Raf

Put that thar moonshahn in a mason jar with a couple of pars in thar with em, fer about two years. And then put em in back of yer truck and drahv slow.

Sensitive to the end. Are you suggesting that no one twisted the teaching of PFAL to that end? Is that what you're suggesting? Are you suggesting that the following statement is false: Are you suggesting, Oldiesman, that none of the so-called "leadership" in TWI took advantage of the absence of sound teaching on the subject of sex in general and adultery in particular to grant themselves a license to sin? Are you suggesting, Oldiesman, that when Imbus wants to make it clear how demeaning and insidious this practice was, that your chief obligation is to remind her what a sinner she was, as if she had given this no thought before? Your last two posts make me sick. They are beneath you. Well, no wonder it's frightening, with repugnant comments like yours coming out to condemn her. Jeeze, VPW showed more compassion to the drunk after church than you showed to Imbus. If you're going to take a lesson from his behavior, take that one.

She's owned up to her personal responsibility on this. She's also traced it to a subtle twisting of God's Word that can be traced to PFAL. The two are not mutually exclusive and you sure as hell ARE laying a guilt trip on her, otherwise you would have seen that she accepted responsibility for her actions already and asked herself the tough questions. Not just "what was I thinking?" but "why was I thinking it?" Not just "what was that thought?" but "where did that thought come from?" Oldiesman, how DARE you? You think she ought to own up to some personal responsibility, as if she had not? How DARE you?

I think it should be noted, for Oldiesman's sake, that Imbus did not say a single bad thing about that leader. She talked about what SHE did, and asked how SHE might have gotten that mindset. She wondered what brought HER to the point of being able to do such a thing and think it was not just right, but spiritual. Not a single negative word about the guy in this equation. Oldiesman, your question is utterly uncalled for and you owe this woman an apology.

Oldiesman, are you under the impression that imbus has no remorse or regret for her role, or that she does not already harbor tremendous guilt? Do you REALLY think she needed you at this point to remind her of that? Really? Do you really think she hasn't already weighed the risk of revealing this deeply personal bit of information, just so you can come out and remind her what a sinner she is? Well, THANK YOU Oldiesman. I am UTTERLY CONVINCED that imbus would have had NO IDEA what happened until you came along and pointed it out. Whew. Good thing you were around. Man, THAT was the missing piece. THAT was the thing she did not know, which she now knows, thanks to YOU. Are you really so eager to absolve leadership of wrongdoing, or to distract from the wrongdoing of leadership, that you would rather identify with the Pharisees that caught the woman in adultery rather than the Lord who said your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more? She already has an Accuser, Oldiesman. She doesn't need you.

The guy that died in the plane crash: Thurman Munson

I was surprised to read this... Do you guys concur with this article?

Ditto what Zix said.

Diazbro: Fine. This lawsuit is over thewayinternational.com. The rest of what you wrote is a topic for another discussion. Pat, For God's sake, shut up before you get yourself in real legal trouble. We may be amateur lawyers here, but trust me, TWI's lawyers are NOT amateurs. Simply stating that what you have done is not in bad faith does not make it so. Simply using the site does not mean or imply that you have not registered the name in bad faith. You are explicitly WRONG about teh "news" interpretation of the law. Please, please, I BEG of you, if you're not going to listen to me in terms of what to do to get rid of the lawsuit, at least listen to me on this: SHUT UP about the lawsuit, publicly, until it's over. PLEASE, Pat. This is for you, not me.

And WHAT, pray tell, is wrong with that? It's THEIR NAME.

