Comparisons, Metaphors and the Like

[WhiteDove]

It's ok David even Bob has said he can't sing.

Here 's one for you" Bob has a voice like an angel.".........

[dmiller]

THIS is what I was agreeing with.

Using figures of speech. sure. Great enhancements to comparisons or a point being made.

I do,however, believe that comparisons should be;

credible.

realistic.

within the bounds of the point being made.

not so blown out of porportion that the original comparison is lost or rendered ridiculous.

VPW/Hitler ???...sort of... apples/minivans.

not CREDIBLE comparisons.

VPW and Hitler... both great public speakers...both widely thought of as evil men ... but c'mon.

internet postings are WIDE open and ,pretty much, can live on forever.

credibility is a must.

I understand that this site is HEAVILY visited,scrutinized,and often "cut & pasted".

All the more reason for those posting here not to come off as,well, something LESS than they really are.

Especially when we're discussing PEOPLE.

I believe us to be credible men and women.(from most of what i've seen)

NOT some lunatic fringe group.

Let's not "come off" like that.

Exwaycorps --- Good post. :) (And I mean that).

The ONLY thing you said that I would ask you to look at is one word --

And that word is *credible*.

Not trying to be argumentative here -- but you've got (docvic's word for it) a MULIPLICITY of experiences all here on one site that we call GreaseSpot Cafe. You've got twi #1, #2, & #3 all posting together about the same outfit. There's folks still in and there's others just recently out, and then there are the not-so-old-timers, and then you have the old-timers.

Everyone's *personal view* of credibility here depends on how deeply they were or were not involved.

I'm a good example of that. I'm from the twi 1 era ----

but my viewpoints of *credibility* are DRASTICALLY different than those from the same time frame.

I'd never compare docvic to hitler, but then again (with my experience), I've no need to.

Some here can compare him to Satan personified, and get away with it,

because of what was done to them by that man. (Loy is included too -- in both my observations).

*Credible* (while a valid observation on your point), takes on MANY facets and dimensions

here at GSC. We're delving through 60+ years of BS foisted on the *believers* from various leaders who have decided that they now know *present truth*, that wasn't *available* previously.

So --- I say this honestly and am not trying to read you any sort of *riot act*.

But when someone here says something for public observation about their past twi experience ---

it's an *orthotomeo* (Bullinger) rightly dividing by them of what SHOULD

have been the Word of Truth --- but sadly wasn't.

It was the *Org* instead, who needs to be called into question.

And given the individual sources -- yes. It's credible.

Stuff gets posted here that other folks register on the site just so they can respond.

Respond and say --- that happened to me as well.

Naming names, years and dates, geographical locations --- that sort of thing.

Given the Melting Pot some of us know as GreaseSpot Cafe ---

it's all pretty much good --- and everything is CREDIBLE.

Having been there (and a part of twi, at whatever point in time) ---

we can say what we do -- with authority.

:)

edited to add -- (and a part of twi, at whatever point in time).

It does add validity, credibility, and makes a difference, eh?

;)

Edited July 18, 2007 by dmiller

[exwaycorps]

thanks dmiller

To me, it seemed like a ridiculous comparison,simlie,metaphor,analogy to make. Figurative,literal or otherwise. Beyond belief.

So many lies or things that smell like lies have been told by our old "leaders". I just didn't want it to sound like it was comming from OUR side too.

I realize the vast differences of experiences we all had. I meant to diminish none of them.

I didn't intend to bring out the "villagers with torches" in anyone. Especially when they're marching in MY direction.

Being credible. making sound,realistic points that the listener can easily relate to is hard-wired into my brain.Especially when it relates to the telling of ones way experiences to others . Perhaps I am too literal.

thanks again dmiller

fourth grade grammar ?? c'mon

CHECK PLEASE !!

[Catcup]

Read the context of the comparison in question on the other thread. It was a response to a comment by Hamm, regarding Hitler seducing the people of Germany. Not mentioned in this current thread, is the figure of speech sarcasm, which both Hamm and I were employing on the other thread.

However, there are definite comparisons between Hitler and Wierwille if you go deep into social psychology and look specifically at how large groups of people are motivated and deceived, and that is what I was referring to, not a comparison between the degrees of evil involved. But I'd need a semester or two to explain it to you in the context of two subjects. Sorry if it went over anyone's head.

