potato

"Yes they do being dead does not exempt one from accusation of libel" huh? if you're dead, you're not exempt from accusations of libel? I guess not, but I don't see anyone accusing vpw of libel.

WRONG. they don't have the burden of proof to satisfy, because they can't "accuse" vpw according to the legal definition of the word. vpw is dead, HELLO. the burden of proof is now on those who would accuse his victims of libel. (how many more times shall this merry-go-round go round, dear readers?) again, where does burden of proof now lie? (and sorry you quoted this while I was fixing my grammatical error. I think you got my drift though.)

you might need to rewrite this statement, it's pretty badly mangled and I'm likely misunderstanding it but I'll give it a go... I don't THINK I established that vpw doesn't have constitutional rights, he doesn't have them. that's a fact. no one is obligated to treat him with presumption of innocence. yes, if he's been libeled, the person committing the libel can be taken to court. so, why, when twi sends their lawyers after every little church using "the way" in their name, do they ignore what you're saying constitutes libel? any burden of proof is on them, not on vpw's victims, therefore his victims should be treated with presumption of innocence until such a time as their guilt in a libel suit has been decided. until I see a guilty verdict, THERE IS NO LIBEL. I was thinking the same thing! or a merry-go-round. let's keeping pushing as fast as we can and see who falls off first! doesn't it strike you as ironic, rascal? we could just as easly talk about the ranting day after day about crimes committed because we're always hearing about this alleged libel. I just want to know, what libel? WRONG. it's not libel until the alleged libel is proven to be false in court. the truth doesn't have to be documented in court.

it doesn't matter, it still won't be a good comparison unless the criminal is dead and the victims are living and telling their stories. this looks like a red herring. we already established that this is an academic exercise since vpw can't be taken to court, we've already established that he's not entitled to presumption of innocence, nor does he have constitutional rights, and we've established that his victims DO have a constitutional right to free speech and if they're lying, they can be taken to court for libel. so why haven't they been? in a historical case, eyewitness testimony is acceptable, especially when there are multiple witnesses, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, there's no reason to declare the words of these women libelous.

very weak example. there were no witnesses to the actual crime in that case so it will have to be established circumstantially and/or forensically, or she'll be acquitted. in the cases of excathedra and Kristin, the victims both survived to testify, so comparing Ms. Anthony to vpw is ridiculous.

I don't believe that they've technically accused vpw of a crime, either because he's dead, or the statute of limitations ran out, or because they exercised their freedom not to press charges. this argument is academic, since vpw is dead. he cannot be "accused" in the sense that you're using, because he can't be taken to court. therefore, no one has accused him of anything. however, their testimony IS documented. once it's published, it's a document. at this point, in order to declare their testimony untrue, it would require taking them to court to prove libel. until someone produces a guilty verdict against vpw's victims showing that they've libeled him, their testimony stands.

why should I have reason to doubt what excathedra or Kristin have testified?

I've been thinking of this one, quite a bit, and I want to ask you WD, exactly WHO has committed libel? are you saying excathedra has? or Kristin Skedgell? or any of the other women who've published their accounts of being molested by vpw? or the men who've corroborated their testimony? are they committing libel?

GS is like a cult recovery group for me, where I've been able to get help in sorting out the badness of twi from the goodness of my life. in that sense it is "anti-twi" because it has helped me uproot a lot of twi from the way I approach life and has helped me become a healthier person. it is also a "pro-living without a cult" site.

yes Geisha, I understood you meant it from a historical point of view :) I studied some of the "heresies" myself. it's just that the word "heresy" is a loaded word from a modern, right-wing religious point of view, while it is not (at least usually) when used in historical context. I do like the term "non-conformist", I think in this world it describes some of us better :)

right, so I posted definitions of "guilt", "guilty", and a few other words as they came up in conversation, because it seemed a clear understanding of the words was in order, rather than made-up definitions. whether vpw is being libeled is a question that should be left up to the courts. it is within the rights of twi or his family to bring suit to prove libel, yet no one has. until I see a guilty verdict proving libel, the alleged libel simply does not exist from a legal point of view. what you DID bring up was "presumption of innocence" which I believe has been demonstrated not to apply because vpw is dead. he has no legal or constitutional rights, whereas those of his victims still living DO... so if someone wants to bring a civil suit against any of the many people who've told their stories of being molested by vpw, then the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff and "presumption of innocence" will given the defendant... so why aren't YOU willing to give these women what's due THEM under law???

poor kid. I hope he recognizes what his dad is and doesn't get caught in the trap of idolizing him.

