WhiteDove

Mark I've answered your posts it has done no good you ask the same questions over that have been answered I'll add directly at times saying exactly what I just said I did not say. If you can't read the thousands of posts already here and figure out what I said then I see no purpose in continuing.

Supporting peoples constitutional rights is not practicing law. Neither is posting real laws that one did not write but were written by real attorneys and enforceable as such. Pointing out that personal opinion is not law but such ordinances are in fact I suppose bothers those who think they know . Oh well! This is an exway site of course the subject will be VP at times. I've also defended OJ's rights although I personally think he was guilty. what I think is not the question and gives me no right to state him as guilty when the courts have said otherwise.

For all the talk and accusations that the Wierwille apologists are attempting to make people not post , I have to say the record does not support that claim. I see no such posts. However I do see that from some, not in the so called apologist group. Reminds me of the Scribes and Pharisees it seems that they had the same plan against Jesus, accuse him of what they themselves were doing.

Standing up for someone's rights to a fair trial when accused by a lynch mob is never something I will regret. That's one of our great rights in this country, the system is not perfect but it is the best we have . Allowing one to pick and choose who gets rights and who does not is a really bad idea. You see you continue to make it about VP it is not I would defend Bozo if he was in the same situation. It is about what many have died for our rights and I wont watch them trampled because someone does not like someone and thinks it's ok then to do whatever. You wanna find someone guilty ? then do it the way our system works. Vigilantly justice never has worked.

You failed to note that had that same poster not started off the thread with labeling and name-calling the problem would not have been .As usual you ignore the start and only look at the end of things.

Coming from someone that can offer only this rhetoric as his best argument I find that funny...........

But he will be in KC in 36 days.............. Dylan '08 Tour Just Announced!! SUMMER US TOUR DATES! Bob Dylan and his Band DAY DATE CITY, STATE VENUE SHOWTIME ON SALE PRE SALE VIP PACKAGES PASSWORD FRI 8/8 Philadelphia PA Electric Factory 8:00 PM 7/25 10:00 AM 7/21 10:00 AM scrapple SAT 8/9 Pittsburgh PA New American Music Union - SouthSide Works N/A On Sale Now SUN 8/10 Baltimore MD Virgin Festival - Pimlico Race Course N/A On Sale Now TUE 8/12 Brooklyn NY Prospect Park Bandshell 8:00 PM On Sale Now WED 8/13 Asbury Park NJ Asbury Park Convention Hall 8:00 PM On Sale Now FRI 8/15 Mashantucket CT MGM Grand Theatre at Foxwoods 9:00 PM On Sale Now SAT 8/16 Atlantic City NJ Borgata Resort Spa & Casino Event Center 8:00 PM On Sale Now SUN 8/17 Saratoga Springs NY Saratoga Music Festival - SPAC (multi act show) 2:30 PM On Sale Now Saratoga Music Festival Acts: The Levon Helm Band, The Swell Season, Conor Oberst and the Mystic Valley Band, Steve Earle, Gillian Welch & David Rawlings, Raul Malo TUE 8/19 Canandaigua NY Constellation Performing Arts Center 7:30 PM On Sale Now WED 8/20 Hamilton ON Copps Coliseum 8:00 PM On Sale Now FRI 8/22 Cincinnati OH National City Pavilion 8:00 PM On Sale Now SAT 8/23 Elizabeth IN Horseshoe Southern Indiana 8:00 PM On Sale Now SUN 8/24 Evansville IN Mesker Amphitheatre 8:00 PM On Sale Now TUE 8/26 Little Rock AR Riverfest Amphitheatre 8:00 PM On Sale Now WED 8/27 Tulsa OK Brady Theater 8:00 PM On Sale Now THU 8/28 Kansas City MO Uptown Theater 7:30 PM On Sale Now SAT 8/30 Aspen CO Jazz Aspen Festival N/A On Sale Now SUN 8/31 Park City UT Deer Valley Resort 7:30 PM On Sale Now MON 9/1 Las Vegas NV The Joint @ The Hard Rock Hotel & Casino 8:00 PM On Sale Now VIP Package THUR 9/4 Temecula CA Pechanga Resort and Casino 8:00 PM On Sale Now SAT 9/6 San Diego CA Concerts on the Green @ Qualcomm Park 8:00 PM On Sale Now SUN 9/7 Santa Barbara CA Santa Barbara Bowl 7:30 PM TBA TBA

