The Voice of Offence

[Linda Z]

Here's my 2 cents. I've refrained from getting into this never-ending argument, but it seems so darn simple to me.

WD, unproven does not equal untrue. Period. End of story. No amount of arguing can turn truth into a lie because it isn't proven to your satisfaction.

Years ago when I was only 20, I was raped by the leader of a Hell's Angels wannabe gang. The only witnesses were his gang members, who stood by and watched. I finally escaped by jumping into a nearby lake and swimming to the other side. It was 1966, and I was afraid to go to the police, especially after the rapist broke down my apt. door looking for me a couple days later. He put the word out that he wanted me to be "his woman." I was terrified. I ended up leaving the state, but every time I came back to visit I was afraid I'd see him or, more accurately, afraid he'd see me.

This is a true story. I can't prove it. And I'll be damned if I feel obligated to say this "allegedly" happened. Since it happened to me, I have a right to speak about it, and then people can decide whether they believe me or not. If they do, fine; if they don't tough cookies.

So to sum up: Unproven does not equal untrue.

[Linda Z]

This will probably tag along with my last post, but oh well.

WD, I do get your point about people relating events as factual that they didn't personally witness.

When it comes to the allegations against VPW, I'm positive some are true, and I suspect some are not. Not because anyone intentionally lied, but because it's like playing telephone (or as my old friend from Pennsylvania called it, "Whisper Down the Lane"). The story changes as it passes from one person to the next. And when it's such a volatile subject, emotions get in there and stir things up, making it even more complicated.

So I don't have a problem with that particular part of your argument, WD (the non-first-hand part). What I do have a problem with is that you also seem to be demanding that people who did experience things first-hand say those occurrences are "alleged." That, to me, is unreasonable.

[WhiteDove]

Here's my 2 cents. I've refrained from getting into this never-ending argument, but it seems so darn simple to me.

WD, unproven does not equal untrue. Period. End of story. No amount of arguing can turn truth into a lie because it isn't proven to your satisfaction.

Years ago when I was only 20, I was raped by the leader of a Hell's Angels wannabe gang. The only witnesses were his gang members, who stood by and watched. I finally escaped by jumping into a nearby lake and swimming to the other side. It was 1966, and I was afraid to go to the police, especially after the rapist broke down my apt. door looking for me a couple days later. He put the word out that he wanted me to be "his woman." I was terrified. I ended up leaving the state, but every time I came back to visit I was afraid I'd see him or, more accurately, afraid he'd see me.

This is a true story. I can't prove it. And I'll be damned if I feel obligated to say this "allegedly" happened. Since it happened to me, I have a right to speak about it, and then people can decide whether they believe me or not. If they do, fine; if they don't tough cookies.

So to sum up: Unproven does not equal untrue.

I agree Linda and have said just that a gazillion times. But it does not make it true either on the other side of the coin. It could also be accuratly said

Unproven does not equal true

It's true to you because you have first hand information to rely on . To the public who don't have that benefit it is a best guess if it is true or not . I've cited the stories in the news of those who say their children have been kidnapped, everyone jumps on the bandwagon they just believe them, later it turns out quite different, they knew where they were all along, they put them there. A classic example of just making a guess at whether a story is true or not based on someone's version. Sorry I wont make that mistake.

[rhino]

it may be true period, I have no way to say either way, but what I can say is that it is not verifiable and as such can not be referred to as truth.

Actually you can not say that. Well, you can say it, but it is only your opinion based on thin air. Probably they are usually truthful statements, and may wll be "verifiable".

When people are on a witness stand, they promise to tell the "truth". How is that any different than people here that tell the "truth"?

And let me ask you again ...

Are you WD, stating it is a fact that Rascal is not giving an honest opinion?

If someone says "so an so raped me", you would want them to say they were "allegedly raped"?

If Rascal states an opinion of that person's statement, she can say what she wants. She might not know it is a fact, but she can believe it is. She has every right to state her certainty of the testimony. If she blatantly stated it is a fact that so and so is a rapist, she would only be incorrect if it was false, in which case she maybe defamed so and so.

News agencies use the term "alleged" because they are reporting things as factual. Rascal is stating opinion and does not need the term. It is self evident her statements about someone else's testimonial are her opinion.

