As soon as the term "emotional IQ" appeared in mid 80s? I knew that was a big problem in my life. I've been working on it ever since.
Empathy takes not only some IQ, but also practice. Even practicing to REMEMBER to empathize is valuable.
It's been pretty easy to empathize with what I see here and what I imagine happened in the years I was gone. I merely have to shift gears and remember how it was when I felt rather angry with VPW, and over several issues that had accumulated by 1983.
By 1985 and the time of his death, I shed zero tears. I didn't miss him after either.
If I were hearing my message back then I'd have been extremely unhappy, and I'd change the channel right away. THAT's what empathy was generated in me by some stories here.
But then my anger faded as I got away from TWI. I had access to the videos, but I hardly looked at them.... just for nostalgia again. It wasn't until 1998 that I took a second fresh look at the books. Absolutely all of my anger was gone by then.
it’s easy to admire someone from afar but it's often a whole other matter when you see them up close and interact with them…and get to know what they're really like...kind of like the thing that happens in an abusive relationship.
I know MANY proPFAL grads, but almost none as staunch as me. These are moderate fans of PFAL. I’ve tracked with them for decades. NONE of them want to come here and post, EVER. A few, a tiny few come here to read, but wouldn’t think of posting. They all want nothing to do with such negative grads as they behold here.
So what your saying is they give lip service to PLAF, but don't believe it. After all, if they believed it they'd be hear pointing out where we're getting it wrong, wouldn't they? What's that? We're getting it right and nobody wants to hear it.
Wait a tic. Are you trying to tell me they're afraid. But I thought fear was negative believing. Aren't they supposed to proclaim Weirwille Over the World (WOW) boldly?
Quote
When I come here, in my mind, I’m loving the unlovable. I’m seeking out the most outcast of grads (from the moderate propfal peeps) when I come here.
So why don't you really love the unlovable and preach Christianity on an atheist site?
Here, if your honest with yourself, your trying to sell PLAF. What you fail to realize is you have an uphill battle. It's one thing to sell a vacuum cleaner nobody's ever used. It's quite another thing to try an sell a vacuum cleaner everyone your pitching has used and found it to be a piece of junk (and blaming the manufacturer is no excuse).
Quote
Don’t laugh. It’s true FROM many grads perspective. They feel this is over the top in negativity, and none ever dare to come here to give or love.
Over the top negative people complaining about over the top negativity. Are these the same people who gave others faace meltings without a second thought? Who marked and avoided others? And they're whining?
Quote
As I learn better empathy (see my post to Rocky) I am withdrawing my message, thesis, and style in order to continue some kind of reaching out in love here. Even that may be impossible, but who knows until it’s tried?
I was toughened for situations like this. I used to go witnessing One God at trinitarian Baptist churches. It was not easy, but I learned a lot. I’ve witnessed to arch-atheist hard core scientists. I can’t blame my moderate friends, though, for not coming here. I’ve had an odd enough life that I feel can hack it.
So you have a history of trying to ice skate uphill...
Quote
So, how’s THAT for a non-PFAL comeback?
You GreaseSpotter Heathens should feel lucky to have me here, to preach at your Alter To the Unknown God. (This last line is just joking around, in case it’s not obvious.) :)
You mean our attempt to get the truth out about Saint Vic?
Speaking of truth:
Mike said:
But then my anger faded as I got away from TWI. I had access to the videos, but I hardly looked at them.... just for nostalgia again. It wasn't until 1998 that I took a second fresh look at the books.
Yah, books with texts stolen by a guy that could pour himself into a Drambulie bottle.
Books that contain an ideology that justified the abuse of others and the violation of women.
it’s easy to admire someone from afar but it's often a whole other matter when you see them up close and interact with them…and get to know what they're really like...kind of like the thing that happens in an abusive relationship.
My admiration was of the ideas presented in writing, not of the man.
Books that contain an ideology that justified the abuse of others and the violation of women.
27 minutes ago, Mike said:
I disagree here.
Disagree all you want, its right there "line by line and word by word."
In the chapter about King David, Saint Vic goes into his "All women in the kingdom belong to the king" spiel, right? And what ideology do you think Saint Vic used to justify violating the ministry's woman?
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me.
"All women in the kingdom belong to the king" spiel, right?
Sort of.
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King
(pointing above and to the right of Mike) Look, Mike, there goes the point.
