Why...your own testimony concerning where you were and what programs you participated in while in twi friend.
Is that not reliable?
As I understand it, you have no personal experience outside of your geographic area, nor were you a direct participant in the wow program or way corpes.
As I understand it, you are relying on 2nd hand information to base your willingness to attempt to discredit the testimony of the miriad of eye witness accounts that are related here.
You have no authority by which to label peoples first hand testimony outside of your area of experience as libel.
Stating someone is guilty of a crime that they have not been found guilty of is libel. I'm not relying on anything just pointing out that no evidence has been presented other than I say so......
If it happened to me, it is a fact jack, and I am free to talk about it. Free according to the rules of this forum..AND a right granted to me by the constitution of these United states...
Were it libel, that would be a prosecutable offense. I haven`t been dragged to court yet.
I am free to discuss my outrage over the mistreatment. I am also free to commiserate with others when they are sharing of their mistreatment.
Stating someone is guilty of a crime that they have not been found guilty of is libel. I'm not relying on anything just pointing out that no evidence has been presented other than I say so......
Okay--by your logic--police who charge one of a crime--book em Dano--and prosecutors who prosecute them are guilty of Libel? Oh, oh, oh and people who press charges are libel too. And if you say someone wronged you in everyday life and stand up for yourself--Libel. Oh and if you know someone is lying--and you call them on it--libel. If you are in an accident and tell the police the other guy hit you from the side--libel.
Whose standard is this--certainly not a legal one?
By your standard no one could function in society.
I am most curious though---did you ever spend time with VP and the gang? You never went wow? Advanced class grad? Twig leader?
If not--why are we having this discussion--that is too odd.
No kidding Geisha, reminds me of the stupid attorney for the woman who`s child has vanished in Fla.
He has demanded that the police STOP all forensic testing on the vehicle with the dna samples, chloroform residue, the test to determine decomposing body etc.
Sort of like the scenario here, He can demand all he pleases for the police to cease and desist gathering evidence, but it is rediculous to think that his protests of outrage will stop the police from gathering evidence.
Also, the woman under suspiscion has parents in complete denial over the possibility of what all of the evidence points to...what it says about the daughter that they love...they refuse point blank to consider anything other than that which supports what they wish to believe about their daughter.
Edited by modbaker Edited to remove statement regarding another posters motive
No kidding Geisha, reminds me of the stupid attorney for the woman who`s child has vanished in Fla.
He has demanded that the police STOP all forensic testing on the vehicle with the dna samples, chloroform residue, the test to determine decomposing body etc.
Sort of like the scenario here, He can demand all he pleases for the police to cease and desist gathering evidence, but it is rediculous to think that his protests of outrage will stop the police from gathering evidence.
BINGO! -Perfect analogy!! And I guess the more people say something the more they hope people will believe it as true. Or at least the louder.
Where have I seen this tactic employed? Where? Hmmmmm? Almost got it. . . . . . where?
OH YEAH!! TWI
Sorry, won't work. . .EX-TWI like to think--it is OBVIOUS from most posters here that they have really taken to the whole--decide for yourself thingy.
Good for us!!
Just to add: Funny how made up rules and an insistence we all follow them--just rubs some of us the wrong way. Where does that come from??
Really so where is it? Saying Nope does not qualify as proof.?
If it happened to me, it is a fact jack, and I am free to talk about it. Free according to the rules of this forum..AND a right granted to me by the constitution of these United states...
Were it libel, that would be a prosecutable offense. I haven`t been dragged to court yet.
Just because one does not exercise their options does not make the law go away.
I am free to discuss my outrage over the mistreatment. I am also free to commiserate with others when they are sharing of their mistreatment.
Your right you are free to share your opinion ,but as we know that is not documentable.
Giving personal, firsthand testimony of a wrongful event is not the same thing as libel.
That's how the courts see it at every level of this country. It's considered a First Amendment issue.
If it were firsthand, but I seriously doubt that all the hundreds of posters that seem to be an authority of the crimes were actually there. And if they were the logical question would be if your were witnessing a crime in progress why did you not do something about it ?
QUOTE (rascal @ Sep 10 2008, 12:50 PM)
Man talk about a redefinition of the meaning of a word.
