The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty,

[waysider]

Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion.

Wierwille himself admitted to a crime when he spoke of the incident involving improper sexual conduct with a minor, though I suppose, in his opinion, it wasn't criminal. No matter, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

There were several witnesses to his admission, by the way.

[Tzaia]

Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion.

Sure it's an opinion. If one is found guilty in a court of law it's called a legal opinion.

One thing I can say about you WD is that you really like to put terminology in black and white categories. But just to make this stick, here's the dictionary definition:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

[WhiteDove]

Sure it's an opinion. If one is found guilty in a court of law it's called a legal opinion.

One thing I can say about you WD is that you really like to put terminology in black and white categories. But just to make this stick, here's the dictionary definition:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Context: personal opinion not legal opinion

Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? (Personal opinion) I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, (personal opinion )claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion. (stating I believe one to be guilty is personal opinion, confirming guilt of a crime where none is established is a lie as there is no crime charged to proceed through due process with much less a guilty verdict)

[Ham]

WD.. do you shop at Walmart?

[waysider]

Hey, WD

Do you have any business interests tied to all this controversy?

[Ham]

I hear they have cut roses for $1.07 on aisle three.. grown in the heart of India..

[Ham]

in a "global" sense.. I don't think you know what the *%$# is going on..

in the meantime..

if you think it's your "calling" to save scumbags from public scathing..

have at it..

[Tzaia]

Context: personal opinion not legal opinion

Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? (Personal opinion) I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, (personal opinion )claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion. (stating I believe one to be guilty is personal opinion, confirming guilt of a crime where none is established is a lie as there is no crime charged to proceed through due process with much less a guilty verdict)

Your premise has been proven wrong. Don't segue into another pointless argument.

People appear to be alluding that you might have a financial stake in the good reputation of VPW. Is this so?

[Ham]

Sorry.. *they* aren't "royals" or anything nowadays..

even the ones on the top of the food chain.. they are all accountable..

[Ham]

what I think terrifies you.. scumbuckets now have to answer to much a wider audience.. with much lower standards..

there goes the neighborhood..

maybe it's just evolution or something..

[Ham]

I dunno..

maybe the "message" is..

GET OVER IT.. *WE* are not royals or anything, at least anymore..

you're looking for standards of gold.. applied to creatures not much different than swine..

well, it's a little thought..

[Ham]

honestly.. I wouldn't want to be measured by a golden yardstick..

if one demands it.. I guess they get what's coming..

[doojable]

Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion.

You're predictable WD. You completely ignored my point that you and Pond are furthering your own brand of victim mentality and chose to go after the weak (very weak!) request for documentation on venting.

I'm done here. You have a perverse interest in being a victim. I won't be party to encouraging that.

[Ham]

On a personal level.. I think Walmart shoppers are going to hell..

but that's just me..

[dmiller]

People appear to be alluding that you might have a financial stake in the good reputation of VPW. Is this so?

For what-it-is-worth WhiteDove has a lot of music/ teachings/ etc. that he will give out for free.

I can attest to this first hand.

[GarthP2000]

For what-it-is-worth WhiteDove has a lot of music/ teachings/ etc. that he will give out for free.

"Walmart shoppers!! Walmart shoppers!! ... Whitedove's Bluelight Special on aisle three!!!"

((slowly twirling my finger above my head)) ... Whoooo Hoooooo! ... Whatta deal he has for you.

<_<

[Tzaia]

WD - you should contact JAL about replenishing his supply of TWI materials. He sold all of it a few years ago. Perhaps he'd appreciate knowing someone out there has ample supply.

[potato]

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest we stick to the topic of whether some dead guy is entitled to silence from his victims (rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault of a minor, etc) because of "presumption of innocence" to which has been amply proven he is not entitled.

I really couldn't care less about WD's sideline as supplier of vpw materials on CD. it's more his weird assumptions that the dead MOG's reputation must be guarded at the expense of other people's constitutional rights that I find interesting.

[Tzaia]

it's more his weird assumptions that the dead MOG's reputation must be guarded at the expense of other people's constitutional rights that I find interesting.

I agree. Should not stoop.

Potato, perhaps you can point me in the right direction. I was never more than barely in, so I have no idea whether anyone attempted to blow the whistle when the guy was still alive. Did that ever happen? From what I can see, there was a conspiracy of silence and collusion among the leadership while he was alive and apparently until JWS wrote the adultery paper. What made/allowed people (to) come forward besides that paper?

[Ham]

yep..

I think if one removes all of the legalease, the point he is trying to make is:

nobody has the legal RIGHT to publically castigate a documented scumbag.. dead or alive. Do I understand this correctly?

So, I can't scold little johnny for kicking the cat, or acting out in any other reprehensible manner..

or say something like "Capone was a psycho"..

might damage his "good name" or something..

