Workman

In yet another coup d'etat.

I'm pretty sure there was some kind of government investigation regarding TWI helping him and I have a friend who was involved and I will try to find out more. It seems this individual was told to lie to the FBI or whoever if asked certain questions, perhaps "Did this TWI organization tell you to campaign for him?"

I will see if the person remembers anything.

It was during Gahagan's political campaign that TWI's troubles with the IRS began. I was a WOW in D.C. in '78-'79; which it was that fall when Gahagan lost the Senate race up in Maine.

Since at the time D.C. was not a Limb, we were allowed (assigned? encouraged? I forget) to travel to a state Limb meeting ... I could be wrong but I think it was the Virginia meeting. Anyway Hayes spoke there, after which VP took up a collection for his campaign. I remember it distinctly how the ushers, or whoever, at first grabbed the horns of plenty to pass around. VP said "No, find something else," and some enterprising soul (a Corpuscle I'd guess) grabbed empty pitchers that belonged to the hotel and those were passed around.

Evidently VP thought that not using the horns of plenty would be enough to skirt the IRS rules that non-profit church corporations are obliged to follow to enjoy their tax deductibility status. As it turned out, it wasn't. Along with whatever else went on in the organization on behalf of Hayes' campaign -- which I believe some Corpses traveled to Maine and did some hoof work for it -- the IRS used the activities on behalf of a politician as an excuse to remain in TWI's hair for most of the rest of VP's life.

In related Wayfer historiography:

Some Corpses here may remember the essays, "The Way for Me, From Birth to the Corps," which, beginning with the -- what? 10th Corps? -- the in-resident Corpuscles were assigned to write. Well at some point during my Corpse "Interim Year," the governmental pencil heads ordered TWI to turn over the international corpuscles' TWFMFBTTC papers. At which point VP refused, and he made the refusal stick by sending all the essays he had back to everyone who had written one, along with an explanation of why he had refused to turn those belonging to the foreign Corpuscles over to the government.

Can't turn over what you ain't got, it's whatcha call "axiomatic." I've still got mine in my file cabinet.

BTW, at some point during that "WOW Year" I took Gahagan's "Blessings of Liberty" class, which was a great. The "lite" PDF version of it that he's got up on his site now pales by comparison to what that thing was in 1978. (Typical Republican dissimulation if you ask me; yeah and there is still nothing in it about divided-sovereignty versus unitary governance in light of states rights, despite all my preaching. But I digress...)

At the time and to this day, IMHCO Hayes was reaching too far trying to go from Maine's State Senate all the way to the U.S. Senate. He should have run for the U.S. House first. But I digress again...

V.P., himself, confessed to small groups in the W.C. that he sexually fondled his adolescent daughter to "teach her about sexuality". (One such group was comprised of all women.) According to VP (You know he wasn't really a Dr., don't you?) Wierwille, this was supposedly a custom that was practiced by some aboriginal tribe in some remote area of the World. (So much for "The Bible is our only rule of faith and practice.") There are people who currently post here who were present at those meetings, which makes it first-hand testimony. As I've said before, we have no way of knowing if he was being truthful in making these confessions. What we do know for certain, though, is that he did, indeed, make these confessions.

Methinks that according to Roman law -- as it has been passed down via British and American Common Law and is still adhered-to in Courts of Law today -- if the current posters remain anonymous such evidence would be considered "alleged first-hand testimony." And it seems only fair that an allegation as egregious as child molestation ought to be backed up by more than that -- at least, it would have to be for me to accept it "for certain."

After all, even a historian writing about Hitler, if all he had were "alleged" testimony about that kind of thing, he would qualify the accusation.

Now don't get me wrong. While notwithstanding all the reports of varying levels of credibility, I don't think Wierwille was anything like a "Hitler," nevertheless in my book it has been established beyond doubt that he was a sex addict, and a sex and spiritual abuser.

And although I suspected as much to be true -- in large although not exclusive measure from what I read here at GS -- it wasn't "for certain" for me until I read Kahler's and Skedgell's books. Because in those pages a couple of woman were courageous enough to put their names on their reports of abuse at Vic's hands.

Now HOLD ON A SECOND. Before anyone starts flaming me, I don't think that there is ONE THING WRONG with people who have been abused making anonymous reports on anonymous venues such as GS. The women who were victims of Wierwille's sexual and spiritual abuse HAVE BEEN THROUGH HELL. And having been a member of Sex Addicts Anonymous for three months (which is a story in itself) as far as I'm concerned an anonymous venue such as GS, where victims feel comfortable telling their stories, speaks well for that venue.

