I've got to make a revision to my former post, regarding who was not involved in the adultery, I listened to the podcast of "Through the Fog" Click Here between Paw and RD, and found the spot where he states all save himself and Ricardo Cabellero, from the Yak twig, had never participated in the adultery, it's at the 15:20 time mark on the recording...he also states he had to confront everybody else in the Yak twig at times regarding specific people who were lining up at his door for counseling because of the sexual abuse that happened to them with those Yak twig members. He also indicates a hardness from them in seeing how it was wrong.
The meeting I went to was same old same old. The only thing that had changed was that he had solid white hair and was a little pudgier than in way days.
after how many years? No CHANGE..
I'd be disappointed if I was the same as I was thirty years ago.. not that I was a bad fellow or anything.
Makes me wonder.. did jt ever "come clean" on this sex stuff?
not that I'd lead a publc lynching or anything.. but if not, what's he still doing in the "ministry"?
Paw - I NEVER intimated that I was disabled by you or a mod.
I was disabled for reasons unknown. My LAN was fine, my ISP was fine, my WAN was fine. I could connect to everything just fine. However I got "booted" disconnected from GSC and although I could log back in I could see the forums titles but not get to threads nor post nor view new posts. If you review your logs (not that I want you to waste time on it) you will notice that I generally stay logged in since I have cable INET - you will notice also that yesterday I logged back in several times. Now I happen to know a little about the net - having been on since it was DARPA - I pulled out all of my net tools - no connectivity issues - no issues with other sites.
I received a perfectly nice PM from you and a mod - nothing wrong and nothing critical to say. However - for whatever reasons - I was disabled. I am not assigning blame nor picking targets.
Can we agree on that?
Thanks,
RR
Groucho,
RumRunner has NOT been disabled. If he told you that he isn't telling you straight.
If someone wants to make claims, let the person that was involved say something first. I am not saying it isn't true, but at this point I've gotten no corroboration.
I see no harm in posters stating their concerned opinions as a basis for discussion by others. If you don't agree with what is said, you have an absolute right to respond, but preferably in a measured and diplomatic manner. Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns doesn't impress me at all. Please do not post something here for the purpose of distorting or derailing the thread, just because you don't like something that's been said. If you don't want to add constructively to the thread, go post somewhere else!
I agree...I thought that Johnny Townsend was a member of the board of trustees...doesn't that make him fair game?
I didn't make anything up...what I said (and was censored out) is absolutely true by my judgement. Suddenly we have a "kinder and gentler" GSC???
Somebody's gonna sue me?...have at it...can't get blood out of a turnip. I stand by my original post (which was censored out)...Johnny did what he did (which was typical of twi "leaders")...it's ok to call Wierwille an adulterer?...and it's ok to call LCM an adulterer?...but it's not ok to call other trustee member the same?...somebody needs to explain to me why it's any different.
If people are innocent until proven guilty. . . . bail should NOT exist. . . . holding people WITHOUT bail until trial. . . . would be illegal. . . . you can't jail an innocent person until proven guilty of something.
Geeze that is ONE standard!! Roman law.
Let's set a new standard. . . which is an old standard. . . Common law. . . . until proven innocent.
I may pull my hair out if we have to hear another lecture from the resident law professor.
Close your eyes WD and pretend you are in the UK.
The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
First, the presumption is not a true presumption at all.[1] An objective observer in the position of the juror would reasonably conclude that the defendant probably committed the crime with which he is charged.[2] The observable facts clearly support such an inference—the defendant has been charged with a crime, is present in court, represented by an attorney and all the participants in a criminal trial are also present and ready to proceed.[3]
The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[4] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[5] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[4]To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials.
With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence this decision cannot be used against him.
The jury or judge is not to draw any inferences against the defendant from the fact that he has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on the evidence presented during the trial.
The phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. In every case, the defendant either committed the offense or he did not; a fact that will remain true regardless of whether the jury acquits or convicts the defendant. The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.
In all of your ((cough)) 'legal' arguments as to what is fact, proof, and whatnot, you forget one thing: What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law.
All the accusations/witnesses against VPW as per the sexual abuse PROVIDES the evidence needed, for one thing due to the corroboration they provide for each other, IN ADDITION to the witness provided by former leadership like DWBH and others. Thus the documentation has been provided and the standard for determining the truth has been met. Also, the determination of what amounts to fact is decided by the jury anyway; ie., juries made up of people like US and others who have heard the testimony given, and using the same process of considering the evidence and testimony, we give our judgment.
Now true, the man is dead, and he can't be tried in a actual court of law. But before you 'conveniently' conclude that therefore VPW is 'innocent' because he was not determined guilty by an actual jury, due to him dying before he could have ever be brought to trial (Yes, how f'ing convenient, hmmm? <_< ), ... well then, let's be consistant with our principles, and apply the same ruling to Adolph Hitler. He was never tried (ie., he died before he could be brought to trial), ... so shall we conclude (using your 'principles' <_< ) that since he wasn't tried before a jury of his peers, that he is therefore 'innocent'? ... Somehow I don't think that'll fly with the world community.
