No, Jonny, but it is a place where people with those feelings exist in large number and have no hesitation expressing those feelings. You wouldn't be shocked to go into a bar and find drinking, even though people who don't drink are welcome there, would you?
Of course not. But if the decision of those non drinkers not to drink is ridiculed in that bar, it would obviously mean that those who don't drink weren't welcome there.
Take the best digital photo that you can of it and then put if up for auction on E-Bay. Include the word Wierwille in the headline item description. I just sold some PFAL books on E-Bay and will make about $200 in total after shipping and E-Bay costs. If you need any help on this let me know or you can try to send me a PM.
This isn't about the poster anymore - maybe it never was.
Quite frankly the first time I saw this topic I ignored it because I don't like posters - period.
Then I clicked on the topic to see if there was a photo of the poster - out of curiosity and to see what this kind of stuff fetches on Ebay, Woo HOO! what a pandora's box I found!
I never saw WG harassed - I did read a great dislike of the class and all it represented. Perhaps that is where the discrepancy lies...If WG still finds good in the class ( although she DID say that she didn't feel comfortable selling the books but thought someone out there might like the poster...) then all those comments might have hit a personal cord within her.
No matter how much anyone hates TWI, WG is not responsible for all they did- I'm confident everyone has that point clear.
Mark - I don't think you insulted her either - didnt' read it that way at all.
I hear Christians all the time saying to separate the person from the deed ( so it wasn't just a way thing) isn't it also fair to separate the person from what they sell? I mean WG's not Rozilla, LCM, VPW, etc etc ad nauseum as infinitum ( no Latin corrections please - I get that from hubby)
It seems to me we are all better than this - or at least should be. That said, some people really are thin-skinned when it comes to sarcasm... Being a New Yorker living in the South, I can attest to that - and I had it even harder in Kansas where next to no one got New York sarcasm and humor.
Ok so why doesnt' everyone lay down their swords and take about 20 steps back and =
WG..... I will be honest,,,,I did'nt even read through this post. I watched som chit chat in tha chatroom and started reading this post. You go girl.....speak ya peace,,,,don't let no one pickle ya,,,but after it's said an done, stick to ya guns! I always try an keep at least five friends and hope they will recruit one....six can pack me to the tombstone!
Another thing: You know, if it was Mike or Oldies or What the Hey posting something pro-TWI or even reminiscent of the days in TWI (though doubtful that they'd ever sell a PFAL poster), they would be gang-raped on this site (as they have been multiple times). And nobody, but nobody would be defending them (at least I don't recall anybody ever saying "C'mon, lay off poor old Oldies."). So, I guess because it is Saint Watered Garden, everybody needs to be sensitive, but if it were Oldies, it's open season, right? Give me a break.
I understand here that you are saying we need to be consistent in our sensitivity, or lack thereof. So, if we are not sensitive to Oldies or Mike or Catholics, we don't need to be sensitive to WG. And if we should be sensitive to some of them, we should be sensitive to all.
It does sound like you are saying, because some have been insensitive to you as a Catholic, you don't need to be sensitive to WG. Justice, I guess, though I would like to think I wouldn't respond to someone's flaming of me by taking it out on someone else.
I like your posts and hope you don't leave. But I have left many times my self for periods of time over the years.
Its not the point that no one intentionally meant to hurt you but that you were hurt in trying to do something nice. I hurt for you in that. I hope that your hurt will stop one day, and that you remember that there are those who understand and care for you.
I enjoy reading your posts and pray that you are feeling OK, in fact better than OK, I hope that you are out playing and doing something fun and feeling great and that your heart is at peace.
Don't you dare give up a tear over this, its not worth your precious tears. You are a wonderful woman who has been a blessing in my life for many many reads here. I hope I continue to read your posts and loving heart.
Typical uplifting Digi message. But I doubt if she knows how to do otherwise.
I think it is an idea that some of the rest of us can follow. Supporting someone without chopping someone else down, I mean.