Ones statement is only considered libel if it is untrue, at which time it is a prosecutable offense. Otherwise it is often referred to as *telling the OTHER side of the story* which is what we do here at Greasespot.
Correct and it has not been proven as true. only the accuser says it is so. to render it true or false due process is required, until then any accusation of criminal guilt or innocence is opinion.
Edited by modbaker Removed attack regarding motive
I am amazed by the number of armchair attorneys the cafe has.
In that light, I would point out that in most instances (and the laws do vary from state to state), when one is charged with libel, one of the elements that must be proven is intent. In other words, if the person speaking believed the words they were speaking were true, they cannot be found guilty of libel even if the words are eventually proven to be false.
That being said, WhiteDove, by accusing others of committing libel, by your own definition are you not doing the same? After all, no one here has even been charged with libel, much less convicted of it. So, I guess to be technically accurate, WD, you would have to say "in my opinion you have committed libel" or it is "allegedly libel"
This discussion is about libel not missing children in Florida it seems to indicate you're attempting to take this discussion off-topic.
That's contrary to the spirit and intent of the GSC. Please stop.
"These rules are meant to encourage civil, courteous discussion. They are not meant to stifle your freedom of expression. We want everyone to have a voice here; please use yours wisely and considerately."
I think that makes you libel for making the accusation of me deliberately attempting to take this off topic.
If it were firsthand, but I seriously doubt that all the hundreds of posters that seem to be an authority of the crimes were actually there. And if they were the logical question would be if your were witnessing a crime in progress why did you not do something about it ? No! clearly many are people that heard a story that they liked that fit their agenda and now feel somehow grandfathered into being a personal eyewitness somehow ,though unexplainable.
Do you really believe this stuff, WhiteDove?
Hundreds of posters???? Authorities of the crime????
There are people here (the number really is irrelevant) who have given firsthand, personal testimony of events that happened to THEM. Not to Uncle Louie or Aunt Millie's cousin twice removed. These events happened to THEM. Get it? They were there.
And not all these events were "crimes" in the strictest sense of the law. So how would you even know you are witnessing "a crime in progress"? I mean, if you happen to be at Wal Fart and see some guy stuff a turkey down his trousers, you can be pretty certain you are witnessing a crime. But suppose some old boozer claims he can heal the psychological wounds you sustained from childhood sexual abuse by having sex with him; who are you going to tell and what exactly will you tell them? Suppose he uses God's Word to justify fondling his own daughters; who will you tell? We don't know for certain that he fondled his daughters, but we do know for certain that he claimed to have done so in front of a roomful of people.( on more than one occasion.) The guy was a lowlife drunken egotist.( not allegedly). Why on Earth would you feel compelled to stick your neck out to defend him?
Fact: On September 13th 1984, TWI's Rome City Indiana Campus, I was at a pajama party hosted by vp. In attendance were some two hundred Family Corps [both adults and teenagers]. He played a porn video followed by a talk on how a Christian can so renew their mind that this stuff wouldn't bother them, the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay. After the talk, he lightened up things by telling a few jokes and showing a porn pen to a sixteen-year-old girl.
Fact: On page 175 of The Way: Living in Love, vp claimed he took everything he could take from the Moody Correspondence School. There's a letter posted on Grease Spot [see link below] from the registrar's office that proves otherwise:
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
Fraud from Wikipedia:
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.
Question: Is the communication of facts considered libel or exposure of one who is a fraud and sexual predator?
Question: Is the communication of facts considered libel or exposure of a fraud & sexual predator?
Seems, if you don't want him exposed, for whatever reason, it will be called libel. Doesn't make it true. . . . just an opinion, not based in law or fact.
If wishes were horses. . . . as my grandpa used to say.
The louder one screams libel--the more it rings hollow--since most have taken the time to find out what libel actually is.. . . .
Stomping ones foot with insistence does not always get one what they want. . . . . . just ask my kids.
Oh and Rascal--it WAS and IS a perfect analogy for this thread--it painted a great picture of what appears to be going on here. It was pertinent to the discussion and in NO WAY derailed the thread. Got anymore? :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
14
14
8
Popular Days
Sep 11
23
Sep 10
19
Jul 15
10
Sep 12
9
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 8 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
WhiteDove 14 posts
geisha779 8 posts
Popular Days
Sep 11 2008
23 posts
Sep 10 2008
19 posts
Jul 15 2008
10 posts
Sep 12 2008
9 posts
rascal
Why...your own testimony concerning where you were and what programs you participated in while in twi friend.
