Mister P-Mosh

As an adult, I was eligable to get married. Since I'm heterosexual, I chose a woman to marry who happened to be an adult and eligable as well. If a 40 year old man wishes to marry a 10 year old girl, that doesn't work because the girl is not old enough to be eligable for marriage. Marriage can be seen as an individual right or priveledge. If someone is an adult, they should be able to marry another eligable person. This could mean homosexual marriages. This could eventually even mean polygamy. Guess what? I think that if people are old enough and mature enough to decide for themselves, I don't have a right to restrict what they do to themselves in their own life. As for the validity of homosexuality, I don't really think I should question that either. I don't like it, but I don't feel that I have the right to restrict it either. I've learned to respect gay people for everything else as individuals and leave their bedrooms to themselves. Even if we don't like what they are doing, as long as they keep it to themselves it's their right to do so.

It's definitely one of the top ones, but I don't know if spyware or spam is worse. Both are annoying, although the spyware doesn't bother me because I take precautions. Spam is a problem that is mostly solved by all the filtering software I use, but it still gets through sometimes. I think that spammers deserve to be executed.

I do have two, one for the LCM PFAL, and the other for the WAP one. If nobody gives you what you are asking for for a while, I may be able to dig it out for you.

I would say, "Flight attendant, get the pilot's gun, this man just yelled 'Jihad' and tried to light his shoe on fire!

I would agree with you on infomercials, talk shows and cooking shows, and I can understand why you wouldn't like the Simpsons...but shows not in English? Nobody can hate such classics as Sabado Gigante or Hasta En Los Mejores Familias...well, maybe the last one because it's a talk show along the lines of Jerry Springer. However, I long for a show like Sabado Gigante to be developed in English. You can't beat having a guy that looks like he should be the president of an ex-Soviet nation getting random audience members to sing karaoke while he wears a cheese-hat on his head and has an executioner and lion threatening to grab the person. Even the cheesy commercial breaks they do in various points in the show to advertise Domino's pizza or Ford are classic, like what they used to do when TV first came out in the U.S.

BAKA! (Just kidding. :D-->)

That's pretty cold, especially for a place like hell.

The 700 Club, any reality TV show, police dramas, sitcoms, infomercials, anything on MTV, and all the home improvement crap. If asked, I can provide reasons for my answers individually, but it would be too long to go ahead and list all of them now.

Also, in this case they didn't make a law, they simply gave their interpretation of a vague part of the Massachusets state constitution. Courts are supposed to interpret the law, and supreme courts can overrule laws that don't fit in with the rest of the law. Legislating from the bench is a bad thing, but in this case all they did was provide a clearer interpretation of an already existing law. Whether that interpretation was right or wrong will be up for debate for quite some time.

I'm no fan of homosexuality myself, and I certainly don't want to see it. However, I do think that people have rights to do as they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others. Johnny's opinion is valid, but it's a problem with laws of underage marriage rather than something to do with homosexuality. If the problem is pedophilia, I think it's best to fight pedophilia itself whether it's gay or straight people engaging in it with children. I can understand why gay people are wanting this. They can't be a "family" which shares in all the benefits of a married couple. They're not making the law so that gay people can go to your church and demand to be married, but that they can be able to claim a legal representation of their union together. I imagine gay couples want to get married for exactly the same reason straight couples do. We're all human beings. As to the causes or problems associated with homosexuality, there is a lot of controversy. Gay people have a higher percentage of mental illnesses than the straight population. However, is that due to a brain defect causing them to be gay also, is it due to their choosing to be gay, or is it due to society at large condemning them and treating them like garbage? We confuse the symptoms and causes too easily, and nobody really knows much about it. I'll admit that the sight of two men hugging and kissing makes me ill. However, I don't think that it's a good thing, any more than getting ill from seeing a black man and a white woman. I'd never be gay, but at the same time I can be comfortable knowing that people can deal with their own life on their own terms. If two consenting adults want to do it, then that's their choice. Besides, if they get married it would probably cut down the amount of STDs among homosexuals that spread as a result of multiple partners. I would think that gay people would be at least as committed as heterosexual couples are (which doesn't seem to be much these days.)

I agree, and TWI was pretty nebulous on a lot of the procedures (perhaps they got revelation to avoid legal trouble. J/K) so different leaders heard the same thing and did it different ways. I recall a branch coordinator that we had when I was growing up that was a good guy and had a "love the sinner hate the sin" attitude and tried to help people whenever he could. He was very involved with everyone's business, but from a standpoint of helping people out. That guy was reassigned, and then someone moved in that would M&A people for the slightest thing and when he started getting involved with people, they got scared because they knew what was going on. There was quite a bit of lattitude that leaders were given in TWI, and I think it shows in the differing experiences that we all have had. Of course, taking things such as time periods, location, etc. into consideration helps too.

I've had trouble communicating lately too. Work is taking it's toll on me.

