Raf

Greek, You are mistaken, but I truly appreciate your misplaced concern.

Can we rephrase that? Can we just add the word "would" to that sentence? She was a sweetheart.

Hey, look, my bold tags work too... It's about the domain name, Pat. You're not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name.

Diazbro: the term "being dragged into court" is a colloquiallism which means you're the one getting sued. Pat didn't initiate the lawsuit, he's the defendant. Therefore he's getting dragged into court. That he decides to walk in rather than get dragged in is inconsequential to my point: We're not going to court. Our legal theories cannot be used by our courtroom adversaries because... we don't have courtroom adversaries. Pat doesn't need to listen to our amateur legal theories. That is very true. But he also doesn't need to go online and announce his legal theories to the whole world, especially knowing that his courtroom adversaries are observing every word. This isn't a game. This isn't just a thread. This is a lawsuit that in some way threatens this man's livelihood. And for what? A domain name? Give up that issue and what has TWI got on him? NOTHING. Why do you think TWI has not gone after Paw? Because they CAN'T! Pat can continue his fight without thewayinternational.com. The point of telling Pat to knock off the amateur lawyering is not about disagreement with his position (some agree and some don't). It's about encouraging him to do the smart thing and not hand ammunition to the enemy. Greetings from Chicago.

Hey guys, I'm here! Call me at the hotel, 800-325-3535. Or better if you have my cell phone (I'm in the biz center right now).

And for the second time in history, I agree with Mike.

We've been infiltrated!

I can see why you thought that, oldiesman. History proves you were wrong, but it's okay. There's no way you could have known that at the time.

Wow. Maybe they have he original THE thread.

Diazbro, Yes, the amateur lawyering is the same thing for which Pat is being criticized. The difference is that we're not being dragged into court, he is. I could spout off legal theories and strategies until the cows come home and it makes no difference. This man is going to court, but before doing so, insists on arming his enemy with as much ammunition as possible.

Earlier you told us you sold it for $1. Patrick, for your own legal good, SHUT UP ABOUT THIS!

Pat, Zixar's interpretation of © is correct. Yours is not. The reason TWI cannot go after Pawtucket for having an "About The Way" forum is precisely because of ©. But there is a substantial difference between that and registering "thewayinternational.com" as a url. If you called it "thetruthabouttheway.com," you would be on stronger footing. Any reasonable person who goes to "www.thewayinternational.com" has a reasonable expectation to access a web site owned and operated by The Way International. You are deliberately capitalizing on that expectation in order to provide information that would lead people AWAY from TWI. Under your interpretation of ©, I would be able to start a website called "thewaymagazine.com" and specifically use that site to provide information against the interest of The Way International. They would sue me if I did so. And I don't know if they would win or not, but they should win, because I am deliberately capitalizing on their trademark in order to defame them. For those who argue that the Mormons don't sue anyone who uses "Church of Jesus Christ," why don't you try this: register: "churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints.com" and see if you don't get sued.

Thanks for posting this, oldiesman. I can certainly see why people decided to stay, although I disagreed with that decision at the time and, frankly, I believe I am way better off for it. He left out that the carnality is also in the mindset and the heart of those making the request.

Pat, If I was a lawyer, I would tell you to bring this topic up on as many threads as possible, discuss your tactics and legal strategies, and explain your version of the history of this conflict as publicly as possible. If I was a lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do. Oh, clarification: If I was TWI's lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.

Pat, YOU DON'T NEED A POLL. It's not "nice" to include GSers in your decision. Legally, it's absurd. I don't know why you feel like you have to talk about this, why you need to broaden the net to include as many unnecessary voices as possible (I include my own in that list). Two voices matter: yours, and your lawyer's. If you want your voice to include all this conflicting input, that's your privilege, I guess. Just seems to me that you're reaching out instead of reaching up, if you catch my meaning (wow, a TWI image that makes sense! An AOS one at that!).

Integrity and conscience need no poll. Do what you think is right, Pat. If you want our opinion, don't evaluate it by poll. Evaluate it by argument, integrity and conscience. And if you're going to characterize our opinion as "bend over" and let TWI stick it to you, don't pretend you're open about hearing an alternative point of view. How about, "Take a stand for God and let TWI have its domain name (minus the cost of acquiring and maintaining the name over the past few years). That way I can concentrate my efforts and limited resources on battles that are actually worthy of all our time." How's THAT for an option? That's my position, but if I tried to vote for it, I would have to vote for "bend over." You don't need a poll to decide what to do. You need integrity: that way whatever position you ultimately adopt, you can at least say you did what you thought was right.

There's a certain song by Fastball that seems, I don't know, appropriate.

That would be the "bend over" option, as Pat so diplomatically put it, with absolutely no intention of letting the imagery sway your vote.

An honest poll would contain far more neutral language. Calling (the current) option A "bend over" does NOT reflect the position of those who think you're making the wrong move and should just give them their domain name. I, for one, think it's the Christ-like thing to do. Again, you have so many battles with TWI, and THIS IS NOT WORTH THE FIGHT. That doesn't mean "bend over," but if YOU think it does, then it doesn't matter what I think. You've now started three threads on one topic, Pat. You're going to court against these people. Do yourself a legal favor and SHUT UP!

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Disingenuous is good. Self-serving is good, but disingenuous is better. Insincere is an easy one. Convenient is probably the word I would have chosen.

I laughed just about non-stop throughout. Even Marlon Wayans, who normally annoys me, seemed like a perfect fit with this particular bunch. My personal favorite: "You brought your b**ch to the Waffle Hut!"

Wow. Thanks Long Gone. Pat, on the legal front I really do bid you Godspeed. I don't know what else to say: it's not like I'm all fond of TWI and want to see them win or anything. Far from it. By the way, thanks for the PT. It did shed some light on the issue. Their motives are, unsurprisingly, despicable. Your legal rights may well entitle you to a fat paycheck. As you point out, TWI specifically ignored advice to grab the domain name well before you bought it. That arrogance will cost them, I'll bet. But I guess I'm coming at this from too much of a "sermon on the mount" attitude. If this doesn't call for an application of "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies," I don't know what does. Yes, I understand that these verses are hyperbole, and that we really don't empty our closets for every shmoe who comes along with a frivolous lawsuit. But dang, what does this advice mean if it doesn't apply in this case? I know, I've given an allegedly "Christian" opinion on a message board that is not strictly "Christian." I understand that people are entitled to their opinion and will vehemently disagree with me (even good Christians will disagree with me, I'm sure). But that's the reasoning behind my opinion. There are plenty of fights worth fighting against TWI. In my humble opinion, this ain't one of them.

Jeesh, George, you would think these people spent an inordinate amount of time on message boards.

Pat, TWI is not wrong in this case. Give them their name back. Ask for the money you invested in acquiring the domain name. That's all you're entitled to. A judge and jury may get you more, but that doesn't make you right.

I'm with anyone who stands up to TWI when they're wrong.