Well the new song is Dreaming of You the first from a new CD at least that is the working title . Bob is famous for changing titles on songs though so who knows. The video features Harry Dean Stanton here as the ultimate Dylan bootlegger way out in the middle of nowhere producing all this bootleg stuff. He starts off with these old suitcases full of stuff that he takes in to this shack in the desert. They packed this shack with tons of Dylan memorabilia from years of his career, (very cool stuff) and tape playback decks and he is dreaming of him as he makes all this bootleg stuff. No tickets, all I got was a working set of lyrics from the production shoot.

Rascal I'm not going to go back and forth with you, you have other arguments to deal with. The posts speak for themselves as to where you learned the information from, as I said it was from another poster. You took that information and ran with it in the next post long before I ever confirmed anything. I tried to give you an out but you refused it ,your mistake, they record speaks for itself.

Lifted I think I have made my standards pretty clear here "because I say so " is undocumentable others can say the same . One must have more than first hand testimony to consider in making a judgment. My personal beliefs are not the issue here ,nor is it a Wierwile issue either as some seem intent on claiming. I'd support anyone's rights to innocent until proven guilty be it OJ, VP, or Bozo the Clown. To claim guilt without the benefit of our justice system is wrong. We all can and do form opinions, our right as well, when we cross the line and declare guilt then it becomes more than opinion.

Unfounded claim I have never asked for anyone not to post or supported such an idea, I have welcomed all discussions. And those polite requests to cease and desist that you speak of are often buried in backhanded insults. Martyrdom? Hardly Rascal I think the record will show I have complained about one thread in all the years, because I felt that no rules were broken. I still don’t see where any were. And the response was that it violated the mission of GreaseSpot not the rules. I spoke my opinion and Paw spoke his, it’s his board I honored his request. I also have refrained in posting on related threads as well. I did remark that if the interest was in keeping the thread on track that I would think it fair to eliminate all the posts that distracted from that, not just the (quote) apologists (unquote) but the insults as well including the one that started the whole thing to begin with which I find as offensive as calling a black man a nigger. Others have said the same thing, there are two sides to the problem. That was my opinion; he weighed it and made the call. I’m fine with that, I have no other complains about the moderation here. I believe that they work hard to be fair. I have spoken on the playing field but that is not a moderation issue, It is related strictly to the number of pro and anti posters here, I think it is a fair statement to say that the amount is far from balanced in the two, then again I don’t expect it to be given the mission here. If A is greater than B it is not martyrdom to point out a true fact. This seems reasonable to me would everyone abide by the same rule? Or is it just the (quote) Wierwille apologists (unquote) that would have to start separate threads? For instance if someone were to start a thread say My testimony of why VP was the greatest thing since sliced bread would no one derail that thread as well? What do you suppose the chances are on that happening? I’m betting slim and none are the choices…… Finally thanks Abigail and Linda for your usual objective assessment of my posts. All differences aside I appreciate your words both in support and opposition, they did not go unnoticed. thats not to say either were sticking up for me ,but only that they objectivly viewed the posts and still maintained their personal perspective on some matters.

