Goey

"I don't know why he had to use drugs though; he had all the women without them. That was wrong for sure. But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones. I never tried it, but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid."

Oldies says that he doesn't know why VP had to use drugs becasue, in Oldies world, VPW had "all" the women without them (drugs). In his world "all" the women in TWI flocked to VPW for adulterous sex. Yet he doesn't deny the use of drugs. He says that VP's used of drugs was wrong ----- with a big "but". So rather than use common sense he looks for a loophole.

His "but" is that VP may have used the drugs to "loosen up" the uptight ones. He never considers or addresses why some might be "uptight". He implies that being "uptight" in a situation of, adultery (at best) is is not good -- that they needed to loosen up. He implies that, in an adultery situtation, VPW would not have been wrong in giving drugs to someone without their knowledge if it served to "loosen them up sexually". That's the "but."

He says that he never tried it himself. (Yet we know that people close to him probably did.) Then he says that he "heard" that some of the date rape drugs "enhance sexual desire", but he doesnt say where he heard it.

His failure to investigate from a reliable source how date rate drugs work, leads to an irrational and ignorant argument. He conviently relies instead upon something he "heard" which better fits his view.

All I can conclude from this is that Oldies believes that adultery is ok if the MOG gets blessed and the women are willing. Even if VPW taught them that contrary word, becasue they should have known better.

He believes that ALL the women that VPW had were willing, and flocked to him for adulterous sex.

He believes that it is ok for the MOG to drug these willing women without their knowledge if they are "uptight" because they needed to loosen up.

He does not consider that date rape drugs are not "sexual aids" - that they are designed and used to knock-out women who might be unwilling to have consensual sex. Therefore he does not have to explain why VPW would need to knock out a willing woman who flocked to him for adulterous sex.

If he honestly considered the Bible, the facts about date rape drugs, the testimony of witnesses, etc, then he would forced to consider that some women may actually have been unwilling, and therefore raped --- and that's not possible in Oldies world.

He would rather hold on to these sick, unbiblical, morally corrupt, and socially abnormal views than to consider that

anyone was abused or that VPW was the source of that abuse.

This may be what the Bible refers to as a seared conscience.

Sad.

By Oldiesman

I suspect Solomon didn't have to drug women; he was the King and could have any woman he wanted. He was the King and women flocked to him; just like they flocked to Wierwille. Like some kind of a rock star.

Solomon could not within the law have any woman he wanted. In regards to the King, Deuteronomy 17:16,17 says:

Only in the context of disobedience to God and unchecked power could Solomon "have any woman he wanted." The result of Solomon's disobedience was the loss of the kingdom. The scripture says Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord. The scriptures do not focus on the many wives and concubines other than to say that being idolaters, that they would turn Solomon from the Lord. The focus was not on the wives, but rather on Solomon's taking them in disobedience to God.

There is no record that women "flocked" to Solomon like a rock star (the implication being groupies wanting back stage sex). However, people did flock to VPW, both men and women, not for adulterous sex, but rather to learn the Word "like it hadn't been taught since the first century." But like Solomon he did evil in the sight of the Lord by disobeying God. Not only did VPW disobey, he led others into disobedience as well -- by teaching false doctrine.

VPW was certainly no king as there is no ministry of "king" in the NT church. However there is good evidence that he thought of himself as a king. The comparison of VPW to Solomon both fits and doesn't fit. It doesn't fit becasue VPW was not a real king.

However, both were men of relatively unchecked within their own "kingdoms". Both disobeyed God in a big way. There is no record of either man repenting or showing remorse. Solomon lost the kingdom as a result of his disobedience. VPWs "kingdom" began to fall apart during his lifetime and eventually did fall apart for all practical purposes and became "divided" like Solomon's.

I don't know why he had to use drugs though; he had all the women without them. That was wrong for sure. But maybe he did it just to loosen them up? You know the uptight ones. I never tried it, but I heard that some of these date rape drugs enhance the sexual desire. Sort of like a sexual aid.

Are you blind? He had to use drugs because THEY WERE NOT WILLING! These were knock out drugs - not Viagra.

BTW most if not all men fantisize about young women. That is a fact of nature and any guy who disputes this is either lying or gay.

This is so stupid, absurd, and abnormal in the context of this discussion that it is not worthy of a response other than:

Oldies, you need some serious help.

