My favorite sports analogy might apply here. This was told to me by Mailing Overseer Dan Marshall when I was at the Farm. You can imagine why he would tell this to me (letting me know I was not to be used in any position of authority if I remember correctly.) Anyhow I use it with my kids all the time. Here it is:
Pete Rose had more hits, but Ty Cobb had a higher batting average. Then my students go running to Wikipedia to find out who Ty Cobb was.
Of course, in this case it seems that Blondie has more hits AND a higher average, if more hits equals quantity and average equals quality.
I think it would be cool to have an awards ceremony and give away the following awards:
Most posts -
Most threads started -
Deepest/highest quality posts - must qualify what deepest is, or divide it up into a number of sub-category awards: most profound (another word for deep I know), most eclectic, most metaphysical or super scientific, most suprising, most intellectual...
Best factual poster / best factual post - This could go to an individual who has posted many factual posts, or it could award the best single factual post. By factual, I mean, a post that not only is very well referenced, but not seriously debated by anyone. Not, the sky is blue, but something substantial and so well documented that nearly everyone agrees with it. Neither side of the God debate or the 9/11 debate should get this award in my opinion.
Best scientific poster/post -
Best religious/Bible/poster / post -
Most controversial post/poster -
Most original post/poster -
Most unpopular post/poster -
Best loved poster/post -
Best activism/anti JW project -
Best book by JWDer -
Best book idea by JWDer (fiction) -
Best book idea by JWDer (non- fiction) -
Best moderator -
Best JW forum inventor - (Simon I think would get this one.)
... you get the picture.
I would happily contribute monetarily to have an awards banquet at some hotel or retaurant. It would be cool.
Shawn10538
JoinedPosts by Shawn10538
-
21
will minimus pass Blondie?
by stillajwexelder innow that posting limits have increased etc, who will be top poster when the board closes (if it closes) - realistically it is between blondie and minimus
-
-
Shawn10538
-
350
Called JR Brown regarding Cano Pedophile situation
by LDH injust called their media line:.
http://www.jw-media.org/contact.htm.
asked a young man named bryce where is the official press release on the cano pedophile situation.
-
-
Shawn10538
Did anybody else other than WAC and myself know Jesus Cano personally? I was in Newburgh spanish with Jesus for four years. I didn't know him extremely well, but we spent a lot of car rides to and from Newburgh together. I always liked him. He was kind of quiet. Not a jerk like so many there. He minded his own business and never came off as arrogant or an asshole like so many Bethel elders. It's a shame really. I wish more people were like him in demeanor.
I think a really cool way to top this subject off would be with an interview with him! I think I'll do a little digging and find out where he is now. Maybe he'll dish on some really cool details of his judicial hearing. I'm not saying I want to be his buddy, but I think I could get in to talk with him. I'd be surprised if he refused to speak with me. It's not like he's getting any visitors right? -
93
News from downunder - the mystery of the falling tower on 9/11
by ozziepost inappearing in our news today is this item which may, or may not, lay the conspiracy theories to bed.
us investigators solve 9/11 mysteryaugust 22, 2008, 8:32 am.
ap [enlarge photo]us investigators say they have solved the mystery of the collapse of world trade centre building seven in the september 11 attacks.. the 47 storey trapezoid sat north of the world trade centre towers, across vesey street in new york city's lower manhattan.. on september 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but sceptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel and concrete structure.. scientists with the national institute of standards and technology say their three year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of wtc seven was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.. "the reason for the collapse of world trade centre seven is no longer a mystery," said dr shyam sunder, the lead investigator on the team.. investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.. the building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down.
-
-
Shawn10538
I have no hypothesis at all, np theory, no nothing. I have never claimed that there is a huge conspiracy of any kind. I have not described my theories or claims because I have none. If you would just stop projecting onto my writing your preconceived notions about who or what I am, you might actually have enough respect for me as a person to just answer the questions as honestly and without ulterior motive as I have asked them.
Saying, "p'shaw! Seriously dude! What kind of question is that?' Does not address anything specifically. It is the intellectual equivalent of burping or farting.
