This morning my dog took a crap on the lawn...it wasn't proven in a court of law but I still state it as fact...is that ok with you WD?
You Groucho, like most of the folks here, just don't get it. Your statement, 'my dog took a crap on the lawn', does not make 'crap on the lawn' a fact.
You Groucho, like most of the folks here, just don't get it. Your statement, 'my dog took a crap on the lawn', does not make 'crap on the lawn' a fact.
No it makes it a statement that there is crap from Groucho's dog on a lawn some where a fact.
What you and WD and a handful of others here don't get is that facts reside in the realm of reality. Whether you or I can prove it is another thing entirely. If there is crap on Groucho's lawn then there is whether you believe it or not and if there isn't then there isn't no matter what Groucho or anyone else may say.
Proving in a court of law does not make VPW a twisted pervert, he would have already been one if the claims are indeed true. If he or LCM were unable to be proven as sexual predators it would not necessarily mean that they were/are not sexual predators, only that there was not enough evidence to prove it. It works the same conversely. BUT, reality is reality regardless of what our faulty legal system determines. The number of people that have been falsely convicted including some that have been put to death or died in prison is appalling. The number of guilty disgusting excuses for human beings that walk out of a court room free is appalling as well. "Guilty until proven innocent" is as it says "in a court of law," protecting the accused from a number of potential injustices. That does not make one factually innocent of the act committed. If VP did the reprehensible acts that people testify of here, as I believe he did, then he is guilty of the act. That act may be a crime and he will never be convicted of the act in a criminal case, but that does not mean he is innocent of the acts. He may be innocent in that he can not be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to prision, but that does not make him innocent of the despicable, reprehensible acts that he and others perpetrated on actual innocent women.
You Groucho, like most of the folks here, just don't get it. Your statement, 'my dog took a crap on the lawn', does not make 'crap on the lawn' a fact.
What is it you think we don't "get"?
That there's some sort of profound, cryptic message hidden in the pages of PFAL?
Maybe we don't "get it" because there is no secret message.
The man was just another low caliber confidence artist who lived a life of ease on my dollar and yours.
Did you ever see some of his toys? A fleet of classic cars and vintage motorcycles paid for by the suckers he fleeced.
He kept them conveniently tucked away, out of view from the rank and file.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
dog crap on the lawn is information based on a real occurrence (namely the dog crapping on the lawn), ergo it is a fact that crap on the lawn is a fact, because it can be demonstrated to have existed if anyone saw the dog put it there.
Hmmmm, I think I asked you how do you know I didn't. It was to cause you to consider that you make a great deal of assumption about truth everyday. NOT to make a false claim that I did.
Twist, twist, twist, where have I seen this tactic before? Where? Wait. . . it is coming to me. . . hang on. . . OH YEAH! Now I remember.
Twisted scripture. . . it is a learned tactic. . . just like the endless debates over words.
Shame on me for even trying to make a point to you. I know better. . .
Exactly why would I consider that you would do such ? You obviously believe what she says by your posts. There is an infinate amount of things one might do. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to think of every possibility that every human might or might not do then all and consider them.
I am permitted to discuss any first person story related here. I don`t need to be qualified for that.....I am ALSO free to discuss how much I despise the rat bastard pig for what he did and for the damage his doctrine inflicted on innocent people in God`s name.
What I am not permitted to do is call any person here a liar or try to diminish the impact of their testimony by calling into question the veracity and integrity of their experiences related. Neither are you now that the rules have been clarified.
Then by your logic I can discuss any first person stories as evidence to the contrary without being present just as you were not. By the way I have never indicated anyone was a liar nor have I said I did not believe any testimony. What I have consistently said and you have consistently misrepresented is that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. That is a correct statement. like it or not.
That is calling me a liar when referring to my experiences and testimony. Your silly word games don`t make it any less an insult to those of us whom have shared our experiences. Though your word games are a little more clever now, the loop holes that you find in the rules to obfuscate and call into question a persons honesty and integrity are not any less offensive.
Some of us actually got a life and developed some character after leaving the snake pit of twi.
