WhiteDove

And so have my posts been documented. I believe her point was first hand knowledge and validity of such posts without it . Last I checked reading on greasespot was not the same as first hand knowledge. But nice try....

And by the way you seem to be quite outspoken on subjects like accidents in the Corps, rapes in the Corps exactly how many lead accidents did you see first hand? And I forget what Corps did you graduate from that gives you such experiance.?

She has asked no questions she has only assumed that she knows what and where I have been. That which I have spoke on is from personal experience, it is accurate, I have never spoke on things that I have no involvement with from personal experience such as the WOW program. By the way on your other matter quoting documented policy is admissible evidence. it shows intent and reasonable actions of the organization.

Again this is pure fabrication I have years of first hand interaction it is not limited to any geographic area. You have no idea what I have or have not done, pretty much because you were not there. You do however like to speak on things you have no experience in as evident in recent posts. By the way as you seem intent on misrepresenting my position, I have never challenged second hand information on basic or common place matters ,only when a charge of guilt in a crime is concerned as that is a serious charge and worthy of consideration before one just throws it around , The courts require such consideration and proof it is reasonable to request the same.

Not really, if you claim someone is guilty of a crime and have no record of such crime or guilt in said crime. It is simply not documented as factual. It also may be against the law. You may certainly state that it is your opinion they are guilty , you may even offer any personal testimony that one may have in argument of your position. But guilt is not established until due process of law is enacted. Until then it is a charge or accusation. There is no guilt or innocence, it remains to be proved or disproved.

Naw , no bunkum there the witnesses said they lied, the man was set free. Enough said....

Oh I have not left there by any means I just did what I asked someone else to do, who by the way started the conversation by dragging me into the thread. The only Bunkum is opinion being passed off as truth.

Oh I don't know they have lived in their house for a number of years, run a fellowship there. Seem to be enjoying life just fine at least last time I spoke with them. Johnny has been a good friend through the years. Oh and Bolshevic thanks for the offer to deliver eggs and TP ,but I think they have markets in those hoity-toity areas to get things like eggs TP and deodorant. Edited to add of course what do I know I only live in Kansas according to some posters. Then again I'll take on any challenges to the facts I post as being wrong.

Just a note the quote was RumRunners not mine.

