That's the point where are the documentations of those deeds thatyou accuse of ? You assume the charges are true because you wish to , perhaps they don't ,when you have proof the question will be answered.
Perhaps you missed the fact that at least two posters were there personally when Wierwille made these statements.
And I heard it immediately after the fact from another party.
Why on earth would he publicly announce he had fondled his daughters?
The burden of documentation is not upon the fondling but upon his public admission of such.
Wrong I have never asked to silence any critics ,what I did say is that it is not proper to refer to one as guilty without the benefit of due process I believe that our laws support that premise despite the fact that you wish to assign guilt at will. I have repeatedly stated opinions are peoples right as well, and even complimented a poster on expressing his as such although did not necessarily agree. Your charges are without backing. And avoiding evil would assume that you have determined such evil by proper methods such as a persons rights......
References to a person that has not been convicted of a crime as guilty are not proper manner of speech the proper term is alleged, anyone knws that slander and libel come into play when one does so. Im betting it is equally hurtful for the Wierwille family to see their dad accused without representation . Is anyone concerned with any hurt there ,Of course not because hating must prevail....... Oh and by the way who made youthe reader of my intent? wasn't it you that just pointed out to someone that they could not know your mind? Is that a one way thing it only works for you?
Wrong I have never asked to silence any critics ,what I did say is that it is not proper to refer to one as guilty without the benefit of due process I believe that our laws support that premise despite the fact that you wish to assign guilt at will. I have repeatedly stated opinions are peoples right as well, and even complimented a poster on expressing his as such although did not necessarily agree. Your charges are without backing. And avoiding evil would assume that you have determined such evil by proper methods such as a persons rights......
Dead people are accorded no legal rights in the USA.
Legally a dead person is a "body" or "remains" and a body has no legal rights.
The estate of the deceased has legal rights and responsibilities, and is considered a separate legal entity.
The heirs have some legal rights as well.
But the dead body has absolutely no legal rights.
One can not libel a dead body
One can not slander a dead body.
One can not falsely accuse a dead body of any crime.
A dead body does not qualify for the legal protections of due process or innocent until proven guilty.
I'll say it again, dead people have no legal rights in the US criminal justice system.
However, it's possible that the estate could sue, but I would assume that the estate has been settled by now.
The heirs could sue, but they, not the women, would be charged with the burden of proof.
In essence, they would have to prove that the sexual abuse didn't happen, and that the women are lying.
And, they would lose, because it's next to impossible to prove a negative.
Exactly Jeff you spoke your opinion I'm fine with that. On the other hand had you said Dr. Wierwille was a scumbag that would be a statement of fact and I would expect you to offer some proof for your claim or admission that it was simply a misstated opinion.
.
Jeff we can discuss the Corinthian justice system after we get the American one straight.
Oh give me a friggen break, WD. That is a word game and you know it!! One does not have to say "IMO" every time they state an opinion. Most people of average or even somewhat below average intelligence are capable of separating opinion from fact.
Opinion: VPW was a scumbag
Fact: VPW taught a class called PFAL.
DOH!!!
And though I have stood up for your right to express your opinions, I can promise you, I will NOT take the time to type IMO, every time I express an opinion about VPW or any other topic.
I never said it is a court ,it is commen sense to speak correctly where ever the place. Look at the media and how they speak in an open forum it's pretty clear most understand that one can not attribute a guilty verdict to one that has had no such a verdict decided. I doubt if it were you you would agree that is acceptable to accuse you of crimes that you have not had charged against you. Opinions are opinions facts are facts. If opinions become proven facts then they can be stated as such, until they are they should be stated as opinions.
The custom and practice around the GSC has been, for as long as I have been here, that the names of public figures can be used when one is telling their stories. However, the non-public figures are not to be named. In other words, it is and has been perfectly acceptable to say VPW is a scumbag who sexually abused me. But it would not be acceptable for me to say White Dove is a scumbag who sexually abused me.
What WD is doing now is exactly what we want to avoid on the "story telling" threads...
His reasoning is circular and void of any real honesty or empathy...In my opinion that is.
Wierwille was not convicted in a court of law for the things he did...and because of that, WD wants to silence his critics....personal first hand testamonies by NUMBERS of people do not count because they were not part of an official court record. You tell me if this is being honest? The bible exhorts people to avoid those that are evil...it doesn't require court convictions to determine who the evil ones are...does it Whitedove?
