Posts by JoeSinclair

I love looking stuff up on the Internet. I found some reliable looking (in my humble opinion anyway) articles report that Vitamin E prior to surgery is a bad idea and some say it is a good thing. I have commented in Red. Please don't take these quotes out of context, it is worth reading the articles in full, and ask your surgeons opinion I guess, he knows a whole lot more about this than I do!

And, good luck with the surgery, I'm sure it will be fine, they know what they are doing, and you'll be back on your feet in no time, I'm sure.

Here are some anti Vitamin E articles:

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/aadr-vitamin-e-tocopherol.html
"Vitamin E should not be taken in combination with anticoagulant drugs such as warfarin and aspirin."
"... people scheduled for elective surgery (including dental surgery) are advised to avoid supplementary vitamin E for two days before and after surgery."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10417589&dopt=Abstract
"Therefore we conclude that use of topical vitamin E on surgical wounds should be discouraged."
This article refers to the use of an externally applied cream with Vitamin E rather than oral supplements.
http://www.phudson.com/OTHER/HEALING/healingvitamins.html

"Vitamin E
May inhibit wound healing by decreasing the amount of collagen which is produced." This one lists deficiency in two vitamins as a bad thing, and then this comment about the presence of Vitamin E, rather than a defciency of it.

BUT, some articles say that Vitamin E is a good thing:

http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/vitamins_in_operations.html
"Patients with higher baseline, or initial, vitamin E levels were less likely to suffer free-radical injury to heart cells."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2078380&dopt=Abstract
"It is concluded that the degree of immunodepression in the postoperative period decreases in patients given vitamin E in the indicated dose before the operation."

For what it's worth, my opinion about this is that you should just stick to a regular healthy diet prior to surgery and you will have all the nutrition you need. Keep eating those greens! :-)

Joe

3

A little bit of national pride never hurt anyone ...

by JoeSinclair in

jw
friends

some context for this post is helpful: in england we are currently (as a nation) deluding ourselves that we can win the world cup*.

therefore, the country is literally turning red and white with flags on display everywhere.

we are idol worshipping ourselves into an early armageddon over here!.

JoeSinclair

Some context for this post is helpful: In England we are currently (as a nation) deluding ourselves that we can win the World Cup*. Therefore, the country is literally turning red and white with flags on display everywhere. We are idol worshipping ourselves into an early armageddon over here!

I have been away with some friends watching the Le Mans 24 hour race in la belle France and I got home to find that my girlfriend has decorated our house with England flags! Well, the living room at least. No signs of the watchtower round here at the moment. Nice.

Of course, however positive I feel about her progress, I always suddenly remember that she is still hung up on the blood thing. I would have to honour (and I would) her wishes in that regard, should something terrible happen.

But, enough of that! We are playing Sweden tonight, and we are gonna WIN! Nice.

Joe

* If you aren't aware, the World Cup is the largest sporting event that I am aware of, measured by the number of nations that compete (if you include all the qualifying stages), and the size of the TV audience worldwide. It just edges the Olympics I reckon (No facts to base that on, just my opinion) BUT even if it doesn't, we're talking about a tournament featuring only 1 sport here! The Olympics covers a multitude of sporting events, but FOOTBALL's World Cup is the King of Tournaments!

PS. If this is in the wrong area, sorry. I don't really know if it is a World Cup post or a post about my girlfriend's progression out of JW.

20

For our Biblical experts: Artaxerxes reign began in 474 BCE?

by sir82 in

a question for leolaia, peaceful pete, narkissos, and/or any others who might know this:.

in this week's "what does the bible really teach" book study lesson, the appendix that is covered talks about the famous "70 weeks of years" prophecy of daniel 9:25. the society claims that the "69 weeks" runs from 455 bce to 29 ce, coinciding with jesus' baptism.. they derive the 455 bce date as "the 20th year of the reign of artaxerxes".

they claim that "historians agree that" artaxerxes began his reign in 474 bce.. i did a quick google search, and found absolutely nothing even remotely hinting at 474 bce as a beginning date for anyone.

JoeSinclair

See, I did mention word eating was a possibility! (If my IE7 would let me use the smiley thing I'd put an appropriately humble one here)

Consider them eaten, along with a large slice of pie, humble, freshly cooked.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

Of course, the link to the reply by Allen Roy is still a valid one ;-)

Joe

20

For our Biblical experts: Artaxerxes reign began in 474 BCE?

by sir82 in

a question for leolaia, peaceful pete, narkissos, and/or any others who might know this:.

in this week's "what does the bible really teach" book study lesson, the appendix that is covered talks about the famous "70 weeks of years" prophecy of daniel 9:25. the society claims that the "69 weeks" runs from 455 bce to 29 ce, coinciding with jesus' baptism.. they derive the 455 bce date as "the 20th year of the reign of artaxerxes".

they claim that "historians agree that" artaxerxes began his reign in 474 bce.. i did a quick google search, and found absolutely nothing even remotely hinting at 474 bce as a beginning date for anyone.

