Posts by AlanF

48

E-watchman says Ray Franz is 'animalistic' LOL!

by yaddayadda in

jw
friends

in a critique of 'captives of a concept', robert king accuses anyone who can't get past all of the watchtower society's 'obstacles' as animalistic and lacking spirituality, including don cameron and ray franz.

it's mindblowing how this bloke can consistently call the watchtower leaders liars, blind, false prophets, dishing up vomitous things, etc, yet continue to preach that they are still a 'faithful steward' uniquely appointed by christ.

so, while it is true that jehovahs witnesses have not come to know the judgment of jehovah, cameron is similarly captive to a concept; and hence, ignorant of jehovahs judgment.

AlanF

Robert King is a bright man, but completely insane. Sort of the Hannibal Lector of ex-JW cult leader wannabes.

AlanF

49

Why label it a cult?

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

what purpose does it serve?

it just seems to polarize people and ostracize those who aren't ready or willing to label it a cult.

anyone can look up the dictionary definition of a cult (or experts' definitions).

AlanF

In common parlance "cult" has extremely negative connotations: no one in his right mind would want to be in a cult.

Using the term may be shocking to some people, but experience shows that such people often need to be slapped upside the head with a dose of reality to get them really to see reality.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Scholar pretendus wrote:

: Celebrated WT scholars have well and truly proven that 537 BCE was and is the only possible date for the Return setting out such evidence in WT publications over many decades. . .

You call pure speculation "proof". That's why you steadfastly refuse to post and discuss the Society's "proof".

: . . . I will be providing information on this matter dealing with the so-called tie-breaker with Josephus and Ezra 3:8.

I don't think so. You've had a year and a half to do so. You're not going to come up with any new or sensible information.

: In some sense, Neo-Babyloian chronology is a 'test' of WT biblical chronology but I prefer to consider the former more of an independent witness to the validity of the latter because secular, profane Neo-Babylonian chronology falls a mere twenty years short of biblically established dates such as 607 BCE. The reason for this small gap is that this chronology omits history failing to consider the seventy years of exile-desolation and servitude.

Nonsense. Once again, when false Watchtower claims are discarded, the Bible and secular history are seen to correspond exactly.

: I will be dealing with the fact that the first year of Cyrus should be counted from Nisan rather than Tishri in my response to Alan F's nonsense so keep watching.

Suuuure. You've demonstrated time and again that you're completely incompetent to write anything with regard to this severe mental discipline. Have you had a brain transplant recently?

: The reign of Darius is very important in the context of establishing a date for the Return because his reign is linked to the termination of the seventy years in which Cyrus' Decree permitted the Jews to return home by the seventh month in 537 BCE. The reign of Darius may have been commensurate with the first year of Cyrus or intervened between the Fall of Babylon and the first year of Cyrus.

No doubt your exposition will be as illuminating as anything you've come up with heretofore.

: You seem to be spooked by the zero-year problem

Typical JW apologist arrogance. Doug isn't "spooked" by any of this. It's you who are spooked by these things. This is why you can only spout gobble-de-goop.

: but what you fail to realize is that is was the celebrated WT scholars who first drew attention to scholars that an adjustment was require for it was the case in the earlier decades of the last century that scholars had made this error.

LOL! The only "scholars" who mucked up the "zero year" issue were those incompetents who Russell got his false chronology from, like Nelson Barbour and Christopher Bowen. Other "scholars" knew enough to get it right. For example, in 1823 John Aquila Brown published an explanation of the Gentile times where the 2520 years ran from 604 BCE to 1917 CE. He was competent enough properly to deal with the zero year. Russell only got an inkling of the problem in 1904, and even though some of his lieutenants, such as P.S.L. Johnsson, pointed out the seriousness of the problem in 1912, Russell still never managed to correct the problem, even though he discussed the possibility of moving the 1914 date to 1915 in Zion's Watch Tower. In 1917, Fischer and Woodworth knew enough to change the 606 date back to 607 in The Finished Mystery. Woodworth even published the 607 date in a 1935 Golden Age article. The gross incompetence of these 'celebrated ones' is shown by the fact that, despite all this information, they didn't manage to officially change Watchtower chronology until 1943.

