WordWolf

"Escape from New York"?

I think part of the reason compassionate, loving Christians are slow to rise in organizations is that they're not trying to climb the ladder- they're too busy loving people and showing compassion to care if someone wants to give them a title for doing it.

My understanding-which may be corrected by those who were there and is based on the posts here- is that to really count twi attendance and "fellowship", one has to start counting after vpw went to Haight-Ashbury and the House of Acts and began hijacking the hippies. The early 1970s had the membership composed almost entirely of hippies and young folk, and it was very relaxed and low-key. The organization of the home fellowships started a few years later, when vpw had the young folk coming to him for "training", and they started walking around in suits and carrying briefcases. L0nnie Fr1sbee was named as one of the early people who changed that way, and it's been cited as the beginning of replacing those early, no-rules groups with regimented, orderly "twigs." If that's true, it certainly dovetails with how things went. The more time passed, the more people who were trained by vpw (and twi in general) on-site, and the more the rules were spread with them when they left, and the more the rules were made into practice, then policy. Now, the group's so rules-oriented compared to the early 1970s, the original twi'ers would barely recognize the group, and that's across a few scant decades. Sounds like the guy learned to dish it out....

It is "mischaracterization", and it is "annoying". I'll even add "tiresome", although I usually reserve that term for when I have to keep dealing with the SAME mischaracterization over and over, ad nauseum. That having been said, once the foreward's completed and you're actually reading what the author said, how have you found the book?

Hey- ever hear of another place-show or movie-that ever mentioned Sinestro? I imagine he meant HAL JORDAN specifically, and not any OTHER Green Lantern, despite there being several for Earth alone, plus a GL Corps that currently number MORE THAN 3600, since the most manic GL fans only count Hal. Despite, you know, him going crazy, destroying the Corps, killing the Guardians, and absorbing the power of the Central Power Battery ("Emerald Twilight"), then trying to rewrite all of time his way ("Zero Hour"), then dying to save Earth from the Sun-Eater ("Final Night"), then coming back and spending years as the Spectre ("Day of Judgement"), only to return as Green Lantern due to editorial fiat to satisfy the rabid fanboys on staff. (None of that was Hal's fault, a big, yellow bug did it.)

IIRC, the "I'm a'thinking" was when they were playing cards like in the old Westerns, with the loser getting out of town. Sam was considering what card to put down. The ink WAS from when Sam thought he was shot-and thought the ink was blood. The "being watched" was from the cartoon with the Peter Lorre-spoof scientist, I think it's "Hair-Raising Hare." It's a LOT more recognizable comment, since it's commented on in the cartoon. And yes, the "little slice of heaven" was when Bugs was trying to leave. "Well, goodbye!" He packs suitcases of someone else's stuff, makes the comment, then runs off, leaving the luggage (and hat) scattered behind him. However, the "series" was all correct, of course.

"Don't rush me- I'm a'thinking. And my head hurts." "Why did you pour ink on my head?" "Did you ever have the feeling you was being watched?" "And don't think it hasn't been a little slice of Heaven...'cause it hasn't!"

No.

Admittedly, I haven't been polling years of posters and ex-posters. I am aware at least SOME posters leave because of the squabbling-which usually centers around this SPECIFIC ISSUE, unless it's in the Political forum which I don't visit. I'm under the impression that a number of posters held off on posting, or withdrew, when under fire from the "it didn't happen until you provide proof." The staff would know better than me about that. When a bunch of people all get fed up about something, I suppose that can be labelled a "mob rule mentality." Groucho's angry, and one other poster's feeling defensive. Other than that, exactly how many of us are being irrational or shouting down the opposing viewpoint? Do I count as part of this "mob" because I agree that things have gone too far? It looks to me like some new posters arrive hurting, and some CAN'T be thick-skinned. It looks to me like WD has decided he's not going to self-moderate, and stop being hurtful when people tell their stories. (He's determined to be ignorant that he's doing this, and that he can make his points known WITHOUT hurting people.) So, we're at an impasse. We can choose the new posters, or we can choose WD, or we can refuse to choose either, which becomes a choice for WD. I don't see any other results as likely, given the situations.