That may be someones rationale, but personally, I always thought that was a weak argument for the females to use, or to proclaim on behalf of the females.

It simply shifts all blame to someone else, in this case VPW. Is that fair?

"Because Dr. Wierwille says its ok and didn't teach me otherwise, then it is ok" Oh really?

Let's be frank ... adults , know that adultery is wrong.

We all learn this from our parents, from our Judeo-Christian society, from marriage, from our traditions, from our family and friends, from our own study of the bible;

It's deeper than that and you know it.

Who was VPW to these women? He was the Apsotle, the Man of God for the whole world. He knew the Word like no one since the 1st century. God taught him directly since he threw out all his other books except his Bible.

While it is true that many of us believed before going into TWI that adultery was wrong, we also believed that Jesus was God and and the 10 commandment still applied to Christians. VPW taught a lot of "strange" doctrines that we believed contrary to what we hand been previously taught, so taking grace, freedom in Christ, and no condemnation to adultry is ok, is not a stretch for someone who ultimately trusted the Man of God for Our Day an Time to teach the rightly-divided word. If they could change on the Trinity & 1O commandments then they could change on adultery, especially when taught by the Man of God for the entire freaking world.

No, the "blame" belongs squarely with the one that deceived those that trusted him to teach the truth.

Consider a possible scenario on Judgment Day;

Jesus: "why dear woman did you commit adultery with Dr. Wierwille"

Woman: "because I was taught contrary to God's Word that this would bless the man of God"

Jesus: "you mean you didn't know that adultery was wrong"?

"you didn't know Victor was a married man?"

Woman: "but Victor told me that it was ok and didn't teach me otherwise"

Jesus: "well then that must make it all ok"

***************************

Simply put, although VPW is guilty for his sins regardless (as we all are), I believe in individual moral accountability and responsibility for every adults' choices.

Heres mine:

Jesus: Why Oldies did you defend and take up for a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Oldies: Uh, because I got delivered because of what he taught.

Jesus: Would that be where he taught that adultery was ok?

Oldies: I never heard that teaching, I was not there.

Jesus: Why Oldies, did you not comfort those that were taken advantage of instead cast blame on them?

Oldies: Because those women asked for it. They facilitated it! They knew better!

Jesus: Did not Victor know better ? Was he not their trusted teacher?

Oldiies: Yeah uh maybe. But I got delivered by Doctors teachings.

Jesus: Would that be the adultery teaching or the one on abortion? How did these deliver you?

Oldies: Uh, er ..... You're shifting the blame!

No. But because of most of the women consenting; it facilitated his adultery.

They participated in it, helped it along, encouraged it, gave it wings.

Desiring to "bless the man of God".

They "consented" because they were taught contrary to God's Word, that it was God's will, because it would "bless the man of God." VPW was the source of that false teaching. The adultry was "facillitated" not by their "consent" but by the deception and lusts of VPW - a supposed man of God who taught false doctrine to fulfill his sexual lust and justify adultry.

Had there been no false teaching, and had there been correct teaching, there would have been no "consent".

Obviously it ensnares you, too. You're going to spend every day of the rest of your lives cursing a dead man. Glad it's you and not me.

Hmmm, I haven't noticed anyone actually curse VPW. Has anyone really cursed VPW?.

This seems like one of the more typical responses that comes from the VPW defenders.

Where telling the facts is portrayed as cursing. Where calling a spade a spade is cursing.

Where few hours a week on this board, discussing VPW/TWI etc is portrayed as "cursing a

dead man for the rest of your life".

The truth is that most of those girls consented. But because they're girls they're not responsible

for ANYTHING, right? You've come a long way, baby.

Irrelevant. While some or even most of the girls may have consented, it is certain that some

did not. One hundred acts of adultry do not justify or invalidate one act of rape.

I think it has been stated here many times by quite a few of the folks that you say

are "cursing a dead man" those that consented do have some responsibility. Has anyone denied

that some were willing?

But, because some of these these women have some resposibility, doesn't mean that VPW is

void of any. As God's alleged Apostle, MOGFOT, or whatever, he has more.

And ... if what he taught them was the cause of their willingness then he bears the vast

majority, if not all of the responsibility.

