Posts by Incognito

49

Kim and mikeys chanel on YouTube they uploaded a video of more singing and dancing

by Crazyguy in

on their chanel they are showing a video of a special assembly day in belgium i believe.

the jws are dancing dressed in black and red, satanic colores.

singing and playing worldly songs and kingdom melodies.

Incognito

I remember as an adolescent/teen in the mid 1970's, there had been some 'delegates' from Africa that had visited the Toronto DC at Woodbine Racetrack. They wanted to wear their native dress and dance for the audience after the program ended. The convention program then ended at 9pm so it was around 11pm when the dancing was finally finshed and the crowd went home.

I seem to recall this occured in two consecutive years and it may have involved Kingdom Melodies as the dance music as opposed to 'wordly' music.

Prior to the third year, it was announced at each congregation that there was to be no more entertainment as that was not appropriate at the DC as that was JAH'S place of worship and was to be used for spiritual matters only.

Seeing what goes on now, it appears they are doing exactly the things they critisized other religions for doing. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

46

Should doctors tell JW patients that there is disagreement about Watchtower's blood policy.

by Lee Elder in

this has been a controversial issue among doctors and medical ethicists.

i think it basically comes down to the fact that physicians have a responsibility to establish the presence of informed consent.

is it really possible for a person to give informed consent if they are not accurately informed?.

Incognito

It is the doctors responsibility to provide the patient (or their alternate decision maker) the treatment options. That may involve correcting any misunderstanding the patient may have been lead to understand.

Regardless of something dictated by WT or because of something she/he read in a fortune cookie, a patient having attained the age of majority, capable of understanding and who has been provided informed consent, has the right to accept or deny treatment.

Whether you agree with refusing a blood transfusion or not, think about yourself being forced to decide on a treatment option which for whatever reason, you are devoutly against. Should you be forced to receive that treatment?

32

Writing my Disassociation letter

by Bebopin in

today i am working on writing my disassociation letter.

i successfully faded a year ago.

but i feel like i can't keep looking over my shoulder anymore i just need to be completely rid of this cult.. any suggestions on letter and it's content?.

Incognito

But I feel like I can't keep looking over my shoulder anymore I just need to be completely rid of this cult.

Since you indicate that you successfully faded, has there been anything that has actually warranted looking over your shoulder?

As you said 'But I feel...', you are referring to personal feelings within you. If you perceive yourself as having already left, why do you think sending a resignation letter will change how you feel?

If you think that sending a letter will change your thinking on how you will feel, why can't you modify your thinking so as to be at peace, with or without sending a letter?

44

The Lion Awakes

by eric hendrickson in

my name is eric hendrickson.

i have been on a journey led by the holy spirit which has brought to this point that has allowed for me to open the seventh seal and understand god's master plan.

i am the lion from the lost tribe of judah who has come to the world and be the messiah king.

Incognito

Slimboy - Perhaps all of the above, + a few others, depending on the phase of the moon.

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Incognito

I don't know about NY state but here, a project such as that would be regulated by the Government. Neither the property owner nor the contractor would have authority to decide when the cleanup is good enough or too expensive.

Engineering consultants who specialize in contamination remediation would be required to oversee the project while Gvmt inspectors would need to review the process to ensure the task was completed thoroughly and in adherence to regulated standards, regardless of contamination depth. Unlike years past, you can't just bury toxic contamination and have it leak into the aquifer for centuries. Whatever is contaminating the soil will flow downstream to populations which rely on groundwater for life.

I know, when it comes to money, people will attempt to getaway with anything but this contamination is well known and is documented so the project should be under close scrutinty, especially by the Town of Warwick and the people residing around the area.

The test and monitor wells which were mentioned previously, will remain permanently in-place to allow ongoing periodic monitoring of the spread of contamination at various depths.

While this link pertains mostly to petrochemical contamination in ground water, it may help make things clearer: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/groundwaterremediation.html

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Incognito

They would have to demonstrate to the court how they came up with the cost of remediation, that's not going to be easy if they didn't pay an outside contractor

Perhaps WT will or have regestered a new company: 'Kingdom Clean-up Corp'. Does the court need to know the company is owned by WTBTS?

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Incognito

Vidiot said: Almost makes it sound like just another attempted money grab.

I doubt there is any 'Almost' about it.

If either of the colleges had proceeded with construction, they would have needed to hire engineers, bore test and monitoring wells, and hire site cleanup contractors at full going rates.

While WT would need to have of the same test and monitoring wells and specialty knowledge on site decontamination, most if not all of the work would be completed by volunteer labor utilizing excavation and hauling equipment already owned by WT for development of the site. Though the actual cost of cleanup would probably be a fraction of the cost of that charged by an outside contractor, if there is a claim due, I expect WT would then claim a marked-up price as though the work was completed by a hired contractor.

While some may consider that as dishonest, I think it makes good business sense. The WT is the contractor dealing with a contamination issue not caused by itself.

If you personally built the house you live in and later sustain a loss so that part of that house needs to be repaired through insurance, should insurance only reimburse the cost of materials since the labor was free initially? If you plan to complete repairs yourself, should you be paid the full repair value, just as though the repair was hired-out to an outside contractor as it would be under most circumstances?

The issue at hand is, IF WT purchased the property at a lower cost in compensation for the known contamination issues, is there any cause for a claim against any prior owner?

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Incognito

Thanks OrphanCrow for the links to the official relavent documents confirming some of our speculations.

Jeff said: 3) they didn't know about the pollution. This means, in essence, they are going to go into court and say "we're idiots and these bad people took advantage of us." This option might be the most entertaining.
Flag Dislike Like

Even if that had been a possibility, why wait 6 years after purchase and after the decontamination work has already been completed and new buildings built, to establish who is responsible for the cleanup?

WT has its own legal department. If the property had been misrepresented prior to WT deciding to purchase, legal action would surely have been initiated long before 2015.

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Incognito

I'm not saying anything. I only understand there are 2 similarly contaminated properties which WT purchased for large projects.

It appears with the Warwick property, the 2 prior owners were aware of the contamination and didn't want to deal with remediation. WT then purchased, cleaned it up and have now launched legal action.

I'm not aware of the current status of the UK property.

While speculating on success in legal action may appear to be risky, WT may have taken the view that they have little to loose in making an attempt.

Since they have their own full time legal department, initiating legal action would cost relatively little. Since the cleanup was likely performed by volunteer labor, the largest expense for cleanup was probably for test wells, excavation and hauling to a secure site and then trucking in new materials. Much of the equipment would be their own which would be necessary for land preparation even without the contamination.

Depending on the actual purchase price for the property, WT may be ahead money even if they are not successful in winning any legal action.

71

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151214/news/151219671.

battle over contamination at watchtower site in warwick.

by hema easley .

Incognito

It is my understanding that there were 2 colleges that had each owned the property with an intention of building a campus. The cost of contamination remediation was too high so the property was again placed on the market and WT then purchased it.

I expect the contamination was well known and documented prior to the WT purchase. They likely bought it cheaply while intending to launch legal action against INCO.

Isn't there another similarly contaminated property in the UK which WT recently purchased?