Raf

And just by coincidence (or is it?) the moon turns to blood tonight.

Why isn't "no way in hayl" one of the options? "You eat pieces of s**t for breakfast?" Happy Gilmore

UNCLE!

True, malefactor does not mean robber. However, as ol vic pointed out, ALL robbers are malefactors, so the fact that they used two different words does not negate the possibility that the same people are being discussed. Allos does not mean heteros, tis true, but GOP and Republican are synonyms. As seen on the Actual Errors thread and list, Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros are provably false, again blurring the distinctions between the robbers and the malefactors. Wierwille highlighted the use of the word THEN in discussing the four crucified to show that two people were crucified at the same time as Jesus, and THEN two people were crucified afterward. Only by accepting THEN as meaning "after all that we have previously discussed" can one come to the conclusion that four were crucified with Christ. If one reads that verse as saying "at that time," or "around that time, giving less concern to the chronology than to the actuality of the events, one can easily conclude we're talking about the same people. I agree that these positions are worth considering, and I considered and held them for more than a decade. After careful thought, I've discarded them, not as the rantings of a small town preacher turned cult leader, but as the well-intentioned but mistaken attempts to harmonize scriptures that appear to contradict each other. Alternative explanations of the apparent contradictions make more sense to me.

Rather than get into a doctrinal debate, I refer you to http://www.christianheritageonline.com and the related article, which seeks to answer your questions on this.

I think close examinations of scripture reveal, at the very least, the first three doctrines to be in error. In each of the four gospels, only two others are mentioned being crucified. In each of the four gospels, only three denials are recorded. Not one gospel records more than three denials. The difficult must be interpreted in light of the clear, not vice versa. It's clear there were three denials and not more. And the notion that one may be born of the devil's seed, irreversible, is simply unbiblical. God is able to save to the uttermost those who believe. If there exists a category of people God cannot save, then there is something beyond uttermost, which is silly. If there's something beyond uttermost, then THAT is the uttermost, and God can save them. For this reason, I reject all three of those TWI doctrines. I was never exposed to the fourth.

It should be noted that in the Greek, there's a definite article before the word "faith" the first time (both times, actually). If this were English, that would support what George is saying. Further study, if honest, can only help, so study on.

Go Sox! I'll say here what I've said before: The Sox had better win: if they went through the trouble of humiliating my Yankees the way they did, only to LOSE the World Series, I'll be more ticked off than ANY Bosox fan.

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. BTW: I would have been torn if the Astros were meeting the Sox, but now it's no contest. Go Beantown!

I would not be opposed to their display in such circumstances, as I have stated earlier in other threads. If the motivation is to show that the American legal system has historic roots, then I concur: there are things in the Magna Carta that don't apply to the American legal system. There are other legal foundations of our system, and the 10 commandments definitely fall into that category. In the Roy Moore case, this was not what was happening. Roy Moore put that monument up as an act of personal worship to God. Removing it, he said, was disobedience to God. This was a clear crossing of the line. Other incidents are far, far less clear.

You can't, any more than you can prevent a judge from praying before he makes a decision. But if he makes a decision based solely on Biblical principles, regardless of the law involved (or against the law involved), he'd be overturned: and rightly so. There are some "separations" that are not reasonable. Telling a man he can't pray before making a decision is unreasonable. Telling a government not to tell me who God is, whether I can have another, whether I can take His name in vain, and what day to worship him is NOT unreasonable.

Not true. The first commandment names God. The second forbids the worship of graven images. The third forbids the taking of Yahweh's name in vain. The fourth establishes the holiness of the Sabbath. None of these commandments is remotely secular; posting them is an explicit acknowledgement of the God of Judaism (and, according to their creeds, Christianity and Islam). Government does not have the right to post these. We do. Is it in your living room yet?

