WhiteDove

Not really her premise was that it was not always practical I disagree I think it is in fact beyond that the law.

And I would agree as well. Assuming of course that one wanted to be fair and not have there mind already made up that is.

Just came across my ebay PFAL

And they were not declared guilty of criminal activity either as such there was no legal claim to satisfy. Declaring one of guilt of a federal or state crime is just a wee bit different than questioning authority. Not that either should go on ,but the repercussions of the criminal charges don't compare. Unbelievable........ All I can say is Hopefully if you are ever facing a jury they will uphold the law, even if you mention that you don't think it is practical for them to do so..

You assume they meant retreat I'm not sure that is the case do you have documentation on that since your big on having such. The point being just because they use some similar or the same words it still requires a closer look before one just assumes they know what they do or don't do.

So because they use four words that the Way used, do you assume they are similar? Gee you used looking ,at ,their, they, have, in your post, I guess that makes you similar to the way as well cause you used the same words that were used in the Way. Perhaps you should spend some time finding out what they really do before commenting based on a glance at some similar words on a web site.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence,last I looked guilty of Rape is a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law no proof of guilt according to law has been established in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No trial has occured

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a11 Innocent until proved guilty is a basic human right,The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.

Actually that was my argument before you attempted to wrench it from its context. As to the question I answered the question a few pages back,but some people are too busy dreaming up questions that offer no point to the discussion to pay attention. We stock some of Johns materials.

Context: personal opinion not legal opinion Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? (Personal opinion) I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, (personal opinion )claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion. (stating I believe one to be guilty is personal opinion, confirming guilt of a crime where none is established is a lie as there is no crime charged to proceed through due process with much less a guilty verdict)

I often ask that same question........

Any documentation that anyone has denyed others to vent? I see none. One can vent all they want their opinion of things, claiming guilt of a crime however is no longer opinion.

Reasonable request since they ask others to do the same routinely.

What and ruin all Garths fun? That's not nice. Now where would he post his pretty airplane pictures? Anyway at 21 pages and 5,455 reads I'd say someone is entertained. Do you have a problem with people discussing their ideas and thinking?

Rascal I hope you noted the laugh in my post it was an attempt at humor , that aside the door is open for any request you may have in the future. If I can help get you something that you desire I will do so. Our disagreements here have no bearing on that.

quote name='WordWolf' date='Mar 8 2009, 08:24 AM' post='459497'] This one is equivalent to saying "Lots of people met Jeffrey Dahmer and were never eaten" and using that to suggest Dahmer was innocent of cannibalism. We don't care how many people Dahmer DIDN'T eat. We don't care how many people vpw DIDN'T molest, rape, drug, or abuse. We care about those he did- even if the number of people he DIDN'T was tens of thousands and he "only" abused, say 100. Even IF you're correct that that particular person wasn't a victim in a substantial sense, that is a non-issue for this discussion. How you can read paragraphs of one victim, miss them completely, then find the one sentence on the "non-victim" should strike people, at the least, as PECULIAR. No it's not, it is very much the issue, it establishes that possibility there are other reasons for the variance in the stories. One could argue the same your way posting stories of victims has nothing to do with willing sex. Point being there are two sides to the story, as Pond pointed out we pick the one we like often. I choose to look at the whole picture and see that there are two distinct sides as such without further documentation it is a guess as to which is the real story or what possible motives there are for the difference in them. If you're not going to bother putting in time to read a FEW accounts of victims, why should he bother linking dozens and dozens? Some people have read OTHER accounts here, and expressed sympathy for the victims. Why can't you be more like them? Specifically, like THIS poster: To document his point. Numbers remember? Not to mention 3 is a long way from 100s That poster specifically was responding to the accounts of 2 other posters, whom he believed reliable, giving reliable accounts. His reaction was to try to comfort the suffering. He had READ plenty of the accounts, at least some of which he deemed "reliable" or "trustworthy." He didn't see the need to keep bringing them up, challenging the women who suffered, suggesting they were less than truthful, and so on. I wish that poster was posting on this thread. And yet here it is years later and some continue to bring it up day after day. I still see no need for such,thats my opinion others may think different, nor do I see the need to claim guilt when there is none established. Stating an opinion or a personal testimony is one thing, wannabees who were not there beating the story to death is another. My concern is with the later, I have stated numerous times the stories are undocumentable they could be right or wrong . Until they are right guilt is not established. You want to state it's your opinion fine with me ,but opinion is not documented fact. Correct AT A FINANCIAL LOSS or at best we break even on the cost. Time aside as there is no compensation there.