Is that not reliable?
I don`t think that is fair for you to require people to remain silent because their testimony is at odds with what you wish to believe...shrug
I don`t think that you have no authority by which to label peoples first hand testimony outside of your area of experience as libel.
Edited by modbakerEdited to remove personal information about another poster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Stating someone is guilty of a crime that they have not been found guilty of is libel. I'm not relying on anything just pointing out that no evidence has been presented other than I say so......
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Nope, that is simply your opinion.
If it happened to me, it is a fact jack, and I am free to talk about it. Free according to the rules of this forum..AND a right granted to me by the constitution of these United states...
Were it libel, that would be a prosecutable offense. I haven`t been dragged to court yet.
I am free to discuss my outrage over the mistreatment. I am also free to commiserate with others when they are sharing of their mistreatment.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Okay--by your logic--police who charge one of a crime--book em Dano--and prosecutors who prosecute them are guilty of Libel? Oh, oh, oh and people who press charges are libel too. And if you say someone wronged you in everyday life and stand up for yourself--Libel. Oh and if you know someone is lying--and you call them on it--libel. If you are in an accident and tell the police the other guy hit you from the side--libel.
Whose standard is this--certainly not a legal one?
By your standard no one could function in society.
I am most curious though---did you ever spend time with VP and the gang? You never went wow? Advanced class grad? Twig leader?
If not--why are we having this discussion--that is too odd.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
No kidding Geisha, reminds me of the stupid attorney for the woman who`s child has vanished in Fla.
He has demanded that the police STOP all forensic testing on the vehicle with the dna samples, chloroform residue, the test to determine decomposing body etc.
Sort of like the scenario here, He can demand all he pleases for the police to cease and desist gathering evidence, but it is rediculous to think that his protests of outrage will stop the police from gathering evidence.
Also, the woman under suspiscion has parents in complete denial over the possibility of what all of the evidence points to...what it says about the daughter that they love...they refuse point blank to consider anything other than that which supports what they wish to believe about their daughter.
Edited by modbakerEdited to remove statement regarding another posters motive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
BINGO! -Perfect analogy!! And I guess the more people say something the more they hope people will believe it as true. Or at least the louder.
Where have I seen this tactic employed? Where? Hmmmmm? Almost got it. . . . . . where?
OH YEAH!! TWI
Sorry, won't work. . .EX-TWI like to think--it is OBVIOUS from most posters here that they have really taken to the whole--decide for yourself thingy.
Good for us!!
Just to add: Funny how made up rules and an insistence we all follow them--just rubs some of us the wrong way. Where does that come from??
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Just one more thing. . . . .
Just an imaginary scenario. . . . .
I read those laws--see what they actually say. Someone comes along and interprets them "Another" way for me.
I am told I don't see what is actually written, it really means thus. . . and if I don't do what is interpeted for me. . . .
I am somehow breaking the imaginary law?? Which is somehow now protecting the abusers.
Why does that bring out the argumentitive side of me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Nope, that is simply your opinion.
Really so where is it? Saying Nope does not qualify as proof.?
If it happened to me, it is a fact jack, and I am free to talk about it. Free according to the rules of this forum..AND a right granted to me by the constitution of these United states...
Were it libel, that would be a prosecutable offense. I haven`t been dragged to court yet.
Just because one does not exercise their options does not make the law go away.
I am free to discuss my outrage over the mistreatment. I am also free to commiserate with others when they are sharing of their mistreatment.
Your right you are free to share your opinion ,but as we know that is not documentable.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Deleted to remove remarks about the motives of another poster
Edited by modbakerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Edited to remove responses to attacks on motive
Edited by modbakerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
That's how the courts see it at every level of this country. It's considered a First Amendment issue.
If it were firsthand, but I seriously doubt that all the hundreds of posters that seem to be an authority of the crimes were actually there. And if they were the logical question would be if your were witnessing a crime in progress why did you not do something about it ?
