Couple weeks ago I googled L Craig Martindale. I wondered if he was still alive. I saw a link called 'one bad decision away from homelessness'. I don't know who the guy is, but his essay was very long. Took me over an hour to read it. It even made Wordwolf's posts seem brief by comparison. This guy claimed he was in TWI and posted on GSC. He had some scathing things to say about both of them. His pet peeve about GSC was what he called lack of forgiveness. He said he was banned from here for life. Just because you won't forgive someone for something doesn't mean your whole life and walk with God are totally flawed. There are things from my past I still hate when I think about them. I don't let myself get too distracted, but this is just human pathos. As long as you don't go on a killing spree, you're probably OK.
Once upon a time in TWI, we were taught that there are 5 basics...5 basic ways to practice Christianity. 1) read the bible 2) pray 3) assemble yourselves together (fellowship) 4) abundantly share and 5) witness to people. btw abundant sharing is not limited to money. Time is more perishable than money. I even consider what Mother Teresa did as abs.
Speaking of abs....2Cor. 9:7 - every man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver. That particular phrasing is only used in the context of abs, however, I see no reason why this cannot be applied to the other 4 basics. I read the bible because I'm blessed to do so, not because" God might get mad at me if I don't"...and on down the list.
I attended my first twig fellowship in October of 1976. During the rest of the 1970s I went to twigs in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and California, and the overall tone of those fellowships was very consistently cheerful. Oh, every so often somebody would get on their soapbox for a little too long about something, but that was the exception, not the rule. I believe the reason so many people came to TWI in the 70s was because of the cheerful atmosphere. Especially people who went to a church where they were constantly threatened with hellfire over every little thing. Unfortunately, over the next several years, the rule and the exception reversed. I blame Martindale more than anyone else. The more his influence increased, the more the cheerfulness decreased. By the time VP fell asleep the damage had been done. Everything that followed was natural fallout.
I have 2 examples of how LCM chipped away at the cheerfulness. The basic covered by this is assemble together. At Living Victoriously class sessions were morning and evening; afternoons were free time. One afternoon Branded was rehearsing at the big top and naturally drew a crowd. LCM opportunistically started 'sharing'. His tone was heavy. One thing he said is that the dropout rate in TWI was highest the year after the wow year. He was outraged. He basically made a vain repetition out of "you owe your life and commitment to the ministry that taught you the word". God is not limited to the ministry that taught me the word. That kind of logic will lead people away from cheerfulness and to embracing grudgingly and of necessity. Compared to the cheerfulness of the 70s, it seems like believers in general started becoming more openly judgmental at fellowships, all in the name of being a "believing believer". The atmosphere drastically changed. Another time, LCM said that God called it robbery when people didn't tithe in the OT, so it must be grand larceny in the age of grace. Grace!!!!???? We are absolutely not bound by the OT law, but if you can cheerfully give 10% or more, God is OK with that, but if 5% or less is all you can give cheerfully, God will still honor that. In CSBP VP said 90% with God's blessing on it will go farther than 100% without. I believe that 99% will have the same result.
In 1994 with those purges and mass excommunications LCM really did show ALL his true colors, but prior to that it was gradual. Many of his teachings were heavy. VP and Walter Cummins spoke more easy to be entreated; their words just sounded more measured and palatable. LCM started out slow at times, but you knew eventually he was going to rev it up and spend minutes at a time talking in a loud higher pitched monotone. After hearing enough of that, I could screen him out fairly easily. It was kind of like stopping at a traffic light and couple cars away somebody has music cranked up really loud.
LCM also routinely alternated between heavy and humorous. His overall tone was heavy, then he'd punctuate it with humor so it was hard to gauge where all this was headed. I think it's possible that the high profile leadership who left TWI in 1987 (Walter, Earl Burton, and John Townsend; people like that) knew exactly what was coming and finally made their exit. Then in 1989 the loyalty letter, then in 1994 the purges and 'deportations'. LCM wanted to "clean up the ministry". All the people who bought into that were desensitized. Anybody who thought for themselves even a little were now expendable. LCM was "cleaning up" a culture he himself created.
Couple more things.