I think it's fair to say that I've consistently tried to draw the question away from a discussion of law and to a simpler analysis of plain old right and wrong. TWI is TWI. Pat is not. TWI wants their name. Pat should give it to them. TWI should reimburse Pat for the cost of securing and maintaining the name. No one should make a profit from this. LEGALLY: TWI's decision not to go after the name when they had the chance was a stupid blunder on their part. LEGALLY, I think that will cost them. Somehow, when I say that, you have no problem with me playing amateur lawyer. Why is that? Why can I play amateur lawyer when I think TWI is wrong, but I cannot play amateur lawyer when I think maybe Pat doesn't have the right to knowingly use another's trademark to explicitly provide negative information about the holder of the trademark? I just want to know why one opinion gets no reaction, and the other gets me accused of amateur lawyering. MORALLY, and this is strictly my opinion, TWI's legal blunder (of not securing the name) does not entitle Pat to secure the name with the expressed intent of using it to provide anti-TWI information. I think if someone types in "thewayinternational.com," they should get The Way International's web site, not the web site of someone who hates the organization and wants to see them shut down. Maybe I'm just stupid. Maybe TWI should secure "www.patroberge.com" and use it to provide news about his credibility and the credibility of the sources used on his Web site. Then they can trade domain names and we can ALL stop wasting time on this. What problems are there with letting this play out in court? No problem at all, unless you have something better to do with your time, which I submit Pat does. But that's his call. Pat, you have better things to do with your time and money.

Diazbro, for someone who criticizes amateur lawyering, you really should have refrained from this comment. You cannot cybersquat on your own name.

Diazbro, My first post on this thread was on p. 4 and was in answer to a legal question that Pat asked: Why is TWI going after him and not anyone else using the trademarked phrase? My response was as follows: Note, I said "as a general rule," not "as a matter of law." I also said that attitude would not serve him well in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been in plenty of courtrooms on both civil and criminal cases. I stand by that statement without reservation. My next post states: In other words, I'm not appealing to the law. I'm appealing to "a straight face." Common sense. Hmm. An explicit appeal to right v. wrong as opposed to the legality of his position. I'd say I was pretty clear about that. Here's my next post: Pretty dang clear that I'm not pretending to be an expert on the law, eh? Then comes this one, which seems legal until you look closer: Hmm, in other words, what I believe he is entitled is unrelated to whether I believe he is right legally. A fairly clear distinction. Next: So far, you'll note, I haven't cited the law. I've deliberately sidestepped it because I don't see this as a legal issue, I see it as a moral one. Let them have their danged name. Why is this even a question? For a petty vendetta? After that post, I wrote nothing for several pages. Then, on PAGE 8, I dispense my first bit of bona fide legal advice: And I stand by that. Then Pat claimed that the Latham Act allows for the use of a trademark in "all forms of news reporting and news commentary." Now, I happen to know a thing or two about news reporting and commentary. And I know that I can't name a newspaper "The Coca-Cola Times," but I can write whatever I want about Coca-Cola. So my first interpretation of an actual law is in response to Pat making a HUGE blunder about his rights under that particular provision of the Latham Act. And then, and then, and then, look at how I characterize my argument... Wow. "I don't know if they WOULD win (ie, forget the law for a second), BUT THEY SHOULD WIN". Sounds like even in the midst of this legal discussion, I'm still trying to draw the discussion away from the law and just get right back to plain old right and wrong, doesn't it? Diazbro, with all due respect, I reject your characterization of my posts. I defy you to name one section of law I posted (not counting quoting someone else's quote). The post earlier on this page cannot be interpreted unambiguiously in TWI's favor or Pat's.

Another good page of questions regarding cybersquatting. You have to scroll down a little or search for the word "cybersquatting." Keep scrolling to the section on trademark infringement.

I think narcissism was quite accurate, and not negated by his frequent allusions to The Word.

You know, oldiesman, it IS possible to have more than one facet to your personality. VPW was a complex man. Can you possibly allow for the fact that as many times as he said "The Word the Word the Word," that he could still have something of a narcissistic streak in him that was so deep that those who knew him best thought the Passing of the Patriarch was true?

You're an interesting character Uncle Hairy. I know it's a little late to welcome you to the Cafe, but your third cup of coffee is on me.

Agreed. I still say (always have) that TWI's refusal to secure the domain name when they were specifically told to do so is probably Pat's greatest legal advantage in this case. Somehow, when I say that, it's okay. But when I say that Pat is not The Way International, I'm giving an uninformed legal opinion. ? Don't understand it, but I'll accept it.

