WordWolf

*keeps trying to hum his way through* How about Dire Straits' "Tunnel of Love"?

I'm confident the staff can see the relevance of analogies, examples and comparison, and can distinguish between them and going off-topic.

I thought it was obvious Jesus was using hyberbole. NEVER use the term "teacher"? The terms "teacher", "leader"/"master", and "father" have legitimate, technical uses. However, each term can be easily abused-used to confer inappropriate levels of authority or power upon someone, robbing others of their rightful places, and robbing THAT person of theirs- giving them a mantle they can't possibly live up to, even if they think they can.... In the case of what we once did, yes, it WAS up to us to look coldly and say "you're asking for more than your rightful place" or "you're giving him a position reserved for Jesus, and robbing Jesus of his due,"- but those who orchestrated things, who knew better (or should have, for all their claims to understand Scripture) and perpetuated things God said not to do.

Please keep posts on topic. The topic is not the intentions or motives of other posters.

Please keep posts on topic - this topic of this thread is not WhiteDove

Deleted Personal Attack

The "year limit" is really a rule of thumb. It tends to work, but there's no REQUIREMENT it be followed. Meanwhile, let's see. This is definitely Dire Straits. I recognize the slot machine lines. Is this just "Espresso Love"?

"We meet at a crossroads in history. No longer will the wrong roads be taken." "Now back to Gene Krupa's syncopated style." "I would say he has quite a few problems. His energy seems to go in the wrong places. When I walked in and I saw you two sitting there, I could just tell by the way you were both relating that there was no connection whatsoever. And I felt when I walked in that there was something between us. There was an impulse that we were both following. So that gave me the right to come in and talk to you. Otherwise I never would have felt that I had the right to talk to you or say anything to you. I never would have had the courage to talk to you. And with him I felt there was nothing and I could sense it. When I walked in, I knew I was right. Did you feel that way?" "June twenty-ninth. I gotta get in shape. Too much sitting has ruined my body. Too much abuse has gone on for too long. From now on there will be 50 pushups each morning, 50 pullups. There will be no more pills, no more bad food, no more destroyers of my body. From now on will be total organization. Every muscle must be tight. " "You're a young girl, you should be at home. You should be dressed up, going out with boys, going to school, you know, that kind of stuff." "The days go on and on... they don't end. All my life needed was a sense of someplace to go. I don't believe that one should devote his life to morbid self-attention, I believe that one should become a person like other people." "Loneliness has followed me my whole life. Everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man... June 8th. My life has taken another turn again. The days can go on with regularity over and over, one day indistinguishable from the next. A long continuous chain. Then suddenly, there is a change." "Now I see this clearly. My whole life is pointed in one direction. There never has been a choice for me."

Well, I think Juedes' description is just OLD. Vince's documentation, some time back, went through considerable contortions to talk around the names of twi, vpw, and so on. It mentioned he'd taught in Zaire, but never under whose aegis. So, there was a time when it was completely accurate to say he was "hiding something". NOW he's mentioning both, so at least that much he's not hiding. If he's hiding anything else, I'm sure I could find out, but I'd have to care more than I do.

Proverbs 12:15 (KJV) The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. Judges 17:5-13 (KJV) 5And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest. 6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. 7And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-judah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there. 8And the man departed out of the city from Bethlehem-judah to sojourn where he could find a place: and he came to mount Ephraim to the house of Micah, as he journeyed. 9And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehem-judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place. 10And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in. 11And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons. 12And Micah consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah. 13Then said Micah, Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.

I was never deprogrammed. However, I know a bit about the subject. There's 2 types of processes that are called "deprogramming." A) Discussion and comparison of different beliefs, with ex-members discussing doctrine and so on. In some ways, it's not entirely different from what we did after we left twi. B) Kidnapping someone, then brainwashing them (using "forceful indoctrination") until the person is "broken" by the brainwashing and is willing to believe what the brainwasher said. People have been "deprogrammed" this way from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, and from atheism to theism, depending on the beliefs of the person paying for the "deprogramming."

