Talk:The Way International/Archive 3

message: I see one of our ninja editors has been removing verifiable information (as they do) and has requested I email him PRIVATELY. If I wanted secret communication, I could have stayed in TWI.  If he has something to tell me, he can tell me HERE,
where ALL can see it.  He is likely the person who just sent me the following
message: 
"You guys can't make cultic assertions when 1) you've never read any material from The Way, 2) you don't know anyone who works there or has attended their fellowships, 3) you've never been to their headquarters or any of their fellowships, 4) you seem to have a clear bias against religious organizations you think might be a cult, and 5) it has already been deemed counterproductive to maintaining NPOV by throwing the "cult" word around.
You seem to be trying to define this organization by the rumors and stories from a handful of people who have clear bias and animosity towards TWI because of events that happened 10-15 years ago. Why not get some info from people who are attending their fellowships TODAY and who are working their TODAY ... you can even find some of Victor Paul Wierwille's books on eBay?"
This is a clear display of ignorance, since he presumes we never read any material
of theirs-and currently DON'T (wrong again), never attended their meetings, 
never attended their classes, & never attended their headquarters,
have no current information on them or from them, and don't communicate with 
current attendees.
Wrong on every SINGLE count. Since he repeatedly used the word "cult" and claimed
I used it, he's wrong AGAIN, since I don't use the word because it carries lots
of emotional charge. 
and we can ALL see it.  
Now, if he DARES to actually engage in discussion, he may be surprised. 
Lsjzl has communicated here and hasn't turned into a pillar of salt YET-
perhaps he'd survive 2-way communication.
 
Pete Snowball 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YET? tsk tsk :) Lsjzl 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Messages? 

message: One link to the Rick Ross site was supposedly for the Boston Herald. A search of all of their stories from the day in question (April 10, 2000) does not show this piece ever. There are court transcripts I believe that say that allegations were made etc. So I am not removing a source because I don't like the content but because by himself Rick Ross has been noted as a source to not be linked to directly. For his content he links to..well it would be awesome to actually find it on the sources direct page. Lsjzl 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Lsjzl.  I've e-mailed Ross at the address on his website to ask for an explanation.  (If I had to guess, I'd say he probably got the text and the sources of some articles switched around, so that it appeared in a real paper but the Herald isn't that paper.  Unfortunately, that doesn't give many clues useful for tracking down the actual appearance of the article...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet http://www.greasespotcafe.com has the reference articles. I am a bit busy at the moment or I would check..but I do believe I remember them being there. (Court documents I think they are) Lsjzl 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "Herald" article must've been from a Massachusetts paper, given the first line.  (I keep wondering, is it possible that it really was in the Herald and just not on the site for some reason?  I may be able to get to a library where they'd have back issues of the Herald...)  Anyways, in looking for a newspaper site that still had articles on the lawsuit, I found out about two other lawsuits, one of which revolved around the same point (sexual misconduct by Martindale) that the "Herald" article was cited to support, and both the two sexual misconduct lawsuits were referenced by court documents in the third, such as this one (PDF format).  So, even if we can't get the "Herald" article, we still have solid sourcing for that point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick Ross 

message: Is the phrase "The Way now considers itself a church..." correct? I'd always thought that they were adamant that they weren't a church Ten of Swords 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup that is correct. Lsjzl 13:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the part about them previously being adamant about not being a church also correct?  That sounds interesting; why did they not consider themselves a church, and when/why did that change? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I say is of course not ex-cathedra but still: From what I remember TWI didn't want to be called a "religion" or a "church" in the normal way of saying it because they wanted to be known as different. I don't mean that they had their own word as they were a "ministry", but said that religion now-a-days meant non-thinking follower of a denominations interpretation. (That is into my words but I think for instance Pete would agree that the thinking followed those lines) So they adamantly said "no we are not another church but followers of Christ, followers of "The Way." (the reference taken from a scripture) Of course using the English language purely you can then say: "Oh, ok..so um. Like, you are a church though?" and the answer of course has to be yes. I track it down to the "us and them" mentality that some religious groups go through. To point again to this mindset if someone asked: "So, you read the bible? Oh, so you're religious then?" (What does that person really mean? Simply, oh so you are into religious things. Aka God. Aka The Bible. Aka Going to church. Not a problem) The answer most often given by someone in the Way was "No, I am not religious" (aka to them - non-thinking)followed by some "but I do read and study the bible" answer which confuses people. As to when it changed, well I am not sure. I know the current prez of this ministry went to a religious conference where other ministries discussed ways to fight religious intolerance in places like France etc and the comments disseminated through the leadership body of the Way said things like "it's all of us together to fight things like that, we can't do it on our own." So yes it is some sort of change and no longer are they saying we are not a church. That is my own POV from what I have heard but hope it doesn't come across slanted. I think that's how it went for the average person? Thanks for letting me rant I guess Lsjzl 15:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't come across slanted -- it explains things well.  It's almost (if I can try and summarize my understanding) as if they said "we are not a church" because they expected "we are a church" to be heard as "we are just another church"?  I appreciate the explanation, even if it's not ex-cathedra; if you find something that we can use as a formal reference, I think this would be great information to add to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry that I never responded, I for one think that sounds great. Lsjzl 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Considers itself a church" 

message: Under the heading classes, the article read that "The students travel to Camp Gunnison, Colorado to learn how to teach and minister" - I changed it to "...for their training". 
I also added this phrase: "...or fullfil other assigned responsibilities, or remain at Hedaquarters or Gunnison as "staff". >>after this sentence: "The graduating Way Corps are can be sent out to different states or countries to start fellowships..."Ten of Swords 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way Corps/Classes