WordWolf

For those of you cool cats who arrived after

the movie started, here's something a bunch of

us discussed a while back.....

Mike:

A) Thank you for using somewhat shorter, more

straightforward posts. Now I can go back to

being annoyed only on the content, since the

form of the posts is easier on the eyes, and

the language is direct.

(Yes, that makes a BIG difference, all joking

aside.)

B) You just said that

"If you look hard at the books and forget about

the past, you'll see MORE goodness in them than

you did the first time, and you DID genuinely

see some genuine goodness the first time.

We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on,

but the books are pure. That's a reality your

accusations of me won't wither."

Ok, let me address this a little.

1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT

examining them with a "critical" (discerning)

eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At

NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR

OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books

vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER,

and had papal infallibility. As such, his books

were "infallible", and any errors in them were

to be ignored. That was the case then, and

that's the case you're making now.

Further, I knew that I knew a LOT less then than

I do now, and was not in a strong position to

evaluate much. Since then, my knowledge,

experience and ability to evaluate have all

increased dramatically (or not so dramatically,

since that was over many years). Therefore,

more recent evaluations of said material pack

more punch than that of a new student of pfal,

taught to accept everything without question.

Back then, I-and virtually EVERY SINGLE NEW PFAL

student-would have seen much goodness in the

class, no matter WHAT the content was. That's

NOT an honest evaluation. We may have "seen"

goodness, but that's hardly "genuine" goodness.

Further, most of us-including me-have NOT made

any claims that the content of pfal was

useless. Our main objection-as always-is your

characterization of the contents as PERFECT and

WITHOUT ERROR. Like anything else, it can be of

benefit without being divinely authored or

divinely inspired. I learned many things in

college that were useful, and THEY were rarely

perfect or divinely inspired. I can say the same

of books, television, radio or the internet.

2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a

reality your accusations of me won't wither."

For those posters arriving late to the game,

several months back, an extensive list of

ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL

OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts,

Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away.

I've forgotten how many were on the list when

we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something

around there.

The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were

listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them

all-we weren't going for completion).

That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of

Mike's ignoring of them won't wither.

---------------------------------------------

C) Thank you for a clear, concise statement of

your position. (6/17/03, 2:14pm)

"For a special group of people that God called out for a

special job, PFAL grads that is, God has also provided the

perfect arena for learning revelation and importation

manifestations. This arena is the PFAL writings. As we

master those special writings of PFAL with our 5-senses,

God will teach us HIS perspective and HE will filter out

the adversary's.

So, you might not like the answer, but there it is.

Master PFAL and you can hear the TRUE GOD's direct voice

better (and filter out Satan's) than anyone's been able

to do since the first century."

I'm just going to leave that direct quote, and not comment

on it for the time being.

--------------------------------------------------------

D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup

statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in

modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original

position, much discussed, that the modern versions are

"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either

they are useless or they can be used. Either they are

profitless, or they can profit.

That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of

your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it.

For example, you keep alternating between claiming a

scientific background and claiming you don't have one.

Perhaps YOU may not see it that way, but you MAY have

noticed that a variety of posters have commented on it.

It's NOT like we're in communication with each other or

anything.

I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your

positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to

have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own

background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions

about pfal are correct?

(No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of

the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".)

---------------------------------------------------

E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to

Steve as follows:

"Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can

tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by

studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is

the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his

answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials."

That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I

quoted in this very post.

Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly

claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE

and WILLING to present your statements and positions

FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates

I am capable of understanding and explaining your

positions in my own words.

So, although I expect you'll NEVER issue me one for it,

it looks to me you owe me an apology for unfairly

characterizing MY posts.

On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's

last post completely, since your objection to it in no way

addressed what he/she said.

-------------------------------------------------------

Out of curiousity, Mike, I'd like to ask something.

Feel free to answer it whenever you get a chance-it WON'T

require research.

If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian

who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of

pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's

book, but never heard of pfal?

Let me make sure my question is specific enough....

Would you say that the material they learned, despite

paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because

it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class?

Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual

matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers

nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from

vpw?

Also, just for fun,

I'm curious how you perceive the events so far.

We saw my summary. You claimed mine was so off-target that

it was incapable of being corrected. Just for fun, how

about posting YOUR quick take on things?

Feel free to label it as not-definitive, and not an

official account, and all that.

