WhiteDove

Sheesh W.D.

You've been calling folks dishonest for a long time, and fairly often too.

Whas up wit dat?

Now you complain about being showed your distortion of the definition of "guilty" that you yourself did. And while arguing an irrelevant point you think that it proves that because you are alone here at the Greasespot in your distortion in the course of an irrelevant point that you stand alone on the truth.

Another option to consider is that maybe your points are just that bad.

I can see needing to stand against everyone when the truth is at stake. I think that is a tremendous stand to take.

I really, really wish that I could perceive you in that manner W.D.

But irrelevance and dishonesty on your part has convinced me that you are not doing this at the Greasespot in general.

But what the heck, at least you are persistent. :B)

(edited for spelling)

You are incorrect I have never stated that. I have stated that records were not documented by hard evidence as such it is only testimony. Words out of someone's mouth ,one can choose to accept anything that comes out of a mouth, or not their privilege. I don't, simple as that, my privilege. words are cheap, one can say anything , facts, proof are harder to come by. I prefer to have the truth especially when accusing one of a crime. And yes I will be consistent because innocent until proven guilty is at the foundation of American rights.

I agree wholeheartedly that if this were criminal court that Wierwille, LCM, Geer, and TWI would have the right of presumed innocence. Your whole point has NO RELEVANCE here though.

So I suppose that you can claim that you are just holding with the context of this thread that you started W.D. if you want to. If this was a formal court you would have a good point.

But I remember you rehashing this point many times mentioning the court of "public opinion" right here at the Greasespot. That rule does not apply here.

Just as I said earlier that I was capable of judging you to be guilty of cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to prove your irrelevant point, I am also capable of judging TWI to be guilty of many abuses. The parallel is simple to me.

I am saying that by cherry-picking the definition of "guilty" to suit your irrelevant point you were deliberately distorting the definition to suit your purposes, whatever they may be W.D.

Is it too fine a distinction to call a deliberate distortion a lie to you W.D.?

It is pretty clear to me.

Roll those eyes all you want!

It doesn't change what you did.

But sadly enough, it looks like getting called on you dishonesty is not going to lead to any change in your actions.

A good Christian lesson is to confess one's sin. And every other ethical system that I know of has this principle somewhere in their cultural norms.

You are definitely committed to whatever it is that you believe. But without this basic core honesty in your heart, what have you really got there W.D.?

My splinter group leader went so far as to openly mocking the concept of honesty when it suited him. IMO he only did that to get people to go along with his lies.

When people are like that you cannot believe anything that comes out of their mouths.

What's next after lying to get one's own way?

How about physical intimidation? That can be effective too.

How about isolating and marginalizing the opposition? What good Christian behavior that is.

How about taking away their families? That can break them too W.D.

Like I said before W.D. About the only thing that I'm wondering about you now is how far are you willing to go to get your own way. In other words, I have formed an opinion about you (without the benefit of a legal trial mind you) and now it seems to me to simply be a question of when and if you'll stop.

It's similar to a person who will take a big bribe, but not a small one. Either way, I know what they really are.

(edited for grammar)

Typos are not lies Jeff just as Potatoe's was not

I've explained my position I won't be baited into a discussion of your derail, and that is your purpose.

By the way calling someone a liar is against the rules here .....just Sayin

For those who may not know a reprint of an old article.

Also a snopes report HERE

ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center Issues Cocoa Bean Fertilizer Warning

Friday March 14, 2003

Organic mulch fertilizer may pose hazard to dogs.

Contacts: Deborah Sindell

(212)-876-7700 ext. 4658

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(URBANA, IL) March 13, 2003 -- As spring approaches, people will start to tend their lawns and gardens. Many will consider using cocoa bean mulch as a fertilizer. Made from spent cocoa beans used in chocolate production, cocoa bean mulch is organic, deters slugs and snails, and gives a garden an appealing chocolate smell. However, it also attracts dogs, who can easily be poisoned by eating the mulch.

Cocoa beans contain the stimulants caffeine and theobromine. Dogs are highly sensitive to these chemicals, called methylxanthines. In dogs, low doses of methylxanthine can cause mild gastrointestinal upset (vomiting, diarrhea, and/or abdominal pain); higher doses can cause rapid heart rate, muscle tremors, seizures, and death.

