WordWolf

What you called "Dream Deferred" is probably the poem by Langston Hughes, called "Harlem". "What happens to a dream deferred?..." It's quoted at the beginning of "Raisin in the Sun."

Hm. So, then, "spiritual anger" is anger from the OTHER kind of spirit........

Raf got it pretty quick. I didn't even use my follow-up quote, the much more recognizable "Kill him a lot!" or the "you threw a knife at me" scene. The first exchange was when one guy had just become a vampire, and his friend doesn't know-but his pal is floating outside his window. The second quote was the Principal, at the Senior Dance with all the senior vampires crashing. As they burst in, "I have a pocket FULL of detention slips-and I'm not afraid to use them!" After they're all killed, he walks up to each vampire corpse, drops a detention slip on it, and announces, "Detention...detention...detention..." Are you there, Pirate?

My God is not that small. If it weren't for Victor Paul Wierwille, my God would have found another way to show me the things I've learned. TF, to quote vpw, "If my God was as small as your God, I'd get me a new God."

While we're waiting, here's a semi-easy one.... "I'm HUNGRY!" "You're FLOATING!!" "Detention...detention....detention...."

That's ANOTHER crime to lay to his account! :D-->

I agree. Even if I didn't, I'd say "Pirate, next one please".

Marilyn Monroe Love Happy Raymond Burr (You guys don't know how tough it was resisting the urge to link to Harpo or Groucho this turn.... :)--> )

If someone who was new to twi/had been invited and was thinking of attending a meeting, or someone who was trying to figure out what the organization is all about, asked you to explain victor paul wierwille, what would you want to make sure they knew about him? What was his youth like, his pre-ministry days? What about his time from college-Vesper Chimes? All the stuff after that? What would be relevant if someone was writing a biography on him, or a "true stories", or whatever? Let's say you were asked to write a biographical sketch of the man so that others-who'd never heard of him-could understand him in one read. What would you write?

John Hurt Spaceballs John Candy

Molly Ringwald Breakfast Club Emilio Estevez

If I can pick up after Steve! (but mindful of that) I would say Bram Stoker's Dracula Gary Oldman Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

You're probably thinking of the guy who played "Bill S. Preston", but that wasn't Sean Penn. Please reboot, Trefor.

We did not "all go thru it" because there were hundreds of different "it"s. Some left during mass exoduses, and thus had a support network. Some left with their families, and thus brought their nearest and dearest. Some were in areas where they lived in the middle of nowhere and could drop off the radar. Some were in the military and twi couldn't pin them in place for a number of reasons. For some out on the field, to leave will mean they can't work for their current employer (they "work for believers"), they have to move immediately (they "rent from believers"), and, having been isolated from everyone they know OUTSIDE of twi, they're now isolated from everyone IN twi who are now saying horrible things about them. Yeah, go ahead, leave. You've been "living at a needs level" and thus have no savings and your most expensive possession is a beat-up car that will die sooner or later. But, buck up! You have no friends, no contacts, no job, no place to live, and no money. However, you have PLATITUDES! === Hiya folks! You say you lost your job today? You say it's 4am and your kids ain't come home from school yet? You say your wife went out for a corned-beef sandwich last week, and the corned-beef sandwich came back but she didn't? You say your furniture's out all over the sidewalk 'cause you can't pay the rent? And ya got chapped lips and paper-cuts, and your feets all swollen up and blistered from pounding the pavement looking for work? Is that what's troublin' you...fella? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up....*music stops*..that ship! Hey there, friend. You say your radiators didn't work all winter, and now that it's summer they've started up again and you can't turn it off? You say your wide sent your lightweight suits to the cleaners, and that means you'll have to wear your itchy tweeds this morning, when they say it'll hit 106, and ya gotta meet an important businessman in an hour, and your bridge just broke, and you pasted it together with bubblegum and ya hope it don't fall apart while you're doin' some fast-talkin' to this man. and.... and your shoelace just busted and you opened up a big cut on your cheek tryin' to even out your side-burns and your daughter's going out with a convict and your wife just confessed she gave your last $60 as a deposit on an airplane hanger? Is that what's troublin' you...friend? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up...*music stops*...that ship! Hey there, cousin. You say you can't pull your car out of the mud, and you're in the middle of nowhere, and it's pouring rain, and ya can't get the top back up, and your paycheck's all blurred, and your foot went right thru the gaspedal, and your girl's screaming bloody-murder she's scared of the dark, and a stroke of lightning splits your motor in half, and your suit's shrinking up fast, and you start up the windy road in foot, and 60 yards of barbed-wire hits you right smack in the face and a wild animal comes over and runs away with your shoes and your car blows up suddenly and your windshield wiper ends up in yer mouth and you can't move, and the mud's risin' up to yer nostrils, and yer sinkin' fast, and you don't hear yer girl screamin' any more? Is that what's on yer mind....cousin? *marching music* Well, lift your head up high and take a walk in the sun with dignity and stick-to-it-iveness and ya show the world, ya show the world where to get off. You'll never give up, never give up, never give up..*music stops*..that ship! And now, this is the Old Philosopher saying, So long, folks! ===== As to people who are on grounds, their situation is detailed here http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html (he said, posting it AGAIN on the same thread.)