In an effort to leave the JT thread intact and since some seem to have drug my name into this conversation,and want to pursue this topic further it seems,( despite the claims they like to ignore the posts) I moved the last few posts and replies here, if a Mod has time and wishes to move or delete posts not related to that thread it seems appropriate. QUOTE WhiteDove It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions. (Actually, no you don't) It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion. GarthP2000 My response to this is thusly: 1) Since VPW is now dead, and can't be charged (taken to court and all that), because of this, you seriously expect people to treat him as though he's innocent of all this? (due to legal definitions of innocence) As a matter of common factual knowledge outside the court? Like I said before, "What amounts to facts isn't solely determined by a court of law. Nor are conclusions based upon said facts solely limited to within a court of law." and that applies even to facts regarding criminal behavior. The difference here is that said 'defendant' isn't brought before the judge nor is his freedom taken away (again, because he's dead). No I expect people to have whatever OPINION that they want, but stating that OPINION as a guilty verdict or in terms as such, as a forgone conclusion, without said legal verdict is incorrect Your opinion may be that he is guilty, mine may be the same, but it is not a statement of fact as there is no case or verdict to conclude such. 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, ..... 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. and 3) I Just realized something. It is to protect people's freedom from being falsely imprisoned that the concept of innocent until proved guilty was constructed, NOT specifically because to protect someone's reputation from common knowledge accusations. Yes Virginia, there is a difference. And yes, there is also legal remedies in our law to deal with false accusations made outside the court of law. It has to do with laws (and lawsuits) against libel, slander, and character assassinations. ... SO if what we're saying here at GS about VPW being 'guilty' of said sexual abuses amounts to libel, slander, and character assassinations, all a VPW apologist has to do is take us to court. And I'd be willing to bet that those of us who do 'accuse' VPW of said acts are confident enough in what we're saying that we're not gonna back down, so go ahead and call Judge Wapner! _____________________________________________________________________________ QUOTE (WhiteDove @ Feb 12 2009, 02:46 PM) On the other side of the fence is numbers that will say they are right in what they believe. Numbers are not the telling of truth . Proof is hard evidence, and due process of law when you are accusing one of a crime. Everyone has a point of view you choose to believe the ones you do because they support your agenda. I choose to believe no man's words show me the verdict and you can refer to one as guilty. Rascal Again, that is just not a fair representation of the facts Dove. Number one, I have no agenda. I consider that statement a personal attack on my integrity as a poster here. Number 2 is that I think that what you CHOOSE to do is ignore anything that contradicts your limited perceptions of a part of twi and it`s people whom you never personally interacted with yourself in order to try to support your theories. Fine, thats what YOU do....However, when you stoop to misrepresenting the people or the facts involved in order to attempt to make your point, you WILL be called on it. You have no idea of who I have personally interacted with, and when you have something other someone's testimony then you can speak as to what is a fact ,as facts can be proven. _____________________________________________________________________________ RumRunner Not worth the fight Rascal. WD clearly has never read - or perhaps understood - the congressional ruling of 1975 titled Federal Rules of Evidence. This ruling clearly states the the most common form of evidence is provided by witnesses. It has certain regulation regarding competency to testify etc but it CLEARLY recognizes witnesses as the most common form of evidentiary discovery. While WD is a good writer - he would fail my most basic logic classes. Let him ride his magic carpet - he's having fun - but his posts are, generally, not worth responding to. Well Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of rum actually I am familiar with the afore mentioned document. You seem to have a lapse in memory I never said that witnesses were not evidence, but just because they have testimony does not mean that it is automatically accepted as the truth as some seem to think. It is presented as part of a case ,provided it meets criteria, and cross examined, and supported by hard evidence exhibits. So as I said just because someone says so does not mean it is truth or that it is not truth, that remains for the process to determine. Which I'll just point out has not happened as such we have no concrete statement of truth. It is yet to be proven. _____________________________________________________________________________ QUOTE Whitedove It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions . It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion. QUOTE (Oakspear @ Feb 12 2009, 02:13 PM) One does not preclude the other. RumRunner Well the key there Oak is that court IS public opinion with the exception of the Supreme Court. Jurors are selected from the public - interviewed, selected and sworn in. However those jurors are the public. While they are expected to be impartial - they are still humans - the public - and hence a so called real trial is nothing more than downsizing and pre-selecting the amount of public who will determine guilt and in some cases recommend sentencing. Except you omitted a few other relevant facts such as they are sworn to uphold the truth, not admit personal opinion as facts, and a variety of other things that go on in an internet website under the guise of truth. So while they may have the element of being human people as the same, they don't allow for the free for all and bias that some take license with here. To compare the jury here with a real jury is laughable at best and certainly not even close to resembling the same thing. _____________________________________________________________________________ QUOTE (WhiteDove @ Feb 12 2009, 08:37 PM) Perhaps you need to reread before you fabricate charges. I have never questioned anyones right to speak ,nor to have their opinion ,when opinion is presented as absolute fact and verdicts are rendered as true without the benefit of due process then yes I will point that fact out. I see no place where I was Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns. Nor was a worried about impressing you. Here we go again, indeed. Pete WD: on reflection, perhaps my use of the word "right" was a bit inconsidered, particularly from a Brit to a Colonial, where the word may have slightly stronger connotations for you. However, if I can rephrase this, I am intending to imply that your intention is to dissuade people from posting statements that disagree with your personal view point. This is more than corroborated by your comments above where you do indeed appear to be saying that you should only post an opinion when it is "absolute fact" ??? Am I reading you right ? If so, this in itself questions people who are voicing anything that doesn't conform to your personal view of what is an "absolute fact". Opinion may consist of viewpoints that are subjective and consequently cannot be expected to conform to your "absolute fact" criterion. Since you wish to take my comments as a personal affront, I'd have to respond to you by saying that I'm not at all concerned how you feel about the fact that a particular statement didn't impress me, in fact it is entirely irrelevent. It still doesn't impress me and I think that you may be able to take that as an absolute fact, although I'm not entirely sure what your idea of an "absolute fact" is, but have the horrible premonition that another protracted definition is about to follow. God help us ! No you are not. I have never dissuaded anyone from doing such, I have pointed out that facts are facts and opinion is opinion ,not always the same thing. That which is factual and that which is a personal opinion are two different things , one should not be misrepresented as the other. Example It is a fact that we just had an election in the USA, My opinion of the elected is mine it will not be one in the same with everyone's, it may be truth it may not be. To state my opinion in the absolute as truth is incorrect ,I can certainly feel free to voice it and others can feel free to challenge that opinion, that is not dissuading anybody. What I said was post opinion as opinion and facts as facts Be most assured that I have not taken your comments as personal, I simply responded to your words that you were not impressed, to clarify that was not my purpose ,or mission to impress you. by the way it has nothing to do with you specifically I would say the same of any poster here. I have no need to impress anyone ,and some would agree that I have not

