must correct myself, should not summarize research when running a fever!
9. if the person who committed the crime (or the representative of that person if they are deceased) doesn't like the victim talking about what happened, the burden is then on them to press charges in criminal court, where the burden will then be on them as the plaintiff to prove that a crime (slander, libel) has been committed.
just wanted to requote WD's quote of himself and point out that although he cries out for "proof" by way of "hard evidence", the federal rules of evidence admit testimony by witnesses as "evidence", and I'd also like to point out that vpw is not entitled to due process of law because he's dead and therefore his constitutional rights have terminated, which of course puts him outside of the legal process altogether, and makes the question of his guilt an academic exercise not confined within the bounds that WD says it should be.
QUOTE (WhiteDove @ Feb 12 2009, 02:46 PM)
On the other side of the fence is numbers that will say they are right in what they believe. Numbers are not the telling of truth . Proof is hard evidence, and due process of law when you are accusing one of a crime. Everyone has a point of view you choose to believe the ones you do because they support your agenda. I choose to believe no man's words show me the verdict and you can refer to one as guilty.
Good point potato...the truth of the matter is that VP Wierwille was a sexual predator, plagiarist, drunk and a liar...
His guilt has been established by first hand testamonies...at least to my satisfaction. Anyone who tries to dispute this has serious flaws in their logic and emotional make-up. The desperate attempts to "cleanse" this man of guilt is both pathertic and insane....IMHO.
Thanks to all who speak the truth concerning the cult leader Wierwille.
and I think you don't "read" people very well either..
it isn't that they relive the past day after day, every bad experience in da way.. it's more like they won't put up with the same bad behavior..
the "reception" you get here.. the razzes, the hisses, the sarcasm, etc.. doesn't that tell you something?
and it isn't limited to this little neck of the woods either.. I've seen the same kind of authoritarian posturing met with the same kind of reception in very different venues..
one other point.. or thought.
when the whole world seems full of sarcasm.. booing and hissing.. it is not necessarily because the world itself actually stinks..
maybe it's the bad performance that SCREAMS for these kind of reviews..
I've had to look within a few times..
So.. wd.. what I "read" in you..
you probably really hate yourself..
probably have done something nasty, or a whole lot of nasty in God's name.. I have done some as well, and loathe the memory of these brutish acts, the less than half a handful of times I did so..
but you can't bring yourself to self-flagellation, or self-loathing. Or even loathing the acts themselves.. so... what does one do..
ah.. bring a whole community to the point of lashing out.. you have the inner judge and jury which REQUIRE this..
but then on the other hand.. you have the dumbass vicster's theology which prevents you from doing so..
of course I could be wrong.. but that's my impression here..
Dove, I was goofing with you. You are fond of take a single line out of context and claim that we are saying one thing when you know perfectly well that we mean another, and attacking on what you SAY we said...you obfuscate to the point until no one remembers what the actual poster said...it used to be pretty effective....that is until now....you have people that are keeping you honest.
1. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender
Webster's New World College Dictionary
Here are some Synonyms
Convicted
found guilty, guilty as charged, condemned, sentenced, criminal, censured, impeached, incriminated, indicted, liable, condemned, proscribed, having violated law, weighed and found wanting, judged, damned, doomed, cast into outer darkness
note the reocurring theme - proof,found guilty,guilty as charged,legaly judged, Need I say more...... Oh Yeah I missed I said so in the definition.
I think it was pretty cool that Potato immediately went to check out the dictionary that you supposedly quoted from W.D., as I did. As soon as I saw your supposed quote of the dictionary I suspected that you were cherry picking the definition of guilty. And then I proved it.
But not only did you cherry pick. You lied. Definition #1 is not what you said it was at all. Definition #1 of "guilty" has nothing to do with the legal system. Why did you lie by making definition #2 into definition #1 White Dove?
This touches directly on my concern for you White Dove. It's all to easy to imagine you as someone who is just not willing to let go of your unrealistic view of what TWI and Wierwille were. If these things go against your inner sense of loyalty or purpose then I feel compasion for you. As Rascal said, you've been at the Greasespot for a long time arguing your case.