Please cover the same timeframe I did. I started in the

1st-century AD, and spent most of my time in the 20th

century. Feel free to use the exact same events I did,

phrasing them how you see them.

I'd be very curious to see how you perceive each.

Keep in mind that I offer NO guarantees that your post

won't anger the posters here, though. For example, if you

spend time on how vpw claimed the holocaust was vastly

overstated and so on, or how the modern Jews are unrelated

to the historical Jews (both positions have been

discredited scientifically, and evidence HAS been posted

and discussed HERE), you WILL anger some people.

I'm very curious, though.

Vickles,

when you say Mike usually casts the first stone,

are you talking about like when he made the

blanket accusation that every single person on

the threads where we examined pfal doctrine and

its errors were all "unfit stewards", and

claimed we couldn't read? I wasn't sure most

people had noticed that....

Funny, we posted simultaneously, and brushed

the same subjects. :)-->

Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to

how you can tell what kind of spirit you're

hearing from is by studying God's Word.

Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most

accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his

answer is you'll know by studying the pfal

materials.

-------------------------------------------

Mike,

I'm not sure you're aware of it, but your

stated position on "the Bible" is inconsistent.

On the one hand, you called it "tattered

remnants", and said that over time, it's been

tampered with too often to be trusted as

reliable and accurate.

On the other hand, y0u're also claiming that

it IS useful to people, albeit non-pfal'ers.

That's a lot like saying

"it's full of lies and errors, except where

it's true." "It's burning hot, except when it's

cold." You get the idea.

If it's useful to anyone in regards to the

things of God, then, by definition, it is NOT

the "tattered remnants" you vilified it as

early on.

Pick a position, Mike. Inconsistency ill

behooves you.

BTW, Mike....

Vickles had a perfectly legitimate question.

Your claim since your arrival is that pfal is

far superior than anything any other Christian

can offer out there. If it's REALLY that much

better, then surely the "performance" test will

show something, right? If it REALLY is the

keys to power, revelation, etc, and YOU'RE the

only one who gets it so far, then you should be

getting, at the very LEAST, revelation and

miracles and things to match the top non-pfal

Christians.

Look-

If I came out and announced that I was producing

a new car, faster than any currently on the

market, we could go to the track or the

"proving grounds" and put it to the test.

We could compare its performance to those of

other cars on the market. If the other cars

outperformed it, we'd know I was full of hot

air. If my car outperformed all the others, it

would be proven to at least be of excellent

quality, and among the best on the market.

That's easy to test.

One of the reasons PFAL was an easy sell is that

it promised results in the physical realm:

red curtains, financial prosperity, all needs

met fairly easily, and signs, miracles and

wonders when you got to the Advanced class.

So, this is an old question that's been

discussed on different subjects.

It's a simple question, and, as you can see,

an honest one. In fact, it was inevitable

that someone ask it. Frankly, I'm surprised

you didn't expect it before now. No need to

'blame' Vickles because she asked for proof of

one of your claims.

----------------------------------------------

No, I'm not particularly interested in that

answer-that was Vickles. I just call your

reaction an unfair one.

-------------------------------------------

PS. Please stop throwing around scientific and

technical terms unless you're prepared to

discuss them in their proper context.

You're latest reference to "quantum physics"

(6/17/03, 2:24am) had no relevance to its post,

and only served to "name-drop". It DOESN'T

make you look smarter because you know how to

use it in a sentence. It DOESN'T have any

relevance to the message you're trying to

peddle here. It DOESN'T enhance your posts.

---------------------------------------------

Mike,

A) I made it clear by its label that it was a

chronology as I see it. I did NOT label it a

DEFINITIVE chronology.

Unlike you, I make no claims about my position

being the ONE and ONLY one with merit.

B) Actually, that list was off-the-cuff.

Wait until you see me actually post something

after I research. :)--> That was NOT me putting

a lot into it. It only took me the time to

type it. I've been paying attention all along.

C) Actually, there were a LOT of things I could

have said that would have been a LOT more

negative. I confined negativity based on its

relative germaine-ness to the thread.

I also confined my comments about you strictly

to things you've posted here, without adding

any commentary at all. If that looks negative,

guess what? That's hardly how I alone see it,

that IS how the majority of your "subscribers"

view you. (Example of things I left out in the

chronology-Mike wearing out his welcome at all

the OTHER ex-twi survivor sites.)