It's pretty simple when you accuse and pronounce guilty someone of a crime and sexual abuse is one, you take the discussion out of the realm of common knowledge discussions . It is a criminal offence and as such requires criminal investigation and prosecusion. and a fair trial....A real one. that places it in a court no longer public opinion. Good that is one less post to answer..... Thanks for doing your part.

On the other side of the fence is numbers that will say they are right in what they believe. Numbers are not the telling of truth . Proof is hard evidence, and due process of law when you are accusing one of a crime. Everyone has a point of view you choose to believe the ones you do because they support your agenda. I choose to believe no man's words show me the verdict and you can refer to one as guilty.

Perhaps you need to reread before you fabricate charges. I have never questioned anyones right to speak ,nor to have their opinion ,when opinion is presented as absolute fact and verdicts are rendered as true without the benefit of due process then yes I will point that fact out. I see no place where I was Questioning someone's right to voice their honest concerns. Nor was a worried about impressing you.

So he is the voice of truth we are just supposed to suck down whatever he says? Sorry just because he said so does not make it so. Nor does it make it not. Given his obvious bias from his post record I'd say his impartiality is questionable

The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies). First, the presumption is not a true presumption at all.[1] An objective observer in the position of the juror would reasonably conclude that the defendant probably committed the crime with which he is charged.[2] The observable facts clearly support such an inference—the defendant has been charged with a crime, is present in court, represented by an attorney and all the participants in a criminal trial are also present and ready to proceed.[3] The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[4] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[5] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[4]To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence this decision cannot be used against him. The jury or judge is not to draw any inferences against the defendant from the fact that he has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on the evidence presented during the trial. The phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. In every case, the defendant either committed the offense or he did not; a fact that will remain true regardless of whether the jury acquits or convicts the defendant. The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.

Well someone is pulling my feathers again....... Your correct Garth witnesses support an accusation ,but an accusation is just that, nothing more, it is not the same as a guilty verdict. Accusations are given due process of law such as in the Duke rape case. They are examined and collaborated with hard evidence, questioned ,cross examined and so forth and a verdict is rendered. I believe in that case there were a couple of accusations, which did not stand the test of the law. Good thing for them they did not see things with your view. Just because several say so does not guarantee it was so, or that it was not so. It seems you have the issues Garth you want to render a verdict without the system of justice we have in this country. I prefer innocent until proven guilty, despite what I may or may not personally believe.