I vote Boot them if they can not even bend a little bit
Wrong I have never asked to silence any critics ,what I did say is that it is not proper to refer to one as guilty without the benefit of due process I believe that our laws support that premise despite the fact that you wish to assign guilt at will. I have repeatedly stated opinions are peoples right as well, and even complimented a poster on expressing his as such although did not necessarily agree. Your charges are without backing. And avoiding evil would assume that you have determined such evil by proper methods such as a persons rights......
I guess it depends on which court you hold in higher esteem. In our legal system, one would not be guilty without due process. Of course, you know this isn't a court room.
But there is a higher law, too, no??? In the O.T. a person was found guilty by the mouths of two or three witnesses. I believe we have at LEAST two or three witnesses. In fact, I can name 4 people off the top of my head who have told stories that would convict VPW of sexual assault (I am avoiding the word rape for you, OM ;) ).
Funny how it goes to court all the time eh? Hey WD - know anything about a fellow named Adolph Hitler? He went to trial once - pre-Nazi Germany - in the somewhat famed beer hall putsch trials. He was convicted and found guilty - barely. He indeed was never tried post WWII because he was dead - suicide. Since he was dead there was no way to convict - sounds just like your illogic - do you deny that Hitler was a global criminal? While Wierwille was nothing on the scale of Hitler - your illogic still fails the same way. Hitler committed crimes against humanity on a global scale - Wierwille committed them on a corn-field scale - however the crime is the crime.
OH YEAH WD - ALL THAT ARE LEFT TO "CONVICT" Hitler are EYEWITNESSES - with freaking tatoos on their arms - most of whom will be dead in a few years anyway - so WTF - I guess we can put Hitler to a polite sleep as well just like you want to put Wierwille down with no conviction. Oh MY I forgot something - Hitler didn't kill all of those people - HE JUST STARTED THE ORGANIZATION THAT LED TO IT AND PERPETUATED IT AS BEST THEY COULD.
You WD should be wearing a freaking swastika and chanting Sieg Heil - and that is your composite worth - nothing but a Nazi
...And on it goes...
What WD is doing now is exactly what we want to avoid on the "story telling" threads...
His reasoning is circular and void of any real honesty or empathy...In my opinion that is.
Wierwille was not convicted in a court of law for the things he did...and because of that, WD wants to silence his critics....personal first hand testamonies by NUMBERS of people do not count because they were not part of an official court record. You tell me if this is being honest? The bible exhorts people to avoid those that are evil...it doesn't require court convictions to determine who the evil ones are...does it Whitedove?
RumRunner you make an interesting and good point. By WD's logic the schools should stop teaching about the atrocities Hilter commited - he was never convicted for them.
I guess it depends on which court you hold in higher esteem. In our legal system, one would not be guilty without due process. Of course, you know this isn't a court room.
But there is a higher law, too, no??? In the O.T. a person was found guilty by the mouths of two or three witnesses. I believe we have at LEAST two or three witnesses. In fact, I can name 4 people off the top of my head who have told stories that would convict VPW of sexual assault (I am avoiding the word rape for you, OM ;) ).
And Paul got the oppertunity to plead against the charges against him as well So? You assume that they would convict that's a guess it may or may not be a right one. we all can speculate what may happen.
Why thank you Abigail! That exactly my point. I prefer never to forget what Hitler, et. al. committed - there is a reason for history beside just spiritual worship - maybe to learn and remember
RumRunner you make an interesting and good point. By WD's logic the schools should stop teaching about the atrocities Hilter commited - he was never convicted for them.
And Paul got the oppertunity to plead against the charges against him as well So? You assume that they would convict that's a guess it may or may not be a right one. we all can speculate what may happen.
If only . . . .
And yet, if he had been convicted in OT culture, the woman would have suffered as well. She would have been "damaged goods" and as such, ummarriageable.
Sadly, the 1940's - 1970's weren't so much better. No stoning, to be sure. But women were still often seen in a very negative light in cases of rape and sexual abuse.
But you have no empathy for these women, you have only your vehement, hard and legalistic stance that words be used with mathmatical precision. Your love for perfect grammar seems to supercede your love for your fellow man and woman.
You very much come across as one of the Pharisees Jesus reproved. Full of pride and knowlege, but a whited sepulchre inside.