The fact is that competent scholars have been well aware, since the 8th century CE, of the fact that, by convention, there is no zero year between 1 BCE and 1 CE: "Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1 (see Colgrave and Mynors, 1969). In this system, the year A.D. 1 is preceded by the year 1 B.C., without an intervening year 0." ( http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html )

: Our chronology was then 'fine' tuned' by the 'celedbrated ones' demonstrating that chronology is always a work in progress.

LOL! Translation: it took from 1876 to 1943 for the 'celedbrated ones' (perhaps de-cerebrated ones would be a better term) to become aware of what competent scholars were aware of for twelve hundred years.

: When P&D was first published in the early forties it was of great benefit to the 'celebrated ones' who since then have made good use of this piece of scholarship to the chagrin of critics and apostates.

"Chagrin"? Amusement is more like it. Coupled with surprise that anyone could be so stupidly doctrinaire.

For Doug's benefit, and to illustrate how deceptive scholar pretendus here is, let's look at his response to Doug's challenge and question. Doug wrote:

:: You dance around on the doorknob without ever telling me how the WTS arrives at its 537 date. You have seen the diagrammatic method I employ. Can you do the same for the WTS’s explanation?

Scholar pretendus responds:

: You request a diagram and I am happy to oblige forthwith: NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition, 1995, p.667.

: nb. Please note the scriptural references Ezra 3:1; 3:8

Of course, I've asked scholar pretendus for such a diagram for well over a year, and all he's done is "dance around the doorknob". Obviously he's too incompetent to make one himself, and obviously he couldn't find one in Watchtower publications; hence the dancing. Now, though, he sets forth, not a diagram, but a reference to one in a "commentary of Christendom", which happens to coincide partially with the Watchtower's dating of events around the fall of Babylon and the return of the Jews. But of course, as usual scholar pretendus leaves out extremely relevant information.

The NIV Study Bible contains a chart "Chronology: Ezra - Nehemiah" that lists dates and events from 539 to 432 BCE. The top line in the chart states: "Dates below are given according to a Nisan-to-Nisan Jewish calendar". Here is a partial list of the information in the chart relevant to our discussion:

Year________Month_____Event
539 B.C.____Oct._______Capture of Babylon_________Da 5:30
538_________Mar.______Cyrus's first year___________Ezr 1:1-4
537_______to Mar.
537(?)________________Return under Sheshbazzar___Ezr 1:11
537_________VII_______Building of altar____________Ezr 3:1
536_________II________Work on temple begun______Ezr 3:8

Note an extremely relevant bit of information in the above list: the date of the return under Shesbazzar is given with a question mark: "537(?)". This shows that the compilers of the chart are not sure when the return occurred. This is again evident in the verse by verse commentary:

On verse 1:1: ". . . in 538 . . . the people began to return."

On verse 1:11: "We are not told anything about the details of Sheshbazzar's journey, which probably took place in 537 B.C.

On verse 3:1: "Tishri . . . about three months after the arrival of the exiles in Judah (in 537 B.C.)."

On verse 3:8: "Since the Jews probably returned to Judah in the spring of 537 B.C. . ."

Furthermore, a chart on the inside front cover of the 2002 edition of the NIV Study Bible, "Old Testament Chronology", contains the entry, "538: First group returns under Zerubbabel".

So the NIV chart makers are honest enough to admit that they don't really know if the Jews returned in 537 or 538 BCE, but scholar pretendus fails to mention this. But readers familiar with his deceptive tactics have seen this dishonest scholarship plenty of times before.

The other thing I want to point out is that the dates given in the NIV chart hinge on the assumption that the Jews returned in 537. If they returned in 538, as I argue, then the last three dates in the above list must be moved backward by one year.

Returning now to scholar pretendus' foolishness:

: It can hardly be said that the said 'scholar' has been dancing around the doorknob as I have been arguing matters of chronology in some depth on this board for the last five years and have dealt with every objection in full

LOL! Your "arguing" and "dealing" consist entirely of "dancing around the doorknob". You've steadfastly refused to discuss specifics of the Society's arguments about 537, you absolutely refuse to quote almost all relevant scriptures, and you simply ignore 90% of the arguments thrown your way. All readers know this.

: excepting for the Alan F query as previously mentioned.

But for a year and a half now, you've been claiming that you've dealt fully with my argument. Which is it?

Calling my argument a "query" is merely a reflection of your refusal to deal with reality.

: Besides you well know the methodology of the WT's 537 date

Sure: speculation and unsupported declarations.

