WhiteDove

Hey Ex they are at the top under my assistant........

I was doing some research on dog behavior for the dog park and found this story in a magazine. WOW Mickey was a Labrador Retriever owned by William Harrison, while Percy was a Chihuahua that had been given to Harrison’s daughter, Christine. Normally, their size difference might have prevented the dogs from becoming friends; however, in this instance, they became playful pals. The dogs would chase each other around, or Mickey would lie on the ground and let Percy pretend to be dominant as the little dog jumped on him and mouthed his ears. They ate together and, when they slept, Percy would lay against the bigger dog to stay warm. One warm summer evening, the dogs were out on the front lawn playing one of their favourite chase games, and, as he often did, Percy made a wide circle at high speed in an attempt to get behind Mickey. Unfortunately, this time his path took him out into the street and he was hit by a car. The first one on the scene was Mickey, who barked and whined and nosed his little friend. Then, while Christine stood by weeping and Mickey watched attentively, William placed the dead dog in a crumpled sack and buried him in a shallow grave in the garden. The depression that had fallen on the family seemed to affect not only the humans, but also Mickey. The big dog sat despondently staring at the grave of his friend, while everyone else went to bed. He would not come into the house when he was called, so William left the back door open except for the screen door, in order to allow him to hear Mickey if he decided that he wanted to come into the house. A few hours later, William was awakened by frantic whining and scuffling outside the house. When he investigated the noise, he saw, to his horror, that the sack in which he had buried Percy was now laying empty beside the opened grave. Next to it he saw Mickey, who was in a state of great agitation, standing over Percy’s body, frantically licking his face, and nuzzling and poking at the limp form in what looked like a canine attempt to give the dead dog the kiss of life. Tears filled the man’s eyes as he watched this futile expression of hope and love. He sadly walked over to move Mickey away when he saw what looked like a spasm or twitch. Then Percy weakly moved his head and whimpered. It was his friendship with Percy that had kept Mickey close that night. There was also something deep within him that had sensed that there was a faint spark of life in the little dog, combined with some mysterious instinct to return his companion to him that had told him what to do. He would not give up on his friend. Because of this bond between the dogs, they would be able to romp and play again, and once more share the warmth of life and their canine companionship.

The point is that we don't need to focus on JESUS , it is not something he directed others to do. He directed people to his Father, who he also prayed to as well by the way. he told of the parable of the forgiving Father ,not the forgiving JESUS. His focus was quite clear just as the church today should be .

Maybe Yes maybe No many please their pastor,priest,elder.... Should we write off that system by the same logic? I'd submit churches need leaders call them what you like, but they all have them. I think the difference you see in churches is the "brand" of Christianity they practice. It is an objective faith. Jesus being the object. Less emphasis is placed on knowing all "truth" as a theological sport. More is placed on worship of the truth. Many Christian churches believe Jesus when he says "I am the way the truth. . . " The focus is on him as the only truth. And then again some churches follow this verse ........

Your right he did not and no one said he did, however another poster did name someone by name which I felt was unfair to that person according to the new rules which is why I posted the simple reminder for them. I'd guess one of the Mods removed the name because the poster did not self police his post. It is also a slippery slope when we start deciding and naming who does or does not need services.

Well there you go the fact that you asked questions is proof that you were free to think, and did. Good for you! Now I never said that they would agree with you or that there would be no resistance. Eventually if you keep asking questions they run out of answers. So, when I asked for the chapter and verse that defended that thinking, I was reprimanded for being disrespectful. The next question in your example would have been, In the renewed mind class we were taught to be on guard with chapter and verse are you suggesting that what was taught was in error? Is it your position that documenting chapter and verse is disrespectful in some way? If so could you clarify your position from the scriptures, because as I see it they seem to imply that we are to do that very thing.

Sure, I did not write it just passing it along as someone did to me this week.

When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and the 2 Beers. A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. The professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a unanimous 'yes.' The professor then produced two Beers from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed. Now, said the professor as the laughter subsided, I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things---your family, your children, your health, your friends and your favorite passions---and if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full. The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, your house and your car. The sand is everything else---the small stuff. 'If you put the sand into the jar first,' he continued, 'there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff you will never have room for the things that are important to you. 'Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Spend time with your children. Spend time with your parents. Visit with grandparents. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your spouse out to dinner. There will always be time to clean the house and fix the disposal. Take care of the golf balls first---the things that really matter. Set your priorities. The rest is just sand. One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the Beer represented. The professor smiled and said, I'm glad you asked. The Beer just shows you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of Beers with a friend.

Geeeze I hope not .....I don't have another 35 years to relearn it all over again.

The topic of this thread is Libel - not the motives or intents of other posters

That's how the courts see it at every level of this country. It's considered a First Amendment issue. If it were firsthand, but I seriously doubt that all the hundreds of posters that seem to be an authority of the crimes were actually there. And if they were the logical question would be if your were witnessing a crime in progress why did you not do something about it ? QUOTE (rascal @ Sep 10 2008, 12:50 PM) Man talk about a redefinition of the meaning of a word. Ones statement is only considered libel if it is untrue, at which time it is a prosecutable offense. Otherwise it is often referred to as *telling the OTHER side of the story* which is what we do here at Greasespot. Correct and it has not been proven as true. only the accuser says it is so. to render it true or false due process is required, until then any accusation of criminal guilt or innocence is opinion.

