WordWolf

Yes, and they got letters and things complaining about that scene. Mel Brooks said he never could accept cowboy movies where they ate beans and drank black coffee and NOBODY ever had gas...

Yes. And I had you going for a second, considering how well you old-schoolers remember it....

No, and you're not close. :)

A) Often, it's what keeps me going. B) I think the most direct reading of this is that someone expecting Christ to return at any time, with that immediacy fresh to them, they will act like they expect him to return at any time, and certainly not act like they want him to return at the moment they're doing something they shouldn't be doing- they want each moment to reflect a walk worthy of Jesus Christ's calling.

WordWolf: "Those would be, as I said, "rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them." That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target." Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking, or even if it was either of those possibilities.)" Deciderator: "Thank you for your reply and quoting what you had posted. I think we are very close to agreement here. The nuisance suit is an interesting angle, but could they sue him more than once for the same thing? Do we know they have tried that approach?" I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the only ways one can sue twice for the same thing is if: A) there was a MISTRIAL, which means the first case never finished B) new evidence has come up that justifies another case (as agreed by the judge at the beginning) C) one sued in federal court and again in civil court- but those would have to be different charges to a degree. That's why OJ was sued twice "for the same thing"- he won the federal suit for murder, and lost the civil case for "violating the civil rights" of the victims That possibility gets murky and probably needs a legal translator. ============ Deciderator: "Your above post and the quote you provided show clearly that the charge of "piracy" to be incorrect, at least in terms of what we have been given." I think we should give up trying to communicate further on this one. I refuse to budge on "piracy" being neither a word with exactly one meaning, nor meanings only referring to crimes, nor do I see any reason to even suppose twi sued on any grounds related to piracy. You refuse to budge on saying that whatever "piracy" means, twi sued on it and won, therefore there was no "piracy." We're just repeating the same arguments over and over on this one. It's at an impasse, and without a translator, I see this as just wasting time right now. WordWolf: "No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time. It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities. Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did." Deciderator: "Good point. Like, if he was bouncing checks to the supermarket, getting speeding tickets or jaywalking, those issues would not be a part of it. In this case, we can only guess for sake of argument in good faith as to what TWI would sue for. Would they sue just over Mr. Geer redoing PFAL, for example, but nothing else? What can we reasonably guess -for sake of argument - what TWI would sue for?" As I see it, if twi's being typical twi, they focused all their energies on all the legal rights to pfal, the tapes, and the books (including all the collaterals.) They wanted to say only THEY were the legitimate source for any of them, no matter what. twi's been concerned with "illegal classes", but-AFAIK- never seemed interested in any of the "classes" that sprang up anywhere- and there were a number- that basically cloned pfal materials under another name. These were hardly secret, either. twi just seemed disinterested in any of them- or didn't think there was a basis for a lawsuit, one or the other. (All of this supposing, for discussion, all the previous is true, of course.) WordWolf: "If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is- then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action. They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints." Deciderator: "Do you think it possible the phrase "not guilty" was heard in the courtroom?" I'm supposing there was a case, that the case was over legal rights to reproduction, sales and presentation, and that the case ended with the phrase "not guilty" being spoken in re: cg, yes. WordWolf: "If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects. (For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.)" Deciderator: "I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if the charge of "piracy" were true, then Mr. Geer would not just be charged with that.Look at what's been going on. Don't you think that besides "piracy" and "plagiarism," that charges of conspiracy could be brought?" Again, I see no reason to suppose "piracy" OR "plagiarism" were discussed in that court, nor do I see a reason to suppose "kidnapping" was discussed in that court. It is a supposition that there was any charge of "piracy" by ANY definition, it is a supposition that there was any charge of "plagiarism". It would not surprise me if twi tried to make "conspiracy" a charge. Deciderator: "How about interstate transportation of stolen merchandise? Why, that one could involve the FBI, couldn't it? If they had a strong case, in other words they could prove they had the various rights, they could take their case to a prosecutor and have Mr. Geer cuffed and stuffed, right?" Depends on what you mean. If they could make the fundamental charge stick of cg using materials THEY had rights over, THEN other RELATED charges might stick- like transporting merchandise. If they could not, then he was exercising his legal rights concerning the merchandise, and their transport was perfectly legal. I see them as potentially getting him to pay money, but I don't see this as a "throw him in prison" type of crime. (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.) Deciderator: "No, they sued for whatever reason and on whatever grounds. None of us knows what happened in that courtroom, but what we DO know is a charge of "piracy" was not sustained. Mr. Juedes is not being fair to Mr. Geer." You're still making the supposition that "piracy" only means what you're saying it means, AND that it's a crime, AND that it entered into the events in the courtroom. (At least 3 suppositions in a row.) Expecting Juedes to conform to all those suppositions is not being fair to Mr Juedes. Like I said, I think we've reached an impasse. You're going to keep making the same statements A & B, and I'm going to keep making the same statements ~A & ~B. We can agree to disagree and just move on.

