I agree wholeheartedly that if this were criminal court that Wierwille, LCM, Geer, and TWI would have the right of presumed innocence. Your whole point has NO RELEVANCE here though.
So I suppose that you can claim that you are just holding with the context of this thread that you started W.D. if you want to. If this was a formal court you would have a good point.
But I remember you rehashing this point many times mentioning the court of "public opinion" right here at the Greasespot. That rule does not apply here.
Just as I said earlier that I was capable of judging you to be guilty of cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to prove your irrelevant point, I am also capable of judging TWI to be guilty of many abuses. The parallel is simple to me.
I am saying that by cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to suit your irrelevant point you were deliberately distorting the definition to suit your purposes, whatever they may be W.D.
Is it too fine a distinction to call a deliberate distortion a lie to you W.D.?
It is pretty clear to me.
Roll those eyes all you want!
It doesn't change what you did.
But sadly enough, it looks like getting called on you dishonesty is not going to lead to any change in your actions.
A good Christian lesson is to confess one's sin. And every other ethical system that I know of has this principle somewhere in their cultural norms.
You are definitely committed to whatever it is that you believe. But without this basic core honesty in your heart, what have you really got there W.D.?
My splinter group leader went so far as to openly mocking the concept of honesty when it suited him. IMO he only did that to get people to go along with his lies.
When people are like that you cannot believe anything that comes out of their mouths.
What's next after lying to get one's own way?
How about physical intimidation? That can be effective too.
How about isolating and marginalizing the opposition? What good Christian behavior that is.
How about taking away their families? That can break them too W.D.
Like I said before W.D. About the only thing that I'm wondering about you now is how far are you willing to go to get your own way. In other words, I have formed an opinion about you (without the benefit of a legal trial mind you) and now it seems to me to simply be a question of when and if you'll stop.
It's similar to a person who will take a big bribe, but not a small one. Either way, I know what they really are.
(edited for grammar)
Typos are not lies Jeff just as Potatoe's was not
I've explained my position I won't be baited into a discussion of your derail, and that is your purpose.
By the way calling someone a liar is against the rules here .....just Sayin
You've been calling folks dishonest for a long time, and fairly often too.
Whas up wit dat?
Now you complain about being showed your distortion of the definition of "guilty" that you yourself did. And while arguing an irrelevant point you think that it proves that because you are alone here at the Greasespot in your distortion in the course of an irrelevant point that you stand alone on the truth.
Another option to consider is that maybe your points are just that bad.
I can see needing to stand against everyone when the truth is at stake. I think that is a tremendous stand to take.
I really, really wish that I could perceive you in that manner W.D.
But irrelevance and dishonesty on your part has convinced me that you are not doing this at the Greasespot in general.
But what the heck, at least you are persistent. :B)
(edited for spelling)
You are incorrect I have never stated that. I have stated that records were not documented by hard evidence as such it is only testimony. Words out of someone's mouth ,one can choose to accept anything that comes out of a mouth, or not their privilege. I don't, simple as that, my privilege. words are cheap, one can say anything , facts, proof are harder to come by. I prefer to have the truth especially when accusing one of a crime. And yes I will be consistent because innocent until proven guilty is at the foundation of American rights.
I've been thinking of this one, quite a bit, and I want to ask you WD, exactly WHO has committed libel? are you saying excathedra has? or Kristin Skedgell? or any of the other women who've published their accounts of being molested by vpw? or the men who've corroborated their testimony? are they committing libel?
Good question, Actually some of the most understanding people are the ones that have shared their stories here. It's the Johnny come latelies that were not present and yet seem to hold other people to some standard that they themselves do not follow, at attempting to discredit their opinion. Those who rant day after day about that which they did not witness, accusing others of crimes that have no documentation other than accusation. People are accused of many things when you can make the charges stick then you may refer to them as guilty of a crime , until then its your opinion or in the case of one involved, a testimony.