I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not...I know who I am I know what happened to me, what happened to my friends...I know that many of the accounts here of abuse have been corroborated ...and these are given by people with a whole heck of a lot more credibility than one who never left the safety of their protected little cocoon.
What you and WD and a handful of others here don't get is that facts reside in the realm of reality. Whether you or I can prove it is another thing entirely. If there is crap on Groucho's lawn then there is whether you believe it or not and if there isn't then there isn't no matter what Groucho or anyone else may say.
Proving in a court of law does not make VPW a twisted pervert, he would have already been one if the claims are indeed true. If he or LCM were unable to be proven as sexual predators it would not necessarily mean that they were/are not sexual predators, only that there was not enough evidence to prove it. It works the same conversely. BUT, reality is reality regardless of what our faulty legal system determines. The number of people that have been falsely convicted including some that have been put to death or died in prison is appalling. The number of guilty disgusting excuses for human beings that walk out of a court room free is appalling as well. "Guilty until proven innocent" is as it says "in a court of law," protecting the accused from a number of potential injustices. That does not make one factually innocent of the act committed. If VP did the reprehensible acts that people testify of here, as I believe he did, then he is guilty of the act. That act may be a crime and he will never be convicted of the act in a criminal case, but that does not mean he is innocent of the acts. He may be innocent in that he can not be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to prision, but that does not make him innocent of the despicable, reprehensible acts that he and others perpetrated on actual innocent women.
..;and that's a fact, Jack!
I can't make it any clearer
You are correct they may be guilty of an act ,but one can not claim guilt in public comment where no guilt is found. Which is why have consistently said that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. It is undocumentable you said it yourself, it is an if? Now everyone can offer opinion as to what they believe that If may or may not be. many will based on like or dislike. I choose not to speculate or guess. If and when due process produces a verdict then the IF will be clarified until that point it is an IF. Your post indicates that you have already made judgment.
He may be innocent in that he can not be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to prison, but that does not make him innocent of the despicable, reprehensible acts that he and others perpetrated on actual innocent women.
I wonder how it is that you can do what no jury has done with assurance?
The people have spoken and loudly rejected such thinking.
In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
That is calling me a liar when referring to my experiences and testimony. Your silly word games don`t make it any less an insult to those of us whom have shared our experiences. Though your word games are a little more clever now, the loop holes that you find in the rules to obfuscate and call into question a persons honesty and integrity are not any less offensive.
Some of us actually got a life and developed some character after leaving the snake pit of twi.
I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not...I know who I am I know what happened to me, what happened to my friends...I know that many of the accounts here of abuse have been corroborated ...and these are given by people with a whole heck of a lot more credibility than one who never left the safety of their protected little cocoon.
No it is stating the truth! There is insufficient evidence to determine or render a decision of guilt in a crime either way. For that to happen one would need both sides of the story which we do not have for comparison. This indicates that no one is lying ,just the fact that the evidence is not there to make judgment. It is entirely possible that any statement may be true in nature, once proper evidence to render a decision is completed an answer may be forthcoming
I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not...I know who I am I know what happened to me, what happened to my friends...I know that many of the accounts here of abuse have been corroborated ...and these are given by people with a whole heck of a lot more credibility than one who never left the safety of their protected little cocoon.
Now which is it again you seem to waver?, do we have to be geographicly present? or can we speak with just the accounts of friends to verify our point? By the way by the time you were just attending fellowships in 1979 I had more hours than I can count working at root locals, You have no idea of what you speak.
WAVER?? Not freaking likely. It is you who have the rediculous standard of requiring folks to only address that which they personally witnessed. Prefer that we not mention it without documentation.... It is you whom claim the unreliability of what our friends tell us. Therefor, it is according to YOUR rules that we shouldn`t discuss anything that happened 2nd or 3rd hand.
You have called folks liars for years, presenting yourself as one whom has credibility. For someone whom has never been in the wow program or way corpes or a woman, or a child in twi...someone who always lived in one small area ... .to think that they have an idea of what the rest of us went through....and to call into question our treatment and the teachings used to enforce obedience, to call into question our integrity and honesty on this basis is laughable.
Please, address that which you experienced without calling others liars. Anything else that comes off of your key board(according to the rules you want to play by) is undocumented and unreliable 2nd hand info, and as wrong as what you decry in others.