I never heard anybody say this, but I would not be surprised to learn that Walter Cummins was offered the presidency and turned it down. To this day he is a research guy. He still writes books and has an internet fellowship. If he had been made president of TWI that would have been altered.
In 1978 LCM taught the SNS. The teaching was called 'Steven: both guns blazing. It impressed a lot of people. Donnie Fugit wrote a song with that title. Joyful Noise, on the 'God's team' recording had a song Both Barrels Blazing. Could it be that THAT teaching is what elevated him from being a rising TWI leader to a serious candidate to succeed VP as TWI president???
Thx John, I believe I still have it on audiocassette someplace.
I'm not sure if you knew about what Craig is doing today or even interested but there was a thread awhile back on his most recent teachings and here is the webpage. Audio only:
Doesn't Paul salute a Herodian at the end of Romans?
A case could be made that most of the NT is written from a pro-Roman and anti-Jewish perspective. A curious irony.
Modern day Judaism didn't start in earnest until around 140ad or so with a lot of Judaism coming from the Babylonian Talmud, which Jesus referred to as the traditions of men. The NT is in harmony with the Old Testament though it doesn't fit like a hand in a glove. I'm at work so 140 ad may be off by a few decades one way or another.
Modern day Judaism didn't start in earnest until around 140ad or so with a lot of Judaism coming from the Babylonian Talmud, which Jesus referred to as the traditions of men. The NT is in harmony with the Old Testament though it doesn't fit like a hand in a glove. I'm at work so 140 ad may be off by a few decades one way or another.
Ok. Maybe anti-Semitic or anti-Hebrew more accurate?
Ok. Maybe anti-Semitic or anti-Hebrew more accurate?
Oh..any and all...I'm not on that mess where we can't say Jesus was Jewish and not Judean...Jewish communicates just fine. I was pointing out the difference in content the religion is founded on. Nothing more.
No. I just think it's interesting how important the Romans and the Roman Empire were to the spread of Christianity.
Kind of an interesting topic really. There were larger empires during Rome's hayday. But it was Rome that propagated Christianity to the west, where Byzantium was more eastern Orthodox.
Kind of an interesting topic really. There were larger empires during Rome's hayday. But it was Rome that propagated Christianity to the west, where Byzantium was more eastern Orthodox.
Byzantium was the Roman Empire. They called themselves Roman.
Thx John, I believe I still have it on audiocassette someplace.
I'm not sure if you knew about what Craig is doing today or even interested but there was a thread awhile back on his most recent teachings and here is the webpage.
I'll check it out. I can't help comparing him possibly with King Saul; when he was little in his own sight he was OK, but once he became the mogfodat....not so much.
Well, unlike Nathan_Jr's post that I read in its entirety before posting, this one of yours I stopped after the opening 3 sentences.
What I "pontificated" weeks ago was that everything in the micro world of atoms, and molecules, and even cells is determined by the Laws of Physics (which encompasses the laws of chemistry and biology) AND the initial conditions those exceedingly small objects are subject to. At these low levels, there is no free will, and everything is determined.
But then I further theorized that when you look up to the level of a brain, there can be some free will there.
I further theorized that this type of free will is not as strong as the classically defined type of free will, but it does get the job done, just not as fast and not as effortlessly as the classical free will definition promised.
So your second sentence is totally wrong, nullifying your first sentence completely.
*/*/*/*
Now this phrase in your third sentence: "...what damage has been done has been done regardless" makes no sense to me at all. I need an explanation of what this means before I can proceed with reading carefully, the rest. I'll glance at it tomorrow when I have sleep and time, but now it's too much for me to try.
If you take to heart my correction of your second sentence's missing my position on this, and then re-write the remainder of your post to reflect that, I feel that would be the best way for me to proceed.
You did write these posts, didn't you?
On 11/22/2022 at 1:43 PM, Mike said:
Another way of putting it is:
The Laws of Physics (plus initial conditions) actually DETERMINE what will happen next.
Another:
Determinism is the belief that the inanimate objects in the universe NEVER act in a capricious or disobedient way. (disobedient to the laws) Nature is never lazy or frivolous.
Determinism means the physical universe is predictable if you know the laws and the initial conditions.