Eaten by a 50-pound dog, about 2 ounces of cocoa bean mulch may cause gastrointestinal upset; about 4.5 ounces, increased heart rate; about 5.3 ounces, seizures; and over 9 ounces, death. (In contrast, a 50-pound dog can eat up to about 7.5 ounces of milk chocolate without gastrointestinal upset and up to about a pound of milk chocolate without increased heart rate.)

If you suspect that your dog has eaten cocoa bean mulch, immediately contact your veterinarian or the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center (1-888-426-4435). Treatment will depend on how much cocoa bean mulch your dog has eaten, when the mulch was eaten, and whether your dog is sick. Recommended care may include placing your dog under veterinary observation, inducing vomiting, and/or controlling a rapid heart beat or seizures

And.......I find it amusing that you continue to try and create compelling arguments supporting wierwille's ministry when you've never gone WOW, never went inresidence corps........or never viewed much of twi outside of Kansas.

Say what you will, WD......it's a discussion forum.

Just because you post alot doesn't mean you have any credibility. And, when you say that posters here "gang up on you" it's because you're "a pot calling the kettle black" or you're using twi propaganda to explain twi and twi programs. Of course, you already know that.....you seek conflict.

<_<

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.

just wanted to requote WD's quote of himself and point out that although he cries out for "proof" by way of "hard evidence", the federal rules of evidence admit testimony by witnesses as "evidence", and I'd also like to point out that vpw is not entitled to due process of law because he's dead and therefore his constitutional rights have terminated, which of course puts him outside of the legal process altogether, and makes the question of his guilt an academic exercise not confined within the bounds that WD says it should be.

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 .

Consider this WD: Had TWI allowed reasonable discourse and a reasonable means to deal with issues - there would be no GSC. As such, the few pro-TWI message boards that do exist do NOT allow anyone to speak badly about TWI. While I'm reasonably sure there are more than a few here who wish you'd put a sock in it, you have been largely unmolested and have suffered very little in the way of personal attacks on this board.

I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about things that are out of the realm of possibility about a guy who most here think is a scum bag. Very few here are going to have an epiphany about the guy because they already have. I guess that makes you the eternal optimist.

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.

must correct myself, should not summarize research when running a fever!

criminal court should read civil court!

Better wach out Jeff will say your lying, you know typos are lies.....

With the added burden of malice in telling a falsehood. Limited public figure. . . Carol Burnett aside, it rarely EVER happens.

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.

WD.....you continue in this black/white mentality.

Its YOU against GS.......every statement, every opinion challenges you. Had you gone WOW or inresidence corps, or left your state......you might have more exposure to the ills and abuses in twi.

Even I have stated that there was some good in twi.....else, why would so many of us have stayed there all those years? When you, WD, make blanket statements like "no good statement must be tolerated"......you simply expose your lack of critical thinking skills and your defensive posturing for wierwille/twi. Life just isn't that simple.....all black or all white.

Isn't it time to move away from this juvenile black/white mentality?

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.

you should change the emphasis to "it is a definition of the word it changes nothing". I listed ALL definitions from the source for the words I was posting about, and I was really clear which words the definitions were for and what my source was. I did not CHANGE the word from guilty to guilt. I actually posted definitions for both words (COMPLETE definitions, not cherry-picked) among others pertaining to this discussion. if the word was changed, it was by you because you didn't even tell us what word you were giving your definition for.

so, you gave your cherry-picked selection for "guilty" as in "guilty verdict"? because we're not talking about guilty verdicts here, we're talking about "guilty" or "having guilt". it's already been established that vpw has no right to due process of the law because he's dead, therefore "presumption of innocence" does not apply.

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.

Dove, does it not strike you as ironic that you have pronounced so many of US *guilty* of fabricating?

You who claim that our accounts are not factual.....make these accusations without any facts of your own to base this on?

If it was only 300 people (and I don`t believe it was...I think there are many more) that got mistreated enough in twi to want to talk about what happened....then as far as I am concerned that was 300 people too many to suffer at the hands of those who offered us healing. Please allow us top discuss our experiences.

As far as the way corpes site having a different flavor, could it possibly be because it`s purpose is different? Why not enjoy the commeradary that is offered there, and allow the people here to implement the resources of this site and use it for the purpose for which it was intended?

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.

White Dove,

You see, your mistake does change things as far as to whether you are making a sound point.

What can I say, as soon as I saw your initial post I "knew" that you were playing fast and loose with the dictionary to make your point. And the way you cherry picked the definition of "guilty" proves it. The most basic definition of "Guilty" has nothing to do with a court of law. But you excluded the most basic definition and made your point, which if I understand you is that we don't have the right to consider Wierwille to be guilty.

