Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Mike

Members
  • Content Count

    4,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Mike

  • Rank
    Friendly Opposition, Offering ANOTHER Other Side

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There’s no way I have the time to get involved in debate here, but I couldn’t help but notice two interesting items are missing here. The first missing item is what did VPW himself say about his use of other people’s material? His words on this topic are conspicuously missing here. Why is that? I also noticed this crucial information missing EVERY TIME the issue of plagiarism comes up. I think it dampens a lot of theories. Does anyone remember what he said? It’s in print. It was widely distributed, starting in 1972. I’ve posted this item about 10 times here (if not more) since Oldiesman found it around 2003. Because I have to limit my time here, so I’ll just leave this item hanging. I’ve written reams on it already. *** The next conspicuously missing item is B.G. Leonard’s visit to the Rock of Ages 1985. I think it was 1985. I was told about this by a 6th Corps clergy member. What BG told an audience there was that The Way was damned for teaching that SIT was not a gift but a manifestation. In other words, he was angry that VPW did not copy him WELL ENOUGH. Also, him being there at the Rock suggests a much closer relationship between VPW and BG than we are generally aware of. All of my knowledge of this event came from one person, who is SO much a Gear/Martindale clone that he will no longer talk to me. I’m simply trying to verify what I was told. I’m extremely thankful that, although BG was not of the temperament to move his revelations over the globe, VPW was. There was no way BG could have moved the Word with the Hippies. No way.
  2. And you also wrote: "It's obvious you don't bother to review your remarks before you post them. And I'm convinced it's because you're just too busy formulating the next ones already in your head --- that you don't stop to consider much at all before you post them! Hence, we see stuff just like this: 's like st (Go back and look...that's just the way you posted it!) And just what the hell is that, but the tell-tale marking of a man who just doesn't care a lick about what he's saying, nor how it might be taken by others?" Hi spectrum49, Thank you very much for that thoughtful post. Far from wanting to call you a liar, I feel I owe you a full explanation for the way I handled that post of mine with a late addendum. My great prayer at this time is that this can be my last post on this thread, and especially my last in the subtopic of sex. Absolutely yes to one of your hunches. Sort of yes to some. Let’s untangle it slowly. I’m not now in a rush (work related) like I was earlier. *** I first saw it AFTER hitting the “Submit Reply” button on my original post, the strange scrap of text way at the bottom of my original post that looked like this: 's like st I try to remember to write my posts in MS Word where the chances of losing a lot of work to a glitch is a lot less, and backups are built in, and there are no interruptions with notifications from another poster. Sometimes I forget to do this and am burned and do lose fresh textwork by various glitches, most due to human error. Sometimes I forget for a short while, and then remember, and then copy/paste into MS Word, and then later copy/paste back into the GSC editor box. That is what must have happened here with “'s like st” When I first saw it, I thought “…where did that come from?” but I quickly saw that it was a early scrap that survived this double transfer process. It fits right into this line very early in my editing: “I'm trying to get out of here, but it's like trying to stop a freight train.” I added the “trying to” much later in the original post. I figured the scrap was hidden from my sight when I finally hit the “Submit Reply” button because of lots of “line feed” generated blank space had happened in the transfers and the scrap was below the screen. This took me about 2 seconds to figure out because it happens a lot when you do thousands of posts. I then thought: “Should I clean it up? Naw, no one’s going to confuse that with anything sexual (being very nervous about that). I’m late for work and it looks safe. No one’s going to misconstrue anything evil (like many try hard to do) from that scrap so I’ll leave it. ” I shut down my computer and started getting ready to leave. Then I remembered more about the post, that it was a perfect example of the target shooting mode of many posters that I have to deal with here all the time. Plus I felt I had been stomped on by whomever I was replying to and still felt very hurt by the (regular) kind of misunderstanding it was. I am self employed, so I made an executive decision to BE late for work and defend my honor one ?last? time < ? ugh! > and turned my computer back on to add the late addendum. I also saw my chance to clean up the crazy < 's like st > scrap. End of that story. *** The reason I am nervous about this topic of sex is because I grew up from infancy as a science nerd personality that more than filled the shoes (I stretched them) of any stereotype of nerd ever projected in the media, and I am not at all proud of it. I’m not talking about the smart component of nerdity, but the extremely stupid component: the social. Though I can explain Einstein’s Relativity to any bartender on a slow night, my social skills at age 21 were about what most children learn early in Jr High. I have fought to catch up all my life and made many breakthroughs. I estimate that I am now, today, finally at about at the level of a High School senior in 