Actually determines what happens next. The physical universe is predictable.
Including nerve impulses and the firing of brain cells. I believe you also refered to natural man being akined to beast.
On 11/20/2022 at 1:37 PM, Mike said:
Do you have a scripture reference for God saying we have free will?
I want to consider all the evidence.
Here you doubt free will exists.
So now your doing a 180 on your previous claims.
Then there's the question of how free will affects telling people about Saint Vic and how would that prevent them from continuing the class.
If you would admit you're contradicting yourself, the that would be the best way to proceed. But I don't expect that from you.
It's okay if you don't respond to the rest of my post. I understand you can't and are just using this as an excuse to avoid those topics.
That's right. And the second is LIKE the first -- Loving your neighbor as yourself is LIKE loving God. They seem to me to fit together seamlessly, reflexively, like a hand in a... One must find out for oneself the deep meaning of the two greatest commandments. It's silly for me to explain it.
Good point! ...and one I had never considered. And it fits with the First John passages of loving God and not hating a brother that are so intertwined. I hesitate to jump to conclusions, so this is in my Deep Ponder Folder now.
It looks to me now, though, that this point of yours does not nullify any of the simplification explanations that I offered above. What do you think about that?
It also looks to me now that this point of yours may figure in your answer to a question or two of mine to you, while I laid out the simplification explanations, but I don't yet see that. Maybe if you re-read my long post above to you, it would be easy for you to explain this, and answer my questions as well.
Slightly delaying my comments on the other good points you made in this post of yours, I noticed something funny much earlier when I woke up this morning.
Late last night, after shutting down and almost ready for bed I thought I remembered a point I forgot in my long response to you. I thought I had noticed a spot where you possibly confused the event of taking the class with the event of your being born again. SO, this morning I went straight to your post of yesterday to re-read it. I think now that my hunch the night before was incorrect. But while looking, I was able to read with more alert focus these two paragraphs:
That's right. And the second is LIKE the first -- Loving your neighbor as yourself is LIKE loving God. They seem to me to fit together seamlessly, reflexively, like a hand in a... One must find out for oneself the deep meaning of the two greatest commandments. It's silly for me to explain it. ...
What you are talking about, I understand, but please know, your word choice can be confusing for those of us keeping it simple. Please consider an alternate wording of the greatest commandment simplification. Because, what you are talking about is NOT the greatest commandment as revealed by Christ. Maybe sin simplification would be more throughly... ...effectual.
I was pretty sleepy last night as I wrote you and So_crates. This morning, when re-read your post from yesterday, I noticed clearly, for the first time, the 3 bold fonted areas above, and got a good belly laugh to start the day !
I vaguely saw, last night, the the little ellipses in the first green area, but strongly wondered why I smelled such a strong scent of smoke coming from behind me. LoL
*/*/*/*
He didn't lay out more than two, and he said the two are like each other. To make a hard distinction between the two greatest commandments potentially hinders a higher level of understanding. And notice, he doesn't limit love to your fellowship brother or your fellow twig laborer or the girl that shares your commitment to some guru -- he says your NEIGHBOR, yourself and GOD. There are no contingencies, no numbers by which to paint, no complex, systematic, theological formulations. It's so simple, yet so, so profound.
Yes, I have noticed that all along, both in the Gospels and in the Epistles and Acts.
You are 100% right about this. I have posted the same attitude several times lately, that anyone I meet in the grocery store is probably never a "wrong seed," but very likely EITHER a Christian with at least SOME of the Word cooking within, OR they could be a new born Christian TOMORROW. That is my attitude, and I first got it in the "peace and love" hippie days of the late Sixties that I was a part of. The Word that I was taught confirmed this continually.
I was taught with great deceptive subtlety by my twig commander to not even waste spit on my neighbor. This twig commander follows the original books and collaterals of victor paul wierwille ONLY. He is unwilling to go beyond what he was taught.
I definitely saw that same rotten attitude grow as the 1980s progressed, more after Craig's installation in 1982, and much more in 1985 as Athletes of the Spirit rose to the level of a major production, and devil spirits became a central focus, assisted by hot girls in multicolored leotards!
