GarthP2000

Hehehehe!! ... This coming from a guy who is of a conservative mindset that, among other views, has a rather disparaging point of view re: the United Nations. ... Ohhh but NOW, he invokes their charter.

"Walmart shoppers!! Walmart shoppers!! ... Whitedove's Bluelight Special on aisle three!!!" ((slowly twirling my finger above my head)) ... Whoooo Hoooooo! ... Whatta deal he has for you. <_<

... Christmas!! Is this s**t _still_ going on?! :blink: I swear, I think that the threads dealing with Smik-- errr, Mike ;) are about to lose 1st place in the Spiraling-on-and-on-and-on-into-the-Vortex Category. ((shakes head)) WD ain't gonna bend nor give on this, folks. No matter what solid legal reasoning/precedent, moral premise, appeal to compassion, etc. you throw at him, it just won't get through. It isn't gonna take with people like that. He's like Mike in this regard (and I mean that in more ways than one! ... You figure out what I imply by that. ;) ) Pssstt, hey WD, want for me to Photoshop up a custom 'my precciiiooouussssss' pic for you like I did for Mike?

Speaking of getting various details wrong: 1) Please note Dave, that I _did_ address Rocky's initial lack of releasing sources, ie., "Despite whatever valid points you _may_ have against Rocky's failure to show sources," (<--- and looky! You even had it in your quote back to me :) ), and I put the _may_ in there as Rocky made mention that he LIVES in the same county as Sheriff OurPieHole, thus giving the "Hey pal! I have had front seat experience in this situation!" advantage. It'd be like I could tell you a LOT more about Huntsville politics than you could even read on the internet, beings that I _live_ here. "Should I take those claims at face value, simply because they are *first-hand*?" Usually, they are to be given more weight. "According to Rocky first hand evidence isn't applicable without links to other sources provided, and in spades (unless it's done by himself)." ... which would be one of your valid points re: his failure to show sources. Ummm, I believe I already touched upon that, did I not? 2) Your support for Sheriff Joe's 'agenda' that I alluded to refers specifically to the immigration issue, and even there, he winds up smelling like a grade-A a**hole. So just because someone 'takes a stand against illegal immigrants' doesn't automatically make them right. Ie., like everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things, and this ain't no different. "So -- you (with your assertion I'm still defending Sheriff Joe), and P-Mosh (who jumped on me about *thinking all Hispanic people being illegal immigrants - - - WHICH I NEVER SAID OR EVEN IMPLIED!) are both wrong." Ahhh, not as wrong as you for not reading more carefully what I said, which you have at the very least, over-simplified. Over-simplification can easily delete necessary details that are _needed_ to fully understand what the other person is saying, ... even if its done under the intent of 'Keeping it simple'. :)

Hhmmmmm, .... why does an answer like this smell of ..... a 'whitewash'? ... A dodge? ... A kind of 'song-and-dance'? <_< Whatever killed Ananias and Sapphira (if the story does indeed ring true), if it was simply because they 'told a lie', the concept of 'does the punishment fit the crime' needs to be seriously considered here. And if it _was_ a righteous judgment given by the 'Holy Spirit' that Ananias and Sapphira had to die because they lied, ... well then, ... ..... how many lies have _YOU_ told (of at least their magnitude) that ought to merit the same kind of punishment, ..... ..... hhmmmmm?

Let it go, Dave. Despite whatever valid points you _may_ have against Rocky's failure to show sources, your counter-argument in support of Sheriff Joe has all but evaporated due to the _overwhelming_ facts re: his white-trash abuse of power. And not even your conservative 'law & order' and 'drive out them damn immigrants' is able to drum up valid support for that pig. He and his ilk has done absolutely nothing for what this country stands for. Absolutely nothing.