: and the evidence for it

Sure: zero.

: so I do not intend to repeat what you already have presented. What I will do is to present additional information bearing on the matter which deals with Alan F's little difficulty.

I'm sure that readers will be suitably amused.

: This is the second timeI have helped him with a problem

LOL! You really are an arrogant SOB.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

You're quite right, neverendingjourney. The sad thing is that scholar pretendus here, and plenty of similarly braindead fundamentalists, go through the motions not so much to deceive others but to deceive themselves. Without their crutch, they think they have no purpose in life.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Scholar pretendus wrote:

: In matters of chronology any so called 'proof' is relative to methodology and interpretation of history

In principle, yes. In practice, the methodology may be valid or invalid.

The Watchtower's "methodology" with respect to the 537 date is demonstrably invalid. In arriving at that date, since the early 1940s the Society has done nothing more than set forth some speculations, and then declare that the date is right. There is no attempt anywhere in WTS publications to do more than this. You know this very well, since you cannot set forth any chain of evidence that is not firmly based on speculation.

Prior to the Society's switching from 536 to 537, the only "methodology" was again pure speculation. True, this speculation went back to Russell, Barbour and some earlier prophetic speculators, but it remains speculation. When Fred Franz adopted the 539 date for Babylon's fall in 1944, he was forced to switch the 536 date to 537 to retain the Society's claims about 1914 and the 70 years of Jeremiah. That is the only motivation for switching from 536 to 537, and you know it.

: so yes you have 'proved' that 538 BCE is the date for the Return

I have not merely 'proved' that date, I've proved it. The proof is not based on speculation. It is based on verifiable historical statements: (1) Ezra's statements; (2) Josephus' statements. Now, you're not about to claim that Ezra's statements are false, so to throw cold water on my proof, you must show that Josephus' statement that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' 2nd year is false. That's all there is to it.

: just as 'celebrated' WT scholars have also 'proved' that 537 BCE is tthat date.

'Proved' as opposed to proved is correct, since their claim is based on nothing more than speculation.

: Similarly, Mason has also proved that there is no 'proof' for any date whatsoever.

Wrong, but Doug can stick up for himself.

: Why not just stick to the basic facts and those assumptions that are made necessary in order to historize the Return.

I have certainly done so. You've had many opportunities for about a year and a half now to tackle the simple facts I've presented and attempt to disprove my claims. All you've managed is a lot of nonsensical whining that the speculations of inebriated WTS scholars somehow constitute proof.

: Those facts as presennted in the WT publications over decades

What facts? They've presented no facts.

: demonstarate that 537 BCE is the only p;ossible date that accommodates all relevant factors

Once again: The only motivation for WTS writers is to retain the 1914 date.

: namely the acknowledgement of the reign of Darius,

No one knows anything about that beyond the simple fact that the Bible mentions Darius the Mede several times. The best anyone can come up with is that "Darius" was a throne name for a viceroy of Cyrus. If that is correct, then Darius' and Cyrus' accession years (or first year, using Jewish dating methods) ran in parallel.

: the first year of Cyrus counts from Nisan,

Using Babylonian reckoning, yes. But using Jewish reckoning, the first year of Cyrus ran from Tishri 539 until Tishri 538, which overlaps Cyrus' accession year in Babylonian reckoning by one half a year. But these niceties are beyond your ken, I realize.

: journey home, and that the end of the seventy years was synchronistic with Cyrus' first year and not at Babylon's Fall.

This is not a fact -- it's the Society's claim, nothing more. Once again, 2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly states that the Jews were servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his dynasty until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Cyrus, "the royalty of Persia", began to reign over Babylon in 539 BCE when his army conquered Babylon and killed king Belshazzar. Furthermore, Jeremiah 25:12 clearly states that when the 70 years are over, God would punish the king of Babylon and the nation "for their error". That punishment clearly began in 539 BCE when the nation was conquered and its king killed. Of course, plenty of other scriptures are completely consistent with these simple facts.

: You have proved nothing but your fantasy that 538 BCE is the date for ignores relevant matters of history

Translation: the facts I've set forth contradict Watchtower tradition.

: for all that you have done is sketched a model or calendation.

Once again, put your money where your mouth is and point out specifically where you think I've gone wrong. Is Ezra wrong or is Josephus wrong?

: Mason proves that there are are no models that work according to his bias against the WT.

