WordWolf

If I can pick up after Steve! (but mindful of that) I would say Bram Stoker's Dracula Gary Oldman Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

You're probably thinking of the guy who played "Bill S. Preston", but that wasn't Sean Penn. Please reboot, Trefor.

We did not "all go thru it" because there were hundreds of different "it"s. Some left during mass exoduses, and thus had a support network. Some left with their families, and thus brought their nearest and dearest. Some were in areas where they lived in the middle of nowhere and could drop off the radar. Some were in the military and twi couldn't pin them in place for a number of reasons. For some out on the field, to leave will mean they can't work for their current employer (they "work for believers"), they have to move immediately (they "rent from believers"), and, having been isolated from everyone they know OUTSIDE of twi, they're now isolated from everyone IN twi who are now saying horrible things about them. Yeah, go ahead, leave. You've been "living at a needs level" and thus have no savings and your most expensive possession is a beat-up car that will die sooner or later. But, buck up! You have no friends, no contacts, no job, no place to live, and no money. However, you have PLATITUDES! === Hiya folks! You say you lost your job today? You say it's 4am and your kids ain't come home from school yet? You say your wife went out for a corned-beef sandwich last week, and the corned-beef sandwich came back but she didn't? You say your furniture's out all over the sidewalk 'cause you can't pay the rent? And ya got chapped lips and paper-cuts, and your feets all swollen up and blistered from pounding the pavement looking for work? Is that what's troublin' you...fella? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up....*music stops*..that ship! Hey there, friend. You say your radiators didn't work all winter, and now that it's summer they've started up again and you can't turn it off? You say your wide sent your lightweight suits to the cleaners, and that means you'll have to wear your itchy tweeds this morning, when they say it'll hit 106, and ya gotta meet an important businessman in an hour, and your bridge just broke, and you pasted it together with bubblegum and ya hope it don't fall apart while you're doin' some fast-talkin' to this man. and.... and your shoelace just busted and you opened up a big cut on your cheek tryin' to even out your side-burns and your daughter's going out with a convict and your wife just confessed she gave your last $60 as a deposit on an airplane hanger? Is that what's troublin' you...friend? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up...*music stops*...that ship! Hey there, cousin. You say you can't pull your car out of the mud, and you're in the middle of nowhere, and it's pouring rain, and ya can't get the top back up, and your paycheck's all blurred, and your foot went right thru the gaspedal, and your girl's screaming bloody-murder she's scared of the dark, and a stroke of lightning splits your motor in half, and your suit's shrinking up fast, and you start up the windy road in foot, and 60 yards of barbed-wire hits you right smack in the face and a wild animal comes over and runs away with your shoes and your car blows up suddenly and your windshield wiper ends up in yer mouth and you can't move, and the mud's risin' up to yer nostrils, and yer sinkin' fast, and you don't hear yer girl screamin' any more? Is that what's on yer mind....cousin? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up..*music stops*..that ship! And now, this is the Old Philosopher saying, So long, folks! ===== As to people who are on grounds, their situation is detailed here http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html (he said, posting it AGAIN on the same thread.)

Aaaand, for the second time in the same thread to answer the same question by the same person, this link.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html

Page 6, this thread, April 15m 2005, 9:13am Eastern. Page 1, this thread, April 12, 2005, 4:56pm Eastern. There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.... (For those wondering, there were a few pages of answers to this, this actually being a DISCUSSION on that very subject. Those of you who READ the thread know this.)

Each day they are unable to decide, the smoke is black. The day they decide, the smoke is white. This won't take as long as it might, since JP II made changes that said that if nobody can get a 2/3 majority after several weeks, then whoever gets the simple majority gets the chair. My favourite anecdote about that was one century when they were deadlocked over 2 years, so those outside the sequester stopped sending in FOOD. After that, I think it was another 1-2 weeks of debate. (Well, I figure a week of supplies...)

