Oakspear

I left everything with my ex-wife, but she boxed up my set of Way books and gave them back to me when she moved. I tossed them all in the trash. About the only time I miss them is when I have to sit on the sidelines of a doctrinal debate and have to depend on WordWolf for quotes!

I believe that you're correct JL. I met the Agape lads and lasses once. The Way Home that I lived in was pretty close to Kennedy Airport, so we had the responsibility of hosting some of the overseas Way Corps or other wayfers on their way in or out of the U.S. - one of the Wierwille sons-in-law and most of Agape showed up just in time for me to feed them greasy home fries and bacon and eggs one morning.

I've got some too: The Old B*stard Tells Me So (two copies of this book only) Old Times The Way Living In Adultery Take Vic At His Word VP's Magnified Word The New Destructive Church The Vicster's Way Order Me Around, My Word! Deceiving The Holy Spirit Today The Laughable Bible

Jean:John has posted that he believes that in some situations it is acceptable to strike a woman as a response to words. In the several times that this has come up he has stuck to that position. He has made it clear that he was not misunderstood. He has not back pedalled or tried to weasel out of his stance. Many of us here have a hard time reconciling those words with the image of him that you paint. I personally have not pitied you, traeted you like a child or anything like that, I see the situation as one of several possibilities: 1. John is a great husband and father in all categories and what he has posted is just talk - he would never do it himself 2. John is a great husband and father in all categories and what he has posted is an attempt to stir up a hornets nest. 3. John is a potential abuser who talks big but is held back from acting on the potential due to morality or fear of arrest 4. John is an active abuser and you are an enabler and a victim. 5. John is a potential abuser but is afraid of you! 6. John has abused others and you don't know about. The fact that there are 4 choices that make him a bad guy and 2 that make him a good guy doesn't indicate my opinion of the likelihood of abuse. Notice that none of the choices are: John is a great husband and father in all categories and doesn't believe that violence is a possible proper response to words.

1. TWI's interference was a requirement at a certain level of your continued participation - at GSC there is no such requirement 2. TWI people could show up at your house - most of us don't know where your house is 3. In TWI disagreement was grounds for getting booted out - at GSC disagreement is grounds for getting disagreed with I for one applaud you both for taking non-traditional roles upon yourselves and for refusing to allow the interferers to interfere. I'll only speak for myself, and I'm jumping in because you quoted Groucho who was agreeing with me...Do I think something is "wrong" with your marriage? I don't even think about it. I don't know you guys, don't know if your real names are John & Jean, don't know anything but what I read here. I don't consider myself qualified to judge your marriage. So I don't. You may have the perfect marriage, you may have the marriage from h*ll, but probably it's in-between somewhere like most of us. But since you brought up the term tie-breaker, and used your own marriage as an example, you opened yourself up for comments from the peanut gallery. Yes I do think that designating one spouse as the tie-breaker is no different than saying that that person makes all the decisions. Yes I do think that puts the woman in an inferior position, that's my opinion. However, that doesn't mean that I think your marriage is bad, or in need of "fixing". It's not my marriage! I had a similar experience last year. I mentioned my wife in a post as an example of some kind. Another poster referenced my post. I was incensed! How dare that poster drag my wife into it. The other poster refused to delete his post or apologize. After a while I realized that I had made my personal life fair game by mentioning it in a post. It was a good lesson to learn. You routinely use your marriage as examples to make your point. Of course anyone who disagrees with your point will refer to those examples.

Personally I have neither the time nor the inclination to search through every one of Oldiesman's posts to back up my opinion of his opinions. He very obviously doesn't believe what a lot of us report about TWI and its top dogs. In my opinion he is willfully ignorant about what went on behind the scenes and views his time in TWI through PFAL-colored glasses. He has every right to his opinions. If his opinion is that someone is lying, so what? That's what he thinks. Recently I suggested that another poster's colorful story was a fabrication, several other posters suggested the same, because that was our opinion. If you don't like his opinion, so what? If one has little respect for what another psoter says, what difference does it amke what they say?

