You think those two old folks still do the hokey pokey, or something like it? Do people stop at a certain age? Not that sex is everything, but it seems that its importance might grow the less mobile you become, for example:
[GrandMa] "Hon, wanna go to the movies?"
[GrandPa] "No sweets. My hip is too sore."
[GrandMa] "Wanna do the wild thang?"
[GrandPa] "I'll meet you in the bedroom in an hour!"
seesthesky
JoinedPosts by seesthesky
-
48
Can you comment on this story WITHOUT being negative?
by nicolaou injust for a moment try not to be a bitter, twisted, hate spewing apostate and read this....... .
by erin concors, tribune .
jerry and crystal baxter still look back on their first major argument as newlyweds and laugh.
-
-
seesthesky
-
169
Has Anyone Got Any Proof That The Society Monitors Apostate Web Sites?
by slimboyfat ini am extremely skeptical about this, yet people on this forum seem to talk about it as though it were a fact.
so has anyone got any actual concrete proof?
here are the reasons why i don't think they do:.
-
-
seesthesky
Excellent - SBF has, to some degree, clarified his criteria for believable evidence. Can anyone accomodate him?
-
169
Has Anyone Got Any Proof That The Society Monitors Apostate Web Sites?
by slimboyfat ini am extremely skeptical about this, yet people on this forum seem to talk about it as though it were a fact.
so has anyone got any actual concrete proof?
here are the reasons why i don't think they do:.
-
-
seesthesky
Heatmiser asks a fine brotherly question: "what the [edit] do you want?"
Indeed, perhaps this discussion might make more progress if SBF clarified the type and weight of evidence/proof he seeks. -
169
Has Anyone Got Any Proof That The Society Monitors Apostate Web Sites?
by slimboyfat ini am extremely skeptical about this, yet people on this forum seem to talk about it as though it were a fact.
so has anyone got any actual concrete proof?
here are the reasons why i don't think they do:.
-
-
seesthesky
A CALL TO ARMS: Let us shun anyone who questions our beliefs!
-
169
Has Anyone Got Any Proof That The Society Monitors Apostate Web Sites?
by slimboyfat ini am extremely skeptical about this, yet people on this forum seem to talk about it as though it were a fact.
so has anyone got any actual concrete proof?
here are the reasons why i don't think they do:.
-
-
seesthesky
More on the deposition:
Also, in litigation firms it is not an uncommon practice to begin surveilance of the opposing party (usually via an investigation firm). In fact, most law firms will engage in any form of monitoring so long as it is neither a crime nor actionable in a separate civil suit. The films that these forays produce are, in the business, called "day in the life of" films. -
169
Has Anyone Got Any Proof That The Society Monitors Apostate Web Sites?
by slimboyfat ini am extremely skeptical about this, yet people on this forum seem to talk about it as though it were a fact.
so has anyone got any actual concrete proof?
here are the reasons why i don't think they do:.
-
-
seesthesky
Proof at last. I am the invidious and insidious spy. Beware - I have taken down your names.
As I posted in the other thread re this subject - the idea of spies has a Walter Mitty flair to it.
Further, the annonymous claim regarding the details of a deposition carry only as much weight as the initial part of this post. I think SBF wants more than a scintilla of evidence. -
81
Supposing The WT DOES Monitor This Site..
by Englishman inhow can those doing the monitoring not be affected by what they read here?.
how can anyone not be affected by the paedophilia scandal, the un scandal, the 1975 debacle?.
how do they find someone to read here and still stay a jw?.
-
-
seesthesky
The F&DS has spies on this forum? Hmmm . . . the thought has a Walter Mitty flair to it.
-
46
JW Lawyers getting fed up with cleaning up after the GB?
by ithinkisee ini hope that those that are jw lawyers get tired of the governing body and quit bethel because of the bull shit theyv'e had to clean up after the gb.
it may be happening right now.
think about it the gb have issued the call for more lawyers to the congregations,, perhaps there is some disloyalty growing towards the gb being manifested in the legal department and the gb needs help desparately.
-
-
seesthesky
ALAN: "Perhaps so, but that strongly suggests that this adversarial system ought to be modified to one where getting at the truth of guilt or innocence is paramount. Any system that produces what most people perceive as pathological liars -- e.g. the JWs -- needs to be straightened out, eh?"