Sorry then. I understood your previous comments- Saying "I agree" (I thought you agreed with me, since you quoted me when you said it) and agreeing with my comment that Ratzinger (or someone before him) squelched the reports and rewrote them in a fashion making Law look like some sort of victim of hysteria, rather than someone who deliberately facilitated the criminal actions of despicable criminals who sought to continue living in a free society and continue their despicable criminal acts. SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE along the line (I don't know precisely WHO) facilitated this, in each case. In some of the cases, Cardinal Law (ironic name) himself aided and abetted them in this, and engaged in conspiracy, both of which are criminal acts. (It was illegal to let them get away with it and only relocate them, and illegal to bury the reports.) We both DO agree that at Ratzinger's level, there's another step of burying the scandals and so on. I thought you agreed with me. I was saying that JP II was guilty of being "asleep at the switch"-being uninformed in situations where extensive information was called for, and this in its fashion helped facilitate the evil deeds. Personally, I think that, if he REALLY HAD known what we ourselves know, let alone the parties involved, then he would have acted decisively. I'd go so far to say that such a lapse is criminal at that level, and say thay he failed in his fiducuary responsibility as officer over all the cardinals, bishops and priests. He did so by failing to act, by failing to perform duties of his office, IMHO, and NOT by deliberately aiding their criminal acts. Sorry I misinterpreted you, Garth.

This is true. The judge himself said that a jury should decide the merits of the allegations. Let me repeat: the judge said a jury should decide the allegations. I feel comfortable that the judge is correct, that after hearing all the facts under oath, the jury decides. That's the proper way to judge a case. It would have been nice if you had read my ENTIRE post, instead of just scrolling until you saw your name. Although I'm not a legal expert either, I'm aware that a GOOD judge does not attempt to overstep his mandate, nor to deviate from the REQUIRED procedure. If you had READ MY POST, you would have seen that I pointed out WHY he said that instead of just making a pronouncement. At that step, the judge was to strip away whatever was outside the court's jurisdiction, and what was without merit, and issue a document recommending the remaining items proceed to trial. If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case lacks merit completely, it gets trashed at this step. If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case is "open and shut", then he does NOT just render a judgement at this step. He does exactly what the judge did here- he recommends it proceed to trial. Why doesn't he just say "the defendant is guilty" like Oldiesman seems to think is supposed to happen at this point? Well, the defendant is allowed, under the Bill of Rights (Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America) to a trial by JURY, even if the defendant's case is open-and-shut. So, the judge's response is that the prosecution's case had substance. At this stage, it would have been improper for the judge to influence the jury and make pronouncements as to guilt or innocence. (If he had, he would have given the defendant grounds for an appeal, just like that.) As I said earlier (and explained, both the judge and twi's lawyers took responses indicative of a belief that the plaintiff had a case with substance. THEIR professional opinions, therefore, were that such a response was the most appropriate response to the situation. Therefore, experts with all the facts took that position. Are you questioning THEIR appraisal of the situation? Actually, if I believed twi's case, I'd STILL say "the judge responded that the case has merit, which is all he COULD do at that point. The lawyers responded in a way that indicated THEY believed the case had merit and they could lose. Here's something that requires no degree to understand.... If a lawyer thinks the other side has NO chance to win, he will proceed to trial as swiftly as possible. If a lawyer thinks HIS side has NO chance to win, he will do everything he can to do prevent his case going to trial. He will find something to do to change the conditions. He will convince his client to change his plea, he will try to change the venue if he thinks the locality is biased, or, most commonly, he will OFFER TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT. This will allow his client to lose a FRACTION of the money and a FRACTION of the time. In this case, the DEFENDANTS OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT. How difficult does it have to be to see this alone suggests they're aware they can't win and are at-fault? Well, for folks who "have a predetermined mindset and unbalanced perspective", this might be difficult. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh, Oldiesman, you kill me sometimes! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Gonna act later like it never happened? It's been your usual gambit to date.... Frankly, based on your "ability" to "interpret" what IS public knowledge in this case, I'm thankful the parties are spared your curiousity. I'm fairly certain NOTHING would convince you the plaintiff had a case, and the only results would be you voyeuristically scrutinizing the personal details of an injured party, and "probing" questions like what their favourite sexual positions are.

HCW's previous quote was responding to Dmiller, who said

HCW make the Gems list!

This also bore repeating. Ok, I'll stop now.

This bore repeating.

Funny you should say that Mr. Hamma. When the IRS was coming after TWI to revoke the tax exempt status back in th e late 1980's I stood up at a staff meeting durng the part of the meeting where they took questions/comments from the staff and said, "Why should we really care about this? If I believe God's promise to meet my individual needs, won't he meet the ministry's needs too? They can have the tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned." It wasn't too long after that thay they fired me. That's funny-UNOFFICIALLY, they disliked that and canned you. OFFICIALLY, LCM went out and said that he was thrilled that, among the believers, "the overwhelming reaction is 'So What?' " So, he stole your lines and claimed them for his own.

