LG

Quite a hubbub has arisen from Refiner’s “Why I reject Christ” topic, which was originally in the “Open” forum, but has since been moved to “Doctrinal” and renamed “Why I reject belief in the Bible.” Some objections have been that it didn’t belong in “Open,” that the title was offensive, that it advocated rejection of Christ, etc. To some, it was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Some think it’s a sign of the decline of GreaseSpot. Zixar posted a poll about whether GS has finally “jumped the shark,” which he later changed to “gone downhill.” I reminded him of a similar poll he posted almost two years ago. I’ll now remind him, and everyone else, of a thread in the “Open” forum that preceded that poll by a few weeks. Before anyone complains, I think this belongs in the “Open” forum. Everything quoted or discussed in it was originally posted in “Open” and to my knowledge never appeared in “Doctrinal.” This will be long. The main point is that nobody objected when Zixar challenged atheists, in the “Open” forum, to publicly proclaim their rejection of Christ. Yet, when someone actually did that, all hell broke loose. It seems to me that the main difference in the acceptable thread and the one that signals the decline of GreaseSpot is the point of view of the thread’s originator. A believer challenging disbelief in the “Open” forum was fine. An unbeliever expressing disbelief, without having first been invited to, was just horrible. On August 19, 2002, Zixar started a topic, “What would make you believe?”, in the Open forum. Nobody complained about that thread being in the Open forum. The only person who even suggested (in her unique style) that it might be better placed in “Doctrinal” was excathedra, eight days after the discussion started. All she said was, “is there a doctrinal forum here ? i lost my way” I don’t think the thread was moved at the time. It’s now in the archives. (Click here to read it.)Rather than jumping through Zixar’s hoops, most of the non-believers in that thread tried to explain to Zixar that his questions were based on misperceptions of the nature of disbelief. George Aar finally played along. Zixar later wrote: and So, if you don’t publicly renounce Christ, you’re gutless. If you do, you’re “breaking the camel’s back,” bringing down GreaseSpot, and should be censored by moderators? Somehow, that just doesn’t seem right to me. The above thread degenerated, for a while, into a quibble over definitions, after which I offered Zixar the best explanation I could, which I will quote in a following post.

I didn’t vote in this poll, and I wouldn’t vote in any similar poll, no matter how the questions were worded. I think it’s highly inappropriate. It is, perhaps, the most ill-mannered and presumptuous thing I’ve yet seen here. (Well, maybe the R-man did worse, but not by much.) If you don’t like recent discussions, start some that you find more interesting. Otherwise, quietly go somewhere more to your liking, without insulting the host who graciously provides this site.

Shoot, Zix. If you'd waited another couple of months, you could have posted this in honor of the two-year anniversary of your "The Decline and Fall of Greasespot Cafe?" poll.

OK, Tom. I reluctantly removed "mistakenly" from my previous post. Neither my old dictionaries nor Merriam Webster online give that definition for "flip" but things change, I guess, whether I like it or not. I'll still use "flippant."

Now you tell us! So all those hours I spent on your behalf, phoning Nebraska emergency call centers and suicide hotlines were just a waste of time?BTW, does anyone know when it become popular to substitute "flip" for "flippant?" I heard that two times today on TV, as well as reading it in Zixar's post.

I can't see that Refiner has told anyone to reject anything. I don't reject Christ or the OT God. I hold them in higher regard than most other fictional/legendary characters. I'm sure that's offensive to many, but it really isn't intended to be. As I've said before, I like a lot about Christianity. I just don't believe it. I don't think I ever did, though I tried to for years to convince myself I did. If you want to settle your D. A. Reed question, why not e-mail him. His e-mail address is in his profile (Click here).

Anti-arachnidian hacks!

Galen, Re: “Actually I just ‘raised’ the level of water in the water-closet by 2 more inches. Which had an immediate effect on flushing characteristics.” That has nothing to do with what I suggested. A toilet holds water in two places, the tank and the bowl. You raised the water level in the tank, which helped flushing by increasing the amount of water dumped from the tank to the bowl when you raise the flapper with the flush lever. What I suggested was decreasing the water level in the bowl, thereby increasing the distance from the seat to what you call the puddle, which is what you say you want.