So while VPW hasn't been judged guilty according to an actual court of law, he HAS been judged guilty by the 'jury' of his peers outside of said court 'in abstentia' as it were, in real life. ... But hey, not to worry. We can't send him to jail or anything like that, so you do get that as a consolation prize.
And, yes Virginia, you ARE being a VPW apologist, trying like mad to defend his reputation, because for one thing, you have _never_ been this anal about 'making sure the real and provable truth ((cough)) is told regarding anyone or anything else on this board. Go through denial about it all you want, Chief, but that 'evidence' ;) stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.
P.S., you may try to sound like an attorney, but somehow I don't think that you really are one, ... because no attorney worth his salt would ever use twisted legal reasoning in an actual court of law like you're doing here, ... not and win any cases, that is.
P.P.S., Oh, and please spare us the "therefore because you render VPW guilty due to said testimony on this board, you are somehow less trustworthy to render real judgments than a jury would" simply because we see past your pathetic attempt to protect VPW's reputation behind the cloak of 'procedure of evidence in a court of law'. ... It doesn't fly.
In all of your ((cough)) 'legal' arguments as to what is fact, proof, and what not, you forget one thing: What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law.
I never stated that it did nor have I forgotten the fact in fact we agree up to this point..
All the accusations/witnesses against VPW as per the sexual abuse PROVIDES the evidence needed, for one thing due to the corroboration they provide for each other, IN ADDITION to the witness provided by former leadership like DWBH and others. Thus the documentation has been provided and the standard for determining the truth has been met. Also, the determination of what amounts to fact is decided by the jury anyway; ie., juries made up of people like US and others who have heard the testimony given, and using the same process of considering the evidence and testimony, we give our judgment.
Now we don't agree any longer, that is incorrect it may provide enough for you or I to form an opinion on the matter but that does not make it a legal charge of guilty and as such should not be stated in the affirmative as such as there has been no legal action to conclude such. What you have is formed personal opinion not necessarily fact. It may be, maybe not, it is simply for whatever reason, what you choose to accept. As to your jury example What you have is testimony from one side in the charge ,that is not how a jury works they hear both sides of the testimony ,admit hard evidence in the case. and proceed through the process of a fair trial ,(at least as fair as our system allows.) While a jury is as you noted made up of people like you or I ,they have specific instructions to proceed through to reach the verdict. They don't say hey I like what these people say so I'll just believe it no need to hear the other side. That works for opinion not in deciding guilt in a charge of a crime .
Now true, the man is dead, and he can't be tried in a actual court of law. But before you 'conveniently' conclude that therefore VPW is 'innocent' because he was not determined guilty by an actual jury, due to him dying before he could have ever be brought to trial (Yes, how f'ing convenient, hmmm? <_< ), ... well then, let's be consistent with our principles, and apply the same ruling to Adolph Hitler. He was never tried (ie., he died before he could be brought to trial), ... so shall we conclude (using your 'principles' <_< ) that since he wasn't tried before a jury of his peers, that he is therefore 'innocent'? ... Somehow I don't think that'll fly with the world community.
Again for the billionth time I have never concluded anything as to guilt or innocence .
What I said is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable. They are so because what you have and choose to believe are one side of the story the other has not been told, nor is it likely to for obvious reasons. What you or I choose to believe or accept does not guarantee truth it may or may not be so . It is neither proved right or wrong it is simply a testimony that has yet to be supported with actual factual evidence, nor stood the test of law. You choose to accept it because of your bias toward the group that does not make something true. No more so than someone's support of the same does. What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what I may believe one way or another.
So while VPW hasn't been judged guilty according to an actual court of law, he HAS been judged guilty by the 'jury' of his peers outside of said court 'in abstentia' as it were, in real life. ... But hey, not to worry. We can't send him to jail or anything like that, so you do get that as a consolation prize.
Actually he has been judged by a small percent of posters here on an exway site dedicated to speaking negatively about the way. Not exactly your nonbiased opinion. This jury as you call them would never get approved in real life to determine a parking ticket..
And, yes Virginia, you ARE being a VPW apologist, trying like mad to defend his reputation, because for one thing, you have _never_ been this anal about 'making sure the real and provable truth ((cough)) is told regarding anyone or anything else on this board. Go through denial about it all you want, Chief, but that 'evidence' ;) stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Again you are incorrect I have not defended his reputation there is insufficient evidence for me to do so,I have repeatedly stated that there is insufficient evidence or so biased evidence to make any determination. You can look it up but I have spoke of other people as having the same right O J and Scott Peterson come to mind off the top of my head.
P.S., you may try to sound like an attorney, but somehow I don't think that you really are one, ... because no attorney worth his salt would ever use twisted legal reasoning in an actual court of law like you're doing here, ... not and win any cases, that is.
I've never claimed to be an attorney but I have discussed these issues with several that we have on our board at times, Have you? The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty is not a twisted legal reasoning it is a valid legal right as a judge if you don't believe me .
