WhiteDove

Exactly we also do not post that so and so was this or that By your standards we wait until all evidence is presented ,disputed and we see who is telling the truth. I'm fine with that in fact that is exactly what I asked for wait until a verdict then we can declare guilt or innocence it works in Daniel's case and in VP case as well. Until then peolple are free to express opinions not facts.

Accusation of a serious crime is different than a insult like scumbag

The same could be said for you and others. I'm offended by yours as well. So do you all quit speaking as well? I've never asked for you or anyone not to speak whatever was on their mind, we can dispute it, we are all adults here are we so fragile that someone's view distresses us ?

I never said it is a court ,it is commen sense to speak correctly where ever the place. Look at the media and how they speak in an open forum it's pretty clear most understand that one can not attribute a guilty verdict to one that has had no such a verdict decided. I doubt if it were you you would agree that is acceptable to accuse you of crimes that you have not had charged against you. Opinions are opinions facts are facts. If opinions become proven facts then they can be stated as such, until they are they should be stated as opinions.

Exactly Jeff you spoke your opinion I'm fine with that. On the other hand had you said Dr. Wierwille was a scumbag that would be a statement of fact and I would expect you to offer some proof for your claim or admission that it was simply a misstated opinion. . Jeff we can discuss the Corinthian justice system after we get the American one straight.

If upon examination of facts it was a proven statement and not someone's fuzzy memory thanI would call that person a molester. But whoever they are they still get their chance at justice as lacking as it is at times.

It would be unnecessary to reputedly state the same thing over and over if some people would read what is said. How many times have I posted that this has zero to do with defending Wierwille and yet just a few posts up someone again says the same thing. This is a place for way discussion so Wierwille comes up ,he is the subject as such one responds to the example given. It could be about OJ or Daniel Watson until one has had due process unless stating an opinion it is incorrect to speak of someone as a criminal until they have a criminal charge . It should not hurt anyone to speak that which is true factually. Everyone is free to state what they believe, what they think I may even agree that is notthe point .If we start basing peoples rights on how they may make some feel we are heading down a wrong road. How we feel ? what if others feel diferently then who gets to pick which gets the choice? ?

Opinion would be I think VP was a so and so ..... or I believe VP was a so and so....... or In my opinion VP did so and so ..... No one has ever objected to anyone's opinion what I did object to was VP was a no good _______. That is a statement of guilt that is not opinion you are definitively saying he was this That would be the difference.

Again I'll point out this has zero to do with defending Wierwille he just happened to be the subject due to the nature of this place. It is about speaking properly, saying opinion when it is so and stating fact when it is so. It is wrong to state that some one is guilty of a crime when there has been no guilt established to them in the system of justice . It's pretty simple when you have a conviction of guilt then it is proper to refer to a person as guilty until then it is not. Most people understand this except when someone contempt for someone is so strong that they think it is ok to change the rules , it is not. We all have a right to a fair hearing before someone is declared guilty.

I am not concerned with any conspiracy among the victims to sully the good Dr.'s name. Nor am I concerned at all about his name . Again you miss the point I am concerned about rights we enjoy and the preservation of those. In particular Innocent until proven guilty, be it for VP or anyone else. It is wrong to publicly charge a crime to someone without having given them the benefit of those rights to a fair hearing of both sides of any evidence of such crime and the dispute of said evidence. As usual you choose to make this appear to be about VP and some love for him it is not , it is about rights as Americans being preserved for all this example just happens to include VP. I would object to Daniel Watson being called a murderer just the same until he has had his day in court and such a determination has been made.

Maybe but I choose to spell it out as what I say is often misrepresented and besides I think it is very much the point.

I find it hypocritical that those who chant the mantra of self-restraint and sensitivity expect it from some while taking cheap shots at others on a thread that has nothing to do with the subject. It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault. None of these things contribute to the conversation of the thread either yet they go on. I'll remind everyone that the whole disruption started with the Wierwille apologist remark, then the pile on and introduction of other topics which neither Oldies or myself introduced but somehow got the credit for doing so . Look at the thread line and one can see. QUOTE(GrouchoMarxJr @ Jun 12 2008, 12:22 AM) ...And how long will the Wierwille apologists continue to live in denial?... ...and not just the handful that hang out here...but the many who belong to splinter groups, independant "twigs", and the many who belong to the waycorps website...this man was a monster and shame on all who continue to glorify him and sing his praises... shame on them all... Quote Whitedove Speaking of denial........ despite the obvious, you still assume that the group that you have apparently taken upon yourself to pigeonhole with a name is in denial. I wonder just what qualifies you to speak for others? This could have stopped here . I made No response to or about any victim I simply objected to being called something I am not and have repeatedly asked not to be referred to as. I'll point out again this has nothing to do with the book either. If one wants restraint then perhaps they should think about taking shots at others from behind the safety of a thread that is protected. Why should either side be protected in their comments why can one declare a person a monster ? If I posted that someone was a saint would I get the same right to not be questioned? ( not that I think he was by the way ) Had the subject stuck to the book and contents rather than personal opinions on others it might have been more worthwhile.

I'll give it a go .........and I'll answer your other post later. Things are calling me away. Darn that work I just wanna bang on the drums all day

What a splendid idea Waysider I'll order mine , from Amazon that way at least Paw will get some of the benefit here. By the way since we are on that subject here's a idea perhaps 15% of the money could be donated to the cafe for it's fine promotion of the book sales. That would go a long way toward discounting my view that the book was about the money....... I think it's only fair that we can post here as it seems that we can't or shouldn't post on the normal discussion sites that the lesser people don't get to on. That way we don't muck up the Wierwille hater threads. Maybe some day we Wierwille apologists will get to ride in the front of the bus as well....... I have a dream......... Well I'll be back when the book arrives and I get through a page, At least if this thread is still here anyway. Gee how many pages are there to review this could take awhile? Oldies if you want to join in and help I'll be happy to tear out the pages and mail them to you when I'm done no use both of us making a contribution to the victims retirement fund. So I'm off to push that BUY button and send some cash down the drain, well it could be worse it could go to the Democrats I guess. Disclaimer: These views are the views of a labeled Wierwille apologist and do not necessarily reflect the view of the board owner, or majority of posters here, or the mission of this site. They are none the less the views and opinions of this poster in review of a book.

I've never harassed anyone . I have pointed out that that which some seem to take as fact has not been established as so. I have not made claim as to if it is true or untrue only that there is not adequate documentation to establish either, as such one can not be passed off as fact. That may bother those who would like it to be so that I say so is enough to establish fact ,it does not work that way in cases where crimes are accused.

I agree and when the rules say that NO ONE is allowed to speak anything that is considered posative about the Way or VP then I will honor that request and the site can become a hate fest for anti way apologists. Been a little busy here Geeese your response is in the Q

It is not a private site and we see more and more every day people being held accountable for things they do and say on the internet ,as it should be.

Perhaps those who wish to hurl cheap insults at others should be banned? Perhaps it is they who should start their own thread and not disrupt another with their sniping. I question their agenda and why they are here...this is not a question of honest debates and differing opinions...this is a deliberate attempt by certain people to shut down threads with their Anti-Wierwille apologist rhetoric.

Thank you Lucy it's nice to see that someone still supports our rights in this country for everybody not just for those we like. And until someone has been given those rights and found guilty the proper term to refer to those offences in question is alleged.

I'll just point out that speaking up for the right to a fair treatment has nothing to do with being a Wierwille apologist If some posters did not pass off as fact that which has not been proven as such and stick to being satisfied with expressing it as opinion then there would be no discussion.

Thank You ...........