You might not need a new toilet, Galen. The flushing problem could be caused by an inadequate or blocked sewer vent, rather than the toilet itself. If the toilet sometimes actually backs up, the problem could be a partial blockage in the trap part of the toilet, caused by something that was dropped in, but didn’t make it around the curve when flushed. Whether or not you replace the toilet, you may be able to lower the water level in the bowl, either by constricting the little hose that trickles water into the bowl while the tank is filling or by aiming the hose so that only part of the stream goes down the vertical pipe in the center of your tank. If you’ve exhausted all other possibilities and you’re really, really desperate, I guess you could employ a desperate measure, but I wouldn’t suggest that.

I know what you mean, and even thinking of it as an “issue” is fallacious, as well as insulting to our service men and women. Nobody signs up his son (or daughter). Armed forces personnel are adults, who sign up on their own. The ones I know are capable of deciding whether or not to view it, without my encouragement or discouragement. My 20-year-old daughter wants to watch it, but not in a theater. She plans to rent it on DVD, so she can pause it, review sections, research points, etc. Although I don’t personally care to watch it, I’ll probably do the same, so she and I can discuss it. Compared to most of the world, you’re both, but you can say those things anyway.

Very nice.

If you keep that up, Raf, Yul be asking for smart-aleck replies.

And you don't have that posted to your website yet? Slacker! (Just kidding, Pat.) I would be interested in reading it, though, should you post it.Now here comes a surprise. I've got a couple of ideas you might want to pursue. I'll send you a PM soon.

I haven’t paid attention to Mike since his mirror thread. I just popped in out of curiosity, to see what kind of support or agreement Mike has managed to drum up. Looks like he still stands alone, except for the people he sees in those mirrors. As I recall, those people had left and right mixed up, but at least they still knew up from down. My answer to “what do you think of Mikeology” is, “I don’t." I do, however, have an observation that I think is relevant to Mike’s “truth that fits so well.” I have a tree branch that fits very well into a juice glass. All I had to do was to run it through a chipper, put the chips into a large trash can, and call the trash can a juice glass. It was thrilling to see how well it fit, even better than a hand in a glove!

And if you don't have faith, you're toast! :)-->

Since this could be considered a new question (because of the “heavily invested” part) I’ll give a brief answer.1) I’m not heavily invested in it. I haven’t posted about it in a month, except in response to your nagging about something I wrote two months ago. 2) I never called it a “vain squabble” or used “vanity” in the sense of something being for naught. I used “vanity” in the sense of personal vanity, as should be clear from the context, as explained in the link I promised, should you continue hounding me. Here’s your promised link.

See Linda’s post above. Pat, I’ve answered that question several times. I even quoted one of my previous answers (to diazbro in that case) in the post immediately preceding the one in which you ask this question. I wrote, “I also don’t base my opinions regarding the issues on my opinions of the parties. If I did, I would lean towards supporting Pat’s position because my opinion of him is far better than my opinion of TWI.” I'm almost certain that I've said about the same to you, but I can’t seem to find it. I did find THIS.I don’t dislike you, Pat. I disagree with you. Granted, sometimes you annoy me and sometimes my responses reflect that, but the vast majority of my posts regarding any lawsuit-related topics have either been simply my take on relevant issues or suggestions that I think would be helpful to you, if followed. P.S. I wouldn’t read too much into my statement that you annoy me sometimes. I annoy myself far more, and far more often, than you annoy me. I say much harsher things to myself, in my “internal dialogue,” than I’ve ever said to you.