I’ve never made such a claim, nor have I spoke concerning the WOW program, pure fabrication. Speaking of second hand information, you seem to be among the most prominent spokes persons for the victims of abuse. I wonder were you there as well on the coach or is it you have read stories here and made the choice to believe them? Correct me there but that seems to be second hand information as well. By the same standard what gives you the right to claim your second hand information is more credible? That is correct Mark that is exactly what I said, Thank you, and I spoke for me, myself, and I only. Responding to your posts is not stalking this is a discussion forum and everyone can post their point of view. If you are more vocal on a thread than others then it is highly likely that you will get more response time than others. My responses to you have been in direct proportion to your comments to me. I Never demanded proof. I’ve said that it is lacking because there is no hard evidence only one sided testimony. I understand why that is, but it is none the less a true fact. As such one is left to: A - Agree because they like the poster or hate VP. B - Disagree because they dislike the poster or like VP C Have no clear decision based on the lack of supportive evidence. Look at any police investigation and you will see that testimony is not taken as literal ,it is recorded and worked against hard evidence. what I believe personally is not the point, it does not alter the facts. You question my right to speak and yet you speak as to what the spouse Corps program was about? Were you one? If first hand experience is the criteria to speak, where is yours on this subject? I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer (but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night), and I can read laws. And while we are on the legal subject here I’ll point out I never said it was a court here but when one takes an accusation out of the opinion mode and claims that it indeed is a fact unquestioned then it becomes a potential legal issue at that point and as such bears the right for legal discussion. By the way this is not a newspaper either but I saw no objection to analogies about one posted. I guess” what it is “depends on which side of the argument one is on. No Tom that is not what I have said. You also ignore the fact that I have repeatedly said that I speak only for myself. I stated what I believe is necessary to make an informed decision, not one based on who I like or dislike. If the information is lacking then for me it remains undocumentable. (That means no hard evidence to confirm testimony) As I also have stated many times as such that does not make it false or true but without sufficient evidence to render a decision based on facts not a persons words. You continue to misrepresent my words. What I believe personally has no bearing on what is documentable.

Now back to the topic at hand when I left. The claim: One can not libel a dead body. Idaho Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005). 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. Kansas "(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, 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. It appears in fact that the law seems to think otherwise, at least in some states. With all due respect to the other thread that was started with the Google searches for definitions. I’m guessing that a judge faced with a choice between the legal statutes of the law and a Google definition, he will most likely go with the law code. Call me crazy but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Now of course faced with the law, the subject quickly turned to discussions like would they file a complaint? Would the complaint be defendable? and a variety of other sidebar discussions. I spoke to none of those topics although they most likely would make great ones. The truth is none of those things changes what the law says. Which brings us to Rocky for the daily double? This has got to be one of the most ridicules things I’ve read in a long time. Try selling that to any law enforcement officer or judge. No Rocky laws become laws when they are enacted by proper governing bodies. They get statute or ordinance numbers when that occurs, and they are enforceable as such despite your rhetoric. And once again I find myself explaining your example to you. Hello convicted ….Hello convicted….. Hello convicted…. My point exactly when convicted it is proper to refer to someone as guilty. By the way those were not my definitions they are laws as they read in those states.

Big ol jet airliner Don’t carry me too far away Oh, oh big ol jet airliner Cause its here that I’ve got to stay Oh, oh big ol jet airliner Don’t carry me too far away Oh, oh big ol jet airliner Cause its here that Ive got to stay Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah….Steve Miller WOW I go away and lynch mobs, and food fights and a new menu item, even the roasted bird plate has been replaced with The “Eat My Words“Special? Looks like someone switched the Decaf again, and Belle I told you about that gum thing. Well there are too many posts to catch up on every one but I’d be remised if I did not speak to a few misconceptions. (Oh come on…. you did not REALLY think I would let them slide did you?) Now this new menu item eat my words thing, it does not look all that tasty so I’ll pass for myself, but I’m always up for a discussion so……. I’ll Play……I’ll take Rascal for 500.00 The claim: This information I gathered from your own personal public posts here. You know, I tried to give you an out, but you refused to take it. Instead you pushed it playing your game as usual. You know that what you posted was not true. We both know exactly where the information that you posted came from. The truth is this is not the first time you resorted to this tactic, its pretty common to divert the attention of the thread subject for you when you are faced with facts that you can not dispute. Doojable posted this quote below exhibit A and many happily proclaimed that it somehow proved Rascals claim. It was a valiant effort at super sleuthing…. Really, close but no cigar though. It’s not your fault, how could you know that you would be sucked into someone’s scheme. So now I’ll set the facts straight….. If you will notice the Exhibit B you will notice the post from my dear friend Ex10 dated March 13 2006 that would be well before the post Doojable posted in defense of Rascals position exhibit A dated January 22 2008. Where I supposedly spoke. Upon examination it was in fact another poster that Rascal learned this information from my dear friend EX 10, note the post Exhibit B. and Rascals response of surprise Exhibit C both dated well before the post where I spoke in 2008. Exhibit A --------------------Exhibit B -------------------- Exhibit C I concur it would be, but you did anyway now didn’t you? Oh and by the way I’m correcting you and you are wrong. At this point I’ll add this as well…….. This is not a site for ask Dove questions about information for his personal life and he is required to respond. It’s a site for discussion of topics no one, myself included is required to put forth personal information upon demand. I abstained from comment because I thought that maybe Rascal would take her foot out of her mouth and do the right thing, put on her big girl panties as Shellon likes to say and admit she was wrong, but she did not. Enjoy the lunch it’s on me……