You are correct they may be guilty of an act ,but one can not claim guilt in public comment where no guilt is found. Which is why have consistently said that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. It is undocumentable you said it yourself, it is an if? Now everyone can offer opinion as to what they believe that If may or may not be. many will based on like or dislike. I choose not to speculate or guess. If and when due process produces a verdict then the IF will be clarified until that point it is an IF. Your post indicates that you have already made judgment.
Who says you can't claim guilt in public comment? This is a made up standard you have set for everyone else here. There is no law that says we can't make a statement of guilt. Where is that law we are being held to??
There is no law that says we can't know something to be true unless a guilty verdict is rendered. There are no mind police stopping us from deciding for ourselves the truth of a matter. For some of us, credibility and eye witness accounts supporting each other, mingled with our own personal experience, are enough to decide what is true.
If it makes you feel better to call it "just" an opinion. . . do so. . . call it FRED if you like. Doesn't make it so. . . just makes it what YOU want to call it.
It in no way negates the reality behind the conclusion.
I don't really think I want to hear the other side of rape or drugging. It is pretty self-evident it is an evil and criminal act. The act speaks for itself. Loudly.
Now, if you are calling peoples accounts into question as to truthfulness. . . just say so. Quit hiding behind all this legalese.
Who says you can't claim guilt in public comment? This is a made up standard you have set for everyone else here. There is no law that says we can't make a statement of guilt. Where is that law we are being held to??
There is no law that says we can't know something to be true unless a guilty verdict is rendered. There are no mind police stopping us from deciding for ourselves the truth of a matter. For some of us, credibility and eye witness accounts supporting each other, mingled with our own personal experience, are enough to decide what is true.
If it makes you feel better to call it "just" an opinion. . . do so. . . call it FRED if you like. Doesn't make it so. . . just makes it what YOU want to call it.
It in no way negates the reality behind the conclusion.
I don't really think I want to hear the other side of rape or drugging. It is pretty self-evident it is an evil and criminal act. The act speaks for itself. Loudly.
Now, if you are calling peoples accounts into question as to truthfulness. . . just say so. Quit hiding behind all this legalese.
issues of libel and the law have already been addressed.
now seems like a good idea to give a real definition of "evidence", because WD persists in pushing his made-up definition (I just love how twi does that, don't you?)
from American Heritage:
ev·i·dence n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
oh, and how about:
guilt·y adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime.
3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience.
4. Hinting at or entailing guilt: a guilty smirk; a guilty secret.
obviously, WD takes only the definition he likes, and adjusts it to make his argument seem the correct one.
I suppose I could "cut and paste" a definition for you but what would be the point?
You already know what it would say.
If you want to continue presuming Wierwille was innocent of actions that have been recounted here by first hand testimony, that's your choice. In my opinion, though, what you are trying to do is virtually the same thing that has been done to rape victims, time and time again, in court. If you can't stand to hear people speak evil of your hero, maybe you should invest in some cotton balls and stick them in your ears. It doesn't sound like the healthiest of solutions but to each his own.
You know what they say WD. . . the best defense against libel is. . . . drumroll. . . tell the truth! :)
Repeat after me. . . limited public figure. . . extra burden of proof. . . a falsehood with malice.
It is not defamation if it is true. . . it doesn't have to proven in a court to be true. . . VP made himself a public figure. . . our dear father in the word. . . we all got burned one way or another.
The man of God for our day and time. Oh my goodness. . . I was in a cult.
You know what they say WD. . . the best defense against libel is. . . . drumroll. . . tell the truth! :)
Repeat after me. . . limited public figure. . . extra burden of proof. . . a falsehood with malice.
It is not defamation if it is true. . . it doesn't have to proven in a court to be true. . . VP made himself a public figure. . . our dear father in the word. . . we all got burned one way or another.
The man of God for our day and time. Oh my goodness. . . I was in a cult.
I thought we covered the libel issues as well Potato but it seems that a refresher course is in order
Contrary to your theory that celebrities can't sue for libel it is quite clear that they can and do......You seem to think extra burden of proof means impossible to prove it does not, it happens all the time . So one would ask why would I want to repeat those things after you. They don't prove your point, they negate no libel issues. as evidenced by the documentation provided / as opposed to the documentation that you seem to miss providing to support your theory. Well other than I say so which counts as nothing.