Funny how it goes to court all the time eh? Hey WD - know anything about a fellow named Adolph Hitler? He went to trial once - pre-Nazi Germany - in the somewhat famed beer hall putsch trials. He was convicted and found guilty - barely. He indeed was never tried post WWII because he was dead - suicide. Since he was dead there was no way to convict - sounds just like your illogic - do you deny that Hitler was a global criminal? While Wierwille was nothing on the scale of Hitler - your illogic still fails the same way. Hitler committed crimes against humanity on a global scale - Wierwille committed them on a corn-field scale - however the crime is the crime.
OH YEAH WD - ALL THAT ARE LEFT TO "CONVICT" Hitler are EYEWITNESSES - with freaking tatoos on their arms - most of whom will be dead in a few years anyway - so WTF - I guess we can put Hitler to a polite sleep as well just like you want to put Wierwille down with no conviction. Oh MY I forgot something - Hitler didn't kill all of those people - HE JUST STARTED THE ORGANIZATION THAT LED TO IT AND PERPETUATED IT AS BEST THEY COULD.
You WD should be wearing a freaking swastika and chanting Sieg Heil - and that is your composite worth - nothing but a Nazi
1. Who is the leader? What are his/her background and qualifications?
VPW was at the time. Now we know his qualifications and background were phoney.
2. Are there exclusive claims made to wisdom, knowledge, love, and truth?
Yes
3. Is total submission and obedience required?
Yes
4. Does he/she have a criminal record, a legacy of allegations against him/her or a history of misconduct?
Yep
5. Does the leader demonstrate psychological problems and awareness of their existence?
Yep- but it was hidden in a lock-box.
6. Are questions and doubts permitted within the organization?
Nope.
7. Is the organization open or closed? Are there secrets? Is there real financial accountability? If a group says that you can look at its accounting records, does it actually provide access?
Secrets? Ssssshhhh ... don't want the ministry to be blamed.
8. What structural checks and balances exist within the organization to prevent abuse of power? Is there an independent "ethics" committee to challenge and change policies of the group?
Checks and balances? The only check they cared about was the 15% and the balance of the bank account.
I suppose...in a twisted sort of way, we should be thanking WD...his outrageous statements only add fuel to the fires of our own anger...he rallies people together to state their opinions of what this lowlife Wierwille was all about...his utter and dismal denial of reality shocks us...his failure to listen to reason and to ignore the testamonies of so many people...gives us pause...how could someone ignore the obvious in order to defend the indefensible?
It really makes no sense...unless of course WD is troll on a mission...
I suppose...in a twisted sort of way, we should be thanking WD...his outrageous statements only add fuel to the fires of our own anger...he rallies people together to state their opinions of what this lowlife Wierwille was all about...his utter and dismal denial of reality shocks us...his failure to listen to reason and to ignore the testamonies of so many people...gives us pause...how could someone ignore the obvious in order to defend the indefensible?
It really makes no sense...unless of course WD is troll on a mission...
Thank you, WhiteDove for helping us review history so that we will not repeat it and keep our kids safe from cult-like thinking.
Now - leave the victims alone when they tell their story.
If upon examination of facts it was a proven statement and not someone's fuzzy memory thanI would call that person a molester. But whoever they are they still get their chance at justice as lacking as it is at times.
NO warm fuzzies happening here. I was there.
What is their chance at justice ? Saying they didn't say it? I don't understand.
Now there's an interesting situation, no? He was found innocent in criminal court, yet he was convicted in civil court. So, can we refer to him as guilty of murder???? Quite a dilemna, no?
And why? Why was he found innocent in one and guilty in another? Well, lets see, there's diffents standards of proof between the two for starters. But there were also different judges, different attorneys presenting the evidence against him, and probably there was evidence allowed and disallowed on one court and not the other.
But, even if OJ had never been tried in civil court, I would still be free to opinine that he was guilty. Not only that, but here at the cafe, I could be free to post, "OJ is a murderer who should not be free to walk the streets." And I could post it without adding "alleged" or "IMO".
Indeed, his former in-laws could come here and do the same. Now, you are free to believe otherwise, but do you think it would really be a kindness to his in-laws to correct their use of the English language by telling them they should add "IMO" or "alleged?"
confining certain people to certain forums would be better than boots ...
The apologists, the Antis, the Big Leaguers and the small fry have the right to post. Or they should have.
Restricting the things permissible in specific rooms would be a reasonable solution, and that is an Admin control/ Moderators matter to direct the flow.
Hi exy. Nust looking here I see talk about booting VPW apologists, Apologists offending those who are opening up for the first time with personal testimonies, etc.
It appears to be something of a board issue at the moment.
So Im commenting on the side of everyones having the right to post.