D) I knew you weren't going to try to address

any points I made. These same points had been

made on plenty of other threads in open

discussion. You declined to play along with

the other kids when you had a chance to offer

alternative viewpoints.

Of course, to date, the few times you've chosen

to address those points have revealed a POV so

virulent it invited comment from all over the

GSC. (Example-your attempt to paint molestation

and abuse as "run of the mill" for men in

authority; remember the responses you got to

THAT little gem?) So, refusal to address these

points reflects more a desire to do "damage

control" than anything else. If you truly

COULD address them in a satisfactory manner,

you'd get a LOT more postive feedback, and

occasionally someone AGREEING with you.

E) Actually, I summarized your message in an

amazingly short space, and refrained from

adding commentary.

F) My generalization of the thread so far was

obviously subjective, but DID give a summary

of the action so far. Just because you don't

LIKE the summary doesn't mean it was

misrepresentative. Likewise, I didn't puff up

a description about the posts contrary to

your position.

G) You had no need to post that it was "off the

mark." I had saved you the trouble by ending it

with commentary that you'd consider it

incorrect. :)-->

H) Someone asked for a summary of the action

to date. I provided the best summary I could

of that. It was NOT meant as a definitive

statement of ANY position. Trust me, a REAL

refutation would pack a LOT more punch than

that.

I) My summary was hardly "disjoined"-I find,

for an "off-the-cuff" posting, it hangs

together remarkably well, maintaining grammar

and sticking to its subject matter as some

posts do not. Then again, since you don't LIKE

my post, and are not given to "discussion" of

a literary type, I'd expect you to disapprove

of it categorically. You COULD at least

appreciate it on its artistic merits, after all.

J) If that was an attempt at "summary of Mike's

message", it would have been less effective

communication than it was. Part of that would

be that it would be IMPROPERLY LABELLED.

It's CLEARLY LABELLED. There was no "hidden

message" in it-it's labelled what it's supposed

to be. If I opened a technical manual for

some computer hardware, and it clearly was

labelled a manual for setting up a network, and,

instead, it was really a manual for installing

a modem, it would certainly be less useful for

its incorrect label. (Out of practice reading

in a linear fashion, or just responding out of

emotion? Either way, it's not a good thing.)

K) I've been in discussions on journalistic

integrity before, with professional jounalists

with journalistic integrity. If they looked at

a journalistic work of mine and declared it

not up to specs, I'd be concerned. They are

trained and experienced in attempting to

minimize journalistic bias in writing and in

reviewing such writings. Granted, my OWN

journalistic experience and training is far

short of that-I'm NOT a professional

journalist-I HAVE benefitted from their

tutelage.

L) If I HAD claimed it was a "summary of Mike's

message", it would be subject to criticism on

both its content and its framing. I confined

the content germane to your position to things

you directly posted. I set the structure to

list a simple chronology. IF I HAD claimed

it was a journalistic representation, it would

have been passable at both, but fail due to

lack of documentation. Mike, it takes more

than a grasp of the language to make a decent

journalist, but it does NOT require he push an

agenda. He lets the facts speak for themselves.

If I HAD claimed such, I'd stake MY ability to

perform as a journalist against YOURS in any

fair contest, in any unbiased venue. Since I

did NOT claim that's what I was doing here,

your complaints were not relevant. They also

fall short of a professional critique. This MAY

come as a surprise to you, but twi survivors do

NOT automatically excel in all fields. That was

a fiction certain people held (hold?) forth.

You lack journalistic training, journalistic

experience, and journalistic credentials.

Forgive me if I take your "journalistic

critique" lightly as a result, on my

"journalistic" piece on the "summary of Mike's

message".

-----------------------------------------------

In short, your objections were unable to address

even ONE point of my post, demonstrated an

inability to READ THE LABEL, and claimed the

authority to speak on yet ANOTHER subject you

know less about than the person you're

addressing. On a Mike thread, that's typical.

-----------------------------------------------

P.S. -Again, if you look closely, I did NOT

descend to mudslinging in this post-I kept my

comments confined to your own. To disagree with

you is NOT to demonstrate intellectual

dishonesty.

Fortunateone,

Ok, I'm going to try to summarize everything

for the latecomers.

WORDWOLF'S SUMMARY OF THE ACTION SO FAR:

========================================

========================================

========================================

(Going in chronological order)

God issues Bible

Several centuries later, various men of God

challenge the established positions of

traditional Christianity.

Also, several men announce they have special

revelation from God and they are the sole

source of knowledge from God.