I didn't think there was anything wrong in the least with my previous post. Then later I read it from the point of view of the poster to whom I responded (Mark). I realized that I could be accusing him not of doing an insensitive thing, but of being an insensitive person, when I don't know the least about him personally. I dont know if he has taken/will take it that way. I definitely did not intend it that way. Good grief, I am too conscious of my own weak points these days to even think that of someone I don't know. My thinking when I posted somewhat earlier was just because someone didn't intend to hurt or offend someone not only doesn't mean you didn't hurt or offend them, but it doesn't excuse you if you do it unintended. I think most people realize this; that's why the classic "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I did" seems like such a hollow non-apology. I wqs trying to make the point that WG had been hurt; whether it was intened or not doesn't make much difference if you are the target. But then I look at my post and see I could have done the same thing. Dunno, maybe Mark didnt even take it that way. Doesn't matter. The point is, since I don't know him, he easily could have from my point of view. So Mark, I apologize. I won't back down from saying I understand how WG was hurt by some responses, but for me I think a response such as Digi made is the better way to go.
If you will be so kind as to review my comments on this thread, you will note that not one time did I make commentary about the poster one way or the other. The sole comment I made was about, again imho, WG over-reacting to peoples' commentary about what the poster represented. The remainder of my posts on this thread have been responding to personal attacks made to me for daring to defend peoples' rights to express their POVs on what that poster represents.
So here is my commentary on the poster: I wouldn't have it in my house. There are, however, some pretty good examples of modern graphic art represented in a lot of the 1970s era TWI work, so I won't call it a piece of crap (especially with no picture upon what to make that judgement). I wish WG all the luck in the world selling the poster. I won't bid on it but I hope she gets what she needs from it.
My commentary on what the poster represents: I have made my current opinion of things TWI, including PFAL class, well known in many, many other threads. There is no need to go into that in this thread.
My commentary on Watered Garden: I do not know her. A quick review of her previous posts does not reveal a hyper-sensitive nature and, in fact, showed a bit of humor in her nature. So her reaction still yet makes no sense to me. Perhaps it would had I known her personally, had I spoken with her in chat, or had there been some other pieces that hadn't been filled in (thus my comment: you all must have been PMing the personal attacks toward her).
I understand here that you are saying we need to be consistent in our sensitivity, or lack thereof. So, if we are not sensitive to Oldies or Mike or Catholics, we don't need to be sensitive to WG. And if we should be sensitive to some of them, we should be sensitive to all.
It does sound like you are saying, because some have been insensitive to you as a Catholic, you don't need to be sensitive to WG. Justice, I guess, though I would like to think I wouldn't respond to someone's flaming of me by taking it out on someone else.
No, my commentary is that a little thicker skin is a good thing. My commentary is that the anti-PFAL comments made on this thread were EXTREMELY mild, as compared to the anti-PFAL commentary provided to Oldies, What the Hey, or Mike, or the anti-Catholic commentary provided me. I'm not complaining about people's commentary thrown in my direction. If I was concerned, I wouldn't post conservative comments on the 'tacks forum or pro-Catholic comments elsewhere. That's why I made the comparison...I didn't make those comments as a plea for mercy or a call for sensitivity. If you're going to post on an openly accessible message board, you'd better not be hyper-sensitive.
I didn't think there was anything wrong in the least with my previous post. Then later I read it from the point of view of the poster to whom I responded (Mark). I realized that I could be accusing him not of doing an insensitive thing, but of being an insensitive person, when I don't know the least about him personally. I dont know if he has taken/will take it that way. I definitely did not intend it that way. Good grief, I am too conscious of my own weak points these days to even think that of someone I don't know. My thinking when I posted somewhat earlier was just because someone didn't intend to hurt or offend someone not only doesn't mean you didn't hurt or offend them, but it doesn't excuse you if you do it unintended. I think most people realize this; that's why the classic "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I did" seems like such a hollow non-apology. I wqs trying to make the point that WG had been hurt; whether it was intened or not doesn't make much difference if you are the target. But then I look at my post and see I could have done the same thing. Dunno, maybe Mark didnt even take it that way. Doesn't matter. The point is, since I don't know him, he easily could have from my point of view. So Mark, I apologize. I won't back down from saying I understand how WG was hurt by some responses, but for me I think a response such as Digi made is the better way to go.