My summer is usually reserved for lighter stuff.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Catcup

[exwaycorps]

Jeez Rhino

see if I ever agree with you again

hahahahah

kidding

[dmiller]

thanks dmiller

To me, it seemed like a ridiculous comparison,simlie,metaphor,analogy to make. Figurative,literal or otherwise. Beyond belief.

So many lies or things that smell like lies have been told by our old "leaders". I just didn't want it to sound like it was comming from OUR side too.

I realize the vast differences of experiences we all had. I meant to diminish none of them.

I didn't intend to bring out the "villagers with torches" in anyone. Especially when they're marching in MY direction.

Being credible. making sound,realistic points that the listener can easily relate to is hard-wired into my brain.Especially when it relates to the telling of ones way experiences to others . Perhaps I am too literal.

thanks again dmiller

fourth grade grammar ?? c'mon

CHECK PLEASE !!

Good concept. ;)

This site has been labeled as a *pi$$-and-moan* site, given all that has been said about twi here. Well, for what it's worth -- sure. I'll agree that's been done. But I will also (adamantly) say that everything that has been said here (in the *accusation* department) has been done so by folks that have had the personal experiences and are *credible*.

Thanks for seeing it as it is. There's a buncha years of *CRAP* foisted on the folks who chose to *follow*. Some got in deeper than others. Some were involved less deeply. And that involves the many decades that twi spun the web of deceit thast entangled all of us. And that deceit always changed (with the years) to ensure that new recruits were forthcoming.

I'm guessing that there might be a new *standard* of credibility, these days.

Sadly. :( :(

[rhino]

Ha exwaycorps ... at least it makes for lively chatter :)

I was just going by Oak's statement ... " the fact that he also did good as well as evil is a valid point for comparison." I still don't know what the other thread was.

Thanks Catcup, for clearing that up. The Hitler - VPW social psychology comparisons would be interesting. (it seems the Dahmer comparison was in a different category) I seem to recall VPW saying once ... we wouldn't have been worse off (or much worse off?) if we had lost WW2. Perhaps the similarities are more than coincidental.

Here is what I was thinking of in my first post ... from Wikipedia on Godwin's Law ...

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin's Law does not question whether any particular reference or comparison to

Hitler

or

the Nazis

might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly

probable

. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,

^[3]

that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever

debate

was in progress.

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.

Since the comparison is about propaganda, it would seem to escape the law. :) The actual specific likenesses between VP and Hitler's methods would make for lively discussion. Perhaps Catcup will share a couple highlights from that two semester class.

Edited July 18, 2007 by rhino

[WordWolf]

if anyone would should know about figures of speech, these people should

Right.

It's not a lack of intellectual knowledge, it's a DELIBERATE ignorance,

a conscious choice to say

"there's hundreds of figures of speech, but when you're using one to make a point

I don't like, I'll pretend figures of speech don't exist and attempt to obscure your point."

[Catcup]

I was just going by Oak's statement ... " the fact that he also did good as well as evil is a valid point for comparison." I still don't know what the other thread was.

The other thread is ChasUFarley's "What It Was" thread.

Oak's statement is not the point I was attempting to make, however it is valid. Anyone who puts bread in the mouth of a starving person, and lifts the self esteem of one who has been defeated, can be viewed by that person as a hero figure who is doing good to them. Many Germans viewed Hitler in that way, and were therefore willing to look the other way or justify his actions, because of how their lives improved under his leadership.

Thanks Catcup, for clearing that up. The Hitler - VPW social psychology comparisons would be interesting.

No problem. It's easy to misunderstand things on the net, plus some folks can glean even more out of a statement when they look at it from another angle, so it can carry a different meaning for them.

The social psychology comparisons are quite interesting. One needs to examine what conditions must exist in order to precondition a person or a group of people, or even a nation, and open them to a dangerous ideology. There are applications not only to the individual, but to groups of people in many areas: the workplace, educational systems, religious organizations, social systems, and political systems. Any of them can become oppressive and abusive under certain circumstances

I seem to recall VPW saying once ... we wouldn't have been worse off (or much worse off?) if we had lost WW2. Perhaps the similarities are more than coincidental.

That's not the first time I've heard that quote, and it is disturbing indeed.

[Catcup]

Perhaps Catcup will share a couple highlights from that two semester class.

