Deciderator

Thank you, Eyes. I don't think this is the place for sarcasm. Indeed the topic is a sensitive one, and respect and good manners are called for in my view. Sky answered in his fashion and I accept it. I have noticed that a number of people automatically conflate mention of God's Word with PFAL as if they are Siamese twins or something. For me, though I learned the phrase "The Word, the Word and nothing but the Word" first in twig and then in the class, I have kept the phrase but haven't had anything to do with TWI since 1990. It's a distant memory, but the phrase lives on because I believe it is important. As Larry pointed out quoting the class and Ephesians 6, to bw strong in the Lord, and not VP, the Pope, Billy Graham or Chris Rock. Though things are long past, decades have gone by, children born and grown, and all the rest, some seem stuck to conflating anything spiritual they hear toTWI and PFAL. It's as if the more they criticize, the tighter they are tied to what they criticize and they are never able to break free. I am pleased to be in agreement with you.To me, the way I find out who God and Jesus Christ are is by going to the Bible. Of course when I pray during the course of the day I don't need to open the Book. This is a point I would prefer to respond to at another time since I am not seeking debate but more of a discussion. I am a stranger to y'all, and y'all to me. Not knowing the specifics, I can't say much, and would prefer to keep the conversation on point. I will say that on that general point I would have posted in support of you. To understand the Bible, books on manners and customs have been very helpful to me as well as Bullinger's figures of speech book and a number of other books on texts, as well as lexicons, etc.I try all along, though, to keep my focus on what the Bible is saying to me, and I try to filter out editorial comment from anyone. I see no reason to not take you seriously, either. You strike me as someone who may very well turn out to be be quite a blessing to me. Plus I like strong intelligent women anyways.............. .

I was told only the BOT were members and I always thought of it as fellowshipping with them, even when I ran a twig. I have avoided TWI because I believe it is vital for God's people to emain focussed on the Word. People come and go, but the Word of God liveth and abideth forever! Love ya, dooj

I agree. The way I understand it, the reason OJ could be put on trial twice is there were different parties offended. If you play yor stereo too loud at night you break the peace and therefore offend the town you live in. Additionally, you irritate your neighbors, who have also been offended. I recall from the OJ case that in a civil case it is easier to convict. Of course this may vary from state to state, but if that applies to this case, then it appears TWI has a weaker criminal case than its civil case, which apparently was weak as well. And is there much difference to speak of between Mr. Juedes charge and those brought by TWI? Why yes, I have said that.And we have pretty much agreed, with the understanding that we don't have all the facts and must, in good faith, use what we have been given. More facts may emerge and so the gentlemanly thing to do is to allow each other the chance to revise our opinions to jibe with those facts, You and I both know at this point in time, such a charge has no foundation. So let's clink glasses and agree that the charge of "piracy" is unsupported by the facts we have at this point. Good point. In the case at hand, apparently TWI sued over theft of intellectual property, manifested by the unauthorized reproduction and sale of various products. They failed, so there was no plagiarism! No "piracy" The court did not endorse plagiarism any more than it endorsed murder in the example you provided in parentheses. I think you need to check Black's Law Dictionary. There you will see "piracy" has more than one legal meaning, as you have asserted. Therefore, it would indeed be relevant to the case. The supposition that "plagiarism" and "piracy" charges would be brought are reasonable, given what we have to work with.I know you don't want it to be so, but they fit neatly into what you and Mr. Juedes have been asserting. Me neither. Let's see ifthey can make a charge stick or abandon any attempt at proving it. Again, we agree.Simply winning a conviction and stopping Mr. Geer from doing what he has been doing for what, 15, 20 years now, would be enough. But they haven't been able to, have they, in all those years? I have not said what it means. Neither has Mr. Juedes, to my knowledge. I have looked it up in Black's Law Dictionary and the second definition is close enough to the one you use that I will not quibble. We agree on the term. Kinda neat we agree so much, eh? It IS a crime,what we have been given about the case closely matches what Mr. Geer IS being charged with by you and Mr. Juedes and therefore it would be strange to NOT press for that charge in court. Mr. Jueds made the charge of "piracy," let him explain it in terms of what took place in court (that we have been given on the board here) I prefer to look on the positive side, offer the next round, and propose a toast to all we do agree on! Basically, Mr. Juedes' case was brought by TWI's bank of high-priced lawyers and it went down like the Hindenburg. Right?

