You, in essence, are accusing people of making false statements about a dead man.
Do you have proof those statements are false?
Well you see that is where you are wrong and by the way you have offered no proof of your claim. You don't because there is none, it is fabricated. Misrepresenting someone is against the rules here by the way and I have clearly over the years been consistent in my statements not to mention on this thread alone. You continue to misrepresent my words. I'll state it one more time after that I'll assume you wish to deliberately disregard the rules.
I have accused no one of making false statements, rather I have consistently stated that any statements made were in fact just that words, on the internet no less, made by largely people that remain nameless. testimony on the other hand is documented with the party giving it documented by name. There has been accounts given of two sides to a story one of rape one of willing relationships both remain undocumented with anything more than "I say so" one is free to pick which ever they choose, flip a coin ,make a guess, but in the end it is a choice based not on any proof physical evidence, but opinion on the internet. With the exception of those who were directly involved in which case only they know what actually happened. There has been no record of any charges filed so no burden of guilt has or can be confirmed, as such no claim of guilt may be made, there is none to claim legally. Since no legal crime has been committed, accused, charged, found guilty, had due process of law then one is free to offer an opinion on any matter they want ,including why they think one might be guilty. Others are free to point out that no guilt has been established and offer reasons why such accounts may be influenced by bias. As I stated undocumentable. What anyone believes one way or the other is an opinion, it does not prove or disprove any record, it is simply one choice in the matter.
What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been, nor can they be proven or disproved with the vocal words we have presently, 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. Your choice to accept it because of your bias toward the group 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 take a neutral position not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony because there is neither enough weight to sway the scale of justice in either direction. 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 one may believe one way or another.
Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.
By DAN ABRAMS
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.
As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:
"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"
"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.
While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.
Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.
Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.
The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.
Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.
The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.
Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.
What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.
Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.
But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.
Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.
Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.
Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.
By DAN ABRAMS
People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.
I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.
As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:
"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"
"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.
While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.
Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.
Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.
The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.
Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.
The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.
Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.
What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.
Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.
But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.
Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.
Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.
So I guess we have established that professionals just like the rest of us have opinions ,that does not make them true necessarily ,nor confirm a point.
So I guess we have established that professionals just like the rest of us have opinions ,that does not make them true necessarily ,nor confirm a point.
So, does WD acknowledge that he is a layman, and a PROFESSIONAL actually refuted his claims?
Does WD acknowledge a PROFESSIONAL even addressed his points?
Honest intellectual discussion would do so-but when one is pushing an agenda, honesty is inconvenient
and just something to distract from, which is why we got this response...
The article you posted is one persons opinion, It does offer a hint as to why NBC news finishes a poor third in the ratings
Actually, it was one PROFESSIONAL's opinion.
We can discuss medicine all day, but when someone can bring in a
medical PROFESSIONAL's opinion, that carries more weight.
Nobody on this thread is a legal PROFESSIONAL,
but one was quoted as speaking on this subject, in context.
If you have an article from a different PROFESSIONAL,
say, one that figures first or second in the ratings,
that refutes this PROFESSIONAL,
feel free to post a link.
Again, a PROFESSIONAL has REFUTED the claims of the LAYMAN.
Does the LAYMAN introduce counter-refutation, or does he claim
he knows the PROFESSIONAL's field better than the PROFESSIONAL?
So because he is a professional and has one opinion that makes him the authority? Really? then by that logic this man is also a professinal does his one opinion also count as right? There are lots of professionals last time I looked that did not qualify you as the authority on truth alone.
Nothing like some logical fallacy and fogging the issues rather than actually addressing the points
of a PROFESSIONAL.
"Because he is a professional" Correct so far- a professional.
"And has one opinion"- now this is just needling the PROFESSIONAL, we're addressing one subject.
Any PROFESSIONAL has LOTS of opinions.
"That makes him the authority?"
Nothing like addressing claims nobody ever made to make WD sound like he actually understands
the subject in which he's only a layman and trying to hide a PROFESSIONAL's opinion.
Any professional carries professional AUTHORITY because THEY ARE A PROFESSIONAL.
THAT's the subject they spend months, years, DECADES in- they know it better than any LAYMAN,
including all they laymen on this thread.