But I take it as a warning when your beliefs move you to LIE AS YOU DID WHEN YOU MADE DEFINITION #2 TO BE DEFINITION #1. And even though I feel compasion for you if you really are motivated by loyalty, I assure you that I feel more compassion for those who had their lives ruined in TWI, and not just had to suffer through just listening to people come to conclusions that I might find to be disagreeable, as you seem to be doing right now.
I don't need to lie now, even though I have sinned too. If you have to lie, then you are really only hurting your cause White Dove. And I wouldn't tend to believe you even if you had a sound point because of the lie.
When I was new to TWI I met someone from the American Freedom Foundation, which I believe was a group that was promoting deprograming. And if I knew then what I knew now I would have some empathy for how this person freaked out when at our chance encounter I told him that I was with TWI. But because he freaked out, I thought that any anti-TWI person must be a nutjob too. And for the record, no matter what the motivation deprogramming is wrong and most often only backfired on the deprogrammers anyway.
In similar fashion, your argument fails because you lied about the defintions, thus hurting your own case.
(edited for grammar)
The term wasguilty not guilt , someone changed the word in order to get a different definition that cherry picked their view , I gave you the definition for guilty as in guilty verdict , as far as the number it was a typo, a typo is not a lie it is a mistake in typing ,so sue me . The point being 1 or 2 it is a definition of the word it changes nothing.
White Dove,
You see, your mistake does change things as far as to whether you are making a sound point.
What can I say, as soon as I saw your initial post I "knew" that you were playing fast and loose with the dictionary to make your point. And the way you cherry picked the definition of "guilty" proves it. The most basic definition of "Guilty" has nothing to do with a court of law. But you excluded the most basic definition and made your point, which if I understand you is that we don't have the right to consider Wierwille to be guilty.
You then said, "Need I say more....."
Well, yes White Dove, you needed to say more.
Your exclusion of all the other aspects of the word "guilty" shows that you are blatantly distorting the defintion of "guilty" to make your point.
I do not relish that our history of posting back and forth made it obvious to me that you were doing this as soon as I saw your post.
But that is what you did.
No, I won't sue you, I don't need a court to see that you are guilty of distortion of the definition to make your own point.
And I find it mearly annoying that after you distort the meaning of "guilty" that you say "Need I say more....." as if you made the case or as if we should all bow to your excellent sentence.
If you want to make a sound point White Dove, you should learn to quit distorting things. I feel that it is a long established habit for you.
Dove, does it not strike you as ironic that you have pronounced so many of US *guilty* of fabricating?
You who claim that our accounts are not factual.....make these accusations without any facts of your own to base this on?
If it was only 300 people (and I don`t believe it was...I think there are many more) that got mistreated enough in twi to want to talk about what happened....then as far as I am concerned that was 300 people too many to suffer at the hands of those who offered us healing. Please allow us top discuss our experiences.
As far as the way corpes site having a different flavor, could it possibly be because it`s purpose is different? Why not enjoy the commeradary that is offered there, and allow the people here to implement the resources of this site and use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
The term was guilty not guilt, someone changed the word in order to get a different definition that cherry picked their view , I gave you the definition for guilty as in guilty verdict , as far as the number it was a typo, a typo is not a lie it is a mistake in typing ,so sue me . The point being 1 or 2 it is a definition of the word it changes nothing.
you should change the emphasis to "it is a definition of the word it changes nothing". I listed ALL definitions from the source for the words I was posting about, and I was really clear which words the definitions were for and what my source was. I did not CHANGE the word from guilty to guilt. I actually posted definitions for both words (COMPLETE definitions, not cherry-picked) among others pertaining to this discussion. if the word was changed, it was by you because you didn't even tell us what word you were giving your definition for.
so, you gave your cherry-picked selection for "guilty" as in "guilty verdict"? because we're not talking about guilty verdicts here, we're talking about "guilty" or "having guilt". it's already been established that vpw has no right to due process of the law because he's dead, therefore "presumption of innocence" does not apply.
You see, your mistake does change things as far as to whether you are making a sound point.
What can I say, as soon as I saw your initial post I "knew" that you were playing fast and loose with the dictionary to make your point. And the way you cherry picked the definition of "guilty" proves it. The most basic definition of "Guilty" has nothing to do with a court of law. But you excluded the most basic definition and made your point, which if I understand you is that we don't have the right to consider Wierwille to be guilty.
You then said, "Need I say more....."
Well, yes White Dove, you needed to say more.
