Posts by Forscher

38

how do you deal with bullies?

by loosie in

my daughter is in 6th grade.. i know from personal experience when i was in jr high that kids can be really mean.

i used to come home crying everyday.

i was told that i was ugly and i would never get married.

Forscher

Things are getting dicey these days on that issue.

In my part of the US schools actually Started punishing the victims if they defended themselves worse than the bullies. So I made it my business to make it clear that if any of my children started anything, I'd back the school 100%. But I stipulated that if my children ever had to defend themselves against bullies, then the school had better return the favor. Since I'd once filed a lawsuit which had driven a local business out of business (I won't get into the details, but that'd been the objective, and if I ever tell the story I think most folks would agree that I did the right thing), I was taken seriously.

In almost every case my children defended themselves, they were usually able to prove they were victims of unwarranted attacks. So we never had a real problem in that regard. These days though, I am not sure about what the best plan would be.

Best regards,

Forscher

15

Are you safety conscious? Come on girls, read it!

by Pioneer Spit...oh, i mean Spirit in

jw
friends

i'm writing this because of a conversation i had with a co-worker who made it plain that she is anti-gun, 'guns kill people', yada yada.

she doesn't know that my gun is on me everyday, within just feet of her during the day, she still doesn't.

i'm writing this because i have seen a trait that's common to the anti-gun crowd, and it's a scary one.

Forscher

My state has a "must issue" concealed carry permit law and recently adopted a "stand and defend" law as well.

So our options for defending ourselves are quite nice here. But that doesn't mean that one should not get training if one does not already have it. My dad was a certified combat handgun instructor, so I have the training in that to begin with. Add to that my youthful martial art training, including with multiple MA weapons, and I am pretty well set. Our law used to put anyone who stood and defended themselves in a bad spot if the police got involved. I even had a friend who did jail time because he defended himself when attacked by a thug wielding a metal pipe. He had the bad grace to break the man's arm. At the time the law required him to turn his back and run when attacked (utterly stupid in that situation).

Now the situation is different. I have a grandson who was attacked by three fellows, one wielding an ax handle, who were attempting to kill him. He did manage to get the handle away and throw it out of reach. I personally heard the police detective who investigated the attempted murder ask him "why didn't just beat those guys to death with that ax handle?" "Under the law as it stands we wouldn't have even filed charges against you!" That is quite a change in the law! And we haven't had the predicted "shootout at the OK corral" scenarios here either.

Still the point is to be proactive and take responsibility for one's own defense. That means being safety conscious.

Forscher

50

The Gun Story You Did Not See This Week

by hillbilly in

jw
friends

time to recall old attitudes about guns .

by dan sernoffsky .

lebanon daily news .

Forscher

What's the answer Forscher? Everybody put a gun under their pillow? Tell me, how do we stop so much senseless violence?

Burn the Ships has the right of it, though I'd argue that many never really knew the way to go in the first place. Banning guns won't stop the senseless violence to begin with. And even though permitting law-abiding citizens to own and carry handguns is demonstrated by study after study to reduce violence, I will admit that it will not eliminate it either. Only through changing attitudes towards the use of violence and instilling our children with better attitudes in that respect will result in the sort of massive reduction in violence which the gun control crowd fantasizes complete gun bans will produce. When it ceases to be cool to resort to violence, the we might see something to crow over.

In my youth it was much easier to have guns and carry guns in the places I lived in. At my high school one could go to the student parking lot and see rifles and shotguns hanging in the back window of most pickup trucks. All the males, almost without exception, carried knives in their pockets. My own personal knife was a barlow with a 5 inch blade. I even saw students in school with hunting knives strapped to their waist. Yet nobody threaten another student with a gun the whole time I was in school. And only once was a knife pulled (the local gay guy pulled one on a girl who'd taunted him and the other guys standing buy forced him to put it up).

However, in big-city schools where possession of both were banned, knifings and shootings in race and gang quarrels were rampant. I think the most important difference between the two was not the bans, but rather the fact that rural guys used their guns and knives as tools for hunting and respected the destructive power of both as a result. Those in the city didn't. Even at that, in those cities with long standing gun restrictions one can find a very big difference in violent crime from the draft era to the non-draft era. Those forced into the army or other military service were taught to respect the destructive power of their weapons and during wartime saw the effects of those weapons up close and personal enough that the majority came to respect life and the destructive power of guns.

