Raf

Happy Birthday Donner!!!!

One drink every time the name of a TWI class is mentioned. Two drinks of there's an explicit exhortation to take that class. Three drinks if PFAL is mentioned in a tape made after the WAP class was introduced.

Two drinks every time someone says "that's right!" Two drinks everytime someone (generic) who left TWI is called a "copout." Three drinks if the "copout" is identified by name.

Ooh, I'm a triple threat! Okay, for the record: It's Living Epistles Society, not Living Epistles ™. (The name derivation was utterly independent of that business, as WordWolf will attest). My affiliation with Greasespot is... I post on Greasespot. SURPRISE!!! My affiliation with CES is: I contribute to them financially. They have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY over what I post on my Web Site. They have NEVER tried to influence the site in any way, shape or form. I have gone to them several times to request permission to show book covers and to publish one of their articles. But my site is NOT a CES site, nor is it properly called an extension of CES (or Greasespot, for that matter). That said, I am utterly HONORED to be on the list.

Did anyone else like to do "Father counting" during prayers? Some of our prayers had more fathers than the Vatican. "Father I just want to thank you Father for your love for us Father. And Father I thank you for your Word, Father, for your grace, Father and your peace reigning in our lives Father..."

Happy Birthday. Wanna make a bet?

Was the original script called "Dejados Atras"?

Not to his face.

It's Pat's last name. The safeguard is a relic of a more tense time.

Correction.

Just wanted to pop in and post this link, for the sake of interest: The Way International Ministries

They are The Way International. Pat is not. I'm bowing out of this.

I apologize for missing the humor oldiesman. I should have seen it. Internet. Nuance. You know the drill. :)-->

There's no mention of "covetousness" in the verse or the context. Please don't confuse the issue. (Or am I missing your point?)

Again, Pat, you miss the point of my opposition to your actions. You are not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name already. I'm not saying you're legally required to do so, but if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, does it ever?

:D-->

Excie, Is Pat an important recognized worldwide organization everyone knows? I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about common horse sense. Pat took the name of an organization and secured the domain name to malign it. It's just not right. Christians, if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, where does it EVER apply? (Others, I concede that my argument does not hold sway). You certainly don't. And they have a better claim to it than you. They've used it for decades. You ask why they sued you in fed court instead of before a different body... I have a different challenge: drop the domain name and see if they have ANY grounds to challenge you. They sued you on this issue because you gave them an opening. Gleefully. Good luck.

Pat, I feel the need to bring this up again. You are not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name already. Back to lurking.

Not sure that's true: TWI has endured negative coverage for decades. Negative coverage only galvanizes the membership by making them feel persecuted by "the world." I detect a bit of wishful thinking on your part, as far as that goes.

As a member of the mainstream media, I would argue that this case would have a mainstream interest of about... no, I can't think of a soul who would care about a p*ssing contest between a two bit cult and a disgruntled ex-follower. In fact, the media might be hostile to someone who thinks he can register the name of an organization as a domain name and get away with it. HOWEVER, I do think publications like Christianity Today and other cult-watching publications would be more than interested, particularly if the legal case goes Pat's way.

Do not forget that in the 1950s (and possibly in the 1940s), Oral Roberts had a magazine entitled "Abundant Life." It was not an unusual phrase for religious use. Wierwille could have lifted it from a number of sources, including the Bible.

I haven't said anything since page one. But if I choose to say something on a public message board, I reserve the right to do so. If you disagree with me on this tactic, why don't you do so privately?

Ok, fair enough. Line 45 has nothing to do with your experience. But it does have to do with the trademark, ... how, exactly? Because a non-trinitarian doesn't have the right to claim to be a Christian and thus a follower of "The Way," Jesus Christ? Item 45 is irrelevant to every part of your claim, Pat. The law cannot, CANnot allow scholars or partisans to dictate what is Christian and what is not. As such, item 45 has no relevance to the trademark issue as a matter of fact or law. Pat, when you get into this battle, please, please, arm yourself. P.S. I wasn't ignoring you in chat. I just didn't see you there.

If you think I'm being hard on you, wait until their lawyers get through with you.

No, item 45 is irrelevant. That's the point. It's showboating. That's the point. It's holding TWI legally accountable for espousing a doctrine you, too, espouse. That's the point. My beliefs are irrelevant, true. But your beliefs are entirely relevant because, in case you hadn't noticed, you're a part of the case. So spare me the pious "they made money off it" deal, because that's NOT the point of item 45. You threw item 45 in there to prejudice the case against them, and IT (item 45) is cynical and hypocritical because you disagree with the very authorities you are claiming have some say in what makes an organization Christian or not. Are you saying that rejection of the Trinity is deception, but that's only bad when you profit off it? I keep asking you, what's the point of item 45? If you don't want to answer, don't. But don't feign to answer it when you're not.