I can see why people look for motive in this. I mean.. if I went on a campaign to clear Capone's "good name".. demand proof by a jury verdict to prove every stinking ounce of booze, or heroin he sold.. or every hit he made.. I think people would either think there was something in it for me, or that I was just "nuts"..

[What The Hey]

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest we stick to the topic of whether some dead guy is entitled to silence from his victims (rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual assault of a minor, etc) because of "presumption of innocence" to which has been amply proven he is not entitled.

I really couldn't care less about WD's sideline as supplier of vpw materials on CD. it's more his weird assumptions that the dead MOG's reputation must be guarded at the expense of other people's constitutional rights that I find interesting.

The dead have limited legal rights. Chief among them is the right to remain silent. Two mains areas of the law apply to dead people: 1) disposal of bodies; and 2) crimes committed against dead bodies. In both cases, the laws are a tangle of competing rights, often pitting the wishes of the deceased against the wishes of their survivors against the police powers of the state. The disputes range from battles over the harvesting of sperm from a corpse to whether sex with a dead body is rape. (In most states it isn't, unless you thought the body was alive while you did it.) (The law's like that.) [From: Habeas Corpses What are the rights of dead people? By Dahlia Lithwick (http://www.slate.com/id/2063222/)]

I found it interesting the right of silence for the dead was brought up in an article regarding the disposal of dead bodies. But the question was raised if "some dead guy" (we can assume in this case, VPW) is entitled to silence or not. Regardless of what people here believe has been "proven", the issue as to whether or not VPW is entitled to silence probably lies somewhere between the same dispute ranging from the harvesting of sperm to having sex with a corpse - IMO.

[geisha779]

You're predictable WD. You completely ignored my point that you and Pond are furthering your own brand of victim mentality and chose to go after the weak (very weak!) request for documentation on venting.

I'm done here. You have a perverse interest in being a victim. I won't be party to encouraging that.

Yes doojable. . . Yes.

People have made really impressive arguments on the "presumption of innocence" and what it means and where it is used. Why it need not be used here.

These arguments are more than good enough to bring before a judge in a courtroom.

I am really impressed by the fact that many here use such excellent reasoning skills. Must be backlash :) from the days of arrested development! Just kidding!!

There are some bright and good people on this site.

Well done.

However, others still twist and bend meanings to suit a specific purpose. It gives me a real headache.

People who say wrong is wrong. . . have to "prove" it??

It reminds me of TWI. . . that compassionless rhetoric. That "first breath" coldness of reasoning. It is perverse in my opinion.

Really, it makes my tummy queasy. I just don't understand defending the "Rights" of a dead man who used the name and word of God to abuse innocents.

What is there really to gain? Silence? That was what kept us in that whole mess for so long. . . the wonderful "lock box" of abuse.

One rape is one "murder of the soul" too many. One coerced abortion is an abomination. One drunken group from a father or father figure is shameful and abusive.

You can have it. . . defend it. . . and keep the perverse doctrine and "Doctor" which encouraged it. . . it is disgusting.

I will pass.

[waysider]

The dead have limited legal rights. Chief among them is the right to remain silent. Two mains areas of the law apply to dead people: 1) disposal of bodies; and 2) crimes committed against dead bodies. In both cases, the laws are a tangle of competing rights, often pitting the wishes of the deceased against the wishes of their survivors against the police powers of the state. The disputes range from battles over the harvesting of sperm from a corpse to whether sex with a dead body is rape. (In most states it isn't, unless you thought the body was alive while you did it.) (The law's like that.) [From: Habeas Corpses What are the rights of dead people? By Dahlia Lithwick (http://www.slate.com/id/2063222/)]

I found it interesting the right of silence for the dead was brought up in an article regarding the disposal of dead bodies. But the question was raised if "some dead guy" (we can assume in this case, VPW) is entitled to silence or not. Regardless of what people here believe has been "proven", the issue as to whether or not VPW is entitled to silence probably lies somewhere between the same dispute ranging from the harvesting of sperm to having sex with a corpse - IMO.

Unless I'm mistaken, no one really seems to be talking about disposing of bodies, necrophilia or the harvesting of sperm. Wierwille croaked a long time ago. People are now free to expose him for the drunken, sexually deviant, con man that he was.

[Oakspear]

The dead have limited legal rights. Chief among them is the right to remain silent.

Well...yeah...more of an obligation, hmmm?

[WhiteDove]

Your premise has been proven wrong. Don't segue into another pointless argument.

People appear to be alluding that you might have a financial stake in the good reputation of VPW. Is this so?

Actually that was my argument before you attempted to wrench it from its context. As to the question I answered the question a few pages back,but some people are too busy dreaming up questions that offer no point to the discussion to pay attention.

WD - you should contact JAL about replenishing his supply of TWI materials. He sold all of it a few years ago. Perhaps he'd appreciate knowing someone out there has ample supply.

We stock some of Johns materials.