As I have said an opinion or telling a story is not ,but some have claimed that what they said was not such. Accusing someone of a crime that they have not been found guilty of is libeling. To call someone a murderer, molester,rapist openly in public orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, 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 is a crime. ,

Not the point , the argument was lacking in truth dead people have the right to not be libeled in many states.

Really? is that your story and your sticking to it? Because I thought you learned it from another poster?

Well I have a couple of legs I stand on............. but then there is this as well Idaho Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005). 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. Kansas “(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, 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. HEY Thomas Rocky is not a Wierwille apologist........ From one who might know ........ Well at least some people think so...........

Mark I'll try this again ,honestly I don't know why . I've said it a zillion times over several threads............ Perhaps you will read slowly and get what I said right this time First you seem to imply by your statement "I didn't believe any of it at first either" that you think I am in the group that does not. I have never stated such. I did say that aside from testimony from one side of the story that there is not documentable evidence to prove the case one way or another. That is a true fact there are no reports filed, DNA , excreta...... That does not prove or disprove anything but it is the hard facts. There are obvious reasons for why that is which I won't go into but some have been brought up in the threads. Second what I did say is that I, ME, Myself , will not charge someone as guilty of a crime without such evidence, it flies against our rights as Americans. You and or anyone else is free to do as you please before God, but I choose not to go down that road of being the judge without a fair hearing. The second part to this I also believe that it is wrong to refer to someone as having committed a crime based upon someone's story, they have a right to be innocent until proven guilty and until such time as they are they should be referred to as alleged , some disagree but if one looks at the public presentation of such cases you will see that is the rule of thumb. Mark I have read them all I heard about them long before Waydale or GreaseSpot were a thought in anyone's mind, (clear from my little geographical area where I know nothing even) and others as well that have not been accounted for like Dee Ann Voth Contrary to what Rascal thinks I know What I speak of. Mark what you did was listen to one side of a testimony and you made a decision , whether I agree with that testimony or not is not/ nor ever was the point. The point is /was always once one starts down the road of accepting one persons word without due process and rendering someone and referring to someone as guilty we have destroyed the rights we enjoy in this country. You may be right in this case what will the next one be? It's a road I won't travel on , but as I said you are free to do as you see fit , and I am free to point out the facts which are that there is zero evidence for these claims to make a judgment either way unless you just pick one from an emotional response.

I missed where I said that........ Or was that a question? If so the answer is NO

You have no clue what my sources are you only think you do.

Not at all , all one needed to do is be in contasct with those who were in the know, you assume that one needs to be in a place to be in the know they don't. You assume way to much for not knowing me

The again one could be a WOW in Jerkwater USA for 30 years and not have a clue what is going on either. This is the information age.. For instance I don't need to be in Nashville to know that it is 85 degrees with a wind from the NE at 12 mph with the visibility 10.0 miles and the traffic flowing nicely out by Stewarts Ferry right now. Why all you need to do is ring someone up and get all that first hand testimony about what is going on any minute of the day.

Has not arrived yet.