P.P.S., Oh, and please spare us the "therefore because you render VPW guilty due to said testimony on this board, you are somehow less trustworthy to render real judgments than a jury would" simply because we see past your pathetic attempt to protect VPW's reputation behind the cloak of 'procedure of evidence in a court of law'. ... It doesn't fly.
I make no apologies for fair treatment of all people according to our legal system. If one has a charge to levy then do so according to that system ,everyone is entitled to their own opinion ,that is not a proof of guilt. If you are accusing someone of a crime and that is the charge here, is is improper to state it guilty until such has been determined again opinions are welcome but anyone may also point out that they are not confirmation of guilt.
Garth I'll answer your accusations and note for Mark's benefit, that it was you who brought my name into this discussion from nowhere. But if you are going to make accusations as to what I believe or ,by the way contrary to what I have posted hundreds of times That I believe which you seem to forget then I'll not let them slide. That said we have been round and round on this before but if you want to continue perhaps you should issue your challenges on a separate thread.
The The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty is a valid legal right. We have already had one argument straw man as it were about bail somehow voiding that right . Posting bail has nothing zero to do with guilt or innocence bail is posted in response to a charge of a crime period. It speaks to guilt or innocence in no way . It is a means to assure that you make it to the court to have your shot at stating your case. Bail is levied due to a judges consideration of facts including such things as past performance ,the nature of the charge. flight risk and other considerations . The fact that you post bail does not make you guilty. Speaking of sparing us ...I bet if you were accused of a crime you would see things differently and want your rights as a citizen of this country.
Dove said *Actually he has been judged by a small percent of posters here on an exway site dedicated to speaking negatively about the way*
Hmmm I`d say accounts from former leaders whom personally witnessed his misconduct. Leaders accounts whom have had to council the victims of his misconduct. Countless victims accounts of his misconduct themselves There is a book published documenting his misconduct by a licensed professional. Other web sites such as messiah7 that have numerous accounts of his misconduct....This in my opinion, hardly constitute *a small percentage of posters*.
As far as what THIS particular site is dedicated to, I`d say the guys who have insisted that VPW shouldn`t be held accountable for the evil that he did....ie shut up and don`t speak of it....have had a mighty fair shake here....To indicate othewise is insulting to the host and those whom try to keep it fair and balanced.
I`d say that Dove`s assertion of whom has judged VPW and WHY so many many whom have actually met the man and had direct dealings, find him so damnably guilty is a less than an honest representation of the facts in this instance.
Please forgive me if my memory is wrong, but wasn't it our dearly beloved (truly) Don'tWorryBeHappy poster who audibly said on the podcast that all other participants in the infamous "Yak" twig partook in old pervy vic's plan of each one win one adultery outreach ministry, save Art Pol*ing? Â How can it be more first hand than that?
Lift the veil just a little and you might see all sorts of yuck.
So he is the voice of truth we are just supposed to suck down whatever he says? Sorry just because he said so does not make it so. Nor does it make it not. Given his obvious bias from his post record I'd say his impartiality is questionable
(I said) In all of your ((cough)) 'legal' arguments as to what is fact, proof, and what not, you forget one thing: What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law.
(and you replied)I never stated that it did nor have I forgotten the fact in fact we agree up to this point..
Well, apparently not. Because notice in what setting you are continuing to make your 'innocent until proven guilty' arguments in: a courtroom. During a trial. And thus are referring to facts to be exclusively rendered in a court of law during a trial. I, however, am dealing with the facts/information from witnesses in and of themselves. Ie., what is held to be true outside a court of law. (And for one thing, like we all know, we can't try the guy now, as he's now dead.)
And not once am I challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty (despite your veiled innuendo to the contrary) as a _necessary_ part of our _legal system_.
But as a matter of determining facts, independent of said legal system, said strict legal standards that _are_ to be applied in a courtroom do not totally apply outside of it. Ie., the historical, factual, and/or common knowledge statement of what has happened re: VPWs sexual abuse.
You seem to think that all of the first hand accounts of the victims of VPW's sexual abuse doesn't rise to the required standard of legal proof, and you know what, maybe they don't (and then again, maybe they do, and that largely depends on the specific court that the case would have been tried in, as well as the sheer amount of accounts to that kind of charge. Please keep that in mind, ok?)
But out here in 'the real world' (Hey, don't laugh. Someone can make a good argument as to how in many cases, the legal system is not in tune with the real world. <_< ) a helluva lot of (and I daresay _most_) people would read all those accounts, and even take Oldies', WTH's, Mike's, etc. ... Ie. VPW apologists/defenders (note I left you out in this example, since you vigorously deny being a VPW apologist, so ok) their arguments into account, and render VPW 'guilty' anyway, ... NOT as per the legal authority of a court of law, but as per common knowledge. And notice the example I gave of Hitler earlier. He wasn't tried, and he wasn't specifically rendered guilty by any court of law. Yet, it is common knowledge (to all but the 'Holocaust Revisionists') that he is guilty of all the things people said he did during the Third Reich. ... And I notice that you skipped on that one.