Mark Clarke: "ou keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth. As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that. You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?" A) No one ever said that was. B) If this WAS a court of law, eyewitness testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of "physical evidence". (Your use of the term "hard factual evidence" is nonspecific.) C) This is STILL not a court of law. Your insistence that a discussion is invalid unless a court of law has rendered a verdict confirming it is unfair, and is ridiculous to apply on a general discussion board like the GSC. If you REALLY can't participate in the discussions here because they're not confirmed with legal verdicts, you should demonstrate the courage of your convictions. That would mean stepping out of discussions here and elsewhere where this is not the case. You could also make a messageboard where that's the standard, and demonstrate to us-by example- that this can actually WORK, and is not just some theoretical construct that would fail to actually WORK.

"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual." Really. Congratulations on finding a few sentences from the vast forest of documentation of laws. If a judge were to ignore the vast body of written laws on libel, all precedents, and indeed how the First Amendment is applied, then perhaps he might actually see things your way. If one tries hard enough, one can find a sentence here, and a sentence there, that make no practical sense, and contradict how the rest of the law is written and practiced. I've seen laws where, at an intersection, both cars must stop and wait until the other car has left the intersection, which is physically impossible. (AFAIK, this is STILL on the books.) See, that's why the ENTIRE law is followed. Laws are written by imperfect people, and so ALL the laws- as well as precedents- are considered whenever a judgement-or an interpretation of the law-is made. And truths on the internet are NOT prosecutable. You're determining that something's a lie before it's brought to a jury- and claiming we're wrong for determining anything's true before it's brought to a jury. And in court people who tell the truth about others in a public forum are called into court. Again, you determined someone told a "lie" and "libeled" before they were ever seen by the jury. The court is to "determine" whether or not they lied. As I said before, the goal of a jury is to FIND THE TRUTH and judgement is made accordingly. Your assumption that nothing can be discusses without a legal judgement is your own opinion. Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made. Perhaps you never considered this when you came to your position. YOU do the same thing all the time. That's how discussions go. Now, if you choose to say 'My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court", that is your OPINION and your CHOICE. However, to do so FAIRLY, you should then EXCUSE YOURSELF from all discussions online, rather than insist that the discussions that already take place CONFORM TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARD. You don't get to decide how everyone else communicates. If you run a discussion board, you can determine what's allowed on your board-but can't force people to actually POST there. If you don't run a discussion board, you have no authority to determine what OTHER PEOPLE should use as their standard. Your assumption that nothing can be discussed without a legal judgement is your own opinion. Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made. That's how discussions go. Now, if you choose to say "My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court", that is your OPINION, and your CHOICE. Your assumption that nothing can be discussed without a legal judgement is your own opinion. Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made. Perhaps you never considered this when you came to your position. YOU do the same thing all the time. That's how discussions go. Now, if you choose to say "My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court", that is your OPINION, and your CHOICE. However, to do so FAIRLY, you should then EXCUSE YOURSELF from all discussions online, rather than insist that the discussions that already take place CONFORM TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARD. You don't get to decide how everyone else communicates. If you run a discussion board, you can determine what's allowed on your board-but can't force people to actually POST there. If you don't run a discussion board, you have no authority to determine what OTHER PEOPLE should use as their standard. =================== twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue, shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable if they tried to claim this? Amazing how you can miss what should be the obvious point. twi will take any opportunity to take legal action wherever they can. They have taken no action against all those who have posted about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist. If they had any basis for suing us, they would have sued us. Therefore, it can be seen as the professional opinion that the posts here are not libelous. This, of course, is not the same as them, as professionals, stating "none of this is libelous." However, most people would note that-from twi- silence on some matters says as much as loud shouting does on other matters. Their PROFESSIONALS have deemed the actions here not-actionable under the law. You as a layman-a NONprofessional- keeps claiming the actions here are actionable under the law. Is it possible that you-the nonprofessional- are MISTAKEN about this? Is it possible that you MISUNDERSTAND something? Is it possible you're MISINTERPRETING how the law works? ================================= Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC. The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury. Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony, examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions. In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony. Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason. Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both. In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies. That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair. If the laws were broken, it would be legally-actionable. No one here is breaking the laws. No one here is committing a crime. No legal action has been taken. No legal action WILL be taken. That a crime has occurred is the opinion of ONE LAYMAN. All those here with ANY legal experience have said the opposite. All those with the ability to take action if it was criminal are AWARE of what's being said, and are taking no action. It is the opinion of ONE layman that laws are broken, and criminal actions taken. That ONE LAYMAN is incorrect. No laws have been broken, no criminal actions have occurred. This is STILL not a court of law. This is all ACADEMIC. The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury. Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony, examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions. That's the same as any OTHER discussion, any place at any time where one is not rendering PROFESSIONAL opinions or in a court of law. ============= As Mark Clarke said: "There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice." What's happening is STILL not libel. To you it is UNPLEASANT. You DISAGREE. This does not mean you get to anoint it "libel."

