WordWolf

I'm thinking those are the 2 differences. 1) It wasn't the other way around. 2) It referred SPECIFICALLY to the 2 men who worked together for long blocks of time, in a sort of apprentice-journeyman sense, not an "I took his class" sense. At most, the one time by Paul, AFAIK. I can't speak for anyone modern, especially if I wasn't there.

It also comes up in I Timothy and II Timothy. ================ 1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. ================ I note it doesn't say Timothy called Paul "father", which may be all the distinction needs. I'm also convinced that the verse you cited was completely misconstrued in twi. It turned from Paul saying Timothy had many instructors, but Paul (PERSONALLY) fathered him in the good news- into "the guy who teaches that class and we may meet in passing or not at all 'fathered' everyone who took that class" instead of him being one of the 10,000 instructors. Furthermore, I still haven't seen any verses say anything about Paul having any special privileges with Timothy, let alone anyone else.

May I suggest something? I've suggested, in other messageboards, down the years, that rules for conduct include a request that posters attempt to follow "the Golden Rule"- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and that posters who do not choose this should at least attempt to follow "the Silver Rules"- "That which you don't want others to do to you, don't do to them." The non-Christians generally have no problem at least seeing this makes sense, whether or not it's ever considered part of the rules.

This discussion concerns EYEWITNESSES, and is NOT a discussion of legal definitions. We HAVE such a discussion in an adjoining thread-which you're currently participating in. Misusing the term "libel" in this discussion-especially after it's been brought to your attention that it's off-topic here- thus counterproductive- and you've been participating in the discussion OF "libel" seems to indicate you're attempting to take this discussion off-topic. That's contrary to the spirit and intent of the GSC. Please stop. "These rules are meant to encourage civil, courteous discussion. They are not meant to stifle your freedom of expression. We want everyone to have a voice here; please use yours wisely and considerately."

I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled. "In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual." (Scroll up.) Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable. That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it. It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it. What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system, to be used IN the legal system. In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their "argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side, and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision. That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability- all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts. That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury. Context, context, context.... The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR. Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE. That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be inflammatory AND FALSE. Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL. If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE. If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie- which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead- he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember? Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel. That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead- whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling. Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually... That is true. And the laws state-and any law reference states- that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE. If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel. Here's what Law.com says... "http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=|||| libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. " Here's what it says about 'libel per se': http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...4&bold=|||| "libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses." Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel "Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue." Here's what Nolo.com says about libel: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7 "An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)." Here's what FindLaw says about libel: http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/r...623b89f93d49694 "libel ['li-bel] Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book 1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases) 2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words specif : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt" twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue, shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable if they tried to claim this? ================================= Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC. The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury. Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony, examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions. In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony. Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason. Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both. In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies. That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair. ============= As Mark Clarke said: "There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice." You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth. As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that. You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"

You're misusing the term "libel" again. Since you must not mean to derail this discussion, we can pick this back up on the thread about libel, which is here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=17741

Someone seems to want to continue this discussion....

"We meet at a crossroads in history. No longer will the wrong roads be taken." "Now back to Gene Krupa's syncopated style." "I would say he has quite a few problems. His energy seems to go in the wrong places. When I walked in and I saw you two sitting there, I could just tell by the way you were both relating that there was no connection whatsoever. And I felt when I walked in that there was something between us. There was an impulse that we were both following. So that gave me the right to come in and talk to you. Otherwise I never would have felt that I had the right to talk to you or say anything to you. I never would have had the courage to talk to you. And with him I felt there was nothing and I could sense it. When I walked in, I knew I was right. Did you feel that way?" "June twenty-ninth. I gotta get in shape. Too much sitting has ruined my body. Too much abuse has gone on for too long. From now on there will be 50 pushups each morning, 50 pullups. There will be no more pills, no more bad food, no more destroyers of my body. From now on will be total organization. Every muscle must be tight. "

I didn't use my real name BEFORE I got a cyber-stalker. I'm definitely not using it now. I'm a big believer in not using personally-identifying information (full name, phone#, address, and so on) on the internet. If someone is going to be a criminal, I think they should have to WORK for it if they want to steal my identity. And imagine their disappointment if they wasted all that time to get mine....

I'm operating under the assumption that you mean to ask "Is it Biblically correct to call someone your 'father in The Word'?" and am answering accordingly. ================ Matthew 23:1-11. (KJV) 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. ================== Matthew 23:1-11 (NASB) 1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4"They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. ============== According to Jesus. it is WRONG to give titles from one Christian to another. Jesus specifies the following titles as wrong: Master (leader) father rabbi (and thus, teacher) So, "father" is wrong, and so it "Teacher", especially "THE Teacher", because JESUS is THE Teacher, and anyone else robs him of his title. Calling another "father" robs God of HIS proper title.

"We meet at a crossroads in history. No longer will the wrong roads be taken." "Now back to Gene Krupa's syncopated style."

Rings a bell, but I'm not calling up the name yet... That last line's vaguely familiar.

