Attended the CES show in Vegas in Jan. There is at least one manufacturer that makes a dual format machine. Not sure if it's Samsung, can't remember. Blu-Ray is the heavy hitter at this point, with about an 80/20 advantage over HD. I tend to follow Sony's instincts. They did blow it big-time on Beta, trying to become the Microsoft of video, but it seems they've learned their lesson after that Marketing 101 experience. Of course, Beta was always superior to VHS, which proves the superior technology doesn't always dominate in the end. I'm currently using a JVC 55" Lcos/DILA, which after almost 3 years of heavy use, still produces an extremely crisp and almost overwhelmingly bright image. The Sharp LCDs to me were the most impressive at the CES, as far as flat screens. I, too, am quite happy with my current set up and will wait for the prices to reach proletarian levels. Check out Discovery's "The Planet", available on standard, Blu-Ray or HD DVDs!!!
LennyinBluemont
JoinedPosts by LennyinBluemont
-
3
Blu-ray V HD-DVD
by Qcmbr inok whose made the leap and bought one of these formats - what are your impressions?
when i see online surveys about what people are planning to buy there seems a 2:1 ratio of blu-ray players to hd-dvd.
thats telling.
-
-
-
38
Netflix or blockbuster online
by 5go inwhich is better ?
.
i am trying netflix and i am little disapointed with them two days still no movies..
-
-
LennyinBluemont
I wouldn't blame you.
-
38
Netflix or blockbuster online
by 5go inwhich is better ?
.
i am trying netflix and i am little disapointed with them two days still no movies..
-
-
LennyinBluemont
We've had Netflix for almost a year and have been very happy with them. Usually one day, sometimes two days for a turnaround. We belonged to Blockbuster for many years. But being a small, mom & pop business ourselves for 30 years, we appreciated the fact that it was Netflix, not Blockbuster, that pioneered this concept. Once Blockbuster (the corporate bully) started to feel the pain, they immediately entered into cut-throat competition with Netflix, no doubt hoping to eliminate them. We feel that pressure every day in our business from the corporate bullies of the world, and so we will continue to support Netflix, as long as they continue providing good service.
Having said that, your situation is intolerable. You need to get ahold of someone at corporate headquarters and tell them your story. Your experience is absolutely atypical. Something's wrong. Somethings screwed up with your account in their computer system maybe. There's got to be a good explanation. Don't hesitate to let them know you're discussing your experience on a forum visited by many thousands every day. Wouldn't it be great if they made things right for you so you could share something very positive about Netflix with all of us.
-
19
1 Tim 3:1-10 promotes an organisation
by besty inspeaking with a hardline friend (oxymoron alert) tonight he used the above verse as proof that jehovah needs a hierarchical organization - otherwise why stratify the membership?
any refutation?
cheers .
-
-
LennyinBluemont
These verses don't mention who decides those who qualify. Does each decide for himself? It also doesn't mention that anyone has any authority over another, which is necessary for a hierarchy. "You are all brothers." That's the statement I always thought of when I meditated on the hierarchy of authority in THE org. So somebody's an overseer. So somebody's a deacon. Where does it say anywhere that either of them can tell me what to do, especially in areas not specifically addressed in scripture?
-
36
LIVID at knocking documentary
by avishai inwe give state funds for this sh*t?
phillip brumley's smug face on there?
well, here's how he twists words about child molesters......the person referred to in the story, the victim, is my brother.
-
-
LennyinBluemont
In order to have an informed opinion, I purchased this exorbitantly priced dvd a few months ago and watched it, as well as all bonus materials, with the critical eye of one who was a very devoted JW for 28 years, elder and reg pio. This is pure propoganda masquerading as documentary. Why else would the financial contributors to the project (see credits at end) be long time, wealthy JWs? Just think, if you were a loyal JW worth millions, would you contribute significant funds to a project about your religion without any assurances that it would not rake up any muck from the past? Why else would the Society grant permission to film within Kingdom Halls during meetings, and interview it's members at length on film? (If you were an elder you know a letter to the elders was sent by the Society years ago forbidding all such interviews without the Society's permission.) Would the Society then take granting such permission lightly? I am quite certain there were firm written assurances in place, if not final approval of the finished cut. Why else would the Society provide access to openly filmed interviews with one of their attorneys for hours? This was a carefully orchestrated project, just like Faith on the March, to make JWs and their hierarchy appear perfectly normal and respectable segments of society. It is designed to remove the "scare" factor, and make it seem "safe" to engage JWs, let down their defenses, and open oneself to their indoctrination. As with all propaganda, great effort is made in the production to make it appear "fair and balanced", but the end result is dangerous. Don't expect to see 60 Minutes or Dateline invited to openly interview local JWs at length anytime soon. They might ask too many questions about Judicial Committees, Shunning, flip-flopping doctrines on life and death issues regarding medical treatment, alternative service or pedophilia, with the severest of penalties for those who don't conform. It's what this film ignores and carefully avoids that makes it so biased. It's like viewing the organization through a paper towel tube. Believing that this is a fair and accurate rendition of what this religion is all about, is the same as believing that there sits in Baghdad a legitimate, freely-elected sovereign government.