I appreciate your concern. And I do appreciate that Digitalis' method is far more 'sensitive' and 'loving' than mine. But nobody has ever accused me of being a 'sensitive' or 'loving' person. And I am thankful for that, because I am not 'sensitive' or 'loving' by nature. In fact, when I put something up on line I am an insensitive, direct, a$$hole. (In person, I am considerably more sensitive). One generally doesn't have to look for hidden messages hidden beneath a loving veneer when reading my messages. That is mistake some people make when reading me...they look for hidden messages that aren't there.
what I have found interesting is that the concept of intention is elevated past the actual consequence of the intention.
In other words, if I hurt someone - AND I did not intend to hurt that someone, that one posture to take is that they should then not be hurt because it was not my intention.
Am I understanding this as the reason many here feel WG should not be hurt and should be ACCUSED of over reacting....?
what I have found interesting is that the concept of intention is elevated past the actual consequence of the intention.
In other words, if I hurt someone - AND I did not intend to hurt that someone, that one posture to take is that they should then not be hurt because it was not my intention.
Am I understanding this as the reason many here feel WG should not be hurt and should be ACCUSED of over reacting....?
DH, it was the (mis)understood intentions which "hurt" WG, as I read it. If somebody had stepped on her toe, the pain is real enough, whether it was intentional or not.
But there is a whole category of pain rooted in the other person's intentions. Perceived insults, presumed slights. The pain is there until false perceptions are explained away by the real truth. How many sitcoms have been written about that scenario?
Once the "injured" party understands, there is no more injury. The circumstances were misunderstood, words misconstrued, injury imaginary. There, there. All better.
I for one think WG's description of the PFAL poster, all framed and nice, is just a little too sentimental for cult-ware. Had it been me, I'd have sold it as a nice frame, with a PFAL poster left over from my days in the cult. I'd sell it for $65, but you could have it for $55 if you take the poster with it. Therein, I express proper contempt for the contemptible property, while alerting anyone who might be interested in the damn poster.
A perons's emotions are what they are. You can say that a person should or shouldn't feel a certain way but it's a bit futile.
My concern is always how hurt is handled here in cyberspace. I guess I felt that WG went from hurt to accusing awfully fast. I have found it valuable to give a person the benefit of the doubt - especially given that a lot of the signals that we normally get from each other in a conversation are hidden behind computer screens.
WG got hurt and it appears that Mark's feelings were at least bruised a bit as well.
I always tell my kids that they have to TELL someone when their feelings are hurt so that then the other person has the opportunity to respond. I also tell them that it doesn't matter if they meant to hurt someone else - if someone says that they're hurt you apologize and ask forgiveness. I feel like that process was somehow aborted. ( it doesn't really matter if I MEAN to hurt you - hurt is hurt and I should take no pleasure in it.) Asking forgiveness is the best way I know of to get things straight again.
This topic is currently 5 pages long. WG was already upset by post 5 and stopped posting altogether somewhere on page 2. So now there have been 3 pages of discussion on who's hurt and who's too sensitive or not sensitive enough.
Mark was not the initial person that WG was most upset with (I believe that was satori) yet, Mark is the one bearing the brunt of the accusations right now - or at least the one doing the most explaining - perhaps because he truly wants to do the right thing.
Hopefully WG will take some time and return. I do think that there is a tendency to treat each other rudely here at GS - although there is also a great comradery considering that many of us do not know the person we are posting to. I often wonder if some of us would be surprised to know who is at behind the screen name - especially if it turns out to be a long lost best friend that never reveals their true identity.