"Anything you might say has already been taken down in evidence against you." "I'm quaking, but I don't know whether it's with laughter or terror." "Straw would taste better than his meat, and water a hundred times better than his brandy. Nothing has any taste to it at all." ""No! I won't have this! I haven't dismissed you yet! Stop it! I won't have this!"

"It's amusing that the roast beef is the same price as an Oldsmobile." "I love you too... Rosenthal." "A man should be treated better than his luggage." "Yeah, well, my luggage was sucked out the door. Luckily my radio is frozen to my wrist." "You're a phony. You're a phony. Yes, you are! And you know what, you can't even sing. Your voice was dubbed." " What are you doing here?" "A very brief cameo." "Me too." "Maybe we could jump PARTWAY."

Correct- it isn't reflected in Mr Juedes' charge. In any way, including in the CHARGE. twi was suing on something COMPLETELY UNRELATED to what Juedes was talking about- at least as any court of law would see it. Please stop confusing what twi supposedly sued over (rights to duplicate books/tapes, and rights to sell books/ run classes, with what Juedes was talking about.

I'll have you know, I checked with God, and He agrees with me completely.

"Some more beans, Mister Taggart?" "I think you boys have had enough!"

Mark 9:28-30 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? 29And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. 30And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it. Matthew 17:20-22 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. 22And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: Those are the only references to "prayer AND FASTING" in the KJV. Here's Mark 9:29 in the NASB. "29And He said to them, "This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer." The fasting isn't mentioned! Before I dig in, I wanted to see what the rest of you have to say, and what your own resources show.

George Santayana. "He is perhaps best known for the oft-misquoted remark, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana One of our posters' signature reads "The lessons repeat until they are learned," which expresses much the same sentiment.

Simba: Going back means I'll have to face my past. I've been hiding from it for so long... (Rafiki whacks Simba on the head with his stick) Simba: OW! Geez, what was that for?! Rafiki: It doesn't matter! It's in the past! [chuckles] Simba: Yeah, but it still hurts. Rafiki: Oh, yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or... learn from it. (Rafiki swings his stick, but Simba ducks) Rafiki: Aha! You see? So what are you going to do? Simba: Well first, I'm gonna take your stick.

All "common sayings", especially in twi, should be examined critically. It's not unheard-of (and in twi it was COMMON) to confuse a SLOGAN for a SOLUTION or a REAL ANSWER. If someone can't even TRY to articulate an answer, that's often a sign that there either IS no answer, or no answer that sounds good (like "he drugged them so he could do whatever he wanted with them"), or they don't KNOW the answer and they're covering it up. "You're not spiritual enough to understand" ranks up with "Why do you want to know this?" for "how twi suppressed independent thinking and honest questions." And yes, some people still use it- although it's not so common in the cafe. YES. lcm claimed there was such a thing as "spiritual anger." Doing whatever you wanted and slapping the word "spiritual" in front of a noun to make it sound like God endorsed it was not unheard-of under vpw, but lcm, trained under vpw and two-fold the child of hell his teacher was, raised it to standard operating procedure. In the Bible, it's rare when a true Godly-minded person shows anger. (Except the prophets, and it was their job, and they were often getting in trouble for it.) In the church Epistles, anger is seen as a BAD thing, and there are no occurrences of the phrase "spiritual anger" in the KJV (nor any version I'm familiar with.) IF he ever gets it. twi was a place where you would supposedly get your answers at the next level up, and then it was told that it would be the NEXT level, and the NEXT level, and if you questioned THAT, it was "why do you want to know?" or "Why are you questioning the mog?" Not PHRASED that way, of course....