1967, which was when I graduated. Five years ago one such major breakthrough happened when I learned to dance. It’s been lots of fun, and I am finally experiencing situations and joys and frustrations I could only previously observe and study others experiencing, with my science-head of great nerdliness. And study I did. I might be able to give Desmond Morris (author of The Naked Ape) a run for his money. There’s a funny line in one of the Revenge of the Nerds movies on this very thing. But third person knowledge of how men and women interact has very little of the first person flavors. There’s SO much I still don’t know and am completely oblivious to. I grew up being given the solemn task of watching over my 3 little sisters in school and on school buses before I hit puberty. I had no idea what that that responsibility meant. After puberty I totally knew what it meant. This really further stunted my growth in social areas. In my recent dancing I am blessed with many female friends now, more than I ever could imagine. They easily judge me “safe” because I really am. The reason I was able to get to know some of the enraged (and rightly so) women here around 2005 is because in PMs I could let down my hair and show them my heart. Women, I’m finding, really do have some kind of extra awareness of hearts that men need lots of proof before seeing. I’m a world class expert at the brother/sister relationship, because that’s about all I’ve ever experienced. My botched marriage was not a marriage at all. In private I cannot hide this no matter how much I try to be cool. On the dance floor, though, this is now finally an advantage. It never was before. You wrote: “It's obvious you don't bother to review your remarks before you post them. And I'm convinced it's because you're just too busy formulating the next ones already in your head --- that you don't stop to consider much at all before you post them!” First sentence is dead wrong, qualifying with the fact that I have a huge volume to deal with, and you see the errors that slip through. I see the many more that I do catch and fix before posting or two seconds afterward. Second sentence is totally right, but not the whole story. Third sentence is salt and pepper; some right some wrong. I do try to consider all that I post, and (considering the huge volume) I do pretty well. But when it comes to the topic of sex my ability to consider all the angles of how others can take in my text, I am dumber than dirt. All my life I have run into this. It’s ONE of the main reasons I advanced the Art of Dodging 15 years ago here when the sex shooters jump out of the bushes and take aim. I have PMed all of this and much more to DWBH and penworks over 10 years ago, and to skyrider recently. This is one reason DWBH labels me as “gentle.” I think I have totally succeed in being a gentleman because women tell me, when they have a man on their arm. It’s not at all fun being as innocent as the wind drive snow in this area. I’ve tried to sin here, and failed every time. I missed out on a lot. Consolation comes now in old age by seeing I also missed out on a lot of lifelong pain as well. This is why that AC grad I mentioned earlier confided in me long ago, and why it still bothers me to this day, what she said. But knowing how to write on this topic with many hotheads taking constant aim is impossible. I just proved it (again) to myself in this mess I just go into. So I’m trying to wrap up my presence on this thread, and yearn to head into the Doctrinal Dudgeon (after taxes are done) where I can talk about KJV verses and stay away from the sex soaps that prevail here. I’m trying to totally ignore all but the most crucial responses now. Please wish me luck. I need it. ***** Pre posting addendum: If anyone needs know any more from me please PM it to me so we can end this thread. Otherwise I’ll just try to ignore any more posts.
  3. Please read my post to spectrum49 below. I am almost ready to post it. In there I explain that both my eyes ARE blind due to extreme ignorance on my part.
  4. Please read my post to spectrum49 below. I am almost ready to post it. In there I explain that both my eyes ARE blind due to extreme ignorance on my part.
  5. It was NOT a molestation, only a proposition, and she was and AC grad. You assumed the worst because you wanted to. I'm trying to get out of here, but it's like trying to stop a freight train. ******************** Late Addendum: Just reflecting on how I'm too sensitive to these things, I only used one word (victim) to describe that situation because it still bothers me today. A simple proposition (with him dutifully backing off from her refusal) is still horrific me. It bothered me a lot! Yet you, chockful, assumed the worst of both the situation and of me for blowing it off. This is one large example of where you and others are not sensitive enough. Could we learn from each other and balance out a little? BTW, my female friend was NOT offended or shocked by it as nearly as much as me. She thought it was kind of funny. I didn't. This is a perfect example of looking for targets instead looking for heart, like asking a few questions.
  6. Thank you, Bolshevik for your refreshing contributions here.
  7. I was joking. Don't tell Johnny Carson it bombed, ok? Let's wrap it up here. I can say no more than I have. Where and how do I send money to Paw?
  8. If Bolshevik is similarly finished, maybe he would consent to close the thread here.
  9. I think me and my style are only a minor issue. Posting what has not been seen well here was the big issue to me. But for 3 posts now, I am willing to quote Superman and say "My job's done here." and fly away into Doctrinal after my taxes are done.