Ok, now I'm rambling and on my soapbox = I'll let this dead horse lie and quit beating it.
Satoori - I understnad what you are saying and am familiar witht he premise....the problem at gspot (and most Diplomatic relations for that matter)is that understanding another person is a subjective talent.
It really doent matter how you or I would have sold anything...not in relationship to anothers intention adn consequence.
I AM not hurt, but if I was...(and God knows everyone takes there own "form" of being in that state) to be told I was not justified only hurts more and acts as a repellent toward any reconciliation I might have broached.
Thanks for you thoughts though.
Doojy- WG is a fine person and we have been friends since early 70's in Ohio days...something like this will not stop her from being the tender person she is, but will only make her more wary of those less so.
I guess I pushed this issue becasue I see it as one of the biggest weaknesses here and I like having this forum and so forth, but I dont like preferential justification
dmiller, if you had written WG's copy this thread would have died long ago.
If you'd said, "Hear the greatness of the Word taught by inspired men of God as they work the integrity of God's matchless Word, as taught to us all in PFAL by our father in the Word, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille!" then somebody might have taken the littlest exception.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
16
15
11
Popular Days
Jan 26
35
Jan 27
25
Jan 31
16
Jan 30
10
Top Posters In This Topic
DaddyHoundog 12 posts
WhiteDove 16 posts
markomalley 15 posts
dmiller 11 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2006
35 posts
Jan 27 2006
25 posts
Jan 31 2006
16 posts
Jan 30 2006
10 posts
Lifted Up
Of course not. But if the decision of those non drinkers not to drink is ridiculed in that bar, it would obviously mean that those who don't drink weren't welcome there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Watered Garden.
Take the best digital photo that you can of it and then put if up for auction on E-Bay. Include the word Wierwille in the headline item description. I just sold some PFAL books on E-Bay and will make about $200 in total after shipping and E-Bay costs. If you need any help on this let me know or you can try to send me a PM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
ohmygosh, Satoori, you're killing me!
hahahahahahaha, my sides are ripping apart. not really, but i love reading you.
sorrry, WG, reallly, none of it is about you. really! i love reading you too.
Satoori, you should start a weekly roasting column. you're a hoot!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
In this column would Satori be the roastor or the roastee? I get confused sometimes. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Mark S, rare is the occasion when you are not confused. The more confused you are, the more certain of your opinions.
DaddyHoundog, I reject your premise. Watered Garden took offense, and I mean took it, where none was intended.
The only true offense is Vic Wierwille, the Way Monstrosity, and its chief propaganda tool, Power For Abundant Living.
This question makes no sense to me. What are you asking?
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what a bunch of horse sheet
the man was a wad
so i don't want his poster i don't care if it's framed in tic's hair
what a shock WG come on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
This isn't about the poster anymore - maybe it never was.
Quite frankly the first time I saw this topic I ignored it because I don't like posters - period.
Then I clicked on the topic to see if there was a photo of the poster - out of curiosity and to see what this kind of stuff fetches on Ebay, Woo HOO! what a pandora's box I found!
I never saw WG harassed - I did read a great dislike of the class and all it represented. Perhaps that is where the discrepancy lies...If WG still finds good in the class ( although she DID say that she didn't feel comfortable selling the books but thought someone out there might like the poster...) then all those comments might have hit a personal cord within her.
No matter how much anyone hates TWI, WG is not responsible for all they did- I'm confident everyone has that point clear.
Mark - I don't think you insulted her either - didnt' read it that way at all.
I hear Christians all the time saying to separate the person from the deed ( so it wasn't just a way thing) isn't it also fair to separate the person from what they sell? I mean WG's not Rozilla, LCM, VPW, etc etc ad nauseum as infinitum ( no Latin corrections please - I get that from hubby)
It seems to me we are all better than this - or at least should be. That said, some people really are thin-skinned when it comes to sarcasm... Being a New Yorker living in the South, I can attest to that - and I had it even harder in Kansas where next to no one got New York sarcasm and humor.
