Aha. He "looked at your website"! Uh oh.. must be "puzessed" now.. heh heh. Another victim of "web debils".
Roy, I am really suprised that he responded to your email to begin with. It's gotta go bad for him now- now he's having whole conversations with "web devils".. heh heh.
Aha.. now we are starting to see a little light on da situation.. so now you are accusing a MACHINE of a falsehood. What "falsehood"? That you are "welcome"? FINALLY, somebody in this new and improved version of the organization is going to admit this. You are NOT welcome. "Our ignorant machine, which is stating otherwise, is lying".
And you do have a good point. We paid once, and most of us paid again and again. Sounds reasonable. Just refund us our "membership" fees.
Interesting.. the more this guy "dances with devils", the more doo doo he seems to getting himself into..
Yeah.. "spiffy" looking- ha. Funny, I thought they claimed to be followers of The Way, Jesus Christ. Here you have a website for "followers of Day Vey international inc". What does that say..
We "met" and had a tiny dialog on John B's website a few weeks ago, and now we are finally doing a little here.
I have some things to say keying on this post of yours, Belle, but I want you to know that what I'm about to say is NOT addressed directly to you. It may apply, but I don't know, seeing that we've hardly talked about anything. I've seen many of your posts, but there just isn't enough time to read AND remember everything that everyone here says.
My comments below are much more addressed to other posters which whom I have had a lot of dialog, and I know their positions on issues much better than yours.
You wrote (quoting Jim):
"quote: Minds are like parachutes - they work better when they are open. __ Now, see, Jim. This is where I get confused.... First craig went on a long diatribe about people saying "have an open mind" and how that was stupid and basically telling someone to be ready, willing and able to be under devil spirit influence or get possessed. __ THEN, I read somewhere on TWIts website, this other website, a way rag or somewhere in TWIt words about "having an open mind". Which is it? Does anyone know???? __ And if they are admonishing "their people" to have an open mind, then what's so wrong with some intellectual dialog? Jesus, Peter, Paul....all of them did it. Maybe TWIt's "people" aren't as "prevailing" as they think they are."
I sometimes see that many people think in cliches, rather than with concepts. It's often the way words sound and fit together that people latch onto, rather than the concepts behind the words.
The phrases "open mind" and "free speech" are curiously related to each other, and to the main topic and subtopics of this thread.
In academia the phrase "open mind" and the concepts behind it are ALMOST always good; and in politics the phrase "free speech" and the concepts behind it are ALMOST always good.
However, in both academia and politics there are exceptions to these rules, such as the more virulent forms of hate speech, conspiracy, or falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
In areas other than academia and politics the exceptions to these rules are even more common. But for people who latch on to cliche modes of thinking, the two phrases we are looking at here are ALWAYS good, and their converses always bad.
***
Now for this thread, we've been talking about free speech on an open forum such as John B's. When I first went there I saw prominently displayed the phrase "Open Forum" and that conveyed to me "free speech." I saw "Visitors Forum" (or something like that) and went there posting freely. Then came John B's "reconstruction" and it's suddenly not an open fourm with free speech. Is this bad????
Should we criticize John B, or his obvious bosses at TWI, for pulling the plug on free speech there?
Oddly enough this exact same issue has come up here, and not too long ago. I looked for it all over GSC, but it seems to have disappeared. It may have been "pruned" as the Open forum announcement and discussions indicate this is a possibility. OR it may have been simply moved, and the Search Function can't find it yet.
Luckily I have a saved copy of it. I reproduced some of it below, and HIGHLY EDITED it for brevity. I even removed entire posts to keep it brief. I used [square brackets] to add any small items for readability. If any participants object to my editing I will send them a complete transcript so they can bring out what they feel may be unjustly excised, AND/OR fix it to please them.
This thread used to be in the Open forum, and the title of the thread was "For any who may be interested" and it was started by searcher on July 27, 2004.
The overall context of the thread is searcher complaining about how Rafael ran his website.
For a short time I posted on a Christian site, trying to get a "handle' on Christian thinking.
I was set up rather nicely by someone asking me what I believed, to which I replied, a reminder of a rule against "bible bashing' immediately followed this.
Ah well, I was stupid to fall for the set up so have only myself to blame for that, it does however, re-enforce what has happened many times in my dealings with Christians, "believe exactly as we do, or else".
To prevent any discomfort of people on that site, I deleted myself, and removed the site from "favourites".
Hey, How are ya, Searcher?? Unfotunately, I have got to agree with this assessment.
What's that bumper sticker I saw the other day?? ahhhh --
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open."
Have run into a few of these boards myself, and have reconciled myself to the fact that only a few topics can "honestly" be discussed by myself and the other members, since what I really want to say, is not allowed.
I do what I can, despite the restrictions. I've found that e-mail, and private topic messaging manages to circumvent the "rules and regs" of the various boards!
I am quite happy to leave people to get on with their own lives/beliefs, it just saddens me that some (read many) take the attitude they do.
I guess I expected better, (tolerance to honest questions, and love) I suppose it depends on which god a person believes in, NT god (god of love) or OT god (love me or I will kill you etc).
No one asked you to delete your post. You did that on your own.
I'll repeat here what I said there:
"We hear challenges to the Bible everywhere we go. We deal with skepticism everywhere we go. All we ask for is this one little corner of the Internet where we can affirm each other's faith rather than sow seeds of doubt. Please respect that."
The forum rules page on my site not only specifically asks atheists and agnostics to give us our space: it also points them here, with a link to make it easy, for an easily accessible alternative with many of the same posters.
David,
If you guys want to call that censorship, I guess that's okay. But to say we "deny the existence" of one side of the coin is just not fair. We don't deny anything. We asked for our space. Are you guys telling us that we can't have it?
Raf has the right to set the conditions of his site and should be respected for it.
Wayfers were taught motivational techniques to control the outcome of their conversation therefore "setting you up". I know because I was taught that and I am very much against it. But it is Raf's site.
JWO is the only site I have seen so far that allows a truely open mind.
This site is only censored in terms of HOW things are said.
Freedom of Speech does NOT mean "freedom to talk" or "freedom to spout whatever comes into your head". It is "freedom to express your own beliefs".