A song for Raf and Family I think this is just a beautiful song, perhaps you can use it for a background for all those wonderful pictures you will have. Angel's Lullaby I was never alive 'Til the day I was blessed with you When I hold you late at night I know what I was put here to do I turn off the world and listen to you sigh And I will sing my Angel's Lullaby Know I'm forever near The one you can always call Right all you know to fear Are the shadows on your wall I'm here close enough To kiss the tears you cry And I will sing my Angel's Lullaby So tell me how to stop the years from racing Is there a secret someone knows? I'll never catch all the memories I'm chasing I'll never be ready to let go And when the world seems cold And you feel that all of your strength is gone There may be one tiny voice Your reason to carry on And when I'm not close enough To kiss the tears you cry You will sing your Angel's Lullaby Let this be our Angel's Lullaby

Just got in from the after party, awesome show they played for 2 1/2 hrs straight. There's No Place Like Home ...... is in the can & coming soon. IT WAS BITTERSWEET I wish founding members Robbie Steinhardt and Dave Hope could have made the show, it would have been nice to see the whole group together again for the anniversary. Other than that they rocked the house, except for one small technical moment when they lost the sound for a moment in mid song but they picked it up at the break where they left off and I'm sure it will edit in fine on the DVD. Steve's voice was in strong form ,although not the youthful range he had some thirty years ago. It was Kansas stripped down to their best , Gone were the Pyro and lasers of the past, no back flips over the keyboard rack or handstands on the organ from Steve Walsh just the sound that took them to the top many years ago. Steve Morse from Deep Purple sat in on his Kansas songs from his time in the 80s and the finale where all the guys Kansas past and present played some songs together. I can't believe it has been thirty-five years where did the time go? I remember when they came back from recording the first album and had a release party. They played at the Agricultural Hall at the fairgrounds, no seats, everyone sat packed on the concrete floor. They had no money for effects so someone got the bright idea to fill a metal strip with gunpowder and ignite it, at the front of the stage, it almost singed off their faces. As I made my way up the walkway to the concert hall tonight ...just for a brief moment I swear I saw that old yellow" White Clover" School Bus parked out back waiting as it had faithfully for many years for the boys to load up after the show. There's No Place Like Home ......

The Topeka born progressive rock band will be filming a DVD at White Concert hall tonight backed by a full symphony orchestra. Commemorating the 35th anniversary of the release of the self titled debut album Kansas. Special gusts will include returning founding members and former band members. Also featured will be the use of the concert halls grand old pipe organ. Kansas long ago abandoned the Hammond B3 organ with the Leslie due to it's moving weight on tour. In my opinion they never were able to reproduce that signature sound since then. That old pipe organ is in for a ride when Steve Walsh takes the keyboard tonight. This should be an awesome show with the backing of the full symphony and the pipe organ. Got to rock on, you wayward sons........ Got To Rock On It's no fun hanging around winter seems so numbing Getting fat where I sit down do you suppose it's old age coming I get this feeling I'm no good for nothing life has led me wrong Once in a while it makes it all worthwhile if I can sing this song Got to rock on I can't be this way I'm hanging around but wait till music's in season That's when I'm high that is how I play and I do it the best that's all I need for a reason Can't think straight can't think at all staring out the window Hear the band I hear them call everything will disappear and I get the feeling I can conquer anything gets in my way Don't need no doctor 'caus I know exactly what I need today I Got to rock on I can't be this way I'm hanging around but wait till music's in season That's when I'm high that is how I play and I do it the best that's all I need for a reason The sun beats down upon me and it looks as tough that spring Has waited long enough to get here she knows that I must Sing about her future oh sing about her past I love to play my music And I try to make it last but sometimes summer comes too fast Got to rock on I can't be this way I'm hanging around but wait till music's in season That's when I'm high that is how I play and I do it the best Got to rock on I can't be this way I'm hanging around but wait till music's in season That's when I'm high that is how I play hey, Yeah.. and I do it the best that's all I need for a reason Got to rock On !

Johnny lives in Beaver Creek out side of Dayton

I could not agree more perhaps if some would have a point rather than trying to take parts of sentences out of context or just plain old make s**t up and imply that a poster said it we all would be less tired.