But now you offer a red herring by errantly portraying this stuff as an issue of feminism

or reverse misogyny? --- You are desperately grasping at straws.

You focus on the willing, many of who were most likely tricked into their willingness, and

ignore those that were unwilling and coerced or even raped - to make it an issue of feminism.

Anything to take the focus off of the source.

This past year there were 2 disturbing headlines in STL. One involved a 46 year old female teacher at a middle school who was accused of, confessed to, and is awaiting sentence for having sexual relations with several boys. The other was about a 42 year old pizza place manager who kidnapped 2 boys, 11 and 13, and basically made sex slaves out of them. The prosecutor in the latter case said that "you'll never see anybody worse than this guy" or something to that affect.

Really? So, a middle school teacher who victimizes adolescent boys is not that bad, but a pizza mgr is? The woman got 2 days worth of headlines and that was it; the pizza guy...well, do a search on Michael Devlin see what comes up. Apparently in today's society women aren't responsible for anything. Must be nice.

How is it that you conclude from the above that: "in today's society women aren't

responsible for anything" ? That's pretty dumb IMO.

I read that the woman is awaiting sentencing, meaning that she was probably

convicted of rape and is going to jail. Both were crimes and both will be punished.

Yet you seem to think (or you are falsely portraying ) that both crimes are equal and

that the woman is somehow getting away with something. -- Absurd.

We're not just defending a man; we're defending what he taught us and how it helped us, and all the evil in the devil's rectum doesn't invalidate that. We're defending Christianity; Christ's sacrifice of himself which God accepted and how the finality of said sacrifice makes us free.

Nope, thats not it all all. I think most of the folks here accept that VPW/TWI's teachings

stand or fall upon their own merit, regardless of his actions. You and a few others refuse

to see that and make up these strawmans, not just to defend VPW actions, or what he

taught, but rather to defend your own (willing) blindness to the truth.

You errantly mistake defending VPW, for defending Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice doesn't

depend upon anything VPW said or did. You errantly mistake defending the teachings of one

man to defending the Word of God.

You guys aren't free; you're in bondage to a dead man. You foolishly think this pleases God. You got all your scripture, you got all your emotions, you got all your excuses, but you don't have peace. Who do you think you're kidding?

I think that the opposite is most likely true. You are in bondage to the dead man

because of blind and misdirected loyalty - misguided loyalty that is so strong that it

forces you into publicly displayed intellectual dishonesty, intentional misrrepresention

and distorting of facts. -- Intentional misrepresentation of what others are really

saying when what is said shows your beloved teacher to be much less than what he

appeared to be.

Freedom does not depend upon adherence to PFAL or a particular view of VPW.

Neither does bondage follow those that have to courage to tell the truth about VPW ,etc.

Personally, I would think there is much more peace in telling the painful truth than

there is in defending the liar and the lies.

Doojable,

Oldies didn't personally see or hear VPW make his marriage vows,

so in his world it can't proved that VPW actually made these vows.

Don't expect sound reason to sway Oldies in any way. It won't.

BTW, I don't post with any delusions that I can change Oldies thinking.

IMO, he is incorrigible in regards his thinking and the lengths he will go to in order

to defend VPW. If he came around, his whole belief system would fall

apart and he would have nothing to hold on to.

Actually, it may not be that he is defending VPW as much as he is

defending himself and his belief system, since it relies heavily if not soley

upon upon VPW being the MOGOFT and PFAL being the handbook of life.

Well, let's overlook the fact and not bother to mention or bring up WW parroting Nizkor without reference to Nizkor ... oh no. I am sure others didn't recognize him doing it but I did. Not many recognized him doing it simply because not many people are familiar with Nizkor's arguments. Of course, he mistakenly though I had not heard the same "Nizkor argument" he was bringing up on the Holocaust denial thread, but wanted it to appear he originatated the argument?

I will thoroughly admit however, that a lot of the revisionist arguments and the reasoning behind those arguments hold a lot of universal application and truth behind them. The "reality" comment I found was appropriate and since it had an universal application I brought it up in this instance. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing for many of Nizkor arguments that they present, nor does one readily find a universal application to a lot of their reasoning... That's why I'm afraid you won't find me parroting Nizkor or "plagarizing them", much like WW has.