I agree. The adversarial system needs serious reform. -
46
JW Lawyers getting fed up with cleaning up after the GB?
by ithinkisee ini hope that those that are jw lawyers get tired of the governing body and quit bethel because of the bull shit theyv'e had to clean up after the gb.
it may be happening right now.
think about it the gb have issued the call for more lawyers to the congregations,, perhaps there is some disloyalty growing towards the gb being manifested in the legal department and the gb needs help desparately.
-
-
seesthesky
HILLARY: "You have still not explained what all this has to do with the issue at hand. Does my informing you of my standing as a Jehovah's Witness / ex Jehovah's Witness negate my analysis of your arguments? It is in fact an ad hominem attack as it is focusing not on my arguments but my personna. Tut tut!"
I answered this but you ignored the answer. It follows:
"I did not present my views regarding lawyers as a universal notion - look again.
"In the first instance, I asked a rhetorical question the (implied) answer to which I predicated on a FACT - not an opinion or "universal notion" - in the subsequent sentence. That fact is that usually (note, I used "usually in the original sentence), a lawyer cannot testify in a case where she is an advocate.
"In the second instance, the sentence which you incorrectly construed as a 'universal notion,' I presented yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty. Some jurisdictions will even go as far to disbar for dishonesty in personal matters if, somehow,the dishonesty in personal matters becomes public knowledge, e.g., via a news report or a divorce proceeding. My statement about ethical obligations thus constitutes not conjecture but fact. [As an aside: a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers.]"
Apparently, I did not communicate my point effectively. So I will try again.
I wrote:
"Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
From my statement you inferred that I meant, implicitly, the following:
"Why would ( most ) lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? ( Most ) Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for ( most ) lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
In short, you inferred that I implied that most lawyers are honest. Examine the function of each sentence and you will see the error of your inference.
1(a): "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity?"
1(a) = a rhetorical question indicating disbelief that lawyers would lie in cases where they act as advocates.
2(a): "Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case."
2(a) = an answer to the rhetorical question in 1(a), an answer based on the fact that a lawyer usually cannot testify in a case where she acts as an advocate.
3(a): "Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty."
3(a) = yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty in most matters, even personal matters. As an aside, a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers. Although I did not flesh this out fully, my thought in including this fact was to show that in matters before a court, a lawyer who cares about her law license probably would not lie.
4(a): "Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
4(a) = the only opinion I offered as to the honesty of lawyers. Again, note that I qualified my opinion by limiting it only to "most lawyers I know." I did not even go as far to say, "all lawyers I know."
Hillary, my inquiry about your standing as a JW has nothing to do with the above. I only asked the question to see if the answer proved my hypothesis. I should have sent the question in a PM. -
46
JW Lawyers getting fed up with cleaning up after the GB?
by ithinkisee ini hope that those that are jw lawyers get tired of the governing body and quit bethel because of the bull shit theyv'e had to clean up after the gb.
it may be happening right now.
think about it the gb have issued the call for more lawyers to the congregations,, perhaps there is some disloyalty growing towards the gb being manifested in the legal department and the gb needs help desparately.
-
-
seesthesky
BIGTEX: "But that is why 'ethics' and 'lawyer' are so often incompatible. The ease at which they bend conscience to fit interpretation of law, often leave ethics by the wayside. Certainly not for every attorney, but enough that the stereotype of lawyers, unfortunately, fits more often than not."
When referring to ethics as they pertain to lawyers, I mean professional ethics as opposed to personal ones. E.g., a common ethical obligation for a lawyer is loyalty to a client. This obligation may require a lawyer to vigorously represent a fiend, construing laws beyond their intent. This confuses many non-lawyers because they operate on a more personal set of ethics.
BIGTEX: "Your statement, 'Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty,'
belies the reality of most people who come in contact with lawyers of today. In all fairness I work with several who are painfully honest and I would trust beyond all doubt. Of course I there are many more that are the polar opposite. The vast majority I have come across are miserable human beings."
I agree that many people, based on personal experiences, perceive lawyers as liars. I think, though, that this perception (in the U.S. anyway) comes from a misunderstanding of the adversarial legal system in which lawyers litigate. Many non-lawyers I know completely misunderstand how this adversarial system often crucifies the truth for a win.
I too know many miserable lawyers.
BIGTEX: "For myself I only object to the global inference that all lawyers are ethical and honest."
I never made a global inference that all lawyers are ethical and honest. If I gave that impression to anyone, it probably resulted from my objection to the opposite inference given by jeanine.
BIGTEX: "I apologize for hijacking this thread on to such a picayune point. It is probably working around such difficult people as lawyers that got my goat up enough to say what I have."
What does "hijacking this thread" mean?