dmouse checking in.
As others have said, pop in from time to time but usually just to read.
Dean
i am not the oldest but have 3 years here!
restrangled.. how about you?.
dmouse checking in.
As others have said, pop in from time to time but usually just to read.
Dean
were you spanked?.
is spanking "wrong"?
(they say your iq might be affected adversely from being spanked)..
I would like to be spanked please. Oh hang on...
I used to spank my kids when they were very young, too much really, and I now regret it. As for intelligence, my eldest lad was spanked the most and is also the most intelligent of my kids. I was clipped around the ear when I was a kid/teenager so much that I developed a nervous twitch whenever my parents passed by! I'm now educated to degree level.
While I believe the option should be there for parents, I've seen too many abusing the method. Once the child is old enough to reason then there are more effective ways to discipline. Though having said that, my kids now say they always prefered a short, sharp slap on the butt at the time of the misdemeaner to being grounded etc as they considered that form of discipline cold, calculated and cruel!
this is for an upcoming youtube project.
i would love to do this on a mass scale... think there might be something "big" in the results.. 1. were you a born-in (including those who's parents converted while they were still children) or did you convert as an adult?.
2. when you left, did you still (a) fully believe in the truthtm, (b) partially believe or (c) realise it was all a load of crap?.
ME:
1. Born in (mum converted when I was 2)
2. Knew it was crap
3. Still know it's crap
4. Obviously not (see above)
5. Agnostic (not quite arrogant enough to say I know for certain God doesn't exist)
MY MUM:
1. Converted in her 20s
2. Still believed
3. Still partially believes
4. Yes, very much so at first but now not really.
5. Christian - no particular denomination.
Dean.
honestly!
look at the first pages and see how short the titles were.. now they can contain two or three sentences!
are we losing the ability to be concise?.
Cameo-d, I reckon nobody will bother to open the thread if they've already read your point in a long title.
Teaser titles like 'goodbye everyone!' usually pique interest (though 9 times out of 10 the person is just going on holiday!)
IMHO I think short, enigmatic but relevant titles work best.
honestly!
look at the first pages and see how short the titles were.. now they can contain two or three sentences!
are we losing the ability to be concise?.
Personally I'm often tickled by newspaper headlines, which are short but are a clever play on words. The UK's Sun newspaper is particularly good, if anyone can remember some?
One of my favourites was when Caledonian Thistle battered an under par Celtic side out of the Scottish Cup...
Headline:
Super Cali Go Ballistic, Celtic are Atrocious*
(*hint: Mary Poppins)
honestly!
look at the first pages and see how short the titles were.. now they can contain two or three sentences!
are we losing the ability to be concise?.
Honestly! Look at the first pages and see how short the titles were.
Now they can contain two or three sentences! Are we losing the ability to be concise?
Shouldn't they be like newspaper headlines, accurate, but just enough to spark curiosity?
Dean
i was still a kid and living at home at the time, and so that must have been well over 30 years ago, that i heard ron drage (now a senior member of the uk bethel) say "if you are waiting at the bus stop it, is better to be 10 minutes early rather than miss it".
what he was referring to of course was the then then 1975 issue; in other words armageddon has arrived yet but it just round the corner and we are a little early for it.. i don't know what brought this to my mind the other day but i got to thinking, surely if you are waiting for a bus and you get there 10 minutes early and it doesn't then turn up, how long do you wait?
10 minutes, 15 minutes, half an hour, an hour, two hours?
I called for a Taxi a long time ago - I'm outta there!
Though it still makes me sad, seeing poeple standing in the cold and rain waiting for a bus that will never come.
DM
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, i wrote my study, 1914 and all that.
in it, i stated that at matthew 24 jesus warned his followers against seeing wars, earthquakes and famines as being signs.
i have not wavered from that position, which i have given in my posts here at times.. .
I'm not trying to fool anyone? Just saying how I read it. Clear as day to me Jesus was saying that war, famines etc were not part of the sign of the end. The only possible confusion comes from interpretation of the birthpangs bit - but that could mean anything (i.e. these things are minor compared to the real pains of the end).
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, i wrote my study, 1914 and all that.
in it, i stated that at matthew 24 jesus warned his followers against seeing wars, earthquakes and famines as being signs.
i have not wavered from that position, which i have given in my posts here at times.. .
"Tell us," they said. "When will this happen? And what will be the sign of your coming? What will be the sign of the end?"
And THEN Jesus said 'Look out that nobody misleads you'
In other words, watch out that you are not mislead by FALSE signs (wars, famines etc) and false prophets.
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, i wrote my study, 1914 and all that.
in it, i stated that at matthew 24 jesus warned his followers against seeing wars, earthquakes and famines as being signs.
i have not wavered from that position, which i have given in my posts here at times.. .
How can events that happen all the time, all through history, be a sign of anything? (Which, I also feel, is what Jesus meant)
And don't tell me that famine, disease and earthquakes are worse now than before 1914 because that is demonstrably untrue.
Jesus also said 'Many will come on the basis of my name and say 'The due time has approached' ... do not go after them' Basically, Jesus implied that it would be bloody obvious to everyone when He returned - like 'lightning'.