Oh, one more thing: in the spirit of keeping things positive...
Mike, you are welcome to post on my site. I don't think I have enough posters to trade with Paw, but maybe he and I can work out an under the table deal (secretly editing your posts when you're not looking, stuff like that).
What it means to cite sources in YOUR profession is different than what it means to cite sources in God's family.
I look at the latter, you are STILL looking at the former.
Bullcarp Mike. Wierwille evidently learned how to cite sources later in his career, because he did so. God's family has looser standards than the secular publishing world? We were led to believe that it was Wierwille's work when it wasn't, not entirely, it was Stiles', Leonard's, Bullinger's (yeah I know, it was really God's, but I'm talking about work that was published in the senses world)
I'd really like to post "pro" PFAL here. There are things that I liked about it and areas that were helpful. I just can't let some of your statements go by unchallenged. It may be a genetic defect.
Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure.
I've posted here a 1965 transcript called "Light Began to Dawn" where Dr goes into great detail in citing his sources. He also went into great detail in "The Way Living In Love" circa 1972. I've heard him cite his sources on numerous later SNS tapes.
One way he cited his sources prior to 1965 was to have them visit HQ and give their talks.
In SOME respects the standards for citing of sources within God's family are TIGHTER. These tighter things I'm thinking of don't in any way line up with the usual academic/commercial criteria, but with another completely different one.
For Dr to cite a source for easy retrieval by one of his students it could mean a harmful distraction for that student, in addition to taking away time from more profitable studies with Dr.
I know that's not going to be well received, but:
IF you adopt the frame of mind I have, that Dr was working closer with God (IN THIS AREA, IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF HIS LIFE) than anyone since the first century, then for one of his students to go to Styles, or Leonard, or whoever, said student would be exposed to their doctrinal error, and the easy-to-followup reference would downgrade the learning experience for that student. Dr had the 1942 promise to back him up in authoritative error filtering from these men, but Dr's students did not.
IF Dr did not speak for God in this unique way then it would be the case, just like in academia, that easy-to-followup references would be a boon to a student or researcher.
IF you think these things through from my perspective, like I exhorted Raf above, and NOT from your own, then it fits. Of course it will look like bull from your perspective. I know that.
When a person is interested in their relationship with the Father, and not being an academic researcher, heavily referenced text where every quote or close quote is footnoted is a bore and a visual distraction.
I'm very glad that when I read my copy of "The Bible Tells Me So" or my PFAL book, that I can concentrate on the text and not the sources.
I have a copy of each of my books for my own notes, but I often relax with a clean copy, and I know lots of reference numbers in the text, and footnotes at the bottom or at the chapter climax, would detract from the peace of mind I get, just me and the Father reading along.
When I get to JCNG, JCOP, and JCPS there are lots of footnotes, but those books fall much more in the category of detailed academic studies.
I'm glad Dr chose the formats he did for the different texts.
Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure.
I've posted here a 1965 transcript called "Light Began to Dawn" where Dr goes into great detail in citing his sources. He also went into great detail in "The Way Living In Love" circa 1972. I've heard him cite his sources on numerous later SNS tapes.
One way he cited his sources prior to 1965 was to have them visit HQ and give their talks.
This isn't citing sources, sheesh, didn't you ever write a term paper? This was an attempt to gain endorsement by association. Funny how the outside sources dried up after 1965.
In SOME respects the standards for citing of sources within God's family are TIGHTER. These tighter things I'm thinking of don't in any way line up with the usual academic/commercial criteria, but with another completely different one.
Just how do they line up?
For Dr to cite a source for easy retrieval by one of his students it could mean a harmful distraction for that student, in addition to taking away time from more profitable studies with Dr.
So lets not let people think for themselves, by actually RESEARCHING the Bible and the teacher, let's let them only think what Wierwille says. Wierwille called his minstry a biblical RESEARCH and teaching ministry. Why the fear of actually seeing what vpw's sources had to say?
I know that's not going to be well received, but:
IF you adopt the frame of mind I have, that Dr was working closer with God (IN THIS AREA, IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF HIS LIFE) than anyone since the first century, then for one of his students to go to Styles, or Leonard, or whoever, said student would be exposed to their doctrinal error, and the easy-to-followup reference would downgrade the learning experience for that student. Dr had the 1942 promise to back him up in authoritative error filtering from these men, but Dr's students did not.
Well this part is where most of diverge from mike, if we haven't done so already. Many of us don't think he was working closer with the true God. We think he working close with some spiritual force, but not the father and God of our Lord Jesus Christ. He challenged us to prove his word, so why he should he be afraid of others checking his sources? Seems to me you have some fear in your life. What doctrinal errors are you talking about. Was vpw perfect? Others made vpw's claim about getting the real truth since the first century stuff, why are they wrong and vpw right?
And how do we know this promise was ever made?
IF Dr did not speak for God in this unique way then it would be the case, just like in academia, that easy-to-followup references would be a boon to a student or researcher.
Well I say vpw did NOT speak for God in any way.
IF you think these things through from my perspective, like I exhorted Raf above, and NOT from your own, then it fits. Of course it will look like bull from your perspective. I know that.
Well, then look at it from our perspective and see how the bull rises.
"IF you adopt the frame of mind I have, that Dr was working closer with God (IN THIS AREA, IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF HIS LIFE) than anyone since the first century, then for one of his students to go to Styles, or Leonard, or whoever, said student would be exposed to their doctrinal error, and the easy-to-followup reference would downgrade the learning experience for that student. Dr had the 1942 promise to back him up in authoritative error filtering from these men, but Dr's students did not."
But Mike, I am told that it is my job to study, even VPW said to make it my own. How can I make it my own if I am merely trust what VPW taught? If I don't study all of the avenues possible I am simply taking another man's word for it.
I think God is big enough to let me know when I am missing something.
Where in the supposedly canonical PFAL does he "cite his sources"? Where in RHST does he say that whole sections are copied word-for-word from Stiles?
For that matter where does he admit, in print, on tape, or in anyone's recollection, that the original PFAL class, which his wife said in her book was initially called Receiving the holy spirit today was really BG Leonard's class on the gifts of the spirit?