First we're not talking about a football team or a corporate board room, we're talking about the family of God and a supposed MOG who's supposed to have a more disipline than natural men on a football team or in a corporate board room. Further, he's supposed to be an example for the rest of us. I mean, if he doesn't obey God with his moral sins, why should I obey God in my venial sins?
Second, we're talking about an ideology that made it all possible.
My admiration was of the ideas presented in writing, not of the man.
sorry - I find it hard to believe you didn’t have some great admiration for wierwille himself back then when in even some more recent threads you often defended him to the hilt in spite of all the facts and evidence to the contrary presented by Grease Spotters.
In light of that - I tend to think you were pretty much incapable of separating the ideas from the author of those ideas - as evidenced by the circular logic you used on one particular recent thread: is PLAF god-breathed ?...which often went along the lines of PFALis god-breathed because wierwille said it’s god-breathed.
t I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King
And despite your new-found empathy, you still don't bat an eyelid. You simply don't seem to care at all about the women who were abused by your hero VPW but merely appear to accept that abuse as a "fact of life" in some way. Does it not anger you?
Would it anger you if your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter, your niece or female cousin, or colleague, or other females of your close acquaintance, were treated like this? By a supposed church minister? How would you feel if these females had been abused by the local RC "father," perhaps the minister who was in charge of your local RC church? Would you think the RC minister had some sort of "right" to sexually abuse women in his congregation?
As an aside, you at last appear to be accepting TWI as being a "power based human organization" - well, it certainly wasn't a Godly organization.
And despite your new-found empathy, you still don't bat an eyelid. You simply don't seem to care at all about the women who were abused by your hero VPW but merely appear to accept that abuse as a "fact of life" in some way. Does it not anger you?
Would it anger you if your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter, your niece or female cousin, or colleague, or other females of your close acquaintance, were treated like this? By a supposed church minister? How would you feel if these females had been abused by the local RC "father," perhaps the minister who was in charge of your local RC church? Would you think the RC minister had some sort of "right" to sexually abuse women in his congregation?
As an aside, you at last appear to be accepting TWI as being a "power based human organization" - well, it certainly wasn't a Godly organization.
Please re-read.
My non-batting eyelash was over hearing the story of David in the OT in 1972, several years after I formulated my Football Captain theory.
When I heard that story of David for the FIRST TIME in PFAL in 1972 (remember I was RC) I was not surprised at David. Disappointed, yes. Troubled, yes. As usual.
I had no idea of the women you speak of at that time. I think most were not yet in that ministry at that time.
***
Please, Twinky, you completely got my heart wrong from the way you read my post. You missed it, that I am on your side on this. You completely missed it.
I don't blame you. I just ask you to try reading that again.
If you have any personal questions about any line, please feel free to ask in a PM.
I'm not one of the bad guys, ESPECIALLY on this issue.
So let's hear it from you, in your own words. Sexual abuse of women is wrong. Sexual abuse of women by purported ministers is wrong. Is abusive. Choose your own words, don't have to be many. You say it. You SAY it, Mike.
And the "women I speak of" - now. If you learned now that any of the women I suggested had been abused historically, how would you feel now? Accept that as someone else's "right", or be outraged now? If such women were being abused now, today, would you feel differently?
I see what I did better. Again, too abbreviated. The 50 years later sentence is a flash forward. It ends when that sentence ends.
Flash forward:
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization.
Return to my ancient history:
I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me.[All refer to PFAL story on first hearing.]
If you re-read with a kinder heart you will see the answer to your questions already in my contested post. If you can't get at least a hint of what side I am on from that then PM me.
So let's hear it from you, in your own words. Sexual abuse of women is wrong. Sexual abuse of women by purported ministers is wrong. Is abusive. Choose your own words, don't have to be many. You say it. You SAY it, Mike.
How hard is that, Mike?
Hey, if you said something EXPLICITLY in a previous post that you think I missed, do quote it. I've asked you several discrete but pointed questions in the last few minutes. And your sole response is, "you're not on trial."
No. You're just passive, and don't speak out. You're wilfully closing your eyes, closing your heart, to the hurt others have suffered.
Hey, if you said something EXPLICITLY in a previous post that you think I missed, do quote it. I've asked you several discrete but pointed questions in the last few minutes. And your sole response is, "you're not on trial."