Actress Stone sues plastic surgeon in La for libel
LOS ANGELES, Dec 15: Actress Sharon stone wants you to know her face is real.
So she has sued a Beverly hills plastic surgeon for defamation and libel for falsely claiming that he gave her a facelift.
Arthur Barens, lawyer for plastic surgeon Renato Calabria, says the star of "basic instinct" can relax. He said his client never represented to anyone that he performed plastic surgery on stone 46.
"All he has ever done is discuss vertical face surgery, a technique he innovated and articles have speculated that stone had the procedure," the lawyer said.
US weekly printed an article in an August issue headlined "did Sharon stone have surgery?" And in touch magazine had a similar piece quoting Calabria, although he refuses to comment on stone in the article.
According to the suit filed in Los Angeles superior court on Monday, "stone has never undergone a facelift in order to improve her physical appearance. ... Stone prides herself not only on her acting ability and other talents, but also on her natural physical appearance."
She is seeking unspecified damages. (AGENCIES)
Carol Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.
It is not defamation if it is true.
Indeed, but you are not allowed to determine what is and is not true, that is what the court decides in a libel case not you. No one gets to predetermine that something is true going into a case, otherwise there would be no cases.
You seem to be forgetting
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
I suppose I could "cut and paste" a definition for you but what would be the point?
You already know what it would say.
If you want to continue presuming Wierwille was innocent of actions that have been recounted here by first hand testimony, that's your choice. In my opinion, though, what you are trying to do is virtually the same thing that has been done to rape victims, time and time again, in court. If you can't stand to hear people speak evil of your hero, maybe you should invest in some cotton balls and stick them in your ears. It doesn't sound like the healthiest of solutions but to each his own.
If you want to continue to misrepresent what I said here which by the way is against the rules. I think you will see noted that I have never rendered any words of guilt or innocent, I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable.
By the way I thought you were ignoring posts in blue, or was that another misrepresentation?
As I have stated in the past it's reasonable to accept normal, routine experiences as matter of fact spoken of, for instance your example, However a criminal charge such as the ones battered about here are a different matter they carry a weight of burden of proof.
He has been rendered as guilty of crimes. He has been referred to as guilty of such crimes with no burden of proof met. Opinion of such would be acceptable not declaring as judge and jury without fair process of law . That would be the difference ,but then you probably knew that already and just wanted to misrepresent things as is in my opinion the normal case of your posts at least in my experience.
I wanted to misrepresent things?...How so? If something is a fact it's a fact...whether it's a crime or whether it's a dog crapping on the lawn (which, by the way...is a crime in certain areas)...if you witness it firsthand, it's a fact...in a court of law...no...it's a fact to the person who witnessed it.
Nobody is claiming that Wierwille was convicted of a crime...they are simply stating that they witnessed something and that makes it a fact to them...I'm sure you understand that...right?
For example...If you personally witnessed ANYTHING (crime or otherwise)...it would be a fact to you...am I wrong?
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
BUT the phrase "presumption of innocence" ONLY applies to the judiciary process that assumes that most people are not criminals. As others have pointed out, the presumption of innocence is a legal statement, not a factual statement. A person can be legally innocent of a crime, yet be factually guilty. A person can also be legally guilty of a crime, yet be factually innocent. The statement "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard that must be adhered to outside of its intended purpose - which is to give all accused the right to a fair trial.
VPW is dead and can't defend himself against the accusations of sexual misconduct, which did not come to light until his death. However, the other allegations, such as his diploma mill doctorate and the plagiarism were never refuted by him - at least not legally. Furthermore, neither TWI nor his heirs have gone after anyone who has claimed sexual abuse at the hands of VPW. The reason why that has not happened (IMO) is because TWI and heirs would then have the burden of proof against the accusers. They weren't able to prove LCM's innocence against his accusers and ended up settling. Do you think TWI would fare any better if they were to take the offensive against posters here regarding VPW's behavior? Let me remind you that TWI has a low threshold of tolerance regarding being seen in an unseemly way (think Rocky Horror - AOTS and Talk Soup), so this ignoring the posts here IMO has more to do with no ground rather than taking any high road.