Bulwinkl, if you are going to seek legal definitions, the place to go is Blacks Law Dictionary. Mr. Geer has not been convicted of "piracy." What we have here on the board are people with biases offering their opinion. Apparently, a court of law, where these biases have no weight, and heard the case. Here people may selectively add, delete, magnify or minimize varous things to make their point, but in a court of law, both sides have the opportunity to present their cases and cross-examined witnesses and evidence and have an impartial judge and/or jury decide. Apparently that has taken place and the logical, reasonable thing to do is aboide by classic American traditional values and accept the court's ruling. Given the biases of us on the board, is it not rasonable to say that no "piracy" charge has been sustained in a court of law where those biases have no bearing? Mr. Juedes is obviously being unfair and needs to be man enough to correct his mistake. And the rest of us should allow him to do so graciously, for we all make mistakes at times, so let's not have any hooting when Mr. Juedes does the right thing.

I can only take you at your word. I don't believe I took anything out of context or was rude. After all you've been through, look at what you said. It's beautiful. I would never try to argue with or debate you on Indeed, on spiritual matters I would take what you have to say very seriously. ________________________________________________________________________________ ________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________ Abigail, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were not a Chjristian so my question was inappropriate. Please delete the part about being born again and substuitute another spiritual subject of interest.

I'm sorry if my words have been harsh. I did not intend them to come out that way. I am interested in more of a discussion than a debate. More of a polite exchange of views..... Looks like The Word, the Word and nothing but the Word, to me.

That's a nice, direct answer. So what source or sources do you go to in order to find out about God? Let's say someone came to you and wanted to know how to get born again. Would you open the Book and show them what the Bible says? Or lets say you heard someone make a comment about a particular verse or subject of a spiritual nature. What part would the Bible play in determining an answer you were sure of?

Suda, thank you for the kind reply. I'm with you on prayer and seeking the advice from others at times. But let's say you wanted to know more about the return of Christ. For me, while I may talk to others about it, to really and truly settle an issue about the return, I would go to the Bible and that would be my source for Truth on the subject. Would you (and not just you, Suda but anyone) accept the word of someone else -anyone - without checking your Bible and what you have worked previously?

Ahhhh. Always good to open with a put down and a lil' ego pump. Especially when you need it so badly. That's not what I want at all.What I want is for you to directly address the question as to whether you apply it Annnnnnnnnnd the fancy footwork begins. Skyrider executes a very nice veronica..... But then goes off on a tangent, never to return and answer the question. We-ell, you couldn't answer the question, but you shore did show the lantern-jawed gravitas of a grizzled vet who just can't remember no more so he dines out on a host of his own cliches, hoping a sufficiently dense cloud of them will obscure the non-answer within. But perhaps that is an answer in itself. You too, old-timer. I'll see if I can git Cookie to put together some grub you can take home so you don't have to cook. Something soft and not too chewy....

I understand what you are saying, Suda. Please, let's not stray from the one point I am making and the question for skyrider and doojable and you too, if you care to chime in. Given the circumstances of this forum and the experiences of the posters here it is a fair question. Of course when it comes to theology I respect someone for not sharing their viewpoint. What we have seen consistently in this thread on this point is a number of people pretending to address the point when in reality they need to change the subject, reinterpret, redefine, or anything other than say whether they endorse the principle of THE WORD! THE WORD! AND NOTHING BUT THE WORD! I beleve there is nothing wrong with asking those who challenged me or others on the subject to be asked the same question. I suspect that they too, still hold to that principle, but do not want to admit it. I mean no disrespect. Let each speak for him or herself on the question, preferably using simple declarative sentences sans straw men.

Thank you for your reply and quoting what you had posted. I think we are very close to agreement here. The nuisance suit is an interesting angle, but could they sue him more than once for the same thing? Do we know they have tried that approach? Your above post and the quote you provided show clearly that the charge of "piracy" to be incorrect, at least in terms of what we have been given. Good point.Like, if he was bouncing checks to the supermarket, getting speeding tickets or jaywalking, those issues would not be a part of it. In this case, we can only guess for sake of argument in good faith as to what TWI would sue for. Would they sue just over Mr. Geer redoing PFAL, for example, but nothing else? What can we reasonably guess -for sake of argument - what TWI would sue for? Do you think it possible the phrase "not guilty" was heard in the courtroom? I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the charge of "piracy" were true, then Mr. Geer would not just be charged with that. Look at what's been going on. Don't you think that besides "piracy" and "plagiarism," that charges of conspiracy could be brought? How about interstate transportation of stolen merchandise? Why, that one could involve the FBI, couldn't it? If they had a strong case, in other words they could prove they had the various rights, they could take their case to a prosecutor and have Mr. Geer cuffed and stuffed, right? No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds. None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained. Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer.

But Capone didn't win court cases where he was charged with those other crimes, did he? Apparently Mr. Geer has faced TWI in a court on an even playing field where both sides could be heard and had the case decided by a far more impartial judge and/or jury than can be found here in the Cafe, right? That isn't exactly reflected in Mr. Juedes' charge of "piracy," is it?