The only citing of sources that he does is to claim that he learned from some of these guys. There was never any admission by Wierwille or by his sucessors that he quoted extensively without attrribution.
Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure.
Really? the guy who claimed that God taught him the "Word" like it hadn't been taught since the first century didn't lead me to believe that?
The guy who threw out all his theological books and commentaries and claimed to have gone back to just working the "Word" didn't lead me to believe that?
After mentioning on another thread that I am very sensitive to the wishes of the owner of that new website (somewhat TWI affiliated)regarding my posting habits there on his site, it surprised me that I wasn't immediately pounced on by "the usual suspects" and accused of NOT being sensitive to the wishes of the owner of THIS website.
Maybe some of my regular antagonists are so blinded by their rage against me that they didn't see their opportunity when it was right in their faces. ;)-->
Well actually, I most definitely AM sensitive to Pawtucket's wishes, and his hint yesterday, hidden in a pretty good joke, has prompted the idea for me starting this thread today.
***
There are many things in the "About the Way" forum that I am keenly interested in commenting on, but I can see that blind rage often flares up there, even if I so much as try to help out. The reaction to my attempt today to augment Bluzeman's efforts regarding the hiding of identities is just one mild example.
Because I do care for people in general here, and not just Pawtucket's well being, I am setting up this thread as a place where I can comment from a slight distance on some of the happenings in the "About the Way" forum. It can bother me that my message and posts aggravate some people way too much over there.
I'm going to try and sequester myself here in this thread, or maybe in other ones like it, labeled proPFAL, to warn people that they might not like what's inside. However, there may be times when a most important subject, and/or maybe one with fewer aggravation buttons attached, comes up and I'd like then to post there.
I'd also like to jettison the "Masters..." thread, not because I am finished with that subject, but because I know the size bothers people. My purpose in posting is NOT to aggravate anyone, but to help.
***
My purpose here, much to the disbelief of some, is NOT to promote myself. My efforts in these proPFAL directions, have accomplished JUST THE OPPOSITE of promoting myself in the eyes of the vast majority of grads, and not just GreaseSpotters. The reason I continue is because I firmly believe the message I have embraced is true even if nobody believes it, AND that it is vital to all.
Even if I have to pay a steep price for my proPFAL activities, I'm convinced enough in it's Truth to pay that price and continue promoting, not myself, not vpw, not twi, but the contents of the written PFAL.
I think I've proved myself intelligent enough to have perceived the lack of response that my pleas to come back to PFAL have garnered, as well as the demotion of my reputation. For people to remind me of these things is a wasted exercise in redundancy... and vain repetition. ;)-->
***
SongRemainsTheSame, if the reason you sing on the "Masters..." thread is to have the largest stage from which to project, respect please, the wishes of those here and let it sink down the charts. If your motivation is to simply clutter my message, then this notice will serve as your "walking papers" to come and "entertain" me here on this thread or other threads like it from now on. -->
***
I'm thinking, as mentioned on another thread, of a separate thread for the spurious charges of plagiarism where I can collect and re-write all my ideas already posted on that topic, and if I do I'll prefix the title of that thread with "proPFAL" like I did this general thread. I may also do one on the sex issue, but that's more complicated, and more difficult emotionally for some to deal with, AND more difficult emotionally for me to deal with as well. I've mentioned that I was hurt by the sex problems of twi, but I don't like talking about it in any detail.
***
It's been suggested at times that I post on another website. I have considered that deeply, and may still do that someday. However, one of the reasons I post here is that there are many issues bugging you folks that no other grads have risen up to address. It's HERE that those issues come out. I'm one of the few who have taken advantage of the great information and instruction available to those who come back to PFAL with intentions to meekly master it. By "meekly" I mean recognizing it as God's revelation and not merely vpw's opinions.
The same issues are squelched in other splinter groups because their leaders, regardless of their claims to have loved VPW, have disobeyed Dr's final instructions, and are not mastering the material needed to deal with those issues properly. For that reason they resent me trying to help there as it makes their leadership look bad.
There are a few websites I may gravitate to deal with the much more enlightening issues that are within the contents of PFAL.
***
So what else is happening?
Oh yes...
And now for this antiOakspear commercial message
to find fault with my good intentions here. :P-->
...or maybe a lot of such messages... :D-->
Oh yeah, I heard about this guy named Mike, and learned some things from him, but nobody can put it together like me, in fact this lqady doctor from Chicago says that he writes like I teach...
You wrote: "Gee, Mike, I feel ignored and neglected."
Aw shucks ma'am. Please allow me to spread my coat over this mud puddle for you, and I'll escort you across the street and back into the cafe where we can talk about what's on your mind.
Ahhhh that's better. A little hot coffee to warm us up. Please remind me when we're done to not put that coat back on, ok?
You wrote: "But Mike, I am told that it is my job to study, even VPW said to make it my own. If I don't study all of the avenues possible I am simply taking another man's word for it."
Study WHAT? Make WHAT your own?
All us grads know that no version is authoritative. It's a good place to start though, and that's how it went in the early days. Before there was much PFAL in written form, we were to study our KJVs to the best of our ability USING the PFAL keys the best we knew them. Some students could go into the ancient languages, but the same principles applied.
It was right and proper to do this and make it, as just defined, our own in the sense that we could verify what Dr did teach us about receiving into manifestation speaking in tongues and understanding the other things he set forth. The major authoritative text was the ancient text, and we used it to check out vpw to the extent possible.
As the years progressed and God taught Dr more and Dr put more into written form. Still our focus was on the KJV and the original scriptures the best we could get them. By the early 70's the books started coming out in near finished form. For the advanced leadership Dr started directing them to master those books in the mid 70's.
By 1979 Dr included the AC students in his urgings to master what God had taught him and he had put into written form. In 1984 Dr included young believers in this urging to master written PFAL. At the end in 1985 he told everyone to do it, especially the top leadership.
So "making it your own" slowly shifted from the non-authoritative ancient manuscripts/translations/versions to the authoritative PFAL texts.
In the early years Dr urged people to check his teaching out, in the later years he urged them to master the final written forms of his teaching.