Well lets cut to the chase: 1. Exactly how do you figure that? I wrote no book that brings revenue to me ,as such I have no motive for skewing the truth for sales. What does writing a book for her sole profit have to do with selling others music for non profit to benefit them, have to do with each other. Not even remotely the same thing. 2. We sell no books by VPW the last one I had was left from Way days Receiving the Holy Spirit which I sold to someone that posts here on a regular basis because they asked for it. As a service I sold it for the same cost we had in it. I think if I remember correctly we paid the postage. which means we lost money. 3. We sell all our items at the same prices that the artists do many times because of re-mailing we end up loosing money ,the bookstore was never intended to make profit its purpose was to help others get materials they desired and to help those former way musicians sell their music. I figure it is a nice thing to do since they never received any compensation while they were in the Way. 4. By the way this week I sent out a CD for absolutely no cost -that means we paid not only the shipping, but the cost of the CD itself. I did so because I thought it was the right thing to do. Additionally I have sent music to posters here because they asked for me to, including my arch nemesis Rascal So as usual Waysider you have no point, although you try hard to find one. The bookstore looses money, contrary to self published books that return (less expenses) all the profit to the writer.

I agree with pond I get the picture all right, Lets see what it says, 3 records of sexual conduct claimed not documented. and this from your post I think I said some were satisfied with the arangement. By the way I love your new math 1+1+1= 3 No wait it's 100dreds.

Yep sounds like another side of the story.

Dear Jeff I have never stated that anyone was lying ,that is pure fiction, fabrication on your part, and a gross misrepresentation of my viewpoint which by the way is against the rules here. Contrary to your fabricated version I have consistently presented the facts as they are. We have words ,I say this is what happened ,we have others that say a different thing that happened, those are the facts. What one chooses to believe ,how one feeeels are not, they are emotions which could be based on a variety of reasons. I'm not looking for pats on the back for being Dr. Phil of GreaseSpot, I'm looking for the factual truth . And that is at present it is undocumentable ,that may change fine with me either way, but until it does I won't make a guess as to guilt.

Not what I said as usual. I never excused any crimes what I said was there are conflicting presentations both are undocumentable leaving one to pick, choose ,flip a coin, as to which is truth, maybe both are, the point we don't know, we were not there. Isn't that the standard you seem to hold me to. You were not there so your unqualified to speak? So were you ? No So you pick a view point that fits with how you feel toward the Way. Sorry not me I won't violate a persons rights on a whim. Your free to offer your opinion on what you believe to be true and I am free to as well and challenge that as having no evidence to support the words. Neither of us can speak with authority as we were not there. I choose to except the facts as they are undocumentable beyond words. That makes no one a liar, excuses no crimes ,it only verifies the facts as they are.

No need the Change..ling will provide .

Exactly so you were not present which means you don't really know what occured you picked a story you liked. Since you were not there geographicaly then you are not qualifed to speak I think that is the standard here. Again you fabricate words for me read what I said I never stated " all " I said many and that is factual. There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement. One picks which they choose to believe.

You assume I have called any story into question ,I have not. I have expressed no desire for anyone to not speak. Pure fabrication! What I have pointed out is that no guilt of crime has been documented or established. Unless you have some case number that you would like to contribute, then any discussion of guilt beyond opinion is not proven. You want to post an opinion feel free, declaring guilt when none has been established is a different matter.