Where did WW post word for word anything from Nizkor? Use the accepted standards for determining what is plaigerism and what is not -- and make your case. If you can show where he plaigerized Nizkor, I promise that I will "hammer" him. Ok?

On the other hand WTH, for years you have repeatedly cut and pasted articles written by others - word for word - onto this board, pawning them off as if they were yours.

Consider yourself "hammered". You deserve it.

Like father - like son.

Well, let's overlook the fact and not bother to mention or bring up WW parroting Nizkor without reference to Nizkor ... oh no. I am sure others didn't recognize him doing it but I did. Not many recognized him doing it simply because not many people are familiar with Nizkor's arguments. Of course, he mistakenly though I had not heard the same "Nizkor argument" he was bringing up on the Holocaust denial thread, but wanted it to appear he originatated the argument?

I will thoroughly admit however, that a lot of the revisionist arguments and the reasoning behind those arguments hold a lot of universal application and truth behind them. The "reality" comment I found was appropriate and since it had an universal application I brought it up in this instance. Unfortunately I can't say the same thing for many of Nizkor arguments that they present, nor does one readily find a universal application to a lot of their reasoning... That's why I'm afraid you won't find me parroting Nizkor or "plagarizing them", much like WW has.

Where did WW post word for word anything from Nizkor? Use the accepted standards for determining what is plaigerism and what is not -- and make your case.

On the other hand WTH you have repeatedly cut and pasted articles written by others - word for word - onto this board for years, pawning them off as if they were yours.

Like father - like son.

LCM started this kick sometime while I was in residence (and vp was still alive.)

He said that anytime you said you would do something it was a 'vow.' He especially hated it when a couple announced their engagement and then broke it off.

"When thou vowest a vow..."

So, if you said you'd stop at the store on your way home, you broke a vow because you didn't keep your word.

"Say what you mean and mean what you say..."

Sooo... when you said you were going in residence - that was to be taken as a vow. No of raising your right hand was necessary.

It was manipulation. It most likely was used to guilt many into doing something they didn't want to do.

Oldies Replied:

I still believe its the right way to go, and biblical, even though it may be used against someone if they fail to live up to that standard. Golly, it isn't manipulation to expect someone to keep their word.

Then Tom Said:

and that OM, brings me right back to "so you're saying that God cherishes and respects an oath, vow, etc above a human life"... that's exactly what you're saying here...

It means that if you say you are going to the store after work and have a flat and then decide to go home instead and make the store trip another time, that you are a liar and have broken a vow to God. You are worthy of beratement, ridicule and public shame.

Only in TWI could an intention or desire, be construed as a sacred vow, to be kept at all costs.

Totally Anal.

Hey folks,

I wouldn't get too incensed with Oldies sexual predator comment. He said it was a "nature" that all men were born with. Now I am not sure if men means mankind or just male humans. He will need to clarify that.

The Bible says that all men (mankind) are born with a sin nature. Sin covers a lot of area and sexual predation is certainly sin. But is that the kind of sin nature that the Bible is refering to? I don't think so.

I have read in the Bible where all men are liars, but I haven't read yet where all men are natural sexual predators.

If all men are born with a sexual predatory nature, then what is it that prevents that nature from coming out in 99 percent of the human population? If it were a knowledge of the word, fellowship with God, speaking in toungues, Apostleship, etc then it would seem that VPW would have had control over it. But Oldies has conceded that VPW did not have control over it.

Are there implications here? What can we infer?

I am interested in seeing if Oldies can provide some credible biological or antropological evidence of his statement. And not just misrepresent what I have said above and use it as his "proof".

By Oldiesman

"All men are born with a sexual predatory nature ....."

Care to back that up with some expert opinion? Particulary the predatory part.

I will agree with the sexual part. I will agree with sin nature. But I am not so sure that sexual predation is inate within all men at birth. You need to offer some proof concerning the "predatory" part.

Let me help you out some:

Main Entry: pred·a·to·ry

Pronunciation: \ˈpre-də-ˌtȯr-ē\

Function: adjective

1.

2: living by predation : predaceous; also : adapted to predation (Merriam- Webster)

With oldies logic all vows should be fulfilled.

I'll even add vows to God, just to make it easier.

So if I vow to God to do something that is wrong unknowingly.

Then find out it was wrong I should fulfill this vow anyway?

B.S.

Very good.

What say ye Oldies ?