Aaaand, for the second time in the same thread to answer the same question by the same person, this link.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/edit.../prisoners.html

Page 6, this thread, April 15m 2005, 9:13am Eastern. Page 1, this thread, April 12, 2005, 4:56pm Eastern. There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.... (For those wondering, there were a few pages of answers to this, this actually being a DISCUSSION on that very subject. Those of you who READ the thread know this.)

Each day they are unable to decide, the smoke is black. The day they decide, the smoke is white. This won't take as long as it might, since JP II made changes that said that if nobody can get a 2/3 majority after several weeks, then whoever gets the simple majority gets the chair. My favourite anecdote about that was one century when they were deadlocked over 2 years, so those outside the sequester stopped sending in FOOD. After that, I think it was another 1-2 weeks of debate. (Well, I figure a week of supplies...)

Sorry then. I understood your previous comments- Saying "I agree" (I thought you agreed with me, since you quoted me when you said it) and agreeing with my comment that Ratzinger (or someone before him) squelched the reports and rewrote them in a fashion making Law look like some sort of victim of hysteria, rather than someone who deliberately facilitated the criminal actions of despicable criminals who sought to continue living in a free society and continue their despicable criminal acts. SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE along the line (I don't know precisely WHO) facilitated this, in each case. In some of the cases, Cardinal Law (ironic name) himself aided and abetted them in this, and engaged in conspiracy, both of which are criminal acts. (It was illegal to let them get away with it and only relocate them, and illegal to bury the reports.) We both DO agree that at Ratzinger's level, there's another step of burying the scandals and so on. I thought you agreed with me. I was saying that JP II was guilty of being "asleep at the switch"-being uninformed in situations where extensive information was called for, and this in its fashion helped facilitate the evil deeds. Personally, I think that, if he REALLY HAD known what we ourselves know, let alone the parties involved, then he would have acted decisively. I'd go so far to say that such a lapse is criminal at that level, and say thay he failed in his fiducuary responsibility as officer over all the cardinals, bishops and priests. He did so by failing to act, by failing to perform duties of his office, IMHO, and NOT by deliberately aiding their criminal acts. Sorry I misinterpreted you, Garth.