At this site, any poster is free to post whatever he or she wants, as long as you are mindful of a few guidelines.
One of those guidelines is: don't post attacks against other posters.
Another is: except in certain situations, don't post names - you don't have to totally obliterate names, just obscure them a bit with a single asterisk - e.g., J*hn Sm*th, not J*** S****.
If you wanted to post that your idea of God is a 12-headed dragon that eats people and poops red flowers, you are free to do so.
For the record, I don't think Searcher was "set up." He expressed some views that did not appear to conform to Christianity (on a Christian message board) and was asked (on a Christian message board) what was the Biblical basis of his view.
That's not a set up. It's a natural question.
Like I said, [searcher] your presence was a challenge. You're not the only non-Christian registered. And on top of that, I'm still trying to figure out how to handle the one Mormon who's registered. (advice, please, if you're reading this).
If it interests you, I find myself in exactly your situation on another site (run by Trinitarians).
I was there to learn, if and when I posted something that did not agree with christian belief, it was in the form of a question, and the answers I recieved to those questions gave me something to think seriously about.
I did not, to my knowledge, question christianity itself at any time, I was there to learn, not oppose, as I stated.
It was a challenge because I had not made room for the fact that some non-Christians will be interested in the form of dialogue you appear to be seeking. I believe I have addressed that now, but you tell me.
In the meantime: I used the word "anonymous" in my post above not to disparage posters or excuse their actions, but to suggest to you that Internet posters as a rule are a poor substitute for flesh and blood human beings who can talk to you face to face and answer your questions, or fail to do so, in a timely manner.
I see value in Free Speech forums like GSC here AND in Focused Speech forums.
They both have their benefits.
It's out of respect for Rafael's stated desire for a Focused Speech forum that I have not even tried to post there and disrupt that focus. I think I've only gone there once or twice to read small amounts of material because I do not want to develop that particular focus.
A Free Speech forum often posts its rules of decorum. Likewise, a Focused Speech forum should have its rules posted.
Because we live in a free speech oriented society, a Focused Speech forum should open up with a disclaimer right up front that it is NOT a Free Speech forum, but a focused one. The rules of that focus can be laid out in as much detail as the owner desires. As unanticipated detail challenges arise, the rules can be augmented.
Free speech is a wonderful thing at times, but so is focus.
Raf, as much as I feel kindly towards most of the Mormons I've ever met and respect many things about them, I think you should throw them out on their ear if they disrupt the focus there.
There, I said it. And my keyboard didn't even erupt into flames.
Seriously,
One of the things I don't want to happen is that I hear so many things that sound like good ideas, I make the changes, and I end up with a board where the rules are no different than GSCafe. GSCafe isn't broke! I ain't trying to fix it! I also ain't trying to duplicate it. Even the political forums on LES are more concerned with what's Biblical and unBiblical, rather than which party is right and which is wrong.
I heard that someone called LES "The first GSCafe offshoot."
I think that's funny.
I opened a new room on the site called "Ready to Answer." I hope it addresses the deficiency outlined on this thread.
Searcher... why not give Raf's site another chance? He's a pretty good guy (which I think you know). He's even set up that other forum for folks like you. If you really did/were enjoy most of your time there and found some answers... why not?
I haven't read the thread over there where all of this happened, I'm just basing in on what I've read here on this one. If you want to "give it another chance" he's made space available to you.
I agree from what you've said that you seem to have had a polite approach.
The notion of a privately held Focused Speech forum is not very well known in our society, and I can understand you entering Raf's place not knowing exactly how he wanted to run it. It seems you have the civility to allow him such a privilege as you became aware of it.
I've seen many instances where the constitutional right to free speech in public places is confused with what kind of speech is allowed on privately owned premises. It comes up often in the poetry meetings I attend.
And thank you Raf, for accepting my suggestion.
This sure is one happy family thread here isn't it! We're all getting along pretty well. Why don't we all kiss and close it, before we're at each other's throats again?
So, I see times when Free Speech forums are good, like here at GSC, where many issues are on the table and there are a lot of confusing events and doctrines from the past that we are sorting through.
I see situations where Focused Speech forums, like Rafael's or like John B's has now become, where the discussion is designed to get into the fine details of already settled issues, and not be distracted by issues far removed from the intended focus. If you were taking a Poetry class and some fellow student wanted to bring a lot of high tech Mathematics into the classroom discussion, his "free speech" would be rightly curtailed by the moderator in favor of the intended focus on Poetry.
I see situations where an open mind is really important in order to search out the unknowns in a vast universe of ideas. To close a searching mind would mean the search has halted. If there are still vast unknowns not yet considered, this closed mind would be bad.
However, I also see that there can be situations where a CLOSED mind may be good. Where finding the gross aspects of an issue has been accomplished, and these aspects have been finally discovered, ending the search is good. At this point, closing the mind to the alternatives to these gross aspects can be a good thing, so that the fine details can be discussed. It is HERE that Craig taught that an open mind is bad. Avoiding the devil spirit implications and complications, surely it's easy to see that once a person learns simple math tables like "16 minus 9 equals 7", opening the mind to possibilities like (16 minus 9) equaling something else will make balancing a checkbook with a bank statement TOTALLY impossible.
In summary to your original question, Belle, there are times and places where open AND closed minds are good, and for this thread's topic, there can be good found in website forums where Free Speech AND the not-so-free but Focused Speech are in play.
I think we ought not to complain about John B's decision (though likely arm twisted by TWI leadership) to convert his website from free speech to focused. We ALL would love to inject our two cents into TWI and especially it's leadership, but they also should be allowed the freedom to "talk amongst themselves" as they apparently are now doing.
"I think we ought not to complain about John B's decision (though likely arm twisted by TWI leadership) to convert his website from free speech to focused. We ALL would love to inject our two cents into TWI and especially it's leadership, but they also should be allowed the freedom to "talk amongst themselves" as they apparently are now doing."
No they are not allowed to freely "talk among themselves". Not on John B.'s website and not person to person. It is obvious nothing has changed in TWI since I left. Question a teaching or "mandate" from leadership and you will be censored one way or another.
I had respect for John B. in that he allowed all of us to come to his site and respectfully ask questions and have conversations with others who were in. He even went so far as to point us to an appropriate forum for those conversations.