I call that rotten attitude the Way Corps Nazi Head. It came from the Corps and spread out to non-Corps, especially the Corps wannabees. I considered it the biggest red flag I ever saw in the ministry, but I missed all the fireworks after 1988. By then I was glad to be gone, toting a crumby bootleg copy of the class with me.
If you were ever able to connect me to that spit hoarding twig leader of yours, I'd love to go through the collaterals and the Bible with him. But better yet, maybe he saw what you and I would like to show him on his own by now.
I am curious when your twig leader took the PFAL'68 class, if ever. It sounds like he may be a post 1995 TWI victim, and never saw it, but got a heavy exposure to LCM and his master Nazi sledgehammer.
Trying my best to think no evil, I hope Craig has seen some of these things about the two great commandments as we have discussed them. I have not had the time yet to listen to any of his modern teaching, but for about 10 minutes. It sounded like he thought like he was unjustly ousted, and lost my interest pretty quick. But I did not really give him a fair hearing, and what I heard may have been several years old.
I wonder if anyone here has heard a lot of his most recent teachings, and if he has changed any. I'd like it if he has. I was rooting for him in 1982, and still occasionally pray for him. Jesus' dual-command to us plus "love your enemies" apply (for learning) to us loving LCM, as it does to us loving our neighbors.
Complete lack of comprehension as to what is actually written. We are never told to DISTANCE ourselves from our old man nature. We are told to reckon it dead. Really big difference there mike.
No difference to me. In my mind I picture distancing a close synonym for reckoning dead. I figure a dead body smells bad and we want to distance ourself from it.
I think your Gotcha Attitude caused you to have a "Complete lack of comprehension as to what is actually written" by me, while we agree on what is written in the Word on this.
You need a different "Listening With a Purpose" attitude while reading my posts.
Do you have a scripture reference for God saying we have free will?
I want to consider all the evidence.
Here you doubt free will exists.
WRONG AGAIN !
Here we are drifting fast into the "Determinism vs. Free Will" thread.
What I was saying there is that I have never seen the CURRENTLY defined notion if Free Will in the Bible, nor have I seen the phrase "free will" in there with any explanation whatsoever, nor have I seen discussions in there, using synonyms, of any sort about it. If you have seen any of this, I am ALL EARS! I'd love to see it.
I absolutely NEVER have doubted the practical idea of free will, starting 5 years before I took the class.
That idea of practical free will was strengthened massively by VPW talking about it often, and by him giving me 3 anchors, around which I built my alternate definition and theory of that same practical notion of free will.
What I doubted, and soon rejected starting about 9 years ago is the 1,000 year old TECHNICAL definition of it.
This is a very complicated topic, so if you weren't taking notes during the Determinism thread, and are not taking notes now, you will NEVER sort it out.... especially if you never took a simple Physics 101 course, no calculus needed.
Your Gotcha Attitude has failed you again.
UNTIL you incorporate my firm belief in free will into your comments to me about it, it is a waste of my time to read your following comments that incorporate your thinking that I doubt that free will exists.
Repeating:
I believe in free will, the kind VPW taught, and the kind we intuitively know in practical living.
I do not believe in the classical, old, mystical, anti-science, primitive, technical definition of free will.
I came up with a better definition that fits with science and with determinism.
It fits with everyday life practical free will feelings we have. It is not as strong as classical free will, and not as ubuiquitus. My version of free will is often under-used, and practically gone in some people under heavy attack by the adversary.
Now go back to your drawing board and toss your Gotcha Attitude aside, and maybe even re-read the Determinism thread to see that what I am writing here fits with what I wrote there.
When you can convince yourself that I do believe in roughly the same type of practical free will I assume (?) you believe in, THEN please re-write your recent posts to me.
No difference to me. In my mind I picture distancing a close synonym for reckoning dead. I figure a dead body smells bad and we want to distance ourself from it.
Cmon mike - its the word, the word, and nothing but the word...didnt St Vic teach you that words have meanings? Changing definitions to suit your purposes is dishonest.
I don't see much early Christianity outside of the Roman Empire. (By see I mean wiki "Spread of Christianity") Maybe East a bit and south into Africa.
