LG

TWI would have been foolish to offer to buy the domain from Pat, even if it would have saved some money. The reason is that an offer by them to buy it would be tacit acceptance of his claim that his use of the domain was not an infringement of TWI's trademarks. An offer to buy the domain would invite similar attempts at extortion (that's really what this boils down to) and possibly make it harder for TWI to defend its trademark rights in the future. The cheapest way to deal with the problem was to spend more money up front, in order to head off problems (and expense) later on.I should add that, if Pat had made an early offer (as I suggested) to settle with TWI for his actual expenses in acquiring and holding the domain, and perhaps a small amount for his trouble, TWI probably would have agreed, if the agreement also included Pat's promise not to use "the way" or "the way international" in way that infringed on TWI's claimed trademark rights. That would be different than an offer by TWI to buy the domain name.

TWI never sought to shut down your websites. TWI's disputes with you have never been about anything but your infringement of their trademarks.

Do you bother to read the documents you post? If so, you apparently fail to comprehend them.The final judgment of the U. S. District Court in the TWIM v. TWI case is posted on your site, as exhibit 1 of the settlement agreement. Some quotes from it follow. Rather than it having "been well established that [THE WAY] trademark of TWI's is unenforceable because it is generic," the U. S. District Court found it highly unlikely that a party making such a claim would prevail.

Actually, Garth, nobody got spanked. What I suspect happened is that the Evaluator took a look at both sides and told Pat that he would be spanked if the case proceeded to trial, so Pat decided to do what TWI wanted him to do and TWI decided not to spank him.

No, they wanted the domain "thewayinternational.com." In other words, it was exactly what I called it several months ago, "a piddling little dispute over a domain name."In general, all TWI has demanded of you is that you not infringe on their trademarks. In this particular case, all they were seeking was the domain at issue. That's what they sought when they wrote you that letter last December. You could have settled the matter at any time between then and now, by simply doing what you finally agreed to do. As Goey said, you made a wise choice. You would have been even wiser, IMO, if you had made the same choice several months ago.

Johniam, You make it difficult to be tolerant.

It's funny. I'm not a theist, but I'm less on your side of this argument than you are. I don't mind the monuments and I strongly oppose some of the efforts to remove religious symbolism from all aspects of government. (I hate the transformation of Christmas into nothing more than a snowman and reindeer festival.)Regarding any government statement to the effect that "there is no God," I'd be up in arms (possibly literally, if necessary) against it in a heartbeat.

Hate to tell you this, John, but we've always had something other than the ten commandments as "forcible definition of right and wrong" in the USA. They're called laws.

CW, Likewise, I hope you don't take anything I've written personally, as a refutation of your anger or something like that. I'm just considering the actual legal issues, not making an assessment of TWI as an organization or the practices and teachings that you rightly condemn.

TWI doesn't claim ownership of the words. It claims ownership of and rights to its trademarks. There's a huge difference.

The following quote from page 2 of the final judgment (page 10 of THIS pdf document) sure means that the court found something.

It was as complete a legal victory as TWI could have hoped for. If you check the Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, you'll see that the court found in TWI's favor on every contested point and that the trademark opposition was withdrawn with prejudice in TWI's favor. TWI conceded none of its trademark rights or any other legal issue. Rather, the rights TWI claimed and the legal issues it raised were all upheld.

No, you wouldn’t, because Congress wouldn’t have allowed such insanity, which would put us at war with most of the rest of the world. I'm talking literal war against Russia, China, most of the Middle East, and much of Europe.

