by Simon 27 Replies latest social current
Simon and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.
It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
The big difference though is that he allows you to post your disagreement to his opinion. Don't recall that ever happening in WT land.
Simon and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself ... It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
Ah, the old classic - "I disagree with you, can't argue my case so ... I know, I'll claim you are just like the WTS !!!". Nice that you think you're some kind of Che Guevara type appealing to people to join your revolution (I think Walter Mitty is closer).
Sorry pal, you're a fool. Having authority doesn't automatically mean authority is being abused. Someone needs to keep order. We have rules that are applied as equally as possible to all and everyone can have a say as long as they abide by them and oh no, the outrage, 'cause I also get to have a say, sorry.
If you think you have a point to make about something then make that point. If you're just going to make unsubstantiated accusations you can sod off.
May I introduce you to former German finance minister Theo Waigel? Some claim, he always fought the idea of a tax on eyebrows.
Anyway back to important things like the mysterious case of the strange Trudeau double-brows.
If they are "enhanced" in any way they look more like a "weave" than a "wig" that is fake eyebrow hair weaved or glued into the existing natural eyebrow to give the appearance of a more full lustrous manly brow.
I fixed it!
SimonCoded Logic and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.
It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
Wow.
Do you buy the “bad lighting” excuse people are saying about this?
Ha ha. There is bad lighting - the lights are on.
Here is a better revision. Now the post has a much deeper meaning:
Simon and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