This is true. The judge himself said that a jury should decide the merits of the allegations. Let me repeat: the judge said a jury should decide the allegations. I feel comfortable that the judge is correct, that after hearing all the facts under oath, the jury decides. That's the proper way to judge a case. It would have been nice if you had read my ENTIRE post, instead of just scrolling until you saw your name. Although I'm not a legal expert either, I'm aware that a GOOD judge does not attempt to overstep his mandate, nor to deviate from the REQUIRED procedure. If you had READ MY POST, you would have seen that I pointed out WHY he said that instead of just making a pronouncement. At that step, the judge was to strip away whatever was outside the court's jurisdiction, and what was without merit, and issue a document recommending the remaining items proceed to trial. If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case lacks merit completely, it gets trashed at this step. If it is baldly obvious to the judge that a case is "open and shut", then he does NOT just render a judgement at this step. He does exactly what the judge did here- he recommends it proceed to trial. Why doesn't he just say "the defendant is guilty" like Oldiesman seems to think is supposed to happen at this point? Well, the defendant is allowed, under the Bill of Rights (Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America) to a trial by JURY, even if the defendant's case is open-and-shut. So, the judge's response is that the prosecution's case had substance. At this stage, it would have been improper for the judge to influence the jury and make pronouncements as to guilt or innocence. (If he had, he would have given the defendant grounds for an appeal, just like that.) As I said earlier (and explained, both the judge and twi's lawyers took responses indicative of a belief that the plaintiff had a case with substance. THEIR professional opinions, therefore, were that such a response was the most appropriate response to the situation. Therefore, experts with all the facts took that position. Are you questioning THEIR appraisal of the situation? Actually, if I believed twi's case, I'd STILL say "the judge responded that the case has merit, which is all he COULD do at that point. The lawyers responded in a way that indicated THEY believed the case had merit and they could lose. Here's something that requires no degree to understand.... If a lawyer thinks the other side has NO chance to win, he will proceed to trial as swiftly as possible. If a lawyer thinks HIS side has NO chance to win, he will do everything he can to do prevent his case going to trial. He will find something to do to change the conditions. He will convince his client to change his plea, he will try to change the venue if he thinks the locality is biased, or, most commonly, he will OFFER TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT. This will allow his client to lose a FRACTION of the money and a FRACTION of the time. In this case, the DEFENDANTS OFFERED TO SETTLE OUT OF COURT. How difficult does it have to be to see this alone suggests they're aware they can't win and are at-fault? Well, for folks who "have a predetermined mindset and unbalanced perspective", this might be difficult. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh, Oldiesman, you kill me sometimes! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Gonna act later like it never happened? It's been your usual gambit to date.... Frankly, based on your "ability" to "interpret" what IS public knowledge in this case, I'm thankful the parties are spared your curiousity. I'm fairly certain NOTHING would convince you the plaintiff had a case, and the only results would be you voyeuristically scrutinizing the personal details of an injured party, and "probing" questions like what their favourite sexual positions are.

HCW's previous quote was responding to Dmiller, who said

HCW make the Gems list!

This also bore repeating. Ok, I'll stop now.

This bore repeating.

Funny you should say that Mr. Hamma. When the IRS was coming after TWI to revoke the tax exempt status back in th e late 1980's I stood up at a staff meeting durng the part of the meeting where they took questions/comments from the staff and said, "Why should we really care about this? If I believe God's promise to meet my individual needs, won't he meet the ministry's needs too? They can have the tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned." It wasn't too long after that thay they fired me. That's funny-UNOFFICIALLY, they disliked that and canned you. OFFICIALLY, LCM went out and said that he was thrilled that, among the believers, "the overwhelming reaction is 'So What?' " So, he stole your lines and claimed them for his own.