No it's not, and no it's not. And I agree with Phil Farrand- this "airing the trial live on tv" thing is just begging for a defendant to say something subversive on tv. (We know that was live, since the judge changed his tune as soon as he saw Sisko waiting in the wings, obviously with the evidence.) But it's not that trial.

I didn't go WOW. However, I thought I'd add a little something I picked up. If you look through the book "the way:living in love", you'll see a book that was written not long before the institution of the WOW program, and it includes some photos, which are labelled. One photo shows a WOW holding up the hand-sign for it, which, apparently, never caught on.

Once you start a thread anywhere- ESPECIALLY the GSC- you have no control over its direction. (You can ask nicely, and that's about it, unless you're the Admin.) Sometimes a thread generates no interest, and just sinks. Sometimes a thread gets a little interest-but not the kind you wanted. Sometimes a thread gets a lot of interest-but not the kind you wanted. Sometimes a thread gets a lot of interest-the kind you wanted. You'd be surprised how informative the "threads that got away from you" can be, depending on the thread. ============ Sometimes, I liken the threads to "Stone Soup." That refers to an old folktale that's made the rounds, in many variations. Here's one that refers to what I'm talking about. I got it from http://www.storybin.com/sponsor/sponsor116.shtml ======== Three soldiers trudged down a road in a strange country. they were on their way home from the wars. Besides being tired, they were hungry. In fact, they had eaten nothing for two days. "How I would like a good dinner tonight," said the first. "And a bed to sleep in," added the second. "But that is impossible," said the third. On they marched, until suddenly, ahead of them, they saw the lights of a village. "Maybe we'll find a bite to eat and a bed to sleep in," they thought. Now the peasants of the place feared strangers. When they heard that three soldiers were coming down the road, they talked among themselves. "Here come three soldiers," they said. "Soldiers are always hungry. But we have so little for ourselves." And they hurried to hide their food. They hid the barley in hay lofts, carrots under quilts, and buckets of milk down the wells. They hid all they had to eat. Then they waited. The soldiers stopped at the first house. "Good evening to you," they said. "Could you spare a bit of food for three hungry soldiers?" "We have no food for ourselves," the residents lied. "It has been a poor harvest." The soldiers went to the next house. "Could you spare a bit of food?" they asked. "And do you have a corner where we could sleep for the night?" "Oh, no," the man said. "We gave all we could spare to the soldiers who came before you." "And our beds are full," lied the woman. At each house, the response was the same -- no one had food or a place for the soldiers to stay. The peasants had very good reasons, like feeding the sick and children. The villagers stood in the street and sighed. They looked as hungry as they could. The soldiers talked together. The first soldier called out, "Good people! We are three hungry soldiers in a strange land. We have asked you for food and you have no food. Well, we will have to make stone soup." The peasants stared. The soldiers asked for a big iron pot, water to fill it, and a fire to heat it. "And now, if you please, three round smooth stones." The soldiers dropped the stones into the pot. "Any soup needs salt and pepper," the first soldker said, so children ran to fetch salt and pepper. "Stones make good soup, but carrots would make it so much better," the second soldier added. One woman said, "Why, I think I have a carrot or two!" She ran to get the carrots. "A good stone soup should have some cabbage, but no use asking for what we don't have!" said the third soldier. Another woman said, "I think I can probably find some cabbage," and off she scurried. "If only we had a bit of beef and some potatoes, this soup would be fit for a rich man's table." The peasants thought it over, then ran to fetch what they had hidden in their cellars. A rich man's soup, and all from a few stones! It seemed like magic! The soldiers said, "If only we had a bit of barley and some milk, this soup would be fit for a king!" And so the peasants managed to retrieve some barley and milk. "The soup is ready," said the cooks, "and all will taste it, but first we need to set the tables." Tables and torches were set up in the square, and all sat down to eat. Some of the peasants said, "Such a great soup would be better with bread and cider," so they brought forth the last two items and the banquet was enjoyed by all. Never had there been such a feast. Never had the peasants tasted such delicious soup, and all made from stones! They ate and drank and danced well into the night. The soldiers asked again if there was a loft where they might sleep for the night. "Oh, no!" said the townfolk. "You wise men must have the best beds in the village!" So one soldier spent the night in the priest's house, one in the baker's house, and one in the mayor's house. In the morning, the villagers gathered to say goodbye. "Many thanks to you," the people said, "for we shall never go hungry now that you have taught us how to make soup from stones!" =========== Personally, I think that's the principle that's governed Waydale AND the GSC.