***
If you were to study today all avenues possible, you'd be taking all those men's word for it who wrote those avenues, plus you'd be taking your own word for it in regards for how you selected those avenues (no one has time to check out all) and how you edited between them where they differed.
If you were to only study the ancient scriptures, you'd still be taking the word of the copyists, the compilers, the and the translators, as well as your own word to bring it forth into modern understanding.
There's no getting around it, you always have to take some man's word for it; the key is to get GOD's man to teach it to you and then you're not really taking that man's word for it. It took time for anyone to see that Dr was really God's spokesman. Some will to not believe this.
I bet my life on God having selected vpw as His spokesman and putting His revelations into written form. I make PFAL my own by studying it. I am not taking vpw's word for it in the long run IF, IF, IF vpw is God's spokesman.
If he is not God's spokesman, then who is? the KJV translators and versionators? You? Do you take your word for it as you pick and choose among translations, versions, and as you pick various Bible scholars who help you with a difficult verse or two or a thousand?
Even with vpw, we have to be careful and not take him at his word when he was not speaking for God. Lots of people do just that in that they place lots of weight on what he told them in private. I won't place my bets there, though. Dr spent a lot of time and effort to purge his own viewpoints, along with a lot of other sources and helpers who also had spiritual abilities, to get the written form exactly what God wanted.
If my bet is off then I go down with the ship. I firmly believe this is the safest ship. Take vpw at his word for it, his written PFAL word for it, and you're not taking a man's word for it, but God's.
You still have to study PFAL carefully, and not take your own opinions of what's written there as truth. In your study, making this written Word of God of PFAL your own, you still have to apply all the principles of the class to rightly divide it. The good news is: it's a LOT easier than any other way, plus it's the only authoritative base on which to work.
In a nutshell: study written PFAL, make it your own, and rest assured that you are not taking a man's word of it, because the real author is not vpw, but God.
If you don't want to make this bet, then don't.
I think that in most probability the only ones who are going to feel safe making this bet are those who saw him in action (but not too close per Jn 4:44), saw it work, and studied it a lot way back when. These are the people who have the most fighting chance to see through all the smokescreens. God can pretty well only draw these kinds of people. I love exceptions to this.
Those who don't place this bet because they can't muster this kind of confidence are in a pickle. The more they examine the alternate bets they may or may not already have made, the more they are going to see that they are very flimsy, and in the long run they are taking some other man's word for it, usually their own or their own editing abilities, or their own ability to select other scholars to mix and match a conglomeration thereof.
Does that help, Abigail? If you're looking for a proof before you commit to PFAL mastery, sorry. I think you will soon see the proofs, the personal to you proofs, start rolling after you commit to it, though. if you're happy with the proof rolling from some other way, fine. Maybe later you'll want to come back to PFAL and get the whole package in your shopping.
You wrote: "Where in the supposedly canonical PFAL does he "cite his sources"? Where in RHST does he say that whole sections are copied word-for-word from Stiles?"
Sometimes it was on the dust jacket of the PFAL book and others. Sometimes it was in the final pages for paparbacks under the title "About the Author." I'd count Elena Whiteside's book as authoritative where Dr was quoted. Dr approved of that in-house publication.
Where does God say that in His family (not academia, not the marketplace) these kinds of details must be included? I think they are best not included for beginning students. As they progress they can hear more details on tapes or live.
Remember the context is not academia and not the marketplace, but God's family.
***
You wrote: "For that matter where does he admit, in print, on tape, or in anyone's recollection, that the original PFAL class, which his wife said in her book was initially called Receiving the holy spirit today was really BG Leonard's class on the gifts of the spirit?"
What do you mean "really?" Some say it's "really" Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." It can't be both. Dr took some from one source and some from the other, and still more from unmentioned others. He omitted some material from each, and put it all together. He TOLD us this.
***
You wrote: "The only citing of sources that he does is to claim that he learned from some of these guys. There was never any admission by Wierwille or by his successors that he quoted extensively without attrribution."
If Dr operated in academia or the open marketplace he'd have to do what you demand here. He did not operate in that context. You are applying rules to him that don't apply.
***
If God revealed certain passages to Kenyon, God still is the ultimate source and can tell Dr to use it too. God's the owner and whatever he reveals belongs to the whole family.
Deuteronomy 29:29Â "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever..."
There's your ultimate truth on intellectual ownership.
***
You quoted me with: "Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure."
Then You wrote: "Really? the guy who claimed that God taught him the "Word" like it hadn't been taught since the first century didn't lead me to believe that?"
Why did you not allow Dr to properly lead you to the whole truth on this matter?
Why did you not take into consideration the additional data regarding HOW God taught him?
You assumed that Dr said that God gave it to him by dictation, and Dr never said that. He gave the details and you ignored those details. Or maybe some other leader wrongly abbreviated how that teaching process worked for you and you believed him and still ignored Dr's additional details.
Why didn't you hear all the times Dr gave the details as to HOW God taught him by guiding him to other men, and Dr selected some of their teachings and "put it all together"??? That tape "Light Began To Dawn" was available in the bookstore all that time. Maybe you didn't care back then and were happy with your abbreviated understanding of the learning process God took him through.
Please take the time now to catch up on what you missed.
Dr cited his sources. He told us God taught him in many ways. One of the big ways is that God led him to these sources, and then God also led him to only take this but not that from these sources. God told him to change a few things. God taught him to put it all together.
Some things God inspired Dr to first speak on a tape and then later it was worked into written form. I don't know of any places where Dr said he got anything by word for word dictation. He might have said that for some items of text, but I can't remember any right now. I do remember that in two places Dr said that revelation was usually discussed first, and then put into written form.
You wrote: "...didn't you ever write a term paper?"
Again, you're confusing, like MANY others, the proper way to deal with sources in academia with the proper way to deal with them in God's family.
***
You wrote: "Funny how the outside sources dried up after 1965.
Wrong. You are guessing or have a bad memory. What about JCPS and Dr. Martin from Pasadena and his great insight into the star of Bethlehem?
***
You wrote: "So lets not let people think for themselves, by actually RESEARCHING the Bible and the teacher, let's let them only think what Wierwille says."
Please see my response to Abigail above. There's plenty of thought required in rightly dividing PFAL and in applying it.