I have lost that respect. He is too afraid of his leadership to do what he wants to do. If he wanted us gone he could have politely asked us to leave or he could have banned us back when we first arrived. It seems pretty obvious to me that these new rules weren't his doing, but that of the ministry his website is "not officially affiliated with."
"I think we ought not to complain about John B's decision
Who says it was HIS decision to begin with? John B himself? Not likely. Innies are not ALLOWED to make decisions.
But I suppose he may have been given one decision: "you low life scumsucking weak etc etc who dared to let da household get infested.. etc. etc. have one chance to "fix" this. Or you're out on your rear with the rest of your greasespot friends...etc. etc."
I think this little scenario is probably a lot closer to what really happened here. Think not? I have seen what has been done to people who have done or allowed far less "evil" than this. I have seen stuff that would make your hair stand on end, and I was not even in "the inner circle".
I bet ole Rosie and gang vented some real steam over this one.
"Fixed" and in more ways than one. Neutered. De-sexed. Sterilized.
Holy cow.. how many hoops do you have to go through now, just to have the "priviledge" to tell all the wonderful "household" how blessed you are.. blessed about this, blessed about that?
Blessed about what? "well, I am blessed that I am blessed". "Oh, well, I agree. I am glad you are blessed that you are blessed. You know what? I am blessed that I am blessed too.."
And you have to have approval of your limb and region coordinator to pull off even this much. Precious freedom in de vey..
Let's STILL be thankful for the little communication Johb B did afford us. Remember also how last year Harve Platig broke a lot of ice and posted here. I agree these attempts were paultry, but that's compared to the free speech WE are accustomed to. Think of how these small commuications compare, though, to past "reachings out" by TWI and they are huge.
Now, just to balance things a little, I'm going to speak my mind directly to John B.
I hope you appreciate the slack I'm cutting for you here, in spite of how rude and elitist you were with me in our last e-mail discussion.
I have had many, many discussions with trinitarians who would cut and run just like you did when something was placed on the table that they couldn't handle.
I want to ask you some things here on this thread (please forgive me Abigail ;)-->) about your site, because you have cut me off from any more e-mailing to you privately.
(1.) ======= You told me privately that the TWI equivalents of Papal Infallibility (mostly only leadership gets revelation, and they SURELY do get it) and Papal Succession (mantle passing extends the 1942 promise to the recipient along with it's authority) have ended there in TWI and that no one thinks that way any more. I asked you to document this in writing or on tape. Can you? Or is it just your impression that those unwritten doctrines ended in TWI?
I said these exact words to you in this context:
"I'm glad to hear that this way of thinking is "dead," "gone away," and "deceased forever." Could you show me this in writing? If it's not in writing then I expect it will come back. If it's not in writing and well distributed then many could still think that way. If it is in writing somewhere, it would be a MAJOR breakthrough and something the GreaseSpotters would have to consider. Even if it were only on a tape somewhere, I'd love to see this documented!"
.
.
.
(2.) ======= We also discussed MASTERING the written forms of PFAL like Dr told us all to do on numerous occasions (not just his last teaching), as opposed to reviewing it, referring to it, or merely learning it. This sounded like the classic definition of cultism to you, and in that context I said:
"I do not recognize their definitions for cult as valid. If Paul or Jesus showed up at their doorstep they'd be branded as cultist.
"I perceive that you too are in the grip of traditionalism. I speak of mastering the written forms of PFAL because they are from God. They are the only God-breathed writings we have. Our KJVs are NOT God's Word, but scholarly attempts to re-construct and translate what THEY THINK God's Word originally said. Ditto for the critical Greek texts.
"Dr Wierwille said 'Thus saith the Lord' many, many times. I believe him.
"If the definition of cultist is one who thinks that God has intervened and given us words more authoritative than the traditional versions of the Bible that are available, then call me a cultist.
"If PFAL is not God-breathed, then WHAT IS?
"Think about this question. What IS God-breathed in your library right now? What text can you say is bigger than you, must never be changed, and that you need to grow up into? You can't say your Bible, because you need to alter and change that book constantly in you attempts to get it back to the originals.
"What is your unalterable standard text?
"Dr said that every word he wrote to us is true (TNDC p.34) and that it was not merely him writing, but God (TNDC p.116) Himself, and that his PFAL writings can even be placed in the category of God-breathed (PFAL p.83). Have you worked these pages lately?
"The 1942 promise was a lot more than a nudge, it was a total revamping of things.
"One reason many grads disobey Dr's final instructions to master PFAL is because they feel that mastery is something they should reserve for God's Word and not for vpw's words. One reason Dr used the word "master" in referring to our needed level of PFAL study is because he knew that PFAL was not of his own doing, but of God's.
"For us to try and master our King James versions, and not master PFAL is the height of religion and churchianity. The reason we must not merely learn from the PFAL collaterals, but must actually master them, is because they are not from a man, but are from God."
***
So, John B, what's your answer? Have you worked those pages lately? TNDC p.34, and TNDC p.116, and PFAL p.83 ???
.
.
.
(3.) ======= In your snooty "Good bye" letter to me you accused me of many things and afforded me no opportunity to answer your charges. I see in it a lot of residual LCM characteristics in the way you handled yourself. Not only that, but you quoted Rev.22:18-19 five times without allowing any discussion of it. I will now do here what you wanted to prevent me from doing by e-mail.
Rev.22:18-19:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: __ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Have you ever "scratched out" any verses or phrases from your KJV? Does this curse apply to you then seeing you did "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy?"
Have you ever added into your reading of a KJV verse in a twig teaching any explanatory information that was not in your KJV? Does this curse apply to YOU because you did surely "add unto these things" in your reading?
Have you looked deeper into this verse to see that the word "book" should be translated "scroll" and thus only refer to the book of Revelation?
Have you looked at Jeremiah 36 where a scroll of God's Word had "many words added" by the prophet?
You see, John B, I agree that no one has the right to add to, subtract from, or change ANY of God's written Word. But God Himself can certainly do this CAN'T HE? If you had bothered to look it up when I cited it, this is exactly what Dr says in the Introduction to the Appendixes in RHST.