Jay Leno?????

"Anything you might say has already been taken down in evidence against you." "I'm quaking, but I don't know whether it's with laughter or terror."

Next movie. "It's amusing that the roast beef is the same price as an Oldsmobile." "I love you too... Rosenthal." "A man should be treated better than his luggage." "Yeah, well, my luggage was sucked out the door. Luckily my radio is frozen to my wrist."

Robert's Rules of Order, and other rules of Parliamentary Procedure, were designed for such. We call it, at the GSC, "disagreeing without being disagreeable", in action. If you ever read through a book on Robert's Rules, you might see something in the Introduction that answers the very question you raised- you debate the ISSUE, not the PERSON. Most of the people here I disagree with most strongly are (as I consider them) my brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether or not the are, as a Christian, it is worth reminding MYSELF if no one else that strong disagreement does not mean they are any less valuable as a person. When I was in college, I posted a photocopy of part of an ad, and taped it to a partition in the Intervarsity Christian office. (I found it in an issue of Christianity Today, and I wish I still had the thing.) The copy read "Even when Christians disagree, they should all share the same position." The photo was of a man kneeling in prayer. It was left up for a long time, since it quite succinctly articulated something all of us needed to see, sometimes often. Ok, when that happens, that's getting into the person him/herself. (Me, I save those for truly rare occasions, and truly outstanding posts. I don't think I've done that in 2007 yet.)

Incorrect. Plagiarism is always a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony. Whether or not someone is legally prosecuted for it or not is no measure of whether or not it's a crime. Similarly, jaywalking and speeding are often not legally prosecuted, but they're still crimes when that happens. http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html ""Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail. Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail." So, plagiarism in itself IS illegal.

Not so far no, but neither has anyone claimed he's been taking over ships and robbing the passengers. It means he has not successfully been sued on anything for which he might be successfully be prosecuted. It means twi might have used incompetent tactics, or sued on unwinnable grounds rather than winnable ones. Mainly, it tells me only what it does at face value- cg has not been convicted of any crime. Look, Al Capone continued to do what he did in the United States, unimpeded by legal action, in spite of the best attempts of the Dept of the Treasury, until someone finally got him on INCOME TAX EVASION. That does NOT mean he was innocent of any wrongdoings before that, nor that the only wrong thing he did was not pay his taxes. Likewise, it didn't mean he wasn't or didn't, either.

Those would be, as I said, "rights to reproduce pfal and other books and classes,and to run them." That's approximately what a lot of people were doing in hiding, but cg was doing it in the open, so he was "a target." Of course, if they already signed over rights to do all of that, then all of his being a target meant nothing except frustration for twi. Furthermore, they may have just tried to "nuisance-suit" him to death, where they knew he was in the right, but tried to bankrupt him with nuisance lawsuits. (These are possibilities, I don't know what they were thinking, or even if it was either of those possibilities.) No, it is not reasonable to suppose that a court upheld-as you're suggesting- EVERYTHING he did at the time. It was not a judgement of ALL his conduct, or ALL his activities. Whatever the suit was, it governed only the specific terms of that specific suit. By definition, it excluded EVERYTHING ELSE he did. If all of what we were told is true- and for the sake of argument, we are presuming it is- then the court upheld that the specific complaints brought before the court lacked sufficient merit to warrant action. They were not endorsements of anything-especially anything outside the scope of the complaints. If someone's going to claim that a court endorsed plagiarism, I'd want to see the specific judgement from the court before taking that one seriously. In this particular case, that would have been endorsing a felony- and such actions require some truly extraordinary circumstances for a court to overlook the felonious aspects. (For example, killing another man in self-defense, where the court overlooks the killing of the man because it was in self-defense.