I already SAID this- and I quoted it here.
Is he "THE" authority? Silly claim- and only WD is making it. I already REFUTED it
WHEN I INVITED A COUNTER-QUOTE FROM A DIFFERENT PROFESSIONAL.
WD's failing to read MY posts, failing to read the PROFESSIONAL's article, and failing to
understand the subject of presumption of innocence and its IRRELEVANCE OUTSIDE OF COURTS OF LAW.
"Really?"
No- only real in the false claim WD has tried to put in our mouths so he can "refute" the claim we never made.
" then by that logic this man is also a professinal does his one opinion also count as right?"
A) The man has many PROFESSIONAL opinions-we're discussing ONE.
B) Nobody ever claimed any PROFESSIONAL is AUTOMATICALLY right.
However, when anyone of sense wants to challenge the claim of a PROFESSIONAL,
THEY BRING IN ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL.
That's especially common in the courts of law- where "presumption of innocence" applies.
(Since we're not in a court of law, "presumption of innocence" as a legal term does NOT apply.)
Faulty logic- but then, since WD invented it to put in our mouths and pretend we said it,
does that come as a surprise?
Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?
He's tired of non-professionals who misunderstand his job, and how
presumption of innocence works, who seek to dictate it to him anyway.
How would you like it if someone ignorant of your job sought to explain
to you how to perform it?
WD the LAYMAN considers himself qualified to judge the performance of the PROFESSIONAL
in a field WD has never studied. WD misses the same points other people miss- and the PROFESSIONAL
explained why WD and others are wrong, in plain English. WD's been refuted by a PROFESSIONAL.
WD's response? "Poor reporting."
I don't see where he specified non professionals , yoiu assume that because it goes along with your point.
Actually, the context made it clear. He explained-in plain English- how presumption of innocence is irrelevant outside courts of law
because the people who have trouble understanding it are LAYMEN. He released it for general consumption because the people
who would read it-like us- are LAYMEN. If he was addressing people who had professional experience in the field,
he would have been able to use technical terminology and would have skipped references to "as a citizen".
The comments were from "people"- not "co-workers", not "lawyers", not "editors"- which means
the AVERAGE schmoe- the LAYMAN.
If you STILL can't see it, what else is new?
You saw a PROFESSIONAL explain a point in his PROFESSION you didn't understand-
and pronounced it "poor reporting." Par for the course, especially for this thread.
What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been, nor can they be proven or disproved with the vocal words we have presently, 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. Your choice to accept it because of your bias toward the group 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 take a neutral position not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony because there is neither enough weight to sway the scale of justice in either direction. 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 one may believe one way or another.
What you have said remains an opinion. Innocent until proven guilty is nothing more legal standard that exists in the legal system. If you want to put that in your belief system as something to live by, then fine. I'm a little more wary of people than that.
So I guess we have established that professionals just like the rest of us have opinions ,that does not make them true necessarily ,nor confirm a point.
You know, as a courtesy, I cut WD some slack when he posted this before.
(post 289, pg-15, 8:36pm Wed March 4, 2008.)
However, since he's INSISTING we not cut him some slack in this fashion,
I shall acknowledge his post.
So,
WD's idea of how to try to refute the PROFESSIONAL comments of a LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
is NOT "find a different LEGAL PROFESSIONAL and quote a counter-refutation."
It SHOULD have been that. I even TOLD him that. In several posts.
WD's idea of how to try to refute the PROFESSIONAL comments of a LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
are to COMPLETELY DISCARD THE SUBJECT OF LAW AND INNOCENCE,
and to instead find someone completely unrelated to the PROFESSIONAL or even his
PROFESSION, but who speaks nonsense.
In other words, some medical doctor somewhere said some nonsense.
Therefore, the LEGAL PROFESSIONAL and his LEGAL STATEMENTS are null and void.
THIS is the kind of "logic" in use- "logic" whose only rules seem to have nothing to do with
actual "logic" and everything to do with "try everything, no matter how silly, in an attempt
to remove guilt from vpw, who embezzled, exercised simony, drugged and raped women,
and in general abused the office of minister of God."