Apparently, you're the only one who thinks so. This got moved from the "eyewitness" thread to the "libel" thread as a distraction from the former thread. And the law is not ONE sentence in ONE state court- it's thousands and thousands of sentences, with the letter of the law, and the interpretations of the law, with precedents and dissents, down hundreds of years. Congratulations on finding 3-4 sentences that seem to support your view. They're effectively USELESS in an actual COURT because the rest of the law says that a statement has to be FALSE to be libel, and that the dead can't be libelled no matter what. I know you want to pretend this is some sort of "court" where the legal definitions are in effect, but if it WAS, and you tried to prove libel on the dead in court, and tried to say TRUTH doesn't count when trying to determine libel, the judge would toss out both lines of inquiry as irrelevant. If you tried to appeal on that basis, you'd be laughed out of the appeals process. That is incorrect. What part of the law are you claiming says this? Everything in a discussion is either an opinion, or a quote. That's how we "discuss" things. We form opinions ALL THE TIME. That includes YOU. When you decide what to wear whenever you leave the house, you look out the window, check a weather report, or ask someone else about the conditions outside. Then you form an opinion, and dress accordingly. Eyewitnesses state what they observed all the time. People question the reliability of their observations, and eventually form opinions-either the person was correct or not. (If someone said the sky was clear, either you think the sky is not clear, or you think it's clear. You can look at it yourself, check a weather report, or ask other eyewitnesses if the sky is clear. Most sensible adults, if they find a number of unconnected eyewitnesses report the sky is clear, will conclude that the truth of the matter is that the sky is clear. They don't have to go to court to prove it, nor to discuss it. And the word "alleged" doesn't have to accompany it UNLESS you're in a court of law. Take a look at any news article, and count the number of "allegeds" used in it. "The hurricane is ALLEGEDLY approaching the coast." "The Presidential candidate ALLEGEDLY visited the city of Spokane." "The price of gas ALLEGEDLY went up this year." It seems particular with you that this is a necessary part of discussion, when forming observations and discussing opinions. That's not part of any definition of libel. If you're going to interpret the law for us, kindly cite your own pedigree as a law professional. This isn't how it works, not in any public venue, nor in court. Libel becomes an issue for courts to determine if a living person claims defamation by a false statement. This sentence is ungrammatical, so whatever you were trying to say in the first part is lost. Whether or not a statement is libelous is determined by a jury, and that's done by determining several parts, including if the statement was false, and if the statement was malicious. If so, the jury's likely to find it was libelous. We're having a discussion. Except for your OPINION (and you may hold whatever OPINION you wish), the idea that "unethical charges" entered into them is considered invalid. I'd be more concerned if a LEGAL EXPERT determined a PROFESSIONAL OPINION that such was made- but even then, I'd want the specifics. (It's possible to prejudice an expert who has not looked at all the facts and ask them to give an opinion on something out of context-which is why competent experts won't give a professional opinion off-the-cuff.)

That's how the courts see it at every level of this country. It's considered a First Amendment issue. That's how it's handled, both as a First Amendment issue, and in every other sense, when someone is actually IN COURT.

It was derailing the active discussion about eyewitnesses. So, I moved this thread up so that the eyewitness thread could remain about eyewitnesses, and those who want to discuss "libel" and "legal definitions" (or pretend they care about them, either-or) can discuss them on this thread in all their excruciating, hair-splitting, angel-dancing, gnat-straining glory.