On the other hand WD, you have stated that "it may be true period, I have no way to say either way, but what I can say is that it is not verifiable " You seem to say it is a fact that those statements are NOT verifiable, when you don't know that. You also stated your opinion is that Rascal is not honest in her opinion ... or are you saying it is a fact that she is not honest?

well, I just read the last 3 posts, so I am overlapping a little .... oh well ...

Edited January 13, 2008 by rhino

[pond]

.

When people are on a witness stand, they promise to tell the "truth". How is that any different than people here that tell the "truth"?

The difference is they will be held ACCOUNTABLE to what they as TRUTH, and if evidence is found proving they are lying about the facts it is thrown out of testimony for the trial. Also anyone giving false testimony in a court of law is prosecuted for the crime of contempt or perjury.sp It isagainst the law to lie in court.

And let me ask you again ...

Are you WD, stating it is a fact that Rascal is not giving an honest opinion?

An opinion is not a fact.

We are innocent until proven guilty that is why we have a trial so everyone can state their facts Fact findings are done to check to see if indeed he was at his mom's house having dinner when the crime was done etc.... but ten people say they saw him on the dock that night .. that is a trial a jury decides who is telling the truth.. with evidence of what happened.

[rhino]

The difference is they will be held ACCOUNTABLE to what they as TRUTH, and if evidence is found proving they are lying about the facts it is thrown out of testimony for the trial. Also anyone giving false testimony in a court of law is prosecuted for the crime of contempt or perjury.sp It is against the law to lie in court.

But the "truth" is the same ... it is the consequence of lying that is different.

And let me ask you again ...

Are you WD, stating it is a fact that Rascal is not giving an honest opinion?

An opinion is not a fact.

We are innocent until proven guilty that is why we have a trial so everyone can state their facts Fact findings are done to check to see if indeed he was at his mom's house having dinner when the crime was done etc.... but ten people say they saw him on the dock that night .. that is a trial a jury decides who is telling the truth.. with evidence of what happened.

My point was that WD was stating that Rascal was not being honest, but he did not say "allegedly dishonest" and he offered no evidence she was dishonest.

Rascal's opinions are based on testimony of others (I presume), but WD's statement that she is dishonest are an accusation with no basis at all.

I'm saying WD appears to have a double standard.

[pond]

the truth may not be the same as an opinion.

I may say I saw a space ship last night, but unless some pictures are presented or enough evidence is proven to be acceptable in court it is my opinion.

I can say the tree was green, and an expert comes in and says why a tree is green, and I have pictures of the tree being green, it turns into the truth in court the tree is green. it becomes evidence in and of itself. a dr's testimony is granted as expert as many others the ME all these experts testimony is considered expert because it isnt their opinion the tree is green they can prove it is green by facts.

a Trial is to decide what the truth is . not what an opinion is. consequences are needed to maintain a degree of the truth being told. Otherwise it would be I think he did the crime , never did like the guy, sure he was the one. an opinion.

two different things Bill.

[rascal]

Thank you Rhino. I have yet to figure out where exactly Dove claims that I am lying.

He is free to call me a liar, yet he offers no proof, not even in reference to a particular incident.

I don`t think that he even really believes that. It seems to me however, that it is very important to him to discredit me personally so that my pov and experience lack credibility.

[Tom Strange]

well... at least we know now that WD doesn't have to waste any time or money reading newspapers and watching the news on TV... because heck, to him none of it is true until he reads it in a court transcript or hears it in a courtroom from someone under oath... If you're his friend, don't ever bother telling him that he "looks nice today" or that "it's a nice day outside of the courtroom"... it's not the truth! Don't bother telling him that he'll love the apple pie at the diner on the corner of Main and First, he won't believe you until he hears it in a court of law...

And if you try to tell him that you witnessed it first hand, he'll show you some case where a guy was released from prison by DNA evidence... only problem is that those who 'witnessed' and claimed he was the guilty one had only seen him one time in their lives, at the time of the attack... he wasn't someone they had known for years and knew exactly who he was... or thought they did... they were sure it was him, they just didn't know who he really was.

Of course, the first part above is absurd, taking it to unrealistic lengths.. but that's what WD is doing here.

[rascal]

Linda, that is terrifying. I am sorry that happened to you.

[Bramble]

I would believe the "I have a high standard for what is truth" arguement if WD didn't seem to focus on one particular poster so much.

That makes it seems far less noble.