Oldiesman, First of all, the definition you listed that has any RELEVANCE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM (a dictionary provides ALL definitions, not just the ones relevant to your needs) is Definition 2-what is undertaken to be proven. Since you yourself didn't read the sealed documents, you feel you're entitled to find it logical that their allegation may have been "without merit", that is, that a full jury would have likely found it to lack sufficient support to be believed based on the preponderance of the evidence. That's a GROSS oversimplification based on an insufficient understanding of the legal system-and furthermore, an insufficient understanding of what IS in the Public Record. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/laws...ly-11072000.htm Everything in this newspaper is in the public record. If it wasn't, and they printed it anyway, they'd be sued out of existence. (If a newspaper broke into your house, and wrote an expose of all the scandalous things hidden in the bottom of your hall closet, it would be factually true but you could sue them and make a fortune. They invaded your privacy AND broke the law. You could then consider RETIRING and living off the lawsuit.) So, what's in a newspaper is considered public knowledge-available to the public if the public had the information resources as that newspaper. Who is qualified to be considered a "legal expert"? Well, a PROFESSIONAL in the legal field, who spent years receiving an education in that field, can be considered one. A lawyer has a Doctorate in his field (Juris Doctor). That means he completed his Doctorate degree in an ACCREDITED insitution. After several years of experience, a lawyer is eligible to be an ARBITRATOR of the Civil Court. If there's demand, and his record is impeccable, he is eligible instead (AFTER THE SEVERAL YEARS AS A LAWYER) to be made a Judge. So, if a Judge has just become a judge 5 minutes ago, he has nearly a decade of education in Law, and several years of practice in Law. Usually, they have experience as a Judge also. I submit that any reasonable person would consider a judge in the US to be a "legal expert". Neither you nor I are "legal experts". Did a "legal expert" get to review the complaint, the allegation and the evidence? Yes-by defintion. Judge Schmitt reviewed the case. At the time, his JOB was to determine the following: A) Which points of the complaint are outside the jurisdiction of the court? (Those would be thrown out.) B) Which points of the complaint lack merit? (THOSE would be thrown out.) C) Which points of the complaint are supported by evidence and have merit? (Those would proceed.) It was NOT his job to make a summary judgement at the time and close the case, unless ALL items of the complaint were thrown out. (If WordWolf sued Oldiesman on 50 counts of being a dumbass, all 50 counts would be thrown out, period. It is outside the jurisdiction of the court to penalize someone for being a dumbass. US citizens have the freedom to be dumbasses. Therefore, the complaint in its entirety would be thrown out.) If a suit completely lacks merit, BTW, a judge can have the complainant FINED for wasting the court's time. (This happens from time to time.) "Scmitt ruled a jury should decide the following allegations: that The Way breached its contract with them by creating impossible working conditions, including requiring Mrs A11en to submit to sexual assault as a condition of employment; that she was sexually victimized by Martindale and others; that the alleged assault against her was the result of a conspiracy; and the officials of The Way engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity." " 'The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege', Schmitt ruled. ' Similarly, a religious organization can be held liable for failing to protect its members from the sexual assaults of its employees.' The question of whether the encounters between Mrs A11en and Martindale were consensual should be decided by a jury, the judge ruled." "Evidence exists that Rivenbark and another woman played a role in events leading to the encounters between Allen and Martindale, which a jury would have to use to decide whether officials engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity against the A11ens, Scmitt ruled." ======= In plain English, a legal expert, having reviewed the complaints and preliminary evidence, ruled that the complaint not only was "supportable", but that it was sufficient to warrant a trial in court. Mind you, TWI did not file a COUNTERSUIT. They could easily have done so if the complaints were "frivilous". So, TWI's lawyers thought this lawsuit was "supportable". Judge Schmitt thought this lawsuit was "supportable". They had access to the evidence. ("It's called DISCLOSURE." -My Cousin Vinny.) They also had education and experience. THEY had access to the evidence, and thought the claims were "supportable." Oldiesman, who lacks legal training, legal experience AND access to the evidence, has declared that "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court." ============= So, I ask those of you who have some hope of viewing this subject with a degree of fairness, WHOSE interpretation of this account is more valid: Oldiesman's "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court" or WordWolf's "the legal EXPERTS who examined the evidence thought their case had merit, and therefore, its claims were SUPPORTED"? I ask you, whose?