And even given the bias shown on this board, the bias isn't such that VPW supporters can't get their own two cents in, ... despite protests being given about being 'censored' because they speak positive of TWI to the contrary. If that were the case, Paw would have kicked out ALL of VPW's supporters in a heartbeat.
Oh, by the Way ;),
Actually he has been judged by a small percent of posters here on an exway site dedicated to speaking negatively about the way.
Thank you for giving your own version of making a non-documentable statement, as I know that just isn't true. How can I prove this? He has been judged guilty by 1) the people who have experienced the abuse 1st hand, 2) those who have read/listened to said accounts, and/or have seen said accounts happen and others like them, and have agreed that this just can't be the rantings of those who are just 'anti-Way', and 3) those who are anything _but_ a 'small percent'. ... You know, for someone who is so anal about getting to the whole truth, you seem to make a rather sloppy judgment in this case.
And yes Mark Clarke, I know. Here we go again. I was endeavoring to bring up a few points that WD just keeps missing.
Update Alert:
Given his obvious bias from his post record I'd say his impartiality is questionable
With no disrespect intended to other posters whose input is highly valued:
The Bible says that "By their fruits you shall know them".
Personally, I would take this as an indication that we are to take responsibility for weighing things up ourselves, particularly what we see in other people's lives (RD being a case in point).
If this is the case, surely it follows that we don't need judge or jury to pass sentence. In fact, doesn't the Bible tell believers to avoid going to court before unbelievers since we should have enough wise men amongst ourselves?
I see no harm in posters stating their concerned opinions as a basis for discussion by others. If you don't agree with what is said, you have an absolute right to respond, but preferably in a measured and diplomatic manner. Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns doesn't impress me at all. Please do not post something here for the purpose of distorting or derailing the thread, just because you don't like something that's been said. If you don't want to add constructively to the thread, go post somewhere else!
So, to look at the fruits produced in peoples lives is not some Greasespot initiative, but it is God's initiative.
I would hope that most people posting here have enough self control and character to ensure that they post in a decent manner and avoid misleading assumptions, but surely we must be able to make representation here without formal legal substantiation?
Perhaps you need to reread before you fabricate charges. I have never questioned anyones right to speak ,nor to have their opinion ,when opinion is presented as absolute fact and verdicts are rendered as true without the benefit of due process then yes I will point that fact out. I see no place where I was Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns. Nor was a worried about impressing you.
Dove said *Actually he has been judged by a small percent of posters here on an exway site dedicated to speaking negatively about the way*
Hmmm I`d say accounts from former leaders whom personally witnessed his misconduct. Leaders accounts whom have had to council the victims of his misconduct. Countless victims accounts of his misconduct themselves There is a book published documenting his misconduct by a licensed professional. Other web sites such as messiah7 that have numerous accounts of his misconduct....This in my opinion, hardly constitute *a small percentage of posters*.
As far as what THIS particular site is dedicated to, I`d say the guys who have insisted that VPW shouldn`t be held accountable for the evil that he did....ie shut up and don`t speak of it....have had a mighty fair shake here....To indicate othewise is insulting to the host and those whom try to keep it fair and balanced.
I`d say that Dove`s assertion of whom has judged VPW and WHY so many many whom have actually met the man and had direct dealings, find him so damnably guilty is a less than an honest representation of the facts in this instance.
On the other side of the fence is numbers that will say they are right in what they believe. Numbers are not the telling of truth . Proof is hard evidence, and due process of law when you are accusing one of a crime. Everyone has a point of view you choose to believe the ones you do because they support your agenda. I choose to believe no man's words show me the verdict and you can refer to one as guilty.
Well, apparently not. Because notice in what setting you are continuing to make your 'innocent until proven guilty' arguments in: a courtroom. During a trial. And thus are referring to facts to be exclusively rendered in a court of law during a trial. I, however, am dealing with the facts/information from witnesses in and of themselves. Ie., what is held to be true outside a court of law. (And for one thing, like we all know, we can't try the guy now, as he's now dead.)
And not once am I challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty (despite your veiled innuendo to the contrary) as a _necessary_ part of our _legal system_.
But as a matter of determining facts, independent of said legal system, said strict legal standards that _are_ to be applied in a courtroom do not totally apply outside of it. Ie., the historical, factual, and/or common knowledge statement of what has happened re: VPWs sexual abuse.
You seem to think that all of the first hand accounts of the victims of VPW's sexual abuse doesn't rise to the required standard of legal proof, and you know what, maybe they don't (and then again, maybe they do, and that largely depends on the specific court that the case would have been tried in, as well as the sheer amount of accounts to that kind of charge. Please keep that in mind, ok?)
But out here in 'the real world' (Hey, don't laugh. Someone can make a good argument as to how in many cases, the legal system is not in tune with the real world. <_< ) a helluva lot of (and I daresay _most_) people would read all those accounts, and even take Oldies', WTH's, Mike's, etc. ... Ie. VPW apologists/defenders (note I left you out in this example, since you vigorously deny being a VPW apologist, so ok) their arguments into account, and render VPW 'guilty' anyway, ... NOT as per the legal authority of a court of law, but as per common knowledge. And notice the example I gave of Hitler earlier. He wasn't tried, and he wasn't specifically rendered guilty by any court of law. Yet, it is common knowledge (to all but the 'Holocaust Revisionists') that he is guilty of all the things people said he did during the Third Reich. ... And I notice that you skipped on that one.
