Raf

No, Pat. I wouldn't. That's what makes us different, I guess. I wouldn't have TWI take me to court just to rub their faces in the fact that they didn't take sound advice. You may have the legal right to do so: I'm not disputing that. But Christian to Christian, I'm not with you on this one.

Not so simple at all, Pat. Cybersquatting is taking a domain name that reasonably belongs to someone else. I don't know what the law is on this, but you look at me with a straight face and tell me that taking the name "thewayinternational.com" is not cybersquatting. Registering the name is prima facie evidence of cybersquatting. It doesn't have to be proven: it IS proof. Are you The Way International? No. Are they The Way International? Yes. Who should register the name? Well, you did. Yeah, they're idiots for not registering it first (especially given Ex-TWI's advice. I agree with Oldiesman: this is your strongest legal defense). But that doesn't make your action any more noble. You attempt to sell it for $15,000 and you call that a fair price? Did it cost you $15,000 to acquire the name? To maintain it? Look, as far as the law of the U.S. is concerned, I don't know if you're right or wrong. Good luck. But in my humble opinion, as far as right and wrong is concerned, you're cybersquatting, you're not The Way International, and you're being a pest. I don't like TWI any more than you do, but watching you guys go at it is going to be very much like watching an arm wrestling contest at a leper colony. You have so many morally and ethically legitimate ways to get at them. You really do. This particular method of yours, again in MY opinion and mine only, absolutely cheapens and morally invalidates your other efforts.

Pat, If you're going to ask questions, ask a hard one. Google: 17,000,000 web pages containing "The Way." The VAST majority of those occurrences are in complete sentences that have nothing to do with Christianity. (ie, "We were at a strip club. The dancer was hot. I loved the way she picked up that bottle without using her hands). Nothing to do with The Way International, and your implication that all these folks should be sued for trademarki infringement is, well, stupid. Why are they harassing a former member as opposed to any other church using the trademark "The Way?" That's easy: FORMER MEMBERS ARE THE ONLY ONES USING "THE WAY" TO DELIBERATELY INFRINGE ON THE WAY INTERNATIONAL'S TRADEMARK. Who are you to taunt them for not going after people who are NOT deliberately trying to infrigne on their trademark? If I had limited resources, I'd go after the people who were infringing on my trademark ON PURPOSE before I started going after anyone who happened to be doing it by accident. Pat, you're doing this on purpose. I don't know if you'll win in court or if you'll lose, but as a general rule I consider cybersquatting to be low-level extortion. You're being a cybersquatter with a vendetta, and that won't serve you well in court.

Ok. I submit, however, that what you call "obvious" is what you are reading into the text, not what is already written there.

Ignoring common horse sense? I disagree wholeheartedly. The first thing they did was "read what's written." Then they base their interpretations on what's actually written in those verses. That's the way it's supposed to be. We've been doing it the other way around, bringing our "horse sense" to the scripture rather than let the scripture speak for itself. I don't think they're ignoring the obvious at all. I am not saying a first trimester fetus is going to come out alive. Neither does the verse. The verse merely says the baby comes out. You're the one introducing trimesters into the mix, but if the baby comes out and is dead (a common day definition of miscarriage), then it's the death penalty. The verse only says the baby comes out. The first scenario in the verse is that the baby comes out alive (which, you and I agree, will only take place relatively late in the pregnancy). If the baby comes out alive, there's a fine (remember, the woman was still struck and her health and the baby's health placed in danger). If the baby comes out and does not live (which would overwhelmingly be the case in the first or second trimesters), the penalty is proscribed in the verse. What are they missing? Don't get stuck on a 1st trimester fetus being born alive. No one is saying that. Perhaps this confusion is why honest people don't know whether to translate it "premature birth" or "miscarriage." I think the King James gets this one right, in terms of the actual meaning. "If the child comes out" doesn't address the issue of the baby coming out alive or dead. The rest of the verse immediately addresses that issue.

Oldiesman, The translation in the King James is, if I'm not mistaken, "that her fruit depart from her," which we all agree means if the baby comes out. So, the question is, does the baby come out alive or not? The King James only says the baby comes out. If the baby comes out okay, then no harm done, and the fine is for causing the premature birth and putting the woman and the baby in harm's way. If the baby does NOT come out okay (which, in your words, will "ALWAYS" be the case in the first or second trimester), then ---- kobiyashi maru. Take a look at those links: they make the case much better than I just did.