Hello. I made much the same comment, but it seemed my posts got skimmed at best. Since I bothered digging up the previous discussion of "Blackmoor" (which Arneson DID write) and gave a quick thumbnail of the history of D & D (in chronological order but without dates), I thought it would be read a LITTLE slower. Although, to be honest, Gary Gygax, IF ANYONE, can be said to have been the creator of D & D, it really WAS the result of a number of people on a number of occasions, including Arneson. Few things are made solely by one person with absolutely no input from anyone else. (Supposedly, PFAL was exactly that, but, as we saw, that was a gross lie.) Sorry for the interruption, everyone. Just us geeks passing thru.

I made much the same point earlier, as did Garth. There's evidence that Ratzinger Even penned one or 2 of the previous encyclicals. I thought that response bore repeating.

Oh, and you're not allowed to even THINK about anything that would lead to leaving. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../obedience.html

Well, he was disappointed you didn't drop dead. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit...romisedland.htm As you may recall, there were people he said he'd he'd gladly kill. "..because there are some of us who would gladly execute you." (closing of this article) http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/html...homo-exerpt.htm

Oh, how could I leave out THIS little link, for a thread with THIS title? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html See, this is why I recommend reviewing all the documents and editorials at least once a year, as a refresher on what you've escaped, or are thankful you were spared the worst of, or were completely lied to.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit...exit-advice.htm Here's how one person advised making an exit.

That's why I try to treat participants in twi-2 as responsible adults who can make decisions on their own. I think treating them like infantile helpless mindless victims doesn't do any good. Treat every decent person with respect and there's a good chance you'll receive back the same consideration. Me too Jonny. Addressing this in reverse order: A) And yet....whether or not you saw it, Oldiesman, IT WAS HAPPENING TO SOMEONE ELSE. Your life wasn't destroyed like that? Wonderful. Neither was mine. Last month, American soldiers were killed in Iraq. I wasn't killed. You weren't killed. We didn't see the killings happen. Guess what? They happened anyway. Gonna say they didn't because YOU DIDN'T SEE IT? It gets tiresome to see you continually make the same sole comment over and over. "It was never that bad because I didn't see it get that bad. You all either exaggerate or (if you claim it happened to you) you lie outright." ==== B) Oldiesman, I can't tell if there's any hope whatsoever in trying to show you the difference between claiming someone was influenced by deceptive practices, coercive doctrines, and thus had their ability to make clear, informed decisions severely compromised (which was and is the situation with twi, and what WE said) and claiming an adult's entire ability to think was completely replaced with an "infantile helpless mindless victim" (which is what YOU said we said.) ==== I think everyone except Oldiesman can read this article and see an example of practices we described. http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/way/11.html Can someone besides me catalog all the dangerous doctrines mentioned right in the article?

I remember a dude in my area getting M&A and one of the many reasons was because he never got rid of his D&D stuff after being told to burn it. I was never into D&D but I didn't understand how a game could be the source of so much evil and the possibility of possession for someone. Some people say to watch horror movies is to invite possession, to read liberal newspapers is to invite possession, to have conversations with certain people is to invite possession. twi was worse than most at that, eventually. We've got documents showing how evil the internet supposedly is, how people risked possession by logging in. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit...strictions.html

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/main/real.html

A quick online search gave what, I think, is the quote you wanted, verbatim... "It's a pretty good mop. It's not as good as my first mop. I miss my first mop. But, this is still a good mop."

One of the services-there were something like 7-8 services. Cardinal Law (ironic name) was relocated to Europe after Catholics in the US called for his beheading. I'm unsure the degree to which JP II was informed of the Cardinal's crimes of conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. I strongly suspect the details were lost somewhere between here and Cardinal Ratzinger (last stop before JP II.) I'd need a bit more evidence before I'd be ready to accuse JP II of conspiracy in this. I think it's more likely he's guilty of being unsufficiently informed before making critical decisions. Did anyone spot him saying he WAS aware of Law's crimes, or those of the pervert? Was he spotted helping Law shred documents?