Various men of God continue to do what God

wants thru the ages.

In the 19th century, EW Bullinger comes along,

writing many books on Bible research.

In the 20th century, EW Kenyon writes several

books on God's love and our relationship to

Him.

JE Stiles teaches on the holy spirit field,

writing his book "Gifts of the SPirit".

BG Leonard writes many books and teaches many

classes on God and the Bible.

Victor Paul Wierwille goes thru various schools

in his education, some of questionable

pedigree.

Victor Paul Wierwille encounters the writings

of EW Bullinger. VPW encounters JE Stiles, and

is taught by him personally. VPW takes BG

Leonard's class.

VPW begins teaching his classes, where he

claims he cast aside all other theology books

and outside sources, and consulted privately

with God and God only, the results of which

included his PFAL class.

The body of the materials entirely matches

information seen in BG Leonard's class which

VPW took, with some additions from Stiles and

Bullinger. The collateral book "Receiving the

Holy Spirit Today" seems to be a rewriting

of Stiles book. VPW also write the "Studies

in Abundant Living", which also seem to mirror

some of Kenyon's books.

VPW claims that in 1942, God promised him that

if he would teach God's Word like it hadn't

been known since the First Century, if he would

teach it to others.

VPW builds TWI, a ministry claiming to be the

only Christians to truly understand and teach

the Bible in the 20th century like they did

in the first century. (Their lack of resemblance

to the first century church is never brought

up.) The key engine of this group is the PFAL

classes, which claim to be classes on KEYS to

understanding the Bible, "the revealed Word and

Will of God", to quote the cornerstone of

Session One.

Time progresses. The organization, under VPW,

steadily organizes all its activities so that

headquarters controls everything. VPW

organizes headquartes so that his POV entirely

prevails at headquarters.

According to many women, during this time

period, VPW, while the absolute temporal leader

of TWI, committed various acts of rape,

molestation, sodomy, etc. on them and other

women. These charges are buried until the

internet makes communication easy.

During this time, various leaders point out

various sins and errors in leadership. These

leaders are kicked out and buried until the

internet makes communication easy.

In the early 1980s, VPW hand-picks LCM to

succeed him as absolute leader of TWI. In the

mid 1980's VPW dies.

In the remainder of the 1980's and 1990s,

various problems and issues escalate in TWI.

In the 1990's, the internet makes it easy for

hushed ex-members to compare notes and see

what was hidden from them.

First Waydale and then the GreaseSpotCafe are

founded, allowing increased communication and

providing information and a place to recover

and get closure for ex-twi survivors.

In the early 2000's, Mike arrives at GSC.

Mike announces that, due to the Bible being now

useless due to corruptions over 2000 years,

God gave entirely NEW revelation to VPW in the

20th century. PFAL and the collateral readings

are the vehicle for the new revelation, which

entirely supercedes the Bible. In 1942, God

promised it would be so. Mike says that if we

"master" those materials, we will reach the

mystical plateau some of us thought TWI would

provide, seeing amazing revelation from God

and demonstrations of His power. This will be

dependent on memorization of those books, the

refusal to consider any evidence of error in

them, and the seeking out and finding of

"hidden messages" from God larded thru the

books all these years. According to Mike, VPW

was a genius mentally, and physically, an

incredible specimen. VPW was not actually

perfect, but most claims of his sins are bogus,

and those that ARE real should be disregarded,

as the end (super-God revelation for the 20th

century!) justifies the means (molestations,

abuses, etc.). Besides, any other Christian

leader would have left a similar trail of

abuses, rapes, etc., so we should be thankful

we at least got God's amazing superrevelation in

the process.

ALL Christians outside of TWI are essentially

no-nothings, perhaps well-meaning, but, lacking

the special documents of pfal, vpw and twi,

they just can't measure up. They only have the

Bible to rely on, which is error-ridden and

mere tattered fragments of what God meant to

tell us.

----------------------------------------------

On this thread, posts have largely alternated

between Mike proselytizing his message,

rebuttals, responses, and outrage from the

respondents, and Mike's responses that anyone

who doesn't fall in line with his theology is

rejecting God, and being intellectually

dishonest, and seeking to set themselves

against the declared revelation of God

Almighty.

This includes his own disapproval of the

various "summaries" and "updates" by WordWolf,

who, according to Mike, keeps misrepresenting

Mike's message, and is an unfit steward of

God, and is incapable of reading vpw's books

with understanding.