Your exclusion of all the other aspects of the word "guilty" shows that you are blatantly distorting the defintion of "guilty" to make your point.
I do not relish that our history of posting back and forth made it obvious to me that you were doing this as soon as I saw your post.
But that is what you did.
No, I won't sue you, I don't need a court to see that you are guilty of distortion of the definition to make your own point.
And I find it mearly annoying that after you distort the meaning of "guilty" that you say "Need I say more....." as if you made the case or as if we should all bow to your excellent sentence.
If you want to make a sound point White Dove, you should learn to quit distorting things. I feel that it is a long established habit for you.
(edited for spelling)
If you look at the thread the context was guilty as related to the law The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. I started the thread and that was the context
Some decided to cherry pick the definition and chage it, actually to another different word even to make their point. I simply refocased it back to the discussion as was intended. That definition was in line with the discussion ,If one wants to change the context to another point or discuss another word , it is a non related issue. They are the cherry pickers I simply stayed in context with what the intended purpose of the thread was.
Dove, does it not strike you as ironic that you have pronounced so many of US *guilty* of fabricating?
You who claim that our accounts are not factual.....make these accusations without any facts of your own to base this on?
If it was only 300 people (and I don`t believe it was...I think there are many more) that got mistreated enough in twi to want to talk about what happened....then as far as I am concerned that was 300 people too many to suffer at the hands of those who offered us healing. Please allow us top discuss our experiences.
As far as the way corpes site having a different flavor, could it possibly be because it`s purpose is different? Why not enjoy the commeradary that is offered there, and allow the people here to implement the resources of this site and use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
See there you go again I think you are full aware that I have never said your accounts are fabricated ,what I did say was that you fabricate my words and put them in my mouth this being a prime example. What I have said is that they are not documentable , that is NOT the same as not factual. It simply means that outside of a person saying so we have no determining evidence, we have others that say it is not so. Which is true is yet to be proven. You also know that I have gone out of the way to say many times that I have no belief either way, as it is undocumentable . I wont simply flip a coin toss between the two and decide guilt. I'll be perfectly happy to accept the accounts as factual when the facts can be proven as such.
I threw out a number a rough guess that is about the active posters here you can take the whole number of members if you like, but there are duplicate sign ins and such. The point being there are far more that believe differently than the few here, if numbers are what we believe then the accounts here loose hands down. Factor in hundreds of offshoots and the list gets smaller. I don't think numbers are proof of anything but you seem to be of the impression that because so many here believe one way and little ole me does not they must be right. If you follow that logic I could say the same using data from other sites, You can believe what you like that's your privilege, I want to make sound choices not flip the coin and choose. You seem to want to hold me to some geographical standard that you ignore for yourself . Two people were involved in these accounts and you were not there, if my geographical presence disqualifies me then your lack of presence denies you the same privilege.
you should change the emphasis to "it is a definition of the word it changes nothing". I listed ALL definitions from the source for the words I was posting about, and I was really clear which words the definitions were for and what my source was. I did not CHANGE the word from guilty to guilt. I actually posted definitions for both words (COMPLETE definitions, not cherry-picked) among others pertaining to this discussion. if the word was changed, it was by you because you didn't even tell us what word you were giving your definition for.
so, you gave your cherry-picked selection for "guilty" as in "guilty verdict"? because we're not talking about guilty verdicts here, we're talking about "guilty" or "having guilt". it's already been established that vpw has no right to due process of the law because he's dead, therefore "presumption of innocence" does not apply.
I don't recall that you started this discussion ,I set the context of the thread it was not about guilt, you added that word to the discussion and why would one do that? Why don't we add all add unrelated words ,lets list definitions for peanut butter as well. The discussion was on declaring one guilty without the benefit of establishing said guilt. As in libel, we have had this discussion before dead people have the right not to be libeled in many states. If you wish to discuss another subject as in guilt start your own thread, don't switch the subject here. I offered a legal definition because that is the context not if someone's opinion is guilt or not.
WD.....you continue in this black/white mentality.
Its YOU against GS.......every statement, every opinion challenges you. Had you gone WOW or inresidence corps, or left your state......you might have more exposure to the ills and abuses in twi.
Even I have stated that there was some good in twi.....else, why would so many of us have stayed there all those years? When you, WD, make blanket statements like "no good statement must be tolerated"......you simply expose your lack of critical thinking skills and your defensive posturing for wierwille/twi. Life just isn't that simple.....all black or all white.