At the same time, justice demands that I recognize that a public venue such as GS is going to attract false reports.

BTW FWIW, SAA is a great organization based on the Twelve Steps of AA. It's motto is "From Shame to Grace," and unlike some organizations I could name, it does a good job (not a perfect job) living up to its ideals.

As evidenced first-hand by me ("Workman" lol) at their meetings -- and I have been to many -- where abusers and the abused were able to sit in a room TOGETHER and tell their stories WITHOUT strangling each other (much much more than a minor miracle). And I'm talking about the kind of abusers who have sexually molested their own children in the same room with people who were victims of sex abuse from one or both of their parents as children.

Which is why, to anyone suffering from dysfunctional feelings/behaviors due to past or current experiences of abuse in that catagory, whether as perp or victim, I highly recommend the organization.

**********

Broken Arrow: "Ha cha-cha-cha-cha!"

**********

brainfixed re: "i never knew this, but this sure does explain a whole lot! no wondering why there were groups of pedophiles that ran children's fellowships! and no wondering they did it without fear of anything being done about it!"

I ran into a more than a couple of pedophiles and their enablers among the "rank and file believers" while running a Branch for TWI as a Corps grad (11th). Mostly in the couple-of-year "dead space" between HQ carrying out its purges among its employed, after the Geer assault, and the beginnings of the organization paying renewed attention to its "on the field works" where "volunteers" such as myself had authority (when I was "dismissed from Active Corps"). During which time I had a free hand to deal with it.

Which my hand, basically had a ball bat in it. This was before SAA, BTW; I'm more "mellow" now, lol.

My question to myself at the time -- still being clueless to the extent of the abuse in TWI -- was, "What attracts all these pervs to The Word?" It wasn't until later, again in SAA, that I discovered that ALL KINDS OF ABUSE are rampant throughout this WHOLE SCREWED-UP SOCIETY. So just on a statistical basis alone, some pervs were bound to be in my Branch.

**********

excathedra re: "workman so glad you posted!"

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Re: "like i said somewhere he did "share" about teaching arousel to his daughter"

Even talking about it by a MALE -- father or not -- is borderline abuse. For crying out loud it is in the Bible that, in the church, that kind of job (and it is an important job) belongs to the elders who are FEMALE (for obvious reasons to anyone whose conscience is not seared with a hot iron about sex). That would be Titus 2:4. (Yet another vindication of II Timothy 1:7, brought to you by 'Workman'.)

Hands-on it would have been unequivocal abuse. Not just morally and ethically, but LEGALLY. But the only one who can know for sure whether it was hands-on, and if not, whether it was abusive would be his daughter. And I imagine she ain't talkin'.

That said, that kind of "sharing" -- whether the incident itself was abusive to the daughter or not -- with any kind of public audience is of itself abusive. It is abuse against that audience. And it is indicative of a mind that is extremely out of whack about what is appropriate regarding sexual matters.

So if what you are saying is true, clearly at the very least, Vic was clueless of the potential effect such a "sharing" could have on potential/present abusers and victims alike. People who were, no-doubt on a statistical basis, in his audience.

Now, whether Vic got his ya-ya's off via his "sharing," or instead was actually deceived into thinking it was "profitable," it is impossible to know. He is dead.

Re: "i can't even go on. i ran to the bathroom then but i actually stayed in the way"

As for me, my forehead is flat, God bless our lil' ol' pea-pickin' hearts.

I should have grown up into an adult long before I did. Which it just so happens, requires a wee bit deeper and more profound growth and maturity than can be availed by acquiring skills at "Christian Etiquette," lol.

I remember now, I missed that photo. Why? I'll tell you why. Because I was on Bless Patrol...

I find it interesting that Jack LaLanne (b. 9/26/14) was over two years older than vpw (12/31/16). Vpw looked the more decrepit than Jack , in the photos of 'ol vic taken over 25 years ago. R.i.p. Jack!

Edit: sorry, couldn't attach the comparison pic of Lalanne, like I intended.

Heh, Calavicci. I'm the one who snapped that pic you posted. I guess it went viral after I uploaded it to Wikipedia a while back.

FWIW, here's "the whole thing," with others including Mrs., Rhoda, a "staffer," and various eleventh corpuscles in view.

Interesting thread, y'all. I can't believe I read the whole thing. *burp*

Wouldn't you know? Just when I get around to feeling like posting here the place is closing down. *burp*

'Scuse me.