I think that lack of action on the part of TWI and VPW's heirs should speak volumes to you or any of his apologists about where TWI and his heirs think they stand with regards to defending VPW's honor and integrity as the former president of TWI.
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
seaspray
You Groucho, like most of the folks here, just don't get it. Your statement, 'my dog took a crap on the lawn', does not make 'crap on the lawn' a fact.
Edited by seasprayLink to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
No it makes it a statement that there is crap from Groucho's dog on a lawn some where a fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Seaspray,
What you and WD and a handful of others here don't get is that facts reside in the realm of reality. Whether you or I can prove it is another thing entirely. If there is crap on Groucho's lawn then there is whether you believe it or not and if there isn't then there isn't no matter what Groucho or anyone else may say.
Proving in a court of law does not make VPW a twisted pervert, he would have already been one if the claims are indeed true. If he or LCM were unable to be proven as sexual predators it would not necessarily mean that they were/are not sexual predators, only that there was not enough evidence to prove it. It works the same conversely. BUT, reality is reality regardless of what our faulty legal system determines. The number of people that have been falsely convicted including some that have been put to death or died in prison is appalling. The number of guilty disgusting excuses for human beings that walk out of a court room free is appalling as well. "Guilty until proven innocent" is as it says "in a court of law," protecting the accused from a number of potential injustices. That does not make one factually innocent of the act committed. If VP did the reprehensible acts that people testify of here, as I believe he did, then he is guilty of the act. That act may be a crime and he will never be convicted of the act in a criminal case, but that does not mean he is innocent of the acts. He may be innocent in that he can not be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to prision, but that does not make him innocent of the despicable, reprehensible acts that he and others perpetrated on actual innocent women.
..;and that's a fact, Jack!
I can't make it any clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
Whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What is it you think we don't "get"?
That there's some sort of profound, cryptic message hidden in the pages of PFAL?
Maybe we don't "get it" because there is no secret message.
The man was just another low caliber confidence artist who lived a life of ease on my dollar and yours.
Did you ever see some of his toys? A fleet of classic cars and vintage motorcycles paid for by the suckers he fleeced.
He kept them conveniently tucked away, out of view from the rank and file.
Maybe that's the secret you're looking for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
remember the midget motorcycle? that was cool . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
American Heritage Dictionary:
fact n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
dog crap on the lawn is information based on a real occurrence (namely the dog crapping on the lawn), ergo it is a fact that crap on the lawn is a fact, because it can be demonstrated to have existed if anyone saw the dog put it there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exactly why would I consider that you would do such ? You obviously believe what she says by your posts. There is an infinate amount of things one might do. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to think of every possibility that every human might or might not do then all and consider them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Then by your logic I can discuss any first person stories as evidence to the contrary without being present just as you were not. By the way I have never indicated anyone was a liar nor have I said I did not believe any testimony. What I have consistently said and you have consistently misrepresented is that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. That is a correct statement. like it or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
That is calling me a liar when referring to my experiences and testimony. Your silly word games don`t make it any less an insult to those of us whom have shared our experiences. Though your word games are a little more clever now, the loop holes that you find in the rules to obfuscate and call into question a persons honesty and integrity are not any less offensive.
Some of us actually got a life and developed some character after leaving the snake pit of twi.
I don`t give a darn whether you approve of my pronouncing the criminals of twi guilty or not...I know who I am I know what happened to me, what happened to my friends...I know that many of the accounts here of abuse have been corroborated ...and these are given by people with a whole heck of a lot more credibility than one who never left the safety of their protected little cocoon.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You are correct they may be guilty of an act ,but one can not claim guilt in public comment where no guilt is found. Which is why have consistently said that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. It is undocumentable you said it yourself, it is an if? Now everyone can offer opinion as to what they believe that If may or may not be. many will based on like or dislike. I choose not to speculate or guess. If and when due process produces a verdict then the IF will be clarified until that point it is an IF. Your post indicates that you have already made judgment.
I wonder how it is that you can do what no jury has done with assurance?