Isn't it time to move away from this juvenile black/white mentality?
It's a figure of speech Hyperbole, when expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than literal fact. It should be obvious that every word is not negative in nature, but the figure draws to the point that a larger percentage of the statements are. Example If someone ate most of the bowl of fruit, one might say upon discovery, Who ate all the fruit? there may be a piece or two left so obviously all the fruit was not eaten but the bulk was. It enlarges the point to draw attention . It has nothing to do with black or white thinking.
Consider this WD: Had TWI allowed reasonable discourse and a reasonable means to deal with issues - there would be no GSC. As such, the few pro-TWI message boards that do exist do NOT allow anyone to speak badly about TWI. While I'm reasonably sure there are more than a few here who wish you'd put a sock in it, you have been largely unmolested and have suffered very little in the way of personal attacks on this board.
I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about things that are out of the realm of possibility about a guy who most here think is a scum bag. Very few here are going to have an epiphany about the guy because they already have. I guess that makes you the eternal optimist.
While I may agree with you that at times there was not outlet for discourse, it is doubtful that this site would not exist, some people can never be pleased, it happens all the time in any group. I know Amway people that had discourse but still did not like the outcome and so they trash the group ,it's human nature. I know people that think they have the greatest job in the world they say so, Until they get fired then the perspective changes. Think of the people in the 90s many who post here. We were out of fellowship, gangrene to them, possessed, those in CFS largely came from that time , now the perspective is 180 degrees different. There will always be people that have things to complain about no matter what group. It's usually a minority as it is here of the total group number. It proves nor negates anything it just is the way it is.
I've made no claim of being molested, I have pointed out what is a factual point which is the playing field here is not level so to speak ,I expect that given what it is, but it none the less is true . Look at this thread the gang is all here what is it about 12 to one ratio? No complaint, just stating the obvious. I'd contend the same would be true for one here to post on a TWI site.
I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about guilt of a crime when none has been established to referance.
must correct myself, should not summarize research when running a fever!
criminal court should read civil court!
Better wach out Jeff will say your lying, you know typos are lies.....
With the added burden of malice in telling a falsehood. Limited public figure. . . Carol Burnett aside, it rarely EVER happens.
And others but all it takes is one to prove your theory is full of holes. It happens therfore it is not impossible as you so declared.
just wanted to requote WD's quote of himself and point out that although he cries out for "proof" by way of "hard evidence", the federal rules of evidence admit testimony by witnesses as "evidence", and I'd also like to point out that vpw is not entitled to due process of law because he's dead and therefore his constitutional rights have terminated, which of course puts him outside of the legal process altogether, and makes the question of his guilt an academic exercise not confined within the bounds that WD says it should be.
Correct they do I never stated that they did not ,but that testamony is not accepted as fact just because someone says so ,it is put through the process of trial, after first being questioned if it even is admissible, to establish if it is indeed truth, that is the differance, The court does not assume that the truth is told and declare it so. he is not out of the legal process in case of lible, others can sue on his behalf .
I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about guilt of a crime when none has been established to referance.
And.......I find it amusing that you continue to try and create compelling arguments supporting wierwille's ministry when you've never gone WOW, never went inresidence corps........or never viewed much of twi outside of Kansas.
Say what you will, WD......it's a discussion forum.
Just because you post alot doesn't mean you have any credibility. And, when you say that posters here "gang up on you" it's because you're "a pot calling the kettle black" or you're using twi propaganda to explain twi and twi programs. Of course, you already know that.....you seek conflict.
The discussion was on declaring one guilty without the benefit of establishing said guilt.
right, so I posted definitions of "guilt", "guilty", and a few other words as they came up in conversation, because it seemed a clear understanding of the words was in order, rather than made-up definitions.
As in libel, we have had this discussion before dead people have the right not to be libeled in many states. If you wish to discuss another subject as in guilt start your own thread, don't switch the subject here. I offered a legal definition because that is the context not if someone's opinion is guilt or not.
whether vpw is being libeled is a question that should be left up to the courts. it is within the rights of twi or his family to bring suit to prove libel, yet no one has. until I see a guilty verdict proving libel, the alleged libel simply does not exist from a legal point of view.
what you DID bring up was "presumption of innocence" which I believe has been demonstrated not to apply because vpw is dead. he has no legal or constitutional rights, whereas those of his victims still living DO... so if someone wants to bring a civil suit against any of the many people who've told their stories of being molested by vpw, then the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff and "presumption of innocence" will given the defendant... so why aren't YOU willing to give these women what's due THEM under law???