I've lurked GS on and off for years, but this is the first thread I've seen where VP is accused of child molestation, (brainfixed on page 2). Where did that come from? Dang.

BTW, here's a pic of Jack. You're right, he looked much better!

Maybe a real-world example will help illustrate my point.

Let's say that I decide to execute a biblical research project about Jesus Christ's ministry as a prophet, which is an office I assume he has based upon internal evidence from the Bible. Specifically, what he said about himself in Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:4, and what Peter said about him in Acts 3:22-26. And I adopt as the underlying minor premise for my research (my major premise being that the Bible is the Word of God) that prophets pronounce "woes."

First, to present evidence in support of my minor premise, I review everywhere that the words "woe unto" occur from Isaiah through Malachi. And I see that the phrase occurs 27 times -- in Isaiah 3:9,11; 5:8,11,18,20,21,22; 10:1; 24:16; 29:15; 45:9,10; Jeremiah 4:13; 6:4; 13:27; 22:13; 48:1; 50:27; Lamentations 5:16; Ezekiel 13:3; 16:23; Hosea 7:13; Amos 5:18; Habakkuk 2:15,19; Zephaniah 2:5.

Then I look up everywhere Jesus is recorded saying "woe unto," and I discover 28 instances in the Gospels -- Matthew 11:21(twice); 18:7; 23:13,14,15,16,23,25,27,29; 24:19; 26:24; Luke 6:24,25(twice),26; 10:13(twice); 22:42,43,44,46,47,52; 17:1; 21:23; 22:22.

Lo and behold I have not only provided evidence toward proving my thesis, I have also constructed a framework within which I can do further biblical research into the ministry of a prophet. And a framework that provides plenty of valuable material for exegetical exposition to boot.

It is hard -- IMPOSSIBLE actually -- to argue that I am not carrying out research, even if you disagree with my major premise that the Bible is the Word of God. Especially when my research presents evidence that someone can turn around and make use of as fodder, who holds to the major premise that the Bible is a hodge-podge of Bronze and Iron Age Hebrew literature that is held together with paper clips and chewing gum. And who holds the minor premise that the prophets of the Bible were basically cranks, who wandered the streets homeless wearing sandwich boards declaring "The End is Near."

Whether anyone on this thread cares to acknowledge it or not, the above is an example of "lower criticism" a.k.a. “textual criticism.” And I, along with just about everyone else who posts on this forum, could cite abundant similar examples from V.P.W.'s work.

He didn't invent the method, nor did I of course. But anyone trying to argue on the Worldwide Web that the methodology that his research employed does not qualify as research – maybe because he or she thinks V.P.’s research was cr*p, and is willing to eliminate the connotation of credibility that the word “research” implies at the cost of throwing logic out the window, who knows? -- is merely in danger of exposing him- or herself as a crank.

Does the author of this essay really intend to throw out the research carried out by the entire Christian establishment that propounds inerrancy? Such as the Southern Baptist Convention, which has more than 16 million members and 42,000 churches? Or by the editors of “nearly all modern translations” of the Bible? Who use the exact same methodology in their research?

If so … uh well … all I can say is I hope you have good luck in all of your endeavors…

Evangelical inerrantists

Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism, and nearly all modern translations, including the popular New International Version, work from a Greek New Testament based on modern textual criticism.

Since this means that the manuscript copies are not perfect, inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. For instance, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.

Gee whiz. Them Chicago folks almost sound like mind-numbed PFAL grads...

***

Note to pawtucket: I have no argument with your deletion of my post that appeared subsequent to Penworks'. I understand why you deleted it. And not only for the obvious reason that Greasespot is your place. A lot of webmasters enforce the same kind of shill rule on their forums.

Of course, for my own records, I have saved screen shots of my posts and the responses. Not that they're of any use in updating my already-written-thing-that-I'm-not-supposed-to-mention-and-never-will-again, since in my view so far, no one has engaged me in a serious discussion of the root issues of my critique of the essay in question.

Hi Greasespotters:

Just a few more words about VPW and inerrancy. The examples he used to "prove inerrancy" are many and can be found in his publications. One way is in his approach to the gospels. For example, in an attempt to "show" that gospel contradictions are not really contradictions, he harmonized different accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Refer to the PFAL class and many threads here at GSC like:

VP and Bullinger harmonizing gospels

To "prove" inerrancy, he tried to splice the gospels together, ignoring their different views, as if he were editing scenes for a film.