I see what you're saying, but I really think Pat threw them for a loop by surrendering the domain name. I think they would have liked nothing more than to bankrupt him, but once he surrendered the name, they had little choice but to accept. The were in a bind after that. My contention remains that this whole process cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI. Pat's victories are actually not victories at all: they're non-losses. 1. He doesn't have to pay TWI's legal fees. 2. He doesn't have to account for and repay any money that came in as a result of his use of the domain name (not that there WAS any, but it's the principle of the thing). 3. Pat doesn't have to pay the "treble damages" sought by TWI, an amount impossible to figure out without going through trial/discovery/etc. It's in items 1 and 3 that he saved his web sites. As he said, those were his only assets. So once he gave up the domain name (how many of you see this coming?) he was able to save his assets. Pat's losses: 1. The cost of securing and maintaining the domain name over five years. 2. The domain name, and any right to reclaim it. 3. The Way of Christ as a name, and any right to reclaim it. 4. His own legal fees. The actual legal fight was over 2, with 3 as a backdrop. The threat, if TWI was victorious, is that it would have cost Pat so much that he would have no choice but to shut his sites down. Although TWI never sought that specifically, Pat is correct in that it's reasonable to assume they salivated over the prospect. I guess I was distinguishing between TWI's motives and its actual legal position, and Pat was not. Someone told Pat that TWI was after the Web sites, but for some reason Pat never saw (until time to settle) that the best way to keep those sites was to close the door he'd opened with this trademark infringement stuff. On all the trademark and domain issues, Pat lost. Yeah, it could have been a HAYULL of a lot worse. Bottom line: he ended up doing exactly what Long Gone and I advised from the beginning.

I spoke up during the game, but haven't said anything since... "Hell Freezes Over" pretty much captured it. Who would have thought after the Saturday night spanking that Boston would have anything left? Congrats to a team that earned it. And good luck in the series. I'll be pulling for you: it's time to reverse the curse. I would hate to see you beat my Yankees only to lose the friggin Series.

The debate is over by fiat then. Pat is right because confidential informant man told him so. Paw, Eagle, get ready for your lawsuits. We're next! Pat, seriously: do I think TWI wanted to see your web sites shut down? Yeah, they'd love to see us all shut down. The difference between us and you is that you gave them an opening they could fly Ambassador One through. Settling the case closed that opening. They've got nothing on you now. You disarmed their only weapon, which is PRECISELY what Long Gone and I have been trying to tell you since TWI filed suit. These are things you KNOW I told you from the beginning.

Doesn't matter. At some point in the process PR Computer Services owned the server lease. Once it did, it became liable. Check.

Duh is right, Pat. DUH! PR Computer Services owned the server lease... DUH! PR Computer Services was thus just as guilty of the trademark infringement as you were as an individual. Pat, I refuse to continue this battle of wits with you until and unless you arm yourself.

That's wishful thinking Abi. PAT HAD NO MONEY. They would have gained nothing, and it would have cost them more, if TWI had continued to pursue the case after they already got what they were looking for. Screwing Pat over financially was obviously NOT on their agenda. I believe both parties were wise to settle the way they did: TWI was wise because to pursue a lawsuit after you've achieved your main objective is folly. Pat was wise because he, belatedly, recognized that twi should have the domain name in question and the legal problems went away the day "the day" that he surrendered the name.

Pat, are you REALLY that wrong about your own case (edited w/apologies)? Can you be? Where did thewayinternational.com redirect people? Come on, I know you know the answer. DING DING DING!!! thewayinternational.com redirected them to your other web sites! SO (he said, turning to the jury of his greasespot peers), the other sites contained information critical of TWI, and you cybersquatted on thewayinternational.com to direct people to your sites. To make the case for trademark infringement, TWI had to prove that you were wrongly using their mark to bring people someplace other than TWI. The other place you were bringing them was your other web sites. The content of the other web sites is relevant to prove you were using their mark to damage them. They had no [legal] problem with your sites existing, but when you used twi.com to get people to your sites, you crossed the line, and they sued. At no point in any of the documentation that you posted did TWI ask, request, demand, suggest, imply, or even HOPE that you shut down the other web sites. Their only request was that you not wrongly use their trademarks to do it. That this is true is evident in that TWI will not ever sue you for twisucks.com, at least not as a trademark infringement. Pat, you don't even understand your own CASE.