God can add to His own written Word whenever He wants to. Likewise, He can completely revise the format of His own written Word whenever He sees fit. He did this when He switched from the stars (where it was corrupted) to stone and parchment long ago. He did this when He worked with Dr from 1942 to 1985 in switching His format from the traditional scriptures (which were lost) to PFAL.
Your wrong dividing of that verse, and then your cutting and running from further discussion is a part of the kind of behavior that got TWI into a lot of trouble.
And don't give me any baloney about Internet etiquette about disclosing private e-mails. I didn't quote you, and I didn't violate any confidence you entrusted to me.
You CAN tell me what Internet etiquette says about trashing someone and then not sticking around to hear their defense.
If you want to end a conversation that's fine, but to not even give someone the opportunity to have a last word is the height of rudeness. You TWI people have been living in a past world where you could get away with such rudeness. Craig severely under estimated the power of the Internet and it crushed him. The next time you want to trash someone you better stick around a little longer or you might find them showing up for their last word in some unexpected cyber way.
All that said, I am not so angry with you that we cannot continue our otherwise refreshing e-mail conversation. I can forgive and forget your indiscretion. I am not into ego battles at all, but it's the contents of what we were told to master that I want to discuss with you.
We can continue with our discussion with TNDC p.34, and TNDC p.116, and PFAL p.83 anytime you think you can handle opinions different from yours. After all, they MAY be right and you could benefit from them!
I dunno about that.. ole harve's letter sure did not impress me as being qualified as "communication".
Communication requires at least two people. At the minimum, an exchange of ideas. I just don't see it. What I did see was an ultimatum of sorts, or a justification for ungodliness. And he could care less what you or I think. In the end, there was no exchange of thought or ideas, no real "communication".
For the life of me, I can't see why he even bothered writing that little "beauty"- unless he thought he was doing God a service, somehow confronting us "knuckleheads" for the error of our internet ways. Just so much more screaming and beating of the chest.. I have heard enough of that already. "We are right because of... end of discussion". If anything at all, I think it had the opposite result of what he intended.
Feel free to call this "communication", I call it something else entirely.
"Communication" ha. When I saw the couple of pleasant exchanges between the guy and Igotout, I was counting the hours. Even the simple exchange of pleasantries was rather short lived. This is so typical of way tactics. See any "deadbeat" exwayfers? Dont run right away. Say a couple nice things, then dissappear when they're not looking.
You seem to be determined to find any and every negative perspective possible. It's as if you want to NEVER see any kind of reconcilliation EVER take place. Do yo know how negative your posting history is?
Do yo have ANYTHING positive to say?
Sure, I agree with many of the negatives you document, but why the extreme leaning to that direction and that direction only?
On second thought... maybe I did still have some anger juices flowing in me from my previous post to John B when I posted to you.
I'm just trying my best to look for AND FIND anything positive that we can work with to effect ANY kind of reconcilliation between grads.
And not just with TWI grads... I feel for Geer grads, CFF, CES, and all the others out there. We really need to unite and get over these difficulties that have plagued us for 20 years now.
Might you try to take up this point of view a little?
Mike, I think your looking at Mr Hammeroni and making a judgement on his part...I've seen a lot of humor in his posts.
Your thinking on this is a little bit like looking through rose colored glasses. These people are not interested in any kind of reconciliation on our part. Nor imho will there ever be. Now is that being negative? I don't think so, its being realistic.
I'm honored that you spent your first post on me! :)-->
I'm curious, though, how it is that your post footer says that you have zero posts? Maybe it's just a software glitch. Maybe it will kick up when you post again.
You might as well forget about going on this site ever again. It will not happen.
What did you expect from The Way International? Openness? Real truth? Answers to questions? Ha!
John's experiment lasted a while but its over.
This site will be closed forever to anyone who is not an active member of The Way.
Frankly I am surprised it even opened at all to anone else. Don't waste you time registering or emailing John because you will be ignored in much the same way you are ignored by TWI in all other ways.
Get it through your head.....they do NOT want you or your comments. Probably never will.
John Richeson
Tampa Bay, FL - home of Yophotoman
(Formerly in Yophotoman's branch area here)
Kicked out in 2000 for speaking up too much.
PS - Disagree or agree all you want but its his site and he has every right to do with it what he wants.
"PS - Disagree or agree all you want but its his site and he has every right to do with it what he wants."
It may be his site, but he most certainly cannot do with it whatever he wants. Not if he wants to remain a part of TWI. The changes that have just taken place there show, beyond any doubt in my mind, exactly who makes the rules for his site.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
74
18
61
Popular Days
Jan 18
40
Jan 17
33
Feb 19
26
Feb 18
25
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 18 posts
Mike 74 posts
JustThinking 18 posts
Ham 61 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2005
40 posts
Jan 17 2005
33 posts
Feb 19 2005
26 posts
Feb 18 2005
25 posts
Ham
Like anything else that is "vey", their website smells well, so Rosie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Aha. He "looked at your website"! Uh oh.. must be "puzessed" now.. heh heh. Another victim of "web debils".
Roy, I am really suprised that he responded to your email to begin with. It's gotta go bad for him now- now he's having whole conversations with "web devils".. heh heh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
Thank you all and God bless you all
But he wrote me more
------------------------------------------------
From the "About this Site' on the front page:
Forum Use
"This message board is intended for the use of the followers of The Way
International, The registration questions reflect that involvement."
1) You accuse a machine of a false hood. "Welcome" messages are
auto-generated.
2) From the above, if you bothered to read it, you would have known that
you don't qualify. You're not involved. The familytables forum is not
public.
You may request to be contacted by some one currently with The Way.
-- Forum Administrator
--------------------------------------------
but I wrote him back
-----------------------------------------
God first
Beloved John
God bless your heart
I am still part of the Way because I took the class PFAL and many others
So I payed for my membership long ago and I still have proved of taking
classes
Now yes I do not go today but I might go if I see a fellowship with love
like I saw before years ago
So since I am a member when do I began to post
with love and an holy kiss blowing your way Roy
------------------------------------------------
Until our membership money is return we have a life time membership as far as I can see
Anything of the Way I should be welcome unless I cause a problem and I have not
I never had the cops call on me for visiting the way grounds or web site
They still have me listed as a member of the board
Now I do not go trig because they are after money only and I not going to give them a 1/10000000000 of a penny
Now I am saving the Emails if anyone wants to see them I can forward them to them
If they want us out they can pay back the money they took for life time classes of the Way
that all I know to say
with love and an holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Aha.. now we are starting to see a little light on da situation.. so now you are accusing a MACHINE of a falsehood. What "falsehood"? That you are "welcome"? FINALLY, somebody in this new and improved version of the organization is going to admit this. You are NOT welcome. "Our ignorant machine, which is stating otherwise, is lying".
