The Voice of Offence

[rhino]

I really just wanted to be post number 1000, but I see Waysideer beat me to it ....

[Ham]

Here's my thread asking for something concrete:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...&hl=results

Oldies answer was typical of those who still kinda endose the product:

Mr. Hammeroni, I understand what you mean but you must remember that many of the benefits of having faith are in the spiritual realm, that may not necessarily have physical manifestations like money.

Somehow, I think "having a positive attitude" is partly "genetic".. I was reading an old manuscript somewhere about it.. just can't find it at the moment..

actually.. it was some kind of report.. the scans showed some people just have "happy" brains. Don't know why.. but it was something that could actually be measured. The ability (or handicap) of just seeing positiive in everything was actually due to some kind of physical difference..

Other people, just have "unhappy" brains..

I think those were the ones preferred for "leadership" positions.

No matter how much "renewing" of the mind, obedience and fawning from followers, they were just (ahem, "practically") NEVER happy.

NEVER positive. Well, practically never.. quite a few I met, anyway.

[excathedra]

what a GREAT idea

you are ONLY ALLOWED TO POST HERE if you have something positive to say about TWI

i'm getting warm and fuzzy just thinking about it ;)

ps. i promise i won't interrupt

[WhiteDove]

Pawtucket said that this sight is to tell the OTHER side of the story....not a tool to entice people into leaving twi.

Not my words I was only repeating what others often say that they do here.

[excathedra]

i have "a OTHER side" but i don't know if i can prove it

[rascal]

That was taken rather out of context and misapplied don`t you think Dove?

The first part is what pawtucket said concerning greasespot`s purpose, the second part is what I said....if a secondary benefit like helping people leave twi, or a third benefit that people get comfort finding out that they were not the only ones...or people find old friends ...etc...I think that is pretty cool too :)

[WhiteDove]

Each of us has the opportunity to share pieces of the puzzle of the over all picture of twi... How accurate is the picture going to be if certain people say....no no only MY pieces are important and constantly try to fling others from the table to prevent anyone from seeing any part of the picture, other than what they want them to see?

No one has said you could not or denied you to speak of your experiences all I said was it is dishonest to call things true that have not met the burden of proof for calling them so. You invent charges, ones that clearly are absent from any article on the front pages that have accurately reported the charges many are actual court documents they should know what the charges were, and you pass them off as some sort of understood truth. That is not your experience those were not your court cases.

[Bramble]

What sends shivers down an exwafer's spine is when they read about an incident so similar to what happened to them, in another area involving other people. Those moments are real and many have experienced then. Finally, someone understands what you went through! While the 'prove it' types might scoff and dismiss such posts, the people who it matters to know the truth of it.

[excathedra]

i can't help it white dove

all I said was it is dishonest to call things true that have not met the burden of proof for calling them so.

what in the heck does that mean ?

[doojable]

I thought I'd throw out some definitions for "burden of proof." I haven't read them entirely, so I am not trying to say anyone is wrong or right. I just thought if the phrase is being used, that at least everyone can have the same definition to go by:

One DefinitionClick for more

A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.

Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

Another DefinitionClick for more

A party's job of convincing the decisionmaker in a trial that the party's version of the facts is true. In a civil trial, it means that the plaintiff must convince the judge or jury "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the plaintiff's version is true -- that is, over 50% of the believable evidence is in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, because a person's liberty is at stake, the government has a harder job, and must convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

See Topic: Go to Court or Mediate Criminal Law

I hope this helps...

Edited January 12, 2008 by doojable

[excathedra]

i don't know if it helps or not because i don't really care

[doojable]

I know Excie - I just think that the term is being used haphazardly. I don't even think it applies to a public discussion.

On the other hand - there would be enough eye-witness testimonies here to meet some of that burden, if my reading is correct.

[waysider]

The world sure would be a quiet place if we needed proof of everything we mentioned in the course of conversation.

Uhmmm. I can't prove that statement is true.

"You'll just have to take my word on it."-------VPW(CF&S)

[rhino]

I said was it is dishonest to call things true that have not met the burden of proof for calling them so. You invent charges ...

The charge is real, I guess you are claiming the evidence is false, but they claim to be an eye witness, you claim to know they are lying based on no evidence.

Even in a civil case it would seem the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the person telling the story, unless there are witnesses of that incident to the contrary.

But here where these are bascially testimonials, certainly the burden of proof is on the denier. How can you say they are dishonest? They were a first hand witness and you are not.

At best you can say that wouldn't hold up in a criminal case without more witnesses ... but as there are so many testimonials of similar behavior, there is plenty of evidence that the bad behavior happened.

It is dishonest to cliam their eye witness account is false, based on your off the cuff denial. How goofy can you get?

[excathedra]

my lawnmower broke

[waysider]

HaHaHa

Prove it!!!