You then said, "Need I say more....."

Well, yes White Dove, you needed to say more.

Your exclusion of all the other aspects of the word "guilty" shows that you are blatantly distorting the defintion of "guilty" to make your point.

I do not relish that our history of posting back and forth made it obvious to me that you were doing this as soon as I saw your post.

But that is what you did.

No, I won't sue you, I don't need a court to see that you are guilty of distortion of the definition to make your own point.

And I find it mearly annoying that after you distort the meaning of "guilty" that you say "Need I say more....." as if you made the case or as if we should all bow to your excellent sentence.

If you want to make a sound point White Dove, you should learn to quit distorting things. I feel that it is a long established habit for you.

(edited for spelling)

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.

ever consider that's why you get the "reception" you do here? That is EXACTLY what was wrong with the old ministry.. loy didn't care, the vicster didn't care who he gut stripped..

they KNEW what their actions would produce.. and they simply did not CARE what kind of effect they had..

now this is just an observation.. I've SYSTEMATICALLY seen you draw out the worst sarcasm from the gentlest people here..

and a further observation.. GENERALLY, the sarcasm is deserved..

but you don't care. It's your life..

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 said it when you said their testimonies were non-factual. if they are non-factual, then they are fantasy, so must be fabrications or hallucinations.

More fabrication I said they were not necessarily fact you see there is usually two differing ones, as such both can't be fact one or both could be right,part right or wrong. that would be why facts need to be proven to see what is correct. This is police 101.

weird, this is what it says when I look it up:

naturally synonyms for "convicted" would be of interest here if the word "convicted" was relevant.

Convicted was a synonoym

This is the definition of guilt from Webster's New World College Dictionary; on-line

1. The state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical

2. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral

3. conduct that involves guilt; crime; sin

__________________

From the same dictionary....guilty

1. having guilt; deserving blame or punishment; culpable

2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

3. showing or conscious of guilt

4.of or involving guilt or a sense of guilt

___________________

You cherry pick the dictionary to fit your premise W.D.

Just as potato did which was my point dictionaries are only good for so much.

Personally, I feel that if Wierwille felt the normal human pangs of consciousness you wouldn't now be in this predicament.

I can judge Wierwille guilty without having a jury say so. He deserves blame. See def. #1

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

Is this a court of law? NO

Is the government looking to convict someone because of what is said here? NO

Is anyone entitled to their opinion? YES

Are the things I'VE witnessed and I'VE heard first hand "testimony"? YES

Now- is there really a reason to go further?

I think not... <_<

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

Obviously...your desire to defend VP Wierwille is apparent to all...

A plagiarist, a liar, a drunk and an adulterer....this is the path YOU have chosen...it should be obvious to you that you are in an anti twi website...why bother?...

No I have defended our rights as Americans

wheras in the first part of the argument for the plaintiff Mr. VPW, WD again puts forth the claim that the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the plaintiff have fabricated their testimony, yet fails to offer any evidence of his claim:

Never happened, pure fabrication show me that argument.

being as their testimony is full of facts, and that consistent testimony is given into evidence, said evidence is accepted as factual in the absence of contradicting evidence.

wheras in the second part, WD confuses the process of law with the facts of case, and we the people offer into evidence testimony by Mr. Webster that proves someone CAN be guilty without ever stepping into a courtroom:

Webster says:

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.

no, I have an OPINION. And it usually takes me a lot of consideration to form one.. but post after post after post.. that's what you come off to me as..

a NOVICE. The arguments.. could be easily debated by a freshman in high school..

I'm not calling you an idiot, or bad names here.. it's just, if people had that perception of me, I would want to know.

I'm really being polite here..

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

I often times find that it is worthless to argue with some people over points that do not apply here like sophmorically missapplied legal standards.

But I do remember what I do when I perceive that several thugs are trying to make one woman shut up. Do you remember White Dove?

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.

actually, it is not subject to the process of law until such a time as someone brings suit against the testimony in question. until that time, the testimony can be accepted as factual even though it has not been entered as evidence in a court of law.

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.

did you actually read http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence? I know you quoted an uncited wikipedia article to support your position on evidence, but that's a pretty weak source. so far, no one has stepped forward to say they were with vpw to testify he could not have committed the crimes in question. NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR HIS NAME, and there are sufficient, independent sources of evidence indicating his guilt.

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.

Seems to me..

should I say it?

