Raf

Nothing to show for it... except for everything they wanted.

You got spanked. TWI knew your finances going into this, so going into this they had to want to pursue the course that cost them the least amount of money. TWI could afford $50,000. Could you afford what you spent? What percentage of TWI's income is $50,000? What percentage of your income did you spend? TWI chose the option that cost them the least amount of money, and got everything they wanted out of it, your protestations to the contrary. You got spanked, Pat. Hate to break it to you.

The Living Epistles Society Forum has crashed, and I'm afraid it's irreparable. All previous information is gone, kaput. All posts are gone. All e-mail addresses are gone. All registrations are gone. I want to express my gratitude to Bluzeman, who did absolutely everything he could to try to salvage it, but unfortunately, we're going to need to start the whole thing again from scratch. I'll try to post a notice here when a new forum is up. Thank you to everyone who registered and who carried on some interesting conversations. We had about 80 members at the end there, more than I could possibly have imagined when we got started. And thanks to Paw for his continued moral support of the site and its intentions. We'll be back.

Two terrific, terrific games. But alas... methinks it's time to put the Bosox out of their misery. You in OUR HOUSE tonight. :)-->

Sorry, I agree with Long Gone on this one. Pat got nothing out of this. So he doesn't have to pay TWI's costs. Big deal. He wouldn't have been able to pay them anyway, and TWI knew that. So TWI did the next best thing: they kept their costs to a minimum. A court trial would have cost them a lot more than a settlement, and they got everything they wanted in the settlement. Did they have to pay Pat's legal fees (ie, his court costs)? Nope. All they had to pay was their own. Big fat hairy deal. In settling this case, TWI paid LESS than they would have had the case gone to trial, and in return they got the exact same outcome, which, I should note, is precisely what I told Pat to do in the first place. Did Pat get spanked? On every principle he claimed to be fighting for: the domain name, the trademark infringement, the rights to the term "The Way," the ability to use "The Way of Christ" as a domain name and as a ministry name, Pat got spanked. On costs, he did not.

Last night's game was awesome. I could have done with a different outcome, but really, how can anyone complain?

Yes, but there is a big distinction here that, on previous threads (not this one) you are failing to grasp: Non-mention of a religion is not an endorsement of another religion. The fact that the Ten Commandments are removed from a courthouse should not be read as a victory for atheism. Erecting a monument that says "There is no God" would be a victory for atheism. And should such a monument be erected, I hope those on my side of this argument would have the intestinal fortitude and integrity to call it for what it is.

Perhaps keeping Chris Reeve company? I hope that doesn't tacky. I'm sorry for your loss.

I'm pretty sure this photo is from last year, but danged if it don't still ring true for fans of the Evil Empire.

Did they ever? Oh, you meant...

SRTS: The thread title refers to the return of the debate, not the "return of the 10 commandments."

Tref, I absolutely agree with you. However, I was drawing the distinction that has been drawn by the courts over the years. I did not mean to imply agreement with it. If you listen to the arguments of those who support keeping "under God" in the Pledge, it is abundantly clear that they believe removing those words would offend the Judeo-Christian God. I could be wrong on this, but I'd bet good money that there are painfully few instances of Zeus worshippers who want "under God" to stay in the Pledge because removing it would offend the Olympian council. I really don't get why it is so important for people that their government acknowledges their God. God doesn't want your government's worship. He wants yours. Then again, I'm just a commiep pinko left wing lunatic atheist loving anti-God zealot. Just ask the folks on the political threads. :)-->

Mazel Tov!

Not at all. References to "God" are debatable, and debated, on many levels. But the 10 Commandments, we'll agree, go a step further. Not content to refer to the existence of God, this NAMES that God and forbids worship of any other. Insofar as this is a commandment of the Judeo-Christian God, erecting a monument in praise of the 10 Commandments, particularly when the issue on the mind of the government official in question is "the sovereignty of God," certainly crosses the line in regard to endorsing a religion. "In God We Trust" on our money does no such thing (although others argue it should be removed as well, such arguments don't get much traction. Likewise "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance).

While I'm pleased, I've seen too many 2-0 advantages deteriorate into 4-2 losses. If anyone can do that, it's this Red Sox team. So... we wait.

Deleted because of unforeseen edit.

I agree that Pat probably could have won the Way of Christ dispute, with one caveat: all the other ministries mentioned by cherished child arrived at their names independently of TWI. Whatever you think of Pat's use of the name, I don't think it's credible to argue that he arrived at it independently. More important, I don't think there is a jury on earth who would arrive at that conclusion. That's why TWI would probably lose against most ministries, but would stand a better chance fighting Pat on that one. I don't know if that's enough to predict a legal loss. Radar, I would agree with you if it didn't mean the potential loss of money and resources from those challenging TWI. TWIM could have used that money and time and energy for a more useful purpose. I'm sorry that their time and effort came to naught (then again, at least they didn't get sued for previous trademark violations: a pyrrhic victory, but still a victory).

Actually, I'd like to post all five purple hearts as links to the sites.

No. Take a look.

Woohoo! CW, do I have your permission to post your award on my site? Paw, Eagle: Do I have your permission to copy the original post?

John, I'm glad you don't object. I do. Others do. Government simply doesn't have the right to do this. Maybe the court will decide differently, but they would (in my opinion) be wrong to do so.

Sad to say, I agree with this assessment. Amen, sister. Good luck, Pat.

CW, TWIM asked for a temporary injunction to prevent TWI from enforcing its trademarks. The court ruled that they will not get the temporary injunction because they were not likely to prevail. THEN TWIM settled (aka, folded like a poker player with a 1,3,5,10 and K of four different suits) (aka, got spanked).

If you're allowed to introduce any of this "evidence," I'll be (pleasantly) surprised. If I were judging this case, I'd laugh at any effort you made to introduce it, as not one iota of it is relevant to a case of trademark infringement.

You're probably right. I wouldn't put my money on them winning, though. TWIM tried and got spanked. (Did I mention they got spanked?) Also, save your time on incidental references to the words "The Way." TWI is not going to go after KC and the Sunshine Band (That's the Way, uh huh uh huh). They're not going to go after Fastball ("Where were they goin without ever knowin the way"). They're going to go after ministries that use the words "The Way," "The Way International" or "The Way Ministry" in a manner that would conceivably cause confusion with their trademark. The Way Ministries is vulnerable. TWIM got spanked (did I mention that)? The Way of New York folded like a trained yoga master. The fact that The Way Ministries knew about TWI's trademark makes their use of the name more actionable, not less. If they're challenged, I do wish them luck too. And fortitude: perhaps more than TWIM (which, incidentally, got spanked).