skeeter1

Joined

• started 310 topics
• posted 5,419 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by skeeter1

• 
  17

  You don't want your kids to die, do you??

  by TJ - iAmCleared2Land in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  'if not, you better get them out to preach six hours a day during summer break!!'.

  this is my first post here... i stopped associating a just about a year ago, serving as an elder (wt conductor) up until i stopped going.

  multi-generational jw, baptized 1984, pioneered, all that stuff.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  Welcome to the next part of your life.

  Skeeter
• 
  62

  MCLEANS SEXTUPLETS AND BLOOD ARTICLE - SCANNED COPY FOR YOU

  by hawkaw in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  please just add an http:// at the beginning of all of these urls, then copy to your browser address area and click away.. i really didn't like to read about how the jws won all these court decisions on freedom when they don't even let their members be free but still the article is balanced enough to leave a serious indent on the side of shane's head.. hawkawl.freeservers.com/mclean's%20cover.jpg.

  hawkawl.freeservers.com/mcleans%20page%2034.jpg.

  hawkawl.freeservers.com/mcleans%20page%2035.jpg.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  Here's the other editorial article in full.

  *******************
  The truth shall set you free? Update Editorial on Biblical scholar says Jehovah's Witnesses wrong about blood transfusions

  Posted 13 hours ago by Critical_Conformity in Religion and viewed 328 times

  Is it ok to place the lives of children into the mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it ok to give parents, like the parents of this story, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based religious interpretations? Full story: digitaljournal.com The first case of sextuplets born in Canada occurred in Vancouver on Jan. 6 to Jehovah’s Witness parents has caused a great debate here on DJ with the thread still going..... My personal email fills daily on just one article posting. I am here now with a promised fulfilled on a update to this story, an editorial on Feedback. As I am remaining neutral on this subject this is a summary of the story with feedback.
  
  The Vancouver babies were premature and needed blood transfusions to cope with low volumes of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.
  
  The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.
  
  Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?
  
  Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.
  
  The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents, respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights.
  
  There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honourable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?
  
  The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents.
  
  Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.
  
  That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.
  
  As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.
  
  They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.
  
  Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931).
  
  Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.
  Major religions, including Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967).
  
  In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.
  
  Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.
  
  There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?

  Rate this news 10 1 Choose a reason 1 You have rated this article.

  Email

  Report

  Print

  Email this article	Recipient email:
  	Your email: optional
  	Message: optional

  </form>

  Comments

  Voters

  3 subscribers Subscribe To This Thread [?] : </form>

  +4 Posted 12 hours ago by gohomelaker

  I still believe that what the hospital did was right. They may have gone about it in a rather cowardly way, i.e., doing on a weekend when the parents had no recourse to fight them in the courts, but I do believe that the hospital had the children's best interest at heart. I understand that the parents have very strict religious convictions, but the children were born in an extremely tenuous situation and absolutely needed the blood for survival. So, that is what the hospital did. The child's right to live far outwieghs the parents religious beliefs. quote {user(1594)}

  # 1

  +4 Posted 12 hours ago by cgull

  Nice article Critical, well done thorough and detail. The doctor knows what is best for the child, and do so accordingly. If the parent insists on their religion and gets the child killed, you know what they don't deserve that child. God will give them a new life under an understanding parents. Just follow the heart and truth, here it clearly says save the child first, and when you think of their reasoning it doesn't sound sensible nor true. quote {user(1705)}

  # 2

  +4 Posted 11 hours ago by gohomelaker

  Stuart, just stop. You are just continuing on the same bullshit stuff as in the other thread. It is not necessary for you to carry on with your cut and pasting of JW literature like this all over again. You are serving no one's purpose by doing this other than to totally annoy people, once again. Please just stop. quote {user(1594)}

  # 3

  +2 Posted 11 hours ago by DannyHaszard

  DEADLY DOGMA The real deal on why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Jehovah's Witnesses have a non negotiable doctrine of their belief system to reject blood products. The origin of this dogma comes from their founding father Joseph Rutherford in the early 20th century.The consumption (eating) of blood was strictly forbidden under old testament kosher law. The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system. They thought that the "end of the world" was coming back then (ca.1940) so there would never be much causality. It is well into the 21st century,with the "end of the world" on hold,the Watchtower leaders have blood on their hands,with the deaths of innocent minor children. Many children have died since rejecting life saving blood transfusions.Why do they maintain adherence to this archaic creed at all cost? Answer:The man-made Watchtower cult is run by lawyers who know they would be sued out of existence for wrongful death suits,if they dared to outright repeal the bogus no blood ruling now. UPDATE:The absurdity of the Watchtower rulings now allow any of the COMPONENTS of blood to be transfused, but not whole blood, and yet people are dying and lives and families are being ruined over a few old men who are always changing their minds on this matter. Some educational links provided below: http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htmWill you die for a lie? (Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks (so called blood 'fractions') but they themselves won't donate a drop) -------- Danny Haszard-lifelong 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness http://www.freeminds.org quote -tell the truth don't be afraid- {user(3169)}