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me.
THAT's what a lawyer heart (oxymoronic, I know) misses.
Please re-read it (and my corrections) with your woman's heart.
Folks, I'm done with the evasion that Mike displays. I have offered him lots of space to communicate what he thinks, and asked some easy questions of him. He can't or won't answer. If he ever does, someone please tell me by PM. Meantime, I'm putting him on Ignore. When I want to bang my head against a wall, I'll do that in my own home.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
118
33
51
Popular Days
Feb 9
41
Feb 10
39
Feb 14
37
Feb 21
30
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 25 posts
Mike 118 posts
Twinky 33 posts
So_crates 51 posts
Popular Days
Feb 9 2018
41 posts
Feb 10 2018
39 posts
Feb 14 2018
37 posts
Feb 21 2018
30 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I do not see that this says, Love a book (not even a bible) - not love PFAL. I do see that it requires some practical application, otherwise, how else will you love your neighbour? By reading th
Twinky
Mike, please re-read the first two posts when I opened this thread. You indicated that you had been re-reading heart-rending stories on old threads and your understanding was growing. So this thread
Twinky
Well, this thread has wandered off point somewhat. This was the point: I'm seeing lots of defensiveness from Mike, but nothing about empathy or understanding about the hurt caused by TWI.
Posted Images
T-Bone
it’s easy to admire someone from afar but it's often a whole other matter when you see them up close and interact with them…and get to know what they're really like...kind of like the thing that happens in an abusive relationship.
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So what your saying is they give lip service to PLAF, but don't believe it. After all, if they believed it they'd be hear pointing out where we're getting it wrong, wouldn't they? What's that? We're getting it right and nobody wants to hear it.
Wait a tic. Are you trying to tell me they're afraid. But I thought fear was negative believing. Aren't they supposed to proclaim Weirwille Over the World (WOW) boldly?
So why don't you really love the unlovable and preach Christianity on an atheist site?
Here, if your honest with yourself, your trying to sell PLAF. What you fail to realize is you have an uphill battle. It's one thing to sell a vacuum cleaner nobody's ever used. It's quite another thing to try an sell a vacuum cleaner everyone your pitching has used and found it to be a piece of junk (and blaming the manufacturer is no excuse).
Over the top negative people complaining about over the top negativity. Are these the same people who gave others faace meltings without a second thought? Who marked and avoided others? And they're whining?
So you have a history of trying to ice skate uphill...
You mean our attempt to get the truth out about Saint Vic?
Speaking of truth:
Mike said:
But then my anger faded as I got away from TWI. I had access to the videos, but I hardly looked at them.... just for nostalgia again. It wasn't until 1998 that I took a second fresh look at the books.
Yah, books with texts stolen by a guy that could pour himself into a Drambulie bottle.
Books that contain an ideology that justified the abuse of others and the violation of women.
What could go wrong?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My admiration was of the ideas presented in writing, not of the man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I disagree here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Disagree all you want, its right there "line by line and word by word."
In the chapter about King David, Saint Vic goes into his "All women in the kingdom belong to the king" spiel, right? And what ideology do you think Saint Vic used to justify violating the ministry's woman?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Socrates,
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sort of.
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
(pointing above and to the right of Mike) Look, Mike, there goes the point.
First we're not talking about a football team or a corporate board room, we're talking about the family of God and a supposed MOG who's supposed to have a more disipline than natural men on a football team or in a corporate board room. Further, he's supposed to be an example for the rest of us. I mean, if he doesn't obey God with his moral sins, why should I obey God in my venial sins?
Second, we're talking about an ideology that made it all possible.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
sorry - I find it hard to believe you didn’t have some great admiration for wierwille himself back then when in even some more recent threads you often defended him to the hilt in spite of all the facts and evidence to the contrary presented by Grease Spotters.
In light of that - I tend to think you were pretty much incapable of separating the ideas from the author of those ideas - as evidenced by the circular logic you used on one particular recent thread: is PLAF god-breathed ?...which often went along the lines of PFAL is god-breathed because wierwille said it’s god-breathed.
Edited by T-BoneFormatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Disagree all you want, but it's a fact that ideology justifies bad behavior and the building of faulty cultural systems (subcultures).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And despite your new-found empathy, you still don't bat an eyelid. You simply don't seem to care at all about the women who were abused by your hero VPW but merely appear to accept that abuse as a "fact of life" in some way. Does it not anger you?