And you do have a good point. We paid once, and most of us paid again and again. Sounds reasonable. Just refund us our "membership" fees.
Interesting.. the more this guy "dances with devils", the more doo doo he seems to getting himself into..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I registered and got back this email a couple weeks ago, username and password obscured for obvious reasons:
I never posted or even looked at the website until today. Account was gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah.. "spiffy" looking- ha. Funny, I thought they claimed to be followers of The Way, Jesus Christ. Here you have a website for "followers of Day Vey international inc". What does that say..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Belle,
We "met" and had a tiny dialog on John B's website a few weeks ago, and now we are finally doing a little here.
I have some things to say keying on this post of yours, Belle, but I want you to know that what I'm about to say is NOT addressed directly to you. It may apply, but I don't know, seeing that we've hardly talked about anything. I've seen many of your posts, but there just isn't enough time to read AND remember everything that everyone here says.
My comments below are much more addressed to other posters which whom I have had a lot of dialog, and I know their positions on issues much better than yours.
You wrote (quoting Jim):
"quote: Minds are like parachutes - they work better when they are open. __ Now, see, Jim. This is where I get confused.... First craig went on a long diatribe about people saying "have an open mind" and how that was stupid and basically telling someone to be ready, willing and able to be under devil spirit influence or get possessed. __ THEN, I read somewhere on TWIts website, this other website, a way rag or somewhere in TWIt words about "having an open mind". Which is it? Does anyone know???? __ And if they are admonishing "their people" to have an open mind, then what's so wrong with some intellectual dialog? Jesus, Peter, Paul....all of them did it. Maybe TWIt's "people" aren't as "prevailing" as they think they are."
I sometimes see that many people think in cliches, rather than with concepts. It's often the way words sound and fit together that people latch onto, rather than the concepts behind the words.
The phrases "open mind" and "free speech" are curiously related to each other, and to the main topic and subtopics of this thread.
In academia the phrase "open mind" and the concepts behind it are ALMOST always good; and in politics the phrase "free speech" and the concepts behind it are ALMOST always good.
However, in both academia and politics there are exceptions to these rules, such as the more virulent forms of hate speech, conspiracy, or falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
In areas other than academia and politics the exceptions to these rules are even more common. But for people who latch on to cliche modes of thinking, the two phrases we are looking at here are ALWAYS good, and their converses always bad.
***
Now for this thread, we've been talking about free speech on an open forum such as John B's. When I first went there I saw prominently displayed the phrase "Open Forum" and that conveyed to me "free speech." I saw "Visitors Forum" (or something like that) and went there posting freely. Then came John B's "reconstruction" and it's suddenly not an open fourm with free speech. Is this bad????
Should we criticize John B, or his obvious bosses at TWI, for pulling the plug on free speech there?
Oddly enough this exact same issue has come up here, and not too long ago. I looked for it all over GSC, but it seems to have disappeared. It may have been "pruned" as the Open forum announcement and discussions indicate this is a possibility. OR it may have been simply moved, and the Search Function can't find it yet.
Luckily I have a saved copy of it. I reproduced some of it below, and HIGHLY EDITED it for brevity. I even removed entire posts to keep it brief. I used [square brackets] to add any small items for readability. If any participants object to my editing I will send them a complete transcript so they can bring out what they feel may be unjustly excised, AND/OR fix it to please them.
This thread used to be in the Open forum, and the title of the thread was "For any who may be interested" and it was started by searcher on July 27, 2004.
The overall context of the thread is searcher complaining about how Rafael ran his website.
##############################################################
POSTED BY searcher
For a short time I posted on a Christian site, trying to get a "handle' on Christian thinking.
I was set up rather nicely by someone asking me what I believed, to which I replied, a reminder of a rule against "bible bashing' immediately followed this.
Ah well, I was stupid to fall for the set up so have only myself to blame for that, it does however, re-enforce what has happened many times in my dealings with Christians, "believe exactly as we do, or else".
To prevent any discomfort of people on that site, I deleted myself, and removed the site from "favourites".
##############################################################
POSTED BY dmiller
Hey, How are ya, Searcher?? Unfotunately, I have got to agree with this assessment.
What's that bumper sticker I saw the other day?? ahhhh --
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open."
Have run into a few of these boards myself, and have reconciled myself to the fact that only a few topics can "honestly" be discussed by myself and the other members, since what I really want to say, is not allowed.
I do what I can, despite the restrictions. I've found that e-mail, and private topic messaging manages to circumvent the "rules and regs" of the various boards!
##############################################################
POSTED BY searcher
Dmiller, Hi
I am quite happy to leave people to get on with their own lives/beliefs, it just saddens me that some (read many) take the attitude they do.
I guess I expected better, (tolerance to honest questions, and love) I suppose it depends on which god a person believes in, NT god (god of love) or OT god (love me or I will kill you etc).
##############################################################
POSTED BY Raf
Searcher,
No one asked you to delete your post. You did that on your own.
I'll repeat here what I said there:
"We hear challenges to the Bible everywhere we go. We deal with skepticism everywhere we go. All we ask for is this one little corner of the Internet where we can affirm each other's faith rather than sow seeds of doubt. Please respect that."
The forum rules page on my site not only specifically asks atheists and agnostics to give us our space: it also points them here, with a link to make it easy, for an easily accessible alternative with many of the same posters.
David,
If you guys want to call that censorship, I guess that's okay. But to say we "deny the existence" of one side of the coin is just not fair. We don't deny anything. We asked for our space. Are you guys telling us that we can't have it?
##############################################################
POSTED BY OnionEater
Raf has the right to set the conditions of his site and should be respected for it.
Wayfers were taught motivational techniques to control the outcome of their conversation therefore "setting you up". I know because I was taught that and I am very much against it. But it is Raf's site.