That will certainly include THIS update.

:)-->

That's the shortest summary of Mike I can

give, but many others here will certainly point

out the things I've left out.

==============================================

==============================================

==============================================

Ok, then.....

Approximately HOW do you determine WHICH

verses, Mike, are "unreliable fragments" and

"tattered remants", and WHICH are given by

God and accurate?

Is it merely which ones agree with you? Which

ones vpw quoted? (And anything he didn't

quote is a "tattered remnant"?)

This is a much, much more important question

than any others I have on the table. I'm sure

LOTS of us would love to hear this answer.

I can stand to wait significant amounts of time

on the other questions-so long as I know the

answers ARE coming.

Please- We've just GOT to hear your criteria.

(There ARE criteria, right?)

Mike:

Thanks for replying (somewhat).

Concerning Steve's question, yes.

I followed the discussion, and the points you

and Steve made. At last I looked, Steve's

last point seems to have illustrated that

yours was an invalid statement. You said vpw

said something, and Steve pointed out it seems

to go nowhere. Therefore, either

1) Prove it goes somewhere

2) Admit it goes nowhere

I'm interested in seeing either possibility.

(Not to be confused with PRETENDING either

possibility.)

So, yes, pending further data, it looks like

that quote was a statement that, when someone

actually examines it rather than blindly

assuming it's correct, goes nowhere.

----------------------------------------------

Regarding the other points

(C,D,E, or the rape issue, the 1942 promise

and plagiarism), I didn't list the possibility

you felt they'd been discussed sufficiently,

true. I also didn't list the possibility that

you're afraid a REAL objective discussion of

shame would show that reverence of vpw and pfal

is building a house on sinking sand.

I made no speculations on that either way.

We DID discuss "the 1942 promise" on several

threads, which you avoided, covering different

aspects. Whether or not it was actual snow

or a vision of snow was the least of all the

matters discussed. Your complete silence on

those threads was rather conspicuous.

-------------------------------------------

"Hebrews was written by an AUthor Who had

complete foreknowledge of these times we live

in now."

Make up your mind, Mike.

Is Hebrews 4:12 completely unreliable, or

isn't it? It's always funny to see you say the

Bible's worthless, then quote a verse you like

later.

Another thing I'd like to ask is if you're aware

that your last statement basically said that

all of vpw's writings are referred to

retroactively as the Word of God, since you've

declared vpw's writings as such,

and that, as such, Hebrews 4:12 refers to them.

---------------------------------

You may like to post "presentations or

announcements" here. However, this is STILL a

discussion board. Anything you post here, is,

by definition, open to discussion. (As is

everything I post.) Your preferred format is

to control the discussion and talk AT, rather

than discuss, prove, disprove. Your decision.

That's suited to your own website, or your own

book. If you run your own show, you can

declare a monopoly on authority, as you prefer.

So long as you post on GSC, EVERYTHING is an

"argument" (in both senses of the term.)

For those of you wondering if the tally I

was doing the other day has changed,

here's the latest...

A) Concerning Steve's question, it became a "dishonest"

question again. Mike suggested that an answer to that one

question should be sufficient to convince people to

wildly embrace his viewpoint.

He asked what Steve would do with an answer-

"Drop your present line of research and start mastering

PFAL?"

B) Mike seems to be less insulting, although his trademark

hubris will never change. Still, that's an improvement

of sorts.

C) Concerning vpw's numerous accounts of rape, he

suggested anyone else would have done the same.

After saying vpw said people put in top positions were done

so regardless of whether or not they were qualified, he

said "He often said this of himself, even...

God often had a limited number of flawed men He could

install as leaders: King Saul and Balaam are two extreme

examples discussed here before....All God selected, all got

it screwed up royally. You and I'd done the same in one

category or other had we been tapped to serve God's people."

This, BTW, is on-subject because Mike is convinced that

God appointed vpw in a manner similar to King Saul, and,

apparently, with the similar level of authority.

So, he's still saying anyone else would have done it, and

that, since vpw was "Doctor" and "The Teacher", ruining

people's lives should be overlooked.

D) Concerning the 1942 promise, a stony silence.

E) Concerning the pfal class being a photocopying of the

work of a handful of others, a stony silence.

F) Concerning the "mastering PFAL" "secrets", nothing.