QUOTE (rascal @ Sep 10 2008, 12:50 PM)
Man talk about a redefinition of the meaning of a word.
Ones statement is only considered libel if it is untrue, at which time it is a prosecutable offense. Otherwise it is often referred to as *telling the OTHER side of the story* which is what we do here at Greasespot.
Correct and it has not been proven as true. only the accuser says it is so. to render it true or false due process is required, until then any accusation of criminal guilt or innocence is opinion.
Edited by modbakerRemoved attack regarding motive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I am amazed by the number of armchair attorneys the cafe has.
In that light, I would point out that in most instances (and the laws do vary from state to state), when one is charged with libel, one of the elements that must be proven is intent. In other words, if the person speaking believed the words they were speaking were true, they cannot be found guilty of libel even if the words are eventually proven to be false.
That being said, WhiteDove, by accusing others of committing libel, by your own definition are you not doing the same? After all, no one here has even been charged with libel, much less convicted of it. So, I guess to be technically accurate, WD, you would have to say "in my opinion you have committed libel" or it is "allegedly libel"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I think that makes you libel for making the accusation of me deliberately attempting to take this off topic.
Please stop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Do you really believe this stuff, WhiteDove?
Hundreds of posters???? Authorities of the crime????
There are people here (the number really is irrelevant) who have given firsthand, personal testimony of events that happened to THEM. Not to Uncle Louie or Aunt Millie's cousin twice removed. These events happened to THEM. Get it? They were there.
And not all these events were "crimes" in the strictest sense of the law. So how would you even know you are witnessing "a crime in progress"? I mean, if you happen to be at Wal Fart and see some guy stuff a turkey down his trousers, you can be pretty certain you are witnessing a crime. But suppose some old boozer claims he can heal the psychological wounds you sustained from childhood sexual abuse by having sex with him; who are you going to tell and what exactly will you tell them? Suppose he uses God's Word to justify fondling his own daughters; who will you tell? We don't know for certain that he fondled his daughters, but we do know for certain that he claimed to have done so in front of a roomful of people.( on more than one occasion.) The guy was a lowlife drunken egotist.( not allegedly). Why on Earth would you feel compelled to stick your neck out to defend him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Deleted Personal Attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please keep posts on topic - this topic of this thread is not WhiteDove
Edited by modbakerDeleted for Personal attacks - too much work to edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The topic of this thread is Libel - not the motives or intents of other posters
Edited by modbakerDeleted for Personal Attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please keep posts on topic. The topic is not the intentions or motives of other posters.
Edited by modbakerLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
The comparison obviously made sense to me and apparently at least one other poster agreed.
Edited by modbakerremoved personal attack/off topic post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm confident the staff can see the relevance of analogies, examples and comparison, and can distinguish between
them and going off-topic.
Edited by modbakerLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Fact: On September 13th 1984, TWI's Rome City Indiana Campus, I was at a pajama party hosted by vp. In attendance were some two hundred Family Corps [both adults and teenagers]. He played a porn video followed by a talk on how a Christian can so renew their mind that this stuff wouldn't bother them, the spiritually mature can handle anything and that anything done in the love of God is okay. After the talk, he lightened up things by telling a few jokes and showing a porn pen to a sixteen-year-old girl.
Fact: On page 175 of The Way: Living in Love, vp claimed he took everything he could take from the Moody Correspondence School. There's a letter posted on Grease Spot [see link below] from the registrar's office that proves otherwise:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=213920
Defamation, slander & libel from Wikipedia:
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
Fraud from Wikipedia:
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.
Question: Is the communication of facts considered libel or exposure of one who is a fraud and sexual predator?
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Seems, if you don't want him exposed, for whatever reason, it will be called libel. Doesn't make it true. . . . just an opinion, not based in law or fact.
If wishes were horses. . . . as my grandpa used to say.
The louder one screams libel--the more it rings hollow--since most have taken the time to find out what libel actually is.. . . .
Stomping ones foot with insistence does not always get one what they want. . . . . . just ask my kids.
Oh and Rascal--it WAS and IS a perfect analogy for this thread--it painted a great picture of what appears to be going on here. It was pertinent to the discussion and in NO WAY derailed the thread. Got anymore? :)
Edited by geisha779Link 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.