  10. To tell you the truth 49, I agree. I am repeating myself here. If Bolshevek comes up with any more gems, I can just read them. I doubt if I can say any more. Doctrinal sounds fine to me. I got to put some serious time into taxes also. Thanks for the idea.
  11. I thought this thread WAS in Doctrinal! I think it got moved. Maybe it was in Open. I don't mind posting in Doctoral. HEY! Maybe that would reduce the volume and I could get some polishing done. GOOD IDEA DWBH! Or was that MY idea? Gosh! Who's idea WAS it? Who might have the rights to it in a copyright court. I am NOT joking here. I am speaking by serious analogy. Attention: Bolshevek! I first noticed this oddity and some flimsiness in concepts of intellectual property and plagiarism when I was a Junior in High School. Several times someone would say something serious. It would be misunderstood, and then seriously responded to. The response would be HILARIOUS! But who gets the credit? The originator of the beginning of the joke or the mistaker and their response? I pondered this for years even before 1972, because I wanted to be a writer for Johnny Carson. My earlier, milder claim to have been thinking on plagiarism in 1972 was what sparked the Popular Electronics pile on. Now I will claim to have been pondering these things since 1966. Thanks! I already knew this, but how was I to post it? You helped me DWBH, so maybe I owe you royalties when my manifesto hits the bookstores? But all seriousness aside folks (Steve Allen 1957) how can I contribute dollar money to GreaseSpot? Summer is coming fast and my Winter poverty mode is ending. This is the only TWI-related place where a great deal of free speech is offered, even sometimes when it outrages, but is still legal. I think you are right, and I should pay my way. Post an address and to whom I should address the check. What is a normal offering per year?
  12. Hi Rocky, Your post is in black, my response in blue. That's disappointing Mike. I HAVE repeated, repeatedly, the point about how the communication process works and that when you resort to telling people that they read you wrong, you fail at communicating YOUR message. Rocky, I appreciate your patience. I do try to do the kind of polished writing, and sometimes succeed. But most of the time here I am swamped with responses, lots of emotional hits, many spurious like sex on a plagiarism thread, and the urge to get my points down quickly overrules my desire to be polished. As a little thought experiment, suppose I were to go back and re-write all my posts just right in this thread. Do you think that such a reworking would get any different a set of responses than I already have posted? I don’t. People here (seem to me) to be hell bent on discrediting me at all cost. I don’t sense a willingness to change if new data is presented to them. *** NOTHING on plagiarism here is new to me, except a few interesting nuances that Bolshevek has posted pretty consistently. That’s why I landed here, after thinking I could retire. I was tempted. It’s not my fault. He did it. (I’m totally kidding here on this last set of sentences.) NOTHING on plagiarism here is really new to me, because (for one reason) I have thought about it for years and incorporated VPW’s thoughts on it from 1965 and 1972 for over 45 years. I can change my mind, but why? (boy oh boy, target shooters are loading up on Mike-ego ammunition here) And the points made to me here are NOT beefed up (to me) with more and more sex references (a truly difficult subject; much more difficult than plagiarism), more and more attacks on the good parts of VPW’s character, more and more Pure Evil model stuffed into the arguments. Those tactics just reveal to me the desperation of posters who see new info coming from me all the time, and their determination to never listen with an ear to hear the ideas or logic. Why don’t you castigate the writing style used in those unseemly and juvenile posts? *** If I take the time to polish everything, then my already poor ratio of “responded to” to “unresponded to” posts goes down more, and a set of complaints differing with your polish suggestion come rolling in. Why should I use and polish my communication skills when communication seems to me to be the LAST thing most want to do here. Most want me either outright banned, or so publicly humiliated that I run home crying while lurking readers laugh it all off. I sense in you and a few others (at times) a willingness to communicate. A stellar example of that was where I had stated that VPW’s stealing (man’s view) of the material guaranteed WE could “steal” it from TWI and they’d be afraid to prosecute due to the potential public exposure that their “ownership” of the material had the same taint (man’s view) as those they’d like to prosecute. I have offered that idea here about 5 times, about 2 in the recent year. One poster here (having not read my post on this oddly funny twist for understanding, but for targets only, had trashed it along with others. In the process he posted the nearly exact oddly funny twist idea in different wording. I pointed this out to him almost immediately, and he again only looked for targets, and in the process AGAIN trashed my idea, right after he had posted the same idea with different wording. YOU, Sir Rocky, valiantly came to my rescue, and pretty quickly, seeing the equivalence stated quite well, you told said poster that he had missed that equivalence. I wish others had the ability and willingness to that. That tells me there’s something in you that values the truth and all the facts (not just useful ones), and