Zixar

"The Myth of the Six Million" and "The Thirteenth Tribe" were recommended reading at Advanced Class '87. Both are anti-Semitic garbage. I can't say to what extent VPW admired Hitler, but I do know one thing. The most VPW could have ever compared to in the Nazi party was Hermann Goering, a fat, obnoxious, incompetent hack who had a predilection for spiritualism. LCM? Mussolini. There are several parallels that one can draw between TWI and the Nazis. Even though there were some outstanding individuals in the organization, the green Corps nametag was the gray serge tunic of the SS. PFAL--Mein Kampf. VPW-WOW Auditorium--the Reichstag. (There. That should have sent Tom Strange into Godwin's Law-overload... :)--> )

Fox has Daredevil, too. That means a DD/X-Men thing could happen, although the two don't really share a common enemy. Doesn't Sony have the Hulk, too? A Spidey-Hulk teamup doesn't make any sense either, save that Banner and Parker are both science whizzes. Isn't Christian Bale tapped to be the new Supes?

Then again, if sufficiently-blemishless baby sheep are abundant on this planet, an unblemished human would not be that far-fetched.

JF: I was just saying that if there were a choice of campsites it would be more convenient if campers picked the one closer to the inn/cabins. Since there isn't a choice, the point is moot.

Can't do a crossover. Sony holds the rights to Spidey, Fox has the X-Men. Neither wants to give up a crumb of their franchise pie.

Have to disagree, heck the defense is resting on emotion! If a jury decides to rule despite the law, what judge will sit and allow that in their court? Don’t forget the instructions to the jury always is to make their ruling according to the evidence and the law. Grizzy: Perhaps I was unclear. I only meant in the context of THIS discussion, on this particular thread. Of course Pat should use every ace up his sleeve -- in court. What I meant was that it does no good for US to take it personally beforehand. And as for the jury ruling despite the law, it's a slippery slope. Technically, it's called "jury nullification" and it's legal. However, the losing party can immediately move for summary judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and it comes down to the judge's decision, which depends on a number of factors. If it's a criminal case, it's highly unlikely that the judge would reverse the jury's verdict due to double jeopardy or other issues. Best to let the case move to the appellate process. It's more likely to happen in a civil case when one party is awarded a huge amount of damages by a sympathetic jury but there has been no real proof of liability presented. In such a case, the judge can modify the jury award or set the verdict aside altogether. That probably varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though.

As has been said before, it's "The Way International" name that you have no right to. Dilution of "The Way" mark is a separate matter.

LG: Yes, I understood that "best case" meant "best possible result", not "most likely result".

Just checked the map. Looks like the inn and the cabins are together and the camping area is on the other side of the lake.

I just checked the online reservations, and apparently some folks cancelled or they opened up another block of rooms, because now there are 18 available in various configurations. It would still be a good idea to go ahead and reserve one if you're thinking about attending.

I don't know how close the inn and the cabins are to the campsites, but if there's a choice of sites, I'd go with one close to the other lodging options. Did anyone manage to rent a cabin? Has anyone looked into reserving one of the picnic pavilions in case of rain?

It kind of reminded me of the final episode of Season 2. (Or whichever one it was where Tony had the dream about Big P as a talking fish.) Big letdown and totally unnecessary to the plot. Actually, the most effective dream sequence so far had to have been Dr. Melfi's earlier this season... :D-->

Pat: Then why do you put a copyright notice in your signature? You cannot vigorously assert your intellectual property rights while ignoring those of others without being guilty of hypocrisy. And that's just one example. If a bunch of ALBs can track this stuff down in an hour, you can bet the farm that any law intern could mine the Net for far more damaging material. Even though this is not really a criminal case, everything you say still can and will be used against you in a court of law. I'm afraid all your grandstanding has already tied your own noose without TWI's lawyers having to lift a finger. All they'll have to do is quote selected bits of this thread back to the jury in their closing argument and you won't have a prayer of defending "bad faith", and you won't have a hope of convincing the jury that you aren't just doing a song and dance in front of them--because you've already admitted as much here! (edited) Look, Pat, I'm not trying to jump in your mud puddle, but if you take no other piece of advice I give you, for God's sake take this one: Shut The Hell Up Already! You can't say a single thing here that will help your case, and accidentally letting another gaffe slip just does their work for them. Honestly.