Am I obligated to fulfill an oath if :

1. My swearing an oath is wrong. (Unknown to me at the time) - James 5:12)

2. The people that asked me to swear the oath were wrong in asking. ( James 5:12)

3. Later, I am asked to do something wrong as a requirement to keep that oath.

".... but when dealing with debaters who consistently engage in distracting personal attacks and character assassinations against me..."

I suggest that it is impossible to assissinate something that is already dead.

Wordwolf,

So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?

Let me take a stab at this.

I don't think WW is representing that at all.

As I read the verses quoted, I think was was represented was that it was contrary to the teaching of Jesus for an oath to be given/ required in the first place.

You are making a strawman argument by implying that WW was representing that we ought not keep promises.

Typical Oldies, when are you going to muster up one small spark of intellectual honesty?

In Regards to the CF&S Survey.

This questionaire came out in the 70's when VP was on top of everything. So he either put it together himself, or had someone else put it together. It was a part of CF&S because VPW want it to be.

So what was it's real purpose?

What is most interesting to me, is that the survey had questions related to sexual morality, yet the CF&S class didn't address that much, if at all.

In others words, there was no direct teaching that adultery "extramarital intercourse" was immoral or contrary to the Bible, at least not that I can recall.

No wonder, because lawsuit testimony, shows that VPW taught Martindale that extra marital sex was acceptable to the spiritually mature and to "consider all the women in the kingdom to be his- he was the king."

I can only surmise that the survey was to take a general pulse, and/or or to identify fwomen that might later be candidates to be initiated in to the ranks of the spiritually mature.

It seems to me that with VPW/TWI knowing and teaching the word like it handn't been taught since the 1st Century, that there would have been clear cut teachings on many of the things asked in the survey.

He had no problem teaching Jesus is not God and other doctrines that were certain to be unpopular, so why didn't he teach the masses that extramarital sex was ok for the spiritually mature? -- Because, it would have given many of us guys (that stayed) a lot of motivation to grow up spritually and then there would have been to many spiritualy mature men for VPW/HA/LCM ,et al to compete with? Because it would have been to far over the top and caused too much outside attention?

Where did these surveys eventually end up? Certainly someone here has first-hand knowledge of that.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they ended up right on VPW's desk.

Wasn't this class being run right about the same time that the wife-swapping was going on among certain initiated and spiritually mature Way Corps?

Why do these "experiences" always have to be accompanied by a bodyguard of protective measures wherever they travel? Claims are heard " the victims" will be upset and feel emotionally afflicted by the mere possibility their testimonies may be put under the proverbial microscope and processed through the laboratory of critical analysis. The truth is: Nobody can be insulted or demeaned by a challenge to the authenticity of a valid contention. The very nature of the world of fact is that it emerges "smelling of roses" and with credibility in yet greater glory thanks to the inquisitorial process undergone. But that's simply not possible here - and definately not with "these experiences."

The accusations of moral culpability undermine Christianity's claim to be a creed of compassion. Instead of confronting the accusations with objective analysis, Christians prefer to wallow in a vague but real sense of guilt. One strongly suspects that the mindset that one is dealing with here is one lacking the spark of real critical intellect. Could it be those with a habit of asking probing questions have all jumped ship? Could it be then all that are left - are mediocrities and "yes men" ready to be taken in?

Yet this ever so convenient line of reasoning can always be marshalled for any case where we believe that we are right and the opposition wrong, which one imagines would cover quite a few instances. Next time you have a difference of opinion with your spouse or partner why not try this line of reasoning?

"You are wrong. You know you are wrong and are dishonestly asserting your position for an ulterior motive. Thus I am not obliged to engage in any further discussion!"

The results should be interesting.

Note: The above was plaigerized word for word by WTH from an essay called "The Holocoust Hex" by Joseph Heany - an admitted Holocaust revisionist. Like father - like son.

Read it here

You might be walking by the 5 senses if ......

You see your pastor grab your wife's derriere and then punch him in the face.

(He was actually ministering healing)

You smell bad breath on your friend and give them a breath mint.

(You friend is actually possessed)

Your gas gauge is on E and you stop to fill up.

(God knows you could have gone 20 more miles)

I think its insane to keep blaming Wierwille for the actions of others.