As far as I'm concerned, at least 90% of the doctrine and rules of TWI were B.S. My main point was more about how it had a lot of good people who met because of TWI and have done good things. I would have preferred to see the same people working together in another, entirely different organization. I guess ditch the covering but keep the people, minus VPW and others like him.

I didn't see any info about TWI on their site, but it's pretty strange. I am not going to write and complain, because their advertising will probably end up drawing more people here and bring up dialogue about their crimes instead. As far as making GSCafe the #1 hit for TWI, it can be done but pawtucket might need to adjust his robots.txt, and any of you that can post it elsewhere need to post a link to other sites saying things like Info about The Way International Basically the way to get a higher ranking on google is for other sites to link back to you, and to update the site as much as possible. I don't think that these forums are allowed to be read by crawlers, so the site doesn't appear to be updated that much. I'd link to GSCafe on my site but I don't want my parents to see it via me.

I think that the vast majority of people in TWI were decent, good people. I do think that VPW and other members of leadership were corrupt and twisted everything that the other people did. Perhaps VPW was bad from the beginning of TWI, maybe he became bad over time. I don't know, but what I do know is that he was not the only person in TWI, and that there were good things that happened in spite of him. The best thing would not have been to have everyone shut down and drop out of TWI and that's it, but for the good people to take over TWI, or for them to start a new organization that takes the good things of TWI and leaves out the bad.

And I don't mean W.O.W. This thread is making the politics section look like one big happy family.

IMF777: It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it will work since pawtucket actually would be the one to hold the copyright on everything here unless he has a disclaimer stating otherwise. Our posts are effectively the property of the Greasespot Cafe, whatever the legal entity might be (which is probably just pawtucket.) Of course, depending on who is hosting this site, it could be their property, depending on what the contract is between pawtucket and the hosting company. There may even be some involvement from the network provider as well, although I doubt they could claim ownership. Most likely the hosting provider doesn't claim ownership either, although they would have a legal responsibility to at least work with pawtucket in the event of copyright violations, if not just pulling the plug themselves. It's a complicated, messy thing to deal with. I've seen examples where hosts on the internet have yanked entire sites based on the email of a random person threatening to sue the hosting company, even though the emailer had no legal basis for it. I think that pawtucket should have a clear but brief copyright disclaimer on the site one way or another, to make sure that TWI can't use this stuff for anything. Something along the lines of, "All posts ©2004 by user. GreaseSpot Cafe claims no liability for the accuracy of user's comments, and reserves no ownership of them whatsoever. Posting a comment is agreeing to grant GreaseSpot Cafe non-exclusive serial rights to publish it online, at GreaseSpotCafe.com and GSCafe.com. We reserve the right to remove any comments for any reason at any time." I'm sure a lawyer could do better than that, but something along those lines is needed I think. That way your copyright .sig would be valid.

I don't know where it was documented, but I can vouch for this going on, although it wasn't just corps. Many normal people were being encouraged to sell their homes and rent a place instead, and I can think of one instance where a couple was confronted for going into debt to build their house, and it seems to have been one of the reasons for them to be M&A. I was pretty young so I don't know all of the details, but it was the house combined with the fact that the branch coordinator was rude to the elderly parents of this couple and confronted them as well. I don't know if they were M&A or chose to leave on their own, but I remember being told to avoid them if I saw them in public. They also had a very effeminate son who I don't know if he was gay or not, but this was during the homo purges so that probably caused some conflict too.

I don't know if you've bought the others, but the other day at Border's I saw a paperback that had all three combined into one, and it wasn't too big. The only bad thing is that it had the photos of the actors in the movie on the cover. I hate books like that.

Thanks. I've seen accusations pop up from time to time, and I believe there is someone on the politics forum that wanted to keep their political discussion free from the rest of the site so they wouldn't feel attacked. Most sites that I know of discourage it, but I just wanted to check for here too. Thanks for the response.

Six, six, six, the number of the beast! m/ Woohoo! Old 80's metal! m/ You may now return to your regularly scheduled conversation.

I'd drive around like a maniac and yell at people on the street while wearing a yellow "Bless Patrol" hat.

...however, I believe it was a song by a bunch of gay guys in rainbow-coloured outfits that look like a policeman, a biker, an Indian, and others that I forgot. It goes something like, "Young man, you got some SITing to do. I said young man, I've got a class for you. You gotta pay for the P-F-A-L, you'll go to hell without the P-F-A-L. Don't be a re-tard, sign the green card, give me some cash, or I'll bust your" or something like that.

I think that Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell could potentially play that part, even if it will be a bit of a stretch. Darren was basically a guy stressed out by who his wife was, but tried to be calm about it. I think that those guys can do the stressed out thing well, although Jim Carrey is naturally overdramatic about it.

This may be something for the Forum Questions forum, but I wanted to ask here instead since it pertains to the rules of the site and may be better getting more attention here. Anyway, I wanted to know what policy, if there is one, exists for creating multiple usernames on this site. I recall some controversy in the past where people would get into arguments and then allegedly come back under a different name. Is this something that is allowed, and if not, I am curious how it could be enforced.