The people have spoken and loudly rejected such thinking.
In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No it is stating the truth! There is insufficient evidence to determine or render a decision of guilt in a crime either way. For that to happen one would need both sides of the story which we do not have for comparison. This indicates that no one is lying ,just the fact that the evidence is not there to make judgment. It is entirely possible that any statement may be true in nature, once proper evidence to render a decision is completed an answer may be forthcoming
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Now which is it again you seem to waver?, do we have to be geographicly present? or can we speak with just the accounts of friends to verify our point? By the way by the time you were just attending fellowships in 1979 I had more hours than I can count working at root locals, You have no idea of what you speak.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
WAVER?? Not freaking likely. It is you who have the rediculous standard of requiring folks to only address that which they personally witnessed. Prefer that we not mention it without documentation.... It is you whom claim the unreliability of what our friends tell us. Therefor, it is according to YOUR rules that we shouldn`t discuss anything that happened 2nd or 3rd hand.
You have called folks liars for years, presenting yourself as one whom has credibility. For someone whom has never been in the wow program or way corpes or a woman, or a child in twi...someone who always lived in one small area ... .to think that they have an idea of what the rest of us went through....and to call into question our treatment and the teachings used to enforce obedience, to call into question our integrity and honesty on this basis is laughable.
Please, address that which you experienced without calling others liars. Anything else that comes off of your key board(according to the rules you want to play by) is undocumented and unreliable 2nd hand info, and as wrong as what you decry in others.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Who says you can't claim guilt in public comment? This is a made up standard you have set for everyone else here. There is no law that says we can't make a statement of guilt. Where is that law we are being held to??
There is no law that says we can't know something to be true unless a guilty verdict is rendered. There are no mind police stopping us from deciding for ourselves the truth of a matter. For some of us, credibility and eye witness accounts supporting each other, mingled with our own personal experience, are enough to decide what is true.
If it makes you feel better to call it "just" an opinion. . . do so. . . call it FRED if you like. Doesn't make it so. . . just makes it what YOU want to call it.
It in no way negates the reality behind the conclusion.
I don't really think I want to hear the other side of rape or drugging. It is pretty self-evident it is an evil and criminal act. The act speaks for itself. Loudly.
Now, if you are calling peoples accounts into question as to truthfulness. . . just say so. Quit hiding behind all this legalese.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
We have a law against liblel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
issues of libel and the law have already been addressed.
now seems like a good idea to give a real definition of "evidence", because WD persists in pushing his made-up definition (I just love how twi does that, don't you?)
from American Heritage:
ev·i·dence n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
oh, and how about:
guilt·y adj. guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
2. Law Adjudged to have committed a crime.
3. Suffering from or prompted by a sense of guilt: a guilty conscience.
4. Hinting at or entailing guilt: a guilty smirk; a guilty secret.
obviously, WD takes only the definition he likes, and adjusts it to make his argument seem the correct one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I suppose I could "cut and paste" a definition for you but what would be the point?
You already know what it would say.
If you want to continue presuming Wierwille was innocent of actions that have been recounted here by first hand testimony, that's your choice. In my opinion, though, what you are trying to do is virtually the same thing that has been done to rape victims, time and time again, in court. If you can't stand to hear people speak evil of your hero, maybe you should invest in some cotton balls and stick them in your ears. It doesn't sound like the healthiest of solutions but to each his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You know what they say WD. . . the best defense against libel is. . . . drumroll. . . tell the truth! :)
Repeat after me. . . limited public figure. . . extra burden of proof. . . a falsehood with malice.
It is not defamation if it is true. . . it doesn't have to proven in a court to be true. . . VP made himself a public figure. . . our dear father in the word. . . we all got burned one way or another.
The man of God for our day and time. Oh my goodness. . . I was in a cult.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I thought we covered the libel issues as well Potato but it seems that a refresher course is in order
Contrary to your theory that celebrities can't sue for libel it is quite clear that they can and do......You seem to think extra burden of proof means impossible to prove it does not, it happens all the time . So one would ask why would I want to repeat those things after you. They don't prove your point, they negate no libel issues. as evidenced by the documentation provided / as opposed to the documentation that you seem to miss providing to support your theory. Well other than I say so which counts as nothing.
