Raf

Oldiesman, get this through your impenetrable skull, will you: SHE ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT SHE DID. Tracing the reasons for it does NOT abandon personal responsibility. She is not blaming PFAL. She is stating that PFAL had wrong doctrine which was further twisted by self-serving "ministers" who somehow convinced her that there was nothing wrong with that behavior - a position she now knows was wrong and for which she feels tremendous guilt WITHOUT your finger-pointing and heartless accusations. She knew full well what she did without you picking up stones waiting for the word "go." That's the part you're not getting. "Oh, she's blaming PFAL for what she did." She's doing no such thing. She's blaming PFAL for what she THOUGHT, which is fair game. But without your help, she already blamed herself for what she did, thankyouverymuch. You're being a heartless idiot, Oldiesman. The scorn you're receiving on this thread was earned by your heartlessness and you're earning interest on it with your stubbornness. I repeat: She already has an Accuser, Oldiesman. She doesn't need you.

She didn't get a free pass. She didn't ask for a free pass. She asked how she could ever have come to the mindset that such behavior was okay. What she needed was understanding. What she got was YOU pointing a finger, maybe picking up a couple of stones while you're at it. I'll bet you'd stitch an A on her blouse if you had the chance. Compassion? Not an ounce. Just blame, from you, as if she needed any more. Pitiful.

OM, She accepted responsibility. Did you know that one can accept responsibility for one's actions while STILL tracing the root cause of those actions? I can say, "I was responsible for the arrogant attitude I had when dealing with other Christians while I was in TWI" while still recognizing that arrogance is both wrong and a by-product of quite a bit of TWI teaching and behavior. You really don't get it, because you refuse to see some glaringly obvious truths. 1. Imbus already accepted responsibility for what she did. 2. TWI wrongly taught that "every woman in the kingdom belonged to the king." That was not true in the Old Testament, it was not true of the king. 3. People in TWI TWIsted that statement to apply to the MOG and to others who could "handle it." 4. Imbus did not blame that leader for what she did. She acknowledged that it happened and asked, openly, why did she think it was okay? Why did she lower and debase herself that way? Didn't blame the leader, but blamed the twisted application of the wrong doctrine that was taught in TWI. I don't know anything about mind control, but I do know that young people can be quite impressionable, especially when they are not in the presence of sound doctrine on these matters. To steal a phrase, you are truly proving yourself to be the world's only living heart donor.

I think mastery of moonshine preservation will leave you closer to God. After I don't know how many years of moonshine preservation, Littlehawk seems a much nicer person to hang with than the average PFAL master.

Baaaahahahahahahahahaha. I'm a Yankee but they knew better than to leave the moonshahn in mah room.

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.