[rhino]

the truth may not be the same as an opinion.

a Trial is to decide what the truth is . not what an opinion is. consequences are needed to maintain a degree of the truth being told. Otherwise it would be I think he did the crime , never did like the guy, sure he was the one. an opinion.

two different things Bill.

A person gives first hand testimony and tells "the truth"

Experts might prove he is lying, but if he is not lying, the expert witnesses help corroborate the "truth" he spoke. They aren't witness to "the truth", but are there for verification. DNA matches are a good example.

A trial does NOT. decide. the truth. A trial MAY only show who has the better lawyer. A trial is for recovery of damages or penalizing for crime. But an honest first hand witness swears to tell the truth ... and to the best of their brain's ability ... they tell "the truth."

That same person can tell the same truth here in a message board. When testimony is given here, it is just as much truth as in a courtroom. Before there is a remedy or punishment, verification would be in order.

The consequences for lying here are different, and there is no recovery or penalty meted out here. That is what the trial is for. Juries come to decisions based on what they believe to be truth. They are ideally really just a collection of more informed, unbiased opinions. They do not make "truth."

I can say the tree was green, and an expert comes in and says why a tree is green, and I have pictures of the tree being green, it turns into the truth in court the tree is green.

Perhaps you have some deep legal "truth" here ... but I don't think so. If a jury's decision was that the tree is blue, the truth would still be that the tree is green. Trials can't make or change truth.

Edited January 13, 2008 by rhino

[skyrider]

WD, I do get your point about people relating events as factual that they didn't personally witness.

When it comes to the allegations against VPW, I'm positive some are true, and I suspect some are not. Not because anyone intentionally lied, but because it's like playing telephone (or as my old friend from Pennsylvania called it, "Whisper Down the Lane"). The story changes as it passes from one person to the next. And when it's such a volatile subject, emotions get in there and stir things up, making it even more complicated.

So I don't have a problem with that particular part of your argument, WD (the non-first-hand part). What I do have a problem with is that you also seem to be demanding that people who did experience things first-hand say those occurrences are "alleged." That, to me, is unreasonable.

Yeah.......and concerning allegations against wierwille......if one were to speak in legal terms (and I'm no lawyer) doesn't substantiating evidence come into play? Like......

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille kept in his possession pornography (two girls/dog flick).

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille showed a *porno pen* to a young girl in a Family Corps setting.

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille plagairized many sources. Even Mrs. Wierwille's book gives evidence.

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille demanded "From Birth to Corps" papers [intent??....to target certain girls?]

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille degraded his wife in public meeting.

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille taught lock-box [for personal agenda].

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille side-stepped teaching on adultery.

KNOWN FACT..............Geer had Shoenheit fired from staff for his paper on adultery.

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille died of cancer......and trustees claimed he died of a "broken heart."

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille taught that cancer was a devil spirit.....[wowsers!!!!]

KNOWN FACT..............other things GS has documented

All of this *substantiating evidence* would certainly perk the ears of the jury......if these known facts were presented in a court of law.

So when some corps girl shares her experience of wierwille groping her or sexually assaulting her in the motorcoach.........perhaps the jury would NOT be so disallusioned by wierwille's public persona as some pfal-idolaters are when hearing ANOTHER SIDE OF TWI and WIERWILLE.

[Tom Strange]

Perhaps you have some deep legal "truth" here ... but I don't think so. If a jury's decision was that the tree is blue, the truth would still be that the tree is green. Trials can't make or change truth.

excellent point rhino... and it is really simple... until it's made complicated.

[rhino]

excellent point rhino... and it is really simple... until it's made complicated.

It should be simple, shouldn't it :)

I wonder if I can't get more "truth" in forums like this than in a trial. Here are people I know, and I have a history with some and can verify their character for myself.

In a trial decision, some testimony may not be allowed, a good defense lawyer may instill doubt when there really is none, police can mishandle something getting vital facts or cases thrown out, and big moeny can sway other lawyers or even judges. Deals may bet cut in the end to save costs, and then the decision may be made private.

Did "truth" get fully revealed in the lcm trial?

Since decisions are overturned at times, a trial is clearly not the ultimate maker of truth.

Edited January 13, 2008 by rhino

[pond]

lcm never went to trial .

that is untrue.

see how simple it really is?

[rhino]

lcm never went to trial .

that is untrue.

see how simple it really is?