Now, if you said, "The reason why asking a person if they would hire the bldg 7 contractors is a bad question (it would be better to say something more descriptive than "bad" as well, say irrelevant perhaps) is because ... fill in the blank..." You see? That is an appropriate way to answer to what you deem to be an inappropriate question. It shows respect for the person asking the question and does not engage in personal attacks. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am merely looking at a picture of a building that looks an awful lot like 100s of demolitioned buildings I have see in my lifetime. And furthermore, YOU AGREE WITH ME. Everyone agrees that it LOOKS like every other building that has ever in all of history been demo'd on purpose. Right? Is there a single detail about how that building is falling that is different from how it would have fallen had it been deliberately and expertly planned and executed. The obvious answer is no. AND IN YOUR HEART OF HEARTS you know it is true. You are just not ready to accept what your eyes and reasoning powers are shouting at you this very moment.
But, you didn't answer ANY of my questions. There are 20 of them. Are you saying I am 0 for 20 in relevant questions?
This thread is simply about whether bldg 7 was demo'd on purpose. This is not saying that the whole of 9/11 was a giant conspiracy. If you hve evidence that conflicts with what my eyes plainly see, then out with it. If not, why are you even participating in this thread. I am trying to keep it serious. so, seriously, how do you personally feel about the quality of product produced by the builders of bldg 7? Should we expect better quality of our trusted engineers?
I would love to be proven wrong. Do you think I am comfortable with the idea that someone may have done this on purpose? Believe me, I am not ready to hear about that kind of evil. It would scare the hell out of me. If only some demo expert could show me how bldg 7 just could not have POSSIBLY been a demolition, and that it differes from every other demolition in the following 100 ways... You have no idea how relieved I would be.
But so far, my eyes, which have proven themselves to be much more reliable than any 'report" I have ever seen or read, tell me that I am watching a demo'd building fall every time I see it.
Is it possible that I am mistaken? ABSOLUTELY! Do I hope I am mistaken? ABSOLUTELY! Am I a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. NO. There are many individual points that I find equally hard to believe in both the official story and all alternate stories.
Now, I would sleep much easier tonight if one person actually took my questions seriously, without being flip about it or accusing me of this and that which are just diversionary tactics of course. -
54
I have tried to be an atheist
by stillajwexelder ini have tried to be an atheist- honestly, i have really tried.
i have most of dawkins books and many others.
i completely agree there has to be some evolution and obviously the fossil record in the grand canyon plus erosion shows it must be at least 600 million years old.
-
-
Shawn10538
If you are trying to be an atheist you missed the point and do not know what an atheist is.
Look around, believe what you see. Believe what you smell. Believe what you hear. Believe what you physically feel. Believe what you taste. Believe what there is proof of. If there is no proof then don't believe it simple as that. If you have other senses that I don't have, fine. Prove the existence of the other senses and help me develop that sense. Maybe then I'll sense god. If there is a "spiritual sense" great! Describe it, define it and once you have scientifically proven its existence then share your info by publishing it.
Simply put, atheism is not a belief, it is simply lacking sufficient evidence or proof to form a belief in something. It is lack of belief. Non-belief. If you have enough evidence for YOU to be convinced that some thing exists out there, then by all means you should believe it. If not, you would be crazy to believe it. -
93
News from downunder - the mystery of the falling tower on 9/11
by ozziepost inappearing in our news today is this item which may, or may not, lay the conspiracy theories to bed.
us investigators solve 9/11 mysteryaugust 22, 2008, 8:32 am.
ap [enlarge photo]us investigators say they have solved the mystery of the collapse of world trade centre building seven in the september 11 attacks.. the 47 storey trapezoid sat north of the world trade centre towers, across vesey street in new york city's lower manhattan.. on september 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but sceptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel and concrete structure.. scientists with the national institute of standards and technology say their three year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of wtc seven was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.. "the reason for the collapse of world trade centre seven is no longer a mystery," said dr shyam sunder, the lead investigator on the team.. investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.. the building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down.
-
-
Shawn10538
How's about you answer questions 1 - 20, and we'll call your question #21? Sound fair? After all, I did post my questions first, so it would hardly be fair for you to come in and insist that your question is answered before all 20 of mine, right?
(Incidentally, your question is commonly known as the "popularity equals truth" argument. Find out what most theologians say about god and you arrive at the truth. Find out what most scientists say about evolution and you arrive at the truth. Find out the most popular political stance and again you arrive at the truth. The religion with the most adherents is clearly the true one right?"