-
26
Update on laser eye surgery
by Bumble Bee inwell, tuesday was the day for my laser eye surgery.
to be honest - it really wasn't that bad at all!
for all those that commented on my other thread about being chicken - if it's something you are thinking about - i say do it!.
-
-
LennyinBluemont
I had Lasik on both eyes last October. You can get one done at a time if you want. At least they offered me that option, but I went for both. My vision was about 20/400 in both eyes with pretty bad astigmatism in my left eye. They got my right eye to 20/20 and my left eye to 20/40. I'm going back in a few weeks to get the left eye "enhanced", hopefully getting it to 20/20 also. But to be honest, I'm really happy with the results as they are. I did have a little light sensitivity for a few weeks, as they told me I would, but it went away. Having worn glasses for 45 years, it's like a miracle not to need them anymore, except for close up reading. Highly recommend it.
Lenny
-
28
KNOCKING is on PBS tonight- haven't decided on watching for wife's sake
by OnTheWayOut inthe wife will probably think that she should avoid it.
but she would listen from the other room.. i haven't decided whether to watch it for her sake or not.
i already saw it at the sneak preview .
-
-
LennyinBluemont
In order to have an informed opinion, I purchased this exorbitantly priced dvd a few months ago and watched it, as well as all bonus materials, with the critical eye of one who was a very devoted JW for 28 years, elder and reg pio. This is pure propoganda masquerading as documentary. Why else would the financial contributors to the project (see credits at end) be long time, wealthy JWs? Just think, if you were a loyal JW worth millions, would you contribute significant funds to a project about your religion without any assurances that it would not rake up any muck from the past? Why else would the Society grant permission to film within Kingdom Halls during meetings, and interview it's members at length on film? (If you were an elder you know a letter to the elders was sent by the Society years ago forbidding all such interviews without the Society's permission.) Would the Society then take granting such permission lightly? I am quite certain there were firm written assurances in place, if not final approval of the finished cut. Why else would the Society provide access to openly filmed interviews with one of their attorneys for hours? This was a carefully orchestrated project, just like Faith on the March, to make JWs and their hierarchy appear perfectly normal and respectable segments of society. It is designed to remove the "scare" factor, and make it seem "safe" to engage JWs, let down their defenses, and open oneself to their indoctrination. As with all propaganda, great effort is made in the production to make it appear "fair and balanced", but the end result is dangerous. Don't expect to see 60 Minutes or Dateline invited to openly interview local JWs at length anytime soon. They might ask too many questions about Judicial Committees, Shunning, flip-flopping doctrines on life and death issues regarding medical treatment, alternative service or pedophilia, with the severest of penalties for those who don't conform. It's what this film ignores and carefully avoids that makes it so biased. It's like viewing the organization through a paper towel tube. Believing that this is a fair and accurate rendition of what this religion is all about, is the same as believing that there sits in Baghdad a legitimate, freely-elected sovereign government.
-
8
Are we really free?
by LennyinBluemont inwe recently attended our first "apostafest" and as others were doing, took lots of pictures, both at the wedding and on sunday.
checking the board after we got back, several were begging to see photos.
someone else posted some, and so i picked out some of ours and posted them as well.
-
-
LennyinBluemont
We recently attended our first "apostafest" and as others were doing, took lots of pictures, both at the wedding and on Sunday. Checking the board after we got back, several were begging to see photos. Someone else posted some, and so I picked out some of ours and posted them as well. Soon we received a PM from someone in our photos who didn’t want their picture to be seen on the board, since they are fading. They ID’d the numbers of the photos where they appeared, and so I went to photobucket and deleted those photos from the album (link). I hadn’t been on the board for a day or so and this morning noticed 2 PMs. One from two other persons who wanted their photos removed as well, due to fading, and one from an administrator informing me that my thread had been temporarily removed to a holding area as a consequence. I informed the administrator that I wished the thread to just be deleted, at this point. Apparently taking a camera to an apostafest is not a good idea. Or at least not if you intend on sharing them on the board, which would seem the natural thing to do.