My mistake. You can get it for $59 a month, but only if you shell out $600 for the startup equipment.

Pat, it's posts like that one that raise serious doubts about your grasp on the reality of the situation. TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow. You knew going into this that they could afford to be nitpickingly litigious, so they certainly would take every opportunity to do so. Intellectual property has been established as defensible as any other property by the courts. Refresh my memory, but wasn't it you who complained loudly when Paw posted a copy of something on which you claimed copyright, even though you were not the original author? (edited) Don't you think the TWI lawyers have printouts of every single bit of that? Do you think they'll hesitate for a second to bring it up in court to impeach your testimony? Now you claim that your whole strategy rests on being able to sweet-talk a jury of complete strangers? We're the most anti-TWI group of folks around, and you can't even convince a mojority of US that you're right! Documentable hypocrisy on your part is going to make their case that much easier to prove to those strangers.Pat, there's right, there's wrong, and there's stupid. Settling this out of court may stick in your craw, but it's the smart thing to do. If it goes to court, no one outside this forum will probably even hear about the outcome, much less care about it. This is not some widely-watched landmark case. The possibility of a positive outcome from a trial is slim, and there is a real danger that you could lose your shirt. Please don't overestimate your chances.

Was it just me, or was the 20-minute dream sequence in last night's episode the low point of the entire series to date? What a waste of time!

Yes, Doc Ock might be more photogenic than others in Spidey's rogues' gallery, but he's hardly the most interesting. Especially since we see Dr. Curt Connors (The Lizard) in the trailer (and he was mentioned in the first movie), and while I can't read his nametag in the trailer, the Air Force officer MJ is walking down the stairs with can only be John Jameson (Man-Wolf). Since they can't work Venom into the story without going through the silly Secret Wars storyline, I'd expect to see those two in Spider-Man 3.

For what it's worth, I don't find Long Gone's arguments to be malicious, vindictive, or anything other than his fair assessment of the situation. Even if LG is not a licensed attorney, he has researched and backed up all of his points quite well. I also don't think Long Gone has done anything to deserve the personal attacks leveled at him. While I can't speak for him, I feel that he would genuinely like to see TWI lose, but with the resources available to any layman, he's convinced that Pat cannot prevail. It's not spite, not argument for argument's sake, and not personal. (Pat, if LG had it in for you, do you honestly think he'd take the trouble to tell you any of this at all?) I've gone back and forth on the issue myself. The case Goey presented showed that some of the obvious apparent strengths of TWI's case weren't necessarily viewed that way by that court. Long Gone has made some very relevant observations about the particulars of Pat's case that undermine its apparent strong points, too. Right now, I'm of the opinion that if Pat wins at all, it will be on a technicality, not on merit. His countersuit has virutally no chance at succeeding. Would I like to see TWI take the hit on this one? Of course. I just don't see it happening. Long Gone's best-case scenario is an award to TWI of $1000. Personally, I would place the chances of that happening at less than an acquittal. If TWI wins, it won't be for any piddling $1000. If I had to put numbers to my wild-*** guess on the odds, it would be: Pat successfully defends -- 20% TWI wins a bankrupting settlement -- 65% TWI wins a small settlement -- 10% Pat recovers anything on his countersuit -- 1% Unforeseen outcome -- 4% I'm not trying to be mean to Pat, either. The odds just honestly don't look too good from where I sit. It would be a disservice to Pat to sugarcoat it to spare his feelings. I can't for the life of me see why Pat won't get some professional legal representation, but that's his choice. Perhaps he's thinking of filing bankruptcy anyway, so it doesn't really matter if TWI wins big. I have no way of knowing. I do know that personal feuds have NO place on this thread, though. Most of the time, personality conflicts arise from differing viewpoints, and that's unavoidable. This thread, however, is about fact and law. A person's love or hatred for another won't change the law or the facts one iota. Bringing needless emotion into the discussion does not help.