And even given the bias shown on this board, the bias isn't such that VPW supporters can't get their own two cents in, ... despite protests being given about being 'censored' because they speak positive of TWI to the contrary. If that were the case, Paw would have kicked out ALL of VPW's supporters in a heartbeat.
Oh, by the Way ;),
Thank you for giving your own version of making a non-documentable statement, as I know that just isn't true. How can I prove this? He has been judged guilty by 1) the people who have experienced the abuse 1st hand, 2) those who have read/listened to said accounts, and/or have seen said accounts happen and others like them, and have agreed that this just can't be the rantings of those who are just 'anti-Way', and 3) those who are anything _but_ a 'small percent'. ... You know, for someone who is so anal about getting to the whole truth, you seem to make a rather sloppy judgment in this case.
And yes Mark Clarke, I know. Here we go again. I was endeavoring to bring up a few points that WD just keeps missing.
Update Alert:
Oh really?! And yours is NOT? :blink:
It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions . It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion.
Maybe it's just me.
Sometimes I see a post that's written almost entirely in one color ink, such as blue, and my mind wants to pass it right by.
Kinda like a bad wreck on the freeway that I really have no desire to even glance at.
I guess these old eyes just don't want to be bothered with the strain these days.
Good that is one less post to answer..... Thanks for doing your part.
It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions. (Actually, no you don't) It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion.
My response to this is thusly:
1) Since VPW is now dead, and can't be charged (taken to court and all that), because of this, you seriously expect people to treat him as though he's innocent of all this? (due to legal definitions of innocence) As a matter of common factual knowledge outside the court? Like I said before, "What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law." and that applies even to facts regarding criminal behavior. The difference here is that said 'defendant' isn't brought before the judge nor is his freedom taken away (again, because he's dead).
2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, ..... <_<
and 3) I Just realized something. It is to protect people's freedom from being falsely imprisoned that the concept of innocent until proved guilty was constructed, NOT specifically because to protect someone's reputation from common knowledge accusations. Yes Virginia, there is a difference. And yes, there is also legal remedies in our law to deal with false accusations made outside the court of law. It has to do with laws (and lawsuits) against libel, slander, and character assassinations. ... SO if what we're saying here at GS about VPW being 'guilty' of said sexual abuses amounts to libel, slander, and character assassinations, all a VPW apologist has to do is take us to court. And I'd be willing to bet that those of us who do 'accuse' VPW of said acts are confident enough in what we're saying that we're not gonna back down, so go ahead and call Judge Wapner!
or go on to greener ex-way pastures to sponge a living? Does he STILL sponge a living, teaching the SAME OLD STUFF.. with the same old "doc" vic mannerisms?
or did he go to college.. get a job, or develop a career, get a life?
or is he something like a thirty year old gerbil.. nothing remarkably (or unremarkably different) from year to year.. just a little more grey on top?
When's the last time somebody checked for a pulse?
hey.. it's an honest question here..
I was taught if you're not changing you're dying.. don't know how much stock to put it it though..
or go on to greener ex-way pastures to sponge a living? Does he STILL sponge a living, teaching the SAME OLD STUFF.. with the same old "doc" vic mannerisms?
or did he go to college.. get a job, or develop a career, get a life?
or is he something like a thirty year old gerbil.. nothing remarkably (or unremarkably different) from year to year.. just a little more grey on top?
When's the last time somebody checked for a pulse?
hey.. it's an honest question here..
I was taught if you're not changing you're dying.. don't know how much stock to put it it though..
Ham,Way version statement?
In real life,I agree,In twi all it meant was becoming more and more a mush brained,follower
On the other side of the fence is numbers that will say they are right in what they believe. Numbers are not the telling of truth . Proof is hard evidence, and due process of law when you are accusing one of a crime. Everyone has a point of view you choose to believe the ones you do because they support your agenda. I choose to believe no man's words show me the verdict and you can refer to one as guilty.
Again, that is just not a fair representation of the facts Dove. Number one, I have no agenda. I consider that statement a personal attack on my integrity as a poster here.
Number 2 is that I think that what you CHOOSE to do is ignore anything that contradicts your limited perceptions of a part of twi and it`s people whom you never personally interacted with yourself in order to try to support your theories. Fine, thats what YOU do....However, when you stoop to misrepresenting the people or the facts involved in order to attempt to make your point, you WILL be called on it.
Ham I don`t know, it was at least 10 years ago that I went to his meeting. He seemed like the same friendly lovable guy.
True story. We got sent to Kansas as wow`s. Excited to meet with our state coordinator.....We eagerly awaited his words of wisdom.....our introduction to the man in spiritual charge of our lives for the year........