--- It's the Johnny come latelies that were not present and yet seem to hold other people to some standard that they themselves do not follow, at attempting to discredit their opinion. Those who rant day after day about that which they did not witness----
Good question, Actually some of the most understanding people are the ones that have shared their stories here. It's the Johnny come latelies that were not present and yet seem to hold other people to some standard that they themselves do not follow, at attempting to discredit their opinion. Those who rant day after day about that which they did not witness, accusing others of crimes that have no documentation other than accusation. People are accused of many things when you can make the charges stick then you may refer to them as guilty of a crime , until then its your opinion or in the case of one involved, a testimony.
why should I have reason to doubt what excathedra or Kristin have testified?
Who exactly rants and raves day after day about what they haven`t witnessed? Who accuses others of crimes?
The one I see doing that consistantly is the fellow that insists on calling folks here liars without any personal knowledge of the individuals on EITHER side of the issue.
I guess that I don`t understand NOT being offended and talking about the perves in sheep`s clothing. It is unconscionable NOT to shout from the roof tops the crimes of vp and twi....lest people spend the rest of their lives trying to apply the foolishness that we believed was *THE truth* given to a man by God.
When people know who and what these guys were, what they did to our brothers and sisters, we are free to begin the healing process, begin growing again as people.
Without the truth, we are forever stuck living false teachings and accepting the blame personally for their failure.
why should I have reason to doubt what excathedra or Kristin have testified?
I can't answer that for you. But it has nothing to do with believing either way. I may agree , in fact I have never stated that I did not, it's still my opinion not fact. Accusing one of guilt of a crime requires documentation. Not just undocumented testimony. We don't take people at their word on other points we require proof. The standard is the same.
I guess that I don`t understand NOT being offended and talking about the perves in sheep`s clothing. It is unconscionable NOT to shout from the roof tops the crimes of vp and twi....lest people spend the rest of their lives trying to apply the foolishness that we believed was *THE truth* given to a man by God.
When people know who and what these guys were, what they did to our brothers and sisters, we are free to begin the healing process, begin growing again as people.
Without the truth, we are forever stuck living false teachings and accepting the blame personally for their failure.
Show me a confirmed charge of a crime and I'll shout it from the roof tops.
Accusing one of guilt of a crime requires documentation.
Accusations demand no documentation. Evidence is not even required (although it is recommended) to charge someone of a crime. Oftentimes "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient. However, if you want to get a conviction, one either must present compelling evidence, or at least present what evidence has been gathered as compelling enough to sway a jury. As stated before, legal guilt is not to be confused with factual guilt.
And as far as "crimes" are concerned, while plagiarism and adultery are bad, they are not prosecuted as "crimes." The women who were drugged to have sex would have a case for rape, as would underage girls.
Ministers and others in authority are held to a standard of behavior that assumes the positional authority of the authority figure does not allow for consensual relationships. That is why it is a bad idea for ministers to have sex with members of the congregation, therapists to have sex with clients, lawyers with clients, police with people they stop for traffic violations, teachers with students, prison guards with inmates. In those "relationships" there is a level of implied coercion. Do you not get that? Oh, and by the way, many people have been accused of improper relationships and found themselves out of a job with no charges ever filed or without ever facing prosecution.
Accusing one of guilt of a crime requires documentation. Not just undocumented testimony. We don't take people at their word on other points we require proof. The standard is the same.
I don't believe that they've technically accused vpw of a crime, either because he's dead, or the statute of limitations ran out, or because they exercised their freedom not to press charges.
this argument is academic, since vpw is dead. he cannot be "accused" in the sense that you're using, because he can't be taken to court. therefore, no one has accused him of anything. however, their testimony IS documented. once it's published, it's a document.
at this point, in order to declare their testimony untrue, it would require taking them to court to prove libel. until someone produces a guilty verdict against vpw's victims showing that they've libeled him, their testimony stands.
I don't believe that they've technically accused vpw of a crime, either because he's dead, or the statute of limitations ran out, or because they exercised their freedom not to press charges.
this argument is academic, since vpw is dead. he cannot be "accused" in the sense that you're using, because he can't be taken to court. therefore, no one has accused him of anything. however, their testimony IS documented. once it's published, it's a document.
at this point, in order to declare their testimony untrue, it would require taking them to court to prove libel. until someone produces a guilty verdict against vpw's victims showing that they've libeled him, their testimony stands.
