Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
pawtucket

Episode Number 5

Recommended Posts

Actually if you're speaking to me I've not read that thread. But while I'm here my point is not that ones pick on but that all is allowed a voice. That is for all to read whether a part of the radio conversations or not. I believe all should be allowed the same ear as the other. If the speaker is out to lunch then the reader will recognize it no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raf,

My apologies. "Pick on" was a poor choice of words of my part. You explained it well above; enjoying the back and forth banter. Very true, that is not "picking on" anyone. Sorry, again.

Suda

Edited by sudossuda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suda,

No apology necessary. I just wanted to clarify the point I made.

likeaeagle,

I didn't mean to sound particularly snide with my question in the roundtable. Sorry that's how it came off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raf-

Thanks for picking up on the above said...I think folks here on the boards and those who are trying to put peices together in thier lifes post twi or for those still in can are looking for ways to mend and heal...articulation of words (it is more pleasing) or words mistyped can be challenging to the reader at times. Words that directed to service ourselves (in extreme) can throw off some changes that can happen for good..

I met someone in the last year who quit going to a stick twig cause they found out I had just left THE Way. I was confused about it..But I have learned that the attitude is carried here on the boards as well..

Sounds like you have been out for a while. Youve taken the time to rework alot of VPW books that we all know well..So, this is probaly old hat to you..you have been on a mission for along time...thanks for your efforts..:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand. I can't take back my question, but I hope you look at it the same way I look at it whenever someone asks me "How could you get snookered by a cult?" I mean, I was snookered. I just can't imagine getting into TWI in the 1990s, so I wanted to ask how a reasonable person could get involved at that time. One thing I never meant to imply is that if you got involved then, or stayed involved then, that there's something wrong with you. There's as much wrong with such people as there was with me for getting involved in 1989, AFTER reading a whole bunch of anti-cult stuff.

I don't know if there's a way I can explain it that absolves me of the crime of being snide: I was snide, whether I meant to be or not. And I'm sorry I was snide. But is there a way to ask that question without sounding snide? I'm not sure.

I am sure that if there IS a way of asking it without sounding snide, I didn't come up with it in that conversation.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THanks Raf, I appreciate your response. We are all learning to communicate ( even the reporter types:) hugs. You probaly write like you see it in your columns or whatever you do. Im a Chicagoin and have to yield myself at times too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I was the only one of the five who was in TWI in the 90's, I can assure you that he didn't offend me. Asking the question, however, demonstrates that we often don't understand why other people do what they do. I too have friends and family who are perplexed at how I ever got involved in TWI at all, a cousin who can't understand why I didn't leave within the first year like she did and ex-Way acquaintances who got out in various years who can't understand why I stayed past their exit.

Oftentimes I see posters take the position that they left at the perfect time and that they retain the perfect mix of Way doctrine: anyone who left before them was a "copout", anyone who stayed in after they left is an idiot; those who have kept more Way doctrine than they do are waybrained, those who have kept less have thrown the baby out with the bathwater - "obviously" whatever doctrine they threw out was Wierwille's error!

People came and went for a wide variety of reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that, Oaks. Yes, part of the equation is that I knew I was speaking to Oakspear, so I was confident that he would take the question as intended. I neglected the general audience and did not consider whether the question sounded snide in any way.

I agree, we all have general questions: How could you leave before I left? How could you stay after I left? But most of all, how could you get in after I left? That's the one that hits the hardest. And it doesn't mean "I think you're an idiot for doing what you did." It means: what did you see that I didn't? What compelled you that could not compel me? What attracted you that did not attract me? What failed to repel you the way it did me?

After I left TWI, I have to say that I was appalled at the little VPW idols they started selling. But those who stayed probably did not see it as an idol, and probably still don't. Me? I wouldn't even by those little ugly wallet photos they sold. Why would I? They were ugly men. If I'm carrying a photo in my wallet, it's going to be family or a good looking babe, not some ugly old man in a tux with a flower pinned to the lapel. Yuch.

But a little statue? So much worse! (To me). So how could you not see things the way I saw them? It was an honest question, not intended to be snide at all. One could equally ask me: how could you see that as an idol? No one was being asked to worship it. What bug crawled up your butt that didn't crawl up mine?

And you'd have a point. :)

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've finished listening to the recordings by the ladies and the men. They were all really good! Thanks for doing them and thanks for making them available to us. :)

gc

Edited by gc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...