His opening greeting to the 12 of us......*Hi...my wife just had a baby ... I haven`t had sex in x number of weeks and BOY am I horny*
Course we were all flattered that he thought we were spiritual enough for him to be so candid with us....but now in hind sight, I have to wonder if it wasn`t calculated to gauge our reactions.
Again, that is just not a fair representation of the facts Dove. Number one, I have no agenda. I consider that statement a personal attack on my integrity as a poster here.
Rascal,
Your integrity is just fine. Sometimes I read your posts and want to stand up and applaud!! :) I am thrilled you are better and your voice is being heard again. I missed it.
I know too that after our wow year....neither him nor naomi could be bothered with our wow pinning ceremony. Everyone else marched into the big top to battle hymn of the republic. Their state coordinators proudly standing with them... We just stood alone 8 battle weary exhausted people whom had freely given and suffered harshly a year of their lives....and our state coordinators were too busy playing the newest bot members to apparently care what happened to *their* WOWS.
I know, they were busy...it was a bad time for the ministry...they had greater responsibility. Still it sucked being forgotten, feeling insignificant, as we watched the other wows pinned, hugged and congratulated by their state leaders.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
9
14
8
Popular Days
Feb 12
42
Feb 10
15
Feb 9
12
Feb 13
11
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 19 posts
WhiteDove 9 posts
Ham 14 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2009
42 posts
Feb 10 2009
15 posts
Feb 9 2009
12 posts
Feb 13 2009
11 posts
now I see
I've got to make a revision to my former post, regarding who was not involved in the adultery, I listened to the podcast of "Through the Fog" Click Here between Paw and RD, and found the spot where he states all save himself and Ricardo Cabellero, from the Yak twig, had never participated in the adultery, it's at the 15:20 time mark on the recording...he also states he had to confront everybody else in the Yak twig at times regarding specific people who were lining up at his door for counseling because of the sexual abuse that happened to them with those Yak twig members. He also indicates a hardness from them in seeing how it was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
after how many years? No CHANGE..
I'd be disappointed if I was the same as I was thirty years ago.. not that I was a bad fellow or anything.
Makes me wonder.. did jt ever "come clean" on this sex stuff?
not that I'd lead a publc lynching or anything.. but if not, what's he still doing in the "ministry"?
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It's like..
if one of my pets looked the same as it did, twenty, thirty years ago..
I'd check its pulse..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Paw - I NEVER intimated that I was disabled by you or a mod.
I was disabled for reasons unknown. My LAN was fine, my ISP was fine, my WAN was fine. I could connect to everything just fine. However I got "booted" disconnected from GSC and although I could log back in I could see the forums titles but not get to threads nor post nor view new posts. If you review your logs (not that I want you to waste time on it) you will notice that I generally stay logged in since I have cable INET - you will notice also that yesterday I logged back in several times. Now I happen to know a little about the net - having been on since it was DARPA - I pulled out all of my net tools - no connectivity issues - no issues with other sites.
I received a perfectly nice PM from you and a mod - nothing wrong and nothing critical to say. However - for whatever reasons - I was disabled. I am not assigning blame nor picking targets.
Can we agree on that?
Thanks,
RR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I agree...I thought that Johnny Townsend was a member of the board of trustees...doesn't that make him fair game?
I didn't make anything up...what I said (and was censored out) is absolutely true by my judgement. Suddenly we have a "kinder and gentler" GSC???
Somebody's gonna sue me?...have at it...can't get blood out of a turnip. I stand by my original post (which was censored out)...Johnny did what he did (which was typical of twi "leaders")...it's ok to call Wierwille an adulterer?...and it's ok to call LCM an adulterer?...but it's not ok to call other trustee member the same?...somebody needs to explain to me why it's any different.
Paw???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
First, the presumption is not a true presumption at all.[1] An objective observer in the position of the juror would reasonably conclude that the defendant probably committed the crime with which he is charged.[2] The observable facts clearly support such an inference—the defendant has been charged with a crime, is present in court, represented by an attorney and all the participants in a criminal trial are also present and ready to proceed.[3]
The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[4] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[5] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[4]To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials.
With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence this decision cannot be used against him.
The jury or judge is not to draw any inferences against the defendant from the fact that he has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on the evidence presented during the trial.
The phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. In every case, the defendant either committed the offense or he did not; a fact that will remain true regardless of whether the jury acquits or convicts the defendant. The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Whitedove,
In all of your ((cough)) 'legal' arguments as to what is fact, proof, and whatnot, you forget one thing: What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law.
All the accusations/witnesses against VPW as per the sexual abuse PROVIDES the evidence needed, for one thing due to the corroboration they provide for each other, IN ADDITION to the witness provided by former leadership like DWBH and others. Thus the documentation has been provided and the standard for determining the truth has been met. Also, the determination of what amounts to fact is decided by the jury anyway; ie., juries made up of people like US and others who have heard the testimony given, and using the same process of considering the evidence and testimony, we give our judgment.
