Raf

Perhaps keeping Chris Reeve company? I hope that doesn't tacky. I'm sorry for your loss.

I'm pretty sure this photo is from last year, but danged if it don't still ring true for fans of the Evil Empire.

Did they ever? Oh, you meant...

SRTS: The thread title refers to the return of the debate, not the "return of the 10 commandments."

Tref, I absolutely agree with you. However, I was drawing the distinction that has been drawn by the courts over the years. I did not mean to imply agreement with it. If you listen to the arguments of those who support keeping "under God" in the Pledge, it is abundantly clear that they believe removing those words would offend the Judeo-Christian God. I could be wrong on this, but I'd bet good money that there are painfully few instances of Zeus worshippers who want "under God" to stay in the Pledge because removing it would offend the Olympian council. I really don't get why it is so important for people that their government acknowledges their God. God doesn't want your government's worship. He wants yours. Then again, I'm just a commiep pinko left wing lunatic atheist loving anti-God zealot. Just ask the folks on the political threads. :)-->

Mazel Tov!

Not at all. References to "God" are debatable, and debated, on many levels. But the 10 Commandments, we'll agree, go a step further. Not content to refer to the existence of God, this NAMES that God and forbids worship of any other. Insofar as this is a commandment of the Judeo-Christian God, erecting a monument in praise of the 10 Commandments, particularly when the issue on the mind of the government official in question is "the sovereignty of God," certainly crosses the line in regard to endorsing a religion. "In God We Trust" on our money does no such thing (although others argue it should be removed as well, such arguments don't get much traction. Likewise "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance).

While I'm pleased, I've seen too many 2-0 advantages deteriorate into 4-2 losses. If anyone can do that, it's this Red Sox team. So... we wait.

Deleted because of unforeseen edit.

I agree that Pat probably could have won the Way of Christ dispute, with one caveat: all the other ministries mentioned by cherished child arrived at their names independently of TWI. Whatever you think of Pat's use of the name, I don't think it's credible to argue that he arrived at it independently. More important, I don't think there is a jury on earth who would arrive at that conclusion. That's why TWI would probably lose against most ministries, but would stand a better chance fighting Pat on that one. I don't know if that's enough to predict a legal loss. Radar, I would agree with you if it didn't mean the potential loss of money and resources from those challenging TWI. TWIM could have used that money and time and energy for a more useful purpose. I'm sorry that their time and effort came to naught (then again, at least they didn't get sued for previous trademark violations: a pyrrhic victory, but still a victory).

Actually, I'd like to post all five purple hearts as links to the sites.

No. Take a look.

Woohoo! CW, do I have your permission to post your award on my site? Paw, Eagle: Do I have your permission to copy the original post?

John, I'm glad you don't object. I do. Others do. Government simply doesn't have the right to do this. Maybe the court will decide differently, but they would (in my opinion) be wrong to do so.

Sad to say, I agree with this assessment. Amen, sister. Good luck, Pat.

CW, TWIM asked for a temporary injunction to prevent TWI from enforcing its trademarks. The court ruled that they will not get the temporary injunction because they were not likely to prevail. THEN TWIM settled (aka, folded like a poker player with a 1,3,5,10 and K of four different suits) (aka, got spanked).

If you're allowed to introduce any of this "evidence," I'll be (pleasantly) surprised. If I were judging this case, I'd laugh at any effort you made to introduce it, as not one iota of it is relevant to a case of trademark infringement.

You're probably right. I wouldn't put my money on them winning, though. TWIM tried and got spanked. (Did I mention they got spanked?) Also, save your time on incidental references to the words "The Way." TWI is not going to go after KC and the Sunshine Band (That's the Way, uh huh uh huh). They're not going to go after Fastball ("Where were they goin without ever knowin the way"). They're going to go after ministries that use the words "The Way," "The Way International" or "The Way Ministry" in a manner that would conceivably cause confusion with their trademark. The Way Ministries is vulnerable. TWIM got spanked (did I mention that)? The Way of New York folded like a trained yoga master. The fact that The Way Ministries knew about TWI's trademark makes their use of the name more actionable, not less. If they're challenged, I do wish them luck too. And fortitude: perhaps more than TWIM (which, incidentally, got spanked).

By the way ™, I wonder if The Way Ministries has a legal team that will withstand a challenge from TWI once their lawyers get a load of their Web site (and now that you've posted the link, it's a sure bet that TWI knows about it).

Maybe you should have sent all those web sites to TWIM (which got spanked). Seems to me that TWIM had lawyers advising their client. Seems to me they folded like a cheap card table when faced with the raw facts of a legal case. I'm disappointed, because they really came up with the name independently of any knowledge of TWI. But the raw fact is they lost on every major point. Pat, good luck. But if you ever asked for a sign as to whether you should continue this fight, I think you got it, posted it, drew all the wrong lessons from it, and are now in for a bumpy ride. Good luck.

Figures. Does anyone need further proof that he was making a religious statement by having that monument in his courthouse?

Okay, that was closer than I wanted it to be. But a great game, and kudos to the Red Sox for turning an 8-0 game into a nailbiter.

Uh oh.

They may take this series yet. They faced some good pitching tonight, and did well. The Yankees pitching staff ain't great this year. No Clemens. No Pettite. It's going to be tough to go seven games agains THESE Red Sox. Then again, the Yanks are no longer allergic to Schilling. Go Yanks!

From 8-0 to 8-7. Who do those Red Sox think they are? Haven't they seen the Yankee payroll? They'd better cough up a few bucks if they expect the right to win this game, or the series!