was that, as a direct result of his death, "that huge network of believing vanished." That is, an ex-corpse person, who was in "active rebellion" against twi's draconian statements in 1989, had said that during vpw's life, his believing, and his believing ALONE, acted like a huge net over the entire USA, thwarting the devil like some huge construct of Green Lantern's ring. Once vpw died, it vanished, forcing the rest of us mortals to deal with things as best we could. ------------------------------------------------------- Please chime in anytime, on any subject-I know we've got TONS out there....

ALL of us are quoting from "fading memories"? Guess you've missed a LOT of threads. A lot of us post with quotes directly from book or tape, with citations. If we're quoting word-for-word from a source directly in front of our noses, how then could it be a "fading memory"? --------------------------------- No, wait, I know- anything that shows vpw as unfit somehow is unreliable. Either it's a deliberate lie or forgery, or the frame of mind of the reader somehow invalidates a direct quote, or it's a misquote, or something. Whatever it is, anything that depicts vpw as somehow tainted must be suppressed, ignored or somehow discounted. No matter who said it, or how much documentation supports it, it must NOT be true, since that would invalidate vpw as the MOGFOT. So. direct quotes become "fading memories."

OK, now THAT one I'd call a 2 plus 2 equals 5 error, when documented and stated that way. I'm just casting my vote. :)-->

Actually, you'll want to read up on Harry Houdini before calling yourself an authority on him. (No, you didn't go that far yet-I'm going somewhere.) Harry Houdini was perhaps the biggest SKEPTIC of his time. He was well aware that his OWN skills were not supernatural, but practised. So, much of his later life was spent debunking hucksters and frauds. (The Amazing Randi currently does this type of work.) Even in his death, Houdini left a lasting challenge. He challenged anyone to bring him back in a seance. He left behind secret passwords that, if they ever were revealed to someone in a seance, should prove that they really DID speak to him. (Or at least, someone legitimately supernatural.) To this day, people keep trying to "call him up". No successes. ----------------------------------------- Does anyone have access to Catharist materials? I was just reminded of them. This entire thread just drove home to me that certain people view everything as having EXACTLY 2 positions, no more, no less. Examples: It's either natural, or spiritual. It's either 100% the Word of God, or 10 % dross. Either he never spoke anything of God, or his every utterance was God's ultimate expression. Either pfal is perfect, or God gave no real way to learn, to us. No middle ground, ever. No room for dissent, either-only announcement and recitation. (Either I'm 100% right or 100% wrong.) ---------------------------------------------- Mike, I went back and fixed the odd margins. I was honestly surprised you addressed my question. You gave me 1/2 my answer, which is a lot more than I expected. You gave an outline on "how to master pfal". Well, that's part of what I was looking for, of course. My specific question was on a definition of some kind about what it means TO master. You gave guidelines to getting there, but still haven't provided a definition of the destination. ------------------------------------------- BTW, in the last teaching you quoted, vpw said "the only criticisms I've ever seen in God's Word that Jesus Christ ever gave were to the religionists." That statement sure make the "religionists" (whoever disagrees with us) look bad. However, it sure leaves out a lot. Jesus criticized Mary, his mother, at Cana. "what do you wan't from me? It's not my turn!" Jesus criticized Peter, a LOT. "Get thee behind me, Satan". "No, you can't go where I'm going." Jesus criticized the Samaritan woman who came for her daughter's healing. "It's not meet to take children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." Awfully selective memory there. However, it allowed vpw to dichotomize the Christian world-there was twi, and the religionists. (No middle ground.) Just US and THEM.) ------------------------------------------- Mike, in your reply to me, you said you try to judge only in a nice way. You said you were "assistance-judging". So, do you finally admit that you actually DO judge, no matter how pretty the judging seems to you? Sounds like you did, 4/13, 1:46pm, this thread. You claimed I never answered your question about what I'd do if you answered me. Go back. I thought I was very unambiguous. I said I was going to pay attention to it, and, primarily, THINK. (There's a longer answer earlier in this thread.) ("Algorithm"? Well, your answer WAS "sequential"...) You also seemed to have completely dodged my "B" point about promoting a man. (Nice dodge, though. Quite skillful.) You completely misread my "D" point. First of all, I did not say I condemned vpw- I said I formed a definite opinion. (At least, on this thread.) I did state what I based the ability to form the opinion on-some of the evidence. I pointed out that there are plenty of other people, whom we've all heard of, on whom we all formed opinions. However, those people we've had no direct contact with. Golly gee, looks like we can all agree that being able to reach out and b!tch-slap someone is NOT a requirement for being able to form an opinion on them. Also, you skipped that I added I have an opinion about you, too, having never met you. (I'll bet you have one of me, as well.) You then made a quick strawman by claiming that the evidence should show vpw is a lot nicer than the rogues gallery I cited. DUH. I cited the names of serial killers, torturers, tyrants and mass-murderers. I never said he or you were as evil as them. (I'll add I'm not, either.) My point was that, having never met them, we nontheless all have a consistent opinion of each of them. In the case of vpw, we have a lot of first-hand source material to work from. I made NO reference to what KIND of opinion anyone should form about him. I was saying there is PLENTY of material to form an opinion about him, even if we never sat at the head table with him, sat up at hoot owl's with him, read his report on the mission fields, or played chess with his chess set. ---------------------------------------- Lastly, you asked Rafael, but I'll take a shot at answering. He can correct me if I misrepresent his answer. You pointed out that he said there was no hurry about addressing the errors on the list, and also referenced a brevity of time. You considered that a contradiction. After hearing your question, I think I see what the confusion is about. Let me use an analogy. It doesn't matter WHEN they send the next space shuttle off. Could be months, years, or decades. No rush. However, BEFORE they try to use the thing in space for extended periods, and launch and re-enter the atmosphere, they will need to overhaul all the parts and insure they aren't faulty and will blow up upon use. I think that's the same point he was making with you. ------------------------------------------ Sorry about those dizzy margins the other day, and I'm still surprised you even answered 1/2 my question on mastering. WordWolf.

