Raf

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.

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!).