ROFLM . . . OFF!! Can't argue with that logic. Well, let me rephrase that. You can't successfully argue with that logic. . . can try and probably will try. . . are different matters all together.
I don't believe that they've technically accused vpw of a crime, either because he's dead, or the statute of limitations ran out, or because they exercised their freedom not to press charges.
this argument is academic, since vpw is dead. he cannot be "accused" in the sense that you're using, because he can't be taken to court. therefore, no one has accused him of anything. however, their testimony IS documented. once it's published, it's a document.
at this point, in order to declare their testimony untrue, it would require taking them to court to prove libel. until someone produces a guilty verdict against vpw's victims showing that they've libeled him, their testimony stands.
Testimony is not proof of anything it is a record of what may or may not have happened according to the one testifying That's all. It is not considered fact it is recorded and examined it does not stand on anything until it is proven. Until then it is a collection of words undocumented. when you state that so and so is a thief, rapist, or murderer you are accusing one of guilt of a crime dead or living. There are those that think Casey Anthony is a murderer but she is guilty of nothing at this time she is alleged to be. Saying so does not stand, what stands is what is in the end proven. You can think whatever you want thoughts are not proof of a crime.
My post was in response to this statement:
"Show me a confirmed charge of a crime and I'll shout it from the roof tops."
There are those that think Casey Anthony is a murderer but she is guilty of nothing at this time she is alleged to be.
</snip>
very weak example. there were no witnesses to the actual crime in that case so it will have to be established circumstantially and/or forensically, or she'll be acquitted. in the cases of excathedra and Kristin, the victims both survived to testify, so comparing Ms. Anthony to vpw is ridiculous.
'Nother words----It's all about upholding the innocence of VPW.
WD doesn't seem to really be concerned about you, me, or the poor kids in Alaska who suffered at the hands of a known pedophile due to the negligence of TWI.
What he is concerned about (IMO) is maintaining the image of VP Wierwille in an unblemished state.
This whole thread is about the presumed innocence of VPW?
The context of my statement which you quoted was in regard to VPW. that said I have made no challenge to the documented crimes affore mentioned, I do so because they have been through the test of the law, a fair hearing, evidence presented and disputed and a jury of their peers has made a verdict. See that's how it works, then you can call them guilty.
Testimony is not proof of anything it is a record of what may or may not have happened according to the one testifying That's all. It is not considered fact it is recorded and examined it does not stand on anything until it is proven. Until then it is a collection of words undocumented. when you state that so and so is a thief, rapist, or murderer you are accusing one of guilt of a crime dead or living. There are those that think Casey Anthony is a murderer but she is guilty of nothing at this time she is alleged to be. Saying so does not stand, what stands is what is in the end proven. You can think whatever you want thoughts are not proof of a crime.
The context was VPW.
Testimony is not proof of anything?? Except it is admissable in a court of law as evidence. That is what testimony is. . . . proof!!!!!!
This is just getting beyond ridiculous now. What court in the country does not accept testimony as evidence to prove guilt. No court says it is an undocumented collection of words. .. . until proven. . . OMGosh. . . that is why people TESTIFY under oath and the penalty of perjury.
Get a clue.
You don't testify an accusation, you testify to information relating TO the accusation as PROOF of guilt or innocence.
Occasionaly testimony is all a Judge has to make a decision. . . guess what? It ends up. . . . based on testimony. . .
very weak example. there were no witnesses to the actual crime in that case so it will have to be established circumstantially and/or forensically, or she'll be acquitted. in the cases of excathedra and Kristin, the victims both survived to testify, so comparing Ms. Anthony to vpw is ridiculous.
I can dig you up another case if you would like where the victim survived, the point will be the same ,until there is a conviction the crime is alleged.