Ok so why doesnt' everyone lay down their swords and take about 20 steps back and =
B R E A T H E
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ok i'm willing to breathe
but i don't know if i find the reactions that odd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littlehawk
WG.....
I will be honest,,,,I did'nt even read through this post. I watched som chit chat in tha chatroom and started reading this post. You go girl.....speak ya peace,,,,don't let no one pickle ya,,,but after it's said an done, stick to ya guns! I always try an keep at least five friends and hope they will recruit one....six can pack me to the tombstone!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I understand here that you are saying we need to be consistent in our sensitivity, or lack thereof. So, if we are not sensitive to Oldies or Mike or Catholics, we don't need to be sensitive to WG. And if we should be sensitive to some of them, we should be sensitive to all.
It does sound like you are saying, because some have been insensitive to you as a Catholic, you don't need to be sensitive to WG. Justice, I guess, though I would like to think I wouldn't respond to someone's flaming of me by taking it out on someone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
WG,
I like your posts and hope you don't leave. But I have left many times my self for periods of time over the years.
Its not the point that no one intentionally meant to hurt you but that you were hurt in trying to do something nice. I hurt for you in that. I hope that your hurt will stop one day, and that you remember that there are those who understand and care for you.
I enjoy reading your posts and pray that you are feeling OK, in fact better than OK, I hope that you are out playing and doing something fun and feeling great and that your heart is at peace.
Don't you dare give up a tear over this, its not worth your precious tears. You are a wonderful woman who has been a blessing in my life for many many reads here. I hope I continue to read your posts and loving heart.
Digi
Edited by DigitalisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Typical uplifting Digi message. But I doubt if she knows how to do otherwise.
I think it is an idea that some of the rest of us can follow. Supporting someone without chopping someone else down, I mean.
I didn't think there was anything wrong in the least with my previous post. Then later I read it from the point of view of the poster to whom I responded (Mark). I realized that I could be accusing him not of doing an insensitive thing, but of being an insensitive person, when I don't know the least about him personally. I dont know if he has taken/will take it that way. I definitely did not intend it that way. Good grief, I am too conscious of my own weak points these days to even think that of someone I don't know. My thinking when I posted somewhat earlier was just because someone didn't intend to hurt or offend someone not only doesn't mean you didn't hurt or offend them, but it doesn't excuse you if you do it unintended. I think most people realize this; that's why the classic "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I did" seems like such a hollow non-apology. I wqs trying to make the point that WG had been hurt; whether it was intened or not doesn't make much difference if you are the target. But then I look at my post and see I could have done the same thing. Dunno, maybe Mark didnt even take it that way. Doesn't matter. The point is, since I don't know him, he easily could have from my point of view. So Mark, I apologize. I won't back down from saying I understand how WG was hurt by some responses, but for me I think a response such as Digi made is the better way to go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Lifted Up:
If you will be so kind as to review my comments on this thread, you will note that not one time did I make commentary about the poster one way or the other. The sole comment I made was about, again imho, WG over-reacting to peoples' commentary about what the poster represented. The remainder of my posts on this thread have been responding to personal attacks made to me for daring to defend peoples' rights to express their POVs on what that poster represents.
So here is my commentary on the poster: I wouldn't have it in my house. There are, however, some pretty good examples of modern graphic art represented in a lot of the 1970s era TWI work, so I won't call it a piece of crap (especially with no picture upon what to make that judgement). I wish WG all the luck in the world selling the poster. I won't bid on it but I hope she gets what she needs from it.
My commentary on what the poster represents: I have made my current opinion of things TWI, including PFAL class, well known in many, many other threads. There is no need to go into that in this thread.
My commentary on Watered Garden: I do not know her. A quick review of her previous posts does not reveal a hyper-sensitive nature and, in fact, showed a bit of humor in her nature. So her reaction still yet makes no sense to me. Perhaps it would had I known her personally, had I spoken with her in chat, or had there been some other pieces that hadn't been filled in (thus my comment: you all must have been PMing the personal attacks toward her).