And.......I find it amusing that you continue to try and create compelling arguments supporting wierwille's ministry when you've never gone WOW, never went inresidence corps........or never viewed much of twi outside of Kansas.
Say what you will, WD......it's a discussion forum.
Just because you post alot doesn't mean you have any credibility. And, when you say that posters here "gang up on you" it's because you're "a pot calling the kettle black" or you're using twi propaganda to explain twi and twi programs. Of course, you already know that.....you seek conflict.
<_<
Yeah much like create compelling arguments for rape when you were not present. I guess you were never really there either. Some of the loudest voices were never there. I guess that argument works both ways.
If you look at the thread the context was guilty as related to the law The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. I started the thread and that was the context
Some decided to cherry pick the definition and chage it, actually to another different word even to make their point. I simply refocased it back to the discussion as was intended. That definition was in line with the discussion ,If one wants to change the context to another point or discuss another word , it is a non related issue. They are the cherry pickers I simply stayed in context with what the intended purpose of the thread was.
I agree wholeheartedly that if this were criminal court that Wierwille, LCM, Geer, and TWI would have the right of presumed innocence. Your whole point has NO RELEVANCE here though.
So I suppose that you can claim that you are just holding with the context of this thread that you started W.D. if you want to. If this was a formal court you would have a good point.
But I remember you rehashing this point many times mentioning the court of "public opinion" right here at the Greasespot. That rule does not apply here.
Just as I said earlier that I was capable of judging you to be guilty of cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to prove your irrelevant point, I am also capable of judging TWI to be guilty of many abuses. The parallel is simple to me.
Better wach out Jeff will say your lying, you know typos are lies.....
I am saying that by cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to suit your irrelevant point you were deliberately distorting the definition to suit your purposes, whatever they may be W.D.
Is it too fine a distinction to call a deliberate distortion a lie to you W.D.?
It is pretty clear to me.
Roll those eyes all you want!
It doesn't change what you did.
But sadly enough, it looks like getting called on you dishonesty is not going to lead to any change in your actions.
A good Christian lesson is to confess one's sin. And every other ethical system that I know of has this principle somewhere in their cultural norms.
You are definitely committed to whatever it is that you believe. But without this basic core honesty in your heart, what have you really got there W.D.?
My splinter group leader went so far as to openly mocking the concept of honesty when it suited him. IMO he only did that to get people to go along with his lies.
When people are like that you cannot believe anything that comes out of their mouths.
What's next after lying to get one's own way?
How about physical intimidation? That can be effective too.
How about isolating and marginalizing the opposition? What good Christian behavior that is.
How about taking away their families? That can break them too W.D.
Like I said before W.D. About the only thing that I'm wondering about you now is how far are you willing to go to get your own way. In other words, I have formed an opinion about you (without the benefit of a legal trial mind you) and now it seems to me to simply be a question of when and if you'll stop.
It's similar to a person who will take a big bribe, but not a small one. Either way, I know what they really are.
You've been calling folks dishonest for a long time, and fairly often too.
Whas up wit dat?
Now you complain about being showed your distortion of the definition of "guilty" that you yourself did. And while arguing an irrelevant point you think that it proves that because you are alone here at the Greasespot in your distortion in the course of an irrelevant point that you stand alone on the truth.
Another option to consider is that maybe your points are just that bad.
I can see needing to stand against everyone when the truth is at stake. I think that is a tremendous stand to take.
I really, really wish that I could perceive you in that manner W.D.
But irrelevance and dishonesty on your part has convinced me that you are not doing this at the Greasespot in general.
But what the heck, at least you are persistent. :B)
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
WordWolf
A tired piece of fiction trotted out to salve the conscience of a few.
Some people here have had positive reminisces about vpw and lcm.
(I REQUESTED those at one point.)