Diazbro, All of this has been covered in the below-linked threads. Thread 1: TWI has sued me, and I hope TWI's attorneys like to ski (Started by pjroberge, 4/1/04) Thread 2: Lawsuit contest name the document or question you want me to ask TWI (Started by pjroberge, 4/1/04) Thread 3: Name the domain price (Started by pjroberge, 4/6/04) Thread 4: TWI sued me, I sued back (Started by pjroberge, 5/1/04) Since you won’t stop nagging, I’ll go ahead and cover it AGAIN, even though it has nothing to do with this topic. I’ll save these links, in case you decide to nag me again, in some other thread. My apologies to everyone else for what will be a long, off-topic post. On April 4, in thread 1, I said, “This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity.” I had previously written in thread 2, “It's a piddling little suit over a domain name. You can fantasize all you want about turning up some ‘damaging or embarrassing fact’ but discovery will be limited to questions relevant to the subject matter of the suit.” Pat started and was participating in both threads, so he knew the context. (I later noted to diazbro the relevance of thread 2 to my comment in thread 1.) “Vanity” referred to Pat’s vanity, as shown by his extolling of himself and the significance of the suit in both threads 1 and 2. “Piddling little suit” and “piddling little squabble” were in contrast to Pat’s representation of it as a grand opportunity to require TWI to answer any questions he might ask and hand over copies of any documents he might request. The sentence about limitations on discovery should make that clear. Over the next couple of days, I posted to thread 1 some facts about TWI’s trademarks and some opinions about aspects of the case. I followed that, on April 6, with this: “BTW, I'm not defending TWI. I think they're a sorry outfit, and I'm all for anyone with a legitimate grievance against them seeking justice. But I'm not going to cheer on someone who wants to don a rusty suit of armor, mount an old nag, and charge windmills.” That was my one and only reference to windmills or Don Quixote, except in response to diazbro, who keeps nagging me about it. Again, it was written in the context of threads 1 and 2, but also with thread 3 in mind, as my response to diazbro that same day (April 6) indicates. Later on April 6, I posted what I intended at the time to be my last post to that thread. A week after that, because of some things that had since been posted, I changed my mind. I posted a couple more posts over the next day or so. On April 14, diazbro addressed me about “amateur lawyering.” Among other things, he said, “I respect your right to suggest that PR's suit is not founded in the best of principles but the suggestion that your reading of the law is sufficient to try the case here is a problem for me and perhaps others who don't see it as you do.” Of course, I had never suggested that, and said so in my response. I also said that I wouldn’t quibble over the term “amateur lawyering.” Nobody has posted to that thread since April 15. *** Now we get to thread 4, started by Pat on May 1. I posted a few thoughts about Pat’s answer and counterclaim. On May 3, diazbro asked, “Are you a lawyer?” He already knew the answer, so I ignored the question. On May 7, diazbro jumped on me about me being guilty of “fighting windmills” and of “trying to be an attorney.” Again, I ignored him. On May 10, diazbro wrote to Raf, “I think PR is not particulalry well prepared for this thing nor do I agree with his strategies such as they are but I don't think that painting him as an embitterred quixotic figure (Long Gone's assessment) because of it is *not* a natural first conclusion except perhaps to those who don't like how he rolled all this out.” In another post, he said, “Folks like Long Gone took this one to the extreme relative to the legal stuff.” I decided to respond to both these and the May 7 post. (Click to read.) The next day, May 11, diazbro addressed another post to me. I responded HERE. Because of its relevance to diazbro’s claim that I haven’t previously answered his questions, I’m going to quote my response, in its entirety. 1) I’ve never criticized anyone, including Pat, for not being a lawyer. 2) I have never acted like a lawyer or represented myself to be anything but a layman. 3) I have said that Pat should consult with a lawyer and employ one if he proceeds with this. 4) I would say the same regarding anyone being sued in anything but small claims court. 5) If I were being sued, I would consult with and be represented by one or more lawyers. 6) I have been sued. I did employ an attorney. 7) I have sued. I did employ an attorney. 8) There is no hypocrisy or double standard in anything I’ve written on this subject or how that relates to my real-life actions. 9) I have not “come on with the Perry Mason routine.” I have discussed legal matters, as a layman who cares to inform himself before expressing an opinion and who accompanies his opinions with reasons behind them. 10) I have never suggested that it is not OK for others to do likewise. Rather, I encourage that. 11) I think you know all of the above. Yes, vanity. I wrote that on April 4, on page 5 of that thread. That was three days after Pat started his “Lawsuit contest” thread, which provided part of the basis for my conclusion, as did other sources (primarily Pat’s own words elsewhere). I don’t form opinions in a vacuum. I also don’t base my opinions regarding the issues on my opinions of the parties. If I did, I would lean towards supporting Pat’s position because my opinion of him is far better than my opinion of TWI.Now, if you wish to discuss the topic, please do. Hint: I am not the topic. I then went back to trying to stick to the topic, rather than attempts to make me the issue.On May 14, Pat began a post with, “A question for the armchair legal buffs:” Raf began his response with, “NOTICE: PAT IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR "ARMCHAIR LEGAL BUFFS," NOT PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. HE IS SPECIFICALLY SOLICITING THESE RESPONSES. SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE NON-PROFESSIONALS OFFERING LEGAL OPINIONS, TAKE IT UP WITH PAT.” That observation did not escape diazbro, as can be seen in THIS POST, “So would I be correct in assumming that PR is asking for advice from armchair legal buffs ?” That was his last post to that thread. So now, we get to this thread, where diazbro starts up with the same things again. I try to stick to the topic, but finally give in and deal with the same old gripes again, hopefully for the last time. Now, diazbro, if that doesn’t answer your questions to your satisfaction, then tough. If you keep hounding me, you’ll get a link back to this post.