I can dig you up another case if you would like where the victim survived, the point will be the same ,until there is a conviction the crime is alleged.
it doesn't matter, it still won't be a good comparison unless the criminal is dead and the victims are living and telling their stories. this looks like a red herring.
we already established that this is an academic exercise since vpw can't be taken to court, we've already established that he's not entitled to presumption of innocence, nor does he have constitutional rights, and we've established that his victims DO have a constitutional right to free speech and if they're lying, they can be taken to court for libel. so why haven't they been? in a historical case, eyewitness testimony is acceptable, especially when there are multiple witnesses, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, there's no reason to declare the words of these women libelous.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 7
31
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 45 posts
WhiteDove 110 posts
waysider 70 posts
potato 43 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2009
39 posts
Feb 15 2009
37 posts
Feb 18 2009
36 posts
Mar 7 2009
31 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
I assume that YOUR interaction WITH people here at gs where YOU said what your actual experience was in twi was true and factual. I think you are playing word games because you don`tlike being remind
potato
actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw
waysider
Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion
WhiteDove
Typos are not lies Jeff just as Potatoe's was not
I've explained my position I won't be baited into a discussion of your derail, and that is your purpose.
By the way calling someone a liar is against the rules here .....just Sayin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You are incorrect I have never stated that. I have stated that records were not documented by hard evidence as such it is only testimony. Words out of someone's mouth ,one can choose to accept anything that comes out of a mouth, or not their privilege. I don't, simple as that, my privilege. words are cheap, one can say anything , facts, proof are harder to come by. I prefer to have the truth especially when accusing one of a crime. And yes I will be consistent because innocent until proven guilty is at the foundation of American rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Good question, Actually some of the most understanding people are the ones that have shared their stories here. It's the Johnny come latelies that were not present and yet seem to hold other people to some standard that they themselves do not follow, at attempting to discredit their opinion. Those who rant day after day about that which they did not witness, accusing others of crimes that have no documentation other than accusation. People are accused of many things when you can make the charges stick then you may refer to them as guilty of a crime , until then its your opinion or in the case of one involved, a testimony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Such as?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
why should I have reason to doubt what excathedra or Kristin have testified?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Who exactly rants and raves day after day about what they haven`t witnessed? Who accuses others of crimes?
The one I see doing that consistantly is the fellow that insists on calling folks here liars without any personal knowledge of the individuals on EITHER side of the issue.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I guess that I don`t understand NOT being offended and talking about the perves in sheep`s clothing. It is unconscionable NOT to shout from the roof tops the crimes of vp and twi....lest people spend the rest of their lives trying to apply the foolishness that we believed was *THE truth* given to a man by God.
When people know who and what these guys were, what they did to our brothers and sisters, we are free to begin the healing process, begin growing again as people.
Without the truth, we are forever stuck living false teachings and accepting the blame personally for their failure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I can't answer that for you. But it has nothing to do with believing either way. I may agree , in fact I have never stated that I did not, it's still my opinion not fact. Accusing one of guilt of a crime requires documentation. Not just undocumented testimony. We don't take people at their word on other points we require proof. The standard is the same.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Show me a confirmed charge of a crime and I'll shout it from the roof tops.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Accusations demand no documentation. Evidence is not even required (although it is recommended) to charge someone of a crime. Oftentimes "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient. However, if you want to get a conviction, one either must present compelling evidence, or at least present what evidence has been gathered as compelling enough to sway a jury. As stated before, legal guilt is not to be confused with factual guilt.
And as far as "crimes" are concerned, while plagiarism and adultery are bad, they are not prosecuted as "crimes." The women who were drugged to have sex would have a case for rape, as would underage girls.
Ministers and others in authority are held to a standard of behavior that assumes the positional authority of the authority figure does not allow for consensual relationships. That is why it is a bad idea for ministers to have sex with members of the congregation, therapists to have sex with clients, lawyers with clients, police with people they stop for traffic violations, teachers with students, prison guards with inmates. In those "relationships" there is a level of implied coercion. Do you not get that? Oh, and by the way, many people have been accused of improper relationships and found themselves out of a job with no charges ever filed or without ever facing prosecution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There have been cases of children being sexually molested by leadership that resulted, not only in charges, but in convictions and incarcerations.