I highly doubt that CFF will rejoin with TWI, and certainly never if Catcup and ResearchGeek have anything to say about it.

Most likely, the antenna is in the lid. Yes, you can get signal boosters for Wi-Fi. I have the Linksys one attached to my router and it works great. If you have no "G" computers, set your router to "B" mode. If you have no "B"s, set it to "G". Otherwise, set it to "Mixed". (Yes, it's just as you'd think it would be.) Goey: Last time I looked, DirecWay satellite broadband was comparable to cable modem in price.

Anyone want me to explain how dual-key encryption works?

Yes. The network transport protocol that your laptop uses handles the encryption and decryption on its end just like the router does on its end. Not a simpleton question at all.

Abi: I don't take that to mean Jesus suffered every single possible temptation, merely those that are universal among humankind.

Tom: Bingo. ;)-->

I think the point is that once Jesus was here, he was indistinguishable from any other human. Same skin, same bones, same blood. Contrast that with typical accounts of angels as being obviously nonhuman when they revealed themselves fully, or the account of when God Himself spoke to Moses through the burning bush. God didn't appear as Jesus, or as a white-haired geriatric, or even a twelve-foot tall winged angel. He took on no even-remotely-human form. After Christ's resurrection, he still appeared completely human to everyone who saw him. He could have done the old burning-bush bit from there on, too, but didn't for some reason. It's impossible to tell if Christ pre-existed his birth, or if any of us did. If we did, then no one remembers, and no one can explain how spirit works well enough to come up with a solid theory. Plus, there's an awful lot of verses that equate the born-again with Christ--equal abilities, equal inheritance, etc. Goes back to the old Tom Burke song that said "We're God's sons and daughters, you and me/So if Jesus Christ is God, then so are we." Personally, I have no trouble seeing Christ as the bridge between God and Man, the firstborn of our new-birth family, and Lord of all Creation, subject only to the will of the Father. It does not diminish Christ in the slightest to be #2 when God Almighty is #1. Who else could even come close to claiming that princely honor? Certainly no other man who ever drew breath! If there is one term that accurately describes the measure of divinity allocated to Christ, it would have to be "plenipotentiary", that is, one who is fully empowered by a higher entity to speak and act on that entity's behalf. Much like an ambassador who can enter his country into an agreement with another country without further grant of authority from his government. Christ has plenipotentiary power to speak for and act for God Almighty--but it is subject to God's will. Jesus prayed for the cup to pass from him, yet he could not bring that to pass on his own. That alone should be the conclusive argument that God is superior to Christ and therefore not equal. Still, an awful lot of theology has been conjured up to justify the trinitarian two-willed paradox, so it's hard to get people to see if they simply refuse to. If Jesus' body had just been a convenient sock-puppet for God, he'd have skipped happily all the way to Golgotha. Why waste time at Gethsemane if God was wearing His Jesus suit? Bottom line is that it is far easier to reconcile the verses that seem to intimate that Jesus was God if he isn't than to reconcile the ones that make it impossible for Jesus to be God if he is. No other account in the Bible requires as much illogical and contradictory rationalization to be true as does the trinitarian doctrine. 99% of the Bible is amazingly straightforward and up front, and not difficult at all to believe. It does not stand to reason that the very essence of God Himself would take such a convoluted stretch of theology to express when the rest of the Bible stands at face value. When you think about it, we lose absolutely nothing by having Jesus as #2 in the universe instead of 1/3 of #1. Whoever he prayed to is certainly good enough for any of us mere folk to pray to as well.