Ever have a person who followed you around at work or whenever you went into a store or a local hangout like a bar or something? Picture if they tried to follow you home. Cyberstalkers can range from "I want to be your friend 24/7 no matter how obnoxious I get" to "If I can't control your life, I will kill you." Mine was more the former. They went from messageboard to messageboard, tried to ingratiate themself with my friends and acquaintances, and did various transparent things to try to cozy up to me. Since they were transparent, all they did was insult me more. Treating them like an adult-who could be told "go away" was useless. Eventually, I had to go to the staff of every messageboard I was currently on and report her. I even reported her on boards she hadn't appeared on yet. In some cases, I ended up discussing it with the regular posters. Once I treated them like a 10-year old who couldn't be trusted to log onto the internet, THEN they got the message "go away." I never invited the last one, and I won't invite the next one-who will try to get personal information on me. With all of cyberspace to check, she's STILL going to have to put in a lot of work to find anything personally-identifiable on me.

Not very Led Zepellin-y. Maybe King Crimson, or Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Anyone?

I'm thinking those are the 2 differences. 1) It wasn't the other way around. 2) It referred SPECIFICALLY to the 2 men who worked together for long blocks of time, in a sort of apprentice-journeyman sense, not an "I took his class" sense. At most, the one time by Paul, AFAIK. I can't speak for anyone modern, especially if I wasn't there.

It also comes up in I Timothy and II Timothy. ================ 1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. ================ I note it doesn't say Timothy called Paul "father", which may be all the distinction needs. I'm also convinced that the verse you cited was completely misconstrued in twi. It turned from Paul saying Timothy had many instructors, but Paul (PERSONALLY) fathered him in the good news- into "the guy who teaches that class and we may meet in passing or not at all 'fathered' everyone who took that class" instead of him being one of the 10,000 instructors. Furthermore, I still haven't seen any verses say anything about Paul having any special privileges with Timothy, let alone anyone else.

May I suggest something? I've suggested, in other messageboards, down the years, that rules for conduct include a request that posters attempt to follow "the Golden Rule"- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and that posters who do not choose this should at least attempt to follow "the Silver Rules"- "That which you don't want others to do to you, don't do to them." The non-Christians generally have no problem at least seeing this makes sense, whether or not it's ever considered part of the rules.

This discussion concerns EYEWITNESSES, and is NOT a discussion of legal definitions. We HAVE such a discussion in an adjoining thread-which you're currently participating in. Misusing the term "libel" in this discussion-especially after it's been brought to your attention that it's off-topic here- thus counterproductive- and you've been participating in the discussion OF "libel" seems to indicate you're attempting to take this discussion off-topic. That's contrary to the spirit and intent of the GSC. Please stop. "These rules are meant to encourage civil, courteous discussion. They are not meant to stifle your freedom of expression. We want everyone to have a voice here; please use yours wisely and considerately."

I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled. "In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual." (Scroll up.) Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable. That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it. It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it. What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system, to be used IN the legal system. In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their "argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side, and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision. That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability- all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts. That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury. Context, context, context.... The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR. Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE. That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be inflammatory AND FALSE. Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL. If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE. If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie- which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead- he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember? Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel. That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead- whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling. Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually... That is true. And the laws state-and any law reference states- that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE. If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel. Here's what Law.com says... "http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=|||| libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. " Here's what it says about 'libel per se': http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...4&bold=|||| "libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses." Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel "Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue." Here's what Nolo.com says about libel: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7 "An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)." Here's what FindLaw says about libel: http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/r...623b89f93d49694 "libel ['li-bel] Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book 1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases) 2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words specif : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt" twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue, shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable if they tried to claim this? ================================= Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC. The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury. Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony, examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions. In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony. Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason. Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both. In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction. However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies. That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair. ============= As Mark Clarke said: "There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice." You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth. As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that. You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"

You're misusing the term "libel" again. Since you must not mean to derail this discussion, we can pick this back up on the thread about libel, which is here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=17741

Someone seems to want to continue this discussion....