WordWolf

Depends on where you associate. In some places, there's a lot of people raised Catholic. Of course, another way of looking at the same people is "Of all the born-again Christians I know, most were formerly Catholics but aren't anymore." BTW, the survey leaves out most of the world. Our posters from Mexico and points south, not to mention Australians, are left out.

His ENTIRE reply was nothing more than a catchphrase from the way international? Is he capable of thinking on his own anymore? It doesn't SOUND like it. I mean, a computer programmer can design a program that just spits back twi catchphrases in response to e-mails, and those certainly don't think.

I glanced at "the wall." If there was an original thought there, I didn't see it. I saw an amazing amount of quotes and buzz phrases from twi. It looked like there was a contest for some sort of twi cliche festival and nobody announced the winner. Then again, if they believe that, none of them actually wins....

This saying seems to date from after I left. It just seems to beg for the standard response... (Don't you want to conform to what the way international teaches?) "Don't you want to live in the center of God's will?" " 'Center of God's will'? CHAPTER AND VERSE, PLEASE."

For just opening Doc files, the simplest solution is to use OpenOffice.

the way international quietly owns real estate in different locations. They're the lease-holders on a number of houses. The limb homes are obvious examples, but there's others that are not "obvious." One was the house a certain doctor lives in. loy craig martindale was installed into an apartment in the house, presumably so the doctor could keep an eye on him, while keeping lcm out of the public eye and "off the radar."

Right. Your turn.

[Neon's atomic number is 10.]

"Im going down to Rosedale, take my rider by my side. Im going down to Rosedale, take my rider by my side. You can still barrelhouse, baby, on the riverside."

I just asked a question. Please either post the turn on this thread or the Star Trek thread. It was your turn last there as well....

Might they be rerun on television every year around the end of that month?

Bumps for the lurkers....

Well, this one was Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice." If you've never seen the video, you'll want to....

What's different is that the way international is now SAYING it's different. Other than that, it's pretty much the same. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The thing is, if his version is plagiarized from THEIR book(s), then they have a legal basis for a complaint (violation of their legal rights under copyright law), and are entitled to their day in court, and judgment in their favor. Whether or not his version is plagiarized from their book(s) is a matter for the court(s) to determine. From a Christian standpoint, it would be better if they went directly to him and tried to get satisfaction from him first. I do not know if they attempted this. From a legal standpoint, that is not required beyond possibly issuing a cease-and-desist letter. It should be no surprise IF the way international handled this solely as a legal matter, and ignored how the Bible says to treat other Christians- they abuse their OWN Christians and are unlikely to treat outsider Christians with the respect Christians usually accord one another at this time.

Clicking this to the top....

I thought this thread might be handy at the moment.

When it comes to compassion, there's nothing new at the way international. twi has always preferred to be more like Job's miserable comforters than like anything Jesus Christ said to behave like.

Those lines are, the song as a whole is not taken to be. (An argument conceivably could be made for it, but not a popular one.) =========================== "Walk without rhythm, it won't attract the worm. Walk without rhythm, and it won't attract the worm! Walk without rhythm, and it won't attract the worm. if you walk without rhythm...you never learn." "Organically grown. Through the hemisphere I roam. To make love to the angels of light, yeah and my girl. I guess you just don't understand- It's gone beyond bein' a man. As I drift off into the night I'm in flight."

Here's trying something different. "Walk without rhythm, it won't attract the worm. Walk without rhythm, and it won't attract the worm! Walk without rhythm, and it won't attract the worm. if you walk without rhythm...you never learn."

Ok. I give. That song was the Talking Heads "And She Was."

Proverbs 11:!4. "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." You've had the benefit of counsel of a number of posters. They've all said different things in different ways, but they all offered the same general advice and foresaw the same general outcome. Of course, you're free to ignore them all, keep saying you know better than everyone else, and keep yourself as a client in a court of law. (There's a saying about that.) Us, we'll just wait for the report of how badly you get spanked. You've chosen a losing strategy, and chosen to ignore the advice of the people who actually didn't recommend you getting spanked. Either you're so narcissistic you can't see you're completely outclassed and don't know your way around a courtroom, or you KNOW you're going to crash and burn and are persisting out of some perverse desire to be humiliated in court. Either way, there's really no point to posting here anymore, unless you want to join in some of the discussions with nothing to do with your court-case. You're free to do that, of course...

[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright? All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]

They can hear any plagiarism case whenever they want. Charges of plagiarism or lack thereof are independent of the content of the plagiarized work. If that's the extent of your defense, you're going to get spanked by the real lawyers. The LAYMEN here can apparently fry you like a fish. My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and assess what they say of the people who chose them. Sun Tzu would have pointed out that tactical assessments are to be made before any conflict, and victory or defeat should be determined before BEGINNING the conflict. Winners won first on paper, then went to the conflict, losers went to the conflict THEN tried to win. There's strategies for use when one is "strong" and strategies for use when one is "weak". In this case, arguing directly from evidence is "strong" and arguing to dismiss or disregard evidence is "weak." So far, the "weak" argument is not good enough for a judge to take it seriously- thus it would be a LOSING argument. Sun Tzu said that if you were unable to fight "strong" and refused to fight with a winning "weak" strategy, you would lose. In this case, that means you're smoked meat. Of course, you're free to ignore everything I've said, and let the judge tell you the same thing in different words when it will cost you thousands of dollars. That's the strategic summary. If I can see it, real lawyers and judges can see it, too. We've had some lengthy discussions here in the past on what is allowed and what is prohibited under US laws concerning plagiarism. The court will rule on whether your work is plagiarized or original. If your "argument" is based on anything else, you're going to get filleted.