Let's let him speak for himself. In the meantime, how 'bout you Doojable? In your own theology, is it "The Word! The Word! And Nothing but God's Wonderful Matchless Word!"? Where do you go for Truth regarding your faith and practice?

OW! HEY, THAT HURT!

Earlier in this thread I made the point that "THE WORD! THE WORD! AND NOTHING BUT THE WORD!" was something of value I took from the class and still hold to. Others, perhaps not skyrider immediately decided to address my point by erecting this same straw man. While mistaking one thing for the other may have been done by some, it was not by me and I am sure there are others. The best thing is for skyrider to explain this, sans straw man. I would like for the gentleman to address my point, namely

Anyone who brings up that horrid Jethro Tull song gets stabbed in the thigh with a ball point pen. Just so you know........

Someone once said it is ok to occasionally look back but never get caught staring. I am not the same person I was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, and were I to run into someone from back then, we might share a few laughs reminiscing, but I would want them to take me for the person I am NOW and not the person I was then.

What it is, in fact is a sleight-of-hand method to avoid the point. Some people do this when they are met with something beyond their ability to handle. They change the point they are addressing, address the phony argument they invented, and pretend they were addrressing the point all along. It's called "erecting a straw man." It requires a certain amount of self-delusion. In this case, skyrider avoids addressing the concept of having God's Word as his only source for faith and practice. We can speculate why, but it is better for skyrider to tell us in his own words upon what foundation is his own personal theology (if he has one) based.

Concentrate on the watch......................back...............and forth............back..........and forth..................you are getting veeeeeery sleepy...........................back...........and forth............................you need my help, don't you? .............................back............and forth......................back.....and forth.................you want to go WOW.....................back...........and forth.............................get on your knees and bark like a dog ...................................back............and forth........................ now roll over ................................ back......and forth ............................ back.........and forth ........................ now act like a chimpanzee ....................... back............and forth..................................VP needs your girlfriend ................. back.........and forth.................................your belly button is in the shirt pocket of Craig Martindale..............................back.........and forth.....................back.......and forth..................sing our national anthem in Swedish..............................back.........and forth......................................... you like to drown kittens .................................back...........and forth................................. you have x-ray vision and can see through women's clothes....................back........and forth.................Look! Here comes Bea Arthur! ................................ back.....and forth .................. back........and forth.............................. from now on when someone asks you for the time you will break out in uproarious laughter for 15 minutes....................back......and forth....................VP needs you to shine his shoes with your tongue.......................back...........and forth.............................back.......and forth................do your Elvis Presley imitation...........................back...........and forth...................back..........and forth........................from now on you will talk like a pirate..........................back..........and forth........................back...........and forth..........................

It was the watch swinging on a chain that did it...................................................................

Likewise, "piracy" is a crime that Mr. Geer has not been convicted of, isn't it? And what does it tell you that Mr. Geer continues to do what he does in the United States unimpeded by any legal action, in spite of the alleged litigious ways of TWI?

Given the personal nature of the subject, does that then call for more civility and mutual respect? It is my impression that some claim to be shocked, shocked! at what is alleged to have taken place and dadgummit they are going to form a posse and go hang the bad guys!, but in fact they are using that as a pretext to attack others. Notice how when people say what things they took from PFAL, most, if not all of the time no one addresses what the person says was beneficial to them? No, the attack is on the person and on TWI, VP, etc. in general. That's not "honest debate," now, is it?

Outfield, I have not seen you work so I can not offer an opinion. I used to work in modular homes or component plants where the demand on a person is brutal. I set records at plants I worked in and did so because I out-hustled others, worked smarter and was better organized. For example, when nailing up wall frames for a 56-foot house, the nail gun would not have enough ammo to get me to the end, so right where I would run out is where I stacked boxes of nails so I didn't have to walk back down the line to reload, or carry spares in my tool pouches. This seems obvious, but I had to fight management over it at one plant. I trained my crews to economize motion so that everything was sort of choreographed. Saving ten seconds here and twenty seconds there added up when it came to meeting a weeks production schedule. My crews were always the best. Many confuse being occupied with a task with really working. To me, to really work, one hustles every minute on the clock, concentrating on the task at hand. Chatting is for break time. Pond, you were correct to say no. It is downright rude to require guests to work for their meal. It cuts at the very reason one asks people over to dine. Now, it is nice to offer to help with the dishes (and I frequently do), but manners dictates this is the option of the guest and it is rude for the host to try to make them wash dishes afterwards. Her anger shows this poor woman just hadn't been taught good manners.

What would those rights be then? Neither of us were at the trial, but is it not reasonable to see that Mr. Geer's right to do just what he is doing was supported by the court?

Sometimes when reading this and other threads, I wonder which other GSpotters I would want to fellowship with over God's Word. Who would I like to hear teach me what they worked from the Bible? Who would bless me?