He requoted that thing about memorizing pfal, but won't

say this is supposed to be 1/2 the task. About the abject

refusal to read or consider anything NOT pfal, in a pitiful

attempt to hide from anything that could show up pfal as a

scam, or show that OTHER Christians can and do exceed vpw's

level of skill.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and if anyone is wondering if I'll be adding anything of

substance to the discussion, other than pointing out when

Mike refuses to do so, the answer is "yes."

For those who missed it,

Mike accused others on this thread of being

"logic-starved". I thought that was too funny

to miss.

--------------

Mike,

I asked a simple question before.

You seemed to say earlier that you were going

to address Steve's question soon. I asked if

that was true, and if so, roughly, when.

About 24 hours later, you were attacking Steve's

character and accusing him of different things.

(I don't mean a few hours ago.) Looked like you

were now saying you WEREN'T going to answer his

question.

Please declare in plain English.

Will you be addressing Steve's question about

realms superceding each other?

If so, roughly when?

-----------------------------

BTW, Mike, for someone who claims to have

"no hatred to people here", you have felt very

free to toss around insults the entire time

you've been here.

Those who've disagreed with you, and presented

LOGICAL, REASONABLE positions, you've called

unfit reasearchers, you've all but called us

all charlatans, you've claimed, sight unseen,

that only YOU have done sufficient amounts of

research on a variety of subjects, mostly

vpw's writings, pfal, Bible research, and

surprise forays into various hard sciences.

You've basically said we're all unable to read,

and that all conclusions we've reached that do

NOT agree with yours are invalid. You've

lumped all disagreements with you, including

logical discourse, into the category of

"personal attacks". Perhaps some were-but so

were many of yours, and you feel yours were

perfectly justified.

It's so much easier to simply claim

"you can agree with me, or you can be WRONG!"

and claim all disagreements with you are parts

of some demonic conspiracy (go back a page-

you DID imply that, buried in a lengthy quote),

since it absolves you of all responsibility to

be intellectually honest.

Since you arrived, you've CLAIMED you examined

everything we object to for "5 years" before

even showing up here. That's a good trick-

especially since much of the evidence has come

out in the past YEAR-including right under your

nose. You closed your investigation before all

the facts were in.

However, your answers to all the objections

that have been raised have largely been

evasions.

Here's a summary of your responses to the

"rape" issue.

A) I don't believe he did it.

B) Whatever he did wasn't a big deal because

we needed him since he's "The Teacher",

and we can excuse him of indiscretions since

he was indispensable.

C) Any other guy would have done the same in

his position.

D) I refuse to let myself be distracted on this

issue.

Here's a summary of your responses to date on

the issue of whether or not vpw got special

revelation in 1942:

A) vpw said he did, so he did.

B) You can't prove he didn't.

C) The proof is that we got results from his

writings-that could not happen if he had

not been assigned the special God-dude.

D) The current proof he did is somewhere in

vpw's writings.

E) I refuse to let myself be sidetracked with

this issue.

On the subject of the pfal class being largely

a re-editing of BG Leonard's class, with

whole sections of JE Stiles' book on the Holy

Spirit and EW Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the

Bible" added, and NOT, as he stated so

unambigiously during that same class, the

result of countless hours between himself and

God with ONLY a Bible as reference, and only

AFTER taking all his other reference books

out to the "town gehenna, where the fires

never go out", and dumping them in the city

dump, where they could NOT be used as

references for the pfal class, you've been

singularly silent.

Whole sentences and paragraphs seem to have

been lifted, word-for-word, out of their works

and EW Kenyon's works. As far as you're

concerned, God dictated the entire thing to

vpw, with no regard to what the other authors

wrote.

Frankly, if I wanted to master pfal in it's

REALLY pure form, I'd do the best job by

memorizing BG Leonard's class, Stiles and

Bullinger's books, and rounding out with EW

Kenyon.

Also, I think it's about time you came clean

about the process of "mastering pfal" you

keep mentioning from time to time.

I asked you about it before, and didn't expect

a straight answer. I got a partial answer, which

surprised me. Your answer was that to reach

mastery, one step was to memorize the pfal

books. OK, not a shocker, but you actually

addressed my question, sort of.

(The real question was not how to get there,

but what the target-goal WAS, what can a

"Master of PFAL" expect?)

The other part of your answer slipped out when

you were addressing Schwaigers.

You took Schwaigers to task about actually

using other materials besides pfal as source

material. You said they should dismiss all

other source material. (Not for a short time,

as advocated in pfal, but for an indefinite

period.)