In my view, the "film" he produced is actually a fifth gospel which not only does not reflect any of the original gospels writers' accounts as they were written, but makes VPW's account appear as if it is the "real" gospel. In my view, by doing that, VPW placed a false halo around the belief in "inerrancy."

By creating a "fifth" gospel, VPW reinterpreted each writer's "take" on events. In the process, he avoided having to deal with uncomfortable questions about why there are four different gospels to begin with and how we got them. I do not think that VPW's method respects the gospel texts (written about 35 to 65 years after Jesus died) as we have them today; it only makes VPW a 20^st century Bible thumper who tries to sound as if he knows what the "real" gospel should be.

BTW – Workman: I checked your GSC profile and saw you mentioned your web site http://www.biblicalr...rchjournal.org/ . Since it is clear you are a proponent of VPW's research and methods, I imagine my line of thinking won't matter much to you since it comes from a different tradition of valuing Biblical documents. So, I offer this post to those interested who happen to still be reading this thread.

Cheers!

Hi Penworks, and thank you for your courtesy.

I am not here to shill for my website, necessarily. I mention it on my profile because it is one part of my life -- a project that I have been pursuing since I got tossed out of TWI by Craig Martindale, and later departed the particular splinter group that sprouted up here. So it is a part that also bears particularly upon what Greasespot is all about.

I decided to post on this thread, firstly, because your essay deals with biblical research. Which as my site indicates, is a subject that I am interested in. I am also posting here to afford myself the opportunity to inform you that I intend to review your essay in a weblog post on my site. But journalistic integrity -- not to mention the love of God -- requires that before I post anything, that I do my best to rehearse my take on your essay with you, in a format where you are able to respond in whatever fashion that you would care to.

Don't jump to conclusions, for instance, that your line of thinking about V.P.'s and E.W.'s methods and conclusions on the subject of Gospel harmony are of no interest to me. I have looked at Oakspear's post that you linked, and I plan on studying ya'll's line of thinking further, whether or not I ever post about it here.

If you want to discuss it here, that's fine with me, but the subject of harmonizing the so-called Gospels is definitely tangential to what I'm going to handle in my weblog post about your essay.

I have no objection to the methods you and Oakspear use in your lines of reasoning on the subject of Gospel harmonizing. You object to their premise, you find their research lacking -- and in V.P.W.'s case -- the errors that you posit represent further evidence, to you, of your and this site's overall theme -- which as I see it is the bad faith behind pretty much everything that V.P. pursued during his life and ministry. Right or wrong, and whether I agree or disagree with you, you are using perfectly valid lines of reasoning.

What I'm going to handle on my site regarding your essay, I have pretty much covered in my previous posts. Which boiled down, is the "category error" that I believe you are making.

Sorry, Workman, it all sounds like a bunch of verbal tap dancing to me. A scientific experiment that has been validated in, let's say, Kansas, has to produce the same results on Mars?? Where did you learn this approach to validation? It's really not as complex or intellectual as you try to make it sound. The "scriptures", as we know them, are chock full of errors and contradictions, not only because we no longer understand the nuances of the original languages and cultures but, also, because human tinkering has modified the contents time and time again. Wierwille didn't "research" anything. He simply twisted and squeezed and altered the Bible until he was able to make it conform to what he thought it should say. And, what he thought it should say was whatever best suited his own self-serving purposes. And, yet, people still harbor fond memories of how lambano sounds like laballo which sounds like ballo which sounds like ball which is an object to be tossed and, therefore, we are to toss it out into the senses world like a ball is tossed into the field of play.

I am my own Grandpaw.

Complex? Intellectual? Moi? I think you may need to reread.

Actually it's a simple as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...

It is basically the foundation for inductive proof or argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-ordering_principle

I know its math.. but you were talking logic and proof or the lack of merit thereof..

Anyway.. I don't think that Penworks assertion was not that the bible is NOT inerrant. Just that if one wants to impose an inductive proof or analysis, one has to play by the rules. Is it inerrant, or not? "well, it is, because it says it is.."

hardly is a base step for the "proof".

Neither is "it can't be".

If faith or belief is so important.. isn't it counter-productive to force logic where it does not really apply?

Like I pointed out in my first post on this thread, even science is based on an unprovable premise -- like you're saying, on "faith" or "belief." Namely, that scientific laws are valid across the entire observable universe. All scientists therefore assume, based upon this unprovable premise, that the results they obtain in controlled studies in the laboratory would be the same on Mars or on the other end of the galaxy. But that assumption will remain forever unprovable, unless they are able to repeat their experiments on Mars and points beyond.