I can't guarantee I know the answer, but I MIGHT. Did you ever RENAME the pictures? If not, then the camera assigned "names" that were numerical, based on when you took them. Thus, they sort based on the "names". If you rename/renumber them in the order you want, then select the folder they're in and select to view them as a photo gallery or filmstrip or whatever, they should display in the order you selected. I think.

"Night of the Living Dead"?

If it's "Who Put the 'Bop' in my "Wop-Bop-a-Loo-Bop'", then I cede it to Bullwinkle, but wanted to post what I think is the correct title just so we can say we posted it.

Free antivirus: Avast! or Avira Antivir. http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html http://www.free-av.com/en/download/1/downl..._antivirus.html Free antispyware: SpywareBlaster http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/sbdownload.html Spybot:Search and Destroy http://www.safer-networking.org/en/mirrors/index.html AdAware http://lavasoft.com/products/ad_aware_free.php I expect you're also using a firewall (not counting Windows)-there's free firewalls as well. SpywareBlaster and Spybot have "immunization" functions that stop specific dangers from running on your pc. Spybot and AdAware have scanners that can find problems for deletion. And antiviruses, of course, allow one to protect the pc, AND run scans. And if you want to scan for viruses without downloading something, you can always use an online antivirus scan. Trendmicro (Housecall.) http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ Kaspersky. http://www.kaspersky.com/virusscanner Panda. http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/solutions/activescan/

"The Legend of Billy Jean"?

I've pointed out before that vpw was fond of saying things like "the suggestion of a general is tantamount to a command" and to claim his way corps was modelled after the Marine Corps in some way and meant to be a spiritual version of it. However, vpw never spent any time in the military, not the Reserves, nor the National Guard, not even ROTC. vpw's impressions of what goes on in the military seem to have been based more on movies, television, and his own preconceived notions than on any actual DATA like seeing how they work. His version of the military seemed strong on ceremony, but light on teaching skills to people that enable them to work alone or be in charge without being overseen. In fact, problem-solving and independent thought seemed to be far behind, while blind loyalty took the forefront.

Correct- "Suspicions." Dr Reyga was the Ferengi scientist who invented the metaphasic shield. Dr Jo'Brill was the alien who faked his own death. (It's easier to remember names if you have a set of the ST:TNG CCG. I have a card for each of those guys. :) ) "I don't want you to get involved in this." "Is that an order, doctor?" "Yes!" "Too bad you're not my boss anymore." Dr Ogawa and Beverly, after Beverly was relieved of duty for violating a direct order. "I think I've got a case of tennis elbow." Opening scene for the episode. Guinan went to Beverly for treatment, claiming she played Geordi. She then got Beverly to talk about why she was being court-martialed, which began the episode in flashback form. "I did a little research... this is the latest design... state of the art... and it's specially cushioned to absorb vibration -- so you'll never have to worry about tennis elbow again." "Thank you, Doctor... it looks like a great racquet. But you see... I don't play tennis. Never have." Beverly and Guinan at the end. Beverly wanted to thank Guinan, but Guinan never played tennis! "His methodology was completely unorthodox." "That's my favorite kind." "I thought... if I could bring scientists from various cultures aboard the Enterprise... sit them down... help them understand the value of his ideas... well, it seemed like the right thing to do." Beverly, at the beginning, describing Dr Reyga, and how she brought the scientists to listen to him.

"I don't want you to get involved in this." "Is that an order, doctor?" "Yes!" "Too bad you're not my boss anymore." "I think I've got a case of tennis elbow." "I did a little research... this is the latest design... state of the art... and it's specially cushioned to absorb vibration -- so you'll never have to worry about tennis elbow again." "Thank you, Doctor... it looks like a great racquet. But you see... I don't play tennis. Never have." "His methodology was completely unorthodox." "That's my favorite kind." "I thought... if I could bring scientists from various cultures aboard the Enterprise... sit them down... help them understand the value of his ideas... well, it seemed like the right thing to do."

Yes, thanks for the term. And vpw's version of the story ended with the man randomly selecting a third verse. This one read (John 13:27) "That thou doest, do quickly."

"I don't want you to get involved in this." "Is that an order, doctor?" "Yes!" "Too bad you're not my boss anymore." "I think I've got a case of tennis elbow."

Was this "the Facts of Life"?

Well, now I'm almost restating the quotes, but this is the one where Bashir is injured, and his mind-in a coma- represents his physical state with the station, and the parts of his personality are represented by the cast. And Bashir's getting visibly older as the damage progresses. Oddly enough, we go to one commercial break with him breaking his hip, but he gets around just fine AFTER the commercial break. Oh, and they had to find the alien who represented the damage.

Well, I can document that book, chapter and verse. The verses that directly address what you're talking about: Revelation 20:11-15 (KJV) 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. ============== Revelation 20:11-15 (NASB) 11Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. ================================== So, anyone not judged BEFORE the Great White Throne Judgement (plenty were judged over 1000 years before it) is judged according to their deeds. ("It's said twice because it's established." ) Those whose deeds don't make the grade get the "second death"- the lake of fire.