***
You wrote: "Wierwille called his minstry a biblical RESEARCH and teaching ministry. Why the fear of actually seeing what vpw's sources had to say?"
There was no fear. You're making it up. He cited his sources. He also told us on numerous occasions towards the later phase of his ministry (again see my response to Abigail for some on the earlier phases) that research meant re-searching out what had already been taught to him by God.
I research the PFAL texts all the time, and I have to do a lot of thinking for myself in the process. You are confusing research with discovering from scratch. Somtimes in academia the two are similar, but with these truths God reveals things to whom He selects.
Without even checking out the links on your mirror thread, just by reading the URLs I can see most are universities. After the links you list areas where plagiarism is an important breach of conduct, and they are ALL academic areas.
Why don't you see that in God's family different rules apply?
These are some more thoughts on who led you wrong.
Someone wrote me an e-mail a few weeks ago and said that they thought Dr never had an original thought.
Acually, this is EXACTLY what Dr taught in the Advanced Classes during the 70's. He taught that ALL "original" thoughts actually come from someone else, and can be ultimately traced back to God. He taught that this is true in art, science, literature, and philosophy. The way this teaching went was: oftentimes God would teach one of His people some new thought, the devil would get a hold of it, and reveal it spiritually to one of his people. The idea of originality of thought is a man-made distortion of the truth.
Does anyone remember this?
Does anyone think that B.G. Leonard had any original thoughts? I don't. He had his sources too.
I see here the same kind of erronious hero worship that was once directed at Dr is now being directed at B.G.
Did B.G. tell his students that he gathered his ideas from others?
I don't know if BG admitted to this, but I do know that Dr OFTEN told us that he gathered them from others. Dr mentioned B.G. many times as one of his sources. These are things that many have forgotten. It could be that most of top leadership forgot these things in their hero worship of Dr, or failed in some other way to convey them to us.
It wasn't Dr's fault that he got "credit" for coming up with original thoughts. Claiming credit was the exact opposite of what he taught us regarding his "originality." He frequently said that he'd pick and choose from many sources. From B.G. Dr used some material and tossed out other material. Which ideas of B.G's to loose and which to pass on to us was done by revelation. Which teachers besides B.G. Dr selected to learn from was also done by revelation. This he taught us often. By 1982 he was somewhat out of the loop, and many frauds were perpetrated by his renegade leaders.
I know of only a very few things where Dr said that he got something directly from God. He often told us that he "put it together." He got a piece here, a piece there, and put them together.
You were definately led wrong, but not by Dr. Wierwille. There are many things like this that we need to re-learn. Learning is an exciting adventure.
It seems this General thread has become the de facto Plagiarism thread I had planned.
I have a question to ask of all those who have challenged me on this plagiarism issue.
In the past ten to fifteen years, have any of you encountered ANY opposition to these plagiarism charges? Is this the first time you have heard the many ideas I have posted here?
If so, where did you encounter any opposition on this issue?
It's my impression that none of you have ever debated this issue outside of running into me.
It's my impression that no one here has spent any time pondering these new ideas of opposition, and that everyone has no memory whatsoever of Dr's many citings of his sources, nor of his explanations of how God guided him to these sources, and HOW God taught him what to teach and write.
Don't you think these things I post should have been in the mix of your considerations all along. I think that these matters have gotten only one-sided treatments and very little thought. Isn't this precisely what is often complained of as a TWI experience: precious little thinking through of all the facts and from all angles?
Yesterday you asked me where in PFAL did Dr cite his sources. You also asserted to me that Dr since Dr said that God taught him, that must imply that Dr did NOT get it from any men.
Let's go back to our beginnings, the basics, the film class. In Session 3 (segment 15), in the topic of Receive/Retain/Release we heard this:
"The reason the Dead Sea is so dead is because it has only
an inlet no outlet. The reason some people are so dead
spiritually is because they have only inlet no outlet. They
do not give. As you give you receive. As you receive you
must give for it just works like this. As I receive God's Word
I give it out, as I give it out I receive.
"Many years ago God said to me once, HE'd TEACH ME the
Word like it had not been known for centuries, if I would
teach it. I thought that was a pretty good idea until I really
got into the depth of the Word, then I found out that as I
taught it nobody believed it anyway cause they already had
preconceived ideas on the accuracy of God's Word. But I
learned this that as long as I kept God's Word He kept filling
me. He kept giving me more."
Ok there we heard an abbreviated account of the 1942 promise. Later in the class, in Session 10 (segment 60), just after he goes through the 5 accounts in Acts we heard this:
"Five records in the Word of God. You talk about questing,
researching? I ran all over the country. I must have spent,
five thousand, six thousand dollars in train fare, bus fare,
air fare, motel rooms, everything else, trying to receive the
power of the holy spirit into manifestation. Every place I ran,
they told me -- some of them told me it wasn't for me, others
said it died with the apostles. Some of them said, 'Well, we
can help you.'
"But I never received, until, one day, A MAN TAUGHT ME
the accuracy of God's Word and told me that it was something
that God had already put within me. All I had to do was know
what to do with it, how to bring it out. And then I too spoke in
tongues, the wonderful works of God. And, when I spoke in
tongues, I magnified God. That's what they did in Acts 2:4.
This is what they did in Acts, at the household of Cornelius,
they magnified God."
So here we have an Apparent Contradiction, right there in our first exposure to Dr's story of how he learned. In Session 3 he says GOD WOULD TEACH HIM and DID TEACH HIM, in Session 10 he says A MAN TAUGHT HIM. Which is it?
If we were alert to this AE we'd either chuck the whole thing... or maybe dig deeper, and then find that it was both. God led Dr to the right men, AND God taught those men as well.
Why can't people remember these simple things that we were exposed to right up front in the film class? Why weren't they even noticed in the first place? That should have sent up red flags! Well for some of us who were serious students it did, and we dug deeper, and we resolved apparent contradictions like this one.
There are SO many things like this that either slipped right by many of us, or that got forgotten as time went by and we hung out with people who only bad mouthed our past experiences.
The critics of PFAL have been intellectually inbreeding for how many years now? It's time to come back to PFAL and get it right. It's not too late! Learning is an exciting adventure.