Clearly, without some basic premise upon which to base inductive methodologies, research of any kind would be impossible. Interestingly, when it comes to scientific laws as currently defined, observational astronomy has made two discoveries that present severe challenges to three of the most basic sets of laws known to science. Observations of Dark Matter have presented a challenge to Newtonian Mechanics, and observations of Dark Energy have presented a challenge to both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Indeed, the Dark Energy Task Force has written in a report on this issue:

Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.

Which is geek-speak for, "Holy Cr*p!!! What we're lookin' at through the Hubble is blowin' our cookies about the BASIC LAWS OF SCIENCE!"

Nicely put Workman,

The inerrancy premise is what most "Bible believing" Christians start with (VP, Bullinger and millions of others, BTW). Throwing out the baby (inerrancy) with the bathwater (in this case VP's womanizing and BS in many places) doesn't wash (pun intended).

RE

Yeah, you don't wanna see the FLAME WAR I got into with a guy, on a financial blog where I spend most of my online time. A guy who I would characterize as "an uber-libertarian crypto-anarchist."

...that's right, you guessed it, an Ayn Rand NUT (talk about a cult)...

The discussion pivoted around the same kind of logical error in play here, called a "Category Error." Something that I keep in mind whenever I'm exercising lower criticism-types of analyses on texts that I encounter -- and not just biblical texts.

Welcome to the Cafe, Workman.

just a thought.. the alternative makes one to force "inerrancy" in the bible, where it does not reasonably exist..

look at the lengths gone to in JCOP..

I don't think its a problem unless one makes it one. I think we were trained in the ministry to regard any other options than the bible being a perfect error free document (supposedly in the *original*) to be an attack from the devil spirit world or something..

Thanks for the welcome.

All I'm saying is that you can't dismiss research into the Bible that is based on the premise that it is "inerrant" -- as research -- any more than you can dismiss research into it that is based on the premise that it is "errant." Both are unprovable premises.

For instance, biblical critics of both stripes may practice research via one or the other or both, of what are called what are Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism of the biblical text -- which are both basically inductive methodologies. But the conclusions they come to, whichever inductive method they practice, nevertheless differ widely based on the critics' "givens" about the Bible with which they begin that research.

A quote from the Wikipedia article on Higher Criticism might help at this point (emphases added):

The questions of higher criticism are widely recognized by Orthodox Jews and many traditional Christians as legitimate questions, yet they often find the answers given by the higher critics unsatisfactory or even heretical. In particular, religious conservatives object to the rationalistic and naturalistic presuppositions of a large number of practitioners of higher criticism that lead to conclusions that conservative religionists find unacceptable.

Many conservative Bible scholars practice their own form of higher criticism within their supernaturalist and confessional frameworks. However, most traditional Christian exegetes examine the Bible chiefly through the Bible itself, believing that clear places in scripture give the best help in explaining the less clear places. Hence their exegetics, to one degree or another, depend upon lower criticism.

Other biblical scholars object that the evidence uncovered by higher criticism itself undermines the use of supernaturalist and confessional frameworks within the methodology. Meanwhile, religiously liberal Christians and religiously liberal Jews typically maintain that belief in God has nothing to do with the authorship of, for instance, the Pentateuch or the Pauline Epistles.

See in the first two phrases I highlighted, how people's premises affect the results of their research?

Meanwhile that third phrase I highlighted almost sounds like "the difficult verse must be understood in light of the clear verse," doesn't it? Because the methodology that V.P.W. used in his research was of the lower criticism kind. E.W. Bullinger too. And although it might ruffle feathers the wrong way here, both of them were pretty darn good at it in my book.

But of course, it is perfectly legitimate to contend with the results of their biblical research or anyone else's, making use of "higher" or "lower" criticism -- or any other type of inductive analysis for that matter -- to demonstrate the flaws in it. There are plenty of conservative Bible scholars out there, for instance, who believe in the inerrancy of the Scripture yet disagree strongly, not only with V.P. and E.W., but amongst themselves.

It is also perfectly legitimate to reject an entire line of research, if you believe the premise upon which is conducted is false. After all, it's a free country.

What I am saying is simple: It appears to me that what Penworks is claiming in her essay, is that V.P.W.'s research isn't research because she disagrees with his premise of inerrancy. My point is that her claim on that basis does not hold water.