So, putting the 2 halves together, here's what

the picture looks like.

A person seeking "mastery of PFAL" must

memorize vpw's PFAL books. They must read them

backwards and forwards, and be able to recite

them whole from memory, able to quote them

page-by-page on any subject they address.

A person seeking "mastery of PFAL" must

absolutely eliminate all other sources of input

other than the PFAL books. NO other Christian

writer is to be trusted, no Bible is to ever

be cited-or sighted.

Once those 2 tasks have been accomplished, the

acolyte has now reached a state where he has

discarded ALL information that could possibly

interfere with total devotion to PFAL, and

possibly discredit it at any point. Having now

ruthlessly eliminated any contradicting data,

the acolyte is now ready to dogmatically assert

that PFAL is the be-all and end-all of things.

It's certainly the be-all and end-all of his

life, since he's discarded everything else.

To those of us glad to be thinking for

ourselves, such a process seems remarkably

similar to brainwashing, and indoctrination

into a cult.

But, Mike, go ahead.

If I've misrepresented the process to

"mastering PFAL", please clarify EXACTLY what

I said wrong about it.

Does it NOT involve wholesale memorization?

(That's essentially the answer you gave me

previously.)

Does it NOT involve discarding and dismissing

any and all materials not directly relating to

PFAL, especially anything refuting it?

(That's essentially the answer you gave

Schwaigers before.)

Go ahead-declare it plainly.

Is this exactly what you meant to say? If not,

EXACTLY what's the difference?

No, don't tell me, let me guess...

"You've misrepresented me. You do not wish to

honestly present my side, and so you distort

it. I refuse to address your questions, since

they're intellectually dishonest. I have other

matters, more important, to address, and I'm

too busy. I refuse to discuss this in the

discussion forums I post in."

Well, Mike? Are you going to invoke the same

old cop-outs (see the previous paragraph), or

will you level with your readers?

Those are simple questions, and I KNOW you're

online. This won't require a lot of research,

just a statement of your position.

Are you going to answer, or run away?

Exactly.

I figure "the Architect" (white lab coat guy)

was lying thru his teeth.

As you pointed out, he was already wrong.

He has proved unable to accurately predict

Neo's actions in the rest of the movie.

My prediction for Part 3?

Neo and that traitor, in taction with the

Matrix at the nexus point of the master control

program, fighting it out for whose vision will

determine the destiny of the matrix.

Yes, as I saw it, the other mentioned were

all programs. That includes the Merovingian

and Persephone (the guy in the restaurant and

his 'wife'), and their minions. Somebody HAD

already pointed out that previous programs

were the origin of legends like vampires,

werewolves, and ghosts. (I think it was Smith.)

BTW, Smith seems to have some basic upgrades

besides the 'virus' ability, doesn't he?

Anybody else caught the "bowling" sound during

that cool fight scene with 100 Smiths?

Ok, back to the "legends". Persephone points

out the Keymaker's guards were unreliable, but

hard to destroy. "After all, who carries

silver bullets?" (That is, they were werewolves.

Slow-reacting werewolves, at that, with lousy,

un-wolflike instincts.) We also see those

2 albinos turn insubstantial and pass thru

things like some sort of spectre. (That is,

they were ghosts.)

I think the Oracle and Keymaker, among others,

are free programs NOT under the auspices nor

the agenda of the main control program.

(Like Tron in the movie "Tron".)

Goey,

unless you're quoting from something I never

read here, Mike called the modern version

"unreliable fragments AND tattered remnants."

(Then again, the overall meaning was

preserved in your quote.)

---------------------------------------

Hold everything......

...Mike, did you say you were currently

working on an answer to Steve's question, and

would present it soon?

"I will produce more references. I've been

culling through the 80 I mentioned last month.

I've whittled it down to 50, and will soon pick

out the best 10 or 20." (6/03/03, 1:49am.)

That was in response to Steve's reminder that

"It's *your responsibility to bring in

'those many other passages'. If you can't just

say so." (6/02/03 1:43pm)

I may not be an expert in Mike-idioms, but, by

golly, sounds like that's what you said.

So, is that what you meant?

If not, please explain what you DID mean.

If so, give us a ballpark. Will we see this list

sometime before, say, 6/15? 7/4? End of

summer?

(I, for one, can refrain from asking beforetime

if I have an estimate to work from.)

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-->