Oh, to be clear Im not saying there was a significant spread eastward and then you have all the battling that took place with Muslims. Im referring to the western empire and how Christianity spread westward from there.
I think your Gotcha Attitude caused you to have a "Complete lack of comprehension as to what is actually written" by me, while we agree on what is written in the Word on this.
You need a different "Listening With a Purpose" attitude while reading my posts.
As much as you would like to convince yourself that I dont understand what you are talking about that just isnt true...you said yourself that pflap hasnt changed since 1968. Ive worked the majority wierwilles materials forntwards, backwards, on the field, in-residence, etc. Nothing has changed, many of his works are remedial, except the ones he didn't write - which is a significant portion. I can't understand how you are so mesmerized with a cheap imitation but to each their own.
Oh, to be clear Im not saying there was a significant spread eastward and then you have all the battling that took place with Muslims. Im referring to the western empire and how Christianity spread westward from there.
Indeed it did. Western Colonialism moved much further. And ended slavery through most of the planet.
This is your victimization frame working overtime. Poor Mike everybody is playing gotcha with him.
It gives you a ready made excuse for not considering what others are telling you.
Mike thinks I don't want him posting here. Personally, he is a God send because he represents all of the lunacy and deceptive tactics employed by TWI. I used to be the same way. And he openly talks about TWi past and all that lunacy - those are details the way doesn't want exposed - they have made St Vic. their messiah.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
97
75
128
134
Popular Days
Dec 19
128
Dec 22
99
Dec 17
99
Dec 21
94
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 97 posts
chockfull 75 posts
OldSkool 128 posts
Nathan_Jr 134 posts
Popular Days
Dec 19 2022
128 posts
Dec 22 2022
99 posts
Dec 17 2022
99 posts
Dec 21 2022
94 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
Mike. Get this clear. I hate no-one. I hate ABUSE. Agape thinks no evil? Right. Agape calls evil out!! And I'm calling out the abuse that occurred and likely still occurs. That's not hate
chockfull
Okay reading thru this I find it hard to believe the lack of empathy. Mike is always looking to run down anyone who went thru the Corps as a problem. Actually, I don't find it hard t believe. The w
OldSkool
Correct! But a Christian organization that is all about material abundance is not a Christian orginazation at all because that's not what Christianity is about and its shameful to even attach Christ n
Bolshevik
Suggestion is everywhere
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thx John, I believe I still have it on audiocassette someplace.
I'm not sure if you knew about what Craig is doing today or even interested but there was a thread awhile back on his most recent teachings and here is the webpage. Audio only:
Internet Archive Search: subject:"remnant-of-grace-god-bible-l.-craig-martindale"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Are you suggesting Paul name-dropped his way into history?
Sly fox.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Modern day Judaism didn't start in earnest until around 140ad or so with a lot of Judaism coming from the Babylonian Talmud, which Jesus referred to as the traditions of men. The NT is in harmony with the Old Testament though it doesn't fit like a hand in a glove. I'm at work so 140 ad may be off by a few decades one way or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ok. Maybe anti-Semitic or anti-Hebrew more accurate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No. I just think it's interesting how important the Romans and the Roman Empire were to the spread of Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh..any and all...I'm not on that mess where we can't say Jesus was Jewish and not Judean...Jewish communicates just fine. I was pointing out the difference in content the religion is founded on. Nothing more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I mentioned on another thread Greek influence via Rome's adoption of Greek ways imprinting onto Christianity.
I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Kind of an interesting topic really. There were larger empires during Rome's hayday. But it was Rome that propagated Christianity to the west, where Byzantium was more eastern Orthodox.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Byzantium was the Roman Empire. They called themselves Roman.
But the Greeks were conquered long before Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Thx John, I believe I still have it on audiocassette someplace.
I'm not sure if you knew about what Craig is doing today or even interested but there was a thread awhile back on his most recent teachings and here is the webpage.
I'll check it out. I can't help comparing him possibly with King Saul; when he was little in his own sight he was OK, but once he became the mogfodat....not so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
My apologies...after Rome split and the empire divided. Byzantium was the eastern empire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No apologies
I don't see much early Christianity outside of the Roman Empire. (By see I mean wiki "Spread of Christianity") Maybe East a bit and south into Africa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You did write these posts, didn't you?