A point that, I'm sure, A LOT of conservative critics of the Bible would would agree with me on, since her logic throws their research -- as research -- out the window along with V.P.'s.

Then you don't accept the well-ordering principle?

Sorry, I typed the above in answer to you while you were replying. I don't know what the "well-ordering principle" is.

Workman,

Is that a "major problem" with Penwork's definition (as you said earlier in your post) or just a "major problem"?

RE

Both.

Actually, inductive reasoning depends on the truthfulness of a base step. Then one shows for any other arbitrary step, one can prove the next one from the last one..

I agree to a degree. A faulty major premise yields a faulty conclusion no matter how sound the minor premises or the evidence. The thing with major premises, they're also known as "givens."

Coming to this discussion late, and not having given all 16 pages of this thread the careful reading they deserve, please forgive me if what I am bringing up has already been hashed through.

I believe that there is a major problem with penworks' definition of "research." A definition that I think can be gleaned from one of her posts on this thread:

I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and logic lately, but I'd like to drag the conversation back to point of the article:

To show that inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim.

I think I am safe in assuming -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that penworks' position is that "inerrancy" is disallowed as a premise in biblical research because it is impossible to prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Which would therefore mean, according to her definition, that to be genuine all research has to be based upon provable premises.

In the main article, she is absolutely correct when she describes what is formally-known as "inductive reasoning," when she writes:

Usually the word, “research,” implies embarking on a study to find out what conclusion can be drawn from the evidence found from studying something.

True enough. But the fact remains that ALL research -- although it is carried out via inductive reasoning -- is nevertheless based upon one unprovable premise or another. And that includes ALL scientific research.

Like I said, a "major problem."

As of this post, the year 1988-1989 has a plurality of 37.5% in the poll -- way above any other years -- which sounds about right to me.

According to my recollections (factoring in that the mind is the first thing to go), that was the year of the Big Purge. First, among the Way Tree and on-the-field Staff full-timers. I think it was, what? A 90% turnover on the Limb level? Something like that. Then, with LCM's "tell me whether you stand with me or not" letter, the purge was extended throughout the entire Corps.

Jeez Louise, for me and just about everyone in the Corps that I was associated with here, that one was a no-brainer. I say this in all good conscience: NEVER in my entire association with the Way Ministry, was my primary, secondary, or even tertiary loyalty to men. And I was hardly the Lone Ranger, as hinted by these poll results even now.

The Corps that I knew here, for whom answering that letter wasn't a no-brainer -- well, suffice to say, it took some deft footwork to avoid a couple of knives in the back, figuratively speaking. Excuse my French, but they shoved their noses so far up the Trustees' arses that they had to sneeze to get a glimpse of daylight. I was appalled, and told them so in no uncertain terms.

I'll always be thankful to the leadership here in San Antonio, which extended outward to the entire South Central Region (Texas and Louisiana) between the summer of '84 to the end of '88 (how? within such a corrupt system? by manifestation of believing, Bubba), for keeping us informed. Heck, we went through the whole "Athletes" sham when that sucker came out. (I hesitate to mention his name, in that we've had a falling-out. But it's spelled "Britt Lynn." If you ever read this, thank you, thank you, thank you, my good friend.)

After the balloon went up in '86, it was horrific, month after month, to hear news from places where the cover-up was in high gear. (Or should I say Geer.)

Oh yeah, since I know everyone's curious how the FREE KITTENS thing went yesterday (right, WM, sure they are), instead of writing about it again, I'll paste the update I sent my Dad.

My Dad is battling lung and brain cancer. The prognosis is a year, at best. He's going through radiation presently, and he enjoys getting little ditties like this from family and friends.

Oh, and by the way, any prayers for him from any of y'all who still do that kind of thing would be appreciated.

it is so difficult to explain how this happened embarrassing really . <_<

Dealing with terrorists can be problematic. Especially little furry cute ones.

Now I can do whatever the hell I want to do. That makes me feel a lot better.

Today, the kittens jumping on my bed.

Finally, they're big enough. Today's the day I hit the street corner with my FREE KITTENS sign.

Hopefully, I can summon up enough of my old wayfer love-bomb mind-control voodoo -- like I used in the old days to put together all those 150-student PFAL classes (lies, all lies) -- to hoodwink someone into taking in these three little terrorists.

Here's an opener I'm pondering:

"OH, LOOK AT THEM! THEY'RE SO CUTE!!!"

Whaddaya think? Pretty good mo-tech, eh?

We'll see.