That, by the way, is why veterans of our current conflicts have a much lower homicide rate than the rest of the population (though the MSM is trying to give the opposite impression with recent articles). Now I am not advocating bringing back the draft, far from it. But I think requiring supervised training in the proper maintenance and use of firearms should be required for incoming freshmen in high school. That is the only way to instill respect for what a firearm can do. I would also like to see the movie industry stop churning out films filled with gratuitous violence. But that'll be the day hell freezes over, so it isn't going to happen.

Forscher

343

I hate the Watchtower but I really still hate the Trinity Jesus is NOT God!

by Witness 007 in

some bibles use the term "worship" when refering to jesus...at times people did fall down and bow to him........this doesn't show he was god!

the greek term; proskeyneo, means to prostrate oneself, to bow down and show honour.

now, this was done for jehovah.....and his representatives....jesus israelite kings and priests....but for the honour of jehovah not as creature worship which even angels would refuse.. also i studied the non-biblical early church gospels which really does show a slow decline over 150 years, into the trinity as the watchtower claims...........although i still hate the watchtower society at least i learnt something that wasn't a lie..

Forscher

Constantine did not rule for the Trinity.

He backed the bishops who claimed that Jesus and the Father are one, that is quite a different thing and the first step on the road to the Trinity. The trinity as we know it was first proposed by three scholar monks from Turkey, now known as the Cappadocian Brothers (I've misspelled the name but it's close enough) in 370 ad. It was rejected by the bishops at large until they realized how useful it really was. Then it was adopted as church doctrine about 380 ad and those who did not accept it were quickly crushed by the then ruling emperor with the exception of those not within the emperor's reach outside Roman empire borders.

I've examined the early church fathers as well and find Witness 007's analysis accurate so far as it goes. The thing to keep in mind that there are some variations even among them. It appears that as pagan trained philosophers came into prominence among Christians, and a clergy class anxious to expand its power arose, simple truth was not enough. In their rush to neo-Platonic style strict monotheism (a la neo-platonic Jewish scholars such as Philo of Alexandria), the exact nature of the relationship between the father and son became problematic. Early Christians seemed to hold the view that God had elevated Jesus to godship, so, strictly speaking, there were now two gods. Some of the earliest church fathers like Justin Martyr seem to hold that view. but such a view is not compatible with a strict monotheism. So there was quite a struggle within the church to come to terms with it.

Forscher

50

The Gun Story You Did Not See This Week

by hillbilly in

jw
friends

time to recall old attitudes about guns .

by dan sernoffsky .

lebanon daily news .

Forscher

Bye the way,

Lest you fall for the way Dr. Kleck gets called a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal by some of his critics, Dr. Kleck is about as bleeding-heart a liberal as it gets. I personally know one of his former students. When he started his study, his objective was to do a study with the same conclusions as the study I criticized, but much more extensive and authoritative. The idea was to come up with a study which would effectively end the debate in favor of the gun control position.

But he found that the data did not support his position when analyzed honestly. And he had the guts to state his finding. And that knowing how his liberal colleagues would react. The man has guts!

Forscher

12

The History of Apocalyptic Movements

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

i encountered this information a few years back and it affected me deeply as i was struggling to wake up from the apocalyptic movement known as jehovah's witnesses.. it was prepared and presented by jim moyers , an ex-adventist.. it's lengthy.. imo, it's essential reading for any current doubting jw's or anyone considering joining their ranks.. note the comments about william miller, an adventist that had a huge impact on the father of jwism and the bible students, c.t.

russell.

enjoy!.

Forscher

I did a research paper in college on the subject in general and the Miller movement in particular.

One commonality in all apocalyptic movements with the sole exception of Miller is that they are generally short lived. They tend to arise in times of cultural stress and then they are either stamped put by authorities, or they fall apart when the expected salvation event does not happen. Millerism (and some might say the cargo cults of the South pacific as well, though I am a bit hesitant to include them) not only did not fall apart, the Second Adventists are heirs to Millerism, but even spun off new groups including the Seventh Day Adventists and the Russelites, who themselves further spun off the Jehovah's Witnesses. All four groups are still alive and well to this day. Miller did well in a way.