No one want to answer my questions yet? If they are not good questions then describe why each one is so bad then and I'll retract them. -
34
Bible study with PO/sister and wife, did not go well......
by insearchoftruth inlast night....did not go well at all, at least in my opinion.
i feel that the sister from her conversations with my wife started on a quite defensive mode....did my best to stay level headed, but i know there were times i was frustrated, and it showed.. .
the husband and wife were about 40 minutes late, due to traffic, and they were not prepared to discuss michael/jesus, and with respect to the doctrine change, he merely provided me a 1995 and 1997 wt article, when he and i spoke on the phone, he said he was going to show me in the bible, he sort of danced around this a lot, but not to my satisfaction.. .
-
-
Shawn10538
Also, do not allow her to be alone with any Witness at any time for any reason, social or otherwise. I would even be going to the meetings with her if I were you. Her having her own study is a bad, bad idea. Would you let David Koresh study with her one on one?
Let it be known to the elders, that as the man of the house you do not permit any other man to speak to her without you present. You can call it a jealously thing if you want, but make sure you speak to each and every elder and let them know man to man that you better not ever see them talking to your wife without you present. You do not have to tell your wife this. Go toe to toe with those MFrs. Look them in the eyes and snort. Let them know that she is YOUR woman. Like I said, your wife may not like that but she doesn't have to know. You can tell the elders that they better not tell her about the conversation either. You have to show your balls to these freaks. Let them know that they will never be the head of your wife as long as you are alive. Threaten them with bodily harm if you have to. Make them afraid of you. -
34
Bible study with PO/sister and wife, did not go well......
by insearchoftruth inlast night....did not go well at all, at least in my opinion.
i feel that the sister from her conversations with my wife started on a quite defensive mode....did my best to stay level headed, but i know there were times i was frustrated, and it showed.. .
the husband and wife were about 40 minutes late, due to traffic, and they were not prepared to discuss michael/jesus, and with respect to the doctrine change, he merely provided me a 1995 and 1997 wt article, when he and i spoke on the phone, he said he was going to show me in the bible, he sort of danced around this a lot, but not to my satisfaction.. .
-
-
Shawn10538
.h
-
14
A way to destroy the Watchtower! -- This will really work!
by AlmostAtheist inhttp://www.netdisaster.com/go.php?mode=bomb&destruction=massive&sound=on&url=http://watchtower.org/.
(aw phooey!
the link doesn't work!
-
-
Shawn10538
I chose Led Zeppelin as my weapon. Funny sh*t.
-
93
News from downunder - the mystery of the falling tower on 9/11
by ozziepost inappearing in our news today is this item which may, or may not, lay the conspiracy theories to bed.
us investigators solve 9/11 mysteryaugust 22, 2008, 8:32 am.
ap [enlarge photo]us investigators say they have solved the mystery of the collapse of world trade centre building seven in the september 11 attacks.. the 47 storey trapezoid sat north of the world trade centre towers, across vesey street in new york city's lower manhattan.. on september 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but sceptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel and concrete structure.. scientists with the national institute of standards and technology say their three year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of wtc seven was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.. "the reason for the collapse of world trade centre seven is no longer a mystery," said dr shyam sunder, the lead investigator on the team.. investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.. the building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down.
-
-
Shawn10538
I hereby challenge drtn32 or whatever the name is, to actually answer each and every question I posed, and also answer the following additional questions. For his benefit, I have changed the word "small' to "significant, though not raging all encompassing infernos." Is that fair?
1. If Building 7 were really demolitioned as you say it was NOT, how would it have looked different than it does falling completely uncontrolled and unplanned, as you say it WAS?
2. Could the world's best structural engineers have made the building fall even more straight down on top of itself than it actually did?
3. How would it look different had it been planned and executed by the world's finest demolition experts?
4. Has any building in the history of human kind ever fallen so magnificently straight down due to a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?
5. Should we now expect other buildings to fall similarly?
6. Would you sue your contractor if the building he built fell like Tower 7 after a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?
7. Do we have the technology to build buildings that do not totally collapse when experiencing a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?
8. Have there ever been towers that have been practically completely engulfed in fire and yet did not fall?
9. In light of the fact that buildings are now known to completely collapse when they experience a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire, do you still venture into high rises?
10. Should contractors and engineers be expected to build structures that can stay standing inspite of being totally engulfed with flames? Is that kind of technology anailable?
11. Are the engineers and archetects of Bldg. 7 now totally revamping their approach to building high rises? What lessons did they learn from the collapse of bldg. 7?
