Raf

By the way ™, I wonder if The Way Ministries has a legal team that will withstand a challenge from TWI once their lawyers get a load of their Web site (and now that you've posted the link, it's a sure bet that TWI knows about it).

Maybe you should have sent all those web sites to TWIM (which got spanked). Seems to me that TWIM had lawyers advising their client. Seems to me they folded like a cheap card table when faced with the raw facts of a legal case. I'm disappointed, because they really came up with the name independently of any knowledge of TWI. But the raw fact is they lost on every major point. Pat, good luck. But if you ever asked for a sign as to whether you should continue this fight, I think you got it, posted it, drew all the wrong lessons from it, and are now in for a bumpy ride. Good luck.

Figures. Does anyone need further proof that he was making a religious statement by having that monument in his courthouse?

Okay, that was closer than I wanted it to be. But a great game, and kudos to the Red Sox for turning an 8-0 game into a nailbiter.

Uh oh.

They may take this series yet. They faced some good pitching tonight, and did well. The Yankees pitching staff ain't great this year. No Clemens. No Pettite. It's going to be tough to go seven games agains THESE Red Sox. Then again, the Yanks are no longer allergic to Schilling. Go Yanks!

From 8-0 to 8-7. Who do those Red Sox think they are? Haven't they seen the Yankee payroll? They'd better cough up a few bucks if they expect the right to win this game, or the series!

The story mentions one place where they put it up next to the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. I think it should probably stay there (although the other two documents were placed in a naked attempt to keep the Ten Commandments there). I don't know, i could probably go either way on that. Displaying it on private land, where it will be seen by plenty of folk, seems to be the best solution to me. I argued about this with my brother, and ended the argument by telling him that if he does not have the Ten Commandments up in his living room, he has no right to continue the discussion. He agreed (surprisingly).

Oooh, look! A game!

Gee, it's fun for me.

That's a half-truth at best, and you know it. Seems to me that TWI has the upper hand on that count. Both sides made compromises. That is true. TWI decided not to go after TWIM for any past violations of TWI's enforceable trademark. They agreed not to sue TWIM for any money raised in the past using the TWIM name. TWIM, on the other hand, agreed to stop using the name in the United States, and understands that they may be sued if they use it outside the United States (depending on the circumstances, laws, etc). Dude, this is as lopsided a "settlement" as I've ever seen. Looks like TWIM is specifically banned from helping you in your lawsuit, too. TWIM abandoned its opposition to TWI's trademark. TWIM got SPANKED. There's no other way to read this.

Umm, yeah, they settled... TWIM abandoned the use of the name "The Way International." That's not a settlement. Looks to me like TWIM got spanked. And the thing is, they arrived at their name innocently, with no intent whatsoever to draw the attention of TWI or anyone else. Pat, I still hope your lawsuit goes well, but in light of the fact that TWIM had to make these changes... Well, good luck.

Looks like the Supreme Court wants a crack at this.

Why is it that when we "steal" people with money, we get to the World Series, but when you have those same people without money, you're still stranded? Money doesn't win the World Series: a good team does. This was proven in 2001 and 2003.

Considering tring that my Yankees have been in six of the last eight World Series, and have won four of them, I can say the following with confidence: I want the Yankees to beat the Red Sox. IF, by chance, the Red Sox win, then I will be pulling for them to finally break their curse against St. Louis or Houston (by the way, CONGRATS HOUSTON!!!)

Yanks and Braves in the playoffs. Somewhere, Tom Hanks is meeting the president and Bill Murray is trying to stop his alarm clock from playing "I Got You Babe."

If you know WordWolf, there's a pretty durned good chance you know me. Johnyouare: Happy anniversary! 10 Years of Freedom! What are you going to do next?

Overall, the dialogue on this board is some of the best I've seen in a long time.

From ROR in the JAL thread (hey, seeing as the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we put the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC, he could end up MIA and then we'd all be put on KP). Anyway, the quote is...

I nominate this for a 2004 Greasespot Gem Award.

If you're going to insist on this kind of absurd oversimplification (aka utter misrepresentation) of our arguments, then it's really not worth pursuing. You tell us to get a clue, yet in a single post you insist tht the word "rapture" is essential to Darby's misrepresentation while simultaneously showing that Wierwille carried on the same misrepresentation without the word rapture. I say we stop discussing the ascension of Christ or the advent of Christ, since those are clearly not Biblical words.

I guess Steve and I figured if JAL won't debate here, dangit, we will!

Heh heh heh. Steve, can I point this out to you in a few different words, maybe you can see my point: You said: "The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate". Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically." But you also said: "Wierwille always used the biblically correct term for the event, 'the gathering together', even though he misplaced it before the tribulation, and mistakenly restricted it to the "Church" as opposed to the believing remnant of Israel with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis, by grace through faith." Now, can you agree with me that the terminology used does not free one from the probability of error (or accuracy, for that matter). Darby doesn't get away with his eschatology by using the word "rapture," because Wierwille has the exact same eschatology without using the word "rapture." You're giving way too much weight to the significance of this word as it relates to Darby's "error" (assuming you're right and he's wrong here). In doing so, might I suggest you're going too far: insisting that the word itself is not Biblical when its origin is clearly from the Latin Vulgate, which is a Bible. A little too far? A little? Wee bit? Nit?