Nope. Doug simply did not realize that Jewish time reckoning uses the non-accession year method for stating the regnal years of kings -- at least, in Ezra.

: It is that same bias that prevents you from acknowledge those simple historicisms that are only acknowledged by the 'celebrated' ones.

Sure, sure. In Watchtower-speak, pointing out facts that disprove Watchtower tradition is "bias". Again, you silly pretender, put your money where your mouth is and set out some facts.

Now I'll point out your egregious errors and lies in your reply to Doug.

: You are partially correct when you say that the WT's adoption of 537 BCE is traditional or owes itself merely to some 'tradition'.

No, he's fully correct. It's a trivial matter to quote WTS publications and prove it. Even the vaunted Insight book can manage nothing more than speculation to support the 537 date. I've done this with you a number of times.

: In fact, as 586 BCE rather than the 'apostate' date of 587 has become the traditional date for the Fall within current scholarship

Nonsense. Some scholars, mostly following Thiele, accept this date. But scholars who don't follow Thiele accept the 587 date. We've been through all this before, so your claim is a blatant lie.

: so it is the case with 537 BCE for the Return.

Wrong again. I've set forth on this forum a number of quotations from scholars who accept the 538 date. But you know this, so here you're caught in a second blatant lie.

: This widespread endoresement of this date is due to the research methodology which the 'celebrated' Wt scholars first brought to the attention of the scholarly community in 1949.

LOL! The Encyclopedia Biblica of 1899 correctly lists 538 as the year of the return.

: This nicely followed the publication of Babylonian Chronology 626 BC-AD 45 by Richard Parker and Waldo h. Dubberstein in 1942 and 1946 respectively anticpated by the 'celebrated' and fully utilzed by them in the 'fine tuning ' of Bible chronology.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Society used 536 BCE as both the date of Cyrus' first year and the year of the Jews' return up through 1943. See, for example, the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free and the October 15, 1943 Watchtower, pp. 309-311. It was in the 1944 book The Kingdom Is At Hand (which title violates the spirit of Luke 21:8) that Fred Franz declared, without discussion, that Cyrus' first year was 537 and the Jews returned in 537. So in this book, the Society clearly stated, in effect, that Cyrus' decree and the return of the Jews occurred in the same calendar year of 537 BCE. My argument, based on Ezra, Josephus, and modern dating, puts these events in 538 BCE. Moving forward, the December 1, 1946 Watchtower tentatively changed Cyrus' first year to begin in the autumn of 538 BCE and left the return of the Jews in 537, but this again leaves the beginning of Cyrus' first year and the return of the Jews as occurring within the same 12-month period, just as I claim and in contrast with the Society's present claims. It was not until 1955, in the February 1 Watcthower, that the Society became sure that Cyrus' first year began in 538 BCE. At this time, Watchtower chronology essentially reached its present form.

My detailed discussion of "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" discusses all these issues and can be found here: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html

: It is your position that is 'feeble' because your research offers nothing new, no fresh insights offering no precise date for the Fall

Yet another misrepresentation. I and others have argued many times on this forum that the fall of Jerusalem occurred in 587 BCE. We've presented the reasons along with supporting scholarly references. The fact is, you simply ignore all this. Furthermore, Doug's essay is not concerned with the date of Jerusalem's fall, so your complaint is a non-sequitur.

Once again, scholar pretendus, your claims are shown to be nothing but hot air. You have no idea what you're talking about.

AlanF

38

What told you that no holy spirit was moving the BOE?

by Crumpet in

i've read on and off here of various things that told people that god's spirit was not directing the organisation.. personally for me on the last time i got dfed it was the fact that i got reinstated by a meeting of the boe at the exact same moment i was smoking my first cigarettes in 7 months.

i didnt question it exactly but it did seem odd.

i mean i had no idea that they were discussing my reinstatement at that moment that i succumbed and had decided in my favour.

AlanF

The first thing was when, more than 30 years ago, I was appointed a Ministerial Servant. I had not been consulted in any way; the PO simply announced it during a Service Meeting. I was irritated, but accepted. But I knew something was not kosher.