Oldiesman, First of all, the definition you listed that has any RELEVANCE TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM (a dictionary provides ALL definitions, not just the ones relevant to your needs) is Definition 2-what is undertaken to be proven. Since you yourself didn't read the sealed documents, you feel you're entitled to find it logical that their allegation may have been "without merit", that is, that a full jury would have likely found it to lack sufficient support to be believed based on the preponderance of the evidence. That's a GROSS oversimplification based on an insufficient understanding of the legal system-and furthermore, an insufficient understanding of what IS in the Public Record. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/laws...ly-11072000.htm Everything in this newspaper is in the public record. If it wasn't, and they printed it anyway, they'd be sued out of existence. (If a newspaper broke into your house, and wrote an expose of all the scandalous things hidden in the bottom of your hall closet, it would be factually true but you could sue them and make a fortune. They invaded your privacy AND broke the law. You could then consider RETIRING and living off the lawsuit.) So, what's in a newspaper is considered public knowledge-available to the public if the public had the information resources as that newspaper. Who is qualified to be considered a "legal expert"? Well, a PROFESSIONAL in the legal field, who spent years receiving an education in that field, can be considered one. A lawyer has a Doctorate in his field (Juris Doctor). That means he completed his Doctorate degree in an ACCREDITED insitution. After several years of experience, a lawyer is eligible to be an ARBITRATOR of the Civil Court. If there's demand, and his record is impeccable, he is eligible instead (AFTER THE SEVERAL YEARS AS A LAWYER) to be made a Judge. So, if a Judge has just become a judge 5 minutes ago, he has nearly a decade of education in Law, and several years of practice in Law. Usually, they have experience as a Judge also. I submit that any reasonable person would consider a judge in the US to be a "legal expert". Neither you nor I are "legal experts". Did a "legal expert" get to review the complaint, the allegation and the evidence? Yes-by defintion. Judge Schmitt reviewed the case. At the time, his JOB was to determine the following: A) Which points of the complaint are outside the jurisdiction of the court? (Those would be thrown out.) B) Which points of the complaint lack merit? (THOSE would be thrown out.) C) Which points of the complaint are supported by evidence and have merit? (Those would proceed.) It was NOT his job to make a summary judgement at the time and close the case, unless ALL items of the complaint were thrown out. (If WordWolf sued Oldiesman on 50 counts of being a dumbass, all 50 counts would be thrown out, period. It is outside the jurisdiction of the court to penalize someone for being a dumbass. US citizens have the freedom to be dumbasses. Therefore, the complaint in its entirety would be thrown out.) If a suit completely lacks merit, BTW, a judge can have the complainant FINED for wasting the court's time. (This happens from time to time.) "Scmitt ruled a jury should decide the following allegations: that The Way breached its contract with them by creating impossible working conditions, including requiring Mrs A11en to submit to sexual assault as a condition of employment; that she was sexually victimized by Martindale and others; that the alleged assault against her was the result of a conspiracy; and the officials of The Way engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity." " 'The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that sexual misconduct by clergy is not protected by any claim of First Amendment privilege', Schmitt ruled. ' Similarly, a religious organization can be held liable for failing to protect its members from the sexual assaults of its employees.' The question of whether the encounters between Mrs A11en and Martindale were consensual should be decided by a jury, the judge ruled." "Evidence exists that Rivenbark and another woman played a role in events leading to the encounters between Allen and Martindale, which a jury would have to use to decide whether officials engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity against the A11ens, Scmitt ruled." ======= In plain English, a legal expert, having reviewed the complaints and preliminary evidence, ruled that the complaint not only was "supportable", but that it was sufficient to warrant a trial in court. Mind you, TWI did not file a COUNTERSUIT. They could easily have done so if the complaints were "frivilous". So, TWI's lawyers thought this lawsuit was "supportable". Judge Schmitt thought this lawsuit was "supportable". They had access to the evidence. ("It's called DISCLOSURE." -My Cousin Vinny.) They also had education and experience. THEY had access to the evidence, and thought the claims were "supportable." Oldiesman, who lacks legal training, legal experience AND access to the evidence, has declared that "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court." ============= So, I ask those of you who have some hope of viewing this subject with a degree of fairness, WHOSE interpretation of this account is more valid: Oldiesman's "it is to be viewed as unsupportable because it was never proven in court" or WordWolf's "the legal EXPERTS who examined the evidence thought their case had merit, and therefore, its claims were SUPPORTED"? I ask you, whose?