What happened with John Towsend?

[RumRunner]

Not worth the fight Rascal. WD clearly has never read - or perhaps understood - the congressional ruling of 1975 titled Federal Rules of Evidence. This ruling clearly states the the most common form of evidence is provided by witnesses. It has certain regulation regarding competency to testify etc but it CLEARLY recognizes witnesses as the most common form of evidentiary discovery. While WD is a good writer - he would fail my most basic logic classes. Let him ride his magic carpet - he's having fun - but his posts are, generally, not worth responding to.

Number 2 is that I think that what you CHOOSE to do is ignore anything that contradicts your limited perceptions of a part of twi and it`s people whom you never personally interacted with yourself in order to try to support your theories. Fine, thats what YOU do....However, when you stoop to misrepresenting the people or the facts involved in order to attempt to make your point, you WILL be called on it.

[rascal]

I am really torn here. I mean I really really loved the *T`s* ... For many years..they were heroes in my book....but because they were kind to me, because they helped me through an incredibly difficult time....because they allowed me to redeem myself and remain on the wow field, in the corpes program....because they stood by me as a worth while person...Does that mean that I can`t look at what was taught...what was expected...judge the standard that was required as a participant in twi?

I am completely torn, I feel like I have been disloyal, if I met either today, I`d probably just hang my head, because I think they tried very hard to be *good*.

I just think that even the very good folks could be infected by the very very bad teachings of twi. That even in love, with the best of intentions, do some very damaging things to people :(

Maybe my condemnation and anger isn`t so much with them, but with what we/they were taught was necessary for a Godly life style. What was excusable, what was acceptable, what God required etc.

Thanks Geisha, it is good to be on the mend :)

Thank you RumRunner, you are of course correct.

Edited February 12, 2009 by rascal

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I agree...I thought that Johnny Townsend was a member of the board of trustees...doesn't that make him fair game?

I didn't make anything up...what I said (and was censored out) is absolutely true by my judgement. Suddenly we have a "kinder and gentler" GSC???

Somebody's gonna sue me?...have at it...can't get blood out of a turnip. I stand by my original post (which was censored out)...Johnny did what he did (which was typical of twi "leaders")...it's ok to call Wierwille an adulterer?...and it's ok to call LCM an adulterer?...but it's not ok to call other trustee member the same?...somebody needs to explain to me why it's any different.

Paw???

My question remains the same...I understand the rules here...no personal attacks against fellow posters, etc, etc...Townsend was a member of the board of trustees of twi...IS HE NOT FAIR GAME??? If I'm to be censored for criticizing a former twi board member, this represents a departure in previous standards...my question is an honest one.

If someone found time to read and censor my post, I would ask for the courtesy of answering my question as well.

[Oakspear]

It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions . It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion.

One does not preclude the other.

[rascal]

I wonder if there in lies the difference in leaders. The ones who did what they had to do because they believed it was right according as we were taught, and the folks who used what we were taught as an excuse to bully, demean, and steal.

[RumRunner]

It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions . It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion.

One does not preclude the other.

Well the key there Oak is that court IS public opinion with the exception of the Supreme Court. Jurors are selected from the public - interviewed, selected and sworn in. However those jurors are the public. While they are expected to be impartial - they are still humans - the public - and hence a so called real trial is nothing more than downsizing and pre-selecting the amount of public who will determine guilt and in some cases recommend sentencing.

[Modgellan]

My question remains the same...I understand the rules here...no personal attacks against fellow posters, etc, etc...Townsend was a member of the board of trustees of twi...IS HE NOT FAIR GAME??? If I'm to be censored for criticizing a former twi board member, this represents a departure in previous standards...my question is an honest one.

If someone found time to read and censor my post, I would ask for the courtesy of answering my question as well.

I did not do the editing on your post, but my understanding is that the problem with it was that you related a story that you were not personally present for, and the person who related the story to you may not wish it to be told here even without her name attached. If she wishes to tell it, let her, and we would do everything possible to protect her preferences and identity.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I did not do the editing on your post, but my understanding is that the problem with it was that you related a story that you were not personally present for, and the person who related the story to you may not wish it to be told here even without her name attached. If she wishes to tell it, let her, and we would do everything possible to protect her preferences and identity.