It's probably more like four semesters to cover it. You have to understand the historical, economic, social, and political context of Germany during the first and second world wars in order to even begin to address the psychological aspects of the populus at that time. Many historians are now beginning to view World Wars I and II as the continuation of the same war since the issues in the first war remained unresolved and provided the fuel for the second. The issues are broad and span several decades and many countries, some of which do not even exist as such today. The worst conflict of the 20th century began with a single bullet in Sarajevo and ended with an atomic Bomb over Japan and involved the entire world. A whooole lot of bad happened to the people on the planet in between.

Just a few thoughts:

Just like Hitler didn't create the social, economic, and political chaos that resulted from the end of World War I in which the people of Germany were destitute, defeated, unfairly saddled with the entire war debt, strugglilng under a worldwide depression and starving.

VPW didn't create the social, economic, and political chaos that existed in the late 1960's that caused an entire generation to question everything and search for answers in drugs, religion, and rock & roll.

I realize I risk an oversimplification here, but in the most fundamental of terms, both men were in the right place at the right time (or at the wrong place at the wrong time) to take advantage of conditions that produced a population looking for a reason to feel good about themselves.

--Oh, a post script about Wikipedia-- we warn our students not to use Wiki as a source. I know some profs who will give a paper an automatic F if Wiki is listed in the bibliography. Wikipedia has a problem, in that it is an open encyclopedia, which means anyone can contribute to it. That means you can't really trace the credentials of the people who are contributing information, and Wikipedia doesn't control who contributes. Especially if you get into some of the information posted about some figures in the middle east, it looks like the information is well supported in footnotes. However, if you take the time and do the work to look up and trace all the footnotes, they do not lead to primary source documents, and many are dead ends. It's not that there is NO good info in Wiki, it's just unreliable. You never know what you're going to get, and if you don't do the actual work in looking up the footnotes and verifying sources, you can look pretty foolish in the academic world.

Wiki is full of erroneous information, some of it posted there deliberately by trolls. The husband of a professor I know (who is also a professor) is part of a band of trolls who deliberately post erroneous anatomical information on Wikipedia, which Wiki is slow to remove. For example if you are looking up occiput, information in the past may well have told you the location of the occiput is in the set of bones that make up the sacrum and tailbone. It was this professor's way of telling lazy students who relied on internet info, that they didn't know their arse from their head, because the occiputal bone is in the skull!

Edited July 18, 2007 by Catcup

[rhino]

Thanks catcup ... I never made it through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in high school, but VP did seem to slip into the right time frame with his bag of stolen studies, wrapped up in his groovy little package.

Wikipedia is handy for some more current things it seems, but for a serious student it would not be reputable ... I understand.

I think the bit on Godwin's Law sounded about right, but I should remember not to depend on them for other things. Thanks

[WhiteDove]

Gee Oldies now you can compare me to a liar anytime you want after all it is only a figure of speech, only a comparson, not really literal as you are not calling me a liar in exactly all points.

[doojable]

Gee Oldies now you can compare me to a liar anytime you want after all it is only a figure of speech, only a comparson, not really literal as you are not calling me a liar in exactly all points.

Well - can he say you're "Like a liar..." ??

[WhiteDove]

Or he could just say I just look alot like this guy Nah I would be ok with that ,I would not be insulted in the least

[Raf]

I've used the Dahmer analogy to make that point that you only need to do evil to a few people for it to taint your legacy.

Wierwille met and helped and counseled many people without using them to satisfy his lust for sex and money and power.

Dahmer met many people without eating them.

Ah, but Wierwille did use people to satisfay is lust for money sex and power, judt like Dahmer did eat people. Not everyone he met. Probably not even a majority. But how many people do you have to eat before you're remembered as a psycopathic cannibal? And how many people do you need to abuse to satisfy your lust for money sex and power before you're recognized as a false minister?

[oldiesman]

I believe that you missed the point.

The point of a figure of speech is that it's not literally true.

But it isn't a figure of speech, at least with some posters. From what I've observed, some posters do believe that Dr. Wierwille was as evil as Hitler, a raving monster. Sometimes the hate is so strong, I can feel it through my computer screen.

[excathedra]

that could be a trick of the adversary

[oldiesman]

Yes, I used Jeffrey Dahmer as an example, not literal.

But I would still ask Oldiesman or johniam if Jeffrey Dahmer had taught the Word like nobody had and started a successful ministery, would they still follow his teachings because the Word is still the Word?

Yes. But if one does this, one needs to separate the teachings from his sins. If you enjoy the Book of Proverbs, you know how to do that.