Possibly both, but showing them was OBVIOUSLY meant to intimidate. Displaying a loaded (or unloaded) firearm like that IS "brandishing", and IS a criminal offense.

No. "Don't rush me- I'm a'thinking. And my head hurts." "Why did you pour ink on my head?"

I had a reply, and I'm using it as the first clue for the next one. "Don't rush me- I'm a'thinking. And my head hurts."

Here we go again.... He has a right to his opinion, and if there's factual errors in what he says, we have rights to point that out and discuss them. (Or, if he was correct, rights to agree.) The error we were addressing this moment was the "false dilemma" of his categorizations. EVERYONE you can get information on twi about- except him and his organization- are either -the media (which he pronounces "much of that false") -other Christians (which he pronounces "much of that false") -and DISGRUNTLED former followers (which he pronounces "much of that true, some of it false"). So, he's declaring right out that the only place to get non-false information is HIM and his organization. Further, if former followers speak up at all, he's CATEGORICALLY labelled them "disgruntled". That's why Raf replied: "Nice. Nice. Those are the only three categories listed. The Media Other [presumably non-Way] Christians Disgruntled former followers How about this for a category, JAL: Former followers. Not disgruntled. Shun the judgmental adjective. You have NO RIGHT to refer to me or anyone else as disgruntled, a word you use to dismiss the valid complaints being made by those who have every right to stand up to treachery of VPW." Don't you realize what his categorization has done? You've spoken about twi. According to JAL, since you're not a member of the Media, and not a non-twi Christian, you're "DISGRUNTLED". So's Mike. Now, Mike has objected to being called "disgruntled." Don't YOU? Stop and listen to Mike for a moment! Mike said: "A person should be considered gruntled until proven disgruntled." We think it is not. "Some criticism"? Yes-depending on the form of criticism. If he came here and said "I consider you 'disgruntled', I'd discuss whether or not it applied. But we objected the BLANKET LABEL, the CATEGORIZATION, that to be ex-twi and to speak on it is to be "disgruntled". For that matter, I'd object to ANY blanket label or categorization, and I think the others would as well. As to "the arena", I'll take my criticism "in the arena" from those there, thank you. Let's have open dialogue. HAHAHAHAHA!Ever consider doing a lounge act? Mitch Hedberg's dead, so there's the vacancy for a good observational comic out there... If JAL were to DISCUSS here, he'd be granted every benefit of polite discourse here. He'd even be allowed to NOT reveal who he is, to wear an alias, an internet handle, and speak, and let the strength of his words, and his logic, carry weight- or FAIL to carry weight, as the case may be. If JAL were to come here and just announce "everyone who posts here is disgruntled", he'd receive the recompense of his blanket accusation, which is deserved. That's because HE would have arrived and MADE IT PERSONAL. "I've just arrived. The rest of you are illogical, angry, emotional and hurtful." In case you missed it, he ALREADY made it personal in his letter-but he didn't mention us by name. Feel free to think that if your name isn't mentioned, you're not being referred to- but, you know, you've concluded the opposite to that before, and objected to labels nobody said they DEFINITELY meant for you, you've read the descriptions and context- as we did here- and drew what you thought was the logical conclusion... Here's a novel idea- how about JAL NOT make it personal ANYWHERE- at least outside any place that made him a leader- and just deal with us as siblings under God? JAL's letter was posted on the internet, at the ces/stfi website. JAL HAD to have given his approval for that. JAL's been giving his approval for a few of his public statements down the years- and his responses, GENERALLY (not counting the very beginning of CES, when there was an active messageboard with civil discussions) he's insisted on controlling the microphone. It's as honest as the politician who takes questions from the audience- but to get IN the audience, you had to be a supporter of his to begin with.... JAL's taken shots at us before, safe behind his "I don't go on messageboards" podium. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. And we have a right to CALL him on it when he's being arrogant.

Yes, how convenient...

No, it was all the things he was afraid of.