Now true, the man is dead, and he can't be tried in a actual court of law. But before you 'conveniently' conclude that therefore VPW is 'innocent' because he was not determined guilty by an actual jury, due to him dying before he could have ever be brought to trial (Yes, how f'ing convenient, hmmm? <_< ), ... well then, let's be consistant with our principles, and apply the same ruling to Adolph Hitler. He was never tried (ie., he died before he could be brought to trial), ... so shall we conclude (using your 'principles' <_< ) that since he wasn't tried before a jury of his peers, that he is therefore 'innocent'? ... Somehow I don't think that'll fly with the world community.
So while VPW hasn't been judged guilty according to an actual court of law, he HAS been judged guilty by the 'jury' of his peers outside of said court 'in abstentia' as it were, in real life. ... But hey, not to worry. We can't send him to jail or anything like that, so you do get that as a consolation prize.
And, yes Virginia, you ARE being a VPW apologist, trying like mad to defend his reputation, because for one thing, you have _never_ been this anal about 'making sure the real and provable truth ((cough)) is told regarding anyone or anything else on this board. Go through denial about it all you want, Chief, but that 'evidence' ;) stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.
P.S., you may try to sound like an attorney, but somehow I don't think that you really are one, ... because no attorney worth his salt would ever use twisted legal reasoning in an actual court of law like you're doing here, ... not and win any cases, that is.
P.P.S., Oh, and please spare us the "therefore because you render VPW guilty due to said testimony on this board, you are somehow less trustworthy to render real judgments than a jury would" simply because we see past your pathetic attempt to protect VPW's reputation behind the cloak of 'procedure of evidence in a court of law'. ... It doesn't fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Here we go again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dove said *Actually he has been judged by a small percent of posters here on an exway site dedicated to speaking negatively about the way*
Hmmm I`d say accounts from former leaders whom personally witnessed his misconduct. Leaders accounts whom have had to council the victims of his misconduct. Countless victims accounts of his misconduct themselves There is a book published documenting his misconduct by a licensed professional. Other web sites such as messiah7 that have numerous accounts of his misconduct....This in my opinion, hardly constitute *a small percentage of posters*.
As far as what THIS particular site is dedicated to, I`d say the guys who have insisted that VPW shouldn`t be held accountable for the evil that he did....ie shut up and don`t speak of it....have had a mighty fair shake here....To indicate othewise is insulting to the host and those whom try to keep it fair and balanced.
I`d say that Dove`s assertion of whom has judged VPW and WHY so many many whom have actually met the man and had direct dealings, find him so damnably guilty is a less than an honest representation of the facts in this instance.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
So he is the voice of truth we are just supposed to suck down whatever he says? Sorry just because he said so does not make it so. Nor does it make it not. Given his obvious bias from his post record I'd say his impartiality is questionable
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Speaking of strawman arguments:
Well, apparently not. Because notice in what setting you are continuing to make your 'innocent until proven guilty' arguments in: a courtroom. During a trial. And thus are referring to facts to be exclusively rendered in a court of law during a trial. I, however, am dealing with the facts/information from witnesses in and of themselves. Ie., what is held to be true outside a court of law. (And for one thing, like we all know, we can't try the guy now, as he's now dead.)
And not once am I challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty (despite your veiled innuendo to the contrary) as a _necessary_ part of our _legal system_.
But as a matter of determining facts, independent of said legal system, said strict legal standards that _are_ to be applied in a courtroom do not totally apply outside of it. Ie., the historical, factual, and/or common knowledge statement of what has happened re: VPWs sexual abuse.
You seem to think that all of the first hand accounts of the victims of VPW's sexual abuse doesn't rise to the required standard of legal proof, and you know what, maybe they don't (and then again, maybe they do, and that largely depends on the specific court that the case would have been tried in, as well as the sheer amount of accounts to that kind of charge. Please keep that in mind, ok?)
But out here in 'the real world' (Hey, don't laugh. Someone can make a good argument as to how in many cases, the legal system is not in tune with the real world. <_< ) a helluva lot of (and I daresay _most_) people would read all those accounts, and even take Oldies', WTH's, Mike's, etc. ... Ie. VPW apologists/defenders (note I left you out in this example, since you vigorously deny being a VPW apologist, so ok) their arguments into account, and render VPW 'guilty' anyway, ... NOT as per the legal authority of a court of law, but as per common knowledge. And notice the example I gave of Hitler earlier. He wasn't tried, and he wasn't specifically rendered guilty by any court of law. Yet, it is common knowledge (to all but the 'Holocaust Revisionists') that he is guilty of all the things people said he did during the Third Reich. ... And I notice that you skipped on that one.
And even given the bias shown on this board, the bias isn't such that VPW supporters can't get their own two cents in, ... despite protests being given about being 'censored' because they speak positive of TWI to the contrary. If that were the case, Paw would have kicked out ALL of VPW's supporters in a heartbeat.
Oh, by the Way ;),
Thank you for giving your own version of making a non-documentable statement, as I know that just isn't true. How can I prove this? He has been judged guilty by 1) the people who have experienced the abuse 1st hand, 2) those who have read/listened to said accounts, and/or have seen said accounts happen and others like them, and have agreed that this just can't be the rantings of those who are just 'anti-Way', and 3) those who are anything _but_ a 'small percent'. ... You know, for someone who is so anal about getting to the whole truth, you seem to make a rather sloppy judgment in this case.