  # 4

  +2 Posted 11 hours ago by DannyHaszard

  Watchtower gospel of gobbledygook The blood transfusion issue is still a hot item, even though the Watchtower has practically allowed all 'parts' of the blood individually, just not together! Doesn't the Bible clearly state to "pour ALL the blood onto the ground and cover it with dust because to Jehovah the life blood belongs"? So, how can the Watchtower leaders allow most of the parts of blood which they euphemistically call "blood fractions" YET forbid "whole blood"? Isn't it all sacred to Jehovah,or is this a legal ruse to keep from being sued? (I will be cursed by God for eating a whole ham sandwich but if I eat the bun,mayo,mustard,cheese,ham,pickle separately it's o-kay today.) Remember thousands of devout obedient Jehovah's Witnesses have DIED for this blood stance. The entire doctrine is senseless and deadly. The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet. Neither the Jews nor other groups oppose blood transfusions because they don't try to put a spin on something that isn't there. If the Watchtower had not issued this prohibition, no Jehovah's Witness would oppose them on Biblical grounds. Go to Israel and try and find a super observant Orthodox Jew or Rabbi who believes that blood transfusions are against God's Law given to Moses.You can't.
• 
  62

  MCLEANS SEXTUPLETS AND BLOOD ARTICLE - SCANNED COPY FOR YOU

  by hawkaw in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  please just add an http:// at the beginning of all of these urls, then copy to your browser address area and click away.. i really didn't like to read about how the jws won all these court decisions on freedom when they don't even let their members be free but still the article is balanced enough to leave a serious indent on the side of shane's head.. hawkawl.freeservers.com/mclean's%20cover.jpg.

  hawkawl.freeservers.com/mcleans%20page%2034.jpg.

  hawkawl.freeservers.com/mcleans%20page%2035.jpg.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  This is HUGE! While I could not read some of the scans, it looks really good. Is there any way to get some hard copies of this?

  The magazine used the Awake picture. That's going to show the WTS for the sickos they really are. Plus, it looks like it tells our story.

  I wonder if the WTS is going to try to sue Macleans for copyright violation. That would really piss off the media.

  Skeeter
• 
  14

  PAINTED CATS...Unbelievable!!!

  by SWALKER in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  i can't believe these cats would let anyone paint them!

  they supposedly use non-toxic paint.... http://www.jibjab.com/jokebox/jokebox/jibjab/id/479094/jokeid/111715.

  here is one picture:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  I'm not against cats. They catch mice & rats.

  But, I do have a problem with them that just grosses me out. They go into their litter box, then climb on your sofa, countertops, etc.

  Skeeter
• 
  20

  What do I tell my wife about the MORMONS?

  by OnTheWayOut in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a mormon declared his intention to run for president of the usa.. my wife starts talking about it and says that they are mainstream christianity.

  except for the multiple-wives issue.. i told her that the official church doesn't allow the multiple wives, but i cannot .

  see them as a normal mainstream religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  from www.exmormon.net

  MORMONISM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK

  Here are some beliefs Mormons resist

  telling you at first...

  • The LDS Church is the only true church. The Lord told Joseph Smith personally that all other churches are an "abomination." Any non-Mormon church is automatically part of the "church of the devil." No other church has the valid priesthood. The devil has even made a pact with many Christian pastors to teach Christian doctrines about the Trinity and salvation by grace. But in public we say that all religions are good and have some truth.

  • There are many gods. We deal with three of these distinct gods from the council of the gods: Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost.

  • God, the Father,was once a man like us. His name is Elohim, and he had a literal father before him. (That means there is a god even higher than God the Father!)

  • We can progress to become gods of our own worlds just like the god Elohim.

  • Jesus is the brother of the devil, not his creator.

  • Jesus was not born of a virgin. Elohim had sexual relations with his daughter, Mary, to bring about the conception of Jesus. (Not all Mormons are familiar with this teaching.)

  • We are not permitted to pray to Jesus, but only to another god named Elohim.