it overruled your desire to win the debate. I think that was very commendable. I don’t think many here have learned that kind of noble behavior yet. Actually, as I lounge in this Thankful Room I see Twinky. She did this once, I think, but my mind is a little jammed with mentally-noted posts right now, and I can’t remember the context. I think I joked that I’d like to hire her, should I win the Lottery or something. And I see Ralph over there, too. He’s verifying my report of the youngsters on fire with the Word on Long Island in the early 70s. *** I am slowly learning that the same blinding snowstorm of posts that overwhelm me also overwhelms all of you folks. I find that many here do not read all my posts and points even addressed to them individually, let alone read all my posts to others on identical subjects. But how do I deal with this new learning that is happening? One way is to complain that what I posted directly was not fully or well read. Another is to post the same idea over and over many times. This volume preclude polishing them all. I’m also slowly (too slowly) learning that there no way I can reach the bottom of my response list. I have, once in a while with a flurry of my own responding, answernearly post and strong point, and I finish in the wee hours thinking: “Wow! I finished! Now I can go into that promised (after my big apology for blitzkrieg posting of many pages and passages of forgotten PFAL) retirement where I only post once in a while and far away from the About the Way forum.” Then the next day my flurry of finishing-up posts triggers an avalanche of new posts, then I complain, my hand is slapped, I see many distortions, and the whole process starts another cycle. *** I’m slowly learning that all I can do is pound out the posts that I think can someday be re-formatted into a manifesto, after I win the Lottery and get the spare time needed for that. This is a fantasy, and it will probably never get done. But I do see the not-so-fantasy laced possibility of future posters (or lurkers) with the same integrity you displayed when you spotted and pointed out that my post on the oddly-funny-twist idea was equivalent to the other poster’s idea. You read both with understanding and were able to spot that. I think many of my points are this way; not the equivalence part, but the reading for understanding verse for targets. *** If you really want to see me polish, then the crazy volume of nasty distractions and lack of understanding must decrease. Maybe you can PM some people when you see them miss my points again or use nasty distractions. Did you notice the high volume of ad hominem posts in the past few days outright calling me a liar in many ways? Please speak to those who are guilty, help reduce the volume of craziness, and then posters are capable of reading my responses to other people, and take more time to post in response to me. Maybe you can PM the guilty, and avoid public ego conflicts. *** I would love to get into the sex issues someday, but there the hot buttons are too sensitive here. The Pure Evil model installs triggers in many and if I mention sex at all, the triggers fire and my point is totally lost in the shuffle. The much greater energy and hurt on this topic totally preclude any discussion on sex. *** There are a few things I would like to post that is new info for nearly all here, but I dare not post in this atmosphere. I have told some of this to one poster here in PMs, and I’m wanting to post it public, but I can’t. It’s too delicate for my dismal understanding of sex to handle well, and it’s too enraging for those who the pains well know (first-hand, second-hand, third-hand). This would be VERY new knowledge to most here, and hence should provoke quiet listening and pondering and maybe even some position shifting. (Should? Yeah, right! WONT) *** None of the sex tragedies are new me, so I feel justified in standing my ground silently. My first encounter with a victim was in 1978. She was a best friend, so it was perplexing to say the least. I took her side strongly at first, until I slowly realized that VPW had (with the film class only) had set Long Island on fire with the Word, greatly benefiting her and me with the Word like no “men of cloth” ever had or ever could do. Sure I thought VPW was messed up on this, but she too always had messed up things in her life. She had blessed relatively no one with the Word and didn’t want to. She seemed more interested in tearing me away than in getting her heart right. I had to make a choice and I voted in favor of being on the alert and continuing the green card push as long as I saw it still benefiting new people. It did; all the way up to around 1986, and it tapered off pretty fast. I was out then with my copies of the class. I could see that LCM had taken the issue to a new level. I continued to take notes on all this for 10 years. In 1987 I saw the Scheonheit Adultery paper for the first time, and saw it’s similarity to what I had already worked quite a bit. I had heard stories in the 70s as third hand rumors. When I was a twig leader in 1980 my twig and I had worked the KJV on adultery and fornication and came up with a crude 5 year precursor to the Sheonheit paper. I attended all of John Lynn’s visits here in SD from 1988 to 1997. I heard all the stories from him and more. I heard stories from grads at those meetings. I made friends in PMs here with several outraged women, and we became friends, some good friends, because they saw my heart in those PMs. I opened up to them. *** Rocky, how many here do you think could see my heart here if I exposed