You can call a position you disagree with ‘virtue signaling’ and call that thing ‘cowardice’ if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that it really is just an opinion. Back in reality, Dawkins’ opinions about transsexuals (expressed on Twitter 🤦♂️), and Evans’ views thereof, are irrelevant tangents from Dawkins expertise as a biologist. But by all means keep yelling into the wind about how you don’t like Evans’ opinions about stuff.
Posts by Jeffro
-
37Lloyd Evans removing comments he does not like, just like the cult
by mickbobcat ini see posts that evans does not seem to like being removed.
i guess he is not a lot different than the control cult he left.
his rebuttal to the zoom assembly he said that dawkins made some silly comments about gender.
-
-
-
37
Lloyd Evans removing comments he does not like, just like the cult
by mickbobcat ini see posts that evans does not seem to like being removed.
i guess he is not a lot different than the control cult he left.
his rebuttal to the zoom assembly he said that dawkins made some silly comments about gender.
-
-
Jeffro
He follows what ever way the popular winds are blowing.
Maybe, but if so, why do you care? You can have an opinion but he can’t? -
37
Lloyd Evans removing comments he does not like, just like the cult
by mickbobcat ini see posts that evans does not seem to like being removed.
i guess he is not a lot different than the control cult he left.
his rebuttal to the zoom assembly he said that dawkins made some silly comments about gender.
-
-
Jeffro
Likely anticipating irrelevant tangents in the comments, and probably therefore as a precursor for deleting any such comments. I would have simply not mentioned it myself. And also deleted any irrelevant comments.
-
37
Lloyd Evans removing comments he does not like, just like the cult
by mickbobcat ini see posts that evans does not seem to like being removed.
i guess he is not a lot different than the control cult he left.
his rebuttal to the zoom assembly he said that dawkins made some silly comments about gender.
-
-
Jeffro
mickbobcat:
It seems Evans wants to virtue signal to the masses and be in the clique instead of really talking about an issue.
From the context of his actual statement, it seems as though he didn't want to go off on some ad hominem tangent about issues that are not related to Dawkin's expertise as a biologist.
-
17
2021-July-S-147-Announcements And Reminders!
by Atlantis in2021-july-s-147-announcements and reminders.
english and german.
https://www.filemail.com/d/rscphytdmrtfyau.
-
-
Jeffro
We are pleased to inform you that the Governing Body decided that one new issue of the public edition of The Watchtower and one new issue of Awake! will be produced for 2022. Additionally, it has been decided to reprint two issues of The Watchtower and two issues of Awake! from previous years.
Already recycling previous issues and down to just one new issue of each magazine per year. And it's worded as if the rank-and-file should be grateful. 🤣
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
Your comment is indicative of despair and desperation and fails to acknowledge that the said scholar loves facts and has no time for dogma.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Jeffro
All evidence for the period confirms that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE. The planetary observations are just one more means of confirmation, but poor ‘scholar’ rejects them by necessity.
The JW chronology is out of step with reality by 20 years, as independently determined by the Bible, Assyrian history, Egyptian history, Babylonian history, Babylonian financial documents, and the literal heavens. But ‘scholar’ will cling to mother Watch Tower.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Jeffro
The fact is that if the Watch Tower Society announced tomorrow that Jerusalem was destroyed in a different year (like when they previously insisted it was in 606), ‘scholar’ would jump right on board. He doesn’t care about the facts, just his religious dogma.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
Furuli notes that he had assisted the brother in the Writing Department who wrote the two articles on Chronology with ongoing discussions and the exchanging of drafts for two years prior to the publishing of the two articles. During that period Furuli asked him to find two Witnesses with astronomical knowledge who could test his astro calculations.
Haha... so, based on the information purportedly from Furuli, I was basically right on both counts when I said:
(Furuli allegedly says it was he who 'assisted', but in the capacity as the primary 'researcher' for his fudged 'observations'.)The 'researchers' could be Furuli (who may have had an assistant) or could just be some lads at 'Bethel' who were tasked with fudging some results to fit the Watch Tower Society's narrative.
But as has already been pointed out, it is quite obvious why Watch Tower (and Furuli) need to discount the observations of the planets.
-
10
Does the GB direct cult members to burn old books?
by mickbobcat ini was told but can not find anything concrete that the cult gb directs cult members to burn old cult books and literature.
is this true.
.
-
-
Jeffro
There has not been any formal instruction to burn old books. However there have been instructions to discard many old publications that were previously offered to the public. There have also been instructions to destroy (without specifying a method) publications not intended for the public, such as old elders’ manuals.