And yes Mark Clarke, I know. Here we go again. I was endeavoring to bring up a few points that WD just keeps missing.
Update Alert:
Oh really?! And yours is NOT? :blink:
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Perhaps you need to reread before you fabricate charges. I have never questioned anyones right to speak ,nor to have their opinion ,when opinion is presented as absolute fact and verdicts are rendered as true without the benefit of due process then yes I will point that fact out. I see no place where I was Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns. Nor was a worried about impressing you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
On the other side of the fence is numbers that will say they are right in what they believe. Numbers are not the telling of truth . Proof is hard evidence, and due process of law when you are accusing one of a crime. Everyone has a point of view you choose to believe the ones you do because they support your agenda. I choose to believe no man's words show me the verdict and you can refer to one as guilty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe it's just me.
Sometimes I see a post that's written almost entirely in one color ink, such as blue, and my mind wants to pass it right by.
Kinda like a bad wreck on the freeway that I really have no desire to even glance at.
I guess these old eyes just don't want to be bothered with the strain these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions . It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion.
Good that is one less post to answer..... Thanks for doing your part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
why do you write in blue, WD? it does make your text harder to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
My response to this is thusly:
1) Since VPW is now dead, and can't be charged (taken to court and all that), because of this, you seriously expect people to treat him as though he's innocent of all this? (due to legal definitions of innocence) As a matter of common factual knowledge outside the court? Like I said before, "What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law." and that applies even to facts regarding criminal behavior. The difference here is that said 'defendant' isn't brought before the judge nor is his freedom taken away (again, because he's dead).
2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, ..... <_<
and 3) I Just realized something. It is to protect people's freedom from being falsely imprisoned that the concept of innocent until proved guilty was constructed, NOT specifically because to protect someone's reputation from common knowledge accusations. Yes Virginia, there is a difference. And yes, there is also legal remedies in our law to deal with false accusations made outside the court of law. It has to do with laws (and lawsuits) against libel, slander, and character assassinations. ... SO if what we're saying here at GS about VPW being 'guilty' of said sexual abuses amounts to libel, slander, and character assassinations, all a VPW apologist has to do is take us to court. And I'd be willing to bet that those of us who do 'accuse' VPW of said acts are confident enough in what we're saying that we're not gonna back down, so go ahead and call Judge Wapner!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
sooo...
what happened to poor old jt?
did he ever overcome his past, or fess up to it?
or go on to greener ex-way pastures to sponge a living? Does he STILL sponge a living, teaching the SAME OLD STUFF.. with the same old "doc" vic mannerisms?
or did he go to college.. get a job, or develop a career, get a life?
or is he something like a thirty year old gerbil.. nothing remarkably (or unremarkably different) from year to year.. just a little more grey on top?
When's the last time somebody checked for a pulse?
hey.. it's an honest question here..
I was taught if you're not changing you're dying.. don't know how much stock to put it it though..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
Ham,Way version statement?
In real life,I agree,In twi all it meant was becoming more and more a mush brained,follower
I too hope Jt did do something,I wish him well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Again, that is just not a fair representation of the facts Dove. Number one, I have no agenda. I consider that statement a personal attack on my integrity as a poster here.
Number 2 is that I think that what you CHOOSE to do is ignore anything that contradicts your limited perceptions of a part of twi and it`s people whom you never personally interacted with yourself in order to try to support your theories. Fine, thats what YOU do....However, when you stoop to misrepresenting the people or the facts involved in order to attempt to make your point, you WILL be called on it.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ham I don`t know, it was at least 10 years ago that I went to his meeting. He seemed like the same friendly lovable guy.
True story. We got sent to Kansas as wow`s. Excited to meet with our state coordinator.....We eagerly awaited his words of wisdom.....our introduction to the man in spiritual charge of our lives for the year........
His opening greeting to the 12 of us......*Hi...my wife just had a baby ... I haven`t had sex in x number of weeks and BOY am I horny*
Course we were all flattered that he thought we were spiritual enough for him to be so candid with us....but now in hind sight, I have to wonder if it wasn`t calculated to gauge our reactions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Rascal,
Your integrity is just fine. Sometimes I read your posts and want to stand up and applaud!! :) I am thrilled you are better and your voice is being heard again. I missed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I know too that after our wow year....neither him nor naomi could be bothered with our wow pinning ceremony. Everyone else marched into the big top to battle hymn of the republic. Their state coordinators proudly standing with them... We just stood alone 8 battle weary exhausted people whom had freely given and suffered harshly a year of their lives....and our state coordinators were too busy playing the newest bot members to apparently care what happened to *their* WOWS.
I know, they were busy...it was a bad time for the ministry...they had greater responsibility. Still it sucked being forgotten, feeling insignificant, as we watched the other wows pinned, hugged and congratulated by their state leaders.
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.