If this site is predominantly a recovery site for ex members, I would just restrict the apologists from expressing their Weirwille defences in specific rooms.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
52
39
48
Popular Days
Jul 12
84
Jul 13
71
Jul 9
59
Jul 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 34 posts
Abigail 52 posts
Rocky 39 posts
WhiteDove 48 posts
Popular Days
Jul 12 2008
84 posts
Jul 13 2008
71 posts
Jul 9 2008
59 posts
Jul 10 2008
54 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi, Revictimizing the victims of abuse is itself abusive. It speaks volumes about the one doing it. What they still adhere to shapes their perspective and ability to inflict cruelty on those so horr
waysider
Perhaps you missed the fact that at least two posters were there personally when Wierwille made these statements.
And I heard it immediately after the fact from another party.
Why on earth would he publicly announce he had fondled his daughters?
The burden of documentation is not upon the fondling but upon his public admission of such.
I believe that much has been provided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
And he dumps another load....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Dead people are accorded no legal rights in the USA.
Legally a dead person is a "body" or "remains" and a body has no legal rights.
The estate of the deceased has legal rights and responsibilities, and is considered a separate legal entity.
The heirs have some legal rights as well.
But the dead body has absolutely no legal rights.
One can not libel a dead body
One can not slander a dead body.
One can not falsely accuse a dead body of any crime.
A dead body does not qualify for the legal protections of due process or innocent until proven guilty.
I'll say it again, dead people have no legal rights in the US criminal justice system.
However, it's possible that the estate could sue, but I would assume that the estate has been settled by now.
The heirs could sue, but they, not the women, would be charged with the burden of proof.
In essence, they would have to prove that the sexual abuse didn't happen, and that the women are lying.
And, they would lose, because it's next to impossible to prove a negative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oh give me a friggen break, WD. That is a word game and you know it!! One does not have to say "IMO" every time they state an opinion. Most people of average or even somewhat below average intelligence are capable of separating opinion from fact.
Opinion: VPW was a scumbag
Fact: VPW taught a class called PFAL.
DOH!!!
And though I have stood up for your right to express your opinions, I can promise you, I will NOT take the time to type IMO, every time I express an opinion about VPW or any other topic.
The custom and practice around the GSC has been, for as long as I have been here, that the names of public figures can be used when one is telling their stories. However, the non-public figures are not to be named. In other words, it is and has been perfectly acceptable to say VPW is a scumbag who sexually abused me. But it would not be acceptable for me to say White Dove is a scumbag who sexually abused me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I vote Boot them if they can not even bend a little bit
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I guess it depends on which court you hold in higher esteem. In our legal system, one would not be guilty without due process. Of course, you know this isn't a court room.
But there is a higher law, too, no??? In the O.T. a person was found guilty by the mouths of two or three witnesses. I believe we have at LEAST two or three witnesses. In fact, I can name 4 people off the top of my head who have told stories that would convict VPW of sexual assault (I am avoiding the word rape for you, OM ;) ).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Funny how it goes to court all the time eh? Hey WD - know anything about a fellow named Adolph Hitler? He went to trial once - pre-Nazi Germany - in the somewhat famed beer hall putsch trials. He was convicted and found guilty - barely. He indeed was never tried post WWII because he was dead - suicide. Since he was dead there was no way to convict - sounds just like your illogic - do you deny that Hitler was a global criminal? While Wierwille was nothing on the scale of Hitler - your illogic still fails the same way. Hitler committed crimes against humanity on a global scale - Wierwille committed them on a corn-field scale - however the crime is the crime.
OH YEAH WD - ALL THAT ARE LEFT TO "CONVICT" Hitler are EYEWITNESSES - with freaking tatoos on their arms - most of whom will be dead in a few years anyway - so WTF - I guess we can put Hitler to a polite sleep as well just like you want to put Wierwille down with no conviction. Oh MY I forgot something - Hitler didn't kill all of those people - HE JUST STARTED THE ORGANIZATION THAT LED TO IT AND PERPETUATED IT AS BEST THEY COULD.
You WD should be wearing a freaking swastika and chanting Sieg Heil - and that is your composite worth - nothing but a Nazi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
RumRunner you make an interesting and good point. By WD's logic the schools should stop teaching about the atrocities Hilter commited - he was never convicted for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And Paul got the oppertunity to plead against the charges against him as well So? You assume that they would convict that's a guess it may or may not be a right one. we all can speculate what may happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Why thank you Abigail! That exactly my point. I prefer never to forget what Hitler, et. al. committed - there is a reason for history beside just spiritual worship - maybe to learn and remember
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
"Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it." --- George Santana
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Rumrunner...c'mon now, why are you so bashful?...tell us how you really feel?