JWO is the only site I have seen so far that allows a truely open mind.
##############################################################
POSTED BY Steve!
OE, please!
This site is only censored in terms of HOW things are said.
Freedom of Speech does NOT mean "freedom to talk" or "freedom to spout whatever comes into your head". It is "freedom to express your own beliefs".
At this site, any poster is free to post whatever he or she wants, as long as you are mindful of a few guidelines.
One of those guidelines is: don't post attacks against other posters.
Another is: except in certain situations, don't post names - you don't have to totally obliterate names, just obscure them a bit with a single asterisk - e.g., J*hn Sm*th, not J*** S****.
If you wanted to post that your idea of God is a 12-headed dragon that eats people and poops red flowers, you are free to do so.
##############################################################
POSTED BY Raf
For the record, I don't think Searcher was "set up." He expressed some views that did not appear to conform to Christianity (on a Christian message board) and was asked (on a Christian message board) what was the Biblical basis of his view.
That's not a set up. It's a natural question.
Like I said, [searcher] your presence was a challenge. You're not the only non-Christian registered. And on top of that, I'm still trying to figure out how to handle the one Mormon who's registered. (advice, please, if you're reading this).
If it interests you, I find myself in exactly your situation on another site (run by Trinitarians).
Trying to figure out how to work it out.
##############################################################
POSTED BY searcher
Why was it a challenge?
I was there to learn, if and when I posted something that did not agree with christian belief, it was in the form of a question, and the answers I recieved to those questions gave me something to think seriously about.
I did not, to my knowledge, question christianity itself at any time, I was there to learn, not oppose, as I stated.
Are you real sure that the 'problem' was me?
##############################################################
POSTED BY Raf
It was a challenge because I had not made room for the fact that some non-Christians will be interested in the form of dialogue you appear to be seeking. I believe I have addressed that now, but you tell me.
In the meantime: I used the word "anonymous" in my post above not to disparage posters or excuse their actions, but to suggest to you that Internet posters as a rule are a poor substitute for flesh and blood human beings who can talk to you face to face and answer your questions, or fail to do so, in a timely manner.
##############################################################
POSTED BY Mike
searcher,
I see value in Free Speech forums like GSC here AND in Focused Speech forums.
They both have their benefits.
It's out of respect for Rafael's stated desire for a Focused Speech forum that I have not even tried to post there and disrupt that focus. I think I've only gone there once or twice to read small amounts of material because I do not want to develop that particular focus.
A Free Speech forum often posts its rules of decorum. Likewise, a Focused Speech forum should have its rules posted.
Because we live in a free speech oriented society, a Focused Speech forum should open up with a disclaimer right up front that it is NOT a Free Speech forum, but a focused one. The rules of that focus can be laid out in as much detail as the owner desires. As unanticipated detail challenges arise, the rules can be augmented.
Free speech is a wonderful thing at times, but so is focus.
Raf, as much as I feel kindly towards most of the Mormons I've ever met and respect many things about them, I think you should throw them out on their ear if they disrupt the focus there.
##############################################################
POSTED BY Raf
Thank you, Mike.
There, I said it. And my keyboard didn't even erupt into flames.
Seriously,
One of the things I don't want to happen is that I hear so many things that sound like good ideas, I make the changes, and I end up with a board where the rules are no different than GSCafe. GSCafe isn't broke! I ain't trying to fix it! I also ain't trying to duplicate it. Even the political forums on LES are more concerned with what's Biblical and unBiblical, rather than which party is right and which is wrong.
I heard that someone called LES "The first GSCafe offshoot."
I think that's funny.
I opened a new room on the site called "Ready to Answer." I hope it addresses the deficiency outlined on this thread.
##############################################################
POSTED BY searcher
Raf,
Truely, I harbour no ill will toward you or anyone on your site, I honestly hope that it becomes all that you hope it will.
For some reason, I seem to make (many) christians uncomfortable. That is all, and everything, I can live with it, but I dont expect others to.
My best wishes to you and your site.
##############################################################
POSTED BY Tom Strange
Searcher... why not give Raf's site another chance? He's a pretty good guy (which I think you know). He's even set up that other forum for folks like you. If you really did/were enjoy most of your time there and found some answers... why not?
I haven't read the thread over there where all of this happened, I'm just basing in on what I've read here on this one. If you want to "give it another chance" he's made space available to you.
Good luck in your search.
##############################################################
POSTED BY Mike
searcher,
I agree from what you've said that you seem to have had a polite approach.
The notion of a privately held Focused Speech forum is not very well known in our society, and I can understand you entering Raf's place not knowing exactly how he wanted to run it. It seems you have the civility to allow him such a privilege as you became aware of it.
I've seen many instances where the constitutional right to free speech in public places is confused with what kind of speech is allowed on privately owned premises. It comes up often in the poetry meetings I attend.
And thank you Raf, for accepting my suggestion.
This sure is one happy family thread here isn't it! We're all getting along pretty well. Why don't we all kiss and close it, before we're at each other's throats again?
##############################################################
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Belle,
I'm back with you now.
So, I see times when Free Speech forums are good, like here at GSC, where many issues are on the table and there are a lot of confusing events and doctrines from the past that we are sorting through.
I see situations where Focused Speech forums, like Rafael's or like John B's has now become, where the discussion is designed to get into the fine details of already settled issues, and not be distracted by issues far removed from the intended focus. If you were taking a Poetry class and some fellow student wanted to bring a lot of high tech Mathematics into the classroom discussion, his "free speech" would be rightly curtailed by the moderator in favor of the intended focus on Poetry.
I see situations where an open mind is really important in order to search out the unknowns in a vast universe of ideas. To close a searching mind would mean the search has halted. If there are still vast unknowns not yet considered, this closed mind would be bad.
However, I also see that there can be situations where a CLOSED mind may be good. Where finding the gross aspects of an issue has been accomplished, and these aspects have been finally discovered, ending the search is good. At this point, closing the mind to the alternatives to these gross aspects can be a good thing, so that the fine details can be discussed. It is HERE that Craig taught that an open mind is bad. Avoiding the devil spirit implications and complications, surely it's easy to see that once a person learns simple math tables like "16 minus 9 equals 7", opening the mind to possibilities like (16 minus 9) equaling something else will make balancing a checkbook with a bank statement TOTALLY impossible.