Not much point in arguing with people who dodge issues, don’t understand what they read, or claim standards they don’t hold to. rascal, “It was just plain evil for twi leaders to represent abortion as God’s requirement.” Yep, by any standard that values normal human desires, affections, and instincts. “I left with the intentions of marrying the father....” Exactly the right thing to do, by any Christian or remotely Biblical standard.

BTW, being "not murder" is not a justification for anything. Beating someone up is not murder. Stealing someone's life savings is not murder. Rape is not murder.

I no longer consider the Bible to be authoritative, but I’ll write from a Biblical perspective. Agree with TWI’s take or not, there is a Biblical basis for the belief that abortion is not murder. There is no Biblical basis for a belief that abortion of a healthy fetus is not wrong, though there may be some leeway for truly free-will abortions, in some instances. There is certainly no Biblical basis for a belief that aborting a healthy fetus is the RIGHT thing to do, in order to fulfill a commitment to God. The sort of “counsel” given to rascal was definitely contrary to many CLEAR passages of the Bible and to its overall message. Pressuring someone to abort a wanted fetus, whether or not that pressure qualifies as coercion or force, is anti-Biblical. Beyond that, it’s contrary to almost any imaginable ethical standard that values human life and normal human desires. I think it’s just plain despicable. Assuming a pregnancy to be the result of consensual intercourse, there are different scenarios to consider. In none of them would pressuring a woman to abort her pregnancy be Biblically correct. If the woman were married, then ANY Christian “leader” should counsel her to view the pregnancy as a blessing and to do whatever she could to ensure the wellbeing of her fetus and her child, from that point all the way to adulthood, and even beyond. If the woman were single, the desired next step would be for she and the father to marry. That would have been required by law in the Old Testament and expected, if not required, in most societies since then. Assuming that both the mother and father were Christians and reasonably capable people, it would be the only Biblically acceptable counsel a Christian minister could give. If the woman were single and would not be marrying the father, for whatever reason, then the most Biblical advice would be to either raise the child herself or to offer it to a Christian couple for adoption. Regarding the possibility of abortion, the only thing that would even conceivably be supported by the Bible would be to note it as a choice, counsel the woman of the possibility that she would regret such a choice for the rest of her life, and offer to be supportive of whatever she would choose. Biblically, becoming pregnant is not a “screw-up.” For a married woman, it is a blessing. For a single woman, the screw-up would be sexual activity outside of marriage. Either way, the proper response by a “leader” or “minister” would not be to pressure the woman to have an abortion. Oldiesman & mj412, The choice presented to rascal was to do God’s will by getting an abortion or to break a vow to God, walk away from Him and His protection, and face consequences that could include death. The point is not that the choice was “real” or believable now, but that it was very real and believable to her at the time.

It’s possible that TWI’s attorneys advised changing bookstore policies but I don’t think that is likely to significantly affect the trademark disputes, except possibly concerning one of the four categories in which TWI is seeking registration of THE WAY INTERNATIONAL (the only one having to do with retail bookstore services). Even concerning that one, I doubt a policy change would be critical, though it might be helpful to TWI. If questioned about the bookstore policy in a lawsuit, I would expect TWI to tell the truth about the policy, but to explain it as an extension of the M&A policy, which is a protected religious practice. I would also expect TWI to say that the relaxing of the policy is part of a trend toward a “kinder, gentler” TWI, after having become too harsh and rigid under Martindale’s leadership. Would that be BS? Perhaps, but I don’t think it would be perjury and I don’t think it would have much effect on the outcome of a lawsuit.

My leaders (also my invisible friends) tell me that I agree with Shaz. Seriously, I think the content of your reply was fine. One could quibble over “7 or so” lawsuits since four of them are trademark oppositions with TTAB and are combined into one action, but that’s not important. You didn’t go out of your way to be nice, but I don’t think the e-mail to which you were replying warranted that. I do think that it warranted being treated either as a private e-mail or as a “letter to the editor,” neither of which should be posted to a public forum not associated with your website, unless the author gives permission. That’s not a matter of law, but a matter of courtesy. Even so, it’s not that big a deal and nobody made a federal case of it. It does seem rather odd, though, to assert in every one of your posts, “All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited,” but not to honor similar rights or extend similar courtesies to others regarding their words. Some might even consider that to be hypocritical.

It wasn't criticism, Pat. It was an observation. I can offer criticism, if you wish.

Checking Excultworld Letters To The Editor … Nope. Not there. Hmmm.