Rocky

WHAT intended consequences has GSC/Waydale had on TWI? At minimum, as reported anecdotally, TWI operating procedures (written or unwritten) have demonstrably changed at least as a result of TWI perception(s) of risk of litigation. Anything else?

I reiterate, your conclusion (re GSC being a hinderance to something) is much to broad to be valid. IF you were to narrow your argument substantially to frame it solely in terms of YOUR EXPERIENCE rather than "evidence (not cited) these websites influence those people around our families" in twi, you MIGHT be able to make a valid argument for YOU being harmed by the incidental, and apparently unintended consequences of disclosures on GSC. But that's NOT what you've done heretofore.

This actually is a KEY claim made by our good friend Bolshevik. His beef with GSC has been contrary to THIS explicit claim. Unintended denotes NOT INTENDED. Gsc, however has had intended consequence for TWI. By definition, (if GSC was a person) the consequences which Bolshevik claims harmed him, were not the result of mens rea. Therefore, IF Bolshevik's harm was caused by GSC, it was incidental and not intended. Further, I argue (and conclude) Bolshevik's claimed harm, though perhaps tangible, was unforeseeable from the perspective of the more important purpose of shedding the light of truth and facts on TWI, an actual entity organized by law in the US. Additionally, with anything thus far disclosed or published on GSC, it is not possible to factually ascertain ANY intent on the part of anyone to use anything published on this website for "personal gain."

Who is "you?" The plaintiff, right? T-Bone's definition (as quoted) I don't think mentions malicious intent. But some or all state laws do.

What IS GSC according to your construct? BTW, you said, "The Way International is people." TWI is NOT people. TWI is a formal ORGANIZATION or ENTITY organized by laws of Ohio and/or federal government.

It sounds like you imply it's up to the plaintiff to prove malice. I would suggest if, in the jurisdiction (state) in which the legal action (lawsuit) is brought has a law subject to civil actions which requires proof of actual malice. That might be every US state, I don't know but it's likely. So then, is it up to the plaintiff or defendant to prove the statement at issue is false?

Okay. I can take that claim at face value. Why? Because I have no basis for evaluating what you can vs what you cannot "see." However, others HAVE said they "see" an overall positive effect of GSC. I realize in each case, the perception is subjective, unless there are data somewhere to provide basis for objective evaluation thereof.

You've tried to make this case for months. You have not made any sound argument. However, you have made clear ONLY how you view the situation. What you also have not done is demonstrated whether anyone around the "people using the information posted here did so for personal gain." Nor have you demonstrated whether GSC posters "have to fight the people around the people..." When you claim your post is clear to readers here, you step into Mike's shoes. Something written is not clear just because the writer says so. It can only be demonstrated to be clear if feedback provided by readers shows they understood what you intended to communicate.

In your claim, it's unclear whether your comparison is apt or fallacy. https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/

Says who? How would you know your claim is true?

And then there's the question of burden of proof. Hypothetical: person 1 makes a statement about person 2. Person 2 believes the statement is false and harmful to him (person 2) and sues person 1. Who has the burden of proof? Who has to prove what?

Or our astronomical home from spinning.

I wonder why you feel you must apologize. You did nothing wrong. However, to me it is noteworthy you feel safe enough to BE personal here. FWIW, I'm reading, this evening, in the book Emotional Inheritance: a Therapist, Her Patients, and the Legacy of Trauma. There are three parts to the book, as author Galit Atlas describes emotional inheritance from our grandparents, then from our parents, then from the perspective of the patient(s) themselves. Thus far, in each (I'm 75-80 percent through the book) I found myself considering what I might have inherited from each, including the two grandparents I never met. Clearly, Wierwille represented a parental figure to many of us (and likely, to second generation wayfers who never met him, a grandparent figure). My main point is you have every right to work through your own therapy on GSC however you decide you need it. That could also be what Mike's doing too... but for him, it's trying to justify an unworthy parent. Anyway, my best wished to you Charity.

There is SOOOOOOOO much malarkey in Mike's comments on this thread. If he had anything genuine to teach or write, it seems obvious he would have actually developed his thoughts and research before presenting it... instead of telling us he'll get back to us with the scriptures which back up his (thesis?) ideas? Does the expression/idiom "going off half-cocked" mean anything to any of you? I'm not seeing how any one commenting on his half-baked notions will help him or you or anyone else. What's the meaning of the phrase 'Go off at half cock'? Speak or act prematurely. Flintlock firearms have a 'cock' or striker mechanism, which is held in a raised, sprung position ready to discharge and make a spark to 'fire' the gun. These can be set at half-cock, when the gun is in a safe state, or at full-cock, when it is ready to be fired. A gun would only 'go off at half-cock' by mistake. The term half-cock is as old as flintlock guns and appears in print from the mid 18th century; for example, in John Desaguliers' A course of experimental philosophy 1734–44: "The gun being at Half-Cock, the Spring acts upon the Tumbler with more Advantage." The earliest known citation of the phrase 'going off at half-cock' comes from London and Its Environs Described, 1761: "Some arms taken at Bath in the year 1715, distinguished from all others in the Tower, by having what is called dog locks; that is, a kind of lock with a catch to prevent their going off at half-cock." We now commonly use 'go off at half-cock' or, in America, 'go off half-cocked', to mean 'speak or act impulsively and without proper preparation'. This clearly alludes to the sudden discharge of a firearm. Despite that, the first figurative use of the phrase had a completely different meaning. When the 'half-cocked' imagery was first appropriated it was to mean tipsy, or half-drunk. #### So, Mike, what's your favored potent potable these days?

Oh pleeze!

Yes. The characters will be key. I was thinking of The Handmaid's Tale, but yes, definitely.

Fiction (novels) can be more powerful than memoir. Your comment quoted herein has the makings of an incredibly compelling novel.

Or that YOU believe nothing is inspired by God? Or, rather that any given person could choose to look at the situation in that particular way?

For those who remain "in" that cult, I suspect the PR impact will be ultimately nil. They're experts at social enforcement. So, the question will be, how many will exodus out. I'm figuring the sense of belonging is overwhelming and a very high percentage of their church will remain steadfast... or whatever way they characterize it.

If I recall correctly, the technical term is BONKERS.

Yes, it is obvious.

1) the $65million figure is likely grossly out of date. We just don't know, but if they were hoarding similarly to past history, and given they've dumped a couple of properties, it could be much more. 2) the LDS fine egregiously underwhelms. $5 million on a $32 BILLION asset value is one and a half hundredths of one percent (0.00015625). IOW, next to nothing as the fund owners/managers are concerned. They probably celebrated with champagne (but didn't disclose doing so to church members). The SEC order said: "According to the order, the Church was concerned that disclosure of its portfolio, which by 2018 grew to approximately $32 billion, would lead to negative consequences."

WOW! Of course, you hit the bull's eye.

I definitely appreciate your experience. However, the reason I mentioned the issue above, is as a warning others may choose to consider in order to emotionally prepare for their departure. Leaving twi is and will be necessary for many individuals and families. Being prepared for the emotional/grieving work can be helpful.