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.

I think your right thanks for your honesty. As you pointed out it certainly is not doing them any favors, nothing wrong with that either.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually I think Groucho post was more to the point. This is an anti twi website, although had I said that it would have been opposed as not true , at least one person has the honesty to admit it. Therein lies the problem, reason and rationality depart in favor of a mission, an agenda. No good statement must be tolerated. Of course, I upset the apple cart of those who wish to stay in the past and relive day after day any bad experience in the way. I make no apologies for honest and fair treatment of people, for upholding the rights we have as citizen's of this country. Bias does not allow me to remove such from anyone.

You can offer your opinion any conformation of guilt must have proof or it's alleged well if one speaks correctly anyway.

I've been expecting you I was wondering when you might show up. As long as you don't pass off opinion as a charge of guilt in a crime No

No I have defended our rights as Americans

Yeah here is another definintion 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.

Thanks ,but if I cared what anyone thought I might be concerned, but I'm not.

I guess not it must not have been important or I would have remembered. By the way you are free to perceive anything you like it does not make it so. Check the posts I'm actually in favour of speaking. I believe I mentioned it several times on this thread alone although if you check it seems a women is advocating that others have no right to speak. As usual you have it confused. And it can be accepted as non factual as well. So? It prooves nothing. Until a guilty verdict is rendered there is no guilt to speak of.

And get back to me when you have a court decision until then it is not established it is testimony subject to the process of law. Yep much like the accusations have none of the above to substantiate them . You have nothing but unproved accusations.

For someone that seems to regularly accuse others of trying to silence you It seems odd that you want others to stop speaking. No double standard there. You can voice any opinion that you want and I am free to do the same and point out when and if guilt is indeed established or assumed. Just as you are allowed to assume guilt has been established.

And that is exactly what I have maintained is lacking.... proof ,we have testimony one side of the story, that is not proof ,it comes with trying the testimony much as testimony in any case you have two points of view generally opposite, we don't get to just pick the one that agrees with our point of view and declare it proof. We also have testimony on here of people that have confirmed mutual agreed relationships. So do I get to declare their version as proof? Not if we are going to treat this in a fair manner. Despite any personal opinion one way or another we must examine evidence and upon doing so it is inconclusive. We have two possible choices and only the ones involved will ever know the truth it appears. The rest of us can pick a point of view based on like or dislike or a variety of other reasons, but we were not there it is a guess, an opinion ,not a proven fact ,as you yourself said guilt requires.

Had you done your research you would see that the crimes you speak of were also not committed in America ,trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel in other countries to prove your point on how it somehow applies to law here is beyond me. No issue dodging the laws in Guyana are not applicable here.You can persue your point on your own it does not apply to this subject.

It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work? I think your right it is of lesser consequence as is anyone else no longer around. Once they realized they had no shot at salvaging their president, he also went by the wayside. No pun intended. They have nothing to gain as they have distanced themselves from the Weirwille name.

Well I can't control that you insert statements that are misleading, misquoting, and have no point to the subject perhaps if you stop and read before you engage it will save us all some time ,then again when one can not prove their point it is the tactic to try to confuse the issue here.

Really? cause you might look just up a few posts Rascal post #86 to see that apparently someone has and does not care if I like it. So much for your point ,I can find lots more by the way this one was just too easy.