Actually determines what happens next. The physical universe is predictable.
Including nerve impulses and the firing of brain cells. I believe you also refered to natural man being akined to beast.
Here you doubt free will exists.
So now your doing a 180 on your previous claims.
Then there's the question of how free will affects telling people about Saint Vic and how would that prevent them from continuing the class.
If you would admit you're contradicting yourself, the that would be the best way to proceed. But I don't expect that from you.
It's okay if you don't respond to the rest of my post. I understand you can't and are just using this as an excuse to avoid those topics.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Jewishistory.org
Says Christianity defeated the Roman Empire and spread in large part due to slaves and women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No difference to me. In my mind I picture distancing a close synonym for reckoning dead. I figure a dead body smells bad and we want to distance ourself from it.
I think your Gotcha Attitude caused you to have a "Complete lack of comprehension as to what is actually written" by me, while we agree on what is written in the Word on this.
You need a different "Listening With a Purpose" attitude while reading my posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here you doubt free will exists.
WRONG AGAIN !
Here we are drifting fast into the "Determinism vs. Free Will" thread.
What I was saying there is that I have never seen the CURRENTLY defined notion if Free Will in the Bible, nor have I seen the phrase "free will" in there with any explanation whatsoever, nor have I seen discussions in there, using synonyms, of any sort about it. If you have seen any of this, I am ALL EARS! I'd love to see it.
I absolutely NEVER have doubted the practical idea of free will, starting 5 years before I took the class.
That idea of practical free will was strengthened massively by VPW talking about it often, and by him giving me 3 anchors, around which I built my alternate definition and theory of that same practical notion of free will.
What I doubted, and soon rejected starting about 9 years ago is the 1,000 year old TECHNICAL definition of it.
This is a very complicated topic, so if you weren't taking notes during the Determinism thread, and are not taking notes now, you will NEVER sort it out.... especially if you never took a simple Physics 101 course, no calculus needed.
Your Gotcha Attitude has failed you again.
UNTIL you incorporate my firm belief in free will into your comments to me about it, it is a waste of my time to read your following comments that incorporate your thinking that I doubt that free will exists.
Repeating:
I believe in free will, the kind VPW taught, and the kind we intuitively know in practical living.
I do not believe in the classical, old, mystical, anti-science, primitive, technical definition of free will.
I came up with a better definition that fits with science and with determinism.
It fits with everyday life practical free will feelings we have. It is not as strong as classical free will, and not as ubuiquitus. My version of free will is often under-used, and practically gone in some people under heavy attack by the adversary.
Now go back to your drawing board and toss your Gotcha Attitude aside, and maybe even re-read the Determinism thread to see that what I am writing here fits with what I wrote there.
When you can convince yourself that I do believe in roughly the same type of practical free will I assume (?) you believe in, THEN please re-write your recent posts to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/distance - dead is never a synonym for distance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/dead - distance is never a synonym for dead
Cmon mike - its the word, the word, and nothing but the word...didnt St Vic teach you that words have meanings? Changing definitions to suit your purposes is dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh, to be clear Im not saying there was a significant spread eastward and then you have all the battling that took place with Muslims. Im referring to the western empire and how Christianity spread westward from there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
As much as you would like to convince yourself that I dont understand what you are talking about that just isnt true...you said yourself that pflap hasnt changed since 1968. Ive worked the majority wierwilles materials forntwards, backwards, on the field, in-residence, etc. Nothing has changed, many of his works are remedial, except the ones he didn't write - which is a significant portion. I can't understand how you are so mesmerized with a cheap imitation but to each their own.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Wrong again!
I have no gotcha attitude.
This is your victimization frame working overtime. Poor Mike everybody is playing gotcha with him.
It gives you a ready made excuse for not considering what others are telling you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Indeed it did. Western Colonialism moved much further. And ended slavery through most of the planet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike thinks I don't want him posting here. Personally, he is a God send because he represents all of the lunacy and deceptive tactics employed by TWI. I used to be the same way. And he openly talks about TWi past and all that lunacy - those are details the way doesn't want exposed - they have made St Vic. their messiah.
Edited by OldSkoolLink 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.