Deciderator

Well, well, well....do I see chum in the water?

'Cid-You have asked an interesting question. I believe that you have asked it in honesty not sarcasm. And I see that some have chosen to answer. I include Skyrider in that category as "answering" your question as well. Sky simply does not necessarily equate "The Word" (as defined or used in PFAL) with the Bible.

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.

But I am going to assume that you are in reality asking about the Bible and you equate the Bible with "The Word, the Word and nothing but the Word." So I will answer on that premise.

Yes....and yet a resounding No.

Yes I would turn to the Bible first before any other form of media or personal opinion, but most certainly AFTER God and or His Son Jesus Christ. This would include specific situations as the ones that you have described such as "The return of Christ" or "The New Birth". As thanks to my "few" years in twi I have a few verses tucked into my brain.

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.

But I also believe that the Bible is largely two things, it is an imperfect history book and a rule book. I say imperfect because much of the OT was originally orally passed on for many generation prior to being written down. Hence it probably has a bunch of "personal" or inaccurate stuff in it. But the basic principals that God wanted to convey and pass on are still in tact. The NT is not without inherant flaws as well. But all of this stuff is best discussed in the Doctrinal forum in the basement.

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.

The Bible and the principals therein are the primary compass in my life. Despite this, I have been severely chastised by a very close minded individual here lately for going to "outside" sources besides my Bible to understand the Bible. :blink: Yup! That is exactly what I thought...WTF?

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.

BTW...wise choice to listen to either of these women concerning spiritual matters and take what they say very seriously. They are both learned, patient and giving. You can learn a great deal from them.

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..............

.

Larry, I'm not easily offended.;)

I believe that you and Deciderator both got in TWI either after I left or as I was leaving, (along with a LOT of others.)

There was a different feel in the air when I took the class. There was sense of naivete mixed with pure spiritual excitement. It was as if a bunch of us kids with wide-eyed wonder said, "Oh my gosh! We finally found what we have been looking for."

We were an instant family - brothers and sisters in Christ. Come he!! or high water we were going to stand together.

In my innocence and enthusiam, I mistakenly transferred my love for God to a ministry. While I understand that what you say is true - I am still loathe to use the words of VPW to define any part of my life.

I'm at work. It's a slow day so I get to use the computer a bit while I wait, but that might explain my choppy manner of writing right now. I'll just wait to finish this thought.

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

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?"

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the only ways one can sue twice for the same thing is

if: A) there was a MISTRIAL, which means the first case never finished

B) new evidence has come up that justifies another case (as agreed by the judge at the beginning)

C) one sued in federal court and again in civil court-

but those would have to be different charges to a degree.

That's why OJ was sued twice "for the same thing"- he won the federal suit for murder,

and lost the civil case for "violating the civil rights" of the victims

That possibility gets murky and probably needs a legal translator.]

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?

Deciderator:

"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."

I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one.

I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning,

nor meanings only referring to crimes,

nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy.

You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won,

therefore there was no "piracy."

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.

WordWolf:

"If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before

taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly

extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects.

(For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.)"

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.

Deciderator:

"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?"

Again,

I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court,

nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court.

It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition,

it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism".

I know you don't want it to be so, but they fit neatly into what you and Mr. Juedes have been asserting.

It would not surprise me if twi tried to make "conspiracy" a charge.

Me neither.

Let's see ifthey can make a charge stick or abandon any attempt at proving it.

I see them as potentially getting him to pay money, but I don't see this as a "throw him in

prison" type of crime. (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.)

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?

Deciderator:

"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."

You're still making the supposition that "piracy" only means what you're saying it means,

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?

AND that it's a crime,

AND that it entered into the events in the courtroom.

(At least 3 suppositions in a row.)

Expecting Juedes to conform to all those suppositions is not being fair to Mr Juedes.

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)

We can agree to disagree and just move on.

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?

According to the "Collaborative International Dictionary of English" Based upon 1913 Webster's Dictionary the third definition of piracy "Sometimes used, in a quasi-figurative sense, of violation of copyright; but for this, infringement is the correct and preferable term.".

Now according to what I've read in these posts that was TWI's lawsuit against CG. The Courts found that TWI's position was untenable. Therefore in the court's view no piracy. Again this has nothing to do with plagiarism which was John Juedes premise. Although Piracy was used in the headline I do not know if that was his choice or the Webmasters choice. Did CG plagiarize? I think that is self-evident. Did he infringe upon copyright law? The Courts say not and they have access to documents and contracts I'm not privy to.

John

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.

If you want to say that, go right ahead. It really seems more like you want to win a debate than listen to what I'm trying to say.

I have to go to work.

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

It's "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."

It's, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you."

It's, "Jesus is Lord."

I read the Bible. I keep it in perspective. I talk to God much more now than I ever did before

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.

Before I continue, I'd like to remind you that in Proverbs there are a number of verses that speak to interpersonal relations. I am particularly reminded of one verse that says something to the effect of, "A soft answer turneth away wrath..."

I really have no desire to debate you at all. I'll answer a few questions and if you don't agree with me, that's up to you.

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.....

.....So now, almost 30 years after I walked you ask me if it's "The Word, The Word and nothing but The Word. " (THAT'S the way I heard it.) I guess I have to say, "NO."

It's "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."

It's, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you."

It's, "Jesus is Lord."

Looks like The Word, the Word and nothing but the Word, to me.

Define The Word, please. Is it what was taught in PFAL, is it the Bible as we have it today in a literal sence, is it the bible minus additions and subtractions from it that have been made by man?

I will assume for the moment you mean it in the sense that it was taught in PFAL, so I can at least attempt to answer your question. Very simply put, not it is not The Word, The Word and nothing but The Word.