Nobody has any about rfr, which says something about rfr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
must correct myself, should not summarize research when running a fever!
criminal court should read civil court!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
With the added burden of malice in telling a falsehood. Limited public figure. . . Carol Burnett aside, it rarely EVER happens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
exactly. that would be a tall order indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
just wanted to requote WD's quote of himself and point out that although he cries out for "proof" by way of "hard evidence", the federal rules of evidence admit testimony by witnesses as "evidence", and I'd also like to point out that vpw is not entitled to due process of law because he's dead and therefore his constitutional rights have terminated, which of course puts him outside of the legal process altogether, and makes the question of his guilt an academic exercise not confined within the bounds that WD says it should be.
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Good point potato...the truth of the matter is that VP Wierwille was a sexual predator, plagiarist, drunk and a liar...
His guilt has been established by first hand testamonies...at least to my satisfaction. Anyone who tries to dispute this has serious flaws in their logic and emotional make-up. The desperate attempts to "cleanse" this man of guilt is both pathertic and insane....IMHO.
Thanks to all who speak the truth concerning the cult leader Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
one other point.. or thought.
when the whole world seems full of sarcasm.. booing and hissing.. it is not necessarily because the world itself actually stinks..
maybe it's the bad performance that SCREAMS for these kind of reviews..
I've had to look within a few times..
So.. wd.. what I "read" in you..
you probably really hate yourself..
probably have done something nasty, or a whole lot of nasty in God's name.. I have done some as well, and loathe the memory of these brutish acts, the less than half a handful of times I did so..
but you can't bring yourself to self-flagellation, or self-loathing. Or even loathing the acts themselves.. so... what does one do..
ah.. bring a whole community to the point of lashing out.. you have the inner judge and jury which REQUIRE this..
but then on the other hand.. you have the dumbass vicster's theology which prevents you from doing so..
of course I could be wrong.. but that's my impression here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
I came on this site originally because I was still "in",Lcm said do not,so I had to.
My point is,That greasespot took over for waydale,it exposed the underbelly of twi.
It showed through personal stories of people of the nastiness of herr vic the bod,
as well as lcm.The false doctrine of being spiritually mature of handling adularty.
I have thought some here were out of control,but they had,have a story to tell.
sometimes I went on the attack,only to learn,I was out of line.
Please be nice here,respect people,after all the abuse I (we) suffered at the hands of twi,
greasespotters deserve that much.Peace all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dove, I was goofing with you. You are fond of take a single line out of context and claim that we are saying one thing when you know perfectly well that we mean another, and attacking on what you SAY we said...you obfuscate to the point until no one remembers what the actual poster said...it used to be pretty effective....that is until now....you have people that are keeping you honest.
It was just supposed to be funny :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
White Dove,
You see, your mistake does change things as far as to whether you are making a sound point.
What can I say, as soon as I saw your initial post I "knew" that you were playing fast and loose with the dictionary to make your point. And the way you cherry picked the definition of "guilty" proves it. The most basic definition of "Guilty" has nothing to do with a court of law. But you excluded the most basic definition and made your point, which if I understand you is that we don't have the right to consider Wierwille to be guilty.
You then said, "Need I say more....."
Well, yes White Dove, you needed to say more.
Your exclusion of all the other aspects of the word "guilty" shows that you are blatantly distorting the defintion of "guilty" to make your point.
I do not relish that our history of posting back and forth made it obvious to me that you were doing this as soon as I saw your post.
But that is what you did.
No, I won't sue you, I don't need a court to see that you are guilty of distortion of the definition to make your own point.
And I find it mearly annoying that after you distort the meaning of "guilty" that you say "Need I say more....." as if you made the case or as if we should all bow to your excellent sentence.
If you want to make a sound point White Dove, you should learn to quit distorting things. I feel that it is a long established habit for you.
(edited for spelling)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dove, does it not strike you as ironic that you have pronounced so many of US *guilty* of fabricating?
You who claim that our accounts are not factual.....make these accusations without any facts of your own to base this on?
If it was only 300 people (and I don`t believe it was...I think there are many more) that got mistreated enough in twi to want to talk about what happened....then as far as I am concerned that was 300 people too many to suffer at the hands of those who offered us healing. Please allow us top discuss our experiences.
