Raf

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.

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.