((As WD's interpretation of 'Presumption of Innocence' goes into a final tailspin:)) Let us mourn for the dead. ((snif))

... According to YOU. Simple. And since you bring up diddly-SQUAT as far as authoritative resources backing you up, that's all it shall ever be. (And sorry dude, your _opinion_ doesn't count as an authoritative resource. Hells bells, you ain't even an attorney.) Folks, just go right ahead with openly accusing VPW as being guilty, having all the testimony, first hand witnesses, related doctrines, etc. One thing I'm learning about people like WD (even setting aside his devotion to VPW, or even if he doesn't have that, as per his protestations to the contrary) is that he's the kinda person who just WILL NOT admit to error in his arguments. One characteristic illustrating this is his continuous insults of those who challenge his opinion. It's like there just _has_ to be something intellectually/dishonestly wrong with his detractors, just _has_ to be. God forbid that they might have a valid point(s) to make, as that just might undermine his highly opinionated view of himself and his 'logic'. ... Just _cannot_ be anything else, ehh? <_< Anywho, no that isn't based upon proven fact, but it is based upon my observations about the guy, and frankly, the more he types, the more certain I am of that observations/opinion. And its also certain that we aren't gonna get any change of mind out of him, so I saw we let him live in his dillusions in peace.

... and the shot up aircraft of the old time WWII movie in my illustration (portraying WD's lost cause for VP) continues to drop like the proverbial rock. ... "BAIL OUT, WD!! ... BAIL OUT!!!" :B)

Why does it seem that Whitedove's unraveling argument here have all the similarity to watching one of those old WWII movies where the fighter plane is in combat, and you start to see smoke coming out from the tail, and you hear the increasing whine of the engine as the fatally damaged plane starts its death roll towards the earth below. "Deploy the flaps! Deploy the flaps!! ..... BAIL OUT!! BAIL OUT!!!"

A lapse in judgment _only_ this time?! ... Damn! I'm slipping! :blink:

... then again, according to _some_ trinitarians I _could_ name ;), Unitarians (socinian or otherwise :unsure: ) are just too stupid to see it the "right" way. And thus, ... the beat goes on, ... (and the beat goes on) .........

Errmm, actually, I'm gonna side with Whitedove on this particular point. ... (((PLOP)) as WD faints at this) ... (Somebody give WD some smelling salts please. :) ) ... as WD is doing nothing to interfere with allowing you or anyone else to form your own opinion on ... anything. See, all he's doing is posting his (ridiculous as far as I'm concerned) viewpoint re: Wierwille's presumed supposed innocence as regards the sexual abuse, and continues to give his laughable ((cough))'legal'((cough)) explanations to support it. And all the rest of us are doing is posting reasonings, testimonies, viewpoints, 1st hand accounts, etc., that challenges the good 'counselor' (<--- please note the sarcasm there ;) ) And all this is a classic example of an open forum here at the 'Spot. Opposing viewpoints being expressed and counter-expressed. Anywho, Whitedove, thou hast expressed: Ahh but you see, your explanation is (still) seriously flawed. As whatever 'other side of the stow-ree' (which has been _freely_ allowed to be posted here, pro-TWI protestations to the contrary), as often as it has been presented (see?) does absolutely nothing to successfully challenge the accounts of the abuses given testimony to, _even_ when you take into account whatever voluntary 'relationships' that have occurred. And yes, they also, have been taken into account. Thus the two opposing points of view have been expressed and considered, and one of them won out, NOT because it 'agrees with our point of view' perse, but it initially gives the evidence that thus _builds_ and _strengthens_ our point of view. Ie., it was the experiences of those here, coupled with the information that the rest of us know/were told about that builds our point of view to begin with. Further ie., we didn't start out with the accusations, then go looking around for 'testimony' to support it. It was the other way around. Now as per _your_ accusations that we did "simply pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof", now _YOU_ have the burden of proof to prove that accusation so, ... and simply believing it to be the case isn't enough. ;) For whatever reasons (questionable, IMHO) that you give for all of that not amounting to proof, it is still proof, but for the sheer amount of corroborating and supporting testimony (both by those who have experienced it first hand as well as by those who knew the guy behind his PR), relating behavior by VPW that gives weight to what has happened, etc. And it is proof based upon the overwhelming amount of common knowledge. Now, if _you_ believe (<--- note that word) that it doesn't amount to legally approved standards, AND it amounts to a bunch of lies that should be challenged, ... then by all means, please initiate the legal challenge to all of this. Good luck! Oh BTW, you say you talked to a few attorneys and that they back you up on this. Ho-kay, then why don't you get a written opinion from any of them to post here giving their Official Legal Opinion, complete with _actual_ precedences supporting said Opinion. Or give us an online source essentially saying the same thing (Official please). Those of us 'anti-Weirwille bashers' have given you various sources backing us up on this topic, ... so where's yours? You said something before that I now redirect back to you: ... Believe what you want! <_< Because that is all what you are communicating here re: Wierwille. And it doesn't go any farther than that.