THIS is the kind of "logic" in use- "logic" whose only rules seem to have nothing to do with
actual "logic" and everything to do with "try everything, no matter how silly, in an attempt
to remove guilt from vpw, who embezzled, exercised simony, drugged and raped women,
and in general abused the office of minister of God."
yep. this thread has been a very rich source for studying logical fallacies. for that alone, I hope WD keeps going because so far he hasn't failed to disappoint. I find some of the fallacies (ad hominem) are really difficult to sort out because there are so many and they're so closely related, and I really need the practice.
it's also a bit like reading a monty python script.
WD, you continue to sidestep most of the issues we've put before you, for instance vpw's victims' rights to free speech and where the burden of proof actually lies. the accounts of vpw's victims are documented cases. anyone can attempt to refute them in court whenever they like, THEN presumption of innocence will apply to the defendant (vpw's victim) and the burden of proof will lie with the plaintiff (the one protecting vpw's reputation).
The thing is....there is no way that wierwille can ever be brought up on legal charges to prove his guilt in the crimes that he committed .....This appears to be just one more effort to shut people up concerning the abuses suffered at the hands of VPW and his people....and Dove knows this.
First it was lock box...then m&a, when abuses were revealed.... slaughter reputation, accusing the victims of lying, when too many came forward to ignore....accusing them of wanting it...stretching the truth...etc
Just one more attempt to shut the witnesses to the perversions up, as far as I am concerned.
It is too late...wierwilles crimes have been exposed for all to see....his damnable guilt completely tarnishing any reputation and forever negating any legitimacy to the doctrine that he propounded.
The fruit of his life and ministry, the swath of destruction he cut through peoples lives confirm his damnable guilt more thoroughly then any court.
Lest we forget...we are talking about a supposed *christian* minister...a man who claimed to be working for God...
He has been convicted in a bigger court than any we have here. If one sets any store in scriptures, according to THAT Galatians 5:19-21 ...he is damnably guilty...and people who commit the crimes talked about here, well....he is sentenced to no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. Dunno what that means exactly, but it doesn`t sound good for wierwille and his buddies who used the scripture to sate their lusts and fill their bellies.
Which means claiming any guilt of a crime that was not, by your standards is delusional. It seems none has been established since no legal artifacts have been met. Therefore it is opinion.
No, it means claiming LEGAL guilt of said crimes is not provable. And trying to apply LEGAL standards to evaluation of the life of a deceased man is delusional. And you keep trying to steer the evaluation towards the LEGAL arena where it does not apply. The LEGAL arena could apply to the current behavior of TWI current leadership, and that is probably why they refuse to do much of anything in public.
It's very transparent that you have some kind of view of VPW that you are personally attached to that you need to preserve. This is why instead of allowing the public MORAL evaluation of VPW's life you try and discount his victims saying they present opinions only not fact, trying to steer the whole evaluation criteria under the purview of LEGAL standards. That is what is delusional.
I can judge VPW's life by whatever standards and criteria I damn well please. And 20+ years after his death his legacy is looking more and more like that of a drunken lecher that latched on to the Zeitgeist of the "free love Jesus movement" and took it for a ride for about 14 years from 1972 to 1986. And there's a reasonable case to be made that his totalitarian style of leadership combined with sexual deviancy is the primary thing that has been passed along to subsequent leadership administrations in TWI. These damn people act like they are more of an intermediary between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ than a Catholic priest you have to confess your sins to.
We are not judging VPW guilty of LEGAL crimes. At times there is speculation as to how the man actually survived without any LEGAL consequences. Or get shot by someone he abused's relatives.
We are judging VPW guilty of MORAL crimes, based upon the testimony of many firsthand victims. He was a MORAL deviant. He was a totalitarian. LCM followed in his footsteps, and the current idiots also.
I think Chockfull's post sums it up rather simply Tzaia
It's very transparent that you have some kind of view of VPW that you are personally attached to that you need to preserve. This is why instead of allowing the public MORAL evaluation of VPW's life you try and discount his victims saying they present opinions only not fact, trying to steer the whole evaluation criteria under the purview of LEGAL standards.
the only thing I can see in all this.. being a "victim" disqualifies one from being a juror in the case the accused, or perpetrator is tried. Presumption of innocence is usually included in instructions to a JURY, if I'm not mistaken.
if you're trying to drum up an impartial jury wd.. may I suggest, look in another place than Greasespot?