These are matters of public record.
Upper leadership made deliberate efforts to cover them up and allowed the practice to continue.
These things have, in fact, been documented on GSC, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I don't believe that they've technically accused vpw of a crime, either because he's dead, or the statute of limitations ran out, or because they exercised their freedom not to press charges.
this argument is academic, since vpw is dead. he cannot be "accused" in the sense that you're using, because he can't be taken to court. therefore, no one has accused him of anything. however, their testimony IS documented. once it's published, it's a document.
at this point, in order to declare their testimony untrue, it would require taking them to court to prove libel. until someone produces a guilty verdict against vpw's victims showing that they've libeled him, their testimony stands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
ROFLM . . . OFF!! Can't argue with that logic. Well, let me rephrase that. You can't successfully argue with that logic. . . can try and probably will try. . . are different matters all together.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Their testimony stands!..I agree 100 %....
First hand tetimony is only dismissed when the testamony is proven to be invalid...sorry Whitedove...you lose again.
...but you must be getting used to that by now.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And your point ? Have I ever stated that they were not documented? They were, and received results. Which is exactly my point
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My post was in response to this statement:
"Show me a confirmed charge of a crime and I'll shout it from the roof tops."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Testimony is not proof of anything it is a record of what may or may not have happened according to the one testifying That's all. It is not considered fact it is recorded and examined it does not stand on anything until it is proven. Until then it is a collection of words undocumented. when you state that so and so is a thief, rapist, or murderer you are accusing one of guilt of a crime dead or living. There are those that think Casey Anthony is a murderer but she is guilty of nothing at this time she is alleged to be. Saying so does not stand, what stands is what is in the end proven. You can think whatever you want thoughts are not proof of a crime.
The context was VPW.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
This whole thread is about the presumed innocence of VPW?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
very weak example. there were no witnesses to the actual crime in that case so it will have to be established circumstantially and/or forensically, or she'll be acquitted. in the cases of excathedra and Kristin, the victims both survived to testify, so comparing Ms. Anthony to vpw is ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The context was VPW."
'Nother words----It's all about upholding the innocence of VPW.
WD doesn't seem to really be concerned about you, me, or the poor kids in Alaska who suffered at the hands of a known pedophile due to the negligence of TWI.
What he is concerned about (IMO) is maintaining the image of VP Wierwille in an unblemished state.
Edited by Mod Cowremoved person's name
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The context of my statement which you quoted was in regard to VPW. that said I have made no challenge to the documented crimes affore mentioned, I do so because they have been through the test of the law, a fair hearing, evidence presented and disputed and a jury of their peers has made a verdict. See that's how it works, then you can call them guilty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Testimony is not proof of anything?? Except it is admissable in a court of law as evidence. That is what testimony is. . . . proof!!!!!!
This is just getting beyond ridiculous now. What court in the country does not accept testimony as evidence to prove guilt. No court says it is an undocumented collection of words. .. . until proven. . . OMGosh. . . that is why people TESTIFY under oath and the penalty of perjury.
Get a clue.
You don't testify an accusation, you testify to information relating TO the accusation as PROOF of guilt or innocence.
Occasionaly testimony is all a Judge has to make a decision. . . guess what? It ends up. . . . based on testimony. . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I can dig you up another case if you would like where the victim survived, the point will be the same ,until there is a conviction the crime is alleged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
it doesn't matter, it still won't be a good comparison unless the criminal is dead and the victims are living and telling their stories. this looks like a red herring.
we already established that this is an academic exercise since vpw can't be taken to court, we've already established that he's not entitled to presumption of innocence, nor does he have constitutional rights, and we've established that his victims DO have a constitutional right to free speech and if they're lying, they can be taken to court for libel. so why haven't they been? in a historical case, eyewitness testimony is acceptable, especially when there are multiple witnesses, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, there's no reason to declare the words of these women libelous.
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.