I want to say that I bear no bad feelings toward any who wanted their pictures removed, and I understand their reasons and respect them. But this has been a learning experience for me. There are more profound issues underlying this situation which you may wish to comment on. Overall, the situation to me, is disturbing.
Even at an apostafest, a place where so many of us who have never met each other, can gather in compassion and shared tragedy and joy, the organization's ugly tentacles are there, under the surface, influencing how we act with one another — a form of domination. It proves that we are still not totally "free", to the extent that we submit to this, or submit to others submitting to it. No matter what rationalization is used, that's the bottom line.
There should be no fear of the organization. By continuing to fear them, we continue to enable them, which is just the opposite of what I think we should be doing. As we all know, if they want to DF you, they'll DF you, even if they have to fabricate something as a basis. To continue to live in fear and continue to feel like we have to hide what we are, so as not to spoil what in all honesty is at best a superficial relationship with relatives still "in", is to be false to ourselves, and to them. I recognize the rationale that "unless you have relatives in, you cannot understand what it's like." And I in no way discount that reality. I appreciate that it's a huge emotional struggle. But at the same time, I believe that should be counterbalanced with the reality that by continuing to "pretend" to be accepting of the organization, even tacitly, is to send the perfectly wrong message to our loved ones, and provides an unintended encouragement for them to stay right where they are. And in the process, adds to the empowerment of the organization. To take an honest and firm stand, sends the perfectly right message, and removes all empowerment from the organization. Yes, there may well be a huge emotional pricetag when it comes to relatives. But if others choose to shun us, that is their choice and their responsibility. In the end, how do we cause them greater harm? By lying to them, or by being honest with them? Or is this really about what’s best for us, not them?
I realize, of course, that it’s infinitely easier for me, a person without any relatives still captive, to reason this way. But what do you think? Is there any validity to these points?
Lenny -
49
Attention former elders and ms: I have a question.
by R.F. ini'm currently a ministerial servant and pioneer in my congregation.
i want to begin my fade soon.
i'm going to get off the pioneer list first instead of quitting both positions at once, hopefully to ease potential gossip.
-
-
LennyinBluemont
Repeat after me:
"I can no longer (pioneer/serve as an MS) for personal reasons." Put it in writing and sign it. Hand it to the P.O.
They will want to talk with you about it to find out your "personal reasons." When they do, repeat after me:
"As I said, it's for personal reasons."
Repeat as necessary. Say no more. The less said the better. Don't take the bait. Remember your mantra: "It's for personal reasons."
This worked for me, even when the Circuit Overseer insisted on knowing why. It really frustrated him, but I wouldn't let it get to me, and just kept telling him, "As I said, It's for personal reasons." They can't convict you for that.
-
13
Just watched "Knocking" last nite
by LennyinBluemont inwell, i felt it would be inappropriate to write a letter to pbs complaining about their airing of this documentary, "knocking", without having seen it myself, so i ordered a copy at the exorbitant cost of about $36, and it took over a month for it to arrive.
i agree with gary buss, that it is very polished and well-done.
a few quick reactions:.
-
-
LennyinBluemont
Hey Gary,
I still have respect for the JWs who refused to give in to Hitler and suffered the consequences. One could make the argument that had they actively resisted they would have done more good. But then the counter-argument could be that such action could be non-Christian. I noticed they left out Rutherford's anti-Semitic remarks when in the early days he was apparently trying to curry favor with Hitler's regime. Again, an opportunity was missed to present both sides, resulting in a biased presentation satisfying those funding the project.
As to the blood issue, yes, they over-simplified what the JWs themselves have made an impossibly complex doctrine. With the fractions now allowed, particularly given the fact that some allowed fractions are derived by blood donated by non-JWs, it is meaningless for JWs to assert that they "abstain from blood". The section of liver Seth received from his dad, was of course, filled with whole blood, a seeming violation in itself. They excuse this by saying that you could never get all the blood out of meat that you consume. But was any effort ever made to drain the liver of blood before transplanting it? Of course, I'm glad Seth and his had are OK and things worked out well. The only conflicting point of view was presented by the grandmother, someone who apparently was never a witness, so her opinions can be easily dismissed as one who doesn't "get it".