OrphanCrow

Joined

• started 195 topics
• posted 4,799 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by OrphanCrow

• 
  18

  New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

  by ILoveTTATT2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

  omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

  here is the trailer..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  DoC: Sad to say, I don't see a big audience for this. The public really doesn't care about JWs because they are such a minority of the population, a nuisance (and mostly weird).
  JW's, of course, will be told to boycott it.

  Only family members who have been affected by a JW refusing transfusion will have any remote interest.
  

  The only reason that "the public" shows little interest is simply because they are ignorant of the the full implications of the WT's blood ban.

  I used to think the same as you, Doc, until I started talking to non-JWs about the blood ban and it has been surprising how many people are totally unaware of how much this issue has affected those affiliated with the JWs. The "public" that I have spoken to about the blood issue have been horrified when they learn how many JWs die each year from refusing blood.

  They have simply shown no interest because they know nothing about it. This film will change that.
• 
  18

  New Movie: Blood, dealing with Blood Transfusions. Coming to a theater near you soon!

  by ILoveTTATT2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=121&v=b-tcy86as6i.

  omg i cannot believe that someone is making a hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and jehovah's witnesses!

  here is the trailer..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  OMG I cannot believe that someone is making a Hollywood-like movie based on the topic of blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses!

  The producer is an exJW from Canada.

  The film has gone into pre-production this month - March - and it goes to camera in October.

  Thanks for posting, ILove. I am quite looking forward to seeing this film - it should be a good one.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  finkel: Perhaps it might be a bit more relevant and prudent to talk about people hunting people in cites rather than people hunting animals in the woods.
  Protecting people from other people seems to be a little more important of an issue is it not ?

  Exactly. That is the whole point. Hand guns are only good for killing people, not animals. Only poor hunters need side arms. Or people who want to kill other people.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Had: ...man you must be hella accurate with the hipfire LOL.

  Yes. They are. It is how my brother took down a lynx that was getting ready to spring on him from 10 feet away. Rifle shot from the hip.

  Do you really think that side arms are a necessity for hunting? Why don't Canadians use them for hunting? Why does a whole entire country (noteworthy for its hunting territories) make them illegal for hunting?
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  And just one more thing about this comment: "ask anyone that's done a decent amount of med. to lg. game hunting. Sort of a necessity."

  If it is such a necessity, then why do we have a whole entire country (Canada), which has far more hunting land and wild animals than the States, say that it is illegal to use side arms for hunting? If carrying a side arm for hunting is a necessity, then why do so many American hunters come up to hunt in Canada, the land where they can't use side arms for hunting? Huh...not only that, but the American hunters can't even take the meat home with them. Trophy hunters. Without side arms.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Hadriel: Ask anyone trying to sight in with a rifle that close with a dangerous animal charging you, you need a sidearm. ask anyone that's done a decent amount of med. to lg. game hunting. Sort of a necessity.

  Not really. I have a woman friend who hunts boar with a bow. We actually have a large problem with boars in some rural areas.

  As I said before, I have asked people who are active hunters. A side arm is not necessary to be a good hunter. Not at all. If you ask any northern Canadian hunter about using a side arm in hunting, they would call you either a sissy or a bad hunter.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  fmf: Nope. Not true.

  I apologize. I didn't realize that not all states allow it. Thank you for the correction.
• 
  166

  2nd amendment right ... where should it end?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.

  very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!

  so muskets all round.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Jumping in just cause the water looks warm...this will be only a sort dip.

  I want to make a comment on one aspect of gun laws that I find remarkably different between Canada and the States and it concerns the use of hand guns.

  In the States, carrying of a hand gun is permitted by anyone who holds registration for it. In Canada, we also can buy and carry hand guns.

  But..in Canada, the carrying and storage of those hand guns is tightly regulated. They can only be used in controlled settings such as gun ranges and can never be carried on your person unless you are a member of the armed forces or police. Even being a private investigator does not allow you to carry a hand gun on your person. If you are an ordinary citizen, transporting the gun, for example, to the gun range, is an undertaking. The gun must be in a locked case and locked inside your glove compartment while going to and from the range and you are not even legally allowed to make any stops along the way. (I am pretty sure it is still the same...I used to go to the gun range with my brother years ago).

  Anyways, the point I am getting at is that a hand gun is made for one purpose and one purpose only - to shoot people. Well...and for sport. Canada recognizes that.

  I have heard some people say that they carry a hand gun when they are out hunting so that they can do the final kill. I ran that idea past my dad who is a very involved hunter of big game for food and he chuckled and then snorted. So did my native friend who carries a knife for that purpose. Canadian hunters don't use hand guns to kill animals.
• 
  29

  Governing Body went from anonymous secret group to T.V Stars??? How?

  by Witness 007 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  when i grew up in the 1980's -90's it was rare to see a faithful slaves picture in 10 years of watchtowers.

  everything was anonymous.

  no one really knew there names except for the "holy oricle" fred franz.. now they are full on t.v stars with there own show.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Billy: ...the GB can expect to be the first ones trucked off to the concentration camps when their new headquarters will be turned into President Trump's rural retreat! LOL.

  Nah. That won't happen. If Trump gets in, he will be their guest at their compound. Don't forget that the GB does business with Trump's son-in-law - Jared Kushner.

  If Trump gets in, the GB will be lobbying to make the JWs the official American religion.
• 
  3

  WTS trade with China in an earlier stage.

  by Gorbatchov in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  with the recent thread about wts buying materials for their new warwick hq in china, i want to refer to another story some 10 years ago.. there was then a china government visit to the usa.

  they paid a visit to wts in brooklyn and did in the aftermath a return visit to china for the sake of lean production management.. wts learned the china government producing lean, and they got something in return for that.. what they got, i don't know.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  OrphanCrow

  The WT's lips are moving again.

  "We are no part of this world and we have no part of worldly governments"

  Right....but it is fine for the big guys to rub shoulders with those in power.

  Hypocrites. All of them.

  The WT visit with Chinese officials reminds me of their hobnobbing with Mugawbe and his goons from Zimbabwe.

  *Gorbatchov, do you have a reference for this?