JoeSinclair

I think I might be risking getting into trouble here, but I'm gonna do it anyway..

Right, it's best to point out that I have tried to understand what you lot are talking about but it is all over my head. Too much stuff to learn all in one go on a Friday afternoon. Nevertheless, and without wanting to cast aspersions as to the validity of the actual information in A Christian's comment above (the long one), I would refer you to the following URL:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200204/0765.html

Now, I can't offer any way of verifying the information at that URL either, but it does appear to be dated "Sat Apr 27 2002 - 23:40:13 EDT"

If you search this page for the text "In case you are curious," you will see below it the entire text of A Christian's reply, albeit with modifications here and there to improve context occasionally.

I say again, the facts may be accurate, but it interested me that, if indeed this URL predates the reply above, the prose appears to be non-original.

I concede that if the URL creator has quickly knocked up a page to look incriminating that I shall eat my words.

Also, if it is of interest to you, that URL is part of a series of emails posted to a mesage board. As you will note by reading the very top of the page, the post I linked to (number 0765 if you read the URL) is actually a re-posting of a message that fell off the internet and never made it to the message board in the first place. This explains why the next URL I am going to point you to is in fact a smaller number (0742).

The URL below is a response to the above URL. Again, I make no comment as to the accuracy of the information or opinions presented, but it is another lengthy message clearly written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and offers a rebuttal of some (or all, I haven't read it through) of the points made by the original author of A Christian's post.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200204/0742.html

Joe

Of the "check your references can't be Googled before you misappropriate them" class

13

AIDS/HIV, Watchtower, and Frontline

by cyberguy in

jw
friends

when i was in the jw-office, working at circuit and district conventions, there was a real scare/effort to baptize those with aids/hiv after everyone else was finished.

i can understand this safeguard, but the wts position on this in the us and the western world, is that it is primary a gay disease (most infected that i knew, wanting to be baptized as jws, were not gay but former drug addicts, sharing needles).

their view is, gods punishment on a debauched lifestyle!.

JoeSinclair

Hmm.. rassillon, you sounded like you weren't sure of yourself with regard to the genetically programmed nature of homosexuality, I figure you could do with some guidance?

1.) If you want to be accepted despite your sexual choice then you

Now you believe that you are genetically programmed to like other men? I don't know? I have seen no conclusive evidence to say so. If you say this because you "feel" this is so, well, we all know how scientific feelings are. Also, if you believe this, do you also believe in evoloution? Would this make you and your particular evolved branch more or less likely to survive? Are you developing a new way to have offspring?

OK, I spotted this article today, and it seems relevant to the whole "a gay gene would have been Natural Selection-ed out of existence" point that you make:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html

To save you some time, it is an article detailing an idea that came around last year (2005). The theory is this: The same genetic differences that might predispose a person to be gay ALSO predispose women to be especially fertile. So strange are the workings of the human genome that we have no way of knowing what knock on effects genetic engineering can have, which is why it is such a dangerous game.

Quote from the article:

Scientists have discovered that gay men’s mothers, sisters and maternal aunts tend to have significantly more children than the norm — and that many of their nephews and male cousins are also gay.

The point is, your argument about the Natural Selection is not a complete argument, and you should be more careful with it.

That said, I agree with you on the consequences point. It is not an inevitable consequence of leading a homosexual lifestyle that you will get infected with HIV. Unprotected sex is the key to it, I'm not sure where Bstndance got the idea that AIDS is inevitable.

To everyone I offer my sincerest apologies for staying off topic here, but I couldn't let that go I'm afraid. Poorly formed arguments are my bug-bear!

Joe

21

Do they respect gay rights?

by greendawn in

i am not gay and never have been one, but do you think that your local society treats gays with respect or that it has no tolerence for such a sexually different and in the thought of many deviant minority?

.

i personally don't approve of their activities but i can understand that they are genetically predisposed in that way and can't change.

JoeSinclair

In London (where I live, near enough) you can be as gay as you like. And rightly so! More totty for me that way! ;-)

No, but seriously, In my locality there isn't any generalised gay prejudice, we have gay politicians in england and gay men in the army, gay marriage is now legit etc. There is still a part of the population over here that opposes homosexuality, and some guy was murdered not so long ago in London in a homophobic attack. Most of the printed and TV media over here are pro-gay insofar as they abhor homophobic attacks when they happen.

I personally don't apply any special significance to whether someone is gay or straight. I am worryingly tolerant of other peoples wishes. Around me you can do/wear/eat/say pretty much anything you want apart from lawbreaking and such like.

that's hogwash, it is a myth that no research has ever proven. You can be predisposed by your upbringing but that doesn't mean people can't change.