No, my commentary is that a little thicker skin is a good thing. My commentary is that the anti-PFAL comments made on this thread were EXTREMELY mild, as compared to the anti-PFAL commentary provided to Oldies, What the Hey, or Mike, or the anti-Catholic commentary provided me. I'm not complaining about people's commentary thrown in my direction. If I was concerned, I wouldn't post conservative comments on the 'tacks forum or pro-Catholic comments elsewhere. That's why I made the comparison...I didn't make those comments as a plea for mercy or a call for sensitivity. If you're going to post on an openly accessible message board, you'd better not be hyper-sensitive.I appreciate your concern. And I do appreciate that Digitalis' method is far more 'sensitive' and 'loving' than mine. But nobody has ever accused me of being a 'sensitive' or 'loving' person. And I am thankful for that, because I am not 'sensitive' or 'loving' by nature. In fact, when I put something up on line I am an insensitive, direct, a$$hole. (In person, I am considerably more sensitive). One generally doesn't have to look for hidden messages hidden beneath a loving veneer when reading my messages. That is mistake some people make when reading me...they look for hidden messages that aren't there.
This has been a very revealing thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
what I have found interesting is that the concept of intention is elevated past the actual consequence of the intention.
In other words, if I hurt someone - AND I did not intend to hurt that someone, that one posture to take is that they should then not be hurt because it was not my intention.
Am I understanding this as the reason many here feel WG should not be hurt and should be ACCUSED of over reacting....?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
DH, it was the (mis)understood intentions which "hurt" WG, as I read it. If somebody had stepped on her toe, the pain is real enough, whether it was intentional or not.
But there is a whole category of pain rooted in the other person's intentions. Perceived insults, presumed slights. The pain is there until false perceptions are explained away by the real truth. How many sitcoms have been written about that scenario?
Once the "injured" party understands, there is no more injury. The circumstances were misunderstood, words misconstrued, injury imaginary. There, there. All better.
I for one think WG's description of the PFAL poster, all framed and nice, is just a little too sentimental for cult-ware. Had it been me, I'd have sold it as a nice frame, with a PFAL poster left over from my days in the cult. I'd sell it for $65, but you could have it for $55 if you take the poster with it. Therein, I express proper contempt for the contemptible property, while alerting anyone who might be interested in the damn poster.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Well no DH. At least that's not how I see it.
A perons's emotions are what they are. You can say that a person should or shouldn't feel a certain way but it's a bit futile.
My concern is always how hurt is handled here in cyberspace. I guess I felt that WG went from hurt to accusing awfully fast. I have found it valuable to give a person the benefit of the doubt - especially given that a lot of the signals that we normally get from each other in a conversation are hidden behind computer screens.
WG got hurt and it appears that Mark's feelings were at least bruised a bit as well.
I always tell my kids that they have to TELL someone when their feelings are hurt so that then the other person has the opportunity to respond. I also tell them that it doesn't matter if they meant to hurt someone else - if someone says that they're hurt you apologize and ask forgiveness. I feel like that process was somehow aborted. ( it doesn't really matter if I MEAN to hurt you - hurt is hurt and I should take no pleasure in it.) Asking forgiveness is the best way I know of to get things straight again.
This topic is currently 5 pages long. WG was already upset by post 5 and stopped posting altogether somewhere on page 2. So now there have been 3 pages of discussion on who's hurt and who's too sensitive or not sensitive enough.
Mark was not the initial person that WG was most upset with (I believe that was satori) yet, Mark is the one bearing the brunt of the accusations right now - or at least the one doing the most explaining - perhaps because he truly wants to do the right thing.
Hopefully WG will take some time and return. I do think that there is a tendency to treat each other rudely here at GS - although there is also a great comradery considering that many of us do not know the person we are posting to. I often wonder if some of us would be surprised to know who is at behind the screen name - especially if it turns out to be a long lost best friend that never reveals their true identity.