In summary to your original question, Belle, there are times and places where open AND closed minds are good, and for this thread's topic, there can be good found in website forums where Free Speech AND the not-so-free but Focused Speech are in play.
I think we ought not to complain about John B's decision (though likely arm twisted by TWI leadership) to convert his website from free speech to focused. We ALL would love to inject our two cents into TWI and especially it's leadership, but they also should be allowed the freedom to "talk amongst themselves" as they apparently are now doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"I think we ought not to complain about John B's decision (though likely arm twisted by TWI leadership) to convert his website from free speech to focused. We ALL would love to inject our two cents into TWI and especially it's leadership, but they also should be allowed the freedom to "talk amongst themselves" as they apparently are now doing."
No they are not allowed to freely "talk among themselves". Not on John B.'s website and not person to person. It is obvious nothing has changed in TWI since I left. Question a teaching or "mandate" from leadership and you will be censored one way or another.
I had respect for John B. in that he allowed all of us to come to his site and respectfully ask questions and have conversations with others who were in. He even went so far as to point us to an appropriate forum for those conversations.
I have lost that respect. He is too afraid of his leadership to do what he wants to do. If he wanted us gone he could have politely asked us to leave or he could have banned us back when we first arrived. It seems pretty obvious to me that these new rules weren't his doing, but that of the ministry his website is "not officially affiliated with."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Who says it was HIS decision to begin with? John B himself? Not likely. Innies are not ALLOWED to make decisions.
But I suppose he may have been given one decision: "you low life scumsucking weak etc etc who dared to let da household get infested.. etc. etc. have one chance to "fix" this. Or you're out on your rear with the rest of your greasespot friends...etc. etc."
I think this little scenario is probably a lot closer to what really happened here. Think not? I have seen what has been done to people who have done or allowed far less "evil" than this. I have seen stuff that would make your hair stand on end, and I was not even in "the inner circle".
I bet ole Rosie and gang vented some real steam over this one.
Well, the website is definitely "fixed".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Fixed" and in more ways than one. Neutered. De-sexed. Sterilized.
Holy cow.. how many hoops do you have to go through now, just to have the "priviledge" to tell all the wonderful "household" how blessed you are.. blessed about this, blessed about that?
Blessed about what? "well, I am blessed that I am blessed". "Oh, well, I agree. I am glad you are blessed that you are blessed. You know what? I am blessed that I am blessed too.."
And you have to have approval of your limb and region coordinator to pull off even this much. Precious freedom in de vey..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Abigail and Ham,
Let's STILL be thankful for the little communication Johb B did afford us. Remember also how last year Harve Platig broke a lot of ice and posted here. I agree these attempts were paultry, but that's compared to the free speech WE are accustomed to. Think of how these small commuications compare, though, to past "reachings out" by TWI and they are huge.
Now, just to balance things a little, I'm going to speak my mind directly to John B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
yophoto (aka John B),
I hope you appreciate the slack I'm cutting for you here, in spite of how rude and elitist you were with me in our last e-mail discussion.
I have had many, many discussions with trinitarians who would cut and run just like you did when something was placed on the table that they couldn't handle.
I want to ask you some things here on this thread (please forgive me Abigail
;)-->) about your site, because you have cut me off from any more e-mailing to you privately.
(1.) ======= You told me privately that the TWI equivalents of Papal Infallibility (mostly only leadership gets revelation, and they SURELY do get it) and Papal Succession (mantle passing extends the 1942 promise to the recipient along with it's authority) have ended there in TWI and that no one thinks that way any more. I asked you to document this in writing or on tape. Can you? Or is it just your impression that those unwritten doctrines ended in TWI?
I said these exact words to you in this context:
"I'm glad to hear that this way of thinking is "dead," "gone away," and "deceased forever." Could you show me this in writing? If it's not in writing then I expect it will come back. If it's not in writing and well distributed then many could still think that way. If it is in writing somewhere, it would be a MAJOR breakthrough and something the GreaseSpotters would have to consider. Even if it were only on a tape somewhere, I'd love to see this documented!"
.
.
.
(2.) ======= We also discussed MASTERING the written forms of PFAL like Dr told us all to do on numerous occasions (not just his last teaching), as opposed to reviewing it, referring to it, or merely learning it. This sounded like the classic definition of cultism to you, and in that context I said:
"I do not recognize their definitions for cult as valid. If Paul or Jesus showed up at their doorstep they'd be branded as cultist.
"I perceive that you too are in the grip of traditionalism. I speak of mastering the written forms of PFAL because they are from God. They are the only God-breathed writings we have. Our KJVs are NOT God's Word, but scholarly attempts to re-construct and translate what THEY THINK God's Word originally said. Ditto for the critical Greek texts.
"Dr Wierwille said 'Thus saith the Lord' many, many times. I believe him.
"If the definition of cultist is one who thinks that God has intervened and given us words more authoritative than the traditional versions of the Bible that are available, then call me a cultist.
"If PFAL is not God-breathed, then WHAT IS?
"Think about this question. What IS God-breathed in your library right now? What text can you say is bigger than you, must never be changed, and that you need to grow up into? You can't say your Bible, because you need to alter and change that book constantly in you attempts to get it back to the originals.
"What is your unalterable standard text?
"Dr said that every word he wrote to us is true (TNDC p.34) and that it was not merely him writing, but God (TNDC p.116) Himself, and that his PFAL writings can even be placed in the category of God-breathed (PFAL p.83). Have you worked these pages lately?
"The 1942 promise was a lot more than a nudge, it was a total revamping of things.
"One reason many grads disobey Dr's final instructions to master PFAL is because they feel that mastery is something they should reserve for God's Word and not for vpw's words. One reason Dr used the word "master" in referring to our needed level of PFAL study is because he knew that PFAL was not of his own doing, but of God's.
"For us to try and master our King James versions, and not master PFAL is the height of religion and churchianity. The reason we must not merely learn from the PFAL collaterals, but must actually master them, is because they are not from a man, but are from God."
***
So, John B, what's your answer? Have you worked those pages lately? TNDC p.34, and TNDC p.116, and PFAL p.83 ???
.
.
.