Edited to remove responses to attacks on motive

Deleted to remove remarks about the motives of another poster

Nope, that is simply your opinion. Really so where is it? Saying Nope does not qualify as proof.? If it happened to me, it is a fact jack, and I am free to talk about it. Free according to the rules of this forum..AND a right granted to me by the constitution of these United states... Were it libel, that would be a prosecutable offense. I haven`t been dragged to court yet. Just because one does not exercise their options does not make the law go away. I am free to discuss my outrage over the mistreatment. I am also free to commiserate with others when they are sharing of their mistreatment. Your right you are free to share your opinion ,but as we know that is not documentable.

Stating someone is guilty of a crime that they have not been found guilty of is libel. I'm not relying on anything just pointing out that no evidence has been presented other than I say so......

I've never accused anyone of lying what I said was that their stories were not documentable past I say so. And you know this how? You haven't a clue what I have witnessed. Many Many? I'd submit that out of the vast numbers that were involved in the Way it is but a miniscule amount of manyI'd guess less than 1%.

Exactly and making a statement that someone is a thief,rapist, murderer ect. when you know in fact that person has not been given due process and found guilty of said crimes is a lie, as such it is a false statement. The proper term is aleged until such time as due process has been completed It is actual malice to refer to them as guilty (a Lie ,false statement) until they have been proven such.

You assume actual malice is not provable I'd say otherwise looking at some of the posts here dripping with it , it would be a hard act to sell. CASE OPEN.........

I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled. Apparently some people think otherwise ...... Kansas “(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends. (b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true. "In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual." Really??? Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005) (Scroll up.) Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable. That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it. It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it. Lies on the internet are prosecutable, more and more every day cases come to trial. ‘Any publication, whether spoken, written or otherwise, to a third person which is false and has the affect of adversely affecting another’s reputation.’ Types of defamation Libel and slander distinguish the law of defamation where it may take the different forms of publication either in transient form by the spoken word, gestures (slander); and where publication exists in a permanent form such as the written word, printed, or broadcast over the television, radio or indeed the Internet (a combination of broadcast and printed form). It is an important note that in respect of libel there is no requirement to show that there has been suffered any loss or injury as a result of the statement. Libel is actionable per se. What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system, to be used IN the legal system. In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their "argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side, and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision. That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability- all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts. That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury. Context, context, context.... And in court people who lie about others in a public forum are drug into court, why because they libeled another when it is illegal and then this course of action takes place to determine such In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true. And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero. The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR. Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE. That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be inflammatory AND FALSE. Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL. If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE. If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie- which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead- he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember? Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel. That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead- whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling. And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero. Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually... That is true. And the laws state-and any law reference states- that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE. If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel. Here's what Law.com says... "http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=|||| libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. " Here's what it says about 'libel per se': http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...4&bold=|||| "libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses." Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel "Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue." Here's what Nolo.com says about libel: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7 "An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)." Here's what FindLaw says about libel: http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/r...623b89f93d49694 "libel ['li-bel] Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book 1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases) 2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words specif : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt" twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue, shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable if they tried to claim this? Failure to take action is not part of what determins libel it is not a criteria in any definition Is it your premise that it is fine to break laws because no one see's you or holds you accountable to them? Is that really what you want to argue is ok? ================================= Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC. The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury. Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony, examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions. In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony. Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason. Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both. In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies. That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair. It is not academic when one is breaking the laws. It is criminal ============= As Mark Clarke said: "There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice." To continue to libel people that have no such charge of crime hurts people as well and???? You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth. As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that. You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?" I never said that there was not personal testimony what I said was there has been no hard factual evidence. Everyone has a right to know the truth, not one side of the view when you arrive at thetruth through our due process of law then I'll have no disagreement as I don't with the case of Mr. Mart*nd*le At present you have no truth only a one sided view.

Contrary to the fact that you would like to see the point buried because so far you have no evidence to counter what the law actually says, it is very much a part of this discussion. An eyewitness can state what they observed not what is factual. When you state emphatically that someone is a murderer ,thief , rapist in public forum that is no longer an opinion or an alleged charge which is what an eyewitness testimony is alleged until it is proven in a court of law. When eyewitnesses claim to go beyond the realm of eyewitness ,to matter of fact statements which has occurred then it becomes libel. As such one needs to point out that the eyewitness has gone beyond the boundaries of their testimony and as such is misrepresenting the truth. The law is quite clear that one can not libel a person they may however go through due process of law and a jury will determine if there was truth or malice in the accusation. If one wishes to change their speech to personal opinion or alleged charges then you would be correct it would have no place in the conversation, but one can not make unethical charges and then fault others for pointing out that they were so.

Nothing to discuss unless you have some new legal opinion, it is pretty clear that one can not libel a person either dead or alive. Truth is a defense, as Mark pointed out with the following condition..... which is to be determined by the jury. Note it does not state to be determined by WW or the GreaseSpot Cafe. until such time as you met your burdon of proof and have a jury determine otherwise it is libel to either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel. Idaho Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005). “Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802. Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803. “An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804. It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806. “True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807. Colorado “(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living. (3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005) Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972). Kansas “(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends. (b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true. Also, the following is from the Ohio code, VP's old stomping grounds (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2739): 2739.02 Defenses in actions for libel or slander. In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages. Effective Date: 10-01-1953 I agree it is ,but that does not give anyone the right to change the law ,because they want it to read differently. Until there is legal decision the law remains clear. You want to meet the burdon of truth as defence then meet the conditions. The law does not say because you believe it to be so that's close enough.

Sorry I think the law is a determining factor you can take up your complaint with those who write them but until then it is not ok to libel others .