I'm sure you can find a few. twi was a small, small speck on the map.. doubtless there are MILLIONS of people who never even heard of vic, loy.. rosie.. or even heard of the lawsuits against da "ministry"..
all of this "confrontation" and all.. makes as much sense as putting the families and survivors of those whom capone murdered.. in a jury box, and trying to convince them they oughta give capone the benefit of the doubt..
the only thing I can see in all this.. being a "victim" disqualifies one from being a juror in the case the accused, or perpetrator is tried. Presumption of innocence is usually included in instructions to a JURY, if I'm not mistaken.
I find it surprising that some continue to misrepresent others point of view despite numerous times it has been clarified. It has been well established that I have never made claim that anyone was a liar, nor have I said anyone was. My claim has been consistent the information is not documented by any hard evidence.
But for the record I'll clarify again. What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable. You may choose to believe 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 one may believe one way or another
I've been considering for quite some time to do about this perspective of White Dove's. WD has the right to state an opinion. And no matter how ably, IMO, many of you respond to this opinion WD will not cease to share this opinion. And simply put, it is beyond my authority to force anyone here to cease from stating opinions that I happen to find disagreeable.
I am thankful for those of you who ably and willingly answer WD every time that this opinion is put forth. While tiresome I'm sure, I suppose it is most necessary that an answer is provided. And speaking for myself, I'm glad each and every time that someone points out legal standards are irrelevant here at the Greasespot, unless of course someone wishes to make a legal case out of something that I've said. In that case I would be most happy to have a trial where my accuser is faced with a legally appropriate burden of truth.
But my real concern is that many TWI victims may not feel up to facing their experiences being called into question by WD or anyone else for that matter. I am most thankful for those of you who have shared in spite of the opposition even here at the Greasespot.
So for those of you TWI victims who may like to share your experiences, I freely encourage you to do so and add to the many credible testimonies and documented perversities of Wierwille and his hand-picked children who unfortunately have fooled many and destroyed many lives too.
And from here on out, EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE POSTS THAT IMO TEND TO DISCOURAGE SHARING AND HEALING I WILL SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE READING THESE POSTS.
PLEASE FOLKS, IGNORE THE OPPOSITION AND FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR STORIES. GREASESPOT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY. FEEL FREE TO DO SO IF YOU WISH.
and seriously, if anyone (read, any of the vpw-worshipping organizations) is stupid enough to take someone who's told their story of being victimized by vpw to court for libel, I'll donate money toward their defense. it's not hard to get your legal fees back when you win a case (as I know from experience) and I don't like seeing people bullied into shutting up when they tell the truth. I got enough of that in twi.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 5
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 5 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
Well you see that is where you are wrong and by the way you have offered no proof of your claim. You don't because there is none, it is fabricated. Misrepresenting someone is against the rules here by the way and I have clearly over the years been consistent in my statements not to mention on this thread alone. You continue to misrepresent my words. I'll state it one more time after that I'll assume you wish to deliberately disregard the rules.
I have accused no one of making false statements, rather I have consistently stated that any statements made were in fact just that words, on the internet no less, made by largely people that remain nameless. testimony on the other hand is documented with the party giving it documented by name. There has been accounts given of two sides to a story one of rape one of willing relationships both remain undocumented with anything more than "I say so" one is free to pick which ever they choose, flip a coin ,make a guess, but in the end it is a choice based not on any proof physical evidence, but opinion on the internet. With the exception of those who were directly involved in which case only they know what actually happened. There has been no record of any charges filed so no burden of guilt has or can be confirmed, as such no claim of guilt may be made, there is none to claim legally. Since no legal crime has been committed, accused, charged, found guilty, had due process of law then one is free to offer an opinion on any matter they want ,including why they think one might be guilty. Others are free to point out that no guilt has been established and offer reasons why such accounts may be influenced by bias. As I stated undocumentable. What anyone believes one way or the other is an opinion, it does not prove or disprove any record, it is simply one choice in the matter.