First, it is God, it is God, and nothing but God. My relationship with God. Then my relationship with people and it is a very very close second to my relationship with God, almost a tie, if you will. Then it is the animals and planet we live on, which I believe we have a responsiblity to take care of too.

Does that answer your question?

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?

Hello Deciderator,

Sounds like you are calling my name......wanting to meet me at HIGH NOON with my six-shooter strapped and loaded and ready for the challenge.

(*skyrider puts down his whiskey, spits on the floor and wipes his mouth with his sleeve........saying "Why I've shot more out-laws and no-gooders than you'll ever know.".....as he turns back to his whiskey)

Reminiscent of the immortal words of victor paul wierwille......."Why I've forgot more Word than that feller will ever know."" -- referring to the theologian on the other side of the English Channel.

Ahhhh.

Always good to open with a put down and a lil' ego pump.

Especially when you need it so badly.

Deciderator.....if you want to suspend and hold that cliche "It's the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word" --

What I want is for you to directly address the question as to whether you apply it

I believe that one of the first things one has to do is qualify many factors. IMO, it cannot stand alone as a suscinct cliche......the ambiguity of it all is insurmountable. Starting with......"What is The Word"

Annnnnnnnnnd the fancy footwork begins.

However one chooses to APPROACH the concept of "The Word" is the STARTING POINT of conflicting viewpoints. For example, you and I might agree that when God said, "Let there be light" as recorded in Genesis.... that is "The Word," the God-breathed Word. I agree.

Skyrider executes a very nice veronica.....

In pfal, as wierwille starts down this road of biblical research......

.........Deciderator........sorry, I can't meet you at HIGH NOON today. I've got a full day planned and I'm already behind schedule. Hope my explanation helps you abit.

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.

Have a good weekend.

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.

Those would be, as I said,

"rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them."

That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target."

Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except

frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was

in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking,

or even if it was either of those possibilities.)

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.

No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time.

It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities.

Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did.

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?

If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is-

then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action.

They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints.

Do you think it possible the phrase "not guilty" was heard in the courtroom?

If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before

taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly

extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects.

(For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.

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.

Not so far no, but neither has anyone claimed he's been taking over ships and robbing the passengers.

It means he has not successfully been sued on anything for which he might be successfully be prosecuted.

It means twi might have used incompetent tactics, or sued on unwinnable grounds rather than winnable ones.

Mainly, it tells me only what it does at face value- cg has not been convicted of any crime.

Look,

Al Capone continued to do what he did in the United States, unimpeded by legal action, in spite of the best attempts of the

Dept of the Treasury, until someone finally got him on INCOME TAX EVASION.

That does NOT mean he was innocent of any wrongdoings before that, nor that the only wrong thing he did was

not pay his taxes.

Likewise, it didn't mean he wasn't or didn't, either.

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!

Deciderator - while I see the point you're making I have to disagree.

On the surface, Skyrider is setting up a straw man argument. That would be true IF he was substituting the phrase "the Word" for "PFAL."

He is not doing this. He is in fact saying (I believe) that to may TWI leaders the two phrases became synonymous.

I don't see how he was avoiding the importance of the Word in his life - but I do see how he is pointing out a "bait and switch" in terminology that happened over time.

Now, I'm by the things you have written, I think that skyrider's time in TWI predates your's by about twenty years - so that may be the reason why he can say this and you not see his meaning.

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

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.

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

Just so you know........

Yes.

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.

40 years removed from its pfal filming ---- "It's the Word, the Word and nothing but the Word" ---- this cliche has been butchered hundreds of times AND leveraged against believers to refrain from independent study/research and....dadgummit, just re-research pfal.

So........as things evolved, IT REALLY WASN'T The Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word...in its slight-of-hand reference, it really meant..."It's PFAL, PFAL and nothing but PFAL."

This is the best synopsis that I have ever read on the subject. I had never really broke it down like this to see why that line never really had much of an impact on me. It always seemed like it should have. I suppose had it been meant for what it appeared to be intended for it might have had more meaning for me.

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..........................

Grouch...O!, Are you an old gaucho or a grouchy old guy with a few extra tomatoes standing on the mound looking at signals before delivering your next Ouucho!

13 years is a long prison sentence for sure. But there are others who committed even longer years of servitude, no? Remember, you and all the others still signed on the Dr. Viper line, so there was still “free will” as a part of the deal, right? No one truly was forced to go wow, or corps, or any of the other wonderful programs promoted by the way. Maybe that’s part of the reason for so much bitterness? You have nobody to blame for all that lost time...but yourself! And maybe GS is just a place or the only place, to let it out?? <_<

I’m sitting happily in the bleachers if you want a few peanuts! Bump

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?

The very nature of this website is volatile...and sometimes harsh. We are dealing with a very personal subject here. I think that to engage in honest debate, one must develope thick skin...I think that Wierwille lied in God's name and crushed a lot of people in the process...I simply cannot soft soap my opinion on that for the sake of civility and "getting along" with people....

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.

i have a person in my life who loves to cook and would invite me and my family over to eat and then want us to do all the dishes, i said NO and she got angry.

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.

The suit had everything to do with what twi saw as their exclusive rights,

and, as I see it, probably had to do with rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,

and to run them.

I think all the evidence supports that.

Furthermore, I think twi lost their suit, and didn't gain back any rights they had previously lost.

I see all of that as having nothing whatsoever to do with cg rewriting parts of pfal, in whole or in part,

into a similar class with subjects directly taken from pfal.

Nor do I see any reason twi would even have thought of that, or filed anything to that effect.

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?