I think the vast majority of the women who had abortions do accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. It's only a few posters who keep on beating the drum that these women were victims of Wierwille.

I think it's insane to continue to defend VPW's callous, self-serving, and destructive behavior. Your ability to discern right from wrong and truth from error is clouded by your unwaivering adoration of VPW. It has made you just as callous, just as cold-hearted, and just as self-serving as VPW himself.

It may surprise you, but I consider you a victim as well. While I still hold you accountable for you callouness and cold-heartedness, I hold VPW even more accountable since he fathered you in it.

And contrary to what you think, it's way more than a "few posters" that think these women were victims of VPW. (I speak of those women who would not have had abortions except for the pressure applied by VPW and his minions.)

Actually, I doubt you think that at all. You've been around a long time and you know full well that more than a "few posters" hold VPW accountable for that. Who are you trying to persuade with that silly nonsense?

IMO,

If VPW is the source of the doctrine being debated, then leaving his name out would be a discredit to your readers. I think that you might even be ethically obliged to include his name.

It was all shipped to HQ and was secretly burried there.

If anyone wants a map, I have several hundred copies that I'll sell for $29.95 ea.

All are Aramaic originals. (For English Translations add $1.99 ea.)

Ohio residents add 6 percent sales tax. Offer voild where prohibited.

.

.

.

.

For instance, if someone said they believe PFAL is God - Breathed. Is that person a liar? No, not if they believe that statement to be true. On the other hand, what they have said is false and exaggerated and has been proven to be false and exaggerated. So you can say that that poster engages in exaggeration, without calling them a liar.

Did the the Pharsiees believe that they were right and justified? Sure they did. Yet Jesus still called them liars. Don't recall him saying they were exaggerating.

If someone tells me a lie and I believe it, and then I tell it to someone else as being true, is it no longer a lie? Am I then not a liar simply because I believe it to be true? Why do you suppose that the Bible says that "all" men are liars?

Same can be said for the statement "innocents died at VP's hands". That statement is false and exaggerated and can't be proven in any reasonable way. But since the person writing it believes it to be true, the poster shouldn't be called a liar.

Why is that statement necessarily false or exaggerated? Becasue you say so? Because it can't (in your opinion) be proven in a reasonable way? We be believe God exists. According to your method of reason that would be false and exaggerated. It cannot be universally proved. Simply because something cannot be proved does not make it false, it just makes it unproved.

On the other hand, If that statement can be proven false, then I would actually have no problem calling that person a liar. Can it be proven either way? I think it can, but only to an objective mind that is capable of honesty weighing the evidence.

BTW, what is false about it?

1. That anyone died
   
2. That the ones that died were innocent
   
3. That VPW had a role in it
   

Go ahead Oldies. Let's see you prove it false.

Exclusivity and biblically insupportable doctrines are not unique to the Mormon Church. While I find many of the core doctrines biblically insupportable, they have come a long way in modern years in regards to race and gender discrimination. They have maintained family values better than some.

Recently they have even opened up a bit about the darker sides of their history with honest dialog about such things as the Mountain Meadows Massacre .

Let's see how they handle the fairly recent sex abuse cover up charges.

Goey,

I will answer your question this way. A poster said "innocents died at VP's hands". I stated that was a false accusation.

I'm not calling the poster a liar, because the poster believes that allegation to be true and yet, it is an allegation that can't be reasonably proven, so I believe it is false.

A lot of what we post are simply opinions. I have mine, you have yours, etc. Try not to be so sensitive.

You did not answer my question at all. You dodged it by giving a different example of your own and then answering that instead. Classic strawman.

Then you obfsucate things and turn allegations and accusations into "simply opinions".

Then finally the presumptive ad hominum - Try not to be so sensitive ...

Same Oldies that was here when I went on leave. Haven't changed a bit. Your posts are still predictable and follow the same basic paterns as usual.

Strawman, obfuscate, ad hominum. (Not necessarily in that order)

Oldies,

A lie is a falshood. Get it? How thick are you really?

Example:

If some claims as an eye-witness that VPW was sitting naked when they entered the room and then he asked them to perfom a certain lewd act with him. And in response, someone else says "That's false and exaggerated, I don't believe it"

How is that not calling them a liar?

Take your time.

I am having a great day thank you.

Why don't you take that bottle of Drambuie, Bronze it and make a little shrine?