Yes, it IS nice to know which men to trust with the accuracy of God's word.
The thrown out texts were of theologians who were spouting off their own ideas, or so they thought. The men that Dr worked with did not teach him their own ideas, but they gave him what God had given to them.
Dr listened to JUST GOD in deciding which men to learn from.
After Dr had received some teaching from these men he listened to JUST GOD as to what parts to accept and which parts to reject.
I get the impression that you have not read a lot of my responses to others above. This is a repetition of what I said very recently.
You wrote: "If a man taught him, then it wasn't God."
I just got done handling this Apparent Contradiction with Oakspear, just two posts above this one.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
29
23
17
106
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Feb 23
26
Jan 21
25
Jan 22
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 29 posts
def59 23 posts
Oakspear 17 posts
Mike 106 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2005
29 posts
Feb 23 2005
26 posts
Jan 21 2005
25 posts
Jan 22 2005
23 posts
Raf
Get the last word on this, Mike: I've made my point and don't want to further derail a thread that's supposed to be positive in nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What it means to cite sources in YOUR profession is different than what it means to cite sources in God's family.
I look at the latter, you are STILL looking at the former.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, one more thing: in the spirit of keeping things positive...
Mike, you are welcome to post on my site. I don't think I have enough posters to trade with Paw, but maybe he and I can work out an under the table deal (secretly editing your posts when you're not looking, stuff like that).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, if you accept, I may have to consult my therapist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I'd really like to post "pro" PFAL here. There are things that I liked about it and areas that were helpful. I just can't let some of your statements go by unchallenged. It may be a genetic defect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure.
I've posted here a 1965 transcript called "Light Began to Dawn" where Dr goes into great detail in citing his sources. He also went into great detail in "The Way Living In Love" circa 1972. I've heard him cite his sources on numerous later SNS tapes.
One way he cited his sources prior to 1965 was to have them visit HQ and give their talks.
In SOME respects the standards for citing of sources within God's family are TIGHTER. These tighter things I'm thinking of don't in any way line up with the usual academic/commercial criteria, but with another completely different one.
For Dr to cite a source for easy retrieval by one of his students it could mean a harmful distraction for that student, in addition to taking away time from more profitable studies with Dr.
I know that's not going to be well received, but:
IF you adopt the frame of mind I have, that Dr was working closer with God (IN THIS AREA, IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF HIS LIFE) than anyone since the first century, then for one of his students to go to Styles, or Leonard, or whoever, said student would be exposed to their doctrinal error, and the easy-to-followup reference would downgrade the learning experience for that student. Dr had the 1942 promise to back him up in authoritative error filtering from these men, but Dr's students did not.
IF Dr did not speak for God in this unique way then it would be the case, just like in academia, that easy-to-followup references would be a boon to a student or researcher.
IF you think these things through from my perspective, like I exhorted Raf above, and NOT from your own, then it fits. Of course it will look like bull from your perspective. I know that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
One more item on easy-to-followup references:
When a person is interested in their relationship with the Father, and not being an academic researcher, heavily referenced text where every quote or close quote is footnoted is a bore and a visual distraction.
I'm very glad that when I read my copy of "The Bible Tells Me So" or my PFAL book, that I can concentrate on the text and not the sources.
I have a copy of each of my books for my own notes, but I often relax with a clean copy, and I know lots of reference numbers in the text, and footnotes at the bottom or at the chapter climax, would detract from the peace of mind I get, just me and the Father reading along.
When I get to JCNG, JCOP, and JCPS there are lots of footnotes, but those books fall much more in the category of detailed academic studies.
I'm glad Dr chose the formats he did for the different texts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Well, then look at it from our perspective and see how the bull rises.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Gee, Mike, I feel ignored and neglected.
:)-->
Paw,
Do I understand correctly that you want to take two or three of the posters from The Family Tables and in exchange they take Mike?
Well, that certainly could take some of the pressure off of Oldies and Johniam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"IF you adopt the frame of mind I have, that Dr was working closer with God (IN THIS AREA, IN THIS DEPARTMENT OF HIS LIFE) than anyone since the first century, then for one of his students to go to Styles, or Leonard, or whoever, said student would be exposed to their doctrinal error, and the easy-to-followup reference would downgrade the learning experience for that student. Dr had the 1942 promise to back him up in authoritative error filtering from these men, but Dr's students did not."
But Mike, I am told that it is my job to study, even VPW said to make it my own. How can I make it my own if I am merely trust what VPW taught? If I don't study all of the avenues possible I am simply taking another man's word for it.
I think God is big enough to let me know when I am missing something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Where in the supposedly canonical PFAL does he "cite his sources"? Where in RHST does he say that whole sections are copied word-for-word from Stiles?
For that matter where does he admit, in print, on tape, or in anyone's recollection, that the original PFAL class, which his wife said in her book was initially called Receiving the holy spirit today was really BG Leonard's class on the gifts of the spirit?
The only citing of sources that he does is to claim that he learned from some of these guys. There was never any admission by Wierwille or by his sucessors that he quoted extensively without attrribution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Really? the guy who claimed that God taught him the "Word" like it hadn't been taught since the first century didn't lead me to believe that?
The guy who threw out all his theological books and commentaries and claimed to have gone back to just working the "Word" didn't lead me to believe that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
After mentioning on another thread that I am very sensitive to the wishes of the owner of that new website (somewhat TWI affiliated)regarding my posting habits there on his site, it surprised me that I wasn't immediately pounced on by "the usual suspects" and accused of NOT being sensitive to the wishes of the owner of THIS website.
Maybe some of my regular antagonists are so blinded by their rage against me that they didn't see their opportunity when it was right in their faces.
;)-->
Well actually, I most definitely AM sensitive to Pawtucket's wishes, and his hint yesterday, hidden in a pretty good joke, has prompted the idea for me starting this thread today.
***
There are many things in the "About the Way" forum that I am keenly interested in commenting on, but I can see that blind rage often flares up there, even if I so much as try to help out. The reaction to my attempt today to augment Bluzeman's efforts regarding the hiding of identities is just one mild example.