Garth, you are completely misunderstanding what Eagle is calling treason. Eagle didn't say that protesting the war amounted to treason. He said that Kerry meeting with the enemy delegation in Paris (for P-Mosh's benefit, that's not the French) was treason. I'm not making that charge, but I do think it was highly improper, and probably criminal, for an officer in the Naval Reserves to independently meet with diplomats representing an enemy, or to meet with representatives of any other country regarding U.S. policy, whether we are at war with them or not. From my limited knowledge, it seems like a pretty clear violation of the UCMJ, and depending on what went on in the meeting(s?) it could be treason. Again, I am not making that charge. In addition, Eagle seems to be saying that some other things Kerry did (not simple protesting) were acts of a traitor, even if they didn't legally constitute treason. Personally, I give Kerry a pass on that, except as the thinking behind it fits with his words and actions while in the Senate, which I think gives ample reason to not even consider voting for him. I'm not that worried about his domestic agenda, should he become President, but I'm very concerned about his defense and foreign policy agenda. I could be quite content with a Lieberman or a Gephardt as President, but not Kerry.

That's one thing I love about double hung (upper and lower sashes move) windows. A few years ago, I bought some white shower board and cut it in pieces to fit the panes in the lower sashes of all my upstairs bedroom windows, then installed it in each sash, on the inside of the pane, using glazing points to hold it. I can now open the top sashes, turn on my attic fan, and have great ventilation, but nobody can see into the rooms, even at night with the lights on. (There aren't any other two story houses in direct eyesight.) I still get plenty of light through the upper sashes in the daytime and the lower sashes look fine. They're just pure white, rather than transparent.

The window is easy to repair. Here’s how. Remove one of the two vertical pieces of trim (called stop molding) on the inside of the window, room side of the sash (the part that slides up and down). You can then take the sash out of the window frame, by raising it slightly and swinging the now-free side out. On each side of the sash, there will be a slot into which the cord fits. At the lower end of each slot, the cord should be knotted and nailed to the sash. Remove the old cord and set the sash aside. Remove the two vertical pieces of trim (called casing) on each side of the window frame, the ones between the window and the wall. That will allow access to the window weights and the rest of the cord. Take the weights out and remove the old cord. Cut two pieces of sash cord long enough to attach to the sash, run over the pulley in the window frame, and hang down a foot or so. Better a little long than too short. Tie a knot in one end of each cord, and attach one knotted end to each side of the sash, in the slot. With the cords running up through the slots, place the sash back in the window frame. Thread the cords through the corresponding pulleys. Replace the stop molding. Before you drive in all the nails, make sure the sash slides up and down freely. Tie a weight on the free end of each cord, let them dangle in their proper place, and replace the two pieces of casing. Touch up as necessary with a little caulk and paint. BTW, if any of your wooden windows bind, paraffin (like is used in canning) is a great lubricant. Just rub a piece of it on all surfaces where two pieces of wood rub against each other. It works wonders. It’s also great on old wooden drawers.

That last sentence of my previous post is the "disconnect," as I see it. If we non-Christians believed that the God and the Jesus Christ of the Bible actually existed, in the here and now, but were not Christians, then we would be fools, who would sacrifice possible eternal life and all sorts of blessings, because we were mad at God, Christ, or God's purported representatives, or were rebellious children unwilling to subject ourselves to Christ's and God's authority. I swear, I think that many Christians can't understand or accept honest disbelief that their God and Christ exist, which leads them to the latter conclusions, even if they avoid saying them.

My main quibble with “rejecting” and “renouncing” is that, to me, they imply that the person, thing, concept, or relationship rejected or renounced actually exists. A secondary quibble is the all or nothing, black or white connotations of the words, as used by Zixar, Def, and others. I reject the Bible as the “God-breathed” truth. I don’t reject it as good literature, interesting but not completely accurate history, a pretty good model (especially the NT, including the gospels) for personal ethics, etc. I “sort of” reject the notion of a supreme being such as the one described in the Bible. By that, I mean that I don’t accept the proposition that such a being exists in reality. I think that all “gods” I’ve ever heard of are fictional personifications of perceived ideals or unknown “forces.” Such personifications can be useful and I don’t reject them, except as actual beings. I reject Christianity as the literal lordship of a literal Son of a literal God. I don’t reject the “spirit” of Christianity, by which I mean loving the ideals personified by the (in my mind) figurative God and Christ of Christianity and loving our neighbors as ourselves. If I were to become a citizen of China, I would renounce my current citizenship and subjection to the laws of the USA. I could do that, because the USA is an entity that actually exists and I am actually subject to its laws. If I discovered or came to believe that the USA had never existed, I would not renounce my citizenship or subjection to the laws of the USA, because I would not consider that citizenship and subjection to have ever existed. I once professed belief in the Biblical God and subjection to the Jesus Christ of the Bible as my lord. I don’t know that I ever actually believed what I professed. I can’t recall any time when I didn’t have doubts, but I kept trying to believe because that’s what was expected of me. I have absolutely no problem “renouncing” my profession of belief. I do not believe in the Biblical God, in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, or in the lordship of either. My only problem with “renouncing” Jesus Christ as Messiah and lord is that doing so seems to imply that he (and therefore the Biblical God) exists, which I do not believe. If I did, then I would be a Christian.