Sounds like bullsh *t to me. This gal told me her story with tears running down her cheeks...I didn't reveal her name for obvious reason. Suddenly second hand testimony is to be censored?...When did this start? We're not in a court of law here...people have always related stories that they have heard from others...stories that rang with truth...when did this change? Are you guys now PROTECTING twi?...

...maybe I'm posting at the wrong website.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I did not do the editing on your post

You're right...Pawtucket did...let HIM respond....unless he's "above" that now.

[Ham]

so.. what happened to jt.. (I'm trying to stay on topic here :))

did he MOVE ON.. or consciously CHOOSE to simply take advantage of his "recommendation" by herr fuhrer.. excuse me, the "mog"..

one of the paths do indeed end up in what they call a "dead end street"..

I'd really like to know..

did he end up like one of the "lost boys"..

you know..

stab the "master vampire" in the heart..

and then.. life goes on like "normal" or not..

it's a fair question..

[Ham]

Sorry.. it just happened to be one of my favorite movies..

you know.. life imitates art or something..

[Ham]

People are Strange..

when you're a stranger..

faces look ugly..

when your'e alone..

the movie ended with this song..

[Bolshevik]

So WD,

this guy lives in Beaver Creek?

[Ham]

I've driven through Beaver Creek..

it's mostly haughty taughty (sp?) neighborhood..

I ask myself.. "who is going to rent a high class place for a mogwanabe"..

who knows..

won't last very long.. or much longer..

[Bolshevik]

Unlce Howie was supposed to have been witnessed to taken the class in Beavercrack

[Ham]

yeah.. I remember something like that..

[Bolshevik]

anyway, I've got eggs and toilet paper . . .

just need an address . . .

[Ham]

Well..

technically..

there may have been a difference between between..

1. Being witnessed to (?) and sitting in a class, IN Beaver Creek..

and..

2. ACTUALLY BEING a RESIDENT of Beaver Creek..

sorry.. been one of those nights..

[Bolshevik]

Beavers are rodents I believe

[Ham]

Yep. Well.. what can one say.. rodents will inherit the earth.. I just hope they have something worth inheriting..

[potato]

Ham, here you go: it's hoity-toity:

http://www.snopes.com/language/foreign/hoity.asp

[Bolshevik]

They can build whole new ecosystems, so whatever is left behind, they can fix up I'm sure.

[Ham]

God bless you brother..

[Pete]

Perhaps you need to reread before you fabricate charges. I have never questioned anyones right to speak ,nor to have their opinion ,when opinion is presented as absolute fact and verdicts are rendered as true without the benefit of due process then yes I will point that fact out. I see no place where I was Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns. Nor was a worried about impressing you.

Here we go again, indeed.

WD: on reflection, perhaps my use of the word "right" was a bit inconsidered, particularly from a Brit to a Colonial, where the word may have slightly stronger connotations for you. However, if I can rephrase this, I am intending to imply that your intention is to dissuade people from posting statements that disagree with your personal view point. This is more than corroborated by your comments above where you do indeed appear to be saying that you should only post an opinion when it is "absolute fact" ??? Am I reading you right ? If so, this in itself questions people who are voicing anything that doesn't conform to your personal view of what is an "absolute fact". Opinion may consist of viewpoints that are subjective and consequently cannot be expected to conform to your "absolute fact" criterion.

Since you wish to take my comments as a personal affront, I'd have to respond to you by saying that I'm not at all concerned how you feel about the fact that a particular statement didn't impress me, in fact it is entirely irrelevent. It still doesn't impress me and I think that you may be able to take that as an absolute fact, although I'm not entirely sure what your idea of an "absolute fact" is, but have the horrible premonition that another protracted definition is about to follow. God help us !

[rascal]

My post about what the wow in our group told me happened to her was edited as well Groucho, so it isn`t just you. Apparently that really is the new standard.

It is baffling, I wonder is this just true for JT because for he was perceived as a nice guy, or are we no longer able to discuss what we have been told about any twi leader?

Edited February 13, 2009 by rascal