Because I do care for people in general here, and not just Pawtucket's well being, I am setting up this thread as a place where I can comment from a slight distance on some of the happenings in the "About the Way" forum. It can bother me that my message and posts aggravate some people way too much over there.
I'm going to try and sequester myself here in this thread, or maybe in other ones like it, labeled proPFAL, to warn people that they might not like what's inside. However, there may be times when a most important subject, and/or maybe one with fewer aggravation buttons attached, comes up and I'd like then to post there.
I'd also like to jettison the "Masters..." thread, not because I am finished with that subject, but because I know the size bothers people. My purpose in posting is NOT to aggravate anyone, but to help.
***
My purpose here, much to the disbelief of some, is NOT to promote myself. My efforts in these proPFAL directions, have accomplished JUST THE OPPOSITE of promoting myself in the eyes of the vast majority of grads, and not just GreaseSpotters. The reason I continue is because I firmly believe the message I have embraced is true even if nobody believes it, AND that it is vital to all.
Even if I have to pay a steep price for my proPFAL activities, I'm convinced enough in it's Truth to pay that price and continue promoting, not myself, not vpw, not twi, but the contents of the written PFAL.
I think I've proved myself intelligent enough to have perceived the lack of response that my pleas to come back to PFAL have garnered, as well as the demotion of my reputation. For people to remind me of these things is a wasted exercise in redundancy... and vain repetition.
;)-->
***
SongRemainsTheSame, if the reason you sing on the "Masters..." thread is to have the largest stage from which to project, respect please, the wishes of those here and let it sink down the charts. If your motivation is to simply clutter my message, then this notice will serve as your "walking papers" to come and "entertain" me here on this thread or other threads like it from now on.
-->
***
I'm thinking, as mentioned on another thread, of a separate thread for the spurious charges of plagiarism where I can collect and re-write all my ideas already posted on that topic, and if I do I'll prefix the title of that thread with "proPFAL" like I did this general thread. I may also do one on the sex issue, but that's more complicated, and more difficult emotionally for some to deal with, AND more difficult emotionally for me to deal with as well. I've mentioned that I was hurt by the sex problems of twi, but I don't like talking about it in any detail.
***
It's been suggested at times that I post on another website. I have considered that deeply, and may still do that someday. However, one of the reasons I post here is that there are many issues bugging you folks that no other grads have risen up to address. It's HERE that those issues come out. I'm one of the few who have taken advantage of the great information and instruction available to those who come back to PFAL with intentions to meekly master it. By "meekly" I mean recognizing it as God's revelation and not merely vpw's opinions.
The same issues are squelched in other splinter groups because their leaders, regardless of their claims to have loved VPW, have disobeyed Dr's final instructions, and are not mastering the material needed to deal with those issues properly. For that reason they resent me trying to help there as it makes their leadership look bad.
There are a few websites I may gravitate to deal with the much more enlightening issues that are within the contents of PFAL.
***
So what else is happening?
Oh yes...
And now for this antiOakspear commercial message
to find fault with my good intentions here.
:P-->
...or maybe a lot of such messages...
:D-->
Oh yeah, I heard about this guy named Mike, and learned some things from him, but nobody can put it together like me, in fact this lqady doctor from Chicago says that he writes like I teach...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Abigail,
You wrote: "Gee, Mike, I feel ignored and neglected."
Aw shucks ma'am. Please allow me to spread my coat over this mud puddle for you, and I'll escort you across the street and back into the cafe where we can talk about what's on your mind.
Ahhhh that's better. A little hot coffee to warm us up. Please remind me when we're done to not put that coat back on, ok?
You wrote: "But Mike, I am told that it is my job to study, even VPW said to make it my own. If I don't study all of the avenues possible I am simply taking another man's word for it."
Study WHAT? Make WHAT your own?
All us grads know that no version is authoritative. It's a good place to start though, and that's how it went in the early days. Before there was much PFAL in written form, we were to study our KJVs to the best of our ability USING the PFAL keys the best we knew them. Some students could go into the ancient languages, but the same principles applied.
It was right and proper to do this and make it, as just defined, our own in the sense that we could verify what Dr did teach us about receiving into manifestation speaking in tongues and understanding the other things he set forth. The major authoritative text was the ancient text, and we used it to check out vpw to the extent possible.
As the years progressed and God taught Dr more and Dr put more into written form. Still our focus was on the KJV and the original scriptures the best we could get them. By the early 70's the books started coming out in near finished form. For the advanced leadership Dr started directing them to master those books in the mid 70's.
By 1979 Dr included the AC students in his urgings to master what God had taught him and he had put into written form. In 1984 Dr included young believers in this urging to master written PFAL. At the end in 1985 he told everyone to do it, especially the top leadership.
So "making it your own" slowly shifted from the non-authoritative ancient manuscripts/translations/versions to the authoritative PFAL texts.
In the early years Dr urged people to check his teaching out, in the later years he urged them to master the final written forms of his teaching.
***
If you were to study today all avenues possible, you'd be taking all those men's word for it who wrote those avenues, plus you'd be taking your own word for it in regards for how you selected those avenues (no one has time to check out all) and how you edited between them where they differed.
If you were to only study the ancient scriptures, you'd still be taking the word of the copyists, the compilers, the and the translators, as well as your own word to bring it forth into modern understanding.
There's no getting around it, you always have to take some man's word for it; the key is to get GOD's man to teach it to you and then you're not really taking that man's word for it. It took time for anyone to see that Dr was really God's spokesman. Some will to not believe this.
I bet my life on God having selected vpw as His spokesman and putting His revelations into written form. I make PFAL my own by studying it. I am not taking vpw's word for it in the long run IF, IF, IF vpw is God's spokesman.
If he is not God's spokesman, then who is? the KJV translators and versionators? You? Do you take your word for it as you pick and choose among translations, versions, and as you pick various Bible scholars who help you with a difficult verse or two or a thousand?
Even with vpw, we have to be careful and not take him at his word when he was not speaking for God. Lots of people do just that in that they place lots of weight on what he told them in private. I won't place my bets there, though. Dr spent a lot of time and effort to purge his own viewpoints, along with a lot of other sources and helpers who also had spiritual abilities, to get the written form exactly what God wanted.