  • Celestial heaven is near a star called Kolob.

  • The Bible contains doctrinal errors.

  • Polygamy is an eternal principle. Mormons still believe in polygamy, but just can't practice it right now.

  • Black people were cursed with their black skin because of their inferiority in the pre-existent life.

  • Native American Indians are really Israelites who were cursed with red skin because of their sin.

  • The current prophet, Gordon B. Hinkley, is a prophet in exactly the same sense as Moses or Ezekiel in the Bible. He has authority to write new scripture.

  • The first LDS prophet, Joseph Smith, saw God the Father in the flesh.

  • Adam did not sin when he ate of the forbidden fruit, but was merely choosing to obey a contradictory command from Jehovah.

  • Jesus shed his blood to offer us the potential to be forgiven if we successfully stop our sins permanently.

  • We cannot be saved (forgiven) by grace alone through faith alone.

  • Secret temple rituals where one learns secret names and secret handshakes contribute to one's exaltation in the celestial kingdom. No non-Mormon is worthy to go inside a dedicated temple.

  • No one who pays less than 10% of their income to the LDS Church is allowed inside a functioning temple.

  • It is possible to eventually become perfect by progressing a little bit at a time through eternal progression.
• 
  16

  My cousin died of Lou Garrett Disease

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  less then two years ago my cousin, who was then 39, was working on his parents home and found he was having a hard time hammering in nails.

  he would hit the nail, but as hard as he would try, he would end up making it crocked and he could not control it.

  he thought this was weird, and decided to visit a doctor.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  I am so sorry to hear of your loss.. I have a good friend who I just found out has this same illness. He's the cream of the crop, too. The good die young, so the rest of us old, mean people can think about all the wrongs we did to them.

  Skeeter
• 
  12

  NEWSPAPER SLAMS WT FRACTION/CHANGING BLOOD POLICY

  by skeeter1 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  the future is in our past.

  the truth shall set you free?.

  audrey manning.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  The Future is in Our PastThe truth shall set you free?
  Audrey Manning
  The BeaconThe first case of sextuplets born in Canada occurred in Vancouver on Jan. 6 to Jehovah’s Witness parents.
  
  The Vancouver babies were premature and needed blood transfusions to cope with low volumes of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.
  
  The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.
  
  Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?
  
  Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.
  
  The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents, respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights.
  
  There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honourable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?
  
  The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents.
  
  Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.
  
  That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.
  
  As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.
  
  They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.
  
  Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931).
  
  Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.
  Major religions, including Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967).
  
  In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.
  Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.
  
  There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?
• 
  185

  WT BLOOD GUILT EXPOSED TO THE WORLD

  by DannyHaszard in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  parents don't get a moral pass.

  toronto star, canada - 3. even the discovery that their parents were devout jehovah's witnesses and is there any other kind of watchtower congregant?

  raised only faint alarm ... rosie [email protected] the author.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  The Future is in Our PastThe truth shall set you free?
  Audrey Manning
  The BeaconThe first case of sextuplets born in Canada occurred in Vancouver on Jan. 6 to Jehovah’s Witness parents.
  
  The Vancouver babies were premature and needed blood transfusions to cope with low volumes of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.
  
  The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.
  
  Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?
  
  Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.
  
  The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents, respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights.
  
  There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honourable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?
  
  The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents.
  
  Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.
  
  That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.
  
  As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.
  
  They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.
  
  Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931).
  
  Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.
  Major religions, including Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967).
  
  In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.
  Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.
  
  There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?
• 
  29

  Canadians - Watch National Post

  by Uzzah in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  on either saturday or monday for a very powerful article regarding the jw's.. more to follow.

  uzzah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  THIS IS BIG NEWS. I almost did not read it, as the heading was for Canadians to read the National Post. It was all lower case, and I just thougth it was for Canadians. Maybe the story was something about that cold weather up there??

  Anyway, I'll say it again, wow! Does anyone have a hard copy of the front page story? I think it would be neat to see an actual scan.

  Thanks,
  Skeeter
• 
  21

  Geico Insurance?

  by skeeter1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i got a automobile insurance quote from geico (you know, the lizard advertisement).

  it's about $400 less a year than my current insurance.

  i thought my current insurance was a great deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  skeeter1

  I got a automobile insurance quote from Geico (you know, the lizard advertisement). It's about $400 less a year than my current insurance. I thought my current insurance was a great deal. Before I switch, has anyone had a good or bad time with Geico? Did Geico hassle you about paying claims?

  Skeeter