Raf

Red Sox just won two in a row. They can win two in a row again. Not that I want to see it happen, mind you, but if any team can make it happen, it's this year's Red Sox. And how about them Astros?

I made a serious factual error in my previous post, but rather than go back and correct it, I want to note it here: You weren't "getting rid of it." You were trying to sell it, for a profit. $15,000. TWI would rather have paid its lawyers than pay you one dime. You did not get one dime. TWI still gets the domain name. Advantage, TWI (or, at best, a tie if you consider that they spent more to get the site than they would have if they just bought it from you.

Heh heh heh.

Let's go point for point on this: You were fighting for the right to use "The Way." Maybe you did abandon "The Way of Christ," but not in principle. You abandoned it to get rid of legal trouble. On the legal issue at stake, which includes whether using that name was a trademark violation, you caved. You can't pick up that fight again. It's over. Advantage: TWI You weren't "getting rid of it." You were trying to sell it, for a profit. $100,000. [Note: I was mistaken. See correction in my next post] TWI paid half that to their lawyers, and NONE of it to you. You get NOTHING for the site. TWI gets the domain name. Advantage, TWI. It has not been established that the trademark is unenforceable. In two lawsuits, if anything has been established, it's that TWI can and will enforce its trademark and it will win. It's true that you can print a Bible with the words "The Way" on it. TWI has never contested this. They don't consider it a trademark infringement, and rightly so. YOU keep bringing it up, which tells me that YOU see no difference there, but TWI does. You guys keep talking about the number of times "the way" shows up on Web sites, as if any use of the words themselves are a trademark violation. That's a total straw man argument. TWI has never made any such claim. When you offer this valuable information to any church that requests it, please include the valuable information that when TWIM's lawyers tried to challenge it, they got spanked, and so did you. Advantage: TWI. If I were right, which I was, TWI would have dropped the case as soon as you surrendered the domain name. You did, and they did. Advantage: TWI The sites that were infringing were thewayinternational.com, which infringed directly by using the successfully defended mark, and excultworld.com. which benefitted from your use of the successfully defended mark (pathofchrist or any other site you have would fall under the same description). Bottom line: your use of thewayinternational.com no longer being an issue, there is no infringement at any other one of your sites, so the issue is moot. Advantage: TWI The Score: Five to Nothing. Oh, you didn't have to pay TWI's legal fees. That's one for you. But if that counts, the fact that they didn't have to pay yours has to count for them. 6-1. Advantage: TWI.

Only the Forum is gone. The web site is fine. The forum is the only thing affected here.

You yourself said when you file these things, you put in more than you actually want. Do you really think they expected to shut down ex-cultworld? I don't. Otherwise they'd have gone after Paw and after me. They went after you because you used the name. You gave them the name back, and the legal problems went away... Hey wait a minute: Wasn't that what I advised you to do in the friggin first place? You got spanked.

Nothing to show for it... except for everything they wanted.

You got spanked. TWI knew your finances going into this, so going into this they had to want to pursue the course that cost them the least amount of money. TWI could afford $50,000. Could you afford what you spent? What percentage of TWI's income is $50,000? What percentage of your income did you spend? TWI chose the option that cost them the least amount of money, and got everything they wanted out of it, your protestations to the contrary. You got spanked, Pat. Hate to break it to you.

The Living Epistles Society Forum has crashed, and I'm afraid it's irreparable. All previous information is gone, kaput. All posts are gone. All e-mail addresses are gone. All registrations are gone. I want to express my gratitude to Bluzeman, who did absolutely everything he could to try to salvage it, but unfortunately, we're going to need to start the whole thing again from scratch. I'll try to post a notice here when a new forum is up. Thank you to everyone who registered and who carried on some interesting conversations. We had about 80 members at the end there, more than I could possibly have imagined when we got started. And thanks to Paw for his continued moral support of the site and its intentions. We'll be back.

Two terrific, terrific games. But alas... methinks it's time to put the Bosox out of their misery. You in OUR HOUSE tonight. :)-->

Sorry, I agree with Long Gone on this one. Pat got nothing out of this. So he doesn't have to pay TWI's costs. Big deal. He wouldn't have been able to pay them anyway, and TWI knew that. So TWI did the next best thing: they kept their costs to a minimum. A court trial would have cost them a lot more than a settlement, and they got everything they wanted in the settlement. Did they have to pay Pat's legal fees (ie, his court costs)? Nope. All they had to pay was their own. Big fat hairy deal. In settling this case, TWI paid LESS than they would have had the case gone to trial, and in return they got the exact same outcome, which, I should note, is precisely what I told Pat to do in the first place. Did Pat get spanked? On every principle he claimed to be fighting for: the domain name, the trademark infringement, the rights to the term "The Way," the ability to use "The Way of Christ" as a domain name and as a ministry name, Pat got spanked. On costs, he did not.

Last night's game was awesome. I could have done with a different outcome, but really, how can anyone complain?

Yes, but there is a big distinction here that, on previous threads (not this one) you are failing to grasp: Non-mention of a religion is not an endorsement of another religion. The fact that the Ten Commandments are removed from a courthouse should not be read as a victory for atheism. Erecting a monument that says "There is no God" would be a victory for atheism. And should such a monument be erected, I hope those on my side of this argument would have the intestinal fortitude and integrity to call it for what it is.

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.