What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been, nor can they be proven or disproved with the vocal words we have presently, 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. Your choice to accept it because of your bias toward the group 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 take a neutral position not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony because there is neither enough weight to sway the scale of justice in either direction. 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 one may believe one way or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I have the proof needed for a lot of things, including you wd.
Why does anyone talk to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't recall saying anyone did. When you have some to offer then you can make claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The ball is still in your court, WD.
You have consistently engaged in an accusatory fashion toward people here.
Your stance seems to be that their claims against a dead man are false.
It is up to you to prove it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Dentist Claims Breast Massage Necessary Treatment
Here
So I guess we have established that professionals just like the rest of us have opinions ,that does not make them true necessarily ,nor confirm a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Totally irrelevant.
Prove your accusation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, does WD acknowledge that he is a layman, and a PROFESSIONAL actually refuted his claims?
Does WD acknowledge a PROFESSIONAL even addressed his points?
Honest intellectual discussion would do so-but when one is pushing an agenda, honesty is inconvenient
and just something to distract from, which is why we got this response...
Actually, it was one PROFESSIONAL's opinion.
We can discuss medicine all day, but when someone can bring in a
medical PROFESSIONAL's opinion, that carries more weight.
Nobody on this thread is a legal PROFESSIONAL,
but one was quoted as speaking on this subject, in context.
If you have an article from a different PROFESSIONAL,
say, one that figures first or second in the ratings,
that refutes this PROFESSIONAL,
feel free to post a link.
Again, a PROFESSIONAL has REFUTED the claims of the LAYMAN.
Does the LAYMAN introduce counter-refutation, or does he claim
he knows the PROFESSIONAL's field better than the PROFESSIONAL?
So because he is a professional and has one opinion that makes him the authority? Really? then by that logic this man is also a professinal does his one opinion also count as right? There are lots of professionals last time I looked that did not qualify you as the authority on truth alone.
Nothing like some logical fallacy and fogging the issues rather than actually addressing the points
of a PROFESSIONAL.
"Because he is a professional" Correct so far- a professional.
"And has one opinion"- now this is just needling the PROFESSIONAL, we're addressing one subject.
Any PROFESSIONAL has LOTS of opinions.
"That makes him the authority?"
Nothing like addressing claims nobody ever made to make WD sound like he actually understands
the subject in which he's only a layman and trying to hide a PROFESSIONAL's opinion.
Any professional carries professional AUTHORITY because THEY ARE A PROFESSIONAL.
THAT's the subject they spend months, years, DECADES in- they know it better than any LAYMAN,
including all they laymen on this thread.
I already SAID this- and I quoted it here.
Is he "THE" authority? Silly claim- and only WD is making it. I already REFUTED it
WHEN I INVITED A COUNTER-QUOTE FROM A DIFFERENT PROFESSIONAL.
WD's failing to read MY posts, failing to read the PROFESSIONAL's article, and failing to
understand the subject of presumption of innocence and its IRRELEVANCE OUTSIDE OF COURTS OF LAW.
"Really?"
No- only real in the false claim WD has tried to put in our mouths so he can "refute" the claim we never made.
" then by that logic this man is also a professinal does his one opinion also count as right?"
A) The man has many PROFESSIONAL opinions-we're discussing ONE.
B) Nobody ever claimed any PROFESSIONAL is AUTOMATICALLY right.
However, when anyone of sense wants to challenge the claim of a PROFESSIONAL,
THEY BRING IN ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL.
That's especially common in the courts of law- where "presumption of innocence" applies.
(Since we're not in a court of law, "presumption of innocence" as a legal term does NOT apply.)
Faulty logic- but then, since WD invented it to put in our mouths and pretend we said it,
does that come as a surprise?
Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?
He's tired of non-professionals who misunderstand his job, and how
presumption of innocence works, who seek to dictate it to him anyway.
How would you like it if someone ignorant of your job sought to explain
to you how to perform it?
WD the LAYMAN considers himself qualified to judge the performance of the PROFESSIONAL
in a field WD has never studied. WD misses the same points other people miss- and the PROFESSIONAL
explained why WD and others are wrong, in plain English. WD's been refuted by a PROFESSIONAL.