Ok, now I'm rambling and on my soapbox = I'll let this dead horse lie and quit beating it.
Ciao
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
Satoori - I understnad what you are saying and am familiar witht he premise....the problem at gspot (and most Diplomatic relations for that matter)is that understanding another person is a subjective talent.
It really doent matter how you or I would have sold anything...not in relationship to anothers intention adn consequence.
I AM not hurt, but if I was...(and God knows everyone takes there own "form" of being in that state) to be told I was not justified only hurts more and acts as a repellent toward any reconciliation I might have broached.
Thanks for you thoughts though.
Doojy- WG is a fine person and we have been friends since early 70's in Ohio days...something like this will not stop her from being the tender person she is, but will only make her more wary of those less so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaddyHoundog
I guess I pushed this issue becasue I see it as one of the biggest weaknesses here and I like having this forum and so forth, but I dont like preferential justification
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
BREAKING NEWS!!!
I have decided to sell all my SNS tapes,
(And am offering them here first) ~~~
Before relegating them to the masses on e-bay!
WHAT YOU GET ~~~
150 to 200 *high quality* tapes of SNS from twi.
Including announcements,
Songs,
pertinent info on happenings,
(then).
and biblical teaching
Tape numbers start at #746 with docvic teaching on
*ACCURACY VS. RELIGION*
(circa March 2, 1975) and go up from there.
These tapes would look sexy in anyone's tape player,
(assuming you still have one),
The sleek slim design was designed to fit into all cassete player's,
regardless of the twi administration you might currently be in,
(or out of).
And the same debbil spurits are still there,
from the oringinal teaching,
when they were recorded,
so the original has not been lost.
Yer getting the REAL DEAL!
WHAT YOU NEED ~~~
A cassette player ---
Can't help ya there.
SPAM control:
Serious
Protection
Against
Martindale
(Yea -- He is on a LOT of these tapes --- )
And if'n ya don't have the latest 3.0 SPAM control ~~~
(designed to protect against three-somes),
For an extra $29.95 I can add the WAP package ~~
Which is the:
Way's
Actual
Propylactics.
This is a piece of plastic, that (when used properly on your cassette machine),
contains all the debbil spurits (on the tape),
and holds them in check, until the MOG can arrive in your area,
and release them personally.
I don't want to have to explain this all on e-bay --
So someone here PLEASE make an offer!
Oh -- I forgot the price!
Someone make an offer!
(PS) ~~~ although I am being facetious, I have the tapes in question.
AND -- I have thought of selling them on ebay, but I know that there are others here,
that would like *first crack* at them.
If any of you want to take a shot at me, for having these tapes,
and having had them from 1975 (all these decades),
and then (maybe) deciding to sell them
but offering them first here --
Take your best shot --- whomever. :)
I'm listening, and going ---
But hey -- If I get an offer good enough, the shots don't count.
And you'll be reloading your *verbal gun*
While I go to the bank!
Call em *crapola* if you wish ---
One man's trash, is another's treasure.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Good luck on your sale, David.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mark -- I said my scenario was facetious (sp?) --
But thank you, should I ever decide to sell.
Your reply (to me that I quoted) is the same
that should have been offered to WG, by all here.
Sadly .......................
Dislike of twi, overtook care and consideration of GS posters,
like WG.
*Good luck on your sale*, are the words she should have heard.
Regardless of what the folks here thought about the product.
And this is addressed to any and all that commented on this thread.
Not just Mark. :)
David
Over and out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
good luck on your sale of your sh!tty item wg ;) :wub:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
dmiller, if you had written WG's copy this thread would have died long ago.
If you'd said, "Hear the greatness of the Word taught by inspired men of God as they work the integrity of God's matchless Word, as taught to us all in PFAL by our father in the Word, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille!" then somebody might have taken the littlest exception.
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.