Actress Stone sues plastic surgeon in La for libel
LOS ANGELES, Dec 15: Actress Sharon stone wants you to know her face is real.
So she has sued a Beverly hills plastic surgeon for defamation and libel for falsely claiming that he gave her a facelift.
Arthur Barens, lawyer for plastic surgeon Renato Calabria, says the star of "basic instinct" can relax. He said his client never represented to anyone that he performed plastic surgery on stone 46.
"All he has ever done is discuss vertical face surgery, a technique he innovated and articles have speculated that stone had the procedure," the lawyer said.
US weekly printed an article in an August issue headlined "did Sharon stone have surgery?" And in touch magazine had a similar piece quoting Calabria, although he refuses to comment on stone in the article.
According to the suit filed in Los Angeles superior court on Monday, "stone has never undergone a facelift in order to improve her physical appearance. ... Stone prides herself not only on her acting ability and other talents, but also on her natural physical appearance."
She is seeking unspecified damages. (AGENCIES)
Carol Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.
Indeed, but you are not allowed to determine what is and is not true, that is what the court decides in a libel case not you. No one gets to predetermine that something is true going into a case, otherwise there would be no cases.
You seem to be forgetting
Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
If you want to continue to misrepresent what I said here which by the way is against the rules. I think you will see noted that I have never rendered any words of guilt or innocent, I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable.
By the way I thought you were ignoring posts in blue, or was that another misrepresentation?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"If you want to continue to misrepresent what I said here which by the way is against the rules."
Please supply a specific example.
I think you're blowing smoke with semantic trivia.
It's obvious to most who read your posts what you are implying whether you use the words "guilt" and "innocence" or not.
"I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable"
I'm not sure how you can cite things that have been documented here and characterize them as being undocumented.
By the way I thought you were ignoring posts in blue, or was that another misrepresentation?
Yes, that is a misrepresentation---but not on my part.
This is what I actually posted.
"Maybe it's just me.
Sometimes I see a post that's written almost entirely in one color ink, such as blue, and my mind wants to pass it right by.
Kinda like a bad wreck on the freeway that I really have no desire to even glance at.
I guess these old eyes just don't want to be bothered with the strain these days."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I wanted to misrepresent things?...How so? If something is a fact it's a fact...whether it's a crime or whether it's a dog crapping on the lawn (which, by the way...is a crime in certain areas)...if you witness it firsthand, it's a fact...in a court of law...no...it's a fact to the person who witnessed it.
Nobody is claiming that Wierwille was convicted of a crime...they are simply stating that they witnessed something and that makes it a fact to them...I'm sure you understand that...right?
For example...If you personally witnessed ANYTHING (crime or otherwise)...it would be a fact to you...am I wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
BUT the phrase "presumption of innocence" ONLY applies to the judiciary process that assumes that most people are not criminals. As others have pointed out, the presumption of innocence is a legal statement, not a factual statement. A person can be legally innocent of a crime, yet be factually guilty. A person can also be legally guilty of a crime, yet be factually innocent. The statement "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard that must be adhered to outside of its intended purpose - which is to give all accused the right to a fair trial.
VPW is dead and can't defend himself against the accusations of sexual misconduct, which did not come to light until his death. However, the other allegations, such as his diploma mill doctorate and the plagiarism were never refuted by him - at least not legally. Furthermore, neither TWI nor his heirs have gone after anyone who has claimed sexual abuse at the hands of VPW. The reason why that has not happened (IMO) is because TWI and heirs would then have the burden of proof against the accusers. They weren't able to prove LCM's innocence against his accusers and ended up settling. Do you think TWI would fare any better if they were to take the offensive against posters here regarding VPW's behavior? Let me remind you that TWI has a low threshold of tolerance regarding being seen in an unseemly way (think Rocky Horror - AOTS and Talk Soup), so this ignoring the posts here IMO has more to do with no ground rather than taking any high road.
I think that lack of action on the part of TWI and VPW's heirs should speak volumes to you or any of his apologists about where TWI and his heirs think they stand with regards to defending VPW's honor and integrity as the former president of 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.