Ok, addressing points in the order I saw them... A) Mike, I did read your "many many words posted on mastery." I noticed that at no point in ANY of the posts is a definition given that is not reflexive. My junior-high school history teacher refused to let us use a word in its definition. (This came up when we could not use the word "fur" in explaining what a fur trapper was, since we had not explained what a fur WAS.) That was a legitimate lesson,and AFAIK, a proper rule in teaching. You've posted that we're supposed to master, that we are supposed to master until we reach certain goals, but not once did you explain what it means to master. I can't perform an action I have no idea how to perform. You're saying we failed to master something, but, without any explanation of what "mastering" is, I just have your say-so I didn't do it. Not good enough. Plain English, please. I'm not asking for a perfect definition, or an explanation of cold fusion. What will I do with this definition? THINK. I can then evaluate what I've done to date, what you're saying should have been done, and what you're saying should be done in the present and future. Without a simple (or semi-simple) answer, you provide no tools for doing so. Don't worry your answer can get too technical for me-I can keep up at any level you take it, when I choose. For someone who wants me to perform an action, you sure are impeding the process for doing it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- B) Mike, You said "In no way have I promoted the human author." Hm. Let's see. You've stated that his writings are of superior canonicity than any Bible extant,including critical Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts, including the Masoretic text, which doesn't change. You claim that his connection with God was so surpassing excellence that any sin of character would be unable to alter one word of his writing's canonicity. You claim that, since the "first century Christian church", no one in the intervening 18 centuries and change has had such a connection to God, and received revelation from God. (I'm stopping there.) You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're promoting that human. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C) Mike, You also said "...nor do I post my judgements on other people's hearts." In the same post, you used the term "spiritual babies", and implied all your detractors at GSC (or possibly just the ones on this thread) are the "spiritual babies" you mentioned. You've called those who disagree with you "unfit workmen" based on how you view their hearts. You've claimed-repeatedly-that those who are not "old-school" are incapable of reading vpw's writings and REALLY understanding them the same way a semi-literate, mildly-retarded man who took pfal in 1975-76 can. You know, to everyone except you two, that looks like you're judging people's hearts, and posting on those judgements. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D) Mike, You also said "You never met Dr, yet you condemn him." Based on the evidence, including videotapes he made, audiotapes he made, and books he wrote, I'll say 'yes, I never met him, but I have very definite opinions about him.' I would say the same of YOU, and I have NOT seen videotapes nor heard audiotapes from you. Further, I never met Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin,Caligua, Lucrezia Borgia, Ivan the Terrible, nor the guys who ran the ovens at Auschwitz, but, you know, even WITHOUT having seen video or heard audio, I think I can make a conclusion based on the evidence at hand. I'm silly that way. ---------------------------------------------------------- E) Mike, a footnote. BTW, I'm fairly confident, although not certain, that you will NEVER provide an explanation about "mastering". That's because I'm convinced the lack of an explanation will allow you to play the old twi "shell game". That's the game that, no matter what tragedy befalls you, it's always your fault, and it's never twi's fault. Refusing to explain allows you to change the meaning whenever you want, to keep "mastering" forever out of people's grasp, and thus vulnerable to the charge of "well, if you'd REALLY mastered, this would never have happened. As you can see, I DON'T have some secret agenda-all my cards are on the table. How about putting down a few of yours? ------------------------------ (edited only to fix margin changes-not one letter of text was added, subtracted or changed- except for the addition of this explanation.) [This message was edited by WordWolf on April 13, 2003 at 15:50.]

I can argue either end of whether or not an ellipsis and exclusion in discussion is appropriate in this verse. So long as an ellipse indicates the admission something WAS deleted, I see no reason to call this one an error outright, either. It's open to differences of opinion.

Mike, one of these years, in all the posting about "mastering" stuff, will you ever get around to a plain English definition of "mastering" that does not contain the word "master" or "mastering" in it? I'd like a clear under- standing of what "mastering" is, since it's supposedly something I'm supposed to be doing. I keep asking, you keep ignoring. ------------------------------------- JesseJoe, at one point, you asked about whether Mike thought the Advanced Class was canonical or not. Mike's reply said he didn't say either way, but that he hadn't determined what parts were God-breathed and what parts weren't. For those of us following along in English, that means he has yet to determine which parts are canonical. That means that it's NOT canonical- it's under canonical review. In case you are wondering, that will remain in canonical review by Mike in perpetuity. Mike will never commit to it, since there's FAR too much material easily disproven in it.