I asked a question ... how can it be untrue?

I haven't read any of the lcm charges or decisions ... it was just a simple question ... I should have said in "the lcm case" I guess, where apparently the trial was avoided by compromise?

Whatever the compromise was, it didn't seem to turn out too well for craig.

[excathedra]

oj is innocent and that's the truth

[rhino]

oj is innocent and that's the truth

good point, but he was guilty in the civil trial ... so I guess he is both innocent and guilty ...

[Tom Strange]

oj is innocent and that's the truth

myseestorEx! I soooo wanted to type that at the end of my last post! because, at least according to White Dove, he IS INNOCENT!

...and we all believe that to be the truth don't we?

[excathedra]

how many pages of silliness is this ? i don't even know

no offense whitedove but come on

this is a frikkin discussion board

i'm done. i'll try to stay away from here

[WhiteDove]

I would believe the "I have a high standard for what is truth" arguement if WD didn't seem to focus on one particular poster so much.

That makes it seems far less noble.

I think if you look at this thread you will find your claim to be lacking . I have engaged several people in discussion . I think if you look you will see that I tried to answer each that responded to my words. at times that is difficult when there is one of me and many poting to or at me. Some respond more so they get more dialog. If you are feeling left out I'd be happy to discuss any points that you may have.

Edited January 14, 2008 by WhiteDove

[Ham]

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille kept in his possession pornography (two girls/dog flick).

KNOWN FACT..............Wierwille showed a *porno pen* to a young girl in a Family Corps setting.

seems the legal wrangling simply tries to hold the WRONG people up to a "higher" standard.

what about herr mogster?

OK.. let's look at it.. maybe in a different light. Suppose you are "merely" a college professor, or a high school professor.. EVEN IN THE "SWINGING" SEVENTIES. not even the supposed manogawd to da world..

1. You OWN, or rather, have in your possession beastiality porn video (and God only knows what else)..

2. You EXHIBIT this material to your "students" in some kind of work study program.. at least one is UNDERAGE.

3. You're looking for tenure..

4. news of this gets out..

the question of the day. Do you get it? i.e., tenure?

"aww.. it's ok vicster. no problem.. sure you didn't mean anything "twisted" by it or anything.."

I say.. let's hold these bastards up to the "lower" standard.

They wouldn't stand a chance..

The few undisputed facts in evidence.. convict this kind of swill.. even before we get started..

[Ham]

what *I* didn't know about the situation..

see.. the vicster really *needed* some kind of.. tenure in his organization. Some kind of validation of his credentials.. his mission..

did his parent organization give it to him?

Naw..

Hmm. Well.. let's just break off and make our own..

that's one thing that makes me even more suspicious about offshoots. Even a CORRUPT to the CORE organization they came from won't give them the time of day..

won't sell their books..

Ya know.. if it was any other endeavor.. say math, or physics.. or chemistry..

if you have SOMETHING right, the "rest of the world" seems to have little problem accepting it..

even if you're the "enemy"..

[WhiteDove]

seems the legal wrangling simply tries to hold the WRONG people up to a "higher" standard.

what about herr mogster?

OK.. let's look at it.. maybe in a different light. Suppose you are "merely" a college professor, or a high school professor.. EVEN IN THE "SWINGING" SEVENTIES. not even the supposed manogawd to da world..

1. You OWN, or rather, have in your possession beastiality porn video (and God only knows what else)..

2. You EXHIBIT this material to your "students" in some kind of work study program.. at least one is UNDERAGE.

3. You're looking for tenure..

4. news of this gets out..

the question of the day. Do you get it? i.e., tenure?

"aww.. it's ok vicster. no problem.. sure you didn't mean anything "twisted" by it or anything.."

I say.. let's hold these bastards up to the "lower" standard.

They wouldn't stand a chance..

The few undisputed facts in evidence.. convict this kind of swill.. even before we get started..

Mr. Squirrel

I wont engage in speculation with your theoretical stories but I will say this about your last line.

I say.. let's hold these bastards up to the "lower" standard.

They wouldn't stand a chance..

The few undisputed facts in evidence.. convict this kind of swill.. even before we get started..

I'm glad we have rights in the land in which we live equal ones at that for the most part. I'm glad you don't hold any office that would govern any of those rights. It's sad to think our young generation is dying for those rights for all when some think like you do about them.