This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Well said, Elhonna.
For me, the line between man and God is clearly defined. God said stuff, and specifically gave certain people authority to teach. That is word and inspired word. Everything else is bogus. As a preacher i always encourage attendants to fact check what i say. A few times i have had mistakes pointed out. I make public corrections at the next opportunity.
Post by
Nathanyal
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150998259519653&set=a.124804629652.101377.114998944652&type=1&theater
Not really a news article, but there seems to be a ton of stuff happening because Oreo has this on their page. So much nonsense in my opinion.
Post by
Ksero
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150998259519653&set=a.124804629652.101377.114998944652&type=1&theater
Not really a news article, but there seems to be a ton of stuff happening because Oreo has this on their page. So much nonsense in my opinion.
link is broken, is there any way you could download it and upload to imagur(no registration needed).
Post by
Nathanyal
Well its the actual facebook page with all the comments, not just a picture. But the picture is of a rainbow colored creme oreo cookie, saying "Pride".
http://www.facebook.com/oreo
There is the regular page which you can find the photo on.
But
here
is an article that just popped up.
Post by
Ksero
I figured that was the picture, I don't really see what all the fuss was about either. I can't believe people will stop buying oreo's cause of that picture. But i guess with 26.9 million fans there are always going to be people that disagree.
Post by
Adamsm
I figured that was the picture, I don't really see what all the fuss was about either. I can't believe people will stop buying oreo's cause of that picture.But if you eat them, you'll end up supporting gay rights!
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think you're going to see more of this kind of this kind of corporate politicking on the issue. I don't know how much of it is morally motivated- I'd like to think that at least some of it is. But if it's good business (generates more publicity/sales than it costs them in boycotts) they'll do it.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The anti-gay sentiment that overwhelmed the world was probably the worst moral position that could be taken. Not only was it wrong, but it precipitated the demand for gay acceptance. If the issue had been ignored, as it should have been, it would still be ignored.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
What do you guys think- should a church have an internal system for dealing with criminal acts by its clergy, and ignore the secular criminal justice system where they live?
Saw a great documentary (deliver us from evil) on this which said that the Church invented a legal fiction claiming that communications between a priest and their supervisor were covered under the same privilege as confession, which had zero precedence in doctrine or law.
As for
vicars of Christ
, I fail to see the issue?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Now, if you get accused of copyright infringement, you have to pay £20 (US $31.27) if you want to appeal. Apparently, "Innocent until proven guilty" has been changed to "Guilty unless you pay £20 then go to court and the court finds you not guilty".
Generally speaking, most civil cases have some sort of filing fee associated with it, to reflect the use of the court's time. You could argue the flip side - if you think someone owes you money, you need to pay A$245 to lodge a claim with the court. Does that deter a claim?
I'm assuming that your costs, both court and legal, will generally be paid by the accuser if you're found not guilty. That's how it works in civil claims, I assume that's how it would work in this instance as well. The cost is to deter people from making frivolous appeals that have no merit that would waste the court's time.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Except this isn't a civil matter, this isn't a fee to appeal in the courts after you've been tried, it's a fee to say "You've accused me but I'm innocent".
I never said anything about 'after you've been tried'.
This is a fee to say "We don't want you wasting the court's time if you're not actually innocent", just like all the other court fees. Again - if you're subsequently found not guilty, chances are that your accusers will need to pay your costs.
I believe the term for that kind of behaviour is racketeering.
Next you'll be telling me that bail money is bribery.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Yes you did:
What part of paying in advance to avoid 'wasting the court's time' did you infer to mean 'paying after trial'?
You're the one who brought it up, so again, this has
nothing to do with the damn courts
!
Now, if you get
accused
of copyright infringement, you have to pay £20 (US $31.27) if you want to
appeal
.
Okay then, so if you're not being accused of a crime, and you're not defending your position in a court, then what exactly are you concerned about? Twenty quid because you don't want someone to call you names?
This is an organisation accusing you of a crime and saying they'll press charges unless you pay them, that is racketeering.
Ofcom isn't pressing any charges. Source?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.