Arguing with wd about the vicster's guilt or lack therof.. is like arguing with Mike about the supposed merits of pfal..

Just an observation. Don't take it personally, but wd.. you really seem to be what's the word..

a NOVICE. A novice, in legal matters.. about as qualified to judge legal matters as a barely post-freshman psychology major is qualified to practice psychiatry..

at least that's what I perceive in your posts..

they seem SOPHMORIC. That's the word. No documentation with case law.. court records.. just assertions of sophmoric legal mumbo jumbo that a real professional would not waste the time to debate with you..

don't take it as a personal attack. You are probabaly otherwise a wonderful human being..

they seem SOPHMORIC. That's the word. No documentation with case law.. court records.. just assertions of sophmoric legal mumbo jumbo that a real professional would not waste the time to debate with you..

Yep much like the accusations have none of the above to substantiate them . You have nothing but unproved accusations.

Then stop interfering with allowing us to form our own opinions based on the evidence presented here by the first hand accounts of so many.

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.

WhiteDove,

The reason your (desperate sounding) arguments against my Hitler example and the Waysider's Jim Jones example is flawed is that we are using them to illustrate the principle that you initially alluded to in the beginning: ie., that one is presumed innocent until determined guilty in a court of law. Notice that just because a U.S. court isn't involved does that nullify said principle. The principle remains the same, and Yes Virginia, we shall pursue that here.

So why are Hitler and Jones still assumed to be and declared to be guilty according to common and historical knowledge? Because of the facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information communicated, and that said facts/evidence/witnesses/other viable information hasn't been successfully challenged/debunked. It's known as historical fact, the kind of fact that isn't subject to any court of law. (Remember what I said before about a fact not requiring a court of law for it to be determined fact? A statement that _you_ agreed to?)

Now strictly and technically speaking, neither Hitler, Jim Jones, nor V. P. Wierwille have been _convicted to be guilty in any court of law_. They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts. ... Ie., say a Holocaust denier wants to have Hitler rendered 'innocent' of being determined guilty of being the driving force behind having 6 million Jews slaughtered. The burden of proof would be upon them to prove said Holocaust a fabrication or otherwise untrue, ... and NOT a burden to show guilt be upon those who have already historically shown Hitler to be guilty in said things. ... Same for the Jim Jones incident. ... Same for Wierwille.

The evidence against Wierwille has already been solidly presented: by those who have experienced 1st hand his abuses, by those who knew him well and have heard/seen his abuses/excuses, by those who have seen/documented his dishonest behavior and 'scholarly research' ((cough)) that show relative and supportive light upon his said abuses. (The "all the women belong to the king" clap-trap being but one example of this. The teaching re: the lock box being another and even more classic example)

You remind me of a certain attorney who, after the court has already gone into session, evidence has been presented and argued both pro and con, closing arguments have been made, jury has gone into seclusion and come back out and rendered its "Guilty!" verdict, the prisoner has been carted off to prison, the judge has banged his gavel and declared "Court adjourned!", and everybody has left and gone home, ....

... just now entered the courtroom, looks around and says "Hey! Where'd everybody go?! I want to make my case for the defendant!"

Boy, you are a tad late! Ie., The horse has already left the barn and is halfway down the county!

<_<

P.S., Your tagline reads "TRUTHFULNESS - earning future trust by accurately reporting past facts"

... s-o-o when are you going to start? ... accurately reporting past facts, that is? All I see here is you're using/manipulating 'legal sounding logic' in rendering the 'innocent until proven guilty' concept in a dishonest manner, ... (and Yes Virginia) it _is_ for the purpose to defend VPW's reputation of being 'presumed' innocent of said accusations. And I make that accusation because (despite your claims of consistency to the contrary) this issue re: VPW has been the only time you have ever been this insistent. Just about all other arguments you have taken part in your 'strict dedication' to the facts have come nowhere near this level of anality. (<-- a condition of being anal)

But then again, my interpretation of said evidence is just that: my interpretation. But that interpretation is based upon continuous observations of what/how you post, and my past experience with apologists who have the kind of loyalty to the object of their defense to a near blind degree. So I think that my interpretation is quite solid.

Oh, by the way, since you have not been 'accurately reporting past facts' re: this issue, you have not earned my future trust.

They have been, however, determined to be guilty in the 'court' (as it were) of historical fact, a 'court' that requires proof to _discount_ said facts

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.