Pat, Trefor was joking, but this got me wondering what's up with the trademark suits. I notice that the opposition to TWI's marks has been dropped and that The Way International Ministries has changed its name to Global God International Ministries. Is that a result of the District Court ruling against them or did they decide to drop the matter for other reasons?

Sky, I may be an unbeliever, but I know a bit about the Bible. The sign of Jonah wasn't a tree or cross.

This nonsense again? Why does it matter whether someone jumps through your silly little hoops?I don’t publicly renounce Santa Claus before people who believe in him. That would serve no purpose, except to hurt them. Rather than renouncing Santa, I actually play along with the Santa fantasy, if I think it will bring happiness to others. I also don’t publicly renounce Jesus before people who believe in him, and I sometimes play along with the Jesus fantasy, if I think it will bring happiness (comfort, whatever) to others, who may believe in it. If I go to a religious service, I behave like a believer. I’ll sing their songs, pray their prayers, and participate in their rituals. If I am sitting down to dinner with a person who prays, I bow my head and say “amen” at the end. If I think that some Biblical passage will help a Christian, I’ll bring it up. I’d do the same sort of things with people of other faiths. There’s just no upside to renouncing or denouncing other people’s religious beliefs, if they’re causing no harm. You seem incapable of understanding the nature of non-belief, at least my sort of non-belief. You see it as rejection. I don’t reject “God.” I just think that the “God” concept is, depending on the particular person and circumstances, either a metaphor (actually personification, like Mother Nature) or a fantasy. I don’t reject Jesus. I think he is a fictional character, possibly based in part on one or more real people, but fiction can often convey ideas better than non-fiction. I don’t “reject” Christianity. I don’t believe it as reality, but I like Christian mythology, which provokes thought, teaches some good lessons, and sets forth a pretty good morality, all in a rather compelling dramatic setting. The same can be said for other mythologies and traditions, including some that aren’t overtly religious. To greater or lesser degrees, it can also be said of all sorts of fiction, from the great classics to fairy tales. I don’t renounce, denounce, or reject any of them. I accept them for what I think them to be and draw all sorts of things from them, without ever feeling the need to “take a stand” on whether or not they are “the truth.”

Depending on circumstances, that might be considered as a mitigating factor that would figure in the punishment for murder but it wouldn't let her off the hook.

Oldiesman, it would first have to be proved that such emotional dependence existed and then that the clergyman caused the other person to submit or participate by exploiting it. Neither would be assumed.

The original topic was “Suing ministers for sexual assault.” “An affair” and “sexual assault” are two different things. A minister would not be legally liable for a truly consensual sexual affair. The key to either a criminal charge or civil liability would be consent and the laws vary from State to State. In Texas, where I live, the relevant portion of the penal code is as follows. Such an offense is a felony of the second degree. Punishment is imprisonment from two to twenty years and a fine of up to $10,000.00. A minister guilty of sexual assault would also be liable in a civil suit for damages.Whether someone could sue a TWI minister (or criminal charges could be filed) would depend on the laws of the State in which the offense occured and the particular circumstances.