Raf

Actually, I can't figure out what you meant... I THINK you're saying that evil and organization are not mutually inclusive. In other words, just because you have organization doesn't mean you're evil. And just because you're evil, doesn't mean you're organized.

I think you meant, they're not mutually exclusive.

Well, at least we're in the same week. Hey, Roy, here's one date we can all agree on! 5/3! Happy Birthday!

Diazbro, I submit that for you, it's not about TWI vs. PR; it's about your hatred of TWI and your desire to see them brought down by any means necessary, even if they have a point. Lawyers who are skilled in the law come to opposing conclusions over complex issues. There's no reason preventing laypersons from discussing the merits of legal cases, even if they're not lawyers.

I can't believe I'm posting on this, but here goes: David's death had a profound impact on Kirk. Perhaps losing his son is what gave him the emotional impetus to sacrifice the Enterprise itself (two "sons" lost in one movie). The death of his son is still weighing on him heavily in Star Trek VI: The Apology for V. I think that was the name of it.

Why do you respond to serious examination with ludicrous hyperbole? These people thought LCM was God's spokesman on earth. They thought defying him was identical to defying God. That's tremendous authority: whether it was "absolute" or not is quibbling over semantics.

Happy Birthday Donner!!!!

One drink every time the name of a TWI class is mentioned. Two drinks of there's an explicit exhortation to take that class. Three drinks if PFAL is mentioned in a tape made after the WAP class was introduced.

Two drinks every time someone says "that's right!" Two drinks everytime someone (generic) who left TWI is called a "copout." Three drinks if the "copout" is identified by name.

Ooh, I'm a triple threat! Okay, for the record: It's Living Epistles Society, not Living Epistles ™. (The name derivation was utterly independent of that business, as WordWolf will attest). My affiliation with Greasespot is... I post on Greasespot. SURPRISE!!! My affiliation with CES is: I contribute to them financially. They have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY over what I post on my Web Site. They have NEVER tried to influence the site in any way, shape or form. I have gone to them several times to request permission to show book covers and to publish one of their articles. But my site is NOT a CES site, nor is it properly called an extension of CES (or Greasespot, for that matter). That said, I am utterly HONORED to be on the list.

Did anyone else like to do "Father counting" during prayers? Some of our prayers had more fathers than the Vatican. "Father I just want to thank you Father for your love for us Father. And Father I thank you for your Word, Father, for your grace, Father and your peace reigning in our lives Father..."

Happy Birthday. Wanna make a bet?

Was the original script called "Dejados Atras"?

Not to his face.

It's Pat's last name. The safeguard is a relic of a more tense time.

Correction.

Just wanted to pop in and post this link, for the sake of interest: The Way International Ministries

They are The Way International. Pat is not. I'm bowing out of this.

I apologize for missing the humor oldiesman. I should have seen it. Internet. Nuance. You know the drill. :)-->

There's no mention of "covetousness" in the verse or the context. Please don't confuse the issue. (Or am I missing your point?)

Again, Pat, you miss the point of my opposition to your actions. You are not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name already. I'm not saying you're legally required to do so, but if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, does it ever?

:D-->

Excie, Is Pat an important recognized worldwide organization everyone knows? I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about common horse sense. Pat took the name of an organization and secured the domain name to malign it. It's just not right. Christians, if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, where does it EVER apply? (Others, I concede that my argument does not hold sway). You certainly don't. And they have a better claim to it than you. They've used it for decades. You ask why they sued you in fed court instead of before a different body... I have a different challenge: drop the domain name and see if they have ANY grounds to challenge you. They sued you on this issue because you gave them an opening. Gleefully. Good luck.

Pat, I feel the need to bring this up again. You are not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name already. Back to lurking.

Not sure that's true: TWI has endured negative coverage for decades. Negative coverage only galvanizes the membership by making them feel persecuted by "the world." I detect a bit of wishful thinking on your part, as far as that goes.