I do not want to be pigeon-holed for what I don't believe in, because it's what I DO believe in that matters to me. one man's heresy is another man's truth.

it doesn't feel like a drug to me, it feels like a struggle. a struggle against all the times I was told I wasn't good enough, against all the times I was told to shut up and submit to my husband, against myself for staying with him until my child was so miserable that he attempted suicide, against myself for staying instead of walking away when I felt like suicide would have been a welcome relief. gotta work through those things. as I do, I let them go. I don't know how long I'll be around, but the sad thing is, there are always new people hurting. you know who made the biggest impression on me when I first came here, before I was even brave enough to leave twi? excathedra. you know why? because she'd live through some nasty stuff and had survived it. it was important to know that someone had made it! then I read Watered Garden's story. there was another that helped me immensely. because of that, I probably won't ever quit talking about my life in twi, it just won't hurt as much when I do talk about it. it doesn't hurt nearly as much now to talk about my wasteland of a marriage, or the things said and done to me by leaders, as it did when I first showed up here. at that point I couldn't even come to grips with the fact that the stuff was wrong.

you should change the emphasis to "it is a definition of the word it changes nothing". I listed ALL definitions from the source for the words I was posting about, and I was really clear which words the definitions were for and what my source was. I did not CHANGE the word from guilty to guilt. I actually posted definitions for both words (COMPLETE definitions, not cherry-picked) among others pertaining to this discussion. if the word was changed, it was by you because you didn't even tell us what word you were giving your definition for. so, you gave your cherry-picked selection for "guilty" as in "guilty verdict"? because we're not talking about guilty verdicts here, we're talking about "guilty" or "having guilt". it's already been established that vpw has no right to due process of the law because he's dead, therefore "presumption of innocence" does not apply.

just wanted to requote WD's quote of himself and point out that although he cries out for "proof" by way of "hard evidence", the federal rules of evidence admit testimony by witnesses as "evidence", and I'd also like to point out that vpw is not entitled to due process of law because he's dead and therefore his constitutional rights have terminated, which of course puts him outside of the legal process altogether, and makes the question of his guilt an academic exercise not confined within the bounds that WD says it should be.

exactly. that would be a tall order indeed.

must correct myself, should not summarize research when running a fever! criminal court should read civil court!

oh yeah, and one more thing on "presumption of innocence" under .4... add "otherwise courts would not have discretion to refuse bail."

the former usually can't happen if the latter is not allowed. letting go of something is a process, and if you're stuck somewhere where you can ever begin the process by acknowledging it, you never get to let it go.

I've been doing quite a bit of reading on the "presumption of innocence", both from philosophical/legal and practical points of view to try and understand why you so bull-doggedly hold fast to the doctrine. here's what I've learned: 1. because vpw is dead, he has no constitutional rights. 2. because vpw is dead, he is not entitled to "presumption of innocence" because he cannot face his accusers in a court of law, should anyone wish to press charges. 3. "presumption of innocence", in actual fact, is a presumption of "not guilty until guilt is proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law". 4. "presumption of innocence" does not assume no crime has been committed. 5. "presumption of innocence" is not a legal right, it is common-law rule of the court. 6. "presumption of innocence" does not trump the constitutional right to freedom of speech. 7. "presumption of innocence" is not a requirement of civil life, otherwise no one could be suspended pending an investigation, and no one could criticize the actions of elected officials. 8. victims of crimes are not required by law to press charges and face the one who committed a crime against them in court. it is their right to NOT go to court, but exercising that right does not nullify their constitutional right to freedom of speech regarding what they experienced. 9. if the person who committed the crime (or the representative of that person if they are deceased) doesn't like the victim talking about what happened, the burden is then on them to press charges in criminal court, where the burden will then be on them as the plaintiff to prove that a crime (slander, libel) has been committed. good catch, Jeff!

ok, I misunderstood you. after re-reading your opinion, I see that you mean one can take the testimony as factual OR non-factual, not that you take it either way. actually, what I did was paste in the entire definition, so that people could see that guilt is not just a legal term, but can be a point of fact. I did not cherry-pick the definition that fit my argument, which you did, and apparently improperly cited as well. for what?

.you said it when you said their testimonies were non-factual. if they are non-factual, then they are fantasy, so must be fabrications or hallucinations. weird, this is what it says when I look it up: naturally synonyms for "convicted" would be of interest here if the word "convicted" was relevant.

wheras in the first part of the argument for the plaintiff Mr. VPW, WD again puts forth the claim that the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the plaintiff have fabricated their testimony, yet fails to offer any evidence of his claim: being as their testimony is full of facts, and that consistent testimony is given into evidence, said evidence is accepted as factual in the absence of contradicting evidence. wheras in the second part, WD confuses the process of law with the facts of case, and we the people offer into evidence testimony by Mr. Webster that proves someone CAN be guilty without ever stepping into a courtroom: Webster says:

would it be considered doctrine if it was taught at the advanced class?