(3.) ======= In your snooty "Good bye" letter to me you accused me of many things and afforded me no opportunity to answer your charges. I see in it a lot of residual LCM characteristics in the way you handled yourself. Not only that, but you quoted Rev.22:18-19 five times without allowing any discussion of it. I will now do here what you wanted to prevent me from doing by e-mail.
Rev.22:18-19:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: __ And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Have you ever "scratched out" any verses or phrases from your KJV? Does this curse apply to you then seeing you did "take away from the words of the book of this prophecy?"
Have you ever added into your reading of a KJV verse in a twig teaching any explanatory information that was not in your KJV? Does this curse apply to YOU because you did surely "add unto these things" in your reading?
Have you looked deeper into this verse to see that the word "book" should be translated "scroll" and thus only refer to the book of Revelation?
Have you looked at Jeremiah 36 where a scroll of God's Word had "many words added" by the prophet?
You see, John B, I agree that no one has the right to add to, subtract from, or change ANY of God's written Word. But God Himself can certainly do this CAN'T HE? If you had bothered to look it up when I cited it, this is exactly what Dr says in the Introduction to the Appendixes in RHST.
God can add to His own written Word whenever He wants to. Likewise, He can completely revise the format of His own written Word whenever He sees fit. He did this when He switched from the stars (where it was corrupted) to stone and parchment long ago. He did this when He worked with Dr from 1942 to 1985 in switching His format from the traditional scriptures (which were lost) to PFAL.
Your wrong dividing of that verse, and then your cutting and running from further discussion is a part of the kind of behavior that got TWI into a lot of trouble.
And don't give me any baloney about Internet etiquette about disclosing private e-mails. I didn't quote you, and I didn't violate any confidence you entrusted to me.
You CAN tell me what Internet etiquette says about trashing someone and then not sticking around to hear their defense.
If you want to end a conversation that's fine, but to not even give someone the opportunity to have a last word is the height of rudeness. You TWI people have been living in a past world where you could get away with such rudeness. Craig severely under estimated the power of the Internet and it crushed him. The next time you want to trash someone you better stick around a little longer or you might find them showing up for their last word in some unexpected cyber way.
All that said, I am not so angry with you that we cannot continue our otherwise refreshing e-mail conversation. I can forgive and forget your indiscretion. I am not into ego battles at all, but it's the contents of what we were told to master that I want to discuss with you.
We can continue with our discussion with TNDC p.34, and TNDC p.116, and PFAL p.83 anytime you think you can handle opinions different from yours. After all, they MAY be right and you could benefit from them!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
You go Mike!!!!!!......
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno about that.. ole harve's letter sure did not impress me as being qualified as "communication".
Communication requires at least two people. At the minimum, an exchange of ideas. I just don't see it. What I did see was an ultimatum of sorts, or a justification for ungodliness. And he could care less what you or I think. In the end, there was no exchange of thought or ideas, no real "communication".
For the life of me, I can't see why he even bothered writing that little "beauty"- unless he thought he was doing God a service, somehow confronting us "knuckleheads" for the error of our internet ways. Just so much more screaming and beating of the chest.. I have heard enough of that already. "We are right because of... end of discussion". If anything at all, I think it had the opposite result of what he intended.
Feel free to call this "communication", I call it something else entirely.
"Communication" ha. When I saw the couple of pleasant exchanges between the guy and Igotout, I was counting the hours. Even the simple exchange of pleasantries was rather short lived. This is so typical of way tactics. See any "deadbeat" exwayfers? Dont run right away. Say a couple nice things, then dissappear when they're not looking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mr Ham,
You seem to be determined to find any and every negative perspective possible. It's as if you want to NEVER see any kind of reconcilliation EVER take place. Do yo know how negative your posting history is?
Do yo have ANYTHING positive to say?
Sure, I agree with many of the negatives you document, but why the extreme leaning to that direction and that direction only?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mr. Hammeroni,
On second thought... maybe I did still have some anger juices flowing in me from my previous post to John B when I posted to you.
I'm just trying my best to look for AND FIND anything positive that we can work with to effect ANY kind of reconcilliation between grads.
And not just with TWI grads... I feel for Geer grads, CFF, CES, and all the others out there. We really need to unite and get over these difficulties that have plagued us for 20 years now.
Might you try to take up this point of view a little?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Mike, I think your looking at Mr Hammeroni and making a judgement on his part...I've seen a lot of humor in his posts.
Your thinking on this is a little bit like looking through rose colored glasses. These people are not interested in any kind of reconciliation on our part. Nor imho will there ever be. Now is that being negative? I don't think so, its being realistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Vickles,
We were posting at the same time, and I had arrived at pretty much what you just said. Thanks for the confirmation, though.
:)-->
Sorry, Mr Ham. I've not read all your posts, and only have studied a small few.
I do think we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with devil spirits, and I still see possibilities of recovery in all grads, even TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Thanks, mike, we're good..
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
justloafing
Mike you may not have been able to find some threads because of this. Here is the link.
http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/7...m/618107709/p/1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Gosh thanks, justloafing!
I'm honored that you spent your first post on me!
:)-->
I'm curious, though, how it is that your post footer says that you have zero posts? Maybe it's just a software glitch. Maybe it will kick up when you post again.
Was this actually your first post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
You might as well forget about going on this site ever again. It will not happen.
What did you expect from The Way International? Openness? Real truth? Answers to questions? Ha!
John's experiment lasted a while but its over.
This site will be closed forever to anyone who is not an active member of The Way.
Frankly I am surprised it even opened at all to anone else. Don't waste you time registering or emailing John because you will be ignored in much the same way you are ignored by TWI in all other ways.
Get it through your head.....they do NOT want you or your comments. Probably never will.
John Richeson
Tampa Bay, FL - home of Yophotoman
(Formerly in Yophotoman's branch area here)
Kicked out in 2000 for speaking up too much.
PS - Disagree or agree all you want but its his site and he has every right to do with it what he wants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"PS - Disagree or agree all you want but its his site and he has every right to do with it what he wants."
It may be his site, but he most certainly cannot do with it whatever he wants. Not if he wants to remain a part of TWI. The changes that have just taken place there show, beyond any doubt in my mind, exactly who makes the rules for his site.
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.