If my bet is off then I go down with the ship. I firmly believe this is the safest ship. Take vpw at his word for it, his written PFAL word for it, and you're not taking a man's word for it, but God's.
You still have to study PFAL carefully, and not take your own opinions of what's written there as truth. In your study, making this written Word of God of PFAL your own, you still have to apply all the principles of the class to rightly divide it. The good news is: it's a LOT easier than any other way, plus it's the only authoritative base on which to work.
In a nutshell: study written PFAL, make it your own, and rest assured that you are not taking a man's word of it, because the real author is not vpw, but God.
If you don't want to make this bet, then don't.
I think that in most probability the only ones who are going to feel safe making this bet are those who saw him in action (but not too close per Jn 4:44), saw it work, and studied it a lot way back when. These are the people who have the most fighting chance to see through all the smokescreens. God can pretty well only draw these kinds of people. I love exceptions to this.
Those who don't place this bet because they can't muster this kind of confidence are in a pickle. The more they examine the alternate bets they may or may not already have made, the more they are going to see that they are very flimsy, and in the long run they are taking some other man's word for it, usually their own or their own editing abilities, or their own ability to select other scholars to mix and match a conglomeration thereof.
Does that help, Abigail? If you're looking for a proof before you commit to PFAL mastery, sorry. I think you will soon see the proofs, the personal to you proofs, start rolling after you commit to it, though. if you're happy with the proof rolling from some other way, fine. Maybe later you'll want to come back to PFAL and get the whole package in your shopping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
You wrote: "Where in the supposedly canonical PFAL does he "cite his sources"? Where in RHST does he say that whole sections are copied word-for-word from Stiles?"
Sometimes it was on the dust jacket of the PFAL book and others. Sometimes it was in the final pages for paparbacks under the title "About the Author." I'd count Elena Whiteside's book as authoritative where Dr was quoted. Dr approved of that in-house publication.
Where does God say that in His family (not academia, not the marketplace) these kinds of details must be included? I think they are best not included for beginning students. As they progress they can hear more details on tapes or live.
Remember the context is not academia and not the marketplace, but God's family.
***
You wrote: "For that matter where does he admit, in print, on tape, or in anyone's recollection, that the original PFAL class, which his wife said in her book was initially called Receiving the holy spirit today was really BG Leonard's class on the gifts of the spirit?"
What do you mean "really?" Some say it's "really" Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible." It can't be both. Dr took some from one source and some from the other, and still more from unmentioned others. He omitted some material from each, and put it all together. He TOLD us this.
***
You wrote: "The only citing of sources that he does is to claim that he learned from some of these guys. There was never any admission by Wierwille or by his successors that he quoted extensively without attrribution."
If Dr operated in academia or the open marketplace he'd have to do what you demand here. He did not operate in that context. You are applying rules to him that don't apply.
***
If God revealed certain passages to Kenyon, God still is the ultimate source and can tell Dr to use it too. God's the owner and whatever he reveals belongs to the whole family.
Deuteronomy 29:29Â "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever..."
There's your ultimate truth on intellectual ownership.
***
You quoted me with: "Whoever led you that way led you wrong. It wasn't Dr and that's for sure."
Then You wrote: "Really? the guy who claimed that God taught him the "Word" like it hadn't been taught since the first century didn't lead me to believe that?"
Why did you not allow Dr to properly lead you to the whole truth on this matter?
Why did you not take into consideration the additional data regarding HOW God taught him?
You assumed that Dr said that God gave it to him by dictation, and Dr never said that. He gave the details and you ignored those details. Or maybe some other leader wrongly abbreviated how that teaching process worked for you and you believed him and still ignored Dr's additional details.
Why didn't you hear all the times Dr gave the details as to HOW God taught him by guiding him to other men, and Dr selected some of their teachings and "put it all together"??? That tape "Light Began To Dawn" was available in the bookstore all that time. Maybe you didn't care back then and were happy with your abbreviated understanding of the learning process God took him through.
Please take the time now to catch up on what you missed.
Try this for "Light Began To Dawn:
http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...03936#585103936
Dr cited his sources. He told us God taught him in many ways. One of the big ways is that God led him to these sources, and then God also led him to only take this but not that from these sources. God told him to change a few things. God taught him to put it all together.
Some things God inspired Dr to first speak on a tape and then later it was worked into written form. I don't know of any places where Dr said he got anything by word for word dictation. He might have said that for some items of text, but I can't remember any right now. I do remember that in two places Dr said that revelation was usually discussed first, and then put into written form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: "...didn't you ever write a term paper?"
Again, you're confusing, like MANY others, the proper way to deal with sources in academia with the proper way to deal with them in God's family.
***
You wrote: "Funny how the outside sources dried up after 1965.
Wrong. You are guessing or have a bad memory. What about JCPS and Dr. Martin from Pasadena and his great insight into the star of Bethlehem?
***
You wrote: "So lets not let people think for themselves, by actually RESEARCHING the Bible and the teacher, let's let them only think what Wierwille says."
Please see my response to Abigail above. There's plenty of thought required in rightly dividing PFAL and in applying it.
***
You wrote: "Wierwille called his minstry a biblical RESEARCH and teaching ministry. Why the fear of actually seeing what vpw's sources had to say?"
There was no fear. You're making it up. He cited his sources. He also told us on numerous occasions towards the later phase of his ministry (again see my response to Abigail for some on the earlier phases) that research meant re-searching out what had already been taught to him by God.
I research the PFAL texts all the time, and I have to do a lot of thinking for myself in the process. You are confusing research with discovering from scratch. Somtimes in academia the two are similar, but with these truths God reveals things to whom He selects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wordwolf,
Without even checking out the links on your mirror thread, just by reading the URLs I can see most are universities. After the links you list areas where plagiarism is an important breach of conduct, and they are ALL academic areas.
Why don't you see that in God's family different rules apply?
How about Deut 29;29 and intellectual ownership?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
These are some more thoughts on who led you wrong.
Someone wrote me an e-mail a few weeks ago and said that they thought Dr never had an original thought.