As far as the way corpes site having a different flavor, could it possibly be because it`s purpose is different? Why not enjoy the commeradary that is offered there, and allow the people here to implement the resources of this site and use it for the purpose for which it was intended?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
you should change the emphasis to "it is a definition of the word it changes nothing". I listed ALL definitions from the source for the words I was posting about, and I was really clear which words the definitions were for and what my source was. I did not CHANGE the word from guilty to guilt. I actually posted definitions for both words (COMPLETE definitions, not cherry-picked) among others pertaining to this discussion. if the word was changed, it was by you because you didn't even tell us what word you were giving your definition for.
so, you gave your cherry-picked selection for "guilty" as in "guilty verdict"? because we're not talking about guilty verdicts here, we're talking about "guilty" or "having guilt". it's already been established that vpw has no right to due process of the law because he's dead, therefore "presumption of innocence" does not apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
If you look at the thread the context was guilty as related to the law The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. I started the thread and that was the context
Some decided to cherry pick the definition and chage it, actually to another different word even to make their point. I simply refocased it back to the discussion as was intended. That definition was in line with the discussion ,If one wants to change the context to another point or discuss another word , it is a non related issue. They are the cherry pickers I simply stayed in context with what the intended purpose of the thread was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
See there you go again I think you are full aware that I have never said your accounts are fabricated ,what I did say was that you fabricate my words and put them in my mouth this being a prime example. What I have said is that they are not documentable , that is NOT the same as not factual. It simply means that outside of a person saying so we have no determining evidence, we have others that say it is not so. Which is true is yet to be proven. You also know that I have gone out of the way to say many times that I have no belief either way, as it is undocumentable . I wont simply flip a coin toss between the two and decide guilt. I'll be perfectly happy to accept the accounts as factual when the facts can be proven as such.
I threw out a number a rough guess that is about the active posters here you can take the whole number of members if you like, but there are duplicate sign ins and such. The point being there are far more that believe differently than the few here, if numbers are what we believe then the accounts here loose hands down. Factor in hundreds of offshoots and the list gets smaller. I don't think numbers are proof of anything but you seem to be of the impression that because so many here believe one way and little ole me does not they must be right. If you follow that logic I could say the same using data from other sites, You can believe what you like that's your privilege, I want to make sound choices not flip the coin and choose. You seem to want to hold me to some geographical standard that you ignore for yourself . Two people were involved in these accounts and you were not there, if my geographical presence disqualifies me then your lack of presence denies you the same privilege.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't recall that you started this discussion ,I set the context of the thread it was not about guilt, you added that word to the discussion and why would one do that? Why don't we add all add unrelated words ,lets list definitions for peanut butter as well. The discussion was on declaring one guilty without the benefit of establishing said guilt. As in libel, we have had this discussion before dead people have the right not to be libeled in many states. If you wish to discuss another subject as in guilt start your own thread, don't switch the subject here. I offered a legal definition because that is the context not if someone's opinion is guilt or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It's a figure of speech Hyperbole, when expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than literal fact. It should be obvious that every word is not negative in nature, but the figure draws to the point that a larger percentage of the statements are. Example If someone ate most of the bowl of fruit, one might say upon discovery, Who ate all the fruit? there may be a piece or two left so obviously all the fruit was not eaten but the bulk was. It enlarges the point to draw attention . It has nothing to do with black or white thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
While I may agree with you that at times there was not outlet for discourse, it is doubtful that this site would not exist, some people can never be pleased, it happens all the time in any group. I know Amway people that had discourse but still did not like the outcome and so they trash the group ,it's human nature. I know people that think they have the greatest job in the world they say so, Until they get fired then the perspective changes. Think of the people in the 90s many who post here. We were out of fellowship, gangrene to them, possessed, those in CFS largely came from that time , now the perspective is 180 degrees different. There will always be people that have things to complain about no matter what group. It's usually a minority as it is here of the total group number. It proves nor negates anything it just is the way it is.
I've made no claim of being molested, I have pointed out what is a factual point which is the playing field here is not level so to speak ,I expect that given what it is, but it none the less is true . Look at this thread the gang is all here what is it about 12 to one ratio? No complaint, just stating the obvious. I'd contend the same would be true for one here to post on a TWI site.
I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about guilt of a crime when none has been established to referance.
Better wach out Jeff will say your lying, you know typos are lies.....