For what it's worth, I've checked about 40 sites that discuss this issue on both sides. Of those I checked, every one that takes Wierwille's view relies on the translation of Exodus 21:22 ff. Every one that takes a pro-life view relies on an examination of the verses, particularly on the translation and usage of the Hebrew words involved. If I were still updating the Actual Errors list, this would be a prime candidate. Wierwille WOULD be right if the "miscarriage" translation (according to our 20th Century understanding of the word) was correct. But that does not appear to be the case. I'm very open to change my mind, as my examination of the issue has been cursory. Catcup: one could argue that there was a fine because the mother and father did not want to lose the baby: therefore the two men who were striving took something from them. If the mother and father INTENDED to lose the baby, the fine would (under a Wierwillian argument) not apply.

I've been poking around on this: The translations don't agree. Some say miscarriage, others say "premature birth." I'm not sure either way, but I did find this article, which presents a compelling case for the "premature birth" translation. Looking for others on both sides... Another argument for "premature birth" translation.

Coolness. Can't wait to see it.

I think Wierwille assumes the term "that her fruit depart from her" means a miscarriage. If it does, then he is correct. However, if it does not, then his entire exposition is irrelevant. I haven't examined the issue, but would love to hear more about it.

Brace yourself. Our audience was CRYING with laughter.

Cool. We can all go to Hooters and satisfy both the strip club advocates and the let's just sit back and have a beer advocates. :)--> I'd go for a Blues club.

It's kind of like comparing oranges to tangerines. A lot of similarities. Mostel and Wilder were great oranges, but Lane and Broderick are some dang good tangerines.

Oh, he played the director, right? Or his sidekick? Both were outstanding. In fact, everyone was terrific. "I look like the Chrysler Building." BAAAAhahahahahaha

But you know, if it worked, then God must have PROMISED her equal sized breasts, because the law of believing is only about the promises of God, don't you know. Good God, what a crock.

RAF: Psst. Hey, Craig, come here a minute. LCM: What's that in your hand? RAF: It's a Bible. I've opened it to Genesis 1:2. Can you read that? LCM: "And the earth was without form and void..." Hey, you know that should say "became" right? RAF: Well, that's irrelevant, but let's assume you're right. What did it become? LCM: What? RAF: I said, what did the earth become? LCM: Oh, easy. Without form and void. RAF: Thanks. What does "without form" mean? LCM: Ummm.... RAF: (Smacks him in the head with his Bible) It means no mountains, you idiot.

This from CKnapp on a thread about "The Unforgivable Sin"

Don't laugh, I've seen that sign. Well, close to it. The guy was outside Yankee Stadium. His sign read, "Why lie? I need a drink." I hear he made quite a chunk of change. I just looked that phrase up on the Internet. Seems a lot of folks decided on the honest approach. The guy I saw at Yankee Stadium may not have been the first to draw up that sign.

Which one was he?

I saw it in February (Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane were both performing in the leads). It was painfully funny. I mean, it was physically hurt, grab your sides and beg them to stop long enough for you to regain your composure funny. It was so funny that Broderick and Lane made each other laugh: so hard that they had to stop the show for a minute. This happened in the second act, when Lane's character suggests they kill the actors and Broderick responds, "YOU CAN'T KILL THE ACTORS! THEY'RE NOT ANIMALS!" For some reason, the two found this riotous and lost their composure. The audience, by now exhausted with glee, simply applauded, giving them enough time to get back into character and get back on with the show. The New York Times review of the show began (and I agree): "How do you point out the highlights in a forest fire?"

Of course it was extreme, and I was clear on that when I spoke to them. I gave them this as an example of some rules which are not rules at all: they are preferences which can be broken without doing harm to the English language. But it is essential, I said, to know what a rule is so that when you break it, you are doing it with wisdom and not out of laziness. Basically and essentially are overused. There's nothing wrong with them, and more often than not, they are used properly (grammatically speaking). But as a writer, I can tell you that each word should be used sparingly because they're just so danged convenient. People pepper their conversations with those words, which is fine in conversation, but on paper they become the equivalent of UMMMM, UMMMM, UMMMM. Another rule which isn't a rule (but is almost never broken by good writers), is that it's improper to start an article with the date. The only time it is appropriate, I said, is when you're reciting the opening of The Odd Couple (which none of those whippersnappers gaughed at). Split infinitives? They're fine, honest. And there's really no rule which says you cannot end a sentence with a preposition, although there are grammar-nazis who insist that prepositions are not for ending sentences with.

Touche, CKnapp. I think it's fairly well agreed upon that he's absent in some ways and present in others. He's my lord. Can't wait to see him standing in front of me, though.

Oh there it is.

The dancing figure will point to an x. When the tape stops, click on where the x was three times. A safe appears. One of the clues tells you the code for the safe. There's a screwdriver in the safe. GOOD LUCK GRABBING IT. To save my friggin LIFE it won't let me have the screwdriver.

You know, there's nothing fun about getting to the screwdriver, clicking it to grab it, and just ending up at the cd player again. It's one thing if you can't find the dang thing, but if you CAN find it but can't grab it, that's just rude.