WhiteDove, The reason your (desperate sounding) arguments against my Hitler example and the Waysider's Jim Jones example is flawed is that we are using them to illustrate the principle that you initially alluded to in the beginning: ie., that one is presumed innocent until determined guilty in a court of law. Notice that just because a U.S. court isn't involved does that nullify said principle. The principle remains the same, and Yes Virginia, we shall pursue that here. So why are Hitler and Jones still assumed to be and declared to be guilty according to common and historical knowledge? Because of the facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information communicated, and that said facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information hasn't been successfully challenged/debunked. It's known as historical fact, the kind of fact that isn't subject to any court of law. (Remember what I said before about a fact not requiring a court of law for it to be determined fact? A statement that _you_ agreed to?) Now strictly and technically speaking, neither Hitler, Jim Jones, nor V. P. Wierwille have been _convicted to be guilty in any court of law_. They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts. ... Ie., say a Holocaust denier wants to have Hitler rendered 'innocent' of being determined guilty of being the driving force behind having 6 million Jews slaughtered. The burden of proof would be upon them to prove said Holocaust a fabrication or otherwise untrue, ... and NOT a burden to show guilt be upon those who have already historically shown Hitler to be guilty in said things. ... Same for the Jim Jones incident. ... Same for Wierwille. The evidence against Wierwille has already been solidly presented: by those who have experienced 1st hand his abuses, by those who knew him well and have heard/seen his abuses/excuses, by those who have seen/documented his dishonest behavior and 'scholarly research' ((cough)) that show relative and supportive light upon his said abuses. (The "all the women belong to the king" clap-trap being but one example of this. The teaching re: the lock box being another and even more classic example) You remind me of a certain attorney who, after the court has already gone into session, evidence has been presented and argued both pro and con, closing arguments have been made, jury has gone into seclusion and come back out and rendered its "Guilty!" verdict, the prisoner has been carted off to prison, the judge has banged his gavel and declared "Court adjourned!", and everybody has left and gone home, .... ... just now entered the courtroom, looks around and says "Hey! Where'd everybody go?! I want to make my case for the defendant!" Boy, you are a tad late! Ie., The horse has already left the barn and is halfway down the county! <_< P.S., Your tagline reads "TRUTHFULNESS - earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts" ... s-o-o when are you going to start? ... accurately reporting past facts, that is? All I see here is you're using/manipulating 'legal sounding logic' in rendering the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept in a dishonest manner, ... (and Yes Virginia) it _is_ for the purpose to defend VPW's reputation of being 'presumed' innocent of said accusations. And I make that accusation because (despite your claims of consistency to the contrary) this issue re: VPW has been the only time you have ever been this insistent. Just about all other arguments you have taken part in your 'strict dedication' to the facts have come nowhere near this level of anality. (<-- a condition of being anal) But then again, my interpretation of said evidence is just that: my interpretation. But that interpretation is based upon continuous observations of what/how you post, and my past experience with apologists who have the kind of loyalty to the object of their defense to a near blind degree. So I think that my interpretation is quite solid. Oh, by the way, since you have not been 'accurately reporting past facts' re: this issue, you have not earned my future trust.

(((((Wacky))))) !!! Long time, no hear, girl. :) .... My condolences for the loss of Leo :( I bet he provided a long time of really good companionship. Moving to Savor you say? Isn't that in Italy?

A-n-d it took only 2-3 witnesses to confirm guilt. We have a HELLUVA lot more than 2-3 witnesses against Weirwille. ... A-n-n-d-d, since you are (at least supposedly) a believer in the biblical principle standard, such should be good enough for you too. ..... Right, WD?