You're STILL missing my point, Mark. I don't know if Pat will win the lawsuit or not. Therefore, I do not know if he has a legal right to the domain name or not. That's the point of the lawsuit. I don't know about the legal merits of Pat's case. And frankly, I don't care. The way I see it, this is not about the law (thank you Greek for your exposition on the bottom of the previous page). My contention is that Pat has no MORAL claim to the domain name. Give it up and watch the lawsuit evaporate, because there will be nothing to fight over except for Pat's first amendment right to criticize a contemptible, controlling organization.

Is that what you mean by disingenuous, Long Gone? Give a guy an opportunity to weigh the merits and come to a conclusion as a conversation progresses. Seems to me he was in on the conversation with the rest of us and decided at some point that the amateur lawyering was a bad idea for everyone. Not disingenuous. Progressive. :)--> Mark, I didn't catch this line the first few times I read it: You know, there's a built-in legal presumption in that statement: you presume that Pat has a right to the domain name. In THAT, you're being disingenuous. If you're not going to discuss the merits of the case, you should start by not presuming he is right, legally. Pat isn't defending his right to the domain name. He's defending his belief that he has a right to the domain name. That is, after all, the central question in the case, isn't it? So let's the three of us agree on the one point we have in common: Pat, it's a bad idea to post your legal interpretations and justifications on a message board known to be monitored by the very lawyers who are suing you.

Mark! You're misreading me. I did not say I'm relying on horse sense to draw legal conclusions. I don't know if Pat will win or lose in court. Leave that to the judges and lawyers. What I said was that "my opinion of this" is based on horse sense. In other words, why is Pat wasting his time trying to hang onto this domain name? If I were TWI, just to get his goat, I would register www.patroberge.com and use it to post information detrimental to his cult information distribution plans. It's petty. Pat has real energy and resources that he wants to devote to the cause of exposing the truth of TWI. And how does he expend his energy and resources? With this? It's a WASTE. Pat says TWI is picking on him for criticizing them. Well, I've been criticizing LCM, PFAL and Wierwille for years. Where's my lawsuit? Where's Paw's lawsuit? There's no lawsuit because what we do so clearly falls under free speech. Pat can continue to criticize TWI all he wants without fear of reprisal, once he drops this albatross of a domain name that actually HAS hindered him EXACTLY the way TWI wants it to, because it has diverted him from pursuing the reasonable goal of exposing that no-good outfit for the freedom-hating cult that it is.

Suz, umm, here's the sentence: "I still think that Raf & Jenna WOULD make a totally cute couple!!! Do I hear any seconds?" :)--> By the way, I second that. We would.

Linda, Good point. Greek, I apologize if I misunderstood you. In fact, I apologize. I'm sure I misunderstood you. Sadie, Pat doesn't have to do anything. He posted here because he wants opinions. I gave mine. Jesus taught that if someone sues you for your shoes, give him your coat, too (or something like that). I do think he was using hyperbole, which is exaggerating to a ridiculous degree to make a point. However, what IS the point? The point is not to get entangled in silly legal battles. Pat is NOT The Way International. They are. In my opinion, he should give them their name back and be done with this time-waster of a lawsuit. If he doesn't want my opinion, he shouldn't have started a thread on a public message board. Mark, Why the sudden need to have a law degree to have an opinion? My opinion of this is not based on trademark law, it's based on good old fashioned horse sense (as OM would say). Pat is not the Way International. He owns "thewayinternational.com" TWI IS The Way International. They do NOT own "thewayinternational.com" Something's wrong with that picture. They want the domain name. They should have it. But as long as Pat sees that position as "bending over" or caving in to a bully, then he will never be rid of this unnecessary legal entanglement, which is diverting his time and attention from the REAL cult-fighting that supposedly got TWI angry with him in the first place.

It was a fun wedding. Tell Jenna (and Zach and Josh and Kat) that I said hi.

Some of these things I'm really proud of. Some of them, I'd retract today. The important thing to me was about the process of going over everything with a critical eye. By "critical," I don't mean "negative." Critical means looking for the good and the bad in things. If a movie critic gives a movie four stars and a thumbs up, he's still a critic. So I don't see "criticism" as a negative thing, necessarily. If anyone is still reading those posts, do so with a critical eye (the same eye I tried to use in reviewing the book in the first place). And prayer.