Escalating an argument either by yelling back or by hitting is a bad thing from a practical standpoint, (the moral or ethical view is another thing entirely) mainly because they don't work. Think about all the times that someone has been yelling, screaming or ranting at you. Has it ever helped to start yelling back? A person who tries to "make their point" by raising their voice is either frustrated due to the perception of not being listened to or just doesn't have a good argument on their side. Even telling somene to calm down or listen generally has no effect, if it did they wouldn't be yelling in the first place. Then there's hitting. Think about it. Someone is yelling at you. You pop them in the mouth. Unless they cower in fear that you are going to continue to beat them and injure them seriously, violence is not going to win the argument for you and it will only win you at best a temporary respite from the yelling. The idea that one possible acceptable way to respond to a domestic argument is violence is ludicrous, even if it is admitted to be an option in a vanishingly small percentage of cases. Take that to the extreme. You're a manager at your place of business. An employee gets out of line and mouths off to you. You clip him across the teeth with a right hook. Argument over. So now you've set the precedent that you can settle arguments with your fists. Where does that end? Should people defend themselves? In my opinion, yes. No one should stand idly by and let themselves get beaten. If a woman hits a man, he is under no obligation to turn the other cheek, but to offer violence as a response to words? One who does such a thing is immature, small minded, a bully.

the non sequiter club has been heard from..."we don't make sense, but we like pizza" The point wasn't whether the bible is or isn't divinely inspired, but that some of it has to be understood in light of the culture.

Johniam: any way you can be a little clearer when your quotes of other posters end? Thanks

Yes, Groucho, that's what I'm talking about. This is not to say that sometimes one spouse has the expertise or knowledge to make a call and sometimes the other spouse does. But in most situations it's discussion, consensus, compromise and more discussion. there must be maturity, there must be love and mutual respect.

Not to pick on the poster who first used the term "tie-breaker", but in a relationship that includes only two human beings (e.g. a marriage) the one who is the "tie-breaker" is the one who gets to make the decisions, plain and simple, calling it anything else is semantics, and misleading semantics at that. It's no more and no less than a dictator who condescends to listen to his (inferior) advisors. That's not to say that the dictator or tie breaker or "head" can't be a great guy, good father, loving husband, but to pretend that there is any kind of "vote" is just that, pretending.

johniam is being misquoted, here is his original post and the link http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=4101&st=60

TWI doesn't condemn anyone? B*ll..... No, maybe not on their website, but it has always been part of their agenda, even back in the golden years when you were invoved. So again I say "So what?" TWI's "positive" presentation of their own beliefs is (at least in my opinion) a distraction from all the negative and poisonous things that they do and teach. Hooray for someone who presents the other side. Why the heck should he present the good that happened in TWI when there are other sources for that. TWI presents their side, Juedes presents another side and people get to decide. Oldies, not everyone is going to be as evenhanded as pawtucket and allow information that undermines the message of the website to be deseminated.

Yeah, so? TWI doesn't allow varying opinions on their website, nor do most sites run by current or former members. He's giving information, not inviting debate. You want to write glowing information about TWI? Start your own website.

How the heck is Zixar still ahead of me?

i think I hear an echo

Hmmmm...bad at telling jokes? Or mornonic anti-semite? :huh:

I can't speak for others, but in a medium where all we have are words, that what I judge people by: words. Think all ya want...ya gotta catch me first

Sorry, I had to break it up intp paragraphs:

When I googled my name, as was suggested by another thread, I came up with a reference to this thread! Worth the bump IMHO

Well, it would be for me Not totally Interesting that this kind of behavior still takes place. Good for John. Nice that you got the letter of apology. Nice that your husband stuck up for you. Scary that this guy thought that it was appropriate to "reprove" you. Well, thanks, I guess. But why are you trying to convince anyone? You're the one who lives with him, not us. I was under the impression that you didn't care what any of us thought, and had explained away phrases like "clock her like she deserves". My mistake. My apologies. Jean, You do bring up a valid point that is sometimes overlooked. The emphasis appears to me to be on the word "own", not "husband". Christians are supposed to submit to each other, so what is Paul addressing here when he tells wives to submit to their own husbands? Just what you said, that they are not married to everyone in the fellowship, just their own husband. Keep in mind that the culture in which the new testament was written was not one of equal rights for women. Is the verse there to keep women subservient, or to limit that subservience? It's similar to the verses about slaves. Slavery was an accepted part of the culture at the time. The NT doesn't say to free the slaves, but gives instructions on how masters are to treat their salves and for slaves to obey their masters, yet it would be an extremely rare person in the year 2007 that would use those verses to justify slavery.

When I first started using the "oakspear" handle, I had a hotmail account that I registered as "John Oakspear". I once got an offer to receive geneologiical information on the Oakspear family!

The only google hit that is actually me is a reference to Raf's "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread. There's a fair number of Tom Joyce's out there, it's not an uncommon name; the best well-known is a sculptor in the Northwest. I was once mistaken for him at a gathering here in Lincoln.

Couldn't find tour dates, but The Flecktones are in NYC today. Fleck is also doing (has done) a trio with Stanley Clerke and Jean-Luc Ponty. I'm listening to some cuts from the Corea/Fleck almum through NPR right now.

I saw Chick Corea and Bela Fleck separately in the last year...I'd love to see them together. Listening to "The Travelling Wilburys" right now