Whitedove, I came across this in your initial post in this thread, and believe me, it's a beaut! : Now wait a minute! You're talking about the principle of having documentable proof, demonstrated in a court of law, when accusing someone of criminal activity (ie., in VPW's case: sexual abuse) Yet when it comes to Hitler's example, who has committed _far_ more serious crimes than VPW, ... all of a sudden said principles do not apply? ... And for no better reason than he's not an American, and that he wasn't under our legal standards? You mean to tell me that the principle of determining provable truth is subject to what legal standard one is under at the time? ... Do you realize how flawed/wrong that logic is? According to history and common knowledge, Adolph Hitler is guilty is committing/being involved in a serious effort to exterminate the Jews, plus a host of other crimes, his not being tried by jury notwithstanding. Anyone can state that as a matter of fact. Said fact has been verified by testimony/evidence/verbal accounts/written accounts/etc. given by those who knew Hitler and what he did, ... and we get all this both inside _and_ outside of the courtroom at Nuremberg. The same principle solidly applies to Victor Paul Wierwille because of the sheer amount of witnesses giving 1st hand accounts of said abuses, including from people who knew VPW well. Including the solid witness of someone whom _you_ accuse of showing bias and having his own agenda: DWBH. And you make said accusation straight off-the-cuff. ... Ie., w/o _documentation or evidence_. (Classic example of you not abiding by your own standards. <_< ) And I realized that you posted what I said here but you have not challenged it. ... Why? Oh by the way, _I_ haven't 'dragged' you into anything. _You_ decided to respond of your own freewill. Take responsibility for what you do.

My response to this is thusly: 1) Since VPW is now dead, and can't be charged (taken to court and all that), because of this, you seriously expect people to treat him as though he's innocent of all this? (due to legal definitions of innocence) As a matter of common factual knowledge outside the court? Like I said before, "What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law." and that applies even to facts regarding criminal behavior. The difference here is that said 'defendant' isn't brought before the judge nor is his freedom taken away (again, because he's dead). 2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, ..... <_< and 3) I Just realized something. It is to protect people's freedom from being falsely imprisoned that the concept of innocent until proved guilty was constructed, NOT specifically because to protect someone's reputation from common knowledge accusations. Yes Virginia, there is a difference. And yes, there is also legal remedies in our law to deal with false accusations made outside the court of law. It has to do with laws (and lawsuits) against libel, slander, and character assassinations. ... SO if what we're saying here at GS about VPW being 'guilty' of said sexual abuses amounts to libel, slander, and character assassinations, all a VPW apologist has to do is take us to court. And I'd be willing to bet that those of us who do 'accuse' VPW of said acts are confident enough in what we're saying that we're not gonna back down, so go ahead and call Judge Wapner!

Speaking of strawman arguments: Well, apparently not. Because notice in what setting you are continuing to make your 'innocent until proven guilty' arguments in: a courtroom. During a trial. And thus are referring to facts to be exclusively rendered in a court of law during a trial. I, however, am dealing with the facts/information from witnesses in and of themselves. Ie., what is held to be true outside a court of law. (And for one thing, like we all know, we can't try the guy now, as he's now dead.) And not once am I challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty (despite your veiled innuendo to the contrary) as a _necessary_ part of our _legal system_. But as a matter of determining facts, independent of said legal system, said strict legal standards that _are_ to be applied in a courtroom do not totally apply outside of it. Ie., the historical, factual, and/or common knowledge statement of what has happened re: VPWs sexual abuse. You seem to think that all of the first hand accounts of the victims of VPW's sexual abuse doesn't rise to the required standard of legal proof, and you know what, maybe they don't (and then again, maybe they do, and that largely depends on the specific court that the case would have been tried in, as well as the sheer amount of accounts to that kind of charge. Please keep that in mind, ok?) But out here in 'the real world' (Hey, don't laugh. Someone can make a good argument as to how in many cases, the legal system is not in tune with the real world. <_< ) a helluva lot of (and I daresay _most_) people would read all those accounts, and even take Oldies', WTH's, Mike's, etc. ... Ie. VPW apologists/defenders (note I left you out in this example, since you vigorously deny being a VPW apologist, so ok) their arguments into account, and render VPW 'guilty' anyway, ... NOT as per the legal authority of a court of law, but as per common knowledge. And notice the example I gave of Hitler earlier. He wasn't tried, and he wasn't specifically rendered guilty by any court of law. Yet, it is common knowledge (to all but the 'Holocaust Revisionists') that he is guilty of all the things people said he did during the Third Reich. ... And I notice that you skipped on that one. And even given the bias shown on this board, the bias isn't such that VPW supporters can't get their own two cents in, ... despite protests being given about being 'censored' because they speak positive of TWI to the contrary. If that were the case, Paw would have kicked out ALL of VPW's supporters in a heartbeat. Oh, by the Way ;), Thank you for giving your own version of making a non-documentable statement, as I know that just isn't true. How can I prove this? He has been judged guilty by 1) the people who have experienced the abuse 1st hand, 2) those who have read/listened to said accounts, and/or have seen said accounts happen and others like them, and have agreed that this just can't be the rantings of those who are just 'anti-Way', and 3) those who are anything _but_ a 'small percent'. ... You know, for someone who is so anal about getting to the whole truth, you seem to make a rather sloppy judgment in this case. And yes Mark Clarke, I know. Here we go again. I was endeavoring to bring up a few points that WD just keeps missing. Update Alert: Oh really?! And yours is NOT? :blink:

Whitedove, In all of your ((cough)) 'legal' arguments as to what is fact, proof, and whatnot, you forget one thing: What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law. All the accusations/witnesses against VPW as per the sexual abuse PROVIDES the evidence needed, for one thing due to the corroboration they provide for each other, IN ADDITION to the witness provided by former leadership like DWBH and others. Thus the documentation has been provided and the standard for determining the truth has been met. Also, the determination of what amounts to fact is decided by the jury anyway; ie., juries made up of people like US and others who have heard the testimony given, and using the same process of considering the evidence and testimony, we give our judgment. Now true, the man is dead, and he can't be tried in a actual court of law. But before you 'conveniently' conclude that therefore VPW is 'innocent' because he was not determined guilty by an actual jury, due to him dying before he could have ever be brought to trial (Yes, how f'ing convenient, hmmm? <_< ), ... well then, let's be consistant with our principles, and apply the same ruling to Adolph Hitler. He was never tried (ie., he died before he could be brought to trial), ... so shall we conclude (using your 'principles' <_< ) that since he wasn't tried before a jury of his peers, that he is therefore 'innocent'? ... Somehow I don't think that'll fly with the world community. So while VPW hasn't been judged guilty according to an actual court of law, he HAS been judged guilty by the 'jury' of his peers outside of said court 'in abstentia' as it were, in real life. ... But hey, not to worry. We can't send him to jail or anything like that, so you do get that as a consolation prize. And, yes Virginia, you ARE being a VPW apologist, trying like mad to defend his reputation, because for one thing, you have _never_ been this anal about 'making sure the real and provable truth ((cough)) is told regarding anyone or anything else on this board. Go through denial about it all you want, Chief, but that 'evidence' ;) stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. P.S., you may try to sound like an attorney, but somehow I don't think that you really are one, ... because no attorney worth his salt would ever use twisted legal reasoning in an actual court of law like you're doing here, ... not and win any cases, that is. P.P.S., Oh, and please spare us the "therefore because you render VPW guilty due to said testimony on this board, you are somehow less trustworthy to render real judgments than a jury would" simply because we see past your pathetic attempt to protect VPW's reputation behind the cloak of 'procedure of evidence in a court of law'. ... It doesn't fly.

Hap4Me, Gee Hap, thanks for the White Dove 'gotta-have-all-the-documented-evidence-in-the-world-or-else-the-accusations-are-unsubstantiated' wannabe imitation there. <_< Guess what boys and girls, one thing that backs up and 'documents' an accusation is other like accusations/witnesses that verifies a pattern of like behavior initially illustrated by the first witness. Ie., for those who want to use the Bible to weigh in on this, there is the 'by two or three witnesses is an accusation established' principle, and there is a _helluva_ lot more than 2 or 3 witnesses documenting the sexual abuses (ie., rapes) that has happened. (White Dove, I am hoping that you are reading this. Hope this answers your 'issues' about viable and verifiable proof given. ... No extra charge. ;) ) Update: Hap, I just saw your latest post. Cool beans, dude! )

Can you install any 32 bit apps on it? (Windows and/or DOS even)

Corn-grats Raf, the new daddy! Now be prepared to spoil the kid *rotten*, ... cuz you _know_ the mom, and all the grandparents are gonna spoil him. It ... is ... your ... destiny!

((hands Raf the nosespray))

Points understood, thanks. :) Let me put the question another way: Do you or do you know of anyone who has a 64-bit version of Windows Vista or XP that have been able to run 32-bit apps?