Would it anger you if your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter, your niece or female cousin, or colleague, or other females of your close acquaintance, were treated like this? By a supposed church minister? How would you feel if these females had been abused by the local RC "father," perhaps the minister who was in charge of your local RC church? Would you think the RC minister had some sort of "right" to sexually abuse women in his congregation?
As an aside, you at last appear to be accepting TWI as being a "power based human organization" - well, it certainly wasn't a Godly organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Please re-read.
My non-batting eyelash was over hearing the story of David in the OT in 1972, several years after I formulated my Football Captain theory.
When I heard that story of David for the FIRST TIME in PFAL in 1972 (remember I was RC) I was not surprised at David. Disappointed, yes. Troubled, yes. As usual.
I had no idea of the women you speak of at that time. I think most were not yet in that ministry at that time.
***
Please, Twinky, you completely got my heart wrong from the way you read my post. You missed it, that I am on your side on this. You completely missed it.
I don't blame you. I just ask you to try reading that again.
If you have any personal questions about any line, please feel free to ask in a PM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I just re-read my post and I see how it jumps around in time.
Sorry. Again, it was my grammatical error that set you off.
Please take it easy. I'm not one of the bad guys, ESPECIALLY on this issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
So let's hear it from you, in your own words. Sexual abuse of women is wrong. Sexual abuse of women by purported ministers is wrong. Is abusive. Choose your own words, don't have to be many. You say it. You SAY it, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And the "women I speak of" - now. If you learned now that any of the women I suggested had been abused historically, how would you feel now? Accept that as someone else's "right", or be outraged now? If such women were being abused now, today, would you feel differently?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Twinky,
I see what I did better. Again, too abbreviated. The 50 years later sentence is a flash forward. It ends when that sentence ends.
Flash forward:
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization.
Return to my ancient history:
I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me. [All refer to PFAL story on first hearing.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is not a courtroom and I am not on trial.
If you re-read with a kinder heart you will see the answer to your questions already in my contested post. If you can't get at least a hint of what side I am on from that then PM me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Twinky, do you see how we completely miscommunication on the "bat eye lash" thing.
Do I have to re-write my post (non-abreviated) for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
As usual, no straight answer.
How hard is that, Mike?
Hey, if you said something EXPLICITLY in a previous post that you think I missed, do quote it. I've asked you several discrete but pointed questions in the last few minutes. And your sole response is, "you're not on trial."
No. You're just passive, and don't speak out. You're wilfully closing your eyes, closing your heart, to the hurt others have suffered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Fifteen years ago I reached out to a few of them here in PMs. With several we had an long exchange of PMs. They believed me.
Are you trying to goad me into playing a lawyer game of EXPLICIT demands? If so, why?
Are you trying to communicate with me as a person? Then get real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Long before I took the class, while in High School, I theorized on something troubling me, that seemed to be stamped into human genetics. I first noticed it in the 6th grade, and my young RC mind couldn't fathom it at all. But by High School I think I knew the score.
I believe the modern "Me Too" movement is onto roughly the same troubling thing.
My summation of what I saw early in my High School scientific life was "The Football Captain always gets his choice of the cheerleaders." I didn't like it, being skinny and doomed to football failure, but I could see it was true.
Fifty years later and the Me Too people point it out in nearly every power based human organization. I didn't bat an eyelash at King David's choice of the cheerleaders. It bothered me, as usual, but it didn't surprise me.
THAT's what a lawyer heart (oxymoronic, I know) misses.
Please re-read it (and my corrections) with your woman's heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I'm done with you, Mike.
I've learned to appreciate the frankness of Americans. Generally, I've found they speak as they think (Brits can go round the houses a bit).
But I've never meet anyone as evasive as you are. Usually, even a lying person comes clean eventually. But you... do you know what "clean" is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Folks, I'm done with the evasion that Mike displays. I have offered him lots of space to communicate what he thinks, and asked some easy questions of him. He can't or won't answer. If he ever does, someone please tell me by PM. Meantime, I'm putting him on Ignore. When I want to bang my head against a wall, I'll do that in my own home.
Over and out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You can plainly see I flashed forward TWICE there, just to bring in the similarity to MeToo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.