Oh, that's classic! Call his bluff and turn the tables on him.
He may actually think twice before asking someone that question again. 😊
i recently ran into a jw i knew from a few years back.you know how it goes, a few pleasantries that always seem much more awkward than they really should (not for me, mind you--for him).and then the question, "so what congregation are you attending?
are you able to make the meetings?
"i'm thinking: do you always start conversations this way?so anyways, knowing full well the jw-mindset, i decided to have a bit of fun.furrowing my brow, i said, "that's an odd question!
Oh, that's classic! Call his bluff and turn the tables on him.
He may actually think twice before asking someone that question again. 😊
caleb states, "now i can speak to chinese people.
" ummm, there are many chinese people that speak english, caleb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p2tgjvxdb4.
Maybe he was disfellowshipped because his hand is a giant dick.
I prefer the cover with dickhand guy.
i don't know what the current definitive rule is that determines whether someone is viewed as an "active publisher" or not.
i've seen comments suggesting that it is reporting a certain minimum number of hours per month which seems reasonable.. what is interesting is how they change the definition of what an active publisher is based on the context.
normally, you are never doing enough, however much you are doing, and too little or some missed reporting will get you a talking to.. but note how they class 'active' in one of the latest body of elders letters:.
i don't know what the current definitive rule is that determines whether someone is viewed as an "active publisher" or not.
i've seen comments suggesting that it is reporting a certain minimum number of hours per month which seems reasonable.. what is interesting is how they change the definition of what an active publisher is based on the context.
normally, you are never doing enough, however much you are doing, and too little or some missed reporting will get you a talking to.. but note how they class 'active' in one of the latest body of elders letters:.
humans have produced many movies on extraterrestrials.
yet all of them are shown in ugly form.
why cant we depict an et more beautiful/handsome than humans.
i know we have all discussed at length the account / story of lot.... another thought occurred to me today...lets analyse his real personality,.
in the very beginning of the account, lot is shown to be a selfish man...one that chose the better land and area..... then he was opportunistic and materialistic and kept living in a nice city, even though he was supposedly shocked by the immorality and lawlessness..... then we see him to be cowardly when he decided to send out his daughters to be pack raped.. later we learn he was heartless as he allowed his wife to turn around and look, and didnt protect her from doing so.. then we know he was lacking in self control and allowed himself to get drunk...twice.. then we know he was dismissive and unrestrained and a general sicko when he had sex with his daughters...twice in a row!.
oh, but no...lets all praise him for being a righteous man.????!!!.
i don't know what the current definitive rule is that determines whether someone is viewed as an "active publisher" or not.
i've seen comments suggesting that it is reporting a certain minimum number of hours per month which seems reasonable.. what is interesting is how they change the definition of what an active publisher is based on the context.
normally, you are never doing enough, however much you are doing, and too little or some missed reporting will get you a talking to.. but note how they class 'active' in one of the latest body of elders letters:.
If you poop once a day you are regular.
If you poop once a week you are irregular.
If you haven't pooped for six months you are probably dead- which, BTW, is how the WT will treat you.
i don't know what the current definitive rule is that determines whether someone is viewed as an "active publisher" or not.
i've seen comments suggesting that it is reporting a certain minimum number of hours per month which seems reasonable.. what is interesting is how they change the definition of what an active publisher is based on the context.
normally, you are never doing enough, however much you are doing, and too little or some missed reporting will get you a talking to.. but note how they class 'active' in one of the latest body of elders letters:.
i don't know what the current definitive rule is that determines whether someone is viewed as an "active publisher" or not.
i've seen comments suggesting that it is reporting a certain minimum number of hours per month which seems reasonable.. what is interesting is how they change the definition of what an active publisher is based on the context.
normally, you are never doing enough, however much you are doing, and too little or some missed reporting will get you a talking to.. but note how they class 'active' in one of the latest body of elders letters:.
If you can't make the quota - tweek the definition of "active" and lower the standards.See how easy-peasy it is to keep the numbers nice and massaged. Always wondered if they get some kind of tax break or subsidy for the numbers of active pubs staying above a certain amount? Why else would they be so obsessed with them, apart from using the stats as a propaganda tool of course.
What you see is definitely not all there is with these people. Also, all the more reason for everyone to stop reporting!