No, it does not. No, we have not. Glad I could straighten that out for you. ============= I take it you're unfamiliar with messageboards outside the GSC. Virtually all messageboards, and virtually all organizations, no matter how inclusive, have policies and procedures for ejecting someone from the room, or dismissing them from the organization. That's necessary, because eventually, someone will engage in disruptive behaviour, either in a small way, or in a large way. Messageboards with NO such policies either are chaotic free-for-alls where insults and noise are the order of the day (compared to them, this is afternoon tea with nobles), or are abandoned entirely by the posters, as they become overrun with trolls. The differences are in where you draw the line. If you use enforcement when someone is being DISRUPTIVE, then you're inclusionary. If you use enforcement when someone asks questions (without using them as an excuse to be disruptive), then you're exclusionary, like twi. The GSC allows for discussion of virtually any topic, with virtually any position, so long as the post is polite and CIVIL.

Meanwhile, WD, how about you stop playing coy with the rest of us, and make some simple, straightforward statements, rather than some vague allusions as to knowing something somehow but you're not going to say how?

WD, Once again, I find myself discussing what the law SAYS on a thread with you. And you claimed it said one thing, and even a cursory glance says it says ANOTHER. Your definition of libel is missing a critical ingredient. One may call someone a murderer, molester, or rapist openly ALL THEY WANT and it is NOT libel- IF THE STATEMENT IS TRUE. That's why someone here posted at length about a convicted child molester who was in twi and freely called him "a child molester" and it's not libel- BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/76...DE16E7/alpha/L/ "libel 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)." Whether or not a statement is related to something with or without a criminal conviction is not relevant to whether or not it is libelous. It is relevant to HOW EASY IT IS TO PROVE IT IS NOT LIBELOUS, but a true statement is no less true for not having seen a court, and, according to the US courts, a TRUE statement is, by definition, NOT LIBEL.

All right, that's four sources. (There's MANY more, which we can also discuss, but 4 sources should be MORE than enough- especially if all 4 ARE IN AGREEMENT. Ok, what's the relevant part of each definition? ============== 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" ====== For those of you who missed it, for something to be libel, it has to be A) negative B) injurious to reputation C) FALSE Therefore, for someone to claim that vpw has been libelled, they must FIRST say "what has been said about vpw is a lie." To claim he has been libelled is to claim the so-called libellous statements are LIES, UNTRUE, and anyone attesting to their truth must be LIARS, since they say "I assert this to be true", and the claimant is saying "No, that is untrue. If you insist it's true, you're lying." Since twi is currently run by their lawyers, it is easy to consider this one. Would twi bring someone to court because there are MANY people claiming "I know vpw is a rapist, I know this PERSONALLY"? To do so, they would have to assert the statement was LIBEL. To do THAT, they would have to assert the statement was A LIE. Then both sides would have to go to court to attempt to prove their case. The side asserting vpw is a RAPIST would get to bring up women who were raped, and people who they spoke to immediately after they were raped, and people who knew vpw was having sex with women under his authority outside his marriage, and people who counselled women who were previously raped by vpw. The number of people who could come forth and show that there is a VERY consistent picture of vpw as a man who CLAIMED he was godly, and yet, when no one was looking, saw nothing wrong with himself having sex with women in his congregation, and using force or DRUGS when they were not consenting in ANY way to have sex with him, would be considerable. Psychological experts would be brought forth, showing how even the cases that were not QUITE so cut-and-dried as rape, actually were so, due to power inequities and misuse of authority. And on top of all that, what do you think the media would make of it? twi would lose the legal case, lose money and time, and open themselves up to national scrutiny for defending a founder who was a rapist, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt in court. twi's lawyers aren't that stupid. They don't want to take on UNWINNABLE CASES.

Since some GSC'ers seem to fancy themselves authorities on the legal system, (and keep pretending the GSC=a court of law), it looked like a good idea to actually look at what libel IS. Is it libel to call vpw a rapist? We know he raped a number of women- SOME of whom have come forward. Is it libellous to call vpw a rapist for raping the women? How about if it's ALMOST CERTAIN we know he raped the women. How about if we're REASONABLY SURE, if we exceed REASONABLE DOUBT, that he raped women? How about if the PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE says we know he raped women? ============== I'm no legal expert, but I can look up information. 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"

No matter WHAT movie you post, George, I refuse to call you "Papa Smurf"!

Monk?

Got to be, and is. My favorite version of the song was the "impromptu" one in the movie "Anchorman."