I personally proposed that the nature of the new American Republic, with its unique freedom of religion and antipathy for the old religious traditions which dominated the older nations through oppression of competitors, were key factors in the survival and expansion of Millerist thinking. But I also attributed the rise of Millerism and its solid foundation to one of the first really sophisticated advertisement campaigns in modern history. Again, the unique American culture, which determined one's social standing on commercial success, rather than aristocratic birth, made that possible for the first time as well.

My history professor thought I was on to something.

Forscher

15

Are you safety conscious? Come on girls, read it!

by Pioneer Spit...oh, i mean Spirit in

jw
friends

i'm writing this because of a conversation i had with a co-worker who made it plain that she is anti-gun, 'guns kill people', yada yada.

she doesn't know that my gun is on me everyday, within just feet of her during the day, she still doesn't.

i'm writing this because i have seen a trait that's common to the anti-gun crowd, and it's a scary one.

Forscher

I agree that being conscious of one's surroundings 100% of the time is very important.

There used to be a video on you tube taken from a surveillance videocam in a MacD's. It showed an elderly gent being knocked out by a thug because the man just didn't keep his eye out for potential trouble. Any really good defensive class or program teaches awareness as a critical component of personal safety and security.

In my youth I studied a couple of exotic combative arts. A key component of instruction was training in awareness, even when asleep. My wife tells me that after we first got married, she couldn't get out of bed and go to the bathroom without me rolling out of bed and assuming an attack position as she returned to our bedroom. She said I was scary! I don't even remember doing that.

For years after I became a Witness, I used to encourage some of my closest friends to try to catch me off-guard with mock attacks when I least expected. Even worldy acquaintances who knew of my training, and they were few, tried. Even a brother who held a black belt tried a mock attack in a crowded situation a few years ago. Nobody ever succeeded. That was to keep my edge.

My training also encouraged me to think of everyday items we have around us as potentially lethal weapons for self defense. As I type this I have a pair of scissors, a cup, a bowl, two spoons, two empty water bottles, a plate, about thirty pencils and pens, and a box of 7.62x54 rifle bullets, any of which I can grab if somebody kicks in the door and use lethally if I can get close enough to an attacker (I can probably use the plate and/or bowl to distract an attacker and allow me to get in close). Believe it or not, there is a very little known martial from Japan which specializes in that very aspect of defense.

In my house, one can find three K-bar combat knives, a couple of Gerbers, and a few other odd combat knives secreted at various locations around the house. I also have a few other oriental weapons I will not specify around the house as well. Not to mention my fine set of Sheffield kitchen knives on the counter in my kitchen. Let's just say that trying to start something untoward in my house is not a very good idea at all.

I am also considering buying several pistols (I grew up shooting firearms and enjoy it as a hobby) and obtaining a permit to carry in the near future. Unfortunately, my usual mode of dress does not lend itself very well to concealed carry most of the time, so I won't rely primarily on firearms for my personal defense.

It is foolish in the present world not to pay attention top one's need to be cautious and ready for personal defense. The state recognizes no obligation to prevent us, as individuals, from being attacked. And it would be delusional to expect it to anyway. The responsibility falls on us individually, and we each need to provide for ourselves in that matter. Nobody else will do it for us. The solution is to get the equipment and training to deal with the problem.

Most martial arts programs are now sports oriented and of questionable value for real defense on the streets. Right now, combative arts like Krav Magra (an Israeli martial art), Kajukenbo (a fusion art which originated in Hawaii but is taught in the lower 48 states and elswhere), Systema (martial art developed for the Soviet special forces), Isgoshindo Karate (developed by US Marines stationed on Okinawa and a little hard to find an instructor for), and Aikijitsu (the mother art out of which came Aikido and Hapkido) are about the easiest non-sport combative arts to find an instructor for and good places to start. Training from combat certified handgun instructors is a must if one wants to use a handgun. And women really need to find classes geared to their rather special defense needs (men rarely have to worry about rape). Since women are generally not taught to be as aggressive in their own defense as men (universally true across cultures), a special program to help a girl or woman to get past that obstacle is a must.