Wouldn't they be inclined to think that there was something awry with the doctrine BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS????

Why? If the doctrine is accepted as truth, why should it be negated because of the sins of the communicator? People do sin.

Edited July 18, 2007 by oldiesman

[excathedra]

ah yes people do sin

[Ham]

I use the Dillinger analogy because when he wasn't otherwise robbing, pillaging and doing general mayhem, he could actually be a nice guy to some people.

Some thought Dillinger was a modern Robin Hood..

Lets see. vic robbed from Stiles/Bullinger/Leonard/etc., and he gave to us poor blokes..

umm, or maybe he sold it to us poor blokes..

well, it doesn't match, at least on all points.

[Oakspear]

Gee Oldies now you can compare me to a liar anytime you want after all it is only a figure of speech, only a comparson, not really literal as you are not calling me a liar in exactly all points.

Well - can he say you're "Like a liar..." ??

Or he could just say I just look alot like this guy Nah I would be ok with that ,I would not be insulted in the least

C'mon WD, do you really believe that, or are you just annoyed that people aren't showing the proper respect for Wierwille?

If you compared someone to a liar, showed them a picture of Pinochio (sp?), or even said that he was like a liar, what would be the point of comparison? You'd be calling them a liar. The point isn't that anyone is pretending that using a figure of speech to make a point about Wierwille makes it anything other than what it is: pointing out something negative about him. The point is that the figure of speech is a valid comparison even if there isn't similarity on all points.

I believe that you missed the point.

The point of a figure of speech is that it's not literally true.

But it isn't a figure of speech, at least with some posters. From what I've observed, some posters do believe that Dr. Wierwille was as evil as Hitler, a raving monster. Sometimes the hate is so strong, I can feel it through my computer screen.

Maybe, but the point is that a figure of speech will not be literally true, nor need there be a similarity on all points for it to be valid. No poster has ever suggested that Wierwille was like Hitler in all points. Various posters have used the Hitler analogy to make different points. Edited July 19, 2007 by Oakspear

[waysider]

"With the rise of the internet,

the hate component in this country is off the chart."

---------Bill O'Reilly-------------

What is a "hate component"?

Is there really a chart to measure it?

If so, what exactly are the parameters of said chart?

Are there hard statistics to show its correlation to the "rise of the internet".

Food for thought.

[Ham]

From what I've observed, some posters do believe that Dr. Wierwille was as evil as Hitler, a raving monster.

Not AS evil. Society managed to keep him SOMEWHAT in check.

He simply did what he could get away with.. as much as he and the inner circle could do, and cover up.

Would he have done as much evil as HItler if he lacked constraints?

That is a question I can't authoritatively answer. But we know his track record, he did misuse his authority, drug, and sexually assault the flock.

I think a reasonable answer is, without restraints, he would be worse than he was. If he could have moved with impunity, I think a lot more people would have gotten hurt.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[WhiteDove]

Oak

It's dishonest to leave someone with the impression that VPW and Hitler or Dahmer are somehow similar in nature due to some small point of comparison. If you want to compare them in some small point then define your parameters for your comparison. Most people realize that this is dishonest and in poor taste which is why our president got an apology for the exact same thing.

here

Edited July 19, 2007 by WhiteDove

[Oakspear]

Whitey:

I disagree that it is dishonest; inflammatory maybe, but dishonest, no.

The most common Hitler-Wierwille comparison that I have seen goes like this:

Poster A: Wierwille did such-and-such bad thing

Poster B: So what? He taught me The Word (or substitute some other good that Wierwille did)

Poster A: (Thinking that poster B is excusing Wierwille's bad behavior due to some positives) Well Hitler did some good too!

The comparison is made, not to show that Wierwille is as evil as Hitler, or that he committed the attrocities that Hitler did (I'm speaking in general here), but that even someone as evil as Hitler did some things that were perceived as good so therefore bringing up any good that Wierwille did as a mitigating factor for the bad doesn't hold any water.

Raf makes a similar point in his Dahmer comparison. He is not saying that Wierwille ate people, but that even someone as depraved as Dahmer wasn't always eating people, there were some people that he didn't eat, and in some contexts he probably did some good things.

The problem with invoking Hitler, Dahmer, Attila the Hun, et al is that they are names that push buttons, they bring out a reaction far in excess of the point being made. Which is perhaps part of the point being made.