[excathedra]

you want a picture ?

or a video of it making no noise ?

[rhino]

my lawnmower broke

it is dishonest for you to say that is true, since you have not met my burden of proof for calling it so.

I can send you some forms, and if you can get some witnesses and return the notarized forms, then you may be honest again, till then you are dishonest.

You also have to prove it is YOUR lawnmower. We know how sneaky you are.

[doojable]

you want a picture ?

or a video of it making no noise ?

Have both in triplicate on my desk in the morning, please. ;)

[Ham]

my lawnmower broke

depends.

Define "broke."

we'll need some expert testimony from some scholar as to the meaning of "my" also.

maybe you just THOUGHT it was "broke"..

The answer is obvious though excie. If it's "broke", send it some money.

[excathedra]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwyj78FpYt4

[WordWolf]

(snip)

Perhaps you were out of the room at the time, but a while back I started a thread(Not a forum, granted, but at least a thread.) which invited people to share real examples of how they had used the law of believing to exact tangible results in their lives and show the connection.

(snip)

I was one of the people-there was at least one other- who started up a thread SPECIFICALLY LABELLED

as being a thread for pro-vpw, pro-pfal, pro-"positives" stuff, and asked people who wanted to post

otherwise to avoid posting "off-topic" threads.

As you can see, it wasn't very popular, and wasn't used.

[Tom Strange]

today i was on this totally other forum and someone said the following (which made me think of this tread) -

Suggesting that we cannot have an opinion because we "have no evidence" is preposterous.

Many people commit crimes and get away with them because there is not enough evidence.

Excathedra

If that quote was in reference to me I'll again state what I said which was not the above. I have never said that anyone could not have an opinion, in fact that is what it is, an opinion. Anyone has a right to those. I have never in fact said that I don't agree with some of those opinions. But my agreement does not give me the right to misstate the truth in a public forum as a truth or a fact. Case in point tonight they are digging up the backyard in NC and gathering evidence of the missing marine girl. From the preliminary evidence it looks like they have found their man, my opinion would be they have,. But until they have a conviction the proper term in reference to him is alleged. I agree that "Many people commit crimes and get away with them because there is not enough evidence." I think OJ is one of those that's my opinion, but not a fact. I also understand the other side of that coin in that many people go to prison for crimes they never committed because of peoples opinions. And in the case of VPW it is unfortunate that the system failed to work due to his death. I can understand maybe somewhat or at least comprehend some of the frustration that any victim of crime must feel in those cases. I can comprehend the justice for victims, to in such cases refer to the person as guilty . the truth is two people know what went on in those cases. But for others who were not there to pick up that charge any relay it, is opinion ,it may well be a right one or it may be a wrong one but it is none the less an opinion they were not there . If the goal of this site is to help people learn the other side of the story then if we want credibility and you need that to do so , then it is IMHO that we need to speak factually. That means that it is important that the charges thrown about here are at least in agreement with those presented on the front page articles. To have conflicting information tends to diminish credibility. It tends to make the job easy for those who don't want the other side of the story to be told .They can point to the facts of what the charges were and to the inconsistencies of charges thrown about here and say see they are just a bunch of liars. The truth is while that may not be true it looks that way from what we have written. I just don't see how that can be productive in helping anyone. I won't assume that I can even imagine the the emotions a victem must feel in those cases when the system fails, the only thing I can say is that I believe one day the system will not fail and a right judgment will be made. But for me today I must accept our system of justice and support those rights that we do have as flawed as they may be.

I'm sorry, I quit reading this thread a long time ago because of White Dove's continued... I don't know whether to call it 'dishonest' or 'harrassing' approach... thought I'd come back to it and see if it had progressed... but NO, he's still here doing the S.O.S. It's just a different day...

[waysider]

None Of Us Are Free

[WhiteDove]

The charge is real, I guess you are claiming the evidence is false, but they claim to be an eye witness, you claim to know they are lying based on no evidence.

Even in a civil case it would seem the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the person telling the story, unless there are witnesses of that incident to the contrary.

I think you misread what I said I never said the charge was not true quite the opposite in the cases that were brought forth with charges, the problem is/was some think they can add charges that don't appear on the transcript ,the charges are listed those not involved in the case here don't get to add there own version to the list.. First hand witnesses do not a guilty verdict make one can not accept that as truth the accused still gets a fair trial. I posted some links before on the problems of eyewittnesses.

Here

But here where these are basically testimonials, certainly the burden of proof is on the denier. How can you say they are dishonest? They were a first hand witness and you are not.

Rascal is not a first hand witness to the cases I referred to. She is offering an opinion only, her opinion has included other charges than listed in the court filings. that would be dishonest.......

Edited January 13, 2008 by WhiteDove