Did you choose to be straight (assuming you are striaght)?
jstalin, I can't tell if you are happy or unhappy about what Shining One said?
for my own part, I didn't choose to be straight in any conscious capacity, it just happened. I believe the popular (mis?)conception that there is a gay gene comes from campaigning by gay rights groups. There was some mileage in claiming that if homosexuality was genetic, then it wasn't just a lifestyle choice, but rather an inevitability. Therefore a lot of 'arguments' from anti-gay campaigners would have the wind taken out of their sails. As far as I know gay rights campaigners latched onto the gay gene idea before there was any actual proof of it.
Personally, I would like to see that wind taken of those same sails, but looking at the science behind it, there are articles published in the various scientific journals arguing both for and against a gay gene (unfortunately, I can't find any sources that stand up to scrutiny for the against right now).
This article appeared in 2005 in The Times (of London), and appears to back the for argument,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html
This article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4215427.stm ) on the BBC news site discusses a genetic possibility too.
But of course, any genetic predisposition might merely cause one to be more likely to be gay rather than make it inevitable. There might still be 'nurture' influences alongside the 'nature' side of it.
But, regardless of whether it is one way or the other, I don't actually care. You can all be gay if you want. I'm cool with that.

10

Went to my Uncle's Lutheran Funeral

by Seeker4 in

my uncle passed away a couple of weeks ago and i went to the funeral.

one of my pet peeves, even as a witness, was how bad the witness funerals usually were.

just an opportunity to give a witness about why the dead person wasn't going to heaven!

JoeSinclair

I've been to three Catholic funerals and at each of them the priest had a good personal friendship with the deceased and spoke fondly of them and their life. Also 1 or 2 close family members spoke briefly (5 minutes each) about the deceased, remembering some of the good bits etc. My extended family is quite religious, all catholic, so it may be slightly a-typical, they all know their priest really well etc.

There was a lot of God stuff, some of it general God stuff and some of it seemingly to make the believers feel a little comfort in their time of distress. Not a great deal of straightforward preaching, unless it just went right over my head (or more concerningly, straight into my head! ;-)

As an un-believer I was there in order to pay my respects to the deceased, I was immediate family-once removed in all cases. I've not been to any other types of funeral, so I don't know much about that, and I also can't compare thfunerals to other types of church stuff because I don't go..

18

Whats the aim of the people in charge?

by JoeSinclair in

i was about to post another reply to my previous thread but i decided a new thread would be appropriate for this question.. i have learned a lot in the last few days about the jw organisation and the waverings towards cult-like behaviour.

i have read web sites listing cult like characteristics and then examples of what the watchtower chaps have done that looks similar.

it was tempting, at first, to think that i am hearing from a collective of disaffected people who have been hard done by and to assume the reality lies somewhere nearer the middle than you guys say it is.

JoeSinclair

Oh, this is wonderful, I just found this in another thread in this forum. Fits nicely in one of those gaps I was trying to describe above! ;-)

Source: "What years did the WTBTS society prophesy Armaggedon would come?" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/114224/1.ashx )

1909

1909 "Mrs. Russell's request that the monthly allowance [alimony] be increased from $40 to $100, which was allowed by the Court, but which we were unable to comply with, because all of our property, except that which brought the income of $40 per month (which Mrs. Russell had been receiving), had been donated to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY." {WR Jul 1 1909 4424} [Donate your funds to WTBTS to escape paying alimony]

18

Whats the aim of the people in charge?

by JoeSinclair in

i was about to post another reply to my previous thread but i decided a new thread would be appropriate for this question.. i have learned a lot in the last few days about the jw organisation and the waverings towards cult-like behaviour.

i have read web sites listing cult like characteristics and then examples of what the watchtower chaps have done that looks similar.

it was tempting, at first, to think that i am hearing from a collective of disaffected people who have been hard done by and to assume the reality lies somewhere nearer the middle than you guys say it is.

JoeSinclair

Hello again,

I was about to post another reply to my previous thread but I decided a new thread would be appropriate for this question.

I have learned a lot in the last few days about the JW organisation and the waverings towards cult-like behaviour. I have read web sites listing cult like characteristics and then examples of what the Watchtower chaps have done that looks similar. It was tempting, at first, to think that I am hearing from a collective of disaffected people who have been hard done by and to assume the reality lies somewhere nearer the middle than you guys say it is. However, some very well thought out positions are represented here and I am moving towards a view that I should in fact have much more concern about JW and the risks it poses to my relationship with my girlfriend than I previously thought.

This generates a further question, which is about the people in charge of the Watchtower organisation. If they are operating a cult like organisation I would expect that they either:

1) Genuinely do believe they are the messengers of God, or

2) Know it is a sham and they are pulling a fast one in order to derive a benefit of some sort.

I would imagine that it is in fact neither of those, or rather BOTH of those. Can you offer any insights into the people at the top and their motives?

If they err towards reason 2 then would you say Power over people, or Cold hard cash are anything to do with it? I believe the JW encourage donations of money? Lots of money? All of your money? Do we know much about the lifestyles of the top men, lavish and materialistic, or miserly and honourable for example? A different motivation that I'm not aware of?

I thought cults demanded all your money and the boss man has 12 wives and everyone lives in a big community on a mountain somewhere waiting for the end of the world..

I know that's a ridiculous stereotype but I said it to emphasize that I see some cult like characteristics, but also as far as I'm aware compared to some other cults there are some bits missing.

Joe