12. Would you hire the builders or designers of building 7?
13. Are there other buildings that are similar to bldg. 7 (in size, shape, materials used to build it) still standing? Other buildings built by the same firm that built building 7 still standing? Should we then investigate these other structures lest a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire bring them down as well?
14. Would you feel safe entering into a building that is similar to building 7, built by the same contractors and designers and around the same age, knowing that their other work failed so easily during a "significant, though not a raging, all encompassing inferno" fire?
15. Does anyone know if the firm that built bldg. 7 is being sued right now? What do these builders say in their defense? Was their product a good one?
16. Is there any footage of bldg 7 totally enveloped in flames and smoke before its collapse?
17. Is there any footage showing STRUCTURAL damage to the "outside" of the building? (As someone who has years of experience working construction on high rises, particularly what is commonly refered to as "the shell" I can tell you that exterior siding in no way supports a high rise. Clarify, it gives very little support to the overall building. Haven't you ever seen a high rise before it has its skin on it? It's just steel, and it stands up quite well all on its own.)
18. Describe the "flying debris" that damaged the STRUCTURAL integrity of the high rise bldg 7. Do we have photos of these gigantic shards of steel of approximately the same size as a jet airliner? (I'm assuming that floating paper is not enough to structurally damage a building.)
19. How large of a piece of "flying debris" would it take to damage a skyscraper structurally? What was it made of? Where is it now? Any photographs of the HUGE piece of solid steel that must have been flying at 100s of mph at the time of impact in order to cause structural damage to bldg. 7?
20.( This one is to dwnt32 personally since he claimed that there was structural damage to the OUTSIDE of the building which contributed to its collapse.) Watching the footage of bldg 7 come down, is it obvious that the building is falling in on itself due to CENTRAL supports giving way simultaneously (hence the classic crimp seen on every other demo'd building that has ever been demo'd in all of demo history), and NOT any of the OUTER supports giving way? If so, why did you bring up OUTER damage and claim it caused the collapse? -
93
News from downunder - the mystery of the falling tower on 9/11
by ozziepost inappearing in our news today is this item which may, or may not, lay the conspiracy theories to bed.
us investigators solve 9/11 mysteryaugust 22, 2008, 8:32 am.
ap [enlarge photo]us investigators say they have solved the mystery of the collapse of world trade centre building seven in the september 11 attacks.. the 47 storey trapezoid sat north of the world trade centre towers, across vesey street in new york city's lower manhattan.. on september 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but sceptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel and concrete structure.. scientists with the national institute of standards and technology say their three year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of wtc seven was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.. "the reason for the collapse of world trade centre seven is no longer a mystery," said dr shyam sunder, the lead investigator on the team.. investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.. the building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down.
-
-
Shawn10538
Here's some good questions for you building 7 denyers. I can't wait for the responses:
1. If Building 7 were really demolitioned as you say it was NOT, how would it have looked different than it does falling completely uncontrolled and unplanned, as you say it WAS?
2. Could the world's best structural engineers have made the building fall even more straight down on top of itself than it actually did?
3. How would it look different had it been planned and executed by the world's finest demolition experts?
4. Has any building in the history of human kind ever fallen so magnificently straight down due to a small fire?
5. Should we now expect other buildings to fall similarly?
6. Would you sue your contractor if the building he built fell like Tower 7 after a few small fires?
7. Do we have the technology to build buildings that do not totally collapse when on fire?
8. Have there ever been towers that have been practically completely engulfed in fire and yet did not fall?
9. In light of the fact that buildings are now known to completely collapse when they experience a small fire, do you still venture into high rises?
10. Should contractors and engineers be expected to build structures that can stay standing inspite of being totally engulfed with flames? Is that kind of technology anailable?
11. Are the engineers and archetects of Bldg. 7 now totally revamping their approach to building thigh rises? What lessons did they learn from the collapse of bldg. 7?
12. Would you hire the builders or designers of building 7?
13. Are there other buildings that are similar to bldg. 7 (in size, shape, materials used to build it) still standing? Other buildings built by the same firm that built building 7 still standing? Should we then investigate these other structures lest a small fire bring them down as well?
14. Would you feel safe entering into a building that is similar to building 7, built by the same contractors and designers and around the same age, knowing that their other work failed so easily during a small fire?
15. Does anyone know if the firm that built bldg. 7 is being sued right now? What do these builders say in their defense? Was their product a good one?