"Injunctive relief" does not mean "shut down the websites." That's fiction. Nothing in the lawsuit requests or demands that your sites be shut down. AGAIN: The question of whether to go to federal court or the arbitration board has already been answered. Your refusal to acknowledge that answer does not negate that the answer has been offered and not refuted. I'm glad you believed in your case and its merits. That and a $95 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, double half caf. It's meaningless. Whether your case had merit or not would have been decided at a trial, but it never got that far. Be real, Pat, if you really wanted to take this to trial, you'd have done so. Who are you kidding? You settled because "they asked politely"? Please. That's not the reason and we all know it. You either couldn't afford to go forward (no shame there: just say so) or you didn't have the confidence in your case that you profess. If you believed in your case and had the will to see it through to trial, you'd have done it: you would not have surrendered the domain name no matter how they asked. 1. Neither Taubman nor Webfeats was TWI. The question was whether TWI sought to take down your web sites. Taubman v. Webfeats is irrelevant to that question. What one plaintiff seeks is not the same as what another plaintiff seeks. What did TWI seek? Cite the paragraph already. 2. More importantly, in Taubman v. Webfeats, the plaintiff sought, in your words, "that the man's infringing websites be taken down." Ex-cultworld was not the infringing website. thewayinternational.com was. Look, Pat, you want to call what happened a victory for you? Fine, go ahead. You want to Pat yourself on the back for making TWI spend money? Feel free. That's your choice. But when push comes to shove, you won nothing on this; you wasted your time and took your energy away from a more worthy fight.

As someone who's been ragging on Pat, even though the question wasn't addressed to me, I'll provide my answer. 1. Pat addressed me directly in the first post. I was practically invited to respond. 2. Pat is presenting this as a draw. This was no draw. If you're happy TWI spent money, I guess that's fine. It doesn't tickle me that they spent money that went to lawyers, but if it tickles you, that's your prerogative (thank you to those of you who answered my question on the subject). However, the fact that TWI paid its lawyers is hardly evidence that they were "spanked," which was Pat's allegation in the first place. 3. Pat continues to insist that this was not about the domain name, even though the lawsuit was settled as soon as the domain name was surrendered. 4. Pat did not get one legal victory out of this whole thing: the closest to a legal victory was that he did not have to pay TWI's legal bills (standard in most settlements). He couldn't pay those bills if he wanted to (and neither could I: I'm broke). 5. Long Gone and I have repeatedly been accused of "armchair lawyering," but people who cited laws and precedents in Pat's favor were faced with no such accusation. That's selective and wrong. 6. I believe this entire legal action was a distraction that cost Pat time and money, veering him away from the important and valuable work that he does on his web sites. Excultworld seeks to provide an important service (whether you agree with everything on there or not, the intentions are entirely noble). Money and time that Pat poured into this action could have been spent on improving the web site and reaching more people with the truth about TWI and other cults. I realize, fully, that this is Pat's decision to make, but if he didn't want feedback, he shouldn't have posted it on numerous threads on a message board. And if all he wanted was positive feedback, then he shouldn't have posted it on a board where people are known to speak their minds. I've been told privately that I appear to be gloating in an egotistical manner. I can't fully disagree with that, and to the extent that it is true, I apologize to everyone, most specifically to Pat. I don't want to gloat. In my opinion both of these lawsuits were solid victories for TWI, costing them a relative pittance. This cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI, so forgive me if I don't congratulate him for it. That's my honest opinion. If it's better that I shut up about it, fine. Just don't put the subject on a message board that invites comment (and if you DO put it on a message board, don't call me out on the opening post). I would like to know, if someone wouldn't mind digging it out for me, where TWI ever requested (in its injunctions) that excultworld or any of Pat's other sites be shut down. I'll look for it too, but as it's a claim Pat has made on several occasions, I imagine it must be in TWI's requests somewhere.

This is the damndest thing I've ever seen. Bosox are absolutely on fire: Hat's off to you! If they win (it's 8-1 in the 7th, 2 on, 1 out) I'll be pulling for Boston in the series. Disappointed? Yeah, of course, but the Yanks will be back.

I guess I don't understand why anyone is so happy that TWI had to spend money. While it's a lot of money to you and to me (especially to me), it's not a lot of money to them. Their investment accounts probably burp that money out every now and then. I take no glee in the fact that this cost them anything. Now, if they had to pay Pat $50,000, or pay his legal fees, I could see being pleased. But the only people to see this money are TWI's lawyers. This makes us happy? Now that is something I don't get.

CW: They needed to get Pat's part of this in writing; a settlement does this far more effectively than dropping the case. Abi: Does that work with trademark infringement cases? I honestly don't know: do all trademark infringement cases go to fed court first? I'm under the impression that this is not the case.

:)--> I think I need to get off this subject entirely. I haven't said anything new in about nine posts. Was it you or someone else who asked me if my face was blue yet?