WD a nazi?...I was simply wondering if he was here on Rosie's orders?
...but then again, he does seem like a nazi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
If only . . . .
And yet, if he had been convicted in OT culture, the woman would have suffered as well. She would have been "damaged goods" and as such, ummarriageable.
Sadly, the 1940's - 1970's weren't so much better. No stoning, to be sure. But women were still often seen in a very negative light in cases of rape and sexual abuse.
But you have no empathy for these women, you have only your vehement, hard and legalistic stance that words be used with mathmatical precision. Your love for perfect grammar seems to supercede your love for your fellow man and woman.
You very much come across as one of the Pharisees Jesus reproved. Full of pride and knowlege, but a whited sepulchre inside.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I don't know what happened to you, WhiteDove, there was a time, back when our other sweet Dove was around, that you seemed like a pretty okay guy.
You certainly seem to have changed. I am sorry for whatever occurred that brought about this change in you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Interesting set of questions:
http://knappfamilycounseling.com/faqprotect.html
1. Who is the leader? What are his/her background and qualifications?
VPW was at the time. Now we know his qualifications and background were phoney.
2. Are there exclusive claims made to wisdom, knowledge, love, and truth?
Yes
3. Is total submission and obedience required?
Yes
4. Does he/she have a criminal record, a legacy of allegations against him/her or a history of misconduct?
Yep
5. Does the leader demonstrate psychological problems and awareness of their existence?
Yep- but it was hidden in a lock-box.
6. Are questions and doubts permitted within the organization?
Nope.
7. Is the organization open or closed? Are there secrets? Is there real financial accountability? If a group says that you can look at its accounting records, does it actually provide access?
Secrets? Ssssshhhh ... don't want the ministry to be blamed.
8. What structural checks and balances exist within the organization to prevent abuse of power? Is there an independent "ethics" committee to challenge and change policies of the group?
Checks and balances? The only check they cared about was the 15% and the balance of the bank account.
After Steven Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I suppose...in a twisted sort of way, we should be thanking WD...his outrageous statements only add fuel to the fires of our own anger...he rallies people together to state their opinions of what this lowlife Wierwille was all about...his utter and dismal denial of reality shocks us...his failure to listen to reason and to ignore the testamonies of so many people...gives us pause...how could someone ignore the obvious in order to defend the indefensible?
It really makes no sense...unless of course WD is troll on a mission...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Thank you, WhiteDove for helping us review history so that we will not repeat it and keep our kids safe from cult-like thinking.
Now - leave the victims alone when they tell their story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
NO warm fuzzies happening here. I was there.
What is their chance at justice ? Saying they didn't say it? I don't understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
WD - how about O.J.
Now there's an interesting situation, no? He was found innocent in criminal court, yet he was convicted in civil court. So, can we refer to him as guilty of murder???? Quite a dilemna, no?
And why? Why was he found innocent in one and guilty in another? Well, lets see, there's diffents standards of proof between the two for starters. But there were also different judges, different attorneys presenting the evidence against him, and probably there was evidence allowed and disallowed on one court and not the other.
But, even if OJ had never been tried in civil court, I would still be free to opinine that he was guilty. Not only that, but here at the cafe, I could be free to post, "OJ is a murderer who should not be free to walk the streets." And I could post it without adding "alleged" or "IMO".
Indeed, his former in-laws could come here and do the same. Now, you are free to believe otherwise, but do you think it would really be a kindness to his in-laws to correct their use of the English language by telling them they should add "IMO" or "alleged?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Combination
The apologists, the Antis, the Big Leaguers and the small fry have the right to post. Or they should have.
Restricting the things permissible in specific rooms would be a reasonable solution, and that is an Admin control/ Moderators matter to direct the flow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
hi combination, what a good name !!!
what are these ? just thinking out loud. we are people. very different very whatev ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
I think it was a referal to the pro vs anti Wierwille and the long-time posters
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Combination
Hi exy. Nust looking here I see talk about booting VPW apologists, Apologists offending those who are opening up for the first time with personal testimonies, etc.
It appears to be something of a board issue at the moment.
So Im commenting on the side of everyones having the right to post.
If this site is predominantly a recovery site for ex members, I would just restrict the apologists from expressing their Weirwille defences in specific rooms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.