Acually, this is EXACTLY what Dr taught in the Advanced Classes during the 70's. He taught that ALL "original" thoughts actually come from someone else, and can be ultimately traced back to God. He taught that this is true in art, science, literature, and philosophy. The way this teaching went was: oftentimes God would teach one of His people some new thought, the devil would get a hold of it, and reveal it spiritually to one of his people. The idea of originality of thought is a man-made distortion of the truth.
Does anyone remember this?
Does anyone think that B.G. Leonard had any original thoughts? I don't. He had his sources too.
I see here the same kind of erronious hero worship that was once directed at Dr is now being directed at B.G.
Did B.G. tell his students that he gathered his ideas from others?
I don't know if BG admitted to this, but I do know that Dr OFTEN told us that he gathered them from others. Dr mentioned B.G. many times as one of his sources. These are things that many have forgotten. It could be that most of top leadership forgot these things in their hero worship of Dr, or failed in some other way to convey them to us.
It wasn't Dr's fault that he got "credit" for coming up with original thoughts. Claiming credit was the exact opposite of what he taught us regarding his "originality." He frequently said that he'd pick and choose from many sources. From B.G. Dr used some material and tossed out other material. Which ideas of B.G's to loose and which to pass on to us was done by revelation. Which teachers besides B.G. Dr selected to learn from was also done by revelation. This he taught us often. By 1982 he was somewhat out of the loop, and many frauds were perpetrated by his renegade leaders.
I know of only a very few things where Dr said that he got something directly from God. He often told us that he "put it together." He got a piece here, a piece there, and put them together.
You were definately led wrong, but not by Dr. Wierwille. There are many things like this that we need to re-learn. Learning is an exciting adventure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It seems this General thread has become the de facto Plagiarism thread I had planned.
I have a question to ask of all those who have challenged me on this plagiarism issue.
In the past ten to fifteen years, have any of you encountered ANY opposition to these plagiarism charges? Is this the first time you have heard the many ideas I have posted here?
If so, where did you encounter any opposition on this issue?
It's my impression that none of you have ever debated this issue outside of running into me.
It's my impression that no one here has spent any time pondering these new ideas of opposition, and that everyone has no memory whatsoever of Dr's many citings of his sources, nor of his explanations of how God guided him to these sources, and HOW God taught him what to teach and write.
Don't you think these things I post should have been in the mix of your considerations all along. I think that these matters have gotten only one-sided treatments and very little thought. Isn't this precisely what is often complained of as a TWI experience: precious little thinking through of all the facts and from all angles?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
Yesterday you asked me where in PFAL did Dr cite his sources. You also asserted to me that Dr since Dr said that God taught him, that must imply that Dr did NOT get it from any men.
Let's go back to our beginnings, the basics, the film class. In Session 3 (segment 15), in the topic of Receive/Retain/Release we heard this:
"The reason the Dead Sea is so dead is because it has only
an inlet no outlet. The reason some people are so dead
spiritually is because they have only inlet no outlet. They
do not give. As you give you receive. As you receive you
must give for it just works like this. As I receive God's Word
I give it out, as I give it out I receive.
"Many years ago God said to me once, HE'd TEACH ME the
Word like it had not been known for centuries, if I would
teach it. I thought that was a pretty good idea until I really
got into the depth of the Word, then I found out that as I
taught it nobody believed it anyway cause they already had
preconceived ideas on the accuracy of God's Word. But I
learned this that as long as I kept God's Word He kept filling
me. He kept giving me more."
Ok there we heard an abbreviated account of the 1942 promise. Later in the class, in Session 10 (segment 60), just after he goes through the 5 accounts in Acts we heard this:
"Five records in the Word of God. You talk about questing,
researching? I ran all over the country. I must have spent,
five thousand, six thousand dollars in train fare, bus fare,
air fare, motel rooms, everything else, trying to receive the
power of the holy spirit into manifestation. Every place I ran,
they told me -- some of them told me it wasn't for me, others
said it died with the apostles. Some of them said, 'Well, we
can help you.'
"But I never received, until, one day, A MAN TAUGHT ME
the accuracy of God's Word and told me that it was something
that God had already put within me. All I had to do was know
what to do with it, how to bring it out. And then I too spoke in
tongues, the wonderful works of God. And, when I spoke in
tongues, I magnified God. That's what they did in Acts 2:4.
This is what they did in Acts, at the household of Cornelius,
they magnified God."
So here we have an Apparent Contradiction, right there in our first exposure to Dr's story of how he learned. In Session 3 he says GOD WOULD TEACH HIM and DID TEACH HIM, in Session 10 he says A MAN TAUGHT HIM. Which is it?
If we were alert to this AE we'd either chuck the whole thing... or maybe dig deeper, and then find that it was both. God led Dr to the right men, AND God taught those men as well.
Why can't people remember these simple things that we were exposed to right up front in the film class? Why weren't they even noticed in the first place? That should have sent up red flags! Well for some of us who were serious students it did, and we dug deeper, and we resolved apparent contradictions like this one.
There are SO many things like this that either slipped right by many of us, or that got forgotten as time went by and we hung out with people who only bad mouthed our past experiences.
The critics of PFAL have been intellectually inbreeding for how many years now? It's time to come back to PFAL and get it right. It's not too late! Learning is an exciting adventure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But which man?
That would be nice to know.
And what of vpw's claims to have thrown out all his texts and just listened to God?
If a man taught him, then it wasn't God. And if a man teaches the master, maybe you have the wrong master.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, it IS nice to know which men to trust with the accuracy of God's word.
The thrown out texts were of theologians who were spouting off their own ideas, or so they thought. The men that Dr worked with did not teach him their own ideas, but they gave him what God had given to them.
Dr listened to JUST GOD in deciding which men to learn from.
After Dr had received some teaching from these men he listened to JUST GOD as to what parts to accept and which parts to reject.
I get the impression that you have not read a lot of my responses to others above. This is a repetition of what I said very recently.
You wrote: "If a man taught him, then it wasn't God."
I just got done handling this Apparent Contradiction with Oakspear, just two posts above this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
Did you read "Light Began to Dawn" from the link I provided above?
Here it is again:
http://gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=9...03936#585103936
Edited by MikeLink 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.