GarthP2000 said:

2) As a classic precedence illustrating this principle, would Adolph Hitler's crimes against humanity also be subject to said principle? (Why won't you deal with that point?) Remember, he wasn't charged either, and since what people say he did amounted to crimes, ... against humanity, .....

WD responded:

Adolph Hitler is not an American he is not subject to our legal standards his case is different from VP's if you wish to make a case for him feel free.

Relevant point being stressed by WD: Adolph Hitler is not an American

We have been discussing crimes alleged to have been committed in the USA and how the law may or may not apply. We were not discussing straw man arguments from other parts of the world, which whose guilt or innocence have no direct bearing on these crimes

Two points 1. not even American and the second which you omitted 2. he is not subject to our civil legal standards

waysider responded:

Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?

(He was an American.)

WD responded:

It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?

waysider responded:

Simple.

You're the one who protested that the prior Hitler example was not valid based on the fact that he was not American.

Now, when I give you an example of someone who IS American, you suddenly have a new excuse to evade the issue.

Do you really think that if you remove something two steps from its original context that people won't see you are dodging the issue?

WD responded:

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.

******************************************

Point of note:

WD's original objection to Garth's inquiry was that Hitler was not American.

WD was supplied with an example of someone who was American but found a new excuse to avoid answering the following question: "Was Jim Jones ever convicted of his crimes at Jonestown?"

***************************************

Sounds like dodging to me but that's just my opinion.

No sounds like trying to inject a straw man argument into the conversation. civil law and international law are not one in the same.

edit: Not only was Jones an American, his victims were, as well.

(Likewise for Leo Ryan, the elected U.S. official whose assassination was facilitated by Jones)

Simple.

You're the one who protested that the prior Hitler example was not valid based on the fact that he was not American.

Now, when I give you an example of someone who IS American, you suddenly have a new excuse to evade the issue.

Do you really think that if you remove something two steps from its original context that people won't see you are dodging the issue?

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.

Then when a scenario that DID include the U.S. legal system was cited (Jim Jones), no definitive answer was ever presented.

*****************************************

Do you suppose the motorcoach ever had any "passengers" when it crossed state lines?

It was your example site your own definitive answer why should I do your work?

excellent point, Tzaia. does twi also have a right to bring suit to defend his reputation? seems like they, if anyone, would have the most to gain by taking it to court, if they could win, which after reading the federal rules of evidence seems highly unlikely. they don't have any problem going after other churches that use the name "the way", but apparently vpw's pristine reputation is of lesser consequence.

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.

BUT the phrase "presumption of innocence" ONLY applies to the judiciary process that assumes that most people are not criminals. As others have pointed out, the presumption of innocence is a legal statement, not a factual statement. A person can be legally innocent of a crime, yet be factually guilty. A person can also be legally guilty of a crime, yet be factually innocent. The statement "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard that must be adhered to outside of its intended purpose - which is to give all accused the right to a fair trial.

It's actually an alleged factual statement as is yet to be proven it is a fact only to the few people involved all others posting of it's fact have no knowledge that it is ,they simply choose to believe those that were present Or not. When you make charges of guilty you then take it from factual to legal it is a legal charge to a crime. If it happened it is a fact, but one must prove the if, it is not automatic just because one says so, no more so than it is because one says it it not so. Each must be backed up before it is factual. That is why we have investigations after testimony is taken to determine what is factual.

VPW is dead and can't defend himself against the accusations of sexual misconduct, which did not come to light until his death. However, the other allegations, such as his diploma mill doctorate and the plagiarism were never refuted by him - at least not legally. Furthermore, neither TWI nor his heirs have gone after anyone who has claimed sexual abuse at the hands of VPW. The reason why that has not happened (IMO) is because TWI and heirs would then have the burden of proof against the accusers. They weren't able to prove LCM's innocence against his accusers and ended up settling. Do you think TWI would fare any better if they were to take the offensive against posters here regarding VPW's behavior? Let me remind you that TWI has a low threshold of tolerance regarding being seen in an unseemly way (think Rocky Horror - AOTS and Talk Soup), so this ignoring the posts here IMO has more to do with no ground rather than taking any high road.

I think that lack of action on the part of TWI and VPW's heirs should speak volumes to you or any of his apologists about where TWI and his heirs think they stand with regards to defending VPW's honor and integrity as the former president of TWI.

Not really ,some things are too expensive, too time consuming, for the end benefit to pursue as some have pointed out here lack of pursuit does not mean no crime was committed. It works both ways. I'll not choose to speculate on what the outcome of a event may be or could be.