WD's response? "Poor reporting."
Actually, the context made it clear. He explained-in plain English- how presumption of innocence is irrelevant outside courts of law
because the people who have trouble understanding it are LAYMEN. He released it for general consumption because the people
who would read it-like us- are LAYMEN. If he was addressing people who had professional experience in the field,
he would have been able to use technical terminology and would have skipped references to "as a citizen".
The comments were from "people"- not "co-workers", not "lawyers", not "editors"- which means
the AVERAGE schmoe- the LAYMAN.
If you STILL can't see it, what else is new?
You saw a PROFESSIONAL explain a point in his PROFESSION you didn't understand-
and pronounced it "poor reporting." Par for the course, especially for this thread.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yeah his point is totaly irrelevant he needs to prove his ,it was not my point. I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
What you have said remains an opinion. Innocent until proven guilty is nothing more legal standard that exists in the legal system. If you want to put that in your belief system as something to live by, then fine. I'm a little more wary of people than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You know, as a courtesy, I cut WD some slack when he posted this before.
(post 289, pg-15, 8:36pm Wed March 4, 2008.)
However, since he's INSISTING we not cut him some slack in this fashion,
I shall acknowledge his post.
So,
WD's idea of how to try to refute the PROFESSIONAL comments of a LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
is NOT "find a different LEGAL PROFESSIONAL and quote a counter-refutation."
It SHOULD have been that. I even TOLD him that. In several posts.
WD's idea of how to try to refute the PROFESSIONAL comments of a LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
are to COMPLETELY DISCARD THE SUBJECT OF LAW AND INNOCENCE,
and to instead find someone completely unrelated to the PROFESSIONAL or even his
PROFESSION, but who speaks nonsense.
In other words, some medical doctor somewhere said some nonsense.
Therefore, the LEGAL PROFESSIONAL and his LEGAL STATEMENTS are null and void.
THIS is the kind of "logic" in use- "logic" whose only rules seem to have nothing to do with
actual "logic" and everything to do with "try everything, no matter how silly, in an attempt
to remove guilt from vpw, who embezzled, exercised simony, drugged and raped women,
and in general abused the office of minister of God."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yep. this thread has been a very rich source for studying logical fallacies. for that alone, I hope WD keeps going because so far he hasn't failed to disappoint. I find some of the fallacies (ad hominem) are really difficult to sort out because there are so many and they're so closely related, and I really need the practice.
it's also a bit like reading a monty python script.
WD, you continue to sidestep most of the issues we've put before you, for instance vpw's victims' rights to free speech and where the burden of proof actually lies. the accounts of vpw's victims are documented cases. anyone can attempt to refute them in court whenever they like, THEN presumption of innocence will apply to the defendant (vpw's victim) and the burden of proof will lie with the plaintiff (the one protecting vpw's reputation).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
you offer nothing but still speak wd
what is that called wd?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
The thing is....there is no way that wierwille can ever be brought up on legal charges to prove his guilt in the crimes that he committed .....This appears to be just one more effort to shut people up concerning the abuses suffered at the hands of VPW and his people....and Dove knows this.
First it was lock box...then m&a, when abuses were revealed.... slaughter reputation, accusing the victims of lying, when too many came forward to ignore....accusing them of wanting it...stretching the truth...etc
Just one more attempt to shut the witnesses to the perversions up, as far as I am concerned.
It is too late...wierwilles crimes have been exposed for all to see....his damnable guilt completely tarnishing any reputation and forever negating any legitimacy to the doctrine that he propounded.
The fruit of his life and ministry, the swath of destruction he cut through peoples lives confirm his damnable guilt more thoroughly then any court.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Lest we forget...we are talking about a supposed *christian* minister...a man who claimed to be working for God...
He has been convicted in a bigger court than any we have here. If one sets any store in scriptures, according to THAT Galatians 5:19-21 ...he is damnably guilty...and people who commit the crimes talked about here, well....he is sentenced to no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. Dunno what that means exactly, but it doesn`t sound good for wierwille and his buddies who used the scripture to sate their lusts and fill their bellies.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No, it means claiming LEGAL guilt of said crimes is not provable. And trying to apply LEGAL standards to evaluation of the life of a deceased man is delusional. And you keep trying to steer the evaluation towards the LEGAL arena where it does not apply. The LEGAL arena could apply to the current behavior of TWI current leadership, and that is probably why they refuse to do much of anything in public.