it. None of the target seekers, that’s for sure. They would go wild. This exact thing happened around 2004 when I dared to try it. I regretted it. I don’t see the use in spending lots more time here slowly polishing all my posts. I’m trying hard in this one, but I know it’s a bit of a stream of consciousness style. Maybe someday I’ll go back and polish them all for my old folks home amusement, my memoirs or manifesto, or for a miraculous PFAL revival. Right now I mostly want to post what I think is new to most here, even if outrageous. I have had the luxury of pondering these things for decades. Don’t ask me why, it just happened that way. I did not volunteer to be the recipient of tons of stuff that is relatively unseen here, even after is posted. Target seekers merely turn on their blinders. I think you all deserve to hear (not shoot at) the yet unheard items to complement and make more full your positions. *** My intent is to give you graceful a way out of the predicaments you put yourself in. [see Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part Four, chapter Five] One chapter title is "When you're wrong admit it quickly and emphatically." [Part Two, chapter three] .I have admitted to some errors; can you point out 3 times where a poster (or better yet yourself) has quickly admitted TO ME an error made in debating me? I can’t think of any. It would be refreshing and new info to me if you can find 2 of them, and even one would point out to me someone I want to pay better attention to in the future. IF your intent is to get people to take your message seriously, wouldn't you have to get honest about your communication mistakes and problems? You've recorded your "thesis" on GSC but you've refused all efforts to get you to clarify your points. . I think I clarify many that get trodden underfoot. I clarified my super abbreviated account of the lie detectors. I posted the expanded version to show it fit with the abbreviated version. Did anyone compare them? I think it was rejected without comparison by most. Will I see any retractions after I posted the Popular Electronics links? Will anone follow the links? Will anyone go back and stitch it all together and see that I really did play with some exotic things? I’m not holding my breath. Both polish, clarifications, and retractions mean nothing to the target shooters. Are you an expert communicator? Haven't you admitted that you're not? When you refuse legitimate feedback by saying the reader read you wrong, you're missing a wonderful opportunity to LEARN how to communicate better. .When it’s not a battle, and not overwhelming volume, and I have lots of time, I can do better than what I have done so far. Help me reduce the volume of target shooting and maybe that can happen faster. One strategy I am learning is to stand back for a day or two, let myself calm down, and let the flurry of outstanding posts linger with no response for a time to let the posters calm down. I’m open for more ideas here.
  13. I've hardly had time, this being a big family day, to even read all the posts of the past several days, but someday I will. If you have a burning point to make, please repeat it. Meanwhile I had some fun just now. There’s a certain warming rhetoric satisfaction when my opponents in a debate descend to ad hominem tactics like “liar liar pants on fire” and “you don’t write clear enough” and that I am wiggling about away from topic. Instead of addressing the ONE POINT that I made, which was that 1972 had some early, unemotionally charged discussions on plagiarism, the focus shifts to me being a liar and full of bs, everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at me. At least there was one logical (but not factual) argument against my assertion. That was that WLIL was obscure and out of print, so VPW’s (constantly buried here) admission that he did not originate most of the material went unnoticed and doesn’t satisfy the GSC Commission on Academic Standards. Well, that obscurity did happen, but not in the 1970s, which was where my point was aimed. I’m also warmed and happy that with all this scrambling to attack the messenger (even bringing in the heavy BeHappy troops), I found out that all the old issues of Popular Electronics are on-line and free. http://www.ocsmag.com/2014/11/27/popular-electronics-all-issues-online-for-free/ http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Popular-Electronics-Guide.htm The second link has check shaped buttons that download a PDF file for each issue. It also has a search function, but somehow its single page PDF output is not as clear as the full issue buttons. The PDF outputs they offer have pdf page numbers and paper page (pp) numbers must be sought on the screen. Popular Electronics June 1970, pp 120, top right This page has a small ad for a Backster kit GSR detector that had appeared in the Oct 1969 issue of Electronics World, a different magazine. I haven’t searched for this yet. Popular Electronics June 1971, pp 63-67,93 This is a full article for building another version of a Backster kit GSR detector. The article seems to indicate that an earlier issue had similar topics, and that this is the second article in a series. I vaguely remember all three issues mentioned above, but the June 1971 article seems most familiar and I think I made my GSR detector from this article. Try it yourself. It is a trip to see plants as active creatures. I no longer make the leap (since 1972) that this activity indicates consciousness. Mosquitoes are active, but how conscious are they? Boy! What a trip down memory lane!
×
×
  • Create New...