And others but all it takes is one to prove your theory is full of holes. It happens therfore it is not impossible as you so declared.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Correct they do I never stated that they did not ,but that testamony is not accepted as fact just because someone says so ,it is put through the process of trial, after first being questioned if it even is admissible, to establish if it is indeed truth, that is the differance, The court does not assume that the truth is told and declare it so. he is not out of the legal process in case of lible, others can sue on his behalf .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And.......I find it amusing that you continue to try and create compelling arguments supporting wierwille's ministry when you've never gone WOW, never went inresidence corps........or never viewed much of twi outside of Kansas.
Say what you will, WD......it's a discussion forum.
Just because you post alot doesn't mean you have any credibility. And, when you say that posters here "gang up on you" it's because you're "a pot calling the kettle black" or you're using twi propaganda to explain twi and twi programs. Of course, you already know that.....you seek conflict.
<_<
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
right, so I posted definitions of "guilt", "guilty", and a few other words as they came up in conversation, because it seemed a clear understanding of the words was in order, rather than made-up definitions.
whether vpw is being libeled is a question that should be left up to the courts. it is within the rights of twi or his family to bring suit to prove libel, yet no one has. until I see a guilty verdict proving libel, the alleged libel simply does not exist from a legal point of view.
what you DID bring up was "presumption of innocence" which I believe has been demonstrated not to apply because vpw is dead. he has no legal or constitutional rights, whereas those of his victims still living DO... so if someone wants to bring a civil suit against any of the many people who've told their stories of being molested by vpw, then the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff and "presumption of innocence" will given the defendant... so why aren't YOU willing to give these women what's due THEM under law???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yeah much like create compelling arguments for rape when you were not present. I guess you were never really there either. Some of the loudest voices were never there. I guess that argument works both ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It seems to me that the voices of the ones who WERE there are the ones you so aggressively toil to silence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I agree wholeheartedly that if this were criminal court that Wierwille, LCM, Geer, and TWI would have the right of presumed innocence. Your whole point has NO RELEVANCE here though.
So I suppose that you can claim that you are just holding with the context of this thread that you started W.D. if you want to. If this was a formal court you would have a good point.
But I remember you rehashing this point many times mentioning the court of "public opinion" right here at the Greasespot. That rule does not apply here.
Just as I said earlier that I was capable of judging you to be guilty of cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to prove your irrelevant point, I am also capable of judging TWI to be guilty of many abuses. The parallel is simple to me.
I am saying that by cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to suit your irrelevant point you were deliberately distorting the definition to suit your purposes, whatever they may be W.D.
Is it too fine a distinction to call a deliberate distortion a lie to you W.D.?
It is pretty clear to me.
Roll those eyes all you want!
It doesn't change what you did.
But sadly enough, it looks like getting called on you dishonesty is not going to lead to any change in your actions.
A good Christian lesson is to confess one's sin. And every other ethical system that I know of has this principle somewhere in their cultural norms.
You are definitely committed to whatever it is that you believe. But without this basic core honesty in your heart, what have you really got there W.D.?
My splinter group leader went so far as to openly mocking the concept of honesty when it suited him. IMO he only did that to get people to go along with his lies.
When people are like that you cannot believe anything that comes out of their mouths.
What's next after lying to get one's own way?
How about physical intimidation? That can be effective too.
How about isolating and marginalizing the opposition? What good Christian behavior that is.
How about taking away their families? That can break them too W.D.
Like I said before W.D. About the only thing that I'm wondering about you now is how far are you willing to go to get your own way. In other words, I have formed an opinion about you (without the benefit of a legal trial mind you) and now it seems to me to simply be a question of when and if you'll stop.
It's similar to a person who will take a big bribe, but not a small one. Either way, I know what they really are.
(edited for grammar)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Sheesh W.D.
You've been calling folks dishonest for a long time, and fairly often too.
Whas up wit dat?
Now you complain about being showed your distortion of the definition of "guilty" that you yourself did. And while arguing an irrelevant point you think that it proves that because you are alone here at the Greasespot in your distortion in the course of an irrelevant point that you stand alone on the truth.
Another option to consider is that maybe your points are just that bad.
I can see needing to stand against everyone when the truth is at stake. I think that is a tremendous stand to take.
I really, really wish that I could perceive you in that manner W.D.
But irrelevance and dishonesty on your part has convinced me that you are not doing this at the Greasespot in general.
But what the heck, at least you are persistent. :B)
(edited for spelling)
Edited by JeffSjoLink 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.