It's very transparent that you have some kind of view of VPW that you are personally attached to that you need to preserve. This is why instead of allowing the public MORAL evaluation of VPW's life you try and discount his victims saying they present opinions only not fact, trying to steer the whole evaluation criteria under the purview of LEGAL standards. That is what is delusional.
I can judge VPW's life by whatever standards and criteria I damn well please. And 20+ years after his death his legacy is looking more and more like that of a drunken lecher that latched on to the Zeitgeist of the "free love Jesus movement" and took it for a ride for about 14 years from 1972 to 1986. And there's a reasonable case to be made that his totalitarian style of leadership combined with sexual deviancy is the primary thing that has been passed along to subsequent leadership administrations in TWI. These damn people act like they are more of an intermediary between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ than a Catholic priest you have to confess your sins to.
We are not judging VPW guilty of LEGAL crimes. At times there is speculation as to how the man actually survived without any LEGAL consequences. Or get shot by someone he abused's relatives.
We are judging VPW guilty of MORAL crimes, based upon the testimony of many firsthand victims. He was a MORAL deviant. He was a totalitarian. LCM followed in his footsteps, and the current idiots also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
In this particular situation it's (the debate about innocent until proven guilty) nothing more than a distraction.
I'm curious as to why WD cares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I think Chockfull's post sums it up rather simply Tzaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I understand there is something there he feels he needs to protect (either that or he's simply a glutton for punishment). I just am curious as to why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
the only thing I can see in all this.. being a "victim" disqualifies one from being a juror in the case the accused, or perpetrator is tried. Presumption of innocence is usually included in instructions to a JURY, if I'm not mistaken.
if you're trying to drum up an impartial jury wd.. may I suggest, look in another place than Greasespot?
I'm sure you can find a few. twi was a small, small speck on the map.. doubtless there are MILLIONS of people who never even heard of vic, loy.. rosie.. or even heard of the lawsuits against da "ministry"..
all of this "confrontation" and all.. makes as much sense as putting the families and survivors of those whom capone murdered.. in a jury box, and trying to convince them they oughta give capone the benefit of the doubt..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Duh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I've been considering for quite some time to do about this perspective of White Dove's. WD has the right to state an opinion. And no matter how ably, IMO, many of you respond to this opinion WD will not cease to share this opinion. And simply put, it is beyond my authority to force anyone here to cease from stating opinions that I happen to find disagreeable.
I am thankful for those of you who ably and willingly answer WD every time that this opinion is put forth. While tiresome I'm sure, I suppose it is most necessary that an answer is provided. And speaking for myself, I'm glad each and every time that someone points out legal standards are irrelevant here at the Greasespot, unless of course someone wishes to make a legal case out of something that I've said. In that case I would be most happy to have a trial where my accuser is faced with a legally appropriate burden of truth.
But my real concern is that many TWI victims may not feel up to facing their experiences being called into question by WD or anyone else for that matter. I am most thankful for those of you who have shared in spite of the opposition even here at the Greasespot.
So for those of you TWI victims who may like to share your experiences, I freely encourage you to do so and add to the many credible testimonies and documented perversities of Wierwille and his hand-picked children who unfortunately have fooled many and destroyed many lives too.
And from here on out, EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE POSTS THAT IMO TEND TO DISCOURAGE SHARING AND HEALING I WILL SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE READING THESE POSTS.
PLEASE FOLKS, IGNORE THE OPPOSITION AND FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR STORIES. GREASESPOT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY. FEEL FREE TO DO SO IF YOU WISH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well said Jeff
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
amen, Jeff.
and seriously, if anyone (read, any of the vpw-worshipping organizations) is stupid enough to take someone who's told their story of being victimized by vpw to court for libel, I'll donate money toward their defense. it's not hard to get your legal fees back when you win a case (as I know from experience) and I don't like seeing people bullied into shutting up when they tell the truth. I got enough of that in twi.
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.