A year or two later, a nasty situation arose between an elder and a MS. Seems there was bad blood between their families going back some years, and the elder took advantage of an oversight by the MS to try to get him disfellowshipped. The MS had been a pioneer, and after he got married and quit the pioneer ranks, gradually worked up his part time lawn cutting business into a full time landscaping business. He started hiring a young man on an as-needed basis and paid him in cash. Eventually the business grew enough that the MS hired this guy fairly often, still paying him in cash. The elder had a construction business, and the occasion arose when he wanted to hire this young man, but wanted to deduct taxes and so forth from his paycheck, paying him as if he were a regular employee. The young man objected, saying that the MS paid him in cash. The elder then blew this all up into a formal accusation before a Judicial Committee that the MS had grossly violated Caesar's law on taxes, and should be disfellowshipped. The body of elders then went back and forth for some six months, voting to let the matter slide, voting to privately or publicly reprove, and voting to disfellowship. After calling in a 2nd committee from neighboring congregations, it was finally decided to let the matter drop, since it was not the business of elders to police the business practices of any individual. At the time, the MS was about 23-24 years old and the elder was fortyish.

I knew about these things because my step-dad was one of these Keystone Kops elders who couldn't make up their minds, and the MS was a good friend. Both told me what was going on. Well of course this raised the question in my mind of how the holy spirit could possibly be directing the actions of these idiot elders, and this led to questioning whether holy spirit had anything to do with their appointments as elders in the first place. I raised these questions with a couple of these idiot elders, and of course they couldn't tell me a thing of substance. Eventually my questions were given to the Circuit Overseer (one Wesley Benner, who became infamous as the CO who spearheaded the kangaroo JC that DF'd Raymond Franz some years later), who after a dinner one evening took me aside to try to answer the questions. After some discussion I put it to him bluntly: "So you're telling me that when the Society says that elders are appointed by holy spirit, what they really mean is that IF the body of elders doing the appointing PERFECTLY go along with the Bible's inspired qualifications for eldership, then IT CAN BE SAID that, IN EFFECT, the elder has been appointed by holy spirit?" He literally hung his head, paused and answered Yes. At that point I knew I'd been had by the Watchtower organization, and I never trusted anything coming from Brooklyn again.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

I look forward to your further comments, Doug.

In the meantime, you pointed out correctly that the 537 date is "traditionally established" by the WTS, just as I've pointed out to scholar pretendus here (as well as other JW apologists) dozens of times. However, this tradition only goes back to the 1940s. Prior to that, they used 536 BCE, based on claims they now admit were faulty (and were known to be faulty by good scholars at least as far back as the 1860s). A careful study of WTS literature from the 1940s onward shows that the only reason the WTS changed this date was because they changed 606 BCE to 607, and they needed to retain the 1914 date at all costs.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Doug,

I think your essay is quite good overall, except for the dating of the return of the Jews. In a number of posts, I've shown that Ezra and Josephus together strongly indicate that the return was in 538 BCE. If one accepts that the statements by Ezra and Josephus are correct, then this indication constitutes proof. You can find one such discussion here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118291/1.ashx

One thing that I think you're incorrect about is stating that Ezra used Tishri/accession year dating. My own conclusion, based on a good deal of reading scholarly material, is that most Bible writers, including Ezra, used Tishri/non-accession year dating.

With that in mind, Cyrus' 1st year according to Ezra would have run Tishri, 539 to Tishri, 538 BCE. Then the Jews could easily have been back in Judah by Tishri, 538 BCE.

Note that my discussion in the above link implicitly assumes Nisan dating, but I specifically point out that the arguments work perfectly well with Tishri dating by Ezra and Josephus.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

It matters not what various people say, scholar pretendus -- it matters a great deal what people prove. I've proved, using nothing but Ezra and Josephus, that the Jews returned in 538 BCE. Neither you nor your stupid WT 'scholars' have proved anything at all. WT publications merely declare that 537 is correct; you do the same. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to comment on Josephus' decisive statement connecting statements in Ezra with the date of the return of the Jews proves that you know you cannot disprove this connection.

AlanF

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

AlanF

Again we find moronic rantings from scholar pretendus, which go like this:

DougMason: Where's the proof that the Jews returned in 537?

Scholar pretendus: There is proof!

DougMason: Where's the proof that the Jews returned in 537?

Scholar pretendus: There is proof!

DougMason: Where's the proof that the Jews returned in 537?

Scholar pretendus: There is proof!

. . .

Such is the result of a lifetime of devotion to 'celebrated WT scholars'. LOL!

More like, spiritually inebriated WT fakes.

AlanF