I hope that leaves folks some food for thought.

Forscher

10

My brother thinks like a pharisee!

by tsar_robles in

jw
friends

earlier today i called my aging father to check on him; he asked me if my brother has met my newborn yet.

i told him 'well, no... i invited him to come over to meet his nephew whenever he'd like but never responded'.. then my dad asked me to let him know he'll be writing to him soon.

i briefly talked to my brother and relayed the message.

Forscher

Back about twenty years ago I had the epiphany that being a good JW required one to be something of a Pharisee.

It was a particularly down time in life. I had a job which made meeting attendance difficult, but the job had the benefit of plenty of time sitting around with little or nothing to do. So I decided to sit down and read my bible with an open mind. I started with the gospels. As I reflected on Jesus' teachings and compared them with what I knew the organization encouraged, it hit me that the organization prized the attitudes of the Pharisees above those taught by the Lord. The dedication to following the teachings of men above those of Jesus. The rule-driven codes of conduct and judgmental self-righteousness. It hit me right between the eyes. So I decided right then and there that I would no longer have that kind of attitude. I also decided that I would pursue the kind of life Jesus promoted (stop judging others, live by principles rather than rules, and seek to do good towards all) above the lifestyle promoted by the organization. It certainly made my time in the organization easier to bear than before.

Really, the super-righteous attitude encourage by the organization is self-destructive. And if your brother doesn't want to see his nephew, your son is probably better off. Don't let it get to you too much friend. Right now my wife and son are off visiting my in-laws who don't want me around because of their holier-than-thou Witnoid attitude. That attitude towards me began many years ago while I was still in good standing with the organization. I am not Df'd or DA'd. All I am is inactive, and I became so years after their daughter and grandson did. They just never could stand the fact that my wife's abusive first husband divorced her and she remarried. They still consider the remarriage unseemly. I don't need to be around such a hostile attitude and am better off away from them.

Forscher

50

The Gun Story You Did Not See This Week

by hillbilly in

jw
friends

time to recall old attitudes about guns .

by dan sernoffsky .

lebanon daily news .

Forscher

The study cited by beksbks bucks the majority of studies on the same issue.

It is a limited study rather than the "meta-analysis" it is reported to be. And I suspect the three cities used in the study were selected specifically to achieve the result reported. Much more extensive and authoritative was the analysis conducted by Dr. Gary Kleck at Florida state university. And he came to quite different conclusions. While many critics claim that his finding of number of personal defense uses of handguns is over stated, the most authoritative critics still come up with numbers of such usage high enough to call the study mentioned into serious question. Here is an interesting statement from Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, another criminologist of significant stature concerning Dr. Kleck's study:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.,/p>
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

I could cite other studies which agree with Kleck in the main, though they tink the real figure is more like half of the figure Kleck came up with. Still, Klreck remains the most extensive work done and most studies on the issue, at least by criminologists and other credentialed social scientists, tend to support his conclusions rather than the study cited.

There is a body of research done by medical doctors and published extensively in medical journals which purport to debunk Kleck and others. But when they are closely examined it becomes clear that their methodologies are seriously flawed and their work doesn't even come up to minimum standards for that kind of research and reporting.

By the way, another gun defense missed was the fact that the Massacre at the Jerusalem Yeshivah a couple of weeks ago was stopped by an armed student who shot the gunman dead. but for that the toll would've been much higher. Something to think about.

Forscher

19

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore to Expose Global Warming Fraud

by Deputy Dog in

it was just on fox news.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud.

on monday, while speaking at the 2008 international conference on climate change being held in new york city, coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including al gore, should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming..

Forscher

How do you reconcile that with those same ice cores showing that elevations in CO2 usually follow elevations in global temperatures by an average of 800-1,000 years? It would appear that global warming causes rises in atmospheric CO2 rather than are caused by it. Quite the opposite cause and effect than alledged.

By the way, elevation of global temperatures preceded elevation of CO2 levels in our times since the increase in temperatures goes back to the mid-nineteenth century while the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 only dates back a few decades.

Forscher